Connect with us

Opinion

Biden’s Equality Act is a danger to women’s and conscience rights

Published

on

Biden’s Equality Act is a danger to women’s and conscience rights

President Biden has promised to unify the nation. But candidate Joe Biden also made campaign promises to the radical wing of his party that would widen our social divides. Guess which promises are being honored.

Witness the so-called Equality Act, which candidate Biden vowed to make a priority and which is set to be voted on by the House this week. What’s the Equality Act? And who could be against equality? Don’t let the name fool you.

The act “updates” the law Congress passed primarily to combat ­racism, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and adds sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes akin to race. So if you have any reservations about gender ideology — as even many progressives do; just ask J.K. Rowling — you’d now be the legal equivalent of Bull Connor.

Rather than finding common-sense, narrowly tailored ways to shield LGBT-identifying Americans from truly unjust discrimination, the bill would act as a sword — to persecute those who don’t embrace newfangled gender ideologies. It would vitiate a sex binary that is quite literally written into our genetic code and is fundamental to many of our laws, not least laws protecting the equality, safety and privacy of women.

The Equality Act would sacrifice the hard-won rights of women, while privileging men who identify as women. If it ­becomes law, such men would have a right to spend the night in battered-women’s shelters, disrobe in women’s locker rooms and compete on women’s sports teams — even at K-12 schools.

Don’t believe me? Here’s the text: “An individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.” So you can keep separate facilities for men and women, but you have to redefine what men and women are. Likewise, you can ­reserve certain jobs only for men or women — think TSA agents doing pat-downs — but you have to let a man who identifies as a woman do strip searches on women.

The act would also massively expand the government’s regulatory reach. The Civil Rights Act, it seems, is too narrow for today’s Democrats. The Equality Act would coerce “any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting or legal services,” along with any organization that receives any federal funding.

That’s more or less everyone and everything.

Religious institutions are very much included. Under the Equality Act, religious schools, adoption agencies and other charities would face federal sanction for upholding the teachings of mainstream biology and the Bible, modern ­genetics and Genesis, when it comes to sex and marriage.

They’ll be at risk, because the Equality Act takes our laws on ­racial equality and adds highly ­ideological concepts about sex and gender. But most laws on racism included no religious-liberty protections — unlike, for example Title IX, which includes robust protections for faith-based schools. 

Outrageously, the Equality Act explicitly exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Pope Francis would be treated as the legal equivalent of a Jim Crow segregationist. 

It gets worse. Medical doctors, secular and religious, whose ­expert judgment is that sex-reassignment procedures are misguided would now run afoul of our civil-rights laws. If you perform a mastectomy in the case of breast cancer, you will have to perform one on the teenage girl identifying as a boy. All in the name of equality. And no one knows what is required under the act to avoid committing “discrimination” in the case of “nonbinary” gender identities.

The icing on the cake? The act treats any refusal to offer abortion as “pregnancy” discrimination. Decades of conscience protections against abortion extremism at the federal, state and local levels would be undermined.

These threats to our society are just a few reasons why the Orwellian Equality Act should be rejected. To heal and unify the nation on LGBT issues, we must reject unjust discrimination without treating reasonable judgments as discriminatory.

Ryan T. Anderson is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Twitter: @RyanTAnd

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Biden’s getting exactly the border crisis he asked for

Published

on

By

Biden's getting exactly the border crisis he asked for

A new year, a new president, a return of an old problem: unaccompanied children crossing the border in droves.

Thousands of children — usually older teens, 16 or 17, but Border Patrol agents report increasing numbers of kids younger than 13 — are arriving each month from Central America.

On Thursday, a Customs and Border Protection staffer reportedly told top Biden administration officials to expect a peak of 13,000 unaccompanied minors to cross the border in May — the highest level ever.

“We’re seeing the highest February numbers [that] we’ve ever seen in the history of the [Unaccompanied Alien Child] program,” a Department of Health and Human Services official told Axios.

That’s right: a crisis worse than the one that brought the “kids in cages” backlash under President Donald Trump, and the earlier crises that prompted the building of those “cages” under President Barack Obama.

And it’s a crisis that we and others warned would come, as soon as President Biden started reversing every Trump border policy, even those clearly responsible for producing historic lows in illegal crossers, and returning to Obama policies that first triggered the unprecedented waves of children crossing without family.

Now Biden’s having to reopen shelters to house the kids until the feds can figure out what to do with them — shelters that his usual allies denounced as horrors in the Trump years. Yet, says White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, “There are very few good options here, and we chose the one we thought is best.”

That’s only because her boss already rejected the option of trying to ensure they don’t come here in the first place.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Letters to the Editor — Feb. 27, 2021

Published

on

By

Letters to the Editor — Feb. 27, 2021

The Issue: The parole of a man convicted of killing NYPD Officer Harry Ryman in 1980.

The parole of cop-killer Paul Ford is yet another sign that Gov. Cuomo has absolutely no regard for victims’ families (“Slain-cop kin aghast at murderer’s parole,” Feb. 21).

Cuomo has no interest in protecting the residents of New York, as his criminal-justice reforms and handpicked Parole Board members are causing violent criminals to be released onto our streets.

It is time for all New Yorkers to wake up and protect themselves by pushing this ruthless tyrant out of his easy chair.

Nicholas Maffei
Yonkers

Some 20 cop-killers have been released by Cuomo’s moronic and irresponsible Parole Board since 2017, including one who murdered two cops in one incident.

Combine that with the release of the killer of two moms who were slain with their kids in the house, and you have to wonder how board members keep their jobs.

Meanwhile, Cuomo, who appointed them, wrote a book on leadership, which in retrospect is a total joke, even aside from the parole board.

Where is the outrage over this? How is giving hope to murderers serving society? When will they disband this Parole Board?

Niles Welikson
Williston Park

The Parole Board members lack reason and common sense.

This board has released 20 cop-killers since 2017. What an embarrassing record.

This is morally bankrupt, unethical and shows absolutely no compassion or consideration for these police officers’ families.

This time, it’s the killer of Police Officer Harry Ryman, who gave up his life trying to stop three thugs from stealing a neighbor’s car.

These poor families had to suffer without a father, husband or son.

So tell me: How is anyone’s life improved by of the release of another cop-killer?

Mike Pedano
South Farmingdale

Cuomo’s tenure as governor will forever be remembered for the thousands of nursing-home deaths attributed to his incompetence. That is how it should be.

However, the release of cop-killer Paul Ford by a Cuomo-appointed Parole Board is a reminder that the damage done by this politician is far-reaching.

A life sentence has no meaning in a progressive, liberal state. Who could have guessed that some 40 years after the murder of a policeman, the cops would be the bad guys and lowlife scum like Ford would be freed?

Robert Mangi
Westbury

The Issue: A new documentary that details the accusations of sexual abuse against Woody Allen.

I am fuming after reading Andrea Peyser’s column (“Put me on Team Woody — Mia is full of it,” Feb. 22).

The reason why child molestation continues is because people turn a blind eye to the facts.

Let me ask you this — who in their right mind marries their partner’s own child, adopted or not? If you cannot see there is something wrong with that picture, you have blinders on.

There are limited instances where people have falsely accused others of being child molesters in order to gain custody of their children during a divorce or separation.

In the case between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, you have to look at his behavior. I believe the claims are true.

Panagiota Giakoumis
Middleburgh

I never liked Allen or Farrow, so I have no bias in this endless feud, but I’m shocked that anyone could watch the new HBO documentary and not realize that it’s corrupt and dishonest to only tell one side.

Anyone can make another person look bad with lies or exaggerations.

Andrew Nace-Enzminger
Brooklyn

Continue Reading

Opinion

Democrats’ sneak attack on the free press

Published

on

By

Democrats' sneak attack on the free press

Democrats’ hot new idea for responsible dialogue is to muscle cable and satellite providers to drop Fox News and other outlets they dislike.

In the runup to a House hearing this week, Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney (both D-Calif.) sent out letters to a dozen providers to silence conservative channels, demanding to know the “ethical or moral principles” behind “disseminating misinformation to millions.”

Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr called out the “concerted effort by Democrats to drive political dissent from the political square.”

Indeed: At the actual hearing, the subcommittee chief, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) gave the real agenda away: “More free speech just isn’t winning the day over the kind of speech that we’re concerned about.”

Sadly, this kind of intimidation works. As lefty Matt Taibbi notes, the last Democratic push for censorship got Facebook and Twitter to go along, with results like their blackout of The Post’s pre-election Hunter Biden scoops.

The government doesn’t have to actually ban speech by law (in violation of the First Amendment) when politicians simply can threaten the private sector into doing their will.

Too bad Taibbi was one of only a few lonely voices on the left to call out this concerted assault on basic democratic freedoms.

Continue Reading

Trending