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.”