North Carolina House Bill 805 is an open attack on transgender and nonbinary people.
For more information, please see:
The following essays are from local North Carolina residents.
In the last election, Democrats managed to prevent the Republicans from securing a super-majority by a single seat in the house. So, as long as the party presents a unified front and stands behind their Governor, they can prevent vetos from being overturned.
Yesterday the current chamber made their first attempt at overturning vetos. They put eight vetoed bills on the table, and managed to overturn every single one.
What a travesty.
Rep. Cunningham (Mecklenburg) was first to break away, on immigration, voting in favor of a bill that requires law enforcement to assist ICE. Here is a video of the speech she gave immediately before her HB 318 vote, which was the first veto on the docket. Cunningham voted in favor of SB 266, SB 416, SB 254, HB 402, and HB 318.
Rep. Willingham (Bertie, Edgecombe, Martin) broke away over charter schools and gun laws, voting to allow private school teachers to carry concealed firearms in the classroom. Willingham voted in favor of SB 266, SB 416, SB 254, HB 402, HB 193, and HB 549.
Rep. Majeed (Mecklenburg) was the sole defector on overturning HB 805. In explanation, he said “I had some moral issues and I had to lean on my values”. Majeed voted in favor of SB 266 and HB 805.
Rep. Brockman (Guilford) piled on too. Brockman voted in favor of SB 416 and SB 254.
Here is my attempt to summarize each bill that was made law yesterday. I’m focused on being concise, and some nuance may get lost. Please take each with a grain of salt, and click through to read more.
I’m not somebody who believes that a politician should always vote down party lines – far from it – but turning your back on your party during a veto vote in the current environment should be unthinkable. It shows that the Republicans are in full and absolute unchecked control of the government. It’s a blank check to run free. You’ve rendered your entire party ineffective because you each disagree on one single issue. Show a little solidarity when it matters most. Shame on the four of you.
Representative Morey’s office requested for Legislative Analysis to look over my interpretation of the bill. They said that the SCOTUS vacating Kadel v. Folwell could NOT be interpreted as vacating the permanent injunction. While the passing of HB 805 (and other bills) represents a grim day for public education in NC, perhaps the Kadel v. Folwell review might preserve life-saving coverage.
If passed, North Carolina HB 805 will strip gender-affirming care coverage for the 750,000 North Carolinians on the State Health Plan. The bill has many other harmful implications. Here’s why no one (including AI) has recognized this one.
Section 3(a) of the bill outlines who will no longer qualify for State-funded gender-affirming health care. General Statute 143C-6-5.6(b) specifies minors, (b1) specifies incarcerated persons, and (c) states, “Subsections (b) and (b1) of this section shall not apply to the State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees.”
This provision sounds as if the General Assembly is sparing transgender and nonbinary persons who rely on the State Health Plan (SHP). It is the opposite.
Nestled within Section 3(b) is a crafty trigger provision that will nullify subsection (c), and the trigger condition has already been met. SCOTUS vacated the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Kadel v. Folwell on June 30, 2025, in light of the US v. Skrmetti decision. The State Treasurer’s press release foreshadowed it days earlier.
This means subsection (c) will expire 30 days later on July 30, 2025 – just one day after the General Assembly is scheduled to respond to Governor Stein’s veto. Rather than risk an evidence-based judicial review of Kadel v. Folwell, the GA will preempt the lower court’s decision.
How does the expiration of §143C-6-5.6(c) end gender-affirming care coverage for all SHP members? Previously, subsection (c) was written in the context of care for minors. Subsection (b1) has broadened that context by establishing that State funds cannot be used to provide access to gender-affirming care, directly or indirectly [1]. Correspondence with a SHP Board member supports this interpretation.
What remains unclear is whether gender-affirming coverage would end as soon as July 30, 2025, or with the launch of next year’s SHP on January 1, 2026. A June 18th press release suggests it would be “automatically and immediately.” If Governor Stein’s veto holds, SHP members will have to wait for the Kadel v. Folwell decision.
HB 805’s bait and switch language is contrary to the “transparency” Treasurer Briner promised with State Health Plan changes. Treasurer Briner often implies that the gender-affirming care exclusion saves taxpayers money, but research suggests it does not [2]. Teachers like myself are already upset about the SHP price hikes and potential provider losses, and may be further angered by surprise coverage changes – especially those born of little reason but hate.
[1] From HB 805 Section 3(a): “No State funds may be used, directly or indirectly, for the performance of or in furtherance of surgical gender transition procedures, or to provide puberty-blocking drugs or cross-sex hormones to any prisoner… or to support the administration of any governmental health plan or government-offered insurance policy offering surgical gender transition procedures, puberty-blocking drugs, or cross-sex hormones…” The inclusion of “to any prisoner” gives pause, but correspondence with a SHP Board Member suggests the Board anticipates the exclusion of gender-affirming care for all SHP members should HB 805 pass.
[2] These sources purport that providing coverage for gender-affirming care does not cost more money for large insurance plans: Atangan. 2023. American Journal of Law and Medicine, Padula et al. 2015. Journal of General Internal Medicine, Human Rights Campaign Foundation
HB-805, which is titled the “Prevent Sexual Exploitation of Women and Minors Act”, didn’t start as an anti-trans bill. The original draft was authored by House Rep. Jackson.
The original draft focused on:
It was a pretty reasonable bill and it drew bi-partisan support. The House sent the bill to committee, where it underwent some (harmless) improvements, and then the house passed the bill.
The Senate is where things went sideways. The bill was sent to the Rules and Operations of the Senate Committee, where it got completely ruined.
Once the Senate Rules Committee was done, the updated draft included:
According to the bill history, this occurred between May 27 and June 18. Unfortunately, the committee documents for this period do not show any activity on HB 805, so I can’t see who inserted these changes.
Somehow, this still wasn’t enough, because Senate Rep. Buck Newton tacked a few more terrible amendments on top.
The final ratified bill includes all of the Senate’s trash, left un-changed when it came back to the House. The bill crossed Governor Stein’s desk July 3, at which point he vetoed it. On July 29, the House and Senate will be voting on whether or not to overturn the veto.
You voted as the only Democrat in favor of the HB-805 bill on June 25. Governor Stein vetoed it July 3 and it will soon be up for a vote again, possibly as soon as tomorrow.
This bill would strip insurance coverage for gender-affirming healthcare for all members of the state employee health plan (because the trigger condition in § 143C-6-5.6 Section 3(b) has already been met). There are approximately 750,000 North Carolinians on the state health plan. If governor Stein’s veto is overturned, these changes will take effect July 30.
The aim of § 143C-6-5.6 is purportedly to eliminate government spending “directly and indirectly” for gender-affirming healthcare, but does not include any language pertaining to the cost and contract negotiation between the state and the insurance company; therefore, the clause denying insurance coverage provides no actual promise of saving North Carolina any money. The most likely outcome is that the insurance company will save money.
The fact that this bill is concerned with “indirect” spending is transparently evil. This makes it clear that the goal is not to reduce government spending, but to make North Carolina a hostile place for transgender people. This clause overrules the opinions of medical professionals, causes significant harm to all transgender employees of North Carolina, and does not appear to have any benefit on North Carolina’s government, budget, or citizens; it serves only to oppress a specific group of people.
Many of your Republican colleagues have made it clear time and time again that they literally do not value the life of a transgender person, and that their goal is persecution. I am optimistic that you do not share this view, and that you were instead voting in favor of some of the other provisions in the bill which would provide reasonable protections for women and children.
The bill as it is written right now will cause very real financial and medical problems for innocent people. For no reason at all. The Republicans are one vote shy of a supermajority in the House, and I am urging you to use your vote to stand up with your Democratic colleagues against pointless persecution. Please vote against HB-805. Let the veto stand.