thomascwaters.com

Unintended Consequences

Last Thursday, I posted about meeting with PA State Rep Joe Petrarca, and he had four main concerns he expressed about PA HB 300. Today, I’d like to talk about his second concern- that bills sometimes have unintended consequences and should be thought through carefully. This is an important concern and one worth thinking about. It is one where the opponents to this type of leghislation have really had a field day spreading misinformation, and yet it is likely the argument against the legislation that should be taken most seriously. But then, I’d hope any legislation would be subjected to a process by which unintended consequences might be examined.

Rep Petrarca used an example in our meeting of a bill that was designed to get money out to where it was needed. The state gave money to intermediary organizations with the expectation that it would be passed further down, and this didn’t happen. The intermediaries kept the money. Good point. What is in PA HB 300 that would keep unexpected consequences from happening? I think there are two main points to make about this concern.

A simple change to existing PA law

Unlike the representative’s example, this is a very straight-forward bill (no pun intended). It adds language to the existing human relations commission nondiscrimination policies. In his example, there were two needed steps: 1) pass money down, and 2) expect money to be passed down further. Unless the language of the bill was designed to make the second part explicit, a problem could occur. PA HB 300 is quite different. The language is very clear. It adds Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression. Both of these terms have pretty specific meanings. so there is truly very little ambiguity in the language of the bill. The language chosen is very intentional, and each term speaks to a different form of discrimination.

Sexual Orientation has very clear meaning. Individuals are either heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual., That’s pretty clear. Gender Identity and Expression are also fairly clear terms, although truly less understood by most people. I think this is because “sexual orientation” has been a topic of conversation and cultural exploration for many years, but Gender Identity and Expression hasn’t had the same exposure. From music (I kissed a Girl) to TV (everything from the Real world to day-time soaps) to movies (MILK!), there is a long history of educating people about sexual orientation. A set of points about Gender Identity and Expression is posted to my blog.

Because this is a change to existing legislation, it is easy to look at the ways the existing protected classes have been interpreted, and where, if any, has the intention of the legislation been abused.

This legislation exists many places

In whole or in part, these protections exist in over 20 states and over 300 municipalities across the country . Of the Fortune 500 companies,  472 including the 27 that name Pennsylvania as home provide these protections already. For example, sexual orientation has been a protected class in Pittsburgh for almost 25 years and Gender Identity and Expression protected for 10 years! If this legislation is the catastrophe-waiting-to-happen that opponents say it is, there would be well documented cases to be found here or elsewhere. But none exist. None. I could find no documented valid case in any of my searching. Opponents to this bill cite 2 examples which I have discussed in an earlier blog post, but when each is investigated, in neither case were the results different from what would be expected. In both cases, a violation of religious expression is cited, but in neither case is that really what happened.

If this legislation was to cause unintended consequences, it would have happened by now somewhere across the 20 states, 472 major companies, or 300 regional or local municipalities where this language is in use.

A good bill for Pennsylvania

While the focus of this post is unintended consequences- as if these would all be negative, it is useful to see how this language can protect many Pennsylvanians who may not even realize what it has to offer them. Consider how Gender Expression protects all Pennsylvanians. There may be a woman, who doesn’t fit the stereotypical example of feminine, but who is passed over for a promotion. She is heterosexual and married, yet her gender expression is judged unfairly. Or a heterosexual man who is assumed to be gay because he dresses well or talks with his hands.

The use of clear language, lack of any known problems from a long history of this type of legislation existing, and the ability to protect all Pennsylvanians, makes this a good piece of legislation for us today.