Disapproval of District of Columbia Reproductive Health Non-discrimination Amendment Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, let me just say at the outset to my friend, the former Speaker for whom I have the highest regard, it is always appropriate to defend to the best extent possible the fragile lives of unborn children from the violence of abortion, and it is always appropriate to defend to the greatest degree possible conscience rights when they are under assault. That is why I, along with many of my colleagues, rise today in support of H.J. Res. 43, to disapprove of D.C. legislation that infringes on the First Amendment freedoms of religious charities and pro-life advocacy groups in the District of Columbia.

I especially want to thank Congresswoman Diane Black for her consistent and highly effective leadership over many years for fundamental conscience rights and for attempting to respect human life to the greatest extent possible.

I agree with six distinguished law professors--and I will include their letters fully in the Record--who wrote the D.C. Council last November and who said:

``RHNDA's attempt to prevent employers from making decisions based on their 'personal beliefs' implies that the State has the power to judge what are and are not legitimate 'personal beliefs' and to conclude that religiously motivated opposition to State policies is unacceptable. The Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed that employers, not the State, may determine which religious practices they use as the basis for their organization's policies.''

The Secretary of Education for the Archdiocese of Washington wrote every Member of Congress, and he said:

``RHNDA would force religious institutions, including the 20 Catholic schools in the District of Columbia that I oversee, to hire or retain employees who publicly act in defiance of the mission of their employer. It would subjugate the church's moral teaching to the moral views of the government.''

The National Right to Life Committee, which has its national headquarters right here in the District, said:

``It would be intolerable for an advocacy organization such as ours to be required to hire or prohibit from firing a person who makes a 'decision' to engage in advocacy or any other activity that is directly antithetical to our core mission to lawfully advocate for the civil rights of the unborn.''

Christian and Muslim leaders also wrote a letter in which they pointed out:

``We come together to oppose RHNDA. We believe it would infringe on religious employers' freedom to make employment decisions when necessary to preserve their religious mission and identity.''

Catholic University president John Garvey, a very, very distinguished president of Catholic U. and whom I literally had up in hearings to speak out against anti-Semitism, said:

``This bill would require all employers, including religious schools such as ours, to hire or retain employees who publicly act in defiance of our mission. It would take away our right to carry out our mission through personnel policies and practices that are rooted in our faith. The D.C. bill carries no exemption or language of tolerance.''

Again, I would agree with former Mayor Vincent Gray in that it raises serious First Amendment concerns in the Constitution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source