Ss. Cyril and Methodius Ukrainian Catholic Church

Marriage supporters rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building during oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, April 28, 2015. / Credit: Addie Mena/CNA

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 26, 2025 / 18:02 pm (CNA).

The United States Supreme Court on June 26, 2015, decided that every state is constitutionally required to perform and recognize same-sex civil marriages — a controversial ruling at the time that was followed by major shifts in cultural norms and public opinion.

When the justices handed down the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in a 5-4 decision, only 16 states had already enacted laws legalizing same-sex civil marriage. The practice, however, had been ongoing in 21 additional states because lower courts had ruled against most state-level bans prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

In the aftermath of the ruling, some Christians have been sued for adhering to biblical teachings on marriage and human sexuality in relation to anti-discrimination laws. Broader movements to normalize both homosexuality and transgenderism have also led to legal battles over parental rights, women’s rights, and religious liberty.

A decade later, public support for same-sex marriage is higher than it was. Yet some polling has shown that the trend might be reversing, potentially due to the subsequent cultural battles that followed.

The United States post-Obergefell

Ever since the ruling, efforts to prevent discrimination have repeatedly been at odds with religious liberty and parental rights.

In Colorado, for example, a baker named Jack Phillips fought and won three multiyear lawsuits filed against him for refusing to bake cakes for same-sex civil weddings and gender transition celebrations. A Christian photographer in New York and a web designer in Colorado, along with others, also fought and won multiyear lawsuits based on their refusals to provide services for same-sex civil weddings.

Many legal battles on similar issues are still ongoing. Foster parents in Vermont and a mother looking to adopt in Oregon are suing their states over policies that require them to embrace gender ideology to participate in foster programs. Parents in California are suing the state over a law that prohibits teachers from informing parents about their children’s “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

The Supreme Court is considering a case in which a Maryland school board is refusing to let parents opt children out of course material that promotes homosexuality and transgenderism. 

There are numerous political and legal battles nationwide over policies that allow biological males who self-identify as transgender women to access women’s locker rooms and other private spaces and allow them to participate in female sporting events.

“Obergefell gave license to the unraveling of social norms and understanding around sexual morality, family structure, and even personal identity,” Mary Rice Hasson, director of the Person and Identity Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told CNA.

In Hasson’s view, the Supreme Court, equating a same-sex partnership with a marriage, “emboldened activists promoting the transgender agenda, which claims a ‘trans woman’ is just the same as a woman.”

“The same personal autonomy claims that license same-sex sexual relationships are used to license self-defined identity claims,” she said.

When the decision was laid down in 2015, about 60% of the public supported legal recognition of same-sex marriages, according to a Gallup poll at the time. This was a major shift over the previous two decades, as support was only around 37% in 2005 and as low as 27% in 1996.

A May 2025 Gallup poll shows that support increased to about 68% a decade later. Even though that’s an eight-point increase over the decade, the pollsters found that support has gone down for two years straight after hitting a peak of 71% support in 2022 and 2023, with the bulk of the decrease coming from Republican voters and young people.

When commenting on the decline in support over the past two years, Hasson said that “perhaps the excesses of sexual libertinism, championed by the rainbow groups and on display in pride parades, demonstrate that same-sex sexual relationships are not the same as marriage.”

Arthur Schaper, the field director for the pro-family group MassResistance, told CNA he sees “a growing movement against this,” mostly because “people are starting to see the consequences of it.”

“This kind of stuff is happening all over,” he said, referring to the imposition of gender ideology and homosexuality in public life. “This is just egregious.”

“Everything that we warned everybody about — what would happen if you redefined a fundamental institution and corrupted it — it has come to pass,” Schaper added.

Efforts to overturn Obergefell

The Supreme Court has not revisited Obergefell since the initial ruling, and Hasson expressed some pessimism about the current makeup of the court, saying it’s “unlikely to muster a majority to overturn” the decision.

Yet some groups, including MassResistance, have been encouraging state lawmakers to adopt resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reevaluate the ruling. Lawmakers in at least nine states have introduced such resolutions. The Idaho House and the North Dakota House passed their resolutions, but most efforts have failed to gain steam.

“We see this as a first step and we’re doubling down on our efforts,” Schaper said. “And we’re going to continue fighting this.”

Schaper said some of the arguments against the decision focus on 10th Amendment claims that the regulation of marriage is a state issue and not a federal one. He also referenced some of the dissenting opinions from the court that suggested the ruling “alters the relationship of citizen to government” by asserting “the government [rather than God] gives freedom, the government gives dignity.”

He said Obergefell is also “based on this fraud that people are genetically homosexual” and treats sexuality as though it is an immutable characteristic like race. He criticized Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan for not recusing themselves from the case despite officiating same-sex civil weddings and reiterated the point that “redefining marriage has led to an imposition of values.”

Jennifer Morse, the president of the Ruth Institute, told CNA she believes “removing the gender requirement from marriage was bad public policy” and said Obergefell should be overturned.

In Morse’s view, a legal recognition of same-sex marriage “promotes the idea that the sex of the body is not significant, even for the most gendered thing we do, namely bearing and begetting children and assigning legal parental rights.”

“If the sex of the body doesn’t matter for marriage, it doesn’t matter on the sporting field, or in the locker room or in the prisons,” Morse said. “In this way, Obergefell paved the way for the excesses of the [transgender] movement.” 

Morse also expressed concerns about the effect on children, saying that same-sex marriage distorts “how we see fertility, parenthood, and children” and “it tacitly assumes that biological connections between parents and children are unimportant and in fact negotiable.”

“Rather than seeing each and every child being a gift from God, children are increasingly seen as a lifestyle option for adults, who can acquire children pretty much however they like,” she added, referencing adoption by same-sex couples.

“Redefining marriage redefines parenthood,” Morse said. “Contracts among groups of adults, rather than an act of love between parents, form the basis of parenthood.”

Schaper argued that in the early 2000s, conservative arguments for traditional marriage were mostly weak and simply focused on “tradition or preference or religion.” In reality, he said the support for same-sex marriage is “putting your selfish desires ahead of the needs of children, of public health, and public order.”

“If people just stand their ground and stand for truth, we can win,” he added.

Catholic Church teaching

In spite of consistent Church teaching, American Catholics support the legalization of same-sex civil marriages at about the same rate as the broader population. According to a 2024 Pew poll, about 70% of self-identified Catholics said they support same-sex marriage, which was slightly higher than the population as a whole.

Julia Dezelski, the associate director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth, told CNA these trends are a “downstream effect of cultural distortions of love for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.”

“The Church can address this issue by demonstrating that love for people who experience same-sex attraction is precisely what motivates us to oppose same-sex sexual activity,” she said. “The Church teaches the truth and beauty of human sexuality because it is true and beautiful, and therefore good for every man and woman.”

“Man and woman are created for communion,” Dezelski added. “The natural law inscribes this reality and desire in our very flesh. It finds its fulfillment in the one-flesh union of man and woman in marriage. Only two people of the opposite sex can experience this one-flesh union, from which the miracle of life is born.”

California state capitol. / Credit: Christopher Padalinski, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 26, 2025 / 17:32 pm (CNA).

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has found the California Department of Education and the state’s Interscholastic Federation to be in violation of Title IX for allowing male athletes who believe themselves to be females to compete in women’s sports. 

Title IX, a landmark federal civil rights law adopted in 1972, prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools that receive federal funding. Its purpose is to ensure women and girls have equal access in education. The law makes no mention of “gender identity.”

“The Trump administration will relentlessly enforce Title IX protections for women and girls, and our findings today make clear that California has failed to adhere to its obligations under federal law,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a June 25 press release. 

“The state must swiftly come into compliance with Title IX or face the consequences that follow,” McMahon said.

She also slammed California Gov. Gavin Newsom for allowing men to compete in women’s sports.

“Although Gov. Gavin Newsom admitted months ago it was ‘deeply unfair’ to allow men to compete in women’s sports, both the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation continued as recently as a few weeks ago to allow men to steal female athletes’ well-deserved accolades and to subject them to the indignity of unfair and unsafe competitions,” McMahon stated. 

Kathleen Domingo, the executive director of the California Catholic Conference, told CNA in an interview that the conference supports the U.S. Department of Education’s efforts to keep male athletes out of women’s sports.

“We obviously believe that girls’ sports should be protected,” she said. “We believed in the original intent of Title IX, that it allows women and girls to have a fair chance for competition, and we absolutely support women being able to do that.” 

“We’re concerned that California is not following the science and not following the recommendations that so many people are talking about today, just in terms of fairness, as our own governor has said, but also just looking at the science behind what is happening,” Domingo said. 

“Obviously males of the similar age will overpower females in many sports competitions, but in some competitions, it can even be dangerous if there’s contact.” 

“I think the bishops of California really want to stand … with parents who are saying we need to protect our kids,” she said.

The U.S. Department of Education has issued a resolution to the California education department and the interscholastic federation, which in part requires the government to issue a notice to all federal funding recipients mandating compliance with Title IX by banning males from competing in women’s sports or occupying women’s spaces.

It also requires the adoption of “biology-based definitions of the words ‘male’ and ‘female.’”

Both the state government and the interscholastic federation will also be required to rescind all guidance that permits male athletes in women’s spaces or competitions, “to reflect that Title IX preempts state law when state law conflicts with Title IX.”

In addition, the agreement requires the state government “to restore to female athletes all individual records, titles, and awards misappropriated by male athletes competing in female competitions.”

“To each female athlete to whom an individual recognition is restored, [California Department of Education] will send a personalized letter apologizing on behalf of the state of California for allowing her educational experience to be marred by sex discrimination,” the agreement states. 

Lastly, the state government and the interscholastic federation must complete an annual certification of compliance with Title IX and propose a monitoring plan to ensure compliance with the U.S. Department of Education.  

The Biden administration in April 2024 issued regulations redefining Title IX to include protection against discrimination based on a person’s “gender identity.” 

At the time, the administration said the revisions were meant to “clarify that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

The Biden administration was initially blocked from enforcing its redefined regulations in three separate rulings across the country in July 2024.

The rule was ultimately blocked nationwide by a federal court in Kentucky in January.

U.S. Supreme Court. / Credit: PT Hamilton/Shutterstock

Boston, Mass., Jun 26, 2025 / 14:59 pm (CNA).

Local Planned Parenthood facilities can’t force state governments to give them Medicaid funds through lawsuits because Congress didn’t create an individual right to the benefits, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Thursday.

The 6-3 decision enables states to cut off public funds to abortion providers — including Medicaid funds that come mostly from the federal government.

The court’s decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic resolves a dispute that began in 2018 after South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, issued an executive order cutting off funds to the two facilities Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates in the state, in Charleston and Columbia. The organization sued and won in U.S. District Court level and at the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The high court’s ruling Thursday overturned those lower-court decisions, pleasing pro-life advocates, including Toledo, Ohio, Bishop Daniel Thomas, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“South Carolina was right to deny Planned Parenthood taxpayer dollars. A group dedicated to ending children’s lives deserves no public support,” Thomas said in a written statement.

“Abortion is not health care, and lives will be saved because South Carolina has chosen to not fund clinics that pretend it is,” he said. “Publicly funded programs like Medicaid should only support authentic, life-affirming options for mothers and children in need.”

Can’t sue

The court’s conservatives and swing votes formed the majority — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Writing for the majority, Gorsuch said that private parties seeking federal health benefits through a state government can sue for them only when Congress explicitly allows it in legislation by declaring access to the benefits to be a right, which it didn’t do with respect to Medicaid funds.  He said the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services can cut off Medicaid funding to a state that the secretary determines isn’t complying with federal rules but that a private party can’t ask a court to force the state to give it federal funds.

“Congress knows how to give a grantee clear and unambiguous notice that, if it accepts federal funds, it may face private suits asserting an individual right to choose a medical provider,” Gorsuch wrote.

He added that Congress has done so in legislation pertaining to nursing homes but not with respect to Medicaid, a federal program administered by the states that provides a mix of federal and state funds to provide health care to poor people.

The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.

Writing for the minority, Jackson said South Carolina is participating in what she called “the project of stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws” and that the court majority’s decision allows the state to “evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors.”

Federal defunding coming?

Abortion supporters decried the court’s decision.

“The Supreme Court overrode what the Medicaid law requires and every patient wants: the ability to choose their trusted health care provider,” said Nancy Northup, president and chief executive officer of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which supports abortion, in a written statement.

“Right now, Congress is seeking to replicate South Carolina’s ban nationwide, putting politics above patients in making health care decisions,” she said.

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have sought to cut off federal funds for Planned Parenthood in a spending measure known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” It passed the House by one vote, 215-214, on May 22. But its chances in the U.S. Senate are unclear — particularly after the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian ruled Thursday that portions of the bill violate Senate rules.

Erik Baptist, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy organization that opposes abortion, said during an online press conference Thursday that “17 states in the country have taken action to defund Planned Parenthood.”

He said he hopes more states do so and that Congress follows suit.

“What the Medina case today did from the U.S. Supreme Court was liberate the states and allow them to take action to defund Planned Parenthood. So one shoe dropped today. We hope Congress takes the other action with regards to federal funding,” Baptist said.

The Texas capitol. / Credit: Ricardo Garza/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Jun 26, 2025 / 13:25 pm (CNA).

Here’s a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news: 

Nearly 100 pro-life advocates ask Texas governor for special session on abortion pills

A chorus of pro-life voices is urging the governor of Texas to call legislators to a special session to pass a bill that will help combat abortion pills flowing into the state. 

In a letter cosigned by almost 100 Texas politicians and pro-life leaders — including state Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — Texas Right to Life President John Seago urged Gov. Greg Abbott to “convene a special session” of the Legislature for lawmakers to pass the state Woman and Child Protection Act.

That measure would allow Texans to sue traffickers and distributors of abortion pills and allow women and their families to bring lawsuits in the event that a woman is injured or killed by those pills. It would also authorize “state-led prosecution for abortion pill trafficking.”

The letter states that nearly 20,000 abortion pills are mailed into the state each year. The bill “targets those who promote, manufacture, and distribute these deadly drugs.”

Activists to hold rally urging U.S. government to defund Planned Parenthood

Activists will rally in Washington, D.C., this weekend in support of defunding Planned Parenthood. 

Figures including Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins and activist Riley Gaines will be present at Capitol Hill on June 28 for a combined “diaper drive and rally” in support of defunding the abortion giant of taxpayer funds. 

Students for Life said on its website that activists will distribute at least 392,715 diapers to pregnancy help centers and local residents; that number represents all the unborn children killed by Planned Parenthood last year, the group said. 

The rally is part of the larger National Celebrate Life Conference taking place in Washington over the weekend. 

Abortion bans drive providers out of pro-life states

Large numbers of abortion providers in states that passed abortion bans fled those states in the wake of those laws, new data shows. 

A study published this month in JAMA Network Open investigated whether “state-level abortion restrictions” in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s repeal “could lead clinicians to leave states that ban abortion.”

The survey found that 42% of surveyed abortion providers in states that enacted bans “relocate[d] primary practice” after such bans.  

Nearly half of all states ban abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy, while a dozen ban the procedure outright. Just nine states and the District of Columbia allow for abortion at any time for any reason.

English Archbishop John Sherrington of Liverpool speaks with EWTN News via video call about the recent passage of a bill to legalize assisted suicide in England and Wales, calling it a turning point in the country’s devaluation of the dignity of life. / Credit: EWTN News

Rome Newsroom, Jun 26, 2025 / 10:30 am (CNA).

Archbishop John Sherrington of Liverpool, who oversees life issues for the bishops of England and Wales, has called the recent passage of a bill to legalize assisted suicide a turning point in the country’s devaluation of the dignity of life.

“I think we’ve crossed a watershed, that fundamental line in the sand that a life is always to be protected and that one cannot assist another person’s suicide… there’s an erosion of the value of the dignity of life,” the archbishop told EWTN News in an interview via video call from Liverpool this week.

Sherrington added that the bishops are concerned particularly for those who are already very vulnerable, such as the disabled, who may now find themselves in an even more vulnerable situation.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would allow terminally ill adults to end their own lives with the help of a physician, passed the House of Commons by a narrow margin — 315 to 291 — on June 20.

The bill will now go to the House of Lords, where the nonelected upper chamber can choose to pass the legislation or amend it. Predictions appear divided over whether the Lords will pass the bill as is or attempt to amend, delay, or even scuttle it.

Sherrington noted the bill’s passage by “a very narrow vote” and said he thinks it is a reflection of “the division in the country and the concern of many professional bodies, as well as pro-life groups and GPs [general practitioners], that this law is unsatisfactory and is going to put those who are vulnerable in a worse position.”

The archbishop also said the End of Life Bill is a threat to health care workers’ freedom of conscience if it becomes law without the proper protections.

“We are told that there will be freedom of conscience for doctors, but my concern is also all the health care workers, all the social workers who are involved in the care of people who are terminally ill,” he said.

Because of their position in the health care system, nondoctor medical workers “may not have the same freedom” to say “no” to participating in assisted suicide, he added.

According to the BBC, the passage of the End of Life Bill marks “a colossal social change” in the country, made possible by the arrival of hundreds of new Labor members of Parliament and by significant public support for the law.

A YouGov poll last week suggested that more than 7 out of 10 Britons supported the assisted suicide proposals — referred to by supporters as assisted dying — even though the House of Commons had rejected changing the law as recently as 2015.

Both Sherrington and Cardinal Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster, also drew attention to the risk that an assisted suicide law would force Catholic hospices and care homes to shutter.

In addition to writing their members of Parliament expressing opposition to legalizing assisted suicide, Sherrington said Catholics need to help people “understand in their heart and their mind the dignity of the end of life” and the assistance palliative care can provide to ease pain.

“Suffering is part of life, but we can reduce it in various ways,” he said. But often, he said, what helps the most is solidarity and care, and — for those who are Catholic — the sacraments, prayer, and liturgy.

Those things “actually are a source of great consolation,” Sherrington said. “We need to witness to how we best care for people who are suffering, who are in pain, and we have excellent examples of that through the hospices.”

As currently written, the proposed assisted suicide legislation would require patients to be over the age of 18, have received a terminal illness diagnosis with no more than six months to live, and to self-administer the lethal drug.

The decision would need to be approved by two doctors and a panel made up of a social worker, a senior legal figure such as a former judge, and a psychiatrist.

While likely to take longer to roll out than originally predicted, the BBC reported that the government’s impact assessment suggests hundreds will seek assisted suicide in the first years, but after a decade, the rate could rise to an estimated 4,000 people a year seeking assisted suicide.

Zofia Czubak contributed to this report.

null / Credit: roibu/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 26, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).

A new Pew Research Center report reveals that about 22% of those who voted in the 2024 election and cast their ballot for President Donald Trump were Catholic.

The new edition of its validated voter study “Behind Trump’s 2024 Victory,” released on June 26, looks at how Americans — new voters and voters who turned out in previous elections — voted in the 2024 presidential election. It reveals that Trump had support from the majority of voting Catholics, with 55% casting their vote for him.

Pew surveyed 8,942 U.S. citizens ages 18 and older who are members of American Trends Panel (ATP) and verified their turnout in the five general elections from 2016 to 2024 using commercial voter files.

In order to validate 2024 election turnout, Pew “attempted to match adult citizens who are part of the ATP to a turnout record in at least one of three commercial voter files: one that serves conservative and Republican organizations and campaigns, one that serves progressive and Democratic organizations and campaigns, and one that is nonpartisan.”

The research found that in 2024, Trump gained voters among multiple religious groups including Catholics, Protestants, and those who reported that they attend religious services on at least a monthly basis.

Trump had a 12-point advantage of Catholic voters over Kamala Harris, who won 43% of the group’s vote. In 2020, the Catholic vote was split almost evenly with 50% voting for Joe Biden and 49% for Trump.

The report noted that Trump benefited from 7% of Catholic voters switching their political party from 2020 to 2024. Only 4% of Catholics who favored Trump in the 2020 election shifted to Harris in the most recent election.

Majority of Trump voters identified as Christians

Trump received the majority of the Christian vote in 2024 — about 80% of his voters identified as Christian, compared with only about half of Harris voters.

Of Protestant voters specifically, 62% favored Trump in 2024. This was an increase from 56% in 2016 and 59% in 2020. There was a particularly large shift in Black Protestant voters with 15% voting for Trump in 2024, which was 6 percentage points higher than 2020.

The study also found that voters who attend some kind of religious service favored Trump more in 2024 than in 2020. In the most recent election, 64% voted for him, which increased from 59%. In 2024, only about a third of this group (34%) supported Harris.

In all three elections, Trump received more votes from people who reported that they attend a religious service “monthly or more often” than voters who said they attend “a few times a year or less.” For each election, the Democratic candidate received more votes from those who attend less frequently than those who attend more often. 

More Hispanic voters went for Trump 

Another notable find from the report was Trump’s steady progress with Hispanic voters over the course of the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections. 

In 2016, 28% of validated Hispanic voters reported they voted for Trump, 36% did in 2020, and 48% did in 2024. While the Hispanic vote for the Republican candidate increased each election, the Hispanic vote for the Democratic candidate decreased each year.

The research found that from 2020 to 2024, Trump made gains among citizens who were born outside the U.S. In 2020, 59% of naturalized citizens who voted cast their ballot for Biden, and in 2024 51% voted for Harris. 

While the Democratic Party received fewer votes from this group, Trump received more in 2024. In 2020, 38% of naturalized citizens voted for Trump, but in 2024 47% did. 

Overall, research found that 85% of Trump’s 2020 voters cast their ballot for him again in 2024. Of the other voters, 3% switched and supported Harris, 1% switched and supported another candidate, and 11% declined to vote again in the 2024 election.

null / Credit: Take Photo/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 25, 2025 / 18:01 pm (CNA).

The Catholic Conference of Ohio has issued a statement expressing confidence that the state’s voucher program allowing parents to send their children to private schools would ultimately prevail after a judge ruled the program unconstitutional.

Franklin County Judge Jaiza Page on June 24 declared the Educational Choice Scholarship (EdChoice) Program, which provides funding for public school students to attend private schools in the state, unconstitutional, claiming it harms public education by channeling funds toward private schools, including Catholic institutions.

Page said in her ruling that the plaintiffs had proved “beyond a reasonable doubt that the EdChoice voucher program violates Article VI Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution,” which bans religious schools from having “any exclusive right to, or control of, any part of the school funds of [the] state.”

Page also wrote that “the state may not fund private schools at the expense of public schools or in a manner that undermines its obligation to public education.”

The ruling is expected to be appealed. The 10th District Court of Appeals will hear the case next, after which it could go to the Ohio Supreme Court.

“We remain confident the EdChoice program will prevail in the appeals process,” Brian Hickey, executive director for the Catholic Conference of Ohio, said in a June 24 statement. Hickey called support for the program “a matter of social justice.”

The Catholic Conference of Ohio is the official representative of the Catholic Church in public policy matters.

“The Catholic Church will continue to advocate for and defend programs that support parents as the primary educators of their children and enable them to select a school that best suits their child’s needs,” Hickey said. 

“We are proud that Catholic schools in Ohio continue to flourish with ethnic and racial diversity while providing a rich spiritual and intellectual environment,” he continued. “Catholic schools, like other chartered nonpublic schools in Ohio, work closely with the Department of Education and Workforce to adhere to state chartering requirements, including operating standards, teacher licensing, state audits, and approved testing.”

A coalition of public school districts, Vouchers Hurt Ohio, filed a lawsuit in 2022 to end the Educational Choice Scholarship (EdChoice) Program, which provides funding for public school students to attend private schools in the state of Ohio. 

The anti-vouchers group argued that the program unconstitutionally created a second system of schools to be funded by the state, causing harm to its public school system.

About 300 sisters and supporters gathered on June 24, 2025, for “Sisters Speak Out” in the nation’s capital in anticipation of the Senate voting on the budget bill this week. / Credit: Julia Morris

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 25, 2025 / 16:07 pm (CNA).

Sisters from 60 congregations gathered in Washington, D.C., on June 24 to urge lawmakers not to cut government programs that support immigrants and people with low incomes.

The event, called “Sisters Speak Out,” was held in the nation’s capital while approximately 40 “echo events” took place across the country. Around 300 sisters and supporters attended the D.C. gathering for “immigrants and a just economy” in anticipation of the Senate voting on the reconciliation bill this week.

According to a press release from the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, the sisters were gathered to speak out against budget cuts they believe will “gut health care and food assistance, inflicting serious harm on families, children, the elderly, and disabled.”

Sister Eilis McCulloh, a Humility of Mary sister and grassroots education and organizing coordinator for the justice organization Network, told CNA the idea for the demonstration came from “a desire for some action.”

“In March, there was a conference of a bunch of justice promoters for women’s religious communities … we began meeting every single week … to plan something that we could do together and that could take place across the country as well,” she said.

From these meetings the group decided to plan the Sisters Speak Out event because they believe the reconciliation bill affects the communities that they are “intertwined” with in their ministries.

McCulloh told CNA that “one of the really cool things” about the day was how much participation there was across the nation.

“So many people are saying, ‘Physically, I can no longer participate in events’ … And so we collected rosaries for it, one of the co-planners helped collect them and we received over 300 rosaries for people to use.” 

The event “had five different speakers” and the group gathered to pray a decade of the rosary together. 

“We used the sorrowful mysteries,” McCulloh said. “And each of the mysteries was connected to one of the issues that we were talking about.” The five speakers specifically discussed Medicaid, immigration, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Sister Mary Haddad of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas spoke about how health care is a “human right” and said passing the budget bill “would harm critical health and social safety-net programs that millions of Americans rely on to live with health, dignity, and security.”

“Medicaid is not just a health program — it is a lifeline,” she said.

Sister Patty Chappell, a Sister of Notre Dame de Namur, explained at the event that 13% of the population relies on $230 a month to feed their families. “That covers only a subsistence diet,” she said, and then asked: “How would you be able to feed your family on a SNAP budget of just $6.20 per day, per person?”

Sister Terry Saetta, a member of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas who works with immigrants, discussed border issues. “No child should leave the house traumatized, fearing they may never see their mother or father again,” she said.

The budget, she said, “is a moral document. It shows what we value.”

After the sisters had gathered, some met with senators including Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland; Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina; Raphael Warnock, D-Georgia; Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois; Dick Durbin, D-Illinois; and John Cornyn, R-Texas, to discuss the bill and how they believe it will affect vulnerable groups. 

The group also sent a letter to senators that was signed by approximately 2,500 sisters that said the bill “would be the most harmful legislation for American families in our lifetimes, and it goes against the principles and teaching of our Catholic faith.”

“I think we’re still just beginning to see this ripple effect of what this event meant, not just for the world but for everyone who took part in it and how we’re going to take the energy that we had yesterday and bring it back to our own congregations, our own communities where we live,” McCulloh said Wednesday. 

The reconciliation bill was passed by House Republicans in May, and Trump has called for the Senate to also pass it as soon as July 4.

Many Catholic and pro-life agencies have supported the bill from the start as it would defund Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform abortions, but many Catholic organizations are also wary of how other government cuts will affect U.S. families and programs that assist the poor.

The United States Conference of Bishops recently released its stance on the bill, stating that it “supports certain provisions” but similarly to the sisters is “concerned with other inclusions that will negatively impact millions of people,” such as Medicaid and SNAP.

A Colorado department will allow a Christian summer camp to separate boys and girls on the basis of biology after the camp sued the state in May. The agreement was reached June 24, 2025, and the camp has dropped the lawsuit. / Credit: anatoliy_gleb/shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 25, 2025 / 14:53 pm (CNA).

The Colorado Department of Early Childhood will allow a Christian summer camp to separate showers, bathrooms, and sleeping areas on the basis of biological sex after both sides reached a legal settlement on Tuesday, June 24.

Per the settlement, Camp IdRaHaJe is exempt from a state rule that requires camps to separate facilities on the basis of self-asserted “gender identity” rather than biological sex. If the rule had been enforced, the camp would have been required to let biological males who identify as transgender girls access all private facilities reserved for biological girls.

In the settlement, the department recognizes that the camp is a nonprofit organized exclusively for religious purposes. For this reason, the settlement states that the camp is not subject to the rule.

“Government officials should never put a dangerous ideology ahead of kids,” Andrea Dill, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom — the organization representing Camp IdRaHaJe in the lawsuit — said in a statement.

“State officials must respect religious ministries and their beliefs about human sexuality; they can’t force a Christian summer camp to violate its convictions,” she said. “We’re pleased that Camp IdRaHaJe is again free to operate as it has for more than 75 years: as a Christian summer camp that accepts all campers without fear of being punished for its beliefs.”

The Christian camp, which derives its name from the 1922 Christian hymn “I’d Rather Have Jesus,” sued the department in mid-May based on concerns that it could face fines or have its license suspended or revoked. The camp opened on June 8 and did not comply with the rule. The department did not take any enforcement action against the camp.

Per the agreement, the state agreed that it will not impose any fines or take any action against Camp IdRaHaJe’s license.

The Department of Early Childhood also agreed to add language to its administrative guide and update a memorandum on its website to clarify that a location “principally used for religious purposes” is not subject to the “gender identity” rule.

CNA reached out to the department for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication. Lisa Roy, the executive director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, said in a statement to CBS News that the department is “glad to support Camp IdRaHaJe’s understanding of their ability to provide a Christian camp experience to kids” after the settlement was reached.

“The [department] did not take any enforcement action against Camp IdRaHaJe related to any of the licensing regulations raised in the lawsuit and the camp was never under a threat of closure,” she said in the statement.

Although no direct enforcement action was taken against Camp IdRaHaJe, the camp expressed concern in its initial lawsuit that it could be subject to enforcement action because its request for an exemption from the rule had previously been denied.

That lawsuit notes that the camp believes and teaches that God “has immutably created each person as either male or female in his image” and that “the differentiation of the sexes, male and female, is part of the divine image in the human race.” It adds that this belief is integrated into all of the camp’s programs and operations.

Camp IdRaHaJe hosts about 2,500 to 3,000 students between the ages of 6 and 17 every year. It was established in 1948 for “the purpose of winning souls to Jesus Christ through the spreading of the Gospel,” the “edifying … of the believers through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God,” and “evangelizing of campers through witnessing and missions,” its website states.

Following the settlement agreement, Alliance Defending Freedom filed for a dismissal of the initial lawsuit.

Bishop Alberto Rojas of San Bernardino. / Credit: Diocese of San Bernardino/Screenshot

CNA Staff, Jun 25, 2025 / 13:24 pm (CNA).

Bishop Alberto Rojas of San Bernardino, California, on Tuesday urged authorities to cease their aggressive arrests of immigrants in the state, with the prelate calling for immigration enforcement that “respects human rights and human dignity.”

The plea comes as the federal government under President Donald Trump continues its broad effort to arrest and deport unauthorized immigrants in California and throughout the rest of the country.

California has been at the epicenter of much of that enforcement. Pew Research Center estimated last year that the state is home to 1.8 million “unauthorized immigrants,” the highest number of any state in the country.

The federal government, meanwhile, has been boasting of its immigration raids in the state, describing in press releases its arrests of the “worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens” in Los Angeles and slamming what it called “sanctuary politicians” in states like California who “work to thwart” the work of immigration officers. 

Last month Trump aide Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem reportedly pushed ICE agents to arrest 3,000 people per day. According to Forbes, “the Trump administration internally has set a goal of deporting 1 million people during Trump’s first year.”

‘It is not of the Gospel of Jesus Christ’

In his Tuesday message, Rojas noted the “change [and] increase in immigration enforcement in our region and specifically in our diocese.” San Bernardino is located about 90 minutes east of Los Angeles.

“Authorities are now seizing brothers and sisters indiscriminately, without respect for their right to due process and their dignity as children of God,” the bishop wrote of the immigration raids. 

Speaking to immigrant communities bearing the “trauma and injustice of these tactics,” Rojas wrote that the Church “walks with you and supports you. We join you in carrying this very difficult cross.”

Rojas wrote that Catholics “respect and appreciate the right of law enforcement to keep our communities safe from violent criminals.” But the recent enforcement has gone beyond that, he argued.

“[W]e are now seeing agents detain people as they leave their homes, in their places of work and other randomly chosen public settings,” the bishop wrote. “We have experienced at least one case of ICE agents entering a parish property and seizing several people.”

The aggressive enforcement “is creating a tremendous amount of fear, confusion, and anxiety for many,” he wrote.

Describing those extreme methods as “not of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” the bishop asked political leaders to “reconsider and cease these tactics immediately, in favor of an approach that respects human rights and human dignity and builds toward a more lasting, comprehensive reform of our immigration system.”

It “is painful to see such division amongst God’s people at this moment,” the bishop admitted. 

“This is not what he wants for us. Let us instead remember what we all share — our creation in his image and likeness. Let us look for God in one another.”

Religious leaders have spoken out against the Trump administration’s immigration policy in the months since the Republican leader took office in January.

In February more than two dozen religious groups sued the White House over its policy allowing immigration officers to arrest suspected illegal immigrants in houses of worship and other “sensitive locations.”

The groups said the policy had the effect of “substantially burdening” religious worship, since many immigrant parishioners were avoiding worship altogether.

In a similar case filed around the same time, a federal judge ruled in February that the government would not be permitted to conduct unrestricted arrests of suspected unauthorized immigrants at some religious sites while the lawsuit plays out in court.