Press Conference on Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Markup of Resolution to disapprove D.C. Health Non-Discrimination Act

Statement

The District of Columbia is under congressional attack, not for how it operates, but for the views of its residents as expressed through its local legislature, the likes of which we have not seen for decades. The assault by the Congress on local government is foreign to American traditions of local control. Tuesday's Oversight and Government Reform Committee markup of a resolution to disapprove, that is, to overturn, the D.C. Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act, is the first time the committee has marked up a D.C. disapproval resolution since 1992, when the committee marked up a disapproval resolution on a very modest domestic partnership bill that has now been superseded by the District's marriage equality law. We appreciate that the committee has assured us that it will not mark up a disapproval resolution to overturn the D.C. Human Rights Amendment Act at any point this Congress, a bill that would prevent discrimination against LGBT students at their own schools and universities. Although we have been relieved of a double dose of anti-democratic intrusion into our local affairs at tomorrow's markup, we cannot stand down because both D.C. bills are still under attack in both chambers of Congress.

We are fortunate that we have many allies here and across the country standing up for the right of the District to self-government. I would like to particularly thank Glenn Northern, the Domestic Program Senior Associate of Catholics for Choice, for agreeing to speak today as a representative of the coalition, as well as the many other allies in attendance today, who are working with us to alert Americans across the country that Republicans are attempting to intrude into D.C.'s local affairs instead of spending their time on the affairs of their own districts and of the federal government. We especially thank the National Women's Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Human Rights Campaign, DC Vote, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC, Center for Reproductive Rights, Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

We are here today to ensure that Congress respects the stated purpose of its own D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973, which gave the District the right to enact its own local laws. At the same time, we are also fighting to protect D.C. residents from being denied or fired from a job for exercising their private, constitutionally protected right to reproductive health care choices. We regret that the attack on the D.C Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act pits reproductive freedom against freedom of religion. Employers are entitled to their religious beliefs, which must be respected. What we will not tolerate, however, is misusing religion to deny women and men equal opportunity in the workplace. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has found ways to reconcile constitutional rights simultaneously, such as the right to privacy, freedom from discrimination, and freedom of religion. The District has struck the right balance with the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act.

The attack on the D.C. anti-discrimination bills has been led in Congress by Senator Ted Cruz, who pointedly introduced disapproval resolutions on the District's reproductive rights and LGBT rights bills just before announcing his run for president at Liberty University, as well as the conservative House Republican Study Committee. Opponents of the D.C. bills have called on Congress to block the bills through either disapproval resolutions or appropriations riders.

In their wisdom, the Framers established the United States as a republic based on federalism, recognizing that there would be vast differences among us. The genius of federalism is that it permits these differences to blossom and thrive unimpeded as long as they do not interfere with the rightful jurisdiction of the federal government. If this House presumes to interfere with the views of American citizens as reflected in local laws, at the very least the local mayor and city council are entitled to the courtesy of a hearing, where they could give the reasons for passing their bill, and the committee could hear testimony from independent scholars on the bill's legality. The press has reported that the Republican majority felt it did not have enough time to hold a hearing because the congressional review deadline clock was ticking. However, the District transmitted its bill to Congress on March 6. The committee has had ample time to hold a hearing. Do Republicans fear a hearing that would allow local elected officials and independent legal scholars to spell out the countless examples emerging across the country of employers engaged in outright discrimination, especially against women, for reproductive health decisions?

Tomorrow's markup of the disapproval resolution on the D.C. Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act regrettably continues the Republican war on women, particularly on the women of the District. Over the past couple of years, Republicans have passed a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy only in D.C.; a bill to permanently ban D.C. from spending its local funds on abortions for low-income women, to prohibit D.C. government employees from providing abortions and to prohibit abortions in D.C. government facilities, and an annual appropriations rider that blocks only D.C. from using its local funds on abortions for low-income women. Although we have been able to keep these anti-democratic bills from becoming law, we are fighting a clear and present danger this year unless the country is informed of these violations of local control.

The D.C. Council passed the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act to ensure that women and men in the District have equal workplace opportunities. The bill protects women from being fired for their most personal conduct away from the job, such as exercising their private, constitutionally protected right to make reproductive health decisions. The D.C. bill also protects an employee from being fired for personal reproductive health decisions of a spouse or dependent. If this disapproval resolution is enacted into law, an employer's own beliefs and policies would remain undisturbed, but employers would have carte blanche permission to take action to discriminate against employees for their private reproductive health decisions, even though that employee carries out the policies of the employer. For example, the District seeks only to prevent an employer from firing an employee whose wife or child has an abortion due to rape or incest, from firing a woman who uses fertility treatments, from firing a women who uses birth control pills or a man who uses condoms, from firing parents who buy birth control for their children, from firing a women for being unmarried and pregnant, and from firing a woman who has an abortion. To be clear, under the D.C. bill, an employer would be prohibited from discriminating against a candidate or employee based on private reproductive health decisions, which are personal, protected conduct, when the employee is willing to perform the job.

D.C.'s bill in no respect infringes the philosophical or political beliefs or practices of the employer. The D.C. bill does not prohibit an employer from making policy decisions, and employees must be willing to carry out an employer's policies, whatever they are. Employers can still ask candidates if they agree to implement the policies and mission of the organization. But employers cannot hire and fire employees based on private, personal heath choices that are unrelated to employees' duties and responsibilities.

The D.C. Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act is constitutional and consistent with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies to the District. The bill complies with the First Amendment because it is a neutral bill of general applicability. The bill also complies with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it serves the compelling governmental interest of protecting against discrimination, and the courts have held that non-discrimination measures are the least restrictive means to eradicate discrimination.

Tomorrow's markup is only step one in our effort to protect home rule, workplace equality, and reproductive rights. We will not be intimidated by a presidential candidate who seeks the highest office by denying the rights of the American citizens who live in the nation's capital, or by Republican members who preach local control and then turn around and deny that basic right to the residents of this city.

Source