This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes the story of a federal judge who has halted the implementation of a Colorado law that would prevent ladies who have taken the first pill in the two-pill chemical abortion regimen from participating in an abortion pill reversal procedure. Also, a group of California parents has gone to court to challenge state law that prevents the parents from choosing religious curriculum in an independent study in association with charter schools. And, Christian communicators have participated in an open letter to the head of a social media platform calling for him to make good on his commitment to free speech.
Federal judge places law that would ban abortion pill reversal on hold
The distribution of the abortion pill increased during the COVID pandemic, and since its authorization by the FDA some two decades ago, government agencies have loosened restrictions on chemical abortions.
A chemical abortion is actually accomplished through a two-pill process. After a woman takes the first pill, mifepristone, it is still possible to reverse its effects and perhaps save the life of the baby. Colorado attempted to ban the act of reversal, but a recent decision by a federal judge has placed that on hold.
The Daily Citizen reported:
Colorado lawmakers enacted a law (Senate Bill 190) banning hormone treatment to reverse a chemical abortion.
As reported by the Daily Citizen, the law was immediately challenged by Bella Health and Wellness, a Catholic health clinic in Colorado that offers abortion pill reversal treatment. They contend the law violates their freedom of speech and religion.
The article notes that a court in D.C. issued a 14-day hold in the spring, and Colorado's attorney general said he would not allow the law to take effect.
Bella filed another lawsuit, and the Daily Citizen article says that...
Daniel D. Domenico wrote in his October 21st order,There is no question whether [the law] Section Three burdens Bella Health’s free exercise of religion. It does. Bella Health considers it a religious obligation to provide treatment for pregnant mothers and to protect unborn life if the mother seeks to stop or reverse an abortion.
Parents denied ability to choose religious curriculum in independent study programs
Perhaps you heard my conversation with attorney Justin Butterfield of First Liberty on Friday's Meeting House program. He provided an update on a case involving a group of parents participating in independent study programs through local charter schools. They have latitude to choose curriculum, as long as there is not a religious connection.
FoxNews.com has reported on these developments, stating:
The schools "tout" their commitment to "individualized and inclusive learning" through these programs, but with one "glaring exception" — faith-based learning material, a lawsuit says. The families, according to the suit, wanted to use high-quality curricula that comported with state standards but that also reflected a faith-based worldview but were denied. One family was even expelled.
"Our clients simply want to be able to choose curricula that fits their families’ needs without facing religious discrimination," Justin Butterfield, deputy general counsel for First Liberty said.
In my conversation with Butterfield, as well as in the Fox piece, last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Carson v. Makin, was referenced. Fox quoted attorney Ethan Davis, one of the partners at King and Spalding, who said, "As the Supreme Court made clear last year in Carson v. Makin, when the government provides a benefit, like parent-directed educational funding, it cannot exclude families just because they choose to use that benefit for a religious education..."
Christian leaders among those petitioning Elon Musk to uphold free speech principles
There has been much discussion regarding social media platforms censoring certain material. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in which a Federal appeals court ruled that government entities conspired with social media platforms to communicate a particular perspective on a variety of issues.
An open letter was just issued to the relatively new head of X, formerly known as Twitter, which includes a number of Christian communicators. The Alliance Defending Freedom International website reports:
Over 50 international free speech advocates, including many high-profile X (formerly Twitter) users, have united in signing an open letter to Elon Musk, on the one-year anniversary of him assuming the role of CEO of the platform.Among those signing on to the letter are Seth Dillon of the Babylon Bee, author and columnist Rod Dreher, journalist Calvin Robinson from the U.K., Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom, and Paul Coleman of ADF International.
The letter requests that Musk “harness X to make clear that no one should be punished under the law for peaceful expression on X or any platform,” by
1) designating funds to support legal action challenging state-sponsored censorship of views on X;
2) create an intake mechanism on X whereby individuals can apply for this support; and
3) host X Spaces to bring worldwide attention to censorship cases involving both governments and the workplace.
The letter, posted at openlettertoelon.org, states:
Free speech is broadly protected by every major human rights treaty; however, in the West, speech increasingly is targeted by “hate speech” laws. In other regions, blasphemy laws target minority groups, sometimes with the sentence of death. These repressive laws are two sides of the same coin—both punish those who speak out against state-approved views.
No comments:
Post a Comment