[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6379624,"mediaKeyId","2135567-11d215dcd5d1fb985d656d00a1ee89ff","parentId",2135567,"title","Committee hears competing views on draft social‑media age‑verification bill; sponsors will refine language","audioSeconds",949,"startMs",9035000,"endMs",9984000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135567-11d215dcd5d1fb985d656d00a1ee89ff&start=9035&end=9984","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135567-11d215dcd5d1fb985d656d00a1ee89ff/thumbnail_9035000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6379624/Indiana/Committee-hears-competing-views-on-draft-socialmedia-ageverification-bill-sponsors-will-refine-language","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379624-b95469b0d4256c998dcfcd9e3187184e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771073459&Signature=Dy6-qaVUl2~kcrpO6-ydqKdEYGkDCavVeuNrP4Jk9NDsrNzcqCGIJP~h0FEverbbnlNwPEhBcsrnHvZe2mCxF6uz8T9nqaW5UNoQpKjaURIiziSSb~XiAjmXsCBrqeNxeNzaaMJ-UBr1mbhSXYxE09TeGIffei2-apn1mPZ9PWUO5elw-RJzya8HGX7i0pvVmehOVMGOVDiIjeSSoMu0Y1QXxbvTZ65nzFI-EqUXvjRzkar5JchkBK0Qrwev3wa48lmCzTLcgKE~miS85OBC-cXcMOnxhq2CEU94qjkI3Qx~HKpUT8uqHRw0uNX1fR2h9ItQXFMnXlMP8jDDziwoNA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Indiana Senate Legislation","date","2025-01-08T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 11, a bill that would require social‑media operators to obtain verifiable parental consent before a minor (15 and under in the current draft) can access account‑based social media, drew competing testimony and legal concerns at the Judiciary Committee hearing.

Author Senator Patrick Bohachuk said the bill’s aim is not to regulate content but to address the broader public‑health question of whether social‑media access itself is harming children. He told the committee the draft narrows \"social media\" from broader online services, removes a private cause of action and will give operators 30 days to cure violations after a complaint from the Attorney General.

Alexander Mingus of the Indiana Catholic Conference supported the bill as a tool to give parents additional control over their children’s online formation and called for protections that would encourage parental involvement. He said the measure \"gives parents a tool for checking unmonitored and unapproved social media usage.\"

Chris Daley of the ACLU of Indiana testified in opposition and urged the committee not to advance the bill in its present form. Daley cited litigation in other states: he said materially similar laws in Arkansas and Ohio have been enjoined by courts and argued SB 11 risks infringing minors’ First Amendment interests and that the statutory approach is vulnerable to legal challenge. Daley urged investment in mental‑health resources and parental education as alternatives.

Committee members asked technical questions about age‑verification, the difference between account‑based access and general web browsing (for example, viewing publicly posted videos without logging in), and how platforms would handle conflicting parental permissions in shared‑custody situations. Senator Bohachuk said the bill will require commercially reasonable verification methods and that parents would not be required to transmit a driver’s license; the sponsor said data‑privacy safeguards and encryption requirements are included in the draft amendment.

No vote was taken; the author said stakeholders have already met and that he will circulate a draft amendment to tighten definitions and provide a cure period before AG enforcement. The committee will consider the revised language at a future meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Judiciary - January 8, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 11, a proposal to require parental verification before minors use account‑based social media, prompted supporters who cited youth mental‑health concerns and opponents who said similar laws have been enjoined in other states; author and stakeholders will work on a narrower amendment before the bill returns to committee.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Standing, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Indiana","taxId",20199,"location","Indiana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6379628,"Committee hears broad support for automatic sealing of qualifying eviction records; technical questions remain",2469,6295000,8764000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135567-11d215dcd5d1fb985d656d00a1ee89ff&start=6295&end=8764","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135567-11d215dcd5d1fb985d656d00a1ee89ff/thumbnail_6295000.jpg","/articles/6379628/Indiana/Committee-hears-broad-support-for-automatic-sealing-of-qualifying-eviction-records-technical-questions-remain","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379628-478f4e6271921b621e861fed088e3be0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771073459&Signature=Bu~G5XG-UOmimhDOSXjdAj8-Pi495uKvcoL0tEvYfzfOpo0Mh4IXrK5eyUnj~MOnv~y~2dY0w-gJ9RpvDHQPAhQyoUOsjQa9ipOneRMjhXFLz7wTgSgp8F2kq15ezETkwnLig4yeOllS~OCpqol~Zw~0YIrZ2ZwFnJ5TbCvmmec4jK78FSPan8UI0UIbSSrOGEJ0XD-S8ZzTHy~cCupNMuJJB4ed-NXAtvjYsCw1EBZe1A2f5FVXRpgdYEvDcZ8q6OwA6D-O7WR75ZX~4uNnSr-pwVUlp-v9WYD-pS8JA5bU-u2mtJ83JqF8YSwZWHywNLXFqZNr9a5GpWVl0CtmDA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 142, a proposal to expand eviction‑record sealing and to make sealing automatic in qualifying cases, received broad support from legal aid, housing advocates and social‑service groups at the Judiciary Committee hearing.

David Pruitt, director of the Eviction Clinic at Notre Dame Law School, told the committee the bill improves an existing 2022 eviction‑sealing statute by ensuring cases dismissed or won by tenants are not left on public records and by allowing sealing when judgments have been satisfied. He said the proposed 7‑year automatic sealing window recognizes people can change circumstances and should be able to move on.

Indiana Legal Services attorney Jenny Terry said her organization filed more than 1,600 eviction‑sealing petitions last year and ran clinics across the state; she described common practical barriers for tenants who try to petition a court themselves — printing forms, serving landlords, and missing court dockets — and supported automatic sealing to reduce those burdens. Terry told the committee she found sealed eviction records still present on third‑party background reports about 82% of reviewed cases, which she said shows the need for better administrative sealing and follow‑through.

Witnesses from Prosperity Indiana, United Ways, and AARP cited public‑health and economic harms from evictions and supported the bill as a tool to improve housing stability, reduce homelessness risk and help renters qualify for housing or mortgages. Notre Dame’s Pruitt recommended a shorter 3‑year sealing window in his written report; committee members discussed 3‑year versus 7‑year options during questioning.

Title companies and bar‑association representatives raised technical concerns about money judgments and title searches. Elizabeth Berg of the Indiana Land Title Association said automatic sealing could obscure unpaid monetary judgments that have become judgment liens and attach to after‑acquired property; she and others proposed a drafting fix that would preserve the ability of judgment creditors to find and enforce outstanding money judgments while still sealing eviction dockets from public consumer‑facing searches.

Committee members asked court‑administration and technology questions about which office would implement automatic sealing across multiple townships and how sealed cases would be excluded from public background reports and commercial tenant‑screening services. Witnesses said many eviction dockets are handled in small‑claims procedures and that automatic sealing could also reduce court workload by removing petitions that otherwise would have required thousands of sealing hearings.

The committee did not vote on the bill at the hearing and will consider amendments and potential changes in a future meeting.","Witnesses including tenant‑advocates, legal aid groups and housing organizations supported Senate Bill 142 to expand automatic sealing of eviction records; witnesses and senators identified technical and implementation questions about judgment liens, court searchability and administrative workload.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6379633,"Committee hears hours of testimony on parental‑rights bill; members hold measure for amendment",5921,327000,6248000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135567-11d215dcd5d1fb985d656d00a1ee89ff&start=327&end=6248","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135567-11d215dcd5d1fb985d656d00a1ee89ff/thumbnail_327000.jpg","/articles/6379633/Indiana/Committee-hears-hours-of-testimony-on-parentalrights-bill-members-hold-measure-for-amendment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379633-3bee568b4de7933cc5fa12cc74c990ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1771073459&Signature=S-9LKAIHz0m2FZ8YrfjHuAKinQYxGsOeKAx3XR6gFd8-HGXxYDtva3hhXOeWz6wXRIDtwYJ-GlSiTIVJI7NKABMQ5Xd9U3mkLjx1in-1yLZI1DUKwu9b9rRgKwoqQvYxoa11juutNMZ31zxQUlMOtR0XfYt~m0OS7dcgYf56pClHQ5QHzk~-AIRVoYaBxDtHg3JiIcqpEE8JLRQRh1B3dqX1tfsqlyBxHKIpZDO~CUS7~sRM8jByHgZ6iIUFBZwJQzDM~YwqntA1JXtHkcCi1xxUllN7gqK-oTZCQMC~nSVcm3WBjwj4tl4kCOvdb8G134yftWwCtVB31uCaWEZOXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 143, a bill that would declare parental rights fundamental and allow a statutory cause of action against governmental entities in some circumstances, drew extended testimony and follow-up questions from members of the Judiciary Committee on its first hearing.

Sponsor Chair Liz Brown opened the discussion and said the measure, described as advancing parental involvement and codifying case law standards, had been negotiated following last year’s session. Jordan Carpenter of the Center for Public Policy at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) testified in support and described clients who say school and government officials altered records or withheld information from parents. Carpenter told the committee: \"Parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children,\" and said the bill would elevate that right in state code while preserving immunities for judicial officers and government employees acting within the scope of their duties.

Multiple parents and attorneys gave detailed accounts of interactions with the Department of Child Services (DCS). Miranda and Grant Phillips described a case in which DCS removed their children in December 2022 and kept them out of the home for roughly 347 days; the couple said their youngest was later diagnosed with Ehlers‑Danlos syndrome and the criminal or civil substantiation processes remained in progress. Attorney Dawn Marie White, who represents families in child‑welfare cases, said she regularly sees parents denied medical records and delayed access to courts; she told the committee the earliest hearings are often non‑evidentiary and that discovery of medical records can take months. White said, \"When DCS limits that information, the parents have no recourse, except getting to court to get it unlimited again.\"

Attorney Joshua Hershberger and other witnesses urged a statutory route to allow parents to seek relief in state court when they allege their constitutional rights were violated during DCS proceedings; Hershberger cited federal parental‑rights precedents (Troxell v. Granville; Parham; Stanley) and said the bill would \"codify a federal standard\" in Indiana law and provide accountability when state actors make allegedly false representations. ACLU of Indiana counsel Chris Daley testified about concerns the bill’s broad sweep could affect about 14% of Indiana’s workforce because it reaches most government employees and warned the committee that vague terms such as \"advise, direct, coerce\" and the broad definition of \"information\" could implicate minors’ privacy or routine administrative actions.

Committee members repeatedly asked about specific provisions. Senator Cindy Carrasco and others pressed witnesses about the bill’s strict‑scrutiny language — which makes parental rights a fundamental right subject to compelling‑interest review — and about section 7, which says the chapter \"may not be construed to grant a parent the right to access\" a medical treatment to which a child has no affirmative right. Carpenter and other attorneys said the provision is intended not to override existing limits on minors' access to certain medical procedures (for example, statutes restricting gender‑affirming medical care for minors) and that the statutory language tries to preserve judicial and quasi‑judicial immunities.

Committee leadership said SB 143 would be held for amendment and vote next week; Chair Brown told members she expects to add language to protect public defenders’ attorney–client privileges and refine immunity language. No formal vote on the bill occurred at the hearing.

The committee hearing included detailed procedural exchanges about DCS timelines: witnesses said detention hearings occur within 48 hours of removal but are often summary (non‑evidentiary), and that fact‑finding hearings can be delayed beyond statutory 60‑day windows for various reasons. Several testifiers described ongoing federal lawsuits or administrative appeals related to their cases.

The committee did not adopt amendments at the hearing and will consider amendments and a final vote at its next meeting.","Senate Bill 143, a measure to codify parental rights and create a statutory cause of action, drew extensive testimony from parents, attorneys and advocates about interactions with Department of Child Services and schools; the committee held the bill for amendment and planned a vote next week.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6379640,"Senate committee approves routine code-publication bill 9-0",98,226000,324000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135567-11d215dcd5d1fb985d656d00a1ee89ff&start=226&end=324","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135567-11d215dcd5d1fb985d656d00a1ee89ff/thumbnail_226000.jpg","/articles/6379640/Indiana/Senate-committee-approves-routine-code-publication-bill-9-0","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379640-562e55e66e6d5216e23314e85f62fb84/orig.mp4?Expires=1771073459&Signature=SFlgWF1qJaQVvHWco0rKvk-AVdLDnZwdI7kg~vGfKuqGHeCNWs4EtL-dfoDtkBRsLPuUZyTQyIhmt6QDMiHfsFuDBPaXi1qOP74SiE8CzVFu3AksC5oX2GOC1IQPtyfKn4OsuEa1b4~ox5vLRrMdECUamHBJjqZKkH7NXeaJjjFk0HE2oZwIJv89KmEHwNKp~r0jHUnwAUl0JIfw1Ax9SluIRUwGqaTxyZ50z-0hOqF9BGKMktIxTCag8zdzbbT1jSC27Mdc2RxOTMEvVHr40~uF2UV2VI-0TEW8aLJFHoOFQ-LMZXha-tI9j-ZA08xldNPR~PlLGym6hpd~La1bSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Senate Bill 80, the annual code-publication and cleanup bill, by a 9-0 vote during the committee's first hearing.

Committee Chair State Senator Liz Brown said the measure is \"the annual senate code publication bill\" and described it as a cleanup effort meant to move definitions and old sections into updated parts of the code. Sponsor Senator Aaron Freeman moved the bill and the committee seconded the motion; the roll call returned a unanimous affirmative result.

The bill’s sponsor and Legislative Services attorneys told the committee the measure contains no substantive policy changes but reorganizes statutes and replaces obsolete cross-references. Freeman said items such as election-law definitions are being relocated, not removed, and asked for the committee’s support. There were no questions and the committee took a formal roll call on the motion.

The committee recorded the final roll call result as 9 to 0 in favor; the chair announced the vote on the record. The committee did not attach any amendments at the hearing.

Committee staff indicated the bill will proceed under the committee’s process toward further consideration by the full Senate per the chamber’s schedule.","The Judiciary Committee moved Senate Bill 80, the annual state code publication/cleanup bill, by unanimous voice vote; sponsor characterized it as non-substantive housekeeping.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears competing views on draft social‑media age‑verification bill; sponsors will refine language

Committee hears broad support for automatic sealing of qualifying eviction records; technical questions remain

Committee hears hours of testimony on parental‑rights bill; members hold measure for amendment

Senate committee approves routine code-publication bill 9-0