Market
Primary Argument Against H.R. 28 in Senate Debates
2
28•Title IX•Republican•Greg Steube•Florida•Democrats•Vicente Gonzalez•Henry Cuellar•Texas•Republicans•Mike Johnson•Democratic•Child Predator Empowerment Act•Senate
Resolution / Starting Odds
Invasion of privacy concerns • 25%
Discrimination against transgender individuals • 25%
Unconstitutional claims • 25%
Other • 25%
Senate debate transcripts and media analysis
Story
House Passes H.R. 28 to Ban Biological Males from Women's Sports; Two Democrats Support
Jan 14, 2025, 09:52 PM
On January 14, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 28, the 'Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act,' which seeks to ban biological males from participating in women's and girls' sports at schools receiving federal funding under Title IX. The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Greg Steube of Florida, passed largely along party lines, with only two Democrats, Reps. Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar of Texas, joining Republicans in support. Speaker Mike Johnson declared, 'Biology is not bigotry,' emphasizing the bill's aim to reaffirm Title IX's original intent. Proponents argue the legislation is necessary to ensure fairness and safety in women's sports. However, numerous Democratic lawmakers criticized the bill, labeling it the 'Child Predator Empowerment Act' and expressing concerns that it could subject girls as young as four to invasive physical examinations to 'prove' their gender. The bill now advances to the Senate for consideration.
View original story
Similar markets
Other • 25%
States' rights infringement • 25%
Public safety concerns • 25%
Constitutional challenges • 25%
Other • 25%
Economic concerns • 25%
Humanitarian concerns • 25%
Constitutional concerns • 25%
Other • 25%
Political strategy • 25%
Lack of transparency • 25%
Excessive spending • 25%
Other reasons • 25%
Concerns over immigration enforcement • 25%
Civil rights issues • 25%
Economic impact • 25%
Fail • 25%
Amended and Passed • 25%
Not Considered • 25%
Pass • 25%
Constitutional rights violation • 25%
Discrimination against minorities • 25%
Administrative burden • 25%
Other • 25%
Economic impact • 25%
Other • 25%
Civil liberties concerns • 25%
Diplomatic relations with China • 25%
Other • 25%
Administrative Complexity • 25%
Impact on Federal Revenue • 25%
Economic Inequality • 25%
Democrats • 25%
No significant opposition • 25%
Independent Senators • 25%
Republicans • 25%
Human rights concerns • 25%
Other reasons • 25%
Lack of comprehensive immigration reform • 25%
Constitutional issues • 25%
No Challenges Filed • 25%
Both Federal and State Challenges • 25%
State Court Challenge • 25%
Federal Court Challenge • 25%
Evenly Split • 34%
Majority Oppose • 33%
Majority Support • 33%