Connect with us

North Carolina

Ban on gender-affirming care for minors takes effect in North Carolina after veto override

Published

on

Ban on gender-affirming care for minors takes effect in North Carolina after veto override


Transgender youth in North Carolina on Wednesday lost access to the gender-affirming treatments many credit as live-saving after the Republican-controlled General Assembly overrode the Democratic governor’s veto of that legislation and others touching on gender in sports and classroom instruction.

GOP supermajorities in the House and Senate enacted —over Gov. Roy Cooper’s opposition— a bill barring medical professionals from providing hormone therapy, puberty-blocking drugs and surgical gender-transition procedures to anyone under 18, with limited medical exceptions.

The policy takes effect immediately, but minors who had begun treatment before Aug. 1 may continue receiving that care if their doctors deem it medically necessary and their parents consent.

North Carolina becomes the 22nd state to enact legislation restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for trans minors. But most of those laws face legal challenges, and local LGBTQ+ right advocates have vowed to challenge the ban in court.

Advertisement

The Senate voted 27-18 to complete the veto override after an earlier House vote, 73-46.

US-NEWS-NC-ABORTION-RA
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper.

Raleigh News & Observer


Democratic Sen. Lisa Grafstein, North Carolina’s only out LGBTQ+ state senator, said the gender-affirming care bill “may be the most heartbreaking bill in a truly heartbreaking session.”

Some LGBTQ+ rights advocates in the Senate gallery began yelling after Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, who was presiding, cut off Grafstein to let another lawmaker speak. Several people were then escorted from the chamber by capitol police.

Advertisement

Sen. Joyce Krawiec, a Forsyth County Republican and chief sponsor of the bill restricting gender-affirming care, said the state has a responsibility to protect children from receiving potentially irreversible procedures before they are old enough to make their own informed medical decisions.

Earlier, the Senate and House voted minutes apart to override another Cooper veto of a bill limiting LGBTQ+ instruction in the early grades, also making that law.

That law requires public school teachers in most circumstances to alert parents before they call a student by a different name or pronoun. And the law also bans instruction about gender identity and sexuality in K-4 classrooms, which critics have previously likened to a Florida law opponents call “Don’t Say Gay.”

Both chambers also voted Wednesday to override Cooper’s veto of another bill banning transgender girls from playing on girls’ sports teams from middle and high school through college. It, too, immediately became law.

A day of divisive deliberations saw anger and emotion at times in the assembly.

Advertisement

Democratic state Rep. John Autry of Mecklenburg County, who has a transgender grandchild, choked up while debating the gender-affirming care bill on the House floor. “Just stop it,” he begged his Republican colleagues shortly before they voted to enact the law.

And Cooper blasted the decisions of the Republican-controlled chambers in a blistering statement, calling them “wrong priorities” even before lawmakers had completed all their votes.

“The legislature finally comes back to pass legislation that discriminates,” he said, adding it would have several negative impacts for North Carolina. “Yet they still won’t pass a budget when teachers, school bus drivers and Medicaid Expansion for thousands of working people getting kicked off their health plans every week are desperately needed.”

Parents of transgender and nonbinary children, like Elizabeth Waugh of Orange County, said hours before the voting started that they have been considering whether to move their families out of North Carolina so their children will have unrestricted access to gender-affirming care.

Waugh’s nonbinary child did not begin receiving treatment before Aug. 1 and would need to travel elsewhere if they decide they want to start taking hormones.

Advertisement

“I have felt like I had a lump in my throat for months,” Waugh said. “Just talking to other families who are dealing with this, I mean, the pain that they are feeling, the suffering, the fear for their children —it’s devastating.”

Gender-affirming care is considered safe and medically necessary by the leading professional health associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the Endocrine Society. While trans minors very rarely receive surgical interventions, they are commonly prescribed drugs to delay puberty and sometimes begin taking hormones before they reach adulthood.

The House kicked off the day’s rush of votes with a 74-45 vote to override Cooper’s veto of a bill that would prohibit transgender girls from playing on girls’ middle school, high school and college sports teams. The Senate completed the override soon after.

A former Olympic swimmer, Rep. Marcia Morey, had spoken in House floor debate before the vote about possible repercussions for young athletes.

“This bill affects 10-, 11-, 12-year-olds who are just starting to learn about athletics, about competition, about sportsmanship,” Morey, a Durham County Democrat, said. “To some of these kids, it could be their lifeline to self-confidence.”

Advertisement

Critics have said limits on transgender girls’ participation in sports are discriminatory and have called it a measure disguised as a safety precaution that would unfairly pick on a small number of students.

But such supporters of the bill as Payton McNabb, a recent high school graduate from Murphy, argued that legislation is needed to protect the safety and well-being of young female athletes and to preserve scholarship opportunities for them.

“The veto of this bill was not only a veto on women’s rights, but a slap in the face to every female in the state,” said McNabb, who says she suffered a concussion and neck injury last year after a transgender athlete hit her in the head with a volleyball during a school match.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

North Carolina

North Carolina family can sue over unwanted COVID-19 shot, court rules

Published

on

North Carolina family can sue over unwanted COVID-19 shot, court rules


A North Carolina mother and son can sue a public school system and a doctors’ group on allegations they gave the boy a COVID-19 vaccine without consent, the state Supreme Court ruled on Friday, reversing a lower-court decision that declared a federal health emergency law blocked the litigation.

A trial judge and later the state Court of Appeals had ruled against Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith, who at age 14 received the vaccination in August 2021 despite his protests at a testing and vaccination clinic at a Guilford County high school, according to the family’s lawsuit.

Smith went to the clinic to be tested for COVID-19 after a cluster of cases occurred among his school’s football team.

The Guilford County School’s administrative building in Greensboro, North Carolina. Google Maps

He did not expect the clinic would be providing vaccines as well, according to the litigation. Smith told workers he didn’t want a vaccination, and he lacked a signed parental consent form to get one.

Advertisement

When the clinic was unable to reach his mother, a worker instructed another to “give it to him anyway,” Happel and Smith allege in legal briefs.

Happel and Smith sued the Guilford County Board of Education and an organization of physicians who helped operate the school clinic, alleging claims of battery and that their constitutional rights were violated.

A panel of the intermediate-level appeals court last year ruled unanimously that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act shielded the school district and the Old North State Medical Society from liability.

The law places broad protections and immunity on an array of individuals and organizations who perform “countermeasures” during a public health emergency.

A syringe is loaded with a dose of the COVID-19 vaccine at a clinic in British Columbia, Canada on April 10, 2021. AP

A COVID-19 emergency declaration in March 2020 activated the law’s immunity provisions, Friday’s decision said.

Advertisement

Chief Justice Paul Newby, writing Friday’s prevailing opinion, said that the federal law did not prevent the mother and son from suing on allegations that their rights in the state constitution had been violated.

In particular, he wrote, there is the right for a parent to control their child’s upbringing and the “right of a competent person to refuse forced, nonmandatory medical treatment.”

North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby addresses the audience at the Legislative Building in Raleigh, NC on July 10, 2024. AP

The federal law’s plain text led a majority of justices to conclude that its immunity only covers tort injuries, Newby wrote, which is when someone seeks damages for injuries caused by negligent or wrongful actions.

“Because tort injuries are not constitutional violations, the PREP Act does not bar plaintiffs’ constitutional claims,” he added while sending the case back presumably for a trial on the allegations.

Associate Justice Allison Riggs wrote a dissenting opinion backed by the other Democratic justice on the court. AP

The court’s five Republican justices backed Newby’s opinion, including two who wrote a short separate opinion suggesting the immunity found in the federal law should be narrowed further.

Advertisement

Associate Justice Allison Riggs, writing a dissenting opinion backed by the other Democratic justice on the court, said that state constitutional claims should be preempted from the federal law.

Riggs criticized the majority for “fundamentally unsound” constitutional analyses.

“Through a series of dizzying inversions, it explicitly rewrites an unambiguous statute to exclude state constitutional claims from the broad and inclusive immunity,” Riggs said.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

North Carolina

On The Record: DEI and where it stands in the NC legislature

Published

on

On The Record: DEI and where it stands in the NC legislature


DEI was one of the main themes of the national 2024 elections, and some Republican state lawmakers here have taken a cue from that and filed bills against it in North Carolina. WRAL goes ‘On The Record’ with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle about the legislation.



Source link

Continue Reading

North Carolina

Surprise! Killer whale spotted off the North Carolina coast

Published

on

Surprise! Killer whale spotted off the North Carolina coast


A rare sighting for researchers off the North Carolina coast.

On March 13, an aerial survey team from the Florida-based Clearwater Marine Aquarium Research Institute spotted an orca, also known as the killer whale, near Kitty Hawk, located in the Outer Banks of NC.  

This is the first time the team has spotted a killer whale since they started surveying the area five years ago. 

Killer whales can be found in all oceans, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, although most are located in Antarctica, Norway, and Alaska due to the colder waters. 

Advertisement

According to the North Carolina State Parks website, killer whales are rarely seen in North Carolina waters.

In 2011, a pod of killer whales was spotted off Oregon Inlet in Dare County.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending