The Texas House of Representatives today (Friday, May 23) passed Senate Bill 11 mandating a daily period set aside in Texas public schools for prayer and reading the Bible. Having passed both chambers of the Texas Legislature, the measure is now headed to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk for his signature.
Texas Freedom Network Political Director Rocío Fierro-Pérez criticized the vote in a written statement, warning that the bill “allows politicians to impose their preferred religion on millions of Texas families,” and noting that it is “a blatant violation of the First Amendment and an escalation in the ongoing effort to turn public schools into tools of government-endorsed religion.
“Coercing students into state-sanctioned prayer disrespects the religious and nonreligious beliefs of families across our state,” she said.
Fierro Pérez added, “This bill undermines parental rights and places public educators in the impossible position of enforcing deeply personal and spiritual practices. We are outraged that lawmakers are wasting time serving their self-interests while ignoring urgent problems in our schools.
“Texas needs leaders who fight for the freedom of all families, not just those who share their religious views. Texans deserve leadership that defends liberty, not legislation that tramples it.”
SB 11 will, no doubt, face legal challenge, and established precedent would seem to be against it.
In its landmark 1962 decision Engel v. Vitale, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory, state-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, therefore public schools cannot require or sponsor religious activities, even if participation is voluntary. The following year, in Abington School District v. Schempp, SCOTUS ruled that school-sponsored Bible reading before class is unconstitutional.
*This is reported by New Republic Opinion via Yahoo News.
A MAGA judge in Texas has issued a sweeping ruling that destroys workplace discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people in the United States.
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who holds a reputation for being a far-right activist judge, declared that while Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not protect LGBTQ people from workplace harassment based on their sexual or gender orientation. The case was brought forth by the Heritage Foundation, a far-right, culturally conservative organization that heavily influenced the writings and goals of Project 2025.
Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, specifically targeted transgender people in his ruling, stating that they had to simply deal with any kind of discriminatory treatment in their workplace. He deduced that “a male employee must use male facilities like other males,” an assertion that completely invalidates transgender identity in its entirety rather than actually acknowledging the issues they face at work. Kacsmaryk even went so far as to order federal employment policy to remove“all language defining ‘sex’ in Title VII to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.”.
This all directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County ruling, which stated plainly that Title VII protects LGBTQ workers from identity-based firing and harassment.
Kacsmaryk is not new to this. He has been referred to as the “go-to jurist” for right wingers looking for judicial validation for cruel, oppressive, and deeply culturally conservative policy. He attacked LGBTQ protections in the Affordable Care Act, suspended FDA approval of the live-saving abortion pill mifepristone, and tried (and failed) to make Planned Parenthood pay $2 billion to Texas and Louisiana on the grounds that they were “defrauding” Medicaid. This is yet another coordinated attack from the right intended to erode hard fought social justice victories.
The Texas House voted today to repeal the “anti sodomy” law that has been on the books since 1973. HB1738 was the first bill to make it to the House floor for a vote since the law was enacted, and subsequently deemed unconstitutional in 2003 by the Lawrence v Texas ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The bill for was authored by Dallas state representative Venton Jones, a member of the LGBTQ Caucus and long time activist.
The bill repeals Penal Code Section 21.06. Texas Penal Code Section 21.06, also known as “homosexual conduct,” makes it a Class C misdemeanor to engage in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex. This means that the law criminalizes sexual activity between people of the same gender. The penalty for a Class C misdemeanor is generally a fine of up to $500.
The vote was 72 Yeas, 55 Nays, 5 Present Not Voting. The vote remains to be certified.
The bill faces an uphill battle in the Republican controlled Texas Senate. The Texas legislative session ends June 2.
11 other states still have some form of sodomy law on the books.
The news out of the #txlege is heavy, but we will continue to fight back against anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation at the Capitol and across Texas.
These bills will have a massive impact on trans Texans. This week is a time of grief and a source of pain for many. During this time of uncertainty and confusion, please hold on to each other and know that you are not alone. Hundreds of thousands of Texans are in your corner.
This past Monday, we passed a key landmark. All House bills that had not been referred out of committee are no longer eligible to become law. That means that 139 of the 200+ bad bills have died—bills that would have criminalized being trans or sought to ban trans care for adults outright.
“Despite some of the worst bills dying, the news of HB 229 and HB 778 passing the House weighs heavy on all of us. No matter where the fight takes us, we will survive, and we will do it together.” -Brad Pritchett, Interim CEO of Equality Texas
If you are struggling right now, please consider reaching out to:
Dozens of trans people and their allies gathered in the outdoor Capitol rotunda Friday, chanting at the top of their lungs.
They will not erase us.
The next day, the Texas House of Representatives preliminarily passed a bill that aims to do just that.
House Bill 229 strictly defines men and women based on the reproductive organs they were born with, and orders state records to reflect this binary. The bill, titled the “Women’s Bill of Rights,” lays out the “biological truth for anybody who is confused,” said author Rep. Ellen Troxclair, an Austin Republican.
The bill passed on second reading 86-36 after an at times tense debate, and is expected to be finally approved next week before going to the Senate, which has already passed several bills with a similar focus.
Surrounded by a cadre of Republican women, Troxclair said the goal of the bill was to ensure women’s rights aren’t “eroded by activists” as more people come out as trans and nonbinary. Democrats argued against the bill for almost three hours with Rep. Jessica González, D-Dallas, saying “it is harmful, it is dangerous, and it is really freaking insulting.”
If this bill becomes law, more than 120,000 trans Texans would be forced to be defined in state records by the sex they were assigned at birth, rather than the gender they identify as, even if they’ve already legally changed their birth certificates and driver’s licenses.
This year, the proposals that have gained the most traction reflect a more fundamental question: what is a woman?
For conservative lawmakers, the answer is simple, and best defined by reproductive organs. For trans people and their allies, the answer is simple, and best left to an individual’s assertion of their gender identity.
Only one of those groups controls the Texas Capitol.
“We’re a state that believes in truth, and we’re a state that honors the hard-won achievements of women, the women who fought for the right to vote, to compete in sports and to be safe in public spaces, to be treated equally under the law,” Troxclair said on the floor. “But if we can no longer define what a woman is, we cannot defend what women have won. We cannot protect what we cannot define.”
In the bill, a woman is defined as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and a man is “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.” Democrats criticized this as overly simplistic, excluding trans people, but also intersex people and those who can’t conceive children.
“Any biologist knows there are variations in sex chromosomes, hormone levels and other traits … where an individual’s biological characteristics don’t align with typical male or female categorization,” said Rep. Jon Rosenthal, a Democrat from Houston. “The real question is, do you believe that all people have the basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of their own personal happiness?”
This bill aligns with an executive order from Gov. Greg Abbott, who declared in January that Texas only recognizes two sexes, male and female, and a non-binding legal opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton, who said state agencies should not honor court opinions to change someone’s sex listed on official documents.
At the Capitol rally on Friday, Lambda Legal senior attorney Shelly Skeen said revoking these changed documents, and preventing people from changing them in the future, “affects every aspect of our daily lives.” Having a birth certificate or drivers’ license that reflects a different sex than their physical presentation, or that doesn’t align with their passport or other documents, could leave trans people in a legal limbo and potentially open them up to violence, she said.
It could impact the state facilities, like prisons, they are sorted into, the bathrooms and locker rooms they are supposed to use and the discrimination protections they are entitled to, Skeen said. Unlike other bills, like the so-called “bathroom bill,” this legislation does not have civil or criminal penalties for using a facility that doesn’t align with one’s sex.
Troxclair did accept one amendment, by El Paso Democrat Rep. Mary González, to clarify how intersex people, who are born with both sets of reproductive organs, fit into these definitions.
The chamber also preliminarily approved Senate Bill 1257, which would require health insurers that cover gender-affirming care also cover any adverse consequences and costs of detransitioning. The bill, authored by Sen. Bryan Hughes and sponsored by Rep. Jeff Leach, passed 82-37.
Leach said he brought this bill on behalf of people who were left with tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills because their health insurance wouldn’t cover the costs of detransitioning.
“The illustration that I think best describes this is, if you take somebody to the dance and they want to go home, then you have to take them home,” Leach said during the debate on Saturday.
The bill says that any insurance company that covers gender-affirming care must cover all detransition-related costs for its members, even if that person wasn’t on the health insurance plan at the time they transitioned. Democrats filed more than half a dozen amendments to narrow the scope of the bill, critiquing the bill as a health insurance mandate. None of the amendments passed.
Last session, Texas lawmakers outlawed gender-affirming care for minors. Trans advocates worry that raising the cost of covering gender-affirming care will result in health insurers not covering the treatments for adults, either.
“If you can make it painful enough for providers and insurers, health care is gone,” said Emmett Schelling, the executive director of the Transgender Education Network of Texas. “It doesn’t just feed into gender-affirming care. It bleeds into health care that we all need, that we all deserve.”
Speaking on the floor Saturday, Rep. Ann Johnson, a Houston Democrat, said the Legislature was telling insurance companies not to cover gender-affirming care.
“The reality is this bill, however you couch it, is about eliminating the existence of trans individuals in Texas,” Johnson said. “Stop pretending that you’re for freedom. Stop pretending that this is about the kids.”
The Texas House agreed late Thursday to let the governor determine the countries whose residents, governments and other entities could be banned from buying property here.
Members granted the governor such power when they amended Senate Bill 17, whose real estate sales restrictions were limited to countries that the U.S. national director of intelligence has designated as national security threats. Currently, that list includes only China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.
After giving the governor the ability to expand the list of restricted countries, the House then gave SB 17 preliminary approval in a 85-60 vote. The bill now heads back to the Senate.
State Rep. Nate Schatzline, the Republican from Fort Worth who introduced the amendment, said the goal was to make sure that any threats to Texas could quickly be addressed.
“Our governor can act swiftly rather than waiting for a year for that to be added into the [director of national intelligence’s] designated country list,” he said.
That amendment drew rebuke from Democrats.
“This gives the governor unfettered power to add whatever county he wants to in this bill,” said state Rep. Gene Wu, chair of House Democratic Caucus. “It’s kind of dangerous to say one person can decide whatever country he or she wants to add to this without any oversight, without any controls — this is the definition of overreach.”
Schatzline’s amendment also allows the governor to bar people “transnational criminal organizations” to the list of entities barred from buying Texas property. Schatzline pointed to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as an example.
State Rep. Cole Hefner, the Mt. Pleasant Republican carrying SB 17 in the lower chamber, described the bill during Thursday’s hourslong debate as “securing Texas land and natural resources and making sure that this precious resource does not fall prey to adversarial nations and oppressive regimes that wish to do us harm.”
The bill’s advancement came over opposition from Democrats who are concerned that it could be used to potentially discriminate against Asian Americans.
The bill will need one more House vote before it goes back to the Senate. The upper chamber previously approved a version of the bill, but House members amended several key portions of it Thursday.
The Senate’s previous version would have exempted anyone or any entity that leased the property to someone else for under 100 years. The House limited that exemption to property leased to someone else for one year or less. Rep. Mitch Little called the 100-year lease exemption “a loophole that you could drive a Mack truck through.”
The House also previously amended the bill to exempt lawful permanent residents.
But Democrats failed to make changes to the bill several times Thursday. Their failed amendments included provisions that would have exempted visa holders such as medical students and researchers, performers and athletes. They also raised concerns that the law could hurt the Texas economy.
SB 17 is Brenham Republican Sen. Lois Kolkhorst’s second attempt at limiting who can buy property in Texas. Similar legislation she authored in 2023 died in the House. In committee hearings this year, she described the legislation as protecting Texas’ assets from “hostile nations.”
“This is a matter of national security,” she said in March. “Texas must act now to protect our land, food sources, water, and natural resources.”
A batch of new, more conservative lawmakers were elected to the House last year, giving new life to legislation that struggled in previous sessions. Chief among those measures are the creation of school vouchers.
If passed, the bill goes into effect Sept. 1 and would only apply to purchases or acquisitions after that date.
It would require the attorney general’s office to create a process to investigate possible violations and refer the matter to a district court. If the court finds a violation, it would be authorized to order the purchaser to divest from the property either by selling it or terminating the lease, according to the House Research Organization’s most recent analysis of the bill. The court also would be required to refer the matter for potential criminal offenses.
The amount of Texas property owned by entities from outside the U.S. is not tracked in detail, aside from agricultural land. But Joshua Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law, said it is likely a very small fraction. In the U.S. overall, Chinese investors own less than 1% of total foreign-held acreage, according to 2021 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Investors from Russia, Iran and North Korea collectively own less than 3,000 acres.
But to Abraham George, chair of the Texas Republican Party, 1% is too much — which is why the bill was a party priority.
Rep. Angie Chen Button, who was only the second Asian American woman to serve in the Legislature and whose parents fled from China, also spoke in support of the bill Thursday night, saying the bill aims to “protect our freedom, liberty and national security.” She introduced a similar bill last session.
Some Asian Texans are concerned the bill would create animosity and “state-sanctioned racial profiling,” said Lily Trieu, executive director of the civic engagement group Asian Texans for Justice.
The bill doesn’t prohibit purchases of land based on national origin, which would violate federal civil rights laws. Instead, it prohibits people based on their permanent residence.
Wu, who immigrated to the United States from China as a child, said the bill could impact not just Chinese people in Texas, but members of all Asian communities in the state.
“Nobody knows the difference between Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and Korean, right? Nobody knows what your immigration status is,” he said in an interview. “When they discriminate against you … when they look for people to assault, they don’t really care what you are. They care that you have Asian face.”
Trieu said the group’s No. 1 concern is that individuals shouldn’t be conflated with governments.
“Just like how no one here would want to travel to another country and be held individually accountable for what Governor Abbott does or what President Donald Trump does,” she said.
“These individuals should not be held accountable for what the government of their national origin does, or what their ideology is, or what, you know, the government does as an entity.”
Trieu said the group was formed to engage Asian Texans in civic participation such as voting, but this bill galvanized people into getting involved in legislation.
Wu expects the bill is just the start of that. And even with its passage, he sees it as a loss for the Republican Party because it could push Asian American voters to shift to the Democratic Party in the 2026 midterm elections.
“I think the Republicans are heading into gale force winds in 2026 if they want to alienate and make enemies of an entire community who for a large part has stayed out of politics,” he said in an interview.
A proposed bill aimed at protecting public employees, teachers and students who misgender their peers cleared the Texas Senate on Thursday, moving one step closer to becoming law.
Senate Bill 1999, authored by Republican Sen. Bryan Hughes of Mineola, would prevent state agencies and schools from punishing employees or students who refer to another person using terms “consistent with (their) biological sex,” even if that term doesn’t match the person’s gender identity. According to the bill, this law wouldn’t limit a school “from adopting policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent bullying.”
“A teacher may have a moral or religious objection that prevents them from using language with a student or other person’s biological sex,” Hughes said. “No teacher, no public employee, should be punished for using a pronoun consistent with a person’s biological sex.”
The bill was passed on a vote of 20 to 11. This came after Sen. José Menéndez, a Democrat from San Antonio, offered a floor amendment on Wednesday that would’ve offered similar protections to those who choose to express their gender identity.
“There are gonna be people out there that are going to feel as if this legislation is trying to take away their right to exist as who they are,” Menéndez said on Wednesday. “Just like we can’t force anyone to use pronouns, we can’t also force someone not to have them or express them.”
Hughes pushed back against the proposed amendment, saying his bill wouldn’t prevent “someone from asking to be identified as whatever they wish,” but would instead prevent teachers and other public employees from being “punished because they get it wrong.”
Menéndez’s amendment was ultimately struck down on Wednesday, paving the way for the bill’s final passage one day later. The bill now heads to the Texas House for consideration.
On this episode we are joined by the amazing Erin Morrison.
What happens when real estate meets resistance, advocacy, and identity?
In this candid conversation, LGBTQ+ real estate professionals Erin Morrison, Bob McCranie, Kimber Fox, and Leslie Wilson sit down to discuss the evolving challenges of being openly queer in an industry—and a country—facing political pushback.
🏳️🌈 Topics covered include: How anti-LGBTQ+ legislation affects clients and agents
The role of advocacy in real estate Why “just doing business” isn’t neutral anymore
Personal stories from the frontlines of inclusion in housing
📍 Whether you’re an agent, ally, or advocate, this video unpacks the real stakes of LGBTQ+ visibility in today’s market.
A group of anti-choice Republicans reportedly spent 16 minutes on the Texas House floor on Thursday speaking out against a resolution honoring the late Cecile Richards, a Texas native and the longtime president of Planned Parenthood. Richards, the daughter of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards (D), died of brain cancer on January 20.
State Rep. Nate Schatzline (R) kept pushing after state House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R) said there was no procedure in place that would allow a formal opposition to a single memorial or congratulatory resolution on a resolutions calendar.
“So it is the only way we can actually kill this horrific resolution is to vote down the resolutions calendar?” Schatzline asked.
“That is your choice, Mr. Schatzline,” Burrows replied, rejecting the group’s request to postpone the resolution as well.
“There’s no possible way that any one of our members can come and speak against recognizing an abortionist on the Texas House floor today?” Schatzline clarified.
“That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry,” Burrows said.
“You are not denying that you are in fact responsible for Planned Parenthood being honored today on today’s calendar!” said state Rep. Brian Harrison (R). “It’s an outrage!” Earlier, Harrison called Richards a “famed abortionist.”
State Rep. Wes Virdell (R) added, “Is it standard procedure to honor people who have killed millions of unborn babies?”
The speaker responded again, “That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry.”
Richards spent her entire life fighting for progressive causes. During her 12 years at the helm of Planned Parenthood, she transformed the organization into the political dynamo it is today. According to the Texas Tribune, the donor and volunteer base grew from 3 million to 11 million during her tenure.
After she died, President Joe Biden said she “fearlessly led us forward to be the America we say we are.”
“Carrying her mom’s torch for justice,” he continued, “she championed some of our Nation’s most important civil rights causes. She fought for the dignity of workers, defended and advanced women’s reproductive rights and equality, and mobilized our fellow Americans to exercise their power to vote. She was a leader of utmost character and I know that her legacy will continue to inspire generations to come.”
The Trump administration has opened a new “snitch line” to report what it calls violations of Trump’s executive order “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”
In twin actions this week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) continued its efforts to end gender-affirming care for trans youth with the new whistleblower portal and the launch of an investigation of “a major pediatric teaching hospital” over the alleged firing of a nurse because she sought a religious exemption to avoid administering puberty blockers and hormones to minor patients.
Though unnamed, the nurse is likely whistleblower Vanessa Sivadge, who worked at Texas Children’s Hospital and provided testimony to Congress this week about her alleged termination.
The “snitch line” was shared publicly on Monday with guidance for potential whistleblowers published on the HHS website.
“You have three options to report a tip or complaint related to the chemical and surgical mutilation of children or whistleblower retaliation,” the guidance states, with instructions to provide identifying information of those involved in the alleged order violation.
“Please reference EO 14187 in your complaint,” the guidance states, referring to Trump’s “Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” order.
That order has been blocked by multiple federal judges with temporary restraining orders, but the Trump administration continues to invoke it in its crackdown on doctors and hospitals.
One ruling, by U.S. District Judge Lauren King in the Western District of Washington, termed the order a violation of constitutional protections by “treating people differently based on sex or transgender status.” Those cases continue to make their way through the courts.
The concurrent hospital investigation is designed to showcase the administration’s weaponization of 50-year-old federal anti-abortion provisions known as the Church Amendments to protect anti-trans whistleblowers. Those allow religious accommodation to anti-abortion healthcare providers based on “religious beliefs or moral convictions respecting sterilization procedures.”
Trump’s order characterizes gender-affirming care as “maiming and sterilizing.”
In January, the Justice Department dropped charges against Dr. Eithan Haim, a Texas surgeon accused of leaking private medical information about minors who received gender-affirming care at the same Texas hospital where Sivadge worked. He shared that information with rightwing media outlets.
The DOJ had previously charged Haim with violating HIPAA laws with “intent to cause malicious harm.” He called himself a whistleblower.
The Trump administration continues to characterize evidence-based trans healthcare as “mutilation”, despite every major medical association, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Endocrine Society, supporting the practice.
The news out of the 
If you are struggling right now, please consider reaching out to:
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.