abortion

No Picture
News Briefs

Italy set to pass amendment allowing pro-life groups into family planning clinics 

April 22, 2024 Catholic News Agency 1
Participants in Italy’s pro-life demonstration in Rome on May 21, 2022. / Credit: Daniel Ibáñez/CNA

Rome, Italy, Apr 22, 2024 / 14:15 pm (CNA).

An amendment to a health care law that permits “nonprofits with experience providing maternity support” in family planning clinics, including pro-life groups, will be voted on by the Italian Senate on Tuesday, April 23, according to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.  

Amendment No. 44.028, a provision attached to a health care system law, part of Italy’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), would allow local public health authorities to freely collaborate with qualified third-party consultants, including nonprofit organizations that specialize in pregnancy and maternity support, “without new or greater burdens on public finance,” according to the news site Centro Studi Livatino. 

Last week, the Brothers of Italy party, led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, introduced the amendment to the Chamber of Deputies, Italy’s lower house of Parliament. On April 18, the amendment passed by a vote of 140-91 and is also expected to pass the Senate, Italy’s upper house of Parliament, this week.

In relation to the inclusion of pro-life groups in pregnancy counseling centers, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican secretary of state, said to journalists on Sunday: “We are in favor of life and of all those instruments that can affirm the right to life, especially for women in difficulty.”

Since 1978, abortion has been legal in Italy for the first 90 days of pregnancy. Women opting for an abortion — particularly for cases in which the pregnancy is beyond the first trimester — can obtain a certificate attesting to the health risk of her pregnancy from either a public or private health authority, including family planning clinics.

In addition, Article 31 of Italy’s constitution outlines the duty of the state to assist with “the formation of the family” through “economic measures and other benefits, and “protect mothers, children, and the young by adopting necessary provisions.” 

The prospect of having pro-life groups and associations provide counsel or services in family planning clinics continues to spur heated debate among the media as well as activist groups in Italy and across Europe.

According to Eugenia Roccella, Italy’s minister for the family, this amendment does not subvert, and is consistent with, Italy’s abortion law (Law 194/1978). 

Article 2 of the Italian abortion law already establishes that family counseling centers should “assist pregnant women” and help them “to overcome the factors which might lead the woman to have her pregnancy terminated.”

However, Gilda Sportiello, a member of Parliament representing the Five Stars Movement, argued that a woman should ultimately have the right to choose whether to be a mother or not. 

“No woman who wants to interrupt her pregnancy should feel attacked by the state,” she said after speaking out in Parliament about her choice to have an abortion 14 years ago.

Italian journalist Antonella Mariani offered a different view, saying this health care amendment would afford women more options, information, protection, and support when making their own decision about pregnancy.

“Those who truly care about women’s self-determination should consider that it is not one-way: That is, it does not only concern the freedom to have an abortion but also the freedom not to have an abortion,” she said, as reported on the Italian news site Avvenire. 

The Rosario Livatino Study Centre — a group of jurists inspired by the life and example of Blessed Rosario Livatino who research issues concerning family, the right to life, religious freedom, and legal matters — published an editorial written by one of its members in relation to the health care proposal.

A member of the center and a lawyer, Francesco Farri, according to Centro Studi Livatino, wrote that the amendment to be voted on in the Senate this week does not “innovate” but “confirms” current Italian law: “The 194, it should be remembered, does not only concern the voluntary interruption of pregnancy but also ‘norms for the social protection of maternity.’”

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

Catholic and Anglican nuns defend religious freedom in New York’s highest court

April 17, 2024 Catholic News Agency 0
Anglican nuns from Sisterhood of Saint Mary (photographed with bishops from the Anglican Church of North America’s Diocese of the Living Word) are among those suing the state of New York for requiring that they cover abortion in their health plans. / Credit: Photo courtesy of Becket Law

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Apr 17, 2024 / 14:15 pm (CNA).

A coalition of Christian groups — including Catholic nuns, Anglican nuns, Catholic dioceses, and other faith-based ministries — defended their religious freedom rights to abstain from covering abortions in their health care plans in front of New York’s highest court on Tuesday.

The New York State Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a lawsuit that challenges a New York Department of Financial Services regulation that could require the organizations to cover “medically necessary” abortions. Although the law includes a narrow religious exemption, the strict criteria needed to qualify for the exemption could prevent many faith-based organizations from being approved.

Even though the New York State Court of Appeals previously upheld the regulation, the United States Supreme Court asked that the court reconsider its ruling in light of the new religious freedom precedent set in 2021.

Noel Francisco, the lawyer representing the religious groups, told the seven-judge panel that the regulation would force these groups to violate their religious beliefs. He said the narrow religious exemption allows some faith-based groups to abstain from funding abortion but that others fail to qualify, which effectively lets the state “pick religious winners and losers.”

Per the state regulation, a faith-based organization would only qualify for the exemption if it primarily employs people who share in its religious tenets and primarily serves people who share in its religious tenets. Effectively, charitable faith-based organizations that provide services to people regardless of their faith are unable to qualify.

In his oral arguments, Francisco argued that the law is not generally applicable because it does not treat all religious groups equally and prevents some faith-based groups from qualifying for an exemption based on its narrow criteria. Under the strict rules, he noted that the ministry of St. Teresa of Calcutta, widely known as Mother Teresa, would not even be able to qualify for a religious exemption under such rules.

“Under this law, the state would have the discretion to deny a religious employer exemption to Mother Teresa and the sisters of Calcutta because, the last time I checked, the poor people of Calcutta were not predominantly Catholic,” Francisco told the judges. “This is a regime that is contrary to the Supreme Court precedent from root to branch.”

The judges challenged Assistant Solicitor General Laura Etlinger, who represented the state agency that promulgated the regulation, during oral arguments. One of the primary concerns expressed by the judges was that the regulation would force faith-based ministries to either provide abortion coverage or drastically curtail their religious mission to conform themselves to the exemption criteria.

In her oral arguments, Etlinger claimed the state drew “a reasonable line” when setting the criteria for an exemption. She further argued that ruling against the state would “discourage the state from providing accommodations” and the result would be “restrictions on free exercise rather than promoting free exercise.”

Etlinger told the judges that there is “deference [given] to the requesting objector” when an organization applies for the exemption and noted the organizations suing the state “have never sought an exemption.”

In a rebuttal, Francisco countered that his clients did not apply for an exemption because they provide services to people regardless of faith and clearly did not meet the criteria set in the state regulation.

The United States Supreme Court requested that the New York State Court of Appeals reconsider the case in light of the religious freedom victory in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Philadelphia could not discriminate against faith-based adoption services that refuse to facilitate adoptions for homosexual couples.

[…]