fbpx
Articles

5 harmful federal regulations the ERLC is pushing back against

Part two

/
May 10, 2024

Over the past month, the Biden administration has finalized numerous problematic rules that undermine religious liberty, widen access to abortion, and harm children and families. Some rules, such as the rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, directly conflict with direction from Congress. Others, such as the rule for Designated Placement Requirements for LGBTQ-identifying children, claim that faith-based families are unable to provide “safe and appropriate” care for children without affirming their self-identified gender identity. The ERLC is pushing back against these harmful federal regulations.

By filing public comments, the ERLC seeks to inform agencies of some of the unforeseen consequences associated with proposed rules, request that changes are made before the rule is finalized, and represent Southern Baptists’ beliefs expressed through the Baptist Faith and Message and the numerous resolutions passed by messengers each year. Additionally, these comments assist our partners, who may reference public comments when engaging in litigation.

Below are summaries of five of those proposed rules that the ERLC has filed public comments on:

Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace

Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

Purpose: Broadens the definition of what is considered “sex-based harassment” to require that employers consider gender orientation and sexual identity alongside biological sex.

Effective date: April 29, 2024

Key Points: 

ERLC comments/concerns

In November 2023, ERLC submitted comments expressing concern with the expanded guidance, which will likely be treated as a typical rule, and citing the theological basis for Southern Baptist beliefs and deep concern for the ability of private employers to retain religious liberty in the workplace. 

It is impossible to claim to protect both free expression of religion and simultaneously require employees to support “gender transitions” and abortion. Though the final rule did include an addendum nodding to existing religious freedom and conscience protections, it’s likely that this enforcement guidance will lead to litigation and violations of the consciences of religious individuals by requiring them to affirm factually untrue and deceptive beliefs to the detriment of their conscience and personal safety.

HIPAA Privacy Rule To Support Reproductive Health Care Privacy

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Purpose: Modifies the HIPAA Privacy Rule to limit the sharing of reproductive health information, establishing that healthcare providers and other related entities may violate HIPAA if they comply with investigations into illegal abortion and gender transition procedures. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) was passed to protect sensitive health information from disclosure without the patient’s consent.

Effective date: June 25, 2024

Key Points: 

ERLC comments/concerns

In June 2023, the ERLC filed public comments in opposition to the change, which would enact further HIPAA restrictions that limit the disclosure of information related to “reproductive healthcare.” The rule would prohibit healthcare providers from giving investigators access to abortion-related information and information regarding other reproductive issues.

Contrary to HHS’ stated intent, this rule fails to protect vulnerable women and children and punishes healthcare providers for complying with investigations into illegal abortions and related procedures. By limiting investigators’ access to reproductive health information, the rule overrides state abortion laws and protects those who commit criminal healthcare activities as well as abusers.

In addition to our concerns related to life, the ERLC specifically pushed back on the ability of this rule to provide a safe haven for abusers. Specifically, domestic abusers would benefit from the regulation’s newfound protections, as healthcare providers could not report suspected child abusers or limit their access to their dependent’s sensitive health records if the finding of abuse is primarily evidenced by reproductive health information, directly conflicting with Congress’ intent in HIPPA.

Implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Purpose: Implements the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which passed Congress during the 117th Congress in December 2022 and requires employers to provide common-sense accommodations for pregnant workers. However, this rule has been co-opted by the Biden administration to require employers to provide paid leave to obtain an abortion and has raised strong religious liberty concerns.

Effective date: June 18, 2024

Key Points: 

ERLC comments/concerns

In October 2023, ERLC filed comments calling for the removal of abortion language from the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act regulations.

“We urge each sponsor of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to file an official comment on this proposal and demand abortion be dropped from this regulation,” said Brent Leatherwood, ERLC president and the signatory of the letter. “Failure to do so will only empower a radical agency to completely disregard clear congressional intent and, more alarmingly, turn a law meant to help mothers and children thrive into the abortion regime’s newest tool to destroy life.”

Though some considerations of Title VII’s religious liberty protections were given in the final rule after concerns were raised, this rule still fundamentally misrepresents the law passed by Congress in such a way that harms religious liberty and the cause of life. The ERLC affirms the important objective of the bipartisan PWFA to ensure women are given accommodations in the workplace to ensure their health and the health of their preborn children.

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

Agency: Department of Education

Purpose: Amends the regulations implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) to redefine “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Effective date: Aug. 1, 2024

Key Points: 

ERLC comments/concerns

The ERLC has submitted public comments laying out our concerns with the proposed rule and urging them to reconsider making these changes. Title IX directly affects a host of other regulations across agencies making the effects of this change sweeping.

This proposed rule is another attempt by the executive branch to extend the bureaucratic application of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). In Bostock, the court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender employees against unlawful discrimination—logic that various executive agencies including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and now the DOE have applied to Title IX.

Additionally, though we were glad to see Title IX’s robust religious exemption maintained, it does not include protections for people of faith at nonreligious institutions, and the DOE has indicated that they may take further action limiting the religious exemption in the future.

Reproductive Health Services

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

Purpose: Allows the VA to provide abortion counseling and, in cases involving rape, incest, or concerns for the life of the mother, to perform abortions to pregnant veterans and VA beneficiaries in states where abortions are prohibited by state law.

Effective date: April 3, 2024

Key Points: 

ERLC comments/concerns

In 2022, the ERLC submitted comments opposing the rule along with other pro-life and religious liberty organizations. The ERLC objected to the way that the rule would force taxpayers to fund abortions and force healthcare officials to violate their beliefs about the value of life. The ERLC and Southern Baptists have long affirmed that every life is worthy of protection, including the preborn. Because life begins at conception, abortion denies human life and dignity. 

Further, the ERLC condemned the rule as unlawful because it was attempting to override the explicit statutory prohibition against the VA providing abortion services. The ERLC also called the administration to recognize that the rule did not provide exceptions for those who object to performing abortions because it violates their conscience rights and deeply held religious beliefs. It is encouraging to note that while the finalized rule did not address many of our concerns, it did improve processes for conscience objections in response to our comments.

Conclusion

The ERLC continues to participate and lead in our coalitions by submitting public comments. These comments represent the interests and concerns of Southern Baptists, expressed time and again through the Baptist Faith and Message and numerous resolutions.

While federal rulemaking is a complicated and often discouraging process under some executive administrations, we retain an overarching confidence in the sovereignty of the Lord throughout the ever-changing political attitudes of our day. In the short term, there are also many small gains we are seeing as a direct result of our public comments; multiple rules have been improved in their final version to accommodate and respond to the concerns of faith-based organizations.

Your ERLC continues to proclaim God’s design for human flourishing and promote the protection of vulnerable lives. 

View part one of this three-part series on the federal rulemaking process, the Biden administration’s proliferation of harmful federal rules, and how the ERLC has been active on each of the regulations mentioned.

Watch for part three next week when we’ll go into more detail about five additional regulations and why Southern Baptists should be concerned. As always, the ERLC will continue to work with a coalition of organizations that will challenge these rules in court.

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24