Texas House passes ban on sexuality-based school clubs after emotional debate
The proposal, Senate Bill 12, passed from the House last week without the Senate version's ban on school-sponsored LGBTQ pride clubs and other sexuality-based groups. But lawmakers replaced that provision when negotiating a compromise, and the House adopted those changes in a 77-40 vote on Saturday night.
Democrats warned the prohibition would apply to Girl Scouts and Christian men's athletic groups as much as it would pride clubs — but that only those groups for gay teens would end up facing enforcement.
'This bill is hate,' said state Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Dripping Springs, who identifies as bisexual. 'This is one of the most nakedly hateful bills we have had on the floor of this House.'
Republicans have labeled SB 12 from state Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, the 'Bill of Parental Rights.' The 36-page proposal bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools, which Republicans argue detract from educational instruction and foster division based on race and sex. It also tightens parental notification and consent requirements regarding a child's mental or physical health, psychological treatment and sex education.
The bill's Republican sponsor said public schools have no place hosting clubs based on sexuality. He also said he's been 'repulsed' at 'some of the things I've heard defended in our public schools,' including in debates over school library book restrictions.
'We're not going to allow gay clubs, and we're not going to allow straight clubs,' said state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano. 'We shouldn't be sexualizing our kids in public schools, period. And we shouldn't have clubs based on sex.'
More: Texas House passes bill to implement sweeping restrictions on school libraries
Democrats argued the ban on sexuality-based clubs will strip LGBTQ youth of a safe space from bullying, which disproportionately impacts gay teens and preteens. They also fiercely contested Leach's characterization of the prohibited clubs as 'sex clubs," for which he later apologized and said he "misspoke."
'There is nothing inherently more sexual about the existence of LGBTQ people than there is of straight people,' Zwiener told him. 'And if we are concerned about overly sexualized behavior in our schools, I would hope you would focus more on the comments young men make about young women in the locker room than about a bunch of queer kids getting together to support each other.'
Over several hours of debate, other Democratic House members shared personal stories to illustrate why they opposed the measure. State Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, said his daughter was the vice president of her school's pride club, where students colored, watched movies and went to a musical together.
'I don't know why grown-ups in this body are so triggered by that,' he said.
Later, state Rep. Christian Manuel, D-Houston, asked a colleague, "What club in your school taught you to be gay or to be a lesbian?"
"Nobody taught me to be who I am today," Democratic state Rep. Jessica González of Dallas, who is lesbian, responded. "It's just how I felt."
Several Republicans expressed incredulity that their colleagues across the aisle found the ban objectionable. State Rep. Alan Schoolcraft, R-McQueeney, said organizations like the Gay-Straight Alliance and GLSEN are 'efforts to fundamentally change the moral and social fiber of this country' and that "they're attacking us through our children."
The bill will soon be sent to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and would apply beginning with the 2025-2026 school year.
A spokesperson for Abbott signaled the governor supports the legislation.
"DEI agendas divide us rather than unite us and have no place in the state of Texas, which is why Governor Abbott called on the Legislature to ban DEI in grades K-12," said Abbott spokesman Andrew Mahaleris. "The Governor will thoughtfully review any legislation sent to his desk that helps achieve this goal.'
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas to ban school LGBT clubs under bill passed by state Legislature
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Douglas Murray: Mamdani smears Cuomo for allegedly talking to Trump —and yet associates himself with Mahmoud Khalil
'Democratic socialist' Zohran Mamdani is trying to smear one of his rivals by association. Yesterday the Democratic mayoral nominee claimed Wednesday that Andrew Cuomo recently spoke to President Trump by phone. Mamdani claimed that the two men had been 'conspiring about the fate of this city.' Advertisement For his part, former Gov. Cuomo has denied that he has even had a phone call with the president. But so what if he had? Is the president of the United States — a man who won the popular vote last November — so fringe that no candidate for mayor of New York should even speak with him? Advertisement That seems to be Mamdani's view. Keep away from fringe, wacko figures like, er, the president of this country. But if Mamdani is so keen on guilt by non-association, why not apply the same standard to him? To that end it would be good to know why Mamdani has been so happy to advocate for, associate with and even campaign alongside Mahmoud Khalil, formerly of Columbia University. 'A moral victory' Advertisement Readers will remember that Khalil was the former student who was weirdly living with his wife on student accommodation but whose main occupation seemed to be leading student protests at Columbia since October 2023. It is Khalil's group — Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) — that declared the Oct. 7 massacre to be 'a moral, military and political victory' and declared that as an organization CUAD was 'fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization.' After discovering that Khalil — a foreign national — had lied on his visa application, praised terrorists and organized unrest in New York, ICE detained Khalil. He promptly became one of the great poster boys of the anti-American left. Advertisement They decided that nobody in America will be free until Mahmoud Khalil is free. Former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, accompanied by his wife Noor Abdalla, raises his hands as he arrives for a press conference outside the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York on June 22, 2025. AFP via Getty Images They decided that Khalil had done nothing wrong and was indeed a free-speech martyr. It's funny the people some folks are willing to make into folk heroes. Since his release from ICE detention, Khalil has been playing the same sob story as his wife did while he was in custody — claiming that America had been exceptionally mean to him. Apparently all he wanted to do was to study in the US. Something he appears to have spent almost zero time actually doing — preferring the path of agitation. 'Had to reach' Now, in an interview out this week, Khalil has once again exposed his real views and intent. In an interview with Ezra Klein of The New York Times, he talked about why he came to America in the first place. Advertisement He said that he was attracted to 'the quality of education' in this country, knew about Columbia because of its reputation in 'Palestinian circles' and was pleased to get a scholarship in 2018. Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani during a news conference outside the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on Thursday, August 7, 2025, in New York, N.Y. James Keivom He didn't exactly reward this country for the honor and opportunities it gave him. In fact, he seems to have found one of the most radical campuses in America to be not radical enough for him. Advertisement 'The anti-Palestinian sentiment at Columbia was very obvious,' he now claims — a statement so deranged that you wonder whether Khalil knows the difference between up and down, earth and sky. But it is his statements about Hamas and the October 7th massacre that are most disgusting. Asked about his reaction to the events of that day, he said: 'It felt frightening that we had to reach this moment in the Palestinian struggle.' Apart from asking who the 'we' is in that sentence, I'd love to know why Khalil thinks that raping women and massacring young people at a dance party is some kind of inevitability. According to Khalil, 'We [again] couldn't avoid such a moment.' Advertisement 'Palestinians are here' Pushed lightly on why it was necessary to murder babies and kidnap pensioners, Khalil went on to explain that the problem was that the Israelis were trying to make a peace and normalization deal with the Saudis. Something that would have added to the extraordinary success of the Abraham Accords that had been signed with other Arab countries. Khalil thinks that the idea of 'normalization' is appalling. Advertisement In his view, the Palestinians 'are not being heard' and so the atrocities and barbarism of October 7th were an 'attempt to tell the world that Palestinians are here.' That's certainly one hell of a way to tell people. 'It was not inevitable' In case it isn't obvious, this is pure apologism for Hamas. Moderate, peace-loving Palestinian voices comprehensively refute Khalil's evil view. For instance, the proud American, Gazan-born Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, said yesterday, 'Khalil invoked the repetitive and tired idea that the October 7 attack by Hamas was an inevitability, when the truth is far more straightforward and needs to be told by Gazan voices and those who are impacted by the war.' 'October 7th was a choice, not an inevitability! A choice that two psychopaths made from within Hamas' military wing, Sinwar and Al-Deif. It was not inevitable that Gaza had to be the source of the worst single-day attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.' He went on: 'Hamas squandered billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives for a fraudulent resistance narrative.' Unfortunately, Khalil is one of many arrivals in this country who have pushed that fraudulent narrative. The same people who claim, as Khalil went on to claim in his interview with Klein, that the bloody and murderous Second Intifada [2000-2005] was a mostly 'peaceful uprising.' So, Mr. Mamdani, if Gov. Cuomo is to be smeared for having the audacity to even be reported to have spoken to the US president, what are we to make of you knowingly and repeatedly associating with a terrorist mouthpiece? What are the voters of New York to think about a candidate for mayor who is so happy to advocate for terrorists for years and associate himself even now with someone who makes such excuses for terrorism? Any candidate for mayor who thinks President Trump is a more reprehensible figure than a Hamas apologist should be nowhere near the running of this city.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Oversight Democrats call for hearing with Epstein victims
A group of Democrats is calling for a congressional hearing with the victims of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, who they argue have firsthand accounts that 'may not be sufficiently represented in the Department of Justice's records.' Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, led a group of Democrats on the panel, including ranking member Robert Garcia (Calif.) and Reps. Jasmine Crockett (Texas), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and others, in calling on House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) to hold a hearing. 'If we are to hold powerful people to account, our investigation must center the voices they tried to silence,' the Democratic lawmakers wrote in their letter. 'To ensure that our investigation is comprehensive and credible, we urge the Committee to allow survivors the opportunity to provide their testimony if they wish to do so.' The lawmakers argued that the victims, who suffered abuse from Epstein, are left with deep trauma that deserves to be heard, noting that 'releasing the full, unredacted Epstein files will not tell the full story,' according to a press release from Pressley's office. It added that 'hearing testimony from Maxwell, an unreliable and untrustworthy co-conspirator, while ignoring those who were abused, will only contribute to more pain for survivors and more misinformation for the public.' 'If the Committee is to conduct credible oversight, it must hear directly from survivors, or their representatives, who volunteer to advance our investigation on their own terms,' the lawmakers said in the letter. 'Some survivors have expressed a clear willingness and desire to come before Congress, and the Committee cannot meet their strength and bravery with inaction.' The House Oversight Committee has issued a number of subpoenas connected to the Epstein case, including to Maxwell for a deposition before the panel. Comer agreed to a request to delay deposing her until after the Supreme Court considers her petition to overturn her conviction for sex trafficking. Comer also issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a number of high-profile former government officials, including former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Trump administration continues facing backlash over how it has handled information related to Epstein, who died in 2019. The backlash notably has come from both sides of the aisle and in particular from members of his own base.
Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Federal court says Alabama must use map that creates 2nd Black majority district
The state is expected to appeal the decision, which comes as both parties move to draw new districts for partisan advantage. The Alabama State Capitol stands on May 15, 2019 in Montgomery, Alabama. |By Aaron Pellish 08/07/2025 10:17 PM EDT Alabama must use independently drawn congressional maps that created a second Black-majority district more favorable to Democrats in the state for the rest of the decade, a federal court said Thursday. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ruled unanimously that the state must use the map drawn up by a court-appointed special master until regular redistricting is scheduled to be done in 2030. The decision, which enabled Democrats to gain a seat in the last election, comes as both parties gear up for competing redistricting efforts in response to a move by Texas to redraw boundaries to improve the chances that Republicans will pick up five additional seats. The court in Alabama barred the state from using a map drawn in 2023 that did not include a second Black-majority district in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling.
