The 3 - June 16, 2024

This week's edition of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, features a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the FDA's expansion of availability of the so-called "abortion pill," ruling unanimously that the doctors bringing a lawsuit against the FDA did not possess "standing" to bring the case. Also, a federal appeals court has found fault with the administration's attempt to revise Title IX protections to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."  Plus, the Southern Baptist Convention gathered in Indiana to elect new leadership and to consider policies and resolutions, including a proposed amendment that would provide clarity on women serving in pastoral positions.

Supreme Court rules against doctors challenging FDA approval of increased availability of abortion pill

Following the approval of FDA of mifepristone, which is one of the pills in a two-pill regimen that is used for an abortion, the federal agency has broadened its availability. The U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in a challenge to the FDA's allowing the pill to be obtained on a more widespread basis. According to CBN News:

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of pro-life medical doctors, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, asked the high court to force the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to restore regulations that require in-person visits with medical providers to receive the drug.

The FDA had lifted the in-person requirement, making the pills available by mail.

The article notes that, "all nine justices denied the request because they said the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lacked 'standing,' which is a legal term meaning the group didn't have the right to bring the case before the court as they were not directly impacted by the FDA's decision."

ADF attorney Erin Hawley was quoted in the CBN article:

"They did not address the merits," she said, adding the FDA's own documents show that roughly one in 25 women will end up in the emergency room because of relaxed regulations.

Hawley said while the outcome of this particular case is disappointing to pro-life advocates, it's more of a setback than a defeat.

She added that the ruling leaves the door open for future challenges, particularly from states like Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas.

Federal appeals court prevents males from competing in women's sports

The controversy over males participating in female sports, as well as the attempt by the federal government to use the Title IX civil rights law offering opportunities for female athletes to also include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" went to a federal appeals court, which issued a ruling late last week.

The website for Alliance Defending Freedom noted:

In a victory for female athletes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled Friday to uphold a lower court order that blocks, in 20 states, Biden administration guidance documents that illegitimately reinterpret federal law to allow, among other things, males to compete in women’s sports. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Arkansas female athlete Amelia Ford and the Association of Christian Schools International.

ADF Senior Counsel Matt Bowman, said, “Once again, the administration has overstepped on Title IX and tried to usurp congressional authority. This is a significant victory for Amelia and the Christian schools we represent. Biology, not gender identity, matters in athletics.”

The piece on the ADF website stated, "The 6th Circuit’s ruling only deals with the administration’s Title IX guidance documents, and not its recently released final rule. ADF attorneys are currently litigating several cases challenging the final rule and have already secured a federal court’s preliminary injunction halting the administration’s illegal attempt to rewrite Title IX."

A court ruling on Title IX was also issued by a federal district court judge in Texas recently.  An article appearing at Worthy News from The Center Square, stated:

Judge Reed O’Connor, presiding over the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division, said the issue he was asked to rule on was “whether the federal government may lawfully impose conditions on a state’s educational institutions by purporting to interpret Title IX of the 1972 Educational Amendments as prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

“The court concludes that Defendants cannot regulate state educational institutions in this way without violating federal law,” he wrote in his 112-page ruling. He also said the DOE and DOJ “engaged in unlawful agency action taken in excess of their authority, all while failing to adhere to the appropriate notice and comments requirements when doing so.”

Southern Baptists fail to reach threshold for amendment dealing with female pastors, elect new president

The annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention occurred last week in Indianapolis, and by the end of the convention, there was new leadership at the top of the convention hierarchy.  Not only is there a new President of the Executive Committee, which operates the convention when the annual meeting is not in session - his name is Jeff Iorg, formerly the President of Gateway Seminary in San Francisco.   But, there is also a new President of the Convention: Clint Pressley, Senior Pastor of Hickory Grove Baptist Church near Charlotte, who won on the third ballot over five other original candidates, according to The Baptist Paper.

In another article that appeared at The Baptist Paper, written by Todd Gray and originally appearing at the Kentucky Today website gave an explanation about the outcome of a much-watched vote on the qualifications of a pastor, according to the Baptist Faith and Message.  Gray writes:

The messengers did not reach the required two-thirds majority needed to pass the Law Amendment. The amendment would have added a statement to the SBC Constitution that defined a cooperating church as one that “affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” The amendment received 61% of the votes taken — a large majority, but a few points short of the two-thirds vote that what was needed. Denny Burk, a Kentucky Baptist pastor and professor at Southern Baptist Seminary stated in response to a social media post, “The SBC still retains the right to remove any church it deems necessary to remove.” The fact that the amendment failed should in no way be interpreted that Southern Baptists affirm women serving in the role of pastor.

He had pointed out that "...the messengers voted overwhelmingly that an historic Baptist church in Alexandria, Virginia that does affirm women pastors is no longer in friendly cooperation with the SBC as it is not closely aligned with our doctrinal statement, The Baptist Faith & Message."

Also at the convention, those gathered, sent by local churches and known as "messengers," voted on a resolution on in vitro fertilization. Under a misleading headline, a New York Times story noted:

The resolution proposed on Wednesday called on Southern Baptists “to reaffirm the unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in an embryonic stage, and to only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation, especially in the number of embryos generated in the I.V.F. process.”

It also exhorted them to “advocate for the government to restrain” actions inconsistent with the dignity of “every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.”

The message of the resolution seemed to be consistent with the Alabama Supreme Court's determination that an embryo produced in IVF is a living human being and voiced concern about embryos - human lives - that are discarded by IVF clinics.