Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2017

Last updated
Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2017
Legislative history
Bill citation H.R. 2796
Bill published onJune 7, 2017
Introduced by Pete Olson [R-TX-22]
Summary
Strict interpretation of "sex" and "gender" to refer to biological identity only for United States federal civil rights legislation
Keywords
transgender rights, gender identity

House Resolution 2796 (HR 2796, The Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2017) is a bill in the United States House of Representatives that was introduced on June 7, 2017, by Representative Pete Olson [R-TX-22] and originally cosponsored by Reps. Brian Babin [R-TX-36], Ralph Lee Abraham [R-LA-5], and Vicky Hartzler [R-MO-4]. [1] The proposed legislation would prohibit the interpretation of the word "sex" or "gender" to include "gender identity," and would require the terms "man" or "woman" to refer exclusively to a person's biologically assigned gender in the interpretation of federal civil rights laws, federal administrative agency regulations, and federal guidance. The bill has attracted five additional cosponsors since its introduction.

Contents

Overview

According to the bill summary,

This bill prohibits the word "sex" or "gender" from being interpreted to mean "gender identity," and requires "man" or "woman" to be interpreted to refer exclusively to a person's genetic sex, for purposes determining the meaning of federal civil rights laws or related federal administrative agency regulations or guidance.

No federal civil rights law shall be interpreted to treat gender identity or transgender status as a protected class, unless it expressly designates "gender identity" or "transgender status" as a protected class.

— HR 2796 Summary [1]

Rep. Pete Olson stated "The Founding Fathers never intended unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies to make sweeping changes to the definition of gender." [2]

HR 5812, a bill containing nearly identical text and co-sponsored by many of the same Representatives (in addition to Reps. Babin, Grothman, and Hartzler, HR 5812 was co-sponsored by Rep. Dave Brat [R-VA-7]), was introduced to the House on July 14, 2016, where it died in committee. [3] The National Center for Transgender Equality did not recommend any action on HR 2796, as it was also likely to die in committee. [4]

Actions

HR 2796 was introduced to the house on June 7, 2017 from the House Committee on the Judiciary. It was later referred to the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on July 12, 2017.

Sponsors

Bill Text

A BILL To repeal executive overreach, to clarify that the proper constitutional authority for social transformation belongs to the legislative branch.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2017”.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.

  1. Findings.—Congress finds the following:
    1. Over the past half century, Congress has passed numerous civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sex”, a designation long understood to be grounded in objective biology up to the present day. There is no evidence that Congress or the American people ever understood the word sex or gender in civil rights laws to include subjective self-identification.
    2. For years, advocates have pressed Congress to include a person’s subjective self-declared “gender identity” in Federal civil rights laws that prohibit sex discrimination. Congress has declined to do so except for the Shepard-Byrd Act of 2009 and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 where gender identity is defined as “actual or perceived gender-related characteristics” with “gender”, there referring to characteristics associated with biological males and females.
    3. This demonstrates that when Congress wants to protect sex, it does so explicitly; when it wants to also elevate gender identity it does so explicitly; and when it does not want to elevate gender identity, it can do so either explicitly or by simply not disturbing the status quo.
    4. Despite the complete clarity of this point, President Barack Obama’s administration has attempted to effectively replace the word “sex” with the phrase “gender identity” for purposes of Federal antidiscrimination law and policy through a series of unilateral executive actions.
    5. For example, on December 15, 2014, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would reinterpret the ban on “sex” discrimination under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to encompass “gender identity”. This was followed on March 27, 2015, by an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decision holding that declining to use a female pronoun to address a male who identifies as female constituted “sex” discrimination under title VII.
    6. On May 9, 2016, the Obama administration sued the State of North Carolina and threatened it with fines and loss of Federal funding if it did not adopt the administration’s incorrect readings of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
    7. On May 13, 2016, the Departments of Justice and Education issued a “significant guidance” letter stating that under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 “when a school provides sex-segregated activities and facilities, transgender students must be allowed to participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity.” The guidance further states that schools “must treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex” including in the context of “sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, housing, and athletic teams, as well as single-sex classes.” In other words, the Departments consider it a title IX violation if a person of the male sex who self-identifies as a female is not granted unfettered access to women’s or girls’ dorms, showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms. This, despite assurance that such a thing would never happen from the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who wrote in 1975 that “separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” This position was codified in Federal regulations, 34 CFR 106.33 , which state that recipients of Federal funds “may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex,” with sex obviously referring to biology.
    8. Also on May 13, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services finalized regulations that redefined the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition on “sex” discrimination in federally funded health programs and activities to cover “gender identity”, thereby opening health care professionals and insurers to extensive liability if they decline to participate in or pay for “gender transition” treatments or “sex change” operations.
    9. The Obama administration’s actions are an affront to the rule of law, the separation of powers, the will of the people, language, history, safety, privacy, and biological realities.
  2. Purpose.—The purposes of this Act are—
    1. to prevent the executive branch from unilaterally rewriting Federal civil rights laws by enacting or implementing any policy or undertaking any enforcement action that is based on construing the term “sex” or “gender” to mean “gender identity”; and
    2. to ensure that gender identity is not treated as a protected class in Federal law or policy without the affirmative approval of the people’s representatives in Congress.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF POLICIES REDEFINING SEX TO MEAN GENDER IDENTITY.

  1. Rule Of Construction.—In determining the meaning of any Federal civil rights law, and of any related ruling, regulation, guidance, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “sex” and “gender” and their equivalents shall not be interpreted to mean “gender identity” or its equivalent, and the words “man” and “woman” and their equivalents shall refer exclusively to a person’s genetic sex.
  2. Rule Of Interpretation.—No Federal civil rights law shall be interpreted to treat gender identity or transgender status as a protected class, unless such law expressly designates “gender identity” or “transgender status” as a protected class.
  3. Definition Of “Federal Civil Rights Law”.—For purposes of this Act, the term “Federal civil rights law” means any Federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, including title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C.   § 1681 et seq.), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.   § 2000a et seq.), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.   § 3601 et seq.), the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L.   111–148 (text) (PDF)), and any other Federal law or provision thereof prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Title IX</span> United States federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs

Title IX is the most commonly used name for the federal civil rights law in the United States that was enacted as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government. This is Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235, codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1964</span> Landmark U.S. civil rights and labor law

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or, depending on the version of the bill, gender identity, by employers with at least 15 employees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in the United States</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States rank among the highest in the world, with public opinion and jurisprudence changing significantly since the late 1980s. However, LGBT rights have continued to face legal attacks from elements of the right-wing, particularly on a state level.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pete Olson</span> American politician

Peter Graham Olson is an American politician who served as the U.S. representative for Texas's 22nd congressional district from 2009 to 2021. His district included much of southern Houston, as well as most of the city's southwestern suburbs such as Katy, Pearland, and Sugar Land. He is a member of the Republican Party. On July 25, 2019, Olson announced that he would retire at the end of his term. He was succeeded by fellow Republican Troy Nehls.

In the United States, the rights of transgender people vary considerably by jurisdiction. There is a coordinated national campaign to target transgender rights. In 2021, 191 anti-LGBTQ bills were introduced, and 80 percent of them specifically sought to restrict the rights of transgender people. In 2022, over 300 anti-LGBTQ bills were introduced, of which at least 171 were anti-transgender. In 2023, over 480 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced as of late May. Many of these bills became law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Alabama</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals in Alabama face legal challenges and discrimination not experienced by non-LGBTQ Alabamians. LGBTQ rights in Alabama—a Republican Party stronghold located in both the Deep South and greater Bible Belt—are limited in comparison to most other states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in West Virginia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of West Virginia face legal challenges not faced by non-LGBT persons. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1976, and same-sex marriage has been recognized since October 2014. West Virginia statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal.

This is a list of events in 2011 that affected LGBT rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Texas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Texas have some protections in state law but may face legal and social challenges not faced by others. Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in the state in 2003 by the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Alaska</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Alaska may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT Alaskans. Since 1980, same-sex sexual conduct has been allowed, and same-sex couples can marry since October 2014. The state offers few legal protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, leaving LGBT people vulnerable to discrimination in housing and public accommodations; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law. In addition, four Alaskan cities, Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka and Ketchikan, representing about 46% of the state population, have passed discrimination protections for housing and public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT employment discrimination in the United States</span>

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brian Babin</span> American dentist, politician

Brian Philip Babin is an American dentist, politician and member of the Republican Party who has served as the U.S. representative from Texas's 36th congressional district since 2015. The district includes much of southeastern Houston, some of its eastern suburbs, as well as Orange and some more exurban areas to the east.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in the United States Virgin Islands</span> Overview of LGBT rights in a U.S. territory

In the U.S. Virgin Islands, Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights have evolved substantially in recent years. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1985, and also provides explicit legal protections against discrimination for LGBT residents since December 2022. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, which found the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples unconstitutional, same-sex marriage became legal in the islands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equality Act (United States)</span> Bill to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the 117th Congress

The Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service. The Supreme Court's June 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia protects gay and transgender people in matters of employment, but not in other respects. The Bostock ruling also covered the Altitude Express and Harris Funeral Homes cases.

A bathroom bill is the common name for legislation or a statute that denies access to public toilets by gender or transgender identity. Bathroom bills affect access to sex-segregated public facilities for an individual based on a determination of their sex as defined in some specific way, such as their sex as assigned at birth, their sex as listed on their birth certificate, or the sex that corresponds to their gender identity. A bathroom bill can either be inclusive or exclusive of transgender individuals, depending on the aforementioned definition of their sex. Single occupant unisex public toilets are one option to avoid this controversy.

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination "on the basis of sex" in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX to cover discrimination on the basis of assigned sex, gender identity, and transgender status. The Trump administration determined that the question of access to sex-segregated facilities should be left to the states and local school districts to decide. The validity of the executive's position is being tested in the federal courts.

<i>G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board</i> U.S. case dealing with transgender rights

G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board is a case dealing with transgender rights. The case involves a transgender boy attending a Virginia high school, who sued the local school board after he was forced to use girls' restrooms based on his assigned gender under the school board's policy. While the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the student based on Obama administration policy related to Title IX protections, the election of Donald Trump changed the underlying policy, forcing a pending hearing before the Supreme Court of the United States to be vacated and the case retried at the lower courts. Due to recent case law, including the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Fourth Circuit ruled again in favor of the student; the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the Fourth Circuit's judgment to stand.

This article addresses the legal and regulatory history of transgender and transsexual people in the United States including case law and governmental regulatory action affecting their legal status and privileges, at the federal, state, municipal, and local level, and including military justice as well.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender.

References

  1. 1 2 Text of the Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2017 at Congress.gov
  2. ↑ "House Members Act to Restore Congressional Authority on Transgender Definition" (Press release). Office of Congressman Pete Olson, Representing the 22nd District of Texas. 7 June 2017. Archived from the original on 1 August 2017. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
  3. ↑ Text of the Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2016 at Congress.gov
  4. ↑ Garcia, Arturo (19 July 2017). "'Civil Rights' House Bill Would Target Protections For Transgender People". Snopes. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.