spending

Trump urges Republican ‘flexibility’ on taxpayer-funded abortions #Catholic President Donald Trump talks to Republicans about their stance on the Hyde Amendment on Jan. 6, 2026. | Credit: Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images Jan 6, 2026 / 18:10 pm (CNA). President Donald Trump is asking congressional Republicans to be more flexible on taxpayer funding for abortions as lawmakers continue to negotiate an extension to health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.Some federal subsidies that lowered premiums for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act expired in December. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average increase to premiums for people who lost the subsidies will be about 114%, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. The exact costs will be different, depending on specific plans.Trump has encouraged his party to work on extending those subsidies and is asking them to be “flexible” on a provision that could affect tax-funded abortion. Democrats have proposed ending the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which bans direct federal funding for abortions in most cases.“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said at the House Republican Conference retreat at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Jan. 6.“Now you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” the president said. “You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something [out]. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility.”The Hyde Amendment began as a bipartisan provision in funding bills that prohibited the use of federal funds for more than 45 years. Lawmakers have reauthorized the prohibition every year since it was first introduced in 1976.A study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2.6 million lives. According to a poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose tax funding for abortions.However, in recent years, many Democratic politicians have tried to keep the rule out of spending bills. Former President Joe Biden abandoned the Hyde Amendment in budget proposals, but it was ultimately included in the final compromise versions that became law.Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, criticized Trump for urging flexibility on the provision, calling its support “an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party.”Dannenfelser said Republicans “are sure to lose this November” if they abandon Hyde: “The voters sent a [Republican] trifecta to Washington and they expect it to govern like one.”“Giving in to Democrat demands that our tax dollars are used to fund plans that cover abortion on demand until birth would be a massive betrayal,” she said.Dannenfelser also noted that, before these comments, Trump has consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. The president issued an executive order in January on enforcing the Hyde Amendment that accused Biden’s administration of disregarding this “commonsense policy.”“For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a long-standing consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice,” the executive order reads.“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,” it adds.
Read More

Trump urges Republican ‘flexibility’ on taxpayer-funded abortions #Catholic President Donald Trump talks to Republicans about their stance on the Hyde Amendment on Jan. 6, 2026. | Credit: Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images Jan 6, 2026 / 18:10 pm (CNA). President Donald Trump is asking congressional Republicans to be more flexible on taxpayer funding for abortions as lawmakers continue to negotiate an extension to health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.Some federal subsidies that lowered premiums for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act expired in December. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average increase to premiums for people who lost the subsidies will be about 114%, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. The exact costs will be different, depending on specific plans.Trump has encouraged his party to work on extending those subsidies and is asking them to be “flexible” on a provision that could affect tax-funded abortion. Democrats have proposed ending the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which bans direct federal funding for abortions in most cases.“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said at the House Republican Conference retreat at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Jan. 6.“Now you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” the president said. “You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something [out]. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility.”The Hyde Amendment began as a bipartisan provision in funding bills that prohibited the use of federal funds for more than 45 years. Lawmakers have reauthorized the prohibition every year since it was first introduced in 1976.A study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2.6 million lives. According to a poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose tax funding for abortions.However, in recent years, many Democratic politicians have tried to keep the rule out of spending bills. Former President Joe Biden abandoned the Hyde Amendment in budget proposals, but it was ultimately included in the final compromise versions that became law.Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, criticized Trump for urging flexibility on the provision, calling its support “an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party.”Dannenfelser said Republicans “are sure to lose this November” if they abandon Hyde: “The voters sent a [Republican] trifecta to Washington and they expect it to govern like one.”“Giving in to Democrat demands that our tax dollars are used to fund plans that cover abortion on demand until birth would be a massive betrayal,” she said.Dannenfelser also noted that, before these comments, Trump has consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. The president issued an executive order in January on enforcing the Hyde Amendment that accused Biden’s administration of disregarding this “commonsense policy.”“For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a long-standing consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice,” the executive order reads.“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,” it adds.

unitedyam

President Donald Trump talks to Republicans about their stance on the Hyde Amendment on Jan. 6, 2026. | Credit: Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Jan 6, 2026 / 18:10 pm (CNA).

President Donald Trump is asking congressional Republicans to be more flexible on taxpayer funding for abortions as lawmakers continue to negotiate an extension to health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Some federal subsidies that lowered premiums for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act expired in December.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average increase to premiums for people who lost the subsidies will be about 114%, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. The exact costs will be different, depending on specific plans.

Trump has encouraged his party to work on extending those subsidies and is asking them to be “flexible” on a provision that could affect tax-funded abortion. Democrats have proposed ending the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which bans direct federal funding for abortions in most cases.

“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said at the House Republican Conference retreat at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Jan. 6.

“Now you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” the president said. “You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something [out]. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility.”

The Hyde Amendment began as a bipartisan provision in funding bills that prohibited the use of federal funds for more than 45 years. Lawmakers have reauthorized the prohibition every year since it was first introduced in 1976.

A study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2.6 million lives. According to a poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose tax funding for abortions.

However, in recent years, many Democratic politicians have tried to keep the rule out of spending bills. Former President Joe Biden abandoned the Hyde Amendment in budget proposals, but it was ultimately included in the final compromise versions that became law.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, criticized Trump for urging flexibility on the provision, calling its support “an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party.”

Dannenfelser said Republicans “are sure to lose this November” if they abandon Hyde: “The voters sent a [Republican] trifecta to Washington and they expect it to govern like one.”

“Giving in to Democrat demands that our tax dollars are used to fund plans that cover abortion on demand until birth would be a massive betrayal,” she said.

Dannenfelser also noted that, before these comments, Trump has consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. The president issued an executive order in January on enforcing the Hyde Amendment that accused Biden’s administration of disregarding this “commonsense policy.”

“For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a long-standing consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice,” the executive order reads.

“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,” it adds.

Read More
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.
Read More

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 $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.

unitedyam

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.

Read More
Senate to vote on health care plans as subsidies near expiration #Catholic Congress is set to vote on two plans regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits that are scheduled to expire Dec. 31, 2025.  / Credit: usarmyband, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 11, 2025 / 06:30 am (CNA). Congress is set to vote on two plans regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits that are scheduled to expire Dec. 31, 2025. The Senate is expected to vote Dec. 11 on a Democratic proposal to extend existing ACA tax credits for three years, as 24 million Americans use ACA marketplaces for health insurance. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters Tuesday after a Senate Republican meeting that lawmakers also will vote on a Republican alternative measure. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, who leads the Finance panel, announced the legislation on Monday. The measure (S. 3386) would set requirements for Health Savings Account (HSA) contributions and direct that the money cannot be used for abortion or “gender transitions.” It would require states to verify citizenship and immigration status before coverage.Catholic bishops weigh inThe U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have said they favor extending the taxpayer subsidies that lower health insurance costs under the ACA, but said lawmakers must ensure that the tax credits are not used for abortions or other procedures that violate Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. The enhanced premium tax credits “should be extended but must not continue to fund plans that cover the destruction of human life, which is antithetical to authentic health care,”  the bishops wrote in an Oct. 10 letter to members of Congress. There needs to be a policy that serves “all vulnerable people – born and preborn” and applies full Hyde Amendment protections to them, ensuring not only that government funding does not directly pay for the procuring of an abortion, but also that plans offered by health insurance companies on ACA exchanges cannot cover elective abortion,” they wrote. The Hyde Amendment, passed by Congress in 1977, prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at risk.Activists respondA coalition of more than 300 faith leaders including NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Church Of God In Christ Social Justice Ministry, Faith in Action Network, and  Franciscan Action Network, delivered a joint letter to Congress Dec. 8 urging legislators to pass a bipartisan bill that protects and expands the ACA premium tax credits.“Each life is sacred, therefore, there is a moral imperative to provide care for the sick and alleviate suffering particularly for those who lack resources to pay,” the letter wrote. There must be action to ensure everyone has “the health care they need to live and thrive, as people are currently making choices about coverage for 2026.”“The letter notes that renewing the tax credits will keep healthcare premiums under the ACA from spiking by an average of 114 percent in 2026,” NETWORK reported. “This would cause an estimated 4.8 million people to lose their health coverage because they cannot afford it. Subsequently, some 50,000 people could lose their lives without their health coverage.”Other pro-life organizations have warned against expanding the subsidies. “As Congress continues to face pressure to extend Obamacare’s abortion-funding premium subsidies, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA) is making the facts clear on how Obamacare does not include the Hyde amendment and forces Americans to pay for abortions,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement.“The enactment of Obamacare ruptured the bipartisan legacy of the Hyde amendment and resulted in the largest expansion of abortion funding since the 1970s,” she said. “Obama and the Democratic leadership at the time intentionally drafted the program to avoid annual appropriations bills, bypassing the Hyde amendment.”“Instead of stopping funding for health insurance plans that cover elective abortion, Section 1303 of Obamacare expressly permits subsidies for Obamacare plans that cover abortion using elaborate accounting requirements and an abortion surcharge to justify the funding,” she said.SBA and more than 100 other pro-life organizations are demanding that any extensions to Obamacare include a complete application of the Hyde policy. The groups sent a September letter and an October letter to lawmakers calling on Congress to ensure pro-life provisions. “Preventing taxpayer funding of abortion is a minimum requirement for any new Obamacare spending advanced by a Republican Congress and Administration,” Dannenfelser said.
Read More

Senate to vote on health care plans as subsidies near expiration #Catholic Congress is set to vote on two plans regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits that are scheduled to expire Dec. 31, 2025.  / Credit: usarmyband, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 11, 2025 / 06:30 am (CNA). Congress is set to vote on two plans regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits that are scheduled to expire Dec. 31, 2025. The Senate is expected to vote Dec. 11 on a Democratic proposal to extend existing ACA tax credits for three years, as 24 million Americans use ACA marketplaces for health insurance. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters Tuesday after a Senate Republican meeting that lawmakers also will vote on a Republican alternative measure. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, who leads the Finance panel, announced the legislation on Monday. The measure (S. 3386) would set requirements for Health Savings Account (HSA) contributions and direct that the money cannot be used for abortion or “gender transitions.” It would require states to verify citizenship and immigration status before coverage.Catholic bishops weigh inThe U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have said they favor extending the taxpayer subsidies that lower health insurance costs under the ACA, but said lawmakers must ensure that the tax credits are not used for abortions or other procedures that violate Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. The enhanced premium tax credits “should be extended but must not continue to fund plans that cover the destruction of human life, which is antithetical to authentic health care,”  the bishops wrote in an Oct. 10 letter to members of Congress. There needs to be a policy that serves “all vulnerable people – born and preborn” and applies full Hyde Amendment protections to them, ensuring not only that government funding does not directly pay for the procuring of an abortion, but also that plans offered by health insurance companies on ACA exchanges cannot cover elective abortion,” they wrote. The Hyde Amendment, passed by Congress in 1977, prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at risk.Activists respondA coalition of more than 300 faith leaders including NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Church Of God In Christ Social Justice Ministry, Faith in Action Network, and  Franciscan Action Network, delivered a joint letter to Congress Dec. 8 urging legislators to pass a bipartisan bill that protects and expands the ACA premium tax credits.“Each life is sacred, therefore, there is a moral imperative to provide care for the sick and alleviate suffering particularly for those who lack resources to pay,” the letter wrote. There must be action to ensure everyone has “the health care they need to live and thrive, as people are currently making choices about coverage for 2026.”“The letter notes that renewing the tax credits will keep healthcare premiums under the ACA from spiking by an average of 114 percent in 2026,” NETWORK reported. “This would cause an estimated 4.8 million people to lose their health coverage because they cannot afford it. Subsequently, some 50,000 people could lose their lives without their health coverage.”Other pro-life organizations have warned against expanding the subsidies. “As Congress continues to face pressure to extend Obamacare’s abortion-funding premium subsidies, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA) is making the facts clear on how Obamacare does not include the Hyde amendment and forces Americans to pay for abortions,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement.“The enactment of Obamacare ruptured the bipartisan legacy of the Hyde amendment and resulted in the largest expansion of abortion funding since the 1970s,” she said. “Obama and the Democratic leadership at the time intentionally drafted the program to avoid annual appropriations bills, bypassing the Hyde amendment.”“Instead of stopping funding for health insurance plans that cover elective abortion, Section 1303 of Obamacare expressly permits subsidies for Obamacare plans that cover abortion using elaborate accounting requirements and an abortion surcharge to justify the funding,” she said.SBA and more than 100 other pro-life organizations are demanding that any extensions to Obamacare include a complete application of the Hyde policy. The groups sent a September letter and an October letter to lawmakers calling on Congress to ensure pro-life provisions. “Preventing taxpayer funding of abortion is a minimum requirement for any new Obamacare spending advanced by a Republican Congress and Administration,” Dannenfelser said.

unitedyam

Congress is set to vote on two plans regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits that are scheduled to expire Dec. 31, 2025.  / Credit: usarmyband, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 11, 2025 / 06:30 am (CNA).

Congress is set to vote on two plans regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits that are scheduled to expire Dec. 31, 2025. 

The Senate is expected to vote Dec. 11 on a Democratic proposal to extend existing ACA tax credits for three years, as 24 million Americans use ACA marketplaces for health insurance. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters Tuesday after a Senate Republican meeting that lawmakers also will vote on a Republican alternative measure. 

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, who leads the Finance panel, announced the legislation on Monday. 

The measure (S. 3386) would set requirements for Health Savings Account (HSA) contributions and direct that the money cannot be used for abortion or “gender transitions.” It would require states to verify citizenship and immigration status before coverage.

Catholic bishops weigh in

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have said they favor extending the taxpayer subsidies that lower health insurance costs under the ACA, but said lawmakers must ensure that the tax credits are not used for abortions or other procedures that violate Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. 

The enhanced premium tax credits “should be extended but must not continue to fund plans that cover the destruction of human life, which is antithetical to authentic health care,”  the bishops wrote in an Oct. 10 letter to members of Congress. 

There needs to be a policy that serves “all vulnerable people – born and preborn” and applies full Hyde Amendment protections to them, ensuring not only that government funding does not directly pay for the procuring of an abortion, but also that plans offered by health insurance companies on ACA exchanges cannot cover elective abortion,” they wrote. 

The Hyde Amendment, passed by Congress in 1977, prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at risk.

Activists respond

A coalition of more than 300 faith leaders including NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Church Of God In Christ Social Justice Ministry, Faith in Action Network, and  Franciscan Action Network, delivered a joint letter to Congress Dec. 8 urging legislators to pass a bipartisan bill that protects and expands the ACA premium tax credits.

“Each life is sacred, therefore, there is a moral imperative to provide care for the sick and alleviate suffering particularly for those who lack resources to pay,” the letter wrote. There must be action to ensure everyone has “the health care they need to live and thrive, as people are currently making choices about coverage for 2026.”

“The letter notes that renewing the tax credits will keep healthcare premiums under the ACA from spiking by an average of 114 percent in 2026,” NETWORK reported. “This would cause an estimated 4.8 million people to lose their health coverage because they cannot afford it. Subsequently, some 50,000 people could lose their lives without their health coverage.”

Other pro-life organizations have warned against expanding the subsidies. 

“As Congress continues to face pressure to extend Obamacare’s abortion-funding premium subsidies, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA) is making the facts clear on how Obamacare does not include the Hyde amendment and forces Americans to pay for abortions,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement.

“The enactment of Obamacare ruptured the bipartisan legacy of the Hyde amendment and resulted in the largest expansion of abortion funding since the 1970s,” she said. “Obama and the Democratic leadership at the time intentionally drafted the program to avoid annual appropriations bills, bypassing the Hyde amendment.”

“Instead of stopping funding for health insurance plans that cover elective abortion, Section 1303 of Obamacare expressly permits subsidies for Obamacare plans that cover abortion using elaborate accounting requirements and an abortion surcharge to justify the funding,” she said.

SBA and more than 100 other pro-life organizations are demanding that any extensions to Obamacare include a complete application of the Hyde policy. The groups sent a September letter and an October letter to lawmakers calling on Congress to ensure pro-life provisions. 

“Preventing taxpayer funding of abortion is a minimum requirement for any new Obamacare spending advanced by a Republican Congress and Administration,” Dannenfelser said.

Read More
Disability advocates sue Delaware over allegedly ‘discriminatory’ assisted suicide law  #Catholic “For patients with serious disabilities, this law will put us at risk of deadly discrimination," says Daniese McMullin-Powell, a polio survivor who has used a wheelchair for most of her life. / Credit: Institute for Patients' Rights CNA Staff, Dec 10, 2025 / 06:10 am (CNA). Several disability and patient advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Delaware on Dec. 8 alleging that Delaware’s new physician-assisted suicide law discriminates against people with disabilities. In May 2025, Delaware passed a bill legalizing physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to live. The law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, 2026, allows patients to self-administer lethal medication. The 74-page complaint alleges that the new law is unconstitutional under both Delaware and federal law and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, among other challenges.  Plaintiffs include the Institute for Patients’ Rights; The Freedom Center for Independent Living, Inc., in Middletown; the Delaware chapter of ADAPT; Not Dead Yet; United Spinal Association, the National Council on Independent Living; and disability advocate Sean Curran.The lawsuit, which names Gov. Matthew Meyer and the Delaware Department of Health and Human Services as two of several defendants, said that “people with life-threatening disabilities” are at “imminent risk” because of Delaware’s new law.   “Throughout the country, a state-endorsed narrative is rapidly spreading that threatens people with disabilities: namely, that people with life-threatening disabilities should be directed to suicide help and not suicide prevention,” the lawsuit read.“At its core, this is discrimination plain and simple,” the lawsuit continued. “With cuts in healthcare spending at the federal level, persons with life-threatening disabilities are now more vulnerable than ever.”The lawsuit alleges that, under the new law, people with life-threatening disabilities who express suicidal thoughts will be treated differently than other people who express suicidal thoughts. The new law lacks requirements for mental health screening for depression or other mental illness, “all of which are necessary for informed consent and a truly autonomous choice,” according to the lawsuit. Curran, a Delaware resident who has lived with a severe spinal cord injury for 36 years, called the law “repugnant.”“The act tells people like me that they should qualify for suicide help, not suicide prevention,” said Curran, who is a quadriplegic, meaning he is paralyzed in all four limbs.”The act devalues people like me,” Curran continued in a press release shared with CNA. “I have led a full life despite my disability.” Daniese McMullin-Powell, who is representing Delaware ADAPT in the lawsuit, said that the medical system already neglects people with disabilities.  “We do not need exacerbate its brokenness by adding an element where some patients are steered toward suicide,” said McMullin-Powell, who is a polio survivor and has used a wheelchair for most of her life. “For patients with serious disabilities, this law will put us at risk of deadly discrimination from doctors and insurance companies in Delaware to make subjective and speculative judgments based on their perception of our quality of life,” McMullin-Powell said, according to the press release. The legal group Ted Kittila of Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP, who are representing the plaintiffs, called the law “ill-considered” and said it will “cause real harm to people who need real help.”“For too long, assisted suicide has been pitched as an act of mercy,” the group said in the press release. “For those in the disability community, it represents a real threat of continued discrimination.”  The office of Gov. Meyer did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
Read More

Disability advocates sue Delaware over allegedly ‘discriminatory’ assisted suicide law  #Catholic “For patients with serious disabilities, this law will put us at risk of deadly discrimination," says Daniese McMullin-Powell, a polio survivor who has used a wheelchair for most of her life. / Credit: Institute for Patients' Rights CNA Staff, Dec 10, 2025 / 06:10 am (CNA). Several disability and patient advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Delaware on Dec. 8 alleging that Delaware’s new physician-assisted suicide law discriminates against people with disabilities. In May 2025, Delaware passed a bill legalizing physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to live. The law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, 2026, allows patients to self-administer lethal medication. The 74-page complaint alleges that the new law is unconstitutional under both Delaware and federal law and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, among other challenges.  Plaintiffs include the Institute for Patients’ Rights; The Freedom Center for Independent Living, Inc., in Middletown; the Delaware chapter of ADAPT; Not Dead Yet; United Spinal Association, the National Council on Independent Living; and disability advocate Sean Curran.The lawsuit, which names Gov. Matthew Meyer and the Delaware Department of Health and Human Services as two of several defendants, said that “people with life-threatening disabilities” are at “imminent risk” because of Delaware’s new law.   “Throughout the country, a state-endorsed narrative is rapidly spreading that threatens people with disabilities: namely, that people with life-threatening disabilities should be directed to suicide help and not suicide prevention,” the lawsuit read.“At its core, this is discrimination plain and simple,” the lawsuit continued. “With cuts in healthcare spending at the federal level, persons with life-threatening disabilities are now more vulnerable than ever.”The lawsuit alleges that, under the new law, people with life-threatening disabilities who express suicidal thoughts will be treated differently than other people who express suicidal thoughts. The new law lacks requirements for mental health screening for depression or other mental illness, “all of which are necessary for informed consent and a truly autonomous choice,” according to the lawsuit. Curran, a Delaware resident who has lived with a severe spinal cord injury for 36 years, called the law “repugnant.”“The act tells people like me that they should qualify for suicide help, not suicide prevention,” said Curran, who is a quadriplegic, meaning he is paralyzed in all four limbs.”The act devalues people like me,” Curran continued in a press release shared with CNA. “I have led a full life despite my disability.” Daniese McMullin-Powell, who is representing Delaware ADAPT in the lawsuit, said that the medical system already neglects people with disabilities.  “We do not need exacerbate its brokenness by adding an element where some patients are steered toward suicide,” said McMullin-Powell, who is a polio survivor and has used a wheelchair for most of her life. “For patients with serious disabilities, this law will put us at risk of deadly discrimination from doctors and insurance companies in Delaware to make subjective and speculative judgments based on their perception of our quality of life,” McMullin-Powell said, according to the press release. The legal group Ted Kittila of Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP, who are representing the plaintiffs, called the law “ill-considered” and said it will “cause real harm to people who need real help.”“For too long, assisted suicide has been pitched as an act of mercy,” the group said in the press release. “For those in the disability community, it represents a real threat of continued discrimination.”  The office of Gov. Meyer did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

unitedyam

“For patients with serious disabilities, this law will put us at risk of deadly discrimination," says Daniese McMullin-Powell, a polio survivor who has used a wheelchair for most of her life. / Credit: Institute for Patients' Rights

CNA Staff, Dec 10, 2025 / 06:10 am (CNA).

Several disability and patient advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Delaware on Dec. 8 alleging that Delaware’s new physician-assisted suicide law discriminates against people with disabilities. 

In May 2025, Delaware passed a bill legalizing physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to live. The law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, 2026, allows patients to self-administer lethal medication. 

The 74-page complaint alleges that the new law is unconstitutional under both Delaware and federal law and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, among other challenges.  

Plaintiffs include the Institute for Patients’ Rights; The Freedom Center for Independent Living, Inc., in Middletown; the Delaware chapter of ADAPT; Not Dead Yet; United Spinal Association, the National Council on Independent Living; and disability advocate Sean Curran.

The lawsuit, which names Gov. Matthew Meyer and the Delaware Department of Health and Human Services as two of several defendants, said that “people with life-threatening disabilities” are at “imminent risk” because of Delaware’s new law.   

“Throughout the country, a state-endorsed narrative is rapidly spreading that threatens people with disabilities: namely, that people with life-threatening disabilities should be directed to suicide help and not suicide prevention,” the lawsuit read.

“At its core, this is discrimination plain and simple,” the lawsuit continued. “With cuts in healthcare spending at the federal level, persons with life-threatening disabilities are now more vulnerable than ever.”

The lawsuit alleges that, under the new law, people with life-threatening disabilities who express suicidal thoughts will be treated differently than other people who express suicidal thoughts. The new law lacks requirements for mental health screening for depression or other mental illness, “all of which are necessary for informed consent and a truly autonomous choice,” according to the lawsuit. 

Curran, a Delaware resident who has lived with a severe spinal cord injury for 36 years, called the law “repugnant.”

“The act tells people like me that they should qualify for suicide help, not suicide prevention,” said Curran, who is a quadriplegic, meaning he is paralyzed in all four limbs.

“The act devalues people like me,” Curran continued in a press release shared with CNA. “I have led a full life despite my disability.” 

Daniese McMullin-Powell, who is representing Delaware ADAPT in the lawsuit, said that the medical system already neglects people with disabilities.  

“We do not need exacerbate its brokenness by adding an element where some patients are steered toward suicide,” said McMullin-Powell, who is a polio survivor and has used a wheelchair for most of her life. 

“For patients with serious disabilities, this law will put us at risk of deadly discrimination from doctors and insurance companies in Delaware to make subjective and speculative judgments based on their perception of our quality of life,” McMullin-Powell said, according to the press release. 

The legal group Ted Kittila of Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP, who are representing the plaintiffs, called the law “ill-considered” and said it will “cause real harm to people who need real help.”

“For too long, assisted suicide has been pitched as an act of mercy,” the group said in the press release. “For those in the disability community, it represents a real threat of continued discrimination.”  

The office of Gov. Meyer did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

Read More