The D.C. City Council is working to undermine religious liberties in its jurisdiction. Two bills—both passed by the D.C. Mayor, Muriel Bowser—will saddle religious organizations and employers with a choice between upholding their beliefs as they perform their organizational missions or complying with a coercive government regulation that forces them to violate their beliefs and missions.
- The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act: The bill would force pro-life employers in the District to cover elective, surgical abortions in their health plans. The Act could also force religious and pro-life employers opposed to abortion to hire openly pro-choice employees. For private organizations to be required to hire someone with a viewpoint diametrically opposed to their core principles is a serious infringement on the right of free association.
- The Human Rights Amendment Act: Also passed before Christmas, this bill eliminates a 1989 provision passed by Congress that protects religious educational organizations from being coerced into “promoting, encouraging, or condoning any homosexual act, lifestyle orientation, or belief.” Under the Human Rights Amendment Act, a religious school could be forced to host a gay pride day, “coming out” day, or support a student group dedicated to furthering LGBT activities. These infringements undermine a major reason why parents choose private schools over public schools: the fact that these institutions are often more harmonious with parents’ deeply held religious values. The Amendment could also require these organizations to hire employees whose personal values conflict with longstanding religious doctrine.
Congress and the D.C. Government: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the District. Under that law, which remains in effect today, the D.C. City Council acts as a legislature for the district unless it is explicitly overruled by Congress.
Congressional Overrule: When D.C. passes a law, the City Council transmits the law to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. Once the transfer is complete, a review period of roughly thirty days begins. If, within the review period, both houses of Congress pass a joint resolution disapproving the law, and the President signs the joint resolution, the D.C. law is overturned. If he does not, the law goes into effect.
Call to Action: Religious freedom is a core American value. Activists are encouraged to urge their representatives to use their authority over Washington, D.C.’s government to stop these intrusive and flawed laws from going into effect.
This week lawmakers introduced H.R. 597 to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN)Heritage ActionScorecardRep. Stephen FincherHouse Republican Average66%
authored the bill and 57 other lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors in support. The Export-Import bank aims to facilitate trade between the U.S. and other nations. In actuality it uses tax payer dollars to provide loans for big business like Solyndra and Boeing.
The Export-Import bank adds fuel to the fire of the crony capitalist nature of Washington DC and must be reformed.
Here’s the conservative response;
“Americans didn’t give Republicans a historic majority to hand out favors to K Street lobbyists and well-connected special interests. If they want to honor their mandate, they’ll allow Ex-Im to expire and advance policies that creates opportunity for everyone.”
Read the full bill online.
These 57 lawmakers added their names as co-sponsor to the legislation:
To: Interested Parties
From: Heritage Action for America
Date: January 27, 2015
Subject: Keeping Focused on Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration
Lawmakers have one month to pass a discretionary funding measure for the Department of Homeland Security that denies funding and resources for President Obama’s amnesty programs. Although the House-passed DHS appropriations bill (H.R. 240) 1 has yet to be considered in the Senate, Politico reported some Republicans were already “exploring ways of escaping their political jam on immigration, with steps that could avoid a funding cutoff for the Department of Homeland Security while letting conservatives vent their anger at President Barack Obama.” Such actions are premature, as Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) explained to the Washington Examiner:
“You usually don’t know for sure where these fights wind up until you have them. And this is an important one for us to have. We need to have this fight, and then we’ll see where it goes.”
Win the Fight
Some may be tempted to point to vote counts in the Senate and claim that there is a need for compromise legislation. Senator Blunt’s comments bear repeating: You usually don’t know for sure where these fights wind up until you have them.
Voters demanded more than merely a fight in November; they voted to stop the President’s reckless overreach. Forcing debate the issue through votes is just the first step. If Republicans are to deliver on their mandate, they must make the case for immediate action and force the President and his allies to defend these dangerous, unlawful policies.
At least five sitting Senate Democrats have expressed opposition to President Obama’s latest executive actions, which would grant quasi-legal status, work permits and Social Security numbers to those who are in the country illegally.
- Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN): “It is clear the immigration system in this country is broken, and only Congress has the ability to change the law to fix it…I am as frustrated as anyone that Congress is not doing its job, but the president shouldn’t make such significant policy changes on his own.” (“Donnelly sees
Obama immigration move as too much,” The Courier-Journal, 11/20/14, http://cjky.it/14T2SW9)
- Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “Our immigration system is broken, and I support a comprehensive plan to fix it, but executive orders aren’t the way to do it.” (“Local Lawmakers Oppose Obama’s Immigration Action,” KOLR10 News, 11/20/14, http://bit.ly/1FHJdUy)
- Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): “I disagree with the President’s decision to use executive action to make changes to our immigration system, and I disagree with the House’s decision to not even take a vote on the bipartisan Senate legislation that overwhelmingly passed in June 2013.” (“Obama announces immigration plan; WV reps react,” MetroNews, 11/20/14, http://bit.ly/1vbQOcM)
- Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND): “I’m disappointed the president decided to use executive action at this time on this issue, as it could poison any hope of compromise or bipartisanship in the new Senate before it has even started. It’s Congress’ job to pass legislation and deal with issues of this magnitude.” (“Obama fails to convince some Dems on immigration,” Politico, 11/20/14, http://politi.co/1yCcJdJ)
- Sen. Angus King (I-ME): “I worry that his taking unilateral action could in fact inflame public opinion, change the subject from immigration to the president. I also have constitutional concerns about where prosecutorial discretion ends and unconstitutional executive authority begins.” (“GOP leaders warn ‘impeachment’ is a dirty word,” Politico, 11/19/14, http://politi.co/1F0YPlI)
Two more expressed concern before the announcement:
- Sen. Al Franken (D-MN): “‘I have concerns about executive action,’ said Franken, who had previously declined to comment, in a statement Thursday. ‘This is a job for Congress, and it’s time for the House to act.’” (“Senate Democrats Urge President Obama To Delay Immigration Order,” Politico, 9/5/14, http://politi.co/1pwyMtR)
- Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): “A big issue like immigration, the best way to get a comprehensive solution is to take this through the legislative process.” (“Warner: ‘Right decision’ to delay on immigration,” The Hill, 09/08/14, http://bit.ly/1tvyVRt)
Read the entire memo.
Today, the House should have been voting to ban abortions after five months.
Even though six in 10 Americans supported the bill, the House caved to pressure from the bipartisan liberal establishment.
The question stands: Why did they abandon a bill that would have saved 11,000 lives?
This would have been a huge step forward for protecting the lives of unborn children. Instead, the Republican-controlled House abandoned a popular, principled bill they passed without controversy in 2013.
Call your lawmaker and find out if they supported pulling this bill from the floor.
Last week, the House passed
the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act (H.R. 37
). The bill, essentially a package of previous House bills that had garnered strong bipartisan support, makes several small financial regulatory improvements. But this short-term strategy – making small tweaks to the existing regulatory framework – may not be the best approach for fixing what’s wrong with U.S. financial regulations.
The real problem is not, for instance, whether the Volcker rule requires banks to divest certain types of assets in 2015 or 2019. The real problem is the Volcker rule itself and, more broadly, the whole mass of regulations impacted by the Dodd-Frank Act.