Equality Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5 because it puts the Hyde Amendment and other federal and state laws that bar taxpayer funding for abortion at serious risk and out of an abundance of concern for the women and children who flee to the protection of domestic abuse shelters,.
H.R. 5 weakens conscience protections for health care providers opposed to being coerced into participating in the killing of unborn babies.
H.R. 5 defines ``sex'' to include ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.'' The term ``related medical condition'' means ``abortion.'' In the case Doe v. C.A.R.S., the Third Circuit stated, ``We now hold that the term ``related medical conditions'' includes an abortion.'' Furthermore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces Title VII, interprets abortion to be covered as a ``related medical condition.''
To further clarify, H.R. 5 goes on to state:
(b): Rules.--In a covered title referred to in subsection (a)--''(1) (with respect to sex} pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions; . . .
In other words, a provider may not withhold a ``treatment option,'' including dismembering, chemically poisoning or otherwise destroying an unborn baby girl or boy.
In a legal analysis released this month, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote:
Existing prohibitions on the use of government funds for abortion can be undercut in three ways.
First, federal and state governments are themselves providers of health care. Therefore, they would themselves be subject to the constraints that the Equality Act places on all health care providers and, as such, would likely be required to provide abortions. This conclusion is reinforced by the bill's expansive definition of ``establishment,'' which is not limited to physical facilities and places.
Second, it would seem anomalous to, on the one hand, mandate that recipients of federal funds provide abortions, as the Equality Act can be read to do, but, on the other hand, prohibit use of such funds for abortions. It can (and likely will) be argued that these newly enacted provisions, which would likely require recipients of federal funding to perform abortions, would thereby repeal by implication previously enacted legislation forbidding the use of those very same funds for abortion.
Third, even if the bill were not construed to require the federal government to fund abortions, it could still be construed to require states that receive federal funding to do so with their own funds, which would be a departure from the longstanding principle that the federal government not require government funding of abortion even on the part of state governments.
The possibility that the Equality Act may be used to undercut the Hyde principle against government funding of abortion has been noted even by those endorsing the bill including Katelyn Burns, New Congress Opens Door for Renewed Push for LGBTQ Equality Act (Dec. 5, 2018). But instead of denying that this problem exists, or (even better) urging an amendment to avoid it, one supporter of the bill has suggested that the issue simply ``has to be navigated super carefully.'' In other words, there is a problem and the suggested ``fix'' is simply to keep it from becoming politically visible.
In an incisive analysis of H.R. 5, Richard Doerflinger exposes the risk to unborn children, conscience rights and state all laws preventing taxpayer funding for abortion:
``Of especially grave concern is that the Equality Act introduces this same language on sex and ``pregnancy discrimination'' into Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, forbidding discrimination in ``federally assisted programs.'' This applies to a wide range of entities that may receive federal funds, including state and local government agencies, educational institutions, organizations providing health care, etc. (42 USC 2000d-4a). All of these would be required to show that they do not exclude the full range of treatments for the ``condition'' of pregnancy. Not only the federal government, but all states that receive federal funds for their health programs, could be required to fund elective abortions, reversing the longstanding policy of two-thirds of the states. The same changes to the definition of ``sex'' are made to Title II, on discrimination in places of ``public accommodation,'' and that title's definition of a ``public accommodation'' is expanded to include ``any establishment that provides a good, service, or program,'' including any provider of ``health care'' (H.R. 5, Sec. 3 (a)(d)).''
I also oppose H.R. 5 out of genuine concern for the women and children who seek refuge in a domestic abuse shelter.
By granting biological men--who self-identify as women-access to women's shelters, H.R. 5 removes the hard-fought gains to protect women and girls from abuse and to provide them with physical, emotional and psychological security.
In late 2018, nine female victims residing in a women's shelter in Fresno, California-Naomi's House, operated by Poverello House-filed a lawsuit against the shelter for admitting a biological man because he had self-identified as a woman. These victims stated that they had been sexually harassed by this biological man. They said that he had made ``sexual advances'' on them and would ``stare and leer'' and make ``sexually harassing comments about their bodies'' while they were forced to undress in the same room with him.
After repeatedly confronting the staff of Naomi's House--both verbally and in writing--with their extreme discomfort, these women were told that they would be expelled from the shelter if they refused to comply.
Madam Speaker, if we allow biological men who self-identify as women to receive access to these women-only shelters, abused women and children will lose the 'safe space' they so desperately need.
We must first and foremost protect victims of violence.
These brave women and children deserve a place where they can feel protected and secure, so they can begin the difficult process to heal as they deal with post-traumatic stress. Forcing them to share a shelter and its facilities--including showers and sleeping areas--with biological men who self-identify as women will likely cause these women and children to experience insecurity, discomfort, confusion, and fear of additional assault.
Women's shelters--there are about 1,500 nationwide--offer a safe space where a woman does not have to fear or worry about violence and intimidation and instead allows her to take steps toward rebuilding her life.
These victims deserve better. They deserve our protection and support. We must work to ensure the safety of women, girls, and children.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source