Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
“No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex or physical or mental disability. As used in this section, discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of civil or political rights because of sex includes, but is not limited to, discrimination, in intent or effect, based on pregnancy, including preventing, initiating, continuing or terminating a pregnancy; sexual orientation; gender identity and expression; and related health care.”
Such will read Article 21 of the State of Connecticut Constitution if a resolution under consideration is adopted. The purpose of the amending language (in bold face) would be to extend equal legal protection to people seeking abortions or identifying as a gender other than their biological sex.
You don’t need to be a constitutional lawyer to see the authors, perhaps intentionally, have set the stage for a battle over the practice of religion when it confronts the rights of women seeking abortions at any stage of gestation and people identifying as or transitioning to another sex.
Countless Connecticut citizens oppose abortion because it is anathema to their faith. For the same reason they also reject the idea that anyone can change his or her biological sex. For many in this state, religious rights and abortion/ transgender rights are antithetical; they both can’t be protected equally.
No doubt, SJ35 proponents will contend the faithful are free to worship anyway they please within the confines of their church, temple, or synagogue. But what happens when faith clashes with the abortion and transgender protections in the workplace?
Adoption of this language will set the stage for a protracted, dangerous, costly legal battle between those seeking protection for their religious beliefs and those claiming their rights to abortion and reproductive rights. It will happen. One side will win, the other will lose. We all should fear that, given today’s climate, the right to adhere to the tenets of one’s faith will succumb to the cacophony of vocal constituencies.
SJ35’s authors – Nick Gautier, Josh Elliott, Laurie Sweet, Jason Doucet, MD Rahman, and Steve Winter – are being hailed for their courage. Really? Five years ago, Connecticut saw one of its largest protests ever when the legislature voted to eliminate the religious exemption for childhood vaccines. Elliott was a key advocate for that vote. Childhood safety trumped religion. What will happen when religion squares off against these new-found constitutional rights?
Lawmakers in favor of this amendment should have the courage of their convictions. If they truly believe people seeking abortions or gender affirming care deserve constitutional protection regardless of their fellow citizens’ beliefs, then they should seek removal of the religious protection entirely. This is a political – not a judicial – question. Alas, courage and conviction are in short supply. They know to propose such radical language will doom their political careers. It’s a bridge these lawmakers will not cross. Instead, they’ll let the courts do their dirty work.
“Childhood safety trumped religion.“
No, a childish perception of childhood safety trumped a mature and grounded spiritual concern for a child's well-being.
Do you see how easy it is to fall into the Leftist gutter?
The balance of your essay rings entirely true.