In a new Congress, the first bill introduced by the party in power, numbered H.R., 1 is generally reserved as a symbolic indication as to the importance of the bill. Under the Democrat-controlled House under the leadership of pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi, H.R. 1 was the so-called “For the People Act of 2019.”
What did H.R.1 symbolize? The Democrats’ long history of attempting to maximize short-term political benefits for the dominant faction of one political party—themselves– by placing significant and very burdensome restrictions on free speech.
H.R. 1 was billed by its supporters as acting as a curb on election corruption, but is itself a type of corruption – an abuse of the lawmaking power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions, among other deterrents, to reduce the amount of private speech regarding the actions of the lawmakers themselves.
National Right to Life expressed its strong opposition to the bill in a March 6th letter sent to members of the House of Representatives. NRLC fairly characterized H.R. 1 as “pernicious, unprincipled, and constitutionally defective legislation.”
National Right to Life noted:
The bill would codify a vague and expansive definition of “the functional equivalent of express advocacy,” that applies to communications that “when taken as a whole, it can be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for election for Federal office.” There is little that an organization could say by way of commentary on the votes or positions taken by an incumbent member of Congress that would not fall within this expansive definition, in the eyes of some “reasonable person” – most often, an annoyed incumbent lawmaker or his operatives.
In short, this would significantly curb the ability of our organization to let our supporters know when prolife votes occurred or where an elected official stands on abortion.
In addition, the bill would require expansive disclosure of donors by organizations like National Right to Life, our affiliates, and chapters thereby infringing on the rights of those donors in their exercise of free association.
Click here for more from NRL News Today.
