Forcing American Daughters into the Selective Service

Background: In January 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta directed the military services to review policies with the goal of integrating women into all combat roles by January 2016. On December 3, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter confirmed the decision without exception, and directed that all gender-based requirements for military service be removed by January 3, 2016. This order came despite military evaluations that raised concerns on this issue.

The decision to allow women to serve in all combat units has sparked a debate on whether women should be required to register for the Selective Service, making them eligible for conscription if Congress reinstates the draft for future military needs.

Forcing women to register for the draft a premature conclusion: Leading up to the decision to open all combat positions to women, evaluations raised questions about the effectiveness of mixed gender units in ground combat tasks. According to an extensive 9-month Marine Corps’ Gender Integration Task Force study, which evaluated mixed gender units in 134 combat training activities, all-male units outperformed mixed units in 69 percent of the tasks while mixed units outperformed male units in just 2 tasks.

Additional evidence from the Marine Corps evaluation showed that women had an injury rate twice that of men when performing combat-related tasks. The increased risk of injury could threaten their personal safety as well as the safety of their fellow soldiers in combat situations.

Supporting equality does not require forcing women to register for the draft: Conservatives believe women and men have equal natural rights, and equality means that law should treat things that are the same in the same ways. But when it comes to combat-related tasks, there are differences between men and women that are relevant to accomplishing the military mission.

According to former Marine Corps servicewoman and current Sentinel Jude Eden, “Combat is not an equal opportunity for women because they don’t have an equal opportunity to survive.” If women’s increased risk of injury makes them more vulnerable when engaging the enemy, why would Congress ever want to require women to be registered for the Selective Service, and ultimately the draft?

Women can and do contribute significantly to the overall mission of the military. But military personnel policy, particularly when it comes to combat, should be determined based on military objectives and preparedness, not President Obama’s social agenda.

Conclusion: Congress should prohibit the drafting of our daughters into military services through the Selective Service. The Conference Committee is set to resolve the differences between the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2017 (S. 2943), which currently includes a provision forcing women ages 18-26 to sign up for the Selective Service, and the House’s NDAA (H.R. 4909), which does not. Congress should strip out the provision forcing women into the draft by adopting the House’s bill in Conference Committee.

Read More

President Obama’s Unilateral Transgender Policy for School Bathrooms

Background: On Friday May 13, 2016, President Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (ED) issued a letter of joint guidance on transgender bathroom access for America’s school system. Using Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Obama administration is reinterpreting discrimination against “sex” to include “gender identity.” The new guideline directs any educational institution which receives federal funds to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their gender identity, rather than their birth certificate.

Unlawfully Rewriting Law: Biological sex and gender identity mean two very different things. When Congress passed the Education Amendments back in 1972, the purpose was to protect women and girls from discrimination based on sex and ensure equal opportunity in education programs. The Obama administration has no right to unlawfully rewrite federal law in order to advance its own liberal social agenda in the wake of transgender bathroom disputes, must notably in North Carolina.

Violating Federalism: All across the country, state and local governments are working with parents, teachers, and school districts to determine how best to accommodate the privacy and safety of transgender students along with those students who feel uncomfortable going to the bathroom and changing with the opposite sex. For example, many schools have created new single-occupancy bathrooms and changing facilities for transgender students. The Obama administration’s decision to unilaterally impose a one-size-fits all policy for every school in the country undermines the ability of state and local governments to enact and enforce policy that’s best for their communities.

Bad Policy: Sex-specific bathrooms and locker rooms were created for a legitimate reason. Allowing boys who identify as girls to have unfettered access to girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, and dorm rooms violates the privacy and safety of women. Sex-specific bathrooms serve a valid purpose of protecting the privacy and safety of girls and women, especially those who have been sexually abused.

Frequently Asked Questions:

How will President Obama enforce the guidance?
The joint guidance issued by the DOJ and ED does not have the force of law, though activist courts may interpret it as such, leaving schools under immense pressure to comply. President Obama is attempting to bully state governments into compliance by threatening to strip schools of federal funding. Until the guidelines are upheld by the courts, schools should refuse to comply with President Obama’s overreach.

What schools are affected by the guidance?
If the courts uphold the President’s guidelines, all schools, including colleges, universities, trade schools – public, private, and charter – that receive federal funding will have to comply or lose their federal funds. This could have significant negative repercussions on the school choice movement as well.

How does the federal government define “gender identity?”
According to the Obama administration’s guidelines, “Gender identity refers to an
individual’s internal sense of gender.” Furthermore, a “school may not require transgender students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate or other identification document before treating them consistent with their gender identity.” Essentially, a student is transgender if and when they say they are.

Can schools provide separate bathrooms and locker rooms for transgender students?
No. The Obama administration explicitly rejects compromises including single-occupancy facilities. According to the guidelines, “A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so.”

Do these guidelines apply to housing policy as well?
Yes. Separate accommodations for transgender students are not permitted. This applies to campus housing and hotels for off-campus trips as well, “A school must allow transgender students to access housing consistent with their gender identity and may not require transgender students to stay in single-occupancy accommodations.”

What can be done to reverse the DOJ/ED guidance on transgender bathrooms?
Congress can actively push back against President Obama’s overreach by passing legislation clarifying that for the purpose of all federal law, “sex” does not mean “gender identity” or passing legislation that “sex” does not mean “gender identity” for the purpose of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Congress can also defund the guidance by attaching a defund rider to an appropriations bill(s) that stops the DOJ/ED from using federal funds to enforce the guidance.

Read More

Defund HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule

Background: On July 8, 2015, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) finalized language for a new housing regulation named the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (AFFH). This new 377 page rule, first implemented in mid-August of 2015, empowers the Federal government to audit the demographic and socioeconomic status of local communities in order to force state and local governments to enhance diversity among its community makeup.

All local jurisdictions that receive HUD funding, particularly through the Community Development Block Grant program, are subject to this rule and must identify factors and communities assets that contribute to the racial disparities in their communities compared to those at the local and regional level around them. Once this evaluation is complete, localities must develop a plan on how to fix the racial disparities and submit it to HUD for approval.

Problem: AFFH effectively turns HUD into a National Zoning Authority for every locality across the country. Suburban neighbors will have to compare themselves with neighboring cities and essentially rewrite their zoning laws and pay for affordable housing projects and other community development projects to encourage housing diversity and affordability in their communities.

According to department officials, this rule is needed because “increasing a neighborhood’s appeal to families with different income and ethnic profiles can encourage a more diversified population and reduce isolation.” While this may be a goal worth pursuing, local authorities, not unaccountable federal bureaucrats should be making these decisions.

As Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) so plainly puts it, “In other words, this new regulation is designed to give unelected, anonymous bureaucrats in Washington the power to pick and choose who your new next-door neighbor will be. If they don’t believe your neighborhood is “diverse” enough, they will seize control of local zoning decisions—choosing what should be built, where, and who should pay for it—in order to make your neighborhood look more like they want it to.”

Solution: Congress must use its Constitutional power of the purse to defund any implementation of the AFFH rule. The House of Representatives has already passed Rep. Paul Gosar’s (AZ) amendment to defund the AFFH rule and attached it to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016. The Senate must now take up and pass Sen. Lee’s AFFH defunding amendment to make sure this reaches the President’s desk and is signed into law. Local communities, not bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., should determine the social and economic makeup of their own neighborhoods.

Read More

First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) FAQs

What is FADA and what would it do?

The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), S. 1598 and H.R. 2802, is a religious liberty protection bill introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) in the Senate and Representative Raul Labrador (R-ID) in the House. FADA would prevent the federal government from discriminating against individuals, associations, or businesses, such as churches and religious colleges, by denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification because they believe marriage is a union of one man and one woman.

Why is FADA necessary?

FADA was introduced in Congress on June 17, 2015, shortly before the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that all laws defining marriage as the union of a husband and wife were unconstitutional. This ruling redefined marriage across the country and opened the floodgates for the government to discriminate against citizens who continue to live out their religious and moral convictions about marriage as they always have.

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether a university or college might lose its nonprofit tax status if it doesn’t abandon its views on marriage as the union of husband and wife. Verrilli’s response was telling: “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I – I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is – it is going to be an issue.”

FADA was introduced to prevent this very scenario from happening.

Doesn’t the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and other State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts already protect religious liberty?

No. RFRAs provide generalized protections that require judges to engage in a balancing test when assessing religious liberty claims. The courts first determine if a government action substantially burdens religious exercise, and if so, it then assess whether the government has a compelling justification that is implemented in a way that does the least harm to religious liberty.

In contrast, FADA provides highly specific protections and limits judicial discretion, thereby taking much of the potential for mischief from activist judges out of the equation. FADA would take the debate out of the hands of the most non-democratic branch of government and put it back into the hands of the American people and their elected officials. FADA takes a surgical approach that does the balancing on the “front end” by protecting precisely the beliefs under assault in precisely the contexts where they are most threatened.

While RFRA’s general protections are vital for countering threats to religious liberty we may not foresee, FADA’s specific protections are vital for countering threats to religious liberty that are right in front of us, right now.

But isn’t the marriage debate a politically toxic issue for Republicans? Just look at what happened in Indiana.

It is true that last year the state of Indiana watered down its newly enacted RFRA law after it was hit with a coordinated surprise attack from LGBT interest groups, the media, and some members of the business community. But recently lawmakers have regained their footing on the issue. Efforts to further undermine religious liberty rights through sexual orientation and gender identity “bathroom bills” were defeated in the Indiana state house earlier this year and by a popular vote of 61% by the people of Houston. Republican members of Congress should not be afraid of “another Indiana” because Indiana, Houston, Missouri, North Carolina, Kentucky and many others, are fighting to defend religious liberty. Momentum in support of religious liberty is gaining steam across the country. Republicans should champion this issue, not run away from it.

Why should the government be involved in religious matters at all?

Freedom of religion is our very first freedom laid out in the Bill of Rights because if we are not guaranteed the natural right to speak and act in accordance with one’s own religious beliefs, all other rights are illusory. Thousands of religious organizations and millions of Americans are doing good work in our communities by running schools, colleges, charities, churches, and adoption agencies. The same faith and moral convictions that motivate organizations and individuals to seek the good for their children and their communities, has also led many to acknowledge marriage between a man and a woman as the indispensable backbone for civil society in America. Their religious liberty deserves protection, and the Constitution charges all branches of government with the duty to protect it, especially Congress.

Why did FADA’s text change and will it be changed again?

The sponsors changed the bill text to ensure it could not be mischaracterized by opponents as Indiana’s RFRA was. According to Senator Lee, the change “makes crystal clear that we are only seeking to prevent federal government discrimination against people and institutions that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.” Outside of the regular amendment process, the bill text is now finalized and will not be altered again.

Will FADA authorize employees of the federal government to refuse to process the tax returns, visa applications, or Social Security checks of same-sex couples?

No. The bill expressly excludes federal employees acting within the scope of their employment and thus does not permit government employees to refuse people any services or benefits. FADA would simply protect federal employees from losing their job for religious beliefs expressed outside of the scope of their employment.

Will FADA authorize for-profit contractors to deny services or benefits to same-sex couples and/or eliminate any anti-discrimination?

No. The bill does not permit for-profit contractors to refuse services to same-sex couples. FADA would simply protect federal contractors from losing their contracts because of religious beliefs expressed outside of the scope of their contracts. FADA also does not protect publicly-traded corporations.

Will FADA authorize hospitals to refuse care to same-sex couples?

No. The bill expressly excludes “hospitals, clinics, hospices, nursing homes, or other medical or residential custodial facilities with respect to visitation, recognition of a designated representative for health care decision-making, or refusal to provide medical treatment necessary.”

FADA ensures a hospital will not lose its tax-exempt status or have its federal benefits revoked because, for example, a doctor does not wish to provide marital counseling services in a manner that violates his or her sincerely held religious beliefs.

Will FADA undermine federal civil rights protections, such as those available to employees and customers of for-profit businesses?

No. The bill does not alter or modify civil rights laws protecting people from discrimination in, for example, housing, credit, public accommodations, voting, and does not impact the American Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and other federal civil rights laws. Employees and customers will have recourse to applicable protections under federal or state law just as before.

Will FADA preempt any state non-discrimination laws?

No. The bill applies to the federal government only and does not preempt any state or municipal non-discrimination laws, including those relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.

Will FADA grant religious individuals and institutions special privileges before the law?

No. FADA does not give special privileges to religious individuals or institutions, rather it clarifies that the federal government cannot discriminate against individuals and institutions simply because they believe and act in accordance with their religious belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. FADA is aimed specifically toward the federal government and executive agencies that are currently operating under the premise that the First Amendment no longer protects the belief in marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Will FADA take away the right of members of the LGBT community to challenge religious individuals and institutions in court?

No. FADA does not prevent members of the LGBT community from taking anyone to court. The problem we are seeing now is that the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges has left the courts in confusion, empowering liberal activist judges to rule however they desire. FADA offers specific protection to those who still believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman in order to limit judicial discretion in current cases.

We should have faith in the courts to not hold religious defendants liable for discrimination if they are innocent. FADA would just increase government intervention in our lives.

Unfortunately, it would be naive to believe liberal activist courts will rule fairly. FADA simply puts guardrails in place for judges to ensure they rule in accordance with First Amendment rights. The Constitution charges Congress, first and foremost, to protect the rights of the people to speak and act in accordance with their religious beliefs, including marriage.

On the contrary, FADA ensures the federal government stays out of the lives of American citizens. FADA helps prevent the federal government from intervening in civil society to force people, and their businesses, to provide goods or services they feel are against their religious beliefs.

Read More