>>> THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN BUDGET PROPOSAL.

A BAN ON GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE FOR CHILDREN.

PLUS A BILL PUTTING TRANSGENDER KIDS AT GREATER SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND MORE.

FROM THE TELEVISION STUDIOS AT WFYI, IT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING FEBRUARY24, 2023.

>>> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS.

>> THIS WEEK HOUSE REPUBLICANS PASSED THEIR PROPOSED STATE BUDGET.

ONE THE ARCHITECT SAYS IS FOCUSED ON OPPORTUNITY FOR STUDENTS, FAMILIES AND TAXPAYERS.

THE PROPOSAL CRUZ A BOOST IN K-12 EDUCATION SPENDING PART OF WHICH IS A DRAMATIC INCREASE FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCHERS.

>> THE HOUSE GOP BUDGET INCLUDES NEARLY $18 BILLION FOR THE THE K 12 FUNDING FORMULA, AN INCREASE OF MORE THAN THAN TEN PERCENT FROM THE LAST BUDGET.

BUT MORE THAN A BILLION IS TABBED FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

HOURS REPUBLICANS WANT TO ALLOW FAMILIES OF FOUR THAT EARN UP TO $220,000 TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR VOUCHERS AND THE PLAN REMOVES ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY INCLUDING ONE THAT MADE VOUCHER STUDENTS FIRST SPEND TIME IN PUBLIC SCHOOL.

>> WE WANT THEM TO HAVE THE BEST CHOICE WITH REGARD TO WHERE THEIR CHILDREN GO.

>>> THE PLAN ALSO SPEEDS UP INCOME TAX CUTS THAN PASSED LAST YEAR.

UNDER THE CURRENT TIMELINE THE TAX RATE WOULD GO DOWN TO 2.9 PERCENT BY 2029 AND ONLY IF STATE REVENUES CONTINUE TO GROW.

NOW THE RATE WILL HIT 2.9 PERCENT DOWN BY 2026, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ECONOMY DOES TO STATE BUDGETS.

>> HOOSIER TAXPAYERS WOULD BE THE BEST PLACE TO HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL DOLLAR ASKS THEY CAN SPEND THOSE THE MOST WISELY.

>> THE ACCELERATES TAX CUT TIMELINE WOULD SAVE A PERSON MAKE 50 THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR $325 OVER THE NEXT SIX YEARS, IS THE EXPANSION OF THE VOUCHER PROGRAM THE RIGHT STEP FOR INDIANA?

IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW PANEL.

DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY, REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN, JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS, AND NIKI KELLY, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE.

I'M INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATE CHIEF BRANDON SMITH.

ANN DELANEY, YOU ARE NOT A FAN OF THE SCHOOL VOUCHER PROGRAM.

>> OR ANY EPISODE OF THIS SHOW.

>> BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.

DEMOCRATS ARE CLEARLY OPPOSED THIS TO.

DO YOU THINK SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO GO ALONG WITH IT?

>> I HOPE NOT, I HOPE NOT.

REMEMBER HOW THIS WAS SOLD TO US, IT'S GOING TO BE POOR CHILDREN IN FAILING SCHOOLS HAVING CHOICE, OKAY.

THIS GOES UP TO $220,000 A YEAR.

IT IS AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS IS WHAT IT IS S THESE PEOPLE -- >> YOU SHOULD LOVE THAT.

>> YEAH, THESE PEOPLE -- THEY'RE ALREADY SENDING THEIR KIDS TO CULVER AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS RUNNING IN WITH TAX MONEY AND SAYING WE'LL PAY THE TUITION FOR YOU.

THE IRONY IS I'M LOOKING AT THAT AND NEVER MIND THAT IT'S AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM THAT THEY DON'T NEED IT VIRTUALLY WIPES OUT WHATEVER TAX LIABILITY THEY WOULD PAY, SO DOES THAT MAKE THAT TAXABLE FEDERALLY?

I MEAN, WHEN YOU HAVE DEBT FORGIVENESS, YOU PAY TAXES ON THAT WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

WHY WOULDN'T YOU BE TAXED ON A GIFT FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA TO SEVEN SOME ODD THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.

>> TODD HOUSTON TALKED YOU BE THIS AND SAID IN 2021 A REPORTER ASKED HIM WHY DON'T YOU RUN TON VOUCHER PROGRAM?

YOU'RE SO PROUD OF IT WHY DON'T YOU RUN ON IT, AND TODD SAID WE DID AROUND IT, WE RAN ON IT AND WE HAD SUCCESS THIS.

AN -- I MEAN CERTAINLY PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS BUT TO ALL OTHER TAXPAYERS, PAYING TAXPAYER MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO CLEARLY DON'T NEED IT, MAKING $220,000 YEAR, IS THAT A GOOD IDEA TO SELL?

>> BUT THE PARENTS ARE TAX PAYERS TOO.

>> NOT ANYMORE.

>> I'M OUT OF MY DEPTH ON THAT, THAT'S FOR YOU AND THE ACCOUNTANTS TO FIRST THING OUT, BUT WE DID START THIS A DECADE AND A HALF AGO, NARROWLY AND OF COURSE -- THE PSALMS WAS IT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO EXPAND.

I'M SURE SOMEONE SAID FOR POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY THAT THIS IS IT, BUT NO ONE BELIEVED THAT.

PEOPLE IN K-12 -- >> WHAT I'M ASSUMING IS -- THE ASSUMPTION WAS IT WAS GOING TO EXPAND.

MIDGES IS THE MORE YOU EXPAND IT THE LESS IT'S USED, BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU STILL DO HAVE -- YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MOVE A KID -- THAT IS A FAIR POINT, THAT THERE'S A KID ALREADY IN CULVER WHO CAN AFFORD TO BE THERE WHO'S GETTING SUBSIDIZED, BUT THERE IS A KID WHO ISN'T AND NOW CAN MOVE IN.

>> IS THERE AN END TO THIS PROGRAM FOR REPUBLICANS?

OR IS IT EVERYBODY -- EVERY SCHOOL KID IN THE STATE GETS MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT REGARDLESS -- >> IT SEEMS THAT WAY.

IT'S ALMOST AS IF WE HAVE REACHED THE POINT OR ARE MOVING TOWARD THE POINT WHERE X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS -- HERE'S LITTLE JOHNNY OR SALLY'S BACKPACK, WE'RE ABILITY PUT A WAD OF CASH IN THERE, EVERY KID GETS THIS WHATEVER EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS, WE'RE PUTTING IT IN THERE AND WHEREVER YOU GO TO SCHOOL THAT ADMINISTRATOR WILL OPEN YOUR BACKPACK AND TAKE IT OUT.

SO WOULD YOU HAVE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

>> I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE DISTINCTION IS -- >> ONE ISSUE IS THE REQUIREMENT OF SCHOOLS TO TAKE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LEARNING CHALLENGES AND DISABILITIES THAT WOULD PRESENT FINANCIAL CHALLENGES TO PRIVATE PRIVATE SCHOOLS THAT WOULD NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT KIND OF OVERHEAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND ALSO USUALLY WHEN THERE'S PUBLIC FUNDING WHEN TAX DOLLARS ARE USEs THAT MEANS THERE'S CERTAIN TRANSPARENCY NATIONAL ANTHEMS IN TERMS OF WHAT IS BEING SPENT AND SALARIES ARE OPEN AND THAT'S RULE NUMBER ONE FOR THE USE OF PUBLIC DOLLARS.

AND I'M SURE THAT A LOT OF SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS DON'T WANT -- THEY WANT THE MONEY BUT THEY DON'T WANT THE INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY THAT WOULD GO WITH THAT.

>> IT'S WORTH REMEMBERING WE DID BOTH IN THIS BUDGET, IN THE LAST FOUR THE BUDGETS K-12 EDUCATION, DIRECT INVESTMENT IS UP 37 PERCENT.

WE'RE UP 30 PERCENT THIS THE BUDGET SO ZOOM OUT AND LOOK IT WOULD WHOLE BUDGET, DIAL DOWN THE SURPLUS FROM THIS ABSURD $6 BILLION WE'RE SITTING ON TO A REASONABLE NUMBER WHICH IS A RESERVE, AND MADE ALL THESE OTHER INVESTMENTS INCLUDING K-12 EDUCATION, THE INCLUDING TEACHER SALARIES AND WE'RE DOING BOTH OF THESE THINGS NOT ONE OREGON OR THE OTHER.

>> SO YOU CAN WASTE A BILLION DOLLARS WHEN ROADS ARE IN TERRIBLE CONDITION -- >> I DISAGREE WITH THAT TOO.

>> WHAT WE DO KNOW IS PART OF THE OTHER REASON IT WAS SOLD IS WE'RE SAVING THIS ONE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SENTS ON THEM IN PUBLIC EDUCATION, THEY'RE NOT IN PUBLIC EDUCATION SO WE'RE DOUBLING WHAT WE'RE PAYING.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE FIRST QUESTION, BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION IS LONG-TERM.

IN THE SHORT-TERM, IN THIS BUDGET ARE SENATE REPUBLICANS GOING TO GO WITH AN EXPANSION THIS BROOD IS THIS.

>> THIS SEEMS TO DEFINITELY -- SENATE PRESIDENT PRO-TEM BRAY EXPRESSED CLEAR CONCERNS ABOUT THAT YESTERDAY, SO DID THE BUDGET CHIEF, SO I THINK THEY WILL DIAL IT BACK.

SO AND NO ONE -- AND BY THE WAY I GET THAT THEY'RE INCREASING K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUT THEY ARE INCREASING VOUCHERS AT A FASTER RATE THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THERE'S NO WAY TO DENY THAT.

>> I THINK THE NUMBER THAT REPRESENTATIVE PORTER THREW OUT YESTERDAY IS THAT THE AVERAGE K-12 SCHOOL -- PUBLIC SCHOOL IS GOING TO GET A SIX PERCENT INCREASE AND THE AVERAGE VOUCHER SCHOOL IS GOING TO GET 70 PERCENT INCREASE.

>> WHEN WE LOOK AT POLL OR ADVOCATES THAT SAY LOOK, HOOSIER PARENTS WANT THIS, AGAIN IT'S HOW IT'S PACKAGED.

IF YOU SAY -- PROBABLY ASK ANYBODY, THE INCLUDING PUBLIC SCHOOL ADVOCATES SHOULD CHILDREN BE POTENTIAL SIZED BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX OFFENDERS?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THE NOTION OF CHOICE, SHOULD SCHOOLS AND PARENTS HAVE CHOICES?

ABSOLUTELY BUT WHEN YOU ASK, IF YOU WERE TO ASK SHOULD DOLLARS BE -- OTHERWISE THEORETICALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN EARMARKED FOR PS, X X X AND ARE NOW GOING TO GO TO SUPPORT THE CHILD WHOSE PARENTS HAVE MADE THE DECISION WITHOUT SAMPLING PUBLIC SCHOOL THAT THIS IS A BETTER COURSE FOR US.

WILLFUL YOU GET A DIFFERENT RESPONSE, IT'S ALL IN THE FRAMING.

>> WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT KIDS IN POOR SCHOOLS OR POOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS HERE, WE'RE NOT -- NO, NOT ANYMORE, NOT WITH THIS BILL.

>> EACH WEEK WE POSE AN UNSCIENTIFIC POLL QUESTION AND THIS WEEK'S QUESTION IS SHOULD A FAMILY OF FOUR EARNING $220,000 A YEAR BE ELIGIBLE FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCHERS?

A YES, OR B NO.

LAST WEEK'S QUESTION WAS IS IT WRONG FOR A STATE ELECTED OFFICIAL TO HIRE THEIR BROTHER-IN-LAW?

91 PERCENT OF YOU SAY YES, NINE PERCENT SAY NO.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE AT A TAKE PART IN POLL GO TO WFYI.ORG WFYI.ORG/IWIR.

>>> A SENATE PROPOSED GENDER AFFIRMING CARE FOR TRANSGENDER YOUTH AS PROTESTERS GATHERED OUTSIDE THE CHAMBER.

THE BILL WOULD PROVIDE TRADITIONAL SURGERY.

IT'S ALREADY NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL GUIDANCE AND NO PROVIDER IN INDIANA OFFERINGSES IT FOR MINORS.

KEN INS THE KEEP TOLD LAWMAKERS ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE SEEKING OUT GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE FOR THEIR SON.

>> HOOSIER CHILDREN ARE CHILDREN WHO SUFFER AND DIE IF YOU PASS THIS BILL.

>> THE INDIANA STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND THE INDIANA CHAPTER OF AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC TESTIFIED - AGAINST THE BILL.

MOST MAJOR MEDICAL ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT ACCESS TO GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE.

TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE BAN LARGELY QUESTIONED THE SAFETY OF HORMONAL TREATMENTS AND PUBERTY BLOCKERS.

IT'S RARE THAT PEOPLE ON PUBERTY BLOCKERS TRUES CHOOSE TO TRANSITION BACK TO THE GENDER THEY WERE ASSIGNED AT BIRTH.

ONLY FOUR PEOPLE W.H.O.

TESTIFIED FOR WERE FROM INDIANA AND NONE RECEIVED GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE AT MINORS.

>> I CAN FIND YOU A DOCTOR THAT SAYS SMOKING IS COMPLETELY HEALTHY.

WE'VE SEEN THOSE PEOPLE PARADED BEFORE CAMERAS WHEN THAT DEBATE WAS GOING ON AND IN SOME PLACES ILL IT STILL IS.

BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY WHY DOES THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY KEEP IGNORING THOSE PEOPLE.

>> I HAVE A FEW POINTS TO MAKE ON SCHOOL CHOSE BEFORE WE GET TO THAT.

ONE, THERE IS -- RILEY HAD TO GET UP AND SAY THEY'RE NOT DOING WHAT THEY SAY WE'RE DOING WHICH IS CUTTING OFF KIDS' PRIVATE PARTS AND I THINK THE AVERAGE HOOSIER WOULD -- IS A LITTLE MORE IN THE MIDDLE.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT A DOCTOR SHOULD BE DOING IN THIS REGARD WITH A PATIENT, BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS ALL THE PROBLEM, IS YOU HAVE TO WRITE THAT DOWN ON PAPER AND PUT IT INTO LAW AND THERE ARE 11 PAGES OF REALLY PRESCRIPTIVE -- TO DOCTORS, WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO.

WE'RE DOWN TO GENDER AND THE CHROMOSOME IN INDIANA CODE AND IT GETS REALLY TRICKY ON WHAT THEY'RE -- WHAT THE MESSAGE IS -- THE DOCTORS ARE UP THERE GOING I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU.

AND HEALTH GETS YOU HAVE CAN GOES WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE COUNSELING THESE KIDS BECAUSE THEY NEED COUNSELING, BUT THE POSITION, THE EXTREME POSITION IS REALLY HARD AND THIS BILL IS VERY COMPLICATED.

>> IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE BACK TO WHAT'S BECOMING A THEME THIS WHICH IS THE THERE IS A MOST LIKELY RELATIVELY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING A VERY GOOD JOB AT BEING VERY LOUD AND THAT IS WHAT IS DRIVING -- >> AND THEIR CONTROLLING THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS AND THE SUPERMAJORITY AND THAT'S WHAT IS SAD ABOUT THIS.

EVER SINCE WE STARTED WITH THESE ISSUES, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE NOTION THAT WE NEED TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CHILD, NOT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE PARENTS BUT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CHILD.

>> WAIT UNTIL IN THE CASE TIME WE TALK ABOUT -- >> BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS -- WHENEVER YOU TRY TO CODIFY SOMETHING LIKE THAT IT TELLS YOU IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS THE CODE.

THESE ARE INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE DECISIONS THAT ARE EXTREMELY COMPLICATED AND VERY DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH AND THE IDEA THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CAN SORT THROUGH THAT IS LUDICROUS.

>> IF TYLER JOHNSON HAD WRITTEN A BILL THAT SAID WE'RE GOING TO BAN GENDER-AFFIRMING SURGERIES FOR PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 NO ONE IN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE GOING TOEN UP AND SAID HOW DARE YOU BECAUSE WHAT THEY SAID IS OKAY -- >> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR LESS CONTROVERSIAL.

NOT ONLY IS IT NOT HAPPENING BUT GENERAL DOCTORS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE BASICALLY NO YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT UNTIL THEY'RE 18, BUT THE BILL GOES SO MUCH FURTHER, IT AFFECTS HORMONE TREATMENT AND PUBERTY BLOCKERS AND THOSE ARE MEDICATIONS THAT IF THEY DECIDE LATER THEY CAN WEAN THEMSELVES SAW AND RESTART PUBERTY AND THOSE AGAIN SEEM TO BE PERSONAL DECISIONS BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN.

THERE WAS A COUPLE REPUBLICANS WHO CLEARLY SEEM TO THINK THE BILL WAS AND YOU RECALL WAS SURPRISED TO FOUND OUT IT'S MUCH MORE COMPREHENSIVE, SO MAYBE THEY BACK IT DOWN TO BASICALLY THE STATUS QUO.

>> JOHN, I TURN TO YOU AND ASK THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION QUESTION ON THIS, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS A SUBSET OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BASE WHO IS VERY ANGRY ABOUT THESE THINGS, WHETHER THEY'RE REAL OR NOT AND IN MANY CASES CLEARLY NOT REEL, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE ANY LESS ANGRY AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT DOESN'T DRIVE THEIR DECISION MAKING WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO THE BALLOT BOX ANY LESS EITHER.

THEY COULD PASS A BILL THAT WOULD SEEM TO MOLLIFY THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE BY SAYING WE'RE GOING TO BAN THESE SURGERIES WHICH AREN'T HAPPENING ANYWAY BUT CLEARLY REALITY DOESN'T MATTER ALL THAT MUCH ON THISSISH.

COULDN'T THEY JUST DO THAT AND DO A LOT LESS HARM?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, HARM.

>> YEAH, I GUESS THE ANSWER -- WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS A SHIFT FROM OUR GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND EVERY OTHER GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEALING WITH ISSUES THAT WERE ORGANIC AND GREW UP ORGANICALLY THROUGH CONSTITUENCIES THE OLD FASHIONED WAY.

HEY, MY BROTHER HAS THIS PROBLEM, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE OR SENATOR, CAN WE DEAL WITH THIS, AND NOW INCREASINGLY -- WE CAN MAKE A LONG LIST, I DON'T KNOW WHO, WHERE AND WHAT -- >> I SAY I WOULD ON FACEBOOK.

>> WHAT ROOM, SOME BUNKER IS COMING UP WITH TALKING POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED, I PRESUME IN FOCUS GROUPS OR DATA RESEARCH, USUALLY BECAUSE OF FEAR, BECAUSE FEAR IS A MUCH BETTER MOTIVATOR AS WE'VE SEEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAN SOMETHING POSITIVE, AND THESE ISSUES OFTENTIMES, YOU KNOW THIS BAA WHEN PEOPLE ARE PRESSED ON IT, DOES THIS HAPPEN?

WELL, YES, OR NO, BUT IT COULD, SO THERE'S ALWAYS THIS BOOGY MAN -- BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC PERCEPTION, I CAN'T HELP BUT CHUCKLE WHEN I THINK BACK, IT WASN'T A DECADE OR TWO AGO WHEN RIGHT LEANING GROUPS WERE RUNNING NATIONAL ADS IN THIS CASE OBAMACARE, THE WORST THING IN A WORLD WOULD BE FOR YOUR GOVERNMENT TO COME BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR PHYSICIAN AND -- IT'S A CIRCUMSTANCE; JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE, CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT DIFFERENT RESPONSES.

>> HOUSE REPUBLICANS VOTE FORWARD A BILL THAT WOULD STOP INDIANA COURTS FROM INTERVENING WHEN A TRANSGENDER CHILD IS AT RISK OF SUICIDE.

>> UNDER CURRENT LAW IF A CHILD IS A SERIOUS RISK TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS AND WON'T GET THE CARE THAT NEED FROM THEIR PARENT OR GUARDIAN, A COURT CAN REMOVE THE CHILD FROM THEIR HOME.

UNDER REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE DALE DEVON'S BILL THE COURT COULD NO LONGER DO THAT IF THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN IS DENYING GENDER AFFIRMING PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH CARE FOR THEIR TRANSGENDER CHILD.

>> THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS PROTECTING THE PARENTS.

>> RIVER WENDY MCNAMARA IS ONE OF THE FEW REPUBLICAN WHOSE VOTED AGAINST THE BILL.

SHE SAYS SHE'S FINE WITH PROTECTING PARENT'S RIGHTS WHEN THERE'S DISAGREEMENT OVER THEIR CHILD BEING TRANSGENDER BUT SHE SAYS THE MEASURE GOES FAR BEYOND THAT.

>> IT MIGHT PUT JEOPARDY HUNDREDS OF OTHER KID THIS IS OUR SYSTEM.

>> THE HOUSE APPROVED THE WOMEN 58- 33.

>> THE ORIGIN OF THIS BILL IS A SINGLE COURT CASE WHICH IS STILL ONGOING, THE SUPREME COURT IS WEIGHING WHETHER OR NOT TO TAKE THE APPEAL.

HOW UNUSUAL IS THAT?

>> THAT'S MASSIVELY UNUSUAL.

FOR DECADES THE GENERAL UNWRITTEN RULE IN THE LEGISLATURE IS WE DON'T GET IN THE MIDDLE OF ONGOING LEGAL DISPUTES.

THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE.

AND SECONDLY I THINK WHAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED AS I LISTEN TO THAT DEBATE THE OTHER DAY IS THAT YOU KNOW, THE WAY HE EXPLAINED THAT CASE WAS COMPLETELY MISLEADING, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THOSE PEOPLE VETTED FOR THAT BILL HAVE READ THAT COURT OF APPEALS DETAILS BECAUSE A LOT WAS DOING ON WITH THAT HOUSE.

THERE WAS INVOLVEMENT OF THEM TAKE HER OUT OF SCHOOL, DISCONTINUING HER THERAPY, NOT HELPING HER WITH ANOREXIA WHICH WAS THE CAUSE OF -- WAS BECAUSE OF HER SELF-ISOLATION BECAUSE THEIR ARGUMENT -- >> PHYSICAL, CAN EMOTIONAL ABUSE.

>> SO THERE WAS A LOT GOING ON, IT WASN'T JUST WE WON'T USE HE OR SHE.

>> LET ME QUOTE FROM THE COURT RECORD AND I'M GOING TO ASK THE AUDIENCE TO APARTMENT BUILDING MY LANGUAGE BUT THIS IS FROM A COURT OF APPEALS DECISION.

THIS MOTHER CALLED HER CHILD THE BITCH THAT EQUIPMENTED MY SON.

DALE CALLED HER A STRONG CARTE LICK WOMAN AND A LOVING MOTHER.

WHAT ARE WE DOING IN THE STATEHOUSE?

WAR.

>> IN THIS CASE, IT'S ROLLING BACK THE CLOCK 100 YEARS BECAUSE SO MANY OF THESE ISSUES ARE ALMOST A THROWBACK TO ANOTHER TIME.

IT SEEMS THERE'S IN UNRELENTING DESIRE TO TACKLE ISSUES THAT EITHER DON'T EXIST OR HAVE NOT REACHED THE LEVEL OF MATURITY WHERE THEY CAN BE ADDRESSED BY A LEGISLATIVE BODY, THEY'RE STILL WEDNESDAYING THEIR WAY THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM.

YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER MITCH DANIELS FAMOUSLY OR IN FAMOUSLY SAID DURING HIS TENURE AS GOVERNOR REST HAVE A MORATORIUM ON SOCIAL ISSUES.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS THE COHONES TO SAY THAT NOW BUT IT SEEMS IT WOULD PROBABLY BE -- AS MUCH CALL AS THERE WAS AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS TENURE AND THERE MIGHT BE MORE NOW.

>> WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT A BILL THAT DEALS WITH PARENTS' RIGHTS AND I GET THE IDEA THAT A PARENT SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE SHIELDED FROM WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THEIR KIDS.

THAT'S IN MANY CASES NOT HEALTHY BUT HA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS SPECIFIC BILL IS SAYING WE ARE CARVING OUT IN LAW IS A GROUP OF KIDS WHO ARE ALREADY AT GREATER RISK FOR SUICIDE CAN SAYING DOESN'T MATTER.

AS LONG AS THEY'RE TRANS, WHO GIVES A CRAP?

>> RIGHT SO IT COMES DOWN TO THIS SMALL MARGINAL GROUP THAT BELIEVES THAT THIS IS MADE UP.

THIS IS A LIBERAL CREATION TO DISMANTLE THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY.

AND I'LL BE DAMNED IF THE COURTS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY KID WHEN I DECIDE NOT TO GO ALONG WITH IT.

THAT'S IT.

THAT'S WHERE THIS SITS.

THE PROBLEM WITH A JUDGE TAKING AWAY A KID THAT THE PARENTS ARE INTENTIONALLY STARVING, IF YOU MISS IS THAT PROCESS, GOOD LUCK.

I'M WITH WENDY MAC ON THIS.

YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY THE IMMUNITY OF A JUDGE ON THAT CASE, YOU CAN'T GIVE A RIGHT OF ACTION TO THE PARENTS TO SUE THE COURTS AND THE SHERIFF THAT CAME TO THE HOUSE, THESE ARE FOUNDATIONAL THINGS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PARENTING.

AND CHILD PROTECTION.

FIRST AND FOREMOST.

>> I THINK SOME OF THE OTHER BILLS WILL MOVE FORWARD, I WOULD SUSPECT THAT IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER THEY WILL PASS.

IS THIS ONE AT LEAST CAN WE GET RID OF THIS ONE?

>> I WOULD HOPE SO.

THE IDEA THAT WHEN YOU HAVE THE SUPER MAJORITY AND THERE'S SOMETHING WHY DON'T LIKE THAT YOU CAN RESORT TO ANY TACT TACTIC TO UNDERMINE IT -- I MEAN THEY HAVE NO APPRECIATION FOR SEPARATION OF POWERRINGS, THEY HAVE NO APPRECIATION FOR THE FACT THAT THE COURT IN THIS PETITION FIRST, FOREMOST TENET IS THEY HAVE TO PROTECT THE CHILD.

THE CHILD IS STARVING, SO IF COURT GOES IN THERE OR IF THEY GO IN FOR CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WITH TRYING THE REMOVE A CHILD THEY HAVE TO ASK DID GENDER EVER COME UP?

IT'S RIDICULOUS.

>> AND DALE DEVON SAID IN HIS COMMENTS ON THE FLOOR STRAIGHT OUT THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING THE PARENTS.

LAST TIME I CHECKED D.C.S WAS AROUND PROTECTING THE KID.

>>> LET'S WRAP UP WITH A CONTROVERSIAL BILL THAT WOULD PROHIBIT TEACHERS FROM DISCUSS TOPICS AROUND HUMAN SEXUALITY.

PART OF THE LEGISLATION WOULD FORCE SCHOOLS TO NOTIFY PARENTS IF KIDS REQUEST TO CHAIN THEIR NAMES OR PRONOUNS IN THAT WAY THAT'S IN CONSISTENT WITH THEIR SEX ASSIGNED AT BIRTH.

>> REPUBLICAN MICHELLE DAY SAYS PARENTS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW THIS INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN.

>> SCHOOL SHOULD NOT SHIELD A PARENT FROM KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THEIR CHILD.

>> CARISSA DOLLAR IS A TEACHER IN INDIANA AND A MOTHER OF LGBTQ DAUGHTERS.

SHE SAYS THIS BILL CONDONES A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT FOR LGBTQ YOUTH.

>> IF CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILY DON'T FEEL WELCOME FROM THE BEGIN IT IMPACTS THEIR ENTIRE SCHOOL EXPERIENCE.

>> ALTHOUGH TEACHERS WOULD BE BARRED FROM DISCUSSING THE STOPPINGICS AN AMENDED BILL WOULD ALLOW THEM TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONCEPTS, HOWEVER VAGUE BILL LANGUAGE WILL LIKELY CREATE A CHILLING EFFECT LEAVING TEACHERS UNCLEAR ON WHAT IDEAS THEY CAN AND CANNOT DISCUSS.

>> JOHN, THERE YOU ARE TWO CORE PARTS OF THIS BILL.

IN SO NOW KID GOES TO THEIR TEACHER WHO THEY TRUST AND SAYS, I DON'T KNOW THAT I FEEL LIKE A BOY, I DON'T KNOW THAT I FEEL LIKE A GIRL.

AND THE TEACHER IS FORCED TO TELL THE PARENTS ABOUT IT AND THEN THE KID BECOMED IS DAHL THEY HAVE TO STAY WITH THEIR PARENTS BECAUSE THE COURTS CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT I WOULD IF BOTH OF THESE BILLS PASSED.

SO DOES THIS BILL MAKE A LOT OF SENSE?

>> IF PARENTAL RATINGS WERE THE ONLY CONCERN AND CONSISTENTLY, WHETHER PARENTS BELIEVE IT'S A -- YOU WOULD SAY THE SAME APPLIES IF YOUR CHILD -- YOU'RE ONE RELIGION AND YOUR CHILD IS GIVING HINTS THAT HE MIGHT BE CONVERTING OR YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN FAMILY AND THIS KID IS TALKING ABOUT MAYBE BEING THE D WORD, A DEMOCRAT, OR VICE VERSA IS THESE WOULD ALL RUN AFOUL OF A CONCEPT THE PARENTS CREATED.

ARE THERE SURVEILLANCE ATS IN SCHOOL THAT IS SUPPOSED TO REPORT IMMEDIATELY?

WHY ARE WE -- THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED BUT YOU CAN DO RELIGION?

WHY NOT POLITICS?

WHY NOT ANYTHING ELSE?

YOU WANTEDDED TO RAISE A KID INVOLVED IN SPORTS CAN HE SAYS HE WOULD RATHER READ A BOOK.

YOU SHOULD DO SOMETHING.

WHERE DOES IT STOP?

>> IT DOESN'T.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WELL ON THAT LIGHT NOTE THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY, REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN, JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS, AND NIKI KELLY, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE.

YOU CAN FIND INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW'S PODCAST CAN EPISODES AT WFYI.ORG/IWIR OR ON THE PBS VIDEO APP.

I'M BRANDON SMITH OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

JOIN US NEXT TIME BECAUSE A LOT CAN HAPPEN IN AN INDIANA WEEK