Legislative Update - March 17, 2021

US House of Representatives Bill #  HR 5

SCRWC President, Marilyn Booker, has sent letters to Democrats Senator Thomas Carper and Senator Christopher Coons, expressing Republican Women’s opposition to the proposed legislation.  Click on the links below to view those letters:

Letter to Carper

Letter to Coons

Date Presented:  Initially in 2019, but not heard by Republican Senate; Passed in House again in 2021, and will need 60 votes in the Senate to pass

Submitted by:  Nancy Pelosi, March 13, 2021

Sponsored by:  Democrats

 

TEXT (paraphrased):   Federal Equality Act.  This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in a wide variety of areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system.

 

Main issue:  The majority of  Americans do not want a nationwide bathroom requirement, health care mandate, or “preferred pronoun” law based on gender identity, nor allow transgender athletes to compete with women (realistically enacting inequality and prejudicial against women).

 

Summary:   The Federal Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service. The Supreme Court's June 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia protects "gay and transgender" people in matters of employment, but not in other respects. Much like the Bostock v. Clayton County decision, the Equality Act broadly defines sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity, adding, "pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes". The bill also defines this to include "intersex traits". The intended purpose of the Act is to legally protect individuals from discrimination based on such.  Instead, the detailed and onerous edict is unnecessarily complicating social issues and are not supported by scientific human biological traits.  Scientific biological attributes are not stereotypical but are simply reality.

 

Salient points (Source:  Heritage Foundation) Further descriptions and examples of each of the below are attached

  • It would penalize Americans who don’t affirm new sexual norms or gender ideology.

  • It would compel speech.

  • It could shut down charities.

  • It would allow the majority of biological males to defeat girls in sports.

  • Nullifies and tarnishes women’s sports and potentially totally eradicating from existence.

  • It could be used to coerce medical professionals to compromise their ethics and oaths.

  • It could lead to more parents losing custody of their children and breaking down social norms.

  • It would enable sexual assault via sharing of facilities

  • It is an infringement on women’s safety and privacy rights.

 

Research obtained from The Heritage Foundation

 

The Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service. The Supreme Court's June 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia protects "gay and transgender" people in matters of employment, but not in other respects. Much like the Bostock v. Clayton County decision, the Equality Act broadly defines sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity, adding, "pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes". The bill also defines this to include "intersex traits". The intended purpose of the Act is to legally protect individuals from discrimination based on such.  In reality, this bill, under the guise of protecting gender rights is actually an assault on biological females in every aspect of life, but is significantly apparent in women’s sports.

 

It would penalize Americans who don’t affirm new sexual norms or gender ideology.

  • The Equality Act would force employers and workers to conform to new sexual norms or else lose their businesses and jobs.  (EX:  Baker who wouldn’t bake a cake for same-sex marriage)

  • Flies in the face of our Constitutional rights for freedom of religious beliefs.

  • The rights of the majority lose to the right of a minority.  There is nothing Equitable about HR 5.

 

It would compel speech.

  • Virginia high school teacher Peter Vlaming lost his job for something he did not say.

  • A county school board voted unanimously to fire the veteran teacher over the objections of his students after he refused to comply with administrators’ orders to use masculine pronouns in referring to a female student who identifies as transgender.

  • Vlaming did his best to accommodate the student without violating his religious belief that God created human beings male and female, using the student’s new name and simply refraining from using pronouns altogether.

  • Overall, this condition represents a loss of freedom and basic human rights by excluding the majority and focus upon the minority.  There is nothing equitable about HR 5.

 

It could shut down charities.

  • In Philadelphia, just days after the city put out an urgent call for 300 additional families to foster children, the city halted child placements by Catholic Social Services because of the organization’s belief that every child deserves both a mother and a father.

  • Although same-sex couples have the opportunity to foster children through the state or every other agency in Philadelphia, the city canceled its contract with Catholic Social Services. The agency’s approved foster homes remain available while children languish on the waiting list. This bill is already proving to be harmful to children.

  • A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law could force any social service organization to open up private facilities—including single-sex bathrooms, showers, and sleeping areas—to members of the opposite sex.

  • HR 5 is proving not to be Equitable.  The name is a misnomer.

 

It would allow more biological males to defeat girls in sports.

  • Two biological males who identify and compete as women easily defeated all of their female competitors in an event at the Connecticut State Track Championships. Transgender athlete Terry Miller broke the state record in the girls’100-meter dash. Andraya Yearwood, also transgender, took second place. 

  • A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would defeat the purpose of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which is supposed to guarantee women equal educational and athletic opportunities.

  • Under radical gender identity policies, female athletes have sustained gruesome injuries at the hands of male competitors. In high school wrestling, female athletes have forfeited rather than compete against transgender athletes on testosterone.

  • There is nothing equitable about HR 5.  This act is prejudicial and biased against biological women.

 

It could be used to coerce medical professionals.

  • Under state sexual orientation and gender identity laws, individuals who identify as transgender have sued Catholic hospitals in California and New Jersey for declining to perform hysterectomies on otherwise healthy women who wanted to pursue gender transition.

  • If these lawsuits succeed, medical professionals would be pressured to treat patients according to ideology rather than their best medical judgment.

  • Medical professional forced to utilize and practice medical procedures inappropriate for the true, biological gender, could cause adverse and irreparable harm to the patient, thereby rendering the medical professional liable to malpractice suits.

  • There is nothing equitable about a law creating potentially dangerous or lethal conditions impacting patients.

 

It could lead to more parents losing custody of their children

  • The politicization of medicine according to gender ideology will create more conflicts among parents, doctors, and the government. A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would jeopardize parental rights nationwide.

  • In fact, the current issue of the American Journal of Bioethics includes an article arguing that the state should overrule the parents of transgender children who do not consent to give them puberty-blocking drugs.

  • This has already happened. In Ohio, a judge removed a biological girl from her parents’ custody after they declined to help her “transition” to male with testosterone supplements.

  • Studies Exist:  “Given the study’s* findings that nearly all children who take puberty blockers end up on cross-sex hormones, it is clear that the drugs do more than give children time to pause to consider their gender identity.

    • Cross-sex hormones carry side effects including sterility, increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and increased risk of breast and uterus cancers, and other harmful psychoactive effects of high-dose hormones such as mood swings and even psychosis ….

    • “Kids are not able to understand the long-term implications of this radical treatment to the human body,” … They cannot provide meaningful informed consent.””

 

*STUDY:  Dec. 2020 from the Tavistock and Portman National Health Service Foundation Trust

 

It would enable sexual assault.

  • A complaint under investigation by federal education officials alleges that a boy who identifies as “gender fluid” at Oakhurst Elementary School in Decatur, Georgia, sexually assaulted Pascha Thomas’ 5-year-old daughter in a girls’ restroom. The boy had access to the girls’ restroom because of Decatur City Schools’ transgender restroom policy.

  • School authorities refused to change the policy even after Thomas reported the assault. Eventually, she decided to remove her daughter from school for the girl’s emotional well-being and physical safety.

  • A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would give male sexual predators who self-identify as females access to private facilities, increasing the likelihood of these tragic incidents.

  • It could also make victims less likely to report sexual misconduct and police less likely to get involved, for fear of being accused of discrimination.

  • The safety and security of our women and children are threatened by HR 5.