Marco Erickson — A substitute was present for Representative Marco Erickson.
Marco Erickson — Representative Marco Erickson (rendered in the transcript as 'Erickson Larson') is recorded in a brief roll-call sequence: he votes no on the substitute motion and then votes yes on the original motion.
Kirk Larson — Kirk Larson introduced himself as being from Idaho Falls, serving on the city council, and being a retired banker. He also noted that he has four kids and is currently staying with one of them in Meridian.
Brian Noggle — Brian Noggle of the Idaho State Prosecutor's Office / Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association was introduced and then testified in support of the bill, identifying himself as the executive director of the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association and providing his prosecutorial perspective.
Ilana Rubel — Asked whether the bill would apply to AI-created child pornography that did not use a live child.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Rubel engages in a sustained line of questioning about the bill’s social transition language and reporting requirements, asking whether changes in a child’s dress or appearance are among the items a teacher, doctor, or other covered entity must report to parents. Rubel presses why appearance or dress is included in the definition of social transition if it is not specifically listed among the reportable items, arguing that the bill’s enumerated obligations create ambiguity. The sponsor responds that unusual or different behavior would be something a teacher might report, but the core exchange remains focused on whether appearance or dress is intended to be reportable under the bill.
Ilana Rubel — Apologized to for an unclear prior answer.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Rubel asked a series of follow-up questions to the sponsor about the bill. She first sought clarification on why appearance and dress language is included if it is not among the reportable items tied to the $100,000 penalty. She then asked whether a parent who already knows about a transition can still be considered an aggrieved party and seek damages, and pressed for clarification on where the bill excludes aware, supportive parents from damages.
Ilana Rubel — Votes yes on the substitute motion; transcript renders the name as 'Rebell'.
Lori Hartog — Identified as the Senate carrier of House Bill 71.
Matt Sharp — Matt Sharp is identified as one of the people who reviewed the bill and is signed up to testify, and the sponsor asks the committee to question him and allow him to testify.
Matt Sharp — Matt Sharp was introduced for virtual testimony and identified himself as Senior Counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. He testified that secret transition policies violate parental rights by directing school staff to conceal information from parents when a child expresses a desire to identify as a different gender. He then argued there is no conflict between Idaho’s existing medical parental decision-making law and the bill, explaining that notification should go to whoever has legal authority and exclusive custody and control of the child—whether a parent or guardian. He said adding explicit guardian language would be a reasonable tweak and that the duty to inform should follow the person with legal custody, including a guardian if a parent is unfit. The exchange ends with him beginning to respond to a follow-up question before the transcript cuts off.
Dr. Grossman — Author of the book cited by the sponsor.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Matthias questions the bill’s notice and liability framework, asking whether a covered entity must notify a parent even if no request was made, noting that some children may not feel comfortable telling their parents, and probing edge cases such as whether a divorced spouse could be an aggrieved person and whether a covered entity remains liable after complying with the statute’s notice requirements.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum is part of a brief exchange about whether the bill should be fixed and concerns about its wording. The discussion includes Cheatum’s response and the chair’s acknowledgment, all within the same legislative moment.
Richard Cheatum — Votes yes on the substitute motion; transcript renders the name as 'Matthias'.
Heather Scott — Addressed by the questioner as the bill sponsor or presenter.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott questions Melissa Webb about her decade of experience in the medical field and asks how her practice has evolved over time, particularly regarding changes in the treatment of gender identity.
Heather Scott — Representative/Chairman Skog is thanked for bringing forward House Bill H-22, then invited to close the presentation, and later asked a follow-up question about paragraph six and the notice requirement as part of the same bill discussion.
Heather Scott — Votes no on the substitute motion.
Heather Scott — Votes no.
Heather Scott — Votes yes on the original motion.
Heather Scott — Mentioned as someone the witness used to serve with.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Skaug is engaged in a continuous exchange about the bill’s parental-notification provisions and related definitions. He responds to hypotheticals about a child’s gender expression, explains that providers would not be in trouble if they comply with the law, clarifies that the social-transition language describes signs that may alert a provider, and reiterates that the parent is the one who should know and make the decision. The discussion later returns to subsection 6 and the notification requirement, emphasizing that the bill requires a covered entity to notify a minor student’s parents within 72 hours of receiving a request from the minor student.
Bruce Skaug — Chairman Skog is addressed during the vote call, votes yes on the original motion, then relinquishes the gavel and recognizes the presenter, marking a continuous procedural sequence.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Alfieri is referenced in a continuous exchange, likely as the person being addressed or responding, alongside other members/chairs mentioned in the discussion.
Joe Alfieri — Was addressed by the chair in the exchange after the witness answered.
John Gannon — Was asked to hold a question while testimony proceeded.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon raised a drafting concern that the bill’s notification language refers to a parent but does not clearly account for a legal guardian. He followed up by pointing to the specific provision requiring notice to a minor student’s parent within 72 hours and asked whether the bill should be corrected to include legal guardian as well.
John Gannon — Representative John Gannon is recorded voting yes on the substitute motion, then yes again, and finally yes on the substitute motion and no on the original motion.
John Gannon — Referenced as a Democrat present in the room.
Steve Berch — Representative Mathias is referenced in the discussion, invited to ask questions, then poses a question to the witness about whether Idaho sex education had led any children to want to transition. The exchange continues immediately afterward with the witness’s response and further address to Representative Mathias.
Erin Friday — Erin Friday was introduced as the first virtual witness and then identified herself as an attorney and president of Our Duty, a national group of parents and detransitioners in support.
Nixon Matthews — Nixon Matthews, a Boise resident and proud trans-Idahoan, testified in opposition to the bill and said he had heard from people across Idaho who would be affected by it.
Mr. Matthews — Was addressed by the member during questioning.
Christy Hardy — Identified herself as speaking on behalf of Christine Keith of Kuna.
Christine Keith — The statement read on her behalf urged passage of House Bill 822 and described her son’s experience.
Christine Keith (reading prepared statement) — Christine Keith argued that her son might have been helped if school adults had not hidden his gender-related struggles from the family. She said school staff should not keep such matters secret from parents and criticized them for acting like counselors without authority, framing this secrecy as harmful and akin to parent alienation.
Melissa Webb — Melissa Webb, a Boise parent and longtime Idaho nurse, testified in opposition to HB 822. She argued the bill expands government intrusion into private family life, undermines family autonomy and limited government, and could harm children by forcing sensitive disclosures before they are ready. Webb said children in unsafe or volatile homes, as well as those exploring gender identity, could be put at risk if schools or adults are required to disclose information to parents. In response to questions, she explained that her own child would likely have benefited from a safe school environment to explore names and pronouns, but that for many families a disclosure could damage trust or jeopardize a child’s relationship with a trusted adult. She emphasized that adolescents are exploring their whole being, including sexual and gender identity, and urged a no vote on the bill.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias questioned Melissa Webb about whether it is unreasonable for schools or health care providers to notify parents if a child asks to be referred to by different pronouns, asking how such notification should be handled.
Chris Mathias — Responded by reading from the Twin Falls policy and noting it says the school principal or counselor shall notify the student's parent.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias questioned the bill’s implications for cases involving child abuse convictions, then shifted to a constitutional concern about excessive fines and penalties, citing case law and proportionality. The chair responded to the fines concern, and later discussion continued to reference Matthias’s excessive-penalties point as part of the same broader exchange.
Clint Hostetler — Thanked Melissa Webb and asked whether the bill would have affected her relationship with her child or the outcome.
Clint Hostetler — Votes yes on the original motion; transcript renders the name as 'Hostetler'.
Ms. Webb — Ms. Webb continued answering questions about children exploring gender identity, stating that she does not believe there is any age limit for a child to explore and understand their identity. She added that, historically, some children as young as two or three identify and understand their gender.
Reverend Sarah Lawhal — Reverend Sarah Lawhal testified on behalf of her congregation and as the parent of a transgender daughter. She described supporting her child’s transition, emphasized that families seek evidence-based medical and therapeutic guidance, and argued that gender-affirming care is beneficial and can be life-saving. She concluded by warning that the bill would make things worse and urged lawmakers to vote no.
Edward Clark — Edward Clark, a policy analyst with Idaho Family Policy Center, testified in support of House Bill 22. He argued that parents have the primary responsibility to guide and protect their children, citing Proverbs 22:6 and objecting to social transitioning of children without parental knowledge or consent. He concluded by asking the committee to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Edward Clark — Edward Clark, a policy analyst for the Idaho Family Policy Center, testifies in support of Senate Bill 1296 and later concludes his remarks, after which the chair thanks him.
Edward Hill — Representative Hill first comments in support of the bill, saying it is more precise than existing parental-rights law and emphasizing that it provides full transparency for parents. Later in the meeting, Hill is recorded in the roll-call vote as voting no on the substitute motion, no again, and then yes on the original motion.
Jeff Cornilles — Vice Chair Alfieri is called during the vote and then votes yes on the original motion.