Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislation Child Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews draft to rename statutes 'child sexual abuse material' and considers grooming, doll bans and enhanced penalties
Summary
Counsel presented a draft to replace 'child performance' language with 'child sexual abuse material/production' and reviewed grooming statutes and proposals to criminalize child‑grooming behaviors and regulate child‑sex‑doll importation. Members asked for LC drafts, judicial education, and options on penalties and civil remedies.
Lawmakers on the Protection and Victim Services Committee reviewed counsel’s proposed statutory language changes and sampled model statutes from other states as they discussed criminalizing grooming behaviors and regulating child‑sex dolls.
Counsel’s draft and rationale: Committee counsel walked members through LC 27.0102 and related sections, proposing to replace the term "performance" with "production" and to adopt the phrase "child sexual abuse material" in place of older, ambiguous language. Counsel said the change is largely terminology-driven and intended to center the abusive nature of the material rather than imply consent or theatrical performance.
Grooming and comparative models: Counsel also presented LC 27.9146, which summarized grooming statutes from several states that define a course of conduct (Delaware), specify age‑gaps (several states use a four‑year differential), or criminalize electronic enticement and seduction. Members discussed whether to set a specific victim‑age threshold (some drafts used enhanced penalties for victims under 15), whether to treat vulnerable adults separately, and whether civil remedies or state‑backed civil actions on behalf of victims should be pursued. A prosecutor who has handled grooming prosecutions supported the draft and urged penalties that reflect the harm and the grooming course of conduct.
Child‑sex dolls: Counsel also summarized international and state action on anatomically correct childlike sexual devices and robots, noting 11 states have laws that restrict possession, manufacture or importation. Counsel provided peer‑reviewed resources and circulated a draft bill from child‑advocacy stakeholders for committee review.
Committee response and next steps: Members asked counsel to circulate official LC draft language for committee review ahead of the next meeting, directed staff to collect attorney‑general comments that were referenced in the memorandum, and discussed pursuing training for judges and prosecutors. The committee did not vote on a draft at this meeting but indicated interest in preparing an LC draft for consideration.
