A member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is blasting officials in California and the District of Columbia for measures requiring employers to fund abortion, even though a related federal mandate was ruled illegal.
Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, who explained he was writing as "one member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and not on behalf of the commission as a whole," told officials their work is threatening the religious liberty of employers.
Kirsanow wrote to California officials concerning a rule from the Department of Managed Health Care that all employers, including churches, pay for elective abortions in their health insurance plans.
Kirsanow told Shelley Rouillard of the California agency that while the Supreme Court has ruled women have a "right" to abortion, "their fellow citizens will not be required to pay for their abortions."
TRENDING: Greatest Show on Earth: The Hur report hearing
"California is displaying ... contempt for religious liberty," Kirsanow wrote, referencing a state regulation that appears to violate the federal Weldon Amendment. The amendment prevents federal tax dollars from subsidizing a state that displays disregard for religious liberty by forcing health care entities to support abortion.
In short, he said, a state that violates religious liberties in this way forfeits federal aid and assistance.
"What California may not do is take billions of dollars in federal money while flouting a federal statute that forbids it from discriminating against individuals and organizations that do not wish to pay for or facilitate abortions."
Kirasnow said the issue is "less what California law requires but what federal law requires."
Kirsanow told Rouillard her statement that "health plans are required to cover legal abortions" is directly at odds with the Weldon Amendment.
He explained a Hasidic Jew is not required, under pain of government sanction, to offer bacon and ham in the company cafeteria for his employees' benefit.
"The devout Muslim is not required to provide alcoholic beverages for his employees," he continued. "But because of the Affordable Care Act, employers must provide health insurance for their employees or face sanctions from the federal government. And yet when an employer complies with the law and provides health insurance for their employees, California requires that all health plans cover elective abortions, thereby requiring employers to financially contribute to their employees' abortions."
He said it's "disingenuous to claim that the employer is not paying for the abortion when every health plan in the state of California must include elective abortion coverage."
"The employer is paying for the abortion. This is what the Weldon Amendment is intended to prevent," Kirsanow wrote.
"People may procure abortions, but they may not dragoon other people into engaging in what they consider morally objectionable behavior," he said.
Kirsanow's letter to the District of Columbia was to its council chairman, Peter Mendelson.
There, the abortion requirement is under consideration.
Kirsanow warned Mendelson that the proposal "threatens the religious liberty of employers in the district and I urge the council not to enact it."
"The District of Columbia is not a state and only exercises legislative authority delegated to it by Congress, which retains ultimate legislative control. … Therefore, it is subject to the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act," he wrote.
"Under Hobby Lobby, the federal government may not require religious objectors to cover contraceptives in their health plans, and must at least make the so-called 'accommodation' that is available to non-profit employers available to for-profit employers," he said.
He also said the D.C. plan was "absurd" because it forbids discrimination "on the basis of the individual's … reproductive health decision making.'"
"Under the proposed bill, a Catholic school could not fire a principal who had an elective abortion, announced this to the staff and students, and stated that she believed this decision was consistent with church teachings," he wrote. "Forcing a religious organization to continue to employ a person whose behavior is diametrically opposed to the organization's beliefs is unfair to that organization.
"This is the crux of the debate. Many members of society scorn traditional religious teachings regarding sexual behavior. This is their right. If a Microsoft employee publicly disparaged Microsoft products and promoted Apple products, Microsoft would be well within its rights to fire that employee on the spot. Yet the supporters of this bill want to deny religious organizations the same right that Microsoft has. And this is despite the fact that religious organizations have greater First Amendment protection because of the Religion Clauses than do secular organizations."
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is already pursuing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over California's plan and also has written D.C. officials, said the jurisdictions need to pay attention.
Commending Kirasnow, Senior Counsel Casey Mattox said no American "should be forced by the government to pay for other peoples' abortions."
Nationally, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that the government is limited when it demands that employers with religious objections to abortion pay for abortion-causing drugs. The decision was a huge loss for the Obamacare law and Barack Obama's pro-abortion agenda.
"Commissioner Kirsanow is right when he says that California and D.C. show 'contempt' and 'disregard' for religious freedom and conscience protections. We agree with the commissioner that these 'absurd' mandates are 'directly at odds' with federal law. D.C. and California should get themselves out of legal hot water and heed the words of Commissioner Kirsanow," Mattox said.
Kirsanow has proven to be vigilant regarding religious rights in America. WND reported when he wrote to Houston Mayor Annise Parker, a lesbian whose transgender "bathroom bill" is under legal challenge, urging her to back down from her subpoenas for copies of pastors "speeches."
Parker had demanded copies of the pastors' sermons, then changed the wording to reference "speeches," as part of her defense of the city ordinance. Amid outrage nationwide, the city later withdrew the subpoenas.
"These discovery requests threaten to have a chilling effect on religious and political speech that is protected by the First Amendment," wrote Kirsanow in a letter to the mayor.
WND broke the story of the city's response to a lawsuit by opponents of its Equal Rights Ordinance, passed in May, which allows "gender confused" people to use public facilities designated for the opposite sex. The opponents sued when their apparently successful petition drive to place the issue on the election ballot was tossed out.