you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]panorama 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

De nada.

The Republicans seemed to tie abortion to Section 1101, 4, B, the explanation of sex re this Act:

"(B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition;

Edit. And the wording of, and around the word "inclusive"

Too many known and unforeseen consequences of this Act to have it ramrodded into US law!

Edit. Personally, I'm for abortion access, but what other legal traps are laid?

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm a real idiot (no, really!) because I'm still not getting what this wording has to do with abortion?

[–]panorama 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know either. Maybe a legal weasel envisioned it?

I do know when I first read HR 5, I wondered why they only made a nod to biological sex by making it medical conditions... Raised my eyebrow. Still does.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because the Misogynists of the Left want women to be reduced to wombs?

[–]WildApples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They added a provision elsewhere that says religion cannot be used as a defense against discrimination. I know the defense has been used by Christian employers to avoid providing birth control coverage for its employees. Not sure how they would get involved with abortion, though. Is that usually covered by health insurance?

[–]BEB 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Whoever wrote the Equality Act is really friggin' dumb then, because by taking out all religious exemptions they are waving a red flag at the many religious Americans and institutions.

It just shows the Gender Lobby's arrogance that they want to destroy established religions that tens of millions of Americans hold dear while imposing their Church of Genderology on us by law.

[–]WildApples 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

True, but I see why they are doing it. In the most high-profile cases of discrimination against gays, the defenses were religious freedom defenses. I am sure the LGBT groups pushing for this also pushed for an end to religious exceptions. If the bill passes, I foresee constitutional challenges alleging violations of constitutional guarantee to free exercise of religion.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The conservative activist I spoke with said the same about constitutional challenges.