Good intentions don?t always make good law.
Take this past week?s 236-173 vote, largely along party lines, in the House of Representatives to pass the so-called Equality Act, which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include ?sexual orientation and gender identity.?
The devil is in the details.
The bill was sponsored in the House by all but one Democrat ? including Nevada Reps. Dina Titus, Steven Horsford and Susie Lee. A companion bill in the Senate is sponsored by all but one Democrat ? including Nevada Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jackie Rosen.
Unfortunately, the bill would curtail free speech rights, religious freedoms and gender privacy for the vast majority of Americans.
All Democrats present voted for the bill, but only eight Republicans voted aye.
Titus, who represents Las Vegas, posted on Twitter, ?I joined my House colleagues today to pass the #Equality Act and ensure all Americans are treated equally under the law. It is unacceptable that the #LGBTQ community still faces discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.?
Lee posted to Twitter a video of herself on the steps of the Capitol saying she was about to go in and vote for the Equality Act.
Horsford, who represents part of Clark County and southern rural Nevada, boasted on Twitter, ?I?ve always fought to end discriminatory practices and promote equality, both in Nevada?s State Legislature and now in the House. Proud of today?s passage of the #EqualityAct.?
Rep. Mark Amodei, who represents Northern Nevada, agreed up to a point.
?No person should ever be discriminated against ? period. The diversity of backgrounds, culture, religion, and heritage are all part of the fabric that has shaped us into the great nation we are today,? Amodei wrote in an email. ?With that said, many of the bills House Democrats have made us vote on this Congress are merely feel-good messaging bills intended to add fuel to the political fire, while doing nothing to solve the issue at hand. The same rings true for the Equality Act, legislation that would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act by redefining ?sex? to include ?gender identity.??
Amodei explained that the bill would do significant damage to Title IX, which bars discrimination due to sex in any education program receiving federal funding. The congressman said passage of the bill would end gender specific sports as we know it. Already a number of biological males have won women?s sports championships by merely saying they are transgender.
?Additionally, it would force doctors to leave any religious, moral, or expert objections at the door, even if moving forward with a certain operation might not be in the patient?s best interest. While the goal of this bill is to protect all people, ironically, it will end up causing harm to some of the very issues it?s seeking to address,? Amodei wrote.
The Heritage Foundation warned, ?Medical professionals would be pressured to provide gender-affirming treatments like puberty blockers and hormones ? these are irreversible decisions that have not been shown to help mental health while creating a litany of permanent physical health problems. Subjecting children to such radical procedures is even more dubious when one considers that 80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria no longer feel distressed by their bodies after puberty.?
The bill also would take away a parent?s right to make health care decisions, such as allowing gender transition, and rights of people to exercise religious conscience.
The bill would force women to share bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, dormitories and shelters with men who ?identify? as women.
The bill may not be brought up for a vote in the Senate. Even if it were to pass there, the president is likely to veto it.
But voters should remember how our delegation stood on this matter come election time. ? TM