WASHINGTON, D.C. February 10 (C-Fam) “Is a parent who rejects her minor child’s wish for a sex change operation complicit in cruelty?”
“Is the Pope engaging in degrading treatment when he expresses opposition to same-sex marriage?”
These are some of the questions raised by Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (R-NY) during a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives on Wednesday when the House passed the Global Respect Act on a narrow party-line vote.
The answer to both questions is a resounding yes, if you ask any international human rights expert that works in and around the United Nations system. UN experts have repeatedly accused parents, religious leaders, and governments of torture and incitement for their opposition to the homosexual/trans agenda. They have done so in official communications with governments from around the world, including the Vatican.
Now the Biden administration and Democrat legislators may finally give teeth to those UN expert opinions through a law known as the Global Respect Act that would ban U.S. entry to foreigners who oppose the homosexual/trans agenda.
The bill passed the House largely along party lines on Wednesday, with a vote of 227 in support and 206 against. Six Republicans joined Democrats. The bill gives the U.S. President power to impose visa sanctions on foreigners he judges “complicit” in human rights violations against individuals who identify as homosexual or trans.
Democrats claimed the bill was “historic” and necessary to prosecute human rights abuses across the world. Republicans countered that the bill was unnecessary and duplicative because egregious human rights abuses against such are already prosecuted under federal law. They also warned that the bill would be misused to target political opponents of the agenda and would inhibit freedom of speech and freedom of religion round the world.
“We all believe that all people have inherent dignity and possess equal human rights. We all reject violence directed at individuals on the basis of their race, religion, biological sex, or sexual orientation,” said Tenney (R-NY).
“The problem with this bill” she said, is that “it is not focused on the human rights of all but the human rights of particular groups.” Tenney said this would result in the bill being used as a weapon in the culture wars.
Tenney said the bill’s vague language on “complicity” and “cruel and degrading treatment” could be used to prosecute “non-violent conduct” like political speech, the free exercise of religion and even parental decisions. She then cited the example of parents objecting to their children receiving transgender treatments and the Pope expressing biblical teaching on marriage.
“There are no safeguards in the bill that address these situations,” said Tenney, criticizing her Democrat colleagues for rejecting an amendment by Congressman Scott Perry (R-PA) to protect free speech, religious freedom, and parental rights.
“Despite what some of my colleagues are saying, religious freedom is not in conflict with the promotion of global LGBTQI rights,” said David Cicilline (D-RI), the author of the bill. He pointed to a Democrat addition to the bill that prohibits the application of the penalties based “solely upon religious belief.” Tenney said the Democrat amendment was insufficient because it only addressed “belief” and did not address the expression of beliefs in daily life.
The White House issued a statement in support of the bill last week, saying how “the Administration has taken historic actions to accelerate the march toward full LGBTQI+ equality at home and abroad.” Among the actions listed in the letter were promoting transgender issues, same-sex marriage, and ordering U.S. embassies around the world to fly the rainbow flag.