Supreme Court

Indian Catholics denied bail after confronting mob that disrupted Mass #Catholic UDAIPUR, India — Nine Catholics have been behind bars for more than two weeks after parishioners chased out more than a dozen people who barged into a village church during Mass, shouting accusations of conversion, in a remote village in Indiaʼs desert state of Rajasthan.“We feel frustrated that our people were denied bail a second time today on the false allegation of conversion,” Bishop Devprasad John Ganawa of Udaipur, a Divine Word missionary, told EWTN News on May 12.“When the hooligans disrupted the Mass on May 1 shouting ‘conversion,’ our people forced them out. Instead of registering a criminal case against the intruders, the police have charged our people with ‘conversion and attempt to murder’ and arrested nine Catholics of Bandaria Parish,” Ganawa explained.‘They took out a knife’“I was saying the evening Mass at the substation of my parish at Kalinjara village when the incident happened,” Father Arvind Amliyar recounted to EWTN News.“During the Communion time over a dozen people stormed into the church, shouted ‘conversion,’ and started filming with cameras. When one of them took out a knife, our people snatched it and chased them out,” Amliyar said.“Soon police came and what happened then shocked me. Instead of finding out what had happened, they arrested four Catholics the same night,” the priest said.A Hindu mob then staged a protest outside the police station and demanded action against the parishioners, according to Amliyar. Police turned away Catholics who went to them twice, including at midnight the same day and the next day, refusing to register their complaint.Police came knocking on May 4 at 2:30 a.m. and arrested five more parishioners, including Anil Rawat, 70, a retired headmaster of a government school who now runs a private school in the village.Bail denied twiceThe local magistrate court rejected the parishioners' bail application the next day, as they were charged with “serious crimes”: conversion and attempted murder. Church lawyers then moved the case to the Banswara district court, which denied bail again on May 12.“Now, we have to go to the High Court with senior lawyers,” Amliyar said of the challenging situation facing the village church, which serves about 70 Catholic families. About 70 people were attending Mass when the intruders stormed in.“I cannot understand what is going on. The police bluntly refused to register the complaint of our people and have filed a serious charge of conversion against our people and imprisoned them,” Ganawa said of the first case of alleged conversion in Udaipur Diocese, where he has served as bishop for 13 years.Anti-conversion laws ‘reduced to a tool to harass minorities’“This is another typical case of the widespread abuse of anti-conversion laws against Christians in several states, most of them ruled by the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party],” A.C. Michael, a Catholic and national coordinator of the United Christian Forum, which monitors atrocities against Christians, told EWTN News from New Delhi.Under the Indian criminal system, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. However, under recently enacted or amended anti-conversion laws, Michael said, the burden of disproving the charge of conversion is shifted to the accused, making it difficult for defendants to secure bail from trial courts quickly, even in fraudulent cases.Under the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, enacted in 2025, the burden of disproving the allegation of conversion falls on the accused.As a result, Michael said, hundreds of Christians are languishing in jails in BJP-ruled states while protracted legal challenges drag on in higher courts.“The shocking reality is that there has been hardly any conviction in so-called conversion cases. That is why the churches and Christian groups have moved the Supreme Court for abolishing the anti-conversion laws that have been reduced to a tool to harass minorities,” Michael said.He noted that the Supreme Court in May 2024 observed that certain provisions in anti-conversion laws may be in violation of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate oneʼs religion.The Feb. 4–10 biennial assembly of more than 200 bishops in India in Bangalore also reiterated this concern in its final statement: “As many innocent individuals are incarcerated based on unfounded allegations of forceful religious conversions, we strongly demand the repealing of legislations which are inconsistent with religious freedom and right to privacy.”
Read More

Indian Catholics denied bail after confronting mob that disrupted Mass #Catholic UDAIPUR, India — Nine Catholics have been behind bars for more than two weeks after parishioners chased out more than a dozen people who barged into a village church during Mass, shouting accusations of conversion, in a remote village in Indiaʼs desert state of Rajasthan.“We feel frustrated that our people were denied bail a second time today on the false allegation of conversion,” Bishop Devprasad John Ganawa of Udaipur, a Divine Word missionary, told EWTN News on May 12.“When the hooligans disrupted the Mass on May 1 shouting ‘conversion,’ our people forced them out. Instead of registering a criminal case against the intruders, the police have charged our people with ‘conversion and attempt to murder’ and arrested nine Catholics of Bandaria Parish,” Ganawa explained.‘They took out a knife’“I was saying the evening Mass at the substation of my parish at Kalinjara village when the incident happened,” Father Arvind Amliyar recounted to EWTN News.“During the Communion time over a dozen people stormed into the church, shouted ‘conversion,’ and started filming with cameras. When one of them took out a knife, our people snatched it and chased them out,” Amliyar said.“Soon police came and what happened then shocked me. Instead of finding out what had happened, they arrested four Catholics the same night,” the priest said.A Hindu mob then staged a protest outside the police station and demanded action against the parishioners, according to Amliyar. Police turned away Catholics who went to them twice, including at midnight the same day and the next day, refusing to register their complaint.Police came knocking on May 4 at 2:30 a.m. and arrested five more parishioners, including Anil Rawat, 70, a retired headmaster of a government school who now runs a private school in the village.Bail denied twiceThe local magistrate court rejected the parishioners' bail application the next day, as they were charged with “serious crimes”: conversion and attempted murder. Church lawyers then moved the case to the Banswara district court, which denied bail again on May 12.“Now, we have to go to the High Court with senior lawyers,” Amliyar said of the challenging situation facing the village church, which serves about 70 Catholic families. About 70 people were attending Mass when the intruders stormed in.“I cannot understand what is going on. The police bluntly refused to register the complaint of our people and have filed a serious charge of conversion against our people and imprisoned them,” Ganawa said of the first case of alleged conversion in Udaipur Diocese, where he has served as bishop for 13 years.Anti-conversion laws ‘reduced to a tool to harass minorities’“This is another typical case of the widespread abuse of anti-conversion laws against Christians in several states, most of them ruled by the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party],” A.C. Michael, a Catholic and national coordinator of the United Christian Forum, which monitors atrocities against Christians, told EWTN News from New Delhi.Under the Indian criminal system, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. However, under recently enacted or amended anti-conversion laws, Michael said, the burden of disproving the charge of conversion is shifted to the accused, making it difficult for defendants to secure bail from trial courts quickly, even in fraudulent cases.Under the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, enacted in 2025, the burden of disproving the allegation of conversion falls on the accused.As a result, Michael said, hundreds of Christians are languishing in jails in BJP-ruled states while protracted legal challenges drag on in higher courts.“The shocking reality is that there has been hardly any conviction in so-called conversion cases. That is why the churches and Christian groups have moved the Supreme Court for abolishing the anti-conversion laws that have been reduced to a tool to harass minorities,” Michael said.He noted that the Supreme Court in May 2024 observed that certain provisions in anti-conversion laws may be in violation of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate oneʼs religion.The Feb. 4–10 biennial assembly of more than 200 bishops in India in Bangalore also reiterated this concern in its final statement: “As many innocent individuals are incarcerated based on unfounded allegations of forceful religious conversions, we strongly demand the repealing of legislations which are inconsistent with religious freedom and right to privacy.”

unitedyam

Nine parishioners face conversion and attempted murder charges after forcing out intruders who stormed a village church during Mass in Rajasthan.

Read More
Catholics weigh in as Supreme Court faces deadline on telemedicine abortion ruling #Catholic The U.S. Supreme Court’s stay on the 5th Circuit’s ruling restricting access to telemedicine abortions is set to expire May 11, a deadline that could bring an extension, allow the restrictions to take effect, or prompt the justices to take up the case in full.Michael New, assistant professor of social research at The Catholic University of America’s Busch School of Business, told “EWTN News Nightly” on May 8: “The Supreme Court may extend the stay if they need more time to deliberate; they may simply uphold the 5th Circuit Courtʼs decision that bans tele-abortion, and the ban will go into effect; or they may want to do a full hearing [and] conduct oral arguments.”The Supreme Court on May 4 temporarily blocked a lower court order requiring in‑person dispensing of mifepristone after two manufacturers asked the justices to intervene, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to issue an administrative stay that restores mail‑order access until May 11 at 5 p.m. ET while the court weighs the request.Although Alito instructed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the state of Louisiana to respond by 5 p.m. ET on May 7, the Justice Department failed to do so.New described the development as “odd,” saying the failure by the Justice Department, which represents the FDA, to meet the filing deadline could be that “they don’t want to defend the FDA’s position any longer” or that it may signal a policy change.“Sometimes when people think theyʼre going to lose a case, they change public policy because theyʼd rather change policy than, you know, lose a court case,” New said. “Itʼs really hard to say at this point.”Ultimately, New said the Supreme Court should “absolutely” reinstate in-person requirements to obtain abortion pills, saying: “Thereʼs some real serious public health issues at play here.”Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino gave context for the latest developments in a May 7 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” noting that the FDAʼs ongoing approval of nationwide mail-order abortion effectively circumvents Louisiana law protecting unborn human life. “The court should decide hopefully by the 11th, because thatʼs when the stay expires,” she said. “If they donʼt make any decision, then the 5th Circuit ruling goes back into effect and the FDA will have to disallow mailing of these pills, at least during the pendency of litigation,” said Severino, who is also a former Supreme Court clerk.U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the FDA to carry out a review of the abortion drug in May 2025, which is still ongoing.Ultimately, Severino said, the Supreme Court will not be ruling on “what the FDA needs to do at the end of the day” but on whether abortion drugs will be allowed to be mailed into Louisiana or not.“Eventually, you know, then itʼs going to go back and the district court and the 5th Circuit are going to have to reconsider it,” she said. “It could well return to the Supreme Court ultimately, but thatʼs going to be a ways down the litigation.”The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has spoken out against the dangers of mail-order abortion drugs for women and urged the FDA to restore in-person visits to screen for life-threatening conditions such as ectopic pregnancies as well as abuse and human trafficking.
Read More

Catholics weigh in as Supreme Court faces deadline on telemedicine abortion ruling #Catholic The U.S. Supreme Court’s stay on the 5th Circuit’s ruling restricting access to telemedicine abortions is set to expire May 11, a deadline that could bring an extension, allow the restrictions to take effect, or prompt the justices to take up the case in full.Michael New, assistant professor of social research at The Catholic University of America’s Busch School of Business, told “EWTN News Nightly” on May 8: “The Supreme Court may extend the stay if they need more time to deliberate; they may simply uphold the 5th Circuit Courtʼs decision that bans tele-abortion, and the ban will go into effect; or they may want to do a full hearing [and] conduct oral arguments.”The Supreme Court on May 4 temporarily blocked a lower court order requiring in‑person dispensing of mifepristone after two manufacturers asked the justices to intervene, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to issue an administrative stay that restores mail‑order access until May 11 at 5 p.m. ET while the court weighs the request.Although Alito instructed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the state of Louisiana to respond by 5 p.m. ET on May 7, the Justice Department failed to do so.New described the development as “odd,” saying the failure by the Justice Department, which represents the FDA, to meet the filing deadline could be that “they don’t want to defend the FDA’s position any longer” or that it may signal a policy change.“Sometimes when people think theyʼre going to lose a case, they change public policy because theyʼd rather change policy than, you know, lose a court case,” New said. “Itʼs really hard to say at this point.”Ultimately, New said the Supreme Court should “absolutely” reinstate in-person requirements to obtain abortion pills, saying: “Thereʼs some real serious public health issues at play here.”Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino gave context for the latest developments in a May 7 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” noting that the FDAʼs ongoing approval of nationwide mail-order abortion effectively circumvents Louisiana law protecting unborn human life. “The court should decide hopefully by the 11th, because thatʼs when the stay expires,” she said. “If they donʼt make any decision, then the 5th Circuit ruling goes back into effect and the FDA will have to disallow mailing of these pills, at least during the pendency of litigation,” said Severino, who is also a former Supreme Court clerk.U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the FDA to carry out a review of the abortion drug in May 2025, which is still ongoing.Ultimately, Severino said, the Supreme Court will not be ruling on “what the FDA needs to do at the end of the day” but on whether abortion drugs will be allowed to be mailed into Louisiana or not.“Eventually, you know, then itʼs going to go back and the district court and the 5th Circuit are going to have to reconsider it,” she said. “It could well return to the Supreme Court ultimately, but thatʼs going to be a ways down the litigation.”The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has spoken out against the dangers of mail-order abortion drugs for women and urged the FDA to restore in-person visits to screen for life-threatening conditions such as ectopic pregnancies as well as abuse and human trafficking.

unitedyam

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered a review of the abortion drug mifipristone in May 2025, which is ongoing.

Read More
U.S. Supreme Court allows faith-based pregnancy center to challenge donor subpoena #Catholic The U.S. Supreme Court said a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information.The court in a unanimous ruling April 29 decided the case could proceed in federal court, reversing a lower court decision that had deemed the lawsuit premature.The pregnancy center had raised First Amendment concerns about whether it could immediately assert its right to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information — including names, addresses, and places of employment — in federal court, or whether it must first proceed through the state court system.The ruling was a victory for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. Diverse groups including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU had agreed that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, involves a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin had begun investigating crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice, saying they are organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”First Choice described itself in a Supreme Court brief as a faith-based nonprofit serving New Jersey women by offering material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests. The organization said it does not provide or refer for abortions.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told the court in an amicus brief: “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.”It contended that compelling disclosure would undermine the group’s religious mission and chill the free‑exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in keeping with their beliefs.
Read More

U.S. Supreme Court allows faith-based pregnancy center to challenge donor subpoena #Catholic The U.S. Supreme Court said a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information.The court in a unanimous ruling April 29 decided the case could proceed in federal court, reversing a lower court decision that had deemed the lawsuit premature.The pregnancy center had raised First Amendment concerns about whether it could immediately assert its right to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information — including names, addresses, and places of employment — in federal court, or whether it must first proceed through the state court system.The ruling was a victory for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. Diverse groups including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU had agreed that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, involves a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin had begun investigating crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice, saying they are organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”First Choice described itself in a Supreme Court brief as a faith-based nonprofit serving New Jersey women by offering material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests. The organization said it does not provide or refer for abortions.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told the court in an amicus brief: “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.”It contended that compelling disclosure would undermine the group’s religious mission and chill the free‑exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in keeping with their beliefs.

unitedyam

U.S. bishops had told the court in an amicus brief that compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

Read More
Maryland Supreme Court: State cannot reveal names of individuals who allegedly hid Church abuse #Catholic Prosecutors in Maryland may not reveal the names of individuals who allegedly hid or failed to report Church abuse, the state Supreme Court said April 27. As part of its investigation into alleged abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the state attorney generalʼs office had sought to make public the details of a grand jury report, including the identities of individuals who have not been charged with a crime but who allegedly failed to stop abuse from occurring. A lower court granted the attorney generalʼs request to publish the information, with an appellate court partly upholding that decision. Yet in its April 27 ruling, the Maryland Supreme Court reversed those decisions, holding that the attorney generalʼs office did not “meet [the] burden” of justifying the release of the identities. “Many grand jury investigations obtain damaging information and allegations about uncharged individuals that the public might benefit from learning,” the high court acknowledged. But “one of the primary purposes of grand jury secrecy is to protect uncharged persons from public disgrace in the absence of a criminal charge and a forum in which to seek vindication,” it said. “A court may not order disclosure of secret grand jury material, over the objection of an uncharged individual, for the purpose of holding that person accountable in the court of public opinion,” the justices said. The court noted that the attorney generalʼs office had argued that the “intensity of public interest” in the case could justify revealing the identities.Yet “the interests promoted by grand jury secrecy do not increase or decrease based on how much the public wants to learn the information contained in grand jury materials,” the court said.The decision comes amid ongoing court proceedings in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, which filed for bankruptcy in September 2023 ahead of a wave of sex abuse claims filed against it under the Maryland Child Victims Act. Earlier this month, the archdiocesan insurer Hartford Insurance Group proposed contributing $100 million to a settlement for abuse victims. The archdiocese in 2024 sued multiple insurers over what it claimed was a failure to pay abuse claims for which the insurers were contractually obligated.In 2024 Archbishop William Lori attended two court-ordered “listening sessions” with alleged victims of sexual abuse, with the prelate describing himself as "deeply moved by their very powerful testimony.”
Read More

Maryland Supreme Court: State cannot reveal names of individuals who allegedly hid Church abuse #Catholic Prosecutors in Maryland may not reveal the names of individuals who allegedly hid or failed to report Church abuse, the state Supreme Court said April 27. As part of its investigation into alleged abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the state attorney generalʼs office had sought to make public the details of a grand jury report, including the identities of individuals who have not been charged with a crime but who allegedly failed to stop abuse from occurring. A lower court granted the attorney generalʼs request to publish the information, with an appellate court partly upholding that decision. Yet in its April 27 ruling, the Maryland Supreme Court reversed those decisions, holding that the attorney generalʼs office did not “meet [the] burden” of justifying the release of the identities. “Many grand jury investigations obtain damaging information and allegations about uncharged individuals that the public might benefit from learning,” the high court acknowledged. But “one of the primary purposes of grand jury secrecy is to protect uncharged persons from public disgrace in the absence of a criminal charge and a forum in which to seek vindication,” it said. “A court may not order disclosure of secret grand jury material, over the objection of an uncharged individual, for the purpose of holding that person accountable in the court of public opinion,” the justices said. The court noted that the attorney generalʼs office had argued that the “intensity of public interest” in the case could justify revealing the identities.Yet “the interests promoted by grand jury secrecy do not increase or decrease based on how much the public wants to learn the information contained in grand jury materials,” the court said.The decision comes amid ongoing court proceedings in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, which filed for bankruptcy in September 2023 ahead of a wave of sex abuse claims filed against it under the Maryland Child Victims Act. Earlier this month, the archdiocesan insurer Hartford Insurance Group proposed contributing $100 million to a settlement for abuse victims. The archdiocese in 2024 sued multiple insurers over what it claimed was a failure to pay abuse claims for which the insurers were contractually obligated.In 2024 Archbishop William Lori attended two court-ordered “listening sessions” with alleged victims of sexual abuse, with the prelate describing himself as "deeply moved by their very powerful testimony.”

unitedyam

“Uncharged individuals” may not be exposed to the “court of public opinion” in grand jury documents, the state high court ruled.

Read More
Federal judge pauses Louisiana telehealth abortion suit pending FDA review #Catholic After the Trump administration appealed, a federal judge put on pause a lawsuit filed by the state of Louisiana that challenges the federal policy of allowing mail-order abortion pills.U.S. District Judge David Joseph in Lafayette, Louisiana, ruled that the challenge be paused pending the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s review of the safety of the drug but noted that the state could continue the challenge after the review was completed.Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a lawsuit in late 2025 to challenge the 2023 deregulation of mifepristone, which is used in chemical abortions. The 2023 rule changes, initiated during former president Joe Biden’s administration, allowed the drugs to be delivered through the mail and prescribed without any visits to a doctor.In January of this year, President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with a federal district court to pause the suit, pending a review by the FDA of the chemical abortion drug.Louisiana had filed the lawsuit after residents — including Rosalie Markezich, who is named in the lawsuit — said they were coerced into taking abortion pills that were obtained through the mail. In Markezich’s case, she said her boyfriend forced her to take it.Study: Maternal mortality decreased in states that protect unborn lifeA recent study published by JAMA Network Open found a decrease in maternal mortality in states that protect unborn children from abortions as well as in states with permissive abortion laws.The study considered 22 million births and more than 12,000 pregnancy-related deaths from 2018 to 2023, with 14 states with abortion bans and 37 control jurisdictions.“This cohort study found that abortion bans were not associated with statistically significant overall or state-specific increases in pregnancy-associated mortality,” the study read.In states with strong pro-life laws, on average, maternal mortality rates declined slightly faster than pro-abortion states.Illinois pregnancy centers continue to appeal for conscience rightsA court heard arguments on Friday from Illinois pregnancy centers that are appealing an Illinois district court decision that affirmed a law requiring pregnancy centers to refer women for abortions.The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three Illinois pregnancy centers appealed after an April 2025 court ruling found that requiring pregnancy centers to refer pregnant women for an abortion was not a violation of speech and conscience rights.“No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions, and compelling people to refer others for abortions does that,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Counsel Erin Hawley. “The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional.”Maryland bill to force hospitals to offer abortions goes to governor’s deskA Maryland bill that would force hospitals to offer abortions, even against their conscience, in some circumstances, heads to the stateʼs governor after the state Legislature passed it this week.The bill would require “a hospital to allow the termination of a pregnancy in certain circumstances” under the federal 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which ensures that emergency care is offered regardless of a patient’s ability to pay.The bill would also require a hospital to screen patients for “emergency pregnancy-related medical condition[s]” and to provide “transfer of a patient who has an emergency pregnancy-related medical condition.”“This bill will result in a new government-created loss of valuable highly trained and experienced emergency department physicians, nurses, providers, and staff,” said Dr. James Kelly, representing the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “The legislation will increase the already existing severe shortages of qualified medical staff and will decrease access to emergency medical care, and endanger the health and safety of patients seeking emergency medical care.”
Read More

Federal judge pauses Louisiana telehealth abortion suit pending FDA review #Catholic After the Trump administration appealed, a federal judge put on pause a lawsuit filed by the state of Louisiana that challenges the federal policy of allowing mail-order abortion pills.U.S. District Judge David Joseph in Lafayette, Louisiana, ruled that the challenge be paused pending the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s review of the safety of the drug but noted that the state could continue the challenge after the review was completed.Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a lawsuit in late 2025 to challenge the 2023 deregulation of mifepristone, which is used in chemical abortions. The 2023 rule changes, initiated during former president Joe Biden’s administration, allowed the drugs to be delivered through the mail and prescribed without any visits to a doctor.In January of this year, President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with a federal district court to pause the suit, pending a review by the FDA of the chemical abortion drug.Louisiana had filed the lawsuit after residents — including Rosalie Markezich, who is named in the lawsuit — said they were coerced into taking abortion pills that were obtained through the mail. In Markezich’s case, she said her boyfriend forced her to take it.Study: Maternal mortality decreased in states that protect unborn lifeA recent study published by JAMA Network Open found a decrease in maternal mortality in states that protect unborn children from abortions as well as in states with permissive abortion laws.The study considered 22 million births and more than 12,000 pregnancy-related deaths from 2018 to 2023, with 14 states with abortion bans and 37 control jurisdictions.“This cohort study found that abortion bans were not associated with statistically significant overall or state-specific increases in pregnancy-associated mortality,” the study read.In states with strong pro-life laws, on average, maternal mortality rates declined slightly faster than pro-abortion states.Illinois pregnancy centers continue to appeal for conscience rightsA court heard arguments on Friday from Illinois pregnancy centers that are appealing an Illinois district court decision that affirmed a law requiring pregnancy centers to refer women for abortions.The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three Illinois pregnancy centers appealed after an April 2025 court ruling found that requiring pregnancy centers to refer pregnant women for an abortion was not a violation of speech and conscience rights.“No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions, and compelling people to refer others for abortions does that,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Counsel Erin Hawley. “The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional.”Maryland bill to force hospitals to offer abortions goes to governor’s deskA Maryland bill that would force hospitals to offer abortions, even against their conscience, in some circumstances, heads to the stateʼs governor after the state Legislature passed it this week.The bill would require “a hospital to allow the termination of a pregnancy in certain circumstances” under the federal 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which ensures that emergency care is offered regardless of a patient’s ability to pay.The bill would also require a hospital to screen patients for “emergency pregnancy-related medical condition[s]” and to provide “transfer of a patient who has an emergency pregnancy-related medical condition.”“This bill will result in a new government-created loss of valuable highly trained and experienced emergency department physicians, nurses, providers, and staff,” said Dr. James Kelly, representing the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “The legislation will increase the already existing severe shortages of qualified medical staff and will decrease access to emergency medical care, and endanger the health and safety of patients seeking emergency medical care.”

unitedyam

A roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news.

Read More