New Poll Shows Anti-Choice Lawmakers Out of Sync with Their Own Constituents

Robin Marty

A new poll released today by Catholics for Choice makes it clear that anti-choice lawmakers are being seen as playing to their lobbyist interests over that of their own districts.

A new poll released today by Catholics for Choice makes it clear that anti-choice lawmakers are being seen as playing to their lobbyist interests over that of their own districts.

In the four districts polled, constituents stated a preference for abortion coverage to be included in government-subsidized insurance, by a percentage ranging from 51 percent to 69 percent. In three of those same four districts, a clear majority also stated that they want their representatives to listen to them over the Catholic bishops so heavily lobbying them.

John O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, said in a release today:

The Democratic leadership accepted ultimatums from the USCCB [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops] and used the healthcare reform bill to restrict access to abortion services for American women. The 200 bishops who run dioceses do not reflect the views of Catholics, let alone all Americans, yet they played a decisive role in shaping the bill. The bishops’ lobby efforts showed that their first, second and last priority was to restrict access to abortion. Sadly, the Democratic leadership was willing to acquiesce to the demands of a few members who take marching orders from the bishops.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:


News Law and Policy

Anti-Choice Groups Vow to Defy New Provisions of D.C. Law That Don’t Exist

Emily Crockett

The groups pledged to "vigorously resist" the alleged religious freedom violations in D.C.'s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act—but the violations they complain about aren't actually in the law.

A group of anti-choice organizations released a joint statement this week that, to many observers, seemed like a vow to commit civil disobedience and violate the District of Columbia’s new Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA).

It’s not clear, however, if these groups’ planned “resistance” would actually break the law, or whether their objections to the law have any grounding in reality.

“The statement from Alliance Defending Freedom and other groups shows that they still have not taken time to read or understand my legislation,” D.C. Councilmember David Grosso, who sponsored the reproductive health bill, told Rewire via email.

The statement, signed by representatives of Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, March for Life, Concerned Women for America, Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, pledged to “vigorously resist” alleged violations to their First Amendment rights under the new law.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:


The pledge comes on the heels of action by congressional Republicans to try, unsuccessfully for now, to block the new law. A resolution of disapproval of RHNDA failed to pass both the House and the Senate before a 30-day deadline, but Congress could still try to block it using the budget appropriations process.

“It is appalling that these organizations have sought congressional interference in our local legislative process and now claim an intention to disobey the law based on their own ignorance about what the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act does and does not do,” Grosso said.

The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal website released the statement along with a report claiming that the groups are “putting themselves at risk of violating the law.”

It would in fact violate the law if the groups wanted to fire women for having an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, or fire men whose wives use birth control. The RHNDA amends D.C.’s Human Rights Act to protect employees from discrimination based on their, or their dependents’, personal reproductive health care choices for which some religious conservative employers have been known to fire women.

But if this is the anti-choice groups’ intent, it’s not at all clear from their statement. Instead, the groups appear to be using common misconceptions about what the bill actually does to support their arguments that the bill violates the religious freedom of employers.

“They claim they will not obey the D.C. Human Rights Act, yet their uninformed stance actually means they will be taking actions completely within the law,” Grosso said.

The anti-choice groups’ statement claims that RHNDA is “aimed squarely” at the organizations’ freedoms to “draw our workforces from among those who share our foundational commitment to the sanctity of human life” and to “purchase and provide employee health plans that comport with our pro-life beliefs.”

“Despite the enactment of this unjust law, we will continue to hire employees who share our commitment to the dignity of every member of the human family,” the statement concludes. “We will not abandon the purpose of our organizations in order to comply with this illegal and unjust law. We will vigorously resist any effort under RHNDA to violate our constitutionally protected fundamental rights.”

If all these groups want to do is hire people who share their views, or decline to provide comprehensive insurance that covers contraception and abortion, it doesn’t appear that RHNDA prohibits them from doing that.

The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, as much as it rankled reproductive rights supporters and many D.C. Council members, is still the law of the land. Council members and aides have repeatedly said that nothing in the bill deals with insurance, and the bill now contains language clarifying that point.

That clarifying language is temporary, which the anti-choice groups objected to. But D.C. Council members plan to make that clarification permanent, even though some have argued that it would be redundant to do so.

As for the groups’ concerns about being able to hire people who share a “commitment” to their values, the law’s supporters say that groups can hire who they want, and that the purpose of the law is to prohibit firing an employee for their health-care choices.

“This is about ensuring that workers can make their own health decisions without their bosses’ intrusion, whether that is to initiate or terminate a pregnancy, whether that is taking birth control or in-vitro fertility treatments,” Grosso said.

Religious groups might argue that an employee’s abortion or use of birth control demonstrates a lack of “commitment” to their values, but that’s where the new law draws the line.

It’s possible, for instance, for a person to strongly identify as “pro-life” and Catholic but still use birth control funded by private insurance, or to have a daughter who does. Nothing seems to prohibit a group from refusing to hire someone who says they are pro-choice.

“If Concerned Women of America and the other groups are asking individual job applicants whether they use birth control, have had an abortion in the past, or have used assistive reproductive technologies, then they will be clearly violating the law, and doing so in a really despicable manner,” Grosso said.

He added that those employers are “well within their rights to evaluate a job applicant’s ability to execute the functions of the advertised position and seek employees who agree with the organizational mission.”

News Human Rights

A ‘New Low’? GOP Tries to Block D.C.’s New Reproductive Health Law

Emily Crockett

Republicans in Congress voted Tuesday to overturn a new law that would protect women in Washington, D.C., from being fired due to their reproductive health-care choices.

Congressional Republicans voted Tuesday to overturn a new law that would protect women in Washington, D.C., from being fired due to their reproductive health-care choices.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 20 to 16 to advance a resolution of disapproval that, if passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, would block D.C.’s new Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act.

The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings, called the repeal attempt a “new low” for the Republican Party on women’s health issues.

“Under this legislation, congressional Republicans would permit District employers to fire a woman because she had an abortion after being raped, demote a man because his wife chooses to use a birth control pill, pay an employee less because his or her teenage daughter became pregnant out of wedlock, and impose a host of other penalties based on ideologies that discriminate against certain reproductive health decisions,” Cummings said in a statement last week, ahead of the markup.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:


Advocates point to cases of non-Catholic women who become pregnant out of wedlock being fired from Catholic schools as an example of why the law is needed. Laws against gender discrimination or pregnancy discrimination don’t always cover cases in which a woman’s reproductive health choices run afoul of her employer’s ideology.

Opponents of the law, which include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, claim that it would restrict religious freedom.

“We should all be willing to die” for religious liberty, Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK) said during the committee meeting after noting that he believes abortion is murder.

The District of Columbia’s locally passed laws are subject to the approval of Congress, and it’s been 23 years since the last time a House committee started the process to try to overturn one. Republicans seem more keen than usual to meddle with D.C. local control, with recent efforts to interfere with D.C.’s legalization of marijuana and threats to undo local gun laws.

Since the resolution of disapproval is unlikely to succeed, Republicans have also urged House budget leaders to stop the new law by blocking funds to implement it—the same process they used to keep D.C. from taxing and regulating the commercial sale of marijuana.

Detractors also claim that the non-discrimination act would effectively overturn the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, but the bill’s sponsors dispute that.

After the bill was passed, D.C. Council member David Grosso told Rewire that while the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision helped motivate the council to pass the bill, the legislation wouldn’t impose any new obligations on employers related to insurance or contraception.

It merely prohibits firing an employee for her personal health-care choices, or her dependent’s choices.

“Employers are entitled to their religious beliefs and these beliefs and practices are protected by D.C. law,” Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said Monday. “At the same time, we will not tolerate the misusing of religion to deny women and men in the District of Columbia equal opportunity under the law.”


Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!


Thank you for supporting our work!