- [Kelly] State Republican legislative leaders say they have a deal on abortion restrictions as lawmakers pass dozens of bills to meet a legislative deadline.

This is State Lines.

- [Narrator] Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting PBS NC.

[glorious music] ♪ - Welcome to State Lines.

I'm Kelly McCullen.

On this week's panel, we welcome back Donna King, editor-in-chief of the Carolina Journal.

Hi, Donna!

- Hi!

Political analyst and good friend of public media Joe Stewart, Granville and Wake County Senator Mary Wills Bode, and Axios Raleigh reporter, Lucille Sherman.

Thank you so much for coming on, busy week.

Admittedly off camera, we were talking about what a heavy week it is.

Big topics being debated and passed.

Legislation being passed.

House and Senate have passed a bill this week that scales back deadlines for receiving many types of abortions.

While boosting funding from maternal healthcare, childcare access, and foster care services, the legislation will stop elective abortions after 12 weeks.

That would be down from the current 20 weeks on the state books presently.

In cases of rape or incest, the abortion deadline would extend to 20 weeks.

If late pregnancy scans reveal genetic abnormalities that could affect viability, abortions would be authorized up to 24 weeks.

And the legislation would allow emergency abortions to save a woman's life, would always be allowed.

And that is a very simplistic explanation, Lucille.

Tell us about this legislation and the tone at the general assembly this week in regard to him.

- It's been really heavy.

It was sort of really intense right off the bat.

I felt like the bill was introduced earlier in the week in committee, and we sort of got a taste of it in a press conference earlier in the week as well.

And I think what's so interesting is this bill has so much in it, 46 pages.

It has everything from increased criminal penalties to assault on a pregnant woman.

It has provisions about safe sleep, it has infant surrender, that kind of thing.

So, we're talking about a really sweeping bill that has a lot in it that I think it's hard to even scratch the surface whenever I'm reporting on it.

- Donna, we'll come to you now on this.

Most topics we talk about in one swoop.

This bill is almost a tale of two pieces of legislation.

So, your take on the legislation focusing on the abortion piece and the deadlines being scaled back or the ban, as people will say, being placed at 12 weeks.

- Sure, sure.

So 12 weeks is the first trimester.

So, this would ban abortion until, after, before the first trimester with exceptions of course for rape and incest.

And then of course it also extends that window to 24 weeks for life-limiting what they call life-limiting abnormalities of the fetus.

So, you know, one of the things that this issue has been coming for a long time, there's a big piece of the Republican caucus who wanted to make it zero.

There was a big piece of some of the members that wanted to make no restrictions at all to even extend the 20 weeks.

So I think that those who got together and put this together, and they've been working on it for months, they said, "okay, we're calling this a compromise."

It was a PCS, a replacement for the Safe Surrender of Infants Act.

And it brought in so many different pieces of legislation just like Lucille was saying, it's, you know, 42 pages.

That was one of the objections that you saw around the room in that 2-hour initial hearing in that joint rules committee.

But passions were running really high.

You saw a lot of debate, a lot of argument.

And in the end, the bill sponsors, the bill writer said, "look, this is a compromise.

Even whether you like it or not, we're right where, North Carolinians have polled, right now north Carolinians, about 57% say that they wanted to see a ban on abortions after the first trimester with exceptions.

And that's what the bill sponsors, and bill writers said that they've achieved this.

- Is that 57% of more conservative or centrist voters or of North Carolinians in the general sense.

- North Carolinians.

So, yeah, this particular survey was done of North Carolinians.

- Senator Bode, what about this?

People will say this bill came out of nowhere this week, We all knew there was a deal being worked somehow.

How was it in the chamber?

What were the Democrats hearing about what was allegedly going on and working out this compromise?

- Well, we didn't hear a lot about what was going on.

And I think it's interesting that they've called it a compromise bill because Democrats were not involved in the process.

And so it may have been a compromise for the Republican caucus in that conference of conferees.

But Democrats were completely excluded from the process.

And, you know, we found out about this bill and got the text of the bill 48 hours before we voted on it.

And it has been mentioned, this is a 46-page bill, that has sweeping different pieces of reproductive healthcare.

But you mentioned other instances of funding for maternal health, which is critically important.

And it hasn't had, it hasn't gone through the channels that most bills of this size and magnitude and importance have traditionally gone through in the legislature.

And I think that's what's concerning to many people.

And you know, we have a deliberative process where we can discuss and debate, and the people of North Carolina, we're really shortchanged on this issue and the way that it was handled by the legislature.

And, you know, for me, and you mentioned some people are calling it an abortion ban.

And I think for me and what I talked about yesterday, I represent the only urban, suburban, and rural senate district in North Carolina.

So, I have to think a lot about, you know, the different aspects of our wide varying state.

And this bill will limit access for many women in our state.

It requires now that women have to go in person to consult with a physician before they can get a medical abortion, which is an abortion pill.

And you know, previously women could speak on the phone with a physician.

So, many women who live far away from where an OB may be, which is in 30 counties in North Carolina.

Thirty counties don't have an OB, and 20 counties in North Carolina don't have a hospital.

So, something like that, something that could be as small as that, will, "oh, now you have to come in person" can have devastating effects on women's access to care.

- I want to be perfectly transparent, Joe, you're filling in on this show, and viewers out there, I'm gonna hear about this over the weekend, we don't have a Republican elected leader on this show for a big week.

We had one, prominent friend of the show, could not make it and backed out due to scheduling conflict the evening before we record this program.

So folks, we do have that and Republicans are welcome to come on.

Joe, you fill in as a centrist, you're not representing Republicans.

You know, this isn't the first time a majority party has taken a bill that it wants to pass and it's going to pass, and just hand it out like a spoonful of vinegar or sugar, however you wanna do it.

Is this just politics?

- Well, to some extent, as Senator Bode said, I mean the Republican caucus really discussed and debated this internally to that caucus, both House and Senate, for many, many weeks, trying to figure out where the members, House and Senate Republicans could be in terms of a compromise relative to the attitudes within those two caucuses.

And 12 weeks was expressed as a compromise, but it was a compromise within the Republican caucus.

I think one of the challenges on this issue too, of course, we think about law being relative to what public policy we think is appropriate for the people of North Carolina.

But there's always a political dimension to the discussion and debate and enactment of any public policy.

And on this particular issue, Americans have a relatively odd attitude about abortion.

National polling shows about 50% of Americans say an elective abortion is probably morally reprehensible to their sensitivities.

But a small portion of those people say they would want it restricted.

And so, people feel very strongly about this issue, but also feel very strongly that it should probably not be limited by the government.

And if I remember correctly, much of the polling from the last election cycle on this issue, the majority of North Carolinians, North Carolina voters, felt that some restrictions somewhere between 12 and 16 weeks was probably an appropriate guardrail for an elective abortion.

But many of the issues that Senator Bode mentioned too, there are a lot of healthcare concerns in this country, in this state, that go beyond just the issue of abortion and how it should be regulated.

We do have a lot of heavy lifting to do to make sure North Carolinians all across our state have access to quality healthcare.

Hopefully, if this issue has been resolved to the extent that it can be resolved legislatively, maybe the discussion can shift and start to take back up the important healthcare-related questions that face us as a state.

- Donna, at 12 weeks, what happens anyway, this becomes law, unless Governor Cooper, the veto comes, they override it.

I think the votes clearly have to be there for a veto override if you look.

- Absolutely.

- And if you count, all right, 12 weeks becomes law, what happens next this summer?

- Well, I think, well, and actually that's jumping ahead, that's the thing.

Governor Cooper said on Twitter that he plans to veto it, whether they have the numbers in there to override, we don't know, because Senator Davis took a walk, he had an appointment, wasn't there for a vote.

Then, Garland Pierce who they thought maybe Democrat that might come over, that they might have him there to vote.

So the question is, do they have the override votes?

And they don't know for sure, that's something that they're going to be counting all the time.

And we saw Tricia Cotham, who recently switched from Democrat to Republican, voted yes on this bill.

So, people are really running those numbers, they're running the math to see if they have the veto override.

Senator Galey said on the floor that they reached out to the Democrat caucus, of course, Senator Bode would know much more than I, but on the floor, Senator Galey said, "We reached out and they said they didn't wanna participate."

That's the thing, is that in the end, all of this is happening in committees and in rooms behind closed doors, and that's something I think that a lot of the Democrats were objecting to that they wanna see more of this.

So, what happens this summer?

You get to that, right?

If they're able to override it, then that would become law, you know, if both chambers are able to override it.

What it means for North Carolina, this particular measure about the in-person doctors visits, that means that that sort of travel from states where it has been completely outlawed, that's not gonna happen.

And North Carolina was starting to emerge as a place where people might come from states where it is completely outlawed.

- Senator Bode, we have a governor who has been quite effective, been reelected in Trump, got elected and reelected during Trump years in North Carolina, but we're about two years away from him being an ex-governor.

How much influence does Governor Cooper have to twist the arms of Democrats, who you don't need to take a walk, you need them on board?

- Well, I don't know how much.

- Or to flip a Republican here or there.

- Yeah, I don't know how much Governor Cooper twists arms, I think, you know, another really interesting point that hasn't been brought up is that many Republicans are feeling pressure from their constituencies, who don't feel like this goes far enough.

And I think we heard that a lot in the press conference that this is a, quote, good start, and I think the people of North Carolina should be very aware of the fact that the Republican members of the General Assembly feel like this is a, quote, good start on the issue of abortion, which is a signal that they would like to go further.

So, you know, I do think that Republican members are feeling pressure from their constituencies who feel like North Carolina should be a state where there's only a six week ban.

- Yeah, let's talk about the other half of this bill, we were gonna breeze through all these topics this week.

However, this is the way the conversation goes.

The legislation contains $160 million, Donna, we'll come back to you on this.

This new funding or expanded funding for a host of what many people consider family friendly or childcare services, state employees, by my reading of the bill, would get eight weeks of paid parental leave and that would not touch the sick or vacation leave the state employees build up.

I saw increased foster care payments, those would be increased, childcare subsidies would be increased, there's a change in the law where if you assault a pregnant woman, there would be enhanced criminal charges there, safe surrender, which is a term for allowing a new parent or a mother to give up her newborn without facing criminal charges, a whole lot of language in that, Donna, let's look at the other side of this bill, I don't think that's been talked about, everything I've read about was we're on the social issue.

- It really has not.

- This is social service's issues.

- Well, there is, and it does have appropriations in there, that's something I'm sure you'll speak to about that.

There are $160 million in state funding for various social services, some changes to streamlining the adoption process, improving foster care, you know, you mentioned, of course, the extended family leave for state employees, and then access to birth control for those who might be, you know, at the lower end of the economic spectrum.

So that was something that the bill sponsors said in committee that that was what they wanted to do.

If we're going to create this, you know, prohibit abortions after the first trimester, with exceptions, we really have to look at the other end and make it easier for women to keep their baby.

Because statistically they say, "If my situation had been different, if I'd had the resources to do it, I would prefer to keep the baby."

And that's, I think, what they said, we want to make the choice easier for them to keep their baby.

- Lucile, your coverage is based on efficient communication, get people information and keep moving it.

And credit to you for that.

This bill, does it allow you to be so simple in writing that everybody can understand it, or do we need to stop, digest half of the bill come back later, read the other half and see what we think?

- Definitely read the other half, is sort of the next story that I'm working on.

It's like we're gonna talk about the things that people are most interested about, and are talking loudly about, and it's really risen to the top.

And then, you know, I think there's still a lot of work that I have to do in unpacking the second part of this bill.

One thing I'm thinking about though, Kelly, the second half of this bill, I feel like might have been really important for getting Republicans on board with the legislation that maybe wanted something stricter in terms of abortion restrictions or less strict.

And I think that's part of the reason why the bill might be moving very quickly through.

The support, the super majority support and the ability to override Cooper's veto, it's so fragile.

And I think that, that might be part of why it's moved very quickly, why there's all these different provisions in there to satisfy this member who wanted this thing, and this member who wanted that thing.

So I think all of the bill is put together really intentionally, and as fast as it's moved, I wonder if that's also really intentional too.

- Joe, I have a politics question about this.

They add all these nice social service, $160 million most of it recurring, I mean forever in the budget, and pair it with an abortion ban.

And does that get the Republicans off the hook from the old trope that's out there that says, "Yeah, they care about you before you're born, "but after you're born these conservatives, "you're on your own buddy," does it work to pair this kind of services with restrictions?

- Well, I clearly think part of the reason the Republican leadership wanted to include these provisions was to answer that question, what are you doing to make sure that these children that will now not necessarily be able... could make their way in the world will have the resources to do though?

But I think Lucile's onto the queer point here, for a legislator to be able to say they voted for a package that contained some things they weren't entirely comfortable with, but other things that satisfied, or created opportunities for people within their district, that's an incredibly valuable political tool for any legislative agenda item to make sure that you can go back to your district, and say "Well, I had trouble voting for this," and I think Senator Bodi touches on a point.

For some Republicans back in their district 12 weeks is not acceptable, the constituents that they serve want a far greater restriction on abortion.

But to be able to point to the funding provisions, and say there is some good that is done as a result of that portion of this bill, and so that's why I was willing to go along with a 12 week limitation.

- Senator, what kind of deal does this offer?

When you see things that I think are bipartisan, overwhelmingly bipartisan, and then it's paired with something that your constituency that elected you would just not tolerate?

- Yeah, I mean I think this bill, each part of this bill deserves, you know, the true vetting process, the true opportunity to have that discussion.

And you know, you mentioned an invitation to be part of a conversation.

We already have a mechanism for that in the North County General Assembly, and it's called a committee process, where people don't have to be invited to participate in a really important policy discussion.

And so I think for issues like this, you know, I think it's great.

North Carolina has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country, so we definitely need to address this issue.

You know, I don't know if it necessarily needs to be paired with, you know, the conversation about reproductive healthcare more generally, right?

I think we can have those separate discussions, and we don't have to pair them together because as was mentioned, I mean, this is a huge bill that's critically important regardless of where a woman is in having a child, and bringing a child into this world.

- I'll give you the last word on that.

Onto our next story, another heavy one.

House Republicans approved a new ban on gender reassignment surgeries for people under 18 years old.

The bill would ban both surgical procedures as well as any doctor referral for gender reassignment surgeries for minors.

People over 18 can make their own choice on these procedures, and genetic issues best treated through gender reassignment medical procedures would remain an option for minors at a physician's discretion.

- We look back at history in every last one of us would never, ever claim to be on the side of error.

We wouldn't have conducted the Tuskegee experiments, we wouldn't have sterilized black women in North Carolina.

Somehow every last one of us would be different, and the day of those emotional 'cause they were treatments.

I challenge this body and everyone in here, that to simplify this it's just a procedure, is to do grave injustice.

- 'Cause I have a concern that we're building bills, passing bills without actually any consideration, and even being or speaking with the populations and the communities that we're affecting.

- To you Donna, once again, an issue with a...

I mean, the rhetoric is on fire on both sides.

We had democrats accusing Representative Fontana- - Right [laughs].

- Of hate speech on the floor.

- Sure.

- Maybe not hate speech, but not being sensitive, I'll put it at that.

And here we go, the Speaker Moore is saying, "Hey, knock it off," people open the gall.

I mean, go for it, analyze this one.

- It was chaos.

I mean, no question about it, exactly what you're saying.

The Committee meetings leading up to this were equally so.

People are very passionate about this, you saw a lot of parents, a lot of activists.

You also saw, you know, some of the medical community talking about this.

This passed the House with a veto-proof majority, you had two Democrats, Ray and Garland Pierce both voting in favor of it, so it would be veto-proof if it were to pass the Senate and be vetoed and come back.

I think that the big question about this is that first, we're talking about minors, and it would prevent these surgeries, these gender, they call them gender affirming, but you know, biological sex- - Gender affirming.

- Changing procedures for minors, people who are under 18.

One of the things that came up time and time again that if the idea of gender is fluid this is, whether you agree with that or not, if you believe that it's fluid, this is a permanent thing.

There's actually a growing detrans movement among folks who had these kind of surgeries when they were children, teenagers, and are now suffering lifelong medical complications.

And is this an experiment?

Are we down the road gonna look at this the way we do eugenics?

Right now, if we're talking about minors, they're not able to make the decision for themselves that this shouldn't be allowed for children.

- Joe, the Democrats, were saying there's been "the traditional sex change surgery has been legal and been safe in North Carolina for 40 years", was what I heard on the house floor debate.

Why now these bills that are just very simple bans or limitations?

What's out there in our society that makes this bill, could have been passed in 1982 and been the same thing?

- Right.

This is another issue where the voters are kind of sending a very complex signal to their elected officials.

I pulled up some information from the Pew Charitable Trust.

You know, almost three quarters of Americans say they strongly support protections for transgender folks and workplace discrimination, housing.

Those want protections under the law and it speaks to Americans' basic sense of fairness.

They wanna make sure people are not discriminated against, that they're treated fairly, but an increasing number of people believe that gender is assigned at birth and that's the answer to this question.

So there's a kind of complexity to this issue and plus, anytime you have an attempt to put into public policy something that's addressing some kind or some sort or some aspect of human sexuality, it is very complicated.

It's very confusing to people.

I happen to be sitting in the House committee when this bill was being discussed, sitting with a lot of the parents that had attended there with their children.

And as a parent myself, it's very hard to not feel some sympathy for someone who's seeing their young person suffer for some reason, feeling an odd sense of their identity in terms of gender.

Not being able to provide them some relief for that is something I can understand and appreciate as a parent.

But I think the Republican leadership in the General Assembly felt there needed to be some limitation placed on this, in large part because the people in question are minors.

- Senator, you made a good point earlier.

You represent urban, suburban, and rural North Carolina.

Advocates can get you cornered in an office and you're gonna see the very strongest of opinions.

But if you travel through your district, does the discussion and sensitivities change on this issue?

- Sure.

You know, as Joe mentioned, this is a very complex issue.

Right?

And I think, you know, we all want children in North Carolina to feel safe.

We certainly, you know, I have talked to many of the parents of the trans youth who, you know, are terrified and feel like their children really have a target on their backs.

And so, you know, they feel like their only option is to leave the state and go somewhere else where their children are not targets and can get the healthcare that, as parents, they think is necessary for their child.

And so, you know, I think, you know, Donna mentioned the chaos in the House and I think part of the chaos was related to the fact as many of these parents and trans youth members of North Carolina citizens weren't allowed to speak on the bill in the committee process and they were denied that opportunity.

And, you know, II think that's shameful, when the people of North Carolina come to the People's House to give their opinion on something and they are prevented from doing so.

And so, you know, this is, like I said, this is a complicated, complex issue.

And, you know, I just feel like the people of North Carolina should have had an opportunity to weigh in.

- And Lucille, these debates had activist, I presume they're activists.

They're there for a reason.

They're cheering, they're clapping on certain pieces of legislation and you're probably watching that and maybe you're on the floor.

I know we used to, at least.

I used to get access to the floor back in the old days.

Does that help anything to disrupt the House to break that decorum?

'Cause you're seeing it in other states and it's, you know, and you're getting these knee-jerk reactions outta leadership and you are in the State House, regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of the debate.

- Yeah, it's hard.

I mean, decorum is so interesting.

I don't think regular people fully understand why decorum is so important to helping bills get passed and things move quickly in the legislature, but I just don't think it ends up changing lawmakers minds.

And so I think that's what's hard is these people want their voices heard and they deserve to have their voices heard.

But at the end of the day, the chaos that it brings doesn't really end up changing the final votes.

But I think it makes sense that these people are so passionate about this issue.

I think when we're talking about children and people's children, people are gonna feel very strongly.

- Donna, are we talking about a lot of children here?

A lot of parents who have not been heard?

- Sure.

- Statistically.

- I mean, statistically, no, but if you talk to these parents, they're like- - It's important.

- Yeah.

- Well, it's their child.

- It's a family, yeah.

- And it's the one child that matters.

- Sure, and one of the things that was originally in this bill and is no longer puberty blockers.

So, you know, that is a medication that they can take to stop the onset of puberty.

So that was originally in this bill.

That was removed and now the bill is strictly for surgeries and that is something that I think that the bill writers and the supporters of this bill say, "Look, surgery is a dramatic step."

They brought in actually members of the community who have been through a detrans process, that they were given surgeries and in this case, they were given puberty blockers very early.

They now suffer lifelong debilitating medical problems and they're saying this is a dramatic step and that the first step should really be treating these kids' mental health as part of the process.

- And that's the last word, Donna.

Thank you, Joe, Mary, Will, Lucille.

Thank you for joining us.

Thank you for watching.

Email us at statelines@pbsnc.org.

We'll read every one.

I'm Kelly McCullen.

Thanks for watching and we'll see you next time.

[upbeat classical music] - [Narrator] Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting PBS NC.