Last month, Gov. Katie Hobbs signed HB2310—a
bill that aims to prosecute distributing sexual images to children. But
community groups and teachers say it has the capability of instead
targeting those who provide inclusive education on gender and sex.
Sexual
assault survivors and their advocates say that the law Hobbs signed on
May 17—originally called the “anti-grooming” bill—allows prosecutors to
charge people who may give pornographic materials to youth. But LGBTQ+
advocates have raised alarms that the bill is intentionally vague and
could easily be used in bad faith by parents, law enforcement, or county
attorneys with an anti-LGBTQ+ history.
The bill was written by
Rep. Travis Grantham (R-Gilbert) and in coalition with the Hobbs
administration, according to a statement he made on the House floor. It
originally attempted to enshrine the term “grooming” as a new felony
statute. People who distribute pictures of genitals or female breasts to
minors could be charged.
The term “grooming” was swapped out for
“child enticement.” And there were protections added in for medical
professionals, but there are harsher punishments for adults in a
“position of trust,” which state law specifically describes as including
teachers, volunteers at schools, or other educational staff.
Advocates
and legal sources say interpretations of the law could vary widely,
especially as the bill’s original “grooming” label has been
misappropriated by far-right and conservative lawmakers who have used
the term specifically against drag queens and teachers who have pushed
for more inclusive gender and sex education.
The
clinical term “grooming” is defined by the Rape, Abuse & Incest
National Network—the United States’ largest anti-sexual violence
organization—as behaviors used by sexual abusers “to gain access to a
potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk
of being caught.”
Its use as the headline of a bill, though, gave
community advocates worry, since Republicans who have spoken in favor
of the law have used the term exclusively to target drag performers and trans people.
Outside
of Grantham—who has shared anti-LGBTQ+ posts on his X account,
including from accounts that also label drag performers as
“groomers”—Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-Flagstaff) last year urged people to
call child protective services on parents who took their children to
drag shows, saying they were exposing children to sexual material. And
Sen. Anthony Kern (R-Glendale) in the past referred to drag performers as “pedophiles” and “grooming” children.
This past week, a Colorado state GOP-er used the term to disparage all LGBTQ+ people, saying they were “godless groomers in our society.”
“There’s
a really large trend nationally, internationally also, to use that word
as a way to defame queer people as a whole,” said Jeanne Woodbury, a
senior associate at the progressive lobbying firm Creosote Partners.
Woodbury said she identified HB 2310 as one to pay close attention to
from the beginning of the legislative session because of the “grooming”
term attached to the bill. She said it has the ability “to criminalize a
lot of really basic things like teachers sharing sex education
materials or even just like a librarian who has made a book available in
the library.”
The bill was later amended to include protected
exceptions for materials that have “serious literary, artistic,
political or scientific value for minors.”
But in May, LGBTQ+
advocates from multiple organizations across the state still raised
their concerns in a letter to the state’s House of Representatives to
oppose the bill. The letter said the bill “endangers the instruction of
biology and sex education considering there is no defense for educators
in HB 2310.”
“It’s clear that this bill does not aim to increase
access to education, but rather criminalizes educators and increases
educational censorship,” the letter read, adding that the bill “would
make instructors of medically accurate and honest age-appropriate sex
education subject to felony charges for child enticement.”
Members
from GLSEN Arizona, ACLU of Arizona, Arizona Trans Youth and Parent
Organization, Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health, Family Planning
Associates Medical Group, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona,
Secular AZ, Chandler Pride, Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic
Violence, Progress Arizona and Women’s Foundation for the State of
Arizona signed off on the letter.
The Human Rights Campaign in
Arizona, the state’s only lobbying group focused exclusively on LGBTQ+
people, did not sign and said in an email chain distributed to local
advocates, “that HRC’s final legal analysis of the bill is that the
amendments make the bill even more clearly about child sex abuse crimes,
and we feel there is no reason to oppose this bill.”
Bridget Sharpe, the state director for Human Rights Campaign, could not be reached for comment.
Despite those assurances, GLSEN Arizona’s Inclusive Policy Advocacy Manager Kelley Dupps told LOOKOUT
that the bill is far too broad in its language, which gives people the
ability to go after anyone who might be distributing content against
personal beliefs: “We’ve seen across the country how (the broadness and
vagueness of this language has) been weaponized against educators,
against librarians, against English teachers.”
He pointed out
that the bill includes protections for medical professionals and other
adults that work with children, but penalizes school staff, which shows
that “it absolutely is meant to be weaponized against these trusted
adults that serve as our educators and librarians.”
Supporters of the bill have dismissed concerns from the community
leaders, saying that the bill is only dangerous to the LGBTQ+ community
if there’s a prosecutor who is overzealous in applying the law.
But Woodbury said that possibility, no matter how remote, “admits that the problems exist in the bill.”
“Educators
and librarians do not have the resources to defend themselves in a
legal context,” she said. “They’re just not going to make those books
available. They’re going to pull them. And we see this happening over
and over.”
All Republicans voted in favor of the bill alongside
Democrats: Rep. Seth Blattman (D-Mesa), Rep. Consuelo Hernandez
(D-Tucson), Rep. Lydia Hernandez (D-Phoenix), Rep. Jennifer Pawlik
(D-Chandler), Rep. Judy Schwiebert (D-Phoenix), Rep. Keith Seaman
(D-Casa Grande), Rep. Laura Terech (D-Phoenix), and Rep. Stacey
Travers (D-Tempe).
Dueling perspectives from prosecutors
Because
the law does not explicitly lay out who decides what is considered
enticement, enforcement will come down to police who are called and,
eventually, county prosecutors.
While Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, a Republican, was unavailable to speak with LOOKOUT,
her team provided a letter Mitchell wrote to Gov. Hobbs that expressed
support for the bill on May 16, a day before it was signed.
According
to the letter, the bill “fills a gap in the criminal code by
criminalizing grooming behaviors of sexual offenders which act as a
precursor to sexual offenses.”
Mitchell notably was spotted at a Moms for Liberty event in Mesa this past year; the organization is labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and is well known for pushing the false theory that teaching students about gender or comprehensive sexual education—including books about safe sex among LGBTQ+ people—is “grooming” children.
Pima
County Attorney Laura Conover, a Democrat, expressed concern over the
bill: “I read it maybe six times,” she said. “It’s not easy to read, to
see what behavior they’re trying to criminalize.”
“That’s the
foundation of due process,” Conover said, adding that if there is vague
language in a bill, “We’re creating an unfair environment.”
Conover
predicts an immediate challenge in court: “I already have criminal
statutes on the books that allow me to prosecute just fine, and when I
see a bill trying to add tools that I don’t need, that’s always a red
flag for me.”
A school leader’s fear
Mingus
Union High School Board Member Carol Anne Teague said that she worries
about how the bill will affect students in her district in Cottonwood,
Ariz.
She said that in her school district, the bill will likely
have an affect on sex education due to the political climate and how the
term “grooming” and “sexualizing” children has been used by far-right
groups, locally.
And when teachers and librarians hear the word
“grooming,” Teague said, they know it could mean their job, their
credentials, and now potentially a fine or jail time.
Last year, Cottonwood experienced a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment after a touring drag show performed at a city-owned venue. Members from neighboring cities and one of Cottonwood’s council members openly called the performers “groomers” or “sexualizing” children.
Now,
Teague said there is increasing opposition to sex education from
churches and other school board members who “frame it as protecting our
kids from ‘grooming’ and ‘indoctrination.’”
Teague said these terms are being used as dog whistles to scare educators.
“They
don’t care about our students, ’cause if you cared about the students,
you would want them to know how not to get pregnant and how (consent
works) and how not to get an STD,” she said.
With Hobbs’s signature, HB2310 will go into effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends.
Supporters of the bill have dismissed concerns from the community
leaders, saying that the bill is only dangerous to the LGBTQ+ community
if there’s a prosecutor who is overzealous in applying the law.
But Woodbury said that possibility, no matter how remote, “admits that the problems exist in the bill.”
“Educators
and librarians do not have the resources to defend themselves in a
legal context,” she said. “They’re just not going to make those books
available. They’re going to pull them. And we see this happening over
and over.”
All Republicans voted in favor of the bill alongside
Democrats: Rep. Seth Blattman (D-Mesa), Rep. Consuelo Hernandez
(D-Tucson), Rep. Lydia Hernandez (D-Phoenix), Rep. Jennifer Pawlik
(D-Chandler), Rep. Judy Schwiebert (D-Phoenix), Rep. Keith Seaman
(D-Casa Grande), Rep. Laura Terech (D-Phoenix), and Rep. Stacey
Travers (D-Tempe).
Dueling perspectives from prosecutors
Because
the law does not explicitly lay out who decides what is considered
enticement, enforcement will come down to police who are called and,
eventually, county prosecutors.
While Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, a Republican, was unavailable to speak with LOOKOUT,
her team provided a letter Mitchell wrote to Gov. Hobbs that expressed
support for the bill on May 16, a day before it was signed.
According
to the letter, the bill “fills a gap in the criminal code by
criminalizing grooming behaviors of sexual offenders which act as a
precursor to sexual offenses.”
Mitchell notably was spotted at a Moms for Liberty event in Mesa this past year; the organization is labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and is well known for pushing the false theory that teaching students about gender or comprehensive sexual education—including books about safe sex among LGBTQ+ people—is “grooming” children.
Pima
County Attorney Laura Conover, a Democrat, expressed concern over the
bill: “I read it maybe six times,” she said. “It’s not easy to read, to
see what behavior they’re trying to criminalize.”
“That’s the
foundation of due process,” Conover said, adding that if there is vague
language in a bill, “We’re creating an unfair environment.”
Conover
predicts an immediate challenge in court: “I already have criminal
statutes on the books that allow me to prosecute just fine, and when I
see a bill trying to add tools that I don’t need, that’s always a red
flag for me.”
A school leader’s fear
Mingus
Union High School Board Member Carol Anne Teague said that she worries
about how the bill will affect students in her district in Cottonwood,
Ariz.
She said that in her school district, the bill will likely
have an affect on sex education due to the political climate and how the
term “grooming” and “sexualizing” children has been used by far-right
groups, locally.
And when teachers and librarians hear the word
“grooming,” Teague said, they know it could mean their job, their
credentials, and now potentially a fine or jail time.
Last year, Cottonwood experienced a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment after a touring drag show performed at a city-owned venue. Members from neighboring cities and one of Cottonwood’s council members openly called the performers “groomers” or “sexualizing” children.
Now,
Teague said there is increasing opposition to sex education from
churches and other school board members who “frame it as protecting our
kids from ‘grooming’ and ‘indoctrination.’”
Teague said these terms are being used as dog whistles to scare educators.
“They
don’t care about our students, ’cause if you cared about the students,
you would want them to know how not to get pregnant and how (consent
works) and how not to get an STD,” she said.
With Hobbs’s signature, HB2310 will go into effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends.