Video & Transcript Research : 'implicit bias'

Page 7 of 77
TX
Transcript Highlights:
  • financially and legally disincentivized to test on female animal models and cell lines, perpetuating a bias
  • Instead of building a better society that allows women to be safer, you are complicit and impotent, implicit
  • They would bring in previous information into the first stage that would prejudice or bias the jury.
  • If that was public disclosure, that you bias or taint or possibly prejudice before that person was actually
Bills: SB7, SB14, SB 7, SB 14
OK

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

Senate Legislative Session Mar 24th, 2026 at 01:30 pm

Oklahoma Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • Please activate your voting bias upon accessing your desk in the chamber. A quorum is present.
  • ensure that consent is genuinely voluntary and not influenced by the absence of alternatives or implicit
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

S/C on Family & Fiduciary Relationships Mar 24th, 2025

S/C on Family & Fiduciary Relationships

Transcript Highlights:
  • Um, the other side of this is, is that you're finding that there's a bias inside of, inside of courts
  • But a person who does drugs and is implicit with it should not be.
Bills: HB116
MN

Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session

House Ethics Committee 3/27/25

Ethics

Transcript Highlights:
  • the record, heard that both the rules that we just adopted and the scheduling order, I think it's implicit
Keywords: 1183, house
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • It's not that the House had removed the program nor the money, but it was implicit in the base, so it
  • ,<00:35:46.560> but<00:35:46.680> it<00:35:46.760> was<00:35:46.880> implicit
  • <00:35:47.359> in nor the money, but it was implicit in nor the money, but it was implicit
Keywords: 958, all
Summary: The Free Conference Committee on the 2026 General Assembly budget met to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of House Bill 500. Leaders opened by thanking the other chamber’s work, asking members to turn microphones on and off to avoid feedback, and stressing the need to clearly note decision points so both chambers record the same actions. Staff then walked through the bill page by page, explaining that the committee was comparing only House and Senate differences, not the governor’s proposed budget. The discussion covered a wide range of appropriations and language items, including next generation non-911 services, school safety reporting tools, restored funding for brain injury, epilepsy, veteran service, homeless veterans, and rocket docket programs, debt service changes, rural infrastructure, disaster aid caps, Attorney General and Medicaid fraud funding, agriculture and county fair grants, auditor and pension-related appropriations, school facilities and SEEK funding, and numerous education programs. Members also discussed charter-related funding such as Star Academy, Dolly Parton Imagination Library, school resource officers, school-based mental health providers, AP/IB exams, Governor’s Scholars and Entrepreneurs, and several pilot or initiative programs in economic development, energy, and labor. Several items were described as technical corrections or restorations of language and funding, while others reflected differences in amounts or how funds would be distributed. There were several questions and comments from members about wording such as “implement and carry out,” the absence of the governor’s budget from the comparison document, and whether SEEK funding should be tied to teacher raises. The chair and other members emphasized that the committee’s role was to reconcile the two chambers’ budgets, not to adopt the governor’s proposal. Members also raised concerns about opioid settlement funds and the Dolly Parton Imagination Library match rate, with one senator urging restoration of the House language. No final vote or formal action was taken in the portion provided; the meeting primarily consisted of explanation, questions, and discussion of proposed budget differences.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
  • If a survivor doesn't pay the bail for their abuser, then they often face implicit or explicit threats
  • The dark reality is that a person who often face implicit or explicit threats often face implicit or
Keywords: 919, house, all
Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on draft constitutional amendment language from Representative Holland to create universal pre-trial release except in certain circumstances and eliminate cash bail. Representative Holland said the proposal is intended to make Minnesota’s pre-trial system fairer and more equitable by basing detention decisions on public safety and due process rather than a person’s ability to pay, and noted that a separate bill would later provide the detailed framework for an intentional release-and-detention system. He emphasized that no action would be taken at this hearing. Testifiers in support included Joshua Page of the University of Minnesota and the Pre-Trial Justice Minnesota Coalition, Alicia Gransee of the ACLU of Minnesota, Jess Palia of Violence Free Minnesota, and Ramsey County Attorney John Choi. Supporters argued that cash bail creates unequal treatment, contributes to racial disparities, harms families and communities, and does not reliably improve court appearance or public safety. They cited research and coalition findings about high pre-trial detention rates, overrepresentation of Black and American Indian Minnesotans, the impact of detention on housing and employment, and the need for courts to use individualized risk assessments, conditional release, and services instead of money-based release decisions. Palia focused on domestic violence cases, saying cash bail can pressure survivors to pay for abusers’ release and that current hearings often give little time to victim safety concerns. During member questions, concerns were raised that the amendment could remove an important tool for judges in the middle range of cases. Choi responded that conditional release and other protections could still be built into implementing legislation, and Page said detention would become an option but many cases would still involve conditional release and support services. He also argued there is no evidence that money itself motivates court appearance and said cash bail often shifts costs to low-income family members, especially women of color. The hearing ended without any vote or formal action, with members and testifiers noting that further legislation and discussion would follow if the amendment advances.
NH

New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session

House Judiciary (01/14/2026)

Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:
  • So a lot of what I was planning to say has already been said, but the BIA is in support of 1384 for the
  • Representative Smith said the BIA is in support of House Bill 1384 for the primary reason that it has
  • I just want to point out again that BIA has supported this form of legislation in the past and has continued
  • Representative Smith continued that BIA has supported this form of legislation in the past and has continued
  • Uh, Nate Grace with the BIA. We are the statewide chamber of commerce.
Keywords: 928, house, all
Summary: The Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1067-FN, which would formalize and expand mental health courts in New Hampshire and create a grant-based funding structure for them. Representative Mark Pearson, the prime sponsor, described the bill as a bipartisan, compassionate, and cost-effective approach that would connect people with mental illness to treatment and supervision instead of incarceration, while still holding them accountable. He said the proposal was developed with input from the judicial branch, law enforcement, corrections, mental health organizations, and others, and emphasized that local courts could tailor programs to their needs. Committee members questioned the bill’s fiscal note, whether the legislature had previously studied the issue, how the program would be funded, and whether the bill should more explicitly address treatment, prevention, and data collection. Representative Buzz Sher, who helped develop the bill, explained how mental health courts work, including referral, clinical and public-safety assessments, case management, goal-setting, and graduation from the program. He said existing New Hampshire mental health courts are mostly partial and county-funded, and that the bill would formalize them, set standards, and allow grant funding. He also cited data from Georgia and New Hampshire suggesting significant savings from reduced incarceration and related costs. Members also raised concerns about due process, whether people not formally charged could be swept into the system, and whether individuals with violent offenses or domestic violence histories could be diverted inappropriately. Sher responded that only people already in the criminal justice process are eligible and that courts use safety assessments to screen out most violent cases. The committee requested that Sher file supporting financial data from other jurisdictions, and he agreed to do so. No vote or final action was taken during the hearing.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Rules and Legislative Administration Committee 4/28/26

Rules and Legislative Administration

Transcript Highlights:
  • then they bail for for their abuser, then they often<00:16:18.399> face<00:16:18.639> implicit
  • c><00:16:19.199> or<00:16:19.519> explicit<00:16:20.000> threats often face implicit
  • or explicit threats often face implicit or explicit threats of<00:16:20.639> further<00:16:21.040
Keywords: 1183, house
HI
Transcript Highlights:
  • c> already to obtain the wir tap and that's already to obtain the wir tap and that's already implicit
  • the<00:15:33.639> statute<00:15:34.480> that's<00:15:34.639> something implicit
  • in the statute that's something implicit in the statute that's something that's<00:15:35.240> part
Keywords: 912, senate, all
Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on SB 284, which would remove the requirement that wiretapping applications to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill as drafted and instead proposed a new emergency-wiretap procedure allowing county prosecutors to seek immediate judicial authorization in exigent circumstances, followed by AG review and a follow-up application within 48 hours. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s office supported creating an emergency exception, citing a kidnapping case involving a missing material witness and the need to obtain live phone location data quickly, but asked that the AG be required to respond clearly within the follow-up period. The AG said the current wiretap process often arrives incomplete and noted a prior Honolulu application that was returned for more information and then abandoned. The committee also heard public testimony, including one speaker in support and another in opposition, and discussed whether the proposed emergency process should include imminent danger findings and what happens if the follow-up application is not approved. No vote or final action was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up SB 295, which increases penalties for violating temporary restraining orders and orders for protection and makes related changes. The Deputy Public Defender opposed the bill’s higher penalties, arguing that not all restraining-order cases involve domestic violence and that the measure could affect family disputes, property conflicts, custody battles, and other non-domestic situations. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney supported the bill, saying it would create a more uniform and efficient charging framework and that violations of court orders can be serious even when the conduct appears minor in isolation. Domestic violence advocates also supported the measure, emphasizing the need for meaningful enforcement and deterrence; one witness cited statewide data showing thousands of TRO petitions but relatively few convictions and fines. A representative from the Domestic Violence Action Center supported the bill but requested amendments to reduce unintended consequences for survivors. During discussion, the committee focused on the proposed minimum sentence, with the Domestic Violence Action Center recommending reducing it from 15 days to 5 days. The witness explained that longer minimums can create hardships such as job loss, housing instability, and child care problems, while still allowing time for survivors to access shelter and services. The committee chair indicated support for amending the bill to reflect that recommendation. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney also clarified that the bill is intended to address violations of already-issued protective orders after judicial review, not the initial issuance of restraining orders, and said the office supports eliminating the distinction between domestic and non-domestic protective-order violations because charging decisions are often made under time pressure. Multiple individuals and organizations signed up in support, and one witness testified in opposition. No vote or final committee action was announced in the transcript.
MA

Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session

Joint Committee on the Judiciary Jun 21st, 2026 at 01:00 pm

Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:
  • We can never do that if we're allowing police, through explicit or implicit bias, to target residents
  • These record-sealing bills are an opportunity to mitigate the bias and racism that plagues our criminal
  • These record-sealing bills are an opportunity to mitigate the bias and racism that plagues our criminal
Keywords: 995, all
Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on several Judiciary bills, with the largest portion focused on S. 1178/H. 2052 to reduce mass incarceration and end life without parole. People incarcerated at MCI Framingham, MCI Norfolk, and NCCI Gardner described personal growth, rehabilitation, restorative justice work, family separation, and the belief that parole eligibility after long sentences would better reflect public safety and human development. Speakers emphasized that life without parole removes hope and can undermine rehabilitation, while supporters argued that many lifers are older, less likely to reoffend, and could contribute positively if given a chance at parole review. Committee members did not take votes during the hearing. The committee also heard testimony on S. 1139 to restore the statute of limitations for wrongful death claims involving tobacco use, with Sen. Keenan explaining that a recent SJC decision had cut off claims where the injured person did not sue within three years before death. He said the bill would restore families’ ability to seek redress in cases involving long-latency tobacco harms like COPD. Another major topic was S. 1205, which would add abusive litigation to the definition of coercive control in domestic violence law; Sen. Michael Moore said the bill would stop abusers from using repeated court filings to harass and financially burden survivors. The committee also took up S. 1114 on automatic record sealing, with Sen. Friedman and others arguing that the current petition-based process is slow, burdensome, and disproportionately harms people with criminal records, especially Black and Latino residents. Testimony also supported H. 1965/S. 1132 on compensation for wrongful conviction, with advocates and sponsors describing a faster administrative claims process, transitional support, and higher compensation without the current cap. Sen. Payano testified for S. 1241 to expand educational programming for incarcerated emerging adults, saying education reduces recidivism and improves reentry outcomes. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on S. 2522, an update to Massachusetts’ shield law for reproductive and gender-affirming care. Sen. Friedman, the Attorney General’s office, and DPH Commissioner Robbie Goldstein said the bill is needed to strengthen protections against out-of-state legal attacks, protect patient and provider data, clarify enforcement authority, and add a state-level EMTALA-style emergency care requirement. Committee members asked detailed questions about prescription labeling, the prescription monitoring program, attorney discipline, custody and full faith and credit issues, and whether the bill’s enforcement language could create unintended limits or conflicts. The Attorney General’s office said it would provide follow-up written testimony on several technical questions.