Transcript Highlights:

• We definitely support the counties to have the ability to define the controls a little more closely.
• that loophole and include bill to close that loophole and include chocolate<01:46:22.639><c> cover</
• Industry byproducts that are turned into feed materials that would otherwise go into landfills.
• When the dog races were first to close, what happened to all those Greyhound dogs? They died.
• </c><02:17:53.000><c> what</c><02:17:53.160><c> happened</c> races were first to close what happened

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint House Agriculture and Food Systems and Tourism hearing focused on HB 189 and HB 966, both dealing with agricultural tourism. HB 189 would require counties to adopt ordinances governing review and permitting of agricultural tourism as secondary uses on working farms, require the principal agricultural use to pre-exist any tourism-related permit, and limit ag tourism to land where productive agriculture is occurring. HB 966 would create statewide uniform standards for agricultural tourism, require county registration of activities, require ag tourism to coexist with agricultural activity on a farming operation, and end the tourism use when agricultural activity ceases. Testimony on HB 189 was mixed. The Department of Agriculture and Kualoa Ranch opposed the bill, arguing that the proposed restrictions and income-based limits could burden bona fide farms and ranches, reduce flexibility for counties, and harm food production, jobs, and diversification efforts. Kualoa Ranch said ag tourism supports its food sales and community market and warned the bill could cost more than 350 jobs. The Hawaiʻi Cattlemen’s Council also opposed the measure for similar reasons. The Hawaiʻi Farmers Union supported the bill with suggested amendments, including clearer language around agricultural dedication. The Hawaiʻi Farm Bureau supported the intent of the bill but urged caution, saying ag tourism should remain tied to actual agricultural production and that counties need flexibility to address abuses without imposing overly rigid standards. Members discussed how to define a bona fide agricultural operation and whether property tax agricultural dedication could serve as a clearer qualifier. They also raised concerns about how counties would enforce revenue thresholds or separate accounting for tourism and farm income, and whether state law should better target clearly non-agricultural uses such as gondolas or other abusive developments. The Department of Agriculture and Farm Bureau said counties already have authority to regulate ag tourism through ordinances, but that any new standards should avoid unintended burdens on true farmers and ranchers. HB 966 was then introduced, and initial testimony again reflected support for the bill’s intent from some agricultural groups and opposition or caution from others. Kualoa Ranch said ag tourism can help educate visitors and support agriculture, the Hawaiʻi Farmers Union supported county flexibility, and the Hawaiʻi Farm Bureau reiterated concerns about the bill’s income comparison provisions and the need to distinguish legitimate agricultural tourism from misuse. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So there's just no way to drive down those costs to get them even close to the fossil fuel.
• And we work very closely with them as part of our broader Pacific Coast Collaborative, Oregon as well
• We're going to have refineries, you know, potentially closing.
• Waste oils that would otherwise be going to the landfill. SAF builds on that progress.
• It's something that we are tracking very closely.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• With that, I declare the public hearing for this bill closed.
• </c> bill closed. bill closed.
• Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing on House Bill 1567.
• And with that, we'll close the executive session on House Bill 1539-FN.
• ><c> geothermal,</c> biomass, landfill gas, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, geothermal, municipal<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative López, you can close. Waive close.
• YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE. WAIVE CLOSE, MR. SPEAKER.
• REPRESENTATIVE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE. WAIVE CLOSE.
• YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE ON THE BILL. I WAIVE CLOSE.
• YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE. WAIVE CLOSE.

Bills: SB 2, HB 2, HB 2000, HB 2196, HB 213, HB 222, HB 645, HB 1458, HB 1022, HB 141, HB 502, HB 643, HB 3093, HB 1700, HB 117, SB 503, SB 2, HB 120, HB 20, HB 150, HB 6, HB 100, HB 210, HB 215, HB 1393, HB 1151, HB 1268, HB 142, HB 451, HB 124, HB 2, HB 2000, HB 2196, HB 213, HB 222, HB 645, HB 1458, HB 1022, HB 141, HB 502, HB 643, HB 3093, HB 1700, HB 117

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, child grooming, sex offender registration, criminal justice, reportable conviction, law enforcement, virtual education, hybrid learning, school funding, average daily attendance

Bills: SB903, SB2101, SB2550, SB2983, HB2433, SCR8, SCR20, SCR28, SCR32, SCR40, SCR48, SCR55, SCR57, SCR69, SCR74, SCR83, SCR87, SCR94, SCR99, SCR114, SCR139, SCR160, SCR165, SCR177, SCR178, SCR179, SCR41, SCR78, SCR90, SCR130, SCR159, SCR162, SCR173, SB2024, SB2075, SB2730, HB2581, SB2050, SB2471, SB2466, HB1163, HB1514, SB3082, SB2135, SB2727, SB3097, HB1696, HB2021, SR20, SCR110

Keywords: public land trust, Hawaiian affairs, OHA, ceded lands, financial reporting, income settlement, trust responsibility, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management

Bills: SB903, SB2101, SB2550, SB2983, HB2433, SCR8, SCR20, SCR28, SCR32, SCR40, SCR48, SCR55, SCR57, SCR69, SCR74, SCR83, SCR87, SCR94, SCR99, SCR114, SCR139, SCR160, SCR165, SCR177, SCR178, SCR179, SCR41, SCR78, SCR90, SCR130, SCR159, SCR162, SCR173, SB2024, SB2075, SB2730, HB2581, SB2050, SB2471, SB2466, HB1163, HB1514, SB3082, SB2135, SB2727, SB3097, HB1696, HB2021, SR20, SCR110

Keywords: public land trust, Hawaiian affairs, OHA, ceded lands, financial reporting, income settlement, trust responsibility, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management

Bills: SB903, SB2101, SB2550, SB2983, HB2433, SCR8, SCR20, SCR28, SCR32, SCR40, SCR48, SCR55, SCR57, SCR69, SCR74, SCR83, SCR87, SCR94, SCR99, SCR114, SCR139, SCR160, SCR165, SCR177, SCR178, SCR179, SCR41, SCR78, SCR90, SCR130, SCR159, SCR162, SCR173, SB2024, SB2075, SB2730, HB2581, SB2050, SB2471, SB2466, HB1163, HB1514, SB3082, SB2135, SB2727, SB3097, HB1696, HB2021, SR20, SCR110

Keywords: public land trust, Hawaiian affairs, OHA, ceded lands, financial reporting, income settlement, trust responsibility, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management

Bills: SB903, SB2101, SB2550, SB2983, HB2433, SCR8, SCR20, SCR28, SCR32, SCR40, SCR48, SCR55, SCR57, SCR69, SCR74, SCR83, SCR87, SCR94, SCR99, SCR114, SCR139, SCR160, SCR165, SCR177, SCR178, SCR179, SCR41, SCR78, SCR90, SCR130, SCR159, SCR162, SCR173, SB2024, SB2075, SB2730, HB2581, SB2050, SB2471, SB2466, HB1163, HB1514, SB3082, SB2135, SB2727, SB3097, HB1696, HB2021, SR20, SCR110

Keywords: public land trust, Hawaiian affairs, OHA, ceded lands, financial reporting, income settlement, trust responsibility, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management

Bills: SB903, SB2101, SB2550, SB2983, HB2433, SCR8, SCR20, SCR28, SCR32, SCR40, SCR48, SCR55, SCR57, SCR69, SCR74, SCR83, SCR87, SCR94, SCR99, SCR114, SCR139, SCR160, SCR165, SCR177, SCR178, SCR179, SCR41, SCR78, SCR90, SCR130, SCR159, SCR162, SCR173, SB2024, SB2075, SB2730, HB2581, SB2050, SB2471, SB2466, HB1163, HB1514, SB3082, SB2135, SB2727, SB3097, HB1696, HB2021, SR20, SCR110

Keywords: public land trust, Hawaiian affairs, OHA, ceded lands, financial reporting, income settlement, trust responsibility, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management

Bills: SB903, SB2101, SB2550, SB2983, HB2433, SCR8, SCR20, SCR28, SCR32, SCR40, SCR48, SCR55, SCR57, SCR69, SCR74, SCR83, SCR87, SCR94, SCR99, SCR114, SCR139, SCR160, SCR165, SCR177, SCR178, SCR179, SCR41, SCR78, SCR90, SCR130, SCR159, SCR162, SCR173, SB2024, SB2075, SB2730, HB2581, SB2050, SB2471, SB2466, HB1163, HB1514, SB3082, SB2135, SB2727, SB3097, HB1696, HB2021, SR20, SCR110

Keywords: public land trust, Hawaiian affairs, OHA, ceded lands, financial reporting, income settlement, trust responsibility, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management

Bills: SB903, SB2101, SB2550, SB2983, HB2433, SCR8, SCR20, SCR28, SCR32, SCR40, SCR48, SCR55, SCR57, SCR69, SCR74, SCR83, SCR87, SCR94, SCR99, SCR114, SCR139, SCR160, SCR165, SCR177, SCR178, SCR179, SCR41, SCR78, SCR90, SCR130, SCR159, SCR162, SCR173, SB2024, SB2075, SB2730, HB2581, SB2050, SB2471, SB2466, HB1163, HB1514, SB3082, SB2135, SB2727, SB3097, HB1696, HB2021, SR20, SCR110

Keywords: public land trust, Hawaiian affairs, OHA, ceded lands, financial reporting, income settlement, trust responsibility, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management

Transcript Highlights:

• Get those things nice and close to you please.
• And when it was done. close to $613 billion. No one knows about it, but it's there.
• So with that I will close my my questioning. Thank you. Thank you very much.
• Close, close. Whenever you're ready. There you go. That's what I've heard all day.
• And eat that microphone folks, get nice and close.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We tried to most closely match what the Medical Board used in their practice act.
• As Courtney was mentioning, now that the portal is closed with the new rules, when the portal closes
• The portal is closed, so you can't get into the EFA program until the next school year.
• Daryl Smith for probably close to two hours. And I do not doubt the good motives of Dr.
• And I think we can certainly get close to it, Senator Johnson.

Summary: The Administrative Rules Subcommittee reviewed a long agenda of agency rules, with most items approved without objection after brief presentations and no public comment. Early items included Department of Energy and Environment rules on landfill post-closure trust fund spending thresholds and liquefied petroleum gas standards, DFA’s electronic odometer disclosure rule, and several Department of Health rules covering ionizing radiation, mobile home and RV parks, lead-based paint, counseling board revisions, hearing instrument dispensers, athletic training, dental examiners, nursing, pharmacy, medical board, speech-language pathology and audiology, radiologic technology, massage therapy, community health workers, doula certification, and cosmetology/body art. Most of these changes were described as updates to match recent acts, federal standards, compact participation, fee adjustments, or cleanup/clarification, and the committee repeatedly approved them without objection. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on the Arkansas State Board of Nursing’s broad set of rule changes implementing multiple 2025 acts. Those changes included creating a dialysis patient care technician registry, updating contact information requirements, expanding APRN authority to delegate certain tasks, clarifying death certificate and pronouncement authority, allowing substitution of therapeutically equivalent medications, permitting purchase of compounded products, and updating certified medication assistant rules and training standards. Members asked detailed questions about the meaning of therapeutically equivalent substitutions, delegation limits, compounded products, and how often medication lists would be updated; the board said it would review rules annually and use future rulemaking as needed. The committee also approved new nursing rules for declaratory orders and the new dialysis registry. The Department of Education’s rules drew the most discussion, especially the Arkansas Children’s Educational Freedom Account Program. The department said the revisions, based on Act 920 of 2025, were intended to add guardrails, clarify eligible expenses, and streamline approvals. Changes included defining core educational expenses, limiting sports-related spending, adding an intentional misuse standard, restricting certain technology purchases and requiring extra justification over $1,000, capping carryover funds at $8,500, and creating a reconsideration process for denied expenses. Members raised concerns about oversight, appeal timelines, sports equipment, provider credentialing, and whether the rules were too restrictive; department officials said the rules were meant to protect taxpayer funds while preserving flexibility, and they noted the program had received extensive public comment. The committee also approved Education rules for scholarships, residency classification, teacher programs, accelerated learning, and graduate medical education, as well as Labor and Licensing rules on wage and hour standards, boiler rules, motor vehicle commission requirements, professional wrestling regulation, appraiser qualifications, and military recruiting incentives.

Transcript Highlights:

• We tried to most closely match what the Medical Board used in their practice acts.
• With the passage of these new rules, then there will be no way the portal is closed.
• Daryl Smith for probably close to two hours. And I do not doubt the good motives of Dr.
• And I think we can certainly get close to it, Senator Johnson.
• It won't be perfect, but I believe we can get close to it if we just all work together.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Mastio was close enough.
• Are there refineries shutting down and closing?
• If you had like one sentence you wanted to close with, go ahead. I'll ask you a question.
• That's a landfill.
• You are on closing, and members, he's not taking any questions. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Mr.

Summary: The House Natural Resources Committee met on House Bill 7 by Speaker Pro Tem Johnson, the Louisiana Landowners Protection Act, which would remove eminent domain authority for carbon capture and geological sequestration projects. After housekeeping and roll call, the committee adopted a set of technical amendments that cleaned up definitions, removed a stray statutory reference, and changed “commissioner” to “secretary.” The author then gave an extended presentation arguing the bill was needed to align Louisiana law with the state constitution’s property-rights protections and recent court rulings, and to ensure carbon capture projects proceed only through voluntary agreements rather than forced takings. Several members questioned the author and supportive witnesses about whether the bill would stop carbon capture, affect oil and gas pipelines, or disrupt investment. The author and supporters said it would not stop projects, only prevent taking land without consent, and argued that landowners—especially small and rural owners—should not face the threat of expropriation. Supportive testimony also emphasized family land, inheritance, and constitutional limits on takings. Some members raised concerns about changing the rules after prior legislative action and about the economic importance of carbon capture, but the author responded that the legislature had made a mistake in 2020 and should correct it now. Opposition testimony came from representatives of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, and attorneys who handle right-of-way matters. They argued that eminent domain is a rare last resort, that existing law and the Landowner Bill of Rights already protect owners, and that the Constitution’s provisions for private-entity expropriation are different from the provisions discussed by the bill’s supporters. They warned that removing the tool for carbon capture would chill investment, threaten jobs and revenue, and could spill over into other energy infrastructure. The committee did not reach a final vote on the bill in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, basically, that's my concern is that there’s a number of closely held family corporations, and
• </c><00:23:18.799><c> held</c><00:23:19.200><c> family</c> a number of um closely held family a number
• of um closely held family corporations<00:23:21.400><c> and</c><00:23:21.960><c> that</c><00:23:22.240
• </c> demonstrate how how we're going to close demonstrate how how we're going to close and<01:00:41.039
• We did work very closely with the city on the development of their TOD plan, so it's very coordinated

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees considered a large number of Senate bills, with many measures advanced either unamended or with technical or substantive amendments. Early action included SB 88 and SB 11 SD1, both passed unamended, and SB 562 SD1 and SB 642 SD1, which were passed with amendments reflecting agency testimony. SB 1133 SD1 was amended to remove duplicative county requirements and clarify tax credit carry-forward eligibility, while SB 1569 SD1 on sports wagering was deferred. Later, SB 933 on nonprofit/federal funding support drew strong testimony from nonprofit and health advocates emphasizing the risk of federal funding freezes and the importance of protecting services such as early learning, domestic violence support, housing, and workforce supports; the committee recommended amendments to define eligible organizations, require reporting, and include the Judiciary. SB 934 and SB 935 were also amended, with SB 934 tying mass transit funding to Honolulu project milestones and SB 935 revising retirement-system language to change “fewer than five years” to “five or more years.” The committees then took up additional measures with targeted amendments. SB 1033 was amended to clarify that the bill applies to legal entities, not individuals, though members noted concerns about closely held family corporations and asked that the issue be reflected in the committee report. SB 1166, SB 1249, and SB 1256 were advanced with amendments or committee-report notes reflecting concerns from the Attorney General, Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, and Hawaii Farmers Union United, respectively. SB 1432 and SB 137, both relating to electric utilities, were amended to require retention of covered employees after mergers or acquisitions and to direct the PUC to consider whether proposed transactions further state policy goals. SB 157 on antitrust was narrowed to focus on coordinator conduct in rental housing markets, SB 252 on invasive species received a defective effective date, and SB 336 on defense of state employers and employees passed unamended. SB 536 on the Hawaii Community Development Authority was deferred to a later hearing, and SB 1064 on medical cannabis was heavily amended to authorize cultivator licenses with limits on canopy size, license counts, physician fees, and a special-fund appropriation for enforcement. In the Ways and Means portion, the committee passed several bills unamended, including SB 19, SB 124, SB 264, SB 345, SB 422, and SB 741 and SB 747 later in the agenda. SB 361 was amended to remove references to the attorney general and delete an appropriation section, SB 438 was amended to redefine buffer zones and landfill-unit language, and SB 441 and SB 494 were amended to blank appropriations and, in SB 494, assign charter-school audit responsibility to the state auditor. SB 659 was substantially amended to promote local procurement, including county-level geographic preferences and higher thresholds for locally sourced purchases, and SB 732 was amended to adjust film tax credit provisions, including the streaming-platform definition and sunset-related language. SB 819 was amended to replace references to “educators” with “teachers.” Throughout, most measures were adopted without recorded opposition, though several members noted reservations on particular bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mastio was close enough. Okay.
• Are there refineries shutting down and closing?
• If you had like one sentence you wanted to close with, go ahead. I'll ask you a question.
• That's a landfill.
• You are on closing, and members, he's not taken any questions. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Mr.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So there's just no way to drive down those costs to get them even close to the fossil fuel.
• And we work very closely with them as part of our broader Pacific Coast Collaborative, Oregon as well
• We're going to have refineries, you know, potentially closing.
• We're going to have refineries, you know, potentially closing.
• It's something that we are tracking very closely.

Summary: The subcommittee heard extensive testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the proposal would help decarbonize aviation, support a long-term transition in the fuel sector, and encourage in-state investment and jobs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and several outside witnesses recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited net climate benefits, and may shift limited feedstocks away from renewable diesel rather than create additional fuel supply. A major point of debate was whether the credit would mainly benefit California refineries and workers or instead subsidize out-of-state producers while reducing revenue for transportation programs. Supporters, including union members, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, and airport representatives, said SAF is one of the few viable near-term options for aviation, that California should keep fuel production and jobs in-state, and that the credit would help maintain refinery operations and support the industry’s transition. Opponents, including the LAO, trucking and fuels groups, environmental organizations, and county/road advocates, warned that the proposal could raise gasoline and diesel prices, reduce diesel excise tax revenue for highways and local streets and roads, and provide limited climate benefit compared with other uses of state funds. Some members also raised concerns about feedstock availability, food-system impacts, and whether the policy should be more narrowly targeted if the goal is to support a specific refinery. No vote was taken. The chair stated at the outset that all items on the agenda were being held open for a future hearing, and public comment was taken after the first item because of the level of interest. The hearing then continued with public testimony, which was split between strong support from labor and industry and strong opposition from environmental, transportation, and local government groups.

Transcript Highlights:

• So there's just no way to drive down those costs to get them even close to the fossil fuel.
• You're fundamentally not going to get close to the cost of fossil jet fuel.
• We're going to have refineries, you know, potentially closing.
• Waste oils that would otherwise be going to the landfill. SAF builds on that progress.
• It's something that we are tracking very closely.

Summary: The subcommittee heard testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the credit would help decarbonize aviation, support refinery transitions, and keep fuel production and jobs in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited climate benefits, and would reduce diesel excise tax revenue that supports highways, local streets and roads, and other transportation programs. A major point of debate was whether the credit would simply shift limited feedstocks from renewable diesel to SAF rather than create new low-carbon fuel supply. Professor Aaron Smith and the LAO said that because feedstocks such as used cooking oil, tallow, and vegetable oils are limited and already used in other fuel markets, the policy could increase SAF at the expense of renewable diesel, with possible increases in fuel prices and little net emissions benefit. Administration and CARB staff disputed that outcome, saying additional waste-based feedstocks are available and that the policy would not meaningfully raise gasoline or diesel prices. Senators focused on feedstock availability, impacts on road funding, fairness to consumers, and whether the proposal was really aimed at preserving specific refineries such as Phillips 66. Public comment was sharply divided. Labor representatives, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, airports, and some local residents supported the proposal, emphasizing jobs, refinery investment, and aviation’s need for a liquid-fuel decarbonization pathway. Environmental and transportation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, World Resources Institute, Earthjustice, California Environmental Voters, counties, cities, and trucking and asphalt associations, opposed it, citing weak net climate benefits, possible fuel-price impacts, and losses to transportation funding. No vote was taken; the chair announced all items would be held open for a future hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:31:16.360><c> the</c> dumped at the conquered landfill the dumped at the conquered landfill the
• Thank you, and with that we'll close the hearing on House Bill 662.
• </c> common is are called open and closed common is are called open and closed adoption<01:31:34.119>
• </c> child's years of growing versus a closed child's years of growing versus a closed you<01:31:45.320
• </c><05:06:26.080><c> the</c> here so we will close the here so we will close the hearing<05:06:28.000

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 662, which would require public schools to include discussion of abortion procedures and show specified videos in health education classes. The prime sponsor argued the bill would ensure students receive medically accurate, age-appropriate, and nonpolitical information about abortion, saying the topic is important for informed decision-making and should be taught consistently statewide. He said the videos were intended for grades 9-12, that parents could opt out, and that the requirement was meant to supplement, not sway, students’ views. He also acknowledged the bill could be seen as limiting local control over curriculum and said the intent was to prevent the topic from being missed due to scheduling disruptions. Committee members questioned the sponsor about local control, the need for a video mandate, the source of his statistics, whether the bill could be biased or inflammatory, and whether the requirement should apply every year in high school. The sponsor said the videos were only a starting point, could be replaced by others, and were meant to be informational. He also said the bill was not intended to influence students’ decisions about abortion. Several supporters testified in favor, including representatives of New Hampshire Right to Life and others who said students should be told the “truth” about abortion and its consequences. They emphasized graphic or emotionally difficult aspects of abortion and argued that young people need this information to make informed choices. Opponents and skeptical witnesses raised concerns about prescribing curriculum, eroding local control, and the appropriateness of the material for younger high school students. The New Hampshire School Administrators Association said the bill was overly prescriptive, that health education standards are already set by the State Board of Education, and that the topics in the bill are not part of the current standards. That witness recommended the committee consider retaining the bill for further work or making it less prescriptive. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.