Indiana State Legislation

Senate Bill 480: Civil Enforcement for Prohibition of Gender Affirming Care

Prohibits gender affirming care for any individual under 18 years of age, including to “alter the gender of the minor or delay puberty.” Provides disciplinary actions that may be taken toward healthcare providers including revoking licenses and subjecting them to civil liability.

Senate Bill 480
Authored by Sen. Tyler Johnson.
Co-Authored by Sen. Gary Byrne, Sen. Stacey Donato, Sen. Blake Doriot, Sen. Mike Gaskill, Sen. James Buck, Sen. Aaron Freeman, Sen. Jeff Raatz, Sen. Andy Zay, Sen. Greg Walker, Sen. Mark Messmer, Sen. Jack Sandlin, Sen. Linda Rogers, Sen. James Tomes, Sen. Rick Niemeyer, Sen. Brian Buchanan, Sen. Scott Alexander, Sen. John Crane, Sen. Michael Young.

DIGEST
Gender transition procedures for minors. Prohibits a physician or other practitioner from knowingly providing gender transition procedures to an individual who is less than 18 years of age (minor) that are intended to alter the gender of the minor or delay puberty. Provides for certain medical exceptions. Establishes civil enforcement actions.

Actions for Senate Bill 480
S 02/27/2023 Amendment #4 (Yoder) failed; Roll Call 165: yeas 12, nays 37
S 02/27/2023 Amendment #7 (Brown L) prevailed; voice vote
S 02/27/2023 Second reading: amended, ordered engrossed
S 02/23/2023 Senator Young M added as coauthor
S 02/23/2023 Committee report: amend do pass, adopted
S 02/21/2023 Senator Charbonneau added as second author
S 01/30/2023 Senator Crane added as coauthor
S 01/23/2023 Senator Ford Jon removed as coauthor
S 01/19/2023 First reading: referred to Committee on Health and Provider Services
S 01/19/2023 Coauthored by Senators Byrne, Donato, Doriot, Gaskill, Buck, Ford Jon, Freeman, Raatz, Zay, Walker G, Messmer, Sandlin, Rogers, Tomes, Niemeyer, Buchanan, Alexander
S01/19/2023 Authored by Senator Johnson

Link to PDF file of introduced bill: SB0480.01.INTR

Continue ReadingSenate Bill 480: Civil Enforcement for Prohibition of Gender Affirming Care

House Bill 1338: Don’t Say Gay (or Race) Bill

UPDATE: The House passed a similar bill House Bill 1608 – that targets just LGBTQ students and topics in public schools and allow mandates bullying of students by other students and staff, also mandating outing gender non-conforming students to their parents. HB 1608 was passed to the Indiana Senate.

Prohibits teaching information about sexual orientation, gender identity, or race at any ‘state educational institution’ which appears to cover not just K-12 but also higher education. Includes any mandatory training about equity, diversity and inclusion regarding women’s issues, sexual orientation, gender identity, and race: “shall not promote in any course certain concepts related to race or sex.” Also prohibits teaching historical context of racism, sexism, and LGBTQ discrimination in classes in both K-12 and higher education.

House Bill 1338
Introduced House Bill (H)
Authored by Rep. Shane Lindauer.

DIGEST
Education matters. Provides that a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a school corporation or charter school shall not promote in any course certain concepts related to race or sex. Provides that a state educational institution may not require a student enrolled at the state educational institution to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling. Provides that a state educational institution may not require a student of the state educational institution to attend any student orientation or other training or presentation that presents information regarding race or sex stereotyping or bias on the basis of race or sex. Provides that a student shall not be required to participate in a personal analysis, an evaluation, or a survey that is established or administered by: (1) a school corporation; (2) a public school; (3) a state accredited nonpublic school; (4) the department of education (department); or (5) a third party vendor of a school corporation, a school, or the department; without the prior consent of the student if the student is an adult or an emancipated minor or the prior written consent of the student’s parent if the student is an unemancipated minor. (Current law provides that a student shall not be required to participate in a personal analysis, an evaluation, or a survey that is not directly related to academic instruction and that reveals or attempts to affect the student’s attitudes, habits, traits, opinions, beliefs, or feelings concerning certain matters without the prior consent of the student if the student is an adult or an emancipated minor or the prior written consent of the student’s parent if the student is an unemancipated minor.) Establishes certain requirements regarding contracts or agreements with third party vendors to: (1) collect or share information from a student personal analysis, evaluation, or survey; or (2) provide software or software tools that can be used for data collection, analysis, evaluation, or survey of a student.

Actions for House Bill 1338
H 01/17/2023 First reading: referred to Committee on Education
H 01/17/2023 Authored by Representative Lindauer

Link to downloadable PDF of Introduced bill HB1338.01.INTR

The racist/Sexist part of the bill is here:

Sec. 1. In accordance with IC 20-33-1-1, a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a school corporation or charter school shall not promote the following concepts in a course:
(1) A particular race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
(2) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
(3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual’s race or sex.
(4) An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by the individual’s race or sex.
(5) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
(6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s race or sex.
(7) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

Sec. 2. The state board shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 necessary to implement this chapter.

SECTION 4. IC 21-41-13 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]:

Chapter 13. Dignity and Nondiscrimination in Postsecondary Education
Sec. 1. A state educational institution may not require a student enrolled at the state educational institution to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling. However, voluntary counseling is not prohibited.
Sec. 2. A state educational institution may not require a student of the state educational institution to attend any student orientation or other training or presentation that presents information regarding race or sex stereotyping or bias on the basis of race or sex.

Continue ReadingHouse Bill 1338: Don’t Say Gay (or Race) Bill

House Bill 1220 – Prohibiting Gender Affirming Care

Authored by Rep. Michelle Davis, HB-1220 Prohibits gender affirming care for young people under the age of 18. No attempt at differentiation between care for precocious puberty from transgender healthcare seems to be written into this bill. It’s possible children with precocious puberty could get swept up in this care denial. Considering kids with PP are the bulk of patients receiving puberty blockers, it will be interesting how they attempt to force clinical disclosure of the reason why blockers are prescribed.

House Bill 1220
Introduced House Bill (H)
Authored by Rep. Michelle Davis.
Co-Authored by Rep. Dale DeVon, Rep. Jake Teshka, Rep. Chris Judy.

DIGEST
Gender transition procedures for minors. Prohibits a physician or other practitioner from knowingly providing gender transition procedures to an individual who is less than 18 years of age (minor) that are intended to alter the gender of the minor or delay puberty. Provides for certain medical exceptions. Establishes civil enforcement actions.

Actions for House Bill 1220
H 01/10/2023 First reading: referred to Committee on Public Health
H 01/10/2023 Coauthored by Representatives DeVon, Teshka, Judy
H 01/10/2023 Authored by Representative Davis

Link to PDF of introduce version of the bill: HB1220.01.INTR

Continue ReadingHouse Bill 1220 – Prohibiting Gender Affirming Care

House Bill 1118 – Criminalizing Gender Affirming Care

Authored by Rep. Lorissa Sweet, HB-1118 Defines gender affirming care as a form of conversion therapy and defines criminal penalties for parents and medical providers who affirm the self-identify of their transgender children.

Related House bills: House Bill 1220, House Bill 1231, House Bill 1589.
Related Senate bill: Senate Bill 480, which is moving in the Senate.

HOUSE BILL No. 1118
Introduced House Bill (H)
Authored by Rep. Lorissa Sweet.
Co-Authored by Rep. Zach Payne.

Prohibited services relating to care of minors. Prohibits specified health care professionals from: (1) performing, or causing to be performed, certain medical procedures on a minor; or (2) subjecting a minor to certain activities that purposely attempt to change, reinforce, or affirm a minor’s perception of the minor’s own sexual attraction or sexual behavior, or attempt to change, reinforce, or affirm a minor’s gender identity when the identity is inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex.

ACTIONS:
H 01/12/2023 Representative Payne Z added as coauthor
H 01/10/2023 First reading: referred to Committee on Public Health
H 01/10/2023 Authored by Representative Sweet

Explanation of State Expenditures:

The bill would result in an increase in workload for the Department of Child Services (DCS) to investigate reports of health care professionals providing prohibited services under the bill to minors and refer cases to law enforcement. The Professional Licensing Agency (PLA) and applicable licensing boards may also experience additional workload to take disciplinary action against practitioners who are alleged to have violated the requirements of the bill. If health care professionals are convicted on felony charges under the bill, the Department of Correction (DOC) would incur additional costs for incarceration. Ultimately, total additional expenditures resulting from the bill will depend on legislative, administrative, and judicial decisions.

Additional Information:
A health care professional who violates provisions of the bill that prohibit certain medical procedures would commit a Level 5 felony. A Level 5 felony is punishable by a prison term ranging from 1 to 6 years, with an advisory sentence of 3 years. The sentence depends on mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The average expenditure to house an adult offender was $27,185 annually, or $74.43 daily, in FY 2022. (This does not include the cost of new construction.) If offenders can be housed in existing facilities with no additional staff, the marginal cost for medical care, food, and clothing is approximately $4,456 annually, or $12.21 daily, per prisoner. These marginal cost estimates are based on contractual agreements with food and medical vendors and projections based on prior years for clothing and hygiene. The estimated average cost of housing a juvenile in a state juvenile facility was $130,547, or $357.42 daily, in FY 2022. The marginal cost for juvenile facilities was $5,125 annually or $14.04 daily

The entire Level 5 sentence may be suspended and the person placed on either probation or community corrections. If no time is suspended, the offender can receive good time credit of 25% and educational credit time. After adjusting for credit time, the offender can be released from prison and placed on parole.

Explanation of State Revenues:
If civil actions are brought against health care professionals, the state General Fund and Common School Fund could collect additional revenue from court fees and criminal fines. Additionally, the PLA and applicable licensing boards could impose fines against violating practitioners, which would be deposited in the state General Fund. However, Licensing boards could also take action against a practitioner’s license, resulting in reduced state General Fund revenue from license fees. The bill’s overall impact on revenue will ultimately depend on administrative and judicial decisions.

Additional Information:

Penalty Provision:
If additional court cases occur and fines are collected, revenue to both the Common School Fund and the state General Fund would increase. The maximum fine for a Level 5 felony is $10,000. Criminal fines are deposited in the Common School Fund. The maximum fine for a Class A misdemeanor is $5,000.

If the case is filed in a circuit or superior court, 70% of the $120 criminal costs fee that is assessed and collected when a guilty verdict is entered would be deposited in the state General Fund. In addition, some or all of the following revenue is deposited into the state General Fund: automated record keeping fee ($20), judicial salaries fee ($20), public defense administration fee ($5), court administration fee ($5), judicial insurance adjustment fee ($1), and the DNA sample processing fee ($3).

Disciplinary Action:
The PLA may impose fines of up to $1,000 against practitioners who violate laws governing their profession. Revenue from fines is deposited in the state General Fund. Biennial license fees for the practitioners named in the bill range from $50 to $200 and are deposited in the state General Fund.

Explanation of Local Expenditures:
If more defendants are detained in county jails prior to their court hearings or receive jail sentences, local expenditures for jail operations may increase. However, any additional expenditures would likely be minimal. [A Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail.] County-owned hospitals could experience additional legal costs if they become involved in litigation against health care professionals practicing at their facilities.

The average cost per day is approximately $64.53 based on the per diem payments reported by U.S. Marshals to house federal prisoners in 11 county jails across Indiana during CY 2021.

Explanation of Local Revenues:
If additional court actions occur and a guilty verdict is entered, local governments would receive revenue from the following sources. The county general fund would receive 27% of the $120 criminal costs fee that is assessed in a court of record. Cities and towns maintaining a law enforcement agency that prosecutes at least 50% of its ordinance violations in a court of record may receive 3% of the criminal costs fee. Persons found guilty of a felony or misdemeanor are also required to pay the document storage fee ($5), which is deposited into the clerk record perpetuation fund, and the jury fee ($2) and the law enforcement continuing education fee ($4), which are both deposited in the county user fee fund.

State Agencies Affected:
Department of Child Services; Professional Licensing Agency; Department of Correction.

Local Agencies Affected:
Trial courts; local law enforcement agencies.

Information Sources:
Margaux Auxier, Department of Correction; IC 35-50-2-7; IC 35-50-3-2; Legislative Services Agency, Indiana Handbook of Taxes, Revenues, and Appropriations, FY 2022; U.S. Department of Justice Marshals Service.

Fiscal Analyst:
Jasmine Noel, 317-234-1360.

Link to introduced version of the bill: HB1118.01.INTR

Continue ReadingHouse Bill 1118 – Criminalizing Gender Affirming Care

Indiana lawmakers to consider ‘don’t say gay’ legislation in 2023

Of course they are.

From the Indianapolis Star:

Indiana lawmakers to consider ‘don’t say gay’ legislation in 2023
Arika Herron
Indianapolis Star

A controversial proposal to restrict discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in schools may be heading to Indiana.

During a legislative conference Friday, an Indiana lawmaker said that a version of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill was being drafted for the upcoming legislative session.

Rep. Bob Behning, an Indianapolis Republican and chair of the House education committee, was speaking during a panel discussion with other legislative leaders previewing some of the educational issues that will be addressed by the legislature when the Indiana General Assembly convenes in January.

More:Legislative leaders brace for mild recession ahead of budget-writing session

He said one of his colleagues would file legislation “similar to what Florida did in regards to sexual orientation.”

Behning would not share the name of the lawmaker carrying the bill. He said he did not yet know if the bill would come to his committee or if he would support such a measure.

It’s unclear how much support “Don’t Say Gay” style legislation would have among legislative leaders, who struggled to coalesce their members around a position on similar issues last session and have seemed interested in turning attention toward workforce and economy issues after the past summer’s special session to pass a near-total ban on abortion in the state.

He did say he supports the general principle of parental rights in education, a concept used to drive other controversial measures last legislative session such as bills to restrict what teachers could say in the classroom about race, politics and history.

“Let’s teach kids the basics and not try to get beyond that in terms of what are parental responsibilities versus what are responsibilities of the school,” he said.

The Florida bill, formally titled Parental Rights in Education, was signed into law last spring. The measure bans classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade.

It also prohibits such teaching in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students, which potentially broadens the ban on discussions to all grade levels.

Parents can sue school districts over alleged violations.

The bill sparked national outrage and concerns about the impact it would have on LGBTQ students for whom schools may be the only place they can speak openly on LGBTQ issues.

A spate of other states has already followed in Florida’s footsteps. In 18 other states, lawmakers attempted similar legislation last year.

Gov. Eric Holcomb said on Friday afternoon that the bill was not on his agenda.

Bill is a ‘gut punch,’ LGBTQ advocates say

LGBTQ advocates in Indiana said they were bracing for the bill to be introduced in the Hoosier state but it was still a “gut punch,” said Chris Paulsen, chief executive officer of the Indiana Youth Group. IYG serves LGBTQ+ youth, providing a safe space, supporting self-empowerment and advocating for affirming communities.

“The damage even having the bill introduced will cause to young people is immeasurable,” Paulsen said. “We will see youth die by suicide because of this. I think it’s that dire and I’m sad that lawmakers don’t realize their actions have really bad consequences, even if the bill doesn’t pass.”

Paulsen said that LGBTQ+ youth often struggle with their mental health, particularly when they don’t have a safe and affirming space. One in four young people are kicked out of their homes when they come out to their families, she said and two of three still in their homes after coming out feel unsafe. Last year, the group served 440 LGBTQ+ youth that were in need of food, housing or clothing assistance. School may be the only safe and affirming place for some LGBTQ+ young people.

Culture wars here to stay at Statehouse

The mention of a “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Indiana is raising concerns that the legislative session will be dominated by culture war issues for the second year in a row. Bills targeting discussions of race and history in classrooms, sexually-explicit content in school library books and transgender students participating in school sports drew protests and prompted hours-long hearings dominated largely by those opposed to the measures.

Sen. J.D. Ford, an Indianapolis Democrat and the Statehouse’s first openly gay member, said the Florida bill was divisive and urged lawmakers to keep culture war issues at bay.

“We have so many more priorities in our state to deal with,” he said, “I don’t think that rises to the level of importance.”

Behning said he did not know legislation similar to the “anti-CRT” or “divisive concept” bills that failed last year would come back but does expect a bill banning books with sexually-explicit content from school libraries to come back.

Continue ReadingIndiana lawmakers to consider ‘don’t say gay’ legislation in 2023

The End of HJR-3 for 2014 (with some thoughts on HB-1153)

Because in the past, I’ve been terrible about writing down the follow-up of the Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment, here’s a wrap-up post in case this comes up again in two years – HJR-3 passed through the state legislature, but we essentially “won” because we succeeded in keeping it off the ballot in 2014.

After my January 24th post, the amendment moved to the floor of the House of Representatives on January 27th. Stephanie and I attended the hearing at the Statehouse for that event, where they opted to remove the second sentence of the bill:

“A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

The amendment now reads only “Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana.”

This is significant because the second sentence had significant problems of interpretation that made it possible to discriminate against anything that resembled a domestic partnership, and threatened things like powers of attorney, living wills and directives, the ability to visit a same-sex partner in the hospital and other ramifications. Similar language in other states’s bills (Ohio, Kentucky) created problems for same-sex couples.

The companion bill – HB 1153, which was intended to “explain the legislative intent” of the second sentence died quietly in the House of Reps because it was no longer relevant. Did I ever post the content of HB-1153? I don’t recall. But here it is, and it reads as a roster of why the second sentence was a problem:

House Bill 1153
House Bill (H)
Authored by: Rep. P Eric Turner

Introduced Version
HOUSE BILL No. 1153
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 1-1-5.6.
Synopsis: Marriage amendment ballot language. Requires that the question of approval of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage proposed by the 117th general assembly be placed on the 2014 general election ballot if the amendment is agreed to by the 118th general assembly. Prescribes the ballot language for the question. Describes the legislative intent of offering the constitutional amendment.
Effective: Upon passage.

Turner, Thompson
January 9, 2014, read first time and referred to Committee on Judiciary.

HOUSE BILL No. 1153
A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning marriage.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 1-1-5.6 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]:

Chapter 5.6. Marriage Amendment to the State Constitution
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, “marriage amendment” refers to any amendment to Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana concerning marriage that was proposed by the one hundred seventeenth general assembly (P.L.231-2011) and agreed to by the one hundred eighteenth general assembly.

Sec. 2. The general assembly intends and establishes that the purpose of the marriage amendment is to restrict the state, through legislative, executive, or judicial action, from creating or recognizing a legal status between unmarried individuals equivalent or substantially similar to marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman. The first sentence of the marriage amendment prohibits the recognition of marriage between persons other than one (1) man and one (1) woman. The second sentence of the marriage amendment prohibits the state from circumventing the mandate of the first sentence by creating or recognizing a legal status equivalent or substantially similar to marriage by a different name.

Sec. 3. The general assembly intends and establishes that the marriage amendment does not prohibit or restrict in any way:

(1) the extension of employment benefits by private sector employers, political subdivisions of the state, or state educational institutions to any beneficiary designated by an employed individual;

(2) the adoption and enforcement of local ordinances granting to any category or class of persons equal opportunities for education, employment, access to public conveniences, access to accommodations, or acquisition of property or to rent property;

(3) an individual from entering into or enforcing terms of a power of attorney, a will, a trust, or another similar lawful agreement or instrument (regardless of name) established for the benefit of another person;

(4) an individual from giving or enforcing a lawful consent or other instrument (regardless of name) that grants powers, rights, or privileges to, imposes obligations on, or provides for the use by or transfer of property to another person;

(5) the protections provided under Indiana’s domestic violence laws or who may qualify for protection from domestic violence; or

(6) action by the general assembly to protect or provide for the property, health, or safety of unmarried persons by appropriate legislation.

SECTION 2. [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE] (a) If the amendment to Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana concerning marriage proposed by the one hundred seventeenth general assembly (P.L.231-2011) is agreed to by the one hundred eighteenth general assembly, the amendment shall be submitted to the electors of the state at the 2014 general election in the manner provided for the submission of constitutional amendments under

IC 3.
(b) Under Article 16, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, which requires the general assembly to submit constitutional amendments to the electors at the next general election after the general assembly agrees to the amendment referred to it by the last previously elected general assembly, and in accordance with IC 3-10-3, the general assembly prescribes the form in which the public question concerning the ratification of this state constitutional amendment must appear on the 2014 general election ballot as follows:

“PUBLIC QUESTION #1
Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended by adding the following language to Article 1:

“Section 38. Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”?”.

(c) This SECTION expires July 1, 2017.

SECTION 3. An emergency is declared for this act.

HB-1153 came about to assuage the objections of many legal scholars who had studied the HJR-3 second sentence and its potential effects and pointed out unintended consequences that had already played out in other states with similar language, or that could be raised in Indiana.

The difficulty is that this bill had no teeth at all – it was a piece of legislation, but HJR-3 was an amendment to the Indiana constitution, where it held sway over this bill and potentially trumped it. HB-1153 could be repealed at any time, leaving the full force of the second sentence un-“interpreted” intact to be carried out.

I wonder how much of an impact reading this bill had, actually, on our state legislators. It surely indicated in plain language the many ways that HJR-3 could be interpreted negatively in ways that were punitive toward same-sex couples by our legal system, and spelling out potential discrimination based on HJR-3 that starkly is pretty damning. It may have been intended to remove the sting of HJR-3’s “second sentence” but I think it probably had the opposite effect in that it highlighted all that could go wrong.

After the second sentence of HJR-3 was removed from that bill in the House, HB-1153 was no longer relevant and passed into oblivion a few days later.

The removal of the second sentence in the House was very exciting because it meant that it would be much harder to to get the Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment onto the ballot this fall in time for 2014 elections. It would have to be put back into the bill by the Indiana Senate and then voted on by both the Senate and the House before voters could see it.

So the bill passed to the Indiana Senate Rules Committee on February 13th, where they declined to hear any amendments to add the second sentence back in.

Senate Hearing Rules Committee

There was great drama surrounding the Rules Committee hearing because the GOP caucus met ahead of the hearing, and Senator Mike Delph from Carmel tweeted the results of the caucus meeting – that there were not enough votes to put the second sentence back in – before the hearing happened, alerting the crowd to what was going to happen.

That didn’t sit well with Senator President Pro Tem David Long, the caucus head. It’s bad form for caucus members to reveal caucus business.

Then as the committee began to meet, they opened with an anti-gay prayer by William Hunt, New Life Church, invited by Senate chaplain.

The bill sailed through the committee as is, first sentence only, very quickly, although it was noted by many people that this was considered impossible even six months ago:

Senator Mike Delph went on to spend the weekend tweeting his anger about the GOP caucus electing not to add the second sentence back into the bill, and delivering rather passionate lectures on god, same-sex marriage and the responsibilities of Indiana churches to back legislative efforts.

It was a very entertaining weekend, and I make sure to screen-cap all of it for posterity.

After that great drama, on Monday, January 17th, the Senate passing the amended version of HJR-3, still without the second sentence, through the full Senate.

This was the vote count:

yea nay vote sheet hjr3

The passage almost seemed anti-climatic, except for some really great speeches delivered by Senators on the floor – Jean Breaux, Karen Tallian, Jim Arnold, Tim Lanane, and Greg Taylor all spoke passionately against HJR-3. It was cathartic to hear them. At the end…

Ultimately, HJR-3 isn’t dead. It still could be passed through another state legislature in 2015 or 2016 and be on the ballot in 2016. I’m not sure which version could or would be considered, so it’s worth keeping the text of HB-1153 around in order to remind people about that second sentence and what it could do.

It does seem a lot less likely that the amendment will pass in 2016 with several federal legal battles on the horizon, though.

Washington Post – Race on same-sex marriage cases runs through Virginia:

The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor is confronting judges with a paradox. On the one hand, the opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and joined by the court’s four liberals noted that defining marriage is traditionally a power reserved for the states.

On the other, the opinion dismissed Congress’s arguments as to why the federal government should recognize only traditional definitions of marriage. It said the arguments were mostly window dressing for unlawful prejudice based on sexual orientation.

State courts and federal judges have embraced that latter reasoning to trump the rights of states, and bans on same-sex marriage have been found unconstitutional since June in New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah. The Utah and Oklahoma decisions are being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, based in Denver.

In effect, said William Baude, a law professor at the University of Chicago who follows the issue, the majority’s language in Windsor has been viewed as “permission” for judges “who might already have been inclined” to believe there is a constitutional right to marry.

Given this, 2015 and 2016 are going to be really interesting years, politically.

Continue ReadingThe End of HJR-3 for 2014 (with some thoughts on HB-1153)

What DOMA means for Indiana: nothing changes, but everything changes

I have not yet begun to fight

Both the ACLU (our friends!) and the Indiana branch of the American Family Association (not our friends at all!) are noting that the DOMA decision by the Supreme Court doesn’t have any direct effect on same-sex marriage in Indiana, according to the Indy Star.

Indiana has a law on the books banning same-sex marriage, and a marriage discrimination amendment (HJR-6) to the state constitution is currently half-way through the legislative process. It will need to be voted through the state legislature and approved by the governor a second time before it can go on Indiana’s ballot.

Technically, it is true that DOMA doesn’t have a direct effect, but the fall of (part of) DOMA is the an important domino to fall in achieving marriage equality in Indiana. The SCOTUS ruling on DOMA today means Indiana and other states where same-sex marriage is not yet recognized will have room to make a case for discrimination on the necessity reciprocity of the law from one state to another. The portion of DOMA that restricts recognizing same-sex marriages from one state in other states is still in place. But given today’s ruling, it’s hard to imagine that it will remain in place for very long, because even before the ruling came down, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was asking pointed questions about DOMA being a question of gender discrimination.

In reality, the only serious barrier that remains now between married gay Hoosiers and legal marriage recognition is the state of Indiana and Hoosier opinion, not the Federal Government. They only thing stopping us now, realistically, is something that WE LGBT HOOSIERS can affect, and something that only we can affect. The fight is now up to us, and it’s a battle we can win, because it’s a battle for hearts and minds in Indiana, where we live, and where we can reach the fight. It’s no longer a fight across the country, or a fight in Washington, D.C. It’s a fight on our home turf.

Back in February Indiana lawmakers were saying that they wanted to wait on pursuing the second have of the Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment (HJR-6), because they wanted to see if the ruling was broad or narrow. They were being canny; they suspected that the courts would rule on a narrow change in DOMA and leave the rest of it in place. But I do think it’s a sign of something else as well.

I really believe that the will to tackle this by our State Legislators is going to wane rapidly, even though they are saying something different in the news this morning. I think that Republican lawmakers, even those in Indiana, are going to realize more fully in the days and weeks to come that they are in the wrong side of this fight, and that it’s not a question of if, but a question of when.

We have beat back this amendment several times over the years. Certainly that was with the help of powerful friends on the Democratic side of the aisle and we don’t have those numbers with us after the last several elections, but we do still have the power of large corporations in Indiana who have stood with us time and again because they understand that they can’t attract a strong workforce in an uneducated and intolerant state. I think if we can get some powerful visuals in place, the average folks in Indiana will start to make the idea unpopular.

As noted at the tail end of the Indy Star’s article on how DOMA affects us:

Ball State University’s Hoosier Poll last fall found Hoosiers evenly split over whether same-sex marriages should be legal. But a majority supported legalizing civil unions and opposed changing Indiana’s constitution to ban gay marriage.

The second sentence of Indiana’s Discrimination Amendment is what will kill the bill – “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” That goes towards animus, and falls afoul of today’s DOMA ruling. It will be the key to beating back this amendment in the state legislature next year, and falling short of that, changing the hearts of Hoosiers across the state.

Continue ReadingWhat DOMA means for Indiana: nothing changes, but everything changes

BMV seeks ‘clarity’ on Indiana Youth Group license plates

Despite the fact that a recent judge’s ruling determined that the state improperly revoked IYG’s specialty license plate, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is asking for ‘clarity’ on the issue, before resuming sales of the specialty plate that both benefits the Indiana Youth Group and earns the State additional tax revenue.

Indiana Youth Group License Plate

I’ve written about this issue before: homophobes in Indiana’s State Legislature have attacked the IYG plates using a two-pronged approach: 1) through state legislation designed to re-write the specialty plate program to exclude the gay youth advocacy organization, and 2) directly by ordering the BMV to stop issuing plates. The BMV complied with the order from legislators by finding a technicality in their own unclear instructions for distributing plates and claiming that IYG violated that rule. Unfortunately other non-profit organizations were caught in the State Legislature’s homophobic cross-fire and had their plates revoked due to the same technicality. Fortunately saner heads in the judicial system prevailed and the BMV were ordered to recind their block on the specialty plates.

It’s fascinating(ly ironic) that the BMV is asking for ‘clarity” given that they have been trying to obscure application information and obstruct IYG’s application for a specialty plate since they first applied for plates in 2009. After being turned down for unclear reasons TWICE, IYG finally sued to get the rules to be made clear for applications with the help of the ACLU in 2010.

After they successfully got a clear understanding of the rules and proved that they met them, they were issued plates – only to have the Indiana State Legislature locate a technicality to get their plates revoked, again through unclear language in the rules about distributing plates.

Where do thing stand now? It’s unclear:

“This does not shut the door at all on IYG getting their plates back,” BMV spokesman Josh Gillespie said. “We’re just looking at some further clarity on some issues that we felt were a little ambiguous.”

Nice that the BMV wants clarity. (Now) To bad they weren’t helpful with that over that for the last 4+ years of this process. But when your homophobic agenda depends on being unclear, it’s not surprising. Presumably those of us who purchased and were issued IYG plates can continue to renew them, but they aren’t resuming new sales right now, until they have clarity.

What could happen in the future:

Even given this judicial ruling, and if the “clarity” happens through the judicial system, the homophobes from the Indiana State Legislature have left themselves a back-door way to eliminate the plate in the future in the form of legislation they passed in the 2013 legislative season.

The Indiana state legislature passed House Bill 1279 in 2013 which states (in digest):

Special group, disabled Hoosier veteran, and National Guard license plates. Creates the special group recognition license plate committee consisting of eight members of the general assembly, and specifies that the primary purpose of the committee is to make recommendations to the bureau of motor vehicles (bureau) regarding special group recognition license plates (plate). Specifies the criteria to be met by a special group for the issuance of a plate. Specifies procedures for continued participation in the special group recognition license plate program by a special group, including sales and renewal requirements. Provides that a person who is an active member of the Army or Air National Guard may apply for and receive one or more National Guard license plates. (Current law requires that the person must be an active member of the Indiana Army or Air National Guard.) Requires the bureau to design a National Guard license plate. Removes the restriction that not more than two disabled Hoosier veteran license plates may be issued to one person. Makes conforming amendments.

Emphasis is mine, and yeah, that language I highlighted is pretty telling – they’ve set up a committee for rubber-stamping specialty group plates, and some criteria that they can manipulate in the future to exclude IYG and potentially other groups they don’t agree with. So even if the judge ‘clarifies’ the rules, the Indiana State Legislature can change the rules in the future on a whim.

Here is hoping that the homophobes will be too embarrassed by their bigoted, bullying behavior targeting teenagers to continue down this path in the future.

Continue ReadingBMV seeks ‘clarity’ on Indiana Youth Group license plates

Bias Crimes Legislation Pending Before Indiana House

Bias Crimes Legislation Pending Before Indiana House. Make Your Voice Heard! Tell Your State Representative why Bias Crimes legislation is good for Indiana.

House Bill 1459 (Bias Crimes) authored by State Representative Greg Porter (D-Indianapolis) will be considered by the full House of Representatives during the week of February 19th. HB 1459 amends Indiana’s sentencing law to add the following as aggravating circumstances for persons who commit “bias crimes,” specifically the person who committed the offense knowingly or intentionally:

(A) selected the individual who was injured by the offense; or (B) damaged or otherwise affected property by the offense; because of the color, creed, disability, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex of the injured individual or of the owner or occupant of the property.

The proposal also creates a civil action which a victim of a bias crime can institute against a bias crime offender.

In an ugly display of bigotry against Indiana’s minority communities, out-of-state groups have unleashed a hateful and false attack on the bias crimes bill. Opponents of the freedom to live free of persecution are flooding the State House with calls to reject HB 1459.

Please counteract their call in campaign by contacting your legislator. You can contact your Legislators through Indiana Equality here.

Continue ReadingBias Crimes Legislation Pending Before Indiana House

Indiana Equality Presents “Our Families Count” Rally at the Statehouse

INDIANAPOLIS – Indiana Equality will host a Statehouse gathering, the “Our Families Count!” rally, on February 9, 2006 from 1pm – 3pm. This event has been organized in response to a recent spate of legislation aimed at relegating lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Hoosiers to second-class status.

“With daylight-savings time, toll roads, and property taxes on the docket, one would think the legislature has more important business to attend to than attacking gay families in this short session,” stated Walter Botich, Indiana Equality legislative committee co-chair.

Angered by advances in local human rights protections, Representative Jeff Thompson (R – Lizton) offered a proposal that was aimed at the LGBT community specifying that local government may not extend protections for employment or housing that is greater than existing state of federal statute. This proposal would have banned human rights protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity – effectively overturning existing laws in Bloomington, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Lafayette, Michigan City, West Lafayette, and Tippecanoe County.

All too often, LGBT families are either overlooked or discounted completely. Indiana Equality encourages all of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens of the state to join them in announcing to the state government that “Our Families Count!”

“This is an exercise of our rights – and it’s happening in the Statehouse rotunda,” observed Kathy Sarris, president of Indiana Equality. “It’s time the State of Indiana started recognizing those rights.”

“It’s time for our community to stand up and be counted. We need to show that our families are just as important as other families around the state,” commented Jerame Davis, Indiana Equality communications committee chair and rally organizer. “We will not be forced into second-class status. We pay our taxes, participate in our communities, and raise our families just like all other Hoosiers. We should be treated equally.”

The “Our Families Count!” rally will feature speakers from several community organizations from around the state. Several legislators have been invited to speak.
Founded in 2003, Indiana Equality is a coalition of organizations from around the state who are focused on providing basic human rights for Indiana’s LGBT citizens. Participating organizations include Interfaith Coalition on Nondiscrimination (ICON), Indiana Transgender Rights Advocacy Alliance (INTRAA), Indiana Action Network (IAN), Justice, Inc., Indiana PFLAG, Indianapolis Rainbow Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Social Workers (NASW) as well as regional steering committees in the Indianapolis, Bloomington, Evansville, Richmond, Ft. Wayne, Lafayette, and South Bend areas.

see more information about Indiana Equality.

Continue ReadingIndiana Equality Presents “Our Families Count” Rally at the Statehouse

Human Rights Ordinance Elimination Bill Withdrawn

Representative Thompson withdrew his amendment today to House Bill 1010 which would have eliminated local human rights protections in cities throughout Indiana. The House reconvened at 1:30 pm today. Rep Thompson withdrew his amendment and the House was recessed until 5:30pm tonight.

This amendment may be only temporarily dead; it could still be attached to another bill sometime during the legislative session, and rumors are that Republicans intend to try just that, potentially at a very busy point in the session to reduce the chance of it being noticed or to reduce the ability of opponents to act on it.

Indiana Equality is still asking people to attend the gathering at the Statehouse at 5 p.m. tonight, to thank legislators for killing the amendment behind the scenes and to help make legislators aware that opponents of the amendment are keeping tabs on the legislature this session.

Also, don’t forget that Indiana Equality is sponsoring a rally in the Statehouse North Atrium (indoors!) on February 9th from 1-3 p.m.

Continue ReadingHuman Rights Ordinance Elimination Bill Withdrawn

Criminal Penalties for women concieving out of wedlock

Yep, that’s what state lawmaker Patricia Miller (R) is proposing legislation for here in Indiana. A bill will be heard by the Health Finance Commission intended to restrict any form of “assisted reproduction” defined as “causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in-vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.” These types of reproduction would only be allowed to married women who pass a court petition and receive a “gestational certificate.”

According to the current draft of the legislation, an intended parent “who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure” without court approval,”
commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor.” The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit “unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction.”

The married parents who might want to participate in “assisted reproduction” are in for some bad news too: some of the required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, hobbies, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans, letter of reference and criminal history checks. A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents is also required, including individual participation in faith-based or church activities.

A really excellent analysis of how many people are affected and how is posted on bopnews.com.
The main intent is to keep lesbians from having kids, but the bill affects unmarried heterosexual women as well, so sit up and take notice single women in Indiana.

Read text of the proposed legislation in this downloadable PDF file.

Article by Laura McPhee in Nuvo
An article about this topic
IndyStar article
The Health Finance Commission
Contact your representative

As several bloggers have pointed out, this legislation would have made Christ’s conception illegal.

“We did want to address the issue of whether or not the law should allow single people to be parents. Studies have shown that a child raised by both parents – a mother and a father – do better. So, we do want to have laws that protect the children,” Miller explained.

Okay — this has got to stop: ” Studies have shown that a child raised by both parents – a mother and a father – do better.”

LIE LIE LIE LIE. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT. DEBUNKED DEBUNKED DEBUNKED DEBUNKED DEBUNKED. It’s a blatant falsehood, people. Studies show no such thing. In fact, studies show the exact opposite; that children raised in households with single parents or with two parents of the same gender do just as well, are just as happy and well-adjusted as kids that grow up with a mom and a dad.

WE HAVE TO TAKE THIS FALSE WEAPON AWAY FROM THEM, BECAUSE PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS LIE.

Continue ReadingCriminal Penalties for women concieving out of wedlock