(The Center Square) – The Texas House has passed two bills related to gender and biological sex.

One, the Women’s Bill of Rights, codifies sex-based terms. The other requires insurance companies to provide coverage for those experiencing adverse effects from gender transition surgeries. Both passed along party lines with strong Democrat opposition.

State Rep. Ellen Troxclair, R-Lakeway, filed HB 229, the Women’s Bill of Rights, which “defines what a woman is, recognizing biological reality,” she said. With its passage, “Texas is protecting safety, privacy, & rights of women & girls across our state.”

The bill is expected to pass the Texas Senate and be signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott.

It amends state government code to define the following terms:

• “boy” means a child of the male sex;
• “father” means a parent of the male sex;
• “female” and “woman” mean an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova;
• “girl” means a child of the female sex;
• “male” and “man” mean an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female;
• “mother” means a parent of the female sex; and
• “sex” means an individual’s biological sex, either male or female.

The bill establishes that males and females “possess unique immutable biological differences that manifest prior to birth and increase as individuals age and experience puberty; biological differences between the sexes mean that only females are able to get pregnant, give birth, and breastfeed children and that males are, on average, bigger, stronger, and faster than females; biological differences between the sexes leave females more physically vulnerable than males to specific forms of violence, including sexual violence; females have historically suffered discrimination in education, athletics, and employment; biological differences between the sexes are enduring and may, in some circumstances, warrant the creation of separate social, educational, athletic, or other spaces in order to ensure individuals’ safety and allow members of each sex to succeed and thrive.”

The bill analysis points out that “inconsistencies in court rulings and policy initiatives” about sex-based definitions have led to “endangerment of single-sex spaces and resources, necessitating clarification of certain terms.” It also clarifies that when defining biological sex, “‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or ‘identical’ and separate is not inherently unequal.” It also cites legitimate reasons to distinguish between two biological sexes including athletics, prisons and correctional facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms, among others.

When discussing the need to pass it on the House floor, Troxclair said, “For generations, our laws have recognized that women are distinct from men. This distinction is not just scientific. It’s legal, practical, and critical to protecting the rights, safety, and opportunities of women and girls across the state.

“We’re a state that believes in truth, and we’re a state that honors the hard-won achievements of women … 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.”

The 58 Democrats who voted against defining what a woman is were: Allen; Anchía; Bernal; Bhojani; Bowers; Bryant; Bucy; Campos; Canales; Cole; Collier; Cortez; Davis, A.; Davis, Y.; Dutton; Gámez; Garcia Hernandez; Garcia, J.; Garcia, L.; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Hernandez; Hinojosa; Howard; Johnson; Jones, J.; Jones, V.; Lalani; Longoria; Lopez, R.; Manuel; Martinez Fischer; Meza; Moody; Morales Shaw; Morales, C.; Morales, E.; Muñoz; Ordaz; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Plesa; Raymond; Reynolds; Rodríguez Ramos; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Talarico; Thompson; Turner; Vo; Walle; Ward Johnson; Wu; Zwiener.

The second bill that passed the House along party lines was SB 1257, filed by state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, after passing the Texas Senate last month.

It requires health insurance companies to provide coverage for individuals dealing with adverse effects from gender transition procedures or who decide to “detransition.” State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, filed companion legislation, HB 778.

The bill is a “necessary and urgent legislative measure that seeks to ensure equitable healthcare coverage for individuals who have undergone gender transition procedures,” the bill analysis explains. Currently, health benefit plans in Texas provide extensive coverage for gender transition treatments, including surgeries, hormone therapies, and other medical interventions, but don’t provide coverage for adverse effects, medical complications, function recovery and reconstruction procedures resulting from the treatments. The bill fixes “a critical gap” by mandating that health insurance plans that provide transition-related coverage includes coverage for “follow-up care, adverse effect management, and potential reconstruction treatments.”

A “growing number of individuals who experience complications or regret their transition, … require extensive medical care to manage or reverse the effects of previous treatments” but are frequently denied insurance coverage, the analysis explains. As a result, they face “insurmountable out-of-pocket expenses, … significant health risks, including hormone imbalances, surgical complications, and psychological distress.”

The bill heads to the governor for his signature.

(The Center Square) − Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed an executive order on Monday that attempts to shield the state’s colleges and universities from penalties if they directly facilitate compensation to student-athletes for their name, image, and likeness rights, a move that places Louisiana among the growing list of states taking unilateral action amid national uncertainty over how NIL should be regulated.

The order, effective immediately, comes as the NCAA awaits court approval of a $2.75 billion federal settlement in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, which would allow schools to directly compensate athletes for NIL-related activities.

In the meantime, a patchwork of state laws and a lack of federal guidance have left schools navigating a legal gray area.

“Louisiana is proud to be home to student-athletes who consistently compete and win at the highest levels of college athletics,” Landry said in a statement. “As national policies and developments continue to reshape the landscape of college sports, this executive order is about fairness — for our Louisiana students, our schools, and our athletes.”

The order protects Louisiana colleges from “adverse action” by the NCAA, athletic conferences or other governing bodies if they facilitate or offer NIL compensation. However, it also prohibits the use of state-allocated funds for such payments.

The move won praise from higher education athletic leaders.

“This will afford all higher education institutions in the state of Louisiana the ability to remain nimble and at the forefront of the ever-changing college athletics landscape,” said LSU Athletic Director Scott Woodward.

Southern University’s athletic director, Roman Banks, echoed the sentiment. “I want to thank Governor Landry for the leadership he has demonstrated… by providing stability in the current landscape of collegiate sports.”

The executive order will remain in place until either federal NIL legislation is enacted or the proposed NIL settlement becomes effective.

Landry’s action follows a broader push in the state to support student-athletes in the NIL space. A bill pre-filed for the 2025 legislative session — House Bill 166, sponsored by Rep. Dixon McMakin, R-East Baton Rouge — would exempt NIL income from state taxes for student-athletes enrolled in Louisiana colleges, beginning in 2026.

“We want to try to level the playing field and keep our best and brightest in our state,” McMakin said in an earlier interview, noting that other Southern states like Alabama, Texas and Georgia are advancing similar tax incentives.

Under his proposal, athletes could deduct NIL income from state taxes, provided the money isn’t tied to endorsements involving alcohol, tobacco, gambling or other restricted categories.

(The Center Square) — An enforcement operation involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security components, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Tennessee Highway Patrol resulted in 196 arrests, ICE said Tuesday.

Ninety-six of those arrested had prior criminal convictions and pending criminal charges, the agency said. Those with criminal records included an individual who had been removed from the U.S. six times and had convictions for felony domestic assault and sex with a minor. Others had convictions for rape, drug possession and reckless aggravated assault, the agency said.

Another 31 had previously been removed from the U.S. because they were here illegally. 

“This enforcement effort underscores ICE’s unwavering commitment to public safety and the rule of law. Our officers are focused on identifying and removing individuals who pose a threat to the safety and security of Tennessee residents,” said acting ERO New Orleans Field Office Director Brian Acuna. “During the operation I witnessed the men and women of the Tennessee Highway Patrol carry out significant public safety efforts. The New Orleans Field Office is grateful for their support.”

The operation was criticized by some, including Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell. He announced a new fund on May 5, two days after the initial arrest by ICE, that would help immigrants as part of a partnership with Metro Nashville and the Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee.

“What’s clear today is that people who do not share our values of safety and community have the authority to cause deep community harm,” O’Connell said. “Their approach is not our understanding of what a Nashville for All of Us looks like, and we’re grateful to our community partners who make all of our residents feel welcome.”

The Department of Homeland Security posted a snippet of O’Connell’s speech on its X page.

“Despite the success of this enforcement operation, the Nashville Mayor has claimed these operations were done by ‘people who do not share our values of safety,'” the department said in the post.