Bill

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
Scottish bishops say ‘prayer moved hearts’ after Scottish Parliament rejects assisted suicide #Catholic In a final vote, members of Scottish Parliament (MSPs) have rejected a bill that would have made assisted suicide legal — a dramatic turn of events that Scotland’s Catholic bishops are attributing to the power of prayer.Reacting to the result immediately after its announcement on March 17, Scotland’s bishops told EWTN News: “Prayer is what moved hearts on this important issue. We are over the moon. Glory be to God that life has triumphed tonight!”Bill sponsor Liam McArthur and his supporters were confident of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill becoming law. In the first vote in May 2025, Parliament voted 70 to 56 in favor of the bill progressing to Stage 2. The bill was then amended at Stage 2 before moving to Stage 3 for a decisive vote. in the end, however, MSPs rejected it, voting 69 to 57 against the bill. Bishop John Keenan, president of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, said the vote against the assisted suicide bill would “protect some of Scotland’s most vulnerable individuals from the risk of being pressured into a premature death.” | Credit: Photo courtesy of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland After an emotional debate, 12 MSPs changed sides, moving from supporting the Bill at Stage 1 to opposing it. Notable MSPs who swapped sides included Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party), Daniel Johnson (Labour), and Brian Whittle (Conservative), who publicly announced their decisions during the debate. This followed other notable announcements in the buildup to the vote by Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay and Scottish National Party MSPs Audrey Nicoll and Collette Stevenson, who had initially supported the bill and then shared their decisions to vote against it.Commending MSPs for voting against the legislation, Bishop John Keenan, president of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, said after the vote: “I would like to express my gratitude to all MSPs for their serious engagement with this issue and for the thoughtful and considered attention they have given to the bill. I am especially grateful to those who upheld the principle of human dignity and advocated on behalf of the vulnerable.”The Catholic Church teaches that assisted suicide is inherently immoral. In advance of the final vote, Keenan commented that a vote against the bill would “protect some of Scotland’s most vulnerable individuals from the risk of being pressured into a premature death.”“Every human life possesses inherent value,” he said. “Genuine compassion is not expressed through ending a life but through accompanying those who suffer and ensuring they receive the medical, emotional, and spiritual support that recognizes their dignity.” Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, chief executive of pro-life charity Right To Life UK, called the result “a great and deeply significant victory for the most vulnerable people in Scotland.” | Credit: Photo courtesy of Right To Life UK Pro-life groups opposing the bill also highlighted the importance of the vote for the vulnerable. In a message to EWTN News, Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, chief executive of pro-life charity Right To Life UK, called the result “a great and deeply significant victory for the most vulnerable people in Scotland.”Hungerford-Morgan told EWTN News: “People nearing the end of their lives, no matter what their condition, need love and support, not a pathway to suicide, which is exactly what the Scottish assisted suicide bill would have done."The vote followed an intense and long debate over five sessions, culminating in the final debate and vote on March 17.Hungerford-Morgan said: “If this bill had passed in the Scottish Parliament and gone on to become law, it would have ushered in an irrevocable change that would have put the vulnerable at risk and seen the ending of thousands of lives through assisted suicide in Scotland.”He added: “After two years of debate, and the most intense scrutiny that the question of assisted suicide has ever received in Scotland, Holyrood, which is widely regarded as one of the world’s most socially and politically progressive legislatures, has come to the conclusion that introducing assisted suicide is unsafe and dangerous.”Paul Atkin, pro-life officer at the Archdiocese of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, highlighted “the strength of engagement across our archdiocese” due to the fact that, from the 12 MSPs who changed their votes to opposing the bill, eight represent constituencies within the Archdiocese of St. Andrews and Edinburgh.Atkin told EWTN News: “The defeat of this bill is a welcome result, reflecting the strength of engagement across our archdiocese. From the archbishop’s leadership to parishes who organized hundreds of letters, this was a united effort which made the difference.”Praising the “remarkable contribution” of the archdiocese, Atkin paid tribute to the “polite, persistent engagement from the Catholic community,” which helped “shape outcomes and protect the most vulnerable.”Opponents of the bill called for attention to now move away from assisted suicide toward investment in palliative care. “Our next priority must be to strengthen palliative care by ensuring that it is properly funded and accessible to all who require it,” Keenan said. Echoing this viewpoint, Hungerford-Morgan urged MSPs to “unite to focus on renewed efforts to promote and improve palliative care.”Following the defeat of the bill, Hungerford-Morgan turned his attention to a separate bill currently being debated in the House of Lords in London that would legalize assisted suicide in England and Wales, initiated by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater.Calling on the Leadbeater Bill’s sponsors to “reject assisted suicide,” he said: “This victory will have an impact far beyond Holyrood as the Leadbeater Bill is being debated in the House of Lords. Instead of pushing ahead with this dangerous bill, its sponsors should follow Scotland’s example and reject assisted suicide.”
Read More

Scottish bishops say ‘prayer moved hearts’ after Scottish Parliament rejects assisted suicide #Catholic In a final vote, members of Scottish Parliament (MSPs) have rejected a bill that would have made assisted suicide legal — a dramatic turn of events that Scotland’s Catholic bishops are attributing to the power of prayer.Reacting to the result immediately after its announcement on March 17, Scotland’s bishops told EWTN News: “Prayer is what moved hearts on this important issue. We are over the moon. Glory be to God that life has triumphed tonight!”Bill sponsor Liam McArthur and his supporters were confident of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill becoming law. In the first vote in May 2025, Parliament voted 70 to 56 in favor of the bill progressing to Stage 2. The bill was then amended at Stage 2 before moving to Stage 3 for a decisive vote. in the end, however, MSPs rejected it, voting 69 to 57 against the bill. Bishop John Keenan, president of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, said the vote against the assisted suicide bill would “protect some of Scotland’s most vulnerable individuals from the risk of being pressured into a premature death.” | Credit: Photo courtesy of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland After an emotional debate, 12 MSPs changed sides, moving from supporting the Bill at Stage 1 to opposing it. Notable MSPs who swapped sides included Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party), Daniel Johnson (Labour), and Brian Whittle (Conservative), who publicly announced their decisions during the debate. This followed other notable announcements in the buildup to the vote by Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay and Scottish National Party MSPs Audrey Nicoll and Collette Stevenson, who had initially supported the bill and then shared their decisions to vote against it.Commending MSPs for voting against the legislation, Bishop John Keenan, president of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, said after the vote: “I would like to express my gratitude to all MSPs for their serious engagement with this issue and for the thoughtful and considered attention they have given to the bill. I am especially grateful to those who upheld the principle of human dignity and advocated on behalf of the vulnerable.”The Catholic Church teaches that assisted suicide is inherently immoral. In advance of the final vote, Keenan commented that a vote against the bill would “protect some of Scotland’s most vulnerable individuals from the risk of being pressured into a premature death.”“Every human life possesses inherent value,” he said. “Genuine compassion is not expressed through ending a life but through accompanying those who suffer and ensuring they receive the medical, emotional, and spiritual support that recognizes their dignity.” Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, chief executive of pro-life charity Right To Life UK, called the result “a great and deeply significant victory for the most vulnerable people in Scotland.” | Credit: Photo courtesy of Right To Life UK Pro-life groups opposing the bill also highlighted the importance of the vote for the vulnerable. In a message to EWTN News, Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, chief executive of pro-life charity Right To Life UK, called the result “a great and deeply significant victory for the most vulnerable people in Scotland.”Hungerford-Morgan told EWTN News: “People nearing the end of their lives, no matter what their condition, need love and support, not a pathway to suicide, which is exactly what the Scottish assisted suicide bill would have done."The vote followed an intense and long debate over five sessions, culminating in the final debate and vote on March 17.Hungerford-Morgan said: “If this bill had passed in the Scottish Parliament and gone on to become law, it would have ushered in an irrevocable change that would have put the vulnerable at risk and seen the ending of thousands of lives through assisted suicide in Scotland.”He added: “After two years of debate, and the most intense scrutiny that the question of assisted suicide has ever received in Scotland, Holyrood, which is widely regarded as one of the world’s most socially and politically progressive legislatures, has come to the conclusion that introducing assisted suicide is unsafe and dangerous.”Paul Atkin, pro-life officer at the Archdiocese of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, highlighted “the strength of engagement across our archdiocese” due to the fact that, from the 12 MSPs who changed their votes to opposing the bill, eight represent constituencies within the Archdiocese of St. Andrews and Edinburgh.Atkin told EWTN News: “The defeat of this bill is a welcome result, reflecting the strength of engagement across our archdiocese. From the archbishop’s leadership to parishes who organized hundreds of letters, this was a united effort which made the difference.”Praising the “remarkable contribution” of the archdiocese, Atkin paid tribute to the “polite, persistent engagement from the Catholic community,” which helped “shape outcomes and protect the most vulnerable.”Opponents of the bill called for attention to now move away from assisted suicide toward investment in palliative care. “Our next priority must be to strengthen palliative care by ensuring that it is properly funded and accessible to all who require it,” Keenan said. Echoing this viewpoint, Hungerford-Morgan urged MSPs to “unite to focus on renewed efforts to promote and improve palliative care.”Following the defeat of the bill, Hungerford-Morgan turned his attention to a separate bill currently being debated in the House of Lords in London that would legalize assisted suicide in England and Wales, initiated by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater.Calling on the Leadbeater Bill’s sponsors to “reject assisted suicide,” he said: “This victory will have an impact far beyond Holyrood as the Leadbeater Bill is being debated in the House of Lords. Instead of pushing ahead with this dangerous bill, its sponsors should follow Scotland’s example and reject assisted suicide.”

unitedyam

In a decisive vote, Scottish members of Parliament have rejected the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, a victory the bishops in Scotland are praising.

Read More
Ireland group calls for inquiry into deaths of 108 babies born alive after abortion #Catholic Ireland group calls for inquiry into deaths of 108 babies born alive after abortionAn advocacy group in Ireland is calling for an inquiry into the deaths of 108 babies who were born alive after attempted abortions in Ireland.In a story published March 1 and authored by Ireland’s Life Institute and others, the institute cited figures released by Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE) from 2019 to 2023.“Were these babies simply left to die and were they denied the lifesaving interventions that might have saved them?” Life Institute spokesperson Sandra Parda asked.“We need answers, we need transparency,” Parda said. “Looking at the evidence, clearly these babies are then simply being left to die, yet everything is shrouded in silence and secrecy.”Deputy Mattie McGrath, who obtained the numbers after requesting them from the HSE, said he was “gravely concerned about any approach that reduces transparency around perinatal outcomes.”Woman forced to induce labor while in prison sues IllinoisA former inmate from Illinois filed a lawsuit against the state prison because it allegedly forced her to give birth via induction rather than spontaneous labor.At about seven months pregnant, Amy Hicks was convicted of an illegal drug offense. Two weeks before her due date, in early 2024, she underwent induction due to prison requirements.Labor is usually induced only if there is a health concern for the mother or baby. Women will often elect to avoid induction because it can increase pain and lead to higher intervention rates such as C-sections, among other concerns.The lawsuit, argued by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, alleges that the prison’s requirements violate the state’s Reproductive Health Act, an amendment that created a right to abortion in the state law. The federal lawsuit names Gov. JB Pritzker’s Illinois Department of Corrections, the prison’s medical provider, and Wexford Health Sources, among others.Wyoming Senate passes heartbeat actThe Wyoming Senate passed a heartbeat bill to protect unborn children from abortion when their heartbeats are detectable.The act prohibits “procedures that terminate the life of a child with a detectable heartbeat” with some exceptions.The bill now moves to the governor’s desk; If signed, the act would immediately take effect.Indiana court blocks protections for unborn children on religious freedom claimsAn Indiana court blocked a law protecting unborn children under religious freedom claims on March 6.The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of the advocacy group Hoosier Jews for Choice and anonymous women, claimed the law violated religious freedom by preventing women from aborting their children.Lawsuit alleges Virginia abortion rights ballot initiative is invalidA lawsuit dated March 6 alleges that a Virginia ballot initiative to create a right to abortion is invalid.District 3 Supervisor for the Bedford County Board of Supervisors Charla Bansley claimed in the lawsuit that the House of Delegates missed mandated procedural steps, making the ballot initiative invalid.The 35-page lawsuit claims that Virginia’s House of Delegates failed to send it to all circuit court clerks so they could post it for public inspection three months prior to the 2025 House of Delegates elections.North Dakota trains physicians to understand new protections for unborn childrenA training for doctors required by a North Dakota law recently became available, part of a recent law passed to enforce laws surrounding abortion.The online training is required after the Legislature passed a bill requiring training for physicians on how to apply the state’s laws protecting unborn children in various scenarios.Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America to campaign in OhioSusan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Women Speak Out PAC launched a seven-figure campaign in Ohio to elect pro-life legislators.The organizations announced on March 2 that they are dedicating .25 million to campaign in support of U.S. Sen. Jon Husted, who is running against former U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, and plan to canvas 500,000 houses.The Ohio campaign is part of SBA’s million investment for the 2026 midterm cycle across the nation.
Read More

Ireland group calls for inquiry into deaths of 108 babies born alive after abortion #Catholic Ireland group calls for inquiry into deaths of 108 babies born alive after abortionAn advocacy group in Ireland is calling for an inquiry into the deaths of 108 babies who were born alive after attempted abortions in Ireland.In a story published March 1 and authored by Ireland’s Life Institute and others, the institute cited figures released by Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE) from 2019 to 2023.“Were these babies simply left to die and were they denied the lifesaving interventions that might have saved them?” Life Institute spokesperson Sandra Parda asked.“We need answers, we need transparency,” Parda said. “Looking at the evidence, clearly these babies are then simply being left to die, yet everything is shrouded in silence and secrecy.”Deputy Mattie McGrath, who obtained the numbers after requesting them from the HSE, said he was “gravely concerned about any approach that reduces transparency around perinatal outcomes.”Woman forced to induce labor while in prison sues IllinoisA former inmate from Illinois filed a lawsuit against the state prison because it allegedly forced her to give birth via induction rather than spontaneous labor.At about seven months pregnant, Amy Hicks was convicted of an illegal drug offense. Two weeks before her due date, in early 2024, she underwent induction due to prison requirements.Labor is usually induced only if there is a health concern for the mother or baby. Women will often elect to avoid induction because it can increase pain and lead to higher intervention rates such as C-sections, among other concerns.The lawsuit, argued by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, alleges that the prison’s requirements violate the state’s Reproductive Health Act, an amendment that created a right to abortion in the state law. The federal lawsuit names Gov. JB Pritzker’s Illinois Department of Corrections, the prison’s medical provider, and Wexford Health Sources, among others.Wyoming Senate passes heartbeat actThe Wyoming Senate passed a heartbeat bill to protect unborn children from abortion when their heartbeats are detectable.The act prohibits “procedures that terminate the life of a child with a detectable heartbeat” with some exceptions.The bill now moves to the governor’s desk; If signed, the act would immediately take effect.Indiana court blocks protections for unborn children on religious freedom claimsAn Indiana court blocked a law protecting unborn children under religious freedom claims on March 6.The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of the advocacy group Hoosier Jews for Choice and anonymous women, claimed the law violated religious freedom by preventing women from aborting their children.Lawsuit alleges Virginia abortion rights ballot initiative is invalidA lawsuit dated March 6 alleges that a Virginia ballot initiative to create a right to abortion is invalid.District 3 Supervisor for the Bedford County Board of Supervisors Charla Bansley claimed in the lawsuit that the House of Delegates missed mandated procedural steps, making the ballot initiative invalid.The 35-page lawsuit claims that Virginia’s House of Delegates failed to send it to all circuit court clerks so they could post it for public inspection three months prior to the 2025 House of Delegates elections.North Dakota trains physicians to understand new protections for unborn childrenA training for doctors required by a North Dakota law recently became available, part of a recent law passed to enforce laws surrounding abortion.The online training is required after the Legislature passed a bill requiring training for physicians on how to apply the state’s laws protecting unborn children in various scenarios.Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America to campaign in OhioSusan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Women Speak Out PAC launched a seven-figure campaign in Ohio to elect pro-life legislators.The organizations announced on March 2 that they are dedicating $3.25 million to campaign in support of U.S. Sen. Jon Husted, who is running against former U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, and plan to canvas 500,000 houses.The Ohio campaign is part of SBA’s $80 million investment for the 2026 midterm cycle across the nation.

unitedyam

Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news.

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
Democratic lawmaker asks ICE director if he’s ‘going to hell’ in fiery hearing #Catholic A Democratic lawmaker asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons whether he believes he is “going to hell” in a contentious hearing with the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 10.Lyons — along with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott — testified before the committee as Congress negotiates potential reforms and funding for the agencies.On Feb. 3, Congress voted to extend funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates the three agencies, until Feb. 13 to end a four-day partial government shutdown. A deal has not yet been reached to extend funding further.At the hearing, Democratic lawmakers accused ICE of terrorizing the streets, using excessive force, and lacking accountability. Republicans defended ICE and rebuked Democratic officials in certain states for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.One of the fiercest exchanges came from Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who praised protesters for “peacefully rejecting your cruel agenda in the streets.” She said ICE believes it is “the highest power who decides which people deserve dignity, protection, and due process” and said “you are wrong [and] we are here for answers.”“How do you think judgment day will work for you, with so much blood on your hands?” McIver asked Lyons, to which he responded that he would not entertain the question.“Do you think you’re going to hell?” she followed up, before being chastised by Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, who told her to avoid personal attacks on witnesses and maintain decorum.McIver said “you guys are always talking about religion here, and the Bible.” She changed the subject slightly and asked Lyons whether he could name agencies that “routinely kill American citizens and still get funding,” which he also said was a question he was “not going to entertain.”“Once again, questions that you cannot answer and that is exactly why … we should not be funding this agency,” McIver said. “The people are watching you; they are watching you. And this is why we need to abolish ICE.”Lawmakers debate ICE operations, future of agencyThe killings of two American citizens at ICE protests — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — were a focal point of the hearing, and two examples that Democrats used to accuse ICE of excessive force and lacking accountability.Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California, referenced both killings and criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for referring to those who died as “domestic terrorists.” He asked Lyons whether he would apologize to the families or reject that characterization.Lyons said he would not comment on an ongoing investigation but would welcome a private conversation with the families.Democrats are split on whether to reform ICE or abolish it altogether.Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, brought up instances in which he believes ICE used excessive force and suggested reforms are necessary before Congress awards funding.“It’s not just the actions of the agents in the field,” he said. “It is the lack of accountability from the top that has caused public trust to erode, and there needs to be major reforms before we vote to give any of you any more funding.”Alternatively, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Illinois, called for abolishing ICE and the entire DHS, which Congress formed to address terrorism threats after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ramirez said DHS was created to “violate our rights under the pretense of securing our safety.”“I’m going to say it loud and clear and I’m proud to stand by what I say,” she said. “DHS cannot be reformed. It must be dismantled and something new must take its place.”Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, commented during the hearing that Democratic lawmakers “have called to abolish ICE [and] now they’re trying to shut it down” amid the negotiations and discussion during the hearing.He criticized the lack of coordination from Democratic-led “sanctuary” states and cities, which do not cooperate with ICE, saying the policies in Minneapolis “created a perfect storm for our officers being thrown into this situation.”Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, similarly expressed concern about ICE funding moving forward, based on the debates between the two parties.“It seems like one side of the aisle is in favor of open borders and wants to abolish ICE … and the other side of the aisle wants to enforce laws that are on the books,” he said.During the question and answer, Lyons expressed worry about the rhetoric from Democrats and noted that threats and assaults against ICE agents are on the rise. He said agents are trying to “keep America safe, restore order to our communities, [and] return the rule of law to this country.”“Those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable,” he said.Scott also showed concerns about the ongoing debate and expressed hope that DHS could receive support from both Republicans and Democrats.“I believe consistency and seeing support from the leadership on both sides of this building and the president is very important for our security,” he said. “I think the rhetoric and the … politicizing of law enforcement in general detracts from the general morale of our personnel.”Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, told “EWTN News Nightly” that he sees “much of [the Democratic threats to halt funding] as political theater,” noting that ICE will continue to operate regardless of whether Congress passes the funding bill.He said Democrats hope to take away an issue that made Trump popular during the 2024 election “and turn it into a bad issue for Republicans” in the midterms.Arthur said there may be some shifts in ICE’s approach in Minneapolis now that Border Czar Tom Homan is involved in seeking the “cooperation of state and city governments” that have been “reluctant, if not hostile” to immigration enforcement over the past year.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in November 2025 approved a special message with a 216-5 vote that declared opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”Late last month, about 300 Catholic leaders — including 15 bishops — asked Congress to reject ICE funding if the legislation fails to include reforms that have protections for migrants.
Read More

Democratic lawmaker asks ICE director if he’s ‘going to hell’ in fiery hearing #Catholic A Democratic lawmaker asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons whether he believes he is “going to hell” in a contentious hearing with the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 10.Lyons — along with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott — testified before the committee as Congress negotiates potential reforms and funding for the agencies.On Feb. 3, Congress voted to extend funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates the three agencies, until Feb. 13 to end a four-day partial government shutdown. A deal has not yet been reached to extend funding further.At the hearing, Democratic lawmakers accused ICE of terrorizing the streets, using excessive force, and lacking accountability. Republicans defended ICE and rebuked Democratic officials in certain states for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.One of the fiercest exchanges came from Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who praised protesters for “peacefully rejecting your cruel agenda in the streets.” She said ICE believes it is “the highest power who decides which people deserve dignity, protection, and due process” and said “you are wrong [and] we are here for answers.”“How do you think judgment day will work for you, with so much blood on your hands?” McIver asked Lyons, to which he responded that he would not entertain the question.“Do you think you’re going to hell?” she followed up, before being chastised by Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, who told her to avoid personal attacks on witnesses and maintain decorum.McIver said “you guys are always talking about religion here, and the Bible.” She changed the subject slightly and asked Lyons whether he could name agencies that “routinely kill American citizens and still get funding,” which he also said was a question he was “not going to entertain.”“Once again, questions that you cannot answer and that is exactly why … we should not be funding this agency,” McIver said. “The people are watching you; they are watching you. And this is why we need to abolish ICE.”Lawmakers debate ICE operations, future of agencyThe killings of two American citizens at ICE protests — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — were a focal point of the hearing, and two examples that Democrats used to accuse ICE of excessive force and lacking accountability.Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California, referenced both killings and criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for referring to those who died as “domestic terrorists.” He asked Lyons whether he would apologize to the families or reject that characterization.Lyons said he would not comment on an ongoing investigation but would welcome a private conversation with the families.Democrats are split on whether to reform ICE or abolish it altogether.Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, brought up instances in which he believes ICE used excessive force and suggested reforms are necessary before Congress awards funding.“It’s not just the actions of the agents in the field,” he said. “It is the lack of accountability from the top that has caused public trust to erode, and there needs to be major reforms before we vote to give any of you any more funding.”Alternatively, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Illinois, called for abolishing ICE and the entire DHS, which Congress formed to address terrorism threats after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ramirez said DHS was created to “violate our rights under the pretense of securing our safety.”“I’m going to say it loud and clear and I’m proud to stand by what I say,” she said. “DHS cannot be reformed. It must be dismantled and something new must take its place.”Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, commented during the hearing that Democratic lawmakers “have called to abolish ICE [and] now they’re trying to shut it down” amid the negotiations and discussion during the hearing.He criticized the lack of coordination from Democratic-led “sanctuary” states and cities, which do not cooperate with ICE, saying the policies in Minneapolis “created a perfect storm for our officers being thrown into this situation.”Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, similarly expressed concern about ICE funding moving forward, based on the debates between the two parties.“It seems like one side of the aisle is in favor of open borders and wants to abolish ICE … and the other side of the aisle wants to enforce laws that are on the books,” he said.During the question and answer, Lyons expressed worry about the rhetoric from Democrats and noted that threats and assaults against ICE agents are on the rise. He said agents are trying to “keep America safe, restore order to our communities, [and] return the rule of law to this country.”“Those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable,” he said.Scott also showed concerns about the ongoing debate and expressed hope that DHS could receive support from both Republicans and Democrats.“I believe consistency and seeing support from the leadership on both sides of this building and the president is very important for our security,” he said. “I think the rhetoric and the … politicizing of law enforcement in general detracts from the general morale of our personnel.”Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, told “EWTN News Nightly” that he sees “much of [the Democratic threats to halt funding] as political theater,” noting that ICE will continue to operate regardless of whether Congress passes the funding bill.He said Democrats hope to take away an issue that made Trump popular during the 2024 election “and turn it into a bad issue for Republicans” in the midterms.Arthur said there may be some shifts in ICE’s approach in Minneapolis now that Border Czar Tom Homan is involved in seeking the “cooperation of state and city governments” that have been “reluctant, if not hostile” to immigration enforcement over the past year.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in November 2025 approved a special message with a 216-5 vote that declared opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”Late last month, about 300 Catholic leaders — including 15 bishops — asked Congress to reject ICE funding if the legislation fails to include reforms that have protections for migrants.

unitedyam

Top U.S. immigration officials defended their policies during a contentious hearing as lawmakers continue to negotiate potential ICE funding and reforms.

Read More