Prepared Statement of Senator Grassley
Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on
“The Equality Act: LGBTQ Rights are Human Rights”
March 17, 2021
We’re
here today for a hearing on the Equality Act. The Equality Act, is meant to
stop discrimination against LGBTQ individuals.
Laws
to end hateful discrimination can be tailored to prevent injustices in various
contexts, like banking or housing, and thereby end those injustices. But
this bill is drafted in an entirely different way. It would fundamentally
manipulate how our society deals with sex, gender, and faith.
We
all agree that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless
of race, sex, gender-identity, religion, politics, you name it. We’re all human
beings and need to treat each other with kindness and compassion. I
question whether that is what this bill truly does. I strongly suspect that it
actually would dictate what women, girls, schools, churches, doctors, and
others must believe.
I
want to hear from experts and ordinary Americans with life experience. We need
to consider the perspectives of everyone who will be affected by this bill’s
sweeping language. We need to hear from physicians, whose professional judgment
may be overridden by the federal government if this bill is adopted.
We
need to hear from the occupants of homeless shelters, domestic violence
shelters, or correctional facilities in jurisdictions where anyone currently
can request a transfer based on gender identity. How would the Equality Act
deal with these sex-specific facilities that involve no hateful discrimination?
Still
other perspectives will help the Senate better understand what would happen to
certain basic services on which many Americans rely, if this Act is adopted. For
example, what will happen to Catholic or Methodist-affiliated hospitals, which
provide excellent services to the public, if this bill is enacted? In some
areas these facilities may be the only hospitals for miles around.
If
a faith-based organization has partnered with a community to provide social
services that would otherwise not exist, like a soup kitchen or an adoption
agency for hard-to-adopt special needs children, what happens to the people who
relied most heavily on those services? To whom do they turn?
We
need to have a genuinely bipartisan discussion about all these issues at
today’s hearing. Dismissing the challenges for women and girls, and the need to
protect religious freedom of conscience is no way to conduct a legislative
hearing.
I
want to share the story of one of the many people we should be keeping in mind
as we consider this legislation: the mother of a young student athlete, Chelsea
Mitchell. Chelsea is a star high school athlete in Connecticut. She told us
she’d like to retain the right to compete on equal footing against other
biological girls. Instead, this accomplished athlete has been forced to compete
against biological men.
Many
women and girls before her fought for the legal protections under Title IX,
which recognizes that sex-specific distinctions are appropriate in some
instances. As a father, a grandfather, and a husband, I have celebrated the
athletic successes of talented young women in my own family. So I also am
deeply concerned about this Act’s potential negative implications for all girls
and women in sports.
I
have a letter from Chelsea’s mom, and I’d like to request its inclusion in the
record, along with a number of other personal accounts. I hope that at today’s
hearing, voices like Chelsea’s will not be drowned out.
We’ll
hear from two witnesses for the minority. Ms. Shrier is a Yale-educated
attorney and an independent journalist who is here to tell us all the ways that
the Equality Act, far from treating Americans equally, will treat women and
girls unequally.
Of
course, the Title IX, or sports, issue speaks to just one problem this
bill potentially presents for women and girls. This is an important issue. But
it’s not the only issue. Ms. Shrier will explain the extreme and
far-reaching implications of this bill, which extend well beyond what this
hearing’s title suggests.
I
also look forward to hearing from Ms. Hasson, an attorney too, about the bill’s
unprecedented gutting of religious freedom protections. I hope that she
can help us understand how the Equality Act would override the protections we
enacted under the landmark Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was championed
in the other chamber by then Congressman Schumer, adopted with overwhelming
bipartisan support, and signed by President Clinton.
All
these issues merit careful analysis and extensive deliberation by our chamber. I
hope the concerns of women and girls, and of Americans of faith, will be
treated with inclusion and respect.
-30-