logo
North Carolina Senate proposal again seeks to bar transgender people from specified public restrooms

North Carolina Senate proposal again seeks to bar transgender people from specified public restrooms

Yahoo27-03-2025

A demonstrator holds a sign reading "Trans Kids Belong" at a March 2024 rally outside the North Carolina Legislative Building. Republican state senators have introduced a bill in 2025 that would enact new restrictions on the rights of transgender people. (Photo: Clayton Henkel/NC Newsline)
A group of North Carolina state senators is seeking to enact a new ban on transgender people using bathrooms and other single-sex facilities that correspond to their gender identity, nearly a decade after the state's infamous 2016 'bathroom bill.'
Filed Tuesday, Senate Bill 516, entitled the 'Women's Safety and Protection Act,' would bar trans people from using unisex restrooms, changing facilities, and sleeping quarters that correspond to their gender identities. It would also define 'male' and 'female' in state law strictly according to assigned sex at birth and prohibit the modification of sex markers on birth certificates and driver's licenses.
Introduced by lead sponsors Sen. Vickie Sawyer (R-Iredell) and Sen. Brad Overcash (R-Gaston), the bill states its purpose as twofold: 'to clarify and reconcile the meaning of the terms biological sex, gender, and any other related terms in State law' and to 'provide protections for women against sexual assault, harassment, and violence' and other 'acts of abuse committed by biological men.'
Joining Sawyer and Overcash in sponsoring the bill are Republican state senators Lisa Barnes, Warren Daniel, Bobby Hanig, and Ralph Hise. Hise and Daniel voted in favor of the House Bill 2 bathroom ban in 2016, while the other sponsors were not yet serving in the legislature. None of the bill's sponsors responded to a request for comment.
Unlike the 2016 ban, Senate Bill 516 takes aim at a smaller scope of facilities — prisons and other confinement facilities, domestic violence and rape crisis centers, and public schools — and specifically those that receive state funds.
But where that bill's scope was limited to bathrooms and changing rooms, this proposal also specifies sleeping quarters, and its emphasis on shelters has prompted concerns from civil rights advocates that trans women seeking protection from domestic violence and sexual abuse could be placed at risk for further violence.
'Transgender people already face higher rates of harassment and violence than cisgender peers,' said Reighlah Collins, policy counsel at the ACLU of North Carolina. 'This is just setting up trans people for further attacks and further vulnerability in these places where people are supposed to be safe.'
The bill includes exemptions for family use of facilities, rendering medical or emergency aid, performing custodial work, inspections, and maintenance, and law enforcement activities. It also excludes policies at domestic violence and rape crisis centers to accommodate minors and individuals who require physical assistance.
The legislation would require that all bathrooms, changing facilities, and sleeping quarters at the facilities it covers be used by individuals of one sex at a time, not including those exemptions. And it prohibits public schools from hosting events where students share sleeping quarters from grouping together students of different sexes unless they have received permission from parents or guardians.
Jazmynne Cruz, a spokesperson for the LGBTQ+ rights organization Equality NC, wrote in an emailed statement that the group was 'disheartened' by a bill they view as 'yet another attack on our transgender community.'
'As we continue to learn more about the implications of this bill, we remain committed to keeping you informed and sharing meaningful ways to support our transgender neighbors,' Cruz wrote. 'Our fight for equality continues, and we are stronger together.'
Advocates for the bill framed the issue in terms of protecting women. Ashley Vaughan, the press director for the North Carolina Values Coalition — a religious right advocacy organization — wrote in a statement in response to the bill that 'men are men, women are women, and men should not be allowed to rob women of their safety and privacy.'
'Defining male and female by biology in North Carolina law is important because when men can identify as women it invalidates hundreds of laws and policies designed to protect women,' Vaughan wrote. 'We need to protect women and girls in private spaces where they are vulnerable.'
Collins argued that such framing is disingenuous, and that the bill's enforcement mechanism — which opens up facilities and state agencies that do not comply to lawsuits — risks exposing all women to the use of invasive techniques to determine individuals' birth sex, such as physical searches and examinations.
'Senate Bill 516 would leave all women — transgender or not — vulnerable to accusations and discrimination based on how well they conform to someone else's standard for their gender,' Collins said. 'If they don't look like what people expect people to look like in that bathroom, they are likely to face pushback and really setting them up for danger.'
Less than a decade ago, North Carolina experienced an enormous national and international backlash after the implementation of HB 2, the 'bathroom bill' that barred trans people from using public restrooms corresponding to their gender identity throughout the state.
The bill prompted business leaders around the country to pull projects from North Carolina in a show of protest, costing the state an estimated $3.76 billion according to the Associated Press. The state also lost out on major sporting events, including the 2017 NBA All-Star Game, which was set to be played in Charlotte but ultimately moved to New Orleans.
Chris Cooper, a political scientist at Western Carolina University, said that context makes him 'surprised' that senators would broach another bathroom bill, even as national sentiment has moved right on some trans issues in the intervening decade.
'I expected the General Assembly to lean into bills around gender-affirming care for minors and about trans women in sports — two parts of the trans issue where they seem to be on the side of public opinion,' he said. 'I was a little bit surprised to see a bill get introduced that seems to go back in time, to sort of give away the rhetorical advantage they seem to have on this issue.'
Cooper noted that top Republican leaders — like Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, whose support, he said, would give 'a golden highway to passage' for almost any bill — had not joined onto SB 516 as a sponsor, suggesting there may not be an appetite among leadership for such a far-reaching measure.
'The bathroom issue, the driver's license issue — those seem to be places where the public might be a little bit more on the trans rights side,' Cooper said. 'I could see that kind of backlash [that occurred after HB 2]. I can almost guarantee, if this becomes law, there will be lawsuits, there will be backlash.'
But President Donald Trump won reelection in part by launching broad attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris for her support of transgender rights, with campaign ads castigating her for being 'for they/them' while Trump was 'for you' and for stating during the 2020 campaign that she would support government-funded gender-affirming surgery for undocumented immigrants.
'Trump got this right, and now North Carolina got this right,' wrote Vaughan, the North Carolina Values Coalition spokesperson.
And other Republican legislatures states have passed laws restricting trans rights with far less pushback than North Carolina received in 2016. Should SB 516 become law, North Carolina would be the fourth states to codify 'male' and 'female' by assigned sex at birth, the seventh state forbidding the change of sex markers on birth certificates, and the 15th to bar trans people from at least some single-sex spaces aligning with their gender identity.
SB 516 comes amid a wave of legislation in North Carolina seeking to curtail the rights of trans people to express their gender identity and restrict their access to gender-affirming healthcare.
In 2023, North Carolina banned gender-affirming care for minors and barred trans student athletes from participating in women's sports at most schools, two issues that Trump championed on the campaign trail the following year.
'This is part of a coordinated, larger strategy across the country to push transgender people out of public and civic life, despite the clear signs that this is discriminatory and doesn't work,' said Collins, the ACLU policy counsel.
A group of GOP lawmakers also introduced a bill Wednesday that would seek to expand parents' access to their kids' medical records, examinations and treatment, including discussions of gender identity. House Bill 519, labeled the 'Parents' Medical Bill of Rights' by its sponsors, would grant parents the right 'to access and review all medical records' of their child.
It was prompted, lawmakers say, by constituent complaints that common medical practice allowed children starting at 12 to opt out of sharing information with their parents.
'We must stop operating under a system that sidelines parents and assumes institutions knows better,' said Rep. Jennifer Balkcom (R-Henderson), who said her son had just turned 12 and had seen medical professionals asking for his consent to share information.
'I'm paying for the insurance,' added Rep. Brian Biggs (R-Randolph). 'I want to be involved.'
At the core of that medical practice is a 50-year-old law created to allow minors to discuss sensitive medical topics, including pregnancy and venereal disease, with a doctor. But the bill sponsors say it's led to conversations and decisions they don't support — such as being vaccinated for COVID-19 or having discussions about sexuality.
'This has to stop,' Biggs said.
If the bill were to become law, it would likely have wide-ranging impacts on sensitive medical discussions for children — including those dealing with pregnancy, sexuality and gender-affirming care. (In North Carolina, gender-affirming care is banned until age 18; abortion is banned after 12 weeks of pregnancy.)
Neither bill has yet to be scheduled for a committee hearing.
NC Newsline's Galen Bacharier contributed reporting.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Government drones used in 'runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Government drones used in 'runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Government drones used in 'runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says

Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a "runaway spying operation." The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. "For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media," Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes "the allegations very seriously." Read more: Will these drones 'revolutionize' 911 response? L.A. suburb will be first to test The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. "The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private," said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. "Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?" he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to "burdensome litigation." The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. "I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property," Waldman said. "We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction." The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch "discretionary proactive investigations," the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Read more: Police drones could soon crisscross the skies. Cities need to be ready, ACLU warns Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she "became confused and worried," the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. "This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," Schmitz said in a statement. "I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me." A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that "when we see something like that, we turn around," according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that "we don't put that in the camera footage." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Trump-Musk feud: Are electric vehicles and Tesla at the heart of the breakup?
Trump-Musk feud: Are electric vehicles and Tesla at the heart of the breakup?

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump-Musk feud: Are electric vehicles and Tesla at the heart of the breakup?

The President of the United States of America and one of the world's most influential billionaires are at odds after months of collaboration. The confrontation escalated Thursday with Elon Musk saying Trump would have lost the election without him in a post on X. President Donald Trump in turn referred to his former senior advisor as "the man who lost his mind" in a Friday morning ABC News phone interview. Republican Trump allies are now also speaking out against Musk. Musk's breakup with the administration has been public and is well-documented, with Trump and the Tesla CEO trading calculated jabs like pro boxers. The underlying reason behind the sudden intense feud is a serious cause of concern for some American car buyers. "Clean Coal" has been a popular buzzword for not one but two presidential campaigns for Donald Trump. So, Elon Musk's initial choice to stand beside a global warming skeptic as the CEO of a clean energy and automotive company was puzzling to say the least. At first, Musk's involvement with the administration was seen by many as mutually beneficial, since the CEO could potentially reap the benefits of government contracts for Tesla and SpaceX. The general public quickly soured to the idea of the eccentric CEO playing a key role in the administration. By April 8, Tesla stock had nosedived 41.50% from its January 2 share price. Tesla dealers have been attacked and vandalized while other Americans have staged peaceful protests against Musk's involvement in government and role at the Department of Government Efficiency. So, why would a guy who once wore a "Trump Was Right About Everything" hat suddenly publicly oppose his new bill? The short answer is, the two don't see eye to eye on the automotive industry's most controversial powertrain option. The One, Big, Beautiful Bill could decimate Tesla. President Donald Trump's stance and actions against EV adoption in America includes: Supporting the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, which suggests phasing out a federal EV tax credit that would benefit thousands of Tesla buyers Claiming former President Joe Biden's EV mandate "would kill 40% of the auto industry's jobs", according to Ordering the shut down of many federal electric vehicle chargers and pausing massive federal EV fleet purchases, according to Elon Musk (and Tesla's) stance and actions for EV adoption in America: Elon Musk bio says "Tesla's mission has been to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy" Musk claimed "the world does need electric cars" during a 60 Minutes interview and factory tour, asserting that Tesla has a crucial role in the future of EVs Tesla has collaborated with Ford, GM, Stellantis, Rivian, Volkswagen, Honda, Acura, Hyundai, Kia, Toyota and more to provide Tesla Supercharger access to EVs, making them easier to charge for American drivers Tesla stock recently plummeted in response to the feud between Trump and Musk. The President has also threatened Musk's government contracts amidst the dispute. The bill appears to be the focal point of the rift, but the two clearly have different ideas on what America's future should be. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk may have been able to join forces over their mutual stances on certain conservative points and a hatred of bureaucracy, but their White House tag team was short-lived. The One, Big, Beautiful Bill directly undermines some of the actions Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency have taken since the two united. Trump is 78 years old and expresses a desire to bring America back to a golden age of manufacturing before globalism outsourced American jobs and created a reliance on foreign trade. He also speaks about returning the country to an age where mining and drilling for fossil fuel production were prioritized over environmental concerns. Musk, on the other hand, is a 53-year-old futurist who strives to make humans a multi-planetary species and has made a fortune from innovation and technological disruption. At a glance, the issue seems to be about the One, Big, Beautiful Bill attacking Tesla's bottom line but the two polarizing figures are fundamentally different in terms of future aspirations. Based on Trump's falling out with several former members of the first Trump administration and Musk's known adversarial nature in the private sector, this could be the end for, arguably, the most fascinating duo of 2025. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump vs Elon Musk: Could Tesla, EVs be at the art of the feud?

Ohio budget moves closer to doing away with elected county coroners
Ohio budget moves closer to doing away with elected county coroners

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Ohio budget moves closer to doing away with elected county coroners

Jun. 6—For now, the Ohio Senate is going along on an Ohio House plan to make county coroners appointed by county commissioners instead of being elected by county voters. But, while the Senate didn't change the House's proposal in its initial draft of the state's two-year operating budget, Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, told reporters that there's still a chance the Senate could eliminate the House's proposal when it amends the budget next week. McColley said he put a request out for those in his caucus with strong feelings on the matter to weigh in. "If members feel strongly that it should go back to the way that it is under current law, then there's a possibility to see an amendment here in the omnibus," McColley told this news outlet. "We didn't see a lot of members — we saw some — but we didn't see a lot of members asking for it to be changed back." The Senate is expected to make those amendments on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. The change could be consequential in counties where county commissioners and the coroner are different political parties. In Montgomery County, for example, the elected coroner is a Republican while Democrats hold two of the three seats on the county commission. The House's primary advocate for the change, county commissioner-turned-lawmaker Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, has framed the change as necessary to solve a scarcity issue. "It's really hard to find folks that want to serve as a coroner at all, it's even harder to find folks who are willing to be the coroner and want to run a political campaign to do so," Stewart said in April. But the proposed change is opposed by Ohio State Coroners Association, whose Executive Director David Corey told this outlet that he's still hopeful that former coroners in the Ohio Senate, like Sen. Matt Huffman, R-Tipp City, will help the Senate reverse course. "Commissioners already have the authority to appoint a physician to be coroner if no one runs," Corey said. "So they already have this authority — so why subject this as a blanket on everyone?" Corey noted that commissioners also already have the authority to contract out with different county coroner offices if there's no elected coroner and the commission cannot find an in-county physician that wants to be appointed. "We don't really know what (problem) the House is trying and the Senate are trying to fix ... other than chipping away at other elected officials," Corey said. Corey said the idea is "wrought with potential problems," and speculated that coroners appointed by commissioners might be more beholden to those officials than they are to the public. He said appointees could also be fired at will, which would make it harder for a coroner to stand up to the commission in budget negotiations or other high-stakes situations. "We just think it's a horrible precedent," Corey said. Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, whose home county of Cuyahoga is one of two counties in the state where the position is already appointed following a local vote, told this outlet that she didn't like the sound of applying the idea to every coroner in the state. "You want the coroner to feel like they can have a lot of pressure on them," Antonio said. "If they're appointed, then it's almost like they have an affiliation to the person that appointed them." She said this could lead to undue influence. "I think we, probably in the long run, would be better off continuing to have them be elected," Antonio said. ------ For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening. Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store