A forthcoming bill targeting child grooming might restrict sex education. Here’s how.

Last month, Gov. Katie Hobbs signed HB2310—a bill that aims to prosecute distributing sexual images to children. But community groups and teachers say it has the capability of instead targeting those who provide inclusive education on gender and sex. 

Sexual assault survivors and their advocates say that the law Hobbs signed on May 17—originally called the "anti-grooming" bill—allows prosecutors to charge people who may give pornographic materials to youth. But LGBTQ+ advocates have raised alarms that the bill is intentionally vague and could easily be used in bad faith by parents, law enforcement, or county attorneys with an anti-LGBTQ+ history.

The bill was written by Rep. Travis Grantham (R-Gilbert) and in coalition with the Hobbs administration, according to a statement he made on the House floor. It originally attempted to enshrine the term “grooming” as a new felony statute. People who distribute pictures of genitals or female breasts to minors could be charged.

The term "grooming" was swapped out for "child enticement." And there were protections added in for medical professionals, but there are harsher punishments for adults in a “position of trust,” which state law specifically describes as including teachers, volunteers at schools, or other educational staff. 

Advocates and legal sources say interpretations of the law could vary widely, especially as the bill’s original “grooming” label has been misappropriated by far-right and conservative lawmakers who have used the term specifically against drag queens and teachers who have pushed for more inclusive gender and sex education. 

The clinical term “grooming” is defined by the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network—the United States’s largest anti-sexual violence organization—as behaviors used by sexual abusers “to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of being caught.”

Its use as the headline of a bill, though, gave community advocates worry, since Republicans who have spoken in favor of the law have used the term exclusively to target drag performers and trans people. 

Outside of Grantham—who has shared anti-LGBTQ+ posts on his X account, including from accounts that also label drag performers as “groomers”—Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-Flagstaff) last year urged people to call child protective services on parents who took their children to drag shows, saying they were exposing children to sexual material. And Sen. Anthony Kern (R-Glendale) in the past referred to drag performers as “pedophiles” and “grooming” children. 

This past week, a Colorado state GOP-er used the term to disparage all LGBTQ+ people, saying they were “godless groomers in our society.”

“There's a really large trend nationally, internationally also, to use that word as a way to defame queer people as a whole,” said Jeanne Woodbury, a senior associate at the progressive lobbying firm Creosote Partners.

Woodbury said she identified HB 2310 as one to pay close attention to from the beginning of the legislative session because of the “grooming” term attached to the bill. She said it has the ability "to criminalize a lot of really basic things like teachers sharing sex education materials or even just like a librarian who has made a book available in the library.” 

The bill was later amended to include protected exceptions for materials that have “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

But in May, LGBTQ+ advocates from multiple organizations across the state still raised their concerns in a letter to the state’s House of Representatives to oppose the bill. The letter said the bill “endangers the instruction of biology and sex education considering there is no defense for educators in HB 2310.”

“It’s clear that this bill does not aim to increase access to education, but rather criminalizes educators and increases educational censorship,” the letter read, adding that the bill “would make instructors of medically accurate and honest age-appropriate sex education subject to felony charges for child enticement.”

Members from GLSEN Arizona, ACLU of Arizona, Arizona Trans Youth and Parent Organization, Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health, Family Planning Associates Medical Group, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, Secular AZ, Chandler Pride, Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, Progress Arizona and Women’s Foundation for the State of Arizona signed off on the letter. 

The Human Rights Campaign in Arizona, the state’s only lobbying group focused exclusively on LGBTQ+ people, did not sign and said in an email chain distributed to local advocates, “that HRC’s final legal analysis of the bill is that the amendments make the bill even more clearly about child sex abuse crimes, and we feel there is no reason to oppose this bill.” 

Bridget Sharpe, the state director for Human Rights Campaign, could not be reached for comment. 

Despite those assurances, GLSEN Arizona’s Inclusive Policy Advocacy Manager Kelley Dupps told LOOKOUT that the bill is far too broad in its language, which gives people the ability to go after anyone who might be distributing content against personal beliefs: “We've seen across the country how (the broadness and vagueness of this language has) been weaponized against educators, against librarians, against English teachers.” 

He pointed out that the bill includes protections for medical professionals and other adults that work with children, but penalizes school staff, which shows that “it absolutely is meant to be weaponized against these trusted adults that serve as our educators and librarians.”  

Supporters of the bill have dismissed concerns from the community leaders, saying that the bill is only dangerous to the LGBTQ+ community if there's a prosecutor who is overzealous in applying the law. 

But Woodbury said that possibility, no matter how remote, “admits that the problems exist in the bill.”

“Educators and librarians do not have the resources to defend themselves in a legal context,” she said. “They're just not going to make those books available. They're going to pull them. And we see this happening over and over.”

All Republicans voted in favor of the bill alongside Democrats: Rep. Seth Blattman (D-Mesa), Rep. Consuelo Hernandez (D-Tucson), Rep. Lydia Hernandez (D-Phoenix), Rep. Jennifer Pawlik (D-Chandler), Rep. Judy Schwiebert (D-Phoenix), Rep. Keith Seaman (D-Casa Grande), Rep. Laura Terech (D-Phoenix), and ​​Rep. Stacey Travers (D-Tempe). 

Because the law does not explicitly lay out who decides what is considered enticement, enforcement will come down to police who are called and, eventually, county prosecutors. 

While Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, a Republican, was unavailable to speak with LOOKOUT, her team provided a letter Mitchell wrote to Gov. Hobbs that expressed support for the bill on May 16, a day before it was signed. 

According to the letter, the bill “fills a gap in the criminal code by criminalizing grooming behaviors of sexual offenders which act as a precursor to sexual offenses.” 

Mitchell notably was spotted at a Moms for Liberty event in Mesa this past year; the organization is labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and is well known for pushing the false theory that teaching students about gender or comprehensive sexual education—including books about safe sex among LGBTQ+ people—is “grooming” children. 

Pima County Attorney Laura Conover, a Democrat, expressed concern over the bill: “I read it maybe six times,” she said. “It's not easy to read, to see what behavior they're trying to criminalize.”

“That's the foundation of due process,” Conover said, adding that if there is vague language in a bill, "We're creating an unfair environment.”

Conover predicts an immediate challenge in court: “I already have criminal statutes on the books that allow me to prosecute just fine, and when I see a bill trying to add tools that I don't need, that's always a red flag for me.”

Mingus Union High School Board Member Carol Anne Teague said that she worries about how the bill will affect students in her district in Cottonwood, Ariz. 

She said that in her school district, the bill will likely have an affect on sex education due to the political climate and how the term “grooming” and "sexualizing" children has been used by far-right groups, locally.   

And when teachers and librarians hear the word “grooming," Teague said, they know it could mean their job, their credentials, and now potentially a fine or jail time.  

Last year, Cottonwood experienced a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment after a touring drag show performed at a city-owned venue. Members from neighboring cities and one of Cottonwood's council members openly called the performers “groomers” or “sexualizing” children.

Now, Teague said there is increasing opposition to sex education from churches and other school board members who “frame it as protecting our kids from ‘grooming’ and ‘indoctrination.'”

Teague said these terms are being used as dog whistles to scare educators. 

“They don't care about our students, 'cause if you cared about the students, you would want them to know how not to get pregnant and how (consent works) and how not to get an STD,” she said. 

With Hobbs’s signature, HB2310 will go into effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends.