Sarah Penn

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it deletes a previous provision she believes ensures fairness across all proponents of the bill. She views the change as an attempt to disadvantage smaller businesses.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it uses language implying that every young person dealing with gender dysphoria has a mental disorder needing professional help.

The lawmaker supports moving the bill because it is a top priority for constituents across the state who are concerned about this issue.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because the bill already defines severe mental illness as requiring a diagnosis, making the additional requirement redundant.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it provides parents with recourse for serious infractions and puts school districts on notice to be vigilant.

The lawmaker is conditionally supportive of cutting days if it improves efficiency, but argues that the process for determining topics must first be changed to ensure work aligns with what people want.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment, arguing it interferes in parent-child relationships and could allow teachers to withhold information based on a fear that an upset parent might abuse their child.

The lawmaker opposes passing the bill now because constituents on reservations who pay little sales tax would face a new burden without receiving property tax relief.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because limiting employees to just one or two is realistic for small daycares and prevents closures that force parents out of work.

The lawmaker supports the amendment, arguing that families cannot afford to sue and need financial penalties ('teeth') to ensure school districts pay attention to parental rights.

The lawmaker opposes the programs because she believes they aim to permanently change how people think, which contradicts critical thinking and independent thought.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because family medicine residents should not be trained to perform treatments outside their scope of practice, especially when protocols are based on social activism rather than science.

The lawmaker supports recalling the bill because it was tabled due to floor atmosphere rather than a need for more work, despite favorable testimony and constituent concern.

The lawmaker supports the amendment regarding residency programs, arguing taxpayers do not wish to fund gender affirming care and it should be handled by specialists rather than family medicine residents.

The lawmaker supports the bill because her county faces significant illegal dumping issues, and she believes similar problems exist across the state. The legislation creates a grant program to help municipalities clean up these sites.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it does not address cross-sex hormones and medical treatments, which she argues are more prevalent than surgeries and require broader protection for children.