ethical

Study: Doctors don’t screen for abortion coercion — and it hurts women #Catholic A recent study found that women who are pressured to undergo unwanted abortions are at highest risk of negative outcomes and harm from abortion.The study, published in the Journal of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (JAHM), found that physicians rarely screen for coercion and pressure to abort, even though it is the highest predictive risk factor for negative outcomes.The authors, David C. Reardon, Dr. Martha W. Shuping, and Dr. Patricia K. Giebink, called the failure to screen for this “medical negligence.”“Women considering abortions should be evaluated for risk factors predictive of negative outcomes,” the study read. “The failure to screen for these risk factors is medical negligence. Screening and informing women of their personal risk factors as required by ethical and legal standards may lead to consideration of alternatives to abortion by women who consider the risks unacceptable.”Michael New, a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life group that does abortion-related research, said it was a “methodologically strong study,” noting that 1,000 women were surveyed, 226 of whom had an abortion in the past.“Pro-lifers and the medical community should learn several important lessons from this study,” New told EWTN News. “First, coerced abortions are not uncommon. Secondly, … this study adds to a body of research that finds that a substantial percentage of abortions are unwanted or are inconsistent with the values of the woman seeking the abortion.”“Third, even though supporters of legal abortion claim that women obtaining abortions report low levels of mental health problems, they should acknowledge that mental health risks are substantially higher among the subset of women who are emotionally conflicted or who would prefer not to have the abortion,” he continued.Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, a senior ethicist at The National Catholic Bioethics Center, urged physicians “to provide full disclosure of the risks and side effects to their patients.”“The long list of bad mental, emotional, and health effects that regularly arise in the wake of an induced abortion should give pause to anyone seeking, or counseling, abortion, especially when it comes to medical professionals who themselves need to be fully informed regarding the seriousness of these risks,” Pacholczyk told EWTN News.“I think it’s fair to say that a key duty of the physician or healthcare professional, in seeking to ‘do no harm,’ would be to try to dissuade their patients from acting on any desire to procure a direct abortion,” he continued. “And a candid discussion about the broad range of potential bad outcomes from the procedure provides an excellent starting point for dialoguing with their patients in a moment of crisis.”Pacholczyk urged medical professionals to have references for pre-abortion counseling for women considering abortion.“While medical professionals may not be able themselves to provide all the support a young woman requires when confronted with an unexpected pregnancy, they should be able to recommend or refer the woman to obtain additional helpful pre-abortion counseling so she can ponder, and bring to the surface, her own motives and fears, and by doing so, hopefully strengthen her to steer clear of the pseudo-remedy of abortion and instead address her situation with a heightened awareness of the care, accompaniment, and support coming from those around her,” Pacholczyk said. Though difficult to enforce, legislation to require medical professionals to screen for coercion may enable victims of coercion to sue abortion clinics, if put into effect, according to New.“It is unsurprising that physicians performing abortions rarely screen for coercion,” New said. “Many abortion are done in high-volume clinics where abortion doctors spend very little time with women seeking abortions.”Kelsey Pritchard, a spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the abortion industry doesn’t prioritize women.“The abortion industry prioritizes profit — not women’s well-being, informed consent, or health, the overwhelming evidence shows,” Pritchard said.“Previous peer-reviewed research by Charlotte Lozier Institute scholars indicates most women who’ve had abortions would have preferred not to if they had more support, with nearly a quarter describing their abortions as unwanted or coerced,” Pritchard continued.She voiced concerns about the ease of abortion coercion due to mail-order abortion.“Since Democrats made it as easy as ordering an Amazon package for anyone anywhere to buy and ship dangerous abortion drugs, even to states with pro-life laws, this hidden epidemic has gone from bad to worse, with alarming cases of women assaulted and poisoned across the country,” Pritchard said.“Women pressured, coerced, or forced to abort go on to report higher levels of mental health and quality-of-life difficulties, which they all too often endure silently as they can face significant hurdles to coming forward,” Pritchard said.“The loudest pro-abortion voices refuse to acknowledge the truth behind their narrative of ‘freedom’ and ‘choice,’” Pritchard said.

Study: Doctors don’t screen for abortion coercion — and it hurts women #Catholic A recent study found that women who are pressured to undergo unwanted abortions are at highest risk of negative outcomes and harm from abortion.The study, published in the Journal of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (JAHM), found that physicians rarely screen for coercion and pressure to abort, even though it is the highest predictive risk factor for negative outcomes.The authors, David C. Reardon, Dr. Martha W. Shuping, and Dr. Patricia K. Giebink, called the failure to screen for this “medical negligence.”“Women considering abortions should be evaluated for risk factors predictive of negative outcomes,” the study read. “The failure to screen for these risk factors is medical negligence. Screening and informing women of their personal risk factors as required by ethical and legal standards may lead to consideration of alternatives to abortion by women who consider the risks unacceptable.”Michael New, a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life group that does abortion-related research, said it was a “methodologically strong study,” noting that 1,000 women were surveyed, 226 of whom had an abortion in the past.“Pro-lifers and the medical community should learn several important lessons from this study,” New told EWTN News. “First, coerced abortions are not uncommon. Secondly, … this study adds to a body of research that finds that a substantial percentage of abortions are unwanted or are inconsistent with the values of the woman seeking the abortion.”“Third, even though supporters of legal abortion claim that women obtaining abortions report low levels of mental health problems, they should acknowledge that mental health risks are substantially higher among the subset of women who are emotionally conflicted or who would prefer not to have the abortion,” he continued.Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, a senior ethicist at The National Catholic Bioethics Center, urged physicians “to provide full disclosure of the risks and side effects to their patients.”“The long list of bad mental, emotional, and health effects that regularly arise in the wake of an induced abortion should give pause to anyone seeking, or counseling, abortion, especially when it comes to medical professionals who themselves need to be fully informed regarding the seriousness of these risks,” Pacholczyk told EWTN News.“I think it’s fair to say that a key duty of the physician or healthcare professional, in seeking to ‘do no harm,’ would be to try to dissuade their patients from acting on any desire to procure a direct abortion,” he continued. “And a candid discussion about the broad range of potential bad outcomes from the procedure provides an excellent starting point for dialoguing with their patients in a moment of crisis.”Pacholczyk urged medical professionals to have references for pre-abortion counseling for women considering abortion.“While medical professionals may not be able themselves to provide all the support a young woman requires when confronted with an unexpected pregnancy, they should be able to recommend or refer the woman to obtain additional helpful pre-abortion counseling so she can ponder, and bring to the surface, her own motives and fears, and by doing so, hopefully strengthen her to steer clear of the pseudo-remedy of abortion and instead address her situation with a heightened awareness of the care, accompaniment, and support coming from those around her,” Pacholczyk said. Though difficult to enforce, legislation to require medical professionals to screen for coercion may enable victims of coercion to sue abortion clinics, if put into effect, according to New.“It is unsurprising that physicians performing abortions rarely screen for coercion,” New said. “Many abortion are done in high-volume clinics where abortion doctors spend very little time with women seeking abortions.”Kelsey Pritchard, a spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the abortion industry doesn’t prioritize women.“The abortion industry prioritizes profit — not women’s well-being, informed consent, or health, the overwhelming evidence shows,” Pritchard said.“Previous peer-reviewed research by Charlotte Lozier Institute scholars indicates most women who’ve had abortions would have preferred not to if they had more support, with nearly a quarter describing their abortions as unwanted or coerced,” Pritchard continued.She voiced concerns about the ease of abortion coercion due to mail-order abortion.“Since Democrats made it as easy as ordering an Amazon package for anyone anywhere to buy and ship dangerous abortion drugs, even to states with pro-life laws, this hidden epidemic has gone from bad to worse, with alarming cases of women assaulted and poisoned across the country,” Pritchard said.“Women pressured, coerced, or forced to abort go on to report higher levels of mental health and quality-of-life difficulties, which they all too often endure silently as they can face significant hurdles to coming forward,” Pritchard said.“The loudest pro-abortion voices refuse to acknowledge the truth behind their narrative of ‘freedom’ and ‘choice,’” Pritchard said.

A recent study highlights that when women are coerced or pressured into abortion, they are at high risk for negative outcomes — but abortion prviidess rarely screen for abortion coercion.

Read More
Apostolic nuncio calls for ‘moral voice’ in AI development #Catholic Archbishop Gabriele Giordano Caccia, apostolic nuncio to the United States, discussed the need for a “moral voice” in artificial intelligence (AI) development during a panel discussion hosted by Georgetown University on Sept. 9.The panel, titled “AI, Catholic Social Teaching, and Pope Leoʼs Invitation to Dialogue with the World,” examined Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas and its call for a shared human effort to develop technology that serves the common good rather than harms it.Speakers noted that the Holy Father’s encyclical stopped short of prescribing specific policy ideas for addressing the moral and ethical concerns, but the nuncio said “there is the perception that we need a moral voice” on the subject.“A moral voice is what?” he said. “Not everything which is possible to be done should be done. Not everything that technology offers should be taken. This is a moral choice.”Caccia stressed that decisions affecting human lives should not be handed over to AI, citing distinctions between AI algorithms and the human conscience, as the Holy Father discussed in Magnifica Humanitas.Leo drew a distinction between artificial intelligence and human intelligence in the encyclical, focusing on how each approaches moral questions. The pope wrote that he rejected ideas of “artificial moral agents” and the notion that a machine can “distinguish between right and wrong with greater consistency than a human being.”“Moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the recognition of the other as a person,” Leo wrote. “Therefore, it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems.”Caccia said during the panel discussion that, as a society, “we have to keep the value of the human relationship.”“The problem is that [if] life and death is decided by a machine, not by the human being, who is accountable?” he said. “So these are very important, important questions. But I am confident, as I said, that together we can face this situation and find a way.”The nuncio said he has similar concerns about the use of AI in other types of decision-making that impacts humans.“I hear very troubling accounts of algorithms that can block access to healthcare, employment, and security on the basis of data tainted by prejudice and injustice,” he said. “And Iʼve heard the silence of those who have no voice. When decisions are made, decisions [are] likely to generate new forms of exclusion and suffering.”Quoting the encyclical, Caccia affirmed the pope’s call that AI “needs to be disarmed.”
 
 Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, the Holy See’s permanent observer to the United Nations in New York, speaks on Aug. 29, 2025, the International Day Against Nuclear Tests. | Credit: Holy See Mission to the United Nations
 
 “The word is strong, I know, but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention, awakening consciences, and indicating paths forward for humanity,” he said. “This is more or less a framework in which we can go on with the conversation.”Speaking to EWTN News after the panel, Caccia said the pope’s call to address moral concerns of AI is not just a call to Church leadership but to every Catholic.“There is, of course, the voice of the bishops,” he said. “But there is also the voice of Catholic people who are in the business or are engineers who are in the economy, who are in the field. So itʼs not just for those who have pastoral responsibility, but for the bigger community.”Pope’s impact on AI discussionSeveral panelists discussed the importance of Magnifica Humanitas in providing a type of moral guidance on AI development that focuses on the common good of humanity.Jasmine Sun, a journalist who writes about AI and Silicon Valley, said she “was actually surprised by how much folks I knew in Silicon Valley, in the AI industry did pay attention to Magnifica Humanitas.”“It was a lot more engagement, I think, than I expected,” she said. “And once again, I think itʼs because there is this sense that the profit motive that has driven Silicon Valley, that continues to drive Silicon Valley, is not enough.”Molly Kinder, CEO of the Breakwater Initiative, said the Church provides “wisdom and moral leadership” and believes its broad focus on humanity is why people listened.“Iʼm struck that in the opening pages of the Bible, there is a discussion of Adam and Eve being put on Earth to till the land as our fundamental reason for existing,” she said. “And it feels to me sometimes when Iʼm in Silicon Valley … they almost talk about almost a new Garden of Eden that AI is going to bring about, that maybe our purpose is not to work, or maybe itʼs leisure or a check and a hobby.”Caccia too said he was “positively surprised” by the reaction to the encyclical, saying “it seems that there was a need to do something about this.”“It didnʼt pretend to have the answers,” he said, “but he put questions, common questions that we have to tackle together to decide where we want to go.”

Apostolic nuncio calls for ‘moral voice’ in AI development #Catholic Archbishop Gabriele Giordano Caccia, apostolic nuncio to the United States, discussed the need for a “moral voice” in artificial intelligence (AI) development during a panel discussion hosted by Georgetown University on Sept. 9.The panel, titled “AI, Catholic Social Teaching, and Pope Leoʼs Invitation to Dialogue with the World,” examined Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas and its call for a shared human effort to develop technology that serves the common good rather than harms it.Speakers noted that the Holy Father’s encyclical stopped short of prescribing specific policy ideas for addressing the moral and ethical concerns, but the nuncio said “there is the perception that we need a moral voice” on the subject.“A moral voice is what?” he said. “Not everything which is possible to be done should be done. Not everything that technology offers should be taken. This is a moral choice.”Caccia stressed that decisions affecting human lives should not be handed over to AI, citing distinctions between AI algorithms and the human conscience, as the Holy Father discussed in Magnifica Humanitas.Leo drew a distinction between artificial intelligence and human intelligence in the encyclical, focusing on how each approaches moral questions. The pope wrote that he rejected ideas of “artificial moral agents” and the notion that a machine can “distinguish between right and wrong with greater consistency than a human being.”“Moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the recognition of the other as a person,” Leo wrote. “Therefore, it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems.”Caccia said during the panel discussion that, as a society, “we have to keep the value of the human relationship.”“The problem is that [if] life and death is decided by a machine, not by the human being, who is accountable?” he said. “So these are very important, important questions. But I am confident, as I said, that together we can face this situation and find a way.”The nuncio said he has similar concerns about the use of AI in other types of decision-making that impacts humans.“I hear very troubling accounts of algorithms that can block access to healthcare, employment, and security on the basis of data tainted by prejudice and injustice,” he said. “And Iʼve heard the silence of those who have no voice. When decisions are made, decisions [are] likely to generate new forms of exclusion and suffering.”Quoting the encyclical, Caccia affirmed the pope’s call that AI “needs to be disarmed.” Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, the Holy See’s permanent observer to the United Nations in New York, speaks on Aug. 29, 2025, the International Day Against Nuclear Tests. | Credit: Holy See Mission to the United Nations “The word is strong, I know, but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention, awakening consciences, and indicating paths forward for humanity,” he said. “This is more or less a framework in which we can go on with the conversation.”Speaking to EWTN News after the panel, Caccia said the pope’s call to address moral concerns of AI is not just a call to Church leadership but to every Catholic.“There is, of course, the voice of the bishops,” he said. “But there is also the voice of Catholic people who are in the business or are engineers who are in the economy, who are in the field. So itʼs not just for those who have pastoral responsibility, but for the bigger community.”Pope’s impact on AI discussionSeveral panelists discussed the importance of Magnifica Humanitas in providing a type of moral guidance on AI development that focuses on the common good of humanity.Jasmine Sun, a journalist who writes about AI and Silicon Valley, said she “was actually surprised by how much folks I knew in Silicon Valley, in the AI industry did pay attention to Magnifica Humanitas.”“It was a lot more engagement, I think, than I expected,” she said. “And once again, I think itʼs because there is this sense that the profit motive that has driven Silicon Valley, that continues to drive Silicon Valley, is not enough.”Molly Kinder, CEO of the Breakwater Initiative, said the Church provides “wisdom and moral leadership” and believes its broad focus on humanity is why people listened.“Iʼm struck that in the opening pages of the Bible, there is a discussion of Adam and Eve being put on Earth to till the land as our fundamental reason for existing,” she said. “And it feels to me sometimes when Iʼm in Silicon Valley … they almost talk about almost a new Garden of Eden that AI is going to bring about, that maybe our purpose is not to work, or maybe itʼs leisure or a check and a hobby.”Caccia too said he was “positively surprised” by the reaction to the encyclical, saying “it seems that there was a need to do something about this.”“It didnʼt pretend to have the answers,” he said, “but he put questions, common questions that we have to tackle together to decide where we want to go.”

Speakers at a Georgetown University event said Magnifica Humanitas offers moral guidance without policy steps, and the nuncio noted rising concern that debates over AI need a moral voice.

Read More
Medicaid formally ends funds for ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ for minors with final rule #Catholic The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it has implemented a final rule that formally bans using funds for “sex-rejecting procedures” for minors, which are drugs and surgeries used to facilitate “gender transitions.”According to a CMS news release, this includes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations. It states these medical procedures cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other physiological effects.The move formalizes a policy of President Donald Trump’s administration to prevent minors from accessing these drugs and surgeries. In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that instructed agencies to adopt rules to “end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.”The final rule includes a tapering-off period of up to six months for children who are receiving cross-sex hormones, which allows them to be gradually weaned off the medicine. It does not affect mental health services.“Children deserve our protection, not experimental interventions that pose serious risks and convey no proven benefits,” CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a statement.“By cutting off federal funds for these sex-rejecting procedures, we’re following the science, saving taxpayer dollars, and, most importantly, protecting children from potentially irreversible harm so they can truly flourish,” he said.Rachel N. Morrison, director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Administrative State Accountability Project, told EWTN News that government funding should never support “harmful, sterilizing, and often irreversible sex-rejecting procedures.”“I am grateful to CMS and the Trump administration for their efforts to combat gender ideology, protect children from the harms [of] sex-rejecting procedures, and advance policies that reflect a true understanding of the nature of the human person,” she said.The Church’s positionThe U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) referred EWTN News to a Feb. 17 letter to CMS, which said the proposed ban on federal funding “aligns with Catholic teaching on the nature of the human person” and “reflects true distinctions between the sexes.” “Rejection of our God-given bodies, such as by modifying them to appear as the opposite sex, is a grave matter, and when done with full knowledge and complete consent, is a grave sin,” the letter states.In November 2025, the USCCB published a new edition of its ”Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” guidelines, which prohibit Catholic institutions from providing treatments that “aim not to restore but rather to alter the fundamental order of the human body in its form or function” such as “interventions that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex (or to nullify sexual characteristics…).”Joseph Meaney, past president and senior ethicist for the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), told EWTN News CMS “should be applauded for putting an end to federal taxpayer funding of transgender procedures on children.”“There is substantial agreement between U.S. government policy and Catholic teaching in this area of healthcare policy,” he said.Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, an NCBC senior ethicist, told EWTN News that the implementation of the rule “is very sensible and long overdue.”“Countless youth have already been railroaded along this path, placing themselves at great risk and damaging their bodies as they struggle with this confusion,” Pacholczyk said. “Once a young person steps onto that train, they often become ‘regular business customers,’ with a lifelong dependence on the continued prescribing of hormones and additional cycles of expensive surgeries.”He said tax money should not pay for “a hysterectomy on a girl who wants to live as a boy, nor to provide breast implants into a boy who thinks he is a girl.” He said children “deserve far better from the world of medicine and psychiatry.”“They are entitled to solid psychotherapy as a means of assisting them to reintegrate their subjective gender identity with their objective lifelong biology so they can recognize and embrace the beautiful gift of the biological sex they have been endowed with from the beginning,” Pacholczyk said.

Medicaid formally ends funds for ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ for minors with final rule #Catholic The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it has implemented a final rule that formally bans using funds for “sex-rejecting procedures” for minors, which are drugs and surgeries used to facilitate “gender transitions.”According to a CMS news release, this includes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations. It states these medical procedures cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other physiological effects.The move formalizes a policy of President Donald Trump’s administration to prevent minors from accessing these drugs and surgeries. In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that instructed agencies to adopt rules to “end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.”The final rule includes a tapering-off period of up to six months for children who are receiving cross-sex hormones, which allows them to be gradually weaned off the medicine. It does not affect mental health services.“Children deserve our protection, not experimental interventions that pose serious risks and convey no proven benefits,” CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a statement.“By cutting off federal funds for these sex-rejecting procedures, we’re following the science, saving taxpayer dollars, and, most importantly, protecting children from potentially irreversible harm so they can truly flourish,” he said.Rachel N. Morrison, director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Administrative State Accountability Project, told EWTN News that government funding should never support “harmful, sterilizing, and often irreversible sex-rejecting procedures.”“I am grateful to CMS and the Trump administration for their efforts to combat gender ideology, protect children from the harms [of] sex-rejecting procedures, and advance policies that reflect a true understanding of the nature of the human person,” she said.The Church’s positionThe U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) referred EWTN News to a Feb. 17 letter to CMS, which said the proposed ban on federal funding “aligns with Catholic teaching on the nature of the human person” and “reflects true distinctions between the sexes.” “Rejection of our God-given bodies, such as by modifying them to appear as the opposite sex, is a grave matter, and when done with full knowledge and complete consent, is a grave sin,” the letter states.In November 2025, the USCCB published a new edition of its ”Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” guidelines, which prohibit Catholic institutions from providing treatments that “aim not to restore but rather to alter the fundamental order of the human body in its form or function” such as “interventions that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex (or to nullify sexual characteristics…).”Joseph Meaney, past president and senior ethicist for the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), told EWTN News CMS “should be applauded for putting an end to federal taxpayer funding of transgender procedures on children.”“There is substantial agreement between U.S. government policy and Catholic teaching in this area of healthcare policy,” he said.Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, an NCBC senior ethicist, told EWTN News that the implementation of the rule “is very sensible and long overdue.”“Countless youth have already been railroaded along this path, placing themselves at great risk and damaging their bodies as they struggle with this confusion,” Pacholczyk said. “Once a young person steps onto that train, they often become ‘regular business customers,’ with a lifelong dependence on the continued prescribing of hormones and additional cycles of expensive surgeries.”He said tax money should not pay for “a hysterectomy on a girl who wants to live as a boy, nor to provide breast implants into a boy who thinks he is a girl.” He said children “deserve far better from the world of medicine and psychiatry.”“They are entitled to solid psychotherapy as a means of assisting them to reintegrate their subjective gender identity with their objective lifelong biology so they can recognize and embrace the beautiful gift of the biological sex they have been endowed with from the beginning,” Pacholczyk said.

The development formalizes a policy of the Trump administration. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has urged government action in this area.

Read More