Constitution

Texas voters to decide on parental rights amendment in November #Catholic 
 
 Texas state capitol. / Credit: Inspired By Maps/Shutterstock

Houston, Texas, Oct 29, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Texas voters will head to the polls next week to consider Proposition 15, the Parental Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment aimed at enshrining parents’ rights in the state constitution.The measure, if approved, would add language to the Texas Constitution affirming that parents have the right “to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing” and the responsibility “to nurture and protect the parent’s child.” Texas already ranks among 26 states with a Parents’ Bill of Rights enshrined in state law. That existing statute grants parents a right to “full information” concerning their child at school as well as access to their child’s student records, copies of state assessments, and teaching materials, among other provisions.The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops told CNA it supports the “proposed amendment to recognize the natural right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing.”Other supporters include the Baptist General Convention of Texas Christian Life Commission, Family Freedom Project, Texans for Vaccine Choice, Texas Eagle Forum, Texas Home School Coalition, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Texas Right to Life PAC.Marcella Burke, a Houston attorney, told CNA that “it’s good to live in a state where an amendment like this is on the table. Parents matter, their kids matter, and families should be protected against government interference. That’s exactly what this amendment seeks to do: keep governments from interfering with beneficial family growth and child development.”“While these rights to nurture and protect children are currently safeguarded thanks to existing Supreme Court case law, there is no federal constitutional amendment protecting these rights,” Burke continued.Opposition to the proposition has come from both Democratic as well as conservative advocacy groups.According to the True Texas Project, a conservative group of former Tea Party supporters, the language of the amendment is too vague. In addition, the group argues that “Prop 15 would simply declare that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their children. We should not have to put this into the state constitution! God has already ordained that parents are to be responsible for their children, and government has no place in family decisions, except in the case of child abuse and neglect.”The group says that including the proposed language in the state constitution “equates to acknowledgement that the state has conferred this right. And we know that what the state can give, the state can take away.”Burke said, however, that “an amendment like this will make governments think twice and carefully consider any actions affecting child-rearing. Keep in mind that no rights are absolute, so in this context, parents don’t have the right to abuse their kids — and that’s the sort of exception the amendment reads in.”Katy Faust, founder of children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, told CNA parental rights are the “flipside of genuine child rights.”

Texas voters to decide on parental rights amendment in November #Catholic Texas state capitol. / Credit: Inspired By Maps/Shutterstock Houston, Texas, Oct 29, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA). Texas voters will head to the polls next week to consider Proposition 15, the Parental Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment aimed at enshrining parents’ rights in the state constitution.The measure, if approved, would add language to the Texas Constitution affirming that parents have the right “to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing” and the responsibility “to nurture and protect the parent’s child.” Texas already ranks among 26 states with a Parents’ Bill of Rights enshrined in state law. That existing statute grants parents a right to “full information” concerning their child at school as well as access to their child’s student records, copies of state assessments, and teaching materials, among other provisions.The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops told CNA it supports the “proposed amendment to recognize the natural right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing.”Other supporters include the Baptist General Convention of Texas Christian Life Commission, Family Freedom Project, Texans for Vaccine Choice, Texas Eagle Forum, Texas Home School Coalition, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Texas Right to Life PAC.Marcella Burke, a Houston attorney, told CNA that “it’s good to live in a state where an amendment like this is on the table. Parents matter, their kids matter, and families should be protected against government interference. That’s exactly what this amendment seeks to do: keep governments from interfering with beneficial family growth and child development.”“While these rights to nurture and protect children are currently safeguarded thanks to existing Supreme Court case law, there is no federal constitutional amendment protecting these rights,” Burke continued.Opposition to the proposition has come from both Democratic as well as conservative advocacy groups.According to the True Texas Project, a conservative group of former Tea Party supporters, the language of the amendment is too vague. In addition, the group argues that “Prop 15 would simply declare that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their children. We should not have to put this into the state constitution! God has already ordained that parents are to be responsible for their children, and government has no place in family decisions, except in the case of child abuse and neglect.”The group says that including the proposed language in the state constitution “equates to acknowledgement that the state has conferred this right. And we know that what the state can give, the state can take away.”Burke said, however, that “an amendment like this will make governments think twice and carefully consider any actions affecting child-rearing. Keep in mind that no rights are absolute, so in this context, parents don’t have the right to abuse their kids — and that’s the sort of exception the amendment reads in.”Katy Faust, founder of children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, told CNA parental rights are the “flipside of genuine child rights.”


Texas state capitol. / Credit: Inspired By Maps/Shutterstock

Houston, Texas, Oct 29, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Texas voters will head to the polls next week to consider Proposition 15, the Parental Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment aimed at enshrining parents’ rights in the state constitution.

The measure, if approved, would add language to the Texas Constitution affirming that parents have the right “to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing” and the responsibility “to nurture and protect the parent’s child.” 

Texas already ranks among 26 states with a Parents’ Bill of Rights enshrined in state law. That existing statute grants parents a right to “full information” concerning their child at school as well as access to their child’s student records, copies of state assessments, and teaching materials, among other provisions.

The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops told CNA it supports the “proposed amendment to recognize the natural right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing.”

Other supporters include the Baptist General Convention of Texas Christian Life Commission, Family Freedom Project, Texans for Vaccine Choice, Texas Eagle Forum, Texas Home School Coalition, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Texas Right to Life PAC.

Marcella Burke, a Houston attorney, told CNA that “it’s good to live in a state where an amendment like this is on the table. Parents matter, their kids matter, and families should be protected against government interference. That’s exactly what this amendment seeks to do: keep governments from interfering with beneficial family growth and child development.”

“While these rights to nurture and protect children are currently safeguarded thanks to existing Supreme Court case law, there is no federal constitutional amendment protecting these rights,” Burke continued.

Opposition to the proposition has come from both Democratic as well as conservative advocacy groups.

According to the True Texas Project, a conservative group of former Tea Party supporters, the language of the amendment is too vague. In addition, the group argues that “Prop 15 would simply declare that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their children. We should not have to put this into the state constitution! God has already ordained that parents are to be responsible for their children, and government has no place in family decisions, except in the case of child abuse and neglect.”

The group says that including the proposed language in the state constitution “equates to acknowledgement that the state has conferred this right. And we know that what the state can give, the state can take away.”

Burke said, however, that “an amendment like this will make governments think twice and carefully consider any actions affecting child-rearing. Keep in mind that no rights are absolute, so in this context, parents don’t have the right to abuse their kids — and that’s the sort of exception the amendment reads in.”

Katy Faust, founder of children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, told CNA parental rights are the “flipside of genuine child rights.”

Read More
Alabama executes man by nitrogen gas after Supreme Court denies request for firing squad #Catholic 
 
 The state of Alabama on Oct. 23, 2025, executed convicted murderer Anthony Boyd by nitrogen gas just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider requiring the state to execute him by firing squad instead. / Credit: Alabama Department of Corrections via AP, File

CNA Staff, Oct 24, 2025 / 11:32 am (CNA).
The state of Alabama on Thursday executed convicted murderer Anthony Boyd by nitrogen gas just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider requiring the state to execute him by firing squad instead.Boyd reportedly took around 20 minutes to die from the execution method, according to the Associated Press. The news wire said he “clenched his fist, raised his head off the gurney slightly, and began shaking,” after which he became still but continued with a series of “heaving breaths” for “at least 15 minutes.”The Alabama man was convicted of capital murder in the 1993 killing of Gregory Huguley in Talladega County. Huguley was taped up, doused with gasoline, and set on fire. Boyd proclaimed his innocence until the last minutes of his life. “I didn’t kill anybody. I didn’t participate in killing anybody,” he said on Oct. 23 prior to being executed. The protracted execution came on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider whether the execution by nitrogen gas violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Nitrogen gas is a relatively new execution method in the U.S. In January 2024 Alabama executed Kenneth Smith with gas, the first time in U.S. history that such a method was used. Witnesses said Smith writhed for several minutes while being administered the gas and was observed breathing for a considerable amount of time during the execution itself. Advocates have warned that the process is drawn-out and painful for victims of execution. Boyd had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider requiring Alabama to execute him by firing squad. The Supreme Court declined to consider the case.In a scathing dissent ahead of the execution, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the high court of “turn[ing] its back” on Boyd and on the Constitution. Sotomayor, who was joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, pointed to several other executions by nitrogen gas, including Kenneth Smith’s, noting reports that inmates have been seen “violent[ly] convulsing, eyes bulging, [and] thrashing against the restraints” while they are killed. All condemned prisoners suffer “distress” ahead of their executions, Sotomayor said. But drawn-out methods of execution like that of nitrogen gas create suffering “after the execution begins and while it is being carried out to completion.”Prisoners are not guaranteed a painless death under the Eighth Amendment, Sotomayor acknowledged.“But when a state introduces an experimental method of execution that superadds psychological terror as a necessary feature of its successful completion, courts should enforce the Eighth Amendment’s mandate against cruel and unusual punishment,” she said.Ahead of Boyd’s execution, the anti-death penalty group Catholic Mobilizing Network said capital punishment “remind[s] us how critically important it is that we include the abolition of the death penalty in our respect life advocacy.”“May we see the dignity of [Boyd] and of every individual sentenced to death, remembering always that no person is defined by the worst thing they’ve ever done,” the group said.

Alabama executes man by nitrogen gas after Supreme Court denies request for firing squad #Catholic The state of Alabama on Oct. 23, 2025, executed convicted murderer Anthony Boyd by nitrogen gas just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider requiring the state to execute him by firing squad instead. / Credit: Alabama Department of Corrections via AP, File CNA Staff, Oct 24, 2025 / 11:32 am (CNA). The state of Alabama on Thursday executed convicted murderer Anthony Boyd by nitrogen gas just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider requiring the state to execute him by firing squad instead.Boyd reportedly took around 20 minutes to die from the execution method, according to the Associated Press. The news wire said he “clenched his fist, raised his head off the gurney slightly, and began shaking,” after which he became still but continued with a series of “heaving breaths” for “at least 15 minutes.”The Alabama man was convicted of capital murder in the 1993 killing of Gregory Huguley in Talladega County. Huguley was taped up, doused with gasoline, and set on fire. Boyd proclaimed his innocence until the last minutes of his life. “I didn’t kill anybody. I didn’t participate in killing anybody,” he said on Oct. 23 prior to being executed. The protracted execution came on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider whether the execution by nitrogen gas violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Nitrogen gas is a relatively new execution method in the U.S. In January 2024 Alabama executed Kenneth Smith with gas, the first time in U.S. history that such a method was used. Witnesses said Smith writhed for several minutes while being administered the gas and was observed breathing for a considerable amount of time during the execution itself. Advocates have warned that the process is drawn-out and painful for victims of execution. Boyd had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider requiring Alabama to execute him by firing squad. The Supreme Court declined to consider the case.In a scathing dissent ahead of the execution, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the high court of “turn[ing] its back” on Boyd and on the Constitution. Sotomayor, who was joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, pointed to several other executions by nitrogen gas, including Kenneth Smith’s, noting reports that inmates have been seen “violent[ly] convulsing, eyes bulging, [and] thrashing against the restraints” while they are killed. All condemned prisoners suffer “distress” ahead of their executions, Sotomayor said. But drawn-out methods of execution like that of nitrogen gas create suffering “after the execution begins and while it is being carried out to completion.”Prisoners are not guaranteed a painless death under the Eighth Amendment, Sotomayor acknowledged.“But when a state introduces an experimental method of execution that superadds psychological terror as a necessary feature of its successful completion, courts should enforce the Eighth Amendment’s mandate against cruel and unusual punishment,” she said.Ahead of Boyd’s execution, the anti-death penalty group Catholic Mobilizing Network said capital punishment “remind[s] us how critically important it is that we include the abolition of the death penalty in our respect life advocacy.”“May we see the dignity of [Boyd] and of every individual sentenced to death, remembering always that no person is defined by the worst thing they’ve ever done,” the group said.


The state of Alabama on Oct. 23, 2025, executed convicted murderer Anthony Boyd by nitrogen gas just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider requiring the state to execute him by firing squad instead. / Credit: Alabama Department of Corrections via AP, File

CNA Staff, Oct 24, 2025 / 11:32 am (CNA).

The state of Alabama on Thursday executed convicted murderer Anthony Boyd by nitrogen gas just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider requiring the state to execute him by firing squad instead.

Boyd reportedly took around 20 minutes to die from the execution method, according to the Associated Press. The news wire said he “clenched his fist, raised his head off the gurney slightly, and began shaking,” after which he became still but continued with a series of “heaving breaths” for “at least 15 minutes.”

The Alabama man was convicted of capital murder in the 1993 killing of Gregory Huguley in Talladega County. Huguley was taped up, doused with gasoline, and set on fire. 

Boyd proclaimed his innocence until the last minutes of his life. “I didn’t kill anybody. I didn’t participate in killing anybody,” he said on Oct. 23 prior to being executed. 

The protracted execution came on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider whether the execution by nitrogen gas violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. 

Nitrogen gas is a relatively new execution method in the U.S. In January 2024 Alabama executed Kenneth Smith with gas, the first time in U.S. history that such a method was used. 

Witnesses said Smith writhed for several minutes while being administered the gas and was observed breathing for a considerable amount of time during the execution itself. Advocates have warned that the process is drawn-out and painful for victims of execution. 

Boyd had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider requiring Alabama to execute him by firing squad. The Supreme Court declined to consider the case.

In a scathing dissent ahead of the execution, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the high court of “turn[ing] its back” on Boyd and on the Constitution. 

Sotomayor, who was joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, pointed to several other executions by nitrogen gas, including Kenneth Smith’s, noting reports that inmates have been seen “violent[ly] convulsing, eyes bulging, [and] thrashing against the restraints” while they are killed. 

All condemned prisoners suffer “distress” ahead of their executions, Sotomayor said. But drawn-out methods of execution like that of nitrogen gas create suffering “after the execution begins and while it is being carried out to completion.”

Prisoners are not guaranteed a painless death under the Eighth Amendment, Sotomayor acknowledged.

“But when a state introduces an experimental method of execution that superadds psychological terror as a necessary feature of its successful completion, courts should enforce the Eighth Amendment’s mandate against cruel and unusual punishment,” she said.

Ahead of Boyd’s execution, the anti-death penalty group Catholic Mobilizing Network said capital punishment “remind[s] us how critically important it is that we include the abolition of the death penalty in our respect life advocacy.”

“May we see the dignity of [Boyd] and of every individual sentenced to death, remembering always that no person is defined by the worst thing they’ve ever done,” the group said.

Read More
Judge rules against saints’ statues on Massachusetts government building #Catholic 
 
 Statues of St. Florian (at left) and St. Michael the Archangel (at right) are currently barred from appearing on the planned public safety building of Quincy, Massachusetts. / Credit: Courtesy of Office of Mayor Thomas Koch

Boston, Massachusetts, Oct 16, 2025 / 12:18 pm (CNA).
A Massachusetts trial court judge has issued an order blocking the installation of statues of two Catholic saints on a new public safety building in the city of Quincy, setting up a likely appeal that may determine how the state treats separation of church and state disputes going forward.The 10-foot-high bronze statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian, which were scheduled to be installed on the building’s façade this month, will instead await a higher court’s decision.The statues cost an estimated $850,000, part of the new, $175 million public safety building that will serve as police headquarters and administration offices for the Boston suburb’s fire department.Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch, a practicing Catholic, has said he chose St. Michael the Archangel because he is the patron of police officers and St. Florian because he is the patron of firefighters, not to send a message about religion.But the judge said the statues can’t be separated from the saints’ Catholic connections.“The complaint here plausibly alleges that the statues at issue convey a message endorsing one religion over others,” Norfolk County Superior Court Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 26-page ruling Oct. 14.The judge noted that the statues “represent two Catholic saints.”“The statues, particularly when considered together, patently endorse Catholic beliefs,” the judge wrote.The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the statues — 15 city residents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts — have amassed facts that “plausibly suggest that an objective observer would view these statues on the façade of the public safety building as primarily endorsing Catholicism/Christianity and conveying a distinctly religious message,” the judge wrote.Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, who argued the case during a lengthy court hearing on Sept. 19, praised the judge’s decision.“This ruling affirms the bedrock principle that our government cannot favor one religion above others, or religious beliefs over nonreligious beliefs,” Davidson said in a written statement. “We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state, as the Massachusetts Constitution requires.”The mayor said the city will appeal.“We chose the statues of Michael and Florian to honor Quincy’s first responders, not to promote any religion,” Koch said in a written statement provided to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, by a spokesman. “These figures are recognized symbols of courage and sacrifice in police and fire communities across the world. We will appeal this ruling so our city can continue to celebrate and inspire the men and women who protect us.” The lawsuit, which was filed May 27 in Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, relies on the Massachusetts Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, but there is a tie-in.In 1979, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 three-pronged “Lemon test” when considering church and state cases — whether a law concerning religion has “a secular legislative purpose,” whether “its principal or primary effect … neither advances [n]or inhibits religion,” and whether it fosters “excessive entanglement between government and religion.” The state’s highest court also added a fourth standard — whether a “challenged practice” has “divisive political potential.”But in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ditched the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case involving prayers offered by a high school football coach in Washington state.If the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of state law, takes the Quincy statues dispute, it would be the first time the court has considered a case on point since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kennedy decision.This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.

Judge rules against saints’ statues on Massachusetts government building #Catholic Statues of St. Florian (at left) and St. Michael the Archangel (at right) are currently barred from appearing on the planned public safety building of Quincy, Massachusetts. / Credit: Courtesy of Office of Mayor Thomas Koch Boston, Massachusetts, Oct 16, 2025 / 12:18 pm (CNA). A Massachusetts trial court judge has issued an order blocking the installation of statues of two Catholic saints on a new public safety building in the city of Quincy, setting up a likely appeal that may determine how the state treats separation of church and state disputes going forward.The 10-foot-high bronze statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian, which were scheduled to be installed on the building’s façade this month, will instead await a higher court’s decision.The statues cost an estimated $850,000, part of the new, $175 million public safety building that will serve as police headquarters and administration offices for the Boston suburb’s fire department.Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch, a practicing Catholic, has said he chose St. Michael the Archangel because he is the patron of police officers and St. Florian because he is the patron of firefighters, not to send a message about religion.But the judge said the statues can’t be separated from the saints’ Catholic connections.“The complaint here plausibly alleges that the statues at issue convey a message endorsing one religion over others,” Norfolk County Superior Court Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 26-page ruling Oct. 14.The judge noted that the statues “represent two Catholic saints.”“The statues, particularly when considered together, patently endorse Catholic beliefs,” the judge wrote.The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the statues — 15 city residents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts — have amassed facts that “plausibly suggest that an objective observer would view these statues on the façade of the public safety building as primarily endorsing Catholicism/Christianity and conveying a distinctly religious message,” the judge wrote.Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, who argued the case during a lengthy court hearing on Sept. 19, praised the judge’s decision.“This ruling affirms the bedrock principle that our government cannot favor one religion above others, or religious beliefs over nonreligious beliefs,” Davidson said in a written statement. “We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state, as the Massachusetts Constitution requires.”The mayor said the city will appeal.“We chose the statues of Michael and Florian to honor Quincy’s first responders, not to promote any religion,” Koch said in a written statement provided to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, by a spokesman. “These figures are recognized symbols of courage and sacrifice in police and fire communities across the world. We will appeal this ruling so our city can continue to celebrate and inspire the men and women who protect us.” The lawsuit, which was filed May 27 in Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, relies on the Massachusetts Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, but there is a tie-in.In 1979, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 three-pronged “Lemon test” when considering church and state cases — whether a law concerning religion has “a secular legislative purpose,” whether “its principal or primary effect … neither advances [n]or inhibits religion,” and whether it fosters “excessive entanglement between government and religion.” The state’s highest court also added a fourth standard — whether a “challenged practice” has “divisive political potential.”But in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ditched the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case involving prayers offered by a high school football coach in Washington state.If the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of state law, takes the Quincy statues dispute, it would be the first time the court has considered a case on point since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kennedy decision.This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.


Statues of St. Florian (at left) and St. Michael the Archangel (at right) are currently barred from appearing on the planned public safety building of Quincy, Massachusetts. / Credit: Courtesy of Office of Mayor Thomas Koch

Boston, Massachusetts, Oct 16, 2025 / 12:18 pm (CNA).

A Massachusetts trial court judge has issued an order blocking the installation of statues of two Catholic saints on a new public safety building in the city of Quincy, setting up a likely appeal that may determine how the state treats separation of church and state disputes going forward.

The 10-foot-high bronze statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian, which were scheduled to be installed on the building’s façade this month, will instead await a higher court’s decision.

The statues cost an estimated $850,000, part of the new, $175 million public safety building that will serve as police headquarters and administration offices for the Boston suburb’s fire department.

Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch, a practicing Catholic, has said he chose St. Michael the Archangel because he is the patron of police officers and St. Florian because he is the patron of firefighters, not to send a message about religion.

But the judge said the statues can’t be separated from the saints’ Catholic connections.

“The complaint here plausibly alleges that the statues at issue convey a message endorsing one religion over others,” Norfolk County Superior Court Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 26-page ruling Oct. 14.

The judge noted that the statues “represent two Catholic saints.”

“The statues, particularly when considered together, patently endorse Catholic beliefs,” the judge wrote.

The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the statues — 15 city residents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts — have amassed facts that “plausibly suggest that an objective observer would view these statues on the façade of the public safety building as primarily endorsing Catholicism/Christianity and conveying a distinctly religious message,” the judge wrote.

Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, who argued the case during a lengthy court hearing on Sept. 19, praised the judge’s decision.

“This ruling affirms the bedrock principle that our government cannot favor one religion above others, or religious beliefs over nonreligious beliefs,” Davidson said in a written statement. “We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state, as the Massachusetts Constitution requires.”

The mayor said the city will appeal.

“We chose the statues of Michael and Florian to honor Quincy’s first responders, not to promote any religion,” Koch said in a written statement provided to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, by a spokesman. “These figures are recognized symbols of courage and sacrifice in police and fire communities across the world. We will appeal this ruling so our city can continue to celebrate and inspire the men and women who protect us.” The lawsuit, which was filed May 27 in Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, relies on the Massachusetts Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, but there is a tie-in.

In 1979, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 three-pronged “Lemon test” when considering church and state cases — whether a law concerning religion has “a secular legislative purpose,” whether “its principal or primary effect … neither advances [n]or inhibits religion,” and whether it fosters “excessive entanglement between government and religion.” 

The state’s highest court also added a fourth standard — whether a “challenged practice” has “divisive political potential.”

But in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ditched the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case involving prayers offered by a high school football coach in Washington state.

If the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of state law, takes the Quincy statues dispute, it would be the first time the court has considered a case on point since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kennedy decision.

This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.

Read More
Report: Abortion declines even in states where it is still legal

null / Credit: Mike Blackburn via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

CNA Staff, Oct 3, 2025 / 10:30 am (CNA).

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

Abortion declines even in states where it is still legal

The number of abortions in clinics in pro-abortion states saw a decline in the first half of 2025, according to a recent report.

The report by the pro-abortion group Guttmacher found a 5% decrease in abortions provided by clinics from for the same period in 2024.

The review found declines in clinician-provided abortions in 22 states, all states that did not have “abortion bans.” The report also found an 8% decline in out-of-state travel for abortion to states with fewer protections for unborn children.

States with protections for unborn children at six weeks, such as Florida and Iowa, also saw a decline in abortions so far this year.

The report did not take mail-in or telehealth abortion pill numbers into account.

Michael New, a professor at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America and a scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute, called the report “good news” but noted that the survey wasn’t “comprehensive.”

“It does not appear that Guttmacher collects data on telehealth abortions from states where strong pro-life laws are in effect but abortion is not banned,” he told CNA. “Pro-lifers should take these figures with a grain of salt.”

In terms of mail-in, telehealth abortions, New noted that pro-lifers should “continue to push for more timely action to protect mothers and preborn children.”

“The Trump administration is within its power to halt telehealth abortions,” he said, noting that “Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy  Jr. recently said the FDA would conduct a new review of abortion pills.”

Florida’s Heartbeat Act, which took effect in May 2024, played “a large role in this decline,” New said.

“The Heartbeat Act is protecting preborn children in Florida and is preventing women from other states from obtaining abortions in the Sunshine State,” he said. “Birth data from Florida shows that the Heartbeat Act is saving nearly 300 lives every month.”

Government takes action against Virginia school system following alleged abortions for students

The U.S. Department of Education has called on a Virginia public school system to investigate reports that high school staff facilitated abortions for students without their parents’ knowledge. 

The department took action against Fairfax County Public Schools under the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendments, according to a Sept. 29 press release.

The investigation follows reports that a Centreville High School social worker scheduled and paid for an abortion for a minor and pressured a second student to have an abortion. The federal agency is requiring that Fairfax investigate whether this practice has continued. 

The Fairfax report “shocks the conscience,” the department’s acting general counsel, Candice Jackson, said in a statement.

“Children do not belong to the government — decisions touching deeply-held values should be made within loving families,” Jackson said. “It is both morally unconscionable and patently illegal for school officials to keep parents in the dark about such intimate, life-altering procedures pertaining to their children.” 

Jackson said the Trump administration will “take swift and decisive action” to “restore parental authority.”

Virginia bishop speaks out against potential ‘abortion rights’ amendment

Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington, Virginia, this week spoke out against a proposed amendment to create a right to abortion in the Virginia Constitution. 

“While the amendment is not yet on the ballot, the outcome of this fall’s elections will determine whether it advances or is halted,” he said in an October “Respect Life Month” message

“If adopted, this amendment would embed in our state constitution a purported right to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy with no age limits,” he said.

He noted that Virginia has “some modest protections” for life, but “the proposed amendment would likely make it impossible … to pass similar protective laws in the future.”

Protections for unborn children, for parental consent, and for conscience rights “would be severely jeopardized under this amendment,” he added.

“Parents have the sacred right to be involved in the most serious decisions facing their daughters,” Burbidge said. “No one should ever be forced to participate in or pay for an abortion.” 

“Most importantly, the lives of vulnerable women and their unborn children are sacred and must be welcomed and protected,” he said.

He called on Catholics to not “remain silent,” urging the faithful to inform themselves and others about “the devastating impact this amendment would have.”

“Our faith compels us to stand firmly for life, in prayer and witness, and also in advocacy and action,” he said.

“We must speak with clarity and compassion in the public square, reminding our legislators and neighbors that true justice is measured by how we treat the most defenseless among us,” he concluded.

Planned Parenthood closes its only 2 clinics in Louisiana

The only two Planned Parenthood locations in Louisiana closed this week following the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal funding for abortion providers for a year.  

The president of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast cited “political attacks” as the reason for the closures of the two facilities located in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. 

The closures follow a court ruling last month enforcing the Trump administration’s defunding of Planned Parenthood, which halted government funding for abortion providers.

Louisiana authorities issue arrest warrant for California abortionist 

Louisiana authorities issued an arrest warrant for a California doctor for allegedly providing abortion drugs to a woman without consulting her. 

The woman, Rosalie Markezich, said she felt coerced into the abortion by her boyfriend at the time, who arranged for an abortionist in California to prescribe drugs to induce a chemical abortion.

The same abortionist, Remy Coeytaux, has faced charges for telehealth abortions after the abortionist allegedly sent abortion pills to Texas, where they are illegal.

Read More
Religious Liberty Commission hears from teachers, coaches, school leaders

President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission meets on Sept. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Tessa Gervasini/CNA

Washington, D.C., Sep 29, 2025 / 19:13 pm (CNA).

Teachers, coaches, and other public and private school leaders said their religious liberty was threatened in American schools at a hearing conducted by President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission on Sept. 29.

Speakers said there must be a fight for schools to bring back the “truth” to protect students and religious liberty. Joe Kennedy, a high school football coach; Monica Gill, a high school teacher; Marisol Arroyo-Castro, a seventh grade teacher; and Keisha Russell, a lawyer for First Liberty Institute, addressed the commission led by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

“There has to be a call to action,” commission member Dr. Phil McGraw said. “The most common way to lose power is to think you don’t have it to begin with. We do have power, and we need to rally with that power.”

Teachers and coaches describe experiences

Kennedy said he was suspended — and later fired — from his position as a football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington for praying a brief and quiet prayer after football games.

“After the game, I took a knee to say thanks,” Kennedy explained. “That’s all. If that could be turned into a national controversy, it says more about the confusion in our country than the conduct of the person performing it.”

Kennedy told the commission the law is “cloudy and muddy” and they “have the power to clarify it.” Kennedy also said some lawyers “need to be held accountable” for actions taken in religious liberty cases.

Kennedy said: “I don’t know a lot about law and liberty, but I know that you’re supposed to advise people on the truth and the facts, and they’re not. They have an agenda, and their agenda is well set and in place and is working very well, keeping prayer out of the public square. They’re still doing it. That needs to be exposed.”

“Being a teacher has been one of the greatest blessings of my life,” Gill said to the committee. “God really gave my heart a mission … to show all of my students every day that they are loved. No matter what they’re going through, no matter what their grades are, no matter what their status is with their peers, I love them.”

“But in the summer of 2021 … Loudoun County Public Schools adopted a policy that forced teachers to deny the foundational truth of what it means to be human, created as male and female,” Gill said.

“This policy forced teachers to affirm all transgender students,” Gill said. “My employer gave teachers a choice: deny truth or risk everything … I knew that I could not stand in front of my Father in heaven one day and say: ‘My pension plan was more important than your truth.’ I also knew that if I say that I love my students, the only right choice would be to stand in love and truth for them.”

To combat the policy, Gill joined a lawsuit by Alliance Defending Freedom after a fellow Virginia teacher was fired for speaking out against the same policy. The lawsuit “resulted in victory for all teachers to freely speak truth and love when Loudoun County finally agreed not to require teachers to use pronouns in accordance with the student’s sex,” Gill said.

Arroyo-Castro testified that she was punished for displaying a cross in her private workspace in her seventh grade classroom in a New Britain School District school in Connecticut. 

“I share this with you to help you understand why the crucifix is so significant to me and why I will never hide it from anyone’s view,” Arroyo-Castro said. “The vice principal told me that the crucifix was of a religious nature, so against the Constitution of the United States, and that it had to be taken down by the end of the day.”

If she did not take it down it would be considered “insubordination and could lead to termination,” Arroyo-Castro said. She asked if she could have time to pray on it, and was told she could, but “it wouldn’t change anything.” 

“I was later called to a meeting with the district chief of staff, the principal, the vice principal, [and a] union representative. The chief of staff suggested that I put the crucifix in a drawer. I knew I couldn’t do that since my grandmother has instilled in me the meaning of the crucifix and how it should be treated with respect. But the chief of staff said that the Constitution says that I had to take it down,” Arroyo-Castro said.

After she refused to remove it, Arroyo-Castro was released from school with an unpaid suspension. She was offered legal defense by lawyers at First Liberty, which sued the school for violating the Constitution. While the lawsuit is ongoing she works in the administrative building “far from the students.”

Arroyo-Castro said: “Every day, I wonder how they’re doing.”

“Please do what you can to educate the districts in American schools about the true meaning of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause,” Arroyo-Castro advised the commission members. “How can we do our jobs well when many education leaders today don’t understand the Constitution themselves? We must understand as Americans that freedom of religion is a right that benefits all Americans.”

Suggestions from faith leaders

Leaders at Jewish, Catholic, and Christian schools also recounted religious freedom issues facing faith-based schools across the nation and what the country can do.

The leaders highlighted the need to protect the financial aid faith-based institutions receive and stop any threats of losing money if certain values are not enforced. Todd J. Williams, provost at Cairn University, said: “Schools will begin to cave because they’re worried about the millions of dollars that will go out the door.”

Father Robert Sirico, a priest at Sacred Heart Catholic School in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said he was recently affected by a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court that redefined sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity. 

“While presented as a matter of fairness, this reinterpretation proposes grave dangers, grave risks for all religious institutions, even those like Sacred Heart that receive absolutely no public support,” he said.

Sacred Heart has filed a lawsuit to combat the issue, but Sirico said what needs to be done “exceeds the competency of [the] commission and the competency of this administration.” 

“We have to think of this in existential terms, and we have to come at this project with the understanding that this is going to take years to transform. This is why religious people can transform the world: We believe in something that’s greater than our politics. We can reenvision.”

Read More
Pro-life group pledges  million to Georgia and Michigan Senate races

null / Credit: Andy via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

CNA Staff, Sep 26, 2025 / 16:28 pm (CNA).

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

Pro-life group pledges $9 million to Georgia and Michigan Senate races

A pro-life advocacy group is launching a massive $9 million campaign in the Senate races of Georgia and Michigan.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and its partner group, Women Speak Out PAC, are working to flip the U.S. Senate in Michigan, pouring $4.5 million into a field effort for the state’s open Senate seat.

Focused in Lansing, Detroit, and Grand Rapids, the pro-life groups aim to expand the U.S. Senate’s pro-life majority. In Michigan, four Planned Parenthoods have closed this year after Congress paused funding for abortion providers.

In Georgia, the same groups will pour $4.5 million into a field effort for Georgia’s U.S. Senate election. The campaign — aiming to defeat U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia senator who has backed pro-abortion policies — will be focused in Savannah, Augusta, Columbus, and Chattanooga.

SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a Sept. 24 statement that the group aims to “stop the abortion lobby from clawing back $500 million in annual Medicaid dollars for their own political machine.” 

“No American should be forced to bankroll a brutal industry that kills over 1.1 million unborn children each year, harms women with substandard care, and funnels millions into partisan politics — especially when better, more accessible health care alternatives outnumber Planned Parenthood 15 to 1,” Dannenfelser said.

Pro-life groups celebrate as Google admits to political censorship 

Pro-life groups that have experienced censorship in the past are celebrating after Google admitted to political censorship under the Biden administration.

The tech giant admitted the censorship to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and said it was taking steps to open previously banned YouTube accounts.

Kelsey Pritchard, the political communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said companies like Google have a pattern of targeting pro-life advocacy groups.  

“We are not at all surprised by Google’s admissions of censorship,” Pritchard told CNA. 

“For years, tech giants have demonstrated a pattern of bias, actively undermining, suppressing, and censoring groups like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, who share the pro-life message in a highly effective way.”

In a timeline on its website, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America detailed censorship and suppression of pro-life groups since 2015 by sites such as Facebook, Yelp, and Google. 

For instance, in 2022, Google allegedly shadow banned an online educational resource by Life Issues Institute. In 2021, Google banned Live Action and Heartbeat International’s abortion pill reversal advertisements, including Live Action’s Baby Olivia video, detailing the growth of an unborn child. 

SBA Pro-Life America also criticized the Biden administration for allegedly targeting pro-life activists with the law. 

“The Biden administration, too, weaponized federal might to target pro-life Americans and even put peaceful activists in jail,” Pritchard said. “The right to voice one’s convictions is a foundational American value and the pro-life movement will always fight back against censorship.”

Students for Life of America spokesperson Jordan Butler, meanwhile, told CNA that the pro-life group “is no stranger to the challenges of free speech in the digital age.”

“While we’ve been fortunate to avoid censorship on platforms like YouTube and Google, TikTok has proven to be a battleground: banning our content 180 times in just 24 hours,” Butler said. 

After outcry from pro-life advocates, Butler said the TikTok account, belonging to Lydia Taylor Davis, was restored

She sees this as “proof that when we stand together, we can push back.” 

“That’s why unity matters now more than ever in defending pro-life free speech across America,” Butler said.

“Abortion propaganda is everywhere online, saturating platforms from social media to search engines,” she continued. “Whether it’s digital censorship or campus pushback, we fight relentlessly to protect our voice and our values.”

‘Second-chance-at-life’ bill could protect unborn children across the nation

A group of U.S. congressmen is introducing a bill that could give unborn children a second chance at life even if a mother takes the first pill in the chemical abortion regimen.

U.S. Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, recently introduced the Second Chance at Life Act, which is designed to protect unborn children and mothers from the harms of abortion.

The act, co-sponsored by 16 representatives from 13 states, would establish federal informed consent requirements for abortion pills. This would require abortion providers to inform women seeking to terminate their pregnancies that a chemical abortion can be reversible after the first abortion pill is taken.

Pfluger said many women “are pressured into taking the abortion pill without being fully informed of all their options” and later “express deep regret as they come to terms with the loss of their unborn child.” 

“It is unacceptable that so many women are never told by their provider that the effects of the first pill can be reversible,” Pfluger said in a Sept. 18 statement.  

Pfluger said the legislation will “empower women to make fully informed choices at every stage of the process, protecting their right to know the full details” about the drugs. 

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, supported the bill in a statement, noting that women are often pressured into abortion.  

“Many mothers regret their abortions and wish they had been told about abortion pill reversal before it was too late,” she said. “And too many women are exposed to the deadly pills by those who are coercing them.”

Senate investigates alleged abortion facilitation by Virginia school faculty 

U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, is investigating allegations that school officials in Virginia facilitated an abortion for a minor and attempted to do the same for another student without notifying their parents. 

Cassidy, who chairs the U.S. Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, sent a letter to Superintendent Michelle Reid demanding answers after an investigative reporter broke the news that officials at Fairfax County’s Centreville High School reportedly pressured students to have abortions.

Missouri judge approves pro-life ballot measure, requires plainer language  

A Cole County Circuit judge approved a ballot measure that would protect minors and unborn children from transgender surgeries and abortion, respectively, if passed by Missouri voters.  

Because the ballot combines protections for minors against transgender surgeries and pro-life protections, activists challenged it in court. But Judge Daniel Green approved the combination in a Sept. 19 ruling, with the caveat that the ballot measure language must explicitly state that it would repeal a previous ballot measure.

The previous ballot measure, passed in 2024, created a right to abortion in the Missouri Constitution.

Wisconsin Planned Parenthood pauses abortions after federal funding cut 

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin will stop scheduling abortions beginning Oct. 1 following federal funding cuts by the Trump administration.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin President and CEO Tanya Atkinson said the pause is meant to be temporary as the group deals with Medicaid funding cuts following the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The location will continue to operate and offer other services in the meantime.

The Trump administration temporarily paused any funding for abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. At least 40 Planned Parenthoods are closing this year.

Read More
In the Style of Rembrandt – recreate ‘George Washington’ By Gilbert Stuart – #AIPrompt #AIart

After the war, Washington’s dedication to the nascent nation did not wane. He presided over the Constitutional Convention in 1787, where his support was crucial in the drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. In 1789, he was unanimously elected as the first President of the United States, serving two terms and setting many precedents for the office. Washington’s presidency established the foundations of American governance, including the creation of a stable financial system, the establishment of the executive cabinet, and the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. Retiring to his beloved Mount Vernon in 1797, he remained a symbol of national unity until his death on December 14, 1799. Washington’s legacy as a leader of integrity, courage, and vision continues to inspire generations.

Read More