Bruce Skaug — Skaug says he carried HB 71 in the House.
Bruce Skaug — Continues explaining the bill’s remedies, including declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and compensatory relief for parents.
Bruce Skaug — Describes a possible harm to parents and says the Attorney General may seek civil fines up to $100,000 depending on damages.
Bruce Skaug — Says penalties must match actual harm and argues there is misinformation about the bill’s reporting trigger.
Bruce Skaug — Argues parents should be informed and asks for a due pass recommendation.
Bruce Skaug — Offers to answer questions before public testimony begins.
Bruce Skaug — Responds that the language applies to public schools and says injunctive and declaratory relief would apply.
Bruce Skaug — Clarifies that social transitioning is not medical treatment but includes names, clothing, and restroom use.
Bruce Skaug — Reiterates that the bill is triggered by social transitioning and points to sections five and six.
Bruce Skaug — Directs attention to the bill language limiting penalties by proportionality.
Bruce Skaug — Explains that civil penalties are not automatic and must be proportionate to the violation.
Bruce Skaug — Explained that any civil penalty would be proportionate to the damages and not automatically a large fine.
Bruce Skaug — Is being questioned about the bill's use of "aid and abet."
Bruce Skaug — Responded that the language is meant to apply only with written parental permission and that no one is going to jail.
Bruce Skaug — Explained that the language is intended to prevent actions without parental permission.
Bruce Skaug — Is about to respond to the concern.
Bruce Skaug — Responded that the bill is intended to prevent any social transition or sex change without parental knowledge.
Bruce Skaug — Said the bill's goal is to prevent any social transition without parents' knowledge.
Bruce Skaug — Reiterated that the bill is intended to prevent social transitioning without parental knowledge.
Bruce Skaug — Is thanked as the committee transitions to public testimony.
Bruce Skaug — The chair appears to address Representative Skaug, inviting him to conclude.
Camille Blaylock — Senator Den Hartog is identified as having carried HB 71 in the Senate.
James Ruchti — James Ruchti asks about the bill’s writ of mandamus provision, specifically who qualifies as a covered entity and whether the Attorney General could use mandamus to compel compliance by private entities under that definition.
James Ruchti — Senator James Ruchti questioned the bill’s wording, first raising concerns about the use of "aid" in certain provisions and then asking why the bill uses the criminal-law phrase "aid and abet" in what appears to be a civil statute.
Melissa Wintrow — Melissa Wintrow questions the bill’s vague and confusing language, including unclear definitions and terminology such as “request,” “facilitate,” and references to social transitioning. She says the sponsor’s response does not fully answer her concerns and presses for clearer guidance on what conduct would constitute minor versus major violations, especially given the bill’s steep $100,000 penalty.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow engaged in a sustained exchange about the bill’s parental-notification provisions and their practical effects. She first asked to move to public testimony, then questioned whether providers are keeping secrets from parents, how clinical practice handles children’s disclosures, and what the witness’s fear is about the bill. She then focused on the bill’s 72-hour notice requirement, clarifying that it appears triggered by a minor’s request to participate in social transition rather than by general counseling disclosures. Finally, she pressed on whether disclosing a child’s preferred name or initial to a parent would be harmful, using that example to probe the bill’s real-world impact.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow was called on to ask a question and then asked Dr. Rowland to clarify whether the bill would create difficulties for working with parents seeking out-of-state care. A later speaker referenced that same question in follow-up testimony, noting that Senator Wintrow had asked about the next testifier.
Melissa Wintrow — The prior speaker is thanked by name; she has been opposing the motion and raising concerns about vagueness and professional shortages.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Winthrop was referenced in the discussion about whether to allow second comments.
Todd Lakey — Todd Lakey is addressed in a brief exchange where the speaker corrects the title from Senator to Chairman Lakey and directs attention to lines 38 and 39 of the bill, referencing the proportionality language.
Todd Lakey — Senator Lakey asks a follow-up question about how to handle parents in sensitive cases involving minors, and the response includes a brief correction of the address to Senator Lakey while continuing the same exchange.
Shawn Dygert — Senator Shawn Dygert repeatedly raised concern that the bill could allow taxpayer-funded public institutions or schools to use public dollars to assist with social transitioning, even with parental consent, and suggested this issue should be addressed separately in the bill.
Shawn Dygert — Senator Shippey questions Ms. Tolman about her concern that schools or medical professionals may overcomply by notifying parents, asking what burden or problem exists with simply notifying parents about a requested name or nickname. Ms. Tolman responds to the concern by addressing overcompliance, the 72-hour notification requirement, and the penalty structure, with the chair briefly interjecting to move the exchange along.
Dr. Angie McDevitt — Dr. Angie McDevitt was called forward to begin public testimony, then later responded to follow-up questions about confidentiality and parent involvement. She said she does not want to keep secrets from parents, and explained that when a teenager shares something sensitive in her office, she works to make the child feel safe enough to disclose while exploring the situation further.
Angie McDevitt — Angie McDevitt, president of the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians, testified in opposition to House Bill 822. She explained that physicians already work carefully to build trust and open communication with teenagers, often trying to involve parents when appropriate, but that the bill would make these sensitive conversations more difficult and could undermine professional judgment. She argued that no law can force a child to disclose information to parents, and warned that the bill could contribute to physician burnout, discourage doctors from practicing in the state, and expose providers to severe penalties such as large fines and license revocation. She concluded by urging a no vote on the bill.
Dr. McDevitt — Dr. McDevitt explained that in her practice she usually involves parents and sees older children alone for part of the visit, but she must navigate disclosures carefully to preserve the child’s trust and keep them safe. She said children often do not tell parents everything during difficult transitions, and that if a child discloses something sensitive, the provider may need to work through how and when to involve the family. She raised concern that routine disclosure or reporting requirements could frighten children, change the provider-child relationship, and make them less willing to share important information. She also noted that the bill is unclear to her because the definition of a 'request' is unclear, and described how standard office practice already includes private conversations with minors and, when needed, follow-up visits to explore concerns while balancing legal and clinical obligations.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Foreman questioned the witness about how she would handle a minor patient under the legislation if the parents were unknown or had never been met, asking how she would proceed in that situation. The exchange then transitioned back to the chair and included a brief correction of the senators being addressed, but no new substantive topic was introduced.
Daniel Foreman — Asked what a physician should do when parents refuse gender-affirming care for a minor patient.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Foreman questions Ms. Tolman about using student safety as a reason for not notifying parents, asking for clarification on that rationale and whether law enforcement should be involved if there is a physical safety threat.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Daniel Foreman is identified as seconding the motion, then speaks in support of the legislation, thanking the chair and witnesses and expressing approval of the testimony and the bill’s emphasis on parental authority.
Edward Clark — Edward Clark is introduced as the next witness, states for the record that he is a policy analyst with the Idaho Family Policy Center, and expresses support for House Bill 822.
Heather Scott — Clark thanks Representative Skog for bringing the bill forward. The exact member ID is uncertain because 'Skog' does not match the expected list cleanly.
Heather Scott — The chair thanked Ms. Webb and closed her testimony period.
Carrie Semmelroth — A senator, addressed with a garbled name, asks Mr. Clark about the bill’s subparagraphs and reporting requirements, including subparagraph 8 and sex transition procedures. Clark responds directly to the senator’s question.
Richard Cheatum — Mr. Clark was questioned about how covered entities should navigate the bill and avoid penalties, especially when the duty to report to parents is triggered. He explained that the reporting duty arises when the child makes the request, and noted that the bill sponsor would be better suited to explain the mechanics of the aiding-and-abetting provision. The exchange then concluded with thanks for his testimony and a transition to the next witness.
Jess Rowland — The committee repeatedly tried to connect with Jess Rowland from Pocatello virtually, first moving on to him and then making another attempt a few minutes later, including saying they would give him one more try.
Kathy — The committee attempted to move to Kathy, but she was also virtual and not reached.
Mary Brown — Mary Brown was called to testify, introduced herself as a Boise parent speaking in opposition to the bill, urged the committee to vote no, and was then thanked with no questions asked.
Jennifer Arzola — Jennifer Arzola testified as a Boise parent of a trans-identified young adult, describing how her child’s school changed her daughter’s name and used male pronouns without informing her. She said her attempts to get answers were ignored and that, looking back, she would have pushed harder when the school acted without her knowledge. Arzola argued that parents have a right to be informed and involved in major decisions affecting their children, and she concluded by urging passage of the bill, saying secrecy did not protect her daughter.
Jessica Rowland — Jessica Rowland, a family medicine physician in southeast Idaho, testified virtually in opposition to House Bill 822. She identified herself and then explained that she believes strongly in parental involvement, arguing that the bill would restrict parental rights and provider referrals while creating legal risk for clinicians.