Transcript Highlights:

• But to protect the world of work and protect workers and protect people, The world of work and protect
• I also want to protect children.
• The choice isn’t whether to protect children; it’s whether to do so through parental empowerment and
• our privacy, protect our dignity, and to protect basic fairness for Floridians.
• protection, political transparency, defamation rights, parental control, right to beneficial use for

Bills: S0214 , S0482 , S7030 , S0554 , S0994 , S0998 , S1004 , S1074 , S1076 , S1266

Committee: Senate Commerce and Tourism

Keywords: special districts, funding, financial assistance, rural community, state agency, economic development, artificial intelligence, personal data protection, consumer rights, chatbot, deceptive practices, government contracts, public records, consumer protection, data privacy, investigations, proprietary information, chatbots, Florida statutes, nonprofit

Summary: The Commerce and Tourism Committee heard and advanced several bills. SB 1076 would raise Florida’s research and development tax credit cap from $9 million to $50 million, with the higher cap first applying to the 2027 allocation; it was reported favorably. CS/SB 1266 would create a Cybersecurity Experiential Internship and Clearance Readiness Program with the Department of Commerce and Cyber Florida, but an amendment removed the bill’s funding appropriation; the amended bill was reported favorably. SB 554, a Florida Bar-backed update to the not-for-profit corporations statute, was also reported favorably after support testimony from the Bar and others. SB 1004, aimed at protecting buyers of dogs and cats from deceptive financing and undisclosed health conditions at retail pet stores, drew strong support from animal welfare advocates and was reported favorably. SB 1074, which sets rounding rules for cash transactions if pennies are unavailable, was reported favorably as well. The committee also considered SB 998, the Department of Commerce package. The bill would modernize the small cities CDBG program, clarify rural community eligibility to include certain unincorporated areas, exempt military conveyances from a reverter clause, and revise E-Verify enforcement and penalties. Members questioned the E-Verify provisions, including the fine structure, treatment of workers incorrectly flagged, and whether the bill could affect gig workers or retroactive cases. Senator Smith opposed the bill during debate, arguing it created unequal treatment for employers and immigrant workers, while Senator Wright supported the military-related provisions. SB 998 was reported favorably. SB 214 would expand the rural economic development initiative to include special districts in rural counties and was reported favorably. SB 482, the Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights, generated the most extensive discussion; it would create consumer protections for companion chatbots, require parental consent and access for minors, mandate disclosures and de-identification rules, restrict unauthorized use of name, image, and likeness, and give enforcement authority to the Attorney General. Supporters emphasized child safety, privacy, and the need for guardrails, while opponents and some informational witnesses raised concerns about privacy, age verification, enforcement, and the bill’s breadth. The bill was reported favorably, and the committee also approved SPB 7030, a committee bill creating a public records exemption for Department of Legal Affairs investigations tied to the AI enforcement provisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And six, protect the workforce.
• Necesitamos protections solid in the state.
• They found that 94% of parents were able to accept a job, and 85% of parents were able to attend additional
• In today's economy, parents don't work those traditional hours, Monday, In today's economy, parents don't
• Like many working parents, I depend on child care.

Summary: The hearing focused first on how wildfires and other disasters affect child care providers, families, and early education infrastructure. State officials from the Department of Social Services and Department of Education described disaster response and preparedness efforts, including shelter coordination, licensing outreach, emergency waivers, distribution of supplies, and the statewide child care disaster plan. Testimony from providers and advocates emphasized major gaps in recovery funding, insurance coverage, rebuilding support, mental health services, and coordination with local rebuild plans. Several witnesses urged more dedicated disaster-recovery funding for child care facilities and suggested statutory changes, including allowing greater flexibility for rebuilding costs and requiring early childhood programs to be included in local disaster planning. The second panel addressed immigration enforcement and its impact on child care. Advocates from the Children's Partnership, Every Child California, and CHIRLA said enforcement activity is causing families to keep children home, disrupting continuity of care, reducing enrollment, and creating fear and trauma for children and providers. They argued that immigrant and mixed-status families need clearer protections, privacy safeguards, legal support, trauma-informed guidance, and safe-haven policies for child care settings. Speakers also stressed that the child care workforce is heavily immigrant and that recent state laws such as AB 49 and AB 495 will require funding, training, and technical assistance to implement effectively. Public commenters, including child care providers, described personal experiences with fire damage, displacement, permit delays, lost income, and the emotional toll of serving families during crises. Others described how immigration enforcement has made parents afraid to attend events, drop off children, or remain connected to providers. Committee members repeatedly noted that child care is often overlooked in emergencies and asked state officials how child care systems are being integrated into disaster planning and how local and state agencies can better coordinate. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• As parents, we know that as well.
• So it would not require parental consent. It wouldn't matter whether your parents consented or not.
• So we took out the language saying parental. And so we took out the language saying parental.
• Parents, they can watch. And, Mr.
• I didn't put the parental control on. The parental control was not put on for me.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do parenting classes, parenting, visitation.
• So once that happens, my parents come to me, I'm talking about my client parents.
• So once that happens, my parents come to me—I’m talking about my client parents.
• I miss my parents.'
• foster parent.

Committee: House House Government Committee of Reference

Summary: The Committee on Government met for a presentation-only hearing focused on the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS) and related child welfare system issues; no bills were heard or voted on. Chair Blackman opened by stressing that the hearing was for fact-finding and data, not personal attacks, and Director Catherine Patak then presented DCS data on hotline volume, investigations, reunifications, adoptions, guardianships, extended foster care, and placement patterns. She said DCS investigated more than 43,000 cases in 2025, kept the out-of-home population relatively steady, and emphasized that Arizona places a high share of children with kin. She also highlighted a mismatch between the age of children entering care and the availability of foster homes willing to take older youth, and said behavioral health capacity, not DCS alone, is a major constraint. Patak discussed kinship supports, foster care reimbursement increases, the Family First Prevention Services Act, missing youth, congregate care reduction, and the department’s procurement process for group home beds. Members asked about kinship caregiver support, behavioral health access, reunification services, parental-rights terminations, Auditor General findings on notices and documentation, licensing and reimbursement rates, and why some relatives are not approved as placements. Patak said DCS is working on policy guidance, supervisor training, and improved supports, but that provider capacity and other system partners limit what DCS can do. Representative Gillette then gave a lengthy presentation focused on system design, procurement, funding flows, and congregate care. He argued that DCS, DES, and Access are structurally intertwined, that DCS’s procurement carve-out and capitated funding model create incentives tied to bed space and volume, and that fragmented oversight diffuses accountability. He cited budget figures, contract amendments, and audit concerns to argue that the system is overreliant on congregate care and that decision-making, medical referrals, and placement processes are too vague or too centralized in ways that can harm children and families. Gillette said his findings were based on contracts, interviews, and public records, and he indicated some material would be referred to special counsel. He also raised concerns about placement decisions, due process, and demographic disparities in congregate care outcomes. The chair cut off further questioning of Gillette for time and announced the committee would move on to the next presenter, Vice Chair Fink, with attorneys and other speakers to follow.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are we catching parents? Are we punishing parents? What is the services?
• Are we catching parents? Are we punishing parents? What is the services?
• I want to really know because I didn't—how can we protect a child in a situation where parents are using
• I want to really know because I didn't—how can we protect a child in a situation where parents are using
• "How can we protect a child in a situation where parents are using substances in an unsafe way?

Summary: The House Children and Family Law Committee met on January 28, 2025, and first heard House Bill 322, which would give a parent paying child support the exclusive right to claim the child as a dependent on taxes. Representative Barton, the sponsor, argued that because child support is no longer tax-deductible, the paying parent should at least receive the child tax credit. Committee members and later testimony from New Hampshire Legal Assistance raised concerns that the bill would override court discretion, could disadvantage low-income custodial parents, and would not account for cases where child support payments are small or where parents share support unevenly. Several members noted that judges already allocate dependency claims in divorce orders and can modify those orders when circumstances change. After testimony, the committee moved to ITL (inexpedient to legislate) HB 322. The motion was seconded, discussion continued, and the roll call was unanimous in favor of ITL. The committee then placed the bill on consent and ended the executive session on HB 322. The committee next took up House Bill 325, which would eliminate term and reimbursement alimony in no-fault divorces. Representative Barton testified that alimony in those cases was akin to involuntary servitude and should not survive dissolution of the marriage contract. The hearing then moved into questions about whether alimony is meant to compensate a spouse for sacrifices made during the marriage, such as supporting a partner through school or staying home with children, and the sponsor maintained that post-divorce support should not continue as a marital obligation. The transcript cuts off before any vote or further action on HB 325 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• As parents, we know that as well.
• So it would not require parental consent. It wouldn't matter whether your parents consented or not.
• So we took out the language saying parental. And so we took out the language saying parental.
• Parents, they can watch. And Mr.
• I didn't put the parental control. The parental control was not put on for me.

Summary: The Senate took up several local and special bills for final passage, including measures on culverts and dams in Town Line Brook and Lindenbrook, alcohol license conversions and additions in Milford, Salem, and Bridgewater, and special legislation allowing William Pilarie to take a firefighter civil service exam in Arlington despite the age limit. All five bills were passed to be enacted. The Senate also concurred in House amendments to bills on alcohol licenses in Bolton and conservation restrictions in Hanson, and adopted a resolution commending the National Safety Council and recognizing June as National Safety Month. The chamber then considered Ways and Means reports and orders for House bills on improving Massachusetts home care and requiring health care employers to prevent workplace violence. Both bills were amended with new Senate text and ordered to second reading on July 16, 2026, with the new text pending and further amendment procedures specified. The Senate also advanced several House bills passed to be engrossed, including land transfers in Norton, transportation bond terms, and Watertown property tax classifications, each being ordered to a third reading. The main debate centered on Senate No. 30, a bill to protect children from addictive social media feeds, which was taken up with a Ways and Means substitute draft, Senate No. 3164. Senators supporting the bill argued it targets addictive design features such as algorithmic feeds, autoplay, infinite scroll, and overnight notifications while preserving access to social media, privacy, and First Amendment rights; opponents and some supporters raised concerns about parental authority and the role of the state. The Senate adopted a series of amendments, including changes to the definition of user, stronger limits on minors’ nighttime notifications, parental consent and privacy protections for location sharing and age verification, exemptions for nonprofits and open-source platforms, age-signal clarifications, dark-pattern restrictions, and data-security/reporting provisions, while rejecting several other amendments. The debate remained ongoing at the end of the transcript, with additional amendments and discussion still pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Six, clarify that when the children were removed from one parent and placed with the other parent, otherwise
• parents advocate for their individual child, parents lack a statewide structure to advocate for systemic
• As legislators, when you hear about special education from parents, chances are you hear from a parent
• helping parents does incredible work helping parents advocate for their individual child as parents
• You don't necessarily hear from parents working through jobs, non-English-speaking parents, or parents

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Human Services heard testimony on a series of bills affecting disability services, child welfare, foster youth, domestic violence survivors, guaranteed income pilots, crisis response, and child care providers. AB 1575 would update the Lanterman Act to use person-first language and broaden respite services to allow safe community access; supporters said it would improve dignity and consistency in services, and there was no opposition. AB 2470 would create a statewide one-stop reentry program for survivors of intimate partner violence to replace documents, repair credit, and access housing supports, while also giving CalWORKs emergency housing funds more flexibility; the Little Hoover Commission backed the bill based on its prior recommendations. AB 2510 would clarify and expand CalWORKs family reunification aid so parents can keep receiving support during reunification even if not all children are removed, and supporters said it would reduce barriers and better align with reunification goals. AB 2585 would expand guaranteed income pilot funding to rural and underserved counties, with testimony emphasizing the need for geographic diversity and data from places like the Central Valley. AB 1932, the Crisis Act 2.0, would continue and strengthen community-based mental health crisis response programs; testimony from family members and advocates strongly favored non-law-enforcement responses, and the bill drew broad support. AB 1925 would direct a feasibility study on a statewide permanent disability certification process to reduce repeated verification burdens; the committee approved it 4-0 and sent it to Appropriations. AB 2189 would fund a statewide special education parent action network to train and connect parents for systemic advocacy; after some opposition over the use of state funds for advocacy, it passed as amended and was referred to Education. AB 2684 would allow out-of-state nonminor dependents to do monthly social worker visits virtually, with in-person visits still required quarterly; it passed to Judiciary. AB 1967 would improve pathways for older youth experiencing homelessness or failed adoptions to enter or reenter foster care, and it passed to Appropriations. AB 2126 would create a targeted background-check exemption for certain former foster youth hired as peer partners, and it passed as amended to Public Safety. AB 2379 would require DSS to notify family child care providers of Fourth Amendment rights and provide multilingual know-your-rights training regarding immigration enforcement; it passed to Judiciary after some members questioned whether DSS was the right agency to administer the training.

Transcript Highlights:

• But how are we going to protect parents from bad actors within any community?
• How do you protect homeschool parents from the one unscrupulous homeschool parent who says, trust me,
• I mean, we would trust parents on this, just like we protect homeschooling in this state, and we should
• I just, again, I believe that we need to trust parents to protect homeschoolers on this.
• And I want to protect those kids the same way you want to protect Lisa.

Bills: HB2950 , HB2978 , HB3132 , HB3242 , HB3467 , HB3700 , HB3701 , HB4115 , HB4274

Committee: House Education Oversight

Keywords: postsecondary education, standardized test scores, educational equity, higher learning access, Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program, HB2978, school libraries, library media center, library media program, community standards, sexually explicit conduct, obscene material, age-appropriate materials, school curriculum, book challenges, book banning, censorship, public schools, school board, education committee

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Minnesota deserves these protections. Minnesota deserves these protections.
• </c><01:08:23.359><c> So</c> their protection as well. So their protection as well.
• </c> to protect information. That's my goal. to protect information. That's my goal.
• </c> this protection would apply to. this protection would apply to.
• </c> in society versus protection of data. in society versus protection of data.

Bills: HF1027 , HF2226 , HF1916 , HF1915 , HF1567 , HF1986

Committee: House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Keywords: mortgage foreclosure, redemption, foreclosure surplus, sheriff's sale, junior lienholder, mortgagor, homeowner protections, loss mitigation, dual tracking, foreclosure redemption period, certificate of redemption, certificate of sale, sheriff, county recorder, registrar of titles, homeownership center, lien priority, real property, foreclosure by advertisement, surplus funds

Transcript Highlights:

• Please protect our kids, please. Thank you.
• I'm the parent of two... My name is Kim Green.
• I am a parent and educator myself.
• I'm a member of Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation.
• I also want to protect that fear, protect and preserve, and work really hard to make sure that that fear

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee held a special hearing on AB 715, with the authors presenting the bill as a response to rising anti-Semitism in K-12 schools. The authors said the measure is intended to strengthen protections for Jewish students, improve district accountability, expand the uniform complaint process, clarify protections related to religion and nationality, and create a state-level anti-Semitism coordinator. They emphasized that the bill was developed through collaboration with the Black, Latino, AAPI, and Jewish caucuses and argued it is meant to protect all students from hate while preserving legitimate classroom discussion. The hearing included extensive public testimony. Supporters, including students, parents, rabbis, Jewish organizations, and some educators, described harassment, biased curriculum, delayed or ineffective school responses, and fear among Jewish students and families. They urged the committee to act to make schools safer and more responsive. Opponents, including teachers, ethnic studies advocates, civil liberties groups, Palestinian rights advocates, and some Jewish parents, argued the bill was rushed, vague, and could chill academic freedom, censor discussion of Palestine and Israel, and expand complaints against teachers and school districts. Several witnesses said existing complaint and anti-discrimination systems already address these issues. Committee members then questioned the authors and witnesses about implementation, definitions, and possible effects on curriculum and school boards. The authors said the bill is still intent language and that details would be refined in further negotiations with stakeholders. Representatives from the California School Boards Association and California Teachers Association raised concerns about the new language and possible unintended consequences, while ACLU California Action said it had concerns but wanted to keep working on the bill. The transcript does not show a final vote or action taken on AB 715 during this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would say that there are parental rights and the parent's job is to protect the child.
• I would say that there are parental rights and the parent's job is to protect the child.
• This bill was introduced with the claim that it is to protect children, but if parents have access to
• It protects personal information, protects private family communications, protects sensitive data.
• , default settings that protect the users and parents.

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The committee took up a series of bills, beginning with SB 1422 on unmanned aircraft systems. The bill increases penalties for flying drones over critical infrastructure, prohibits drones equipped with weapons or explosives, creates a first-degree felony for drones carrying a weapon of mass destruction, and includes a law enforcement exception. A lay-filed amendment by Senator Pizzo warning against the use of force to shoot down drones was debated but failed, and the bill was then reported favorably. The committee also reported favorably on SB 846 addressing notary public fraud in immigration-related services, SB 650 on hazardous walking conditions for school transportation, SB 922 on employment agreements including non-compete and garden leave provisions, and SB 1820 on motor vehicle manufacturer and dealer relations, covering performance measures, retaliation, and franchise termination standards. Several bills focused on education, health care, and disability issues. SB 540, the Evan B. Hartzell Act, would require disability history and awareness instruction across grade levels; it drew emotional testimony from the bill sponsor, family members, and supporters, and was reported favorably. SB 998 would allow advanced practice registered nurses to certify deaths and file death certificates in hospice settings under physician protocol, and SB 1412 would modernize home health agency rules by expanding administrative flexibility and contract service use; both passed. SB 1736 would allow direct support professionals and relatives to administer insulin in group home settings for individuals with developmental disabilities, and it was also reported favorably. The committee also advanced several regulatory and court-related measures. SB 1650 expands Florida’s vexatious litigant law, including allowing designation based on conduct in a single case and extending the look-back period, while SB 1652 creates a public records exemption for certain stricken non-criminal court filings; both were approved. SB 1076 on roofing contractors was amended to require continuing education for roof-to-wall connections and then passed, and SB 1078 on fire prevention was amended with stakeholder-agreed language before being reported favorably. SB 1080 on local government land regulations, after multiple amendments and significant debate over agricultural enclaves and local control, was also approved. Other major measures included SB 818 on utility relocation, which creates a relocation fund funded by a portion of communications services tax revenue and was supported by multiple industry and local-government groups after a compromise amendment; SB 868 on social media use by minors, which would require a decryption mechanism for law enforcement access under subpoena and prohibit disappearing messages for minors, remained under discussion as the transcript ended. The committee also heard SB 96, a claims bill for Jacob Rogers against the City of Gainesville, and reported it favorably after testimony that the city would pay the settlement amount.

Transcript Highlights:

• uh protection cases in child protection uh protection cases on<00:04:13.200><c> a</c><00:04:13.280><
• </c> with child protection. with child protection.
• </c> parents' rights. parents' rights.
• </c> foster parents. foster parents.
• </c> by our parents while in care our parents by our parents while in care our parents [snorts]<01:09

Bills: HF3877 , HF3714 , HF3750 , HF3024

Committee: House Children and Families Finance and Policy

Keywords: public authorities, dissolution cases, court system, child protection, legal notice, foster care, child welfare, enrollment priority, education programs, child care assistance, foster youth, extended foster care, bill of rights, out-of-home placement, Minnesota Statutes chapter 260C, social services agency, caseworker, permanency team, sibling visitation, relative contact

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:36.360><c> out</c> not a right and I encourage parents out not a right and I encourage parents
• As a parent who now advocates and will continue to advocate for social media reform, I urge other parents
• This isn't about politics; it's about protecting lives, and the data is undeniable.
• This isn't about politics; it's about protecting lives, and the data is undeniable.
• </c> in the area of social media to parents in the area of social media to parents and<00:15:20.600><

Summary: Rep. Zach Stevenson and Sen. Mann presented Minnesota legislation aimed at requiring warning labels on social media platforms, modeled on the Surgeon General’s recommendation, and adding pop-up notifications every 30 minutes to show users how long they have been on a platform. They argued that social media use is linked to serious mental health harms among youth, including anxiety, depression, sleep disruption, self-harm, and suicidal ideation, and said the bill is part of a broader effort to add guardrails on big tech. They also referenced related Minnesota efforts on deepfakes, child influencers, platform-use disclosures, and a separate effort to remove cell phones from classrooms. The hearing featured emotional testimony from parents Bridget Noring and Tabitha Urbansky, who described losing sons to fentanyl poisoning after drugs were arranged through Snapchat. Both said social media platforms can function as drug markets and that warning labels and other restrictions could help prevent similar tragedies. Eric Mishy of SAVE and the Kids Campaign also testified in support, saying social media is contributing to anxiety, depression, suicide, sextortion, trafficking, bullying, and drug sales, and that companies have not done enough to stop these harms. In response to a question about the pop-up feature, Stevenson said the idea is new in Minnesota but similar to “are you still watching” prompts on streaming services, intended to add friction and interrupt addictive use. He and others said no state had yet enacted similar warning-label laws, though several have proposed them, and they emphasized that regulating technology companies is difficult because of their resources and lobbying power. No vote or formal committee action was taken in the transcript, though the bill was scheduled for a House Commerce Committee hearing the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Parents and advocates across the country are seeing the need for transparency and protection.
• This bill protects everyone doing the right thing. For parents like me, this is not theoretical.
• Parents and advocates across the country are seeing the need of transparency and protection.
• This bill protects everyone doing the right thing. For parents like me, this is not theoretical.
• This bill protects everyone doing the right thing. For parents like me, this is not theoretical.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a hearing focused primarily on special education-related bills, with testimony centered on two major themes: transition planning for students aging out of school-based services at age 22, and the fiscal strain special education costs place on districts. Committee members explained hearing procedures, noted the House was in formal session, and periodically stepped out for votes while staff recorded testimony. A separate bill on special education due process was also taken up briefly, along with a bill on special education finance and another on equitable access/data reporting. On House Bill 752 and Senate Bill 313, witnesses from the Arc of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress, the Developmental Disabilities Council, families, self-advocates, and Senator Comerford described the “Turning 22” transition as a crisis point that often leaves families without adult placements, services, or clear communication. Testimony emphasized earlier planning, more accountability, better data collection, and a commission to improve coordination and residential placement. Several parents and advocates shared personal accounts of traumatic transitions, delayed placements, and the need for plans to begin at least a year before age 22. The committee later closed testimony on these bills after hearing from all signed-up speakers. House Bill 4217, on special education due process, drew support from Representative Sullivan-Almeida, parents, and advocates who argued that the burden of proof should shift from families to school districts. Testimony described costly legal battles, delays, and parents having to become experts in reading instruction or hire advocates and attorneys to secure services. Brody Dwyer, a 10-year-old student with dyslexia, and his mother described how evidence-based instruction helped him after years of struggle. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 546/Senate Bill 317, which would require DESE to publish cross-tabulated data on race, disability, gender, income, and other factors; advocates said this would better expose disparities and help address the school-to-prison pipeline. Finally, on House Bill 691/Senate Bill 430, school leaders, educators, and union representatives testified that special education costs are outpacing district budgets and that increasing circuit breaker reimbursement and creating a commission to study long-term sustainability would help prevent staffing cuts and service reductions. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee repeatedly closed testimony on individual bills as speakers finished and moved through the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• My next point is parental choice. We talk about parental choice.
• If we are really about parental choice, my amendment is parental choice.
• If we are really about parental choice, my amendment is parental choice.
• We can protect kids from obscenity and protect kids from predators. We can do both.
• We need to protect their minds and put parents back in charge.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, moments of silence for former member Terry Fields and the Parkland victims, the Pledge of Allegiance, and recognition of guests and visitors. The chamber then adopted the Rules and Ethics Committee’s special order report setting the day’s calendar and debate times. The main measure taken up was HB 1119, relating to materials harmful to minors in public schools and charter schools, which the sponsor described as a clarification of existing law to keep pornographic or sexually explicit material away from minors and to give districts clearer standards for review and objection processes. The bill drew extensive debate over constitutional concerns, local control, litigation risk, and the scope of the definition of “harmful to minors.” Members supporting the bill argued it was needed to close loopholes and protect children, while opponents warned it could lead to overbroad book removals, conflict with federal court rulings, and costly lawsuits. A series of amendments sought to narrow or redirect the bill: proposals by Gant, Aristide, Bartleman, Eskamani, Nixon, Rainer, Woodson, and Harris would have preserved literary value review, protected educational and abuse-prevention materials, exempted LGBTQ-inclusive books, limited objections, preserved funding for districts, or delayed enforcement during ongoing litigation. Supporters of the amendments framed them as protecting parental choice, academic value, student safety, and district finances; opponents said they would weaken the bill’s child-protection purpose. All of the amendments failed. After the amendment process, the House waived rules, read HB 1119 a third time by title, and entered structured debate on final passage. Debate continued along the same lines, with opponents emphasizing book removals, First Amendment concerns, and the impact on students and schools, and supporters reiterating that the bill was intended to prevent minors from accessing obscene material. The transcript provided ends during structured debate and does not include the final vote on HB 1119.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a parent.
• I urge you to reject this bill and preserve New Hampshire's ability to protect children, support parents
• We want to ask that you stay on the side of protecting parental rights, bodily autonomy, and informed
• </c><03:05:39.040><c> parental</c><03:05:39.439><c> rights</c><03:05:39.760><c> bodily</c> of protecting
• parental rights bodily of protecting parental rights bodily autonomy<03:05:40.560><c> and</c><03:05:

Committee: House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• But how are we going to protect parents from bad actors within any community?
• How do you protect homeschool parents from the one unscrupulous homeschool parent who says, trust me,
• I mean, we would trust parents on this just like we protect homeschooling in this state and we should
• I just, again, believe that we need to trust parents to protect homeschoolers on this.
• And I want to protect those kids the same way you want to protect Lisa.

Bills: HB2950 , HB2978 , HB3132 , HB3242 , HB3467 , HB3700 , HB3701 , HB4115 , HB4274

Committee: House Education Oversight

Summary: The Education Oversight Committee heard several bills focused on higher education, school library materials, military student transfers, women’s privacy, academic grading standards, program review, and teacher professional development. HB 2950, by Rep. Woolley, would remove the ACT requirement for homeschool students seeking Oklahoma’s Promise and bar colleges from imposing extra homeschool-specific hurdles; supporters said it would treat homeschoolers the same as other students, while opponents raised concerns about oversight and taxpayer-funded aid. The committee also heard HB 3132, which would direct higher education institutions to seek accreditors that do not impose DEI mandates, and HB 3700, which would require colleges to grade students only on academic criteria rather than opinions or beliefs. HB 3701 would codify regents’ procedures for reviewing and acting on low-performing degree programs, and HB 4115 would cap required teacher professional development hours, with the sponsor emphasizing local control and that the bill is permissive rather than mandatory. The committee also considered HB 2978, which would prohibit public school library materials from including descriptions or depictions of sexually explicit conduct. Supporters framed it as protecting children and aligning library collections with community standards, while opponents worried the language could limit access to materials that help students understand abuse and safety. HB 4274, a cleanup bill on military student schooling and school choice, would restore omitted transfer language, clarify in-district enrollment timing, and align the six-month relocation requirement with the Open Transfer Act. HB 3242, dealing with privacy for women in schools, universities, and domestic violence shelters, drew questions about how gender would be verified and how the bill would affect transgender students and shelter access. Most bills advanced on motions for due pass after committee discussion. HB 2950, HB 2978, HB 3132, HB 4274, HB 3242, HB 3700, HB 3701, and HB 4115 all received due pass recommendations. HB 3467 was laid over until the next meeting, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• You're a good parent. Again, we're legislating against bad parents.
• But what about the parents?
• by the First Amendment and harms parental rights Protected by the 14th Amendment your highest duty as
• Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the
• Children don't need protection from their parents.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• It leaves parents feeling helpless.
• Protecting children is...
• parents to opt out of the settings should they choose.
• through impact assessments, default protections, and parental controls.
• And, you know, I'm not a parent, and I've been sitting with the two assembly members and parent and grandparents

Summary: The committee heard AB 1979, which would limit the use of AI in health care by requiring licensed professionals to retain final clinical judgment, prohibiting automated systems from directing unlicensed individuals to perform licensed clinical functions, and clarifying medical-record privacy rules for direct-to-consumer health chatbots. Supporters, including nurses and labor groups, said the bill preserves patient safety and keeps care decisions in human hands. Hospital and industry groups opposed unless amended, arguing the bill could create compliance burdens and interfere with training and legitimate AI-assisted care. The bill was approved 6-1 and placed on call. Members then considered AB 2624, which would expand California’s Safe at Home confidentiality program to immigrant service providers, employees, and volunteers facing harassment or doxing. The author and supporters described threats, stalking, and online targeting of immigrant advocates and said the bill would let them use substitute addresses to protect their safety. Opposition focused mainly on concerns about the bill’s legal enforcement language, though the author said it mirrors existing Safe at Home provisions and does not create a new private right of action. The measure passed 4-1 and was placed on call. AB 2103 would make Engaged California a permanent statewide public engagement program. The author and the Office of Data and Innovation said it is meant to broaden civic participation through structured deliberation and transparent publication of results. Some members raised concerns about partisan balance and topic selection, while supporters emphasized the need to reach Californians who do not typically participate in hearings. The bill passed 6-0 and was placed on call. The committee also heard AB 2, a social media accountability bill for harms to children and teens, and AB 883, which would expand privacy protections and shorten data-broker deletion timelines for elected officials and judges; both drew support and opposition, were approved on committee votes, and placed on call. Later, the committee began AB 2023, a chatbot safety bill for children that would require age verification, safety audits, default protections, and limits on ads and data sharing; testimony was strongly supportive from child-safety advocates, while industry groups raised concerns about vague standards, audits, and liability.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a parent of four, And parents at school-related events both on and off campus.
• Parents are the primary...
• Most parents would go to the ends of the earth for their child to protect them in any way they need to
• parental rights.
• It's about protecting life.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on a large slate of bills, with the chairs emphasizing time limits, written testimony, and grouping similar measures together. Early testimony focused on opioid use disorder education in schools (S.382), with Senator Keenan arguing that students should be taught about the risks of substance use disorder and naloxone use as part of health curricula. Representative DeCost also briefly introduced H.551, a narrow bill concerning parent rights for children in third grade and younger. Several bills were then closed without testimony, including measures on type 1 diabetes informational materials and other diabetes-related proposals. A major portion of the hearing centered on school health and emergency response bills. Supporters of H.652/S.342 on diabetes management in schools described inconsistent district practices and urged clearer standards so students can receive care in classrooms rather than being sent out of instruction. Bills on epinephrine access and seizure disorders drew extensive testimony: advocates for stock epinephrine in schools argued that unassigned epinephrine can save lives and should be funded in a cost-neutral way, while a pediatrician opposed one version as an unfunded mandate. For seizure-safe schools (S.422/H.635), students, parents, educators, and advocates described missed or delayed responses to seizures, stigma, and the need for staff training, seizure action plans, and emergency medication protocols. A separate bill, H.645, allowing anti-seizure medication on school buses, was supported by a parent and student who said current law forces costly and restrictive transportation arrangements. The committee also heard testimony on youth skin health bills (S.334/H.600/H.619), which would let students carry and apply sunscreen at school and camp without a physician’s note. Supporters from melanoma prevention, dermatology, and industry groups said the bills would remove unnecessary barriers and promote sun-safe habits, while one witness cautioned about drafting details and unintended consequences. The hearing then moved to CPR/AED education for graduation (S.456), where Senator Tarr, a student advocate, and the Red Cross all supported requiring hands-on CPR certification for high school students. Finally, the committee took testimony on healthy school lunches (H.539/S.401): supporters from the Healthy School Lunch Coalition and school food directors backed stronger nutrition standards and a standing advisory council, while Consumer Brands Association witnesses opposed the bill as too vague and potentially disruptive. A nutrition scientist also warned about unintended restrictions on medically necessary or innovative foods. The chairs closed the hearing on the healthy lunch bills and then opened testimony on universal school meals for virtual schools (H.700), with Superintendent Patrick Latuka supporting access for students in Commonwealth virtual schools who currently receive no meal support.