Since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the abortion battle has moved to the states.
Now that abortion is no longer considered a federally guaranteed constitutional right, individual states are allowed to determine their abortion policies. This means that each state legislature has a renewed importance when it comes to the abortion fight.
While 13 states have passed total abortion bans, many states have moved in the opposite direction, enshrining abortion as a state constitutional right.
Here is what is happening in the abortion battle right now.
Wyoming bans abortion pills
Republican Gov. Mark Gordon of Wyoming signed a bill banning abortion pills into law on Friday. The ban is set to take effect July 1 and makes it a felony to prescribe, sell, or use abortion drugs. The bill explicitly states that “a woman upon whom a chemical abortion is performed or attempted shall not be criminally prosecuted.”
Violations of the abortion pill are punishable by six months in prison and a $9,000 fine. This is the first law specifically banning chemical abortion in the U.S., though other states have restricted or banned the use of abortion pills as part of their abortion bans.
Additionally, Wyoming’s “Life is a Human Right Act” also took effect last week without the governor’s signature. This new law declares abortion the killing of a child and bans it except in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormality, and the life of the mother. As another Wyoming total abortion ban remains blocked, it is uncertain whether this new law will be able to take effect.
Utah bans abortion clinics
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, signed a bill last week that prohibits abortions outside of hospitals and bans clinics that only offer abortion. The bill prohibits the licensing of abortion clinics after May 2, 2023, and makes it a criminal offense for out-of-state actors to prescribe abortion drugs to Utahns.
The law is set to take effect on May 3.
North Dakota abortion ban remains blocked
The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a state law banning abortion will remain blocked as it works its way through the state’s court system. This means that abortion remains legal through 22 weeks in North Dakota for the time being.
Minnesota considers offering legal protection to abortionists
Minnesota lawmakers introduced a bill today offering legal protection to abortionists who provide abortions to out-of-state women. The law would prevent state courts or officials from complying with extraditions, arrests, or subpoenas from other states over abortions provided within Minnesota. Democrats hold majorities in both houses of the Legislature as well as the governorship, making this bill likely to pass.
Arkansas authorizes ‘monument to the unborn’
Arkansas, which has banned abortion within the state, has now authorized the construction of a “monument to the unborn” on the state capitol grounds in Little Rock.
Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed the law authorizing the monument last week. The monument, which will be privately funded, will mark the number of abortions that were committed in Arkansas before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
California proposes protecting doctors who mail abortion drugs
California lawmakers introduced legislation Friday to protect doctors from any legal repercussions for sending abortion drugs to women in states where the drugs are banned.
Texas judge considers halting abortion pill sales
Matthew Kascmaryk, a federal judge for the Northern District of Texas, is weighing whether to overturn the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. The judge heard arguments from the Alliance Defending Freedom and lawyers representing the FDA on Wednesday.
According to the Associated Press, Kacsmaryk stated he would issue a ruling “as soon as possible.” This case has national implications as a pro-life ruling could potentially halt the distribution of the drug used in over half of the nation’s abortions.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Nov 1, 2024 / 12:00 pm (CNA).
A Catholic diocese in China recently announced that it had made a tour of “gratitude” to heroes of the Communist Party of China.The Yibin Catholic Di… […]
Dainelys Soto, Genesis Contreras, and Daniel Soto, who arrived from Venezuela after crossing the U.S. border from Mexico, wait for dinner at a hotel provided by the Annunciation House on Sept. 22, 2022 in El Paso, Texas. / Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
CNA Staff, Sep 9, 2024 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Long a champion of immigrants, particularly those fleeing war-torn countries and impoverished regions, Pope Francis last month delivered some of the clearest words in his papacy yet in support of migrants — and in rebuke of those who turn away from them.
“It must be said clearly: There are those who work systematically and with every means possible to repel migrants,” the pope said during a weekly Angelus address. “And this, when done with awareness and responsibility, is a grave sin.”
“In the time of satellites and drones, there are migrant men, women, and children that no one must see,” the pope said. “They hide them. Only God sees them and hears their cry. This is a cruelty of our civilization.”
The pope has regularly spoken out in favor of immigrants. In June he called on the faithful to “unite in prayer for all those who have had to leave their land in search of dignified living conditions.” The Holy Father has called the protection of migrants a “moral imperative.” He has argued that migrants “[must] be received” and dealt with humanely.
Migrants aboard an inflatable vessel in the Mediterranean Sea approach the guided-missile destroyer USS Carney in 2013. Carney provided food and water to the migrants aboard the vessel before coordinating with a nearby merchant vessel to take them to safety. Credit: Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The Catholic Church has long been an advocate and protector of immigrants. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) notes on its website that “a rich body of Church teaching, including papal encyclicals, bishops’ statements, and pastoral letters, has consistently reinforced our moral obligation to treat the stranger as we would treat Christ himself.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that prosperous nations “are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.”
Popes throughout the years, meanwhile, have expressed sentiments on immigration similar to Francis’. Pope Pius XII in 1952, for instance, described the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt as “the archetype of every refugee family.”
The Church, Pius XII said, “has been especially careful to provide all possible spiritual care for pilgrims, aliens, exiles, and migrants of every kind.”
Meanwhile, “devout associations” throughout the centuries have spearheaded “innumerable hospices and hospitals” in part for immigrants, Pius XII said.
Implications and applications of Church teaching
Chad Pecknold, an associate professor of systematic theology at The Catholic University of America, noted that the catechism “teaches that nations have the right to borders and self-definition, so there is no sense in which Catholic teaching supports the progressive goal of ‘open borders.’”
“There is a ‘duty of care’ which is owed to those fleeing from danger,” he told CNA, “but citizenship is not owed to anyone who can make it across a national border, and illegal entry or asylum cannot be taken as a debt of citizenship.”
Paul Hunker, an immigration attorney who previously served as chief counsel of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Dallas, agreed.
“States have to have responsibility for their own communities, they have to look out for them,” he told CNA. “So immigration can be regulated so as to not harm the common good.”
Still, Hunker noted, Catholic advocates are not wrong in responding to immigration crises — like the ongoing irregular influx through the U.S. southern border — with aid and assistance.
Paul Hunker, an immigration attorney and former chief counsel of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Dallas, says Catholic advocates are not wrong in responding to immigration crises — like the ongoing irregular influx through the U.S. southern border — with aid and assistance. Credit: Photo courtesy of Paul Hunker
Many Catholic organizations offer shelter, food, and legal assistance to men, women, and children who cross into the country illegally; such groups have been overwhelmed in recent years with the crush of arriving migrants at the country’s southern border.
“It’s the responsibility of the federal government to take care of the border,” he said. “When the government has created a crisis at the U.S. border, Catholic dioceses are going to want to help people.”
“I completely support what the Catholic organizations are doing in Mexico and the United States to assist people who are there,” Hunker said. “The people responding are not responsible for these crises.”
Latest crisis and legal challenge
Not everyone feels similarly. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an investigation of multiple Catholic nonprofits that serve illegal immigrants in the state. Paxton alleges that through the services it provides to migrants, El Paso-based Annunciation House has been facilitating illegal immigration and human trafficking.
A lawyer for the group called the allegations “utter nonsense,” though attorney Jerome Wesevich acknowledged that the nonprofit “serves undocumented persons as an expression of the Catholic faith and Jesus’ command to love one another, no exceptions.”
There are considerable numbers of Church teachings that underscore the need for a charitable response to immigrants. In his 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII argued that man “has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own state,” and further that “when there are just reasons in favor of it, he must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there.”
In the encyclical Caritas in Veritate, meanwhile, Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 acknowledged that migration poses “dramatic challenges” for nations but that migrants “cannot be considered as a commodity or a mere workforce.”
“Every migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance,” the late pope wrote.
Edward Feser, a professor of philosophy at Pasadena City College in California, noted that the Church “teaches that nations should be welcoming to immigrants, that they should be sensitive to the hardships that lead them to emigrate, that they ought not to scapegoat them for domestic problems, and so on.”
Catholic teaching does not advocate an ‘open borders’ policy
Yet Catholic teaching does not advocate an “open borders” policy, Feser said. He emphasized that the catechism says countries should accept immigrants “to the extent they are able,” and further that countries “may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions.”
There “is nothing per se in conflict with Catholic teaching when citizens and politicians call on the federal government to enforce its immigration laws,” Feser said. “On the contrary, the catechism backs them up on this.”
In addition, it is “perfectly legitimate,” Feser argued, for governments to consider both economic and cultural concerns when setting immigration policy. It is also “legitimate to deport those who enter a country illegally,” he said.
Still, he acknowledged, a country can issue exceptions to valid immigration laws when the moral situation demands it.
“Of course, there can be individual cases where a nation should forgo its right to deport those who enter it illegally, and cases where the manner in which deportations occur is associated with moral hazards, such as when doing so would break up families or return an immigrant to dangerous conditions back in his home country,” he said.
“Governments should take account of this when formulating and enforcing policy,” he said.
The tension between responding charitably to immigrants and ensuring a secure border was perhaps put most succinctly in 1986 by the late Father Theodore Hesburgh, who served as chairman of the U.S. Select Commission for Immigration and Refugee Policy that was created by the U.S. Congress in the early 1980s.
“It is not enough to sympathize with the aspirations and plight of illegal aliens. We must also consider the consequences of not controlling our borders,” said the late Father Theodore Hesburgh, who served as chairman of the U.S. Select Commission for Immigration and Refugee Policy that was created by the U.S. Congress in the early 1980s. Credit: Photo courtesy of University of Notre Dame
Writing several years after the commission, Hesburgh explained: “It is not enough to sympathize with the aspirations and plight of illegal aliens. We must also consider the consequences of not controlling our borders.”
“What about the aspirations of Americans who must compete for jobs and whose wages and work standards are depressed by the presence of large numbers of illegal aliens?” the legendary late president of the University of Notre Dame reflected. “What about aliens who are victimized by unscrupulous employers and who die in the desert at the hands of smugglers?”
“The nation needn’t wait until we are faced with a choice between immigration chaos and closing the borders,” Hesburgh stated nearly 40 years ago.
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Apr 8, 2024 / 06:00 am (CNA).
A study from researchers in the Netherlands found that nearly two-thirds of children who had wished that they belonged to the opposite sex as adolescents ultimat… […]
3 Comments
The next President has to keep secure the advance in the Supreme Court expressed in Dobbs, set in motion by President Trump.
I have the opinion that the Court as it stands at present is capable of striking down, according to/under the Dobbs decision, State legislation declaring abortion a State constitutional right. Such rights are outside the Federal system and comity among the States and they undermine the Union.
So then you would want a President who will not only secure the make-up of the Court but also aim at making any successive Court more likely to yield the elimination of so-called abortion constitutional rights in the States.
In addition, I suggest it is just as important as that, to get a President who sees beyond just “navigating” or “having to navigate” among issues and “lesser evils”. There is a deep need for leadership that sees that abortion must be outlawed and would do it; who will:
– have the mettle to stick to this goal
– be avid for meaningful increments to it
– position things to yield the increments and progress to the goal
– be ready to win it as comes into reach.
In the meantime there are a number of diverse practical civil society matters needing to be addressed properly, from free speech, to civilized discourse to clean tap water.
The next President has to keep secure the advance in the Supreme Court expressed in Dobbs, set in motion by President Trump.
I have the opinion that the Court as it stands at present is capable of striking down, according to/under the Dobbs decision, State legislation declaring abortion a State constitutional right. Such rights are outside the Federal system and comity among the States and they undermine the Union.
So then you would want a President who will not only secure the make-up of the Court but also aim at making any successive Court more likely to yield the elimination of so-called abortion constitutional rights in the States.
In addition, I suggest it is just as important as that, to get a President who sees beyond just “navigating” or “having to navigate” among issues and “lesser evils”. There is a deep need for leadership that sees that abortion must be outlawed and would do it; who will:
– have the mettle to stick to this goal
– be avid for meaningful increments to it
– position things to yield the increments and progress to the goal
– be ready to win it as comes into reach.
In the meantime there are a number of diverse practical civil society matters needing to be addressed properly, from free speech, to civilized discourse to clean tap water.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/03/20/the-pro-life-fight-what-is-happening-in-the-states/
See here -:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pro-lifers-attacked