The Virginia Catholic bishops spoke out against an abortion amendment that would remove state protections for unborn children.
Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington and Bishop Barry Knestout of Richmond. | Credit: Katie Yoder/EWTN News; photo courtesy of the Archdiocese of Washington
Jan 18, 2026 / 08:00 am (CNA).
The Virginia Catholic bishops on Friday spoke out against an abortion amendment that would remove state protections for unborn children, calling the measure “extreme.”
The Virginia General Assembly passed a proposed amendment that would add a fundamental right to abortion to Virginia’s constitution, if voters approve it this November.
The proposed abortion amendment would establish a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.”
Bishops Michael Burbidge of Arlington and Barry Knestout of Richmond called the move “shocking to the conscience,” noting that lawmakers quickly moved the proposed amendment through both chambers in the early days of its 60-day session.
“The extreme abortion amendment, which will proceed to a referendum for voters to decide later this year, would go far beyond even what Roe v. Wade previously allowed,” the bishops said in the Jan. 16 statement. “It would enshrine virtually unlimited abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with no age restriction.”
The bishops cautioned that the amendment would “severely jeopardize Virginia’s parental consent law, health and safety standards for women, conscience protections for health care providers, and restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions.”
“Most tragically of all, the extreme abortion amendment provides no protections whatsoever for preborn children,” the bishops continued.
“Most importantly, human life is sacred,” the bishops said. “The lives of vulnerable mothers and their preborn children must always be welcomed, cared for, and protected.”
“Parental rights and the health and well-being of minors must be defended,” the bishops said. “So too must religious liberty. No one should ever be forced to pay for or participate in an abortion. Health and safety should be enhanced, not diminished.”
In addition, the bishops urged Virginia voters to oppose a measure that would repeal a 2006 provision defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The bishops also expressed support for a measure that would restore voting rights to those who have completed prison sentences.
“We will be deeply engaged in the work of helping to educate voters on these proposed amendments and will fight the extreme abortion amendment with maximum determination,” the bishops concluded.
The joint statement followed a statement by Burbidge, who on Jan. 15 urged Catholics to “to pray, fast, and advocate for the cause of life” amid the “looming threat” of the abortion amendment.
“Prayer opens our hearts to God’s wisdom and strengthens us to act with courage and charity,” Burbidge wrote. “Fasting makes reparation for sin and reminds us that true freedom is found not in self-indulgence but in self-gift. Advocacy allows us to bring our convictions into the public square with respect, clarity, and perseverance.”
“Our response as Catholics — and as citizens committed to justice — must be rooted in faith, truth, and love,” he continued.
Burbidge also reminded Catholics of the mercy of the Church.
“It is essential to reaffirm a truth that lies at the very center of the Church’s pro-life mission: The Church is a loving mother,” Burbidge continued. “To any man or woman who carries the pain, regret, or sorrow of participation in abortion, know this clearly — you are not alone, and God awaits you with love and mercy. The Church desires to walk with you on a journey of healing and hope.”
“May we together pray fervently, act courageously, and serve generously,” Burbidge said. “May our witness help build a culture in Virginia — and beyond — that recognizes every human life as sacred, every person as beloved, and every moment as an opportunity to choose life.”
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.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops headquarters in Washington, D.C. / Farragutful, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Washington D.C., Feb 7, 2025 / 21:55 pm (CNA).
The U.S. Cath… […]
Thousands of pro-life advocates gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 1, 2021, in conjunction with oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case. / Katie Yoder/CNA
Washington D.C., Dec 2, 2021 / 08:04 am (CNA).
Anna Del Duca and daughter, Frances, woke up at 5 a.m. Wednesday morning to brave the 30-degree weather outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. They arrived hours before oral arguments began in the highly-anticipated abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
The case, which involves a Mississippi law restricting most abortions after 15 weeks, challenges two landmark decisions: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe in 1992.
“We’re looking forward to the end of Roe versus Wade in our country,” Anna, who drove from Pittsburgh Tuesday night, told CNA. In her hands, she held a sign reading, “I regret my abortion.”
Anna Del Duca (right) and her daughter, Frances, traveled from Pittsburgh to attend a pro-life rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021, in conjunction with oral arguments for the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case. Katie Yoder/CNA
“I would like to use my testimony to be a blessing to others,” she said, so that “others will choose life or those who have regretted abortion or had an abortion would turn to Jesus.”
Anna remembered having an abortion when she was just 19. Today, she and her daughter run a group called Restorers of Streets to Dwell In Pittsburgh that offers help to women seeking healing after abortion.
Anna and Frances were among thousands of Americans who rallied outside the Supreme Court before, during, and after the oral arguments. To accommodate them, law enforcement closed the street in front of the court. Capitol police also placed fencing in the space in front of the building in an attempt to physically separate rallies held by abortion supporters and pro-lifers.
At 21-weeks pregnant, pro-life speaker Alison Centofante emceed the pro-life rally, called, “Empower Women Promote Life.” The event featured a slew of pro-life women of diverse backgrounds and numerous politicians.
“It’s funny, there were so many diverse speakers today that the only unifying thread was that we want to protect preborn children,” Centofante told CNA. They included Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Catholics, agnostics, atheists, women who chose life, and women who regretted their abortions, she said.
She recognized women there, including Aimee Murphy, as people who are not the typical “cookie cutter pro-lifer.”
Aimee Murphy, 32, founder of pro-life group Rehumanize International, arrived at the Supreme Court around 6:30 a.m. She drove from Pittsburgh the night before. Her sign read, “Queer Latina feminist rape survivor against abortion.”“At Rehumanize International, we oppose all forms of aggressive violence,” she told CNA. “Even as a secular and non-partisan organization, we understand that abortion is the most urgent cause that we must stand against in our modern day and age because it takes on average over 800,000 lives a year.”
She also had a personal reason for attending.
“When I was 16 years old, I was raped and my rapist then threatened to kill me if I didn’t have an abortion,” she revealed.
“It was when he threatened me that I felt finally a solidarity with unborn children and I understood then that, yeah, the science told me that a life begins at conception, but that I couldn’t be like my abusive ex and pass on the violence and oppression of abortion to another human being — that all that I would be doing in having an abortion would be telling my child, ‘You are an inconvenience to me and to my future, therefore I’m going to kill you,’ which is exactly the same thing that my rapist was telling me when he threatened to kill me.”
On the other side of the police fence, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Abortion Access Coalition and NARAL Pro-Choice America participated in another rally. Yellow balloons printed with the words “BANS OFF OUR BODIES” escaped into the sky. Several pro-choice demonstrators declined to speak with CNA.
Voices clashed in the air as people, the majority of whom were women, spoke into their respective microphones at both rallies. Abortion supporters stressed bodily autonomy, while pro-lifers recognized the humanity of the unborn child. Chants arose from both sides at different points, from “Whose choice? My choice!” to “Hey hey, ho ho, Roe v. Wade has got to go!”
At 10 a.m., the pro-life crowd sudddenly went silent as the oral arguments began and the rally paused temporarily as live audio played through speakers.
Hundreds of students from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, traveled to Washington, D.C. for a pro-life rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021, in conjunction with oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case. Katie Yoder/CNA
During the oral arguments, students from Liberty University knelt in prayer. One student estimated that more than a thousand students from the school made the more than 3-hour trip from Lynchburg, Virginia.
“Talking about our faith is one thing, but actually acting upon it is another,” he said. “We have to be the hands and feet of Jesus Christ. So to me this is part of doing that.”
Sister Mary Karen, who has been with the Sisters of Life for 21 years, also stressed the importance of prayer. She drove from New York earlier that morning because, she said, she felt drawn to attend. She came, she said, to pray for the country and promote the dignity of a human person.
“Our culture is post-abortive,” she explained. “So many people have suffered and the loss of human life is so detrimental, just not knowing that we have value and are precious and sacred.”
Theresa Bonopartis, of Harrison, New York, was among the pro-life demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021. She runs a nonprofit group called Entering Canaan that ministers to women and others wounded by abortion. Katie Yoder/CNA
She stood next to Theresa Bonopartis, who traveled from Harrison, New York, and ministers to women and others wounded by abortion.
“I’ve been fighting abortion for 30 years at least,” she told CNA.
Her ministry, called Entering Canaan, began with the Sisters of Life and is observing its 25th anniversary this year. It provides retreats for women, men, and even siblings of aborted babies.
Abortion is personal for Bonopartis, who said she had a coerced abortion when she was just 17.
“I was kicked out of the house by my father and then coerced into getting an abortion,” she said. “Pretty much cut me off from everything, and that’s something people don’t really talk about … they make it try to seem like it’s a woman’s right, it’s a free choice. It’s all this other stuff, but many women are coerced in one way or another.”
She guessed that she was 14 or 15 weeks pregnant at the time.
“I saw my son. I had a saline abortion, so I saw him, which I always considered a blessing because it never allowed me to deny what abortion was,” she said. Afterward, she said she struggled with self-esteem issues, hating herself, guilt, shame, and more. Then, she found healing.
“I know what that pain is like, I know what that experience is like, and you know that you can get past it,” she said. “You just want to be able to give that message to other people, that they’re able to heal.”
Residents of Mississippi, where the Dobbs v. Jackson case originated, also attended.
Marion, who declined to provide her last name, drove from Mississippi to stand outside the Supreme Court. She said she was in her early 20s when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.
“At the time, of course, I could care less,” she said. Since then, she had a change of heart.
“We were the generation that allowed it,” she said, “and so we are the generation who will help close that door and reverse it.”
Marion, who declined to provide her last name, was among those who attended a pro-life rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021, from Mississippi, where the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case originated. Katie Yoder/CNA
The crowd at the pro-life rally included all ages, from those who had witnessed Roe to bundled-up babies, children running around, and college students holding up homemade signs.
One group of young friends traveled across the country to stand outside the Supreme Court. They cited their faith and family as reasons for attending.
Mathilde Steenepoorte, 19, from Green Bay, Wisconsin, identified herself as “very pro-life” in large part because of her younger brother with Down syndrome. She said she was saddened by the abortion rates of unborn babies dianosed with Down syndrome.
Juanito Estevez, from Freeport, a village on Long Island, New York, at a pro-life rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021. Katie Yoder/CNA
Juanito Estevez, from Freeport, a village on Long Island, New York, arrived Tuesday. He woke up at 6 a.m. to arrive at the Supreme Court with a crucifix in hand.
“I believe that God is the giver of life and we don’t have the right [to decide] whether a baby should live or die,” he said.
He also said that he believed women have been lied to about abortion.
“We say it’s their right, and there’s a choice,” he said. When girls tell him “I have the right,” his response, he said, is to ask back, “You have the right for what?”
Mallory Finch, from Charlotte, North Carolina, was among the pro-life demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021.
Mallory Finch, from Charlotte, North Carolina, also woke up early but emphasized “it was worth it.” A pro-life podcast host, she called abortion a “human-rights issue.”
“I hope that it overturns Roe,” she said of the case, “but that doesn’t mean that our job as pro-lifers is done. It makes this, really, just the beginning.”
A Chase bank building in Wilmington, Delaware. / Credit: Harrison Keely, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
CNA Staff, Mar 25, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Legislators in several states are moving to address the practice of “debanking” as part of an effort to stop what some critics say are anti-conservative measures employed by major U.S. financial institutions.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines debanking as “the act by a bank of closing someone’s account because they are regarded as a risk legally, financially, or to the bank’s reputation.” Critics have claimed that the practice is used by banks to antagonize certain groups, including conservatives and other political activists.
For example, the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit earlier this month against one of the largest banks in the United States. President Donald Trump claims he was a victim of debanking after Capital One allegedly closed hundreds of his organization’s accounts soon after his supporters’ Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.
In her recently-released memoir, Melania Trump alleged that she and her son, Barron, were also debanked.
The Ruth Institute, a global coalition designed to equip Christians to defend the family, alleged it was debanked in 2017. Just two years ago, a Memphis-based Christian charity called the Indigenous Advance Ministries also claimed that it had been debanked by Bank of America.
In another high-profile case, in 2022 former U.S. senator and ambassador Sam Brownback announced that his nonprofit group the National Committee for Religious Freedom had been debanked.
Ambassador Sam Brownback speaks on Feb. 6, 2018. Credit: Jonah McKeown/ CNA
Over the past decade, other high-ranking individuals and grassroots organizations have reportedly faced debanking, including Nigel Farage, who led the Brexit effort in the United Kingdom; evangelist and motivational speaker Nick Vujicic; Moms for Liberty, a parental rights advocacy group; Christian author and preacher Lance Wallnau; and Timothy Two Project International, a Christian ministry.
U.S. bishops ‘monitoring’ debanking; legislators move to address
While it’s unclear to what extent debanking has affected U.S. Catholics, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops acknowledged the phenomenon in its 2025 religious liberty report.
“In recent years, individuals have raised concerns that banks are discriminating on the basis of political and religious viewpoints,” the report read.
“In response to incidents like these, some states have begun passing laws intended to prevent politically motivated debanking,” the bishops noted. “However, the U.S. government argues that these laws hamstring banks, who need to be able to account for potential customers’ exposure to foreign actors. The lack of transparency, though, makes it difficult to ascertain why someone like Ambassador Brownback would be debanked.”
According to the report, the USCCB is “monitoring this issue but has not taken a position on it.”
Taking action against debanking
Some lawmakers are moving to address the controversy via legislation.
An anti-debanking bill in Idaho was sent to the state governor for signature last week.
The Transparency in Financial Services Act would prohibit “large financial institutions from discriminating against customers based on their political or religious views” and would give customers the right to request the reason for denial from an institution.
Montana’s Republican-sponsored Equality in Financial Services Act and South Carolina’s anti-debanking bill — similar to Idaho’s bill — have made some progress in the state Legislature, while Georgia’s Freedom of Speech and Belief Act failed to pass at the beginning of March.
Some see changes in bank policy, or even legal changes, as potential solutions to debanking.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — a legal group committed to protecting religious freedom and freedom of speech — worked with Indigenous Advance Ministries to file a consumer complaint following its alleged debanking in 2022.
“No American should ever fear losing access to their bank account due to their religious or political beliefs,” Lathan Watts, ADF’s vice president of public affairs, told CNA.
In its 2023 Viewpoint Diversity Score Index, ADF found that 7 out of 10 of the largest commercial banks — including Chase — have “hate speech” or “reputational risk” policies that contribute to debanking.
JPMorgan Chase, a top American bank, recently adjusted its policy, agreeing to protect clients against political and religious debanking in its code of conduct after 19 attorneys general petitioned the bank to cease its debanking practices in 2023.
“Chase’s policy change is a significant step by our nation’s largest bank to uphold financial access for all Americans,” Watts said. “This change provides necessary protections for customers like Ambassador Brownback, whose account at the National Committee for Religious Freedom was unexpectedly canceled in 2022.”
Watts shared his hope that other banks will take similar measures.
“Alliance Defending Freedom actively engaged with Chase in these negotiations, and we are hopeful that other banks will follow suit in safeguarding fundamental financial freedoms,” Watts said.
Jennifer Roback Morse, the founder and president of the Ruth Institute — an organization dedicated to combating the effects of the sexual revolution — recalled her own experience allegedly being debanked.
“In 2017, the Ruth Institute was one of the first organizations to be attacked in the banking arena,” Morse told CNA. “In our case, our credit card processor cut us off with no notification, or explanation, except to say that we ‘violated its standards.’”
Ruth Institute President Jennifer Roback Morse speaks on “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo” on June 13, 2019. Credit: “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo/EWTN News screenshot
While there was no clear explanation, Morse believes it was due to a leftist law center labeling the organization as a hate group.
“We surmised this was because we were listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s ‘Hate Map’ for our opposition to the redefinition of marriage and other LGBT-issues,” Morse said. “Thankfully, we were able to secure another credit card processor fairly quickly.”
Morse told CNA that banking “is a highly regulated, semi-monopolistic industry, comparable in some respects to public utilities such as electricity and water.”
“I am in favor of banks being legally required to be transparent and even-handed in their standards,” she said.
“Alternatively, if banks are permitted to engage in viewpoint discrimination,” she argued, “I would urge that bakers, florists, therapists, and other professionals also be permitted to refuse service to potential customers for any reason they choose.”
“A disappointed customer can find an alternative photographer a lot easier than they can find an alternative bank,” Morse noted. “And it is a lot easier to participate in the business world without a photographer or florist than to survive without banking services.”
‘A balanced approach’
While conservative legislators are pushing these anti-debanking bills, support for this legislation is not entirely united within the conservative movement.
A recent poll found that while a majority of conservatives are concerned about debanking, nearly three-quarters of conservatives expressed support for banks having the right to choose their own clients.
The poll by the Tyson Group found that conservatives “do not support broad government intervention that prevents financial institutions from making risk-based assessments when determining their customers.”
“When informed that legislation could force businesses to provide services to customers at odds with their values and the conservative movement, many expressed hesitations,” the study noted.
“As conservatives push for greater accountability from regulators, they also seek a balanced approach to debanking that avoids unintended consequences and protects the rights of both consumers and businesses.”
Some opponents of anti-debanking laws maintain that restrictions against debanking could have unintended consequences.
In South Carolina, for example, an anti-debanking bill under consideration, the Equality in Financial Services Act, would prevent financial institutions from discriminating when providing financial services.
But a Republican executive committeeman from Richland, South Carolina, is concerned that such an anti-debanking law could require pro-life banks to work with abortionists.
“Stopping abortion and protecting children requires winning hearts and minds but also cutting off the financial pipeline that enables these activities,” Eaddy Roe Willard, Richland GOP executive committeeman, told CNA. “Misguided legislation at the state level will only make it harder to do that.”
I’d sure be curious to know if these Bishops spoke out about who their Catholics were voting for PRIOR to the last election? If you vote for a leftist you will get leftist policies foisted upon you, with predictable consequences, like a rise in both taxes and crime, and social policies that could only be described as perverted. The people of Virginia appear to have decided they wanted a return to leftist policies, of which their abortion stance is only one? Well, they got what they wanted. Along with a new leftist governor who made her first priority fighting ICE Agents in her state. The people who voted for this level of idiocy dont realize yet that THEY will be the victims of these policies. Then again, thats what they evidently wanted. You get what you vote for, folks.
I’d sure be curious to know if these Bishops spoke out about who their Catholics were voting for PRIOR to the last election? If you vote for a leftist you will get leftist policies foisted upon you, with predictable consequences, like a rise in both taxes and crime, and social policies that could only be described as perverted. The people of Virginia appear to have decided they wanted a return to leftist policies, of which their abortion stance is only one? Well, they got what they wanted. Along with a new leftist governor who made her first priority fighting ICE Agents in her state. The people who voted for this level of idiocy dont realize yet that THEY will be the victims of these policies. Then again, thats what they evidently wanted. You get what you vote for, folks.