The 3 - March 27, 2022

This week's edition of The 3 includes hearings that occurred in Washington this week on a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court and provides information on a high court decision concerning a death row inmate's interaction with clergy in the final hours.  Plus, numerous states have been considering bills to ban male athletes from participating in women's sports, and there are several developments.

SCOTUS nominee avoids questions on gender, science, and child porn sentences

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings this week to hear from U.S. Supreme Court nominee Katanji Brown Jackson. Her opponents have expressed their concern for her judicial activism but her statements on gender and life have caused concern, in addition to her record on sentencing those guilty of child pornography.

Denny Burk, the President of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, wrote in his blog concerning Judge Jackson's response to Sen. Marsha Blackburn's request for the prospective justice to provide the definition of a "woman."

Here we have a Supreme Court nominee who either can’t or won’t offer a definition of what a woman is. Why? Because she claims that she’s not a biologist. Really?

Burk states, "Have we really come to the point that a sitting judge and nominee for the highest court in the land cannot define what a woman is? Think how fast transgender propaganda has taken root in our culture that this very basic question would produce a blank stare and an 'I don’t know' from a sitting judge."

He also writes:

The One who creates has the right to command. He also has the right to name and define. Indeed He has written His design into every cell of our bodies. Our actual identity as male or female is not self-constructed, self-defined, or self-directed. Our identity as male and female is God-constructed, God-defined, and God-directed. Maleness or femaleness aren’t assigned at birth. Rather, they are revealed in God’s special, distinct design of male and female bodies.

Attorney Jenna Ellis, writing at Newsmax, states that Jackson...

...is far form ignorant, and she likely knows defining "what is a woman" destroys the crux of the left’s gender theory as a social construct, which has implications for litigation that will likely end up at the high court.

This isn’t just a policy or biology question.

This is key to uncovering Jackson’s judicial philosophy. Sex is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Title VII and IX are all about women. Legislation protecting women’s sports is being signed into law or contemplated in states across the country.

How can Judge Jackson provide a competent opinion on these issues if she "can’t" provide a definition to the word 'woman'?

Ellis adds, "How can the American people know whether or not Jackson will be faithful to the Constitution, which protects our fundamental rights, when she won’t answer questions?"

Lila Rose of Live Action wrote on Twitter regarding Jackson's record on Child Sexual Abuse Material: "Tragically, in every case in which Judge Jackson had discretion, she gave CSAM criminals sentences below the guidelines & below what the prosecutors sought. During her hearings, Judge Jackson has indicated she thinks penalties for these crimes should be lighter. I disagree."  She added, "The greatest responsibility of adults is to protect those more vulnerable. Children are the most vulnerable members of society. It is profoundly unjust when we permit the law to be lenient with their rapists––in part because children have no way to advocate for themselves."  In conclusion, Rose wrote: "I strongly oppose Judge Ketanji Brown for her pro-abortion advocacy, but her leniency on child sex abusers is another reason for all of us to passionately oppose her confirmation to the highest court of justice in the land."

Lila Rose was one of almost 40 pro-life leaders who signed a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing concern over her pro-abortion record.

High court affirms right for death row inmate to have clergy interaction

While Senators questioned Ketanji Brown Jackson this week in hearings, the current high court issued a decision in the case of a Texas death row inmate who had requested that a member of the clergy lay hands on him and pray during his final hours.

The SCOTUS Blog website reported: 

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a man on death row in Texas can have his pastor touch him and pray out loud while he is being executed. The decision in Ramirez v. Collier was the latest chapter in the nearly three-year-long dispute over the presence of spiritual advisers at executions, and the justices appeared to express some frustration that the case was before them at all. The ruling, which urged states to adopt clear rules for the future and instructed courts to allow executions to go forward with religious accommodations when necessary, brought together justices from both ends of the ideological spectrum, with only Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the prisoner, John Ramirez, included a quote on its website from Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch:

“Mr. Ramirez has come to hold sincere religious beliefs, and his appeal to God in his final moments demands respect and accommodation. The First Amendment right to freely exercise one’s religion extends to prison and to those like Mr. Ramirez who are confined within its walls. Throughout history, clergy members have been a comforting and expected presence at executions, ministering over and praying for the condemned before death. We are pleased the Supreme Court has affirmed Mr. Ramirez’s constitutionally protected freedom to have his pastor pray by his side at such an hour.”

Transgender sports bills advance in several states, veto in one state overriden

The groundswell in state after state to prevent the unfortunate occurrence of male athletes participating in women's sports based on the biological male's so-called "transition" continues, with the Arizona Legislature becoming one of the latest states to ban male participation. CBN News reports that:

The Arizona legislature voted on Thursday to prohibit sex-change surgeries on children and to ban transgender athletes who were born male from playing on girls' sports teams.

Republican Gov. Doug Ducey has not said if he will sign either of the bills.

The article notes that this week, governors in Indiana and Utah "vetoed similar bills that were intended to protect the rights of women and girls who are athletes."

However, in Utah, as the National File website reports, "...the Utah legislature voted to override Governor Spencer Cox’s veto of a measure that would prevent transgender girls from participating in female sports in schools across the state." The override vote in the House was 56-18 vote; in the Senate it was 21-8.  The article says:

Cox, who has “he/him” pronouns in his Twitter bio, wanted Utah to become the first state to find a “compromise” that would protect the integrity of women’s sports while also allowing limited participation form “transgender youth.”

Regarding the Indiana legislation, according to the article, Governor Eric Holcomb "claimed the bill left 'too many unanswered questions' and questioned the need for such legislation at the state level."

The Arizona bill dealing with attempts to change a child's gender would only limit surgeries, but not "hormone therapies and puberty blockers," according to CBN. That is unlike Alabama's proposed Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, currently awaiting consideration in the House, which would ban surgeries and treatments.