Texas House passes ban on sexuality-based school clubs after emotional debate
Texas House Democrats rebuked their Republican colleagues in unusually personal terms Saturday over a bill that would ban Texas schools from authorizing clubs on 'sexuality or gender identity,' with Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu of Houston labeling it the work of "monsters.'
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
San Francisco Chronicle
33 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Please noooooo': Ye implores Trump, Musk to reconcile
Ye is hoping to prevent the unraveling of Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump's relationship. The controversial rapper formerly known as Kanye West waded into the white-hot feud between POTUS and the one-time head of DOGE, encouraging them to call a truce in a post to X. "Broooos please noooooo," he wrote. "We love you both so much.' Musk and Trump's tiff began last week, when the former Trump adviser told CBS News last week that he was "disappointed" with Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' Musk continued to whale on this week, calling the bill a 'disgusting abomination and encouraging voters to oust any Republicans who supported it. The spat got worse on Thursday after Trump made his first public comments on Musk's critiques, saying he was 'very disappointed in Elon.' In a post to Truth Social, Trump speculated about the end of his relationship with the billionaire, saying that Musk 'just went CRAZY!' The president then threatened to terminate Musk's contracts with the federal government. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," he wrote. For his part, Musk accused Trump of being named in the case files of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. "Time to drop the really big bomb: [Donald Trump] is in the Epstein files," he wrote. "That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!" It's around this time that Ye jumped in, imploring the once-inseparable pair not to fight. and throwing in an emoji of two people hugging for good measure. Ye is a long-time Trump supporter who has courted controversy in recent years by sharing antisemitic theories and songs. He most recently showed his support for Trump on Sunday. "F**k anybody who don't love Trump," he wrote. "You're dumb."
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Trump-Musk alliance implodes: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, we break down how President Donald Trump and Elon Musk's feud burst into public view. Plus, Jonathan Allen sifts through the spin to provide a reality check on what the 'big, beautiful bill' would actually do. Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here. — Adam Wollner The simmering tension between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk boiled over into a full-blown public brawl Thursday. Act I: After a series of social media posts from Musk in recent days trashing Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' the president offered his first response during an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. 'I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill,' Trump said of his former adviser. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Trump suggested that Musk, the world's richest man, was upset that the legislation cut out a tax credit meant to incentivize electric vehicle purchases. 'Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles and they're having a hard time with electric vehicles and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy,' Trump said. 'Elon knew this from the beginning.' Act II: Musk initially brushed off Trump's criticism, posting 'whatever' on X before firing off dozens of posts blasting the Republican bill and the president himself. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk said, referring to the hundreds of millions of dollars he spent on the last election. 'Such ingratitude,' he added. Act III: Trump then fired back on Truth Social, claiming that Musk 'went crazy' after the president 'asked him to leave' his White House role. Trump also suggested the government could sever ties with Musk's companies, which have billions of dollars in federal contracts. Act IV: In response, Musk claimed that the president was in what are known as the 'Epstein files' — a reference to a trove of documents and files spread across a number of investigations and lawsuits involving the late Jeffrey Epstein. The Justice Department earlier this year released hundreds more pages of documents related to the Epstein investigations. Although Trump and Epstein knew each other, there have been no new revelations about their relationship in any of those files. Trump has never been implicated in Epstein's abuse of underage girls. He denied any wrongdoing, saying in a post last year, 'I was never on Epstein's Plane, or at his 'stupid' Island.' Act V: Trump's latest word on the matter: 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago.' Read more on the back-and-forth → Related: Tesla's shares have fallen 16% since Musk began bashing Trump's bill last week, and the stock remains about 33% lower than on Inauguration Day, Steve Kopack reports. As the Senate considers President Donald Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill' (or 'OBBB'), there's a lot of dubious rhetoric flying around and, in some cases, hitting the fan. It can be hard for voters to know what to believe. So, it's worth assessing the purpose of the legislation, which the House has already passed a version of, and what it would actually do. The vehicle for the catchall measure is called budget reconciliation, a process created by Congress half a century ago to provide a fast track to bills that would bring spending and taxing into closer balance. That means it can't be filibustered, so Republicans only need a bare majority to get it through the Senate. But over the years, Republicans and Democrats alike have perverted the intent of reconciliation, using the advantage of the fast track to blow ever bigger holes in the budget. That's what OBBB would do, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The most obvious tell is that its enactment would require an increase in the legal cap on the national debt. If the debt were going down, there would be no need to raise the limit. Specifically, the House-passed bill would cut taxes by $3.7 trillion or so over a decade — largely by extending the rates that Trump and Congress put in place in 2017. At the same time, it would slash 'mandatory' spending — the accounts that pay out based on eligibility for long-standing programs rather than through annual 'discretionary' appropriations — by $1.3 trillion over a decade. The debt hole that's left is about $2.4 trillion. The White House argues that the CBO's bottom line is wrong because it wants congressional accountants to ignore the fact that current tax rates are set to expire. Instead, Trump's team contends, the CBO should assume that current rates will be extended — like an athlete assuming his income will continue to flow in when his existing contract is up. If Congress does nothing, taxes will go back up, which would bring a burst of revenue at a cost to taxpayers. In his bid to defeat the measure, or at least rewrite it, Elon Musk has charged that it is full of 'pork' — a term that, until he used it, was reserved for earmarks in the annual discretionary spending bills that are unaffected by OBBB. Calling the measure a 'disgusting abomination,' Musk treats it as a spending bill. But while there are some increases in funding — primarily for the Defense Department and efforts to combat illegal immigration — the main provisions are focused on slashing taxes and federal programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. The debt comes from the fact that the bill would not cut spending nearly as much as it would reduce revenue. And that's just arithmetic. 📱On line 1: Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping held a phone call amid ongoing tensions between the two superpowers, with a new in-person meeting planned soon. Read more → 🌎 Travel ban shock: Countries around the world criticized Trump after he announced a travel ban on nationals from a dozen countries and visa program cancellations for seven more. Read more → 🖊️ Auto-attack: Trump directed an investigation into former President Joe Biden and his close aides, accusing them of using 'autopen' signatures to cover up Biden's 'cognitive decline' and assert presidential power. Read more → ⚖️ Remaking the courts: Trump is taking a new approach to how he selects judges in his second term, focusing on more MAGA-friendly nominees and attacking the influential Federalist Society. Read more → ↗️ ICE ramp-up: Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained more than 2,200 people on Tuesday, the most arrests in a single day in its history. Read more → 👔 'A gut punch': Federal cuts to the Job Corps program have left thousands of low-income young people who have relied on the career training program for free housing and meals in limbo. Read more → 🗽 Big Apple showdown: The candidates running in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City largely aimed their ire at Andrew Cuomo, the former New York governor and polling front-runner, during the debate last night. Read more → 🐊 2026 watch: Republican-turned-Democrat David Jolly announced he is running for Florida governor in 2026, aiming to become the first Democrat to lead the state in more than two decades. Read more → Follow live politics updates → That's all From the Politics Desk for now. Today's newsletter was compiled by Adam Wollner and Dylan Ebs. If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at politicsnewsletter@ And if you're a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up here. This article was originally published on
