‘Obscene performances' public funding ban moves forward
Rep. Andrew Ireland, R-Indianapolis, introduces a bill barring public entities from funding 'obscene performances' on March 31, 2025. (Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
A bill that left the Senate with near-universal support picked up a 'barnacle in committee,' as one House Democrat put it last week, leaving the House on a 71-20 vote Monday.
The House additions widen the scope of the underlying bill beyond an effort to replace a criminal term throughout Indiana code to include a focus on obscene performances.
As originally written, Senate Bill 326 would have replaced 'child pornography' with 'child sex abuse material,' acknowledging that children are being sexually abused in such images. But a House committee added a new provision: barring government entities from using public money to fund, organize or host 'obscene performances.'
'Obscene performance' ban added to child abuse bill, official misconduct expungements weighed
A House floor amendment, which moved largely along party lines, also added a method of enforcement by allowing people to sue Indiana entities for alleged incidents.
'Language shapes the way we understand and confront these issues and the term child pornography is not only inaccurate, it minimizes the horror of the crimes committed. Pornography implies a level of consent and children cannot consent,' said House sponsor Rep. Andrew Ireland. '… we're taking an important step to save our Hoosier children.'
The Indianapolis Republican said the language regarding obscene performances would ensure 'that public funds are never used to support the exploitation of children.'
Defining something as obscene has to meet a high bar, known as the 'Miller Test.' That work must be based on an average person's reaction and consider the entire work, not just an isolated portion.
But critics maintained that such performances aren't happening, noting there are already penalties regardless of someone's government affiliation.
'More and more this General Assembly is taking itself to an alternate reality where it legislates against problems that don't exist,' said Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington. 'We create a strawman and then we knock it down and 'Look at us! We really solved that problem!'
'The problem never existed. But it appeals to somebody out there, so we do it now.'
Ireland didn't cite specific instances of obscene performances using taxpayer dollars on Monday nor in his testimony last week when he introduced the penalty language.
It also doesn't limit such legal action to only Indiana residents, meaning that, according to Pierce, 'any person in the universe can sue your local government when they're offended by somebody and try to make an argument that it's obscene.'
Pierce was one of the committee members to advance the bill, noting the high bar to meet the state's obscenity standard, which he dubbed a 'barnacle' on the House floor last week. In addition to the Miller test, a litigant would generally need to prove they have been harmed by obscene performances — a barrier meant to tamp down on frivolous lawsuits.
But Pierce said the language eviscerates that and says 'we don't care if they're harmed or not. We don't care if they have a direct injury.'
Municipalities may still need to spend their dollars defending themselves from such accusations, which could include plays, poetry and drag shows.
'Keep in mind, anybody involved in this supposed obscene performance that local government might be funding can already be arrested and imprisoned under our current (law),' Pierce continued. 'I would think the fear of going to prison would keep local officials from going into the smut-peddling business.'
Ireland agreed with Pierce that such obscene performances 'have never occurred and I hope never occur … in part, thanks to this bill.'
'This is nothing new under the sun,' concluded Ireland.
The final vote tally split both parties, though only Ireland and Pierce spoke on the measure. It now goes to the Senate, which must vote to accept or reject the House amendments before the bill can advance.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
29 minutes ago
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. Brehm's attorney, Bradley Girard with Democracy Forward, expressed disappointment with the judge's decision. 'But in our parallel case, Rural Development Innovations v. Marocco, a grantee and two USADF employees have also challenged Marocco's unlawful appointment," Girard wrote in an email. "We are hopeful that the Court will reject the defendants' attempt to ignore the constitutional and statutory requirements for appointing board members to federal agencies.' That lawsuit is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required.
44 minutes ago
US Justice Department says Trump can cancel national monuments that protect landscapes
BILLINGS, Mont. -- Lawyers for President Donald Trump's administration say he has the authority to abolish national monuments meant to protect historical and archaeological sites across broad landscapes, including two in California created by his predecessor at the request of Native American tribes. A Justice Department legal opinion released Tuesday disavowed a 1938 determination that monuments created by previous presidents under the Antiquities Act can't be revoked. The department said presidents can cancel monument designations if protections aren't warranted. The finding comes as the Interior Department under Trump weighs changes to monuments across the nation as part of the administration's push to expand U.S. energy production. Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Natural Resources Committee, said that at Trump's order, 'his Justice Department is attempting to clear a path to erase national monuments." Trump in his first term reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monuments in Utah, calling them a 'massive land grab." He also lifted fishing restrictions within a sprawling marine monument off the New England Coast. Former President Joe Biden reversed the moves and restored the monuments. The two monuments singled out in the newly released Justice Department opinion were designated by Biden in his final days in office: Chuckwalla National Monument, in Southern California near Joshua Tree National Park, and Sáttítla Highlands National Monument, in Northern California. The Democrat's declarations for the monuments barred oil and natural gas drilling and mining on the 624,000-acre (2,400-square-kilometer) Chuckwalla site, and the roughly 225,000 acres (800 square kilometers) Sáttítla Highlands site near the California-Oregon border. Chuckwalla has natural wonders including the Painted Canyon of Mecca Hills and Alligator Rock, and is home to rare species of plants and animals like the desert bighorn sheep and the Chuckwalla lizard. The Sáttítla Highlands include the ancestral homelands of the Pit River Tribe and Modoc Peoples. All but three presidents have used the 1906 Antiquities Act to protect unique landscapes and cultural resources. About half the national parks in the U.S. were first designated as monuments. But critics of monument designations under Biden and Obama say the protective boundaries were stretched too far, hindering mining for critical minerals. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit wrote in the Trump administration opinion that Biden's protections of Chuckwalla and the Sattítla Highlands were part of the Democrat's attempts to create for himself an environmental legacy that includes more places to hike, bike, camp or hunt. "Such activities are entirely expected in a park, but they are wholly unrelated to (if not outright incompatible with) the protection of scientific or historical monuments," Pettit wrote. Trump in April lifted commercial fishing prohibitions within an expansive marine monument in the Pacific Ocean created under former President Barack Obama. Environmental groups said Tuesday's Justice Department opinion doesn't give him the authority to shrink monuments at will. 'Americans overwhelmingly support our public lands and oppose seeing them dismantled or destroyed,' said Axie Navas with The Wilderness Society. Biden established 10 new monuments, among them the site of a 1908 race riot in Springfield, Illinois, and another on a sacred Native American site near the Grand Canyon. Since 1912, presidents have issued more than a dozen proclamations that diminished monuments, according to a National Park Service database. Dwight Eisenhower was most active in undoing the proclamations of his predecessors as he diminished six monuments, including Arches in Utah, Great Sand Dunes in Colorado and Glacier Bay in Alaska, which have all since become national parks. Trump's moves to shrink the Utah monuments in his first term were challenged by environmental groups that said protections for the sites safeguard water supplies and wildlife while preserving cultural sites. The reductions were reversed by Biden before the case was resolved, and it remains pending. President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act after lobbying by educators and scientists who wanted to protect sites from artifact looting and haphazard collecting by individuals. It was the first law in the U.S. to establish legal protections for cultural and natural resources of historic or scientific interest on federal lands.
an hour ago
Trump's actions in Los Angeles spur debate over deportation funds in his 'big, beautiful' bill
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' in Congress includes more than tax breaks and spending cuts — it also seeks to pour billions of dollars into the administration's mass deportation agenda. Republican leaders capitalized Tuesday on the demonstrations in Los Angeles, where people are protesting Trump's immigration raids at Home Depot and other places, to make the case for swift passage of their sprawling 1,000-plus-page bill over staunch Democratic opposition. House Speaker Mike Johnson said the One Big Beautiful Bill Act delivers 'much-needed reinforcements,' including 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, $45 billion to expand migrant detention facilities and billions more to carry out at least 1 million deportations a year. 'All you have to do is look at what's happening in Los Angeles to realize that our law enforcement needs all the support that we can possibly give them,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. The focus on some $350 billion in national security funding comes as action on the massive package is lumbering along in Congress at a critical moment. Trump wants the bill on his desk by the Fourth of July. But Senate Republicans trying to heave it to passage without Democrats are also running up against objections from within their GOP ranks over the details. At the same time, Democrats are warning that Trump's executive reach into California — sending in the National Guard over the governor's objections and calling up the Marines — is inflaming tensions in what had been isolated protests in pockets of LA. They warned the president's heavy-handed approach has the potential to spread, if unchecked, to other communities nationwide. 'We are at a dangerous inflection point in our country,' said Rep. Jimmy Gomez, who represents the Los Angeles area. 'Trump created this political distraction to divide us and keep our focus away from his policies that are wreaking havoc on our economy and hurting working families," he said. "It's a deliberate attempt by Trump to incite unrest, test the limits of executive power and distract from the lawlessness of his administration.' At its core, the bill extends some $4.5 trillion in existing tax breaks that would otherwise expire at the end of the year without action in Congress, cutting some $1.4 trillion in spending over the decade to help offset costs. The Congressional Budget Office found the bill's changes to Medicaid and other programs would leave an estimated 10.9 million more people without health insurance and at least 3 million each month without food stamps from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. At the same time, CBO said the package will add some $2.4 trillion to deficits over the decade. One emerging area of concern for Republican leaders has been the bill's status before the Senate parliamentarian's office, which assesses whether the package complies with the strict rules used for legislation under the so-called budget reconciliation process. Late Monday, Republicans acknowledged potential 'red flags' coming from the parliamentarian's office that will require changes in the House bill before it can be sent to the Senate. Leaders are using the reconciliation process because it allows for simple majority passage in both chambers, were GOP majorities are razor-thin. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Republicans are preparing to address the concerns with a vote in the House, possibly as soon as this week, to change the package. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer seized on the House's upcoming do-over vote as a chance for Republicans who are dissatisfied with the package to reassert their leverage and 'force the bill back to the drawing board.' 'They say they don't like parts of the bill — now is their opportunity to change it,' Schumer said. On Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance was dispatched to speak with one GOP holdout, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has pushed for deeper spending reductions in the bill to prevent skyrocketing deficits from adding to the nation's $36 trillion debt load. Other Republican senators have raised concerns about the health care cuts. But Republicans are in agreement on border security, deportation and military funding, over the objections of Democrats who fought vigorously during the committee process to strip those provisions from the bill. The package includes about $150 billion for border security and deportation operations, including funding for hiring 10,000 new ICE officers — with what Johnson said are $10,000 hiring bonuses — as well as 3,000 new Border Patrol agents and other field operations and support staff. There's also funding for a daily detention capacity for 100,000 migrants and for flights for 1 million deportations annually. The package includes $46 billion for construction of Trump's long promised wall between the U.S.-Mexico border. Additionally, the bill includes $150 billion for the Pentagon, with $5 billion for the military deployment in support of border security, along with nearly $25 billion for Trump's 'Golden Dome' defense system over the U.S. Separately, the bill adds another $21 billion for the Coast Guard. Democrats have argued against the deportations, and warned that Trump appears to be stirring up protests so he can clamp down on migrant communities. Rep. Nanette Barragan — whose district represents the suburban city of Paramount, where the weekend Home Depot raid touched off protests — implored Americans: 'Listen to the words of this administration: They're using words like insurrection. They're using words like invasion.' She warned the administration is laying the groundwork for even steeper actions. 'That's a concern,' she said. 'That is dangerous. It's wrong.'
