Here is my simple proposal to help move Social Security towards solvency:
Increase, from age 70 to age 75, the age at which an individual stops accruing additional Social Security benefits. This proposal deals with the real demographic problem with Social Security: the decreasing ratio of workers to retirees. This proposal does not rely on decreasing benefits or raising tax rates on anyone.
Explanation. Currently the working taxpayer accrues no additional Social Security benefits after age 70. Prior to age 70 those benefits increase at a rate of about 8% per annum from the first eligibility to receive Social Security at age 62 until age 70.
We have an unusually low unemployment rate and we have had an unusually high number who could work but are not looking, especially starting during the pandemic years.
When I was 70, I kept working. When I was 71, I realized why many people who were able to work, physically and mentally, stop. They would be paying FICA taxes of 15% on earned income. This is explicit for those who are self-employed, but in real economic terms, it is also true for those employed by others paid on a W-2 basis. The cost of working (time and effort) remains the same, but the financial benefit of working past age 70 is much less.
For the US Treasury, there are budget costs and benefits. The benefit is that it will incentivize more people over 70 to work, paying income tax and FICA. From the first to the fifth year, the benefits will gradually be balanced by costs. The cost to the federal government in out years is that it will pay a higher Social Security benefit to those who take advantage of this new opportunity. My opinion is that this proposal still be a net positive for the treasury even after the fifth year.
At the state level, however, this proposal is all benefit. Taxpayers will be encouraged to remain working during their early 70s and will pay income tax to the state of North Carolina. Their increased income will result in some additional sales tax.
There are 40 states that tax income. This would be an extremely popular proposal among 80 senators and a large majority of the House.
Since President Trump has repeatedly stated that he will not raise the retirement age for Social Security (and this is in the platform which he personally authored), this proposal is one of the only ways that the tax system can recognize demographic and fiscal reality. A few decades ago, there were 16 workers paying taxes into Social Security for every retiree. America has lost 360,000 workers in the last year alone. Now the ratio is 2.5 workers for every retiree. The next generation can not bear this burden.
Conclusion. This proposal will provide better physical and mental health and enjoyment of life for many seniors. It will immediately reduce the annual federal deficit over the next five years. This will help plug the gap between our state income tax collections as projected into the future and will reduce the necessity, or desirability (for some), of adding sin taxes, which, in addition to the moral component, implicate issues of tax efficiency with their huge transactional costs.
Once again this change in law will put North Carolina on the pedestal for states engaging in true tax reform.
On Sept. 18, 2024, the day this piece publishes, the North Carolina Supreme Court will consider McKinney v. Goins. Child sex-abuse victims filed suit against their high school wrestling coach and the Gaston County Board of Education. During the victims’ time at East Gaston High School in the mid-1990s and early 2000s, the coach subjected them to physical violence and sexual abuse. He isolated them from their parents on trips to team events so he could sexually assault them without raising suspicion.
The board received numerous complaints about the coach but dismissed them after “minimal investigation.” The board failed to “protect the children in its care from a sexually abusive employee over a period of years.”
Under our three-year statute of limitation for civil tort claims associated with sexual abuse, the victims would have been stopped from bringing this action since the last claim expired in 2008. However, the SAFE Child Act, passed unanimously in 2019, revived the claims of child sex abuse. Its Revival Provision states: “from January 1, 2020, until December 13, 2021, this section revives any civil action for child sexual abuse otherwise time-barred under G.S. 1-52 as it existed immediately before the enactment of this act.” Over 250 cases have been filed within the two-year window.
When the victims brought this case, the coach and the board challenged its constitutionality, arguing that potential defendants have a vested right not to have litigation brought against them after the statute of limitations expires.
Arguments against retroactive application focus on constitutional concerns and practical evidentiary issues. Over time, memories fade. Documents and records may no longer be accessible, or even exist. Settled expectations would be disturbed by allowing lawsuits to be filed long after the events in question.
But retroactive application would ensure that victims receive just compensation regardless of when they decide to come forward. Proponents argue that the law is catching up to reality: many victims delay reporting abuse for years after it occurs. Victims need to be compensated for long-term effects of abuse, which can include post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and substance abuse.
However, a solution exists that accounts for both the settled expectations of private persons and the policy of ensuring that abuse victims receive justice. This solution proposes retroactive application as to the Gaston County Board of Education but bars retroactive application as to the coach.
The rationale for this distinction is that school boards — along with cities, public universities, and other state-funded entities — are instrumentalities of the state. The Gaston County Board of Education receives 63% of its annual funding from the state.
Two state Supreme Court cases applied mercy retroactively and demonstrate that this solution is supported by precedent.
In Bailey v. State (2000), the court upheld the legislature’s decision to set a date retroactively after which interest would accrue on a $799 million settlement fund for state retirees. This new law was applied retroactively to remedy a tax that legislators knew to have been unconstitutionally collected seven to nine years prior. Retroactive application of the law was appropriate because it would fulfill the legislature’s intent to “remediate and make as near whole as possible those whose money was so taken” and the General Assembly was distributing money that it controlled anyway.
In Ferrell v. Department of Transportation (1993), the court held that, by enacting a statute that required the NC DOT to permit a landowner to repurchase condemned land for the initial selling price plus interest and costs of improvement, the legislature had implicitly waived the state’s sovereign immunity. Because the NC DOT gets the majority of its money from appropriations authorized by the General Assembly, retroactive application of the statute amounts to the state’s allowing suit regarding money under its own control.
In each case, the state was essentially waiving its own immunity from suit. In this case, as an instrumentality of the state, the Gaston County Board of Education has had its immunity from suit waived by the state. The state’s action does not depend on a determination of the constitutionality of the Revival Provision. Instead, it follows precedent in which the state has waived its own protection in other matters.
While pursuing higher education after incarceration may have a few extra steps and restrictions, it’s far from impossible and can be well worth the effort. Besides lowering recidivism rates, having a college degree increases earning potential and employment rates. Focusing on learning new skills and preparing for a career can also help formerly incarcerated individuals develop purpose and structure in their post-incarceration lives.
This guide will review the various post-secondary education options available to formerly incarcerated individuals, how to select and apply for a college degree program, and the restrictions individuals should be aware of if they have a criminal record.
Educational Options for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals
The type of education a formerly incarcerated individual pursues after their release depends on where they were in their educational journey when they were incarcerated. Below are different options based on different education levels and experiences.
Earn your GED
Students who did not earn a high school diploma before incarceration will want to restart their educational journey by taking the General Educational Development (GED) Test. This series of four exams allows students without a high school diploma to demonstrate their knowledge in mathematical reasoning, science, social studies, and reasoning through language arts. A GED is equivalent to a high school diploma, allowing students to pursue more educational and job opportunities. There are various ways to prepare for the GED, including classes, practice exams, and interactive flashcards. Many prisons also have programs where inmates can study for and earn their GED while incarcerated.
Apply as a first-time student
You’re considered a first-time freshman if you have a high school diploma or a GED but never attended college. Students in this category can apply for undergraduate degrees, including two-year associate degrees or four-year bachelor’s degrees. The application for first-time freshmen typically requires a completed application and fee, official high school transcripts, a high school diploma or GED, an essay, and letters of recommendation. Applicants should find out if the school they’re applying to requires standardized test scores and make arrangements to take the SAT or ACT if necessary.
Finish your degree
Students whose college education was interrupted by their incarceration have two options. They can return to their previous school or transfer to a different college. Re-enrollment policies vary by school, so if you’re considering returning to the school you attended before incarceration, contact their registrar’s office for more information. Students who missed more than two consecutive semesters must apply for re-admission at many schools. A student’s conviction record may also impact their ability to return to a school or program.
Students who want to switch to a different school or finish their degree after earning college credits while incarcerated must apply to the new institution as a transfer student. These applicants must submit official transcripts from other schools or college programs they attended as part of their application, which allows the new college to evaluate and award credit for previously completed coursework.
Continue your education
Students who earned an associate or bachelor’s degree before incarceration or while incarcerated as part of a prison education program can continue their education with a graduate degree or certificate. As these are advanced degrees, application, and eligibility requirements may be more rigorous. Students must demonstrate a minimum undergraduate GPA, prerequisite coursework, or professional experience. The application process may also include additional steps, like an interview. Many graduate degrees lead to careers that require state licenses and background checks, which can be obstacles for students with criminal records. Be sure to research requirements and restrictions for all programs and career paths you’re considering, and consult with an admissions counselor or program representative if you have questions about your eligibility.
How to Apply to College After Incarceration
Step 1: Choose your area of study
The first step to pursue postsecondary education after incarceration is to establish what you want to study. Selecting an area of study gives you a starting point for researching schools and programs.
It’s also essential for formerly incarcerated students to remember that, depending on the type of crime they were convicted of, they may be restricted from entering a particular profession or holding specific jobs within an industry. For example, most jobs in education and childcare, banking and finance, and healthcare require criminal background checks. As a result, post-secondary programs in these fields often won’t accept students with a criminal record.
However, restrictions can vary based on several factors, and there may be opportunities within these fields specifically for individuals with criminal records. Consult with program representatives and professionals working in the area before eliminating any potential career paths that interest you.
Now is also an excellent time to establish other parameters for what you want from a college degree program. Will you enroll full-time or part-time? Do you want to attend school in person or online? Be mindful of any relocation or travel restrictions you may have due to parole terms.
Step 2: Research colleges and programs
With your criteria, you can learn more about schools and programs that meet your needs.
Students should always check the accreditation status of any schools they’re considering. Accreditation status can affect the quality of education students receive, their financial aid eligibility, and future employment and educational opportunities. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) maintains a database where students can search for accredited schools and programs.
Also, explore the support services the institution offers, including those specifically for formerly incarcerated individuals. College support services typically include tutoring, mental health counseling, academic and career advising, technical support, and more. You should also find out the school’s policies regarding admitting previously incarcerated students, as this can vary by institution.
The most convenient way to research schools and programs is by visiting their website, where most schools publish information about program curriculums, faculty, eligibility requirements, financial aid, and campus life. Students can also learn more by contacting the school’s admissions office, following the school on social media, and attending in-person or virtual open houses and information sessions, where available.
Step 3: Prepare and submit applications
Once you’ve identified the school(s) that meet your needs, you can begin submitting your applications.
Exact application procedures and requirements vary by individual school and are also impacted by the degree level (undergraduate or graduate) a student seeks. However, most applications require some combination of these documents:
Completed application and fee
Official transcripts from high school and previously attended college programs (if applicable)
Letter(s) of recommendation
Personal statement or essay
Standardized test scores (SAT, ACT, GRE)
Resume
It’s common for college applications to include a question regarding the applicant’s criminal background, although some individual schools and states have moved away from the practice. If you’re required to answer any questions about your criminal record, answer them truthfully. Being incarcerated may not automatically disqualify a student from being accepted, but in many cases, lying on an application will.
Formerly incarcerated students may have to complete extra steps in the application process, such as participating in interviews or providing statements from parole officers and character references, as most schools review these applicants on a case-by-case basis. Students can also choose to address their incarceration in personal statements or letters of recommendation, although this isn’t required. Navigating how much information to disclose and when is a highly personal process. Working with an independent college admissions counselor can help determine how you address this part of your life, especially in the context of your life.
Step 4: Determine how you’ll pay for your degree
Throughout the research process, collect information from the schools you’re considering regarding their tuition costs and available financial aid options.
Financial aid comes in two forms — need-based and merit-based. Students must complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) to be considered for need-based aid. Schools use the information from this application to determine eligibility for need-based aid like student loans, grants, and work-study through the Federal Student Aid (FSA) program.
Most formerly incarcerated students are eligible for need-based financial aid through the FSA program. Students preparing to exit incarceration may even be able to apply for assistance before their release, to facilitate a smoother transition into a higher education program. Individuals who were convicted of a forcible or nonforcible sexual offense and are subject to an involuntary civil commitment upon completion of a period of incarceration for that offense aren’t eligible for certain types of federal financial aid.
Institutions and external organizations also offer merit-based aid to students with specific achievements and aptitudes. Merit-based aid includes scholarships, grants, and fellowships. Some schools may offer scholarships or grants specifically for students pursuing post-secondary education after incarceration. Contact your school’s financial aid office to learn more about available scholarship opportunities. Find out if your employer offers tuition assistance benefits if you’re already employed.
Alternative Educational Paths
Earning a college degree isn’t the only way formerly incarcerated individuals can develop skills to further their careers. Here are some alternative educational paths for students to explore.
Government work programs
To encourage employers to hire individuals with prior convictions and help them learn new job skills, the federal government provides tax credits and other financial benefits to businesses willing to hire people with conviction records. You can use the Federal Bonding Program website to find participating employers in your area.
Trade or vocational school
Another option is trade or vocational schools, which focus on providing training for a specific skilled job. Common areas of study at trade schools include fire science, culinary arts, and auto repair. Although some trades have restrictions that impact formerly incarcerated individuals, many do not and are welcoming to individuals with this background. Earning a diploma or certificate from a trade school also typically takes one to two years, less time than earning a college degree.
Boot camps
Workers in the software development industry are highly in demand and well-compensated. Online coding bootcamps allow students to learn the skills necessary for these jobs in just a few months from wherever they’re located. Many bootcamps offer scholarships; some, like Coding Dojo, may have financial support programs for previously incarcerated individuals.
Advocacy Programs and Resources for People with Conviction Records Returning to School
The following resources can also provide valuable information for furthering your education and other issues affecting people with conviction records.
This free directory, which the U.S. Department of Labor maintains, helps individuals find housing, food assistance, and other services in their state. It also has a job search tool to help ex-offenders find employment opportunities.
In addition to federal laws, many regulations regarding people with prior convictions are set at the state level. The Restoration of Rights Project provides a state-by-state breakdown to help individuals understand the employment, licensing, and housing laws that may apply to them.
This nationwide organization was founded in 1896 to help previously incarcerated individuals transition from prison to a productive life in their community. Its services include literacy training, housing assistance, and inpatient substance abuse treatment programs.
Apprenticeships provide individuals with a paid job and training that they can use to advance their careers. The Office of Apprenticeship is a federal government agency that helps companies and organizations develop and promote apprenticeship opportunities. Students can use their website to learn more about apprenticeships, train for a career, and find apprenticeship opportunities in their area.
Many of my clients and friends have asked me whether our justice and election systems are broken. My entire adult life has been lived in North Carolina so I will share what I know from my experience here. For you to evaluate whether my opinion is informed you need to know a bit of my political / legal history.
I didn’t vote in the first election for which I was eligible. I was in infantry training in 1968 at Camp Geiger (Lejeune). I was discharged in 1970 and registered as a Republican. I didn’t like the Democrat agenda of acid, abortion and amnesty. I attended Michigan State studying criminal justice from 1970 to 1972. I was a conservative political activist. I protested against Jane Fonda and the Black Panthers. I ran for campus political office.
I worked in the justice system for 51 years. In the summer of 1972 I was an intern for the District Attorney of Guilford County. Doug Albright was an elected Democrat. Fall of 1972 I made my first political contribution – $100 to Jim Holshouser. That was a fortune to me. I married Dottie Mills in 1973. She worked!!
From 1973 to 1975 I worked during law school through the School of Government on Pattern Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases for the Conference of Superior Court Judges. My professor, Arnold Loewy, was the expert on criminal law and a liberal Democrat. I had helped to begin Christian Legal Society at Chapel Hill with my friend, Joe Knott, (father of Congressman Brad Knott). Although Mr. Loewy was a liberal Democrat and Jewish, I was his assistant. The committee included Judge James Exum, a Superior Court Judge from Greensboro. On the recommendation of Professor Loewy, a Democrat, to newly elected Justice James Exum, a Democrat, I was hired as his research assistant during his first full year in office at the Supreme Court. He later became Chief Justice. He knew I was a conservative Republican. We worked together well. He is a fine, honorable man.
After that year I came to Apex to work with Carl Holleman, a distant relative by marriage. He was an active Democrat, having served on the Wake County Board of Elections. His wife was head of the Democratic Wake County Women’s group. He knew I was a conservative Republican lawyer when he hired me. I became chair of Wake County Right to Life. I put out yard signs for pro-life Republican and Democrat representatives. There were some then.
In 1984 I was Co-chair of Bill Cobey’s congressional campaign. That summer there was a dearth of adequate candidates to run for a newly redistricted State Senate seat. One morning, Dave Flaherty, State GOP Chair, begged me to file by noon that day. Dave told me that if I would fill the ticket I could withdraw in the first 30 days. The party could replace me with a real candidate. My boss was not in the office so I couldn’t ask his permission. I filed with five minutes to spare. Unfortunately (or fortuitously) another GOP candidate filed against me. I had a primary. If you had a primary you could not withdraw. I did not want to lose. I competed in the four person GOP primary (for 3 seats) and came in first. We lost in the general. Again I came in first among the three Republicans. I realized that if I had known to run for the House I could have won. That’s how I got my start in politics.
A majority of my legal practice was real estate, wills, trusts and contracts. I had significant litigation practice. After my 49th year as a licensed attorney I’ve had about 50 jury trials, several hundreds of lawsuits, and several dozen appeals to the Appellate courts.
I ran for elective office 14 times. At one point I was 1-6 but decided to try one more time. I then won seven in a row and finished 8-6 – more losses than Abraham Lincoln. I lost elections twice to the Court of Appeals, twice to the State Senate, and twice to the State House.
I was known to be active in the party, at every level. I served on the state platform committee about 10 times, seven as chair. I presided over one state convention and was parliamentarian for several others.
During my time practicing law, Wake County was dominated by Democrat judges and attorneys. From 1994 until 2000, I was the unofficial recruiter for Superior Court judges and Appellate judges. I had to know the political leanings of judges, both Republican and Democrat.
I served 16 years in the House, the last 10 of which as Republican Leader of the House, both minority and majority, and the last four as Speaker Pro Tem.
This lengthy background is necessary so that you understand my conclusions about whether the justice and election systems are broken.
The justice system is not broken. It has problems. Criminal and civil cases take too long. In 2013, I assembled a working group of 50 “stakeholders” of all parties. We proposed, and had passed, dozens of recommendations to speed up the process. That helped. More needs to be done.
I never witnessed any corruption. Not once did I have any credible information that corruption existed. Out of the last thousand judges in North Carolina, one or two have been removed from office for corruption and others have been removed for other reasons. It would not surprise me if there were a dozen of the last 1000 who were corrupt. We didn’t know who they were. The vast majority of our judges are honest and diligent.
What about bias? I was well-known as a conservative active Republican, appearing the vast majority of times before Democrat judges. I never felt one time that when I lost it was because of my party or ideology. Nor if I won was it for that reason, not once. Some of the judges were just wrong in their legal rulings.
Twice I ran against Democrats for the Court of Appeals, 1998 and 2000. Each time I got about 49% of the vote and lost because I had fewer votes than they did. I also ran in 2000 with a Republican who won with 51%. We drove around the state campaigning together. A couple of years later I appeared before a panel of the Court of Appeals that was comprised of those same 3 judges. One of the Democrat judges ruled in my favor. The Republican and one Democrat ruled against me. Because of the dissent by one Democrat judge I took it to the Supreme Court where we won the case for parental rights. (In Re: Stumbo)
Are the judges in North Carolina conflicted? I doubt it. Legal conflicts in North Carolina are defined quite precisely. The fact that a judge has a relative in some position is unlikely to ever constitute a conflict. Nor would a de minimis contribution to a candidate not involved in a case.
Are legal cases in North Carolina rigged? I doubt it. I have had clients tell me they suspected bribery, but none could ever give me a usable tip to pursue.
What about the legislature? 170 people can’t come to Raleigh year after year without having some criminals hidden amongst them. As Republican Leader for six years I had the unpleasant task of asking two Republican House members to promptly resign – sharing with them the real-world consequences of not resigning. Some of the Democrat leaders have had the same unpleasant task of demanding that members resign or not run again. I served on the House ethics panel that had the unpleasant task of recommending that Rep. Thomas Wright be expelled for real corruption about 10 years ago.
Compared to the reports of corruption in some other state legislatures, my opinion is that, in a technical sense, the North Carolina legislature is squeaky clean. What is not good is the extreme amount of cash that comes to legislative caucuses and to individual members with expectations that they will do something they were not otherwise planning to do.
The Election System is not broken.
I participated in 14 of my own election and then, as Republican Leader, for six years had a responsibility to be aware of what was happening in dozens of other races. I was not happy with some of the results. One of my losses was very close. I ran against a female Democrat and a male Libertarian. He was more conservative than most Libertarians. By taking 4% of the male conservative vote he cost me that election. I was not happy with my other losses. But I never had any reason to blame the counting of votes by the election machinery.
I have taken a detailed look at the 2020 and 2022 elections, both statewide and nationally. You can read my analyses in depth on these links. In 2020 Republicans in North Carolina did great, even though the election machinery was all in the hands of majority Democrats—controlled by Governor Cooper. Chief Justice Newby won by a smidgen. If Democrats were planning to steal one they missed their chance. In 2022 North Carolina did great again. We had a red wave, although much of the country did not. The election machinery was still in the hands of Democrats at the state and local level.
There are always going to be close races. With Democrats in control of the election machinery from 2018 through 2023 there have been no serious issues with the vote count.
In 2024 we will have, for the first significant election, voter ID. That will help instill confidence in the results. Voter ID is important. Lack of voter ID has not caused a change in result in any recent known North Carolina election.
North Carolina’s Justice and Election systems are not broken, rigged, or corrupt.
Some legislators have proposed that the General Assembly send some tax money back to us. That sounds like fun.
I have another idea: Use whatever money is in mind to pay down state debt. State debt currently stands at $8 billion. This would not change the state balance sheet. It would reduce the chance of future tax increases. It would keep in place the rate at which income tax rates will go down in the future. Our income tax rate for 2024 is 4.5%. It is already in law to go to 3.99%. Why upset the applecart?
Paying down state debt would reduce the temptation to spend “one time” (nonrecurring) money on low priorities. This is a big problem in state government. There is too much “one-time money” sloshing around in state reserve accounts. As a result, in 2023 there were record amounts of “directed local projects” — especially in the districts of those controlling the budget. We used to call this “the pork barrel.” I remember the election of 1988. We campaigned and won against the “gang of eight” and their “pork barrel.”
There are practical problems with a “rebate” to taxpayers.
First, it makes it more likely that in the future the state will either have to raise tax rates or forego future tax-rate decreases.
Second, if we are passing out tax dollars, who gets how much? Does each person who filed an income tax return for 2023 receive an equal amount — say $1,000? That is the thought of at least one budgeteer. Can you imagine the howls from those who paid $50,000 in taxes looking at those who only paid $1,100? Or is the rebate in proportion to 2023 tax liability? In that case I can imagine the howls of indignation and scorn from those cashing a $50 “rebate” check. What if the taxpayer amends the 2023 return in 2025? Does she get more then? Does this rebate include other taxable entities like estates and trusts? These are people too. What do we do with rebate checks to people who died recently? The practical problems are endless.
Third, it is inefficient. Collecting state income tax only costs about one cent on the dollar. Paying it back out probably costs 3 cents on the dollar — a combined waste of 4 cents on the dollar. Paying down debt has transactional costs of zero.
Fourth, this will be perceived as an election year gimmick. Will it work?
In 2020, I received $32.00 from the IRS, along with a personalized letter signed by the president. I don’t think it helped him in November 2020.
On April 9, 2024, the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated a statute criminalizing those who perform abortions, except to preserve the life of the mother. The blogosphere and the networks were aghast that this statute was originally adopted in 1864. Is a statute better because its origins are of old, or is it worse? Liberals can’t make up their collective mind on this point.
The year 1864 is not surprising. The entire nation was in the middle of, not only a civil war, but also a national legal reform to protect the lives of preborn children. In 1859, the American Medical Association unanimously adopted a resolution “condemning abortion at every period of gestation, except as necessary to preserve the life of mother or child.” The stated reason was the increasing frequency “of such unwarrantable destruction of human life.”
The common law, as of 1776, and probably as of 1669 in North Carolina, made abortion a crime from conception.
“The moment the womb is instinct with embryo life and gestation has begun . . .” the crime may be committed, State v. Slagle (1880).
These “facts of life” have been well known for two centuries. The very first two sentences of The Developing Human — Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd ed 1977) by Keith Moore states:
“Development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) is fertilized by a spermatozoon and ends at death. It is a process of growth and differentiation which transforms the zygote, a single cell, into a multicellular adult human being.”
No new science has changed that truth in 50 years. Nor was it newly discovered in 1859.
The law caught up with science in the 19th century. By 1868, the vast majority of states criminalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy. The appendix to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health lists several dozen statutes from the mid 19th century. Many of the state court decisions from the mid to late 19th and also the early 20th century made the point that these protective laws were motivated by a sincere belief that abortion kills a human being.
Dobbs notes that 13 of the territories that later became states criminalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy between 1850 (Hawaii) and 1919 (New Mexico). By the end of the 1950s, all but four states and the District of Columbia prohibited abortion, unless performed to save or to preserve the life of the mother.
In the 19th century, civil law also kept up with science by protecting the rights of unborn children from conception. The law of North Carolina was that the property, real and personal, of one dying without a will immediately vests in a child en ventre sa mere.
In 1823, a NC statute clarified: “[n]o inheritance shall descend to any person, unless such person shall be in life at the death of the person last seized, or shall be born within ten months after the death of the person last seized.”
Ten lunar months are 280 days. By 1839, a child, once conceived, could take a property interest under a will to “children.” In 1854 NC statutes clarified that “[a]n infant unborn, but in esse, shall be deemed a person capable of taking by deed as if he were born.”
Until Roe v Wade (1973), for all purposes beneficial to her, the preborn child was protected by the civil law and the criminal law of almost all of the nation. Law and biology were consistent and considered the child in the womb, en ventre sa mere, to be within the protection of law from conception.
Even after Roe v Wade most abortionists will admit that after conception the embryo is a living human being. I have debated two abortionists and deposed two others. They said, of course it is a living human being.
Only politicians and the press deny this obvious fact of life.
There is confusion on what a human embryo is. It is not sperm. It is not an egg. The very first two sentences of “The Developing Human — Clinically Oriented Embryology, (2nd ed 1977)” by Keith Moore states:
“Development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) is fertilized by a spermatozoon and ends at death. It is a process of growth and differentiation which transforms the zygote, a single cell, into a multicellular adult human being.”
No new science has changed that truth in the last 50 years. What is the law here?
North Carolina law on unborn children is not confused. N.C. Sen. Bill 20 (2023) makes lawful abortions up to the 12th week of pregnancy with limited exceptions. Without that law and its Roe v. Wade predecessor, the criminal law would be the same as common law.
In 1859, the American Medical Association unanimously adopted a resolution “condemning abortion at every period of gestation, except as necessary to preserve the life of mother or child.” The reason: the increasing frequency “of such unwarrantable destruction of human life.”
The common law (as of 1776, and probably as of 1669) made abortion a crime from conception. “The moment the womb is instinct with embryo life and gestation has begun . . .” the crime may be committed (1880)
N.C. civil law also considers the unborn child to be protected from the time of conception.
The law of North Carolina is that the property, real and personal, of one dying without a will immediately vests in a child en ventre sa mere. In 1823, the statute clarified: “[n]o inheritance shall descend to any person, unless such person shall be in life at the death of the person last seized, or shall be born withing ten months after the death of the person last seized.” Ten lunar months is 280 days. A child, once conceived, could take a property interest under a will to “children.” (1839)
An 1854 statute states that “[a]n infant unborn, but in esse, (in existence) shall be deemed a person capable of taking by deed as if he were born.” Note the words “infant unborn.”
For all purposes beneficial to her, the unborn child was protected by the civil law. Law and biology were consistent and considered the child in the womb to be within the protection of law from conception.
There is confusion between abortion and IVF.
In either abortion or IVF, the intention includes the destruction of a living human being. Of those embryos created by IVF, most are to be discarded, and only one or two are intended to be implanted and proceed to birth.
There are differences. The obvious one is size. Another is pain. I am not aware of evidence that the embryo at one week has the capacity to feel pain. There is capacity for the unborn child to feel pain somewhere between 10 and 15 weeks after fertilization.
On the other side, the destruction of most of the embryos in the IVF procedure is morally worse than the abortion of the child in the womb. How so? The usual reasons stated for abortion do not apply. The woman seeking IVF has not been impregnated by rape or incest. Neither her life nor her health are in any danger. By definition, she wants at least one of these children and can afford to raise her. The child will not interfere with her career or education nor, as the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1993, interfere with her consideration of the mysteries of existence and her place in the universe.
I suppose that if IVF were accomplished by creating one or two embryos and implanting them, some of the moral objections would be less powerful. The general practice is to create multiple embryos in the test tube, test them, implant one or two and destroy the rest.
Those with a historical or biblical turn of mind might study the first chapter of Luke, written by a historian. When Jesus was about 8 days old (in Mary’s womb) his cousin, John the Baptist, leapt for joy because John was in the presence of the Messiah (John’s mother was in her sixth month).
English is the world’s language of culture and commerce. It is always changing. Try reading Shakespeare or the King James Bible (1611).
Decades ago, most could distinguish between “both” and “each” as in “both Jack and Jill went up the hill” and “each candidate presented his or her platform.” Now these terms are used interchangeably and, as a consequence, neither is clear.
“Meat gets done. People are finished.” There is a difference between “done” and “finished” but the difference will shortly disappear because of one unalterable fact. Billions of times every day an electronic device requires us to push “done” when we are “finished.” Yesterday I called “Siri, telephone call to ????” (S)he or it replied: “To who?”
Who can forget Justice Neil Gorsuch’s faux pas in Bostock. This “textualist” and “originalist” thought he should interpret “sex” in the 1965 Civil Rights Act as meaning the same as “gender” means to some today. He failed to consult Fowler’s Modern English Usage, 2nd ed., 1965, which explained that someone making that error was either joking or ignorant. That decision changed the law of the country with no input from Congress.
These changes have real life consequences.
Other transitions have occurred in the last decade.
Hateful used to mean that a human individual was full of hatred, to wit, a settled rejection of another human. Now the term is often used to mean that a human being or an organization or an amorphous group disagrees with someone else on a matter of importance.
Shameful used to mean that the writer (or a group of which he or she is more or less associated) has done something of which he or she has a serious feeling of moral regret. It now means (to some) that someone else or a group of which I am not a member has done something of which I would be ashamed if I had done it.
Disenfranchised properly means that an individual no longer has the right to vote, either for public or private office, for which that person was previously able to vote e.g. by conviction of a felony. Now it refers to individuals, groups, and societies that don’t feel that their collective voice will prevail against the actual majority.
Other changes took centuries:
Nice used to mean “silly, foolish, simple.”
Silly went in the opposite direction: in its earliest uses, it referred to things worthy or blessed; from there it came to refer to the weak and vulnerable, and more recently to those who are foolish.
Wench is a form of the Old English word wenchel (which referred to children of either sex), the word wench used to mean “female child” before it came to be used to refer to female servants — and more pejoratively to wanton women.
Clue: Centuries ago, a clue (or clew) was a ball of yarn. It morphed from yarn to key bits of evidence that help us solve problems.
Naughty: Long ago, if you were naughty, you had naught or nothing. Then it came to mean evil or immoral, and now just badly behaved.
Quell: Quelling something used to mean killing it, not just subduing it.
Divest: 300 years ago, divesting could involve undressing as well as depriving others of their rights or possessions. It has only recently come to refer to selling investments.
Senile: Senile used to refer simply to anything related to old age, so you could have senile maturity. Now it refers specifically to elders suffering from senile dementia.
It is not just words. The overuse of the passive voice can obscure the truth.
Active voice: A stray dog ate my doughnut.
Passive voice: My doughnut was eaten by a stray dog.
Passive on steroids: It seems that my doughnut was eaten.
Recently a reporter wrote: “his victory seemed to be a reflection of…” but the reporter never stated when or to whom it so seemed, leaving the reader to conclude an everlasting groundswell of public approval.
CONCLUSION
“ Horace, writing more than 2,000 years ago in The Art of Poetry observed that usus (“usage”) is the ius et norma loquendi (“the right and rule of speech”). The change can come about naturally and gradually with social and cultural change, or it can come more rapidly and destructively either through the domination of language by the ignorant and inept, or by intentional distortions and to control information and argument by ideological fanatics. What we have seen recently is a “woke” assault on meaning — the ability of language to correspond with the real message that the speaker wants to convey to the learner.”
“There is effective and beneficial change in language. It occurs when wise writers and speakers find ways to enhance the range and subtlety of words and phrases. Now we have the reverse: all too many users of the language abuse it by flattening out distinctions and nuances so that the ability to communicate clearly is lost.” Robert V. Young, Professor Emeritus, NC State University.
Thanksgiving arrives just in time for an accounting of my time to family and including 3,800 electronic friends.
Thanks to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who has never disappointed or failed. A warm thank you to Dottie who is talented and gracious. Her mother “Dot Dot” is 97 years of age. She has been the ideal mother-in-law. My children, Nathan and Jana, have been a real joy. Their spouses, Kristi and Jimmy, are wonderful parents to our 9 grandchildren. The nine could have been born on 9 continents – so different in personality. Each one is fun.
I was licensed to practice law on October 14, 1975. I will begin my Jubilee Year on October 14, 2024. What is a Jubilee year?
Leviticus 25:8-13 8 “The time of the seven weeks of years shall give you forty-nine years. 9 On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the trumpet throughout all your land. 10 You shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan. 11 That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; in it you shall neither sow nor reap what grows of itself nor gather the grapes from the undressed vines. 12 For it is a jubilee. It shall be holy to you. You may eat the produce of the field. 13 “In this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his property.”
In 2024 Yom Kippur is on October 11-13. This is how I am planning for that year.
By Summer 2024 I hope to transition from full time law practice to part time. In 2024/2025 school year, I plan to teach part time at the high school level at private schools. In 2024/2025 I will be in the second and last year of a three year term as a Commissioner of the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission. That takes a lot of time.
I won 8 and lost 6 elections to the NC House. At one point I was 1-6. Only Abe Lincoln, 7-7, had more losses. Over 36 years I was in, out, back in and back out of politics. There were lots of legislative wins and plenty of losses. For a full accounting see www.paulstam.info. (149 articles)
I have a new project for legislation. I need your help. When I turned 71, I realized why we have a worker shortage and high federal budget deficits. I have a partial solution that has been blessed by two economists and a several members of Congress:
Raise the age from 70 to 75 at which a taxpaying worker stops accruing additional Social Security benefits. At 73 I am still paying Social Security taxes. (In reality for everyone it is 15%.) I want to work. Millions of us retire too early, because it does not make financial sense to continue. Would you join me in this effort. It will partly solve the Worker Shortage and somewhat reduce the annual federal deficit. For North Carolina it will mean more revenue without raising tax rates at all. It addresses the real demographic problem: too few workers for the number retired.
In September I enjoyed another Labor Day weekend in the mountains – this time to Ashe County, hiking at Daughton National Park and Elk Knob State Park. I swim 2-3 times a week. It is great for my health. It is difficult to injure yourself swimming laps. I take grandchildren with me when they can. All six boys now beat me and the three girls are catching up.
I do not like receiving birthday or Christmas presents. I do like to give them. There is a situation to which I have been contributing for decades. I help support two women with special needs. One is 76. I was her guardian for 37 years. She has a permanent brain injury. When she was 30 she was a passenger in an automobile accident. Her mental level is about age 12. Her husband and two of her three children abandoned her. She works part time as a bagger. She lives on about $12,000.00 per year. She lives in a 50-year-old mobile home.
The second woman is 50. She has been disabled since birth, with rickets and other spinal conditions. She also has a bipolar condition, controlled by medication. I am one of three trustees. The trust owns an old house in Johnston County where she lives and often takes care of her grandchildren. She has very limited income. I try to supplement her needs. The trust also owns 8 cemetery lots at Montlawn south of Raleigh. Do you need some?
If you would like to help them, send a nondeductible check to Stam Law Firm Trust Account to bless these two women.
I have been blessed beyond measure.
Psalm 103 “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name! 2 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, 3 who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, 4 who redeems your life from the pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, 5 who satisfies you with good so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.”
In a women’s varsity soccer conference tournament, Cary High School lost 3-0 to Apex. During the regular season, Cary had tied Apex 1-1, then beat Apex 1-0. I have figured out why Cary lost in this final match-up.
I listened to Cary’s Coach Norcus’ talk with his team at half time. “Okay women, I’m going to talk to Apex Coach Middleton. I am going to tell him that we are not going to finish this game until we know how many goals Apex is going to score in the second half. We are down by 2. We need a clear line on Apex’s plans so we will know how many goals to score.
“Another thing. We are not sending any of you women into harm’s way,” Coach Norcus said. “There is entirely too much pushing and shoving in the game. I am going to let that Apex coach know that his team is not to hurt you at all.”
“But, Coach,” said Mary Lou “we have been training all year to tangle with the Cougars.”
“Well, this is a new day and there are different rules. I do not believe in letting any of you get hurt. If Apex doesn’t like it, they can find someone else to play with.
“I’m going to talk to the ref. We need an exit strategy. When the game is over, we need to know how we are going to get out without getting mobbed by all these crazy fans. If the ref can’t give me an exit strategy, we are not playing.”
This isn’t exactly why Cary lost to Apex. It illuminates why the American government, despite having an overwhelming technological, material and training advantage, has problems dealing with international crises.
In 1996 Coach Bill Clinton was befuddled. Saddam Hussein had figured him out and played Bill like a yo-yo. Saddam let us lob million-dollar cruise missiles at $50,000 targets in southern Iraq that can easily be replaced. In return, we did not even attempt to stop his slaughter of Kurds in northern Iraq – abandoning those who had been working with us for years.
President Clinton considered sending troops to Zaire. Television reports from Fort Bragg treated us to the spectacle of parents and spouses complaining that Thanksgiving and Christmas was no time to send out the troops. What an embarrassment to our brave soldiers.
Following the Bill Clinton model, Presidents Obama, Trump and Biden each set timetables and exit strategies in Afghanistan. In January 2021, then President Trump ordered his generals to get everybody out of Afghanistan within weeks. The generals refused. Biden refused to follow the advice of his generals in August 2021 with disastrous results.
I prefer a different philosophy of struggle. It was said in 991 AD by a hard-pressed soldier facing an onslaught of Danes at the Battle of Maldon Bridge
Hearts shall be bolder, Harder be purpose, More proud the spirit As our power lessens. Minds shall not falter Nor mood waiver Though doom come And dark conquer.
November 2022, I published “Two Tragedies for Ukraine and Russia.” This article updates with additional developments and more information.
For the last 18 months the world has been flooded with news of Russia’s war against Ukraine. I estimate there have been at least 354,000 soldiers and civilians killed and many times that wounded and sickened. Since the war began, 20,000 to 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers have lost limbs. It is estimated that 7,000 to 10,000 are still in need of prosthetics.[1]
Between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainians have been involuntarily deported by the Russians from the territory of Ukraine and sent to the Russian Federation, including Siberia.[2] Last November 60,000 civilians were “evacuated” from Kherson to other Russian controlled areas. [3] This war crime was a favorite of Stalin’s. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Putin for his deportation of Ukrainian children. Russia intends to permanently separate these children from their families and erase their Ukrainian identity.
As of April 2022, 11.4 million Ukrainians had sought safety in Europe and beyond.[4]
Since then, about 5.5 million have returned for a net outmigration of 6.2 million from Ukraine.[5]
Thousands of Russians left at the beginning of the war. 700,000 men fled Putin’s “partial mobilization” in September and October, 2022.[6]
$147.5 billion of destruction of buildings and infrastructure have been wreaked
upon Ukraine by Russian missiles, artillery, and drones as of April 2023.[7] Each side has used up many tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons, ammunition and equipment which will be replaced. Last year, Russia’s war against Ukraine cost the world economy $1.6 trillion. In 2023 the cost is estimated to be another $1 trillion.[8]
The magnitude of the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and atrocities inflicted by Russia on the Ukrainians can hardly be appreciated, much less calculated.
ANOTHER TRAGEDY
The dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1991 accelerated the rapid decline of the Russian Federation economically, demographically and spiritually. From 1991-1995 there was a brief interval of relative freedom (with corruption). In 1995, Russia returned to its old ways of corruption, dictatorship and alcoholism. By 2022 the Russian total population of 144,713,314 had been declining for years.[9] Life expectancy in Russia for men is only 68.2 years, for women 78 years.[10] The Russian fertility rate before the war was 1.8 children per adult woman.[11] To keep a stable population over the long term, a fertility rate of 2.1 is necessary. Russia is gradually committing demographic suicide.
Ukraine had the same problems, including an even lower fertility rate of 1.2[12] and corruption, but with substantially more political and religious freedom. At the start of Russia’s war, Ukraine’s population was about 43.9 million. Its population now is around 37 million.[13]
On August 1, 2023, CNN reported that nearly half of those detained by Russian forces in Kherson were subject to torture, including sexual violence, often genital electrocution designed to keep the victim childless,[14] evidence that Russia is committing genocide.
In 1991 religious freedom was possible in Russia. That year Russian parliamentarians came to North Carolina to study what religious freedom looks like. More recently the dark cloud of corruption and despair have descended over the Russian Orthodox Church as it linked its fortunes to Putin. Its patriarch proclaimed that Russians who die in battle against Ukraine would have all their sins forgiven.[15] This doctrine of works is a repudiation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.[16]
Although Russia has been impoverished by its war, it has actually gained population! The numbers it has deported from Ukraine to Russia exceed the number Russia has lost in battle plus the number of those who fled.
Ukraine has been known as the “breadbasket” of Europe. Russia is one of the world’s foremost exporters of grain. No one has yet discerned a rational reason that Putin initiated this war. Could it be that Putin’s war was a play for population to serve in Russia’s factories and harvest its crops. Putin wants to restore the Russian Empire – a return to serfdom with Putin as Tsar.
A NEW TRAGEDY IN AMERICA?
There is a potential tragedy in America. The twentieth century gave plenty of warning that war in Europe would inevitably come to America. The America First movement led by Charles Lindberg met its Pearl Harbor. The sinking of American ships by German submarines brought us into World War I. Late entrances by America resulted in much greater cost in lives and futures lost, not to mention the enormous extra financial cost.[17]
A minority of each party in Congress disregards history and common sense, appealing to the understandable, but naïve, desire of Americans to be left alone. America Firsters often claim that the American contribution to Ukraine’s defense is many times greater than the Europeans. But the contribution of the European Union together with its member nations and the European members of NATO is roughly equivalent to that of the United States. “Europe’s Real Test is Yet to Come” at page 71 by Radek Sikorski in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2023.[18] The population and economic power of these European countries is roughly equivalent to the population and economic power of the United States.
Because of the disastrous August 2021 Biden execution of the January 2021 disastrous Trump plan for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, our allies in Taiwan were already skeptical that America would really come to its defense. America Firsters have aggravated that lack of confidence.
Would abandonment of Taiwan and Ukraine really save America money? Not in this universe.
Republicans meet June 8 to 11 in Greensboro. Delegates need to know that I am not running for President in 2024. Why?
I am 72 years old. Before my second term expires I will be 82. I am too old.
There are reasons that someone as experienced (old) as I might not be electable. In 2003 my daughter was my legislative assistant. She was a libertarian. I was considering a bill about safety restrictions on young ATV drivers. She told me she might run against me in the next primary – she had just as much name recognition (then Stam) as I did, but without all my baggage. Twenty years later I have even more baggage (a voting record).
I graduated from high school when I was 17, telling classmates that I planned to be President in 1992. To round out my resume I volunteered for military service (USMC 1968-1970). Previous presidents had served: Eisenhower (5 Star General), Kennedy (naval officer), Johnson (Navy), Nixon (Naval Reserve), Ford (Naval Reserve), Carter (naval officer – nuclear sub), Reagan (Army).
I have noticed recently that prior military service has become a negative, politically. Who
would have thought that the youngest Navy pilot of WWII, a hero, George H.W. Bush, would lose to draft dodger, Bill Clinton. Clinton won a plurality of the votes of veterans!!
Who would have thought that President Obama would defeat John McCain, a real hero of the Vietnam War. As the son of an Admiral, he could have been released years earlier from the tortures of a prisoner of war camp. He chose to stay with his men. I realize now that my military service in 1968-70, as insignificant as it was, could be a negative for my ambitions.
In 1970-75 I attended four different schools on the GI bill. I had always been a bookworm and have maintained that practice for the last 65 years, reading and writing extensively. When I write, (www.paulstam.info) I strive for factual accuracy. One article required 27 revisions before my assistant would let it be published. For high federal office factual accuracy has now become an anachronism. But there is more.
Joe Biden won election as Vice President, and again as President, despite a credible accusation of the rape of Tara Reade. He also had a record of other unwanted actions toward women. Who can forget Bill Clinton’s tomcat behavior, even in the Oval Office? Fidelity now means nothing to voters, except that a candidate is boring.
I have prepared thousands of wills and powers of attorney for clients older than I – even nonagenarians. Competency to execute a will does not require the judgment, energy or competence required for the presidency. But a president needs more than passing a quiz, “What month is it?” “Who is president today?” “Draw a clock at 2:30”.
We elders are aware of the slow, cognitive decline that makes us so adorable. My favorite president was Ronald Reagan. His eighth year was not his best. Not too long after his retirement he had early onset Alzheimer’s. Who can predict when that might start for you or for me?
For all these reasons I decline to run for president in 2024. Republicans have many fine candidates from whom to choose.
These words from King Solomon speak to political ambition:
“When you sit down to dine with a ruler, consider carefully what is before you. Put a knife to your throat if you are a person of great appetite.” Proverbs 23:1-2
In these political times the last refuge of liberal losers is the cry that everything they don’t like legislatively is because of the “gerrymander.” On NBC, CNN and MSNBC in May 2023 Governor Roy Cooper said: “Technologically, diabolical gerrymandering. Some of the worst in the country” He didn’t like limitations on abortion or expansions of school choice.
As Dave Larson pointed out in his essay “Super-technologically-diabolical Gerrymandering” (Carolina Journal May 19, 2023), there was no political gerrymander that formed the 2023 – 2024 session of the General Assembly. There may have been one Republican political gerrymander in the past (2017-18) and there may be more in the future. But the current legislature is the result of a Democrat political gerrymander in 2022 of the State Senate and Congressional delegation. The House map was passed almost unanimously, hardly evidence of any kind of political gerrymander. The Congressional map was drawn by special masters chosen by the Democrat Supreme Court. They were ordered to use political criteria to create a Democrat result.
When they’re not blaming the nonexistent political gerrymander, the other cry is a “racist gerrymander.” Let’s look at that more carefully.
In the 2010 general elections, House Republicans picked up 16 seats using a 2004 Democrat-crafted political gerrymander to make a (68 – 52) majority (one independent joined Republicans). The GOP picked up 11 seats in the State Senate for a super majority, (31 – 19).
After the census of 2010, the General Assembly had the legal duty to redistrict the entire state, applying federally required population criteria and the state constitution’s “whole county” provision. The Assembly proceeded to do so, but there was a complication. Federal law required, under the Voting Rights Act, that “racial gerrymandering” must be done to create minority – majority districts where possible. The U.S. Justice Department, run by Attorney General Eric Holder, appointed by President Barack Obama, approved the maps. They were also approved by the State Supreme Court twice and by federal courts. In 2014 African American Democrats made big gains, but it did not help Democrats as a whole. Republicans gained even more seats and obtained supermajorities in the House (77 – 43) and in the Senate (34 – 16).
The U.S. Supreme Court changed its mind (Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 2014) and decided that what it required in 2011 was hereafter prohibited as an illegal racial gerrymander. The maps would have to be redrawn. The 2011 North Carolina maps were attacked again under this new U.S. Supreme Court doctrine. The maps were redrawn for the 2016 election.
But the narrative had been set by the then legal maps drawn in 2011. Republican legislators must have had race in their hearts (retroactively) instead of complying with the Voting Rights Act and U.S. Supreme Court decisions. They must be bad people. They were guilty of not reading the future minds of Supreme Court Justices.
On July 29, 2016, McCrory came down from the Fourth Circuit just in time for the general election. It claimed that the Voter ID bill (passed in 2013) had been crafted “with almost surgical precision” to disadvantage black voters. The Appeals Court disregarded the evidence from the only election where voter ID had been used in 2016. The trial Judge heard dozens and dozens of witnesses and found that not a single African American voter who tried to vote was prevented from doing so.
On Saturday, July 30, 2016, I read in the New York Times of the “scurrilous attempt by North Carolina Republicans to suppress the rising power of black voters.” It made me feel bad, maybe I had missed something in the 25,000 pages of exhibits or in the 479 pages of the trial judge’s analysis of the evidence. But I had not yet read the McCrory Fourth Circuit decision.
After reading the decision, I was perplexed, amused, and angry. I was perplexed because the appeals court decision ignored Supreme Court precedents, amused because the “evidence” marshaled by the Fourth Circuit was in turns ludicrous or logically fallacious. I was angry because the overwhelming will of the people had been thwarted under the guise of combating racism.
What was the proof that the Fourth Circuit found of legislative racism? Not much. The opinion makes clear that
“our conclusion does not mean, and we do not suggest, that any member of the General Assembly harbored racial hatred or animosity toward any minority group.”
Without any evidence that any of the 170 members of the General Assembly, Republican or Democrat, black, white or Indian, men or women, were intending to discriminate against African American voters, the Fourth Circuit pinned on the collective body an intent which there was no evidence that any member harbored.
The Court marshals another argument. At one of the public hearings Don Yelton, a GOP precinct chair, delivered a baldly racist statement. The Court even cited his call-in to the Daily Show!!
“The statements do not prove that any member of the General Assembly acted with discriminatory intent. But the sheer outrageousness of these public statements by a party leader does provide some evidence of the racial and partisan political environment in which the General Assembly enacted the law.”
With over 150 statements made at the public hearings, that was the best evidence the Fourth Circuit could find. The statement by a party leader does not mean that any member of the Assembly paid any attention to it. Members often pride themselves on how little attention they pay to their party. Guilt by association is McCarthyism at its worst.
In this case the “party leader” was a precinct chair. One vote is usually sufficient to elect yourself as precinct chair. This particular “party leader” was known to be constantly at odds with actual party leaders.
The next scrap of evidence was “the smoking gun.” The sponsors of the bill requested racially disaggregated data of various election methods. This request was made pre-Shelby (2013), when the US Supreme Court declared unconstitutional certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act that required preclearance to changes in election law. It would have been legislative malpractice for the sponsors of the bill to have not requested this data prior to Shelby. The District Court carefully explained this in its 479-page opinion. The Court of Appeals ignored this obvious fact.
The next bit of “evidence” of discriminatory intent was the passage of the bill right after Shelby. The house bill was filed and considered months prior to Shelby. Although they spoke against it Democratic leaders in the House complemented the Chair of the Election Law Committee, Representative David Lewis, for a thorough and proper process. After Shelby, the Senate rules chair announced there would be an “omnibus bill.” The Fourth Circuit apparently thought the word “omnibus” had the same meaning as “ominous” and that it suddenly sprang out of the sea foam of the Aegean, like Aphrodite. But that is not what happened. The legislation which the Senate added to the House bill had been filed in the Senate for months.
The Fourth Circuit, engaging in the logical fallacy, identified by Aristotle 2500 years ago – post hoc ergo propter hoc, decided that the bill was passed because of the unprecedented gains of African Americans in electing Democrats in 2012 and that suddenly this bill became law in 2013 when Shelby gave the green light. But nothing of the sort happened. There were unprecedented gains of African Americans in the elections to the State House and Senate. But that did not help Democrats. In 2014 Democrats had their worst election outcome in 144 years, losing to super majorities in the House (74 to 26) and Senate (34 to 16), as well as the governorship, and with Republicans retaining a majority on the Supreme Court.
Neither did these reforms come because of Shelby. Voter ID came out of the 2000 Bush/Gore razor thin election in Florida, followed by the Jimmy Carter/James Baker report in 2005. That report recommended photo voter ID. Republicans filed voter ID bills in 2003 HB 10, HB 794 in 2005, HB 285 in 2007, and HB 430 in 2009.
To say that photo voter ID came because of Shelby is ludicrous. In 2010 House and Senate Republicans, then in the minority, made, as part of their 10-point campaign platform, photo voter ID as one of the laws they would pass within the first hundred days if they were given a majority. In 2011 HB 351 “Restore Confidence in Government” was passed by the House and Senate and vetoed by Governor Perdue. Photo voter ID in 2013 was passed then because there was finally a governor (McCrory) who would sign it.
On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade. How can you tell if you are hearing or seeing propaganda instead of reasoned debate or analysis?
1. If there is no mention of the child at all, not even mention of a “fetus” or “embryo.” Or if there is no photo of the unborn child, or even a written description of her appearance or function, that is propaganda. The DNA of the baby is distinct from her parents at fertilization. Her heart is beating at six weeks. By the 12th week each of her organs are well in place and growing.
2. If reporters say a “ban,” (rhymes with “Taliban” and means a total prohibition), it is propaganda. I have never seen a “ban.” An exception for the life of the mother is implied in law even when not expressed. Most statutes have other exceptions or definitions that operate as exceptions. Senator Lindsay Graham’s 15-week bill only protected about 7% of unborn children with 4 specific exceptions. Yet it was called a “nationwide ban.” That was propaganda.
3. If the unborn child is called a “fetus” or “embryo” that might be propaganda. “Fetus” is a proper medical term for an unborn child from 13 weeks gestation (older than an embryo). “Fetus” means “offspring” or “progeny.” The feminine is “parva fetus.” If abortionists want to use Latin to dehumanize the child, then the equivalent correct medical term for the mother is “gravida.” There is no masculine equivalent, despite the wild imaginations of those who refer to “pregnant people” rather than “pregnant women.” “To imply that an unborn child is not a “child but a fetus or an embryo” is logically analogous to saying that “she is not a child, she is a ‘toddler’.” “Fetus,” like “toddler,” designates a specific phase of the state of “childhood.”
4. In USA Today I read a full-page article on abortion. It never mentioned the child but constantly referred to “abortion care.” Propaganda. “Abortion” is to “care” as “armed robbery” is to “a bank.” In 99.99% of all abortions an individual living human being dies. If abortion is “health care” what disease is being treated?
5. When they state that the U.S. Supreme Court took away a constitutional right after 49 ½ years, that is propaganda. Justice Alito went to great lengths to clearly demonstrate there never was a constitutional right to abortion. Ask a 5th grader to find the right to abortion in the Constitution. She will tell you it is not there. It never was, except in the fevered imaginations of seven old men with black robes. They are now dead. In North Carolina abortion has always been a crime, a misdemeanor from 1669-1881 and a felony from 1881-1973, and still a felony to “help” a friend.
6. Some say abortions after 15 weeks are only considered for life threatening emergencies and that lifesaving care is needed to prevent the death of women in cases such as ectopic pregnancies and for medical care after a miscarriage (a spontaneous abortion). Propaganda. Only 1/10 of 1% of abortions are committed because of a threat to a mother’s life or serious physical health problem. Such abortions have not, are not, and will not be any kind of offense.
7. Do it yourself abortions (for example, by mail order pills) are themselves life threatening. Without an actual examination and an ultrasound there is no way to rule out an ectopic pregnancy. Liberal excuses for DIY abortions is Propaganda. The unborn child cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy. If not resolved by about the 12th week the child will die and the mother will be in serious danger. Removal of the child in an ectopic pregnancy has never been considered illegal, immoral or unethical. Treatment after a miscarriage is not even an abortion. The suggestion that either of these actions will be illegal is propaganda.
8. Attached are photos of the unborn child at 12, 13, 16, 17 and 24 weeks. Abortions are actually performed at about 24-25 weeks in North Carolina if the abortionist’s opinion that it is necessary to deal with some serious physical health issues. After 24-25 weeks such cases are usually referred to Virginia, Maryland or New York.
How did the GOP do in the November 2022 elections? Here is the big picture at the local, state, and national levels.
Local level. Before the election Republicans controlled 61 County commissions. After the elections, the GOP controls 67 County commissions. Since Democrats control commissions with greater county populations, the population of counties controlled by Republican members vs Democrat members is about 50/50.
Before the Election, there were 45 GOP Clerks of Court and 55 Democrat Clerks of Court. After the Election of 2022, there are 54 GOP Clerks of Court and 45 Democrats.
Before the Election, there were 58 GOP Sheriffs and 40 Democrats as Sheriffs with 2 unaffiliated. After the Election of 2022, there are 64 GOP Sheriffs, a net gain of 6.
Republican candidates swept nearly half of the partisan School Board race – 290 total seats in 85 of the 115 school districts. There were 137 partisan races out of which Republicans won 103 and Democrats 34. Of the 41 school boards elected on a partisan basis, the GOP won all seats in 20 while Democrats swept 4. A majority of school districts are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Counties with nonpartisan boards tend to have a larger population. It may be the number of schools governed by GOP members and Democrat members is about the same.
State Legislative level. Republicans went from 69 to 71 members of the 120-member State House- one member short of the 3/5 required for a veto override if all members are present and voting. A veto override is much more achievable with 71 than with 69. The State Senate went from 28 to 30 Republicans, a “veto-proof” supermajority. Democrats fell from 22 to 20.
Results were uneven across the State. In the 80 counties won by Ted Budd the GOP dominated. But in the 20 counties won by Cheri Beasley Democrats dominated. Wake and Mecklenburg have 38 legislators, but only 2 Republicans, Erin Pare of Southern Wake and John Bradford of northern Mecklenburg. (Senator Vickie Sawyer of Iredell has a small part of Mecklenburg.)
Remember that in the 2011-2012 session the GOP held 68 House seats. Overrides of Gov. Perdue’s vetoes prevailed 8 times. There were 17 House Democrats who voted one or more times to override her. Gov. Cooper would have been overridden this year on the Budget if he had not signed it.
The State Supreme Court was a clean sweep with Republicans Richard Dietz and Trey Allen prevailing. On January 1, 2023, the Supreme Court will go from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority. Chief Justice Newby’s 401-vote victory in 2020 is still important. The Chief Justice directs the Administrative Office of the Courts and its thousands of employees in every courthouse. Some of these are independently elected or controlled on some issues but statewide administrative control is in the Chief through the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The next two seats up for reelection in 2024 (Morgan) and 2026 (Earls) are also held by Democrats, meaning that Republicans will retain control of the court through at least 2028.
The State Court of Appeals was a clean sweep for Republicans. All four races were won by highly qualified candidates: Julee Tate Flood, Donna Stroud, John M. Tyson, and Michael J. Stading. The numbers on the Court of Appeals are now 11 Republicans (Stroud, Chief, Dillon, Tyson, Murphy, Zachary, Gore, Griffin, Carpenter, Wood, Flood, Stading) and 4 Democrats (Arrowood, Collins, Hampson, and a replacement for Judge Dietz, to be appointed by Gov. Cooper). The Court of Appeals has never voted as an entire group. It has always voted in panels of three. Most panels will be two GOP judges and one Democrat.
This 6-seat sweep at the appellate level in 2022 follows an 8-seat sweep in 2020.
Of the seven statewide candidates the one with the most votes was Chief Judge Donna Stroud with over 2 million.
At the Superior Court level, there are now about an even number of Republican and Democratic Superior Court Judges with several who are unaffiliated. In 1994 there was only one Republican Superior Court Judge out of about 90. At the District Court level, this year Republicans won 51 seats, and Democrats won 43 seats. The partisan numbers are now about even.
National level. Republicans were expecting to gain (and Democrats were expecting to lose) about 25 seats in the US House. Instead, Republicans had a net gain of only 7 seats. This will result in the same margin for a House majority as Nancy Pelosi does now, with Republicans having a majority of only 222 to 213. If Gaetz, Boebert, Gosar, Greene, and Perry switch on a vote, Kevin McCarthy’s GOP caucus loses.
In early November 2022 GOP Senators were expecting to pick up one seat and come away with an advantage of 51-49. Instead, they came up with 49 seats putting Democrats with control ____ 51-49. In North Carolina, Ted Budd defeated Cheri Beasley on a vote of 50.5% to 47.3%. Budd won 80 counties.
While the House will stymie most of President Biden’s decisions, he and the Senate Majority can not be stopped from confi_____ dozens of judicial and executive appointments.
Before the election Republicans held 61 State Legislative Chambers and Democrats held 37. Five chambers flipped, but to the Democrats – the Michigan House and Senate, the Minnesota and Alaska Senates and the Pennsylvania House. It is now GOP chambers 56 to 40 Democrat chambers. Caveat: The Alaska Senate Majority Coalition is all 9 Democrats and 8 GOP of which the Speaker is GOP. The Pennsylvania House is Democrats 102 – 101 – GOP but one of the Democrats is deceased. Query: 61 + 37 = 98 instead of 99. 56 + 40 = 96 instead of 98.
The number of individual seats gained or lost is interesting. Before the election in the 49 State Senates Republicans held 1067 seats and Democrats held 851 seats. After the election, Republicans held 1104 State Senate seats and Democrats hold 849, a net gain of 37 for GOP state senators and a net loss of 2 for Democrats.
Before the election Republicans held 2927 seats in the 49 State Houses and Democrats held 2452. After the election GOP members hold 2923 State House seats and Democrats hold 2397, a net loss of 4 for the Republicans and a net loss for the Democrats of 55. The difference went to other parties. Nebraska is unicameral and officially nonpartisan although the majority are registered Republicans. Its members are not included.
The Democrats picked up Governor’s mansions in Arizona, Massachusetts, and Vermont. The GOP picked up the governor’s position in Nevada, for a net loss of 2. As of January, there will be 28 GOP Governors and 22 Democrat Governors.
Overall North Carolina Republicans had good election results in 2022 and in several other states like Florida and Iowa. We even picked up Congressional seats in New York and California. Results were not so great in the rest of the country.
Ronald Reagan once said that, “America is too great for small dreams.” Throughout this great nation, people from all walks of life have dreamed of freedom, opportunity, and the chance to leave this world a better place for the next generation. The North Carolina Republican Party unequivocally defends that dream.
We are the party of individuals and the institutions they create together—families, schools, congregations, neighborhoods—to advance their ideals and realize their dreams. We are the party that encourages equality for all citizens and embraces the inherent value of every single human being God creates—born and unborn. We are the party that defends the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and safeguards religious institutions against government control. We reaffirm the Constitution’s fundamental principles: limited government, separation of powers, individual liberty, and the rule of law. As a Party, we denounce bigotry, racism, sexism, anti-semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. We recognize God–not government–as the Author of these principles. We are the party that stands strong against tyranny and will fight at home and abroad to protect the lives and fundamental liberties of all people. We are the party of a growing economy that gives everyone—regardless of background–a chance in life, an opportunity to learn, work and realize the prosperity that is made possible by the freedom we hold dear.
The Republican Party is committed to the values and ideals that are the true greatness of America, and we gladly join together to fight for justice, secure the blessings of liberty, and provide true opportunity and hope for generations to come.
Our nation’s strength lies with the family. It is the first school of discipline, responsibility, and good citizenship. Economic strength is the foundation of the United States’ greatness. We support free markets, fair trade, and capitalist principles at home and around the world. We support free and fair trade, with allied trading partners, for North Carolina industries that seek business in the global marketplace. Threats to our economic strength should be met with sound, market-based policies designed to enhance individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a civil society. The success of marriage may impact the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, we support actions to return marriage laws to the states; therefore, we support the marriage amendment as part of the North Carolina constitution and encourage all efforts to defend it. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we affirm our support for traditional marriage.
We affirm the authority of parental rights over their children’s welfare from conception to emancipation. We support laws that require written, notarized consent for all medical treatments such as but not limited to vaccinations, immunizations, mental health treatments of minor children, drug and alcohol treatment, and counseling and services related to immunizations, contraceptives, pregnancy, abortion, sexual orientation and/or gender identity issues. Government, however, should protect children from abuse and neglect, balancing parental rights with the protection of a child’s health and safety.
We support efforts to make adoptions in North Carolina easier to access. We believe that children, when adopted in a “forever home,” have the best chances for success in life. We applaud foster parents for their dedication and urge our state to ensure that the foster care system is efficient and puts the best interests of the child first. Supports should be provided for young adults as they transition out of the foster care system.
We support capitalism as the main economic system in the United States and will continue to ensure that this country does not become a socialist or communist nation.
We support free market solutions for societal issues, which provide the most efficient use of our resources. We support an individual’s ability to choose market-based solutions to retirement, utilities, health care and insurance, worker’s rights, or any goods and services. We believe health savings and retirement accounts should be encouraged and free of taxation.
Recognizing that wealth creation is the product of human enterprise, the free enterprise system is the most effective and just economic system in the world. It creates opportunity, rewards self-reliance and hard work, and unleashes productivity that other societies can only imagine. It is an engine of charity, making America the most philanthropic nation on earth. Government should encourage honest, productive work through elimination of both gratuitous regulations and excessive taxation.
Economic freedom is essential to human liberty and dignity. It preserves the inherent right to liberty and ownership of private property. To protect this inherent right, government must provide an environment for individual initiative and enterprise. We support encouraging economic growth through reduced regulation and taxation, and we oppose corporate favoritism.
Government should tax only to raise money for its constitutional functions. We support a thorough review of expenditures each year, and we support a taxpayer’s bill of rights. We support a federal and state balanced budget. We support the continuation of reforming the tax code to encourage economic growth that moves toward a system that taxes the broadest possible base of economic activity at the lowest possible rates.
We believe that capital gains, which are necessary for employment growth, should not be taxed as ordinary income. We believe dividend distributions should not be taxed, as that constitutes a double taxation on income.
Our nation’s economic security depends on reliable and affordable energy. We support developing energy sources within the parameters of market forces. We support the elimination of mandated renewable energy quotas and subsidies that artificially raise energy costs or taxes. We support federal revenue sharing with those states directly affected by offshore exploration and development in federal waters.
We support agriculture, agribusiness, and commercial fishing as driving forces in North Carolina’s economy. We support legislation to uphold these economic forces from burdensome and frivolous lawsuits and regulations.
We acknowledge that many North Carolina communities are underserved as to their health care needs. We support easing regulations and major reforms to Certificate of Need laws, as they can stifle competition, increase cost, and negatively impact health outcomes.
Liberty is founded upon a belief in the inherent dignity of the human person and recognition that individuals possess God-given inherent rights including, but not limited to: the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The fundamental role of government is to protect those inherent rights as recognized in our Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, including its Bill of Rights, and the North Carolina Constitution, and its Declaration of Rights.
We support the free exercise of religion by all Americans. We oppose any restriction on the free exercise of religion such as removing prayer from governmental activities or name of God or similar terms from our public documents and institutions. We oppose any attempt of government to establish a state religion, or to foster one religion over another. We oppose any governmental coercive action aimed at limiting the free exercise of religion. We support the right of individuals and corporations to uphold their free exercise rights consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We support the right of all institutions, including hospitals and schools, to refuse to provide contraceptive, abortion, or other services and procedures inconsistent with their religious tenets.
Government should treat all citizens impartially and equally under the law. Unjust discrimination is detrimental to freedom for all individuals and we oppose it in any form. The concept of guaranteed equity runs counter to our beliefs. Efforts to equalize outcomes result in unequal treatment of individuals and loss of personal freedom.
The Second Amendment and the NC Constitution guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. We support the constitutional ownership, sale, purchase and carry of firearms by lawabiding citizens. Further, we support reducing the number of “gun-free zones.” Gun owners have a right to confidentiality. Personal information acquired by government agencies for gun purchases and permitting should be available to law enforcement for investigative purposes only and not for public record.
Private property should not be taken by eminent domain except for a direct public use and upon prompt payment of just compensation.
We disagree with all censorship of constitutionally protected free speech, including–but not limited to– all social media platforms.
We believe in the sanctity of all human life. Unborn children have constitutional rights to life and liberty and, the government must respect and protect all innocent human life from conception to natural death.
We are the Party that offers real solutions for women. We have a moral obligation to assist women who face unexpected pregnancies and applaud organizations that empower women with compassionate, life-affirming resources and care.
We oppose infanticide and urge the enactment of laws to require medical care for babies who survive abortions.
We oppose efforts to mandate the provision of abortion or to fund with taxpayer dollars organizations that provide or promote abortion services. We oppose public school-based health clinics that provide referrals, counseling and related services for abortion and contraception.
We support requiring mandatory counseling before an abortion to ensure the pregnant woman knows all of the options and resources available to her and her baby including information about the possibility of reversing the intended effects of chemical abortion drugs.
We support the right of medical professionals to refuse to participate in abortions. We support the right of pharmacists to refuse to dispense abortion inducing drugs. We believe that state funded institutions should not provide abortion training.
We oppose all forms of euthanasia and assisted suicide, as they are the ultimate form of discrimination against persons with disabilities, including newborns, the elderly and infirm. We believe these individuals should be treated with love and respect, not as a burden. We also oppose basing the denial of life saving treatments on a perceived quality of life. We urge the General Assembly to enact legislation criminalizing assisted suicide.
We support developments in biomedical research that enhance and protect human life. We oppose human cloning and the destruction of human embryos, and we support adult stem cell research.
We support criminal penalties for harming or killing an unborn child when the mother is killed or injured in a criminal act.
We support laws which require written, notarized parental consent for an abortion and/or contraceptives for their minor children.
We oppose the sale, purchase, possession, or use of fetal tissue or body parts obtained from induced abortions.
We believe that in a free society, power should rest in the hands of the people. We believe in a limited government which serves the people, rather than one that burdens them.
We affirm three distinct and equal branches of government with a system of checks and balances. No branch shall usurp the powers of any other branch, except those provided by the State Constitution. The Governor’s emergency powers which impact the rights of citizens should only be used with the consultation and approval of the Council of State.
We believe that government at all levels should not spend money it does not have and avoid passing on debts to future generations.
Government retirement and pension plans should be privately owned and portable.
We oppose unfunded state mandates, including state mandated local property tax exemptions for a particular type of business. We oppose excessive regulation of commerce and industry by either statute or administrative rule, and support sunset provisions that require reauthorization for a business regulatory statute or rule to continue in force.
No State funds should be spent without an explicit appropriation. We oppose “slush funds” as rewards for political support. Raiding of dedicated funds should not be allowed except in an emergency as determined by law. Every bill heard in committee should receive a recorded vote. The budget bill should be made public at least two legislative days before the final vote in each house. To assure transparency, every committee substitute to a pending bill should be scheduled in committee and on the floor in a manner that gives citizens sufficient notice to communicate with their legislators about the bill.
We support the issuance of a driver’s license or state identification card only to those who are lawful residents of the United States.
We support reforming the mental health system. The needs of patients must be the first priority. This includes diagnosis, comprehensive care, follow-up, and stiff penalties for those who abuse or exploit patients.
We affirm that the State of North Carolina is prohibited from taking discriminatory action against a person based on a religious or moral conviction.
We support efforts to ensure that habitual drug users are not on public assistance. We believe that drug tests are appropriate if there is a reasonable suspicion of illegal drug use.
We affirm that law enforcement should honor detainers for illegal aliens held on criminal charges.
The Elections Clause of the US Constitution is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections and appoints states at the primary regulatory authority for the election process. Election laws and policies should ensure honesty and accuracy in all elections.
A free society demands an honest and accurate election process. Our laws and policies at every level of government should ensure that elections are conducted with absolute fairness and integrity, regardless of party registration, race, or socio-economic resources. Every legal vote should count and not be canceled out by illegal votes.
We support legislation requiring election judges at all election sites, including early voting sites. Poll observers should be allowed at every polling place and placed in a position that enables thorough observation. The rights of voters should be equally protected regardless of voting method.
We support enforced statewide procedures for updating voter rolls to ensure accuracy.
Current laws regarding absentee voting should be analyzed and tightened to ensure ballot security. The rights of all voters should be equally protected regardless of voting method.
We encourage election officials to report–and state and federal prosecutors to promptly investigate and prosecute–voter and election fraud.
We support the Electoral College as the Constitutional mode of electing our President and oppose all efforts to abolish it, as a national popular vote would be a grave threat to our federal system.
We support state efforts to ensure ballot access for the elderly, the disabled, military personnel, and all legitimate voters. We support laws with strict requirements regarding the postmark and return of absentee ballots by election date except as otherwise required by federal law.
We reaffirm our support of Voter ID and oppose the reinstatement of straight-ticket voting. Proof of citizenship should be required when registering to vote.
Voters should have timely information on candidates’ campaign finances. We oppose funding election campaigns with public or foreign funds.
Neither the State Board of Elections nor the county boards of elections have the authority to accept private monetary donations for the purpose of administering elections or employing individuals on a temporary basis.
We support an educational system that provides all children access to an education that empowers them to reach their highest, God-given potential, allowing them to contribute to the betterment of our society. A North Carolina high school diploma should fully prepare students to enter college, technical school, or the workforce.
We believe education policies and budget decisions are best made by local and state governments, rather than national agencies, to ensure that North Carolina students graduate with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in today’s global economy. The people of North Carolina support the highest, most rigorous educational standards that are developed through legislation by the NC General Assembly. All standards and reforms should aim to improve student achievement.
We support English as the official language of the United States. Therefore, we support the expedited use of English as a Second Language in the classroom as an assimilation tool.
Parents have the right to expect excellent public education. Parents also have the right and responsibility to direct their children’s education, while students have the obligation to learn. Allowing choice and competition in education drives all schools towards quality outcomes. We applaud the expansion of vocational curricula and parent choice in North Carolina. We support maintaining and expanding opportunity scholarships and education savings accounts that support the education of children with disabilities and open doors for students in need. All education dollars for grades K-12 dispersed by the state should follow the student to whatever education choice is made by the parents; be it public, charter, or private.
We urge the NC General Assembly to enact legislation guaranteeing parental rights over sex and health education in NC. Parents must have access to all curricula and data about their children, including content that is stored electronically. Schools should not ask children to answer offensive or intrusive personal questionnaires without parental consent. We oppose sex education in public schools without parental consent. Public schools should not be permitted to teach children about homosexual behavior and gender identity. No birth control devices or drugs should be distributed in public schools. We support teaching abstinence until marriage as the expected norm for sexual behavior. Biological males should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports.
We applaud the Republican led North Carolina General Assembly for consistently increasing teacher pay. Teacher compensation should be based on evaluations and market conditions. Teacher evaluations should be based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, educational training, job longevity, administration-based performance measures, and student achievement.
We support teaching civil liberties and patriotism as an important part of becoming a good citizen. We support regular recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, displays of the American and North Carolina State flag, and use of our national motto “In God We Trust”. Curricula must include civics so that students will be prepared to vote as informed citizens. We oppose curriculum that seeks to divide students based on race or gender. Instead, curricula should promote the unity of all students around American values such as liberty, justice and opportunity for all, and should encourage students to join together against all forms of oppression and injustice.
We believe in religious freedom and support the right of students and faculty to pray in school without censorship, as well as the respect for all religions. Schools should revitalize the Judeo-Christian values of Western civilization and teach American Exceptionalism.
We encourage both state and federal governments to help prospective students understand the real costs of lending and allow students to discharge their debts according to market principles. We support economic assistance for students that comes from both private and public sources using market lending principles.
We applaud the efforts of the Republican led General Assembly in supporting community colleges, as these colleges truly open doors and remove barriers to accessible, high-quality education for all citizens. Community colleges play a vital role in developing our workforce and they provide much needed basic literacy programs, vocational training, and university transfer options for students from all walks of life.
We believe it is a requirement of the state and county Boards of Education to ensure all schools provide a safe learning environment. Schools should provide a level of security which protects students and faculty from harm, consistent with the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.
One of the main duties of government is to maintain law and order, while securing for its citizens the freedom to pursue the blessings of liberty and the fruits of their labor.
e honor the men and women in uniform who protect citizens of North Carolina at home and abroad. We are grateful for our state and local law enforcement as well as our first responders for their public service to our citizens.
We call for mandatory sentencing for all violent crimes, especially crimes committed against those who are charged with protecting us. We support the death penalty for first-degree murder. Suppliers of illegal drugs should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Those who drive or operate a water craft while impaired must face stiff punishment. We support the diversion of first-time, nonviolent offenders to community sentencing, accountability courts, drug courts, veteran treatment courts, and guidance by faith-based institutions with proven track records of rehabilitation. We call for the examination of mandatory sentencing for non-violent crimes to ensure fairness and justice in its application.
We believe the state must protect the rights of victims and their families. We believe in a justice system that provides for restorative justice when applicable. Criminal justice reforms that reduce relapses by former offenders and assist them in seeking reentry as contributing members of society are applauded, including support for transitional housing and employment for recently released inmates.
Millions of lives are destroyed by predatory criminals that exploit children or other innocents via the internet or in person. We deplore pornography, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and the abduction, abuse, and exploitation of children, both born and unborn. We denounce domestic violence. We applaud the efforts of government to protect innocent lives from predators everywhere.
Prisons should focus on security, education, rehabilitation, and labor. Public officials must regain control of their correctional institutions so that every inmate is protected against cruel or degrading treatment. We encourage opportunities for literacy, vocational education, and substance abuse counseling to prepare prisoners for release into the community.
We support tort reform, including a cap on awards for pain and suffering, and structured payments of awards for lost income.
As we are stewards of our God-given natural heritage, we have a duty to protect and wisely use the earth’s resources.
We support reasonable measures to keep our air, water, and soil free of substances that harm the health of our people as well as that of domestic animals and wildlife. We support the maintenance of adequate wildlife habitat, but not at the expense of further loss of private property.
We support a robust system of local, state and national parks to give our citizens access to nature.
We recognize that the theories of global warming and climate change are subject to scientific debate. We urge that both sides of this debate listen and engage with respect, and that drastic action that would raise energy costs and impair our citizens’ quality of life not be undertaken without careful consideration and a thorough evaluation of scientific data.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of this land. As such, it outlines the foundational principles of this great nation. These principles include a legislature which creates laws, an executive who enforces laws, and a judiciary which interprets laws. To this end, we support the separation of powers and all efforts to maintain independent branches of government, based on a strict interpretation of the constitution’s original intent.
We call on Congress, the President and the courts to abide by Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which were added to order to protect the rights of the States and the people. We oppose encroachment upon all powers that the Constitution has reserved to the States or to the people. On the basis of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers, we oppose statehood for the District of Columbia.
Membership in treaties and organizations should never dilute our sovereign right to govern or interfere in our electoral process. We oppose attempts by foreign governments and international organizations to infringe on our sovereignty.
A republican form of government is the foundation of freedom. We support the Electoral College as the constitutional mode of electing our President. We oppose tyranny in all of its forms.
Opposition to slavery is the foundation for the Republican Party. We oppose slavery, including human trafficking, in any form both foreign and domestic.
National security is one of the first and most important roles of government. We support a foreign policy of peace through strength that is accomplished with a strong military with the full gratitude and resources of the United States. Strength only exists when our borders are secure and our enemies deterred.
We oppose granting permanent resident status for those who, by violating the immigration law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it. Granting amnesty only rewards and encourages more law breaking. Employers should only hire those legally allowed to work in the United States.
We support policies which uphold the nation of Israel as a sovereign nation and Jerusalem as its capital.
We support free market solutions for societal issues, which provide the most efficient use of our resources. We support an individual’s ability to choose market-based solutions to retirement, health care and insurance, worker’s rights or any goods.
We support the principle of a “sound money” policy to sustain a stable US currency. The Comptroller General of the General Office of Accounting must perform an annual accounting of the Federal Reserve to ensure its transparency and accountability.
We support policies protecting all innocent human life, and therefore we oppose government efforts promoting abortion and infanticide. We support actions that prohibit the distribution of federal funds to any organization that promotes or provides abortions.
We are free because of those who have answered the call to serve. Our nation’s veterans have been our nation’s strength and remain a national resource. America has a sacred trust with our veterans, and we are committed to ensuring their and their families’ care and dignity.
Thomas Jefferson said that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. We, the North Carolina Republican Party, are committed to remaining vigilant as we stand guard to protect the freedoms, we hold dear. Ronald Reagan stated that a strong Republican Party is like a stool that stands on three legs: strong defense, free enterprise, and strong moral values. Together, we will turn back the tide of socialism and preserve our nation as beacon of liberty, hope, and opportunity for all.
This document was adopted by the 2022 NCGOP Convention.
I was convinced of the pro-life position before I knew what the Bible said.
In 1971 I was studying simultaneously Formal Logic, Biology, and Criminal Law at Michigan State School of criminal Justice.
It was apparent to me that the American Law Institute’s plan for abortion reform was unscientific and relied on inherently illogical reasoning (fallacies).
Since then, as a Bible Christian, I have collected these resources for you.
Paul Stam
Apex, NC
August 2022
LESSONS ON HUMAN LIFE FROM THE BIBLE
(Translation: New American Standard Bible NASB)
Psalm 139 13 You created my innermost parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will give thanks to You, because I am awesomely and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, My soul knows it very well. 15 My frame (skeleton) was not hidden from You When I was made in secret, And skillfully formed in the depths of the earth; 16 Your eyes have seen my formless substance (embryo); And in Your book were written All the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.
Jeremiah 1 4 The word of the Lord came to me (Jeremiah), saying,
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born, I consecrated you; I have appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Exodus 21
22 “If people struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, but there is no injury, the guilty person shall certainly be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury,then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Deuteronomy 24 16 “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin alone.
Deuteronomy 30 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding close to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, so that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”
Job 3113 “If I have rejected the claim of my male or female slaves When they filed a complaint against me, 14 What then could I do when God arises? When He calls me to account, how am I to answer Him? 15 Did He who made me in the womb not make him, And the same one create us in the womb?
21 If I have lifted up my hand against the orphan, (the fatherless) Because I saw I had support in the gate, (at the place of judgment) 22 May my shoulder fall from its socket, And my arm be broken off at the elbow. 23 For disaster from God is a terror to me, And because of His majesty I can do nothing.
2 Kings 21 16 Furthermore, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another, besides his sin into which he misled Judah, in doing evil in the sight of the Lord.
Psalm 106 35 They got involved with the nations And learned their practices, 36 And served their idols, Which became a snare to them. 37 They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons, 38 And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and their daughters Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was defiled with the blood.
2 Kings 21 2 [Manasseh] did evil in the sight of the Lord, in accordance with the abominations of the nations whom the Lord dispossessed before the sons of Israel. 3 He rebuilt the high places which his father Hezekiah had destroyed; and he erected altars for Baal and made an Asherah, just as Ahab king of Israel had done, and he worshiped all the heavenly lights and served them. 6 He made his son pass through the fire, interpreted signs, practiced divination, and used mediums and spiritists. He did great evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him to anger.
Worship of Moloch & Asherah
– sacrifice of 1st born to prove dedication to the god
– Asherah pole involved a fertility rite, including ritual prostitution,
both male and female.
The king of Judah practiced this and led his people to tolerate it.
Is the worship of Moloch & Asherah different than practices today?
Sacrifice your first child to us. Prove your dedication to pleasure. Over 1/3 of first pregnancies end in intentional death.
We’ll give you the tools for promiscuity and prostitution so that you may practice without shame. The practices of Moloch & Asherah are institutionalized at the highest level – killing is paid for by the government and immorality is encouraged. Follow the story.
Our Lord is a gracious God – eager to forgive, to be reconciled to man to extend his salvation.
The abominable practices of Manasseh did not last forever.
In the time of Josiah, the young king found and read the law.
2 Kings 236 [Josiah] took the Asherah pole from the temple of the Lord and burned it. He ground it to powder. 7 He tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes.
10 He desecrated Topheth so no one could use it to sacrifice a son or daughter in the fire to Moloch.
13 The king desecrated the high places of Ashtoreth, the vile goddess of the Sidonians. 14 Josiah smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles and covered the sites with human bones.
Then King Josiah celebrated Passover.
2 Kings 23 21 The king commanded the people, saying, “Celebrate the Passover to the Lord your God as it is written in this Book of the Covenant.” 22 Truly such a Passover had not been celebrated since the days of the judges, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah.
2 Kings 23 25 Before him there was no king like him who turned to the Lord with all his heart, all his soul, and all his might, in conformity to all the Law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.
With such total house cleansing and obvious repentance, it sounds like all would be well. NOT.
2 Kings 23 26 Nevertheless, the Lord did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath with which His anger burned against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked Him.
2 Kings 24 3 It indeed came upon Judah at the command of the Lord, to remove them from His sight due to the sins of Manasseh, in accordance with everything that he had done, 4 and also for the innocent blood which he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; and the Lord was unwilling to forgive.
And into captivity in Babylon they went for 70 years.
Jeremiah 29 1 These are the words of the letter which Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the rest of the elders of the exile. 4 “This is what the Lord of armies, the God of Israel, says to the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon:
5 ‘Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. 6 Take wives and father sons and daughters, take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may give birth to sons and daughters; and grow in numbers there and do not decrease. 7 Seek the prosperity of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord in its behalf; for in its prosperity will be your prosperity.’
Conclusions:
10 “This is what the Lord says: ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for prosperity and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.
Proverbs 24 11 Rescue those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to the slaughter, Oh hold them back! 12 If you say, “See, we did not know this,” Does He who weighs the hearts not consider it? And does He who watches over your soul not know it? And will He not repay a person according to his work?Rescue those being led away to death.
Malachi 44 “Remember the Law of Moses My servant, the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him for all Israel.
5 “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. 6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers back to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and strike the land with complete destruction.”
Isaiah 545 For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the Lord of armies; Your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth. 6 For the Lord has called you, Like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, Even like a wife of one’s youth when she is rejected,” Says your God. 7 “For a brief moment I abandoned you, But with great compassion I will gather you. 8 In an outburst of anger I hid My face from you for a moment, But with everlasting favor I will have compassion on you,” Says the Lord your Redeemer.
FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT: WHAT DID JESUS DO TO
TEACH US THE VALUE OF CHILDREN BEFORE THEY ARE BORN?
(Translation: English Standard Version ESV)
Luke 1 – Birth of John the Baptist Foretold 13 The angel said to Zechariah, “Do not be afraid, for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John (the Baptist). 14 You will have joy and gladness. Many will rejoice at his birth. 15 He will be great before the Lord. He must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 He will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, 17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” 4 After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she kept herself hidden, saying, 25 “Thus the Lord has done for me.”
Birth of Jesus Foretold 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to Nazareth, 27 to Mary, a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David (and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah). 28 Gabriel he came to Mary and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” 29 She was greatly troubled at the saying and tried to find out what this greeting might be. 30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid. You have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus (means “God saves”). 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. Of his kingdom there will be no end.”
34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you. The power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. 36 Behold, your cousin Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Mary Visits Elizabeth 39 Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country (about a week), to a town in Judah. 40 She entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 She exclaimed with a loud cry, “[Mary] blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 Why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.
56 Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her home. (Six months plus three months equals _______ months.)
The Birth of John the Baptist 57 The time came for Elizabeth to give birth. She bore a son. 59 On the eighth day 64 [Zechariah’s] mouth was opened, and he spoke, blessing God. 66 All who heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, “What then will this child (John the Baptist) be?”
Zechariah’s Prophecy 67 His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying,68 “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people 69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David.
This addition to the Preamble to the Code of Professional Responsibility should be rejected.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY and MARITAL STATUS
The Bar Council has recommended to you a change to the Preamble.
(6) The North Carolina Constitution requires that “right and justice shall be administered without favor, denial, or delay.” Public confidence in the justice system is strengthened when all participants are treated equally, fairly, honestly, and respectfully within the system. A lawyer, as a representative of and crucial contributor to the justice system, should foster public confidence in the administration of justice by treating all persons they encounter in their professional capacity equally, courteously, respectfully, and with dignity regardless of a person’s race, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or socioeconomic status.
Significant problems are presented. I am not concerned that I will be disciplined as an attorney. I am concerned that someone could plausibly call me an unethical attorney under this language. I have enjoyed “av” ratings forever.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
This term has no commonly understood meaning. There are several dozen sexual orientations. Is an attorney unethical if (s)he/they does not hire, promote, retain or represent someone who is a member of the NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association)? Is the attorney unethical if the attorney does not hire as a partner/associate, or does not represent a person who says that he/she/they engages in sadomasochism? Is an attorney unethical if the attorney speaks out publicly in a legal context against polygamy, bigamy, or adultery?
It was recently reported that three “polyamorous” men had become a “throuple” and would be raising two female infants born through surrogates. https://apple.news/A4Py2t03NQOaduKkyAmFM2Q
NEW SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS ARE DISCOVERED REGULARLY
Would it be unethical if an attorney let a client, employee or partner know that (s)he/they does not respect adultery of any type? Since bisexuality or pansexuality, by definition, includes adultery, the same question arises.
GENDER IDENTITY
“Gender Identity” is not defined or even definable. Is it the same as “gender expression” found in some states, once in our General Statutes, and all over the internet? Is “identity” intended as subjective or objective? The Obama and Biden administrations, and a few courts, say it is purely subjective – no medical treatment or evidence is required. Facebook allows an unlimited number of self-identities of gender. 70 such identities had been previously denominated. Has an attorney discriminated by not accepting at face value a person’s subjective gender identity that is not consistent with that person’s biology?
Notwithstanding Justice Gorsuch in Bostock, “gender” is defined in Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (2nd Ed, Oxford Press, 1965) (the same year as the Civil Rights Act of 1965) as:
“gender, n., is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons or creatures of the masculine or feminine g., meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder.”
In other words, the author of Bostock was either kidding or made a serious blunder in his textual analysis. Bostock disclaims the application of its definition of “sex” to anything other than Title VII.
Has an attorney disrespected a “trans person” by using standard English pronouns, either intentionally or not? “A Guide to Gender Identity Terms” may be helpful to understand the “zeitgeist” of today’s culture. https://apple.news/AUjr4s7FMR0OGWIcAXE_gdQ
NEW GENDER IDENTITIES ARE DISCOVERED REGULARLY
The court may find it difficult to believe that some will be offended and/or sue if one uses a pronoun that is not to their liking when one refers to “s(he)” or “them”.
Like many smaller firms, ours has two restrooms. One is labeled for the use of men, one is labeled for women. The state building code requires separate restrooms. In 45 years of practice I have never had occasion or desire to direct who goes where. Have I discriminated if I ask, or require biological males who, even if only that day, have decided to identify as female, to use the private space designated for men?
How does an attorney avoid creating a hostile work environment if the attorney allows non-biological subjective identities to determine the operations of the office? The female attorneys or other staff may not appreciate my defense that I was only trying to respect the Preamble.
Have I unethically discriminated if an applicant for a position with my firm tells me, shows me via social media or by resume, that “(s)he” or “they” is a biological male who won various sports events while subjectively identifying as a female, and I do not hire, or thereafter promote, or retain that person.
MARITAL STATUS
An otherwise qualified male applicant wants me to hire him. He lives with and is married to a woman by whom he has three children. With or without her knowledge he tells me (or others tell me) that he also uses Saturdays to have indiscriminate sex with men in another city. Am I really ethically bound to hire, promote, or retain a person with a bisexual orientation and a marital status that would be unacceptable to me and to my other clients and community.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The Council could have avoided these questions by simply saying that an attorney should appropriately respect everyone. If it insists on a list, it should include “color” and “caste”. “Color” is actually in the statutes and is a very real source of actual discrimination. “Caste” is becoming more relevant as a source of actual discrimination. The list should not include the three described above.
I asked these same questions of the Ethics Committee and of the State Bar Council. I received no response at all.
Days ago, a congressional committee moved H.R.1619, a bill that would grant Catawba Indian Nation a controversial casino in North Carolina. The Catawba’s reservation is located in South Carolina; however, since the Palmetto State’s restrictive gaming laws prevent them from conducting gaming at home, they are now attempting to build a casino across state lines. If H.R.1619 passes, it will mark the first off-reservation casino granted by Congress.
The bill attempts to short-circuit an ongoing court battle that would determine the legality of the controversial Cleveland County project. As an attorney, former elected representative in North Carolina, and long time consumer advocate, turning this legal process into a political one concerns me for many reasons.
The legislation flies in the face of the people’s will. The North Carolina legislature has already made strides to ban video poker parlors because of residents’ complaints that their presence in the state increases crime, stimulates addictive behavior, tears apart families, and fuels poverty. This off-reservation casino would be full of video poker machines.
Over 1,000 citizens signed a full-page ad in protest while county officials passed resolutions opposing it. When I served as Speaker Pro Tem of the North Carolina House of Representatives, I led a petition that over 100 members signed opposing this casino’s construction in our state. H.R.1619 circumvents the people’s will while skirting the judicial process.
A federal appeals court is currently reviewing whether the Department of Interior illegally approved the building of this off-reservation casino in North Carolina. A Federal Court judge labeled this battle a “close call” and the Interior Department just a few years ago said it couldn’t grant the tribe the casino land. There is certainly reason for hope that the appeals court will deny the application. H.R.1619 will use the power of the legislative branch to muscle this casino into North Carolina no matter what the courts rule or the people want.
There is a reason Congress has never approved an off-reservation casino before. It’s not the job of politicians in Washington, D.C. to take the right to make laws applicable to its land away from North Carolina and hand this power over to predatory out-of-state interests. Members of Congress don’t have the knowledge, background, or contextual evidence to decide what’s fair or in line with North Carolina law and historic realities.
Not only would the legislation greenlight this casino in North Carolina without any respect for the legal process, but if passed, it could also embolden other casino developers to latch onto the precedent and short-circuit normal procedures to do the same. Casinos could start sprouting up throughout the country without any regard to what the state and local government, courts, and professional analysts say. Is this really a Pandora’s Box that Congress wants to open?
Rep. Virginia Foxx’s district is where the casino will be located should the Catawba Nation get its way. She needs to lead the charge in telling the rest of Congress this legislation is short-sighted and misguided. North Carolina citizens deserve far more careful deliberation on this issue than a rushed attempt to shut down examination of the facts and law surrounding it.
THE HIDDEN ECONOMIC STORY BEHIND NORTH CAROLINA’S HB2
“ The sky is falling!!!” Those words remind us of the children’s tale, “Chicken Little” in which a chicken, struck on the head with an acorn, convinces her friend, Henny Penny, that the sky is falling and to join her to tell the Lion. While on their journey, a fox persuades them to take a shorter path. That shorter path leads to the fox’s lair where he devours Chicken Little and Henny Penny.
North Carolina’s HB2—the notorious “bathroom bill”—was North Carolina’s “Chicken Little.” Upon its passage in 2016, a handful of businesses and associations led the way pulling out of North Carolina in protest and predicting economic doom for the State. Similar to Henny Penny, aided by the media frenzy, other businesses joined the cacophony of naysayers.
Legislators panicked, and soon they abandoned HB2. Five years later, corporate activists and Wall Street firms are leveraging their resources to pressure lawmakers on everything from voting reform and gun sales to social justice laws and women’s sports.[1]
HB2, in reality, was enacted to protect privacy, safety and freedom for people and business owners to live and work according to their beliefs, and it in no way depressed the economy or business successes of North Carolina. In hindsight, it is clear that threats of economic doom were simply used by the LGBTQ community and some willing corporate allies to advance the agenda.
The Real Economic Story
HB2, named “An Act to Provide for Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing Facilities in Schools and Public Agencies and to Create Statewide Consistency in Regulation of Employment and Public Accommodations”, was simply a response to ordinance number 7056 passed by the Charlotte City Council which exceeded the Council’s authority. In February 2016, the Charlotte City Council passed a nondiscrimination ordinance which expanded discrimination protections to include, among other things, “sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.” Additionally, the ordinance protected these classes from discrimination in public “restrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses and similar facilities.” Under North Carolina law, municipalities did not have the authority to enact local anti-discrimination ordinances, and so one month after the ordinance was enacted, the General Assembly repealed it by passing HB2. Almost immediately upon its passage, LGBTQ activists and their corporate allies screamed discrimination. Flexing their political muscle, these corporations predicted that the passage of HB2 would cause economic doom for North Carolina. They estimated that the annual loss of business revenue would range from $3.76 billion,[2] to more than $5 billion.[3] Local governments were predicting losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars due to lost businesses or cancelled events.
Five states and multiple cities placed a ban on public travel to North Carolina, and, under pressure, the NCAA in 2016 announced seven relocations, including the Division I Women’s Soccer Championship and the future first-and second-round games of the men’s 2017 NCAA basketball tournament. The ACC followed by announcing ten relocations, including (i) the football championship in Charlotte, which generated $32.4 million in revenue in 2016, (ii) the first-and second round games of the 2017 men’s basketball tournament in Greensboro, with estimated revenues of $14.6 million, (iii) men’s and women’s tennis championship and women’s soccer championship in Cary ($2 million), and (iv) baseball championship in Durham ($5.2 million).[4] The NBA estimated that its move of the 2017 All-Star game from Charlotte to New Orleans could have had an economic impact of over $100 million.[5]
A handful of businesses did change their plans for North Carolina, including PayPal, Adidas, Duetsche Bank and Costar.[6] PayPal was planning to hire 400 new people for a global operations center with an average wage of $51,000. The combination of PayPal, Deutsche Bank and CoStar added up to nearly 1,400 jobs.[7]The cancellations of Pearl Jam, Cirque Du Soleil and others allegedly left the Raleigh area with $130,000 in lost wages.[8] In Charlotte, Cirque du
Soleil, Boston, Demi Lovato, Nick Jonas and Maroon 5 all canceled their performances. Several North Carolina cities reported conference and convention cancellations.[9] Unemployment rates (not seasonally adjusted) rose across the state for a short period of time in 2016 before returning to pre-recession levels of 4.9% at the end of 2016.
Chart 1: North Carolina Unemployment Rates During HB2
Curiously, with respect to at least two of these companies, PayPal and Deutsche Bank, HB2 may not have been the primary reason for the cancellation of their North Carolina plans.
Five years later, PayPal has never established the global operations center in another state. Deutsche Bank suffered a staggering $8.8 billion in 2015-2016 when it canceled nearly 500 planned jobs in Cary under the cover of HB2.10 Since its announcement, the Deutsche Bank has continued its worldwide efforts to lay-off 25% of its worldwide bank staff by 2022 as part of their restructure and recovery plan. In 2020, Deutsche sited European financial markets and its investment in China’s Hua Xia Bank, not HB2, as the full reason for its failure to keep its agreement with the state. Last year the bank laid off another 223 people and asked North Carolina to terminate its $9 million incentive package tied to future jobs.[10] Regardless of the reason for their departure, the loss of these businesses and events barely affected the overall health of North Carolina’s economy. Commerce Secretary John Skvarla, the top economic official in Governor McCrory’s administration stated that “the law has basically had zero effect on the state economy.”[11]
The Facts
North Carolina saw impressive economic growth in 2016. The GDP of $517.9 billion represented a 1.6 percent growth from 2015 and .1% higher than the national average. The largest industries in North Carolina — finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing— experienced a 2.0 percent real growth.
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, North Carolina professional and business services were the largest contributor to real GDP,[12] accounting for 0.5% of the total growth in real GNP. Business and association boycotts barely put a dent in the economy, representing less than 0.1% of the GDP.[13]Moody’s reported that North Carolina’s 2016 revenue growth has outpaced the 20 largest states ’average by more than 2-to-1. The State ended the fiscal year with a $425 million revenue surplus. S&P, Moody’s and Fitch affirmed North
Carolina’s AAA credit rating, citing the state’s continued diverse economic expansion.[14]
Business growth and retention, in particular, steamed ahead during HB2 and was in the Billions. Despite a few companies’ exit from North Carolina, according to Southern Business and Development Magazine, between January 2016 until the Spring of 2017, at least 45 companies established, expanded or announced plans to bring their businesses to North Carolina. Alevo, Avadim, Baxter, Citrix, Corning Optical Communications, Novo Nordisk, Moen Inc., Pfizer, Snyder-Lance, and Tyson Foods announced plans to expand existing operations.[15] In
March, 2016 Novo Nordisk, a Danish healthcare company broke ground on a new plant in Clayton, NC with a projected $2 billion investment creating 2500 construction jobs and 700 new employees.[16]In July 2016, CSX announced a $272 million investment to build an intermodal rail terminal in Edgecombe County.[17] In December, 2016, auto parts manufacturer GKN Driveline announced an investment of $179 million at 4 plants to create 302 jobs.[18]In February 2017, Corning announced plans to create 410 jobs in two years and to invest $176 million in facilities in Catawba and Cabarrus counties. In March 2017, Moen announced plans to expand their warehouse and distribution operations in Lenoir County, adding 35 new jobs and investing $15 million over the next five years. [19]
Visitors flocked to the State during 2016 in record numbers and they brought their dollars with them. According to the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina, 97 out of 100 counties enjoyed an increase in visitor spending.
Chart 3: Direct Visitor Spending in North Carolina 2014 to 2019 (In Billions)
In Mecklenburg County visitors spent over $5 billion. In 2016, the Charlotte region hosted approximately 27.8 million visitors, an increase of one million visitors from 2015 according to the Visit Charlotte.[20] Former Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority CEO Tom Murray reported, “Charlotte’s visitor economy has grown every year since 2010” when publishing their 2017 Annual Report. 22
In Wake County spending topped $2 billion; and Guilford, Dare and Buncombe Counties each reaped $1 billion in visitor dollars. Due to this spending, the state collected nearly $1.2 billion in state taxes; local governments collected more than $693 million. Visitor spending supported 219,094 jobs which translated into $5.6 billion in payroll income across the State.[21]
The hotels and motel industry set record-breaking occupancy rates in 2016. According to a 2016 lodging report by Visit North Carolina, hotel/motel occupancy increased by 3.4% over 2015 and room demand increase by 4.7%. This increase in occupancy was coupled with increased room rates (ADR) of 3.6%, a record high for the state, with each month setting a record high from any year on record. Additionally, every month in 2016 showed an increase in demand for rooms statewide.[22]
North Carolina’s economic prosperity in 2016 brought with it a rise in employment and a rise in per capita income for North Carolinians. The number of North Carolinians employed between January 2016 and January 2017 increased by over 100,000 from 4,834351 to 4,934,991.[23] Based on American Community Surveys (ACS), between 2015 and 2016, the median household income rose from $48,420 to $50,584, an increases of 4.5% with a margin of error of +/- 1.2%. The per capita personal income (PCPI) increased by 3.0 % in 2016 averaging $42,002.[24] Unemployment numbers remained the same at 5.3% over a 12-month period between January 2016 and January 2017.[25]North Carolina added 5,000 jobs in the last three quarters of 2016.[26]
North Carolina’s business growth during the lifetime of HB2 reaped several national awards. Site Selection Magazine Awarded North Carolina its Prosperity Cup for 2017, 2018 and 2020 besting Texas with which North Carolina had tied in 2016. In announcing the award, Site Selection stated “HB2 didn’t change the strategic significance of a North Carolina location to companies already there, nor to most considering North Carolina a potential addition to their real estate portfolios.”[27] Additionally, Site Selection ranked North Carolina fourth in attracting and expanding businesses and first in the South Atlantic region for drawing corporate facilities.30 CNBC chose North Carolina as number five for America’s Top States for Business both in 2016 and 2017.31 North Carolina was named one of the top five states with the best climate for business by corporate executives, according to a report by Development Counsellors International,[28] and Forbes, in 2017, ranked North Carolina number two in the nation for business, a position it has held for several years,[29]before raising to best in nation for the last three years.
It is now clear that the fight to repeal HB2 was never initiated out of concern for the economic welfare of the State. Rather, it was simply used as a false argument to advance an agenda far more dangerous than an economic downturn.
The LGBTQ Lobby’s Transformation of Corporate America
The fight to repeal HB2 exposed the inroads the LGBTQ lobby has made in Corporate America, beginning almost 40 years ago. From the outset, LGBTQ activists knew that mainstream America would not flock to their cause outright. Corporate America, a symbol of prosperity, economic freedom and leadership, provided the perfect foil.
For some companies, convincing them to join the LGBTQ cause wasn’t difficult. In 1986, Apple sanctioned gay groups within the company.34 In 1987, AT&T sanctioned League, a company network for gays.35 By the early 1990’s, corporations began dialoguing with LGBTQ activists to discuss providing benefits to same sex couples.36 In 1995, the CEO of IBM, Louis V. Gerstner, formed several task forces, including one for LGBTQ employees. 1996, Proctor & Gamble allowed its gay and lesbian employee group, GAMBLE, to create an email network in the company and eventually adopted GAMBLE’s point of view. In 1998, P&G pulled their ads from Dr. Laura Show37 and in 2003 IBM stepped up and offered critical support for a National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce just getting off the ground.
By the early 2000s the LGBTQ movement had made enough progress transforming internal policies in corporations that it went public. In 2002, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), an organization advocating for LGBTQ rights, authored a report entitled, “The Corporate Equality Index” and rated companies by their pro-LGBTQ policies, highlighting those who had reached 100% approval rating and those who scored 0%. Such pro-LGBTQ policies included non-discrimination covering sexual orientation and gender identity, health insurance for same-sex domestic partners, LGBTQ support groups and “corporate action that would undermine equal rights for [LGBTQs]. Thirteen companies achieved a 100% score;[30]three companies scored a zero.[31][32]
In 2004, lobbying efforts became more organized and public. That year, Equality Forum, a LGBTQ advocacy group, established the FORTUNE 500 Project. The Project’s goal was to convince corporate CEO’s, Boards of Directors and shareholders of FORTUNE 500 companies to include sexual orientation protection in their internal policies.[33]
The Project’s efforts worked. Between 2005 and 2012, shareholders collectively offered 237 LGBTQ inclusive resolutions in 177 companies. 50% of these resolutions included employment discrimination protection for sexual orientation and gender identity. Shockingly, despite rejection by shareholders, the majority of these companies reformed their discrimination policies to include discrimination protection based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
In those companies where shareholders voted to remove LGBTQ policies already in place, 100% of these companies refused to comply with shareholder resolutions.[34] By 2005, 100 businesses scored 100% by HRC. In 2004, the criteria placed a greater emphasis on transgender inclusion, rather than just gay rights. By 2011, the number of businesses that scored 100% climbed to 337.42 In 2013, the Human Rights Campaign added a requirement that contractors and non-profit organizations receiving gifts from these companies must adhere to pro-LGBTQ policies.[35][36] In 2015, 306 Fortune 500 companies received a 100% score.[37] By 2021, the number of businesses scoring 100% had exploded to 767 companies including 94% of America’s Fortune 500.[38][39] Veterans of the LGBTQ movement are now petitioning an expansion of the Index to include affirmative political engagement beyond social issues.
This month the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the world’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer media advocacy organization, amplified HRC’s efforts by setting out to influence corporations by announcing its first Social Media
Safety Index (SMSI). The new index seeks to limit nonconforming speech and content found on social media platforms in order to achieve true equality.[40]
LGBTQ’s Alliance with Corporate Sports
The NCAA’s and the NBA’s opposition to HB2 reflects a close relationship between these organizations and the LGBTQ rights movement.[41] As early as 2009, the NCAA teamed up with other pro-LGBTQ groups and participated in a think-tank entitled, “On the Team: Equal Opportunity for Transgender Students.” With the exception of a few professors and one student, the think tank was composed of LGBTQ activists. In 2010, the NCAA
Executive Committee published a periodical entitled, “NCAA Inclusion of Transgender Student Athletes,” pledging to provide programming and education “which sustains foundations of a diverse and inclusive culture across dimensions of diversity including, but not limited to …gender expression.”[42] In 2011 the NCAA adopted a non-discrimination policy for transgender athletes. In 2016 the NCAA took this policy a step further by encouraging college Presidents to sign a similar pledge to “establish initiatives for achieving….gender equity and inclusion”, the buzzwords for transgenderism.[43]
The NBA’s endorsement of the LGBTQ agenda has been more subtle. For years, the NBA has partnered with the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), one of the most rabid pro-LGBTQ education advocacy groups in the country.50 In 2011 the NBA adopted a non-discrimination policy against, among other things, sexual orientation and gender
identity. In 2012, the NBA’s support for the LGBTQ agenda became more public when it fined a player $50,000 for making an anti-gay comment, and in 2013, the NBA publicly supported one of its players who announced that he was gay.[44]
Corporations’ Social Activism
Commentators have observed that two events completed the transformation of businesses into LGBTQ activists: New York’s legalization of same sex marriage in 2011 and the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, finding unconstitutional state statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman.[45][46]As one author stated, “The Supreme Court gave corporate America the political cover to speak out.” 53
Before 2011, few companies were willing to sponsor any LGBTQ event or produce pro-LGBTQ advertising. By 2014, five of the largest companies in the U.S. —TD Bank, eBay, Hilton, Macy’s and Wells Fargo —were pumping thousands of dollars into gay pride parade sponsorships.[47] TD Bank, one of the largest banks in the country reportedly spent over $1 million annually on LGBTQ events and initiatives in North America sponsoring 160 LGBTQ community initiatives and 83 pride events.55 Today, sponsorships by corporations are fairly common. In [48][49], the year of the Supreme Court’s legalization of same sex marriage, at least seven corporations produced pro-LGBTQ ads. One, paid for by Clean and Clear, featured transgender Jazz Jenner, the company’s transgender spokeswoman.56
Corporations’ Legal Activism
In 2011, corporations began flexing their muscle to pursue legal changes for the LGBTQ community. In 2012, 379 elite corporations, including Coca Cola, Goldman Sachs, Google, Amazon, AT&T and Morgan Stanley, signed an amicus brief challenging the constitutionality of marriage amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman.[50] In June of 2015 their efforts bore fruit with the Supreme Court’s decision that state laws defining marriage between one woman and one man are unconstitutional.[51]
In 2015, big business pounced again on Indiana for enacting a religious freedom law. That law, entitled the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA), modeled after the 1993 federal RFRA, sought to legally protect individuals from being forced by the government to participate in events and speech that violates their deeply held religious beliefs. Threatening boycotts, big business vigorously fought for the law’s repeal. Eventually, the law was amended to the pleasure of the LGBTQ community.
When HB2 was enacted, the business elite had two wins under their belt and they were primed and ready for another battle. Almost immediately after its passage, Salesforce CEO, Marc Benioff, began a massive lobbying effort to repeal the new law.[52] In large part due to
Benioff’s efforts, corporate allies fell in line. Businesses signed a letter penned by Equality NC and the Human Rights Campaign to then Governor McCrory opposing HB2.[53] A few months later, 68 companies, including Apple, American Airlines, Red Hat and Morgan Stanley, signed onto an amicus brief claiming that HB2 condones “invidious discrimination and damages the companies’ ability to attract and retain a diverse workforce,” an absurd claim. [54] Shoulder to shoulder with the LGBTQ lobby, corporations flexed their political muscles, predicted economic Armageddon and threatened boycotts. Finally, one year later, legislators with their tails between their legs, repealed the law the LGBTQ lobby and its cohort, Corporate America, found objectionable and replaced it with a much less clear prohibition on local nondiscrimination laws that expired in 2020.
An Unholy Alliance – Economics, “Values” and the Government
For the past 40 years, corporations have used economics and “values” to justify their support for internal pro-LGBTQ policies and their opposition to marriage amendments and, recently, their opposition to religious freedom legislation and HB2.[55] Despite claims by corporations and their LGBTQ activist motivators that pro-LGBTQ policies are “good for business,” there is no hard evidence linking economic growth and pro (or con) LGBTQ policies. An often-cited study, “The Business Impact of LGBTQ-Supportive Workplace Policies” from the pro-LGBTQ think tank, The Williams Institute, states the following:
In total, this study reviews 36 research studies that include findings related to the impact of LGBTQ-supportive policies or workplace climates on business outcomes. We conclude that this body of research supports the existence of many positive links between LGBTQ-supportive policies or workplace climates and outcomes that will benefit employers. However, none of the studies provides direct quantitative estimates of the impact on the bottom line.[56]
In other words, there is no concrete proof provided by 36 research studies that pro-
LGBTQ policies increase profits. Six years after Obergefell, GLAAD reports 61% of advertisers still voice concern over brand backlash when including LGBT people in their advertising.[57] An analysis by Credit Suisse, which appeared in the July 2, 2014 Harvard Business Review, echoed this same conclusion: “[The research] indicates quantitatively that an employer’s stance on LGBTQ issues does not make a material difference in its stock price, even in today’s economy. [58]
When examining the impact of pro-LGBTQ policies on economic development, authors of another study by the Williams Institute reached a similar conclusion. In November, 2014 the Institute released a study on the subject entitled, “TheRelationship between LGBTQ Inclusion and Economic Development: An Analysis of Emerging Economies.” Though touted as a study showing a direct correlation between pro-LGBTQ laws and economic growth in developing economies, there is no evidence to support that result. Hidden among numerous conjectures about economic gain, the authors admit: “. . . we cannot draw a firm conclusion about . . . whether more rights cause higher levels of development or whether more developed countries tend to introduce more rights.” 66
By 2013, when defending their pro-LGBTQ positions, some members of the corporate elite had shed the economics argument. That year, as reported in the Seattle Times, Starbucks publicly issued the following statement defending its support for homosexual marriage as being philosophical:
This important legislation is aligned with Starbucks business practices and upholds our belief in the equal treatment of partners. It is core to who we are and what we value as a company.Internally the coffee retailer never slowed their plans to grow stores in the state.67
Weeks after signing an open letter blasting the state, Starbucks signed a $2.25 million ground lease for a new store in Hendersonville[59] and testing in-store kiosks in Charlotte and WinstonSalem with Publix.[60]
PayPal CEO Dan Shulman adopted the same “values” argument. When PayPal pulled out of North Carolina, Shulman stated that he was canceling the operations center because he did not want to invest in a state where his employees “would not have equal rights.”[61]Both Starbucks and PayPal appear to have selective outrage about injustice. While shaming North Carolina legislators for passage of HB2, both corporations were expanding business opportunities in two of the most repressive countries in the world—PayPal in Cuba and Starbucks in China. In its 2021 report, Freedom House, an international organization dedicated to advancing freedom, gave both Cuba and China Freedom scores of 13 and 9, respectively, out of a 100.[62] Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Time Warner and Merck Pfizer all signed onto the letter expressing outrage at the passage of HB2 with the Human Rights Campaign and then went on to make campaign contributions to lawmakers who voted for HB2 and the governor who signed it.[63] The federal government also provided a financial incentive for businesses to comply with pro-LGBT policies. Since July 2014, President Obama’s Executive Order number 13672 has been in place—except for during the Trump Administration[64]—requiring all federal contractors to incorporate policies prohibiting discrimination based on homosexuality or gender identity.[65]For 17 consecutive years the Exxon-Mobil shareholders rejected anti-discrimination policies which included homosexuality and gender identity. One year after the Executive Order went into effect, Exxon-Mobil did an about-face for fear of losing millions of dollars in government contracts.[66]
Looking Back, the Corporate Boycott Movement Hasn’t Aged Well
Democratic strategists inside the Biden administration continue to point to the success of HB2 to persuade corporate leaders on the value of corporate involvement in the LBGTQ movement. 57 The administration is counting on broad corporate support following the Capitol insurrection in the final days of the Trump Administration to leverage what they call the “emerging social conscious movement” to push for support of their political agenda and policies inside corporate boardrooms, but some corporations may have second thoughts.[67]
Emboldened by HB2, early adopters of this new corporate activism set to influence public policy on their own with mixed results. Gillette received harsh backlash after weighing into the #MeToo Movement during its Super Bowl Ad in 2019.58b Delta Air Lines, largely uncontroversial to this point, has found themselves in a battle twice with the state legislature after issuing statements of support on social issues. In 2018 Georgia’s House of Representatives stropped the fuel tax credit after the airline went head-to-head with the National Rifle Association over gun control. In response, Georgia Lt. Gov. Cagle said, “Businesses have every legal right to make their own decisions, but the Republican majority in our state legislature also has every right to govern guided by our principles.”[68] Months later the Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed an executive order to recommence the credits to smooth over relations with the airline.[69]
This year the airline was only a Senate vote away from losing the fuel incentives again after boisterously condemning Georgia’s new voting laws. Over 100 companies joined and soon
Major League Baseball announced it was moving the 2021 All-Star Game and draft out of Atlanta. The response from the public and Georgia State House was swift. Brands found themselves in the middle of a divisive political debate but this time customers from both sides were calling for boycotts. Lawmakers again voted to remove $40 million in tax incentives, and social media was trending with outrage against the brands. CEO’s quickly learned the cost of their vocal activism. Delta’s CEO walked back his comments, and Atlanta-based Coca-Cola and Home Depot have attempted to stay neutral.[70]
Likewise, the Save Women’s Sports movement, which has gained popularity in 2021 has attracted strong support and opposition. The NCAA has resumed issuing LGBTQ policy statements and threatening to once again boycott any state that considers legislation to prohibit transgender sports participation. The NCAA issued a statement saying, “when determining where championships are held, NCAA policy directs that only locations where hosts can commit to providing an environment that is safe, healthy and free of discrimination should be selected.”[71] Despite the threats, seven Governors have signed the bill into law.[72] Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has committed to signing the bill and South Dakota, Gov. Kristi Noem issued an executive order addressing the issue.[73] So far the NCAA failed to follow through on their threat when it announced its softball tournament would be played in Alabama, Arkansas and Tennessee, all three states passed the Save Women’s Sports Act in 2021.[74]
Long Past its Sunset Provision, the Media Won’t Let Go of HB2
When North Carolina’s ban on local nondiscrimination ordinances expired on December 1, 2020, Charlotte and other municipalities began to consider passing nondiscrimination ordinances. The press continues to disseminate the false narrative that HB2 harmed the State’s economy and led to widespread job and fiscal losses. LGBTQ groups in the State are calling for the General Assembly to pass a statewide nondiscrimination law.
But the fact is, some of the most liberal tech companies in America have overlooked politics in favor of the rich, business-friendly, low-tax, highly academic climate in North Carolina and have chosen to invest billions to locate in the State. Apple, Google, Facebook, DC Blox, and Walt Disney have invested heavily into massive datacenters and engineering centers in North Carolina.[75] In 2021, Apple announced another billion-dollar investment into North Carolina to expand its Piedmont datacenter and establish an East Coast Hub in Wake County.[76]
Even Amazon admitted that HB2 had nothing to do with its recent decision to choose Virginia over North Carolina for its second headquarters. In the recently published book, Amazon Unbound, author Brad Stone told the News & Observer, “Raleigh was the most impressive smaller city (on the list) by leaps and bounds. They [Amazon] were impressed by the city’s economic health and population growth, and they saw not just an opportunity for today but for the future.” [77] While the media suggested “HB2 gave Amazon “heartburn” Stone said, “The positives really outweighed the negatives” when evaluating the city.87 It was the size of the metro area, not HB2, which led Amazon officials to eventually select Arlington, Virginia according to Stone.[78]
The truth is Amazon has been betting heavily on North Carolina. It invested $400 Million into its wind farm while HB2 was in place, and since has rapidly increased its warehouse and distribution system across the state.[79] Amazon currently operates 19 sites in North Carolina, including eight new delivery point stations, two Prime hubs and sort stations and distribution centers with several more in development.[80] Courtney Johnson Norman, a spokesperson for Amazon said, “North Carolina is great for business, and Amazon is excited to continue its growth and investment,”[81] noting the company has created over 27,000 jobs in the state and invested more than $2.1 billion as it announced another $100 Million investment.[82] There was never a mention of HB2.
A summary of Amazon Major North Carolina Distribution & Sort Centers93
In their essay, “Overhauling of Straight America,” a playbook on how to alter the values of America to normalize and promote homosexuality, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen stated the following:
Give Protectors a Just Cause….Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme…. It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supports must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies.[83]
Hindsight is 20/20. It is clear now that the fight over HB2 was never about economics. The economic disaster prophesied by the LGBT activists and Corporate America never occurred. Businesses didn’t engage in a mass boycott of the State. While Diversity Officers pushed a public narrative, the corporations quietly purchased land, invested in infrastructure and continued to hire North Carolina’s brightest and best university students to help their bottom-line. Not one company that was doing business in North Carolina before HB2 was passed pulled out and moved elsewhere. Economic Armageddon didn’t happen. Rather, the battle over HB2 was about perception of harm, the saber-rattling of a pubescent cancel culture and the advancement of the LGBT agenda to transform American values. If HB2 had any negative impact on the State’s economy and specifically direct tourism spending, the impact was too small to be detected by all available data.
In the end, the NCAA returned. The All-Stars played. The musical artists and celebrities rebooked their shows. In today’s world of moral relativism, it is true as one writer has stated,
“Business practices help both to define and reflect our values.” Allies in Corporate America, transformed by the LGBT lobby, served as the perfect Goliath to argue the moral case against the “injustices” of HB2.
Will politicians continue to be led into the fox’s lair by big business and the “values” of liberal activists, or will our elected leaders take a stand for the values they profess? Five years after HB2, there is abundant evidence that elected leaders should refuse to cower to big business and their vacuous threats of economic doom; our leaders should represent the people who elected them, not the corporate bullies who are manipulated by liberal activists.
[27] Site Selection Magazine. May 2017http://siteselection.com/issues/2017/may/prosperity–cup.cfm30 Bradford Richardson and Valerie Richardson. “Tourism Thriving, Economy Expanding in North Carolina Despite Bathroom Bill Desertions.” The Washington Times. March 20, 2017.
[34] Neel Rane. “Twenty Years of Shareholder Proposals After Cracker Barrel: An Effective Tool for Implementing LGBTQ Employment Protections.” 162 U. Penn. L.R. 929 (2014).
[41] Nelson, Alex Jackson and Cronn-Mills, Kristin. 2017. LGBTQ-Athletes Claim the Field: Striving for Equality. Minneapolis, MN. Twenty-First Century Books. 89.
For 48 years, since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade, it has been legal in North Carolina for a doctor to abort the child of a consenting mother, up to birth, for almost any reason. There is a statute limiting abortions after five months, but the exceptions are so broad that this limitation is disregarded. The practical limitation on third trimester abortion in North Carolina is that I am not aware of facilities that actually commit abortions past six months. In those cases, they are referred to out-of-state hospitals, primarily to Washington DC or Maryland. There is one reason that can make an abortion illegal – if the purpose is to select the sex of the child. If a mother wants a boy or wants a girl and is naïve enough to tell the abortionist that she wants to abort her child if the sex is wrong, then it is illegal.
Some limitations have been in place over the last 5 to 25 years and, as a result, we have reduced abortion rates about 25 to 30% from the peak. What are the limitations?
First, the abortion must be performed by a doctor. There are no legal do-it-yourself abortions in North Carolina. Women can find advertisements on the internet for chemical abortions from pills purchased primarily from out of the country. North Carolina requires the first pill for a chemical abortion to be administered in the presence of a prescribing physician.
Second, all healthcare providers have conscience protections. Doctors, nurses, radiologists, pharmacists, and other healthcare workers cannot be forced to assist in an abortion.
Third, there is a 3-day waiting period after the time that the mother first makes contact and has obtained specific health information orally from the abortionist or qualified professional, as well as information in writing provided by the state and available on websites, at pregnancy care services, or even from abortionists. All abortions are preceded by an ultrasound in order to determine that the woman is actually pregnant, and that the pregnancy is not dangerously in her fallopian tubes. Ultrasound has been required by administrative rule for almost all abortions, but if not by rule then by the standard of care. If the mother asks to see the ultrasound or asks questions about it, the abortionist cannot deny that to her.
Fourth, state and local governments may not pay for abortions, except where the mother’s life is at stake or in cases of rape or incest. The state abortion fund for the poor was virtually eliminated 25 years ago. 10 years ago the State Health Plan stopped paying for abortions. Eight years ago, cities and counties stopped paying for elective abortion. Health insurance policies purchased here on the federal ACA exchange cannot pay for elective abortions.
Fifth, since 1996 it has been illegal to abort the child of a mother under 18, without first obtaining either the informed consent of her parent or approval by a judge. While most district court judges approve, and the parents do not even know about the court proceeding, the fact that a minor has to go to court to get the judge’s approval means the rate of abortions on mothers under 18 has gone way down since that law was enacted.
In North Carolina there have been over one million abortions reported since 1973. More than 100,000 have probably been prevented or discouraged following these legislative restrictions.
What can you do about this scourge? First. Take a look at this photo of a three-month-old unborn child. Most abortions are performed at or before this age. Now look at this photo of a six-month-old unborn child. In North Carolina abortions are performed through this age. This information is easily available on the internet.
Share this information with children and teenagers. I have been teaching fourth graders for almost 20 years. At Christmas I teach the first chapter of Luke. I show them what John the Baptist looked like at 6 months when he was full of the Holy Spirit and leaping for joy in the presence of the preborn Jesus. And I show them the three-month photo which is what Jesus looked like at the time John the Baptist was born and Zechariah, his father, was proclaiming that the Redeemer – Jesus – had already come. I trust God that these students will never consider an abortion as they remember what Jesus and John looked like.
Second. Contact every governmental representative of yours at every level. Let them know what you think. You don’t know your leaders? Why not? Find out. Mass emails are not effective, but a personal email or, better yet, a real letter or phone call from you makes a big difference. Tell something about yourself and the reasons that you want to stop this Slaughter of the Innocents.
Third. Watch your language. Why call an abortionist a doctor? Why call the unborn or preborn child a “fetus” or an “embryo”? Using Latin or Greek does not change reality. On the other hand, don’t call an abortion “murder.” It may be the moral equivalent of murder, but the term “kill” or “destroy” is more accurate.
Fourth. Volunteer now or contribute money now to your local pregnancy support center. There are about 78 in North Carolina. They make a real difference. The virus has been a real problem for the women (and men) they serve. As a result, the centers have been having a greater impact than ever before.
Finally. Stay in this fight for the long haul. Devotion to Molech and to Asherah has a very long history.
How did the NC GOP do in the November 2020 elections? Here is the big picture at the local, state, and national level, including the presidency.
Local level. Before the election Republicans controlled 59 County commissions. After the election the GOP controls 61 County commissions. Since Democrats control commissions with greater county populations, the counties controlled by Republican/Democrat members is about 50/50. It will skew more to the Democrats after the 2020 census figures are reported.
State level. In legislative races Republicans went from 65 to 69 representatives of the 120-member State House, short of the 72 required to override a veto. A veto override is much more achievable with 69 than with 65 votes. In the 2011-2012 session the NC GOP held 68 House seats. Overrides of Governor Perdue’s vetoes prevailed 8 times. There were 17 Democrats who voted one or more times to override Governor Perdue. There are more than 3 persuadable House Democrats.
The State Senate went from 29 to 28 Republicans: Democrats from 21 to 22. A veto override is still possible. There are more than 2 persuadable Democrats in the Senate.
The State Appellate Courts saw a clean sweep for Republicans. All five Court of Appeals races were won by highly qualified Republican judges. Judge Phil Berger, Jr. won his race for the State Supreme Court, so Governor Cooper appointed Darren Jackson, the House Minority Leader, to the resulting vacancy on the Court of Appeals. After that replacement the numbers on the Court of Appeals are 10 Republicans (Stroud (Chief), Dillon, Tyson, Murphy, Dietz, Zachary, Gore, Griffin, Carpenter, Wood) and 5 Democrats (Arrowood, Collins, Hampson, Inman, Jackson). The Court of Appeals has always voted in panels of three.
The State Supreme Court was a clean sweep with Justices Paul Newby, Tamara Barringer and Phil Berger Jr. prevailing. That trio includes the significance of Chief Justice Newby who also directs the Administrative Office of the Courts and its thousands of employees in every courthouse. Many of these are independently elected or controlled on some issues, but statewide administrative control is through the AOC. Judge Drew Heath was appointed as Administrator of the Administrative Office of the Courts. There are four Democrat Justices – Robin Hudson, Sam Ervin IV, Michael Morgan and Anita Earls.
At the trial court level there are now, at the Superior Court level, 24 Republicans, 35 Democrats and 36 unaffiliated judges. In 1994 there was only one Republican Superior Court Judge. At the District Court level there are now 130 Republicans, 128 Democrats and 2 unaffiliated judges.
Council of State – The GOP won a 6 – 4 majority on the Council of State. The presiding officer, Governor Cooper, has never called for recorded votes. That needs to change. Some have asked for an explanation how the NC GOP lost four of the ten races statewide while winning six handily. It is not a surprise that Governor Cooper won by 4.5% over Dan Forrest. Governor Cooper was on television for free almost every day for 8 months telling people how to be safe. He refused to take hard questions from the press. He had been on the statewide ballot 5 previous times preceded by many successful runs for the state house and senate as well. Between Cooper’s own- campaign and outside groups, he outspent Dan Forest at least 10 to 1. Dan Forest outperformed all the polls taken prior to the election. They had him down by 10. Dan has a great future in North Carolina politics.
Josh Stein was reelected as Attorney General by only 10,000 votes out of 5 million cast. He raised and spent $12 million to Jim O’Neal’s $1.1 million. Stein plans to run for governor in 2024. That vote margin should have him shaking in his boots, especially if he runs again for Attorney General against O’Neal.
It is no surprise that Elaine Marshall won re-election as Secretary of State. She has been on the ballot statewide (including a run for the U.S. Senate) for 28 years. She had universal name recognition. E.C. Sykes did much better than expected and has a great future in state politics. It is no surprise that Beth Wood won re-election as State Auditor. She had name recognition, incumbency and few complaints about her work as State Auditor. It did not help the Republican candidate that he was not an accountant, certified or not.
Mark Robinson was heavily outspent (over $8 million from Michael Bloomberg), but Mark won big as North Carolina’s first African American Lt. Governor. Dale Folwell was handily reelected as State Treasurer, Steve Troxler as Commissioner of Agriculture, and Mike Causey as Commissioner of Insurance. Catherine Truitt was elected as Superintendent of Public Instruction and Josh Dobson as Commissioner of Labor.
The entire election machinery in N.C. is controlled by Democrat Governor Roy Cooper and Attorney General Josh Stein. These were fantastic results for the NC GOP in the face of huge financial headwinds.
National level. Democrats were expecting to gain (and Republicans expecting to lose) a dozen seats in the US House. Instead, Republicans won almost every seriously contested seat, a net gain of 12 seats. This will result in the smallest margin (222-213) for a house majority in decades. If a few Democrats switch on a vote Nancy Pelosi loses.
Democrats were expecting November 3rd to result in an advantage of about 52-48 in the US Senate. They only came up with 48 seats, putting Republicans in position to maintain a 52-48 majority. Our own Thom Tillis defeated the Democrat, despite a massive spending disadvantage in what was, until then, the most expensive U.S. Senate race in history. I leave it to the pundits why Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock beat David Perdue and Kelly Loefler in the January 5 Georgia runoff. Instead of an easy layup to maintain the GOP majority in the US Senate, the ball was turned over, making Vice President Kamala Harris the majority maker.
Before the election Republicans held 59 State Legislative Chambers. Democrats held 39. Democrats put untold hundreds of millions toward flipping a dozen chambers so as to have an advantage in the 2021 Congressional redistricting. Their effort failed miserably. Two chambers flipped, but to the GOP – the New Hampshire House and Senate. It is now GOP chambers 61 to 37 Democrat Chambers.
Consider the number of individual legislative seats gained or lost. In the 49 State Senates Republicans held 1059 seats and Democrats held 860 seats before the election. After the election Republicans hold 1067 state senate seats and Democrats hold 851, a net gain of 8 for Republican state senators. The GOP picked up one Governor’s mansion in Montana.
Before the election Republicans held 2789 seats in the 49-State Houses. Democrats held 2600. After the election GOP members hold 2927 state house seats and Democrats hold 2452, a net gain of 138 for the GOP and a net loss for the Democrats of 148. 10 went to other parties. Nebraska is unicameral, officially nonpartisan and not included.
Republicans controlled both legislative chambers and the governor’s office in Georgia and Arizona. Republicans held both legislative chambers, but not the Governor’s office, in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Republicans have significant control over election law and/or election machinery in all 5 battleground states.
The Presidency in North Carolina. Donald Trump won with 49.93 percent to Biden’s 48.59 percent, what pollsters had predicted.
Republicans had a great election (which sort of concluded in November of 2020 and finally concluded in January 2021), with the exception of the Presidency and Georgia.
Every year, parents, students, teachers, and schools celebrate school choice week to raise public awareness of the importance of effective education options for children. This year, Stam Law Firm celebrated school choice week by filing an amicus brief with the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The amicus brief addresses arguments in State v. Kinston Charter Academy, a case about the relationship between charter schools and the State of North Carolina. Stam Law Firm filed the brief on behalf of Pinnacle Classical Academy, a Shelby, North Carolina charter school. The brief argues charter schools should not be treated as part of the State because they are independent. Treating charter schools as part of the State could have negative legal and regulatory implications for charter schools.
Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi must have taught Roy Cooper lessons in effective negotiation tactics. They are each using an old negotiating tactic from a story by O. Henry:
Spoiler Alert: In the next paragraph I’ll tell you the story. You may want to read the story first.
Two desperados living on the American frontier needed money. They decide to kidnap the 10-year-old child of a wealthy banker. Abducting him was easy. Then they took him to a hideout a few miles from town. They wanted $2,000. In those days that was a lot. They didn’t want to hurt the kid, so they put up with all his demands for recreation, accommodations and entertainment at their expense. The kid was quite a handful. Then they sent a ransom note. The boy’s father rejected it but said he would take the kid back if the criminals paid him $250. These desperados paid the reverse ransom.
Schumer/Pelosi/Cooper missed the point. Taking this type of hostage does not work. The Schumer-Pelosi tactics on the Covid-19 Relief Package 4.0 won’t work. They want a 3 trillion dollar package to be paid for by our great grandchildren. Republicans have offered only ½ trillion dollars. The two sides are at loggerheads. There is nothing in the Republican package that Schumer/Pelosi actually oppose. But they are taking items from the GOP plan hostage to get the other $2 ½ Trillion. They may get nothing and the people may suffer.
Roy Cooper learned this tactic on the knees of Schumer-Pelosi. He wanted Medicaid Expansion and really high teacher pay. So he repeatedly vetoed teacher pay raises (the GOP offered 4.9%) and he vetoed Medicaid Transformation, neither of which he actually opposed. He took these provisions hostage because it wasn’t enough. He ended up getting no pay raise for teachers (except step increases) and a much delayed Medicaid Transformation. That delay will harm the state.
It is time for serious people who care about the country and the state to take a crash course in effective negotiating tactics.
May I introduce you to some of the first-degree murderers who had their death sentences indefinitely postponed by our state Supreme Court on June 5. All of these are from Randolph County in chronological order.
Kenneth Bernard Rouse Date of Death Sentence: 03-23-1992
Rouse stabbed Hazel Broadway to death while she was working at a convenience store. He was sexually assaulting Ms. Broadway’s body while the knife was still in her neck. An Asheboro Police Officer responded to the convenience store after a call from a citizen who noticed Ms. Broadway was not at her check out station. The officer discovered Rouse at Ms. Broadway’s body in the back of the store and covered in her blood. Rouse was also convicted of Armed Robbery and First-Degree Rape.
NOTE: Rouse was suspected of murdering another older woman prior to Ms. Broadway. DNA testing many years later matched him to evidence left at the scene of that murder. As he is on Death Row he has not been charged in that murder.
James Edward Williams Date of Death Sentence: 11-03-1993
Williams brutally beat and then strangled to death Elvie Marie Hamlin Rhodes. Ms. Rhodes’ body was found by hunters. Investigation revealed that she was murdered in her home. Large amounts of blood and blood spatter were located. The autopsy revealed that Ms. Rhodes was beaten severely about the upper body and died from a combination of blunt force trauma and strangulation. Williams’ fingerprints were found in the victim’s stolen car. Williams attempted to blame a woman he was in a relationship with for the murder.
Jeffrey Clayton Kandies Date of Death Sentence: 4-24-1994
Kandies raped and beat to death Natalie Lynne Osborne, age 4. Kandies was the boyfriend of Natalie’s mother. After murdering Natalie he hid her body in a closet. A huge search for Natalie was conducted over several days. When her nude and beaten body was discovered in a plastic bag in the closet of her home, Kandies claimed he had accidentally ran over her with his vehicle. The autopsy revealed that Natalie had been brutally beaten and raped. Kandies was also convicted of First-Degree Rape of a Child.
Jason Wayne Hurst Date of Death Sentence: 03-17-2004
Hurst robbed and murdered Daniel Lee Branch. Branch was a hard-working family man, married with children. He needed money and was selling several firearms he owned in order to raise money. Hurst contacted him through a mutual acquaintance and expressed interest in buying the firearms. Branch agreed to take Hurst and another man to a remote field to demonstrate that the firearms worked. As Branch walked into the field to set up a target, Hurst shot him with a pump shotgun. Branch fell and then got up and began to run for his life. Hurst shot him again and Branch fell. Hurst then walked to him and stood over Branch as he begged for his life. Hurst shot him a third time in the face. Hurst then removed the keys to the car from Branch’s pocket and took the car and guns, travelling to West Virginia. Before leaving the area he sold some of the firearms. Apparently, Hurst’s motive was to obtain the means to see a girlfriend.
John Scott Badgett Date of Death Sentence: 05-06-2004
Badgett robbed and murdered J.C. Chriscoe in the older man’s home. Badgett was homeless and Chriscoe had agreed to let him stay in his home temporarily. Badgett stabbed Mr. Chriscoe in the throat and by his own admission followed him around the house as he bled to death, even knocking him down when he tried to call for help. Badgett claimed self-defense, alleging that Mr. Chriscoe became irate and irrational and was yelling at him. After murdering Chriscoe, Badgett came back to the house on subsequent days stealing and selling items from the house. Badgett had been convicted of manslaughter years before by stabbing that victim in the throat at the same location (at the Adam’s apple). Badgett had a violent history of stabbing and beating other persons while in custody.
Alexander Charles Polke Date of Death Sentence: 02-07-2005
Polke murdered Randolph County Sheriff’s Deputy Toney Clayton Summey and shot and wounded Deputy Nathan Hollingsworth, while they were in the performance of their duties. Deputies Summey and Hollingsworth went to Polke’s home to serve an Order for Arrest for Failure to Appear on minor matters in District Court. Polke fought with Deputy Summey at the front door and obtained his duty weapon from the holster. He then shot Deputy Summey several times, killing him. Polke then fought with Deputy Hollingsworth and attempted to murder him as well with Deputy Summey’s pistol. Polke shot and struck Deputy Hollingsworth in the upper arm as they exchanged gunfire at close range.
In all his records, including military records, Polke was listed as White. He now claims some small percentage of American Indian heritage for the purpose of his Racial Justice Act claim.
George Thomas Wilkerson Date of Death Sentence: 12-20-2006
Wilkerson murdered Casey James Dinoff and Christopher Cameron Voncannon. Wilkerson was a violent drug dealer and he believed that one of the victims owed him a small amount of money for a drug sale. He obtained an SKS rifle that had been modified to fire fully automatic. He drove to the residence of the victims at night where he cut power lines to the house and burst in killing both victims. One was asleep on the couch. In recorded phone conversations Wilkerson bragged about the murders, stating he felt like a Navy SEAL.
Could you tell which ones were black or white? I couldn’t but five are white, one is black and one is listed in military records as white but now claims a small percentage as an American Indian. All obtained a new lease on life because of the Racial Justice Act.
In addition there was a Gary Allen Trull who was also white. he hsd his death sentence postponed by the Racial Justice Act so long that he has now died of natural causes.
Gary Allen Trull Date of Death Sentence: 11-19-1996 (DECEASED)
Trull murdered Vanessa Dixon. Trull died while on Death Row. Trull had previously been convicted of a brutal First-Degree Rape in Guilford County and sentenced to Life. He was paroled and settled in Randolph County in an apartment complex where Vanessa also lived. Trull kidnapped Vanessa Dixon from her apartment, transported her into a secluded area and raped her while she was tied to a tree. He then murdered her by cutting her throat. Vanessa’s badly decomposed body was discovered by hikers many days after she went missing. The autopsy revealed that she had been raped. DNA testing matched the semen to Gary Trull. He was also convicted of Kidnapping and First-Degree Rape.
STATE v. RAMSEUR
On June 5, 2020 the North Carolina Supreme Court reinstated the Racial Justice Act for these first-degree murderers on death row. There has not been an execution in North Carolina since 2006. Most of these first degree murderers were sentenced to death long before 2006. Effectively the decision of the state Supreme Court lengthened the moratorium on the death sentence by another 5-10 years.
Let’s see how this happened.
Public reporting on this decision has been wrong. On June 5, WRAL published an article online which said that the Racial Justice Act “allowed death row inmates to seek to have their sentences commuted to life without parole if they could prove that racial bias may have tainted their trials.” Similar statements were made by NC Policy Watch and on NC Spin. These reports may have been induced to report it this way because the Supreme Court opinion written by Associate Justice Anita Earls stated:
“Here the right is to challenge a sentence of death on the grounds that it was obtained in a proceeding tainted by racial discrimination, and, if successful, to receive a sentence of life without parole. Repealing the Racial Justice Act took away that right,” State v. Ramseur, No 388A.10 June 5, 2020 Slip opinion p 31.
These characterizations of the Racial Justice Act are false. Let me explain, first in summary and then, in detail. Long before the Racial Justice Act was passed in 2009 the law was:
“a finding that race was the basis of the decision to seek or impose a death sentence may be established if the court finds that the State acted with discriminatory purpose in seeking the death penalty or in selecting the jury that sentenced the defendant, or one or more of the jurors acted with discriminatory purpose in the guilt-innocence or sentencing phases of the defendant’s trial.”
But the Racial Justice Act provides that a remedy is available to white defendants who prove that discrimination occurred in other parts of the state in other decades to other defendants who were discriminated against. Can you believe it? As a result, 152 of the 156 murderers then on death row filed motions for relief under the Racial Justice Act.
Before the Act was passed in 2009 we predicted (accurately) that almost every person on death row whether white, black, or Indian would take advantage of it. We predicted (inaccurately) a minimum additional time in court of two or three years (which has now been 11 years.) The delay will likely go on for another five or ten years under the Supreme Court’s latest opinion.
If the trial is indeed tainted by racial discrimination the law should have granted the defendant a new trial. But it does not. It grants them a sentence of life in prison. Why in the world would a person whose own trial was tainted by racial discrimination receive a life sentence instead of a new trial. The answer is that the discrimination to be proved is not suffered by that convicted first degree murderer but rather by someone else. Can you believe it?
Since the modern era (1976) when our death penalty statutes were reformed to comply with U.S. Supreme Court decision, there has not been a single execution of a person who had any claim to factual innocence. Yet that canard is why we have effectively had a 14 year moratorium on death sentences for first-degree murderers.
For those with a desire for extensive discussion and research on the injustice of the Racial Justice Act please see the link below to the debate on June 16, 2011, to 28 studies on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to homicide, and the actual text of the 2012 law (Gov. Perdue’s veto being overridden) which effectively repealed the Racial Justice Act.
The victims of the Racial Justice Act have been mostly innocent African Americans. Why do I say this? Numerically the majority of the victims of homicide in North Carolina are African Americans. Several hundred of them and their families have been denied justice and an appropriate deterrent now for 11 years.
Not everything proposed or enacted in the name of “racial justice” is worthy of the name.
In considering controversial issues of the day, it is helpful to consider analogous issues from times long past. Consider:
Afghanistan on 9/11. Protected by the Taliban, war was launched by Al-Qaeda against the United States. Early in the conflict the Taliban blew up huge 1500-year-old statues of the Buddha that were located in the Bamiyan Valley. One was 175 feet tall and carved out of the mountainside. While Afghanistan is now 99% Muslim, these Buddhist statues were part of the cultural history of Afghanistan from a time long before Islam existed. The world was outraged at this destruction of cultural history. It was a war crime. I had mixed feelings, remembering that Gideon obeyed the direct command of an angel to destroy his father’s idols to begin the Israelite Rebellion against the Midianites’ oppression. Even though I oppose idolatry I thought it was wrong of the Taliban to blow up these idols. Which side would you have taken?
In western China there are thousands of Terracotta soldiers found underground near the ancient capital of Xi’an dating from about 220 BC. China was unified then under its first emperor Qin Shi Huang Di. Qin Shi Huang Di was the epitome of a fascist. He burned the books he could (except those relating to agriculture, forestry, medicine and divination) and had scholars of the day killed. Tradition is that they were buried alive. The Terracotta soldiers of Xi’an were to be his protection in the afterlife. Should they really be celebrated as part of China’s cultural heritage just to reap tourist dollars?
The Great Wall of China is one of the “Wonders of the World.” It was almost useless as a barrier to invasion. A despairing Chinese general opened the gates allowing China to be invaded by the Manchus, erasing the value of centuries of slave labor. Should the Great Wall be celebrated as an achievement or should it be denounced as a symbol of slavery?
The Pyramids of Egypt and Sudan are also “Wonders of the World.” These were built to satisfy the vanity and superstition of the Pharaohs, requiring forced labor (slavery) of millions of Egyptians who could ill-afford the time. What do you think of the pyramids as a cultural symbol? How should today’s Muslims and Copts of Egypt, who believe in nothing that the pyramids stood for, treat the pyramids? As a symbol of slavery or as an ATM machine?
In 1966 Mao initiated the 10-year Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. He already had experience during the Great Leap Forward of 1958-1961 starving 20 to 30 million Chinese to death due to his absurd economic and foreign policies. During the 1966-1976 cultural revolution, his intent was to obliterate the four “olds”: Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits and Old Ideas. He was partially successful in obliterating the architectural, genealogical, literary, artistic, religious and cultural history of China, just like Qin Shi Huang Di before him. There were some who hid away stories and artifacts that now inform us of China’s 5000-year culture. What do you think about Mao’s cultural revolution? Should Mao’s photo still be used as a good luck charm, while most of his economic policies have been thoroughly repudiated?
George Washington is on the $1 bill. Some have talked about removing him from that currency and even demolishing the Washington Monument. President Washington was a slaveholder and fought against some Indian tribes in the French and Indian War that preceded the Revolution. With that record does it even matter that he was “first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen?” Without him it is doubtful that our Revolution, our Declaration, and our Constitution would have been produced in the 18th century. George Washington freed his slaves, but only upon his death. I have never thought that was particularly generous of him.
Andrew Jackson is on the $20 bill. Except for his victory at the 1815 Battle of New Orleans, I have never read anything good about him. I would be more inclined to remove Jackson from the currency than George Washington.
Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence which contains the seeds of equality in America. Yet he was a slaveholder who had children by one of his slaves, which would have required rape. Some would destroy the Jefferson Memorial or turn it into something else.
What would Mt. Rushmore symbolize if Washington and Jefferson were removed, either legally or blasted out by a vandal? To the right is Theodore Roosevelt who died in 1919. “Teddy” was a vocal white nationalist. The New York City Museum of Natural History has just decided to remove the statue honoring him. If Washington, Jefferson and Roosevelt were removed, could Lincoln be far behind? Not everyone loved Lincoln.
At its inception, the Democratic Party was called the Democratic-Republican Party. It was founded by Jefferson and others to counter the Federalists. One of the most vicious white supremacists, Furnifold Simmons, was chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party. Together with Josephus Daniels, he organized the coup d’état in Wilmington of 1898 and the actual voter suppression of 1890 which enshrined white supremacy / Jim Crow in North Carolina for more than half a century. In the years leading up to the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the party defending slavery. Does that mean that the Democratic Party of today is a party of racists? No. Will it change its name to disassociate itself from its rancid history? “Progressive” Democrats will soon decide that would be appropriate.
The Republican Party was founded specifically as a party to abolish slavery. The GOP was the victim of the 1898 coup d’état in Wilmington. About 60 African Americans were murdered in the campaign initiated by the Democratic Party of Furnifold Simmons and Josephus Daniels. They were not murdered only because they were African American. It was also because many, if not most of them, were Republicans who served in the biracial government of Wilmington, then North Carolina’s largest city.
I argued to the Raleigh City Council that the 8-foot tall statue of Josephus Daniels adjoining the Raleigh municipal building on Nash Square should be accompanied by a plaque. It would point out Josephus Daniels’ actions as a truly evil man, despite his later service as Secretary of the Navy and as Ambassador to Mexico. On June 16 the family of Josephus Daniels removed his statue from Nash Square. The same day the Wake County Board of Education removed his name from “Daniels” Middle School. On June 22 NC State University removed his name from a building.
Baghdad 2003. After the United States and the international coalition invaded Iraq the people pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein. He had been a tyrant and murderer of his own people for decades. Would you have stopped the vandals who wanted to topple the statue of their oppressor? Giant statues of Genghis Khan adorn Mongolia as tourist attractions. His brutal crimes were committed 1000 years ago. Should Mongolia forego the tourist dollars?
Recently statues of Christopher Columbus have been torn down or damaged in St. Paul, Boston and Richmond. A statue of Columbus will soon be removed from the rotunda of the California State Capitol. So far Governor Andrew Cuomo has resisted attempts to purge the memory of Christopher Columbus from New York City, arguing that memorials to Columbus only acknowledge the city’s Italian American heritage. The argument against remembering Christopher Columbus is that the net effect of his discovery of America was the subjection by violence and exposure to disease of the original population of the Americas. But lots of good came from his explorations of the Americas.
Part of my ancestry is Danish. My mother told me I was a descendant of Leif Erikson. That was cool. I could claim to be a descendant of the true European discoverer of America. Then I read A History of the Kingdom of Denmark. These Vikings used theft, kidnapping, rape, and pillage. They inscribed graffiti on the main door of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. On the other hand, my mother’s relative still in Denmark was part of the Danish Resistance and was tortured by the Nazis. The Danish Resistance, inspired by their king, was one of the most successful in protecting Jews. They helped many escape to neutral Sweden. Should I be embarrassed by my Danish heritage or proud of it?
I served under a Speaker of the House who was a criminal, Jim Black. In 2006 he went to federal prison for paying bribes and taking bribes. He also broke eight House rules as he passed the Lottery in 2005. His picture is on the wall of the Legislative Building, along with many other Speakers of the House. Some have suggested that his picture should be removed from the wall. I believe it should stay on the wall so that tour guides can point out to school children that even the most powerful man in the state can be brought down by the law when he is a crook. There are other men whose pictures are on that wall who engaged in activities that today, and even then, would have been considered wrong. Should the walls be cleansed of some of the photographs, or all of them? Who decides if it is to be selective? Will the decision be made by vandals or by law? On June 19, 2020, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed portraits of four former slaveholding Speakers. Will others be removed as other scandals are revealed? Who decides which scandals qualify?
Silent Sam, 2019. The soldier statue memorialized the alumni of UNC-Chapel Hill who died fighting for the Confederacy. During my three years of law school, and hundreds of visits thereafter, I never knew of the existence of Silent Sam until recently. A statute protecting statues and other monuments was passed by the General Assembly in 2015. This is often described as being a law passed by the “Republican-led General Assembly.” In the Senate the law preserving these historical monuments was passed unanimously. It became partisan in the House. Two actions that could have easily been done were not.
At the dedication of the monument, Julian Carr, a rabid white supremacist, spoke using the vilest language against his African American cousins. That same year the Town of Carrboro was incorporated and named after the same Julian Carr. The use of that name by the Town has a real practical effect on the people who live in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Thousands of times every day the people of Carrboro have to receive or put that Carr name on their correspondence, pass signs using that name or be known as citizens of Carrboro. Citizens and students at Chapel Hill also regularly see and use that name. Why hasn’t the Town of Carrboro ever changed its name? Some falsely claimed that it would not be legal to change the Town’s name. It would only require the Town, by ordinance, to put the change to a referendum. And UNC-Chapel Hill could have renamed the venue of Silent Sam, McCorkle Place, after someone other than a slaveholder.
Buildings have been renamed. More will be. There is an elementary school in Raleigh named “J.Y. Joyner.” J.Y. Joyner was the superintendent of Public Instruction for North Carolina. He bragged about his ability to educate black children at a much lower cost than what he would spend on white children. But thousands of North Carolinians have been students at that school with no knowledge of the association of the name of the school with the most virulent form of racism. Rename the school after Irving Joyner, a Civil Rights attorney?
Fort Bragg was named after Braxton Bragg, a Confederate general 160 years ago. Not only was he a slaveholder but also a pathetic general. Why would the Army and the local community want one of the most important military installations in the nation named after him? On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have served at Fort Bragg, with no knowledge that it was named after Braxton. Why not find a worthy soldier named Bragg, preferably from North Carolina and preferably served at Bragg and served heroically in combat? Rename Fort Bragg in honor of that person? The signage would remain Fort Bragg, but the official records would no longer be named after a bad person. And the thousands of veterans who tell their grandchildren about their service would not be challenged as to their own patriotism.
Jane Wettach of Duke Law School’s
Children’s Law Clinic is on the attack again.
“School Vouchers in North Carolina – The
First Three Years” was authored by Professor Jane R. Wettach of the Children’s
Law Clinic, Duke Law School in March, 2017. This month she has released another
broadside. My analysis of her 2017 report is found at www.paulstam.info. under Articles
for 2018. This analysis addresses the current attack but also includes an
updated analysis of some of the matters addressed in her first attack and which
she still seems relevant.
First,
these scholarships in 2019-20 cover almost 1% (.008) of the public-school (K-12)
population. This is far below the demand shown by surveys taken in North
Carolina which show that 35% – 43% of parents would send their child to a private
school if money were not an obstacle. In other words if parents had their
preference over 500,000 children would now be in private school. I do not
believe the numbers will ever reach that figure.
There are approximately 102,000 students in
private schools this year (of which 12,283 receive opportunity scholarship.) At
the 2027 projected levels of funding for the scholarships, that would mean
approximately 138,000 students (36,000 on opportunity scholarship, over 2% of
the public school population) would be in private schools.
Professor Wettach’s
recent report emphasizes cumulative projected expenditures of $730 million
between now and 2027 for these scholarships. That is a big number. But she does
not mention that if you add those same years to the other side of the ledger
there would be about $65 billion in K-12 spending for public schools in
those same years.
The report fails to mention that this $730
million expense will be offset by about one billion dollars in savings to state
and county taxpayers ($4,953 per child as shown by the latest fiscal
research memorandum), since taxpayers would no longer be paying the operating cost
of educating those same children in the public schools. Those savings do not
include the capital costs of educating those children. In Wake County alone
I estimate the capital savings for taxpayers on account of the children already
on scholarship at about $25 million. If trends continue, the capital savings in
Wake will be another $50 million through 2027.
Second, the report states that private
schools need not be accredited. True. But public schools are not required to be
accredited. Professor Wettach fails to recall that a vast majority of
opportunity scholars are in elementary school. Accreditation for public
elementary schools is rare. And accreditation is often meaningless. 43
traditional public high schools were committing “academic genocide,” declared
Judge Manning in the Leandro case.
These 43 schools were also “accredited.” Accreditation is a worthy goal,
depending on the criteria used by the accrediting agency. It can also be a
useless marker when it measures inputs rather than outputs.
Third, the report emphasizes that private
schools do not administer the state “end-of-grade” tests. Right. But they do
administer nationally normed tests on grammar, reading and math (annually for
scholarship students). Nationally normed tests paint a truer picture than the
state “end-of-grade” test. I urge our public schools to use nationally normed tests.
We have had decades of problems with homegrown “end-of-grade” tests. When the
public schools begin using a nationally normed test we can discuss how to
compare performance on these tests with the academic performance of opportunity
scholars.
Fourth, Professor Wettach, in her first
report, criticized Opportunity Scholarships because they do not require that
students be in “failing schools” or “low performing schools.” Some supporters of
the program have used that as a rationale. I do not. But that is not a defect
in the program.
A lower income student may well move from
a fine traditional public school to a private school for many reasons: (A) the private school is near the parents’ employment
and the parents feel that it would be better for the child to ride with them
rather than spend hours on a bus, (B) the curriculum may be more interesting to
the child who is on sports teams and wants to take up (for example) chess and Spanish
instead of PE and Chinese, (C) the student may want to have religious
instruction or worship as part of the school day. That is forbidden in public schools
but is a normal and natural part of a classical education, (D) the private
school may have a lower class size ratio. Parents might think that is important
for their child, (E) the parents may be happy with the public school but the
teacher assigned to that student for that year may not be the best, (F) the
child has been bullied in the public school and wants to go where her parents
believe that will not happen, or (G) the child may not appreciate the vulgar
language used at many public schools, even in elementary grades.
Fifth, in her first report she recognized
that in private schools quality is controlled by the parents. She claims that
there is no state power to shut down a private “fringe” school. This is akin to
the claim by a former superintendent that scholarships would fund terrorist
training camps.
Parents are more likely to notice the lack of academic progress
than will a bureaucrat in a public system. In a domestic situation or a social
services investigation parents can be prohibited from sending a child to a
school if the child is not being educated. In that case the representative of
the state’s Division of Non-Public Education is able to obtain testing records
for that child.
In a 2016 Friedman Foundation Report by
Dr. Greg Forster https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-5-Win-Win-Solution-WEB.pdf, 31 out of 33
peer-reviewed studies have found that a choice program improves the outcome for
public-school students in the neighboring area. One report found no effect and
one found a negative effect. This profound and positive effect on neighboring schools
occurs for the same reason that grocery shopping in Apex has drastically
improved over my 44 years here. Then Apex had only one store with high prices,
bad service and no selection. Now we have dozens of grocery stores with lower
prices, excellent service and selection. Stores compete in order to make more money.
Sixth, in this report, Dr. Wettach claims
that no information is available to the public about whether the students using
school vouchers have made academic progress or have fallen behind. This is not
true. A study conducted by
North Carolina State University and the Friday Institute found that Opportunity
Scholarship students score higher on standardized tests in reading, math,
and language compared to their public school peers. The researchers wrote the
Opportunity Scholarships Program showed a “positive, large and
statistically significant” effect in math, reading and language. Study
authors cautioned that test participants comprised a small percentage of the
students then receiving the scholarships.
Seventh, her first report complains about
discrimination and advocates that no form of discrimination should be allowed.
The report fails to appreciate the difference between private and public discrimination.
Should the state discriminate on the
basis of sex? No. For 50 years the state has provided money to 35 four-year
private liberal arts colleges to help educate residents of North Carolina. However
Meredith, Bennett, Salem, and Peace served only women. No public college would
be allowed to discriminate in this way. But is it really a bad thing that women
students at Meredith have been educated, partly at state expense? Men only had 31 choices of schools and women
had 35.
Eighth, Professor Wettach, in her latest
report, complains that too many opportunity scholarships are used at religious
schools and that some of them “use a biblically-based curriculum presenting
concepts that directly contradict the state’s educational standards.”
While the preliminary evidence from the
study above indicates that scholarship students are doing just as well on core
academic subjects as their public school peers, it is true that one reason that
parents might send a child to a private school is to escape indoctrination from
secularists.
NOTE: The author was a member of the House for 16
years, the last 10 as Republican Leader or Speaker Pro Tem. He practices law in Apex, North Carolina and
may be reached at paulstam@stamlawfirm.com. His website is www.paulstam.info. This article will
be found under Articles for 2020.
One of the advantages of being older is that I experienced some things that younger folks only know from history books.
1972
1972 was
the first presidential election in which I was able to vote. The unofficial
platform of the George McGovern Democrat Party of 1972 was “Acid, Abortion and
Amnesty.”
“Acid” was
LSD, a psychedelic drug promoted by Timothy Leary. There were other drugs,
primarily heroin and marijuana. These drugs were vastly less potent than they
are today.
“Abortion”
was a crime in most of the nation and in most of the world. Only New York,
North Carolina, and Colorado had legislated significant loopholes. In 1972 the
debate was over whether exceptions would be recognized. Roe v Wade
(1973) overturned the law in all 50 states.
The
anti-Vietnam War candidate, George McGovern, would grant “Amnesty” to draft
dodgers to return from Canada with no consequences. “Amnesty” did not relate to
immigration.
2020
The winner
of the Democrat presidential nomination in 2020 will be running again on a
platform of pot, planned parenthood, and porous borders, but in a newly
supercharged context.
The
Democrat candidates want legalization and expunction for marijuana. Will we
have a nation of zombies if they get their way?
Since 1972
abortion has always been at the top of the Democrat agenda. Jimmy Carter was
all for Roe v Wade but now says he was “against abortion.” He
still acted to make the government pay for it. Bill Clinton said he wanted
abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” Abortions reached their highest number
in 1998, during his presidency. Clinton usually acted pro-abortion. But he
signed budgets with Hyde Amendment (and similar provisions like the DeWine
Amendment) language restricting federal government payments for abortion,
except to save the life of the mother, and in cases of rape or incest.
Barack
Obama was the most pro-abortion president in history. But he repeatedly signed
budgets during his entire presidency that included the Hyde and DeWine
Amendments which effectively stopped Federal funding of elective abortion.
Obamacare even allowed states to restrict abortion coverage in insurance
policies sold on the Exchange. North Carolina did so.
The New
York liberal, Pat Moynihan, had been Domestic Advisor to President Lyndon
Johnson. As a Democrat Senator he called late-term abortion “akin to
infanticide.” Now, the crop of Democrat presidential contenders in 2020 defend
the right to post-birth infanticide. And they have shamed Joe Biden into
renouncing his long time support for the Hyde and DeWine language. They claim
the mantle of public support for their hard-core position, a platform held by
about 20% of the American people – Abortion, all the time, for any reason, paid
for by taxpayers – no restrictions for minors, and no regulation of clinics.
The term
“amnesty” has been grossly misused in immigration debates. Proposals for
immigration reform by some Republicans are not amnesty at all. These proposals
include real consequences, such as paying back taxes, learning English, moving
to the back of the line, or long delays before citizenship is granted, if ever.
But most of
the Democrat contenders for President favor open borders, including the right
to receive free medical care at taxpayers’ expense. This was not the position
of President Obama. His acolyte, Joe Biden, is criticized by most of the other
contenders for being an old fogey who has forgotten the “lessons of history.”
If
Democrats want a rerun of 1972, they will get in 2020 what they got in 1972. They
will richly deserve it.
After the failure of
the House to override Governor Cooper’s veto of SB 359 (“Born Alive Abortion
Survivors Protection Act”), we discovered why some House Democrats voted “no.” These Democrats accepted faulty legal
advice. There were three main legal
errors.
Some Democrats thought that Lily’s Law applied to
children who survive lawful abortions. It
does not.
The first error was propagated
by Representative Queen. In a memo dated
June 12th, 2019 to 14 Democratic Representatives, Representative
Queen stated:
I
voted against Senate Bill 359 because it is already law. Infanticide is not happening in North
Carolina. We all agree that babies must
be protected, however they are born. And,
as Governor Cooper said when he vetoed this bill, our current law reflects that
belief. In 2013, six years ago, I voted
for Senate Bill 117, which codifies protections against murder for babies born
alive. That bill passed the House
unanimously, and it is law in our state today, General Statute 14-17. Senate Bill 117 was a clean bill to provide
protections for born alive babies. Senate
Bill 359 was politically motivated, and it goes a step too far, threatening and
criminalizing doctors who are trying to help mothers through absolutely
terrible situations.
As the bill’s title (“An Act to Codify the Common
Law That It Is Murder Where a Child Who Is Born Alive Dies As the Result of
Injuries Inflicted Prior to the Child’s Birth”) shows, Lily’s Law (G.S. §
14-17(c)) is not about the survivor of a failed abortion. Rather, it codified the common law rule that
if an unborn child was injured by an unlawful act prior to birth, then survived
until birth, but then died after live birth, that would be murder. For example, an armed robber shoots a mother,
with murderous intent, and also injures the unborn child. The unborn child survives long enough to be
born but then dies. That is murder.
Murder of any degree is an “unlawful killing.” E.g.State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 301 S.E.2d 335 (1983). If Lily’s law had been interpreted to apply to a lawful abortion followed by a live birth, after which the child died of injuries from the abortion (with no intention or overt act after the child was born alive) it would have been clearly unconstitutional under Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey et al. That it was unanimously passed in 2013 shows that no sentient legislator thought that it had anything to do with the care required by health care professionals after a failed abortion. Laws against unlawful killing do not apply to lawful abortions.
The Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Senate Bill 359, modified our murder statutes by setting out an alternative method of proving murder, that there was an intentional, overt act committed after the child was born alive. Lily’s law offers no protection to the surviving child of a failed abortion attempt. Representative Queen is not an attorney. Whoever suggested that line of defense to him was clearly mistaken.
2. Democrats thought laws criminalizing murder and manslaughter are sufficient to protect children who survive an abortion attempt. They are not.
The office of Representative Darren Jackson, the
House Democratic leader, provided a memorandum on June 10th, 2019,
that said:
Additionally here are current North Carolina criminal statutes that make SB 359 unnecessary:
It is a Class D felony under current law to unlawfully cause the death of an unborn child (G.S. 14-23.1). It is a Class F felony under current law to kill another human being by a culpably negligent act or omission (G.S. 14-18). It is a Class B2 felony, second degree murder, to kill a child born alive, with malice (G.S. 14-17). It is a Class A felony, first degree murder, to kill a child that is born alive, with malice and a specific intent to kill formed after premeditation and deliberation (G.S. 14-17)
Like Lily’s Law,
G.S. §§ 14-23.1, et seq. protects unborn children from unlawful
acts committed before birth. G.S. §
14-23.7 makes it clear that the entire article of which G.S. 14-23.1 is a part
does not even apply to lawful abortions.
Voluntary manslaughter laws are almost certainly not applicable to a newborn child—which is why Representative Jackson’s office did not cite them (although others did). Involuntary manslaughter is “a culpably negligent act or omission” or an “unintentional killing” resulting from “an unlawful act not amounting to a felony nor naturally dangerous to human life.” State v. Wingard, 317 N.C. 590, 600, 346 S.E.2d 638, 645 (1986). Confusingly, “unintentional killing” requires some intentional act—just not one with the intent to kill. State v. Wilkerson, 295 N.C. 559, 582, 247 S.E.2d 905, 918 (1978). Under this definition, refusing to treat a child is not “unintentional killing” because it is an omission not an intentional act.
When a child
survives a lawful abortion and dies because he or she does not receive
treatment, that neglect of care is not a “culpably negligent act or omission.” The word “omission” is also modified by the
term “culpably.” To be culpably negligent, the abortionist must have a legal
duty to the child. The most relevant
legal duty is a doctor-patient duty. Generally,
a physician-patient relationship is only created when the physician consents to
treat the patient. E.g., Prosser
and Keeton on The Law of Torts § 56 (5th ed. 1984); Galloway v. Lawrence,
266 N.C. 245, 247, 145 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1966).
A child born to a woman whom a physician is treating is not the physician’s
patient, unless there are circumstances establishing that relationship (i.e.
the doctor provides treatment to the child).
Mozingo v. Pitt Cty. Mem’l
Hosp., Inc., 101 N.C. App. 578, 585, 400 S.E.2d 747, 750 (1991), aff’d
on other grounds, 331 N.C. 182, 415 S.E.2d 341 (1992). An abortionist could argue that his or her only
duty to the child is to report the child to social services as neglected or
dependent juvenile. By the time social
services is able to investigate, the child would likely be dead. Without any duty to the child, an abortionist
is not guilty of a “culpably negligent act or omission.”
Representative
Jackson’s office cited class A and B felonies which are generally inapplicable.
Most abortionists are not so foolish as to follow the Gosnell method and
directly kill the child after it survives an abortion. Neglect will generally accomplish the
abortionist goal – death of the child.
To clarify this, the “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” Senate Bill 359, requires doctors and other health care providers to provide medically reasonable care to children who survive an abortion and to report when a child survives an abortion. This would make it clear to both doctors and other providers what their legal duties and liabilities are.
3. Democrats missed the importance of civil penalties.
While existing
criminal law is inadequate, SB 359 would also have applied civil penalties to
health care practitioners who refused to treat and report children who survive
abortions.
In his 18 April 2019 veto message, Governor
Roy Cooper said:
Laws already protect newborn babies and this bill is an unnecessary interference between doctors and their patients. This needless legislation would criminalize doctors and other healthcare providers for a practice that simply does not exist.
Governor Cooper and Democrats’ talking points ignore the effect of civil
remedies.
In addition to the
criminal penalties the “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” provides effective
civil remedies. Opponents of the bill
completely ignore these. They may be as
effective, if not more effective, than criminal penalties. A criminal penalty requires a unanimous
verdict by 12 jurors based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the current cultural environment, it is
not hard to envision many counties where support for infanticide is so
entrenched that a unanimous jury cannot be found to convict. Jury nullification is a real problem.
Civil remedies require proof by a preponderance of the evidence. A civil case may require a unanimous jury. But where there is no genuine issue of a material fact as to liability, many civil cases are resolved by summary judgment. Liability is decided solely by a judge.
What are those remedies under the “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act?” The woman may sue for money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical. Since these all arise, by definition, from late-term abortions there are obvious physical injuries, not the least of which is the increased risk of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies with the possibility of the child’s death and the long term sequelae of brain injury, culminating in cerebral palsy. Psychological injuries from a failed abortion so late in pregnancy that the child survives will create in most women psychological trauma.
The “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” provides for statutory damages of three times the cost of the abortion. Since by definition these are all late term abortions, we estimate the cost at $3,000, which tripled is $9,000. The Act also provides for punitive damages. Punitive damages may be imposed for egregiously wrongful acts G.S. ID-1, such as willful or wanton conduct G.S. ID-(a)(3) and are limited to the greater of $250,000 and three times the compensatory damages G.S.ID-25(b). The “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” also provides for attorney’s fees for the plaintiff if he or she prevails (or for the defendant if the suit is frivolous or brought in bad faith).
Governor Roy Cooper’s Executive Order No. 24 and the “Consent Decree” proposed by Governor Roy Cooper, Attorney General Josh Stein and the ACLU
What is to be done about the Governor’s Executive Order No. 24 and his proposed “Consent Decree” with the ACLU? A copy of each is attached to this memorandum. This is my opinion:
I. The “Consent Decree”
The President ProTem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are well represented in the pending federal civil case. Their attorney has moved to dismiss which, if successful, would moot the question of the “consent decree.” The Governor is trying to change the very law (HB 142, SL 2017-4 attached) which he promoted and signed March 30, 2017, by a collusive consent decree that will perpetually bind future governors to his radical new interpretation of the law. The brief of Governor Cooper, Attorney General Stein and the ACLU suggests that there is significant clarity (but some ambiguity) in current North Carolina law as to the regulation of access to multiple occupancy restrooms and changing rooms such that they are merely asking the Court to join them to clarify existing law. This is preposterous!
In his order of 2016, Federal District Judge Thomas Schroeder rejected UNC’s position that HB2 could not be enforced because HB2 had no enforcement provisions. Judge Schroeder listed four different enforcement mechanisms.
Second-degree trespass, GS 14 – 159.13. In the case of SMS 196 N.C. App 170 (2009) the Court of Appeals held that a 15 year old boy in the girls’ locker room was guilty of second-degree trespass.[1] The label on the door was sufficient notice to him that he should not be there. This is undercut in some school systems by principals (and chancellors) who give permission to students to violate the law. It is probably a good defense to trespass if the person in charge of a facility authorizes a trespass. Judge Schroeder referred to this as “openly defying the law.” By his Executive Order Governor Roy Cooper is “openly defying the law.” But he has possibly created a sufficient defense to a trespass charge by his role as custodian of the facilities within his jurisdiction.
University discipline of students who violate federal, state or local law.
In addition to these four enforcement mechanisms, there are two others:
The state building code requires separate restroom facilities for each sex in most commercial buildings with signage “designating the sex” 2012 NC Building Code 101.2 (Intl Code Council, Inc 3d prtg 2014.)[4] “Sex” is biological. “Gender” is a literary concept with fluid meaning. Whatever ambiguity there is in the term “gender” there is no ambiguity in the state building code.
Under title VII it would create a “hostile work environment” for an employer to maintain restroom or locker room facilities that are not differentiated by biological sex. That would usually be enforced by a private claim for damages in civil court.[5]
II. Governor Roy Cooper’s Executive Order No. 24. of October 18, 2017
On page 8 of this memo I include a memo that I wrote on April 17, 2017 in the aftermath of House Bill 142 (SL 2017-4). There is little in Executive Order No. 24 that could not have been predicted from the Governor’s statements after he signed HB 142 on March 30, 2017.
On October 18, 2017 Governor Cooper issued Executive Order No. 24. The operative provisions of the Executive Order include the Governor’s false claim that “existing federal and state law” on discrimination include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” as protected classifications. Section IA. State law includes these classifications only in the context of K-12 bullying law. GS 115C-407.15(a). But that law specifically states that it does not apply outside that context. GS 115-C-407.18(f).[6]
Federal law on discrimination does not include these classifications but instead only race, religion, color, nationality and sex. Title VII and Title IX of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 USC 2000e et seq. There is a reference in the Prison Rape Elimination Act 34 USC 30301-30309, which does include these classifications, but that is limited to its context and recognizes that inmates have a constitutional right to not be observed by members of the opposite sex while using the restroom or changing clothes. There are also references to “gender” and “gender identity” in “hate crime” legislation, 18 U.S.C. § 249 (a)(2), campus crimes reports, 20 U.S.C. § 1092 (f) and the Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13925 (b)(13), but these categories are NOT included in Title VII or Title IX. Congress knows how to designate “gender identity” or “sexual orientation” even though they lack a definition.
The Fourth Circuit (of which North Carolina is a part) has held that under Title VII and Title IX “sex” means biological sex and does not mean “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”. Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 99 F.3d 138, (4th Cir. 1996); see also Murray v. N.C. Dept of Pub. Safety, 611 Fed. App’x 166, 166 n* (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Dawkins v. Richmond Cty. Schs., 2012 WL 1580455, at *4 (M.D.N.C. May 4, 2012). Kirby v. N.C. State Univ., 2015 WL 1036946, at *5 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2015).[7]
The Governor then uses his false premise to command the following: In Section 1C (1) he states that entities under his jurisdiction shall not discriminate, harass, or retaliate on the basis of these prohibited grounds in hiring. This is the only part of his order that is actually within his power and is similar to Governor McCrory’s Executive Order of April 12, 2016. As the hiring officer he “cannot discriminate” on whatever criteria he wants to not discriminate. When he finally realizes the breadth of the meaning of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”, which he never defines, he may realize that he has seriously overstated his case. See page 12-14 of this memo.
Under Section IC2 he states that these “prohibited grounds” may not be the basis of discrimination in the provision of government services or in the administration of government programs, including, but not limited to, programs and services concerning public safety, health and welfare. As a consequence he will have to immediately change the policy of his Department of Public Safety, Adult Corrections and Juvenile Justice and let correctional officers require inmates of the opposite sex to expose themselves to the correctional officer or to each other when the officer or the inmate claims a new “gender identity.”
The first sentence of Section 2 of House Bill 142 (SL 2007-4), attached, specifically preempts the “office” of the governor from “regulating access to multiple occupancy restrooms, showers, or changing facilities” except in accordance with an act of the General Assembly. Section IC2 of his Executive Order contradicts this statute.
The Order cites as authority (Section IIIA) and indeed is subject to Article III, Section 5(10) of the Constitution which states that:
“The General Assembly shall prescribe the functions, powers, and duties of the administrative departments and agencies of the State and may alter them from time to time, but the Governor may make such changes in the allocation of offices and agencies and in the allocation of those functions, powers, and duties as he considers necessary for efficient administration. If those changes affect existing law, they shall be set forth in executive orders, which shall be submitted to the General Assembly not later than the sixtieth calendar day of its session.”
The governor did not submit this Executive Order within the first sixty days of a session. If he had, either the Senate or House could have disapproved this order by a simple resolution.[8] This constitutional provision is entitled “10 Administration Reorganization” but captions and titles do not control over the text. This constitutional provision was recently cited in the October 31, 2017 Order of the Three Judge Superior Court in Cooper v Berger. 17 CVS 5084 (Wake).
Section IC3 provides that the entities under the Governor’s jurisdiction shall not “discriminate” on the basis of these “prohibited grounds” in awarding state contracts and state grants. This has the same statutory and constitutional defect as stated above. The rules concerning the awarding of state contracts and state grants are set out in full in GS chapter 143- 48 etseq. Article 3, Purchases and Contracts, and in the Current Appropriation Law, SL 2017-57. The Governor has no authority to unilaterally change criteria set by statute.
In Section IC4 the Governor prohibits the entities under his jurisdiction from adopting policies and regulations “barring, prohibiting, blocking, deterring or impeding any individual who lawfully uses public facilities under their control or supervision and in accordance with an individual’s gender identity.”
Setting aside for the moment the inherent ambiguity in the fluid concept of “gender identity,” this portion of the order violates the constitutional provision stated above and Section 2 of HB 142, SL 2017-4. To understand the constantly changing terms of reference for “gender identity”, see page 12-14 of this memorandum.
Section II of the Executive Order addresses Access to State Services. It elaborates on the preceding and takes it down to sub-grantees. This contains the same constitutional and statutory defects as stated above.
In Section III the Governor addresses “policy development.” The Office of State Human Resources is ordered to adopt internal policies to effectuate the same anti-statutory and unconstitutional provisions stated above. He charges OSHR with adopting measures that would identify what consequences state agencies may impose on grantees and sub-grantees … based upon prohibited grounds, “including grant revocation and exclusion from consideration for future state grants” and to take any additional steps necessary to prevent and stop discrimination.
In his Executive Order, Section V, the Governor addresses counties, municipalities, political subdivision, local government agencies. In subsection 1 the Governor states that, “consistent with existing federal and state law” local governments are free to establish their own policies regarding discrimination. But this is directly contrary to Section 3 of HB 142 SL 2017-4 which prohibits ordinances regulating private employment practices and regulating public accommodations until December 1, 2020. And after that date they are beyond the statutory power of local government, Williams v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of N.C., 357 NC 170 (2003).
In Section V(2) of his Order he encourages private entities to adopt his policies. He is entitled as a citizen to freedom of speech. But he is encouraging actions which in many cases will create a hostile work environment by private entities, violations of the state building code and other laws of the state.
What to do?
The General Assembly should support a legal challenge by a contractor, grantee, sub-grantee or taxpayer either by intervention, amicuscuriae brief or otherwise.
If the contractor has religious objection to compliance with the Executive Order, and if the contract or grant is funded in part with federal funds, then the challenge may include the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 bb etseq. The relevant portions of the United States Attorney General’s Memorandum providing guidance on Federal Law Protections of Religious Liberty are included at pp 6-7. The entire memorandum may be found at https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1001891/download.
—–
[1] In re S.M.S., 196 N.C. App. 170, 675 S.E.2d 44 (2009), held that evidence was sufficient to show that juvenile committed second-degree trespass when he entered girls’ locker room at high school so as to support adjudication of delinquency. The Court noted that a sign marked “Girl’s Locker Room” was reasonably likely to give the boy notice that he was not authorized to go into the girls’ locker room, and that his admission that he violated school rules by entering the girls’ locker room supported a reasonable inference that he knew he was not permitted in the locker room.
[2] § 14-190.9. Indecent exposure details several crimes related to exposure of private parts in both public and private places (with varying elements). A claim brought under this statute may depend on the facts of the case.
[3] 14 202. Secretly peeping into room occupied by another person – prohibits secret peeping into rooms (including bathrooms and restrooms). One of the elements of the crime is that the “peeping” is “secret”, though that term is not defined by statute, so, the facts of the case may determine if the elements of the statute are met.
[4] See also https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/getpdf/2012_NC_Plumbing.pdf – Sec. 403.1 Minimum number of fixtures. In new construction or building additions and in changes of occupancy as defined in the North Carolina Building Code, plumbing fixtures shall be provided for the type of occupancy and in the minimum number shown in Table 403.1. Types of occupancies not shown in Table 403.1 shall be considered individually by the code official. The number of occupants shall be determined by the International Building Code. Occupancy classification shall be determined in accordance with the International Building Code. The Plumbing Code uses the terms male and female and requires that a certain number of toilets be provided for males and a certain number for females, based on the type of facility.
[5] The elements for an employment discrimination claim based on a hostile work environment are 1) unwelcome conduct 2) based on a legally protected characteristic 3) that the conduct was so severe or pervasive it affected the terms of employment. Sex is a legally protected characteristic under Title VII.
[6] GS 115C-407.15, describes types of bullying behavior: “Bullying or harassing behavior includes, but is not limited to, acts reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived differentiating characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, socioeconomic status, academic status, gender identity, physical appearance, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, developmental, or sensory disability, or by association with a person who has or is perceived to have one or more of these characteristics.” G.S. 115C-407.18(f) “(f) Nothing in this act shall be construed to create any classification, protected class, suspect category, or preference beyond those existing in present statute or case law.”
[7] North Carolina is within the Fourth Circuit. Other circuits have split on how to interpret the term “sex” in Title VII and Title IX cases. Until recently, most jurisdictions that reviewed this issue had held that discrimination because of sex means on the basis of being male or female, but does not extend to cover transgender or gender identity status, or to cover sexual orientation.
Some other jurisdictions have applied the analysis first presented by the US Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) to allow claims to be brought on the basis of sex stereotyping, that is, discrimination based on deviation for gender norms for that sex, that would not otherwise be recognized solely on the basis of discrimination because of sex. Some courts have noted, however, that the line between discrimination based on sex stereotyping and discrimination based on other categories not recognized as a basis for a claim, such as sexual orientation, is blurry at best. See Christiansen v. Omnicom Grp., Inc., 2016 WL 951581 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2016).
Although the United States Supreme Court has not recognized claims based on sexual orientation as a protected classification under Title VII, the Court in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) held that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex included discrimination by members of the same sex as well as discrimination by the opposite sex.
Cases from other federal circuits around the country are collected in the Appendix at pages 15-23.
[8] There is limited case law regarding the Governor’s authority to issue executive orders. The November 1, 2017 decision of the Louisiana Court of Appeals (First Circuit) No. 2017 CA 0173 in “The Louisiana Dept of Justice vs. John Bel Edwards, Governor” held that a remarkably similar Executive Order violated separation of powers and was properly enjoined. A copy of that case is attached.
I would like you to help LINDA DEVORE in her bid for election to the North Carolina House of Representatives.
For decades Linda has been a stalwart champion of the principles that we hold dear. She has been very effective. For about 20 years I have relied on her to lead the conservative movement in Fayetteville.
When I ended my 16 years in the House in 2016 I was concerned. Would there be sufficient numbers of committed conservatives to prevail on critical issues? If Linda is there she will be one of them.
Linda’s district is much of Fayetteville down to Hope Mills. If you have friends or relatives there, please forward this to them. Her opponent is Billy Richardson.
Please send her a campaign contribution. All the information that you need from her is attached here.
Best regards,
Paul Stam
P.S. I am sending Linda my own contribution today. If hundreds of us do the same Linda will be in the House of Representatives to help lead the conservative team.
Have you visited www.paulstam.info lately? I have continued to add content to the Articles section. One of the most informative items is 432 pages of transcripts of debates in the General Assembly for 2009-2016. This collection is available online at www.paulstam.info/debate-transcripts. And the 2018 Articles are timely.
RIGHT TO FARM? An Analysis of Senate Bill 711, Section 10
By Paul Stam
June 13, 2018
Section 10 of Senate Bill 711 is a serious and direct threat to the private property rights of homeowners throughout the state.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 incorporates the common law as of 1776 into the law of North Carolina. That common law was stated by Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England:
Also if a person keeps his hogs, or other noisome animals, so near the house of another, that the stench of them incommodes him and makes the air unwholesome, this is an injurious nuisance, as it tends to deprive him of the use and benefit of his house. A like injury is, if one’s neighbor sets up and exercises an offensive trade; as a tanner’s, a tallow-chandler’s, or the like; for though these are lawful and necessary trades, yet they should be exercised in remote places; for the rule is, “sic utere tuo, ut alienum non loedas:” this therefore is an actionable nuisance. So that the nuisances which affect a man’s dwelling may be reduced to these three; 1. Overhanging it; which is also a species of trespass, for cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum: 2. Stopping ancient lights: and 3. Corrupting the air with noisome smells: for light and air are two indispensable requisites to every dwelling. (Blackstone’s Commentaries – Book III, Ch. XIII, *739, emphases added.)
First, the principal effect of the bill, as now written, is to make punitive damages impractical in nuisance cases. In 1995 the Assembly passed tort reform, drastically limiting punitive damages. In recent litigation a jury assessed $50 million in punitive damages against Smithfield. The judge reduced these damages to $2,500,000.
Section 10(b), amending G.S. 106-702 adds (a1) that requires for punitive damages there had to have been a previous conviction or a state civil enforcement action by the Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) within three years prior. But since N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-701(a)(3) requires the nuisance action to be brought within one year of the establishment of the nuisance, this will almost never be the case. Convictions in criminal court or DEQ enforcement actions just do not happen that quickly.
The longstanding purpose of punitive damages is to deter and punish wrongful conduct, primarily when the state does not have the resources or the will to enforce its own laws. Within the last year a different federal court has had to order Smithfield to clean up operations that it had promised to do in 2006. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., No. 4:01-CV-27-H, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198537 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2017), at https://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/words_docs/Murphy_ Brown_hog_farm_order_enforcing_consent_decree.pdf. Since the purpose of punitive damages is deterrence the financial picture of the defendant is relevant. In May 15, 2018, Bloomberg released a report on the highest compensated man in the entire world in 2017. Bruce Einhorn, This Chinese Pork CEO Was Paid More Than Tim Cook or Elon Musk, Bloomberg (May 25, 2018, 12:00 PM), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-15/this-chinese-ceo-got-paid-more-than-tim-cook-or-lloyd-blankfein.
Second, it is imperative that the law protect “accrued” claims for relief rather than only claims for relief “commenced” on or before the effective date. It is settled state constitutional law that accrued claims for relief for compensatory damages (but not punitive damages) are vested property rights and cannot be taken by legislation. Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 258 N.C. 160, 594 S.E.2d 1 (2004) (citing Osborn v. Leach, 135 N.C. 628, 47 SE, 811 (1904)). As a consequence, Section 10(c) is unconstitutional as applied to landowners who already have an accrued nuisance claim (but not yet filed).
Third, one of the oddest provisions is the deletion of subsection (a2) of 106-701 on lines 19-21, and similar language deleted in subsection (d). The effect is that negligent operation of the agricultural operation does not prevent it from claiming the right to farm protections from a nuisance claim of a private owner, nor of a local government.
Fourth, the first, fourth, and fifth whereas clauses are not true and, if passed, will reflect badly on the integrity of the Assembly. They will not have any operative legal effect except to irritate the judges of the Fourth Circuit who will handle appeals.
Fifth, I recommend completely deleting Section 10 as it is a direct attack on the private property rights of hundreds of thousands of North Carolinian property owners. Failing that, amendments are essential.
The basic rights of private property include the land, the air above it and the earth below. No matter how well-intentioned, Section 10 is partially not constitutional and is completely unjust. It is a serious matter when legislation deprives homeowners of their property rights to own and enjoy their homes.
MYTHS and FACTS about the CORPORATE INCOME TAX and Why the Rate Should Be Zero!
June 9, 2018
Paul Stam
INTRODUCTION
On New Year’s Day the corporate income tax rate at the federal level dropped from 35% to 21%. The corporate income tax rate in North Carolina is 3%. It will drop to 2.5% in 2019. As recently as 2011 the North Carolina corporate income tax rate was 6.9%. This article explains the reasons for these reductions. Several of these reasons have been discussed extensively at the national and state level and these reasons are discussed very briefly in section C and D. But there are other important reasons stated in sections A and B.
BACKGROUND
In North Carolina this tax began in 1921 at a rate of 3%[1] and in the United States in 1909 at a 1% rate.[2] In Fiscal Year 2011-12 the corporate income tax was only 6.1% of the N.C. general fund. Despite the significant reductions in the rate over the years, in Fiscal Year 2016-17 the corporate income tax was 3.5% of the N.C. general fund, which is about 1.75% of the total state budget.[3]
Corporations only collect taxes which they then pay on behalf of shareholders. A corporation is an aggregation of individual humans (or other businesses that are aggregations of individual humans) that invest their money for profit.[4] Many, if not most, businesses do not pay corporate income tax at all because they are “pass through” entities like Subchapter S corporations, Limited Liability Companies, partnerships, trusts, or estates. These entities report information to the IRS, but the income is “passed through” to the owners who then pay income tax on the income that is passed through. Forty million American taxpayers report “pass through” income.
MYTHS AND FACTS
A. It is a myth that the corporate income tax, state or federal, is a tax on the wealthy that helps to “Level the Playing Field.” Cutting the corporate income tax rate to zero would put those who invest in these businesses, not in a preferred footing against “pass through” business entities but, almost on an equal footing with those who invest in other businesses. Most businesses in America are “pass through” entities and their profits are taxed once. The corporate income tax is double taxation. The same economic activity is taxed once at the corporate level and then taxed a second time when distributed to shareholders as dividends.
Consider a taxpayer before 2017 tax reform at the federal level and before 2011-2017 tax reform at the state level. Compare two investors in different income brackets for 2011 and 2019.[5]
In 2011 a wealthy North Carolina taxpayer whose economic investment in a corporation earned $1000 would have paid or accrued a combined tax of over $600 on those earnings. In 2018 that will drop to about $500.
In 2011 a working poor North Carolina taxpayer whose investment in her retirement fund earned $1000 would have paid or accrued a combined tax of $350. In 2018 that will drop to about $200.[6]
Whether you are rich or poor, earnings from a corporate investment are taxed to the individual human at a higher, not lower, rate.
B. It is a Myth that Wealthy People are the Ones Who Bear the Incidence of the Corporate Income Tax. The effect of the corporate income tax is not even predominately on the wealthy. Those opposing reductions in rate argue that the tax paid by a large corporation is a tax on wealthy individuals. For several reasons this is not true:
First, a reduction in the rate is partially a reduction in the price of goods and services to those who consume them. If I bought a cheeseburger in 2011 for $5.00, say 35 cents of that is used to pay the federal corporate income tax and about 7 cents to pay the North Carolina corporate income tax for a total of 42 cents per cheeseburger at the previous higher rates. Under the new rates the share of that 2018 cheeseburger for federal corporate income tax is say 21 cents and 3 cents at the state level for a total of 24 cents. It does not matter whether the person who eats that cheeseburger is rich or poor. It is the same tax embedded in each cheeseburger. That is an extremely regressive tax. It is also a tax that is hidden from the burger buyer. The 18 cent reduction in that hidden tax on each cheeseburger means more to the poor than to the rich.
Second, to the extent that there is a competitive market for labor (which is now the case) wages and other compensation can rise faster to the extent that the corporate income tax is reduced. Immediately after tax reform passed Congress, several major corporations announced bonuses or other significant benefits for employees: Bank of America, Comcast, AT&T, Boeing, Fifth Third Bank, BB&T, PNC and Wells Fargo, each crediting the tax reform bill. A new OECD study found that between thirty percent (30%) and seventy percent (70%) of the corporate income tax is effectively paid by workers.[7]
Most public utilities are provided by privately owned, regulated utilities that pay corporate income tax. The North Carolina Utility Commission has required lower utilities rates for consumers as a consequence of tax reform. Lower utility bills for electricity, water, and sewer mean more to the poor than to the rich.
Third, a part of the effect of a corporate income tax rate reduction is on the distribution of net profits. Some of that net profit of the corporation does go to the wealthy. If the corporate income tax rate is reduced, then, all other things being equal, dividends will increase. Half of American households are invested in mutual funds, retirement funds, or otherwise in the stock market. The largest corporations have millions of shareholders, both rich and poor. Dividends ultimately are taxed at the individual’s own tax rate, a high rate for the wealthy, and a low (or even zero) rate for the working poor.[8]The corporate income tax is not a progressive tax. It is a regressive “add on” tax to the progressive individual income tax rates.
C. Competitiveness. Effective January 1, 2018, the nominal federal corporate income tax rate went from 35% to 21%. 35% was the highest in the industrialized world; 21% is in the middle of the pack. Opponents of reductions often state that the nominal rate is not the same as the effective rate. True, but irrelevant. See Section D.
Money flows easily across national and state borders. While the United States has many inherent competitive advantages, its extremely high corporate income tax rate was a major impediment to investment here. Many Americans were prompted to invest overseas and investors from abroad were discouraged from investing here.
Similarly, when North Carolina’s corporate income tax rate was 6.9% in 2011 its rate was the highest of all our bordering states. North Carolina’s rate of 2.5% in 2019 is the lowest in the nation (of the states that impose a corporate income tax). This change has been a major competitive advantage for North Carolina for economic development and is one of the reasons why North Carolina ranks at the top in national business rankings (e.g., # 1 by Forbes and Site Selection magazine) and near the top in tax rankings. As the National Tax Foundation stated in its introduction to the 2017 State Business Tax Climate Index:
North Carolina continues to phase in reforms from its successful 2013 effort. The corporate income tax was further reduced this year, raising the state to 4th on its corporate tax component ranking. North Carolina now ranks 11th overall, an astonishing improvement from 41st just three years ago.[9]
The Tax Foundation also cited a study to the effect that “a state’s corporate tax rate is the most relevant tax in the investment decisions of foreign investors.”[10] As of April 15, 2015, six states had no corporate income tax: Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.
D. Targeted Tax Incentives. The incessant competition of big firms with each other and with state governments to receive special treatment on their tax bills impose significant costs on the economy. I have written on that extensively at www.paulstam.info (see Articles for 2005). To the extent that the corporate income tax rate is very low or zero then targeted tax expenditures are less costly and less of a distortion to the economy in the making of business decisions.[11]
While reducing the corporate income tax rate, the reforms at the federal and state level also eliminated many unjustified deductions, credits and exemptions that made the nominal corporate income tax rate so high, complicated, unfair, and rife with political gamesmanship.
Much of the rhetoric at the federal and state level attacking these reforms mentions the elimination of a deduction, credit or exemption without mentioning, in the same sentence, paragraph, or article, that the taxpayer also pays at a much lower rate. This sophomoric rhetorical device is unfair and deceptive.
CONCLUSION
The corporate income tax rate should be zero. Elimination of this tax or reductions in its rate do not favor the wealthy over the poor. Lowering the rate, while eliminating some deductions, credits, and exemptions, helps the economy by reducing distortions and improving the economic competitiveness of the State and nation.
Questions, challenges and nuances arise after Kirby v. NC DOT, 368 NC 847 (2016) construing the Map Act, Article 2E of Chapter 136. While the Map Act had the goal of reducing excessive cost of land acquisition for future highway projects, it ran afoul of fundamental constitutional rights.
I address some of these issues in my recent article, which was published by the Real Property Section of the North Carolina Bar Association. The full article is available at: https://ncbar.org/media/858286/rpmay2018map.pdf.
This story begins and ends in Mongolia, a landlocked country between Russia and China. One third of its people are nomads. Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan exploded out of Mongolia several centuries ago.
In 1921 the USSR was on the march. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics absorbed Mongolia into its political orbit, imposing its political and religious ideology, Communism and atheism, upon Mongolia. In consequence Mongolia severely persecuted all religious activity, burned monasteries, killed monks and ended the open practice of the Buddhist religion in Mongolia. For millennia Mongolia had been a Buddhist society (along with occultic shamanism). Even though Mongolia and Tibet are separated by thousands of miles of the mountains and deserts of western China, the Mongolian variety of Buddhism is the same as the Tibetan variety – Vajrayana Buddhism, sometimes called Lamaism.
Buddhist monks of Mongolia who were not killed fled. Many of them went to Tibet, which is southwest of China and just north of India, Nepal, and Bhutan. For more than a thousand years the Dalai Lama has been the spiritual and temporal leader of Tibet. The Panchen Lama wielded some political power, including a role in selecting the next Dalai Lama. When the Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama died his associates would select a child to be trained as the new Lama and would declare that he was a reincarnation of the previous one.
The current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is the 14th Dalai Lama. He was vested with full powers as head of state in 1950 at the age of 15. The center of power was at the Potala Palace in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet.
Chinese Communists, led by Mao, won their civil war against the Kuomintang (Nationalists) and proclaimed the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on October 1, 1950 at Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Chinese Communists (CCCP) were aggressively atheistic and wanted to stamp out all “superstitious” religion, along with the “landlord” class and anyone else who stood in their way. About 30 million Chinese were killed by the Communist Party and government from 1950 through 1975 under pogroms, purges and government-induced famine.
The Chinese Communist also aggressively asserted rights to all the lands around the core of the PRC: Xinjiang, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and especially Tibet. In 1950 the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) invaded Tibet, asserting that Tibet always had been a part of China and demanding subservience. Tibet had been an independent sovereign state from 1912-1950 but was overwhelmed by the PLA. Persecution of Tibetans was intense and immediate, especially of Buddhist monks. 6,000 monasteries were destroyed. From 1950-1980 about one million Tibetans lost their lives to the Chinese and about 100,000 escaped over the Himalayas to northern India.
The Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama continued to function in Tibet until 1959. Persecution became so intense that the Dalai Lama and many of his followers fled at night over the Himalayas to Dharamshala, the location of the Central Tibet Administration, the Dalai Lama’s government in exile. Refugees from Tibet to India in 1959 included Buddhist monks who had previously fled from Mongolia to Tibet in 1921.
China and India have had violent border wars several times in the Himalayas. One of the grievances of the Chinese government is that India harbors the Dalai Lama and his “government in exile”, which claims autonomous rights for Tibetans, especially in matters of religion. In 1989 the Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. Let’s leave the geopolitical story there for a while. We will come back to it later.
In 1925 Ruth Lois Stam was born to Harry and Alma Stam. Three brothers were Paul Jacob Stam, Jonathan Stam, and James Cornelius Stam, and a sister, Rachel, who died as a child. Ruth’s parents were missionaries with the Africa Inland Mission at Rethy in the northeastern corner of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then the Belgian Congo). They spent 40 years in that area evangelizing and spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ruth knew that her uncle and aunt, John and Betty Stam, had served in Anhui, China until 1934. She knew the need for Christian missions in China and set her heart on following that call. To complete her education she attended Wheaton College (Illinois) from 1943 to 1947. By the time she graduated from Wheaton, Christian missionaries were being expelled from Mainland China. Those who were not expelled were severely persecuted. She decided to minister to some of the refugees from China so that they could bring the gospel back to China.
Ruth Lois Stam served with TEAM, The Evangelical Alliance Mission, in northern India to work with Tibetan refugees. Her particular assignment was to help the refugees at Dharamshala get a good education, and a Christian education in particular. She was able to have some of her students admitted to universities in Europe and America. She maintained friendship and communication with them for decades. One of her students was the sister of the Dalai Lama. For a time this sister lived with Ruth Lois. Ruth Lois was a friend of the Dalai Lama and talked often with him about the education of Tibetan children.
Ruth Lois Stam had been in India for 23 years and was still single. Because of the political sensitivity of the government of India to the status of the Dalai Lama and his government in exile, and because of the sensitivity of the Indian government to American missionaries, the security services monitored Ruth’s activities. One investigator was Sam Thiagarajan, a Christian man from the city of Bangalore in South India. The legend is that the apostle, Thomas, had traveled to South India and founded the Church of South India. Today that church has approximately 2 million members. The population of India is 1.3 billion and the Christian population of India is about 6 percent (74 percent is Hindu and about 15 percent Muslim).
Sam Thiagarajan had several adult sons and was a widower. Sam told Ruth that he had investigated her for a long time and that he liked what he saw. He proposed marriage. Shortly after their marriage they emigrated to New York City. They worked for ISI (International Students Inc.), a Christian missionary organization for college students. Ruth and Sam’s assignment was evangelization of Buddhist and Hindu students in New York City.
Back to the geopolitical situation: In 1989 the Berlin wall fell. The dissolution of the 16 republics of the USSR followed quickly. By 1990 Mongolia had been freed from domination by the USSR and was relatively open. In 1989 there had been only four known Christian believers in Mongolia. All other Mongolians were either Buddhist, shamanist, atheist, or a few Muslims. One day Ruth received a call from one of the students whom she had placed decades earlier in a university. She was the daughter of one of the Buddhist monks who had fled from Mongolia to Tibet in 1919 and had then fled again in 1959 from Lhasa to Dharamshala, India. Her former student invited Ruth and Sam to come with her to Mongolia. Ruth and Sam spent several summers in Mongolia. They took the “Jesus Film” with them. The “Jesus Film” has been translated into 1500 languages and is almost verbatim the book of Luke.
The capital city of Mongolia is Ulan Bator. Half of all Mongolians live there. A large part of the country is the Gobi Desert. There are no other large cities. Nomads roam the rest of Mongolia carrying their “yurts” (tents) on horseback. Ruth and Sam followed the nomads with their film. I do not know the result of their individual work. The latest version of Operation World estimates forty-six thousand Christians now in Mongolia with 200 churches in Ulan Bator and tiny groups of believers in every province. The Jesus film is widely used.
God took the preparation of a girl who grew up in the Congo, redirected her vision for China, and her ministry in India, to the people of Tibet. Along with a Christian man whose lineage in the faith dated back two thousand years. Ruth and Sam helped to evangelize Mongolia, then one of the least Christian nations on earth. Ruth and Sam are not listed in any book of heroes, but should be.
Please advise the author of corrections or additions
All errors of fact are my own. Thanks to Ruth Stam Stevens, Mary Stam and Doris Perry Stam for reading this and correcting some of my errors. Other sources include:
Enforcement of the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (HB2) S.L.2016-3
I have received inquiries about enforcement of Part I of this law. These inquiries echo media and pundits who completely misunderstand and claim that the law is unenforceable.
Most new laws do not contain within themselves their own enforcement provisions. If they did, the General Statutes would require twice as many volumes on the shelf. Confusion would reign. New laws typically integrate change into existing enforcement provisions.
Federal District Judge Thomas Schroeder rejected the argument of the President of the UNC system, Margaret Spellings, that UNC would not enforce HB2 because it had no enforcement provisions. Judge Schroeder cited four different enforcement mechanisms. (1) second-degree trespass, GS 14 – 159.13. In the case of SMS 196 N.C. App 170 (2009) the Court of Appeals held that a 15 year old boy in the girls locker room was properly adjudicated of second-degree trespass. The label on the door was sufficient notice to him that he should not be there. This is undercut in some school systems by principals (and chancellors) who give permission to students to violate the law. It is probably a good defense to trespass if the person in charge of a facility authorizes a trespass. Judge Schroeder referred to this as “openly defying the law.” (2) the indecent exposure statute, GS 14-190.9(a); (3) the peeping statute GS 14 – 202(a)(d) and (4) university discipline of students who violate federal, state or local law.
In addition to these four enforcement mechanisms which Judge Schroeder mentioned, there are two others: (5) The state building code requires separate restroom facilities for each sex 2012 NC Building Code 101.2 (Intl Code Council, Inc 3d prtg 2014.) (6) I contend that under Title VII it would create a “hostile work environment” for an employer to maintain restroom or locker room facilities that are not differentiated by biological sex. That would be enforced by a claim for damages in civil court.
Representative Paul Stam
Speaker Pro Tempore
919-362-8873
This online publication is unlike any you have ever seen. It consists of transcripts of many of the debates in the North Carolina House of Representatives from 2009-2016. Some debates in the Senate and some debates in committees are included. I have prefaced each section with my comments for context.
I enjoy primary sources. When an historian or analyst tells me what somebody said, I am not as convinced unless I can actually read or hear the words.
Aside from the public interest in the subjects of these debates there is also a bit of legislative history here from which lawyers might argue legislative intent. For rules on how legislative debate is used in law you might want to see pages 5 – 9 of a law review I authored, 28 Issues in Law and Medicine 3 (2012), entitled “Woman’s Right to Know Act: A Legislative History” and an article that I co-authored with Amy O’Neal entitled “The 2011 Tribal-State Gaming Compact: A 2012 North Carolina Legislative History,” 6 Charlotte Law Review 17 at 20-27 (2015).
It is no surprise that my own debates are featured in this collection and that House debates predominate. Beginning in 2009 House floor debates have been archived electronically on the Internet at www.ncleg.net. For House floor debates we provide links to the audio. Senate debates are recorded but they are not archived on the Internet. House Committee debates are recorded but they are not on the Internet and the recordings are usually discarded after the minutes have been prepared.
These debates cover the waterfront: Budgets, Incentives, Property Rights, Criminal Procedure and the Death Penalty. They include extensive debates on each of the pro-life bills that have been passed since 2011. Since there are always threats to sue over every pro-life measure, see this articlefor the legal end result on each. I also include parts of the debates on the marriage amendment, SB 2 (magistrate recusal) and HB 2 Privacy and Security Act of 2016.
Opponents of legislation will often say there was little or no debate or that there was no separate vote. In the Opportunity Scholarships litigation, opponents told the Superior Court there had been little debate and no separate recorded votes. The full transcripts of those 2013 debates were ninety-eight pages with four separate recorded votes–two in committee and two on the floor–on the precise issue of Opportunity Scholarships.
Grammar: I did not realize until beginning this project how different grammar and syntax are for oral speeches than when the same thought is written. Few members speak from a written text. After a sentence is begun we often change our mind as to where it is headed. Those sentences are difficult to diagram. I have made grammatical corrections so that the transcripts will be clear and so that those who taught us English in “grammar school” will not be ashamed. These “corrections” have not changed the meaning. Check the audio.
Enjoy,
Rep. Paul Stam
North Carolina House of Representatives
Speaker Pro Tem, 2013-2016
House Republican Leader, 2007-2012
Member 1989-90 and 2003-2016
Last week CoStar Group announced that it chose to locate a 730-job expansion in Richmond, VA instead of Charlotte, NC. The Charlotte Observer reported on October 28th that the incentives package for Virginia totaled $10.6 million, while North Carolina’s was $9.7 million. CoStar CEO Andrew Florance was quoted in the Washington Postas saying that HB 2 was “more controversy than we want to engage in right now.”
Published articles imply that CoStar’s decision was made primarily because of HB 2. For whatever role HB 2 played in the decision against Charlotte, we offer the following comparison between Charlotte, NC and Richmond, VA. The company has chosen a venue where the actual laws relating to discrimination are no more “protective” of LGBT rights than those currently in effect in Charlotte.
Left-wing groups claim that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are also discriminatory for legalizing denial of service. Remember Indiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. We do not agree that this claim has any validity. We note that North Carolina has no Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Virginia does: Virginia Code Ann. § 57-2.02 (2009).
For the reasons stated under Legends #5 and #6 of Legends vs. the Truth about HB2, we do not agree that “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” are reasonable categories for special legal rights. But for discussion purposes we offer this comparison of anti-discrimination laws in Charlotte, NC and Richmond, VA.
“The Breathtaking Hypocrisy of the NCAA” was distributed on September 13th, before the NCAA (and ACC) chose alternative locations for championships. In several cases the boycott of North Carolina resulted in the relocation of championships from Greensboro, NC to other venues where the actual laws relating to discrimination are the same, virtually the same, or even less “protective” of LGBT rights than those in effect in Greensboro. This demonstrates why these sports organizations’ boycotts will have to take on much of the nation.
Left-wing groups claim that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are discriminatory for legalizing denial of service. Remember Indiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. We do not agree that this claim has any validity. But for the NCAA and ACC we note that North Carolina has no Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Both South Carolina and Virginia do: South Carolina Code Ann. § 1-32-40 (1999) & Virginia Code Ann. § 57-2.02 (2009).
The policies of North Carolina are reasonable. Boycotts by the NCAA and the ACC are harmful to athletes (especially women) as was shown in the original “Breathtaking Hypocrisy” article.
The City of Greensboro has now lost several tournaments. As shown in these charts, Greensboro has provisions for non-discrimination in government employment at the state, county and city level that include the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity. These policies are expressly not preempted by HB2. House Bill 2, Section 3.1(c) amended G.S. 143-422.2 to preempt local requirements on employers “except such regulations applicable to personnel employed by that body that are not otherwise in conflict with State law.”
In conclusion: The boycott of North Carolina by the NCAA and the ACC is:
Planned Parenthood recently posted this video on YouTube ominously claiming that the Governor is stockpiling women’s sonograms in his filing cabinet in Raleigh. The claim is nonsense. See this advisory for the actual facts about the reporting requirements in House Bill 465, “Women and Children’s Protection Act of 2015.”
On Tuesday, September 27th I received a very special package in the mail containing my new North Carolina “Choose Life” license plate! It is now proudly displayed on my car. I want to express special thanks to Rep. Mitch Gillespie whose tireless work for so many years made this possible. Planned Parenthood fought it for five years in the courts.
If you would like to get your plate, an application is now available from DMV online. Just search for “Choose Life.” $15 of the fee goes to support Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship (CPC). Last year CPC distributed money to 28 different pregnancy support centers around the state and will continue to do so. The new revenue from license plate sales may be used for counseling and other services that meet the physical needs of pregnant women.
Thank you for your support for pregnant women and unborn children in North Carolina!
Citing a commitment to “fairness and inclusion,” the NCAA announced September 12 that it will move seven championship events out of North Carolina during the 2016-17 school year. The hypocrisy of the NCAA’s “commitment” is breathtaking. The organization selectively boycotts North Carolina for policies it claims are unique to our state-but actually are common throughout the nation-and for daring to disagree with a sweeping federal mandate by the Obama Administration-a mandate that is currently being challenged in court by 24 other states. The NCAA is in violation itself of the civil rights provision of Title IX as interpreted by the Obama Administration. See this analysis for a good look at the facts…
Teacher compensation packages are a combination of a teacher’s state salary, benefits and local supplements (where applicable). Check out this detailed analysisof teacher compensation in 39 counties across the state.
SL 2011-60: Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen’s Law: Creates criminal offenses for acts committed against pregnant women without consent that cause the death or injury of an unborn child. NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT.
SL 2011-145: Appropriations Act of 2011, Sec. 29.23(a)-(c): Limits state abortion funding in the state health plan. No state funded abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Previously funding was only limited for welfare abortions on a year-to-year basis. NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT.
SL 2011-392: Authorize Various Special Plates (Choose Life): Division of Motor Vehicles to issue “Choose Life” plates. The money raised will go to Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship. The injunction has been dissolved and license plates are now available online through NC DMV. CHALLENGED IN COURT BUT UPHELD.
SL 2011-405: Woman’s Right to Know: Requires a 24 hour (now 72 hour) waiting period and the informed consent of a pregnant woman before an abortion may be performed. CHALLENGED IN COURT. LOST ONE SECTION CONCERNING ULTRASOUND. THE REMAINDER OF THE LAW WAS CHALLENGED BUT UPHELD.
SL 2013-307: Health Curriculum/Preterm Birth: Requires instruction in school health education on preventable causes, including induced abortion, of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies. NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT.
SL 2013-360: Appropriations Act of 2013, Sec. 12J.1.(a): Maternal and child health block grants provides $250,000 to the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship (Sec. 12J.1.(a)). Increased to $300,000 in 2014 and continued through 2016-17. NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT
SL 2013-366: Health and Safety Law Changes: Limits abortion coverage to rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother under the federal health benefit exchange or insurance offered by a county or city. Prohibits sex selection abortions. The Department of Health and Human Services is directed to amend rules pertaining to abortion clinics. Prohibits abortions if a doctor is not present. Conscience Protection extended to all health care providers, not just doctors and nurses. NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT
SL 2015-62: Women and Children’s Protection Act of 2015: Changes the 24 hour waiting period to 72 hours for informed consent before an abortion. Protects health care providers who object on moral, ethical or religious grounds in situations not covered in 2013. Increases statistical reporting requirements to the Department of Health and Human Services and enhances clinic standards and inspections. Abortionists must be an OB-GYN or equivalent. Tightens standards for post 20 week abortions. 20-WEEK PROVISION HAS BEEN CHALLENEGED IN COURT. CASE WAS FILED NOV. 30, 2016. (BRYANT ET AL. V. WOODALL ET AL.)
SL 2015-265: Disposition of Unborn Childrens’ Remains: Prohibits the sale of the remains of an unborn child resulting from an induced abortion. In the case of a miscarriage, the mother may donate the remains for research. NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT
In addition to these laws passed since Republicans took a majority of both the House and Senate, the courts upheld two other pro-life laws enacted when Republicans had a majority only in the House in 1995:
In Rosie J. v. N.C. Department of Human Resources, 347 N.C. 247, 491 S.E.2d 535 (1997), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that there was no state constitutional right to state funded abortions. In 1995, the General Assembly restricted eligibility for the state abortion fund to cases where the pregnancy resulted from “cases of rape or incest, or to terminate pregnancies that, in the written opinion of one doctor licensed to practice medicine in North Carolina, endanger the life of the mother.”
In Manning v. Hunt, 119 F.3d 254 (4th 1997), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the position of that State and the amicus brief submitted by Stam & Danchi PLLC, for North Carolina Right to Life in support of North Carolina’s Parental Consent law.
CONCLUSION:
Eleven significant Laws.
Five court challenges.
One partial loss in the ultrasound section of one law. The ultrasound provision not allowed in North Carolina is almost identical to the Texas Law upheld by the federal courts and in effect since 2011.
One case just filed that challenges a single provision of the 2015 legislation.
Prayers in the North Carolina House of Representatives – 2015 to 2016
This link takes you to the collected prayers offered in the North Carolina House during the 2015-2016 biennium. The impetus for this project was not spiritual but legal. With the legal reasons for this collection no longer relevant I share them with you as a review of the heartfelt prayers of my colleagues in the North Carolina House. I hope you enjoy them.
Rep. Stam recently spoke on Voter ID laws at the Annual American Bar Association Meeting in San Francisco, CA on Saturday, August 6th, 2016. Below is a glimpse of some of the information he provided during his talk.
A recent poll (April 19, 2016) out of Elon University confirms that North Carolinians “overwhelmingly support” voter ID legislation- 75% support voter ID provisions and 80% think it is fair. The breakdown reveals that 89% of white voters and 68% of African-American voters support voter photo ID while 96% Republicans, 86% unaffiliated voters and 73% Democrats support voter photo ID. Here is the link for the full article and polling data.
RACIAL POLARIZATION
Racial polarization means “a consistent relationship between [the] race of the voter and the way in which the voter votes, or to put it differently, where black voters and white voters vote differently.” United States v. Charleston County, 318 F. Supp. 2d 302, 308 (D.S.C. 2002).
A state cannot have racially polarizing laws if by those laws, minority candidates receive more than 50% of the votes.
In 2006, Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson was elected to the state Supreme Court over a former judge and white male candidate, Eric Levinson. Each candidate was equally qualified.
In 2012, NC Court of Appeals Judge Wanda Bryant, a female African American, won by 56.5% over a white male candidate, Marty McGee. Each candidate was well qualified.
In 2012, Linda Coleman, a female African-American candidate for Lieutenant Governor received 49.92% of the votes. Although she did not win, it was statistically tied.
In 2014, NC Court of Appeals Judge Cheri Beasley, a female African American, won a seat on the State Supreme Court by 5,410 more votes than a white male candidate, Mike Robinson. Each candidate was well qualified.
This bill provides a means of identification for all voters parallel to that required of some voters by the Federal Help America Vote Act; to require voters to sign before voting at the polls and at early voting sites; and otherwise to bring North Carolina into compliance with the Help America Vote Act.
This 2011 bill passed each chamber, but was vetoed by Democrat Governor Perdue. It would have required all eligible voters to present a photo ID before voting. The House failed to override the veto.
This bill, filled by Republican Senators, would have amended G. S. 163-227.2, providing that one-stop voting occur no earlier than the second Thursday (currently, the third Thursday) before the election. Clarifies that a county board of elections may not conduct one-stop voting on any Sunday. Clarifies that a county board of elections may provide for one or more locations offering one-stop voting in the county, provided all sites other than the county board of elections office are open at the same time for voting. Also prohibits the State Board of Elections from approving a plan that provides for one-stop voting sites to be open at different times. Repeals GS 163-82.6A, which allows in-person registration and voting at one-stop sites, and makes conforming changes to various provisions in GS Chapter 163.
This bill, filed by Republican Senators on March 26, 2013, would have repealed in person registration and voting at one-stop sites and established that no earlier than the second Thursday before an election can a person appear in person to request and file an absentee ballot (the current law was no earlier than the third Thursday).
Enacts new GS 163-166.13 providing that a legally registered voter may certify his or her identity by one of two methods: (1) by signing a voter photo affidavit or by (2) presenting proper photo identification. Proposed subsection (b) provides that a voter photo affidavit is a photograph taken by a designated election official that is signed by the voter to affirm that the voter is in fact the registered voter in whose name the ballot is requested.
