A good reminder to read more carefully before commenting. Looking more closely, I think you are right. Thank you.

Which one should have jurisdiction over boxing kangaroos?

“The D.C. bill protects speech concerning abortion generally, not just one side of the issue.”

I’m not so sure. The bill is written a little weirdly. Part (c) applies to speech, but it only says that the employer may not prohibit the abortion-related speech if the speech is not part of the job. And it only seems to apply to people already employed.

Part (b) says the employer cannot take various adverse actions (like failing to hire, disciplining, paying less, etc.) “based on the fact that the health care professional is willing to participate in abortion or sterilization procedures”.

Based on this, it would seem that an health care employer could legally refuse to hire someone who has espoused anti-abortion views and is not willing to participate in abortions (even if their job has nothing whatsoever to do with those topics.) Part (c) doesn’t apply because the person is not yet an employee, and part (b) doesn’t apply because the person is *not* willing to participate in such an activity.

Because WWF and WWF are identical. You’d have to read further and figure out the subject matter of the article or whatever to know which is which. Before then — confusion.