According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) fiscal note, SB 412 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The bill narrows affirmative defenses for offenses related to the sale, distribution, or display of harmful material to minors by limiting them to only law enforcement and judicial officers acting in their official capacity. It also removes existing statutory protections for professionals engaged in education, medicine, psychology, psychiatry, or legislative work when handling such materials.

While the bill might lead to an increase in prosecutions, the LBB assumes that any additional costs related to enforcement, prosecution, supervision, or incarceration will not be significant. This suggests that the number of new criminal cases is not expected to increase dramatically or place a substantial burden on state correctional resources.

At the local level, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated for county and municipal governments responsible for enforcement. Any additional workload for local prosecutors, courts, or correctional facilities due to expanded criminal liability is expected to be manageable within existing resources. However, indirect economic effects—such as the potential impact on educational, medical, or research institutions—were not assessed in the fiscal note.

SB 412 seeks to strengthen protections against the distribution of obscene or harmful material to minors by narrowing the scope of affirmative defenses available under Texas law. The bill responds to growing concerns over sexually explicit and age-inappropriate content in Texas public schools, ensuring that those who engage in the sale, distribution, or exhibition of such material are held accountable. By limiting the affirmative defense only to judicial and law enforcement officers, the bill closes potential loopholes that could otherwise be used to justify harmful exposure to minors.

However, while the bill’s intent is commendable, its broad removal of affirmative defenses may create unintended consequences for educators, medical professionals, psychologists, and legislative actors who engage with sensitive material in a legal/legitimate capacity. Without a carveout for bona fide educational, medical, and legislative purposes, professionals operating in good faith could be subject to prosecution for handling materials necessary for academic research, medical evaluations, or policy analysis. Additionally, removing legislative actors from the defense could limit the ability of policymakers to engage in discussions and reviews of obscenity-related regulations without legal risk.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 412 but also consider amendments to restore limited protections for legitimate professional use while maintaining the bill’s goal of preventing harmful material from reaching minors. A narrower revision that clearly distinguishes bad actors from professionals acting in good faith would better align with First Amendment principles while ensuring greater protections for Texas children.

• HB 267 (Same As)
• HB 1434 (Similar To)
• HB 947 (Similar To)