House passes bill preventing abortion providers from teaching in public schools
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — The Utah House of Representatives has passed a bill that would prevent abortion providers from giving health-related instruction in public schools.
H.B. 233 — or School Curriculum Amendments — decisively passed in a 51-14-10 vote Friday afternoon. If it advances on through the Senate, and is signed by the governor, the bill will prevent any 'entity employee, representative, or affiliate that performs elective abortions or provides de-branded maturation curriculum' from delivering health-related teaching.
The bill would also prevent local school districts from allowing those organizations to provide materials on health topics in schools that receive state funding. For violators, the bill would impose a monetary penalty and withhold funds from the local district.
Cox appoints former Moab police chief as head of Utah Dept. of Corrections
Rep. Nicholeen Peck (R-Tooele) told lawmakers during floor debate that she felt there was a conflict of interest by allowing these entities to teach these subjects to students.
'I realized this could probably be a conflict of interest,' Peck told lawmakers. 'In our state law, it does say that we don't advocate for abortion, and even if these elective abortion providers … are not advocating by saying the word abortion, they are standing in front [of students] in a position of trust, and that's a conflict of interest.'
During debate, Rep. Andrew Stoddard (D-Salt Lake) attempted to amend the bill to allow for a process to approve certain organizations to teach. This measure ultimately failed during a floor vote.
Several representatives rose in opposition of the bill, some arguing that the law was unnecessary because educators are already required to follow the state-approved curriculum. Rep. Carol Moss (D-Salt Lake) said, 'These are volunteers, they don't have an agenda, they do it free, they don't pay them … and they're not teaching an agenda. I want to be perfectly clear to everybody, that anyone who does this has to follow the state-approved curriculum.'
When debate closed on the bill, Peck made a final appeal to lawmakers on why her legislation was needed.
'We put our children … in a position of trust with all of the people who are going to teach them,' Peck began. 'Really what this bill is all about is making sure that when our children are trusting the people that we are putting them in front of to get their education, that they are not going to be taught to trust a certain brand or a certain type of organization that they would ultimately one day be led to give money to. We shouldn't be marketing to our children at school.'
After its passage, Utah's House Democrats released a statement opposing the bill, saying, 'We believe in local control and trust the Utah State Board of Education to make informed decisions that prioritize students' well-being. Utahns do not need the legislature interfering with their family's educational choices.'
H.B. 233 will need to go through the Senate Committee and a floor vote before it can go to the governor for approval or veto.
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
Opinion - Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson: Two Republican profiles in courage
The passage of the budget reconciliation bill by the House of Representatives in the early hours of May 22 demonstrated once again President Trump's ability to win the votes of Republican members of Congress. But there were two noteworthy exceptions. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) were the only Republicans to resist Trump's pressure and vote against his so-called 'big, beautiful bill.' Both men deserve the country's gratitude, even from those on the political left who would struggle to find much in common with these far-right conservatives. Both men are comfortable with Trump's MAGA-world and both have voting records that put them at odds with Democrats. But in voting to oppose the tax bill, they demonstrated that their convictions are real and lived up to the ideal of an independent legislative branch capable of acting without a president's direction. Alongside a Republican party unwilling to balance the power of the presidency, Democrats have demonstrated an equally unproductive tendency to place loyalty to a party leader above their constituents and the country. The aggressive efforts to downplay, dismiss and cover up former President Joe Biden's declining faculties in 2024 offers a prime example of this type of misplaced loyalty. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) went so far as to explain his support for Biden after the June 2024 presidential debate by saying simply, 'I don't do disloyalty.' This sentiment was indicative of a Democratic Party wholly unwilling to call out the obvious — whose leaders and members chose instead to misinform the American people. With their votes in favor of Trump's tax bill, too many Republican members of Congress have done something similar. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) took a middle path, voting 'present' rather than for or against the bill. But the effect of that meek decision pales in comparison to the clarity offered by Massie and Davidson. Both opposed the bill because they know it massively increases the size of the federal government's annual deficit and relies on future members of Congress to address a problem that needs to be resolved now. Their unwillingness to kick the can further down the road is in keeping with the character it takes to stand up to a president who is willing to threaten the political future of Republicans who oppose his will. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was courageous enough to admit publicly what most Republicans understand in private: 'We are all afraid.' Republican politicians are intimidated by Trump and his allies. Murkowski has consistently demonstrated uncommon fortitude by her principled opposition to Trump when she disagrees with him or believes his policies will harm her constituents. Massie and Davidson have earned their place as the most principled Republicans in the House by sticking with their beliefs when faced with political consequences. They exemplify the idea that it is better to lose with your principles intact than to win after sacrificing them to political pressure and conformity. In recent decades, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have abdicated their proper constitutional role in favor of powerful chief executives from their respective parties. At the same time, the judiciary has replaced Congress as the primary check on presidential power — a development that perhaps encourages courts to overstep their intended role. The rebalancing of power in the federal government will start only when members of Congress are willing to assert their independence. A more confident legislative branch would take pressure off the courts and allow them to return to a less activist role. Neither Massie nor Davidson is likely to earn plaudits from Democrats, who have demonstrated their own willingness to put party loyalty over country and are quick to dismiss the value of political independence. They showed this by their shoddy treatment of Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) after he challenged Biden for the nomination in 2024, and by their growing criticism of Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) for deviating slightly from the ideology of the far left. Democrats have done and are doing exactly what they now accuse Republicans of doing by mindlessly supporting the president's tax bill. Massie and Davidson showed us something better. We might make real progress if more of their colleagues were willing to follow. Colin Pascal is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a registered Democrat and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans struggle to defend Trump's military parade as tanks prepare to roll in D.C.
Around this time eight years ago, Donald Trump attended Bastille Day celebrations in France in 2017, which the president apparently loved — in part because it included a military parade along the Champs-Élysées. 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,' the Republican said after the event, adding, 'It was military might.' Soon after, Trump began pushing for a related display in Washington, D.C., which was not an especially popular idea, even among many of his allies. According to multiple reports, Gen. Paul J. Selva, the then-vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the president during a Pentagon meeting that military parades were 'what dictators do.' There were similar reactions on Capitol Hill, including among Republicans. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said ostentatious American military parades would likely be 'a sign of weakness,' adding that he wasn't interested in a 'Russian-style hardware display.' Around the same time, GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana explained, 'Confidence is silent. Insecurities are loud. When you're the most powerful nation in all of human history, you don't have to show it off, like Russia does, and North Korea, and China. And we are the most powerful nation in all of human history. Everyone knows that, and there's no need to broadcast it. I think we would show our confidence by remaining silent, and not doing something like that.' The White House's plan ultimately unraveled in 2018 — though in politics, it's often tough to keep bad ideas down. On Saturday, June 14, the president will finally get the military parade he's long sought, ostensibly celebrating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary. The event will also fall on Flag Day, as well as Trump's 79th birthday. Seven years after Graham said such displays would likely be 'a sign of weakness,' the South Carolinian told NBC News this week that he's now 'okay' with the parade. And while that trajectory was probably predictable given Graham's broader political evolution, as HuffPost noted, many of his colleagues were more reluctant to talk about the event. They snapped. They stared off into space. They zipped into Senate elevators and smiled as the doors closed with them safely inside. This is how nearly a dozen Senate Republicans reacted Wednesday when asked the simplest question: Do you plan to attend President Donald Trump's military parade in D.C. on Saturday, and are you comfortable with its estimated $45 million price tag? What's more, GOP senators aren't just loath to answer questions about the military parade, they're also disinclined to show up for the festivities: Politico reported that most congressional Republicans won't be in attendance when tanks start rolling down Constitution Avenue, and 'those begging off include members of the Republican leadership in both chambers.' As for intraparty criticism, Graham has apparently changed his mind, but other Senate Republicans have subtly made clear that they're not fully on board with Trump's vision. 'I wouldn't have done it,' Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky told NBC News this week. 'I'm not sure what the actual expense of it is, but I'm not really, you know, we were always different than, you know, the images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that,' Paul said. (He clarified that he was 'not proposing' that that's the image Trump intends to project, but he's worried what message the parade will send.) As for Louisiana's Kennedy, the senator echoed the point he raised during the president's first term. 'The United States of America is the most powerful country in all of human history. We're a lion, and a lion doesn't have to tell you it's a lion. Everybody else in the jungle knows and we're a lion,' the senator said. It's a point Trump will probably never fully understand. This article was originally published on
The Hill
42 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's Medicaid and SNAP red tape will devastate millions of Americans
Extending President Trump's 2017 tax cuts is a centerpiece of what the president calls his 'big, beautiful' spending bill that was passed late last month by House Republicans by a single vote. Now it is the Senate's turn to weigh in, but that chamber's narrow Republican majority needs to take a hard look at the facts before pressing the yay button. Trump's legislation may truly be enormous, but it is far from pretty — it stigmatizes the wrong people, slashes the wrong programs and will hurt far more Americans than it helps. For starters, those tax cuts will disproportionately go to the wealthy while adding trillions to the deficit. Meanwhile, the punitive work requirements and layers of paperwork for Medicaid and SNAP (formerly food stamps) recipients are still visible beneath the flimsy camouflage of reducing welfare fraud. Academic research, including my own, shows that the vast majority of Americans who are working, are disabled or are providing caregiving already meet these requirements for state and federal aid. Even the independent Congressional Budget Office reports that work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP do not accomplish their stated goal of increasing employment. Millions of Americans rely on Medicaid and SNAP, essential programs that have lasting benefits beyond health care and healthy eating. In 2023, nearly 83 million children and adults — 24 percent of Americans — relied on Medicaid. Medicaid supports care from the cradle to the grave: Medicaid pays for more than 4 in 10 births in the U.S., and is the largest funder of long-term care, supporting the long-term services and supports needed by almost 6 million Americans in 2021. In 2023, SNAP provided food assistance to an average of 42 million Americans each month. SNAP is important across the age spectrum, too: Nearly half of all children in the U.S. participate in SNAP before their 20th birthday, and more than 4 million seniors 60 or older receive SNAP. The CBO estimates that if the Senate passes the bill in its current form, nearly 15 million Americans will lose their health coverage by 2034 because of Medicaid work requirements and other cuts. The reconciliation bill includes the largest SNAP cut in history. It will eliminate food benefits for more than 3 million adults (about 1 million adults over 55) and roughly 1 million children each month. Still, that doesn't keep Republicans from continually trying to portray recipients as lazy cheaters who need to lace up their boots and get back to the factory. They've been making the same mistake for years. Arkansas in 2018 and Georgia in 2023 implemented Medicaid work requirements. Those moves merely caused thousands to lose insurance coverage, had no effect on employment and did not protect these states from fraud. In Arkansas, they were halted after one year. The punitive requirements in the House Republicans' bill will not only fail to force millions of people into low-paying jobs, but they will also increase Americans' medical debt, creating a further, unnecessary strain on our economy and health care system. If Republicans really think that work requirements and paperwork reduce fraud, they are wrong. Medicaid fraud, for example, is relatively rare and more often committed by health care providers, not beneficiaries. Further, these work requirements will bury Americans in mounds of paperwork and cost millions to administer. Instead, they should try to limit the sophisticated tax evasion strategies used by the top 1 percent, which are rarely detected but very expensive for the country. If Trump's complaisant members of Congress really wanted to increase employment, expansions in public preschool and child care would be much more effective and economical. It's somewhat ironic that an administration that supposedly is taking a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy is moving to wrap ordinary Americans in red tape. But the reality is the Trump administration seeks to break down barriers for millionaires, while building them up around the rest of us. Taryn Morrissey is a professor and chair of American University's Department of Public Administration and Policy, and associate dean of research at the School of Public Affairs.
