A new North Carolina law shields parents who refuse to help with their child's gender transition from accusations of abuse or neglect.
It says that "raising a child consistent with the child's biological sex" is not grounds for the state to begin a child welfare investigation or for holding up an adoption.
Democratic Gov. Josh Stein signed the bill last week. That came even as he vetoed other bills targeting transgender rights, writing they are "mean-spirited" and would "marginalize vulnerable people."
"I think parents have the right to raise their children as they deem best," Stein told reporters Tuesday when asked why he signed Senate Bill 442.
"What's nice is that I have absolute confidence in the foster care system and Health and Human Services to ensure that when children are placed in foster care, it will be in what is their best interest," he continued.
Sen. Lisa Grafstein, D-Wake, voted against the legislation, saying its implications will ripple beyond the LGBTQ+ community.
"For example, some little boys play with dolls; some little girls like to play with trucks. We have historically told them that's not OK. I think that people would consider that 'raising a child in accordance with their biological sex,'" she said during the Senate floor debate May 7.
Sen. Amy S. Galey, R-Alamance, cosponsored the legislation.
"The idea that you would have a child in a home that is loving, where the parents are attentive and meeting (their) needs ... but the state would come in with an agenda to remove that child because the parent doesn't support transitioning that child from one gender to another — that is happening and that is out there,," Galey said May 7.
Votes in the Republican-controlled General Assembly largely fell along party lines.
However, three Senate Democrats and nine House Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the legislation.
Rep. Carla Cunningham, D-Mecklenburg, was one of those Democrats who crossed party lines.
"The parent is the lead and the guider. The child is the follower and the learner and the listener, and I don't know why we're getting it so confused," Cunningham said during a June 18 debate.
Had Stein vetoed the bill, the level of Democratic support means the General Assembly could have easily overridden the veto.
The law is now in effect, its protections extending retroactively to July 1.
