The 3 - October 1, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three stories of relevance to the Christian communities, includes a federal court victory for laws in two states that prevent minors from receiving treatments and surgeries that claim to help them change their "gender."  Plus, the transgender agenda is alive and well in California after the governor signed multiple bills.  Also, the federal agency responsible for protecting employees has sued two companies who did not allow religious exemptions for employees who declined to receive COVID shots on the basis of conscience. 

"Medical mutilation" bills allowed to take effect in KY, TN

Some incorrectly call it "gender-affirming care," another example of using vocabulary to misrepresent an agenda.  This type of so-called "care" involves treatments and surgeries that promise a change of gender - a biological answer to a psychological issue.  I have even become aware of the phrase, "medical mutilation."

And, the states of Kentucky and Tennessee have passed laws that would prevent performing these treatments and procedures on minors.  According to the Alliance Defending Freedom website, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued a "decision Thursday in L.W. v. Skrmetti to uphold Tennessee and Kentucky state laws that protect children from harmful and unnecessary medical procedures..."

ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch stated in response: "Tennessee and Kentucky are right to protect minors from harmful, irreversible, and experimental medical procedures that can permanently alter children’s bodies without any proven long-term benefit." He added, "...the court concluded, ‘no one disputes that these treatments carry risks or that the evidence supporting their use is far from conclusive.’"

Bursch continued:

“Activist groups and professionals with large financial interests continue to push harmful puberty-blockers, potentially sterilizing cross-sex hormones, and irreversible genital-mutilation surgeries on children too young to understand the long-term implications for their lives. The 6th Circuit rightly agreed that Tennessee and Kentucky are free to implement laws that protect vulnerable children and give them time to flourish..."

This court victory comes just a few weeks after the 11th Circuit allowed Alabama's Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, or VCAP law to take effect while the court action progresses, likely to resume next spring.  ADF is assisting Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall in its defense of the law. 

California parents face onslaught of transgender-supportive bills

Last week, it was announced that California Governor Gavin Newsom had inexplicably vetoed a pro-transgender bill that would, according to an article at The Washington Stand, "require family courts to consider parental stances on 'gender affirmation' in custody disputes."  The article says:

When Newsom vetoed the bill late Friday night, however, he didn’t condemn the legislation as radical. Instead, he applauded “the passion and values” behind the bill, and merely faulted the bill as an “attempt to dictate — in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic — legal standards for the judicial branch to apply.”

But, as the article notes, "in the days after he vetoed AB 957, Newsom signed a raft of other bills advancing transgender ideology at the expense of parental rights."  It states that the governor...

...signed nine other bills aimed at “supporting LGBTQ+ Californians.” The governor said signing those bills into law “will help protect vulnerable youth, promote acceptance, and create more supportive environments in our schools and communities.”

Those bills “promote acceptance” by mandating adherence to the ideology that a child’s “gender identity” overrides his or her biological sex. One measure would train teachers to profile parents, watching out for non-“affirming” guardians who allegedly pose a danger to their own children.

The article says:

These new laws do not directly target parental rights, but they do further entrench the transgender ideology behind Newsom’s worst assaults on the right of moms and dads to make health decisions for their own children.

Under the measures that Newsom signed into law, California teachers will learn to profile non-“affirming” parents, launch an ideological transformation of schools that likely will demonize such parents as instruments of “bullying and harassment,” ban such parents from raising kids in the foster system, and prevent such parents from pressuring their school boards to remove sexually explicit books from school libraries.

EEOC sues private employers for conscience violations on COVID shot

The federal agency known as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in an effort to defend civil rights, has filed a lawsuit against two companies who did not grant religious exemptions for employees who had declined to receive the COVID-19 shot, according to Liberty Counsel's website. 

The website states:

...the agency sued two companies under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act claiming that they violated federal law by refusing to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees and not letting them opt out of their shot mandates.

The lawsuits involve Arkansas-based Hank’s Furniture, a retail home furniture store with locations across four states, and Cleveland-based health care provider United Health Services, Inc., (United). Each company denied one of their employees a religious exemption and later fired them for not complying with the company’s shot mandate.

Under Title VII, the agency contends, according to Liberty Counsel, "in these cases, that the companies could have exempted their employees without suffering any 'undue hardship.'”  The Christian law organization notes that:

The timing of the agency’s lawsuits follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 9-0 decision in Groff v. Dejoy made last June. The High Court overturned a previous precedent that allowed businesses to easily claim “undue hardship” on the business and deny religious accommodations, but employers must now demonstrate the burden of “substantial increased costs” that granting an accommodation would have on their business.

The 3 - September 24, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three recent and relevant stories of interest to Christians, there are more developments out of California, including a school district policy to allow school officials to withhold information about students' gender identity issues from parents being put on hold by a federal judge.  Also, the debate over the availability of inappropriate books being made available to children  continued in a Congressional committee.  And, the United Nations has passed what is called a "declaration" supporting measures to be taken in a pandemic situations that include actions relative to abortion and gender identity. 

Courts deliver conflicting decisions on school board policies on parental notification re: gender, governor vetoes gender-related bill 

California school boards have been making policies regarding the notification of parents regarding their students' gender identity.  Recently, not only was there a court decision putting the implementation of one such policy on hold, but a district which went in the opposite direction was reigned in by another court decision.

Liberty Counsel, on its website, reported on these conflicting decisions:

A federal district judge recently ruled in favor of two Christian teachers by temporarily blocking San Diego County’s Escondido Unified School District’s (USD) policy that required the teachers to lie to parents and hide students’ gender confusion. The ruling comes a week after San Bernardino Superior Court granted a temporary restraining order against Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) in San Bernardino County blocking its blanket policy of being honest with parents about gender identity and their children.

The Escondido ruling, according to the site was by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who "issued a preliminary injunction that protects two Christian middle school teachers who challenged the secrecy policy. The teachers argued that the policy infringed on their First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise of religion rights, and if they were to comply and be dishonest with parents it would violate their 'sincerely held religious beliefs.'"

The Chino ruling was issued by a county Superior Court in response to a challenge by California's Attorney General to the district's parental notification policy. Liberty Counsel reports that the San Bernadino Superior Court, "a state-level court, blocked its new policy of notifying parents if students wish to be known as a different gender or change their pronouns," adding, "The ruling blocks the policy until an October 13 hearing to determine whether to allow or permanently block the policy."

Liberty Counsel notes that, "Despite Attorney General Bonta’s investigation and lawsuit, at least six other California school districts have enacted similar policies, such as Orange, Temecula, Murrieta, Rocklin, and Dry Creek Unified School Districts, and Anderson Union High School District."

Meanwhile, there's another development out of the Golden State regarding a bill passed by the state Legislature. FoxNews.com reports that Governor Gavin Newsom, "...vetoed a bill late Friday night that would have required judges in child custody cases to consider whether a parent has affirmed their child's gender identity." Newsom said: "...I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate -in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic -legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply," adding, "Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities."

Graphic book tension makes its way to Congressional committee

I have been following the concern being expressed by parents regarding objectionable content being offered in libraries.  That topic made its way to Congress recently.

CBN.com reported that:

The fight over allowing sexually explicit books in schools spilled into the halls of Congress Tuesday as a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing spotlighted so-called book "bans..."

But, Sen. Mike Lee said, "This is not a ban. This is about schools deciding what's appropriate for school children, and sexually explicit, obscene, pornographic material isn't appropriate and many parents are legitimately concerned about that..."

The Daily Signal noted that Sen. John Kennedy...

...read from two books—“All Boys Aren’t Blue” and “Gender Queer: A Memoir”—both of which have been removed from bookshelves in school districts across the country over their sexual content.

The article, originally from The Daily Caller, noted that..."Kennedy...questioned...Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias of Illinois, a witness at the hearing, about whether he thought the book should be available to kids, as well as Cameron Samuels, a student who uses 'they/them' pronouns and had a placard with the title 'Mx. Cameron Samuels.'

The article relates:

“It’s pronounced Mix,” Samuels said. “Senator, your definition of ‘sexual’ is synonymous with LGBTQ identity.”

Samuels went on to say that there should be “collaboration between students, parents, and educators” on the availability of books and defended the books from which Kennedy read.

“All Boys Aren’t Blue, the scene you mentioned, is about sexual abuse. It’s not erotic … Students who do not read books like ‘All Boys Aren’t Blue’ cannot learn what is appropriate,” Samuels said.

“All I’ve heard is the librarians [get to decide], and parents have nothing to do with it. If that’s your response, what planet did you just parachute in from? Or what country, more appropriately? This is not China,” Kennedy said.

The CBN article quoted from Max Eden, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who said, "To put it bluntly, books aren't being banned...," adding, "The media keeps using the word 'banned,' but that word doesn't mean what you think it means. In common usage, 'banned' means 'made unavailable.' Yet the most banned Gender Queer is still available on Amazon. The same can't be said for Ryan Anderson's When Harry Became Sally. Only books on one side of that issue it seems, actually get banned..."

Eden challenged the definition of "banned," according to the organization, Pen America. He said, "If a book has been taken off of shelves, reviewed, and then placed back on the shelves, it has, according to Pen, been banned. If a school places parental permission requirement on a book, it has, according to Pen, been banned. If a school moves a book to a guidance counselor's office, it has, according to Pen, been banned..."  The article says that Eden...

...told the committee that he and a few of his colleagues from The Heritage Foundation decided to see how many of the 2,532 books in Pen's 2022 report that were labeled as banned, were actually removed from school libraries.

"We did this with one simple trick. We checked the card catalog," he told the senators. "As it turns out, nearly three-quarters of the books that Pen labeled as banned were still in school libraries."

WHO's there?  UN-doing rights

During the COVID pandemic, we saw numerous instances of public officials - elected and unelected - using the threat of the COVID to strip citizens of their freedoms, including the freedom of assembly in church services and overriding of conscience decisions regarding the COVID vaccines. 

The Washington Stand reported on a non-binding resolution passed at the U.N. General Assembly last week.  The article notes:

On Wednesday, the United Nations General Assembly passed a non-binding declaration that purported to “strengthen” collaboration and coordination between nations in order to “better prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics.” But experts say that buried in the declaration are references that have nothing to do with preventing pandemics, including language to expand abortion, gender ideology, and speech censorship.

The article quotes Chris Gacek, senior fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council, who said that the declaration "...is a roadmap of what the U.N. and the agencies are supporting,” referring to it as "a wish list of socialism and all of their social policies.” He added, "...where the rubber’s going to hit the road is in these things like the WHO’s [World Health Organization] international health regulations and the pandemic treaty that’s in the works.”

In fact, as The Washington Stand notes:

On the same day the declaration was released, the WHO “welcomed” it, stating that it lays out “numerous requirements” that member states need to abide by. As previously reported by TWS, the WHO has already indicated that it intends to establish “a platform for global governance through health care,” as described by former congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

The article also relates:

Arielle Del Turco, director of FRC’s Center for Religious Liberty, was blunt in her assessment of what the U.N. and the WHO appear to be doing through the declaration.

“Progressive forces that love abortion will use every avenue to advance their deadly cause,” she told TWS. “Activists are using a declaration about pandemic preparedness to advance ‘universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services’ which we know means universal abortion expansionism. It is dangerous and abusive to pressure countries to expand abortion under the guise of responding to future pandemics.”

The 3 - September 17, 2023

This week's edition of The 3 includes news out of the United Kingdom, where a major officials has decided to announce that praying in front of an abortion clinic is not illegal.  Also, a former clerk in Kentucky who would not issue same-sex marriage licenses has received two verdicts - one in her favor, another not.  Plus, a federal appeals court has decided that government officials acted illegally when it conspired with social media companies to manipulate content.

British officials says prayer at abortion clinics is not illegal

Over the last year, three people have been arrested in the United Kingdom for engaging in silent prayer outside of abortion clinics, according to an article at the Life Institute website. 

Now, the British Home Secretary has said that this type of expression is not against the law.  The website article says...

Britain’s Home Secretary Suella Braverman has announced that silent prayer near abortion providers is not a crime.

The article goes on to say: "Ms Braverman has written to every police force in the UK to say that 'silent prayer, within itself, is not unlawful.'"  It adds:

The Home Secretary also reminded police that “holding lawful opinions, even if those opinions may offend others, is not a criminal offence”.

Pro-life advocate Isabel Vaughn-Spruce, who had been arrested for such prayer, hailed the Home Secretary's action.  The article also noted:

The Home Secretary’s intervention was welcomed by Megan Ní Scealláin of the Life Institute who said that it was a “real victory for free speech, and pro-life prayer, and for those who showed courage and resilience in standing up for both mothers and babies”.

“Isabel, and Fr Seán Gough and others who have been arrested for their silent witness are a real inspiration to the hundreds of thousands of people who are horrified by the spiralling abortion rates and who want to offer a better answer for mothers and babies,” she said.

Gough "had charges dismissed after he was arrested for silent prayer and for having a pro-life bumper sticker on his car within the zone," according to Life Institute.

Former KY clerk wins one court case, loses another

After the Obergefell decision allowed same-sex marriage in the U.S., a Kentucky clerk named Kim Davis made a decision to not issue licenses to same-sex couples in her county.  Davis was sued for damages by two same-sex couples.  Verdicts were handed down last week.

Liberty Counsel represented Davis, and its website stated:

The Yates v. Davis and Ermold v. Davis cases each involve a same-sex couple who sued Davis in 2015 following the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision regarding “same-sex marriage.” During the trial, two juries heard the same evidence and the same arguments in both cases. In Yates v. Davis, the jury awarded zero damages because that is what the evidence required. The plaintiffs in that case originally asked for $300,000 in damages.

The Ermold verdict was a different story, however.  Liberty Counsel reports:

...without any evidentiary support, the Ermold jury reached a verdict of $50,000 for each plaintiff. The evidence presented at trial simply does not support that verdict. The plaintiffs asked for $50,000 each in damages, alleging that David Ermold was terminated from the University of Pikeville because of the Kim Davis case. During the trial, the Human Resource Director testified that was not true and that Ermold’s position was downsized along with other positions. Losing their basis to allege damages, the Ermold plaintiffs then changed gears during the trial to allege they should receive damages for hurt feelings.

So, the Ermond decision will be appealed, according to the Christian legal organization.  Liberty Counsel contends that Kim Davis was not only "entitled" to a religious accommodation, but received one from then-Governor Matt Bevin, as well as from the Kentucky Legislature.  Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel is quoted as saying:

“We look forward to appealing this decision for Kim Davis. We will argue religious accommodation under the First Amendment, and other state and federal laws. We will also argue that Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Yesterday’s jury verdict has paved the way for this case to go the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Appeals court upholds decision on unlawful coordination between federal agencies and social media companies

It was on Independence Day this year when a federal judge ruled that federal government agencies improperly coordinated with social media companies to communicate its narrative on a variety of issues, in violation of the First Amendment. 

The Daily Citizen from Focus on the Family reports that:

On September 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that “numerous federal officials coerced social-media platforms into censoring certain social-media content, in violation of the First Amendment.”

The court said the White House, the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) flouted the First Amendment by coercing or encouraging social-media platforms to censor content. The involvement of government officials in the content decisions of social media companies “render[ed] those decisions state actions,” thereby triggering the U.S. Constitution’s Free Speech Clause.

The article states:

The Daily Citizen has previously reported on numerous instances in which federal government officials coordinated with social media companies to block content they didn’t like.

In effect, such censorship grants government nearly unlimited powers over speech on social media that it doesn’t like – something the court has now found to be unconstitutional.

The states of Missouri and Louisiana are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, along with several individuals. The article states:

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said after the ruling,

Our team will continue to construct this wall of separation between tech and state. Yesterday’s ruling was one more brick laid in that foundation. Your First Amendment rights are not up for debate.

The 3 - September 10, 2023

On this week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, there is abundant news out of California as more school districts pass parental notification policies and state officials continue to oppose parents' rights.  Also, the Texas Supreme Court has allowed a law passed by the Legislature banning "gender change" surgeries and treatments to continue to be enforce while the case proceeds.  And, a member of the Parliament in Finland is facing another trial regarding instances of speech consistent with the Bible. 

Gender policy explodes across Golden State

There are numerous headlines this week across California regarding the concept of parental rights and the connect to issues of gender.  First of all, there is good news out of Orange County, where, according to the Los Angeles Times:

The Orange Unified school board Thursday night became the sixth California school system to require notifying parents when their child identifies as transgender — a decision made after state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against Chino schools over a similar policy.

And, the Attorney General received support from a local judge - FoxNews.com reported:

A California judge has temporarily blocked a school district from enforcing a policy requiring schools to inform parents if their child changes their gender identification or pronouns.

The decision Wednesday by San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Thomas S. Garza came after California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office filed a lawsuit against the Chino Valley Unified School District over the notification measure.

While the tension between local school districts and state officials continues, the California Legislature weighed in on a bill that deals a blow to parental rights. The Daily Signal stated:

The California State Assembly passed a bill Friday that would require judges in child custody cases to consider whether a parent has affirmed a child’s “gender transition” by making “gender affirmation” an equal part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare” under state law.

Unfortunately, in the Assembly on Friday, the vote wasn't even close: 57-16. The Senate had approved the bill on Wednesday by a 30-9 margin. The article said that according to the bill...

...parents who refuse to participate in transgenderism by pretending that their child is a different gender could be guilty of failing to provide for the “health, safety, and welfare” of their child—therefore losing custody to another parent or the state.

The article notes:

Threatening the standard of “health, safety, and welfare” of a child under the California Family Code can carry penalties under the California Penal Code—prompting parents, activists, and lawmakers to speculate that AB 957 could result in parents being charged with child abuse or neglect for not participating in a child’s transgenderism.

Highest court in Texas issues ruling to protect children

Meanwhile, in Texas recently, the state's Supreme Court ruled in favor of a new law in the state that is designed to protect minors from harmful surgeries and treatments that promise to help them change their gender. 

On Friday, September 1, Liberty Counsel reported on its website:

The law, known as SB 14, was set to take effect today after it was enacted June 2, 2023, but a district court judge temporarily blocked it last month granting opponents of the law an emergency stay citing potential violations of the state constitution. However, state officials appealed the decision prompting the state’s High Court to deny the emergency stay and let the law take effect while the Court fully considers the appeal.

The website described the law as "banning harmful puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and mutilating surgeries for children..." It points out that, "At least 22 states have enacted legislation protecting children from harmful and often irreversible medical mutilation."

Member of Parliament in Finland on trial before appeals court

Päivi Räsänen is a Member of Parliament in Finland.  According to the Evangelical Focus website:

The case against Räsänen started in 2019 after a tweet in which she quoted Romans 1:24-27. She later was investigated by the police for a booklet titled “Male and Female He Created Them” published 15 years earlier, and remarks on a radio show.

She was acquitted in the Helsinki District Court in March 2022, with an unanimous verdict that ruled she acted within the limits of the law in her expression of her religious convictions about homosexuality. Päivi Räsänen was using her freedom of expression and religion when she referred to her biblical beliefs regarding LGBT issues, the judges said.

But, she and another dependent were placed on trial again recently before the Helsinki Court of Appeal.  The Evangelical Focus article stated:

Right after leaving the court, Räsänen said she was “hopeful that all these charges will be acquitted. It’s a very important verdict for freedom of speech and of religion and Finland, and also has consequences across Europe, I’m hopeful for a good result”.

The court said that a verdict will be issued by November 30.

The 3 - September 3, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes news of the conviction of five pro-life protestors at a clinic in the nation's capital.  Also, a city in Iowa has reversed course on a ban against counseling people who wish to overcome same-sex attraction. And, parents in California are facing opposition from a state government official after a local school board approved a new parental notification policy require parents to be informed by school officials regarding gender identity information. 

Pro-life activists convicted for actions outside DC clinic

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE, Act, was used to convict five pro-life activists from an organization called the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU), which had staged a protest at an abortion clinic in Washington, DC - the Washington Surgi-Clinic, which, according to an article at The Federalist website, is "operated by the late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo." The article says that, "They were also charged and found guilty of one count of conspiracy to block the entrance..."

 

The article quotes from the Thomas More Society, which represents one of the defendants, Lauren Handy, with its account of what occurred that day in the fall of 2020:

“Some simply kneeled and prayed at Santangelo’s facility, some passed out pro-life literature and counseled abortion-minded women, and others roped and chained themselves together inside the facility.”

The article goes on to say:

Handy told the jury: “My belief that was formed after watching the video was … if the fetus survived the abortion attempt, they were left to die” at Santangelo’s facility. It was outside this same D.C. facility that the bodies of 115 preborn babies were recovered in March of 2022. At least five of the babies were significantly larger — between 20 to 40 weeks gestational age, with one boy appearing nearly full term.

The Federalist also reported that, "The defendants could face up to 11 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and fines of up to $350,000."

FoxNews.com reported:

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said in a statement to Fox News Digital Tuesday’s verdict is "a shameful day for a nation founded on unalienable rights, first and foremost including life."

"Pro-life advocates like Lauren Handy have put their freedom on the line – peacefully and bravely – to protect babies and women from the brutality of abortion. They have done a vital public service in exposing the horrors of late-term abortion taking place in D.C., where there are no limits on abortion up to birth, and across the country," the statement read.

City in Iowa rescinds counseling ban

In May of last year, the City Council in Waterloo, Iowa voted on a ban on counseling designed to help a minor child overcome same-sex attraction.  The Daily Citizen reports, "Under the guise of banning so-called 'conversion therapy,' the City Council prohibited any medical or mental health professional from helping minors struggling with unwanted homosexuality or transgenderism."  The article notes:

As the Daily Citizen has previously stated, “conversion therapy” is a term invented by activists who oppose the truth that some people with same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion don’t want to embrace those thoughts, feelings, identities or behaviors. It is a non-existent practice – but these bans have the effect of prohibiting legitimate professional therapy for those with unwanted sexual identity confusion or homosexual identity, attractions and behaviors.

Under the threat of legal action, expressed by a letter to the Council in Waterloo from Liberty Counsel, the City Council repealed that ordinance.  Liberty Counsel said that its...

...June 30 demand letter showed that local governments in Iowa do not have the authority to regulate licensed counseling because the Iowa Legislature has given that power solely to Iowa’s Board of Behavior Science.

In addition, the letter explained that Waterloo’s ban on counseling therapy (erroneously called “conversion therapy”) was “offensive to the First Amendment” because it banned counseling “based on the viewpoint of that counseling.”

Liberty Counsel reported the original vote in favor of the ordinance was 6-1 - it was repealed by a 4-3 vote.

Parents square off against state pols in CA

In California, several school districts have adopted parental notification policies that would require school officials to notify parents if their children express a desire to identify as another gender outside of their biological sex.  The Chino Valley Unified School District passed such a policy and is facing heat from the state's Attorney General.

The Washington Stand reports that AG Rob Bonta has sued the district, "alleging the school district’s policy requiring faculty and staff to notify parents of students’ attempted gender transitions is a civil rights violation." The article quotes Greg Burt, director of capitol engagement for the California Family Council, who said in an interview that “Passing this lawsuit actually helps get the message out, exposing what [the] California Department of Ed. and our school districts are actually doing and what they really think of parents. They think they’re dangerous.” He added, “It’s undeniable now that, yes, it is true that the state of California thinks they’re better parents than the average parent.”

WORLD Magazine reports: "Chino Valley School Board President Sonja Shaw said the lawsuit was an attempt to 'shut parents out of their children’s lives.'” It noted that California School Districts Temecula Valley and Murrieta Valley have also implemented parental notification policies.  Last week on The Meeting House, I discussed how Sonja Shaw's Christian faith has driven her actions as president of the school board.  I quoted from a Christian Post article, which said:

“People from all over the nation have called, emailed and continue to write letters of support and saying this gave them hope,” she explained. “A few years ago, when I joined this journey, God kept showing me hope [in] Jeremiah 29:11.

“I have drawn closer and closer to God during this time and look to Him for direction and protection.”

And, just days ago, The Daily Signal reported that: "Protect Kids California, a coalition of parental rights advocates and others who oppose gender ideology, filed three ballot initiatives...for the November 2024 ballot, aiming to circumvent the Golden State’s Legislature." The article says:

The ballot measures require schools to notify parents if their children claim to identify as transgender, prevent biological males from entering women’s spaces and sports, and forbid medical professionals from putting kids on experimental drugs or performing surgery on them to “affirm” a gender identity opposite their biological sex.

The 3 - August 27, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three recent stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes the instance of a ministry finding that its bank had closed its account.  Also, Louisiana students will be seeing the national motto in school beginning this school year.  And, a Canadian pastor will have charges dropped against him and his church after the congregation continued to meet during COVID.

Another bank severs ties with Christian organization

A few months ago, I shared a conversation with former Ambassdor-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, who is also a former U.S. Senator and Kansas Governor, Sam Brownback.  In our interview, he related that an organization he leads, the National Committee for Religious Freedom, had its bank account at JP Morgan Chase closed out.  This occurred last year.

Now, another religious organization may have experienced a similar set of circumstances.  Ministry Watch reported that Indigenous Advance Ministries, described as "a Christian ministry group that supports needy children in Uganda," had its account closed by Bank of America.  The ministry had received a letter that stated, "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 article goes on to say: "Another letter informed them the bank would be restricting the ministry’s deposit account with a balance of over $270,000 and close it within 30 days."

Members of the ministry's board went to the bank for answers, but did not receive more information. The Ministry Watch article relates:

Now the Memphis-based ministry has filed a consumer complaint with Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s office “to investigate whether the bank illegally discriminated against the charity because of its religious views,” read a press statement released August 22 by Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious liberty legal defense group helping Indigenous Advance.

The article does say that, "Bank of America contacted MinistryWatch, stating that it doesn’t offer banking services to groups that provide debt collection services nor does it serve small businesses operating outside the United States."

Louisiana students will see national motto in schools

Students going back to school in the state of Louisiana will be seeing a motto displayed in their schools, as the result of legislation signed by Governor Edwards in June of this year.  At The Stream website, an article from Liberty Counsel states:

House Bill 8, signed into law by Governor John Bel Edwards in June 2023, amends Louisiana’s existing law which only required schools to display the motto in at least one location. The measure passed both the Louisiana House and Senate chambers without any votes cast in opposition.

Under the law, students are to receive instruction on “patriotic customs,” including teaching on the “In God We Trust” motto. To support this instruction, the law specifies that motto displays are to be “a poster or framed document that is at least 11 inches by 14 inches” and the motto must be “the central focus” of the display and be “printed in a large, easily readable font.”

The law, which does not require school districts to use their funds in order to post the motto, became effective earlier this month, meaning this year's students will be seeing the motto in schools in the state.  Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel said:

The display of our national motto ‘In God We Trust’ and teaching about it in schools educates children about our national history. America was founded upon Judeo-Christian values. The Declaration of Independence declares that our rights come from God, not government. Acknowledging this undeniable heritage is not only constitutional, it’s imperative to sustaining a collective memory of how our nation came to be. Now that the 1971 ‘Lemon Test’ has been overturned by the Supreme Court, religious symbols, words, displays, and viewpoints will have more breathing room.

Pastor, other Canadians to have charges dropped in light of COVID arrests

In Canada, a number of pastors in the country had run afoul of restrictions that were put in place during the COVID pandemic, which placed restrictions on churches' ability to worship.

One was Pastor James Coates of Gracelife Church in the Alberta province.  The CBC stated:

Pastor James Coates was charged in February 2021 after holding church services in breach of government-imposed public health measures, including restrictions on the number of people allowed at gatherings and physical distancing and masking requirements.

In an email to CBC News, prosecutor Karen Thorsrud confirmed she will not call further evidence in the cases against Coates or his church, Gracelife, and will "invite the court to acquit both defendants of all charges."

The CBC article opened by stating:

Albertans still facing charges for breaking pandemic-related laws are off the hook after a court decision ruled the province's health orders were invalid because they breached the Public Health Act.

The move follows a court decision issued three weeks ago which found politicians made the final decision on the province's pandemic-related health restrictions instead of the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH), which isn't allowed under the Act.

Pastor Coates had been released from prison, but the charges were still pending - those will apparently go away this week.

The 3 - August 20, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, focusing on three recent stories of relevance to the Christian community, features a new ruling by a federal appeals court that would limit distribution of the abortion pill, pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Also, North Carolina lawmakers rejected the governor's vetoes that would ban gender-change surgeries and treatments, prevent biological males from competing against females in sports, and uphold parental rights.  Meanwhile, in California, another school board has pass a policy that would require school officials to inform parents if their children expresses an intent to identify as a gender conflicting with their biological sex. 

Federal appeals court turns back the clock on FDA abortion pill restrictions

Even though the Court stopped short of totally banning the abortion pill, nevertheless a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled last week that guardrails that had been removed by the current and a previous Administration should not have been removed and that the pill should not be available via mail.  The Washington Stand reports that the appeals court...

...ruled against laxer safety standards placed on the abortion pill by the Obama and Biden administrations. In the case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a collection of doctors and OB-GYNs represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom argued the FDA had negligently abused its expedited approval of the chemical abortion drug mifepristone in 2000 for political purposes.

The article says that the court's decision...

• reduces the number of weeks mifepristone may be dispensed from 10 weeks to seven;
• stipulates that only a physician may prescribe the pill, also known as RU-486;
• ends telemed abortions by requiring an abortion-minded woman to have three in-person visits with a doctor: the first to confirm pregnancy and to take mifepristone, the second to take misoprostol, and a follow-up to check for adverse effects caused by the chemical abortion;
• bars abortion pills from being sent through the mail; and
• mandates that abortionists report all adverse events caused by mifepristone, not merely when the pill causes a woman’s death.

But, these measures will not be implemented, at least not just yet.  As The Washington Stand notes:

The Supreme Court issued a stay requiring the case to be fully adjudicated, possibly all the way to the High Court, before the appeals court ruling can take effect. Justices have not yet indicated if they plan to hear the case without a conflicting ruling from another court.

NC Legislature overrides governor's vetoes in areas of gender policy, parental rights

It was a night for overturning the vetoes of North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper in the state Legislature last week, and the bills that it had passed rejecting LGBT-friendly principles and affirming parents' rights were allowed to go through.  

As The Daily Citizen reports:

The North Carolina legislature overrode vetoes from Governor Roy Cooper to pass three family-friendly laws: House Bill 808 – Prohibiting “Gender Transition” of Minors; Senate Bill – 49, Parents’ Bill of Rights; and House Bill 574 – Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.

The North Carolina Family Policy Council (NC Family) celebrated the victories, saying the legislation “will significantly help children grow up in a healthy and safe environment.”

The article states:

NC Family noted that these drugs, hormones and surgeries “cause a host of medical problems.” The group pointed to Prisha Mosley, a North Carolina resident who began testosterone injections when she was only 17. She filed a lawsuit alleging that counselors and doctors committed fraud and medical malpractice when they encouraged her to transition, prescribed testosterone and removed her breasts.

North Carolina is the 20th state to pass “Help Not Harm” legislation, protecting vulnerable adolescent and teen girls like Mosley from damaging experimental procedures which stop normal development and cause physical and emotional injuries.

The Parents' Bill of Rights, according to the article, "...helps to 'clarify and codify parental rights as they relate to their child’s healthcare and education,' NC Family explained." Plus, it "encourages parental involvement in schools, keeps K-4 curriculum free of sex ed and gender ideology, and informs parents if their child requests to be referred to by a different name or pronouns at school.”  Passage of the third bill makes the Tarheel State the 23rd state to pass legislation preventing biological males from participating in female sports - the North Carolina bill addresses middle and high school, as well as college sports.

Advancement of parental rights continues in CA

Another school board in California has passed a policy that would require that parents be informed if school officials have knowledge about developments regarding their child's sexuality.  The California Policy Council reports on its website:

...the Murrieta Valley Unified School District approved a policy mandating staff members notify parents if a student wishes to “identify” as gender different from their biological sex. This makes it the second school district in the Inland Empire region to adopt such a policy.

The article goes on to say:

The proposal was put forth by board President Paul F. Diffley III and clerk Nicolas Pardue. It mirrored the most recent policy from Chino Valley Unified School District, which similarly mandates that staff inform parents if their child wants to change their name or pronoun in order to identify as a gender different from what is listed on their birth certificate..

FoxNews.com reported that "MVUSD's move came after California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a civil rights investigation..." into the actions of the Chino Valley district.  

This comes against the backdrop of legislation in the Golden State that places limitations on parental rights.  CBN.com reported:

Parents in California could face jail time for speaking out on behalf of their children at school board meetings if the state legislature passes a bill that would criminalize any adult for disrupting or creating "substantial disorder."

Critics warn it is a way to stop parents from speaking out.

SB 596 was already passed in the California State Senate in May and is making its way through the floor of the lower chamber as lawmakers have broadened some terms in the law.

That article was linked to the My Faith Votes website, which announced a rally scheduled to have taken place earlier today at the State Capitol in Sacramento, led by Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills.  The article states:

Sacramento Rally for Parental Rights & Lobby Day is taking place to lobby against anti-parent bills:

• AB 665 - State-Sanctioned Kidnapping

• AB 957 - Judges Must Side with Gender Affirming Parents Over Custody

• AB 1078 - The State Taking Control Over Local School Boards

• AB 5 - Training Teachers to Profile Non-LGBTQ Affirming Parents

• SB 596 - Silencing Parental Free Speech.

The 3 - August 13, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, shining the spotlight on issues impacting the Christian community, there is new evidence that indicates that more than one FBI field office were looking at certain Catholics as possible domestic terrorists.  Also, Ohioans went the polls to try to raise the bar through which the state constitution can be amendment, a key move that would decrease the chances of a new amendment that establishes a so-called "right" to abortion and allows minors to receive gender transition surgeries.  Plus, a bill designed to reduce the impact of pregnancy resource centers in Illinois has been put on hold by a federal judge.

Catholics still under watchful eye of federal law enforcement

Earlier this year, it was reported that the FBI was looking into what have been termed "Traditional Catholics" as possible domestic terrorists.  That term was used by Life Site News in a recent article, which stated that: "New documents obtained by Rep. Jim Jordan...show that FBI offices in Los Angeles and Portland were involved in the creation of the FBI’s memo that described Traditional Catholics as potential domestic terrorists."

In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Jordan wrote, “On July 25, 2023, the FBI produced a version of the Richmond document with fewer redactions than the two previous versions it had produced,” adding,. “This new version shows that the FBI’s actions were not just limited to ‘a single field office,’ as you testified to the Committee."  Jordan went on to say:

“This new information suggests that the FBI’s use of its law enforcement capabilities to intrude on American’s First Amendment rights is more widespread than initially suspected and reveals inconsistencies with your previous testimony before the Committee. Given this startling new information, we write to request additional information to advance our oversight.”

The article states that "Jordan also called on Wray to 'amend' his testimony and to more fully 'explain the nature and scope of the FBI’s assessment of traditional Catholics as potential domestic terrorists.'"  He set a deadline of 5:00 Eastern on the afternoon of August 22.

Ohio voters reject opportunity to increase threshold for approving constitutional amendments

Residents of Ohio went to the polls last Tuesday to vote on an amendment that would require 60% of voters to approve proposed amendments to the state constitution. The Washington Stand reported:

57% of Ohioans voted against Issue 1 in the August special election, according to unofficial results reported by the Ohio Secretary of State’s office. The issue would have required 60% of state voters to approve a proposed constitutional amendment in the initiative and referendum process, up from a simple majority adopted during the Progressive Era in 1912.

This was a key vote tied into a November vote on a proposed amendment that would place a so-called "right to abortion" in the state's constitution, an effort by the abortion industry to promote the taking of unborn human life that has received massive amounts of funding.  And there's more - the Washington Stand article points out:

A coalition of abortionists and their lobbyists has placed a measure on the November ballot that would add a “right” to abortion and minors’ gender transitions to the state constitution. Its supporters say it would restore the status that long held under Roe v. Wade, but opponents say it would effectively allow minors to obtain an abortion up to the moment of birth and confer a right for children to have transgender surgeries without parental consent or notification.

Approval of Issue 1 would have raised the threshold for November, but the money flowing into the state to defeat the referendum was just too much, which is a foreshadowing of what's to come. The article notes:

The official group opposing Issue 1 had a fundraising advantage of three-to-one and outspent pro-life forces 10-to-1. The pro-life Protect Our Constitution raised $4.9 million through July 19, compared to $14.8 million for the “No” campaign’s One Person One Vote. Protect the Constitution spent $1.6 million, compared to $10.4 million, according to an analysis from the Dayton Daily News.

That publication said, “A sizable chunk of the campaign’s money came from progressive dark money groups."

Legal relief comes for opponents of new Illinois law attempting to curb pregnancy centers

Recently on The Meeting House, the President of the National Institute for Family and Life Advocates, or NIFLA, Thomas Glessner, reported on two new state laws - one in Vermont and the other in Illinois - that negatively impact the work of pro-life pregnancy resource centers.

There has been court action concerning the Illinois law, and represents good news for the centers.  A press release from NIFLA stated:

In a big win for pregnancy centers in IL, the National Institute for Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) and their attorneys at the Thomas More Society, a federal court judge has issued a preliminary injunction in court today in National Institute of Family Life Advocates et al. v. Raoul to block Illinois’ new law targeting pro-life pregnancy ministries.

Glessner is quoted as saying:

"This is a huge win for women and their families seeking assistance for an unplanned pregnancy, many of whom have nowhere else to go for help. It's also a big win for pro-life pregnancy centers whose First Amendment rights have been blatantly attacked by the state of Illinois who want to force them to go against their deeply held beliefs that women deserve better than abortion. This is also a victory for a woman's fundamental constitutional right to choose life and we are incredibly grateful to our attorneys at the Thomas More Society for their relentless work fighting for pregnancy centers to continue to help women in need..."

The 3 - July 30, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three relevant, recent news stories of interest to the Christian community, includes a victory initiated by a Veterans Administration employee, whose lawsuit forced the VA to institute a process through which a religious accommodation could be obtained by employees not wishing to participate in abortion.  Also, Christians are using the 303 Creative case in order not to be forced by government to communicate messages that violate their deeply-held beliefs.  And, Ohio voters are going to the polls next week in order to increase the percentage of voters who can vote to change the state constitution - potentially impacting a November vote that would allow abortion in all nine months of pregnancy and promote treatments that falsely promise to help a minor to change his or her biological sex.

VA nurse practitioner opens door for religious accommodations for VA employees nationwide

Stephanie Carter is a nurse practitioner for the Veterans Administration, and has worked for the VA for 23 years.  Last year, she filed a request for a religious accommodation so that she would not be forced to participate in the termination of a pre-born child's life through abortion.  That accommodation was denied, with the VA saying it did not have a process through which such a request could be granted.

That is according to the website for First Liberty, which provided assistance for Carter by filing a lawsuit against the VA. Danielle Runyan, Senior Counsel for the Christian legal advocacy organization, stated: “We’re pleased that the VA implemented a nationwide policy to protect the religious liberty rights of all VA employees,” adding, “Stephanie Carter is living proudly by her faith and should not be forced to choose between her faith and her career. Because of her courage, every VA employee in the nation can now seek a religious accommodation from participating in a procedure they find unconscionable.”

The Daily Signal noted that:

The VA first published an interim final rule in September allowing for the VA to provide abortion counseling and abortions up until birth. The interim final rule took effect 30 days after being published. It came just a few months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in late June 2022.

Members of the Senate had balked at the rule, claiming that the VA policy violated federal law prohibiting taxpayer-funded abortion. The VA had stated, “Abortion restrictions are creating a medical emergency for those we serve.” The Daily Signal said, "The VA claimed that restricting veterans’ and their beneficiaries’ access to abortions would subject them to 'increased risk of loss of future fertility, significant morbidity, or death.'”

SCOTUS free speech decision influencing other cases

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has protected business owners from being compelled to communicate messages that violate their beliefs, that decision is continuing to produce waves of legal action across the nation.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the plaintiff in the 303 Creative case, is continuing to pursue justice for another of its clients who has been harassed by the same governmental body in Colorado that was sued in that case. A report on the ADF website stated that the attorneys with the organization "...filed a supplemental notice...with the Colorado Supreme Court asking it to apply that ruling and similarly affirm the First Amend­ment rights of cake artist Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop. An activist attorney and Colorado officials have misused the same state law that was at issue in 303 Creative to punish Phillips for more than a decade."

Alliance Defending Freedom also represents a Louisville, KY photographer named Chelsey Nelson. Oral arguments were held this past Friday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The ADF website states:

ADF attorneys are asking the court to uphold the First Amendment rights of Chelsey Nelson and her photography studio and affirm a district court’s ruling in Chelsey Nelson Photography v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government. That court concluded Louisville cannot misuse its laws to compel Nelson to create photographs and blogs celebrating a view of marriage she does not believe. The city of Louisville then appealed that ruling to the 6th Circuit.

In the articles on both cases, ADF attorneys repeated a phrase at the center of the 303 Creative case, "Free speech is for everyone..."

Ohio voters to decide on revising state constitution and protect life

It's a two-pronged process, and it is vital that pro-life organizations and groups educate voters regarding what is a stake in Ohio, where early voting has already begun on a ballot measure that would affect the potential results of a vote in November.

The Daily Citizen explains:

Issue 1 is a legislatively referred ballot measure that would raise the threshold needed to change the state’s constitution from a simple majority to 60%. Issue 1 needs a simple majority to pass.

According to the official argument in favor of Issue 1,

A YES vote on Issue 1 protects our Constitution from deep-pocketed, out-of-state interests. By passing Issue 1, the People will ensure constitutional changes are widely accepted and declare that Ohio’s Constitution is not for sale.

The article goes on to say:

Issue 1 is designed to counter the extremist abortion lobby’s push to permit the killing of preborn life – at any stage in a pregnancy – this November. Abortion is currently legal in Ohio through 22 weeks of a woman’s pregnancy.

The Daily Citizen notes that, "the well-funded abortion lobby – which hired professional, out-of-state name gatherers – submitted enough petitions to place a pro-abortion measure on the state’s ballot in November."  And, LifeNews.com reported last week that the November ballot initiative has been officially certified by the Ohio Secretary of State.  It reported:

Ohio Right to Life released a statement on the Secretary of State’s announcement that the ACLU’s abortion amendment collected enough valid signatures and will be on the ballot this November. The pro-life group said this ballot measure would enshrine abortion until birth and remove all protections for the preborn—including a parent’s ability to stop their child from being pressured into an abortion. Additionally, it would enshrine the “right” for minors to receive harmful hormone-suppressing drugs, like Lupron, and undergo sex-change surgeries without their parent’s knowledge.

Ohio Right to Life CEO Peter Range noted to Life News, "Based upon the reality that the ACLU barely qualified for the ballot, despite spending millions of dollars, it is clear that a majority of Ohioans do not want this extreme amendment. We ask all Ohioans, who love life, to join us in rejecting this extreme amendment.”

The 3 - July 23, 2023

This week's edition of The 3 includes the news of another state passing legislation to protect children from treatments and surgeries that falsely promise a change in "gender," which is a term that has come to mean something other than biological sex.  Also, a biological male will be representing the Netherlands in the upcoming Miss Universe pageant, while another competition has decided to only allow biological women to compete.  Plus, a Christian after-school program will be allowed to meet in a Rhode Island school district as the result of a court decision.

Another state votes to protect children from harmful gender treatments

The number of states whose legislatures have voted to protect children from treatments and surgeries that claim to help a child change his or her sex continues to grow, with the addition of Louisiana this week.

The Washington Stand reports that:

Before this year, only four states had passed legislation prohibiting gender transition procedures on minors, which include irreversible removal of healthy organs and permanent sterilization through cross-sex hormones. As of Tuesday, when the Louisiana legislature enacted protections over the governor’s veto, 21 states have protections (one state improved on previously enacted language).

And, there could be more come into the fold; the article notes: "There is still time for the Ohio Senate (in session until December 31) to pass HB 68, or for the North Carolina legislature (in session until July 28) to override the governor’s veto of HB 808."

The Washington Stand does say that: 

...there is still much work to do, even in states that passed a bill this year. In some states, the legislators pulled their punches. The West Virginia Senate, for instance, stripped out all enforcement mechanisms in an 11th-hour floor amendment. Utah’s bill authorizes the foxes to guard the henhouse. Georgia’s bill is surprisingly weak, with only one enforcement mechanism and large exception. Even among the solid bills, at least a dozen can be improved by prohibiting insurance or public funds from covering gender transition procedures for minors.

"Miss" Universe candidate from one country is actually male

There will be at least one man in the next Miss Universe pageant, and perhaps another, if a contestant in Puerto Rico wins that territory's pageant.  The Daily Signal released an article that reported that a biological male presenting as a woman won the Netherlands Miss Universe pageant. Rikkie Valerie Kollé is 22 years old, has had "gender reassignment surgery," and stated on Instagram: “Yes, I am a trans woman and I want to share my story, but I am also Rikkie and that is what matters to me,” adding, “I did this on my own and enjoyed every moment of it.”

Another male who presents as a woman, Anne Jakrajutatip, now owns the rights to the Miss Universe pageant; the Daily Signal describes him as "an outspoken activist who is the founder and president of a transgender rights organization called Life Inspired for Transsexual Foundation."

The Miss Italy competition has taken a different direction; Newsweek reports it..

...will not allow transgender women to compete, with its patron saying that contestants "must be a woman from birth," weeks after Miss Netherlands crowned its first transgender winner.

"Lately, beauty contests have been trying to make the news by also using strategies that I think are a bit absurd," Miss Italy Official Patron Patrizia Mirigliani said this month during an interview with Radio Cusano, Il Primato Nazionale reported, according to a translation from Google.

"Since it was born, my competition has foreseen in its regulation the clarification according to which one must be a woman from birth. Probably because, even then, it was foreseen that beauty could undergo modifications, or that women could undergo modifications, or that men could become women," Mirigliani added, Il Primato Nazionale reported.

The Newsweek article notes that, "In 2012, the Miss Universe contest announced that it was changing its rules to allow transgender women to compete."  Last month, the Daily Mail reported:

Miss America has tightened their gender rules to ban transgender contestants who have not had a fully completed medical transition for their 2024 season.

In the new Miss 2024 contract, seen by The Standard, competitors now have to identify either as 'a born female' or a female who has 'fully completed sexual reassignment surgery'.

The article noted, "Previously the pageant had allowed anyone who simply identified as 'a woman' to participate."

Ministry's after-school outreach allowed to proceed in Rhode Island

Recently, I had the chance to feature the Executive Vice President of Child Evangelism Fellowship, Moises Estaves, on The Meeting House program.  CEF is devoted to bringing the gospel of Christ to children all around the world.  One of the principal ways that is done is through the Good News Clubs, which are allowed to meet at public schools across the nation during non-school hours. 

Liberty Counsel reminded readers on its website recently that:

In June 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court in Good News Club v. Milford Central School ruled that public schools violate the First Amendment by not providing equal access and equal treatment to Christian clubs when the school has opened the forum to secular clubs, as in this case.

Unfortunately, school officials in Providence, Rhode Island were denying this equal access to children in the state. Liberty Counsel reported that in 2023, it "filed a lawsuit on behalf of CEF Rhode Island after the school district discriminated against them by repeatedly ignoring their applications and not allowing its Good News Clubs on campuses while allowing other clubs to meet." Recently, according to its website:

...a federal district court approved a Consent Decree that prevents the school district from discriminating against CEF, declaring the Christian clubs are entitled to equal access “on the same terms” as other after school clubs.

The website notes:

As a result of the victory, the Providence Public School District is permanently mandated to treat the Good News Clubs “on an equal basis with similarly situated organizations, such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and Girls on the Run.”

Liberty Counsel has been quite active in defending Good News Clubs, having been involved in some 200 cases, without a loss.

The 3 - July 16, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three recent stories impacting the Christian community, includes a reprieve for a new Tennessee law that was passed in order to protect children from dangerous sex-change treatments and surgeries.  Also, a federal judge has taking aim at Big Tech and government actors working together to censor social media content.  And, a biological male who wants to use the girl's bathroom at a Wisconsin school will temporarily be allowed to do so, but the school district's superintendent intends to challenge a recent court decision favoring the student. 

Appeals court overturns lower court decision to block new TN law protecting children

Across the country, not only are concerned citizens, including Christians, responding to treatments and procedures that are designed to help a child who is confused about his or her sexuality "change" his sex, by speaking out against these actions, but lawmakers have taken concrete steps to ban them.

Tennessee is one of those states, with its Legislature passing and governor signing legislation that would prevent children from undergoing these permanent, damaging sex-change steps from taking place.  A federal lower court judge temporarily halted the legislation from becoming effective on July 1, but it was restored in a federal appeals court while the court case proceeds.

TheHill.com reported that: "The state’s ban was set to go into effect on July 1, but a federal judge halted its implementation,siding with the American Civil Liberties Union, who said the law interferes with parental rights to choose necessary medical care for their children."  The article went on to say:

Two of the three judges on the appeals panel ruled to reinstate the law, saying that decisions over transgender care are better left up to state legislatures rather than judges.

It quoted from Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who wrote, "Given the high stakes of these nascent policy deliberations — the long-term health of children facing gender dysphoria — sound government usually benefits from more rather than less debate..."

1819 News quoted from a statement by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who said: "The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a critical ruling in favor of Tennessee's right to enforce commonsense laws against giving kids experimental and life-altering sex changing drugs," adding, "Proud to have led a 17-state brief in support of Tennessee's law, highlighting the critical difference between evidence-based science and the extreme gender ideology that is pushing these drugs and causing irreparable harm to our youth."

That article also gave a progress report on the court case involving Alabama's VCAP bill, implementing a ban on gender treatments and surgeries, which was partially put on hold by a federal district judge.  The article stated: 

A three-judge 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel heard oral arguments for VCAP in November 2022. The 11th Circuit is currently considering Alabama's appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction order. The trial is set to begin in April 2024.

Judge rules against policy linking government officials to Big Tech

For years, Christian individuals and organizations have sounded the alarm about censorship on social media platforms.  It is certainly a concern in the Christian community, and a ruling on the Fourth of July actually shows that Big Tech censors were working hand-in-hand with the federal government.

Liberty Counsel stated on its website:

A federal judge issued a historic, 155-page ruling on Independence Day citing “substantial evidence” the federal government engaged in large-scale censorship efforts targeting social media content that questioned or countered its “official” narratives. The 86-pages of background facts detail a shocking pattern of consistent pressure and threats exerted by the Biden administration demanding that social media platforms censor protected speech.

The article says: "In response to the evidence, Chief U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for the Western District of Louisiana concluded, 'the alleged suppression has potentially resulted in millions of free speech violations.'”  It goes on to say:

Judge Doughty said the evidence presented in the case paints the federal government as an “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”

Judge Doughty wrote, “…the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”

It is not far-fetched to think that declarations that are consistent with Biblical truth could run afoul of official government narratives.  There are people in high positions who are determined to silence those with whom they disagree.  This lawsuit, championed by attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri, indicates the length to which public officials will go to silence opposing viewpoints.  

The Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, Mat Staver, stated: “Reading the factual findings of the disturbing pattern of censorship one would assume this is China or a dystopian novel. Sadly, this government-coordinated censorship occurred in America at the highest levels of government. The Biden administration and government agencies intentionally and knowingly deceived the public. Everyone involved must be held accountable.”

Court allows biological male to use female bathroom in WI

A school district in the Milwaukee area had implemented a policy that would require students to use the restroom corresponding to his or her biological sex.  A court has now put that policy on hold, according to WISN Television, which stated:

A federal judge says the Mukwonago School District can't enforce its ban on transgender students using restrooms that they prefer.

The ruling comes after a mother and her 11-year-old trans daughter filed a civil rights complaint against the Mukwonago Area School District.

Now, keep in mind that the phrase "trans daughter" or "trans female" actually means "biological male."

The report goes on to state:

According to the complaint, from third grade through fifth grade, her daughter was allowed to use the bathroom she preferred.

But that changed this past June during summer school when the district said she had to now use a boy's bathroom or a gender-neutral bathroom at the school.

Again, this is the mother's 11-year-old son, who, according to the district's new policy was required to use the boy's bathroom or a gender-neutral bathroom.  The judge issued a "temporary restraining order," preventing the ban from being implemented while the case proceeds.

This case brings to mind the situation involving a female student identifying as male, Gavin Grimm, who was not allowed to use the boy's bathroom at a Virginia school. That case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2021, but the high court decided not to hear the case.  So, perhaps this school district, since the high court has not ruled, decided it would test the waters on these unresolved privacy concerns. 

The WISN article said that, "Superintendent Dr. Joseph Koch indicated they'll continue the court fight," quoting him as saying, "The District will continue to defend Policy 5514 in the interest of protecting the safety, privacy, and wellness of all students."

The 3 - July 9, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three recent stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes a federal appeals court ruling that clarifies the conditions in employment law under which a religious accommodation can be granted regarding hiring LGBT individuals.  Also, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the rights of a graphic designer to not be forced to communicate messages that violate her religious beliefs has affected the case of Oregon bakers who declined to provide a cake for a ceremony celebrating a same-sex union.  And, a British woman has received a significant financial award in her case, involving the termination of her contract due to her beliefs on gender and sexuality.

Federal appeals court clarifies Bostock, provides for religious freedom protection

The Bostock decision has been used and abused in a variety of ways - the current administration uses it to change the definition of "sex" in civil rights law to mean gender identity or sexual orientation.  But, as Liberty Counsel points out:

In June 2020, SCOTUS heard the Bostock case which combined several lawsuits, including a case where a homosexual man was fired from a county job after inquiring about starting an LGBT softball league at work, and a case where a funeral home employee was fired after dressing as a different gender. The High Court ruled that “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.”

But, the website noted: "However, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in Bostock’s majority opinion that employers who have religious objections to employing LGBT people could possibly raise those claims in their specific cases."

So, that's what Braidwood Management, a Texas company did - it sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which, according to Liberty Counsel, "claims that bias against LGBT workers is a form of unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." As the legal organization pointed out, Braidwood "operates under Christian beliefs and doctrine, which includes 'marriage is between one man and one woman.' The company, which will not hire people engaged in behavior that is 'sexually immoral or gender non-conforming,' brought the case against the [EEOC]..."

And, Braidwood's position was upheld unanimously by a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. It found, as Liberty Counsel stated: "...that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 protects not just a church, but a private entity from violating their religious beliefs by having to employ someone who does not share the same beliefs or whose conduct does not align with the company’s views. The RFRA prevents the federal government from enforcing otherwise neutral laws that burden a person’s free exercise of religion. In this case, the RFRA protects a Christian business from having to employ homosexual or gender-dysphoric employees who are incompatible with the company’s biblical views on sexuality and marriage."

The court said, "Braidwood maintains that it has sincere and deeply held religious beliefs that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned by God, pre-marital sex is wrong, and ‘men and women are to dress and behave in accordance with distinct and God-ordained, biological sexual identity.’ To that end, the EEOC guidance almost assuredly burdens the exercise of Braidwood’s religious practice.”

303 Creative Supreme Court decision affects another long-standing case

On the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the 303 Creative, upholding the rights of a graphic designer to decline to communicate messages that violate her deeply-held beliefs, the high court sent a case it had reviewed before and sent back to the state level back again.

First Liberty reported on Friday, June 30, that in the case involving cake bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein, Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries...

...originally imposed a devastating $135,000 damage award against the Kleins for violating Oregon’s public accommodations statute after they declined to design and create a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. Following a series of appeals, the Supreme Court in 2019 returned the case to Oregon for further consideration in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which held that government officials cannot be hostile to the free exercise of the religious beliefs of its citizens. In today’s order, the Court returned the case to Oregon to reconsider in light of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.

After the case was returned in 2019, the Oregon Court of Appeals waived the amount for damages, but then sent it on to the BOLI, which then assessed the Kleins $30,000. 

British Court sides with woman who lost her job due to beliefs on gender

And, in the United Kingdom, there was another positive development in the area of freedom of expression. CBN News reported that, as the result of a court decision involving her views on gender, Maya Forstater, described as a "researcher," received a significant cash award.  An article from last week said:

As CBN News reported, Forstater shared her opinion on sex and gender in 2018 in a series of tweets that didn't sit well with some of her colleagues at the Centre for Global Development (CGD). Following several complaints, Forstater's employer did not renew her contract for the following year.

Forstater took legal action when her contract was not extended, stating, "My belief...is that sex is a biological fact and is immutable. There are two sexes, male and female. Men and boys are male. Women and girls are female. It is impossible to change sex. These were until very recently understood as basic facts of life by almost everyone."

In 2021, the British High Court determined that her views were protected under the U.K.'s Equality Act.  The CBN article said, "Judge Akhlaq Choudhury said Forstater's views might be offensive to some but were covered by freedom of belief protections in the Equality Act."

Earlier this year, Christian Today reported that Forstater "has given expert evidence in support of a Christian teacher who faces being struck off the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) after allegedly misgendering a pupil."  The article from February said that Joshua Sutcliffe...

...was suspended from his Oxfordshire school over the incident and eventually dismissed. He took legal action against the school for constructive dismissal and discrimination, and the case was settled out of court.

Ms Forstater was asked to give evidence at Monday's hearing on the compelled use of preferred pronouns and the dangers of affirming trans policies in schools.