Category Archives: Freedom

Senator Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, introduces Attorney General Ken Paxton during A Call to Prayer for Texas at the state Capitol.

With the media seemingly preoccupied by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patricks bathroom bill, three Republican state senators have quietly introduced a sweeping anti-LGBT religious freedom measure.

Senate Bill 651, filed last week, would bar state agencies that are responsible for regulating more than 65 licensed occupations from taking action against those who choose not to comply with professional standards due to religious objections.

Eunice Hyon Min Rho, advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU, said SB 651 would open the door to rampant discrimination against LGBT people, women seeking reproductive health care and others. Rho said the bill could lead to doctors with religious objections refusing to perform medical procedures, teachers not reporting child abuse if they support corporal punishment, or a fundamentalist Mormon police officer declining to arrest a polygamist for taking underage brides.

This is incredibly broadly written, said Rho, who monitors religious freedom legislation across the country. Its just really alarming. There are no limitations to this bill.

Rho said only one state, Arizona, has passed a similar law, but unlike SB 651 it includes exceptions related to health care and law enforcement. She also warned that anti-LGBT state lawmakers may be trying to use the bathroom bill as a distraction.

I think because some of the bills are receiving more attention than others, its a way for them to sneak some stuff through with a little bit less fanfare, Rho said. This is a tactic weve seen in countless states.

The three senators listed as joint authors of SB 651 Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola and Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury didnt immediately respond to requests for comment.

Last year, Perry obtained a non-binding opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton saying an American Bar Association rule prohibiting LGBT discrimination would violate the religious freedom of attorneys if adopted by the Texas Bar Association.

In its preamble, SB 651 notes that more than half of Texas senators, and over one-third of state representatives, are licensed in occupations regulated by the state.

Those occupations include mental health counseling, and Rho said SB 651 could be partly intended as a pre-emptive strike against efforts to ban the widely discredited practice of reparative therapy, which seeks to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of patients. The controversial practice is also known as conversion therapy or ex-gay therapy.

David Pickup, a licensed counselor who practices reparative therapy in Dallas, called SB 651 a good step in the right direction.

For those therapists who are religious, certainly it would apply, said Pickup, whos fought efforts to ban reparative therapy in other states. I would prefer if there was something that mentions therapy specifically.

Courtesy of Celia Israel

Representative Celia Israel, D-Austin, whos led efforts to ban reparative therapy, said it wasnt immediately clear how SB 651 would affect her legislation if both measures pass. But Israel noted that SB 651 is one of several anti-LGBT measures originating in the more conservative Senate.

We stand ready to defend against all of them as they work their way over to the Texas House, said Israel, one of the Legislatures two openly LGBT members. My colleagues are all saying this is likely to be the most divisive session they have ever experienced.

As of Thursday, nine anti-LGBT bills had been filed in the 2017 session, according to Equality Texas, compared to at 23 in 2015. But there were indications that additional anti-LGBT religious freedom proposals are coming before the March 10 filing deadline.

Representative Scott Sanford, R-McKinney, a Southern Baptist pastor who co-chairs the right-wing Legislative Prayer Caucus, told supporters prior to the session that attacks on religious liberty are going at us fast and furious.

The number of bills that were going to have to file is amazing to protect the religious liberty of Texans, Sanford said.

Representative Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, the other co-chair of the Prayer Caucus, characterized the groups approach as a balancing test between discrimination and the exercise of religion.

Theres a lot of areas out there where we can be proactive and say, You will not be harmed if you exercise your religious liberty in this manner, said Krause, an attorney.

Dan Quinn, a spokesman for the pro-LGBT Texas Freedom Network (TFN), said he doubts any anti-LGBT legislation will slip through under the radar. Like the bathroom bill, its expected to face strong opposition from the business community.

Everyone who cares about equality and discrimination is watching these bills very closely, Quinn said. It may pass, but it aint gonna pass in the dark of night.

Link:

Advocates Say Sweeping Anti-LGBT Religious Freedom Bill Has 'No Limitations' - The Texas Observer

religious freedom By Adelle M. Banks | 10 hours ago

Religion News Foundation CEO Thomas Gallagher, far right, begins the panel discussion Tolerance: A Key to Religious Freedom at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 9, 2017. RNS photo by Cathy Lynn Grossman

WASHINGTON (RNS) Speaking at a forum on tolerance, the former U.S. religious freedom ambassador said complaints about religious freedom problems in this country pale in comparison withatrocities faced by religious minorities abroad.

Rabbi David Saperstein, who recently ended his tenure at the U.S. State Department, said he takes seriously tough issues, such as abortion and gay rights, that have divided Americans who emphasize religious or civil rights.

But make no mistake: As painful and real as these issues are in the hearts and souls of the people making these competing claims, we are talking about people who are being brutalized, we are talking about people who are being imprisoned, he said of international religious freedom challenges.

I pray for the day when across the globe the worst problem that we have is how do we balance our competing civil rights claims, he added. What a day for a hallelujah that will be in terms of the entire vision of our international religious freedom efforts.

The forum, Tolerance: A Key to Religious Freedom, was hosted by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and co-sponsored by Religion News Service and the Religion News Foundation.

The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, left, reacts as Rabbi David Saperstein speaks with John Sexton, president emeritus of New York University, looking on during the panel discussion Tolerance: A Key to Religious Freedom in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 9, 2017. RNS photo by Adelle M. Banks

The Rev. Thomas Reese, moderator of the event and USCIRF chair, said his bipartisan commission is addressing countries, such as North Korea and China, that are widely considered to be hostile toward religion, and nations such asIraq and Nigeria that have failed to protect the religious freedoms of theircitizens.

There are grave humanitarian consequences when religious freedom is violated, he said. These conditions underscore the need for a different way forward, one of tolerance as a key to religious freedom as well as stability and security.

A representative of the Hindu American Foundation asked the panelists why U.S. agencies that address religious freedom are dominated by members of the Abrahamic faiths and dont tend to include people with Eastern philosophies and secular standpoints.

Reese said the commission is willing to work with Hindu groups to learn more about persecution of Hindus in countries such asPakistan and Bangladesh.

I think thats very important for us to focus on, Reese said. We have to defend not just Christians, not just Jews, not just people from the Abrahamic tradition but people of all faiths or people who have no faith whatsoever, and I think that is a fundamental principle of religious freedom that we should have.

Joyce Dubensky, CEO of Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding. RNS photo by Cathy Lynn Grossman

Other panelists at the forum, attended by about 80 journalists, faith leaders and religious freedom experts, stressed the role of educators in building tolerance and religious understanding.

We have to work with teachers often because they have fears and misconceptions about whether they can even teach about religion, said Joyce Dubensky, CEO of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding.

They even wonder, she added, whether they have to avoid talking about the reason Puritans came to the U.S. religious persecution.

John Sexton, president emeritus of New York University, teaches students in Shanghai and Abu Dhabi about government and religion, fostering discussions that range from the Crusades to Mideast tensions.

The heart of the matter is to understand that the core problem here is not anything other than a mindset of certitude and triumphalism that can manifest itself secularly as well as religiously, he said.

Former Rep. Frank Wolf, a longtime religious freedom activist, urged that Republicans and Democrats set aside partisan differences and continue to travel together to global regions to investigate religious persecution firsthand and visit the imprisoned and their families.

The worst thing in the world is being in the darkest place and think no one cares, he said.

Adelle M. Banks, production editor and a national reporter, joined RNS in 1995. An award-winning journalist, she previously was the religion reporter at the Orlando Sentinel and a reporter at The Providence Journal and newspapers in the upstate New York communities of Syracuse and Binghamton.

Continue reading here:

Experts mull religious freedom, tolerance in US, abroad - Religion News Service

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C, speaks on Capitol Hill in 2013.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

WASHINGTON The all-Republican House Freedom Caucus made itsname by not being afraid to break with the leadership of the Republican Party. But these days, the gaggle of far-right lawmakers is hoping to work more as party power brokers, looking to shape legislation for the GOP that can get all the way to the presidents desk.

Theres clout, you know, especially in a unified government where youre not going to be looking at necessarily making a piece of legislation more moderate and picking up Democrats, caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told USA TODAY. Were well-aware of the numbers and I think it increases, I guess, our responsibility to be well-informed and making sure that we make good decisions.

The Freedom Caucus consists of roughly 40 members roughly because members can choose whether they want to make their membership public. And while Republicans have a majority in the House, it takes just a couple dozen lawmakers to rebel for the party to lose its majority on any given bill.

Caucus members have exerted their influence before. The group unhappy with compromises that former House speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, made with the Obama administration was behind Boehners resignation in the fall of 2015.

But nowthe group is working closely with the new leadership under Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Ryan has put in place an open-door policy for all House Republicans and texts frequently with rank-and-file members. Meadows and other Freedom Caucusmembersattend weekly advisory board meetings with more moderate representatives from throughout the House GOP membership.

Were working well with them. And they also see thatas a blockwe can help propel a decision and we can also help stop legislation, so I think they want to work with us, Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, told USA TODAY.

House Republicans are working as a team to now implement major provisions of our Better Way agenda rolled out last year, including Obamacare repeal and replace and tax reform, Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong said when asked about the speaker's relationship with the caucus.

Without the threat of former president Barack Obamas veto,Republican lawmakers see a window to work together and get GOP-endorsed legislation signed into law under President Trump. AndFreedom Caucus members wantto put their imprint on what ends up in the bills.

Read more:

USA TODAY

Freedom Caucus list of rules to repeal is plagiarized from other groups

USA TODAY

Once at odds with own party, Freedom Caucus now leads cheers for Trump

USA TODAY

Amid revolt, Boehner steps aside to avoid 'irreparable harm' to Congress

Last week, members of the group hosted two Republican senators who had introduced replacement plans for Obamacare. Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy who introduced a plan with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., pitched their plans to members of the group hoping for an endorsement.

I think [the meeting was] very good. We all seem to be on the same wavelength that there needs to be a conservative, Republican replacement plan out there and that can be the consensus plan that Republicans can all join together on, Paul told USA TODAY following the meeting.

The more people that endorse a plan, the more leverage you have within your own caucus, so there are battles up here that are Republican-Democrat and then there are battles within each caucus as to which ideas become dominant, Paul said in explaining why he made the trek to the House side of Capitol Hillto try to convince the far-right lawmakers to back his option.

Cassidy alsomet privately with members of the caucus, touting his proposal to the group and discussing everything from tax credits to the mechanics of the bill.

Were listening to everybody, Labrador said. Health care is a big deal, you know this is an important issue. And not all of us are experts on health care so we want to hear from as many people as possible."

We also understand that as a block we have an ability to move legislation one way or another if we stick together as a block, he added.

Rep. Raul Labrador speaks with members of the media at Trump Tower on Dec. 12, 2016, in New York.(Photo: Kena Betancur, AFP/Getty Images)

In order for the caucus to endorse anything, there must be 80% support. Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., said so far conversations on the Affordable Care Act repeal process were spirited and the group has not backed a bill.

But it isnt just health care the group is trying to wieldpower on.They hosted a listening session with an economist on the border tax last week and met with Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, this week to talk tax reform.

The group does have a chance to make House legislation more conservative, but the Senate stillrequires 60 votes to pass most legislation. There are just 52 Republicans in the Senate, meaning some Senate Democrats will have to vote for a bill before it can get to Trump's desk.

The Freedom Caucus does have the ability to pull the Republican caucus to the right in the House. But Majority Leader McConnell is forced in the Senate to pull the caucus toward the middle to be able to get enough Democrats to be able to get to 60 votes, said Mark Harkins, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University.

So in some sense, the more successful the Freedom Caucus is, the less likely it is that legislation is going to move forward through the Senate, he added.

Contributing: Deborah Barfield Berry

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2k8NNHs

Read the rest here:

Freedom Caucus is becoming power broker for House Republicans - USA TODAY

Katherine Klein, Guest Columnist Published 11:04 a.m. CT Feb. 9, 2017 | Updated 10 hours ago

Katherine Klein(Photo: Special to The Clarion-Ledger)

Late January, President Trump signed an executive order suspending refugee resettlement from any country for 120 days and suspending resettlement from Syria indefinitely. In the same order, he banned the entries of nationals from seven majority Muslim countries for 90 days. This ban was issued under the guise of safety, despite the fact no American has been killed by a foreign national or refugee from the specified seven nations since 1975.

This refugee ban does, however, put at risk the lives of people who will be turned away. These are people women, children, families who have already been extensively vetted, have been found to pose no risk to our country, and are likely to be at a high risk of victimization if they remain in their own countries. It is particularly poignant that Trump chose to sign these orders on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Before and during World War II, the United States turned away thousands of refugees fleeing Nazi terror. Among them was Anne Frank, whose family was denied entry into America in the interest of protecting national security.

Aside from inaccurate targeting, this ban is also unconstitutional. President Trumps executive order favors Christian refugees and stigmatizes Muslims. Can supporters of Trump honestly in good faith stand by this order? Is this what religious freedom in America has come to mean?

Religious freedom does not mean a Christian theocracy.

True religious freedom means the ability to believe what you believe without fear of community reprisal. True religious freedom means the government does not favor one religion over another. These are the basic principles upon which our nation was founded. To undermine these tenants is to betray what America stands for.

America is a melting pot; a diverse fabric of varied life experiences. No group of people is more or less important than another. The greatest thing we as Americans and as Mississippians can do to protect the institutions of religious freedom is to oppose government involvement in religious issues.

The ACLU of Mississippi is calling on the governor and all Mississippians to speak out against this immoral immigration ban and to speak up for true religious freedom. To sign our petition, go tohttps://action.aclu.org/secure/MS-religious-freedom-petition.Together, we can show the nation that Mississippi values the religious rights and freedoms of all.

Katherine Klein is the Equality for All Advocacy coordinator for the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi.

Read or Share this story: http://on.thec-l.com/2kT8dIJ

Go here to read the rest:

Is this what religious freedom means? - Jackson Clarion Ledger

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The press conference was held by Martin Daniels, the representative for Tennessees 18th district. Senator Joey Hensley was also present at the meeting, explaining the need for the bill, titled, Tennessee Freedom of Speech on College Campus Bill, and the desired outcome of the legislation.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

We just want to ensure that our public universities give all students the right to free expression, said Senator Hensley. Too many times weve seen classrooms where the professor doesnt want to hear both sides of an issue, weve heard stories from many students that, honestly, are on the conservative side that havethose issues stifled in the classroom. We just want to ensure our public universities allow all types of speech.

Weve recently been instituting new board members for some of our higher education institutions. Six of our four-year universities this year are getting new board members, and as a member of the Senate education committee, we try to stress to these new boards that we hope that these universities, public universities, are thereto allow all students to have their right to express their speech, Senator Hensley continued. We dont want to allow hate speech or offensive speech but certainly when it comes to political issues, every student should have their right to expression, and this bill goes towards that, trying to allow these students to have theirright for free expression.

A young woman then reada statement prepared by Breitbart Senior Editor MILO: Thank you all for coming out today in defense of free speech on campus. Id have loved to join you in Tennessee, but Im stuck in sunny Florida preparing to make our headlines in defense of a right we all hold dear, the freedom of students, professors and guest speakers to speak their ideas on campus, no matter how unpopular they may be with the liberal elite.

There was a time, not too long ago in fact, when the MILO bill was not necessary, the statement continued. Colleges and Universities existed to challenge cherished ideas, foster a culture of free expression and develop in students a robust ability to reason and compare different ideas.

But that time has passed, the statement continued. Berkeley University, once the home of the free speech movement, is now the home of violently attacking those with the audacity to disagree with left-wing politics. At other universities, students are ostracized or flunked out of classes for politically incorrect ideas, and still other schools either outright barred me from appearing to speak or used last minute security fees as a slimy way to weasel out of allowing me to appear.

Vanishingly few schools have embraced the free speech principles outlined by the University of Chicago, and until they all do, the culture war that has erupted on campuses will not be over.We are winning the war. And we will continue to win as long as students, and now defenders of free speech within the government, stand up to ivory tower intellectuals and left-wing administrators intent on shutting up any speech they dont find convenient, MILOs statement concluded.

Scottie Nell Hughes, political editor of RightAlerts.com,then read out her own statement, saying:

When on the campus of Central Florida University, a training event is held and publicized as the leftist fight club, open to all unless you are a Republican, we have a problem. When students are arrested at a small community college in Michigan, thrown in jail overnight, because they wanted to hand out a pocket-sized Constitution, we have a problem. And when last week, as we talked about, at the University of California Berkeley, masked protesters threw fireworks, rocks, and Molotov cocktails igniting fires, destroying property, breaking windows in the student union, assaulting a woman who was wearing a red Trump hat, all of this to show their anger at a conservative speaker, MILO, who has been invited to speak on several campuses, we definitely have a problem.

So just like other times in American history where there have been problems in our country, when citizens rights have been infringed,Tennesseans are stepping up to the solution. My name is Scottie Nell Hughes, a proud graduate of the University of Tennessee at Martin and a Skyhawk. And it is an honor to stand here today next to Representative Martin Daniel and Senator Joey Hensley and their sponsorship of this Tennessee student free expression act, or as Im liking to call it, the MILO bill. In honor of a man who wasnt allowed to speak at Berkeley as well as other college institutions around our country. This used to be known as the home of free speech. While I respect both the representative and the state senator, I dont know if this legislation will put them in the same category as Davy Crocket, or Nancy Ward, or James Napier, yet. However, I highly esteem them for seeing a problem and having a solution. I always listen to every person that presents a problem, but I actually pay close attention to those that offer solutions. These men have the solution for the students in our great state of Tennessee and want to ensure that their first amendment rights will always be protected.

Luke Elliot, a student at the University of Tennessee and vice president of the College Republicans, then spoke briefly:

This bill is very important to me because I have witnessed first hand the attack upon free speech at our state universities. Ive spoken to many students across the country that feel like their views are not welcome at their own school, I believe that freedom of speech is an essential column to our republic. Censorship and safe spaces do not promote a healthy and open culture of thought, at UT, for example, there is a complicated and bureaucratic process required for a club to distribute free information on public property and that is something that this bill will fix. Students are often intimidated by the academic elite in the classroom, Tennessee is a conservative state, we will not allow out of touch professors with no real world experience to intimidate eighteen-year-olds. We must prepare our students for the real world. Ifa student feels the need for a safe space, they are welcome to visit the councilling center at their university. This should not be a partisan issue, we should respect all points of view to ensure that we have an open dialogue about the issues facing our country.

A short Q&A session was held after the press conference where Representative Daniels and Senator Hensley fielded queries about the bill.

Originally posted here:

'MILO Bill' Filed in Tennessee to Ensure Freedom of Speech on College Campuses - Breitbart News

The new administration is questioning the motives and actions of legitimate news outlets as a way to prioritize its own rhetoric, distract us from unconstitutional directives and quash dissent. While we must hold the press accountable, we must also preserve their independence.

Freedom of the press is front and center in our democracy. The First Amendment clearly states this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. But freedom of the press is dismissed routinely by totalitarian governments. Control of the media is one of the first goals of those who would control any society.

In Russia, the Kremlin controls national television, newspapers are mostly owned by those with ties to the Kremlin, and punitive laws criminalize dissent and criticism of Putins government. Even in America, freedom of the press has been challenged. Despite Jeffersons declaration that he would rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers, the Sedition Act was passed in 1778.

Fortunately, the courts continue to re-affirm freedom of the press. As Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1971, "The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government."

Steve Bannons attacks on the free press are attacks on the First Amendment. It is crucial for citizens to support impartial and independent reporting by reading broadly, objecting to censorship, examining and rejecting fake news and subscribing to publications that inform us about the administrations actions. The publics right to know is at stake.

Read the original post:

Support freedom of the press - The Missoulian

UNITED NATIONS (AP) Britain says it will seek to overturn a U.N. committee's decision to deny accreditation to the organization Christian Solidarity Worldwide which promotes religious freedom in over 20 countries across Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

Britain's deputy ambassador Peter Wilson said Thursday he was "deeply disappointed" that the 19-member committee that accredits non-governmental organizations voted to reject the U.K.-based group's application.

The organization "does important work in protecting freedom of religion or belief," he said, adding, "The NGO committee should work to enhance, not restrict, the space for civil society participation in the U.N."

Getting U.N. accreditation gives non-governmental organizations consultative status and the right to attend open meetings and conferences at the Human Rights Council in Geneva and other U.N. bodies.

On Feb. 3, the committee voted 4-11 with one abstention to oppose accreditation for Christian Solidarity Worldwide, known by its initials CSW.

The four votes in favor were Greece, Israel, U.S. and Uruguay. The 11 votes against were Burundi, China, Cuba, India, Iran, Nicaragua, Pakistan, South Africa, Sudan, Turkey and Venezuela. Russia abstained and three countries were absent.

CSW has been applying for accreditation since 2009. Its application had been deferred by committee members who asked more than 80 questions about its work over the past seven years.

Greece's U.N. Ambassador Georgios, who called for last week's vote, expressed said his country "attaches major significance to promoting religious tolerance and countering any discrimination based on religion or belief."

He expressed deep disappointment at the result as did CSW's Chief Executive Mervyn Thomas.

"It is deeply disturbing that the U.N. Committee on NGOs, the very entity which is tasked to facilitate NGOs access to the U.N., is instead actively blocking civil society access to the U.N," Thomas said in a statement. "We believe that this decision is effectively an attempt to silence CSW and undermine the promotion of freedom of religion or belief within the U.N. system."

Britain's U.N. Mission said it will appeal the committee's decision to the 54-member U.N. Economic and Social Council, its parent body, which meets in April.

Last July, the United States succeeded in overturning the committee's rejection of accreditation for the Committee to Protect Journalists by going to ECOSOC and seeking a vote by a larger number of U.N. member states.

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador at the time, said during the four years CPJ was denied accreditation the NGO committee issued 1,600 deferrals, many to the same organizations again and again.

Link:

UN committee refuses to accredit religious freedom group - Yahoo News

Columbus

Civil and gay rights groups are raising the alarm over the Ohio Pastor Protection Act, a bill pending in the Ohio House that makes it explicit that ministers or religious groups arent required to perform same sex marriages.

When asked if House Bill 36 would be good or bad for Ohios reputation and business, Gov. John Kasich said on Wednesday: If they want to pass something that says my minister doesnt have to perform a marriage, Im okay with that. And I think the constitution of the state already provides thatId have to see what the bill does but I dont think its going to be some sweeping Indiana or North Carolina bill, is my understanding.

Kasich says clergy shouldn't be forced to perform gay marriages

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Equality Ohio, TransOhio and Human Rights Campaign issued statements that describe House Bill 36 as a solution in search for a problem.

The groups said clergy in Ohio arent being forced to perform same sex marriages nor are they facing lawsuits when they decline to do so.

The bill was introduced Tuesday by state Rep. Nino Vitale, R-Urbana, one of the most politically conservative members of the Ohio House. On Wednesday, a dozen proponents testified in favor of the bill.

It protects pastors and church property from being forced to perform wedding ceremonies, which are against their religious beliefs. There is really nothing more to it than this. My reason for writing this bill is to stop a litigation war in Ohio, Vitale said in written testimony.

Faith Baptist Church Senior Pastor Paul Norton said in written testimony that he wants his community to be able to enjoy the freedom of speech and practice of religion without fear of legal retribution.

ACLU of Ohio Policy Manager Lisa Wurm said in a written statement: House Bill 36 opens a Pandoras box of problems that could significantly roll back marriage equality in Ohio. It may allow businesses or other officials to discriminate against same-sex couples. The U.S. Supreme Court was clear that people should not be treated unfairly because of who they love, yet politicians continue to try and undermine this basic right.

In 2015, protests erupted in Indiana over passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And there were protests last year over North Carolinas bathroom bill that mandates individuals use public restrooms that match the sex on their birth certificates an effort to block transgendered individuals from using different bathrooms.

See the original post:

Religious freedom bill moving in Ohio - Dayton Daily News - Dayton Daily News

A new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute found that a majority of Americans oppose denying service to LGBT individuals for religious reasons, and this held true across most major religious groups other than evangelicals.

In aSalon piece this morning, columnist Nico Lang used the poll to argue against religious-freedom legislation such as the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which was introduced last Congress by Utah senator Mike Lee and Idaho congressman Raul Labrador to protect religious Americans who believe in heterosexual marriage.

But, like most culture writers who attempt to debunk religious liberty as a disguise for legalized discrimination, Lang fundamentally misunderstands or, more likely, maliciously mischaracterizes FADA and other religious-freedom protections. The first and most obvious red flag is the fact that he puts religious freedom in scare quotes in the title of his piece.

It only gets worse. The piece praises Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner for opposing what Lang calls a four-page document that would have granted broad allowances to religious groups, federal agencies and virtually anyone who wishes to discriminate against the LGBT community.

In fact, the document in question like all religious-freedom protections would have permitted religious organizations to operate based on their religious principles and hire according to mission. The essential details of the draft executive order were outlined well by Ryan T. Anderson at the Daily Signal late last week.

Langs piece and the countless others like it are insidious precisely because their misinformation is difficult for the average American to pinpoint and understand. The lies about religious freedom are so widespread that it is nearly impossible to accurately understand the goal of FADA and other such legislation.

This obfuscation of the truth has been orchestrated by the left in order to portray religious Americans as bigoted and repressive, and sway public opinion in favor of silencing religious voices and driving them out of the public square. Thats why these supposed social-justice warriors will never admit the truth: that there isnt a single U.S. law permitting discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation.

Rather, the laws being debated have to do with marriage. Because many religious groups believe that marriage is properly understood as a union between one man and one woman and because the Supreme Court unilaterally determined the law of the land on marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges without allowing for the resolution of public debate on the subject religious-liberty legislation offers First Amendment protections to those Americans who hold a different view of marriage from that of the government.

In practice, this means that a business owner can lawfully refuse to craft flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding ceremony, but she cannot refuse to sell a bouquet of flowers to a man simply because she is aware that the man is gay. The latter is not protected by U.S. law anywhere, and no court would rule in favor of a business owner who behaved in that way.

But Lang doesnt want you to know that. Instead, progressive activists continue their malicious campaign to convince the public that religious freedom was invented by hateful Christians who want to justify their ill treatment of LGBT individuals. And as this latest poll shows, those left-wing arguments seem to be succeeding.

Visit link:

Religious-Freedom BIlls Don't Permit Bigotry - National Review

Most conservativesare masters of the bad-faith argument, but none so more than anti-choice activists. For decades now, anti-choicers have perfected the art of concealingtheir hostility to abortion and contraception with terms like pro-life and theirsupposed concern with protecting womens health.

This disingenuous approach characterized the conservative response to a Department of Health and Human Services requirement, created under the Affordable Care Act, that requires insurance plans to cover contraception without a co-payment.

Until recently Republicans have framed their objections to mandatory contraception coverage witha religious freedom argument, arguing that the mandate offended the sensibilities of religious employers.Efforts to chip away at insurance coverage of contraception were largely focused on carving out broad exemptions for employers who claimed a religious objection to the mandate, instead of ending the regulation itself.

But now were living under President Donald Trump in an America shaped by Breitbart News, and right-wingers opposed to womens reproductive freedom can zoom right past the euphemism and into the territory of belligerent misogyny.

Trumps chief strategic advisor, Steve Bannon, used to run Breitbart and under his leadership, the arguments against contraception were a bit less genteel whatanti-choice activiststypically prefer.

The rightsmore openly misogynist direction may go a long way in explaining the reaction ofRep. Diane Black, one of the most outspokenly anti-choice members of Congress, to questions she was asked about contraception at apress conferencelast week.

It started when a reporter asked Black whether House Republicans intended to preserve the contraception benefit, if and when they finally got around to repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.

Black at first answered a question about the birth control benefit byinaccurately stating that people could simply obtain care elsewhere, the GOPs long-touted but misleading alternative to Planned Parenthood affiliates, Christine Grimaldi of Rewire wrote.

Yep, Black mixed up two separate anti-contraception cover stories:When objecting to insurance coverage for contraception, the standard right-wing script calls forcomplaining thatit offends the religious sensibilities of Christian employers to lettheir employees have thatcoverage.

Black apparently got confused, however, and started reciting the script that conservativesuse for another purpose forjustifying slashing the federally funded contraception that millions of womenobtain throughPlanned Parenthood.Thatswhen conservatives claim that women can simply go to other publicly funded clinics for contraception, even though repeated investigations have demonstrated thisis simply not true.

But in the age of a Breitbart White House,theres no need to bother with nuanced distinctions between differentbad-faith arguments for undermining contraception access.

After a reporter clarified that the birth control benefit applies to insurance, not clinics, Grimaldi continued, Black said that a comparable benefit isnt on the table, quickly turning again to other facilities as the catchall solution.

Its unfortunate that Rep. Black continues to misrepresent Planned Parenthood as she simultaneously threatens to rip affordable birth control access from 55 million women all while apparently failing to understand how the birth control insurance benefit works, Mary Alice Carter, vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, wrote by email.

Blacks planto slash both insurance coverage for contraception and contraception funding atPlanned Parenthoodwould derail the family-planningstrategies of many women who now use birth control probably most of them. This doesnt just concern lower-income women, either. Middle-class women will suffer if they suddenly have to pay hundreds or even thousands a year for coverage thats currently available for free.

The congresswomans simply invoking the existence of public clinics(which cant possibly take onPlanned Parenthoods patients, much less all the women nowreceivingcontraception through private insurance) shows that shedoes not actuallycare how many women she cuts off from birth control.

Of course, this is Breitbarts America, where women who use contraception which is more than99 percent of sexually active women at some point in their lives are accused of being ugly, crazy and a threat to national security. In that environment, theres little need for Black to keep up the pretense that this is anything but a war on birth control.

Contraception is expensive, Dr. Shanti Ramesh, a fellow of family planning at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, explained over the phone.

She argued that women should be able to choose contraception based on effectiveness and lifestyle fit, instead of thinking, How much is this going to cost me out of pocket?'

There is no lack of evidence that women faced barriers to accessing birth control before the enactment of the ACA, wrote Dr. Diana Greene Foster, director of research atAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, in an email.A study of over 500 women seeking abortions before the ACA from five clinics across the country showed that 12 percent had unprotected sex because they could not afford birth control or their insurance wouldnt cover it. Another 20 percent reported that they ran out of supplies, a problem greatly alleviated by insurance coverage and a one-year supply.

Beyond citing the practical issues, Ramesh also objected to the inherent sexism of the arguments against contraception coverage. She pointedout that a wide range of preventive services, such as vaccines and cancer screenings, are covered by ACA guidelines andinclude men and children as well as women.

Contraception, she said, shouldnt be this additional service that gets flagged separately and highlighted as different. Its a part of being a healthy, productive member of our country, and we really owe it to women to provide them the service.

Ather press conference, Black was accompanied by Lila Rose,who runs the anti-choice organization Live Action and has along history of scare-mongering about the evils of contraception and premarital sex. In 2012 Roseparticipated in an anti-contraception documentary Birth Control: How Did We Get Here? where she took a stance against all forms of non-procreative sex, saying, There was a time when birth control was unthinkable,when contraception was unthinkable, because people who got married a beautiful part of marriage was the hope for children together. She also decried contraception for encouraging sexual activity and experimentation in unmarried people.

When I asked Ramesh about the value of sexual abstinence, the rights preferred method of contraception for someonenot ready to become pregnant, she was skeptical. She noted that she advises women of all their options, including abstinence, but its very few and far between that would like to rely on abstinence as their primary form of contraception, she said.

Of course, this battleis about the largerstrugglebetween what women want for themselves and what right-wing zealots want for them.Its just that in Trumps America, conservatives who oppose reproductive freedom are feeling a lot less shy about their desire to drive women back into subservience.

See the article here:

A new front in the assault on women's freedom: Anti-choice activists now going after birth control - Salon