![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
frameacloud posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
otherkinnewsContent warnings: Rated G. Mentions of abortion and transphobia.
Summary: Checking for updates on this year's three anti-furry bills in the US. None of them have progressed. The bill for calling animal control on furry students has a new sponsor. He wants to rewrite it. It would instead become a duplicate of his bill that says classrooms must display the Ten Commandments. The bill hasn't changed yet, so it's still an anti-furry bill.
I just checked for updates about the current status of all of the proposed laws (bills) in the US that are about furries or people who identify as animals. Anti-furry bills aren't based on anything that anyone in real life is doing: not participants of the furry fandom, not children pretending to be animals in the playground, and not people who really do identify as animals. Republicans say they wrote these bills because of an urban legend that schools provide litter boxes for students who identify as animals. According to fact-checkers Reuters and Snopes, no schools have ever done that. Republicans made up the urban legend and bills in parody of transgender students asking to use school restrooms. On the Otherkin News blog, we have previously written about all three of the anti-furry bills that are active, which you can read here and here. I searched on LegiScan to see if Republicans have introduced more anti-furry bills since then, but I didn’t find any new ones.
Two of the bills haven’t had any action since we posted about them before. Those are Mississippi HB 176 and Missouri HB 2678. They’re both still at 25% progression toward becoming laws. Their state government sites don’t say that hearings have been scheduled for them.
Oklahoma HB 3084 is also still at 25% progression, but some things have been happening with it. This is the bill where Republican Representative Justin Humphrey (he/him) proposed that students who are furries should be taken away from school by animal control. As of the 15th, the bill added a second sponsor, Republican Representative Jim Olsen (he/him). Olsen took Humphrey's place as the principal sponsor. Some other bills that Olsen sponsors are against abortion (OK HB 1537, HB 3013, and HJR 1046), and to allow children to not get vaccines (HB 2963 and HB 3249). Last year, Olsen sponsored some anti-transgender bills (HB 1011, HB 2177, and HB 2186).
On the 19th, Olsen proposed an amendment to HB 3084, the anti-furry bill. You can read his proposed amendment on Oklahoma’s site, or read it on a third-party site, LegiScan. This amendment would delete the entire text of the bill and replace it with an unrelated text. The text of this amendment is the same as another bill Olsen sponsored this month, HB 2962. It would no longer be about furry students at all. Instead, it would propose a law requiring public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. That would be unlikely to pass. In the US, public schools are government establishments, which prohibits them from displaying religious materials like that. I don't know what the advantage would be of duplicating the same text in two bills, or changing the topic of a bill so much. At this time, Olsen’s proposed amendment hasn’t been accepted. The bill’s current text is still what Humphrey originally wrote about furries.
On the 21st, the bill was withdrawn from the Rules committee. Then it was referred to the House Appropriations and Budget Education Subcommittee Committee. They haven't voted on it. I don’t see that they have scheduled a hearing for it. I'll keep watching for whatever happens next.
About the writer of this blog post: Orion Scribner (they/them) is a moderator on the Otherkin News blog.
Summary: Checking for updates on this year's three anti-furry bills in the US. None of them have progressed. The bill for calling animal control on furry students has a new sponsor. He wants to rewrite it. It would instead become a duplicate of his bill that says classrooms must display the Ten Commandments. The bill hasn't changed yet, so it's still an anti-furry bill.
I just checked for updates about the current status of all of the proposed laws (bills) in the US that are about furries or people who identify as animals. Anti-furry bills aren't based on anything that anyone in real life is doing: not participants of the furry fandom, not children pretending to be animals in the playground, and not people who really do identify as animals. Republicans say they wrote these bills because of an urban legend that schools provide litter boxes for students who identify as animals. According to fact-checkers Reuters and Snopes, no schools have ever done that. Republicans made up the urban legend and bills in parody of transgender students asking to use school restrooms. On the Otherkin News blog, we have previously written about all three of the anti-furry bills that are active, which you can read here and here. I searched on LegiScan to see if Republicans have introduced more anti-furry bills since then, but I didn’t find any new ones.
Two of the bills haven’t had any action since we posted about them before. Those are Mississippi HB 176 and Missouri HB 2678. They’re both still at 25% progression toward becoming laws. Their state government sites don’t say that hearings have been scheduled for them.
Oklahoma HB 3084 is also still at 25% progression, but some things have been happening with it. This is the bill where Republican Representative Justin Humphrey (he/him) proposed that students who are furries should be taken away from school by animal control. As of the 15th, the bill added a second sponsor, Republican Representative Jim Olsen (he/him). Olsen took Humphrey's place as the principal sponsor. Some other bills that Olsen sponsors are against abortion (OK HB 1537, HB 3013, and HJR 1046), and to allow children to not get vaccines (HB 2963 and HB 3249). Last year, Olsen sponsored some anti-transgender bills (HB 1011, HB 2177, and HB 2186).
On the 19th, Olsen proposed an amendment to HB 3084, the anti-furry bill. You can read his proposed amendment on Oklahoma’s site, or read it on a third-party site, LegiScan. This amendment would delete the entire text of the bill and replace it with an unrelated text. The text of this amendment is the same as another bill Olsen sponsored this month, HB 2962. It would no longer be about furry students at all. Instead, it would propose a law requiring public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. That would be unlikely to pass. In the US, public schools are government establishments, which prohibits them from displaying religious materials like that. I don't know what the advantage would be of duplicating the same text in two bills, or changing the topic of a bill so much. At this time, Olsen’s proposed amendment hasn’t been accepted. The bill’s current text is still what Humphrey originally wrote about furries.
On the 21st, the bill was withdrawn from the Rules committee. Then it was referred to the House Appropriations and Budget Education Subcommittee Committee. They haven't voted on it. I don’t see that they have scheduled a hearing for it. I'll keep watching for whatever happens next.
About the writer of this blog post: Orion Scribner (they/them) is a moderator on the Otherkin News blog.
no subject
Date: 2024-02-26 04:45 pm (UTC)Typically, the reason a representative would introduce an amendment of identical language to a different existing bill is to sneak in the language so that it will pass. Oftentimes, they do this near the end of a legislative session in the hopes that with so much going on, so much back and forth between chambers, etc. it gets voted on and implemented without anyone noticing it. It's a cheap legislative tactic they use to 1. get their language out more and 2. try to subvert the actual legislative process. Which, of course, they never actually admit to.
However, bills needs to fall under the "same subject" rule (at least in my state). That is, if an amendment is added that is unrelated to the original language, it usually fails and won't be adopted into the bill.
I used to work for my state's legislature and helped write and pass legislation.
no subject
Date: 2024-02-27 01:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-02-27 02:36 am (UTC)Maybe Olsen thought the amendment would be broadly the same subject as long as it's anything about schools.
Generally, why would the sole sponsor of a bill add someone as the new principal sponsor? What's the aim with that tactic, usually?
no subject
Date: 2024-02-27 03:03 am (UTC)What really matters though is who actually votes for it in committee and then when it goes to the House (or Senate) floor.
Hmm ...
Date: 2024-02-27 10:53 am (UTC)Sounds like a shell game to me. Politicians are often inundated with far more text than would be physically possible to read, so they tend to focus on titles and summaries. If the title stays the same, but the content changes, that's a type of fraud that could lead to people voting for something because they thought it was different.