Abortion, Gay Rights Hit by Loss of Funds

PUBLIC POLICY

The District of Columbia (D.C.) found itself in the middle of two national debates last month as Congress passed a D.C. funding bill with abortion and religious liberty implications. The D.C. Appropriations Bill, signed into law by President Reagan, contains measures to stop government-funded abortions and to exempt religiously affiliated schools from a District law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.”

Liberty For Whom?

The religious liberty provision of the bill, sponsored by Sen. William Armstrong (R-Colo.), forbids the District to force religiously affiliated schools to provide funds, facilities, services, or official recognition to homosexual groups. Earlier this year, the D.C. Court of Appeals had ruled that Georgetown University, a Catholic school, had to subsidize and grant “equal provisions” to homosexual groups on the campus in order to comply with the D.C. Human Rights Act (CT, July 15, 1988, p. 72). Now, under this amendment, Armstrong said, “Georgetown, or any other school, will be free to take any position it wishes with respect to homosexual groups.”

A number of national Christian groups supported the amendment, including the Public Affairs Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Lay Committee, the Good News Fellowship, and the Christian College Coalition. At a Washington press conference, Robert Dugan, director of the National Assocation of Evangelicals’ Office of Public Affairs, said the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling against Georgetown had “implications far beyond the District.” Dugan said the issue at stake “is whether religious schools and colleges will be forced to subsidize student groups which promote beliefs and practices antithetical to their religious beliefs.”

No Public Funds For Abortion

The D.C. budget bill also prohibits the District from using either federal or local public funds for abortions, except in situations where the life of the mother is in danger. President Reagan had threatened to veto the bill if it contained provisions for any other abortion funding.

Prolife activists have long criticized the District for the high numbers of abortions performed there—nearly 23,000 annually. District officials said that in 1987, more than 3,500 of those abortions were publicly financed at a cost of more than $ 1.7 million. Currently, 43 states do not allow tax-funded abortions, and under the Hyde Amendment, no federal funds can be used for abortion.

District officials reacted angrily to all these provisions and have threatened legal challenges. Among the most vocal critics has been Walter Fauntroy (D-D.C.), the District’s representative in Congress. Fauntroy, who has no official vote in congressional matters, charged that the bill attacks the District’s ability to govern itself. In 1975, Congress granted D.C. the right to elect a mayor and city council under a “Home Rule” charter, but it retained the authority to “amend or repeal” D.C. laws.

Members of Congress supporting the various provisions denied charges of an attack on D.C.’s home rule. Armstrong said his amendment was “a matter of principle that extends far beyond our nation’s capital, to every city and town, and to every religion, in America.”

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.