PDA

View Full Version : Democrats’ 'Do No Harm Act' makes attacking religious liberty an election issue




Swordsmyth
06-08-2018, 11:35 PM
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B) protects people of faith. Democrats in the House and Senate are pushing the Do Not Harm Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3222) that would strip away the rights of millions of Americans who, because of their faith, are pro-life or support traditional marriage, making this an election issue for 2018.
More than 100 House Democrats have signed onto H.R. 3222, the misleadingly named "Do No Harm Act". A dozen senators — including likely presidential hopefuls Sens. Elizabeth Warren (http://thehill.com/people/elizabeth-warren) (D-Mass.), Kamala Harris (http://thehill.com/people/kamala-harris) (D-Calif.), and Bernie Sanders (http://thehill.com/people/bernie-sanders) (I-Vt.) —have introduced this measure which would strip away RFRA faith-based rights pertaining to abortion, LGBT issues, and marriage.

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides multiple protections for religious freedom. The Free Speech Clause protects the right to express beliefs and opinions, including religious ones. The Free Exercise Clause protects living your life according to the teachings of your faith.


For two centuries, government burdens on exercising faith were subject to “strict scrutiny,” meaning they were presumed by courts to be unconstitutional and were sustained only if absolutely necessary and carefully tailored to achieve a truly compelling public interest. But in 1990, the Supreme Court in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213) wrongly narrowed the scope of the Free Exercise Clause to protect only against government actions that directly or indirectly target religion, lowering the bar for government interference with religious liberty.
Congress responded by enacting RFRA in 1993, restoring (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5375600/) “strict scrutiny” protection to exercising faith. The House passed RFRA unanimously — not a single vote against it among 435 members of Congress — and the Senate passed it by an overwhelming vote of 97-3. The ACLU supported RFRA. President Bill Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/bill-clinton), a Democrat, signed RFRA into law.

More at: http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/391439-democrats-do-no-harm-act-makes-attacking-religious-liberty-an-election

aGameOfThrones
06-09-2018, 12:01 PM
Naming bills with those Words, well, i just want to vote for them. It’s all about the name!

phill4paul
06-09-2018, 02:11 PM
Why the need for an ACT? The Constitution is WRT what the Federal Government can and cannot do. If they don't follow the original document then what is the point of adding more legislation?

timosman
06-09-2018, 02:29 PM
Why the need for an ACT? The Constitution is WRT what the Federal Government can and cannot do. If they don't follow the original document then what is the point of adding more legislation?

It gives the busybodies in the congress something to do.

Brian4Liberty
06-09-2018, 02:33 PM
Why the need for an ACT? The Constitution is WRT what the Federal Government can and cannot do. If they don't follow the original document then what is the point of adding more legislation?

Counter legislation to the legislation from the bench.

timosman
06-09-2018, 02:48 PM
Counter legislation to the legislation from the bench.

Will these fuckers get their shit together for once?:cool:

Wooden Indian
06-09-2018, 04:08 PM
Can you just hear that conversation between those assholes?

Hey, Bernie. How was the weekend? Good. Good. And the wife and kids? Oh, really? That's good to hear!

So, I was thinking we should name the bill that supports ripping the fragile bodies of children apart from within their mother's womb... now get this... "Do No Harm". Thoughts? I know! Amazing, right!?

Glad to have you on board, pal. Give my best to fam!