Have You Actually Read North Carolina’s Controversial Bathroom Law? Before You Get Mad, You Should

I’ve never heard so much talk about transgendered people in all my life. Although people say that we don’t know the actual number of transgendered people in American, generally the number is estimated at 700,000, or 0.3% of the US population. Like most Americans, I have met very few transgendered people in my life.

Lately everyone is talking about them because of bathrooms. Or, more to the point, which bathroom someone who has body parts of one sex should use if they identify as a member of the opposite sex. Things seem to have come to a head with North Carolina’s HB2 law. This law has caused businesses to pull out of the state. A few musicians are cancelling their concerts there. At least one movie won’t be released in North Carolina. And now presidential candidates are taking sides.

Depending on who you ask, the law is one of two things: It’s either a simple bill that prevents people born of one gender from being able to use the bathroom of another gender, or its a nefarious plot to stop all anti discrimination laws in the state and foster an environment of discrimination for LGBT people. There are lots of article on both sides. The right sees NC as a champion of conservative values. The left sees the law as a direct attack on LGBT people. There are a lot of opinions floating around out there.

But not a lot of people have actually read the law. Here’s a link to the text of the law. It’s 5 pages. If you’re concerned, you should read it.

Here’s the break down:

Title: Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act
Preamble: Says they have the authority and responsibility to enact laws like this.
Part 1: Describes in detail who can and cannot go into bathrooms and locker rooms.
Part 2: Some pork that doesn’t have much to do with the subject. Basically, the state government says they regulate labor in the state, and their rules supersede any local ones.
Part 3: I think this is the one that gives opponents the most concern. NC says that the state level discrimination laws supercede any and all laws at the local level. Ordinances and laws imposed in a city cannot be in conflict with NC state law. Goes on to reiterate ideas in Part 1 and lays out who will deal with complaints.
Part 4 & 5: Severability and date of enforcement.

That’s it.

So, some history. Charlotte’s city council had voted to approve a transgender bathroom ordinance. The state government quickly adopted HB2 to stop that ordinance from going into effect, and say that the state government has authority over these laws.

No hidden agenda. Just making it impossible for Charlotte or any NC city to pass laws allowing people who are biologically one sex into bathrooms or locker rooms for the opposite sex. And saying that this sort of decision is one that should be made at the state level.

The left says it’s discriminating against transgendered people. The right says it’s protecting people from those who would abuse the system. The left says that’s crazy, what’s the chances of that actually happening?

There’s actually a better even chance that the man in my daughter’s bathroom is a sex offender, not transgendered.

Remember, there are 700,000 transgendered people in America. As of 2015, there were over 843,000 registered sex offenders in the US. Just like LGBT people, there are many sex offenders we don’t know about. (No, I’m not equating being gay with being a sex offender, just acknowledging that there are people who belong to both groups but are not represented in these numbers.) From what we do know, there are more sex offenders than transgendered people. It’s actually more likely that the man in the women’s bathroom is a criminal than a man identifying as a woman. Because the number both groups is so small, it’s also not very likely anyone in my family will ever see someone of the opposite sex in their bathroom.

Which brings us to Part 3. The state government supersedes all local authority on this issue.

I know, right? How dare the state government believe it has authority over cities inside the state? And that laws it passes should take precedence over local ordinances?

I remember a few months ago something similar, on a federal level. An event where a federal branch of government enacted a law that superseded all state level laws. And now same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. Of course the difference here is that the NC legislature is actually tasked with writing laws, while the US Supreme Court is not.

But fret not, members of the Left. There are avenues you can travel toward righting what you consider a terrible wrong. Unlike the “law” created by the Supreme Court regarding marriage, the people of North Carolina have a recourse to change HB2, if they wish to. They can vote out their officials and vote in people who will repeal it. If the people of NC want anti discrimination laws related to sexual identity and behavior, they can elect people who will pass those laws at the state level.

That’s how representative government works.

Mass Shootings Don’t Justify Gun Control

Although I shouldn’t need to, I will define mass shooting. It’s not- like some would have us believe- when 4 or more people are wounded or killed in a gun crime. It’s when one person attacks a group of people with the intent to kill as many people as possible. (If gun control advocates want to use general gun crime as a reason to push their agenda, they can. But don’t broaden the definition of mass shooting to artificially raise the number of incidents.)

Every time we see a new mass shooting in the news, the same thing always happens. People who support gun control jump up and down begging for more laws and restrictions while pointing to the mass shooting as an indication of the need for these new restrictions. But no new gun law will ever stop a mass shooting.

Mass shootings are not crimes of passion. They are committed by people who have decided to break a lot of laws. They are planned. And then executed. Anyone who already plans to murder people will not blink at breaking laws about gun acquisition, or any other gun restriction. No gun law will ever stop a criminal from getting and using a gun to commit crimes.

They are criminals. They break laws.

OK, sure, we could limit access to guns for a lot of people, and that might slow the mass murderer down. He or she might have to work a bit harder to get the weapon they plan to use to slaughter defenseless people. But they will find a gun, no matter what the laws says. So yes, we could  restrict the rights of law abiding citizens in order to hopefully slow down criminals. Yet, unless we can un-invent guns, we can’t stop criminals from getting them.

Guns exist. That genie is out of the bottle, that egg shell has cracked. There is no going back. Look at any country that has made guns illegal. Gun crime still exists. How? Guns were not just restricted, but completely illegal? Criminals break laws. Prohibition doesn’t work.

I’m not unreasonable. I am willing to accept reasonable back ground checks. For example, violent felons should not have the freedom to own handguns. They gave that up when they committed a crime. Assuming due process, I’m am willing to agree to reasonable background checks.

But as a law abiding American citizen, I’m not willing to give up my right to own a firearm, if I so choose. Whether I use it to hunt, or protect my family in my home, for target shooting, or any other legal way I choose to bear arms; that is my right.

The rights of US citizens should not be infringed because criminals might commit crimes. Any proposed gun restriction that is in place or might ever be put in place, whether by actual law or executive order, will never stop someone who has already decided to break the law. No new gun restriction will ever stop a mass shooting.


Pro Life Review of 5 Common Abortion Arguments

This is a series on some of the arguments for legalized abortion from a pro life view point:

Abortion Argument 1: If abortions are illegal, we will have women dying from back alley abortions.

Abortion Argument 2: If you are so Pro Life, why don’t you care about the kids who are born into families who don’t want them?

Abortion Argument 3: It’s my body, my choice! The life of the mother is more important than the potential life of a fetus.

Abortion Argument 4: It’s not really a child. It’s not human yet, just a bunch of cells/tissue.

Abortion Argument 5: If you defund/close down Planned Parenthood, where will women get health services?

The 5th one is not specifically about abortion, but it is an issue that has been in the news lately. If you believe that human life has intrinsic value, and it begins at conception, then all of these arguments fall flat when examined from a pro life viewpoint.