The 3 - October 8, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes the story of a school board member in Arizona who was told by the district that she could not longer quote Scripture in board meetings, so she filed a lawsuit.  Also, a federal agency has taken a law passed by Congress and expanded it to include abortion.  Plus, there have been recent court rulings that protect teachers in cases involving so-called "gender" pronouns.

AZ school board member restricted from quoting from Bible, files suit

Heather Rooks was elected to the school board for the Peoria Unified School District in Glendale, AZ and became part of that body in January, according to WORLD Magazine, which reported that in her first meeting, she quoted Scripture, Joshua 1:9, which says, “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”

This began her practice of quoting Scripture at the front end of comments in meetings, which apparently got the attention of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which sent a letter to the school board demanding that the board make her stop. WORLD reports: "At a July 13 meeting, Rooks said she had received a letter from the district instructing her to stop quoting Bible verses because her actions reportedly violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment."

Heather Rooks fought back by suing the school district, saying that she “wants to be part of the longstanding tradition of government officials solemnizing public occasions."  First Liberty has taken up Rooks' case, and attorney Andy Gould is quoted in the article, stating: "Public officials in this country literally for centuries have recited Scripture at official events, legislatures opened with prayer, so this is a part of the fabric of … our political tradition in this country..."

FFRF, meanwhile, claims that Heather Rooks violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  WORLD says, referring to comments from Gould:

At its inception, the clause was meant to prevent the government from interfering with the Church—not to isolate any mention of the Church from society, he said. Gould argued the clause needs to be considered along with its First Amendment counterparts, the free exercise and free speech clauses, which ensure Rooks has the freedom to express her religious views.

Law intended to protect pregnant employees could be twisted to allow abortion

Congress passed the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act, which is intended to implement protections for pregnant employees, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is proposing that the law be used to promote abortions. The Alliance Defending Freedom is crying foul, and on its website, it states that it is urging the EEOC to withdraw a "proposed rule" that would "impose an abortion mandate on virtually every employer in the country, even those whose religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception..."

The Federal Register website states that the law "requires a covered entity to provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee's or applicant's known limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity."

ADF Senior Counsel Julie Marie Blake is quoted as saying that the rule "...jeopardizes a supportive work culture for pregnant women by introducing abortion into federal law in a place where Congress has not authorized it. Congress sought to help pregnant workers, not force employers to facilitate abortions..." She goes on to say: "This unlawful proposal seeks to illegally override state laws protecting the unborn and employers’ pro-life and religious beliefs. The administration and the EEOC don’t have the legal authority to smuggle an abortion mandate into a pro-life, pro-woman law.”

Preferred gender pronouns should not be forced upon teachers, courts rule

There have been two recent court rulings regarding the use of gender pronouns in schools. Alliance Defending Freedom is involved in one case, in which "A Wisconsin court ruled...that Kettle Moraine School District’s policy of changing students’ names and pronouns at school without parental consent and over their objection violates parents’ rights."  This is from the Waukesha County Circuit Court, which stated, according to ADF: 

“The School District could not administer medicine to a student without parental consent. The School District could not require or allow a student to participate in a sport without parental consent. Likewise, the School District cannot change the pronoun of a student without parental consent without impinging on a fundamental liberty interest of the parents..."

Life Site News reported on similar case out of Iowa, in which, " A federal court...handed staff and students in an Iowa school district a major victory, issuing a temporary injunction blocking district schools from enforcing a policy requiring students and employees 'respect a student’s gender identity' even if that 'identity' does not correspond with biological and spiritual reality."

The ruling came out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and concerns the Linn-Mar Community School District.  The article notes:

According to the school’s policy, “[e]very student has the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun that corresponds to their gender identity. A court-ordered name or gender change is not required, and the student need not change official school records.”

The policy, which also guarantees students the use of locker rooms and bathrooms that “correspond to their gender identity,” adds that teachers “may ask all students how they want to be addressed in class “and in communications with their parent/guardian.”

Prior to the Friday ruling by the federal appeals court, if a staff member or student at Linn-Mar engaged in an alleged “intentional and/or persistent refusal … to respect a student’s gender identity,” they would incur “a violation of school board policies.”

Now as a result of that ruling on Friday, September 29, "the district has been ordered to stop enforcing the latter section of the policy 'during the pendency of this litigation.'” That section, according to the article, "explicitly prohibits using the correct pronouns to refer to a gender-confused student."