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..."