Connect with us

News

Hearing in the works for federal ‘religious freedom’ bill

Critics say measure would enable anti-LGBT discrimination

Published

on

Jason Chaffetz, gay news, Washington Blade
Jason Chaffetz, gay news, Washington Blade

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) isĀ planning a hearing on “religious freedom” legislation forĀ the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Congress has mostly stayed out of the “religious freedom” fight as states pass legislation allowing anti-LGBT discrimination for religious reasons, but that may soon change.

AĀ U.S. House committeeĀ is planningĀ a hearing on the First Amendment Defense Act, a “religious freedom” bill with the purported purpose of preventing federal government action againstĀ individuals and businesses thatĀ oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons. Critics say it essentially carves out a legal exemption for anti-LGBT discrimination.

The legislation was introduced by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) in the U.S. House and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) in the U.S. Senate.

M.J. Henshaw, a spokesperson for the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, said the panel is “working towards a hearing” on the legislation, although no date has been scheduled.

A follow-up email on whether the hearing was likely before the end of this month wasn’t returned. It remains to be seen if a committee vote or consideration on the House floor will follow the hearing.

Chaired by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee is packed with conservative Republicans, including Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.), who recently attached to a major defense spending bill an amendment that would undermine President Obama’s executive order prohibiting anti-LGBT workplace discrimination among federal contractors.

The anti-LGBT National Organization for Marriage has been pushing for a hearing on the First Amendment Defense Act in a campaign it calls “Fax for FADA.” The effort encourages supporters to sign a petition in support of the legislation, which triggers a fax sent to House Republican leadership and the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee. According to the National Organization for Marriage’s website, the petition as of Wednesday had 3,870 signatures.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, wrote in a blog post the “Fax for FADA” effort “is making a big impact.”

“Word is that the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) will be scheduled for a hearing very soon,” Brown writes. “Our faxes to the House Republican leadership and members of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee are having an impact!”

Upon its introduction last year in an attempt to counter the expected ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide, the First Amendment Defense Act is seen as an attempt to make a carve out intoĀ that decision without entirely overturning it.

Among other things, LGBT advocates have said the legislation as introduced would 1) permit a federal employee to refuse to process tax returns, visa applications or Social Security checks for same-sex couples; 2) allow recipients of federal grants and contracts, including those for social services programs like homeless shelters and substance abuse treatment programs, to turn away LGBT people; and 3) permit anyone who believes they have been somehow required by the federal government to approve of married same-sex couples to file a lawsuit and potentially receive damages from taxpayer funds.

Roddy Flynn, executive director of the LGBT Equality Caucus, said the legislation is akin to controversial state anti-LGBT laws recently enacted in North Carolina and Mississippi, calling the plannedĀ hearingĀ the latest “in a string of attacks on LGBT people.”

“First North Carolina and Mississippi, then the NDAA amendment, now a hearing on FADA, some lawmakers are determined to permit discrimination at all costs,” Flynn said. “These measures are not about religious liberty or the First Amendment, they are attempts to roll back hard fought protections that provide stability and security to LGBT people. With the incredible backlash against North Carolina’s law, it is shocking some lawmakers are doubling down on this much more radical bill. FADA goes far beyond North Carolinaā€™s anti-LGBT law, giving a license to discriminate for anyone who doesnā€™t like LGBT people.ā€

On the Senate side, Lee has presented a new version of the First Amendment Defense Act that limits that carve-out for opponents of same-sex marriage, although the update hasn’t officially been filed.

The new version, which is displayed on Lee’s website, spells out protections from government action won’tĀ apply to publicly traded for-profit entities; federal employees acting within the scope of their employment; federal for-profit contractors acting within the scope of their contracts; and hospitals and nursing homes with respect to visitation, decision-making on health care and certain treatments.

Conn Carroll, a Lee spokesperson, said Tuesday the version of the First Amendment Defense Act on Lee’s website is the “up to date” version of the legislation.

ā€œThis finalized version of the First Amendment Defense Act, which weā€™ve been working with religious liberty experts on for months, makes crystal clear that we are only seeking to prevent federal government discrimination against people and institutions that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman,” Carroll said.

On the House side, Labrador’s office didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request to comment onĀ the article or to confirm if the updated Senate version is the new House version as well.

Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the legislation remains discriminatory against LGBT people regardless of the change.

“It is disappointing that some Republicans in the House have failed to learn the lessons that Governors Pence, McCrory and Bryant now know all too well,” Thompson said. “Embarking down this discriminatory road is going to meet with the swift backlash that it deserves.”

Thompson said one example of discrimination the bill would still allow is permitting certain federal contractors or grantees, including those that provide social services like homeless shelters or drug treatment programs, to turn away LGBT people, same-sex couples or anyone who has a sexual relationship outside of a marriage, such as a single mother.

“Whether in its original or 2.0 versions, FADA is about permitting taxpayer-funded discrimination,” Thompson said. “This legislation is beneath who we are as a nation. I hope that Speaker Ryan and Chairman Chaffetz will reconsider the wisdom of putting such a bright spotlight onto such an ugly, mean-spirited bill.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act now protects LGBTQ people

Published

on

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra (Public domain photo)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights has issued a final rule on Friday under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act advancing protections against discrimination in health care prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics), in covered health programs or activities. 

The updated rule does not force medical professionals to provide certain types of health care, but rather ensures nondiscrimination protections so that providers cannot turn away patients based on individual characteristics such as being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or pregnant.

ā€œThis rule ensures that people nationwide can access health care free from discrimination,ā€ said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. ā€œStanding with communities in need is critical, particularly given increased attacks on women, trans youth, and health care providers. Health care should be a right not dependent on looks, location, love, language, or the type of care someone needs.ā€

The new rule restores and clarifies important regulatory protections for LGBTQ people and other vulnerable populations under Section 1557, also known as the health care nondiscrimination law, that were previously rescinded by the Trump administration.

ā€œHealthcare is a fundamental human right. The rule released today restores critical regulatory nondiscrimination protections for those who need them most and ensures a legally proper reading of the Affordable Care Actā€™s healthcare nondiscrimination law,ā€ said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, counsel and health care strategist for Lambda Legal.

ā€œThe Biden administration today reversed the harmful, discriminatory, and unlawful effort by the previous administration to eliminate critical regulatory protections for LGBTQ+ people and other vulnerable populations, such as people with limited English proficiency, by carving them out from the rule and limiting the scope of entities to which the rule applied,ā€ Gonzalez-Pagan added. ā€œThe rule released today has reinstated many of these important protections, as well as clarifying the broad, intended scope of the rule to cover all health programs and activities and health insurers receiving federal funds. While we evaluate the new rule in detail, it is important to highlight that this rule will help members of the LGBTQ+ community ā€” especially transgender people, non-English speakers, immigrants, people of color, and people living with disabilities ā€” to access the care they need and deserve, saving lives and making sure healthcare professionals serve patients with essential care no matter who they are.ā€

In addition to rescinding critical regulatory protections for LGBTQ people, the Trump administrationā€™s rule also limited the remedies available to people who face health disparities, limited access to health care for people with Limited English Proficiency, and dramatically reduced the number of healthcare entities and health plans subject to the rule.

Lambda Legal, along with a broad coalition of LGBTQ advocacy groups, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration rule,Ā Whitman-Walker Clinic v. HHS, and secured a preliminary injunction preventing key aspects of the Trump rule from taking effect.

These included the elimination of regulatory protections for LGBTQ people and the unlawful expansion of religious exemptions, which the new rule corrects. The preliminary injunction in Whitman-Walker Clinic v. HHS remains in place. Any next steps in the case will be determined at a later time, after a fulsome review of the new rule.

GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis released the following statement in response to the news:

ā€œThe Biden administrationā€™s updates to rules regarding Section 1557 of the ACA will ensure that no one who is LGBTQI or pregnant can face discrimination in accessing essential health care. This reversal of Trump-era discriminatory rules that sought to single out Americans based on who they are and make it difficult or impossible for them to access necessary medical care will have a direct, positive impact on the day to day lives of millions of people. Todayā€™s move marks the 334th action from the Biden-Harris White House in support of LGBTQ people. Health care is a human right that should be accessible to all Americans equally without unfair and discriminatory restrictions. LGBTQ Americans are grateful for this step forward to combat discrimination in health care so no one is barred from lifesaving treatment.ā€

Continue Reading

Maryland

Md. governor signs Freedom to Read Act

Law seeks to combat book bans

Published

on

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (Public domain photo/Twitter)

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore on Thursday signed a bill that seeks to combat efforts to ban books from state libraries.

House Bill 785, also known as the Freedom to Read Act, would establish a state policy ā€œthat local school systems operate their school library media programs consistent with certain standards; requiring each local school system to develop a policy and procedures to review objections to materials in a school library media program; prohibiting a county board of education from dismissing, demoting, suspending, disciplining, reassigning, transferring, or otherwise retaliating against certain school library media program personnel for performing their job duties consistent with certain standards.ā€

Moore on Thursday also signed House Bill 1386, which GLSEN notes will ā€œdevelop guidelines for an anti-bias training program for school employees.ā€

Continue Reading

Mexico

Mexican Senate approves bill to ban conversion therapy

Measure passed by 77-4 vote margin

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

The Mexican Senate on Thursday approved a bill that would ban so-called conversion therapy in the country.

Yaaj MĆ©xico, a Mexican LGBTQ rights group, on X noted the measure passed by a 77-4 vote margin with 15 abstentions.  The Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Mexico’s congress, approved the bill last month that, among other things, would subject conversion therapy practitioners to between two and six years in prison and fines.

The Senate on its X account described conversion therapy as “practices that have incentivized the violation of human rights of the LGBTTTIQ+ community.”

“The Senate moved (to) sanction therapies that impede or annul a person’s orientation or gender identity,” it said. “There are aggravating factors when the practices are done to minors, older adults and people with disabilities.”

Mexico City and the states of Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Jalisco and Sonora are among the Mexican jurisdictions that have banned the discredited practice.Ā 

The Senate in 2022 passed a conversion therapy ban bill, but the House of Deputies did not approve it. It is not immediately clear whether President AndrĆ©s Manuel LĆ³pez Obrador supports the ban.

Canada, Brazil, Belgium, Germany, France, and New Zealand are among the countries that ban conversion therapy. Virginia, California, and D.C. are among the U.S. jurisdictions that prohibit the practice for minors.Ā Ā 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular