The 3 - October 20, 2019

On this latest installment of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, there is positive court action that would prevent doctors and others in the health care field from having to participate in action that violates their conscience rights.  Also, pro-life sidewalk counselors received good news from a Federal appeals court regarding their ability to communicate truth to women who are seeking abortions.  And, the U.S. Attorney General made an important speech on the religious foundation of our nation recently at Notre Dame.

Judge rules to protect conscience rights of health care professionals

Doctors, nurses, and others who have devoted themselves to health care should not have to violate their conscience by participating in activities that they find objectionable, and a Federal court judge has placed himself in agreement with that premise in a recent ruling, according to a report on The Christian Post website.  It reports:

U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, vacated a 2016 Obamacare mandate that critics feared could have forced faith-based doctors out of work if they refused to perform gender-transition procedures or abortions on patients referred to them.

As the article relates, O'Connor had ruled against the regulation in 2017 by issuing a "nationwide preliminary injunction." The article states that "O’Connor maintained his opinion that the rule violates the APA but also ruled that the regulation violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act." APA stands for "Administrative Procedures Act."

The article quotes recent Meeting House guest Luke Goodrich of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented plaintiffs in the case:

“It is critically important that doctors are able to continue serving patients in keeping with their consciences and their professional medical judgment, especially when it comes to the personal health choices of families and children,” Goodrich said in a statement. “Doctors cannot do their jobs if government bureaucrats are trying to force them to perform potentially harmful procedures that violate their medical and moral judgment.”

Pro-life sidewalk counselors receive positive ruling

The presence of pro-life sidewalk counselors are there strategically in order to share with abortion-minded women the truth about their unborn child.  Unfortunately, there are those who realize the potential effectiveness of this type of ministry and are opposed to it.  Some lawmakers realize that they can intimidate those brave individuals and restrict their ability to function, and they will certainly attempt to do so.

Such was the case in Pittsburgh, where the Alliance Defending Freedom, according to its website, filed a lawsuit against an ordinance there that passed the City Council in order to protect the so-called "right" to abortion by setting up speech zones at the clincs.  The site states:

ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit in 2014 on behalf of pro-life individuals who haven’t been allowed to speak or engage in sidewalk counseling within the zones. Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto has been enforcing the law, which he voted for as a city councilman in 2005.

Under the ordinance, no one may “knowingly congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate in a zone extending 15 feet from any entrance to the hospital or health care facility” that the city designates. Health care facilities broadly and vaguely include any “establishment providing therapeutic, preventative, corrective, healing and health-building treatment services on an out-patient basis by physicians, dentists and other practitioners.”

The website lauds the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which said that, according to ADF, "...this language does not and cannot apply to pro-life sidewalk counselors." The website says:

"In its latest opinion in Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, the 3rd Circuit wrote, “the Ordinance, as properly interpreted, does not extend to sidewalk counseling—or any other calm and peaceful one-on-one conversations….”

ADF Legal Counsel Elissa Graves is quoted as saying, “Pittsburgh politicians aren’t at liberty to silence speech they dislike. As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in last year’s NIFLA v. Becerra decision, ‘the people lose when the government is the one deciding which ideas should prevail.’”

Attorney General calls out those who oppose religion

Attorney General William Barr demonstrated his knowledge of American history and his dedication to supporting religious faith in a stirring message delivered at the University of Notre Dame recently.  According to an article at the Washington Times website...

He said the founders, in writing the Constitution, rejected a society with a weak moral character, which would have needed an overbearing coercive government, and instead counted on a people with strong Judeo-Christian beliefs that could govern themselves without a bullying government.

“This is really what was meant by ‘self-government,’” Mr. Barr said. “In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people — a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.”

In one of the strongest statements reported by the Times, Barr said: “The fact is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role of religion,” adding, "What we call ‘values’ today are really nothing more than mere sentimentality, still drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity.”

Tony Perkins of Family Research Council took notice, writing at the organization's website:

Harkening back to James Madison, John Adams, and others, he reminded people that "By and large, the Founding generation's view of human nature was drawn from the classical Christian tradition... [F]ree government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people," Barr explained.

But, modern secularists, he went on, "dismiss this idea... as other-worldly superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy." They've imposed their own ideas of moral relativism on society and the results have been grim. "First is the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction," Barr warns. Of course, "One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all the trappings of a religion, including inquisitions and excommunication."

In a Breakpoint commentary, John Stonestreet of the Colson Center stated:

The Attorney General’s speech reminds us that competing visions for America and its future are rooted in completely different worldviews: One leads to freedom, the other leads to tyranny—because it discards the true source of freedom.

This much is clear: We can no longer assume our friends and neighbors “get” religious freedom. We must make the case for religious freedom as a positive good for all, as a necessary ingredient of human flourishing, for true freedom, and for our life as a nation.

And, as Perkins pointed out, Barr said: "Secularists, and their allies among the 'progressives,' have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values..."

The FRC President then wrote, "...immediately, liberals set about proving the attorney general right...," adding:

The Washington Post called it "terrifying." Over at the New York Times, Paul Krugman said it smacked of "religious bigotry." Richard Painter's fury burned through his Twitter feed, insisting Barr's heartfelt and passionate address was "the latest episode of 'The Handmaid's Tail." And the rage went on and on. Of course, the Wall Street Journal's William McGurn points out, "This is what we have come to expect when someone in public life mentions religion in a positive light." Or, it turns out, secular activists in a negative one.