Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
Why the Equality Act is actually much worse than the Bostock Court ruling

Why the Equality Act is actually much worse than the Bostock Court ruling

Last updated on: February 22, 2021 at 5:23 pm by Jane the Actuary

Why the Equality Act is actually much worse than the Bostock Court ruling 2021-02-22T17:23:17-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PFLAG_of_the_Lower_Shenandoah_07_-_DC_Capital_Pride_-_2014-06-07.jpg; Tim Evanson [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Remember back last summer when the Supreme Court determined that, by parsing the Civil Rights Act as literally as possible, it protected homosexual and transgender workers? At the time I said, “hey, the sky is not falling, Gorsuch actually affirmed a biological definition of ‘sex,’ and the ruling is fairly narrow.” Indeed, the premise of finding that a transgender person’s employment rights are protected was, when it comes down to it (though he didn’t use this phrasing) “you can’t prohibit a man from wearing a dress if you allow a woman to do so.”

But the Equality Act?

That’s entirely different. Nothing about this bill allows for that more-moderate interpretation.

Let’s look at the text:

In the bill’s definitions:

The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.

And

The term ‘sex’ includes—

“(A) a sex stereotype;

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

“(C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and

“(D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.

The key action of the bill is to add the parenthetical “including sexual orientation and gender identity” in every instance in which “sex” appears as a reason for which discrimination is prohibited. What does it mean to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, vs. merely making reasonable differentiations? One can presume that the “findings” are meant to provide the key to interpretations. Among these are references to discrimination against nonbinary individuals by homeless shelters and rejection of same-sex couples by some foster care/adoption agencies. Other than this, one is left to presume that the demands that activists make — for participation by trans-girls in girls’ sports without limits — are intended to be acceded to in this law.

Other provisions include

The explicit statement that

in a situation in which sex is a bona fide occupational qualification, individuals are recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender identity.

The requirement that

(with respect to sex) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions

The specific provision of access to gender-identity based shared facility:

(with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.”

and

The overriding of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”

What’s the consequence of this legislation?

In the first place, girls and women will no longer be able to maintain sex-segregated athletic competitions or, really, any facilities of any kind. As it is, in high schools, boys-who-identify-as-girls are allowed to compete on girls’ teams, and girls are told to suck it up and that it is no more “unfair” for them to compete with a “girl” with testosterone than it is to compete with a girl who, by the lottery of genetics, is taller than average. With respect to adults, there are already heated debates about whether the requirements for specified lengths of time taking cross-sex hormones can truly erase the advantages of male puberty. But would an athletic league even be able to enforce these minimal requirements under this law?

In the second place, the law would place new requirements on medical providers. A Catholic hospital had refused to perform a hysterectomy for someone for whom it was part of a transition surgery rather than medically necessary, and experts believe that the new anti-discrimination requirements would mandate this.

Likewise, the provision “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions,” opens itself up for all manner of interpretations, most crucially in terms of the vagueness of the phrase “related medical condition.” Given how comprehensively Congress likes to define provisions when it matters, this suggests that it wants to create a situation in which the true significance of the bill is not recognized until the Biden administration creates the regulations which interpret this — and that can include everything up to mandating that insurers cover abortion and doctors perform abortion.

And in the third place, the stipulation that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is effectively repealed with respect to this bill raises yet more worries. That law, after all, came about because of Supreme Court rulings that said that generally-applicable laws did not necessarily violate the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom even if it impacted a religious group; if American Indians’ use of peyote was prohibited by drug laws, too bad, so sad, but the law wasn’t unconstitutional. The RFRA was meant to remedy this by providing additional protections.

This provision is similar to the Do No Harm Act of last year, which Kamala Harris was a vocal supporter and chief sponsor of. This bill specified that the RFRA would not apply in any case where it would contravene the Civil Rights Act (as amended to include sexual orientation or gender identity), or where it would limit “access to, information about, referrals for, provision of, or coverage for, any health care item or service” (which the Biden administration would define to include contraception and abortion), or “to the extent that application would result in denying a person the full and equal enjoyment of a good, service, benefit, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, provided by the government.”

How far would the government go in its interpretation? Would it require that Catholic churches ordain women? That they perform marriages for same-sex couples? If this seems too much a stretch, it is far more likely that Catholic hospitals and healthcare providers would be compelled to perform abortions and surgeries related to transitions or be hit with ruinous fines or compelled to shut down.

(See “What to Know About the Equality Act” at First Things, “Biden’s Equality Act is a danger to women’s and conscience rights” at the New York Post, and “Why The ‘Equality Act’ Democrats Want To Pass This Week Should Really Be Called The ‘Destroy Our Daughters Act’” at The Federalist for more.)

Uncategorized

transgender

Previous Post

February 1, 2021

The Bee predicts the post-Trump GOP future

Next Post

February 23, 2021 Biden's immigration bill will not "fix" illegal immigration

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was known as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Peter James John Thomas