Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Trafficking Prevention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears testimony on human‑trafficking awareness curriculum; supporters seek a one‑hour unit, opponents raise curricular concerns
Summary
Representative David Richter presented House Bill 15‑69 to require trafficking‑awareness instruction for students between grades 7 and 12; proponents urged a brief, actionable lesson, while opponents warned about curricular framing and called for consent and healthy‑relationships education to precede instruction.
Representative David Richter introduced House Bill 15‑69, a proposal to require awareness and prevention instruction about human trafficking (the bill text and witnesses used both the terms “human trafficking” and “sexual trafficking”) for students sometime between grades 7 and 12.
Richter said the Office of the Attorney General has a specialized unit and could support training; he described the bill as flexible about delivery and said the AG’s office could play a “train‑the‑trainer” role. He asked the committee to allow school districts to decide how to integrate the instruction into existing coursework rather than requiring a standalone course.
Ria Bahadur, a Stanford University student and the bill’s author/proponent in past versions in other states, testified in strong support. She said the curriculum could be as brief as a one‑hour lesson that is actionable and accurate, and she urged the committee to treat trafficking education as a moral imperative, citing national and state statistics (she said a large share of trafficking cases are sexual trafficking and that children account for a substantial portion of victims). She said accessible, open educational resources or third‑party nonprofit materials could be used so districts do not face large materials costs.
Supporters including Jacob Thompson of North Dakota Family Alliance Legislative Action said awareness is a critical first step; he described how a college course changed his awareness and argued early instruction would reach many at‑risk students.
Opponents raised curriculum and framing concerns. Andrew Alexis Farvel opposed the bill as drafted, saying that language requiring information about “race, gender, and socioeconomic status” could lead to problematic framing and that the bill risked importing controversial social‑theory topics into required instruction. Cody Shuler of the ACLU said the ACLU did not oppose the idea of trafficking instruction but asked the committee to ensure that instruction be preceded by clear, evidence‑based standards for healthy relationships, sexual‑health education, and consent; the ACLU witness recommended updating health education standards to include consent as a prerequisite to trafficking instruction.
The committee closed the hearing after receiving public testimony; no formal committee vote on the bill was recorded in the transcript during this session.
