Right before Election 2010, Republican leaders issued a list of eight priorities they promised to enact if they won control of the NC House. The wish-list ranged from specifics, like passing legislation to carve North Carolina out of healthcare reform—as several states have already done —to the more amorphous restoring of integrity.

High on the list was protecting private property. In fact, one day after winning the majority, Rep. Paul Stam claimed that House Republicans would pass an eminent domain bill in the first week of the 2011 Session.

For those unfamiliar with eminent domain, it boils down to the government’s legal right to seize private property for public use. It’s as complex as any public policy issue gets. Town, city and county leaders are embroiled in the fight because they are the ones tasked with balancing the demands of local growth (e.g. need for schools, roads).

Thinking about Rep. Stam’s stated opposition to eminent domain and a purported support of private property got me thinking. I wonder if Stam considers my body as private property. Or, does he think the state has a right to annex it to fulfill, say, a government’s desire to populate a certain region or keep a portion of the population out of the job pool (i.e. barefoot and pregnant) to control for inflation.

I’m trying to be open-minded and even hopeful about North Carolina’s new legislative majority. After all, NC Senator Phil Berger, the soon to be Senate President Pro-tempore, was quoted last week in the N & O saying, “I believe that individuals have a right and have a duty to lead their lives and make their own decisions. I chafe at the idea of their government telling them how to live their lives.”

And, let’s remember, Rep. Thom Tillis, mastermind behind the NC House Republican takeover, claimed North Carolinians voted Republican because, “We’re a centrist state. We’re a small government, we’re a limited-government, free-market, stay-out of my-personal-life electorate.”

If Republicans believe in individual rights, small government and the preeminence of private property, then maybe they won’t rush to pass legislation to mandate waiting periods before women can seek medical care; mandate state-scripted counseling between doctors and patients; or, outright deny women the right to make the most profoundly personal and private decision we could possibly make in governing own bodies and lives.

Now that I understand how committed the new majority is to the sovereignty of private property, I’m feeling a bit more optimistic. I consider my body private property and I’m all about protecting it from eminent domain (read, government intrusion or takeover). How about you?

3 Responses to “Protect our bodies from Eminent Domain”