Party – United Yam

Massachusetts lawmakers pass bill removing all restrictions from abortion throughout pregnancy #Catholic The Massachusetts government this week moved to strip all restrictions from abortion and allow the procedure up until birth so long as a doctor approves of it.The state Senate passed Bill H.5595 on July 31, a little over a week after the state House passed the same measure. The bill now awaits Democratic Gov. Maura Healey’s signature. The legislation removes all of the state’s current restrictions on abortion after 24 weeks, instead dictating that a late-term abortion may be done based upon “the professional judgment of the physician” performing it. Current state law, which H.5595 would change, only allows late-term abortions if they are necessary to preserve the life or “physical or mental health” of the mother, or if the baby has been diagnosed with a fatal condition. Abortions are also allowed to be performed in the state if a baby would require “extraordinary medical interventions” to survive after birth. If signed into law, the bill would make Massachusetts the 11th state to impose no limits whatsoever on abortion. Healey, who has served as the state’s governor since 2023, is an outspoken supporter of abortion. The passage of the bill drew rebuke from SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser, who said in a July 31 statement that the state’s already-generous abortion policy “isn’t enough for Democrats whose party holds the position of no limits on abortion whatsoever.”“These extreme laws that only 10% of Americans support are enabled by the ‘states-only’ philosophy on abortion,” she argued. “The GOP must abandon the failed ‘leave it to the states’ position and move the country toward a national protection for unborn children across this nation,” she said. Ahead of the July 31 vote, the state’s Catholic bishops had also criticized the measure. “The proposed elimination of any legal restraint on late-term abortion is, in our judgement, a radical measure which is gravely immoral,” the bishops’ July 29 statement read. The bishops urged Catholics “to pray for a renewal of reverence for all human life.”

Catholic moral theologians concerned by claims U.S., Iran struck civilian infrastructure #Catholic Iran and the United States have faced accusations of strikes on civilian infrastructure and have explicitly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure going forward, prompting concerns from Catholic moral theologians.“I have deep concerns that the war will widen and the greatest impact will be on the civilian populations of Middle East nations,” Joseph Capizzi, director of Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute for Church Life, told EWTN News.Charles Camosy, a moral theologian at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News that threats to civilian infrastructure are “absolutely not” consistent with moral conduct during war or Catholic just war doctrine.“The dignity of the human person — including a commitment to Christʼs command to love oneʼs enemies — must be paramount,” he said. “Not winning a war. Not gaining political advantage. … Catholics are not consequentialists.”A Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire that began April 8 ended on July 8. Last week, Iranian state media alleged that the U.S. struck a water desalination plant in the Hormozgan Province that supplies water to 30 villages, impacting thousands of people. U.S. officials confirmed military strikes in the province but have not confirmed a strike on the plant.The U.S. has confirmed strikes in southern Iran that destroyed port infrastructure. Pro-regime media in Iran in Iran reported commercial and fishing piers were among the targets, citing the Iranian Red Crescent Society. That report also alleged strikes on a wheat storage facility, roads, and bridges.U.S. Central Command denied strikes on the wheat facility but has not addressed every specific allegation. U.S. military officials have repeatedly said they only target Iran’s military capabilities.When reached for comment about the other specific allegations, a spokesperson for U.S. Central Command told EWTN News "we refer you to our published releases" and "we have nothing further to add."In response to these alleged attacks, Iran has repeatedly struck power plants and water facilities throughout Kuwait and Bahrain. Officials in Kuwait, which relies on water desalination plants for 90% of its drinking water, are urging people to conserve energy and water. Bahrain’s supply of drinking water is 100% reliant on water desalination plants.On July 22, Trump escalated threats to civilian infrastructure, saying he would strike “one bridge or power plant” for every ship Iran strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in response that Iran’s doctrine is “an eye for an eye” and “those who contribute” to aggression “will also be considered as legitimate targets.”When a reporter asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio on July 23 whether he would rule out strikes on civilian infrastructure, he did not say. Rather, he pointed to Araghchi’s statement and said: “The president’s policy is a head for an eye — I mean, honestly, that’s what it’s going to be.”Just conduct in warThree Catholic moral theologians who provided comments to EWTN News — Capizzi; Camosy; and Taylor Patrick O’Neill, a theology professor at Thomas Aquinas College — all said it is not moral to intentionally target civilian populations in war.“The prohibition against targeting civilian infrastructure is absolute in moral and international law,” Capizzi said. “States are prohibited from targeting civilian infrastructure.”He urged caution about purported justifications for striking “dual use” infrastructure targets that may be used for both military and civilian purposes. He said “no party is allowed merely to claim targets are ‘dual use.’”“When there is doubt as to the dual or single use of a target, international [law] stipulates the presumption begins with single use, and therefore the target is inadmissible to be targeted, unless proven to the contrary,” Capizzi said.Camosy also said this is a moral absolute and there is no circumstance in which it is moral to target civilians. He said that “even in war, even when the stakes are highest,” Catholics do not adhere to the consequentialist moral philosophy of the ends justifying the means.The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains a person can never engage in intrinsically evil acts — such as targeting innocent people for harm — regardless of the reason because “the end does not justify the means.” Acts also require “good intention,” so while “good intention” is not sufficient and does not justify evil acts, bad intention — such as intending to harm innocent people — always “makes an act evil,” it explains.Camosy said: “Protection against the targeting of civilians is an absolute value in war. Catholics are called to be prepared to lose a war rather than violate exceptionless moral norms or commit intrinsically evil acts in this area.”Sometimes an act, in war or elsewhere, can also have several effects. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the “Summa Theologica” that it can be proper to engage in an act that is morally neutral in and of itself but has both good and bad consequences, so long as only the good consequence is the one that is intended. This is the principle of “double effect.”The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that proportionality is required in war. The evil inflicted through war cannot be more severe than the evil one is aiming to defeat.“We need to ask if civilian harm is the intention and/or the mechanism of action in the military strike or [if] it is a merely foreseen side effect,” Camosy explained.“If the rationale for hitting the electric grid or desalination plant is that widespread darkness, spoiled food, rampant disease, failed hospitals, and more will generate political pressure on the Iranian regime, then the suffering of peaceful civilians becomes the causal pathway to the advantage sought,” he said. “This then becomes the object of the act itself and not a merely foreseen side effect.”Alternatively, Camosy added: “Attacking a generator dedicated to a command bunker, however, would likely not suffer the same kind of critique, however, even if one foresaw but did not intend that it would also have bad impacts on civilians.”Similarly, O’Neill said the moral analysis of striking a facility that results in civilian harm is about intention and proportionality. It is never moral to intend the suffering of innocents or target them.“You cannot intend or rely upon civilian death or fear to aid in your military effort,” O’Neill said. “In other words, the foreseen evil cannot itself be the means by which you attempt to achieve some good.”A specific bridge that is “dual use,” such as one used by civilians but also used “to transport tanks from factory to battlefield,” he said could possibly be justified under double effect. The moral analysis would have to consider intention and proportionality and “you must also try to minimize the negative.”“Will blowing up the bridge make civilian life uncomfortable or will it result in the loss of life, access to basic necessities, etc.? All of these things have to be taken into account just for double effect,” O’Neill said.“Under double effect, itʼs theoretically possible to strike a dual-use target,” he added. “But any strike on merely civilian infrastructure (or even [a target] with indirect ties to the war effort) would be intrinsically unjust.”“At that point, the attack would have more in common with an act of terrorism,” O’Neill said.‘Blessed are the peacemakers’St. Augustine, in a letter to the Roman general Boniface, emphasized that the intention of war must be to ultimately establish a just peace — not to simply to unleash destruction: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace.”The fifth-century bishop and theologian cited the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”O’Neill explained that in the context of a just war, “the Christian always seeks war for the sake of peace and that of both his own people and the people of the enemy nation.”“To consider the civilians of an enemy nation as the enemy is already to lose the necessary distinction of combatant from innocent,” he said.Camosy noted that Trump, in his 2024 campaign, promised “to be deeply skeptical of war” and encouraged him to move back in that direction.“Trump himself was aggressively pursuing the Nobel Peace Prize on this basis,” he said. “It would be much better to go back to this way of thinking about war. Think about becoming a peacemaker again.”Trump told Axios on July 23 that he is “considering a massive attack, bigger than ever before” but did not say whether this includes the civilian infrastructure he has threatened. He said that Iranians want to negotiate, but “they havenʼt received enough pain yet.”

unitedyam July 24, 2026July 25, 2026

A battle over the Strait of Hormuz rekindled the war in the Middle East after a ceasefire ended. Intent to harm civilians, including attacks on civilian infrastructure, is immoral, theologians said.

France becomes first European country to ban social media for minors under 15 #Catholic The French Parliament on July 21 definitively passed a law banning children under the age of 15 from accessing social media, making France the first country in Europe to enshrine such a restriction in its national legislation. The measure is the culmination of a campaign led by President Emmanuel Macron since 2017 in which he has denounced anonymity on social media as a gateway to online abuse.The law, presented as a child protection measure against all the risks associated with the use of social media, from addiction to bullying and abuse, has also reignited concerns about increased government oversight of internet users, as the age verification requirements — intended to target minors — entail identity checks for everyone.“France is leading the way in Europe by becoming the first country to establish a ‘digital age of majority’ to better protect our children online,” said Anne Le Hénanff, minister delegate for digital sovereignty, following the vote.The Senate adopted the compromise bill by a vote of 243 to 2, and the National Assembly followed suit a few hours later, paving the way for Macron to sign the measure into law, subject to review by the Constitutional Council.The bill’s central provision bars minors under 15 from accessing “an online social network service.” Leading platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat are expected to fall under the ban, though lawmakers left the precise scope undefined. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedias, along with open-source software and educational platforms, are explicitly exempted. Responsibility for verifying users’ ages falls to the platforms themselves, which must offer at least two different verification methods.Enforcement will unfold in two different stages. New accounts will be subject to age checks starting Sept. 1, while existing accounts belonging to minors under 15 will have until Jan. 1, 2027, before they are suspended.The law also extends France’s existing smartphone ban in middle schools to high schools starting in the 2026 school year.France’s move makes it the first EU member state to enact a blanket social-network age floor, though it follows Australia, which imposed a minimum age of 16 in December 2025. Officials say a coalition of roughly 15 European countries is interested in adopting a similar standard. Le Hénanff confirmed Greece is ready to transpose the French model, with Spain expected to follow in the fall. The European Commission is separately developing its own EU-wide age-verification tool, expected to be available to member states by the end of the year.Under the model France has adopted — built around the “double anonymity” principle found in the EU’s Digital Services Act, the bloc’s main online-platform law — a trusted third party would verify a user’s age from an ID document or bank card and issue an anonymous token confirming only whether the user is over or under 15, without revealing the user’s identity or which platform requested the check. Le Hénanff has described this as a way of avoiding data collection by the platforms themselves. Critics, however, argue the system’s implementation is far less safe than officials suggest.The underlying concern is that this child-protection measure could evolve into a broader mechanism for verifying and tracking the identity of internet users generally. Opponents of the law claim that the mechanics of age verification remain largely undefined barely a month before the law takes effect.They also point to recent history of large-scale personal data breaches across government agencies as a reason for caution about centralizing age- or identity-verification data.La Quadrature du Net, France’s leading digital-rights advocacy group, and the Conseil national du numérique, an official government advisory body, both warned that the law amounted to what they termed “generalized surveillance disguised as child protection.”The European Center for Law and Justice, along the same lines, argues that France and the European Commission are each independently pushing to generalize identity checks across the EU under the banner of online safety policy.Several digital-rights groups are reportedly preparing separate challenges before France’s Council of State and the EU’s Court of Justice, arguing the law violates free-expression and proportionality principles.For now, all eyes are on Australia, the only country with a comparable ban already in force. An early analysis of survey data from roughly 400 young social media users, published in The BMJ on June 24, found little evidence that Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Act had produced any substantial early drop in social media use among adolescents in its first three months — although researchers cautioned that legislative effects can take time to appear and called for longer-term evaluation.A companion analysis reported that roughly 85% of Australians aged 12 to 15 were still using restricted platforms, the most common workarounds being fake accounts and private browsers.

Netanyahu claims unnamed Lebanese Christian villages sought annexation #Catholic Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said unidentified Lebanese Christian villages asked Israel to annex them.“Christian villages in Lebanon, some of them have actually asked to be annexed to Israel, because we protect them against the Hezbollah, Hezbollah fanatics who want to kill them, and we do the same things with Christians everywhere,” Netanyahu said during an appearance on Fox News’ show “The Sunday Briefing” on July 5.“It’s ridiculous that [Netanyahu] would say such a thing,” said Alberto Fernández, a former U.S. ambassador and contributor to EWTN News on Middle East topics. “It’s something that only makes sense within the context of him trying to look good to his own Israeli audience. Within the context of Lebanon, it’s ridiculous.”Fernández noted Netanyahu’s claims have been repeatedly denied in the Arab and Lebanese press. Lebanese officials have rejected Netanyahu’s claims, including senior members of the Kataeb party, and Hanna al-Amil, the mayor of Rmeich, a Christian village in southern Lebanon, according to several Arab news outlets.“We canʼt forget that itʼs Hezbollah that keeps plunging Lebanon into war with Israel,” he said. “And one thing that Christian villagers do not want is, they may not want to be part of Israel.”They donʼt want to be at war with Israel either, Fernández said.“They want peace. They want to be left alone. They want to be able to live their lives and their villages and farm their land and be left alone,” he said.