Posted on 09/15/2017 10:54:19 AM PDT by Morgana
A “reproductive heath non-discrimination” measure passed the California Senate Tuesday and is headed to the California assembly for a concurrence vote and then to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk. The legislation would prohibit employers from “taking any adverse action” against an employee for any “reproductive health” decision including “the use of any drug, device, or medical service.” Some religious organizations say the legislation is unnecessary and will threaten their ability to have codes of employee conduct in line with their religious beliefs.
The bill would allow for a “ministerial exception for employees of religiously affiliated institutions,” but says that exception, “should apply only to an ‘employee who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.’”
“Californians’ freedom to make reproductive health decisions free of interference from their employers is a matter of fundamental and substantial public policy import,” according to the measure.
Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, the bill’s sponsor, says that “There are employers who cross the line by invading the privacy and personal lives of the women who work for them, and far too often women are punished financially for becoming pregnant and having children,” adding that “a woman should never face repercussions in the workplace for her reproductive choices.”
However Steve Pehanich, Director of Communications and Advocacy with the California Catholic Conference told Townhall that the measure is “not necessary at all” because “the provisions they’re worried about are already covered” in other parts of state and federal law.
“It’s just a way to get lawsuits going and harass religious employers and churches,” he said.
The Catholic Conference’s website points out that “existing law is very clear that an employer cannot discriminate based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. Such prohibitions are covered under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) of 1959 and have been enforced by the courts for decades. (A host of other state and federal laws also protect employees.)”
SUPPORT PRO-LIFE NEWS! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation
The say the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL)-sponsored legislation is inventing “problems” that need “solutions” and is “designed to complicate laws and increase the potential for costly litigation. (Which may be why labor attorney’s support the bill.) It also specifically targets religious employers.”
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League claims the bill “specifically targets codes of conduct involving employees’ ‘reproductive health care decisions.’ That, and its full-throated endorsement by groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice California, make clear the bill’s true intent: to undermine Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life, by forcing the Church to employ people who publicly reject that teaching. It is a thinly disguised attempt to impose radical pro-abortion policies on religious organizations.”
NARAL celebrated their measure’s passage Monday.
“All Californians should have the ability to make private decisions that affect their reproductive health, economic security, and other aspects of their lives without employers intruding,” said Amy Everitt, state director of NARAL Pro-Choice California. “With this vote, California is sending a message that we stand against discrimination in all its forms and that our ability to determine if, when, and with whom to raise a family is central to ensuring our economic security. While Trump and his cronies seek to grant broad licenses to discriminate, California is showing that we stand for reproductive freedom and economic justice for all. ”
uh.............really Governor Brown? hmmmmmm
Sometimes state’s rights kicks us in the butt. Now is one of those times.
this one will end up at the supreme court. it scares me where the thought process of my state is. California is the future of fascism.
California was a great state, BEFORE THE ONSLAUGHT OF ILLEGALS, Donald. Is this YOUR dream, Donald, to turn all of America into California, where individual rights and freedom of conscience be damned?
They should stop electing Crazy Communists before it’s too late , Oh Wait ,LOL
Yes you’re right.
California has the right to go full-tilt socialist regime Venezuela/Zimbabwe style to their hearts content.
And the other 49 states have the right to kick them out of the US.
So don’t bother with putting secession on the california ballot in 2018, because we may throw you out before then.
This is what the CA legislature spends its time on, having solved all the weighty problems of the state.
It’s like they see something on TV and set about writing a bill to make a law prohibiting it.
It’s like a kid gets kidnapped in a Hyundai by his estranged father who does not have the right car seat, and they immediately start working to pass a law prohibiting kidnappings in Korean cars with improper car seats.
Weird thing about California is that they are doing excellent financially.....Brown has gotten them out of the red debt area and into annual surplus’. However, their social issues are horrendous. If they could come to terms with their social issues, California could be the best state in the country. As of now, other then financially, it is a mess of a state.
I wonder when they will pass laws requiring homosexual groups to employ bible believing Christians?
That’s good to hear. When California becomes its own republic, and no longer has to answer to the US, that’ll give them a good start to finance their own country.
No, we didn’t hire her because of that. We passed her over because she didn’t have as much experience as the one we chose.
“reproductive health”
Extremely inaccurate name for killing babies (unless the health of the mother is at stake).
,,,,,,, like Hall and Oates once said ,,, “ NO CAN DO “ , I can’t go for that ,,, no can do !
This has been in place in New York introduced by lesbian Democrat Churches here and actually in California.
This law is/would be in clear violation of the 1st amendment both on freedom of religion and freedom of association grounds.
Good point. The only problem is California gives the federal government more then it takes back. If California leaves, it’d be ugly.
You know, until they did this and you posted it I didn’t realize that I worked with people, and have family members, who advocate for murder. Hiring an abortionist assistant who is still pro-murder is quite disturbing. Hire them to take care of the elderly? Work in a hospital? Do no harm?
These California Commies don’t know when to quit.
Thank you for posting napscoordinator.
Patriots are reminded that low-information, anti-Christian state government “leaders” like those running the state of California (imo) are not the main problem with respect to anti-Christian states who began to abridge the constitutionally enumerated rights of their citizens during the lawless Obama Administration.
The real problem is CONGRESS.
More specifically, first consider that the states gave Congress the 14th Amendment (14A) power to make laws to punish (imo) state officials who make laws and policies that abridge freedoms that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, 1st Amendment-protected religious express and free speech in the Bill of Rights for example.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So regarding activist states who continue to violate Section 1 of 14A by harassing Christians, the real problem is that the same anti-Christian Congress that unquestioningly supported the Obama Administration is wrongly continuing to remain silent, refusing to exercise its 14A power to punish state officials for abridging constitutionally enumerated protections.
But patriots have the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone it the 2018 elections. Patriots can kick as many anti-Christian members of Congress out of office as they can in the 2018 elections, not only replacing them with patriots who will not only make laws to punish state officials who violate Section 1 of 14A, but who will also support Trump's vision for MAGA.
Consider that although Trump is accomplishing a LOT as president, it remains that since the uniparty Congress wants to get rid of him that his first two years in office are arguably for practice. That being said ...
Drain the swamp sewer! Drain the sewer!
Remember in November 2018 !
Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the sewer (imo) that Trump wants to drain, it is actually up to us patriots to drain the sewer in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.
In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to make sure that candidates are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed here.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Again, drain the sewer! Drain the sewer!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.