The 3 - January 27, 2019

This week, in this edition of The 3, spotlight three stories of relevance to the Christian community, there is a jury verdict in favor of a Florida woman who did not wish to work on Sundays, and was fired for that.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a favorable ruling for the Trump Administration regarding transgender people in the military.  And, the state of New York now has a law on abortion that will allow the gruesome procedure up until birth, and perhaps after.

3 - Hotel employee who would not work on Sundays wins court case

Marie Jean-Pierre, originally from Haiti, formerly worked as a dishwasher at Miami's Conrad Hotel.  In 2016, she was terminated because she would not work on Sundays, according to a Baptist Press story, which reported that Ms. Jean-Pierre, a member of Bethel Evangelical Baptist Church, had won a lawsuit that she filed against the hotel owners.

The story says:

The jury ruled that the Conrad Hotel managed by Park Hotels and Resorts Inc. of Tysons, Va., formerly known as Hilton Worldwide, violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it failed to accommodate Jean-Pierre's Sunday worship, The Washington Post reported.

She was awarded $21.5 million: "$36,000 in back wages, $500,000 for emotional pain and mental anguish, and $21 million in punitive damages."  Because Federal law limits the amount of punitive damages to $300,000, that will result in a sizable reduction in the jury award.

The article states that Keny Felix, the pastor of the Southern Baptist Church Jean-Pierre attends, "describes Jean-Pierre as a 'devout believer' who 'embraces her faith in all aspects of her daily life.'"

According to the Baptist Press article, her attorney, Marc Brumer, said to The Washington Post: "It's just a great day for religious freedoms and protection of workers," adding, "For them, it wasn't really money. It was trying to right the wrong."

2 - Supreme Court temporarily allows transgender policy in military to begin

One of the top stories of 2018 impacting the Christian community involved the back-and-forth about whether or not transgender individuals can serve in the military.  The Trump Administration had presented a modified policy last year, allowing some transgender people to serve, but banning those with gender dysphoria; courts ruled against the implementation.  The Administration appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WORLD Magazine reported that the high court did indeed pave the way for the policy to take effect. It reported: "The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Trump administration may immediately implement limits on transgender soldiers that President Donald Trump ordered in February 2018."  According to the article, "The high court said that policy can take effect while the debate over transgender military service continues in the lower courts."

1 - New York enacts legal abortion up until birth

There are stunning developments out of New York state, as Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a sweeping abortion bill, about which the Family Research Council website says:

From now on, nothing stands in the way of a woman taking her baby's life -- days, hours, or even a minute before she's born. A fully grown, healthy human baby that thousands of struggling couples would give anything to have.

The article goes on to say:

Under the Reproductive Health Act, late-term abortion is the new normal. And where there's late-term abortion, there's almost always infanticide. This law guarantees it, sweeping away a large chunk of the penal codes that protected abortion survivors. Thanks to this Act, Kermit Gosnell, and his bloodstained, cat-infested, third-world excuse for a clinic, would be untouchable. The Resurgent's Stacey Lennox puts that into its gruesome context. "For those of you who saw the movie [Gosnell], Baby B would not be considered a victim."

And, according to FRC:

"Person," as far as this law is concerned, means a human being who has been born and is alive. Not a second before, and maybe -- without infant protections -- not few seconds after either. Midwives and nurse practitioners can also perform abortions under the law, meaning that this law doesn't just put unborn lives on the line -- but women's as well. Welcome back to the dark age of unregulated horror houses with rusty equipment and untrained staff who botch abortions and kill mothers...

Tony Perkins also writes this on the Family Research Council site:

Even now, in the aftermath of New York, the Trump administration is spinning into motion, combing through federal law to see where it can hold Governor Cuomo's feet to the fire. Earlier today, administration officials told me they're looking into places where the state's extremism is in conflict with federal laws like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Partial-Birth Abortion Act, Born-Alive Infants of Protection Act, and more. When it comes to federal dollars, we are encouraging the administration to use whatever legal and financial leverage they have to stop the nightmare in New York.

The 3 - January 20, 2019

This week's edition of The 3, focusing on three stories of relevance to the Christian community, highlights three areas related to pro-life matters.  One area includes court actions on two different cases that, if accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court, could lead to a repeal or weakening of Roe v. Wade.  Another has to do with Federal court ruling that put on hold new Administration proposed rules that would exempt religious employers from having to provide certain morally objectionable items in their health care plans.  And, while a bill that would prevent taxpayer funding of abortion died in the U.S. Senate, the President pledged to veto legislation that would be contrary to pro-life principles.

3 - The race to reverse Roe: new developments

The potential of a change of ideology on the U.S. Supreme Court has been a major topic since before the 2016 election, as a number of Christians have been motivated to see pro-life justices appointed to the Supreme Court.  Now, with two new justices and a host of Federal judges who have been appointed who would possess a more strict constructionist, less judicial activist perspective, there is hope in elements of the pro-life community that Roe v. Wade may be overturned, or at least its impact lessened.

But you have to have a case that the high court would take that could lead to such an outcome.  One nominee would be the case about which the DallasNews.com website reports, saying that "A federal appeals court issued a decision Thursday overturning a judge's 2017 ruling that Texas could not remove Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider." The article says that the lower court had "the state had acted 'without cause' in terminating the reproductive health care organization from the program that provides health care to low-income Americans." It continues:

But a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that Sparks did not use the correct standard in making his decision. The case now returns to Sparks for further consideration.

Sparks is the lower-court judge.

The case centers on video captured by the Center for Medical Progress which shows that Planned Parenthood officials were selling the body parts of aborted babies.  The article goes on to say:

Stuart Bowen, inspector general for the state's Health and Human Services Commission, said the footage showed that the group was willing to "violate generally accepted medical standards," and the state argued that Planned Parenthood was breaking the law by offering to acquire specific amounts of fetal tissue by altering abortion procedures.

But, the lower court judge had discounted the impact of the video material.

Meanwhile, Liberty Counsel announced it had filed a brief in a case in which the 11th Circuit had overturned Alabama's law against "dismemberment" abortion.  This is a case in which a three-judge appeals panel had upheld a lower court ruling.  But, as Liberty Counsel points out:

Although the Court of Appeals invalidated the Alabama law, it did so only because the judges said they were bound by the Supreme Court, which they noted created an "aberration of constitutional law" related to abortion. While disagreeing with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals acknowledged it is not the Supreme Court.

It points out that "One judge expressly called on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade."

2 - Federal courts uphold contraception/abortion pill mandate

It's a rather complicated process, but a new rule that was set to go into effect by the Trump administration protecting religious organizations from having to comply with the Affordable Care Act mandate requiring them to provide free contraception and potentially abortion-causing drugs in their health care plan has now been placed on hold.

LifeNews.com reports that:

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of Pennsylvania blocked a new Trump administration rule Monday that protects religious employers from being forced to pay for drugs and devices that may cause abortions.

Her ruling applies to the whole country, whereas a California judge’s order on a similar case Sunday applied to 13 states. California Judge Haywood Gilliam also was a nominee of pro-abortion President Obama.

There is a lawsuit filed in 2017 by a number of state attorneys general "to overturn new religious protections issued by the Trump administration. The new rules protect the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious employers from having to pay for birth control drugs and devices, including types that may cause abortions, in their employee health care plans under Obamacare."

The LifeNews.com story says that, "Vox reports the Pennsylvania judge did not permanently block the rule; instead, she issued a temporary injunction while the lawsuit continues."

1 - Senate votes not to move ban on Federal funding of abortion forward; President says he will veto all pro-abortion legislation

There is still more news regarding life and abortion in this week's edition of The 3.  First of all, the bad news: as Townhall.com reports: "A bill...that would have permanently banned the use of taxpayer funds for abortion failed to advance on the Senate floor Thursday with a 48-47 vote, falling short of the 60 votes needed.

The White House, indicating support for the bill, had said, "This bill would continue to prohibit the Federal Government from paying for affected procedures with the taxes of Americans and thereby protect the conscience rights of taxpayers who find abortion morally or religiously objectionable..."

Meanwhile, at Friday's March for Life, according to LifeSiteNews.com, President Trump, in a video message stated, "Today, I have signed a letter to Congress to make clear that if they send any legislation to my desk that weakens the protection of human life, I will issue a veto. And, we have the support to uphold those vetoes. Every child is a sacred gift from God..."

The 3 - January 13, 2019

This week's edition of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes another instance in which a nominee for a Federal position faced in appropriate comments about his religious practice.  Also, the topic of Internet censorship continues to proliferate, and a religious broadcasters' organization is calling for Congressional hearings.  And, there have been two instances in which the U.S. Supreme Court has had the opportunity to accept abortion-related cases, and have not done so.

3 - More inappropriate comments about religion in Congressional hearing

In yet another Congressional hearing, a candidate for a Federal judgeship, Brian Buescher, was the recipient of inappropriate comments about his religious beliefs.  According to Todd Starnes, writing at FoxNews.com:

Buescher came under attack by Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, for his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a revered and highly-respected Catholic charitable organization.

Both lawmakers posed a series of written questions demanding to know if he would end his membership in the Knights of Columbus should he be confirmed.

“The Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions,” Hirono wrote in the questionnaire. “For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

That, of course, was a proposal that was passed by California voters, was challenged in court, and the Governor and Attorney General refused to defend the voters' action.  The AG is now the Governor, Jerry Brown, and Harris was his replacement.

Starnes brought out that this is not the first time that nominees were criticized for their religious beliefs.  Appeals court judge Amy Coney Barrett faced verbal barbs from Senator Dianne Feinstein, who said, "When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern..."

And, before that, Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized Russell Vought, nominated for a leadership position at the Office of Management and Budget.  Starnes wrote:

Sen. Sanders deemed Vought unsuitable for office because the nominee believes that salvation is found alone through Jesus Christ. He said someone with that kind of religious belief system is “really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, also from Hawaii, according to another FoxNews.com article, wrote an op-ed on The Hill website, in which she said, “While I oppose the nomination of Brian Buescher to the U.S. District Court in Nebraska, I stand strongly against those who are fomenting religious bigotry, citing as disqualifiers Buescher’s Catholicism and his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus...”


2 - Religious broadcasters' organization calls for action in Congress in light of censorship

There has been much concern expressed about the censoring of speech by Christians on social media platforms, and the National Religious Broadcasters organization has been involved in attempting to counter these efforts.  Its website states:

National Religious Broadcasters is urging a “careful” congressional review of the “Good Samaritan” protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Dr. Jerry A. Johnson, president and CEO of NRB, sent letters to the chairpersons and ranking members of these committees: Judiciary and Energy in the House, and Judiciary and Commerce in the Senate. The website states:

The call for hearings comes after Big Tech leaders failed to respond to repeated requests from NRB to craft a free speech charter protecting users’ viewpoints while still permitting them to combat obscenity, incitements to violence, and other misuses of their platforms, “without unduly burdening free expression with an array of confusing and haphazardly applied speech codes,” Johnson told the congressional leaders. “I am still hopeful that such a charter could yet be put forward by the industry.”

The article mentioned a temporary suspension by Facebook of evangelist Franklin Graham, for which the social media platform apologized, and mentioned comments made by Johnson to PJMedia.com.  He said, "That the ban happened at all illustrates the pattern of censorship of Christian and conservative viewpoints by Facebook, which the company has failed to acknowledge and apologize for — a pattern shared by other Big Tech platforms,” adding, “How many similar bans have happened to Christians without the profile of Franklin Graham who have never received their apology?”

1 - Supreme Court passes on another abortion case

There has been plenty of anticipation about how the addition of conservative, Constitutionalist judges on the U.S. Supreme Court would affect the cause of life.  So far, the results have been inconclusive. There was concern expressed a few weeks ago when the high court declined to hear a case out of , according to the Washington Examiner, "could have allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood in state Medicaid programs."  It takes four justices to accept an appeal from a lower court, and it appears that Chief Justice John Roberts and newly appointed justice Brett Kavanaugh had sided with the liberal bloc of justices not to take the case, a case that Justice Thomas had contended did not directly affect so-called "abortion rights."

But the article did point out that a court watcher had said that Kavanaugh may have arrived on the court too late to be an informed fourth vote on this case.  

Now, another case with ties to abortion has come before the high court. TheFederalist.com reported that, "On Friday, the Supreme Court delayed its consideration of a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down two Indiana abortion statutes. The first banned abortions that take place as a result of the child’s race, sex, or disability. The second mandates that the remains of unborn children be buried or cremated."

The article goes on to say that, regarding the abortion of children with Down Syndrome, for instance, that "The first statute in the lawsuit would have banned this type of abortion." It goes on to state, "No longer would mothers be allowed to remove their children from the gene pool merely because they see their children as less desirable than they might have been without such a 'defect.' The statute does not prohibit mothers from aborting disabled children for reasons other than their disability."

The 3 - January 6, 2019

This week's edition of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, features several stories that are continuations of top issues from the previous year.  For instance, there is more internet censorship; this time of one of America's leading evangelical ministers.  And, the Administration's policy on transgender individuals serving in the military received an affirmative court action.  Plus, with new House leadership, taxpayer funding of abortion was included in a new Federal spending bill.

3 - More Internet censorship: Franklin Graham temporarily banned from Facebook

One of the Meeting House Top 10 Topics of 2018 involved the censorship of Christians from social media sites.  And, recently, a frequent Facebook user was banned - for an two-year old post.  The Washington Examiner published the story of Franklin Graham's short-term removal from the website.  The story stated:

Following the ban Graham said in a Facebook post on Friday that the flagged statement, which was from April, was about North Carolina's "bathroom bill" that focused on which bathrooms transgender individuals were legally allowed to use.

He also shared the content of that flagged post, urging his followers to judge whether it contained hate speech. The post was critical of Bruce Springsteen canceling a North Carolina concert over the bill's existence.

He had written, in April 2016, that, "Bruce Springsteen, a long-time gay rights activist, has cancelled his North Carolina concert," adding "He says the NC law #HB2 to prevent men from being able to use women's restrooms and locker rooms is going 'backwards instead of forwards.' Well, to be honest, we need to go back! Back to God. Back to respecting and honoring His commands. Back to common sense."

Facebook said that the move against Graham was made in error. A spokesperson for Facebook said to the Examiner: "A page admin for Franklin Graham’s Facebook page did receive a 24-hour feature block after we removed a post for violating our hate speech policies," adding, "Upon re-reviewing this content, we identified that the post does not violate our hate speech policy and has been restored.”

The article also states:

"Why are they going back to 2016?" Graham asked during an appearance on Fox News. "I think it was just really a personal attack towards me. The problem with Facebook, if you disagree with their position on sexual orientation then you could be classified as hate speech, or that you’re a racist. This is a problem."

Graham also said that he accepted Facebook's apology and was appreciative that they apologized.

2 - Trump Administration (finally) wins an appeals court victory on military transgender restrictions

Another of the top 10 stories of 2018 involved the proposed ban on many transgender individuals from serving in the military, a policy developed by then-Secretary of Defense Mattis and approved by the President.  However, these regulations cannot go into effect because of court decisions against it.

That's still the case, but the Administration did win a court victory recently about the policy.  According to the USA Today website:

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the partial ban announced by the Pentagon, but never implemented, should not have been blocked by a district court while it was being challenged.

The website goes on to say that, "other courts' blockades of the policy remain in effect." It also states:

Four federal district courts blocked the policy from going into effect, and even while appeals courts have been considering it, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. The justices will consider that request at their private conference next Friday.

1 - New House leadership: attempt to include taxpayer funding of abortion in spending bill

There is new leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, which now has a Democrat majority. And, the legislative priorities have definitely changed.  While lawmakers are at a standoff regarding border security, the new majority has proposed spending taxpayer dollars on...abortion.

LifeSite News reports that:

Following her re-election as House Speaker Thursday, Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi announced that her party would be “offering the Senate Republican Appropriations [Committee] legislation to reopen the government later today.” The proposal consisted of one bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security until February 8 and another to fund federal departments until the end of September.

The article goes on to say:

The legislation lacked the wall funding at the heart of the dispute, however, and would also repeal the Mexico City Policy (now called Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance) that Trump reinstated shortly after taking office and later expanded. In addition to making abortion-involved groups once again eligible for foreign aid, the Democrat plan would also give $37.5 million to the United Nations Population Fund, from which Trump withdrew in 2017 over its participation in China’s forced abortion regime.

The priorities have definitely changed - you won't see attempts to defund Planned Parenthood from House leadership, and prior to the election, Pelosi also said that, according to CBN.com, she would introduce the "Equality Act" as one of her first orders of business.  The article says:

The act would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which already bars discrimination on the bases of race, color, sex, religion, and nationality. The Equality Act would expand those protections beyond the workplace. The bill would prohibit gender discrimination in retail shops, restaurants, health care, and social services, housing, applying for a loan, or participating in the jury selection process.