News

Published: 30 April 2020

Another US city has reversed its unconstitutional ban on drive-in church services.

In response to the city of Chattanooga ceasing the ban, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing an area church voluntarily dismissed a federal lawsuit that challenged the ban.

Initially the city’s stay-at-home order did not ban drive-in churches, but subsequently Mayor Andrew Berke announced right before Easter that his order specifically prohibited them.

On April 9, Berke posted a message aimed at churches stating that “drive-in services…even in their cars with the windows rolled up, for any length of time, will be considered a violation of our shelter-in-place directive.”

A number of churches in the area were forced to cancel drive-in Easter services.

“Singling out churches for special punishment makes no sense and is very clearly unconstitutional,” said ADF Senior Counsel Ryan Tucker, director of the ADF Center for Christian Ministries.

“It never made any sense that, in Chattanooga, you could sit in your car at a drive-in restaurant, but you couldn’t sit in your car at a drive-in church service.

“We commend the city for changing its policies and respecting the constitutionally protected freedoms of area congregations, which can now participate in alternate versions of worship during this pandemic that are specifically designed to comply with all applicable health and safety recommendations.”

Now that Pastor Steve Ball and Metro Tab Church have been permitted to host drive-in services, the church has been able to not only safely hold worship services but receive donations for victims of a tornado that affected the city.’

On Monday April 27, US Attorney General William Barr issued a memo that instructed federal prosecutors to identify coronavirus-related measures “that could be violating the constitutional rights and civil liberties of individual citizens.”

“If a state or local ordinance crosses the line from an appropriate exercise of authority to stop the spread of COVID-19 into an overbearing infringement of constitutional and statutory protections, the Department of Justice may have an obligation to address that overreach in federal court,” the memo read.

Published: 28 April 2020

Wesley J. Smith has criticised a Dutch Supreme Court decision that allows doctors to perform euthanasia on people with advanced dementia.

The decision extended euthanasia to patients who have previously put their desires in writing but are no longer able to confirm them because of their illness.

“The ruling is a landmark in Dutch euthanasia legislation which up to now had required patients to confirm euthanasia requests”, said Smith.

“This had not been considered possible for mentally incapacitated patients like advanced dementia sufferers.”

Smith noted that a media story failed to mention that the woman at the centre of the case fought against being killed.

“Nor does the story mention that the doctor had drugged the woman before starting to euthanize her, and that the doctor instructed the family to hold the struggling woman down so that she could administer the lethal injection.

“Moreover, the patient had also stated in her instructions that she wanted to decide ‘when’ the time for death had come — which she never did. The termination ‘choice’ was made by the doctor and/or family in violation of the patient’s advance directive.”

Published: 28 April 2020

Many countries with euthanasia are freezing end-of-life requests and are instead prioritizing palliative care – a response that exposes what true care is about, according to a Dutch ethicist.

In the Netherlands, the sole dedicated clinic for euthanasia and assisted suicide has closed since March, and has admitted in a statement, “euthanasia care cannot be identified as a top priority in healthcare”.

Two euthanasia and assisted suicide clinics in Ontario have stopped providing medical assistance in dying (MAID) because of the coronavirus pandemic, according to the Globe and Mail.

Hospices in the Netherlands, Ontario and Scotland continue to remain open, and some have even begun providing palliative care to COVID-19 patients.

The lack of priority given to suicidal ‘medicine’ during this worldwide health crisis has led ethicist Professor Theo Boer to conclude that the supposed need for such poisons is abstract rather than practical.

Boer believes that the suicide clinics’ stock in trade, “the existential angst about death that seems to make euthanasia a necessary human right – has disappeared in this time of crisis. Death, in this time of war against a disease, no longer appears a comforting friend or a useful medical treatment.”

“The reality is that most people die peaceful deaths,” Boer said. “But many fear loss of control and find the prospect of others caring for them terrifying.”

“Perhaps, though, we can remember this time when we made huge sacrifices to preserve every life, no matter how frail and vulnerable. We can remember this time when euthanasia no longer seemed necessary.”

Published: 27 April 2020

Kansas Governor Laura Kelly has agreed to fix her COVID-19 mass gathering ban that unconstitutionally targets churches.

In the interim, the Governor has subjected herself to a 14-day extension of the court-imposed temporary restraining order issued against her.

The move comes as part of an agreed motion filed in case of First Baptist Church v. Kelly.

“Singling out churches for special punishment while allowing others to have greater freedom is both illogical and unconstitutional,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Ryan Tucker.

“That’s why Gov. Kelly has agreed to an extension of the temporary restraining order against her in our case, filed on behalf of two rural churches.

“It is beyond shameful that the governor is claiming that her administration has resolved this legal challenge and that ‘under the agreement, the two churches agree to comply with safety protocols put in place by the court.’

“As noted in the court’s order against her, the churches themselves created and proposed those safety protocols long ago—protocols that the governor refused to consider acceptable until the court compelled her to abide by them.

“The governor claims that she and her administration are ‘confident that we have the law on our side,’ but if this were true, the governor would not be consenting to an agreed motion that states that she ‘intends to issue a new executive order with less restrictive mass gathering provisions that will start May 4’ and abide by the court’s order against her for an additional 14 days, until May 16.

Tucker said that the ADF reserved the right to continue litigating the issue if Governor Kelly does not follow through with appropriately amending the mass gathering ban.

US Attorney-General William Barr has also warned state governments against targeting churches.