3Stories - March 23, 2026

Following the lead of the British House of Commons, the House of Lords has now voted, as part of a Crime and Policing Bill, to decriminalize abortion.  That's according to GBNews.com, which reported: "The amendment included a clause to change the law to decriminalise abortions for any reason, including if women did not want to have a child of a certain sex - and at any point up to and during birth."  The article related:

...Catherine Robinson, spokeswoman for pro-life group Right to Life, said the "abortion up to birth" clause is "one of the most extreme pieces of legislation ever to pass the House of Commons and the House of Lords".

"It is a travesty that such an enormous and terrible legislative change, which will directly endanger the lives of unborn babies well beyond the point at which they would be able to survive outside the womb, as well as the lives of their mothers, has been allowed to happen," she added.

The report went on to say that, "Abortion in England and Wales currently remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother’s life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability."  It added, "Under the amendment voted through in the Commons last year, it would remain the case that medics or others who facilitate an abortion after the 24-week time limit could still face prosecution if the change becomes law."

This vote in the House of Lords and the rejection of pro-life amendments means that in-home abortions would be allowed, without penalty, throughout a pregnancy, according to Evangelical Focus, which said that the House of Lords voted "to reject an amendment to the bill that would have removed clause 206 – the part of the text that allows abortions beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks to no longer be considered a crime."  That article notes: "In effect, therefore, any abortion carried out outside a medical practice will go unpunished."  The other amendment, also defeated, would have required a consultation at a "medical centre" prior to an abortion.

Last week, the President's Religious Liberty Commission met in Washington, following the removal of a former beauty pageant winner who had engaged in inappropriate comments at the previous meeting that were highly critical of Israel and Zionism.  This came at a meeting at which that was the subject.  A Muslim advisory board member to the committee resigned in response to that removal.

This seems to have been a case in which someone was attempting to denigrate the views of many Americans, becoming an example of the type of behavior that the meeting was supposed to be vetting.

But, the work of the commission continued, as members heard from those who had experienced threats to religious freedom in the health care field.  The Daily Citizen from Focus on the Family reported that, "...the commission heard testimony from Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado, who spoke about Colorado’s law that unconstitutionally censors the speech of licensed counselors."  Chiles filed a lawsuit and her case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court a few months ago, and a decision is expected later this year.

The body also heard from Valerie Kloosterman, a physician's assistant in Michigan who was fired "after she asked for a religious accommodation from affirming statements that violated her Christian faith and medical judgement. A Michigan Health diversity representative called her 'evil' and blamed her for gender dysphoria-related suicides, telling her she could not take the Bible or her religious beliefs to work."

Gabriel Olivier is someone who had been sharing his faith publicly in a city park in Brandon, MS until he was arrested.  The city had passed an ordinance, according to First Liberty, "...that prohibited him from communicating his religious beliefs to others in a city park."  The article goes on to say, "Dissatisfied with the designated 'protest' area that was so far removed from the crowds no one could hear his message, he moved closer to the people to share his message, and City police arrested him for violating the ordinance. After paying a fine, he sued the city in federal court and challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance."

A district court had dismissed the case, and it was not reinstated by a federal appeals court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously to send the case back to the district level for a trial.  The court's opinion, authored by liberal Justice Kagan, stated:

...Olivier is seeking … ‘wholly prospective’ relief—’only to be free from prosecutions for future violations’ of the city ordinance.  With this understanding, the Court held Olivier is free “to sue under §1983 to enjoin future prosecutions under the city ordinance, despite his prior conviction.” To hold otherwise would place Olivier in a “dilemma,” he would have to either “flout the law and risk another prosecution, or else forego speech he believes is constitutionally protected.”