DOCSLIB.ORG

S. 2969 a Bill to Protect the Free Exercise of Religion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
S. 2969 a Bill to Protect the Free Exercise of Religion S. HRG. 102-1076 THE REUGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 2969 A BILL TO PROTECT THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION SEPTEMBER 18, 1992 Serial No. J-102-82 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary fL fL /^_/<// U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65-604 WASHINGTON : 1993 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-040725-7 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts STROM THURMOND, South Carolina HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania PAUL SIMON, Illinois HANK BROWN, Colorado HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin CYNTHIA C. HOOAN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director THADDEUS E. STROM, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) CONTENTS STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Kennedy, Hon. Edward M 1 Thurmond, Hon. Strom 3 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G 7 Metzenbaum, Hon. Howard M 8 CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES William Nouyi Yang, Worcester, MA, accompanied by Robert Peck, legislative counsel, American Civil Liberties Union 5 Panel consisting of: Dallin H. Oaks, quorum of the twelve apostles, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT; Oliver S. Thomas, general counsel, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, Washington, DC; Douglas Laycock, professor, University of Texas School of Law; Mark E. Chopko, general counsel, U.S. Catholic Conference, Washington, DC; and Bruce Fein, Great Falls, VA 30 Panel consisting of: Forest D. Montgomery, counsel, office of public affairs, National Association of Evangelicals, Washington, DC; Michael P. Farris, president, Home School Legal Defense Association, Paeonian Springs, VA; Nadine Strossen, president, American Civil Liberties Union; and James Bopp, Jr., general counsel, National Right to Life Committee, Inc., Wash­ ington, DC 135 ALPHABETICAL LIST AND SUBMITTED MATERIAL Bopp, James, Jr.: Testimony 203 Prepared statement 206 Chopko, Mark E.: Testimony 99 Prepared statement 101 Farris, Michael P.: Testimony 148 Prepared statement 151 An analysis of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by the Coalitions for America 154 Fein, Bruce: Testimony 116 Prepared statement 120 Laycock, Douglas: Testimony 63 Prepared statement 66 Montgomery, Forest D.: Testimony 135 Prepared statement 138 Oaks, Dallin H.: Testimony 30 Prepared statement 33 Peck, Robert: Testimony 6 Text of opinion, Yang v. Sturner 10 Strossen, Nadine: Testimony 171 Prepared statement 174 an) IV Page Strossen, Nadine—Continued Thomas, Oliver S.: Testimony 41 Prepared statement 44 Yang, William Nouyi: Testimony 5 Prepared statement 14 APPENDIX Prepared statement by a broad coalition of Indian tribes and organizations and religious, civil rights and environmental organizations 243 Text of S. 2969—A bill to protect the free exercise of religion 262 S. 2969—THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1992 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-G-50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward M. Kenne­ dy presiding. Present: Senators Kennedy, Metzenbaum, and Hatch. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY Senator KENNEDY. We will come to order. The brave pioneers who founded America came here in large part to escape religious tyranny and to practice their faiths free from government interference. The persecution they had suffered in the old world convinced them of the need to assure for all Amer­ icans for all time the right to practice their religion unencumbered by the yoke of religious tyranny. That profound principle is embodied in the two great religion clauses of the first amendment, which provide that Congress "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But in 1990, the Supreme Court's deci­ sion in Oregon Employment Division v. Smith produced a serious and unwarranted setback for the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. Before the Smith decision, Federal, State, and local governments were prohibited from interfering with people's ability to practice their religion unless the restriction satisfied a difficult two-part test—first, that it was necessary to achieve a compelling govern­ ment interest; and, second, that there was no less burdensome way to accomplish the goal. The compelling interest test has been the legal standard protect­ ing the free exercise of religion for nearly 30 years. Yet, in one fell swoop the Supreme Court overruled that test and declared that no special constitutional protection is available for religious liberty as long as the Federal, State, or local law in question is neutral on its face as to religion and is a law of general application. Under Smith, the Government no longer had to justify burdens on the free exercise of religion as long as these burdens are "merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid pro­ vision." (l) 2 The Supreme Court did not have to go that far to reach its result in the Smith case. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote of the majority's ruling in her eloquent and forceful opinion concurring in the result but criticizing the majority's reasoning, Today's holding dramatically departs from well-settled first amendment jurispru­ dence, appears unnecessary to resolve the questions presented, and is incompatible with our Nation's fundamental commitment to individual religious liberty. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Senator Hatch and I, and 23 other Senators have introduced, would restore the compelling interest test for evaluating free exercise claims. It would do so by establishing a statutory right that adopts the stand­ ards previously used by the Supreme Court. In essence, the act codifies the requirement for the Government to demonstrate that any law burdening the free exercise of religion is essential to fur­ thering a compelling governmental interest and is the least restric­ tive means of achieving that interest. The act creates no new rights for any religious practice or for any potential litigant. Not every free exercise claim will prevail. It simply restores the long-established standard of review that had worked well for many years and that requires courts to weigh free exercise claims against the compelling State interest standard. Our bill is strongly supported by an extraordinary coalition of or­ ganizations with widely differing views on many other issues. The National Association of Evangelicals, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalitions for America, People for the American Way, just to name a few, support the legislation. They don't often agree on much, but they do agree on the need to pass the Religious Free­ dom Restoration Act because religious freedom in America is dam­ aged each day the Smith decision stands. Today, the committee will hear compelling testimony about the destructive impact of the decision. We are fortunate to have a very distinguished group of witnesses and I look forward to their testi­ mony. We have a statement from Senator Thurmond which we will enter in the record at this point. [The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:] 3 STATEMENT BY SENATOR STROM THURMOND (R-S.C.) BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, REFERENCE HEARING ON S. 2969, THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT, 226 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1992. 10:00 A.M. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hearing this morning on S. 2969, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, brings into sharp focus the many different views on the.advisability and manner of reversing the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith. This opinion, as my colleagues know, concerns the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. As stated by the Court, the respondents in this case, were fired from their jobs with a drug rehabilitation program because of their use of peyote as part of a religious ceremony. At the time, the use of peyote was a crime in Oregon for which no religious exemption existed. Respondents were denied unemployment compensation on the ground that they were dismissed for misconduct. Subsequently, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the denial of unemployment benefits violated respondents free exercise rights under the First Amendment. Of importance to the hearing this morning is that the Court, in reversing the Oregon Supreme Court, declined to apply the compelling governmental interest test, as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, a 1963 decision. S. 2969 would reverse the Court's holding, and would statutorily require the Court to apply the compelling governmental interest test to all challenges based on the Free Exercise Clause. Mr. Chairman, I understand the arguments in support of S. -1- 4 2969, but I am concerned that there are many aspects to this legislation which must be carefully considered before it is enacted. For example, I am concerned, as some of the witnesses suggest, that this legislation may have unintended consequences, especially as to the issue of abortion. I am also concerned that this legislation may deprive the Court of a certain amount of flexibility which is necessary in determining constitutional issues. Given the seriousness of these and many other issues, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the witnesses that I intend to study this legislation, and their recommendations, very carefully. In my view, legislation such as this, which impacts constitutional decision-making, demands our most careful and thorough review. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the witnesses for their time and effort in appearing before the Committee this morning. 5 Senator KENNEDY. Our first witness this morning is Mr. William Yang of Worcester, MA. Mr. Yang, we welcome you here and we are delighted to have you before the committee.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RIGHTS at RISK
    RIGHTS at RISK Time for Action Observatory on the Universality of Rights Trends Report 2021 RIGHTS AT RISK: TIME FOR ACTION Observatory on the Universality of Rights Trends Report 2021 Chapter 4: Anti-Rights Actors 4 www.oursplatform.org 72 RIGHTS AT RISK: TIME FOR ACTION Observatory on the Universality of Rights Trends Report 2021 Chapter 4: Anti-Rights Actors Chapter 4: CitizenGo Anti-Rights Actors – Naureen Shameem AWID Mission and History ounded in August 2013 and headquartered Fin Spain,221 CitizenGo is an anti-rights platform active in multiple regions worldwide. It describes itself as a “community of active citizens who work together, using online petitions and action alerts as a resource, to defend and promote life, family and liberty.”222 It also claims that it works to ensure respect for “human dignity and individuals’ rights.”223 United Families Ordo Iuris, International Poland Center for World St. Basil the Istoki Great Family and Endowment Congress of Charitable Fund, Russia Foundation, Human Rights Families Russia (C-Fam) The International Youth Alliance Coalition Russian Defending Orthodox Freedom Church Anti-Rights (ADF) Human Life Actors Across International Heritage Foundation, USA FamilyPolicy, Russia the Globe Group of Friends of the and their vast web Family of connections Organization Family Watch of Islamic International Cooperation Anti-rights actors engage in tactical (OIC) alliance building across lines of nationality, religion, and issue, creating a transnational network of state and non-state actors undermining rights related to gender and sexuality. This El Yunque, Mexico visual represents only a small portion Vox party, The Vatican World Youth Spain of the global anti-rights lobby.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Liberty
    S. HRG. 106-689 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON ISSUES RELATING TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY PROTECTION, AND FOCUS­ ING ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A RELIGIOUS PROTECTION MEASURE JUNE 23, AND SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Serial No. J-106-35 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 67-066 CC WASHINGTON : 2000 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel (II) CONTENTS STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah 1, 65 Thurmond, Hon. Strom, U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina 19 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts 20, 70 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont 27, 67 Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin 27, 70 CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES JUNE 23, 1999 Panel consisting of Steven T. McFarland, Center For Law and Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society, Annandale, VA; Nathan J. Diament, director, Institute For Public Affairs, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congrega­ tions of America, Washington, DC; Manuel A.
    [Show full text]
  • There Are Two Fundamental Reasons That Our Federal Government Has Far Exceeded Its Legitimate Authority Granted by the Terms of the Constitution
    TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL FARRIS, JD, LLM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA There are two fundamental reasons that our federal government has far exceeded its legitimate authority granted by the terms of the Constitution. First, it is the nature of man to want to expand his own power. Second, the several states have never employed their constitutional authority to limit the size of the federal government. We should not be surprised that the federal government has continually expanded its power. When there are no checks on its power, not even the need to spend only the money that it has on hand, abuse of power is inevitable. George Mason was the delegate at the Constitutional Convention who best understood this propensity of government-all government-and he insisted that we create an effective check on this abuse of power. He said that when the national government goes beyond its power, as it surely will, we will need to place structural limitations on that exercise of power to stop the abuse. But, no such limitations would ever be proposed by Congress. History has proven him correct on both counts. But Mason's arguments led to the final version of Article V which gave the states the ultimate constitutional power-the power to unilaterally amend the Constitution of the United States, without the consent of Congress. The very purpose of the ability of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution was so that there would be a source of power to stop the abuse of power by the federal government. 1 It should seem self-evident that the federal abuse of power is pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • Join These Christian Leaders Calling for a Convention of States
    Join these Christian leaders calling for a Convention of States Dr. James Dobson, Family Talk The Convention of States Project “The genius of our Founding Fathers is on full display in the advocates using Arcle V of the Convenon of the States Arcle V process, which empowers We U.S. Constuon to: the eople at a local level to connue preserving and protecng the fundamental rights of every individual and keeping America"s • Limit the po er and limited government In check. Let us raise our collecve voices and challenge the jurisdicon of the federal entrenched powers in Washington by 'nally, and for the 'rst me, calling for a government Convenon of the States.( • Impose "scal restraints on the federal government Michael Farris, Alliance Defending Freedom • Limit the terms of o#ce for “Only a Convenon of States will give us e*ecve soluons to federal o#cials and members the abuse of power in Washington, D.C. It is our moral obliga, on to protect liberty for ourselves and our posterity.( of Congress Mike ,uckabee, former governor of Arkansas “My longme friend, Michael Farris0who is an e-cellent constu, onal ligator and professor0has .oined with Mark Meckler and Citi1ens for Self,2overnance to actually bring 3a Convention of States4 “The ultimate into reality. I have reviewed their plan and it is both innovave and realistic. I urge you to .oin me in supporting the Convention of States ro.ect.( test of a moral society is the Dr. Tom Coburn, former U.S. Sen. from Oklahoma kind of world “There is not enough polical will in Washington to '- the real problems facing the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginias 1993 Elections: the 12-%Ear Itch Returns Part 1
    Virginias 1993 Elections: The 12-%ear Itch Returns Part 1. General Election for Governor .......................... by Larry J. Sabato •••••••••••••••••••••••••• Mr. Sabato is Robert Kent Gooch Professsor of disaffection with the same Charles Robb and Government and Foreign Affairs at the Univer­ his fellow unpopular Democrats, Governor Dou­ sity ofVirginia. This article is excerptedfrom the glas Wilder and President Bill Clinton. That forthcomingVirginia Votes 1991-1994; most of fact, combined with Mary Sue Terry's own un­ the tables andfigures have been omitted. Part 2, The statistics appealing persona and inept campaign (and a in the February 1994 issue, willdiscuss the 1993 clever and resourceful Allen effort) doomed her tell the tale: Virginia GeneralAssembly elections. to a historic defeat. 1993 was the best Republican MCh as the Republicans learned nation­ gubernatorial year NMINATIONS PROCESS ally in 1992, Virginia Democrats discovered to The Democratic convention on May 8-9 was their sorro in 1993 that voters often believe of the 20th century, carefully orchestrated and exquisitely dull. Former 12 years in power is enough for a political party. while Terry attorney general Mary Sue Terry ofPatrick County In what was arguably the best election year for received the was crowned the gubernatorial nominee, and Lieu­ the state GOP in this century, Republican can­ tenant Governor Donald S. Beyer, Jr. ofAlexandria lowest percentage didates swept the governorship and the attorney was renominated for the second slot. Former VIr­ general's post in landslides, and they came very of the vote ginia State Bar president William D. Dolan III of close to gaining control of the House of Del­ of any Democratic Arlington County won the berth for attorney gen­ egates.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 3:09-Cv-00104-WAP-MPM Document 28 Filed 02/19/2010 Page 1 of 39
    Case 3:09-cv-00104-WAP-MPM Document 28 Filed 02/19/2010 Page 1 of 39 In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Mississippi John Tyler Clemons, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) -v- ) Case No. ) 3:09-CV-00104-WAP-SAA ) United States Department of ) Commerce; et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION This case presents the following central issue: Does the language of Art. I, Sec. 2 and Amend. 14, § 2 which requires that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the states according to their respective numbers” require that Congress adhere to the principle of one-person, one-vote when apportioning the House? Nine voters from the five most under-represented states in the nation have filed this historic constitutional challenge to the statute (2 U.S.C. § 2a) which freezes the size of the United States House of Representatives at 435 seats. By freezing the size of the House, Congress necessarily creates extreme interstate malapportionment. Voters in Montana are “worth” only 54.6% of voters in Wyoming. The malapportionment that results from this statute is 9100% greater than the congressional reapportionment that was declared unconstitutional in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983). Other than the extreme nature of the malapportionment, the only thing that distinguishes this case from Karcher (and many other similar decisions) is that Congress, 1 Case 3:09-cv-00104-WAP-MPM Document 28 Filed 02/19/2010 Page 2 of 39 rather than a state legislature, is responsible for the unequal treatment of voters.
    [Show full text]
  • Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax "'
    efile GRAPHIC rint - DO NOT PROCESS As Filed Data - DLN:93493131006060 Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax 0MB No 1545-0047 Form990 Under section 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (except private foundations) ~ 2018 II> Do not enter social security numbers on this form as 1t may be made public Dc'JKtI1mc'nt oftht:" Open to Public II> Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information. Trt'a ... un Inspection lntc:m~li Re\ emit:" 'ien 1cc: A For th e 2019 ca en d ar vear, or t ax vear b eqmnmq 07 --01 2018 , an d en d'mq 06 --30 2019 C Name of organization B Check 1f applicable D Employer 1dent1f1cat1on number Alliance Defending Freedom D Address change 54-1660459 D Name change D In1t1al return Doing business as D Final return/terminated E Telephone number D Amended return Number and street (or P 0 box 1f mall 1s not delivered to street address) IRoom/suite 15100 North 90th Street D Appl1cat1on pending (480) 444-0020 City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code Scottsdale, AZ 85260 G Gross receipts $ 76,822,141 F Name and address of principal officer H(a) Is this a group return for Michael P Farris 15100 North 90th Street subord1nates7 DYes ~No Scottsdale, AZ 85260 H(b) Are all subordinates 1ncluded7 DYes DNo I Tax-exempt status ~ 501(c)(3) D 501(c) ( ) ~ (insert no ) D 4947(a)(1) or D 527 If "No," attach a 11st (see 1nstruct1ons) J Website: II> www all1ancedefend1ngfreedom erg H(c) Group exemption number II> L Year of formation 1993 VA K Form of organization ~ Corporation D Trust D Assoc1at1on D Other II> I M State of legal dom1c1le .
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Literacy Workbook to the 25-Part DVD Series
    Constitutional literacy Workbook to the 25-Part DVD Series Michael Farris Constitutional Literacy Published by Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1106 Meridian Plaza, Suite 220/340 Anderson, Indiana 46016 www.apologia.com © 2014 by Michael Farris ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Manufactured in the USA First Printing 2014 ISBN: 978-1-940110-29-5 Printed by Bang Printing, Brainerd, MN Design and Layout by Doug Powell Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. Other Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, King James Version. Contents Introduction: Freedom At Risk ........................................................................ 7 How to Use This Workbook .......................................................................... 11 Episode 1: Introduction to the Constitution ................................................. 13 Episode 2: Article I, Section 1 ....................................................................... 26 Episode 3: Judicial Review and Original Intent ............................................. 38 Episode 4: The Powers of Congress ................................................................ 50 Episode 5: The Commerce and General Welfare Clauses ............................... 62 Episode 6: The Powers of the President .......................................................... 77 Episode 7: Does the Bill of Rights Apply to the States? .................................
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 117 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 117 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 167 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2021 No. 122 House of Representatives The House met at 9 a.m. and was know that Your gracious plan is more the House to the Board of Visitors to called to order by the Speaker pro tem- precious than anything we value or de- the United States Military Academy: pore (Mr. TRONE). vise without Your blessing. Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New f In the hope of Your name we pray. York DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER Amen. Mrs. MURPHY, Florida PRO TEMPORE f Mr. WOMACK, Arkansas Mr. DAVIDSON, Ohio The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- THE JOURNAL fore the House the following commu- f nication from the Speaker: The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- ant to section 11(a) of House Resolu- APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO WASHINGTON, DC, tion 188, the Journal of the last day’s BOARD OF VISITORS TO THE July 13, 2021. proceedings is approved. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE I hereby appoint the Honorable DAVID J. f ACADEMY TRONE to act as Speaker pro tempore on this day. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair announces the Speaker’s ap- NANCY PELOSI, The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the Speaker of the House of Representatives. pointment, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HARRIS) 9455(a), and the order of the House of f come forward and lead the House in the January 4, 2021, of the following Mem- PRAYER Pledge of Allegiance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Extremism of Anti-Lgbtq Powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom
    THE EXTREMISM OF ANTI-LGBTQ POWERHOUSE ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM Media Matters LGBTQ Program 1 ABOUT “The extremism of anti-LGBTQ powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom” is an interactive research book outlining the anti-LGBTQ positions of the influential legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). These positions were identified through extensive review of public statements by ADF and its representatives, reports on the group’s legal and political activities, and publicly available materials created by the group. Information regarding significant portions of ADF’s legal and political advocacy work is not publicly available; the group may hold additional positions or engage in additional activity that it refrains from commenting on publicly. 2 INTRODUCTION Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is one of the largest and most powerful anti-LGBTQ groups in the nation. The legal powerhouse raked in more than $50 million in revenue in 2016 and has what it refers to as a “powerful global network” of over 3,200 “allied attorneys.” ADF is leading the fight against transgender student equality by attempting to sway, often successfully, local school policy across the country that affects basic protec- tions for trans students, including their access to restroom facilities that align with their gender identity. The group actively works against efforts across the country to protect LGBTQ youth from the harmful and discredited practice of conversion therapy. It is also working to prevent LGBTQ people from adopting children by advocating for measures that would allow child welfare agencies to discriminate against prospective LGBTQ parents, among others. It has even targeted protections for transgender prisoners, who are at the highest risk for incidents of sexual violence in prisons and jails.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Calendar No. 486 105Th Congress, 2D Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Report 105–845
    1 Union Calendar No. 486 105th Congress, 2d Session ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± House Report 105±845 REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DURING THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 1(d) RULE XI OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 2, 1999.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 52±984 WASHINGTON : 1999 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 1 F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL McCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICK BOUCHER, Virginia LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERROLD NADLER, New York STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 5 ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia ELTON GALLEGLY, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia MAXINE WATERS, California STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts SONNY BONO, California 2 WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts ED BRYANT, Tennessee ROBERT WEXLER, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey BOB BARR, Georgia THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 7 WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah JAMES E. ROGAN, California 3 LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 4 MARY BONO, California 6 THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Chief of Staff-General Counsel JON W. DUDAS, Deputy General Counsel-Staff Director JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director PERRY APELBAUM, Minority General Counsel ÐÐÐÐÐ 1 Henry J.
    [Show full text]
  • 04 CFP Sabato Ch4.Indd
    Sabato Highlights✰✰✰ 4 ✰The 2001 Statewide Nominations✰✰ ✰Gubernatorial Twist: Democratic Unity, Republican Division Overall ☑ The political parties traded places in 2001. The GOP, generally united for the past eight years, hosted a divisive convention contest for its gubernatorial nom- ination between Attorney General Mark Earley, the eventual nominee, and Lieutenant Governor John Hager. Meanwhile, the Democrats, who had suf- fered from many crippling internecine battles during the 1990’s, joined hands to nominate their wealthy former party chair, Mark Warner, in an unopposed primary. The Republican Convention ☑ Mark Earley won about 49 percent of the elected convention delegates to 39 percent for John Hager, with 12 percent undecided or unpledged. At the actual convention, though, proportionately more Earley delegates attended, and he won at least 62 percent of the never- announced vote tally. Hager conceded and worked for Earley, but many of his fi nancial supporters did not. ☑ Delegate Jay Katzen won the nomination for lieutenant governor unopposed. Also unopposed for the attorney general slot on the ticket was former Secretary of Public Safety Jerry Kilgore. The Democratic Primary ☑ A dismal turnout of 4.1 percent of the registered voters chose the running- mates for Mark Warner in a statewide primary election on June 12, 2001. ☑ Richmond Mayor Tim Kaine won the lieutenant governor nomination with a bit less than 40 percent of the vote, defeating two delegates from Hampton Roads, Alan Diamonstein and Jerrauld Jones. ☑ Delegate Donald McEachin of the Richmond area squeaked to victory with just 33.7 percent of the votes—the smallest winning percentage for any statewide candidate in either party since the primary was founded in 1905.
    [Show full text]