Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, a longtime advocate for legally unlimited abortion, estimates that total U.S. abortions increased in 2024. The report covers the more than two-thirds of states that have not revived or enacted pro-life laws in the wake of the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Altogether, using a combination of survey samples of abortion facilities and historical methods, Guttmacher concluded that some 1,038,100 abortions took place in 2024, a little less than 1% more than occurred in 2023.

Scholar and statistician Michael New has responded to the data and noted that, given its methodology of sampling and historical estimation, it should be greeted with some skepticism. It would be better reported, as the details show, as a range rather than a concrete number in which there is great confidence. Over the decades, Guttmacher has relied on a triennial system of securing data directly from as many of the nation’s abortion facilities as it could reach. These reports are more accurate and detailed than what Guttmacher calls its Monthly Abortion Provision Study (MAPS). There is value in getting data much more rapidly than the triennial scheme allowed, but New’s caution is well taken. The core problem remains with the U.S. system of data collection on abortion, which relies on voluntary reporting at the national level and a patchwork of state policies under which major states with ultra-permissive policies do not collect and report their data in any public forum.

LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news

Still, there is enough information in the Guttmacher report to spur sober reflection. First, it’s clear that the Supreme Court decision to reverse Roe v. Wade did not result in a major reduction in the incidence of abortion in the United States. Only a handful of countries in the world have a collection of regional/provincial/state governments, and likewise only a handful of countries have abortion policies as permissive as the United States.

Second, the changing landscape of abortion provision, which is shifting from an in-clinic experience to at-home measures, has driven increases in reported abortions that began well before the Dobbs ruling. Total abortions have been increasing in the United States ever since its lowest tally in 2017. Perhaps the biggest factor driving change has been the relaxation and non-enforcement of limits with respect to the distribution of abortion drugs, which have migrated from a wide variety of regulations to ensure physician supervision to today’s system of mail-order abortion without significant tracking of physical and emotional impacts on women.

Changes in state policy continue to play a key role as well. The Guttmacher MAPS report notes that six states led the way with significant increases in abortion incidence in 2024: Wisconsin, Arizona, California, Kansas, Ohio, and Virginia. California has gone out of its way to make itself an abortion destination, while other states have seen liberalizing trends through legislative enactment, ballot initiative, or judicial decree. Abortions in Wisconsin, for example, increased from 1,300 in 2023 when a pro-life law was in effect to 6,100 in 2024 after a Dane County Circuit Court held that an 1849 Wisconsin law prohibiting abortion was limited to assaults by third parties and did not apply to a woman consenting to the procedure. Rhode Island offers another example. Abortions increased in the Ocean State by 20% in 2024 after the state decided to publicly fund them.

Meanwhile, several states that have revived or enacted protections for the unborn saw their in-state abortion rates and numbers decline. Guttmacher focuses on South Carolina and Florida, each of which has enacted a law limiting abortion early in pregnancy. For 2024, abortions declined by 12,100 in Florida where a six-week “heartbeat” bill was passed and then ratified by popular vote under the leadership of Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. In South Carolina, abortions declined by 3,500 after the state’s six-week heartbeat law was upheld by the state supreme court in August 2023, again spearheaded by a governor, Henry McMaster (R). How many abortions these laws ultimately averted is difficult to assess given the number of abortions taking place in liberal jurisdictions on out-of-state residents and the willingness of abortion suppliers to ship drugs across state lines in defiance of the receiving states’ pro-life laws.

The number of abortions carried out on women and girls from out of state is substantial — an estimated 155,000 in 2024, which would constitute roughly 15% of total U.S. abortions. This number is down slightly from 2023. To give a sense of its scope, a full 71% of abortions in Kansas are carried out on non-residents. The percentage is 69% in New Mexico, 39% in Illinois, and 36% in North Carolina. In terms of abortions arranged online and carried out in pro-life states using state laws in an attempt to conceal or protect the supplier, a separate study by the Society for Family Planning (SFP) tallied 34,500 abortions carried out this way in the first half of 2024 alone.

Clearly, understanding and assessing changes like these, which are rapid and historically unprecedented, is a matter of vital public interest. Abortion policy has been plagued for decades by misreporting and underreporting. Innate problems like the disjunction between where abortions occur and where injured mothers are treated, often not the same medical site, have always been present and are now aggravated by the advent of abortion drugs taken at home and often at great distance from medical aid. National abortion reporting, as noted above, misses hundreds of thousands of abortions per year and collects limited data. Some states’ reporting practices are deteriorating even as others are not collected in the first place (e.g., California, Maryland, New Hampshire). In New Jersey, only hospitals and certified ambulatory surgical centers are required to report abortions to state health officials, leaving researchers to rely on estimates rather than hard data.

Proposals to strengthen abortion reporting via making data collection mandatory have not made much headway, but in their absence, the best source of data will remain estimates created by groups that advocate for legal abortion. Abortion is a practice that, like many other issues fraught with public policy and social concerns, tends to draw the interest of analysts who are motivated by ethical considerations. Researchers from the Guttmacher Institute to ANSIRH to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and more besides, take a view on their subject matter and debate among themselves about their methods and findings. This is as it should be. This is also why on such a critical issue, public bodies without institutional stances should be tasked with and fully funded to identify and gather information from the appropriate sources. This is especially vital in our federal system, where state health bodies are charged with gathering data and no national health system exists to provide a single source of basic information. International studies illuminate many questions better than U.S. bodies, but the American way of handling large datasets can be dramatically improved.

The Norman-Ernst Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act, introduced in January, would serve this goal by making certain federal family planning funding for the states contingent on their timely filing of abortion data with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). As a press release accompanying the introduction of the bill stated, “The American taxpayer continues to fund family planning programs despite having little understanding of how effective those programs are at reducing the number of abortions throughout the country. If all states were to submit accurate abortion data to the CDC, lawmakers would be better informed on family planning policy decisions and Medicaid funding for those programs could be more suitably allocated.” The bill (S.178/H.R. 627) identifies 10 areas where data should be supplied to the CDC, a list that should continue to be refined and developed as new issues emerge in this area of public policy.

In the meantime, the well-being of children in the womb and the health of mothers are being compromised daily by the decreasing quality and comprehensiveness of data collection and by politically motivated attacks on science and statistical research. Ironically, the more controversial a subject is intrinsically, the more likely it is to spur advocates of one stripe or another to scorn and even censor studies and findings with which they take issue.

Whether the topic is COVID, climate change, nutrition, or abortion, issues on which the data and the debates should be free flowing, the more some partisans strain to suppress alternative views. Receiving the Robert Zimmer Medal from the American Academy of Science & Letters last October, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya summed up the situation well, saying, “During pandemics, the public depends on experts to share their expertise openly without fear or favor and to speak their minds openly about their scientific and policy evaluations.” The same should hold true for what is, on a worldwide scale, a pandemic of disrespect for the most vulnerable human lives.

LifeNews Note: Chuck Donovan is a 50-year veteran of the national debate over the right to life and served from 1981-89 as a writer in the Reagan White House.He is the former Executive Vice President of Family Research Council.

The post Over 1 Million Babies are Killed in Abortions a Year. When Will This End? appeared first on LifeNews.com.

We recently reported on our unsettling discovery that Biden’s Army had been instructing Fort Bragg (formerly Fort Liberty under the Biden Administration) trainees that pro-life Americans were domestic terrorists as far back as 2011. We also learned that the Biden Army’s investigator had essentially covered up the shocking actions with a report containing demonstrably inaccurate claims and even contradicted itself.

As promised, we’ve just sent a letter to President Trump’s new military leadership, specifically Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll, bringing our critical findings to their attention – and respectfully urging them to take action to weed out this nonsense from our military training doctrine. This is the only way to make things right for our client and all pro-life Americans.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

Last year, we sent a demand letter to Biden’s Army Secretary, and the response we received, along with what the Army’s then-leadership told Congress, would have been enough of a win – if it had been true and complete. We have now confirmed that it was not.

Our legal instincts told us to look deeper. Sure enough, the need for our letter to Secretary Hegseth became evident after we reviewed the records acquired through our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. This trove of documents clearly showed that the Biden Army’s “PR” talking point, that an unvetted PowerPoint slide slipped into the presentation, was knowingly false.

They had claimed that it was simply a matter of a wrong “title” (“Terrorist Groups”) being placed on the slide displaying the “Choose Life” license plate image and pro-life organizations’ logos, including that of our client Operation Rescue.

But now, we know that their own investigation revealed that the training, which soldiers described in sworn statements, came across like “teaching doctrine” and had targeted pro-life Americans for almost 15 years. Our client’s (Operation Rescue) logo has been included since at least 2017, and slides targeting pro-lifers generally as terrorists have been included since at least 2011. But amazingly, the investigator assessed that it was simply a “mistake.” A 15-year mistake? As we summarized:

The investigation report concluded that “Labelling the slide ‘Terrorist Groups’ was a mistake” instead of recognizing that pro-lifers should not have been included in the entire “Terrorism Awareness” presentation in the first place. This is far more egregious than simply stating that the title of one slide was a “mistake,” as the entire training was about terrorism. Further, the conclusion that the labeling of that slide was a “mistake” is unsupported by a shred of evidence in the investigation file. The attempt to brush this under the rug is glaring.

It was no mistake. True to its typical swamp-like bureaucratic form, “woke” and Leftist ideologues intentionally used Army resources and a captive audience to indoctrinate soldiers to hold the view that pro-lifers are terrorists and that millions of pro-life Americans are a threat to security. And even that “Choose Life” license plates issued by 33 states (including North Carolina, where Fort Bragg sits) are evidence of terrorist threats. Planned Parenthood must be pleased.

This insanity must end. While Biden’s Army assured everyone that the problem had been corrected, we simply don’t believe them. What we discovered through our FOIA request confirmed our suspicion. And that’s why we just wrote to Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Driscoll. They are now in a position to bring this to a resolution and make this right. We are hopeful because they’ve demonstrated the desire to free America’s fighting forces from this Leftist nonsense.

As we said in our letter, “Given your clear stand and demonstrated record of calling out and opposing all ‘woke’ Leftist/Marxist ideology and propaganda from our Nation’s great fighting forces, we are hopeful you will see this matter as worthy of your attention and action.” We specifically made these requests:

• To direct the Army to issue a meaningful direct apology to our client, Operation Rescue, and its Director, Troy Newman, for the wrongful actions committed by the Army under the prior Biden Administration.
• To make a public statement, or at least one addressed to all trainees, that the United States military considers pro-life Americans and organizations neither terrorists nor extremists, that all prior training to the contrary is false, along with a direction that any such training or propaganda be removed and reported to appropriate Army personnel.
• To direct, forthwith, the immediate production of all remaining Army records concerning this subject, including, but not limited to, the Exhibits in the investigation file we have obtained.
• To address Congress’ concerns by issuing a new statement that rectifies and replaces the prior misleading representations.

We look forward to working with our military’s new leadership, one that is reimplementing dominant warfighting as its institutional goal, not woke indoctrination and social science experiments on soldiers at the Constitution’s expense. We’ll keep you updated on our progress.

LifeNews Note: Jordan Sekulow is the Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

The post Hegseth Asked to Ensure Army Training Program Never Calls Pro-Life Americans “Terrorists” Again appeared first on LifeNews.com.

It might be thought to be stating the obvious, but before electing a new pope the Church has to bury the last. The papal funeral is first of all about offering a fitting burial for the deceased pontiff, recognizing not just his dignity as a simple Christian, but also the high office he held. It also has important external, even juridical, significance for the whole Church.

In a monarchy with a line of succession, the cry “The King is dead, long live the King,” not only announces the death of the sovereign, but also the immediate transition of power to his successor. In the case of the papacy, there is no such direct continuity. The election of the new pope has to take place, which means that there must be a certain verification of the vacancy of the Petrine office before this can even be contemplated, let alone carried out.

This is one of the ceremonial purposes of the rather elaborate funeral rites that are still reserved for the pope today. There is a sense in which they are of course modelled on the funerals of every Christian, because every pope is first of all a member of the faithful who deserves a reverent and decent funeral, and who needs commending to Almighty God by the Church. But there are also distinctive rituals proper to the death of the Roman Pontiff that “announce” (as it were) the death of the pope, and the vacancy of the papal office, so as to permit the election of the next pope in a free and legitimate way.

Historically, this was very important indeed. In the eleventh century, Gregory VII’s (c.1015-85) enemies challenged the legitimacy of his pontificate by claiming he had been elected before his predecessor, Alexander II (d.1073), had even been buried. While Honorius II (1060-1130) was still alive, the process of electing his successor began with such earnest that the result was a determination binding on future generations: attempted elections before the burial of the last pope would lead to excommunication.

All of this confusion went back to the seventh century, when during his nine-month papacy Boniface III (February-November 607) had decreed that the election of a pope could not begin before his successor was dead. But doubt about the Latin word depositio (which could mean dead, rather than more specifically buried) in Boniface’s legislation left this open to challenge. The Lateran Synod of 1059 confirmed Boniface III’s earlier text, but it was only a little later that it was clarified to say burial (sepultura).

This is also where the idea of a very public papal funeral came in. When Celestine III died in 1198, there was an attempt to get moving with the process to elect Lothar of Segni, who would go on to become Innocent III (1161-1216). Lothar, however, wanted to be present at the papal funeral in Old St Peter’s, so that he could be seen to be honouring the man who would become his predecessor, and so avoid any possible challenges to his motives or, still worse, to his actual election.

We see vestiges of all of this in the papal funeral rites even today. The public attestation of the death of the Roman Pontiff by the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, the convening of the cardinals to be present in Rome for the funeral rites, the lying-in-state of the deceased pope, the elaborate processions not just through St Peter’s Basilica, but outside in the Square: all of these point to the public, liturgical-juridical nature of the papal funeral ceremonies, which are as much about giving due reverence to the deceased Vicar of Christ, as making a very public display of his death so as to avoid any challenges to the election of his successor.

Even in today’s world, this has value real value, as the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI – and the several clarifications about the Office of Pope Emeritus that followed – revealed. Pope Francis’s funeral will introduce some modest simplifications to the papal funeral rites. But these can only ever go so far. The Church needs not just the opportunity to mourn her Holy Father and commend him to God in prayer, but also the more human experience of seeing the transition to the next papacy begin to take place before her very eyes.

Father James Bradley is Assistant Professor of Canon Law at The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC, where he teaches Liturgical and Sacramental Law.

Photo: Late Pope Francis lies in state in a coffin at St Peter’s Basilica at The Vatican, on April 25, 2025. (Photo by Tiziana FABI / AFP) (Photo by TIZIANA FABI/AFP via Getty Images)

The post Friends, Romans, countrymen: a papal funeral is more than the burial of a body first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Friends, Romans, countrymen: a papal funeral is more than the burial of a body appeared first on Catholic Herald.

Joe Biden, a self-identified Catholic whose aggressive promotion of abortion rights has long clashed with Catholic Church teachings, is expected to attend the funeral of Pope Francis.

The decision will likely draw sharp criticism from pro-life advocates, who point to Biden’s record of supporting unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion up to birth as a direct contradiction of Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of life.

Biden has positioned himself as a devout Catholic throughout his political career, frequently attending Mass and invoking his faith in public remarks. However, his unwavering support for abortion up to birth and his radically pro-abortion record as president has placed him at odds with the Church’s teaching that life begins at conception and must be protected. In recent years, Biden’s policies have shifted dramatically toward a more radical pro-abortion stance, including advocating for federal funding of abortions and opposing restrictions on late-term procedures.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

Once a supporter of the Hyde Amendment, which barred federal funding for most abortions, Biden reversed his position in 2019 amid pressure from progressive activists and pushed to force taxpayers to fund abortions. His administration also pushed to codify abortion into federal law, aiming to override state-level restrictions and ensure access to abortion throughout pregnancy.

Pro-life groups have particularly criticized Biden’s efforts to redirect taxpayer funds toward abortion-related initiatives. In 2023, his administration faced backlash for denying Medicaid funds to programs supporting mothers of newborn babies while allocating resources to expand abortion access.

The Catholic Church’s stance on abortion is unequivocal, with Pope Francis himself calling it “murder” in 2021 and describing support for abortion as an “incoherence” with Catholic teaching. Despite this, Biden has continued to receive Communion in some Catholic parishes, prompting debate among U.S. bishops about whether pro-abortion Catholic politicians should be denied the sacrament.

In 2021, Pope Francis reportedly said he would not withhold Communion from Biden, stating that his abortion stance was “between him and God.” However, pro-life Catholics argue that Biden’s public actions demand a stronger response from Church leaders.

Biden’s expected attendance at Pope Francis’ funeral will likely reignite these tensions.

The Vatican typically allows governments to select their representatives for papal funerals, and it has not commented on the decision.

However, pro-life advocates will undoubtedly see his presence as a scandal that undermines the Church’s moral authority

In 2019, Biden met with Pope Francis at the Vatican, where the two discussed climate change and global poverty but reportedly did not address abortion. Some pro-life critics speculated that Francis, known for his pastoral approach, might have privately urged Biden to reconsider his stance, though no such conversation was ever confirmed.

The upcoming funeral, expected to draw global leaders to Rome, will place Biden on a world stage alongside the Church he claims as his own, even as his policies continue to draw condemnation from its pro-life faithful.

The post Pro-Abortion “Catholic” Joe Biden Will Attend Pope Francis’ Funeral appeared first on LifeNews.com.

London is home to more than a million Catholics – so where better than magnificent Westminster Cathedral to gauge the mood of the capital’s faithful over the sad death of Pope Francis and the appointment of a successor?

Under the nave with its huge buttresses and shimmering gold and ruby-red mosaics is a side chapel. That’s where a seemingly endless stream of worshippers stop by to sit and sign books of condolences – some have to wait their turn and the much-used pens keep running out of ink.

The tears may have dried, but it’s clear from this snapshot of London Catholic life that the shock of the Pope’s passing on Easter Monday is still raw.

“Francis was such a good man,” said Constance Wilson, 52, from Battersea, scratching a note in the condolence book. “He reached out to the marginalised and the overlooked. Ordinary folk like me loved him for it. I’ve only just stopped having a little weep.”

A woman signs the condolence book set up in Westminster Cathedral (photo courtesy author)

Appointed successor to Benedict XVI in 2013, Pope Francis broke centuries of tradition by making it clear to the world that his was going to be a very different papacy, choosing the name of the radical saint from Assisi who had lived with the poor and championed their rights.

He refused the Apostolic Palace for the Vatican guesthouse and he wore simple vestments, not ornate clothing. As cardinal he took the bus or squeezed into a Fiat 500 rather than a limousine.

RELATED: Creating Francis: the laboratory of Buenos Aires

He broke several taboos like washing the feet of Muslim women and reaching out to LGBTQ+ Catholics, putting himself on a collision course with the traditionalists, but making him popular with the masses.

A commemorative portrait of Pope Francis set up in Westminster Cathedral (photo courtesy author)

Nancy Ryan, 55, a retired machinist from Brixton picked up on this connection: “During his lifetime he opened so many doors for the Catholic church,” she smiled. “Personally I wished he’d pushed harder.”

After the funeral and some time soon around the first week of May, cardinals are expected to gather in Michaelangelo’s Sistine Chapel to elect the late Holy Father’s successor.

Francis appointed two thirds of the cardinal electors himself during the last decade, leading many observers to believe the next pope will share his priorities of an inclusive church.

Italian Cardinal Pietro Parolin is seen as favorite continuity candidate, although the Archbishop of Manila, Luis Antonio Tagle is also viewed as a frontrunner.

Outspoken Peter Turkson is the most senior African cardinal in the Vatican and is also seen by some as a possible successor.

So who do the Westminster faithful want to emerge as pope when the highly secretive selection process is finally done and puffs of white smoke are released into St Peter’s Square?

Summing up the views of many at mid-morning Mass, Harry Aitkin, 82, from Southwark said: “We want more of the same. Nothing radical, just another man of the people, like Pope Francis.”

Ryan Hall, 22, from Fulham agreed: “Francis connected with so many, probably because he came from humble beginnings. I hope the cardinals elect Francis 2.0 – my worry is they’ll ignore what the people want.”

The cathedral enjoyed Apostolic visits from Pope John Paul II in May 1982 and Pope Benedict XVI in September 2010. In the quiet of the the cathedral’s Clergy House, Chaplain Fr. Hugh Mackenzie reflected on Pope Francis’s standing alongside his two predecessors.

Will he be remembered as one of the great Popes? “It’s too early to know,” replied Mackenzie.

“John Paul was such an inspiration and people tried to call him ‘the great’, but it hasn’t quite stuck. It’s difficult to compare when they’re two different characters. In the light of history we might see a degree of complimentarity.”

Trying to second guess the outcome of the conclave of 135 cardinals eligible to vote is futile according to Mackenzie. “It’s very difficult knowing who they’re going to choose because of the very nature of the conclave and we are trying to rely on the Holy Spirit.

“The tradition must develop – personally I don’t want to see a conservative. I think we could do more now to conserve and stabilise the roots of our tradition in order to move forward, but we don’t want revolution rather than evolution.”

Back in the chapel, after signing the condolence book, Anne Peacock, 79, left for her home that lies around the corner from the cathedral. She said: “To be frank, I don’t care who the cardinals choose as our new pope, as long as he’s a man of spirit and a man of prayer.”

RELATED: Cardinal Müller warns Church risks split if ‘orthodox’ pope not chosen

Photo: People pray as they attend a solemn requiem at the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Most Precious Blood, also known as Westminster Cathedral, following the news of the death of Pope Francis, London, England, 21 April 2025. (Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP via Getty Images.)

The post London’s Catholics react to Pope’s death and prepare for conclave first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post London’s Catholics react to Pope’s death and prepare for conclave appeared first on Catholic Herald.

National Right to Life deeply mourns the passing of David N. O’Steen, Ph. D., who led the organization from 1984 to 2022.

“There are likely millions alive today because of Dr. David O’Steen’s influence and guidance,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “He was a humble man known for his quiet and devoted leadership, but he is a giant among those who have dedicated their lives to protecting the right to life. He will be grievously missed.”

Under Dr. O’Steen’s leadership, National Right to Life developed model legislation and spearheaded the passage of protective legislative measures such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Vilence Act, and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

“Dr. O’Steen dedicated his life to protecting the unborn, the medically vulnerable, and the elderly,” said Tobias. “He will be remembered for his unwavering commitment.

Dr. David N. O’Steen was born in Greensboro, North Carolina and received his bachelor’s degree from Guilford College. He earned a master’s degree from the University of Georgia and received his doctorate in mathematics from the University of Houston.

Dr. O’Steen was a professor of mathematics and later became department chairman at the College of St. Scholastica in Duluth, Minnesota. While in Duluth, he led the Duluth chapter of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). A brilliant mathematician, in 1975, David made the personal sacrifice of leaving academics to become the executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.

In 1984, Dr. O’Steen became executive director of National Right to Life, a position he held until December 2022. Dr. O’Steen retired from his role as National Right to Life’s Senior Advisor in January 2024.

The post Pro-Life Leader David O’Steen Passes Away appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a self-professed “Catholic” whose vocal support for abortion has long drawn criticism from pro-life advocates,  has been selected to attend the funeral of Pope Francis. Pelosi appears to have been selected by Congressional Democrat leaders.

Pelosi’s selection will undoubtedly spark renewed debate over her standing within the Catholic Church. The decision comes despite her own bishop, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, barring her from receiving Holy Communion in 2022 due to her unwavering advocacy for abortion on demand.

The Vatican, which typically defers to governments on such delegations, has not commented on the decision.

Pelosi, 85, has been a polarizing figure in Catholic circles for decades.

While she frequently cites her faith as a guiding force in her political career, her consistent defense of abortion and infanticide has put her at odds with Catholic teaching, which holds that life begins at conception and that abortion is a grave moral evil.

In May 2022, Archbishop Cordileone issued a public letter declaring that Pelosi was not to be admitted to Communion unless she publicly repudiated her pro-abortion stance. The decision followed years of dialogue between the archbishop and Pelosi, during which Cordileone urged her to align her public positions with Church doctrine.

Archbishop Cordileone reminded Pelosi in the letter: “The Church’s ancient and consistent teaching that ‘from the first moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.’”

Get the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ

He continued, “A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others.”

He then cited Canon 915 from the Catholic Code of Canon Law, writing: “Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.’”

Pelosi eventually bragged about receiving communion elsewhere despite her pro-abortion record.

Pelosi told NCR, “I received Communion anyway. That’s his problem, not mine. My Catholic faith is, Christ is my savior. It has nothing to do with the bishops.”

Her remarks were met with outrage from pro-life groups, who accused her of flouting Church authority while claiming a Catholic identity.

When in Washington D.C., Pelosi regularly attends Holy Trinity Parish in Georgetown and she and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians frequently receive communion there because that church has a liberal position on communion and abortion.

In 2019, Pelosi met with Pope Francis during a congressional trip to Italy, where she received a papal blessing and attended Mass at the Vatican. The meeting drew criticism from pro-life Catholics, who noted that the Vatican did not address her abortion advocacy.

The post Pro-Abortion “Catholic” Nancy Pelosi Chosen to Attend Pope Francis’ Funeral appeared first on LifeNews.com.

ROME – One of Pope Francis’s most consistent geopolitical priorities throughout his 12-year reign was peacemaking, most notably through his constant push for building bridges, keeping channels of dialogue open and strengthening multilateralism.

The world’s first non-Western pope made it a personal mission to carry forward a “diplomacy of dialogue” in various contexts and situations, from engagement with China to the war in Ukraine and conflict in the Middle East.

He has consistently pushed a strategy of multilateralism as a solution to resolving common issues such as migration and climate change, and while this advocacy was not always appreciated by everyone, he never failed to continue pursuing this agenda.

Now, one of his final acts will come at his funeral Saturday, as some 30 delegations, 50 heads of state and 10 reigning monarchs come together to pay their final respects and bid farewell to a maverick pope that left his mark on the church, and the world.

Most notably, among the attendees will be United States President Donald Trump, accompanied by his wife Melania, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (pictured), who in the past few weeks and months have been unable to occupy the same space without the eruption of some sort of disagreement.

Now, Pope Francis, who was unable to mediate the conflict in Ukraine during his papacy, is successfully bringing many of the various parties involved together for a moment of prayer and remembrance of a man who dedicated his life and his ministry to working for peace.

Heads of state and top dignitaries who have said they will attend the pope’s funeral, including Trump and Zelenskyy, include: Argentinian President Javier Milei; Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva; French President Emmanuel Macron; British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Prince William for the UK; and Hungarian President Viktor Orbán.

Others include United Nations secretary general António Guterres; Italian President Sergio Mattarella and Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni; King Felipe and Queen Letizia of Spain; President Michael D Higgins and Taoiseach Micheál Martin of Ireland; President of Poland Andrzej Duda; Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa and its prime minister, Luís Montenegro; Mexican Interior Minister Rosa Icela Rodríguez; and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines.

Notable absentees on the list include Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, both of whom have outstanding warrants from the International Criminal Court.

Russia will be represented by its culture minister, Olga Lyubimova, and Israel will not send a delegation at all, being represented solely by their Ambassador to the Holy See, Yaron Sideman.

During Pope Francis’s funeral Mass Saturday, heads of state and dignitaries will be seated on the right side, facing the basilica.

Milei, representing Francis’s home country, which he notably never returned to as pope, will sit in the front row, alongside Mattarella and Meloni representing Italy.

Reigning sovereigns will come in the next row, followed by the various heads of state, according to the French alphabetical order of the states that will be represented.

From Wednesday at noon to Friday at noon, some 150,000 people had come to pay final respects to Pope Francis while lying in state inside St. Peter’s Basilica.

While crowds have packed the square to overflowing in the final hours remaining before St. Peter’s Basilica closes at 7p.m. local time, marking the end of the ability to bid Francis one final in-person farewell, roads have already been blocked off and routes secured for the arrival of so many high-profile attendees Saturday morning.

Barriers have been set up inside and outside of St. Peter’s Basilica to control crowds, security checks have been set up, and defense and security measures have been deployed throughout the city, including anti-drone weaponry, no-fly zones secured by fighter jets, and jamming technologies. Anti-terrorism and anti-sabotage units have also already been set up on the ground.

More than 2,000 police officers have been deployed to patrol the area, supported by 400 police officers who will assist in managing the movements of diplomatic convoys.

While every papal funeral draws together the world’s most powerful leaders and is a show of just how relevant and important the papacy is generally, Pope Francis in his final act is accomplishing something he desperately wanted to do, but was unable to, during his life: bringing together individuals and nations with deep-seeded divisions in a context where the focus is not on what divides, but jointly remembering a globally beloved figure respected and esteemed most prominently for his efforts toward peace.

(Photo by ANDREAS SOLARO/AFP via Getty Images)

The post The world leaders attending the Pope’s funeral first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post The world leaders attending the Pope’s funeral appeared first on Catholic Herald.

ROME – Tradition holds that during the anti-Christian persecution of Roman Emperor Valerian in 258, St Lawrence, when given three days to round up the church’s riches before being executed, sold the church’s vessels and gave the money to the poor.

When summoned by Valerian to deliver the church’s property, wealth and treasures, Lawrence triumphantly appeared, ushering in the city’s poor, crippled, blind and suffering masses behind him.

As Pope Francis is laid to rest Saturday, in addition to the various heads of state, dignitaries and celebrities scheduled to attend, also present will be those to whom he dedicated the entirety of his priestly, episcopal and Petrine ministry: the poor.

Not only will groups of the poor, homeless, migrants and refugees be present at his funeral Mass in the Vatican, they will also be welcomed to his final burial place, the Basilica of St Mary Major, by a group of poor and needy people.

Having chose the papal name Francis after St Francis of Assisi, often called the “Poor Man of Assisi” due to his embrace of poverty and shunning of material wealth, Pope Francis shortly after his election told journalists that he was inspired to take the name when, immediately after the final vote was counted in the 2013 conclave and he knew he’d been elected, a fellow cardinal sitting next to him said, “don’t forget the poor.”

Pope Francis went to great lengths throughout his pontificate to prioritize the poor and those on life’ margins, making his first trip outside of Rome to the Italian island of Lampedusa, a primary destination point for migrants and refugees arriving to Europe, if they survived the dangerous voyage across the Mediterranean Sea.

He was known for hosting lunches with the homeless and poor for his birthday celebrations, eating lunch with them inside of the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall, and inviting them inside of the Vatican Museums, or sending them on beach holidays with the help of his almoner, Polish Cardinal Konrad Krajewski.

Francis gave Krajewski a red hat in 2018, indicating just how high of a priority charitable outreach to the poor was for him. He also repeatedly sent Krajewski on humanitarian missions to Ukraine after the outbreak of war in 2022, delivering ambulances filled with food and medical supplies.

In 2016, after making a last-minute daytrip to the Greek Island of Lesbos, a trip made solely to visit refugees stuck on the island, he took 12 Muslim refugees back with him, including six children. He visited the island again, and its largest refugee camp, in 2021.

He also consistently advocated for the safe and secure passage of refugees from camps into Italy through humanitarian corridors, ensuring a protected route for those with their paperwork in order and help integrating into their local communities.

The Vatican in an April 24 statement said the poor not only hold a privileged place in the heart of God, but “This is so also in the heart and magisterium of the Holy Father, who chose the name Francis so as never to forget them.”

“For this reason, a group of poor and needy people will be present on the steps that lead to the Basilica of Saint Mary Major to give a final farewell to Pope Francis before the entombment of his coffin,” following his funeral April 26.

Pope Francis’s funeral Mass is scheduled to take place April 26, at 10a.m. local time, and afterwards he will be taken by car to Saint Mary Major, where he will be entombed in the Pauline Chapel, which also houses the famed Marian icon, Maria Salus Populi Romani, or Mary, Health of the Roman People, which was one of his favorite devotions.

Attending his Mass, according to the Community of Sant’Egidio, an ecclesial movement dedicated to social justice that Pope Francis was close to, will be a group of poor, migrants and refugees.

In an April 25 statement, Sant’Egidio said members, including top leadership, would attend the pope’s funeral along with “his people, starting with the poor who knew and loved him during the course of his pontificate.”

These people, they said, include refugees who returned from Lesbos on board the papal plane with him in 2016, as well as refugees from a camp in Cyprus who came to Italy through its humanitarian corridors program in 2021, following his visit to Greece and Cyprus.

Homeless individuals will also attend, including many who found hospitality and welcome at the Palazzo Migliori, which was inaugurated by Pope Francis in 2019 and entrusted to Sant’Egidio.

Sant’Egidio indicated that the group of poor and needy who will welcome Pope Francis’s coffin to Saint Mary Major also belong to their community.

(Pope Francis greets two young refugee girls at the Reception and Identification Centre (RIC) in Mytilene on the island of Lesbos on December 5, 2021. Photo by Louisa GOULIAMAKI / POOL / AFP)

The post ‘Poor’ to honour Francis at papal funeral first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post ‘Poor’ to honour Francis at papal funeral appeared first on Catholic Herald.

The death of Pope Francis leaves us with some very different narratives and perspectives of who he was and how we might assess his life and pontificate.  We are faced with trying to reconcile some of the many contradictions his pontificate presented to both the Church and the world. One element with a significant degree of confusion is the way the Press understood him.

We are left with the paradoxical impression that he might have been more popular with the secular Press than he was with the Church. He was almost universally celebrated by the media. The response within the Church was a matter of greater complexity.

It was press coverage and the way it chose to celebrate some issues, while closing its eyes to others that appeared inconsistent, that has been critical to the forging of the reputation of Pope Francis when alive and posthumously.

We might well ask why the media, so long suspicious and resentful of Catholicism, has given Pope Francis such a welcome.

The Press depicted Benedict XVI as the hardline “God’s Rottweiler” because his intellectual gifts and personal reserve played poorly with populist sentiment. Had he been judged by some of his work on redistributive economics, the Left might have discovered him as, in terms of social redistribution, one of their own.

It might indicate that the press is driven by feelings and superficial judgements. And as it happened, Pope Francis was masterful in the way that he gave the Press comments that were high octane in the currency of “feeling”, and didn’t trouble them to much over any complexity of content. 

It would be too simplistic to assume that it was just that he was making the faith more congenial to their world view by diluting, since looking back, (with the exception of the death penalty) he changed little.

And yet, he did have the capacity for “reading the room” and finding way to touch a populist nerve in a way that gained public confidence and sympathy.

Some of his sound bites were astonishingly effective, even though when they are more closely examined, they don’t stand the weight of scrutiny.

He had in particular, a gift for presenting an image of non-judgemental compassion, with just a hint of a progressive tint that the secular world responded to with an instinctive welcome and crucially without asking too many questions.

His apparent off the cuff remark “who am I to judge?” made during an on-flight informal press conference, might on its own be seen to have come to define his public persona. 

Why does secular culture react so powerfully to embrace non-judgementalism when it finds it?  In part because its supposed hatred of judgmentalism is a symptom of its rejection of traditional ethics. Ethical restraint interferes with hedonism, and is therefore taboo. And Catholics do restraint.

In the ears of the media, “Who am I to judge” sounds like a signal that Catholic ethics have been abandoned and replaced by the sanction of “all that matters is sincerity”, which along with “intending no harm”, is one of the few ethical standards modernity is willing to tolerate.

In fact, “who am I to judge” was a carefully parsed remark which when read in context carries a very different message from the universal spin placed on it by the media. But the emotional feel of it entirely overwhelmed the contextual limitations and it became a celebratory meme in its own right. It did nothing to change the teaching of the Church, but it gave the impression that the teaching was changed or changing. And the Press delighted in it, ran with it endlessly.

A number of the Pope’s well-tuned remarks became almost catch phrases. In 2013, he movingly declared: “How I would like a Church which is poor and for the poor!” This immediately was seized as an antidote to the public perception that the Church was inexcusably rich and irresponsibly powerful.

Alongside his much-publicised willingness to take public transport as an Argentinian bishop and embrace the marginalised wherever he found them, this was viewed very favourably, and became an indication of his humility and integrity. When he made it known that he would live in Casa Santa Marta instead of the papal apartments, the public celebration of his down to earth values was ecstatic. “People can come only in dribs and drabs (in the official apartments), and I cannot live without people,” he explained. “I need to live my life with others.” 

But observers of life in Casa Santa Marta suggested a different narrative was at least partially at work. They pointed out that one of his most prominent personality traits was the need to micromanage. And for this he needed to be kept in touch with people and what people were saying. The scale between gathering information and enjoying gossip is a subtle one, but the need to been informed and remain in control may well have played a significant part, alongside his humility, in his wanting to avoid seclusion and exclusion in the papal apartments.

That humility on closer inspection was a little patchy. But of course, the Press did not offer closer inspection.

There is an unhappy video of a line of well-wishers coming to him to pay their respects and kiss his papal ring. It clearly meant a great deal to those queueing, even if he found it offended his sense of humility. The body language optics were awful. The Pope impatiently was seen whipping his hand away just as each person reached out for it. It looked more like petulance than humility. But then, who are we to judge? Certainly, the Press decided to ignore it.

It is of course true that Pope Francis was assiduous in taking well-judged actions in helping the marginalised when he could. His provision of showers and facilities for the homeless in Rome was once again rightly welcomed, recognised and publicised by the Press. They liked that very much. It accorded with their picture of him. And so, practising a pronounced cognitive dissonance they blanked his remarks on other shibboleths, including and especially abortion. Yet these were as emotionally charged as they were uncompromising and were completely ignored.

Abortion, “It’s like hiring a hitman …”

“… I have had occasion to return to the subject of abortion recently. You know that I am very clear about this: it is a homicide and it is not licit to become an accomplice.”

“… We are victims of the throwaway culture…there is the throwing away of children that we do not want to welcome. Today this has become a normal thing, a habit that is very bad; it is truly murder. In order to truly grasp this, perhaps asking ourselves two questions may help: is it right to eliminate, to end a human life to solve a problem? Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem?”

On other controversial issues, he could be and was also crystal clear:

“Gender ideology? It is the greatest danger; it resembles the method with which the Hitler Youth was trained.”

Will there be women priests or deacons? “No.”

Will ecclesiastical celibacy be abolished? “I won’t do it.”

Can gay couples be blessed? “People are blessed, not the union, marriage and family are born from a man and a woman.”

Euthanasia and assisted suicide? “They are practices to be rejected, daughters of the throwaway culture.”

And the rented womb? “It’s modern slavery.”

The many of the obituaries of Pope Francis demonstrate the tension that arose from the mixture of progressive soundbites accompanied by what appeared to a desire to shake the institution while remaining wholly orthodox on certain hot button ethical issues. 

There was something to please and infuriate everyone. German progressives were delighted at the ambiguities introduced over gay blessings, and furious that feminist assaults on the diaconate were resisted. Traditionalists were devastated by the unexplained blitzkrieg on the Latin Mass, but reassured by the clarity on abortion. “Who am I to judge” captured the hearts of those who wanted a move towards LGBTQ+ sympathies, but became more problematic when applied to Fr Marko Rupnik’s alleged rape of nuns, and the conniving at the hiding of other clerical sex abusers.

All this too did not fit into the narrative the media built about Francis so it was left largely unreported.

The Press had constructed the public persona of the Pope in their own image, and they were and are reluctant to allow other facts or pieces of information to disturb what they had found so comfortable and comforting. As always, reputation as well as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

(Archbishop of Barcelona Cardinal Juan Jose Omella speaks to members of the media at the Barcelona cathedral during an impromptu press conference in Barcelona, on April 21, 2025. Photo by Josep LAGO / AFP) 

The post The media’s selective understanding of a complexed pope first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post The media’s selective understanding of a complexed pope appeared first on Catholic Herald.

Supporters of liberty had much reason for hope due to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. becoming secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This man’s tenacity and eloquence in challenging the coronavirus crackdowns suggested great potential accomplishments for both liberty and health at HHS with him in the lead.

Indeed, there are early signs that HHS under Kennedy’s oversight is seeking to roll back the dangerous to health and liberty extreme vaccine pushing mission the department has pursued in recent decades. But, there is also reason to worry — including news earlier this month of the HHS fast-tracking an experimental bird flu shot — that this roll back will turn out to be quite limited.

One thing surprising people is that Kennedy’s HHS is acting like a police baton to whack American institutions and individuals into submission to the demand that they show allegiance to the Israel government. First, HHS became one of three parts of the US government leading an effort to punish colleges if they fail to stomp out “antisemitism” — defined bizarrely to include criticism of the Israel government — communicated by leadership, employees, or students. Kennedy, in the announcement of this endeavor, even made the extraordinary claim that such targeted free speech, press, and assembly is a manifestation of illness. This is the same sort of “medicalization” of ideas and communication that the Soviet Union employed to suppress dissent.

Then, this week, came news that HHS subsidiary the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has, effective immediately, barred any entity that boycotts Israel from continuing to spend, or receiving any new, NIH grants. Given the importance of NIH grants in medical research, this new demand threatens to shut down much research and upend the lives of many people employed in research projects. All this is done based on a criterion that has nothing to do with the task-relevant qualifications of the grant seekers or the quality of their work. Out with merit. In with kissing up. That does not seem conducive to achieving Kennedy’s often repeated goal to Make America Healthy Again. It also seems a big divergence from the protecting liberty objective many Kennedy supporters hoped he would pursue.

These actions from HHS are in a way not a surprise because Kennedy made clear in his 2024 presidential run that he was a major booster for the Israel government, praising it without caveat. He even went so far as to make the following declaration in a Twitter post: “As President, my support of Israel will be unconditional.” But, at the same time, it seemed reasonable to think that, given HHS’s focus on health matters in America, Kennedy’s Israel views would be irrelevant in his new job. Well, surprise, surprise: In the Donald Trump administration it turns out that, with Kennedy at the helm, even HHS can put Israel First.

During the coronavirus crackdowns, Kennedy stood up for people who opposed taking experimental shots, wearing masks, or going along with other government admonitions and dictates. But, now his HHS, reminiscent of the “Soup Nazi” in the Seinfeld episode, is saying “no funding for you” if you don’t stand with Israel. What a letdown.

The HHS thought police are on the march. Fail to fall in line in support of the Israel government and you will be punished. HHS and its fellow US government departments have not reached the level of domination used to ensure love for Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984. But, hey, the Trump administration is just three months into its Israel boosting operation. These things take time.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee has signed a pro-life bill protecting the conscience rights of medical professionals like doctors and nurse who don’t want to be forced to participate in abortions.

The bill creates conscience protections for doctors who are morally opposed to certain medical practices, including abortion.

While Tennessee is one of a couple dozen states with abortion bans that protect the lives of unborn children, abortions can still be done in very limited situations. Also, if the law is ever overturned, pro-life doctors and nurses want to be sure their conscience rights are protected to excuse themselves from abortions that will kill unborn babies.

Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!

The bill also applies to other medical situations where pro-life medical workers could be required to participate in something like IVF, surrogacy, assisted suicide or euthanasia or other procedures that violate their pro-life consciences.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Greg Chafuen hailed the governor’s signature on the Medical Ethics Defense Act, SB 955.

“Patients are best served by health care professionals who are free to act consistent with their oath to ‘do no harm.’ Unfortunately, doctors and nurses have been targeted for caring for their patients by refraining from harmful and dangerous procedures,” he told LifeNews. “This ends up discouraging countless young professionals from entering the health care field because of fear that they will be forced to violate their conscience.”

He continued: “Tennessee’s MED Act ensures that health care professionals are not forced to participate in procedures that violate their ethical, moral, or religious beliefs. ADF commends Sen. Pro Tempore Ferrell Haile, Rep. Bryan Terry, and the Tennessee Legislature for their fortitude, and we thank Gov. Lee for standing with health care professionals and the patients they serve by enacting the MED Act. We also thank Tennessee Right to Life for its monumental work on this effort. Now, Tennessee health care heroes are free to care for all patients in a compassionate, ethical manner.”

The post Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee Signs Bill Protecting Doctors From Being Forced to Do Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.