Consent added into sex education bill, anti-DEI bill pass in final days of Indiana legislative session
In the final two days of the session, the Indiana legislature approved last-minute changes to a sex education bill and passed an anti-DEI bill.
Senate Bill 442, which addresses instruction on human sexuality, and Senate Bill 289, which addresses unlawful discrimination, were both authored by Sen. Gary Byrne, R-Byrneville. After the session ended Thursday, Byrne issued a brief statement that he championed legislation that aimed to 'promote educational curriculum transparency' and 'prevent unlawful discrimination.'
'I look forward to spending time this interim hearing from local constituents on how to continue to make Indiana a better place to raise a family,' Byrne said.
Sex education bill
In Senate Bill 442, a school board would have to approve any materials used to teach human sexuality for grades 4-12, and for the material titles to be posted online. The bill also requires elementary school students, if they participate in the lesson, to watch a three-minute ultrasound video of fetal development.
In the final week of the session, Byrne said he would remove language in the bill that required teaching 'the importance of consent on sexual activity.' But, after receiving pushback, Byrne added the language about consent back into the bill.
'The primary goal of Senate Bill 442 is to promote transparency in sexual education curriculum by requiring that curriculum to be approved by school boards and posted publicly online. The new conference committee report, which I approved yesterday morning, will also retain language added by the House of Representatives, which would require schools to teach about the importance of consent to sexual activity in an age-appropriate way and teach about fetal development during pregnancy,' Byrne said in a statement last Tuesday.
Sen. J.D. Ford, D-Indianapolis, said he was glad that consent was added back into the bill. But, Ford opposed the bill because he didn't understand the specificity of watching a three-minute ultrasound video.
Sen. Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington, said consent should be taught beyond just 'sexual activity between two individuals.'
'I don't know why there has to be some qualifier,' Yoder said. 'I think what's important here is we're teaching young people to be able to have agency and sense of self and be able to make those determinations no matter what.'
The bill passed the Senate last Wednesday 35-12, with Sen. Vaneta Becker, R-Evansville, and Sen. Greg Walker, R-Columbus, and all Democrats voting against the bill. It passed the House 72-20 the same day.
Anti-DEI bill
Senate Bill 289 prohibits 'discrimination' in state education, public employment and a licensing setting that 'is based on a personal characteristic of the person.'
The final version of the bill exempts 'employment actions concerning participation in a public contract by a minority business enterprise, women's business enterprise, or veteran business enterprise, if the employment action is authorized by law.'
Under the bill, schools can also make decisions around grants, scholarships or fee remissions based on 'personal characteristics' as long as those awards do not include any 'state funds or resources.'
State offices and universities can't require employees to complete training or licensing 'asserting that, or endorsing the theory that,' a person with a certain personal characteristic is inherently superior or inferior to a person with a different personal characteristic; should be blamed for actions committed in the past; or has a moral character that is determined by a personal characteristic of the person.
'You can't fix discrimination with discrimination,' Byrne said. 'This bill is good for Indiana, and everybody should be judged by how hard you work.'
In the bill, Earline S. Rogers, who was a former Lake County legislator, strikes the word 'minority' from the scholarship requirement and lists that those eligible for the scholarship 'reside in an underserved county in Indiana.' The bill defines five underserved counties: Lake, Allen, Marion, St. Joseph and Vanderburgh.
Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago, raised concerns about limiting the scholarship to five counties while aiming to 'fight discrimination.'
'It just doesn't make sense that the supermajority would pass a bill that discriminates against most of the counties in the state,' Randolph said.
Yoder said Senate Bill 289 is a 'culture war bill,' The legislature should defend scholarships for minority students 'full stop,' she said, and said the bill discriminates against who can receive scholarships.
'I strongly continue to be opposed with this direct attack on truth and progress all in the name of unlawful discrimination. You can't put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig,' Yoder said.
Sen. La Keisha Jackson, D-Indianapolis, said diversity, equity and inclusion benefits white women, people with disabilities and veterans before it benefits Black and brown people. As a Black woman, Jackson said tearfully it was difficult to have to complicate an anti-DEI bill as she listed the history of Black people, from the three-fifths compromise to Martin Luther King Jr. leading the civil rights movement.
'By eliminating DEI, we are limiting perspectives and ignoring the richness of our diverse state. Life is not black and white – there is nuance, and we must embrace the complexity that makes Indiana what it is,' Jackson said.
Byrne said everyone in the Senate 'is 100% whole,' and he said he taught his three sons as they were growing up Martin Luther King Jr.'s message of judging a person based on the content of their character.
'I love every person for their personal characteristics,' Byrne said. 'I do love every person, even on the other side. I don't care what color skin you are, it has nothing to do with it.'
The bill passed the Senate last Thursday, the final day of session, 34-16. It passed the House 64-26 the same day.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
33 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Today in History: June 8, Trump indicted on classified document charges
In 1789, in an address to the US House of Representatives, James Madison proposed amending the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights. In 1949, George Orwell's novel '1984' was first published. In 1966, a merger was announced between the National and American Football Leagues, to take effect in 1970. In 1967, during the Six-Day War, 34 American crew members were killed when Israel attacked the USS Liberty, a Navy intelligence-gathering ship in the Mediterranean Sea. (Israel later said the Liberty had been mistaken for an Egyptian vessel.) In 1968, US authorities announced the capture in London of James Earl Ray, the suspected assassin of civil rights leader the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In 1978, a jury in Clark County, Nev., ruled the so-called 'Mormon Will,' purportedly written by the late billionaire Howard Hughes, was a forgery. Advertisement In 1995, US Marines rescued Captain Scott O'Grady, whose F-16C fighter jet had been shot down by Bosnian Serbs on June 2. In 2009, North Korea's highest court sentenced American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee to 12 years' hard labor for trespassing and 'hostile acts.' (The women were pardoned in early August 2009 after a trip to Pyongyang by former President Bill Clinton.) In 2017, former FBI Director James Comey, testifying before Congress, asserted that President Trump fired him to interfere with Comey's investigation of Russia's ties to the Trump campaign. In 2021, Ratko Mladić, the military chief known as the 'Butcher of Bosnia' for orchestrating genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in the Balkan nation's 1992-95 war, lost his final legal battle when UN judges rejected his appeal and affirmed his life sentence. In 2023, PresidentTrump was indicted by a grand jury in Miami on 37 felony counts related to the alleged mishandling of classified documents that had been moved to Mar-a-Lago, Trump's Florida home. (The case against Trump was abandoned following Trump's November 2024 presidential election victory.)
Fox News
42 minutes ago
- Fox News
California lawmaker warns Menendez brothers' case is driving return of bill to release thousands of killers
A California lawmaker blames the attention on the Menendez brothers' case for prompting a bill to resurface that could put thousands of killers back on the streets. "California Democrats just opened the prison gates for over 1,600 cold-blooded killers," Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, a Republican, shared in a statement with Fox News Digital. "Democrat lawmakers have proven time and time again they don't care about the victim or their family. They don't care about keeping the public safe. They care about defending killers." Jones added what makes this move even more interesting was the timing of it. "As soon as the Menendez brothers' situation started trending, all of a sudden this bill comes up again," Jones said. "And it's really a very kind of cynical effort to get caught up in that wave of social media, media attention, the press cycle for building somebody's name. ... So, we're opposed to this bill. "It's a shameless attempt to ride a wave of social media sympathy with zero regard for the thousands of other brutal killers their bill could unleash." Jones said, unlike some of his Democratic counterparts, Republicans in California and the Senate are committed to keeping Californians safe. "And the way we do that is by keeping these violent felons locked up in prison where they belong," Jones said. "Dangerous Democrats are playing politics with public safety." Jones said the move to resentence Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were serving life in prison without parole for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, was not the right action to take. "It's pretty straightforward to me. These people were convicted of very heinous murders with a sentence of life without parole. And for us to go back on that sentencing now and then the victims to be re-victimized, the families of the murdered, to have to continuously relive this is unconscionable to me," Jones explained. Jones added what doesn't make sense in all this is Gov. Gavin Newsom's Democratic Party continues to push to protect perpetrators instead of victims and using the Menendez brothers' case to get their bill across the finish line. "I think the legislators from LA are taking advantage of that news cycle and the social media attention that is coming from this. They think they're gonna get some Hollywood stars to come up to Sacramento and testify on this bill to promote it. I don't think that's going to happen," Jones explained. Jones was speaking about SB 672, also known as the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, which is a California bill that would allow individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before the age of 26 to request a parole hearing after serving at least 25 years. The state Senate passed SB 672 Tuesday by a 24-11 vote. The proposal now heads to the Assembly. The bill, introduced by Democratic Sen. Susan Rubio, was amended to exclude criminals convicted of certain offenses the chance to seek parole, including those who killed a law enforcement officer or carried out a mass shooting at a school, among other offenses. "Sacramento's love affair with criminals doesn't seem to be letting up, even after 70% of Californians made it clear they wanted lawmakers to crack down on crime. Now, the state Senate is trying to let convicted murderers out of jail early," Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican candidate for California governor, shared in a statement after the bill's passage in the Senate. "It's also amazing that once the Menendez brothers found a way to apply for parole, the legislators here still doubled down and continued to push the bill through," Jones added. "And, again, it goes back to Gavin Newsom and the Democrats in California protecting perpetrators and ignoring victims." The previous bill, SB 94, would have given certain inmates serving life without parole a chance to petition to have sentences reviewed if crimes were committed before June 5, 1990, but it stalled in the legislature and did not move forward. Newsom's office told Fox News Digital it typically does not comment on pending legislation. Rubio's office told Fox News Digital she is "disappointed" some lawmakers are sharing false information. "It is unfortunate that the bill has been grossly misrepresented. I am disappointed that my friends from the other side of the aisle continue to peddle misinformation when, out of respect for them, I went over in detail what the bill does and does not do. I invited them to give me input, and the invitation is still open," Rubio's office shared in a statement. During Erik and Lyle Menendez's resentencing hearing last month, both shared emotional testimony, admitting "full responsibility" for their parents' murders after a bombshell decision by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic to resentence them. The resentencing hearing came after the brothers filed a habeas corpus petition in May 2023 citing new evidence of sexual assault. Former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón then filed a motion for resentencing in October 2024. Both filings followed the passage of AB 600, a California law allowing for resentencing of long-convicted inmates to align with current law. "There's all kinds of special circumstances, that's what a lot of these murders are called, special circumstances that, really, these people don't deserve to ever be out of prison," Jones said. Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman said "justice should never be swayed by spectacle" after the judge's decision. "The decision to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez was a monumental one that has significant implications for the families involved, the community and the principles of justice," Hochman said in a news release. "Our office's motions to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by the previous administration ensured that the court was presented with all the facts before making such a consequential decision. "The case of the Menendez brothers has long been a window for the public to better understand the judicial system. This case, like all cases — especially those that captivate the public — must be viewed with a critical eye. Our opposition and analysis ensured that the court received a complete and accurate record of the facts. Justice should never be swayed by spectacle." The brothers remain in prison but are now eligible for parole. They have a parole board hearing scheduled for August. Jones said the Menendez brothers are "getting special attention by the media and the Democrat leadership, who are really out of touch with everyday Californians." "Look, promoting this and pushing this idea is opening a Pandora's box for 1,600 other special circumstance murderers that are in prison right now, and I just can't support moving in a direction that allows so many of those people out on parole," Jones said. "I would argue if (the Menendez brothers) are truly rehabilitated, which I have some doubts about that, but if they are, then maybe the best place for them is in prison, where they can mentor and help other people that are coming into the prison system to get their lives turned around too." Jones added that releasing Erik and Lyle Menendez is not a risk he is willing to get behind. "As a society, do we want to really take the risk of letting these two out or any of the other 1,600 special circumstance murders that we don't know by name but are in prison for the same sentence? Do we really want to roll the dice and take the risk of allowing these people out and having the opportunity for any more victims in California? And I think the answer is a resounding no," Jones said. Stepheny Price is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business. She covers topics including missing persons, homicides, national crime cases, illegal immigration, and more. Story tips and ideas can be sent to
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's No Tax On Tips Crusade Could Backfire
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Ending federal income taxes on tips, one of President Donald Trump's signature campaign pledges in the 2024 election, could potentially backfire as Americans grow weary of tipping, experts have told Newsweek. No tax on tips was something the president said he would enact "first thing" if he won the November election. The idea, launched in the service industry behemoth that is Las Vegas, quickly took hold with the electorate, so much so that his Democratic opponent Kamala Harris was quick to pledge the same relief for tipped workers should she win the White House race. Fast forward 5 months into the second Trump administration, the pledge hasn't yet been enacted, but the idea is certainly beginning to take shape. As part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans have proposed a new tax deduction on tipped income up to $160,000 while keeping payroll taxes that are used to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Other legislative efforts have also been made. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, along with a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, introduced the No Tax on Tips Act to Congress in January, which would establish a new tax deduction of up to $25,000 for tips, subject to certain restrictions. "Whether it passes free-standing or as part of the bigger bill, one way or another, 'No Tax on Tips' is going to become law and give real relief to hardworking Americans," Cruz said on the Senate floor. The bill passed the chamber in May with support from both parties. Lawmakers are clearly keen on the idea, and the proposal is certainly popular with the American public, too. Polling conducted exclusively for Newsweek by Redfield & Wilton Strategies back in July 2024 showed that 67 percent of Americans do not believe tips given to service workers should be taxed. But the proposal, if enacted, could have some unintended consequences, business experts have told Newsweek. Tipping Culture Fatigue Javier Palomarez, founder and CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council, told Newsweek the policy could "reinforce tipping in the short term but erode it over time," pointing to a growing phenomenon of tipping fatigue—a weariness among consumers increasingly asked to tip in situations where it wasn't previously expected. A BankRate survey conducted between April and May this year found that 41 percent of Americans believe tipping is "out of control" and that businesses should better compensate their employees instead of relying on gratuities to provide a wage. Thirty-eight percent reported being annoyed with pre-entered tip screens, which are usually used in automated checkouts, particularly in cafes or fast food restaurants. Still, the generosity of many Americans could pull through, at least for a short while. "By framing tips as a tax-free bonus, the policy may temporarily boost the perceived generosity and importance of tipping, encouraging consumers to view it as a more impactful way to support service workers," Palomarez said. Composite image created by Newsweek. Composite image created by Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva But it's unlikely to be straightforward. "Cultural norms around tipping are sticky," he said. "By signaling that tipped workers deserve special tax treatment, the policy may further divide and complicate service industry compensation norms—bolstering tips in some sectors like restaurants while emphasizing reform calls in others like delivery services or app-based platforms. Over time, this could lead to service charges or higher base pay as consumers question tipping." Speaking to Newsweek, Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer's Tax and Accounting Division North America, warned that "the perception that tipped employees have a tax advantage may discourage tipping or at least the same amount of tipping by customers who are fully taxed on their incomes." Pay Boost for Workers While tipping fatigue is certainly on the rise, the pay boost for workers in the service industry is tangible. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has estimated that middle-income households could pocket an extra $1,800 per year under the plan. Joseph Camberato, CEO at emphasized that the policy is not necessarily designed to address tipping culture—for all its pros and cons—at large. "We've all seen those 'tip' prompts at self-checkout machines for things you grabbed off a shelf yourself," Camberato told Newsweek. "This policy doesn't fix that, and honestly, it's not meant to. It's for the 1.8 million restaurant servers who rely on tips to pay their bills. For them, not getting taxed on that income is a big deal. This policy targets the right group and gives them a meaningful raise, basically overnight." He added, "If anything, it's going to help the people who deserve tips the most like servers, bartenders, hospitality workers, walk away with more money. Remember, they usually get taxed 15 to 20 percent on tips. Take that off the table, and it's like giving them a 15 to 20 percent raise. "If you're already a tipper, you're not suddenly going to stop because of this bill. But the person on the other side of the transaction is going to be walking away with more money, and that's the point."
