So, That's How the Old Dominion University Terrorist Was Able to Obtain a...
Yes, This NYT Headline Is Real...and They Appear to Have a Muslim Terrorist...
We Got Some More Manpower Heading to the Middle East
CNN's Kaitlin Collins Set Up Scott Jennings Perfectly to Torch the Biden Administration
My Word, Ms. Spanberger, What Fresh Hell Is This Tweet?
Victory for President Trump’s DOGE – ACLJ Amicus Brief Affirmed
Did We Avoid Another Terrorist Attack This Week? This Arrest in Texas Makes...
Globalize the Intifada? Authorities in the Netherlands Are Investigating Fire at Synagogue
What Can We Do About Islam in America?
Does Retaliation Against the United States Mean We Shouldn't Wage War Against Our...
Pete Hegseth Blasts Reports That the United States Did Not Plan on Iran...
All Six American Crewman Aboard Refueling Aircraft That Crashed in Iraq Confirmed Dead
Ex-Top Gun Pilot Says The Threat of Iranian Sleeper Cells 'Is Not a...
Jury Convicts 9 Antifa Operatives in Texas Riot, Shooting at ICE Facility
Former Nevada County Commissioner Indicted in Alleged $500K COVID Relief Fraud
Tipsheet

CA Gov. Jerry Brown Vetoes Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act Which Had Religious Freedom Concerns

CA Gov. Jerry Brown Vetoes Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act Which Had Religious Freedom Concerns

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed the “reproductive health non-discrimination act” Sunday which would’ve prohibited employers from “taking any adverse action” against an employee for any “reproductive health” decision including “the use of any drug, device, or medical service.” Religious organizations have been speaking out against the legislation saying the bill was unnecessary and will threaten their ability to have codes of employee conduct in line with their religious beliefs.

Advertisement

Gov. Brown explained in his veto message that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act “has long banned such adverse actions, except for religious institutions.”

“I believe these types of claims should remain within the jurisdiction of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing,” he wrote.

The California Catholic Conference, one of the religious organizations that opposed the bill, made a similar argument when the measure passed the California Senate.

Their website points out that “existing law is very clear that an employer cannot discriminate based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. Such prohibitions are covered under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) of 1959 and have been enforced by the courts for decades. (A host of other state and federal laws also protect employees.)”

They said the NARAL-sponsored legislation was inventing “problems” that needed “solutions” and is "designed to complicate laws and increase the potential for costly litigation. (Which may be why labor attorneys support the bill.) It also specifically targets religious employers."

Advertisement

This is a major setback for NARAL, which has been heavily advocating for the bill’s passage. Amy Everitt, state director of NARAL Pro-Choice California argued in an op-ed last week that “no employer has the right to discriminate against workers for their decisions about if and when to have a family,” and the bill “would add critical protections to California law so that no employer can fire or otherwise punish workers for their private reproductive health decisions.”

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement