GOP Senate Hopeful: Bullying Bill Unconstitutional Because Kids Don’t Know They’re Gay
Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate told supporters that a proposed anti-bullying bill is unconstitutional because children who haven’t reached puberty don’t know if they’re gay, and added the bill could violate the free-speech rights of bullies, and criminalize the act of teasing — which, she suggested, all kids do. Wilson was speaking about U.S. Senator Al Franken’s anti-bullying bill, the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity protections to federal civil rights laws for students in public schools. Wilson, a former U.S. Congresswoman, appeared physically uncomfortable even discussing aspects of anti-gay bullying or homosexuality in general, as evidenced in the video, below.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Wb2AklsIVMk%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US
“It is an act that would criminalize harassment or bullying in schools of children who are gay or who — it criminalizes bullying. It basically makes federal funding dependent on school board policies that will not tolerate bullying of people based on their sexual orientation or, you know, even when kids are below puberty,” Wilson wrongly told the audience. Amazingly, also, Wilson is under the false impression that children who have not reached puberty are not able to determine if they are LGBT.
“I mean if somebody gets bullied for having, gosh a low voice — that’s never happened to me,” Wilson continued. “But I think one of the things why I don’t support the act is because I think it’s misplaced. They are things I’m willing to tolerate that I’m not willing to approve.”
Clearly, Wilson is stating she is willing to “tolerate” homosexuality, but is not willing to “approve” of it — nor is she willing to approve of legislation that would help protect LGBT students, who are exponentially more likely to attempt suicide, to be kicked out of their homes, and to experience bullying than their heterosexual peers — thanks in no small part to the environment anti-LGBT lawmakers and religious leaders create. In other words, Heather Wilson seems to think that LGBT students actually deserve the bullying they get.
“With respect to this particular agenda we have to recognize as parents that children tease each other because you’re short or you’re tall or you’re a redhead or because you’re ugly or because you’re smart or because you’re dumb or all kinds of differences and as parents we have to deal with that and strengthen our children to be comfortable with themselves and also to show empathy and acceptance towards others, but that particular act is so broad it would actually punish children and say that it’s prohibited to express an opinion with respect to homosexuality in the schools. I just think that’s wrong and it’s a violation of the First Amendment.”
Heather Wilson, a Rhodes Scholar, is surprisingly uninformed on a matter this simple.
Amanda Terkel at The Huffington Post this afternoon offered an excellent analysis of Wilson’s speech:
Wilson’s characterization of SB 555 is inaccurate in several ways. First of all, it would not “criminalize” teasing.
“If you create a crime [in a law], you need to put words in the law like ‘sentencing’ or ‘imprisoned,'” explained a Senate staffer who declined to be named to speak openly. “[The law] is just not creating any crimes. That’s just incorrect.”
It’s also not banning teasing between students. It prohibits discrimination by public schools, and it makes sure a school responds to cases of pervasive harassment that interfere with a child’s education.
SB 555 is modeled on existing civil rights laws — such as Title VI and Title IX — that already prohibit discrimination based on certain classifications. This legislation would simply extend those protections to discrimination that occurs based on sexual orientation and gender identity, so it seems unlikely that Franken’s bill would count as unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment. In fact, to safeguard against such a charge, Section 9(b) of SB 555 says, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter legal standards regarding, or affect the rights available to individuals or groups under…the First Amendment.”
Unsurprisingly, Wilson’s behavior when she was a U.S. Congresswoman also showed her lack of understand and concern for LGBT citizens.
“On February 27, 2005, Maestas and companion Joshua Stockham were beaten by six young men who screamed anti-gay epithets at them. The attackers followed Maestas and friends from the restaurant where the encounter began. The six young men who attacked Maestas and Stockham were the first prosecuted under New Mexico’s new hate crimes law,” the LGBT Hate Crimes Project reported.
Unconscious, Maestas was taken to St. Vincent Regional Medical Center in Santa Fe. Maestas suffered a broken nose and a concussion. He was kicked so hard that the food in his stomach came up into his throat, and stomach acid burned his lungs. He had also aspirated his own blood, and required the help of a respirator to breath.
On March 5, 300 people gathered at a vigil in support of Maestas. The vigil was attended by Police Chief Beverly Lennen and Governor Bill Richardson. During his remarks Richardson said, “What happened to James Maestas should never happen anywhere, on any planet. We as a society have got to find ways to end hatred.â€
Wilson was one  of the few elected officials who not only did not attend the vigil, but did not make any public comments, nor does she support hate crimes legislation.
Unsurprisingly, in 2006, both the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) gave Wilson a 0% rating.
Perhaps Heather Wilson should sit down with the mother of Kenneth Weishuhn, Jr., the 14-year old who died by suicide this weekend because he was bullied by classmates and received death threats on his cell phone and social media sites.
Â
Hat tip: American Bridge
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
|
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
