Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HAWLEY. It was sponsored in the House by then-Representative Schumer, and it was sponsored in this Chamber by Senator Edward Kennedy, and signed by President Bill Clinton into law, who, upon its signing, referred to religious liberty as our first freedom--those are his words--and he later pointed to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as one of his proudest accomplishments as President of the United States. Its cosponsors in this body included Senators Feinstein and Murray and Leahy. It was bipartisan is my point, to put it mildly.

Yet, today, this short time on the legislation that is offered on this floor now, that has not gone through the normal process of committee referral, debate on the floor but would be passed now, without any further discussion, guts key provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This is coming on the heels of a Supreme Court decision just 2 days ago that rewrites entire statutes in American law and in its 33 pages has nearly nothing to say about religious liberty or religious believers in this country. In fact, the only thing that the opinion does say of any consequence is this:

How [the courts'] . . . doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII [as rewritten by the court] are questions for future cases.

Now, I respect, very much, my colleagues across the aisle and their passion for this issue and their sincerity in this cause. I would only ask that the rights of well-meaning, sincere religious believers not be steamrolled and overlooked and shifted to the side as part of this process. We should be able to come together and stand together in the effort to see all people be given their constitutional rights and have their constitutional rights protected.

The effects of this bill is forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions, forcing doctors and nurses to perform abortions against their will, and forcing faith-based hospitals and clinics to perform abortions. H.R. 5, this bill here, would supersede existing restrictions on abortion, including funding, including health and safety standards, and other regulations that the States have passed.

It would force faith-based adoption agencies, some of which have been helping birth mothers find a safe and loving and permanent home for more than 100 years--it would force them out of business. It would coerce those who don't want to speak or who hold different beliefs into adopting this set of practices and principles and beliefs at work-- these doctors, these nurses, and these faith-based agencies.

I submit to you that this is not the way to find consensus in America. This shunting aside of the constitutional rights of sincere, well-meaning people of faith is not the way to proceed. This gutting of the Religious Freedom Act--and I say that because H.R. 5 explicitly carves out of the Religious Freedom Act, it explicitly carves out of its safety provisions all of those requirements I just mentioned. It rolls back the liberties afforded to people of faith--all faiths, by the way. One of the beauties of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is that it covers people of all faiths, any faith, and this bill would roll those protections back. It would do it without the chance for debate. It would do it outside of our normal procedures.

For those reasons, I express these reservations. Again, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their work on this issue, their passion for this cause, and their sincerity in what they believe. I hope that we might find a better way to go forward together, but I do not object.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source