NC may change public mask laws. But what does that mean for those with health concerns?

Lawmakers advanced legislation on Tuesday that would repeal a health and safety exception to North Carolina’s longstanding ban on wearing masks in public.

Republicans who introduced the bill as a substitute to existing legislation last week say the pandemic-era exception is no longer needed, and that repealing it will only return the state to where things stood before 2020.

But several Democrats raised concerns about whether repealing the exception would make all mask-wearing by anyone concerned about their health or the health of others illegal.

Here’s what we know about what the bill would mean for people who regularly wear masks in public for health reasons.

Trusting the ‘common sense’ of law enforcement, businesses

Sen. Buck Newton, the bill’s primary sponsor, said the bill is only meant to address people who wear masks to hide their identities, and are intimidating others or committing crimes.

People who wear masks because of their health shouldn’t be worried, Newton said.

“This was not a problem, pre-COVID,” Newton told the committee. “We didn’t see granny getting arrested in the Walmart, pre-COVID. Frankly, I don’t think we’re going to see that when we pass this legislation, and I think those that are suggesting otherwise are stoking fear.”

Newton, a Republican from Wilson, said he trusts the “good common sense” of everyday people as well as police officers, businesses, and district attorneys.

“I’d like to meet the law enforcement officer, or the DA, that wants to prosecute granny for wearing a mask in the Walmart,” Newton said. “Unless she got caught sticking steaks in her bag, and trying to hide her identity — then I can see it happening.”

Exception added during pandemic

Sen. Sydney Batch, an Apex Democrat who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018 and underwent treatment, said that she would be concerned if the health and safety exception wasn’t in place as she continued to wear a mask long after others stopped during the pandemic, at the recommendation of her doctor.

That exception, which was added to the ban on mask-wearing during the pandemic, allows someone to wear a mask in public “for the purpose of ensuring the physical health or safety of the wearer or others.”

The mask ban itself dates to 1953 and likely was intended to crack down on the Ku Klux Klan, The News & Observer previously reported. It includes other exceptions, including for “masquerade balls” and “wearing traditional holiday costumes in season.”

No criminal penalty, bill sponsor says

Batch and other Democrats asked why the bill couldn’t be amended to just include enhanced penalties for wearing a mask while committing a crime, leaving the health and safety exception in place.

Newton responded by saying that the purpose of the bill “is to make sure people are not hiding their identities in order to do something they shouldn’t be doing.”

Newton said he was willing to revisit the bill as it currently stands “if it were to present a problem,” but added that people who are immunocompromised, or have a family member who has a health issue, should continue to wear their masks without hesitation.

Newton also said he asked legislative staff and was told that, under the bill as it was approved by the committee, “there’s no criminal penalty, unless you’re committing another crime.”

But Sen. Natasha Marcus, a Davidson Democrat, questioned whether an assurance from Newton would assuage the concerns of constituents she had heard from, when the bill would still make mask-wearing for health reasons a violation of the existing ban.

“Stated plainly, your bill will make it illegal,” Marcus said. “You can say, “Well, I told them in the Judiciary Committee back in May 2024, that I didn’t really mean to make it illegal, and that we don’t intend for anyone to get punished or pulled aside by a police officer or whatever; that wasn’t my intent.’”

“But we’re all attorneys in here, and lawmakers, and I think we would agree that in any other context, we make sure that the bill says what we mean for it to say,” she said.

Effect on immunocompromised people and kids with medical conditions

Tara Muller, a policy attorney at Disability Rights NC, said her organization had heard from several people who were concerned about what the “practical effect” of the bill would be.

They included not just cancer patients and immunocompromised people, but parents of “medically fragile children” who were worried about whether their kids would be able to continue wearing masks on the bus to school, Muller said.

Several others who addressed the committee during public comment raised concerns about the bill targeting protesters, particularly those on college campuses, where masks have been common.

After the committee, Batch told reporters that she had spoken with Newton and was hopeful they would be able to work on “some kind of compromise” to address the health and safety concerns that were brought up on Tuesday. Batch said she hopes they’re able to draft an amendment to the bill before it’s taken up on the Senate floor, likely later this week.

“I think that there is, again, a lot of bipartisanship in why we need it, but I also don’t want it to have a chilling effect on individuals who have to choose between their lives, and actually going out in public,” she said.

NC Reality Check is an N&O series holding those in power accountable and shining a light on public issues that affect the Triangle or North Carolina. Have a suggestion for a future story? Email realitycheck@newsobserver.com