HOT TOPICS

Conscience Provisions

Historically, conscience provisions have been supported by Republicans and Democrats alike.  First enacted in 1973, conscience laws protect those who refuse to participate in abortions or oppose contraception for moral or religious reasons and may face discrimination. I am concerned that the Administration has moved to rescind this rule, and I have previously signed a letter to President Obama urging him to preserve it. 

Like most Idahoans, I believe that religiously-affiliated organizations, such as religious charities, schools, and universities and hospitals, should not be compelled by the Federal government to purchase insurance policies for their employees that violate their long standing religious convictions.  An across-the-board mandate like the one offered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to require religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception ignores the constitutionally protected right to religious freedom.  I will continue to urge President Obama and HHS to rescind this ruling.  Additionally, I have signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011, sponsored by Representative Jeff Fortenberry.  This legislation amends the health care bill to permit health plans to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to their religious beliefs without penalty.

Simpson’s Statement on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), on October 26, 2011.  Currently H.R. 3261 is under consideration by the House Committee on the Judiciary. 

SOPA is intended to combat foreign-based websites that sell pirated movies, music and consumer goods.  Proponents claim this legislation prevents U.S. companies from providing funding or service to the foreign sites, and assigns the Justice Department new powers to prevent pirate sites from gaining U.S. visitors and funding.  However, opponents of the legislation worry that the language in the current House bill is too broad and would allow content owners to target U.S. websites that aren’t knowingly hosting pirated content. 

While I remain committed to preventing the theft of intellectual property, it is essential that Congress addresses concerns with Internet functionality, cybersecurity and free speech when adopting an effective policy to combat online piracy.  I have concerns about this legislation as currently drafted, particularly about whether it will effectively protect intellectual property and fight online piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet.  Because the committees with jurisdiction over this bill are currently working on changes to the legislation, I am carefully watching to see whether these changes address my concerns.