Dear Neighbor,
Greetings from the House, where this week issues related to girls’ sports have been front and center.
Let’s start with Tuesday, when House Democrats blocked from passage of the Preserving Girls Sports Act (H.F. 12) even though polls show around 80 percent of people agree with the bill’s position. By doing so, Democrats put female athletes at risk by undermining safe and fair competition for girls in school-sanctioned athletics.
Then there was Thursday, when the House Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing for a House Republican bill (H.F. 1342) exempting women's athletics from the Human Rights Act’s anti-discrimination provisions regarding gender identity.
Let’s back up a moment: Sex has been a protected class in the Minnesota Human Rights Act since 1967. The purpose of protecting biological sex from discrimination was to ensure that members of the female sex could access the same rights, privileges, and opportunities as members of the male sex. For over 50 years, the law remained silent on gender identity.
Never, throughout the history of anti-discrimination law, have we ever had to protect classes that directly contradict each other until we introduced gender identity as defined by those who came up with it and continue to promote it today. It was not until 2024 that this legislature – and a Democrat trifecta – chose to introduce “gender identity” as a protected class under the Human Rights Act, making this bill necessary.
This legislative action was, in effect, a confession that biological sex and gender identity are not the same thing. Otherwise, why would a separate classification be necessary? The problem is that adding anti-discrimination protections for gender identity created a direct conflict with the long-standing protection for biological sex.
Here’s the thing: Gender identity is a category that has nothing whatsoever to do with the biological distinction of sex, and that contributes to all these arguments we’ve been hearing this week. People on both sides of the aisle use the terms “men,” “women,” “boys,” and “girls,” but we've been talking past each other because we're not actually talking about the same thing.
To be sure, we’re using the same words, but we’re not talking about the same thing. That’s because when we talk about it as Republicans, were referring to the distinction between the female sex and the male sex. When Democrats are talking about it, they’re referring to an arbitrary, subjective distinction of gender identity and expression.
Those two categories obviously do not align and, in fact, directly conflict with each other. If we provide anti-discrimination protections for sex – the male sex or the female sex – but also say you can’t discriminate against somebody for their gender identity and expression, an inherent and inevitable conflict is constructed. Somebody who wants to discriminate against the female sex can do so simply by claiming to be male, even though they're not.
That’s exactly what we're seeing happening in women’s athletics.
I am not naïve enough to expect that we will all come to a shared agreement on this policy. But I do hope we can at least agree on the underlying facts – on the basic, indisputable reality that justifies this bill. Are we going to protect the female sex from discrimination in women’s athletics or not? Those are the only two binary choices, and it is indeed a binary choice.
I choose to stand with the female sex rather than the arbitrary claims of somebody who's expressing themselves. Thank you to Rep. Zeleznikar for authoring H.F. 1342 and to Rep. Scott for authoring H.F. 12 to protect the female sex in women’s athletics.
Public Safety bill hearings
The Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee this week conducted hearings for three separate bills I have authored this session. Here’s a snapshot:
- H.F. 767 increases penalties for politically motivated arson. This is in response to three separate conservative offices being targeted by arsonists last year, but rightfully applies to any political arson attacks
- H.F. 764 removes the statute of limitations for arson. Statutes of limitations aim to protect defendants from being charged on faulty evidence. That said, prosecution of the most serious crimes may be warranted regardless of how much time has passed. This should include arson.
- H.F. 765 increases the penalties for offenders who commit three violent crimes. Homicides and carjackings are up around the Twin Cities with soft-on-crime policies contributing to some extent. We need to hold repeat offenders accountable for their actions and this bill is a step toward getting chronic offenders off the streets.
The hearings went well and each bill remains viable for passage.
Economic forecast
A new economic forecast from Minnesota Management & Budget issued Thursday reveals:
- There is a $456 million projected balance for 2026-27, down $160 million from previous estimates.
- The projected general fund shortfall for the 2028-29 biennium is now $6 billion – $852 million worse than November estimates and nearly a state-record deficit.
- State spending growth outpaces revenue growth through projections for fiscal year 2029.
This is what the Democrats’ reckless spending and unnecessary tax increases get you. They shouldn’t have gone on a spending spree.
You didn’t need to be Nostradamus to see this coming. All you needed was a grasp of basic math to understand that blowing a historic surplus to increase the state budget by 40 percent isn’t going to add up on the bottom line.
Good thing House Republicans broke up the Democrats’ stranglehold they had on Minnesotans and our state government the last two years so we can get our state back on track.
Sincerely,
Walter