U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris speaks to reporters after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Vice President’s ceremonial office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on July 25, 2024, Washington, D.C. / Credit: Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jul 26, 2024 / 10:05 am (CNA).
Here’s a roundup of pro-life-related developments in the U.S. this week.
Harris pledges to codify Roe in federal law
Since replacing President Joe Biden as the presumptive presidential nominee for the Democratic party, Vice President Kamala Harris has already made abortion a major focus of her campaign, pledging in several speeches to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law.
In a Wednesday night speech in Indianapolis, Harris bashed former President Donald Trump for nominating three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe.
“When I am president of the United States and when Congress passes a law to restore those freedoms, I will sign it into law,” she said.
“We who believe in reproductive freedom will fight for a woman’s right to choose,” said Harris, “because one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree that the government should not be telling her what to do.”
Harris has used this line repeatedly during her “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms Tour” in which she slammed states with pro-life laws as “immoral” and advocated for a national pro-abortion law.
Iowa heartbeat law to take effect July 29
Iowa District Judge Jeffrey Farrell lifted a block on the state’s six-week pro-life law, clearing the path for the measure to finally take effect on July 29.
The Iowa “heartbeat” law was passed by the legislature in 2023. It protects unborn life from abortion once a baby’s heartbeat is detectable, which is typically around six weeks.
Planned Parenthood and several other abortion groups launched a lawsuit over the law and it was blocked by a district court shortly after passage. Polk County District Judge Joseph Seidlin ruled in 2023 that the law was likely invalid because it imposed an “undue burden” on abortion.
The Iowa Supreme Court, however, ruled on June 28 that the law is likely not unconstitutional because abortion is “not a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution.” The high court returned the case to lower courts for further deliberation.
Commending the state supreme court’s ruling, Iowa’s Catholic bishops said: “For us, this is a question of the common good and human dignity. Human life is precious and should be protected in our laws to the greatest extent possible.”
Arkansas Supreme Court rules on abortion petition
The Arkansas Supreme Court ordered that signatures as part of an abortion ballot initiative be counted after Secretary of State John Thurston said the documentation was improperly submitted.
This comes after Thurston denied abortion advocates their petition to add a broad pro-abortion amendment to the November ballot. The prosecutor said the activists failed to identify their paid canvassers or to indicate that the canvassers had followed state law regarding gathering signatures.
The state high court’s decision issued on Tuesday ordered Thurston to resume counting petition signatures gathered by volunteers by July 29.
The group claimed to have gathered over 100,000 signatures — well over the 90,700 required to add an amendment proposal to the ballot. Thurston, however, said that after subtracting the signatures allegedly invalidly obtained by paid canvassers, the group only had 87,382 signatures, more than 3,000 short of the minimum required.
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the petition’s signatures could be counted but only those not gathered by paid canvassers, meaning the petition may fail to reach the necessary threshold for the November ballot.
Currently, Arkansas protects unborn life beginning at conception, only allowing abortion in cases in which the mother’s life is in danger.
If successfully passed, the abortion amendment would mandate that the state not “prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict” abortion before 18 weeks of pregnancy. The amendment would further prohibit the state from restricting abortion at all stages in cases of rape, incest, fetal anomaly, or health of the mother.
Federal court denies effort to restrict abortion pill
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied an appeal by seven Republican-led states to challenge the federal government’s recent loosening of restrictions on mifepristone, the pill that accounts for over 60% of all U.S. abortions.
The seven Republican states — Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah — argued that the federal government’s loosening of mifepristone restrictions, such as allowing mail-order abortions and prescriptions via telemedicine, undermines their pro-life laws and harms women in their jurisdictions.
The states claimed they had standing to sue because the increase in women needing medical care after unsupervised chemical abortions would result in increased Medicaid expenses.
The 3-0 decision issued by a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court on Wednesday, however, denied the states had standing and dismissed their challenge.
The circuit court’s ruling cited the June 13 AHM v. FDA Supreme Court decision that unanimously rejected an attempt to impose stricter regulations on mifepristone because the doctors bringing the challenge lacked standing.
This comes as a coalition of seventeen Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia are suing to block any further efforts to restrict mifepristone.
Lawsuit by Texas woman wrongly imprisoned for abortion proceeds
U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton this week denied several requests to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a Texas woman who was wrongly imprisoned over her abortion.
The woman, Lizelle Gonzalez, was improperly jailed for murder by the county sheriff for three days in 2022. She was dismissed after the county found the charges were unfounded.
Texas law protects unborn life from conception. However, the law explicitly states that pregnant mothers cannot be prosecuted for their abortions.
Gonzalez is now seeking $1 million in damages from Starr County, which is in south Texas on the U.S.-Mexico border.
[…]
Sounds weird to say the least.
Probably diabolical in nature.
I wonder what awful thing this priest did to upset the students? The lack of detail makes it seem like it was pretty horrible. I hope the students really are safe.
More likely the students were doing something to the relic. I know Fr. Carlos. This is a witch hunt.
This CNA article is a perfect example of sensationalist journalism and is unworthy of CWR. The piece reports scandal, an “incident” but provides absolutely no detail. Add to that, an unsubstantiated name was dropped followed by the temerity of stating that “This is a developing story.”
The author would have done better to let it develop some more. This piece reminds of a sewing circle of breathless, gossiping busybodies.
Joseph Meynier: my sentiments exactly. I’ve thought for a long time that CNS is not a reliable source of news and ought to be considered with a very critical eye.
Sorry, I meant to say CNA.
Thank you. This is the first time I can remember being disappointed in something CWR published, but someone was a definitely a bit too eager.
I’m a bit puzzled by the responses here. It’s a straight-up news report. There is no sensationalism, no editorializing, no claims made. Just facts. This did happen and it is, as the CNA note states, a developing story.
What was printed was all the information that the diocese made available. It would have been so easy (and fair-minded) for them to have specified that the incident was not of a sexual nature. But they didn’t and now the priest’s reputation is harmed and Joliet Catholics are deprived of the chance to honor the relic.
Agreed. Lack of essential detail. Therefore,not newsworthy
I hope that when the details of the case are known, you will update this article, so we can know the exact nature of the allegations against the unnamed priest, and the identity of the individual.
The accusations are false against fr martins…thevtruthvwill come out…he is being attacked by Satan for his work exposing satan….beware of jumping to false conclusions….
I attended the display when it came through our parish. Nothing weird happened here. I really enjoyed it.
I would suggest, if it turns out that this priest did nothing illegal or immoral according to Church teaching and if his reputation was damaged by the action taken by the diocese of Joliet and its bishop, that he ought to then sue the latter for damages.
Relic priest responds to ‘incident’ allegation
THE PILLAR
November 25, 2024 . 2:51 PM 5 min read
Apparently, this priest is alleged to have handled the long hair of a girl attending the relic presentation in order to illustrate a point. Probably unwise but hardly an illegal “assault” as alleged nor a violation of morality. As a comparison, I’m sure we can all recall photos of Pope Francis in all sorts of fatherly embraces of young children yet no one lodges a single complaint about it.
Those were my thoughts too, Deacon Edward.
A recent update by the Pillar has more details as indicated earlier. As the saying goes someone seems to have made a mountain out of a molehill. In this case, a priest making note of his bald head and a girls hair to some students to engage them in a discussion. If the Pillar latest account holds true as of this writing, which I hope it is, then the person making a report to the police should be admonished and should publically issue an apology to the priest. Also think if the Pillar up date is true then I think the Father making a report to the police has his own issues leading to this situation. Think CWR should also do an update when final facts are known.
Grabbintg anyone’s hair for any reason, without their consent is certainly immoral.
And I would lock up Francis and throw away the key for hundreds of things he has done.
No idea how you can define this as immoral?
As usual, this is turning out to be a witch hunt brought on by a hyper-conscious parent and the regular group of ninnies that try to make every good priest a villain. Fr. Martins did nothing wrong. See the latest:
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/illinois-diocese-halts-st-jude-relic-tour-amid-incident-involving-priest-students
Waiting for the pastor of the church and the bishop of Joliet to restore Father Martins’ reputation.
Unfortunately, Daniel Payne left out significant details in his article about the allegations against Fr. Martins. In front of over 200 people, as
Fr. Martins joked about his baldness he touched a teen’s hair. The girl’s father complained of assault. This ridiculous act against Fr. Martins may be an example of how Satan attacks the highly faithful. Fr. Martins is a well-known exorcist. Remember how Fr. Pio was also attacked with false charges. In this case, numerous witnesses shared that nothing inappropriate happened.
After reading the additional information in the Pillar, I think this is all diabolical. Fr. Martins is an accomplished exorcist. The evil one hates him.
How devastating this must be for him. Yet, he’ll come through it.
And I agree the Bishop over reacted as did the parent.