House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

One.

Welcome to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. Thank you all for being here today. You help us do our job by providing testimony, and we are better off because of that. So, thank you. My name is David Tarnas. I'm the Chair of the committee.

I'm blessed to have Vice Chair Mahina Poepoe here, and also our member Elle Cochran and other members are watching from their office or and they'll be here presently. Today is Tuesday, February 24th. It's just after 2pm here in Conference Room 325.

For those who are testifying, we have a lot of testifiers, so I really request that you keep your testimony brief, two minutes max. If what you're saying is something that someone else has said, you can just say, I support the same thing that so and so said. You know, that's fine.

But just out of deference and respect for each other, just try to limit your testimony. And when you listen to other people's testimony, if you disagree with it, that's fine. You don't have to say anything or grunt or boo or whatever. Let's just be respectful. Let's be respectful. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable.

We have a new microphone and sound system in this room, so there is no mic, but when you come up to the podium, just speak clearly and articulate. The microphones are in the ceiling and they'll pick up your sound very well. It'll amplify inside the room and also takes it out onto our live stream.

It also picks up side conversations so everyone can hear what Mr. Raethel just said. So, you have to be really careful about your side conversations because the microphones will pick it up and everyone listening online will hear it.

For those who are testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off until you testify and then, again, after your testimony is complete. Use your Zoom chat function only if you have technical issues, and our technical staff here should be able to help if possible. If you're disconnected, just rejoin when you can.

We'll try to fit you in to finish your testimony, as time permits. If the power goes off in the building here, we may have to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making, and if so, we'll post notice so everyone will know what we're doing and when.

If you're on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images because it kicks us off of YouTube, and that's a problem. So please, and as I say, please refrain...please use civil behavior; don't use profanity or uncivil behavior. We don't want to have any of that kind of trouble.

We all need to figure out how to work together here in the state for the best interests of the state, its people, and its animals, and the water and the air. Okay, let's go ahead and get started. First bill, House Bill 1875, House Draft One, relating to health care.

This measure expands the Protections established under Act 2 Session Laws of Hawaii 2023 to include gender affirming health care services, including clarity verifying permitted disclosures of protected health information to address changes in federal regulations.

The Bill establishes protections against abusive litigation and prohibits medical malpractice insurers and health carriers from taking certain adverse actions against health care providers solely on the basis that the health care provider provides lawful reproductive health care services or gender affirming care services. First up, we have testimony from the Office of Information Practices with comments.

Next, we have testimony from the Insurance Division of DCCA. Welcome, please proceed.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Justin Chu from the Insurance Division. We stand on our written testimony providing comments

And I do ask you to give us the highlights of your testimony.

Sure, sure. Our testimony is at the previous Committee accepted one of our amendments, which we greatly appreciate. Upon further discussion, we just decided to add language that's more technical. So the previous testimony requested that the language say that a prohibited action would be for the insurer could not raise malpractice rates that are not actuarially sound. And upon further discussion, we decided that

Actuarially sound is probably not the best language we could use. So we amended it to requesting amendments that would say not supported by actuarial analysis conducted in accordance with the applicable actuarial standards of practice promulgated by the Actuarial Standards.

Great. Thank you for that suggested amendment. Next we have the Hawaii State Youth Commission on Zoom.

Aloha. My name is Mele Kaneail'i and I'm speaking today on behalf of the Hawaii State Youth Commission. We stand on our written testimony. Gender affirming care is especially fragile in Hawaii as we are geographically isolated and already face provider shortages.

Even the threat of outer state subpoenas or civil action can create a chilling effect that discourages providers from offering care and families from seeking it. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much for testifying. Next. Jack Lewin, State Health Planning and Development Agency.

Welcome, sir. Good timing, I guess. Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair and Members. We will stand on our written testimony in support.

And as I always ask everyone because people never read your testimony. So if you could just highlight why you think it's a Bill that we should support.

Yes, absolutely, you know, this is going to ensure that Hawaii can access reproductive services in a reasonable way without fear and intimidation. So we think that this is an important measure just to set a clear tone in Hawaii that we want to make sure that health care access is promoted and protected. Thank you very much.

Next, Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women.

Good afternoon. Llasmin Chaine for the Commission on the Status of Women. The commission stands on its written testimony in support of this measure as it enables vital protections for those seeking and providing reproductive and gender affirming care, areas that are central to bodily autonomy and the well being of women and girls across the state. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Ms. Chaine. Next, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, on behalf of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, we stand on our testimony in support of House Bill 1875 and emphasizing that gender identity and expression, expression are explicitly protected by state law regardless of the Federal Government shifting policy. I'll be open for questions, if any.

Thank you very much. Next, Hawaii Public Health Institute.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm Kris Coffield from the Hawaii Public Health Institute. We are in support of this measure. I'm testifying on behalf of HPHI in support of this measure. As numerous public health organizations have already said, gender affirming care is health care and health care is a human right.

This Bill is about drawing that line clearly and decisively here in Hawaii. For those who seek it, gender affirming care is evidence based, medically necessary and life saving. The science is clear. A 2022 study from Stanford University found that transgender individuals who access gender affirming care experience significantly better health outcomes.

Every major public health and medical authority agrees. The American Public Health Association, American Psychological Association have both affirmed that access to comprehensive gender affirming care is essential to health and well being across the lifespan.

At a time when federal actions and Executive orders are threatening access to care across the country, Hawaii has both the authority and the responsibility to act. We hope you will choose compassion over fear and move this measure forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next, Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Abby Simmons. I serve as Chair of Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii and I stand before you in strong support of HB 1875. I am also here as a transgender woman who has directly benefited from gender affirming care.

For many years I tried to live in a way that did not reflect who I truly am. A constant effort to fit into something that didn't feel natural. That misalignment affects your ability to focus, to contribute and to fully participate in your own life. Access to appropriate medical care allowed me to live honestly.

It allowed me to show up fully, not only for myself, but also for my community. Our Trans and Mangu youth deserve the same HB 1875 protects lawful health care already permitted in Hawaii from out-of-state political attacks. It reinforces Hawaii's authority to govern healthcare within its own borders.

It provides legal clarity for providers acting within Hawaii law and it offers stability in a time when uncertainty is causing such a strain on our health care systems.

We cannot afford to lose providers because they fear being targeted by out of state politicians simply for delivering care that is medically necessary, life saving and lawful health care decisions made in Hawaii under Hawaii law should be respected. In closing, I am proud of who I am and to stand here openly as a trans woman.

And I am grateful to live in Hawaii, our home that has long valued privacy, dignity and civil rights. Please pass HB 1875 and send a clear message that Hawaii protects its people, its providers and its sovereignty. Mahalo for your consideration.

Thank you. Next American Association of University Women of Hawaii. Ms. Overly.

Good evening Chair Good Afternoon Chair, Vice Chair and Members of Committee I guess it's been long day. My name is Younghee Overly from AAUW, and we are in strong support of this measure. In addition to the testimony we submitted, I wanted to share with you what I heard from doctors.

My son's OBGYN friends chose not to go to any states that does not let them practice reproductive care and gender affirming care as OBGYN. So they basically avoided even applying for residency in purple states and red states. So doctors are already on this thought and recently I learned from a friend whose son is a neurosurgeon.

Not even OBGYN, neurosurgeon. And Evan was born and raised in North Carolina, went to Duke University for undergrad, medical school and even the residency there. He and his wife recently chose to leave North Carolina for the same reason as a neurosurgeon. So we cannot afford to lose good doctors. We are already short on doctors.

Please pass this measure and thank you for listening.

Thank you very much. Next Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission, Mr. Golojuch.

Good afternoon. Michael Golojuch, Jr, he/him pronouns. I am Vice Chair of the Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission.

It's an Honor and a privilege to be standing before you today advocating for HB 1875 on behalf of the Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission, a commission that you all created for moments just like this and to fiercely advocate for bills exactly like this one.

We want to thank the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, the Youth Commission and the Commission on the Status of Women for their support. All of us are here today because a constant stream of attacks against our Mahu transgender and gender non conforming ohana. It's not hyperbole to say that we are seeing daily assaults on this community.

These attacks started in conservative states years ago and go all the way up to the White House. Prior to these attacks, our transgender Ohana was already facing discrimination across this nation and even in the Aloha State.

The Lemkin Institute issued a warning earlier in January that the US is nearly is in the early stages of a genocide for our transgender community today. Today's Bill will help lessen the impact of this impeding genocide on our shores.

At the last hearing for HB 1875, I said it would help ensure that it would not reach our shores. But I have to correct that statement because I found out at Queer Day at the Capitol that we have lost three keiki in the last six just in this year alone.

I do not know if they were Mahu or transgender, but I do know there is a good possibility they would still be here had the beginning of this genocide never happened. Today there is a person in this state that believes that the world would be better without them in it. Please tell them that is not the case.

It is never the case. By passing this Bill and protecting access to these life saving health care services as you've read in testimony and have heard today from people with lived experiences and those that provide this life saving health care. Medically necessary. Medically necessary health care.

I implore you to listen to their stories, hear what they have to say and support them and take what they have to heart.

On a personal note, I would like to say that today is my father's 82nd birthday and the only thing that a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel is asking for is for you to pass this Bill.

So I ask you do the right thing, vote yes today and help support this Bill all the way to the Governor's desk so and we see it become law. Mahalo, for your time and hopefully your support.

Thank you very much. Hoku PAC on Zoom not present in support, Pride at Work Hawaii on Zoom not present in support, also next ACLU of Hawaii.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Donavan Kamakani Albano. I'm speaking on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii. I'll likely stand on our testimony in support of this measure, but also wanted to highlight a few points.

This Bill not only adds gender affirming care protections, but also strengthens protections for reproductive health care. At the heart of it is guaranteeing everyone's fundamental right to bodily autonomy and privacy to access legal care. In Hawaii we have seen persistent attacks from the Federal Government on transgender people and interfering with provider patient relationships and insurance coverage.

But these medical decisions to accessing this kind of life saving care improves health and well being and should remain private. This measure is an opportunity to stand firm in protecting people who have always been here against abuse from the Federal Government, outside states and the ports. Hawaii must protect its cultural and genealogical integrity.

As a Maku Native Hawaiian person myself, I strongly urge you to pass this measure. I'm available to answer any questions. Mahal for the opportunity.

Thank you very much. Next, Camaron Miyamoto on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Fairs. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify today in strong support of HB 1875. My name is Dr. Camaron Miyamoto and I am co President of PFLAG Oahu along with Reyna Yamada.

We are excited to be here today to be in strong support of our diverse ohana so that we can ensure that Hawaii remains a place of compassion, aloha and fairness. Many of the Members of PFLAG Oahu have children who are transgender and their well being and overall overall health depends on gender affirming care.

Unfortunately, the climate in Hawaii right now is too scary and feels too unsafe for many of our Members to testify today. Please know that I'm testifying on their behalf.

We strongly believe that gender affirming care is simply health care and that it's approved by the national medical associations representing over 1.3 million doctors, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association.

Please today vote in strong support of HB 1875 and please stand with PFLAG Oahu, our families and the medical associations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Renee Rabb on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you Chair Tarnas and Members for allowing me to testify in strong support of House Bill 1875 relating to health care. I'm Renee Rabb, District 4 Chair of the Hawaii District. Excuse me, Hawaii Democratic Party.

District 4 is located in Lower Puna on Big island and we are known for our passionate support of individual liberty and protection of the rights of marginalized people. We defend those who need our help right now.

In the current climate of the United States, we stand together with the transgendered community and the medical providers who help them stay alive. As you can hear from my accent, I grew up in the American South. I understand bigotry towards and the oppression of those who are deemed different better than most.

We must protect our Hawaii residents from other states, laws that only seek to harm people who are merely trying to live their own lives and the doctors, families and support systems who assist them in that effort. We need safeguards that protect both reproductive and gender affirming care. It is the right thing to do.

It is the moral thing to do. Please pass this Bill out and show your compassion for encouraged to care for those in need of our help. Mahalo from Lower Puna.

Thank you very much, Renee. Next, Heather Lusk, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, in person.

Yes, thank you. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. Heather Lusk, the Executive Director of the Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center. We are a provider of gender affirming care as well as have the largest peer transgender 54 transgender community program in the islands.

Medical decisions should be kept between patients, their healthcare providers and their families. That's what this Bill does for both gender affirming care and reproductive health care. As you've heard, gender affirming care and reproductive health care are legal, safe, effective, with decades of evidence for them. So why are we here? We're here because of politics, not health care.

We're here because of influences from the continent that are trying to tell us who deserves health care in our islands. What we are seeing at the Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction center is an unprecedented amount of harassment for our community of trans folks as well as our healthcare providers.

Even just the media from the first hearing had the most hate I've ever seen come towards our providers and our community. As you know, we have a provider shortage. We have less than a dozen gender affirming care providers in the islands and this Bill would allow them to be protected. Now, I want to also be clear.

There's been some testimonies in the past that have said this Bill would allow people to get away with non appropriate, nonethical behavior. That's not true. Anybody who provides health care in this state that does not do it aligned with guidelines and professional standards would be liable under malpractice. And that's true here too.

But what this would do is not to push out our providers because of high malpractice rates are not even covering them because of the concern. And again, I know that firsthand is I had to cover our providers for gender affirming care.

Please protect not just the healthcare providers that are just trying to save lives, but the community that is afraid to come in. Because again, I believe in free speech. I'm an active free speech advocate. But we are seeing more than just harmful words. We are seeing people afraid for their lives. And this Bill will save lives.

So thank you so much. It's not a symbolic measure. It truly will allow people to get the medical care that's necessary and allow the healthcare providers that want to provide this medicine the protection they deserve. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify and hopefully for your strong support of HB 1875.

Thank you, Ms. Lusk. Next. Jen Wilbur, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates on Zoom.

Hi. Yes, thank you. Chair Tarnas and Members of the Committee, we stand in strong support of HB 1875.

All people in our state need to be confident that Hawaii law protects their right to gender affirming care services and providers should not be afraid to be jailed, lose their license or be barred from ever practicing medicine again simply for providing basic legal health care. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify in support.

Thank you very much. Next Paige Choy Healthcare Association of Hawaii. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, we'll stand on our testimony in support. The clinicians at our Member facilities should be able to act within their scope of practice without fear of reprisal. And we appreciate the protections in this Bill and that will help ensure patients receive appropriate care. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Ricardo Molaro Bravo. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Welcome. Please proceed.

Hi Chair. Vice Chair. Good afternoon. We stand by our written testimony. As described in our testimony, this Bill does not change medical standards or shield negligence. It simply affirms that providers acting within Hawaii law and accepted standards of care should not face loss of malpractice insurance, network termination, licensure consequences or misuse protected health information.

These protections are essential to maintaining Hawaii's healthcare workforce and preserving patient confidentiality. Without them, fear of legal retaliation can create a chilling effect that limits access to care, particularly for transgender and gender diverse patients. So we are in strong support.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next. Aloha Care. Mike Ewan on Zoom. Not present. Next Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii. Nico Slevins. Not present in support as well. Next person that said they wish to testify. Charles Brister, Hawaii County Democratic Party. On Zoom. Not present. He's testifying. In support. Next.

Dean Hamer, H A M E R on Zoom. Not present. They're in support. Next. Lisa Pollack on Zoom.

Oh, she's there.

Aloha chair, Vice. Oh.

Please go ahead.

Aloha chair, Vice chair and Members of the Committee, I support HB 1875. While we currently have limited access to health care that allows my family to thrive here.

It's terrifying, however, to see other states criminalize the very care we support and provide for our children, and in many cases, now cease to perform it entirely. 1875 is necessary to shield families and others. It protects doctors from out of state litigation and licensing threats that create shadow bans on legal care.

It closes data loopholes to ensure our private reproductive and gender affirming medical records aren't weaponized by out-of-state prosecutors. Most importantly, it literally is life-saving for so many in the trans community. For us, this is about safety and values of Ohana. I respectfully urge you to pass HB 1875. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much for testifying. Was there someone that I called that just showed up? Dean Hamer or Charles Brister? No. Okay, we will move on. The next person that said they wish to testify, Linda Miata on Zoom. Not present. She wanted to testify in opposition. Next. Testifier Alyssa Nelson on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Tarnas Vice Chair, Poepoe and all the Members of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. I'm here in front of you as a public health professional. I'm here as a gender affirming therapist. But most importantly, I'm here to speak to you as the wife of a trans person.

As we've talked about extensively, all of us who are in support of HB 1875. Gender affirming care is safe and legal in Hawaii. But much as with abortion and other reproductive health care right now, it is under attack from out-of-state interests who want to intimidate and erase trans people from society.

This puts real people, like my spouse, at risk of losing essential health care, being doxxed, and worse. And it puts providers at risk of burdensome investigations and of losing their license. This is absolutely terrifying, as you've heard from a lot of us, for everyone who's seeking care and all of those who love them.

As you've also heard, trans youth suicide rates have skyrocketed in the last few years because of these attacks. And we simply can't afford to lose providers. And we can't afford to lose any more trans people. We've lost too many already.

I'm so proud that Hawaii took swift action when Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022. Thank you so much for all of you who voted in support of that legislation and all of you today who are in support of this legislation.

Your support helps me, my family and my friends feel supported by their community, and it keeps them safe. We're grateful for your care. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Shonda Brack in person in support not present. Next person said they wish to testify as Scott Johansen on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi, my name is Scott Johansen. I'm an individual speaking in support of House Bill 1875. House Draft 1. Gender affirming care is medical care. Gender affirming care in as many forms saves lives. This Bill is important because the simple act of getting a person getting medical advice from their doctor is under attack.

National rhetoric seeks to deny the existence of transgender people their experiences. They seek to deny the conversation. They even seek to deny the words used to describe transgender people. And now those in opposition to this Bill seek to prevent transgender people from seeking medical services.

Please allow transgender people, citizens of this state, your neighbors, to receive their much-needed medical services. This gender affirming care saves lives. Please vote yes on House Bill 1875. Thank you.

Thank you very much. James Wallace in person. We have a James Wallace here. No. Yes. Yes. Okay. Please proceed.

Morning. House and I oppose HB 1875, but it is pure mutilation at best. So I'm reading a Bill. I'm not really sure is it for children under 18 or adults. Because if it's under 18, I don't. I really.

I really don't support it if it's children, but if adults, they want to get mutilated, then that's up to them. So what is it, do you know? Can I answer that question?

You're giving testimony to us, so I'm listening. Yeah. I pose it. I'm listening.

Okay. I oppose it. And the providers already have protection. They have laws in place to protect them. You know, I'm at Planned Parenthood. They're protected. No one's harassing them. No one's, you know, getting death threats or whatever. But why don't you craft a Bill that protects us? We're the ones being harassed.

I got soda poured on my head. I got signs stolen. I got this lady trying to run over with me, but with the bike, then try to take the camera out of my hand. She's on my back like an octopus. You know, the leftists are the radical ones, not us. I got.

Actually, my friend got coffee thrown on him.

Could you speak to the merits of the Bill, please?

Yes. This is where I'm getting at. We should be protected. Not them. They already have enough protection. What about us? We're being a voice for the voices out on the sidewalks. I've been out there for years protecting children, saving children. Why is the children always, you know, swept under the rug? My. There's also here.

Somebody stole my poster. And I have a police report on that. Okay. They're not doing the crime on us. Not on them, not us, on them. I've been assaulted. Another report. So I don't know what everybody thinks saying that, you know, we're the ones that are a threat. We're not the threat. They're the threat. I'm not.

And this is only my story. I got friends that got soda on them. I got this lady from Planned Parenthood throwing condoms at him. So I just oppose HB 1875. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Elaine Chan on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi, I'm here. Aloha chair, vice chairs and Members. I am Dr. Elaine Chan. I am an OB GYN practicing in Hawaii. I am submitting testimony in strong support of HB 1875 as an OB GYN but also as a friend to many dear ones in the gender diverse community.

As an OB-GYN, I provide evidence-based patient-centered care and this includes full-spectrum reproductive health care. Having given gender for, I know that this care is not only safe but life changing life saving care.

It's critical because it ensures that patients can continue to access lawful reproductive and gender affirming health care in Hawaii without fear and that healthcare professionals can provide that care without threat of abusive litigation, loss of licensure or insurance retaliation. By the time my patients have reached me, they have already faced so many hurdles.

Gender affirming care and reproductive health care already have rigorous standards to make sure that this care is safe and evidence based. This Bill does not create new standards of care. Instead, it affirms that when Clinicians practice within accepted medical standards and Hawaii law, they should not be punished by out of state legal actions, insurers or licensing consequences.

These protections are essential to maintaining a stable healthcare workforce and preserving access to care, particularly for those who are already facing barriers. This impacts not just OB GYNs like me, but primary care physicians, surgeons, speech therapists and more from these islands.

HB 1875 also appropriately strengthens patient privacy protections and limits the misuse of medical records and investigations of unrelated to patient safety or professional misconduct. And for these reasons, I urge you to pass HB 1875 and continue Hawaii's leadership in protecting evidence based health care and the p patient provider relationship. I thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, Shalani Placencia.

Chair, Vice chair of the Members of the Committee. As a person with life with child, lived experience and also working in the community, I issue gender affirming care with injections under our agency for the gender affirming care and seeing the youth and seeing my community thrive on gender affirming care is a positive thing from a person that's 38 years old now, had only one doctor giving gender affirming care.

After he passed, we had to go to black market to get hormone gender affirming care. And that's not safe at all. With gender affirming care now, it protects our kids, our youth and it gets them more happy and they're more, they're thriving more, you know, they're more happy.

I see them going out and being who they really are in their lives and they're living unapologetic. And for this, I support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Stephanie Kendrick on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, Stephanie Kendrick, resident of District 23 here on Oahu. I am testifying in strong support of HB 1875 HD1 as the proud godmother of an amazing young man who is dedicating his life to providing mental health services for transgender youth.

Part of his motivation is the knowledge that he came very close to not being here to do anything, including this amazing work. And I have no doubt that gender affirming care saved his life. And I would urge the Committee to please pass this measure and confirm our standing as the Aloha State. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Janice Berry on Zoom. Not present. Testifying in support. Next, Victoria Schneider on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you, chair and Members of the Committee. I'm a pediatrician who served Hawaii for over 10 years. As the medical expert in child abuse, I'm strongly opposed to House Bill 1875 in minors. Recent evidence has emerged that gender affirming care has not been adequately researched to evaluate the benefits versus harm to the child.

In other words, research has not shown that the safety or health of the child over the long run is improved earlier this month.

So since this Bill has been written, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons published a physician statement recommending that quote, surgeons delay gender related breast, chest, genital and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old. Now this is huge.

These are the surgeons who are experts in doing this surgery and they are cautioning that we don't have enough information to really advise that this is in the best interests of children. Similarly, earlier this month the American Medical Association just went on record calling the evidence for surgery in minors insufficient.

It says that in the absence of clear evidence, the AMA agrees with the ASPs that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred into adulthood. And then really we have incredible evidence out of Europe. These European countries have population wide studies. Their medicine is socialized, they can track patients over decades, every aspect of their health.

And that research that's emerged looking at long term effects has not shown that it decreases the risk of suicide or mortality when these people are followed up over time when they've started in childhood.

So I urge you to defer this measure for children until more evidence is available that clearly shows that gender affirming care clearly benefits the risk to short and long term harm. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much for testifying. Next we have Kim Cordery in person, not present. Next person. Kekoa Kealoha in person.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me the time to testify in strong support of this Bill. I, over the many times that these issues have been heard, I have listened to this, this type of treatment be mischaracterized, trivialized and insulted.

And it reminds me me why the people who need this type of protection are often too afraid to come forward to say anything about it. I have dedicated my professional life to working with people who are living with HIV, a number of whom are trans.

And all of those folks would not have seen positive HIV health outcomes without being able to integrate that care.

Now I know we're not here to talk about gender affirming care, but I am here to talk like in a specific example, excuse me, but I am here to advocate for the protection of the providers who are really the focus of this Bill. This Bill to me gets at the central issue of state sovereignty.

It is not our Kuleana to deal with the ideological battles happening in other states. It is our Kuleana to protect our people here. And as a Kanaka, I am further bothered by these kind of ideological juggernauts that kind of infect our people and don't allow us to provide for our own.

This Bill will allow us to provide for our own. So I urge you and implore you to please vote in favor of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Abram Moreno, in person. Welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, panel. Thank you, everyone. My name is Abram Moreno. I strongly oppose this Bill. Things in Hawaii are going in the wrong direction. We must protect our children who are not mature enough to make decisions. A parent who's known their child since birth knows them.

A man and woman's brain is not even mature until about 25 to make decisions like this. These are irreversible decisions. We must put authority. We must stop this train of thought that's going down the wrong path. God assigns our gender X, Y nature in nature, right? XY chromosome. We don't need to affirm that.

And I love all people. I love all people in my family. You know, there's homosexual and different stuff like that. And I love them. But to take the parents right and the parents voice away is absolutely horrific. I'm also one that's on the streets praying for people. HB 1961 could have me arrested for praying for people.

There are specific cases. Let's talk about that when we have a hearing on that Bill. Yes, sir, but we have to. This legislation would prevent voices. You know, there's checks and balances in government, right? We do not want to cancel out voices. We want everyone's voice to be heard, that way, the best decision can be made.

And from the bottom of my heart, the best way to protect our children is to allow parents to have voices. We don't want the voice of the doctor to tell our child what to do. We want the voice of the parent at least until the age of 18. My recommendation would be age of 25.

I thank you all for your time. God bless.

Thank you very much. Next. Jennifer Booker.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and wonderful Members of the Committee. My name is Jennifer Booker. I've been in this area for about four years, and I came here because of the protections that Hawaii offers for the LGBT community. Some of the claims that have been made against this Bill have included things that are simply not factually accurate.

There are many statements about the regret rate essentially for people who are undergoing transgender care, and it is far less than that for cisgender people who are getting breast implants or penile implants or all kinds of other surgeries to enhance their gender identity.

Fundamental gender identity is something that we have learned about for decades and centuries in every culture. This is not something new. This is not something weird that we have to address. When I came out as transgender in 2013, I realized that because of certain attributes, I would never pass for being a cisgender woman. That wasn't the point.

The point is being who I am and having the freedom to make that choice with my health care provider is what this bill is fundamentally supporting.

I realized that when I came out, I would have to risk my friends, my family, my job, and possibly even my life because some people are so violently opposed to the existence of transgender people. Thankfully, I've only lost two of those four things so far. Thank you so much.

I urge you to support this bill to protect the freedom of people who to establish their identity and get appropriate care for themselves.

Thank you very much. Next, Madeline.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Madeline S. I am a Samoan transgender woman, and I have been doing transgender work for 30 plus years. And it's amazing where we've come from when it comes to gender affirming care.

I never thought we would be able to ever have gender affirming care for transgender folks. As someone who has seen it from the beginning to now, it has come a long way and our community has thrived. Do you want to talk about being attacked or being bullied? My community is being killed. 300 plus something every year.

My community is being killed just for living their truth. So I don't want to hear this crap that you that they need protection. My community needs protection because we're always under attack. We are being killed for living our truth. We are being judged for just living our truth. We cannot go back 10 years.

We've been thriving already as transgender folks, and we've been doing our part in this community. We deserve our transgender affirming care. Just like you, just like them. Just like them. And just like me. We all deserve gender affirming care. We are the Aloha State for a reason. We live by aloha. Show aloha to all your people.

I stand strongly in this support because this is my community and I am fighting for this community because this is my passion and my life. Now, if they want to put their gender affirming care on this table, let them fight for it. But my gender affirming care shouldn't be an issue.

No one's gender affirming care should be an issue. And you guys talking about kids. I know Mahou kids that thought because they were mahou that they had to be a transgender girl finding out. No, that's not what they want it to be. They're just mahu.

That's why we need gender affirming care so they can have these conversations with these physicians, with these providers to know exactly what they want so they don't make the mistake like some of my transgender friends who have. Well, they're not transgender. They're just Maho. But then we never had that. We didn't have that back then.

Now there's all these providers that can make sure that we know exactly what we want to be. And I am a proud transgender woman, and no one's going to take that away from me. So please make the right choice and stand with your people. We are your people, too. Everyone in this room is your people.

Thank you. Thank you very much. That's all the folks that said they wish to testify on this measure. Just for the record, we've received 253 testimonies in support and 49 in opposition, three with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1875?

Okay, I'll take some names, and then we'll need to have names after your pow. If you could give your name to our staff here, it'd be great. Please go ahead.

Mahalo. I'm testifying my personal capacity. My name is Joey Badua. I'm also a Christian.

In support or in opposition. And then talk to us in support of HB 1875.

I'm sorry, Chair in support.

I'm also a child of God. I am an adult. I didn't come out till I was an adult because of this hate in my church, in my family and in this room, I feel conflict, but also resolution, that there are people, doctors, parents, aunties, who support me and in my personal capacity.

That care is why I'm still here today. I'm an attorney at the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. I am an active Part of the community. I'm in District 32 and. And this. This is what general affirming care looks like. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Please introduce yourself and if you could provide anyone who's providing testimony now, you hadn't signed up to provide testimony. Make sure you give your name to our staff over here, please. You're next.

Yes, my name is Dale Vanderbank. I submitted late testimony. I'm not sure if it got in. I'm the second vice chair of the Ala Moana Kockoff O Neighborhood board and this is my personal testimony. I stand in strong support of HB 1875. The last several years have been a painful and frightening experience for many in our community.

Our Federal Supreme Court and our Federal Government have failed us. And as a result, out of state entities, individuals have the means interfere in healthcare decisions. Here. Living in a blue state is not enough. When our laws do not meet the moment our state, our legislator needs to step up and meet that moment.

And HB 1875 helps to do that by cementing protections for reproductive rights and gender affirming care. We should remember that this isn't about if we should have gender affirming care or not having it.

This is about if we should have the protection so those who seek it can have the protections of the state and not be open to to those in Texas and Kansas and all the other states who want to just sue to stop it here.

This helps protect our medical community, provide the necessary care to those who need it. As we have seen today, while this Bill will not help me, I fight for it because it will help my friends, my family, my neighbors, my community who will rely on it.

So I ask you on this Committee to please remember those who need this today and please vote and support HB 1875.

Thank you. You're Dale Vanderbrink? Yes. We did receive your testimony. I just didn't know you were here to testify in person. So we do have your name, others who wish to testify? Yes. Please come on up. Introduce yourself, please.

Hello. My name is Alice Abel Anita. I'm a member of the community here and I would just like to state that I'm in strong opposition of this bill. I know this is not popular in this crowd right now, but we have to understand that the facts are when you're born, you're born a male or a female.

And God doesn't make a mistake. So a lot of the. What I'm hearing is a lot of emotion because emotions can cloud facts. And 50 years ago, this would have all been considered mental illness. So I hear a lot of people in here that actually need speak to the merits of the bill, the mental counseling.

What I'm saying is that the doctors that do this personally, they're medical mutilators.

Could you please speak to the Bill? Don't criticize other people, talk about the Bill.

Right. That's why I'm saying the doctors are medical mutilators.

If you continue with that, I really

ask you to summarize because 1875 is about protecting the doctors that do need surgeries. Right.

So I'm just asking you to continue your testimony.

Well, what I'm saying is that maybe lose my train of thought. I just oppose this Bill because there's a lot of hurting people in this world that, that are running on emotions and we need to protect. Like I agree with that pediatrician up there.

She works with these people with these kids for 10 years and she sees firsthand the damage that it can do. And she's stating that, that, you know, we need to wait till they're older so they can make good decisions. This is irreversible surgery.

And I understand that people want gender affirming care, but you already have a gender when you're born, so there's a lot of confusion. So anyway, that's my testimony.

Thank you. Appreciate it. And if you could provide your name to our staff, that'd be great. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, Members questions represent Shimizu

Nobody from AG here, right?

Correct.

Some of my questions are legality of some of the aspects of this. But Mr. Lewin, can I ask you a question?

Sure.

I'm not sure if you have this information, but I know this Act 2 was established in 2023 for health reproductive scope. And I guess my question is, do we have data that would reflect the number of people from out of state who came here to utilize that freedom?

I don't know of any such data. Thanks for the question. It'd be something that we could probably get you an answer to, but not quickly because I don't think we're asking those questions when people come in for healthcare here right off the bat.

But I'm assuming that most people are staying closer to where they live for these services. There may be some people from states where the services are not available who would come here for that. I do not know the extent to which that may happen. So you don't have that information?

No.

You're not.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you to all the testifiers on this important measure. And we're going to move on to the next measure on our agenda. House Bill 1858, House Draft 1, relating to vital statistics.

This measure amends the various requirements in the event of a fetal death, including registration of certain fetal deaths, filing and preparation of a certificate of fetal death, and issuance of a permit for removal, burial, or other disposition. First up, we have the Department of Health.

Good afternoon. My name is Matt Shim. I'm Chief of the Family Health Services Division of Hawaii State Department of Health. The department will stand on its testimony in support. A couple highlights. House Bill 1858, House Draft 1, as amended, will improve the quantity and quality of information reported to the department regarding fetal deaths. It will align Hawaii's fetal death data collection procedures with the rest of the country. And the amendments also decrease administrative barriers within the department. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Ms. Chaine, Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women.

Sorry. Llasmin Chaine, Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. I stand on our written testimony in support of this measure, as these improvements to reporting practices will facilitate increased understanding and enable action to address Native Hawaiians' and Pacific Islanders' high rate of fetal death. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next. Jyoti Mau, Hawaii Home Birth Collective, on Zoom. Please proceed. Maybe we'll come back. Joy Vink, Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women and Children, on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Committee Members. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. I stand in support of my written testimony. I am one of the high risk OBGYNs at Kapi‘olani Medical Center. I deal with the families who experience this tragic loss all the time. I also help with their future pregnancies in managing them.

I can attest to the fact that, I was on the mainland for a very long time. Came home a couple years ago to help care for our local communities, and I was astonished by the amount of fetal death that I was seeing on our labor and delivery. The rates are really high. Come to find out that we have one of the high, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders have one of the highest rates of fetal death in the US.

And unfortunately, this has been completely marginalized. We don't know why those rates are so high. In addition to that, I spent the last year working with the DOH, who has been amazing, to try to understand our data. Come to find out the data that we currently have is not usable to understand why our rates are so high.

And the reason for that, the data is not usable is because of the current fetal death reporting death statutes are really confusing. They're not modern in any way. They do not follow what CDC recommends us to do in terms of documenting and reporting spontaneous fetal deaths. The bill as it stands is it would help us modernize our current fetal death reporting statutes.

It will align us with the CDC and really help us to understand what's going on here in the state. So as clinicians we can really go into the community and help those who are experiencing this tragic loss. Because when it happens to a family, it doesn't just happen at one time.

It has a long lasting effect on the mom and all the different family members. It really does affect their mental health and their future productivity. So thank you again for hearing this bill, and I hope you support it. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Dr. Vink. Next, Ricardo Molero Bravo, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Here on behalf of ACOG Hawaii, and we stand on our written testimony. We want to emphasize that this bill modernizes Hawaii's fetal death reporting laws in a way that is evidence based and clinically practical.

As outlined in our written testimony, Hawaii has been excluded from national fetal death reports because many submissions do not meet the standard criteria. This bill aligns our states with the CDC and the National Center for Health Statistics definitions by establishing 20 week or 350 gram threshold.

Just as importantly, extending the reporting window from 3 to 14 days allows time for placental pathology, genetic testing, and autopsy reports, which improve the data accuracy while reducing unnecessary burden on grieving families and the clinicians. So this is a thoughtful, patient centered reform that strengthens public health while protecting... Thank you.

Thank you very much. Ms. Chaine, did you also want to testify on behalf of Hawaii Women's Coalition?

Yes. Thank you. I'm also... I'm also Co-Chair of the Hawaii Women's Coalition. I stand on our written testimony in support of this measure, as it's part of the coalition's bill package and it enables better data collection for better prevention and intervention to address fetal death. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, Elaine Chan on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas and Committee Members. My name is Elaine Chan and I am a practicing OBGYN in Hawaii. I am in strong support of HB 1858. HB 1858 makes thoughtful evidence based updates to Hawaii's fetal death reporting system.

And as written, the bill aligns Hawaii law with national standards by establishing a gestational age and weight threshold for mandatory reporting, extending reporting timelines, and improving clarity around documentation and disposition requirements. And from a clinical perspective, the current requirement to report all pregnancy losses, including very early miscarriages, is unrealistic, burdensome, and doesn't result in accurate or meaningful data.

HB 1858 will correct this, and while still allowing families who desire documentation of early pregnancy loss to request it. Importantly, this bill also improves the quality of public health data needed to understand and address Hawaii's disproportionately high rates of pregnancy loss among Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander families.

Better data allows for better prevention, education, and targeted interventions. HB 1858 also recognizes the emotional impact of pregnancy loss and balances public health needs with compassion for grieving families. For these reasons, I respectfully urge your support of HB 1858, and mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Please come up and introduce yourself. Please go ahead, introduce yourself.

Morning. My name is James Wallace, and I'm in support of HB 1858 of the fetal death. So I truly, truly believe there should be certificates for the fetal death, even for the aborted. So there are states that do fetal death for the ones that been aborted. So all the ones that Planned Parenthood abort should make a certificate for them. They are humans just like us. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The person on Zoom that wishes to testify, please proceed. If you could introduce yourself.

Ahoha, Honorable Chair Tarnas, Honorable Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee. My name is Jyoti Mau and I'm the President of the Hawaii Home Birth Collective.

HIHBC is the largest midwife and birth worker professional organization in Hawaii, representing the majority of midwives license under HRS 457J and other types of licensed and non licensed birth practitioners across the state. We support HB 1858 with the following amendments. Please provide an exemption for Native Hawaiian and other cultural religious practices.

There are established cultural practices such as many forms of kanu or Aina burial when a baby is stillborn. Stillbirth is a very sacred area of midwifery practice going back as far as the Moolelo of Haloa. And many Kanaka families and other cultures treat stillbirth as a very private and sometimes spiritual matter.

Miscarriages at 20 to 24 weeks of gestation have an extremely low survival rate even when these births occur in a hospital. If a miscarriage happens at home, parents should not be subject to a mandated process that may not align with the family's needs, practices or beliefs.

And while many medical facilities are trying to improve cultural competence, the lack of cultural understanding is still prevalent and can be traumatizing for some families during an extremely sensitive time. Secondly, please grant authority for all licensed midwives to present the certificate of fetal death. And lastly, please consider changing the fetal size from 350 grams to 454 grams.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify in support of HB 1858 with amendments that give options for choice. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Yes. Please introduce yourself.

Ladies and gentlemen. I'm Abram Moreno. I support this- this bill. We're human beings, so we're physical and we're being a spiritual body. So to give death certificate for fetal is very important for the mother's grieving process. I believe the spirits will, you know, they go up to heaven.

But that is a baby that they lost and that should be acknowledged. They should be able to name the baby and that's inside and outside. Yeah. Inside Planned Parenthood should be a certificate for death. And there should also be a certificate within the hospital. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, Members? I have a question for the Department of Health. In the bill regarding documentation of fetal death for miscarriages. This is on page six, lines 13 to 14.

It says that the attending physician, physician assistant, advanced practice, registered nurse, or coroner's physician who certified the fetal death due to miscarriage shall, upon request of the birthing parent, issue documentation of fetal death to a birthing parent who experienced a miscarriage, which includes, and it lists three things.

A signed statement from a healthcare provider confirming miscarriage or an accurate copy of the birthing parents medical records related to the miscarriage. I was just wondering, would the coroner's physician actually have access to the birthing parents medical records related to the miscarriage?

If you don't know this is something, then it may be something for you to look at and come back at a future hearing on the bill just to make sure that this is accurate.

I'm not sure what the coroner's physician paperwork is, but it's my understanding from this documentation can include, but doesn't require all three.

Yeah, but I'd like to know. We- We say it's either a signed statement or an accurate copy of the birthing parents. I just didn't know whether the coroner's physician has access to that. So perhaps if you could look that up and provide us with that information, you can provide it to me directly.

And that may be a question at a future hearing if the Committee moves this bill on.

Yes.

Okay, great. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Chair.

Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you to all the testifiers who have testified in this measure. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1961 relating to health care.

This measure prohibits persons from interfering with another person's access to or from a health care facility or disrupting the normal functioning of a health care facility. It makes violations a petty misdemeanor, establishes a private right of action and authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action for injunctive or other equitable relief.

First up, we have testimony from the Attorney General, Lauren Chun. Ah.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee. Lauren Chun, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. We offered several comments on this bill with some suggested amendments. The first one would be to remove language that includes an exemption for certain types of protests or strikes that might raise first amendment objections.

And we recommended deleting that section. Our other suggestion was to amend language that might make might be interpreted as limiting judges discretion to seal certain proceedings. Just to make it clear that judges are not required to seal but should do it based on the individual circumstances of that case.

We had a suggestion, this would be up to the discretion of the Committee. If the Committee intends to limit civil suits to the jurisdiction of the district court, that's fine. Otherwise they can- you could clarify that an action could also be brought in circuit court. And then our final suggestion was just to correct what seems to be an error.

And I would note that the companion bill to this one, SB 2845 SD1, does address our constitutional concerns. So you could look to that as something that we think would be defensible. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Jack Lewin, State Health Planning and Development Agency.

Thank you. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and members. SHPDA supports this bill. We believe it's to ensure that patients and the providers of healthcare are free from obstruction, intimidation, or harassment. We think this bill is- is- would be helpful in terms of sending the right message. The places of health care are not places that the patients entering should be

harassed, nor should they be health care professionals. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Sandy Harjol Livingston, Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission.

Good afternoon.

Or designee.

Yeah. Designee. Sandy apologizes for not being here. The commission stands in strong support of this measure. You saw firsthand today what- what are those wonderful people at Planned Parenthood have to deal with? I can speak from personal experience with dealing with these individuals. They've come to our commission meetings, interrupted them, and this is in a enclosed setting.

You can just imagine what happens on the streets without the cameras rolling. And there's evidence of the harassment. So we encourage you to. We support this bill. We encourage you to pass it. Mahalo.

Thank you very much for being here. Younghee Overly.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee, My name is Younghee Overly from AAUW. We stand on our testimony in strong support of this measure. I also wanted to share with you. I used to volunteer for Planned Parenthood, so I couldn't help but think about all the reasons why people seek abortion. It is.

You can ask any one of them. It's one of the most difficult things they will ever do. And just putting myself in their shoes, thinking about how hard the decision was and all the shaming that goes on with it, to have to face verbal abuse, threats, and physical or myself seeking the care, how horrifying that must be.

So I sat there thinking what they must feel like to be in their shoes. So please pass this measure, and thank you for listening.

Thank you very much. Michael Golojuch, you have another testimony for Pride at Work.

Okay. Good afternoon. Michael Golojuch Jr.. He/him pronouns. I am testifying my capacity as President of Pride at Work Hawaii. We stand in strong support of this bill. No one should be faced with harassment, discrimination or attacks, physical violence while seeking medical health care.

And that is what this bill is seeking to do is to protect access to health care. The protesters outside Planned Parenthood and other medical facilities do not know what that person is seeking when they go into those doors and that yet they block their way, they spit on them, they throw things at them.

And the harassments have just gotten strong, have just escalated over the years. This is not the Hawaii I grew up in. This is not the Hawaii I want to leave some future generations that we need to settle.

You need to send a message loud and clear that yes, you have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to engage and stop someone from seeking health care, whether you agree with it or not. So we encourage you to pass this bill.

Protect the workers, protect the patients, and if you could legislate civility, it'd be wonderful, but I know you can't. But at least send the message loud and clear and allow the- allow this- allow those protections. On that, I thank you and we hope you pass this bill.

Thank you very much. Next, HOKU PAC. PAC on Zoom. Not present. Next, Abby Simmons, Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Abby Simmons, Chair of Stonewall Caucus Democratic Party of Hawaii in strong support of HB 1961. At its core, this Bill is about safety and dignity.

No person seeking medical care and no provider offering that care should face harassment, intimidation, threats, or physical obstructions simply from walking through the doors of a health care facility. Access to health care is already difficult for many in our community, particularly LGBTQ-plus individuals, women, immigrants, people with disabilities, and those seeking reproductive or gender affirming care.

When interference occurs, it doesn't just delay appointments, it creates fear. It compounds trauma. It undermines both physical and mental health. HB 1961 establishes clear, reasonable boundaries. It prohibits physical obstruction, repeated disruptive communications and threats, while explicitly protecting lawful labor demonstrations and constitutional free expression.

This Bill targets harmful conduct, not speech. By including meaningful criminal penalties and civil remedies, the Legislature affirms that Hawaii will not tolerate actions that endanger patients or disrupt medical services. Safe access to health care is not a partisan issue. It's a matter of public health, equity, and basic human dignity. We respectfully urge you to pass HB 1961.

Mahalo for your time, for your commitment to the well being of our communities.

Thank you very much. Next, Jen Wilbur, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Members of the Committee. Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates stands on our written testimony in strong support of HB 1961. Medical care should be a personal decision determined by a patient and their provider, not dictated by violent actors and harassment.

At the Honolulu Health—or at the Honolulu Planned Parenthood, protesters block the entrance and exits of the health center. They lean on patients' and providers' cars, yell slurs, and stand in front of vehicles to prevent patients from accessing legally protected health care.

Unfortunately, examples of violence and harassment like this are all too common for abortion and gender affirming care providers and Planned Parenthood understands firsthand how this violence can escalate. Hawaii needs a bill to allow police to step in and stop harassment before it escalates. Patients and providers should not be afraid when accessing or providing legal health care services.

Please pass HB 1961 out of Committee to ensure the safety and bodily autonomy of Hawaii patients and providers. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Paige Choi, Healthcare Association of Hawaii.

Thank you, Chair, Members of the Committee. We stand on our testimony in support. Healthcare facilities should be a place of healing. That is a fundamental principle for our healthcare organizations that we represent. We do appreciate the protections in this measure to meet that particular goal. And so, thank you for considering this measure.

Thank you very much. Next, Ricardo Molero-Bravo, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair. Good afternoon again. On behalf of ACOG Hawaii, we stand on our written testimony in support of this Bill. We want to reiterate that HB 1961 is about safety, dignity, and reasonable boundaries around healthcare facilities.

As detailed in our testimony, patients seeking reproductive health care, whether that includes abortions, miscarriage management, or prenatal care, should not have to navigate harassment, intimidation, or misinformation when accessing time-sensitive medical services. This Bill does not restrict peaceful protests or peaceful speech. It establishes reasonable protection so that patients and healthcare workers can enter facilities without fear of confrontation or escalation.

Given the national climate and the documented history of violence directed at reproductive health providers, ensuring safe access to lawful medical care is both prudent and necessary. For that reason, we're in support.

Thank you very much. Robert Justice, Indivisible Hawaii on Zoom. Not present. Next, Yasmeen Chaney, Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women.

Good afternoon again. Yasmeen Chaney for the Commission on the Status of Women. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure as it protects patients, providers, and staff from interference and disruption at health care facilities, barriers that disproportionately impact women and gender diverse individuals seeking timely care.

Thank you very much for your consideration and support.

Thank you very much. Next, Mele Kaneali'i, Hawaii State Youth Commission, on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha. I'm speaking on behalf of the Hawaii State Youth Commission voicing our strong support. For young people, stigma-free access to health care is vital to ensuring that they receive any care at all.

Many youth rely on clinics for education and preventive care and intimidation or harassment at these facilities can discourage them from seeking care when they need it most. Youth already face barriers like transportation, school schedules, and fear of being judged, so one safe—one unsafe experience—can have long term impacts.

The Youth Commission strongly urges you all to pass this measure. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Brett Colbus on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Members of the Committe. My name is Brett Colbus. I'm a 26-year Navy veteran and I strongly oppose HB 1961, HD 1. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, including the freedoms of speech, assembly, and petitions.

Those rights do not stop at the public sidewalk in front of a clinic and they should not be weakened just because the views being expressed are controversial. The bad conduct described by supporters of this Bill is already covered in existing Hawaii laws on trespass, disorderly conduct harassment, and terroristic threatening. Creating a new facility-specific crime is unnecessary.

Worse, the bill exempts labor demonstrations and strikes, creating two classes of protesters, unions that are protected and everyone else. Faith groups, community members, and veterans may face harsher penalties for similar actions.

Vague terms like interfering with access or disrupting normal operations risk sweeping in peaceful protest like holding signs or praying out loud whenever a facility dislikes the message. Today, this is aimed at abortion and gender-related protests.

The model could be used against veterans or families speaking out about poor care. Safety matters, but real threats and obstruction should not be handled under neutral—shouldn't be handled under neutral laws that already exist and apply equally to all. For these reasons, I respect the urge you to vote no on HB 1961, HD 1. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, Linda Miata on Zoom. Not present. Next, Elaine Chan on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas and Committee Members, again. As you know, I am a practicing OB/GYN in Hawaii and I am in strong support of HB 1961.

As a physician who provides comprehensive reproductive health care including contraception, miscarriage management, abortion care, prenatal care, and treatment of high-risk pregnancies, I see firsthand how essential it is for my patients to have timely access to evidence-based medical services. Reproductive health care is a fundamental component of overall health care. Abortion care is safe and medically appropriate part of comprehensive reproductive health services, is also frequently indistinguishable from miscarriage management and other urgent pregnancy related care.

Hawaii has long recognized the importance of protecting access to reproductive health services.

HB 1961 helps ensure that patients can continue to access safe, confidential, and medically appropriate reproductive care in our state and in the healthcare system already facing workforce shortages and geographic barriers, particularly for patients on neighbor islands, it is critical that we maintain policies that support providers in delivering care according to established medical standards. Every patient deserves the ability to make personal medical decisions in consultation with their healthcare provider, free from unnecessary interference.

Protecting access to abortion and other reproductive health services protects patient autonomy, supports maternal health, and promotes equitable healthcare outcomes across our communities. And for these reasons, I respectfully urge your support for HB 1961. Mahalo for this opportunity.

Thank you, Dr. Chan. Next, James Wallace, in person.

My name is James Wallace. Thank you, Tarnas, Members of the Committee. I fully oppose HB 1961. First of all, is in the Constitution, freedom of speech. Anybody gets assaulted or getting blocked or spat on that already is in place already. Cops can arrest them and they have like four cameras in front of Planned Parenthood.

They're already protected on that. So, all these people says I'm out there, they're getting spat on. That's not true. I've been there over 15 years. None of us have got in trouble for spitting or blocking their ways. Okay? And we're all peacefully praying out there. If anybody goes in, we can't block their way. That's it.

We know that already. But the reason why Planned Parenthood has this Bill, they probably crafted this Bill, is because we're out there praying and God is answering our prayers and their numbers are going down. That's why they begged for money and Josh Green gave him 60 million. Right?

And another thing too is the crime is being committed inside Planned Parenthood. Okay? There's a 15 year old girl, told me she got raped, okay, out Planned Parenthood. So, I said I'm sorry for that.

Could you speak to the merits of the Bill, please?

Well, let me real fast. I told her I...

Speak to the Bill only.

Okay, well, 15 year olds are being raped and they're not calling the police. Inside is the crime, not outside. We're peacefully praying out there.

Please speak to the Bill.

Yeah, this, the Bill is we're the criminals. That's what they're saying, right? We're the ones outside peacefully praying. But the criminals are inside.

The pimps are taking their 14 year old girls.

Please speak to the Bill.

Okay, so leftists are the radicals, not us. We don't harass nobody. And if we do, we should be arrested. And there are cameras in place. There are laws in place. All they want, all this Bill does, is they want to push us away from Planned Parenthood and stop praying. But you know, their numbers are going down.

A lot of Planned Parenthoods are going down. 24 shut down last year. So, let's make this one shut down. Thank you.

Next, Kim Cordery. Not present. Next, Abram Moreno.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, honorable Members of the board. My name is Abram Moreno and I'm a 20-year combat veteran. I paid the ultimate price, blood, sweat, and tears to uphold the Constitution. I strongly oppose this Bill because it violates our free speech. This Bill could have us arrested for praying outside of Planned Parenthood.

As a person that does go there, I see what happens. Everyone is peaceful. A majority of the people that are there are senior citizens. And it's actually the ones praying that are getting harassed. People have been shot, people have been pushed down, there's been broken bones. But we must uphold the constitution. This would violate the constitution.

It also violates my beliefs as a Christian to love the greatest commandments in the Bible, to love God, and to love people. My way of loving God and loving people is to stand on the streets, to be able to pray for people, and they walk through within seconds. Sometimes they stop. Sometimes they need prayer.

I prayed for people prior to getting an abortion and after getting an abortion that everything's good. But I'm there with all of my heart and I beg you. I strongly oppose this Bill, but I beg you, do not, I beg you from the bottom of my heart, do not vote yes on this, please. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1961? If you could come up, introduce yourself, please, and make sure that you provide your name to our staff.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Chair and forgive me. Heather Lusk with the Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center. I thought I did submit testimony on this. We do stand in strong support for this Bill.

As I mentioned in my previous testimony, we are seeing an increase in harassment and violence against healthcare providers, which does indicate the level of protection that this Bill has. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, please, go ahead, introduce yourself.

My name is Dale Vanderbrink, Second Vice Chair of the Ala Moana Kakaako Neighborhood Board and providing personal testimony. I didn't plan on providing testimony here today, but after hearing what the supporters have said, the Bill and reading it myself, I compelled to come up here and say I strongly support HB 1961.

I believe this Bill is really just common sense to make sure that people can be able to access the healthcare facilities and healthcare that they need. And I could just go on and on, makeup words on the spot, but I think the supporters have put it very clearly.

So, I just say I support their words and hope you pass this. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify? Yes, please. I'll come, I'll come to you next. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Jessica Poppin. I'll be testimony—testifying—in my personal capacity. I know I'm here for another Bill, but this is completely unrelated and I feel the need to testify with my story. So, 20 years ago.

In support or in opposition?

In support of this.

Twenty years ago, I needed medical care from a medical service provider where there were protesters outside trying to prevent my access to health care facilities in order to get an abortion. It was a necessary abortion. The reasons are my own. They're nobody else's. I do believe in the right to free speech.

I believe that we all have that right. But I don't believe that I believe that right must come with responsibility for everyone. And the responsibility for speech ends when it causes harm to individuals. And that day when I had to go for my first appointment, that speech was harmful, it was hurtful, it was accusatory, it was shaming.

It was all the things that still carry with me today, over 20 years later, for a medical decision that I had no choice but to make. To provide protection to patients who are going through the worst day of their life or the worst days, because some of these procedures require multiple appearances before a doctor.

And then those appearances become rushed because of the delay in entry to some of these facilities, because of the protests going on, and the fear and the anxiety that patients are feeling when they're in there. Everything feels rushed and it feels blurring.

And if you had more time to talk to your doctor and more time to want to be there because you're going through something horrific and you feel the need to be rushed because you just need to leave, get your care and leave.

If there was a bill, such as this one, that could be put into place that would alleviate the anxiety and the harm that these people are causing to individuals who just want care, I would urge you to support this Bill. I would urge you to vote for this Bill.

I would you urge you to take those people into consideration so they can get the best care that they can without the anxiety that they feel when they need to get that care. And, and I apologize for not being eloquent in my testimony today because I am still feeling the anxiety of that day today.

But please take us into consideration.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Other testimony? Yes, ma'am. Come on up. Please introduce yourself. Proceed.

Thank you. My name is Alice...I'm a member of the community. I'm in strong opposition to this Bill. First of all, first and foremost, because it's illegal, it's unconstitutional, it violates First Amendment, and also, there's already laws in place to deal with people that are harassing others. It's, it's against the law already.

So, there's no need to further this. If, if abortion is so horrific, then why are people doing it? Where's the protection of the rights for the baby, the unborn child? Because abortion is the termination of an unborn life through dismemberment. And the child has no say. The child has no rights.

Could you speak to the merits of the Bill, please?

But what I'm saying is the people out there are, are out there to defend the life of the unborn. And so, anyway, mostly this is very unconstitutional, and it cannot stand on its head. It violates free speech. Like I said, there's already laws in place to protect. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? If not—yes, Representative Shimizu.

Question. I think it was a Dr. Chan.

Dr. Chan, are you still available?

Please proceed, Mr. Shimizu.

Yes.

Dr. Chan, I'm not sure, you're a service provider for facility that provides medical services. Is that correct?

Yes.

So, have you experienced protesters that are harassing and having unacceptable behavior?

Yes, I very much see it. I actually am very afraid. I know that my other—the other providers there have had things sent to their mailboxes because they're being stalked. We have had to do extra measures like calling in advance so that the staff can—the staff can open the gates in a timely manner so that I'm not delayed at the gate, because I am afraid.

They are not—I am someone who am, you know, pray as well/went to Catholic school, and they are not peacefully praying, I think. It is very harmful.

And by the time the patient comes to see me, they, as multiple people have said, they have already endured a lot. And this is the final thing that they have to see before entering. So, I do agree with the statements that others have shared about the experience of protesters.

So, when, when those instances happen, what is your—what action is taken to address that? Do you, like, call the police or something?

I walk through and I have to continue my day. I do not, you know, take the time. I know others have filed reports if needed, but usually, you know, they're there all day, and it's hard to count how many times this happens.

So, I mean, when you call the police, have they provided sufficient attention to your concern?

I personally have not called the police, even though I've experienced these incidences.

I guess my line of questioning is...There, there are existing laws in place, and if we pass this, what would the difference be if you call and there's no enforcement? Because it really comes down to enforcement. So, do you think that you calling with this new Bill is going to make a difference because right now, you're not getting any response?

I think that it's really also—I mean, I'm not sure. It depends on that day, you know, who is the police and how the police react. But it also makes a statement that we are—that we care about patients' access to care, and we do not want physical obstruction in front of health care facilities.

I think it makes a strong statement from the state of Hawaii that they care about the patient experience.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you to all the testifiers. We're going to go on to the next measure, House Bill 2576, relating to background checks.

This measure authorized and just for everyone to know, we're going to go through all the bills on the hearing and then we'll do decision making at the very end, just so you know. Okay. HB 2576, House Draft 1, relating to background checks. This measure authorizes applicants, operators and third party employers. Rather than. Shh.

Please take your conversation outside. Please take your conversation outside. We can all hear it. As I said, these mics pick up everything you say and I hear it.

House Bill 2576, House Draft 1, related to background checks, authorizes applicants, operators and third party employers rather than the Department of Health to conduct background checks of employees, employees and adult volunteers at healthcare facilities. First up, we have Mr. Higdon.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Phil Higdon. I serve as the Administrator of the Hawaii Criminal Justice Status Center. The Department of the Attorney General has submitted written testimony in opposition to this bill solely regarding the collection of fingerprints in the related approval process.

As currently drafted, the language granting authority to those authorized to conduct fingerprint background checks and access criminal history record information is overly broad. For a Non Criminal Justice Agency to obtain criminal history information, arrest and conviction information, the FBI Information Law Unit, which is called CJLU, must review the enacted state statute that grants that authority.

CGLU evaluates whether the statute complies with Public Law 92544 before approving criminal history record information. If amendments are made to this statute, it's highly unlikely that CGLU would approve access to criminal history record information.

Without that approval, licensing bodies and healthcare facilities that rely on comprehensive background checks could be significantly affected as they would only have access to conviction fiction information, not arrest information. Just an example. A few years ago, the word agent, specifically just the word agent, was introduced into the- the HRS 8462.7, which deals with criminal history record checks.

That led to the FBI's denial because the term was overly broad, preventing the Department access to criminal history information for almost two years. I'm available for any questions. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, the Department of Health.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Paula Cerio. I am the Chief for the Office of Health Care Assurance for the Department of Health. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The department stands on its written testimony, but I wanted to offer some additional comments.

The department's primary concern is ensuring that background checks in licensed healthcare facilities are comprehensive, consistent, and compliant with federal requirements. In 2023, the US Office of Inspector General audited Hawaii nursing homes and found that the state was not fully ensuring compliance with federal health and safety requirements.

For nursing facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid, criminal background screening is not discretionary. It's a condition tied to federal participation in payment. Patients in licensed health care facilities are among our most vulnerable residents. Fingerprint based background checks conducted through the FBI provide the highest level of identity verification and national criminal history review.

Unlike name based searches, fingerprint checks reduce the risk of false matches and ensure that both convictions and arrest records from any state are captured. This requirement is a one time fingerprint and has already been implemented by most long term care facilities in Hawaii, demonstrating that compliance is both achievable and effective.

The department believes it's important that facilities currently complying, particularly long term care facilities, continue to meet the standard so that protections remain consistent statewide. At the same time, we recognize that implementation may present operational and financial considerations for larger hospital systems.

For that reason, the department has been working collaboratively with the Healthcare Association of Hawaii to develop amendments that maintain comprehensive background checks while addressing practical concerns. We support those jointly developed amendments. We have also been advised by the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center that certain statutory changes could require review and approval by the FBI, as Phil just stated.

We defer to the HCJDC regarding federal compliance implications, and it's our understanding from them that if statutory amendments are enacted subject to FBI approval and are not approved at the federal level, the state's authority to conduct FBI fingerprint based checks for prospective employees and adult volunteers across all licensed healthcare settings could be jeopardized. Such an outcome could interrupt background check processes for facilities that are currently working in good faith to comply.

Could you summarize, please?

Yep. The department's goal is not to create hardship, but to ensure that background screening standards remain thorough, defensible, and aligned with federal expectations. We respectfully urge the committee to preserve comprehensive background check requirements and support amendments that maintain patient safety while providing practical implementation pathways for providers.

Thank you very much. Next, Healthcare Association of Hawaii

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Hilton Raethel, President, CEO of the Healthcare Association of Hawaii. We are supportive of this bill with the amendment in our testimony. We appreciate very much the opportunity to work with the Department of Health on these amendments and we are available for questions. We are very supportive of ensuring that healthcare employees in all of our institutions are screened appropriately. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, and thank you for your comprehensive amendment suggestions. Next, Hawaii Pacific Health. Mr. Robinson, welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Mike Robinson with Hawaii Pacific Health. We appreciate the Department of Health recognizing that there are differences in care settings in highly organized organizations like hospitals. We've had background checks well before this bill was enacted, back in 2006.

Our name based checks that we've been utilizing for over 20 years now is in compliance with federal law because there is no federal law requiring fingerprints as it relates to hospitals. We use Social Security, date of birth, as well as aliases and names.

And the good thing about our background checks that are name based is, unlike a fingerprint, our checks were based on two things. Is there a rational relationship to the job of that, of that conviction and the job they're applying for, which is required under employment law?

And the second piece is that we honor the seven year look back on misdemeanors. I'm sorry, on felonies, and five years on misdemeanors, which we're not entirely clear that the algorithm that's applied by the department. So we are happy that the amendments that HAH proposed will help address some of that.

And we hope that you keep this bill alive so we can continue to have conversations. And I think most importantly, our background checks are based on actual convictions. You can be fingerprinted for something and it may not go to full disposition. It will still get flagged by this field print vendor.

And that's our biggest concern as well, I think for all the providers, is to make sure that we are not denying employment on somebody just based on fingerprint where there is no conviction that is tied to that. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much, Mr. Robinson. Next, Jonathan Ching, Kaiser Permanente, on Zoom

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. Jonathan Ching for Kaiser Permanente. You have our testimony. We are largely, largely stand on it. I just want to echo one point I think that, you know, has been made by some of the previous testifiers.

That, you know, I think that this has been something that has been an ongoing discussion, and we really appreciate the engagement of the Department of Health. Again, we do stand in support of the offered amended by the Healthcare Association.

But at its paramount, you know, our organization and I know others, you know, will not do anything that will jeopardize patient safety. You know, we stand by our really, really robust background checks of all of our employees. And then to also note, you know, there are some employees that are subject to fingerprinting as conditions of their licensure, and others do not.

And so we want to just adhere to that same standard while still ensuring incredibly robust background checks for our employees. We're available for any questions. And we thank the committee for hearing this bill and hopefully adopting the amendments being offered by the Healthcare Association. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. And last testimony from Brandy Kirstein, Surgicare of Hawaii, or designee.

Yeah, designee. So, Mike Robinson. So Surgicare is a outpatient ambulatory surgical center. We do not... It is wholly owned and managed by Hawaii Pacific Health. We do not have any physicians that are hired by us. However, we do have physicians that are employed by other healthcare systems as well as independent practitioners.

So we are not members of the Healthcare Association of Hawaii, but we do bring up, I think, the same concerns that we had at Hawaii Pacific Health is we have a workforce that is considered direct patient care.

The physicians in there are already going through very rigorous background checks as a condition of employment with, say, Hawaii Pacific Health or Tripler or elsewhere. They would now become subject to the requirements of FBI fingerprinting perhaps. We just wanted some clarification.

And for Surgicare Hawaii, we would also have the same concerns that was expressed that would have applied to Hawaii Pacific Health is that it puts us in the crosshairs of being compliant with the employment law under HRS 3782.5 that the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission brought up.

We can only make hiring decisions based on actual convictions, not just because they got fingerprinted by an FBI vendor. So we just are kind of in this gray zone. I just want to bring that up in the case of ambulatory surgical centers that may not fit entirely within the amendments provided by HAH. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Yes, Please come on up. Introduce yourself.

Apologies, Chair. Jacce Mikulanec on behalf of the Queen's Health Systems. I'm pretty sure we submitted testimony, but if you don't have it, we'll resubmit it.

I do have it. I just didn't know you were going to be here.

Perfect. Well, then I'll stand on my written testimony and underscore what my colleagues have said. Appreciate the Department of Health working with us on this. I would also just say that I did run some numbers with our financial folks this morning. And the cost of doing this for Queen's alone would equate to between $901.2 million for the first year at approximately $225,000 a year going forward. So just wanted to underscore that point as well. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, Members? If not... Yes, Representative Shimizu.

Mr. Robinson. You know, I understand this bill is trying to improve the hiring process, and the issue of fingerprinting came up as an obstacle. So from your testimony, you're saying that, as far as you're concerned, you don't need to do fingerprinting to do required background checks. Is that correct?

That's correct. None of the health care, none of the acute care facilities are doing fingerprinting as part of their background checks.

So if we were to amend this bill to remove fingerprinting requirements, we could achieve what? A better hiring process for you folks?

Yeah, I mean, we've been, I believe so. We've been doing background checks, again, way before this bill was enacted in 2006. It hasn't been enforced, by the way, until recently, last eight months or so in our case.

I would imagine if we were violating any federal laws by not fingerprinting or if there was a specific incident that somebody slipped through because they didn't have FBI fingerprinting. That has not come up in my experience, which indicates to me that the process that we've all been using has probably been working pretty well.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1823, House Draft 1, relating to the Coastal Zone Management Act.

This measure amends the definition of development as it pertains to coastal zone management to clarify that certain activities are excluded from the definition of development and are not subject to special management area use permit requirements and to exempt state or county sponsored infrastructure improvement projects that are consistent with the applicable county's community plans. First up, we have the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and the Members Committee. My name is Shichao Li, Senior Planner of CZM Program. OPSD stands on its written testimony. We have two parts of suggestion. Part one regarding definition of development. We suggest keep the existing language of 205A because since 1975 this definition provided clarification how to assess the action and the development.

The part two, we suggest some minor changes. Changes the word should become should be instead of sure. The reason because the door still open. If the action as exempt from SMA permit if have significant impact or cumulative impact supposedly still can be defined as development as required SMA permit. So that's our suggestion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Jordan Hart, County of Maui, on Zoom. Not present. Wayne Tanaka. I think I saw Wayne come in. There he is. Welcome. Please proceed.

Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii. We are in opposition to this measure. I mean just thinking about what we've encountered this last week. Like flood, like huge flooding, huge surf. I mean, in this era we need to be more mindful of how we develop in the coastal areas, not less.

And this measure as drafted would not just carve out more exemptions for SMA permits, but essentially for all of those things that are exempted from the definition of development, even if they would result in significant effects on the ecosystem environment in the coastal area, normally right now they would still be subject to SMA permit.

This bill as drafted would exempt those things regardless of the significance of the impacts. So you know, we just really concerned about unintended consequences of this measure. Happy to take questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Tanaka. Next, David Frankel on Zoom. Please proceed, Mr. Frankel.

Good afternoon. I hope you... I don't see myself, but doesn't matter. Well, there we go. This bill is very poorly drafted. For one thing, it's ungrammatical, if that itself is a word. It makes no sense. How do you erect a use or an activity?

No one has provided any reasons why the current definition of development needs to be changed. There are over a dozen Hawaii Supreme Court cases in which the court has applied the existing definition. I believe none of those opinions, all of those opinions are unanimous. None of them involve a dissent.

The current language is clear and it is well understood. There is no reason to be and no reason has been offered to tinker with the existing definition. Moreover, the definition that's provided creates many loopholes. Apologize for the typo in the third paragraph of my testimony.

It is just so poorly drafted and would have devastating consequences along the shoreline. Finally, do you really want to exclude your constituents from commenting, to having any voice in what happens to state projects near the shoreline? Although I do want to point out again, this bill affects more than just public projects.

It actually includes private projects because a project that is authorized includes any project that receives a permit from a government authority. it is just a ridiculous, nonsense bill. Please kill it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Frankel. Next, McKinley Eads on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is McKinley Eads and I'm testifying on behalf of the Avalon Development Company. As a developer working in Hawaii, we understand firsthand how critical, how critical timely and reliable infrastructure is to health, safety, and the economic stability of our communities.

Roads, utilities, drainage systems, and other public infrastructure are foundational investments in housing, emergency response, and long term resilience, particularly in an island environment where capacity and redundancy are limited. Federal, state, and county infrastructure projects are already subject to extensive planning, environmental review, and public accountability processes, including consistency with adopted community plans.

Requiring these projects to also undergo the special management area permitting process often results in unnecessary delays without providing additional environmental protection. Exempting publicly funded and authorized infrastructure projects from SMA permitting as proposed appropriately balances environmental stewardship with the urgent need to deliver essential public improvements efficiently and responsibly for the people of Hawaii. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Questions, Members? Thank you to all the testifiers on this measure. We're going to go on to the next measure. House Bill 1844, House Draft 1, relating to the Land Use Commission.

This measure, except for important agricultural lands, requires the Land Use Commission to reclassify lands that are designated for urban growth under a County General Plan, or County Development Plan, as being in the urban district at the request of the county, subject to certain conditions. First up, we have Attorney General. Welcome.

Afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair and members of the committee. Deputy Attorney General Alyssa Kau, on behalf of the department. The department offers comments on the bill and has offered technical amendments with respect to both comments, but just to highlight, per the committee's request, first is our concern about important agricultural lands.

So Article 11, Section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution prohibits reclassification of IALs absent compliance with the two-thirds vote from the Legislature. And in the previous committee, in the committee report, they did acknowledge the importance of the IALs. However, even though it says it in the purpose section, it never actually made it into the bill, so we did offer an amendment to say that this section shall not explicitly apply to IALs.

The second major concern that the department has is with respect to any due process concerns, and I think other testifiers have also raised this concern. So amendments to any land-use district boundaries implicates protective property rights of landowners or their neighbors, other interveners. And so, in order to afford interested parties the opportunity to have notice of this potential land change-- or district boundary amendment and the opportunity to testify, comment or intervene, we note that the bill currently excludes or says, notwithstanding Sections 205-31 and 205-4.

However, those sections provide for the public notice and public hearings protections that I just spoke of, and eliminating or overriding those provisions could pose some due process issues. So to mitigate any potential constitutional risks, the department has offered an amendment to that section that would also comply with Chapter 91, which also provides those notice requirements. I'm available if you have any further questions on the measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony and your suggested amendments. Next, the Land Use Commission.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas. Daniel Orodenker, executive officer for the Land Use Commission. Vice Chair Poepoe and members of the committee, we've submitted written testimony, which is similar to the AG's testimony with regard to constitutional issues and due process. Our concern is that the--excuse me--been sitting here for a long time.

Me too.

The bill on its face opens things up to extreme legal challenge and would actually result in slowing down the development of affordable housing. And we're here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Wayne Tanaka.

Good afternoon, Chair, vice chairs, and members of the committee. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club. We are also in opposition to this bill. In addition to the constitutional due process issues that have been raised by the agencies, you know, I just want to emphasize that, you know, if the goal is to accelerate housing development, this bill is really barking up the wrong tree, right? So there's been 60,000 units that have already been approved by the Land Use Commission that haven't been developed.

The Lands Commission has never failed to meet the 45-day deadline to approve petitions for affordable housing, and, you know, our one other concern is, you know, if we're going to give the counties the responsibility to take on even more tasks that the Lands Commission usually figures out for them, we might actually be impeding not just approvals for affordable housing, but all the other things that the planning departments are having a hard time, like, completing in time, like permitting and building renovations. So for those reasons, we respectfully ask that you hold this measure and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. McKinley Eads, Avalon Development Company on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. We stand on our written testimony and we echo the evidence and arguments made by Grassroots Institute and Housing Hawaii's Future. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, Richmond Luzar, Housing Hawaii's Future. Not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, 1844? If not, questions, members? Yes. Mr. Shimizu.

LUC, please. I want to thank you for dropping off your testimony to my office. I thought it was important that you shared that. So based on the Attorney General's amendments, is that sufficient to address your concerns?

I don't believe that they are. One of the primary tenets of due process is that every person be allowed the opportunity and notice to defend their rights in court. The General Plan process is overarching and it doesn't allow for individual landowners to come in.

If you incorporate contested case hearings--which is what due process requires--into the General Plan process, you'll never end up with a general plan because every landowner would have to be given notice and the opportunity to be heard, and a contested case needs to occur.

Okay.

Can I do a follow-up question, Chair, to LUC? Do you know the amount of Ag lands in the county's General Development Plan?

Is that relevant to this bill?

I do not represent this.

That information would take some doing homework, and he could get back to you, if you'd like, Mr. Shimizu.

Okay. Can I ask a question to Wayne Tanaka? You know, I appreciate your help, your advocacy for the environment, and the way I read this bill is, it streamlines some kind of benign things that, you know, will help overall community to get back on its feet, and so forth.

So if you were to look at it through that lens, what are the concerns that you have that you're opposing this bill? Because I see it as a positive that it's allowing approval for, you know, infrastructure that's damaged, that needs to be replaced, or just really minor repairs, that kind of thing. So I guess I'm not aware of the concerns that you as the environmentalist filter looks at, yeah?

Yeah, that's a good question. Really, our concern is that the Land Use Commission, through the due process they provide, are able to get really granular information, like they can hear from farmers that live next door, they can hear from culture practitioners that might have practices that occur on these non-urban lands, and the colonies don't have that level of granular inspection.

And so, by taking the LUC out of the process, we might be overlooking a lot of things that could be impacting some really important public interests, and in exchange, we don't really get much benefit in terms of accelerated timelines, right? The Land Use Commission is pretty efficient at going through that process, and as I mentioned, they haven't failed-- they've never failed to meet the 45-day turnaround time for affordable housing projects that need district bar amendments.

And so, we're-- the trade-off is-- just seems lopsided where we're going to close our eyes to a number of impacts for a very minimal benefit, especially considering normal time-- you know, overall timelines for not just-- you know, for new housing development, it's like years long.

So just a couple months or less than two months to safeguard some really important things that could get lost forever to have a fractional benefit for this longer development timeline just doesn't seem like a appropriate trade-off from our perspective.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 1845, House Draft 1, relating to the Land Use Commission.

This measure specifies that a simple majority of affirmative votes of the members of the Land Use Commission present at a meeting and qualified to vote is required for any boundary amendment. It clarifies that a majority of all members, to which the Land Use Commission is entitled, shall be necessary to constitute a quorum; clarifies that a two-thirds vote shall be necessary for actions taken by the Land Use Commission regarding important agricultural lands. First up, we have the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Chair, Vice Chair, and members, Leo Asuncion. I'm an administrator with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We'll stand on our written testimony, providing comments on the bill. We just want to make sure, in some decisions by the Land Use Commission, right, we would be technically reducing it, right?

And I can understand the reasons why the purpose of making sure that for quorum requirements and the like, but you might end up in a situation where you have a very critical decision, and basically, you have only three, possibly only three members of five, to make quorum, right, of nine members, really, that should be making the decision.

That's why we just recommended in our testimony maybe it should be up to at least a majority, so at least five members making a decision and five members voting in the affirmative. So just to point that out, but no position really on the bill, just the comments.

Thank you very much. Next, the Land Use Commission.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. First, I'd like to say that we stand on our written testimony. I would point out that in the third paragraph, there is an error with regard to the Commission's position, which says the LUC did take a position, but the LUC did not take a position.

The comments that are contained in our testimony are from staff, and I would like to point out once again that I just don't understand the need for this. In 25 years either-- when I practiced before the Land Use Commission and since I've been on the Land Use Commission, I never saw one time something didn't occur because we didn't have quorum, 25 years. And our staff did some research. It has never, ever happened.

The flip side of this is that you could end up with an observed result, as was pointed out by the Office of Planning, where you only get three votes to reclassify thousands of acres, and that's not what I think was intended when the Land Use Commission was created and I don't think it's appropriate for three people to make that important decision. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Wayne Tanaka.

Good afternoon. I promise we'll support a bill. Unfortunately, we're in opposition to this bill as well. And just to, you know, build off of what-- and it's kind of like a reality check, right? So the current composition of Land Use Commission, it's real estate, interest, construction, construction, labor, labor, labor. There's just one farmer on the Land Use Commission, right?

There's nothing to say-- like, nothing bad about those things, but if we're talking about land exchanges that impact dozens, maybe 100 acres or more of land, and we want to care-- we want to make sure we're not, you know, impacting unnecessarily our food security or culture practices or the things that require maybe a broad range of mindfulness and expertise to safeguard, reducing the approval standards for these land use changes to just potentially three individuals on the Land Use Commission may result in, again, like, things being overlooked that could have generational impacts. So, you know, for that reason, we respectfully ask you hold this measure, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. McKinley Eads, Avalon Development on Zoom.

Aloha. We offer comments. We do want to note that Hawaii's permitting delays are well-documented and they definitely increase the uncertainty and costs related to development, but at the same time, we recognize the immense value in these regulatory bodies, but they should be required to make timely decisions, as that is necessary. We support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mark Clemente, Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters. Next, Richmond Luzar, Housing Hawaii's Future. Andrew Perera, Civic Resource Partnership. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1845? If not, questions, members?

I have a question, Chair.

Representative Shimizu.

Wayne Tanaka. Would you be okay with a simple majority of five, as LUC has commented, instead of the six of nine?

I think any reduction in the current status quo, you're risking losing that one more aye on this proposal change. That could be very huge, and as I think the Land Use Commission pointed out, this has never been a problem before. So I'm not sure why we would want to increase the risks of unintended oversights in exchange for something that isn't even for a non-solution. I guess that's my take. It doesn't fix anything. There's no problems it can fix.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you to all the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2103, relating to the Land Use Commission. This measure amends the composition of the Land Use Commission to require at least one member who has substantial experience and expertise in water resource management and at least one member who has substantial experience or expertise in traditional Hawaiian land usage and knowledge of cultural land practices.

It requires the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to submit a list of nominees to the governor for the appointment of a commission member having substantial experience or expertise in traditional Hawaiian land usage and knowledge of cultural land practices. First up, Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Katie Roth of the Commission on Water Resource Management. We stand in support of our written testimony. We also feel that this bill will help address some of the silos currently in water and land-use planning decision-making. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Leina'ala Ley, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, standing in strong support of this measure, which is part of OHA's 2026 legislative package.

I would-- I think the committee has heard a lot already today about the importance and value of the Land Use Commission as a body and a forum for the protection of Native Hawaiian rights, environmental rights because of its semi-adjudicative nature and the unique opportunities that it allows for presentation of evidence, detailed examination of viewpoints and data that help drive informed decision-making.

I do want to highlight, with respect to the water you see, while always a valuable addition, I think the drought that we've experienced in Maui County, Hawaii County for the past--going on 20 years--but severe to extreme drought on Maui in particular for the past six years really adds urgency to the call for a water-use expert seat, and just to repeat what is in our testimony, but I think it's important as far as the Native Hawaiian seat that OHA is asking to appoint.

Our board is governed by the Sunshine Law, so any nominees that we would make to the Land Use Commission would be brought to our board for a public vote under the Sunshine Law, giving the community an opportunity for advanced input into the process, which we think is important. So thank you very much.

Mahalo, Ms. Ley. Next, Land Use Commission.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members.

Everyone on TV Land wants to see you, Mr. Orodenker.

Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the commission, Daniel Orodenker executive officer for the Land Use Commission, and we stand on our written testimony.

In support? Against it? With comments?

With comments.

With comments. Okay. Thank you. Next, Wayne Tanaka.

Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii. We are in strong support of this measure, finally. I'll just say, with all the things Land Use Commission is looking out for, right, like food security, cultural practices, climate resilience, affordable housing, like all these things that we really care about and want to make sure are considered in large land exchanges, like, they all tie into-- water is-- they all tie into water, right? And so I think it makes a ton of sense to ensure that at least one commission member has that water expertise. And otherwise, you know, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Tanaka. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not questions Members? If not thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2104 relating to Island Burial Councils. This measure extends the time to fill vacancies that occur during an Island Burial Council member's term.

It provides per diem compensation in the form of a stipend for Island Burial Council Members representing geographic regions. It revises the Island Burial Council's quorum for business to be a majority of the appointed council Members. First up, we, we have the Attorney General. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair Cardis, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee Alyssa Kau for the Department of Attorney General. Our comments are mainly administrative, but we I do want to highlight them for you.

So first, the Bill or first, we're not taking any position on the actual policy of the Bill and I'm going to move on now to our technical comment. So first, the Bill does not specify the source of funds for payment of the stipend. So it doesn't say whether they're general funds or OHA trust funds.

So identifying a funding source would provide additional clarity for any implementation or any, any budget issues that may pop up. Second is that the Bill says that the Members of the Burial Council would serve without salary, but it they would simultaneously provide the Members with a stipend for attendance.

And so we just think that clarifying some of that terminology would also help for budgetary provisions. And we have also offered a technical amendment in on page three through page four that helps to address our concerns. And I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development

Aloha Chair Vice Chair, Members of the Committee Diana Setness is with the Office of Planning Sustainable Development. OPSD stands on its written testimony with comments. The issue of Island Burial Council's failing to meet quorum was something that was raised in the Chapter 6e pig of the speed task force.

I would like to refer Committee Members to data detailing the Member vacancies and meeting cancellations from page 14 of the first B task force report which had been provided at the beginning of of this hearing.

The change in quorum to majority of appointed Members, but no fewer than three, is an important first step to address the meeting cancellations that have been slowing the development of housing in Hawaii. But we do also note that more action will be needed to ensure the operational continuity and sustainability of the Island Burial Councils.

But OPSD believes that this should be done in collaboration with existing Members. Thank you. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next State Historic Preservation Division. Thank you for your patience today.

Jessica Popp, I'm the administrator of the State Historic Preservation Division. We stand on our comments as submitted for this measure. One thing to highlight that's at the very end of like the third paragraph

is the core purpose that we find value in this Bill or reasonable path forward with the framework that OHA is proposing is the the structure for quorum. One of our biggest issues is staffing the burial councils. The next biggest issue I shouldn't say staffing, but seating Members of the burial councils. The next biggest issue is maintaining quorum.

And so to have the flexibility to lower the quorum threshold like what everybody else is saying, it will allow us to hold more meetings and to get through business and to ensure that EV Capuna is preserved, protected and reburied if it needs to be in an appropriate manner.

Thank you very much. Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Leilaloha Makuanani, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, we submit our testimony in strong support of this measure as part of our 2026 legislative package.

So I will just highlight that our intention here is to strengthen the function of the burial councils, one being through the quorum reform and second, the OPSC's encouragement to read the statistics from the Big Task Force, the Speed Task Force as well. The statewide 60% cancellation rate is very common for the IBCs.

But I also want to take a little time to address the Attorney General comments here with some of our time that we have a little some concern with the recommendations that the Attorney General has made. For the latter part of the recommendation. We do feel it's an appropriate clarification on the funding portion.

But the first part that includes expenses actually incurred with connection. We have a few concerns at the foremost. We believe that the funding source, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Board of Trustees, should have more oversight and discretion over trust funds. And this kind of narrows that ability for the poor to have that discretion.

But we are in agreement that the goal would be to cover those types of actual expenses incurred. But it's not clear if it's something that we're prepared to implement as it would require much more robust documentation from individuals from the council Members after every meeting that they would need to submit for their actual expenses incurred. The model.

So for background, the model that was in mind here was for stipends was to offset the typical nexus costs that are incurred and has been implemented in other jurisdictions as a stipend. So for example, there are county boards and commissions in other states like California and Colorado that have implemented a stipend for service.

Those models were typically around 100200 to $200 for a meeting. As an idea, although the board has not made any decisions on specifics there. If you have additional questions, I'm here. We're also here for questions. But we do recommend from the Attorney General comments to remove that first portion, the expenses actually incurred.

Okay, thank you very much. The next person said they want to testify. Ms. Ana Kaleakila not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2104? If not questions, Members, go ahead.

You mentioned. You mentioned an example of around $200 for a stick in. If ever there were a case where OHA itself were consulting the burial council, and OHA is also paying the burial council a stipend.

Is there a way to remediate the potential conflict, even the appearance of that conflict, that might bring up?

I mean, I think that we would have to refer to our legal counsel. But I think that yes. That it could create the appearance, as you said. I think there's other situations where that also applies in a lot of issues. But yeah, I have to defer. But I also have our chief advocate and I don't know if she can.

Maybe just something to consider going forward to think about. Thank you.

I have one question. You're commenting on the from for Office of Hawaiian Affairs. You're commenting on the Attorney General's testimony saying that you had concerns about. The paragraph that you're referring to is the one where they're referring to page three, line 18 through page four, line two about the stipend. Is that what you were concerned about?

Yes. Where they were suggesting.

They're saying clarifying the terminology describing the payment for meeting attendance would ensure consistency with Section 6E.

Yes.

You don't think that's necessary?