Blue plans and 44 other state Medicaid programs.
Tennessee,
Georgia,
Mississippi state Medicaid programs spend less than 500,000 of the test annually,
but that does not count expenses averted
because more expensive procedures like colonoscopies,
3 times the expense,
are averted
or more serious treatments due to delayed diagnosis.
This legislation is supported by physicians throughout the state.
Uh,
in national advocacy groups.
Uh,
are there any questions that I can answer?
Yes,
Representative Warren.
Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
Uh,
Mr.
Oliver,
just,
just looking at this bill,
I want to tell you I think you got a good heart,
but my question,
have you checked your pocketbook?
we really have the money in the general fund
to deal with Medicaid with an additional $1 million.
Well,
uh,
I'm gonna tell you that we're gonna dispute the numbers,
uh,
by looking at other states.
We don't believe the physical note is correct.
I think you need to get that correct because I mean listening at our at our
budget hearing and looking where we are with
Medicaid and and and the state of Alabama
we're we're in dire straits.
Oh,
I understand that perfectly,
uh,
and who would have ever thought you and I would be having this conversation,
uh.
What we believe though,
and what I believe is that if you literally detect 234 cases
out of the Medicaid population,
you will pay for this.
I was just concerned about the money.
I'm concerned about the money,
but think of what it costs to pay for delayed treatment for colorectal cancer.
And this is a target population group.
I understand that it's just the money that I'm concerned about.
Well,
it is the money,
but that it costs us more not to do it than to do it is what I believe.
Any other comments before we take a motion,
Marks,
I've got
Representative Marks.
Uh,
I don't have the exact number,
but nearly all as far as I,
I know.
Absolutely.
OK.
Second by Representative Rigsby.
I do think there's some counterbalances.
If they do this,
there'll be less costs here and it doesn't give any cost savings.
It only gives cost of what
the additional test would be,
but not what it's pulling from on the other side.
Absolutely.
So,
uh,
we have 1st and 2nd on the floor.
All those in favor of giving this favorable report
by saying I all those against by nay.
Bill passed report.
Thank you.
All right.
The next bill is HB 79 Representative Brown.
Thank you,
Mr.
Chairman,
members of the committee,
I have,
uh,
House Bill 79,
which,
uh,
last year we passed a bill by Senator Orr that,
uh,
extended protections to doctors that prescribe off-label medications.
And what an off-label medication is,
is,
it's an approved drug used for an unapproved.
Situation
example would be like antidepressants used for migraines to treat migraines,
um.
You know,
diabetes drugs used to treat weight loss.
A lot it's used a lot in chemotherapy where it's
for one type of cancer and then they use it,
doctors use it for another type of cancer.
So last year we passed a bill that extended
protections to the doctors and all this does is
extend that to pharmacists
that they're able to write that prescription and not face any kind of backlash.
Represent Mooney.
I was just uh.
I
You know.
Anyway,
question for you is this.
I don't think it's uh fair to characterize it as unapproved.
I think it's fair,
more fair to characterize it as
a use for which it has not been directed by a physician on the basis of
the doctor-patient relationship and informed consent because
we know that there are many,
many drugs that have been.
Right,
right,
which,
which actually most medications now have multiple
uses that weren't the original intent.
That's right.
Thank you.
I remember some home remedies when I was growing
up that wasn't approved and they were too.
That's right.
That's exactly right.
Representative Syree.
So I'm gonna go against what,
uh,
Representative Mooney said.
I think you should use FDA approved because
FDA approves these medicines for a certain thing.
However,
we use these off-label
all the time for a lot of other things.
I will ask you that
our pharmacists don't write prescriptions.
They spill the prescription.
So this is coming from,
it's coming from,
and then actually in the legislation has in there if it,
it's a
prescription from a doctor,
then,
you know,
they're just put in a situation where
they don't have any protections that the doctor enjoys.
So this is just extending that down to them.
Absolutely.
I,
I have people call me all the time that says,
hey,
my doctor wrote me this prescription for X
and my pharmacist refuses to fill it,
right.
Yeah,
so
all for your bill.
Represent me I would be less than truthful if I didn't say I'm thankful
that all FDA approved medicines are not what people use because I know
specifically of cases I can give you where people have been held
possibly even their lives saved by
non FDA approved uses,
but where scientifically the evidence from studies and the work of doctors
provided the information to patients to understand
the consequences possibly.
Same time,
the opportunities
and in which it did at that time
help save their lives or make their lives better by healing.
Uh,
motion by Representative Lipscomb.
Second by
Representative,
since he was so adamant about it.
Representative Mooney,
2,
and all those in favor by saying I,
those against by na.
Thank you,
Mr.
Chairman.
Thank you,
thank you,
members.
All right,
we have a,
uh,
public hearing called,
let me lay some ground rules down for this.
We have
2 that are in support
of this bill and 4 that oppose it.
So what I will do
is
the 2
that support will get 3 minutes each.
These the first two
that oppose it will get 3 minutes each
and I will allow the next 2 to have 1 minute
that way you are the last 2 that has
signed up will have already heard what the others say
and it may not be as redundant,
but,
uh,
we would,
um,
also
like before we do that.
The bill
that is on the table today is by
Senator Weaver,
SB 79.
Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
It's
great to be back with the House Health Committee today.
It's like old times.
Good to see everybody.
Um,
we are here today to bring you SB
79.
What is a Woman
Act,
um.
And I'll just simply start off by saying some of the things
that you guys probably heard me say in the Senate last week.
This bill is based on fundamental truths that are as old as the
Book of Genesis and are as reliable as the sun in the sky.
Men are born men,
women are born women.
This is the simplest and easiest to understand bill
that you will consider during this entire session.
Simply definitions,
provides
precise definitions for the words of man,
woman,
male,
female,
boy,
girl,
mother,
father.
And with that,
um,
I have another meeting upstairs in the Senate,
but I wanted to be here today to,
to thank you for for hearing this bill in committee today.
Representative Dubose and I have tag teamed this bill for,
for a couple of years now,
and,
um,
with your permission,
Mr.
Chairman,
I would like to pass it off to Representative Dubose and,
and let her take it from here to the house.
All right,
very good.
Thank you.
All right,
Representative Dubose.
I will be brief.
Um,
this bill has been before this committee before.
It's been before the judicial committee.
It's passed out,
and this will be our 3rd year to hear this bill and thank you for giving us
one more opportunity.
I wish I didn't have to be here today.
I wish we didn't need to define what a man is or a woman is,
but you know,
we do.
When you have a Supreme Court justice who could not define what a woman is,
despite being one herself,
looks like we're going to have to codify this into Alabama law.
So we do need to pass this law for clarity,
certainty,
and uniformity in the courts and in the laws of Alabama.
We have used the word woman 149 times in our Alabama laws.
When these laws were passed,
it was assumed
that these words were tied to biology.
This bill clarifies the original meaning of sex-based terms in our statutes.
It ensures that laws passed by the legislature are applied
as this body intended
and not twisted by judges or bureaucrats.
And in fact,
85% of Alabamians on both sides of the aisle
think it is important that our state pass a law to define
sex-based terms.
In Alabama,
we have common sense.
We know what a woman is.
We know that God created us as man or woman and that our sex is fixed
and determined at birth.
This bill doesn't take away anyone's rights
or create any special rights for women's.
As April said,
as Senator Weaver said,
this is the simplest,
simplest and easiest bill you will consider
this entire session.
Thank you for your time and I'm happy
to answer any questions at the appropriate opportunity.
OK,
we'll do that after public hearing.
All right,
uh,
Ms.
Mikeland's gonna call these out just to let you know we have a
clock.
She will use the stopwatch here
and whether you're for it or against it at the end of your time,
we will cut you off in the middle of the sentence.
So I want to be fair to both sides.
All right,
the 1st
4 will get 3 minutes
and then the last 2 will have 1 minute.
Good.
OK.
-- Bishop Tim -- Lowe.
Alright,
thank you for the opportunity to speak on this
and it was these words that I wanna say is that
since creation.
It has been universally accepted.
That God,
the supreme authority in the universe created human beings as males,
male and female,
designing them
with complementary bodies
and an unchangeable genetic identity to fulfill
his command to be fruitful and multiply.
As a result,
throughout history,
every person has been identified as either male or female.
Even in the account of Noah's ark,
God instructed
both males and females to be brought aboard
to repopulate the earth after the flood.
However,
in recent times,
some have challenged the long standing understanding
that there are just male and
female distinctions advocating for additional categories based
or individual perceptions
based on individual perceptions and feelings rather than
biological reality.
And this has been done to accommodate the feelings of some
individuals who feel different from the bodies they were born with
and identify with something else.
Now while individuals may experience strong
personal convictions about their identity,
it remains essential that laws provide clear
and objective definitions of male and female
to protect the rights,
safety.
And well-being
of all individuals
and society as a whole,
scientific evidence consistently demonstrates
that males possess XY chromosomes
in nearly all cells while females have XX chromosomes.
This fundamental biological
reality will remain unchanged regardless of a person.
Personal identification or lifestyle choices,
so therefore legal definitions
should be grounded on objective scientific
facts rather than subjective emotions to
ensure consistency in law and policy for the best health of the individual
and the good of all society.
Therefore,
I strongly support SB 79,
which provides the necessary legal clarity on this matter,
and I urge this committee
to issue a favorable report.
Thank you,
thank you for your comments.
Amy Kennedy.
Hello,
I am
thankful to be here to speak to everyone today.
I am strongly against Bill SB 79.
And I think before I get into any of those reasons,
I'd like to start off
by sharing a.
Personal ruminations with everyone here.
My grandmother died
this past summer.
Um,
she was nearly 95 years old,
born in the 1930s.
People think
slavery was
a long time ago.
But think,
me,
my grandmother,
and the people who raised her
and the people who were in her life
in the 1930s,
the people who raised her at that time
were people who were slaves in the 1860s.
That's one generation
from me
to them.
This is
the Alabama state government
trying to tell you what a woman is.
Not too long ago,
the Alabama State government couldn't tell you what a person was.
SB 79 creates a narrow definition of men and women.
Passing SB 79 is beyond dangerous.
It's reckless legislation.
When you create a narrow definition of who qualifies for rights,
you create space to harm everyone who doesn't fit that definition,
especially if that definition is based on incorrect assumptions
that ignore modern medical science.
This bill erases trans people,
erases intersex people,
and erases the experience of everyday Alabamians
who know what a woman is and see one
when they look in the mirror every single day.
Thank you.
Thank you,
thank you for your comments.
Becky Garretson.
Welcome back everybody.
It's nice to see you.
Nice to have this committee going again.
Um,
I'm Becky Garretson from Eagle Forum of Alabama,
and we support SB 79
for all the reasons that Senator or maybe Senator one day,
Representative Dubose has already,
um,
stated.
Don't give her a demotion.
And and Bishop Lowe also,
but there's an additional reason for you to consider passing this bill,
and that is the accuracy
of Alabama's vital records.
States are mandated
to collect and record vital statistics which serve
as a foundational data set for understanding health trends,
creating public health policies,
planning healthcare services,
and even making decisions related to economic
development and education programs within our state.
Defining male and female in law is essential
for maintaining high quality vital statistics that will be used
in the creation of these important public policy decisions.
Thank you.
Thank you,
thank you for your comments.
Sam Bartley.
Hello,
my name is Jordan Price,
but I'll be reading the testimony of Sam Bartley,
who couldn't be here today.
Um,
ladies and gentlemen of the house,
my name is Samuel Bartley of District 55.
I'm a biologist holding a master's degree
and currently working on a doctorate.
Senate Bill 79 captures my attention as it attempts
to use biological language to justify and inform policy.
I would like to address the rhetoric regarding biological sex.
This bill invents definitions that biologists don't actually use.
Uh,
proponents of this bill would have you
believe that these definitions are immutable,
citing university partners as a source of authority,
but this is an affront to my field.
A fundamental tenet of biology is that definitions shift with new information.
Claiming that definitions are immutable betrays that these
are not biologists that made this bill.
Uh,
but if they are,
they should be deeply ashamed.
I invite these university partners to attend the Open forum,
offer their credentials,
and discuss how they generated these definitions
because they're not based in biology.
A common point is that these definitions are as old as Genesis.
Common sense,
bear in mind that God reveals truth to man always in ways we can understand.
In Genesis,
this included a barrier,
the firmament,
separating the waters of heaven from the waters of earth.
But if we look to Genesis for these definitions,
then the International Space Station would be drowning as it orbits the Earth.
Likewise,
Genesis cannot be relied upon to inform us of the rich tapestry
of current biological knowledge.
In doing so,
we insult the complexity of the wondrous and great creation which lay before us.
The definitions in this bill contain
factual information,
but this information is misused
and irrelevant to the bill's findings.
Here's another biological fact.
Lighter skin makes vitamin D more efficiently darker skin.
Should this fact inform state agencies as to what color
of skin can use what space?
We as a nation have already decided on the answer.
No.
These definition changes echo racist past,
betraying that they are a cudgel to promote an ideology.
Ideas are not put forth bills written without motivation.
Why not add that humans have eyes?
Why argue that this doesn't change how people identify?
The answer is obvious.
There is an agenda at hand.
This bill surrept surreptitiously targets trans people.
It conflates existence with crime.
It decides where someone is and is not allowed to exist.
I entreat you,
ask yourselves the following.
Does this bill intend to criminalize a person for their actions,
or does it intend to criminalize a person for just being?
Think on this question as you vote today.
Do not succumb to the temptation of peeping inside the people of Alabama.
Thank you.
Could you tell me your name again so I can write down,
Jordan Price's number 4 on the list.
OK.
Sorry about that
Um,
Zephyr Spotti.
Just trying to get my own timer so I didn't run over.
Uh,
thank you all for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Zephyr Scalzetti.
I'm represented by Joe Lavon in HD 79,
just a few streets over from Representative Jeremy Gray's district.
Sorry,
I looked on the wrong space there,
uh,
War Eagle.
Legislation like SB 79 claims that I am in fact a woman,
uh,
though legally that I have a right and obligation even to
be in women's spaces like the bathroom or the changing room.
After all,
I was born with a uterus and ovaries that presumably
contain ova if my heavy periods are any indication,
and that's all that matters under this bill.
This bill defines female as an individual who has had,
will have,
or would have,
but for a developmental anomaly,
genetic anomaly or accident,
the reproductive system that at some point produces ova,
and that includes me.
Do you want to walk into the women's bathroom and see
me?
Do you want your daughters to do that?
If this is how you want to define things,
if this is how you want society to look like,
I look forward to using the women's restroom in the state house going forward.
In fact,
I've really missed that neat lounge in the women's rooms.
It used to be such a nice place to relax and get a moment's peace.
Maybe I should act like a woman and start wearing dresses again.
I'll end with this.
Thank you.
Thank you
for your comments.
All right,
um,
Representative Dubose,
would you
like to come up?
Do you any of you all have any questions
that I need to address at this point?
Represent Warren?
Uh,
yes,
thank you,
Mr.
Chairman.
I have not had a chance to read this bill.
How are we addressing.
Those who are born with both sexes.
Yes,
ma'am.
That is addressed in the
the the bill.
Those are called people that are intersex
or DSD
and it says that they must be accommodated consistent with state and federal law.
I can read you the whole thing.
It says there are only two sexes and every individual is either male or female.
The term sex is objective and fixed.
Individuals with differences in sex development,
also known as DSDs,
or intersex condition,
are not a third sex.
Individuals with a congenital or medically verified DSD must
be accommodated consistent with state and federal law.
Representative Rafferty
Well,
I'd like to piggyback off my colleague here cause,
uh,
on page 5 on lines 131 and 132.
You have asserted that there's that there's that
there's 22 sexes which you know I think uh
a lot of people might would probably agree with but
I wanna look at this one question here and see,
you know,
because you carved this part out here,
the subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the entry of unknown
as a sex on the child's birth certificate,
fetal death,
or death when sex cannot be medically determined.
So where is,
um,
so you know they're either.
One,
the other,
then where,
where is this unknown category?
Is there a certain point where they would be,
um,
where they would fit in?
Right.
So that unknown is used on birth certificates.
In the case of an intersex person or a person with DSD when they are born,
if their,
uh,
sex cannot be determined at birth,
perhaps their genitalia is inside their body and
they just can't sell by a visual inspection,
then at that time,
it would be checked.
Known.
This has happened 4 times in the last 5 or 6 years in the state of Alabama.
It's extremely rare,
but those individuals have always been protected according
to our laws,
and,
um,
that's what I was referring to.
Well,
um,
Americans for Disability Act in this situation,
what public facility would they use in this situation?
Well,
at birth they're just little bitty babies.
Well,
I'm talking about like when they are older they would make that choice.
They would be accommodated.
Those rare people would be accommodated.
They would make the choice based on
their internal organs.
Their parents would at that time.
So they would make a choice.
OK.
Well,
they would be able to determine based on their sense of an innate
sense of self that would allow that would tell them to go,
you know,
how they're going to make a choice,
correct?
They,
they are either male or female at that point,
and but they're deciding.
The parents decide based on their internal organs,
and there's other ways you can take,
um,
you can do a sampling of skin,
but they're either male or female at that point.
You just can't tell by the visual inspection.
Got it.
I understand it's very,
very rare.
I understand it's rare,
but you know,
we got to understand how,
you know,
part of this committee and what our job is to do is to
make sure what any unintended consequences might be and how this might.
affect um the individual because we are,
uh,
you know,
a nation
that believes in individual rights.
That's right.
And this conditions have existed for a long time.
So I guess another thing is,
you know,
a common refrain I kept hearing was that this is so simple,
that's common sense,
um,
that these definitions are as old as Genesis itself,
OK.
So Genesis was written in probably about
1450 BCE,
right?
I don't think they had any idea what a
sperm or ovum was because we didn't discover those until
uh 1677 and 1827,
uh,
respectively.
Also,
the definition of this bill as you brought it before
this committee and others over the past 3 years,
I believe,
um,
they've evolved as well.
So you're saying that it's a simple
bill that this is common sense,
but yet the.
Definitions
of what it is keep changing
um on your own bill
that you're trying to make this point and clear so like even
through the evolution of this bill you can see that it's more,
more,
more complicated
um or more complex
than what you perhaps are making it out to be.
So I,
I,
I just trying to see,
you know,
where are these definitions kind of coming from,
um,
if you can kind of give me,
give me any more information on that.
Well,
it's,
they're all biological definitions based on the reproductive system,
so it's just it's sperm.
It has changed.
This is not the same exact bill that we had last
year and it's not the same exact bill we had.
It's always been based on the internal reproductive organs,
right,
OK.
Um,
but
Why is it all different than Trump's executive order that was just put forward?
Why is it why is it different different from?
And his are also based on,
uh,
biological reproductive organs.
He just used,
I think mine uses the word o and sperms.
I mean ours is Oma ova and.
And sperm and his is large.
I,
I've read his and it's,
they were actually written by females means a person belonging at conception,
OK,
so we're talking about not,
you know,
a fully developed,
uh,
human being at this point,
um,
to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,
which is the ova,
you know,
that's the only cell you can see with the with the with the the
naked human eye every once I didn't know that pretty neat fun fact.
Uh,
male means a person belonging at conception
to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell,
right?
So why is this different than,
you know,
so
where is the,
you know,
why is,
is yours kind of different,
um,
well,
I think the point is that they're both based on biology and reproductive organs.
They're both trying to be,
yes,
I understand that that's what they're trying to do,
um,
but why is,
uh,
well,
you know,
I think I kind of beat this point
down,
um.
Because the thing is,
is that it doesn't seem like anyone really agrees.
We keep hearing these terms common sense and so simple,
but we're not really hearing much,
um,
consensus even on people,
uh,
on proponents of the bill
or on this kind of move,
uh,
even at the federal level.
Uh,
the next thing I wanna talk about,
I wanted to address one claim,
uh,
about the,
the vital statistics.
Um,
we know that
actually,
you know,
the,
well,
we'll,
I'll deal with that later,
um.
I can't find in my notes right now,
so it's it's deep in here,
um,
but so this bill is seeking to clarify a couple of things and to,
to what aim?
I mean like where did this bill like come from really who are you,
what are we really trying to accomplish here?
Why is it why is it so necessary if like you said,
you know,
it's so simple that we should just be able to determine it
by what we,
by what we see in front of us.
Well,
I will tell you that,
um,
one of the issues that's come up a lot lately,
and we dealt with it in Alabama early on,
was that men tried to invade women's sports,
and that was the problem.
There were men that were identifying as women invading women's sports.
Women were hurt,
women were denied opportunities,
women were denied scholars.
Scholarships.
And,
uh,
that is an example of the misuse
of the word woman.
And it's important that we protect our women and women are disproportionately
disadvantaged by the misuse
of the correct definitions of the words men and women.
So that's one right there.
So,
but if we want to do it then,
but what about if we're trying to,
but that,
that this bill's not really about that kind of thing,
right?
So this bill's specifically about
single sex spaces and that kind of thing.
So,
um,
as one of the,
the,
the gentlemen said,
you know,
they signed a female at birth but is now a bearded
man,
OK.
So what would,
I mean,
with
that person going into the bathroom.
Um,
do you think that that's gonna stir controversy or anything along those lines?
What,
what do you see that coming and what,
what would then prevent a,
uh,
a normal man,
a man that was assigned male at birth.
To
then just say,
hey,
I'm a I'm a trans woman and exploit that same label,
um,
or I'm a trans man and then go into the women's bathroom because
you know what's what's to prevent that from?
Yeah,
this bill doesn't create any bathroom police.
This is simply defining bills.
Well,
defining terms male,
female,
man,
woman,
it's a definitions bill.
This bill also deals with public.
Accommodations in public
and uh single sex spaces.
It says that they may exist.
It doesn't create them.
Rafferty,
let's,
OK,
one more.
All right,
this is it.
So the last thing is,
I think we can all agree,
I think all the committee members here agree that,
you know,
everyone is entitled to safety and everyone is entitled to,
to privacy.
That's why I would like to introduce this amendment if I can,
that would ensure that,
um,
take one passage.
That there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and that,
you know,
in these public facilities that may be created,
uh,
that there would be no need for a monitoring device or any sort of uh compulsory.
Um,
compulsory genital inspections or anything along those lines,
so I wanna make sure
that we're protecting people from having to have their privacy invaded,
uh,
as this bill,
um,
becomes law and then becomes evolves into having
the consequences that that would happen from there.
Representative Dubose Dubose,
have you seen this amendment?
I have not.
I,
I've not seen.
Can someone give her
that,
please?
Sorry I didn't make enough copies.
You just explained
the amendment,
correct?
Correct,
yeah,
I'm happy to ask,
you know,
address any questions,
so you can look,
give you a minute to look over it,
or you can go by what he just explained and
tell us.
How you would Yeah,
I do not consider this a friendly amendment.
OK.
Does everyone want to look over in a second,
give you an opportunity to look at it.
All right,
I entertain any motion
on the amendment,
a yes would.
Uh,
except the amendment,
a no would deny the amendment.
about
OK,
motion to accept.
Is there a second?
With the failure of the 2nd,
the amendment dies,
right.
Now we're back on to the bill.
I entertain motion
for passage of bill.
Representative Sorrows,
uh,
has the motion.
Second,
Representative Syree has 2.
All those in favor of giving this bill a favorable report by saying aye,
aye,
-- those against nay -- nay.
All right.
That concludes,
uh,
that gives the bill favorable report.
Thank you.
Thank you everyone that participated.
This is the way it ought to happen.
So
thank you everyone,
we're dismissed.
Yeah,
no,
and I,
it does.
-- It -- just keeps longer 5.
We
Yeah
No.