pregnancy – United Yam

How federal and state abortion policies shifted in 2025 #Catholic

Fifty-one senators asked the FDA to rescind its approval of a generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone on Oct. 9, 2025. | Credit: Yta23/Shutterstock

Dec 30, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Abortion policy at the federal and state levels has continued to shift in the United States three and a half years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.At the federal level, President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans made strides to pull back funding for organizations that advocate for abortion access and to reinstate conscience protections. Yet the administration also approved a generic abortion pill and failed to further regulate chemical abortion drugs.Some states adopted new restrictions on abortion, but others expanded policies to increase abortion access. In most states, changes to abortion policy were minimal, as many states already set their post-Dobbs abortion policies in the previous years.Federal: Trump administration shiftsAbortion policy at the federal level shifted shortly after Trump took office, with the administration reinstating many policies from Trump’s first term that had been abandoned for four years under President Joe Biden’s administration.Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy during his first week in office, which requires foreign organizations to certify they will not perform, promote, or actively advocate for abortion to receive U.S. government funding. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded Biden-era guidelines that had required emergency rooms to perform abortions when a pregnant woman had a life-threatening emergency (like severe bleeding, ectopic pregnancy, or risk of organ failure) to stabilize her condition — even in states where abortion is otherwise banned.Other changes within federal departments and agencies included rescinding a Department of Defense policy that provided paid leave and travel expenses for abortion and a proposed rule change to end abortion at Veterans Affairs facilities.The Department of Health and Human Services has also withheld Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. Trump also signed a government spending bill that withheld Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood. Federal tax money was not spent directly on abortion before those changes, but abortion providers did receive funds for other purposes.Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics shut down in 2025 amid funding cuts.Those closures came as the administration advanced changes affecting abortion medication. Although the administration announced it would review the abortion pill, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new generic version of the drug mifepristone. Bloomberg Law reported the review has been delayed, although officials deny it.The state-level results in 2025 have also been mixed, with a few states adding pro-life laws and others expanding access to abortion.In Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal, lawmakers passed a bill that allows families to sue companies that manufacture or distribute chemical abortion pills. This comes as state laws related to chemical abortions often conflict, with states like New York enforcing “shield laws” that order courts to not cooperate with out-of-state lawsuits or criminal charges against abortionists within their states.Lawmakers in Wyoming passed a law overriding a veto from the governor that requires women to receive an ultrasound before they can obtain an abortion. However, the law was blocked by a court and is not in effect.There were two pro-life legal wins for states in 2025 as well.In November, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s near-total abortion ban after it was temporarily blocked by a lower court. Under the law, unborn life is protected at every stage in pregnancy in most cases, but it remains legal in the first six weeks in cases of rape and incest and for the duration of pregnancy when the mother is at risk of death or serious physical harm.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that a South Carolina policy to withhold Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood could stay in place. This ruling also opened the door for other states to adopt similar policies moving forward.In at least 10 states, lawmakers enacted bills to provide more funding for pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.Alternatively, a handful of states in 2025 expanded their shield laws, which prevent courts from complying with out-of-state criminal or civil cases against abortionists. This includes new laws in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. Several states expanded these laws by allowing pharmacies to provide chemical abortion pills without listing the name of the doctor who prescribed them to prevent out-of-state legal action.About a dozen states expanded funding for abortion providers, such as California directing 0 million to Planned Parenthood to counteract federal defunding efforts. Maryland established a new program called the Public Health Abortion Grant Program, which offers abortion coverage through Affordable Care Act funds.New laws in Colorado and Washington require emergency rooms to provide abortions when the procedure is deemed “necessary.” A law adopted in Illinois requires public college campuses to provide the abortion pill at their pharmacies.Connecticut removed its parental notification policy regarding abortion, which means that minors are allowed to obtain abortions without the consent of their parents.As of December, 13 states prohibit most abortions, four states ban abortions after six weeks’ gestation, two have bans after 12 weeks, and one has a ban after 18 weeks. The other 30 states and the District of Columbia permit abortion up to the 22nd week or later. Nine of those states allow elective abortion through nine months until the moment of birth.

unitedyam December 30, 2025

Fifty-one senators asked the FDA to rescind its approval of a generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone on Oct. 9, 2025. | Credit: Yta23/Shutterstock

Dec 30, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Abortion policy at the federal and state levels has continued to shift in the United States three and a half years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

At the federal level, President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans made strides to pull back funding for organizations that advocate for abortion access and to reinstate conscience protections. Yet the administration also approved a generic abortion pill and failed to further regulate chemical abortion drugs.

Some states adopted new restrictions on abortion, but others expanded policies to increase abortion access. In most states, changes to abortion policy were minimal, as many states already set their post-Dobbs abortion policies in the previous years.

Federal: Trump administration shifts

Abortion policy at the federal level shifted shortly after Trump took office, with the administration reinstating many policies from Trump’s first term that had been abandoned for four years under President Joe Biden’s administration.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy during his first week in office, which requires foreign organizations to certify they will not perform, promote, or actively advocate for abortion to receive U.S. government funding. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded Biden-era guidelines that had required emergency rooms to perform abortions when a pregnant woman had a life-threatening emergency (like severe bleeding, ectopic pregnancy, or risk of organ failure) to stabilize her condition — even in states where abortion is otherwise banned.

Other changes within federal departments and agencies included rescinding a Department of Defense policy that provided paid leave and travel expenses for abortion and a proposed rule change to end abortion at Veterans Affairs facilities.

The Department of Health and Human Services has also withheld Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. Trump also signed a government spending bill that withheld Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood. Federal tax money was not spent directly on abortion before those changes, but abortion providers did receive funds for other purposes.

Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics shut down in 2025 amid funding cuts.

Those closures came as the administration advanced changes affecting abortion medication. Although the administration announced it would review the abortion pill, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new generic version of the drug mifepristone. Bloomberg Law reported the review has been delayed, although officials deny it.

The state-level results in 2025 have also been mixed, with a few states adding pro-life laws and others expanding access to abortion.

In Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal, lawmakers passed a bill that allows families to sue companies that manufacture or distribute chemical abortion pills. This comes as state laws related to chemical abortions often conflict, with states like New York enforcing “shield laws” that order courts to not cooperate with out-of-state lawsuits or criminal charges against abortionists within their states.

Lawmakers in Wyoming passed a law overriding a veto from the governor that requires women to receive an ultrasound before they can obtain an abortion. However, the law was blocked by a court and is not in effect.

There were two pro-life legal wins for states in 2025 as well.

In November, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s near-total abortion ban after it was temporarily blocked by a lower court. Under the law, unborn life is protected at every stage in pregnancy in most cases, but it remains legal in the first six weeks in cases of rape and incest and for the duration of pregnancy when the mother is at risk of death or serious physical harm.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that a South Carolina policy to withhold Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood could stay in place. This ruling also opened the door for other states to adopt similar policies moving forward.

In at least 10 states, lawmakers enacted bills to provide more funding for pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.

Alternatively, a handful of states in 2025 expanded their shield laws, which prevent courts from complying with out-of-state criminal or civil cases against abortionists. This includes new laws in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. Several states expanded these laws by allowing pharmacies to provide chemical abortion pills without listing the name of the doctor who prescribed them to prevent out-of-state legal action.

About a dozen states expanded funding for abortion providers, such as California directing $140 million to Planned Parenthood to counteract federal defunding efforts. Maryland established a new program called the Public Health Abortion Grant Program, which offers abortion coverage through Affordable Care Act funds.

New laws in Colorado and Washington require emergency rooms to provide abortions when the procedure is deemed “necessary.” A law adopted in Illinois requires public college campuses to provide the abortion pill at their pharmacies.

Connecticut removed its parental notification policy regarding abortion, which means that minors are allowed to obtain abortions without the consent of their parents.

As of December, 13 states prohibit most abortions, four states ban abortions after six weeks’ gestation, two have bans after 12 weeks, and one has a ban after 18 weeks. The other 30 states and the District of Columbia permit abortion up to the 22nd week or later. Nine of those states allow elective abortion through nine months until the moment of birth.

CNA explains: What is natural family planning? #Catholic

Credit: Chinnapong/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 20, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).
In an era when artificial contraception often dominates public discussions on family planning, the Catholic Church continues to champion natural family planning (NFP). Far from merely another birth control technique, NFP invites couples to cooperate with God’s plan for married love, which “is a ‘great mystery,’ a sign of the love between Christ and his Church (Eph 5:32),” according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). NFP — also known as a fertility awareness-based method (FABM) — relies on observing and measuring a woman’s natural signs of fertility, such as basal body temperature, cervical mucus, and hormone levels, in order to identify fertile and infertile phases of her menstrual cycle. Unlike chemical or mechanical contraceptives, which suppress or block fertility, NFP respects the woman’s body and its natural rhythms and allows spouses to achieve or postpone pregnancy, after mutual discernment, through informed abstinence during fertile windows. Most importantly, NFP honors the sacredness of the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act, which the Church teaches must always be a total gift of self between the spouses and open to the gift of new human life. “Suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity,” according to the USCCB. “The total giving of oneself, body and soul, to one’s beloved is no time to say: ‘I give you everything I am — except…’ The Church’s teaching is not only about observing a rule but about preserving that total, mutual gift of two persons in its integrity.”In his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, St. Paul VI affirmed that couples may space births for serious reasons, using natural methods that honor the “inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings” of the marital act. The USCCB explains that “NFP is not a contraceptive, it does nothing to suppress or block conception.”“On the surface, there may seem to be little difference (between NFP and contraception),” according to the bishops. “But the end result is not the only thing that matters, and the way we get to that result may make an enormous moral difference. Some ways respect God’s gifts to us while others do not.”The bishops continue: “When couples use contraception, either physical or chemical, they suppress their fertility, asserting that they alone have ultimate control over this power to create a new human life. With NFP, spouses respect God’s design for life and love. They may choose to refrain from sexual union during the woman’s fertile time, doing nothing to destroy the love-giving or life-giving meaning that is present. This is the difference between choosing to falsify the full marital language of the body and choosing at certain times not to speak that language.”The practice of NFP traces its modern roots to the mid-20th century, evolving from early, relatively unreliable calendar-based methods in the 1930s to the smartphone app-based approaches of today. Common methods include the Billings Ovulation Method, which tracks cervical mucus changes, and sympto-thermal methods, which combine the charting of mucus observations, temperature shifts, and cervical changes. The Marquette Model uses “several different biomarker devices to detect urinary biomarkers (estrogen, LH, and progesterone),” according to its website.Per USCCB data, NFP, with perfect use, yields 88% to 100% effectiveness in avoiding pregnancy, with imperfect use at 70% to 98%. For couples trying to achieve pregnancy, it typically occurs in about one year for approximately 85% of couples not using NFP, and within three to six months for those who are. Pope Francis praised the Billings method in 2023 as “a valuable tool” for “responsible management of procreative choices,” urging a “new revolution in our way of thinking” to value the body’s “great book of nature.” He noted its simplicity amid a “contraceptive culture,” promoting tenderness between the spouses and an authentic freedom.Beyond efficacy at planning, preventing, or postponing pregnancy in a morally licit way, couples who use NFP acknowledge that it can be difficult but say it builds intimacy and improves communication as well as self-mastery, transforming what can be otherwise difficult times of periodic abstinence into opportunities for deeper intimacy.Jessica Vanderhyde, a nurse and mother of seven who is using the Marquette method because she and her husband do not feel ready to welcome another child, told CNA that while NFP can be frustrating because of the periods of abstinence it requires, it also “leads to a lot more closeness in the marriage.”“If it’s been a long period of abstinence, we try to come up with other ways to be close. I need to make sure I’m more affectionate with him because sexual intimacy is one of the primary ways he feels I love him. If that can’t happen, I have to be conscious of that,” she said.“We have become good at taking each other’s feelings and needs into consideration. I work at providing what he needs as much as I can.”Vanderhyde also noted how charting symptoms can bring the couple closer as it allows the husband to really appreciate his wife’s body as well as her needs.“The husband should be involved in the tracking of it,” she continued, “so that he fully participates in the process and doesn’t feel like he’s at the whims of his wife’s moods.”She said it can also reveal underlying health issues like infertility or hormonal imbalances, which artificial forms of birth control can mask.

unitedyam December 20, 2025

Credit: Chinnapong/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 20, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

In an era when artificial contraception often dominates public discussions on family planning, the Catholic Church continues to champion natural family planning (NFP).

Far from merely another birth control technique, NFP invites couples to cooperate with God’s plan for married love, which “is a ‘great mystery,’ a sign of the love between Christ and his Church (Eph 5:32),” according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

NFP — also known as a fertility awareness-based method (FABM) — relies on observing and measuring a woman’s natural signs of fertility, such as basal body temperature, cervical mucus, and hormone levels, in order to identify fertile and infertile phases of her menstrual cycle.

Unlike chemical or mechanical contraceptives, which suppress or block fertility, NFP respects the woman’s body and its natural rhythms and allows spouses to achieve or postpone pregnancy, after mutual discernment, through informed abstinence during fertile windows.

Most importantly, NFP honors the sacredness of the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act, which the Church teaches must always be a total gift of self between the spouses and open to the gift of new human life.

“Suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity,” according to the USCCB. “The total giving of oneself, body and soul, to one’s beloved is no time to say: ‘I give you everything I am — except…’ The Church’s teaching is not only about observing a rule but about preserving that total, mutual gift of two persons in its integrity.”

In his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, St. Paul VI affirmed that couples may space births for serious reasons, using natural methods that honor the “inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings” of the marital act.

The USCCB explains that “NFP is not a contraceptive, it does nothing to suppress or block conception.”

“On the surface, there may seem to be little difference (between NFP and contraception),” according to the bishops. “But the end result is not the only thing that matters, and the way we get to that result may make an enormous moral difference. Some ways respect God’s gifts to us while others do not.”

The bishops continue: “When couples use contraception, either physical or chemical, they suppress their fertility, asserting that they alone have ultimate control over this power to create a new human life. With NFP, spouses respect God’s design for life and love. They may choose to refrain from sexual union during the woman’s fertile time, doing nothing to destroy the love-giving or life-giving meaning that is present. This is the difference between choosing to falsify the full marital language of the body and choosing at certain times not to speak that language.”

The practice of NFP traces its modern roots to the mid-20th century, evolving from early, relatively unreliable calendar-based methods in the 1930s to the smartphone app-based approaches of today.

Common methods include the Billings Ovulation Method, which tracks cervical mucus changes, and sympto-thermal methods, which combine the charting of mucus observations, temperature shifts, and cervical changes. The Marquette Model uses “several different biomarker devices to detect urinary biomarkers (estrogen, LH, and progesterone),” according to its website.

Per USCCB data, NFP, with perfect use, yields 88% to 100% effectiveness in avoiding pregnancy, with imperfect use at 70% to 98%. For couples trying to achieve pregnancy, it typically occurs in about one year for approximately 85% of couples not using NFP, and within three to six months for those who are.

Pope Francis praised the Billings method in 2023 as “a valuable tool” for “responsible management of procreative choices,” urging a “new revolution in our way of thinking” to value the body’s “great book of nature.” He noted its simplicity amid a “contraceptive culture,” promoting tenderness between the spouses and an authentic freedom.

Beyond efficacy at planning, preventing, or postponing pregnancy in a morally licit way, couples who use NFP acknowledge that it can be difficult but say it builds intimacy and improves communication as well as self-mastery, transforming what can be otherwise difficult times of periodic abstinence into opportunities for deeper intimacy.

Jessica Vanderhyde, a nurse and mother of seven who is using the Marquette method because she and her husband do not feel ready to welcome another child, told CNA that while NFP can be frustrating because of the periods of abstinence it requires, it also “leads to a lot more closeness in the marriage.”

“If it’s been a long period of abstinence, we try to come up with other ways to be close. I need to make sure I’m more affectionate with him because sexual intimacy is one of the primary ways he feels I love him. If that can’t happen, I have to be conscious of that,” she said.

“We have become good at taking each other’s feelings and needs into consideration. I work at providing what he needs as much as I can.”

Vanderhyde also noted how charting symptoms can bring the couple closer as it allows the husband to really appreciate his wife’s body as well as her needs.

“The husband should be involved in the tracking of it,” she continued, “so that he fully participates in the process and doesn’t feel like he’s at the whims of his wife’s moods.”

She said it can also reveal underlying health issues like infertility or hormonal imbalances, which artificial forms of birth control can mask.

Catholic leaders back pregnancy centers, doctors in federal suit over abortion referrals #Catholic

Illinois state capitol in Springfield. / Credit: Paul Brady Photography/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 17, 2025 / 12:34 pm (CNA).
Catholic leaders in Illinois are backing a coalition of pro-life pregnancy centers and doctors suing the state government over a law that requires them to refer women to abortion providers even if they object to the procedure on religious grounds. The lawsuit, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto, challenges a 2016 Illinois rule that requires health care providers who refuse to perform abortions to nevertheless tout the “benefits” of the procedure and refer women to abortion clinics. In April the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois partly blocked the law, ruling that it violates freedom of speech in forcing providers to relay the alleged benefits of abortion. The court, however, held that the abortion referral requirement is legal. The case is currently at appeal from both sides in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Dec. 16, the Catholic Conference of Illinois and the Illinois Catholic Health Association joined several Orthodox advocates in an amicus brief urging the court to offer the “highest level of protection” to the religious speech of the pro-life plaintiffs. “Providing the highest level of First Amendment protection to religious institutions gives them the predictability they need to pursue their religious missions,” the filing said, arguing that forcing health care providers to refer abortions “could lead people to believe that such conduct is morally acceptable.”First Amendment jurisprudence, the filing argues, leaves “no doubt that the abortion-referral requirement burdens core religious speech without proper justification.”Chicago archbishop Cardinal Blase Cupich said in a press statement that “every life deserves protection and care, no matter how fragile or dependent.” “The Church in Illinois is standing up for that eternal truth against Illinois’ effort to deny it,” the prelate said. Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki similarly argued that Catholics “must be free to live according to the 2,000-year-old teachings of our faith without government intrusion.” “Illinois’ mandate threatens that freedom by forcing Catholic ministries and health care professionals to promote a practice we believe is gravely wrong,” he said. “We pray the court will put a swift stop to it.”The amicus brief was filed by the religious liberty law group Becket. Lawyers for the pro-life plaintiffs have argued that the abortion referral requirement violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which was brought by the same organization at the head of the Illinois dispute. The Supreme Court held in that decision that a similar California rule appeared to violate the First Amendment by “requiring [pro-life providers] to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions.”

unitedyam December 17, 2025

Illinois state capitol in Springfield. / Credit: Paul Brady Photography/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 17, 2025 / 12:34 pm (CNA).

Catholic leaders in Illinois are backing a coalition of pro-life pregnancy centers and doctors suing the state government over a law that requires them to refer women to abortion providers even if they object to the procedure on religious grounds.

The lawsuit, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto, challenges a 2016 Illinois rule that requires health care providers who refuse to perform abortions to nevertheless tout the “benefits” of the procedure and refer women to abortion clinics.

In April the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois partly blocked the law, ruling that it violates freedom of speech in forcing providers to relay the alleged benefits of abortion. The court, however, held that the abortion referral requirement is legal.

The case is currently at appeal from both sides in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Dec. 16, the Catholic Conference of Illinois and the Illinois Catholic Health Association joined several Orthodox advocates in an amicus brief urging the court to offer the “highest level of protection” to the religious speech of the pro-life plaintiffs.

“Providing the highest level of First Amendment protection to religious institutions gives them the predictability they need to pursue their religious missions,” the filing said, arguing that forcing health care providers to refer abortions “could lead people to believe that such conduct is morally acceptable.”

First Amendment jurisprudence, the filing argues, leaves “no doubt that the abortion-referral requirement burdens core religious speech without proper justification.”

Chicago archbishop Cardinal Blase Cupich said in a press statement that “every life deserves protection and care, no matter how fragile or dependent.”

“The Church in Illinois is standing up for that eternal truth against Illinois’ effort to deny it,” the prelate said.

Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki similarly argued that Catholics “must be free to live according to the 2,000-year-old teachings of our faith without government intrusion.”

“Illinois’ mandate threatens that freedom by forcing Catholic ministries and health care professionals to promote a practice we believe is gravely wrong,” he said. “We pray the court will put a swift stop to it.”

The amicus brief was filed by the religious liberty law group Becket.

Lawyers for the pro-life plaintiffs have argued that the abortion referral requirement violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which was brought by the same organization at the head of the Illinois dispute.

The Supreme Court held in that decision that a similar California rule appeared to violate the First Amendment by “requiring [pro-life providers] to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions.”

At abortion facilities across the nation, carolers bring tidings of life #Catholic

Carolers outside Planned Parenthood in Aurora, Illinois, on Dec. 13, 2025. / Credit: John Jansen/Courtesy of the Pro-Life Action League

CNA Staff, Dec 17, 2025 / 08:00 am (CNA).
When a pregnant woman at an abortion facility heard distant carolers singing “Silent Night,” she got up and left.The mother, back in 2003, decided to keep her baby after a pro-life group’s first Christmas caroling event outside a Chicago abortion clinic struck her heart.“The memories of Christmases past stirred in her and she decided she couldn’t go through with the abortion and kept her child,” said Matthew Yonke, a spokesman for the Pro-Life Action League, the group that coordinates these events. She would be the first of many women who chose life after hearing carols. Now, the tradition extends across the nation — and babies continue to be saved. As Christmas Day approaches, nearly 100 caroling groups across the U.S. are gathering at various abortion facilities to sing. Through the nationwide “Peace in the Womb” caroling effort, the group hopes “to bring the Christmas message of peace and joy to the darkness of abortion clinics,” according to a press release shared with CNA. It’s a “simple call for an end to the violence of abortion,” according to Yonke.“At the time of Christmas, the whole world tries to put aside differences and pursue peace, so we’re asking folks to make a connection to the womb, which should be a place of peace, but which is turned into a place of violent unrest in every abortion,” Yonke continued.A caroler holds artwork of Mary, who is pregnant with Jesus, at a caroling event outside a Cedar Rivers abortion facility in Renton, Washington, on Dec. 14, 2025. Credit: Photo courtesy of Richard BraySaving lives The carolers had already packed up after singing their final song outside an abortion site when a couple approached the remaining pro-lifers in Downers Grove, Illinois, on Dec. 13. The couple, Yonke said, “told the sidewalk counselors still there that they had decided to keep their baby after hearing our carols.” “Stories like this go all the way back to the first year,” Yonke said. “We’re thrilled when God can use these beloved songs that touch the hearts of even non-Christians to do his work in the world.”This was one of two rescue stories so far this December that the league heard about, according to Yonke. “Please don’t kill your baby at Christmas,” one caroler called out to a young woman in the back seat of a car that was driving into an abortion clinic.Carolers outside of Planned Parenthood in Madison, Wisconsin, on Dec. 13, 2025. Credit: Cecile Gregory/Courtesy of the Pro-Life Action LeagueIt was a Saturday in Milwaukee, and a group of carolers had gathered to sing outside the abortion clinic on St. Paul Avenue. The car drove into the abortion center parking lot. But minutes later, the car turned around with the young woman still in the back seat — she never even entered the abortion clinic. Salvation came through an unplanned pregnancyPro-Life Action League invites local pro-lifers to work with them to organize their own caroling groups. On Sunday, Dec. 14, one such caroling group sang outside an abortion facility in Renton, Washington. “This was a fantastic event and I think every Catholic church should do this in their community,” said local pro-life activist Richard Bray, who organized the caroling with the Respect Life Ministry at a local Catholic parish, St. Stephen the Martyr.While every event organized with the league has a “Peace in the Womb” banner, Renton’s organizer would have something special — a handmade manger. An 88-year-old parishioner at St. Stephen’s built an empty manger that the carolers brought to the event, according to Bray. Manger made by an 88-year-old parishioner of St. Stephen’s in Renton, Washington. Carolers brought the empty manger to the caroling event on Dec. 14, 2025, as a sign of what an abortion does and the empty space it leaves. Credit: Photo courtesy of Richard BrayThe empty manger not only symbolizes that Christ is coming at Christmas — but it also represents how a crib is empty after an abortion, according to Bray.“It’s particularly sad to think of someone getting an abortion during the Christmas season,” Bray told CNA. “So we gather to sing carols and remind abortion-bound mothers and our community that the salvation of the world came through an unplanned pregnancy.”

unitedyam December 17, 2025

Carolers outside Planned Parenthood in Aurora, Illinois, on Dec. 13, 2025. / Credit: John Jansen/Courtesy of the Pro-Life Action League

CNA Staff, Dec 17, 2025 / 08:00 am (CNA).

When a pregnant woman at an abortion facility heard distant carolers singing “Silent Night,” she got up and left.

The mother, back in 2003, decided to keep her baby after a pro-life group’s first Christmas caroling event outside a Chicago abortion clinic struck her heart.

“The memories of Christmases past stirred in her and she decided she couldn’t go through with the abortion and kept her child,” said Matthew Yonke, a spokesman for the Pro-Life Action League, the group that coordinates these events.

She would be the first of many women who chose life after hearing carols. Now, the tradition extends across the nation — and babies continue to be saved.

As Christmas Day approaches, nearly 100 caroling groups across the U.S. are gathering at various abortion facilities to sing.

Through the nationwide “Peace in the Womb” caroling effort, the group hopes “to bring the Christmas message of peace and joy to the darkness of abortion clinics,” according to a press release shared with CNA.

It’s a “simple call for an end to the violence of abortion,” according to Yonke.

“At the time of Christmas, the whole world tries to put aside differences and pursue peace, so we’re asking folks to make a connection to the womb, which should be a place of peace, but which is turned into a place of violent unrest in every abortion,” Yonke continued.

A caroler holds artwork of Mary, who is pregnant with Jesus, at a caroling event outside a Cedar Rivers abortion facility in Renton, Washington, on Dec. 14, 2025. Credit: Photo courtesy of Richard Bray

Saving lives

The carolers had already packed up after singing their final song outside an abortion site when a couple approached the remaining pro-lifers in Downers Grove, Illinois, on Dec. 13.

The couple, Yonke said, “told the sidewalk counselors still there that they had decided to keep their baby after hearing our carols.”

“Stories like this go all the way back to the first year,” Yonke said. “We’re thrilled when God can use these beloved songs that touch the hearts of even non-Christians to do his work in the world.”

This was one of two rescue stories so far this December that the league heard about, according to Yonke.

“Please don’t kill your baby at Christmas,” one caroler called out to a young woman in the back seat of a car that was driving into an abortion clinic.

Carolers outside of Planned Parenthood in Madison, Wisconsin, on Dec. 13, 2025. Credit: Cecile Gregory/Courtesy of the Pro-Life Action League

It was a Saturday in Milwaukee, and a group of carolers had gathered to sing outside the abortion clinic on St. Paul Avenue.

The car drove into the abortion center parking lot. But minutes later, the car turned around with the young woman still in the back seat — she never even entered the abortion clinic.

Salvation came through an unplanned pregnancy

Pro-Life Action League invites local pro-lifers to work with them to organize their own caroling groups.

On Sunday, Dec. 14, one such caroling group sang outside an abortion facility in Renton, Washington.

“This was a fantastic event and I think every Catholic church should do this in their community,” said local pro-life activist Richard Bray, who organized the caroling with the Respect Life Ministry at a local Catholic parish, St. Stephen the Martyr.

While every event organized with the league has a “Peace in the Womb” banner, Renton’s organizer would have something special — a handmade manger.

An 88-year-old parishioner at St. Stephen’s built an empty manger that the carolers brought to the event, according to Bray.

Manger made by an 88-year-old parishioner of St. Stephen’s in Renton, Washington. Carolers brought the empty manger to the caroling event on Dec. 14, 2025, as a sign of what an abortion does and the empty space it leaves. Credit: Photo courtesy of Richard Bray

The empty manger not only symbolizes that Christ is coming at Christmas — but it also represents how a crib is empty after an abortion, according to Bray.

“It’s particularly sad to think of someone getting an abortion during the Christmas season,” Bray told CNA. “So we gather to sing carols and remind abortion-bound mothers and our community that the salvation of the world came through an unplanned pregnancy.”

1 in 4 post-abortive women regret abortion decades later, study finds #Catholic

null / Credit: MikeDotta/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 4, 2025 / 15:37 pm (CNA).
Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news:1 in 4 post-abortive women regret abortion decades later, study finds A new study found that 1 in 4 women regret their abortion decades after undergoing the procedure. The study, published in the International Journal of Women’s Health Care, measured the levels of distress abortive women feel years after having an abortion. Authored by Father Donald Paul Sullins with The Catholic University of America and the Ruth Institute, the study found that 24% of postabortive women in the U.S. “suffer from serious post-abortion distress.” Of these post-abortive women, just under half showed “multiple symptoms of post-traumatic stress,” according to the study. In the study, Sullins called for more research on the long-term effects of abortion as well as the development of “effective therapeutic interventions.”“The health care of this population of women is understudied and underserved,” the study read. “Women considering an abortion should be informed of the possibility that they may experience persistent emotional distress.” 1 million ‘conversion counts’ highlights pregnancy center’s lifesaving workA group that promotes life-affirming pregnancy centers has logged 1 million “conversions” away from abortion since its inception, the group announced earlier this week.Choose Life Marketing works with more than 900 pro-life clients, including pregnancy centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies. The group found that a million women experiencing unplanned pregnancies had scheduled an appointment with a pregnancy help center since the agency’s founding in 2016. “It reflects women choosing connection over isolation, hope over fear, and the courage to reach out for help,” said Nelly Roach, who heads Choose Life Marketing. “Pregnancy help centers across the country continue to meet those moments with the compassion, excellence, and support women deserve.”“One million women reached out,” she continued. “Hundreds of thousands found the support they needed to choose life. Their courage and their children will shape families, communities, and futures for generations.” Appeals court rules in favor of pregnancy centers in legal battle A federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of pregnancy centers in a legal battle over abortion pill reversal services.A panel on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction allowing pregnancy clinics to advertise abortion pill reversal.New York Attorney General Letitia James sued the group Heartbeat International and 11 pregnancy centers in May 2024 accusing them of fraud in promoting a drug regimen that purports to reverse the effects of mifepristone. In response, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates sued James, claiming she was attacking their right to free speech. The three-judge panel at the appeals court ruled unanimously that the pregnancy centers could continue to advertise abortion reversal. Thomas Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, heralded the ruling, saying that pregnancy resource centers in the state “are now free to help women who regret taking the abortion pill and want a chance at saving the lives of their babies.” “Abortion pill reversal, like the court said, offers no financial gains for pregnancy centers,” Glessner said in a statement shared with CNA. “They are simply giving women another option than ending the life of their unborn babies.”Iowa lawmaker reintroduces bill in support of pregnant college students Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, has reintroduced a bill requiring colleges to inform pregnant students of their rights and the resources available to them in their schools.Under Title IX, pregnant students have the right to remain in school and complete their education, but about 30% of abortions are performed on college-aged women, according to Hinson’s press release. Resources that colleges offer to pregnant students often include flexible class schedules, excused absences, and child care assistance.Students “deserve to know every resource available to them,” Hinson said in a statement.“It is unacceptable that so many often feel they have to choose between finishing their education and having their baby,” the lawmaker continued.Praising the bill, Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, said in a statement: “Women balancing school, pregnancy, and family deserve our support. Yet, ironically, far too few know about Title IX, the law that is supposed to protect their rights.”

unitedyam December 4, 2025

null / Credit: MikeDotta/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 4, 2025 / 15:37 pm (CNA).

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

1 in 4 post-abortive women regret abortion decades later, study finds

A new study found that 1 in 4 women regret their abortion decades after undergoing the procedure.

The study, published in the International Journal of Women’s Health Care, measured the levels of distress abortive women feel years after having an abortion.

Authored by Father Donald Paul Sullins with The Catholic University of America and the Ruth Institute, the study found that 24% of postabortive women in the U.S. “suffer from serious post-abortion distress.”

Of these post-abortive women, just under half showed “multiple symptoms of post-traumatic stress,” according to the study.

In the study, Sullins called for more research on the long-term effects of abortion as well as the development of “effective therapeutic interventions.”

“The health care of this population of women is understudied and underserved,” the study read. “Women considering an abortion should be informed of the possibility that they may experience persistent emotional distress.”

1 million ‘conversion counts’ highlights pregnancy center’s lifesaving work

A group that promotes life-affirming pregnancy centers has logged 1 million “conversions” away from abortion since its inception, the group announced earlier this week.

Choose Life Marketing works with more than 900 pro-life clients, including pregnancy centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies.

The group found that a million women experiencing unplanned pregnancies had scheduled an appointment with a pregnancy help center since the agency’s founding in 2016.

“It reflects women choosing connection over isolation, hope over fear, and the courage to reach out for help,” said Nelly Roach, who heads Choose Life Marketing. “Pregnancy help centers across the country continue to meet those moments with the compassion, excellence, and support women deserve.”

“One million women reached out,” she continued. “Hundreds of thousands found the support they needed to choose life. Their courage and their children will shape families, communities, and futures for generations.”

Appeals court rules in favor of pregnancy centers in legal battle

A federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of pregnancy centers in a legal battle over abortion pill reversal services.

A panel on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction allowing pregnancy clinics to advertise abortion pill reversal.

New York Attorney General Letitia James sued the group Heartbeat International and 11 pregnancy centers in May 2024 accusing them of fraud in promoting a drug regimen that purports to reverse the effects of mifepristone.

In response, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates sued James, claiming she was attacking their right to free speech. The three-judge panel at the appeals court ruled unanimously that the pregnancy centers could continue to advertise abortion reversal.

Thomas Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, heralded the ruling, saying that pregnancy resource centers in the state “are now free to help women who regret taking the abortion pill and want a chance at saving the lives of their babies.”

“Abortion pill reversal, like the court said, offers no financial gains for pregnancy centers,” Glessner said in a statement shared with CNA. “They are simply giving women another option than ending the life of their unborn babies.”

Iowa lawmaker reintroduces bill in support of pregnant college students

Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, has reintroduced a bill requiring colleges to inform pregnant students of their rights and the resources available to them in their schools.

Under Title IX, pregnant students have the right to remain in school and complete their education, but about 30% of abortions are performed on college-aged women, according to Hinson’s press release. Resources that colleges offer to pregnant students often include flexible class schedules, excused absences, and child care assistance.

Students “deserve to know every resource available to them,” Hinson said in a statement.

“It is unacceptable that so many often feel they have to choose between finishing their education and having their baby,” the lawmaker continued.

Praising the bill, Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, said in a statement: “Women balancing school, pregnancy, and family deserve our support. Yet, ironically, far too few know about Title IX, the law that is supposed to protect their rights.”

U.S. Supreme Court hears dispute over faith-based pregnancy centers #Catholic

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C., Dec 2, 2025 / 17:04 pm (CNA).
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may immediately assert its First Amendment right to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information — including names, addresses, and places of employment — in federal court, or whether it must first proceed through the state court system.The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, has drawn support from a diverse array of groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU. All argue that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.At the center of the dispute is a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking extensive donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin created what he called a “reproductive rights strike force” to “protect access to abortion care,” and his office issued a “consumer alert” describing crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice as organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”In its Supreme Court brief, First Choice describes itself as a faith-based nonprofit serving women in New Jersey by providing material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests under a licensed medical director. The organization does not provide or refer for abortions, a point it plainly and repeatedly states on its website.Platkin’s subpoena commanded First Choice to produce documents and information responsive to 28 separate demands, including the full names, phone numbers, addresses, and current or last known employers of every donor who contributed money by any means other than one specific website. It warned that failure to comply could result in contempt of court and other legal penalties.The attorney general’s office said it needed donor identities to determine whether contributors were “misled” into believing First Choice provided abortions. Platkin argued he needed donor contact information so he could “contact a representative sample and determine what they did or did not know about their donations.”First Choice quickly sued in federal court, arguing the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights by chilling its speech and freedom of association. The federal district court dismissed the case as “unripe,” ruling that the pregnancy center must wait until a New Jersey court seeks to enforce the subpoena. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case to determine whether First Choice may pursue its challenge in federal court now.At oral argument, First Choice’s attorney, Erin M. Hawley, told the justices that the court has “long safeguarded the freedom of association by protecting the membership and donor lists of nonprofit organizations.” Yet, she said, “the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”Hawley urged the court to recognize that the subpoena was issued by “a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them.”She also noted that the attorney general “has never identified a single complaint against First Choice” and that the threat of contempt and business dissolution is “a death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.”Arguing for New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer, the attorney general’s chief counsel, said First Choice had not demonstrated that the subpoena “objectively chilled” its First Amendment rights. He argued that the subpoena is “non-self-executing,” meaning it imposes no immediate obligation and cannot require compliance unless a court orders enforcement.Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical, noting that New Jersey law gives attorney general subpoenas the force of law and allows the attorney general to seek contempt orders against those who fail to comply. “I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel,” he said.Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether an “ordinary person” receiving such a subpoena would feel reassured by the claim that it required court approval before being enforced. A donor, she said, is unlikely “to take that as very reassuring.”In an amicus curiae brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged the court to side with First Choice. “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion,” the bishops wrote. Forced donor disclosure, they argued, interferes with a religious organization’s mission and burdens the free-exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in accordance with scriptural teachings.The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.

unitedyam December 2, 2025

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C., Dec 2, 2025 / 17:04 pm (CNA).

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may immediately assert its First Amendment right to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information — including names, addresses, and places of employment — in federal court, or whether it must first proceed through the state court system.

The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, has drawn support from a diverse array of groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU. All argue that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.

At the center of the dispute is a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking extensive donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin created what he called a “reproductive rights strike force” to “protect access to abortion care,” and his office issued a “consumer alert” describing crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice as organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”

In its Supreme Court brief, First Choice describes itself as a faith-based nonprofit serving women in New Jersey by providing material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests under a licensed medical director. The organization does not provide or refer for abortions, a point it plainly and repeatedly states on its website.

Platkin’s subpoena commanded First Choice to produce documents and information responsive to 28 separate demands, including the full names, phone numbers, addresses, and current or last known employers of every donor who contributed money by any means other than one specific website. It warned that failure to comply could result in contempt of court and other legal penalties.

The attorney general’s office said it needed donor identities to determine whether contributors were “misled” into believing First Choice provided abortions. Platkin argued he needed donor contact information so he could “contact a representative sample and determine what they did or did not know about their donations.”

First Choice quickly sued in federal court, arguing the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights by chilling its speech and freedom of association. The federal district court dismissed the case as “unripe,” ruling that the pregnancy center must wait until a New Jersey court seeks to enforce the subpoena. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case to determine whether First Choice may pursue its challenge in federal court now.

At oral argument, First Choice’s attorney, Erin M. Hawley, told the justices that the court has “long safeguarded the freedom of association by protecting the membership and donor lists of nonprofit organizations.” Yet, she said, “the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”

Hawley urged the court to recognize that the subpoena was issued by “a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them.”

She also noted that the attorney general “has never identified a single complaint against First Choice” and that the threat of contempt and business dissolution is “a death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.”

Arguing for New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer, the attorney general’s chief counsel, said First Choice had not demonstrated that the subpoena “objectively chilled” its First Amendment rights. He argued that the subpoena is “non-self-executing,” meaning it imposes no immediate obligation and cannot require compliance unless a court orders enforcement.

Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical, noting that New Jersey law gives attorney general subpoenas the force of law and allows the attorney general to seek contempt orders against those who fail to comply. “I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether an “ordinary person” receiving such a subpoena would feel reassured by the claim that it required court approval before being enforced. A donor, she said, is unlikely “to take that as very reassuring.”

In an amicus curiae brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged the court to side with First Choice. “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion,” the bishops wrote. Forced donor disclosure, they argued, interferes with a religious organization’s mission and burdens the free-exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in accordance with scriptural teachings.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.