www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
SUMMARY: North Carolina House Republicans propose a new elections bill requiring full Social Security numbers on voter registration forms and DMV sharing licensed drivers’ SSNs with the Board of Elections, sparking privacy and security concerns. Critics, including Rep. Pricey Harrison and voting rights advocates, warn it violates federal privacy laws and risks voter data breaches, while supporters argue it enhances voter identification and reduces duplicates. The bill also mandates photo ID for military and overseas voters, limits local voting rights for certain non-residents, bans ranked-choice voting, and modifies ballot counting timelines. Democracy Out Loud and others strongly oppose the bill, calling it harmful to voter rights.
The North Carolina Supreme Court granted Mission Hospital a temporary stay on a lower court decision awarding 67 acute care beds to AdventHealth for a planned 222-bed hospital in Weaverville. The stay pauses legal action pending further review, with no set decision deadline. Mission Hospital argues the region needs expanded beds at their facility for complex care, not at AdventHealth’s new hospital. AdventHealth contends the stay does not indicate the court’s stance and that the motion was unnecessary. The dispute centers on state Certificate of Need (CON) law and whether procedural errors prejudiced Mission. AdventHealth plans a state-of-the-art surgery suite.
The North Carolina Supreme Court has granted Mission Hospital’s request for a temporary stay of a lower court’s decision to grant 67 acute care beds to AdventHealth nearly three years ago.
The order, delivered without comment, came just two days after attorneys for Mission Hospital filed a motion seeking the temporary stay and arguing that a three-judge panel’s ruling in the state’s appellate court this June should remain up for debate. The motion, first reported by Asheville Watchdog, created further uncertainty about whether the region would see additional healthcare competition.
The 67 beds are part of Florida-based AdventHealth’s plans to build a 222-bed hospital in Weaverville that would serve Buncombe, Madison, Yancey, and Graham counties. The company had started grading work at a 30-plus acre site west of I-26.
The Supreme Court’s allowance of a stay halts legal action until further consideration can take place. There is currently no deadline for a Supreme Court decision.
“Mission Hospital accepts thousands of transfers each year from other hospitals that have available beds – including facilities currently seeking approval to expand – because patients need high-level medical care only available in Western North Carolina at our hospital,” Mission Health spokesperson Nancy Lindell said. “Not all acute care beds are the same. Instead of adding more beds at facilities that are unable to provide the complex medical and surgical care needed, the region would be better served by expanding bed capacity at Mission Hospital. We consider it a privilege to care for our region’s sickest patients but need more beds to do so.”
An aerial view photo shows the Weaverville site where AdventHealth is proposing to build a 222-bed hospital in the coming years. // Photo credit: AdventHealth
AdventHealth said the stay says nothing about what North Carolina’s highest court thinks about the case.
“It is important to note that this stay is not an indication of the court’s thinking,” AdventHealth spokesperson Victoria Dunkle said when asked for the system’s response to the judge’s order.
“This would be like ordering a combo meal at a drive-thru and then taking credit for securing the drink and fries in the deal – the drink and fries automatically come with the combo and everybody gets them,” she said. “In these situations, a stay is in place whenever a petition for discretionary review is filed. HCA/Mission filed an unnecessary motion to obtain a stay that was already in place.”
This complex legal battle for beds is being staged on the field of certificate of need (CON) law, a North Carolina requirement that medical facilities seek the state’s permission when they want to expand, add services, or buy expensive equipment.
AdventHealth won approval for beds in 2022
AdventHealth won approval for the 67 acute care beds in late 2022, but Mission disputed the decision, using the CON’s appeal process. In June, a three-court panel of the state’s appellate court ruled in AdventHealth’s favor, a ruling that some saw as the final decision in the case.
On July 23, Mission attorneys filed a motion with the North Carolina Supreme Court seeking the temporary stay and requesting the court consider two factors: “substantial prejudice” on the part of DHSR in rejecting Mission’s application and AdventHealth’s proposal for the beds not meeting NCDHHS policy requiring new hospitals have a general operating room.
Both NCDHHS and AdventHealth are defendants in the case.
Mission alleged substantial prejudice because “DHHS did not allow eight attendees to speak at a certain time at the public hearing because they were purported employees of Mission Memorial or employees of one its affiliated hospitals or entities,” according to a summary in the June 18 appellate court decision. The public hearing was held shortly after AdventHealth, Mission and Novant Health applied for the 67 beds.
“The partial answers that the Court of Appeals has given are contradictory and confusing,” Mission’s attorneys wrote in their July 23 motion, arguing the appellate court failed to precisely define the criteria for a finding of “substantial prejudice.”
The motion asked the court to decide whether NCDHHS had violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it changed its requirement on the general operating room and then to decide whether “this error substantially prejudiced Mission.”
According to AdventHealth’s current proposed plans, the Weaverville hospital would have “A state-of-the-art Surgery Suite for general and specialty.”
AdventHealth will file a response in the case, Dunkle told The Watchdog last Friday.
Asheville Watchdog welcomes thoughtful reader comments on this story, which has been republished on our Facebook page. Please submit your comments there.
Asheville Watchdog is a nonprofit news team producing stories that matter to Asheville and Buncombe County. Andrew R. Jones is a Watchdog investigative reporter. Email arjones@avlwatchdog.org. The Watchdog’s reporting is made possible by donations from the community. To show your support for this vital public service go to avlwatchdog.org/support-our-publication/.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The content primarily focuses on a legal and healthcare infrastructure issue involving hospital bed allocations and regulatory processes in North Carolina. It presents information factually from multiple perspectives, including Mission Hospital and AdventHealth statements, without evident favoring of political ideology or partisan language. The article discusses procedural and administrative details surrounding healthcare regulation and competition, which are generally nonpartisan topics, reflecting a neutral and balanced reporting style typical of centrist coverage.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Kim Jarrett | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-07-30 09:01:00
Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn introduced a bill banning the National Education Association (NEA) from influencing Congress, requiring annual certification of non-interference. Blackburn criticized the NEA for abandoning its mission to support teachers, accusing it of pushing a “far-left political agenda” involving “woke gender ideology, antisemitism, and propaganda.” Earlier, Blackburn and Rep. Mark Harris proposed revoking the NEA’s congressional charter, accusing the union of partisan activism. Their efforts are backed by groups like Moms for Liberty and Heritage Action, who condemn the NEA for prioritizing radical politics over parental rights and children’s education.
(The Center Square) – Tennessee Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn introduced her second bill this month targeting the nation’s largest teacher’s union.
Her latest bill would ban the National Education Association from influencing Congress. The association would be required to submit a certification every year proving that it has not tried to influence lawmakers, according to a news release from Blackburn.
“The National Education Association has abandoned its mission of supporting America’s teachers and students in the name of pushing its far-left political agenda,” Blackburn said. “The NEA has become nothing more than a radical-left activist group, and it has no business using its status as a congressionally chartered entity to push woke gender ideology, antisemitism, and propaganda on America’s students.”
U.S. Rep. Rev. Mark Harris, R-N.C.
Harris.House.gov
Earlier this month, Blackburn and U.S. Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., introduced a bill that would revoke the National Education Association’s charter.
“Congress established the NEA in 1906 to support America’s teachers and strengthen our schools, but it has abandoned that mission in favor of a radical agenda,” Harris said. “From branding President Trump a fascist to embracing divisive gender ideology and walking away from efforts to fight antisemitism, the NEA has become nothing more than a partisan advocacy group.”
The bill is supported by Moms for Liberty, Heritage Action, Young America’s Foundation and other groups, according to Harris and Blackburn.
“It’s incredibly sad that the nation’s largest teachers union has put woke politics before America’s children,” said Tina Descovich, CEO of Moms for Liberty. “The NEA’s embrace of radical left policies and antisemitism combined with their rejection of parental rights has forced moms and dads across America to condemn this organization.”
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Right-Leaning
The article presents a clear ideological perspective aligned with conservative viewpoints. It highlights criticism of the National Education Association (NEA) by Republican lawmakers using charged language such as “radical-left political agenda,” “woke gender ideology,” and “partisan advocacy group.” The inclusion of supportive statements from conservative organizations like Moms for Liberty and Heritage Action reinforces this stance. The framing focuses on portraying the NEA negatively for its political positions, rather than neutrally reporting on the legislative actions, indicating a right-leaning bias in tone and content.
