The 3 - April 28, 2024

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three stories of relevance that illustrate how principles consistent with Biblical truth impact the culture, includes news of multiple states which are challenging the new regulations for Title IX, which has the goal of upholding fairness to women, yet, the rewrite, by redefining, "sex," could actually be unfair to women in sports participation.  There's also the story of a large bank's shareholders' meeting that occurred in the past week, which was used to call attention to practices of Christian ministries not being allowed to use the bank's services.  And, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments recently in an Idaho case, in which the federal government is challenging its strong pro-life law by saying it violates a federal law requiring emergency rooms to provide treatment.

Pushback underway to Title IX rewrite

Even though it's been just over a week since the U.S. Department of Education announced its revisions to Title IX rules that redefine "sex" to include "gender identity" and "sexual orientation," already you have education leaders in numerous states who have announced their intent to stand against these rules being imposed on them. 

A story published on the Tallahassee Democrat website last Wednesday reported:

Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr., at Gov. Ron DeSantis' direction, warned superintendents and school districts to hold off on putting any changes into practice. Florida joins other states, including Louisiana and Oklahoma, in opposing the feds' new regulations.

“Florida will fight this,” Diaz wrote on Friday, referring to the updates related to Title IX, a civil-rights law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program or activity that receives federal funding.

Also, last Wednesday, the Washington Examiner posted a story that noted:

Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters is directing all local school districts in his state not to comply with the Biden administration’s rewrite of Title IX because it puts “women in danger.”

In a letter Wednesday to all local superintendents in the state obtained exclusively by the Washington Examiner, Walters called on districts not to make policy changes based on the controversial Title IX overhaul, which redefines sex to include claimed gender identities, calling the rewrite “illegal” and outside compliance with Oklahoma law.

The National Desk website also reported that South Carolina has indicated its intent to oppose the implementation of these new rules. 

Attorneys general, ministry leader, Christian legal organization call attention to "debanking"

A Tennessee-based ministry last year was informed by a large bank that its accounts had been cancelled. Steve Happ of Indigenous Advance Ministries addressed the shareholders of Bank of America in a meeting last Wednesday.  MinistryWatch.com reported:

...a shareholder proposed a resolution to curb what was called viewpoint-based de-banking by Bank of America.

Steve Happ, founder of Indigenous Advance Ministries, addressed Bank of America’s annual shareholders’ meeting urging them to adopt the resolution.

Happ received letters from the bank last year informing him, “Upon review of your account(s), we have determined you’re operating a business type we have chosen not to service at Bank of America.”

The account closures forced the ministry to delay paying its employees in Uganda, who often live meal to meal, Happ said at a press conference after the meeting.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Happ, and Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Vice President of ADF at a press conference following the meeting of BofA shareholders; Ministry Watch stated:

Tedesco said Bank of America has been at the forefront of politicized de-banking, citing situations involving other groups such as the Timothy Two Project International and a local church in Tennessee.

He said the bank needs to be more transparent and conduct an analysis of its dealings to see if there is a pattern of viewpoint discrimination.

Tedesco also pointed out that Bank of America was named in a Congressional staff report as participating in back channel discussions with federal law enforcement, including the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the FBI, and voluntarily handed over Americans’ private financial information.

The Christian Post reported that a group of attorneys general from 15 states "...sent a letter to Bank of America earlier this week demanding answers to allegations that the financial behemoth has discriminated against customers based on political and religious viewpoints. The company has denied such allegations." The article said that, "The letter contends that Bank of America has shuttered the accounts of multiple religious groups within the past three years."

Idaho argues it's pro-life law does not violate federal emergency room law

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving the state of Idaho's pro-life legislation and whether or not it violated a federal statute.

Liberty Counsel reported on its website that day:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, two consolidated cases questioning whether the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) supersedes Idaho’s near-total abortion ban and can force emergency room doctors to perform abortions in emergency situations.

The article said: 

Secretary Xavier Becerra of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued policy guidance in July 2022 to hospitals stating that state abortion laws with more narrow exceptions than EMTALA are “preempted,” and that physicians “must” perform an abortion if they feel abortion is “the stabilizing treatment necessary” to resolve an emergency medical condition. Under the guidance, hospitals could lose federal funding for failing to perform abortions.

The Liberty Counsel piece stated, "EMTALA explicitly requires emergency rooms to provide care to a pregnant woman and her 'unborn child' without discrimination, including if they cannot pay for the treatment."  It goes on to note:

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act does not preempt state abortion laws, nor does it require the killing of an innocent life. Emergency rooms are only required to stabilize patients, which includes the unborn patient. This so-called ‘guidance’ by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is another lawless act of the Biden administration that should be struck down.”

As CBN News explained: "EMTALA was passed nearly forty years ago by Congress to prevent...the practice by private hospitals at the time that would send emergency room patients who couldn't afford treatment to other hospitals that accepted poor patients."  The CBN article said that, "While the high court seemed split after hearing arguments Wednesday, pro-life advocates see the case as another important step in the process of ensuring the right to life for the most vulnerable and called out President Biden for attempting to rewrite the law."

The article included quotes from a variety of pro-life leaders. Kelsey Pritchard, State Public Affairs Director for SBA Pro-Life America, said, "The Biden administration's attack on Idaho's Defense of Life law is more of a PR stunt to spread abortion lobby misinformation than it is a valid legal strategy to take down states' pro-life laws..."

Lila Rose, President of Live Action, stated: "Medicine heals. Abortion kills. Abortion is not emergency medicine, and federal law does not require abortion in situations of a medical emergency," adding, "This case is not about ensuring mothers receive emergency medical care; it is about destroying Idaho's laws protecting its youngest children from the violence and death of abortion."

Abby Johnson of And Then There Were None, tweeted out: "Healthcare never involves killing a human. That's murder. That's a crime. That is the opposite of healthcare..."

The 3 - April 21, 2024

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three stories of relevance to the Christian community, included the redefinition of the word "sex" in the Title IX law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has entered the fray regarding treatments and surgeries that are intended, falsely so, to "change" the gender of a minor child. And, a new Florida law will enable school districts who wish to do so to have chaplains available for struggling students. 

Revision of Title IX rules includes redefinition of the word, "sex"

As The Daily Citizen website from Focus on the Family notes, "Title IX, a 1972 law that banned discrimination based on sex for school programs that receive federal funding, has been targeted by radical revolutionaries determined to redefine what the word 'sex' even means."  Well, those who wanted to see change in that definition got their wish as the Department of Education released its revised Title IX guidelines. The article says that these new regulations "redefine 'sex' when it comes to the sexual harassment and discrimination portions of Title IX."  It adds:

Under the rules, athletes will be able to claim discrimination and harassment based on their “sexual orientation/gender identity.”

In other words, they’ll be allowed to claim fake discrimination over a made-up identity.

The Alliance Defending Freedom says that the new policy "illegitimately redefines 'sex' in federal law, threatening women’s advancements in education and athletics and violating the rights of parents, students, and teachers..."  ADF Legal Counsel Rachel Rouleau is quoted as saying:

"...The administration continues to ignore biological reality, science, and commonsense, and women are suffering as a result. The administration’s new regulation will have devastating consequences on the future of women’s sports, student privacy, and parental rights, which is why Alliance Defending Freedom plans to take action to defend female athletes, as well as school districts, teachers, and students who will be gravely harmed by this unlawful government overreach.”

The announcement came just days after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, according to The Daily Signal, "overturned a lower court decision and struck down West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, a law that keeps scholastic sports in the state separated by biological sex."

SCOTUS allows Idaho to begin enforcement of law protecting children against harmful gender procedures

The U.S. Supreme Court took a major step forward in another area concerning gender by allowing the state of Idaho to start enforcing its law that bans the use of treatments and surgeries that are intended - falsely - to be used to change a minor's so-called "gender." The SCOTUS Blog reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for Idaho to temporarily enforce a state law criminalizing gender-transition care for minors against anyone who is not part of a lawsuit currently challenging that ban. In a brief order, the justices granted the state’s request to limit the scope of an earlier order entered by a federal district court in Idaho, which had barred the state from enforcing the law at all while a challenge to its constitutionality continues.

The blog post noted:

The law, which was slated to go into effect on Jan. 1, makes it a crime for medical providers in the state to provide gender-transition surgeries, puberty blockers, or hormone therapy to transgender youths under the age of 18. The same treatments can be provided, however, for other purposes.

The blog report also stated, 

Represented by Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst and (among others) by lawyers from the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, the state told the justices that as long as the law remains on hold, the state’s “vulnerable children” are exposed “to risky and dangerous medical procedures,” and “Idaho’s sovereign power to enforce its democratically enacted law” is infringed.

Florida governor signs bill allowing chaplains in public schools

In the wake of mental health challenges currently faced by children and teens, spiritual care based on the principles of Scripture can be highly effective in addressing those challenges. And, the state of Florida will now make it possible for chaplains, including Christian chaplains, to be available to students. 

Fox 35 Orlando reported that Governor Ron DeSantis has signed a bill that "establishes a statewide school chaplain program. This initiative permits districts to enlist chaplains to offer additional counseling and support to students."

The TV station's website noted:

DeSantis acknowledged encountering criticism when introducing the chaplain bill, as it allows chaplains of various faiths and religions, sparking concerns about controversial groups, such as those who practice satanism gaining access to schools. he, however, made it clear there would not be problems of that nature.

"We're not playing those games in Florida. That's not a religion. We're going to be using common sense while handling this," he said.

Similar legislation has been making its way through the Alabama Legislature, with 1819 News reporting last week: "The House Education Policy Committee approved legislation on Wednesday allowing public schools to employ or accept volunteer chaplains upon approval from a board of education or charter school governing body."  The Alabama Reflector reported that a companion bill passed the Alabama Senate unanimously.

The 3 - April 14, 2024

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, spotlights a new State Department proposal that could adversely affect Christian relief organizations in their hiring decisions. Also, a sports organization representing smaller colleges has announced that it will not allow men to compete in women's sports.  Plus, the Arizona Supreme Court had upheld a pro-life law in the state dating back to the 19th Century that had been challenged.

New State Department proposed policy could hamper work of relief groups

The U.S. State Department, according to an article appearing at Ministry Watch, has issued a proposal that "...expressly states that recipients and subrecipients receiving Department-funded foreign assistance funds must not discriminate on specified bases against end users of supplies or services (also referred to in this rule as beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries) or in certain employment decisions.”

Christian organizations including Samaritan's Purse and Christian Legal Society have "filed an official comment" to the State Department.  Ministry Watch stated, "The Christian ministries agree that they should not discriminate against beneficiaries, but have serious 'concerns' about the rules governing employment decisions."

The article quotes from Franklin Graham, President of Samaritan’s Purse, who said, "These proposed State Department regulations could be used to force faith-based organizations like Samaritan’s Purse to hire staff who disagree with our core biblical beliefs about God’s design for marriage, sexuality, and gender in order to be eligible for government grants.” He added, “Samaritan’s Purse is a Christian organization and we will not compromise on the fundamental principle of hiring like-minded Christians who share our calling, our stand on the authority of God’s Word, and our statement of faith..."  

The Ministry Watch story noted: "Faith-based ministries play a key role in the foreign assistance work of the United States. Religious groups make up 50 of the largest foreign assistance grant recipients and received $613 million in funding in Fiscal Year 2023."  The article reported:

Christian Legal Society shared an email asking supporters to sign an open letter to the State Department opposing the regulatory changes.

It reads in part, “I strongly oppose the U.S. State Department’s consideration of new regulations that will cut off grants and contracts to Christian—and all faith-based—relief organizations that require their employees to share their faith and their religious values.”

Large college sports organization announces new policy on males playing in female sports

Sarah Parshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation tweeted it out, saying:

@NAIA, a small colleges association representing 239 schools-bans male athletes from women's sports competitions in a unanimous vote. Thank you for standing with female athletes & prioritizing their safety & equal opportunity. 

Yo, @NCAA--your move. #SaveWomensSports

FoxNews.com reported:

The NAIA said its decision was rooted in "fair and safe competition for all student-athletes" and that "Title IX ensures there are separate and equal opportunities for female athletes." The organization said only athletes whose biological sex is female may participate in "NAIA-sponsored female sports." The policy goes into effect on Aug. 1.

This comes as the National Collegiate Athletic Association - the NCAA - is "currently facing a lawsuit from former athletes over its policy."  Fox summarized its policy this way:

The NCAA said it would follow the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and each sport would follow the national governing body for each sport. If there was no national governing body, then each sport would abide by the international policy. The NCAA updated its transgender policy starting on Jan. 19, 2022, and the final implementation begins on Aug. 1.

Higher Ground Times explored the issue in an article following the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship Game, stating, regarding a response by South Carolina Head Coach Dawn Staley:

More eyeballs on women’s basketball have led to tougher questions for the sport’s top coaches. Ahead of Sunday’s national championship game against Iowa, OutKick’s Dan Zaksheske asked Staley if transgender athletes should be allowed to play with cisgender women.

“If you consider yourself a woman and you want to play sports … you should be able to play,” the two-time national champion said Saturday. “So now the barnstormer people are going to flood my timeline and be a distraction to me on one of the biggest days of our game, and I’m OK with that.”

Iowa coach Lisa Bluder dodged the same question on the hot-button issue during her media availability.

“I understand it’s a topic that people are interested in,” Bluder said. “But today my focus is on the game tomorrow … But I know it’s an important issue for another time.”

Current NCAA guidelines allow transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports as long as their testosterone level falls below prescribed limits that can vary from sport to sport.

Arizona's high court issues strong pro-life ruling

Dr. Eric Hazelrigg is an Arizona obstetrician and serves as Medical Director of Choices Pregnancy Center in Arizona. As Alliance Defending Freedom reported on its website, he "filed a petition last March asking the state’s high court to review an Arizona Court of Appeals ruling."

ADF noted:

The appellate court’s ruling misinterpreted state law, against its plain meaning, to allow abortion in circumstances where the Arizona Legislature prohibited it. It also enjoined officials from fully enforcing the state’s pro-life law to protect unborn children. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed this ruling, allowing the law to be enforced as written.

As Live Action News reported last Tuesday:

In a 4-2 decision on Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld an 1864 law that protects most preborn children from abortion throughout pregnancy unless the life of the mother is in danger. There are no other exceptions.

According to NBC News, the Court said it will put its decision on hold for 14 days, and send the case back to a lower court to consider “additional constitutional challenges.” The law would make an induced abortion a felony punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who commits one or helps a woman obtain one.

However, Attorney General Kris Mayes said that she will not enforce the law.

ADF Senior Counsel Jake Warner stated: "Arizona’s pro-life law has protected unborn children for over 100 years, and the people of Arizona, through their elected representatives, have repeatedly affirmed that law, including as recently as 2022. We celebrate the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision that allows the state’s pro-life law to again protect the lives of countless, innocent unborn children.”

The 3 - April 7, 2024

This week's edition of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, has news out of the Florida Supreme Court, which recently handed down two seemingly conflicted issues relative to abortion. Also, there were two incidents surrounding Easter and the White House that proved to be offensive to Christians.  Plus, a couple who has been foster children has filed suit against a state agency because the couple can no longer be foster parents due to new regulations that require the affirming of "gender identity."

FL Supreme Court declares no constitutional right to abortion, but allows voters to decide the issue

There were mixed decisions out of the Florida Supreme Court last week, with the high court ruling that the state Constitution does not contain a right to abortion, but also allowed a ballot initiative to go to Florida voters in November.

Liberty Counsel reported that "...the Florida Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking opinion that upholds the 15-week abortion ban and overrules the prior abortion opinions going back to the first abortion opinion in 1989," adding that "...the Court ruled there is no right to abortion in the Florida Constitution. Now that the 15-week ban has been upheld, the six-week ban will soon go into effect.

The website noted last Monday:

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Today, the Florida Supreme Court rejected the dreadful history of abortion that began with an activist bench in 1989. Even before Liberty Counsel was founded in 1989, I have worked to overturn the In re T.W. decision because it did not have any basis in the Florida Constitution and has caused incalculable damage. Today, the wrongly decided abortion opinions are no more. The Constitution wins. Life wins.”

However, that could be short-lived, because the same court allowed another of those abortion amendments which have utilized deceptive language and heavy spending by the abortion industry in other states to be placed on the Florida ballot. Liberty Counsel also reported that the court " deceptive ballot initiative that proposes to codify unrestricted abortion in the state’s constitution may appear on the November ballot." Staver contended: “This proposed abortion amendment is the most extreme because it will wipe out every law regulating abortion. Other than parental notification, no law will survive, not even health and safety regulations. We must mobilize Floridians to vote ‘No’ on this deceptive amendment.”

Liberty Counsel's website stated:

Staver and Florida Senior Deputy Solicitor for the Attorney General Nathan Forrester argued before the court’s seven justices that the amendment’s language was misleading, deceptive, and violated the single subject rule. Staver argued on behalf of Liberty Counsel and presented written argument to the Court that the amendment would also conflict with many existing laws which affirm that an “unborn child” or an “unborn person” has legal rights.

Trans Day of Visibility becomes more visible this year because it fell on Easter Sunday; White House event bans religious imagery for Easter Egg Roll

It was perceived by Christians as a double case of religious discrimination: the proclamation by the President of the United States of a Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter Sunday and the restriction placed on an Easter Egg decorating contest at the White House that banned religious imagery.

At The Washington Stand, Ben Johnson wrote:

The Biden administration’s revolution began where all revolutions begin: with children. The 2024 “Celebrating National Guard Families” art contest, which is part of the White House Easter Egg Roll, asks children of servicemembers to submit designs for Easter eggs ?" but not any that highlight the actual content of Easter. The contest’s flyer instructs children they “must not include any questionable content, religious symbols, overtly religious themes, or partisan political statements.” The Biden administration banned religious imagery alongside “bigotry, racism, hatred or harm against any group or individual or promotes discrimination based on race, gender, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age.”

Johnson made the case, using this and other examples, that "Christian children are second-class citizens in Biden’s America."  He added:

That makes it all the more revealing when Biden issued an official statement on Friday declaring Easter Sunday, March 31, as the “Transgender Day of Visibility.” (Biden finally got around to issuing a statement on Easter ?" on Sunday.) Biden actually previewed the shift to America’s new religion in the first of his two statements celebrating the 2023 “Transgender Day of Visibility,” in which Biden declared: “Transgender Americans shape our [n]ation’s soul.”

Biden’s wording was less effusive this year, but the content remained the same. “Transgender Americans are part of the fabric of our [n]ation,” Biden wrote. Since people who identify as transgender “help America thrive,” they deserve the “fundamental freedom to be their true selves,” Biden’s 2024 statement states.

Johnson, in his Washington Stand piece, took the President to task for "replacing Christianity with a new holiday celebrating transgender ideology (which, one must concede, relies entirely on faith)..."

The Stand article included a disclaimer regarding claims by the White House that these rules have been in place for many years; however, as it stated, its "...position is that it is irrelevant to the veracity of this article, which notes that this policy is still within the purview of the Biden administration."

General Counsel for National Religious Broadcasters Michael Farris agreed in a WORLD Magazine article. He wrote that the co-sponsor, the American Egg Board...

...explained that it has followed this same policy for decades—banning religious art in a contest to celebrate Easter—so to place blame on the Biden administration is unfair. The contest, so the Egg Board says, had the same rules under the Trump administration.

Apparently, this has never surfaced in public discussion until now. Consequently, no blame can be placed on any presidency for this discriminatory rule—until now.

The Biden White House continued the policy of banning religious symbols from Easter eggs. There was an opportunity not only to point out how silly such a policy is, but to clarify how government interacts with religion—as though religious symbols on eggs constitute some nefarious “establishment” of religion.

Farris notes: 

If a student enters a religious egg in the art contest, the egg is the work of the student and not the work of the government. This creation is fully protected by the Free Speech Clause, and discrimination against the student is forbidden by both the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

This is not a close call. The act of banning religiously decorated eggs is blatantly unconstitutional.

Foster care parents banned from continuing in that capacity due to gender identity flap file lawsuit

A couple in Washington state that has been fostering children for over a decade has found themselves unable to do so any longer because of a new law in the state that mandates that a foster parent has to affirm a child's so-called "gender identity."  Just the News ran an article from The Center Square that said:

After nine years serving as foster parents in Washington state, Shane and Jennifer DeGross say they have lost their foster care license because of their religious beliefs concerning gender identity policies.

The article notes that Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Center Square, “The DeGrosses were told that based on new regulations passed in Washington as of 2022, they would be required to disavow their religious beliefs if they wanted to continue being foster parents.” The article goes on to say, "Widmalm-Delphonse explained that foster parents in Washington must now accommodate gender-affirming and sexual identity language and care for any child in their custody."

So, the DeGrosses have filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Washington State Department of Children, Youth & Families.

The Department responded through a statement, which said, in part: "We cannot and do not disqualify people from becoming foster parents on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. However, the permanent injunction does permit DCYF to take an applicant’s views on LGBTQ+ issues into account when reviewing foster family home license applications.”  But the couple's attorney said that the DCYF is only taking a portion of that court ruling into consideration, saying: "The ruling made clear you can’t disqualify a family simply because of their religious beliefs, and you can’t say this one aspect of gender or sexuality beliefs is the paramount factor over everything else, because every child is unique and has all these factors that the state is supposed to take into consideration..."

The 3 - March 31, 2024

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, provides an update on a severe case of religious persecution of a Christian ministry in Nicaragua.  Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments recently on FDA regulations in the abortion pill case.  And, Virginia religious organizations can hire people who embrace their beliefs and do not have to endorse so-called "gender-affirming care" in their insurance plans, based on a settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of religious organizations.

Pastors arrested on charges stemming from successful evangelistic campaigns receive stiff sentences

In the fall of last year, the evangelistic organization, Mountain Gateway, conducted a series of meetings, in which thousands came into a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.  A few months ago, it was reported that 11 individuals associated with the ministry had been arrested.  In a statement, the ministry said:

In 2023, Mountain Gateway held eight mass evangelistic gospel campaigns in the country, with the support and assistance of the Nicaraguan government. Mountain Gateway fiscally operated under strict accounting from Mountain Gateway staff and budget reviews by the Nicaraguan government to account for every dollar associated with the events. No members of Mountain Gateway have personally profited from funds sent to Nicaragua for ministry functions.

Yet, the Nicaraguan government pursued charges against those 11 people from Nicaragua, as well as three Americans in leadership with the ministry.  

Last week, the ministry announced that the 11 had been found guilty of money laundering. The website stated: "The pastors were not allowed to be physically present during the proceedings; they were only allowed to attend over a video livestream. At the time of the sentencing, all 11 pastors received sentences ranging between 12 and 15 years. In addition, the pastors were each fined over 80 million USD. Between the 11 pastors, they were fined almost 1 billion USD."

Jon Britton Hancock, Founder and President of Mountain Gateway, stated: “This is not the outcome we hoped for, and it is heartbreaking to know that people who we consider family are sitting in prison for sharing the Gospel. We trust that God is in control of this situation and have faith that He will have the final say on this all..." The organization noted:​

Mountain Gateway has always strived to operate under the laws and policies of Nicaragua while maintaining a respectful relationship with the Nicaraguan government. The charges and convictions of the Nicaraguan pastors are baseless, and the appeal process has begun in the Nicaraguan judicial system. Mountain Gateway will do everything in its power to resolve this through all available legal and diplomatic channels in the U.S., Nicaragua, and internationally.

Recently, 1819 News reported that Alabama Senators Katie Britt and Tommy Tuberville, in addition to Senators Ted Cruz and Kevin Cramer had introduced a resolution into the U.S. Senate, expressing support for those who were imprisoned and calling for sanctions against the Nicaraguan government.

SCOTUS hears case of FDA approval of abortion pill

Some 20 years ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of mifepristone, which is one pill of a two-pill regimen designed to terminate the life of an unborn child.  Over the past decade, the FDA has expanded the availability of the pill, including the ability to order the pill via mail. A federal judge had ruled the FDA was wrong to approve mifepristone in the first place, and an appeals court narrowed that decision to only include more recent expansion of the pill's availability.

So, the case ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments last week. It does appear, though, that the high court spenymore time considering whether or not the group of pro-life doctors who filed suit, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, had standing to bring the lawsuit - in other words, whether or not the doctors had been damaged by the approval of the pill.  The SCOTUS Blog stated:

During roughly 90 minutes of oral arguments, a majority of the justices appeared ready to throw out the dispute over the FDA’s expansion of access to the drug in 2016 and 2021 because the challengers in the case – several individual doctors and groups of doctors who are opposed to abortion on religious or moral grounds – do not have a legal right to sue, known as standing.

Liberty Counsel, which had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of two pro-life clients, related this on its website:

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued on behalf of the Biden administration that the FDA deregulated Mifepristone based on its scientific judgment that the drug was safe. She also argued that the AHM did not have standing to bring the case because the doctors do not prescribe Mifepristone and therefore are not “regulated in any relevant way under FDA’s decisions here” and “stand at a far distance from the upstream regulatory action they are challenging.”

However, attorney Erin Hawley argued on behalf of AHM that by its own admission the FDA made regulatory changes to Mifepristone with inadequate data, which violates the Administrative Procedure Act. On the issue of standing, in which the Justices questioned throughout the 90-minute hearing, Hawley stated the evidence satisfies Article III requirements.

Hawley is an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom.  Liberty Counsel, on its website, stated:

While Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett seemed skeptical that AHM had satisfied standing under Article III, both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were skeptical of the government’s argument that people not regulated by the FDA have no standing at all.

Justice Alito stated, “Your argument here is that even if the FDA acted unlawfully, nobody can challenge that in court?”

Prelogar essentially said “no,” while noting there are too many intervening events and independent decisions for a third-party to raise a case and that AHM had not “come within 100 miles” or proving “cognizable” harm that justifies an injunction against the FDA’s decisions.

To this Hawley stated in her opening argument, “Doctors will be forced to manage abortion drug harm is not a bug in the FDA system, but part of its very design. Ruling against respondents standing here would allow federal agencies to conscript non-regulated parties into violating their consciences and suffering other harm without judicial recourse.”

Religious groups in Virginia receive relief in settlement regarding ability to be governed according to their principles

Following the passage of the so-called Virginia Values Act, which was hostile to freedom of religious expression, Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit on behalf of " two churches, three Christian schools and a network of pregnancy centers...,"  according to the Higher Ground Times, an extension of The Washington Times.  The article said: "The law directed religious institutions to hire employees who did not share their beliefs or face fines of up to $100,000 per violation, according to the lawsuit. A companion measure required ministries to include gender-affirming surgeries and sex reassignment care in their employee health plans."

Virginia's Supreme Court issued a ruling in 2022 that affected the case.  According to the Higher Ground Times:

The Supreme Court of Virginia last year changed the dynamics of the case, ADF attorneys said. The court ruled that the state “may not substantially burden the exercise of religion” in the case of a high school teacher who was fired for refusing to use the preferred pronouns of a transgender student, citing religious freedom.

That decision paved the way for a settlement, the attorneys said.

ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot stated, through a spokesperson, that, "the settlement reflects the [attorney general’s] interpretation of the statutes as applied to all ministries that are similar to the plaintiffs..." Victoria LaCivita, spokesperson for AG Jason Mirayes, sent an e-mail to The Washington Times and said: “The Attorney General is pleased that we were able to reach a settlement agreement that preserves the constitutional enforcement authority of the Attorney General and provides justice for the plaintiffs.”