Skip to content

What Happens in DC doesn’t Stay In DC.


For years the “pro-choice” movement has used the argument that elective abortion is NOT a political matter and that reproductive decisions should be kept between a woman and her physician. YET the latest attempt at weakening our  moral fabric is a bill based solely on the opposite opinion of what pro-choice advocates have been preaching for so many years. The latest attack comes from the City Council of DC who is currently proposing a bill which would “require employers to provide health insurance for abortions regardless of the employer’s beliefs and convictions” and if passed would force religious employers and pro-life organizations in our Nation’s Capital to provide these services by law.

What Is Bill 20-790?

Proposed Bill 20-790 {Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act} would force ALL employers to provide health care funding for reproductive services REGARDLESS if by providing such access it violates the organizations freedom of religion. Religious employers, particularly the Archdiocese of Washington were singled out Rep. Grosso (chief sponsor of the bill) as examples of organizations for which there is a “need to impose this mandate on health insurance plans”. At a public hearing held in June 2014, Rep. Grosso stated that “I believe that religions don’t have to provide contraceptive coverage, which is too bad, but they don’t have to; whereas non-profits and other private entities do have to give what is now considered a healthcare right for all Americans” In addition to Rep. Grosso’s statement that actual “religions” themselves could not be forced to provide contraceptive coverage BUT that religious non-profit ministries could be and should be.

Bill 20-790 further defines “reproductive health decisions” as {a decision by an employee, an employee’s dependent or an employee’s spouse related to the use or intended use of a particular drug, device, or medical service including the use or intended use of contraception or fertility control OR the planned or intended initiation or termination of pregnancy.}  An example of such policy enforcement is as follows; Let’s say John Smith works for a pro-life, non-denominational; non-profit organization based in Texas; he has a 17 year old daughter who finds herself facing an unplanned pregnancy, she leaves Texas (which currently requires parental consent for abortions for minors) and goes to New Mexico (where there is no consent law) terminates the pregnancy AND now Mr. Smith’s health insurance (which is paid for by his organization) is FORCED to pay for the abortion even though it is in direct conflict with the organizations religious beliefs and practices. Not only is this bill a clear violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act but is unconstitutional and a violation of First Amendment rights of expressive association and free speech.

As anyone who works within a non-profit organization is aware, the voice of the organization is spoken through its employees, and in an era of fast-growing and influential social media and hyper-partisan politics these organizations must ensure that their message is not compromised by those who are responsible for communicating that message on the organizations behalf. Any organization (whether religious or not) {*but in this instance we are discussing the attack on religious based non-profit groups who abide by a pro-life stance*} must wholeheartedly and unapologetically guard the integrity of their organization and the mission of the organization as a whole. Pro-Life Organizations messages would be unduly undermined if they were forced through legislation to employ those who advocate for abortion or conduct themselves in a manner that is in contraventions of the organizations core beliefs and religious freedoms by undergoing an abortion. In the same way that a non-profit group who supports abortions takes steps to ensure its employees are not participating in pro-life activism or members of groups such as PETA believe that their message is not effectively communicated by those who choose to consume animal byproducts, a non-profit, pro-life organization must be free  to choose to use its resources, financial and other wise to ensure those who represent the organization are upholding its core beliefs and not distracting from the organizations overall mission.

Lastly, it is important to know that Bill 20-790 contains no express exceptions and that while certain exceptions available under the Human Rights Act {D.C. Code 2-1401.03} might apply, the committee report for Bill 20-790 emphasizes that they would provide no real protection for religious or other pro-life employers UNLESS the organization is directly operated or controlled within connection to a particular religious group. That religious or political organizations not “operated, supervised or controlled” by a religious organization will not be protected. What this is truly infringing upon is our right to have a PRO-LIFE, non-partisan, non-denominational, non-profit organization and that the only way to ensure our constitutional right to freedom of speech and religion is NOT violated is to align an organization with a particular religious group which will cater to the beliefs of that particular faith and not the “sanctity of human life” as a whole. It is somewhat unclear as to why the Council is even considering such an ill-fated bill which truly has no hope of being upheld, will waste taxpayer dollars and funding and could open the door to District employees to personal liability for enforcement of a law that under the Constitution is illegal, what is clear however is that the Committee responsible for backing such a bill anticipates that through passing such a bill it will burden religious and other pro-life employers which as the hearing demonstrated is the very goal of Bill 20-790 “Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment”.

While this is bill is currently only in consideration in our Capital of Washington DC, it is vital that we as a nation and as Christians stand up and in unity and with purpose send a clear and strong message that we will NOT participate in the murder of innocent children, that we will NOT be forced to violate our conscience and morals and that we will NOT submit to FORCED FUNDING of abortion. By using the broad term of “reproductive health” the advocates and supporters of this bill are attempting to continue on with the inaccurate fallacy that abortion is a reproductive RIGHT, choosing to abide by Natural Family Planning is a reproductive right, choosing to use condoms and other PRE fertilization contraceptives are a reproductive right; TEARING limbs from a human being, and INJECTING them with fatal poisons, and other horrific and abhorrent methods used to end their life is NOT “health care”, and it is not a reproductive RIGHT particularly when it is being FORCED upon a person to condone against their moral and religious convictions. The war on life has expanded to a war on liberty of conscience and it is time that we stand up and be a collective voice that refuses to tolerate a “national standard of abortion”.