In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, a consortium of pro-life pregnancy resources centers, in the face of an attempt by the state of California to force centers there to promote abortion.
Illinois lawmakers apparently wanted to do something similar, passing a law that would force pro-life centers to refer clients to abortion clinics in the state. Alliance Defending Freedom announced online:
A federal district court permanently blocked an Illinois law that forced pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion in violation of their deeply held beliefs about protecting unborn life. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three pro-life pregnancy centers in a seven-year-old lawsuit against the state of Illinois.
ADF, on one of its websites, said:
In its decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that a provision of the law compelling the centers to promote abortion and its supposed “benefits,” regardless of their ethical, medical, or moral views, violated their freedom of speech...ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot stated: "The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional. Pro-life pregnancy centers must be free to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment.”
Colorado bill passes House that would remove children from homes if parents do not affirm "gender identity"
Colorado lawmakers last Sunday passed legislation that could result in children being removed from their homes if their parents do not go along with the LGBT agenda and affirm their children's supposed "gender identity." The Daily Signal stated:
The Colorado House of Representatives passed a bill Sunday that would remove kids from parents’ custody for behaviors like “misgendering” and “deadnaming”...Rep. Jarvis Caldwell, an opponent of the legislation, said: "It’s codifying into law that if their ideology confuses your child, and you don’t affirm that delusion, you’re committing child abuse and can lose custody of your child.” Caldwell also said: “We have now crossed the Rubicon of parental rights with this bill...” The article says:
According to the bill summary, HB 1312 defines “coercive control” as including “deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual’s gender-affirming health care services.”The bill's summary states, "A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child..." The Daily Signal article offered this glossary:
“Deadnaming” involves referring to an individual who claims to be transgender by the name that person has rejected. “Misgendering” involves referring to a person who claims to be transgender with the pronouns associated with their biological sex, rather than their preferred pronouns. “Gender-affirming health care” is a euphemism for experimental medical interventions designed to make a man appear female or vice versa.The Washington Stand, in an article that was published prior to the passage of the bill, known as the Kelly Loving Act, through the House, quoted from Jeff Johnston, described as a "culture and policy analyst" from Focus on the Family; the article relates:
He deemed the bill as “an unconstitutional assault on parents’ rights, religious freedom, and freedom of speech.” Johnston emphasized that parents should “have the right to raise their children according to what their beliefs are,” overseeing their nurture and care. Yet, the Kelly Loving Act would shift that authority to the government.
Additionally, Johnston continued, “It forces businesses and employees to lie and use names and pronouns of those who believe they are the opposite sex or some other so-called gender altogether.” Citing the decade-long legal battle of Colorado baker Jack Philips, he argued that such laws compel individuals “to use language that would violate their free speech and their religious freedom” and that doesn’t “comport with reality.”
Lawmakers attempt to expand freedom of speech for pastors on political issues
Recently, Michael Farris, General Counsel for National Religious Broadcasters, visited with me at the NRB Convention in Dallas - that conversation can be found in our Media Center at FaithRadio.org. One of the topics that we discussed was the Johnson Amendment, which has been characterized as restricting freedom of speech for pastors with regard to political issues, including endorsing candidates.
NRB, in a recent e-mail newsletter, highlighted proposed legislation by Rep. Mark Harris and Sen.
James Lankford, who have...
...introduced the "Free Speech Fairness Act" which would prevent the IRS from silencing the voices of America's pastors, churches, and non-profits. The bill targets the Johnson Amendment, a tax code provision which has stripped the ability of churches and non-profits to speak out for or against any political candidate by threatening to pull their tax-exempt status.
The newsletter linked to an article on Rep. Harris' website, which said:
Since 1954, the Johnson Amendment in the tax code has suppressed the free speech of religious leaders, churches, and nonprofits by threatening the loss of tax-exempt status if they simply speak for or against any political candidate.The article noted that, "In 2017, President Trump signed an executive order to stop the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment while he was in office." It also said that Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise "have previously led the legislation to fix this provision in the tax code."
Representative Harris said, “People of faith should not fear exercising their First Amendment rights at the risk of the IRS coming after them. For too long, the Johnson Amendment has silenced pastors, churches, and non-profits from engaging on moral and political issues of our day for fear of losing their tax-exempt status. This attempt to muzzle people of faith must end – the Constitution is clear: Americans’ right to free speech shall not be infringed.”
The bill has a total of 16 co-sponsors, including Alabama's Barry Moore.
No comments:
Post a Comment