The state Senate approved a bill Tuesday that includes multiple controversial LGBTQ policies. Democrats objected to a GOP move to add the proposals to a popular House bill, prompting a heated fight over the Senate's rules.
The original version of House Bill 805 added new consent requirements for pornographic websites, and it got unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans. It would allow people who appear in sexually explicit photos and videos online the option to have them removed.
The Senate added a lot more. Its bill would allow lawsuits against medical providers over gender transitions, and change the definition of biological sex in state law to exclude gender identity. The new definitions would say that gender identity is "a subjective internal sense" that "shall not be treated as legally or biologically equivalent to sex." The change could affect transgender people seeking to change their birth certificate.
Sen. Buck Newton, R-Wilson, is the bill's sponsor. "We cannot ignore the biological realities, and we believe our state laws should reflect that," he said. "Women are being systemically erased from our language, whether it's changing words from pregnant women to pregnant person, or mother to a birthing parent."
The bill would also require schools to provide parents with a list of school library books and allow the parents to ban their children from checking out specific titles.
But Senate Minority Leader Sydney Batch says the new provisions are harmful, and it means the original pornography bill likely won't make it to the governor's desk.
"When my Republican colleagues loaded this bill with culture war amendments, they didn't just distract from the problem, they made it impossible to solve," she said.
The bill put Democrats in the difficult position of voting against legislation titled "Prevent Sexual Exploitation." Instead of voting no, they took an unusual approach. Asked to vote yes or no, most responded "I vote present."
Sen. Ralph Hise, R-Mitchell, that's not an option in the state Senate.
"Notice, you have a green button and a red button, not an extra 'whatever I came up with today' button," he said. "Those are the options under the Senate rules."
The dispute put a lengthy delay on the vote as senators paged through their rulebooks. Batch said the only law she could find requiring legislators to vote yes or no dates to the 1700s.
"What it does say, if we don't actually move and we don't discharge our duty, which I assume that my colleagues are saying today, it's a $10 fine," she said, brandishing a stack of cash on the Senate floor. "I have $10 for every single one of the members in my caucus who voted present."
But Republicans decided to count the present votes as excused absences, so on paper, Tuesday's vote looks nearly unanimous in support of the controversial bill. It's unclear if House Republicans will approve the Senate's version of the bill.
Even if the House doesn't take it up, Wednesday's vote could wind up in campaign ads next year. "This was about elections and mailers and things like that," said Sen. Lisa Grafstein, D-Wake. "You can already see, somebody didn't get the memo, and they've been attacking members on voting no, when we did not vote no. That's absolutely what it's about."
