A student challenges a 2004 Supreme Court decision, the Diocese of Scranton reopens its seminary, and Benedictine College names a speaker for its library dedication in this week’s education roundup.
![Study shows society’s religious norms can affect children’s anxiety #Catholic Religious faith in society may do more than provide spiritual comfort and moral guidance; it could also help protect against anxiety disorders, according to a recent study published in Developmental Science.The research published in March explored if there were links between what societies value — such as independence and community — and anxiety disorder rates among children and adolescents over three decades.The study by Leonard Konstantin Kulisch, Ana Lorena Domínguez Rojas, Silvia Schneider, and Babett Voigt analyzed preexisting records and data during the years 1989 to 2022 from the World Value Survey, Global Burden of Disease study, Human Development Report, and Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study.The research found an emphasis on independence was linked to higher anxiety rates in “WEIRD” (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) nations, while a greater emphasis on religious faith and interdependence correlated with less anxiety disorders globally.It also found that the importance of religious faith in socialization, and its link to interdependence, was associated with fewer anxiety disorders across 70 of the countries examined.The study did not compare religious versus nonreligious people or compare specific countries. While the effect sizes were small, it did find that “in countries where emphasis on religious faith in childrearing declined, youth anxiety rose,” Brandon Vaidyanathan, professor of sociology at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News.Country-based disparitiesIn WEIRD nations, the societies that have norms that are oriented toward independence were associated with more anxiety disorders, but the analyses found no significant association among the non-WEIRD countries.In “developing societies [a] shift toward independence accompanies gains in growth and quality of life that may offset its psychological costs, but in already developed societies, it may only intensify competition and achievement-pressure,” Vaidyanathan explained.“The difference between WEIRD and non-WEIRD societies on the independence finding is quite interesting, and the authors suggest that it is stage-dependent,” Vaidyanathan said.“But religion is universal in providing goods that do not depend on development stage” including “belonging, order, meaning, purpose, routine.”Family versus society predictorsThe study reports that religious socialization may serve as “a protective factor” against anxiety issues in children and adolescents, which “is at the communal level much more than the individual level,” Vaidyanathan said. So much so that the U.S. data suggested the societyʼs religious norms predicted childrenʼs anxiety better than the motherʼs own beliefs.“The religiosity of the surrounding social environment was a stronger predictor of childrenʼs anxiety level than the familyʼs own faith, suggesting the protection comes from the society more than family,” Vaidyanathan said. The global protective factor was not communal values in general but religious faith specifically, which Vaidyanathan called “textbook sociology” of religion.“Since Durkheim, sociologists have shown that integration into [a] shared moral community buffers individuals from anomie” or “normlessness,” he said.“Where the community has clear norms, attachments, obligations, limits … the individual doesnʼt have to shoulder the burden of ordering life themselves —which is where anxiety comes in.”“Thatʼs why the protection is at the group level more than individual or family level, and that is what gets eroded in a secularized society,” he said.Vaidyanathan also pointed to Peter Berger, a sociologist and Protestant theologian who coined the term “plausibility structures,” which are the social, cultural, and institutional environments that make certain values or religious beliefs seem believable and normal to a group of people.Bergerʼs “famous concept of ‘plausibility structures’ helps us understand that a religious framework reduces anxiety, only while the surrounding society keeps it plausible — when the surrounding community keeps talking and living as if it were true.”“When that fails, religion becomes one option among many and even a devout householdʼs commitment to their faith is not enough to shield a child in that society. So this is why community norms [or] religiosity matters much more than family belief,” Vaidyanathan said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/study-shows-societys-religious-norms-can-affect-childrens-anxiety-catholic-religious-faith-in-society-may-do-more-than-provide-spiritual-comfort-and-moral-guidance-it-could-also-he.jpg "Study shows society’s religious norms can affect children’s anxiety #Catholic Religious faith in society may do more than provide spiritual comfort and moral guidance; it could also help protect against anxiety disorders, according to a recent study published in Developmental Science.The research published in March explored if there were links between what societies value — such as independence and community — and anxiety disorder rates among children and adolescents over three decades.The study by Leonard Konstantin Kulisch, Ana Lorena Domínguez Rojas, Silvia Schneider, and Babett Voigt analyzed preexisting records and data during the years 1989 to 2022 from the World Value Survey, Global Burden of Disease study, Human Development Report, and Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study.The research found an emphasis on independence was linked to higher anxiety rates in “WEIRD” (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) nations, while a greater emphasis on religious faith and interdependence correlated with less anxiety disorders globally.It also found that the importance of religious faith in socialization, and its link to interdependence, was associated with fewer anxiety disorders across 70 of the countries examined.The study did not compare religious versus nonreligious people or compare specific countries. While the effect sizes were small, it did find that “in countries where emphasis on religious faith in childrearing declined, youth anxiety rose,” Brandon Vaidyanathan, professor of sociology at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News.Country-based disparitiesIn WEIRD nations, the societies that have norms that are oriented toward independence were associated with more anxiety disorders, but the analyses found no significant association among the non-WEIRD countries.In “developing societies [a] shift toward independence accompanies gains in growth and quality of life that may offset its psychological costs, but in already developed societies, it may only intensify competition and achievement-pressure,” Vaidyanathan explained.“The difference between WEIRD and non-WEIRD societies on the independence finding is quite interesting, and the authors suggest that it is stage-dependent,” Vaidyanathan said.“But religion is universal in providing goods that do not depend on development stage” including “belonging, order, meaning, purpose, routine.”Family versus society predictorsThe study reports that religious socialization may serve as “a protective factor” against anxiety issues in children and adolescents, which “is at the communal level much more than the individual level,” Vaidyanathan said. So much so that the U.S. data suggested the societyʼs religious norms predicted childrenʼs anxiety better than the motherʼs own beliefs.“The religiosity of the surrounding social environment was a stronger predictor of childrenʼs anxiety level than the familyʼs own faith, suggesting the protection comes from the society more than family,” Vaidyanathan said. The global protective factor was not communal values in general but religious faith specifically, which Vaidyanathan called “textbook sociology” of religion.“Since Durkheim, sociologists have shown that integration into [a] shared moral community buffers individuals from anomie” or “normlessness,” he said.“Where the community has clear norms, attachments, obligations, limits … the individual doesnʼt have to shoulder the burden of ordering life themselves —which is where anxiety comes in.”“Thatʼs why the protection is at the group level more than individual or family level, and that is what gets eroded in a secularized society,” he said.Vaidyanathan also pointed to Peter Berger, a sociologist and Protestant theologian who coined the term “plausibility structures,” which are the social, cultural, and institutional environments that make certain values or religious beliefs seem believable and normal to a group of people.Bergerʼs “famous concept of ‘plausibility structures’ helps us understand that a religious framework reduces anxiety, only while the surrounding society keeps it plausible — when the surrounding community keeps talking and living as if it were true.”“When that fails, religion becomes one option among many and even a devout householdʼs commitment to their faith is not enough to shield a child in that society. So this is why community norms [or] religiosity matters much more than family belief,” Vaidyanathan said.")
The study, which looked at data over three decades, reports that a country’s religious values may serve as “a protective factor” against anxiety issues in children and adolescents.
The pope has continued to advocate for peace-building and has warned against nuclear weapons and AI being integrated into the military.
![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.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/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-expl.jpg "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.”")
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.
![Abortion count rises as women turn to chemical abortions, per new data #Catholic The U.S. abortion count continues to rise even as travel abortions decrease, a recent study found.The Guttmacher Institute, a data group that openly supports abortion access, documented a decrease in people leaving their own state to get abortions in other states. Instead, abortion seekers turn toward mail-order abortions, which have seen a surge in recent years.The group tracks abortions monthly, following trends “in the post-Dobbs era” since 2023, according to Guttmacher data scientist and study lead Isaac Maddow-Zimet. The data indicated an overall increase in abortions from 2025 to 2026. “In the first three months of 2026, there were 296,130 abortions as compared to 292,590 in the first three months of 2025,” data scholar Michael New told EWTN News. “This is an increase of just over 1%.”New said this fact has gone underreported.“Most media outlets that are reporting on the Guttmacher data have not reported on this, but the number of abortions continues to rise,” said New, who is a senior associate scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute, a group that studies data relating to the pro-life cause.“These rising abortion numbers are an important reason why pro-lifers are frustrated with the Trump administration’s lack of action on telehealth abortions,” continued New, who also works as a professor at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America.The Trump administration has neglected to enforce various regulations — such as the Comstock Act or in-person prescription requirements — that could be groundbreaking for protecting unborn children from chemical abortions.From 2024 to 2025, travel abortions declined by nearly 8%. Scholars agree that mail-order abortion is the reason for the decline in abortion travel.“Currently, we are seeing a major shift in where and how people access abortion,” Maddow-Zimet said. “While travel remains a critical pathway to care, we have seen a decrease in people leaving their state of residence, likely due to both the growth of telehealth access and fewer options for in-person care in the South and Southeast.”New also cited chemical abortions as the draw away from travel abortions. “The main reason for this decline in out-of-state travel is because of the rising number of telehealth abortions,” New said. “The most recent data from the Society for Family Planning shows that approximately 27% of all abortions are done by telehealth.”In Florida, the study also found a near tripling of abortion travel by Floridians after the state passed a heartbeat law to protect unborn babies; at the same time, fewer people traveled to Florida to obtain abortions due to this law.“The national decline [in travel abortions] might have been even larger had Florida not started enforcing a Heartbeat Act in 2024,” New said. “Because of this strong pro-life law, far fewer women residing in southern states traveled to Florida for abortions.”Texas has also seen a decline in Texans traveling to get abortions. “This trend is seen at the state level,” New continued. “Between 2024 and 2025 the number of Texas women obtaining abortions in other states fell by 19%.”Mail-order abortion is pro-life priorityAdvocates for unborn children highlighted the importance of opposing chemical abortions and protecting unborn children across state lines. Abortion continues to rise with the increase in mail-order abortions.Kelsey Pritchard, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America spokeswoman, called for protections of unborn children across state lines.“We need a national minimum standard to ensure children across America have basic human rights and the chance at life, regardless of their zip code,” Pritchard told EWTN News.“Nine states and the District of Columbia still have no gestational limits whatsoever on abortion, allowing abortion up to the moment of birth, with late-term abortion centers purposely located within range of pro-life state borders,” Pritchard said. “This is barbaric and extreme, and it places the United States in the same category as communist countries like China and Vietnam on abortion.”“While stopping the ‘Wild West’ of unregulated abortion by mail is our immediate priority, both issues underscore the urgent need for national action to protect unborn children and their mothers,” Pritchard said. “Abortion travel is down overall, but mail-order abortions are surging and driving the national total up to an estimated 1.1 million abortions per year — more than the day Roe was reversed,” Pritchard said. “Every single month, approximately 15,000 babies in the womb die from mail-order abortion drugs in states with pro-life laws, while women and girls are poisoned and coerced by abusers who obtain these drugs online without so much as an ID check.”Kristi Hamrick, Students for Life spokeswoman, questioned the data, noting that there is no reporting requirement for abortion.“I find it extraordinary that the abortion industry reports so much data that is accepted as gospel, despite the fact that we canʼt verify it,” Hamrick said. “We have no national abortion reporting law, and while this data will be broadly reported, every point of data from pro-life sources is treated as suspect.”Guttmacher collects monthly data from brick-and-mortar facilities and telehealth providers, according to the study methodology.The nature of mail-order abortion pills makes it harder to accurately track the number of the abortions in the U.S. as the pills are highly unregulated and some companies operate outside of the U.S. healthcare system.“The landscape of abortion is shifting, from brick-and-mortar abortion vendor to online pill pushers, so less driving, if that is true, does not mean less abortion,” Hamrick said.For Students for Life, “fighting chemical abortion pills” is a priority.Through pregnancy help centers, maternity homes, and other programs, the pro-life movement continues to encourage women to choose life.“But what is happening in real time is that many are reaching out to women online and in their communities to encourage and support them in choosing life, while we also have to confront a new abortion cartel,” Hamrick said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/abortion-count-rises-as-women-turn-to-chemical-abortions-per-new-data-catholic-the-u-s-abortion-count-continues-to-rise-even-as-travel-abortions-decrease-a-recent-study-found-the-guttmacher-instit-scaled.jpg "Abortion count rises as women turn to chemical abortions, per new data #Catholic The U.S. abortion count continues to rise even as travel abortions decrease, a recent study found.The Guttmacher Institute, a data group that openly supports abortion access, documented a decrease in people leaving their own state to get abortions in other states. Instead, abortion seekers turn toward mail-order abortions, which have seen a surge in recent years.The group tracks abortions monthly, following trends “in the post-Dobbs era” since 2023, according to Guttmacher data scientist and study lead Isaac Maddow-Zimet. The data indicated an overall increase in abortions from 2025 to 2026. “In the first three months of 2026, there were 296,130 abortions as compared to 292,590 in the first three months of 2025,” data scholar Michael New told EWTN News. “This is an increase of just over 1%.”New said this fact has gone underreported.“Most media outlets that are reporting on the Guttmacher data have not reported on this, but the number of abortions continues to rise,” said New, who is a senior associate scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute, a group that studies data relating to the pro-life cause.“These rising abortion numbers are an important reason why pro-lifers are frustrated with the Trump administration’s lack of action on telehealth abortions,” continued New, who also works as a professor at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America.The Trump administration has neglected to enforce various regulations — such as the Comstock Act or in-person prescription requirements — that could be groundbreaking for protecting unborn children from chemical abortions.From 2024 to 2025, travel abortions declined by nearly 8%. Scholars agree that mail-order abortion is the reason for the decline in abortion travel.“Currently, we are seeing a major shift in where and how people access abortion,” Maddow-Zimet said. “While travel remains a critical pathway to care, we have seen a decrease in people leaving their state of residence, likely due to both the growth of telehealth access and fewer options for in-person care in the South and Southeast.”New also cited chemical abortions as the draw away from travel abortions. “The main reason for this decline in out-of-state travel is because of the rising number of telehealth abortions,” New said. “The most recent data from the Society for Family Planning shows that approximately 27% of all abortions are done by telehealth.”In Florida, the study also found a near tripling of abortion travel by Floridians after the state passed a heartbeat law to protect unborn babies; at the same time, fewer people traveled to Florida to obtain abortions due to this law.“The national decline [in travel abortions] might have been even larger had Florida not started enforcing a Heartbeat Act in 2024,” New said. “Because of this strong pro-life law, far fewer women residing in southern states traveled to Florida for abortions.”Texas has also seen a decline in Texans traveling to get abortions. “This trend is seen at the state level,” New continued. “Between 2024 and 2025 the number of Texas women obtaining abortions in other states fell by 19%.”Mail-order abortion is pro-life priorityAdvocates for unborn children highlighted the importance of opposing chemical abortions and protecting unborn children across state lines. Abortion continues to rise with the increase in mail-order abortions.Kelsey Pritchard, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America spokeswoman, called for protections of unborn children across state lines.“We need a national minimum standard to ensure children across America have basic human rights and the chance at life, regardless of their zip code,” Pritchard told EWTN News.“Nine states and the District of Columbia still have no gestational limits whatsoever on abortion, allowing abortion up to the moment of birth, with late-term abortion centers purposely located within range of pro-life state borders,” Pritchard said. “This is barbaric and extreme, and it places the United States in the same category as communist countries like China and Vietnam on abortion.”“While stopping the ‘Wild West’ of unregulated abortion by mail is our immediate priority, both issues underscore the urgent need for national action to protect unborn children and their mothers,” Pritchard said. “Abortion travel is down overall, but mail-order abortions are surging and driving the national total up to an estimated 1.1 million abortions per year — more than the day Roe was reversed,” Pritchard said. “Every single month, approximately 15,000 babies in the womb die from mail-order abortion drugs in states with pro-life laws, while women and girls are poisoned and coerced by abusers who obtain these drugs online without so much as an ID check.”Kristi Hamrick, Students for Life spokeswoman, questioned the data, noting that there is no reporting requirement for abortion.“I find it extraordinary that the abortion industry reports so much data that is accepted as gospel, despite the fact that we canʼt verify it,” Hamrick said. “We have no national abortion reporting law, and while this data will be broadly reported, every point of data from pro-life sources is treated as suspect.”Guttmacher collects monthly data from brick-and-mortar facilities and telehealth providers, according to the study methodology.The nature of mail-order abortion pills makes it harder to accurately track the number of the abortions in the U.S. as the pills are highly unregulated and some companies operate outside of the U.S. healthcare system.“The landscape of abortion is shifting, from brick-and-mortar abortion vendor to online pill pushers, so less driving, if that is true, does not mean less abortion,” Hamrick said.For Students for Life, “fighting chemical abortion pills” is a priority.Through pregnancy help centers, maternity homes, and other programs, the pro-life movement continues to encourage women to choose life.“But what is happening in real time is that many are reaching out to women online and in their communities to encourage and support them in choosing life, while we also have to confront a new abortion cartel,” Hamrick said.")
The abortion count is rising as women rely more on mail-order chemical abortions, according to the most recent data.
