Transgender

State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA). Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.
Read More

State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA). Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

unitedyam

Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA).

Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.

As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. 

The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.

RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.

Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. 

Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakening

When RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.

Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.

“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”

Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.

From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.

However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”

One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.

Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”

In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.

Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. 

“[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

Read More
High Court weighs free speech in Colorado’s law banning counseling on gender identity
Read More

High Court weighs free speech in Colorado’s law banning counseling on gender identity

unitedyam

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 8, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).

The U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments on Oct. 7 scrutinized Colorado’s law banning counseling on gender identity with some justices voicing concern about possible viewpoint discrimination and free speech restrictions embedded in the statute.

Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson defended the law, which prohibits licensed psychologists and therapists from engaging in any efforts that it considers “conversion therapy” when treating minors. It does not apply to parents, members of the clergy, or others.

Nearly half of U.S. states have a similar ban. The Supreme Court ruling on this matter could set nationwide precedent on the legality of such laws. 

The Colorado law defines “conversion therapy” as treatments designed to change a person’s “sexual orientation or gender identity,” including changes to “behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex” even if the minor and his or her family has requested that care.

Under the law, permitted therapy includes “acceptance, support, and understanding” of a minor’s self-asserted transgender identity or same-sex attraction.

The law is being challenged by Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who provides faith-based counseling to clients with gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction.

Free speech and viewpoint discrimination

Stevenson argued that Colorado’s law is not a speech restriction but instead a regulation on a specific type of “treatment,” saying that regulations cannot cease to apply “just because they are using words.”

“That treatment does not work and carries great risk of harm,” Stevenson said, referring to the practices the state considers to be “conversion therapy.”

She argued that health care has been “heavily regulated since the beginning of our country” and compared “conversion therapy” to doctors providing improper advice on how to treat a condition. She claimed this therapy falsely asserts “you can change this innate thing about yourself.”

“The client and the patient [are] expecting accurate information,” Stevenson said.

Justice Samuel Alito told Stevenson the law sounds like “blatant viewpoint discrimination,” noting that a minor can receive talk therapy welcoming homosexual inclinations but cannot access therapy to reduce those urges. He said it is a restriction “based on the viewpoint expressed.”

Alito said the state’s position is “a minor should not be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same-sex attraction [even] if that’s what he wants.”

Stevenson argued Colorado is not engaged in viewpoint discrimination and said: “Counseling is an evidence-based practice.” She said it would be wrong to suggest lawmakers “reach[ed] this conclusion based on anything other than protection of minors.”

“There is no other motive going on to suppress viewpoint or expression,” Stevenson said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch asked questions about how to handle issues where medical disagreement exists.

Gorsuch noted, for example, that homosexuality was historically viewed as a mental disorder and asked Stevenson whether it would have been legal for states to ban therapy that affirmed a person’s homosexuality at that time. Stevenson argued that at that time, it would have been legal.

Banning ‘voluntary conversations’

Alliance Defending Freedom Chief Counsel Jim Campbell argued on behalf of Chiles and her counseling services, telling the justices his client offers “voluntary speech between a licensed professional and a minor,” and the law bans “voluntary conversations.”

Campbell noted that if one of her minor clients says, “I would like help realigning my identity with my sex,” then the law requires that Chiles “has to deny them.”

“Kids and families that want this kind of help … are being left without any kind of support,” he added, warning that Chiles, her clients, and potential clients are suffering irreparable harm if access to this treatment continues to be denied.

Campbell argued that “many people have experienced life-changing benefits from this kind of counseling,” many of whom are seeking to “align their life with their religion” and improve their “relationship with God.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor contested whether the issue was about free speech, noting Colorado pointed to studies that such therapy efforts “harm the child … emotionally and physically.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson similarly objected to the claim, questioning whether a counselor acting in her professional capacity “is really expressing … a message for a First Amendment purposes.” She said treatment is different than writing an article about conversion therapy or giving a speech about it.

Campbell disagreed, arguing: “This involves a conversation,” and “a one-on-one conversation is a form of speech.” He said Chiles is “discussing concepts of identity and behaviors and attraction” and simply helping her clients “achieve their goals.”

Read More
Religious Liberty Commission hears from teachers, coaches, school leaders
Read More

Religious Liberty Commission hears from teachers, coaches, school leaders

unitedyam

President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission meets on Sept. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Tessa Gervasini/CNA

Washington, D.C., Sep 29, 2025 / 19:13 pm (CNA).

Teachers, coaches, and other public and private school leaders said their religious liberty was threatened in American schools at a hearing conducted by President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission on Sept. 29.

Speakers said there must be a fight for schools to bring back the “truth” to protect students and religious liberty. Joe Kennedy, a high school football coach; Monica Gill, a high school teacher; Marisol Arroyo-Castro, a seventh grade teacher; and Keisha Russell, a lawyer for First Liberty Institute, addressed the commission led by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

“There has to be a call to action,” commission member Dr. Phil McGraw said. “The most common way to lose power is to think you don’t have it to begin with. We do have power, and we need to rally with that power.”

Teachers and coaches describe experiences

Kennedy said he was suspended — and later fired — from his position as a football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington for praying a brief and quiet prayer after football games.

“After the game, I took a knee to say thanks,” Kennedy explained. “That’s all. If that could be turned into a national controversy, it says more about the confusion in our country than the conduct of the person performing it.”

Kennedy told the commission the law is “cloudy and muddy” and they “have the power to clarify it.” Kennedy also said some lawyers “need to be held accountable” for actions taken in religious liberty cases.

Kennedy said: “I don’t know a lot about law and liberty, but I know that you’re supposed to advise people on the truth and the facts, and they’re not. They have an agenda, and their agenda is well set and in place and is working very well, keeping prayer out of the public square. They’re still doing it. That needs to be exposed.”

“Being a teacher has been one of the greatest blessings of my life,” Gill said to the committee. “God really gave my heart a mission … to show all of my students every day that they are loved. No matter what they’re going through, no matter what their grades are, no matter what their status is with their peers, I love them.”

“But in the summer of 2021 … Loudoun County Public Schools adopted a policy that forced teachers to deny the foundational truth of what it means to be human, created as male and female,” Gill said.

“This policy forced teachers to affirm all transgender students,” Gill said. “My employer gave teachers a choice: deny truth or risk everything … I knew that I could not stand in front of my Father in heaven one day and say: ‘My pension plan was more important than your truth.’ I also knew that if I say that I love my students, the only right choice would be to stand in love and truth for them.”

To combat the policy, Gill joined a lawsuit by Alliance Defending Freedom after a fellow Virginia teacher was fired for speaking out against the same policy. The lawsuit “resulted in victory for all teachers to freely speak truth and love when Loudoun County finally agreed not to require teachers to use pronouns in accordance with the student’s sex,” Gill said.

Arroyo-Castro testified that she was punished for displaying a cross in her private workspace in her seventh grade classroom in a New Britain School District school in Connecticut. 

“I share this with you to help you understand why the crucifix is so significant to me and why I will never hide it from anyone’s view,” Arroyo-Castro said. “The vice principal told me that the crucifix was of a religious nature, so against the Constitution of the United States, and that it had to be taken down by the end of the day.”

If she did not take it down it would be considered “insubordination and could lead to termination,” Arroyo-Castro said. She asked if she could have time to pray on it, and was told she could, but “it wouldn’t change anything.” 

“I was later called to a meeting with the district chief of staff, the principal, the vice principal, [and a] union representative. The chief of staff suggested that I put the crucifix in a drawer. I knew I couldn’t do that since my grandmother has instilled in me the meaning of the crucifix and how it should be treated with respect. But the chief of staff said that the Constitution says that I had to take it down,” Arroyo-Castro said.

After she refused to remove it, Arroyo-Castro was released from school with an unpaid suspension. She was offered legal defense by lawyers at First Liberty, which sued the school for violating the Constitution. While the lawsuit is ongoing she works in the administrative building “far from the students.”

Arroyo-Castro said: “Every day, I wonder how they’re doing.”

“Please do what you can to educate the districts in American schools about the true meaning of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause,” Arroyo-Castro advised the commission members. “How can we do our jobs well when many education leaders today don’t understand the Constitution themselves? We must understand as Americans that freedom of religion is a right that benefits all Americans.”

Suggestions from faith leaders

Leaders at Jewish, Catholic, and Christian schools also recounted religious freedom issues facing faith-based schools across the nation and what the country can do.

The leaders highlighted the need to protect the financial aid faith-based institutions receive and stop any threats of losing money if certain values are not enforced. Todd J. Williams, provost at Cairn University, said: “Schools will begin to cave because they’re worried about the millions of dollars that will go out the door.”

Father Robert Sirico, a priest at Sacred Heart Catholic School in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said he was recently affected by a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court that redefined sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity. 

“While presented as a matter of fairness, this reinterpretation proposes grave dangers, grave risks for all religious institutions, even those like Sacred Heart that receive absolutely no public support,” he said.

Sacred Heart has filed a lawsuit to combat the issue, but Sirico said what needs to be done “exceeds the competency of [the] commission and the competency of this administration.” 

“We have to think of this in existential terms, and we have to come at this project with the understanding that this is going to take years to transform. This is why religious people can transform the world: We believe in something that’s greater than our politics. We can reenvision.”

Read More
Pro-life group pledges million to Georgia and Michigan Senate races
Read More

Pro-life group pledges $9 million to Georgia and Michigan Senate races

unitedyam

null / Credit: Andy via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

CNA Staff, Sep 26, 2025 / 16:28 pm (CNA).

Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news:

Pro-life group pledges $9 million to Georgia and Michigan Senate races

A pro-life advocacy group is launching a massive $9 million campaign in the Senate races of Georgia and Michigan.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and its partner group, Women Speak Out PAC, are working to flip the U.S. Senate in Michigan, pouring $4.5 million into a field effort for the state’s open Senate seat.

Focused in Lansing, Detroit, and Grand Rapids, the pro-life groups aim to expand the U.S. Senate’s pro-life majority. In Michigan, four Planned Parenthoods have closed this year after Congress paused funding for abortion providers.

In Georgia, the same groups will pour $4.5 million into a field effort for Georgia’s U.S. Senate election. The campaign — aiming to defeat U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia senator who has backed pro-abortion policies — will be focused in Savannah, Augusta, Columbus, and Chattanooga.

SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a Sept. 24 statement that the group aims to “stop the abortion lobby from clawing back $500 million in annual Medicaid dollars for their own political machine.” 

“No American should be forced to bankroll a brutal industry that kills over 1.1 million unborn children each year, harms women with substandard care, and funnels millions into partisan politics — especially when better, more accessible health care alternatives outnumber Planned Parenthood 15 to 1,” Dannenfelser said.

Pro-life groups celebrate as Google admits to political censorship 

Pro-life groups that have experienced censorship in the past are celebrating after Google admitted to political censorship under the Biden administration.

The tech giant admitted the censorship to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and said it was taking steps to open previously banned YouTube accounts.

Kelsey Pritchard, the political communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said companies like Google have a pattern of targeting pro-life advocacy groups.  

“We are not at all surprised by Google’s admissions of censorship,” Pritchard told CNA. 

“For years, tech giants have demonstrated a pattern of bias, actively undermining, suppressing, and censoring groups like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, who share the pro-life message in a highly effective way.”

In a timeline on its website, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America detailed censorship and suppression of pro-life groups since 2015 by sites such as Facebook, Yelp, and Google. 

For instance, in 2022, Google allegedly shadow banned an online educational resource by Life Issues Institute. In 2021, Google banned Live Action and Heartbeat International’s abortion pill reversal advertisements, including Live Action’s Baby Olivia video, detailing the growth of an unborn child. 

SBA Pro-Life America also criticized the Biden administration for allegedly targeting pro-life activists with the law. 

“The Biden administration, too, weaponized federal might to target pro-life Americans and even put peaceful activists in jail,” Pritchard said. “The right to voice one’s convictions is a foundational American value and the pro-life movement will always fight back against censorship.”

Students for Life of America spokesperson Jordan Butler, meanwhile, told CNA that the pro-life group “is no stranger to the challenges of free speech in the digital age.”

“While we’ve been fortunate to avoid censorship on platforms like YouTube and Google, TikTok has proven to be a battleground: banning our content 180 times in just 24 hours,” Butler said. 

After outcry from pro-life advocates, Butler said the TikTok account, belonging to Lydia Taylor Davis, was restored. 

She sees this as “proof that when we stand together, we can push back.” 

“That’s why unity matters now more than ever in defending pro-life free speech across America,” Butler said.

“Abortion propaganda is everywhere online, saturating platforms from social media to search engines,” she continued. “Whether it’s digital censorship or campus pushback, we fight relentlessly to protect our voice and our values.”

‘Second-chance-at-life’ bill could protect unborn children across the nation

A group of U.S. congressmen is introducing a bill that could give unborn children a second chance at life even if a mother takes the first pill in the chemical abortion regimen.

U.S. Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, recently introduced the Second Chance at Life Act, which is designed to protect unborn children and mothers from the harms of abortion.

The act, co-sponsored by 16 representatives from 13 states, would establish federal informed consent requirements for abortion pills. This would require abortion providers to inform women seeking to terminate their pregnancies that a chemical abortion can be reversible after the first abortion pill is taken.

Pfluger said many women “are pressured into taking the abortion pill without being fully informed of all their options” and later “express deep regret as they come to terms with the loss of their unborn child.” 

“It is unacceptable that so many women are never told by their provider that the effects of the first pill can be reversible,” Pfluger said in a Sept. 18 statement.  

Pfluger said the legislation will “empower women to make fully informed choices at every stage of the process, protecting their right to know the full details” about the drugs. 

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, supported the bill in a statement, noting that women are often pressured into abortion.  

“Many mothers regret their abortions and wish they had been told about abortion pill reversal before it was too late,” she said. “And too many women are exposed to the deadly pills by those who are coercing them.”

Senate investigates alleged abortion facilitation by Virginia school faculty 

U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, is investigating allegations that school officials in Virginia facilitated an abortion for a minor and attempted to do the same for another student without notifying their parents. 

Cassidy, who chairs the U.S. Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, sent a letter to Superintendent Michelle Reid demanding answers after an investigative reporter broke the news that officials at Fairfax County’s Centreville High School reportedly pressured students to have abortions.

Missouri judge approves pro-life ballot measure, requires plainer language  

A Cole County Circuit judge approved a ballot measure that would protect minors and unborn children from transgender surgeries and abortion, respectively, if passed by Missouri voters.  

Because the ballot combines protections for minors against transgender surgeries and pro-life protections, activists challenged it in court. But Judge Daniel Green approved the combination in a Sept. 19 ruling, with the caveat that the ballot measure language must explicitly state that it would repeal a previous ballot measure.

The previous ballot measure, passed in 2024, created a right to abortion in the Missouri Constitution.

Wisconsin Planned Parenthood pauses abortions after federal funding cut 

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin will stop scheduling abortions beginning Oct. 1 following federal funding cuts by the Trump administration.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin President and CEO Tanya Atkinson said the pause is meant to be temporary as the group deals with Medicaid funding cuts following the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The location will continue to operate and offer other services in the meantime.

The Trump administration temporarily paused any funding for abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. At least 40 Planned Parenthoods are closing this year.

Read More
Mothers urge lawmakers to ban assault weapons after Minneapolis Catholic school shooting
Read More

Mothers urge lawmakers to ban assault weapons after Minneapolis Catholic school shooting

unitedyam

Police gather at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis on Aug. 27, 2025, following a mass shooting that killed two children and injured 17 others, 14 of them children. / Credit: Chad Davis, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

CNA Staff, Sep 22, 2025 / 17:17 pm (CNA).

At a town hall meeting in Plymouth, Minnesota, over the weekend, three mothers whose children survived the school shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in August advocated for stricter gun laws. 

Two children were killed and 21 people were injured after Robin Westman, 23, a man who identified as a woman, shot through the stained-glass windows of the church during a school Mass on Aug. 27. 

Fletcher Merkel, 8, and Harper Moyski, 10, were killed in the attack. 

Carla Maldonado, who has two children at Annunciation Catholic School, said “taking action” by tightening gun laws would honor the deaths of the two children and “all lives taken by gun violence.”

“We cannot accept a world where civilians have access to weapons designed for battlefields,” she said, referring to assault weapons and calling for their prohibition.

Another mother, Malia Kimbrell, who also supports an assault weapons ban, asked: “If the next mass shooting happens at your child’s school, what type of weapon are you comfortable with the shooter being armed with?”

Kimbrell, whose daughter Vivian, 9, is recovering after she was shot multiple times, advocated for “more mental health resources and safer gun storage and better background checks and detecting potential threats online and improved security measures.” 

Stephanie Moscetti said her son “was an honorary pallbearer at his friend’s [Merkel’s] funeral; how is this our reality?” 

“Our kids deserve safe schools, they deserve safe childhoods where they can play and learn,” she said.

Rep. Kelly Morrison, a Democrat who represents Minnesota’s 3rd Congressional District, organized the town hall meeting, which focused on the prevention of gun violence. 

Several of the mothers at the town hall also testified last week before a working group of state lawmakers who deliberated over proposed reforms dealing with gun violence.

At the hearing, Rob Doar, senior vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, asked lawmakers to strengthen the law surrounding mental health resources access, pointing out that none of the proposals put forward would have prevented the shooting because Westman legally purchased the weapons. 

Westman used three firearms during the August attack: a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol, all of which were purchased legally under existing state law. The rifle was likely an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle, which is considered an assault weapon. 

Laws limiting those with mental health disorders from gun possession

Though Westman struggled with his gender identity, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed “gender identity disorder” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and replaced it with “gender dysphoria” in the revised version, known as the DSM-5, published in 2013. 

This change marked a significant shift in how struggles with a person’s sexual identity are classified, with health care professionals no longer calling it a mental illness.

The new classification of gender dysphoria, though it is still in the APA’s manual of mental disorders, addresses the symptoms, or the distress, associated with gender incongruence and not the incongruence itself. 

Minnesota, along with 29 other states, bars people with mental health issues who have been involuntarily committed or found to be a danger to self or others from possessing a gun. 

This law did not come into play in the August shooting, however.

Gov. Tim Walz in early September called for a special session, which has yet to take place, that will focus on gun safety. He proposed banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips as well as more safety regulations concerning storage and a stronger red flag law.

Minnesota’s current red flag law allows family or local and state officials to ask for an extreme risk protection order, or ERPO, which allows them to petition the court to have an at-risk person’s guns removed or to temporarily prohibit that person from buying a gun.

“We passed a red flag law. It was passed in 2023 and it was supposed to deal with a situation like this,” Minnesota House Republican leader Harry Niska said in early September after Walz proposed the special session. “So I hope everyone is asking serious questions about why — why did this incident not trigger either a background check flag or a red flag?”

Walz will need the support of Republican lawmakers in the special session, and they have different proposals. They want to make private school security eligible for state funding, something the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of Minnesota’s six Catholic dioceses, has asked for multiple times.

Republicans also want to allow doctors more discretion concerning transgender medical procedures, more funds for mental health facilities, and harsher penalties for certain gun crimes. 

Ten states ban assault weapons, but the proposal in Minnesota failed to come up for a vote in 2023. Just over half of rural residents opposed an assault weapons ban in a 2022 MinnPost poll, while 69% of urban dwellers supported it. Overall, the poll found that nearly 54% supported it.

Minnesota already has one of the nation’s stronger gun regulation frameworks, according to Everytown Research, which ranks the state 14th in the country for gun safety policies.

The state requires universal background checks for all firearm sales, including private transfers, and domestic violence protections prohibit access for those under restraining orders or with misdemeanor convictions, among many other regulations.

Read More
Toledo bishop’s letter on gender ideology ‘timely’ and ‘loving,’ Mary Rice Hasson says
Read More

Toledo bishop’s letter on gender ideology ‘timely’ and ‘loving,’ Mary Rice Hasson says

unitedyam

Ethics and Public Policy Center scholar Mary Rice Hasson praised the Bishop of Toledo's recent pastoral letter, titled "The Body Reveals the Person: A Catholic Response to the Challenges of Gender Ideology." / Credit: "EWTN News Nightly"/Screenshot

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Sep 18, 2025 / 15:00 pm (CNA).

Toledo, Ohio, Bishop Daniel Thomas’ recently released pastoral letter offering guidance on sex and gender identity issues received praise from the head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s (EPPC) Person and Identity Project, Mary Rice Hasson.

“[Thomas] really hones in so beautifully in this document on the truth that we are body and soul, and that our bodies reveal something wonderful about who we are,” Rice told “EWTN News Nightly” anchor Veronica Dudo on Sept. 17. “And so, rejecting the body, which is really what’s going on in the transgender issue, it’s sex rejection, rejection of yourself, is really turning back on yourself and hating and destroying something that is really, really good.” 

Thomas’ letter, “The Body Reveals the Person: A Catholic Response to the Challenges of Gender Ideology,” is the longest statement by a U.S. bishop dealing exclusively with gender ideology.

Drawing on Scripture, theology, philosophy, and social sciences, the letter presents Church teaching in a form the bishop said he hopes is “readable, digestible, accessible, and charitable.”“I think it’s tremendously important that we have a bishop speaking out and giving such timely, but really comprehensive, loving, and hopeful guidance,” Rice said, noting the letter comes in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. 

Kirk was shot while answering a question about transgenderism and gun violence. Tyler Robinson, the man charged with murdering Kirk, has been romantically linked to his transgender roommate, Lance Twiggs, a biological male.

Kirk had said he supported an effort to ban transgender people from owning firearms in light of the shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minnesota last month, which was also carried out by a man who identified as transgender.

EPPC scholar calls on more bishops to emulate Thomas

While some dioceses have offered “terrific responses” to the transgender issue, Rice acknowledged, “there are some dioceses where there’s nothing, there’s not even a statement about how people should understand this issue [and] what the Church’s teaching is.” 

“I encourage bishops, if they have not written and spoken to this issue to please do that,” she continued. “People want to hear that. And that’s what I hear from people when I travel all over the U.S. talking about this issue.” 

Rice pointed out that while social media can be used well to form connections with other people, “it really has become a channel of evil in many respects,” especially regarding sexual orientation and gender identity issues. 

“Our youth are particularly vulnerable because they’re young,” she said. “They don’t have the prudence, the discretion, to be able to judge what’s the truth of what’s coming at them. They’re very subject to manipulation and peer pressure.”

Rice further encouraged parents to be vigilant in monitoring social media usage among their children. 

“We have to speak the truth, and we have to be really clear that this is evil,” Rice said of transgenderism. “There are wonderful holistic ways to deal with difficult feelings,” she said, adding: “God loves everyone so much, and he wants something better than what is on offer right now from the culture on this issue.”

Read More