With Abortions and Rainbows for All

Should I have been surprised that ReproductiveRights.gov exists? Joe Biden has shifted from touting his long record of supporting the Hyde Amendment and opposing late-term abortions to making unfettered abortion rights the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. But the “dot gov” should still matter, and it does to me as a federal employee.

ReproductiveRights.gov offers resources for avoiding reproduction or snuffing out life in its early stages. The site includes multiple links to AbortionFinder.org, a non-governmental site funded by the likes of Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation.

Using tax dollars to drive traffic to abortion clinics would certainly seem to violate at least the spirit of the Hyde Amendment. Biden wrote decades ago, as a senator, “Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.” A lot of citizens do not want to pay to cheerlead for abortion, either. But the Biden administration has been evading the spirit of Hyde for some time now. 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is responsible for ReproductiveRights.gov. When the predecessor to HHS had to first regulate under Hyde, President Jimmy Carter purposely selected Joseph Califano, a practicing Catholic, as the cabinet secretary in order to ensure that the law was actually enforced. President Biden selected Xavier Becerra—a nominal Catholic known for his strident abortion rights advocacy—as cabinet secretary seemingly to work around Hyde as much as possible.

According to the site, “The Biden-Harris Administration remains committed to protecting reproductive rights, ensuring women can make their own decisions about their own bodies.” It adds that “access to birth control and safe and legal abortion care . . .  is an essential part of your health and well-being.” Using career civil servants to fashion text like this seems counter to the spirit of Hyde and it also raises questions under the Hatch Act, a statute that is supposed to keep the federal workforce out of certain overtly political activities. Here, the campaign-style work may be covert enough to technically dodge Hatch, but that does not make it appropriate.  

ReproductiveRights.gov came to my attention at work. The government’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) had directed that every federal employee be made aware of a webpage that included a link to ReproductiveRights.gov—the ostensible reason was to give employees information about health insurance. My organization decided to skip that middle step and sent a direct link to ReproductiveRights.gov in an email blast to all employees. When asked about the added amplification, those behind the message said this was a mistake. I tend to believe them. In D.C., the smart money is always on incompetence over conspiracy. Regardless, the creation of the underlying website was quite intentional. And lest one think this merely the result of a rogue abortion booster buried deep in the bureaucracy, a link to ReproductiveRights.gov is quite literally featured front and center at WhiteHouse.gov, another publicly-funded site.  

At my workplace, even if the Hatch Act would allow it, I would not wear an “Unborn Rights Now!” button as I am there to do my job, which has nothing to do with abortion, not campaign for pet political causes.  But other symbols that once seemed quite political are now apparently allowed. Our secretary says “Happy Pride Month!” to tens of thousands of employees, and the rainbow flag has been flown at headquarters. Some employees use rainbow-themed backgrounds in video conferences. Many dutifully comply with the techno-nudges to list their pronouns in email signature blocks, and training is held to tell employees that using the wrong pronouns is sexual harassment. The head of a special office makes over $200,000 a year to be the “Champion” of DEIA, and “Diversity Change Agents” are dispatched to foster “mind-set shifts” and “position diversity and inclusion” as “mission critical imperatives” for a “welcoming” workplace.  

Those of us who still agree with pre-2012 Barack Obama that marriage is a “sacred union” between a man and a woman don’t exactly feel welcomed and included. In 2003, even under a Republican administration, all employees were encouraged to hear Representative Barney Frank, the first openly homosexual congressman, address us to celebrate what was then “Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.”  We are now at “LGBTQI+” as the official lingo for those lauded.  

That ever-rising rainbow tide is intermingling with a red tide as the abortion propaganda of ReproductiveRights.gov is circulated under the guise of providing health insurance information, even though Hyde currently bars most elective abortions from coverage. What might come next? Will something like DeathWithDignity.gov be in my inbox to subvert the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act? Such trends need not run in only one direction. A future administration might circulate ReportIllegals.gov to counter sanctuary cities, much like the Biden administration is countering pro-life states. 

Also, if Hyde goes away, I suspect that all federal health plans will soon be required to cover elective abortions, similar to when gender transition coverage became mandatory in 2016. In the name of hallowed diversity, could not a few plans be allowed to exist that will not violate a Christian’s conscience?    

Certainly, there are aspects of DEIA that are worthwhile.  Nevertheless, the relentless culture war drumbeat that crescendoes in June treats employees like children with minds to be molded or voters to be mobilized rather than adults with jobs to do. Many of us civil servants are tired of being treated as political pawns; we just want to get back to work.  

John Murdock is an attorney who writes from Texas. The views expressed here are solely his own.

Image by White House via Public Domain. Image cropped.