Life, Liberty, & the Supreme Court (Part 1)

Family policy matters and engaging and informative weekly radio show and podcast produced by the North Carolina family policy Council hi this is John Ralston, presidency, family, and were grateful to have you with us for this week's program is our prayer that you will be informed, encouraged and inspired by what you hear on family policy matters and that you will fold better equipped to be a voice of persuasion for family values in your community, state and nation. Today we bring you part one of an excerpt from NC families virtual event on life, liberty, and the US Supreme Court, which took place on September 10, 2020.

This event featured John Stonestreet of the Colson Center for Christian worldview Ron Anderson of the heritage foundation and Matt Sharp, an attorney with allies defending freedom good evening and welcome to the North Carolina family policy Council series of virtual events entitled understanding North Carolina's dynamic landscape. This is the second part of a five-part series as we take a look at some of the most pressing issues facing our culture today tonight were taking a look at life, liberty, and the US Supreme Court were extremely pleased to welcome our special guest tonight. John Stonestreet serves as president of the Colson Center for Christian worldview and its host of the Colson centers breakpoint radio podcast. John is a highly sought after author, speaker and expert on Christian worldview and apologetics Ryan T. Anderson, PhD, is a renowned author and the William E. Simon Senior research fellow with the heritage foundation. Ryan is founder and editor of public discourse. The online Journal of the Witherspoon Institute. And last but not least Matt Sharp's legal counsel with alliance defending freedom, where he directs the Center for legislative advocacy, so format tonight.

We will work this way, we divided a number of recent US Supreme Court decisions into three categories. And here's a roadmap for our discussion. The first category is protecting religious autonomy and equal access which will focus on the court rulings in Espinoza school choice case out of Montana and our Lady of Guadalupe Bay relating to the First Amendment rights of religious schools.

The second category is life and conscience protection focusing on general medical and abortion case out of Louisiana and Little sisters of the poor, addressing the contraceptive mandate in Obama care in the third category is religious freedom and LGBT issues addressing the landmark Bostic opinion in which the court determined that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classifications in federal employment law. Obviously we have a lot of ground to cover tonight, so let's jump right in. Matt, let's start with you and talk about religious autonomy and equal access that feeling well. Thank you for having me John and think all of you for joining in separately. Talk about a case out of Montana called Espinoza and this case dealt with a school choice program that the state enacted in well the problem is we end up with a scenario where kids going to religious schools are being denied the funding that's available to kids going to nonreligious private schools, so the court took this case up with the hopes that it would expand the protection for religious organizations to get equal access to these funds and that's exactly what the court ultimately did it said that the state cannot justify denying kids the ability to go to a religious school simply because it's religious. In other words, the government with thank because you are religious because you teach religion and are identified with the religious church, religious ministry that you are being treated worse off than a comparable secular private school in our Constitution doesn't allow it. So with a really strong ruling for the idea that religious organization including religious schools have the same right to participate in government programs as other secular organizations have the right to in addition to the Espinoza case. We had another case comedown called our Lady of Guadalupe and this dealt with a question about whether religious organizations have authority to hire and fire people without being subject to these nondiscrimination laws and specifically it it was questioning of whether the general rule that churches are allowed to hire and fire their ministers.

Whether that extends to individuals that are not necessarily titled ministers right so the question is, can a religious school have the same ability to do so, and the court again said yes we want to make sure that anyone that is engaged in any sort of ministering of teaching religious doctrines to others is protected and so the court rejected this idea that a teacher or someone like that specifically has to have the titled minister or to have religious credentials. What this ultimately means is more autonomy, more freedom for religious organizations when it comes to those crucial hiring and firing decision surrounded John, what are your thoughts or perspectives about these two cases first encounter huge amenities. The ability of the patent, you should be able to eat on it globally with secular institutions for government funding is essential for equality and justice database institutions to meet staffing decisions based on their mission over them for filling their mission you will want to be concerned with the list of human flourishing and that the government the phone is of the truth about human flourishing, which means less taking of school choice case.

Most states don't have school choice program what your state doesn't have a school choice program. You might not be able to afford the standard. It ain't a school and we should be concerned with all the public schools are teaching kind of ugly Debbie downer brings, but we also want to think about what's going on all the others. The quality of funding is essential will be sufficient. That's kind of my my take on so John Stonestreet, what are your thoughts well I grounded outlet. Matt Ryan deal mostly with the legal technicalities their work smarter on the dishes been made, but I think Brian is is right that there is a downside to this end, the bigger picture are not just specifically on these cases. I was really happy with the religious liberty protections for religious institutions. But if we look across you know what all these cases I think men culturally's that were seeing a bigger and bigger move illegally towards what we already have culturally, which is the shrinking down of religious freedom subject to specifically religious activities and institutions which is a net loss because religious liberty is not just the ability, religious schools are religious leaders or religious people to believe what they want in their own homes and houses of worship and arts, but it's actually the ability to order their public lives around those convictions. I think one lesson that we can take from this, however, that the really important one, especially when we look right now at various religious organizations and institutions that are feeling making. This should encourage them that the court is committed to protecting religious institutions and religious organizations, and we set some organizations and institutions compromised before the other side was even offering. I think Brian is use this line in a starting a football game at the 50 yard line when you don't have to do something like that and and I think these cases could should be a strong encouragement of what the court has intended to do so. If your religious organization or religious entity. I don't think that's religious freedom enough for what we want as Americans can say you should have a lot of confidence that the courts on your side on ordering what kind of organization you are well and very importantly for North Carolina because were such a leader in the nation on school choice and particularly with scholarships with which our state legislature just expanded eligibility, and funding for recently so Matt, what about life and conscience protection. Let's move on to that second category that we talked about to so another two big cases that came out of the court.

The first one is a case notice June medical and this dealt with a law Louisiana passed requiring doctors and specifically abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This is something that's very common for any outpatient surgery well. Several years ago in 2016, Texas. It passed a similar law that the court had struck down and it said well whatever benefits there are from this admitting privileges is outweighed by the burdens you're imposing on the women. So when the court took this case.

A lot of people were saying will wait a second. Justice Roberts was in the dissent in that Texas case. Maybe now that the court is change the color to overturn that and reach a different conclusion with this Louisiana law. Unfortunately, the court did not do that and in a 54 split and this was with the vote of Justice Roberts, the court struck down the Louisiana law, but what was interesting was Justice Roberts.

He did not join the four liberals, but rather wrote his own decision to say I think our hands are tied by the previous decision about Texas law. These laws seem to be about the same and had the same impact and we need to follow precedent. What was interesting though is that he rejected the reasoning used by the four liberals this idea that you have to weigh the burdens on women versus the benefits and he said no that's actually not the proper test the proper test is does this create an undue burden on women's ability to get abortion now that anything like kind of legal and artery but what it really means is a return to a much stronger standard much more deference to the state when it comes to being able to restrict and regulate abortion. The second pro-life case that came out not so much like more conscious with Little sisters of the poor.

Many of you are probably familiar with this case thinking quite whether this already resolved years ago. Well little sisters was under Obama care of being told that they were going to have to pay for abortion inducing drugs. Now these are nines have no need of this, but the government compelling them to pay for something that violates the deepest convictions that they believe takes an innocent life.

Well the case of gone back and forth that little sisters and one in the trump administration had wanted to solidify those protections and so they drafted some regulations that say anyone that has a religious or moral objections. So think of like secular pro-life groups.

If you got a religious or moral object objection were to grant you an exemption so that you don't have to pay for abortion inducing drugs, and so the challenge in this case was is that legal can the trump administration do that, and the court said yes, in fact, the court said government ought to be considering religion and ought to be ensuring that it's not trampling religion in enacting these regulation so John Stonestreet, what do you think about the little sisters of the poor having to go to court to defend themselves for the third time. Right is not an enemy that it leave these poor ladies alone and let them do their job let them live out their calling of caring for people who are suffering and dying them in the work that they do nobody else wants to do so and let them do it. Leave them alone that the that's, my gut reaction that I've had for years now, ever since this case first hit hit the radar. It is good news. But you know I get it underscores.

I think a deeper cultural reality that religion and religious belief is often considered to be a personal private preference.

It's considered to be your hobby and it underscores that at the root of the conflict of so much that we see culturally right now is a collision of worldviews unit who is ultimately in charge.

Do we have an allegiance to anything higher than the state is our deeply held beliefs that the most significant thing about who we are and how we live our lives or is something else or something else like that place out in good heavens, these are nines caring for the suffering and dying right knee. How much more when some can you be and it's not enough.

You know when you collide. So I was really grateful for this one. Hopefully this is the end of the road so that writing I actually just it's not right elder everything John just said and I agree that hopefully the end of the road. I don't see it being the end of the road couple reasons why even if trump is reelected, the Atty. Gen., Pennsylvania the day after the decision said no continued rest.

This was is VP Biden has already promised that if he becomes president. I'll go back to the Obama care mandate hobby lobby doesn't seem to realize a loss. Hobby lobby case and he can't take us back prior to a binding Supreme Court for hobby lobby in his mind speaks to John putting up a cultural movement that were in. He wants to say what were not giving anyone. These events, no comic paperwork on actuary were hobby seal next next liability is over them and this isn't just a religious liberty, or conscience question is pro-life issue. We currently have a federal mandate say every health care plan needs to cover cost three for drugs and devices that can kill an unborn child, right that's an unjust law is not for everyone and the best we could do in the trump administration was broadening the exemption not getting rid of the underlying objectionable family policy matters. This is been part one of a two-part series from NC families virtual event on life, liberty, and the Supreme Court featuring John Stonestreet, Ryan Anderson and Matt sure. Be sure to tune in next week for part two to listen online and learn more about NC families work to inform, encourage and inspire families across North Carolina. Visit our website it NC family.org that's NC family.org.

Thanks for listening and may God bless you and your family