Companies – United Yam

CUA professor launches AI marketplace in line with Catholic social teaching #Catholic

Credit: David Gyung/Shutterstock

Jan 17, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA).
An artificial intelligence (AI) marketplace launched by a business professor at The Catholic University of America seeks to offer products and services in a venue consistent with the social teachings of the Catholic Church — it is called Almma AI.Lucas Wall, who teaches finance at the university and has led several entrepreneurial ventures, began building Almma AI in mid-2023. The marketplace facilitates transactions for AI-related products, allowing people to upload their creations to be purchased or, in some cases, used for no charge.The types of products that can be offered on the marketplace include Large Language Models (LLMs) — similar to ChatGPT and Grok — along with AI prompts, personas, assistants, agents, and plugins.Although other marketplaces exist, Wall told EWTN News that Almma AI is designed to ensure the average person can “benefit from this new revolution that is coming” by selling or purchasing products in the marketplace.“With most technological revolutions and changes, there are only a handful of people who make fortunes,” Wall said.Almma’s mission statement is “AI profits for all,” and Wall said it is meant to “help people monetize their knowledge.” He said the marketplace can “build bridges across cultures” because people anywhere can access it, and “allows people to make solutions for their neighbors or for their parishes.”Almma does not exclusively offer Catholic-related products, but it does block the sale of anything that is immoral or could provoke sin, which Wall said was another major contrast with other AI marketplaces.“I want to be part of the group of people who help innovation meet morality,” he said.Among the examples of problems within larger AI companies, he noted, are the development of artificial romantic chatbots and the creation of erotica and artificial pornographic images and videos. He also expressed concern about AI consultation in end-of-life care.“I refuse to believe we don’t have enough imagination as a Catholic community and the courage to build something better,” Wall said.AI and Catholic social teachingWall said the development of Almma AI was “responding to the call of Pope Francis that he very clearly outlined in [the 2025 doctrinal note] Antiqua et Nova” and also took inspiration from Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum.In Antiqua et Nova, the Vatican holds that the development of AI should spur us to “a renewed appreciation of all that is human.” It teaches that AI should be used to serve the common good, promote human development, and not simply be used for individual or corporate gain.That note builds on the framework provided in Rerum Novarum, which expressed Catholic social teaching in the wake of the industrial revolution. At the time, Pope Leo XIII emphasized a need to seek the common good and safeguard the dignity of work when many laborers faced poor working conditions.“Wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner,” Leo XIII writes. “... If a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income.”Wall said Almma AI follows those guidelines by “trying to help people earn a decent living and keeping their dignity.” He added: “If you want to monetize a skill, we have the tools for you.”When the current pontiff Leo XIV chose the name “Leo,” he said he did so to honor Leo XIII, who “addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution.” He chose the name, in part, because AI developments pose “new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice, and labor,” Leo XIV explained.Leo XIV has spoken at length about AI. This includes warnings about anti-human ideologies, the threat to human connections and interactions, and concern about the displacement of workers. However, he has also highlighted the potential benefits of AI if used to advance humanity and uphold the dignity of the human person.Wall welcomed continued guidance from the Vatican, saying the Church has “moral foundations … beyond what anyone in secular society can point at.” He expressed hope that Leo XIV will author a document similar to Rerum Novarum that addresses the changes AI is bringing about to the global economy“I pray daily for it,” Wall said.

unitedyam January 17, 2026

Credit: David Gyung/Shutterstock

Jan 17, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA).

An artificial intelligence (AI) marketplace launched by a business professor at The Catholic University of America seeks to offer products and services in a venue consistent with the social teachings of the Catholic Church — it is called Almma AI.

Lucas Wall, who teaches finance at the university and has led several entrepreneurial ventures, began building Almma AI in mid-2023. The marketplace facilitates transactions for AI-related products, allowing people to upload their creations to be purchased or, in some cases, used for no charge.

The types of products that can be offered on the marketplace include Large Language Models (LLMs) — similar to ChatGPT and Grok — along with AI prompts, personas, assistants, agents, and plugins.

Although other marketplaces exist, Wall told EWTN News that Almma AI is designed to ensure the average person can “benefit from this new revolution that is coming” by selling or purchasing products in the marketplace.

“With most technological revolutions and changes, there are only a handful of people who make fortunes,” Wall said.

Almma’s mission statement is “AI profits for all,” and Wall said it is meant to “help people monetize their knowledge.” He said the marketplace can “build bridges across cultures” because people anywhere can access it, and “allows people to make solutions for their neighbors or for their parishes.”

Almma does not exclusively offer Catholic-related products, but it does block the sale of anything that is immoral or could provoke sin, which Wall said was another major contrast with other AI marketplaces.

“I want to be part of the group of people who help innovation meet morality,” he said.

Among the examples of problems within larger AI companies, he noted, are the development of artificial romantic chatbots and the creation of erotica and artificial pornographic images and videos. He also expressed concern about AI consultation in end-of-life care.

“I refuse to believe we don’t have enough imagination as a Catholic community and the courage to build something better,” Wall said.

AI and Catholic social teaching

Wall said the development of Almma AI was “responding to the call of Pope Francis that he very clearly outlined in [the 2025 doctrinal note] Antiqua et Nova” and also took inspiration from Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum.

In Antiqua et Nova, the Vatican holds that the development of AI should spur us to “a renewed appreciation of all that is human.” It teaches that AI should be used to serve the common good, promote human development, and not simply be used for individual or corporate gain.

That note builds on the framework provided in Rerum Novarum, which expressed Catholic social teaching in the wake of the industrial revolution. At the time, Pope Leo XIII emphasized a need to seek the common good and safeguard the dignity of work when many laborers faced poor working conditions.

“Wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner,” Leo XIII writes. “… If a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income.”

Wall said Almma AI follows those guidelines by “trying to help people earn a decent living and keeping their dignity.” He added: “If you want to monetize a skill, we have the tools for you.”

When the current pontiff Leo XIV chose the name “Leo,” he said he did so to honor Leo XIII, who “addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution.” He chose the name, in part, because AI developments pose “new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice, and labor,” Leo XIV explained.

Leo XIV has spoken at length about AI. This includes warnings about anti-human ideologies, the threat to human connections and interactions, and concern about the displacement of workers. However, he has also highlighted the potential benefits of AI if used to advance humanity and uphold the dignity of the human person.

Wall welcomed continued guidance from the Vatican, saying the Church has “moral foundations … beyond what anyone in secular society can point at.” He expressed hope that Leo XIV will author a document similar to Rerum Novarum that addresses the changes AI is bringing about to the global economy

“I pray daily for it,” Wall said.

Catholic doctors and ethicists react to CDC’s revised childhood vaccine schedule #Catholic

Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena

Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”This will ‘sow more confusion’Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”

unitedyam January 12, 2026

Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena

Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.

In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).

Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.

According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”

Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.

The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.

After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”

“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”

Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”

“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”

“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”

Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”

The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”

‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’

Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”

However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”

Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”

“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.

John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”

“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”

This will ‘sow more confusion’

Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.

While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.

“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.

She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.

This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”

She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”

“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.

“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”

“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”

How federal and state abortion policies shifted in 2025 #Catholic

Fifty-one senators asked the FDA to rescind its approval of a generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone on Oct. 9, 2025. | Credit: Yta23/Shutterstock

Dec 30, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Abortion policy at the federal and state levels has continued to shift in the United States three and a half years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.At the federal level, President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans made strides to pull back funding for organizations that advocate for abortion access and to reinstate conscience protections. Yet the administration also approved a generic abortion pill and failed to further regulate chemical abortion drugs.Some states adopted new restrictions on abortion, but others expanded policies to increase abortion access. In most states, changes to abortion policy were minimal, as many states already set their post-Dobbs abortion policies in the previous years.Federal: Trump administration shiftsAbortion policy at the federal level shifted shortly after Trump took office, with the administration reinstating many policies from Trump’s first term that had been abandoned for four years under President Joe Biden’s administration.Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy during his first week in office, which requires foreign organizations to certify they will not perform, promote, or actively advocate for abortion to receive U.S. government funding. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded Biden-era guidelines that had required emergency rooms to perform abortions when a pregnant woman had a life-threatening emergency (like severe bleeding, ectopic pregnancy, or risk of organ failure) to stabilize her condition — even in states where abortion is otherwise banned.Other changes within federal departments and agencies included rescinding a Department of Defense policy that provided paid leave and travel expenses for abortion and a proposed rule change to end abortion at Veterans Affairs facilities.The Department of Health and Human Services has also withheld Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. Trump also signed a government spending bill that withheld Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood. Federal tax money was not spent directly on abortion before those changes, but abortion providers did receive funds for other purposes.Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics shut down in 2025 amid funding cuts.Those closures came as the administration advanced changes affecting abortion medication. Although the administration announced it would review the abortion pill, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new generic version of the drug mifepristone. Bloomberg Law reported the review has been delayed, although officials deny it.The state-level results in 2025 have also been mixed, with a few states adding pro-life laws and others expanding access to abortion.In Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal, lawmakers passed a bill that allows families to sue companies that manufacture or distribute chemical abortion pills. This comes as state laws related to chemical abortions often conflict, with states like New York enforcing “shield laws” that order courts to not cooperate with out-of-state lawsuits or criminal charges against abortionists within their states.Lawmakers in Wyoming passed a law overriding a veto from the governor that requires women to receive an ultrasound before they can obtain an abortion. However, the law was blocked by a court and is not in effect.There were two pro-life legal wins for states in 2025 as well.In November, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s near-total abortion ban after it was temporarily blocked by a lower court. Under the law, unborn life is protected at every stage in pregnancy in most cases, but it remains legal in the first six weeks in cases of rape and incest and for the duration of pregnancy when the mother is at risk of death or serious physical harm.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that a South Carolina policy to withhold Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood could stay in place. This ruling also opened the door for other states to adopt similar policies moving forward.In at least 10 states, lawmakers enacted bills to provide more funding for pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.Alternatively, a handful of states in 2025 expanded their shield laws, which prevent courts from complying with out-of-state criminal or civil cases against abortionists. This includes new laws in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. Several states expanded these laws by allowing pharmacies to provide chemical abortion pills without listing the name of the doctor who prescribed them to prevent out-of-state legal action.About a dozen states expanded funding for abortion providers, such as California directing 0 million to Planned Parenthood to counteract federal defunding efforts. Maryland established a new program called the Public Health Abortion Grant Program, which offers abortion coverage through Affordable Care Act funds.New laws in Colorado and Washington require emergency rooms to provide abortions when the procedure is deemed “necessary.” A law adopted in Illinois requires public college campuses to provide the abortion pill at their pharmacies.Connecticut removed its parental notification policy regarding abortion, which means that minors are allowed to obtain abortions without the consent of their parents.As of December, 13 states prohibit most abortions, four states ban abortions after six weeks’ gestation, two have bans after 12 weeks, and one has a ban after 18 weeks. The other 30 states and the District of Columbia permit abortion up to the 22nd week or later. Nine of those states allow elective abortion through nine months until the moment of birth.

unitedyam December 30, 2025

Fifty-one senators asked the FDA to rescind its approval of a generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone on Oct. 9, 2025. | Credit: Yta23/Shutterstock

Dec 30, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Abortion policy at the federal and state levels has continued to shift in the United States three and a half years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

At the federal level, President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans made strides to pull back funding for organizations that advocate for abortion access and to reinstate conscience protections. Yet the administration also approved a generic abortion pill and failed to further regulate chemical abortion drugs.

Some states adopted new restrictions on abortion, but others expanded policies to increase abortion access. In most states, changes to abortion policy were minimal, as many states already set their post-Dobbs abortion policies in the previous years.

Federal: Trump administration shifts

Abortion policy at the federal level shifted shortly after Trump took office, with the administration reinstating many policies from Trump’s first term that had been abandoned for four years under President Joe Biden’s administration.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy during his first week in office, which requires foreign organizations to certify they will not perform, promote, or actively advocate for abortion to receive U.S. government funding. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded Biden-era guidelines that had required emergency rooms to perform abortions when a pregnant woman had a life-threatening emergency (like severe bleeding, ectopic pregnancy, or risk of organ failure) to stabilize her condition — even in states where abortion is otherwise banned.

Other changes within federal departments and agencies included rescinding a Department of Defense policy that provided paid leave and travel expenses for abortion and a proposed rule change to end abortion at Veterans Affairs facilities.

The Department of Health and Human Services has also withheld Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. Trump also signed a government spending bill that withheld Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood. Federal tax money was not spent directly on abortion before those changes, but abortion providers did receive funds for other purposes.

Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics shut down in 2025 amid funding cuts.

Those closures came as the administration advanced changes affecting abortion medication. Although the administration announced it would review the abortion pill, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new generic version of the drug mifepristone. Bloomberg Law reported the review has been delayed, although officials deny it.

The state-level results in 2025 have also been mixed, with a few states adding pro-life laws and others expanding access to abortion.

In Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal, lawmakers passed a bill that allows families to sue companies that manufacture or distribute chemical abortion pills. This comes as state laws related to chemical abortions often conflict, with states like New York enforcing “shield laws” that order courts to not cooperate with out-of-state lawsuits or criminal charges against abortionists within their states.

Lawmakers in Wyoming passed a law overriding a veto from the governor that requires women to receive an ultrasound before they can obtain an abortion. However, the law was blocked by a court and is not in effect.

There were two pro-life legal wins for states in 2025 as well.

In November, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s near-total abortion ban after it was temporarily blocked by a lower court. Under the law, unborn life is protected at every stage in pregnancy in most cases, but it remains legal in the first six weeks in cases of rape and incest and for the duration of pregnancy when the mother is at risk of death or serious physical harm.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that a South Carolina policy to withhold Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood could stay in place. This ruling also opened the door for other states to adopt similar policies moving forward.

In at least 10 states, lawmakers enacted bills to provide more funding for pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.

Alternatively, a handful of states in 2025 expanded their shield laws, which prevent courts from complying with out-of-state criminal or civil cases against abortionists. This includes new laws in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. Several states expanded these laws by allowing pharmacies to provide chemical abortion pills without listing the name of the doctor who prescribed them to prevent out-of-state legal action.

About a dozen states expanded funding for abortion providers, such as California directing $140 million to Planned Parenthood to counteract federal defunding efforts. Maryland established a new program called the Public Health Abortion Grant Program, which offers abortion coverage through Affordable Care Act funds.

New laws in Colorado and Washington require emergency rooms to provide abortions when the procedure is deemed “necessary.” A law adopted in Illinois requires public college campuses to provide the abortion pill at their pharmacies.

Connecticut removed its parental notification policy regarding abortion, which means that minors are allowed to obtain abortions without the consent of their parents.

As of December, 13 states prohibit most abortions, four states ban abortions after six weeks’ gestation, two have bans after 12 weeks, and one has a ban after 18 weeks. The other 30 states and the District of Columbia permit abortion up to the 22nd week or later. Nine of those states allow elective abortion through nine months until the moment of birth.

HHS announces actions to restrict ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ on minors #Catholic

President Donald J. Trump watches as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services Secretary, speaks after being sworn in on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 13:31 pm (CNA).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulations today that would seek to end “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone younger than 18 years old, which includes restrictions on hospitals and retailers.Under one proposal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would withhold all funding through Medicare and Medicaid to any hospital that offers surgeries or drugs to minors as a means to make them resemble the opposite sex. The proposed rules would prohibit federal Medicaid funding for “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone under 18 and prohibit federal Children’s Health Insurance program (CHIP) funding for the procedures on anyone under 19.This includes surgical operations, such as the removal of healthy genitals to replace them with artificial genitals that resemble the opposite sex and chest procedures that remove the healthy breasts on girls or implant prosthetic breasts on boys.It also includes hormone treatments that attempt to masculinize girls with testosterone and feminize boys with estrogen and puberty blockers, which delay a child’s natural developments during puberty.HHS also announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing warning letters to 12 manufacturers and retailers that they accuse of illegally marketing “breast binders” to girls under the age of 18 as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Breast binders compress breasts as a means to flatten them under their clothing.The news release said breast binders are Class 1 medical devices meant to help recover from cancer-related mastectomies, and the warning letters will “formally notify the companies of their significant regulatory violations and how they should take prompt corrective action.”Additionally, HHS is working to clarify the definition of a “disability” in civil rights regulations to exclude “gender dysphoria” that does not result from physical impairments. This ensures that discrimination laws are not interpreted in a way that would require “sex-rejecting procedures,” the statement said.HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a news conference that “sex-rejecting procedures” on minors are “endangering the very lives that [doctors] are sworn to safeguard.”“So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people,” he said. “This is not medicine — it is malpractice.” The proposals would conform HHS regulations to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order to prohibit the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children. The order instructed HHS to propose regulations to prevent these procedures on minors.In a news release, HHS repeatedly referred to the medical interventions as “sex-rejecting procedures” and warned they “cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.”HHS cited its own report from May, which found “deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions” for treating a minor with gender dysphoria. The report found that “these interventions carry risk of significant harms,” which can include infertility, sexual dysfunction, underdeveloped bone mass, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, and adverse cognitive impacts, among other complications.Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, a medical advocacy group, said in a statement that the proposed regulation on hospitals is “another critical step to protect children from harmful gender ideology” and said he supports rules that ensure “American taxpayer dollars do not fund sex-change operations on minors.”“Many so-called gender clinics have already begun to close as the truth about the risks and long-term harms about these drugs and surgeries on minors have been exposed,” he said. “Now, hospitals that receive taxpayer funds from these federal programs must follow suit.”Mary Rice Hasson, director of the Person and Identity Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), said she sees the proposed restriction on hospitals as “excellent.”“This proposed rule sends a powerful message to states and health care providers: It’s time to stop these unethical and dangerous procedures,” Hasson said. “Puberty is not a disease to be medicated away. All children have the right to grow and develop normally.”“Sex-rejecting procedures promise the impossible: that a child can escape the reality of being male or female,” she added. “In reality, these sex-rejecting procedures provide only the illusion of ‘changing sex’ by disabling healthy functions and altering the child’s healthy body through drugs and surgery that will cause lifelong harm.”In January, Bishop Robert Barron, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth, welcomed Trump’s executive action on these procedures, warning that they are “based on a false understanding of human nature, attempt to change a child’s sex.”“So many young people who have been victims of this ideological crusade have profound regrets over its life-altering consequences, such as infertility and lifelong dependence on costly hormone therapies that have significant side effects,” Barron said. “It is unacceptable that our children are encouraged to undergo destructive medical interventions instead of receiving access to authentic and bodily-unitive care.”

unitedyam December 18, 2025

President Donald J. Trump watches as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services Secretary, speaks after being sworn in on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 13:31 pm (CNA).

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulations today that would seek to end “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone younger than 18 years old, which includes restrictions on hospitals and retailers.

Under one proposal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would withhold all funding through Medicare and Medicaid to any hospital that offers surgeries or drugs to minors as a means to make them resemble the opposite sex. The proposed rules would prohibit federal Medicaid funding for “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone under 18 and prohibit federal Children’s Health Insurance program (CHIP) funding for the procedures on anyone under 19.

This includes surgical operations, such as the removal of healthy genitals to replace them with artificial genitals that resemble the opposite sex and chest procedures that remove the healthy breasts on girls or implant prosthetic breasts on boys.

It also includes hormone treatments that attempt to masculinize girls with testosterone and feminize boys with estrogen and puberty blockers, which delay a child’s natural developments during puberty.

HHS also announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing warning letters to 12 manufacturers and retailers that they accuse of illegally marketing “breast binders” to girls under the age of 18 as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Breast binders compress breasts as a means to flatten them under their clothing.

The news release said breast binders are Class 1 medical devices meant to help recover from cancer-related mastectomies, and the warning letters will “formally notify the companies of their significant regulatory violations and how they should take prompt corrective action.”

Additionally, HHS is working to clarify the definition of a “disability” in civil rights regulations to exclude “gender dysphoria” that does not result from physical impairments. This ensures that discrimination laws are not interpreted in a way that would require “sex-rejecting procedures,” the statement said.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a news conference that “sex-rejecting procedures” on minors are “endangering the very lives that [doctors] are sworn to safeguard.”

“So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people,” he said. “This is not medicine — it is malpractice.”

The proposals would conform HHS regulations to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order to prohibit the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children. The order instructed HHS to propose regulations to prevent these procedures on minors.

In a news release, HHS repeatedly referred to the medical interventions as “sex-rejecting procedures” and warned they “cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.”

HHS cited its own report from May, which found “deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions” for treating a minor with gender dysphoria. The report found that “these interventions carry risk of significant harms,” which can include infertility, sexual dysfunction, underdeveloped bone mass, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, and adverse cognitive impacts, among other complications.

Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, a medical advocacy group, said in a statement that the proposed regulation on hospitals is “another critical step to protect children from harmful gender ideology” and said he supports rules that ensure “American taxpayer dollars do not fund sex-change operations on minors.”

“Many so-called gender clinics have already begun to close as the truth about the risks and long-term harms about these drugs and surgeries on minors have been exposed,” he said. “Now, hospitals that receive taxpayer funds from these federal programs must follow suit.”

Mary Rice Hasson, director of the Person and Identity Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), said she sees the proposed restriction on hospitals as “excellent.”

“This proposed rule sends a powerful message to states and health care providers: It’s time to stop these unethical and dangerous procedures,” Hasson said. “Puberty is not a disease to be medicated away. All children have the right to grow and develop normally.”

“Sex-rejecting procedures promise the impossible: that a child can escape the reality of being male or female,” she added. “In reality, these sex-rejecting procedures provide only the illusion of ‘changing sex’ by disabling healthy functions and altering the child’s healthy body through drugs and surgery that will cause lifelong harm.”

In January, Bishop Robert Barron, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth, welcomed Trump’s executive action on these procedures, warning that they are “based on a false understanding of human nature, attempt to change a child’s sex.”

“So many young people who have been victims of this ideological crusade have profound regrets over its life-altering consequences, such as infertility and lifelong dependence on costly hormone therapies that have significant side effects,” Barron said. “It is unacceptable that our children are encouraged to undergo destructive medical interventions instead of receiving access to authentic and bodily-unitive care.”