Also known as the Student Bathroom Privacy Bill, it requires students in public schools and universities to use bathroom and locker room facilities of the sex listed on their birth certificate.
This bill is similar to a bill pursued last year that was opposed by the Administration. The bill seeks to protect the constitutionally recognized right of privacy students have by not forcing them to use facilities with members of the opposite biological sex. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear argument over this very issue in March.
Beavers in the Senate, Pody in the House
TRACK THIS BILL
Failed in the Senate Education Committee, 3/22/17.
Senate Education Committee Members:
- Dolores Gresham, 615-741-2368
- Reginald Tate, 615-741-2509
- Todd Gardenhire, 615-741-6682
- Rusty Crowe, 615-741-2468
- Steven Dickerson, 615-741-6679
- Ferrell Haile, 615-741-1999
- Joey Hensley, 615-741-3100
- Brian Kelsey, 615-741-3036
- Jim Tracy, 615-741-1066
Objections to the Bill
Don’t accept any of the following reasons for voting against this bill. Click on the “+” sign to find out the real answers.
There is too much legal confusion surrounding such legislation.
There is no legal confusion or bar to enacting this commonsense legislation because:
- President Trump withdrew the Obama administration’s “guidance letter” that attempted to equate “gender identity” with “sex” in Title IX.
- The Supreme Court decided to vacate a 4th Circuit decision based on the Obama letter (which wouldn’t be binding on Tennessee anyway since Tennessee is in the 6th Circuit), and
- Tennessee has a federal court injunction against the application of the Obama letter to our state in any event.
This will cost the state a lot of tax money.
You may hear that the passage of the bill could cost the state millions. The fiscal note for the bill says that it could cost the state $300,000 in lost revenue, an amount equal to 2/100th of 1 percent of the state’s general fund revenues. Surely the privacy and security of our children is worth that much, given the state has a revenue surplus of about $1 billion.
This kind of law hurt North Carolina’s economy.
Since North Carolina passed its bill in March 2016, it has:
- Added 61,000 jobs (1,600 per week)
- Finished the year with a $425 million surplus, projecting a $550 million surplus this year
- Been ranked by CNBC as the fifth best state for business (July 2016)
- Been ranked by Forbes as the second best state for business (November 2016)
Furthermore, the estimated negative economic impact of the bill was conceded by the left leaning Politico to be about 1/10th of 1 percent of North Carolina’s Gross Domestic Product.
We don’t need the bill now that President Trump rescinded the Obama guidance letter.
This is not true. Local schools are still at risk of being sued, not on the basis of the Obama letter, but on constitutional equal protection grounds, that is, transgender students are not being treated the same as other students of their “sex.” Local schools cannot afford to litigate this matter. Providing a rule for all schools means that the state law reflected in HB 888, not the local school policy, will be the primary object of any future lawsuit. The question legislators must answer is this: “Do you believe a school should have the power and authority to allow a biological male to use the same shower facility as a biological female?” In other words, if “sex” means how one identifies psychologically, then that view of sex cannot logically be limited only to bathrooms. They have embraced a new meaning for the word sex.
Local schools are not asking for this legislation.
It may be true that leaders in a legislator’s school district may not be asking for this legislation, but that may be because their school system (1) is liberal and agrees with the idea that bathroom and locker room use should be based on how a person feels about their sex, (2) hasn’t yet been threatened with a lawsuit by a parent who wants their child to be able to use the facilities used by those of the opposite biological sex, or (3) hasn’t yet been sued by a parent who is outraged that his or her child’s privacy has been violated.