The 3 - December 26, 2021

Even though it was the week of Christmas, when we celebrate the best news of all, there were three major news stories that developed, that are included in this week's edition of The 3.  The U.S. Supreme Court has set a date for arguments regarding COVID vaccine mandates. Also, a major piece of legislation, that would force taxpayers to pay for abortion, still does not have the number of votes needed for passage.  And, all 17 missionaries in Haiti who were kidnapped by a gang are now free.

SCOTUS to hear vaccine mandate challenges in early January

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down its ruling lifting a stay on the enforcement of the mandate on businesses of 100 or more employees to get the COVID vaccine, a number of companies, organizations, including religious organizations, and governmental entities made their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The high court has set a date to hear oral arguments on the business mandate, as well as mandatory vaccines for health care workers, on Friday, January 7.  The SCOTUS blog says:

Shortly after receiving the emergency requests last week, the court set a deadline of Dec. 30 for responses in both disputes. The decision on Wednesday to hear oral argument on the emergency requests came as somewhat of a surprise: It seemed more likely that the court would dispose of the requests with a brief order, as it normally does on the so-called “shadow docket.” Instead, and perhaps in response to criticism of the increased use of the shadow docket to litigate major policy disputes, the justices fast-tracked the cases for oral argument, as they have already done twice this year when fielding requests for emergency relief in the battle over Texas’ controversial abortion law and a request by a Texas inmate to have his pastor touch him and pray out loud during his execution.

Rejection of BBB prevents taxpayer funding of abortion

There are still not enough votes in the U.S. Senate to pass the Build Back Better Bill, thanks to an announcement by a key senator, but there are reports that negotiations will continue in order to pass the expansive bill, that includes federal spending on a number of programs - including abortion.

According to The Daily Citizen, a website of Focus on the Family, the bill, with a pricetag of almost $2 trillion, would "have exacerbated the federal government’s debt binge, and harmed families in the process." The article goes on to say:

The bill would have:

• Allowed taxpayer dollars to directly fund abortions.
• Mandated healthcare plans cover abortions.
• Provided “nearly $1.3 billion to help further indoctrinate and brainwash public school students with leftist propaganda, including critical race theory and dangerous gender equity policies.”

And, that's just a sampling. The article also states that "Focus on the Family President Jim Daly warned that the Build Back Better bill would have been an 'unprecedented grasp of government overreach' that would threaten to 'undermine the institution of the family on a number of levels.'" He noted that, “At the core of the debate over H.R. 5376 is government’s role in our lives...The authors of this legislation believe government is in the best position to solve our problems and improve our quality of life. In reality, government almost always makes things worse – borrowing and spending money it doesn’t have to try and fix issues it helped create in the first place.”

Remainder of Haiti missionaries held captive since October are now free

Early last week, the word came that the remaining 12 missionaries who had been captured in Haiti were free.  There was speculation that their captors had released them, but the sponsoring organization, Christian Aid Ministries, detailed a daring escape plan that catapulted the missionaries, including several children, to safety.

CBN News reported on a Monday press conference, in which ministry spokesman Weston Showalter related that, "The hostages were sensing God nudging them to attempt an escape," adding, "Over the time of their captivity, God gave various hostages a desire to attempt an escape."  He said that there was "much discussion and prayer," and that they came to the conclusion that it was time to go - on Wednesday, December 15.

The article continues by quoting Showalter:

"When they sensed the timing was right, they found a way to open the door that was closed and blocked, filed silently to the path that they had chosen to follow, and quickly left the place that they were held despite the fact that numerous guards were close by," Showalter said. "In the distance, they could see a mountain feature that they had recognized and identified in the previous days. They identified this landmark before and they knew that this was the direction they needed to go. They also followed the sure guidance of the stars as they journeyed through the night, traveling toward safety."

“After a number of hours of walking, day began to dawn and they eventually found someone who helped to make a phone call for help,” he said, his voice beginning to choke. “They were finally free.”

The general director of Christian Aid Ministries, David Troyer, addressed the kidnappers in a statement: "You caused our hostages and their families a lot of suffering. However, Jesus taught us by word and by His own example that the power of forgiving love is stronger than the hate of violent force. Therefore, we extend forgiveness to you..." He added, "The hostages told you plainly how you can also be forgiven by God, if you repent. Our desire is that you and all who hear or read this statement may come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, our Savior, the Son of God, and the Prince of Peace..."

The 3 - December 19, 2021

This week's edition includes some really good news out of Haiti: a group of 17 people, consisting of missionaries and family members, has been released by the gang that had kidnapped the group over two months ago.  Also, a federal agency has loosened restrictions on "abortion pill," that had previously required it to be administered in-person - now it can be mailed and supervised by telemedicine. Plus, more court action on the federal COVID vaccine mandate, as an appeals court has removed a halt on enforcement that another appeals court had instituted.

Remaining kidnapped missionaries now free from Haitian captors

Just over two months ago, a group of 17 people affiliated with Ohio-based Christian Aid Ministries was kidnapped by a radical gang in Haiti - this included missionaries as well as several children, one as young as eight months when the captivity began. A ransom demand of $1 million per person had reportedly been made.  The gang then began to release hostages, and up until last week, five had received their freedom. 

This nightmare scenario is now over. The Christian Post reported that all 17 have now been released. It quoted David Troyer, who heads Christian Aid Ministries, who said on Friday, "A U.S.-flagged plane left Haiti with the remaining freed hostages yesterday afternoon. Everyone, including the 10-month-old baby, the 3-year-old and the 6-year-old boys, seem to be doing reasonably well..."

The story said that Troyer did not indicate if a ransom had been paid, but he did extend forgiveness to the captors, stating, "We do not know all of the challenges you face. We do believe that violence and oppression of others can never be justified. You caused our hostages and their families a lot of suffering. However, Jesus taught us by word and by His own example that the power of forgiving love is stronger than the hate of violent force. Therefore, we extend forgiveness to you. The hostages told you plainly how you can also be forgiven by God, if you repent...”

At a press conference earlier today, a spokesman for the ministry said the remaining 12 hostages actually escaped, aided by looking to the stars:  The New York Times states:

Twice when they planned to flee, God told them to wait. But during the night last Wednesday, the group of 12 missionaries who had been held hostage for two months in Haiti put on their shoes and packed water in their clothes.

“They found a way to open the door that was closed and blocked, filed silently to the path that they had chosen to follow and quickly left the place that they were held, despite the fact that numerous guards were close by,” Weston Showalter, the spokesman for Christian Aid Ministries, said on Monday, recounting the story for the first time at a press briefing.

They used a mountain as a landmark, and followed the light of the moon and “the sure guidance of the stars,” he said.

They zigzagged north and west for about 10 miles, carrying two small children, “traveling through woods and thickets, working through thorns and briers,” he said. 

Ultimately, they ended up finding someone who provided a way for them to phone for help.

FDA approves distribution of abortion pills by mail

The Food and Drug Administration has changed its policy to allow the abortion pill to be mailed to patients, a move that the pro-life research organization, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, an arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, says would "irresponsibly erode longstanding patient safeguards on the abortion pill, despite major U.S. and international research confirming that chemical abortion has led to a surge in emergency room visits and higher rates of complications."

Tessa Longbons of the CLI states:

“The FDA claims the abortion pill is safe, yet peer-reviewed research confirms a 500% increase in the rate of chemical abortion-related emergency room visits. The FDA claims that complications are rare, yet peer-reviewed research from the United States, Finland, and Sweden confirms the abortion pill has a much higher complication rate than surgical abortion..."

Franklin Graham, posting on Facebook, called the move, "Murder by mail," and posted a USA Today article; he wrote:

Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life education and defense fund said the decision “will lead to more lives lost to abortion, and will increase the number of mothers who suffer physical and psychological harm from chemical abortions." This USA TODAY article says this is a “key move by the Biden administration” as the Supreme Court is currently considering possible new abortion protections for the unborn. Abortion supporters try to make it sound more acceptable and less barbaric by saying that it “terminates a pregnancy.” But medication abortions, as they are called, are just another way to deliberately end the life of an unborn child—and that should be called what it is—murder. Pray that the minds and hearts of people across our nation would be awakened to the great sin and heartbreak of abortion. And pray for our Supreme Court to make changes that will protect and value the most vulnerable among us.

Federal appeals court allows vaccine mandate to move forward

Just weeks ago, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor had ceased its enforcement of an order that forces businesses who employ 100 or more employees to mandate COVID-19 vaccines. This came on the heels of a stay by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After that, future cases were consolidated by a lottery at the Sixth Circuit, which lifted the stay and allowed the mandate to be enforced.

In a press release, Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty Institute, stated, “The Sixth Circuit panel’s decision to end the stay is outrageous and endangers the freedom of all Americans...Few are aware that, in addition to the President’s OSHA mandate being clearly lawless, its takeover of American companies also includes all religious organizations of over 100 employees. Our clients simply cannot comply with a government mandate that forces them to violate the conscience rights of their employees. The Supreme Court must act, or there will be a Constitutional crisis.”  The organization has request an Emergency Application, which was directed to Justice Kavanaugh, who is the justice responsible for the Sixth Circuit.

 

First Liberty and Alliance Defending Freedom were among organizations who filed appeals at the U.S. Supreme Court. Both legal groups represent ministries whose number of employees exceed the threshold. ADF's website says, "Friday’s decision by the 6th Circuit panel prompted ADF attorneys to seek a emergency relief from enforcement of the mandate—and seek the Supreme Court’s direct review—on behalf of their clients who would be required to force unvaccinated employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, be subject to weekly testing and masking requirements, or lose their job."

ADF Senior Counsel Ryan Bangert states, "The government has no authority to unilaterally treat unvaccinated employees like workplace hazards akin to asbestos or toxic chemicals, or to compel employers to carry out the government’s unlawful national vaccine mandate. The profoundly negative effect of this upon those employers and the 80 million American workers who are impacted is just one reason the Supreme Court immediately should halt enforcement of the mandate,” adding, “The Biden administration’s decision to mandate vaccines through an OSHA emergency rule is the height of government overreach.”

Also, as the SCOTUS Blog notes:

On Thursday, the federal government asked the justices to allow it to temporarily enforce a vaccine mandate, with religious and medical exemptions, for health-care workers at facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Lower-court rulings have blocked the administration from enforcing that mandate in about half the states. The justices ordered the challengers in those cases to respond by the afternoon of Dec. 30.

The 3 - December 12, 2021

This week's edition of The 3 features some activity from the U.S. Supreme Court, which not only allowed a ban on many abortions in Texas to continue, but also heard arguments in a case involving a tuition credit program from Maine which apparently is not open to students at schools regarded as too religious.  And, church leaders in the U.K. are challenging a ban on what is termed "conversion therapy," which is the term that includes counseling, including Biblically-based counseling, that can help people resist and/or overcome same-sex attraction.

Texas heartbeat law will continue to be in effect, thanks to U.S. Supreme Court

The Texas law that would ban abortion in most cases following the time that an unborn baby's heartbeat is detected has been in effect since September 1, has drawn several court challenges, and thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, will continue to help save babies' lives in the state - perhaps as many as 100 per day.

The law had been challenged all the way to the high court shortly before its implementation and was allowed to go into effect.  It has been challenged in court by abortion providers and the current administration - the 5th Circuit had rejected the federal government's attempt to block the law, and it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Just a few days ago, according to LifeNews.com:

The high court ruled that the Texas abortion businesses challenging the law can continue with their lawsuit, but the good news is the Texas abortion ban remains on the books and will continue protecting babies from abortion whose hearts have begun beating.

The Supreme Court voted 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, to allow the Texas abortion companies’ lawsuit to continue and the court voted 8-1, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting, to dismiss the Biden lawsuit against the ban. The Biden administration claimed it had the right to enforce the so-called “right” to abortion, but the Supreme Court disagreed.

So, there is still continuing legal action, but the high court has maintained its position not to interfere with the ban. In another development, according to LifeNews.com:

The high court also watered down the lawsuit the Texas abortion companies filed, saying they may sue state licensing officials, but not the state judges and clerks who are charged with handling lawsuits spurred by the law. That could severely limit their ability to stop the private enforcement mechanism behind the ban, which has saved thousands of babies from abortions.

The article quotes Texas Right to Life Director of Media and Communication Kimberlyn Schwartz, who said: “We are grateful that the Supreme Court practiced judicial restraint today and stopped the Biden administration’s pro-abortion campaign against the strongest Pro-Life law being enforced today. While we continue to fight for this policy in the lower courts, Texas Right to Life celebrates that the Texas Heartbeat Act will continue saving between 75-100 preborn children from abortion per day. The success of our efforts is embodied by each individual life that is rescued.”

High court hears arguments in case of Maine parents denied tuition credits for religious schools

The state of Maine has a program in which qualifying students can receive money for tuition for public and private schools - as long as those private schools are not deemed to be excessively religious, it seems.  That provision drew a lawsuit that ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Christian Post reports that:

The high court heard oral arguments for nearly two hours on Wednesday morning in the case of Carson v. Makin. The legal battle centers on a group of parents suing Maine over the limitations of a program that provides taxpayer-funded tuition dollars to parents residing in remote areas where there is no public school available for their children to attend.

The article goes on to say that attorney, "Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice argued the case on behalf of parents, who described Maine's program restriction as unconstitutional 'religious discrimination.'"

The Christian Post quoted from Deputy Attorney General Christopher Taub, who said: "The goal of the program is religious neutrality," adding, "We've never heard of a school that's anti-religious, a school that teaches that all religion is bad. But ... it's clear that such a school would not be religiously neutral." The article says:

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Taub, "how would you even know if ... a school taught all religions are bigoted and biased," noting that there was "no formal examination" into the curriculum.

Chief Justice John Roberts also expressed concern. The article states that Roberts "...noted that the Supreme Court has previously opposed allowing 'the government to draw distinctions between religions based on their doctrine.'"

Bindas said in his opening arguments on behalf of the parents: "Religious schools, after all, teach religion. Just as a soccer team plays soccer or a book club reads books...Yes, it is part of what they do; it is also part of who they are."

U.K. pastors fight ban on therapy to help people reject same-sex attraction

A ban on so-called "conversion therapy," which more accurately can be described as a form of counseling to help people resist same-sex attraction, could be mandated in a law set to go into effect in the United Kingdom, and over a thousand concerned church leaders have signed on to a petition in opposition to the proposed law.

As CBN.com reports:

According to Christian Concern, 1,400 pastors have signed a petition asking the government to strike down a proposal that would ban so-called conversion therapy.

If passed, the measure could prevent ministers from helping those with unwanted same-sex attraction and could even prevent them from sharing the Gospel.

"It should not be a criminal offense for us to instruct our children that God made them male and female, in his image, and has reserved sex for the marriage of one man and one woman. Yet this seems to be the likely outcome of the proposed legislation," the petition reads.

The article relates that "The UK government is currently accepting proposals on how to legislate the ban."

The article quotes Dr. Ian Paul, who is described as "a member of the General Synod of the Church of England," who said: "There is a real risk that pastoral ministry will be criminalized and that human rights, including the right to religious belief, will be trampled on."  He said that the definition of what is termed "conversion therapy" is "ill-defined."

Rev. Graham Nicholls, who is the Director of a consortium of churches in the UK called Affinity, said: "Those who are campaigning for the law, their stated aim is that prayers or any kind of encouragement to do what we would say the Bible is teaching in terms of sexual ethics, should be prohibited."

The 3 - December 5, 2021

This week's edition of The 3 includes analysis regarding the historic abortion case before the U.S> Supreme Court, in which oral arguments were held in the past week.  Also, there's another case of a non-profit organization sparring with Federal government; this time over the right of faith-based foster care agencies in three states to operate according to its religious principles.  And, Nigeria continues to be a hotbed of religious persecution, yet the U.S. State Department has just removed it from a list of countries that have troubling levels of such persecution.

Big-time pro-life implications for U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments

The U.S. Supreme Court conducted its oral arguments last week in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case out of Mississippi, where legislators had passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks in most cases.  Even secular news outlets seemed to indicate that changes could be coming in abortion law in America.

CBN related: "Even though the high court's decision won't be known until June, a number of court experts think the justices gave some good clues as to how they're leaning. They think at least five conservative-leaning justices appear poised to uphold the Mississippi law that bans abortions at 15 weeks of pregnancy. The justices could even take it a step further, which would mean overturning the national abortion mandate created under the landmark Roe case."

While optimism is present, the practice of prayer for the outcome is certainly of paramount importance. The CBN article said:

Writing for Christian Headlines, Michael Foust noted the two most outspoken pro-life Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito also asked questions friendly to the Mississippi law.

But Foust also reminded his readers it would take five justices on the nine-member court to uphold the Mississippi law and/or to overturn Roe. At the same time, he pointed to the despair from pro-choice advocates as a sign of how the arguments went. He cited a tweet by CNN legal expert Jeffery Toobin, who said, "If you believe that women should have the right to choose abortion, today's Supreme Court argument was a wall-to-wall disaster."

Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino tweeted about clues that could indicate a ruling against Roe. "Today the Court did a great job articulating its constitutional role: not to pick winners and losers on divisive issues like abortion, but to remain 'scrupulously neutral,' as Justice Kavanaugh said."

Justice Thomas, who has been an outspoken opponent of Roe v. Wade, laid down the gauntlet, as the justice known for being quiet during hearings spoke loudly. A Live Action article said:

Justice Thomas pointed out that there is no right to abortion to be found in the Constitution. It doesn’t exist. No one has the right to kill another innocent human being for any reason.

“Would you specifically tell me, specifically state, what the right is? Is it specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?” asked Justice Thomas.

Perhaps the most telling line of questioning was exhibited by Justice Kavanaugh; The Federalist noted that he asked plaintiffs' attorneys: “Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people being able to resolve this?...“And there’ll be different answers in Mississippi, in New York, different answers in Alabama than California, because there are two different interests at stake, and the people in those states might value those interests somewhat differently. Why is that not the right answer?”

And, the article points out:

To the argument about stare decisis — the principle that the court should stick to its past rulings – Kavanaugh argued that “History tells a somewhat different story, I think, than is sometimes assumed.”

He listed a number of “the most important cases in this court’s history” that overruled precedent, citing Brown v. Board, Baker v. Carr, Miranda v. Arizona, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges. If the court had followed stare decisis in those cases, Kavanaugh said, “the country would be a much different place.”

Faith-based foster care agencies to lose religious freedom protections against LGBTQ "discrimination"

The script seems to be increasingly familiar: a non-profit agency that has enjoyed the freedom to operate according to its religious beliefs accused of discrimination and told by government officials it can no longer behave that way anymore.  That has happened in the instance of faith-based foster care agencies in three states.

The Christian Post reports that "The Biden administration is revoking Trump-era waivers from federal nondiscrimination law granted to faith-based foster care providers in three states..." Those states are Michigan, South Carolina, and Texas.

The article goes on to say:

The HHS statement contends that the waivers constituted a “blanket use of religious exemptions against any person or blank checks to allow discrimination against any persons, importantly including LGBTQ+ persons in taxpayer-funded programs.” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra justified the reversal of the “inappropriate, overly broad waivers” as necessary to ensure that the department is “best prepared to protect every American’s right to be free of discrimination.”

Sen. James Lankford tweeted out: "Biden’s HHS Secretary is again using the power of his office to attack people of faith who disagree with him. Yesterday he revoked waivers for faith-based children's service programs—this is outrageous. His policy will reduce options for kids in foster care," adding, "[Five] months ago the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that 'the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment.'"

Nigeria off State Department watch list, but violence continues

I regularly see reports from the nation of Nigeria, where the violence of Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen are a significant threat to citizens of that nation, especially Christians.  And, now, according to a report on ChristianHeadlines.com from Morning Star News, the U.S. State Department has removed the nation from its listing of Countries of Particular Concern.  The article states:

Nigeria was the country with the most Christians killed for their faith last year (November 2019-October 2020), at 3,530, up from 1,350 in 2019, according to Open Doors’ 2021 World Watch List report. In overall violence, Nigeria was second only to Pakistan, and it trailed only China in the number of churches attacked or closed, 270, according to the list.

As the article pointed out, Nigeria is at #9 on Open Doors' World Watch List, up from 12th the previous year.  Plus, according to the International Christian Concern website:

The announcement falls after the release of ICC’s Persecutor of the Year Awards, documenting the top persecutors of last year, in which ICC named Nigeria as one of the world’s worst violators of religious freedom for Christians. ICC also released a report on the transgressions of the Nigerian government which has failed to adequately respond to the violence against Christians and even perpetuates the persecution in some incidents.

The Christian Headlines/Morning Star article quoted Christian Solidarity International President John Eibner, who said, "Removing this largely symbolic sign of concern is a brazen denial of reality and indicates that the U.S. intends to pursue its interests in western Africa through an alliance with Nigeria’s security elite, at the expense of Christians and other victims of widespread sectarian violence, especially in the country’s predominantly Christian Middle Belt region..."

That article led off with this statement: "Less than a week after the U.S. removal of Nigeria’s designation as engaging in or tolerating violations of religious freedom, Fulani herdsmen on Tuesday (Nov. 23) killed two more Christian farmers in Plateau state, and earlier 38 Christians were slain in Kaduna state, sources said."

Christian Headlines and Morning Star News also report that threatening letters have been sent to Christian leaders in parts of northwest Nigeria.  The story says:

A police spokesman said Zamfara State Police have beefed up security at churches and increased intelligence-gathering in response to the letters that warn Christians will be killed or kidnapped if places of worship are not shut down.

The article notes that, "Police said they are trying to determine who sent the letters, while area residents suspect Islamic extremists among Fulani herdsmen or members of Boko Haram."

The 3 - November 28, 2021

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three relevant topics impacting the Christian community, includes the conclusion of a lengthy court case of a Washington state woman who bravely fought the good fight regarding religious freedom.  Also, California's highest court will be hearing a case involving the use of pronouns corresponding to so-called "gender identity," rather than biology.  And, new language being issued by the State Department affirms so-called "reproductive rights," and could be interpreted to mean support for abortion.

Action against florist in Washington State who declined to provide products for a same-sex wedding ceremony ends

The struggle for religious freedom for Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in the state of Washington, has ended, but not with the victory she had hoped; a story on the Alliance Defending Freedom website reports that after almost a decade, she "has chosen to retire so her beloved employees can run her business, Arlene’s Flowers. She will withdraw a pending petition for rehearing at the U.S. Supreme Court and make a payment of only $5,000 to the two men who sued her."

They sued her because she politely declined to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding ceremony. ADF said that man who had initially contacted her "...never filed a complaint with the attorney general’s office, which brought an unprecedented action against Stutzman because of news reports based on social media posts." The story also notes that the men did sue Barronelle "through attorneys with the ACLU."

The ADF website documents more of the process:

Stutzman asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take her case after the Washington Supreme Court ruled against her in June 2019. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the state high court’s ruling and ordered it to reconsider in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in another ADF case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The state court then issued essentially the same ruling. Stutzman again asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the cases, but the high court declined to hear the case over the objection of three justices, resulting in her rehearing request.

The site relates that the "settlement agreement...ends a lawsuit brought against floral artist Barronelle Stutzman nearly a decade ago without forcing her to act against her religious beliefs or to pay potentially ruinous attorneys’ fees."

Top California court to hear case involving pronouns based on "gender identity"

The controversy over whether or not people who insist on being referred to with pronouns that contradict their biological gender will now visit the California Supreme Court, according to an article on the ChristianHeadlines.com website, which states that, regarding a law prohibiting what is termed, "misgendering:" 

The multi-faceted law placed new restrictions on long-term care facilities and was geared toward protecting LGBT residents – yet a section on pronouns has sparked major pushback.

The controversial section makes it unlawful to “willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.” Violating the law could subject the employee to criminal penalties, including fines and jail time.

This follows a court decision earlier this year on the law, which was signed by then-Governor Jerry Brown in 2017. In the decision, "a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals unanimously struck down the controversial pronoun section of the law."

Administration inserts so-called "reproductive rights" into religious freedom report

Throughout our government, religious freedom protections are being challenged, and an article that was published on the Family Research Council and re-published at The Christian Post highlights yet another example.  According to author Arielle Del Turco, who has been a guest on The Meeting House:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken reinstated an Obama-era addition to the State Department human rights report—reporting on foreign countries’ laws and programs regarding abortion and contraception. The new addendum to the 2020 report released in March now features sub-sections on “reproductive rights” in the individual evaluations of every member country of the United Nations.

The term “reproductive rights” is code for abortion, and its use in official U.S. human rights reports is inappropriate. A “right” to abortion is nowhere to be found in international human rights law; meanwhile, the right to life certainly is.

What are the implications? Del Turco notes, "State Department reports set the tone for U.S. human rights advocacy and are frequently referenced by NGOs and international bodies. The topics that the United States chooses to cover in these reports conveys to the rest of the world what the United States considers human rights and what type of human rights issues our foreign policy will prioritize."

She adds, "Instead of leveling the playing field, legalized abortion pressures women into viewing their children as enemies of their success. Abortion is not necessary to ensure equality—having equal protections and rights under the law are." She also writes, "Rather than monitoring (and by doing so, implicitly promoting) access to abortion around the world, the State Department should re-focus its efforts on addressing the truly pressing human rights abuses that are unique to women and girls."

The 3 - November 21, 2021

This edition of The 3 features the decision of the governmental agency in charge of enforcing the Administration's COVID vaccine mandate to abide by a court decision and halt further enforcement action.  Also, a Virginia teacher who spoke up about a proposed policy forcing educators to call students by their preferred pronouns has been exonerated.  And, it appears that religious freedom protections for federal contractors will be curtailed.

OSHA decides to wait out court action

The Biden Administration's attempt to force businesses who employ 100 or more to enforce mandatory COVID vaccines on its employees has been met with swift and strong opposition in the courts: from state governments to companies and even some ministries.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was the first to put the mandates on hold.  The National Law Review documented the progression regarding the Emergency Temporary Standard issued by OSHA, a division of the U.S. Department of Labor:

On November 6, 2021 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (based in New Orleans) issued a very short preliminary ruling “staying” implementation of the ETS pending further briefing in the court. Then, on November 12, 2021 the Fifth Circuit entered a long opinion in which it has issued a preliminary stay of the law.

In doing so, the court signaled in the strongest of possible terms that it was poised to find that the rule does exceed OSHA‘s statutory authority in several ways and is unconstitutional. 

The website announced that on November 17, "OSHA has suspended all activities relating to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending further litigation. However, this is still a temporary ruling and will be appealed, most likely all the way to the Supreme Court, which would make the final decision."

There are other cases making their way through the courts - for instance, the 6th Circuit has been designated to hear further challenges to the mandate, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Teacher returns to classroom with clean record

ADF also represents Tanner Cross, the teacher in Loudoun County, Virginia, who was suspended due to his public comments at a school board meeting in opposition to calling students by their preferred pronouns corresponding to their so-called "gender identity." He has had his record restored following a positive ruling from the Virginia Supreme Court, according to the legal organization's website, which says:

In settlement of the original claims that Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed on behalf of Leesburg Elementary School teacher Tanner Cross, the Loudoun County School Board has agreed to a permanent injunction prohibiting it from retaliating against Cross for expressing his constitutionally protected views on the board’s transgender policy.

And, there's more good news, according to ADF: "As part of the settlement, the Loudoun County School Board also agreed to remove any reference to Cross’ suspension from his personnel file and to pay $20,000 toward Cross’ attorneys’ fees."  Court action will continue, though, involving other teachers in the district.  The website relates:

In August, the court allowed ADF to amend its original complaint to add new claims against newly enacted Policy 8040 and to include Loudoun County High School history teacher Monica Gill and Smart’s Mill Middle School English teacher Kim Wright as clients alongside Cross. That portion of the lawsuit will continue against the board.

Federal agency to rescind religious freedom protection

Federal contractors may face a reduction in religious freedom as the result of a new proposed rule change, according to The Christian Post, which reported:

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, a U.S. Department of Labor division, has proposed rescinding a federal contractor rule adopted under President Donald Trump in 2020.

The article stated, "In the proposed rule change, published in the Federal Register...the OFCCP argued that the Trump administration rule was too broad compared to previous administrations and ran afoul of discrimination measures governing federal contractors."

The Christian Post report goes on to say:

The Trump-era rule came in response to an Obama-era directive that added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected employment classes governing federal contracts. Critics feared the Obama-era rule could put faith-based contractors in jeopardy of losing their contracts if their hiring policies don't comply with the federal government's interpretation of LGBT discrimination law.

Now, in an effort to prevent so-called "discrimination" on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, it appears the Department of Labor will now place greater scrutiny on contractors who claim a religious exemption from compliance.  As the Christian Post article points out, "Many religious organizations that contract with the federal government have required their staff to agree to statements of faith and conduct themselves in accordance with the organizations' statements of faith."

The 3 - November 14, 2021

This week's edition of The 3 includes court action involving religious protections against attempts to grant unique considerations to people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  Also, a federal appeals court has doubled down on its halt to the enforcement of the Administration's vaccine mandate. And, the governor of Oklahoma has stated that he has never directed the state's health department to begin issuing "non-binary" birth certificates.

Judge supports religious protections from so-called LGBTQ "discrimination"

The Bostock decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has had a chilling effect in the arena of providing considerations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; in that case, companies were ordered to protect the so-called "rights" of LGBTQ employees, even to the detriment of company policy.

But, what happens when a company owner's religious perspective is informing the policy?  Such was the case in Texas; as ReligionNews.com reported about one of the plaintiffs:

Braidwood Management Inc. does not employ individuals “who are engaged in homosexual behavior or gender non-conforming conduct of any sort,” does not recognize same-sex marriage or extend employee benefits to same-sex partners and enforces a sex-specific dress and grooming code, according to court documents.

Bear Creek Bible Church in Plano was another plaintiff. For both, according to the article: "U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth held that Braidwood Management Inc., which operates three Christian health care businesses in Katy, Texas, is exempt from LGBTQ anti-discrimination protections in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act under both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act." The judge also ruled that the church "can fire or refuse to hire LGBTQ employees under Title VII’s religious exemptions."

Court reinforces its stay of White House vax mandate

Last week, I reported about the decision out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit placing a hold on the regulation from the U.S. Department of Labor forcing employees of companies who employ 100 or more people to either get the COVID vaccine or face testing requirements at the employee's expense. Some across the nation have faced termination as the result of vaccine mandates.

There have been statements from the Biden Administration urging companies to ignore the previous court ruling.  Last week, the court issued a stronger statement, according to CBN.com, which reported:

The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that "a stay is firmly in the public interest" as the number of lawsuits against the measure increases.

"From economic uncertainty to workplace strife, the mere specter of the Mandate has contributed to untold economic upheaval in recent months," the 22-page ruling reads. "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OSHA take no steps to implement or enforce the mandate until further court order."

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated on Twitter, according to the article:

"Citing Texas' 'compelling argument(s),' the 5th Circuit has delayed OSHA's unconstitutional and illegal private-business vaccine mandate. WE WON! Litigation will continue, but this is a massive victory for Texas and for FREEDOM from Biden's tyranny and lawlessness..."

OK Governor says non-binary birth certificates are not OK

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, in light of action by the state's Department of Health to add a so-called "non-binary" option to birth certificates, has declared that the practice will end in an Executive Order, according to an article at The Hill, which points out that:

The order mandates the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) to “cease amending birth certificates” in any way that is inconsistent with state law, and to “remove from its website any reference to amending birth certificates” that doesn’t align with state law.

Stitt further urged the Oklahoma state legislature to “immediately pass legislation that will clarify, to the extent necessary, that changes in sex or gender on a birth certificate, or a designation of non-binary is contrary to Oklahoma law.”

The article reports that the health department stated it is committed to upholding the law, as it sees it, which sets up a showdown in the state. The Hill notes that the governor had said: "I believe that people are created by God to be male or female. Period...," adding that, "There is no such thing as non-binary sex and I wholeheartedly condemn the purported OSDH court settlement that was entered into by rogue activists who acted without receiving proper approval or oversight..."

The 3 - November 7, 2021

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, highlights court action regarding the Administration's mandate directed at many businesses in the nation, which would impact millions of employees.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing an abortion case out of Texas this week.  Plus, there is a Christian faith element in the outcome of the Virginia statewide elections this past week. 

Court fight against vaccine mandate - round 1 goes to challengers

Just like clockwork, as soon as the OSHA guidelines were announced for the vaccine mandate to be slapped on employers who have 100 or more employees, plaintiffs, including states and business concerns, lined up to file suit, and within days, a federal court had already called a halt to the enforcement of it, at least until the cases can make their way through the system.

Round 1 goes to those who filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Epoch Times quoted from the order:

“Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the mandate, the mandate is hereby STAYED pending further action by this court,” a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in the brief order.

The halt of the mandate, which was unveiled this week, is temporary as the case moves forward.

First Liberty Institute represented two large Christian ministries, and a press release stated:

First Liberty Institute petitioned the Fifth Circuit on behalf Daystar Television Network and American Family Association to review the mandate.

“We don’t live in a dictatorship where a President can issue an edict and take over all of the large companies in our nation and the lives of over 84 million Americans,” said Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty Institute. “The mandate is massively unconstitutional and violates statutory law as well. We’re pleased that the Fifth Circuit has stopped it from being implemented.”

The Epoch Times reported that "The case was brought by multiple businesses...; multiple individuals; and several states, including Texas, Utah, and Mississippi."

But the Fifth Circuit is not the only place where the action is. Alliance Defending Freedom reported on its website that in the 11th Circuit, it is representing two Christian schools and said, "The lawsuit—in which ADF attorneys represent the Christian schools, and the attorneys general of the states of Florida, Alabama, and Georgia represent their states as lead petitioners—will explain that the Biden administration lacks constitutional and statutory authority to issue the employer mandate, and that the mandate failed to meet the required procedural hurdles. In short, Florida and the Christian schools argue that the federal government cannot coerce individuals nationwide to undergo medical treatment, and it lacks authority to conscript employers to compel that result."  ADF's website also reported it has cases in the 6th and 8th Circuits.

High court hears arguments on Texas abortion law

You can expect the vaccine mandate to ultimately end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, which had its hands full this past week with yet another appeal of the pro-life law out of the state of Texas, banning most abortions once the heartbeat of an unborn child is detected. The Director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, Mary Szoch, made these comments at the Supreme Court: 

"I'm Mary Szoch and this is my son, Joe. Joe is three and a half months old, and in four countries around the world, Joe could have been aborted right up until the moment of birth three and a half months ago. And sadly one of those countries is the land of the free--the United States. But not in Texas. Texas found a way to defend the unborn child in the womb. Texas found a way to say, 'the abortion movement will no longer prey upon our women and children.' And thank goodness, because the world could use a lot more Texans!"

Travis Weber, Vice President for Policy and Government Affairs, Director of the Center for Religious Liberty of Family Research Council, wrote...

...the Court was merely examining two legal questions not directly related to abortion at all:

1) Whether the federal government (in this case the Biden administration Department of Justice) can intervene and sue over a state law like this, and

2) Whether a state can confer upon private citizens the authority to enforce a law like this, while barring the state itself from enforcing it.

The Supreme Court will decide these questions as it determines whether or not the Act can continue to be enforced while the lawsuit filed by the Justice Department can move forward.

Faith plays role in Virginia victories

This week, there was an election in Virginia, and despite claims by some that it was a vote that was representative of "white supremacy," the voters of the Commonwealth delivered a diverse slate for its top three constitutional offices, and GetReligion.org pointed out a Christian faith presence.

It referred to an article at the website, A Journey Through NYC Religions.  In its story on the Virginia elections, it stated (beginning with a reference to Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin):

Youngkin goes to an evangelical Episcopal church Holy Trinity Church and provides a retreat center for FOCUS (Fellowship of Christians in Universities & Schools), an evangelical outreach to prep school students. In UK Youngkin served on the executive committee of Holy Trinity Brompton (the home church of the Alpha course).

The GOP Lt Governor-elect Winsome Sears is an African American who headed a homeless ministry for the Salvation Army (as well as being vice president of the Board of Education for Virginia, an elected official, and a Marine).

Attorney General-elect Jason Miyares is a Latino Christian, a member of Galilee Episcopal Church, an evangelical leaning Episcopal church.

The writer of the article, Tony Carnes, who is also Editor and Publisher of the site, mused: "...underneath, I wonder. did the deep connections to the people in the pews and the balance and gentleness of the Spirit play a role?

Carnes continued:

Or as Youngkin put it with a bit of hyperbole and spiritualized metaphor in his speech last night: “A campaign that came from nowhere. But we were joined by neighbors and friends of all races, of all religions, of all ages, of all political ideologies, and it turned into a movement. This stopped being a campaign long ago. This is the spirit of Virginia coming together like never before.”

Youngkin's website states that he has served on the boards of Museum of the Bible and the Meadowkirk Retreat Center, which is apparently a center that is based on Christian principles. It also notes that has has been Church Warden at Holy Trinity Church.

The 3 - October 31, 2021

This week's edition of The 3 highlights three more stories of relevance to the Christian community, including a student group at a university in Texas that has received official recognition by the school.  Also, there are more developments surrounding religious exemptions to the COVID vaccine.  And, a Bible app has been removed from the Apple Store in China.

Texas university reverses course on recognizing Christian group

There is a nationwide student group that has chapters on campuses that is called, Ratio Christi. And, at the University of Houston-Clear Lake, it was not granted recognition as an official campus group because, of all things, it required its leaders to be Christians.

Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit on Monday of last week, and Friday, the school announced it had done an about-face and made the "decision to grant full recognition" to Ratio Christi on that campus, according to the ADF website.

ADF Legal Counsel Caleb Dalton stated:

"...We commend the university and its general counsel for taking quick action to correct this injustice. Now, the university must do the next right thing and rescind the unconstitutional policies that are still in place that were used to exclude Ratio Christi because it requires its leaders to agree with its values and mission. It’s natural and expected that a Christian organization would require its leaders to be Christian; the university allows other organizations to have similar, commonsense leadership requirements..."

Federal judge rules that unvaccinated federal employees cannot be terminated during lawsuit

Across the nation, employees are standing against being forced to take the COVID-19 vaccination.  Some are actually losing their jobs because of their action.  A number of these employees have attempted to apply for religious exemptions, only to find those requests rejected.

ChristianHeadlines.com reported on the actions of a federal judge in the D.C. Circuit who granted a favorable ruling to federal employees, civilian and military, who do not wish to take the shot. The article said:

According to Fox News, both civilian and active-duty military plaintiffs had sued the administration for not granting them religious exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccines.

The story quoted District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who said, "None of the civilian employee plaintiffs will be subject to discipline while his or her request for a religious exception is pending..." The Christian Headlines article also noted:

Additionally, the judge ruled "active duty military plaintiffs, whose religious exception requests have been denied, will not be disciplined or separated during the pendency of their appeals."

Meanwhile, an attempt by officials to judge the quality of a person's religious exemption was highlighted by The Christian Post, which reported that...

The Safer Federal Workforce task force website posted an updated template on Friday for the federal government to use when assessing whether an employee can qualify for a religious exemption.

Questions asked on the form include a request to “describe the nature of your objection to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement” and an explanation for how being vaccinated would “substantially burden your religious exercise or conflict with your sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The Post article quoted a commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Andrea R. Lucas, who shared this with The Federalist: “The law does not provide a pandemic-related exception for disregarding the rights of religious employees...No matter the context, intrusive questions presuming insincerity from the start, seeking to ‘catch’ an employee in an inconsistency, and looking for any reason to deny a religious accommodation request, are inappropriate.”

Also, as the article notes, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley "sent a letter to the leadership of the Safer Federal Workforce Taskforce arguing that the questions showcased a 'contempt for religious liberty.'"

Bible app removed from Apple store in China

A Bible app has been removed from the Apple Store for customers in China, an indication of how American companies desire to appease that government, even at the expense of religious freedom. 

CBN.com reported that the app, Bible App by Olive Tree, as well as a Quran app, Quran Majeed, had been removed, pointing out that, "Chinese officials claim the apps violate laws that prohibit the use of religious text or materials."  This was actually publicized by a Twitter account called AppleCensorship.com, which monitors incidents of censorship by the tech giant.

The article also notes:

A spokesperson from Olive Tree told the Washington Examiner, "We are currently reviewing the requirements to obtain the necessary permit with the hope that we can restore our app to China's App Store and continue to distribute the Bible worldwide."

The 3 - October 24, 2021

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes a look back at the previous week of developments around the kidnapping of 17 people in Haiti, consisting of missionaries and their families. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments next week in the federal government's lawsuit against a law from the state of Texas that prohibits abortion after the heartbeat of a pre-born baby is detected.  And, there are more developments concerning the directive by the Department of Justice concerning parents at school board meetings who voice opposition to school policies. 

Missionaries and families kidnapped, held for ransom, in Haiti

The devastating news came from Haiti, last weekend and was posted in secular and Christian media. Christian Aid Ministries, which is based in Ohio, related the news on its website:

Christian Aid Ministries workers who were abducted while on a trip to visit an orphanage on Saturday, October 16. We are seeking God’s direction for a resolution, and authorities are seeking ways to help.

The group of sixteen U.S citizens and one Canadian citizen includes six men, six women, and five children.

The Christian Post reported:

An 8-month-old baby is among the 17 kidnapped missionaries in Haiti being held for a ransom of $17 million by the notorious 400 Mawozo gang, Christian Aid Ministries said Tuesday as officials in the troubled Caribbean nation and the U.S. continue negotiating for their release.

Haitian Justice Minister Liszt Quitel confirmed Tuesday that the 400 Mawozo gang, which kidnapped the missionaries Saturday while they were working with Christian Aid Ministries, demanded $1 million each for their safe return.

“Many people, including CAM management and Haitian and U.S. authorities, are working diligently to bring our loved ones home safely,” Christian Aid Ministries said in a statement.

SCOTUS adds another abortion case to docket

Just before the law was set to go into effect almost two months, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block the Texas Heartbeat Act, preventing abortion after the heartbeat of an pre-born child is detected. The Biden Administration filed a lawsuit and the case worked its way through the federal courts, only to be temporarily halted - again - by the high court.  LifeNews.com reported:

The nation’s highest court agreed to review the pro-abortion lawsuits against the abortion ban and set oral arguments for November 1. That means the ban will stay in place for several more days — likely saving anywhere from 50-100 babies each day from abortions.

This, coupled with the oral arguments in the Mississippi 15-week ban on abortions, gives the high court two opportunities to examine abortion law in America, which has been determined on a federal level by the flawed Roe vs. Wade decision, prompting states to pass hundreds of laws, such as those in Texas and Mississippi, that put restrictions in place.

AG whiffs on explaining unleashing federal agencies on concerned parents

Over the past few weeks, an association of school boards across America had submitted a letter to the Attorney General, asking that parents who oppose policies in local school districts be investigated. The language of that original letter likened to these protesting parents exercising their First Amendment free speech rights as "domestic terrorists."

The Alliance Defending Freedom website, reporting on a Congressional hearing this week, quoted ADF General Counsel Kristen Waggoner on the comments of Attorney General Merrick Garland on the issue; she said:

“Today, Attorney General Garland failed to provide concrete evidence to support his aggressive and misguided directive to use federal law enforcement to investigate parents exercising their First Amendment rights at local school board meetings, presumably using the same federal laws employed to investigate domestic terrorism and other criminal activities.

The Family Research Council website stated:

Garland, meanwhile, tried to diffuse the outrage, claiming that the FBI wouldn't follow through with its threat to open a "snitch line on parents" as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) called it. "I think parental involvement is very important in education," the weary AG tried to claim.

But, there is evidence that the administration and the National School Boards Association were acting in tandem, according to FRC:

The Washington Free Beacon broke the story late Thursday that Joe Biden's team had indeed been conspiring behind closed doors with the activist group. While members of the NSBA's own board weren't consulted about the letter (which, as some complained, used "extreme" language and called for action beyond "what many of us would consider reasonable"), others from the NSBA had been "in talks" for "several weeks with White House staff."

And, on Friday, according to the New York Post:

The National School Boards Association board of directors Friday repudiated a letter its two top officials sent to President Biden, which precipitated Attorney General Merrick Garland’s order that the FBI to investigate complaints of threats to school officials from parents.

The article noted that, "Emails obtained earlier this week by the group Parents Defending Education showed that board members had not been consulted about the Sept. 29 letter, which suggested that parents who object to mask mandates and the imposition of critical race theory in classrooms are engaging in 'a form of domestic terrorism.'”  Over the past few weeks, we have seen incidents of parents protesting not only mask mandates and CRT, but also pornographic material being taught in schools. And, in Virginia, a father was removed from a meeting because of his vocal protests regarding 

allegations of his daughter being sexually assaulted in a bathroom by a boy dressing as a girl. FRC noted:

On Thursday, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland took his own turn in the hot seat at the House Judiciary Committee, delivering what Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) called the most "ill-prepared" remarks he'd heard in 20 years. "It's very surprising... He [offered nothing but] simple talking points over and over and in response to [a] very serious series of questions..." Squeezed by both sides, Garland seemed completely oblivious to what has been headline news for weeks. Asked about the Loudoun County situation -- one of the incidents that prompted the DOJ to unleash the FBI on local parents, Garland feigned ignorance. "It sounds like a state case, and I am not familiar with it, I'm sorry," the attorney general responded.

The 3 - October 17, 2021

This week's edition of The 3, with three stories of relevance impacting the Christian community, includes threats to free speech threats for pro-life people in California.  Also, I pinpoint several developments in different parts of the country regarding COVID vaccine mandates.  And, a Canadian pastor who has resisted restrictions on church gatherings in that nation has been arrested yet again.

California governor signs law to curb pro-life speech, draws lawsuit

The state of California has certainly shown its hostility toward speaking on behalf of the unborn. A law that would have forced pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and recently, pro-life people who desire to exercise their First Amendment rights to protest and to communicate truth with women who are considering taking the life of their unborn child.

According to Life Legal Defense Foundation, in a press release issued last Monday announcing its filing of a legal challenge to the law, stated:

Using the threat of COVID as an excuse, the Legislature enacted a breathtaking restriction on speech that will ban core First Amendment activity in numerous locations across California.

The law, SB 742, was signed by Governor Newsom on Friday. While SB 742 started out as a bill to restrict protests concerning COVID vaccines, it was amended to cover every location where any type of vaccine is provided. Planned Parenthood, Family Planning Associates, and other abortionists dispense STD vaccines, including Gardasil, which makes them “vaccination sites” for the purpose of the law.

The organization stated:

Life Legal is filing the lawsuit on behalf of pro-life sidewalk counselors who regularly speak with women entering “vaccination site” abortion clinics, and who provide literature and display signs offering help with abortion alternatives – all activities that may be illegal under the new law.

Vax mandate developments in major states

The decision whether or not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine should ideally be a decision of conscience, not a matter of government coercion.  Citizens should not be forced to ingest any substance to which a person would have an objection. Those objections can be for a variety of reasons, including medical concerns, or even based on someone's religious convictions.

The Christian Post reports on the actions of Governor Greg Abbott of Texas within the past few days. In an Executive Order, according to the article, Abbott stated, "No entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine by any individual, including an employee or a consumer, who objects to such vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19,” and he added, “I hereby suspend all relevant statutes to the extent necessary to enforce this prohibition.”

Meanwhile, healthcare employees in New York will continued to be spared from being forced to receive the COVID vaccine; The Christian Post reported:

A federal judge on Tuesday granted a preliminary injunction against New York's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers after a group of 17 Christian medical professionals, including doctors and nurses, protested in a lawsuit that the mandate violated their religious freedom by not allowing employers to consider religious exemptions.

U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd issued a new order blocking the New York health department from rejecting employer-approved religious exemptions to the vaccine mandate enacted on Aug. 26. It comes as a similar order issued in September was set to expire.

And, Ohio pastors have written a letter to President Biden, expressing their concerns over mandated vaccinations, either directly through forcing government employees to receive a COVID vaccine or pressuring businesses and companies, under threat of fines, to force their employees to receive the shot. CBN.com reported: "A group of Ohio clergy representing more than 100 congregations across the state signed a letter Monday that was addressed to President Biden, detailing why they strongly disapprove of his directive, according to Front Lines Ohio."  The CBN article quoted from the letter, which said, "This unilateral and divisive order is unethical and tantamount to what a totalitarian king would dictate," adding, "Furthermore Mr. President, with respect to your vaccine mandate, we respond by saying 'We have no king but King Jesus.'"

Canadian pastor jailed for violating COVID protocols arrested again

The coronavirus has certainly been disheartening for Artur Pawlowski, a pastor from Canada who has now faced multiple arrests for standing against the regulations of public health officials.  CBN.com reported earlier this month on a recent arrest of Pawlowski, "who is of Polish descent," who "garnered widespread attention in April when he kicked health officials and law enforcement officers — who were there to enforce mask mandates — out of his church."

He was arrested again in May by the Calgary Police Service for "holding indoor worship services, which the agency described as 'organizing an illegal in-person gathering.'"

Then, more recently, according to the article, the pastor "was taken into custody once again this week, when he was apprehended and handcuffed by police on the Tarmac of the Calgary International Airport, according to Global News." The article notes that charges were not specified by officials nor Pawlowski's lawyer.

Foxnews.com reported that Pawlowski told Laura Ingraham:

"I came to the United States with a simple warning," the pastor told Ingraham about his recent trip abroad.

"You're next," he said. "If they came for me, be sure of it, they're coming for you as well."

The Christian Post reported last Friday on the sentence handed down by a judge: he has avoided jail time, but was sentenced to 18 months' probation, 120 hours of community service, $23,000 in fines, and what amounts to a gag order: if he comments on COVID restrictions, he is required to add additional language consistent with the government-supported view on COVID-related policy.

The 3 - October 10, 2021

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes two stories regarding the abortion issue: the temporary blockage of the Texas heartbeat bill and subsequent reversal of the ban by a federal appeals court, and the restoration of a revenue stream that would allow taxpayer dollars to be used for abortions.  And, federal agencies will be taking action against parents protesting school board policies across the nation, based on an announcement by the Department of Justice, which, even though illegal "threats" are target, could have consequences for parents legally expressing their First Amendment rights.

Texas pro-life law blocked by federal judge and action was then put on hold by appeals court 

Disappointment turned to relief this past week, as a federal judge, responding to a lawsuit filed by the Biden Administration against the state of Texas, put the pro-life "heartbeat bill" on hold temporarily, only to have that action reversed by a higher court.

LifeNews.com reported that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals "...blocked the lower court’s ruling. The administrative stay is not permanent, but the pro-life victory optimistically signals how the court may rule on the merits of the case."  The article quotes Texas Right to Life Director of Media and Communication Kimberlyn Schwartz, who told LifeNews: “This is an answered prayer. The Texas Heartbeat Act saves approximately 100 lives from abortion per day, and we’re grateful that this tremendous impact will continue. We expect the Biden administration to appeal to the Supreme Court of the U.S., and we are confident Texas will continue to defeat these attacks on our life-saving efforts.”

The article states:

Attorneys for Texas said Biden’s Department of Justice is being unfair by asking the court to block “absent third parties” from enforcing the law “without letting them be heard.”

The Texas law went into effect Sept. 1, prohibiting abortions once an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable, about six weeks of pregnancy. Thus far, the courts have refused to temporarily block the law, and as many as 3,000 unborn babies already have been spared from abortion.

Stream of federal funding of abortion opened by health agency

In other news related to abortion, the Department of Health and Human Services has opened up another stream through which taxpayer money can be used to fund the taking of unborn human life. The Christian Post reported that the Department issued a rule that, "...is slated to take effect Nov. 8 and will allow 'Title X providers to provide truly nondirective counseling and refer their patients for all services desired by the client, including abortion services.'"

This reverses the policy of the previous Administration, which was known as the "Protect Life Rule." As the Post notes: "Under the current rule, companies that wish to provide both abortions and Title X family planning services are required to establish a 'strict physical and financial separation between abortion-related activities and Title X project activities.'" 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, issued a statement, saying: "The strong majority of Americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion on demand. The Protect Life Rule respected their will, as well as the plain statutory language of Title X - yet from day one, Joe Biden and his administration have worked to pay back the abortion lobby that spent millions to elect them."

Parents exercising rights to speak up at school board become potential targets of government action 

Throughout our country, parents are showing up at school board meetings challenging different areas of curricula, including components of critical race theory, pornographic textbook material, and gender studies that embrace a transgender-friendly point of view.  And, now the Department of Justice has issued it intent to curb this behavior, according to a story published at The Post Millennial, which states:

After the National School Board Association called on the Biden administration to take action against unruly parents who keep showing up at school board meetings, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland has taken up the cause against parents. The NSBA encouraged the Biden administration to classify the actions of concerned parents as "the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."

The article goes on to say:

Garland's DOJ, which has stated that a primary concern is domestic extremism, wrote that the FBI and US Attorney's Offices will meet during the next month with law enforcement leaders across the country "to discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend."

The letter says, "Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values," and states a task force comprised of representatives from a variety of federal agencies will be formed and a tip line will be established.

Certainly, threats against public officials should not be tolerated, if indeed there are legitimate threats. But, one should not interpret parents exercising their First Amendment rights and speaking up on issues, including issues that violate Scriptural principles, as being threatening behavior.

The 3 - October 3, 2021

This week's edition of The 3 has news of an agreement by the nation's highest court to hear a case involving a request for a Christian flag to be flown at a special occasion at City Hall.  Also, new YouTube guidelines may have some concerning implications for Christians who wish to share content consistent with their religious beliefs. And, the battle of mandated COVID-19 vaccines continues in the state of New York, as the governor could be characterized as using faith to promote the shots and punish those whose convictions have led them in a different direction. 

U.S. Supreme Court to hear case of Boston officials' refusal to fly Christian flag

For Constitution Day in 2017 in the city of Boston, the city chose not to allow a Christian flag to fly on one of its flagpoles at City Hall. The organization that asked to fly the flag, Camp Constitution, was filed by leader Harold Shurtleff, contending that, as The Christian Post noted, the city had granted permission for "other organizations to raise flags on one of the poles to celebrate their occasions."

Lower federal courts had ruled against Camp Constitution.  The article says that:

In February 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper argued that the City Hall flagpoles constituted "government speech" and not private expression, which made flying a Christian flag an unlawful government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

An appeals court upheld the lower court ruling, and the plaintiff, represented by Liberty Counsel, appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the challenge.

Concern results from new YouTube policy on so-called "misinformation"

No doubt, individual Christians and Christian organizations have developed a concern about their content being removed from social media sites and even their channels or feeds being suspended or removed.  The latest step by such a platform is the action taken by YouTube recently, which announced it would be removing content regarding the COVID-19 vaccine that does not line up with its predetermined position on the issue, placing the platform in a position of being an expert on public health without earning a degree.

This raised concern by National Religious Broadcasters, representing Christian media around the world, which published an article including these words on its website:

Any corporate policy that aims to manipulate the thoughts or beliefs of users should alarm Christian communicators. While social media platforms are protected under the law in their ability to moderate user-generated content, attempting to regulate the feelings and reactions of users is insidious corporate paternalism and an infringement on personal sovereignty and freedom of thought.

NRB has initiated what was at the time called, Internet Freedom Watch a number of years ago. NRB CEO Troy Miller stated, “Content moderation policies that attempt to safeguard the public from having the ‘wrong thoughts’ are an assault on personal freedom and degrade the quality and diversity of the public conversation,” adding, “It’s not hard to see where this road leads for religious free speech.”

New York governor favors censorship, encourages churchgoers to get vaccine

But, the new governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, seems to have no problem with Internet censorship. A recent CBN.com article stated:

The Blaze reports Hochul wrote a letter to Facebook founder, chairman, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in which she requested "information on any and all existing efforts to combat misinformation regarding abortion laws, procedures, and their availability."

She also pressed for Zuckerberg to, "Take additional action to curb the spread of this misinformation, as Facebook has with information related to COVID-19, vaccines, and voting rights."

She also does not favor the constitutional rights of health care workers to decline to take the COVID-19 vaccines. The article notes:

Meanwhile, Hochul said this week she does not believe health care workers in the Empire State should be permitted to forgo vaccination against COVID-19 via religious exemptions.

She made the comments in response to a court decision temporarily upholding the rights of some in the medical community who have refused the inoculation citing their religious beliefs, according to WAMC-FM.

Meanwhile, as The Christian Post reports, that ruling is in effect until October 12.  The governor also visited a large church in New York City and encouraged congregants to be "my apostles" to encourage others to receive the shot.  But, she apparently does not allow for people to disagree with her opinion.