Father Alberto Medel reported that he was told to remove his clerical attire in order to renew his passport in Mexico despite the existence of judicial rulings that protect religious clothing.
![Nationwide tax-funded abortion is top priority for Democrats in next session #Catholic The Democratic Party will head into the 2027 legislative session with majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate following a landslide victory in the midterm elections, and one of its focuses will be to advance pro-abortion legislation.Earlier this year, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised healthcare would be one of the top Democratic priorities for 2027 and created a Cost-of-Living Healthcare Working Group to develop a legislative plan, led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, and Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Alabama.Based on a memo developed by the working group and obtained by Politico in late September, Democratic plans to codify the now-defunct Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which made abortion legal nationwide, and plans for tax-funded elective abortions, “should be considered for advancement in the first 100 hours” of the legislative session.“Reestablish a federal right to abortion care and end restrictions that prevent people covered through federal health programs from receiving abortion coverage,” read the memo, which is dated Sept. 1 and was published by Politico on Sept. 25.EWTN News reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s office and Sewell’s office to ask whether this is still the plan but did not receive a response by the time of publication.The White House provided a statement to EWTN News when asked about Democrats’ plans to prioritize abortion legislation but did not specifically say whether President Donald Trump would veto any pro-abortion bills.“The Trump Administration is committed to Gold Standard Science, as outlined in detail by President Trump’s Executive Order, ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science,’” White House spokeswoman Allison Schuster said in the statement. “The mifepristone safety review by the FDA is just one example of President Trumpʼs total commitment to ensuring the health and safety of all Americans.”2 bills for immediate considerationOne bill the working group suggests Democrats consider to advance in the first 100 hours is the Women’s Health Protection Act, which was first introduced in 2013 to codify Roe. This bill would declare abortion “a human right” and prevent state governments from restricting abortion before fetal viability, which is typically in the 23rd or 24th week of pregnancy.According to the 2025 version of the bill, viability is when the unborn child can survive outside of the womb. Whether the unborn child is viable would be determined by “the treating health care provider,” who is typically the abortionist.Although some post-viability abortion restrictions would be allowed, all state laws would need to allow abortion through the ninth month of pregnancy if “the treating health care provider,” who is typically the abortionist, deems it necessary to protect “the life or health of the patient.” The text is unclear as to what qualifies as a threat to the patient’s health.If this bill were to become law, it would immediately invalidate state-level pro-life laws across the country.“It would sweep aside state protections for unborn children,” Laura Echevarria, communications director National Right to Life, told EWTN News.She said the bill would “take away the ability for [people’s] elected representatives … [to] protect babies before viability.” And after viability, she said abortions would be allowed “if the abortionist determines the abortion is necessary.”Echevarria said the text used in the bill offers a “very broad definition” for the health exemption and warned that it could include not just physical health complications but also mental health complications, as determined by the abortionist.The second bill the working group suggests Democrats consider within the first 100 hours is the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH) Act, which would add abortion coverage to tax-funded health insurance plans for government workers and people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Childrenʼs Health Insurance Program (CHIP).Essentially, the bill would eliminate the Hyde Amendment, which has been included in spending bills since 1976 to prohibit federal funds for elective abortions. Although the ban on tax-funded abortion originally had bipartisan support, Democrats have sought to eliminate the ban in recent years.Echevarria said the EACH Act would “require abortion coverage across specific government health programs,” with the goal being to eliminate Hyde. She said: “The federal government would ensure that abortion would be covered, so it’s very broad and very sweeping.”She said the Democrats’ plan to prioritize these bills is “disappointing” but “not surprising.” She said that although the Democratic Party used to welcome pro-life voices, “now it’s the party that encourages women to ‘shout their abortion.’”“It used to be we had more pro-life Democrats in the House years ago, [but] the Democratic Party has not welcomed pro-lifers in years,” Echevarria said. “So they are not welcoming that viewpoint.”Kelsey Pritchard, the communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement to EWTN News that this agenda shows “pro-abortion Democrat extremism will be on full display next Congress.”In addition to the two bills included in the memo, Pritchard said: “We also anticipate efforts to revive the expansion of Obamacare subsidies that further taxpayer funded abortion coverage, another avenue for more babies to die at the hands of the federal government.”The incoming members of Congress will be sworn in at noon on Jan. 3, 2027. Although not all of the results are finalized, Democrats will have at least 253 seats in the House and at least 54 seats in the Senate.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/nationwide-tax-funded-abortion-is-top-priority-for-democrats-in-next-session-catholic-the-democratic-party-will-head-into-the-2027-legislative-session-with-majorities-in-the-house-of-representatives.png "Nationwide tax-funded abortion is top priority for Democrats in next session #Catholic The Democratic Party will head into the 2027 legislative session with majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate following a landslide victory in the midterm elections, and one of its focuses will be to advance pro-abortion legislation.Earlier this year, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised healthcare would be one of the top Democratic priorities for 2027 and created a Cost-of-Living Healthcare Working Group to develop a legislative plan, led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, and Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Alabama.Based on a memo developed by the working group and obtained by Politico in late September, Democratic plans to codify the now-defunct Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which made abortion legal nationwide, and plans for tax-funded elective abortions, “should be considered for advancement in the first 100 hours” of the legislative session.“Reestablish a federal right to abortion care and end restrictions that prevent people covered through federal health programs from receiving abortion coverage,” read the memo, which is dated Sept. 1 and was published by Politico on Sept. 25.EWTN News reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s office and Sewell’s office to ask whether this is still the plan but did not receive a response by the time of publication.The White House provided a statement to EWTN News when asked about Democrats’ plans to prioritize abortion legislation but did not specifically say whether President Donald Trump would veto any pro-abortion bills.“The Trump Administration is committed to Gold Standard Science, as outlined in detail by President Trump’s Executive Order, ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science,’” White House spokeswoman Allison Schuster said in the statement. “The mifepristone safety review by the FDA is just one example of President Trumpʼs total commitment to ensuring the health and safety of all Americans.”2 bills for immediate considerationOne bill the working group suggests Democrats consider to advance in the first 100 hours is the Women’s Health Protection Act, which was first introduced in 2013 to codify Roe. This bill would declare abortion “a human right” and prevent state governments from restricting abortion before fetal viability, which is typically in the 23rd or 24th week of pregnancy.According to the 2025 version of the bill, viability is when the unborn child can survive outside of the womb. Whether the unborn child is viable would be determined by “the treating health care provider,” who is typically the abortionist.Although some post-viability abortion restrictions would be allowed, all state laws would need to allow abortion through the ninth month of pregnancy if “the treating health care provider,” who is typically the abortionist, deems it necessary to protect “the life or health of the patient.” The text is unclear as to what qualifies as a threat to the patient’s health.If this bill were to become law, it would immediately invalidate state-level pro-life laws across the country.“It would sweep aside state protections for unborn children,” Laura Echevarria, communications director National Right to Life, told EWTN News.She said the bill would “take away the ability for [people’s] elected representatives … [to] protect babies before viability.” And after viability, she said abortions would be allowed “if the abortionist determines the abortion is necessary.”Echevarria said the text used in the bill offers a “very broad definition” for the health exemption and warned that it could include not just physical health complications but also mental health complications, as determined by the abortionist.The second bill the working group suggests Democrats consider within the first 100 hours is the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH) Act, which would add abortion coverage to tax-funded health insurance plans for government workers and people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Childrenʼs Health Insurance Program (CHIP).Essentially, the bill would eliminate the Hyde Amendment, which has been included in spending bills since 1976 to prohibit federal funds for elective abortions. Although the ban on tax-funded abortion originally had bipartisan support, Democrats have sought to eliminate the ban in recent years.Echevarria said the EACH Act would “require abortion coverage across specific government health programs,” with the goal being to eliminate Hyde. She said: “The federal government would ensure that abortion would be covered, so it’s very broad and very sweeping.”She said the Democrats’ plan to prioritize these bills is “disappointing” but “not surprising.” She said that although the Democratic Party used to welcome pro-life voices, “now it’s the party that encourages women to ‘shout their abortion.’”“It used to be we had more pro-life Democrats in the House years ago, [but] the Democratic Party has not welcomed pro-lifers in years,” Echevarria said. “So they are not welcoming that viewpoint.”Kelsey Pritchard, the communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement to EWTN News that this agenda shows “pro-abortion Democrat extremism will be on full display next Congress.”In addition to the two bills included in the memo, Pritchard said: “We also anticipate efforts to revive the expansion of Obamacare subsidies that further taxpayer funded abortion coverage, another avenue for more babies to die at the hands of the federal government.”The incoming members of Congress will be sworn in at noon on Jan. 3, 2027. Although not all of the results are finalized, Democrats will have at least 253 seats in the House and at least 54 seats in the Senate.")
Democrats are considering two abortion-related bills for the first 100 hours of the 2027 legislative session: one to legalize abortion nationwide and one to allow federal tax funds for abortion.
![Catholic group praises California for ‘largest commutation in history’ as hundreds spared execution #Catholic The prominent anti-death penalty group Catholic Mobilizing Network praised California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Nov. 5 for his commutation of the death sentences of every prisoner on the state’s death row. In a publicly released letter, Newsom said he had “decided to exercise [his] constitutional clemency authority to commute all California death sentences to life without the possibility of parole.”The Democratic governor, who identifies as Catholic, said in the letter that he had come to “firmly believe that state-sanctioned killing is incompatible with California’s values,” that it “undermines the foundations of our legal system,” and that it “diminishes each of us.” The governor described life in prison without parole as “the most severe punishment I can lawfully impose.” The convicted criminals “will die in prison but not by our hand,” he said. The commutation covered all 548 prisoners condemned to death in the state. Newsom’s executive order in 2019 ensured executions would not occur while he remained governor.Responding to the news on Nov. 5, Krisanne Vaillancourt Murphy, executive director of Catholic Mobilizing Network, called the decision “an incredibly encouraging and historic witness for life and human dignity.” She described the order as “the largest commutation in world history.”The Catholic group regularly advocates death sentence commutations and the national abolition of the death penalty itself. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states bluntly that the death penalty is “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”Vaillancourt Murphy in her statement said the mass clemency “demonstrates how justice can be rooted in mercy and restoration instead of death and retribution.”Newsom “has given each of [the condemned criminals] a tangible sign of hope and a chance for rehabilitation,” she said.The decision “underscores the sacred value” of the lives of the prisoners, she said, though she stressed the need to “bear witness to the incomparable suffering that the families and loved ones of murder victims endure.” “We hear the cry for justice and accountability that grave harm rightly deserves, and we continue to hold them in prayer,” Vaillancourt Murphy said. Newsom in his statement noted that the state Supreme Court will have to weigh in on some of the commutations according to the state constitution, though the governor said he was “confident that this act of categorical clemency” was in line with state law.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/catholic-group-praises-california-for-largest-commutation-in-history-as-hundreds-spared-execution-catholic-the-prominent-anti-death-penalty-group-catholic-mobilizing-network-praised.jpg "Catholic group praises California for ‘largest commutation in history’ as hundreds spared execution #Catholic The prominent anti-death penalty group Catholic Mobilizing Network praised California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Nov. 5 for his commutation of the death sentences of every prisoner on the state’s death row. In a publicly released letter, Newsom said he had “decided to exercise [his] constitutional clemency authority to commute all California death sentences to life without the possibility of parole.”The Democratic governor, who identifies as Catholic, said in the letter that he had come to “firmly believe that state-sanctioned killing is incompatible with California’s values,” that it “undermines the foundations of our legal system,” and that it “diminishes each of us.” The governor described life in prison without parole as “the most severe punishment I can lawfully impose.” The convicted criminals “will die in prison but not by our hand,” he said. The commutation covered all 548 prisoners condemned to death in the state. Newsom’s executive order in 2019 ensured executions would not occur while he remained governor.Responding to the news on Nov. 5, Krisanne Vaillancourt Murphy, executive director of Catholic Mobilizing Network, called the decision “an incredibly encouraging and historic witness for life and human dignity.” She described the order as “the largest commutation in world history.”The Catholic group regularly advocates death sentence commutations and the national abolition of the death penalty itself. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states bluntly that the death penalty is “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”Vaillancourt Murphy in her statement said the mass clemency “demonstrates how justice can be rooted in mercy and restoration instead of death and retribution.”Newsom “has given each of [the condemned criminals] a tangible sign of hope and a chance for rehabilitation,” she said.The decision “underscores the sacred value” of the lives of the prisoners, she said, though she stressed the need to “bear witness to the incomparable suffering that the families and loved ones of murder victims endure.” “We hear the cry for justice and accountability that grave harm rightly deserves, and we continue to hold them in prayer,” Vaillancourt Murphy said. Newsom in his statement noted that the state Supreme Court will have to weigh in on some of the commutations according to the state constitution, though the governor said he was “confident that this act of categorical clemency” was in line with state law.")
California Gov. Gavin Newsom commuted the death sentences of nearly 550 prisoners on the state’s death row on Nov. 5.
![Texas Democrats sweep statewide offices; Catholics, pro-lifers respond #Catholic Democrats captured every major statewide office in Texas on Tuesday, ending more than three decades of Republican dominance in the Lone Star State. Catholics and other Christians are warning that the results threaten hard-won gains on the protection of unborn life and parental rights in education.In a surprise defeat in the governor’s race, former state legislator Gina Hinojosa defeated three-time incumbent Greg Abbott, who was first elected in 2014. In 2021, he signed into law the Texas Heartbeat Act, which banned abortions once fetal cardiac activity is detectable (around six weeks).While both Hinojosa and Abbott are Catholic, Hinojosa is pro-abortion, voting against the Heartbeat Act and saying she would sign a bill repealing Texas’ abortion law if it came to her desk, though she has expressed that would be unlikely due to the Republican-majority Legislature. Republicans retained the state Senate but lost their majority in the House.She said in September that expanding abortion access will not be a priority for her as governor because it will take more than her election to get Texas out of the “deep hole” itʼs in regarding what she calls “reproductive rights.”Pro-life advocates warn of setbacks, see opportunitiesJohn Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, a Christian pro-life advocacy group, told EWTN News the election results dealt a “devastating blow” to the pro-life movement in Texas, though he said it was not an “utter disaster” because Republicans, many of whom are pro-life, hung on to the state Senate. He said that will provide “a backstop to kill legislation that would move the pro-life movement backwards.”Seago said the major political change is an opportunity for those who defend life to explain “even more passionately and articulately” why it is so important to do so.In a message to its supporters, the organization wrote: “We cannot simply focus on elections and expect our culture to change by itself. We must make the case for life in our churches, our communities, and our everyday conversations.”Seago said the Republican Party is to blame for the massive electoral shift, saying “the only discussion about abortion in Texas in this election came from [U.S. Senate candidate] James Talarico, who claimed God gave Mary the choice to abort Jesus and said the Bible is silent on abortion.” “Democrats appeared moderate, while Republicans stayed silent,” he said. “That sent a message to pro-lifers that they had a choice between two equal candidates.”He said Texas Right to Life will now focus its efforts on making sure the Republican-majority state Senate blocks “bad” bills, emphasizing the group will be “vigilant” in working with senators. He said even in the Democrat-controlled house, the organization will try to make progress on other pro-life issues where there is bipartisan support and “where the Democrats are usually right there with us,” including protecting patients’ rights, improving foster care and adoption services, and supporting nonprofits that help women.Anthony Joseph, a history professor at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, told EWTN News that Catholics “who’ve been buoyed by the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision are being painfully reminded yet again that the democratic process often morally misfires and creates innocent human casualties.”“Voters often are simply unaware of the harm they are doing,” he said.Joseph said “one consolation for pro-lifers is that Dobbs allowed states to protect unborn children, and the protective laws that resulted in some states will not easily be repealed.”“In Texas, the state Senate will likely continue to have a pro-life majority but Catholics must continue to urge these legislators to uphold current Texas law,” he said.Catholics in those states need “to double and triple their outreach” to state legislators to ensure that these laws stay on the books, he said.Parental rights and education policy at riskHinojosa opposes Abbott’s Texas Freedom of Education Act, which expanded school choice through vouchers parents can use at private schools, calling it a “payout for the privileged” because she says it takes money away from public schools and favors the rich.Joseph said school vouchers encourage religious freedom and empower parents, who, as the Church teaches, bear the primary responsibility for the education of their children.“Parents should have more say in where and how their children are educated,” Joseph said, highlighting that low-income parents who live in neighborhoods with failing public schools especially benefit from the program.Susan Hanssen, a history professor at the University of Dallas, agreed, telling EWTN News that Hinojosaʼs election is “a big loss for a key principle of Catholic social doctrine — the rights of parents over their childrenʼs education.”“The school voucher program frees parents from the stranglehold of the teacherʼs unions, which consistently oppose parental rights in education legislation. It will now be up to the Republicans in the state Senate to defend parental rights,” Hanssen said.“The Church urges Catholics to participate in civic life,” Joseph noted, saying they should remain engaged between elections as much as during election seasons. “Our duty to seek the common good is not episodic but ongoing. It neither begins nor ends with voting, and continues whether our preferred party wins or not.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/texas-democrats-sweep-statewide-offices-catholics-pro-lifers-respond-catholic-democrats-captured-every-major-statewide-office-in-texas-on-tuesday-ending-more-than-three-decades-of-republican-domin-scaled.jpg "Texas Democrats sweep statewide offices; Catholics, pro-lifers respond #Catholic Democrats captured every major statewide office in Texas on Tuesday, ending more than three decades of Republican dominance in the Lone Star State. Catholics and other Christians are warning that the results threaten hard-won gains on the protection of unborn life and parental rights in education.In a surprise defeat in the governor’s race, former state legislator Gina Hinojosa defeated three-time incumbent Greg Abbott, who was first elected in 2014. In 2021, he signed into law the Texas Heartbeat Act, which banned abortions once fetal cardiac activity is detectable (around six weeks).While both Hinojosa and Abbott are Catholic, Hinojosa is pro-abortion, voting against the Heartbeat Act and saying she would sign a bill repealing Texas’ abortion law if it came to her desk, though she has expressed that would be unlikely due to the Republican-majority Legislature. Republicans retained the state Senate but lost their majority in the House.She said in September that expanding abortion access will not be a priority for her as governor because it will take more than her election to get Texas out of the “deep hole” itʼs in regarding what she calls “reproductive rights.”Pro-life advocates warn of setbacks, see opportunitiesJohn Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, a Christian pro-life advocacy group, told EWTN News the election results dealt a “devastating blow” to the pro-life movement in Texas, though he said it was not an “utter disaster” because Republicans, many of whom are pro-life, hung on to the state Senate. He said that will provide “a backstop to kill legislation that would move the pro-life movement backwards.”Seago said the major political change is an opportunity for those who defend life to explain “even more passionately and articulately” why it is so important to do so.In a message to its supporters, the organization wrote: “We cannot simply focus on elections and expect our culture to change by itself. We must make the case for life in our churches, our communities, and our everyday conversations.”Seago said the Republican Party is to blame for the massive electoral shift, saying “the only discussion about abortion in Texas in this election came from [U.S. Senate candidate] James Talarico, who claimed God gave Mary the choice to abort Jesus and said the Bible is silent on abortion.” “Democrats appeared moderate, while Republicans stayed silent,” he said. “That sent a message to pro-lifers that they had a choice between two equal candidates.”He said Texas Right to Life will now focus its efforts on making sure the Republican-majority state Senate blocks “bad” bills, emphasizing the group will be “vigilant” in working with senators. He said even in the Democrat-controlled house, the organization will try to make progress on other pro-life issues where there is bipartisan support and “where the Democrats are usually right there with us,” including protecting patients’ rights, improving foster care and adoption services, and supporting nonprofits that help women.Anthony Joseph, a history professor at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, told EWTN News that Catholics “who’ve been buoyed by the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision are being painfully reminded yet again that the democratic process often morally misfires and creates innocent human casualties.”“Voters often are simply unaware of the harm they are doing,” he said.Joseph said “one consolation for pro-lifers is that Dobbs allowed states to protect unborn children, and the protective laws that resulted in some states will not easily be repealed.”“In Texas, the state Senate will likely continue to have a pro-life majority but Catholics must continue to urge these legislators to uphold current Texas law,” he said.Catholics in those states need “to double and triple their outreach” to state legislators to ensure that these laws stay on the books, he said.Parental rights and education policy at riskHinojosa opposes Abbott’s Texas Freedom of Education Act, which expanded school choice through vouchers parents can use at private schools, calling it a “payout for the privileged” because she says it takes money away from public schools and favors the rich.Joseph said school vouchers encourage religious freedom and empower parents, who, as the Church teaches, bear the primary responsibility for the education of their children.“Parents should have more say in where and how their children are educated,” Joseph said, highlighting that low-income parents who live in neighborhoods with failing public schools especially benefit from the program.Susan Hanssen, a history professor at the University of Dallas, agreed, telling EWTN News that Hinojosaʼs election is “a big loss for a key principle of Catholic social doctrine — the rights of parents over their childrenʼs education.”“The school voucher program frees parents from the stranglehold of the teacherʼs unions, which consistently oppose parental rights in education legislation. It will now be up to the Republicans in the state Senate to defend parental rights,” Hanssen said.“The Church urges Catholics to participate in civic life,” Joseph noted, saying they should remain engaged between elections as much as during election seasons. “Our duty to seek the common good is not episodic but ongoing. It neither begins nor ends with voting, and continues whether our preferred party wins or not.”")
Pro-life activists note that Republicans, many of whom are pro-life, retain control of the state Senate, which will be “a backstop to kill legislation that would move the pro-life movement backwards.”
![U.S. Supreme Court leans toward Catholic schools in clash over pre-K funding #Catholic A majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices sounded ready to require that Colorado provide Catholic schools government funding for preschool even if the schools refuse to guarantee admission for children of same-sex couples, during oral arguments Tuesday in a case involving a school in the Archdiocese of Denver.The case, St. Mary School v. Roy, centers on a preschool-through-grade-8 Catholic school in Littleton that wants to participate in the state’s universal preschool program.Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative majority, described the case as a clash between the free exercise of religion and the right to same-sex marriage the court found in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. But he suggested the clash is unnecessary because parents in Colorado have so many options for prekindergarten, since there are more than 2,000 providers in the state, while the Archdiocese of Denver has only 34 schools that provide the service.“Why has this been provoked when there’s an ability for everyone to go to the school, a good school, that’s a fit for them, and to respect religious rights?” he asked.Helen Norton, deputy solicitor general for the state of Colorado, said parents often choose prekindergarten programs based on their location and their hours rather than their curriculum.“Colorado has an interest in ensuring that its public funds go to schools that ensure equal opportunity — not some opportunity, that ensure equal opportunity to public-funded options, regardless of protected-class status,” Norton said, replying to Kavanaugh’s question. “Families are harmed when they’re turned away from the publicly funded school that makes their lives work because of their protected-class status.”‘Creating a Catholic community’In 2020, Colorado voters approved a state-funded universal prekindergarten program, using increases in tobacco-related taxes to pay for it. The state government is planning to spend about $360 million for the program during the 2026-2027 school year. The state pays preschool providers about $6,100 per year for 15 hours a week of instruction for 4-year-olds during the 2026-2027 school year, according to state standards.Catholic schools want to participate in the program, but the Archdiocese of Denver objects to a state mandate concerning admissions.A Colorado state statute requires that preschools participating in the funding program provide children “an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services” regardless of eight protected classes — including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” — “as such characteristics and circumstances apply to the child or the child’s family.”A lawyer for the Catholic schools told justices Tuesday that Church and school officials want to make admissions decisions on a case-by-case basis in alignment with Catholic teachings instead of simply allowing all comers because of a state mandate.“I think it’s their thoughtful attempt to say, ‘We’re creating a Catholic community,’” said Nicholas Reaves, senior counsel for the Becket law group, which is representing the Catholic schools.Reaves got hostile questions from the court’s three liberals (Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson) and either friendly or neutral questions from the court’s five conservatives (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett), which suggests how the decision might ultimately go. (The chief justice, John Roberts, often seen as a swing vote, mostly moderated the discussion.)Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general in the Trump administration, also argued on the Catholic schools’ side during oral presentations Tuesday.Many optionsThe history of Catholic schools in the 19th century came up during oral arguments, including their origin in concerns among Catholic clerics and parents that government-run public schools were providing a Protestant point of view to the exclusion of Catholicism. Kavanaugh, a Catholic, at one point asked the lawyer for the state of Colorado about a moment in the trial record when the administrator of the state’s universal prekindergarten program was asked about Catholic history.“The director of the program, by all accounts a dutiful public servant, … was asked at the trial, ‘Are you aware that Catholics have historically been discriminated against?’ And she answered, ‘No,’” Kavanaugh said. “I was surprised by that answer and curious if that’s Colorado’s position.”“Not at all, Your Honor,” Norton replied. “And it’s Colorado’s position that the equal-opportunity requirements help religious families. They ensure that Catholic families are not turned away from the UPK [universal prekindergarten] school that best meets their needs because of their faith or because of any other protected characteristic. And a history of discrimination against Catholics is among the reasons that requirement is so important.”Some legal observers have suggested that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court may use the Colorado case as a vehicle to overturn the Smith decision in 1990, which, although written by the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, is disliked by many religious-liberty advocates who argue it doesn’t respect free-exercise rights enough.Yet the lawyer representing the Catholic schools on Tuesday offered narrower grounds for the justices to overturn Colorado’s admissions requirements, noting that for every Catholic preschool program in the Archdiocese of Denver, there are two universal prekindergarten programs already in the state’s program within three miles of it.Said Reaves: “This is just not really a problem in real life.”This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, the sister partner of EWTN News, and has been adapted by EWTN News.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/u-s-supreme-court-leans-toward-catholic-schools-in-clash-over-pre-k-funding-catholic-a-majority-of-u-s-supreme-court-justices-sounded-ready-to-require-that-colorado-provide-catholic-schools-governm-scaled.jpg "U.S. Supreme Court leans toward Catholic schools in clash over pre-K funding #Catholic A majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices sounded ready to require that Colorado provide Catholic schools government funding for preschool even if the schools refuse to guarantee admission for children of same-sex couples, during oral arguments Tuesday in a case involving a school in the Archdiocese of Denver.The case, St. Mary School v. Roy, centers on a preschool-through-grade-8 Catholic school in Littleton that wants to participate in the state’s universal preschool program.Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative majority, described the case as a clash between the free exercise of religion and the right to same-sex marriage the court found in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. But he suggested the clash is unnecessary because parents in Colorado have so many options for prekindergarten, since there are more than 2,000 providers in the state, while the Archdiocese of Denver has only 34 schools that provide the service.“Why has this been provoked when there’s an ability for everyone to go to the school, a good school, that’s a fit for them, and to respect religious rights?” he asked.Helen Norton, deputy solicitor general for the state of Colorado, said parents often choose prekindergarten programs based on their location and their hours rather than their curriculum.“Colorado has an interest in ensuring that its public funds go to schools that ensure equal opportunity — not some opportunity, that ensure equal opportunity to public-funded options, regardless of protected-class status,” Norton said, replying to Kavanaugh’s question. “Families are harmed when they’re turned away from the publicly funded school that makes their lives work because of their protected-class status.”‘Creating a Catholic community’In 2020, Colorado voters approved a state-funded universal prekindergarten program, using increases in tobacco-related taxes to pay for it. The state government is planning to spend about $360 million for the program during the 2026-2027 school year. The state pays preschool providers about $6,100 per year for 15 hours a week of instruction for 4-year-olds during the 2026-2027 school year, according to state standards.Catholic schools want to participate in the program, but the Archdiocese of Denver objects to a state mandate concerning admissions.A Colorado state statute requires that preschools participating in the funding program provide children “an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services” regardless of eight protected classes — including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” — “as such characteristics and circumstances apply to the child or the child’s family.”A lawyer for the Catholic schools told justices Tuesday that Church and school officials want to make admissions decisions on a case-by-case basis in alignment with Catholic teachings instead of simply allowing all comers because of a state mandate.“I think it’s their thoughtful attempt to say, ‘We’re creating a Catholic community,’” said Nicholas Reaves, senior counsel for the Becket law group, which is representing the Catholic schools.Reaves got hostile questions from the court’s three liberals (Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson) and either friendly or neutral questions from the court’s five conservatives (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett), which suggests how the decision might ultimately go. (The chief justice, John Roberts, often seen as a swing vote, mostly moderated the discussion.)Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general in the Trump administration, also argued on the Catholic schools’ side during oral presentations Tuesday.Many optionsThe history of Catholic schools in the 19th century came up during oral arguments, including their origin in concerns among Catholic clerics and parents that government-run public schools were providing a Protestant point of view to the exclusion of Catholicism. Kavanaugh, a Catholic, at one point asked the lawyer for the state of Colorado about a moment in the trial record when the administrator of the state’s universal prekindergarten program was asked about Catholic history.“The director of the program, by all accounts a dutiful public servant, … was asked at the trial, ‘Are you aware that Catholics have historically been discriminated against?’ And she answered, ‘No,’” Kavanaugh said. “I was surprised by that answer and curious if that’s Colorado’s position.”“Not at all, Your Honor,” Norton replied. “And it’s Colorado’s position that the equal-opportunity requirements help religious families. They ensure that Catholic families are not turned away from the UPK [universal prekindergarten] school that best meets their needs because of their faith or because of any other protected characteristic. And a history of discrimination against Catholics is among the reasons that requirement is so important.”Some legal observers have suggested that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court may use the Colorado case as a vehicle to overturn the Smith decision in 1990, which, although written by the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, is disliked by many religious-liberty advocates who argue it doesn’t respect free-exercise rights enough.Yet the lawyer representing the Catholic schools on Tuesday offered narrower grounds for the justices to overturn Colorado’s admissions requirements, noting that for every Catholic preschool program in the Archdiocese of Denver, there are two universal prekindergarten programs already in the state’s program within three miles of it.Said Reaves: “This is just not really a problem in real life.”This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, the sister partner of EWTN News, and has been adapted by EWTN News.")
A Colorado case pits sexual orientation and gender-identity protections against religious standards for school admissions.
Washington Cardinal Robert McElroy was the principal celebrant of the Mass, and Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, offered the homily.
Retired Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershaw is set to give the keynote address at the Jan. 22, 2027, rally.
