Protest

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impending implementation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More
California law allowing anonymous abortion pill prescriptions endangers women, experts say

Members of Students for Liberty protest chemical abortions at March for Life, Jan. 24, 2025. / Credit: Tyler Arnold/CNA

CNA Staff, Oct 6, 2025 / 08:00 am (CNA).

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill last week allowing doctors to anonymously prescribe abortion pills, a move ethicists and medical professionals say will endanger women.  

The law, designed to protect abortionists, allows them to prescribe the pill anonymously, protecting them from any professional, legal, or ethical oversight and from lawsuits filed by other states. 

California abortionists are already facing lawsuits for prescribing abortion drugs in states where they are illegal. In some cases, women maintain that they were coerced or deceived into taking the drugs by the father of their unborn child.

According to the new law, the doctor remains anonymous — even to the patient being prescribed the pill. His or her identity is only accessible via a subpoena within the state of California. 

Even the pharmacists dispensing the abortion drug may do so without including their names, or the names of the patient or prescriber, on the bottle. 

Abandoning women 

Dolores Meehan, a nurse practitioner and the executive director of Bella Primary Care in San Francisco, said the law is “codifying a type of back-alley abortion.”

“There’s no safety oversight at all from the perspective of the patient,” she told CNA. “It’s such a violation of patients’ rights.”

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, a senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, called the policy “patient abandonment.” 

Health care professionals “have a duty to provide careful medical supervision and oversight to patients who seek to obtain dangerous pharmaceuticals,” he told CNA.

“This oversight calls for significant patient scrutiny, medical testing, interviews, and in-person exams to assure that any prescribed medications will be appropriate for the specific medical situation of the patient,” Pacholczyk continued. “Such attentive oversight gets thrown to the wind when lawmakers and politicians like Gov. Newsom seek to pass unprincipled laws.”

Offering anonymous prescriptions, Pacholczyk said, “is a significant dereliction of duty.”

To do so implies “a willingness to look past important procedural requirements and duties, whether it’s health screening of the woman, obtaining her emergency contact information, or assuring follow-up care and support for her,” he continued.

The policy, Pacholczyk said, “works to corrode the very core of authentic medicine.”

Meehan expressed similar concerns about the anonymity of doctors prescribing abortion pills. 

She noted that licenses exist to ensure that “individuals are clear of any malfeasance or any malpractice.” 

“You can look up my license, and you can look up everything about me,” she said. “But if you don’t know my license, you don’t know who I am, you can’t.”

She noted that patients are turned into consumers but without any recourse should something go wrong. 

“You might as well go on Craigslist,” Meehan said. 

Not an informed choice

After he signed the bill, Newsom said that “California stands for a woman’s right to choose.” 

But Meehan noted that women don’t always know what they are choosing when they take the abortion pills. 

“It’s not about women’s rights, and it’s certainly not about women’s safety, and women’s health, and women’s choice,” Meehan said. “Because choice should always, always, always be accompanied by informed consent.”

“The gross misunderstanding about the abortion pill is that it’s somehow easy,” Meehan said. “But what so many women don’t understand is that they’re going to miscarry at home.” 

They’ll go through this “loss,” she noted, “by themselves.” 

“Women are really ill-prepared for what’s going to happen in their bodies. There’s the whole idea of women’s choice, but you’re not giving them informed choice,” she said. 

Pacholczyk shared similar concerns for women undergoing chemical abortions, saying that self-administered chemical abortions are a “harsh reality.”  

The abortion “often takes place in a bathroom, with psychological trauma experienced by a mother who may see her aborted baby floating in a toilet,” he said.  

Chemical abortions can sometimes lead to “serious medical complications — including sepsis, hemorrhage, or a need for repeated attempts to expel the child’s body” — for 1 in 10 women within 45 days of taking the abortion pill, he added. 

If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, “administering the abortion pill could increase the risk of complications or delay urgently needed treatment,” he added.  

“Rather than treating women as anonymous entities and forcing them into greater isolation … mothers deserve the supportive medical attention and active care of their health care team,” he said. 

“Ideally, such attentive care should help them feel strengthened and empowered to carry their pregnancies to term rather than defaulting to a fear-driven and desperate attempt to end their child’s life,” he said.

Lower standard of care 

Jordan Butler, spokesperson for pro-life advocacy group Students for Life of America, called the policy “reckless.” 

“Eliminating requirements for identification and pregnancy verification creates dangerous loopholes that allow sexual abusers to evade accountability,” Butler said. 

Through the policy, Newsom and the abortion industry are “exploiting vulnerable women and children for profit,” she said. 

Pacholczyk and Meehan expressed similar concerns for the lower standard of care women — especially vulnerable women — would receive under the law. 

For women and girls facing human trafficking or coercion, protections “don’t exist,” Meehan said.  

“You could have your local pedophile, a sex offender, stockpiling them,” Meehan said.  

“Politicians, the media, and many in the medical profession have decided that abortion deserves an entirely different and lower standard than the rest of medicine,” Pacholczyk said. 

“We would never sanction such a loose approach with other potent pharmaceuticals like opioids or cancer medications,” Pacholczyk said.

Read More