The 3 - July 31, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes a development regarding the mandated COVID vaccine for members of the military.  Also, almost two dozen state attorneys general have sued a federal government agency for implementing a policy that ties funding for school lunches to LGBTQ ideology.  And, a flight attendant who criticized pro-abortion views of her union on her personal social media and was fired has received a major financial award from a jury.

Air Force members protected from dismissal for objections to COVID vaccine

The effect of the COVID vaccine mandate on those in our Armed Forces has been devastating, while the services continue to give relatively few exemptions to service members on religious grounds, dishonoring their conscience rights and potentially depleting the ranks of our military.

This week, a federal judge continued his quest to hold at least one branch of the military accountable for its actions, or inaction, regarding the vaccine. Fox 19 out of Cincinnati reported that:

A federal judge in Cincinnati on Wednesday blocked the Biden administration for the foreseeable future from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate globally on any servicemembers in the Air Force, Space Force and Air National Guard who requested religious exemptions.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew McFarland’s preliminary injunction stops the military from discharging or disciplining servicemembers in this local lawsuit that now has an international impact on the military and class-action status as it heads toward trial.

The judge had written two weeks ago: "Members face the same injury: violation of their constitutional freedom by defendants’ clear policy of discrimination religious accommodation requests..."  The story notes that an attorney for some of the clients said the action could affect seven to nine thousand servicemembers nationwide.

Liberty Counsel stated on its website: "Thousands of these service members who oppose receiving the shot due to their sincerely held religious beliefs have been denied their religious exemptions." The site quotes Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver, who said: “This order vindicates religious free exercise protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which the Department of Defense has violated with this unlawful COVID shot mandate. This is a great victory for religious freedom, especially for these Air Force service members who love God and love America. We commend this Ohio court for recognizing the unconstitutional way the military is treating these honorable service members.”

State attorneys general challenge attempt to force LGBTQ agenda into school lunch program

It seems to be a certainty that governmental officials are attempting to inject a radical ideology centered on the LGBTQ agenda into multiple areas of American life - including, of all things, school lunches.

The Christian Post reported recently that 22 state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit challenging the Administration for its attempt to require recipients of federal dollars in a school lunch program to observe certain LBGTQ-friendly regulations.  The article said:

On May 5, the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service announced its intention to interpret "the prohibition on discrimination based on sex found in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972" to include "discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

In a memorandum published that same day, the agency informed state and regional directors of all Food and Nutrition Services programs of the policy change.

The department cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County finding that the provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination based on sex also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity as the justification for the new interpretation of Title IX.

Some of the claims by the group of AG's, according to The Christian Post:

Among other things, "The plaintiff states requested...declarations preventing retaliation against Title IX and Food and Nutrition Act recipients that 'maintain showers, locker rooms, bathrooms, residential facilities, and other living facilities separated by biological sex or regulate each individual's access to those facilities based on the individual's biological sex.'" Also, the article notes that the states have requested that the court "prohibit retaliation against schools" "that do not require employees or students to use a transgender individual's preferred pronouns," "maintain athletic teams separated by biological sex," or "assign individuals to teams based on biological sex."

Flight attendant wins major settlement over expression of pro-life beliefs

The question of freedom of religious expression on a company employee's personal social media page was at the center of a recent lawsuit filed by a flight attendant, according to a CBN News report.  

From 1996 to 2013, Charlene Carter was a member of the Transport Workers Union, but split with the group when she discovered that the union's ideology was different than hers in some areas, according to the National Right to Work Foundation.  However, she was still forced to pay dues to the TWU.

Fast forward to 2017 - according to the story:

In January 2017, Carter learned that TWU Local 556 president Audrey Stone, and other officials, had used union money to attend the Women's March on Washington D.C., which endorses groups such as Planned Parenthood.

The flight attendant denounced the union's attendance at the event on social media and sent messages to Stone about a recall effort against her.

Officials with the airline for which she worked, Southwest "met with (Carter) regarding her social media posts and questioned why she posted them."  The article notes that, "Southwest authorities claim that Stone considered the social media comments to be a form of harassment toward her, and the airline company subsequently terminated Carter's employment."

Charlene Carter filed a lawsuit that year and recently, a jury in a federal district court handed down and awarded her $4.15 million from Southwest and $950,000 from Local 556 of the Transport Workers Union. Most of the money was for punitive damages.

The article says: "In a Facebook post..., Carter commented, 'Thank You all for your PRAYERS … I GIVE JESUS all the Glory for this WIN.'" She told FOX Business: "Today is a victory for freedom of speech and religious beliefs. Flight attendants should have a voice and nobody should be able to retaliate against a flight attendant for engaging in protected speech against her union..."

The 3 - July 24, 2022

This week's edition of The 3 includes developments concerning a bill in Congress, that has already passed the House, that would represent legislative agreement with the 2015 Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. Another bill passing the House, under the guise of a bill providing for access to contraception, actually, according to opponents, favors Planned Parenthood and promotes abortion. And, an attempted ban on counseling to help people deal Bibically with unwanted same-sex attraction has survived a challenge on the federal appeals court level.

Gay marriage on the agenda in the U.S. Senate after House passage

This week, a series of votes, driven by leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, were taken in response to comments by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that suggested that, following the Dobbs decision, other decisions could be on the table.

One of those votes had to do with same-sex marriage.  Since the high court at the time essentially created a right to so-called "same-sex marriage," the U.S. Congress has not taken action to curb same-sex marriage legislatively. 

CBN News reports that:

The U.S. House of Representatives approved the "Respect for Marriage Act" Tuesday which would enshrine same-sex marriage into federal law.

The purpose of the bill is to repeal the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) which was passed in 1996 to define marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman. DOMA also allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages approved by other states.

The U.S. Supreme Court previously declared DOMA to be unconstitutional.

Now that it has been suggested that Obergefell is on the legal chopping block, even though the Dobbs decision said otherwise, those in favor of same-sex marriage are trying to shore up that previous ruling with supporting legislation.  And, the House passed the bill - it now goes to the Senate, where it would require 60 votes to move forward.

It's not a foregone conclusion the Senate won't cobble together that vote total.  As of last Friday, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, writing at The Washington Stand, said only nine senators had voiced opposition to the so-called "Respect for Marriage Act."  It appears there are 54 or 55 votes to advance the legislation, which would provide a firewall, an extra layer, of federal protection of gay marriage if Obergefell is revisited.

So-called "contraception" bill actually promotes abortion

And, hidden within another of those bills that passed the House, a bill purportedly designed to protect access to contraception, is a laundry list of protections for abortion, according to LifeNews.com, which reports that: Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America "has informed members of Congress that it is scoring a vote on the bill as a vote" for "abortion and abortion funding." SBA claims this “Right to Contraception Act," "...is better described as the Payouts for Planned Parenthood Act."

In a letter to members of Congress, SBA states: “Far from being a bill that simply allows for access to contraception, this bill seeks to bail out the abortion industry, trample conscience rights, and require uninhibited access to dangerous chemical abortion drugs.”  The Life News article says:

The letter points out that, although domestic family planning was federally funded at nearly $1.8 billion in FY 2020, this legislation:

• Seeks to guarantee funding to abortion businesses by barring federal and state governments from redirecting contraception funding to life-affirming health care providers.
• Would override state and federal freedom of conscience laws.
• Explicitly excludes application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
• Could overturn laws regulating chemical abortion and mandate access to dangerous abortion drugs, due to its overbroad definition of contraceptives.

Good news for counselors who help people to overcome same-sex attraction

Even though a recent executive order has attempted to crack down on so-called "gender transition therapy," which has become a negative term, but includes the ability of Christian counselors to talk - talk - counselees through their unwanted same-sex attraction, in an attempt to lessen its impact.  When Canada implemented a ban on this type of counseling, pastors across the country, including here in America, spoke out against it. 

And, a counseling ministry in Florida has won a victory over those trying to ban Bible-based counseling to help someone to overcome same-sex attraction. Liberty Counsel reported on its website that a three-judge panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had issued a ruling in 2020 that "struck down laws in 2020 that ban counselors from providing minor clients and their families with any counsel to reduce or overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or gender confusion."

Palm Beach County and the City of Boca Raton had requested an "en banc" hearing of the complete court, but that was denied.  The three-judge panel had written:

“The perspective enforced by these local policies is extremely popular in many communities. And the speech barred by these ordinances is rejected by many as wrong, and even dangerous. But the First Amendment applies even to—especially to—speech that is widely unpopular…The panel opinion thoroughly explains why a fair-minded and neutral application of longstanding First Amendment law dooms the ordinances.”

Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, who is heard on Freedom's Call on Faith Radio, described the denial as "a huge victory for counselors and their clients to choose the counsel of their choice and be free of political censorship from government ideologues." He went on to say: "...Under the laws that were struck down, a counselor could encourage a client to take life-altering hormone drugs or even undergo invasive surgery to remove healthy body parts but could not help a client who seeks to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, behavior, or confusion. Clients have the right to self-determination. They have the right to select a counselor. Counselors are like a GPS helping the client to reach the desired objective. Yet, these counseling bans injected a government mandated ideology to override the counselor and the client. These laws clearly violate the First Amendment.”

The 3 - July 17, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes responses to threats against pregnancy resource centers in the wake of the Dobbs decision. Also, the attempt by one branch of the military to remove members due to their decisions not to take the COVID vaccine on religious grounds was dealt a blow recently by a federal judge.  And, the integrity of women's sports, which has been challenged recently by the allowance of males to compete in them, received a positive ruling from another federal court.

Under threat from members of Congress, pregnancy resource centers fight back against Google censorship

It's important that Christian pray for local pregnancy resource centers and other pro-life ministries.  While there is certainly celebration over the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling, even before it was handed down, there were instances of vandalism at numerous centers across America. 

While there continue to be calls for the Department of Justice to prosecute those engaging in these violent acts, The Daily Citizen that a bill has been introduced into the U.S. Senate by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley that "amends existing federal law by increasing penalties for damaging or destroying clinics or places of worship."  The website states:

Hawley’s bill would protect PRCs and churches by:

• Increasing criminal penalties from a misdemeanor to a felony for first-time offenses, and increasing the criminal fine from $10,000 to $25,000
• Guaranteeing that pregnancy resource centers and religious facilities that successfully sue will receive no less than $20,000 (a $10,000 increase)
• Imposing a 7-year mandatory minimum when attacks involve arson (up from a 5-year mandatory minimum)...

The Daily Citizen piece notes that, "The dangerous climate for pro-life organizations has only been exacerbated by recent statements from pro-abortion politicians such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren..., who described the work of PRCs in counseling women about alternatives to abortion as “torture.” Warren also declared she wants to see all PRCs in her state and across the nation shut down. She has even co-sponsored a bill in Congress to punish them for what she calls “false advertising.”

And, three organizations representing these PRC's across the nation have attempted to counter Congressional intimidation of one of the foremost tech giants. Pregnancy Help News reports that: 

The leaders of the nation’s three major pregnancy help networks wrote to the CEO of Google recently, repudiating abortion industry falsehoods used by Members of Congress to push for the tech giant to squelch search engine results involving pregnancy help organizations.

The heads of Heartbeat International, Care Net, and NIFLA wrote to Sundar Pichai earlier this month to convey accurate information about pregnancy help organizations (PHOs) and request assurance that Google would not concede the suppression of pregnancy help search results sought in an earlier letter from abortion supporters in Congress.

“The letter you received from several members of Congress is a blatant attempt to pull Google into an ongoing debate surrounding the abortion issue,” the pregnancy help leaders stated. “It relies on objectively false accusations promoted by the abortion industry to shut down its competitors – namely pro-life, pro-woman pregnancy centers.”

The article stated that:

The lawmakers term pregnancy help organizations, "anti-abortion fake clinics," in the letter, while claiming that 37 percent of Google Maps results and 11 percent of Google search results for "abortion clinic near me" and "abortion pill" were for pregnancy help clinics in "trigger law" states.

Judge prevents Air Force from removing members due to religious objections

Opposition to the attempt by the U.S. Military to remove members of the Armed Forces due to their exercising their freedom of religion by refusing, on religious grounds, to receive a COVID vaccine, is far from over. Liberty Counsel reports that a federal judge recently ruled, temporarily, that Air Force members could not be separated from the service if they have filed a religious exemption. 

The Christian legal organization quoted from District Judge Matthew McFarland on its website; the judge wrote that any member of various sections of the Air Force, "who has sworn or affirmed the United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office and is currently under command and could be deployed, who: (i) submitted a religious accommodation request to the Air Force from the Air Force's COVID-19 vaccination requirement, where the request was submitted or was pending, from September 1, 2021 to the present; (ii) were confirmed as having had a sincerely held religious belief by or through Air Force Chaplains; and (iii) either had their requested accommodation denied or have not had action on that request” are, according to Liberty Counsel, covered in the temporary restraining order.

The judge noted that the Air Force "have uniformly maintained a policy of overriding Airmen's religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccine," and have "acted ‘on grounds that apply generally to the class." In other words, apparently the judge is contending that the issue should not be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel states: "No service member should be required to choose between service to the country and service to God. Liberty Counsel will be pursuing class-wide protection for the remaining branches of the military.”

Administration order allowing boys to compete in girls' sports put on hold

More crazy news from the "genderverse" this week: A biological male has been nominated for a Woman of the Year award. The Post Millennial reports that Will Thomas, whose alternative name is Lia...

...has been nominated for the NCAA Woman of the Year Award. If Thomas wins, the award meant to honor women student-athletes who have "distinguished themselves in their community, in athletics and in academics throughout their college career" would go to a biological male.

The article stated, "Thomas is not female, but a biological male who transitioned only a few years ago, in 2019, abandoning a spot on the UPenn men's swim team for one on the women's team. Thomas broke records and won championships while female teammates quietly and anonymously complained that Thomas was in the women's locker room, taking space on the women's team, and was not actually a female."

Meanwhile, The Daily Wire reported that:

Two members of the Biden administration, transgender Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine and “non-binary” Department of Energy official Sam Brinton, made a splash at a party at the French ambassador’s home Thursday.

The report says that Brinton "dresses in drag" and has "boasted online" about his/her inappropriate activities, "wore a blue dress and high heels."  It goes on to say, "Levine, who Biden elevated from Pennsylvania health secretary to health 'admiral' despite a highly controversial handling of COVID lockdowns, wore a uniform with a skirt and heels."  This occurred at a Bastille Day celebration.

The article contained a tweet by commentator Allie Beth Stuckey, who posted the picture and captioned it as follows: "You go back in time and have to explain this picture to someone from 2005. How do you explain what’s going on and how we got here?"

Back in the real world, Alliance Defending Freedom reports that:

A federal district court issued an order late Friday that temporarily blocks, in 20 states, Biden administration guidance documents that illegitimately reinterpret federal law to allow, among other things, males to participate in women’s sports. The court concluded that the guidance is based, in part, on a flawed interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling about employment discrimination.

There is certainly wordplay at work here - there have been attempts to redefine the word "sex," in civil rights legislation to mean sexual orientation or gender identity.  In the Bostock case, that principle was allowed to move forward.  But, it is important to note: Bostock was a narrowly-decided case, and according to the federal court: 

The Bostock decision only addressed sex discrimination under Title VII; the Supreme Court expressly declined to ‘prejudge’ how its holding would apply to ‘other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination’ such as Title IX. Similarly, the Supreme Court explicitly refused to decide whether ‘sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes’ violate Title VII.

ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs stated that, "The Biden administration’s radical push to redefine sex in federal law—and without the required public comment period—threatens to erase women’s sports and eliminate the opportunities for women that Title IX was intended to protect. We are pleased that female athletes will be protected in 20 states while this lawsuit moves forward.”

The 3 - July 10, 2022

The week's edition of The 3, highlighting three recent stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes the Administration's formal response to the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade, in the form of an Executive Order promoting abortion.  Also, a number of state executives have issued orders designed to promote abortion; meanwhile, state laws on the subject are becoming more clear.  And, the U.S. State Department is reportedly involved in a program to promote "atheism and humanism" overseas.

President issues Executive Order promoting abortion

In the wake of rhetoric denouncing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion policy to state legislatures, the Biden Administration, consistent with statements made by its chief health officer, has issued an executive order stating its intent to promote abortion, under the guise of protecting women (but not protecting the unborn).

Live Action reported on the order on its website, stating:

Under the order, access to abortion pills will be expanded, while strengthening enforcement of the Obama Administration’s birth control mandate, and organizing pro bono lawyers to defend anyone facing charges relating to abortion. Additionally, the order will provide $3 million in new funding for family planning organizations, provide leave for federal employees traveling for abortion, and protect access to abortion for female service members in the military.

The website said that the President "also has vowed to see Roe codified into law and appoint pro-abortion judges throughout the country to keep abortion protected."

The response was swift and stern from Christian leaders and organizations. Denise Harle, Senior Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom and Director of the ADF Center for Life, shares examples of what she contends is disinformation regarding abortion:

...women undergoing abortions already receive the same privacy protections guaranteed by HIPAA as other medical patients, and no one has even suggested outlawing seeking information online about abortion—yet, reading this executive order, you’d think this was happening everywhere.

Harle also notes:

Instead of asking federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute the recent perpetrators of violence, vandalism, and harassment toward pregnancy care centers and houses of worship, the president is ordering his attorney general to focus on abortion facilities, even though the law requires the U.S. Department of Justice to give equal protection to pro-life and faith-based organizations and churches. 

She also states that the Order "violates the constitutionally protected freedom of pro-life doctors to give their patients information on the risks of abortion."

More state abortion laws become clear, governors issue EO's to support abortion

While abortion is being promoted on the federal level through the Executive Branch, state executives are also attempting to flex their muscle on the abortion issue, with several Governors last week issuing Executive Orders of their own.  ABC News reports that North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper signed an order that "takes several steps to defend the existing services in North Carolina, including to state that patients who receive abortions or providers who perform abortions will not be penalized or criminalized for providing, receiving or inquiring about reproductive health care services."  The ABC report also says that:

Cooper's order establishes that all cabinet agencies, or those who are part of the governor’s office, “should coordinate with each other and pursue opportunities to protect people or entities who are providing, assisting, seeking or obtaining lawful reproductive health care services in North Carolina.”

It's been reported that North Carolina has more permissive laws on abortion that other southeastern states.  Other governors, according to ABC that have issued executive orders on the subject include the chief executives of Colorado, Maine, Rhode Islands, and a handful of other states. 

Meanwhile, laws to protect life are continuing to go into effect. Liberty Counsel reported that:

Florida’s 15-week abortion ban is now in effect after a court order blocking its enforcement was put on hold this week while Attorney General Ashley Moody swiftly appealed it.

Planned Parenthood and others previously requested that Leon County Circuit Court Judge John Cooper block the 15-week ban, known as HB 5, (which includes exceptions but not in cases of rape, incest or human trafficking) from taking effect, arguing the state constitution guarantees access to abortion. Judge Cooper ruled that the ban violates privacy protections in the state constitution. But that ruling was put on hold as soon as it was appealed.

Other states where life-protecting legislation has gone into effect include Mississippi, where a trigger law passed since the 15-week ban was passed, has been allowed to take effect.  Liberty Counsel notes:

Mississippi is one of at least 13 states with “trigger” laws designed to ban or restrict abortions once the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did in a case upholding a different Mississippi law barring abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Other states have pre-Roe laws that remain on the books and will come back into effect now that Roe has been overturned.

The website also states that "While judges in Kentucky, Louisiana and Utah have temporarily blocked bans from taking effect, the state high court in Texas has allowed a pre-Roe ban to go into effect, and Ohio’s top court declined to block the heartbeat bill, which bans abortion when a heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks."

New federal grant program rewards "atheism and humanism"

Intercessors for America has noted that a new grant program based in the U.S. State Department to allegedly promote religious freedom actually promotes "atheism and humanism."  The ministry's website states:

Recently the State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor offered a funding opportunity--an open competition for a half-million dollars in taxpayer funding for projects that support global religious freedom. Wow, that sounds like an amazing opportunity except when you see that the "religious freedom" project is to promote atheism and humanism. Our state department is funding people to promote atheism and humanism abroad--all at the expense of taxpayers.

The website notes that "Wisconsin Representative Glenn Grothman's office picked up on this egregious anti-Christian promotion and is pushing back on this wasteful and harmful project."  

The Federalist reported that 15 U.S. House members "wrote a letter to the White House and the State Department...expressing 'grave concern that the State Department is using appropriated funds to support atheism and radical, progressive orthodoxy across the world.'”

The letter stated, "It is one thing for the Department to be tolerant and respectful of a wide range of belief systems, and to encourage governments to respect the religious freedom interests of their citizens,” adding, “It is quite another for the United States government to work actively to empower atheists, humanists, non-practicing, and non-affiliated in public decision-making.”