Texas bill targets 'furries,' banning non-human behavior in schools
The Brief
A new Texas bill, known as the FURRIES Act, would ban non-human behaviors in public schools, including the use of litter boxes and wearing animal accessories.
The bill prohibits students from presenting themselves as anything other than human, with exemptions for events like Halloween.
Students who violate the law could face suspension, expulsion, or placement in a juvenile justice education program.
Educators who fail to enforce the law could face fines, with penalties starting at $10,000.
TEXAS - A new Texas bill aims to ban non-human behaviors in public schools, commonly associated with "furries." The proposed legislation outlines a wide range of prohibited behaviors, from using a litter box to wearing animal ears and leashes.
What we know
The Forbidding Unlawful Representation of Roleplaying in Education, or FURRIES Act, prohibits students from engaging in "any non-human behavior," including presenting themselves as anything other than a human.
Dig deeper
According to the bill, examples of prohibited behaviors include:
Using a litter box to relieve oneself
Wearing non-human accessories, such as:TailsLeashesCollarsAccessories designed for petsFur (other than natural human hair or wigs)Animal-like earsItems not historically designed for humans
Tails
Leashes
Collars
Accessories designed for pets
Fur (other than natural human hair or wigs)
Animal-like ears
Items not historically designed for humans
Making animal noises such as barking, meowing, or hissing
Licking oneself for grooming
The bill states that students must present themselves as human and are also prohibited from:
Creating organizations or clubs related to non-human behavior
Promoting the belief that non-human behaviors are socially acceptable
The bill allows certain exemptions, including:
Halloween or school dress-up events related to human history (limited to five days per school year)
Theater performances
Dressing as a school mascot
Students who do not comply with the proposed law could face removal from class, suspension, or expulsion. The bill also allows for placement in a juvenile justice alternative education program.
Educators are required to report violations to the Texas attorney general. School districts that fail to enforce the law could face fines—starting at $10,000 for the first offense and increasing to $25,000 for further violations.
The act would take effect immediately if approved by two-thirds of House members. If it does not receive enough votes for immediate implementation, it would go into effect on Sept. 1, 2025.
A hearing has not yet been scheduled.
Click to open this PDF in a new window.
The backstory
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a furry is someone who identifies with or enjoys dressing as an animal or creature. Many furries wear costumes or accessories such as animal ears and tails.
A 2020 survey found that most furries are in their late teens or early 20s.
The Source
Information in this article comes from public court documents from Texas Legislature and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour 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.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Cassidy in a bind as RFK Jr. blows up vaccine policy
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has put Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) in a political bind, squeezed by his loyalty to President Trump and commitment to medicine. Cassidy, the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, publicly wavered over Kennedy's confirmation, sharply criticizing his views before eventually voting for him. Cassidy said he secured a series of promises about vaccine safety, including for Kennedy to not undercut public confidence in vaccines. 'If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, I will use my authority … to rebuff any attempts to remove the public's access to lifesaving vaccines without ironclad, causational scientific evidence that can be defended before the mainstream scientific community and before Congress,' Cassidy said on the Senate floor in February, just after he voted to advance Kennedy's nomination out of committee. Cassidy said Kennedy also pledged to keep in place a pivotal independent advisory panel on vaccine policy. 'If confirmed, [Kennedy] will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) without changes,' Cassidy said. On Monday, Kennedy fired the entire 17-member panel, arguing a 'clean sweep' was needed to purge conflicts of interest and help restore trust in vaccinations and public health. The move was an unprecedented escalation in Kennedy's quest to reshape the nation's vaccine policy and seemingly ignored one of the key promises Cassidy said he extracted from the longtime anti-vaccine activist. However, the second-term Louisiana senator and medical doctor did not publicly confront the Kennedy this week, pointing to his political vulnerabilities as he runs for reelection in 2026 and hopes to survive the deep red state's GOP primary. Robert Hogan, department chair and political science professor at Louisiana State University, said it seems clear that Kennedy is playing Cassidy for a fool — but that won't matter to GOP primary voters. 'You would think that that would hurt him electorally, but … I think ultimately, what could have hurt him is if he had stuck with his professional standards and the standards of the medical community' and spoken out against Kennedy, Hogan said. 'Keep in mind that in Louisiana, just a few days ago voted to make ivermectin available without a prescription. … Republicans are all in on this kind of thing and in that kind of environment, especially in a nomination battle where they are going to be the vast majority of people voting … it doesn't pay at all to push Kennedy on these matters,' Hogan said. Cassidy spent three decades as a practicing gastroenterologist before being elected to the House in 2009 and the Senate six years later. He won his 2020 election in a landslide, but he committed a cardinal sin in today's Republican party when, in 2021, he voted to convict Trump of impeachment for trying to incite a riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6. After his vote against Trump, state Republicans changed the rules to create a closed primary, where only Republicans and people who aren't registered in any other party can vote. Since Trump's reelection, Cassidy has tried to make amends. He's supported every controversial Cabinet nominee and touted his visits to the White House to brief Trump. Cassidy reported raising $1.36 million during the first quarter of 2025 with $7.5 million cash on hand. His campaign said it was the most ever by an incumbent Louisiana senator at this early stage in the campaign. Trump has so far largely stayed quiet on the race, but The Associated Press reported last month that Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) have discussed having the president support Rep. Julia Letlow (R) as a primary challenger to Cassidy. State Treasurer John Fleming (R), a former House member who is also a medical doctor, has already launched his primary campaign against Cassidy. Hogan said Fleming is a formidable opponent. 'If it comes down to, they're equal on every other dimension except [Fleming] did not vote to impeach Trump? That's the message, I think that will come through very clear to Republican voters,' Hogan said. Cassidy declined to comment for this article. He hasn't said much about Kennedy's latest move, telling reporters only that he is having conversations with the secretary. He also wouldn't say if Kennedy violated their agreement and instead pointed to a social media post. 'Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' Cassidy wrote on the social platform X. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.' Firing ACIP members is far from the first time Kennedy has flouted Cassidy's guardrails. Earlier this month, Kennedy bypassed ACIP entirely when he declared pregnant women and healthy children don't need COVID-19 vaccines. He canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in mRNA vaccine contracts and forced out the head of the Food and Drug Administration's vaccines division. As part of his commitment to Cassidy, Kennedy agreed to testify upon request on a quarterly basis. Yet he declined to do so when Cassidy requested a hearing in April following massive layoffs at HHS. Instead, he testified weeks later during a budget hearing on the HHS appropriations request. Cassidy pointed out it was the first time 'in at least two decades' an HHS secretary testified to the HELP Committee about a budget request. Before the start of the hearing, Cassidy gave Kennedy a clear sign of support when he walked to the front of the hearing room and shook Kennedy's hand in front of a barrage of cameras. While Cassidy largely avoided the issue of vaccines during the hearing, Democrats did not. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) accused Kennedy of misleading senators and the public about his support for vaccines. 'If I were the chairman, who believes in vaccines and voted for you because he believed what you said about supporting vaccines, my head would be exploding,' Murphy said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Senate GOP plan would sell millions of acres of Western public land
Senate Republicans have proposed selling off up to 3.3 million acres of federally owned land in 11 Western states, according to a draft legislative text offered as part of their spending and tax cut bill, prompting an outcry from conservationists and Democratic lawmakers. According to a budget blueprint released Wednesday evening by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the federal government would be required to sell off between 2.2 and 3.3 million acres of land owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service over the next five years. The proposal stipulates that the sold land will have to be used to develop housing or 'community development needs,' which it said could be defined by the secretaries of the Interior or Agriculture departments. The 11 states that would be affected by the proposal are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement Wednesday that the draft legislative text would turn 'federal liabilities into taxpayer value, while making housing more affordable for hardworking American families.' Current law allows BLM to sell off land in some instances, such as in a specific ring around Las Vegas, at a discount if it's developed for affordable housing. But the push to scale up these land sales has spurred pushback from not just Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists but also some House Republicans, who managed to block a similar provision from being included last month in the House's tax and spending bill. Democrats and several conservation groups sharply criticized the Senate blueprint, warning that it could deprive future generations of public access to public land and suggesting much of the land sold might not be used for affordable housing. Sen. Martin Heinrich (New Mexico), the panel's top Democrat, accused Republicans of 'taking up a sledgehammer' in a 'fire sale' of public lands, in a statement Wednesday. 'We all lose access to public lands forever, jeopardizing our local economies and who we are as a nation.' In a statement, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership said it opposed the proposed forced sale, arguing that the budget reconciliation bill was not the right process for public-land sales of this scale. 'The Senate proposal sets an arbitrary acreage target and calls for the disposal of up to six times more land than was proposed in early versions of the House budget reconciliation bill,' said Joel Pedersen, the group's president and CEO. 'If passed, sportsmen and women would lose access to large tracts of public land.' If enacted into law, the draft text would require the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to sell between 0.5 and 0.75 percent of the 438 million acres of land that they own collectively. It does not include the sale of land with existing grazing rights, along with federally protected lands such as national parks, monuments and wildlife refuges. The committee projected that the land sales would generate between $5 billion and $10 billion of income between fiscal years 2025 and 2034, citing an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
