The 3 - February 10, 2019

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes a story in which a judge ruled that a university could not decide not to recognize a Christian student groups because of its devotion to Christian principles.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a Louisiana pro-life bill from going into effect.  And, both chambers of the U.S. Congress, lawmakers were unable to get a unanimous vote to protect the lives of babies surviving abortions.

3 - Iowa university student group victorious in court case

A campus student group at the University of Iowa lost its recognition by the school back in September of 2017, and recently, according to an article from the Daily Caller News Foundation published at The Stream, "A judge ruled Wednesday that the University of Iowa cannot revoke its recognition of a Christian student group based on its statement of faith, which required leaders to acknowledge sexual relations did not happen outside of marriage and every individual needed to embrace their 'God-given sex.'"

The organization is Business Leaders in Christ, which was formed, according to the article, by students in the university's business school to "provide a space for Christian students to network, hold group discussions and 'keep Christ first in the fast-paced business world,' according to a Department of Justice statement of interest filed on Dec. 21, 2018."

The article quotes Federal district judge Stephanie Rose, who wrote, “The Constitution does not tolerate the way defendants chose to enforce the human rights policy,” adding, “Particularly when free speech is involved, the uneven application of any policy risks the most exacting standard of judicial scrutiny, which the defendants have failed to withstand.”  In other words, as the article said, "the university allowed certain groups on campus to restrict access based on their requirements." Examples included:

One organization, Love Works, demanded leaders to sign “a gay-affirming statement of Christian faith.” Another group, House of Lorde, conducted interviews for potential members to ensure there is “a space for Black Queer individuals.”

2 - U.S. Supreme Court votes to not allow women's protection bill to take effect in Louisiana

There was anticipation that on Monday, February 4, a new law in Louisiana that mandated that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals would go into effect.  But, after Justice Samuel Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court had put the implementation on hold the preceding week in consideration of a request for a stay, the entire Supreme Court weighed in.

According to LifeSiteNews: 

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted five to four to block the implementation of a Louisiana law requiring basic health and safety standards for abortion facilities, potentially hinting at the justices’ disposition to affirm a key pro-abortion ruling from 2016.

The article points out that Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the court to put the law on hold at least until the Supreme Court decides on whether or not it will hear the case itself; if it refuses to do so, the lower court ruling in favor of the law will stand.

Opponents to the law had said that the Louisiana law was different than the Texas law struck down in 2016 by the high court.  That was a 5-3 decision, in which Roberts voted against overturning the law (SCOTUS Blog). A Federal judge on the 5th Circuit had noted differences, according to the LifeSiteNews article.

1 - Bills  protecting lives of children surviving abortion attempts fails to gain unanimous vote in both chambers of Congress

It was an affirming and disaffirming week for the sanctity of life.  You had the President of the United States make strong statements on behalf of the unborn in the State of the Union address and at the National Prayer Breakfast.  And, you had brave lawmakers on Capitol Hill in both chambers of Congress who attempted to pass legislation to protect babies who had just survived a murder attempt through abortion.

However, unanimous consent could not be obtained in either chamber.  Family Research Council comments on the debacle:

In a civilized society, there should brightly colored moral lines that neither party will cross. When Democrats did, it put every American on notice that there is no bridge too far, no policy too extreme. As Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebr.) said earlier this week, who would have thought that any leader -- let alone the House speaker -- would block legislation that makes it illegal to leave a newborn baby to die? "This is morally repugnant. Passing the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act shouldn't be hard -- there are only two sides to this debate: you're defending babies or you're defending infanticide."

It should be, Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) argued, the "simplest vote you will ever take." And yet, Democrats didn't take it. In the face of overwhelming backlash, a party in full-blown damage control dug in even deeper -- refusing not just Thursday, but today, to even bring the bill to the floor. For so many Americans, the footage of Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) asking to move the Born-Alive bill by unanimous consent was a powerful indication that the Left has no intention of listening to their constituents -- or what's left of their conscience.

The bill could still pass both chambers, but it will go through the standard procedure. As the article points out, Senator Patty Murray of Washington was the Democratic senator who thwarted the bill's progress.  In the House, chairman Henry Cuellar refused to recognize Scalise's request.

The FRC piece also commented on how out-of-step this radical agenda is from most Americans:

Already, Rasmussen polling warns, they're in a political no-man's-land with this radical agenda. Only 21 percent of Americans agree with them that abortion should even be legal in the last three months of pregnancy. Imagine how low that number would be if they'd asked about the Democrats' other agenda: infanticide.