Transgender

Pro-life, Christian health insurance company launches in Texas   #Catholic Co-founder Bob Hogan (left) and CEO and co-founder Daniel Cruz (right) are launching a pro-life health insurance plan that is in line with Catholic morality. / Credit: Courtesy of Presidio Healthcare CNA Staff, Nov 28, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA). Two Texas pro-lifers are launching a health care plan that embraces Catholic life ethics, creating an ethical option for Christians.Health insurance companies often cover things that are in tension with Catholic Church teaching or a Christian pro-life ethic, such as abortion, contraceptives, or assisted suicide.Daniel Cruz and Bob Hogan founded the FortressPlan by Presidio Healthcare because they wanted a pro-life, Christian alternative. “FortressPlan,” which launched in November, does not cover any health care offerings that go against Catholic teaching. While making a start in Texas, the co-founders hope to expand across the U.S. Hogan, co-founder of Presidio and an alum of Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, said that health care sharing ministries “are largely unregulated and are not legally required to pay families’ medical bills,” which can “cause tremendous financial stress for families.”As a more realistic alternative, he and Cruz “set out to create a real insurance company,” Hogan said in a statement shared with CNA. Cruz spoke with CNA about the Catholic values behind the FortressPlan. CNA: What makes Presidio Healthcare’s FortressPlan unique among insurance options in the U.S.?Daniel Cruz: The FortressPlan stands out as the only health insurance plan that aligns with the culture of life. Unlike other insurers, it does not cover abortifacients, contraception, transgender treatments or surgeries, euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, or similar practices.What makes the Fortress Plan pro-life and Christian? What inspired you to align the plan with the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services”?Presidio Healthcare Insurance Company is the first health insurer in the United States to be filed as a Catholic entity. Designed to respect the dignity of every person, the FortressPlan aligns with the “Ethical and Religious Directives [ERDs] for Catholic Health Care Services.”The ERDs represent a formally recognized expression of Catholic moral doctrine, protected under federal conscience and religious-freedom laws, which allows us to operate in the private market with an authentically Catholic health plan. A major element of our mission is to promote life-affirming physicians and services, and the ERDs serve as a concrete guide to help us accomplish that aim.What inspired you to launch the pro-life Christian health insurance option, the FortressPlan? What challenges have you faced in launching it?I was approached by a former client to estimate the cost of an abortion for their health plan. This request ignited a passion to apply my skills as an actuary in a different direction. After discovering that no insurance companies were entirely pro-life or that sharing ministries fell short of offering true financial protection for families, I decided to establish the first pro-life Christian insurance company.What are your future goals for the FortressPlan and this movement toward pro-life, Christian insurance? How do you hope it will impact people?Our future objectives include expanding nationwide and entering both the ACA [Affordable Care Act] and employer markets, building a well-recognized brand that represents Christian health care.
Read More

Pro-life, Christian health insurance company launches in Texas   #Catholic Co-founder Bob Hogan (left) and CEO and co-founder Daniel Cruz (right) are launching a pro-life health insurance plan that is in line with Catholic morality. / Credit: Courtesy of Presidio Healthcare CNA Staff, Nov 28, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA). Two Texas pro-lifers are launching a health care plan that embraces Catholic life ethics, creating an ethical option for Christians.Health insurance companies often cover things that are in tension with Catholic Church teaching or a Christian pro-life ethic, such as abortion, contraceptives, or assisted suicide.Daniel Cruz and Bob Hogan founded the FortressPlan by Presidio Healthcare because they wanted a pro-life, Christian alternative. “FortressPlan,” which launched in November, does not cover any health care offerings that go against Catholic teaching. While making a start in Texas, the co-founders hope to expand across the U.S. Hogan, co-founder of Presidio and an alum of Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, said that health care sharing ministries “are largely unregulated and are not legally required to pay families’ medical bills,” which can “cause tremendous financial stress for families.”As a more realistic alternative, he and Cruz “set out to create a real insurance company,” Hogan said in a statement shared with CNA. Cruz spoke with CNA about the Catholic values behind the FortressPlan. CNA: What makes Presidio Healthcare’s FortressPlan unique among insurance options in the U.S.?Daniel Cruz: The FortressPlan stands out as the only health insurance plan that aligns with the culture of life. Unlike other insurers, it does not cover abortifacients, contraception, transgender treatments or surgeries, euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, or similar practices.What makes the Fortress Plan pro-life and Christian? What inspired you to align the plan with the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services”?Presidio Healthcare Insurance Company is the first health insurer in the United States to be filed as a Catholic entity. Designed to respect the dignity of every person, the FortressPlan aligns with the “Ethical and Religious Directives [ERDs] for Catholic Health Care Services.”The ERDs represent a formally recognized expression of Catholic moral doctrine, protected under federal conscience and religious-freedom laws, which allows us to operate in the private market with an authentically Catholic health plan. A major element of our mission is to promote life-affirming physicians and services, and the ERDs serve as a concrete guide to help us accomplish that aim.What inspired you to launch the pro-life Christian health insurance option, the FortressPlan? What challenges have you faced in launching it?I was approached by a former client to estimate the cost of an abortion for their health plan. This request ignited a passion to apply my skills as an actuary in a different direction. After discovering that no insurance companies were entirely pro-life or that sharing ministries fell short of offering true financial protection for families, I decided to establish the first pro-life Christian insurance company.What are your future goals for the FortressPlan and this movement toward pro-life, Christian insurance? How do you hope it will impact people?Our future objectives include expanding nationwide and entering both the ACA [Affordable Care Act] and employer markets, building a well-recognized brand that represents Christian health care.

unitedyam

Co-founder Bob Hogan (left) and CEO and co-founder Daniel Cruz (right) are launching a pro-life health insurance plan that is in line with Catholic morality. / Credit: Courtesy of Presidio Healthcare

CNA Staff, Nov 28, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Two Texas pro-lifers are launching a health care plan that embraces Catholic life ethics, creating an ethical option for Christians.

Health insurance companies often cover things that are in tension with Catholic Church teaching or a Christian pro-life ethic, such as abortion, contraceptives, or assisted suicide.

Daniel Cruz and Bob Hogan founded the FortressPlan by Presidio Healthcare because they wanted a pro-life, Christian alternative. 

“FortressPlan,” which launched in November, does not cover any health care offerings that go against Catholic teaching. 

While making a start in Texas, the co-founders hope to expand across the U.S. 

Hogan, co-founder of Presidio and an alum of Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, said that health care sharing ministries “are largely unregulated and are not legally required to pay families’ medical bills,” which can “cause tremendous financial stress for families.”

As a more realistic alternative, he and Cruz “set out to create a real insurance company,” Hogan said in a statement shared with CNA. 

Cruz spoke with CNA about the Catholic values behind the FortressPlan. 

CNA: What makes Presidio Healthcare’s FortressPlan unique among insurance options in the U.S.?

Daniel Cruz: The FortressPlan stands out as the only health insurance plan that aligns with the culture of life. Unlike other insurers, it does not cover abortifacients, contraception, transgender treatments or surgeries, euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, or similar practices.

What makes the Fortress Plan pro-life and Christian? What inspired you to align the plan with the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services”?

Presidio Healthcare Insurance Company is the first health insurer in the United States to be filed as a Catholic entity. Designed to respect the dignity of every person, the FortressPlan aligns with the “Ethical and Religious Directives [ERDs] for Catholic Health Care Services.”

The ERDs represent a formally recognized expression of Catholic moral doctrine, protected under federal conscience and religious-freedom laws, which allows us to operate in the private market with an authentically Catholic health plan. A major element of our mission is to promote life-affirming physicians and services, and the ERDs serve as a concrete guide to help us accomplish that aim.

What inspired you to launch the pro-life Christian health insurance option, the FortressPlan? What challenges have you faced in launching it?

I was approached by a former client to estimate the cost of an abortion for their health plan. This request ignited a passion to apply my skills as an actuary in a different direction. 

After discovering that no insurance companies were entirely pro-life or that sharing ministries fell short of offering true financial protection for families, I decided to establish the first pro-life Christian insurance company.

What are your future goals for the FortressPlan and this movement toward pro-life, Christian insurance? How do you hope it will impact people?

Our future objectives include expanding nationwide and entering both the ACA [Affordable Care Act] and employer markets, building a well-recognized brand that represents Christian health care.

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.
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