ND Supreme Court Upholds Law Banning Abortion

The North Dakota Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a state law that bans abortions in nearly all circumstances, overturning a lower court ruling against it.

Last week, the state’s highest court released an opinion in the case of Access Independent Health Services, Inc., et al v. Drew H. Wrigley et al., which centered on whether a 2023 state law banning abortion is constitutional.

Although three of the five justices who heard the case found the ban unconstitutional, North Dakota requires a supermajority of the court to strike down a law on constitutional grounds.

State Supreme Court Justices Daniel Crothers and Lisa Fair McEvers found the ban unconstitutional, with Daniel Narum, a district court judge who sat in place of recused Justice Douglas Bahr, joining them.

Chief Justice Jon Jensen and Justice Jerod Tufte ruled that the law was constitutional, with Tufte writing that the argument that the ban was “unconstitutionally vague” was invalid.  “Because the Plaintiffs have presented only hypothetical scenarios and have not demonstrated the statute is vague as applied to any actual conduct, their facial challenge fails to satisfy our established precedent,” he wrote.  “The serious health risk exception does not present a clear answer to every imaginable situation.  No statute can.  This statute provides minimum guidelines to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and also provides fair warning to a reasonable person about what conduct is prohibited.”

North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley celebrated the decision in a statement, according to The Associated Press.  “The Supreme Court has upheld this important pro-life legislation, enacted by the people’s Legislature.  The Attorney General’s office has the solemn responsibility of defending the laws of North Dakota, and today those laws have been upheld,” stated Wrigley.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of North Dakota called the decision “deeply painful to all of us who believe that the right to control our own bodies and to make such deeply personal decisions is ours, not the government’s.”

“Private decisions about abortion should not be made by politicians but be made by pregnant people in consultation with their doctors – who should be able to treat their patients according to their best medical judgement,” stated the ACLU of North Dakota in a statement.  “Everyone deserves the right to control their own bodies and to make their own decisions about their lives and futures, free from punishment, judgment, or political interference.  We’ll keep fighting.  We hope you’ll join us.”

In April 2023, then-North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum signed the law banning abortion in all circumstances except for a serious medical emergency for the mother or cases of rape or incest if the unborn baby is six weeks or younger.

Red River Women’s Clinic of Fargo sued to overturn the law in July of that year, and Burleigh County District Judge Bruce Romanick ruled it unconstitutional in September 2024.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

IA Ed Bd Turns from LGBTQ to Pro-Life Curriculum

The Iowa State Board of Education has approved changes to the state’s school curriculum, turning away from LGBTQ ideology and implementing pro-life biological instruction instead.

Back when American students learned about the value of human life from conception and didn’t learn gender ideology, they were much better off academically, morally, and psychologically.  At least in Iowa, a reform of the state’s education system is underway.

KCCI Des Moines labeled the changes “controversial” but noted that, while they have been approved, the public has time to weigh in before they are officially finalized and implemented.  Changes to transgender policies don’t go as far as they should but are trending in the right direction by changing the terminology.

Thus “gender identity” must now be called “gender theory,” and “gender identity” is no longer classed among “diverse groups.”  It’s a step in the right direction and hopefully the precursor to much more dramatic eschewing of LGBTQ ideology.

As for the new curriculum on unborn human development, sources cannot be pro-abortion but must have a pro-life perspective to meet the new standard criteria.

KCCI cited the organization Inspired Life, which supports the changes:

[And] previous reporting shows during the session, the policy liaison for the organization noted the measure would ensure parents are “responsible for guiding their children’s understanding of gender and sexuality according to their values and their beliefs” and that schools should be focused on core subjects like math, reading, science and history.

What a novel proposal — focusing on real subjects instead of Marxist propaganda courses.  With American students’ math and reading scores at historic lows, teachers need to quit pushing the Gender Unicorn and focus on the multiplication table instead.

The bill mandating education on the development of unborn babies passed the Iowa legislature and received the gubernatorial signature earlier this year:

A bill for an act incorporating provisions related to pregnancy and fetal development into the human growth and development and health curricula provided by school districts, accredited nonpublic schools, charter schools, and innovation zone schools to students enrolled in grades five through twelve.

This curriculum would help students understand not only that abortion murders innocent humans, but also potentially how sex is grounded in biology — and not in Marxist propaganda.

The board also approved rules to enforce a law that authorizes the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to investigate abuse cases involving students.  HHS will intervene if the incident involves physical or sexual abuse by a school employee, volunteer, or vendor, and occurs during school hours or at a school-related activity.  If abuse is confirmed, the law requires school boards to fire the offender.

Iowa schools garnered attention this year after Des Moines Superintendent Ian Roberts turned out to be a criminal illegal alien.  Reform is long overdue.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Christian Schools Petition SCOTUS Over Religious Discrimination

The Archdiocese of Denver, a group of Catholic preschools and a Catholic family in Colorado have asked the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to determine if Colorado’s Universal Preschool Program discriminated against them for not abiding by an LGBT nondiscrimination statement.

In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a federal lawsuit first filed in 2023, St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton and St. Bernadette Catholic Parish in Lakewood alleged that the state excluded them because of their religious beliefs from participating in the Colorado Universal Preschool Program Act, which was passed in 2022 to allow students to attend pre-K free of charge at participating schools.

The parishes claimed that they were barred from the program because the Colorado Department of Early Childhood and Colorado’s Universal Preschool Program took issue with their preference for admitting Catholic families and maintaining religious expectations of their staff, including in matters of sexuality.

The lawsuit alleged that the state violated the free exercise and the free speech clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying the archdiocese’s 36 preschools admission to the pre-K program because of its religious beliefs regarding LGBT families and employees.

“Specifically, the Department is purporting to require all preschool providers to accept any applicant without regard to a student or family’s religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and to prohibit schools from ‘discriminat[ing] against any person’ on the same bases,” the lawsuit read.

The LGBT nondiscrimination agreement at the center of the lawsuit requires participants in the UPK program to “provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool education regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability, as such characteristics and circumstances apply to the child or the child's family.”

In September, the three-judge panel on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the state’s exclusion, finding that “nondiscrimination requirement exists in harmony with the First Amendment and does not violate the Parish Preschools’ First Amendment rights.”

“This Court promised in [its 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide] that religious groups would be protected when they dissent from secular orthodoxies about marriage and sexuality,” the group’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court argues.  “The Free Exercise Clause simply cannot do that important work — which this Court has described as ‘at the heart of our pluralistic society’ — if it can be so easily evaded.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado joined other organizations in filing an amicus brief in the case, arguing that “there is no Free Exercise Clause violation when a governmental body conditions a public benefit on a religion-neutral and generally applicable requirement.”

“The plaintiff religious schools are merely being asked to follow the same antidiscrimination rules that apply to every other school in the Program — rules that are grounded in secular, not religious, concerns,” ACLU Colorado said in summary of the case.

Legal counsel for the plaintiffs argues that the state’s exclusion of the parishes is effectively punishment for their religious beliefs, according to a Friday statement from the Washington, D.C.-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.  The nonprofit, which specializes in religious discrimination cases, noted that enrollment at Catholic preschools in Colorado has declined since the rollout of the UPK program.

“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” said Nick Reaves, senior counsel at Becket.  “That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings.  We're asking the Court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.”

Scott Elmer, who serves as Chief Mission Officer for the Archdiocese of Denver, said in a statement that Catholic families in Colorado deserve to benefit from the UPK program’s 15 hours of free preschool per week at the school of their choice.

“Our preschools exist to help parents who want an education rooted in the Catholic faith for their children,” Elmer said.  “All we ask is for the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that's available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.”

Becket Law expects the SCOTUS to decide whether to take the case early next year.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Judge Orders Public Schools in Texas to Remove 10 Commandments

Last week, a federal judge ordered 14 public schools in North Texas to remove the Ten Commandments from display.  US District Judge Orlando Luis Garcia, a Clinton appointee, said the Texas law violates the Establishment Clause.

The anti-American American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of several Texas families seeking to remove the Ten Commandments from some public schools.  The lawsuit was filed after Texas passed a law requiring schools to display the Ten Commandments.

The ACLU celebrated the Clinton judge’s decision.  “Once again, a federal court has recognized that the Constitution bars public schools from forcing religious scripture on students,” said Daniel Mach, the director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, according to CBS.  “This decision is a victory for religious liberty and a reminder that government officials shouldn’t pay favorites with faith.”

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction requiring certain public school districts in Texas to remove Ten Commandments displays by December 1.  The districts would also be prohibited from posting new displays, according to the federal injunction.  Fort Worth, Arlington, McKinney, Frisco, Northwest, Rockwall and Mansfield school districts are included in the 14 impacted districts.

In September, a group of Texas families, represented by the ACLU, sued to stop public school districts from displaying the Ten Commandments in classrooms, claiming it violates religious freedom and the separation of church and state.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that he is suing rogue ISD officials who disregarded the will of Texas voters.  “These rogue ISD officials and board members blatantly disregarded the will of Texas voters who expect the legal and moral heritage of our state to be displayed in accordance with the law,” Paxton said on X.  “This lawsuit makes clear that no district may ignore Texas law without consequence,” Paxton said.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Growing Underground Church in Gaza

Israel welcomes the UN’s acceptance of President Trump’s plan for Gaza, which includes a multinational stabilization force.  The plan assigns this force to work alongside Israel, Egypt, and newly-trained Palestinian police to secure the region and disarm Hamas.

Hamas rejects the UN resolution, saying the newly-created force aligns with Israeli objectives.  The group told Reuters: “Assigning the international force with tasks and roles inside the Gaza Strip, including disarming the resistance, strips it of its neutrality, and turns it into a party to the conflict in favor of the occupation.”

Underground Christians aren’t waiting for stability to make disciples in Gaza.  Although he cannot discuss details here for security reasons, “Disciple makers go in, and they are making disciples there,” name withheld with Global Catalytic Ministries says.  “We’re not just sending in relief workers who are going to leave in a few weeks,” he adds.  “We’re looking for a movement of God, and we really want to make sure that Jesus is proclaimed on this strip of land – on His strip of land.”

Gaza’s underground Church is hanging on, despite two years of war taking a heavy toll on the above-ground Church.  Of Gaza’s 1,000 known believers, fewer than 600 remain.

“Above-ground churches are allowed in these places, but very limited; there’s a big Catholic presence.  Our network is all either Israeli-background believers or Muslim-background believers who operate underground,” name withheld says.  “They wouldn’t traditionally be going to above-ground churches and revealing their identities in that way, because that could blow their cover.  We always try to operate within and share Jesus with Muslims.”

Pray for open and receptive hearts as disciple makers offer the hope of Christ to Muslims in Gaza.

“It’s just very dark, and there’s so much trauma and so much pain.  This is traditionally where people cry out to the Lord the most from the depths of their souls,” name withheld says.  “And then God does answer – in that place of desperation is when He moves the most.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Abortion Lobby Is Coming

Christians from countries that are safely pro-life now cannot presume they will stay that way, says pro-life campaigner Dr. Calum Miller.

Miller, an apologist and research fellow in bioethics at the University of Oxford, delivered a sobering assessment of the enormous strides made by the abortion movement globally in the last few decades in a recent address to the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) general assembly.  He warned that even in socially conservative countries, or majority Christian, attitudes are rapidly changing.  One example of this is the Philippines, where research on young people that he was involved in last year found that 70% support legalizing abortion.

In the 11 years between the WEA’s 2008 general assembly in Thailand and its following global gathering in Indonesia in 2019, he noted that some 27 countries had liberalized their abortion laws. One of them was Ireland, where, in 2013, only a third of the population said they supported abortion. Just five years later, two-thirds of the population voted to legalize it, including 85% of young people.

“This rapid generational shift is coming for the Global South as well,” Miller said, warning that the liberalizing trend was spreading at a “frightening pace in every region across the world.”  “You might think that your country is a strongly conservative, Christian country, but the likely reality is that millions of dollars are pouring into your country to pressure your legislators and your young people to promote abortion,” he said.

Just some of the countries under pressure to loosen their abortion laws are Nigeria, Poland, Chile, Brazil, Haiti and Liberia.

The WEA’s general assembly took place across five days at SaRang Church in the South Korean capital of Seoul.  Miller said it was sobering to meet in the country with the lowest birth rate in the world and at a time when its legislators were pushing for the legalization of abortion up to birth.  “Whether you live in the most conservative or the most liberal country in the world, this is something that will destroy the future of all of our countries,” he said.  “Outside of Africa and the Pacific Islands, almost no countries have enough children even to survive.”

He said he was praying that Evangelicals would work together toward “a profound moment of change, a moment for the people of God to choose life, not only in our own lives and in our churches but for our nations as well.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Christians Fight Back in the UK

Christian leaders across the United Kingdom (UK) are sounding the alarm as government policies threaten to silence biblical truth and erase the nation’s Christian foundation.  The issue at hand this time is a proposed ban on “conversion therapy” – a term for helping someone get rid of unwanted same-sex attraction.

In an open letter to Equalities Minister Olivia Bailey, twenty-four church leaders boldly argued that the draft law could criminalize prayer, pastoral care, and even sharing the gospel.  “[The proposed ban implies] that merely expressing Christian beliefs on sexuality and gender in prayer and pastoral conversations constitutes ‘conversion therapy’ and should be outlawed,” the leaders state.

The government has promised to push this ban through as a top priority, but critics say it’s proving impossible to draft a bill that accomplishes what they see as protection for LGBT people while simultaneously upholding basic religious freedoms.  Church leaders fear the legislation would leave parents and pastors vulnerable to prosecution for simply sharing the Bible’s stance on issues of sexuality and identity.

As political leaders debate how far to go in restricting faith-based counseling, Christian theologians and public figures are calling believers to take a stand for truth.  Dozens of Christian leaders gathered in London to sign the 2025 Westminster Declaration, a bold manifesto urging the “re-Christianisation of Britain.”  The declaration defends freedom of belief, the sanctity of human life, and the biblical understanding of sex and family.

The appeal is essentially a call for the return to Britain’s Christian heritage.  The document is meant to provide “moral clarity to public life in the UK … and core conviction on life, marriage and family, education, and the common good.”  It also warns that by abandoning Christian foundations, Britain has “endangered human life, weakened society, and created a fragmented nation uncoupled from its formative traditions.”

Fiona Bruce is a former government envoy for religious freedom and a member of the 2025 Westminster Declaration launch committee.  She described UK’s situation as a spiritual battle and is eager to see young Christians enter politics—not just to resist moral decline, but to bring biblical truth back into the nation’s conscience.  Bruce’s ultimate goal? To “see Christian principles brought back into society, and society changed.”

Former BBC journalist Robin Aitken hopes the declaration will turn the UK back to Christ. “What today is about is nothing less than the re-Christianisation of Britain … If that sounds ambitious, it is.  There has never been and will never be a better blueprint for human flourishing and happiness than the rules laid out for us by God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.”

These two developments reveal the sharp divide in Britain today: one side seeking to silence biblical truth in the name of tolerance, and the other boldly proclaiming that the Gospel is still the only hope for a lost nation.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Liberal Protestant Churches Proclaim “Holiness” of Transgenderism

Several liberal Protestant and Jewish denominations recently declared transgenderism “holy” in direct rebuke of a vote by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to bar transgender procedures in Catholic healthcare facilities.

“During a time when our country is placing their lives under increasingly serious threat, there is a disgraceful misconception that all people of faith do not affirm the full spectrum of gender — a great many of us do,” read the statement which included signatures of leaders from the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ (UCC), the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Union for Reform Judaism, an association of Quakers and others.

“Let it be known instead that our beloveds are created in the image of God — Holy and whole,” the statement said of transgender-identifying individuals.

“Our scriptures vary, but they share a common conviction,” the statement continued.  “As we make justice our aim, we must give voice to those who are silenced.  Our shared values, held across many faiths, teach us that we are all children of God and that we must cultivate a discipline of hope, especially in difficult times.”

The statement went on to suggest that opposing transgenderism is sinful, reiterating the belief that transgender, nonbinary and intersex individuals are intrinsically holy, which is the only attribute of God magnified to the third degree of repetition in the Bible.

“As such, we raise our voices in solidarity to unequivocally proclaim the holiness of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people, as well as the recognition of the entire spectrum of gender identity and expression,” the statement said.

“When people of faith and conscience stay silent in the face of oppression, we are all made less whole. When people of faith and conscience speak out against that which violates the sacred in its own name, we have the power to stay the hand of sin.”

“Transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people are vulnerable today.  Our faiths, our theologies, and our practices of prophetic witness call on us to say with one voice to transgender people among us: ‘You are holy.  You are sacred.  We love you.  We support you, and we will protect you.’ ”

According to a press release, the statement was primarily penned by the Rev. Sofía Betancourt, who represents the Unitarian Universalist Association, a belief system that emerged in the 19th century from a denial of the Trinity, original sin, and damnation.  Betancourt identifies “as a queer, multiracial, AfroLatine [sic] first-generation daughter of immigrants from Chile and Panamá,” and has taught at Yale Divinity School, according to her biography.  Her courses focus on “ministerial leadership, theologies, womanism and Earth justice, and combatting [sic] oppression.”

The statement from the liberal religious leaders came in response to U.S. Catholic bishops effectively banning transgender procedures at Catholic hospitals by overwhelmingly approving revisions to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, which govern the extensive network of Catholic healthcare facilities nationwide.

The vote came after years of deliberation and builds on prior Vatican guidance, as well as a 2023 USCCB doctrinal note titled “Moral Limits to the Technological Manipulation of the Human Body.”  The note outlined moral limits on body-altering technologies, drawing on Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia and the Vatican’s Dignitas Infinita, which affirmed human dignity.

“Catholic health care services must not perform interventions, whether surgical or chemical, that aim to transform the sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex, or take part in the development of such procedures,” the bishops said in the 2023 doctrinal note.

More than one in seven patients in the U.S. is treated at a Catholic hospital, especially in rural areas, according to the Catholic Health Association.

During public discussion over the directives, Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, who chairs the USCCB’s Committee on Laity, Family, Youth, and Young Adults, emphasized the moral gravity of the decision before the prelates. “With regard to the gender ideology, I think it’s very important the church makes a strong statement here,” he said, according to The Associated Press.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Why We Cannot “Agree to Disagree” With the Left

Jeffrey Trimbath who serves as President of the Maryland Family Institute, sat next to a successful business leader at a dinner recently.  Their conversation turned to the bitterly divided nature of our politics and culture.  He lamented this polarization, and the often mean and disrespectful ways people treat each other, especially online.

“I’ve never engaged in social media,” he proclaimed proudly, as if abstaining were the solution to our national malaise.  He also fondly looked back at Ronald Reagan as the example of a statesman who adhered to principle whilst engaging opponents.  At the twilight of his career, this businessman longed for a more bipartisan and congenial past.

I share his respect for civility.  Treating others with dignity is essential, rooted in the truth that every person is created in the image and likeness of God, and is therefore worthy of respect.  That divine image, no matter how marred by sin, grounds our commitment to due process, equal justice, and legal representation for all.

But civility, while necessary, is not sufficient.  Why?  Two reasons:

First, our worldviews are now profoundly incompatible.  As John Stonestreet has observed, we often describe the same issue in completely opposite terms.  The other side calls it “gender-affirming care,” but we call it mutilation.  The other side calls it “reproductive health,” but we call it the killing of an innocent unborn human life.  Our side prizes colorblind meritocracy; the other side dismisses it as privilege.  These differences aren’t minor policy disputes or disagreements.  These are issues in opposing moral universes.  These are not objective moral positions with room for compromise.  How can we “agree to disagree” when one side says the sky is blue and the other insists it’s green?  With our differences so binary, it's hard to imagine we can even say that we can “agree to disagree.”

Second, objective truth itself has been replaced by identity and emotion.  Shortly before his passing, theologian Voddie Baucham noted that we no longer argue from philosophy or moral reasoning, but from “lived experience.”  To question someone’s beliefs or otherwise subjective opinions is now seen as questioning their very identity.

Saying that transgenderism is wrong now earns you the label “transphobic” and is deemed unworthy of engagement.  And in this new moral calculus, words that offend identity are treated as “violence,” justifying real violence in response.  Responding to them with real violence becomes logical and justified.  The latest example of this, of course, is Charlie Kirk, whose alleged murderer confessed his motivation for committing the act was to silence a viewpoint that he deemed “hatred.”  He said, “some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

And in the U.K., it is now against the law to pray silently outside an abortion clinic; officials view even quiet prayer as a threat to women.

No amount of civility can bridge this divide.  Only redemption and revival can.

God’s people need a spiritual revival that gives them the courage to speak the objective truth, love enemies, and hold conviction over social and personal comfort.

So how do we move forward?

First, reject the myth that civility alone can heal our culture.  It’s often used as a weapon to shame Christians into silence.  Yes, we must speak truth in love, but biblical love compels us to speak objective truth, not to suppress it.

Second, civility is good.  But courage and truth are better.  Christ-followers should not believe that politeness alone can heal our culture.  Many use civility as a tool to silence people of faith.  We must speak truth with love because real love never hides the truth.

This conflict is spiritual, not only cultural.  Jesus told us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.  There are actual enemies of the Christian faith who want to see us silenced, either temporarily or permanently.

Yes, we face real opposition.  But we do not need to fear it.  God calls us to stand firm, speak truth clearly, and live faithfully according to His Word.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Wisconsin Seeks to End Religious Tax Exemption

Wisconsin is looking to eliminate a religious tax exemption altogether rather than grant one to a Catholic charity organization that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in June could not be denied the benefit.

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a remedial brief the other week before the state supreme court in relation to the case brought by the Catholic Charities Bureau, writing that the U.S. Supreme Court "did not prescribe a particular remedy" when siding with the charity earlier in June over its bid for an exemption from the state's unemployment insurance program.

Kaul, a Democrat, argued that only two options were available: "expanding the statutory exemption to groups like Catholic Charities" or "eliminating it altogether."  "And over the past 50 years, the Legislature has consistently expanded the universe of nonprofit employers that must participate in the unemployment system. Enlarging this exemption would reverse that trend," he stated.  "By striking the exemption, this Court can avoid collateral damage to Wisconsin workers while still curing the discrimination the U.S. Supreme Court identified.  It should so hold, thereby bringing this long-running case to a close."

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor Review Commission et al. that the Catholic charity group can be exempted from an unemployment insurance program even though the state deemed its services nonreligious.  The decision vacated an earlier ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and sent the case back to the lower court level for further deliberation.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is helping to represent Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB), filed a supplemental brief denouncing the request to remove the tax exemption fully, arguing that “Wisconsin long ago forfeited any claim to request that Catholic Charities' remedy be anything other than receiving the exemption.”

“Wisconsin should have raised that issue well before reversal and remand by the United States Supreme Court,” the supplemental brief states.  “It should have made those arguments in a timely fashion so that this Court and the United States Supreme Court had an opportunity to evaluate them.”

CCB is an umbrella organization comprising multiple charitable groups within the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior.

In 2016, CCB asked the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (WDWD) for a religious exemption from paying into Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program.

WDWD declined the request, arguing that the Catholic group was not primarily religious in nature. CCB appealed to an administrative law judge, who reversed the earlier ruling.  The department then petitioned the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, which ruled against CCB, arguing that they did not qualify for a religious exemption.

In March 2024, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that CCB was “not operated primarily for religious purposes” and therefore ineligible for the religious exemption.  “CCB and the sub-entities, which are organized as separate corporations apart from the church itself, neither attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees,” wrote Justice Ann Walsh Bradley for the majority.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of CCB, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor authoring the court’s opinion, which concluded that the Catholic charity could not be denied the exemption because its work was considered secular.  Sotomayor noted that any “law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination” and that “differentiation on theological lines is fundamentally foreign to our constitutional order.”

“It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain ‘neutrality between religion and religion,’ ” wrote Sotomayor.  “There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

At What Age Is It Morally Permissible to Kill the Unborn?

The question is, of course, is not serious.  It illustrates an important point.  Whatever else it is, an abortion is the killing of a child, usually with the consent of the mother, and often of the father.

Some people think that it’s okay to have an abortion because the unborn baby is merely a mass of cells.  Apparently, they think that the massy blob of cells magically becomes a baby when it is born. Because of modern technology, we can now see that the unborn baby is much more than just a blob of cells; it has a human structure from the beginning. This has affected some people’s thinking on the issue.  However, even if it were the case that unborn babies were just a mass of cells that magically transformed into a baby at birth, this would not change the fact that this human being is someone’s child.

Others seem to think that it is okay to have an abortion when the baby is young, but at some point, it becomes murder and should be banned.  Indeed, many people believe this.  

Well, I will argue that because the baby is a human being and the child of the mother and father, it is wrong to kill him/her at any time.

It is sometimes argued that killing an unborn baby is not homicide, because it is not a person.  Whether that is true or false depends upon how the word “person” is defined.  If we take the view that a person is someone with the ability to reason, then unborn babies, born babies at the earlier stages of development, some people in comas, and people in an advanced stage of Alzheimer’s are not persons. If we count a person as being a member of the human species that is in the normal process of development, then our unborn babies are persons.  But whether we count an unborn baby as a person or not, it is indisputably a human being.

With the “not a person” argument, the question then becomes, “at what stage is a human being considered a person?  Therefore, up to which point would it be morally permissible to kill a human being?”

A “human being” is different from merely being human.  A person’s hair is human, as is a skin tag. Every cell in a human being’s body is human.  But the individual cells are not human beings.

When the abortion controversy began in earnest about 65 or so years ago, it was sometimes said that abortions would be legal only in the so-called hard cases, like deformity, rape, and so on.  Some years later, it was sometimes said that it would be legal only during the first months of pregnancy, and that no one was thinking about making it legal in the later months.  At present, abortion on demand is legal in some states, until the moment of birth.  Once the principle is established that it is okay to kill an innocent human being, it becomes increasingly difficult to declare a definite time for when it is wrong to kill.

When thinking about abortion, people seem to have one of two different intuitive reactions to it.  One is to think that the unborn baby at some stage is not developed enough, and that therefore there is nothing morally wrong in killing it.  People with this intuition consider themselves “pro-choice.”  Many of this group would agree that at some point in the pregnancy, it becomes morally wrong to kill the unborn baby.  Others will perhaps think that there is no wrongness in killing delivered infants up to some stages of development after birth.

People with the other intuitive reaction are known as anti-abortionists, or pro-lifers.  They believe that the baby in utero is a human being and that, therefore, it is morally wrong to kill him/her no matter what his/her state of development is, except perhaps for some extreme set of circumstances, in which case it is at best just the lesser of evils.

It cannot be that both intuitions are right.  Either the pro-choice stance is wrong, or the pro-life stance is.

There may be two different strategies that the pro-abortionist may take in attempting to justify killing unborn babies.  One is to say that the more developed a baby is, the less plausible or acceptable it is to kill it.  The other approach is that there is some point of change in the baby that justifies the permissibility of killing it.  Neither argument succeeds.

Regarding the first, the general idea is that a human being’s value increases with development.  As a newly fertilized egg, it has low value.  The value increases with the growth of the baby, becoming more valuable as the fetus grows and develops, until the point at which it is born.  The value increases in life, until in old age, when it decreases as the person loses different abilities.  Thus, we see a demand for abortion, killing unborn babies, and euthanasia — the killing of old people and the seriously ill and handicapped.  This is reminiscent of Hitler’s extermination of the infirm and handicapped.

There are, clearly, several problems with this view.  Here, I wish to show that there is a confusion of “value” as it relates to the intrinsic value of a human being.  First, even granting for the sake of argument that people gradually accrue some sort of value with development and the gaining of abilities, there is, in a deeper sense, the value that they have from being human.  Each person is still one being, one human being, from beginning to end.  How does one determine the notion that, at some point in this growth, there is a time when killing this human being is morally permissible?  Simply put, one can’t.  Some countries or states have laws that permit abortion up to a certain period, like 5 months or some other gestational age.  Yet assigning such a time element is arbitrary. For example, take 5 months.  The day before the 6-month mark, the baby is just as much a living human being as he/she is one day later.  At this one point, this one day, the situation passes from permissible homicide to impermissible.  Just the passage of time and the growth of the individual give no clue as to when the “value” changes such that terminating a life becomes murder.  It is absurd to say, for example, that at 3 months and 16 days it is okay to kill the baby, but at 3 months and 17 days it is not.  Even if there were some such time, it is impossible for us to know it, and hence all such permissions and restrictions are arbitrary.  At every stage of development, the baby is still a human being and the mother’s and father’s child.

Some advocates of the permissibility of abortion say that at some point, the baby has some attribute that is a dividing line between abortion’s being morally permissible or not. Allowing abortion up to the moment of birth is the same state of affairs.  A baby an hour before birth is not essentially different than a baby one hour after birth.  Yet in some areas, such as Michigan, it is lawful to kill the unborn, yet killing it after it is born is first-degree murder.  This thinking apparently makes sense to some people. Nevertheless, here we also see a movement to legalize infanticide, at least in some cases. Regardless, in all these cases, what is being done is the deliberate destruction of a human being.

Suppose one takes the view that it is morally acceptable to kill an unborn baby up to one point in development, where some sort of change occurs.  When is the stopping point, and how can one know what it is?  Several other defining qualities have been proposed besides “reason.”  One is viability — that it is wrong to kill the baby only when it can live outside the womb.  Besides the fact that determining if a baby can survive outside its mother’s womb is dependent upon the technology available, there is no reason for viability to be the stopping point.  What does this have to do with whether or not the baby is a human being?  The definition of being human does not depend upon being able to survive on one’s own.

The baby’s life is on a continuum, where there is steady growth.  At any point where there is a change in the being of the baby, it is still on a continuum of life.  Even when a major change occurs in the development of the baby, it is still the baby, a living human being, that is undergoing the change.

Another idea is that abortion is permissible until the time that the baby becomes conscious. However, we do not know when consciousness exists in an unborn baby, though at some stage of development, consciousness seems obvious.  Besides the fact that we do not know when the baby becomes conscious, and may never know, why is consciousness the stopping point for permissible abortions? The question of relevance is still there.  This is like the notion that abortion is only wrong if the baby can reason.  The question is, why is being conscious, at whatever level, the key to permissible abortion? How do we know that the baby has or has not some level of consciousness after conception? Nowadays, it seems that panpsychism, the view that fundamental physical objects are conscious, is becoming more popular.  If an electron or a quark can be thought of as being conscious, why not an embryo?  Indeed, the embryo seems much more plausible.

There is no necessity in drawing the dividing line at “consciousness,” any more than “reason” as the dividing line.  Whatever state the unborn baby is in, it is still that person. Human beings are creatures made up of a body and mind, or soul.  Our bodies are part of who we are.

It seems quite plausible that reacting to feeling pain shows consciousness.  Unborn babies are seen on ultrasound to avoid the probes during abortions.  They evidently feel pain.  However, even if there were no signs that the baby feels pain, this does not mean that he/she doesn’t feel pain, or that it is completely unconscious.  It is strange that there is uproar over cruelty to animals, or using fetal pigs for science classes, but many of those same objecting people feel nothing is wrong with terminating a human life in utero.

Other proposed points fare no better.  No matter what, an unborn baby is still a human being, and a child with two parents.  Already in the DNA, there are many genes determining the child’s personality, what color hair he/she will have, his/her ability to play sports, or to do mathematics.  Yes, the environment certainly has an impact too, but environmental factors work on what is there in the genes.

We are all conceived with inborn capacities.  It is a tragedy that for many, their capacity will never be realized.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

“Radical Islam” Massacres Christians

Evangelist Franklin Graham condemned the face of “radical Islam” in Sudan after receiving videos showing paramilitary fighters executing civilians following their capture of the city of el-Fasher.  Graham said the footage, which includes people being shot in the head and “piles of bodies,” was too graphic to share publicly.

Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), seized el-Fasher last week, taking control of the last government-held city in Darfur after a months-long siege, The AP reported.  The RSF had already expelled Sudanese army troops from the region in recent weeks, marking a new stage in a war that has killed more than 40,000 people and displaced over 14 million.  The Sudanese government reported that more than 2,000 civilians were killed since RSF entered the city.

“This is the face of radical Islam.  We’ve been working in Sudan for over 30 years, and our hearts break for this country,” Graham, the president of Samaritan’s Purse and son of the late Rev. Billy Graham, wrote on Facebook, calling on people to pray for civilians being “murdered as you read this.”  Graham claimed RSF fighters were “just killing for the sake of killing,” calling the group’s actions evidence of radical Islam.  “A massacre is taking place in Sudan, and the world has pretty much ignored it,” he wrote.

Videos show RSF fighters carrying out executions in and around el-Fasher after taking the city from the Sudanese Armed Forces, according to the BBC, which said its reporters had verified the videos.  One clip, geolocated to a university building, showed an armed man in RSF attire shooting an unarmed man sitting among dozens of corpses.  Another video showed a fighter known as Abu Lulu opening fire on nine unarmed captives with other RSF members cheering.  BBC Verify reported that several of the executions appeared to take place outside the city, in sandy rural areas with few landmarks, but at least one video was verified to be inside el-Fasher.

Satellite images reviewed by the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab appeared to confirm the aftermath of mass killings, showing body-sized clusters in areas of the city not previously disturbed.

The United Nations coordinator for Sudan, Denise Brown, told the BBC she had received “credible reports of summary executions” of unarmed men in el-Fasher following the RSF’s entry.  Killings of unarmed civilians or surrendering combatants violate the Geneva Convention and are classified as war crimes.

The United Kingdom-based Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) is calling for “urgent international action” amid reports of civilian atrocities.  “The images and reporting emerging from El Fasher are horrific,” CSW’s Founder President Mervyn Thomas said in a statement.  “Images of RSF fighters humiliating, torturing and killing civilians are just a snapshot of the devastating violence that civilians in El Fasher have been enduring for the past 18 months and are now being subjected to without any protection.  We are also deeply disturbed by the number of RSF fighters who appear to be children recruited to perpetrate unimaginable violence.  CSW calls on the international community to ensure the protection of Tawila, where many have fled, and to insist on unhindered humanitarian access to the region.”

The RSF, led by Gen. Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti, emerged from the Janjaweed militia that terrorized non-Arab populations in the Darfur genocide during the early 2000s.  The militia’s founder, Sudan’s former President Omar al-Bashir, was indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide in 2009, the AP reported.  Dagalo, a native of Darfur from an Arab camel-trading family, expanded the RSF by incorporating Arab militias and financing the group through livestock and gold mining.  His forces grew to an estimated 100,000 fighters and took part in conflicts in Yemen and Libya, often with backing from Gulf nations, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The Sudanese army has filed a case at the International Court of Justice accusing the UAE of breaching the Genocide Convention by supporting the RSF.  The UAE rejected the case as a “publicity stunt.”  The army also accused Libyan commander Khalifa Haftar of aiding the RSF with weapons and troops.

Since the fall of al-Bashir in 2019, Dagalo has acted as a central power broker in Sudan, including playing a leading role in a military coup and the collapse of a transitional government.  The current war began in 2023 after the breakdown of a fragile alliance between Dagalo’s RSF and Sudanese army chief Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan.  Both factions have replenished their ranks using foreign weapons and fighters.  The RSF has launched drone strikes on army positions across Sudan using technology sourced from countries such as Turkey, China, Iran, and Russia.

The RSF’s latest offensive into Darfur has stoked fears of Sudan’s disintegration.  The group has declared its intention to form a parallel government in the areas under its control, including large parts of Darfur and Kordofan.  The RSF had previously retreated from Khartoum, Sudan’s capital, but resumed attacks there earlier this year.

As of last week, the Sudanese army controls most of the country’s north and east, including Khartoum, while the RSF holds nearly all of Darfur and parts of Kordofan.  The RSF’s predecessor, the Janjaweed, committed mass killings in the same region between 2003 and 2005, and many of those fighters are believed to have joined the current force, BBC reported.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel