Texas Senate Passes Bill Defining ‘Man' And ‘Woman' Based On Biology
On Thursday, the Texas Senate voted 20-11 to pass House Bill 229, known as the 'Women's Bill of Rights.'
This bill, which defines 'man' and 'woman' based on biological reproductive systems for state records such as birth certificates and driver's licenses, now heads to Gov. Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it into law.
Authored by Rep. Ellen Troxclair (R-Lakeway) and carried in the Senate by Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), the bill aligns with efforts by President Donald Trump to enforce a biological definition of sex, including an executive order targeting 'transgender' participation in women's sports. HB 229 requires state agencies to classify individuals as male or female based on whether their reproductive system is developed to produce ova or fertilize ova, respectively. An amendment clarifies that intersex individuals are not a third sex but must receive accommodations under state and federal law.
Supporters argue the bill protects women's single-sex spaces, such as locker rooms and shelters, and clarifies legal definitions.
'With this bill, women and girls will know that Texas has their back and will not allow hard-fought rights to be eroded by activists who seek to erase them,' Troxclair said, The Texas Tribune reported.
M. E. Castle, director of government relations for Texas Values, a Christian advocacy group, praised the vote: 'The message is clear: You don't mess with Texas women. HB 229 makes sure that the reality and truth of the two sexes is clear in Texas law and never altered by school districts, local cities, or bureaucrats ever again!'
Opponents, including LGBTQ rights advocates, argue the bill marginalizes 'transgender' and intersex individuals.
Sen. José Menéndez (D-San Antonio) called it a 'form of state-sponsored discrimination,' telling the Texas Tribune, 'If a law forces non-binary Texans, who are real people, into categories that don't reflect their lived experiences or identities … that would actually become discrimination in practice.'
Sarah Corbin of the ACLU of Texas questioned its enforcement: 'The question of the hour is how will [HB] 229 be enforced and applied. What we do know is that it's incredibly disrespectful to so many Texans the Legislature represents, and completely disregards their identity.'
The bill's legislative intent section, which does not alter statutes but guides interpretation, emphasizes 'immutable' biological differences, noting women's historical vulnerability to violence and the need for single-sex spaces.
Critics, like Rep. Jessica González, D-Dallas, raised concerns about intersex individuals and women unable to conceive, arguing, 'We should not be boiling down a human's existence into one's ability to reproduce, because this is harmful, it is dangerous, and it is really just freaking insulting.'
Troxclair countered that the bill applies to systems designed for reproduction, 'whether or not they are fully developed, whether or not they are capable of functioning.'
With more than 120,000 Texans identifying as 'transgender,' advocates worry about practical impacts. Shelly Skeen of Lambda Legal said mismatched identification documents could force 'transgender' individuals to out themselves in everyday situations, such as voting or banking.
Heather Clark, whose wife is 'transgender,' testified that carrying a driver's license misaligned with appearance would be 'untenable,' creating 'ample daily opportunities for discrimination' against her.
Texas becomes the 14th state to pass such a law, following states like Kansas and Montana, where similar measures have faced legal challenges. Laura Lane-Steele, a University of South Carolina law professor, noted potential constitutional issues, including privacy and free speech violations, calling the law's application a 'big fat question mark.' Montana's law was struck down in February for violating privacy and equal protection rights, while Kansas' law faces ongoing ACLU challenges.
The bill lacks civil or criminal penalties and focuses on record-keeping, but its broader implications remain unclear. Corbin said the ACLU of Texas is monitoring whether it will be narrowly applied to documents or used for wider policy changes.
'If it starts being used that way, they'll definitely hear from us,' she said.
A 2022 survey found that 63% of Texas voters, including 87% of Republicans, support defining gender by birth certificate sex.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Why Trump stopped listening to Netanyahu
In his first term, President Trump was widely seen as a knee-jerk defender of Israel. Now, not so much. Whether and how far Washington splits from Jerusalem — especially on Iran's nuclear-weapons program — has enormous security implications for America, Israel and the wider Middle East. For Trump, personal relationships with foreign leaders equate to the relations between their countries. If he is friendly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, then U.S.-Israel relations are good. And vice versa. Today, neither relationship is fully broken, but both are increasingly strained. Seeking the strongly pro-Israel evangelical Christian vote in 2016, Trump pledged to withdraw from President Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal and generally provide Israel strong support. He kept that promise, exiting the agreement in 2018. Moreover, Trump moved America's embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, merged the separate Palestinian liaison office into the bilateral U.S. mission, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and protected Israel at the U.N. Security Council. The transactional basis for these acts was clear. Having close personal relations with Netanyahu, or at least appearing to, buttressed this political imperative. How good those first-term relations really were invites debate, but a continuing rationale was Trump's desire for reelection in 2020 and, later, 2024. Keeping the pro-Israel vote was a top priority in both races. Even though tensions developed between Trump and Netanyahu, few surfaced publicly. In 2024, Trump held the evangelical vote while losing Jewish voters to Harris by a mere 34 points. Even many Harris voters believed Trump would safeguard Israel's interests. But now that electoral constraint is gone, since Trump has essentially admitted he cannot run again. Meanwhile, earlier irritants — such as Netanyahu garnering publicity for his role in the 2020 strike against Iran's Qassem Soleimani, swiftly congratulating Joe Biden for winning in 2020 and his general aptitude for getting more attention than Trump himself — caused personal relations to grow frostier. And all of this was very likely fed by Trump's recurring envy of Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. So in just four months since the inauguration, Trump concluded a separate peace with Yemen's Houthi rebels, ending inconclusive U.S. efforts to clear the Red Sea maritime passage and leaving Israel in the lurch while Houthi missiles targeted Ben Gurion airport. The White House, without Israel, bargained with Hamas for release of Edan Alexander, their last living American hostage. Trump's first major overseas trip was to three Gulf Arab countries, but he skipped Israel, in direct contrast to his first term. While in Saudi Arabia, Trump lifted sanctions imposed on Syria's Assad dictatorship, clearly breaking with Israel, which retains grave doubts about the militant group that ousted Assad and now rules the country. The record is not entirely negative. Trump sanctioned the International Criminal Court for initiating investigations against Netanyahu and his former defense minister. He broadly, but not unreservedly, backs Israel's campaign against Hamas. But the greatest divergence has emerged over the existential threat of Iran's nuclear weapons program. On April 7, during Netanyahu's second post-inaugural visit to the Oval Office, no one seemed more stunned than he when Trump announced that Steve Witkoff would soon be negotiating with Iran. Trump had previously disclosed writing to Ayatollah Khamenei, expressing openness to negotiation but setting a two-month deadline, implying military force should talks fail. If the clock started from the date Iran received the letter, that two-month period has ended. If it began with the first Witkoff-Iran meeting (April 12 in Oman), the drop-dead date is imminent. Trump could extend the deadline, but that would simply extend Israel's peril. Reports that Witkoff has broached an 'interim' or 'framework' deal further exacerbate the dangers of Tehran tapping Washington along. Time is always on the proliferator's side. While discussions languish, Iran can even further disperse, conceal and harden its nuclear weapons assets. Trump acknowledges pressing Israel more than once not to strike Iran's nuclear program. Such public rebukes to a close ally facing mortal peril are themselves extraordinary, proving how hard Trump is trying to save Witkoff's endeavors. Little is known about the talks' substance, but reports show signs of inconsistency and uncertainty — indeed incompetence — over such critical issues as whether Iran would be permitted to enrich uranium to reactor-grade levels, the original sin of the Obama deal. To say Netanyahu is worried is more than an understatement. Trump's behavior is entirely consistent with greater personal distance from Netanyahu and a desire to be the central figure, rather than Netanyahu's Israel taking dispositive action against Tehran's threat. It may also reflect the isolationist voices within his administration, although not among Republicans generally, as 52 senators and 177 representatives have publicly urged Trump not to throw Iran a lifeline. Israel did not ask permission in 1981 before destroying Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor, or in 2007 before destroying Iran's reactor that was under construction in the Syrian desert. Trump is grievously mistaken if he thinks Netanyahu will 'chicken out,' standing idly by as Iran becomes a nuclear power. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. John Bolton was national security adviser to President Trump from 2018 to 2019 and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006. He held senior State Department posts from 1981 to 1983, from 1989 to 1993 and from 2001 to 2005.
Politico
36 minutes ago
- Politico
How Defunding Planned Parenthood Impacts Health Care
Happy June! Thanks for spending another Friday with us. Reach out: ecordover@ and klong@ And a very special thanks to Politico Journalism Institute Fellow Laney Crawley for her help with this edition. The GOP-led spending bill that passed the House on May 22 vows to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider and a health care resource that is used by one in three women (and one in 10 men) across the U.S. The organization has been on the chopping block since President Donald Trump took office. In March, the new administration cut funding to several Title X providers, including Planned Parenthood, shorting the organization tens of millions of dollars. If the bill succeeds to pass the Senate, Planned Parenthood patients would not be able to get care through Medicaid. At least 20 Planned Parenthood clinics have already had to close down this year across Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Utah and Vermont, due to what they say is financial and political strain. 'We are in a fight for survival, not just for Planned Parenthood health centers, but for everybody's ability to get high quality, affordable health care,' President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund Alexis McGill Johnson tells Women Rule. 'We can't overstate how it will disrupt the entire fabric of the health care system,' Ruth Richardson, CEO of the Planned Parenthood North Central States affiliate, tells Women Rule. The fight against Planned Parenthood is multifold and long-standing. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) introduced her own bill in 2023 titled the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, saying 'the nation's largest abortion provider has no business receiving taxpayer dollars.' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a similar bill — the End Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Providers Act — in the Senate in January. (The Congressional Budget Office found that defunding the organization would cost the government more than it saved.) And when the Supreme Court first announced it would hear arguments in a South Carolina lawsuit over whether Medicaid can be stripped from Planned Parenthood, nearly 100 Republican members of Congress wrote to the high court urging the justices to side against the health provider. (The court heard arguments in April and the case is ongoing.) Without Medicaid reimbursements, McGill Johnson and Richardson explain, the clinics cannot stay financially afloat and up to 200 of the 600 Planned Parenthood clinics across the country may have to close. Shutting down these clinics may leave millions of Americans without health care they've relied on for years, forcing many of them to travel for care or to forgo lifesaving preventative measures such as wellness exams and cancer screenings. 'You're certainly not stopping the need for care. You're putting the burden on people to get that care. It means that people are going to delay treatment until they're able to get there,' McGill Johnson says. Excluding Planned Parenthood from Medicaid 'does not just impact patients on Medicaid,' McGill Johnson adds, 'It actually impacts all of us who rely on those clinics and hospitals, particularly in rural areas in order to get that basic access to care.' The services these clinics and centers provide go beyond just abortion or even reproductive health services. '$2.8 million of our funding, right now, is frozen,' Richardson says. And the people who will be most affected by the defunding are already the most vulnerable in the community, McGill Johnson and Richardson add. 'The majority of our health centers are in rural or medically underserved communities. We see patients regardless of their ability to pay. We believe that they deserve access to high quality care. This is our literal reason for existing.' Since many of the physical clinics are closing, Richardson says the organization has expanded other operations like online care. 'Virtual care is critically important now, especially thinking in terms of just the increasing health care deserts we're already seeing within our rural communities,' Richardson says. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood and its affiliates are lobbying lawmakers on the Hill. 'We are hoping that reason will prevail in the Senate,' McGill Johnson says. POLITICO Special Report Elise Stefanik, a Potential Candidate for Governor, Focuses on New York's Local Races by Nick Reisman for POLITICO: 'ALBANY, New York — Republican Elise Stefanik, who's considering a run for governor next year, is turning to races close to home. The House Republican on Wednesday will announce the creation of a political action committee to raise cash on behalf of local Republican candidates in New York. She's expected to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to start.' Karine Jean-Pierre Is Leaving the Democratic Party. Her Former White House Colleagues Have Some Thoughts by Eli Stokols for POLITICO: 'Karine Jean-Pierre's announcement that she's leaving the Democratic Party — timed with the rollout of a new book — has detonated long-simmering grievances among her former White House colleagues about Jean-Pierre's pursuit of celebrity and personal media exposure while serving as then-President Joe Biden's press secretary. The attention-grabbing ploy lit up Democratic and Biden alumni texting groups and reignited frustrations that burned for years about Jean-Pierre, according to seven former Biden administration officials granted anonymity to describe private conversations.' AOC Backs Zohran Mamdani for NYC Mayor by Emily Ngo for POLITICO: 'Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed fellow Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as her first choice for New York City mayor, putting her high-profile mark on a primary where he has surged among progressives. The lefty firebrand unveiled her preferred slate in the June 24 primary in an interview Thursday with The New York Times. She said she will rank Adrienne Adams, Brad Lander, Scott Stringer and Zellnor Myrie in that order after Mamdani. Adams, the City Council speaker, was also endorsed Thursday by Rep. Yvette Clarke as her No. 1 choice, POLITICO reports exclusively.' Number of the Week Read the full story here. MUST READS US Customs and Border Protection Quietly Revokes Protections for Pregnant Women and Infants by Dhruv Mehrotra for WIRED: 'US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has quietly rescinded several internal policies that were designed to protect some of the most vulnerable people in its custody — including pregnant women, infants, the elderly and people with serious medical conditions. The decision, outlined in a memo dated May 5 and signed by acting commissioner Pete Flores, eliminates four Biden-era policies enacted over the last three years. These policies were intended to address CBP's long-standing failures to provide adequate care for detainees who are most at risk — failures that have, in some cases, proved fatal.' Hundreds of 'DEI' Books Are Back at the Naval Academy. An Alum and a Bookshop Fought Their Removal by Nadra Nittle and Mariel Padilla for The 19th: 'When the U.S. Naval Academy stripped 381 books tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) from its library, retired Commander William Marks saw more than censorship — he saw a threat to the Navy's future. But last week, after immense public outcry, most of those books returned to Nimitz Library shelves. All the books the academy removed in early April had one thing in common: Officials flagged them for DEI themes. They include Maya Angelou's 'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,' Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and Elizabeth Reis' 'Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex.' The purge followed directives from Trump-appointed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has called DEI initiatives 'divisive.'' Supreme Court Rules for Straight Woman in Job Discrimination Suit by Adam Liptak for The New York Times: 'The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled in favor of a straight woman who twice lost positions to gay workers, saying an appeals court had been wrong to require her to meet a heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination because she was a member of a majority group. The decision came two years after the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions programs in higher education and amid the Trump administration's fierce efforts to root out programs that promote diversity and could make it easier for white people, men and other members of majority groups to pursue claims of employment discrimination. The standards for proving workplace discrimination under a federal civil rights law, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, 'does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. Quote of the Week Read more here. on the move Sophia Kim is now director of media relations and comms strategy for the Council on Foreign Relations. She is an Obama White House and Small Business Administration alum. (h/t POLITICO Playbook) Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the former Energy and Commerce chair, is launching a nonprofit aimed at inspiring a new generation of leaders. The Cathy McMorris Rodgers Leadership Institute will be led by her former district director Kristina Sabestinas, with longtime campaign official Dawn Sugasa serving as senior adviser. (h/t POLITICO Influence) Mary Thomas is now CEO of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. She previously was chief strategic growth officer of the Job Creators Network. (h/t POLITICO Playbook)
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Golden Dome dangers: An arms control expert explains how Trump's missile defense threatens to make the US less safe
President Donald Trump's idea of a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system carries a range of potential strategic dangers for the United States. Golden Dome is meant to protect the U.S. from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space. Trump has called for the missile defense to be fully operational before the end of his term in three years. Trump's goals for Golden Dome are likely beyond reach. A wide range of studies makes clear that even defenses far more limited than what Trump envisions would be far more expensive and less effective than Trump expects, especially against enemy missiles equipped with modern countermeasures. Countermeasures include multiple warheads per missile, decoy warheads and warheads that can maneuver or are difficult to track, among others. Regardless of Golden Dome's feasibility, there is a long history of scholarship about strategic missile defenses, and the weight of evidence points to the defenses making their host country less safe from nuclear attack. I'm a national security and foreign policy professor at Harvard University, where I lead 'Managing the Atom,' the university's main research group on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy policies. For decades, I've been participating in dialogues with Russian and Chinese nuclear experts – and their fears about U.S. missile defenses have been a consistent theme throughout. Russian President Vladmir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have already warned that Golden Dome is destabilizing. Along with U.S. offensive capabilities, Golden Dome poses a threat of 'directly undermining global strategic stability, spurring an arms race and increasing conflict potential both among nuclear-weapon states and in the international arena as a whole,' a joint statement from China and Russia said. While that is a propaganda statement, it reflects real concerns broadly held in both countries. Experience going back half a century makes clear that if the administration pursues Golden Dome, it is likely to provoke even larger arms buildups, derail already-dim prospects for any negotiated nuclear arms restraint, and perhaps even increase the chances of nuclear war. My first book, 35 years ago, made the case that it would be in the U.S. national security interest to remain within the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which strictly limited U.S. and Soviet – and later Russian – missile defenses. The United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty as part of SALT I, the first agreements limiting the nuclear arms race. It was approved in the Senate 98-2. The ABM Treaty experience is instructive for the implications of Golden Dome today. Why did the two countries agree to limit defenses? First and foremost, because they understood that unless each side's defenses were limited, they would not be able to stop an offensive nuclear arms race. If each side wants to maintain the ability to retaliate if the other attacks – 'don't nuke me, or I'll nuke you' – then an obvious answer to one side building up more defenses is for the other to build up more nuclear warheads. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to defend Moscow – so the United States targeted still more warheads on Moscow to overwhelm the defense. Had it ever come to a nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more thoroughly obliterated than if there had been no defense at all. Both sides came to realize that unlimited missile defenses would just mean more offense on both sides, leaving both less secure than before. In addition, nations viewed an adversary's shield as going hand in hand with a nuclear sword. A nuclear first strike might destroy a major part of a country's nuclear forces. Missile defenses would inevitably be more effective against the reduced, disorganized retaliation that they knew would be coming than they would be against a massive, well-planned surprise attack. That potential advantage to whoever struck first could make nuclear crises even more dangerous. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, seeking to free U.S. development of defenses against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the U.S. has fewer missile interceptors deployed (44) than the treaty permitted (100). The U.S. pullout did not lead to an immediate arms buildup or the end of nuclear arms control. But Putin has complained bitterly about U.S. missile defenses and the U.S. refusal to accept any limitation at all on them. He views the U.S. stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by negating Russia's nuclear deterrent. Russia is investing heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons intended to avoid U.S. missile defenses, from an intercontinental nuclear torpedo to a missile that can go around the world and attack from the south, while U.S. defenses are mainly pointed north toward Russia. Similarly, much of China's nuclear buildup appears to be driven by wanting a reliable nuclear deterrent in the face of the United States' capability to strike its nuclear forces and use missile defenses to mop up the remainder. Indeed, China was so angered by South Korea's deployment of U.S.-provided regional defenses – which they saw as aiding the U.S. ability to intercept their missiles – that they imposed stiff sanctions on South Korea. Now, Trump wants to go much further, with a defense 'forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,' with a success rate 'very close to 100%.' I believe that this effort is highly likely to lead to still larger nuclear buildups in Russia and China. The Putin-Xi joint statement pledges to 'counter' defenses 'aimed at achieving military superiority.' Given the ease of developing countermeasures that are extraordinarily difficult for defenses to overcome, odds are the resulting offense-defense competition will leave the United States worse off than before – and a good bit poorer. Putin and Xi made clear that they are particularly concerned about the thousands of space-based interceptors Trump envisions. These interceptors are designed to hit missiles while their rockets are still burning during launch. Most countries are likely to oppose the idea of deploying huge numbers of weapons in space – and these interceptors would be both expensive and vulnerable. China and Russia could focus on further developing anti-satellite weapons to blow a hole in the defense, increasing the risk of space war. Already, there is a real danger that the whole effort of negotiated limits to temper nuclear arms racing may be coming to an end. The last remaining treaty limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, the New START Treaty, expires in February 2026. China's rapid nuclear buildup is making many defense officials and experts in Washington call for a U.S. buildup in response. Intense hostility all around means that for now, neither Russia nor China is even willing to sit down to discuss nuclear restraints, in treaty form or otherwise. In my view, adding Golden Dome to this combustible mix would likely end any prospect of avoiding a future of unrestrained and unpredictable nuclear arms competition. But paths away from these dangers are available. It would be quite plausible to design defenses that would provide some protection against attacks from a handful of missiles from North Korea or others that would not seriously threaten Russian or Chinese deterrent forces – and design restraints that would allow all parties to plan their offensive forces knowing what missile defenses they would be facing in the years to come. I believe that Trump should temper his Golden Dome ambitions to achieve his other dream – of negotiating a deal to reduce nuclear dangers. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Matthew Bunn, Harvard Kennedy School Read more: Golden Dome: An aerospace engineer explains the proposed US-wide missile defense system Is Russia looking to put nukes in space? Doing so would undermine global stability and ignite an anti-satellite arms race H-bomb creator Richard Garwin was a giant in science, technology and policy Matthew Bunn is a member of the National Academies Committee on International Security and Arms Control and a board member of the Arms Control Association. He is a member of the Academic Alliance of the United States Strategic Command and a consultant to Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
