The 3 - June 25, 2023

In this week's edition of The 3, spotlighting three stories of relevance to the Christian community, there is a promising development on conscience protection for health care professionals, as the Biden Administration has decided not to appeal a court decision that would protect those in the medical field. Plus, even as states continue to advance laws that would protect children from harmful gender change treatments or procedures, two federal districts courts have issued rulings in the other direction.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down another pro-life ruling, with this one protecting states who wish to prevent taxpayer funds from going to abortion.   

Administration decides not to challenge conscience-protecting court decision

Health professionals will not be forced to perform transgender surgeries that violate their religious beliefs as the result of a decision in the past week by the Administration to not challenge a ruling on that issue.  This marks the second time such a decision has been rendered.

CBN News reports that:

The decision in Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra was the second time a federal appeals court has blocked the administration's transgender mandate and the second time the administration has chosen not to ask the Supreme Court to review.

According to Becket Law, the rulings mark a victory for compassionate, evidence-based healthcare and protect religious doctors and hospitals across the country from suffering multimillion-dollar penalties for following their religious beliefs, conscience, and informed medical judgment.

The federal government decided that the so-called Affordable Care Act provided for the performance of transgender surgeries against the consciences of health professionals, surgeries that, as the article notes, could be harmful to the patients.  The article continues:

A coalition of Catholic hospitals, a Catholic university, and Catholic nuns who run health clinics for the elderly and poor sued the federal government to stop the mandate, and a federal court agreed that the mandate was unlawful and permanently blocked it from taking effect.

When the Biden Administration appealed that decision, the Eighth Circuit upheld the lower court's decision.

That ruling occurred on December 9, and the Administration had until last Tuesday to appeal, which it did not. 

The Sisters of Mercy decision was the second successful challenge to this mandate by Becket. CBN refers to its report that "...in Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra, Becket defended a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. Becket won a victory for its clients at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Biden administration also declined to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court."

Judges rule against protection for children from gender change treatments and surgeries

But the issue of treatments and surgeries that are offered to help someone alter his or her biological sex is far from over; in fact, two court rulings recently have halted state efforts to ban these practices in their states.  The Axios website reports that a ban that was passed by the Arkansas Legislature, which then overrode a veto by then-governor Asa Hutchinson, was "struck down" by federal district judge Jay Moody, who "said the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of transgender youth, their parents and their medical providers." The judge claimed the state failed to prove its case.  Current Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders has already indicated the state will appeal the ruling to the 8th Circuit.

Meanwhile, in Indiana, again, as reported by Axios, a federal district judge has put a portion of that state's new law banning gender-change surgeries and therapies on hold - allowing therapies to continue to be administered, but allowing the part of the law banning sex change surgeries to be put in place. The judge wrote, according to the article, "Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge that ban because gender reassignment surgeries are not provided to minors in Indiana..."

Another pro-life ruling for the U.S. Supreme Court

A major step forward on reducing taxpayer funding of abortion for the residents of South Carolina is the result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, just days before the one-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.  In a tweet thread last Tuesday, Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, wrote: 

The U.S. Supreme Court has thrown out a lower court ruling that blocked South Carolina from removing funding from Planned Parenthood & other abortion facilities.

South Carolina enacted an executive order in 2018 terminating Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider - effectively ending taxpayer-funded abortion in the state.

Planned Parenthood challenged and successfully blocked the pro-life law through a Fourth Circuit ruling.

Today, the Supreme Court reinstated the order and asked the Fourth Circuit to reconsider its decision in light of a similar case ruled on June 8 that affirmed states have the right to determine which providers qualify to receive Medicaid funding.

Chris Schandevel, Senior Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, is quoted on the Live Action News website; he said:

“Pro-life states like South Carolina should be free to determine that Planned Parenthood and other entities that peddle abortion are not qualified to receive taxpayer funding through Medicaid. And we’re grateful the 4th Circuit will have another opportunity to hold that Congress did not intend to allow federal courts to second guess states’ decisions about which providers are qualified to receive Medicaid funding..."