Ben Schachtman: Okay, Nikolai: It was a busy week as the Republican-controlled House and Senate worked to override as many of Stein’s vetoes as they could. But we’re drilling down on House Bill 805. This bill has been through some twists and turns – give us some of the backstory.
Nikolai Mather: Yeah, so initially, this was a bipartisan effort to protect victims of online sexual exploitation. There was pretty broad consensus on the bill, which would also tighten restrictions on access to online pornography.
BS: So, how did it end up becoming controversial?
NM: Well, Senate Republicans amended the bill in committee, including a number of anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ provisions. One would basically exclude gender identity from any state definition of sex. Another would require a trans person’s birth certificate to include documentation of their original sex assigned at birth.
BS: Right, so critics felt like this was a kind of bureaucratic misgenderings — and I read it also authorizes people to seek civil remedies against medical providers over gender transition.
NM: Yes, with a statutory window of ten years. And all of these measures were taken by critics to be attacks on trans people – and that led Gov. Stein to call them “mean-spirited,” when he vetoed them along with a couple of anti-DEI bills proposed the general assembly.
BS: But now the House and Senate have overridden that veto, even without a supermajority. How did that happen?
NM: Well the Senate has the votes to override a veto, but the House does not. So for the House to override a veto, at least one Democrat either has to vote with Republicans or be absent.
BS: Right, because it’s a supermajority of the representatives present — not the total number.
NM: Yes – and a lot of LGBTQ+ advocates were expecting freshman Representative Dante Pittman, a Democrat, to help with this veto override. Here's the Human Rights Campaign's Rhys Chambers:
Rhys Chambers: We are working especially hard on calling out Rep. Dante Pittman – who did actually vote for H 805 – and making sure that he knows that he cannot advance his political career on the backs of trans kids and on the backs of trans people generally. So we're really just calling for him to stand with us, to stand with the community that helped get him in office, and uphold this veto.
NM: But in the end, it was actually Rep. Nasif Majeed who voted with the Republicans. Majeed is from Charlotte, and told our Capitol Bureau reporter Adam Wagner that he supported the bill due to "moral issues" that spoke to him. Although he refused to elaborate on that:
Nasif Majeed: I'll put it in a blanket situation: There were some moral issues in there that I had some sentiments, some deep sentiments about it. So that's why I support it.
Adam Wagner: Can you walk me through those at all?
Nasif Majeed: No. I'll leave it at that.
BS: So, now that the bill is law, what is going to change?
NM: That's hard to say. Some of this bill comes off as just messaging, but maybe could be very serious. Like officially defining male and female, for example. Does that mean that, when that clause goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2026, there's gonna be a ban on gender marker changes at the DMV? Cause it's kind of vague.
Another issue is the ban on healthcare for trans prisoners. On the one hand, it’s not a major cost-saving provision, and it doesn’t affect a lot of people. NC Health News reported previously that only a couple dozen state prisoners are on hormone replacement therapy, out of some 38,000 state prisoners. And so far, no one in state history has gotten gender-affirming surgery on North Carolina's dime.
BS: The Trump campaign definitely leaned into this idea during the 2024 campaign, implying that Kamala Harris would prioritize gender affirming care for trans prisoners over, say, average Americans. Those ads played tens of thousands of times in swing states, including North Carolina — and, even though they struck me as cruel and dehumanizing, the polling data definitely showed they were very effective, particularly with suburban women. And I think they created the false idea that this is some kind of major drain on taxpayer funds. But, at the same time, there are trans prisoners – so how will this impact them?
NM: Removing prisoners' access to HRT — forcing them to detransition — is going to lead to major health issues for all of them. Psychological, obviously, but also physical. It could be brutal for the people impacted.
BS: Well, that ties into my next question: the bill also expands legal options for detransitioners, which, those are people who choose to reverse a gender transition. I know the far right has been promoting a lot of anti-trans detransitioners lately, so maybe this is just messaging, but — what impacts do you think that will have?
NM: That's a great question. So this bill expands their ability to sue doctors and clinics who help them transition. I think that could really kneecap a lot of gender affirming clinics in North Carolina.
Now, the law basically makes any waiver of liability null and void, but that’s also not exactly what happens for someone who undergoes HRT or surgery. You have to sign like a million forms certifying informed consent, and then get the okay from multiple doctors confirming they know about all of the potential side effects… it's already a pretty long process. The law doesn’t really contemplate that – and that’s another layer of uncertainty.
I don't know if that will hold up to any lawsuit brought under this provision. But doctors are scared right now. And I could totally see a world where just the threat of that could prompt a major medical practice to stop providing gender affirming care.
BS: So maybe more than just messaging.
NM: Yes. Which, most detransitioners I know are not at all happy with this provision.
BS: I want to go back to Majeed and the Democrats for a minute — you've previously reported on their shift away from supporting trans rights. Why do you think they're doing that?
NM: Well, the advocates I've spoken with say that most voters don't understand trans people or healthcare. And while trans rights aren't necessarily a top issue, they do grab attention, right? Folks say it's pretty easy to demonize trans people, and demonize the politicians who support our rights or seem undecided about them.
A lot of advocates have told me that the question this year is how to convince Democrats to not abandon trans people for political points. We're already seeing anti-trans ads aired against Roy Cooper — here's a clip from one that came out this week:
Ad clip: He says he's a moderate, but Roy Cooper's record tells a radically different story, higher taxes, sanctuary cities and a radical gender ideology. Cooper vetoed a bill to protect girls sports, vetoed a bill to ban gender transition surgeries for minors, puberty blockers, double mastectomies, mutilating children. Cooper stood with the woke left, endangering our kids.
NM: I think Cooper's approach to the gender debate is not only going to signal where North Carolina Dems are headed, but where Democrats across the country are headed.
BS: Will he tack to the right like Gavin Newsom and try to brand himself as a centrist? Or will he stake out a more progressive position?
NM: Exactly. We’ll have to see.
BS: Alright, well for now, Nikolai, thanks for your reporting.
NM: You're welcome!
Read more:
- North Carolina Newsroom: Gov. Josh Stein called House Bill 805 "mean-spirited" toward trans people. Now it's law
- WHQR: Governor Stein signs Parents Protection Act, vetoes other bills he decries as "mean-spirited"
- WHQR: After Stein signs anti-trans bill, LGBTQ+ advocates wonder what comes next
- NC Health News: NC Senate Republicans seek to define biological sex, dismiss gender identity
