Alabama Senate committee amends drag performance ban over theater concerns
Sen. Chris Elliot, R-Josephine, chair of the Senate County and Municipal Government Committee, listens to testimony on HB 67, sponsored by Rep. Scott Stadthagen, R-Hartselle, which would ban drag performances in public libraries, on April 29, 2025 in Montgomery, Ala. (Alander Rocha/Alabama Reflector)
An Alabama Senate committee Tuesday approved a bill that prohibits public libraries from presenting or sponsoring drag performances in the presence of minors without parental consent.
As initially filed, HB 67, sponsored by Rep. Scott Stadthagen, R-Hartselle, would have prohibited such performances in public libraries as well as K-12 schools. After concerns that the bill could impact school theater productions — with one high school switching a planned 'Peter and the Starcatcher' production to avoid conflict with the potential bill — the bill was amended to prohibit drag performances only in public libraries and libraries in public K-12 schools.
'What the amendment does is limit the effectiveness of this bill to where the problem is occurring … it just it talks about libraries instead of K-12 institutions, and I think that will solve, broadly, our theater program problems in all K-12 schools,' Sen. Chris Elliot, R-Josephine, the chair of the Senate County and Municipal Government Committee, which approved the bill. Elliott did not say where libraries are hosting drag performances.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Several people spoke against the bill in a public hearing and criticized its definition of drag performances as 'a performance in which a performer exhibits a sex identity that is different from the sex assigned to the performer at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical markers.'
Opponents said that was an excessively broad definition.
Zephyr Scalzetti, a transgender man from Huntsville, asked if the clothes he wears would be considered drag under the bill's definition. Pointing to the 'What is a Woman Act,' Scalzetti asked if he should wear a dress to his local library.
'Where is the line between what I'm wearing today and drag? Is my beard drag, since it's a male physical marker, the very hair that grows out of my face? The answer to that question in this bill is left entirely up to libraries to determine individually,' Scalzetti said.
Opponents also raised potential legal challenges related to First Amendment rights and equal protection, with some arguing that similar laws have been deemed unconstitutional in the past.
'Whether you call this a drag ban, a crossdressing ban, a masquerade law or a three article rule, courts have ruled these laws unconstitutional for 50 years,' said Opelika resident Chris Hathcock.
Ted Halley, who said he 'detransitioned' back to male after 12 years of identifying as a woman, claimed that 'drag shows are grooming children to be transgender' and incentivize children to transition. Halley did not say whether a drag queen incentivized him to identify as a woman.
'Drag queen story hour, whether it's in school, which I think you should put it back in, or a library, is very dangerous,' Halley claimed.
Detransition and regret are different concepts, a Harvard Medical School study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism suggests, which may overlap in some people, but they are 'sometimes mistakenly viewed as synonymous.'
Sen. Merika Coleman, D-Pleasant Grove, asked how consent would be obtained and in what situations it would be required. She said that she hosts events for seniors and her sorority in the Bessemer Public Library, and they may bring children with them to some events that could potentially be in conflict with the bill.
'It's a public library. There can be minors, and a lot of my seniors take care of their grandchildren. They may bring them to the event with them,' Coleman said, adding that it's the same case with some sorority events.
Sen. Kirk Hatcher, D-Montgomery, said the legislation is a 'cultural distraction' that distracts from more pressing concerns. He said that he is 'absolutely concerned' with lawmakers not 'paying attention to the fact that we are not living– we are not living in normal times.' He said that parents should be deciding what events their children attend.
'Here we are talking about what parents can decide and attempting to codify this into law. I am embarrassed by this … That is shameful. That is not what our government should be doing,' Hatcher said.
The bill goes to the full Senate for consideration.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
Nirenberg says San Antonio did not get heads-up about Texas National Guard
Mayor Ron Nirenberg said San Antonio did not request, nor receive notice of, the Texas National Guard being here ahead of protests planned on Saturday against the Trump administration. Why it matters: Gov. Greg Abbott's decision to send the Texas National Guard to major city protests comes amid a national debate about the militarization of law enforcement and the rights of protesters. Catch up quick: Thousands are expected to protest during "No Kings Day" on Saturday nationwide and in downtown San Antonio. Organizers expect it will be the largest single-day rally against President Trump since the start of his second term. Abbott instructed the Texas National Guard to "use every tool and strategy to help law enforcement maintain order." The White House has already deployed the National Guard and Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. Reality check: A San Antonio rally last weekend, in protest of ICE deportations and recent local arrests at the courthouse, remained peaceful. Zoom in: Democratic U.S. Reps. Joaquin Castro and Greg Casar said Abbott's decision is "inflammatory" and that he's "escalating tensions rather than promoting safety." What they're saying:"I have full faith and confidence in our community to exercise their First Amendment rights peacefully," Nirenberg said Wednesday at a press conference.
26 minutes ago
White House tries to clarify Trump's threat to use 'heavy force' on 'any' military parade protesters
The White House on Wednesday attempted to clarify President Donald Trump's threat the day before to use "heavy force" against "any" protesters at the military parade this weekend in Washington celebrating the Army 's 250th anniversary. "The president supports peaceful protests," press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at a White House briefing after Trump on Tuesday did not distinguish between peaceful and violent protesters. "He supports the First Amendment. He supports the right of Americans to make their voices heard," she added, after being asked what Trump would allow at the parade given his military response to the protests against his immigration policies in Los Angeles. "He does not support violence of any kind. He does not support assaulting law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their job." "It's very clear for the president what he supports and what he does not," she said. "Unfortunately for Democrats, that line is not been made clear, and they've allowed this unrest in this violence to continue, and the president has had to step in." The president's comments on Tuesday said protesters would be"met with heavy force" if they arrived in Washington for the parade, which occurs days after he sent the National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles to quell protests against operations conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "These are people who hate our country," he said in the Oval Office. "We're going to celebrate big on Saturday," Trump added. "If any protesters want to come out, they will be met with very big force." U.S. Secret Service and local D.C. officials have said they only expect several small protests at Saturday's parade, and Trump himself on Tuesday night appeared to soften his earlier Oval Office comments somewhat, saying, "As long as we have the military there, the protests won't mean anything." "The military will be very heavy force -- very proud to tell you that," he told reporters who had asked him what he meant. "They might as well turn around. They're wasting their time." Tall fencing has been set up and other security measures have been taken around Washington in the lead-up to the parade -- measures the White House said are purely "proactive" and not in reaction to the protests in Los Angeles. "These are proactive security measures to protect those marching in the parade, many of whom will be veterans, and our brave men and women in uniform and Gold Star families," Leavitt said. "And of course, it's to protect the spectators who will be enjoying this incredibly patriotic show on Saturday." Leavitt's comments came as the first soldiers arrive in the district for the parade. Approximately 6,700 soldiers will participate, and there will be eight marching bands, 24 horses, two mules and a dog. Dozens of tanks, military vehicles, howitzers and various aircraft will be on display, and the Army on Wednesday added rocket launchers and precision-guided missiles to the festivities.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law A 71-page bill released by Senate Republicans would cut down on repayment plans and deem certain college programs ineligible for federal financial aid. Show Caption Hide Caption Senators grill Education Secretary Linda McMahon over proposed cuts Education Secretary Linda McMahon testified to Congress over proposed budget cuts. WASHINGTON – Congress is closer than it's been in a long time to massively reforming college financial aid. On June 10, GOP lawmakers in the U.S. Senate proposed their version of the higher education section of President Trump's tax and spending megabill. The 71-page portion of the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would set new caps on student loan borrowing while drastically cutting the number of repayment plans. Read more: Republicans propose massive overhaul of student loans, Pell Grants The Senate's version of the legislation is less aggressive than the bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced in late April. While it will likely be further watered down due to congressional budget rules, the scope of the legislation indicates big changes will be enacted soon to how Americans pay for college. Student loan caps proposed When President Donald Trump asked Republicans to find billions of dollars in federal spending cuts, GOP lawmakers in the House drew up measures to eliminate or dramatically curb many student loan programs. In April, they proposed cutting subsidized loans altogether for undergraduates. When students take out a federal direct subsidized loan, the government pays the interest while they're in school (and for a short grace period after the students complete their studies). That idea didn't survive in the Senate version of the bill, which was expected to be slightly more moderate than the House proposal. Read more: Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned Other elements of the House version remain, however. Like the House bill, the Senate measure proposes cutting the number of student loan repayment plans to just two. That change would kill President Joe Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, program, which former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona repeatedly called the "most affordable repayment plan ever." SAVE has been stalled in court for months, placing roughly 8 million people in forbearance. The Senate bill would also dramatically curb lending for graduate students and parents (though at lower caps than House Republicans wanted). Ben Cecil, a senior education policy advisor at Third Way, a center-left think tank, said he was pleased to see the bill appeared to make compromises. "These loan limits are much more reasonable," he said. Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said she was "relieved" some of the "most harmful" provisions of the House bill had been nixed. "Still, there are several concerning aspects of this bill that would ultimately make college less affordable for students," she said, including changes that "may drive borrowers to riskier private loans, which are not available to all borrowers." Less concern over Pell Grants One of college access groups' biggest criticisms of the initial bill was a significant change to Pell Grants, federal subsidies that help lower-income students pay for college. House Republicans wanted to increase the number of credits students would need to take each semester to be eligible for Pell Grants. The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, estimated that two out of three Pell recipients could've lost their grants or received smaller ones if that requirement were enacted. The Senate version takes a softer approach, codifying a provision to more fully exclude higher-income students qualify for Pell funds. At the same time, the bill expands Pell Grants in ways that could waste money, according to critics such as Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, a college affordability group. 'While the Senate nixed most of the House's proposed cuts to the Pell Grant program and averts a looming funding shortfall, it regrettably threatens the program's long-term stability by extending Pell eligibility to unaccredited programs that are unlikely to pay off for students," Gadkaree said in a statement. New accountability rules One of the biggest distinctions between the House and Senate versions of the bill is that they lay out two entirely different sets of new accountability rules for colleges. The House proposal would fine colleges for leaving students on the hook for unpaid student loan debt. The Senate's framework suggests taking federal financial aid away from college programs if they can't prove that students who graduate are earning more than they would have without a degree. Mike Itzkowitz, who served in the Education Department under President Barack Obama, said that concept has bipartisan support. "I don't know anyone who would be willing to fork over their time to take on loans to earn less than a high school graduate," he said. But it's possible that particular provision won't survive special Senate rules. To avoid needing the support of Democrats, Republicans are trying to pass Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" using the budget process. That strategy comes with challenges. However, the bill must only make changes that spend money or save money. Significant reforms to college oversight might go too far, said Jon Fansmith, the senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, the main association for colleges and universities. "This process isn't designed to do complicated policymaking," he said. "I really do worry about rushing something through without understanding what we're doing." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
