Confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. No.

AAUW’s voice is traditionally more thoughtful and reasoned than is advocated by many of the more recently established women’s organizations, and I see that as a good thing. However, we cannot sit on the sidelines when momentous questions are in play. The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice for life certainly qualifies as momentous.

I understand that some AAUW members do not understand the strength of AAUW’s opposition to Kavanaugh, and believe we should listen to what he says. Without claiming that he was not sincere during the hearings, I would like to call your attention to national AAUW’s documentation of what he has done on the bench. These actions speak louder than words. Here is an excerpt from a letter by AAUW’s Deborah J. Vagins, Senior Vice President, Public Policy and Research:

After careful review of Judge Kavanaugh’s available record, including his record on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, his known speeches and writings over his legal career, and his responses to questions during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I am concerned that he will do grave harm by undermining positions central to AAUW’s mission, including upending employment and labor rights, curtailing reproductive rights and access to health care, entangling public education and religion, and restricting voting rights.

I also understand that some may have doubts about the allegations of sexual assault leveled against him. I do respect AAUW members for being fair-minded. But here’s what I think:

  • Trump has tweeted that if anything actually occurred, charges would have been filed at the time. This shows a disdain for the well-established fact that women find it very difficult to file such charges and often take years to muster the courage to come forward. Since Dr. Ford came forward, she has received death threats and has felt it necessary to relocate her family. And that’s after #metoo! Imagine how hard it would have been to take the risk of filing charges in the 1980s!
  • The allegations were not dreamed up or fabricated to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Dr. Ford revealed the assault to her therapist in 2012. She had no reason to defame Kavanaugh at that time.
  • Kavanaugh was only in high school when the alleged assault occurred. True. I have a son, with whom I had my own talk about respecting women’s bodily integrity. If he had gotten drunk, lost his better judgment, and had done something like this, I would expect him to confess and seek forgiveness. Kavanaugh did nothing of the kind and still denies the event and shows neither contrition nor regret. Could he have been so blind drunk as to erase his memory and still have done what he is alleged to have done?
  • Kavanaugh does not face criminal charges because of the statute of limitations. If the Senate does not confirm him, his career will not be over. Don’t feel sorry for him. The administration should be able to do better than this.

Now, if after careful thought you agree with me, call the Florida Senators as I just did. Be sure to mention where you live and what you want them to do (oppose Kavanaugh’s confirmation, have the FBI investigate Dr. Ford’s claims, etc.):

Marco Rubio   202-224-3041

Bill Nelson      202-224-5274

Civic Engagement Activity

These reports were received during late August and September from several Florida AAUW branches in response to a request for civic engagement projects:

Weston:

Palm Beach County

  • members are working on an initiative to encourage voting.  Members pledge to remind at least one drop off voter to go the polls or request an absentee ballot.
  • We are hosting the League of Women Voters at our September luncheon to discuss amendments on the November ballot. This meeting is open to the public

Flagler County

  • has already begun its get out the vote campaign.
  • On Wednesday, August 29, we hosted  a Women’s Equality Day program at the Flagler County Public Library which featured a speaker from the LWV and the Daytona Beach branch president.
  • We will be appearing at the October and November 1stFriday in Flagler Beach with voting information etc.
  • Our October 13 branch meeting will be a meet the local candidates program and an Amendment

Marco Island

A Marco Island member writes: I belong to two very small philanthropic groups who are already planning the following and perhaps because I belong to the Marco Branch we will ask them to join especially for the walks.

  1. Still discussing the logo:  #USFORUS, #ONEUS, #BACKTOGETHER
  2. We have gotten local police permission to hold signage and line up on the bridge with large signs
  3. I usually write the articles for the newspapers.  They will be regarding ‘Parties Work Together’, ‘Crossing the Line’, ‘Stop Bullying’. etc.

Daytona Beach

  • will be hosting a meeting the the League on the proposed amendments in October.
  • St Augustine and Daytona hope to work on women’s economic security research which I am sure will lead to some advocacy work.

Sarasota

  • Hosted an equality day luncheon (per Pat Ross)

Jacksonville

  • will have as its program for September the former president of First Coast LWV presenting a program on the Constitutional Amendments. If the LWV wants us to help as we did in 2014, she will ask at the meeting and I am sure we will get volunteers to help.

Orlando/Winter Park

  • October Meeting will have as a presenter a member of the League of Women Voters to discuss the 13 amendments that will be on the ballot.

Lake Sumter

  • Get out the vote, voter registration with LWV
  • Joint Equality Tea co-hosted by AAUW and LWV on August 17 with guest speakers Lisa Marshall (running unopposed for Lake Co. Commission) and Leslie Campione, Bill Nelson’s Regional Director each speaking on how the became interested in politics.
  • Educating members and the public on
    • Proposed FL constitution amendments
    • Meetings to host political candidates in our counties
  • Plan to host an event at a local college.

 

 

 

Florida’s One Member One Vote on Public Policy

Until two years ago, Florida AAUW published a set of public policy priorities. At that time, I presented the following rationale for not publishing such a document. Because our bylaws and operating procedures require this set of priorities, I proposed then and propose now that the state of Florida accept the national public policy priorities as our public policy priorities for Florida. Here is the rationale for not publishing our own document:

  1. It is not useful
    1. It is phrased in general terms and we need specifics for legislative action e. g. Lobby Days and Action Alerts.
    2. We already have a national public policy phrased in general terms.
    3. It is confusing to local PP officers because they think anything I or the Public Policy Committee suggest should have gone through the biennial vote on public policy. That is not true.
    4. While it might be useful to have some long-term public policy goals, having a predetermined set of public policy priorities for a two-year period that is more specific than the national public policy priorities could be limiting to our actions in response to quickly developing state issues. I do not want to see a situation in which we would be prevented from addressing legislative developments just because they are not listed in the state priorities.
  2. It presents a potential conflict with national bylaws:

ARTICLE X. STATE OR MULTISTATE ORGANIZATIONS

Section 2. Purpose. These organizations shall further AAUW purposes, program, and policieswithin their respective areas. Bylaws of such organizations shall not be in conflict with these AAUW Bylaws.

Also, from the AAUW Board of Directors Manual: 300 Program and Policy

PUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM. The AAUW Public Policy Program is adopted by a vote of the membership every two years. It serves to present AAUW’s Public Policy Principles and the Action Priorities which will focus national resources and nationwide energy. This external statement of federal priorities identifies short-term policy objectives based upon their viability, critical need, strong member support, and potential for distinctive AAUW contribution. Members, branches and states initiate action consistent with AAUW’s Use of Name Policy. (See Policy 119, Section II.)

I ask for your vote in the one member one vote process to accept the AAUW national public policy priorities for 2017 through 2019 as the public policy priorities for Florida. We do need your vote because a quorum a 5% of the membership is required to complete the one member one vote process. You should have received an email from Fong Cheng (he’s a long-time AAUW information technology specialist) with instructions as to how to vote. When you go to the ballot, you will notice that the full text of the AAUW 2017-2019 Public Policy Priorities has been included. Please note that you are not voting on those priorities themselves. Those policies were adopted by a vote of all members nationwide leading up to the 2017 national convention. They are the priorities of all AAUW. You are merely voting whether to accept them in lieu of a special Florida set of public policies and a public policy document. Thank you in advance for your participation.

Patricia DeWitt, Director for Public Policy, AAUW of Florida

Constitution Revision Commission

Editorial note: This post is by Jennifer Boddicker of the Naples Branch. She and Barbara Kanter attended one of the Constitution Revision Committee’s Public Hearings. I attended one in Jacksonville and perhaps many of you attended one as well. The Commission is now done with its first week of meetings. They will consider proposals in this order (scroll way down). You can still email comments to admin@flcrc.gov but they may not be read, but you can find a list of commissioners here and call them.

Below Boddicker’s account you will find a longer piece on all the proposed amendments by Linda Geller Schwarz.

Pat DeWitt

Every twenty years Florida considers amendments to the state constitution. 2018 is such a year. The Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) narrows down proposed amendments to only a few that will appear on the ballot in November, to be voted on by the people of Florida. The CRC hosts listening tours to hear public input.

On March 5, we attended a public CRC session in Cape Coral. Six students from Parkland came to the event. They, like us, asked the CRC to add an amendment banning the sale of military style assault rifles and high capacity magazines. This will allow the people of Florida to decide, taking the decision out of NRA-complicit lawmaker’s hands.

As you’ve seen on television, these kids are eloquent and pointed. One called out the commissioners for looking at their phones during testimony. He insisted they “look him in the eye” while he spoke. One by one, the young people told their stories. Then they said if change didn’t happen, they’d be using the power of the vote to fire lawmakers.

So far, the Florida legislature has refused to ban the sale of the AR-15. However, the kids from Marjory Stoneman Douglas have transformed the gun debate. Before, change seemed impossible. Now, change is inevitable. We regret what they have gone through. We are that they are turning their trauma into a crusade to never let it happen again. Where grown-ups have failed to speak up, young people have the courage to challenge the status quo.

From Linda Geller Schwarz:

When Florida’s Constitution was rewritten in 1968, it contained a provision unique among the states: the creation of a commission that would meet every 20 years and provide recommended changes to the state constitution for Florida voters to decide on.  This year, all amendments proposed by the Commission need to be finalized by May 10, 2018 to be included on the November ballot.

The CRC is made up of 37 members, including the attorney general and individuals appointed by the governor, house speaker, senate president, and chief justice.  With Florida state government under single party control, the appointments to the 2017-2018 CRC were ideologically one-sided, resulting in many regressive proposals.

The CRC has now completed its final round of public hearings.  With the exception of a heated debate among supporters and opponents of grey-hound racing (proposal 67), most of the public comment focused on what the coalition organized by the League of Women Voters have called the “Terrible Ten”. They include:
Proposal 4 – Delete the No Aid provision from the Florida Constitution’s “Religious Freedom” protections and open the door to Floridians’ tax dollars potentially funding religious indoctrination, proselytizing, and discrimination

Proposal 22 – Eliminate all existing privacy protections, including reproductive rights, from Florida’s Constitution except for those specifically relating to informational privacy. It does this by narrowing the privacy clause so that it only applies “with respect to privacy of information and the disclosure thereof.”

Proposal 29 – Require mandatory use of the error-prone E-Verify program, potentially denying thousands of authorized immigrants and even citizen workers the ability to work without any meaningful avenue to seek redress.

Proposal 43 – Mandate term limits for local school board members rather than letting voters in the school districts decide how long a member can serve their community.

Proposal 45 – Give tax dollars to private schools through school vouchers including religious schools – creating a system of publicly funded education separate from our free public schools

Proposal 71 – Take sole control of charter schools away from local school boards and allow decisions about local education needs to be made at the state level.

Proposal 95 –Allow the state to preempt any local ordinances that big business can claim interferes with commerce between counties and other jurisdictions – such as living wage ordinances, protections from wage theft, local hiring preferences or local protections for the environment and natural resources.

Proposal 96 – Needlessly claiming to protect victims of crime while not providing any meaningful benefit to victims, interfering with the rights of the accused, and making it more difficult for the state to convict criminals.

Proposal 97 – Make it close to impossible for the constitution to be changed by initiative, by the Legislature or by any commission in the future.

(For details on these proposals go to the CRC website:  https://www.flcrc.gov/Proposals/Commissioner )

If you are counting, that makes nine proposals.  The tenth, Proposal 72, would tie the hands of future elected leaders and severely limit Florida’s ability to invest in public education, mental health care, affordable housing, roads and bridges, parks, beaches and workforce training programs by requiring a supermajority vote of the Legislature to raise taxes or fees.  The CRC does not need to put this on the November ballot, because the Florida legislature has already passed a bill to do so (HB 7001/SB1742).  If the Courts allow this on the ballot as written and it passes, this will be very damaging for the future of the state.

While all of the above would be bad changes that pubic testimony and surveys show Floridians do not want,  there is one amendment on the table that is a great idea.

CRC Commissioners Coxe, Plymale, Joyner, and Kruppenbacher have proposed  an amendment that would ban assault weapons., require a 10 day waiting period to purchase a firearm and incorporate some of the other provisions that were approved in the recent school safety bill.   If at least 22 of the 37 Commissioners approve this amendment, it could be placed directly on the ballot in November!
The CRC has indicated they will be taking up the proposals in the following order (scroll down):  http://flcrc.gov/Meetings/Calendar/2017/Daily_Calendars_2018-03-14_182335.PDF
 

Pat’s Viewpoint on the AAUW Membership Question

A branch public policy director asked my opinion on the question of admitting people without college degrees to AAUW membership. I am posting it here, as it has a lot to do with public policy. I cannot and will not attempt to oversimplify or give you a pat answer (pun inevitable).

Historically, AAUW had as part of its mission to promote women’s education. Equal access to education was an important issue in a time when medical doctors promulgated the opinion that education was harmful to a woman’s health and all-important biological fertility. We no longer hear this opinion from respected sources. Women are no longer behind men in college graduation rates: The Atlantic reported that in 2017 women comprised 56% of college graduates (bachelor’s).  This doesn’t surprise me, since I worked for and with the National Center for Education Statistics. At conventions we heard several times from a researcher who was concerned with the diminishing rates of college attendance and college graduation among men. As I’ve said many times, this is a battle we have won. We need to move on. I do not believe that the promise of AAUW membership motivates young women to complete their degrees today. When AAUW was more prominent socially, that might have been the case, but when degree attainment is as common as it is today, that hardly seems plausible.

Let us consider the credibility and effectiveness of our advocacy. That is important in public policy. One of our Public Policy committee members a couple of years ago was also a member of the national lobby corps, and she firmly believed that their status as “educated women” gave them more credibility. I’m not sure how she knew, but I do believe that it gave her more confidence. That is valuable in lobbying. I think both humanities and sciences backgrounds can be useful—you need to have some command of statistics, but personal stories have a lot of impact. We need more of those! However, we have to recognize that in the last 40 years or so, the public’s respect for expertise has declined drastically. Many decisions by government officials are strongly influenced by emotion (or what they think will be the emotions of voters). When our members are trying to persuade officials to take or not take some action, will careful analysis or passionate pleading be most successful? Every time I write a Florida Action Alert, the national office rewrites it to put in more emotional content.

Now let us consider membership. We know that our membership has been on the decline for some time. We have been told that the paradigms and customs of the past will not suffice to grow our membership. One of the main arguments for doing away with the degree requirement—now only a two-year degree—is that it will allow us to recruit women who share our values but don’t have a degree. Is having a degree one of our values? Does one have to possess a degree in order to promote “high-quality public education…academic freedom, civic education, protection from censorship, bias-free education, and responsible funding for all levels of education” (from AAUW Public Policy Principles for Action 2017-19). No. See above on advocacy in general. I scarcely believe that any of my four college degrees would cut any ice at a school board meeting compared with the word of a parent of whatever educational level, but I haven’t really tried this experiment.

Finally, let us be pragmatic about this vote to drop the degree requirement. Since far more women are earning college degrees today, there should be plenty of potential members to recruit. We just have to find them. I can see the advantages of having the viewpoint of certain stakeholders who don’t have college degrees, but the idea of associate memberships or friend memberships has been floated in the past and people didn’t like the idea of second-class memberships. From the standpoint of public policy, I believe we need to have more community education events and advocacy events open to the public, where participants don’t have to be members. Moreover, we can and should work on projects, particularly advocacy projects, in coalition with other groups in the community that share our values and goals. There are a lot of opportunities for women who want to advocate for equity for women and girls, including older organizations like NOW and newer ones like the Women’s March. Neither of these has a degree requirement. We can work with them and learn from their viewpoints.

Personally, I like the idea of our being known as educated women, as long as we continue to use and build on our education and exercise our ability to come to reasoned conclusions. And as long as we are bold enough to stand up for them!

 

 

 

New Abortion Ban Bills in Florida Legislature

We have received word from Kate Neilson that HB 1429 and SB 1890, the “Dismemberment Abortion” bills, are in opposition to our public policy priorities. The reason is that they limit a woman’s control of her reproductive life. They seek to ban the most common second-trimester procedure, properly called a dilation and evacuation or D&E, by making it a felony for a physician to “knowingly” perform one. I have read the bill and the staff analysis, and I find it very confusing (it’s OK if the fetus is killed first or if suction is involved) and very threatening to the provider. Doctors would have to choose a method based on the law and not on the best interests of the woman. I encourage you to read the staff analysis and the bill here. D&E abortion staff analysis

The fight to roll back reproductive choice is now in the phase of attempts to ban certain procedures, using emotional language and painful imagery. If enough procedures are banned and the legal risk of being an abortion provider is increased, their goals of taking the control of women’s own bodies away from them are achieved.

It is likely that if passed, this law would also be found unconstitutional. As noted in the article referenced below, eight states have had similar laws introduced; two are in force, one is permanently blocked by the courts, and the rest are in judicial review.

For those who wish to learn more, here’s a good article:

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2017/02/de-abortion-bans-implications-banning-most-common-second-trimester-procedure

The House bill has been favorably reported out of two committees so far, with one to go. The Senate bill 1890 has not been heard in committee.

Here’s how the representatives voted:

Health Quality Subcommittee (1/24/18)

YES
Burton
Byrd
Donalds
Grant, J
Mariano
Massullo
Perez
Pigman
Stevenson

NO
Ascensio
Jones
Mercado
Newton
Plascencia
Silvers

Judiciary Committee (2/7/18)

Record Vote:
YES
Burgess
Byrd
Fitzenhagen
Gonzalez
Grall
Harrison
Metz
Moraitis
Perez
Plakon
Spano
Sprowls
Trumbull

NO
Alexander
Cortes, J
Diamond
Geller
Hager
Pritchett
Slosberg
Stafford

AAUW Florida Legislative Report 2018

01/22/18

Florida AAUW Lobby Days are January 24-25. If you can’t be in Tallahassee at that time, you can support us by contacting your legislators and asking them to support these bills. If you see your legislator(s) among the sponsors, please thank them.

Notes: Legislators are designated with D for Democrat and R for Republican, and their district number. You will note that items 2, 4, and 5 have bipartisan support while 1 and 3 are supported so far by Democrats only. The numbers of districts start in the Panhandle and move south.

  1. The Helen Gordon Davis Fair Pay Protection Act

HB 393 and SB 594 amend and extend the Florida equal pay statute. This is “our bill”, having been filed in a revised version of last year’s bill by Reps Lori Berman (D 90, part of Palm Beach) and Janet Cruz (D 62, part of Hillsborough), and co-sponsored by Abruzzo (D 81), Davis (D 13), Geller D 100), Jenne (D 99), Mercado (D 48), and Smith (D 49). The Senate bill was filed by Linda Stewart (D 13, Orange). AAUW Public Policy emphasizes economic security for women.

  1. All employees covered (language excluding those covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act was stricken)
  2. Protections
    1. Employers can’t retaliate against individuals involved in legal proceedings to enforce the law
    2. Employer can’t retaliate against employees who discuss wages
    3. Employers can’t reduce another employee’s pay to comply
    4. Employers can’t request salary history
    5. Employers can’t provide less favorable career opportunities based on sex
  3. Employer defenses clarified
    1. Defenses must be job-related
    2. Agreement for a lesser wage is not a defense

We aim to do all we can to see that this bill is at least heard in committee. It is now “in” the House Careers & Competition Subcommittee. We could really use some Republican co-sponsors!

AAUW Priority: to achieve economic self-sufficiency for all women.

  1. Victims of Human Trafficking and Trust Funds

HB 167, linked with HB 169.  Ross Spano (R 59, part of Hillsborough) is the sponsor of both with co-sponsors Burgess (R 38); Cortes, J. (D 43); Drake (R 5); Edwards (D 98); Fitzenhagen (R 78); Killebrew (R 41); Leek (R 25); Pigman (R 55); Stone (R 22); Williams (D 92); and Yarborough (R 12).

Senate bills include SB 338, 340, 1044, and 1046. The Senate bills are by Randolph Bracy (D 11, part of Orange) and Lauren Book (D 32), part of Broward.

These bills aim to reduce human trafficking by providing a civil cause of action for victims of human trafficking against a trafficker or facilitator; providing procedures and requirements for bringing a claim, and creating the Trust Fund for Victims of Human Trafficking and Prevention within the Department of Law Enforcement. The Trust Fund can also be used for public education, resource centers, and legal aid for victims. Also included in the group are bills to require hotels and restaurants to provide training in recognizing trafficking victims (SB 338). SB 340 provides for redaction and sealing of personal identifying information of victims of human trafficking upon request

The House bills have been reported favorably by the Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee and by the House Justice Appropriations Subcommittee. They are now in the Judiciary Committee, the last on the list. Senate bills 1044 and 1046 have been referred to two committees. Another series of Senate bills is linked to SB 338 are only referred so far.

AAUW Priority: to guarantee equality, individual rights, and social justice for a diverse society.

  1. Access to Clinics

HB 189, SB 320, sponsored by Amy Mercado (D 48, part of Orange), with co-sponsors Diamond (D 68) and Smith (D 49); Senate bill sponsored by Linda Stewart (D 13).

They would prohibit a person from committing certain acts against reproductive health services clients, providers, and assistants. Those acts include intimidation or physical harm or the threat of force, providing some protection to women entering abortion clinics and those working there. Criminal penalties and cause of civil action are provided.

Neither of these bills has yet been heard in committee. The first House committee is Civil Justice and Claims.

AAUW Priority: to guarantee equality, individual rights, and social justice for a diverse society.

  1. Sexual Harassment

HB 1233, sponsored by Kristin Jacobs (D, part of Broward) and SB 1628, sponsored by Lauren Book (D, part of Broward) and Lizbeth Benacquisto (R, part of Lee)

Creates a Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct that would meet at four year intervals to study the problem and recommend best practices. It provides a new definition of sexual harassment. also prohibits public officers, qualified candidates, agency employees, & lobbyists from sexually harassing individuals; provides penalties for lobbyists who violate prohibition against sexual harassment; requires Commission on Ethics to report to Governor & Cabinet, or Legislature upon violations of act.

The House bill is in the Oversight, Transparency and Administration subcommittee.

AAUW Priority: to guarantee equality, individual rights, and social justice for a diverse society.

  1. Prescription Contraceptive Coverage

HB 1273, sponsored by Holly Raschein (D, Monroe) and SB 1718, sponsored by Lauren Book (D, part of Broward)

Requires health insurance policies & health maintenance contracts to provide coverage for certain contraceptive drugs, devices, products, & procedures without imposing cost-sharing requirements. Religious employers are exempt but must provide notice to employees and prospective employees.

In the House it is listed as in the Health Innovation Subcommittee.

AAUW Priority: to guarantee equality, individual rights, and social justice for a diverse society

  1. Prohibited Discrimination

HB 347 and SB 66 (latter is similar)

Ben Diamond (D 68, part of Pinellas) and René Plascencia (R 50, Brevard/Pinellas) are the main sponsors of HB 347, with co-sponsors Abruzzo (D 81); Alexander (D 8); Antone (D 46); Asencio (D 118); Berman (D 90); Cortes, J. (D 43); Cruz (D 62); Davis (D 13); DuBose (D 94); Duran (D 112); Edwards (D 98); Fitzenhagen (R 78); Geller (D 100); Gruters (R 73); Hardemon (D 108); Jacobs (D 96); Jacquet (D 88); Jenne (D 99); Jones (D 101); Killebrew (R 41); Latvala (R 67); Mariano (R 36); Massullo (R 34); Mercado (D 48); Moskowitz (D 97); Newton (D 70); Peters (R 69); Raschein (R 120); Richardson (D 113); Santiago (R 27); Shaw (D 61); Slosberg (D 91); Smith (D 49); Stark (D 104); and Willhite (D 86).

SB 66 is co-sponsored by Darryl Rouson (D, parts of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties); Thurston (D 33); Stewart (D 13); Bracy (D 11); Book (D 32); Rodriguez (D 37); Young (R 18); Taddeo (D 40); Farmer (D 34); Braynon (D 15); Torres (D 15); Garcia (R 36); Powell (D 30); and Montford (D 3).

This bill adds “sexual orientation and gender identity” as impermissible grounds for discrimination in public lodging establishments and public food service establishments. This language is added to several existing civil rights statutes. Religious corporations, organizations or societies are granted exceptions.

The House bill is now in the Careers & Competition Subcommittee.

AAUW Priority: to guarantee equality, individual rights, and social justice for a diverse society.

We have no bills to oppose at this time. SB 274, Concealed Weapons, is dead. Pregnancy Support Services has cleared all committees in the Senate (SB 444) but has not gone to the floor as yet. HB 41 has been passed by the House.