Texas House kills drag story time bill again
AUSTIN (KXAN) — For the second consecutive session, legislation targeting drag story time events died in the Texas House of Representatives.
Senate Bill 18 missed a key deadline this week to be fully considered on the House floor, effectively ending its chances of becoming state law. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick identified the legislation as a priority this session after a similar measure died in the House in 2023.
Before stalling in Texas Senate, 'homosexual conduct' bill made legislative history
The bill called for stripping public funding for any library that hosted a children's reading event led by a drag performer. Supporters argued it was needed to protect kids from the confusion of seeing someone dressed in drag and concerns about them being exposed to inappropriate content. However, opponents accused lawmakers of using this to crack down further on the LGBTQ+ community and said it would do nothing to actually protect Texas children.
The legislation passed the Texas Senate in February along a party line vote, and a House committee then took up the legislation in May and recommended it for consideration in the full chamber. Even though SB 18 made it onto the intent calendar Tuesday, the House took no action on it in the rush of the final few days of the session.
Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, reintroduced the bill this year after the previous iteration of it met a similar fate in the lower chamber two years ago. The legislation advanced further than it did then because a House committee actually debated the bill, which never happened in 2023.
KXAN reached out Thursday to Hughes' office for comment about SB 18 dying this session and asked whether he would file it again when lawmakers reconvene in 2027. This story will be updated whenever Hughes shares a response.
Reporting about his previous proposal, Senate Bill 1601, was featured in a KXAN investigative project called 'OutLaw: A Half-Century Criminalizing LGBTQ+ Texans.' It looked in-depth at the historic number of bills filed in the 2023 session impacting the state's LGBTQ+ community.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
29 minutes ago
- Axios
"Who cares": Congress' Dems say good riddance to Karine Jean-Pierre
If former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre thought she would set off a five-alarm fire among top Democrats by leaving the party, she is about to be sorely disappointed. Why it matters: Democratic lawmakers who spoke to Axios characterized her personal motives as too transparent to be a knock on the party — and they don't exactly feel like they're losing their best messenger either. "Who cares," exclaimed one House Democrat. "It's easy for paid operatives to leave the party ... until they need something." Said another: "Her explanation for this move is as confusing and disjointed as her answers in her White House press briefings." Jean-Pierre did not respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: Jean-Pierre revealed Wednesday that she is becoming an independent after serving in two Democratic presidential administrations. The announcement coincides with the release of a new book, "Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines." The book's description decries "blind loyalty to a two-party democratic system" and promises to delve into "the three weeks that led to Biden's abandoning his bid for a second term and the betrayal by the Democratic Party that led to his decision." What they're saying: "Other than Sean Spicer ... she was the worst press secretary in American history," a third House Democrat told Axios of Jean-Pierre. "There were rumors that the Biden folks were trying to get rid of her because she's so terrible," the lawmaker said, speculating that she is trying to curry favor with Republicans to avoid a congressional subpoena. "I don't know who wrote her book. We know she couldn't give a press conference without reading every word from her briefing," they added. Zoom in: Jean-Pierre has also been lit up by her former Biden White House colleagues, with one former official telling Axios' Alex Thompson she was "one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I've ever worked with." "She had meltdowns after any interview that asked about a topic not sent over by producers," the official said. Said another: "The amount of time that was spent coddling [Jean-Pierre] and appeasing her was astronomical compared to our attention on actual matters of substance." Zoom out: The latest Bidenworld infighting comes after the release of a new book from Thompson and CNN's Jake Tapper, " Original Sin," which recounts how Biden's team shielded him from public scrutiny about his age.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The fine print: 5 things that even some Republicans didn't realize were buried in Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget bill
Late last month, House Republicans passed President Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill' — a package of tax cuts, social safety net reductions and increased border and military spending meant to deliver the bulk of Trump's legislative agenda. Now, as their Senate counterparts strategize about how to maneuver the sprawling measure through Congress's upper chamber, some key Trump allies are making a surprising admission: that they regret ever supporting the president's signature legislation in the first place. 'I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there,' Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene confessed Tuesday on X. 'I am not going to hide the truth: This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill,' Nebraska Rep. Mike Flood told voters in his district last week. 'I do not agree with that section that was added to that bill.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Elon Musk, the former head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), posted Tuesday on X. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Why the sudden second thoughts? In part, it's because of how the 1,037-page bill was passed. The final version — filled with last-minute changes meant to placate various factions — didn't materialize until 10:40 p.m. the evening before the House's self-imposed Memorial Day deadline, leaving lawmakers just eight overnight hours to digest it. And in part it's because experts — including, on Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — keep releasing in-depth analyses detailing how much Trump's bill will actually cost, and who it will actually affect. Here are five things buried in the bill that even some Republicans didn't realize were there — or at least aren't admitting they know about. To make their orders stick, federal judges really only have one tool at their disposal: holding anyone who defies them in contempt, then enforcing these contempt citations with fines or jail time. But House Republicans quietly inserted language into the bill stating that federal courts may not 'enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order' unless the plaintiff pays what's known as a security bond at the beginning of the case. The problem? Federal judges often waive such bonds when plaintiffs claim the government did something unconstitutional. The second Trump administration, it turns out, has been embroiled in dozens of cases concerning the constitutionality of its actions. In several — mainly involving deportations — judges are considering holding administration officials in contempt for refusing to comply with their orders. And so, if the bill passes as written, it would 'effectively shiel[d] President Trump and members of his administration from the consequences of violating court orders,' as the New York Times recently explained — in part by 'making it prohibitively expensive to sue.' Rep. Flood, for one, is not a fan. 'When I found out that provision was in the bill, I immediately reached out to my Senate counterparts and told them of my concern,' Flood told his (booing) constituents last week. 'And when I return to Washington, I am going to very clearly tell the people in my conference that we cannot support undermining our court system, and we must allow our federal courts to operate and issue injunctions.' In lieu of any sort of federal oversight, dozens of U.S. states have passed — or are actively considering — new laws regulating how artificial intelligence is used or developed. But in a concession to tech companies who claim that patchwork regulations stifle innovation, the House bill would block states from enforcing these laws — or passing new ones — for the next decade. 'No state or political subdivision may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,' the bill reads. Apparently, Rep. Greene missed that part. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section,' she wrote on X. 'We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states' hands is potentially dangerous. This needs to be stripped out in the Senate.' Asked why she didn't 'know about' the AI provision, Greene told the New York Times that 'it's hard to read over 1,000 pages when things keep changing up to the last minute before we voted on it.' One of the biggest cost-cutting measures in the bill is the new work requirement for low-income Americans who receive SNAP benefits (a.k.a. food stamps). This includes parents with children age 7 or older; to qualify, they would have to work 80 hours a month. But late in the process, House Republicans created a loophole specifically for married parents. According to the final bill, if a parent is 'responsible for a dependent child 7 years of age or older and is married to, and resides with, an individual who is in compliance,' then they don't have to complete the work requirement. No such exemption applies, however, to single parents. Since there's no other parent around to work those 80 hours, they would have to do it themselves (on top of parenting alone). "If you're married, then you could have one person in the couple as a stay-at-home parent, and only one person has to work," Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy at Share Our Strength, told Axios. "But if you're in any other kind of household arrangement, then everyone needs to be meeting the work requirements." As of 2022, the bulk of SNAP recipients (53%) were children in single-parent families — and 80% of single-parent households are headed by mothers, according to census data. It's unclear whether House Republicans realize their bill will effectively penalize single parents who rely on SNAP — or whether they're simply more focused on encouraging married couples to embrace stay-at-home motherhood than anything else. In recent days, Trump and his allies have claimed that the bill wouldn't cut Medicaid, the program that provides health insurance to more than 70 million low-income Americans. 'We're not doing any cutting of anything meaningful,' the president told reporters on May 20. 'The only thing we're cutting is waste, fraud and abuse. With Medicaid, waste, fraud and abuse. There's tremendous waste, fraud and abuse.' 'We are not cutting Medicaid in this package,' House Speaker Mike Johnson added on CNN. 'There's a lot of misinformation out there about this, Jake. The numbers of Americans who are affected are those that are entwined in our work to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. So, what do I mean by that? You got more than 1.4 million illegal aliens on Medicaid.' 'No one' — presumably meaning no U.S. citizens — 'will lose coverage as a result of this bill,' agreed Russell Vought, Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget. But Trump & Co. either don't know, or aren't admitting, that their claims aren't accurate. According to the latest nonpartisan CBO estimate, released Wednesday, the bill would actually slash federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion over the next decade, causing the number of people enrolled in the program to fall by 7.8 million. How would it do that? By forcing childless adults without disabilities to work in order to receive Medicaid benefits; by requiring states to impose new co-payments on medical services for Medicaid beneficiaries who live above the poverty line; and by making it easier for a state to cancel its residents' Medicaid coverage if they don't complete additional paperwork. As for 'illegal aliens,' 14 states currently use their own tax revenues to provide health coverage to undocumented immigrants; the bill would penalize those states by reducing their share of federal Medicaid funding. As a result, the CBO estimates that about 1.4 million more people without 'verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status' would be uninsured in 2034. But the CBO also projects that, overall, Trump's bill would cause the total number of uninsured U.S. residents to grow by 10.9 million over the same period — meaning the other 9.5 million would presumably be U.S. citizens. Noting this, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has argued that the bill's Medicaid changes would harm 'working people and their children.' 'Over 20 percent of Missourians, including hundreds of thousands of children, are on Medicaid,' Hawley said on CNN last month. 'They're not on Medicaid because they want to be. They're on Medicaid because they cannot afford health insurance in the private market.' Multiple members of the Trump Administration have claimed that the bill would not add to the federal debt. 'The One Big, Beautiful Bill … helps get our fiscal house in order by carrying out the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years with $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a news conference last month. 'The bill REDUCES deficits by $1.4 trillion over ten years,' Vought insisted Wednesday on X. 'If you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves the fiscal picture.' It can be tricky to project forward when it comes to fiscal matters, but it's worth noting that pretty much every expert disagrees with Vought and Leavitt. By extending and expanding the 2017 tax cuts, Trump's bill would add $3.8 trillion in spending over the next decade; new investments in the border and the military would pile another $400 million on top of that sum. On the other side of the ledger are spending cuts totaling $1.8 trillion, according to the CBO. That leaves a $2.4 trillion gap — otherwise known as debt. Trump's allies argue that the CBO isn't making the right 'baseline' assumptions about policy and revenue; some claim Trump's tariffs will raise trillions of dollars to offset deficits, or that tax cuts will pay for themselves by spurring economic growth. But the CBO isn't alone in its approach. According to the New York Times, 'the Budget Lab at Yale… found the Republican proposal could add $2.4 trillion to the debt by 2034. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated it would raise deficits by $2.8 trillion over a 10-year period. And the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit public policy organization that supports deficit reduction, pegged the uncovered cost at $3.3 trillion over the next nine years.' 'Not sure what shoddy assumptions someone is seeing, but advocates who claim this bill will improve the fiscal situation are completely at odds with all serious outside experts who conclude it would increase borrowing by trillions,' CRFB President Maya MacGuineas told the Times. Musk, for one, seems to agree with the scorekeepers. The bill 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America[n] citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,' he wrote earlier this week on X. 'This immense level of overspending will drive America into debt slavery!' The bill would also raise America's debt ceiling from $36 trillion to $40 trillion. On Wednesday, Trump called for scrapping the debt ceiling altogether.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court sides with Ohio woman in 'reverse discrimination' case
The US Supreme Court has sided with an Ohio woman who alleged she was discriminated against at her job because she was heterosexual. The justices voted unanimously in a ruling focused on evidence standards that could make it easier to file similar "reverse discrimination" cases. Marlean Ames said that despite working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years, she was denied a promotion and then demoted. She had appealed to the court to challenge the standards required to prove her case. The decision effectively lowers the burden of proof required for people who are members of a majority group - such as white or heterosexual people - to make discrimination claims. US court precedent covering some states, including Ohio, had required that members of majority groups show additional "background circumstances" to prove their case or evidence showing a pattern of discrimination. The court has now ruled that the standard of evidence for a discrimination claim should be the same, regardless of a person's identity. Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, one of the court's liberals, wrote the official opinion, with concurring opinions from conservatives Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch. The court concluded that anti-discrimination and equal protection laws were meant to apply to all Americans. "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," she wrote. The court did not consider Ms Ames' original discrimination suit. The justices said it was up to lower courts that had initially ruled against her to evaluate the case under the clarified evidence standards. Legal experts say employment discrimination and bias cases can be difficult to demonstrate, regardless of the burden of proof. Ms Ames had said she had positive performance reviews, but a promotion she sought was given to a lesbian. She was then demoted and her job was given to a gay man. In a lawsuit, she argued her employer had a preference for LGBTQ staff members and denied her opportunities because she identifies as straight. Lower courts ruled that she had failed to provide sufficient evidence of her claim, propelling the burden of proof question to the Supreme Court. At a February hearing, justices on both sides ideologically appeared sympathetic to her argument. US Supreme Court hears arguments in 'straight discrimination' case
