The Senate Judiciary Committee Equality Act hearing Wednesday is one that everyone should be paying attention to because it’s not just about LGBTQ rights, it’s about how we as a society will handle the issues of sex, gender and faith for generations to come.
It was a point driven forward by ranking Senate Judiciary member Chuck Grassley in his opening statement Wednesday on Capitol Hill. He argued that the bill appears to remove the rights from many people, specifically women, by reshaping how we view genders in the United States. He’s right, every human being should be treated with equality and dignity. I absolutely advocate for LGBTQ community but not at the expense of erasing and removing the rights of millions of young women, who are now having to compete against men in sports because some men are identifying as women.
The Equality Act, which passed the House in February, would actually violate those tenets by trampling on religious freedoms as well as the right of those who do not fit in the LGBTQ category, like some young women who are being forced to compete against men.
President Biden said during his campaign that the Equality Act would be one of his top priorities at the beginning of his tenure. The legislation didn’t have a problem getting through the House and was largely voted along party lines. Only three Republicans broke with the GOP and voted with Democrats to pass the bill but it’s not going to be as easy in the Senate.
During his opening statement, Grassley shared a story regarding a young all-star high school student athlete Chelsea Mitchell, whose story was part of the testimony at the hearing.
He said that Mitchell, like many female athletes he spoke with, would “like to retain the right to compete on equal footing against other biological girls. Instead, this accomplished athlete has been forced to compete against biological men.”
“Many women and girls before her fought for the legal protections under Title IX, which recognizes that sex-specific distinctions are appropriate in some instances,” he said. “As a father, a grandfather, and a husband, I have celebrated the athletic successes of talented young women in my own family. So I also am deeply concerned about this Act’s potential negative implications for all girls and women in sports.”
Grassley argues that this bill under the pretense of ‘Equality’ is manipulative. I agree.
“Laws to end hateful discrimination can be tailored to prevent injustices in various contexts, like banking or housing, and thereby end those injustices,” said Grassley. “But this bill is drafted in an entirely different way. It would fundamentally manipulate how our society deals with sex, gender, and faith.”
Here is what Grassley is saying in simple terms.
The Equality Act would amend existing federal civil rights laws. As explained in the Fox News Opinion piece by Doreen Denny in February, it would also actually eliminate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the “sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics, seeks to erase the understood binary definition of sex as male or female, and enshrines a new definition of sex that includes a person’s perception of his or herself – not the actual chromosomal DNA that identifies his or her true sex.”
These fundamental issues can’t simply be erased by this law because in the end it will do exactly the opposite of what it intends. Look at what’s happening now with men competing in women’s sports and the inequality in allowing it to take place. This week’s hearing will bring that all to the forefront.
This act will not stop discrimination against the LGBTQ community but increase divisions in an already divided nation.
Denny, in my opinion, said it best:
“Ponder this. Under the Equality Act, everything women have done and achieved over the last half century to improve opportunities and protections in education, sports, the workplace and society could be overruled by any male claiming ‘womanhood.’”Doreen Denny, Senior Director of Government Relations for Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.
An employer who wants to cut health care and parental leave costs could choose a transgender person over a woman of child-bearing age and still get credit for the “woman hire.” A college coach could choose to give a scholarship to a transgender athlete over a female athlete knowing the biology of the former gives the team a competitive advantage.
How can we enact a law that fails to recognize women and young girls, which I frankly can say has been one of the most discriminated of all groups since the beginning of humankind.
And what about religious institutions, parental rights and religious rights? What will happen to private hospitals or religious hospitals and their ability to practice medicine based on their faith.
Grassley noted in his opening remark at the hearing that lawmakers much hear “other perspectives will help the Senate better understand what would happen to certain basic services on which many Americans rely, if this Act is adopted.”
“For example, what will happen to Catholic or Methodist-affiliated hospitals, which provide excellent services to the public, if this bill is enacted? In some areas these facilities may be the only hospitals for miles around,” Grassley said.
He added, if “a faith-based organization has partnered with a community to provide social services that would otherwise not exist, like a soup kitchen or an adoption agency for hard-to-adopt special needs children, what happens to the people who relied most heavily on those services? To whom do they turn?”
It’s unfortunate but common sense is serious lacking in our nation. It’s understandable that we are all looking for equality and fairness. Women have fought brutal political and judicial battles throughout American history for equal rights, why are we now going to remove that in 2021, disguised as fairness.
You can follow Sara A. Carter @SaraCarterDC
You may like
Historic House Vote Expels Rep. George Santos Amidst Scandal
In a turn of events, the House of Representatives made history on Friday with a vote to expel Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), marking the first such expulsion in over two decades. A moment fraught with gravity unfolded as Speaker Mike Johnson wielded his gavel to formalize Santos’ removal, setting a precedent in congressional annals.
Santos, indicted on 23 counts related to wire fraud, identity theft, and other charges, has not faced conviction but stands accused of misusing campaign funds for opulent purchases. The bipartisan vote, tallying 311 to 114, signaled robust support for expulsion, with a marginally higher number of Republicans opting to retain Santos.
Questions loomed as Speaker Johnson left the chamber, his silence leaving the fate of the ongoing government spending battle uncertain. According to reports from Fox News, Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer emphasized the non-partisan nature of the decision, asserting that members concluded Santos had tarnished the House’s reputation and was unfit for representation.
Within the GOP, conflicting opinions emerged, with Rep. Darrell Issa arguing against expulsion, citing the presumption of innocence. The tight-lipped stance of the House Ethics Committee played a pivotal role in the deliberations.
Conversely, members of the New York Republican delegation, led by Rep. Marc Molinaro, asserted Santos’ commission of crimes, justifying expulsion based on a comprehensive investigation.
Santos himself predicted the outcome in an exclusive morning interview on “FOX & Friends.” This vote not only underlines the House’s rare use of expulsion powers but also sets a critical precedent in handling members facing severe legal challenges.
You may like
Media6 days ago
Robert De Niro anti-Trump speech mysteriously replaced in teleprompter at Awards Show
Nation7 days ago
Elizabeth Warren Acknowledges Unintended Consequences of Obamacare
education7 days ago
Calls for Hofstra University President’s Resignation Over Statements on Israel-Hamas Conflict
Nation6 days ago
Political Gambit or Defense Strategy? Hunter Biden’s Aggressive Testimony Plans Stir Democratic Intrigue