The 3 - December 25, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three stories of relevance to the Christian community, highlights a recent federal appeals court ruling that upheld one state's action of allowing biological males to compete in female sports.  Also, hundreds of instances of violence against churches have been reported, bringing security concerns for the Church.  Plus, a group of lawmakers have challenged officials regarding the military paying for abortion-related services, including transportation of members to other states.

Court rules male athletes can continue to compete against females

In a case out of Connecticut that was spotlighted in a Meeting House conversation with Christiana Kiefer, who is Senior Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against four female athletes who were challenging the ability for biological males claiming to be female to compete against them. 

ADF's website reports that the lawsuit was "filed on behalf of four female athletes who were consistently deprived of honors and opportunities to compete at elite levels because the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference adopted a policy that allows males who identify as female to compete in girls’ athletic events..."

Kiefer is quoted as saying: "The 2nd Circuit got it wrong...Our clients—like all female athletes—deserve access to fair competition. Thankfully, a growing number of states are stepping up to protect women’s athletics. Right now, 18 states have enacted laws that protect women and girls from having to compete against males, and polls show that a majority of Americans agree that the competition is no longer fair when males are permitted to compete in women’s sports. Every woman deserves the respect and dignity that comes with having an equal opportunity to excel and win in athletics, and ADF remains committed to protecting the future of women’s sports.”

Hostility against churches continues

We have continued to spotlight acts of violence against pro-life ministries and churches dating back to just after the draft of the majority opinion in the Dobbs case was leaked. In fact, over the past few years, there have been a concerning number of attacks on churches in general, according to a disturbing report by Family Research Council.

In a press release, FRC stated that, "A total of 420 acts of hostility against churches occurred between January 2018 and September 2022 across 45 U.S. states and Washington, D.C." The study also notes, "There were at least 57 pro-abortion acts of hostility against churches from January 2022 to September 2022."

FRC President Tony Perkins stated, "As a former commissioner and chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom..., I've seen the warning signs of this gathering like clouds across the Atlantic. As the mainstream culture moves further and further away from a biblical worldview, I've witnessed the hostility to moral truth creep closer to our shores. The West, once the safe haven of free speech and religion, is turning cold to our religious foundations that have helped us thrive..."

  

He called for the current Administration to "do more" relative to attacks on churches. He added: 

"Christians must not live in fear. We must not be intimidated; we must continue to stand upon the truth of God and defending the freedom of all to live out their faith free from the fear that they will be subject to a violent attack."

The report's author, Arielle Del Turco, Assistant Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at FRC said that, "When faced with such blatant violence and disrespect against churches (and religion more broadly), our response must be to condemn these acts and reaffirm the right of all people to worship and live out their faith freely -- including the freedom to live without fear that they will be the next target of such an attack."

Lawmakers warn Defense Department that federal law prevents it paying for abortions

It is unfortunate and offensive that we have numerous lawmakers across America who support the taking of the lives of unborn children through abortion - and then want taxpayers to pay for it!  A group of members of Congress have taken the Department of Defense to task, sending a letter to the Secretary of Defense calling him out for supporting taxpayer-funded abortion. 

The Daily Signal reports:

“Both the law itself and Congressional intent are clear: the U.S. military may not fund elective abortion,” the bicameral group of lawmakers said in a letter first obtained by The Daily Signal. “This necessarily includes funding for any activity necessitated by the abortion, such as travel and transportation.”

Representatives Chris Smith and Vicky Hartzler and Senators Steve Daines and James Lankford were responsible for the letter, which, according to the article...

...references the Pentagon’s Oct. 20 memorandum announcing that the Defense Department would establish “travel and transportation allowances for Service members and their dependents … to facilitate official travel to access non covered reproductive health care that is unavailable within the local area of a Service member’s permanent duty station.”

The report also notes:

The lawmakers called on Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to explain whether the DOD has begun providing transportation and travel for abortions, and if so, where the money is coming from to fund this “illegal policy.” They also demanded specifics on during “what week gestation would travel and transportation to obtain an elective abortion be provided”—including whether the DOD would implement the illegal policy up until birth.

The 3 - December 18, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, focusing on three recent stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes a toy manufacturer's inclusion of gender identity-related subject matter in a guide it has made available.  Also, a flight attendant who lost her job due to her expression her pro-life views on personal social media has received not only a financial settlement, but a court has order that her employment be restored.  Plus, a second federal appeals court has ruled against what is known as the "transgender mandate," which would require medical professionals to perform sex-change surgeries, which they find objectionable due to conscience.

Toy manufacturer creates uproar due to its embrace of gender identity messages

Last week, I noted that actor Kirk Cameron had been rejected in attempts to schedule the reading of his latest book at libraries across the country.  He had been quoted by Fox News Digital as saying: "This is proof that more than ever, we are getting destroyed in the battle for the hearts and minds of our children."

Another instance of what Cameron was addressing comes from a major toy manufacturer.
CBNNews.com reports that:

American Girl has published a guide that advises girls as young as three to transition their gender, also promoting puberty blockers – and it is sparking outrage.

The American Girl website is selling "A Smart Girl's Guide: Body Image Book" for $12.99. The 96-page book, authored by Mel Hammond, shows four girls of different backgrounds on the cover and the subtitle reads, "how to love yourself, live life to the fullest, and celebrate all kinds of bodies."

According to CBN, "But screenshots shared by the DailyMail and parents on Facebook reveal that there is more to this guide than advertised."  The article notes:

The book normalizes being transgender, promotes the use of puberty blockers, and encourages free gender expression.

"If you haven't gone through puberty yet, the doctor might offer medicine to delay your body's changes, giving you more time to think about your gender identity," reads a snippet.

The article states, "Earlier this year, American Girl's parent company, Mattel, released a transgender Barbie doll." 

The CBN article referenced a Christian Post piece written by Anne Young, who is the mother of two girls.  She wrote:

I am calling on American Girl to stop publishing books that teach girls to destroy their bodies by changing their sex. I am calling on American Girl to go back to creating dolls and stop sending these destructive messages. I have loved this brand since my daughters were babies and we want to continue enjoying their products. But we can no longer do so unless they choose to change course. I emailed the executives and I encourage everyone to do likewise.

Families like mine go to the American Girl store to purchase dolls, not gender ideology. What they are pushing on our girls is horrific and it must be stopped.

Flight attendant suspended for pro-life views to be reinstated

A flight attendant who posted her pro-life views online, fresh off winning a court case several months ago, is now in position to get her job back, according to LifeNews.com, which reported that Charlene Carter...

...worked as a flight attendant at Southwest for nearly 21 years. In 2017, she was fired after sharing her pro-life beliefs on Facebook and speaking out against the Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556 spending members’ dues on pro-abortion activities.

In July, a federal district court in Dallas, Texas awarded her $5.1 million, but she pressed on with her legal battle because of her love for her job and the customers she serves and carter hoped to get her job back. A judge has ruled that will now happen.

Decision Magazine reported that the latest ruling...

...also requires Southwest to rehire Carter with full seniority and benefits, send a copy of the jury’s verdict and judgement to all its flight attendants and post the documents on internal bulletin boards for at least 60 days, and inform flight attendants that the airline is not allowed to discriminate against them for expressing their opinion about abortion on social media.

The article noted that "...the judge limited the amount of damages to $810,180, which includes $300,000 each from Southwest and the union in compensation, $150,000 in back pay, and $60,180 in prejudgment interest."

Another federal appeals court blocks administration rule forcing medical professionals to perform transgender surgeries

Just a few weeks ago, the Administration allowed a deadline to pass to appeal a ruling by a Federal appeals court against a rule made by the Department of Health and Human Services that would force medical professionals to violate their conscience and be involved in surgeries intended to help a person change his or her gender.  

Another appeals court has issued a similar ruling, and Baptist Press reports:

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Dec. 9 a permanent injunction that barred enforcement of a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that has become known as the “transgender mandate.” A three-judge panel of the appeals court, which is based in St. Louis, unanimously affirmed a North Dakota federal judge’s decision that the Catholic entities that challenged the regulation were entitled to protection under a federal law that guarantees free exercise of religion.

In August, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans unanimously endorsed a permanent injunction against the HHS rule issued by a federal judge in Texas. The Biden administration declined to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court by the 90-day deadline in late November.

Luke Goodrich, a former Meeting House guest who is Vice President and Senior Counsel at Becket, issued a statement from which the article quoted; he said: “The federal government has no business forcing doctors to violate their consciences or perform controversial procedures that could permanently harm their patients,” adding, “The government’s attempt to force doctors to go against their consciences was bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for religious liberty.”

The Baptist Press article pointed out the attempt on the part of HHS to change language to have a different meaning; it noted:

During the Obama administration, HHS’ original mandate, issued in 2016, defined sex to include “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy.” The Trump administration issued a rule in 2020 that rescinded the Obama-era policy by returning to the ordinary interpretation of the word “sex.”

Under President Biden, however, HHS announced in May 2021 a reinterpretation of sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity. Sexual orientation includes homosexuality, bisexuality and pansexuality, while gender identity refers to the way a person perceives himself or herself regardless of biology at birth.

The 3 - December 11, 2022

In this week's edition of The 3, offering three stories of relevance to the Christian community, the so-called Respect for Marriage Act returned to the U.S. House after being amended and passed in the Senate, where it was approved again, amidst concerns of a lack of religious liberty protections.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in a case involving a graphic artist and web designer who did not wish to be forced by her home state to communicate messages about same-sex marriage that violate her religious beliefs.  Plus, a flight attendant will be getting her old job back after being dismissed for expressing her pro-life views. 

U.S. House passes Senate-amended version of so-called Respect for Marriage Act

This bill called the "Respect for Marriage Act," which actually does not show respect for marriage that consists of one man and one woman but reaffirms the concept of same-sex marriage, has now completed its journey through Congress, passing the U.S. House a few days ago - the chamber had passed the bill originally; after being amended in the Senate, it returned for another vote.

The Daily Citizen reported on the bill, which passed the House 258-169. It stated that it "embeds a false definition of marriage into the American legal fabric" and "repeals the Defense of Marriage Act," the 1996 bill that "defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman." The Respect for Marriage Act, the article says, "also codifies 'same-sex marriage' into federal law."

The article included a quote from Focus on the Family President Jim Daly, who said that: "Enshrining into law a destructive definition of marriage that undermines and expresses hostility towards God’s sacred design of a multi-millennia old institution invites the inevitability of unintended consequences. It also threatens to criminalize people of faith and jeopardize organizations that have done so much good for so long."

Kelly Shackelford, President and Chief Counsel of First Liberty said, "As our legal experts have made clear, this bill is a threat to religious liberty. It punishes the free exercise of religion by letting radical activists harass faith-based institutions in court because of their religious beliefs about marriage."

U.S. Supreme Court holds arguments in free speech case

Early last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of a Colorado graphic artist and web designer who does not wish to be forced to communicate messages on same-sex marriage to which she objects, based on her Christian beliefs.  The case is 303 Creative v. Elenis, and Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the designer, Lorie Smith. Matt Sharp, Senior Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, discussed those oral arguments in a recent Meeting House conversation on Faith Radio. 

SCOTUS Blog reported:

Smith is challenging a Colorado law that prohibits most businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ customers. Requiring her to create websites for same-sex weddings, she argues, would violate her right to freedom of speech.

At the oral argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asserted that a ruling for Smith would be the first time that the Supreme Court had ruled that “commercial businesses could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.” But Chief Justice John Roberts countered that the Supreme Court has never approved efforts to compel speech that is contrary to the speaker’s belief, and his five conservative colleagues signaled that they were likely to join him in a ruling for Smith.

The article notes that ADF CEO, President, and General Counsel "Kristen Waggoner emphasized that Smith 'decides what to create based on the message, not who requests it.'"

Actor rejected in numerous attempts to schedule the reading of a Christian story in public libraries

While the concept of the Drag Queen Story Hour has continue to spread, apparently, among taxpayer-funded public libraries, some libraries that allow these events have not been open to allowing a reading of a Christian story, according to a FoxNews.com report, which said that, regarding actor Kirk Cameron's request to read his book, As You Grow...

...over 50 public libraries have either outright rejected him or not responded to requests on his behalf.

A story-hour program for kids and parents connected to new book releases is an activity that many libraries typically present to their patrons and communities.

Many of the same libraries that won't give Cameron a slot, however, are actively offering "drag queen" story hours or similar programs for kids and young people, according to Cameron's book publisher and according to a review of the libraries' websites and current program listings.

The Fox article, published on December 7, noted that:

Reacting to the news that he has yet to be booked into a single children's story hour at a public library in America for his new book — and commenting on the rejections and comments he's received — Cameron told Fox News Digital, "This is proof that more than ever, we are getting destroyed in the battle for the hearts and minds of our children."

The 3 - December 4, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three recent stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes a court victory against a mandate for health professionals to be involved in so-called "gender assignment surgeries."  Also, another federal circuit court ruled in favor of Air Force members who have objected to the COVID vaccine for religious reasons. Plus, a majority of the U.S. Senate has caved on upholding religious freedom in approving the so-called "Respect for Marriage Act."

Deadline passes for administration to challenge court decision on transgender surgeries

Back in August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a mandate that originally had been put in place since the Obama administration that, according to FoxNews.com, "required doctors and hospitals to performance [sic] gender reassignment surgeries on any patient – including children – even if it was against a doctor’s conscience or medical judgment."

At the time, the Biden administration was given a deadline of November 25 to appeal that decision - and it took a pass, meaning the mandate is no longer in effect.   Former Meeting House guest Luke Goodrich of Becket stated: "The final demise of this unconscionable mandate is a major victory for conscience rights and compassionate medical care in America," adding, "Thousands of doctors will be able to do their jobs without the government requiring them to perform harmful, irreversible procedures against their conscience and medical expertise."

One of the groups challenging the mandate, the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, issued a statement, in which CEO Mike Chupp is quoted; he said, "This key legal battle is a hard-fought victory that impacts and protects the rights of healthcare professionals across this country...After more than six years of fighting this case in federal court, we have now set a national precedent and ensured we can continue to provide the best and safest care to our patients.”

FoxNews.com also noted that, "A similar case is pending in the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals."

Air Force members receive relief concerning vax mandate

Attempts to mandate the COVID vaccine to members of the military have received quite a bit of pushback from numerous members, including those who have requested a religious exemption from the requirement to be vaccinated in order to serve. 

Liberty Counsel reports on its website that:

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a classwide injunction that protects U.S. Air Force personnel from the COVID-19 shot mandate since it violates their religious freedom under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).

There were 18 active duty or reservist plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  The lower court allowed that to be expanded to a class of thousands of Air Force members.

The Christian legal organization, which presents a daily commentary from its Founder and Chairman, Mat Staver, on Faith Radio, said:

After the Air Force ordered all service members to get vaccinated against COVID-19, approximately 10,000 members requested religious exemptions from this mandate. However, the Air Force granted only about 135 of these requests and only to those already planning to leave the service. By July 2022, the Air Force had “administratively separated” 834 members. Yet it has granted thousands of other exemptions for medical reasons, such as a pregnancy or allergy, or administrative reasons, such as an impending retirement. 

Judge Murphy of the Sixth Circuit wrote, "Under RFRA, the Air Force wrongly relied on its ‘broadly formulated’ reasons for the vaccine mandate to deny specific exemptions to the Plaintiffs, especially since it has granted secular exemptions to their colleagues. We thus may uphold the Plaintiffs’ injunction based on RFRA alone."

Staver is quoted as saying: "No service member should be required to choose between service to the country and service to God. This will be a good precedent for our upcoming argument at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and our January trial seeking a permanent classwide injunction for the U.S. Marines.”

Respect for Marriage Act endures challenges on religious liberty basis, passes U.S. Senate

An amended version of the so-called "Respect for Marriage Act," which not only is a legislative action upholding same-sex marriage, but presented valid religious liberty concerns, according to a number of Christian organization, after attempts to strengthen religious liberty protections failed, was passed by the U.S. Senate.  It now goes back to the House for affirmation.

The James Dobson Family Institute posted a statement from its Founder Chairman, James Dobson, who is heard on Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk Saturday mornings on Faith Radio, and the Institute's Senior Vice-President of Public Policy Gary Bauer; they stated:

The proponents insisted they were merely trying to protect same-sex marriages, but same-sex marriage is under no imminent threat. Instead, the bill struck a dangerous blow against Americans’ fundamental right of religious freedom, and the potential ramifications are distressing.

The post noted some of those ramifications:

1. It will make it easier to override legal protections for religious freedom.
2. It sets the stage for government agencies to proclaim, and courts to find, a governmental “compelling interest” that justifies forcing religious entities to recognize same-sex marriages.
3. It takes a step toward revoking the tax-exempt status of religious organizations whose views do not align with the LGBTQ agenda.
4. It could force faith-based foster and adoption care agencies to place children with same-sex couples.
5. It could mandate that religious organizations hire and retain staff who publicly repudiate the entity's beliefs about traditional marriage.

The 3 - November 27, 2022

In this week's edition of The 3, featuring three recent relevant stories for the Christian community, there is an update from a story last week involving a judge in Georgia who had placed the state's pro-life "heartbeat" law on hold - the state Supreme Court said that the law could continue to be enforced while an appeal by the state's attorney general is being heard.  Also, another state supreme court, the Alabama Supreme Court, became involved in a free speech case, ruling that a lawsuit against a university in the state over its on-campus speech policies can continue.  Plus, the Food and Drug Administration is facing legal action over its loosening of policies involving chemical abortions.

GA Supreme Court reinstates ban on abortions after heartbeat is detected

Last week, I reported that a county judge in Georgia struck down the law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor that would ban abortion when the heartbeat of a pre-born child is detected. The bill was passed prior to the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which was the rationale behind the judge's decision, who struck the law down because it was passed prior to that Supreme Court decision.

But, the Georgia Supreme Court had a different idea and put the Fulton County judge's ruling on hold, according to WSB Television, which said:

The Georgia Supreme Court has overturned the stay on Georgia’s heartbeat abortion law, effectively making abortions after six weeks illegal again in the state.

In a one-page order, the high court put a lower court ruling overturning the ban on hold while it considers an appeal. Abortion providers who had resumed performing the procedure past six weeks after the lower court ruling will again have to stop.

The article on the TV station's website said:

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr filed an immediate appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court. Carr’s office also asked the high court for an order putting the decision on hold while the appeal was pending.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court granted an emergency stay of the lower’s court’s ruling, which allowed the heartbeat abortion law to go into effect again as the state’s appeals continue. The Supreme Court did not give an explanation about why it granted the stay.

Free speech ruling from AL Supreme Court allows student's legal action to continue

There was a positive outcome by the Alabama Supreme Court involving a student at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a member of a campus organization, who had challenged a speech policy at the school. According to the website of Alliance Defending Freedom:

Student members of Young Americans for Liberty want to engage their peers in important policy debates about a variety of issues including gun control, federalism, and other topics, but are refraining from doing so for fear of violating the university’s burdensome speech policy. The policy requires students to share their views on certain topics in specified speech zones and request approval to speak days in advance. And because the permits are subject to the university’s approval, administrators can pick and choose which events and viewpoints are allowed on campus.

ADF claims, "Alabama’s Campus Free Speech Act requires public colleges and universities to respect the free speech rights of students on campus and explicitly prohibits speech zones, prior permission requirements, and other speech-suppressive measures."  It argued that the UAH policy violated Alabama law.

The state's highest court agreed.  The ADF website reported that, "The Alabama Supreme Court ruled unanimously...to allow a free speech lawsuit to proceed by a Young Americans for Liberty chapter and student-member Joshua Greer..." ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch is quoted as saying, “College students have the freedom to share their beliefs anywhere on campus; they don’t need permission from college officials to speak, nor should they have to jump through burdensome and illegal hoops just to talk with their classmates outside,” adding, “We’re pleased the Alabama Supreme Court has affirmed the freedom of all college students to speak freely on campus without being restricted to small speech zones. The university never should have attempted to skirt the explicit provisions of state law that reinforce these rights."

FDA sued over chemical abortion policy

It has been noted that chemical abortions or "mail-order abortions" have become one of the leading sources of abortion in the nation, and this was set off by the Food and Drug Administration loosening restrictions on the distribution of the two-pill regimen that is used to terminate a pregnancy.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute issued a press release applauding a lawsuit filed by Alliance Defending Freedom challenging the FDA's policy-making.  It linked to the court filing, indicating a number of organizations and individuals who are plaintiffs in the suit, including the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Pediatricians, and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations.

The press release stated:

Charlotte Lozier Institute, which in 2021 revealed a dramatic surge in abortion pill-related emergency room visits, today applauded Alliance Defending Freedom for challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) erroneous and highly-politicized approval of the abortion drug regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol, which redefined pregnancy as an “illness.”

It quoted from Dr. James Studnicki, who serves as vice president of data analytics for the Lozier Institute, who has been the "lead author" of "abortion pill studies;" he stated: “The safety of chemical abortion is greatly exaggerated. In fact, the increasing dominance of chemical abortion and its disproportionate contribution to emergency room morbidity is a serious public health threat, and the real-world data suggests that threat is growing."

The 3 - November 20, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three recent stories of relevance to the Christian community, including news of a federal judge's ruling protecting medical professionals from being forced to perform surgeries that presume to change a person's biological sex.  Also, a piece of legislation designed to protect same-sex marriage that also infringes on religious liberties has crossed the 60-vote threshold to move forward in the U.S. Senate.  And, a local judge in the state of Georgia has struck down that state's pro-life heartbeat bill, saying that when the Legislature passed it, Roe v. Wade had not yet been overturned.

Judge rules Title IX cannot be used to force gender surgeries

Title IX is the 50-year-old law preventing discrimination based on sex. There continue to be attempts to expand the definition of "sex" in that law to include gender identity and sexual orientation.  Section 1557 is a provision of the Affordable Care Act that prevents discrimination regarding medical services. 

The Christian Post reported recently, regarding the Department of Health and Human Services...

In May 2021, the HHS announced that it was going to interpret Title IX’s explicit prohibition on sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Under the new interpretation, the HHS Office for Civil Rights would enforce Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to protect “the civil rights of individuals who access or seek to access covered health programs or activities” and stop discrimination “against consumers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

So, basically, it would appear that Section 1557 would be interpreted to force medical professionals to perform gender-change surgeries.  And, a Federal judge has said, "no" in a case involving two doctors who had filed a lawsuit. The Christian Post article from last week said:

The case centered on two Texas physicians who filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which interpreted Title IX’s definition of sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

The physicians sued, arguing that the Notification forced them to provide services such as body-mutilating surgeries on people suffering from gender dysphoria, such as castration and double mastectomies, and that it violated federal administrative procedures.

In a decision released Friday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, ruled that “Title IX operates in binary terms — male and female — when it references ‘on the basis of sex.’”

Respect for Marriage Act moves forward in the U.S. Senate

On Wednesday, the so-called "Respect for Marriage Act" crossed a critical threshold, acquiring 60+ votes in order to move the bill forward.  Combined with the approval already given by the House, this bill, known as H.R. 8404, not only has placed the principles of the Supreme Court's Obergefell ruling into legislation, but poses a serious threat to religious liberty.

The Daily Citizen quoted from Jim Daly, the president of Focus on the Family, who stated:

Instead of respecting marriage, H.R. 8404 further unravels the historic, cross-cultural and biblical definition of marriage as the life-long, covenantal relationship between a husband and wife.

This measure goes far beyond the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, as it enshrines “same-sex marriage” into federal law.

The article notes that:

The Senate moved forward an amended version of the bill, with supposed protections for religious freedom. But Daly said those protections weren’t enough, explaining that the measure only protects religious organizations or people who perform marriages.

Alliance Defending Freedom issued a statement, which included these words from CEO, President, and General Counsel Kristen Waggoner:

Today, the Senate chose to fuel hostility toward Americans who hold beliefs about marriage rooted in honorable religious or philosophical premises. This bill, which provides no protection or benefits that same-sex couples don’t already share, deceptively gives lip service to religious liberty while undermining the First Amendment freedoms that belong to each of us. …

It is shameful that 62 senators chose to ignore the Constitution and sanction discrimination toward these Americans. Make no mistake, this bill will be used by officials and activists to punish and ruin those who do not share the government’s view on marriage.

Judge strikes down Georgia heartbeat bill

In 2019, the Georgia Legislature passed and Governor Brian Kemp signed a bill that banned abortion beginning at the time that a heartbeat is detected in the pre-born child, generally thought to be at about 6 to 7 weeks.  A CBN News online report said that the bill "had been blocked from taking effect until the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide for nearly 50 years."  It added: "The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed Georgia to begin enforcing its abortion law just over three weeks after the high court's decision in June."

But a Superior Court Judge in Fulton County, which is where Atlanta is located, has struck down that bill, according to the article, which says that Judge Robert McBurney "...ruled that the law which took effect in 2019 was invalid because Roe v. Wade had not yet been struck down. McBurney did leave the door open for the legislature to revisit the ban."

The article notes that: "Andrew Isenhour, a spokesperson for...Gov. Brian Kemp, said McBurney's ruling placed 'the personal beliefs of a judge over the will of the legislature and people of Georgia.'" In a statement, he said: "The state has already filed a notice of appeal, and we will continue to fight for the lives of Georgia's unborn children.  Bill sponsor, state Rep. Ed Setzler, "from the Atlanta suburb of Acworth...said he was confident the state Supreme Court would overrule McBurney and reinstate the ban."

The 3 - November 13, 2022

This week's edition of The 3 looks back at the mid-term elections and how the life issue factored into the results.  Also, a Christian organization who won a lawsuit against the city of Boston has now received a financial settlement. Plus, a Vermont middle school coach and his high school-aged daughter have been punished as the result of "misgendering" a student, a male identifying as female who was allowed to use the girls' locker room. 

Role of abortion in mid-term elections

After the Dobbs decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision on abortion would be left to the states.  So, in all 50 states in the mid-terms, where state legislators and chief executives across the land were facing electoral contests, you might expect that the candidates' viewpoint on abortion would play a role.  Add to that five states where constitutional amendments were on the ballot, and you certainly had the makings of a potential campaign issue.

How much?  Hard to say. The Christian Post analyzed the role of the issue, and cited exit polling that showed that 27% of voters said that abortion was the most important issue for them, with about 3/4 indicating that they may have adopted a position in favor of abortion.  There was also reported evidence that younger women, perhaps motivated by the Dobbs decision, voted in favor of a pro-abortion position.

But, as The Washington Stand reported, pro-life governors in state after state did well in the election contests. The article quoted Brent Keilen, vice president of FRC Action, an arm of Family Research Council, who said, “You have to play offense to move the ball down the field and score. The same holds true in public policy. The candidates who were proactive on the life issue, defined their pro-life positions, and defined the extreme ideologies they were running against — in most cases legal abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth — did very well at the ballot box. This held true in even traditionally competitive states like Georgia, Florida, Ohio, and Iowa.”

That article, as well as a piece on LifeNews.com, elaborated on pro-life victories; some examples included:

In Texas, pro-life Governor Greg Abbot signed what became America’s first aboriton ban and it successfully saved babies from abortions even befor the Suipreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. bet O’Rourke campaigned almost exclusively on abortion and spend tens of millions to defeat Abbott. He lost by 11%.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill to ban abortions after 15 weeks and championed it during the debate with Charlie Crist. DeSantis blew away Crist on election night, winning by 19%.

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed his state’s heartbeat law protecting babies from abortions at 6 weeks and he won easily. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed a similar law and handily beat Stacey Abrams 53-45. And in Oklahoma there was significant concern that Governor Kevin Stitt would be unseated because he signed an abortion ban, but he trounced his pro-abortion opponent by 14%.

The article also noted that the outcome of the votes on the five amendments was against the pro-life position. Joy Stockbauer, a policy analyst with the Center for Human Dignity for FRC, stated, "The simple truth is that many voters either abstain or fail to vote their true values because of deceptive wording,” adding, “The millions of dollars poured into ballot initiatives by the abortion industry muddied the waters and misrepresented what the ballot initiatives actually meant. Fundamentally, in a nation that values the dignity of every person, whether or not a human being lives or dies should not be left to a popular vote.”

Religious freedom victory in Boston yields financial compensation

I have reported to you and commented on the three major religious freedom victories emerging out of the previous session of the U.S. Supreme Court.  One of them involved a Christian organization, Camp Constitution, that desired to fly a Christian flag at Boston's City Hall to celebrate a special observance. The city officials chose not to allow this, even though it had not turned down any organization before.

So, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Camp Constitution, which is directed by Harold Shutleff; recently, a financial consideration to back the decision was announced. The Daily Citizen reported:

Once the high court spoke, it was up to the lower courts to issue the necessary injunctions and deal with an award of attorney’s fees in Shurtleff’s favor. Shurtleff and the city then reached an agreement on attorney’s fees and stipulated to a dismissal of the case.

Shurtleff’s attorneys celebrated the win in a press release.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “We are pleased that after five years of litigation and a unanimous victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, we joined with Hal Shurtleff to finally let freedom fly in Boston, the Cradle of Liberty...

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family and writer of the Daily Citizen piece, said...

...when a government entity gets worried it will commit an “establishment of religion” violation by permitting religious speech that might be attributed to the government, and then prohibits such speech – like denying the use of a Christian flag – it sometimes goes too far and commits a free speech violation.

That’s why, once Boston lost its argument that its flag-raising program was “government speech,” not private speech, it was destined to lose the case. And to pay Harold Shurtleff’s attorney’s fees.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shurtleff’s case and subsequent payment of attorney’s fees will send a strong message to government officials everywhere: Think twice before you discriminate against religious speech. It could cost you.

Father and daughter - coach and student - both suspended for "misgendering" male student who used female facilities

In Vermont, Travis Allen and his 14-year-old daughter Blake have both faced punishment for identifying a biological male in a girls' locker room as, well, a male.  CBN News reported that:

In September, a 14-year-old male student who identifies as female and plays on the Randolph Union High School girls' volleyball team entered the locker room while the girls were changing.

"A male was in our locker room when volleyball girls were trying to get changed," Blake told the Daily Signal. "And after I asked him to leave, he didn't, and later looked over at girls with their shirts off. And it made many people uncomfortable and feel violated. And I left as soon as I could in a panic."

Blake made comments about the fact that the student was male, and CBN reported that, "The school began an investigation into Blake's comments and decided to punish her, claiming the student-athlete violated the school's Harassment, Hazing, and Bullying policy."  

Then, her father, formerly a coach at a middle school in the district, "expressed his views about the incident on a local news station's Facebook page." The article says:

A user identifying as the "mother of the trans student in question" claimed Blake "made up the story for attention," and that the "truth will prevail."

Travis defended his daughter saying, "The truth is your son watched my daughter and multiple other girls change in the locker room. While he got a free show, they got violated."

The district superintendent determined that by writing that comment, the father had "misgendered a transgender student" and suspended Travis from his job as the middle school girls' soccer coach without pay for the rest of the season.

Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a lawsuit against the school district on behalf of Travis and Blake, according to the article.  Blake had been suspended, but that was "lifted" after the lawsuit was filed.

The 3 - November 6, 2022

In this week's edition of The 3, highlighting three recent stories of impact to the Christian community, a fired high school football coach in Washington state is heading back to work, following the Supreme Court decision upholding his right to pray after games.  Also, a grocery store chain has entered into a settlement with two employees who said that wearing an LGBTQ apron was inconsistent with their religious beliefs and were fired.  And, a UFC fighter from Iran has stood in solidarity with protestors in his home country and testified to his relationship with Christ.

Back to Bremerton for fired praying football coach

Former Bremerton, Washington assistant football coach, Joe Kennedy, after having his right to pray at midfield after football games upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, is returning to work in Washington. The New York Post reported that: "Joe Kennedy and the Bremerton School District both submitted a joint stipulation in US district court...asking Kennedy to be reinstated to his assistant coach position at Bremerton High School on or before March 15, 2023, according to court documents obtained by CBS."

The article goes on to say...

...a clause was included in the record that the district cannot “interfere with or prohibit Kennedy from offering a prayer consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion.”

Additionally, the district is not allowed to “retaliate against or take any future adverse employment action against Kennedy for conduct that complies with the terms of the court’s order.”

The New York Post story included a quote from the Washington Examiner from Jeremy Dys, attorney at First Liberty, which represented the coach; he said: "Since the Supreme Court released its decision in June, it was inevitable that Coach Kennedy would be back on the field,” adding, “We’re glad that the school district has agreed that by March 15, 2023, he’ll be back to coaching, just like he wanted when he filed the lawsuit.”

Grocery store chain settles with employees who declined to wear LGBTQ aprons

Two employees at a Kroger store in Conway, Arkansas, who declined to wear aprons that contained LGBTQ imagery have received a settlement from the grocery store chain. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued on behalf of the two former employees, according to ChristianHeadlines.com, which reported that:

The apron depicted a “rainbow-colored heart emblem on the bib,” and the two employees believed that wearing it would “violate their religious beliefs,” the EEOC said.

One woman “offered to wear the apron with the emblem covered, and the other offered to wear a different apron without the emblem, but the company made no attempt to accommodate their requests,” the EEOC said.

When the women “still refused to wear the apron with the emblem visible,” the EEOC said, Kroger “retaliated against them by disciplining and ultimately discharging them.”

Even though, as the story relates, "Kroger denies the allegations," the article states:

As part of the settlement, Kroger will pay $180,000 and “create a religious accommodation policy and provide enhanced religious discrimination training to store manage­ment,” EEOC said.

Iranian UFC fighter testifies to relationship with Christ

The death of an Iranian woman, who had refused to wear a headscarf, at the hands of authorities in that nation continues to reverberate, even into the world of UFC fighting.

The Christian Post reported that, following a recent victory, "Iranian UFC fighter Beneil Dariush took a moment during his recent victory speech to share the hope he has in Christ with the people of his country amid weeks of social unrest following the death of Mahsa Amini."  The article reports that Dariush said after the victory:

"...I need to dedicate this fight to my people in Iran," he told the reporter in the ring. "I know you're struggling. I know you're fighting for freedom. I know it's a tough struggle. I want you guys to know we're praying for you, and we love you."

The fighter added:

"This might be the most important thing you'll ever hear: there is true freedom, a freedom that no one can take from you in the name of Jesus Christ, the son of God. Don't ever forget that. If you remember one thing I say, remember that."

The article recounted the series of events involving the death of the 22-year-old in Iran, which has set off protests in the country. It stated:

The demonstrations were prompted by the death of 22-year-old Amini, a young woman arrested by Iran's morality police on Sep.13 for allegedly defying the Islamic government's strict requirement for women to wear hijabs or headscarves. Amini died while in custody three days later, which sparked anti-regime protests across Iran.

The 3 - October 30, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes a development in a court battle between a Christian university who wishes to apply its Christian principles regarding faculty, and the attorney general of the state in which it is located.  Also, another court win was announced recently in a case where a judge found that a venue in Scotland discriminated against a Christian ministry regarding a planned event.  And, a baker in California has received a positive court ruling in her quest to not bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Christian university lawsuit against WA AG dismissed by judge

Unfortunately, we have seen instances of pressure on Christian colleges and universities to abandon the principles they desire to uphold.  A recent instance has to do with Seattle Pacific University, which is associated with the Free Methodist Church. 

Religion News Service reported that at SPU, “employees are expected to refrain from sexual behavior that is inconsistent with the University’s understanding of Biblical standards, including cohabitation, extramarital sexual activity, and same-sex sexual activity.”

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson launched an investigation into the private university's employment practices, and the university responded by suing the AG. 

Within the past few days, a federal court judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed by SPU.  However, you could say it was thrown out by a technicality. The RNS story stated:

According to a news release from the attorney general’s office, the federal judge ruled SPU’s arguments — which claim Ferguson’s probe infringes on the university’s First Amendment right “to govern itself according to religious principles” — should be raised in state court. The judge said SPU asked for a change in state law the federal court cannot grant.

The university is being represented by the Becket law firm - the article stated: "Lori Windham, Becket’s vice president and senior counsel, said the 'court did not rule on the attorney general’s unlawful investigation.'" 

Evangelistic ministry receives another favorable court ruling in UK

There has certainly has been opposition in the United Kingdom to the work of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, but the BGEA has won a total of five court victories over those who have opposed the efforts there, according to CBN.com, which reported on the most recent victory, coming in a Scottish court.  The article said:

Glasgow’s Sheriff Court found Graham and his organization, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA), were discriminated against when the Scottish Event Campus (SEC), Scotland’s largest event space, canceled a 2020 ministry event.

Franklin Graham was due to be the speaker at the event.  

The judge ruled that the BGEA would receive almost $110,000 in damages. The CBN article stated that the judge "...saw no evidence to back the claims used to cancel the event and wrote the SEC had violated the U.K. 2010 Equality Act when it trumpeted protestors’ views and ignored Graham’s supporters, who wanted to see the event unfold."

Baker wins court case after declining to provide product for gay wedding

The consequences for Christian believers who do not wish to use their creative services to support gay marriage are mixed, with cake baker Jack Phillips winning a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that critics in Christian legal circles contend does not go far enough, and graphic artist Lorie Smith appealing her court defeats to the high court, with oral arguments scheduled now for December.

The Christian Post reports on a case of a California baker, Cathy Miller, who won a victory after having declined to provide a cake for a gay wedding.  The article states:

A court has ruled that the Christian owner of Tastries Bakery in California acted lawfully when she refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple and instead referred them to a different bakery, citing her sincere religious belief that marriage is intended to be between one man and one woman.

Kern County judge Eric Bradshaw, according to a report by the Bakersfield Californian referenced in the Christian Post article, said that the baker's "only motivation, at all times, was to act consistent with her sincere Christian beliefs about what the Bible teaches regarding marriage...," adding, "That motivation was not unreasonable, or arbitrary, nor did it emphasize irrelevant differences or perpetuate stereotypes..."

The 3 - October 23, 2022

This week's edition of The 3 includes a story about parental rights legislation that has been proposed in Congress; it may not have much of a chance of becoming law, but it at least could elevate the discussion about this important topic.  Also, a Christian teacher at a child care center in California has lost her job because she wouldn't read LGBTQ-themed books to children 5 years old and below; she is fighting back.  And, a British doctor who was headed for court to defend his right to pray with patients has reached a settlement with health officials.

Parental rights legislation proposed in Congress

From a Biblical perspective, parents have been entrusted by God with the right to direct the lives of their children. And, from a societal perspective, it is important that parents' rights are reinforced. 

The state of Florida addressed the issue in a piece of legislation that upheld parental rights and prevented the teaching of inappropriate sexual material to young children.  

Now, there is parental rights legislation that has been proposed by Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, according to ChristianHeadlines.com.  The article says that:

The first sentence of the amendment states that the "liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right."

Will Estrada, the president of ParentalRights.org and a supporter of the proposed amendment, said, "parental rights are just too important to be left to Supreme Court precedent alone."

A number of "religious liberty organizations" supports the legislation, according to the article; that includes Alliance Defending Freedom. Emilie Kao, Senior Counsel of ADF, states: "Sadly, as parents have stood before local school boards and state legislatures across the country to claim that right, they've been met by government officials who declare themselves the ultimate determiners of what's best for children..."

Christian teacher loses job for not reading LGBTQ books, files suit

A teacher at a child care center in California, who had responsibility over children ages 5 and less, lost her job because she would not read LGBTQ-oriented books to the children under her care.  

The Washington Examiner reported that Nelli Parisenkova originally asked for a religious accommodation and received an "informal accommodation," but then the director of the center refused to grant a more formal action.

Parisenkova has filed a lawsuit against the day care center - the article notes:

Reading the books would "violate her religious beliefs and constitute promotion of intimate relationships and choices that are contrary to the teachings of her faith," the complaint reads.

"Parisenkova formally requested a religious accommodation from Bright Horizons that aligned with her prior informally granted request. Bright Horizons responded by categorically denying the request," the suit adds.

The Examiner article says that the center and its director participated in the following: "retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, wrongful termination, constructive discharge, religious discrimination, and harassment."

British doctor can continue to pray with patients, based on settlement

Dr. Richard Scott, a medical doctor who practices in southeast England was facing potential disciplinary action for praying with a patient.  However, the National Health Service has settled with the doctor, according to Decision Magazine, which reported:

In 2019, Scott was forced to undergo a six-month “fitness to practice” investigation, following a complaint filed by the National Secular Society (NSS) on behalf of an anonymous patient. According to NSS, the patient was uncomfortable being offered prayer and discussing Christian faith during a consultation with Scott.

Yet Scott recalled that he “only discussed mutual faith after obtaining the patient’s permission.”

“In our conversation, I said that personally, I had found having faith in Jesus helped me and could help the patient,” he said. “At no time did the patient indicate that they were offended, or that they wanted to stop the discussion. If that had been the case, I would have immediately ended the conversation.”

Those comments had been related by the Christian Concern website. The Decision article noted:

NHS lawyers agreed that Scott can offer to pray with patients if done so within agreed General Medical Council guidance. And Scott said he will attend a one-day course related to professional boundaries.

Andrea Williams, CEO of the Christian Legal Centre, which represented Dr. Scott, said:

“It is now a relief to Richard and his family that this case is finally settled,” she said.      "… Secular activists, whether campaign groups or those working within the NHS have been relentless in their pursuit of Dr. Scott. … [He] is a highly experienced NHS doctor whose life and career has been committed to serving his patients and community. … There is no evidence that Dr. Scott’s practice of praying with his patients has in any way interfered with his delivery of excellent medicine—in fact, quite the opposite. He has seen many patients get set from drink and drug addictions and become active members of society through his spiritual care..."

The 3 - October 16, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, features recent instances of companies in the financial services industry that indicated a real concern over examining customers' ideology.  Also, a pro-life group has been exonerated for its free speech activity in front of a Greensboro, NC abortion Clinic.  And, a federal appeals court has upheld the right of a justice of the peace in Texas to host prayers from local ministers at the beginning of court sessions.

Concern over action by financial firms regarding customer ideology

There have been warnings of the possibility of financial services companies taking action against customers who do not hold to an approved ideology.  This is especially concerning in the area of ESG: environmental, social, and governance policies.

The Washington Stand reported that:

At the end of September, popular online payment processor PayPal announced impending updates to their Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). Reported first by The Daily Wire, the policy update stated that it would debit users up to $2,500 if they engaged in banned activity such as “promot[ing] misinformation” or “hate,” effective November 3.

Chris Gacek, senior research fellow for Family Research Council, according to the article, said “People are absolutely correct to be concerned with the proposed policy that was stated,” adding, “I don’t know whether it was accidental or whether it wasn’t. [But] the idea that you could debit a person’s bank account or financial accounts based on some statement or belief that they had that wasn’t in alignment with a company’s view of the world would be not just devastating, it would be devastating in this current environment to conservatives and Christians.”

Then, within days of that announcement, The Christian Post reported that Chase had closed the bank account of a non-profit organization, the National Committee for Religious Freedom, led by former Kansas governor and former Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Sam Brownback.  The article says:

According to Brownback, after NCRF Executive Director Justin Murff reached out for more information on the move, he was told the decision was made at the “corporate level.”

The article also stated:

After looking further into the issue, a representative from the Chase executive office identified only as “Chi-Chi” contacted Murff and explained that it might be possible to continue the business relationship if NCRF could provide some further details about the nonprofit’s political activities.

Murff told CP that included providing a list of donors who have given more than 10% of NCRF’s operating budget, a list of candidates NCRF intends to support and the criteria which NCRF uses to decide whom it supports politically.

The Christian Post said, "...for Murff, the experience has raised troubling questions about whether this trend could continue — and potentially worsen — in the future."  He asked, “If they can ‘de-bank’ the NCRF, a multi-faith religious nonprofit, what happens when they start 'de-banking' pastors and Christian business people?” 

North Carolina pro-life advocates settle with city over arrest at abortion clinic

A North Carolina-based ministry called Love Life was continuing its pro-life advocacy in front of abortion clinics in the Greensboro area, even during the COVID crisis. City and county officials arrested members of the group, claiming originally that the advocates were violating COVID protocols.  But, as the Alliance Defending Freedom website states:

Love Life members had carefully adhered to all provisions of the proclamation, only engaging in activities that complied with the county’s order. Through the advocacy of ADF, the city finally admitted that “the City of Greensboro issued citations for [Love Life members’] exercise of constitutionally protected First Amendment rights and thereafter arrested [them].”

The city of Greensboro has settled with Love Life, and the ADF website says:

As part of the settlement, the city agreed that the First Amendment protects engaging in pro-life advocacy on public sidewalks and further agreed to uphold citizens’ First Amendment rights in any future proclamation order related to a public-health emergency like COVID-19. Based on the city’s admission of wrongdoing and guarantees of future protections, the pro-life advocates—members of the Christian, pro-life ministry Love Life—agreed to forgo seeking damages from the city. 

Panel of judges defend another judge's right to pray

Wayne Mack is a Justice of the Peace in Montgomery County, Texas, and his practice of inviting community leaders into his courtroom for an opening prayer was challenged by the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2019, according to a Reuters report cited in a Faithwire article. 

Recently, a federal appeals court, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the judge's actions can continue. Faithwire stated that...

...the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 in favor of Mack, rejecting the FFRF’s claim that invocations could be viewed as prejudicial. The judges ruled Mack can continue allowing chaplains and ministers to pray at the start of legal proceedings as long as he extends the invitation to leaders from different faith backgrounds and does not impose consequences on anyone who declines to participate.

The story notes that the appeals court decision "...comes years after the U.S. Supreme Court decided 5-4 in May 2014 that prayers before government meetings are constitutional. Presumably, court proceedings would fall under that umbrella."  The article relates:

Mack, for his part, said in a statement he is “eternally grateful” for the circuit court ruling.

“I look forward to continuing to serve the people of Montgomery County,” he said.

The 3 - October 9, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes a situation in involving a medical professional who lost her job due to not using "gender" pronouns.  Also, there is news out of Texas, where a church held a drag show to raise money for a clothes closet that has "trans" clothing.  And, a judge out of New York has issued a ruling in favor of polygamy.

Physician assistant fired for using improper pronouns

The continued attempts to force people to use pronouns corresponding to one's so-called "gender identity" has become a risk to the livelihood of individuals who choose not to buy into the practice.

Just the News reported on a recent occurrence in Michigan, where a physician's assistant has lost her job. Valerie Kloosterman was a PA at the University of Michigan Health-West until she was terminated. First Liberty is representing her, and sent a letter challenging her firing.  The report says:

The letter claims that Kloosterman declined to use preferred pronouns of transgender people and instead referred to them by their first name. She also was not willing to refer patients for gender reassignment surgery, citing her Christian faith.

The letter claims that the hospital held a July 2021 meeting with the human resources director and other managers, including Thomas Pierce, the diversity program director, to address Kloosterman's refusal to refer to transgender patients by their preferred pronouns.

Kloosterman said she could not because of her religious beliefs and her independent medical judgment, but that she did use the patients' first names.

The next month, Valerie was fired.

Texas drag show at church raises money for trans clothing

A church in Katy, Texas - the First Christian Church - has a rather unique clothes closet: According to an article at the American Greatness website, the "Transparent Closet" "is for 'trans and exploring teens, youth and young adults to have a safe place for clothing needs and beyond,' according to the church’s website.  One type of merchandise that is sold there is what are called "chest binders."

Recently, according to the article, the church held a fundraiser for this "outreach." It was billed as a "family-friendly" drag show; someone who attended the show who "...was able to infiltrate the 'all ages' transvestite bingo event, said it was 'basically a drag show,' and 'kids were handing them money.' The man said 'there were comments made in a sexual manner.'" He said, “It wasn’t overtly sexual, but it was way more than a kid sought to be in the middle of..."

Meanwhile, the article says that the sheriff's office was sent out to keep two groups of people separate: those opposing the show, numbering around 300, and those who supported the church, at 100, according to the Epoch Times, that reported that the drag show supporters were "black-clad antifa counter-protestors."

First SSM, now judge rules that polygamy is legal

As you know, the majority in the U.S. Senate is trying to force a same-sex marriage bill through before the end of year, following the election.  However, as Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council points out at The Washington Stand, the bill actually had language that legalized polygamy, which was attributed to a "drafting error."

But, a New York judge has issued a decision authorizing so-called "polyamorous unions."  The Washington Stand article said:

The decision by trial court judge Karen May Bacdayan should have been frontpage news. After all, she essentially gave New York’s blessing to polyamorous unions in her September decision, declaring that “… the problem with [previous same-sex marriage rulings] is that they recognize only two-person relationships.”

The article continued:

Bacdayan pointed to two same-sex union cases, New York’s Braschi v. Stahl and SCOTUS’s Obergefell v. Hodges, explaining that both major rulings “limit their holdings to two-person relationships.” Those decisions, she agrees, were “revolutionary,” but they “still adhered to the majoritarian, societal view that only two people can have a family-like relationship.” In other words, “only people who are ‘committed’ in a way defined by certain traditional factors qualify for protection …” As far as she’s concerned, Braschi and Obergefell “open[ed] the door for consideration of other relational constructs — and perhaps,” the judge insisted, “the time has arrived.”

Perkins notes, "The reality is, once a nation rejects God’s design, basic biology, and thousands of years of human history, there are no boundaries. We are a country building its policies on society’s shifting sands, and if we aren’t careful, the end result will be an America we will not — and cannot — recognize."

The 3 - October 2, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes actions taken by the governor of California to promote abortion in the state, as well as the response by a high-profile pastor.  Also, a pro-life advocate in Philadelphia was recently arrested in a case involving his involvement in a conflict in front of an abortion clinic.  Plus, a drag show at a Tennessee university has raised concerns.

CA governor signs 13 abortion-related bills into law, major pastor in state calls for his repentance

The Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, is intent on making his state a tourist destination - for women seeking an abortion, and he has launched a cross-country campaign in states with strong pro-life laws in order to attract women to come, offending Christians by using a Scripture reference. He's also been intent on signing legislation to liberalize abortion laws, signing 13 bills into law last week.

CBNNews.com reports that: 

The raft of new abortion laws essentially codifies key parts of the governor's campaign to make California a national abortion hub, but pro-life advocates are condemning the move calling it "horrendous."

"All year we have been fighting these bills to make people understand what is coming down the pike," Greg Burt with the California Family Council (CFC) said on Facebook. "Governor News really wants to make California a sanctuary for the nation's abortions."

The article adds:

The newly signed laws would not only remove all civil and criminal penalties in the deaths of newborn babies, but they set the stage for voters to add additional abortion protections directly into California's Constitution under Proposition 1, come November.

"It protects all abortion, for any reason, up until the moment of birth," Burt explained.

And, like the federal government, the state of California has invested money to establish a website that helps provide information for women on how to get an abortion.

Meanwhile, also this week, Dr. John MacArthur, who pastors Grace Community Church in southern California, who is hear on Grace to You weekday afternoon at 1:30 on Faith Radio, wrote an open letter to the governor, calling out his unbiblical actions, warning him about the consequences of his unbiblical policies, and urging him to repent and surrender to Christ. 

The text of the letter is found on the Grace to You website; the pastor declares:

My concern, Governor Newsom, is that your own soul lies in grave, eternal peril. “Each one of us will give an account of himself to God” (Romans 14:12). One day, not very long from now, you will face that reality. Nothing is more certain. “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). You will stand in the presence of the Holy God who created you, who is your Judge, and He will demand that you give an account for how you have flouted His authority in your governing, and how you have twisted His own Holy Word to rationalize it. As you look over the precipice of eternity, what will your answer be?

Toward the end of the letter, he states: 

Our church, and countless Christians nationwide, are praying for your full repentance. Please respond to the gospel, forsake the path of wickedness you have pursued all your life, turn to Christ, ask for forgiveness, and use your office to advance the cause of righteousness (as is your duty) instead of undermining it (as has been your pattern).

Pro-life advocate arrested in raid at home

A Philadelphia pro-life advocate was at home with his family recently when reportedly numerous FBI agents visited his home and arrested him. Live Action News reported:

Mark Houck — a husband, father of seven young children, founder of a men’s ministry, and regular sidewalk counselor at Planned Parenthood in downtown Philadelphia, PA — was arrested Friday morning around 7:00 a.m. when approximately 20+ FBI agents reportedly arrived in 15 units with sirens and lights, fully equipped in SWAT gear with firearms. “He opened the door with hands up, and had AR-15s in his face” with his children present, who were “crying and screaming” and “traumatized,” according to family friend and media spokesperson Brian Middleton.

The FBI has denied that a SWAT team was on the scene and that the number of agents was around 15 or 20.

The article says that:

Middleton told Live Action News that this shocking incident had originally stemmed from an altercation outside Planned Parenthood nearly a year ago on October 13, 2021, in which a regular abortion facility escort is said to have verbally accosted Houck’s 12-year-old son, who was present with his father that day on the public sidewalk. When Houck stepped between the escort (who was not escorting any abortion clients at the time) and Houck’s young son, Houck reportedly had to physically push the escort away to stop the verbal assault on his child.

This "escort" failed to show on numerous occasions for court appearances, and ultimately the case was dismissed.  However, a few days later, Houck was notified he was the subject of a grand jury investigation - his attorneys cooperated, but there was no word from officials until the raid on September 23.  According to Live Action News, "He has been charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and could be sentenced to as many as 11 years in prison with fines up to $350,000."  Again, this is for a case that was dismissed on the local level. 

And, Live Action News also reports:

A pro-life sidewalk advocate who spends hours praying before a Minnesota Planned Parenthood was recently questioned by two FBI agents, further contributing to fears that the Biden Department of Justice is targeting pro-life organizations.

The article says:

The incident that brought the FBI agents to question the man, known only as Henry, took place several months ago. At that time, it is alleged that a Planned Parenthood client attacked pro-life advocates with a box cutter, attempting to tear and slash at their signs while verbally threatening them. The client eventually fell down, but called police. Henry was charged with assault, but all charges were dismissed.

Drag shows on university campus cancelled

At some point, leadership has to say, "enough is enough."  And, that is what the President of Tennessee Teach University has said and done regarding future drag shows on campus after a recent incident. A CBN News story reported that:

According to the DailyWire, a man dressed as a sad monk comes out onto the stage to a song that mocks faith. The music changes and a drag performer strips down to a bodysuit. Minors with cash in their hand are seen running to the stage and an audience cheers.

The CBN story stated that:

President Phil Oldham of Tennessee Tech University (TTU) issued a statement after a video of a drag show held on campus went viral on Twitter.

"I am disturbed and dismayed about the activities in a video circulating on social media from a recent event on Tennessee Tech's campus," he wrote.

"I do not feel the activities in the video represent Tech's values, and I do not condone explicit activity where minors are present," he added. "I also am offended by disparaging mockery toward any religious group."

The President noted that the event was not sponsored by the university and that there would be an investigation. 

The story related:

TTU frequently hosted drag shows at Backdoor Playhouse theater and advertised them to all ages.

But a video posted on Twitter by child protection advocate Landon Starbuck went viral and caught the attention of the school's president.

The events have not been sponsored by the university: the sponsors are Upper Cumberland Pride, TTU's Lambda Gender and Sexuality Alliance, and TTU's drama club Tech Players.  The Daily Wire reported that future "drag" events by two organizations have been cancelled.

The 3 - September 25, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three stories of relevance to the Christian community, features two stories related to the life issue: a county judge in Ohio has put the state's six-week abortion ban on hold; also, VA hospitals may be performing abortions.  Plus, the issue of religious exemptions in the military about the COVID vaccines has been addressed by an Inspector General for the Department of Defense.

Judge puts Ohio abortion ban on hold

Across America, states that have had pro-life laws that had been passed or so-called "trigger" laws ready to be implemented in the eventuality of Roe v. Wade being overturned have had their laws go into effect following the overturning of Roe by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dobbs case.  Despite challenges, numerous states now protect life to a greater degree than before the ruling.

But, don't count Ohio as being one of them, at least for now, based on a ruling by a county judge in the state putting the state's six-week abortion ban on hold. The Hill reports that:

Hamilton County Judge Christian Jenkins issued a temporary restraining order that will stop the law’s implementation for 14 days, with pro-abortion activists now asking the judge to issue a preliminary injunction that would further block the law for the duration of the case.

The article notes: 'Jenkins ruled that abortion falls under the constitution’s definition of health care. He also ruled the law discriminates against pregnant women, violating a separate equal protection clause in the state constitution."

Veterans' hospitals possibly on the way to performing abortions

Since the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, there have been overtures that the Federal government would use its properties in order to perform abortions. Earlier this month, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced, according to the language of an article at LifeNews.com, that "it plans to kill babies in abortions in cases of rape or incest or in cases where the mother’s life or health is in danger, even though doctors repeatedly say abortions are never medically necessary."

So, this means, that no matter what a state law may be, VA hospitals, according to the article, "will become abortion centers even in pro-life states that have banned abortions."

But, the article points out there may be a issue with the plan.  LifeNews.com states:

...Biden’s move to expand abortion on demand through the Department of Veteran Affairs breaks federal law. It is in violation of Section 106 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 which specifically prohibits the VA from providing abortion.

“The Biden Administration is once again pushing taxpayer funding of abortion on demand,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “Abortion is not health care, and this rule is in clear violation of existing law.”

Military Inspector General ribs Secretary of Defense on lack of religious exemptions for COVID jabs

One of the unfortunate storylines involving the COVID vaccine has been the attempt to force those who bravely serve in our military to get the vaccine or face the threat of being removed.  Thousands of religious exemptions have been filed by service members who have a conscience objection to the vaccine, but a very small percentage have been granted.

The Liberty Counsel website reports:

The Acting Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Sean O'Donnell sent a memo to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin that highlights the deliberate violation of federal law within the Department of Defense (DOD) as evidenced in actual denials of religious exemption requests from service members who refused the COVID-19 shot because of their religious beliefs.

The site says that O'Donnell, in his memo, wrote: 

“Religious Liberty in the Military Services’ paragraph 3.2.d requires that ‘officials charged with making recommendations or taking final action on a Service member’s request for the accommodation of religious practices will review each request individually, considering the full range of facts and circumstances relevant to the specific request…. The means that is least restrictive to the requestor’s religious practice and that does not impede a compelling governmental interest will be determinative [Emphasis added.]’”

But, as Liberty Counsel notes, "In actual religious exemption denial letters from the COVID shot mandate sent to service members from the Department of the Air Force and the Department of the U.S. Navy, every letter reveals similar, if not identical, wording."

In a case in which Liberty Counsel is involved on behalf of Navy SEALS, a federal district judge had asked for bi-weekly reports on religious exemptions granted. The website states: "The latest filings received by the court as of February 4, 2022, revealed that out of 24,818 religious exemption requests received, only four were granted, and three of those were questionable since as least two of those service members were already scheduled to leave the military. However, 4,146 medical exemptions have been granted."