Alliance

Microsoft says it will not discriminate against religious groups after investor criticism #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: OlegRi/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 20, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).
After pushback from investors, Microsoft has signed a statement agreeing not to discriminate against religious or conservative nonprofit groups seeking a discount the tech giant offers to other nonprofits.On Oct. 10, Microsoft and Boyer Research, a group of shareholders represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal group, signed the agreement. News of the agreement was published on Nov. 14.The shareholders had planned to put forth a proposal asking Microsoft on Dec. 5 at its annual meeting for a report on the company’s discounting practices, according to Bloomberg News.   The shareholders agreed not to move forward with the proposal after Microsoft signed the agreement, which stated that nonprofits no longer needed to affirm a nondiscrimination attestation. The company also said a categorical ban on pregnancy centers would be removed.In a statement to CNA on Nov. 19, Microsoft said: “The broad and diverse array of nonprofits is one of America’s great strengths, and the purpose of this nonprofit program is to provide discounts to a broad group of organizations that qualify as nonprofits under the federal tax code. We don’t think it’s desirable to pick and choose among these organizations based on ideological orientation. In this instance, we found that a small number of organizations that should have been eligible for these discounts were not receiving them. We’ve fixed this and those organizations are now eligible.”ADF attorney Alexandra Gaiser, who represented the shareholders, told CNA that the legal group and some pregnancy centers they represent are now in “wait-and-see mode.”She said since the agreement was signed, one pregnancy center has applied for the discount and been denied, but “a couple have received the nonprofit discount.”“We are looking forward to seeing more nonprofits get the discount,” Gaiser said.Microsoft is not the only corporation alleged to have discriminatory practices against faith-based or conservative groups that ADF has contended with.ADF filed two federal lawsuits this year, one against California-based software company Asana and the other against OpenAI, makers of ChatGPT, who both agreed in settlements to give previously withheld nonprofit discounts to Holy Sexuality, a Christian nonprofit group that makes videos and courses that teach about biblical principles on human sexuality.In the settlements, both tech companies said they would remove barriers to the discounts for religious organizations, according to ADF.Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier shared a letter he sent to Microsoft on social media on Nov. 3 in which he said the state might take legal action against the company if discriminatory practices against religious groups continued.

Microsoft says it will not discriminate against religious groups after investor criticism #Catholic null / Credit: OlegRi/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Nov 20, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA). After pushback from investors, Microsoft has signed a statement agreeing not to discriminate against religious or conservative nonprofit groups seeking a discount the tech giant offers to other nonprofits.On Oct. 10, Microsoft and Boyer Research, a group of shareholders represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal group, signed the agreement. News of the agreement was published on Nov. 14.The shareholders had planned to put forth a proposal asking Microsoft on Dec. 5 at its annual meeting for a report on the company’s discounting practices, according to Bloomberg News.   The shareholders agreed not to move forward with the proposal after Microsoft signed the agreement, which stated that nonprofits no longer needed to affirm a nondiscrimination attestation. The company also said a categorical ban on pregnancy centers would be removed.In a statement to CNA on Nov. 19, Microsoft said: “The broad and diverse array of nonprofits is one of America’s great strengths, and the purpose of this nonprofit program is to provide discounts to a broad group of organizations that qualify as nonprofits under the federal tax code. We don’t think it’s desirable to pick and choose among these organizations based on ideological orientation. In this instance, we found that a small number of organizations that should have been eligible for these discounts were not receiving them. We’ve fixed this and those organizations are now eligible.”ADF attorney Alexandra Gaiser, who represented the shareholders, told CNA that the legal group and some pregnancy centers they represent are now in “wait-and-see mode.”She said since the agreement was signed, one pregnancy center has applied for the discount and been denied, but “a couple have received the nonprofit discount.”“We are looking forward to seeing more nonprofits get the discount,” Gaiser said.Microsoft is not the only corporation alleged to have discriminatory practices against faith-based or conservative groups that ADF has contended with.ADF filed two federal lawsuits this year, one against California-based software company Asana and the other against OpenAI, makers of ChatGPT, who both agreed in settlements to give previously withheld nonprofit discounts to Holy Sexuality, a Christian nonprofit group that makes videos and courses that teach about biblical principles on human sexuality.In the settlements, both tech companies said they would remove barriers to the discounts for religious organizations, according to ADF.Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier shared a letter he sent to Microsoft on social media on Nov. 3 in which he said the state might take legal action against the company if discriminatory practices against religious groups continued.


null / Credit: OlegRi/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 20, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

After pushback from investors, Microsoft has signed a statement agreeing not to discriminate against religious or conservative nonprofit groups seeking a discount the tech giant offers to other nonprofits.

On Oct. 10, Microsoft and Boyer Research, a group of shareholders represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal group, signed the agreement. News of the agreement was published on Nov. 14.

The shareholders had planned to put forth a proposal asking Microsoft on Dec. 5 at its annual meeting for a report on the company’s discounting practices, according to Bloomberg News.   

The shareholders agreed not to move forward with the proposal after Microsoft signed the agreement, which stated that nonprofits no longer needed to affirm a nondiscrimination attestation. The company also said a categorical ban on pregnancy centers would be removed.

In a statement to CNA on Nov. 19, Microsoft said: “The broad and diverse array of nonprofits is one of America’s great strengths, and the purpose of this nonprofit program is to provide discounts to a broad group of organizations that qualify as nonprofits under the federal tax code. We don’t think it’s desirable to pick and choose among these organizations based on ideological orientation. In this instance, we found that a small number of organizations that should have been eligible for these discounts were not receiving them. We’ve fixed this and those organizations are now eligible.”

ADF attorney Alexandra Gaiser, who represented the shareholders, told CNA that the legal group and some pregnancy centers they represent are now in “wait-and-see mode.”

She said since the agreement was signed, one pregnancy center has applied for the discount and been denied, but “a couple have received the nonprofit discount.”

“We are looking forward to seeing more nonprofits get the discount,” Gaiser said.

Microsoft is not the only corporation alleged to have discriminatory practices against faith-based or conservative groups that ADF has contended with.

ADF filed two federal lawsuits this year, one against California-based software company Asana and the other against OpenAI, makers of ChatGPT, who both agreed in settlements to give previously withheld nonprofit discounts to Holy Sexuality, a Christian nonprofit group that makes videos and courses that teach about biblical principles on human sexuality.

In the settlements, both tech companies said they would remove barriers to the discounts for religious organizations, according to ADF.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier shared a letter he sent to Microsoft on social media on Nov. 3 in which he said the state might take legal action against the company if discriminatory practices against religious groups continued.

Read More
Trump signs executive order prioritizing faith-based participation in foster care #Catholic 
 
 President Donald Trump signs an executive order related to foster care and foster parents on Nov. 13, 2025. / Credit: Alliance Defending Freedom

CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).
U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system, including the modernization of the current child welfare system, the development of partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs.The executive order issued Nov. 13 states that the Trump administration is “dedicated to empowering mothers and fathers to raise their children in safe and loving homes.”The order says current problems with the foster care system include overworked caseworkers, antiquated information systems, and policies that “prohibit qualified families from serving children in need as foster and adoptive parents because of their sincerely-held religious beliefs or adherence to basic biological truths.”The legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has represented Christian families who were barred from serving as foster parents because of their faith, suing on behalf of Brian and Katy Wuoti and Bryan and Rebecca Gantt after the Vermont Department for Children and Families informed the two families that their belief that persons cannot change biological sex and that marriage is only between a man and a woman precluded them from serving as foster parents in the state.Despite describing the Wuotis and the Gantts as “amazing,” “wonderful,” and “welcoming,” state officials revoked the couples’ foster care licenses after they expressed those beliefs. The state said these beliefs made them “unqualified” to parent any child, regardless of the child’s age, beliefs, or identity. ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, who represents the Wuotis, Gantts, and other Christian families who are prohibited from fostering in lawsuits in Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, told CNA that he hopes the executive order will lead to the states “prioritizing the best interests of children rather than ideological agendas.”In the face of shortages of foster families, he said the states should be “pursuing a big tent, welcoming as many loving families as possible. But they’re doing the opposite while children who need foster care are sleeping in unlicensed  group homes, police stations, and hospitals.” Trump’s executive order directs the department of Health and Human Services, the White House Faith Office, and the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to “take appropriate action to address state and local policies and practices that inappropriately prohibit participation in federally-funded child-welfare programs by qualified individuals or organizations based upon their sincerely-held religious beliefs or moral convictions.” It also directs those agencies to “increase partnerships between agencies and faith-based organizations and houses of worship to serve families” involved with the foster care system. Widmalm-Delphonse told CNA it is “difficult to say how the states will respond” to the executive order, indicating that he hopes either the order or the pending lawsuits will lead to changes in their “discriminatory” policies against families of faith.  “The path the states should take is obvious: It’s a win-win when you open up foster care to people of faith and put the interests of children first,” he said.

Trump signs executive order prioritizing faith-based participation in foster care #Catholic President Donald Trump signs an executive order related to foster care and foster parents on Nov. 13, 2025. / Credit: Alliance Defending Freedom CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA). U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system, including the modernization of the current child welfare system, the development of partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs.The executive order issued Nov. 13 states that the Trump administration is “dedicated to empowering mothers and fathers to raise their children in safe and loving homes.”The order says current problems with the foster care system include overworked caseworkers, antiquated information systems, and policies that “prohibit qualified families from serving children in need as foster and adoptive parents because of their sincerely-held religious beliefs or adherence to basic biological truths.”The legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has represented Christian families who were barred from serving as foster parents because of their faith, suing on behalf of Brian and Katy Wuoti and Bryan and Rebecca Gantt after the Vermont Department for Children and Families informed the two families that their belief that persons cannot change biological sex and that marriage is only between a man and a woman precluded them from serving as foster parents in the state.Despite describing the Wuotis and the Gantts as “amazing,” “wonderful,” and “welcoming,” state officials revoked the couples’ foster care licenses after they expressed those beliefs. The state said these beliefs made them “unqualified” to parent any child, regardless of the child’s age, beliefs, or identity. ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, who represents the Wuotis, Gantts, and other Christian families who are prohibited from fostering in lawsuits in Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, told CNA that he hopes the executive order will lead to the states “prioritizing the best interests of children rather than ideological agendas.”In the face of shortages of foster families, he said the states should be “pursuing a big tent, welcoming as many loving families as possible. But they’re doing the opposite while children who need foster care are sleeping in unlicensed  group homes, police stations, and hospitals.” Trump’s executive order directs the department of Health and Human Services, the White House Faith Office, and the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to “take appropriate action to address state and local policies and practices that inappropriately prohibit participation in federally-funded child-welfare programs by qualified individuals or organizations based upon their sincerely-held religious beliefs or moral convictions.” It also directs those agencies to “increase partnerships between agencies and faith-based organizations and houses of worship to serve families” involved with the foster care system. Widmalm-Delphonse told CNA it is “difficult to say how the states will respond” to the executive order, indicating that he hopes either the order or the pending lawsuits will lead to changes in their “discriminatory” policies against families of faith.  “The path the states should take is obvious: It’s a win-win when you open up foster care to people of faith and put the interests of children first,” he said.


President Donald Trump signs an executive order related to foster care and foster parents on Nov. 13, 2025. / Credit: Alliance Defending Freedom

CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).

U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system, including the modernization of the current child welfare system, the development of partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs.

The executive order issued Nov. 13 states that the Trump administration is “dedicated to empowering mothers and fathers to raise their children in safe and loving homes.”

The order says current problems with the foster care system include overworked caseworkers, antiquated information systems, and policies that “prohibit qualified families from serving children in need as foster and adoptive parents because of their sincerely-held religious beliefs or adherence to basic biological truths.”

The legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has represented Christian families who were barred from serving as foster parents because of their faith, suing on behalf of Brian and Katy Wuoti and Bryan and Rebecca Gantt after the Vermont Department for Children and Families informed the two families that their belief that persons cannot change biological sex and that marriage is only between a man and a woman precluded them from serving as foster parents in the state.

Despite describing the Wuotis and the Gantts as “amazing,” “wonderful,” and “welcoming,” state officials revoked the couples’ foster care licenses after they expressed those beliefs. The state said these beliefs made them “unqualified” to parent any child, regardless of the child’s age, beliefs, or identity. 

ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, who represents the Wuotis, Gantts, and other Christian families who are prohibited from fostering in lawsuits in Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, told CNA that he hopes the executive order will lead to the states “prioritizing the best interests of children rather than ideological agendas.”

In the face of shortages of foster families, he said the states should be “pursuing a big tent, welcoming as many loving families as possible. But they’re doing the opposite while children who need foster care are sleeping in unlicensed  group homes, police stations, and hospitals.” 

Trump’s executive order directs the department of Health and Human Services, the White House Faith Office, and the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to “take appropriate action to address state and local policies and practices that inappropriately prohibit participation in federally-funded child-welfare programs by qualified individuals or organizations based upon their sincerely-held religious beliefs or moral convictions.” 

It also directs those agencies to “increase partnerships between agencies and faith-based organizations and houses of worship to serve families” involved with the foster care system. 

Widmalm-Delphonse told CNA it is “difficult to say how the states will respond” to the executive order, indicating that he hopes either the order or the pending lawsuits will lead to changes in their “discriminatory” policies against families of faith.  

“The path the states should take is obvious: It’s a win-win when you open up foster care to people of faith and put the interests of children first,” he said.

Read More
Author of religious freedom report weighs in on Cardinal Parolin’s Nigeria comments #Catholic 
 
 Marta Petrosillo, editor-in-chief of the Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) Religious Freedom Report. / Credit: Gael Kerbaol/Secours Catholique

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 24, 2025 / 09:14 am (CNA).
The author of Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report, Marta Petrosillo, is coming to Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s defense after remarks he made regarding persecution of Nigerian Christians prompted pushback.Parolin sparked pushback after stating at a press conference on Tuesday that ongoing violence and unrest in Nigeria is a “social conflict” rather than a religious one. He told Vatican reporters during the presser for Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report release event: “I think they’ve already said, and some Nigerians have already said, that it’s not a religious conflict but rather a social conflict, for example, between herders and farmers.”“Let’s keep in mind that many Muslims who come to Nigeria are victims of this intolerance,” he continued.” So, these extremist groups, these groups that make no distinctions to advance their goals, their objectives, use violence against anyone they perceive as an opponent.” The remarks prompted immediate pushback, including from Sean Nelson of Alliance Defending Freedom International, who called them “particularly shocking.” Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute further characterized them as “repeating the Nigerian government’s talking points that obfuscate and downplay the persecution of the Catholic faithful and other Christians in Nigeria’s Middle Belt,” in comments to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner. As author of the report, Petrosillo weighed in on the controversy in an Oct. 23 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” telling Arroyo: “Cardinal Parolin didn’t say [the conflict was solely between farmers and herders] in his speech in our conference. His speech was really strong, underlining the importance of religious freedom.” “I know that Cardinal Parolin is one of the most important people on religious freedom,” she continued. “He has a huge knowledge on this.” Regarding the controversy that has ensued over Parolin’s comments, Petrosillo said: “I can only suppose that … it was referring to the complex situation there.” She added: “I think that this topic [is] too complex and too elaborate, just for one journalist to take one sentence outside a conference in a very rushed way. So I would not consider that as a statement from his eminence.”Petrosillo further pushed back against claims that the focus of the ACN report was to highlight Christian persecution alone, stating: “No, the focus of our report is not that Christians are the only group affected.” “In our report, we [documented] a violation of religious freedom against all the religious groups,” she told Arroyo. “Of course, in the case of Nigeria, there are specific anti-Christian incidents, but we are not saying that only Christians are targeted in Nigeria, because as I also said before, in some cases, we have also many Muslims that refuse extremist ideology ... being killed.”

Author of religious freedom report weighs in on Cardinal Parolin’s Nigeria comments #Catholic Marta Petrosillo, editor-in-chief of the Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) Religious Freedom Report. / Credit: Gael Kerbaol/Secours Catholique Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 24, 2025 / 09:14 am (CNA). The author of Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report, Marta Petrosillo, is coming to Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s defense after remarks he made regarding persecution of Nigerian Christians prompted pushback.Parolin sparked pushback after stating at a press conference on Tuesday that ongoing violence and unrest in Nigeria is a “social conflict” rather than a religious one. He told Vatican reporters during the presser for Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report release event: “I think they’ve already said, and some Nigerians have already said, that it’s not a religious conflict but rather a social conflict, for example, between herders and farmers.”“Let’s keep in mind that many Muslims who come to Nigeria are victims of this intolerance,” he continued.” So, these extremist groups, these groups that make no distinctions to advance their goals, their objectives, use violence against anyone they perceive as an opponent.” The remarks prompted immediate pushback, including from Sean Nelson of Alliance Defending Freedom International, who called them “particularly shocking.” Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute further characterized them as “repeating the Nigerian government’s talking points that obfuscate and downplay the persecution of the Catholic faithful and other Christians in Nigeria’s Middle Belt,” in comments to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner. As author of the report, Petrosillo weighed in on the controversy in an Oct. 23 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” telling Arroyo: “Cardinal Parolin didn’t say [the conflict was solely between farmers and herders] in his speech in our conference. His speech was really strong, underlining the importance of religious freedom.” “I know that Cardinal Parolin is one of the most important people on religious freedom,” she continued. “He has a huge knowledge on this.” Regarding the controversy that has ensued over Parolin’s comments, Petrosillo said: “I can only suppose that … it was referring to the complex situation there.” She added: “I think that this topic [is] too complex and too elaborate, just for one journalist to take one sentence outside a conference in a very rushed way. So I would not consider that as a statement from his eminence.”Petrosillo further pushed back against claims that the focus of the ACN report was to highlight Christian persecution alone, stating: “No, the focus of our report is not that Christians are the only group affected.” “In our report, we [documented] a violation of religious freedom against all the religious groups,” she told Arroyo. “Of course, in the case of Nigeria, there are specific anti-Christian incidents, but we are not saying that only Christians are targeted in Nigeria, because as I also said before, in some cases, we have also many Muslims that refuse extremist ideology … being killed.”


Marta Petrosillo, editor-in-chief of the Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) Religious Freedom Report. / Credit: Gael Kerbaol/Secours Catholique

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 24, 2025 / 09:14 am (CNA).

The author of Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report, Marta Petrosillo, is coming to Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s defense after remarks he made regarding persecution of Nigerian Christians prompted pushback.

Parolin sparked pushback after stating at a press conference on Tuesday that ongoing violence and unrest in Nigeria is a “social conflict” rather than a religious one. He told Vatican reporters during the presser for Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report release event: “I think they’ve already said, and some Nigerians have already said, that it’s not a religious conflict but rather a social conflict, for example, between herders and farmers.”

“Let’s keep in mind that many Muslims who come to Nigeria are victims of this intolerance,” he continued.” So, these extremist groups, these groups that make no distinctions to advance their goals, their objectives, use violence against anyone they perceive as an opponent.” 

The remarks prompted immediate pushback, including from Sean Nelson of Alliance Defending Freedom International, who called them “particularly shocking.” Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute further characterized them as “repeating the Nigerian government’s talking points that obfuscate and downplay the persecution of the Catholic faithful and other Christians in Nigeria’s Middle Belt,” in comments to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner. 

As author of the report, Petrosillo weighed in on the controversy in an Oct. 23 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” telling Arroyo: “Cardinal Parolin didn’t say [the conflict was solely between farmers and herders] in his speech in our conference. His speech was really strong, underlining the importance of religious freedom.” 

“I know that Cardinal Parolin is one of the most important people on religious freedom,” she continued. “He has a huge knowledge on this.” 

Regarding the controversy that has ensued over Parolin’s comments, Petrosillo said: “I can only suppose that … it was referring to the complex situation there.”

She added: “I think that this topic [is] too complex and too elaborate, just for one journalist to take one sentence outside a conference in a very rushed way. So I would not consider that as a statement from his eminence.”

Petrosillo further pushed back against claims that the focus of the ACN report was to highlight Christian persecution alone, stating: “No, the focus of our report is not that Christians are the only group affected.” 

“In our report, we [documented] a violation of religious freedom against all the religious groups,” she told Arroyo. “Of course, in the case of Nigeria, there are specific anti-Christian incidents, but we are not saying that only Christians are targeted in Nigeria, because as I also said before, in some cases, we have also many Muslims that refuse extremist ideology … being killed.”

Read More
Pregnancy centers fight California ‘censorship’ of abortion pill reversal drug #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: Zolnierek / Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 10, 2025 / 16:37 pm (CNA).
Pro-life pregnancy centers urged an appellate court to block California’s alleged “censorship” of their speech about medication designed to thwart the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone during oral arguments on Oct. 9.Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) is recommended or dispensed by pro-life pregnancy centers to prevent the completion of an abortion shortly after a woman takes mifepristone to achieve a chemical abortion.Mifepristone works by blocking the hormone progesterone, which cuts off the unborn child’s supply of oxygen and nutrients, according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute. APR operates as a progesterone supplement that is meant to compete with mifepristone by restoring the hormone in hopes that the woman can carry her pregnancy through to birth, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Although California has not tried to prohibit use of APR or prevent medical professionals from supplying it to women, Attorney General Rob Bonta in 2023 sued five pro-life pregnancy centers for promoting the medicine, accusing them of making false and misleading claims. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not recommend the use of APR, citing insufficient evidence. Alternatively, the American Association of Pro-life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) states the literature “clearly shows that the blockade is reversible with natural progesterone.” Several pro-life pregnancy centers sued by California responded with lawsuits accusing Bonta of infringing on their First Amendment rights. Two cases were heard by a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 9.“Abortion pill reversal is a lawful and life-saving treatment,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton, who is representing the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), told the judges.“It occurs only after a conversation and informed consent from a licensed medical professional,” he said, and accused the attorney general of “trying to censor information about that so the conversation never happens.”Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president, who is representing Culture of Life Family Services (COLFS), told the judges the attorney general is motivated by “animus” toward the pro-life movement following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.“There’s no evidence on the record that anyone’s been harmed, and we’re almost 20 years into this, over 10 years at COLFS, and 400 babies born,” Breen told the judges.“There’s no consumer protection here,” he continued. “There is no consumer to be protected. Women have been choosing this. The problem is: Are they going to know that they even have the option?”Judges question California’s ‘state interest’The California attorney general’s office was represented in court by Deputy Attorney General Erica Connolly, who argued that the studies backing the safety and effectiveness of APR are insufficient.Connolly referenced an oft-cited study by George Delgado, which found that certain forms of progesterone supplements have a 64% to 68% success rate when used as an abortion pill reversal.She accused pro-life pregnancy centers of misrepresenting the study and asserted the research is “not sufficient” in supporting its conclusions because it’s a “retrospective analysis” and “not a randomized controlled study.”Judge Anthony Johnstone responded, asking: “As a matter of First Amendment doctrine, why does that matter if they’re reporting that a study says what the study says?” Johnstone also noted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs with lower effectiveness rates.Connolly alternatively argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has restricted advertisements when studies are “insufficient.”Johnstone followed up, noting that California has not regulated the procedure itself but only the speech surrounding it and asked: “Why would it require lower evidence to regulate speech about that process?”Connolly responded by saying advertisements affect the “informed consent process.” She said one cannot advertise “a treatment is safe and effective and that it does something that the scientific evidence does not establish that it does.”Both Johnstone and Judge Eric Miller also expressed concern that the attorney general’s office did not adequately demonstrate the state’s interest in regulating the speech surrounding APR. In response Connolly said the interest is in “protecting individuals from misleading commercial speech about medical treatments.”Ongoing scientific debateJudge Johnnie Rawlinson raised the point that some medical associations have declined to sign off on APR as effective, but Dalton argued that disagreements within the medical community are “exactly what the First Amendment protects.”Dalton argued Californians should be free to discuss scientific studies “without fear that the attorney general is going to silence them.” He said the First Amendment provides for “open discussion — not censorship.”

Pregnancy centers fight California ‘censorship’ of abortion pill reversal drug #Catholic null / Credit: Zolnierek / Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 10, 2025 / 16:37 pm (CNA). Pro-life pregnancy centers urged an appellate court to block California’s alleged “censorship” of their speech about medication designed to thwart the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone during oral arguments on Oct. 9.Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) is recommended or dispensed by pro-life pregnancy centers to prevent the completion of an abortion shortly after a woman takes mifepristone to achieve a chemical abortion.Mifepristone works by blocking the hormone progesterone, which cuts off the unborn child’s supply of oxygen and nutrients, according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute. APR operates as a progesterone supplement that is meant to compete with mifepristone by restoring the hormone in hopes that the woman can carry her pregnancy through to birth, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Although California has not tried to prohibit use of APR or prevent medical professionals from supplying it to women, Attorney General Rob Bonta in 2023 sued five pro-life pregnancy centers for promoting the medicine, accusing them of making false and misleading claims. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not recommend the use of APR, citing insufficient evidence. Alternatively, the American Association of Pro-life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) states the literature “clearly shows that the blockade is reversible with natural progesterone.” Several pro-life pregnancy centers sued by California responded with lawsuits accusing Bonta of infringing on their First Amendment rights. Two cases were heard by a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 9.“Abortion pill reversal is a lawful and life-saving treatment,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton, who is representing the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), told the judges.“It occurs only after a conversation and informed consent from a licensed medical professional,” he said, and accused the attorney general of “trying to censor information about that so the conversation never happens.”Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president, who is representing Culture of Life Family Services (COLFS), told the judges the attorney general is motivated by “animus” toward the pro-life movement following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.“There’s no evidence on the record that anyone’s been harmed, and we’re almost 20 years into this, over 10 years at COLFS, and 400 babies born,” Breen told the judges.“There’s no consumer protection here,” he continued. “There is no consumer to be protected. Women have been choosing this. The problem is: Are they going to know that they even have the option?”Judges question California’s ‘state interest’The California attorney general’s office was represented in court by Deputy Attorney General Erica Connolly, who argued that the studies backing the safety and effectiveness of APR are insufficient.Connolly referenced an oft-cited study by George Delgado, which found that certain forms of progesterone supplements have a 64% to 68% success rate when used as an abortion pill reversal.She accused pro-life pregnancy centers of misrepresenting the study and asserted the research is “not sufficient” in supporting its conclusions because it’s a “retrospective analysis” and “not a randomized controlled study.”Judge Anthony Johnstone responded, asking: “As a matter of First Amendment doctrine, why does that matter if they’re reporting that a study says what the study says?” Johnstone also noted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs with lower effectiveness rates.Connolly alternatively argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has restricted advertisements when studies are “insufficient.”Johnstone followed up, noting that California has not regulated the procedure itself but only the speech surrounding it and asked: “Why would it require lower evidence to regulate speech about that process?”Connolly responded by saying advertisements affect the “informed consent process.” She said one cannot advertise “a treatment is safe and effective and that it does something that the scientific evidence does not establish that it does.”Both Johnstone and Judge Eric Miller also expressed concern that the attorney general’s office did not adequately demonstrate the state’s interest in regulating the speech surrounding APR. In response Connolly said the interest is in “protecting individuals from misleading commercial speech about medical treatments.”Ongoing scientific debateJudge Johnnie Rawlinson raised the point that some medical associations have declined to sign off on APR as effective, but Dalton argued that disagreements within the medical community are “exactly what the First Amendment protects.”Dalton argued Californians should be free to discuss scientific studies “without fear that the attorney general is going to silence them.” He said the First Amendment provides for “open discussion — not censorship.”


null / Credit: Zolnierek / Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 10, 2025 / 16:37 pm (CNA).

Pro-life pregnancy centers urged an appellate court to block California’s alleged “censorship” of their speech about medication designed to thwart the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone during oral arguments on Oct. 9.

Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) is recommended or dispensed by pro-life pregnancy centers to prevent the completion of an abortion shortly after a woman takes mifepristone to achieve a chemical abortion.

Mifepristone works by blocking the hormone progesterone, which cuts off the unborn child’s supply of oxygen and nutrients, according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute. APR operates as a progesterone supplement that is meant to compete with mifepristone by restoring the hormone in hopes that the woman can carry her pregnancy through to birth, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute

Although California has not tried to prohibit use of APR or prevent medical professionals from supplying it to women, Attorney General Rob Bonta in 2023 sued five pro-life pregnancy centers for promoting the medicine, accusing them of making false and misleading claims. 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not recommend the use of APR, citing insufficient evidence. Alternatively, the American Association of Pro-life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) states the literature “clearly shows that the blockade is reversible with natural progesterone.” 

Several pro-life pregnancy centers sued by California responded with lawsuits accusing Bonta of infringing on their First Amendment rights. Two cases were heard by a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 9.

“Abortion pill reversal is a lawful and life-saving treatment,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton, who is representing the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), told the judges.

“It occurs only after a conversation and informed consent from a licensed medical professional,” he said, and accused the attorney general of “trying to censor information about that so the conversation never happens.”

Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president, who is representing Culture of Life Family Services (COLFS), told the judges the attorney general is motivated by “animus” toward the pro-life movement following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“There’s no evidence on the record that anyone’s been harmed, and we’re almost 20 years into this, over 10 years at COLFS, and 400 babies born,” Breen told the judges.

“There’s no consumer protection here,” he continued. “There is no consumer to be protected. Women have been choosing this. The problem is: Are they going to know that they even have the option?”

Judges question California’s ‘state interest’

The California attorney general’s office was represented in court by Deputy Attorney General Erica Connolly, who argued that the studies backing the safety and effectiveness of APR are insufficient.

Connolly referenced an oft-cited study by George Delgado, which found that certain forms of progesterone supplements have a 64% to 68% success rate when used as an abortion pill reversal.

She accused pro-life pregnancy centers of misrepresenting the study and asserted the research is “not sufficient” in supporting its conclusions because it’s a “retrospective analysis” and “not a randomized controlled study.”

Judge Anthony Johnstone responded, asking: “As a matter of First Amendment doctrine, why does that matter if they’re reporting that a study says what the study says?” Johnstone also noted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs with lower effectiveness rates.

Connolly alternatively argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has restricted advertisements when studies are “insufficient.”

Johnstone followed up, noting that California has not regulated the procedure itself but only the speech surrounding it and asked: “Why would it require lower evidence to regulate speech about that process?”

Connolly responded by saying advertisements affect the “informed consent process.” She said one cannot advertise “a treatment is safe and effective and that it does something that the scientific evidence does not establish that it does.”

Both Johnstone and Judge Eric Miller also expressed concern that the attorney general’s office did not adequately demonstrate the state’s interest in regulating the speech surrounding APR. In response Connolly said the interest is in “protecting individuals from misleading commercial speech about medical treatments.”

Ongoing scientific debate

Judge Johnnie Rawlinson raised the point that some medical associations have declined to sign off on APR as effective, but Dalton argued that disagreements within the medical community are “exactly what the First Amendment protects.”

Dalton argued Californians should be free to discuss scientific studies “without fear that the attorney general is going to silence them.” He said the First Amendment provides for “open discussion — not censorship.”

Read More
Washington state drops effort to make priests violate seal of confession in reporting law #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA).
Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law. A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication. Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal. In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government. “Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said. “This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit. “Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said. On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.” Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said. “In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.” “Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”

Washington state drops effort to make priests violate seal of confession in reporting law #Catholic null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA). Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law. A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication. Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal. In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government. “Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said. “This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit. “Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said. On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.” Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said. “In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.” “Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”


null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA).

Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law.

A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.

The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”

The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication.

Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.

The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal.

In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.

“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.

The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government.

“Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said.

“This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.”

Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit.

“Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said.

On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.”

Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said.

“In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”

The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.

Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.

The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.”

“Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”

Read More