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
Newsweek
35 minutes ago
- Newsweek
LA Riots: Multiple Police Cars Attacked By Protesters
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Two videos posted to social media showed multiple damaged California Highway Patrol vehicles stationary beneath a bridge in Los Angeles as protestors hurled objects down below, including bikes and street signs. No cops were visible in the videos. There was large-scale rioting in LA over the weekend, violence that stemmed from protests against immigration enforcement in the Californian city. President Donald Trump is deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to quell the violence, against the wishes of the state's Gov. Gavin Newsom and the city's Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. ❌ BREAKING: 🚨 Rioters have destroyed multiple California Highway Patrol vehicles and are now MOVING TOWARD the city. Via @ExxAlerts — {Matt} $XRPatriot (@matttttt187) June 9, 2025 Police cruisers continue to be pelted by large rocks as officers take shelter in the underpass. There is no intervention. California is a failed state. — Cam Higby | America First 🇺🇸 (@camhigby) June 9, 2025 This is a developing article. Updates to follow.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown
This is the showdown the White House has been waiting for. Unrest sparked by federal immigration raids in Los Angeles provided a questionable catalyst for President Donald Trump to stage a demonstration of military force. His deployment of National Guard troops, against the wishes of California's governor and LA's mayor — both Democrats — appears at this point to be mostly for show, intended to create the perception of the administration getting tough. But the reservists' presence at a fraught, politicized moment could worsen tensions and even become a trip wire that prompts more aggressive administration action. Northern Command said Sunday evening that 500 US Marines were now on 'prepared to deploy' status ahead of what would be a stunning and constitutionally dubious escalation if they were to show up in Los Angeles. Weekend protests saw law enforcement officers in riot gear use tear gas and flash bangs to disperse crowds in downtown Los Angeles and the nearby city of Paramount. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said demonstrators threw objects and were violent toward federal agents and deputy sheriffs. Trump is relishing his response. 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free,' the president posted on Truth Social on Sunday. He seems to be eyeing political objectives that go beyond the immediate situation in Los Angeles, which, compared with historical precedents, hardly seems to justify a unilateral presidential intervention. He is delivering a warning to Democratic jurisdictions nationwide that oppose his deportation moves. And he's not simply demonstrating his desire to militarize his crackdown on undocumented migrants, which he promised in the 2024 campaign despite legal constraints. He's implying he'll use the military, specifically the National Guard, to act against protest and dissent — a prospect that is troubling in a democratic society. Trump's move on Saturday is also a hint that he's willing to trample tradition and potentially constitutional limits down the line and that he wants to exploit what Republicans see as Democratic weakness on public order. And it buttresses the authoritarian image-making of a strongman commander in chief who ended last week ringside at a UFC fight and who will cap this week with tanks rumbling through the capital, on his birthday, at a parade ostensibly marking the Army's 250th anniversary. Trump gave the order to send 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after several days of protests and unrest following Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that netted dozens of arrests. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Saturday night that the move was necessary because of the failure of California authorities to protect federal immigration officials and their own citizens. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez and Betsy Klein reported that White House officials first decided to rush federal agents and resources to Los Angeles to protect ICE agents and guard one of the federal buildings where protests gathered. On Saturday evening, the decision was taken to send in the guard. Despite the heated rhetoric of administration officials and Republican lawmakers on Sunday, however, there were few signs that disorder is raging out of control or that local authorities cannot cope. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has accused Trump of taking a 'purposefully inflammatory' step, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said National Guard deployments were not 'called for.' And by the standards of outbursts of unrest in the US over the past few decades, the situation in Los Angeles does not appear especially acute. On Sunday, National Guard troops took up positions in three locations in Los Angeles, in what appeared to be the first instance in decades of reservists being deployed by a president without coordination with a governor. CNN crews captured California National Guard troops, operating under the authority of Trump rather than Newsom after the president called them into federal service, pushing back demonstrators outside a detention center. A federal officer was seen firing what appeared to be a gas canister. The stationing of troops at federal facilities is a potentially significant distinction since they were not initially being used in active law enforcement. Such a step would infringe on the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal troops from participating in law enforcement unless specifically authorized by the law or Congress. Even in this case, though, the legal situation is not definitive. The administration has not so far invoked the Insurrection Act, which in some circumstances permits the president to use the military to end an insurrection or rebellion of federal power in a state. An objective analysis of the situation in Los Angeles suggests no such extreme disorder yet. But one top administration official seems to be choosing his language with precision. Domestic policy adviser Stephen Miller posted on X that there were two choices: 'Deport the invaders, or surrender to insurrection.' The echoing of the Insurrection Act by a powerful administration figure who claims an 'invasion' of migrants justifies Trump's use of emergency and all but unlimited executive power is probably not a coincidence. The president doubled down in a Sunday Truth Social post, claiming 'violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking' federal agents. The National Guard deployment clearly risks politicizing the military. But it's a political no-brainer for the White House. Images of troops in combat gear, and the administration's vows to enforce order if local leaders won't, boost Trump's tough-guy image, which is an important factor in his appeal to his supporters. It bolsters Republican claims of fecklessness in liberal-run cities that have been plagued by homelessness and crime. By sending troops in over Newsom's head, Trump escalates his feud with the governor, who is one of the most prominent national Democrats at a time when Trump is threatening to pull federal funding to the state. This may also serve as a warning to other blue states that they could see the militarization of the deportation program if they don't cooperate. Then there's the distraction factor. The theatrics of troop arrivals may help disguise the fact that deportations have yet to reach the levels some supporters likely hoped for. And at a dicey political moment, following his public estrangement from Elon Musk and with doubts hanging over his massive domestic spending bill, escalating an immigration controversy serves to change the subject for Trump. Immigration has long been one of his reliable political havens. Still, a new CBS poll Sunday showed that while a majority approve of Trump's goals on the issue, 56% fault his approach. Top Republicans were quick to back Trump's California moves after days when Washington was consumed by the president's psychodrama with Musk. 'You have a very weak, lawless-leaning governor in Gov. Newsom, who's not enforcing the nation's laws,' Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union.' He went on, 'The president has made it very clear: If the governor or the mayor of the city isn't willing to protect the citizens of his state or the city, then the president will.' Another Republican senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, had few concerns about using National Guard troops. 'You provide massive manpower to prevent violence,' he told Bash. 'It would be nice if Democrat politicians wouldn't keep stirring it up and keep asking people to go out there and protest against lawful law enforcement actions. That's kind of hard to stomach.' Oklahoma's other Republican senator, James Lankford, said on NBC's 'Meet the Press' that Trump was trying to 'de-escalate all the tensions' by sending troops. Democrats, however, lashed out at Trump's move. 'My concern, of course, is that this inflames the situation and that he is hellbent on inflaming the situations,' Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'Individual governors look at their states. They make decisions,' Klobuchar said. 'But in this case, the president, time and time again, has shown this willingness to, one, violate the law, as we've seen across the country in many different situations outside of the immigration context. And two, inflame situations.' Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, warned on 'State of the Union' that 'we have a president who is moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism.' Sanders added: 'This guy wants all of the power. He does not believe in the Constitution. He does not believe in the rule of law … he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants.' Concerns Trump is flexing authoritarian impulses and that the administration would relish confrontations that allow it to move in this direction were underscored by a post on X by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He wrote that if violence continued, 'Active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' A threat by the defense secretary to deploy a force whose battle honors include Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima and Fallujah onto American streets does not only offend principles of democratic republican government. It would almost certainly be illegal, unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. At this point, the conditions of that legislation look nowhere near being met. Trump said Sunday he was not yet ready to invoke the act. Still, all this is chilling given his warning last year that he'd be prepared to use the military against 'the enemy from within.' This also comes after four months in which the administration has used questionable presidential power to target institutions from law firms to universities to the media. And it has used contentious national emergencies declared to unlock authorities on trade and immigration. Common Defense, the country's largest grassroots veterans organization, condemned Trump's deployment of the California National Guard. 'The militarized response to protests in Los Angeles is a dangerous escalation that undermines civil rights and betrays the principles we swore to uphold,' said Naveed Shah, the group's political director and a US Army veteran. Hegseth's post underscores one reason why critics regarded him as unsuitable to serve as defense secretary — the fear he'd do anything that Trump told him to, unlike first-term Pentagon chief Mark Esper, who wrote in his book that the president asked whether troops could shoot in the legs demonstrators who gathered at the White House amid the George Floyd protests. Hegseth dodged in his confirmation hearing when repeatedly asked by Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono whether he'd carry out such an order from Trump. And he also hedged when asked by Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin whether he agreed that there were some orders a president may give that were unconstitutional. 'I am not going to get ahead of conversations I would have with the president. However, there are laws and processes inside our Constitution that would be followed,' Hegseth said. Little in Hegseth's tenure so far suggests he'd stand up against any of the president's more extreme ideas. That's one reason why Trump's unilateral deployment of reserve troops to Los Angeles seems like the initial thrust of an expanding administration effort to use the military in a domestic context.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Arrest Me, Let's Go': Newsom Punches Back At Trump Border Czar
California Gov. Gavin Newsom hit back at Trump border czar Tom Homan on Sunday, slamming threats the White House official previously made about arresting him and other Democratic leaders in the state. 'Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with tough guy,' Newsom said in an interview with MSNBC. 'I don't give a damn. But …I care about this community, the hell are they doing. These guys need to grow up, they need to stop and we need to push back.' Those statements come as Trump has made the rare move of sending National Guard troops in to quell immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles without Newsom's approval. During an interview this weekend, Homan suggested that Democratic officials – like Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass – who interfere with ICE raids, could face arrest. 'I'll say that about anybody,' Homan told NBC News. 'You cross that line. It's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement from doing their job.' Federal authorities have already penalized Democratic lawmakers including Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested for allegedly trespassing at a detention facility in New Jersey, though that case has since been dropped. Alina Habba, the interim US attorney for New Jersey, has also charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) with assault for an incident at that same location. And Homan has previously targeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well, suggesting that she could be 'in trouble' for hosting a webinar on immigrants' rights. Newsom made clear that he wouldn't be cowed by Homan's threats. 'That kind of bloviating is exhausting,' he said. 'So, Tom, arrest me. Let's go.'
