The 3 - October 25, 2020

This week's edition of The 3, includes news concerning the state of Colorado and COVID restrictions that two churches believe are not evenly applied - and a federal judge agrees.  Also, the head of the government agency regulating communications has indicated his concern with social media censorship. And, a U.N. body has issued a declaration that says there is “no international right to abortion.”

Positive outcome for Colorado churches on COVID restrictions

Court battles continue regarding restrictions placed on churches in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. According to Liberty Counsel, which is involved in defending a client in the state of Colorado against COVID restrictions, two Colorado churches have been successful, in a federal district court, in blocking what they see as unfairly-applied restrictions.  The website states:

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Domenico, appointed by President Trump, granted the churches’ temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on the grounds that Governor Polis’ Public Health Order 20-35 violated their rights to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. The basis of the opinion is that the governor’s order treats houses of worship differently than secular establishments that pose an equal risk of spreading COVID-19. Specifically, the court found that the numerical limit (175 people) and the mandatory face-covering provisions are not neutrally applied between nonreligious and religious gatherings.

The website says that the effect of the ruling is "the churches will not be required to limit the number of people except for social distancing and attendees will not be required to wear face coverings." According to Liberty Counsel, the judge pointed out that "there is no meaningful difference between a warehouse, restaurant, or an elementary school where employees, diners, and students spend long periods in a closed-indoor setting and a house of worship."  

FCC chair to further address social media censorship

In light of what appears to be a steady stream of instances of social media posts and pages being suspended by companies, such as Twitter and Facebook, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has decided to take a closer look at a regulation that governs social media companies, according to the National Religious Broadcasters website.

Chairman Ajit Pai stated, “Throughout my tenure at the Federal Communications Commission, I have favored regulatory parity, transparency, and free expression,” adding, “Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters.” At issue is Section 230 of the Communications Act, which, according to NRB, "protects internet companies from liability for what users post on their platforms and also includes a section facilitating their 'Good Samaritan' blocking of offensive content by defending them from lawsuits based on content their moderation efforts may have missed. But, NRB notes that, "This extra layer of protection, however, has given Big Tech the ability to censor, block, and impede otherwise lawful and non-injurious citizen viewpoints on the web."

NRB had floated the idea of this protection being removed last year, and its CEO was supportive of this latest announcement from the FCC head.

Multiple nations affirm document regarding sanctity of life

“In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning...”

That is a phrase from the Geneva Consensus Declaration, which was signed recently by 32 nations, according to ChristianHeadlines.com, which quoted U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said that the Declaration, “protects women’s health, defends the unborn, and reiterates the vital importance of the family as the foundation of society.” The document, which is linked to the article, states that “there is no international right to abortion.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar stated, “With increasing frequency, some rich nations and U.N. agencies beholden to them are wrongly asserting abortion as a universal human right...These efforts pressure countries to institute progressive abortion laws or risk losing global funding or standing in international fora. Tragically, women around the world unnecessarily suffer health challenges – all too often deadly health challenges – while too many wealthy nations and international institutions put a myopic focus on a radical agenda that is offensive to many cultures and derails agreement of women’s health priorities." Azar said, “Today we put down a clear marker,” adding, “No longer can U.N. agencies reinterpret and misinterpret agreed-upon language without accountability.”