Inexplicably, Congressman Rod Blum continues to repeat the same false claims that he has been called out for time and time again. If you haven’t seen it yet, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald has a front page story out today explaining in detail just how wrong Blum is about his favorite discriminatory bill. Here are some key passages:
Several parties familiar with the bill, including the bill’s Republican sponsor, law experts, the ACLU and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, acknowledge the bill as written would apply to for-profit businesses.
However, Blum told TH Media and other Iowa newspapers that the bill would address “just churches.”
Robin Fretwell Wilson, a University of Illinois law professor specializing in religious liberty issues, said the bill’s definition of “person” includes for-profit businesses.
“It doesn’t extend just to churches,” Wilson said. “It’s not even a matter of interpretation. It’s saying, ‘we’re covering for-profit.'”
(Read the full article at thonline.com)
“This is getting increasingly embarrassing for Congressman Rod Blum,” said DCCC Spokesman Tyler Law. “Only six months into office and he has sacrificed his credibility by repeatedly trying to mislead his constituents.”
—
ICYMI: Blum’s ‘just churches’ interpretation of controversial measure scrutinized
Dubuque Telegraph Herald
By Will Garbe
August 8, 2015
http://www.thonline.com/content/tncms/live/
U.S. Rep. Rod Blum, R-Dubuque, faces criticism for supporting the First Amendment Defense Act, a bill favored by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops but criticized by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.
Blum says that the bill would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax-exempt status of churches whose ministers refuse to officiate same-sex weddings. But critics of the bill argue that it could be interpreted to allow employers to fire women who become pregnant out of wedlock.
‘Clear intention’
Blum said the bill is intended to protect religious organizations from discrimination, and would apply to churches.
“The bill’s clear intention is focused on protecting religious organizations like Catholic churches or parochial schools from discrimination by the federal government (like revoking their tax-exempt status) for practicing their religion and has nothing to do with the employee-employer relationship,” Blum wrote Thursday in a statement.
But Jeremy Rosen, executive director of the ACLU of Iowa, on Friday said the bill far exceeds addressing churches.
“It basically purports to simply prevent the IRS from stripping churches of tax exemptions for not officiating same-sex weddings, but in terms of what it actually does, if you read it, it goes so much farther than that,” he said.
Several parties familiar with the bill, including the bill’s Republican sponsor, law experts, the ACLU and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, acknowledge the bill as written would apply to for-profit businesses.
However, Blum told TH Media and other Iowa newspapers that the bill would address “just churches.”
“What it does is the bill prohibits the IRS from stripping a church of its tax exemption for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings,” Blum said in a July 23 interview. “It’s nothing about businesses at all. It’s churches. Just churches.”
Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, introduced the bill on June 17, nearly a month before Blum co-sponsored the legislation on July 13.
In a statement released alongside the bill’s introduction, Labrador’s office noted the bill would “prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license or certification to an individual, association or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — which gives the bill “strong support” — released a statement saying the bill would include “both for-profits and nonprofits,” extending beyond churches to include business owners.
Robin Fretwell Wilson, a University of Illinois law professor specializing in religious liberty issues, said the bill’s definition of “person” includes for-profit businesses.
“It doesn’t extend just to churches,” Wilson said. “It’s not even a matter of interpretation. It’s saying, ‘we’re covering for-profit.'”
Blum’s “just churches” statement prompted political operatives to question whether he understands the bill.
“Frankly, it’s becoming clearer by the day that Rod Blum didn’t read the First Amendment Defense Act and has almost no understanding of its implications,” wrote Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Tyler Law in a statement Friday.
Keegan Conway, Blum’s spokesman, said Blum “reads each bill he considers supporting.”
“Obviously, if in his judgment a piece of legislation is good for the First District of Iowa and good for the country as a whole, then he supports it,” Conway wrote in an email to TH Media.
Conway said Labrador is “adding language to further ensure that no court of law can misconstrue the bill’s intended purpose of protecting religious organizations.”
COULD the bill DISCRIMINATE?
While critics of the bill argue it would allow an employer to fire a woman who became pregnant outside marriage, Blum and Labrador maintain the bill does not address current employment protections in federal law.
Rosen, of the ACLU of Iowa, disagreed with Blum’s interpretation.
“I’ll just say this: We read the bill, and so, you know, he’s certainly entitled to any position he wants to take, but in our view, this bill allows for significant discrimination (and) is probably unconstitutional and certainly inappropriate,” Rosen said.
Nevertheless, Labrador’s spokesman said the lawmaker is considering changes to the bill, writing, “we are taking these concerns seriously and working on tightening the language to ensure that the intent of the bill is clear.”