Week of February 17, 2025
As morning floor debate has for the most part chugged steadily along, some have observed a trend emerging in a handful of bills which have been subject to more debate and scrutiny thus far this session: multiple conservative-backed measures that progressives say attempt to tip the balance of power away from everyday people in favor of corporations. Two notable examples that have been narrowly advanced by the body recently:
- LB 241 (Hallstrom), which would classify gig workers like Uber and Doordash drivers as independent contractors, effectively taking from them the rights statutorily guaranteed under an employee-employer relationship. If enacted, the bill prevents these workers from unionizing or being entitled to benefits and many labor law protections like workers’ compensation, overtime pay and minimum wages, and nondiscrimination.
- LB 229 (Hallstrom), which would limit consumers’ ability to take legal action against companies that have compromised their personal data due to a cybersecurity breach. The bill raises the bar for conditions that must be met for consumers to bring a class action lawsuit up to the level of “gross negligence”, affording companies a large degree of immunity for mishandling of data
Bills like these, several opponents have asserted, are part of a disturbing national movement aimed at shielding large companies – often those who have high-paid lobbyists to push their interests with lawmakers – from accountability, or from having to do right by their customers or employees. Some questioned the stances of conservatives in the body who have traditionally touted “individual liberty” and “lessening government overreach” as chief among their platforms, but who now are speaking in favor of this kind of policy to chip away at citizens’ rights in favor of protecting big business.
As an aside, Sen. Hallstrom is new to the body, but not the Capitol: a longtime lobbyist with a generally well-respected reputation, some are beginning to question whether he’s brought his former lobby clients’ work with him on the other side of the glass. Also in contention for this category of bills are Sen. Raybould’s (LB 258) and Sen. Strommen’s (LB 698) proposals to undermine the will of the voters by creating exceptions to the minimum wage and paid sick leave ballot initiatives passed this fall.
Bill to Restrict Medication Abortion Heard
LB 512, Sen. Holdcroft’s bill to add additional requirements for patients to receive medical abortions and for doctors to administer them, was heard on Thursday, drawing mostly opposition. The bill Holdcroft has dubbed “The Chemical Abortion Safety Protocol Act” is an obvious attempt to reduce access to the procedure, which is administered via a two-pill regimen of the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol.
Medical or medication abortion is well-studied to be an extremely safe and low-risk procedure; “chemical abortion” is a term mostly used by abortion opponents. Women seeking the procedure under LB 512 would have to jump through several unnecessary hoops designed to complicate, shame, and prevent them from completing all of the steps. Information about a patient, her pregnancy, and any complications would be put on a list for reporting to the state, follow-up exams would be required for the patient, and doctors would be held liable for any noncompliance, potentially causing a chilling effect on availability of care. Tellingly, LB 512 was opposed by the Nebraska Medical Association, the official lobbying arm of doctors in Nebraska.
Multiple experts pointed out that the bill would only serve to push care out of reach when providers in the state are already very few. All of these proposed requirements, several doctors said, provide no additional benefit to patient safety, but are clearly intended to drive down access to the procedure, which is the most common method of abortion in Nebraska, but which is also a crucial tool used to treat miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.
Supporters said it is about keeping women safer, while opponents said the bill is another attempt at controlling women’s reproductive autonomy. Holdcroft said in the hearing LB 512 was targeted at a specific “bad actor” provider, though many opponents pointed out that there is a solid mechanism already in place for reporting, investigation of and sanctions for doctors who provide substandard care via the Department of Health and Human Services Licensure Unit.
The hearing was not as long or loud as some we’ve seen in recent years related to abortion, but perhaps most startling was the visible lack of comprehension of the nuances around the issue the bill would regulate on the part of the bill’s introducer and the all-male Health and Human Services committee that heard it. It is unclear what will happen with the bill as of now. However, the rumor is that Sen. Riepe is not inclined to vote the bill out of committee, and there may be other moderate swing votes of a similar mind.
Other Bites:
Sen. Hughes’ property tax relief/school funding proposal LB 303, introduced at the request of the Governor, seems mostly well-received so far. Keep an eye on this one. It would, along with providing a chunk more in state aid to schools and lowering the maximum amount of property taxes school districts can levy, create a School Finance Reform Commission to study the issue and make ongoing annual recommendations to the legislature about how to improve our TEEOSA formula while lowering property taxes. Other lawmakers have suggested this for years, and though they’ve maybe differed on the particulars, it might finally get off the ground this time.
DHHS CEO Steve Corsi drew backlash when he openly spouted anti-immigrant rhetoric at the hearing for Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh’s bill (LB 181) to extend Bridge To Independence program eligibility to older immigrant youth aging out of foster care. Corsi’s controversial online presence and questionable background were scrutinized at his confirmation earlier this year, and agency heads do not typically express their personal political views at bill hearings. There was a time when this wouldn’t have been tolerated, but like it or not, it seems we’re in uncharted territory in more ways than one now.
What’s Next
Monday is a state holiday for President’s Day. On Tuesday’s agenda, there’s a fun showdown set to unfold between dueling time-changing proposals: Both Sen. Murman’s and Sen. Hunt’s bills to do away with our practice of changing the clocks twice a year advanced unanimously from committee and are scheduled back-to-back. One would move Nebraska to permanent standard time, the other to permanent daylight saving time. This could be a fun and interesting debate, as one of the few nonpartisan and relatively non-inflammatory issues that perennially comes before the body and always generates a lot of public interest. Which side are you on? Should we keep things as they are or move to a year-round time standard? May the best bill win.
