![Federal judge pauses Louisiana telehealth abortion suit pending FDA review #Catholic After the Trump administration appealed, a federal judge put on pause a lawsuit filed by the state of Louisiana that challenges the federal policy of allowing mail-order abortion pills.U.S. District Judge David Joseph in Lafayette, Louisiana, ruled that the challenge be paused pending the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s review of the safety of the drug but noted that the state could continue the challenge after the review was completed.Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a lawsuit in late 2025 to challenge the 2023 deregulation of mifepristone, which is used in chemical abortions. The 2023 rule changes, initiated during former president Joe Biden’s administration, allowed the drugs to be delivered through the mail and prescribed without any visits to a doctor.In January of this year, President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with a federal district court to pause the suit, pending a review by the FDA of the chemical abortion drug.Louisiana had filed the lawsuit after residents — including Rosalie Markezich, who is named in the lawsuit — said they were coerced into taking abortion pills that were obtained through the mail. In Markezich’s case, she said her boyfriend forced her to take it.Study: Maternal mortality decreased in states that protect unborn lifeA recent study published by JAMA Network Open found a decrease in maternal mortality in states that protect unborn children from abortions as well as in states with permissive abortion laws.The study considered 22 million births and more than 12,000 pregnancy-related deaths from 2018 to 2023, with 14 states with abortion bans and 37 control jurisdictions.“This cohort study found that abortion bans were not associated with statistically significant overall or state-specific increases in pregnancy-associated mortality,” the study read.In states with strong pro-life laws, on average, maternal mortality rates declined slightly faster than pro-abortion states.Illinois pregnancy centers continue to appeal for conscience rightsA court heard arguments on Friday from Illinois pregnancy centers that are appealing an Illinois district court decision that affirmed a law requiring pregnancy centers to refer women for abortions.The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three Illinois pregnancy centers appealed after an April 2025 court ruling found that requiring pregnancy centers to refer pregnant women for an abortion was not a violation of speech and conscience rights.“No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions, and compelling people to refer others for abortions does that,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Counsel Erin Hawley. “The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional.”Maryland bill to force hospitals to offer abortions goes to governor’s deskA Maryland bill that would force hospitals to offer abortions, even against their conscience, in some circumstances, heads to the stateʼs governor after the state Legislature passed it this week.The bill would require “a hospital to allow the termination of a pregnancy in certain circumstances” under the federal 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which ensures that emergency care is offered regardless of a patient’s ability to pay.The bill would also require a hospital to screen patients for “emergency pregnancy-related medical condition[s]” and to provide “transfer of a patient who has an emergency pregnancy-related medical condition.”“This bill will result in a new government-created loss of valuable highly trained and experienced emergency department physicians, nurses, providers, and staff,” said Dr. James Kelly, representing the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “The legislation will increase the already existing severe shortages of qualified medical staff and will decrease access to emergency medical care, and endanger the health and safety of patients seeking emergency medical care.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/federal-judge-pauses-louisiana-telehealth-abortion-suit-pending-fda-review-catholic-after-the-trump-administration-appealed-a-federal-judge-put-on-pause-a-lawsuit-filed-by-the-state-of-louisiana-tha.jpg "Federal judge pauses Louisiana telehealth abortion suit pending FDA review #Catholic After the Trump administration appealed, a federal judge put on pause a lawsuit filed by the state of Louisiana that challenges the federal policy of allowing mail-order abortion pills.U.S. District Judge David Joseph in Lafayette, Louisiana, ruled that the challenge be paused pending the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s review of the safety of the drug but noted that the state could continue the challenge after the review was completed.Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a lawsuit in late 2025 to challenge the 2023 deregulation of mifepristone, which is used in chemical abortions. The 2023 rule changes, initiated during former president Joe Biden’s administration, allowed the drugs to be delivered through the mail and prescribed without any visits to a doctor.In January of this year, President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with a federal district court to pause the suit, pending a review by the FDA of the chemical abortion drug.Louisiana had filed the lawsuit after residents — including Rosalie Markezich, who is named in the lawsuit — said they were coerced into taking abortion pills that were obtained through the mail. In Markezich’s case, she said her boyfriend forced her to take it.Study: Maternal mortality decreased in states that protect unborn lifeA recent study published by JAMA Network Open found a decrease in maternal mortality in states that protect unborn children from abortions as well as in states with permissive abortion laws.The study considered 22 million births and more than 12,000 pregnancy-related deaths from 2018 to 2023, with 14 states with abortion bans and 37 control jurisdictions.“This cohort study found that abortion bans were not associated with statistically significant overall or state-specific increases in pregnancy-associated mortality,” the study read.In states with strong pro-life laws, on average, maternal mortality rates declined slightly faster than pro-abortion states.Illinois pregnancy centers continue to appeal for conscience rightsA court heard arguments on Friday from Illinois pregnancy centers that are appealing an Illinois district court decision that affirmed a law requiring pregnancy centers to refer women for abortions.The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three Illinois pregnancy centers appealed after an April 2025 court ruling found that requiring pregnancy centers to refer pregnant women for an abortion was not a violation of speech and conscience rights.“No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions, and compelling people to refer others for abortions does that,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Counsel Erin Hawley. “The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional.”Maryland bill to force hospitals to offer abortions goes to governor’s deskA Maryland bill that would force hospitals to offer abortions, even against their conscience, in some circumstances, heads to the stateʼs governor after the state Legislature passed it this week.The bill would require “a hospital to allow the termination of a pregnancy in certain circumstances” under the federal 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which ensures that emergency care is offered regardless of a patient’s ability to pay.The bill would also require a hospital to screen patients for “emergency pregnancy-related medical condition[s]” and to provide “transfer of a patient who has an emergency pregnancy-related medical condition.”“This bill will result in a new government-created loss of valuable highly trained and experienced emergency department physicians, nurses, providers, and staff,” said Dr. James Kelly, representing the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “The legislation will increase the already existing severe shortages of qualified medical staff and will decrease access to emergency medical care, and endanger the health and safety of patients seeking emergency medical care.”")
![Religious sisters lose lawsuit against Smith & Wesson alleging ‘facilitation’ of mass shootings #Catholic Several congregations of religious sisters have lost their lawsuit against the iconic American gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson, which claimed the company has “facilitated” mass shootings in the United States. A version of the lawsuit was first filed in December 2023 in Nevada district court by the Adrian Dominican Sisters, the Sisters of Bon Secours USA, the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, and the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, U.S.-Ontario Province.The filing alleged that Smith & Wesson is “intent on marketing and selling AR-15 rifles in whatever manner results in the most sales.” The suit claimed the company was pursuing such marketing even if it “is illegal and attracts a dangerous category of buyers [and] facilitates an unrelenting and growing stream of killings.”The sisters had filed the suit as shareholders in the company, claiming that Smith & Wesson’s marketing “causes the company to face an ever-increasing and substantial likelihood of liability that threatens its long-term existence.” The filing specifically targeted the company’s board of directors on behalf of the company and its shareholders in what is known as a “derivative lawsuit.”The sisters in the original lawsuit failed to meet a required $500,000 security bond deadline, leading to the suit’s dismissal. They subsequently refiled in federal court in February 2025. In a March 23 order dismissing the suit, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro said the nuns failed to establish standing to bring the action against the board members.The judge said the nuns could amend the lawsuit if they wished, though the court reimposed the $500,000 security bond, ordering that the sisters must post the amount if they wished to continue the suit.Smith & Wesson was founded in 1852. It operates out of Tennessee and Nevada.The company makes and sells a wide array of firearms, including ArmaLite-type rifles, commonly referred to as “AR-15s,” which it has been selling since 2006.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/religious-sisters-lose-lawsuit-against-smith-wesson-alleging-facilitation-of-mass-shootings-catholic-several-congregations-of-religious-sisters-have-lost-their-lawsuit-against-the-scaled.jpg "Religious sisters lose lawsuit against Smith & Wesson alleging ‘facilitation’ of mass shootings #Catholic Several congregations of religious sisters have lost their lawsuit against the iconic American gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson, which claimed the company has “facilitated” mass shootings in the United States. A version of the lawsuit was first filed in December 2023 in Nevada district court by the Adrian Dominican Sisters, the Sisters of Bon Secours USA, the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, and the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, U.S.-Ontario Province.The filing alleged that Smith & Wesson is “intent on marketing and selling AR-15 rifles in whatever manner results in the most sales.” The suit claimed the company was pursuing such marketing even if it “is illegal and attracts a dangerous category of buyers [and] facilitates an unrelenting and growing stream of killings.”The sisters had filed the suit as shareholders in the company, claiming that Smith & Wesson’s marketing “causes the company to face an ever-increasing and substantial likelihood of liability that threatens its long-term existence.” The filing specifically targeted the company’s board of directors on behalf of the company and its shareholders in what is known as a “derivative lawsuit.”The sisters in the original lawsuit failed to meet a required $500,000 security bond deadline, leading to the suit’s dismissal. They subsequently refiled in federal court in February 2025. In a March 23 order dismissing the suit, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro said the nuns failed to establish standing to bring the action against the board members.The judge said the nuns could amend the lawsuit if they wished, though the court reimposed the $500,000 security bond, ordering that the sisters must post the amount if they wished to continue the suit.Smith & Wesson was founded in 1852. It operates out of Tennessee and Nevada.The company makes and sells a wide array of firearms, including ArmaLite-type rifles, commonly referred to as “AR-15s,” which it has been selling since 2006.")
Multiple congregations of sisters alleged that the gun manufacturer was partly complicit in “an unrelenting and growing stream of killings.”
![Georgia appeals court blocks abuse suit against Atlanta Archdiocese, cites statute of limitations #Catholic A dozen alleged abuse victims suffered a defeat at a Georgia appeals court this week when their lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Atlanta was dismissed on the grounds that the alleged abuse did not fall under an extended statute of limitations. The case turned on whether or not the archdiocese had covered up the alleged clergy sexual abuse, which if true could have “tolled” the time limit for filing abuse claims. “Tolling” occurs when a statute of limitations is extended beyond a normal window, allowing alleged victims to file abuse claims years after they normally would have been barred from doing so. In the Atlanta case, a dozen alleged victims had filed numerous suits against the Archdiocese of Atlanta and numerous churches, claiming that Fathers John Edwards and Jorge Cristancho had abused them over multiple decades from the 1960s to the early 2000s. A lower court had dismissed the cases. The Georgia Court of Appeals on March 9 upheld the dismissal, arguing that the statute of limitations for the filings had expired and that the archdiocese had not committed any malfeasance that could have extended the filing window. The plaintiffs “failed to point to any evidence that the [the archdioceseʼs] actions concealed the Plaintiffs’ claims and prevented or hindered them from filing their lawsuits,” the ruling held. The alleged victims failed to prove that they “ever requested information from the [archdiocese] about their knowledge and involvement in the abuse, or that the [archdiocese] refused” to provide it. The three-judge panel acknowledged that it was “certainly mindful of the grievous circumstances involving heinous conduct which led to the filing of these cases.”Edwards and Cristancho are both listed by the archdiocese as “credibly accused” of sexual abuse. Edwards died in 1997; Cristancho was laicized in 2003. Statutes of limitations have been a key component of disputes in the U.S. Church for years, with lawmakers in recent years advocating and often passing bills retroactively extending the window for filing abuse claims. In 2023 Maryland passed the state Child Victims Act, which abolished a 20-year statute of limitations for civil child abuse suits. The Maryland Supreme Court ruled in 2025 that the law did not violate the state constitution.Numerous states such as New York, North Carolina, New Jersey, Colorado and others have enacted similar laws allowing for abuse victims to seek restitution for alleged incidents that occurred in decades past. Such legal arrangements are not limited to the United States. In January the Spanish Bishops’ Conference and the national government agreed to a compensation plan for abuse victims that will allow victims to file for restitution even if the alleged abuse falls outside of the standard statute of limitations.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/georgia-appeals-court-blocks-abuse-suit-against-atlanta-archdiocese-cites-statute-of-limitations-catholic-a-dozen-alleged-abuse-victims-suffered-a-defeat-at-a-georgia-appeals-court-this-week-when-th.jpg "Georgia appeals court blocks abuse suit against Atlanta Archdiocese, cites statute of limitations #Catholic A dozen alleged abuse victims suffered a defeat at a Georgia appeals court this week when their lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Atlanta was dismissed on the grounds that the alleged abuse did not fall under an extended statute of limitations. The case turned on whether or not the archdiocese had covered up the alleged clergy sexual abuse, which if true could have “tolled” the time limit for filing abuse claims. “Tolling” occurs when a statute of limitations is extended beyond a normal window, allowing alleged victims to file abuse claims years after they normally would have been barred from doing so. In the Atlanta case, a dozen alleged victims had filed numerous suits against the Archdiocese of Atlanta and numerous churches, claiming that Fathers John Edwards and Jorge Cristancho had abused them over multiple decades from the 1960s to the early 2000s. A lower court had dismissed the cases. The Georgia Court of Appeals on March 9 upheld the dismissal, arguing that the statute of limitations for the filings had expired and that the archdiocese had not committed any malfeasance that could have extended the filing window. The plaintiffs “failed to point to any evidence that the [the archdioceseʼs] actions concealed the Plaintiffs’ claims and prevented or hindered them from filing their lawsuits,” the ruling held. The alleged victims failed to prove that they “ever requested information from the [archdiocese] about their knowledge and involvement in the abuse, or that the [archdiocese] refused” to provide it. The three-judge panel acknowledged that it was “certainly mindful of the grievous circumstances involving heinous conduct which led to the filing of these cases.”Edwards and Cristancho are both listed by the archdiocese as “credibly accused” of sexual abuse. Edwards died in 1997; Cristancho was laicized in 2003. Statutes of limitations have been a key component of disputes in the U.S. Church for years, with lawmakers in recent years advocating and often passing bills retroactively extending the window for filing abuse claims. In 2023 Maryland passed the state Child Victims Act, which abolished a 20-year statute of limitations for civil child abuse suits. The Maryland Supreme Court ruled in 2025 that the law did not violate the state constitution.Numerous states such as New York, North Carolina, New Jersey, Colorado and others have enacted similar laws allowing for abuse victims to seek restitution for alleged incidents that occurred in decades past. Such legal arrangements are not limited to the United States. In January the Spanish Bishops’ Conference and the national government agreed to a compensation plan for abuse victims that will allow victims to file for restitution even if the alleged abuse falls outside of the standard statute of limitations.")
The statute of limitations could not be extended due to a lack of evidence of fraud by the archdiocese, the court said.
