The 3 - August 28, 2022

On this week's edition of The 3, a federal court ruling temporarily prevents a government agency from forcing ER doctors from performing abortions.  Also, the vaccination controversy continues in the military, as new documents emerge that a high-ranking official stated that members of the Navy making a conscience decision not to take the COVID vaccine and requesting a religious exemption did not alter military effectiveness.  Plus, there's an emerging story involving two pro-life groups in Colorado who were removed suddenly from a baseball team promotion the day of the event; the reason: they did not represent family-friendly entertainment.

Court temporarily halts conscience override attempt by federal agency

According to an article at The Daily Signal website, the federal government, specifically the Department of Health and Human Services has attempted to broaden a federal regulation to "force the state’s emergency room doctors to perform abortions—regardless of whether doing so violates their religious beliefs."

The state of Texas and two pro-life groups filed suit, and last week, a federal judge put the policy on hold.  Judge James Wesley Hendrix said, according to the article, that the federal government, including HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, had expanded the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which, according to The Daily Signal, "does not mandate, direct, approve, or even suggest the provision of any specific treatment. It says nothing about requiring abortion."  It goes on to say:

Hendrix pointed this out in his order granting the plaintiffs’ requested relief to Texas and the two medical groups, stating that Becerra’s guidance from HHS:

goes well beyond EMTALA’s text, which protects both mothers and unborn children, is silent as to abortion, and preempts state law only when the two directly conflict. Since the statute is silent on the question, the guidance cannot answer how doctors should weigh risks to both a mother and her unborn child. Nor can it, in doing so, create a conflict with state law where one does not exist. The guidance was thus unauthorized.

Christian Medical and Dental Associations was one of the two groups that had filed a lawsuit against HHS. Its “Senior Vice President of Bioethics and Public Policy Jeffrey Barrows said, "This victory sends a strong message to the federal government that it cannot force healthcare professionals to violate their conscience and perform abortions against their strongly held religious beliefs,” adding, “It clearly shows that this radical trampling of conscience is contrary to our most fundamental, constitutional freedoms of thought, speech and exercise of faith.”

Alliance Defending Freedom represented CMDA and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ADF Senior Counsel Ryan Bangert, who presented the case in front of the court, stated, according to the organization's website, "The Biden administration is needlessly, illegitimately, and illegally working to turn emergency rooms into walk-in abortion facilities. Doctors get into their line of work to save lives and care for people—and that’s exactly what they are ethically, morally, and legally required to do..."

ADF Senior Counsel Denise Harle, who serves as the director of the ADF Center for Life, said, “Emergency room physicians can, and do, treat ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions. Elective abortion is not life-saving care—it ends the life of the unborn—and the government can’t force doctors to perform procedures that violate their conscience and religious beliefs..."

Vaccine mandate developments in Navy, admiral testifies no threat from unvaccinated

It has been reported that a small percentage of members of the U.S. military who have applied for religious exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine have actually been granted accommodations. Christian legal groups have been involved in defending military members in their conscience decisions, and there are some possibly promising new developments in a case concerning the U.S. Navy.

FoxNews.com reports that "A Navy admiral who said, during a deposition in a case involving Navy SEALs who refuse vaccination on religious grounds, that COVID-19 shots were a national security matter nevertheless acknowledged that he knew of no cases where it had adversely impacted operations."

First Liberty and another firm representing Navy SEALS who refused to receive the vaccine, filed a brief last week.  The report from Fox stated that:

The filing includes for the first time a deposition, conducted in late June 2022 with William Lescher, vice chief of naval operations. During the deposition, Lescher stated he was "unaware" of any Navy SEAL combat missions that had been negatively affected by COVID-19, despite his earlier claim that the vaccine mandate was necessary for successful Navy operations.

The admiral made that claim before the U.S. Supreme Court, which Mike Berry, General Counsel for First Liberty, finds problematic. He is quoted as saying, "They'll paint this ‘sky falling’ scenario, saying if they're not allowed to separate these [unvaccinated] people, the sky is going to fall. But yet when you look at the evidence, they can't defend their position..."  First Liberty represents 35 SEALS; none of them have been dismissed from the military yet, because of the court case. The article notes that out of over 4,200 religious exemption requests, the Navy has not granted a single one. 

Colorado minor league baseball team abruptly cancels special event sponsored by pro-life group

On Friday, I reported on the removal of a pro-life group, actually two groups, from a minor league baseball promotion, which occurred the morning of the scheduled game.

Live Action News provides some insight into what happened in the situation surrounding the Rocky Mountain Vibes, who play in Colorado Springs, and it seems to be pretty much what we all were thinking - probably.  Its report said:

Save the Storks and Pikes Peak Citizens for Life sponsored a family night at UC Health Park, helping to sell over 3,000 tickets for the game.

According to Diane Ferraro, CEO of Save the Storks, the Vibes reached out to them regarding sponsorship. “So they were very aware of what we do and what we stand for,” she said in an interview with Live Action News. “Normally they’ll have 1,000 people at one of their games, and because we had been helping to promote it, they had over 3,000 tickets sold.”

Initially it seems that UC Health, for which the park is named, was involved in the decision, but details have emerged that indicate it was the decision of the team - alone. The Live Action News article states:

In an update to their Facebook post, Save the Storks noted that they had been contacted by a UC Health representative “at approximately 4:30pm MST” who “stated that they were not one of the Vibes’ sponsors behind this decision. The information regarding the ‘main sponsor’s request and other sponsors’ was provided to us directly by the Vibes organization, which we believed to be a credible resource as they have been our main point of contact.”

The Vibes later came clean and took responsibility for the ill-timed and poorly executed snub.  In a statement, it said:

...While we value all our sponsors and ticket holders, they do not make decisions regarding the nature of our post game entertainment, or groups that come out to our stadium to raise awareness for their causes.

The Vibes made this decision after seeing the proposed assets from the partner in question because they felt that the partner would hinder the team’s mission in providing fun and affordable family entertainment. Any statement placing blame on any outside party for cancellation of tonight’s events is inaccurate.

Ian Miller, writing at Outkick.com, remarked:

This statement is remarkable for several reasons, not the least of which is the offensive suggestion that pro-life groups would “hinder the team’s mission in providing fun and affordable family entertainment.”

How in the world can anyone justify claiming that pro-life groups are not part of “family entertainment?” Would Planned Parenthood displaying pro-abortion materials be considered “family entertainment?”

It’s an absurd, nonsensical defense for cancelling on two organizations due to differing political viewpoints.

If the “assets” were so offensive, how did it take them until the morning of the event to make the decision?

The 3 - August 21, 2022

After a week hiatus to accommodate the Summer 2022 Christian Product Expo in Kentucky, The 3 is back with three stories of relevance to the Christian community.  I am continuing to keep track of pro-life legislation in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision out of the U.S. Supreme Court: some laws have recently been allowed by courts to go into effect and another was passed recently, the first since the decision. Also, a federal agency has issued a proposal that would force health care professionals to perform gender change treatments.  And, a Texas fire department chaplain has been terminated due to his expression of opposition to biological boys identifying as female competing in firls' sports. 

More pro-life laws overcome court hurdles

After Indiana passed the first pro-life law enacted by a state legislature after the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court, more states saw pro-life legislation upheld by courts.

Even though the governor of North Carolina seems devoted to so-called "abortion tourism," the state Legislature had other ideas, and a court is letting a 20-week abortion ban go into effect. Alliance Defending Freedom, representing two Tar Heel state legislative leaders, according to its website, reported that: "A federal district court Wednesday lifted an injunction that prevented enforcement of North Carolina’s pro-life law protecting the lives of unborn children after 20 weeks gestation."

The website reports that the law had been placed on hold back in 2019, but with Roe being overturned, ADF had contended there was nothing to keep that prohibition in place.  A federal district court agreed.

In Kentucky, according to the Attorney General's website, last Thursday, "the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an order that keeps Kentucky’s Human Life Protection Act and Heartbeat Law in effect while the case before the Court is pending. With this ruling, the Kentucky Supreme Court has left in place a ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals that allowed the laws to be enforced after a Jefferson Circuit Court Judge’s order had temporarily blocked both laws."

The Indiana law was signed into law earlier this month; ChristianHeadlines.com reported on Monday, August 8:

Republican Governor Eric Holcomb signed the bill (Senate Bill 1) into law on Friday, restricting abortions from the moment a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. According to CBN News, exemptions are only made in cases of rape and incest or when the mother's life is at risk. At the same time, however, the victim must prove the attack by presenting documentation.

HHS pushes another SOGI policy

For a number of years, municipalities and government agencies have been enacting so-called "sexual orientation and gender identity" laws and policies.  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued a proposed policy that would override the rights of health care providers regarding medical treatment to attempt to change a person's gender.  The National Religious Broadcasters website addresses this change to Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, reporting:

Under the new rule, “sex” would be redefined to include sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as pregnancy or related conditions, such as “pregnancy termination,” with critical implications for rights of conscience in healthcare.

The article goes on to say: "One of the most notable features of the updated Section 1557 interpretation is the requirement that any healthcare provider receiving federal funding perform gender transition treatment, including those who deem such services clinically inappropriate." NRB states that, in the proposal: "HHS departs from regulating healthcare to regulating the conscience itself, proposing that a healthcare provider who believes gender transitions are never “clinically appropriate”—for religious reasons or otherwise—may not adhere to that particular view or refrain from providing such services under the new Section 1557."   A public hearing period continues through October 3.

TX fire department chaplain pushes back after firing

Andrew Fox was a chaplain for the Fire Department in Austin, TX until he was fired.  A National Review article relates that Fox, in a blog post...

...used the new post to critique the growing trend of biological men transitioning and competing in sports as women. “The issue,” he wrote, “is about gender identity and how ridiculous it is becoming.”

He wrote about fairness as described in the Book of Proverbs. He wrote about the identity of men and women as described in Genesis and “echoed throughout the canon of Scripture.”

And then he was fired.

The reason?  Of course, there were complaints and allegations that he had offended members of the LGBTQ community.  But, Fox is fighting to be reinstated; the article states:

Fox and his lawyers with the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit against the fire department, alleging the department violated Fox’s First Amendment rights to speak freely about his religious beliefs. They’re asking the court for a declaration that Fox’s rights were violated, and for an injunction ordering the fire department to take him back.

This is yet another case of a Christian being fired for expressing his Christian beliefs.  And as ADF Senior Counsel Ryan Bangert reports, it was outside of his regular on-duty time with the department.  Bangert is quoted as saying: “What they did was they punished him for simply speaking about his theological beliefs on his own personal blog, on his own time, unconnected to his volunteer role with the fire department,” adding, “They punished him for conducting a ministry. He is a minister. And he is talking about theology on a theology blog.”

The 3 - August 7, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, a review of three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes analysis of a pro-life amendment that was rejected by the voters of Kansas last week.  Also, two pro-life organizations have found themselves censored by Big Tech companies.  And, health care employees in Illinois will be receiving a financial settlement in a lawsuit filed after their religious exemptions to the COVID shot were denied.

Kansas voters reject pro-life amendment

It was called the "Value Them Both" Amendment, a reference to a woman and her unborn child.  Going into a vote on that amendment, on the ballot in Kansas last Tuesday, the polling data indicated it had a good chance of passage.  But, the only poll that counted told a different story, and it was defeated by an almost 60-40 margin.

Live Action News reported on the vote, stating that the amendment "would have confirmed there is no right to abortion in the state constitution and allowed the state legislators to create pro-life laws. The amendment would not have banned abortion but would have simply allowed pro-life protections to be enacted in the state." The amendment "would have overturned the state Supreme Court’s decision to deem abortion as a right in the Kansas constitution."

The Washington Stand quoted from state Rep. Ron Estes, who said, "Unfortunately, there was a lot of money that came in from out of state. And a lot of confusion was created in people’s minds about what really was being voted on and what it really meant..." Noted pro-life professor Michael New, who serves with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said, "It wasn’t really clear what the implications of this amendment were,” adding, “Many thought that would result in a statewide abortion ban, which is not the case. But that’s the messaging the other side used to great effect.”  The article noted:

Those who wish to increase protections for unborn children should not let the Kansas vote convince them to throw in the towel. “We are not promised an easy-glide path to victory after Dobbs. We’re going to have to take this to the states, and we’re even going to run into resistance, even in conservative states,” New explained.

Pro-life groups face media censorship

There are those who would want to distort or silence the pro-life message in a number of ways, and the run-up to the Kansas vote is illustrative of that.  Plus, enormous amounts of pro-abortion money can threatened to drown it out - but not if pro-life people continue to engage one-on-one and on social media.

But, censorship by Big Tech, unfortunately, is another strategy that is being used against pro-lifers.  The organization Live Action has found itself censored by TikTok.  Its Life Action News website related:

Another tech company has censored Live Action, with TikTok completely blocking Live Action founder and president Lila Rose’s account. In addition, the Live Action account has been barred from advertising on the platform altogether.

In a Twitter thread, Rose shared what happened. “My account (@lilaroselife) has been BANNED from [TikTok] and [Live Action] has been BANNED from advertising,” she wrote. “This extreme political bias by Tiktok is a blatant double standard and places the lives of children in danger. All [Live Action] advertisements have been BANNED; [TikTok] claim our ads were ‘driven by partisan political motives.’ But TikTok is the one being partisan & political — allowing pro-abort groups to run ads while penalizing pro-life groups.”

National Religious Broadcasters reported on its website that a Faith Radio programmer has experienced social media censorship.  Life Issues Institute President Brad Mattes stated: “We knew that we had a window of time when people were more focused on abortion,” adding, "Capitalizing on public interest in the Supreme Court’s then-forthcoming decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, we put together a program focused on those individuals who were not pro-life but could be persuaded.”

The article notes:

But after the leaked Dobbs decision appeared in the media, rather than spiking in visibility, the campaign took a sharp downturn. Life Issues Institute’s compelling videos, previously viewed by over 10,000 people per day, began averaging approximately 2,500 daily views.

The organization had run into some issues even trying to get its content on Google, being required to submit pieces of information over and over again. A "media professional" working with Life Issues said that this recent occurrence was, according to the NRB article, "'the most blatant example of censorship' they had ever seen."

Health care workers win financial settlement from lawsuit, reinstated

Its deeply troubling to see how health care workers who had been lauded for the bravery in responding to the coronavirus pandemic were maligned by employers and government authorities because of their refusal to receive a COVID shot because of religious objections.

Standing for Freedom Center reports that a class action lawsuit by health care employees has been settled for over $10 million.  The article reports:

The state of Illinois had put in place a mandate that required all workers in the healthcare system to be vaccinated or receive weekly testing and wear masks. NorthShore, which operates six hospitals and a large physician group with more than 140 locations in the Chicago region, initially gave employees the impression that they would allow religious accommodations, but later informed them that no religious exemptions would be granted.

Liberty Counsel represented the plaintiffs, and the complaint they filed, said, according to the Cook County Record, quoted in the Standing for Freedom article: “Despite being willing and capable of complying with all social distancing, testing, monitoring, and facial covering requirements (and all other reasonable requests arising from accommodation for their sincerely held religious beliefs), Plaintiffs are being discriminatorily targeted, singled out, and punished for the exercise of their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The settlement of in excess of $10 million would result in each plaintiff receiving $25,000, according to Liberty Counsel.  Also, according to the article:

NorthShore also agreed to allow any terminated workers to be rehired if they apply within 90 days and to be reinstated to their previous seniority level. The health system will also change its vaccine policy to allow for religious exemptions.