Brandon Shippy — Responded that parental rights override confidentiality concerns in this context.
Brandon Shippy — The speaker is transcribed as 'Representative Skog'; context suggests this is the bill sponsor responding to the question.
Brandon Shippy — The sponsor is again responding that parents should know if a child is talking about changing gender.
Brandon Shippy — The concern about litigation is continued from the prior speaker; the motion to introduce RS 33449 is made by Representative Alfieri, who is not in the expected member list.
Brandon Shippy — Addressed as Representative Skog in the response context; the sponsor is being questioned about the definition of social transition.
Brandon Shippy — The sponsor responds that the issue comes down to common sense and defining male and female.
Brandon Shippy — Sponsor explains the bill is about intent to change gender, not clothing, and says parents should be told.
Brandon Shippy — The sponsor responds that the bill’s purpose is clear and should not be misconstrued based on hypotheticals.
Brandon Shippy — Sponsor points to line 24 and says the bill’s purpose is clear.
Brandon Shippy — Representative Skog is addressed again regarding the bill’s breadth and intent.
Brandon Shippy — Representative Skog is asked to define 'pediatric sex transition.'
Brandon Shippy — Representative Pohanka asks whether Fish and Game license checks would count as reasonable stops.
Brandon Shippy — Representative Dygert asks how the reasonable suspicion stop-and-board language would work in practice.
Kelly Anthon — Representative Haas is recognized and then asks a series of related questions about the bill, focusing on the changed definition of 'covered entity,' whether the bill conflicts with providers’ confidentiality duties, and how it would apply in a hypothetical involving a minor discussing mental health or gender identity issues with a therapist.
Kelly Anthon — Asked for an example of what constitutes a social transition.
Kelly Anthon — Asked whether a mere presentation associated with a different gender could qualify as a social transition, or whether an affirmative statement is required.
Kelly Anthon — Addressed in the response.
Kelly Anthon — Addressed in the response.
Kelly Anthon — Representative Haas is recorded as voting no.
Kelly Anthon — Representative Haas makes the motion to send House Bill 548 to the House with a do pass recommendation.
Kelly Anthon — Representative Haas comments favorably on the reasonable suspicion standard in the bill.
Kelly Anthon — Representative Haas explains that reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause and supports the bill's standard.
Bruce Skog — Presented the bill and explained that it had been revised after prior introduction.
James Ruchti — Asked how the bill differs from the prior version, focusing on the civil action language.
James Ruchti — Questioned why the bill uses a $100,000 amount instead of $10,000.
James Ruchti — Answered that the scope would apply when a child is trying to change gender identity, but not to getting a haircut.
James Ruchti — Answered that changing gender identity would be covered, but a haircut would not.
James Ruchti — Addressed as the member asking whether a licensed provider would need to report gender-related discussions to parents.
James Ruchti — Representative Church is asking a definitional question about the bill.
James Ruchti — Representative Church continues questioning the bill’s scope and how an educator could know whether a child is adopting a different name or dress.
James Ruchti — Representative Church gives a classroom example about how an educator would know if a student is adopting a different name or dress.
James Ruchti — Representative Church asks how an educator would know when a student has crossed the line into social transition.
James Ruchti — The questioner argues the bill should say more directly that it concerns intent to change gender.
James Ruchti — The questioner says the bill is broad enough to make educators or therapists unsure when parent notification is required.
James Ruchti — Representative Church is addressed in the exchange about the bill’s clarity.
James Ruchti — Representative Church says the bill is really broad and asks for a response.
James Ruchti — Asked a follow-up question about whether the definition includes surgery and other treatments.
James Ruchti — Questioned whether schools and school districts could be exposed to lawsuits under the bill.
James Ruchti — Addressed during the exchange.
James Ruchti — Addressed in the response.
James Ruchti — Invited to discuss the motion to introduce RS 3349.
James Ruchti — Commented that the body should focus on the bill language describing when entities must contact parents.
James Ruchti — Representative Church is thanked and later asked whether he would like to reply.
James Ruchti — Representative Church is recorded as voting no and is referenced by Representative Harris.
James Ruchti — Representative Church is referenced as having a simple bill earlier.
Mark Harris — Addressed in the exchange questioning the bill's structure and the term 'bounty.'
Mark Harris — Explained the difference between a private right of action and an Attorney General action.
Mark Harris — Addressed in the response as the chair.
Mark Harris — Was the person being addressed in the explanation.
Mark Harris — Referenced in the prior question as the member asking about the scope of social transition.