[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ADMINISTRATION'S RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY ASSAULT ON LGBTQ RIGHTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-93
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-931 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Columbia Member
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California James Comer, Kentucky
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Michael Cloud, Texas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Peter Welch, Vermont Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Jackie Speier, California Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Chip Roy, Texas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Ro Khanna, California W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Jimmy Gomez, California Frank Keller, Pennsylvania
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Katie Porter, California
Deb Haaland, New Mexico
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Janet Kim, Chief Counsel
Taylor Jones, Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 27, 2020................................ 1
Witnesses
Panel 1
The Honorable Sean Patrick Maloney, Member of Congress
Oral Statement............................................... 7
The Honorable Mark Takano, Member of Congress
Oral Statement............................................... 9
The Honorable Mike Kelly, Member of Congress
Oral Statement............................................... 12
The Honorable Joseph P. Kennedy, Member of Congress
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Panel 2
Ernesto Olivares, San Antonio, Texas
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Evan Minton, Livermore, California
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Sarah Warbelow, Legal Director, Human Rights Campaign
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Hiram Sasser (Minority Witness), Executive General Counsel, First
Liberty Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Rev. Stan J. Sloan, Chief Executive Officer, Family Equality
Council
Oral Statement............................................... 24
*Opening statements, and the prepared statements for the
witnesses are available at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The documents listed below are available at: docs.house.gov.
* Letter from His Excellency George Murray Bishop of
Youngstown; submitted by Rep. Massie.
* Testimony of David Dixon, Rancho Santa Margarita; submitted
by Rep. Porter.
* Letters from several organizations; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Statement for the record from Congressman Raul Grijalva;
submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Testimony of Daryle Conquering Bear, Every Child Deserves a
Family Act; submitted by Rep. Haaland.
* Rep. Connolly statement for the record.
* WDET article; submitted by Rep. Tlaib.
* Statement from Curtis Lipscomb, LGBT Detroit; submitted by
Rep. Tlaib.
* Letter from Child Welfare League of America.
* Letter from Equality California.
* Five Letters and testimony from National Center for
Transgender Equality.
* Letter from American Atheists.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY ASSAULT ON LGBTQ RIGHTS
----------
Thursday, February 27, 2020
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn
Maloney,[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly,
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Rouda, Sarbanes, Welch, Kelly,
DeSaulnier, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Tlaib, Porter, Haaland,
Jordan, Foxx, Massie, Meadows, Hice, Grothman, Comer, Cloud,
Gibbs, Norman, Roy, Miller, Steube, and Keller.
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement, and good
morning and thank you all for coming today.
When Donald Trump was inaugurated in 2017, many of us
worried about the danger that a Republican administration could
pose to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer peoples'
rights.
When Donald Trump campaigned he gave lip service to caring
about LGBTQ rights. But immediately after he took office, his
administration began undermining vital LGBTQ rights.
The White House started out by removing all mentions of
LGBTQ rights or people from its website and it has gone down
since then. The Trump administration quickly dismantled
important legal and regulatory protections for LGBTQ people
that adopted discriminatory rules and undermined protections
for LGBTQ people.
LGBTQ people face real dangers in our society. A month ago,
a transgender woman, Serena Daniari, was physically attacked in
a New York subway by individuals who yelled homophobic slurs at
her.
I was horrified that this hate crime happened in the city I
represent, New York City, one of the most progressive cities in
the world. Transphobia, racism, and homophobia are real and
LGBTQ people face real harms and real violence in their daily
lives and that is precisely why the Federal Government must act
to protect all LGBTQ people against harm.
One of the most cynical aspects of the administration's
effort is how it has emboldened discrimination by distorting
claims of religious liberty. The Trump administration is
dividing America and pitting American citizens against each
other.
That is a false choice. For years, Federal law has
protected the rights of individuals and organizations to
observe religious and moral tenets without unduly burdening the
health and welfare of others.
Let me make one thing crystal clear. I am a strong
supporter of religious liberty. But it should not be distorted
and twisted into a weapon to enable discrimination.
Scrubbing the White House website of references to gay
people has nothing to do with religious freedom. It has
everything to do with the Trump administration's assault on the
LGBTQ community.
Today, we will hear directly from some of our distinguished
colleagues who understand the importance of protecting and
strengthening rights of all people including the LGBTQ
community.
We will also hear from witnesses on the forefront of the
fight for LGBTQ equality including individuals who have
personally felt the impact of anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
The Oversight Committee will continue to combat this
administration's abuses and we will support our friends and
neighbors who are being unfairly targeted by the president and
his administration.
I want to add one last thing. The House passed the Equality
Act on a bipartisan basis on May 17, 2017. That bill would add
explicit protections against discrimination for LGBTQ
individuals.
The Equality Act is sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk.
Senator McConnell won't even give us the courtesy of a debate,
even though senators from his own party support the bill.
I would urge him to change his stance. This is an issue of
the utmost importance for our friends, our neighbors, our
children, and our colleagues. America deserves a debate and a
vote on the Equality Act.
With that, I would like to thank my good friend, Jamie
Raskin, for his leadership on this important issue as chairman
of our Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
And I yield to him.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate very
much your calling this hearing for the full committee and I
welcome all of our witnesses today.
The extraordinary transformation that our country has
experienced in the last decade on the question of marriage
equality illuminates pretty much everything we need to know
about how to reconcile the principles of individual religious
freedom and equal protection under the law for all people.
Equal protection means that everyone, regardless of race,
gender, or sexual orientation, must enjoy equal rights under
the law.
That means that the institution of civil marriage cannot be
roped off to discriminate against millions of gay and lesbian
citizens for no compelling reason, and as the court found in
the Obergefell decision, other people's moral or religious
disapproval of gay people getting married cannot constitute a
compelling reason for canceling out their fundamental right to
marry the person that they love.
So,we learned that no matter how much same-sex marriage
violates your religious scruples and beliefs you have no
religious liberty right to impose your position through law and
government on other people to interfere with their freedom.
This is a principle so powerful the Supreme Court struck
down discriminatory and exclusionary marriage provisions that
have been on the books for centuries.
The successful struggle over marriage equality liberated
millions of people to participate on an equal basis in this
central institution in society. It also established a new norm
for inclusion in equal rights that has encouraged the LGBTQ
community to demand full equal rights across the board.
But it did not leave anyone in our country with diminished
religious freedom. If a state or a city ordered a church,
mosque, or synagogue to conduct religious weddings for same-sex
couples, the churches would absolutely win their right not to
do so.
They have a First Amendment free exercise right to marry or
not marry exactly who they please within their own churches.
The Constitution decides who gets married in City Hall but the
church decides who gets married in the church hall. This is a
central aspect of religious free exercise.
The big question has been whether private businesses in the
stream of commerce like restaurants, movie theaters, and
apartment buildings where federally funded organizations like
hospitals and foster care agencies can decide not to serve,
rent to, or do business with LGBTQ Americans if they are
obligated to do so under law but assert that it would violate
their religious beliefs to do so.
There may be a handful of close calls in harmonizing
individual religious freedom and equal rights. But the vast
majority of cases are, in fact, easy.
Yet, alas, the Trump administration has been working
zealously to turn the government into an instrument of
hostility and opposition toward LGBTQ rights across the
executive branch of government.
Since inauguration day, the administration has worked to
purge all mention of LGBTQ rights and to systematically roll
back protections for that community in Federal law and policy.
Following inauguration, agencies across the executive
branch began undermining and stripping vital protections. The
Trump administration Department of Justice has filed several
amicus briefs advocating for legal interpretations that erode
civil liberty protections.
DOJ also filed an amicus brief in the Masterpiece Cake Shop
case, arguing that a cake shop owner does not have to serve gay
customers because it violates the First Amendment to force them
to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that
violates his sincerely held religious beliefs.
This is the exact same argument that the Supreme Court
rejected in the 1960's in cases repudiating the alleged
constitutional right of restaurant and lunch counter owners to
refuse to serve African-American and interracial parties as a
burden on their religious or associational freedom.
The Trump administration Department of Health and Human
Services has similarly been instrumental in the campaign to end
protections for LGBTQ individuals. The administration has
rapidly turned "religious liberty", in quotes, into a pretext
and excuse for denying LGBTQ citizens the ability to
participate equally in all aspects of the economy and society.
On May 2 last year, HHS finalized a rule that dramatically
expanded the ability of health care providers to deny services
based on religious or moral objections.
The administration cited the case of our witness, Evan
Minton, as an example of the need for the rule in order to
permit more discrimination against patients like him.
The Trump administration used everything in its power
including executive orders, litigation decisions, amicus
briefs, and agency guidance and regulations to undermine
protections for LGBTQ people and expand the availability of
religious exemptions.
These actions go against the true meaning of both religious
liberty and equal protection under the law. These two values
stand best when they stand together.
Indeed, the religious liberty of the people is protected by
vigorous enforcement of equal protection in the establishment
clause.
As Madison emphasized, the major threat to my religious
freedom comes from another person or group's capture of state
power and their use of government to impose their religious
dogma and control on everyone else.
Today, the equal rights of the LGBTQ community are
threatened by the administration's determination to pass out
licenses to discriminate based on the rampant misinterpretation
of the meaning of religious liberty.
Thank you for calling the hearing, Madam Chair, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
I now yield to Mr. Hice, ranking member representative.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to thank
everyone for being here and our fellow representatives, thank
you, and the next panel to come.
The title of the hearing today, ``The Administration's
Religious Liberty Assault on LGBTQ Rights,'' is in itself, to
me, a fundamental misconception of reality.
To begin with, the notion that the Trump administration is
somehow attacking the LGBTQ community is just wrong. The United
States continues to be a world leader in guaranteeing the civil
rights of all including the LGBTQ community.
Under President Trump, the Federal Government has sought to
treat all Americans, gay or straight, religious, nonreligious
fairly and justly, and I think even given the recent nomination
of Richard Grenell as the director of National Intelligence is
yet another example of that.
President Trump, in my opinion, is striving to bring the
rest of the world into line with our country which provides the
greatest freedoms for all our citizens. The freedom to believe,
the freedom to speak freely. Freedom to pray, freedom to
associate.
These are freedoms that allow all Americans to live
according to their deeply held beliefs and convictions, and as
we all know in this room, we have had individuals who have
fought and died for these rights with Americans and I believe
it is important that we continue that.
I am deeply concerned that we are living in a time where so
many seem to misunderstand the meaning of the First Amendment.
I mean, we are talking about inalienable rights, rights
that we as a nation fundamentally believe have been given us by
God, not by government, and right at the beginning of that is
the First Amendment where we are told that Congress shall make
no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.
So,we see that Congress cannot mandate a national religion.
We get that. But we also understand from this that neither can
Congress prevent Americans from practicing their faith in the
public square, and fundamentally the First Amendment protects
Americans from an ideological coercion from government.
And this is the rub for me--the part that becomes difficult
for many of us. But I believe and I have seen personally,
tragically, that for years now we have watched religious
liberties in this country be under siege and attacked, often
under the false guise of fighting discrimination and enforcing
tolerance.
Make no mistake, discrimination is wrong. It is un-
American. And to fight against discrimination is worthy. It is
the right thing to do. It is honorable in every way.
But the right to disagree with someone without the
government interfering to promote one viewpoint over another is
at the core of what the First Amendment is all about. I think
Supreme Court Justice Alito had it right when he warned all of
us that using anti-discrimination laws as a back door to,
quote, ``stamp out every vestige of dissent,'' end quote, is
equally just as wrong, and I believe that is precisely what is
at stake here.
I know we all have different views. I respect that. But my
sincere concern is that too many on the left would like to
shame and vilify millions of religious Americans and thousands
of faith-based organizations nationwide simply because they
don't share the same liberal beliefs as those on the left.
I believe many on the left have become relentless in trying
to force others to accept their own views across society. For
example, in 2017 the Supreme Court ruled that individuals
cannot be targeted for their religious beliefs and that open
hostility to religion has no place in our society.
Yet, in spite of that, Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack
Phillips was targeted not once, not twice, but three times
because of his deeply held religious beliefs on marriage.
Barronelle Stutzman, the florist, went through similar
things. There are many examples. The targeting of this nature
has now expanded far beyond its initial focus on artistic
expression of a baker or a florist and now the left is adopting
these same tactics to create mandates forcing pharmacists to
dispense chemical abortion drugs or medical professionals to
perform abortions against their deeply held beliefs.
Take, for example, the Little Sister of the Poor. Obamacare
forced them to provide contraceptives against their beliefs,
and now that is going before the Supreme Court yet again.
This is not religious freedom and I believe that
increasingly we are seeing Democrats want faith-based adoption
foster care agencies to either violate their religious beliefs
that it is their duty to place children in homes with moms and
dads or to shut down altogether, to do what the left wants or
to be excluded from operating in the public square.
When Catholic Charities were shut down in Illinois there
were nearly 3,000 children displaced. So,whatever our political
or cultural views, I think surely we can all agree that
vilifying well-intentioned and loving charities like faith-
based foster homes does not help anyone.
But this assault on religious liberties is certainly not
confined to faith-based organizations. All across America now
from school rooms to social media platforms we are seeing
social justice crusades increase against those who have not
accepted the new cultural norms of the left.
We saw, for example, in Obama--when the Obama
Administration adopted the change in Title 9 to impose gender
identity mandates on federally funded schools and we saw many
Christian colleges and universities trying to keep their exempt
status only to find themselves placed on shame lists where they
have experience massive pressure campaigns to relinquish their
long-held religious beliefs on sexuality.
In Florida, there is an activist campaign underway to
attack and defund Christian schools that participate in
educational tax credit programs and those companies who support
these scholarships of underprivileged children to get a better
education, those companies themselves are experiencing massive
pressure to defund these schools. And it is only the kids who
end up suffering.
Currently, the Virginia General Assembly is poised to adopt
sexual orientation and gender identity legislation that I
believe will severely impair freedom in religious schools and,
unfortunately, I believe when all is said and done here these
are nothing but measures that open the door for government-
mandated discrimination and coercion.
So, this hearing really, to me, is an attempt really to
polarize what has always been a unifying factor in American
society and culture and that is religious freedom--the right
for everyone to live and express their beliefs in the public
square.
In closing, I, again, just want to say thank you to each of
you who are here and for those who will be joining the next
panel. I know without question we are going to hear some moving
and compelling stories and many of you have been through some
very difficult times and have experienced discrimination, and
for that I am deeply sorry. That kind of behavior should never
happen in America and you should never have experienced it.
But at the same time, I wonder where are the other
witnesses, individuals who have lost virtually they have had
because they have tried to stand for their religious beliefs
and live according to those beliefs in the public square.
So, I thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing.
Mike Kelly, thank you for being here today to share your
perspective. Hiram Sasser, I am looking forward to hearing as
well, and to each of you I want to thank you and I look forward
to our time together.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
I will begin by welcoming our first panel of witnesses. Our
first witness is Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, a member of
the Maloney Caucus but not a relative, but a very good friend.
[Laughter.]
Chairwoman Maloney. He has represented New York's 18th
congressional District since 2013. He is a co-chair of the
congressional LGBT Equality Caucus.
Mark Takano--Congressman Takano--has represented
California's 41st congressional District since 2013. He is also
co-chair of the congressional Equality Caucus.
Mike Kelly--he has represented the 3d District of
Pennsylvania since 2011, and Joe Kennedy III has represented
Massachusetts' 4th congressional District since 2013. He chairs
the congressional LGBT Caucus's Transgender Equality Task
Force. He also introduced the Do No Harm Act.
Mr. Maloney, you are--Representative Maloney, you are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Maloney. I thank the chairwoman.
Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Hice. I thank
the committee for having this important hearing today.
You know, in listening to the ranking member's opening
remarks, I was thinking maybe the day will come where people
like me and Mark, some of the people behind us, won't have to
come in here like supplicants seeking our basic rights and we
won't be treated to expressions of discrimination dressed up as
religious liberty.
But even today, that is not the country we live in. You
know, I have been with my husband for almost 28 years. We were
allowed to get married just five years ago, and for 27 of those
years we have been raising children. We have three children.
My oldest came to us when he was not quite three years old.
He had been barely eating solid foods. He was sleeping in a
drawer. He was living in squalor in one of the toughest
neighborhoods in New York City. His parents were heroin
addicts. They had four children. I think they loved their
children. I know they loved drugs more, and they were unable to
take care of them.
We didn't set out to be parents. This wasn't about
fulfilling some desire we had. It was because someone asked us
if we could help and we said we would. And soon after that his
mom OD'd and there was no one to bury her, so we did.
His dad went to jail and there was no one to take care of
this little boy, so we did. And it was the greatest thing that
ever happened to us. We had been together for four months as a
couple.
That young man is 30 years old today, and I think if you
asked him, Representative Hice, about the family he was raised
in--well, let us just say I would go with what he has to say
about the ability of LGBT couples to parent and to foster.
You know, it was a few years later that an adoption agency
called us from Texas, sir--a group called the Adoption Alliance
that was licensed in Texas and Nevada--and the reason they were
calling us in New York was not because we were seeking to
adopt.
It was because they had learned in the 1990's that there
were certain types of kids who were not going to be adopted,
where the circumstances of their birth through no fault of
their own, obviously, was difficult or confronting for
traditional adoptive parents, where there were issues of HIV or
rape or incest, sometimes mixed with concerns about interracial
adoption.
And what these adoption agencies learned to their credit
was that there were LGBT couples in cities like New York who
would say yes to these children. Not as an alternative to the
straight couple that was going to raise them, but as an
alternative to never being adopted because no one was going to
adopt these kids.
It was that insight that LGBT couples were willing to cross
lines of difference because they had experienced doing so in
their own lives that they had less preoccupation or hysteria
with things like HIV that they were more willing to adopt
across lines of difference like race or religion--that there
was an opportunity for kids that would not have a home to have
a home.
So, it is because of that that on January 10, 2001, I
learned of my oldest daughter, who had been born just five days
earlier--we had no intention of adopting--that she had been
born in Texas to a United States military member--excuse me, to
the granddaughter of a United States military member.
Her mom was 14 years old. She didn't even know she was
pregnant. She was playing basketball and complained of cramps
and delivered the baby when the doctors thought she had
appendicitis.
They called us because no one else was going to do it. So,
13 days later my partner and I were standing in front of a
Texas judge at 8 o'clock in the morning before his docket
started and he said, ``Are you fellows going to raise this
child?'' We said, ``Yes, sir,'' and he finalized the adoption
on the spot. No rescission rights in the state of Texas.
Thirteen days after that child was born she was home in New
York with two loving parents and that child is 19 years old
today and a freshman at John Jay College in New York. She is a
beautiful young woman. And she would not have had a mom and a
dad.
So, you keep having them and we will keep raising them is
the way we felt about it.
Did she deserve a mom and a dad? Yes, she did. But she also
deserved people who loved her who were going to raise her and
that is what is at stake today.
Our third child, the adoption agency--same one--two years
later came to us. Same story. Very similar. They sought out
LGBTQ parents because they knew they would adopt when others
wouldn't.
So, the point is--the point is is when you allow people to
discriminate against those couples, you deprive children of
good moms, dads, families who are going to love them; and when
you dress it up as religious liberty you simply sanction
discrimination and deprive those children of a home that they
deserve.
We are here because the Trump administration, as we know,
has green-lighted license to discriminate laws to allow
federally funded organizations--federally funded
organizations--to discriminate against adoptive and foster
parents who don't share the organization's religious beliefs
and that means also LGBTQ parents and people of other religions
won't be able to adopt. Those kids are the ones that are going
to lose. Hundreds of thousands of kids who are--who need foster
parents, who need adoptive parents.
That is the collateral damage that will ensue if we allow
these discriminatory practices to occur under the guise of
religious freedom.
Our only goal, when providing--our only goal when providing
child services should be looking out for the best interests of
the kids. That is all that matters. LGBTQ couples are not
afraid of that test.
Parents are parents. Good parents are good parents. Bad
parents are bad parents, and it doesn't matter what they look
like, who they love.
So, I have, of course, joined my colleagues in writing the
secretary of Health and Human Services opposing the South
Carolina waiver allowing federally funded foster care agencies
to deny services to same-sex and non-Christian couples, making
clear that his agency is misusing Federal law to allow these
organizations to discriminate against LGBTQ people and other
people of other religions.
I support Representative Kennedy's Do No Harm Act, which is
so important to clarify that religious exemption laws
guaranteeing fundamental civil and legal rights is not a
license to discriminate.
I am also here today in support of the Every Child Deserves
a Family Act so we can put an end to these bigoted restrictions
once and for all.
So, I want to thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for your
leadership on this issue. I want to thank my colleagues,
Representative Kennedy and Representative Takano.
I want to thank my colleague, Mike Kelly, for being here
today. I know his beliefs are sincerely held. But I believe
they are profoundly misguided and will create real damage to
families like mine. But I respect him as a person of faith.
You know, I would close by saying that LGBTQ people are
also people of faith. One of the most frustrating
misunderstandings is the notion that it is--that this is a
disagreement between people of faith and people without faith.
It is an act of faith to take care and love for a child,
and so it is because of our faith, not in spite of it, that we
oppose these discriminatory measures.
We will keep fighting these hateful rules down in
Washington because every child deserves a home.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Congressman Takano?
STATEMENT OF MARK TAKANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for convening
this historic hearing, and Acting Ranking Member Jody Hice for
the opportunity to address the committee.
I am Congressman Takano, Mark Takano, and I represent
California's 41st District. I also serve as one of the seven
co-chairs for the congressional LGBT Equality Caucus.
The caucus is comprised of 169 members, LGBT people and
allies who all share one basic value--the belief that everyone
deserves to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of
their sexual orientation and gender identity.
You know, and I do want to address a couple of things that
the acting ranking member sort of claimed in his opening
statement. He talked a lot about the ability to express one's
religious beliefs in the public square, and I have no problem
with that.
We have a robust tradition of that in our country and our
country was founded by people coming from Europe who were
suppressed and weren't able to do that and were punished.
But we need to make a distinction between the public square
and public accommodation and entities that are supported by
Federal dollars or entities that are given certain kinds of
dispensations--a tax-free status because of what they are, and
we have certain expectations that anything favored by the
government or supported by the government treats all people
equally.
So, the public square is different from this idea of public
accommodation. You know, Alexis de Toqueville, when he was
traveling around our country in the early 1800's, noting the
differences between the Old World of Europe and this new
democracy in America, he was very curious to see how religion
operated in America.
And he--as I recall, he noted the corrupting way--the
corruption that occurred when the state favored religion and
that the religion itself became corrupt, and he saw the
possibility of that in America where religions had to compete
on equal ground for the souls of Americans. That kept religions
more pure.
So, I offer that as a kind of way to look at how we regard
religion in America. The government has to be this neutral
place, neither favoring or disfavoring any religion, and if any
taxpayer dollars go to an institution that that institution has
to treat everyone fairly and cannot discriminate, and cannot
use religious liberty as the reasoning for why it would
discriminate.
Now, as a former teacher, I am particularly attuned do the
ways in which children are affected by government and policies.
Because LGBT children are very, very vulnerable. The rates of
suicide are much higher among this--among young Americans who
are LGBTQ.
Now, the gentleman noted the appointment of Richard Grenell
as evidence that this administration bears no ill will toward
LGBTQ people.
Well, I am going to say that the appointment of one gay
person to an important post does not compensate for the
systematic discrimination against LGBT people that affect
millions of people. So, one person is not evidence of a
benign--of a benign executive. It is actually an insidious
argument.
So, let me just sort of outline these policies that have
been pursued by the Trump administration despite the
president's claims that he was going to be for LGBTQ people in
this campaign.
In the spring of 2019, the Housing and Urban Development
Department proposed changes. HUD proposed changes to the equal
access rule which would allow shelters to explicitly
discriminate against transgender people.
They want to make it harder for LGBTQ people who suffer
from high rates of homelessness to put a roof over their heads.
This is an example of a systematic discrimination against
LGBTQ people through policy, and the appointment of one person
who is LGBTQ to an important post does not--does not compensate
for that.
Last fall, the Trump administration made legal arguments
before the Supreme Court that would limit nondiscrimination
protections for under Title 7, which exists to prevent people
from being fired for their sexual orientation.
They want to give employers the power to fire you based
solely on who you are or who you love. I say religious liberty
does not extend to firing people based on who they are.
They give--they have also given taxpayer funds to
organizations that provide essential social services the power
to turn away LGBTQ people seeking their services, and the list
goes on.
In addition to attacking LGBTQ Americans in their place of
work and threatening their ability to have a safe place to live
in, this administration has rolled back protection in schools.
In 2019, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos refused to
confirm whether or not her department supports policies that
prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or
gender identity.
But we don't need her to admit this. We know that this is
happening and that she is failing LGBTQ youth. She did
acknowledge, however, in her 2017 decision to roll back a key
Title 9 interpretation that disproportionately affects
transgender students.
It is true. It is a shame that the secretary is hell bent
on rolling back protections for students who need it most. And
as a former teacher, as I said, this is personal to me. I want
to ensure that schools are welcoming for all students
regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation.
All Americans and especially children deserve equal
protection under the law. I also have the honor of serving as
chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs and have
witnessed how this president and his administration are
disrespecting the service of brave Americans who step up to
serve our country by instituting a trans military ban.
Banning transgender people from serving is an affront to
American ideals of fairness and justice and it undermines our
national security. This administration will go to extremes to
make discriminatory policies the law of the land in the United
States.
But this won't happen on our watch. The Equality Caucus
will not sit back as the Trump administration continues to
dismantle crucial nondiscrimination protections to the
detriment of vulnerable members of the LGBT community.
We have decades of experience in fighting back against
these types of homophobic attacks. And while it is
disheartening to still have to wage these battles in 2020, we
have no plans to back down.
We will fight this taxpayer-funded discrimination and
continue to defend the LGBTQ Americans and, once more, I end
with this thought.
The appointment of one single LGBT person to a position of
importance does not compensate for the systematic assault on
the dignity of LGBTQ Americans.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Representative Kelly?
STATEMENT OF MIKE KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking Member
Hice, for holding this meeting today.
I think that sometime, and I don't know when it will
happen, that we need to take a look at policy instead of
politics. I just don't get the idea we always got to go to the
point where we are attacking each other all the time.
You know, yesterday was the beginning of Lent, these 40
days. And the Lord says, ``Return to me with your whole
heart.'' That is the purpose of these 40 days that we
practice--a lot of Christians practice--and I saw so many
people yesterday with ashes on their forehead.
Now, I don't know whether they were part of the lesbian,
gay, trisexual, transgender, or queer people community. I don't
know what they were.
I know what they believe because they show it, and I think
today's hearing is one of those things where you start to think
about what is it that we are trying to do and what is this
hearing about.
I would just submit to my friends on both sides of the
aisle and across the country this is about providing loving
homes for children who are put in the position that they don't
have a loving mother and father, and I would suggest that if we
look at the very beginning of that it all started in the faith-
based community.
It started with religious people who said, we have to find
homes for these children. We have to have them grow up in a
home where they are loved and they are cared for and they are
nurtured.
I have met Mr. Maloney's husband and they have done a great
job raising their kids. I think that is wonderful.
The part I am here to talk about today is a piece of
legislation, H.R. 897, the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion
Act. The Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act. I want to really
place the emphasis on inclusion act and not exclusion act.
The purpose of the legislation is to promote inclusivity
and diversity among child welfare service providers and
prohibit government entities from discriminating against a
child welfare service provider on the basis that that provider
declines to provide a social service that conflicts with
sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions of the
provider.
This is not an act that says anything about anybody else
who is providing these services. It is not saying to exclude
them, and I find it interesting that in a situation like this
where we are sitting today that we have decided that unless you
believe what I believe you are not entitled to provide loving
homes for little boys and little girls. Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
Mr. Maloney talked about discrimination. I was, like,
discrimination does not go one way. It seems to go both ways.
If you do not believe what I believe, then you are
discriminating against me. So, on the other side of that issue
say, well, wait a minute. That is not what discrimination
means. It means that we are open to all that.
This bill, H.R. 897, excludes no one, no entity, no
service, no agency from having access to Federal funds, not to
take care of a political issue but to take care of homeless
children that are looking for a loving home.
If we are going to continue to tear apart what this country
is based on all because it doesn't fall within our agenda that
day, then how far have we fallen as a country, and, more
importantly, as a Nation.
I have sat here for nine years. This bill has been out
there. All you need to do is get sponsors that say, you know
what, we are with you. History tells us that this all began in
the faith-based community. They have deeply held religious
beliefs.
The LGBTQ community has deeply held beliefs. We do not
discriminate against their beliefs and we say if that is what
you choose that is fine. All we ask is that you don't
discriminate against the faith-based community because they
don't hold those same beliefs.
In America we are going to decide who is morally right, who
is wrong. It makes absolutely no sense that we are even having
these debates and we are saying that unless you believe as we
believe you are not entitled to any funding, and what we are
forgetting about as we are going through this with this opioid
situation, how many children--how many children are waiting to
go into a loving home?
Are we really going to tell them, these agencies that
provide foster care and adoptive care, you know what, you are
not thinking the right way?
Well, I will tell you, I think they are thinking the right
way and I think they are thinking with their hearts and I think
they are thinking that it is more important to take care of
children who need a loving home than to have a debate.
I have absolutely no problem with the LGBTQ community and
what they believe that is fine. All I ask is don't discriminate
against somebody else who doesn't hold those same beliefs and
that believe something different.
If the issue is children, and it should be children--if the
issue is providing loving homes, and it should be about
providing loving homes--why would you tell the faith-based
community you are not entitled to do that anymore, even though
you started it and you are the ones that have provided it for
so many years?
We are now going to tell you, because you don't believe as
we believe, you could do it. There is nothing in H.R. 897 that
would ever take away anything from other agencies that think
differently.
And if we really are American, if we really do believe that
everybody has a voice and we really do believe that all are
welcome and we really do believe that our mission is to do the
right thing for the right reasons, then I would just suggest it
is time to really take a good strong look at where we are today
and those things that divide us are so much farther away than
what this country was founded on.
We need to stop having this type of divisive talk and talk
about inclusive talk. And I get where my friends are coming
from and I would just say there is not one thing in H.R. 897
that would divide--that would take any funding away from other
agencies that believe differently than what the religious and
the faith-based community believe.
So, I thank you so much for inviting me here today. I would
ask all my--all my friends on both sides of the aisle to please
take a look at H.R. 897 and let us really concentrate on what
we need to concentrate on, and that is the children.
If this is about children, let us make it about children.
Let us not make it some type of political divide instead of a
strong policy that takes care of children that are so in need
of loving homes.
I thank you for having me and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very much.
Congressman Kennedy?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Kennedy. Madam Chair, thank you. I want to thank
Subcommittee Chairman Raskin and the ranking member for
convening this extremely important hearing today and for your
tireless efforts to expose this administration's dangerous
assault on LGBTQ Americans.
I want to acknowledge the testimony that we heard so far
today from Mr. Kelly to my right, a man of deep faith--I think
somebody who genuinely believes in the best for our country and
his constituents.
I want to recognize Mr. Takano and Mr. Maloney's testimony
and how grateful I am that they serve the country the way that
they do.
I am going to give a little bit of history here and then
clarify a couple points for the record.
In 1993, Madam Chair, Congress passed the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act with overwhelmingly bipartisan support in
response to Employment Division v. Smith which saw two Native
Americans fired from their jobs and denied unemployment after
they consumed a drug outside of work as part of their religious
faith.
The intent of that law was simple--that Americans have a
right to practice their faith freely and fully, that Native
Americans had a human and legal right to practice their
religion as they wished, that no Jewish child should be told
they cannot wear a yarmulke to school, that no Sikh worshipper
can be forced to reject the tenets of their faith to protect
their communities or serve in our military.
But the enforcement of RFRA has morphed into something far
more dangerous, something that threatens the freedom of
religion for each and every one of us. Because instead of
shielding vulnerable Americans from persecution, this has now
become a sword used to marginalize vulnerable communities.
In our Nation's history, few have wielded that sword more
violently, more painfully than this president and this
administration, most recently with nine proposed rules to open
up our society to increased hate and violence.
Let us be very clear about who has been left in that
hateful wake. Students bullied by peers, faculty, and school
leadership with nowhere else to turn. Pregnant teachers forced
out of lifelong careers.
Patients forced to suffer because of someone else's
religious belief. Workers fired or forced onto an unemployment
line for living their own lives. Homeless Americans denied
shelter because this administration does not believe that they
are worthy of housing.
Children denied loving families. Prisoners denied human
rights and basic dignity. Migrants and asylum seekers literally
denied life.
And unlike the claims of members of this administration's
Cabinet, these are not people seeking, quotes, ``extra
rights.''
These are Americans asking and begging to be treated the
same as the next student at the desk, the next loving parents
looking to adopt a child, the next employee to put on a uniform
and the next person seeking asylum or shelter. That is what the
Do No Harm Act is about that I worked on and filed with Bobby
Scott.
It is a bill intended to restore RFRA to its original
purpose and to clarify that no one can claim religious
exemption from laws that protect against basic discrimination,
government wages and collective bargaining, prevent child labor
and abuse, provide access to health care, regulate public
accommodations or provide social services through government
contracts.
A bill to reestablish a lesson that Americans have learned
painfully for generations that if civil and legal rights exist
only in the absence of a neighbor's religious objection, then
they are not civil rights but empty promises. The ability to
freely and fully exercise sincerely held religious beliefs in
this country is a liberty each of us cherishes.
Across the Nation, religious principle inspires countless
families, organizations, and communities to champion economic
justice, human dignity, and common decency.
But there is a difference between exercising religious
beliefs and imposing them on others. Our Constitution fiercely
protects the former and expressly prohibits the latter.
If this administration cannot see the harm that they are
causing not just to LGBTQ Americans and vulnerable communities
but to religious liberty itself, then Congress must act quickly
and powerfully to open their eyes.
Transgender Americans deserve better. LGBTQ Americans
deserve better. Every single American deserves better.
And let us get to the crux, if I may, briefly, about what
we have heard today. This comes down to two big pieces. One, a
complete juxtaposition and a redefinition of who is a victim.
We have learned across our society that the denial of
services based on the central tenet of who the recipient of
those services are constitutes discrimination.
This idea, the formulation that you have heard from our
colleagues, fundamentally flips that to say that the restaurant
owner is being discriminated against, not the person denied
services.
It flips civil rights history on its head. That is the
jujitsu that this Supreme Court and that a Republican majority
seeks to sell on the American public today. A redefinition of
who, in fact, is a victim.
And two, this is about state-sanctioned discrimination and
state-sanctioned dollars. As Chairman Raskin pointed out,
churches are free to do what they want with their own private
dollars, their own philanthropy.
But when it comes to your taxpayer dollars, my dollars,
being used to tell somebody like Mr. Maloney that he is not a
good enough parent because of who he is, then yes, I believe
our government should say no because we believe in the ability
of parents to be parents and children to deserve a home, and
that is what this is about. Nothing more and nothing less.
And, last, let me just end on this. One of the proudest
moments of my congressional career was marching in the gay
pride parade in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2013. Tens of
thousands of people lined the streets of Boston.
As I walked down that street with my predecessor, Barney
Frank, a former Congressman, one of the first people to come
out as gay in service to his country, and Jewish, and my former
college roommate, a seven-foot-tall African-American
professional basketball player who was the first person in a
major professional sport to come out as gay--a gay Jewish
former Congressman, a pasty-white red-haired Irish Catholic,
and a seven-foot-tall African-American professional basketball
player walking down the streets of Boston with thousands of
people cheering them on--our Founders may have been brilliant
but they never thought that that was going to happen.
Our society has progressed to recognize the basic dignity
of every single soul. That is what today is about.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank my colleagues for their
testimony before us today. Thank you very, very much.
Our next panel should come forward. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Chairwoman Maloney. I now would like to welcome our second
panel of witnesses and our first speaker will be Ernesto
Olivares.
Mr. Olivares entered the foster care system at 13 years
old. He is currently a member of the Every Child Deserves a
Family Campaign.
Second, we have Evan Minton. Mr. Minton is a public servant
who was denied medical care for a gender transition-related
hysterectomy at a religious hospital system. He is also a
national advocate for LGBTQ rights.
Third, we have Sarah Warbelow. She is the legal director of
the Human Rights Campaign. She is also an affiliated professor
at George Washington University in George Mason Law School.
Fourth, we have Hiram Sasser. Mr. Sasser is the executive
general counsel of the First Liberty Institute.
And last, we have Reverend Sloan from New York. Thank you
for being here. Reverend Sloan is the chief executive officer
of the Family Equality and a trustee for the Union Theological
Seminary. He has been an ordained Episcopal priest since 1991.
I would like to begin by swearing in the witnesses. If you
would all please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[Witnesses are sworn.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and please be seated.
The microphones are sensitive. So, please speak directly
into them. Without objection, your written testimony will be
part of the record.
With that, Mr. Olivares, you are now recognized to provide
your testimony, and we will go right down the list.
Thank you all for coming.
STATEMENT OF ERNESTO OLIVARES, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
Mr. Olivares. Chairwoman Maloney, Congressman Hice,
Chairman Raskin, and Ranking Member Roy, thank you for
permitting me to testify today on a topic of great personal
importance to me.
My name is Ernesto Olivares. I am from San Antonio, Texas.
I spent five years in the Texas foster care system. I was only
13 years old when I went into the system. I was still trying to
figure out who I was as a young man.
My brother and I were placed in a shelter 180 miles away
from my home city of San Antonio. I hated it. The staff was
rude and the other boys were mean. Youth and staff at my
shelter used derogatory language. Words like "faggot" and
"homo" made me feel uncomfortable, alone, and out of place.
After leaving, I ended up at my only other placement, a
group foster home, with 11 other boys for the next five years.
The foster care agency that I was placed through was a
Christian agency. I believe my foster parents were good people
with good intentions. They attended a Christian church. I am
religious but I am not a Christian. At first I went with them
to the Christian church out of curiosity.
But as I got older it became awkward and hurtful to hear
that I would go to hell for being gay and that I wasn't normal.
But if I didn't go, I might be made fun of or seen as weird and
different. I was worried the other kids would think there was
something wrong with me or suspect I was gay. So, I never came
out.
Even though most people probably knew I was gay, when I saw
people get bullied it struck fear into me to be different. I
wasn't wrong to fear coming out. LGBTQ+ and two-spirit youth
are over twice as likely to report being treated poorly by the
foster care system compared to non-LGBTQ youth.
The thing that scared me the most is that I heard rumors
that gay kids got sent to a special home, 24-hour surveillance
with other youth who really had mental issues and special
needs.
If I came out and one of the other boys in the home didn't
like it, would I be sent there? What about my brother? Would I
lose being with him, too?
My sisters and I went to the same high school. Would I not
see them again until I was 18? There was too much to lose. My
brother and sisters mean the world to me and the thought of
being separated from them killed me inside. I would do anything
to keep those relationships close and safe to me. It is
unethical and outrageous to separate any siblings for
identifying as LGBTQ.
I remember one day we were getting ready to go on a family
vacation and I went to grab my bag, the big bright blue one
they give you to put all your things in when it is time to move
placements.
Someone had scratched out my name and written "faggot" in
its place. I cried and I kept it to myself until we got back
from vacation. Eventually I did tell my therapist what
happened. I had asked her not to bring my foster parents into
the room and she decided to bring them in anyway.
Even though I showed them the tag as proof, they denied
that anyone in the house would ever do that. So, nothing was
ever done about that incident. I wonder if the agency serving
me had been required to protect me from discrimination
regardless of religion, mine or the agency's. Whether they
would have been more proactive about preventing anti-gay
bullying targeting me.
It is not surprising to me that LGBTQ foster youth are more
likely to become homeless. Many LGBTQ foster youth receive such
poor treatment in foster care that they choose homelessness
over foster care.
South Texas isn't known for accepting kids or adults like
me. The agency I was with wasn't either. I never met an LGBTQ
foster parent or adoptive parent while I was in care. I only
wish that I could have--I wish I could have those opportunities
to live and be who I was.
The challenges I face should not be a part of a youth's
experience in the child welfare system. That is why one day I
want to be a foster dad, open up my home, heart, so that kids
like me--for kids like me.
However, the discrimination that is happening in my state
and other states around the country I worry that I will be
turned away simply because I am gay. That is wrong. No foster
child should be denied a loving family when a qualified person
is willing to provide them a home.
That is why I do support the bipartisan Every Child
Deserves a Family Act, H.R. 3114, which would end
discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, and
gender identity.
This bipartisan bill, introduced by Chairman John Lewis,
which currently has 180 co-sponsors, would also provide states
like Texas with resources to provide better services for LGBTQ
foster youth so that children in care now wouldn't have to go
through the same hard times I did.
I urge the committee to support passage of H.R. 3114 and
require the U.S. Department and Health and Human Services to
end discrimination in foster care programs and to provide
affirming services to every LGBTQ child in foster care
regardless of religion of the agency serving that child.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Our next speaker is Evan Minton.
STATEMENT OF EVAN MINTON, LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Minton. Thank you, Congressman Maloney, Congressman
Hice, and members of the committee. I am honored to be here
today.
In August 2016, I was in the process of undergoing a series
of medical treatments stemming from my diagnosis of gender
dysphoria. After my doctors determined that a hysterectomy was
medically necessary, I was scheduled to undergo the surgery at
Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a hospital in the Dignity Health
chain near Sacramento, California, where I live.
I did not know much about Mercy San Juan Medical Center or
Dignity Health. But I did know that my doctor regularly
performs hysterectomies at that hospital. Two days before the
surgery date a nurse called me to go over the details and I
mentioned that I was transgender.
The very next day, a day before my surgery, the hospital
called my surgeon to inform her that my surgery had been
canceled. The reason? Because of my gender transition.
When I heard the news I remember being so devastated that I
collapsed to the ground. I felt distraught and helpless that
the hospital was refusing to treat me simply because of who I
am.
To make matters worse, the fact that surgery was canceled
then put all of the other medical procedures that I had
scheduled in flux. Because I had already experienced delays in
getting the care that I needed, the timing of this surgery was
particularly important.
I was fortunate in the fact that I was able to undergo a
hysterectomy at a different hospital. But the experience leaves
scars.
I had no idea prior to seeking a hysterectomy that my local
community hospital was a Catholic hospital or that they would
argue that religious doctrine permits them to deny medically
necessary care just because the patients happen to be
transgender. It should never ever be okay to deny transgender
people or anybody care just because of who they are.
In 2017, the ACLU and the law firm Covington and Burling
LLP filed a lawsuit against Dignity Health on my behalf.
California law prohibits businesses that are open to the
general public, including hospitals, from discriminating on the
basis of gender identity.
Just last fall, a California Court of Appeal agreed with
me, that I suffered discrimination when the hospital canceled
my surgery. While my case has been pending in the courts, the
Trump administration weighed in.
In January 2018, less than a year after I filed my case,
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a
proposed rule titled ``Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights
in Health Care.''
As opposed to working to protect patients and expand access
to health care, the entire purpose of the refusal of care rule
is to support religious people and entities in limiting the
care they provide to patients.
In the rule, three court cases were mentioned as a reason
why the rule was necessary. Mine was one of them. The fact that
the Trump administration singled me out--my name is now in the
Federal Register--truly knocked me down for almost a year.
When I try to explain this to people, some folks feel that
I should--feel that this is badge of honor or that I am doing
something right if the Trump administration is coming after me
personally.
I don't feel this way. I have felt like it is a heavy
burden to carry, that it is emotionally draining, and that it
is pressure filled and it is completely overwhelming, and I
still feel this way today, two years later.
The Trump administration's refusal of care rule labels me
as a threat. Their rule legitimizes what happened to me and
encourages other hospitals to do the same.
According to the Trump administration, I am not deserving
of health care. According to the Trump administration, my life
and the life of every single transgender American is disposable
and just doesn't matter.
So, by inviting me here today, I am so grateful that I get
to be more than just a name on a harmful, harmful document. I
feel like I can finally reclaim my voice and attempt to take
back my power, and I am so grateful for that.
Thank you very much for allowing me to be here today and I
am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much for your testimony.
Ms. Warbelow?
STATEMENT OF SARAH WARBELOW, LEGAL DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS
CAMPAIGN
Ms. Warbelow. Chair Maloney, Congressman Hice, and members
of the committee, thank you for having me here today.
My name is Sarah Warbelow. I am the legal director for the
Human Rights Campaign, America's largest organization working
to achieve full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender people.
It is an honor and a privilege to submit this testimony on
behalf of our more than 3 million members and supporters
nationwide. I am here today before you not only as a legal
expert but also as a bisexual woman who is the proud parent of
a transgender girl.
The right to believe and to worship or not are core
American values. These constitutionally protected rights have
shaped our Nation and have cultivated the Founders' dream of a
pluralistic and free society.
We are also a nation built on the values of equality,
access to opportunity, inherent individual dignity, and a
belief that each one of us must be allowed to shape our future
free from the limiting stranglehold of bias.
Since taking office, the Trump administration has
consistently attacked our communities most vulnerable,
employing a public policy strategy designed to divide and
otherize, encouraging individuals and communities to see each
other as enemies rather than neighbors.
Despite these dangerous efforts to create a narrative of
opposition, faith and civil rights communities are intertwined
and continue to recognize our shared values and shared future.
Under Trump's leadership, Federal agencies have engaged in
a dangerous effort to redesign the evidence-based approaches to
our Nation's administrative infrastructure. In the absence of
legal or empirical support for these changes, agencies have
instead relied on an oftentimes dramatically myopic and
disingenuous legal interpretation.
The Trump administration's regulatory agenda regarding
religious exemptions has been predicated on a misrepresentation
of three recent court decisions from the Supreme Court:
Masterpiece Cake Shop, Trinity Lutheran, and Hobby Lobby.
Numerous Federal agencies, from HHS to HUD to DOL, have
cited these cases as mandates to incorporate expansive
religious exemptions into the Federal Register.
They mischaracterize these decisions by ignoring the
limiting language of the holdings and instead suggesting that
they require the Federal Government to grant expansive
exemptions to Federal contractors and grantees.
The Department of Labor engaged in this acrobatic legal
analysis to support its revisions to the implementing
regulations for Executive Order 11246, severely undermining the
original mission of the executive order by stripping workers of
basic protections and empowering federally funded businesses
and organizations to discriminate against their employees with
few safeguards.
The thrust of these administrative actions has been to
empower businesses and organizations to engage in
discrimination without consideration for the impact on
beneficiaries or workers.
Every year the Federal Government implements hundreds of
social safety net programs designed to support and empower our
Nation's most vulnerable communities.
The Federal Government accomplishes many of these programs
through valuable partnerships with nonprofit organizations
nationwide. The new Trump regulations not only turn a blind eye
toward discrimination in social service programs but have
empowered and encouraged it.
Looking to HHS as an example, we have seen this department
erode patient and beneficiary protections since day one. This
has been accomplished through numerous regulations including
revisions to the department's charitable choice and grant
requirement regulations and those implementing Section 1557 of
the Affordable Care Act and statutory conscience amendments.
These changes undercut explicit beneficiary protections,
empower discrimination and denial of service to our community
and all HHS programs. Programs like homeless emergency
services, child welfare programs, and substance abuse and
mental health treatment.
In some of these cases these changes attempt to codify
overly broad interpretations of RFRA. HUD has taken similar
regulatory steps. The language provided by HUD to OMB proposing
to revise the equal access rule would empower providers to
consider a range of factors in making housing determinations
including religious beliefs.
As drafted, the HUD proposal would empower religious
organizations operating HUD-funded programs including emergency
and homeless shelters to turn away transgender people because
of gender identity or refuse to provide family services and
housing to a same-sex couple because of its views on marriage.
Similarly, the regulations adopted by HHS undermine the
rights of young people struggling with homelessness and housing
insecurity.
Relying on flawed and unsupported legal reasoning, the
White House has time and time again prioritized the rights of
bigoted organizations to discriminate against people who rely
on the government for support and protection.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much.
Mr. Sasser?
STATEMENT OF HIRAM SASSER, EXECUTIVE GENERAL COUNSEL, FIRST
LIBERTY INSTITUTE
Mr. Sasser. Chairwoman Maloney, Congressman Hice, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
share my perspective on some important issues.
My firm represents people of all faiths, from Native
American Sweat Lodge to the Falun Gong, and when the government
tried to ban a development of an Islamic cemetery we fought and
won for the Muslim community.
As President Clinton stated on November 16th, 1993, as he
signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, ``Our Founders
cared a lot about religion and one of the reasons they worked
so hard to get the First Amendment into the Bill of Rights at
the head of the class is that they well understood what could
happen to this country, how both religion and government could
be perverted if there were not some space created and some
protection provided.''
We live in a pluralistic society with millions of Americans
sharing different views about family, faith, and conscience. In
such a multicultural society we must pursue tolerance and
mutual respect.
We can do this effectively without resorting to a zero sum
game of political power. Cooperation for mutual benefit is the
goal. Coexistence with people of differing beliefs and
backgrounds is the ideal.
We must, as President Clinton urged us, explore how the
First Amendment provides this space and protection we need for
religious liberty to flourish in a pluralistic society.
In United States v. Seeger in 1965, the Supreme Court had
to interpret what Congress meant about the belief in a supreme
being when Congress exempted conscientious objectors from
compulsory military service.
Taking a step back, it is quite remarkable that the state
interest at stake is the very preservation of the state itself.
But conscientious objectors have always received some form of
protection since the Revolutionary War.
Yet, we as a Nation, through our elected representatives in
Congress, decided to exempt such objectors from compulsory
service even though doing so increased the possibility of
another one among us bearing the burden, even the ultimate
burden.
The Supreme Court in Seeger gave the fullest effect of that
language, noting, quote, ``It must be remembered that in
resolving these exemption problems one deals with the belief of
different individuals who will articulate them in a multitude
of ways.
The validity of what he believes cannot be questioned.
Local boards and courts are not free to reject beliefs because
they consider them incomprehensible.''
Developments in the law of religious liberty bear mention
and should serve as a guide for understanding the current
administration's position regarding religious liberty
protections.
As Justice Brennan stated, ``Concern for the autonomy of
religious organizations demands that we avoid the entanglement
and the chill on religious expression that a case by case
determination would produce.''
As he further said in Corporation of Presiding Bishop v.
Amos, ``I believe that a categorical exemption for such
enterprises is appropriately balanced with these competing
concerns.''
Religious accommodation and exemption laws in the
constitutional underpinnings have a long history in our country
and a fully developed body of law. The Religious Freedom
Restoration Act is an excellent example of a broad religious
accommodation and an exemption in that it applies to all
Federal law.
While RFRA is broad in its application, it does not
guarantee any particular outcome. It only ensures that people
whose religious beliefs have been burdened get their day in
court.
RFRA asks whether the rule or regulation is a substantial
burden on religious activity of the person seeking an exemption
from an otherwise neutral and generally applicable rule.
If the court determines that the person seeking the
exemption demonstrates that the rule or regulation causes a
substantial burden on his or her religious exercise, the burden
of proof switches to the government.
Protecting minority faith positions is the key to liberty
for us all because we never know when we will be in the
minority faith position. This is why we sued for the Muslim
community when all they wanted was a plot of land on which to
bury their loved ones.
Indeed, there are circumstances when members of the Muslim
faith, for example, must refrain from participating in
something that conflicts with their faith that may be a very
important part of someone else's life.
The question arises as to which branch of government should
be the guardians of religious liberty. From conscientious
objectors to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress
has been the guardian of religious liberty.
Thus, the executive branch should defer to Congress and
that role is what the current administration appears to
embrace. Many of the administration's newer proposed
regulations hew very closely to the relevant underlying
statutes as set forth by Congress.
In fact, much opposition to this administration's
regulatory changes comes from the administration's refusal to
deviate from its statutory authority, even when past
administrations were willing to reinterpret Congress's
decisions.
The First Amendment remains a meaningful guardian should
government stray from its constitutional obligations. As the
Supreme Court said in West Virginia v. Barnette, if there is
any fixed star in our constitutional constellation it is that
no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be
orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters
of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their
faith therein.
Thank you
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Reverend Sloan?
STATEMENT OF STAN J. SLOAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FAMILY
EQUALITY COUNCIL
Reverend Sloan. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney,
Congressman Hice, and Chairman Raskin. Thank you for allowing
me to be there today.
I am Father Stan Sloan. I am an Episcopal priest, a trustee
for Union Theological Seminary in New York City and the CEO of
Family Equality. We are the national organization for LGBT
people with children and for LGBTQ people who want to form
families.
I started my journey in the nonprofit sector by working for
decades with the homeless in Chicago, the first part of that in
Christian Service for Episcopal Charities and the last 16 years
focused on the disproportionately large population of LGBTQ
homeless people as the CEO of Chicago House.
Genesis 1:27 states that God created humanity in God's own
image. Unfortunately, humanity has been returning that favor
ever since, distorting God into whatever image many people may
choose to form of God in order to justify their own comfortable
lives or their own discriminatory practices. This distortion is
at the very heart of our hearing today.
Decades of working with the homeless taught me what six
years of theological study could not. The Christian Gospels
have a preferential option for the poor and for the
marginalized. More, Christ as seen in the Gospel narratives
prefers to spend his time and share his life with those same
people, the poor and the marginalized.
With the metaphor of overturning tables and of cleansing
the temple for those who instead choose to distort religion for
their own means, many of us are here today to begin overturning
tables and to begin cleansing our Nation of distorted ideas of
religion that have no place in the separation of church and
state. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render
unto God that which is God's.
There are currently over 440,000 children in our child
welfare system. Over a quarter of those children are able to be
adopted at this moment and, yet, 20,000 of those kids will
graduate out of the system this year alone without finding
parents.
Last year, Family Equality made the front page of USA Today
with our research showing that 63 percent of LGBTQ Millennials
plan on forming families. That is a huge increase in the
decades ahead.
If you are LGBTQ in America you are seven times more likely
to foster parent and you are seven times more likely to adopt a
child than if you are straight. And yet, 11 states now have
laws that allow for legal discrimination against LGBTQ people
in foster care and adoption.
These laws have been put in place under guise of religion
and under the name of religious liberty. Congressman John
Lewis's Every Child Deserves a Family congressional act, H.R.
3114, will overturn those bad laws nationwide and those who
care about children will support that act.
There are those who will tell you that people who are
denied a wedding cake at one bake shop can simply go to another
bake shop, and for my husband and I that is, largely, true.
One of the advantages of being middle or upper class is the
mobility that it affords. My decades of working with the
homeless in Chicago taught me that mobility is not a luxury
that is afforded to those living in poverty.
Being denied proper medical care as a trans person at the
nearest clinic too often means being denied medical care
entirely. Similarly, for those in LGBTQ and isolated by poverty
or geography, being told no when seeking basic human needs such
as food or shelter could be mean being told no to survival
itself.
The abuse of Christian scripture and principles to justify
prejudice is nothing new. The Book of Philemon was used by
Christians to justify slavery during the Civil War and again to
justify discrimination in the 1960's.
It is my belief that those supporting religious liberty
have chosen religion as a parallel war of discrimination today.
Yet, any objective reading of scripture shows Christ himself as
a man shunning zealots and embracing the marginalized.
If, instead, we are respectful of church and state and if
we move this battlefield of discrimination from religion to our
judicial, legislative, and executive systems, it becomes
readily apparent that discrimination based on religion cannot
stand if we are true to our valued principles.
Regardless of the battlefield, it is time that we as a
country begin overturning tables and cleansing our Nation. For
me, as a middle class American, this protection of civil rights
is important.
But for those that are poor and most marginalized, it is
not only important but necessary for life itself.
Thank you for allowing me to be here today.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much for your testimony
and all the panelists for your testimony. I recognize myself
for questions.
Title 9 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects students
at publicly funded schools from discrimination based on sex.
The scope of Title 9's protections has been a primary target of
the Trump administration as it has rolled back protections for
the LGBTQ community.
In 2019, nearly one in three LGBTQ students were physically
harassed. They were physically harassed based on their sexual
orientation while one in four were physically harassed based on
their gender identity.
Reverend Sloan, you have extensive experience working with
LGBTQ youth. In your opinion, what message does the rollback of
Title 9 protections send to transgender students and other
LGBTQ students who face discrimination based on their gender
identities or sexual orientation?
Reverend Sloan. So, when our kids--when LGBTQ people are
faced with this discrimination, it does emotional and lasting
harm to them.
You know, even if they are able to, you know, as Mr. Minton
did, find another place to receive the services or the benefits
that they need, the mere rejection is a micro aggression that
scars us and that is very hard to heal from.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Ms. Warbelow, President Trump's own Secretary of Education,
Betsy DeVos, initially resisted rolling back these Title 9
protections, stating that she was uncomfortable because of the
potential harm that rescinding them could cause to transgender
students.
Was Secretary DeVos right in her initial assessment
regarding the impact of rescinding these protections, Ms.
Warbelow?
Ms. Warbelow. Rescinding the guidelines to schools about
their obligations to transgender students created a vacuum
which encouraged schools to either engage in discrimination or,
for most well-meaning administrators, created a lack of
understanding of how they should move forward.
They were frightened to protect transgender students
despite the fact that they have an obligation not only under
Title 9 but under the equal protection clause as well.
It is dangerous for students not to have the full
protection of the government. Terrifyingly, the Department of
Education is also failing to investigate claims of
discrimination against LGBTQ students, particular transgender
students.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, can you give us some examples of
some of the harms you have actually seen from the repeal of
these protections?
Ms. Warbelow. Transgender students are expected to use
restrooms that are not consistent with their gender identity.
Students have been forced to use restrooms that are all the way
across the campus from where their peers are using restrooms,
singling them out for discriminatory behavior.
Teachers refuse to intervene when trans students are being
harassed by their peers and their classmates. And there are
teachers who are disrespectful enough to refuse to call trans
students by their names and appropriate pronouns.
Chairwoman Maloney. In 2018, the Department of Education
issued a troubling proposed rule that would undermine equal
access to education for LGBTQ sexual assault survivors under
Title 9.
The rule would make it harder for survivors of sexual
assault and harassment who disproportionately identify as LGBTQ
to address their claims.
How would rolling back these protections harm LGBTQ youth,
Ms. Warbelow?
Ms. Warbelow. Nearly 40--excuse me, nearly half of bisexual
women have experienced sexual assault, as have nearly half of
transgender people in their lifetime.
The Title 9 rule on sexual assault makes schools more
dangerous for all, especially LGBTQ students. There are many
provisions of the rule that would harm students.
But there are some that are particularly dangerous for
LGBTQ students.
First, allowing religious institutions to discriminate
against LGBT students without warning places them in a
situation where they are unaware of whether or not their
schools support them if they experience sexual assault or
violence.
The narrow definition of harassment from unwelcome conduct
of a sexual nature to only incidents that are so severe and
pervasive to be objectively offensive--effective denies all
students equal access to education.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, earlier this month I led ever
committee Democrat in sending a letter to Secretary DeVos
asking for documents related to this proposal and who was
behind it.
So far, we have not gotten the documents we asked for. But
we will continue our oversight of Title 9, this rule, and
Secretary DeVos' troubling record at the Department of
Education.
Every young person deserves the right to an educational
environment in which they are respected and protected. Instead,
the actions of this administration have created an environment
where LGBTQ youth are made to feel unprotected, unsupported,
and unseen.
I would now recognize----
Mr. Massie. Madam Chairwoman?
Chairwoman Maloney. I will now recognize the gentlewoman
from West Virginia.
Mr. Massie. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to enter
something into the record.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Mr. Massie. So, I would like to enter into the record,
among many others to come, a letter from His Excellency, George
Murray Bishop of Youngstown, and chairman of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, Committee for Religious
Liberty, expressing his disappointment with the framing of this
hearing, specifically its title, asserting that religious
liberty is an assault.
And while we may disagree on specific applications of
religious liberty claims or the impact of these regulations, in
particular, I would like to enter this letter as well as others
from other organizations.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Massie. Without----
Chairwoman Maloney. And I now--you may submit it.
Mr. Massie. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Maloney. I now recognize Mrs. Miller from West
Virginian, and she will be followed by Jamie Raskin, and I am
asking Jamie to now chair this committee. I have been called to
a markup in another committee.
I thank everyone for being here on this important issue.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, and thank you
all for being here today to discuss this important topic.
I do want to say from the beginning that I am commending
the Trump administration's strong commitment for advancing
rights for all people and, particularly, the commitment to
eradicating AIDS epidemic worldwide, and I am encouraged by the
work that the administration is doing to treat all people with
dignity and respect that they deserve.
I think it is very important that we understand that.
Freedom of religion is one of the foundational tenets of our
country. Additionally, liberty and freedom from a burdensome
government is a right afforded to every American.
I believe in equality for everyone in the eye of law and
this discussion is an opportunity to find the balance that we
strive to work toward.
There are many views surrounding the topic of equality and
religious freedom today and I hope that we can all have a
productive discussion that will ensure the rights for all
people and that all people are protected.
Mr. Sasser, do you believe that the regulations proposed by
the Trump administration seek to maximize individual liberty?
Mr. Sasser. I think that the Trump administration is trying
to focus on its duty as the executive branch to conform its
regulations to Congress's decisions that they have made through
legislation.
Many of the regulatory changes that have been proposed or
enacted were simply to try to bring the language back into
conformance with statutes that this body had already previously
passed.
I will give you an example, since Title 9 was raised. There
was an issue in the previous administration with religious
schools having to seek exemptions and having difficulty
receiving their exemptions from Title 9 because Congress said
that religious schools shall be exempt.
As a matter of fact, Congress was very specific it was
granting an exemption without having to go through all the
jumps and hoops and everything else that the previous
administration had enacted.
I think what this administration is trying to do is to
conform its definitions and conform its regulations to the
statutes that this body has passed. Congress, Article 1 branch
of government, is the guardian of liberty. These are the
representatives of the people of the United States from all
parts of the United States and all different types of
backgrounds.
Obviously, there is going to be a difference between
Waxahachie, Texas, and New York City. This is the place where
those negotiations take place and that language is crafted.
It is not perfect. It is not what everybody wants. Somebody
has to give a little bit here and there, as we all understand,
as part of that negotiation process. And I think that it does a
disservice to ask the executive branch to try to go beyond the
language that this body has negotiated.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Can you explain the background behind your organization's
support for eliminating unfair barriers for faith-based
organizations?
Mr. Sasser. Well, we represent people of all faiths, and in
particular, any time a particular viewpoint, religious
viewpoint, is in the minority from the mainstream ideas of what
is orthodox and what is--what the mainstream might think is the
right thing to do, there is going to be a lot of pressure on
them, both social pressure and political pressure and then,
ultimately, legal pressure to change their mind, to conform
their religious beliefs to what the larger public would like
them to have.
I think it is the work of the First Amendment to protect
those minority positions and that is what we focus on. We focus
on battling against government overreach into religious affairs
because we believe that what the promise that Thomas Jefferson
made to the Danbury Baptists is true, which is that the
government should not be interfering with religious entities
and their beliefs.
Mrs. Miller. I have one other quick question. How can we
strive to make sure that the LGBTQ rights and the religious
freedoms rights coexist?
Mr. Sasser. The best way to do that is through the proper
negotiation and congressional process that we have here instead
of asking the executive branch to do it by fiat, which this
particular administration doesn't appear to want to do.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Raskin.[Presiding.] Thank you.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton,
is now recognized for her five minutes of questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I particularly appreciate
this hearing because my own district, the District of Columbia,
is regularly targeted by the minority for its laws regarding
the LGBTQ community.
An example is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which,
as you know, is used to overturn--has been used to overturn
laws that protect the LGBTQ community. But it was declared
unconstitutional as applied to the states but not the Federal
Government and the District of Columbia, which is another
reason that the passage of our statehood bill this year is so
important.
RFRA has been used as a justification even recently--
Senator Ted Cruz, here in the House, Representative Vicki
Hartzler--for attacks on the District's human rights amendment,
and that was an amendment which I was--that I was able to get
that rider, as they are called, taken off.
But that was a law in the District of Columbia that said
that you couldn't deny that universities, public schools or
private schools, both, could not deny the use of their
facilities--their school facilities.
An example of that would be your facility to holding a
meeting. Initially, Georgetown University, very distinguished
Catholic university--perhaps the most distinguished--were in
favor of that denial.
But Georgetown has overturned its own views on that and now
allows LGBTQ students to organize on their campus and to have
use of their facilities to hold meetings.
We are seeing a repeat here by some on the other side of
what we have just gone through with respect to the Census. And
the Census, you will remember, we were enshrining ignorance of
who was in the country. So, want to count noncitizens even
though the Constitution says all persons shall be counted.
So, what we are seeing with this administration is they
don't want to count LBGTQ people either. So, while initially, I
guess, from the Census as left to them by the Obama
Administration, they included sexual orientation in the 2020
Census.
But then they quickly came back and said, oh, that is a
mistake. We don't want to know anything. We don't want to count
the LBGTQ community.
So, just as with whoever is in the country they don't want
to know, so they don't want to know anything about the LBGTQ
communities, right. They don't exist as far as this
administration is concerned.
So, I would like to ask all of you to discuss how you
think, why you think, the Federal Government could better serve
the LBGTQ community, or not, if they knew more about the size
of that community, the demographics, the needs of that
community.
Why do you think the Federal Government--could the Federal
Government better serve or is it simply irrelevant to the
Federal Government who LGBT community people are in our
jurisdiction--if I could get everyone to respond to that--in
our country, everybody to respond to that question. Do we need
to know and, if so, why do we need to know?
Mr. Olivares. Thank you for the question. I believe that
the Federal Government should step in and help end
discrimination. I can't talk about a lot of the laws and a lot
of the government things, but I can talk about my personal
experience of how the government could have helped me.
I could have helped support my foster parents, first and
foremost, with services on how to speak, how to handle, how to
take care of a gay young man in their home and how they could
have cut down the bullying, cut down the derogatory terms and--
--
Ms. Norton. If they had had--if we had had information on
what--I want to get everybody to answer. So, if we had had that
information then maybe action could have been taken of the kind
you had lived through.
Mr. Minton?
Mr. Minton. Yes, I certainly believe that the Federal
Government needs to count LGBTQ people in the Census, and I
believe that they need to do that for a number of reasons.
The LGBTQ population is greatly underserved and if we know
how many of us are truly out there then I think that that would
lead to the services that we need.
For example, 40 percent of the transgender community has
attempted suicide. We need culturally competent care. When the
transgender community is subject to medical denial due to anti-
transgender bias that number jumps to 60 percent attempted
suicide rate.
We need--we need medical providers out there. We need all
sorts of services. But we are never going to know how much we
need unless we are truly counted. So, I thank you for all of
the work that you have done, and I urge all of us to continue
in these efforts.
I think if the Federal Government were to sit down with
us--I fear that they are hostile to our community and by their
actions they have shown that--but if they were to sit down with
us then perhaps they could have a sense of compassion and see
that we are people and that we do count and that we should
count.
Mr. Raskin. OK. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Now we are going to go to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Comer, and he is recognized for his five minutes of questions.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to take a moment to reset some context for
today's hearing.
Freedom from government coercion is a right afforded to
every American no matter their sexual orientation or gender
preference.
The Trump administration's regulations do not deny LGBTQ
individuals their fundamental civil rights. What the
administration is doing, as they should, is revisiting the
balance between religious conscience and LGBT rights, because
many Americans had concerns with how this balance swung way out
of proportion during the Obama Administration.
LGBT Americans should and do have absolute freedom from
discrimination, just as all Americans should have the absolute
freedom from mandated acceptance of an ideology.
So, with that in mind, I really want to shed some positive
light here on the vital role that faith-based organizations
play in my communities in the 1st congressional District of
Kentucky and in many communities throughout the United States.
There is a spectacular organization in my district called
New Pathways for Children. They are a faith-based organization
running two group homes with licensed counselors and any
resources that children would ever need.
They care for children who suffered maltreatment from
neglect, abandonment, or abuse. They serve children who
experienced poverty, homelessness, incarceration of a parent or
parents who enter drug or alcohol rehab.
And yes, children are encouraged to explore faith and given
regular opportunities for personal spiritual growth through
biblical study, worship, retreats, camps, and mission trips.
So, today, I really do take offense to framing religious
organizations like these as the enemy when in fact they are
doing some of the best work to help aid children in need.
To that end, Mr. Sasser, I have a couple of questions with
respect to foster care. Can you elaborate on the diverse
backgrounds and needs of the hundreds of thousands of children
in foster care, briefly?
Mr. Sasser. Well, the foster care industry is served by a
wide variety of different types of agencies, some of which are
motivated by their religious beliefs. Some are secular. Some
are religious but have different beliefs about how families
should be structured and that sort of thing.
One of the best things about our system is that we have a
lot of freedom and a lot of choice, and not every family is
going to be the same. I think that it is important to have
different agencies that are recruiting parents from different
types of backgrounds because I think it is important.
If you have an orthodox Jewish child who suddenly is in the
foster care system, I think that it is important that there be
an orthodox Jewish foster care agency that can help recruit and
find a home for that person.
I don't know how else, you know, you would properly serve
them in that way.
Mr. Comer. And I agree. These children need a diversity of
individuals working on their behalf to provide them a loving
home.
Mr. Sasser, why would anyone want to close a loving
supportive well-run foster home and why would anyone want to
close off such an avenue to help these children in need?
Mr. Sasser. I don't know. I think President Clinton
actually said it best. He said, ``But let us never believe that
the freedom of religion imposes on any of us some
responsibility to run from our convictions.
Let us instead respect one another's space, fight to the
death to preserve the right of every American to practice
whatever convictions he or she has. But bring our values back
to the table of American discourse to heal our troubled land.''
I don't think anyone can say it better than that.
Mr. Comer. My last question, and you can educate me on
this. Did Pennsylvania close a foster home run by a parent of
the year? Are you familiar with that situation?
Mr. Sasser. I am not familiar with that specific situation.
I apologize.
Mr. Comer. OK. Well, I appreciate--I appreciate the hearing
and I hope that my statement isn't meant to offend anyone.
But people in the faith-based community provide so many
valuable services to people in need and it is just unfortunate
that they are constantly under attack by many members of this
committee.
I hope that in my brief five minutes I can shed some light
as to some of the good things they are doing and, hopefully, we
don't create any more unintended consequences for these faith-
based organizations that are providing an invaluable service to
children and women all across America.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
Now the gentleman from California, Mr. Rouda, is recognized
for his five minutes of questions.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is one undeniable fact and that is discrimination is
discrimination, period, regardless of how it occurs. And with
the testimony we have heard today I feel like I am on the
Republican absurdity train as we hear some of these arguments.
I want to be clear here. Federal law does not expressly
prohibit discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
And Ms. Warbelow, I am going to direct my questions toward
you. Is that a correct statement what I just said?
Ms. Warbelow. There are very few places in Federal law
where there are express protection for LGBTQ people, and right
now the Supreme Court is contemplating whether or not to strip
away rights from the LGBTQ community under Title 7 and,
potentially, other laws as well. We need express protections to
guarantee nondiscrimination.
Mr. Rouda. So, let us walk through these religious
exemptions as we take a trip on this absurdity train. We talked
a little bit earlier about the idea in a court case that
supported the notion that an employer can withhold birth
control and condoms to people that work for them because it is
against their religious beliefs. Is that correct?
Ms. Warbelow. That is correct. Hobby Lobby.
Mr. Rouda. OK. There are religions who believe that no
medical care should be provided whatsoever to them or their
children.
So, if we take this absurdity train a little bit further
down the road, is it possible that in the belief of religious
exemptions that you would then not have to provide any health
care to your employees if that was your religion?
Ms. Warbelow. Ignoring the confines of Hobby Lobby, this
administration has put forward the idea that doctors and other
medical care providers should be able to refuse to perform any
type of medical service that conflicts with their beliefs.
Mr. Rouda. So, going back to the situation that Mr. Minton
experienced first hand, if a hospital, religious based, that
did not believe in addressing the medical needs of the LGBTQ
community under the Trump administration in the absurdity of
the Republican argument that they are making, all health care
services could be denied by that hospital and it is not a
problem because Mr. Minton can just go somewhere else. Is that
the argument?
Ms. Warbelow. That is the intention of this administration,
as they have made clear through their regulations.
Mr. Rouda. So, let us go a step further down the path here,
because there are many protected classes that include race and
color.
So, if those classes were not directly protected under U.S.
law and somebody had a faith-based reason to discriminate
against them, under the Trump administration and the
Republicans who support it they too could be discriminated
against. Is that correct?
Ms. Warbelow. So, the Trump administration in their filings
has drawn a hard line at race in most circumstances. But they
have made clear that individuals with disabilities, women,
people of minority faiths, and the LGBTQ community should be
subject to a different set of standards, allowing for
widespread discrimination including in the health care space.
Mr. Rouda. So, it is okay to discriminate against some
people, just not all people, depending on their specific
circumstance, and whether those circumstances are specifically
protected under United States law.
I guess my question is if there were other communities that
were not specifically covered under U.S. law is it possible
that Republicans would also seek religious exemptions that
would allow discrimination against those communities?
Ms. Warbelow. It is certainly possible. What I am hearing
is an expectation that everything be codified in statute before
someone be provided protections. That is not the history of our
country.
Agencies have long adopted regulations that provide
protections for beneficiaries on a number of bases and the idea
that they would no longer have the freedom to do so is quite
troubling.
Mr. Rouda. Mr. Minton, if I could move to you. I would like
you to expand a little bit more on your personal experience of
having health care denied to you. If you would take a few
moments.
Mr. Minton. Yes. Well, my personal experience is having
health care denied to me did not end with my original
hysterectomy. It has continued.
Shortly after my phalloplasty surgery I had an issue with
my catheter not staying place, and I went to the Urgent Care
and they couldn't take care of me because they couldn't take
care of that issue, and they sent me to an emergency room.
Unfortunately, the emergency room was in the same parking lot
that--and it was a Dignity Health hospital.
I refused to go to the emergency room that was a Dignity
Health hospital because they refused to recognize that I exist
as a transgender person and instead I went into a public
restroom and I called my surgeon and asked that they give me
the directions over the phone, and while they were giving me
the directions I performed the operation on myself.
Not only that, but more recently a pharmacy made a mistake
and instead of giving me five pills of 25 milligrams each they
gave me five pills of 125 milligrams each. I was staying at my
parents' house and they discovered me barely able to speak and
unable to walk.
The nearest emergency room was Mercy San Juan Medical
Center which, as I said earlier in my testimony, was a Dignity
Health chain. They wanted--I needed to go to the emergency room
and instead of going in my drug stupor and my--even in my
inability to talk, I was able to make out the sound no, not
that.
They took me to emergency room farther away, and just to
relay the seriousness of this, when I got to that emergency
room, they treated me as a stroke victim for a number of hours.
So, it is not only me that is avoiding these hospitals. I
talked to friends and family who are both LGBTQ+ and not, and
they won't go to these hospitals either. It is important to
mention that one in six hospitals in California are Catholic--
are in Catholic--are Catholic beds.
We can't go to these hospitals, and when it is in rural
areas it is even worse. It is the only hospital around. This is
a matter of life and death.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Minton, and thank you for your
compelling testimony and showing the absurdity of this
situation we are addressing.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, is now recognized for
his five minutes of questions.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will begin by saying upholding the First Amendment is not
an absurdity train. Protecting the religious liberties of the
people of this great country is not in any way absurd.
Mr. Sasser, let me go to you quickly. On the issue of
beliefs, the beliefs that people have, just in general, is it
fair to say that beliefs impact people's behavior?
Mr. Sasser. Well, beliefs drive and serve as the motivation
for people and especially for charitable organizations. I mean,
for example, some----
Mr. Hice. Well, just generally speaking, it is fair to say
that beliefs do impact behavior?
Mr. Sasser. Well, sure.
Mr. Hice. All right. So, let us take it a step further.
Deeply held religious beliefs--do those deeply held beliefs
impact the way people live?
Mr. Sasser. Of course they do.
Mr. Hice. OK. So, would it be fair to say that as it
relates to religious beliefs, just within that context, would
it be fair to say that people with those deeply held religious
beliefs literally practice what they believe? Everything else
is just religious talk.
But if it is a deeply held religious belief they actually
practice that?
Mr. Sasser. I am sure they do.
Mr. Hice. OK. So, is it also fair to say that when we are
talking about religious liberty in America and the protections
that we have under the First Amendment that those are not just
an issue of where I worship or how I worship?
Mr. Sasser. It is part of their everyday life.
Mr. Hice. It is part of their everyday life. So, an
individual's deeply held religious beliefs go far beyond the
walls of a church or synagogue or a building of faith.
Those deeply held religious beliefs actually literally
daily impact issues related to how that person works, play,
their recreation, their politics, their family life and their--
obviously, their worship life. Is that fair to say?
Mr. Sasser. Exactly. It is their entire life.
Mr. Hice. OK. So, with that, would you consider any
attempts from government or otherwise that would prevent or
disable people who hold deeply held religious beliefs from
practicing those beliefs to be problematic?
Mr. Sasser. Well, not only--I don't think that just me that
thinks it is problematic. Our founders thought it was
problematic and that is why they put in the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution, in order to protect religious
liberty.
That is why this body passed the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act in 1993 when they felt that the Supreme Court
was not honoring the original meaning and understanding of the
First Amendment.
Mr. Hice. So, what you do on a daily basis is help defend
people of faith who are increasingly in this country
experiencing hostility, an environment--and we see it. I have
dealt with this myself for 20 years plus, seeing an increase of
hostility toward people of faith on multiple fronts.
Would you consider it in and of itself discriminatory
toward people of faith for government or other entities to come
in and try to force those people with deeply held religious
convictions to forsake those convictions or close the doors of
their business or whatever it is that they are involved with?
Mr. Sasser. Well, not only is its unconstitutional
religious viewpoint discrimination but, I mean, there are
entire bodies of law that support--to support that.
Mr. Hice. So, you would say that is in of itself
discriminatory?
Mr. Sasser. Sure, it is.
Mr. Hice. All right. Your organization has called religious
freedom the foundational right that all others are built upon.
Would you elaborate on that?
Mr. Sasser. Well, sure. The worst competition for a
totalitarian form of government is for its people to believe in
a power that is greater than government and for people to have
an allegiance to something that is greater than the government.
I remember teaching at a law school, a seminar, in Romania.
It wasn't too long after the fall of communism there but it had
been some years, and the students found it quite remarkable
that I would suggest that right preexisted government and that
there are certain foundational rights that are embedded not
only in the Constitution but are embedded endowed by our
Creator as our Declaration of Independence acknowledges.
And those rights pre-exist government and any attempt of
the government to impact those rights must be met with heavy
resistance.
Mr. Hice. I thank you, and I thank the chairman.
We have got to understand discrimination goes both ways and
deeply held religious beliefs impact the way people daily live,
and any attempt to eradicate that is, in itself,
discriminatory.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Hice, thank you for that illuminating
exchange, and I want to pick up on that with my own five
minutes of questioning because the moment that we are at right
now in terms of trying to clarify the relationship between the
nondiscrimination norm under equal protection for all citizens
and religious liberty is a moment that we have arrived at at
other times in our history.
So, I would like to go back to the 1960's when the first
civil rights laws were created to try to include African
Americans who had been the victims of Jim Crow discrimination.
So, I am thinking of Supreme Court decision like Heart of
Atlanta Motel, Dolly's Barbecue case, and other public
accommodations decisions where restaurant owners, lunch counter
owners, department store owners made precisely this same First
Amendment claim, invoking either religious freedom or the
freedom of association, and they said that if you are making me
serve black customers or interracial parties you are violating
my religious freedom because we believe that this is
fundamentally offensive to our religious system. So, we don't
want to use our restaurant or department store or hotel or
motel or lunch counter in this way.
Yet, that was overridden by the Supreme Court saying if you
are a place of public accommodation and you are dealing with
civil rights law, you have to comply with the law just like
everyone else does.
So, isn't that illuminating in terms of this debate that we
are having today, Ms. Warbelow? Let me ask you.
Ms. Warbelow. Absolutely. The Supreme Court recognized, as
it has over and over again, that there are limitations to our
fundamental rights when those fundamental rights end up
impeding upon the rights of others.
It is one of the reasons that the Supreme Court, so
critically in Piggie Park, made clear that despite the owner's
sincerely held religious beliefs about separation of the races
he was still obligated to serve African Americans.
Mr. Raskin. OK. So, those views are sincerely held by
racist restaurant owners or racist amusement park owners or
racist theater owners. Yet, the courts repeatedly found
throughout the 20th century that those views could not overcome
the fundamental public accommodation equal protection rights of
the people, right? That is because they are in the stream of
commerce in a public accommodation.
Now, of course, any person who disfavors interfaith
marriages or same-sex marriages or interracial marriages
doesn't have to invite people over to their house for dinner if
they don't want to.
They don't have to be friends with them. But if you enter
the stream of commerce and you set up a restaurant or you set
up a hotel or motel, you are subject to all of the public
accommodations laws, aren't you?
Ms. Warbelow. That is correct.
Mr. Raskin. That is true for hospitals as well, isn't it?
Ms. Warbelow. For those places that define hospitals to be
places of public accommodation.
Mr. Raskin. And it is true for the provision of Federal
Governmental services, isn't it? Isn't--that is really what
this discussion is about, whether the equal protection norm,
the anti-discrimination norm, should apply when we are talking
about the distribution of Federal tax dollars that come from
all citizens, right?
Ms. Warbelow. This is about protecting the most vulnerable
among us.
Mr. Raskin. So, the argument about whether or not it is the
rights of the person who wants the services of a hospital or it
is the right of the hospital to deny service, that is a problem
that we have seen before, isn't it?
Ms. Warbelow. Yes, it is.
Mr. Raskin. I mean, is there any reason to think that
America would be better off if we turned the clock back to a
time when it was okay for the providers of services, whether it
is a hotel or motel or restaurant, a hospital, an adoption
agency to discriminate against the people who are served?
Ms. Warbelow. Not only is this dangerous for LGBTQ people,
it is also dangerous for people of faith. There are many
disfavored religious minorities within this country, and it is
terrifying to think that we would undermine our longstanding
civil rights laws to allow for discrimination against people of
faith as they operate through daily life. That is why those
nondiscrimination laws that apply equally to all protected
characteristics exist.
Mr. Raskin. All right. The--I think Mr. Hice began by
stating something which I found very optimistic and promising.
He said the notion that the Trump administration is somehow
attacking the LGBT community is wrong. The United States
continues to be a world leader in guaranteeing the civil rights
of all including the LGBT community.
Under President Trump the Federal Government has sought to
treat all Americans, gay or straight, religious or
nonreligious, fairly and justly. I would like that to be true.
Is that true?
Reverend Sloan, let me come to you.
Reverend Sloan. No, that is not true.
Mr. Raskin. Well, can you just explain why?
Reverend Sloan. We have seen our rights continue to be
eroded under this administration. It takes different forms. But
relative to religious liberty, you know, I am--I am one of
those rare clergy I don't like to talk in front of people. I
get nervous, and I am not a lawyer.
But I have always believed, and I have always been taught
that your right to swing your fist stops at somebody else's
nose. And what we have seen under this administration is that--
is that we are hitting, and it is hurting people and, in
particular, it is hurting people who are isolated
geographically and it is hurting people who are isolated by
poverty.
Mr. Raskin. OK. I will just close with the thought that if
you read James Madison's beautiful ``Memorial and
Remonstrance'' against religious taxation in Virginia, the
argument he made was that we want so much religious liberty in
America that the government would not interfere in anybody's
worship, anybody's relationship between himself or herself and
God--that that is what the heart of religious liberty is.
And to transmogrify it into the right to discriminate
against other people in the provision of essential services
strikes me as a deformation not only of equal protection but of
religious freedom as well.
With that, I am going to recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Roy, for his five minutes of questions.
Mr. Roy. I thank the chair.
I would like to start with a couple quick questions. Mr.
Sasser, I only have five minutes so let us try to move through
a couple of them quickly.
But on this point that the--my friend from Maryland there
has raised, my recollection, right, was that the Civil Rights
Act, for example, is very careful in the way Congress talked
about it in terms of--or structured it, I should say, not
talked about it--in terms of enumerating the businesses it
would cover, right, in motels, restaurants, places that serve
food and so forth in the stream of commerce.
Can you talk a little bit about what the gentleman from
Maryland just talked about in the context of our current
conversation with respect to public accommodation and then
protecting religious liberty, for example, for cake bakers or
florists and others where these issues arise?
Mr. Sasser. Sure. Well, actually the Congress led the way
in the late 19th century in passing the Civil Rights Act. It
was the Supreme Court that overturned it and I believe
erroneously, which set back civil rights many, many decades.
But to the point with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it,
obviously, has a very--it is long, but it is a limited list of
various institutions that are covered by that.
But one of the things that even--that has gone further is
some states have passed various accommodation laws that have
gone further than what Congress has passed, and those states
are subject to the Constitution and, for example, for the cake
bakers like Masterpiece Cakes the state of Colorado overstepped
its bounds--its constitutional bounds--in enforcing its
accommodation laws against Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakes
and the Supreme Court ruled that in a 5-4 decision that that
was a violation of the free exercise clause.
Mr. Roy. Thank you for that, and I think that is an
important point for us to be contemplating as we are talking
about this and, you know, I understand my friend from Maryland
is talking about the balance there and where the line--you
know, to use the analogy that where the--somebody's fist stops
at somebody's nose.
But I think this is really important, right, because we
have got individuals who, according to their religious faith,
find it objectionable to bake a cake, deliver flowers,
whatever, and we want to make sure we are protecting religious
liberty and ensuring that that is covered.
Let me switch gears for just a quick second here. Mr.
Sasser, I think you are probably aware of Mr. Russ Vought. He
is the director of the Office of Management of Budget and he
had a rather contentious hearing over in the Senate.
And there is a notable senator who may or may not be
engaged in the current Democratic Presidential nomination
process who berated Mr. Vought for comments he made about his
views on his Christian faith.
He had been a--he is an alumnus of Wheaton College and he
had expressed in his private capacity prior to being nominated
his beliefs in his Christian faith and expressed those publicly
and, yet, Mr. Sanders sought to block his nomination and,
importantly, I think put forth a religious test, essentially,
and he said that Mr. Vought is, quote, ``really not someone who
this country is supposed to be about.''
To your limited knowledge of those facts, can you comment
about whether religious tests are appropriate and whether Mr.
Sanders was appropriate in that attack?
Mr. Sasser. Well, the Constitution--the original
Constitution, not just in the Bill of Rights--the original
Constitution prohibited religious tests for public office very
specifically because we are not going to discriminate against
people because of their faith or if they don't happen to share
the faith of someone else or in certain beliefs. Reverend Sloan
and I, we may have different religious beliefs and we should
not exclude each other, obviously, from public service.
Mr. Roy. I appreciate that. I agree. You and I worked
together before. I am proud of you being a Texan and what you
do in protecting First Amendment rights and religious liberty.
We worked together, as I recall, in a hearing, gosh,
probably 14 or 15 years ago when I was in the Constitution
Subcommittee with John Cornyn on religious liberty and we
brought forward a host of examples of religious persecution
across all faiths.
If I recall correctly, we had a young lady who was quite
delightful that we brought in from Oklahoma who was persecuted,
basically, for wearing her hijab, and she came in and was a
witness in our hearing and we made sure to highlight religious
persecution in all respects across the Nation.
I was wondering if you might, for the benefit of the
committee--and I will turn it over and yield back my time and
ask you a question. Can you provide some real-life examples of
individual religious liberty being infringed upon at the
expense, you know, of another and others, and can you just go
through some of the examples you guys have dealt with at First
Liberty?
Mr. Sasser. Well, sure. One of the nearest and dearest to
our heart and one that we are working on very much so are the
Jewish synagogues that are just of New York City, and, you
know, just in the neighboring town of Airmont, New York, just
neighboring Monsey where they had the machete attack in one of
the house synagogues there.
Those communities are extremely hostile to the Orthodox
Jewish community, and if you would see some of their campaign
ads and some of the other things that they do, it is despicable
that this is what is going on in this Nation.
It is a difficult fight and it is a fight that the
Department of Justice has been waging in that area for almost
20 years and we still have not been able to eradicate the anti-
Orthodox Jewish community discrimination that is going on in
that community.
Religious discrimination is alive and well in this Nation
and it takes vigilance to fight it.
Mr. Raskin. All right. The gentleman's time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Roy.
Now the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, is
recognized for his five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I think that we are all talking about the
coronavirus right now as a huge contagion. I think that
discrimination is a contagious disease and I think that the
more that the Trump administration justifies discrimination, I
think the more that discrimination spreads and it hurts a lot
of people.
On May 4, 2017, in the White House Rose Garden, President
Trump called the United States a, quote, ``nation of faith''
and a, quote, ``nation of tolerance.'' But I am concerned that
his words that day did not reflect his actions.
On that day, President Trump signed an executive order
supposedly promoting free speech and religious liberty.
Ms. Warbelow, before this executive order was signed,
LGBTQ+ activists expressed concerns that it could lead to
discriminatory policies across the Federal Government. Isn't
that right?
Ms. Warbelow. A leaked version of the original executive
order outlined myriad ways in which the Trump administration
intended to discriminate against LGBTQ people, and when the
final executive order was signed it directed the Department of
Justice to go agency by agency to implement unfounded
interpretations of Supreme Court case law privileging religious
viewpoints over the rights of LGBTQ people, women, people with
disabilities, and, importantly, people of minority faiths.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Can you give us a couple examples of
that?
Ms. Warbelow. So, you know, one of the things that we have
been talking about is discrimination on the basis of religion
by religiously affiliated adoption and foster care agencies.
The Department of Health and Human Services gave a waiver
to the state of South Carolina to allow for discrimination by
an agency that is a conservative Christian agency that has
discriminated not only against LGBTQ people but the waiver was
specifically given to allow that agency to discriminate against
Jewish people and against Catholic people. And this is an
agency that receives 90 percent of the funding available to
provide foster and adoption care within the state.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, this is deeply concerning. You
know, as a member of a racial, religious, and ethnic minority,
I am deeply concerned when anybody is allowed to discriminate
on the basis of what you said is happening.
You know, Mr. Sasser, my name is Raja Krishnamoorthi. In a
prior hearing I was called Roger Christian Murphy and, in fact,
the other day Huff Post called me Ro Khanna, and Ro Khanna was
called Raja Krishnamoorthi.
I prefer to go by Raja Krishnamoorthi. You can call me Raja
or you can call me Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I presume you are Mr.
Sasser. Is that right?
Mr. Sasser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And I presume that you would like me to
call you Mr. Sasser, not Ms. Sasser. Is that right?
Mr. Sasser. Whatever floats your boat.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think
it is an attack on religious liberty to refer to someone by the
pronouns they prefer if that person happens to be transgender?
Mr. Sasser. I know that just in my personal practice if
somebody wanted me to call them something, I would call them
that. I think most people are that way.
You know, I think that there may be some religious
institutions that have institutional reasons why they want to
make sure that they adhere to their faith in some way that
requires them to be very specific and I think there is room for
that in our country, too. I think the way the----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Hold on. Let me stop you there. You
think there is room in our country for a religious organization
or a religious figure to refer to someone by a pronoun or
gender that is not consistent with the pronoun or gender that
they prefer?
Mr. Sasser. Well, if the alternative is that the government
is going to by force make somebody use speech that they find
religiously objectionable, that the government by force will
make them do that, I don't think that there is room for a
totalitarian move to have government force.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I am sorry. You think that calling
someone by a certain pronoun that they prefer would be a
totalitarian move on our part?
Mr. Sasser. No. That is not what I said at all. That is not
what I said.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. That is exactly what you said.
Mr. Sasser. No, it is not what I said at all.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. That is exactly what you just said.
Mr. Sasser. I said that I would call somebody whatever they
wanted, and I think most decent people would. But I also do
believe that to have the government show up and try to force
me----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Is that an attack on your religious
liberty to ask you to refer to someone by the pronoun they
prefer?
Mr. Sasser. Well, the alternative is that we have the
government forcing people to engage in speech with which they
have a religious objection. I don't know if everyone wants to
go down that road.
If the government can force someone to say something that
they have a disagreement with, a deep religious disagreement
with--forced speech--I mean, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with
that in West Virginia v. Barnette in 1943 during the height of
World War II when everybody was trying to be as patriotic as
possible, and West Virginia wanted to make little third graders
stand up and say the Pledge of Allegiance. What is more
American than that?
But they had a religious objection to that forced speech
and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 said, we are not going to
force people to speak against their religious beliefs.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. But you compare--you compare calling
someone by a gender pronoun that they believe to be
inconsistent with their identity similar to forcing someone to
engage in political speech that they disagree with. Is that
what you are maintaining today? That is political speech.
Mr. Sasser. What I am saying is is that it is free speech
and it was enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, free speech is calling people all
kinds of slurs but that is something that we prohibit.
Discrimination is something that we prohibit, and it is
prohibited by the law. I would respectfully submit that you
should also subscribe to that principle.
Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired
and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is now
recognized for his five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Grothman. Sure. How long have you been dealing in this
area of law, Mr. Sasser?
Mr. Sasser. I have been practicing in this area of the law
for almost 18 years.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Have you seen any change over time in the
attitude of our society? Obviously, we have freedom of religion
in this country. We are not supposed to favor one over the
other.
But I think, largely, this hearing is about whether we are
able to impose one's either nonreligion or type of religion
over somebody else's religion. And have you seen an increase of
intolerance toward what I will call traditional religions in
the last 18 years in this country?
Mr. Sasser. Well, I think that we have always struggled as
a nation with religious liberty trying to make sure that we
strike the appropriate balances.
We haven't always done it perfectly. There has been lots of
cases at the Supreme Court over the years. The Jehovah's
Witnesses had to fight. The Amish had to fight. There has been
lots of different battles that have gone on.
What I think is going on now is that for whatever reason
RFRA--the Religious Freedom Restoration Act--was passed in the
Senate 97 to 0. It was a voice vote in the House of
Representatives.
It was sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, and President
Clinton had some really nice things to say in the Rose Garden
when he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That
bipartisan universal appreciation for religious liberty has
collapsed.
Mr. Grothman. Right. Twenty-seven years ago, could you ever
imagine that bill coming to the floor, say, to this House right
now? Maybe you don't follow the House right now. But would it
ever--can you imagine coming to the floors--Ted Kennedy and
Bill Clinton's bill?
Mr. Sasser. I would hope that we are still the Nation that
respects religious liberty as one of our founding principles
and I think that a law that was passed by a voice vote in the
House and 97 to 0 in the Senate that we had bipartisan support
for people all across different political spectrums I would
hope that we could achieve that once again.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Talk about the establishment clause. Do
you think it is accurate to say the establishment clause
prohibits the government from favoring nonreligion over
religion?
Mr. Sasser. Well, the establishment clause--do you want to
talk about the original meaning of the establishment clause?
Mr. Grothman. Sure.
Mr. Sasser. I mean, the original meaning of the
establishment clause, as Justice Joseph Story pointed out in
his--in his commentaries on the Constitution--I believe it was
around 1833. He was a former chief justice of the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Actually, [it] had a very limited view of the establishment
clause as only applying, obviously, to Congress as it says, but
only as to what we would call the establishment of religion as
such--that the government would set up and support a particular
religion.
It wouldn't be for another century and a half that the
court would evolve that understanding into some of the
establishment clause thinking that we see today.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Are you familiar with Hosanna-Tabor
Evangelical Lutheran Church v. the EEOC?
Mr. Sasser. Yes, I am very familiar with that. It was a
unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. Grothman. Well, what scares me about the future of the
country it was a unanimous decision. But, first of all, do you
want to just briefly in 15 seconds describe to the crowd what
the decision says?
Mr. Sasser. Well, the decision essentially says that it is
not the government's business to determine who is a minister or
who is not for a religious organization and that they cannot
pass laws that would impose burdens on any--of any kind on the
employment of people that a religious organization determines
to be a minister.
Mr. Grothman. It was unanimous, huh?
Mr. Sasser. Yes, it was.
Mr. Grothman. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that crowd?
Mr. Sasser. Of course.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Now, something that is not, of course,
what happened in that decision on the appellate court level?
Mr. Sasser. Well, it had gone the other way.
Mr. Grothman. Three to nothing. Three to nothing. So, kind
of scary in the future that there are a lot of people who
graduated from our law schools who, apparently, don't get what
the Supreme Court got, right?
I will--earlier this year, the Trump administration issued
nine rules aimed at protecting religious organizations from
unfair and unequal treatment by the government. How will these
proposed rules protect constitutionally protected religious
liberty?
Mr. Sasser. Well, I think the most important function of
the executive branch is to conform the regulations to Congress
and to existing law and clearly established.
Mr. Grothman. I think I can give you one more question
because we are limited to five minutes and I am sorry to cut
you off.
A lot has been said here about freedom for religious
institutions, freedoms I have once I step across the--step in
the doorway of a synagogue or a church. Do you think those
religious freedoms should disappear just because I don't work
for a church or I am not in a church?
Mr. Sasser. No, and neither did our Founding Fathers. That
is why they use the word free exercise because the word
exercise means doing things.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Grothman.
Just one quick postscript to what you were saying about the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Of course, the Supreme Court
struck it down.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, arguing and holding that
the free exercise clause does not excuse anyone from complying
with neutral universally applicable laws. I just thought we
needed to get that in there.
Mr. Connolly, you are recognized now for five minutes--the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Did you say Justice Scalia wrote that?
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. My, my.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connolly. Reverend Sloan, you are with Union
Theological Seminary. Is that correct?
Reverend Sloan. It is, yes.
Mr. Connolly. So, I assume from that title you have got
something to do with, I don't know, religious matters.
Reverend Sloan. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And, you know, what we have been hearing
here, my friends on the other side of the aisle, is what I
consider to be this false dichotomy.
To propound rights for American citizens who happen to have
a different sexual orientation is directly in conflict with my
religious freedom and when I weigh that dichotomy I got to come
down on religious freedom because otherwise it is an assault on
my religious freedom.
From the perspective of where you work and your own
religious orientation, what is your view about that? Is
religion being put under assault if we assert LGBTQ rights?
Reverend Sloan. No, absolutely not. So, Union Theological
is not only interdenominational, it is also interfaith. So, the
work that Mr. Sasser does is very important, and we would be
fully in support of that.
Yet, again, you know, we are just--we are making it more
difficult than it needs to be. Of course, you get to practice
your religion and you should, until that religion is used to
discriminate and that is exactly what is happening with LGBTQ
people.
Mr. Connolly. So, just traveling down history a little bit,
do you think religion was used to justify slavery?
Reverend Sloan. It absolutely was, yes.
Mr. Connolly. Absolutely was. And didn't some denominations
actually break along the lines of North-South over that very
issue, even though those were denominations? They were
religious denominations.
Reverend Sloan. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And did not those divisions, racial
divisions, last for a very long time even after the Civil War?
Reverend Sloan. Yes, and continue to do harm.
Mr. Connolly. And were Biblical justifications or religious
justifications used to also justify racial discrimination and
segregation during the hundred-year Jim Crow period?
Reverend Sloan. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. So, we have a long history of people invoking
religion for their own political purposes, one might say.
Reverend Sloan. Yes. So, you used the word use, but I would
say it is abused. It is an abuse of Scripture, yes.
Mr. Connolly. Abused. Even more accurate. OK.
Ms. Warbelow, HRC exists to advocate for and promote the
rights of LGBTQ individuals in America. Is that correct?
Ms. Warbelow. That is correct, including LGBTQ people of
faith.
Mr. Connolly. Including LGBTQ people of faith. That is
right.
The administration has, it seems, consciously rolled back
protections for LGBTQ individuals in America. Attorney General
Jeff Sessions, using religious liberty as a rationale to
undermine protections that already were on the books or existed
through executive orders for such individuals. Is that correct?
Ms. Warbelow. That is correct. The attorney general has
misused religious liberty in order to justify a widespread
attack on LGBTQ people, erasing us from everything from
websites to laws.
Mr. Connolly. We have seen that across the board in terms
of transgender rights advocacy, the Federal Government stepping
in to protect. Now, we heard a little bit about, you know, the
heavy hand of the Federal Government--tyrannical, I think, was
the word maybe used.
I am going to ask you to go down the road of history just a
little bit. Do you think--just speculate with me--that if the
Federal Government hadn't intervened that civil rights and
voting rights would have progressed nonetheless in America?
Ms. Warbelow. Potentially, but it would have been a long
slow road to hoe.
Mr. Connolly. Well, Jim Crow was a hundred years. People
were still being murdered for trying to exercise their right to
vote in 1964 and 1965 and, of course, we still see the vestiges
of hate in other examples, most recently in Charleston--the
tragedy in Charleston.
But it is hard for me to imagine without the Federal
intervention that things would have changed.
Ms. Warbelow. People are still being purged from voter
rolls today because of their race.
Mr. Connolly. Right. So, sometimes that role of the Federal
Government is about protecting the rights of everybody, even if
that means an intrusive presence for those who are perpetrating
discrimination for their own benefit. Is that correct?
Ms. Warbelow. Look, it should be the role of government to
use its powers judiciously. But it is often necessary for
Congress to ensure that everyone has a fair chance in this
country.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you. I thank the chair.
Mr. Raskin. The gentleman yields back. Thank you very much.
Let us see. OK.
Then the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is recognized
for her five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to be clear that, you know, one of the things that
is frustrating is the administration's attack on LGBTQ+
communities started long before the recent attempts to expand
religious exemptions.
I think on day one--literally, day one of this presidency--
all mentions of LGBTQ+ rights were deleted from the White House
website instantly.
Religious liberty--I am going to put it in quotation--is
simply this administration's latest excuse to continue its
painful oppression of other people, including our LGBTQ
neighbors.
This type of consistent state-sanctioned discrimination has
a detrimental effect on so many of our neighbors across the
country, including in my home state of Michigan.
In May 2019, two gay men, Mr. Davis and Mr. Blancher, and
one transgender woman, Paris Cameron, were murdered in an anti-
LGBTQ hate crime in Detroit. And in this case, it wasn't really
isolated, according to Human Rights Campaign. Ms. Cameron was
one of the latest 22 transgender people murdered in 2019 alone,
most of them who were women of color.
Ms. Warbelow, would you agree with the American Medical
Association's assessment that we face an epidemic of violence
for trans women of color?
Ms. Warbelow. Absolutely. The fact that trans women are
being murdered on our streets, particularly trans women of
color, is terrifying and it really underscores the way and
which the rhetoric in our country has been ramped up to justify
violence against people who are unpopular. This is a disturbing
trend that has to stop.
Ms. Tlaib. You know, violence in its nature is fueled by
systemic issues like racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia.
But there is a role for the Federal Government to play.
The Federal Government can act to underscore the dignity
and worth of transgender people. The Federal Government can
provide legal protections for transgender individuals when they
encounter discrimination in their workplaces or in their
schools.
The Federal Government can prosecute hate crimes. It can
create better reporting systems. It can train law enforcement
on safeguarding transgender and gender nonconforming people
from violence.
Ms. Warbelow, in your opinion, do robust legal protections
for transgender people matter as we seek to combat violence
against transgender neighbors across the country?
Ms. Warbelow. The government, as you mentioned, needs to
take a robust comprehensive approach to ending violence against
the LGBTQ community, particularly transgender people.
No one single law or enforcement is enough, and even when
the laws are on the books, we have to have an administration
who is willing to enforce those laws and take seriously the
day-to-day experiences of our neighbors and our siblings.
Ms. Tlaib. And Mr.--Reverend Sloan, do you agree?
Reverend Sloan. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. Mr. Olivares?
Mr. Olivares. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Tlaib. Mr. Minton?
Mr. Minton. Absolutely. Absolutely. And thank you for
recognizing our transgender siblings, especially our
transgender siblings of color who are being murdered on the
street.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. You know, and I would ask my colleagues,
especially Members of Congress, before you make decisions about
people sit down with them and actually talk to them. I don't
want to cry because I do this all the time to myself.
But, you know, when you actually look at a person as a
fellow human being and when sitting at a press conference as a
mother--with a mother, another mother--that lost her child just
because she was transgender, it was--it is very painful.
Like, talk to them as fellow human beings. They are people
and it is really frustrating, especially those that come from a
place of faith, that they could just take away somebody's human
dignity and say that they are less than, that they are
disposable.
Just watching this mother say, but she was the kindest
woman ever and all she wanted to be was free, free to express
herself, free to be whatever she wanted to be. But that is what
our country is supposed to be about, right?
If I want to be a, you know, unapologetic Muslim
Palestinian woman who wants to speak up about other people's
oppression I should be able to do that and not be labeled as
some sort of, you know, person that is somehow less American
because I speak up for other people's rights or just because of
my identity, and trying to use that and fuel that kind of
discrimination.
So, I just don't feel like anybody in our country should
live in fear of being who they are and we must do more to
uplift these issues.
But I always tell people, especially my neighbors who come
all throughout Thirteenth District strong to town hall saying,
Rashida, can we really talk about, like, transgender people--I
don't want my kids to do that.
I looked at them and I said, have you ever met a trans--
have you ever met a trans person. Like, have you ever talked to
somebody in the LGBTQ community? Many of them have not. They
haven't encountered--some of them-- I tell them, you probably
don't even know.
Just like many of my colleagues probably have never served
with a Muslim woman every before. I mean, they are probably in
shock right now. But, you know, they are experiencing it for
their first time.
I hope they see the passion or the thing because of my
family's own oppression, my family's experience of being
othered, of living in fear of who they are.
So, I just thank you all for your leadership. But I think
we need to be truthful and honest with ourselves of who we are
as really--if we are really going to be this country that we
are about everyone truly being free, completely and utterly,
and not using faith or anything like that to infuse fear, which
later infuses violence.
So, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Ms. Tlaib.
The gentlewoman from New Mexico, Ms. Haaland, is now
recognized for her five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you all so much
for being here today.
There are more than 400,000 children in foster care across
the country--400,000 children hoping to find a family to call
home and love them unconditionally.
This administration is trying to make it more difficult for
these children to find homes and for LGBTQ couples to adopt by
supporting discrimination.
And on Monday the Supreme Court announced that it would
take up a court case involving foster care to determine if
states may act against discrimination or if they have to fund
organizations determined to keep discriminating against the
LGBTQ community.
My daughter is queer. Every official involved in making
these choices should have to look her in the eye and explain
why her life should have been difficult if she were in foster
care and why she should be discriminated against if she wants
to give a child a home.
Last year, I had the privilege of meeting Daryle Conquering
Bear, an enrolled member of the Ogallala Lakota Sioux tribe and
foster youth alumni. He is also two spirit. When he came out to
his foster parents, they kicked him out. After that experience,
he went back into the closet until last year.
Chairwoman Maloney, I have Daryle--Chairman Raskin, I have
Daryle Conquering Bear's testimony in support of the Every
Child Deserves a Family Act and experience in foster care
system and I would like to submit that for the record.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Ms. Haaland. Mr. Olivares, thank you for being here today.
You and Daryle both had to deal with injustice in foster care
and I would like to take a few minutes to ask you more about
you and your experience.
You mentioned in your testimony that you spent five years
in the Texas foster care system starting at the age of 13. What
was it like having to navigate the foster care system as you
were just become a teenager and figuring out who you are,
including your sexuality?
Mr. Olivares. Thank you. It was very difficult. It was
scary. It was very lonely. As I mentioned in my testimony, I
was placed 180 miles away from my home city and it was me and
my brother.
My brother was a year and a half younger than I was and so
it was not--all those feelings but it was also trying to step
in and be that parent for him and balancing all that with the
sexuality battle that I was feeling inside it made it extremely
difficult, which is when the suppressing started.
Ms. Haaland. You mentioned the fears you felt when you went
to church with your foster family or when you were called
terrible slurs in your foster home. Were there times you
thought you would rather be homeless than live under those
conditions?
Mr. Olivares. Yes, absolutely. There were so many nights
that I stayed up crying because I was so miserable, and I
didn't know how to talk about it. I didn't know who to turn to.
I didn't feel comfortable or safe opening up to anybody and
I would go to school the next day and just be so tired and
sleepy just thinking would it be worth it just to step out of
this house and never come back.
Ms. Haaland. What difference could be more supportive homes
and families make for the next generation of LGBTQ youth in the
foster care system?
Mr. Olivares. I think the first step is just eliminating
discrimination, which the Every Child Deserves a Family Act
would do. Right now in my state, foster children are subjected
to conversion therapy, a discredited practice attempting to
change their sexual orientation or gender identity.
They say that discrimination, you know--you know, sometimes
doesn't exist but it is not just existing for foster parents or
adoption parents. It is for these young adults in foster care.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much for your bravery in coming
before the committee today. You are a powerful voice for
change, and we are fortunate to have you in this fight. So,
thank you very much.
I have a few more seconds. I would like to turn to Reverend
Sloan. A recent study found that as many as 30 percent of youth
in the foster care system identifies a member of the LGBTQ
community.
Another study found than half of LGBTQ youth surveyed had
at some point chosen to live on the street rather than in their
foster home placement because they felt safer there.
Reverend Sloan, why do LGBTQ youth disproportionately
experience homelessness and what dangers does homelessness pose
to LGBTQ youth?
Reverend Sloan. So, the reasons why LGBTQ people are more
likely to be homeless are--start very young. As they come in
touch with who they are and they come out, oftentimes they are
kicked out of their homes.
Then if you add to that the harm that is done in the child
welfare sector as it is to LGBTQ people, that further
contributes to that.
That cycle of poverty that starts young does not stop there
and it continues throughout LGBTQ people's experience. Up to a
third of people who are in LGBTQ need food assistance.
This is a cycle that starts young and that the current
systems to support getting out of it don't allow for and a lot
of times that is on the basis of religious discrimination.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you so much, and I yield, Chairman.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
And now the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, is
recognized for her five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Chairman.
I am experiencing this hearing and I am struggling whether
I respond or launch into this question as a legislator or from
the perspective of a woman of faith because I cannot--it is
very difficult to sit here and listen to arguments in the long
history of this country of using Scripture and weaponizing and
abusing Scripture to justify bigotry.
White supremacists have done it. Those who justified
slavery did it. Those who fought against integration did it,
and we are seeing it today.
Sometimes, especially in this body, I feel as though if
Christ himself walked through these doors and said what he said
thousands of years ago, that we should love our neighbor and
our enemy, that we should welcome the stranger, fight for the
least of us, that it is easier for a rich man--it is easier for
a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man
to get into a kingdom of Heaven, he would be maligned as a
radical and rejected from these doors.
I know, and it is part of my faith, that all people are
holy, and all people are sacred, unconditionally, and that is
what makes faith sometimes--that is what prompts us to
transform because it is unconditional.
It is not about that it is up to us to love parts of
people. We love all people. There is nothing holy about
rejecting medical care of people, no matter who they are, on
the grounds of what their identity is.
There is nothing holy about turning someone away from a
hospital. There is nothing holy about rejecting a child from a
family.
There is nothing holy about writing discrimination into the
law and I am tired of communities being of faith being
weaponized and being mischaracterized because the only time
religious freedom is invoked is in the name of bigotry and
discrimination.
I am tired of it. My faith commands me to treat Mr. Minton
as holy because he is sacred. Because his life is sacred.
Because you are not to be denied anything that I am entitled
to. That we are equal in the eyes of the law and we are equal
in my faith in the eyes of the world.
So, I just have to get that out ahead of time because it is
deeply disturbing, not just what is happening here but what
this administration is advancing is the idea that religion and
faith is about exclusion.
It is not up to us. It is not up to us to deny medical
care. It is up to us to feed the hungry, to clothe the poor, to
protect children, and to love all people as ourselves.
Now, I want to take a moment to acknowledge a trans woman
from my district. I represent Rikers Island and I want to
acknowledge the life of Layleen Polanco, because Layleen was
being held on $500 bail at Rikers Island and she was put in
solitary confinement. She was trans and she was neglected
because of it.
Polanco's family claimed in a lawsuit that her daughter's
death on June 7th occurred as a result of personnel who failed
to provide her safe housing, adequate medical care, and proper
accommodation for her disabilities. She was 27 years old, and
her life was taken because of who she was.
There is nothing holy about that. Nothing.
Ms. Warbelow, the Human Rights Campaign has done a great
deal of work in the area particularly around trans women of
color and protections of trans people.
Is it correct that many transgender and gender
nonconforming people experience a mosaic of marginalization--
homelessness, poverty, unemployment, denial of medical
services, and abuse by law enforcement?
Ms. Warbelow. And when they experience all of those things
and they go to seek the critical benefits that the government
provides, they are turned away once again, humiliated once
again, and experience discrimination just for trying to
survive.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I am sorry. I believe my time has
expired.
Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank you,
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
Mr. Sarbanes is now recognized for his--oh, forgive me. You
are next, Mr. Sarbanes.
Ms. Pressley from Massachusetts is recognized for her five
minutes.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I would like to
just say I associate myself with the impassioned Christian
grace and words expressed by my colleague, Representative
Ocasio-Cortez, a moment ago.
Last year, I introduced the Ending PUSHOUT Act to reverse
the criminalization and marginalization of black and brown
LGBTQ+ youth and cisgender girls in our schools.
LGBTQ students, especially gender nonconforming students,
are up to three times more likely to experience harsh
disciplinary treatment even though gay and transgender youth
are often the victims rather than the aggressors in school
conflicts.
The Ending PUSHOUT Act, which I introduced, would invest in
the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, the sole
office charged with holding schools accountable if
discriminating against students.
Meanwhile, under the failed leadership of Education
Secretary Betsy DeVos, the OCR has abdicated this critically
important responsibility.
In February 2018, Secretary DeVos announced the OCR will no
longer investigate any, any transgender discrimination claims
in schools and according to the Center for American Progress,
LGBTQ-related complaints were nine times less likely to be
investigated under this administration than under the Obama
Administration.
Ms. Warbelow, what are some of the consequences of the
Trump administration's decisions not to protect one of our most
vulnerable student populations?
Ms. Warbelow. Not only will these students experience
discrimination in schools that goes unchecked, teachers feel
disempowered to address the discrimination they see in front of
them and sometimes teachers and administrators are actually
engaging in the discrimination themselves.
And when students face discrimination in education, they
are more likely to end up a part of the homeless population
that we were discussing previously. They are more likely to end
up in that cycle of poverty and to need the services that the
government so critically provides.
Yet, there too they experience discrimination because we
have not closed the gaps. We have not passed laws like the
Equality Act that are absolutely fundamental to ensuring
equality for all Americans in this country.
Ms. Pressley. And the data does support the fact that
elevated rates of PTSD among our LGBTQ children--trauma linked
to bullying, familial and religious rejection, higher rates of
homelessness--all lead to emotional distress, self-harm, and
suicidal behavior.
Ms. Warbelow, in what ways has this administration
undermined the ability for schools to respond to trauma in
LGBTQ students?
Ms. Warbelow. This administration has discouraged students
from seeking the appropriate care and support of school
districts. It has allowed school districts to turn a blind eye
and has encouraged school districts by rescinding critical
questions on data collection instruments from understanding
what the actual needs of the LGBTQ population are.
Ms. Pressley. A moment ago, Representative Ocasio-Cortez
brought into the room the tragic loss of life of a trans woman
in her district and I want to bring into this space the loss of
life of a--or, rather, a transgender man in my district who was
denied health care.
We know that discrimination against transgender individuals
is pervasive in health care. In my home state of Massachusetts,
Alexander Pangborn, a Hospice nurse and transgender man, was
denied medically necessary gender-affirming health care by his
employer. He works 40 hours a week for this company delivering
care to people in their twilight years and, yet, was denied
medically necessary care in return.
This administration is reversing protections based on
sexual orientation and gender identity in the Department of
Health and Human Services and under the ACA. This means that
people denied care who cannot afford a lawyer are denied
justice.
Mr. Minton, thank you for sharing your personal experience.
What threat is posed when transgender individuals are denied
gender-affirming care and lack of a pathway to justice?
Mr. Minton. I mean, the threat that is posed is anywhere
from the lasting scars that are in my life and in my heart to
death.
Ms. Pressley. This administration continues to abandon our
LGBTQ+ neighbors by removing protections and barricading
justice for the most vulnerable while funneling taxpayer
dollars into discriminatory organizations.
They think that by denying shelter and lifesaving medical
care by starving, expelling, and incarcerating LGBTQ people
they will just simply disappear, and this is abuse, plain and
simple, and we just can't stand for it.
Last August, our committee joined in a multi-committee
bicameral investigation to understand how a rule green lighting
this kind of anti-LGBT discrimination in health care was
developed as well as who was behind it.
Ms. Warbelow, could you explain how this refusal rule would
further entrench marginalization of the LGBTQ community?
Ms. Warbelow. By taking what is a statutory requirement and
expanding it out of control, the administration is encouraging
discrimination in a wide variety of health care situations
including access to PrEP treatment for HIV/AIDS, fertility care
treatment and access, and we know that hospitals are turning
away trans patients not only for transition-related care but
also for things like having a broken ankle.
We have heard of a home nurse that refused to bathe a gay
man because she believed that he was a sinner. She was his sole
caretaker in a medical context. I can only imagine what people
are doing to their trans patients.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Now, thank you, Mr. Sarbanes, for your patience. The
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Chairwoman Maloney and also the ranking member for holding this
important hearing.
First of all, I want to thank the witnesses. Thank you for
your courageous and thoughtful testimony and helping the
committee with its work.
I do want to repudiate this notion that has been floated
here today that people of faith in the LGBTQ community are
mutually exclusive. We have a huge population of LGBTQ+ members
of our society across this Nation that unabashedly celebrate
their faith and we have to acknowledge that.
I also hold a deeply held belief that the objective of our
society and of our government should be to create a nation
where every child born into this society should be valued and
protected and supported and loved whether that child is LGBTQ+
or straight and that that should be a national goal toward a
more perfect union. That is where we should be headed.
On January 16, President Trump announced that nine Federal
agencies would be proposing new rules that heighten the risks
that faith-based service providers might impose proscriptive
religious practices on those seeking taxpayer-funded services.
Those include Department of Justice, Homeland Security,
HHS, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, USAID, and the VA, and we are
still waiting for HUD to come forward with their regulations,
and these regulations impact preschool, foster care, disaster
recovery aid, substance abuse treatment, and much more.
And under those rules, faith-based providers will no longer
have to inform individuals that they are not going to be
required to participate in religious practices, they are not
required to inform individuals coming for services that there
is a secular alternative.
If they come to a religious hospital that institution is
not required to say, hey, there is a place down the street that
will also provide you services.
So, in my own district we had to deal with a few years ago
a suicide cluster. Fourteen young boys took their lives in
about 18 months, and I founded a residential drug rehab and
recovery home for adolescents because up until that point we
were co-locating children in adult facilities, and it did not
work out.
But, Reverend Sloan, from your testimony, you are dealing
with the same demographic, right? And so, tell me how this, in
your view--you are doing this on a regular basis in Chicago--
tell me how this affects those kids.
You know, because a lot of these kids are coming from homes
that there is no support there. They are detached. They have
got nothing. They are sort of just out there.
How does this unwillingness of the administration to
deliver these taxpayer-funded services in a way that is not
open to all? How is that affecting the kids that you are
seeing?
Reverend Sloan. So, discrimination based on religion is
wrong and it hurts in general. But when it comes to emergency
services it is life and death itself, most often. And so,
denying these kids or even adults who come for emergency
services, denying them on the basis of religious discrimination
is extremely serious.
If I could, I would also----
Mr. Lynch. Please go ahead. Go ahead.
Reverend Sloan.--I would also like to just kind of--you
mentioned that, you know, the idea of being LGBTQ and of being
religious are not mutually exclusive despite that perception,
and I just wanted to say really where that perception comes
from.
That comes from this small faction of religious people who
kick kids out of their homes and who, you know, build this
separation for some of us in the community between religion and
who they constitutionally are and that goes forward within the
faith communities themselves and then it, tragically, robs the
young person themselves of their spirituality.
Mr. Lynch. Thankfully, not every place in America is like
that. In my own lifetime I have seen wonderful progress and I
think we need to recognize that and keep pushing, keep pushing
for, as we say, a more perfect union.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. The gentleman's time has
expired.
And I come to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Sarbanes, recognized for five minutes for questioning.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to the panel today. Incredibly powerful and moving testimony.
So, important that we are having this hearing. I want to thank
you for joining us.
We have been talking about this refusal to care rule over
the course of the day, which seems to be using the guise or the
rationale or the pretext of religious liberty to target the
right of LGBTQ people to access health care without fear of
discrimination. Of course, it has other implications as well.
When the Department of Health and Human Services finalized
that rule last May we perceived, obviously, that it could
dramatically expand the ability of providers participating in
Federal health care programs to deny care to patients on
supposed religious or conscience grounds.
So, this committee joined in a multi-committee bicameral
investigation. We really kind of--it was an all-hands-on-deck
effort to understand how the rule got developed. We wanted to
get behind that--what were the motivations, what was the
process, who was behind it.
Six months later, HHS has not provided answers to the
committee's questions, has not produced the documents that we
requested. Instead, they just keep giving us publicly available
documents that don't add any perspective.
It is really hard to overstate the harm that this rule
could cause. Panelists have, I think, done an excellent job in
helping us appreciate that harm. When you look at things--
examples that have been touched on--a pharmacist who could
refuse to fill a prescription for the HIV prevention drug PrEP
for the person who is gay, a provider who could refuse to
perform or assist with gender reassignment surgery for a
patient, a hospital room scheduler who could refuse to assist a
patient because they are trans.
So far, fortunately, the rule has been blocked in the
court. But we cannot take anything for granted. You have given
a lot of testimony, a lot of specific testimony.
But Ms. Warbelow and maybe Reverend Sloan as well, step
back from me for a moment and just explain kind of in broad
ways, in broad terms, broad strokes the impact that this kind
of rule if it goes forward is going to have, almost the shock
impact, I would imagine.
Because we have been a lot of--this is the case with so
many issues before the Trump administration where we felt like
we were on a positive trajectory. We were making progress.
We were bending the arc of the moral universe more toward
justice and then wham, the Trump administration comes in and it
kind of stops all that in an instant and begins to reverse it.
So, if the two of you could speak to that in terms of your
perspective on that, but also, because I know I will then run
out of time and not be able to ask this next question, Mr.
Minton, I would like your perspective as well.
I always think about how humans, when we wake up in the
morning and we are slowly kind of fluttering into consciousness
and setting our coordinates for the day--where am I, who am I--
I think about children and young people coming into
consciousness. Am I warm? Is there heat in my home? Do I have
annoying hunger, or do I feel fed? Am I safe?
And so maybe, Mr. Minton, you can talk a little bit about
kind of what it does to your coordinates as you are wanting to
feel safe in the broader society to face the prospect of this
kind of rule coming at you.
So, I will give the three of you a chance to respond and
then I will be yielding back.
Ms. Warbelow. Even prior to this rule LGBTQ people
experienced discrimination in health care and were less likely
to seek the health care they need because of experiences like
rough handling by doctors and nurses, forced removal of
partners and loved ones from hospital and doctors' rooms,
intentional misgendering and harassment of patients.
With this new rule in place it encourages more of that bad
behavior and, importantly, it discourages LGBTQ patients from
seeking recourse when they experience that discrimination and
bad behavior.
It doesn't have to be this way. There are religiously
affiliated hospitals and doctors' offices who, in their faith
tradition, would never marry a same-sex couple, who would not
support a gender transition, frankly, who teach that you can't
achieve entrance into the kingdom of Heaven based on a
different belief and, yet, they ensure equal treatment of all
of their patients and that is the model that needs to be
followed nationwide.
Reverend Sloan. I would just add, because I want to cede to
Mr. Minton, but I would just add that, again, it is not simply
hospital care.
When you are getting down to the homeless population and to
lower incomes it is the full variety of emergency services and,
again, it is not simply just a matter of discrimination. It is
a matter of life and death.
Mr. Raskin. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you.
Oh, sorry.
Mr. Minton. Thank you. I am so scared. I am terrified. I am
terrified for myself and all of my community. I can't go to my
nearest emergency room. When my pharmacist accidentally
overdosed me, I and my life could have literally been in
jeopardy.
I had to travel miles further to go to an emergency room. I
have two little nieces and a nephew who are the apples of my
eye. If they turn out to be LGBTQ, I don't want them to be
turned away from a hospital just like I was.
I want America to get better. I don't want it to get worse.
I don't want our community members to be turned away. I don't
want them to be ushered away for care just like I was. You are
saying that the arc of history bends toward justice. I want us
to get back on track. So, I am terrified, and I thank you for
asking me how I feel.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired.
Now we come to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Porter,
who is recognized for five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Porter. Mr. Chair, I would like to enter into the
record the testimony of David Dixon from Rancho Santa
Margarita, a town in my district in Orange County.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection it is entered.
Ms. Porter. David Dixon and his husband were foster parents
while living in Georgia and were told on several occasions that
they were not receiving calls for placement because they were
a, quote, ``nontraditional family,'' quote.
Mr. Dixon and his husband were finally able to have
children placed with them. But then when they wanted to adopt
these foster youth, the foster care system dropped David and
his name from all the paperwork.
Only his husband was able to formally adopt the children.
He was no longer recognized as their parent and had to fight to
be added as a second parent, an experience that he describes
as, quote, ``humiliating and frightening,'' unquote.
Mr. Sloan, could you elaborate for me about how prospective
LGBTQ parents have faced unnecessary discrimination while
adopting children from religious organizations?
Reverend Sloan. Yes. Thank you for asking this question.
We hear this all the time. There are stories constantly of
applications to foster or to adopt being shuffled to the bottom
of the pile and just running into their peers from the classes
and all of their peers had--who were straight have kids and
they still don't.
Ms. Porter. Absolutely. I want to make sure the committee
is aware of data from the UCLA Law School showing that
significantly more LGBTQ parents are raising an adopted or
foster child compared to male and female couples--male-female
couples.
Assuming this trend continues, I have serious concerns that
we will have children who will not be adopted or fostered when
there are prospective loving parents who are ready and able to
raise them, and the reason that these kids will not be fostered
or adopted is because of discrimination under the protection of
the religious freedom rule.
Mr. Sloan, what do you think makes good characteristics in
an application for foster parents and do you have any concerns
that you would have for prospective parents who identify as
LGBTQ?
Reverend Sloan. No. Actually, LGBTQ parents and the
children of those--of those parents are shown consistently to
rank equal if not above in classic determinators like high
school graduation, college graduation, emotional stability.
So, I have zero concerns about LGBTQ people being able to
parent. I also--we are also sitting on a future Millennial--63
percent of Millennial LGBTQ people plan on forming families,
and so the pool for placements for children will grow and if we
have discrimination the 20,000 kids who age out every year will
not be finding homes.
Ms. Porter. And I just want to emphasize and get your
thoughts on how these religious freedom rules are creating an
economic issue.
So, I wonder if any of you have thoughts, starting with
you, Mr. Sloan, about how the--there is a real cost to
taxpayers, not to mention the very real human costs that come
because more children remain in foster care or adoptive
services because of the religious freedom rule.
Reverend Sloan. Yes. So, the costs are exponential and they
don't simply stop when a child ages out of the foster care or
the child service system.
Children who do not find placement and do not get adopted
are much more likely to become incarcerated or to live in
extreme poverty, remaining a tax--a burden on our system and at
the same time as they are the real victims.
Ms. Porter. Yes. I just want to hold up again for the
witnesses the picture of this amazing family that lives in my
district, and when I came into the hearing earlier this morning
I have the privilege to sit next to my colleague,
Representative Haaland, and we are both single mothers.
And so, language about broken families or a family being a
man and a woman--I remember I wrote to Deb, what does that mean
about our families that we are proudly raising.
I just want to say that this fight, while it is very much a
fight for the LGBTQ community, we also see a lot of the same
kind of language and same kind of hostility to those who may be
parenting alone.
I want you to know as the first single mother of young
children to be serving in the U.S. Congress that I am all in
for loving families, and I don't like labels like traditional
and nontraditional because, to me, the only family that matters
is a loving one.
Reverend Sloan. Believe me, we are all in with you as well.
Ms. Porter. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. All right. And on that lovely warm note, I am
going to start to bring things to a close here.
First, without objection, I am going to enter into the
record letters and statement from individuals and organizations
including the following: Queer Eye's Karamo Brown, Leslie
Michelle McMurray, numerous LGBTQ children and parents who have
been discriminated against in foster care and adoption who have
written us, Americans United, CenterLink, Family Equality,
GLSEN, Interfaith Alliance, the National Center for Lesbian
Rights, and Congressman Raul Grijalva, all of whom are standing
in solidarity with the LGBT community today.
Without objection, I will enter those.
Mr. Raskin. I want to thank all of our witnesses for their
terrific testimony today: Mr. Olivares, Mr. Minton, Ms.
Warbelow, Mr. Sasser, Reverend Sloan. We are very grateful to
all of you for coming and giving us your insight.
Without objection, all members will have five legislative
days within which to submit additional written questions for
the witnesses to the chair, which will be forwarded to you for
your response. I ask our witnesses to please respond as
promptly as you are able so we can complete the record.
I want to thank my friend, Mr. Meadows, for his
participation and patience today.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]