Conditions

Trump administration’s move to end annual hunger report meets criticism #Catholic U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins hosts a USDA all-staff meeting on May 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Rollins announced the termination of household food insecurity reports in September 2025. / Credit: USDAgov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 20, 2025 / 05:20 am (CNA). The Trump administration’s recent decision to cease publishing an annual U.S. Department of Agriculture report on household food insecurity is being met with strong criticism by the Catholic Health Association of the United States, anti-hunger activists, and academics.The last USDA food insecurity report, covering 2024 data, is set for release Oct. 22. On Sept. 20, the USDA, led by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, announced the termination of future “Household Food Security Reports,” which were first published in 1995 during the administration of then-President Bill Clinton.“These redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous studies do nothing more than fearmonger,” the USDA said in a published statement.The USDA questioned the legitimacy of the annual reports, saying food insecurity trends have remained virtually unchanged since 1995, “regardless of an over 87% increase in SNAP spending between 2019–2023.”SNAP is an acronym for “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” which according to the USDA “provides food benefits to low-income families to enhance their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.” SNAP was formerly known as the “Food Stamp Program.”The Trump administration explained its decision for discontinuing the reports, saying: “For 30 years, this study — initially created by the Clinton administration as a means to support the increase of SNAP eligibility and benefit allotments — failed to present anything more than subjective, liberal fodder.”Responses to terminating the report“I don’t think collecting data about food insecurity across the country is ‘liberal fodder,’” said Lisa Smith, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which generally aligns with Church teaching but has clashed with the U.S. bishops in the past on health care issues, such as the Affordable Care Act. “When you don’t have the data, it makes it more difficult to know where the keys areas of need are.”The end of the annual food security report “is going to impact the health of low-income communities,” Smith said. Smith’s concerns were echoed by Colleen Heflin, a professor of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University and co-author of “Food for Thought: Understanding Older Adult Food Insecurity,” a book published last month along with Madonna Harrington Meyer, a sociology professor at Syracuse.“Without national data from the Current Population Survey on food insecurity, it will no longer be possible to track year-to-year variation in food insecurity due to changing economic and policy conditions,” Heflin said. “This lack of data will make it harder for Catholic charities and other community-based organizations to effectively address food insecurity without a consistent and comprehensive understanding of how food insecurity is changing for different demographic and geographic communities.”Like Smith, Heflin dismissed the Trump administration’s claim that the reports were little more than liberal, redundant fearmongering.“Food insecurity data collection has been a bipartisan issue since the Reagan administration,” since the 1980s, Heflin said. Referring to the Trump administration’s plan to end the annual report, Heflin said she found “both the decision and the justification provided quite shocking and without merit.”James Ziliak, a professor of microeconomics and founding director of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky, told CNA that eliminating the USDA household food security reports could reduce public and policy awareness of hunger needs and hinder private-sector responses, such as those by Catholic health and social service organizations.“This report was one of the most widely watched barometers of economic well-being among low- and moderate-income households in the U.S. and provided key information for policymakers, charitable organizations, and researchers,” Ziliak said in an email.Like Smith and Heflin, Ziliak said he did not accept the Trump administration’s explanation for ending publication of the annual report.“This is absolutely not justified, and the timing is especially harmful to public policy as the economy slows down and major cuts are being implemented in the largest federal food assistance program,” he said, referring to SNAP.
Read More

Trump administration’s move to end annual hunger report meets criticism #Catholic U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins hosts a USDA all-staff meeting on May 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Rollins announced the termination of household food insecurity reports in September 2025. / Credit: USDAgov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 20, 2025 / 05:20 am (CNA). The Trump administration’s recent decision to cease publishing an annual U.S. Department of Agriculture report on household food insecurity is being met with strong criticism by the Catholic Health Association of the United States, anti-hunger activists, and academics.The last USDA food insecurity report, covering 2024 data, is set for release Oct. 22. On Sept. 20, the USDA, led by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, announced the termination of future “Household Food Security Reports,” which were first published in 1995 during the administration of then-President Bill Clinton.“These redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous studies do nothing more than fearmonger,” the USDA said in a published statement.The USDA questioned the legitimacy of the annual reports, saying food insecurity trends have remained virtually unchanged since 1995, “regardless of an over 87% increase in SNAP spending between 2019–2023.”SNAP is an acronym for “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” which according to the USDA “provides food benefits to low-income families to enhance their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.” SNAP was formerly known as the “Food Stamp Program.”The Trump administration explained its decision for discontinuing the reports, saying: “For 30 years, this study — initially created by the Clinton administration as a means to support the increase of SNAP eligibility and benefit allotments — failed to present anything more than subjective, liberal fodder.”Responses to terminating the report“I don’t think collecting data about food insecurity across the country is ‘liberal fodder,’” said Lisa Smith, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which generally aligns with Church teaching but has clashed with the U.S. bishops in the past on health care issues, such as the Affordable Care Act. “When you don’t have the data, it makes it more difficult to know where the keys areas of need are.”The end of the annual food security report “is going to impact the health of low-income communities,” Smith said. Smith’s concerns were echoed by Colleen Heflin, a professor of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University and co-author of “Food for Thought: Understanding Older Adult Food Insecurity,” a book published last month along with Madonna Harrington Meyer, a sociology professor at Syracuse.“Without national data from the Current Population Survey on food insecurity, it will no longer be possible to track year-to-year variation in food insecurity due to changing economic and policy conditions,” Heflin said. “This lack of data will make it harder for Catholic charities and other community-based organizations to effectively address food insecurity without a consistent and comprehensive understanding of how food insecurity is changing for different demographic and geographic communities.”Like Smith, Heflin dismissed the Trump administration’s claim that the reports were little more than liberal, redundant fearmongering.“Food insecurity data collection has been a bipartisan issue since the Reagan administration,” since the 1980s, Heflin said. Referring to the Trump administration’s plan to end the annual report, Heflin said she found “both the decision and the justification provided quite shocking and without merit.”James Ziliak, a professor of microeconomics and founding director of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky, told CNA that eliminating the USDA household food security reports could reduce public and policy awareness of hunger needs and hinder private-sector responses, such as those by Catholic health and social service organizations.“This report was one of the most widely watched barometers of economic well-being among low- and moderate-income households in the U.S. and provided key information for policymakers, charitable organizations, and researchers,” Ziliak said in an email.Like Smith and Heflin, Ziliak said he did not accept the Trump administration’s explanation for ending publication of the annual report.“This is absolutely not justified, and the timing is especially harmful to public policy as the economy slows down and major cuts are being implemented in the largest federal food assistance program,” he said, referring to SNAP.

unitedyam

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins hosts a USDA all-staff meeting on May 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Rollins announced the termination of household food insecurity reports in September 2025. / Credit: USDAgov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 20, 2025 / 05:20 am (CNA).

The Trump administration’s recent decision to cease publishing an annual U.S. Department of Agriculture report on household food insecurity is being met with strong criticism by the Catholic Health Association of the United States, anti-hunger activists, and academics.

The last USDA food insecurity report, covering 2024 data, is set for release Oct. 22. On Sept. 20, the USDA, led by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, announced the termination of future “Household Food Security Reports,” which were first published in 1995 during the administration of then-President Bill Clinton.

“These redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous studies do nothing more than fearmonger,” the USDA said in a published statement.

The USDA questioned the legitimacy of the annual reports, saying food insecurity trends have remained virtually unchanged since 1995, “regardless of an over 87% increase in SNAP spending between 2019–2023.”

SNAP is an acronym for “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” which according to the USDA “provides food benefits to low-income families to enhance their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.” SNAP was formerly known as the “Food Stamp Program.”

The Trump administration explained its decision for discontinuing the reports, saying: “For 30 years, this study — initially created by the Clinton administration as a means to support the increase of SNAP eligibility and benefit allotments — failed to present anything more than subjective, liberal fodder.”

Responses to terminating the report

“I don’t think collecting data about food insecurity across the country is ‘liberal fodder,’” said Lisa Smith, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which generally aligns with Church teaching but has clashed with the U.S. bishops in the past on health care issues, such as the Affordable Care Act. “When you don’t have the data, it makes it more difficult to know where the keys areas of need are.”

The end of the annual food security report “is going to impact the health of low-income communities,” Smith said. Smith’s concerns were echoed by Colleen Heflin, a professor of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University and co-author of “Food for Thought: Understanding Older Adult Food Insecurity,” a book published last month along with Madonna Harrington Meyer, a sociology professor at Syracuse.

“Without national data from the Current Population Survey on food insecurity, it will no longer be possible to track year-to-year variation in food insecurity due to changing economic and policy conditions,” Heflin said. “This lack of data will make it harder for Catholic charities and other community-based organizations to effectively address food insecurity without a consistent and comprehensive understanding of how food insecurity is changing for different demographic and geographic communities.”

Like Smith, Heflin dismissed the Trump administration’s claim that the reports were little more than liberal, redundant fearmongering.

“Food insecurity data collection has been a bipartisan issue since the Reagan administration,” since the 1980s, Heflin said. Referring to the Trump administration’s plan to end the annual report, Heflin said she found “both the decision and the justification provided quite shocking and without merit.”

James Ziliak, a professor of microeconomics and founding director of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky, told CNA that eliminating the USDA household food security reports could reduce public and policy awareness of hunger needs and hinder private-sector responses, such as those by Catholic health and social service organizations.

“This report was one of the most widely watched barometers of economic well-being among low- and moderate-income households in the U.S. and provided key information for policymakers, charitable organizations, and researchers,” Ziliak said in an email.

Like Smith and Heflin, Ziliak said he did not accept the Trump administration’s explanation for ending publication of the annual report.

“This is absolutely not justified, and the timing is especially harmful to public policy as the economy slows down and major cuts are being implemented in the largest federal food assistance program,” he said, referring to SNAP.

Read More
Trump administration expands IVF and other fertility treatment coverage #Catholic The Trump administration will expand access to in vitro fertilization drugs and procedures. / Credit: sejianni/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 16, 2025 / 18:53 pm (CNA). President Donald Trump is expanding access to in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments by partnering with pharmaceutical companies and expanding insurance options. According to a White House announcement on Oct. 16, the Trump administration is working with major pharmaceutical companies to bring IVF drugs to the U.S. at lower prices. The administration is also expanding insurance coverage for fertility care.The agreement with leading pharmaceutical group EMD Serono will make IVF drugs available “at very, very heavily reduced prices — prices that you won’t even believe,” Trump said on Thursday in a livestream from the Oval Office. According to the announcement, women who buy directly from TrumpRx.gov, a website that will launch in January 2026, will get a discount equivalent to 796% of the negotiated price for GONAL-F, a widely used fertility drug.The FDA will also be expediting its review of an IVF drug that is not yet available in the U.S., which Trump said “would directly compete against a much more expensive option that currently has a monopoly in the American market, and this will bring down costs very significantly.”In addition, the Trump administration will enable employers to offer separate plans for fertility issues, comparable to the standard life, dental, and vision plans typically available from employers.“This will make all fertility care, including IVF, far more affordable and accessible,” Trump said. “And by providing coverage at every step of the way, it will reduce the number of people who ultimately need to resort to IVF, because couples will be able to identify and address problems early.” “The result will be healthier pregnancies, healthier babies, and many more beautiful American children,” Trump continued. These fertility benefits will include both IVF and other fertility treatments “that address the root causes of infertility,” according to the Oct. 16 announcement. “There’s no deeper happiness and joy [than] raising children, and now millions of Americans struggling with infertility will have a new chance to share the greatest experience of them all,” Trump said. IVF is a fertility treatment opposed by the Catholic Church in which doctors fuse sperm and eggs in a laboratory to create human embryos and implant them in the mother’s womb. To maximize efficiency, doctors create excess human embryos and freeze them. Undesired embryos are routinely destroyed or used in scientific research.Lila Rose, a devout Catholic and founder of the pro-life group Live Action, condemned the administration’s action, noting that “IVF kills more babies than abortion.”“Millions of embryos are frozen, discarded, or destroyed,” Rose said in a post on X on Oct. 16.“Only 7% of embryos created survive to birth,” she said. IVF is “not a solution to fertility struggles.”      In response to Trump’s announcement, the March for Life celebrated the White House’s focus on children and fertility, while cautioning the administration to protect human life at all its stages, even as embryos. “March for Life appreciates that President Trump has heard and is responding to so many Americans who dream of becoming parents,” the March for Life said in a statement shared with CNA. “The desire for parenthood is natural and good. Children are a blessing. Life is a gift. The White House’s announcement today is rooted in these core truths.” The March for Life noted that “every human life is precious — no matter the circumstances” and urged policymakers to protect human life. “We continue to encourage any federal government policymaking surrounding IVF to prioritize protecting human life in its earliest stages and to fully align with basic standards of medical ethics,” the statement read. The group also welcomed “the administration’s commitment to making groundbreaking advancements in restorative reproductive medicine more accessible and available to American women.”  Catholic institutes such as the Saint Paul VI Institute have pioneered a form of restorative reproductive medicine called NaProTechnology. “Naprotech” aims to discover and address the root cause of fertility issues via treatment and surgery if necessary. Some conditions that can affect fertility include endometriosis — which affects nearly 1 in 10 women — and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), the leading cause of infertility.“RRM aims to resolve rather than ignore underlying medical issues, increasing health and wellness while also restoring fertility, and responding to the beautiful desire for children while avoiding any collateral loss of human life,” March for Life stated.
Read More

Trump administration expands IVF and other fertility treatment coverage #Catholic The Trump administration will expand access to in vitro fertilization drugs and procedures. / Credit: sejianni/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 16, 2025 / 18:53 pm (CNA). President Donald Trump is expanding access to in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments by partnering with pharmaceutical companies and expanding insurance options. According to a White House announcement on Oct. 16, the Trump administration is working with major pharmaceutical companies to bring IVF drugs to the U.S. at lower prices. The administration is also expanding insurance coverage for fertility care.The agreement with leading pharmaceutical group EMD Serono will make IVF drugs available “at very, very heavily reduced prices — prices that you won’t even believe,” Trump said on Thursday in a livestream from the Oval Office. According to the announcement, women who buy directly from TrumpRx.gov, a website that will launch in January 2026, will get a discount equivalent to 796% of the negotiated price for GONAL-F, a widely used fertility drug.The FDA will also be expediting its review of an IVF drug that is not yet available in the U.S., which Trump said “would directly compete against a much more expensive option that currently has a monopoly in the American market, and this will bring down costs very significantly.”In addition, the Trump administration will enable employers to offer separate plans for fertility issues, comparable to the standard life, dental, and vision plans typically available from employers.“This will make all fertility care, including IVF, far more affordable and accessible,” Trump said. “And by providing coverage at every step of the way, it will reduce the number of people who ultimately need to resort to IVF, because couples will be able to identify and address problems early.” “The result will be healthier pregnancies, healthier babies, and many more beautiful American children,” Trump continued. These fertility benefits will include both IVF and other fertility treatments “that address the root causes of infertility,” according to the Oct. 16 announcement. “There’s no deeper happiness and joy [than] raising children, and now millions of Americans struggling with infertility will have a new chance to share the greatest experience of them all,” Trump said. IVF is a fertility treatment opposed by the Catholic Church in which doctors fuse sperm and eggs in a laboratory to create human embryos and implant them in the mother’s womb. To maximize efficiency, doctors create excess human embryos and freeze them. Undesired embryos are routinely destroyed or used in scientific research.Lila Rose, a devout Catholic and founder of the pro-life group Live Action, condemned the administration’s action, noting that “IVF kills more babies than abortion.”“Millions of embryos are frozen, discarded, or destroyed,” Rose said in a post on X on Oct. 16.“Only 7% of embryos created survive to birth,” she said. IVF is “not a solution to fertility struggles.”      In response to Trump’s announcement, the March for Life celebrated the White House’s focus on children and fertility, while cautioning the administration to protect human life at all its stages, even as embryos. “March for Life appreciates that President Trump has heard and is responding to so many Americans who dream of becoming parents,” the March for Life said in a statement shared with CNA. “The desire for parenthood is natural and good. Children are a blessing. Life is a gift. The White House’s announcement today is rooted in these core truths.” The March for Life noted that “every human life is precious — no matter the circumstances” and urged policymakers to protect human life. “We continue to encourage any federal government policymaking surrounding IVF to prioritize protecting human life in its earliest stages and to fully align with basic standards of medical ethics,” the statement read. The group also welcomed “the administration’s commitment to making groundbreaking advancements in restorative reproductive medicine more accessible and available to American women.”  Catholic institutes such as the Saint Paul VI Institute have pioneered a form of restorative reproductive medicine called NaProTechnology. “Naprotech” aims to discover and address the root cause of fertility issues via treatment and surgery if necessary. Some conditions that can affect fertility include endometriosis — which affects nearly 1 in 10 women — and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), the leading cause of infertility.“RRM aims to resolve rather than ignore underlying medical issues, increasing health and wellness while also restoring fertility, and responding to the beautiful desire for children while avoiding any collateral loss of human life,” March for Life stated.

unitedyam

The Trump administration will expand access to in vitro fertilization drugs and procedures. / Credit: sejianni/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 16, 2025 / 18:53 pm (CNA).

President Donald Trump is expanding access to in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments by partnering with pharmaceutical companies and expanding insurance options. 

According to a White House announcement on Oct. 16, the Trump administration is working with major pharmaceutical companies to bring IVF drugs to the U.S. at lower prices. The administration is also expanding insurance coverage for fertility care.

The agreement with leading pharmaceutical group EMD Serono will make IVF drugs available “at very, very heavily reduced prices — prices that you won’t even believe,” Trump said on Thursday in a livestream from the Oval Office. 

According to the announcement, women who buy directly from TrumpRx.gov, a website that will launch in January 2026, will get a discount equivalent to 796% of the negotiated price for GONAL-F, a widely used fertility drug.

The FDA will also be expediting its review of an IVF drug that is not yet available in the U.S., which Trump said “would directly compete against a much more expensive option that currently has a monopoly in the American market, and this will bring down costs very significantly.”

In addition, the Trump administration will enable employers to offer separate plans for fertility issues, comparable to the standard life, dental, and vision plans typically available from employers.

“This will make all fertility care, including IVF, far more affordable and accessible,” Trump said. “And by providing coverage at every step of the way, it will reduce the number of people who ultimately need to resort to IVF, because couples will be able to identify and address problems early.” 

“The result will be healthier pregnancies, healthier babies, and many more beautiful American children,” Trump continued. 

These fertility benefits will include both IVF and other fertility treatments “that address the root causes of infertility,” according to the Oct. 16 announcement. 

“There’s no deeper happiness and joy [than] raising children, and now millions of Americans struggling with infertility will have a new chance to share the greatest experience of them all,” Trump said. 

IVF is a fertility treatment opposed by the Catholic Church in which doctors fuse sperm and eggs in a laboratory to create human embryos and implant them in the mother’s womb. To maximize efficiency, doctors create excess human embryos and freeze them. Undesired embryos are routinely destroyed or used in scientific research.

Lila Rose, a devout Catholic and founder of the pro-life group Live Action, condemned the administration’s action, noting that “IVF kills more babies than abortion.”

“Millions of embryos are frozen, discarded, or destroyed,” Rose said in a post on X on Oct. 16.

“Only 7% of embryos created survive to birth,” she said. IVF is “not a solution to fertility struggles.”      

In response to Trump’s announcement, the March for Life celebrated the White House’s focus on children and fertility, while cautioning the administration to protect human life at all its stages, even as embryos. 

“March for Life appreciates that President Trump has heard and is responding to so many Americans who dream of becoming parents,” the March for Life said in a statement shared with CNA. “The desire for parenthood is natural and good. Children are a blessing. Life is a gift. The White House’s announcement today is rooted in these core truths.” 

The March for Life noted that “every human life is precious — no matter the circumstances” and urged policymakers to protect human life. 

“We continue to encourage any federal government policymaking surrounding IVF to prioritize protecting human life in its earliest stages and to fully align with basic standards of medical ethics,” the statement read. 

The group also welcomed “the administration’s commitment to making groundbreaking advancements in restorative reproductive medicine more accessible and available to American women.”  

Catholic institutes such as the Saint Paul VI Institute have pioneered a form of restorative reproductive medicine called NaProTechnology. “Naprotech” aims to discover and address the root cause of fertility issues via treatment and surgery if necessary. Some conditions that can affect fertility include endometriosis — which affects nearly 1 in 10 women — and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), the leading cause of infertility.

“RRM aims to resolve rather than ignore underlying medical issues, increasing health and wellness while also restoring fertility, and responding to the beautiful desire for children while avoiding any collateral loss of human life,” March for Life stated.

Read More
3-in-1 Launch
Read More

3-in-1 Launch

unitedyam

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying NASA’s IMAP (Interstellar Mapping and Acceleration Probe), the agency’s Carruthers Geocorona Observatory, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Space Weather Follow On–Lagrange 1 (SWFO-L1) spacecraft lifts off from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida at 7:30 a.m. EDT Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2025. The missions will each focus on different effects of the solar wind — the continuous stream of particles emitted by the Sun — and space weather — the changing conditions in space driven by the Sun — from their origins at the Sun to their farthest reaches billions of miles away at the edge of our solar system.

Read More
Catholic University of America panel explores how Christians should think about AI
Read More

Catholic University of America panel explores how Christians should think about AI

unitedyam

From left: Ross Douthat, media fellow at the Institute for Human Ecology; Will Wilson, CEO of AI company Antithesis; Father Michael Baggot, LC, professor of bioethics at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome; and Brian J.A. Boyd, director for the Center for Ethics and Economic Justice at Loyola University New Orleans discuss AI and the Church on Sept. 23, 2025, at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Tessa Gervasini/CNA

Washington, D.C., Sep 25, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

The Catholic University of America (CUA) hosted a panel this week to discuss how Christians should think about the developing technology surrounding artificial intelligence (AI).

The Sept. 23 panel was hosted by CUA’s Institute for Human Ecology, which works to identify the economic, cultural, and social conditions vital for human flourishing. The group discussed the threats posed by AI, the future of the technology, and the Church’s place in the conversation. 

Ross Douthat, media fellow at the Institute for Human Ecology, led the discussion between Father Michael Baggot, LC, professor of bioethics at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome; Will Wilson, CEO of AI company Antithesis; and Brian J.A. Boyd, director for the Center for Ethics and Economic Justice at Loyola University New Orleans.

Douthat asked the panelists what they each believe to be the greatest threat of the emerging technology as it poses new challenges to the defense of human dignity, justice, and labor.

According to Boyd, the potential loss of human connection is the most prominent threat of AI. He said: “To be human is to be created in and for relationships of love — by love of God. Our nature is made to be receptive to grace.”

AI becomes an issue if “our main relationship and reference point is talking to a computer rather than to humans,” Boyd said. “I think that is an existential threat, and something worth discussing.”

“If we’re habituated to look at the screen before we look at our neighbor … and AI is [the] constant reference point, it will make habits of prayer much more difficult to include. It will make it harder to learn to listen to the voice of God, because the answer is always in your pocket.”

Baggot said his greatest concern is that “artificial intimacy is going to distract us from, and deter us from, the deep interpersonal bonds that are central to our happiness and our flourishing.”

“Companies now grip not only our minds but also are capturing our affections,” Baggot said. “We can all read about these tragic cases of exploitation and manipulation that are only going to continue unless we put proper guardrails in place and also provide the information that allows us to have the kind of deep interpersonal relationships we were made for.”

While many people worry that AI could create “mass unemployment,” Wilson said he disagrees: “I think that this is a very silly fear because human desires and human wants are infinite, and therefore, we always find new things for people to do.”

Rather, Wilson shared his concern that humans will no longer create their own ideas and will lose their intelligence and knowledge.

“The trouble with AI is even if it’s not actually intelligent, it does a very good simulacrum of intelligence, and it’s very tempting to use it to substitute for human intelligence,” Wilson said. “It’s very possible that we’re entering a world where very soon any cognitive labor, any reason, [or] any thought will be a luxury.”

Catholic AI 

While there are dangers to AI, Baggot addressed the positive aspects the tool can offer, highlighting the benefits of Catholic AI companies. 

“I’ve been privileged to work on the Scholarly Advisory Board of Magisterium AI, which is basically a Catholic answer engine that’s very narrowly trained on reliable documents, magisterial documents, [and] theological texts,” Baggot said. 

Magisterium AI is a “system designed to give people reliable responses to their questions about the Catholic faith,” Baggot explained. “This is appealing to Catholics who want to go deeper, but it’s also quite appealing to people who have never really had the chance, or aren’t quite ready, to speak to another human person about their curiosities regarding Catholicism.”

Baggot explained that creators of the technology work hard to keep it from being “anthropomorphic” to avoid users confusing the AI with actual connection. He said: “We do not want people having an intimate relationship with it.”

While Magisterium AI can provide useful information, Baggot acknowledged that it is not a tool for spiritual direction. He said: “Spiritual direction … should be with another living, breathing human being who actually has insight into human experience [and] who can develop a relationship of real empathy and real compassion.”

The Church’s place in AI 

The panelists had differing viewpoints about the Church’s place in AI and how Christians should approach it. Wilson said he believes “the conversation about where the technology is going and what we’re going to do with it is happening among people who do not care … what any Christian church has to say on the topic.”

“It’s actually a little hard to blame them because Christians have basically sacrificed their place at the forefront of science and technology, which is where we were in centuries past,” Wilson said.

“Control goes to those who can deploy the most capital, and capital gets allocated very fast to people who are able to deploy very efficiently. And by and large, those people are not Christians because Christians aren’t really trying.”

Baggot said that while AI does pose dangers, the Church “has a lot of insight and wisdom” that can help guide the conversation. “The Church is in a privileged position to leverage its incredible patrimony, its reflection on the human person, [and] human flourishing.” 

“The Church has reflected a lot about the meaning and value of work, the subjective value of work. It’s not just about economic efficiency, but it’s about how I use my own God-given talents to grow as a person and then also to serve others in intrinsically valuable activities.”

Read More
Anti-assisted-suicide group says suicide laws expanding throughout U.S. in 2025
Read More

Anti-assisted-suicide group says suicide laws expanding throughout U.S. in 2025

unitedyam

null / Credit: nito/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Sep 19, 2025 / 14:31 pm (CNA).

This week the Patients Rights Action Fund, which works to “end the dangerous and discriminatory public policy of assisted suicide,” provided an update on current assisted suicide legislation in the United States, revealing the deadly practice’s ongoing expansion throughout the country.

In a Sept. 18 webinar, group coalitions director Jessica Rodgers explained that most states that allow assisted suicide follow the “Oregon model,” based on Oregan’s assisted suicide criteria. 

The model requires “the patient to be 18 years of age or older, have a terminal illness with six months or less to live, make two or more separate requests with a 15-day waiting period in between, and have two witnesses, which can include heirs to the estate or friends of heirs,” Rodgers said. 

“The drugs must be self-administered and all states do require the falsification of the death certificate,” Rodgers said, meaning the states list the underlying condition that qualifies the patient as the cause of death rather than the prescribed drug that ends his or her life.

States attempting expansions to assisted suicide laws

In 2025, new legislation was proposed in a number of states where assisted suicide is legal to advance its polices and limit some of the “safeguards” in place.

A New Jersey bill was proposed that would remove the 15-day waiting period and the second request if the prescriber thinks death will occur within the time period. The bill is still in play and has not been passed yet. 

In Maine, a 15-day waiting period was reduced to seven days in cases when it is “in the best interests of the patient” according to the judgment of the prescriber. The legislation was passed and signed by the governor after the original version was amended that would have allowed the whole waiting period to be waived.

A Delaware bill passed that allows for advanced practice nurses to prescribe the medication that kills the patients. The bill has no requirements for an in-person exam or a mental health evaluation. 

California proposed a major change that reduced the 15-day waiting period for assisted suicide to only 48 hours. The bill also removes the sunset date, which will keep the End of Life Option Act from expiring. The bill passed last week and is awaiting a signature by the governor.

Some states proposed expansions, but the legislation did not advance. In Washington, D.C., there was a public hearing on a bill that would remove the waiting period in certain cases, but no action was taken.

An Oregon bill was also not advanced that proposed nurse practitioners and physician assistants could prescribe to patients seeking assisted suicide. It also pushed for the waiting period to be reduced from 15 days to 48 hours and would waive the period completely if death is “expected imminently.”

Proposed legislation to legalize assisted suicide 

Assisted suicide is legal in 10 states and D.C., but a number of other states have active legislation to legalize it. 

In New York a bill to legalize assisted suicide was approved and is awaiting signature by the governor, which she must sign by the end of the year. The bill does not require the patient to be a resident of the state, has no waiting period, and does not require an in-person exam or a mental health evaluation.

In Rhode Island assisting a suicide is a felony, but there is proposed legislation to legalize assisted suicide that would require an in-person evaluation. The bill requires a 15-day waiting period between requests and an additional 48-hour waiting period that begins after the patient submits his or her signed request for the medication. 

Nevada does not authorize assisted suicide, but legislation pushing for it proposed advanced practice nurses to be allowed to prescribe the drugs, no in-person exam requirement, only one witness necessarily, and no requirement for the patient to be a resident of the state. 

The Nevada legislation does detail that the prescribed drugs would be the cause of death on the certificate rather than the underlying condition.

Legislation in Maryland would not require a mental health evaluation and has a broad meaning for “terminal illness” that can include treatable conditions. The bill has provisions that allow a patient to communicate through someone else “familiar with the individual’s manner of communicating.” 

Proposed legislation in Massachusetts also has a broad definition for “terminal illness” that can include treatable conditions. There was a public hearing in Massachusetts in the state Joint Public Health Committee, which then moved the bill to a second committee on the state House side where it is still active. 

In New Hampshire, a bill is pushing for no residency requirement, no in-person examination requirement, a broad “terminal illness” definition, and no mental health evaluation. The legislation also proposed a 48-hour waiting period and would allow for advanced practice nurses and physician assistants to prescribe the drugs. 

A Tennessee House bill pushing the legalization of assisted suicide primarily follows the Oregon model. It does have a broad meaning for “terminal illness” that can include treatable conditions. On March 4, the first committee hearing was held on the matter, but it was rejected.

In Illinois, a 2025 bill to legalize assisted suicide in the state stalled and will cross over to the 2026 session. The bill had a five-day waiting period, no requirement for mental health evaluation, and broad terminal diagnosis language.

As legislation continues to be proposed and advances in assisted suicide expand, Patients Rights Action Fund highlighted the lack of mental health evaluations across states and noted that waiting periods are being quickly reduced after the initial passing of legislation.

“Ultimately, assisted suicide laws are inherently discriminatory,” Rodgers said on Sept. 18. 

“They take a segment of our neighbors and say: ‘You get a lower standard of care than everybody else,’” she said. “The patients that qualify for assisted suicide are already inherently in a more vulnerable state because of their diagnosis and because of the financial costs that they’re facing with health care and the cost of treatment.”

Read More