Most people would agree that a law forcing Planned Parenthood to staff its front desk with anti-abortion activists would be absurd. Likewise, a bill to force a crisis pregnancy center to staff its office with pro-choice activists would be equally unreasonable. Yet a new bill being championed by the D.C. Council will do just that — putting the fate of pro-life medicine, crisis pregnancy centers, and their association rights in question.
Bill 22-571 would amend the D.C. Human Rights Act to add “abortion providers” as a protected class to existing non-discrimination law. It was introduced last fall by Council Members David Grosso, Charles Allen, Robert White, Brianne Nadeau, Jack Evans, and Anita Bonds. They claim the bill is intended to protect supporters of abortion and sterilization from unfair discrimination, but don’t account for the First Amendment rights the bill endangers.
Freedom of association was at the heart of the feminist movement successes that the bill’s supporters champion. The fundamental freedom that shielded suffragists and allowed them to come together, stand up to angry mobs, and get women the right to vote would be put at risk if this bill were to become law.
Regardless of its mission, no private human services organization should be told it cannot hire in accordance with its mission. If people cannot organize based on shared values and vision, what’s the point of having a mission at all?
Because voluntary organizations want to advocate for diverse missions, measures to protect their rights of association should be viewpoint neutral. Viewpoint neutrality is a constitutional standard that forbids the government from picking and choosing winners based on their ideology or belief system. The bill’s sponsors clearly articulate its purpose: to establish protected class status based on “participation in, willingness to participate in, or support for abortion or sterilization procedures.”
What’s missing? Refusal to participate in. Opposition to. The bill says that if you support abortion or sterilization, you are a protected class under D.C. law. With that status, you can take legal action against an employer, educator, or institution that objects to that message, regardless of whether that message violates their mission or faith statement. If this bill passes, an organization that exclusively offers alternatives to abortion, such as a crisis pregnancy center, has weaker association rights than an organization who supports or participates in abortion.
If the classification were reversed, or if it did protect both sides, Planned Parenthood could be required by law to hire pro-life activists. That would likely frustrate its mission and defies common sense. An organization’s viewpoint should not determine whether it receives favorable treatment from our local government officials.
This bill is not viewpoint neutral, and if challenged, will likely be held unconstitutional. If it becomes D.C. law, it would force pro-life crisis pregnancy centers and healthcare providers to comply or face a mountain of discriminatory, mean-spirited lawsuits for not hiring someone who supports the practice of abortion.
Abortion advocates often accuse pro-life advocates of not doing enough to support women and children facing poverty, homelessness, or unsafe home environments. Crisis pregnancy centers walk the walk, offering free pregnancy testing, counseling, mentoring, supplies, ongoing support, childbirth classes and parenting classes.
If the D.C. Council passes this bill, it would send the message that only one viewpoint on abortion and sterilization is acceptable in the District. At the local, state and federal level, new protected classes have traditionally been created by laws designed to shield individuals from discrimination based on characteristics that are immutable, such as race or sex, or those that have been singled out for legal and societal stigmatization. Protected classes should not be established based upon pet causes of whoever holds political power at any given time.
We’ve seen this before. The proposed D.C. law is similar to St. Louis Ordinance 70459, a bill that added a protected class based upon “reproductive health decisions.” The Missouri legislature overturned the ordinance after religious affiliated pregnancy centers and other pro-life groups raised concerns. Supporters of the bill are quick to point out that several states have similar laws to protect abortion providers but leave out that all of those laws include exemptions for religious reasons.
The bill’s sponsors say existing exemptions elsewhere in D.C. law would protect faith-based organizations, but that is not at all clear and is subject to the whims of judges and future councils. Who would be protected by the limited, already existing D.C. laws covering religious objectors remains an open question. The D.C. Council shouldn’t pass Bill 22-571 to find out.
Passing a measure which is itself discriminatory and antithetical to the values of equality, free speech, and free association that our city makes a priority would be a mistake. Rather than forcing the faith-based healthcare providers to hire against their conscience or shut down, the D.C. Council should recognize the profound contribution these organizations make to our community.
It is their good works and service to our city that are truly at stake.
Katie Glenn (@miss_kGa) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is the policy counsel at the 1st Amendment Partnership (@1APonline).
