Florida GOP doubling down with new anti-LGBTQ bills for 2024. What you need to know

A new bill filed Thursday by Rep. Dean Black, R-Jacksonville, might be one of the most sweeping anti-trans bills proposed in Florida yet, which is saying something.

That, along with at least 14 more bills targeting transgender people specifically and LGBTQ+ people in general already filed for the 2024 Florida Legislative Session, indicates the GOP will be doubling down on the wave of anti-trans legislation already passed in the state in recent years.

HB 1233: Biological Sex, seeks to ban legal recognition of transgender identities in the state and requires biological sex affidavits for all Floridians getting new or renewed driver's licenses. The bill would:

• Add reproductive-based definitions of "sex," "female," "male," "woman," "girl," "mother, "father," and "equal" (in respect to sex) to the very first Florida Statute.

• Replace the word "gender" with the word "sex" in every state application for ID including licenses and ID cards, disabled parking permits, driver's licenses, discrimination laws, and requirements for representation on boards, commissions, councils, and committees.

• Mandates that the sex listed on a person's birth certificate would determine if the person may serve as a committeeman or committeewoman.

• Prohibits the Department of Motor Vehicles from issuing or renewing driver's licenses with a listed sex different from the one listed on a person's original birth certificate.

• Requires every Floridian — transgender or not — applying for a new or renewal driver's license to sign an affidavit certifying that the sex listed on the application is identical to the one on their original birth certificate. If it is found not to match, the card must be revoked.

• Mandates that any insurance company covering gender-affirming prescriptions or procedures must also provide coverage for detransition treatment, with no end-of-coverage date provided.

• Requires any health insurance provider issuing policies in Florida that include gender-affirming coverage to also offer policies that do not.

• Blocks insurance companies from prohibiting coverage of anti-trans therapy.

• Defines separate accommodations for biological sex as "not inherently unequal" and allows laws and rules that distinguish between the sexes with respect to "athletics, prisons or other detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms, and other areas where biology, safety, or privacy are implicated."

• Specifically says that if any single part of the act is held invalid, the rest still applies.

Journalist and transgender rights activist Erin Reed noted that the driver's license affidavits could be used to enforce other anti-trans laws in the state. "For example," she said in her newsletter "Erin in the Morning," "Florida might use the affidavits to cross-reference with previous gender markers on driver's licenses, thereby creating a list of all transgender individuals in the state with driver's licenses."

The bill is just one of over a dozen bills that seek to restrict LGBTQ+ people. As of 3:30 Monday afternoon, here are the rest.

'Felt like prey': Bathrooms more unsafe under new Florida law, trans people say

HB 599/SB 1382: Gender Identity Employment Practices

These bills, introduced by Rep. Ryan Chamberlin, R-Belleview, and Sen. Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, would extend Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law to workplaces by:

• Prohibiting government employees or contractors from being required to use their colleagues’ preferred pronouns

• Prohibiting employees from being penalized on the “basis of deeply held religious or biology-based beliefs”

• Making it illegal to require employees of nonprofit organizations and specific employers to undergo training regarding sexual and gender identity and expression

Civil rights attorney and LGBTQ advocate Alejandra Caraballo posted on Twitter, now called X, that the new bill would prohibit nonprofits from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity at all, effectively banning all LGBTQ nonprofits from the state. She also pointed out the bill's vague language.

“What is ‘condition of employment and ‘other activity? The bill doesn’t say,” she wrote. “Just like the original "Don't Say Gay" they make vague terms with large penalties to chill speech. The intent is clear though, to eradicate LGBTQ people from public life.”

HB 1129/SB 1196: Harm to Minors

These bills, filed by Rep. Michelle Salzman, R-Pensacola and Rep. John Temple, R-Wildwood, respectively and called the "Protect Our Children Act," are half of a set of four bills attempting to protect children from sexual predators. The Harm to Minors bills would increase criminal penalties for adults intentionally luring or enticing children under 12 into a building or vehicle from a third-degree felony to a second-degree felony.

They also require all manufacturers of smartphones and tablets to provide on-by-default filters on all their devices sold in the state after Jan. 1, 2025, that would prevent minors from accessing or downloading harmful material, with heavy penalties for companies failing to make a good-faith effort to comply or adults besides parents or guardians who remove the filters for a minor.

Critics say "harmful material" is too vague and such filters block material they shouldn't.

"There is a big difference between a company choosing to make tools for parents and other users available on devices and the state mandating that such tools be implemented by default," David Greene, Civil Liberties Director for the EFF, said in an email. "While the state has some ability to require that minors 17 and younger be shielded from sexual material that meets the legal definition of 'harmful to minors,' the tools the companies provide do not purport to make that legal distinction. Indeed, no tool exists that makes the precise legal determination the law requires.

"Rather, they are blunt tools that target a wide range of materials, often, but not exclusively, dealing with sexual content, that typically make the most conservative and acontextual determinations," he said. The EFF maintains a Red Flag Machine webpage that shows filters blocking multiple websites that are "benign and educational."

Transgender rights: Republicans lean into anti-trans messaging ahead of 2024. But will it mobilize voters?

HB 1135/SB 1238: Lewd or Lascivious Grooming

Short and simple, these one-page bills from Rep. Taylor Yarkosky, R-Montverde, Rep. Doug Bankson, R-Apopka, and Sen. Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, create the crime of "lewd or lascivious grooming" and make it a second-degree felony. While the bills define grooming as a person "preparing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity through overtly sexually themed communication with the child," in a state where just being gay in public often has been equated to grooming critics are concerned this easily could be weaponized.

The bill never specifically mentions LGBTQ+ content but one of the sponsors, Yarkosky, has previously called for criminalizing such material where children are allowed. Reed noted that Yarkosky and Bankson met with the anti-LGBTQ+ organization Christian Family Coalition of Florida in October to discuss "tough anti-grooming legislation" and protecting "public employees from the imposition of LGBT ideology."

Reed also points to the line stating that anyone engaged in "sexually themed communication" who is "observed by" an individual under 16 would face grooming charges under the proposed bill.

'Notably, the provision on line 19 states that the offense does not apply if there is 'permission from the parent.'” she said. "This clause gives away the true intent of the bill: it suggests that the bill’s focus is not on actions universally deemed inappropriate, even with 'parental consent' (like an adult sending explicit texted pictures), but rather on drag shows and LGBTQ+ content."

SB 454: Protection of Minors on Social Media Platforms

This bill from Sen. Ileana Garcia, R-Miami, is relatively short for what it does. It simply requires all social media platforms to use age verification systems, identify all content that may be inappropriate for minors and block it from them, provide parental controls, monitor for inappropriate activity regarding minors in real time and report it to the authorities, collaborate with law enforcement and child protective services, and send alerts and notifications to account holders in areas with increased risk of child exploitation or grooming.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) has repeatedly spoken out against such bills, saying they:

• Require online age verification and surveillance that invades privacy

• Infringe on teens’ free speech and autonomy

• Violate a prior Supreme Court decision that states that "it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents' prior consent"

• Prevent teens from accessing content "such as information about sexual health, gender, or sexual identity"

HB 3, "Online Access to Materials Harmful to Minors," filed by Rep. Chase Tremont, R-Port Orange, seems to be essentially the same thing. These bills are different from two new related bills filed in the last few days before the session.

HB 1/SB 1788: Social Media Use for Minors

These bills, filed Friday night in the House by Rep. Tyler Sirois, R-Merritt Island, and Rep. Fiona McFarland, R-Sarasota, and in the Senate on Monday by Sen. Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach, would take it a step further by simply removing minors younger than 16 years of age from all social media. The bills would:

• Require social media platforms to prohibit minors from creating new accounts.

• Mandate that all social media platforms establish an age verification system.

• Require all social media platforms to terminate any existing accounts that are "reasonably known by the social media platform to be held by a minor younger than 16 years of age."

No social media for kids: Bill sponsored by Brevard Rep. Sirois would restrict social media use by those under age 16

SB 1780: Defamation, False Light, and Unauthorized Publication of Name or Likenesses

This bill, filed by Sen. Jason Brodeur, R-Lake Mary, would declare practically all accusations of homophobia, transphobia, or discrimination against LGBTQ+ people to be "defamation per se" and leave the accuser liable for damages of at least $35,000. The bill contains numerous ways to protect people from being accused regardless of their public statements and help them seek damages.

Under this bill, If you call out someone for anti-trans discrimination and get sued for defamation, you may not:

• Prove the truth of an allegation of LGBTQ+ discrimination by pointing out things the person has publicly said about LGBTQ people, or their own "scientific beliefs" or "constitutionally protected religious expression or beliefs."

• Cite anonymous sources, which this bill automatically presumes to be false.

• Argue that the person accused is a public figure due to a "video, image or statement uploaded on the internet that has reached a large audience," such as a video or picture showing them discriminating against LGBTQ people that went viral, making it easier for the accused to file lawsuits.

• Make an allegation that, according to the bill, is so "inherently implausible that only a reckless person would have put it into circulation."

• Use journalistic privilege to avoid damages.

SB 1780 would apply to print and televised media and "utterance on the Internet," which would even include social media posts.

"The bill would tremendously chill speech in Florida," Reed said.

Last year Brodeur filed a "blogger bill" that would have required bloggers who wrote about Florida elected officials to register with the state and file monthly reports showing any “compensation” they received for making such posts. The bill, which was heavily criticized for its violation of the First Amendment, died in committee.

Other bills targeting LGBTQ people or rights proposed for the 2024 Florida Legislative Session

• SB 1352, Juvenile Justice: Replaces all references of "gender" in Florida juvenile justice statatues with "sex," remove all mention of "targeted gender groups" and define "sex" solely by reproductive purposes. (Sen. Jennifer Bradley, R-Fleming Island)

• HB 901/SB 1120, Display of Flags by Governmental Entities: Blocks governmental agencies, local governments, or other units of local government from flying any flag that represents "a political viewpoint, including, but not limited to, a politically partisan, racial, sexual orientation and gender, or political ideology viewpoint." Also requires that the American flag be displayed in a prominent position superior to any other flag displayed, a requirement already existing in the current U.S. Flag code. (Rep. Randy Fine, R-Palm Bay, and Sen. Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers)

• HB 1027, Single-Sex Student Organizations: Protects members of fraternities and sororities or other "single-sex student organizations" from any bias or penalties based on their single-sex status, which would block discrimination suits from trans students.

• SB 1788, Child Protective Investigations: Prohibits the initiation of a child protective investigation or removal of a child solely based on the parent;'s religious beliefs or ideology, specially states that "raising a child in a manner consistent with the child’s biological sex, including related mental health or medical decisions, does not in itself constitute abuse." (Sen. Erin Grall, R-Fort Pierce)

• SB 1708, Public Safety Programs: Prohibits any sheriff department's public safety programs focusing on "a limited group of persons based on characteristics such as a person’s race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, or sex," effectively bans any LGBTQ+ safety programs. (Sen. Clay Yarborough, R-Jacksonville)

This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: New anti-trans bills lined up for Florida's 2024 Legislative session