Political leaders in North Carolina now face a new battle front following their adoption of a law aimed to protect the general public from sexual predators in bathrooms.
In a new letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, Gov. Pat McCrory was informed that part of the law—often referred to by its bill number, House Bill 2, or just HB 2—violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result, the state could face the loss of billions of dollars in federal aid.
Similar letters were also sent to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina.
McCrory said he’s not taking the threat lightly, nor should any other state:
“A claim by the Obama administration charges that one part of House Bill 2, which requires state employees in public government buildings and students in our universities to use a restroom, locker room and shower facility that match their biological sex, is now in violation of federal law. The Obama administration has not only staked out its position for North Carolina, but for all states, universities and most employers in the U.S.
“The right and expectation of privacy in one of the most private areas of our personal lives is now in jeopardy. We will be reviewing to determine the next steps.”
Prior to the DOJ letter’s arrival, Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives Tim Moore, a principal architect of HB 2, had already firmly established he was going to stand his ground. In response to criticism from President Obama, he issued the following statement:
“One thing is abundantly clear—President Obama doesn’t have the best track record on matters of safety and security relating to foreign policy. Now it seems like he’s challenged on some basic safety issues here in the United States, too.”
Senate Majority Leader Phil Berger also weighed in:
“This is a gross overreach by the Obama Justice Department that deserves to be struck down in federal court, and I cannot say it any better than Fourth Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer did recently: ‘This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect. More particularly, it also misconstrues the clear language of Title IX and its regulations. And finally, it reaches an unworkable and illogical result.'”
See an error in this article?
To contact us or to submit an article
