The Hits Keep Coming
If you’re not paying attention these days, you can get blindsided by the assault on foundational principles and personal freedoms. The latest attack on American values targets the sanctity of life.
We Knew it was Coming
When the U.S. Supreme Court announced recently that it would hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in its next term, a case that ultimately could challenge Roe, we knew it wouldn’t be long before pro-abortion activists pounced. The Dobbs case addresses whether Mississippi’s law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks gestation is constitutional.
Earlier this week, U.S. lawmakers introduced pro-abortion legislation that would undermine a potential pro-life ruling in Dobbs. All seven Democrat U.S. lawmakers from Arizona are behind the proposed legislation: Arizona Senators, Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly co-sponsored the Senate’s version, SB 1975. Arizona Congressmen Greg Stanton, Ruben Gallego, Raul Grijalva, Tom O’Halleron, and Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick all co-sponsored the House version, HB 3755.
The federal bills, called, “Women’s Health Protection Act” would dictate state policy throughout the country, setting strict limits on any abortion regulation.
If passed, the bills would prohibit state or local governments from passing laws that require:
- What pro-abortion activists call “unnecessary” tests or procedures in connection with an abortion. Tests usually are designed to ensure the safety of the woman
- Providers to offer what pro-abortion activists would call “medically unnecessary” information to patients
- Providers to refrain from prescribing certain drugs, or what pro-abortion activists would call “medically unnecessary” in-person visits
- Patients to disclose the reason for seeking abortion services
The bill also prohibits limitations or requirements that decrease availability of abortion.
This one gets to the heart of what the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in Dobbs: whether a state or local government may prohibit abortions prior to fetal viability or prohibit abortions after fetal viability in cases where a woman’s life or health is at risk.
Forcing Change, Usurping Faith
One of the greatest threats to religious freedom in America comes under the guise of equality. The U.S. House already passed the Equality Act, and the Senate is considering a vote by the end of June to coincide with what is now called “Pride Month.”
The Equality Act would change the meaning of the word “sex” in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include one’s “gender identity.” The effect would force those running religious institutions to choose between their livelihoods and their deeply held beliefs about human sexuality. To continue to embrace long-held and widely accepted truths about biology and sexuality would put them at odds with the new definition of “sex,” and the new law.
Passage would take 60 votes in the Senate, a number proponents do not have. That’s why, in part, they are pushing to kill the filibuster rule and pass the Equality Act, and many other leftist laws, with a simple majority vote.
The devastating effects the Equality Act would have on religious freedom, on conscience rights, and on society overall cannot be overstated. Under the Equality Act, the government would dictate a new sexual ethic and criminalize individuals, businesses, and organizations that differ with the government’s view of what it means to be male and female, what makes a family, and which religious beliefs are acceptable.
- The Heritage Foundation’s Emilie Kao spells out how the Equality Act would severely harm children’s minds, bodies, and family relationships, among other things
- Abigail Shrier writes in The Federalist about the dangers of allowing males in female prisons
- Ryan T. Anderson sums up the Equality Act’s detrimental impact on society
Escaping Election Takeover?
It appears the effort by most Democrats in D.C. to direct the federal government to takeover the elections process from states may not move forward in the U.S. Senate – at least for now.
The apparent demise of HR 1, the For the People Act hinges on Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. He explained in an op-ed why he is against the sweeping bill, saying, “the fundamental right to vote has itself become overtly politicized.”
The U.S. House passed HR 1 in March, but, again, it would take a 60-vote majority in the Senate to pass. Joe Manchin is not only opposed to HR1 and the federal takeover of election law, he and Senator Kyrsten Sinema have publicly opposed killing the filibuster.
Our prayer is they hold the line even in the face of heated and intense pressure. Incidentally, some of these same lawmakers emphatic about killing the filibuster rule are the same ones who warned President Trump against doing the same thing.
ICYMI – Latest News & Articles of Interest
- A new poll shows most Americans want significant regulations on abortion, and it indicates the details of a developing preborn baby impact views on abortion
- The Department of Justice announced this week it can vigorously defend religious schools’ exemption to “nondiscrimination” laws
- A frightening look at the loss of parental rights – and custody – in the transgender movement
Stay connected and consider receiving additional publications by joining the CAP Network.