Attorney General

Quebec secularism law is ‘anti-religious ideology,’ bishops tell Canada Supreme Court #Catholic Canada’s bishops told the Supreme Court of Canada that Quebec’s secularism legislation Bill 21 “denies the divine” going well beyond provincial jurisdiction by imposing an anti-religious ideology on the province.The bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law. The hearing, one of the longest in the court’s history, ran from March 23–26. The court reserved its decision, with a ruling expected later this year.The secularism law, which lower courts have twice upheld, prohibits certain public employees — such as teachers and police officers — from wearing religious symbols while at work.Toronto lawyer Phil Horgan, president and general counsel of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), argued on behalf of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), summarizing a factum that argued the “purpose and effect” of Quebec’s legislation is to “amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”Such a “drastic” change can only be made by the federal government using its authority over criminal law or its constitutional “peace, order, and good government” powers, according to the bishops’ argument.Quebec preemptively invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it drafted Bill 21 to shield it from judicial review.Federal and provincial governments can invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to temporarily prevent courts from invalidating legislation as unconstitutional.The timing and impact of the use of Charter Section 33 became a significant issue during the four days of hearings and will likely be central in the court’s analysis, Horgan told The Catholic Register.The appellants challenging Bill 21 include individual teachers directly affected by it as well as advocacy groups including the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and the Legal Committee of the Coalition Inclusion Québec. They argue Bill 21 is “ultra vires,” beyond the powers of provincial jurisdiction.In a five-minute oral argument, Horgan told the seven justices that “Canada’s existing federal constitution is pluralist and pro-religion.” Although “the doctrine of state neutrality is well established, Canada has never adopted laicity or an absolutist separation of church and state,” he said.Justice Malcolm Rowe questioned Horgan on the point, asking: “Other than the reference to the supremacy of God in the preamble to the Charter, would you direct me to the provision in the Constitution which is pro-religion?”Horgan cited Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which protects denominational school rights and privileges, and noted federal charity law recognizes religion as a public good.Horgan said he wasn’t concerned by the pushback, noting judges often ask questions “not so much to get the answers from counsel but to help … persuade other members of the bench on some of the merits of the argument.”In its factum, the CCCB said Bill 21 “turns the expression of religious belief, through the wearing of symbols, into something to be punished because such expression now conflicts with the dominant philosophical posture of laïcité.”Just as religious symbols are an illustration of underlying personal faith, “the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook from the provincial government that denies the divine,” the bishops said.Quebec has argued the notwithstanding clause disqualifies courts from weighing in on matters deemed political debates. Isabelle Brunet, a lawyer for the Quebec government, told the justices: “It is not up to a court to answer a question that doesn’t concern the courts.”Quebec received support from the attorneys general of Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, who maintain the courts should not interfere once the notwithstanding clause is invoked.Alberta and Ontario take a contrary position, arguing there is nothing in the notwithstanding clause that precludes judicial scrutiny of legislation.Guy J. Pratte, a lawyer for the attorney general of Canada, said Section 33 gives legislatures the power to override Charter rights but does not nullify the rights altogether or prevent judges from issuing an opinion if freedoms are violated.‘Imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology’The following excerpts are from the factum submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Canadian bishops:“The purpose and effect of the act is unilaterally to amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”“When a province makes itself laïc, it is adopting a non-neutral stance on religion. The provinces do not have that power.”“Québec is attempting to impose an atheistic posture on religious believers.”“Our constitution is founded on a political theory that sees fundamental rights and freedoms as God-given. To adopt an expressly anti-religious viewpoint, as the act purports to do, is an amendment of our existing federal constitution.”“In the place of a genuinely neutral, pluralist, and pro-religious approach, the act substitutes an anti-religious constitutional settlement where symbols of religion worn by individuals are not permitted.”“Just as religious symbols manifest an underlying personal faith, the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook … that denies the divine.”This story was first published by The B.C. Catholic and is reprinted here with permission.
Read More

Quebec secularism law is ‘anti-religious ideology,’ bishops tell Canada Supreme Court #Catholic Canada’s bishops told the Supreme Court of Canada that Quebec’s secularism legislation Bill 21 “denies the divine” going well beyond provincial jurisdiction by imposing an anti-religious ideology on the province.The bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law. The hearing, one of the longest in the court’s history, ran from March 23–26. The court reserved its decision, with a ruling expected later this year.The secularism law, which lower courts have twice upheld, prohibits certain public employees — such as teachers and police officers — from wearing religious symbols while at work.Toronto lawyer Phil Horgan, president and general counsel of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), argued on behalf of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), summarizing a factum that argued the “purpose and effect” of Quebec’s legislation is to “amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”Such a “drastic” change can only be made by the federal government using its authority over criminal law or its constitutional “peace, order, and good government” powers, according to the bishops’ argument.Quebec preemptively invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it drafted Bill 21 to shield it from judicial review.Federal and provincial governments can invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to temporarily prevent courts from invalidating legislation as unconstitutional.The timing and impact of the use of Charter Section 33 became a significant issue during the four days of hearings and will likely be central in the court’s analysis, Horgan told The Catholic Register.The appellants challenging Bill 21 include individual teachers directly affected by it as well as advocacy groups including the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and the Legal Committee of the Coalition Inclusion Québec. They argue Bill 21 is “ultra vires,” beyond the powers of provincial jurisdiction.In a five-minute oral argument, Horgan told the seven justices that “Canada’s existing federal constitution is pluralist and pro-religion.” Although “the doctrine of state neutrality is well established, Canada has never adopted laicity or an absolutist separation of church and state,” he said.Justice Malcolm Rowe questioned Horgan on the point, asking: “Other than the reference to the supremacy of God in the preamble to the Charter, would you direct me to the provision in the Constitution which is pro-religion?”Horgan cited Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which protects denominational school rights and privileges, and noted federal charity law recognizes religion as a public good.Horgan said he wasn’t concerned by the pushback, noting judges often ask questions “not so much to get the answers from counsel but to help … persuade other members of the bench on some of the merits of the argument.”In its factum, the CCCB said Bill 21 “turns the expression of religious belief, through the wearing of symbols, into something to be punished because such expression now conflicts with the dominant philosophical posture of laïcité.”Just as religious symbols are an illustration of underlying personal faith, “the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook from the provincial government that denies the divine,” the bishops said.Quebec has argued the notwithstanding clause disqualifies courts from weighing in on matters deemed political debates. Isabelle Brunet, a lawyer for the Quebec government, told the justices: “It is not up to a court to answer a question that doesn’t concern the courts.”Quebec received support from the attorneys general of Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, who maintain the courts should not interfere once the notwithstanding clause is invoked.Alberta and Ontario take a contrary position, arguing there is nothing in the notwithstanding clause that precludes judicial scrutiny of legislation.Guy J. Pratte, a lawyer for the attorney general of Canada, said Section 33 gives legislatures the power to override Charter rights but does not nullify the rights altogether or prevent judges from issuing an opinion if freedoms are violated.‘Imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology’The following excerpts are from the factum submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Canadian bishops:“The purpose and effect of the act is unilaterally to amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”“When a province makes itself laïc, it is adopting a non-neutral stance on religion. The provinces do not have that power.”“Québec is attempting to impose an atheistic posture on religious believers.”“Our constitution is founded on a political theory that sees fundamental rights and freedoms as God-given. To adopt an expressly anti-religious viewpoint, as the act purports to do, is an amendment of our existing federal constitution.”“In the place of a genuinely neutral, pluralist, and pro-religious approach, the act substitutes an anti-religious constitutional settlement where symbols of religion worn by individuals are not permitted.”“Just as religious symbols manifest an underlying personal faith, the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook … that denies the divine.”This story was first published by The B.C. Catholic and is reprinted here with permission.

unitedyam

The Catholic bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law.

Read More
Meta blocks AI chatbot from discussing abortion with minors #Catholic Meta blocks AI chatbot from discussing abortion with minorsMeta won’t allow its AI chatbot to discuss abortion with minors, according to a report from the progressive outlet Mother Jones.Citing internal Meta documents, Mother Jones reported that Meta’s chatbot policy guidelines for interactions with minors prevent the chatbot from advising them on “content that provides advice or opinion" about "sexual health” or offering information helping them obtain an abortion.According to the report, a Meta spokesperson disputed claims of bias, saying that “any claims of enforcement based on group affiliation or advocacy are baseless” and that the company allows "posts and ads promoting health care services like abortion, as well as discussion and debate around them, as long as they follow our policies. We also give people the opportunity to appeal decisions if they think we’ve got it wrong.”When asked about the leaked documents, a company spokesperson told EWTN News: "Our AIs are trained to engage in age-appropriate discussions with teens, and to connect them with expert resources and support when appropriate." "They provide factual information on sexual health but refrain from offering advice or opinions. We continuously review and improve our protections so that teens have access to helpful information with default safeguards in place.”The Meta spokesperson also responded to advertisement censorship claims.“Every organization and individual on our platforms is subject to the same set of rules, and any claims of enforcement based on group affiliation or advocacy are baseless," the spokesperson said. United Kingdom assisted suicide bill falters as local measures advanceA national assisted suicide bill is failing to pass in the United Kingdom this week, even as local measures advance.According to a statement by the advocacy group Right to Life UK, on Feb. 26 the national bill was “widely pronounced as dead by commentators after it was revealed that it will 'almost certainly' run out of time”In Wales, the regional parliament voted on Feb. 24 in favor of the National Health Service to oversee assisted suicide if the Terminally Ill Adults Bill passes in the House of Lords.Archbishop Mark O'Toole of Cardiff-Menevia called the vote “a sad day for Wales’s most vulnerable" in a Feb. 25 statement.The island of Jersey similarly passed a law to legalize assisted suicide in a 32-to-16 vote on Feb. 26 by members of the States Assembly. The measure applies to “mentally competent” adults with terminal illnesses and who have been residents of Jersey for 12 months. Before the bill can become law, it will need royal assent.Ohio Appeals Court upholds ban on aborted baby burial requirementOhio judges on Wednesday upheld a ban on a law requiring abortion clinics to dispose of the remains of babies via burial or cremation.The appellate court in Cincinnati upheld a lower court ruling permanently blocking the law.Ohio in 2023 passed a constitutional amendment enshrining a right to abortion.Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life Carrie Snyder condemned the decision.“It’s unfortunate, but not a surprise, that the First District Court of Appeals sided with the abortion industry to stop Ohio’s fetal remains law from taking effect. Sadly, clinics will continue treating these precious little ones like garbage to be disposed of as cheaply as possible,” Snyder said in a Feb. 26 statement. “This really underscores that abortion is not health care, and that clinics are going to do everything within their power to boost their profit margin.”A Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, meanwhile, celebrated the decision, claiming the burial law was "cruel" and "nothing more than an opportunity to shame and stigmatize" women who get abortions.Texas attorney general sues mail-in abortion company for alleged illegal shipmentsTexas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued mail-in abortion company Aid Access along with California abortionist Remy Coeytaux and abortionist and founder of Aid Access Rebecca Gomperts for allegedly illegally shipping abortion drugs to Texas.Aid Access’s website advertises its shipping to all states including Texas, according to Paxton’s press release.“These unlawful shipments have had real and devastating consequences for Texas families,” the press release read. “In 2025, a Nueces County man allegedly used abortion-inducing drugs obtained from an out-of-state provider to secretly poison his girlfriend, resulting in the death of their unborn child.”“Every unborn child is a life worth protecting,” Paxton said, adding that he will “relentlessly enforce our state’s pro-life laws against Aid Access and other radicals like it.”
Read More

Meta blocks AI chatbot from discussing abortion with minors #Catholic Meta blocks AI chatbot from discussing abortion with minorsMeta won’t allow its AI chatbot to discuss abortion with minors, according to a report from the progressive outlet Mother Jones.Citing internal Meta documents, Mother Jones reported that Meta’s chatbot policy guidelines for interactions with minors prevent the chatbot from advising them on “content that provides advice or opinion" about "sexual health” or offering information helping them obtain an abortion.According to the report, a Meta spokesperson disputed claims of bias, saying that “any claims of enforcement based on group affiliation or advocacy are baseless” and that the company allows "posts and ads promoting health care services like abortion, as well as discussion and debate around them, as long as they follow our policies. We also give people the opportunity to appeal decisions if they think we’ve got it wrong.”When asked about the leaked documents, a company spokesperson told EWTN News: "Our AIs are trained to engage in age-appropriate discussions with teens, and to connect them with expert resources and support when appropriate." "They provide factual information on sexual health but refrain from offering advice or opinions. We continuously review and improve our protections so that teens have access to helpful information with default safeguards in place.”The Meta spokesperson also responded to advertisement censorship claims.“Every organization and individual on our platforms is subject to the same set of rules, and any claims of enforcement based on group affiliation or advocacy are baseless," the spokesperson said. United Kingdom assisted suicide bill falters as local measures advanceA national assisted suicide bill is failing to pass in the United Kingdom this week, even as local measures advance.According to a statement by the advocacy group Right to Life UK, on Feb. 26 the national bill was “widely pronounced as dead by commentators after it was revealed that it will 'almost certainly' run out of time”In Wales, the regional parliament voted on Feb. 24 in favor of the National Health Service to oversee assisted suicide if the Terminally Ill Adults Bill passes in the House of Lords.Archbishop Mark O'Toole of Cardiff-Menevia called the vote “a sad day for Wales’s most vulnerable" in a Feb. 25 statement.The island of Jersey similarly passed a law to legalize assisted suicide in a 32-to-16 vote on Feb. 26 by members of the States Assembly. The measure applies to “mentally competent” adults with terminal illnesses and who have been residents of Jersey for 12 months. Before the bill can become law, it will need royal assent.Ohio Appeals Court upholds ban on aborted baby burial requirementOhio judges on Wednesday upheld a ban on a law requiring abortion clinics to dispose of the remains of babies via burial or cremation.The appellate court in Cincinnati upheld a lower court ruling permanently blocking the law.Ohio in 2023 passed a constitutional amendment enshrining a right to abortion.Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life Carrie Snyder condemned the decision.“It’s unfortunate, but not a surprise, that the First District Court of Appeals sided with the abortion industry to stop Ohio’s fetal remains law from taking effect. Sadly, clinics will continue treating these precious little ones like garbage to be disposed of as cheaply as possible,” Snyder said in a Feb. 26 statement. “This really underscores that abortion is not health care, and that clinics are going to do everything within their power to boost their profit margin.”A Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, meanwhile, celebrated the decision, claiming the burial law was "cruel" and "nothing more than an opportunity to shame and stigmatize" women who get abortions.Texas attorney general sues mail-in abortion company for alleged illegal shipmentsTexas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued mail-in abortion company Aid Access along with California abortionist Remy Coeytaux and abortionist and founder of Aid Access Rebecca Gomperts for allegedly illegally shipping abortion drugs to Texas.Aid Access’s website advertises its shipping to all states including Texas, according to Paxton’s press release.“These unlawful shipments have had real and devastating consequences for Texas families,” the press release read. “In 2025, a Nueces County man allegedly used abortion-inducing drugs obtained from an out-of-state provider to secretly poison his girlfriend, resulting in the death of their unborn child.”“Every unborn child is a life worth protecting,” Paxton said, adding that he will “relentlessly enforce our state’s pro-life laws against Aid Access and other radicals like it.”

unitedyam

A roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news.

Read More