Latest news with #SenateBill139
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Surprising Reason Nevada Hasn't Repealed a 1911 Abortion Ban
Last fall, The Washington Post highlighted the horrific case of a Nevada woman who was arrested in 2018 after having a stillbirth. The woman, Patience Frazier, used drugs and didn't respond to her stillbirth in a way that was acceptable to a local cop who knew her and judged her for parenting in poverty. She was charged under a 1911 law that prohibits taking drugs or substances with the intent to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks' gestation. Nevada is the only U.S. state that explicitly criminalizes women for ending their pregnancies; people who violate the law can be charged with manslaughter, a felony with a sentence of one to 10 years in prison. (Prosecutors in other states can and do charge women under other statutes, such as concealing a birth.) Frazier served two years in jail before being released on appeal in 2021. But her case is still open and prosecutors could decide to retry her. In January, Democratic Nevada state Senator Rochelle Nguyen, who is reportedly friendly with Frazier's lawyer, introduced a bill to repeal the century-old law. Wiping it off the books would protect Frazier and others like her in the future. But the proposal, Senate Bill 139, got no co-sponsors and never received a hearing. Multiple sources say that state reproductive rights groups decided not to lobby for the bill because they claimed doing so could impact final passage of a constitutional amendment to codify abortion access. That ballot measure, known as Question 6, would enshrine in the state constitution the right to abortion until fetal viability, which is different for every pregnancy but thought to occur around 24 weeks. It's a citizen-initiated amendment spearheaded by Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, a group led by the head of Planned Parenthood Nevada Votes. Question 6 passed comfortably in November with 64 percent, but voters have to approve it again next year due to a quirk in the state process. According to one source familiar with the situation, Planned Parenthood Nevada Votes had a meeting last summer with Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro and Speaker of the Assembly Steve Yeager, both of whom are Democrats, where attendees agreed they wanted a 'quiet session' on reproductive rights. That is to say, before Nguyen even introduced the bill, leaders had effectively killed it for her. This posture did not change, even after Donald Trump won the election. 'They had ample opportunity to decide to create protections for people and change some of the old laws, and they just decided they weren't going to,' said the source, who, like other people in this story, didn't want to use their name for fear of professional retaliation. A group of activists who supported S.B. 139, and who didn't know about that summer agreement, wondered what was happening with the repeal effort. In a late-March meeting, Nguyen reportedly told them that the bill didn't have enough votes to advance. One source at the meeting recalled Nguyen saying, 'We don't want this to impact Question 6' and that she needed the support of groups like Planned Parenthood Nevada Votes to get reelected. (The state chapter of Reproductive Freedom for All, formerly known as NARAL, is also part of the coalition for the citizen-led ballot measure but is letting Planned Parenthood take the lead on legislation.) 'Here we are in this time where Democrats really need to be standing up. Why are we cowering?' this person said. They added that they 'can't understand the logic' of how erasing the old law would affect passage of the amendment. 'People being like, 'Yeah, they repealed an ancient statute,' that's not going to be a reason people aren't going to vote [for Question 6],' they said. Another source present at the March meeting said Nguyen claimed that other Democrats were wary of taking what they considered a tough vote due to past anti-abortion advocacy, including mailers, that made races more difficult. An additional fact not mentioned but hanging over conversations is that Republican Governor Joe Lombardo could veto the bill. Democrats control both chambers but don't have a veto-proof majority. Still, the legislature's stated pro-choice stance feels hypocritical to this person. 'We have a majority that has affirmed being for reproductive rights, for abortion access, and we get a bill that would do a little bit of decriminalization,' the second person said, 'and that bill doesn't even get a hearing.' The first person recalled that representatives from Planned Parenthood Votes Nevada said they didn't support repealing the 1911 law in the lead-up to the final passage of Question 6 because the old law dealt with abortions later in pregnancy, a topic major groups tend to avoid. 'I have heard them say that 'we don't want to touch the 24 weeks,'' the source said. This is a strange justification to some advocates, because repealing the statute regarding self-managed abortions after 24 weeks wouldn't change anything about care that's available in clinics. Providers could not suddenly offer abortions after 24 weeks. 'I'm not understanding how that is a real argument for not passing [S.B. 139],' they said. 'It just doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense to me.' Lawmakers could have taken another route. Cannizzaro and Nguyen are both primary sponsors of a legislature-referred constitutional amendment with language that's more protective of reproductive rights than Question 6. The proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 7, would codify the right to birth control and miscarriage care, alongside abortion until viability. SJR 7 also bars the state from prosecuting people for their pregnancy outcomes—though it would not explicitly repeal the 1911 law. (That would have to be worked out in court.) It passed in the previous session but has not advanced this year, meaning it will not go to voters next fall. The New Republic contacted Planned Parenthood Nevada Votes for comment about the summer 2024 meeting and whether it encouraged lawmakers to have a quiet session in the interest of passing Question 6 next year, as well as whether it declined to support the repeal bill because the law in question concerns abortion after 24 weeks. We have yet to receive a response. When reached for comment about the summer meeting, a spokesperson for Cannizzaro said the majority leader does meet frequently with reproductive rights organizations before and during the session to discuss priorities. 'Based on those priorities,' the spokesperson said, 'we have moved forward a robust reproductive health agenda this session, including legal protections and expanded coverage requirements for IVF and infertility care, better protections for birth control access, and increased protections for prescribers of mifepristone and misoprostol.' Regarding the Senate-led constitutional amendment that failed to advance, the spokesperson said Cannizzaro and other advocates 'decided that enshrining a constitutional right to abortion was the top priority' and that, since Question 6 would already be on the 2026 ballot, 'it was ultimately better not to have two competing reproductive rights measures.' (Cannizzaro is rumored to be running for attorney general next year.) Importantly, the abortion amendment going to voters next year would not prevent people like Frazier from being arrested, because it only protects care overseen by a 'qualified health care practitioner' and up to 24 weeks. So leaving this law intact is a danger to Nevadans. 'This is not the time to have this on the books,' the first person said. 'I do not trust rural sheriffs.' Krystal Petersen, co-chair of the University of Nevada Boyd Law School chapter of If/When/How Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, is part of a group that supports the repeal of this law. Petersen said the choice whether to investigate and prosecute people suspected of having an abortion is up to elected sheriffs and district attorneys. That may not be a problem in the counties home to Las Vegas or Reno, but it could be an issue in more rural areas, like Winnemucca, where Frazier lived at the time. 'We do not just protect two counties in this state, we protect every Nevada resident,' she said. 'We will keep fighting until S.B. 139—or something like it—is implemented.' While the repeal bill is technically dead for the session, Democratic leadership could choose to rescue it before the session ends on Monday, June 2. The legislature won't meet again until January 2027, and if Democrats take no action, there could be more people thrown in jail. 'When I tell people [about the 1911 law], they look at me like I'm nuts. I say, 'No, for real, this is on the books here, and it's the only place that makes it a felony,'' the first person said. 'What is going on? And why aren't the Democrats doing anything?' As of the time of publication, neither Senator Nguyen nor Speaker Yeager had responded to requests for comment. Failure to repeal the 100-year-old statute threatens not only Frazier specifically but anyone who loses their pregnancy after 24 weeks, said Garin Marschall, co-founder of Patient Forward, an organization that advocates for people who need abortions later in pregnancy. 'It invites the state to investigate every stillbirth because it could potentially be a violation of the law,' said Marschall, who runs the organization with his wife, Erika; she had a third-trimester abortion in 2026. That law is especially dangerous in combination with the viability limit in Question 6. 'If there's no care available in the state after 24 weeks because of your ballot measure, what are people supposed to do? Some people can get out of the state, but some people can't,' he said. 'I really don't think people donating to abortion rights organizations and campaigns want people going to jail for abortions and miscarriages and stillbirths.' Still, states don't need to have explicit laws criminalizing abortion-seekers like Nevada's in order to lock people up. To Patient Forward and other advocates critical of enshrining the fetal viability line in state constitutions, ballot measures that only protect abortion until 24 weeks give governments too much power. 'If you draw a line in the law, the state is going to police that line,' he said. 'That leads to surveilling, investigating, and ultimately punishing pregnant people.' Not every case ends in a conviction, but every investigation causes harm. 'We know Patience Frazier's name, a lot of other people's names that we shouldn't know,' he said. That includes Brittany Watts, an Ohio woman who was investigated after having a miscarriage and charged with abuse of a corpse. (A grand jury declined to indict Watts, and she is now suing a local hospital and police.) 'All of those [cases] are problematic,' he said. 'And all of those are something that we—whether you're in the abortion rights, health, or justice movement—should be working to stop.'
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Without input from teachers, our Legislature has given us a bad cellphone law
The latest misguided legislation to be mandated to Oklahoma public schools is Senate Bill 139. This measure, which Gov. Kevin Stitt signed May 5, requires Oklahoma school districts to adopt a cellphone ban policy for a full year, beginning in August 2025. The language of this abbreviated two-page bill is the result of compromise between the two chambers over words like 'shall' and 'may.' The Oklahoma Legislature loves to dictate to educators what they, the lawmakers, think is best for Oklahoma students. Oklahoma lawmakers also frequently pass laws with little to no 'fiscal impact,' without considering the very real cost to the people who will actually implement the laws ― building administration and teachers. The result is a host of education laws that are nothing more than the heavy burden of unfunded mandates. More: Cellphones will be banned in Oklahoma schools for 2025-26 school year: What to know Cellphone use in schools is a complicated issue that will not be solved through simple mandates. Everyone in education, no exceptions, has a nuanced opinion on the pros and cons of personal devices in the classroom. The issue of cellphones in schools would have provided the perfect opportunity for public testimony to be utilized as a vital part of the legislative process. Oklahoma needs a public hearing component in the Legislature, something significantly more robust than interim studies that often do not allow public comment. Cellphone use in schools is a complicated issue that will not be solved through simple mandates, guest columnist writes. The majority of educators agree that cellphones constitute a problem that needs to be addressed. But SB 139 is a short-sighted 'solution' that will likely play out as follows: Oklahoma legislators pat themselves on the back after passing a cellphone ban that includes no assistance, financial or otherwise. Local district administration fulfill their requirement by adopting a one year policy banning cellphones from schools. Building level administrators are faced with the very difficult choice of implementing the policy at the door as students enter every morning or simply passing the buck and placing the onus of implementation squarely on the backs of teachers. A teacher single-handedly barring cellphones from their classroom is taking on an additional unpaid part-time job. An effective ban would require partnerships across all levels: teachers, building administrators, district administration and lawmakers. More: Opinion: Compromises between students, parents, educators could address cellphone issues The Oklahoma Legislature has already indicated that they are only interested in mandates and not partnerships. Time will tell how district and building level administrators respond to SB 139. Worst case scenario: full implementation becomes the sole responsibility of already-overtasked teachers, and the teacher shortage shifts from terrible to unimaginable. Aaron Baker Aaron Baker is a high school social studies teacher and musician living in northwest Oklahoma City. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: New Oklahoma law on cellphones unlikely to help much | Opinion
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oklahoma governor signs mandatory one-year school cellphone ban into law
Gov. Kevin Stitt visits a chemistry classroom at the Jenks Public Schools Math and Science Center on Nov. 13 while visiting schools with cellphone restrictions. Stitt signed a bill into law Monday to implement a yearlong cellphone ban in all Oklahoma public schools. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice) OKLAHOMA CITY — Gov. Kevin Stitt has signed into law a yearlong ban on student cellphone use in all Oklahoma public schools. Oklahoma will join 11 other states that have implemented similar statewide restrictions. Some school districts in the state enforce a similar policy already. Stitt signed Senate Bill 139 on Monday to implement the 'bell to bell' ban for the 2025-26 school year. The restriction becomes optional for districts in the 2026-27 school year and thereafter. While the yearlong ban is in place, each district's school board must adopt a policy restricting students from using cellphones, laptops, tablets, smart watches, smart headphones and smart glasses from the first bell ringing in the instructional day until final dismissal. The policy must outline disciplinary procedures for enforcing the rule. Gov. Kevin Stitt, center, and Bixby Public Schools Superintendent Rob Miller, right, listen during a Nov. 13 roundtable discussion with students about a cellphone ban at the Bixby Ninth Grade Center. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice) School-issued or school-approved devices used for classroom instruction are still allowed under the law. Districts could permit cellphone use for emergencies and for students who need it to monitor a health issue. Stitt previously urged public schools to find cost-neutral ways to make classrooms cellphone free to reverse a 'worrying trend' of distraction, bullying and learning difficulties. 'We're seeing classrooms across the country struggle with the influx of cellphone use by students,' Stitt said in a statement Tuesday. 'That's why I issued my cellphone free school challenge in the fall. We want kids to be focused and present while they're with their teachers, and this legislation helps promote an environment conducive to learning.' Before the 2025 legislative session began, state lawmakers met with mental health researchers who warned about the negative effect and addictive impact of digital media on youth. They also spoke with Oklahoma educators who said their schools saw better student behavior after banning cellphones. Meanwhile, Stitt visited schools that already have these restrictions in place, where students and educators spoke favorably about their school rules. Among the nation's largest teachers union, 90% of members said they support cellphone restrictions during class time, and 83% favored prohibiting cellphone and personal device usage for the entire school day, according to a National Education Association survey. U.S. adults reported broad support for classroom cellphone restrictions in middle and high schools, but only a third of American adults said they support extending these bans for the whole school day, the Pew Research Center found. Support for SB 139 wasn't overwhelming among Oklahoma lawmakers, either. The state Senate passed the bill with a 30-15 vote, and the House approved it 51-39. The House also passed a similar school cellphone ban, House Bill 1276, that would allow districts to opt out of the policy. SB 139 allows no such option until after a year. Sen. Ally Seifried, R-Claremore, wrote Senate Bill 139 to implement a mandatory yearlong ban on cellphones in schools. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice) 'This will allow teachers to focus entirely on educating our kids while students can concentrate on learning as much as possible,' an author of both bills, Sen. Ally Seifried, R-Claremore, said. 'After two years of hard work on this issue, I'm thrilled to see this legislation become law, and I'm confident students, parents and teachers will see immediate benefits once the new school year begins.' HB 1276 is unlikely to advance in the Senate now that SB 139 has the governor's signature, Seifried said. The bill's House author, Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, called the measure a 'try it before you buy it type of policy.' 'I appreciate Gov. Stitt signing SB 139 to remove the distractions of cellphones from our schools and give our kids their childhood back,' Caldwell said Tuesday. The governor on Monday also signed into law a restriction on virtual school days. Senate Bill 758 will limit districts to using a maximum of two online instruction days per school year. 'Kids learn best in the classroom,' said Sen. Kristen Thompson, R-Edmond, who wrote the bill. 'Virtual days have their place in emergencies, but we've seen them become a go-to solution in some districts — and that's not fair to students or families. This bill strikes the right balance by preserving flexibility without compromising the quality of education.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House sends mandatory ‘bell-to-bell' cellphone ban bill to Oklahoma governor
A poster reads, "bell to bell, no cell" at the Jenks Public Schools Math and Science Center on Nov. 13. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice) OKLAHOMA CITY — The state House narrowly passed an altered bill that requires school districts to implement 'bell-to-bell' cellphone bans for the upcoming school year. Senate Bill 139, which passed by a single vote, heads to Gov. Kevin Stitt for consideration. While it requires schools to ban cellphones and personal electronic devices like smart watches, tablets and smart glasses for one year, it allows districts to lift that ban in any subsequent years. Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, said the version that heads to Stitt's desk is different from the initial version passed by the House. The original version contained an opt out for districts that didn't want to comply. The Senate version, which heads to Stitt's desk, contains none. He said the chambers compromised on a 'try it before you buy it, type of policy.' Everyone will be required to try it for a year, but if a district finds the policy doesn't work for them, and they would like students to have cellphones in class, then they can opt out moving forward, Caldwell said. How districts implement the ban is up to them, he said. Rep. Danny Williams, R-Seminole, said he liked the original House bill that would have allowed districts to opt out and provided local control. 'I'm not fond of the requirement because we talk a lot about local control, and it looks like we're kind of creeping into no control on the first year of this,' he said. But Caldwell said the bill is consistent with other bills that the Legislature passed because it directs districts on what to do, but gives them flexibility on how to act within those parameters. 'Ultimately, I think where this goes back to is the total local control,' he said. '…After this year, (if) they're the outlier, they're the district that their education outcomes didn't improve, their behavioral problems didn't decrease, and the school board wants to take the step up and say, 'No, we want cellphones back in our classes,' they can do that.' Caldwell said he hopes Stitt will sign the measure and 'we'll all celebrate next year when our kids can go to a distraction-free classroom.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proposed ban on student use of cellphones in Oklahoma school approved by Senate committee
An Oklahoma House bill that would prohibit the use of cellphones by students during the school day moved forward in the state Senate on Tuesday, the day before the Senate's bill on the same subject is scheduled to be heard in a House committee. The issue of cellphones in schools has taken on a high profile in the Legislature, with both chambers conducting interim studies last year about the subject, an indicator that such a ban is a priority for lawmakers. On Tuesday, by a 7-4 vote that included bipartisan opposition, the Senate Education Committee passed House Bill 1276, authored by Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Ally Seifried, R-Claremore. The vote advanced Caldwell's bill to the Senate floor. On Wednesday, Seifried's bill, Senate Bill 139, will be heard in the House Common Education Committee and if it passes, it will move to the Education Oversight Committee. Caldwell is the House sponsor of Seifried's bill. Seifried and Caldwell have worked together for two years on the cellphone legislation. Seifried is the vice chair of the Senate Education Committee, while Caldwell is the vice chair of the House Education Oversight Committee. Their bills have slight differences. The House bill includes an opt-out provision for district school boards, although such a policy would have to be approved every year by the board. The Senate bill would require districts to develop their own policies to limit student cellphone use for the full school day for the entire 2025-26 school year. Should both bills pass both chambers, Seifried said the differences in the legislation could be worked out in a joint House-Senate committee. 'This is probably the most important thing we can do for education this year,' Seifried said during debate about the House bill. More: School cellphone ban passes Oklahoma House as lawmakers debate library book bans, policies The four senators voting against the bill Tuesday spanned the political spectrum ― far-right Sen. Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin, and Sen. Kendal Sacchieri, R-Blanchard, to Democrats such as Sen. Carri Hicks, D-Oklahoma City, and Sen. Mark Mann, D-Oklahoma City. Of those, only Hicks asked questions about the bill Tuesday. Hicks, a former teacher, inquired about the timeline of Caldwell's bill that was being considered, noting school boards would have only until August to develop a policy mandated by the bill. Seifried responded by saying the bill should come as no surprise to districts, given that the subject has been a conversation at the Capitol for more than a year. Hicks also asked about the timeliness of a school cellphone ban and if there was an appetite to delay the idea. 'This is such an important issue, it warrants a timeliness to it,' Seifried said. '…There is a sense of urgency for me on this.' Proponents of banning student use of cellphones say it will eliminate distractions in the classroom and improve students' mental health. Opponents of the legislation mostly believe the decision should be left to local school boards and not mandated by the Legislature. Caldwell's bill includes a provision for emergency use, including items used for medical issues. When his bill passed the House, Caldwell said it 'would allow schools the ability to craft their own policies to prohibit the use of cell phones and smartwatches during the school day starting next school year. Schools maintain control, but students reap the benefits." Also passing out of the Senate committee Tuesday, by an 11-0 vote, was House Bill 1727, a bill by House Speaker Pro Tempore Anthony Moore, R-Clinton, that would allow the children of Oklahoma classroom teachers with at least 10 years of experience to be eligible for the Oklahoma's Promise program, which allows students from Oklahoma families meeting certain income requirements to earn a college or technology center tuition scholarship. Another Moore bill, House Bill 1017, passed 9-2, albeit with the title removed, a legislative maneuver that can slow a bill's progress. Dubbed the 'Oklahoma College Athletic Conference Act,' it would create a commission, consisting of presidents of 10 of the 11 NCAA Division II institutions in Oklahoma, to explore the feasibility of creating an all-Oklahoma Division II conference. Currently, Oklahoma's Division II universities are spread among three conferences, with teams having to travel to western New Mexico, far south Texas, Nebraska and well into Arkansas for conference games, often bypassing their geographic rivals. Deevers and Sacchieri voted against the bill, which is being sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Dave Rader, R-Tulsa, a former football coach at the University of Tulsa. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Oklahoma Senate committee passes school cellphone ban bill
