Who does Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly really represent?

Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly claims to have received a call from a citizen who told him that abortion care was covered in the town’s health plan. According to WRAL’s highly sensationalistic coverage, Mayor Weatherly said he didn’t believe it was true until he looked into it.

Maybe this is exactly how it happened. Maybe. But it’s interesting that no mention was made of the fact that Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly works as a legislative assistant for none other than Republican Minority Leader Paul Stam--a longtime crusader against a woman’s right to make childbearing decisions. Just google “Paul Stam abortion” to see a sample of how long Stam has been trying to stop a woman’s right to choose.

Perhaps it’s purely coincidental that Rep. Stam’s most recent Twitter entries reveal he was hard at work trying to ensure that abortion coverage was excluded from national health care reform.

It’s possible that Rep. Stam never discussed abortion and healthcare coverage with his legislative aid, Mayor Keith Weatherly.

But if the NC House Minority Leader Paul Stam was at all involved in this decision, even as citizen Paul Stam, wouldn’t WRAL have told us? Wouldn’t other Apex citizens, particularly town employees whose health benefits were cut want to know?


Thanks for staying on this

Don't let up.


PS I honestly don't know how you folks stand dealing with the rabid paternalism pouring out of the sanctimonious right. We got a taste of that this week, and I've tried to be civil to the commenter, but have quickly reached the end of my rope. Thank you for all you do to protect women from such lunacy.

Don't let up


Keith and Paul vs. Apex employees

good work on this-- you all have brought to light new info that WRAL has not had. This looks like a purely political game to me, with the town employees as the pawns. And Wake County employees will be next......

Stop attacking women

It is incredibly immoral for "leaders" in Apex to throw women under the bus. Reproductive health care is essential for the public health. If women don't have control over their reproductive health, it can impact not just them, but their family, their income and their community. Apex should not attack women and workers. They should find ways to make working for the city more attractive not hostile

WRAL and sensationalism? Say it ain't so!

WRAL political reporters have long held on to the open secret that the Apex mayor is on the Skippy Stam's gummit gravy train at the General Assembly.

How much gummit money does Keith Weatherly rake in?

Long live the MSM!

Hey, Cullen Browder. Where's that investigative reporting trumpeted in your bio?

Don't worry. Just tell me what you think I need to know and nothing else.



the height of something for sure. Prejudice? Ignorance? Misogyny?

So many options ...

"abortion care"

"Abortion care?" Wow, that's Orwellian. Those are two words that never belong in the same sentence. Elective abortions (and those are the only abortions affected by this change) are all about electing to NOT CARE -- to not have to care for an inconvenient child.

In fact, covering elective abortions with insurance just increases the economic incentive for abortion, for mothers who are often are already under tremendous economic (and/or social) pressure to choose abortion rather than life for their babies.

Babies are expensive, and abortions are cheap. Babies are also precious, and abortions are tragic.

Remember that NOBODY affected by this change is too poor to pay for an abortion. They are all Town employees. An abortion is easily affordable to them. It is a live baby who is likely to be a financial hardship, not an abortion.

So why on earth would we want to subsidize abortions, which are already cheap, rather than providing more help for the mothers who are trying to figure out how they can afford their babies?

Weatherly & Stam are 100% right about this. This change is long overdue.

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking

You now complain about an economic incentive for "elective abortions" but you have said nothing about medical necessary or "forced abortions"

Read your own words:

So why on earth would we want to subsidize abortions, which are already cheap, rather than providing more help for the mothers...

Why are you being a hypocrite?

Further, why can you not see that providing a given option is not the same as endorsing a given choice?

Your logic is not sound. And because it doesn't impact your body, you just don't seem to care.

Should we forbid payments for certain cancer treatments that have high mortality rates because the treatment "doesn't respect" what you deem is "life."

You are not king. And thank Hera for that.