The 3 - July 5, 2020

There was plenty of activity from the U.S. Supreme Court during the past few days, and while the high court did offer some glimmers of hope, two rulings stand out as being disappointing for Christian groups and leaders: the rewriting of civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity under a broadened definition of "sex" and ruling against a LA law requiring hospital admitting privileges for abortion doctors.  But, the court did issue a ruling allowing religious schools to participate in a Montana scholarship program.  And, it sent two Indiana pro-life laws back to an appeals court for another review.  Plus, California has banned singing in church to try to reduce the spread of the Coronavirus.

U.S. Supreme Court rules that religious schools should be eligible in choice programs

In Montana, a state program had forbidden scholarship dollars made available for students to choose private schools from going to religious schools.  According to Family Research Council, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that program to be unconstitutional.

The piece at the FRC site was written by Katherine Johnson and she said that, "More broadly, we are confident that the case sounded the death knell for Blaine Amendments, which are state constitutional provisions that prevent any public aid from being distributed to any schools with a religious affiliation," pointing out that, "Thirty-eight states have Blaine amendments that prevent religious parents and students from using tax credits to sectarian schools."  Johnson points out:

In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court noted the injustice of only allowing students who would use the tax credits towards secular schools to participate in the scholarship programs. This choice forces students to choose between their faith and educational opportunities.

After disappointment in LA case, SCOTUS makes decisions more acceptable to pro-lifers

The Supreme Court, while getting it right on religious freedom, had a chance to reverse a decision from four years ago, when the court at the time struck down a Texas law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.  With two new justices and a Chief Justice who had voted in favor of that Texas law, you would think that the high court would right its wrong in a similar case out of Louisiana that came before it.

But, as the Christian Post reports, that is not the case. Here's the backstory, according to a Post article:

In 2014, Louisiana passed the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they perform the procedure.

The law was blocked from taking effect and a similar law passed in Texas was struck down by the Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision in 2016 known as Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Last October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in the case and in March, oral arguments in the case were heard, with both sides holding demonstrations outside the court.

Many considered the case noteworthy since it was the first abortion-related case brought before the Supreme Court since the confirmations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled against the Louisiana law, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion: “Those findings mirror those made in Whole Woman’s Health in every relevant respect and require the same result. We consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional.” The article said that Justice Thomas "authored one of the dissents to the court decision, saying that the majority was 'enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.'

Later in the week, though, the high court issued rulings in two cases out of Indiana; the Christian Post reported, "In orders issued Thursday, the high court tossed out rulings against Indiana laws requiring abortion clinic staff to show mothers an ultrasound image of their baby before an abortion is scheduled to be performed, and another requiring parental notification before an abortion is performed on an underage girl."  Those cases will now go back down to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The article stated:

Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter said in a statement released Thursday that he was “cautiously optimistic that the ultrasound and parental notification appeals will find success in the Seventh Circuit.”

California governor to churches: no singing

State officials in California are trying to get a handle on the surge in Coronavirus cases in his state, so they have taken a rather novel approach that has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and religion - just ban singing in churches!  That's right, The Sacramento Bee reports on the state's newest set of guidelines:

Citing the risk of spreading the coronavirus, updated COVID-19 guidelines issued Wednesday by the state Department of Public Health say “places of worship must therefore discontinue singing and chanting activities.”

In previously allowing religious organizations to reopen in late May, the state merely said these institutions should “strongly consider discontinuing singing, group recitation, and other practices and performances.”

The article says:

It remains to be seen if, or how, the state or counties are expected to end singing in houses of worship. Churches were among the most aggressive institutions in pushing back on Newsom’s original stay-at-home order in mid-March. Several sued the governor to overturn the order, saying it violated their First Amendment rights, although none were successful in court.