counsel

Federal court hears arguments on Oklahoma’s ban for religious charter schools #Catholic A federal court heard oral arguments on Aug. 5 about whether an Oklahoma law banning religious charter schools violates the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.Oklahoma established a charter school system in 1999, which provides public funds for privately run K–12 schools to which parents can send their children instead of a public school operated by a school district. The law only allows “nonsectarian” applicants, which prevents any participation from schools that have a religious identity.In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board (SCSB) approved an application from a proposed Catholic charter school — St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — which led to a legal challenge from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who opposed religious charter schools.The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided against the school, finding that charter schools are public schools and that public schools must be secular. St. Isidore appealed this to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that resulted in a 4-4 deadlock with no majority opinion because Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a conflict of interest and recused herself.Amid no clear guidance from the federal courts, a Jewish organization — National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation — filed an application to set up a charter school, which was denied. The group, represented by lawyers at the Becket Fund, filed a new lawsuit and asked a federal district court to require the SCSB to consider religious applicants.“Oklahoma makes room in its charter program for schools of all shapes and sizes, from those focused on science and fine arts to language immersion and classical education,” Daniel Chen, a Becket attorney representing the Jewish foundation, said in a statement.“The one it refuses to make room for is a faith-based school,” Chen added. “That is religious discrimination, plain and simple, and the state deserves a failing grade for it.”Chen told EWTN News that Becket is asking the federal court to immediately allow National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to set up a charter school, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent that requires government programs to allow religious institutions the same access as secular institutions.“They’re private actors,” he said. “And because they’re private actors, they cannot be excluded from participating in a public benefits program.”Chen said the federal district court is not bound by the precedent of the Oklahoma Supreme Court because that is a state court, so it could rule in favor of the school. He also said if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, he hopes Barrett can weigh in to break the 4-4 deadlock.“We’re hoping that [for] our case, there wouldn’t have to be any recusals,” he said.School board’s hands are tiedAlthough the charter school board denied the application from the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, one of its lawyers at First Liberty Institute explained to EWTN News that its hands are tied by the statute and the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision.“They’re following that order,” said Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty and the lawyer representing SCSB. “But [they] would be happy if the federal court didn’t [require the school board] to engage in that kind of discrimination.”Sasser said the SCSB does not want to exclude an applicant “simply because it’s religious” and would rather evaluate applicants “just based on the merits.” But he said the order “makes them exclude religious schools just because they’re religious.”“They want to maximize all of the various choices and opportunities for parents,” he added.Sasser said he hopes the question goes to the U.S. Supreme Court again so “we’ll get an answer — a real answer.” He said it would provide more clarity for the school board, which “needs an answer.”John Meiser, director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic at the University of Notre Dame and the lawyer who represented St. Isidore at the Supreme Court, told EWTN News that the question ultimately comes down to whether charter schools are private or public institutions.In Oklahoma, he said charter schools “are called public schools” and that label “introduces a confusion that I don’t think would be present if they chose any other word.”He said Supreme Court precedent is clear that religious institutions must have equal access to government programs available to private institutions, but if a charter school is a “government school,” that “doesn’t apply” because the government “doesn’t and can’t run religious schools.”In spite of the label, Meiser said charter schools in Oklahoma are “formed and designed and run by private groups” and people who work there “are private employees.” He said the structure “looks just like a government contract” and funding from the government “doesn’t turn all those private contractors into the government itself.”“The dispute is really just about, ‘Well is a charter school in some way different?’” he said.Although Meiser said he is not aware of any ongoing Catholic efforts to recreate a charter school, he said that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s constitutional arguments for equal access “would presumably apply to all religious operators of schools, and so it would open the door to a Catholic charter school or other religiously based charter school.”Attorney general stands firmDrummond, who remains Oklahoma’s attorney general, is standing firm in opposing the creation of religious charter schools and is fighting against National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s efforts."This matter was resolved when the state Supreme Courtʼs ruling to prevent taxpayer funded religious charter schools was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year,” Leslie Berger, press secretary for the attorney general’s office, told EWTN News.Drummond has also criticized the charter school board in public statements surrounding this legal battle in March, accusing the SCSB of “playing politics with the taxpayers' money” and alleged it “manipulated the record [about why National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s application was rejected] to make that lawsuit easier to lose — not win.”"A state agency that deliberately hobbles its own legal position is not doing its job — it is betraying Oklahoma taxpayers,” he said. “I will not allow that.”Drummond has garnered support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) for opposing the creation of religious charter schools.Attorneys for FFRF are representing seven Oklahomans who oppose their tax money being used to support religious charter schools.“The federal court should rule according to constitutional principles,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “A religious public charter school has no place in our secular public education system.”It’s unclear when the federal court will issue its ruling, but National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the state so it can begin operating a school while the litigation plays out.
Read More

Federal court hears arguments on Oklahoma’s ban for religious charter schools #Catholic A federal court heard oral arguments on Aug. 5 about whether an Oklahoma law banning religious charter schools violates the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.Oklahoma established a charter school system in 1999, which provides public funds for privately run K–12 schools to which parents can send their children instead of a public school operated by a school district. The law only allows “nonsectarian” applicants, which prevents any participation from schools that have a religious identity.In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board (SCSB) approved an application from a proposed Catholic charter school — St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — which led to a legal challenge from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who opposed religious charter schools.The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided against the school, finding that charter schools are public schools and that public schools must be secular. St. Isidore appealed this to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that resulted in a 4-4 deadlock with no majority opinion because Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a conflict of interest and recused herself.Amid no clear guidance from the federal courts, a Jewish organization — National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation — filed an application to set up a charter school, which was denied. The group, represented by lawyers at the Becket Fund, filed a new lawsuit and asked a federal district court to require the SCSB to consider religious applicants.“Oklahoma makes room in its charter program for schools of all shapes and sizes, from those focused on science and fine arts to language immersion and classical education,” Daniel Chen, a Becket attorney representing the Jewish foundation, said in a statement.“The one it refuses to make room for is a faith-based school,” Chen added. “That is religious discrimination, plain and simple, and the state deserves a failing grade for it.”Chen told EWTN News that Becket is asking the federal court to immediately allow National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to set up a charter school, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent that requires government programs to allow religious institutions the same access as secular institutions.“They’re private actors,” he said. “And because they’re private actors, they cannot be excluded from participating in a public benefits program.”Chen said the federal district court is not bound by the precedent of the Oklahoma Supreme Court because that is a state court, so it could rule in favor of the school. He also said if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, he hopes Barrett can weigh in to break the 4-4 deadlock.“We’re hoping that [for] our case, there wouldn’t have to be any recusals,” he said.School board’s hands are tiedAlthough the charter school board denied the application from the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, one of its lawyers at First Liberty Institute explained to EWTN News that its hands are tied by the statute and the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision.“They’re following that order,” said Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty and the lawyer representing SCSB. “But [they] would be happy if the federal court didn’t [require the school board] to engage in that kind of discrimination.”Sasser said the SCSB does not want to exclude an applicant “simply because it’s religious” and would rather evaluate applicants “just based on the merits.” But he said the order “makes them exclude religious schools just because they’re religious.”“They want to maximize all of the various choices and opportunities for parents,” he added.Sasser said he hopes the question goes to the U.S. Supreme Court again so “we’ll get an answer — a real answer.” He said it would provide more clarity for the school board, which “needs an answer.”John Meiser, director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic at the University of Notre Dame and the lawyer who represented St. Isidore at the Supreme Court, told EWTN News that the question ultimately comes down to whether charter schools are private or public institutions.In Oklahoma, he said charter schools “are called public schools” and that label “introduces a confusion that I don’t think would be present if they chose any other word.”He said Supreme Court precedent is clear that religious institutions must have equal access to government programs available to private institutions, but if a charter school is a “government school,” that “doesn’t apply” because the government “doesn’t and can’t run religious schools.”In spite of the label, Meiser said charter schools in Oklahoma are “formed and designed and run by private groups” and people who work there “are private employees.” He said the structure “looks just like a government contract” and funding from the government “doesn’t turn all those private contractors into the government itself.”“The dispute is really just about, ‘Well is a charter school in some way different?’” he said.Although Meiser said he is not aware of any ongoing Catholic efforts to recreate a charter school, he said that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s constitutional arguments for equal access “would presumably apply to all religious operators of schools, and so it would open the door to a Catholic charter school or other religiously based charter school.”Attorney general stands firmDrummond, who remains Oklahoma’s attorney general, is standing firm in opposing the creation of religious charter schools and is fighting against National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s efforts."This matter was resolved when the state Supreme Courtʼs ruling to prevent taxpayer funded religious charter schools was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year,” Leslie Berger, press secretary for the attorney general’s office, told EWTN News.Drummond has also criticized the charter school board in public statements surrounding this legal battle in March, accusing the SCSB of “playing politics with the taxpayers' money” and alleged it “manipulated the record [about why National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s application was rejected] to make that lawsuit easier to lose — not win.”"A state agency that deliberately hobbles its own legal position is not doing its job — it is betraying Oklahoma taxpayers,” he said. “I will not allow that.”Drummond has garnered support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) for opposing the creation of religious charter schools.Attorneys for FFRF are representing seven Oklahomans who oppose their tax money being used to support religious charter schools.“The federal court should rule according to constitutional principles,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “A religious public charter school has no place in our secular public education system.”It’s unclear when the federal court will issue its ruling, but National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the state so it can begin operating a school while the litigation plays out.

unitedyam

Oklahoma’s Statewide Charter School Board wants to approve religious charter schools, but a ruling from the Oklahoma Supreme Court and efforts by the state attorney general prevent it from doing so.

Read More
Family learns hospice bed opened as father faced scheduled assisted suicide #Catholic As New Yorkʼs Medical Aid in Dying Act takes effect amid legal challenges, one Canadian woman is sharing her familyʼs experience with physician-assisted suicide, saying it convinced her that vulnerable patients need greater access to hospice and palliative care — not assisted death.Speaking with “EWTN News Nightly” in an Aug. 5 interview with anchor Veronica Dudo, Colleen De Vos recounted the final months of her father’s life. He died through Canadaʼs medical assistance in dying (MAID) program in 2023 at age 85 after being diagnosed with terminal chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).“My father wasnʼt very forthcoming with his intentions, unfortunately,” De Vos said. “We did see some very fragile moments during the course of his illness.”As his condition worsened, De Vos said her family worked to arrange hospice or in-home palliative care, believing those services would provide the compassionate support he needed.“We were advocating very strongly for hospice care or at-home palliative program,” she said. “He seemed to agree with that.”But the familyʼs efforts were unsuccessful.“He was turned down on two occasions, deeming that his diagnosis wasnʼt enough to warrant hospice care,” De Vos said. “That was a surprise to us because we could see he was deteriorating very quickly.”Instead, she said, a nurse practitioner overseeing his care at home spoke privately with her father about pursuing MAID as his symptoms worsened.De Vos said the contrast between accessing hospice and obtaining assisted suicide was striking.“The irony of the availability of MAID that could be arranged very quickly …  sidelined us very much,” she said.She recalled receiving “literally the cardboard box in the mail” containing the drugs and supplies needed for the procedure.“Obtaining [hospice care] was very difficult,” she said. “And this was very simple.”On the day her father was scheduled to die, De Vos said the family finally learned that a hospice bed had become available.She called it “very heartbreaking” that he declined the hospice bed.“I think he proceeded because of his loss of hope,” she said. “We absolutely were prepared to provide him with round-the-clock care.”Religious freedom challenge in New YorkDe Vos' story comes as Catholic ministries in New York are challenging the stateʼs new assisted suicide law in federal court.Speaking on Aug. 5 with “EWTN News Nightly,” Adele Keim, senior counsel at Becket Fund, said New Yorkʼs law differs significantly from those in states such as Oregon and Washington.“New York has created an opt-out law,” Keim said. “The presumption is youʼre in unless you opt out.”While some providers may decline to prescribe or administer the lethal drugs, Keim argued that Catholic ministries are still required to participate in other aspects of the process.“You canʼt opt out of your obligations to counsel patients about assisted suicide and the ‘benefits’ it would provide,” she said. Nor can Catholic providers refuse to refer patients elsewhere if they object to assisted suicide on religious grounds, she said.Keim said those requirements prompted the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and other Catholic ministries to seek relief in federal court.Hope, dignity, and the court’s decisionShe also spoke with hope in a federal judgeʼs decision to temporarily block New York from enforcing the law against the Catholic plaintiffs while the case proceeds.“The right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental right,” Keim said, noting that both the U.S. Supreme Court and New Yorkʼs highest court have ruled there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. “But… there is a fundamental right to religious freedom.”According to Keim, the injunction ensures the state cannot enforce the law against the Catholic ministries while their constitutional claims are considered.The Catholic Church teaches that assisted suicide and euthanasia are gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person while encouraging compassionate palliative and hospice care that accompanies patients through natural death.De Vos said she hopes lawmakers instead “think about the sacred gift of life that we are given by God,” adding: “I donʼt believe that itʼs up to the lawmakers… to give someone the autonomy to end their life.”
Read More

Family learns hospice bed opened as father faced scheduled assisted suicide #Catholic As New Yorkʼs Medical Aid in Dying Act takes effect amid legal challenges, one Canadian woman is sharing her familyʼs experience with physician-assisted suicide, saying it convinced her that vulnerable patients need greater access to hospice and palliative care — not assisted death.Speaking with “EWTN News Nightly” in an Aug. 5 interview with anchor Veronica Dudo, Colleen De Vos recounted the final months of her father’s life. He died through Canadaʼs medical assistance in dying (MAID) program in 2023 at age 85 after being diagnosed with terminal chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).“My father wasnʼt very forthcoming with his intentions, unfortunately,” De Vos said. “We did see some very fragile moments during the course of his illness.”As his condition worsened, De Vos said her family worked to arrange hospice or in-home palliative care, believing those services would provide the compassionate support he needed.“We were advocating very strongly for hospice care or at-home palliative program,” she said. “He seemed to agree with that.”But the familyʼs efforts were unsuccessful.“He was turned down on two occasions, deeming that his diagnosis wasnʼt enough to warrant hospice care,” De Vos said. “That was a surprise to us because we could see he was deteriorating very quickly.”Instead, she said, a nurse practitioner overseeing his care at home spoke privately with her father about pursuing MAID as his symptoms worsened.De Vos said the contrast between accessing hospice and obtaining assisted suicide was striking.“The irony of the availability of MAID that could be arranged very quickly …  sidelined us very much,” she said.She recalled receiving “literally the cardboard box in the mail” containing the drugs and supplies needed for the procedure.“Obtaining [hospice care] was very difficult,” she said. “And this was very simple.”On the day her father was scheduled to die, De Vos said the family finally learned that a hospice bed had become available.She called it “very heartbreaking” that he declined the hospice bed.“I think he proceeded because of his loss of hope,” she said. “We absolutely were prepared to provide him with round-the-clock care.”Religious freedom challenge in New YorkDe Vos' story comes as Catholic ministries in New York are challenging the stateʼs new assisted suicide law in federal court.Speaking on Aug. 5 with “EWTN News Nightly,” Adele Keim, senior counsel at Becket Fund, said New Yorkʼs law differs significantly from those in states such as Oregon and Washington.“New York has created an opt-out law,” Keim said. “The presumption is youʼre in unless you opt out.”While some providers may decline to prescribe or administer the lethal drugs, Keim argued that Catholic ministries are still required to participate in other aspects of the process.“You canʼt opt out of your obligations to counsel patients about assisted suicide and the ‘benefits’ it would provide,” she said. Nor can Catholic providers refuse to refer patients elsewhere if they object to assisted suicide on religious grounds, she said.Keim said those requirements prompted the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and other Catholic ministries to seek relief in federal court.Hope, dignity, and the court’s decisionShe also spoke with hope in a federal judgeʼs decision to temporarily block New York from enforcing the law against the Catholic plaintiffs while the case proceeds.“The right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental right,” Keim said, noting that both the U.S. Supreme Court and New Yorkʼs highest court have ruled there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. “But… there is a fundamental right to religious freedom.”According to Keim, the injunction ensures the state cannot enforce the law against the Catholic ministries while their constitutional claims are considered.The Catholic Church teaches that assisted suicide and euthanasia are gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person while encouraging compassionate palliative and hospice care that accompanies patients through natural death.De Vos said she hopes lawmakers instead “think about the sacred gift of life that we are given by God,” adding: “I donʼt believe that itʼs up to the lawmakers… to give someone the autonomy to end their life.”

unitedyam

A Canadian woman said her father’s assisted suicide came after failed efforts to secure hospice care, as Catholic ministries challenge New York’s assisted suicide law in court.

Read More
Michigan ends restriction on Catholic counselors who treat kids with gender dysphoria #Catholic Catholic counselors in Michigan who offer Catholic-based “talk therapy” to children who struggle with gender dysphoria and gender identity will be allowed to continue their services, according to a federal court order issued on July 31.Government officials in Michigan have agreed they will not enforce the state ban on "conversion therapy” on the counselors who work for Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties or any other counselors engaged in “talk therapy.”The Catholic Charities affiliate sued Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and other state officials after the governor signed into law a ban on “conversion therapy.” This prohibited treatments that seek to “change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” This includes “efforts to change behavior or gender expression.”According to the law, counselors were allowed to offer “acceptance, support, or understanding” of a child who self-identifies with a gender inconsistent with his or her sex. The lawsuit filed by the Catholic Charities affiliate argued the law forced them to “affirm” that the child could identify with a gender that is inconsistent with his or her sex, which conflicts with Catholic teaching.The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.” The Vatican’s 2019 document “Male and Female He Created Them” teaches that sexual identity is a reality “given” through one’s biological and physiological nature. Officials in Michigan consented to a court order that acknowledges that the law — as enforced against the Catholic Charities affiliate — violates the counselors’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.According to the court order, the state cannot enforce this law against the Catholic counselors or any other counselors in the state if the treatment “consists exclusively of talking.” The order is permanent and took effect immediately, upon the signature of Judge Jane M. Beckering.The Catholic Charities affiliate was represented by lawyers at the Becket Fund. Luke Goodrich, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the counselors, said in a statement that the order is “a major victory for children, counselors, and common sense.”“Kids who are hurting deserve compassion, not a one-way ticket to harmful drugs, hormones, and surgery,” he said. “Now counselors can offer compassionate counseling without fearing that state bureaucrats will come knocking.”This agreement comes four months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that a similar ban on “conversion therapy” in Colorado violated the First Amendment rights of counselors, warning the state-level bans “suppress speech based on viewpoint.”Kimberly Bush, a spokesperson for Michigan’s attorney general’s office, said in a statement to EWTN News that Michigan entered into the agreement because of the Supreme Court ruling, but added: “We remain deeply disappointed in this decision and have grave concerns for the implications this could bring for the safety and welfare of Michigan’s children.”A spokesperson for Whitmer also expressed disappointment in the agreement in a statement to EWTN News."Governor Whitmer believes that every young person deserves the right to grow up safe, supported, and free to be themselves,” the spokesperson said.“This order is disappointing and represents a step back for the LGBTQ+ community,” the spokesperson added. “Michigan will never support any practice that harms or shames LGBTQ+ youth. The governor will continue to fight to ensure that LGBTQ+ individuals are protected from attacks and that their voices are heard.”In June, Oregonʼs Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists withdrew disciplinary action against Catholic counselors who engaged in similar talk therapy, citing the Supreme Court decision as its reason.
Read More

Michigan ends restriction on Catholic counselors who treat kids with gender dysphoria #Catholic Catholic counselors in Michigan who offer Catholic-based “talk therapy” to children who struggle with gender dysphoria and gender identity will be allowed to continue their services, according to a federal court order issued on July 31.Government officials in Michigan have agreed they will not enforce the state ban on "conversion therapy” on the counselors who work for Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties or any other counselors engaged in “talk therapy.”The Catholic Charities affiliate sued Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and other state officials after the governor signed into law a ban on “conversion therapy.” This prohibited treatments that seek to “change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” This includes “efforts to change behavior or gender expression.”According to the law, counselors were allowed to offer “acceptance, support, or understanding” of a child who self-identifies with a gender inconsistent with his or her sex. The lawsuit filed by the Catholic Charities affiliate argued the law forced them to “affirm” that the child could identify with a gender that is inconsistent with his or her sex, which conflicts with Catholic teaching.The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.” The Vatican’s 2019 document “Male and Female He Created Them” teaches that sexual identity is a reality “given” through one’s biological and physiological nature. Officials in Michigan consented to a court order that acknowledges that the law — as enforced against the Catholic Charities affiliate — violates the counselors’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.According to the court order, the state cannot enforce this law against the Catholic counselors or any other counselors in the state if the treatment “consists exclusively of talking.” The order is permanent and took effect immediately, upon the signature of Judge Jane M. Beckering.The Catholic Charities affiliate was represented by lawyers at the Becket Fund. Luke Goodrich, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the counselors, said in a statement that the order is “a major victory for children, counselors, and common sense.”“Kids who are hurting deserve compassion, not a one-way ticket to harmful drugs, hormones, and surgery,” he said. “Now counselors can offer compassionate counseling without fearing that state bureaucrats will come knocking.”This agreement comes four months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that a similar ban on “conversion therapy” in Colorado violated the First Amendment rights of counselors, warning the state-level bans “suppress speech based on viewpoint.”Kimberly Bush, a spokesperson for Michigan’s attorney general’s office, said in a statement to EWTN News that Michigan entered into the agreement because of the Supreme Court ruling, but added: “We remain deeply disappointed in this decision and have grave concerns for the implications this could bring for the safety and welfare of Michigan’s children.”A spokesperson for Whitmer also expressed disappointment in the agreement in a statement to EWTN News."Governor Whitmer believes that every young person deserves the right to grow up safe, supported, and free to be themselves,” the spokesperson said.“This order is disappointing and represents a step back for the LGBTQ+ community,” the spokesperson added. “Michigan will never support any practice that harms or shames LGBTQ+ youth. The governor will continue to fight to ensure that LGBTQ+ individuals are protected from attacks and that their voices are heard.”In June, Oregonʼs Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists withdrew disciplinary action against Catholic counselors who engaged in similar talk therapy, citing the Supreme Court decision as its reason.

unitedyam

A Catholic Charities affiliate sued Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and other state officials after the governor signed into law a ban on “conversion therapy.”

Read More
Pro-life leaders remember Sen. Lindsey Graham as longtime champion for unborn children #Catholic WASHINGTON — National pro-life organizations are remembering the late Sen. Lindsey Graham as one of the movement’s most steadfast advocates, praising his decades-long legislative efforts to protect unborn children and pledging to continue the work he championed.Following news of Graham’s death, leaders from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, National Right to Life, and other pro-life groups reflected on the South Carolina Republican’s legacy, highlighting his willingness to pursue federal protections for unborn children even when such efforts faced political opposition.Graham’s sister, Darline Graham Nordone, has been named to hold his Senate seat temporarily to fulfill the remainder of his term.Among those paying tribute was Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which worked closely with Graham on federal abortion legislation.“Lindsey Graham was an unwavering pro-life champion and a friend,” SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. “A man of vision and tenacity, he gave wise counsel and advocacy in countless difficult moments fighting for the rights of the unborn child.”“Sen. Graham never retreated from the fight for the unborn,” Kelsey Pritchard, communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told Veronica Dudo in an interview with “EWTN News Nightly.” “He always would run into battle, even when no one else would.”Pritchard pointed to Graham’s role in efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, his advocacy on abortion pill regulations, and his repeated calls for national protections for unborn children.Legacy of federal pro-life advocacyFollowing the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Graham became one of the leading congressional voices arguing that the federal government still had a responsibility to protect unborn children, introducing legislation to establish nationwide abortion limits.Pritchard said one of the movement’s top priorities remains ending the policy permitting abortion drugs to be prescribed through telehealth and mailed without an in-person physician visit.She noted that Graham was instrumental in organizing a letter signed by 51 senators urging the administration to rescind the policy.“Lindsey Graham was so influential on that front,” Pritchard said. “We’ll be continuing that work in the days ahead.”In a statement issued following Graham’s death, National Right to Life also honored Graham’s decades of advocacy, calling him “one of the most influential and steadfast champions of unborn children ever to serve in the United States Congress.”“The pro-life movement has lost one of its greatest champions,” National Right to Life President Carol Tobias said. “Throughout his career, Lindsey Graham never wavered in his conviction that every innocent human life has inherent dignity and deserves the protection of the law.”Graham’s office noted his role in passing a law enacted in 2004 that recognizes an unborn child as a separate victim in certain federal crimes. It also pointed to his years of introducing legislation to protect pain-capable unborn children from abortion and his advocacy for federal protections following the 2022 Dobbs decision.South Carolina Citizens for Life Executive Director Holly Gatling called Graham “a great defender” of the right to life, saying “the unborn, their mothers, and the medically vulnerable members of our human family had a great defender in Sen. Graham.”Carrying forward Graham’s legacyFor Pritchard, Graham’s lasting legacy extends beyond legislation.“We hope that they remember that he was such a cheerful warrior, someone with a great sense of humor and someone who never backed down,” she told “EWTN News Nightly.” “He said we should never apologize for standing up for the unborn.”“There will be no replacements for Lindsey Graham, that’s for sure,” she added. “But we hope and pray there will be many people who follow his example and continue the fight for babies and moms.”
Read More

Pro-life leaders remember Sen. Lindsey Graham as longtime champion for unborn children #Catholic WASHINGTON — National pro-life organizations are remembering the late Sen. Lindsey Graham as one of the movement’s most steadfast advocates, praising his decades-long legislative efforts to protect unborn children and pledging to continue the work he championed.Following news of Graham’s death, leaders from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, National Right to Life, and other pro-life groups reflected on the South Carolina Republican’s legacy, highlighting his willingness to pursue federal protections for unborn children even when such efforts faced political opposition.Graham’s sister, Darline Graham Nordone, has been named to hold his Senate seat temporarily to fulfill the remainder of his term.Among those paying tribute was Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which worked closely with Graham on federal abortion legislation.“Lindsey Graham was an unwavering pro-life champion and a friend,” SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. “A man of vision and tenacity, he gave wise counsel and advocacy in countless difficult moments fighting for the rights of the unborn child.”“Sen. Graham never retreated from the fight for the unborn,” Kelsey Pritchard, communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told Veronica Dudo in an interview with “EWTN News Nightly.” “He always would run into battle, even when no one else would.”Pritchard pointed to Graham’s role in efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, his advocacy on abortion pill regulations, and his repeated calls for national protections for unborn children.Legacy of federal pro-life advocacyFollowing the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Graham became one of the leading congressional voices arguing that the federal government still had a responsibility to protect unborn children, introducing legislation to establish nationwide abortion limits.Pritchard said one of the movement’s top priorities remains ending the policy permitting abortion drugs to be prescribed through telehealth and mailed without an in-person physician visit.She noted that Graham was instrumental in organizing a letter signed by 51 senators urging the administration to rescind the policy.“Lindsey Graham was so influential on that front,” Pritchard said. “We’ll be continuing that work in the days ahead.”In a statement issued following Graham’s death, National Right to Life also honored Graham’s decades of advocacy, calling him “one of the most influential and steadfast champions of unborn children ever to serve in the United States Congress.”“The pro-life movement has lost one of its greatest champions,” National Right to Life President Carol Tobias said. “Throughout his career, Lindsey Graham never wavered in his conviction that every innocent human life has inherent dignity and deserves the protection of the law.”Graham’s office noted his role in passing a law enacted in 2004 that recognizes an unborn child as a separate victim in certain federal crimes. It also pointed to his years of introducing legislation to protect pain-capable unborn children from abortion and his advocacy for federal protections following the 2022 Dobbs decision.South Carolina Citizens for Life Executive Director Holly Gatling called Graham “a great defender” of the right to life, saying “the unborn, their mothers, and the medically vulnerable members of our human family had a great defender in Sen. Graham.”Carrying forward Graham’s legacyFor Pritchard, Graham’s lasting legacy extends beyond legislation.“We hope that they remember that he was such a cheerful warrior, someone with a great sense of humor and someone who never backed down,” she told “EWTN News Nightly.” “He said we should never apologize for standing up for the unborn.”“There will be no replacements for Lindsey Graham, that’s for sure,” she added. “But we hope and pray there will be many people who follow his example and continue the fight for babies and moms.”

unitedyam

Graham, 71, died on July 11, and pro-life groups pledged to continue legislative efforts he supported.

Read More
Notre Dame awards religious liberty prize to Becket Fund for Supreme Court wins #Catholic Notre Dame Law School awarded its 2026 Prize for Religious Liberty to the Becket Fund — a nonprofit law firm that has secured 13 Supreme Court victories in the past 15 years defending the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections.“We’re deeply honored to be recognized with the religious liberty prize,” Becket President and CEO Mark Rienzi told EWTN News.“We’re honored to be able to be part of fighting to protect something that is very important for our country and the Church,” said Reinzi, who accepted the award at the July 8 conclusion of Notre Dame’s sixth annual Religious Liberty Summit in Chicago.Becket — established in 1994 to provide cost-free legal counsel to those whose religious liberties were violated — has an undefeated record at the Supreme Court.Its lawyers represented the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby against contraception mandates, defended the rights of Maryland parents to opt their children out of gender-related coursework that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and backed a Catholic foster care agency that only placed children with opposite-sex married couples.G. Marcus Cole, a dean and professor of law at Notre Dame, said during the award ceremony that when the university started giving out the award, “we always imagined that it would go to one person.”“But when we think about the Becket Fund, it is an entire team of lawyers, led by Mark Rienzi, who have made a difference in our world, who have made our lives better,” he said. “And for that reason, we thought it only appropriate to give the award to the Becket Fund as an entity."Ongoing fights for religious libertyThe most recent victory secured by Becket came in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which ensured parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, had a right to opt their children out of coursework that included material related to gender that conflicted with their religious faith.Rienzi told EWTN News that “parents don’t give up the right to [raise] their children when they drop their kids off at the schoolhouse gates.” He added: “Your children don’t belong to the state just because you use a public school.”Becket represented Catholic, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Muslim parents in the lawsuit. Rienzi said religious parents have a right to “operate equally as a full citizen and full member of the public” by utilizing the public school system while maintaining the right to instill religious values in their children.“[This was] the most important case in at least 50 or 100 years in establishing that principle,” he said.Becket also secured the 2020 victory for the Little Sisters of the Poor in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of federal regulations that exempted the religious sisters from mandatory contraception coverage in insurance plans.The sisters, however, are back in court after the governments of Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged those exemptions on separate grounds than those on which the court previously ruled. This case is now in an appellate court, which heard oral arguments on July 7. Becket is representing them again and Rienzi is the lead attorney on the case.“It’s outrageous that governments keep volunteering for the beating they get when they keep [going after] the Little Sisters of the Poor,” Rienzi said.He said “the law is really, really clear” that Pennsylvania cannot remove their exemptions from the mandate.Becket is also representing a coalition of Catholic preschools in Colorado that is suing the state because they were excluded from a “universal” tuition program. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Notre Dame awarded Becket the prize less than one week after Americans celebrated the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which culminated in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which secured religious freedom.“God created everybody equal and equally free and gave them rights,” Rienzi said, adding that religious freedom is “essential to the declaration’s idea of who we are as a country and … [it] is crucial for maintaining it.”“It’s a shame that you still have to fight about it,” Rienzi said. “But on the other hand, it’s worth fighting for.”
Read More

Notre Dame awards religious liberty prize to Becket Fund for Supreme Court wins #Catholic Notre Dame Law School awarded its 2026 Prize for Religious Liberty to the Becket Fund — a nonprofit law firm that has secured 13 Supreme Court victories in the past 15 years defending the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections.“We’re deeply honored to be recognized with the religious liberty prize,” Becket President and CEO Mark Rienzi told EWTN News.“We’re honored to be able to be part of fighting to protect something that is very important for our country and the Church,” said Reinzi, who accepted the award at the July 8 conclusion of Notre Dame’s sixth annual Religious Liberty Summit in Chicago.Becket — established in 1994 to provide cost-free legal counsel to those whose religious liberties were violated — has an undefeated record at the Supreme Court.Its lawyers represented the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby against contraception mandates, defended the rights of Maryland parents to opt their children out of gender-related coursework that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and backed a Catholic foster care agency that only placed children with opposite-sex married couples.G. Marcus Cole, a dean and professor of law at Notre Dame, said during the award ceremony that when the university started giving out the award, “we always imagined that it would go to one person.”“But when we think about the Becket Fund, it is an entire team of lawyers, led by Mark Rienzi, who have made a difference in our world, who have made our lives better,” he said. “And for that reason, we thought it only appropriate to give the award to the Becket Fund as an entity."Ongoing fights for religious libertyThe most recent victory secured by Becket came in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which ensured parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, had a right to opt their children out of coursework that included material related to gender that conflicted with their religious faith.Rienzi told EWTN News that “parents don’t give up the right to [raise] their children when they drop their kids off at the schoolhouse gates.” He added: “Your children don’t belong to the state just because you use a public school.”Becket represented Catholic, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Muslim parents in the lawsuit. Rienzi said religious parents have a right to “operate equally as a full citizen and full member of the public” by utilizing the public school system while maintaining the right to instill religious values in their children.“[This was] the most important case in at least 50 or 100 years in establishing that principle,” he said.Becket also secured the 2020 victory for the Little Sisters of the Poor in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of federal regulations that exempted the religious sisters from mandatory contraception coverage in insurance plans.The sisters, however, are back in court after the governments of Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged those exemptions on separate grounds than those on which the court previously ruled. This case is now in an appellate court, which heard oral arguments on July 7. Becket is representing them again and Rienzi is the lead attorney on the case.“It’s outrageous that governments keep volunteering for the beating they get when they keep [going after] the Little Sisters of the Poor,” Rienzi said.He said “the law is really, really clear” that Pennsylvania cannot remove their exemptions from the mandate.Becket is also representing a coalition of Catholic preschools in Colorado that is suing the state because they were excluded from a “universal” tuition program. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Notre Dame awarded Becket the prize less than one week after Americans celebrated the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which culminated in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which secured religious freedom.“God created everybody equal and equally free and gave them rights,” Rienzi said, adding that religious freedom is “essential to the declaration’s idea of who we are as a country and … [it] is crucial for maintaining it.”“It’s a shame that you still have to fight about it,” Rienzi said. “But on the other hand, it’s worth fighting for.”

unitedyam

Becket President Mark Rienzi said the group is “deeply honored” to be awarded the prize, saying religious liberty “is worth fighting for.”

Read More
Little Sisters argue contraception mandate case before 3rd Circuit as long fight continues #Catholic Legal counsel for the Little Sisters of the Poor delivered oral arguments to a federal appellate court on July 7 as the Catholic religious society continued its 15-year legal battle over contraception mandates.The dispute goes back to a 2011 federal regulation imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which requires employers to include coverage of contraception in healthcare plans offered to employees, as part of rules implementing the Affordable Care Act.Although the Little Sisters of the Poor already won two Supreme Court cases — which found the federal government must protect the religious freedom of those who object to contraception and that the federal government has the authority to create exemptions — the attorneys general of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are challenging federal exemptions on grounds that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on.A lower court ruled in favor of the two states, against the Little Sisters of the Poor, finding that the federal exemptions are arbitrary and capricious. The sisters filed an appeal, which is being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.Aimee Thomson, who represented the two states, argued that the broad exemptions — which allow both religious and moral objectors to avoid the mandate — are “arbitrary and capricious” and that the exemptions “swept well beyond all religious employers” who first objected to the mandate.Under the rule, employers who have moral or religious objections can opt in to an accommodation in which the federal government subsidizes contraception coverage in their plans. Employers who also have moral or religious objections to the accommodation can sidestep contraception coverage altogether.She told the panel of judges that the exemption exceeds the scope that is required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). She said the regulators failed to show that these exemptions were necessary to solve the religious liberty issue and expressed concerns over employers potentially getting exemptions even though their objections are not sincere.Thomson said it’s unclear “how many women have been impacted” by insincere objections, but “expecting female employees” to study policies and litigate an employer’s insincere objections is burdensome.“That is an incredible burden to place on employees and on women,” she said.Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, argued that the federal government sought to “choose a middle ground” that created a mandate but protected religious freedom, based on Supreme Court guidance: “Nothing about that is even close to arbitrary and capricious.”“This law is about the federal government … accommodating religion with its own mandate,” he said.Rienzi said a rule does not become arbitrary and capricious just because the scope is “a hair more than what’s required” under RFRA.The Little Sisters of the Poor are also receiving support from the Department of Justice. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur argued on behalf of the federal government, in favor of the exemptions, saying RFRA does not require the exemptions to be the “bare minimum.”He said HHS chose to “set everything aside and take a fresh look at everything” and decided “an exemption was the most appropriate administrative response” to objections. He said this was adopted “as a policy matter … even if RFRA does not compel it.”McArthur argued there is “no good reason” for someone to insincerely request an exemption because the employer can request the accommodation “at zero cost.” Yet, if the court decides the exemptions are too broad, the court could strike down “one line in the rule” rather than “take down the entire rule,” as the two states have requested.Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor said in a statement after the oral arguments that the states’ lawsuit to eliminate the exemptions is threatening their mission to serve the poor and the elderly.“This is our God-given mission,” she said “For nearly 200 years we have welcomed the elderly poor and dying into our homes, and with the population of seniors rapidly growing we cannot allow a government lawsuit to stop us from carrying out our mission. Pennsylvania and New Jersey can keep fighting if they want. All we want is to keep serving.”
Read More

Little Sisters argue contraception mandate case before 3rd Circuit as long fight continues #Catholic Legal counsel for the Little Sisters of the Poor delivered oral arguments to a federal appellate court on July 7 as the Catholic religious society continued its 15-year legal battle over contraception mandates.The dispute goes back to a 2011 federal regulation imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which requires employers to include coverage of contraception in healthcare plans offered to employees, as part of rules implementing the Affordable Care Act.Although the Little Sisters of the Poor already won two Supreme Court cases — which found the federal government must protect the religious freedom of those who object to contraception and that the federal government has the authority to create exemptions — the attorneys general of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are challenging federal exemptions on grounds that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on.A lower court ruled in favor of the two states, against the Little Sisters of the Poor, finding that the federal exemptions are arbitrary and capricious. The sisters filed an appeal, which is being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.Aimee Thomson, who represented the two states, argued that the broad exemptions — which allow both religious and moral objectors to avoid the mandate — are “arbitrary and capricious” and that the exemptions “swept well beyond all religious employers” who first objected to the mandate.Under the rule, employers who have moral or religious objections can opt in to an accommodation in which the federal government subsidizes contraception coverage in their plans. Employers who also have moral or religious objections to the accommodation can sidestep contraception coverage altogether.She told the panel of judges that the exemption exceeds the scope that is required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). She said the regulators failed to show that these exemptions were necessary to solve the religious liberty issue and expressed concerns over employers potentially getting exemptions even though their objections are not sincere.Thomson said it’s unclear “how many women have been impacted” by insincere objections, but “expecting female employees” to study policies and litigate an employer’s insincere objections is burdensome.“That is an incredible burden to place on employees and on women,” she said.Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, argued that the federal government sought to “choose a middle ground” that created a mandate but protected religious freedom, based on Supreme Court guidance: “Nothing about that is even close to arbitrary and capricious.”“This law is about the federal government … accommodating religion with its own mandate,” he said.Rienzi said a rule does not become arbitrary and capricious just because the scope is “a hair more than what’s required” under RFRA.The Little Sisters of the Poor are also receiving support from the Department of Justice. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur argued on behalf of the federal government, in favor of the exemptions, saying RFRA does not require the exemptions to be the “bare minimum.”He said HHS chose to “set everything aside and take a fresh look at everything” and decided “an exemption was the most appropriate administrative response” to objections. He said this was adopted “as a policy matter … even if RFRA does not compel it.”McArthur argued there is “no good reason” for someone to insincerely request an exemption because the employer can request the accommodation “at zero cost.” Yet, if the court decides the exemptions are too broad, the court could strike down “one line in the rule” rather than “take down the entire rule,” as the two states have requested.Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor said in a statement after the oral arguments that the states’ lawsuit to eliminate the exemptions is threatening their mission to serve the poor and the elderly.“This is our God-given mission,” she said “For nearly 200 years we have welcomed the elderly poor and dying into our homes, and with the population of seniors rapidly growing we cannot allow a government lawsuit to stop us from carrying out our mission. Pennsylvania and New Jersey can keep fighting if they want. All we want is to keep serving.”

unitedyam

The dispute stems from a 2011 federal rule requiring employers to include contraception coverage in employee health plans under the Affordable Care Act.

Read More
Parents sentenced to prison in Brazil after excluding gender content in homeschool curriculum #Catholic A Brazilian couple was sentenced to 50 days in prison related to the homeschooling of their two daughters in an unprecedented case that has raised concerns regarding educational freedom and parental rights in Brazil.Audato and Ieda Denardi were found guilty of the crime of “intellectual neglect” by a court in the state of São Paulo, even though the prosecution itself had requested their acquittal after concluding that the minors were not suffering from any neglect and were demonstrating appropriate academic and social development.The Christian legal organization ADF International, which is representing the family in the appeal, denounced the case as “a grotesque abuse of criminal law” and stated that it would continue defending the couple.The conviction, initially handed down in April 2026 and currently under appeal before the Seventh Criminal Court Chamber of the São Paulo State Court of Justice, will remain suspended while the appeal is being resolved.‘I cannot conceive of a more dictatorial state’Ieda Denardi expressed her distress and defended the right of parents to choose their childrenʼs education.“As a mother, I cannot conceive of a more dictatorial state than the one that wants me in jail because I chose to exercise my right to direct the education and upbringing of my daughters,” she told ADF International.“My husband and I are hopeful the court will recognize our right to choose the best education for our children and overturn this unjust conviction,” she added.The couple began homeschooling their daughters in 2020 after realizing the limitations of the remote public education imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.Since then, they report a significant improvement in their daughters' academic performance and have been able to incorporate family values ​​and faith into their education.Judge takes into account the girls’ music preferencesOne of the most striking aspects of the case is the reasoning the judge used to reach the verdict. According to the ruling, the educational program provided by the parents did not include content regarding “gender and sex education” or “tolerance and diversity.”Furthermore, the court concluded that the fact that the girls, aged 15 and 11, do not enjoy popular musical genres such as “trap” or “sertanejo” demonstrated an alleged deficiency in their cultural education.The judge cited this despite the fact that both girls are pianists with advanced training and are fluent in several languages.In his ruling, the judge further accused the parents of “using their daughters as pawns in an ideological struggle, subjecting them to a form of unregulated education, the effectiveness and quality of which lack adequate metrics within the Brazilian legal system, while completely excluding the state’s involvement.”The prosecution sought the parents' acquittal“The prosecutor examined the witnesses and recommended acquittal. An independent educational psychologist found no sign of neglect. The girls themselves described rigorous daily education,” explained Julio Pohl, legal counsel for Latin America at ADF International.However, “the judge convicted anyway,” he said, “because a fifteen-year-old said she finds some music lyrics morally questionable, and because the curriculum didn’t include state-approved content on gender.”“A parent has been sentenced to prison not for failing to educate her children, but for educating them according to her own values. This is a grotesque abuse of the criminal law, and we will not let it stand.” Pohl pledged.First criminal prosecution against homeschooling familiesAccording to ADF International, more than 70,000 children are currently being homeschooled in Brazil. However, a lack of regulation has left thousands of families in a state of uncertainty.The Denardi case sets a precedent as the first criminal conviction of parents for homeschooling their children.The situation has even reached the country’s legislature, where hearings were recently held on the matter, and the Denardis asked lawmakers to pass a law guaranteeing families the right to choose this educational model.Although a homeschooling bill was passed by the Chamber of Deputies (lower house) in 2022, the initiative remains stalled in the Senate.This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.
Read More

Parents sentenced to prison in Brazil after excluding gender content in homeschool curriculum #Catholic A Brazilian couple was sentenced to 50 days in prison related to the homeschooling of their two daughters in an unprecedented case that has raised concerns regarding educational freedom and parental rights in Brazil.Audato and Ieda Denardi were found guilty of the crime of “intellectual neglect” by a court in the state of São Paulo, even though the prosecution itself had requested their acquittal after concluding that the minors were not suffering from any neglect and were demonstrating appropriate academic and social development.The Christian legal organization ADF International, which is representing the family in the appeal, denounced the case as “a grotesque abuse of criminal law” and stated that it would continue defending the couple.The conviction, initially handed down in April 2026 and currently under appeal before the Seventh Criminal Court Chamber of the São Paulo State Court of Justice, will remain suspended while the appeal is being resolved.‘I cannot conceive of a more dictatorial state’Ieda Denardi expressed her distress and defended the right of parents to choose their childrenʼs education.“As a mother, I cannot conceive of a more dictatorial state than the one that wants me in jail because I chose to exercise my right to direct the education and upbringing of my daughters,” she told ADF International.“My husband and I are hopeful the court will recognize our right to choose the best education for our children and overturn this unjust conviction,” she added.The couple began homeschooling their daughters in 2020 after realizing the limitations of the remote public education imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.Since then, they report a significant improvement in their daughters' academic performance and have been able to incorporate family values ​​and faith into their education.Judge takes into account the girls’ music preferencesOne of the most striking aspects of the case is the reasoning the judge used to reach the verdict. According to the ruling, the educational program provided by the parents did not include content regarding “gender and sex education” or “tolerance and diversity.”Furthermore, the court concluded that the fact that the girls, aged 15 and 11, do not enjoy popular musical genres such as “trap” or “sertanejo” demonstrated an alleged deficiency in their cultural education.The judge cited this despite the fact that both girls are pianists with advanced training and are fluent in several languages.In his ruling, the judge further accused the parents of “using their daughters as pawns in an ideological struggle, subjecting them to a form of unregulated education, the effectiveness and quality of which lack adequate metrics within the Brazilian legal system, while completely excluding the state’s involvement.”The prosecution sought the parents' acquittal“The prosecutor examined the witnesses and recommended acquittal. An independent educational psychologist found no sign of neglect. The girls themselves described rigorous daily education,” explained Julio Pohl, legal counsel for Latin America at ADF International.However, “the judge convicted anyway,” he said, “because a fifteen-year-old said she finds some music lyrics morally questionable, and because the curriculum didn’t include state-approved content on gender.”“A parent has been sentenced to prison not for failing to educate her children, but for educating them according to her own values. This is a grotesque abuse of the criminal law, and we will not let it stand.” Pohl pledged.First criminal prosecution against homeschooling familiesAccording to ADF International, more than 70,000 children are currently being homeschooled in Brazil. However, a lack of regulation has left thousands of families in a state of uncertainty.The Denardi case sets a precedent as the first criminal conviction of parents for homeschooling their children.The situation has even reached the country’s legislature, where hearings were recently held on the matter, and the Denardis asked lawmakers to pass a law guaranteeing families the right to choose this educational model.Although a homeschooling bill was passed by the Chamber of Deputies (lower house) in 2022, the initiative remains stalled in the Senate.This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.

unitedyam

The judge said the fact that the 15- and 11-year-old girls do not enjoy popular music demonstrated an alleged deficiency in their cultural education.

Read More