For AR People
@forarpeople.bsky.socialGood morning Arkansas. We're posted up in House Judiciary this morning, which has at least 2 bills we don't like. First, HB 1615, which prohibits "religious discrimination" (already illegal). The bill in fact allows people to discriminate against queer folks. arkleg.state.ar.us
Second, HB1668, which would essentially prohibit all forms of social transitioning for queer kids. It sucks! arkleg.state.ar.us
(HB1678, which amends laws surrounding abortion drugs, will not be heard today, we're told, but it is on the agenda).
And Bentley is up to run 1668. Apparently there's an 11 page amendment that was filed yesterday; Clowney asks for copies to be made available to the audience; procedurally, the committee has to adopt the amendment before that can happen.
Bentley says that the amendment is intended to line up with the SAFE Act that was passed a few years ago. There's also an addition of the word "knowingly" there, to protect parents, supposedly. en.wikipedia.org
Rep. McCullough presses Bentley here that the amendment only does that. Bentley: "To my knowledge, yes. As far as I'm aware." Really instills confidence!
Hudson points out that the SAFE Act is currently enjoined. Clowney: This amendment changes the statute of limitations from 15 to 20 years. That's substantive, no? Bentley: Yes, but needed. Hudson: Psychologists have contacted me concerned about liability.
Hudson points out that medical malpractice insurance costs have gone up substantially because of bills like this; earlier in the session, some laws were passed to try and lower those costs. This will raise them again. Bentley doesn't agree (shocker, but it will).
The amendment is adopted, so we're on to the bill full stop. She calls social transitioning a devastating social experiment. This is gonna be exhausting, folks. She's comparing treatment for gender dysphoria to a "0% effective cure for cancer."
Meanwhile, in reality. www.scientificamerican.com
Bentley has dug up a therapist from Texas that's part of a well-known anti-LGTBQ+ legislative network. Here she is! profamily.com
Smith-Nash claims that social transitioning "alienates" kids from their families. What if the families are super supportive, which many are? Kids that are alienated cause severe emotional trauma. You know what else causes emotional trauma? Gender dysphoria.
Framing this as an issue of familial alienation is wild, y'all. Plenty of families - though certainly not all - are deeply supportive of their kids' journeys. Ahh, we're up to the Planned Parenthood boogyman. How dare PP charge for services! Thought these people were capitalists.
Coming from the other side re: the claim of familiar alienation. If the family *isn't* supportive, the kid is already alienated from the family! Socially transitioning with a group of trusted friends may be the only safe spot that kid has. These people are shameless.
*familial alienation, classic live thread mistake. Smith-Nash closing with a "let us protect parental rights." So the rights of parents to get their kids health care?
Clowney coming out swinging: "I was prepared for a lot today, but I am baffled by what we just heard." She points out that the reason rates of kids beginning to transition are going up is because it's more socially acceptable to support trans kids.
There's some applause and laughter from the crowd as Clowney points out this therapist isn't from Arkansas; Dalby stops Clowney and gives one warning: She threatens any outburst from the audience with immediate removal.
Clowney references the famous graph of how left-handedness evened out after we stopped trying to beat left-handedness out of kids. Indeed, rates of kids who are trans and queer are already starting to level out after the quick increases of the last decade or so.
Clowney goes right for the parental rights argument: what if the parents consent to having their child called by a different name? Are they liable? A: Yes, for sure. We believe that's harming a child.
Rep. McCullough: It's hard to be a kid in the best of circumstances. How do you balance your viewpoint with the viewpoint that what is actually alienating are unsupportive parents, the difficulty in accessing treatment, and a state that's targeting *children*?
Smith Nash essentially supporting conversion therapy, good god McCullough: Explain what you mean by "exploratory" treatment? Smith Nash: it's how we help kids work through their transness (it is conversion therapy)
McCullough pointing out that childhood is fundamentally a time of exploration. "We have a process for kids to explore." Doctors are perfectly capable of helping kids work through the decisions to begin transition or not. Team, I can't express enough how many steps...
... a kid has to go through to begin puberty blockers already. Docs are not prescribing these like candy; the kid meets with multiple counselors, multiple doctors, has to do these things for years before they're ever prescribed medication.
Rep Moore: I agree with the intent of your bill, but it's important we pass good law. He's got concerns about the definition of social transitioning; it is indeed incredibly broad. A pixie cut for a young girl would be liable under this bill!! Bentley has a pixie cut, FYI.
Bentley trying to rely on the "knowingly" addition from the amendment. Yeah, any civil litigation lawyer will tell you "knowingly" is not gonna protect anyone. Incredibly difficult to prove one way or another. Moore also points out that 20 years is a ridiculously long statute of limitations.
Rep. Hudson: Where in this bill does it say that a child who ends up not fully transitioning or detransitioning, there's no liability? Bentley: *talks super fast and doesn't give a useful answer* Hudson: Right but this is a strict liability standard; no language that speaks to intent.
Hudson's point is that the liability is super broad; Bentley's known to be a sloppy drafter, as it turns out useless culture war stuff does not make for good legislation.
Bentley repeating the oft-debunked talking point that kids are constantly undergoing transition surgeries. This is false; the standard of care for transitioning usually holds off from surgery until the individual is well into their 20s, except under dire circumstances. Puberty blockers are used.
Hudson is a lawyer, and is absolutely running circles around Bentley. Bentley doesn't really know (or knows and doesn't care) that a strict liability standard works. Hudson notes there's no affirmative defense for medical necessity listed, which often used in medical malpractice suits.
There's also a removal of a possible defense; you can't rely on the statutes that were good law when you provided the treatment. Hudson: "So we're making people rely on a crystal ball."
Even if, EVEN IF, you genuinely do not believe that trans kids exist (which they do, to be clear), this is a terribly drafted bill. Bentley is just repeating that she's not a lawyer. Girl, we *know* Citing random statistics, Bentley again does not answer any questions usefully.
Shepherd: shares Rep. Moore's concerns re: the sloppy definitions of "social transition." (He's also a lawyer by trade and seems unconvinced by Bentley) Points out that clothing and hairstyles aren't permanent, there's no harm being done here. "Is recovery [of damages] by parents possible?"
If the parent begins taking actions to help their kid transition, and changes their mind, can they sue other people that were helping the kid transition too? Bentley, predictably, has no answer.
Rep. Springer: The solution is not always to enact a law to address problems; (@ Smith Nash) Do you have any specific stats for Arkansas? A: No. Rep Springer: So why are we mapping nationwide stats onto Arkansas? Bentley: data showing treatments' effectiveness affects everyone.
Clowney: Page 3, line 27 (not sure if amendment or bill, but it's the 1A protections section). Seems like virtually all the behavior you're legislating against here could be protected speech? A: Not trying to sue a kid who calls their friend by another name at all.
Smith Nash chimes in: The idea is to help kids who have "been in this ideology" who are now suffering guilt. ????? Fam what what ideology She claims only gender-affirming care is being taught; good!
Clowney wants to hear from someone from the AG's office re: the First Amendment concerns. She also wants to know where the stats on detransitioning are coming from. Bentley: "there's multiple studies. Huge amounts" Cool, cite them
Clowney isn't gonna let her get away with it: "Are those peer reviewed medical journals?" Completely missed the name of this magical journal because she mumbled it, but it was from 2008. So, super up to date.
AG rep - Justin Bradford I think. Collins: Any issue with the constitutionality of this bill? A: yes. We agree with the intent, but we have facial constitutional concerns with this bill. We wouldn't be able to defend this bill in court. The 1A concerns are real. Amazing work, Mary. Stellar.
Dep. AG Bradford references the drag ban bill from a couple years ago; TN didn't change their version and it got slapped down in fed courts. AR did, and it slipped through. Moore: What elements specifically are unconstitutional? A: mostly 1A/free speech concerns. 1A is a very high bar.
Rep Richardson I think: so the portion of the bill that deals with castration, sterilization, etc, those pass muster? A: can't say. Got the amendment yesterday as well, so I haven't had the opportunity to see if previous concerns have been addressed.
Wonder if Bentley is still gonna try and ram this through. Indeed, Rep Shepherd asks if she'd be willing to pull it down. Bentley: Happy to work with y'all and pull it down. Wanted to present it so we can hear public testimony. Getting pulled down for today, folks!
We'll start a new thread for public testimony.
Ooo hold up; some debate on whether there will indeed be public testimony. Dalby notes that they're super busy and won't be able to come back this afternoon; she doesn't want to inconvenience folks that have come to speak. 15 minutes of total testimony today. Okay, new thread now.
@unroll.skywriter.blue unroll