John Rustin

Editor’s Note: John Rustin is the Director of Legislative Affairs at the North Carolina Family Research Council (NCFPC), a 9-year-old group that educates both legislators and citizens about issues related to the family. Working in close collaboration with such national organizations as Focus on the Family, the NCFPC was instrumental in getting restrictions placed on the state’s abortion fund, and in defeating a bill that would have eliminated the "alienation of affection" law. While there are a number of conservative groups in the state, the NCFPC is often the only conservative, pro-family group in Raleigh working with educators on issues from abortion to education to welfare. Charlotte World Editor Warren Smith sat down with Rustin a week before the start of the General Assembly to talk about what issues he would be following in the upcoming session.

Warren Smith: What do you consider to be the most pressing issues facing the legislature this year, especially those issues related to the families of North Carolina.

John Rustin: The issue we’re most concerned about is the lottery. Since 1983 a bill has been introduced in every session of the General Assembly to put our state in the gambling industry. Of course, up to this point that legislation has not passed, and we’re hopeful that this will remain the case in North Carolina.

We have done a tremendous amount of research into the lottery and other forms of gambling, and the effects of gambling on other states. The impact on the states that have a lottery has been negative. Economic problems. Social problems. And the social problems hit at the heart of the family, resulting in addiction, family break-ups. People with gambling addictions will do just about anything to get money to gamble. That will result in other problems. They’ll steal money, commit other crimes. States with lotteries have increased rates of domestic violence and child abuse. Murder and suicide. The whole gamut of social problems.

And we hear about the supposed economic benefits of a lottery. That we will be keeping money in North Carolina that is currently going to the lottery in other states, such Virginia and South Carolina. But the negative social impact of the lottery has economic costs. So it is not clear that there will be any positive economic impact for the state.

We believe that the people of North Carolina will become more concerned about these negative consequences as they become better educated.

WS: But right now the majority of citizens in North Carolina favor a lottery.

JR: Well, that’s what the polls say. The polls say that 60- to 70-percent of North Carolinians favor a lottery.

But as we go out and speak to churches and civic groups, we discover that if you ask at the beginning of a meeting who is in favor of a lottery, 60% might raise their hands. But after a 30-minute presentation on the real, hard data surrounding a lottery, minds are changed. Once people are educated, they not only stop supporting a lottery but become vehement opponents. They now realize that it is both an economic and a social issue that hits at the heart of families.

WS: So it sounds as though what you are saying is that this is a classic example of the need for grassroots activism and education.

JR: Certainly. And what we are seeing is that in both the House and the Senate, in recent sessions, the vote – if there is a vote – it will be very close. And every day I’m talking to legislators, asking them if they’re hearing from folks back home on this issue. They say no. This is a vital thing that citizens can do. Contact your legislator, and express your views on this issue.

WS: Six years ago there was an abortion fund in the state of North Carolina. You guys were instrumental in fighting this fund, in working with legislators like Robin Hayes, who was in the General Assembly at that time, to have this fund almost eliminated. Are there other abortion fights before you now?

JR: Let me first mention that the state abortion fund is not an issue that has gone away. Every session since 1995 we have had to fight to get a provision in the budget bill that restricts the abortion fund to be used only in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk.

And just to give you a sense of what this means. In 1994, the abortion fund paid for 4,587 abortions with taxpayer dollars. In 1995 through 2000, the state abortion fund has paid for only 1 abortion! In a five-year period, when the 1994 statistics suggest that the fund would have paid for around 25,000 abortions. That’s great, but we have to work every session to get these restrictions placed on the fund.

These statistics do show, very interestingly, that cases of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the mother are exceedingly rare. Pro-abortion activists rely on this argument. But in North Carolina only one abortion has met that requirement in the past five years. That’s very significant.

Of course, we’d like to see more. We’d like to see a partial-birth abortion ban in North Carolina, but with the actions the US Supreme Court has taken on that issue, with a lot of other state bans being stricken by the court, that may be a difficult thing to get done in North Carolina. Certainly with the new president and the new US Congress, we may see some action on that in the coming year.

WS: We discovered last year that state employees are having abortions paid for by their health insurance plan, which is partially funded by taxpayer money. Is there anything you folks intend to do about that issue?

JR: I think it should be a concern for everyone. The state budget is tight, and a lot of that is a result of Medicaid, as well as the overall cost of the state employees’ health plan. Last session, we saw an effort to limit some of the drugs that state employees could get access to through their insurance plan. Lifestyle drugs such as Viagra. Other procedures, such as abortion, are not necessary procedures. They should be looked at.

If legislation is introduced, we’ll be involved.

WS: Since you mentioned the budget shortfall, let’s talk about that. Right now, there is a projected shortfall of approximately $300-million. The Smart Start program is a $260-million a year program. Former governor Hunt proposed expanding that program to 4-year-olds. The NC Family Policy Council has studied the "government-care vs. parent-care" issue. What is your position on Smart Start? Should it be expanded? Should it be eliminated?

JR: Generally, the broader issue that is of concern to us is that there has been a shift over the years toward the government and childcare facilities raising our children instead of parents raising their own children.

We feel strongly that the government should encourage as much as possible the parents’ ability to raise their own children. That includes a wide variety of policy changes. The most significant of which is a change to the tax structure. We now have a tax structure that requires both parents to work to provide for the family. And the tax burden is growing.

WS: Help me understand that argument. Are you saying that by the time you pay additional taxes, childcare, transportation, and other expenses associated with procuring that second income, there’s very little money left over for the family itself? And that by reducing the tax burden only slightly it will be economically neutral for that second income-earner to stay home?

JR: That’s likely to be the case. If you look at the cost of day care, especially if you have two or three children in day care, the cost can be very high. If you look at the $40,000 median household income in the country, and look at their after-tax take home pay of the second income earner, since most households in this median income bracket are two-income families, a great portion of that second income will go to pay for childcare, and the other costs associated with working – buying clothes, transportation, and the rest.

It could well be that even a limited tax break to that family could make it better for that parent to stay home.

WS: But it sounds as though that tax relief, especially in the current environment of a budget shortfall, is not going to happen.

JR: Right. But we could see, and we would love to see, a policy that calls for a family impact statement that would require any new tax legislation to consider the impact on families in the state. That could eventually lead to a restructuring of the tax burden in the state.

WS: Other groups are looking at these issues, too. What is unique about the NC Family Policy Council? What do you guys bring to the debate that no one else brings?

JR: The primary focus of what we do is research and education on issues that impact traditional family values in North Carolina. We review every piece of legislation that is introduced in the General Assembly, and we try to impact that legislation if we think that legislation will have an impact on the family. So we will work on issues from abortion to adoption to the lottery to education to welfare.

One thing that makes us unique is that we have a full-time presence in the General Assembly. That’s my job, to be there when the legislature is in session, attending committee meetings, talking to legislators, providing a voice for families.

Now, you said that there were a number of other organizations that approach issues from a similar perspective. That’s true, but there are many more organizations on the other side of many of these issues. Take homosexual hate crimes legislation, for example. I have been the only individual who has testified against that legislation in committee, and there were eight to ten people on the other side of that issue providing testimony.

We need more organizations representing family values.

WS: Another area you follow closely is education. What are the most important issues there?

JR: We are totally supportive of tax credits and vouchers. Since we haven’t had a proposal that has gone anywhere, we’d like to see either of those. Giving parents the ability to choose gives the power back to the parents where it belongs.

We are in favor of raising or eliminating the cap on charter schools. Currently there is a 100-school cap. In February, we will be at that cap.

And we’ve seen some real success among the home school community. We’d like to see parents more able to make that choice.

WS: What other issues will you be following?

JR: A bill was introduced to eliminate the criminal penalty for adultery for cohabitation. A bill was introduced to eliminate North Carolina’s "Alienation of Affection" laws. These laws say that if you are married, and an individual steals the affections of your spouse, commits adultery with your spouse, and that results in the break-up of your marriage, you can sue that third-party. There was a bill introduced in the 1999 session that would have eliminated that law. An aggrieved spouse would have no recourse. We think that law is significant and plays an important role in preserving marriages and families. That law sends a strong message that we need to maintain.

We have an increasing number of school-based health clinics that provide a wide range of physical and mental health services. We are concerned that these clinics might become full-service clinics, offering services that go well beyond the bounds of what is necessary to ensure the health and safety of a child at school. Currently, these clinics operate with very little restrictions. There was been legislation introduced during the past few sessions to require the clinics to inform the parents of the range of services being offered, and to provide the parents the opportunity to consent before services are provided – or before a child is referred out to get contraceptives or an abortion.

WS: So that is happening right now in North Carolina? A 15-year-old kid can go to a school-based clinic in North Carolina and get referred to an abortion provider?

JR: That’s my understanding. Of course, there is a law that says a school cannot give out contraceptives, but they can make a referral for a contraceptive or an abortion to the local health department or another provider.

Warren Smith: You’ve raised a lot of issues, and you’ve talked about how few people and organizations there are on the pro-family side of many of these issues, compared to the activism on the other side. Scripture commands us to be salt and light. Is that happening in the state of North Carolina?

JR: There’s a need for Christians to be more active. With the Internet, it is easier to communicate and keep Christians informed. But we have to have people out there who are willing to act. It’s not hard. A letter or a phone call often makes a big difference.

Being down at the legislature, I can tell your readers that the impact that individuals can have is significant, very significant. Legislators get a surprisingly low number of contacts on the issues. If they get 15 or 20 or 25 phone calls from people in their district, it can have a significant impact on how they vote on issues.

And that is so important. As I said, we’re sometimes a voice crying in the wilderness, and the effectiveness we have and other pro-family groups have really comes from the grass roots.