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?
No comments:
Post a Comment