To whom do children belong?

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

Does the child belong to parents or the state? This issue is nothing new—Plato argued that the community in which children are raised is the proper locus of authority, not the parents. He envisioned a society where parents were denied their right to raise their own children: they would be collectively raised. He explicitly said in The Republic that the good society was one where "no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent." 

California Governor Gavin Newsom is no Plato, but he is also not a believer in parental rights. He objects to Florida and Texas officials who are seeking to stop the state from promoting "gender-transitioning procedures" for children behind the back of parents. "This is nothing short of a state-sponsored intimidation of LGBTQ children," he said. 

In other words, if parents object to child abuse encouraged by state operatives—that is what puberty blockers and the prospect of genital mutilation are—then they are the problem, not the government. 

In many parts of the country, children are being prompted by school officials to question their sexual orientation. Some are then encouraged to transition to the opposite sex, without the consent of their parents. How many? No one knows for sure, but we do know that some public officials, school administrators, school board members and teachers' unions believe they know better than a child's parents what's good for their kids. They are modern-day tyrants who respect no boundaries. 

In a sane society they would be put away. Instead, they are awarded tenure. 

In the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan supported an anti-Catholic law in Oregon that required all children to attend a public school (thus closing down Catholic schools). The Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary sued, and in 1925 the U.S. Supreme Court sided with them. "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations (italics in the original)." 

Today's Klan is non-violent and well-educated, but they are just as dangerous as the men in white robes. Newsom and the educational establishment are wrecking the lives of young people, promoting the pernicious idea that it is normal to rebel against one's own nature. It manifestly is not. 

Young people are being exploited at a record rate—girls more than boys—by tolerating, if not actively promoting, the notion that switching one's sex is very much like switching one's diet. What's wrong with being a boy today and a girl tomorrow? Isn't that like being carnivorous today and a vegetarian tomorrow? 

Modern society is made up of the individual, the intermediate associations that constitute social authority—the family, school, church, voluntary organizations—and the state. Beginning with the French Revolution, the road to totalitarianism has been greased when the state crushes the intermediate associations; when civil society collapses, only the individual and the state remain. As the 20th century proved in Russia, Germany and China, that means the end of liberty. The only bulwark to state power is the social authority grounded in civil society. 

Children are not mere creatures of the state. They are the natural outcome of a union between a man and a woman, ideally forged in the institution of marriage, and it is the prerogative of parents—not the state—to decide what is best for them. 

Since Newsom is now telling the governors in other states how to conduct their business, it's time for people all over the nation to tell him how to conduct his business. 

Democrat Bill Will Overturn Every Pro-Life Law Nationwide and Impose Abortion Up to Birth on America - LifeNews.com

Democrat Bill Will Overturn Every Pro-Life Law Nationwide and Impose Abortion Up to Birth on America - LifeNews.com: Hard to imagine, unless you believe there can be no limitations of any kind on abortion at any point in pregnancy, that this coming Monday the Senate will vote on the misnamed “Women’s Health Protection Act.” The bill has already passed the House on September 24, 2021 and Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) is teeing […]

Iowa Tells State Supreme Court: There is No Right to Kill Babies in Abortions - LifeNews.com

Iowa Tells State Supreme Court: There is No Right to Kill Babies in Abortions - LifeNews.com: Iowa leaders urged their state Supreme Court on Wednesday to overturn its erroneous 2018 ruling that found a “right” to abortion in the Iowa Constitution. The Associated Press reports the Iowa Supreme Court considered arguments from state Assistant Attorney General Sam Langholz and lawyers for Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union about the 2018 […]

Iowa House passes bill to ban men from women’s sports

DES MOINES, Iowa (LifeSiteNews) — The Iowa House voted 55-39 Monday to approve a bill that would disqualify biological males suffering gender dysphoria from participating in schools’ and universities’ female athletic programs.

“This bill is not about discrimination. This bill is about protection,” said Republican state Rep. Skyler Wheeler of the measure, the Des Moines Register reports. “Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it’s simple: Girls should not be sidelined in their own sports.”

An earlier version of the bill only covered kindergarten through high school, but it was amended Monday to include both public and private colleges. Companion legislation is currently pending before the Republican-controlled state Senate that applies to all of those categories except private colleges.

“Girls have dreams and aspirations of earning a scholarship to help pay for college,” Governor Kim Reynolds (R) said earlier this month. “Girls have dreams and aspirations of one day competing in the Olympics. So it’s a fairness issue.”

A University Professor’s Sobering Picture of Anti-Christian Bias in America Today - The Stream

A University Professor’s Sobering Picture of Anti-Christian Bias in America Today - The Stream: What lies behind the hatred is the fear that Christian conservatives want to take over the country and impose their values on it.

Pro-Life Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds Will Deliver Republican State of the Union Response - LifeNews.com

Pro-Life Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds Will Deliver Republican State of the Union Response - LifeNews.com: After Joe Biden delivers his State of the Union Address next Tuesday, Republicans have selected a pro-life governor to deliver the Republican response. Republican congressional leadership has tapped Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who is solidly pro-life, to respond to Biden, who has compiled the most radical pro-abortion record of any president since Roe v. Wade. […]

Corporate elites are playing blacks

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president

We chose to review the diversity statements and programs of ten large-scale corporations. We then compared them to the racial profile of their top executives. The results are an eye-opener.

The worst offender, meaning the corporation with the biggest hypocrites, is Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs

In June 2020, Goldman Sachs announced that it "has a message right now to the companies they invest in: drive diversity throughout the organization, or we may just drive away from your stock."

Good thing that principle doesn't apply to themselves. If it did, it would mean sudden death.

There are 9 Executive Officers at Goldman Sachs. All are white. They have no blacks, Hispanics or Asians in these top positions.

Here are the other corporate phonies, in alphabetical order.

American Express 

American Express asks workers to rank themselves on a hierarchy of "privilege." If they say things like "We are all human beings," they will be in violation of the company's race-based regulations; it is seen as a "microaggression." 

Lucky for the whites on the Executive Team that only a few of their colleagues can charge them with "microagressions." 

There are 30 members on the Executive Team: 25 are white, 2 are black, 2 are Hispanic and 1 is Asian. 

Apple 

In June 2020, Apple CEO Tim Cook said he was launching a Racial Equity Justice Initiative that will "challenge the systemic barriers to opportunity and dignity that exist for communities of color, and particularly for the black community." 

Too bad Apple didn't begin by applying its diversity commitment to themselves. 

Apple's leadership consists of 14 persons: there are 12 whites and 2 Asians. There no blacks or Hispanics. 

Bank of America 

Bank of America's racial-equity program for employees informs them that white toddlers "develop racial biases by ages three to five," and therefore everyone "should be actively taught to recognize and reject the 'smog' of white privilege." 

There appears to be a lot of "smog" at Bank of America. 

Of the 24 top executives, 19 are white, 2 are black, 1 is Hispanic and 2 are Asian.

Cigna 

In July 2020, Cigna president and CEO David Cordani boasted that he was launching a new "Building Equity and Equality Program" to support "diversity, inclusion, equality and equity for communities of color." 

Looks like Cigna doesn't regard Hispanics and Asians to be "people of color." 

The Executives and Management Team has 11 members, 8 are white and 3 are black. There are no Hispanics or Asians on the top team. 

Citigroup Inc. 

On its website, Citigroup has a section on racial equity wherein it pledges to "Work with marketing, communications and legal partners to establish guidelines that increase representation of people of color on Citi accounts and within leadership teams." 

Looks like the pledge was vacuous. 

There are 17 members on its Executive Management Team: 13 are white, 1 is black, 1 is Hispanic and 2 are Asian. 

Facebook 

In July 2021, Facebook announced that by 2024, its goal was to hire more minorities and to "increase the number of US-based leaders (Director-level employees and above) who are people of color by 30%." 

If that is the case, it had better get on its affirmative-action bandwagon right away—it has a long way to go. 

There is a total of 23 top executives at Facebook. Of that number, 21 are white, 1 is black and 1 is Asian. There are no Hispanics. 

JPMorgan Chase & Co. 

Jamie Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, says, "Everything has to start at home, where we're working to drive our diverse and inclusive culture into every corner of our firm." 

Looks like they missed most of the corners. 

On the Operating Committee of JPMorgan Chase, there are 18 persons, 16 of whom are white. They have no blacks, 1 Hispanic and 1 Asian. 

Morgan Stanley 

James Gorman, chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley has doled out millions of dollars to black organizations. He has also encouraged workers to make donations, including to Black Lives Matter. He brags about adding a fifth value to the company's core values: "Committing to Diversity and Inclusion." 

It seems that Gorman's latest core value is more smoke than substance. 

There are 20 members on the Operating Committee of Morgan Stanley. Of that number, 16 are white, 2 are black and 2 are Asian. There are no Hispanics. 

Walmart 

Walmart teaches its employees that the U.S. is a "white supremacy system," and that white people "promote white supremacy thinking" that is "damaging to both people of color and to white people." 

It appears that the leadership of Walmart is dominated by white supremacists. 

Of the 9 top executives, 8 are white and 1 is black. There are no Hispanics or Asians. 

All ten of the chairmen and CEO's of these major corporations are white, and all are men. Moreover, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase all asked shareholders to reject their racial-equity audits; the CEO of the latter company did so literally hours after decrying inequality. 

These elites are playing us, especially blacks. The insincerity of the ruling class is stunning. According to their own standards, most of these corporate titans are white racists. That being the case, they should resign immediately.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Physician assisted suicide – second thoughts

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Physician assisted suicide – second thoughts: Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition An article by Nancy Alisberg an attorney who worked as the legal direct...

Will Sweet Cakes get sweet justice? And how about 45?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – In early 2015 Melissa and Aaron Klein, and their bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, were found guilty by an Oregon court of discrimination against a same-sex couple for refusing to make a wedding cake for their same-sex wedding. A long, sad story followed the Kleins and their case.

The Kleins had refused the business because of their Christian belief that same-sex marriages are against God’s law.

Facing a fine of $135,000, mandatory attendance at a “re-education” program, a gag order prohibiting them from speaking about their case, being hounded by the “tolerant” left as bigots and bullies, the Kleins were forced out of business. Unable to work in Oregon, they moved themselves and their children to Montana where Aaron got a job and Melissa made cupcakes from home and sold them online.

But, while they were losing everything around them, the Kleins, with the help of lawyers from First Liberty Institute, appealed their conviction and fine. Their case eventually wound up in front of the Oregon appellate courts, where they lost again. Finally they appealed to the United States Supreme Court which had just heard and ruled on arguments in the Colorado case of Jack Phillips, where he was facing the same disciplinary action by his state against himself and his business, Masterpiece Cakeshop.
In that case the court found that the state agencies investigating had acted with animus against Mr. Phillips and his religious beliefs. In a highly anticipated decision, the court ruled in Mr. Phillips’ favor and vacated the state’s actions against him, which also included a required stint in a “re-education” program for Jack and all of his employees. As part of the decision, the court warned that when dealing with religious beliefs, courts and state agencies need to be careful to respect those religious rights and not to do anything that would infringe on an individual’s right of religious expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.

With the Masterpiece Cakeshop as background, the justices in Washington did not hear the Kleins’ case, but simply remanded the case back to the Oregon courts to determine if there was religious animus involved that violated the Kleins’ religious freedoms, and to reconsider the case in light of that finding and of the ruling in Masterpiece.

The Oregon court then found that the state agency that had originally investigated the Kleins did not do so in a neutral fashion and did act with religious animus against them. Then, instead of dismissing the case in light of its findings, the court simply referred the matter back to the investigating agency.

The agency, which had acted with religious animus, was to re-examine the case including the amount of the fine, which the state was still holding.

Additionally, the investigative agency is still pursuing action against the Kleins. One of the attorneys representing the Kleins, First Liberty’s senior counsel Stephanie Taub, told my radio audience that they are now appealing the referral to the agency to the State Supreme Court and will follow up with another appeal to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary.

And so that is where the matter sits as of today. “It’s been a long journey for Aaron and Melissa, they deserved justice, and to have had a fair trial, and because they weren’t treated fairly this case should be over,” attorney Taub opined. She is right, this case should have ended years ago and the Kleins allowed to put their lives back together again.

Unfortunately, we see a lot of this nowadays. Members of the Progressive Party have shown themselves completely unable to recognize or empathize with those who have religious convictions that long predate the socialist policies the Progressivists hold. And while they spouted “tolerance” for themselves, they will not give the same benefit to others with whom they disagree.

The forces of Hell at work.

Special Counsel John Durham

I’m writing this just after the Super Bowl. This week has seen a lot of news; there are truckers demonstrating in Canada (and soon, perhaps, in the United States); Russia is ready to start a new European war; crime is running roughshod over our cities, and little children, who are unlikely to succumb to the coronavirus, are still masked by power-wielding school boards and union officials.

But in all this news there is one story that is not being reported, except on a few conservative outlets. Like Big Media’s boycott of the Hunter Biden story, they are boycotting Special Counsel John Durham’s 13-page motion which begins to expose the criminal conspiracy to “frame” Donald Trump for all things Russian.

Durham’s motion, “To Inquire Into Potential Conflict of Interest,” is an attempt to focus on the conflicts of interest that Michael Sussmann and his attorneys may have with other attorneys involved in any way with the investigation. Sussmann was the attorney for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and was indicted for lying about his continued involvement with the campaign when he tried to present himself as just a good citizen with information (dirt) on Donald Trump.

Without getting into the weeds, the motion contains a four and one-half page section, Factual Background, which outlines the genesis of a conspiracy, apparently orchestrated by the Clinton Campaign, to ensnare Donald Trump in the fake Russian conspiracy.

The outline sets out a tangled web of characters who worked purportedly for the Clinton Campaign who used a tech company to spy — yes spy — on Mr. Trump while a candidate, at his residence, and even at the White House. The filing suggests that tech firms, beginning as early as July of 2016, “worked with the defendant, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm-1 on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, numerous cyber researchers, and employees at multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers. . . .

“Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign.”

Most disturbing, of course, is how this enterprise was able to tap the computers in the White House. But then remember, this all started during the Obama administration.
It sounds to me like chickens coming home to roost. Indictments will follow. Let’s see how long it takes for Big Media to notice, and apologize for running interference for the Democrats.

(You can contact Mike at DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

Violating nurse’s freedoms costs Illinois county $370K

Court orders Winnebago County to pay significant sum after forcing Sandra Rojas out of her job for declining to refer women for abortions

ROCKFORD, Ill. – An Illinois trial court ruled Wednesday that Winnebago County must pay more than $370,000 to the attorneys of a pediatric nurse after the government violated her legally protected freedoms. Winnebago County forced Sandra Rojas out of a job because she declined to refer women for abortions or provide abortifacient contraceptives—actions that violated Rojas’ religious beliefs and conscience.

In November 2021, the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Winnebago County ruled in favor of Rojas, who sought protection under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. Rojas worked as a pediatric nurse for the department for 18 years before they enacted a new requirement forcing nurses to undergo training on how to refer women to abortion facilities and help them access abortifacient contraceptives.

“Medical professionals should never be forced to engage in or promote activities that violate their beliefs or convictions,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Sandra served as a nurse according to her conscience and religion—a right for medical providers that is protected under Illinois and federal law. The court’s fee award sends a clear message that health care workers are free to practice medicine in a manner consistent with their conscience and religious beliefs, and there will be a steep penalty if the government fails to respect that legally protected freedom.”

In Rojas v. Martell, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys served as co-counsel for Rojas along with lead counsel Noel Sterett of Dalton & Tomich and Whitman Brisky of Mauck & Baker, two of more than 3,500 attorneys allied with ADF.

“Health care professionals should not be required to violate their conscience to keep their jobs,” said Sterett. “We hope the outcome of this case will encourage other public and private health care employers to respect their employees’ rights of conscience.”

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.

Nurse Who Was Fired Because She is Pro-Life Wins $374,000 in Court - LifeNews.com

Nurse Who Was Fired Because She is Pro-Life Wins $374,000 in Court - LifeNews.com: A pro-life Illinois nurse who was fired after refusing to refer mothers for abortions won her case in court this week and has been awarded $374,000 in damages and attorney fees. A local court in Illinois ruled that Sandra Mendoza Rojas, of Rockford, should not have been fired from the Winnebago County Health Clinic for […]

Verdict in Finland’s Bible Tweet Trial Expected in March

A verdict in the closely watched trial of a Christian MP in Finland is expected in March.

The trial of Päivi Räsänen, a physician and mother of five, ended on Feb. 14 at Helsinki District Court.

Also standing trial was Juhana Pohjola, a bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland.

The charges against Räsänen relate to her comments in a 2004 pamphlet, her appearance on a 2018 television program, and a Twitter post in 2019.

The Prosecutor General charged the 62-year-old, who served as Finland’s interior minister from 2011 to 2015, with incitement against a minority group, arguing that her statements were “likely to cause intolerance, contempt, and hatred towards homosexuals.”

The charge against Pohjola concerns his decision to publish Räsänen’s pamphlet, “Male and Female He Created Them.”

Lorcán Price, legal counsel for the Christian legal group ADF International, who was present at the trial, said: “This prosecution for hate speech has turned into a theological trial of what Christian beliefs can and cannot be expressed in Finland.”

“It is incredible this trial is happening in a modern European country and not in a religious theocracy.”

Finland is a country with a population of 5.5 million people, bordering Norway, Russia, and Sweden. Around two-thirds of the population belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, one of the country’s two national churches, alongside the Finnish Orthodox Church.

Räsänen, who was chairwoman of the Christian Democrats party from 2004 to 2015, is an active member of the Finnish Lutheran Church. But she questioned her church’s sponsorship of an LGBT pride event in 2019.

On June 17, 2019, she asked in a Twitter post how the sponsorship was compatible with the Bible, linking to a photograph of a biblical passage, Romans 1:24-27, on Instagram. She also posted the text and image on Facebook.

“The purpose [of] my tweet was in no way to insult sexual minorities. My criticism was aimed at the leadership of the church,” she told the journal First Things in 2020.

Discussing the tweet in court, she underlined that it was directed at Church leaders and concerned an important topic facing the Church.

Police began investigating Räsänen in 2019. She faced several police interviews and had to wait more than a year for the Prosecutor General’s decision.

The International Lutheran Council described the decision to prosecute Räsänen and Pohjola as “egregious.”

Addressing the pamphlet, which described homosexuality as “a disorder of psycho-sexual development,” Räsänen told the court that she was asked to write a text outlining Lutheran teaching on sexuality for members of her church, from her viewpoint as a politician, doctor, and Christian.

She said that the pamphlet was outdated given changes in research and legislation since 2004. But she said that it should still exist as a document testifying to the discussions taking place at that time.

Crowds of supporters gathered outside the court during the trial. The American pastor Andrew Brunson, who spent two years in detention in Turkey, flew to Finland to give Räsänen a prayer pledge of support signed by Christians worldwide, organized by the Family Research Council.

ADF International said that the prosecution argued in its closing statement that the word “sin” can be harmful.

“The Apostle Paul isn’t on trial here, but Räsänen is,” the prosecution reportedly said, calling for the defendants to be fined.

Räsänen’s defense said that a guilty verdict would damage free speech in Finland and argued that the court was an inappropriate venue for a theological debate on the question “what is sin?”

The defense cited the 1976 Handyside v United Kingdom case decided by the European Court of Human Rights, which underlined that freedom of expression extended to ideas that “offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population.”

Paul Coleman, ADF International’s executive director, who was present on the trial’s first day, commented: “I would characterize the day as a modern-day Inquisition or heresy trial and the heresy was that Päivi and Bishop Juhana were on trial against the new sexual orthodoxy of the day.”

 

Religion Clause: NYC Teachers, Seeking Religious Exemptions, Resubm...

Religion Clause: NYC Teachers, Seeking Religious Exemptions, Resubm...: As previously reported , last week in  Keil v. City of New York, Justice Sotomayor Acting on an Emergency Application to the U.S. Supreme Co...

Faith On Trial 2-17-22: Education in Iowa & Finnish anti-Christian lawsuit

On this edition of Faith On Trial we welcomed Ellen Stemler, principal of St. Theresa Catholic School in Des Moines who discussed with Deacon Mike and Gina the gist of Governor Kim Reynolds’ news conference that was held at St. Theresa’s encouraging more financial aid for parents who choose to send their children to a parochial school. Deacon Mike is a graduate of that school (1963).

In addition, the deacon and Gina discussed a case from Finland where a Lutheran bishop and a Member of Parliament who are under criminal charges for hate speech – ethnic agitation – for speaking about the biblical definition of marriage. You can link to the program here:

https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/36de4ef8/governor-kim-reynolds-press-conference-21722

Faith On Trial is heard every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 Adel, and 90.9 Creston, and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can hear this program or any that you may have missed.

SPRING CARE -A- THON 2022!
Starts Monday, February 21

515-223-1150

US District Court halts Air Force from requiring COVID shot for officer with religious objections

It is the first victory in a case challenging to the U.S. military's denial of religious exemptions to the abortion-tainted vaccines.

(Thomas More Society) — For the first time, a court stopped the U.S. Air Force from enforcing its military COVID-19 vaccine mandate against a service member.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia entered a preliminary injunction on Tuesday prohibiting the Department of Defense and Air Force from enforcing the vaccine mandate against an officer who has religious objections to the vaccine and also from forcing her to retire. The order was handed down in the officer’s lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Surgeon General of the Air Force.

Thomas More Society attorneys are representing the Air Force officer, who has served her country for over 25 years. The order is consistent with those entered by other courts that have preliminarily enjoined enforcement of military vaccine mandates against other service members in two branches of the military, the Navy and the Marines.

In its order, the court noted that “constitutional protections remain commandments, not suggestions,” even for the military. The court left no doubt that the mandate imposed a substantial burden on the officer’s sincerely held religious belief. The order stated, “Very few scenarios paint a bleaker picture than giving up your livelihood in order to follow your religious beliefs.” And while the court acknowledged that the Air Force claimed it had instituted a process for reviewing and assessing religious accommodations, it found that process to be “both illusory and insincere.” Requests for religious accommodation were “rubber-stamped with disapproval and denial,” as the Air Force had denied more than 99 percent of all such requests.

The court concluded, “All Americans, especially the Court, want our country to maintain a military force that is powerful enough to thoroughly destroy any enemy who dares to challenge it. However, we also want a military force strong enough to respect and protect its service members’ constitutional and statutory religious rights. This ruling ensures our armed services continue to accomplish both.”

“We are, of course, pleased with the ruling,” Thomas More Society special counsel Adam Hochschild said. “We hope that this is beginning of the end of the Air Force’s illegal enforcement of these mandates against service members.”

The officer has been discriminated against because of her Christian beliefs. Like thousands of other service members, she objects to the COVID-19 vaccines because of their connection to abortion. Moreover, the officer has natural immunity. She has already had COVID-19 and twice tested positive for the antibodies in the year following her recovery. The officer has been willing to work remotely and test for COVID-19 periodically, and is compliant with masking, social distancing, and other practices, and, most important, has deeply held religious convictions against the vaccine. She sincerely believes that receiving one of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines would violate her conscience and would be contrary to her faith.

“This is a great victory for religious freedom,” stated Stephen Crampton, senior counsel with the Thomas More Society. “The Air Force had granted over 1,500 medical exemptions by the time we filed this lawsuit, but not a single religious exemption – not one. After we filed, it suddenly decided to start granting or claiming to grant religious exemptions, albeit only a handful. It is disgraceful how the military in general has disrespected fundamental First Amendment rights. We are grateful that the court has restored the Free Exercise rights of this courageous officer and are hopeful that her victory will help to protect the rights of conscientious objectors everywhere.”

Though religious leaders are divided over the morality of receiving COVID-19 vaccinations, there is no question that embryonic cell strains originally extracted from aborted fetuses were used in either the production or in the efficacy testing of each of the available vaccines. The military has not disputed the sincerity of the officer’s religious beliefs or that the vaccine mandate put a substantial burden on them.

Nevertheless, in December, the Air Force issued a final denial of the officer’s request for religious accommodation. The officer filed suit in January. The lawsuit challenges both the military and federal-civilian-employee mandates that apply to the officer, stating that the Air Force’s refusal to grant this officer an exemption to the vaccination mandate violates the law including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment of the Constitution. The civilian mandate is subject to a nationwide injunction issued by another court.

Read the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction issued on February 15, 2022, by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia in Air Force Officer v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary of Defense, et al., here 

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

The Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. Headquartered in Chicago and with offices across the country, the Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, visit thomasmoresociety.org.