These are some of the books NC Republicans want to ban from school libraries | Opinion
North Carolina Republicans are considering new legislation that would ban all books that discuss gender identity, sexuality or sexual activity from elementary school libraries.
The original Parents’ Bill of Rights prohibited instruction on sexuality and gender identity from being included in elementary school curriculum. But the new bill goes a step further by banning LGBTQ+ content from elementary schools altogether, whether it’s used for instruction or not.
Lawmakers insist that the bill, which stems from an ongoing standoff with Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, is a necessary step that ensures children aren’t exposed to topics that are “inappropriate,” and sent Chapel Hill-Carrboro school leaders a list of supposedly unacceptable books currently available for students to borrow.
I obtained a copy of that list and found that many of the books were simply picture books and children’s novels in which one or more characters happened to be gay. Oftentimes, the book contained LGBTQ+ content simply because the main character had two moms or two dads.
Here are some of the books included on that list:
- “Home at Last,” which is about a boy in foster care who is adopted by two dads. He has a hard time adjusting to his new home, but finds comfort in the family dog.
- “Harriet Gets Carried Away,” about a little girl who gets lost while shopping with her two dads for her birthday party and goes on an adventure with penguins.
- “Joyful Song: A Naming Story,” which is about a Jewish boy going to his baby sister’s naming ceremony at the temple. He has two moms.
- “Mama and Mommy and Me in the Middle,” about a girl who misses one of her two moms when she goes away on a business trip.
- “Stella Brings the Family,” about a little girl with two dads who doesn’t know who to bring to her class’s Mother’s Day party.
- “Morris Micklewhite and the Tangerine Dress,” about a little boy who likes to pretend he is an astronaut and gets teased for picking an orange dress from his classroom’s dress-up closet.
- “Julián Is a Mermaid,” about a boy who sees women wearing mermaid costumes on the subway and wants to dress up as one too.
- “Heather Has Two Mommies,” which is pretty self-explanatory.
- “Prince & Knight,” a fairy tale in which the prince falls in love with a knight instead of a princess, and they fight a dragon together.
The list also includes non-fiction books about the LGBTQ+ community, such as “Sharice’s Big Voice,” a picture book autobiography about the first LGBTQ+ person elected to represent Kansas in Congress. There’s also a book about the history of the Pride flag and a book highlighting LGBTQ+ leaders throughout history.
Republicans make a fuss about a few books that discuss gender transitioning and body parts, and while some parents might not want their children reading those books, it’s still a subjective decision that the government shouldn’t be weighing in on. After all, it’s not like these children’s books actually come near the threshold for pornography. And if the bill really is about empowering parents to decide what their kids should and shouldn’t be reading, it’s not necessary. Lawmakers have already put forth legislation that gives parents the ability to restrict school library access for their children and creates processes by which “vulgar” books can be removed from school libraries altogether.
Which makes it seem like maybe protecting children and parents isn’t what this bill is about at all. Maybe the point is just to scrub the shelves of LGBTQ+ content completely, whether parents want it or not. Few people disagree that parents should be allowed to decide when and how to talk to their children about certain topics. But banning that content entirely only benefits the parents who want to shelter their children from it — not the ones who don’t.
The idea that same-sex relationships aren’t appropriate or family-friendly — and that children must be protected from them — demonizes an entire community simply for loving who they love. Many of the books that would be affected have no sexual content at all, and if the exact same book portrayed a family with one mom and one dad, there probably wouldn’t be any objections.
What Republicans don’t seem to understand is that book bans won’t change the fact that LGBTQ+ people are real, no matter how much they try to make it so. The goal of these books isn’t to create a world in which everyone is gay or transgender. It’s about acknowledging the fact that there will always be kids and families who are. Most importantly, it’s about creating a world in which those kids can grow up feeling like they belong, rather than a world that treats them like an aberration. They don’t deserve to feel unseen or unrecognized simply because the government doesn’t deem them or their family structure acceptable.
Deputy Opinion Editor Paige Masten is covering politics and the 2026 elections for The Charlotte Observer and The News & Observer.
This story was originally published April 28, 2026 at 11:45 AM with the headline "These are some of the books NC Republicans want to ban from school libraries | Opinion."
