close

Given the cultural revolution in which we currently find ourselves, it should not be surprising that we are having debates over the once-obvious question of whether it is fair for biological males to compete against biological females in sports. Senator Angela Hill (R., Picayune) is leading the charge in Mississippi to protect the civil rights of our girls and women to compete in female sports by sponsoring Senate Bill 2536.  Entitled the Fairness Act, this bill would ensure that only biological females compete on public school girls’ sports teams in our state.

This issue is of particular importance to me because many years ago, I was an athlete. I played four sports growing up, and I started my freshman year on the women’s basketball team at Mississippi State University. My high school basketball team was nationally ranked and finished first in Mississippi my junior year and second my senior year. We routinely practiced against our school’s varsity boys’ team, which had nowhere near our record or ranking, in order to improve our skills. 

Despite our being at the top of our game in high school women’s sports with an All-American player and numerous others who went on to play college ball, the boys’ team handily beat us every time. Most of their starters could dunk a basketball. None of us on the girls’ team could.

Even now, no one makes a serious claim that biological boys/men in their natural state do not have a natural athletic advantage over biological women. Allyson Felix is probably the fastest female sprinter in the world, holding more records than Usain Bolt. Her best time for the 400 meter is 49.26 seconds, but just in 2017, that time was beaten over 15,000 times by boys and men. In other words, thousands and thousands of male athletes ran better than the fastest woman in the world.

Similar lopsided results occur in tennis. Venus and Serena Williams once boasted they could beat any male tennis player ranked outside the TOP 200.  In 1998, a male ranked 203rd took them up on their wager and handily beat them both decisively, 6-1 over Serena and 6-2 over Venus. What if we never knew of a Serena and Venus Williams because they never had the space to compete and advance to the top of their sport?

As a little girl, I was inspired by the few female athletes that were featured prominently, females such as Coach Pat Head Summit, Cheryl Miller, Jackie-Joyner Kersey, Florence (Flo Jo) Griffith Joyner, and Chris Everett, and Martina Navratilova.  Fortunately, a lot has changed in female sports since I played.  For one, back in the ‘80’s, only our parents, high school coaches, friends, and boyfriends sparsely filled Humphrey Coliseum to watch our games. Today, at least prior to COVID, you can hardly get a ticket to the Mississippi State University Women’s home basketball games. In fact, the facility attendance record was recently set and is held by the MSU women’s team.

The incredible growth in women’s sports over the past almost 50 years has been in part the result of the enactment of Title IX in 1972, a federal law specifically designed to create equal opportunities and access for females in education and athletics.

Before Title IX, an estimated 3 percent of girls in America participated in sports; today, about two in five (more than 40 percent) of girls play sports. The number of women playing college sports has increased by more than 600 percent. The impact Title IX has had on young girls and adult female athletes is immeasurable.  I for one am incredibly grateful for the added confidence, perseverance, work ethic, leadership skills, teamwork, and countless other life lessons sports gave me. It is not a coincidence that 98 percent of female CEOs played competitive sports. Competitive athletic experiences for young women carry over into their professional lives.

Yet, all of this hard-fought progress women have made in athletics could be eroded if our state lawmakers fail to ensure that our girls have a level playing field. This issue has been thrust into the limelight by the transgender rights campaign that is sweeping our nation.

Over the last few years in Connecticut, for instance, two biological males who had never distinguished themselves when competing on male track teams came to identify as girls/women. They were allowed to join their respective schools’ girls’ track teams and compete in track meets against biological girls. It should come as no surprise that they dominated girls’ track by winning 15 state championships, in the process stripping away 85 opportunities for biological females to advance to higher levels in girls’ track. Along the way, they broke 17 girls’ state track records, records no girl will likely ever get close to.

I have compassion for trans athletes’ struggles, and I understand their desire to compete in sports. Yet, we can’t pit one group against the other. We must be able to have honest, biology-based discussions on the matter without name-calling, fear of being cancelled, and without assuming evil motives of those with whom we disagree. 

Too many today are afraid to state the obvious: that male-bodied athletes competing with biological women put females at an inherent and fundamentally unfair competitive disadvantage. We must not be forced to dismiss these most basic biological facts so as to bend the knee to a fashionable social revolution. We must not be afraid to state what is so clearly true: that this revolution will almost certainly destroy many of the gains of female athletes over the past 50 years.

Trans athletes’ desire to compete in sports must not come at the expense of women’s rights to compete, to be safe, and to win. When we ignore the undeniable biological advantage that males have over females, girls are harmed, harmed by the loss of medals and trophies, loss of records, loss of podium spots, and loss of college recruitment and scholarships, not to mention what, for some women, are quite lucrative sports-related careers. In what are referred to as “power sports,” girls have been and will be severely physically harmed.  To use one of the favorite phrases of the left, where are the “safe spaces” for young girls and women? Where is the concern for their physical and mental health and the character development that comes from competition?

Physicians like Michelle Cretella have been stating the obvious, that men and women are profoundly genetically different, and that no hormone therapy or body-altering surgery can reverse these biological changes. “[M]en and women have—at a minimum—6,500 genetic differences between us.  And this impacts every cell of our bodies—our organ systems, how diseases manifest, how we diagnose, and even treat in some cases.”

Fortunately, at least for now, most Americans see past the claims of today’s cultural revolutionaries and hold on to the science that dictates that biological men and women are profoundly physically different, even after hormone treatment.  They can also see where women’s sports will be in the years to come, if girls and women’s sports are not protected. Polling last year in ten battle-ground states on this issue revealed that 75 percent of those polled were against biological males competing in female sports.  Additionally, recent polling in Mississippi by Mason-Dixon demonstrated that 79 percent of Mississippi voters support legislation like Senator Hill’s. This includes the support of 87 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of Democrats, and 83 percent of independents.

So where does this leave Mississippi girls and women athletes? We cannot look to Washington to protect the civil rights of these young girls and women in Mississippi. Mississippi is one of only ten states that has no policy addressing the participation of biological male athletes in girls’ high school sports. Some of the track-running high school girls from Connecticut have filed suit in a case that is expected to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their case is strengthened by laws in any states that have been enacted to protect women’s sports.

As a woman and former athlete, I am grateful to Senator Hill for her leadership on this matter, despite the inevitable and vicious attacks that will come from the revolutionaries on the Left who do not desire to solve the problem together. Mississippians need to know that, if passed, The Fairness Act will protect the young girls and women in our state.  We as a nation and a state have made too much progress for women’s rights over many decades to now watch it all be taken away.

Lesley Andress Davis the Executive Vice President of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

A bill in the Mississippi legislature would require sports teams at the state’s public schools, universities, and community colleges to be designated only for one biological sex.

Senate Bill 2536 would require any public school, university, or community college team to be either designated for those of one biological sex or the other (in addition to an exception for co-ed teams).

The legislation also has a clause that would allow any student who reports a violation of the law and is retaliated against by the school or other athletic association to have the right to injunctive relief and damages. 

Another would allow a student whose bodily privacy was violated to have the same rights.

The bill is sponsored by state Sen. Angela Hill (R-Picayune).

Recent polling suggests that 79% of all Mississippians support such legislation. The same poll also revealed that the bill has broad support across political demographics. 87% of Republicans support the legislation along with 83% of Independents and 65% of Democrats.

While there have not been any cases of those born as males competing against girls in Mississippi, the issue has become a nationwide one as 16 states allow transgender high school athletes to compete without restrictions. 

Three high school girls who run track in Connecticut filed a lawsuit last year to challenge Connecticut’s policy of allowing male athletes to compete with girls in sports. They are represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

The three — Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell — have been beaten consistently in track meets by a pair of transgender athletes born as males. 

The lawsuit says the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s rules allowing transgender athletes to compete with girls poses a threat to Title IX because of physiological differences between men and women after puberty. Boys and men have more muscle mass and thus have the capacity to run faster and jump farther than most girls and women.

Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funds. The law, which was passed in 1972, has led to a massive growth in the number of number of athletic opportunities for women. According to the NCAA, the number of female athletes in in 1982 was 74,239. By 2019, that number grew to 221,042, an increase of 197 percent.

Mississippi is one of only ten states that has no policies toward male athletes competing against females.

HB 1263, sponsored by Rep. Becky Currie, would recognize occupational licenses issued by another state. A companion bill (SB 2187), sponsored by Senator Kevin Blackwell, would do the same. Each bill must pass its respective chamber by February 11, 2021.

The two bills advance a workforce freedom agenda long advanced by the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. Last year, we worked with lawmakers to pass legislation that helps military families move to Mississippi and take advantage of their licensing credentials to get a good job. We are looking to expand upon this achievement by opening up this reform to more families.

MCPP recently had an opportunity to sit down with Rep. Currie and talk to her about this important legislation.

1. Tell our readers about HB 1263 and what it would do.

Last year, we made it easier for military families who move to Mississippi to obtain a Mississippi license to work. This bill expands upon that reform. Many skilled jobs require a license to work. By this, I mean a license to teach or a license to be a dietician or a license to practice as a nurse. We have teacher shortages in many areas. This bill will help address that. We have serious health care access problems in Mississippi. This bill will help address that too. What the bill does is make it easier for new residents to use the training they already have to help Mississippians get a better education, get better health care, and get access to more services.

2. What inspired you to push this bill forward?

Rep. Currie: Mississippi is the best kept secret in the South. I want to see Mississippi grow. One way we can do this is to allow people who move here, who have a license to work in another state, to easily transfer that license to Mississippi. Other states, like Arizona, Missouri and Utah, are making it easier for new residents to have their hard-earn credentials honored by their licensing boards. Why make someone jump through the same hoop twice? If we want to grow, we need to open the door to skilled labor. That is what my bill does.

3. With the economy still reeling from 2020, how do you think this bill could help contribute to greater prosperity for Mississippi?

Rep. Currie: COVID is obviously encouraging people to consider moving out of certain areas that might not be as good a place as Mississippi to raise a family or start a business. As more states make it easier for new residents to work, we have to keep up. Arizona passed this reform in 2019. Today, they are one of the fastest growing states in the country. When new residents move here, that helps everyone. It increases tax revenue and increases the money that goes to schools and roads. It creates new energy and helps us learn about ideas that are catching on in other states. It also, ultimately, increases property values and opportunities for those of us who are already here.

4. What is the next step for the bill?

Rep. Currie: HB 1263 is now ready to go to the House floor for a vote by the full assembly. It has to pass out of the House before February 11. After that, it crosses over to the Senate, for consideration in a Senate committee. This is a team effort. I want to thank my cosponsor, Jansen Owen, for his help. I also want to thank the Workforce Development Chairman Donnie Bell and Speaker Philip Gunn. I also appreciate those in the Senate who are working hard on this same reform.

5. How can people help?

Rep. Currie: This bill is a win-win for the people of Mississippi and for new residents. We all benefit when skilled workers move here. These people are going to get good jobs and help grow our state. They are going to stay off welfare and pay taxes and discover that Mississippi is a great place to raise a family and retire surrounded by your grandkids. That’s the Mississippi that I love. People can help by talking to their state lawmaker and telling him/her you support this bill. Also, even if you disagree with them, say a prayer for your local and state lawmakers. As people like to say these days, we’re all in this together. We are all working hard to write the next chapter in the Mississippi Success Story.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the need to update Mississippi’s K-12 education funding model, in particular the way that the school finance formula counts students.

Mississippi differs from most states in the fact that they currently use an average daily attendance (ADA) model to count kids. This way of counting students is not all bad, but the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the already existing deficiencies of the ADA model and some Mississippi school districts are at risk of losing a significant amount of funding because their ADA has declined during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Surprising variation exists in how states measure public school enrollment. These measurements are important because they ultimately affect how education dollars are allocated to students and schools. Every way of counting kids  comes with important tradeoffs: some are more accurate than others; some impose a greater administrative burden; others result in more budget stability. This commentary will survey the current student counting methods used across states and make policy recommendations that Mississippi policymakers could employ to address funding shortfalls resulting from a decline in ADA counts.

Key Considerations: Accuracy, Predictability and Budget Stability

There are some key considerations states make when they take different approaches to counting students. Keep in mind that there are drawbacks to each of these considerations.

The first priority for legislators weighing different student count methodologies should be accuracy. Accuracy is the key to fair funding insofar as the entire point of counting student enrollment is to correlate enrollment with funding. To be funded, a student must be counted.

To the extent that any other factors obscure the principle that funding should be determined by the true number of students a district currently has enrolled, inequities will emerge. Concerns over accuracy and funding equity are the reason some states opt to use average daily membership (ADM). This way of counting differs from ADA in that ADM averages student enrollment numbers—rather than attendance numbers—over much of the school year. Enrollment is considered more accurate in this case because it counts the number of students a district expects to serve, not the number that show up on a given day. North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia, along with many other states, use ADM.

Second, there is generally some acknowledgement that school districts must be able to reliably craft their yearly budgets. If state funding varies too much over the course of a year due to attendance fluctuations , districts won’t be able to make confident hiring or programmatic decisions. If, as it’s generally assumed, student bodies are largest at the beginning of a semester, districts must structure their staffing and budgets without good knowledge of which students and how many of them will end up withdrawing. These budget concerns are the reason some states use single-day enrollment counts at the beginning of the year (Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts) or at only several points over the course of the year (Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana).

A third key consideration for state lawmakers when deciding on a student counting system is that districts struggle to adjust their cost structures when student bodies are changing substantially over a short span of years. When student bodies are shrinking or growing rapidly, districts must make long-term decisions about consolidating or expanding school facilities. With staffing, they often can only downsize through attrition when populations are shrinking. Likewise, schools face additional hiring costs when student populations are growing. Because these long-term investments take time and often lag behind the speed at which student populations are changing, some states (Maine, Nevada, North Carolina) allow districts to incorporate older or projected student counts so that they have a financial cushion to accommodate substantial increases or decreases in student populations.

Lastly, many state policymakers believe funding decisions should emphasize school attendance metrics. Under this model, the reigning assumption is that time spent in a physical classroom directly translates into student achievement. A primary rationale for the small number of states (Mississippi, California, Illinois) that count students through attendance, rather than enrollment, is that they want to encourage districts to get students in their classrooms.

Click here to read the rest of this report.

In a surprising move, Facebook has now taken down the SuperTalk Mississippi Facebook page. According to SuperTalk, the supposed violation occurred when the page shared news of an update from Governor Tate Reeves regarding new vaccine appointments.

Paul Gallo, host of SuperTalk’s Paul Gallo Show, stated in a tweet today, “Breaking! SuperTalk Facebook has been pulled for the reasons attached. Seems we committed a violation for sharing a story from the Governor’s office pertaining to expanded vaccines available for appointments.”

The move raises serious questions about Facebook’s community standards and its algorithm for determining potential violations. SuperTalk was distributing important news about vaccine appointment updates to the public. Now, the station that helps to provide news to the entire state, has been restricted from doing so.

This effort unfortunately censors SuperTalk for the time being from being able to distribute news on one of the largest online platforms. Furthermore, this move produces a dangerous potential chilling effect on speech. How many other news providers, influencers, or everyday Facebook users might think twice before a post in fear of similarly being shut down?

Multiple state officials spoke out against the move from Facebook. Governor Tate Reeves tweeted, “Unbelievable! Please fix quickly, @Facebook. Local news outlets like @SuperTalk are essential, and they should not be punished by big tech companies for simply sharing important vaccine information!”

Attorney General Lynn Fitch noted in a tweet, “Big tech is an elite, unelected, and unchecked group that should not have the power to silence and erase anyone. We don’t lose our First Amendment rights just because the town square has moved online.”

The move is likely to bring renewed scrutiny of the tech giant in Mississippi. Several bills in the Legislature address the growing issue of social media giants, like Facebook and Twitter, censoring speech.  These include bills by Rep. Becky Currie (HB 151) and Sen. Angela Hill (SB 2617).

Hopefully SuperTalk’s page will be quickly restored and substantial actions will be taken to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

In our Tech Talks series, we engage with tech leaders, policymakers, and entrepreneurs to discuss the tech world in the Magnolia state and promote public engagement on key tech issues.

For this edition of Tech Talks, we are featuring state Senator Scott DeLano. Senator DeLano serves as the Technology Committee chairman and the vice-chairman of the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.

Let’s hear from Senator DeLano …

I have served in the Mississippi Legislature for the last 12 years. After having spent ten years in the state House, I was elected to the state senate.

When I served in the House, Speaker Philip Gunn originally appointed me to be the Constitution Committee chairman. I also served as the Appropriations Subcommittee chairman for ITS, MDA and MEMA. In these roles, I found that I worked on a lot of technical questions, so the Technology Committee was created to facilitate these technical matters more effectively. I served in this capacity for the remainder of my time in the House.

In 2019, I successfully ran for an open Senate seat in Harrison County. Upon my arrival in the Senate, the Lieutenant Governor appointed me to be the chairman of the newly created Technology Committee, with a key focus on the modernization of technology services for state agencies. However, the committee is also intended to address tech issues that impact the private sector in the state. This is a significant part of the committee’s purpose as well.

One important issue that we worked on last year is computer science in public education. The legislature is working on creating a clear pathway for computer science and technology classes to be taught in every public-school district in the state. The main element of this entails integrating computer science courses into existing school course curriculum. This is a significant issue that we are working on in the Education Committee.

A second priority was emergency communications as it relates to Next Generation 9-1-1. This program brings internet communications into the dispatches across the state and insures all 911 service fees collected go to the benefit of each county’s Emergency Communication District.

Currently, our first responders are primarily limited to telephone traffic. They cannot currently integrate communications, such as texting and other forms, into 9-1-1 emergency calls. For example, we have technologies such as wireless help buttons for the elderly and telehealth video options. We want to integrate these technologies into our existing emergency dispatch systems.  

These two issues that we worked on last year will be a priority in 2021, as well. However, this is just the beginning. We are looking to explore what further reforms we can make to encourage tech advancements in the state.

During the 2020 session, the legislature passed several bills that directed over $250 million dollars from the CARES act that focused on expanding broadband availability throughout the state. For instance, the legislature appropriated matching funds for Electric Cooperative Associations that yielded over 150 million dollars in new broadband infrastructure development to unserved areas of rural Mississippi. In a separate appropriation, we provided over $100 million dollars to provide laptop computers and connectivity to all public and private schools in the state.  We are tracking these funds to make sure that these funds are used properly. This includes following up with the recipients of the funds, reviewing the recipients' use of the funds, and ensuring that the funds are actually accomplishing their intended purpose.

I have made it one of my key priorities to engage in discussions with fellow legislators about the best allocation and application of these funds. These are significant amounts of money. The legislature has a duty to ensure that these funds are utilized in a fiscally responsible way.

One of my roles as the Technology Committee chairman is to help give the state the best opportunity to attract new businesses by ensuring that we are very cautious not to stymie innovation in the marketplace.

Just as one example, automobile manufacturers such as Nissan and Toyota are developing innovative technologies such as automatic lane correction and autonomous driving right here in our State. But the development of these safety features requires tests to be conducted and data to be collected. There have been laws passed in several states that would prohibit some of this data from being collected. I am very careful, and I think our state should be very careful, not to pass legislation that could prevent innovative research and development.  We want to create a balanced regulatory environment that is optimal for us to attract companies and businesses, jobs, and prosperity into our state. This balance is critical to protect the public from harm while protecting the economy from crippling regulations. This is essential in helping Mississippi to grow.

You would be surprised at how much of a barrier different interpretations of language and terminology pose. For example, what is defined as broadband in an urbanized area of the state may have a completely different meaning than what is acceptable broadband in rural Mississippi. The technical terminology differences can be challenging to lawmakers who are trying to apply this terminology to their constituents' needs. To remedy this issue, we have had to do a lot of clarification on definitions and meaning.

As a committee chairman, I stay informed on tech issues around the country. I provide a point of reason and knowledge for the legislature. It is our goal to implement successful policies from states all over the country. I want to see these policies custom-tailored to encourage prosperity in Mississippi.

This technologically-driven prosperity should be encouraged by passing legislation that gets government out of the way and lets the free market take the lead. By pursuing this path, we want to foster innovation, because it is innovation that provides the cutting-edge technologies that will be required to drive our economy in the future. It will be exciting to see what lies ahead for our state.

Senator Scott DeLano is the Chairman of the Mississippi Senate Technology Committee.

Matthew Nicaud is the Tech Policy Analyst at MCPP and your host for Tech Talks.

The Magnolia state might be one of the most wonderful places to live, but there is no getting round the fact that it has some of the worst health outcomes in the country.

According to the Legatum Institute’s Prosperity Index, Mississippi ranks 49th out of 50 states in terms of health outcomes, health systems, and illness and risk factors.

“That’s easy to fix” some are now saying. “We just need to hose federal funds at the problem”.  When it comes to health care, one thing Mississippi does not lack are those calling for us to accept federal funding to expand Medicaid.

Under the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, a number of states have already gone down that road, turning Medicaid – which was designed to provide health insurance coverage to low income seniors and mothers, and those with disabilities - into a system of generalized healthcare.  Should we do the same?

No.  Expanding Medicaid would be extremely costly, without necessarily improving health outcomes.  Spraying federal funds in our direction does not mean that the money will end up going where it is actually needed.  Another large handout from DC would likely hinder, not help, the chances of us achieving the kind of health reforms we actually need.

Pouring millions of dollars of federal funds into Mississippi’s health system sounds attractive, but you won’t be surprised to learn that it comes with a price tag; a $100 million a year price tag, according to recent estimates.

Who, it seems reasonable to ask, would have to pay that?

One way of generating an additional $100 million a year in revenue from tax-paying Mississippians would be to raise personal income tax or tax businesses even more.  But Mississippi already has one of the heaviest state and local tax burdens of any state in America, and it is hard to see how our fragile economy could cope with an additional hike. 

Some have suggested that we could find this additional $100 million a year from the hospitals.  No plan I have yet seen has identified a way of conjuring up that kind of money without hospitals ultimately bumping up their costs to their patients.

I can see why some hospitals might be quite attracted to the idea of raising an additional $100 million a year from their patients, and in return getting a large dollop of federal funding thrown in their direction.  But I can’t quite see what is in it for those hundreds of thousands of families in Mississippi who work hard to provide health care coverage for their families, who would find themselves being asked to provide even more – so other folk could get coverage for free.

If we want better health outcomes, we should not think only in terms of how much money we spend on health care.  We need to think about the way that our health care system converts that money into improved outcomes for patients.

One low cost thing we could do would be to repeal laws that unnecessarily push up health costs, such as the 1979 Health Care Certificate of Need (CON) Law.  This legislation means that it is illegal today in Mississippi for hospitals or other healthcare providers to expand their health care services without first getting a permit, known as a certificate of need.

It’s not just that permission is needed.  The way our restrictive system works is that permission is often needed from established health care providers.  They can file objections that keep the matter tied up, often for years.  It is as if Papa John’s had to give approval before Domino Pizza was allowed to open a new restaurant in your neighborhood.

Additionally, rules on telemedicine mean that Mississippians are presently prevented from accessing health care online – unless the doctor they are dealing with happens to have Mississippi licensure. 

Why can Mississippians not deal with a doctor from Birmingham or Memphis?  Is what comprises good medical care different there?  Of course not.  The rules governing who can provide health care have been written in a way that hinders competition and limits choices, and is holding health care back for Mississippians.

These type of restrictions mean that instead of a free market in health care, with different providers competing to give patients services at a price they can afford, we have a rigged market.  The rules are written to keep new entrants out, which in turn leaves prices high and customers captive. This, not a failure to sign up to Obamacare, is one of the reasons why Mississippi does not have better health outcomes. 

Without reforming the way that our health system operates, throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at our state Medicaid system is not going to make things better. 

The secret to good legislation is much like the secret to making good, healthy food. Follow the recipe, use the right ingredients, and leave out the bad stuff. Unfortunately, there's a lot of junk that gets cooked up in the Legislature these days.

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy uses its Legislative Tracker to grade and analyze all legislation that makes its way out of committee. Recognizing this, we thought it would be appropriate to offer a clear and concise statement regarding the principles that go into evaluating legislation.

Bill analysis conducted by the Mississippi Center for Public Policy utilizes specific criteria to determine the nature, where possible, and the essential features of proposed legislation in relation to its potential impact on freedom and liberty in the state of Mississippi.

If the answer is YES to any of the guiding questions stated beneath the enumerated criteria provided below, then the proposed legislation is identified as BAD POLICY for Mississippians within our Legislative Tracker.

CRITERIA:

  1. Individual liberty
    • Would the proposed legislation, if enacted, encroach upon individual liberty?
      • Would the proposed legislation, if enacted, ALSO apply state statutes in a manner that is inconsistent with our nation’s founding principles?
  2. Scope of government
    • Would the proposed legislation, if enacted, expand the scope of government beyond its original purpose as outlined by our founding documents at either the federal or state level?
  3. Transparency and Accountability
    • Would the proposed legislation, if enacted, decrease transparency and/or accountability in government at any level or in any bureaucratic/administrative agency or its functions?
  4. Taxes
    • Would the proposed legislation, if enacted, increase taxes?
      • Would the proposed legislation, if enacted, ALSO result in a net deficit to individual liberty and/or increase the scope of government beyond its original purpose?
  5. Regulations
    • Would the proposed legislation, if enacted, create new unnecessary restrictions that limit our economic growth and unfairly restrict our personal liberties?
    • Would the proposed legislation, if enacted, amend existing unnecessary restrictions that limit our economic growth and unfairly restrict our personal liberties in a manner that sustains and/or increases the existing restrictions?
  6. Personal Responsibility
    • Would the proposed legislation, if enacted, reduce personal responsibility or create a government solution to a personal issue?
  7. Strong Families
    • Would the proposed legislation, if enacted, weaken families in any way whatsoever?
  8. God-Given Dignity of All Human Beings
    • Would the proposed legislation, if enacted, harm the unborn in any way whatsoever or encourage prospective mothers to choose death for their unborn child?

Senator Jeremy England gave a vigorous defense of a piece of legislation that he has authored in a post published to Facebook. Senate Bill 2342 would exempt certain beauty services from licensing and registration requirements, thus reducing the stranglehold that the Board of Cosmetology has over these workers.

Many have called into question the need for hundreds of hours and potentially thousands of dollars spent on training that often does not even apply to an individual’s chosen profession. For example, while an EMT needs 150 class hours, an eyebrow threader in Mississippi must take 600 expensive class hours and not a single moment of these lessons focuses on eyebrow threading.

The fact is that rules like this one are often focused not on health and safety, but on producing a barrier to entry. Thus, obstacles are developed that help to ensure that less people try to join the industry and less competition exists for current providers.

In August 2019, Aaron Rice, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, the legal arm of MCPP, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dipa Bhattarai in a federal district court. The lawsuit was filed against the Cosmetology Board.

Eyebrow threading is a safe and simple technique that uses just a single strand of cotton thread to remove unwanted hair. It does not involve skin-to-skin contact between the threading artist and customer, does not reuse the same tools on different customers, and does not involve the use of sharp implements, harsh chemicals, or heat.

Regarding this legislation from Senator England, MJI Director Aaron Rice stated, “[w]e have been fighting in court for years to protect the rights of niche beauty service providers to earn an honest living without burdensome and irrelevant licensing requirements.”

Rice continued, “[t]his legislation would solve that problem and allow more Mississippians to use their skills and abilities to provide for themselves and their families.”

In his Facebook post, Senator England noted, “[t]he Cosmetology Board in Mississippi is one of many, many departments and agencies we have in this state that requires licenses to perform certain tasks legally. In other words, if you want to do a job in Mississippi that you may be capable of doing and talented enough to earn a living doing, the Board will not give you a license unless and until you pay for a huge amount of training hours and schooling. This is VERY restrictive. I'm not saying it is not helpful, and I'm not saying that those hours in a classroom learning how to perform certain tasks aren't valuable.”

“But in a state like Mississippi, where we have a very low labor market participation rate and have a large population of individuals that feel stuck in a job with low pay, we have to reverse course on restricting people from doing jobs. It has to start somewhere - and the Board of Cosmetology is that start for me.”

“I want you to be able to earn a living and embark on the American Dream of starting a business where you have a chance to succeed (or fail). I want to help you support your family on your own, which may also help you get off and away from government assistance.”

“I don't want a Board that will require a large number of hours in a classroom learning things that have nothing to do with your selected trade, and I don't want you to be forced to take out tens of thousands of dollars in student loans in the process. That hurts people right where it counts, and it keeps them from succeeding. I am and will always be against this practice.”

“I want people to be able to work, and I don't want a government agency putting up roadblocks to prevent them from working. This is my belief as a conservative - and it is a big reason why I am here in Jackson. I am a small government guy. Deregulation is a major part of the foundation of small government, conservative principles. I ran on these principles, and I promised to be faithful to them.”

Senator Jeremy England has stepped up to the plate to support Mississippi entrepreneurs. His passionate defense of the American dream and an individual’s right to work without a government agency getting in his or her way is worth highlighting and supporting.

magnifiercross linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram