WA Democrats reportedly block move to nix 48-hour scholastic assault reporting requirement
A new Washington state bill characterized as a repeal of the state's Parents Bill of Rights now includes a provision allowing information to be essentially withheld from parents regarding assaults of their children for up to 48 hours.
State Sen. Claire Wilson, D-Federal Way, attested to the Washington State Standard the bill overall "doesn't change any rights" and is a "cleanup bill" that updates health privacy provisions to align with current law.
In a House Education Committee hearing this week, one lawmaker unsuccessfully attempted to undo the 48-hour rule and require immediate parental notification.
"The underlying bill essentially states that schools can wait 48 hours before they tell parents if their children were involved in any kind of criminal action or if there was any sexual misconduct of staff," said state Rep. Travis Couture, R-Shelton.
Washington State Proposes Protections For Unemployed Illegal Immigrants
"And we have seen a stunning amount of sexual misconduct and sexual assaults by educators in our schools just in the last year itself."
Read On The Fox News App
He cited reports that two principals in the Vancouver, Wash., area "hid information" from parents on sexual misconduct against a teen.
"As a parent myself, I would be disgusted and sickened to know if my kids had some kind of sexual abuse put upon them by staff, and I wasn't notified immediately of those things. . . . For God's sake, vote yes [on the amendment]."
But Democrat Lillian Ortiz-Self argued that as a school guidance counselor, she was trained in how to best deal with such situations.
"It's very clear that we take direction from law enforcement and from the Department of Children and Family Services whenever there's a crime that has taken place and that we must sit here and give them the time to do the investigation so that justice can be served. Our role in the schools is to support the child and support the parents," said Ortiz-Self, of Mukilteo.
Washington State Democrats Accidentally Email Their 'Radical' Tax Plan To Entire Senate
Ortiz-Self said authorities must not have their investigations "impeded," to which KTTH commentator Jason Rantz reacted incredulously in a column.
"She didn't say, most likely because it's a completely contrived concern," he wrote.
Couture's amendment to ensure immediate parental notification failed in an ensuing voice vote, with House Education Committee chairwoman Sharon Tomiko-Santos, D-Seattle, voting "nay" and deeming the vote unsuccessful.
Following Couture's attempt to undo the change, another committee member raised a new amendment regarding parental notification if they are accused of a crime and have "more than just a meet and greet with a police officer."
"We just heard if law enforcement are involved, parents should be involved as well. They should have the bare minimum of a notification when it comes to law enforcement questioning a child," said state Rep. Matt Marshall, R-Roy.
"There are just certain protections that are afforded to all of us as members of society given by our Constitution. And one of them is the right to legal protection. And we're innocent until proven guilty. If parents aren't even involved, then children are potentially not aware of their rights. If they're being questioned, who's to say what they're going to admit to when they're being accused of a crime?"
Marshall later said committee Democrats rejected two dozen Republican amendments in what he called a "blatant disregard for parents' rights" and children's safety.
"[This is] further proof that Dems care more about their woke agenda than protecting our kids," he said.Original article source: WA Democrats reportedly block move to nix 48-hour scholastic assault reporting requirement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
34 minutes ago
- Axios
"He's lost it": Inside Newsom's attack on Trump's mental fitness
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has embraced a new attack line in his ongoing showdown with Donald Trump: The president — who turns 79 on Saturday — is slipping. "He is not the same person that I dealt with just four years ago, and he's incapable of even a train of thought," Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, told Fox LA. "He's lost it." Why it matters: Newsom, who was among the many Democrats who repeatedly attested that Joe Biden was sharp and ready to serve another four years, is now among those suggesting that Trump — the oldest president ever inaugurated — is showing signs of not being up to the job. Newsom's jabs at Trump's age are part of a barrage of criticisms he's tossed at Trump in the past week. He's called Trump a threat to democracy who is putting the U.S. on a road to authoritarianism. Driving the news: Throughout Newsom and Trump's public spat over Trump sending troops and Marines to Los Angeles in a show of force against immigration protesters, Newsom repeatedly has mocked Trump for mangling dates and words. "Trump doesn't even know what day it is," Newsom wrote on X after Trump said he'd spoken with Newsom on Monday, when their conversation actually had been two days earlier. Newsom's office made fun of Trump for mistakenly saying "primarily" before Trump corrected himself to say "primary." With a concerned look on his face, Newsom also noted that Trump had stumbled up the steps to Air Force One over the weekend. In 2024, Trump's campaign frequently used video of Biden tripping up those stairs to argue that Biden, then 81, was no longer fit to be president. Reality check: Newsom didn't express similar concerns about mental acuity when Biden was in the White House, even as there were increasing public signs the Democratic president was struggling to be coherent. "It's because of his age that he's been so successful," Newsom said of Biden in February 2024, in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Hur's report that concluded a jury would be unlikely to convict Biden of mishandling classified documents because he was a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Newsom added that Biden's "masterclass" record meant that he was "all-in" on Biden serving another four years in the White House, which Newsom said would be a "gift ... for the American people." Zoom out: Trump is much more accessible to the media and appears more vigorous than Biden, but there are still questions about his health. Trump wasn't transparent about his full medical history during the 2024 campaign. His White House released a three-page summary of his most recent physical in April, which included some more information and declared that he was in "excellent health" but was still a limited report. That's similar to what recent presidents, including Biden, have provided. The White House isn't legally obligated to provide information about a president's health. Biden's White House physician had claimed that Biden was in great shape for a man of his age. Trump has had other slips in recent months, such as repeatedly mixing up the Japanese car company Nissan and the Japanese steel company Nippon. During the 2024 campaign, he also repeatedly mixed up countries and names — like when he talked about GOP primary rival Nikki Haley when he meant former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D). Trump has long had a rambling and at times difficult to follow speaking style, which he has dubbed "the weave." Democratic and Republican rivals both tried to make Trump's age a key issue in last year's campaign but were ultimately unsuccessful. What they're saying: White House communications director Steven Cheung told Axios that Newsom's attacks on Trump are "rich, coming from Gavin Newsom, who in this past election tried to gaslight and lied to the American public about Joe Biden's decline."
Newsweek
35 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Mikie Sherrill's Chances of Beating Jack Ciattarelli in New Jersey: Polls
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Democratic New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherrill is set to beat her Republican rival Jack Ciattarelli in the upcoming election for governor, according to a poll. According to a SurveyUSA poll, released the day after Ciattarelli and Sherrill secured their respective nominations on Wednesday, the Democrat led his GOP rival by 13 percentage points. The Context Along with Virginia, New Jersey is one of the two states holding gubernatorial elections this year to replace New Jersey's incumbent Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, who has a term-limit. The Republicans have not won a gubernatorial election in New Jersey since 2013 and has voted for a Democrat in every presidential election since 1988. But the GOP has seen increasing success in the state in recent years, with Trump increasing his vote share by 10 points in 2024. This was the best showing by a GOP presidential nominee in two decades. Split image of Democratic Representative Mikie Sherrill, left, and former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, right, who will face Sherrill in New Jersey's gubernatorial contest. Split image of Democratic Representative Mikie Sherrill, left, and former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, right, who will face Sherrill in New Jersey's gubernatorial contest. AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, Mike Catalini, file What To Know Ciattarelli is a former New Jersey state representative who has said he would end any sanctuary policies protecting immigrants without permanent legal status. Sherrill is a United States representative who worked in the navy and as a federal prosecutor. According to the SurveyUSA poll of 785 adults, 51 percent of likely voters said they'd support Sherrill in the November general election, compared to 38 percent who said they'd back Ciattarelli. The poll was conducted between May 28 and May 30. However, a previous survey by the same pollster found that 40 percent of Garden State voters have a favorable view of Ciattarelli, while 41 percent had the same view of Sherrill. There was a larger gap between the two candidates when it comes to their negative ratings, with 29 percent of voters having an unfavorable view of Sherrill, compared to 36 percent who have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican. What People Are Saying Micah Rasmussen, director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, previously told Newsweek that while Democrats are the majority party in the state. "It is certainly possible that New Jersey could elect a Republican governor in November. [Incumbent] Governor [Phil] Murphy was the first Democrat to be reelected in more than 40 years, and in that same span, three Republican governors were elected and reelected. President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social: "The Great State of New Jersey has a very important Primary coming up on Tuesday. Get Out and Vote for Jack Ciattarelli, who has my Complete and Total Endorsement! His Opponents are going around saying they have my Endorsement, which is not true, I don't even know who they are! We can't play games when it comes to Elections, and New Jersey is a very important State that we must WIN. The whole World is watching. Vote for Jack Ciattarelli to, MAKE NEW JERSEY GREAT AGAIN!" What Happens Next The election takes place on November 4. Five third-party or independent candidates are also running for the seat.
40 minutes ago
Trump's deployment of troops to LA prompts host of legal questions -- and a challenge from California
Remarkable images are emerging of Marines training and National Guardsmen armed with rifles accompanying ICE agents on raids in Los Angeles. It's a scene President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth say can be replicated in any other American city where there are protests against the administration's immigration crackdown. It's also raising a host of legal questions regarding what Trump can and can't do with regards to the military on U.S. soil, and whether he's crossing the line. A first hearing on some of these issues is set for Thursday as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, challenges the federal deployment and seeks emergency relief. How Trump mobilized the troops To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The statute allows the president to call on federal service members when there "is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States" or when "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions. Trump, however, did not invoke the Insurrection Act -- a clear exception to the mandates of the Posse Comitatus Act, the law that limits the military from being involved in civilian law enforcement. "Instead, he's using authorities in a very novel way," Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center, said on ABC News Live. Goitein noted how broad Trump's memorandum is in nature, saying it's not limited to Los Angeles and allows for troops to be sent anywhere protests "are likely to occur." "This is a preemptive, nationwide, potentially, deployment of the federal military to effectively police protests. It is unheard of in this country," Goitein said. California seeks emergency relief California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary, and did so illegally. Newsom argues the situation, which has been relatively confined to a few square blocks in downtown Los Angeles, doesn't justify the use of Section 12406 in Title 10. "To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together. And nothing is stopping the President from enforcing the laws through use of ordinary, civilian mechanisms available to federal officers," the state contended in an emergency motion. The state's lawsuit also lambasts Trump for bypassing the governor and local leaders who objected to the mobilization of the National Guard and active duty Marines. However, some legal experts say Section 12406 in Title 10 does not on its face require a request from the governor. There is also precedent for the president sending in the National Guard without governor support: in 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson sent the National Guard to deal with civil unrest in the South without cooperation from state leaders. Immigration raids raise more questions "If this ultimately gets to the Supreme Court, I don't think they're going to find that the president unlawfully federalized the National Guard troops," said Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a former active duty judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force. "A different issue is if these federalized troops, either National Guard or Marines, cross the line into law enforcement and therefore violate Posse Comitatus," she said. National Guard members joining ICE on raids marks a significant escalation, she said. "It's getting dangerously close to law enforcement," VanLandingham said. California made that argument in its emergency motion. "Defendants intend to use unlawfully federalized National Guard troops and Marines to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles," the motion states. "They will work in active concert with law enforcement, in support of a law enforcement mission, and will physically interact with or detain civilians." The Trump administration has steadfastly defended the moves and is urging a federal judge to block California's request for a temporary restraining order. "The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," lawyers with the Department of Justice said in a court filing. The DOJ lawyers argued that California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters.
