There is a bill currently moving through the North Carolina General Assembly, officially known as House Bill 237, also known as the “Unmasking Rioters and Criminals” bill.
Supporters say the bill's purpose is to curb the use of masks in public to conceal the identity of alleged perpetrators during the commission of a crime. Doing so would effectively eliminate “from certain laws” pandemic-era exemptions that allow people to wear masks in public for health reasons and arrest violators.
The Republican-controlled North Carolina Senate passed the bill on a 30-15 vote Wednesday, sending it back to the Republican-controlled state House for consideration, where it could still be amended. .
Sidney Batch, a Democrat in the North Carolina Senate since 2021, said North Carolina's law banning wearing masks in public was enacted to address the Ku Klux Klan's hood-wearing habits. He said it dates back to the 1950s. She said repealing a 2020 update enacted to ensure compliance with mask-wearing regulations could make people who continue to wear masks in public to protect their health subject to prosecution. I am concerned. Bach is also a cancer survivor, and when her immune system weakened during her treatment, she said she and her family wore masks to protect her.
Sen. Batch spoke on “Start Here” Tuesday about a bill that will “unmask mobs and criminals.”
Let's start here: Senator Batch, thank you for joining us. The bill, passed by the Senate last week, now heads to the House, where it is expected to be considered this week. Could you please explain what's in it?
Bach: Thank you for inviting me. This bill passed the Senate last week. It was immediately sent to the Judiciary Committee and voted on the floor. The basic content of this bill is that, with a few exceptions, like Halloween or being part of a secret society, wearing a mask for any reason would be illegal, a first-degree misdemeanor.
Before 2020, this was the law of the land. But in 2020, with COVID, a bill was actually passed that created a public health exemption. So you can wear it for your own public health and safety. Well, my colleague actually removed that provision. And then last week during the floor debate, we talked about adding it back in and we offered an amendment. Unfortunately, that failed. And thus the bill passed. So there is no longer a health exemption. And we know that if this bill passes, the House will be in a position where the Governor will have to veto it. And unfortunately, with the overwhelming majorities in both houses, this bill could be voided.
Start here: And you said this is already pretty much the same as the law in this country before. why? What is the basis for this and why did it come back?
BACH: My Republican colleagues talked about the fact that this was enacted in 1954. I believe this was to deal with the Ku Klux Klan in the 1950s regarding wearing hoods. But in 2020 we changed that. That's why many of my Republican colleagues continue to say we're seeing an increase in protests where people are abusing mask regulations. And actually I disagree with them on that point. You know, the point is that there are bad guys who go to protests and try to hide their faces. But that doesn't mean throwing out the baby with the bath water. I believe we can do difficult things and we were chosen to do them. That's why we, as Democrats, when I and my other colleague, Senator Grafstein, provided intentional language around mask wearing and requirements, it's important to remember that when you're immunocompromised or when you're wearing someone in your body. This means you can wear a mask if you want to protect yourself. If you are asked to remove your mask by law enforcement to identify your face, such as at home, you can remove it but keep it on. However, both of these amendments were rejected. Therefore, I cannot understand why a reasonable compromise could not be reached. I believe that law enforcement needs to do their jobs, and we also need to protect people who are immunocompromised.
Let's start here: This is what it's all about, right? It's about weighing the risks and the benefits, right? The risk of having fewer people identifiable on the street, the risk of not being able to wear what medical experts say is a very important tool. I mean, how do you and your constituents weigh that?
BACH: Some people say we're fear-mongering. And what I want to say to you is, anyone who has had to wear a mask in the past because of a compromised immune system, and my kids and my husband are wearing a mask to protect me. For people, you know, I'm not fear mongering. That's really worrying, right? Someone can actually die or become seriously ill if they are unable to protect themselves, including if they have a weakened immune system. This is actually a bipartisan concern that we've heard from all of our voters, both Republican and Democratic. That's because what I know is that laws discriminate, but diseases don't, diseases don't discriminate, cancer doesn't discriminate. right? This means that you will be affected in some way. And what we're hearing is from a lot of people who are veterans and kidney transplant patients and other organ transplant patients who have to take immunosuppressants all the time. And they're just really worried. I think the challenge is really weighing that against public safety. And I think that's what we were able to do with this bill through the amendments that we introduced. So I agree that law enforcement should be able to identify who is there and who they are. But if people can recognize who I am, it shouldn't be a problem if I wear a mask.
Let's start here: Republicans have been emphasizing that this doesn't apply to people who are clearly just walking around doing their jobs. Is there a concern? If it were left to the discretion of the police officer, the police officer would have very different ideas about who is suspicious based on all factors other than wearing a mask. Masu. Like the color of their skin. Is that a concern?
BACH: Yeah, it's definitely an issue brought up by the disproportionate impact of individuals wearing masks, and disproportionate people of color in North Carolina end up being harmed more by COVID-19 and worse. died or became ill. So there are a lot of people in the community who are still wearing masks. Although people are still seen wearing masks in many Black churches, the statistics show that they are disproportionately stopped and questioned by police, clearly disproportionate to the population.
Let's start here: What do you think will happen now if this bill is introduced in the House?
BACH: I think we're seeing, especially in many states in the South, one bill being introduced and then multiple bills being introduced across the country. So I don't think North Carolina is unique. You'll probably see this elsewhere as well. But at least one Republican in the House has actually said he won't vote for the bill if it continues in the House because of concerns about the public health and safety language. I took it out. And one of the other concerns is that the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services won't be able to actually allow or mandate the use of masks by law or any public health system. For all types of pandemics. And if we get another COVID-19 outbreak, we'll probably get infected because that's the nature of the world, but we won't be able to deal with public health threats the way we were able to before. Probably. COVID. As you know, 30,000 North Carolinians have died from COVID-19, but we were able to save many lives because of the masking protocols.
Let's start here: It's a very interesting story with so many people involved. Thank you so much to State Senator Sidney Batch of suburban Raleigh, North Carolina.
Batch: Thank you so much for having me. Thank you very much.
North Carolina lawmakers fight state's mask ban first posted on abcnews.go.com