Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parental Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee divided as bill would limit child-removal based on parenting tied to 'biological sex'
Summary
Rep. Lori Cororsen and supporters said HB 1376 protects parents' liberty to raise children consistent with belief; opponents and transgender speakers said the draft risks harming vulnerable youth and could exclude foster/adoptive caregivers—testimony highlighted emotional, legal and drafting concerns.
Rep. Lori Cororsen introduced HB 1376 to the Senate Children and Family Law Committee as a measure to "safeguard the fundamental liberty interest of parents to make decisions concerning the care of their children." She described the bill as not altering abuse statutes but as narrowing one factor that cannot, by itself, support findings of abuse or grounds to remove children from parents.
Supporters argued the bill would prevent government overreach and preserve a pool of foster and adoptive parents by preventing ideological litmus tests. Representative Katherine Prudholm O'Brien and other sponsors described cases in other states where prospective foster parents were screened out for beliefs about gender identity; they urged the committee to protect religious liberty and parental conscience.
Opponents, including Michael Haley of a legal-advocacy group, told the committee he had searched for documented cases where parental removal occurred solely because of nonaffirmation of a child's gender identity and found such instances rare or driven by other factors. Mental-health and transgender speakers said restricting interventions or permitting parental nonaffirmation as a categorical defense could endanger some youth. A transgender speaker, Macy Dagel, said testimony and data show gender-affirming environments reduce suicide risk.
The hearing included sharply personal testimony: Alexandra Lashenko described a long family legal struggle after a local child-protection intervention in another state; Alec Rogers and other speakers recounted mental‑health consequences for transgender people denied affirmation. Legal witnesses flagged drafting issues: Representative Timothy Han and one attorney raised concerns that a statutory carve‑out could be overbroad as written and recommended mirroring existing statutory language used for religious‑belief exceptions to avoid unintentionally immunizing abusive conduct.
Committee reaction: members asked technical drafting questions and requested example language; some suggested interim study or amendments to align the draft with statutory structure. The public record shows the committee heard extensive testimony but left further drafting and potential amendments for subsequent meetings.
