Texas House votes to build statue of woman with unborn child on Capitol grounds
Senate Concurrent Resolution 19 was authored by Sen. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, and passed the House by a vote of 98-44. Rep. Once Gov. Greg Abbott signs off on the resolution, it goes to the State Preservation Board, which will consider the plan for the monument's construction.
Caroline Harris Davila, R-Round Rock, who sponsored the resolution, spoke in support of the monument. She said the statue will provide Texans with 'a public space to reflect on the beauty and sanctity of the love of a mother for her child.'
'The monument would serve as a peaceful space for families to honor motherhood, the strength of women, and the hope and beauty of human life,' Harris Davila said.
Harris Davila also emphasized that the monument will not depict a uterus or any female reproductive organs that might sexualize the statue. According to her, it will be funded entirely through private donations, not public money.
The statue will be installed on the grounds of the Capitol complex.
Later this week, the House is expected to vote on Senate Bill 31, known as the 'Life of the Mother Act.' The bill aims to clarify when doctors in Texas can legally perform abortions to save a woman's life. For example, it defines what constitutes a medical emergency and explicitly permits doctors to remove fetal remains after a miscarriage.
However, critics argue that the bill still falls short of adequately protecting women's health. Since Texas banned nearly all abortions following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, at least three women have died and dozens have been denied necessary medical care.
Disclosure: State Preservation Board has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
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!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can't save Olympic sports through EO, but could do this
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Kathy Hochul open to redistricting New York amid Trump push for Republican seats
NEW YORK — Gov. Kathy Hochul on Thursday said she's open to congressional redistricting in New York to boost Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections amid President Trump's push to redraw red states like Texas to help Republicans keep control of the House. With Trump aiming to squeeze at least five more GOP seats in the Lone Star State, Hochul said Democrats should be open to hitting back by redrawing New York's 26 districts to benefit Team Blue. 'All's fair in love and war' Hochul said during an unrelated event in her home town of Buffalo. 'If there's other states violating the rules and are trying to give themselves an advantage, all I'll say is, I'm going to look at it closely.' Hochul said she's determined to respond in kind if Republicans game the system in red states in an effort to cling to power in what is looming as a tough political climate in 2026. 'I'm not surprised that they're trying to break the rules to get an advantage,' Hochul added. 'But that's undemocratic, and not only are we calling them out, we're also going to see what our options are.' Hochul said she would confer with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic House minority leader, about a path forward on redistricting in New York, where Democrats now hold 19 seats and Republicans have seven. Republicans hold the House by a slim seven-vote margin, and history says parties of the sitting president usually lose more seats than that in a midterm after winning election. Jeffries said this week that Democrats in New York and other blue states should consider all options if Trump and Republicans choose the political nuclear option by ripping up the Texas map in the middle of the decade. 'Every single state is going to have to do the same thing because Republicans are desperate,' Jeffries told reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday. Redistricting in New York, California and several other Democratic states would be a significantly tougher lift legally and maybe politically than in Texas or other red states. New York's constitution only allows for redistricting to take place once a decade and it's unclear how or if Democrats could get around that provision. The liberal-led state's highest court would have to weigh in on any effort to redraw the districts. If Democrats could get over legal hurdles, they could potentially use their supermajorities in the state Assembly and Senate to bulldoze the suggestions of a bipartisan, independent redistricting committee. Election analysts believe New York maps could be tweaked to give Democrats the upper hand in at least 22 or 23 districts, a gain of three or four seats compared to the current map. The most obvious tweaks would involve eliminating Rep. Nicole Malliotakis' edge in her Staten Island-based district by including deep-blue parts of Brooklyn; redrawing Long Island to give Democrats an advantage in Rep. Nick LaLota's East End district; and rejiggering the Westchester County-based swing district represented by Rep. Mike Lawler to make it impossible for him to win reelection. A creative redrawing of far upstate districts could solidify Rep. Josh Riley's hold on his battleground NY-19 district in the Catskills and perhaps give Democrats a chance to oust Rep. Claudia Tenney by packing Republicans into neighboring red districts. Texas Republicans, who control the entire state government as well as a conservative-dominated court system, are holding a special legislative session to consider re-divvying up the state's 38 districts, which are now split 25-12 in favor of Republicans, with one deep-blue Houston seat vacant. The GOP is also hoping to redraw Ohio to pick up three seats and have discussed moves to redraw maps in Indiana and Missouri too. California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is vowing to hit back by seeking to divide up the heavily Democratic Golden State to win a handful more seats. _____
