What the graphic claims
The circulating graphic says Rodney Pierce voted to use tax dollars to pay for gender-transition services for incarcerated individuals.
The short version: Rodney Pierce voted no on HB 606 on May 6, 2025. But describing that vote as a vote to use taxpayer dollars for gender-transition services is misleading. HB 606 was a broader bill containing both funding restrictions and separate civil-procedure changes. The official roll call shows how he voted on the entire bill; it does not establish his personal reason for voting no.
What HB 606 contained
The bill would have restricted certain state funding for surgical gender-transition procedures, puberty-blocking drugs, and cross-sex hormones for minors and certain incarcerated individuals in state custody.
Other provisions mattered
HB 606 also would have extended the time for certain malpractice claims involving gender-transition services to 10 years after the claimant reached age 18 and revived some claims that were otherwise time-barred.
What happened to the bill
HB 606 passed the House, including third reading, but its last recorded action was referral to the Senate Rules and Operations Committee on May 7, 2025. It did not become law.
What the official record shows
- Rodney Pierce voted No on the House second-reading vote on May 6, 2025.
- The vote passed 69–41, with one member not voting and nine excused absences.
- The bill included proposed restrictions on certain state-funded gender-transition services.
- The bill also included separate civil-liability and statute-of-limitations provisions.
- The official roll call records the vote on the complete bill, not a vote on one isolated sentence or provision.
- The bill did not become law.
What the vote does—and does not—prove
- It proves how Rodney Pierce voted: He voted against HB 606 on second reading.
- It does not prove the reason for his vote: The roll-call record does not include an explanation.
- It does not show that he voted to authorize taxpayer funding: The bill itself proposed funding restrictions, not a new authorization for such spending.
- It does not isolate one provision: Members vote on the bill as a whole, which included civil-procedure changes as well as funding provisions.
- It does not establish current law: HB 606 was not enacted.
Bottom line
Rodney Pierce voted against HB 606 as a whole. It is accurate to report his vote as “No.” It is not accurate to turn that vote into a proven claim that he voted to use taxpayer dollars to pay for gender-transition services. The official record supports a more precise description: the bill contained proposed restrictions on certain state funding, along with separate civil-procedure provisions, and it did not become law.
Primary sources:
North Carolina General Assembly — House Bill 606
Official May 6, 2025 House roll call #252
HB 606, Third Edition Engrossed
Editorial note: The bill text, vote, and status were checked against official North Carolina General Assembly records on September 22, 2026.
North Carolina General Assembly — House Bill 606
Official May 6, 2025 House roll call #252
HB 606, Third Edition Engrossed
Editorial note: The bill text, vote, and status were checked against official North Carolina General Assembly records on September 22, 2026.