Featured Image
Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks to reporters at Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport after participating in a CNN town hall event on September 17, 2020.Drew Angerer/Getty Images

PETITION: Urge Catholic bishops to refuse Holy Communion to pro-abortion Biden! Sign the petition here.

September 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A November 2020 election producing Democrat majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U. S. Senate, with Joe Biden winning the presidency, will place Christian institutions which abide by the moral teachings of Moses and/or Jesus of Nazareth in peril.  In all likelihood, such religious institutions would incur severe penalties, at the very least loss of their tax exemption, unless they participate in, collaborate with, and support the homosexual agenda of the LGBTQ+ Human Rights Campaign, and the child-killing business of Planned Parenthood.  

These two radical organizations seek to make dissent from their radical agenda subject to possible criminal or civil penalties.   

A Democrat majority in Congress, already unanimously on record in favor of the so-called “Equality Act,” (H. R. 5), if assisted by Joe Biden in the White House, would ensure passage of this heinous act which adds “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI) to the federal, U.S. Civil Rights Act, thus treating “discrimination” against LGBTQ+ in the same manner as discrimination against racial minorities.  Vice-President Biden has promised to sign the Equality Act in his first 100 days as presidentDonald Trump said he opposed the Equality Act in March 2019.  The 2020 Democratic Platform pledges to enact the Equality Act (see page 42). 

Nearly every area of life in American will be affected by enactment of this benign-sounding law.   

The “Equality Act” would remove Church and Private School Tax Exemptions:  The Sexual Orientation and Gender (SOGI) provisions of the Equality Act will end the tax exemptions of Christian schools, churches, adoption agencies, food kitchens, homeless shelters, hospitals and any of its charitable services if they fail to conform to the LGBTQ+ and abortion agenda.   

Any church or private school which refused to hire persons who engage in sodomy and other same-sex behaviors, or who support abortion, even though it violates church teaching, will be held to be in violation of the Act.  Businesses run by Christians or those who believe in Natural law, who fail the implement the LGBTQ+/abortion agenda, will be fined, just as they would be for engaging in racial discrimination.  

Certain employment provisions, similar to elements of the Equality Act (H. R. 5) have already been held constitutional in the June 2020 Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton.   Justice Alito, in his dissent specifically cited the Equality Act:

“the Court has essentially taken H. R. 5’s provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation … the majority attempts  …  to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected.  …  I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”  

Those who insist the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty would trump the Equality Act, should consider that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), considered a “super statute” displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, was purposely excluded from the Equality Act so that RFRA could not be used to defend religious liberty claims.  Architects of the Equality Act want absolutely no religious rights or conscience protections left intact. 

Private or Christian schools which simply separate boys and girls in classrooms, or which refuse to enroll “transgendered” students, or which do not provide unisex locker rooms, showers, or changing areas, or churches which ordain male-only clergy would be compelled to change their policies under the Equality Act or lose their tax-exempt status, and possibly their ability to fulfill compulsory school attendance laws of the states.  

The federal “Equality Act” passed the Democrat-run House but stalled in the Republican-run Senate:  The Equality Act passed the House of Representatives on May 17, 2019.  Every Democrat who voted (228), voted yes.  Eight Republicans voted yes, and 173 Republicans voted no.  Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked by Senator Tammy Baldwin, who openly claims to be a Lesbian, to bring up the “Equality” Act for Senate consideration.  Her June 16, 2020 letter was signed by all 47 Senate Democrats as well as Republican Senator Collins of Maine.  Senator McConnell has so far declined to take up the “Equality Act.”  If Democrats win the Senate, you can be sure the “Equality Act” will pass the Senate and then be sent to the President for his signature.  Ultimately, the President will determine the fate of the Equality Act. 

Attempting to interfere with the exercise of conscience by Christians is exactly the intent of the Equality Act.  LGBTQ+ and pro-abortion leftists offer a choice of apostasy or persecution.  But we have another choice:  Oppose every candidate for Congress who supports the Equality Act and urge others to do the same.

Many churches and public policy organizations oppose the Equality Act:

The U.S. Catholic bishops opposed the Equality Act, in a March 20, 2019 letter to Congressmen:   

“The Equality Act puts …  at risk … the First Amendment freedoms of speech, association, conscience, and religious exercise. …” 

“… would remove women and girls from protected legal existence … the Act also fails to recognize the difference between the person — who has dignity and is entitled to recognition of it — and the actions of a person, which have ethical and social ramifications.”

“… would force … health care professionals to perform certain treatments and procedures associated with “gender transition” against their best medical or ethical judgment with respect to a patient.” 

“… contains no firm criteria for “gender identity,” which creates a path for potential emotional or physical harm against individuals, particularly in highly personal sex-segregated spaces such as restrooms and locker rooms.  …” 

“… would force … charitable services to either violate their principles or shut down …  shelters would be required to house vulnerable, sometimes traumatized, women with biological men. … foster care and adoption agencies would be expected to place children with same-sex partners, regardless of some birth mothers’ wishes and children’s best interests.”   

The Heritage Foundation stated the Equality Act’s SOGI provisions: 

“ … would empower the federal government to impose punishments on citizens who dissent from SOGI ideology, including medical professionals, parents, women and girls, businesses, and charities. … The bill would also take away the authority of local communities to determine who is allowed in single-sex facilities and whether biological men and boys are allowed to join women’s and girls’ sports teams.”

“ … parents will be unable to find therapeutic support for their gender dysphoric children that does not involve automatic affirmation and medical intervention. … the bill labels talk therapy to address gender dysphoria as a form of ‘discrimination.’  Professional counselors could be compelled to affirm same-sex marriage and transgender ideology in their work.”

“Creative professionals … who understand that humans are born male or female, and who believe that marriage means a union between one man and one woman, could be compelled to use their artistic gifts to create custom goods and services for events that violate their consciences, such as sex-change celebrations and same-sex marriages. …”

“… employees and employers could be compelled to use ‘preferred pronouns’ according to gender identity. … people would be forced by law to refer to a man as ‘she’ or a woman as ‘he,’ or a person as ‘they’ or ‘ze’ or ‘fae’ – or anything else someone desires.”

The Heritage Foundation also noted that Virginia public school French language teacher, Peter Vlaming, was fired even though he tried to accommodate a “transgender” student without violating his Christian faith. 

“He used the student’s new name to avoid upsetting the student, but refrained from using pronouns altogether in the student’s presence to avoid speaking against his belief that God created human beings male and female.  ‘I’m happy to avoid female pronouns not to offend because I’m not here to provoke … but I can’t refer to a female as a male, and a male as a female in good conscience and faith.’

The Family Research Council (FRC) notes that penalties for violating the Equality Act’s SOGI requirements would include hiring, 

“… someone ill-fitted for the business or specific position being offered. They could be mandated to pay back wages and benefits, attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, court costs, and compensatory and punitive damages.  Compensatory damages include paying for the out-of-pocket expenses … Punitive damages would be … For employers with 15-100 employees … $50,000. … 101-200 employees … $100,000 … 201-500 employees … $200,000 … more than 500 employees … $300,000.” (FRC, April, 2019, issue brief, IF19D01)

The National Right to Life Committee concludes that the Equality Act (H. R. 5) would mandate tax paid abortion, and eliminate individual and institutional conscience clauses that now allow medical personnel to refuse to perform or assist at abortions:

“… the Equality Act, contains language that could be construed to create a right to demand abortion from health care providers, and likely would place at risk the authority of the government to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions.  

“… when Congress has addressed discrimination based on sex, rules of construction have been added to prevent requiring funding of abortion or nullifying conscience laws. No such rule of construction is contained in H.R. 5.

“… the Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) by defining ‘sex’ to include ‘pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. … abortion is regarded as a related medical condition.

“ … a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions.

“…States administering Medicaid, could be could be considered an ‘establishment that provides health care,’ funding restrictions, including the Hyde Amendment, will be put in jeopardy.” 

All U.S. House amendments offered to “neuter” the Equality Act failed:  Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee proposed amendments to H. R. 5 that would have exempted biological females from being forced to compete against biological males in sports;  shield health care providers from being compelled to affirm an individual’s subjective sense of gender identity;  protect parents’ legal rights to direct the medical care of their children; and allow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act's conscience and religious liberty protections to apply, which would have allowed medical personnel to refuse involvement with abortion.  All of these amendments failed, clearly demonstrating that Equality Act proponents intend to impose the most extreme applications of the Act’s S OGI laws. 

Christians must register to vote, and vote in huge numbers this November to forestall a Democrat take-over of our Country and serious erosion, if not annihilation of our Religious Liberty:  If Christians fail to register to vote or fail to urge other like-minded persons to register and vote in the 2020 election, secular statists intent on imposing their LGBTQ+ agenda and expanding the killing of children waiting to be born, will be emboldened.  Truly if we love our neighbor we must not only pray, but also take direct action.  

Opponents of Christianity and Natural Law have already sued the Little Sisters of the Poor to force them to pay for contraception and abortion-causing drugs.  They hope to use taxes especially from those opposed to abortion to fully subsidize the killing of children waiting to be born.  They have sued to bankrupt business owners and shut down small businesses that choose to not celebrate sodomy marriage.  They are willing to deny childless heterosexual couples the ability to adopt or foster children unless they agree with the LGBTQ+ or pro-abortion agenda.  They seek to compel religious adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples, despite the existence of secular agencies already doing this.  Religious adoption agencies have already closed in some states, rather than be forced to violate their beliefs.  Religious hospitals are being sued to provide abortion and to perform “sex-change” surgeries, against their religious beliefs.

Christians, and all men of good will who believe in Natural Law, can prevent these and other bleak consequences by praying unceasingly and registering to vote and voting only for candidates for President, the U.S. House and U.S. Senate who will vote NO on the Equality Act.  Democrats overwhelmingly support the Equality Act while Republicans overwhelmingly oppose it. 

SOGI Laws require persecution of Christians:  In 2020 Virginia State legislator, Delegate Marcus Simon (D), spoke in favor of a state equivalent of the federal Equality Act: 

“I’ve actually looked at the [unlimited punitive damages] language … and I think it’s actually doing exactly what we intended for it to do.  If you don’t want to be subject to unlimited punitive damages, don’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

“I mean, this wasn’t meant to be a non-punitive bill. We created a private right of action for a reason. And so I think that the bill accomplishes exactly what it’s intended to do …”  

The Virginia Family Foundation noted that in 2018, the same Delegate Simon stated on another SOGI bill, (which failed because the Democrats were in the minority at that time): 

“There are certain sincerely held religious beliefs which are so discriminatory that we don't give them the protection of the law, and this is one of those cases.”

The Virginia Family Foundation commented:  SOGI bills are not,

“about commerce or fairness or tolerance. They’ve made it abundantly clear time and time again that they intend to punish and even destroy ANYONE – even churches, schools and religious nonprofits – who will not bow the knee to the god of sexual ‘freedom.’”

When the Democrats gained control of the Virginia state legislature, they also removed every pro-life legal protection and health regulation that had taken decades to pass under Republican majority leadership.   We can expect the same on the federal level if Democrats sweep the Congress and the Presidency.

Democrats seek permanent Majority status:  Even if President Trump were able to nominate and secure Supreme Court nominees equal to Moses and Mother Teresa, that alone would not protect us from the ravages of the Equality Act if the Democrats have a clean sweep of the House, the Senate and the Presidency!   

The Marxist leadership of the Democrat Party in Congress appears to be planning to expand the size of the Supreme Court up to 15 Justices and to add at least one or possibly two states (District of Columbia and possibly Puerto Rico) to the Union.  Hillary Clinton received 92.8% of the popular presidential vote in 2016 and won DC’s three Electoral College votes.  Donald Trump received 4.1% of the vote.  Adding these two “states” would increase Leftist Democrat power by adding up to four more Democrat Senate seats, enough to ensure control of future judicial nominations to lower courts and the Supreme Court.  The goal: to permanently hold majority power.  

If Democrats hold a majority in the House, win the Senate and win the White House in 2020, Leftist attorneys will become the Supreme Court judges who will interpret the laws that a Leftist Democrat Congress passes, starting with the Equality Act.

Democrats also intend to pack the Court:  Furious about President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Democrat politicians are discussing increasing the size of the U.S. Supreme Court to counter the effect of Trump’s presumably conservative nominee.  Again, if Democrats keep their majority in the House, win control of the Senate and Presidency, there will be no check on the Democrats’ plan to consolidate unrestrained power.

The Atlantic reports that court packing is supported by Senator Ed Markey (MA), House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (NY), former bartender Congresswoman Occasio-Cortez (NY), Senate Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) as well as Democrat Senators Kamala Harris, (Joe Biden’s running mate), Elizabeth Warren, Mazie Hirono, and Kirstin Gillibrand.  

The court packing plan has been discussed in recent years by Democrats, but Justice Ginsburg’s death has refocused interest on the proposal.   The Supreme Court is the only federal court required by the Constitution, and the number of Justices is left up to Congress, with the current number of nine Justices set in 1869 under President Grant. That number has not changed since then, although President Franklin Roosevelt did try to pack the Supreme Court with up to 15 Justices in order to gain judicial approval of his policies.

FDR’s 1936 election was a landslide, and 76 of the 96 members of the Senate were Democrats at the time he proposed his court packing plan.  Roosevelt sent his proposed “Court Reform bill” to Congress on February 5, 1937, to allow the President to add up to six Justices, for a total of 15 Justices on the Supreme Court.  He submitted the proposal because many of his New Deal laws had been deemed “unconstitutional” by the Court.  Despite his popularity, he was criticized for attempting to destroy the independence of the federal Judiciary. 

The overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee wrote a highly negative report on Roosevelt’s S.1392:   

“It applies force to the judiciary and in its initial and ultimate effect would undermine the independence of the courts.  It violates all precedents in the history of our government and would in itself be a dangerous precedent for the future.

The theory of the bill is in direct violation of the spirit of the American Constitution and … would permit alteration of the Constitution without the people’s consent or approval; it undermines the protection our constitutional system gives to minorities ad is subversive of the rights of individuals.

This is the first time in the history of our country that a proposal to alter the decision of the court by enlarging its personnel has been so boldly made. … Let us now set a salutary precedent that will never be violated. … 

We recommend rejection of this bill as a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle.  …

It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.” [Senate Report No. 711, 75th Congress, 1st Sess., (1937)]

Roosevelt’s bill was eventually rejected.  Later in 1937, when Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter retired, Roosevelt was able to replace him with New Deal cheerleader and sitting U.S. Senator from Alabama.  His name was Hugo Black, someone who had “excellent” democratic credentials for the time!  Justice Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.  He was, none-the-less, confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The irony of Democrats reviving FDR’s failed Court Packing plan in the wake of Justice Ginsburg’s death is that she herself opposed it!  An NPR interview disclosed that Justice Ginsburg: 

“does not favor proposals put forth by some Democratic presidential candidates who have advocated changing the number of Supreme Court justices if the Democrats win the presidency. …”

” ‘Nine seems to be a good number.  It's been that way for a long time,’ she said, adding, ‘I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.’”

Supreme Court Justices have been threatened by Democrat Senate Minority Leader:  Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) threatened Justices of the Supreme Court in March, 2020, while speaking to abortion supporters near the Supreme Court building in D.C.  In very crude language, pointing to the Supreme Court building, Schumer declared:  

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

This was a bare-knuckled threat against sitting Justices of the Supreme Court who were hearing an abortion case: Decide in favor of abortion or face unspecified retribution.

NBC News noted

“In a highly unusual written statement issued late Wednesday, (Justice) Roberts said, “Statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”   

President Pro Tem of the Senate, Republican Senator Charles E. Grassley, stated, 

“At best it was an injection of partisan politics into a process that should be immune to them, … At worst, it was a threat targeting two sitting members of the Supreme Court.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated, 

“There is nothing to call this except a threat.  And there is absolutely no question to whom it was directed. Contrary to what the Democratic Leader has since tried to claim … He literally directed the statement to the Justices, by name…. The Minority Leader of the United States Senate threatened two Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Period. There’s no other way to interpret that.” (Sen. McConnell, Congressional Record, Remarks, 3/05/2020)

Democrats will select radical judges:  The Democrat Party Platform for 2020 states,

“Our courts should reflect our country.  … We will nominate and confirm federal judges who have diverse backgrounds and experiences, including as public defenders, legal aid attorneys, and civil rights lawyers.”  [Democrat Platform p. 38]  

The Democratic Party recognizes the need for structural court reforms to increase transparency and accountability. ” [Democrat Platform p. 58]

While President Trump has been candid, disclosing the names of more than 40 potential nominees for federal courts, including for the U.S. Supreme Court, Democrat Presidential candidate, Joe Biden, has not revealed one name despite claiming his administration would be transparent.  He has only disclosed the gender and racial attributes of a potential Supreme Court nominee: “Biden is committed to naming a black woman to the Supreme Court.” (The Hill, 6/12/20).   

Democrat leaders including Senator Dick Durbin (IL), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Senator Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) have counseled Joe Biden to not disclose his judicial picks.  One can only conclude that nominees would be so radical, their names would cause political backlash. 

In addition to Court packing, the Democrats want to pack Congress:  The Democrat Party’s 2020 Platform states they want to make the District of Columbia the 51st state with two Senators and at least one Congressman representing them. According to a Washington Post story,  

“In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests, a committee reporting to D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) called Tuesday to “remove, relocate or contextualize” the Jefferson Memorial and the Washington Monument.”  

If the District of Columbia became the 51st state, they could more easily accomplish this goal.

The Democrat Party 2020 Platform, pages 58-59, states: 

“It’s time to stop treating the more than 700,000 people who live in our nation’s capital as second-class citizens. The residents of Washington, D.C. pay more per capita in federal income taxes than any state in the country—and more in total federal income tax than 22 states—and yet the District has zero voting representatives in the U.S. Congress. …   Democrats unequivocally support statehood for Washington, D.C., so the citizens of the District can at last have full and equal representation in Congress and the rights of self-determination.”   

The supposed claim of “lack of representation” could be easily solved by enacting a law to return to Maryland the portion of the District of Columbia Maryland donated to the federal government to form the District of Columbia.  Current D.C. residents would be represented by the two Maryland Senators; with reapportionment following on the 2020 Census, they could have another Member of Congress added to represent them in 2022.  In the mid 1800’s, Virginia received back the portion of land it had donated to the federal government to form D.C., now Arlington and Alexandria.

Of course, the Democrats would not be satisfied with equal representation as part of the State of Maryland, because they just want more voting power in Congress!  

Democrats talk “impeachment” of President Trump yet again:  On ABC’s “This Week” program, September 20, 2020, host George Stephanopoulos interviewed Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking what Democrats could do if President Trump and the Republican Senate pursued the nomination of a replacement for Justice Ginsburg.

George Stephanopoulos:

“So what can you do then?  Some have mentioned the possibility if they try to push through a nominee in a lame duck session that you and the House can move to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination.”  

Speaker Pelosi: 

“Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now …”

The real Constitution, as opposed to whatever constitutional “arrows” Nancy Pelosi claims she has access to, states, 

“The President … shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. [U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4]

The Democrat Speaker of the House may not use “impeachment” to harass the President or to block the nomination of a judge the Democrats oppose.  Further, the Constitution does provide that the President, 

“… by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court …” [U.S. Constitution., Art. II, Sect. II, Para ii]

Speaker Pelosi proposes to impeach the President for carrying out his duty under the Constitution!  Remember:  Marxist Democrats like Speaker Pelosi do not abide by the rule of Law!  They pursue their goals using any means they choose, including character assassination of opponents.

A supreme irony is that Mr. Biden passes himself off as a man of faith, sometimes even talking about carrying his rosary.  No matter his claims of personal piety, Mr. Biden would advance policies that create litigation nightmares designed to bankrupt and annihilate Christian businesses and institutions and subject individual Christians to various forms of persecution including mandated sexual attitude restructuring, denial of licenses and/or certifications for certain professions or businesses if they follow the morality taught by Moses and Jesus.  

The policy consequences of Democrat-supported legislation such as the Equality Act, cannot be overstated and must be understood, especially by Christians who for a variety of reasons, may not be registered to vote or do not intend to vote in November 2020.  

No candidate or political party is without flaws, but the very real consequences of a Democrat sweep of both houses of Congress and the presidency can be avoided if all Christians, especially those who believe in Natural Law, convince other like-minded individuals to register to vote and vote in the upcoming election and ask their friends across the country to do the same.  To not act in the face of such overwhelming consequences of Democrats gaining more power, is to choose to do nothing to stop Marxist Democrats from increasing the power of the secular state at the expense of religious tolerance and liberty.   

The current Democrat party is not the party of our parents or grandparents.  To protect our personal religious liberties and those of our children, Christians cannot vote for candidates like Joe Biden, or Members of Congress who call themselves Democrats but support radical Marxist policies.