Bipartisan bill would require Ohio schools to recite Pledge of Allegiance daily
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Ohio public school districts would be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day under a new bipartisan bill.
State Reps. Tracy Richardson (R-Marysville) and Sean Brennan (D-Parma) introduced House Bill 117 to require public schools to establish a specific time and manner for the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Schools would also be 'highly encouraged' to develop and implement lessons related to the American flag and the pledge, although participation would not be necessary.
'As a veteran American Government and History teacher, I have always firmly held to the fact that our public schools were, in part, created to instill our young learners with a sense of loyalty to our country,' Brennan said. 'I encourage every adult in Ohio to set the expectation and model for our young people the importance of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, respect for the American flag, standing when veterans march by in a parade and other actions that further this goal.'
Could same-sex marriage be on the ballot in Ohio?
Under H.B. 117, school districts would have to make these policies publicly available online. School districts would not be allowed to require anyone to participate or infringe on their Constitutional rights.
In the U.S., states are permitted to require public school participation, but laws cannot infringe on the First Amendment right to choose whether or not to participate, regardless of age. Four U.S. states — Florida, Utah, Pennsylvania and Texas — currently require parent permission to opt out of the pledge, but Ohio's law would not require parental consent.
This would repeal and replace a current Ohio law, which requires districts to clarify if reciting the pledge is a part of the schools program and protects teachers' right to lead their classroom in the pledge if they wish to.
Ohio higher education bill one step closer to law
In central Ohio, many school districts already recite the Pledge of Allegiance daily. Canal Winchester and South-Western City School representatives confirmed all students recite the pledge daily, and Hilliard schools have a district policy requiring daily recitation.
Other districts recite the pledge less frequently. Grandview Heights said its students recite the pledge daily in grades K-3, and then weekly for all other grades. Pickerington representatives said they say it daily in grades K-8, and weekly in high school. A Reynoldsburg representative said the district does not have a specific policy or consistent cadence for reciting the pledge, and a Bexley spokesperson said the district encourages, but does not require it.
In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words 'under God' to the pledge. This updated, 31-word pledge would be the pledge required under H.B. 117.
'Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance builds nationalism and unity by promising to be faithful to our American values,' Richardson said. 'We live in the greatest country in the world and the Pledge of Allegiance helps to remind us of this.'
The bill had its first hearing in the House Education Committee on March 11, but does not yet have a second hearing scheduled.
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
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Kansas town doesn't hate immigrants enough. So the Trump administration plots vengeance.
Lawrence and Douglas County appeared on a Department of Homeland Security list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions.' (Clay Wirestone/Kansas Reflector) The Trump administration has put my town — the place my family and I call home — on its hit list for a thought crime. What horrible thing have the people of Lawrence and wider Douglas County done to deserve this fate? Apparently, we don't sufficiently detest immigrants. Put questions of legal status aside. As we all know, it doesn't matter to the hate-bloated buffoons in Washington, D.C., what papers a person has or doesn't have. They will ship you off to a foreign gulag if you're the wrong color or in the wrong place. Because Lawrence had the unmitigated audacity to care about people who look different, it has been threatened with the full wrath of the federal government. It might be shocking, if so little was shocking these days. The Department of Homeland Security posted a list of 500-plus 'sanctuary jurisdictions' on its website May 29, highlighting cities and counties that supposedly run afoul of its anti-immigrant agenda. Three days later, officials took down the page after an outcry from local law enforcement. Thanks to the Internet Archive, you can still browse the list and read the government's inflammatory rhetoric: 'DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens.' There's a lot to unpack there — immigrants commit fewer crimes than those born in the United States, for one thing — but let's press on. The point is that my town and county landed on the list. Let's try to figure out why. Back in 2020, the city passed an ordinance protecting undocumented folks. Two years later, the Kansas Legislature pushed through a bill banning sanctuary cities, and Lawrence subsequently revised its ordinance. You can read the current city code here. What's important to note is that the current language gives wide berth to state and federal law, making clear that the city won't obstruct or hinder federal immigration enforcement. By the same token, that doesn't mean the city has to pursue a brazenly anti-immigration path. Lawrence can and should represent the will of voters, while following applicable law. And those voters, through their elected representatives, chose to make their city a welcoming one. So how did Lawrence end up on the list? Apparently because it didn't spew enough hatred for the White House's liking. A senior DHS official told NPR that 'designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction, noncompliance with federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens.' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pontificated on Fox News: 'Some of the cities have pushed back. They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.' Note those phrases from the official and Noem: 'Self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction.' 'One law or another.' In other words, it doesn't matter what ordinances a city or county has on the books. It doesn't matter what the actual laws may be. It apparently depends on what a city calls itself and how the Trump administration feels about it. No city or county sets out to break the law. They have attorneys on staff or retainer to make sure they don't break myriad legal restrictions. Lawrence followed the law in enacting its original ordinance, and when the law changed, officials followed along. But few want to step out and say such things publicly, given that federal officials have tremendous resources behind them. They could crush any city or county if they wished, through legal bills alone. Thankfully, as mentioned above, sheriffs across the nation pushed back. 'This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation,' said National Sheriffs' Association president Sheriff Kieran Donahue. 'Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label. This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome.' Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister was similarly outspoken in comments to the Lawrence Journal-World: 'We feel like the goalposts have been moved on us, and this is now merely a subjective process where one person gets to decide our status on this list based on their opinion.' Thanks to the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment, we are not required to love, like or even respect our government. We are not required to voice support of its goals. We are not required to say anything that we don't want to say about immigration, immigrants or ICE. Republicans understood that full well when Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama were in office. Both faced torrents of criticism on this very subject. Those presidents took the abuse. It was, and is, part of the job. Now President Donald Trump and his anti-immigration minions have to deal with the fact that a different segment of the public vehemently disagrees with their immigration policies. That's OK. That's protected expression. Within the bounds of law, we are also free to define our towns, cities and counties however we want. Accusing local governments of thought crimes desecrates and defames our Constitution. Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NATO chief Rutte calls for 400% increase in the alliance's air and missile defense
LONDON (AP) — NATO members need to increase their air and missile defenses by 400% to counter the threat from Russia, the head of the military alliance plans to say on Monday. Secretary-General Mark Rutte will say during a visit to London that NATO must take a 'quantum leap in our collective defense' to face growing instability and threats, according to extracts released by NATO before Rutte's speech. Rutte is due to meet U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer at 10 Downing St. ahead of a NATO summit in the Netherlands where the 32-nation alliance is likely to commit to a big hike in military spending. Like other NATO members, the U.K. has been reassessing its defense spending since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Starmer has pledged to increase British defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027 and to 3% by 2034. Rutte has proposed a target of 3.5% of economic output on military spending and another 1.5% on 'defense-related expenditure' such as roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports. He said last week he is confident the alliance will agree to the target at its summit in The Hague on June 24-25. At the moment, 22 of the 32 member countries meet or exceed NATO's current 2% target. The new target would meet a demand by President Donald Trump that member states spend 5% of gross domestic product on defense. Trump has long questioned the value of NATO and complained that the U.S. provides security to European countries that don't contribute enough. Rutte plans to say in a speech at the Chatham House think tank in London that NATO needs thousands more armored vehicles and millions more artillery shells, as well as a 400% increase in air and missile defense. 'We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above, so we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies,' he plans to say. 'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe. We cannot dream away the danger. Hope is not a strategy. So NATO has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance.' European NATO members, led by the U.K. and France, have scrambled to coordinate their defense posture as Trump transforms American foreign policy, seemingly sidelining Europe as he looks to end the war in Ukraine. Last week the U.K. government said it would build new nuclear-powered attack submarines, prepare its army to fight a war in Europe and become 'a battle-ready, armor-clad nation.' The plans represent the most sweeping changes to British defenses since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran says to submit own nuclear proposal to US soon
Iran said Monday it will soon present a counter-proposal on a nuclear deal with the United States, after it had described Washington's offer as containing "ambiguities". Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear accord to replace the deal with major powers that US President Donald Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. The longtime foes have been locked in a diplomatic standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment, with Tehran defending it as a "non-negotiable" right and Washington describing it as a "red line". On May 31, after the fifth round talks, Iran said it had received "elements" of a US proposal, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying later the text contained "ambiguities". Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei criticised the US proposal as "lacking elements" reflective of the previous rounds of negotiations, without providing further details. "We will soon submit our own proposed plan to the other side through (mediator) Oman once it is finalised," Baqaei told a weekly press briefing. "It is a proposal that is reasonable, logical, and balanced, and we strongly recommend that the American side value this opportunity." Iran's parliament speaker has said the US proposal failed to include the lifting of sanctions -- a key demand for Tehran, which has been reeling under their weight for years. - 'Strategic mistake' - Trump, who has revived his "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions on Iran since taking office in January, has repeatedly said it will not be allowed any uranium enrichment under a potential deal. On Wednesday, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the US offer was "100 percent against" notions of independence and self-reliance. He insisted that uranium enrichment was "key" to Iran's nuclear programme and that the US "cannot have a say" on the issue. Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 percent, far above the 3.67-percent limit set in the 2015 deal and close though still short of the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. Western countries, including the United States, have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire atomic weapons, while Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes The United Nations nuclear watchdog will convene a Board of Governors meeting from June 9-13 in Vienna to discuss Iran's nuclear activities. The meeting comes after the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report criticising "less than satisfactory" cooperation from Tehran, particularly in explaining past cases of nuclear material found at undeclared sites. Iran has criticised the IAEA report as unbalanced, saying it relied on "forged documents" provided by its arch foe Israel. Britain, France and Germany, the three European countries who were party to the 2015 deal, are currently weighing whether to trigger the sanctions "snapback" mechanism in the accord. The mechanism would reinstate UN sanctions in response to Iranian non-compliance -- an option that expires in October. On Friday, Araghchi warned European powers against backing a draft resolution at the IAEA accusing Tehran of non-compliance, calling it a "strategic mistake". On Monday, Baqaei said Iran has "prepared and formulated a series of steps and measures" if the resolution passed. "Without a doubt, the response to confrontation will not be more cooperation," he added. rkh-mz/ysm
