US

St. Louis, Mo., Jul 1, 2019 / 01:49 pm (CNA).- An administrative panel ruled Friday that the last abortion clinic in Missouri may continue operating while its lapsed license is disputed in court.

According to The Hill, Missouri’s Administrative Hearing Commission granted the Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis its latest reprieve June 28, allowing it to continue operating without a license until at least August, when the next hearing in the dispute is scheduled.

The license of the Planned Parenthood clinic was set to expire May 31, but Judge Michael F. Stelzer of Missouri Circuit Court in St. Louis ruled that the clinic could temporarily stay open while its licensure was debated. That temporary stay was again extended at least two more times by Stelzer, who said that the clinic could remain open until the administrative panel’s decision was given.

Planned Parenthood sued the state of Missouri May 28 after the state’s health department declined to renew the clinic’s license. Representatives of the clinic have argued that there is no valid reason for state rules that mandate two pelvic exams before the administration of abortion-inducing drugs. It has also rejected state demands that officials interview its medical trainees on staff.

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services rejected a license renewal request June 21 from the clinic, citing an “unprecedented lack of cooperation, failure to meet basic standards of patient care, and refusal to comply with state law and regulations.”

A 2016 report on an inspection of the clinic, the most recent available through CheckMyClinic.org, shows that the clinic at that time was in violation of multiple state standards involving the sterilization and storing of equipment, and the proper documentation of medication and procedures. Also among the state concerns are four botched abortions reported at the clinic.

While the state health department had demanded hearings with some doctors in residence at the Planned Parenthood clinic as part of its investigation, Stelzer ruled in early June that the state could not hold interviews of non-Planned Parenthood employees as a requirement for licensure.

The Hill reports that the next hearing in the case is scheduled Aug. 1.

[…]

Denver, Colo., Jul 1, 2019 / 03:48 am (CNA).- Human trafficking is “happening closer to us than we think,” and Catholic groups are increasingly committed to fighting it through advocacy, prayer and action, global anti-trafficking leader Sis… […]

Santa Fe, N.M., Jun 30, 2019 / 04:01 pm (CNA).- After a bus crashed on its way back to New Mexico from a Catholic youth conference in Denver, reports have emerged that the seminarian on board, Jason Marshall, may have given his life to save the kids on… […]

Washington D.C., Jun 30, 2019 / 06:01 am (CNA).- In the wake of recent controversies over teacher hiring, and firing, at religious schools, CNA spoke with professor Rick Garnett from Notre Dame Law School to discuss the future of religious liberty.

In 2012 the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prevents the government from interfering with the hiring or firing of ministers. The case also determined what can be considered under the ministerial exception.

A woman named Cheryl Perich was a religion teacher at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School for five years, before she went on disability in 2004. When she was cleared to work the following year, she was not offered her job back, and the school said they had hired someone else to teach religion. Perich then sued for unlawful dismissal, stating that her firing was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The court said that her firing was in fact not unlawful, due to the religious component of her job, which the Supreme Court said likened her to a minister. The government cannot be involved with the employment of ministers, which would be a violation of the First Amendment.

The Establishment Clause would prevent “a situation like in England, where the queen picks the bishop,” explained Garnett. “The idea behind the ministerial exception is that our Constitution doesn’t permit stuff like that.”

A minister, said Garnett “is broader than just, you know, an ordained priest or pastor. It includes people who work for religious institutions, and who have a role in the religious mission of these institutions.”

The effects of Hosanna-Tabor may be seen in the coming years, as the exercise of religious liberty in schools becomes a bigger and bigger problem.

“One place where this is coming up a fair bit and creating some controversy is when you have religious schools that are firing teachers who enter into a civil same-sex marriage,” said Garnett.

“That’s happened at a number of Catholic schools around the country. And in a number of these cases have been lawsuits saying the firing was illegal, on the ground that it was discrimination.”

The schools, Garnett said, have responded to the claims of discrimination that these teachers are teaching at Catholic schools, and therefore are ministers.

“So far, there’s been some disagreement about how to handle these cases in the Supreme Court,” said Garnett.

Recently, two Jesuit high schools in Indianapolis were in the news. One defied orders from the archbishop to not renew the contract of a teacher who is in a civil same-sex marriage, opting to keep him on staff. The other high school decided not to renew the contract of one of their teachers who is in a same-sex marriage, who is, coincidentally, married to the other teacher.

Other religious liberty issues are beginning to arise over school vouchers. The Maryland Department of Education last year disqualified Bethel Christian Academy from participating in the state’s Broadening Options and Opportunities for Students Today voucher program, which benefits low-income students in the area.

The department had previously requested to see the student handbooks of schools in the program. Bethel’s handbook includes a statement of Christian beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

Garnett told CNA that does not think schools should be forced to give up the ministerial exemption to get vouchers, and that “every school [should] get some sort of public support.”

[…]

Atlanta, Ga., Jun 29, 2019 / 04:18 am (CNA).- Allison DeVine’s conversion began in a preschool classroom.

There, she met another woman named Allison – a Catholic. The two women started talking because their daughters had become playmates. Both g… […]

Washington D.C., Jun 28, 2019 / 02:45 pm (CNA).- The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will not hear a case regarding an Alabama law banning abortions by dismemberment, allowing a lower court ruling against the legislation to stand.  

On June 28, the court issued a series of decisions announcing which cases it will hear in the next judicial year. 

The rejected case, Harris v. West Alabama Women’s Center, concerned the Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act, a 2016 law that banned the abortion procedure “dilation and evacuation.” The procedure involves the dismemberment of the unborn child while it is still alive, and is only used for abortions in the second-trimester of pregnancy or later. 

This case did not involve the law passed in Alabama earlier this year, which banned abortion altogether in the state of Alabama, except when needed to preserve the health of the mother. 

The 2016 law was struck down by a lower court before it could ever go into effect, finding that the legislation placed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to access abortion. The Supreme Court’s decision to not grant certiorari means that the lower court decision will stand. 

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing a concurring opinion to not hear the case, said that the Supreme Court did need to consider an abortion case and revisit its existing precedents on the “undue burden” test, which he described as “out of control,” but that the Alabama case did not present the right fact pattern for doing so. 

“The notion that anything in the Constitution prevents States from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible,” wrote Thomas. 

“But under the ‘undue burden’ standard adopted by this Court, a restriction on abortion—even one limited to prohibiting gruesome methods—is unconstitutional if ‘the ‘purpose or effect’ of the provision ‘is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.’”

While agreeing that the case was “too risky” for the Court to consider, he wrote that “this case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control.” 

“None of these decisions is supported by the text of the Constitution. Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous ‘undue burden’ standard, we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this court has wrought.”

The national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List released a statment condemning the court’s refusal to hear the case.

“Once again the Supreme Court has punted on abortion, this time refusing to take up Alabama’s humane law protecting unborn children from gruesome dismemberment abortions in which a child is torn apart, piece by piece,” the statement said. 

“Unborn children and mothers will continue to be victimized by the abortion industry while the Court does nothing.”

Among those cases accepted by the court were DHS v. Regents of the University of California, Trump v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and McAlleenan v. Vidal, which were consolidated into one case. 

All three cases concern President Trump’s plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. 

In 2017, Trump announced that the program would be ending, but federal courts have repeatedly blocked his decision and the program has remained.

DACA was created by an executive order issued by then-President Barack Obama. It provides work permits and protection from deportation for some people who were brought to the United States illegally as children. 

Trump has previously urged Congress agree a bipartisan compromise bill that would codify parts of DACA into law and strengthen border protections – including providing funding for a border wall, but no agreement has been reached. 

The Supreme Court’s next judicial session begins in October.

[…]

Richmond, Va., Jun 28, 2019 / 02:44 pm (CNA).- In the wake of recent sexual abuse scandals throughout the U.S., the Diocese of Richmond has announced that it will no longer name buildings and institutions after clergymen and religious founders.

The ne… […]

Miami, Fla., Jun 28, 2019 / 11:40 am (CNA).- Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate, the second in a series of debates that will continue until the 2020 primaries, featured discussion of religious hypocrisy and abortion among other matters.

C… […]

Washington D.C., Jun 28, 2019 / 07:15 am (CNA).- At a congressional hearing on the worldwide persecution of Christians, religious freedom advocates warned Thursday of the plight of Christians in Asia and particularly in China, where the government is a… […]

Brownsville, Texas, Jun 28, 2019 / 03:02 am (CNA).- Reports of children with matted hair, inadequate sleep and no access to showers or clean clothes. A published photo of a father and his toddler daughter who drowned trying to reach the United States. … […]