Drugs

4 out of 5 Americans have concerns with embryonic screening, study finds #Catholic null / Credit: Andrii Vodolazhskyi/CNA CNA Staff, Nov 22, 2025 / 08:20 am (CNA). Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news.4 out of 5 Americans have concerns with embryonic screening, study findsFour in five voters have some at least some concerns about embryo screening, a recent Ethics and Public Policy Center poll found.Embryonic screening is the practice of selecting some babies to be born because of their genetic traits — such as appearance, health, or predicted intelligence — while discarding other unborn babies. The Ethics and Public Policy Center poll, led by center fellow Patrick Brown, comes in the wake of some Silicon Valley-funded startups saying they will give parents the ability to screen embryos.  The poll found that very few Americans want Silicon Valley to “hack” reproduction.“While Americans support measures to help infertile couples have children, they express concerns about broader implications of these technologies,” the report says. Across demographic groups, voters voiced support for “commonsense regulations.” Women were more likely to have concerns about embryo screening than men, while older voters (ages 46+) were more likely to have concerns than younger voters (ages 18-45).  South Carolina right-to-life group opposes proposed bill to criminalize women who have abortionsA South Carolina bill would enable prosecution of women who have abortions — a practice that South Carolina Citizens for Life (SCCL) and most pro-life groups oppose. The bill, which would designate abortion as equivalent to the homicide of a born person, contains no provisions protecting women who obtain abortions. While pro-life groups tend to support prosecution of abortionists who illegally perform the deadly procedure, most groups oppose the prosecution of abortive mothers themselves, whom they also consider to be victims of abortion. Holly Gatling, who heads South Carolina Citizens for Life, called the bill “unacceptable.” “This provision of the law alone would shut down post-abortion ministries such as Rachel’s Vineyard and jeopardize the livesaving, compassionate work of pregnancy care ministries,” she told CNA.The Catholic bishops ask that Project Rachel, a counseling resource for post-abortive women, be present in every diocese in the U.S.Gatling said she opposes the bill “because it criminalizes post-aborted women, jeopardizes the work of pregnancy care centers and post-abortion ministries, and undermines the pro-life legislation previously passed by the General Assembly.” “Not only are post-aborted women subject to criminal prosecution, but pastors, counselors, and any ‘person’ also can be compelled to testify in the criminal prosecution of a post-aborted woman,” Gatling said. Gatling noted that South Carolina’s current heartbeat law has saved thousands of lives while explicitly protecting women from prosecution. “SCCL and many other pro-life and pro-family organizations in South Carolina oppose legislation that reverses this protection for women,” Gatling said. U.S. government can’t compel Christian employers to accommodate abortions, judge rulesA federal court has issued a permanent injunction ruling that Christian employers will not be compelled to accommodate abortions.The Herzog Foundation in a lawsuit had argued that a Biden-era rule requiring employers to accommodate abortions for pregnant employees violated the First Amendment. On Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted the permanent injunction protecting faith-based employers.Herzog Foundation spokeswoman Elizabeth Roberts lauded the court’s decision in a Nov. 20 statement, saying that the ruling “solidifies that the government cannot overstep its authority by trying to dictate or suppress our beliefs.” 3 state attorneys general file challenge to mail-in chemical abortion drugsAttorneys general of Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri filed a challenge to stop mail-order abortion drugs and block the recent approval of generic mifepristone.The Nov. 20 challenge claims that the FDA “cut corners when it removed safeguards from this dangerous drug.” Mifeprisotone’s label says that 1 in 25 women will go to the emergency room after taking the drug, while other studies have found that it poses a risk to the women and girls who take it.  Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said in a statement that Missouri “will not stand by while manufacturers gamble with women’s lives.” “Mifepristone is sending women to the hospital with life-threatening complications, and yet drug companies continue pushing new versions of it into the market without basic medical safeguards,” Hanaway said.Texas sees decrease in minors getting abortionsAfter Texas implemented a heartbeat law protecting unborn children when their heartbeats are detectable, the state has seen a marked drop in abortions among minors, a recent study found. Published online on Nov. 13 by the American Journal of Public Health, the study found that abortions decreased by more than 25% among minors in Texas.Additionally, among Texans ages 18-24, abortions decreased by about 20%; for Texans aged 25-29, abortions decreased by 17%, the study found. The study, which cited concerns about “young people’s reproductive autonomy,” has several authors affiliated with abortion clinics including Planned Parenthood as well as two authors affiliated with a pro-abortion research center, Resound Research for Reproductive Health.
Read More

4 out of 5 Americans have concerns with embryonic screening, study finds #Catholic null / Credit: Andrii Vodolazhskyi/CNA CNA Staff, Nov 22, 2025 / 08:20 am (CNA). Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news.4 out of 5 Americans have concerns with embryonic screening, study findsFour in five voters have some at least some concerns about embryo screening, a recent Ethics and Public Policy Center poll found.Embryonic screening is the practice of selecting some babies to be born because of their genetic traits — such as appearance, health, or predicted intelligence — while discarding other unborn babies. The Ethics and Public Policy Center poll, led by center fellow Patrick Brown, comes in the wake of some Silicon Valley-funded startups saying they will give parents the ability to screen embryos.  The poll found that very few Americans want Silicon Valley to “hack” reproduction.“While Americans support measures to help infertile couples have children, they express concerns about broader implications of these technologies,” the report says. Across demographic groups, voters voiced support for “commonsense regulations.” Women were more likely to have concerns about embryo screening than men, while older voters (ages 46+) were more likely to have concerns than younger voters (ages 18-45).  South Carolina right-to-life group opposes proposed bill to criminalize women who have abortionsA South Carolina bill would enable prosecution of women who have abortions — a practice that South Carolina Citizens for Life (SCCL) and most pro-life groups oppose. The bill, which would designate abortion as equivalent to the homicide of a born person, contains no provisions protecting women who obtain abortions. While pro-life groups tend to support prosecution of abortionists who illegally perform the deadly procedure, most groups oppose the prosecution of abortive mothers themselves, whom they also consider to be victims of abortion. Holly Gatling, who heads South Carolina Citizens for Life, called the bill “unacceptable.” “This provision of the law alone would shut down post-abortion ministries such as Rachel’s Vineyard and jeopardize the livesaving, compassionate work of pregnancy care ministries,” she told CNA.The Catholic bishops ask that Project Rachel, a counseling resource for post-abortive women, be present in every diocese in the U.S.Gatling said she opposes the bill “because it criminalizes post-aborted women, jeopardizes the work of pregnancy care centers and post-abortion ministries, and undermines the pro-life legislation previously passed by the General Assembly.” “Not only are post-aborted women subject to criminal prosecution, but pastors, counselors, and any ‘person’ also can be compelled to testify in the criminal prosecution of a post-aborted woman,” Gatling said. Gatling noted that South Carolina’s current heartbeat law has saved thousands of lives while explicitly protecting women from prosecution. “SCCL and many other pro-life and pro-family organizations in South Carolina oppose legislation that reverses this protection for women,” Gatling said. U.S. government can’t compel Christian employers to accommodate abortions, judge rulesA federal court has issued a permanent injunction ruling that Christian employers will not be compelled to accommodate abortions.The Herzog Foundation in a lawsuit had argued that a Biden-era rule requiring employers to accommodate abortions for pregnant employees violated the First Amendment. On Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted the permanent injunction protecting faith-based employers.Herzog Foundation spokeswoman Elizabeth Roberts lauded the court’s decision in a Nov. 20 statement, saying that the ruling “solidifies that the government cannot overstep its authority by trying to dictate or suppress our beliefs.” 3 state attorneys general file challenge to mail-in chemical abortion drugsAttorneys general of Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri filed a challenge to stop mail-order abortion drugs and block the recent approval of generic mifepristone.The Nov. 20 challenge claims that the FDA “cut corners when it removed safeguards from this dangerous drug.” Mifeprisotone’s label says that 1 in 25 women will go to the emergency room after taking the drug, while other studies have found that it poses a risk to the women and girls who take it.  Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said in a statement that Missouri “will not stand by while manufacturers gamble with women’s lives.” “Mifepristone is sending women to the hospital with life-threatening complications, and yet drug companies continue pushing new versions of it into the market without basic medical safeguards,” Hanaway said.Texas sees decrease in minors getting abortionsAfter Texas implemented a heartbeat law protecting unborn children when their heartbeats are detectable, the state has seen a marked drop in abortions among minors, a recent study found. Published online on Nov. 13 by the American Journal of Public Health, the study found that abortions decreased by more than 25% among minors in Texas.Additionally, among Texans ages 18-24, abortions decreased by about 20%; for Texans aged 25-29, abortions decreased by 17%, the study found. The study, which cited concerns about “young people’s reproductive autonomy,” has several authors affiliated with abortion clinics including Planned Parenthood as well as two authors affiliated with a pro-abortion research center, Resound Research for Reproductive Health.

unitedyam

null / Credit: Andrii Vodolazhskyi/CNA

CNA Staff, Nov 22, 2025 / 08:20 am (CNA).

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

4 out of 5 Americans have concerns with embryonic screening, study finds

Four in five voters have some at least some concerns about embryo screening, a recent Ethics and Public Policy Center poll found.

Embryonic screening is the practice of selecting some babies to be born because of their genetic traits — such as appearance, health, or predicted intelligence — while discarding other unborn babies. 

The Ethics and Public Policy Center poll, led by center fellow Patrick Brown, comes in the wake of some Silicon Valley-funded startups saying they will give parents the ability to screen embryos.  

The poll found that very few Americans want Silicon Valley to “hack” reproduction.

“While Americans support measures to help infertile couples have children, they express concerns about broader implications of these technologies,” the report says. 

Across demographic groups, voters voiced support for “commonsense regulations.” 

Women were more likely to have concerns about embryo screening than men, while older voters (ages 46+) were more likely to have concerns than younger voters (ages 18-45).  

South Carolina right-to-life group opposes proposed bill to criminalize women who have abortions

A South Carolina bill would enable prosecution of women who have abortions — a practice that South Carolina Citizens for Life (SCCL) and most pro-life groups oppose. 

The bill, which would designate abortion as equivalent to the homicide of a born person, contains no provisions protecting women who obtain abortions. 

While pro-life groups tend to support prosecution of abortionists who illegally perform the deadly procedure, most groups oppose the prosecution of abortive mothers themselves, whom they also consider to be victims of abortion. 

Holly Gatling, who heads South Carolina Citizens for Life, called the bill “unacceptable.” 

“This provision of the law alone would shut down post-abortion ministries such as Rachel’s Vineyard and jeopardize the livesaving, compassionate work of pregnancy care ministries,” she told CNA.

The Catholic bishops ask that Project Rachel, a counseling resource for post-abortive women, be present in every diocese in the U.S.

Gatling said she opposes the bill “because it criminalizes post-aborted women, jeopardizes the work of pregnancy care centers and post-abortion ministries, and undermines the pro-life legislation previously passed by the General Assembly.” 

“Not only are post-aborted women subject to criminal prosecution, but pastors, counselors, and any ‘person’ also can be compelled to testify in the criminal prosecution of a post-aborted woman,” Gatling said. 

Gatling noted that South Carolina’s current heartbeat law has saved thousands of lives while explicitly protecting women from prosecution. 

“SCCL and many other pro-life and pro-family organizations in South Carolina oppose legislation that reverses this protection for women,” Gatling said. 

U.S. government can’t compel Christian employers to accommodate abortions, judge rules

A federal court has issued a permanent injunction ruling that Christian employers will not be compelled to accommodate abortions.

The Herzog Foundation in a lawsuit had argued that a Biden-era rule requiring employers to accommodate abortions for pregnant employees violated the First Amendment. 

On Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted the permanent injunction protecting faith-based employers.

Herzog Foundation spokeswoman Elizabeth Roberts lauded the court’s decision in a Nov. 20 statement, saying that the ruling “solidifies that the government cannot overstep its authority by trying to dictate or suppress our beliefs.” 

3 state attorneys general file challenge to mail-in chemical abortion drugs

Attorneys general of Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri filed a challenge to stop mail-order abortion drugs and block the recent approval of generic mifepristone.

The Nov. 20 challenge claims that the FDA “cut corners when it removed safeguards from this dangerous drug.” 

Mifeprisotone’s label says that 1 in 25 women will go to the emergency room after taking the drug, while other studies have found that it poses a risk to the women and girls who take it.  

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said in a statement that Missouri “will not stand by while manufacturers gamble with women’s lives.” 

“Mifepristone is sending women to the hospital with life-threatening complications, and yet drug companies continue pushing new versions of it into the market without basic medical safeguards,” Hanaway said.

Texas sees decrease in minors getting abortions

After Texas implemented a heartbeat law protecting unborn children when their heartbeats are detectable, the state has seen a marked drop in abortions among minors, a recent study found. 

Published online on Nov. 13 by the American Journal of Public Health, the study found that abortions decreased by more than 25% among minors in Texas.

Additionally, among Texans ages 18-24, abortions decreased by about 20%; for Texans aged 25-29, abortions decreased by 17%, the study found. 

The study, which cited concerns about “young people’s reproductive autonomy,” has several authors affiliated with abortion clinics including Planned Parenthood as well as two authors affiliated with a pro-abortion research center, Resound Research for Reproductive Health.

Read More
Poll: 7 in 10 voters support requiring doctor’s visit for abortion pills #Catholic null / Credit: SibRapid/Shutterstock Denver, Colorado, Nov 1, 2025 / 07:19 am (CNA). Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news.7 in 10 voters support requiring doctor’s visit for abortion pills More than 7 in 10 voters believe a doctor’s visit should be required for a chemical abortion prescription, a recent poll found. The McLaughlin & Associates poll of 1,600 participants found that 71% of voters approved of a proposal “requiring a doctor’s visit in order for the chemical abortion drug to be prescribed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.” The poll also found that 30% of voters had “significant concerns” about the safety of the abortion pill.  Current federal regulations allow providers to prescribe abortion drugs through telehealth and send them by mail. States like California even allow anonymous prescription of the abortion pill, and states including New York and California have “shield laws” that protect abortion providers who ship drugs into states where it is illegal. SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said this week, “The harmful impact of Biden’s FDA removing safeguards on abortion drugs, like in-person doctor visits, is an issue that overwhelmingly unites voters of all stripes.”“As a growing body of research indicates these drugs are far more dangerous than advertised, and new horror stories emerge day after day of women coerced and drugged against their will, landing in the ER and even dying along with their babies, Americans’ concerns are more than valid,” she said in an Oct. 28 statement.Dannenfelser urged the Trump administration to “heed the emerging science and the will of the people and immediately reinstate in-person doctor visits.” Texas AG Paxton secures win in Yelp’s targeting of pregnancy centersTexas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured an appellate court victory against Yelp, Inc. for allegedly adding misleading notices to pro-life pregnancy centers. Paxton filed the lawsuit after misleading notices were attached to the pages of crisis pregnancy centers. The 15th U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal, which had concluded that Texas did not have jurisdiction over Yelp because it is based in California. The 15th U.S. Court of Appeals concluded this week that the company is still “subject to specific jurisdiction in Texas” and that the concern is relevant to other states as well. “As evidenced by the number of attorneys general who signed the letter sent to Yelp, several states share Texas’s interest in ensuring that Crisis Pregnancy Centers are not the targets of actionable misleading statements,” Justice April Farris wrote in the opinion. Paxton said in a statement that Yelp tried to “steer users away from pro-life resources,” noting that Texas will keep Yelp accountable. Paxton pledged to “continue to defend pro-life organizations that serve Texans and make sure that women and families are receiving accurate information about our state’s resources.”Virginia superintendent denies that staff facilitated student abortionsA Virginia public school district has denied allegations that staff at a high school facilitated student abortions without parental consent or knowledge.In an Oct. 16 letter to families and staff at Centreville High School, Fairfax County Superintendent Michelle Reid said that internal investigations found that the “allegations are likely untrue” as “new details have emerged.” In the wake of an investigative report by a local blogger and accusations by a teacher on staff, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin instructed police to launch a criminal investigation. U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee as well as the U.S. Department of Education also launched investigations. Reid said that “such behavior would never be acceptable” in the school district, which “is fully cooperating with these government investigations.” Planned Parenthood Wisconsin resumes abortionsAfter a temporary pause this month, Wisconsin Planned Parenthood resumed providing abortions in the state by giving up its designation as an “essential community provider” under the Affordable Care Act. Planned Parenthood Wisconsin stopped offering abortions on Oct. 1, after President Donald Trump cut federal Medicaid funding for abortion providers. The yearlong pause is designed to prevent federal tax dollars from subsidizing organizations that provide abortions. Heather Weininger, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, said, “Planned Parenthood’s abortion-first business model underscores why taxpayer funding should never support organizations that make abortion a priority.”“Women in difficult circumstances deserve compassionate, life-affirming care — the kind of support the pro-life movement is committed to offering,” she said in an Oct. 27 statement.  Ohio cuts medicaid contract with Planned Parenthood Ohio has terminated Medicaid provider contracts with Planned Parenthood, preventing state funds from going to the abortion giant there.The Ohio Department of Medicaid cited Trump’s recent yearlong pause on Medicaid reimbursements to abortion providers as the reason for termination. Planned Parenthood has since requested a hearing with the department to oppose the termination. Whether the state’s decision to end the agreement will extend longer than the federal pause is unclear.
Read More

Poll: 7 in 10 voters support requiring doctor’s visit for abortion pills #Catholic null / Credit: SibRapid/Shutterstock Denver, Colorado, Nov 1, 2025 / 07:19 am (CNA). Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news.7 in 10 voters support requiring doctor’s visit for abortion pills More than 7 in 10 voters believe a doctor’s visit should be required for a chemical abortion prescription, a recent poll found. The McLaughlin & Associates poll of 1,600 participants found that 71% of voters approved of a proposal “requiring a doctor’s visit in order for the chemical abortion drug to be prescribed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.” The poll also found that 30% of voters had “significant concerns” about the safety of the abortion pill.  Current federal regulations allow providers to prescribe abortion drugs through telehealth and send them by mail. States like California even allow anonymous prescription of the abortion pill, and states including New York and California have “shield laws” that protect abortion providers who ship drugs into states where it is illegal. SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said this week, “The harmful impact of Biden’s FDA removing safeguards on abortion drugs, like in-person doctor visits, is an issue that overwhelmingly unites voters of all stripes.”“As a growing body of research indicates these drugs are far more dangerous than advertised, and new horror stories emerge day after day of women coerced and drugged against their will, landing in the ER and even dying along with their babies, Americans’ concerns are more than valid,” she said in an Oct. 28 statement.Dannenfelser urged the Trump administration to “heed the emerging science and the will of the people and immediately reinstate in-person doctor visits.” Texas AG Paxton secures win in Yelp’s targeting of pregnancy centersTexas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured an appellate court victory against Yelp, Inc. for allegedly adding misleading notices to pro-life pregnancy centers. Paxton filed the lawsuit after misleading notices were attached to the pages of crisis pregnancy centers. The 15th U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal, which had concluded that Texas did not have jurisdiction over Yelp because it is based in California. The 15th U.S. Court of Appeals concluded this week that the company is still “subject to specific jurisdiction in Texas” and that the concern is relevant to other states as well. “As evidenced by the number of attorneys general who signed the letter sent to Yelp, several states share Texas’s interest in ensuring that Crisis Pregnancy Centers are not the targets of actionable misleading statements,” Justice April Farris wrote in the opinion. Paxton said in a statement that Yelp tried to “steer users away from pro-life resources,” noting that Texas will keep Yelp accountable. Paxton pledged to “continue to defend pro-life organizations that serve Texans and make sure that women and families are receiving accurate information about our state’s resources.”Virginia superintendent denies that staff facilitated student abortionsA Virginia public school district has denied allegations that staff at a high school facilitated student abortions without parental consent or knowledge.In an Oct. 16 letter to families and staff at Centreville High School, Fairfax County Superintendent Michelle Reid said that internal investigations found that the “allegations are likely untrue” as “new details have emerged.” In the wake of an investigative report by a local blogger and accusations by a teacher on staff, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin instructed police to launch a criminal investigation. U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee as well as the U.S. Department of Education also launched investigations. Reid said that “such behavior would never be acceptable” in the school district, which “is fully cooperating with these government investigations.” Planned Parenthood Wisconsin resumes abortionsAfter a temporary pause this month, Wisconsin Planned Parenthood resumed providing abortions in the state by giving up its designation as an “essential community provider” under the Affordable Care Act. Planned Parenthood Wisconsin stopped offering abortions on Oct. 1, after President Donald Trump cut federal Medicaid funding for abortion providers. The yearlong pause is designed to prevent federal tax dollars from subsidizing organizations that provide abortions. Heather Weininger, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, said, “Planned Parenthood’s abortion-first business model underscores why taxpayer funding should never support organizations that make abortion a priority.”“Women in difficult circumstances deserve compassionate, life-affirming care — the kind of support the pro-life movement is committed to offering,” she said in an Oct. 27 statement.  Ohio cuts medicaid contract with Planned Parenthood Ohio has terminated Medicaid provider contracts with Planned Parenthood, preventing state funds from going to the abortion giant there.The Ohio Department of Medicaid cited Trump’s recent yearlong pause on Medicaid reimbursements to abortion providers as the reason for termination. Planned Parenthood has since requested a hearing with the department to oppose the termination. Whether the state’s decision to end the agreement will extend longer than the federal pause is unclear.

unitedyam

null / Credit: SibRapid/Shutterstock

Denver, Colorado, Nov 1, 2025 / 07:19 am (CNA).

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

7 in 10 voters support requiring doctor’s visit for abortion pills 

More than 7 in 10 voters believe a doctor’s visit should be required for a chemical abortion prescription, a recent poll found. 

The McLaughlin & Associates poll of 1,600 participants found that 71% of voters approved of a proposal “requiring a doctor’s visit in order for the chemical abortion drug to be prescribed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.” 

The poll also found that 30% of voters had “significant concerns” about the safety of the abortion pill.  

Current federal regulations allow providers to prescribe abortion drugs through telehealth and send them by mail. 

States like California even allow anonymous prescription of the abortion pill, and states including New York and California have “shield laws” that protect abortion providers who ship drugs into states where it is illegal. 

SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said this week, “The harmful impact of Biden’s FDA removing safeguards on abortion drugs, like in-person doctor visits, is an issue that overwhelmingly unites voters of all stripes.”

“As a growing body of research indicates these drugs are far more dangerous than advertised, and new horror stories emerge day after day of women coerced and drugged against their will, landing in the ER and even dying along with their babies, Americans’ concerns are more than valid,” she said in an Oct. 28 statement.

Dannenfelser urged the Trump administration to “heed the emerging science and the will of the people and immediately reinstate in-person doctor visits.” 

Texas AG Paxton secures win in Yelp’s targeting of pregnancy centers

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured an appellate court victory against Yelp, Inc. for allegedly adding misleading notices to pro-life pregnancy centers. 

Paxton filed the lawsuit after misleading notices were attached to the pages of crisis pregnancy centers. The 15th U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal, which had concluded that Texas did not have jurisdiction over Yelp because it is based in California. 

The 15th U.S. Court of Appeals concluded this week that the company is still “subject to specific jurisdiction in Texas” and that the concern is relevant to other states as well. 

“As evidenced by the number of attorneys general who signed the letter sent to Yelp, several states share Texas’s interest in ensuring that Crisis Pregnancy Centers are not the targets of actionable misleading statements,” Justice April Farris wrote in the opinion. 

Paxton said in a statement that Yelp tried to “steer users away from pro-life resources,” noting that Texas will keep Yelp accountable. 

Paxton pledged to “continue to defend pro-life organizations that serve Texans and make sure that women and families are receiving accurate information about our state’s resources.”

Virginia superintendent denies that staff facilitated student abortions

A Virginia public school district has denied allegations that staff at a high school facilitated student abortions without parental consent or knowledge.

In an Oct. 16 letter to families and staff at Centreville High School, Fairfax County Superintendent Michelle Reid said that internal investigations found that the “allegations are likely untrue” as “new details have emerged.” 

In the wake of an investigative report by a local blogger and accusations by a teacher on staff, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin instructed police to launch a criminal investigation. U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee as well as the U.S. Department of Education also launched investigations. 

Reid said that “such behavior would never be acceptable” in the school district, which “is fully cooperating with these government investigations.” 

Planned Parenthood Wisconsin resumes abortions

After a temporary pause this month, Wisconsin Planned Parenthood resumed providing abortions in the state by giving up its designation as an “essential community provider” under the Affordable Care Act. 

Planned Parenthood Wisconsin stopped offering abortions on Oct. 1, after President Donald Trump cut federal Medicaid funding for abortion providers. The yearlong pause is designed to prevent federal tax dollars from subsidizing organizations that provide abortions. 

Heather Weininger, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, said, “Planned Parenthood’s abortion-first business model underscores why taxpayer funding should never support organizations that make abortion a priority.”

“Women in difficult circumstances deserve compassionate, life-affirming care — the kind of support the pro-life movement is committed to offering,” she said in an Oct. 27 statement.  

Ohio cuts medicaid contract with Planned Parenthood 

Ohio has terminated Medicaid provider contracts with Planned Parenthood, preventing state funds from going to the abortion giant there.

The Ohio Department of Medicaid cited Trump’s recent yearlong pause on Medicaid reimbursements to abortion providers as the reason for termination. Planned Parenthood has since requested a hearing with the department to oppose the termination. Whether the state’s decision to end the agreement will extend longer than the federal pause is unclear.

Read More
Illinois Senate passes assisted suicide measure #Catholic null / Credit: Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 31, 2025 / 14:53 pm (CNA). The Illinois State Senate passed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide in the state. The legislation (SB 1950), known as the “End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act,” would authorize medical aid in dying for terminally ill adults in Illinois if signed into law by Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker.The House passed the bill in May 2025, and it stalled in the Senate during the regular session. It was taken up during the Fall veto session, and senators passed it early in the morning of Oct. 31. Pritzker will have 60 days to decide whether to sign or veto the bill before it automatically becomes law.The bill would allow individuals to request and self-administer medication to end their lives. According to the bill, anyone requesting medically assisted suicide must be at least 18 years old, a resident of Illinois, and have a terminal disease with a prognosis of six months or less to live.The bill also requires two verbal requests for the medication from the patient, with a five-day waiting period between the first and second request. The death certificates of individuals using physican-assisted suicide in the state would list the terminal disease as the cause of death, not suicide. “Please continue to pray for vulnerable populations and for those who feel hopeless and are near end-of-life,” the Catholic Conference of Illinois, the public policy voice of the Catholic Church in the state, wrote in a post to the social media platform X.”It is quite fitting that the forces of the culture of death in the Illinois General Assembly passed physician-assisted suicide on October 31—a day that, culturally, has become synonymous with glorifying death and evil,” said Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield in a statement. “It’s also ironic that these pro-death legislators did it under the cloud of darkness at 2:54 a.m.”“Doctors take an oath to do no harm. Now, they can prescribe death. There are documented cases of patients being denied treatment and instead offered life-ending drugs,” Paprocki said. “Individuals could also be coerced into taking the lethal drug.”The bishop called for prayers for Pritzker to reject the legislation as “physician assisted suicide undermines the value of each person, especially the vulnerable, the poor, and those with disabilities.”The anti-assisted suicide group Patients Rights Action Fund called on Pritzker to veto the legislation. “We encourage lawmakers to instead prioritize expanding access to mental health services, hospice care, and palliative support,” the advocacy group said in a statement. “Every patient deserves compassionate care and a full spectrum of options to live with dignity. The passage of SB 1950 introducing the use of lethal drugs in Illinois compromises that fundamental right. “Cardinal Blase Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago, strongly criticized the bill in May after it passed the House.“I speak to this topic not only as a religious leader but also as one who has seen a parent die from a debilitating illness,” Cupich said, recalling his father’s death. Cupich urged Illinois to promote “compassionate care,” not assisted suicide. “There is a way to both honor the dignity of human life and provide compassionate care to those experiencing life-ending illness,” Cupich said. “Surely the Illinois Legislature should explore those options before making suicide one of the avenues available to the ill and distressed.” The Catholic Conference of Illinois also asked the governor to veto the bill and improve palliative care programs “that offer expert assessment and management of pain and other symptoms.”“The Illinois General Assembly has put our state on a slippery path that jeopardizes the well-being of the poor and marginalized, especially those in the disability community and have foreseeable tragic consequences,” the conference said in a statement. 
Read More

Illinois Senate passes assisted suicide measure #Catholic null / Credit: Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 31, 2025 / 14:53 pm (CNA). The Illinois State Senate passed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide in the state. The legislation (SB 1950), known as the “End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act,” would authorize medical aid in dying for terminally ill adults in Illinois if signed into law by Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker.The House passed the bill in May 2025, and it stalled in the Senate during the regular session. It was taken up during the Fall veto session, and senators passed it early in the morning of Oct. 31. Pritzker will have 60 days to decide whether to sign or veto the bill before it automatically becomes law.The bill would allow individuals to request and self-administer medication to end their lives. According to the bill, anyone requesting medically assisted suicide must be at least 18 years old, a resident of Illinois, and have a terminal disease with a prognosis of six months or less to live.The bill also requires two verbal requests for the medication from the patient, with a five-day waiting period between the first and second request. The death certificates of individuals using physican-assisted suicide in the state would list the terminal disease as the cause of death, not suicide. “Please continue to pray for vulnerable populations and for those who feel hopeless and are near end-of-life,” the Catholic Conference of Illinois, the public policy voice of the Catholic Church in the state, wrote in a post to the social media platform X.”It is quite fitting that the forces of the culture of death in the Illinois General Assembly passed physician-assisted suicide on October 31—a day that, culturally, has become synonymous with glorifying death and evil,” said Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield in a statement. “It’s also ironic that these pro-death legislators did it under the cloud of darkness at 2:54 a.m.”“Doctors take an oath to do no harm. Now, they can prescribe death. There are documented cases of patients being denied treatment and instead offered life-ending drugs,” Paprocki said. “Individuals could also be coerced into taking the lethal drug.”The bishop called for prayers for Pritzker to reject the legislation as “physician assisted suicide undermines the value of each person, especially the vulnerable, the poor, and those with disabilities.”The anti-assisted suicide group Patients Rights Action Fund called on Pritzker to veto the legislation. “We encourage lawmakers to instead prioritize expanding access to mental health services, hospice care, and palliative support,” the advocacy group said in a statement. “Every patient deserves compassionate care and a full spectrum of options to live with dignity. The passage of SB 1950 introducing the use of lethal drugs in Illinois compromises that fundamental right. “Cardinal Blase Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago, strongly criticized the bill in May after it passed the House.“I speak to this topic not only as a religious leader but also as one who has seen a parent die from a debilitating illness,” Cupich said, recalling his father’s death. Cupich urged Illinois to promote “compassionate care,” not assisted suicide. “There is a way to both honor the dignity of human life and provide compassionate care to those experiencing life-ending illness,” Cupich said. “Surely the Illinois Legislature should explore those options before making suicide one of the avenues available to the ill and distressed.” The Catholic Conference of Illinois also asked the governor to veto the bill and improve palliative care programs “that offer expert assessment and management of pain and other symptoms.”“The Illinois General Assembly has put our state on a slippery path that jeopardizes the well-being of the poor and marginalized, especially those in the disability community and have foreseeable tragic consequences,” the conference said in a statement. 

unitedyam

null / Credit: Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 31, 2025 / 14:53 pm (CNA).

The Illinois State Senate passed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide in the state. 

The legislation (SB 1950), known as the “End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act,” would authorize medical aid in dying for terminally ill adults in Illinois if signed into law by Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

The House passed the bill in May 2025, and it stalled in the Senate during the regular session. It was taken up during the Fall veto session, and senators passed it early in the morning of Oct. 31. Pritzker will have 60 days to decide whether to sign or veto the bill before it automatically becomes law.

The bill would allow individuals to request and self-administer medication to end their lives. According to the bill, anyone requesting medically assisted suicide must be at least 18 years old, a resident of Illinois, and have a terminal disease with a prognosis of six months or less to live.

The bill also requires two verbal requests for the medication from the patient, with a five-day waiting period between the first and second request. The death certificates of individuals using physican-assisted suicide in the state would list the terminal disease as the cause of death, not suicide. 

“Please continue to pray for vulnerable populations and for those who feel hopeless and are near end-of-life,” the Catholic Conference of Illinois, the public policy voice of the Catholic Church in the state, wrote in a post to the social media platform X.

“It is quite fitting that the forces of the culture of death in the Illinois General Assembly passed physician-assisted suicide on October 31—a day that, culturally, has become synonymous with glorifying death and evil,” said Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield in a statement. “It’s also ironic that these pro-death legislators did it under the cloud of darkness at 2:54 a.m.”

“Doctors take an oath to do no harm. Now, they can prescribe death. There are documented cases of patients being denied treatment and instead offered life-ending drugs,” Paprocki said. “Individuals could also be coerced into taking the lethal drug.”

The bishop called for prayers for Pritzker to reject the legislation as “physician assisted suicide undermines the value of each person, especially the vulnerable, the poor, and those with disabilities.”

The anti-assisted suicide group Patients Rights Action Fund called on Pritzker to veto the legislation. 

“We encourage lawmakers to instead prioritize expanding access to mental health services, hospice care, and palliative support,” the advocacy group said in a statement. “Every patient deserves compassionate care and a full spectrum of options to live with dignity. The passage of SB 1950 introducing the use of lethal drugs in Illinois compromises that fundamental right. “

Cardinal Blase Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago, strongly criticized the bill in May after it passed the House.

“I speak to this topic not only as a religious leader but also as one who has seen a parent die from a debilitating illness,” Cupich said, recalling his father’s death. Cupich urged Illinois to promote “compassionate care,” not assisted suicide. 

“There is a way to both honor the dignity of human life and provide compassionate care to those experiencing life-ending illness,” Cupich said. “Surely the Illinois Legislature should explore those options before making suicide one of the avenues available to the ill and distressed.” 

The Catholic Conference of Illinois also asked the governor to veto the bill and improve palliative care programs “that offer expert assessment and management of pain and other symptoms.”

“The Illinois General Assembly has put our state on a slippery path that jeopardizes the well-being of the poor and marginalized, especially those in the disability community and have foreseeable tragic consequences,” the conference said in a statement. 

Read More
State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA). Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.
Read More

State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA). Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

unitedyam

Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA).

Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.

As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. 

The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.

RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.

Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. 

Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakening

When RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.

Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.

“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”

Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.

From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.

However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”

One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.

Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”

In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.

Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. 

“[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

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

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

unitedyam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More
Pregnancy centers fight California ‘censorship’ of abortion pill reversal drug #Catholic null / Credit: Zolnierek / Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 10, 2025 / 16:37 pm (CNA). Pro-life pregnancy centers urged an appellate court to block California’s alleged “censorship” of their speech about medication designed to thwart the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone during oral arguments on Oct. 9.Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) is recommended or dispensed by pro-life pregnancy centers to prevent the completion of an abortion shortly after a woman takes mifepristone to achieve a chemical abortion.Mifepristone works by blocking the hormone progesterone, which cuts off the unborn child’s supply of oxygen and nutrients, according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute. APR operates as a progesterone supplement that is meant to compete with mifepristone by restoring the hormone in hopes that the woman can carry her pregnancy through to birth, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Although California has not tried to prohibit use of APR or prevent medical professionals from supplying it to women, Attorney General Rob Bonta in 2023 sued five pro-life pregnancy centers for promoting the medicine, accusing them of making false and misleading claims. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not recommend the use of APR, citing insufficient evidence. Alternatively, the American Association of Pro-life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) states the literature “clearly shows that the blockade is reversible with natural progesterone.” Several pro-life pregnancy centers sued by California responded with lawsuits accusing Bonta of infringing on their First Amendment rights. Two cases were heard by a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 9.“Abortion pill reversal is a lawful and life-saving treatment,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton, who is representing the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), told the judges.“It occurs only after a conversation and informed consent from a licensed medical professional,” he said, and accused the attorney general of “trying to censor information about that so the conversation never happens.”Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president, who is representing Culture of Life Family Services (COLFS), told the judges the attorney general is motivated by “animus” toward the pro-life movement following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.“There’s no evidence on the record that anyone’s been harmed, and we’re almost 20 years into this, over 10 years at COLFS, and 400 babies born,” Breen told the judges.“There’s no consumer protection here,” he continued. “There is no consumer to be protected. Women have been choosing this. The problem is: Are they going to know that they even have the option?”Judges question California’s ‘state interest’The California attorney general’s office was represented in court by Deputy Attorney General Erica Connolly, who argued that the studies backing the safety and effectiveness of APR are insufficient.Connolly referenced an oft-cited study by George Delgado, which found that certain forms of progesterone supplements have a 64% to 68% success rate when used as an abortion pill reversal.She accused pro-life pregnancy centers of misrepresenting the study and asserted the research is “not sufficient” in supporting its conclusions because it’s a “retrospective analysis” and “not a randomized controlled study.”Judge Anthony Johnstone responded, asking: “As a matter of First Amendment doctrine, why does that matter if they’re reporting that a study says what the study says?” Johnstone also noted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs with lower effectiveness rates.Connolly alternatively argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has restricted advertisements when studies are “insufficient.”Johnstone followed up, noting that California has not regulated the procedure itself but only the speech surrounding it and asked: “Why would it require lower evidence to regulate speech about that process?”Connolly responded by saying advertisements affect the “informed consent process.” She said one cannot advertise “a treatment is safe and effective and that it does something that the scientific evidence does not establish that it does.”Both Johnstone and Judge Eric Miller also expressed concern that the attorney general’s office did not adequately demonstrate the state’s interest in regulating the speech surrounding APR. In response Connolly said the interest is in “protecting individuals from misleading commercial speech about medical treatments.”Ongoing scientific debateJudge Johnnie Rawlinson raised the point that some medical associations have declined to sign off on APR as effective, but Dalton argued that disagreements within the medical community are “exactly what the First Amendment protects.”Dalton argued Californians should be free to discuss scientific studies “without fear that the attorney general is going to silence them.” He said the First Amendment provides for “open discussion — not censorship.”
Read More

Pregnancy centers fight California ‘censorship’ of abortion pill reversal drug #Catholic null / Credit: Zolnierek / Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 10, 2025 / 16:37 pm (CNA). Pro-life pregnancy centers urged an appellate court to block California’s alleged “censorship” of their speech about medication designed to thwart the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone during oral arguments on Oct. 9.Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) is recommended or dispensed by pro-life pregnancy centers to prevent the completion of an abortion shortly after a woman takes mifepristone to achieve a chemical abortion.Mifepristone works by blocking the hormone progesterone, which cuts off the unborn child’s supply of oxygen and nutrients, according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute. APR operates as a progesterone supplement that is meant to compete with mifepristone by restoring the hormone in hopes that the woman can carry her pregnancy through to birth, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Although California has not tried to prohibit use of APR or prevent medical professionals from supplying it to women, Attorney General Rob Bonta in 2023 sued five pro-life pregnancy centers for promoting the medicine, accusing them of making false and misleading claims. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not recommend the use of APR, citing insufficient evidence. Alternatively, the American Association of Pro-life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) states the literature “clearly shows that the blockade is reversible with natural progesterone.” Several pro-life pregnancy centers sued by California responded with lawsuits accusing Bonta of infringing on their First Amendment rights. Two cases were heard by a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 9.“Abortion pill reversal is a lawful and life-saving treatment,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton, who is representing the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), told the judges.“It occurs only after a conversation and informed consent from a licensed medical professional,” he said, and accused the attorney general of “trying to censor information about that so the conversation never happens.”Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president, who is representing Culture of Life Family Services (COLFS), told the judges the attorney general is motivated by “animus” toward the pro-life movement following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.“There’s no evidence on the record that anyone’s been harmed, and we’re almost 20 years into this, over 10 years at COLFS, and 400 babies born,” Breen told the judges.“There’s no consumer protection here,” he continued. “There is no consumer to be protected. Women have been choosing this. The problem is: Are they going to know that they even have the option?”Judges question California’s ‘state interest’The California attorney general’s office was represented in court by Deputy Attorney General Erica Connolly, who argued that the studies backing the safety and effectiveness of APR are insufficient.Connolly referenced an oft-cited study by George Delgado, which found that certain forms of progesterone supplements have a 64% to 68% success rate when used as an abortion pill reversal.She accused pro-life pregnancy centers of misrepresenting the study and asserted the research is “not sufficient” in supporting its conclusions because it’s a “retrospective analysis” and “not a randomized controlled study.”Judge Anthony Johnstone responded, asking: “As a matter of First Amendment doctrine, why does that matter if they’re reporting that a study says what the study says?” Johnstone also noted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs with lower effectiveness rates.Connolly alternatively argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has restricted advertisements when studies are “insufficient.”Johnstone followed up, noting that California has not regulated the procedure itself but only the speech surrounding it and asked: “Why would it require lower evidence to regulate speech about that process?”Connolly responded by saying advertisements affect the “informed consent process.” She said one cannot advertise “a treatment is safe and effective and that it does something that the scientific evidence does not establish that it does.”Both Johnstone and Judge Eric Miller also expressed concern that the attorney general’s office did not adequately demonstrate the state’s interest in regulating the speech surrounding APR. In response Connolly said the interest is in “protecting individuals from misleading commercial speech about medical treatments.”Ongoing scientific debateJudge Johnnie Rawlinson raised the point that some medical associations have declined to sign off on APR as effective, but Dalton argued that disagreements within the medical community are “exactly what the First Amendment protects.”Dalton argued Californians should be free to discuss scientific studies “without fear that the attorney general is going to silence them.” He said the First Amendment provides for “open discussion — not censorship.”

unitedyam

null / Credit: Zolnierek / Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 10, 2025 / 16:37 pm (CNA).

Pro-life pregnancy centers urged an appellate court to block California’s alleged “censorship” of their speech about medication designed to thwart the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone during oral arguments on Oct. 9.

Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) is recommended or dispensed by pro-life pregnancy centers to prevent the completion of an abortion shortly after a woman takes mifepristone to achieve a chemical abortion.

Mifepristone works by blocking the hormone progesterone, which cuts off the unborn child’s supply of oxygen and nutrients, according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute. APR operates as a progesterone supplement that is meant to compete with mifepristone by restoring the hormone in hopes that the woman can carry her pregnancy through to birth, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. 

Although California has not tried to prohibit use of APR or prevent medical professionals from supplying it to women, Attorney General Rob Bonta in 2023 sued five pro-life pregnancy centers for promoting the medicine, accusing them of making false and misleading claims. 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not recommend the use of APR, citing insufficient evidence. Alternatively, the American Association of Pro-life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) states the literature “clearly shows that the blockade is reversible with natural progesterone.” 

Several pro-life pregnancy centers sued by California responded with lawsuits accusing Bonta of infringing on their First Amendment rights. Two cases were heard by a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 9.

“Abortion pill reversal is a lawful and life-saving treatment,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton, who is representing the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), told the judges.

“It occurs only after a conversation and informed consent from a licensed medical professional,” he said, and accused the attorney general of “trying to censor information about that so the conversation never happens.”

Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president, who is representing Culture of Life Family Services (COLFS), told the judges the attorney general is motivated by “animus” toward the pro-life movement following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“There’s no evidence on the record that anyone’s been harmed, and we’re almost 20 years into this, over 10 years at COLFS, and 400 babies born,” Breen told the judges.

“There’s no consumer protection here,” he continued. “There is no consumer to be protected. Women have been choosing this. The problem is: Are they going to know that they even have the option?”

Judges question California’s ‘state interest’

The California attorney general’s office was represented in court by Deputy Attorney General Erica Connolly, who argued that the studies backing the safety and effectiveness of APR are insufficient.

Connolly referenced an oft-cited study by George Delgado, which found that certain forms of progesterone supplements have a 64% to 68% success rate when used as an abortion pill reversal.

She accused pro-life pregnancy centers of misrepresenting the study and asserted the research is “not sufficient” in supporting its conclusions because it’s a “retrospective analysis” and “not a randomized controlled study.”

Judge Anthony Johnstone responded, asking: “As a matter of First Amendment doctrine, why does that matter if they’re reporting that a study says what the study says?” Johnstone also noted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs with lower effectiveness rates.

Connolly alternatively argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has restricted advertisements when studies are “insufficient.”

Johnstone followed up, noting that California has not regulated the procedure itself but only the speech surrounding it and asked: “Why would it require lower evidence to regulate speech about that process?”

Connolly responded by saying advertisements affect the “informed consent process.” She said one cannot advertise “a treatment is safe and effective and that it does something that the scientific evidence does not establish that it does.”

Both Johnstone and Judge Eric Miller also expressed concern that the attorney general’s office did not adequately demonstrate the state’s interest in regulating the speech surrounding APR. In response Connolly said the interest is in “protecting individuals from misleading commercial speech about medical treatments.”

Ongoing scientific debate

Judge Johnnie Rawlinson raised the point that some medical associations have declined to sign off on APR as effective, but Dalton argued that disagreements within the medical community are “exactly what the First Amendment protects.”

Dalton argued Californians should be free to discuss scientific studies “without fear that the attorney general is going to silence them.” He said the First Amendment provides for “open discussion — not censorship.”

Read More