House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee
Key Moments
Chris Mathias — Raised an excessive-fines concern and compared the bill's penalty to other Idaho penalties.
Chris Mathias — Continued the excessive-fines challenge.
Chris Mathias — Referenced in follow-up to his excessive-penalties concern.
Chris Mathias — Vote is called but not yet completed in this section.
Chris Mathias — Vote is called but not yet completed in this section.
Chris Mathias — Votes yes on the substitute motion and no on the original motion.
Marco Erickson — A substitute was present today for Representative Marco Erickson, who was being represented in the meeting.
Marco Erickson — Marco Erickson is recorded in the roll-call vote sequence: he votes no on the substitute motion, then votes yes on the original motion to send the bill to the floor.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel asked whether the legislation would apply to AI-generated child pornography, specifically in cases where no real child was involved.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel engaged in a sustained question-and-answer exchange with the sponsor about the bill’s notification obligations concerning a child’s appearance or dress. She repeatedly asked whether changes in dress or appearance are among the items that covered entities, such as teachers or doctors, must report to parents, and why appearance or dress is included in the definition of social transition if it is not explicitly listed among the enumerated reporting obligations in section six. The sponsor responded that teachers should report unusual or different behavior, but Rubel continued pressing for clarification on how the bill’s language is meant to work.
Ilana Rubel — The chair apologizes for not being clear on her question.
Ilana Rubel — Prepared to ask questions of the sponsor.
Ilana Rubel — Questioned why appearance and dress are included in the bill if they do not trigger the $100,000 fine.
Ilana Rubel — Asked whether a parent already aware of a child's transition could still seek damages.
Ilana Rubel — Asked where in the bill the no-damages-for-aware-parents limitation is set out.
Ilana Rubel — Continued questioning the damages theory and asked about comparable offenses with $100,000 damages.
Ilana Rubel — Pressed for where the bill states that aware parents have no damages.
Ilana Rubel — Asked whether any comparable offense in the code carries damages up to $100,000.
Ilana Rubel — Votes yes on the substitute motion.
Bruce Skaug — Bruce Skaug is introduced and welcomed to present House Bill 822, then explains the bill’s legislative history, including his earlier 2022 effort, and continues describing prior testimony and concerns raised in hearings about the bill.
Bruce Skaug — Bruce Skaug is repeatedly addressed during a discussion of the bill’s language and notice provisions. The exchange includes a brief misstatement of his title as chairman, then continues with him being addressed as Chairman/Representative Skaug while speakers debate the meaning of subsection 6 and whether the bill already requires a covered entity to notify a minor student’s parent within 72 hours of the student’s request.
Bruce Skaug — The chair is addressed while the witness responds to a question about the bill's notification standard.
Bruce Skaug — The chair announces the committee is moving to closing and voting on the bill.
Bruce Skaug — The witness thanks Representative Skaug for bringing the bill forward.
Bruce Skaug — The chair is invited to wrap up the presentation.
Bruce Skaug — Provides closing remarks and clarifies the bill's notification requirement.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Gannon addresses the chair while raising the concern.
Bruce Skaug — Responded to a question about whether the bill should be fixed and defended the one-parent notification language.
Bruce Skaug — Explained that one-parent notice is intentional because schools may not be able to reach both parents.
Bruce Skaug — Answered the child-abuse hypothetical by saying such parents should not have authority over the child.
Bruce Skaug — Responded that the fine must be proportional to actual damage and said the Attorney General would have to prove damages.
Bruce Skaug — Was thanked by the speaker and is the sponsor being addressed.
Bruce Skaug — Addressed as the sponsor.
Bruce Skaug — Said the appearance-and-dress language was not necessary.
Bruce Skaug — Stated there would be no damages if the parent was aware and supportive of the transition.
Bruce Skaug — The speaker addresses the chair and asks whether there will be an opportunity to debate.
Bruce Skaug — The chair is asked whether there will be an opportunity to discuss the motion.
Bruce Skaug — The chair asks for clarification of the substitute motion and then calls for a vote.
Bruce Skaug — Votes yes on the original motion to send the bill to the floor.
Bruce Skaug — The gavel is relinquished to Chairman Skaug.
Bruce Skaug — Chairman Skaug recognizes the presenter.
Bruce Skaug — The chair asks for questions of the presenter and then recognizes the motion.
Bruce Skaug — Addressed as chairman in the witness's remarks.
Bruce Skaug — The chair directs the witness to speak closer to the microphone.
Bruce Skaug — Not mentioned in this section.
Bruce Skaug — Not actually referenced; removed from mention list?
Matt Sharp — Identified as someone who reviewed the bill and is signed up to testify.
Matt Sharp — Matt Sharp, Senior Counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, testified that secret school transition policies violate parental rights by concealing information from parents when a child expresses a gender identity change. He cited examples from Idaho, Michigan, New York, and other districts to argue that these policies are widespread and often based on model language. Sharp said the bill does not conflict with Idaho’s existing medical parental decision-making law but instead reinforces it by ensuring that notice goes to the person with legal authority and exclusive custody or care of the child, whether a parent or guardian. He also said adding explicit guardian language would be a reasonable clarification and explained that the bill should be read consistently with other sections so disclosure duties flow to the legally responsible adult.
Heather Scott — Continued presenting the bill and said it is intended to ensure parents know what is happening; then opened the floor for questions or witnesses.
Heather Scott — Was thanked by Representative Mathias and identified as the sponsor being questioned.