Debate that began Tuesday on a Nebraska bill to ban gender-affirming care for minors, which led one lawmaker to stage an epic weekslong filibuster, quickly grew contentious, with supporters and opponents angrily voicing their frustration and admonishing each other for a lack of collegiality.

Sen. John Lowe, of Kearney, cited an activist group’s claim that gender dysphoria in youth ‘is just temporary,’ while Sen. Brad von Gillern, of Omaha, compared gender-affirming treatment to shock treatments, lobotomies and forced sterilizations of years’ past. Bellevue Sen. Carol Blood countered that if lawmakers really cared about medical procedures affecting children, ‘how come we’re not talking about circumcision?’

And that was only the first three hours of an eight-hour Senate debate expected to stretch into Thursday.

The bill introduced by Republican Sen. Kathleen Kauth, a freshman lawmaker in the officially-nonpartisan state Legislature, would outlaw gender-affirming therapies such as hormone treatments, puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery for those 18 and younger.

The proposal had already caused tumult in the legislative session, cited as the genesis of a nearly three-week filibuster carried out by Omaha Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh over her opposition. Cavanaugh had followed through on her vow in late February to filibuster every bill before the Legislature — even those she supported — declaring she would ‘burn the session to the ground over this bill.’

She stuck with it until an agreement was reached late last week to push the bill to the front of the debate queue. Instead of trying to eat time to keep the bill from getting to the floor, Cavanaugh decided she wanted a vote to put on the record of which lawmakers would ‘legislate hate against children.’

Lawmakers convened Tuesday to begin that debate with the understanding that the bill didn’t have enough votes to break a filibuster. But Kauth introduced an amendment to drop the restriction on hormone treatments, instead banning only gender reassignment surgery for minors. That amendment, she said, does have enough votes to advance.

Cavanaugh has said if the bill advances on a vote expected Thursday, she will resume filibustering every bill through the end of the 90-day session in early June.

The hard feelings by lawmakers on both sides of the bill emerged almost immediately Tuesday, with Kauth calling Cavanaugh’s filibuster ‘self-serving and childish.’ Kauth said the purpose of her bill is to protect youth from undertaking gender-affirming treatments they might later regret as adults, citing research that says adolescents’ brains aren’t fully developed.

Omaha Sen. Megan Hunt called out that argument as hypocritical, noting that Kauth supports an abortion ban bill introduced this session that would also affect adolescents.

‘In a couple of weeks, she’s going to turn around and vote for a bill that would force 12-year-olds to have a baby,’ Hunt said. ‘She thinks they’re mature enough for that.’

Cavanaugh called the trans treatment bill ‘an assault on individuals that members of this body love,’ and appealed to Republican members of the body to get back to their core principles of getting government out of people’s lives.

‘So many of you have talked to me about government overreach time and time again,’ she said. ‘This bill stands in opposition to the tenets that many of you have expressed to me are the foundation of why you are here.’

The Nebraska bill, along with another that would ban trans people from using bathrooms and locker rooms or playing on sports teams that don’t align with the gender listed on their birth certificates, are among roughly 150 bills targeting transgender people that have been introduced in state legislatures this year.

Bans on gender-affirming care for minors have already been enacted this year in some Republican-led states, including South Dakota, Utah and Mississippi. Arkansas and Alabama have bans that were temporarily blocked by federal judges. Other states legislatures have given final approval to measures similar to the Nebraska bill, with Georgia sending to the governor Tuesday a bill that would ban most gender-affirming surgeries and hormone replacement therapies for transgender minors.

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy says the idea that officers will handcuff former President Trump and arrest him after an indictment ‘couldn’t happen,’ and that it will instead be up to the U.S. Secret Service and the New York Police Department to arrange a location for him to surrender.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is weighing possible charges against Trump and could bring an indictment. Those charges stem from the $130,000 hush-money payment that then-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen made to Stormy Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, in the weeks leading up to the 2016 presidential election in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006.

Federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York opted out of charging Trump related to the payment in 2019, even as Cohen implicated him as part of his plea deal. The Federal Election Commission also tossed its investigation of the matter in 2021.

McCarthy, who was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York and is now a Fox News contributor, told Fox News Digital that the ‘most important people in this equation’ following a Trump indictment are the Secret Service and the NYPD.

‘Trump is a Secret Service protect and the NYPD are in charge of New York City,’ McCarthy said. ‘They have good relations because a lot of Secret Service protects spend time in New York City.’

And despite the speculation, McCarthy said it is unlikely Trump will end up in handcuffs.

‘The idea cops will approach him in Florida or on the street and put cuffs on him will not happen and could not happen,’ McCarthy said. ‘The Secret Service would not let that happen.’

McCarthy said if Trump is indicted, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office would ‘invite him to come in to surrender.’

Typically, a defendant who surrenders in a nonviolent case would go to a central booking location, but McCarthy explained that due to security concerns, there are likely to be special accommodations made for a former president of the United States.

McCarthy said he anticipates the Secret Service and the NYPD would find a secure room in the courthouse in downtown Manhattan, likely at 100 Centre Street.

‘That’s where he would be fingerprinted and photographed,’ McCarthy said, noting that it would have to be a public proceeding.

‘But it should be very quick because this is not a violent case,’ he explained.

Ordinarily in a public proceeding, the defendant would not enter a plea on their first appearance before the judge, and would enter a plea at the second appearance, also known as the arraignment.

‘If I were the DA’s office, I would be pushing to get a plea done in the first appearance,’ McCarthy explained, citing the ‘logistical nightmare’ at hand.

McCarthy explained that pre-trial motions could be significant in this case due to the issue of the statute of limitations surrounding the matter.

‘The big issue is whether this is a crime,’ he said. ‘We won’t know until we see the indictment.’

McCarthy explained that the statute of limitations on the matter, if Bragg were to bring it as a misdemeanor, would be two years. If the last development on the matter took place in 2018, the statute of limitations has expired.

If Bragg chooses to bring felony charges, which McCarthy anticipates due to the fact that a grand jury has been empaneled and used, the statute of limitations extends to five years, giving Bragg until this year to indict.

Meanwhile, McCarthy said he does anticipate charges will be brought, especially because Trump was invited to testify before the grand jury last week.

‘You typically don’t invite the target in to testify unless you are really serious about bringing the case, and they did that last week,’ McCarthy said.

A new bill introduced in the Texas legislature aims to hold drug manufacturers and distributors accountable for any terminated pregnancies or deaths stemming from abortion pills.

Under the Wrongful Death Protection Act, individuals — even those out of state — who manufacture, market, mail, distribute, transport, deliver, provision, or possess mifepristone with the intent of facilitating unlawful abortions, are liable for the wrongful deaths of Texas women and children.

‘Companies and smuggling networks are profiting from the barbaric death of children in the womb and neglecting the women who are harmed by taking these pills,’ Rep. Cole Hefner, who introduced the legislation on March 10, said in a statement. ‘They must not be allowed to escape their direct responsibility for the wrongful deaths of Texans simply because they reside outside our state, and this legislation ensures that will not be allowed to happen.’

Mifepristone is the first of two medications prescribed to a woman who plans to abort her unborn baby. Abortion medications are used for 54% of abortions in the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

HERE’S WHY A CONSERVATIVE GROUP IS SUING THE FDA OVER MEDICATION ABORTION:

According to Hefner, his bill was necessary to combat abortion pills illegally trafficked into Texas.

‘We have enacted transformative pro-life laws in Texas, but more must be done,’ the Republican said in his statement. ‘The deadly abortion pill regimen is everywhere, including in our state.’

Under the legislation, anyone who helps facilitate an unlawful death from an abortion could face up to $5 million in civil penalties. The bill considers an aborted fetus as an unlawful death.

‘Abortion pills can be extremely dangerous to women, causing hemorrhaging, the need for surgery and even death,’ Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser told Fox News. ‘The Biden-Harris administration has ignored these health risks as well as the 500% increase in ER visits since the FDA approved Mifepristone.’

‘In response to the federal government’s negligence, states like Texas are creatively taking steps forward to protect unborn children, safeguard the health of women and girls, and hold abortionists accountable,’ she added.

After Roe v. Wade was overturned in June, Texas’ trigger laws took effect, making it illegal in the state to have an abortion except in limited cases where the mother’s life may be at risk. 

Texas’ abortion law is one of the strictest in the country and has led to some Texas women crossing state lines to receive abortions.

Neither Cole nor Planned Parenthood responded to a request for comment.

A California sheriff blasted Gov. Gavin Newsom for leaving the state’s prison system in ‘complete disarray’ and allowing convicted criminals to be released early.

‘He has an agenda to close prisons and there is nothing going to stop him from doing that,’ Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco told Fox News. ‘He’s let thousands and thousands of criminals, hardened criminals, out early.’

California’s prisons held roughly 122,000 inmates in 2019 when Newsom took office. That year, the Democrat told The Fresno Bee he would like to shut down a state prison during his tenure.

So far, he’s closed one prison and three more are scheduled to shutter within the next two years, according to CalMatters. The state’s prison population has plummeted more than 20% to 95,610 inmates due to sentencing reforms and a flood of releases during the pandemic.

Bianco said his office was recently notified that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation plans to release several convicted murderers into Riverside County.

‘Three murderers that are in prison for murder, that are supposed to be there for life, and [Newsom] is going to release them back into our community,’ Bianco said.

Neither the governor’s office nor the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation immediately responded to a request for comment.

WATCH: CALIFORNIA SHERIFF TORCHES GOV. NEWSOM FOR LEAVING PRISON SYSTEM IN ‘DISARRAY’

Bianco said closing prisons is the ‘wrong thing to do’ for the law-abiding public.

‘All you have to do is look out the window and see that we’re being victimized constantly,’ he said.

A recent study comparing suspects who posted bail in California with those released under ‘Zero Bail’ policies found that the latter group reoffended more often and were accused of more violent crimes.

‘The amount of repeat offenders right now is just ridiculous,’ Bianco said. ‘They’re victimizing other people. They’re killing other people. They’re stealing from other people.’

Last month, a released convict allegedly gunned down a 24-year-old officer in California.

Bianco said lawmakers and Newsom refuse to acknowledge the issue, putting police and the community at risk.

‘They are bent, hell-bent on an agenda and nothing will change that agenda,’ he said. ‘And so the jails and the prison systems are suffering for it.’

To hear more about the impacts of California’s criminal justice policies on law enforcement, click here.

FIRST ON FOX: Republicans tore into President Biden’s first veto that stopped a bipartisan bill removing a new Labor Department rule encouraging retirement fiduciaries to consider environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) issues in their investments.

Biden’s first veto came against a bipartisan bill striking down the administration’s new rule promoting the woke ESG ideology, with the president saying his decision was due to heavy ‘MAGA Republican’ influence in the bill.

‘I just vetoed my first bill. This bill would risk your retirement savings by making it illegal to consider risk factors MAGA House Republicans don’t like. Your plan manager should be able to protect your hard-earned savings — whether Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene likes it or not,’ Biden announced in a Monday tweet.

Congressional Republicans, understandably, are not happy with the president’s move — especially bill architect Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky.

‘President Biden’s first veto is on a bipartisan, bicameral measure that I championed through Congress to protect retail investors,’ Barr told Fox News Digital. ‘Instead of siding with Americans—who are increasingly unable to afford retirement—Biden’s veto puts the climate activists and special interest groups he is beholden to ahead of middle-class American investors.’

‘It’s a shame, and it further reflects his priorities and who he really represents in office,’ Barr added.

Senator Mike Braun, R-Ind., also slammed the president’s veto, wishing Biden luck on ‘explaining this one’ to the American people.

‘Today President Biden used his first veto to reject bipartisan consensus in the House and Senate that Americans’ retirement savings should be invested to get the best return, not to support woke nonsense,’ Braun said.

‘Good luck explaining this one,’ he added.

GOP Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin joined his Indiana colleague in blasting the president’s move, saying ‘Biden administration’s reckless ESG rule proves nothing is off limits when it comes to Joe Biden’s radical green agenda – even Americans’ hard-earned retirement savings.’

‘During a time of record inflation, Biden wants to make matters worse by allowing climate activists to hijack investment returns,’ Mullin said. ‘It’s a shame.’

‘Despite bipartisan opposition, the president is doubling down on bad policy and leaving hard-working Americans to pay the price,’ he added.

Texas Republican Rep. Jodey Arrington ripped into the veto, saying that people ‘who invest our hard-earned money should be focused on financial value, not virtue signaling.’

‘This week, Congress passed a bipartisan bill to protect pensioners and retirees from activists who want to use their savings to advance a political agenda,’ Arrington said. ‘President Biden’s threat to veto this legislation shows that he’s more interested in placating the Radical Left than listening to the American people — and even Members of his own party in Congress.’

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., torched Biden’s veto, telling Fox News Digital that ‘Biden’s woke ESG agenda is unfair to Americans and does nothing but drive American industry to other countries.’

‘Biden is once again putting his leftist agenda over supporting bipartisan work for Americans in Congress,’ Scott said.

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., a former Democrat who became a Republican, demolished Biden’s touting of a ‘bipartisan’ presidential image while he vetoes bipartisan legislation.

‘It’s ironic how President Biden touts about being a ‘bipartisan president’, then turns around and vetoes a bipartisan bill,’ Van Drew said. ‘There is Republican and Democrat opposition to the Labor Department’s harmful changes to the way Americans’ retirement funds are invested, yet this President does not care.’

‘It is abundantly clear, through President Biden issuing over 100 executive orders since taking office, that what Congress and the American people want comes secondary to his enactment of far-left policies,’ Van Drew continued.

‘He is threatening retirement accounts of millions of Americans, but as long as it fits into his ‘woke’ agenda, I guess that’s not important,’ the New Jersey congressman continued. ‘Doesn’t sound too bipartisan to me.’

Biden’s Monday veto came weeks after the president signaled he would strike down the measure that saw Republicans and Democrats join together in opposition to the Labor Department’s new rule.

The bill specifically ended enforcement of a new Labor Department rule urging private retirement plan fiduciaries to consider ESG in their investment decisions.

Under the rule, fiduciaries who make investment decisions for the retirement plans of more than 150 million people would be explicitly permitted under federal guidelines to consider companies’ approach to climate change and other social issues, instead of focusing on only profitability and return on investment for retirees.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, blasted Biden for the veto on Monday, saying Biden was placing ‘radical’ social agendas over the American people.

‘This Administration continues to prioritize their radical policy agenda over the economic, energy and national security needs of our country, and it is absolutely infuriating,’ Manchin wrote in a statement. ‘West Virginians are under increasing stress as we continue to recover from a once in a generation pandemic, pay the bills amid record inflation, and face the largest land war in Europe since World War II. The Administration’s unrelenting campaign to advance a radical social and environmental agenda is only exacerbating these challenges.’

‘President Biden is choosing to put his Administration’s progressive agenda above the well-being of the American people,’ he added.

It is unlikely Biden’s veto gets overturned by the legislative branch with the split chambers.

Fox News Digital’s Anders Hagstrom contributed reporting.

Robert Costello, the former legal advisor to ex-Trump attorney Michael Cohen, appeared before the grand jury in the Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation into former President Trump Monday, and testified that Cohen is a ‘serial liar.’ 

Costello testified before the grand jury for more than two hours Monday, as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg considers bringing charges against former President Trump. 

Those possible charges stem from the $130,000 hush-money payment that then-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, in the weeks leading up to the 2016 presidential election in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006.

Federal prosecutors in the U.S. attorneys office for the Southern District of New York opted out of charging Trump related to the Stormy Daniels payment in 2019, even as Cohen implicated him as part of his plea deal. The Federal Election Commission also tossed its investigation into the matter in 2021.

Costello said he testified to the grand jury Monday that Trump did not know about the payments made by Cohen to Stormy Daniels. 

Costello, speaking to reporters in front of his Manhattan office after his testimony Monday, slammed Cohen as a liar. 

‘There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that Michael Cohen has great difficulty telling the truth,’ Costello said. ‘He is, after all a convicted perjurer, and our track record with Mr. Cohen convinced us that he was a serial liar.’

‘As might be expected, Mr. Cohen’s lies were always uttered in a way that was beneficial to himself,’ Costello explained. ‘When it was in Mr. Cohen’s personal self-interest, he was capable of telling the truth, but those occasions were few and far between.’ 

Michael Cohen, in a statement to Fox News Digital, responding to Costello’s comments made during his press conference said: ‘IF Bob Costello’s comments were any more fantastical, he would be a bestselling fiction author.’ 

‘It is important to note, I never slept with Stormy, I stated years ago that the payment was done at the direction of, in coordination with and for the benefit of Donald,’ Cohen told Fox News Digital. ‘Truth is truth and the documents in the possession of the DANY demonstrate this.’ 

Cohen’s statement came after Costello’s press conference, in which he recalled a key interaction he had with Cohen in April 2018 at Cohen’s request.

‘Michael was in a manic state. He told us that he had contemplated suicide, that he had been up on the roof of the Regency Hotel the weekend before, seriously considering jumping off because he couldn’t face the enormity of the legal problems he knew were coming his way,’ Costello recalled, reminding that, at the time, Cohen’s office and home had been searched by the FBI, but had yet to be charged with any crimes.

Cohen, later in 2018, was sentenced to three years in prison in 2018 after pleading guilty to federal charges, including lying to Congress, as well as campaign-finance violations and tax evasion. Cohen pleaded guilty to arranging payments to Daniels and model Karen McDougal to prevent them from going public with alleged affairs with Trump, which Trump has repeatedly denied. 

Costello said Cohen, during that meeting, was ‘pacing like a wild tiger in a cage, back and forth, back and forth.’

‘Michael Cohen, in that state of high anxiety, when he said to us numerous times, ‘I’m looking for a way out, I need an escape hatch, how do I do this? I need to know what my options are,’’ Costello said, recalling Cohen asked if he had ‘a chance for commutation.’ 

Costello said he explained to Cohen his rights and his options.

‘The heart of it is that Michael Cohen told us that he was approached by Stormy Daniels’ lawyer and Stormy Daniels had negative information that she wanted to put in a lawsuit against Trump,’ Costello said. ‘So Michael Cohen decided his own – that’s what he told us – on his own, to see if he could take care of this.’

Costello said Cohen ‘sat with the lawyer for Stormy Daniels. They negotiated a nondisclosure agreement for $130,000.’

Costello said he asked Cohen, at the time, if the money negotiated with Daniels was Trump’s money, to which Costello said Cohen replied: ‘No, it’s not.’ 

Costello said he asked Cohen where he got it, and claimed Cohen said he took out a loan for $130,000.

‘I said, why would you do that? He said, because I wanted to keep this secret, even secret from my own wife,’ Costello recalled Cohen saying, adding that Cohen said his wife would ‘know right away’ if he took that sum of money from his own account.

Costello said Cohen told him he ‘didn’t want Melania to know’ and didn’t want his own wife to know.

Costello told reporters Monday that he testified to the grand jury that Trump did not know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels.

But Cohen has said Trump directed the payments. Federal prosecutors opted out of charging Trump related to the Stormy Daniels payment in 2018, even as Cohen implicated him as part of his plea deal.

Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 through his own company and was later reimbursed by Trump’s company, which logged the payments as ‘legal expenses.’ McDougal received $150,000 through the publisher of the supermarket tabloid the National Enquirer.

The Trump Organization ‘grossed up’ Cohen’s reimbursement for Daniels’ payment for ‘tax purposes,’ according to federal prosecutors who filed the 2018 criminal charges against Cohen for the payments. 

Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing with regard to the payments made to Daniels, and has repeatedly said the payments were ‘not a campaign violation,’ but rather a ‘simple private transaction.’ 

Meanwhile, Costello said that during the meeting in April 2018, Cohen said ‘‘I want you guys to know I will do whatever the f— it takes. I will never spend one day in jail.’’

‘He must have said that close to 20 times,’ Costello said Monday. ‘This was his mantra all day long. You think a guy whose mindset right at that moment is a lie, cheat, steal shoot somebody. Whatever it takes. I’m not going to jail – Well –  he went to jail, and now he’s on the revenge tour.’

Costello added: ‘I understand it, but I don’t condone it. And that’s why I went in there today – to tell these people the truth about who the real Michael Cohen is and what he was actually saying at that moment.’ 

Costello’s testimony comes as preparations are being discussed for a possible Trump indictment by Bragg. 

The Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation into Trump was opened in 2019 by then-DA Cyrus Vance. The probe was focused on possible bank, insurance and tax fraud. The case initially involved financial dealings of Trump’s Manhattan properties, including his flagship Fifth Avenue building, Trump Tower, and the valuation of his 213-acre estate Seven Springs in Westchester.

The investigation last year led to tax fraud charges against The Trump Organization, and its finance chief Allen Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) failed to reach an agreement with union negotiators on Monday, prompting district officials to shut down schools in the nation’s second-largest education system on Tuesday.

FOX 11 in Los Angeles reported on Monday evening that LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvahlo said schools would be closed on Tuesday because of a worker strike.

Members of SEIU Local 99, or the Education Workers United, approved a strike for Tuesday, March 21 through Thursday, March 23, by way of a vote after nearly a year of failed negotiations over equitable wage increases, more full-time work, respectful treatment and increased staffing.

Thousands of district employees, from cafeteria workers to bus drivers in the district have made their demands, claiming the LAUSD engaged in ‘unfair practices’ and saying little progress has been made since negotiations began in April 2022.

Union leaders announced in December that talks reached an impasse and a state-appointed mediator would oversee the communications between both parties.

When the union voted to strike in February, 96% of LAUSD workers represented by SEIU Local 99 authorized the measure.

As the strike looms, district officials are continuing to prepare for the ‘unfortunate reality of school closures,’ while remaining available to negotiate a solution to the issues, according to a statement from the district posted to social media on Sunday.

The district said in the statement, contrary to the SEIU’s assertions, the California Public Employee Relations board Office of the General Counsel, or PERB OGC, denied the district’s request for an injunctive relief over claims that the union was acting illegally by engaging in a three-day strike. In the PERB’s decision, it said it did not find the remedy of injunctive relief to be met at this time, but the OGC was directed to expedite the district’s unfair practice charge against the union.

‘Contrary to the SEIU’s assertions, the PERB OGC has not made a decision on Los Angeles Unified’s unfair practice charge regarding the alleged illegality of SEIU’s strike, and the District expects a decision from the PERB OGC as soon as Monday morning, given the expedited processing direction from the PERB Board,’ a statement from the district read.

Carvalho tweeted that he was a believer that good will can carve out common ground and reach an agreement to avoid the strike and keep students in school.

‘We are doing everything we can and I remain optimistic we can reach an agreement,’ Carvalho said. ‘Families should be prepared in the event of a strike.’

He went on to say the district established partnerships to offer Grab and Go meals and supervised activities, should the strike commence.

‘We do not need to debate or litigate the fact that during the pandemic, kids lost a lot of ground,’ the superintendent tweeted, explaining that reading and math proficiency were hit hard, particularly students who are learning English or have disabilities. ‘They cannot afford to be out of school and that is why I am appealing directly to the union leadership to engage and negotiate in good faith and find a solution that addresses the needs of all, including our students.’

Union officials did not immediately respond to inquiries about the strike and current negotiations.

On Twitter, the union posted on Monday that their voices would not be silenced, adding that the school district tried to say the strike was unlawful.

‘But the California Public Employment Relations Board rejected LAUSD’s last-ditch effort to request an injunction to stop the strike,’ union officials tweeted.

In a previous interview with Fox News, SEIU Local 99 Executive Director Max Arias said workers have been living off ‘poverty wages’ and blamed the school district for pushing workers to act. The average salary of workers at LAUSD is $25,000 a year, often working part-time hours.

According to their website, SEIU Local 99 is a union of 50,000 education workers in K-12 schools, early education centers and homes, and community colleges throughout Southern California, including 30,000 cafeteria workers, special education assistants, custodians, bus drivers and others providing essential student services at LAUSD schools.

Nikolas Lanum of Fox News contributed to this report.

Indiana lawmakers have endorsed a bill making it illegal for anyone to possess devices for adapting a firearm into a machine gun.

The state Senate voted 45-4 Monday in favor of the proposal expanding state law to include so-called Glock switches that are already illegal under federal law. Police officials say such switches can convert a semi-automatic gun into one that shoots continuously while the trigger is pressed, firing dozens of bullets within a few seconds.

Republican Sen. Aaron Freeman said such switches can be made on 3-D printers, endangering police officers and bystanders with ‘very little expense, with very little effort.’

The House voted last month to endorse a similar version of the bill. Democratic Rep. Mitch Gore, who is a Marion County sheriff’s department captain, said the switches are leaving officers outgunned in some confrontations.

Supporters said the broader state law was needed so local police don’t need to rely on federal prosecutors pressing charges in such cases. If approved, people with such gun switches could face felony charges under the state law making machine gun possession illegal.

The House and Senate still must agree on a final version to send the bill to Gov. Eric Holcomb for his consideration.

Two Republicans on the House Energy & Commerce Committee are making a push stop the Biden administration from banning gas stoves with legislation that has support from the committee chairman and could get a vote on the House floor this year.

The bills from Reps. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., and Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., are a response to the two-pronged effort seen by the Biden administration to ban gas stoves this year.

In January, a member of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) said a ban on gas stoves was ‘on the table’ because of the health risks they pose to consumers. The CPSC backed down after public outrage and ridicule, but soon after, the Department of Energy proposed an energy-efficiency regulation that officials acknowledge is so stringent that 96% of the gas stoves currently in use today wouldn’t make the cut.

Armstrong’s bill would ban the CPSC from using federal funds to carry out any policy that regulates gas stoves as a banned hazardous product under current law. It also bans the CPSC from enforcing ‘any consumer product safety standards’ that would prohibit the use of gas stoves or impose regulation that would boost the price of gas stoves.

‘Inflation is hurting everyone. We have a crisis at our Southern Border. North Dakotans are worried about being able to provide for their families,’ Armstrong said in a Monday statement. ‘What is the Biden administration focused on? Controlling the kind of stove Americans use. This is further incompetence from an administration that seems more interested in dictating every aspect of our lives than solving real problems.’

The other bill from Lesko would ban the Department of Energy from finalizing, implementing or enforcing its proposed rule on ‘Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products,’ or any ‘substantially similar rule.’

‘The Biden administration’s extreme proposed regulation that will ban nearly every gas stove on the market is just another example of out-of-touch bureaucrats trying to control Americans’ everyday lives,’ she said.

Widespread opposition to the two Biden administration proposals means the bills have a good shot of moving ahead in the House this year, and support from Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., is an even stronger indication that the legislation will be taken up by the committee and moved to the House floor.

‘President Biden and the radical left want to use the federal government’s power to dictate what kind of car you can drive, how you can heat your home and business, and now how you’re allowed to cook food for your family,’ Rodgers said. ‘Forcing people to switch to expensive alternatives will only further increase costs on hardworking families and disproportionately harm the most vulnerable communities.’

Law enforcement officials met behind closed doors Monday to discuss the logistics of arraigning former President Trump following his possible indictment over hush-money payments made on his behalf during the 2016 presidential campaign. 

A law enforcement source told Fox News Monday that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and different branches of law enforcement discussed the logistics of closing down streets and putting lights up with generators, extra barriers, and extra police. 

The source said law enforcement does not expect the former president to be arraigned until next week as the Manhattan grand jury – which has been meeting secretly to hear evidence for weeks – has another witness on Wednesday. A virtual option was apparently ruled out as the District Attorney is opposed to it.  

The source told Fox News that law enforcement is concerned about safety. If the former president does come up to Manhattan, there will be a major police presence and the area will get shut down. Trump has called on his supporters to protest ahead of a possible indictment. 

The grand jury has been probing Trump’s involvement in a $130,000 payment made in 2016 to the porn actor Stormy Daniels to keep her from going public about a sexual encounter she said she had with him years earlier. Trump lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, through a shell company before being reimbursed by Trump, whose company, the Trump Organization, logged the reimbursements as legal expenses.

Federal prosecutors in the U.S. attorneys office for the Southern District of New York opted out of charging Trump related to the Stormy Daniels payment in 2019, even as Cohen implicated him as part of his deal. The Federal Election Commission also tossed its investigation into the matter in 2021. 

The Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation into Trump was opened by then-DA Cyrus Vance. The probe was focused on possible bank, insurance and tax fraud. The case initially involved financial dealings of Trump’s Manhattan properties, including his flagship Fifth Avenue building, Trump Tower, and the valuation of his 213-acre estate Seven Springs in Westchester. 

The investigation last year led to tax fraud charges against The Trump Organization, and its finance chief Allen Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty. 

Trump denies any wrongdoing and has slammed the Manhattan district attorney’s office probe as politically motivated.

An indictment of Trump, who is seeking the White House again in 2024, would be an unprecedented moment in American history, the first criminal case against a former U.S. president. 

Fox News’ Brooke Singman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.