Kansas pronoun bill sparks bipartisan concerns of turning ‘classrooms into courtrooms'
Sen. Renee Erickson, a Wichita Republican, on Jan. 14, 2025, at a committee meeting at the Kansas Statehouse in Topeka. (Anna Kaminski/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — The Kansas Senate gave preliminary approval Wednesday to legislation that would ban school district employees from using names or pronouns other than a minor student's corresponding biological sex or birth certificate without parental permission, received preliminary approval Wednesday from the Kansas Senate.
Senate Bill 76 is among a slate of anti-trans bills making their way through the Legislature this year. In a 40-minute debate on the Senate floor, Democrats and Republicans questioned the bill's validity.
The bill, called the 'Given Name Act,' would create a new civil cause of action and prohibit any district, college or university employees 'from suffering any adverse employment actions for declining to address an individual by a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual's birth certificate or biological sex,' the bill reads.
Kansas schools do not require a student's birth certificate to attend.
Freshman Sen. Patrick Schmidt, a Democrat from Topeka, attempted to introduce an amendment to the bill that would change its contents to instead characterize it as the 'right to bully' act.
'This bill legalizes bullying in schools,' he said. 'That is the intent.'
Schmidt's amendment failed with all 31 Senate Republicans voting against, three Democrats voting in favor and six Democrats passing on a vote. Before introducing his amendment, Schmidt asked Wichita Republican Sen. Renee Erickson, who introduced the bill, about the intentions behind the bill.
'The truth,' Erickson said. 'And protecting teachers' and employees' First Amendment right not to be compelled to use speech that violates their beliefs.'
'I find that a little curious, perhaps a little disingenuous,' Schmidt said.
Erickson said the bill clarifies the confusion school staff experience when confronted with a child who wants to use pronouns or a name other than those that are consistent with the child's biological sex or birth certificate.
'When this occurred in the school that I was principal at, the staff was very confused,' she said.
Erickson was formerly a middle school principal in the Wichita public school district.
'I think it's pretty simple. There's biological fact,' Erickson said. 'And when a student wants to contradict that, teachers are conflicted between their belief that this is fact and what their beliefs are and respecting what the student wants to be called.'
The act specifies a teacher can call a student by their chosen pronouns with written permission from a student's parent. However, students also cannot be compelled to use speech that violates their personal beliefs, Erickson said.
'If a student chooses to call another student by a different pronoun, they are welcome to, but they are not compelled to,' Erickson said. 'They cannot be forced to against their personal beliefs, but if they choose to, they are more than welcome to.'
Schmidt cited during debate the disproportionately high rates at which minors who identify as transgender attempt suicide or experience suicidal ideation.
Erickson, after acknowledging that any and every suicide is a tragedy no matter the reason, responded: 'It's not surprising due to their confusion over the most basic biological fact.'
A 2024 study also showed a link between anti-trans legislation and increased suicidality among transgender and nonbinary youths.
Erickson mentioned on the floor the use of 'threats' from the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas directed toward school districts creating policies related to pronoun use.
Micah Kubic, executive director of the ACLU of Kansas, said the organization is engaged in emphasizing students' rights to privacy and protection from harassment under civil rights law and the U.S. Constitution.
'If Sen. Erickson finds guidance about what the Constitution says threatening, perhaps that's an indication that she recognizes that the proposed bill in question has serious problems with its legality,' Kubic said in an emailed statement.
Melissa Stiehler, the advocacy director for Kansas-based social justice organization Loud Light, pointed out that the Senate's vote to advance Senate Bill 76 came one day following a successful veto override vote in both chambers enacting gender-affirming care bans for minors.
She called Wednesday's bill a continuing 'attack' on transgender children.
'This bill is sloppily written, overly broad, unenforceable and will lead to harassment of both school employees and students,' Stiehler said.
She added: 'Rather than coddling the irrational feelings of this overly fragile minority, it may be wise to encourage them to unclutch their pearls and mind their own business.'
Stiehler scrutinized in a press release the bill's 'broad litigation clause.' Republican Sen. Kellie Warren, a Leawood Republican, also questioned whether the bill could expose districts and institutions to increased lawsuits.
The First Amendment generally protects students' and teachers' right to free speech and some case law strengthens those protections. Schools cannot force students to engage in speech they disagree with. However, the government, including public schools and universities, has broad authority to limit its employees' speech if that speech impacts the workplace.
Republican Sen. Joe Claeys, of Maize, said the bill solves one constitutional violation by creating another.
'In my opinion, the Legislature needs to get out of the pronoun business entirely,' Claeys said.
He said the bill creates 'a litigation minefield.' It turns 'classrooms into courtrooms' and 'teachers into defendants,' he said.
'I say we let teachers teach,' Claeys said. 'Let the students learn, and keep the courts out of preferred grammatical constructions.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Mark Green's retirement leaves open field for Republicans, a 'longshot' for Democrats
Tennessee is expected to see a special election later this year to replace U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Tennessee, and political experts say it could bring an open field of Republican candidates. Regardless of who runs for Green's seat, experts say it would likely be a 'longshot' for any Democratic candidates as the district has a strong Republican hold. Green on June 9 announced his resignation from the 7th Congressional District, just months after his reelection, to pursue an opportunity in the private sector. His district represents a swath of rural counties in middle and west Tennessee, as well as Montgomery County and parts of Davidson and Williamson counties. 'It is with a heavy heart that I announce my retirement from Congress," he said in a statement. "Recently, I was offered an opportunity in the private sector that was too exciting to pass up. As a result, today I notified the Speaker and the House of Representatives that I will resign from Congress as soon as the House votes once again on the reconciliation package." His office didn't respond to an interview request; it's unclear what the private sector opportunity is. Republicans hope to pass what President Donald Trump calls his 'big, beautiful bill' by July 4. If Green vacates his seat after voting on the bill, the state could see a special election this fall. Under Tennessee law, Gov. Bill Lee must order a special election within 10 days of Green's resignation and set a primary election date within 55 to 60 days. The state would then set a subsequent general election within 100 to 107 days. Green was reelected in November. His term expires in January 2027. Green, a 60-year-old doctor and military veteran who lives in Clarksville, was first elected to his seat in 2018. He announced in February 2024 that he would not seek a fourth term, characterizing the country and Congress as nearly irreversibly broken. He changed his mind after a flurry of calls from fellow Republicans and a personal appeal from Trump. John Geer, a longtime political science professor at Vanderbilt University, speculated that Republicans, without any other strong candidates, asked Green to reconsider as he was set to fight off a challenge from former Nashville Mayor Megan Barry. 'They might have been worried a little bit that Megan Barry might win,' he said. Geer said it's unclear who would run for his seat now, but any new candidate will be quickly bolstered by Lee and U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee. A typical low turnout for special elections could help a Democratic candidate, but Geer said it will depend on the political climate later this year, and the climate is changing fast. 'It's a longshot, but if the public is really angry and there is a Democrat that is viewed as a moderate, there could be a chance,' he said. Kent Syler, a political science and public policy professor at Middle Tennessee State University, said Barry ran a spirited and well-funded campaign against Green but still had relatively low turnout at 38%. Syler said Tennessee's 7th Congressional District contains an interesting mix of urban, suburban and rural voters, which poses a challenge for Democrats since they typically do better in urban areas. 'That dynamic will make it very difficult for a Democrat to take this seat,' he said. 'That being said, this race is going to be far more about Donald Trump than it is about the two candidates.' Green serves as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, and it's unclear how his departure will impact a Congressional investigation into Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell for allegedly obstructing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity. The investigation is set to be led by the House Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees. A former U.S. Army major, Green was first elected to office in the Tennessee General Assembly, where Trump tapped him in 2017 to serve as Secretary of the Army. The move, however, sparked a backlash over comments he made about LGBTQ+ groups and Muslim religious practices. Green has said comments were misconstrued, but he withdrew his candidacy. During his time in Congress, Green was an advocate for legislation affecting U.S. soldiers and veterans. His first bill after being sworn into Congress was the Protecting Gold Star Spouses Act to allow Coast Guard Gold Star Spouses to continue receiving stipends via the Survivor Benefits Plan. He advocated against the mandated COVID-19 vaccine for military members and fought for those who did not comply to be honorably discharged. Tennessee and Montgomery County Republicans have praised his service as news of his retirement spread. Tennessee GOP Chairman Scott Golden said Green was both a friend to him and the Republican Party. "Congressman Mark Green is a true American patriot,' Golden said. 'He has served in the Army, served as a doctor, served Tennessee in the State Senate, and served our Country in Congress.' Aron Maberry, freshman representative in the Tennessee General Assembly, commended Green's work. "Mark has really fought hard for District 7 and has done a lot of great things in Washington, D.C., and stood with our president," Maberry said. "I'm thankful for his services to our nation, in Tennessee and Montgomery County." This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Sen. Mark Green's retirement leaves open field for Republicans and a 'longshot' for Democrats
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Coward' Elon Musk Mocked On His Own Platform After Bending The Knee To Trump
Elon Musk went into damage-control mode early Wednesday as he tried to mend fences with President Donald Trump after their spectacular falling-out last week. And his critics are mocking his public show of fealty on his own platform. Musk spent some $291 million during the 2024 election cycle, most notably to help Trump, according to and became a constant presence by his side. Once in office, Trump put Musk in charge of the 'DOGE' initiative to cut government spending. But Musk left his role, attacked Trump's signature 'big beautiful bill' as a 'disgusting abomination,' and went scorched-earth against his one-time ally in a series of posts on X last week. Musk wrote that Trump won't release the files of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein because the president is named in them, shared a post in support of impeaching Trump and replacing him with Vice President JD Vance, and floated the creation of a third political party. Trump in turn threatened repercussions for Musk's businesses and warned him of 'serious consequences' if he backed Democrats for office. But Musk blinked on Wednesday. He wrote that he regretted some of his posts about Trump and said some of them 'went too far.' He also deleted many of those messages. His critics fired back:
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Scofflaw Strongman
DONALD TRUMP SAYS HIS LATEST VENTURE into dictatorship—deploying the National Guard and Marines against American citizens, over the opposition of state and local officials—is about safeguarding the rule of law. 'If we see danger to our country and to our citizens, we'll be very, very strong in terms of law and order,' Trump told reporters on Sunday, as protests escalated in Los Angeles against his deportations. 'It's about law and order.' Don't believe it. Trump is using the Guard and the military to enforce his will, not the law. The evidence of his insincerity is what he did four years ago: When rioters were on his side, he didn't call in the Guard. He embraced the criminals, pardoned them, and purged the law enforcement officials who prosecuted them. He's a despot and a scofflaw. In the Los Angeles uprising, Trump—like every authoritarian before him—claims to be saving his country from chaos. 'Violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents,' he declared on Sunday afternoon. 'These lawless riots only strengthen our resolve.' A few hours later, he called for 'bringing in the troops . . . RIGHT NOW!!! Don't let these thugs get away with this.' And on Monday afternoon, he ridiculed any suggestion that the protesters were peaceful. 'Just one look at the pictures and videos of the Violence and Destruction,' he wrote, 'tells you all you have to know.' Insurrectionist mobs. Lawless riots. Videos of violence. We've heard such alarming descriptions before. And on January 6, 2021, we saw how little Trump cared about them. Share AT 1:21 P.M. THAT DAY, AS TRUMP returned to the White House after instructing his supporters to march on the Capitol, he was told twice by a member of his staff, 'They're rioting down at the Capitol.' The exact moment of this encounter was captured in a photograph. Trump replied, 'All right, let's go see.' He went to his dining room and watched on TV as the riot proceeded. For the next hour, TV networks aired videos of the violence and destruction. Like this week's videos from Los Angeles, they told the president all he needed to know. But Trump did nothing. Toward the end of that hour—somewhere between 2:13 and 2:24 pm, according to the final report of the House January 6th Committee—Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, informed White House Counsel Pat Cipollone that Trump 'doesn't want to do anything' about the ongoing assault. A few minutes later, Cipollone was heard to tell Meadows, 'They're literally calling for the Vice President to be F'ing hung.' And Meadows was heard to reply, 'You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike [Pence] deserves it. He doesn't think they're doing anything wrong.' Meanwhile, in a phone call, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy warned Trump that the rioters 'literally just came through my office windows, and my staff are running for cover. I mean, they're running for their lives. You need to call them [the assailants] off.' Trump responded by rebuking McCarthy: 'Well, Kevin, I guess they're just more upset about the election theft than you are.' These conversations took place as Fox News, which Trump was watching, reported that police had been injured and that rioters inside the Capitol were 'feet from the House chamber.' On the screen, according to the House committee report, Fox 'was showing video of the chaos and attack, with tear gas filling the air in the Capitol Rotunda.' Throughout the afternoon, Trump's aides, family, and friends implored him to tell the rioters to go home. He refused. Not until 4:17 p.m., nearly three hours after being informed about the riot, did he comply. Join now TRUMP NOW CLAIMS that he told the rioters to be peaceful and that he offered ten thousand National Guard troops to protect the Capitol. The first claim is misleading. The second is a lie. The House report shows that before and during the assault, Trump resisted entreaties to call for peace. On January 6th, a text message to one of his top aides, Hope Hicks, said Trump 'should tweet something about Being NON-violent.' Hicks wrote back: 'I suggested it several times Monday and Tuesday and he refused.' At one point in his incendiary speech that morning, Trump did ask his followers to march to the Capitol 'peacefully.' But that phrase, according to the House report, was 'scripted for him by his White House speechwriters.' The main theme of the speech was to 'fight like hell.' Another Trump aide, Sarah Matthews, told the committee that once the riot was underway, Trump resisted pleas to call for peace. He did use the term 'peaceful' in a tweet at 2:38 p.m., but only grudgingly. Trump's press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, told Matthews that Trump 'did not want to include any sort of mention of peace in that tweet.' Trump's other January 6th story, about the National Guard, is also a sham. His acting defense secretary, his Army secretary, and his chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all testified that he never ordered the Guard to deploy that day. He never even spoke to these officials. Instead, during the riot, he used his phone to press members of Congress to do what the mob wanted: overturn the election. It's true that before the attack, Trump talked about the possibility of needing guardsmen. But it was never about protecting the Capitol. It was, in Meadows's words, to 'protect pro Trump people' from anti-Trump protesters. In short, everything Trump decries in Los Angeles happened on January 6th, and more. A violent, insurrectionist mob swarmed and attacked police. And instead of bringing in the Guard 'RIGHT NOW,' Trump watched the assault, encouraged the mob, and waited to see whether it would keep him in power. In fact, when he returned to office this year, Trump pardoned nearly everyone who had pleaded guilty to or had been convicted of assaulting police on January 6th. He said the insurrectionists were right: 'They were protesting a crooked election.' He purged the prosecutors who had handled those cases. And in a speech at the Department of Justice, he boasted that he had 'removed the senior FBI officials' who, in his words, had persecuted the 'J6 hostages.' Share NOW, AS HE DEPLOYS THE MILITARY against protesters in an American city, Trump invokes 'law and order' as a bogus excuse. And he vows to go further. On Monday, he announced a policy of escalation against protesters. 'If they spit, we will hit,' he wrote on Truth Social. 'This is a statement from the President of the United States. . . . The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. . . . IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before.' On Tuesday, speaking to troops at Fort Bragg, Trump said he was seizing control of the National Guard and ending the tradition of consulting governors. 'We will use every asset at our disposal to quell the violence and restore law and order right away,' he declared. 'We're not going to wait . . . for a governor that's never going to call.' And in remarks in the Oval Office, Trump said his policy of escalating state violence would apply to anyone who protests the military parade on June 14, his birthday. 'If there's any protester [who] wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' he warned. 'For those people that want to protest. . . . They will be met with very heavy force.' This is not a man defending the rule of law. This is a man continuing the project he began in his first term and tried to complete on January 6th: replacing the rule of law with himself. Share The Bulwark