New Hampshire establishes Parental Bill of Rights, universal school vouchers
CONCORD, N.H. – New Hampshire's governor Kelly Ayotte signed two bills Tuesday to give parents more control over their children's education.
House Bill 10, which cites the 'fundamental liberty' parents have to take care of their children, creates a 'Parental Bill of Rights'. It allows parents to opt their children out of health or sex education, and to exempt them from vaccinations for religious reasons.
NH House passes bill to ban cell phones in schools
The bill also allows parents to view their children's records and any educational material being taught to them, along with affirming the right of parents to choose to enroll their children in private, religious, or home schooling.
Senate Bill 295 revises the requirements for school vouchers in the state. The state's Education Freedom Account (EFA) program offers grants to families who are home-schooling or enrolling their children in private school. Previously, these grants were only available to families with an income of less than 350 percent of the federal poverty level, or $112,525 a year for a family of 4 as of this year. SB 295 removes this limit so that families of all events are able to apply for the grant.
Hassan, Noem lock horns over habeas corpus
Each bill passed in a near-party line vote. Democrats in New Hampshire's legislature were unanimous in their opposition to SB 295, with the House Democratic Office calling the bill a handout for millionaires that will cost the state over $50 million dollars. But New Hampshire education commissioner Frank Edelblut said the EFA program 'has already transformed lives by giving families access to the educational pathways that best fit their children's needs'.
HB 10 also prompted criticism from House Democrats, who warned that the bill could make it harder to protect vulnerable children, while Ayotte said she was proud to sign the bill, saying it ensured 'parents are the central voice in their children's education.'
New Hampshire bakery wins free speech case over a painting of doughnuts, pastries
The parental bill of rights will take effect July 1, and the changes to the EFA program will be effective August 9.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘No one' excited about Kamala Harris' potential gubernatorial run, say California donors
Former Vice President Kamala Harris' prospective gubernatorial bid is not striking up much excitement among Democratic fundraisers in California, Politico reported Friday. The outlet spoke to multiple Democratic Party donors in California to see how they felt about Harris possibly running for governor. So far, her interest in exploring a gubernatorial run in the state following her 2024 presidential election loss hasn't enthused many. "She still would probably lead, but honestly, no one is incredibly pumped," one Southern California fundraiser told Politico. Republicans Use Mamdani Bombshell Victory Over Cuomo As Ammunition To Blast Democrats As Extremists Harris, who lost November's election to President Donald Trump, is seriously considering a 2026 bid to succeed term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif. A source close to Harris told Fox News Digital in March that she has told allies she will decide by the end of summer on whether to launch a gubernatorial campaign. The two potential options for Harris are launching a gubernatorial run next year in her home state or seeking the presidency again in 2028. Extremely early polls in the next Democratic Party presidential nomination race — which are heavily reliant on name recognition at this point — indicate that the former vice president holds a significant lead over other potential White House contenders. Read On The Fox News App "In interviews, several major donors in the state told POLITICO they fear her reemergence as a candidate would re-open still-fresh wounds from her defeat in 2024," the outlet reported. "Some harbor lingering frustration about how her billion-dollar campaign juggernaut ended in debt and want assurances she would have a clear plan to win the governor's mansion." Top Trump Ally Teases Bid For California Governor If Harris Runs Mather Martin, a party fundraiser from San Francisco who worked for multiple Harris campaigns, told Politico, "There was more enthusiasm at first" for Harris' run. However, he added, "I think it waned a bit." Another donor who gave a six-figure donation to Harris' presidential campaign last year told the outlet they had found the implosion of her White House bid "traumatizing" and seemed reluctant to support her in the state. "Kamala just reminds you we are in this complete s--- storm. With Biden, we got bamboozled… I think she did the best she could in that situation, but obviously she knew about the cognitive decline too. I've written so many checks because I knew the Trump administration would be horrible, but we're living in a nightmare because of the Democrats. I'm furious at them, truly." The donor who declared that "no one is incredibly pumped" about Harris' run also shared that donors "realize it's just going to bring up the whole pathetic last presidential, which no one wants to hear about again. And then it's the whole 'Did you know Joe Biden?' thing." Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture Scott Drexel, a donor-adviser based in the San Francisco Bay Area, noted, "It's very fair to say there's not an overwhelming clamor" for Harris' gubernatorial run. He also pointed out, "It's very hard for there to be one if it's not 100 percent clear if she really wants to do it." "She's going to have to work for the nomination. Every day that passes, there's less of a sense of inevitability about her candidacy," Drexel said. Democratic donor and San Francisco trial lawyer Joe Cotchett told Politico, "She is talking to people around the state about whether she is going to run. If she does, she's going to have very difficult problems." Harris' team did not immediately reply to Fox News Digital's request for comment. Fox News Digital's Paul Steinhauser contributed to this article source: 'No one' excited about Kamala Harris' potential gubernatorial run, say California donors
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Bill to limit Trump's use of military against Iran fails to pass in U.S. Senate
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., introduced a resolution to curtail President Donald Trump's power to use force against Iran, which voted down along largely party lines. Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI . | License Photo June 28 (UPI) -- Senate Democrats have failed in their attempt to curtail President Donald Trump's ability to use the military against Iran without congressional approval. The vote Friday night was 53-47. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted with Democrats to approve the resolution, and Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat to vote no in invoking the War Powers Act of 1973. "If we are to ask our young men and women to fight, and potentially give their lives, then we in this body can at least muster the courage to debate if American military intervention is warranted," Paul who has advocated for restrained foreign policy, said on the Senate floor before the vote. "Abdicating our constitutional responsibility by allowing the executive branch to unilaterally introduce U.S. troops into wars is an affront to the Constitution, and the American people," he said. Fetterman, a staunch supporter of Israel, told reporters he voted against the resolution "simply because I would never want to restrict any future president, Republican or Democrat, to do this kind of military exercise." Days before Trump authorized B-2 stealth bombers to strike three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend, Sen. Tim Kaine had already introduced a resolution under the War Powers Act of 1973, which limits a president's power to enter an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. Israel first struck Iran on June 13 in an effort to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II. The War Powers Act was approved after President Richard Nixon expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia. Congress sought Nixon's power to continue expanding the war amid deep national displeasure about the war. Nixon vetoed the bill, which was overridden by a near unanimous vote of Congress. In this new situation, the White House would need approval from the House and Senate before U.S. forces could use further military action against Iran. "I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to be consigned to the decision of any one person," Kaine said on the Senate floor. "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." In 2020, eight Republicans joined Democrats in preventing Trump from acting against Iran during his first term in the White House. "I'll be voting with Republicans against the war power resolution. When we're talking about nuclear weapons, the president should have the discretion he needs to act," Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who supported the 2020 resolution, posted Thursday X. Susan Collins, a moderate from Maine, joined her Republican colleagues to vote against the bill. "I continue to believe that Congress has an important responsibility to authorize the sustained use of military force. That is not the situation we are facing now. The President has the authority to defend our nation and our troops around the world against the threat of attack," Collins wrote on X after the vote. In the House, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky had also introduced a war powers resolution but decided not to press for a vote amid the cease-fire in the Iran-Israel conflict, which announced Monday as his supports hit out against Massie. The Pro Trump PAC MAGA Kentucky released an ad titled "What Happened to Thomas Massie?" seeking his ouster from the House in 2026 after an interview about the resolution on Sunday morning.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Here's what's in Trump's "big, beautiful bill" as Senate eyes a vote
Washington — Senate Republicans released the latest version of President Trump's massive spending and tax bill late Friday as the GOP eyes an ambitious July 4 deadline to approve the centerpiece legislation of the president's second-term agenda. After the House narrowly approved the legislation that addresses the president's tax, defense, border and energy priorities last month, Senate Republicans have been putting their imprint on the bill. But GOP leaders are seeking a middle ground to appease the upper chamber without alienating House Republicans, who will have to approve the Senate's changes before the bill can head to the president's desk for his signature. At the center of the bill is an extension to Mr. Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, slated to sunset at year's end, seeking to make the cuts permanent in what has been a key priority for Senate Republicans. It also includes increased spending for border security, defense and energy production, which are offset in part by cuts to healthcare and nutrition programs. But along with different dynamics in the Senate, Republicans have also been contending with input from the Senate's rulekeeper, known as the parliamentarian. She has been weighing in on the bill's components to determine whether they may fly under the reconciliation process, which allows the GOP to move forward with the bill without any support from across the aisle. Here's what's in the Senate's updated version of the "big, beautiful bill:" Medicaid restrictions The legislation includes restrictions on Medicaid, which provides government-sponsored health care for low-income and disabled Americans. Like the House-passed bill, the legislation imposes work requirements for some able-bodied adults and more frequent eligibility checks. But the Senate parliamentarian determined that a measure cutting federal funds to states that use Medicaid infrastructure to provide health care coverage to undocumented immigrants, along with banning Medicaid from covering gender transition services, isn't in compliance with Senate rules. The parliamentarian also weighed in on the provider tax, which states use to help fund their portion of Medicaid costs, in a blow to the Senate GOP's initial plan. Senate Republicans have proposed steeper cuts to Medicaid funding, in part by incrementally lowering provider taxes from 6% to 3.5% by 2032. The timeline is delayed by one year from the Senate GOP's initial proposal, after the issue became one of the bill's sticking points in the Senate in recent weeks. It's a departure from the House-passed bill, which sought to lower federal costs by freezing states' provider taxes at current rates and prohibiting them from establishing new provider taxes. The bill also includes a rural hospital stabilization fund after some GOP senators expressed concern over how rural hospitals could be impacted by the Medicaid restrictions, allocating $25 billion for rural hospitals over the same period that the provider taxes would be lowered. Increasing the state and local tax deduction, or SALT The package also includes an increase to the cap on the state and local tax deduction, raising it from $10,000 to $40,000. After five years, it would return to $10,000, a departure from the House-passed bill. The issue was a major sticking point in the House, where blue-state Republicans threatened to withhold their support without the increase to the deduction. But with no Republicans hailing from blue states in the Senate, the upper chamber has been contending with its own dynamics. Before the rule, taxpayers could deduct all their state and local taxes from their federal taxes, which some policymakers have said mainly benefits wealthy homeowners in states with high taxes, such as New York and California. But advocates for increasing the caps argue that the $10,000 cap is increasingly impacting middle-class homeowners who live in regions where property taxes are rising. Restrictions on food stamps The Senate bill still shifts the costs of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, or food stamps, to some states. The program is currently fully funded by the federal government. The federal government would continue to fully fund the benefits for states that have an error payment rate below 6%, beginning in 2028. States with error rates above 6% would be on the hook for 5% to 15% of the costs. States are also given some flexibility in calculating their share. However, Alaska and Hawaii would receive temporary exemptions from the cost-sharing requirement. Both states would receive a two-year reprieve if the Department of Agriculture determines they are "actively implementing a corrective action plan." The package also aligns with the House version on age requirements for able-bodied adults to qualify for SNAP benefits. Currently, in order to qualify, able-bodied adults between 18-54 must meet work requirements. Both the Senate and House bills would update the age requirement to 18-64, with some exemptions for parents. Alaska and Hawaii could also receive waivers for the work requirements if it's determined that they're making a "good faith effort" to comply. Addressing the debt limit The legislation would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, going beyond the $4 trillion outlined in the House-passed bill, as Congress faces a deadline to address the debt limit later this summer. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has urged Congress to address the debt limit by mid-July, outlining that the U.S. could be unable to pay its bills as early as August, when Congress is on recess. By addressing the debt ceiling as part of the larger package, Republicans in Congress are aiming to bypass negotiating with Democrats on the issue. Unlike most other legislation in the Senate, the budget reconciliation process that governs the package requires a simple majority, rather than the 60-vote threshold to move forward with a bill. Asylum fee The legislation also includes a minimum $100 fee for those seeking asylum, down from the $1,000 fee outlined in the House bill. The Senate parliamentarian ruled out the $1,000 fee for anyone applying for asylum and other fees on diversity immigrant visas. AI moratorium A revised proposal on a 10-year moratorium on state regulations on artificial intelligence also made it into the Senate bill. The updated provision provides federal aid to states as long as they do not regulate AI. According to Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee, the parliamentarian determined that the provision is in compliance "as long as the conditions only apply to the new $500 million provided by the reconciliation bill." Public lands The Senate version would order the sale of up to 0.5% of public lands in 11 states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming. Eligible lands would have to be located within 5 miles of a population center and the sale of federally protected lands is prohibited. Supporters of the provision say it would address the housing availability and affordability crisis.
