Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen's cellphone ban in schools nears becoming law
Student cellphone use in schools is a hot topic in the Nebraska Legislature and elsewhere nationally. (Stock photo by Willie B. Thomas/Getty Images)
LINCOLN — One of Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen's priorities advanced to the third and final round of debate with a vote on Monday, as a statewide cell phone ban in schools inched closer to becoming law.
The bill would ban student use of personal electronic devices, such as cellphones, on school grounds or while attending a 'school instructional function,' such as field trips. But it would leave school districts wide latitude in approving student cellphone use, including some exceptions.
Senators advanced Legislative Bill 140 to final reading Monday with bipartisan support, 44-0, with five lawmakers not voting or excused.
The proposed law moved out of the Education Committee 7-0, with one member absent. Pillen said during its public hearing last month that the bill focuses on student mental health and that he should have pushed the legislation earlier in his term as governor.
'The evidence, in my view, is crystal clear: Our kids are being harmed by their constant exposure to these things,' Pillen said at the time.
Several other states have pushed for similar legislation on students' cell phones with similar bipartisan support, but some experts warn that these types of restrictions could be outdated or challenging for classroom teachers and schools to enforce. State Sen. Terrell McKinney of Omaha echoed similar concerns.
'Most schools already have these policies, which are good,' McKinney said on the floor. 'The only thing I think about is how these school districts will enforce this.'
McKinney added that there might be an uptick in classroom discipline issues because kids will be kids. During the same hearing at which Pillen testified, State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha voiced caution about whether students could quickly access phones in emergencies, such as during school shootings.
The bill addresses such concerns with exceptions. LB 140 would allow students to use cellphones at school in the following circumstances:
If needed as part of a student's special education plan.
When authorized by a school district for educational purposes during instructional time.
In cases of emergency or 'perceived threat of danger.'
When necessary to monitor or manage a student's health care.
When otherwise determined appropriate by the school board or otherwise allowed by an appropriate school employee.
Students, teachers endorse bill to ban cellphones during Nebraska school days
Should the bill pass, all of Nebraska's 245 school districts would have to adopt device-related policies to conform to the law by the start of the 2025-26 school year. The bill doesn't apply to private schools. Enforcement and possible disciplinary action for violating the guidelines, if any, would be left up to individual school districts.
'It's time to prioritize student success by eliminating unnecessary distractions,' said State Sen. Rita Sanders of Bellevue, the sponsor of LB 140.
In a possible hint of tension within the Legislature, State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha used her time to speak during the debate as a 'shot across the bow' because the Nebraska Legislature has shown her that it's 'going to screw over the poorest people in the state for just pettiness.'
'I'm going to make this body fight like hell for the things that don't benefit low-income people,' Cavanaugh said. 'You're going to have to fight like hell for it, not this bill, even though it had some opposition, I'm not opposed to it.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
13,000 South Dakotans would lose Medicaid if ‘Big, Beautiful Bill' passes, research group says
(Getty Images) If Republicans in the U.S. Senate pass the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' as written, 13,000 South Dakotans would lose Medicaid and the state would lose $931 million in federal funding for the program by 2034, according to a new analysis. Medicaid is a federal-state health insurance program for low-income people. The budget reconciliation bill, which passed the U.S. House, aims to reduce federal Medicaid spending through various policy changes by about $793 billion. The biggest changes include setting a work requirement for some enrollees and mandating more frequent eligibility checks. The work requirement would take effect in January 2027. Republicans, including South Dakota's delegates, say the policies would reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the program. Democrats say they would increase barriers, resulting in eligible people losing health insurance. South Dakota Medicaid enrollments would decline by about 10%, or around 13,000 people, by 2034, according to an updated analysis from health policy organization KFF. The projections use Congressional Budget Office estimates to unpack the potential state-by-state impacts. Nationwide, 10.3 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034, according to the CBO. Combined with the expected expiration of the Obama-era Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits at the end of this year, the projected number of uninsured South Dakotans rises to about 20,000. Medicaid cuts would 'force states to make tough choices,' KFF reported: 'maintain current spending on Medicaid by raising taxes or reducing spending on other programs; or cut Medicaid spending by covering fewer people, offering fewer benefits, or paying providers less.' The majority of the cuts, according to KFF, would come from three sources: Work requirements mandating that adults who are eligible for Medicaid expansion must meet work and reporting requirements (estimated to save $344 billion as people become ineligible). Repealing a Biden administration rule simplifying eligibility and renewal processes (estimated to save $167 billion). Setting a moratorium on new or increased provider taxes (estimated to save $89 billion). The cost estimates can be uncertain because states might choose to implement a work requirement with easier or harder reporting requirements than other states. South Dakota is exploring implementing its own work requirements, which are more relaxed than the federal proposal. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
A modern-day version of ‘Pride and Prejudice' surfaces over city's LGBTQ+ recognition
The rainbow flag of the gay pride movement and the flag of the United States. (Photo by Getty Images) Jane Austen's novel 'Pride and Prejudice' focused on manners and goodness, two virtues sometimes forgotten today. Shortly before the novel was published, our Founding Fathers settled on the free exchange of ideas as one of the fundamental concepts they wanted to guarantee in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But in 2025, there is an uncomfortable tug-of-war occurring over pride and prejudice, expression and oppression. That tug-of-war was on display during the Ottumwa City Council meeting last week. A similar debate is happening elsewhere around Iowa and across the nation over a variety of civic issues where opinions vary widely. The subject of the Ottumwa discourse was a proposed proclamation designating June as Pride Month there. The city made similar designations in each of the past five years with nary a peep of protest. But a couple of residents objected to the new proclamation when it came to a vote last week. What ensued was a refreshing, and polite, discussion among those residents, Mayor Rick Johnson and members of the council. No one called anyone a moron, lunatic, scum, loser, traitor or crook. Manners AND free expression prevailed. The Ottumwa discussion comes at a time when American colleges and universities are not so lucky. Whether assailed by the federal or state governments, these schools face pressure, if not coercion, to abandon policies and programs that encourage consideration of a wider cross-section of students, job applicants and voices. The discussion in Ottumwa came amid continuing controversy over rallies around the United States, where Israel's treatment of law-abiding Palestinians in Gaza has been loudly criticized — with the Trump administration drawing no distinction between peaceful events and events advocating violence toward Israel and Jews. The Ottumwa discussion also coincided with the decision by the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa to send warning letters to five cities — Carroll, Harlan, Mount Pleasant, Polk City and Webster City. In those letters, the ACLU said the cities must change their ordinances classifying performances by 'female impersonators' and 'male impersonators' as prohibited forms of adults-only entertainment. The ACLU said the ordinances are unconstitutional because they try to stop non-obscene forms of free expression that are protected by the First Amendment. That free expression is on display in popular movies like 'Mrs. Doubtfire,' when female comedians with short hair perform while wearing a suit and tie, or when men wear gowns and wigs in a Pride parade. 'These outdated ordinances go far beyond prohibiting objectionable or obscene conduct,' ACLU attorney Shefali Aurora wrote in the letters. 'To be clear, drag is not a synonym for obscenity.' Back in Ottumwa, Councilman Bill Hoffman Jr. spoke eloquently about retaining the Pride Month proclamation. His reasoning provides important insight for other situations where some disagree with the message espoused by others. 'If you don't like Pride Month, don't celebrate it. If you don't want to go to a Pride event, don't go,' Hoffman said, the Ottumwa Courier reported. 'When I ran for council, I promised to protect 25,579 people and their legal rights, and to take a proclamation off that celebrates people, to me is absolutely appalling.' Katie Howard, one of the opponents to the proclamation, urged the council to reject Pride Month. She said the council should follow the lead of the federal government's efforts to end diversity, equity and inclusion practices. 'Being gay may not be a choice, but being trans is, and you're celebrating everything,' Howard said. 'I'd also like to point out that mental health is not a choice. Colon cancer is not a choice. Being Black is not a choice. You're equating apples and oranges.' Councilman Dan Reid, the only person voting against the 2025 Pride proclamation, added: 'It's always my desire to try to treat everybody with respect, kindness and dignity. That's just my policy. That's why I felt like this proclamation is giving a specific select group of people a special month. It's just more honor than average.' Councilwoman Cara Galloway responded: 'Trying to remove this one after years of support doesn't really feel like a principled stand. It almost looks like discomfort with the LGBTQ+ community and inclusion. We can't ignore that LGBTQ+ youth are among the most at risk for mental health and suicide.' Mayor Johnson weighed in: 'If we don't continue to recognize and celebrate everybody that's part of the community, we're not living up to the goals and pillars' of the city's mission. Councilman Hoffman added, 'We're a diverse town and we should be proud of that. And anybody who stands at that podium should be celebrated. That's what we want. Differences of opinion are what make the town great.' Talk about sense and sensibility: The right to peacefully express one's opinions, whether those are shared by many or by a few, regardless of how government officials stand on an issue, lies at the heart of what makes the United States a nation of rights and freedoms. Randy Evans is a member of the Iowa Writers' Collaborative and his columns may be found on his blog, Stray Thoughts. Editor's note: Please consider subscribing to the collaborative and the authors' blogs to support their work.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
The National Guard Was Sent to LA in 1992. This Is Different
Armed with machine guns and grenade launchers, National Guard soldiers hold a line on Crenshaw Blvd. in South Central L.A. in 1992. Credit - Ted Soqui/Corbis via Getty Images More than three decades before President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to protests over immigration raids, another President called up the military to quell civil unrest in the same city. But the circumstances are very different this time around. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush mobilized the National Guard to Los Angeles due to riots that broke out following the acquittal of white police officers who were charged with assaulting Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. The National Guard's deployment came at the request of California's then-Gov. Pete Wilson and Mayor Tom Bradley, as multiple days of rioting caused extensive damage in the city and left dozens dead. Compared to the destruction and violence in 1992, the damage resulting from the demonstrations thus far against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been minor. And President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, marking the first time a President has done so without the governor's consent in six decades. Here's what to know about the National Guard's mobilization in 1992—and how it differs from the current situation. The city of Los Angeles descended into widespread unrest on April 29, 1992, after a jury acquitted four police officers who were videotaped beating Rodney King. Over the course of several days, more than 60 people died, while another 2,000 were injured. More than 1,000 buildings were defaced, leading to damages that amounted to some $1 billion. Bush called up the National Guard under the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy the typically state-controlled military force in certain situations involving invasions or insurrections, on the third days of the riots 'What followed Wednesday's jury verdict in the Rodney King case was a tragic series of events for the city of Los Angeles: Nearly 4,000 fires, staggering property damage, hundreds of injuries, and the senseless deaths of over 30 people,' Bush said in an address at the time. He went on to announce the commitment of thousands of additional troops to the city 'to help restore order' at the behest of the governor and mayor, and the federalization of the National Guard. Demonstrations began in Los Angeles on Friday in response to immigration raids targeting undocumented workers. The Los Angeles Police Department on Saturday referred to the protests as 'peaceful,' though some escalated as rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown and cars were set on fire. The city's mayor, Karen Bass, downplayed the extent of the demonstrations in an interview with CNN. 'This is not citywide civil unrest taking place in Los Angeles. A few streets downtown – it looks horrible,' she said, adding that people who committed acts of vandalism would be arrested and prosecuted. Read more: The Most Memorable Photos of Protests Erupting in Los Angeles Over Immigration Raids But on Saturday, Trump deployed 2,000 members of the National Guard to the city. Rather than the Insurrection Act, which Bush used, he invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. That provision allows the President to call in the National Guard in situations where authorities can't execute the country's laws with 'regular forces,' or if an invasion or rebellion is underway occurring or there is the threat of one. It also specifies that 'orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.' Far from asking for the National Guard to be mobilized, Newsom requested that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 'immediately rescind' the federal order and 'return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.' The governor sued Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday, claiming that the act surpassed the federal government's authority and violated the Tenth Amendment. 'Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a Monday statement. Bass, too, has vocally opposed the National Guard's deployment, calling it a 'chaotic escalation.' 'The fear people are feeling in our city right now is very real – it's felt in our communities and within our families and it puts our neighborhoods at risk. This is the last thing that our city needs,' the mayor said in a Sunday post on X. Trump further escalated the mounting tensions over the mobilization on Monday by suggesting that Newsom should be arrested over his handling of the demonstrations in Los Angeles. Unnamed officials confirmed to multiple news outlets later in the afternoon that the President has deployed 700 Marines to the city. Contact us at letters@
