Listen to the article
North Carolina Senate Leader’s Stance on Transgender Surgery Ban Mischaracterized in Political Ad
A political advertisement targeting North Carolina Senate leader Phil Berger has come under scrutiny for claiming he “killed a bill banning sex-change surgeries for minors,” a statement that fails to capture the full context of the legislation’s history.
The ad, funded by the Guilford-Rockingham Alliance political action committee, is currently airing in Berger’s 26th Senate District, where he faces a Republican primary challenge from Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page. The spot attempts to paint Berger as insufficiently conservative, stating: “Phil Berger claims he supports Trump, but in Raleigh he acts like a Democrat.”
Among several accusations, the advertisement specifically claims that “in 2021, Phil Berger killed a bill banning sex-change surgeries for minors.” This refers to Senate Bill 514, which was introduced by three Republican legislators in April 2021 and would have prohibited sex-reassignment surgery for people under 21 years old. Medical professionals who violated the proposed law could have faced license revocation and civil fines up to $1,000 per occurrence.
However, the political reality surrounding the bill was more complex than the advertisement suggests. After its introduction, the bill was referred to the Committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate—often a signal that chamber leadership considers the legislation dead-on-arrival.
At the time, Berger’s spokesman Pat Ryan told the Associated Press, “We do not see a pathway to Senate Bill 514 becoming law,” adding that “the bill will not be voted on the Senate floor.” Ryan later explained that Republicans lacked sufficient votes in both chambers to override an expected veto from Democratic Governor Roy Cooper—a significant hurdle that would have required Democratic support to overcome.
Jim Perry, who served as Republican majority whip in 2021, noted that legislative leaders consider multiple factors when deciding whether to advance legislation, including whether it can become law, whether a vote might apply pressure to opponents, and how the opposition might use such votes in fundraising efforts.
The Guilford-Rockingham Alliance defended its characterization, arguing that “the decision not to allow a vote in 2021 therefore reflects a discretionary leadership choice, not a procedural inevitability.” The group emphasized that “the fact that Phil Berger wouldn’t allow the people’s representatives to decide is the point.”
What the advertisement critically omits, however, is that the legislative landscape shifted dramatically by 2023. Republicans gained enough seats to override gubernatorial vetoes without Democratic support. In this new environment, Berger and fellow Republican legislators passed House Bill 808 in June 2023, which prohibited medical professionals from performing surgical sex-reassignment procedures on minors—essentially the same restriction proposed in 2021.
Governor Cooper vetoed the bill in July, but both chambers successfully overrode his veto in August, enacting the ban into law. No Senate Democrats supported the measure.
State Senator Ralph Hise, a Mitchell County Republican who sponsored the 2021 bill, called the alliance’s ad a lie, stating, “The reason North Carolina now bans sex change surgeries and hormones for minors is because of Sen. Berger’s leadership.”
The political context surrounding transgender rights in North Carolina has been contentious for years. In 2016, the state passed HB2, the controversial “bathroom bill” that restricted transgender individuals from using facilities matching their gender identity. Berger later participated in a 2017 compromise that repealed this law—another point criticized in the current advertisement.
The Guilford-Rockingham Alliance maintains that Berger’s support for the 2023 bill “does not negate the consequences of his decision not to advance the bill in 2021,” arguing that “individuals were affected” by the two-year delay.
However, the advertisement’s claim that Berger “killed” the bill significantly misrepresents the political realities of 2021 and completely omits his subsequent support for similar legislation when passage became viable—presenting a misleading picture of his stance on the issue.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
This is a complex topic with valid concerns on both sides. I think it’s important to look at the full legislative context rather than relying on political ads that may oversimplify the issue. More details on the rationale and decision-making process would help inform a balanced perspective.
This is a complex and sensitive topic. While I respect concerns about minors undergoing medical procedures, the full context seems to be that the proposed bill was never brought up for a vote. Blocking a bill is not the same as opposing it outright. It would be helpful to have more details on the legislative process and rationale behind the decisions made.
Transgender healthcare for minors is a contentious topic, and I think it’s important to look at the full context rather than relying on political ads that may oversimplify things. I’d be curious to learn more about the legislative process and the considerations that went into the decision-making around this bill.
I’d be cautious about taking a strong stance on this without understanding the full nuances. Transgender healthcare for minors is a sensitive issue, and the political ad seems to present an oversimplified version of events. More objective analysis of the legislative process and considerations would be helpful.
This is a complex issue and I think it’s important to be cautious about drawing conclusions based on political ads. I’d be interested to learn more about the full legislative context and rationale behind the decisions made around this bill.
Agreed, more objective analysis of the process and considerations would help provide a more balanced perspective on this sensitive topic.
This seems like a politically charged issue where facts can get muddied. I think it’s important to look at the full context of the legislative process rather than relying on partisan claims. More details on the rationale and decision-making around this bill would help inform a balanced understanding.
Transgender healthcare is a contentious issue, but factual reporting is important. The claims in this ad seem oversimplified. I’d be curious to learn more about the specific legislative process and what considerations went into the decision-making around this bill.
Agreed, the issue deserves careful, nuanced discussion rather than partisan attacks. Understanding the full context is key before drawing conclusions.