Committee advances bill to define male, female for Nebraska sports, bathrooms, state agencies
LINCOLN — A Nebraska legislative committee, voting along partisan lines, advanced a proposal Thursday to define 'male' and 'female' in state law that seeks to restrict student-athlete participation and bathroom use by sex at birth.
The Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, in a 5-3 vote, advanced Legislative Bill 89, the 'Stand With Women Act' from State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of Omaha. The bill mirrors executive orders from President Donald Trump this year and Gov. Jim Pillen in 2023 that sought to define sex as binary, including for athletics, school bathrooms and state agencies.
The Nebraska School Activities Association, for most K-12 sports, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, for college sports, have already announced that they and their member schools would comply with the executive orders.
Kauth told the Nebraska Examiner she was grateful for the committee's work and help from all senators, including some on a bipartisan basis, to improve the bill. LB 89 was introduced at Pillen's request.
'Looking forward to the debate on the floor and encourage every senator to 'Stand with Women' and vote yes on this very common sense bill,' Kauth said in a text after her bill's advancement.
Kauth's bill, through an amendment the committee also adopted 5-3, would define sex as male or female based on whether someone 'naturally has, had, will or would have, but for a congenital anomaly or intentional or unintentional disruption, the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports and utilizes' either eggs (female, woman or girl) or sperm (male, man or boy) for fertilization.
To participate in single-sex intramural or interscholastic sports in public schools, or for private schools competing against public schools, students would need to confirm their sex via a document signed by a doctor or signed under the authority of a doctor.
Female student-athletes could participate in male sports if there is no female alternative, such as football or wrestling, and coed sports would still be applicable.
A previous version of the bill would have required a doctor's 'attestation,' which had raised among opponents on the committee — State Sens. John Cavanaugh, Dunixi Guereca and Megan Hunt, all of Omaha — that this would require a notarized statement.
State Sen. Dave Wordekemper of Fremont, who serves on the Government Committee, said he and Kauth worked on the language because they wanted a way to verify a child's sex. Both said they envisioned the doctor's confirmation coming during a physical, which is typically required to play sports.
Kauth said the declaration is important as shown through the NCAA, which plans to use a student-athlete's birth certificate to verify sex. Over 40 states, including Nebraska, allow someone to change the listed sex on their birth certificates.
Hunt, a progressive nonpartisan senator, asked what 'male' or 'female' box a doctor should check for an intersex student. She and Cavanaugh asked if doctors would need to do a genital inspection, which Kauth and committee members have said is a 'stretch' and isn't in the bill.
Cavanaugh said the bill reminded him of a 'sumptuary law,' or a law often rooted in religious or moral grounds to uphold social order. Among the first that comes to mind, he said after the vote, is 'something like the Taliban,' such as dictating how women should wear a hijab.
He pointed to a section of LB 89 that states the proposal serves an 'important governmental objective of protecting the privacy of individuals and shielding students' bodies from the opposite sex'
'Seems dangerously similar to me,' Cavanaugh said.
State Sen. Bob Andersen of Sarpy County, vice chair of the committee, pushed back and said privacy and protecting women were important goals that the bill supports.
Cavanaugh and Hunt said gender isn't as easy as proponents make it out to be, with Cavanaugh adding: 'The fact that we're on amendment number 'x,' the fact that it took at least three different bites of the apple to define what a man and a woman are, is a clear indication that this is a space that government should not be involved in.'
Hunt criticized Andersen and State Sen. Dan Lonowski of Hastings for voting against a separate bill Thursday, LB 224 from Guereca, to require 12 weeks of paid maternity leave for state employees yet voting for LB 89. Guereca's bill, his 2025 priority, advanced from committee 6-2.
State Sen. Rita Sanders of Bellevue, committee chair, said that Kauth's bill had received plenty of feedback for and against, and she said the bill should be up to the full Legislature, not an eight-member committee. She pointed to Title IX and watching it be 'slowly, very slowly, get implemented.' The federal civil rights law paved the way for women's athletics and banned sex-based discrimination in schools or universities receiving federal funds.
'Yes, we need to protect those women's rights,' Sanders said.
Public schools and universities would need to designate all bathrooms and locker rooms for use by males, females or as single-occupancy. Restrooms also could be designated for family use.
LB 89 initially sought similar designations for state agency bathrooms, which the amendment removes. Instead, agencies from the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services to the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles and Nebraska Department of Economic Development would need to broadly define a person's sex as male or female
Trump's Feb. 5 executive order pledges to pull federal funds from educational programs that fail to allow transgender student-athletes to participate on a team based on gender identity, not sex at birth.
From 2018 through February, eight students had applied to participate in Nebraska high school sports based on their gender identity under the NSAA's Gender Participation Policy. It offers a path for students to participate on sports teams different than the student's sex at birth and requires medical and physiological testing. The organization has declined to say how many students it approved under the policy.
In December, NCAA President Charlie Baker told a U.S. Senate panel that he was aware of fewer than 10 active transgender student-athletes out of the NCAA's 510,000 participants.
At least a couple of Nebraska school districts had already adopted separate local sports participation policies similar to Kauth's bill and the executive orders.
State Sen. Merv Riepe of Ralston confirmed to the Examiner that he was still 'leaning' toward not voting for Kauth's bill. He said he wants to protect women's sports but that the NSAA, NCAA and the multiple executive orders had already done so. Riepe, a former hospital administrator, said he was concerned the amendment was creating additional and 'unnecessary' work for doctors.
Thus far, legislation seeking to enshrine the executive orders into federal and state law have stalled. In Congress, a bill passed the U.S. House but stalled in the Senate. Nebraska's congressional members supported the bills.
In Nebraska, Riepe and State Sen. Tom Brandt of Plymouth were the two Republicans to not vote in favor of Kauth's 'Sports and Spaces Act' in 2024, which was limited at the time to K-12 sports and bathrooms.
Contentious bills require 33 votes to advance, and Republicans in the officially nonpartisan Legislature hold just enough seats. No Democrats supported Kauth's previous, narrower bill.
She is still working on getting 33 votes this year but said LB 89 would 'at least get people on the record.' If LB 89 falls short, Kauth's proposal will return next year, and she'll continue working on it.
While Kauth has praised the executive orders, she has repeatedly said that executive orders can be reversed. Riepe said in February that 'if Trump's executive order can stand for the four years of his term, then LB 89 can wait four years.'
Kauth has designated LB 89 as her 2025 priority, the first senator to do so, which increases the likelihood that her bill will be debated this year. Speaker John Arch of La Vista sets the daily agenda.
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

Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Economic fears of investors are here — and fed by Trump's reaction
For months, the U.S. economy appeared to be weathering the disruptive effects of President Donald Trump's trade and immigration policies. But over the course of 72 hours, that sunny outlook darkened, as the latest government data this week showed the president's revolutionary remaking of the world's largest economy had hit a snag.


Bloomberg
5 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Labour Has 'Disappointed' People While In Government, Reeves Admits
Save Rachel Reeves admits Labour has "disappointed" people while in government. The politician said she understood that being Chancellor meant making unpopular decisions.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News
No one likes paying taxes. Maybe that's why President Donald Trump has proposed nixing the income tax altogether in favor of tariffs. Tariffs, he believes, would make us so rich we could all kiss the tax man goodbye — at least the income tax man. Tariffs are basically a tax, paid by the importer, and passed onto the consumer. Learn More: Find Out: But what would things really look like if income taxes were a thing of the past? We asked ChatGPT. It had four main points. Constitutional Viability Could Trump put an end to income taxes by executive order or another unilateral way? That, said ChatGPT, is a hard no. 'Income taxes are codified in the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (1913), which explicitly authorizes the federal government to levy income taxes without apportioning them among the states,' it said. Abolishing income taxes would require legislation from Congress, with a two-thirds vote by both houses. With that stated, it's not likely to happen. Read Next: Budgetary Reality The fact is, individual and corporate income taxes have made up the bulk of federal revenue for the past 50 years, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. ChatGPT noted that equals $2.2 trillion in personal federal income tax, and $460 billion from corporate income tax, per 2023 figures. The Bipartisan Policy Center puts the figures at $2.4 trillion and $530 billion, respectively. Either way, it's a lot of money, with personal income taxes making up for 49% of total federal government revenue, and corporate income taxes making up 11%. Wipe them out, and the federal government loses 60% of its income. Tariffs, on the other hand, bring in a mere $98 billion, according to ChatGPT — NPR put the figure for the fiscal year ending September of 2024 at $80 billion. Politico, which tracks the tariff income, reported that this year, U.S. tariffs, which include Trump's tariffs, have brought in $100.5 billion as of July 13 — $53 billion more than at this time last year. That is not going to cut it, according to ChatGPT: 'Tariffs would need to be increased more than 20-fold to make up for the loss [in income tax].' It added that everything would have to be tariffed — all consumer goods, tech products, energy and industrial goods — at rates that would be inflationary and spark massive trade wars. Economic and Social Impact ChatGPT did throw some pros in with the cons. Hypothetically, it said, no federal income tax would make all our lives easier, simplifying the month of April. Taxing spending — retail, tariffs, etc. — might also benefit some groups that spend little compared to their income, ChatGPT said. For instance, this would include high earners who are somewhat restrained in their spending and frugal retirees. Now for the flip side. Tariffs and sales taxes are regressive, ChatGPT explained. It disproportionately hits low- and middle-income households who spend more of their income — as a percentage — than the wealthy. In other words, buying a book or computer or car is a larger percentage of income to someone making $50,000 a year than to someone making $5 million. Additionally, because of the shortfall in federal revenue, massive budget cuts would be required. Large cuts to Medicaid and Medicare would be required — much larger than the ones in the One Big Beautiful Bill — in addition to the military and other entitlements and services. So, Would We All Be Richer? According to ChatGPT, that's another hard no (in bold, no less). It claims that according to 'almost all mainstream economists,' tariffs raise prices, reduce efficiency and can hurt job growth. In addition, ending the income tax would destabilize public finances and increase inequality. The move would benefit the wealthy and hurt the poor. For his part, Trump believes that the period between 1870 to 1913, before income taxes were a thing and when tariffs were a very big thing, was America's Golden Age. On April 15, he told Fox Noticias it was that era when we were our richest. That's debatable at best, and very much depends on who you define as 'we.' After all, Mark Twain coined it as the Gilded Age for its massive corruption and rampant inequality. The wealthy were very wealthy, to be sure, but according to Digital History, supported by a consortium of government, university and public organizations, in 1877, the average annual income of an urban family was $738 ($22,594 in today's money). After housing, food, heating and clothing, an average of $44 per year ($1,347) was left over for fun, emergencies and retirement savings — and without Social Security, they'd need it. For that, the average unskilled or semi-skilled person worked 10 hours a day for 20 cents ($6.12) per hour, and 939 out of 1,000 died with no property to pass on to heirs. Frankly, that's not sounding very golden. More From GOBankingRates 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data