Senator Overcash, you know me. Why are you erasing me?
Dear Senator Overcash:
I shouldn't need to re-introduce myself to you, but I'm Paige Sullivan. I'm a native and lifelong resident of North Carolina. I'm also transgender and a former classmate of yours. We shared the same public school hallways for twelve years. We had many of the same teachers, though never in the same classroom at the same time.
I write to you today, standing up not only for myself, but thousands of transgender, gender non-conforming, non-binary, intersex North Carolinians, and families with transgender children. Since we already know each other, let's keep this casual.
Brad, what are you doing? I was shocked when I saw your name on this bill. You were always a go-getter in school, but I never thought you'd put your name on a bathroom bill like Senate Bill 516. Have you considered the implications of the bills you have sponsored?
Can you all please explain to us how a person with a beard and a deep voice, who's been on testosterone, belongs in the women's room? What protections would you offer a transgender woman who is forced to use the men's room? What will happen when someone needs to take their child or aging relative to the restroom and of a different gender? There are many other scenarios to consider, and this bill will hurt many people.
Secondly, why is there a restriction on changing our birth certificates and driver's licenses? Is that a personal dig at me, perchance? It's no one's business, especially the government's, of what's between our legs. On top of that, you have no idea how the transition process works. For me, it has taken the better part of twenty years. I've had psychological evaluations, relating directly to my gender identity, by doctors over a few years. I've been on estradiol injections for twelve years. I've had five surgeries. You don't just walk into a clinic and have reassignment surgery.
Okay, let's move on to Senate Bill 227. By banning DEI programs, you're not eliminating bias but codifying it. Students deserve to learn the full scope of American history, including the lives of Black, Indigenous, LGBTQ+, and immigrant communities. Silencing these narratives doesn't protect kids—it denies them the tools to understand the world they're
growing up in. We went to overwhelmingly 'white' schools, but you had at least three racial minorities in your graduating class. Maybe you should ask them what they think of this bill. Explain to them that because they are a racial minority, other kids shouldn't learn about their history or struggles for freedom and equal rights.
What's the real reason? Brad, I know you are better than this. Stand on the right side of history. Don't let party politics close your eyes to the harm these bills will cause. Think of your Christian beliefs. Would Jesus stand for this? I invite you to read Matthew 25:34-35, Luke 14:13, and the many teachings that call us toward justice and mercy. I'm not asking you to change overnight. I'm asking you to listen, to remember who I am, and to lead with compassion.
We were taught in civics class that we are equal—did you forget that? Would you like me to contact some of our former teachers to provide a refresher course on the foundational documents of our country and state? I know one who would do it in a heartbeat for you.
Brad, you and I learned the same lessons about fairness, equality, and civic responsibility. I'm not asking for a debate. I'm asking for humanity. You may not accept my meeting request, but I hope you'll receive this: Laws like SB 516 and SB 227 harm real people. And now, you still have the chance to choose compassion over cruelty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer
According to the nature of our economy, it's typical that costs increase over time (hello, inflation). But what we're seeing in elections cannot be considered normal. The Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to list which issues are the biggest problems facing the economy right now. Seventy-two percent said the role of money in politics is a 'very big problem' — landing it the foremost spot above health care costs, inflation, the federal deficit, poverty and every other issue. This is significant. While candidates for Congress and the presidency quibble over who gets access to power, moneyed interests continue to creep into the system, making elections costlier than ever. Sometimes it starts to feel like a contest just for the contest's sake. Let's take a look at the numbers. Just three presidential cycles ago, in 2016, the total cost of all federal elections rang in at $6.5 billion, a (relatively) modest increase from 2012. But four years later, the total cost more than doubled to $15.1 billion and, in 2024, nearly matched that total ($14.8 billion). The U.S. vastly outspends all other nations on elections. The source of money has also changed. Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of candidates who raised more than $200,000 for general election campaigns collected that money from within their districts from people they would ultimately represent if they won (79 percent of House candidates, 62 percent of Senate candidates). As my organization has reported, congressional elections truly have now become national campaigns, with just 17.6 percent local money in House races and only 27.5 percent in Senate races for 2024. So, while more money is pouring into the U.S. election system than ever before, the traditional relationship between elected officials and those they represent has fallen apart. Thanks to the research done by Unite America, we know that nearly all congressional elections are decided by less than 10 percent of voters. Put those low voter participation rates together with low local fundraising rates, and you end up with elected officials who no longer represent the people. And if our officials are not beholden to their constituents, but rather to partisan forces, we end up with a dysfunctional government. We shouldn't be surprised that the American people have had enough. Amid a more politicized landscape in which partisans are moving increasingly toward the extremes, money in politics is one of the few issues that both sides of the aisle can agree on — with 66 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats citing it as a very big problem. And yet, our leaders appear uninterested in changing a system that helps them stay in power. In every Congress, a handful of lawmakers have introduced legislation to reform the role of money in politics, but none of those bills have any chance at becoming law. In fact, a meaningful campaign finance law has not been enacted since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed in 2002 — nearly a quarter-century ago. Since then, the courts have eaten away at the restrictions created by the law, clearing the way for super PACs and the untraceable ' dark money ' funds that support them. And then there's the Federal Election Commission, which is tasked with regulating campaign fundraising and expenditures in line with current law, enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the law. But even in the best of times, the FEC rarely takes action. When fully staffed, it has three Republican and three Democratic commissioners, leading to partisan gridlock. But deadlocked votes would be a welcome change from what we are facing now. In order to take action, the FEC requires a quorum of four commissioners. Right now it only has three, so it cannot complete most of its core functions. That leaves the judiciary as the only branch of government considering changes to campaign finance laws. All eyes are on Maine, where voters overwhelmingly approved a 2024 ballot measure setting caps on contributions to super PACs. Opponents have sued to overturn the measure, and the case has been teed up for a federal district court's review. It is likely to end up before the Supreme Court in the next couple years, in what will likely be the most significant ruling on money in politics since Citizens United. Before that case makes it to the high court, the justices may consider another campaign finance case. Current law limits how much money party committees can spend in coordination with candidates' campaign committees. That law is being challenged and the case could be heard this fall. While all this is happening (or, at the FEC, not happening), political operatives are already gearing up for the next elections and strategizing how to raise as much money as possible. If nothing changes, the dollars will only get bigger, and voters will be even more dissatisfied. We deserve better.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump offers assurance of no US boots on the ground in Ukraine
President Trump on Tuesday offered his assurances that U.S. boots would not be on the ground to defend the Ukraine-Russia border as part of any security assurances for Kyiv to end the war. 'What kind of assurances do you feel like you have that going forward, and past this Trump administration, it won't be American boots on the ground defending that border?' 'Fox & Friends' co-host Charles Hurt asked Trump during a phone interview. 'Well, you have my assurance — and I'm president. I'm just trying to stop people from being killed,' Trump responded. The president earlier in the interview had indicated European nations may put boots on the ground. It's unclear if Russia would agree to that as part of any peace agreement. 'We've got the European nations, and they'll front load it, and they'll have, some of them…they want to have, you know, boots on the ground,' Trump said. 'I don't think it's going to be a problem to be honest with you. I think Putin is tired, I think they're all tired of it. But, you never know.' Trump called into 'Fox & Friends' the day after he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and top European leaders at the White House for talks on how to end the war in Ukraine, which has been raging since Russian forces invaded in 2022. Trump and European officials discussed potential security assurances for Ukraine as part of a peace deal that would prevent future Russian aggression, though the specifics remain murky. Zelensky said he hoped those details would be ironed out in the next 10 days. Trump has definitively ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine as part of any peace deal.
Forbes
13 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Nonsense Narrative Of Climate Change As An Existential Crisis
The issue of climate narratives is something very much on my mind these days. Two years ago I wrote about five climate change narratives (Scientific, Skeptical, Doomsday, Opportunistic, and Moral) and three months ago I wrote that we need a new American narrative for climate change. Thus it was with great interest that I read the recent paper 'The Science vs. the Narrative vs. the Voters: Clarifying the Public Debate Around Energy and Climate' by Roger Pielke, Jr. and Ruy Teixeira of the American Enterprise institute (AEI). The paper is based on a survey of over 3,000 voters that was conducted for AEI by YouGov between September 20-26, 2024. The findings are fascinating and telling. They are also important to take into account when constructing a narrative about climate change in America that will lead to stable, long-term bipartisan policies. Political oscillations are as much of a challenge to dealing with climate change as climate change itself. The fundamental thesis of the paper is that 'Both the public's views and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) scientific analysis differ in important respects from a narrative that has come to dominate the mainstream media discourse and public understandings of climate and energy.' In short, the media has largely adopted a Doomsday scenario which is at odds with the position of the IPCC. At the same time, and somewhat ironically, the result is a public perception that the IPCC's views are more catastrophic than they really are. The AEI report notes that 'the IPCC does not associate climate change with existential, apocalyptic, or catastrophic outcomes.' Yet 77% of respondents answered 'Yes' to the question 'Does the IPCC think there is a tipping point beyond which temperature rise from the current day will produce catastrophic results for human civilization?' Especially telling is how stable this number is. My fellow Ph.D. sociologist Ruy Teixeira kindly provided me the detailed crosstabs for the survey. The range around 77% was tight and insignificant across age groups, gender, race, marital status, having children under 18 or not, full time vs. non-full time employment, union household or not, and income. Not surprisingly, the biggest ranges were along the political dimension. The highest percentage was for registered Democrats (86%), liberals (91%), and Biden voters (87%). Independents and moderates were at 77%. Republicans, conservatives, and Trump voters were all at 66%. This shows how pervasive the Doomsday scenario has become even as people are leaving mainstream media for their own social media echo chambers which tend to both have more misinformation and higher levels of engagement. But you have to love the irony of the 66% groups being a bit less uninformed about what the IPCC has to say than the others. To be sure, the IPCC report discusses tipping points at various temperature levels—such as species extinction, irreversible biodiversity loss, and loss of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctic—and these are serious. But they don't mean the end of human civilization. To be clear, I should also say that there is a great deal of uncertainty about tipping points. They are low probability/high impact scenarios which can be extremely consequential. They are 'fat-tail' risks for which it is very difficult to assign a precise probability. These scenarios aren't something to ignore but to leap from them to the end of human civilization is bad science and a sure-fire way to alienate Americans who see climate change as a real issue. Americans' View of Climate Change Which is most of them. According to a Spring 2025 report 'Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes' by the Yale Program on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, 69% of Americans believe climate change is happening vs. only 15% who do not. Sixty percent believe it is mostly caused by human activity vs. 28% who believe it is caused mostly by changes in the natural environment. And 65% are at least somewhat worried about it, including 29% who are very worried. Extreme Doomsday narratives are more part of the problem than part of the solution to dealing with climate change. Some people will find the Doomsday narrative noncredible. Just because a person said 'Yes' to some supposed claim by the IPCC doesn't mean they agree it's going to happen. Some will simply see the IPCC as no different from a very left wing NGO instead of a collection of scientific experts. If anything, it could lead to a thermostatic reaction of not taking climate change seriously at all. I'd be surprised if a single one of those 3,000 survey respondents have read this report and no reason to expect them to. So they're going with a perception they've picked up from a general narrative, not the report itself. For other people, this narrative only makes things worse when it comes to addressing the issue. There is extensive behavioral science research showing the apocalyptic depictions can get people's attention in the short term, over the long term they can lead to anxiety, fatalism, or disengagement, especially among those already facing social or economic stress. Consider these numbers from the Yale/George Mason report about how Americans feel about climate change: Many Americans say they feel the following emotions about global warming: interested (58%), sad (44%), disgusted (44%), afraid (39%), anxious (39%), angry (39%), hopeful (38%), outraged (36%), hopeless (34%), or depressed (28%). I fail to see how a message of 'We are all doomed unless you drive an EV and become vegan' is very helpful to addressing the problem. What Americans need to know is that climate change is a serious challenge but one we can address if we come together, ignore the extreme climate activists and climate change deniers, and develop have sensible bipartisan policies that enable rather than interferes with market forces. This is the message in a book I've just finished which will come out early next year. Origins of the Doomsday Narrative Pielke and Teixeira do a nice job of explaining how the Doomsday narrative came about and the role of individuals (e.g., Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, António Guterres, Greta Thunberg David Wallace-Wells) and organizations (e.g., Earthjustice, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Sunrise Movement) in making this happen. They summarize this dominant narrative in mainstream media in seven points which I can summarize in three: This narrative has 'made it the conventional wisdom of the college-educated left, much of the center, and the mainstream media.' They explain how this narrative basically took over the Democratic Party's position on climate change from the 2012 Obama era of 'all of the above' when it comes to energy sources to the 'renewables or bust' one today. The Ecoright Something else has changed over the past dozen years or so. The emergence of the so-called 'Ecoright' which I discuss in this RepublicEn podcast. These organizations are focused on climate change but from a conservative perspective. Over the past two years I've gotten to know many of them and have worked with them in a variety of ways including Alliance for Market Solutions, American Conservation Coalition, C3 Solutions, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, ClearPath, Climate Solutions Fund, DEPLOY/US, RepublicEN, and the R Street Institute. I think the work they are doing is far more important for addressing the challenge of climate change than the loud and shrill rhetoric and performative actions (e.g., protests, boycotts, and some shareholder proposals) coming out of the far left climate catastrophe crowd. The Ecoright has no illusions about the seriousness of climate change. It acknowledges the importance of mitigation but pays more attention to adaptation than the Doomsday diktats. It has an 'all of the above' approach to energy sources with an emphasis on market forces. They are no more enthusiastic than I am about the Statist approach Trump is taking to emphasizing fossil fuels over wind and solar than I am. The Ecoright recognizes the importance of innovation and new technologies, including those that are unpalatable to the far left such as nuclear and carbon capture and storage. It is very pragmatic about the importance of issues such as improving the electrical grid and making permitting easier, topics rarely discussed on the left since it's so busy screaming about fossil fuels. It also recognizes the important role that public policy and regulation has to play, and that it needs to be bipartisan. Do I agree with them on everything? Of course not. And they don't all 100% agree with each other. Climate change is an incredibly complicated topic and we need many ideas to test and discuss. I support a price on carbon; some of the Ecoright do and some don't. I'm more comfortable with regulation than they are. I'm more supportive of sensible subsidies for wind and solar for a limited period then they are. But here's the thing and I find it very telling. All of these folks know I'm a liberal with very different political views than theirs. Yet it's easier for me to have civil and constructive discussions with them about climate change than with the people and organizations on the far left. The diehard climate activists have an orthodoxy from which even the slightest deviation is apostasy. Fall completely into line or you're cast out of the Climate Church and branded as a climate-change denier or, even worse, a Republican! Don't believe me? Send this little piece to some of your diehard climate activist friends and see what they have to say.
