Latest news with #HouseBill121
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge extends pause on ‘bathroom bill' with preliminary injunction
A sign outside one of the bathrooms in the Montana State Capitol. House Bill 121 would restrict access to bathrooms based strictly on biological sex. (Micah Drew/ Daily Montanan) A district court judge in Missoula extended a pause on state officials from enforcing a new Montana law restricting access to public restrooms, changing rooms and sleeping spaces based on an individual's sex assigned at birth. Missoula District Court Judge Shane Vannatta's 51-page ruling Friday delivered a preliminary injunction blocking House Bill 121 from being enforced. Vannatta last month issued a temporary restraining order on the bill. 'This ruling reaffirms the truth about bathroom bans: they're motivated by prejudice, and they don't protect anyone,' said Robin Turner, Montana staff attorney at Legal Voice working with the plaintiffs, said in a statement. 'HB 121 undermines Montana's strong constitutional protections against government overreach and subjects people to unacceptable privacy violations. Transgender people are vulnerable to violence in restrooms, and they deserve protection instead of persecution.' HB 121, sponsored by Billings Republican Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, applies to all public facilities and those that receive public funding, including correctional centers, juvenile detention facilities, local domestic violence programs, public buildings and public schools. It includes leased public spaces and covers libraries, museums, hospitals, and university buildings, and it requires covered entities to 'take reasonable steps' to keep members of the opposite sex out. In the suit, plaintiffs, including transgender and intersex Montanans, argue HB 121 violates their rights under the state constitution, including 'the rights to equal protection, privacy, to pursue life's basic necessities, and due process.' Attorneys for the State of Montana argued that the law is intended to provide additional protection and privacy for women and girls in these spaces from biological males. 'Today, we're maintaining equal opportunity for all Americans, while also protecting women and girls and their right to safe and separate facilities and activities,' Gianforte said in a statement when he signed HB 121 in March. 'Because we think it's pretty simple. A man shouldn't be in a women's restroom. Shouldn't be in a women's shower room. And shouldn't be housed in a women's prison.' In the court ruling, Vannatta says that the state's argument that the law is not discriminatory against transgender people — because the definitions of 'sex,' 'male,' and 'female' apply to all Montanans — is 'disingenuous.' The plaintiffs in court documents argued that transgender Montanans have been subjected to repeated unequal treatment by the state, pointing to five separate bills passed by the Montana Legislature over the last three sessions that target transgender individuals. 'Transgender Montanans have been subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment and have been relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection.' The court order also says that the state has so far failed to support its arguments that the law helps protect women by not providing evidence of 'how female privacy and safety are threatened by trans females.' 'In addition, the State does not provide evidence of how the safety of trans females may be implicated by requiring trans females to use men's restrooms. The State does not provide evidence of how cis female privacy and safety may be implicated by requiring trans males to use the women's restrooms,' according to the order. The state can appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the preliminary injunction will remain in place until the court rules on the complaint. The decision follows another last week by a Missoula County District Court judge that permanently struck down a law from the 2023 Legislature that sought to ban gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
NC House okays bills on school calendar, medical records for parents and powers of state auditor
The North Carolina Legislative Building (Photo: Clayton Henkel) Lawmakers in the North Carolina House approved a torrent of legislation Tuesday evening, ranging from a more flexible school calendar, expanding parents' access to their children's medical records and expanding the scope of the state auditor's investigations. The floor debate flurry came two days before the legislature's self-imposed Thursday 'crossover' deadline — in which a bill must be approved by one chamber, or else be considered effectively 'dead' for the remainder of the two-year legislative biennium (with some exceptions). Both the House and Senate are swiftly pushing a raft of policy changes through the legislative process this week. The House moved through 31 bills during hours of debate Tuesday. Districts setting their own school year calendars Under current North Carolina law, the school year can begin no earlier than the Monday closest to Aug. 26, and end no later than the Friday closest to June 11. Districts would be granted more flexibility to create their calendars under a bill passed by the House on Tuesday. House Bill 121 would repeal the 2004 calendar law — one notably backed by the tourism industry — in favor of a policy allowing districts to set their own calendars. It passed the chamber, 111-2, with no debate. The House has passed bills altering the school calendar for years, but they have always died over in the Senate. A separate proposal, Senate Bill 754, would allow schools to start a week earlier. Parents' access to medical records House debate grew heated as the chamber passed a bill requiring parents' consent to grant children medical treatment or prescriptions. House Bill 519 was prompted, Republican backers say, by constituent complaints that common medical practice allowed children starting at age 12 to opt out of sharing information with their parents. 'Doctors can and should still listen to and counsel children,' said Rep. Jennifer Balkcom (R-Henderson). 'But when it comes to treatment, getting medication or performing procedures, that's when parents need to be involved.' Democrats warned against the proposal, arguing that it would infringe on confidential care that includes mental health and contraception. 'You are stripping teenagers of rights they currently have, to seek care independently,' said Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham). 'That is not just cruel, it's dangerous.' Rep. Carla Cunningham (D-Mecklenburg) voted in favor of the bill, saying 'nowadays you need to know' as a parent about the treatment and procedures your children are receiving. It passed the House 68-41. The Republican majority also passed House Bill 606, changing the statute of limitations for gender affirming care related medical malpractice claims. This measure removes the cap on noneconomic damages for medical malpractice claims involving gender affirming care. Rep. Allison Dahle (D-Wake) said the bill was intended to strike fear in the hearts of healthcare providers, but it would not change the outcome for those seeking gender transition procedures. State auditor investigating 'publicly funded entities' Republicans continued their quest to further empower new state Auditor Dave Boliek with another bill passed Tuesday. House Bill 549 grants Boliek's office the power to investigate any entity that receives state or federal money, an expansion of his current authority auditing state agencies and government programs. And it was further amended Tuesday to remove exemptions from state workers under the auditor's office — effectively allowing Boliek to replace those workers with new hires. 'This gives him a little exercise of freedom to run his office a little more efficiently,' said House Majority Leader Brenden Jones (R-Columbus). Jones acknowledged that there was still further work to be done with the bill. Democrats urged their colleagues to halt the bill — dubious of it improving in the Senate and worried about its impacts on the auditor's office in the long term. Rep. Tim Longest (D-Wake) said the removed exemptions was 'politicizing state employment.' And House Democratic Leader Robert Reives (D-Chatham) questioned why lawmakers weren't giving 'that same trust to state employees that are already there.' The bill passed the House 66-46. Bills in committee: Drivers licenses, death penalty and constitutional convention A number of prominent bills also continued advancing through committees Tuesday ahead of Thursday's deadline. Suspension on driver's license expirations: North Carolina drivers' licenses set to expire would remain valid for two years under a bill considered Tuesday. House Bill 821 comes as the state DMV continues to face struggles, with many North Carolinians unable to make an appointment to renew their licenses. 'Hopefully this will relieve the DMV of some renewals so they can organize themselves better and address their responsibilities,' said Rep. Jay Adams (R-Catawba). The legislation also allows lawmakers to consider the several ongoing studies of the department and eventually issue recommendations. Electric chair and firing squad death penalties: The House Committee on State and Local Government approved a bill Tuesday permitting use of the electric chair and death by firing squad with the goal of ending a nearly 20-year moratorium on the death penalty. House Bill 270 could allow the first execution by electrocution in North Carolina in almost a century. Rep. Reece Prytle (R-Rockingham) said the measure 'seeks to restore the death penalty as a deterrent and an option for prosecutors across the state,' adding that it would create no new capital offenses and was limited in scope to resuming executions. The bill drew pushback from Democratic representatives who questioned the safety and efficacy of the methods of capital punishment it would introduce. Rep. Vernetta Alston (D-Durham) cited the costs the state would incur in creating the infrastructure to carry out execution via the electric chair, which no prison in the state is currently equipped to perform. Foster care: The House unanimously approved a bill overhauling the state foster care system. House Bill 612 gives the state Department of Health and Human Services greater oversight of child welfare cases in county offices, allows for open adoptions, and removes the requirement that parents pay child support for children in county custody, among other changes. DHHS sets child welfare policies, but it's the responsibility of counties to administer them. The decentralized system leads to variations in operations and decisions. Legislators have been talking for years about the need for improvements, said Rep. Allen Chesser (R-Nash), the bill's lead sponsor. 'We're at the position where we can start turning the ship where we really start putting children first and families first in our system,' he said. Constitutional convention: A House judiciary committee also advanced a joint resolution Tuesday that would call for a national convention to make changes to the U.S. Constitution. Rep. Dennis Riddell (R-Alamance) said with House Joint Resolution 379, North Carolina will join 19 other states seeking to amend the federal Constitution. The Convention of States seeks to impose term limits, greater fiscal restraint, and limit the scope and reach of the federal government. 'It was designed to give the states an opportunity to put in corrections to the national government, if the federal government is becoming rather obtuse and not paying attention,' Riddell said. North Carolina Republicans in the House and Senate have filed similar bills for years. But with the crossover deadline fast approaching, it's unclear if this year's attempt will advance. NC Newsline's Brandon Kingdollar, Clayton Henkel, and Lynn Bonner contributed reporting.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Contractors might have to stop calling themselves ‘insurance claims specialists' under new proposal
(Photo credit: Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator) Louisiana lawmakers have watered down a proposal that restricts how roofers and contractors can market services that help homeowners with their insurance claims. House Bill 121, sponsored by Rep. Roy Daryl Adams, D-Jackson, would limit both trades from saying they provide insurance claim services. The legislation also prohibits public adjusters from performing construction work in connection with the claims they handle. Adams' bill cleared the House in a 96-0 vote Tuesday without debate. His proposal is one of dozens filed, with the backing of insurance companies, that seek to lower homeowner's policy premiums in the state. The measure, as amended on the House floor, would prohibit residential construction contractors from advertising or soliciting work as 'insurance claims specialists,' a term that sometimes appears in their advertisements. In an April 23 hearing of the House Committee on Insurance, Adams said he hopes his measure will stop contractors from going door-to-door after storms to talk homeowners into filing insurance claims for roof work. The original version of the bill would have prohibited roofing contractors from assisting customers with their homeowner insurance claims. It also would have ended the use of contingency contracts, in which roofers agree to perform work only if the homeowner's insurance company approves their claim. Roofers could be banned from helping customers with insurance claims However, several roofers who testified against that iteration of the bill raised concerns that it could make it illegal to provide many of their routine services, such as communicating with insurance companies. Some customers want help dealing with their insurance companies and look to contractors to provide second opinions on an insurance company's damage assessments, Josh Lovell with Gator Roofing in Baton Rouge told lawmakers. Lovell told the committee he would be afraid to even say the word 'insurance' in the presence of a customer if Adams' bill became law. Some lawmakers have argued the proposal is necessary to prevent contractors from doing the work of public adjusters, who are independent claims assessors policyholders can hire for a fee to represent their interests. They are distinct from adjusters who work on behalf of insurance companies. After hearing roofers' concerns, Adams amended his bill to remove many of its restrictions and applied the prohibitions specifically to advertising and soliciting. At the same time, the amendment expanded the measure to apply to all residential contractors — not just roofers. When asked about the proposal Tuesday, Louisiana Home Builders Association lobbyist Michelle Shirley said her organization has taken a neutral position on Adams' bill. The other goal of the legislation is to prevent conflicts of interest for public adjusters who are also residential contractors. It would prohibit them from doing any kind work related to the insurance claims they handle. In short, they would no longer be able to adjust an insurance claim and then pay themselves to do the repair work for that claim. Adams' proposal is now pending in the Senate. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Roofers could be banned from helping customers with insurance claims
A garage of a home on Ethel Street in Lake Charles is destroyed by Hurricane Laura. (Photo by Wes Muller/LA Illuminator, Saturday Aug. 29, 2020.) Louisiana lawmakers advanced a bill Wednesday that would prohibit roofing contractors from assisting homeowners with insurance claims. It would also stop insurance adjusters from performing construction work in connection with the claims they handle. House Bill 121, sponsored by Rep. Roy Daryl Adams, D-Jackson, unanimously cleared the House Committee on Insurance and goes next to the floor for consideration. The proposal is one of dozens that lawmakers have filed, with the backing of insurance companies, in an effort to try to lower coverage premiums in the state. The bill intends to prevent conflicts of interest with adjusters who are also residential contractors. It would also prohibit roofing contractors from providing, advertising or soliciting insurance claims handling services for their customers. Roofers would further have to end the use of contingency contracts in which they agree to perform work only if the homeowner's insurance company approves the cost. Adams said he hopes his measure will stop contractors from going door to door after a storm to talk homeowners into filing insurance claims for roof work. Several committee members praised the bill and asked Adams to amend it so that it applies to all types of construction contractors and subcontractors. However, several roofers testified in opposition to the proposal. Josh Lovell, a sales manager with Gator Roofing in Baton Rouge, said the bill would essentially make it illegal for him to help customers with a task they often want help with. Insurance companies will sometimes deny claims and leave homeowners unaware that they can challenge the denial or ask for a second opinion, which contractors can provide, he said. 'If we can't even talk about any of the process, then you're just giving all the power to the insurance company,' Lovell said. 'And do you trust insurance companies like that?' Johnathan Davis, a board member with the Residential Roofing Association of Louisiana, said contingency agreements and working with insurance companies are a vital part of his profession. Fortified roof grant program is proving effective in lowering homeowner insurance rates, audit finds 'I know there are good and bad companies just like every industry,' Davis said. 'I think that this would hurt everybody — not just the bad actors.' Committee Chairman Gabe Firment, R-Pollock, who works as an insurance consultant, said it's wrong for contractors to assist homeowners with insurance claims because it's not within their area of expertise. 'That is outside of what you're licensed to do,' Firment said. 'There's other avenues for the homeowner to take if there's a dispute.' There is a 'big problem' with shady contractors in the roofing industry who find damage where none actually exists, Firment added. 'I think we've got to get back to roofers being tradesmen and not salesmen,' he said. Rep. Chance Henry, R-Crowley, who owns an insurance agency, echoed Firment's statements, pointing out that homeowners can hire public adjusters to handle any disputes that might arise. Public adjusters are independent claims assessors whom policyholders can hire to represent their interests as opposed to adjusters who work on behalf of insurance companies. They typically charge homeowners a fee of around 15% of the final settled claim amount. Davis with the roofers' association challenged the lawmakers' stance, saying adjusters are experts in interpreting insurance policies but are not generally the most knowledgeable on roof construction and damage assessments. Many homeowners are hesitant to hire a public adjuster because it can be costly, usually escalates the claim and adds another layer to the process, he said. The bill's provisions are so ambiguous, according to Davis, they could make it illegal for roofers just to send damage estimates to an insurance adjuster. 'I don't want to be in court one day defending sending an … estimate to an adjuster,' he said. Lovell said he would be afraid to even say the word 'insurance' in the presence of a customer if the bill becomes law. Hearing their concerns, Firment said the bill might need to be amended to better define some provisions so roofers aren't blocked from offering some of their routine services. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Missoula judge continues pause Montana's ‘bathroom bill'
A sign outside one of the bathrooms in the Montana State Capitol. House Bill 121 would restrict access to bathrooms based strictly on biological sex. (Micah Drew/ Daily Montanan) Say a man who transitioned after being born a woman walks into a women's bathroom, as House Bill 121 would require him to do. The man has XX chromosomes but transitioned, and he outwardly presents as a man. Monday, Missoula County District Court Judge Shane Vannatta asked lawyers in a dispute about HB 121 how Missoula County, for instance, should enforce that situation. House Bill 121 requires public restrooms and changing areas exclusively for males or females, requires people to use bathrooms based on 'external genitalia present at birth,' and defines sex as strictly male and female. It says a library or prison or museum, for example, 'shall take reasonable steps' to provide individuals with privacy from members of the opposite sex. Also, it says an individual who 'encounters another individual of the opposite sex' in the restroom can file a civil lawsuit against the 'covered entity,' such as a prison, domestic violence shelter or school. In the court hearing on HB 121, Vannatta said in his hypothetical situation, a clerk who sees the transgender man walk into the bathroom might decide to sue the county. The bill allows individuals to sue for failing to 'take reasonable steps' to prohibit the other individuals from using the bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex. Then what? Thane Johnson, on behalf of the state, said it was the toughest situation he could think of related to the bill at issue in Perkins et al v. State of Montana. 'You raise a good hypothetical. I can't deny that,' Johnson said. But he also said the bill is 'a little bit bigger' than being just a 'bathroom bill.' He said the bill aims to protect women and young girls in facilities 'where they have no choice,' such as detention centers. 'I think there are other issues that are dealt with by this bill that are important, and that's my point,' Johnson said. But Alex Rate, with the ACLU of Montana, said that situation is one of the 'fatal problems' with the 'disingenuous' law, and it's one way harm starts to pile up for the clients of the ACLU and Legal Voice. The plaintiffs allege the bill is illegal and violates the rights of clients under the state constitution, including 'the rights to equal protection, privacy, to pursue life's basic necessities, and due process.' Rate said the clerk would sue Missoula County for failing to enforce HB 121, discovery would happen, and the transgender man just wanting to use the bathroom would be caught in the middle. 'That individual — who is doing nothing wrong and who is entirely removed from the dispute between the individual and the covered entity — would be dragged into a lawsuit,' Rate said. In his remarks to the court, Rate also said the enforcement was problematic in that it created a 'bounty hunter system.' 'It turns our state into a vigilante state, where ordinary citizens are incentivized to file lawsuits against state and local governments if they perceive that somebody is using the, quote, incorrect public facility,' Rate said. Rate said the harm to people who are transgender and intersex starts immediately, although Johnson countered that the law needs time to be implemented. However, the lawyers agreed to Vannatta's request for time to issue an order. The bill landed in court on the same day Gov. Greg Gianforte signed it, and Vannatta issued a temporary restraining order soon after, halting implementation of the bill, but only for a matter of days. With approval from the lawyers, however, Vannatta said Monday that he wanted to extend that expiring order through May 16 in order to give himself time to craft a new decision on the request to stop the bill through a final court decision. The ACLU had asked for an order from the bench, or an immediate and verbal ruling, but Vannatta said he wanted to issue one in writing so the parties would have a rationale they could appeal. In recent years, the Montana Legislature has approved numerous bills that affect people who are transgender, and in his arguments Monday, Rate said HB 121 is the most recent volley in a trend since 2018. 'This case challenges the latest manifestation of this state's peculiar obsession with singling out transgender and intersex Montanans for discrimination and harassment,' Rate said. Rate said the bill includes a definition of sex from an earlier bill, Senate Bill 458, which the same district court found had unconstitutionally treated cisgender individuals — whose gender aligns with their sex at birth — differently than transgender and intersex individuals. But Rate said HB 121 is 'particularly bigoted' because it bans trans people from using public restrooms, changing rooms and sleeping quarters — at domestic violence shelters — that correspond with their gender identity. 'It forces trans people to out themselves by using public facilities according to their sex assigned at birth,' Rate said. He said it prevents intersex people from using public facilities altogether. Rate said the case reminded him of the fight over a different bill, one that eliminated Election Day registration. He said the purported government interest was to prevent voter fraud, but the state's lead witness had to search historical records to find any. In the current case, he said, nearly 60% of people who are transgender report avoiding public restrooms to avoid confrontation given they are already vulnerable to violence, and his client's declaration included evidence of fear. And laws already on the books address other protections. 'We've got laws criminalizing indecent exposure,' Rate said. 'We've got laws criminalizing sexual assault and violence. 'So there's no need to adopt a law as draconian as HB 121 when individuals in public facilities are already protected.' On behalf of the state, Johnson, however, said the law was the 'Safe Space for Women and Girls Act,' a protection that resonated with his own experience. Johnson said he recalled serving as a tribal court judge and seeing the number of young girls that became victims of sexual assault, and because federal prosecutors were slow in prosecuting, he saw juvenile offenders who were young girls. 'They acted out as a result of being a victim of sexual crime,' Johnson said. He said he acknowledges people who are transgender are vulnerable, but he said they are not the only ones in that situation. He pointed to young girls, and especially those in a juvenile detention center, which the bill includes. Johnson also said the Montana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court could help if they decided whether sex discrimination includes transgender discrimination, but the question is still an open one. At the same time, Johnson said, some of the fixes are simple, such as privacy for bathrooms. He said at one campus, 'single use' simply meant creating privacy in the form of porta potties and ensuring locks on doors. Vannatta, though, imagined what might happen during a game if the University of Montana decided to turn a bathroom with multiple stalls into a single-use restroom with 40 people waiting in line. However, the judge also said the issue Johnson raised about safety in corrections facilities resonated with him. Vannatta said he had talked to many judges who are 'perplexed' when it comes time to sentence people to jail or prison who are trans or in the midst of a transition in ways that keep them safe and keep the broader population safe. The judge also asked Johnson questions about a couple of situations the lawyer raised, including a Helena girl scared by a man who followed her into a bathroom. 'Was that a trans man or transgender individual?' the judge said. Johnson said he didn't have any indication the person was transgender, but he said the person assaulted the girl. Vannatta also asked if Johnson had evidence that trans individuals have committed sexual assault in bathrooms or changing areas, the areas the bill is intended to protect. Johnson said not in Montana, but outside the state. In response to the judge's request for statistics, Johnson said he believed a person in North Carolina was sexually assaulted in a school bathroom by a person who had claimed to be transgender. However, he said he believes 'there are probably statistics developing,' and if the case proceeds, the state would compile them as best it could. In general, Johnson said it was too early to see how the law was working, and he urged the court to take a step back and allow it to take effect. 'My bottom line, your honor, is this case cries for some factual development. Let's see how it plays out,' Johnson said.
