logo
Committee advances bill to define male, female for Nebraska sports, bathrooms, state agencies

Committee advances bill to define male, female for Nebraska sports, bathrooms, state agencies

Yahoo20-03-2025

State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of Omaha, left, is the lead sponsor of the "Stand With Women Act" to define school sports teams, bathrooms and locker rooms as male or female, as defined in her bill. It also would generally apply across state agencies. Jan. 10, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
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

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What it would take to convert a jet from Qatar into Air Force One to safely fly Trump
What it would take to convert a jet from Qatar into Air Force One to safely fly Trump

Washington Post

timean hour ago

  • Washington Post

What it would take to convert a jet from Qatar into Air Force One to safely fly Trump

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump really wants to fly on an upgraded Air Force One — but making that happen could depend on whether he's willing to cut corners with security. As government lawyers sort out the legal arrangement for accepting a luxury jet from the Qatari royal family, another crucial conversation is unfolding about modifying the plane so it's safe for the American president.

A Comprehensive Accounting of Trump's Culture of Corruption
A Comprehensive Accounting of Trump's Culture of Corruption

New York Times

timean hour ago

  • New York Times

A Comprehensive Accounting of Trump's Culture of Corruption

At the gala dinner President Trump held last month for those who bought the most Trump cryptocurrency, the champion spender was the entrepreneur Justin Sun, who had put down more than $40 million on $Trump coins. Mr. Sun had a good reason to hope that this investment would pay off. He previously invested $75 million in a different Trump crypto venture — and shortly after the Trump administration took office in January, the Securities and Exchange Commission paused its lawsuit against him on charges of cryptocurrency fraud. The message seemed obvious enough: People who make Mr. Trump richer regularly receive favorable treatment from the government he runs. The cryptocurrency industry is perhaps the starkest example of the culture of corruption in his second term. He and his relatives directly benefit from the sale of their cryptocurrency by receiving a cut of the investment. Even if the price of the coins later falls and investors lose money, the Trumps can continue to benefit by receiving a commission on future sales. Forbes magazine estimates that he made about $1 billion in cryptocurrency in the past nine months, about one-sixth of his net worth. Only a few years ago, Mr. Trump was deeply skeptical of cryptocurrency, calling it 'potentially a disaster waiting to happen' and comparing it to the 'drug trade and other illegal activity.' Since he and his family have become major players in the market, however, his concerns have evidently disappeared. He shut down a Justice Department team that investigated illegal uses of cryptocurrency. He pardoned crypto executives who pleaded guilty to crimes, and his administration dropped federal investigations of crypto companies. He nullified an Internal Revenue Service rule that went after crypto users who didn't pay their taxes. The self-enrichment of the second Trump administration is different from old-fashioned corruption. There is no evidence that Mr. Trump has received direct bribes, nor is it clear that he has agreed to specific policy changes in exchange for cash. Nonetheless, he is presiding over a culture of corruption. He and his family have created several ways for people to enrich them — and government policy then changes in ways that benefit those who have helped the Trumps profit. Often Mr. Trump does not even try to hide the situation. As the historian Matthew Dallek recently put it, 'Trump is the most brazenly corrupt national politician in modern times, and his openness about it is sui generis.' He is proud of his avarice, wearing it as a sign of success and savvy. This culture is part of Mr. Trump's larger efforts to weaken American democracy and turn the federal government into an extension of himself. He has pushed the interests of the American people to the side, in favor of his personal interests. His actions reduce an already shaky public faith in government. By using the power of the people for personal gain, he degrades that power for any other purpose. He stains the reputation of the United States, which has long stood out as a place where confidence in the rule of law fosters confidence in the economy and financial markets. This country was not previously known as an executive kleptocracy. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Elon Musk threatens to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump feud. What does it mean for the US space industry?
Elon Musk threatens to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump feud. What does it mean for the US space industry?

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk threatens to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump feud. What does it mean for the US space industry?

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. An explosive, and very public, feud between President Donald Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk on Thursday (June 5) has raised doubts over the future of America's space industry. The war of words could place $22 billion of SpaceX's government contracts with multiple U.S. space programs at risk, according to one estimate, although the real figure — which remains classified — could be significantly higher. Following threats from the president on his social media platform Truth Social that the U.S. could cancel the government contracts and subsidies awarded to Musk's companies, the CEO of SpaceX retorted that his space company would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." Hours later, Musk responded to a follower telling him to "cool off" by saying "Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." The disagreement began on Tuesday (June 3) when Musk criticized the administration's proposed tax and spending bill on his social media platform X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," Musk wrote on X. Related: 'No radio astronomy from the ground would be possible anymore': Satellite mega-swarms are blinding us to the cosmos — and a critical 'inflection point' is approaching This then escalated into a full-blown social media feud on Thursday, with Musk claiming that Trump's name appears in unreleased files relating to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The White House condemned these allegations. "This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted," representatives wrote on X. Trump then claimed Musk "just went CRAZY," posting: "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" SpaceX's Dragon capsule is a reusable spacecraft capable of carrying up to seven passengers and cargo to and from Earth orbit, according to SpaceX. NASA currently relies on the capsule to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), so canceling these government contracts effectively eliminates America's ability to launch astronauts to space from American soil, Live Science's sister website, reported. NASA also heavily relies on SpaceX for other space programs, having selected the Starship Human Landing System (HLS), a lunar lander variant of the company's next-generation Starship spacecraft, to carry American astronauts to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years aboard the 2027 Artemis 3 mission. NASA is investing $4 billion into Starship's development, and canceling its contract could seriously handicap NASA and the future of U.S.-led space exploration. While other competitors exist, such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin and Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, they lag far behind SpaceX. RELATED STORIES —Facing steep funding cuts, scientists propose using black holes as particle colliders instead of building new ones on Earth —Trump's 2026 budget would slash NASA funding by 24% and its workforce by nearly one third —NASA plans to build a giant radio telescope on the 'dark side' of the moon. Here's why. The Starliner capsule is not yet certified to fly operational astronaut missions and was responsible for "stranding" two astronauts on the ISS for nine months last year. The astronauts returned to Earth on March 18 aboard a SpaceX Dragon capsule, and neither Boeing nor NASA have offered any significant updates into fixes that will make Starliner flightworthy. SpaceX's lead on its competitors is reflected in the size of its government subsidies. In April, the U.S. Space Force, the military branch of U.S. space exploration, awarded the company nearly $6 billion in launch contracts, while the United Launch Alliance received $5.4 billion and Blue Origin $2.4 billion. In response to the feud between Musk and Trump, NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens declined to comment on SpaceX, but she did tell Reuters that "we will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the president's objectives in space are met." NASA's deputy administrator Lori Garver told Reuters that, as well as not being in national interests, canceling SpaceX's contacts would probably not be legal. However, she also added that "a rogue CEO threatening to decommission spacecraft, putting astronauts' lives at risk, is untenable."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store