Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Indecent Exposure Dignity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contentious hearing on bill to expand indecent-exposure law and define dignity; opponents warn it targets transgender people
Summary
House Bill 446 prompted extensive testimony and sharp disagreement as the Senate Judiciary Committee debated proposed changes to indecent-exposure law that proponents said protect dignity and opponents said would target transgender people and create vague criminal standards.
House Bill 446 drew the longest and most contested hearing of the day. Sponsor Representative Jedidiah Hinkle described the bill as an update to indecent-exposure laws to ensure that exposing intimate parts in public “can be a chargeable offense in public places” and said the change is intended to protect dignity, which the sponsor tied to Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution.
Proponents, including the Montana Family Foundation and several individual witnesses, argued the bill would protect people — especially women and survivors of sexual violence — from unwelcome exposure and humiliation in restrooms, locker rooms and other public places. Proponents cited the constitutional language describing human dignity and urged the committee to adopt clearer statutory protections.
Opponents included numerous transgender Montanans, civil-rights advocates, health and social-service providers, the ACLU of Montana, and criminal-defense and victims-service groups. Opponents argued the bill singles out transgender people for criminalization, contains vague standards (notably the absence of a statutory definition for “dignity” and broad definitions of “public place”), could criminalize everyday activities (including breastfeeding) and could place people with disabilities at risk. Several witnesses said trans people already face high rates of violence and that similar laws in other states have increased harassment and threats.
Legal analysts and public defenders raised concerns that the bill creates different mental-state standards across portions of the statute and that section 4’s language—criminalizing exposure to members of the opposite biological sex or opposite the person’s sex observed at birth—effectively targets transgender people, even if the bill’s text does not use the word “transgender.” Other speakers warned the bill’s exemptions for minors with guardians or for people with developmental disabilities (when a guardian is present) were internally inconsistent and could perversely preclude victims from being treated as victims in some circumstances.
Committee members asked detailed constitutional and enforcement questions, and staff noted potential vagueness and due-process issues. After the hearing, senators discussed the bill’s language and requested additional legal analysis and a fiscal check because of concerns about registry placement and criminal-record consequences. The committee did not advance the bill on final action that day; members agreed to hold the bill for further study and requested follow-up research.
