House Health Committee advances SB 79, a bill to define male and female in state law, after contested public hearing

The Alabama House Health Committee voted to give a favorable report to SB 79, a bill that would define the terms ‘‘male,’’ ‘‘female,’’ ‘‘man’’ and ‘‘woman’’ in state law, after a public hearing that drew supporters and opponents and included questions from committee members about intersex people, birth certificates and privacy protections.

Sponsor testimony described the measure as a definitions bill and said it aims to provide clarity and certainty in state statutes. Senator Weaver and Representative Dubose (sponsors in the Senate and House) framed the bill as grounding legal definitions in biology; supporters included religious leaders and the Eagle Forum of Alabama. Opponents — including people who identified themselves as a biologist, family members, and people who said the bill would erase trans and intersex Alabamians — testified that the proposed definitions do not reflect modern biological complexity and could lead to harm.

During the public hearing, Bishop Tim Lowe testified in support, characterizing male and female distinctions as rooted in religious doctrine. Becky Garretson of Eagle Forum of Alabama supported the bill and said legal definitions are important for the accuracy of the state’s vital statistics. A biologist identified as Samuel Bartley (testimony read by Jordan Price) said the bill’s definitions were not those used in biology and warned the measure could target transgender people. Testifiers who identified as transgender or intersex described real-world consequences they said would follow from narrowing legal definitions.

Committee members asked specific questions about how the bill would treat people born with differences in sex development (DSD or intersex). The sponsor said the bill includes an accommodation provision and that ‘‘unknown’’ is used on birth certificates when sex cannot be determined at birth; the sponsor said that has occurred four times in the last five or six years in Alabama. Committee members also pressed sponsors on whether the bill would create policing of restrooms or sports; the sponsor said the bill does not create ‘‘bathroom police’’ and characterized the legislation as a definitions bill, while also noting it addresses public accommodations and single-sex spaces may exist under law.

Representative Rafferty proposed an amendment to add explicit privacy protections — for example, prohibiting compulsory genital inspections or monitoring devices in public facilities — but the amendment failed for lack of a second. The committee then voted by voice to give the bill a favorable report; no roll-call tally is recorded in the transcript.

Supporters said the measure would protect women’s opportunities in sports and preserve legal clarity. Opponents said the bill would erase transgender and intersex people from law, could harm access to services, and relies on disputed scientific claims. The committee advanced SB 79 to the next stage of the legislative process.