“After a sometimes graphic debate, Texas House advances bill limiting kids’ access to sexually explicit books in libraries” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

A debate in the Texas House over whether to limit children’s access to books with sexually explicit material in libraries turned heated and philosophical Friday: What’s the definition of sexual conduct? How should teens learn about sex? Are classics like The Bluest Eye and Madame Bovary explicit?

“This is a simple bill intended to protect our Texas kids,” Rep. Daniel Alders, R-Tyler and author of House Bill 3225, said on Friday. “This bill addresses a real issue that we have seen in our public libraries across the state, and it does so in a way that is reasonable as well as effective. It’s not a complicated bill. It shouldn’t be controversial.”

Nearly two hours of debate following the bill’s layout stood to differ.

Democrats lined up one after another, offering numerous amendments and rebuttals to argue that the bill was too sweeping and would restrict teenagers from accessing books that could help them make sense of typical teenage tribulations — from puberty and relationships to sex and masturbation.

“You are conflating sexually explicit or dangerous conduct with basic health information for puberty, which hits people in their early teen years,” Rep. Ann Johnson, D-Houston, said in opposition to the proposal.

House Bill 3225 would require public libraries to require parental consent for anyone under 18 to check out books deemed to contain “sexually explicit” material. The bill defines such material as depicting “sexual conduct,” which includes “actual or simulated sexual intercourse,” “masturbation,” and “sado-masochistic abuse.”

The bill allows for a civil penalty up to $10,000 to be imposed on libraries that do not comply, and it tasks the Texas State Library and Archives Commission with establishing guidelines for libraries to annually review their collections.

The House preliminarily passed the bill, 82 to 53, on a largely party line vote. The measure is part of a broader effort by state leaders to more tightly control the books put in public libraries and remove sexually explicit literature. Critics have argued the efforts target books that explore themes of gender and sexuality, and that center LGBTQ characters and people of color.

After one more vote in the House, usually a formality, the bill will move on to the Senate.

Books that could fall under the bill’s definition of “sexually explicit” include classics and common high school reading including Wuthering Heights, The Lord of the Rings, As I Lay Dying and Catch-22, Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Driftwood, said. (The bill maintains an exception for “religious materials.”)

She emphasized the value of teens reading and engaging with stories that covered topics like puberty and sex, and argued that public libraries were a preferable site to social media for teens to learn about those topics.

“It is actually incredibly valuable for our young people to have the opportunity to enter the lives and experiences of others, to figure out how they feel about some of these things,” Zwiener said. “Reading a book about another 16-year-old who is making a decision about whether or not to have sex helps that minor who’s reading that book make a good decision.”

She offered an amendment to lower the bill’s age restrictions to apply only to those under 13 years old. Lawmakers rejected the amendment, 86 to 58.

“We all know that the five-year-old and the 17-year-old are very different,” Zwiener said. “Teenagers have a different experience. They need access to different information. Being minors does not prevent them from potentially ending up in a sexual situation.”

Republicans said that the bill would not regulate the kinds of information young people could access, and simply seeks to give that ability to parents. More importantly, they argued, the bill would protect children from unwittingly encountering explicit material.

“It’s important that we protect our kids in the state of Texas and ensure that they can access the books in their public library for their benefit, for their good,” Alders said, “and are not confronted unknowingly with material that is going to potentially traumatize them for the rest of their life.”

Democrats said they agreed that children should be protected from pornographic material, and noted that it is already illegal to share pornography with minors.

But the bill, they argued, was misguided and overly broad. And they worried it could functionally lead public libraries to deny teens access to any book outside the children’s section.

“The over sexualization of children is a problem — but it ain’t happening in your public libraries,” Johnson said, adding that she felt like she was in the movie, “Footloose.”

Libraries are “a healthy place of education,” she said. “And for all these parents that always say, ‘I don’t want my kid to get access to this information,’ — I promise you, they are getting access to the information. And the ones you should not be afraid of are the books that are in your public library.”

The debate itself grew personal and graphic at times, with Johnson pressing Alders on the definitions of “sexual bestiality” and “sado-masochistic abuse,” and on when he, as a teenage boy decades ago, first learned about masturbation.

“Masturbation. Do we know about it?” Johnson said. Alders denied that it was a tenant of standard health education.

“Masturbation is not basic teenage health? Do you really, as a young man, want to describe to me when you had to learn about that?” Johnson said. “I would bet, at some point, you as a young man needed to have the discussion with somebody about what masturbation meant.”

“That’s not a question I expected to be asked on the House floor,” Alders said.

Zwiener, advocating for her amendment lowering the age restriction to those under 13, shared that she was sexually assaulted at 17 years old — and reflected on the difference a book mirroring her experience could have made.

“The right book might have helped me figure out that I didn’t make a mistake — that somebody wronged me — much earlier,” she said. She highlighted a scene in The Perks of Being A Wallflower, a young adult novel, in which a young man witnesses a sexual assault at a party and understands that something wrong is happening.

“That’s a scene that encourages our teenagers to intervene if they see sexual assault occurring,” she said. “It is a scene that encourages teenagers to be mindful of consent when they’re in situations with each other, and it’s a scene that helps victims of sexual assault understand it’s not their fault. Our teenagers should have access to books that help them learn those lessons, regardless of whether or not their parent will sign a permission slip.”

First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/09/texas-house-children-library-explicit-material/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

The post Texas House moves to limit kids’ access to sexually explicit library books appeared first on feeds.texastribune.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

The article presents a balanced view of a contentious political issue involving a bill to restrict access to sexually explicit material in Texas public libraries. It fairly highlights arguments from both Republican supporters emphasizing child protection and parental control, and Democratic opponents concerned about overreach and the importance of access to educational material for teens. The coverage appears neutral, providing context and direct quotes from both sides without evident editorializing or a slant toward either viewpoint.

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security reported that Omar Gallardo-Rodriguez, previously deported multiple times and convicted of crimes in Texas, and his partner Denisse Parra-Vargas were stopped near an Austin school for expired tags. Following the stop, Parra-Vargas was detained by ICE, and she chose to be deported to Mexico with their three children, including two U.S.-born minors. Parra-Vargas had previously sought asylum in 2016, later denied, and failed to appear before an immigration judge, resulting in a removal order. ICE used private contractors to transport the family, who are now in Mexico, sparking criticism over the treatment and rapid deportation of U.S. citizen children without clear legal protections.

Read the full article

The post DHS says patriarch of Austin family ICE sent to Mexico was deported three times before appeared first on www.kxan.com

‘

“John Cornyn says tax and spending bill must reimburse Texas $11 billion for border security” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Texas Republicans in Congress are ramping up their requests for the federal government to reimburse Texas for years of state spending on border security.

Sen. John Cornyn told The Texas Tribune that any amount less than $11.1 billion for Governor Greg Abbott’s “Operation Lone Star” would be “unacceptable.”

The Senator said he is not willing to vote for a spending package – also known as the budget reconciliation bill – that does not include reimbursement for Texas.

“I’ve seen some other numbers thrown around, but anything less than full compensation is unacceptable,” Cornyn said.

Abbott started Operation Lone Star in 2021 with a surge of state resources to the southern border as he accused the Biden administration of not doing enough to enforce immigration laws and prevent border crossings.

Since the start of the second Trump administration, Abbott and Texas Republicans in Congress have pressured President Donald Trump and congressional leaders to reimburse the state for its border security operation.

“We didn’t give it, we loaned it, they need to pay us back,” Rep. Roger Williams, R-Willow Park, told The Tribune. “We did everything the federal government should have done, so we need to get the money.”

Multiple members said they are cautiously optimistic that reimbursement would be included in the budget reconciliation package, which is currently being drafted in the House of Representatives. The package will be a large collection of bills related to federal spending and taxes created to match the budget outline Congress passed last month, which promised significant cuts.

Many of the 27 Texas Republicans in Congress have the ability to strongly influence the budgeting process. This includes Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, who chairs the House Budget Committee, which is tasked with combining the budget recommendations from House committees into one bill.

Arrington told The Tribune on Thursday that the amount that may be reimbursed to Texas is undetermined, but that the “commitment is there,” from Trump and Republican leadership to compensate the state.

“I just believe that when the ink is dry on the final product that that will be in the mix,” Arrington said.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, listed reimbursing Texas as one of his five reforms he wants included in budget reconciliation in a letter to House leadership. Roy, a member of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, has in the past held out on supporting major legislation — including last month’s budget vote — to persuade leadership to make promises or alter a bill.

Roy told The Tribune that reimbursing Texas is one of many items he is pushing for, and one that he believes will be included in the final bill.

“What was the benefit of joining the union if the union isn’t going to defend the country?” Roy said.

Roy, like many Republican members, has pushed for sharp cuts to federal spending. But the congressman doesn’t view reimbursing Texas for Operation Lone Star as contradictory to this wider goal.

“We already spent it when it was the federal government’s job,” Roy, a member of the House’s budget and judiciary committees, said.

Roy said his other reconciliation priorities include an overhaul of Medicaid, repealing the Inflation Reduction Act and extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. His main focus, he added, is making sure the “math adds up” in the final bill and he is hesitant to draw any red lines.

Within the Judiciary Committee’s budget recommendations is nearly $800 million set aside for the reimbursement for state and local participation in supporting immigration enforcement and decreasing criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations and human trafficking. While Texas would have a claim to this reimbursement, the total amount is well below the $11 billion requested by Texas Republicans and would likely be split with other states.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, is the vice-chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, which did not include refunding Texas in its portion of the budget bill. McCaul said more details need to be worked out regarding how to repay other states that funded border security efforts.

“Texas had to stand up and do the federal government’s job when they weren’t doing it,” McCaul said. “I think it’s very appropriate that we reimburse the state and the other states that helped out as well.”

McCaul said that he wants the reimbursement of Texas to be added to the final bill – adding that the state deserves the money.

“It’s probably one of those things you don’t want to call a lot of attention to,“ McCaul said in an interview. “Sometimes it’s better to put something in and not make a lot of fanfare about it until afterwards.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said this week that he wants the House to pass the package by Memorial Day.

First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/09/operation-lone-star-billions-reimbursement-john-cornyn/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

The post Cornyn won’t support a spending bill without $11 billion for Texas appeared first on feeds.texastribune.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article discusses Texas Republicans’ push for federal reimbursement for the state’s border security spending, specifically in relation to Governor Greg Abbott’s “Operation Lone Star.” The tone of the article reflects the perspectives of Texas Republican officials, including Senators John Cornyn and members of the House of Representatives such as Chip Roy and Roger Williams, who emphasize the state’s role in border security and seek compensation from the federal government. The content’s focus on the Republican Party’s demands and framing of border security as a federal responsibility positions the article with a Center-Right lean, aligning with conservative political views on immigration and state rights.