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.”