Federal

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.

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.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More
New York, California pour money into Planned Parenthood after federal defunding #Catholic 
 
 New York and California are pouring taxpayer dollars into Planned Parenthood, joining several other states in counteracting the federal defunding of the abortion giant.  / Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 25, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).
New York and California are pouring taxpayer dollars into Planned Parenthood, joining several other states in counteracting the federal defunding of the abortion giant. California Gov. Gavin Newsom pledged 0 million to Planned Parenthood locations in California on Oct. 24. On the same day, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul committed  million in funding to Planned Parenthood locations in New York.Both states are known for their abortion shield laws, which protect abortionists who mail abortion pills into states where they are illegal. Several women are suing California and New York abortionists after being poisoned by or coerced into taking the abortion pill by the fathers of their children.New York and California join several other states that have made similar moves in light of the yearlong federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. Colorado, Massachusetts, and Washington have all taken similar steps to replace lost federal funding for Planned Parenthood over the past few months.Newsom said on Thursday that California is “protecting access to essential health care” by providing funding for more than 100 locations across the state. “Trump’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood put all our communities at risk as people seek basic health care from these community providers,” Newsom said in a statement.Hochul in a similar vein said she is putting funding toward the 47 Planned Parenthood clinics in New York, alleging that pro-life politicians will “stop at nothing to undermine women’s health care.”“In the face of congressional Republicans voting to defund Planned Parenthood, I’ve directed the state to fund these vital services, protecting access to health care that thousands of New Yorkers rely on,” Hochul said in a Friday statement.Hundreds of alternative clinics exist in both states A spokeswoman for Heartbeat International, a network that supports life-affirming pregnancy centers, told CNA there are many low-cost and even free alternatives to Planned Parenthood across the country — including hundreds of clinics and pregnancy centers in both New York and California. Andrea Trudden said that “women in California and New York already have access to a vast network of life-affirming care.” “California has more than 300 pregnancy help organizations and New York nearly 200,” Trudden said, citing Heartbeat International’s Worldwide Directory of Pregnancy Help.“These centers offer practical support, compassionate care, and resources to women facing unplanned pregnancies, empowering them to choose life for their children and themselves,” she continued. For women who need health care not related to pregnancy, Trudden noted that both states are “well served” by Federally Qualified Health Centers, which are centers that provide “comprehensive, low-cost medical care for women and families.” As of 2024, California had more than 170 of these clinics, while New York had more than 60, Trudden said, citing a report by KFF, a health policy institute. “If leaders truly cared about women’s health, they would invest in these community-based organizations that meet the needs of women before, during, and after pregnancy — not in the nation’s largest abortion provider,” Trudden added. Kelsey Pritchard, a spokeswoman at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told CNA that in California, Planned Parenthood “is choosing to shutter primary care rather than give up profiting from abortions.”In Orange and San Bernardino counties, Planned Parenthood will continue to offer abortions while closing primary care facilities. “In California, New York, and across the country, Planned Parenthoods are outnumbered by far better options and the pro-life movement is happy to help women locate the care they need,” Pritchard said, citing reports by the Charlotte Lozier Institute on community care centers and pregnancy centers for women. Jennie Bradley Lichter, the president of the March for Life, criticized politicians for prioritizing abortion funding instead of care for women and children. “Political leaders who prioritize funding for Planned Parenthood leave no doubt where their priorities lie: and it is not with women and children,” Bradley Lichter told CNA.“It’s a shame that the leaders of states like California and New York aren’t choosing to pour their resources into institutions that truly support moms, like the huge number of pregnancy resource centers located in each of those states,” she said.Women deserve better than the “tragedy” of abortion, Bradley Lichter said.“We at March for Life want women to know that when their state leaders fall short and leave them in the hands of Big Abortion, pro-life Americans will stand in the gap and help them find the love and care they need,” she continued.Defunding Planned Parenthood: a ‘life-saving’ act A spokesman for Live Action called the defunding of Planned Parenthood “one of the most lifesaving acts Congress has taken in decades,” noting that the federal government stopped funding the organization that “kills over 400,000 children every year.”“That victory must be made permanent when the one-year cutoff expires next July,” Noah Brandt told CNA. “Yet pro-abortion states like California and New York are working to undo that progress, using taxpayer money to expand abortion through all nine months and to ship abortion pills nationwide.”“Federal funding for Planned Parenthood must never return, and states that promote abortion should be held accountable for enabling the mass killing and sterilization of American children,” Brandt said.Pritchard added that although Planned Parenthood is “constantly scheming to grow their grip on taxpayer money,” the pro-life movement has seen wins around the nation — most especially, the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood.“Make no mistake, they are losing big in Congress, in courts, and increasingly in the hearts and minds of Americans,” Pritchard said.

New York, California pour money into Planned Parenthood after federal defunding #Catholic New York and California are pouring taxpayer dollars into Planned Parenthood, joining several other states in counteracting the federal defunding of the abortion giant.  / Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 25, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA). New York and California are pouring taxpayer dollars into Planned Parenthood, joining several other states in counteracting the federal defunding of the abortion giant. California Gov. Gavin Newsom pledged $140 million to Planned Parenthood locations in California on Oct. 24. On the same day, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul committed $35 million in funding to Planned Parenthood locations in New York.Both states are known for their abortion shield laws, which protect abortionists who mail abortion pills into states where they are illegal. Several women are suing California and New York abortionists after being poisoned by or coerced into taking the abortion pill by the fathers of their children.New York and California join several other states that have made similar moves in light of the yearlong federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. Colorado, Massachusetts, and Washington have all taken similar steps to replace lost federal funding for Planned Parenthood over the past few months.Newsom said on Thursday that California is “protecting access to essential health care” by providing funding for more than 100 locations across the state. “Trump’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood put all our communities at risk as people seek basic health care from these community providers,” Newsom said in a statement.Hochul in a similar vein said she is putting funding toward the 47 Planned Parenthood clinics in New York, alleging that pro-life politicians will “stop at nothing to undermine women’s health care.”“In the face of congressional Republicans voting to defund Planned Parenthood, I’ve directed the state to fund these vital services, protecting access to health care that thousands of New Yorkers rely on,” Hochul said in a Friday statement.Hundreds of alternative clinics exist in both states A spokeswoman for Heartbeat International, a network that supports life-affirming pregnancy centers, told CNA there are many low-cost and even free alternatives to Planned Parenthood across the country — including hundreds of clinics and pregnancy centers in both New York and California. Andrea Trudden said that “women in California and New York already have access to a vast network of life-affirming care.” “California has more than 300 pregnancy help organizations and New York nearly 200,” Trudden said, citing Heartbeat International’s Worldwide Directory of Pregnancy Help.“These centers offer practical support, compassionate care, and resources to women facing unplanned pregnancies, empowering them to choose life for their children and themselves,” she continued. For women who need health care not related to pregnancy, Trudden noted that both states are “well served” by Federally Qualified Health Centers, which are centers that provide “comprehensive, low-cost medical care for women and families.” As of 2024, California had more than 170 of these clinics, while New York had more than 60, Trudden said, citing a report by KFF, a health policy institute. “If leaders truly cared about women’s health, they would invest in these community-based organizations that meet the needs of women before, during, and after pregnancy — not in the nation’s largest abortion provider,” Trudden added. Kelsey Pritchard, a spokeswoman at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told CNA that in California, Planned Parenthood “is choosing to shutter primary care rather than give up profiting from abortions.”In Orange and San Bernardino counties, Planned Parenthood will continue to offer abortions while closing primary care facilities. “In California, New York, and across the country, Planned Parenthoods are outnumbered by far better options and the pro-life movement is happy to help women locate the care they need,” Pritchard said, citing reports by the Charlotte Lozier Institute on community care centers and pregnancy centers for women. Jennie Bradley Lichter, the president of the March for Life, criticized politicians for prioritizing abortion funding instead of care for women and children. “Political leaders who prioritize funding for Planned Parenthood leave no doubt where their priorities lie: and it is not with women and children,” Bradley Lichter told CNA.“It’s a shame that the leaders of states like California and New York aren’t choosing to pour their resources into institutions that truly support moms, like the huge number of pregnancy resource centers located in each of those states,” she said.Women deserve better than the “tragedy” of abortion, Bradley Lichter said.“We at March for Life want women to know that when their state leaders fall short and leave them in the hands of Big Abortion, pro-life Americans will stand in the gap and help them find the love and care they need,” she continued.Defunding Planned Parenthood: a ‘life-saving’ act A spokesman for Live Action called the defunding of Planned Parenthood “one of the most lifesaving acts Congress has taken in decades,” noting that the federal government stopped funding the organization that “kills over 400,000 children every year.”“That victory must be made permanent when the one-year cutoff expires next July,” Noah Brandt told CNA. “Yet pro-abortion states like California and New York are working to undo that progress, using taxpayer money to expand abortion through all nine months and to ship abortion pills nationwide.”“Federal funding for Planned Parenthood must never return, and states that promote abortion should be held accountable for enabling the mass killing and sterilization of American children,” Brandt said.Pritchard added that although Planned Parenthood is “constantly scheming to grow their grip on taxpayer money,” the pro-life movement has seen wins around the nation — most especially, the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood.“Make no mistake, they are losing big in Congress, in courts, and increasingly in the hearts and minds of Americans,” Pritchard said.


New York and California are pouring taxpayer dollars into Planned Parenthood, joining several other states in counteracting the federal defunding of the abortion giant.  / Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 25, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).

New York and California are pouring taxpayer dollars into Planned Parenthood, joining several other states in counteracting the federal defunding of the abortion giant. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom pledged $140 million to Planned Parenthood locations in California on Oct. 24. On the same day, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul committed $35 million in funding to Planned Parenthood locations in New York.

Both states are known for their abortion shield laws, which protect abortionists who mail abortion pills into states where they are illegal. Several women are suing California and New York abortionists after being poisoned by or coerced into taking the abortion pill by the fathers of their children.

New York and California join several other states that have made similar moves in light of the yearlong federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. Colorado, Massachusetts, and Washington have all taken similar steps to replace lost federal funding for Planned Parenthood over the past few months.

Newsom said on Thursday that California is “protecting access to essential health care” by providing funding for more than 100 locations across the state. 

“Trump’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood put all our communities at risk as people seek basic health care from these community providers,” Newsom said in a statement.

Hochul in a similar vein said she is putting funding toward the 47 Planned Parenthood clinics in New York, alleging that pro-life politicians will “stop at nothing to undermine women’s health care.”

“In the face of congressional Republicans voting to defund Planned Parenthood, I’ve directed the state to fund these vital services, protecting access to health care that thousands of New Yorkers rely on,” Hochul said in a Friday statement.

Hundreds of alternative clinics exist in both states 

A spokeswoman for Heartbeat International, a network that supports life-affirming pregnancy centers, told CNA there are many low-cost and even free alternatives to Planned Parenthood across the country — including hundreds of clinics and pregnancy centers in both New York and California. 

Andrea Trudden said that “women in California and New York already have access to a vast network of life-affirming care.” 

“California has more than 300 pregnancy help organizations and New York nearly 200,” Trudden said, citing Heartbeat International’s Worldwide Directory of Pregnancy Help.

“These centers offer practical support, compassionate care, and resources to women facing unplanned pregnancies, empowering them to choose life for their children and themselves,” she continued. 

For women who need health care not related to pregnancy, Trudden noted that both states are “well served” by Federally Qualified Health Centers, which are centers that provide “comprehensive, low-cost medical care for women and families.” 

As of 2024, California had more than 170 of these clinics, while New York had more than 60, Trudden said, citing a report by KFF, a health policy institute. 

“If leaders truly cared about women’s health, they would invest in these community-based organizations that meet the needs of women before, during, and after pregnancy — not in the nation’s largest abortion provider,” Trudden added. 

Kelsey Pritchard, a spokeswoman at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told CNA that in California, Planned Parenthood “is choosing to shutter primary care rather than give up profiting from abortions.”

In Orange and San Bernardino counties, Planned Parenthood will continue to offer abortions while closing primary care facilities. 

“In California, New York, and across the country, Planned Parenthoods are outnumbered by far better options and the pro-life movement is happy to help women locate the care they need,” Pritchard said, citing reports by the Charlotte Lozier Institute on community care centers and pregnancy centers for women. 

Jennie Bradley Lichter, the president of the March for Life, criticized politicians for prioritizing abortion funding instead of care for women and children. 

“Political leaders who prioritize funding for Planned Parenthood leave no doubt where their priorities lie: and it is not with women and children,” Bradley Lichter told CNA.

“It’s a shame that the leaders of states like California and New York aren’t choosing to pour their resources into institutions that truly support moms, like the huge number of pregnancy resource centers located in each of those states,” she said.

Women deserve better than the “tragedy” of abortion, Bradley Lichter said.

“We at March for Life want women to know that when their state leaders fall short and leave them in the hands of Big Abortion, pro-life Americans will stand in the gap and help them find the love and care they need,” she continued.

Defunding Planned Parenthood: a ‘life-saving’ act 

A spokesman for Live Action called the defunding of Planned Parenthood “one of the most lifesaving acts Congress has taken in decades,” noting that the federal government stopped funding the organization that “kills over 400,000 children every year.”

“That victory must be made permanent when the one-year cutoff expires next July,” Noah Brandt told CNA. “Yet pro-abortion states like California and New York are working to undo that progress, using taxpayer money to expand abortion through all nine months and to ship abortion pills nationwide.”

“Federal funding for Planned Parenthood must never return, and states that promote abortion should be held accountable for enabling the mass killing and sterilization of American children,” Brandt said.

Pritchard added that although Planned Parenthood is “constantly scheming to grow their grip on taxpayer money,” the pro-life movement has seen wins around the nation — most especially, the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood.

“Make no mistake, they are losing big in Congress, in courts, and increasingly in the hearts and minds of Americans,” Pritchard said.

Read More
‘Every execution should be stopped’: How U.S. bishops work to save prisoners on death row #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: txking/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 25, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Bishops in multiple U.S. states are leading efforts to spare the lives of condemned prisoners facing execution — urging clemency in line with the Catholic Church’s relatively recent but unambiguous declaration that the death penalty is not permissible and should be abolished. Executions in the United States have been increasingly less common for years. Following the death penalty’s re-legalization by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, executions peaked in the country around the turn of the century before beginning a gradual decline.Still, more than 1,600 prisoners have been executed since the late 1970s. The largest number of those executions has been carried out in Texas, which has killed 596 prisoners over that time period.As with other states, the Catholic bishops of Texas regularly petition the state government to issue clemency to prisoners facing death. Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, told CNA that the state’s bishops regularly urge officials to commute death penalty sentences to life in prison. “We refer to it as the Mercy Project,” she said. Though popular perception holds that the governor of a state is the ultimate arbiter of a condemned prisoner’s fate, Allmon said in Texas that’s not the case. “The state Board of Pardons and Paroles has the ultimate authority,” she said. “The governor is only allowed to issue a 30-day stay on an execution one time. He doesn’t actually have the power to grant a permanent clemency.” “We don’t encourage phone calls to the governor because it’s not going to be a meaningful order,” she pointed out. “The board has a lot more authority.”Allmon said the bishops advocate on behalf of every condemned prisoner in the state. “We send a letter to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and copy the governor for every single execution during the time period when the board is reviewing clemency applications,” she said. “Typically they hold reviews about 21 days before the execution. We time our letters to arrive shortly before that.” “We research every single case,” she said. “We speak to the defendant’s legal counsel for additional information. We personalize each letter to urge prayer for the victims and their families, we mention them by name, and we share any mitigating circumstances or reason in particular that the execution is unjust, while always acknowledging that every execution should be stopped.”Some offenders, Allmon said, want to be executed. “We do a letter anyway. We think it’s important that on principle we speak out for every execution.”In Missouri, meanwhile, the state’s Catholic bishops similarly advocate for every prisoner facing execution by the government. Missouri has been among the most prolific executors of condemned prisoners since 1976. More than half of the 102 people executed there over the last 50 years have been under Democratic governors; then-Gov. Mel Carnahan oversaw 38 state executions from 1993 to 2000 alone. Jamie Morris, the executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, told CNA that the state bishops “send a clemency request for every prisoner set to be executed, either through a letter from the Missouri Catholic Conference or through a joint letter of the bishops.”“We also highlight every upcoming execution through our MCC publications and encourage our network to contact the governor to ask for clemency,” he said. Individual dioceses, meanwhile, carry out education and outreach to inform the faithful of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. What does the Church actually teach?The Vatican in 2018 revised its teaching on the death penalty, holding that though capital punishment was “long considered an appropriate response” to some crimes, evolving standards and more effective methods of imprisonment and detention mean the death penalty is now “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”The Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the revision of which was approved by Pope Francis. The Church’s revision came after years of increasing opposition to the death penalty by popes in the modern era. Then-Pope John Paul II in 1997 revised the catechism to reflect what he acknowledged was a “growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.”The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Morris told CNA that bills to abolish the death penalty are filed “every year” in Missouri, though he said those measures have “not been heard in a legislative committee” during his time at the Catholic conference. Bishops have thus focused their legislative efforts on advocating against a provision in the Missouri code that allows a judge to sentence an individual to death when a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision on the death penalty. Brett Farley, who heads the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, said the state’s bishops have been active in opposing capital punishment there after a six-year moratorium on the death penalty lapsed in 2021 and executions resumed. Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla “have been very outspoken both in calling for clemency of death row inmates and, generally, calling for an end to the death penalty,” Farley said. The prelates have called for abolition via Catholic publications and in op-eds, he said.The state’s bishops through the Tulsa Diocese and Oklahoma City Archdiocese have also instituted programs in which clergy and laity both minister to the condemned and their families, Farley said. The state Catholic conference, meanwhile, has led the effort to pass a proposed legislative ban on the death penalty. That measure has moved out of committee in both chambers of the state Legislature, Farley said. “We have also commissioned recent polls that show overwhelming support for moratorium among Oklahoma voters, which demonstrate as many as 78% agreeing that ‘a pause’ on executions is appropriate to ensure we do not execute innocent people,” he said. Catholics across the United States have regularly led efforts to abolish the death penalty. The Washington, D.C.-based group Catholic Mobilizing Network, for instance, arose out of the U.S. bishops’ 2005 Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty. The group urges activists to take part in anti-death penalty campaigns in numerous states, including petitioning the federal government to end the death penalty, using a “three-tiered approach of education, advocacy, and prayer.”Catholics have also worked to end the death penalty at the federal level. Sixteen people have been executed by the federal government since 1976. Executions in the states have increased over the last few years, though they have not come near the highs of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Allmon said Texas is seeing “fewer executions in general” relative to earlier years. The number of executions was very high under Gov. Rick Perry, she said; the Republican governor ultimately witnessed the carrying out of 279 death sentences over his 15 years as governor. Since 2015, current Gov. Greg Abbott has presided over a comparatively smaller 78 executions. “It still shouldn’t happen,” she said, “but it’s a huge reduction.”

‘Every execution should be stopped’: How U.S. bishops work to save prisoners on death row #Catholic null / Credit: txking/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 25, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Bishops in multiple U.S. states are leading efforts to spare the lives of condemned prisoners facing execution — urging clemency in line with the Catholic Church’s relatively recent but unambiguous declaration that the death penalty is not permissible and should be abolished. Executions in the United States have been increasingly less common for years. Following the death penalty’s re-legalization by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, executions peaked in the country around the turn of the century before beginning a gradual decline.Still, more than 1,600 prisoners have been executed since the late 1970s. The largest number of those executions has been carried out in Texas, which has killed 596 prisoners over that time period.As with other states, the Catholic bishops of Texas regularly petition the state government to issue clemency to prisoners facing death. Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, told CNA that the state’s bishops regularly urge officials to commute death penalty sentences to life in prison. “We refer to it as the Mercy Project,” she said. Though popular perception holds that the governor of a state is the ultimate arbiter of a condemned prisoner’s fate, Allmon said in Texas that’s not the case. “The state Board of Pardons and Paroles has the ultimate authority,” she said. “The governor is only allowed to issue a 30-day stay on an execution one time. He doesn’t actually have the power to grant a permanent clemency.” “We don’t encourage phone calls to the governor because it’s not going to be a meaningful order,” she pointed out. “The board has a lot more authority.”Allmon said the bishops advocate on behalf of every condemned prisoner in the state. “We send a letter to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and copy the governor for every single execution during the time period when the board is reviewing clemency applications,” she said. “Typically they hold reviews about 21 days before the execution. We time our letters to arrive shortly before that.” “We research every single case,” she said. “We speak to the defendant’s legal counsel for additional information. We personalize each letter to urge prayer for the victims and their families, we mention them by name, and we share any mitigating circumstances or reason in particular that the execution is unjust, while always acknowledging that every execution should be stopped.”Some offenders, Allmon said, want to be executed. “We do a letter anyway. We think it’s important that on principle we speak out for every execution.”In Missouri, meanwhile, the state’s Catholic bishops similarly advocate for every prisoner facing execution by the government. Missouri has been among the most prolific executors of condemned prisoners since 1976. More than half of the 102 people executed there over the last 50 years have been under Democratic governors; then-Gov. Mel Carnahan oversaw 38 state executions from 1993 to 2000 alone. Jamie Morris, the executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, told CNA that the state bishops “send a clemency request for every prisoner set to be executed, either through a letter from the Missouri Catholic Conference or through a joint letter of the bishops.”“We also highlight every upcoming execution through our MCC publications and encourage our network to contact the governor to ask for clemency,” he said. Individual dioceses, meanwhile, carry out education and outreach to inform the faithful of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. What does the Church actually teach?The Vatican in 2018 revised its teaching on the death penalty, holding that though capital punishment was “long considered an appropriate response” to some crimes, evolving standards and more effective methods of imprisonment and detention mean the death penalty is now “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”The Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the revision of which was approved by Pope Francis. The Church’s revision came after years of increasing opposition to the death penalty by popes in the modern era. Then-Pope John Paul II in 1997 revised the catechism to reflect what he acknowledged was a “growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.”The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Morris told CNA that bills to abolish the death penalty are filed “every year” in Missouri, though he said those measures have “not been heard in a legislative committee” during his time at the Catholic conference. Bishops have thus focused their legislative efforts on advocating against a provision in the Missouri code that allows a judge to sentence an individual to death when a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision on the death penalty. Brett Farley, who heads the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, said the state’s bishops have been active in opposing capital punishment there after a six-year moratorium on the death penalty lapsed in 2021 and executions resumed. Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla “have been very outspoken both in calling for clemency of death row inmates and, generally, calling for an end to the death penalty,” Farley said. The prelates have called for abolition via Catholic publications and in op-eds, he said.The state’s bishops through the Tulsa Diocese and Oklahoma City Archdiocese have also instituted programs in which clergy and laity both minister to the condemned and their families, Farley said. The state Catholic conference, meanwhile, has led the effort to pass a proposed legislative ban on the death penalty. That measure has moved out of committee in both chambers of the state Legislature, Farley said. “We have also commissioned recent polls that show overwhelming support for moratorium among Oklahoma voters, which demonstrate as many as 78% agreeing that ‘a pause’ on executions is appropriate to ensure we do not execute innocent people,” he said. Catholics across the United States have regularly led efforts to abolish the death penalty. The Washington, D.C.-based group Catholic Mobilizing Network, for instance, arose out of the U.S. bishops’ 2005 Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty. The group urges activists to take part in anti-death penalty campaigns in numerous states, including petitioning the federal government to end the death penalty, using a “three-tiered approach of education, advocacy, and prayer.”Catholics have also worked to end the death penalty at the federal level. Sixteen people have been executed by the federal government since 1976. Executions in the states have increased over the last few years, though they have not come near the highs of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Allmon said Texas is seeing “fewer executions in general” relative to earlier years. The number of executions was very high under Gov. Rick Perry, she said; the Republican governor ultimately witnessed the carrying out of 279 death sentences over his 15 years as governor. Since 2015, current Gov. Greg Abbott has presided over a comparatively smaller 78 executions. “It still shouldn’t happen,” she said, “but it’s a huge reduction.”


null / Credit: txking/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 25, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Bishops in multiple U.S. states are leading efforts to spare the lives of condemned prisoners facing execution — urging clemency in line with the Catholic Church’s relatively recent but unambiguous declaration that the death penalty is not permissible and should be abolished. 

Executions in the United States have been increasingly less common for years. Following the death penalty’s re-legalization by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, executions peaked in the country around the turn of the century before beginning a gradual decline.

Still, more than 1,600 prisoners have been executed since the late 1970s. The largest number of those executions has been carried out in Texas, which has killed 596 prisoners over that time period.

As with other states, the Catholic bishops of Texas regularly petition the state government to issue clemency to prisoners facing death. Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, told CNA that the state’s bishops regularly urge officials to commute death penalty sentences to life in prison. 

“We refer to it as the Mercy Project,” she said. 

Though popular perception holds that the governor of a state is the ultimate arbiter of a condemned prisoner’s fate, Allmon said in Texas that’s not the case. 

“The state Board of Pardons and Paroles has the ultimate authority,” she said. “The governor is only allowed to issue a 30-day stay on an execution one time. He doesn’t actually have the power to grant a permanent clemency.” 

“We don’t encourage phone calls to the governor because it’s not going to be a meaningful order,” she pointed out. “The board has a lot more authority.”

Allmon said the bishops advocate on behalf of every condemned prisoner in the state. 

“We send a letter to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and copy the governor for every single execution during the time period when the board is reviewing clemency applications,” she said. “Typically they hold reviews about 21 days before the execution. We time our letters to arrive shortly before that.” 

“We research every single case,” she said. “We speak to the defendant’s legal counsel for additional information. We personalize each letter to urge prayer for the victims and their families, we mention them by name, and we share any mitigating circumstances or reason in particular that the execution is unjust, while always acknowledging that every execution should be stopped.”

Some offenders, Allmon said, want to be executed. “We do a letter anyway. We think it’s important that on principle we speak out for every execution.”

In Missouri, meanwhile, the state’s Catholic bishops similarly advocate for every prisoner facing execution by the government. 

Missouri has been among the most prolific executors of condemned prisoners since 1976. More than half of the 102 people executed there over the last 50 years have been under Democratic governors; then-Gov. Mel Carnahan oversaw 38 state executions from 1993 to 2000 alone. 

Jamie Morris, the executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, told CNA that the state bishops “send a clemency request for every prisoner set to be executed, either through a letter from the Missouri Catholic Conference or through a joint letter of the bishops.”

“We also highlight every upcoming execution through our MCC publications and encourage our network to contact the governor to ask for clemency,” he said. Individual dioceses, meanwhile, carry out education and outreach to inform the faithful of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. 

What does the Church actually teach?

The Vatican in 2018 revised its teaching on the death penalty, holding that though capital punishment was “long considered an appropriate response” to some crimes, evolving standards and more effective methods of imprisonment and detention mean the death penalty is now “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

The Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the revision of which was approved by Pope Francis. 

The Church’s revision came after years of increasing opposition to the death penalty by popes in the modern era. Then-Pope John Paul II in 1997 revised the catechism to reflect what he acknowledged was a “growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.”

The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Morris told CNA that bills to abolish the death penalty are filed “every year” in Missouri, though he said those measures have “not been heard in a legislative committee” during his time at the Catholic conference. 

Bishops have thus focused their legislative efforts on advocating against a provision in the Missouri code that allows a judge to sentence an individual to death when a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision on the death penalty. 

Brett Farley, who heads the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, said the state’s bishops have been active in opposing capital punishment there after a six-year moratorium on the death penalty lapsed in 2021 and executions resumed. 

Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla “have been very outspoken both in calling for clemency of death row inmates and, generally, calling for an end to the death penalty,” Farley said. The prelates have called for abolition via Catholic publications and in op-eds, he said.

The state’s bishops through the Tulsa Diocese and Oklahoma City Archdiocese have also instituted programs in which clergy and laity both minister to the condemned and their families, Farley said. 

The state Catholic conference, meanwhile, has led the effort to pass a proposed legislative ban on the death penalty. That measure has moved out of committee in both chambers of the state Legislature, Farley said. 

“We have also commissioned recent polls that show overwhelming support for moratorium among Oklahoma voters, which demonstrate as many as 78% agreeing that ‘a pause’ on executions is appropriate to ensure we do not execute innocent people,” he said. 

Catholics across the United States have regularly led efforts to abolish the death penalty. The Washington, D.C.-based group Catholic Mobilizing Network, for instance, arose out of the U.S. bishops’ 2005 Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty. 

The group urges activists to take part in anti-death penalty campaigns in numerous states, including petitioning the federal government to end the death penalty, using a “three-tiered approach of education, advocacy, and prayer.”

Catholics have also worked to end the death penalty at the federal level. Sixteen people have been executed by the federal government since 1976. 

Executions in the states have increased over the last few years, though they have not come near the highs of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Allmon said Texas is seeing “fewer executions in general” relative to earlier years. 

The number of executions was very high under Gov. Rick Perry, she said; the Republican governor ultimately witnessed the carrying out of 279 death sentences over his 15 years as governor. Since 2015, current Gov. Greg Abbott has presided over a comparatively smaller 78 executions. 

“It still shouldn’t happen,” she said, “but it’s a huge reduction.”

Read More
Military archdiocese: Army’s response to canceled religious contracts ‘inadequate’ #Catholic 
 
 Archbishop Timothy Broglio speaks at Mass on Dec. 3, 2023. / Credit: The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 22, 2025 / 18:04 pm (CNA).
The Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, expressed concern that the U.S. Army is not adequately addressing its discontent with canceled religious contracts, which the archdiocese said is straining its ability to minister to Catholics in the armed forces.This month, the Army canceled all contracts for three roles: coordinators of religious education (CRE), Catholic pastoral life coordinators (CPLC), and musicians. The contract terminations affected Catholics and those of other faiths.CREs served as catechists trained by the archdiocese to assist the priests in religious education in the military chapels. The archdiocese also trained CPLCs who offered administrative support such as liturgy coordination, assistance with sacramental record documentation, and weekly bulletin preparation. Contracts also included musicians, usually pianists who played music during Mass.Military Services Archbishop Timothy Broglio sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 17 saying Army officials assured him that religious affairs specialists (RAS) and directors of religious education (DREs) — federal employees — would accommodate the needs of the archdiocese amid the canceled contracts but that he believes this is not possible.Neither an RAS nor a DRE is a trained catechist, he explained, and neither are properly trained or qualified to perform the roles of people who served in the canceled contracts. There is no requirement for a DRE to be Catholic or for an RAS to have any faith.In response to the archdiocesan complaint, an Army spokesperson told CNA it would reexamine its contract support for RASs and DREs “to mitigate any potential impact during this period.“Archdiocese: Response is ‘wholly inadequate’Elizabeth A. Tomlin, a lawyer for the archdiocese, told CNA that the Army’s response is “wholly inadequate” and “demonstrates the spokesperson’s total lack of understanding of the issue.”“Merely eight DREs across the entire Army are Catholics, so most DREs are not qualified to direct Catholic religious education,” Tomlin said.“[RASs] are soldiers, [usually] anywhere from private first class to staff sergeant in rank,” she explained. “There is no requirement whatsoever for RASs to be Catholic or have any training in catechesis or catechetical methodology that could possibly equip them to coordinate religious education.”Tomlin rejected the Army’s assertion that people in these positions could fulfill the work of the CREs, CPLCs, or musicians.“Without meeting the basic requirement of a catechist, namely, to be a confirmed Catholic, these people are not qualified to be involved in Catholic religious education programs whatsoever,” she said.Tomlin said the only way to have music during Mass is if someone volunteers.“It is factually inaccurate that DREs or RASs are fulfilling the duties of CREs, CPLCs, or liturgical musicians,” Tomlin said.‘No knowledge of our faith’Jena Swanson — who worked as a Catholic CRE at Fort Drum from August 2024 until her contract was canceled on March 31, 2025 — told CNA she agrees with the archdiocese’s assessment that those employees cannot fulfill the roles of those whose contracts were canceled.She said she helped facilitate religious education classes, Bible studies, sacrament preparation classes, and retreats, and collected sacramental records, among a variety of other tasks. She said she mostly worked independently of the DRE because that employee did not have much knowledge about the Catholic faith.“The DRE is not guaranteed to be Catholic depending on the installation military families are stationed at,” Swanson said. “In our 13 years of military family life (my husband is active duty Army), we’ve experienced one Catholic DRE and only for two years.”She said in her experience, RASs “are as helpful as they can be” but often “have no knowledge of our faith.”Swanson said the Catholic community at Fort Drum “was thrown into a bit of chaos” once her contract ended. Some weeks there were no teachers for religious education, families did not know whom to direct questions to, and weekly Mass attendance dropped about 50%.“Our families want answers and want to continue coming to our parish, but if these options are not open it will drastically affect attendance and faith formation,” Swanson said.

Military archdiocese: Army’s response to canceled religious contracts ‘inadequate’ #Catholic Archbishop Timothy Broglio speaks at Mass on Dec. 3, 2023. / Credit: The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 22, 2025 / 18:04 pm (CNA). The Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, expressed concern that the U.S. Army is not adequately addressing its discontent with canceled religious contracts, which the archdiocese said is straining its ability to minister to Catholics in the armed forces.This month, the Army canceled all contracts for three roles: coordinators of religious education (CRE), Catholic pastoral life coordinators (CPLC), and musicians. The contract terminations affected Catholics and those of other faiths.CREs served as catechists trained by the archdiocese to assist the priests in religious education in the military chapels. The archdiocese also trained CPLCs who offered administrative support such as liturgy coordination, assistance with sacramental record documentation, and weekly bulletin preparation. Contracts also included musicians, usually pianists who played music during Mass.Military Services Archbishop Timothy Broglio sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 17 saying Army officials assured him that religious affairs specialists (RAS) and directors of religious education (DREs) — federal employees — would accommodate the needs of the archdiocese amid the canceled contracts but that he believes this is not possible.Neither an RAS nor a DRE is a trained catechist, he explained, and neither are properly trained or qualified to perform the roles of people who served in the canceled contracts. There is no requirement for a DRE to be Catholic or for an RAS to have any faith.In response to the archdiocesan complaint, an Army spokesperson told CNA it would reexamine its contract support for RASs and DREs “to mitigate any potential impact during this period.“Archdiocese: Response is ‘wholly inadequate’Elizabeth A. Tomlin, a lawyer for the archdiocese, told CNA that the Army’s response is “wholly inadequate” and “demonstrates the spokesperson’s total lack of understanding of the issue.”“Merely eight DREs across the entire Army are Catholics, so most DREs are not qualified to direct Catholic religious education,” Tomlin said.“[RASs] are soldiers, [usually] anywhere from private first class to staff sergeant in rank,” she explained. “There is no requirement whatsoever for RASs to be Catholic or have any training in catechesis or catechetical methodology that could possibly equip them to coordinate religious education.”Tomlin rejected the Army’s assertion that people in these positions could fulfill the work of the CREs, CPLCs, or musicians.“Without meeting the basic requirement of a catechist, namely, to be a confirmed Catholic, these people are not qualified to be involved in Catholic religious education programs whatsoever,” she said.Tomlin said the only way to have music during Mass is if someone volunteers.“It is factually inaccurate that DREs or RASs are fulfilling the duties of CREs, CPLCs, or liturgical musicians,” Tomlin said.‘No knowledge of our faith’Jena Swanson — who worked as a Catholic CRE at Fort Drum from August 2024 until her contract was canceled on March 31, 2025 — told CNA she agrees with the archdiocese’s assessment that those employees cannot fulfill the roles of those whose contracts were canceled.She said she helped facilitate religious education classes, Bible studies, sacrament preparation classes, and retreats, and collected sacramental records, among a variety of other tasks. She said she mostly worked independently of the DRE because that employee did not have much knowledge about the Catholic faith.“The DRE is not guaranteed to be Catholic depending on the installation military families are stationed at,” Swanson said. “In our 13 years of military family life (my husband is active duty Army), we’ve experienced one Catholic DRE and only for two years.”She said in her experience, RASs “are as helpful as they can be” but often “have no knowledge of our faith.”Swanson said the Catholic community at Fort Drum “was thrown into a bit of chaos” once her contract ended. Some weeks there were no teachers for religious education, families did not know whom to direct questions to, and weekly Mass attendance dropped about 50%.“Our families want answers and want to continue coming to our parish, but if these options are not open it will drastically affect attendance and faith formation,” Swanson said.


Archbishop Timothy Broglio speaks at Mass on Dec. 3, 2023. / Credit: The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 22, 2025 / 18:04 pm (CNA).

The Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, expressed concern that the U.S. Army is not adequately addressing its discontent with canceled religious contracts, which the archdiocese said is straining its ability to minister to Catholics in the armed forces.

This month, the Army canceled all contracts for three roles: coordinators of religious education (CRE), Catholic pastoral life coordinators (CPLC), and musicians. The contract terminations affected Catholics and those of other faiths.

CREs served as catechists trained by the archdiocese to assist the priests in religious education in the military chapels. The archdiocese also trained CPLCs who offered administrative support such as liturgy coordination, assistance with sacramental record documentation, and weekly bulletin preparation. Contracts also included musicians, usually pianists who played music during Mass.

Military Services Archbishop Timothy Broglio sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 17 saying Army officials assured him that religious affairs specialists (RAS) and directors of religious education (DREs) — federal employees — would accommodate the needs of the archdiocese amid the canceled contracts but that he believes this is not possible.

Neither an RAS nor a DRE is a trained catechist, he explained, and neither are properly trained or qualified to perform the roles of people who served in the canceled contracts. There is no requirement for a DRE to be Catholic or for an RAS to have any faith.

In response to the archdiocesan complaint, an Army spokesperson told CNA it would reexamine its contract support for RASs and DREs “to mitigate any potential impact during this period.“

Archdiocese: Response is ‘wholly inadequate’

Elizabeth A. Tomlin, a lawyer for the archdiocese, told CNA that the Army’s response is “wholly inadequate” and “demonstrates the spokesperson’s total lack of understanding of the issue.”

“Merely eight DREs across the entire Army are Catholics, so most DREs are not qualified to direct Catholic religious education,” Tomlin said.

“[RASs] are soldiers, [usually] anywhere from private first class to staff sergeant in rank,” she explained. “There is no requirement whatsoever for RASs to be Catholic or have any training in catechesis or catechetical methodology that could possibly equip them to coordinate religious education.”

Tomlin rejected the Army’s assertion that people in these positions could fulfill the work of the CREs, CPLCs, or musicians.

“Without meeting the basic requirement of a catechist, namely, to be a confirmed Catholic, these people are not qualified to be involved in Catholic religious education programs whatsoever,” she said.

Tomlin said the only way to have music during Mass is if someone volunteers.

“It is factually inaccurate that DREs or RASs are fulfilling the duties of CREs, CPLCs, or liturgical musicians,” Tomlin said.

‘No knowledge of our faith’

Jena Swanson — who worked as a Catholic CRE at Fort Drum from August 2024 until her contract was canceled on March 31, 2025 — told CNA she agrees with the archdiocese’s assessment that those employees cannot fulfill the roles of those whose contracts were canceled.

She said she helped facilitate religious education classes, Bible studies, sacrament preparation classes, and retreats, and collected sacramental records, among a variety of other tasks. She said she mostly worked independently of the DRE because that employee did not have much knowledge about the Catholic faith.

“The DRE is not guaranteed to be Catholic depending on the installation military families are stationed at,” Swanson said. “In our 13 years of military family life (my husband is active duty Army), we’ve experienced one Catholic DRE and only for two years.”

She said in her experience, RASs “are as helpful as they can be” but often “have no knowledge of our faith.”

Swanson said the Catholic community at Fort Drum “was thrown into a bit of chaos” once her contract ended. Some weeks there were no teachers for religious education, families did not know whom to direct questions to, and weekly Mass attendance dropped about 50%.

“Our families want answers and want to continue coming to our parish, but if these options are not open it will drastically affect attendance and faith formation,” Swanson 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.

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.


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’s move to end annual hunger report meets criticism #Catholic 
 
 U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins hosts a USDA all-staff meeting on May 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Rollins announced the termination of household food insecurity reports in September 2025. / Credit: USDAgov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 20, 2025 / 05:20 am (CNA).
The Trump administration’s recent decision to cease publishing an annual U.S. Department of Agriculture report on household food insecurity is being met with strong criticism by the Catholic Health Association of the United States, anti-hunger activists, and academics.The last USDA food insecurity report, covering 2024 data, is set for release Oct. 22. On Sept. 20, the USDA, led by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, announced the termination of future “Household Food Security Reports,” which were first published in 1995 during the administration of then-President Bill Clinton.“These redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous studies do nothing more than fearmonger,” the USDA said in a published statement.The USDA questioned the legitimacy of the annual reports, saying food insecurity trends have remained virtually unchanged since 1995, “regardless of an over 87% increase in SNAP spending between 2019–2023.”SNAP is an acronym for “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” which according to the USDA “provides food benefits to low-income families to enhance their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.” SNAP was formerly known as the “Food Stamp Program.”The Trump administration explained its decision for discontinuing the reports, saying: “For 30 years, this study — initially created by the Clinton administration as a means to support the increase of SNAP eligibility and benefit allotments — failed to present anything more than subjective, liberal fodder.”Responses to terminating the report“I don’t think collecting data about food insecurity across the country is ‘liberal fodder,’” said Lisa Smith, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which generally aligns with Church teaching but has clashed with the U.S. bishops in the past on health care issues, such as the Affordable Care Act. “When you don’t have the data, it makes it more difficult to know where the keys areas of need are.”The end of the annual food security report “is going to impact the health of low-income communities,” Smith said. Smith’s concerns were echoed by Colleen Heflin, a professor of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University and co-author of “Food for Thought: Understanding Older Adult Food Insecurity,” a book published last month along with Madonna Harrington Meyer, a sociology professor at Syracuse.“Without national data from the Current Population Survey on food insecurity, it will no longer be possible to track year-to-year variation in food insecurity due to changing economic and policy conditions,” Heflin said. “This lack of data will make it harder for Catholic charities and other community-based organizations to effectively address food insecurity without a consistent and comprehensive understanding of how food insecurity is changing for different demographic and geographic communities.”Like Smith, Heflin dismissed the Trump administration’s claim that the reports were little more than liberal, redundant fearmongering.“Food insecurity data collection has been a bipartisan issue since the Reagan administration,” since the 1980s, Heflin said. Referring to the Trump administration’s plan to end the annual report, Heflin said she found “both the decision and the justification provided quite shocking and without merit.”James Ziliak, a professor of microeconomics and founding director of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky, told CNA that eliminating the USDA household food security reports could reduce public and policy awareness of hunger needs and hinder private-sector responses, such as those by Catholic health and social service organizations.“This report was one of the most widely watched barometers of economic well-being among low- and moderate-income households in the U.S. and provided key information for policymakers, charitable organizations, and researchers,” Ziliak said in an email.Like Smith and Heflin, Ziliak said he did not accept the Trump administration’s explanation for ending publication of the annual report.“This is absolutely not justified, and the timing is especially harmful to public policy as the economy slows down and major cuts are being implemented in the largest federal food assistance program,” he said, referring to SNAP.

Trump administration’s move to end annual hunger report meets criticism #Catholic U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins hosts a USDA all-staff meeting on May 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Rollins announced the termination of household food insecurity reports in September 2025. / Credit: USDAgov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 20, 2025 / 05:20 am (CNA). The Trump administration’s recent decision to cease publishing an annual U.S. Department of Agriculture report on household food insecurity is being met with strong criticism by the Catholic Health Association of the United States, anti-hunger activists, and academics.The last USDA food insecurity report, covering 2024 data, is set for release Oct. 22. On Sept. 20, the USDA, led by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, announced the termination of future “Household Food Security Reports,” which were first published in 1995 during the administration of then-President Bill Clinton.“These redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous studies do nothing more than fearmonger,” the USDA said in a published statement.The USDA questioned the legitimacy of the annual reports, saying food insecurity trends have remained virtually unchanged since 1995, “regardless of an over 87% increase in SNAP spending between 2019–2023.”SNAP is an acronym for “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” which according to the USDA “provides food benefits to low-income families to enhance their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.” SNAP was formerly known as the “Food Stamp Program.”The Trump administration explained its decision for discontinuing the reports, saying: “For 30 years, this study — initially created by the Clinton administration as a means to support the increase of SNAP eligibility and benefit allotments — failed to present anything more than subjective, liberal fodder.”Responses to terminating the report“I don’t think collecting data about food insecurity across the country is ‘liberal fodder,’” said Lisa Smith, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which generally aligns with Church teaching but has clashed with the U.S. bishops in the past on health care issues, such as the Affordable Care Act. “When you don’t have the data, it makes it more difficult to know where the keys areas of need are.”The end of the annual food security report “is going to impact the health of low-income communities,” Smith said. Smith’s concerns were echoed by Colleen Heflin, a professor of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University and co-author of “Food for Thought: Understanding Older Adult Food Insecurity,” a book published last month along with Madonna Harrington Meyer, a sociology professor at Syracuse.“Without national data from the Current Population Survey on food insecurity, it will no longer be possible to track year-to-year variation in food insecurity due to changing economic and policy conditions,” Heflin said. “This lack of data will make it harder for Catholic charities and other community-based organizations to effectively address food insecurity without a consistent and comprehensive understanding of how food insecurity is changing for different demographic and geographic communities.”Like Smith, Heflin dismissed the Trump administration’s claim that the reports were little more than liberal, redundant fearmongering.“Food insecurity data collection has been a bipartisan issue since the Reagan administration,” since the 1980s, Heflin said. Referring to the Trump administration’s plan to end the annual report, Heflin said she found “both the decision and the justification provided quite shocking and without merit.”James Ziliak, a professor of microeconomics and founding director of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky, told CNA that eliminating the USDA household food security reports could reduce public and policy awareness of hunger needs and hinder private-sector responses, such as those by Catholic health and social service organizations.“This report was one of the most widely watched barometers of economic well-being among low- and moderate-income households in the U.S. and provided key information for policymakers, charitable organizations, and researchers,” Ziliak said in an email.Like Smith and Heflin, Ziliak said he did not accept the Trump administration’s explanation for ending publication of the annual report.“This is absolutely not justified, and the timing is especially harmful to public policy as the economy slows down and major cuts are being implemented in the largest federal food assistance program,” he said, referring to SNAP.


U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins hosts a USDA all-staff meeting on May 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Rollins announced the termination of household food insecurity reports in September 2025. / Credit: USDAgov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 20, 2025 / 05:20 am (CNA).

The Trump administration’s recent decision to cease publishing an annual U.S. Department of Agriculture report on household food insecurity is being met with strong criticism by the Catholic Health Association of the United States, anti-hunger activists, and academics.

The last USDA food insecurity report, covering 2024 data, is set for release Oct. 22. On Sept. 20, the USDA, led by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, announced the termination of future “Household Food Security Reports,” which were first published in 1995 during the administration of then-President Bill Clinton.

“These redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous studies do nothing more than fearmonger,” the USDA said in a published statement.

The USDA questioned the legitimacy of the annual reports, saying food insecurity trends have remained virtually unchanged since 1995, “regardless of an over 87% increase in SNAP spending between 2019–2023.”

SNAP is an acronym for “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” which according to the USDA “provides food benefits to low-income families to enhance their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.” SNAP was formerly known as the “Food Stamp Program.”

The Trump administration explained its decision for discontinuing the reports, saying: “For 30 years, this study — initially created by the Clinton administration as a means to support the increase of SNAP eligibility and benefit allotments — failed to present anything more than subjective, liberal fodder.”

Responses to terminating the report

“I don’t think collecting data about food insecurity across the country is ‘liberal fodder,’” said Lisa Smith, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which generally aligns with Church teaching but has clashed with the U.S. bishops in the past on health care issues, such as the Affordable Care Act. “When you don’t have the data, it makes it more difficult to know where the keys areas of need are.”

The end of the annual food security report “is going to impact the health of low-income communities,” Smith said. Smith’s concerns were echoed by Colleen Heflin, a professor of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University and co-author of “Food for Thought: Understanding Older Adult Food Insecurity,” a book published last month along with Madonna Harrington Meyer, a sociology professor at Syracuse.

“Without national data from the Current Population Survey on food insecurity, it will no longer be possible to track year-to-year variation in food insecurity due to changing economic and policy conditions,” Heflin said. “This lack of data will make it harder for Catholic charities and other community-based organizations to effectively address food insecurity without a consistent and comprehensive understanding of how food insecurity is changing for different demographic and geographic communities.”

Like Smith, Heflin dismissed the Trump administration’s claim that the reports were little more than liberal, redundant fearmongering.

“Food insecurity data collection has been a bipartisan issue since the Reagan administration,” since the 1980s, Heflin said. Referring to the Trump administration’s plan to end the annual report, Heflin said she found “both the decision and the justification provided quite shocking and without merit.”

James Ziliak, a professor of microeconomics and founding director of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky, told CNA that eliminating the USDA household food security reports could reduce public and policy awareness of hunger needs and hinder private-sector responses, such as those by Catholic health and social service organizations.

“This report was one of the most widely watched barometers of economic well-being among low- and moderate-income households in the U.S. and provided key information for policymakers, charitable organizations, and researchers,” Ziliak said in an email.

Like Smith and Heflin, Ziliak said he did not accept the Trump administration’s explanation for ending publication of the annual report.

“This is absolutely not justified, and the timing is especially harmful to public policy as the economy slows down and major cuts are being implemented in the largest federal food assistance program,” he said, referring to SNAP.

Read More
U.S. bishops warn of looming court order in Obama-era immigration program #Catholic 
 
 A DACA protest sign is waved outside of the White House. / null

CNA Staff, Oct 18, 2025 / 09:00 am (CNA).
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released an update this week on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program highlighting the threat a looming court order may pose to the legal privileges of some immigrants in Texas.Immigrants covered by DACA who move to or from Texas could quickly face the loss of their work authorization under the new court order, according to the bishops' Department of Migration and Refugee Services.Launched in 2012 through executive action by then-President Barack Obama, DACA offers work authorization and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors. The first Trump administration tried to end the program but was blocked from doing so in 2020 by the U.S. Supreme Court. While President Donald Trump has indicated a willingness to work with Democrats on the status of DACA beneficiaries, the program continues to be subject to litigation, with the latest developments centering on the Texas v. United States case.In that case, Texas sued the federal government claiming that DACA was illegally created without statutory authority, as it was formed through executive action rather than legislation passed by Congress.In January, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld the U.S. district court’s declaration that DACA is unlawful, but narrowed the scope to Texas, separating deportation protections from work authorization. This means, in theory, that DACA's core shield against removal could remain available nationwide for current recipients and new applicants, while work permits might be preserved for most — except in Texas. Impending implementation The USCCB's Oct. 14 advisory comes as the district court prepares to implement the ruling upheld by the appeals court. On Sept. 29 the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidance concerning how the order should be implemented. Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, told CNA that the key takeaway from the USCCB’s update is a “warning” to DACA recipients “who live in Texas.”"[A]nyone who has DACA or is eligible to receive it would need to consider the implications of moving to or from Texas," the USCCB update states, pointing out that relocation could trigger revocation of employment authorization with just 15 days' notice. For Texas's approximately 90,000 DACA recipients — the second-largest population after California's 145,000 — the implications could be stark, according to the bishops. Under the order, if it is implemented according to the U.S. government’s proposals, DACA recipients who live in Texas could receive "forbearance from removal" (deferred deportation) but lose "lawful presence" status, disqualifying them from work permits and benefits like in-state tuition or driver's licenses. To be eligible for DACA, applicants must have arrived before age 16, resided continuously since June 15, 2007, and been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. There are approximately 530,000 DACA participants nationwide according to KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation. The KFF estimates that up to 1.1 million individuals meet DACA eligibility criteria.

U.S. bishops warn of looming court order in Obama-era immigration program #Catholic A DACA protest sign is waved outside of the White House. / null CNA Staff, Oct 18, 2025 / 09:00 am (CNA). The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released an update this week on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program highlighting the threat a looming court order may pose to the legal privileges of some immigrants in Texas.Immigrants covered by DACA who move to or from Texas could quickly face the loss of their work authorization under the new court order, according to the bishops’ Department of Migration and Refugee Services.Launched in 2012 through executive action by then-President Barack Obama, DACA offers work authorization and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors. The first Trump administration tried to end the program but was blocked from doing so in 2020 by the U.S. Supreme Court. While President Donald Trump has indicated a willingness to work with Democrats on the status of DACA beneficiaries, the program continues to be subject to litigation, with the latest developments centering on the Texas v. United States case.In that case, Texas sued the federal government claiming that DACA was illegally created without statutory authority, as it was formed through executive action rather than legislation passed by Congress.In January, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld the U.S. district court’s declaration that DACA is unlawful, but narrowed the scope to Texas, separating deportation protections from work authorization. This means, in theory, that DACA’s core shield against removal could remain available nationwide for current recipients and new applicants, while work permits might be preserved for most — except in Texas. Impending implementation The USCCB’s Oct. 14 advisory comes as the district court prepares to implement the ruling upheld by the appeals court. On Sept. 29 the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidance concerning how the order should be implemented. Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, told CNA that the key takeaway from the USCCB’s update is a “warning” to DACA recipients “who live in Texas.””[A]nyone who has DACA or is eligible to receive it would need to consider the implications of moving to or from Texas,” the USCCB update states, pointing out that relocation could trigger revocation of employment authorization with just 15 days’ notice. For Texas’s approximately 90,000 DACA recipients — the second-largest population after California’s 145,000 — the implications could be stark, according to the bishops. Under the order, if it is implemented according to the U.S. government’s proposals, DACA recipients who live in Texas could receive “forbearance from removal” (deferred deportation) but lose “lawful presence” status, disqualifying them from work permits and benefits like in-state tuition or driver’s licenses. To be eligible for DACA, applicants must have arrived before age 16, resided continuously since June 15, 2007, and been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. There are approximately 530,000 DACA participants nationwide according to KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation. The KFF estimates that up to 1.1 million individuals meet DACA eligibility criteria.


A DACA protest sign is waved outside of the White House. / null

CNA Staff, Oct 18, 2025 / 09:00 am (CNA).

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released an update this week on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program highlighting the threat a looming court order may pose to the legal privileges of some immigrants in Texas.

Immigrants covered by DACA who move to or from Texas could quickly face the loss of their work authorization under the new court order, according to the bishops’ Department of Migration and Refugee Services.

Launched in 2012 through executive action by then-President Barack Obama, DACA offers work authorization and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors. 

The first Trump administration tried to end the program but was blocked from doing so in 2020 by the U.S. Supreme Court. While President Donald Trump has indicated a willingness to work with Democrats on the status of DACA beneficiaries, the program continues to be subject to litigation, with the latest developments centering on the Texas v. United States case.

In that case, Texas sued the federal government claiming that DACA was illegally created without statutory authority, as it was formed through executive action rather than legislation passed by Congress.

In January, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld the U.S. district court’s declaration that DACA is unlawful, but narrowed the scope to Texas, separating deportation protections from work authorization. This means, in theory, that DACA’s core shield against removal could remain available nationwide for current recipients and new applicants, while work permits might be preserved for most — except in Texas. 

Impending implementation 

The USCCB’s Oct. 14 advisory comes as the district court prepares to implement the ruling upheld by the appeals court. On Sept. 29 the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidance concerning how the order should be implemented. 

Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, told CNA that the key takeaway from the USCCB’s update is a “warning” to DACA recipients “who live in Texas.”

“[A]nyone who has DACA or is eligible to receive it would need to consider the implications of moving to or from Texas,” the USCCB update states, pointing out that relocation could trigger revocation of employment authorization with just 15 days’ notice. 

For Texas’s approximately 90,000 DACA recipients — the second-largest population after California’s 145,000 — the implications could be stark, according to the bishops. 

Under the order, if it is implemented according to the U.S. government’s proposals, DACA recipients who live in Texas could receive “forbearance from removal” (deferred deportation) but lose “lawful presence” status, disqualifying them from work permits and benefits like in-state tuition or driver’s licenses. 

To be eligible for DACA, applicants must have arrived before age 16, resided continuously since June 15, 2007, and been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. There are approximately 530,000 DACA participants nationwide according to KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation. The KFF estimates that up to 1.1 million individuals meet DACA eligibility criteria.

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.

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.


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.”

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.”


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
Washington state drops effort to make priests violate seal of confession in reporting law #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA).
Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law. A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication. Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal. In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government. “Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said. “This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit. “Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said. On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.” Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said. “In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.” “Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”

Washington state drops effort to make priests violate seal of confession in reporting law #Catholic null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA). Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law. A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication. Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal. In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government. “Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said. “This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit. “Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said. On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.” Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said. “In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.” “Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”


null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA).

Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law.

A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.

The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”

The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication.

Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.

The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal.

In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.

“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.

The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government.

“Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said.

“This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.”

Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit.

“Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said.

On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.”

Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said.

“In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”

The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.

Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.

The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.”

“Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”

Read More
Native American group loses religious freedom appeal at Supreme Court #Catholic 
 
 On Oct. 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a rehearing of the case filed by Apache Stronghold, a coalition of Native Americans and their supporters, that would have prevented the sale of a Native American sacred site to a mining company. / Credit: Photo courtesy of Becket

CNA Staff, Oct 8, 2025 / 12:00 pm (CNA).
A Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site has lost a last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the transfer and obliteration of the Arizona parcel.The Supreme Court in an unsigned order on Oct. 6 said Apache Stronghold’s petition for a rehearing had been denied. The court did not give a reason for the denial.Justice Neil Gorsuch would have granted the request, the order noted. Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, “took no part in the consideration or decision” of the order. The denial likely deals a death blow to the Apache group’s attempts to halt the destruction of Oak Flat, which has been viewed as a sacred site by Apaches and other Native American groups for hundreds of years and has been used extensively for religious rituals. The federal government is selling the land to the multinational Resolution Copper company, which plans to destroy the site as part of a copper mining operation. The coalition had brought the lawsuit to the Supreme Court earlier this year under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that the sale of the site would violate the decades-old federal statute restricting the government’s ability to encroach on religious liberty. The high court in May refused to hear the case. Gorsuch dissented from that decision as well, arguing that the court “should at least have troubled itself to hear [the] case” before “allowing the government to destroy the Apaches’ sacred site.”Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the May ruling as well, though he did not add his dissent to the Oct. 6 denial of the appeal. In a statement, Apache Stronghold said that while the decision was "deeply disappointing, the fight to protect Oak Flat is far from over." The group vowed to "continue pressing our cases in the lower courts.""Oak Flat deserves the same respect and protection this country has long given to other places of worship," the group said. The coalition has garnered support from major Catholic backers in its religious liberty bid. Last year the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops joined an amicus brief arguing that lower court decisions allowing the sale of Oak Flat represent “a grave misunderstanding” of religious freedom law. The Knights of Columbus similarly filed a brief in support of the Apaches, arguing that the decision to allow the property to be mined applies an “atextual constraint” to the federal religious freedom law with “no grounding in the statute itself.”Though Apache Stronghold appears to have exhausted its legal options, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said on Aug. 18 that the Oak Flat site would not be transferred to Resolution Copper amid emergency petitions from the San Carlos Apache Tribe as well as the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition. That dispute is still playing out at federal court.

Native American group loses religious freedom appeal at Supreme Court #Catholic On Oct. 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a rehearing of the case filed by Apache Stronghold, a coalition of Native Americans and their supporters, that would have prevented the sale of a Native American sacred site to a mining company. / Credit: Photo courtesy of Becket CNA Staff, Oct 8, 2025 / 12:00 pm (CNA). A Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site has lost a last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the transfer and obliteration of the Arizona parcel.The Supreme Court in an unsigned order on Oct. 6 said Apache Stronghold’s petition for a rehearing had been denied. The court did not give a reason for the denial.Justice Neil Gorsuch would have granted the request, the order noted. Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, “took no part in the consideration or decision” of the order. The denial likely deals a death blow to the Apache group’s attempts to halt the destruction of Oak Flat, which has been viewed as a sacred site by Apaches and other Native American groups for hundreds of years and has been used extensively for religious rituals. The federal government is selling the land to the multinational Resolution Copper company, which plans to destroy the site as part of a copper mining operation. The coalition had brought the lawsuit to the Supreme Court earlier this year under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that the sale of the site would violate the decades-old federal statute restricting the government’s ability to encroach on religious liberty. The high court in May refused to hear the case. Gorsuch dissented from that decision as well, arguing that the court “should at least have troubled itself to hear [the] case” before “allowing the government to destroy the Apaches’ sacred site.”Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the May ruling as well, though he did not add his dissent to the Oct. 6 denial of the appeal. In a statement, Apache Stronghold said that while the decision was “deeply disappointing, the fight to protect Oak Flat is far from over.” The group vowed to “continue pressing our cases in the lower courts.””Oak Flat deserves the same respect and protection this country has long given to other places of worship,” the group said. The coalition has garnered support from major Catholic backers in its religious liberty bid. Last year the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops joined an amicus brief arguing that lower court decisions allowing the sale of Oak Flat represent “a grave misunderstanding” of religious freedom law. The Knights of Columbus similarly filed a brief in support of the Apaches, arguing that the decision to allow the property to be mined applies an “atextual constraint” to the federal religious freedom law with “no grounding in the statute itself.”Though Apache Stronghold appears to have exhausted its legal options, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said on Aug. 18 that the Oak Flat site would not be transferred to Resolution Copper amid emergency petitions from the San Carlos Apache Tribe as well as the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition. That dispute is still playing out at federal court.


On Oct. 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a rehearing of the case filed by Apache Stronghold, a coalition of Native Americans and their supporters, that would have prevented the sale of a Native American sacred site to a mining company. / Credit: Photo courtesy of Becket

CNA Staff, Oct 8, 2025 / 12:00 pm (CNA).

A Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site has lost a last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the transfer and obliteration of the Arizona parcel.

The Supreme Court in an unsigned order on Oct. 6 said Apache Stronghold’s petition for a rehearing had been denied. The court did not give a reason for the denial.

Justice Neil Gorsuch would have granted the request, the order noted. Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, “took no part in the consideration or decision” of the order. 

The denial likely deals a death blow to the Apache group’s attempts to halt the destruction of Oak Flat, which has been viewed as a sacred site by Apaches and other Native American groups for hundreds of years and has been used extensively for religious rituals. 

The federal government is selling the land to the multinational Resolution Copper company, which plans to destroy the site as part of a copper mining operation. 

The coalition had brought the lawsuit to the Supreme Court earlier this year under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that the sale of the site would violate the decades-old federal statute restricting the government’s ability to encroach on religious liberty. 

The high court in May refused to hear the case. Gorsuch dissented from that decision as well, arguing that the court “should at least have troubled itself to hear [the] case” before “allowing the government to destroy the Apaches’ sacred site.”

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the May ruling as well, though he did not add his dissent to the Oct. 6 denial of the appeal. 

In a statement, Apache Stronghold said that while the decision was “deeply disappointing, the fight to protect Oak Flat is far from over.”

The group vowed to “continue pressing our cases in the lower courts.”

“Oak Flat deserves the same respect and protection this country has long given to other places of worship,” the group said.

The coalition has garnered support from major Catholic backers in its religious liberty bid. Last year the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops joined an amicus brief arguing that lower court decisions allowing the sale of Oak Flat represent “a grave misunderstanding” of religious freedom law. 

The Knights of Columbus similarly filed a brief in support of the Apaches, arguing that the decision to allow the property to be mined applies an “atextual constraint” to the federal religious freedom law with “no grounding in the statute itself.”

Though Apache Stronghold appears to have exhausted its legal options, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said on Aug. 18 that the Oak Flat site would not be transferred to Resolution Copper amid emergency petitions from the San Carlos Apache Tribe as well as the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition. That dispute is still playing out at federal court.

Read More
Cash aid for moms: Michigan program cuts infant poverty, boosts families

null / Credit: Tatiana Vdb via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 6, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

A Michigan-based program is providing thousands of dollars to expecting mothers to lessen poverty and improve babies’ health — and all that’s needed is an ultrasound and an ID.

The first community-wide and unconditional cash transfer program for new families in the United States called Rx Kids began with the mission to improve “health, hope, and opportunity.” The initiative began in January 2024 in Flint, Michigan, where enrolled mothers receive $1,500 during their pregnancies and an additional $500 a month for the first year of their child’s life. 

In 2024, Dr. Mona Hanna, a pediatrician and the director of the Michigan State University-Hurley Children’s Hospital Pediatric Public Health Initiative, launched the program with the help of Luke Shaefer, the inaugural director of Poverty Solutions, an initiative that partners with communities to find ways to alleviate poverty.

The city of Flint had been struggling with childhood poverty, “which is a major challenge and economic hardship, especially for new families,” Shaefer told CNA. In order to find ways to combat it, Hanna spoke directly with mothers. They shared how impactful the 2021 expanded Child Tax Credit was, which provided parents funds to put toward necessities for their children.

The program had helped “child poverty plummet to the lowest level ever recorded,” Shaefer explained. He had worked on the program design himself, so he was brought in to help create Rx Kids with a similar goal.

The hope for Rx Kids was simply “to support expectant moms during pregnancy,” Shaefer said. Oftentimes, “the period of pregnancy and the first year of life is actually when families are the poorest,” he said. To combat this, the money helps fund food, rent, car seats, diapers, and other baby supplies and necessities. 

Even families higher on “the economic ladder really struggle to make ends meet when they’re welcoming a new baby, which is really maddening because it’s such a critical period for the development of a child,” Shaefer said. “What happens in the womb, and then what happens in the first year of life, are fundamental to shaping the architecture for kids throughout the life course.”

Expecting mothers from all economic backgrounds can apply to the program. To enroll, women submit an ultrasound and identification to verify residency within the participating location. The only other qualification is that the mothers are at least 16 weeks along in their pregnancies or will have legal guardianship over the child after birth.

Funding and operations

Rx Kids is funded through a public-private partnership model that combines federal funds, often Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and private support from philanthropic foundations, local businesses, and health care systems. 

Since it started, the program has provided nearly $11 million in cash transfers to the more than 2,000 enrolled mothers in Flint. There have also been 1,800 babies being born in the city within the program. 

The cash transfers are sent through the nonprofit GiveDirectly, which solely administers cash payments to families through programs like Rx Kids to lessen global poverty. It currently has operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, and the U.S.

After seeing success with Rx Kids mothers in Flint, the program expanded to help Michigan families in Kalamazoo, Eastern Upper Peninsula, Clare County, and Oakland County. It has now enrolled more than 3,500 mothers, provided nearly $15 million in funds, and contributed to more than 2,800 babies.

“Not unlike the support provided by the nearly 100 pregnancy resource centers in Michigan whose staff and volunteers walk alongside women providing material support, counseling, and parenting classes, the Rx Kids program aims to care for women and babies during the challenging time of pregnancy and infancy by providing a no-strings-attached cash program,” Genevieve Marnon, legislative director at Right to Life of Michigan, told CNA.

“The pro-life community has long recognized that when women are supported, respected, and valued, they are more likely to choose birth to abortion and experience better health outcomes,” Marnon said. 

In a state where abortion is “considered a constitutional right, every effort to ensure women have the support they need to make a choice for life is something to applaud.”

Success and benefits

“Programs like [Rx Kids] lead to healthier birth weights, lower rates of postpartum depression, and an atmosphere that celebrates each and every woman and child,” Maron said. “The data speaks for itself.”

Recently, Rx Kids received back “the first line of research that is looking really positive,” Shaefer said. Researchers from Michigan State University and the University of Michigan conducted a study published by the American Journal of Public Health that analyzed more than 450,000 births across Michigan. 

The researchers reported that after the program launched in 2024, Flint experienced an 18% drop in preterm births and a 27% reduction in low birth weight when compared with the previous year and similar Michigan cities. 

There was also a reported 29% reduction in NICU admissions, which prevented nearly 60 hospitalizations annually. The outcomes were linked to behavioral changes of women during their pregnancies, including increased prenatal care.

“We’re not forcing anyone to go to prenatal care, but when we provide the economic resources, they go,” Schaefer explained.

Church support

The Catholic Church in Michigan has also been in favor of the program. Jacob Kanclerz, communications associate for the Michigan Catholic Conference (MCC), told CNA that it helps provide “mothers facing difficult circumstances with the resources they need to make a choice for life and avoid resorting to abortion.”

MCC, which serves as the public policy voice for the Church in the state, “supports the Rx Kids program because of its direct assistance to mothers and children in need in lower-income communities in Michigan.”

In line with the Church, the program works “to promote and protect human life as well as provide for the poor and vulnerable in society,” Kanclerz said. MCC has supported funding in the state budget for the Rx Kids program and has testified in support of the expansion of Senate Bill 309, which would incorporate the program officially into state law.

At a hearing for the bill, Tom Hickson, vice president for public policy and advocacy for MCC, said: “By helping mothers pay for critical prenatal and infant health care services and other expenses surrounding childbirth, Rx Kids can help mothers provide their babies the care they need while in the womb and after they are born.”

He added: “This program has been a wonderful help to expectant mothers and their babies who need extra support during this critical stage of life.”

Rx Kids is currently helping Michigan families, but it also offers a startup guide for other states and communities interested in modeling the program. Schaefer said there is “a ton of interest” from other states that hope to implement the program.

There are two versions of the Rx Kids model that areas can implement, depending on their funding availability and goals. One offers $1,500 during pregnancy and an additional $500 each month for six months following the child’s birth. Communities can also model the original version implemented in Flint, which offers a $1,500 cash transfer during pregnancy, and the additional monthly funds for a whole year.

To secure funding, Rx Kids encourages communities to utilize public sources, state or federal dollars, and private support from philanthropic organizations that want to contribute to the mission of alleviating poverty and supporting babies and their mothers.

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

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

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

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

Abortion declines even in states where it is still legal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virginia bishop speaks out against potential ‘abortion rights’ amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planned Parenthood closes its only 2 clinics in Louisiana

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

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

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

Louisiana authorities issue arrest warrant for California abortionist 

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

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

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

Read More
Christian photographer wins lawsuit against Louisville over same-sex discrimination rule

Photographer holding camera against newlywed couple. / Credit: Vectorfusionart/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 3, 2025 / 09:30 am (CNA).

A federal court awarded nominal damages to a Christian photographer after the city government of Louisville, Kentucky, sought to enforce an anti-discrimination ordinance that could have forced her to provide photography services for same-sex civil weddings.

Judge Benjamin Beaton found that Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance contained “two provisions” that limited the expression of Christian wedding photographer Chelsey Nelson, who sought $1 in damages. The court awarded Nelson the requested damages. 

According to the ruling, the ordinance prohibited “the denial of goods and services to members of protected classes,” which includes people with same-sex attraction. 

The publication provision of the ordinance also prevented her “from writing and publishing any indication or explanation that she wouldn’t photograph same-sex weddings, or that otherwise causes someone to feel unwelcome or undesirable based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.” 

Both provisions, Beaton ruled, “limit Nelson’s freedom to express her beliefs about marriage.”

The court stated Nelson “suffered a First Amendment injury” because she decided to limit the promotion of her business, ignore opportunities posted online, refrain from advertising to grow her business, and censored herself, which was done to avoid prosecution.

“The government can’t force Americans to say things they don’t believe, and state officials have paid and will continue to pay a price when they violate this foundational freedom,” Nelson said in a statement through her attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom following the ruling.

“The freedom to speak without fear of censorship is a God-given constitutionally guaranteed right,” she added.

In his ruling, Beaton noted the Supreme Court set nationwide precedent when it ruled on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. In that decision, the court ruled a Colorado law violated a web designer’s First Amendment rights because it would have forced him to design websites for same-sex civil weddings in spite of his religious beliefs.

Beaton wrote that in spite of the Supreme Court precedent, “Louisville apparently still ‘actively enforces’ the ordinance … [and] still won’t concede that the First Amendment protects Nelson from compelled expression.” 

His ruling noted that the mayor publicly stated that he would keep enforcing the ordinance, including against Nelson, after the 303 Creative decision.

Although the city’s lawyers argued in court that the city did not intend to enforce the law against Nelson, Beaton wrote: “Nothing in Louisville’s informal disavowal would prevent the city from making good on that promise [to enforce the rule against Nelson] tomorrow.”

“Anyone who’s tussled with the city’s lawyers this long and who continues to do business in and around Louisville might reasonably look askance at the city’s assurances that enforcement is unlikely,” Beaton wrote in his ruling.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart said in a statement that “free speech is for everyone” and the precedent set in 303 Creative ensures that Americans “have the freedom to express and create messages that align with their beliefs without fear of government punishment.”

“For over five years, Louisville officials said they could force Chelsey to promote views about marriage that violated her religious beliefs,” he said. 

“But the First Amendment leaves decisions about what to say with the people, not the government. The district court’s decision rests on this bedrock First Amendment principle and builds on the victory in 303 Creative.”

Read More
Possible U.S. government shutdown could disrupt military Masses, meals for preschoolers

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Andrea Izzotti/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Sep 27, 2025 / 08:30 am (CNA).

A looming U.S. government shutdown could affect Roman Catholic churches and Catholic institutions that depend on government funding.

The closure, which will come about if lawmakers cannot agree on a spending package to fund the federal government, could pause military members’ ability to attend Mass, interrupt subsidized meals for preschoolers in Catholic schools and limit assistance with church security. Congress so far lacks agreement on funding federal agencies when the budget year begins on Oct. 1.

A shutdown would mean housing, health and food programs for people in need could experience cascading delays, according to a Sept. 26 statement by Catholic Charities USA.

“A government shutdown would result in more people falling into poverty, and the recovery from such a setback could take several months or even years,” the statement said. 

“One thing we can all agree on is that the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable in society should not suffer because lawmakers cannot come to an agreement.”

Besides Church-related programs, a shutdown would affect a range of other services, including education for at-risk preschoolers, scientific research, and grants to charitable organizations. 

Many Catholic entities rely on federal funding from Head Start, an early childhood education program that offers health screenings and meals to families below the federal poverty level. 

Military Masses, Church security

Military worship services could be affected in a lengthy shutdown. In an extended shutdown in 2013, the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA said it would lack a Catholic priest to celebrate Sunday Mass at chapels at some U.S. military installations where non-active-duty priests serve as government contractors.

A spokesperson for the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Federal efforts to “maintain safe and secure houses of worship” also could be degraded at the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency in a government shutdown. Two children died in August in a mass shooting at the Church of the Annunciation in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

The federal agency provides resources that assist houses of worship in securing physical and digital infrastructure. The department said in anticipation of a narrowly avoided government shutdown in 2023 that it “would also be forced to suspend both physical and cybersecurity assessments for government and industry partners.”

Federal agencies have not yet issued contingency plans for a potential shutdown, and the security agency did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-life groups celebrate as Google admits to political censorship 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate investigates alleged abortion facilitation by Virginia school faculty 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wisconsin Planned Parenthood pauses abortions after federal funding cut 

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

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

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

Read More
Picture of the day





Palácio do Planalto, seat of the Brazilian Federal Executive. In late September afternoon, the height of the dry season, the setting sun gives a special color to the monument. Today is Independence Day in Brazil.
 #ImageOfTheDay
Picture of the day
Palácio do Planalto, seat of the Brazilian Federal Executive. In late September afternoon, the height of the dry season, the setting sun gives a special color to the monument. Today is Independence Day in Brazil.
Read More