US bishops ask that immigration reform protect families, Dreamers

CNA Staff, Oct 16, 2020 / 12:31 am (CNA).- A federal judge on Wednesday ruled unconstitutional a mandatory 48-hour waiting period for women seeking abortion in Tennessee, which had been in effect since 2015.

In the legal challenge brought by Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, Judge Bernard Friedman wrote that most women are already certain about their decision to have an abortion when they go in for their first appointment.

The judge cited testimony from abortion providers that abortion does not increase risk of negative psychological outcomes. He said the regulation placed an “undue burden” on women’s “right to abortion.”

Tennessee Right to Life, a pro-life organization active in the state, decried the court’s decision, contending that the waiting period had saved “countless unborn lives” and spared women the regret of abortion by allowing them extra time to identify life-affirming resources near them.

“Not only is this decision a slap at Tennessee’s abortion-vulnerable women, it is an affront to Tennessee’s voters who passed a 2014 constitutional amendment in which allowing a short waiting period was a key factor,” said Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life.

“Our organization remains committed to seeing a similar statute drafted and enforced during the next legislative session.”

Tennessee’s law required abortion doctors to inform a woman during her first appointment “that numerous public and private agencies and services are available to assist her during her pregnancy and after the birth of her child” if she chooses not to have the abortion.

Barring a medical emergency, a patient was then required to wait 48 hours before the second appointment and proceeding with the abortion.

Though waiting periods have been struck down before in state courts, this case marks the first time a federal court has struck down an abortion waiting period.

Under Tennessee law, the district court’s striking down of the 48-hour waiting period would automatically bring a 24-hour waiting period into effect for the state, but Friedman also blocked the state from enforcing the 24-hour requirement.

The Tennessee Attorney General’s Office is considering appealing Judge Friedman’s decision.

At least 26 states mandate waiting periods for women seeking abortions, most of them 24 hours. Five states— Utah, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota— have a 72-hour waiting period in place.

In Iowa, the legislature passed a 72-hour waiting period during May 2017, which the Iowa Supreme Court in 2018 declared unconstitutional. The Iowa House and Senate passed a 24-hour waiting period requirement for abortion during June 2020, which also requires a woman to have the chance to view an ultrasound of the unborn child and to receive information on adoption.

In January 2020, the authors of a study from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) reported that approximately 95% of women who had abortions did not regret their decision five years after the fact, even if they did initially experience regret. Friedman cited that study in his opinion.

Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a professor of human development and family studies at Bowling Green State University who testified in the Tennessee case, told CNA that she disagrees with that study’s conclusion and methodology.

In addition, larger studies have turned up opposite conclusions. While it did not directly measure “regret,” a study by Dr. D. Paul Sullins of The Catholic University of America published in 2016 followed more than 8,000 women for over 13 years, and found that a significant increase in the relative risk of mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety for women who have abortions.

[…]

Washington D.C., Mar 14, 2018 / 03:55 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. bishops have voiced their strong support for a bill protecting individuals and institutions from discrimination by the federal government based on their beliefs about marriage, regardless of what those beliefs are.

“We welcome and applaud the recent reintroduction of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA),” wrote Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville and Bishop James Conley of Lincoln in a March 14 statement. Archbishop Kurtz chairs the US bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty, while Bishop Conley is chairman of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

“In a pluralistic society, faith-based charitable agencies and schools should not be excluded from participation in public life by loss of licenses, accreditation, or tax-exempt status because they hold reasonable views on marriage that differ from the federal government’s view,” explained the bishops.

“FADA is a modest and important measure that protects the rights of faith-based organizations and people of all faiths and of no faith who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”

The bill, which was introduced March 8 by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), provides legal protections for individuals or institutions facing federal discrimination based on their definition of marriage or beliefs about premarital sex.

“What an individual or organization believes about the traditional definition of marriage is not – and should never be – a part of the government’s decision-making process when distributing licenses, accreditations, or grants,” said Senator Lee. “And the First Amendment Defense Act simply ensures that this will always be true in America – that federal bureaucrats will never have the authority to require those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage to choose between their living in accordance with those beliefs and maintaining their occupation or their tax status.”

FADA equally protects those with differing views of marriage. For example, “All Federal definitions of marriage are protected under FADA. FADA would protect a liberal institution that promoted gay marriage, just as it would protect a conservative institution that wanted to promote traditional marriage,” according to Senator Lee’s website.

The bill was previously introduced in the Senate in 2015, but did not make it out of committee. However, the current bill no longer includes protections for federal employees and publicly traded for-profit companies.

The 2015 version of the bill would have protected only those who believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Archbishop Kurtz and Bishop Conley wrote a letter to Lee March 12 expressing their gratitude and support for the bill.

“In a climate of increasing intolerance, these protections are urgently needed,” wrote the bishops, “Persons who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman are increasingly having their religious freedoms jeopardized and even forfeited.”

“The teaching of the Catholic Church about marriage is based on both faith and reason. Using right reason, one can know that given the nature of the human person, created as male and female, marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The leadership of our Church will continue to promote and protect the natural truth of marriage as foundational to the common good,” the bishops concluded.

FADA currently has 22 co-sponsors, including Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Jim Risch (R-ID), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Rounds (R-SD), John Barrasso (R-WY), Ben Sasse (R-NE), John Hoeven (R-ND), John Thune (R-SD), Rand Paul (R-KY), David Perdue (R-GA), Tim Scott (R-SC), Tom Cotton (R-AR), John Boozman (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Jerry Moran (R-KS).

[…]

Detroit, Mich., Jul 10, 2017 / 06:41 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- After a federal judge again halted the deportation of over 1,000 Chaldeans from the U.S., advocates for the detainees insisted their deportations should be stopped until conditions in Iraq impro… […]