Democratic – United Yam

Health spending bill would keep ban on tax-funded abortion #Catholic

An unborn baby at 20 weeks. | Credit: Steve via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Jan 21, 2026 / 15:49 pm (CNA).
A federal health spending bill would impose a long-enforced ban on using taxpayer funds for elective abortion, known as the Hyde Amendment.The U.S. House is set to consider the bill this week, which would fund the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. Lawmakers would need to pass spending bills in both chambers and send them to the White House by Jan. 30 or the government could face another partial shutdown.Republican President Donald Trump had asked his party to be “flexible” in its approach to the provision in a separate funding bill. According to a Jan. 19 news release from the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill includes the provision “protecting the lives of unborn children” known as the Hyde Amendment.The Hyde Amendment, which is not permanent law, was first included as a rider in federal spending bills in 1976. It was included consistently since then although some recent legislation and budget proposals have sometimes excluded it. The provision would ban federal funds for abortion except when the unborn child is conceived through rape or incest or if the life of the mother is at risk.Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the amendment is “a long-standing federal policy that’s been included for the last five decades and is popular with the American people.”“Americans don’t want to pay for abortion on demand,” she said.Many Democratic lawmakers have sought to eliminate the rider in recent years, saying it disproportionately limits abortion access for low-income women. Former President Joe Biden reversed his longtime support of the Hyde Amendment in the lead-up to the 2020 election and refused to include it in his spending proposals, saying: “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.” But Republicans successfully negotiated the rider’s inclusion into spending bills.In January 2025, Trump issued an executive order directing the government to enforce the Hyde Amendment. A year later, Trump urged Republicans to be “a little flexible on Hyde” when lawmakers were negotiating the extension of health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act. A White House spokesperson also said the president would work with Congress to ensure the strongest possible pro-life protections.The House eventually passed the extension without the Hyde Amendment after 17 Republicans joined Democrats to support the bill. The Senate has not yet advanced the measure, where the question of whether to include the Hyde Amendment has been a point of contention between Republicans and Democrats.In mid-January, Trump announced a plan to change how health care subsidies are disbursed. There was no mention of the Hyde Amendment in the White House’s 827-word memo.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has consistently lobbied for the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment in spending bills. On Jan. 14, the bishops sent a letter to Congress “to stress in the strongest possible terms that Hyde is essential for health care policy that protects human dignity.”“Authentic health care and the protection of human life go hand in hand,” the letter said. “There can be no compromise on these two combined values.”

unitedyam January 21, 2026

An unborn baby at 20 weeks. | Credit: Steve via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Jan 21, 2026 / 15:49 pm (CNA).

A federal health spending bill would impose a long-enforced ban on using taxpayer funds for elective abortion, known as the Hyde Amendment.

The U.S. House is set to consider the bill this week, which would fund the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. Lawmakers would need to pass spending bills in both chambers and send them to the White House by Jan. 30 or the government could face another partial shutdown.

Republican President Donald Trump had asked his party to be “flexible” in its approach to the provision in a separate funding bill. According to a Jan. 19 news release from the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill includes the provision “protecting the lives of unborn children” known as the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment, which is not permanent law, was first included as a rider in federal spending bills in 1976. It was included consistently since then although some recent legislation and budget proposals have sometimes excluded it. The provision would ban federal funds for abortion except when the unborn child is conceived through rape or incest or if the life of the mother is at risk.

Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the amendment is “a long-standing federal policy that’s been included for the last five decades and is popular with the American people.”

“Americans don’t want to pay for abortion on demand,” she said.

Many Democratic lawmakers have sought to eliminate the rider in recent years, saying it disproportionately limits abortion access for low-income women. Former President Joe Biden reversed his longtime support of the Hyde Amendment in the lead-up to the 2020 election and refused to include it in his spending proposals, saying: “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.” But Republicans successfully negotiated the rider’s inclusion into spending bills.

In January 2025, Trump issued an executive order directing the government to enforce the Hyde Amendment. A year later, Trump urged Republicans to be “a little flexible on Hyde” when lawmakers were negotiating the extension of health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act. A White House spokesperson also said the president would work with Congress to ensure the strongest possible pro-life protections.

The House eventually passed the extension without the Hyde Amendment after 17 Republicans joined Democrats to support the bill. The Senate has not yet advanced the measure, where the question of whether to include the Hyde Amendment has been a point of contention between Republicans and Democrats.

In mid-January, Trump announced a plan to change how health care subsidies are disbursed. There was no mention of the Hyde Amendment in the White House’s 827-word memo.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has consistently lobbied for the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment in spending bills. On Jan. 14, the bishops sent a letter to Congress “to stress in the strongest possible terms that Hyde is essential for health care policy that protects human dignity.”

“Authentic health care and the protection of human life go hand in hand,” the letter said. “There can be no compromise on these two combined values.”

Trump urges Republican ‘flexibility’ on taxpayer-funded abortions #Catholic

President Donald Trump talks to Republicans about their stance on the Hyde Amendment on Jan. 6, 2026. | Credit: Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Jan 6, 2026 / 18:10 pm (CNA).
President Donald Trump is asking congressional Republicans to be more flexible on taxpayer funding for abortions as lawmakers continue to negotiate an extension to health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.Some federal subsidies that lowered premiums for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act expired in December. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average increase to premiums for people who lost the subsidies will be about 114%, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. The exact costs will be different, depending on specific plans.Trump has encouraged his party to work on extending those subsidies and is asking them to be “flexible” on a provision that could affect tax-funded abortion. Democrats have proposed ending the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which bans direct federal funding for abortions in most cases.“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said at the House Republican Conference retreat at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Jan. 6.“Now you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” the president said. “You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something [out]. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility.”The Hyde Amendment began as a bipartisan provision in funding bills that prohibited the use of federal funds for more than 45 years. Lawmakers have reauthorized the prohibition every year since it was first introduced in 1976.A study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2.6 million lives. According to a poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose tax funding for abortions.However, in recent years, many Democratic politicians have tried to keep the rule out of spending bills. Former President Joe Biden abandoned the Hyde Amendment in budget proposals, but it was ultimately included in the final compromise versions that became law.Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, criticized Trump for urging flexibility on the provision, calling its support “an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party.”Dannenfelser said Republicans “are sure to lose this November” if they abandon Hyde: “The voters sent a [Republican] trifecta to Washington and they expect it to govern like one.”“Giving in to Democrat demands that our tax dollars are used to fund plans that cover abortion on demand until birth would be a massive betrayal,” she said.Dannenfelser also noted that, before these comments, Trump has consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. The president issued an executive order in January on enforcing the Hyde Amendment that accused Biden’s administration of disregarding this “commonsense policy.”“For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a long-standing consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice,” the executive order reads.“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,” it adds.

unitedyam January 6, 2026

President Donald Trump talks to Republicans about their stance on the Hyde Amendment on Jan. 6, 2026. | Credit: Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Jan 6, 2026 / 18:10 pm (CNA).

President Donald Trump is asking congressional Republicans to be more flexible on taxpayer funding for abortions as lawmakers continue to negotiate an extension to health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Some federal subsidies that lowered premiums for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act expired in December.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average increase to premiums for people who lost the subsidies will be about 114%, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. The exact costs will be different, depending on specific plans.

Trump has encouraged his party to work on extending those subsidies and is asking them to be “flexible” on a provision that could affect tax-funded abortion. Democrats have proposed ending the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which bans direct federal funding for abortions in most cases.

“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said at the House Republican Conference retreat at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Jan. 6.

“Now you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” the president said. “You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something [out]. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility.”

The Hyde Amendment began as a bipartisan provision in funding bills that prohibited the use of federal funds for more than 45 years. Lawmakers have reauthorized the prohibition every year since it was first introduced in 1976.

A study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2.6 million lives. According to a poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose tax funding for abortions.

However, in recent years, many Democratic politicians have tried to keep the rule out of spending bills. Former President Joe Biden abandoned the Hyde Amendment in budget proposals, but it was ultimately included in the final compromise versions that became law.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, criticized Trump for urging flexibility on the provision, calling its support “an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party.”

Dannenfelser said Republicans “are sure to lose this November” if they abandon Hyde: “The voters sent a [Republican] trifecta to Washington and they expect it to govern like one.”

“Giving in to Democrat demands that our tax dollars are used to fund plans that cover abortion on demand until birth would be a massive betrayal,” she said.

Dannenfelser also noted that, before these comments, Trump has consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. The president issued an executive order in January on enforcing the Hyde Amendment that accused Biden’s administration of disregarding this “commonsense policy.”

“For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a long-standing consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice,” the executive order reads.

“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,” it adds.

Bishop Barron critiques New York Mayor Mamdani’s embrace of ‘collectivism’ #Catholic

Democratic Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani speaks to members of the media during a press conference after voting on Nov. 4, 2025. | Credit: Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

Jan 5, 2026 / 17:32 pm (CNA).
Bishop Robert Barron, founder of the Word on Fire ministry, criticized New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani for promising constituents “the warmth of collectivism” in his Jan. 1 inaugural address.Mamdani, who defeated two candidates with nearly 51% of the vote in the November election, won on a democratic socialist platform. His plans include free buses, city-owned grocery stores, no-cost child care, raising the minimum wage to per hour, and freezing the rent for people in rent-stabilized apartments.“We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism,” Mamdani said in his inaugural address.“If our campaign demonstrated that the people of New York yearn for solidarity, then let this government foster it,” he said. “Because no matter what you eat, what language you speak, how you pray, or where you come from — the words that most define us are the two we all share: New Yorkers.”Barron, bishop of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, said in a post on X that this line “took my breath away.”“Collectivism in its various forms is responsible for the deaths of at least 100 million people in the last century,” Barron said.“Socialist and communist forms of government around the world today — Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc. — are disastrous,” he added. “Catholic social teaching has consistently condemned socialism and has embraced the market economy, which people like Mayor Mamdani caricature as ‘rugged individualism.’ In fact, it is the economic system that is based upon the rights, freedom, and dignity of the human person.”“For God’s sake, spare me the ‘warmth of collectivism,’” Barron concluded.Catholic teaching on socialismBoth socialism and communism have been condemned by many popes, first by Pope Pius IX in his 1849 encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, just one year after Karl Marx published “ The Communist Manifesto.”The foundation of Catholic social teaching rests on Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum.In the encyclical, Leo denounced socialism and communism, and also condemned poor labor conditions for the working class and employers “who use human beings as mere instruments for moneymaking.”“Each needs the other: Capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital,” the 19th century pontiff wrote. “Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity.”Pope Pius XI, in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, wrote of the importance of private property, that man must be able to “fully cultivate and develop all his faculties unto the praise and glory of his Creator; and that by faithfully fulfilling the duties of his craft or other calling he may obtain for himself temporal and at the same time eternal happiness.”Socialism, he said, is “wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society, affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone.”“Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist,” Pius XI wrote.Pope Benedict XVI differentiated socialism and democratic socialism. In 2006, he wrote: “In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”Though, in his 2005 encyclical Deus Caritas Est, Benedict XVI wrote that government should not control everything but that society needs a state that, “in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need.”Pope Francis has criticized Marxist ideology but also “radical individualism,” which he said in his 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti “makes us believe that everything consists in giving free rein to our own ambitions, as if by pursuing ever greater ambitions and creating safety nets we would somehow be serving the common good.”In 2024, Francis encouraged cooperation and dialogue between Marxists and Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism.’ She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of ‘capitalism,’ individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.”

unitedyam January 5, 2026

Democratic Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani speaks to members of the media during a press conference after voting on Nov. 4, 2025. | Credit: Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

Jan 5, 2026 / 17:32 pm (CNA).

Bishop Robert Barron, founder of the Word on Fire ministry, criticized New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani for promising constituents “the warmth of collectivism” in his Jan. 1 inaugural address.

Mamdani, who defeated two candidates with nearly 51% of the vote in the November election, won on a democratic socialist platform. His plans include free buses, city-owned grocery stores, no-cost child care, raising the minimum wage to $30 per hour, and freezing the rent for people in rent-stabilized apartments.

“We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism,” Mamdani said in his inaugural address.

“If our campaign demonstrated that the people of New York yearn for solidarity, then let this government foster it,” he said. “Because no matter what you eat, what language you speak, how you pray, or where you come from — the words that most define us are the two we all share: New Yorkers.”

Barron, bishop of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, said in a post on X that this line “took my breath away.”

“Collectivism in its various forms is responsible for the deaths of at least 100 million people in the last century,” Barron said.

“Socialist and communist forms of government around the world today — Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc. — are disastrous,” he added. “Catholic social teaching has consistently condemned socialism and has embraced the market economy, which people like Mayor Mamdani caricature as ‘rugged individualism.’ In fact, it is the economic system that is based upon the rights, freedom, and dignity of the human person.”

“For God’s sake, spare me the ‘warmth of collectivism,’” Barron concluded.

Catholic teaching on socialism

Both socialism and communism have been condemned by many popes, first by Pope Pius IX in his 1849 encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, just one year after Karl Marx published “ The Communist Manifesto.”

The foundation of Catholic social teaching rests on Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum.

In the encyclical, Leo denounced socialism and communism, and also condemned poor labor conditions for the working class and employers “who use human beings as mere instruments for moneymaking.”

“Each needs the other: Capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital,” the 19th century pontiff wrote. “Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity.”

Pope Pius XI, in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, wrote of the importance of private property, that man must be able to “fully cultivate and develop all his faculties unto the praise and glory of his Creator; and that by faithfully fulfilling the duties of his craft or other calling he may obtain for himself temporal and at the same time eternal happiness.”

Socialism, he said, is “wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society, affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone.”

“Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist,” Pius XI wrote.

Pope Benedict XVI differentiated socialism and democratic socialism. In 2006, he wrote: “In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”

Though, in his 2005 encyclical Deus Caritas Est, Benedict XVI wrote that government should not control everything but that society needs a state that, “in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need.”

Pope Francis has criticized Marxist ideology but also “radical individualism,” which he said in his 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti “makes us believe that everything consists in giving free rein to our own ambitions, as if by pursuing ever greater ambitions and creating safety nets we would somehow be serving the common good.”

In 2024, Francis encouraged cooperation and dialogue between Marxists and Christians.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism.’ She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of ‘capitalism,’ individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.”

In interview with Bishop Barron, Justice Barrett opens up about her faith #Catholic

Judge Amy Coney Barrett. – Rachel Malehorn/wikimedia CC BY SA 3.0

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 26, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett says her Catholic faith “grounds her” and gives her “perspective.”During an interview with Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Barrett tackled a number of topics including free speech, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and her law career. The U.S. Supreme Court justice also opened up about her Catholic faith, including how she prays and her relationship with the saints.A ‘love for the saints’When asked which spiritual figures have influenced her, Barrett shared about her relationships with the saints, specifically her love for St. Catherine of Siena and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.“My favorite was Thérèse of Lisieux. We have a daughter named Thérèse,” Barrett said. “I was captivated when I was young by how young she was when she just completely gave her life over to the Lord.”“Her Little Way is so accessible to so many,” she said. “I minored in French and I studied in France. It was actually Lisieux, where I was … that’s where I decided to go that summer. So I spent a lot of time in the gardens of the Martin home. I think those examples of faith were important to me.”“One thing that we’ve tried to do with our children is really cultivate in them a love for the saints, because I do think they are great examples that can inspire our love of the faith.”Barrett said she has “prayed in different ways at different phases” of her life. As a law professor, she often prayed a “ lectio divina.” Now as a judge, she said she tends “to do more reading reflections” and will “read the daily ‘ Magnificat.’”A “personal struggle in these last couple of years has been an ability to quiet my mind so that I can pray in a very deep and focused way,” she said. Listening to reflections “helps me, if my mind is wandering, to be able to focus on reading something and the task at hand.”The Constitution and the common goodDespite her faith, Barrett also discussed how it is not what can influence her decisions as a judge. “The Constitution distributes authority in a particular way,” she said. “The authority that I have is circumscribed.”“I believe in natural law, and I certainly believe in the common good,” Barrett said. “I think legislators have the duty to pursue the common good within the confines of the Constitution and respect for religious freedom.”“You have to imagine, ‘What if I didn’t like the composition of the court I was in front of, the court that was making these decisions, and they view the common good quite differently than I do?’ That’s the reason why we have a document like the Constitution, because it’s a point of consensus and common ground.”“And if we start veering away from that and reading into it our own individual ideas of the common good, it’s going to go nowhere good fast.”Roe v. WadeBarrett said both people who agreed with the Dobbs decision and those who did not “may well assume” she cast her vote based on her “faith” and “personal views about abortion.”“But especially given the framework with which I view the Constitution, there are plenty of people who support abortion rights but who recognize that Roe was ill-reasoned and inconsistent with the Constitution itself,” she said.Barrett further discussed “the trouble with Roe.”“There’s nothing in the Constitution … that speaks to abortion, that speaks to medical procedures,” she said. “The best defense of Roe, the commonly thought defense of Roe, was that it was grounded in the word ‘liberty’ and the due process clause, that we protect life, liberty, and property and it can’t be taken away without due process of law.”The “word ‘liberty’ can’t be an open vessel or an empty vessel in which judges can just read into it whatever rights they want, because otherwise, we lose the democracy in our democratic society,” Barrett said.The problem with Roe “is that it was a free-floating, free-wheeling decision that read into the Constitution.”The reason why it’s difficult to amend the Constitution is because “it reflects a super-majority consensus,” she said. “The rights that are protected in the Constitution, as well as the structural guarantees that are made in that Constitution, are not of my making. They are ones that Americans have agreed to.”“Roe told Americans what they should agree to rather than what they have already agreed to in the Constitution.”Free speech and freedom of religion“I think the First Amendment protects, guarantees, forces us to respect one another and to respect disagreement,” Barrett said. “There’s a tolerance of different faiths, a tolerance of different ideas … we can see what would happen if you didn’t have the guarantee to hold that in place.”“Think about what’s happening with respect to free speech rights in the U.K.,” Barrett said. “Contrary opinions or opinions that are not in the mainstream are not being tolerated, and they’re even being criminalized. Because of the First Amendment, that can’t happen here.”If the United States were to have “an established religion, then it would be very difficult to simultaneously guarantee freedom of religion because there would be one voice with which the government was speaking,” Barrett explained.An established religion would “sacrifice the religious liberty,” she said. “But by the same token, the religious liberty, it would become self-defeating if the logical end to it was to force everyone to see things your way.”DiscernmentAt the end of the conversation, Barron asked Barrett what advice she would give young Catholics who want to be involved in public life, law, or the government.“Discern first,” Barrett said. Ask: “What are you called to do?”“If you do feel like this is a vocation and something you’re called to do, I think it can never be the most important thing,” Barrett said. “I think being grounded in your faith and who you are and being right in the Lord, so that you’re not tossed like a ship everywhere because there are enormous pressures.”Faith “grounds me as a person,” Barrett said. “Not because my faith informs the substance of the decisions that I make, it emphatically does not, but I think it grounds me as a person. It’s who I am as a person.”“So it’s what enables me to keep my job in public life in perspective and remain the person who I am and continue to try to be the person I hope to be despite the pressures of public life,” she said.

unitedyam December 26, 2025

Judge Amy Coney Barrett. – Rachel Malehorn/wikimedia CC BY SA 3.0

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 26, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett says her Catholic faith “grounds her” and gives her “perspective.”

During an interview with Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Barrett tackled a number of topics including free speech, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and her law career. The U.S. Supreme Court justice also opened up about her Catholic faith, including how she prays and her relationship with the saints.

A ‘love for the saints’

When asked which spiritual figures have influenced her, Barrett shared about her relationships with the saints, specifically her love for St. Catherine of Siena and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.

“My favorite was Thérèse of Lisieux. We have a daughter named Thérèse,” Barrett said. “I was captivated when I was young by how young she was when she just completely gave her life over to the Lord.”

“Her Little Way is so accessible to so many,” she said. “I minored in French and I studied in France. It was actually Lisieux, where I was … that’s where I decided to go that summer. So I spent a lot of time in the gardens of the Martin home. I think those examples of faith were important to me.”

“One thing that we’ve tried to do with our children is really cultivate in them a love for the saints, because I do think they are great examples that can inspire our love of the faith.”

Barrett said she has “prayed in different ways at different phases” of her life. As a law professor, she often prayed a “ lectio divina.” Now as a judge, she said she tends “to do more reading reflections” and will “read the daily ‘ Magnificat.’”

A “personal struggle in these last couple of years has been an ability to quiet my mind so that I can pray in a very deep and focused way,” she said. Listening to reflections “helps me, if my mind is wandering, to be able to focus on reading something and the task at hand.”

The Constitution and the common good

Despite her faith, Barrett also discussed how it is not what can influence her decisions as a judge. “The Constitution distributes authority in a particular way,” she said. “The authority that I have is circumscribed.”

“I believe in natural law, and I certainly believe in the common good,” Barrett said. “I think legislators have the duty to pursue the common good within the confines of the Constitution and respect for religious freedom.”

“You have to imagine, ‘What if I didn’t like the composition of the court I was in front of, the court that was making these decisions, and they view the common good quite differently than I do?’ That’s the reason why we have a document like the Constitution, because it’s a point of consensus and common ground.”

“And if we start veering away from that and reading into it our own individual ideas of the common good, it’s going to go nowhere good fast.”

Roe v. Wade

Barrett said both people who agreed with the Dobbs decision and those who did not “may well assume” she cast her vote based on her “faith” and “personal views about abortion.”

“But especially given the framework with which I view the Constitution, there are plenty of people who support abortion rights but who recognize that Roe was ill-reasoned and inconsistent with the Constitution itself,” she said.

Barrett further discussed “the trouble with Roe.”

“There’s nothing in the Constitution … that speaks to abortion, that speaks to medical procedures,” she said. “The best defense of Roe, the commonly thought defense of Roe, was that it was grounded in the word ‘liberty’ and the due process clause, that we protect life, liberty, and property and it can’t be taken away without due process of law.”

The “word ‘liberty’ can’t be an open vessel or an empty vessel in which judges can just read into it whatever rights they want, because otherwise, we lose the democracy in our democratic society,” Barrett said.

The problem with Roe “is that it was a free-floating, free-wheeling decision that read into the Constitution.”

The reason why it’s difficult to amend the Constitution is because “it reflects a super-majority consensus,” she said. “The rights that are protected in the Constitution, as well as the structural guarantees that are made in that Constitution, are not of my making. They are ones that Americans have agreed to.”

“Roe told Americans what they should agree to rather than what they have already agreed to in the Constitution.”

Free speech and freedom of religion

“I think the First Amendment protects, guarantees, forces us to respect one another and to respect disagreement,” Barrett said. “There’s a tolerance of different faiths, a tolerance of different ideas … we can see what would happen if you didn’t have the guarantee to hold that in place.”

“Think about what’s happening with respect to free speech rights in the U.K.,” Barrett said. “Contrary opinions or opinions that are not in the mainstream are not being tolerated, and they’re even being criminalized. Because of the First Amendment, that can’t happen here.”

If the United States were to have “an established religion, then it would be very difficult to simultaneously guarantee freedom of religion because there would be one voice with which the government was speaking,” Barrett explained.

An established religion would “sacrifice the religious liberty,” she said. “But by the same token, the religious liberty, it would become self-defeating if the logical end to it was to force everyone to see things your way.”

Discernment

At the end of the conversation, Barron asked Barrett what advice she would give young Catholics who want to be involved in public life, law, or the government.

“Discern first,” Barrett said. Ask: “What are you called to do?”

“If you do feel like this is a vocation and something you’re called to do, I think it can never be the most important thing,” Barrett said. “I think being grounded in your faith and who you are and being right in the Lord, so that you’re not tossed like a ship everywhere because there are enormous pressures.”

Faith “grounds me as a person,” Barrett said. “Not because my faith informs the substance of the decisions that I make, it emphatically does not, but I think it grounds me as a person. It’s who I am as a person.”

“So it’s what enables me to keep my job in public life in perspective and remain the person who I am and continue to try to be the person I hope to be despite the pressures of public life,” she said.