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."

The 3 - September 18, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three recent stories of relevance to the Christian community, including a court victory on behalf of an adoption agency that decided only to place children in homes of couples in a male-female marriage relationship.  Also, a new pro-life bill has been introduced into Congress that would ban abortion after 15-weeks, which scientific research shows is the point of gestation at which an unborn child can feel pain.  And, an anticipated vote in the U.S. Senate on a bill to strengthen "same-sex marriage" has been postponed until after the election.

NY adoption agency wins court victory

In 2010, in the state of New York, the Domestic Relations Law, according to CBNNews.com, "gave unmarried adult couples and married couples, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the right to adopt."

The article notes that:

New Hope Family Services said it could only provide adoption services to married heterosexual couples because of religious beliefs after the state amended its Domestic Relations Law in 2010, according to court filings.

The report continued:

As CBN News reported, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) issued an ultimatum to the adoption group telling the faith-based organization to revise its "discriminatory and impermissible" policy or stop providing families for children who need them.

In 2018, the Syracuse-based group filed a lawsuit against the OCFS claiming the agency violated their freedom of religion.

Recently, a ruling was finally issued by a federal district court judge, according to CBN, which said that "U.S. District Court Judge Mae A. D'Agostino in Albany cited free speech protections...granting New Hope a summary judgment and ruling the state agency couldn't compel New Hope to provide adoption services to unmarried or same-sex couples."

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel, Roger Brooks, said: "Shutting down an adoption provider for its religious beliefs—needlessly and unconstitutionally reducing the number of agencies willing to help—benefits no one—certainly not children," adding, "New Hope's faith-guided services don't coerce anyone and do nothing to interfere with other adoption providers who have different beliefs about family and the best interests of children."

15-week abortion ban introduced into Congress, contrast to lawmakers who favor abortion at any stage of pregnancy

Even though there have been some who disagree with the release of a piece of pro-life legislation, concerned about the possible effect on upcoming mid-term elections, the Daily Caller reports that polling data shows widespread support for a ban on abortion after 15 weeks.

Sen. Lindsey Graham has introduced, and some pro-life groups have supported, such legislation.  The Daily Caller states: "...Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced federal legislation that would ban abortions after 15 weeks with exceptions for for rape, incest and the life of the mother. A combined 62% of registered voters...believed abortion should only be allowed up to 15 weeks or earlier, the WPA Intelligence poll found."  The article said, "Graham’s legislation sparked controversy..." among some "members of Congress, who think the bill could threaten their midterm prospects, according to Politico, but the poll suggests that the legislation is aligned with Americans’ beliefs about abortion."

But one has to question whether or not pro-lifers should take their cues from mainstream media.

Politico quoted Graham as saying: "There is a consensus view by the most prominent pro-life groups in America that this is where America should be at the federal level,” adding, “I don’t think this is going to hurt us." He referred to the potential effect on political opponents "when they try to explain to some reasonable person why it’s OK to be more like Iran and less like France on abortion.”

But, there is widespread support in Congress for unrestricted abortion for all nine months of pregnancy - the Daily Caller pointed out that members of Congress "...have made multiple attempts this year to pass legislation allowing unrestricted abortion nationwide through the first two trimesters and forcing states to allow third-trimester abortions if a health care worker determines that pregnancy would pose a risk to the mother’s mental, emotional or physical health."

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America was supportive of Graham's legislation, also sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith in the House. President of the organization, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said, "Seventy-five percent of women...support legislation to protect babies by at least 15 weeks. This bill would bring the U.S. in line with 47 out of 50 of our European allies who protect life at this stage or even earlier." The information is from Harvard-Harris poll. The SBA website also noted that 15 weeks is "a point by which science reveals unborn children can feel pain."

There is practically no way for this bill to pass, yet, in an election year, it can be a useful tool to point out the differences between this popular position, which likely is not ideal for most pro-lifers, and the truly "extreme" position of abortion during all nine months of pregnancy.

Same-sex marriage vote in U.S. Senate delayed until after elections

The bill mis-labeled as the Respect for Marriage Act will not be brought before the U.S. Senate until after the midterm elections, according to a FoxNews.com article that stated: 

Sen. Rob Portman Thursday said that the Senate will wait until after the midterms before acting on a bill to codify same-sex marriage protections, after advocates previously hoped to vote on the bill this month.

He said, "We have listened to our colleagues and we have made certain changes on the religious liberty front, which have, I think have been very positive in terms of getting them on board," adding, "But colleagues need a little more time to digest it, which is understandable, and some of the language was still being worked on as of this morning."

The proposed changes in the language, according to the report, still may not have brought the bill to the 60-vote threshold needed for passage. The Washington Stand quoted from David Closson, director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, “Evidently, Chuck Schumer realizes he doesn’t have 60 votes for the so-called ‘Respect for Marriage’ act." He said that "...senators are hearing from their constituents about the many problems with this bill."

Tony Perkins, FRC President echoed that sentiment and said that, “We’re going to have to be watching this in the lame duck session, so our work is not yet done.”  Sen. Kevin Cramer said to Perkins, "Fortunately, the August recess came along in time for us to go home and hear from our constituents — hear from our priests and our pastors and the praying men and women of our churches...”

The 3 - September 11, 2022

This week's edition of The 3, spotlight three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes an instance in which a medical professional who requested a religious exemption from having to provide products that violate her conscience and was fired has filed a lawsuit against her former employer, a major drug-store chain. Also, a Christian school is being harassed for require students to follow a code of conduct that is consistent with Biblical teaching on sexuality.  And, a major social media platform has taken down the account of a provider of online pornography.

Nurse practitioner loses job over contraception flap

We have seen numerous instances in which people of faith, making decisions based on their deeply held religious beliefs, have faced punishment because of these conscience-based actions.

The Christian Post reports on a nurse-practitioner who works for the urgent care arm of CVS Pharmacies.  Her name is Paige Casey, and she had asked for an exemption to company policy that would have required her to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.  Initially, that request had been granted, but the company reversed course last year; the Post article said: "...the company announced in August 2021 that it would 'no longer accommodate employees with religious convictions against prescribing abortifacients, hormonal contraceptives, and other forms of birth control that can cause abortions.'"  

Casey was fired, and a lawsuit has been filed by Alliance Defending Freedom.  The article relates:

The lawsuit contends that CVS wrongfully refused Casey's request for an exemption to a policy requiring MinuteClinic staff to dispense contraception and abortion-inducing drugs and then fired her for not following the policy.

ADF Senior Counsel Denise Harle said:

"Paige had a spotless record of caring for patients, yet CVS decided to abruptly fire her, solely because of her religious belief that life begins at conception. Virginia law protects the freedom of everyone to work without fear of being fired for their religious beliefs prohibiting participation in abortion."

Christian school stands strong amidst threats

A private Christian school certainly has the right to require that students act in accordance with Biblical principles, but thanks to a national news story on a particular school in Florida attempting to paint the school as being intolerant, the school has come under fire.

The Washington Stand reports that the incident occurred several weeks ago. Barry McKeen is the administrator of Grace Christian School in Valrico, FL; the article says:

The threats came in reaction to an article by NBC News, which published several paragraphs of a June 6 email in which McKeen reiterated to school parents the school’s commitment to biblical sexuality.

Here are some highlights of the e-mail that McKeen sent out:

• "...one’s biological sex must be affirmed, and no attempts should be made to physically change, alter, or disagree with one’s biological gender..."

• "...Students in school will be referred to by the gender on their birth certificate and be referenced in name in the same fashion..."

• “We believe that any form of homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgender identity/lifestyle, self-identification, bestiality, incest, fornication, adultery and pornography are sinful in the sight of God and the church."

• “Students who are found participating in these lifestyles will be asked to leave the school immediately.”

McKeen says he has worked for the school for 21 years. He stated: “We have had these policies in our school since day number one, in the early 1970s,” adding, “God has spoken on those issues explicitly, aggressively.” He said: “it is our policy now. It will be our policy going forward because … God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He does not change.”

Porn site account removed from Instagram

The mainstreaming of pornography on digital platforms has been advancing, but encountered one roadblock in a recent decision by the mammoth social media site, Instagram.  The group, Enough is Enough, reported that:

Pornhub, which had 13.1 million Instagram followers, continues to be the target of numerous lawsuits, survivor accounts and investigative reports alleging it hosts child sexual abuse material, filmed rape and sex trafficking content.

Instagram did the right thing by removing the account, and we are hopeful they will continue to prioritize efforts to protect the innocence of children, youth and all who have been exploited.

It is also our hope other businesses will follow Instagram's lead and join the ranks of Mastercard, Visa and others who have cut ties with Pornhub in a display of corporate responsibility.

National Center on Sexual Exploitation applauded the move, stating on its website that it "...said that Instagram’s decision to remove Pornhub from its platform indicates that the company understands the mounting evidence of Pornhub’s criminality." The site notes that, "The National Center on Sexual Exploitation, along with a group of international advocates and survivors...have been sharing evidence of criminality on Pornhub with Instagram and requested that the social media company remove Pornhub."

The 3 - September 4, 2022

On this week's edition of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, there is a positive development regarding a Kentucky photographer who did not wish to use her craft to promote same-sex weddings, in light of a Louisville city ordinance.  Also, a court has ruled that churches in California do not have to promote abortion in their health care plans.  Plus, the state of Texas is allowing our national motto, "In God We Trust" to be displayed in public schools throughout the state.

KY photographer gets reprieve from city law that would force endorsement of same-sex marriage

The city of Louisville, Kentucky passed an ordinance that is quite foreboding for Christians who believe in the Biblical definition of marriage and do not wish to apply their skills to promoting "same-sex marriage."  According to the Alliance Defending Freedom website, a local photographer went to court to challenge this ordinance, with a positive outcome.

Her name is Chelsey Nelson, and the site says:

Nelson challenged a city law that required her to create photographs and blogs promoting same-sex wedding ceremonies if she does so for weddings between a man and a woman. As the district court recognized, the case is similar to one now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court—303 Creative v. Elenis—involving Colorado graphic artist and website designer Lorie Smith.

The website also says that, "Louisville’s law had also banned Nelson and her studio, Chelsey Nelson Photography, from publicly explaining on her studio’s own website the religious reasons why she only celebrates wedding ceremonies between a man and a woman. ADF attorneys had asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to stop the city from threatening Nelson and violating her First Amendment rights by forcing her to create messages that go against her faith."

Last week, the court did just that, ruling that, according to ADF, she "is free to use her creative talents to speak messages that align with her religious beliefs about marriage." Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Bryan Neihart said, “We’re pleased the court agreed that the city violated Chelsey’s First Amendment rights. The court’s decision sends a clear and necessary message to every Kentuckian—and American—that each of us is free to speak and work according to our deeply held beliefs."

Court rules that CA churches do not have to cover abortions

For years we have seen government officials try to force churches and religious organizations to include abortion, which is a clear violation of Biblical principles, in their health care plans. Scores of lawsuits were filed against the so-called "contraception mandate," which would include free birth control and drugs that could cause abortion.  

One of the attempts to make churches line up with the pro-abortion agenda comes out of California.  CBNNews.com reported that it was some eight years ago when several churches filed a challenge to a regulation issued by the California Department of Managed Health Care.  Recently, those churches gained relief.  A Federal district judge ruled recently that the mandate is unconstitutional; the churches were represented by Alliance Defending Freedom.

The article relates that the judge "wrote the DMHC infringed on the churches' First Amendment rights by denying their request for exemption to the abortions being added to their insurance plans. She also directly criticized the department's director, Mary Watanabe."  In the judge's words:

"In sum, the Director has not shown '{she} lacks other means of achieving {her} desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by {plaintiffs}," the judge wrote. "The Director's denial of the Churches' request for exceptions to accommodate their religious beliefs, based solely on the fact that those requests did not originate with a plan, was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest."

Texas law allows "In God We Trust" to be displayed in state's schools

A new law has gone into effect in Texas, providing for our national motto, "In God We Trust," to be on display in schools throughout the Lone Star State. The Daily Citizen, the news website of Focus on the Family, stated:

A law, S.B. No. 797, was enacted by the Texas Legislature last year. This new statute governs the placement of the national motto for public elementary or secondary schools, and institutions of higher education.

The law states that these entities “must display in a conspicuous place in each building of the school or institution a durable poster or framed copy of the United States national motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ if the poster or framed copy meets” the following requirements:

1. Is donated for display at the school or institution.
2. Is purchased from private donations and made available to the school or institution.

As The Daily Citizen put it, "In other words, if a private donor donates an 'In God We Trust' poster to a public school, that school must display."

Even though there has been some parental opposition, the new law represents an affirmation of a guiding principle upon which the nation was founded.  The article goes on to say:

Jonathan Covey, Director of Policy at Texas Values, a Focus-allied Family Policy Council, told the Daily Citizen in a statement, “This is about reminding ourselves and our children that the First Amendment right to religious liberty is alive and well in our country.”

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.

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.”

The 3 - July 3, 2022

This week's edition of The 3 includes more response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, concentrating on real and potential federal action.  Also, another high court decision in the area of religious freedom provided legal relief for a football coach who prayed on the field after games. Plus, the gender ideology continues to influence the Administration, with one federal agency proposing that Title IX, which was designed to promote girls' and women's sports, now allows biological males to compete with females.

HHS reveals action plan on promoting abortion

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs case, overturning Roe vs. Wade, produced a response from federal government officials.  Even though the high court stated that the U.S. Constitution did not contain a right to abortion, statements by Administration leaders indicated they would do all that was within their power to ensure that women could continue to terminate their pregnancies.

The Daily Wire reported on a press conference that was held by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, in which he laid out ways that the Executive Branch would attempt to uphold the so-called "woman's right to choose" abortion.   The story related:

The secretary announced the launch of the HHS Reproductive Access Task Force to “plan for every action necessary to protect women’s access to reproductive health care.”

“There is no magic bullet,” he added. “But if there is something we can do, we will find it and we will do it at HHS. Indeed, that was the instruction I received from the President of the United States.”

An official U.S. Government website, reproductiverights.gov, outlines the HHS strategy to promote abortion, including a link through which women can find an abortion provider in their area.  The secretary was initially non-committal to establish abortions on federal lands, as well as to use taxpayer dollars to provide transportation for women to travel to other states to get an abortion, if their state does not have an abortion clinic in operation. The Saturday after the ruling, Becerra told an NBC News reporter, according to The Daily Caller: "I always tell my team at HHS ‘if you’ve done your homework, then we have no right to do mild,’ and so we’re going to be aggressive and go all the way … We are looking at every option and among those is transportation.”

Former high school football coach victorious in challenge over midfield prayer

The story of former high school football coach Joe Kennedy has become quite well-known, having been in court for a number of years following his termination for engaging in prayer on the football field following games.  He received, at last, relief from the U.S. Supreme Court recently.

CBN News reported on the Court's ruling:

The court pointed out that teachers and students alike still maintain their freedom of speech, even if they're working at a state-funded school.

"When it comes to Mr. Kennedy's free speech claim, our precedents remind us that the First Amendment's protections extend to 'teachers and students,' neither of whom 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,'" the majority opinion stated.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, “The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.”

First Liberty represented the coach and on its website, it included a quote from Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty: “This is a tremendous victory for Coach Kennedy and religious liberty for all Americans," adding, “Our Constitution protects the right of every American to engage in private religious expression, including praying in public, without fear of getting fired. We are grateful that the Supreme Court recognized what the Constitution and law have always said – American’s are free to live out their faith in public.” Coach Kennedy is quoted as saying: "This is just so awesome...I thank God for answering our prayers and sustaining my family through this long battle.” He expressed his gratitude "to the Supreme Court, my fantastic legal team, and everyone who has supported us..."

Anniversary of Title IX brings new action on gender ideology from Administration

Recently, President Biden issued an Executive Order that death with different aspects of the gender ideology agenda that embraces so-called "gender identity."  The order included opposition to so-called "conversion therapy," which threatens Christian counselors who wish to talk clients through overcoming unwanted same-sex attraction and indicated support for therapies and surgeries that intend to help a person change his or her gender.

The 50th anniversary of Title IX has also led to the opening of another front in promoting this ideology that contrasts with a Biblical worldview perspective. The Christian Post reported:

The U.S. Department of Education has unveiled proposed changes to federal civil rights law to clarify that protections against sex discrimination "include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

The report mentioned concerns "that the Biden administration is working to redefine 'sex' over half a century after Title IX was enacted to protect women from discrimination in education. Progressive organizations celebrated the rule proposal as a 'critical step' in protecting LGBT students from discrimination."

In other words, this new proposal would, in the name of "equality" under Title IX, allow male athletes to compete against female athletes, leading to a marginalization of girls' and women's sports. The Department issued a fact sheet that said these amendments to Title IX "...would make clear that preventing someone from participating in school programs and activities consistent with their gender identity would cause harm in violation of Title IX, except in some limited areas set out in the statute or regulations."

The Christian Post story included a quote from Terry Schilling of the American Principles Project, who said: "Fifty years ago, Congress passed Title IX to safeguard educational opportunities for women and girls." He charged that the President "and his administration have officially gutted those protections, endangering female students and foisting gender insanity on our schools..." He described the regulations as "a severe threat to the safety of women and girls" and "an outrageous infringement on the privacy of students."

The 3 - June 26, 2022

On this week's edition of The 3, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the faulty Roe vs. Wade decision, and there is news and reaction.  Also, the high court has upheld religious freedom in a case out of the state of Maine concerning parents who, until the ruling, could not use available public dollars to attend religious schools.  And, the White House has issued an executive order that threatens Christian counseling to overcome same-sex attraction and promotes questionable gender-change methods.

Supreme Court strikes down Roe, sending abortion policy to each state

The ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court almost 50 years ago, Roe vs Wade, has now been overturned. CBN News quoted from the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito:

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision..."

In other words, the Constitution doesn't address abortion, and therefore, the majority of the court held that the federal government is out of bounds in setting abortion policy.  Each state has to set its own policy on the topic.  As the CBN story points out:

Joining Alito were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The latter three justices are Trump appointees. Thomas first voted to overrule Roe 30 years ago.

Chief Justice John Roberts would have stopped short of ending the abortion right, noting that he would have upheld the Mississippi law at the heart of the case, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks...and said no more.

CBN reports that 13 states already have trigger laws in place meaning that the laws were set to be implemented once Roe was overturned.

Alabama did not have a trigger law, but passed a strong pro-life bill in 2019, the Human Life Protection Act.  WSFA.com reported on Friday that Attorney General Steve Marshall...

...gave notice that the state will “immediately” file motions to dissolve any injunction on state laws dealing with abortion that had been halted by the courts. Among those laws was the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, which was one of the strongest bans on abortion in the country when Gov. Kay Ivey signed it into law in 2019. The law made performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony unless the mother’s health was in danger. It did not provide any exceptions for rape or incest.

Later in the day, according to the website, "...U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson dismissed the lawsuit against the Alabama Human Life Protection Act."  Marshall also called on abortion clinics in the state to cease operations and spoke strongly against acts of vandalism in response to the high court's action.

Christians have been speaking out forcefully against abortion, which is the taking of human life. The CEO of National Religious Broadcasters hailed the ruling; Troy Miller said: “Today’s decision is a great victory for sanctity of life on the federal level. We stand with our members who are on the frontlines of this battle as they pursue laws and reforms at the state level that protect and value life,” adding, “We continue to ask for God’s protection on all Supreme Court justices as they continue in their public service.”

The NRB website featured responses from a variety of Christian leaders, including:

Michael Farris of Alliance Defending Freedom, who said, "The Supreme Court acknowledged that it improperly seized the power of the people and their legislatures half a century ago. Now it has relinquished that power and given it back to the people. That’s a marvel worth celebrating.”

Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, who stated, “This is a day to give thanks to God. It’s also a day to give thanks to the tens of millions who have marched in the snow and cold on the anniversary of Roe these last fifty years as faithful witnesses to the value of human life. It’s a day, as well, to give thanks to those who have committed their lives and their resources to serving mothers and protecting innocent children. We remain dedicated to fostering and furthering a culture of life, which recognizes the dignity of each and every person."  

He included that reference to the March for Life, that has been an annual event since Roe was handed down, a peaceful protest of pro-life people that attracted hundreds of thousands to the nation's capital.  There have been Marches in other U.S. cities as well.  News coverage has been scant for these events, which were peaceful and respectful.

The Hill quoted from a statement by March for Life President Jeanne Mancini, who said: “For nearly fifty years, the Supreme Court has imposed an unpopular and extreme abortion policy on our nation, but as the annual March for Life gives witness to, Roe’s allowance of abortion-on-demand, up-until-birth has never represented where most Americans stand on life!” She added, “We are so grateful to the countless pro-life people of goodwill who contributed and sacrificed to make today possible — including the millions of those who have marched for life over the years — and we recognize that this is just the beginning of our work to advance policies that protect life..."

Religious students can now participate in Maine program allotting public funds for public and private schools

There was other good news from the Supreme Court last week.  The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, put an end to a program that offered residents of Maine in remote areas the opportunity to receive public funds, to be applied to public and private schools, but not religious schools. First Liberty, one of the firms involved in a challenge to the law, stated in a press release last Tuesday, "For school districts that do not maintain a high school, Maine pays students’ tuition at the public or private school of the family’s choice. Until today’s ruling, families were prohibited from using the scholarship program to attend religious schools."

Kelly Shackelford, who serves as President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty Institute, stated, “We are thrilled that the Court affirmed once again that religious discrimination will not be tolerated in this country. Parents in Maine, and all over the country, can now choose the best education for their kids without fearing retribution from the government. This is a great day for religious liberty in America.”

Gender identity agenda reflected in executive orders

The Bible speaks plainly to issues surrounding sexuality: for instance, we are told in Scripture that God created male and female. The Bible also describes homosexual behavior as sinful.  Yet, in this age of so-called "gender identity," "gender fluidity," and "sexual orientation," we have seen a flurry of actions that have been taken, including attempts to change one's gender. It has also become popular to try to persuade people that sexual orientation cannot be changed. 

In a sweeping attempt to exert federal control over these personal matters, the White House issued an executive order.  According to the Alliance Defending Freedom website, the order "villainizes and grossly misrepresents religious Americans and others holding to commonsense American values and violates their constitutionally and legally protected freedoms."

ADF Senior Counsel Julie Marie Blake stated, in part:

“Every American is protected under the Constitution to freely live and work according to their religious beliefs, and President Biden can’t remove those fundamental rights with a stroke of his pen. It is a gross overreach of his authority, for example, to mandate what Christian counselors can say, or not say, in private conversations with their clients, as is the case with our client Brian Tingley in Washington state, or demand faith-based foster care and adoption homes, like our client Holston United Methodist Home for Children in Tennessee, violate their religious beliefs or lose needed funding to help children find a forever home. Further, with this new order, the president is threatening to erase the entire category of women’s sports—egregiously, on the cusp of the 50th anniversary of Title IX, the civil rights law designed to protect fair competition for women..."

Speaking of Title IX, The Christian Post reported:

The U.S. Department of Education has unveiled proposed changes to federal civil rights law to clarify that protections against sex discrimination "include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

The proposal sparks concerns from conservative groups, female athletes and civil rights groups that the Biden administration is working to redefine "sex" over half a century after Title IX was enacted to protect women from discrimination in education. Progressive organizations celebrated the rule proposal as a "critical step" in protecting LGBT students from discrimination.

Back to that executive order; Christian Medical and Dental Associations Senior Vice President of Bioethics and Public Policy Jeff Barrows stated that the Executive Order "claims to be safeguarding health care and preventing youth suicide, but medical research shows it will do the exact opposite,” adding, “It’s not protecting children, and it’s certainly not safeguarding their health care; instead, it is a prescription for bad medicine.”  

For instance regarding what is called, Conversion Therapy, the CMDA statement says: "Bans against counseling choice are one-sided ideology that places our patients and our children squarely against the tide of science and evidence-based healthcare. The federal government should be supporting change-allowing therapy instead of suppressing it."  Unfortunately, bans on this therapy would likely include talk therapy by Christian counselors. 

Regarding so-called "gender-affirming care," CMDA states: "Individual states are well within their rights to ban gender-affirming care in an effort to protect at-risk youth. These bans are not hateful attacks or discrimination against children suffering from gender dysphoria, as the Executive Order claims."