A peer-reviewed analysis by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) not only confronts the widely-professed claim of abortion activists that abortion-inducing drugs are “safer than Tylenol,” but also finds no evidence of its credibility.

Published Tuesday in the journal BioTech, the research, titled “The Origins and Proliferation of Unfounded Comparisons Regarding the Safety of Mifepristone,” revealed there is no “controlled, scientifically appropriate study” that compares the abortion drug to the drug Tylenol in existence.

Indeed, one overarching finding of the analysis by CLI director of life sciences Cameron Louttit, Ph.D., is that the popular abortion industry talking point is founded on “flawed methodology,” CLI noted.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

A second major outcome of the analysis is that, by backing up the catchy slogan with reports on death rates alone, the abortion lobby has failed to acknowledge other risk factors related to mifepristone, including the dangers of “sepsis and hemorrhage.”

Citing yet a third discovery, CLI states that studies claiming Tylenol-related deaths are more numerous than those from abortion drugs are guilty of “context misrepresentation.”

“While Tylenol-related deaths often result from misuse in a much larger user base, deaths from abortion drugs occur under prescribed use,” CLI points out.

“Put simply, it is not possible to draw any conclusion from the comparison of drugs with different uses, administered in different manners, and used by individuals with different risk factors,” Louttit writes. “Not only have the comparisons between mifepristone and other drugs failed in their duty to adequately assess this impossibility, but they have also demonstrated a complete disregard for the need to communicate comprehensive and truthful safety information to patients, policymakers, jurists, and the public.”

The researcher explains that the ease with which abortion advocates – including government officials who influence public health and safety policy – have reiterated the false claim over the past 20 years defies true science.

“In collapsing complex safety considerations into simplistic comparisons that leverage wholly incomparable metrics, these assertions systematically violate the norms and regulations that inform evidence-based biomedical communication,” Louttit asserts. “Despite this, however, they have reached both the most diffuse and influential levels of our discourse over the span of roughly two decades, buoyed by the false and dangerous perception of scientific reference and expert consensus.”

In April 2023, Texas-based OB/GYN Dr. Ingrid Skop debunked claims of mifepristone’s overwhelming safety, explaining how the abortion lobby and its allies have covered up the dangers of the drug with a gross oversimplification and a flippant slogan.

“Regarding chemical abortion, the industry tells us it’s safer than Tylenol,” Skop testified. “They’re comparing Tylenol overdose deaths to the undercounted deaths from chemical abortion. There’s no comparison. Women assume they mean normal Tylenol use. They don’t realize that they’re comparing it to deaths that happen from overdoses.”

The OB/GYN explained why abortion providers have limited awareness of the serious complications from mifepristone.

“But my experience has been, because the women have been assured it is so safe, when they have a complication, they do not return to the abortion provider,” Skop stated. “They come to me as their gynecologist, or they come to the emergency room in distress.”

“And, so, when we look at good quality records linkage studies that detect all chemical abortions and all subsequent events, we find 5 to 6% of these women present to an emergency room within a month,” she explained.

“Approximately the same number will require surgery because their bodies cannot evacuate all of the dead tissue,” Skop argued. “And I am still caring for these complications in Texas – even though we’ve had abortion limitations for quite some time – because these drugs are circulating in the state to try to circumvent our state laws and provide abortions, to these unfortunate women.”

Louttit’s research backs up those points. “[T]he simplistic slogan that ‘mifepristone is safer than Tylenol,’ though easily disseminated, defies both an intuitive understanding of how we evaluate drug safety and our norms and regulations for doing so,” he writes. “Indeed, if such an assertion was attributable to the manufacturer, it would precipitate a reprimand by the FDA given the lack of specific, controlled, and head-to-head evidence rightly required for its support.”

Since the claim is frequently echoed by “medical societies, abortion centers, clinical researchers, and government officials,” a critical look at the evidence behind it has been essential, the researcher adds, as many of those who repeat it have already influenced public health policy and, subsequently, the lives of women and girls who attempt a “do-it-yourself” (DIY) abortion.

“For years now, the abortion lobby’s claim that abortion drugs are ‘safer than Tylenol’ has dominated public discussion, propelled by the illusion of scientific consensus,” Louttit concludes. “However, no such support exists. This baseless claim, repeated by medical societies, politicians, media pundits and researchers, has profoundly influenced public opinion and policy. But as this paper details, those spreading it lack the evidence they routinely claim.”

LifeNews Note: Susan Berry writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Study Confirms Abortion Pill is Not Safer Than Tylenol appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Satanists who hosted a satanic ritual in March at the Kansas State Capitol that escalated into violence are not facing criminal charges and are planning another public satanic ceremony for August, according to a May 29 article.

The Kansas Reflector reported that local prosecutors decided May 28 not to pursue charges against the leader of the Satanic Grotto, Michael Stewart, and two other members. CatholicVote previously reported that Stewart had been detained by police after he punched a man trying to prevent him from making a dedication to Satan inside the Capitol during the March 28 Satanic ritual.

Stewart had a permit to host the Satanic ritual outside the Capitol, but was informed that protests held inside the building would violate his permit.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

CatholicVote reported that Stewart was involved in another physical altercation earlier the same day as videos show him holding a communion wafer aloft and then beating a counter-protester who snatched the wafer away from Stewart to prevent it from being desecrated. It was unclear, however, whether or not the wafer was consecrated.

Following the incident inside the Capitol, Stewart and two other members were taken to jail and charged with unlawful gathering, the Kansas Reflector reported. Stewart was charged with disorderly conduct as well.

Though prosecutors decided not to pursue charges at this time, the statute of limitations lasts five years, according to the Kansas Reflector.

The outlet additionally reported that Stewart went to the Capitol building after the hearing to discuss his next Satanic ritual with a law enforcement officer. He reportedly hopes to hold a “Witches Hour Protest” in early August from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m., with attendees including satanists, wiccans, pagans, and others.

LifeNews Note: Hannah Hiester writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Satanists Who Hosted Violent Ritual at Kansas Capitol Face No Charges, Plan Another Ritual appeared first on LifeNews.com.

With great pleasure I can inform you that the Illinois Legislature has adjourned early Sunday morning with no further action on SB 1950, a dangerous bill that would have legalized assisted suicide.

Over the last few days, I have kept you updated on the progress of SB 1950 and urged you to reach out to Illinois Senators. When assisted suicide legislation stalled in the Senate, proponents attached it instead as an amendment to an unrelated food safety bill. This procedural trick succeeded in the Illinois House as representatives narrowly voted to approve the bill as amended.

All eyes went to the Senate as advocates in Illinois and around the country called, emailed, and brought to action their friends and neighbors. This was the time to be counted and you made your voices heard!

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

However, while SB 1950 was not called for a vote in the Senate, it has the possibility to return in a future session, so our work continues.

The tremendous work done by our Ilinois coalition prevented a vote from occurring to legalize assisted suicide. I am so impressed with their tireless efforts and am so grateful to all of you who answer the call to speak up and speak out.

Proponents will be heartened by the slim House passage and we know they will come back. So will we.

LifeNews Note: Barbara Lyons is the Special Projects Coordinator for the Patients’ Rights Action Fund.

The post Illinois Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide Fails in State Legislature appeared first on LifeNews.com.

 God bless the pastor of St. Anne Church in Charlotte for his excellent homily under duress and his advice on how to deal with the arrogance of the spirit of Vatican II shoved down the throats of so many in the most pre-Vatican II ways. A great, pastoral homily. Read The Pillar’s article by pressing the title below.

Senate Republicans are set to debate a sweeping legislative package that includes provisions to defund Planned Parenthood, following a narrow House victory on May 22, 2025, for President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

The abortion giant just announced that it killed over 420,000 babies in abortions in its most recent year and made over $2 billion.

The Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal funds from directly paying for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. However, Planned Parenthood receives approximately $700 million annually through Medicaid reimbursements and Title X grants. Pro-life leaders argue this funding frees up resources for Planned Parenthood’s abortion operations.

The bill, which passed the House 215-214, aims to strip federal funding from the nation’s largest abortion company, a move pro-life advocates hail as a critical step toward protecting unborn lives.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

The House-passed bill, now under Senate consideration, includes language to prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds, including Medicaid payments, redirecting those resources to community health centers that do not kill babies.

Pro-life groups argue that Planned Parenthood, which killed over 420,000 babies in its most recent reported year, should not receive taxpayer support. The organization received nearly $700 million in federal funding in its 2022-2023 fiscal year, according to its annual report.

“Defunding Planned Parenthood is a non-negotiable priority for pro-life Americans,” said Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., who has led efforts to ensure the provision remains in the final bill. “Taxpayer dollars should not subsidize an organization that profits from ending unborn lives. Community health centers can provide comprehensive care without abortion.”

The Senate, led by Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., faces pressure to maintain the defunding measure as it reviews the broader reconciliation bill, which also extends Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, boosts border security funding, and reforms Medicaid. Thune has expressed a goal of delivering the bill to Trump’s desk by July 4, but some Senate Republicans are pushing for changes, including deeper spending cuts and modifications to Medicaid reforms.

Pro-life advocates, energized by the House vote, are urging senators to hold firm on keeping the defunding provisions.

However, the bill faces challenges in the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim 53-seat majority, allowing only three defections with Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote. Some senators, including Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., have raised concerns about other unrelated provisions.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., a fiscal hawk, has vowed to push for deeper spending reductions, potentially complicating negotiations.

Despite these hurdles, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who secured the bill’s passage after intense negotiations with conservative holdouts, remains optimistic.

“This is a generational opportunity to enact President Trump’s America First agenda, including protecting life,” he said after the House vote.

Pro-life leaders are rallying supporters to pressure senators.

“Planned Parenthood’s billion-dollar abortion business must not receive another dime of taxpayer money,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., a longtime advocate for defunding the abortion giant.

The Senate’s timeline is tight, with debates expected to intensify next week. If the Senate alters the bill, it will return to the House, where Speaker Johnson can afford few defections. Pro-life advocates remain hopeful but vigilant, emphasizing that 2025, with Republican control of Congress and the White House, offers a rare chance to advance their cause.

The post Senate Republicans Take Up Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on LifeNews.com.

This website relies on readers’ support

The latest news on the war front serves to introduce today’s column.

The Ever-Widening War

With Putin focused on useless “peace talks,” Ukraine (or Washington or NATO) attacked four Russian Air Force bases and destroyed a number of strategic Russian bombers. The BBC reports: 

“In an operation said to have taken 18 months to prepare, scores of small drones were smuggled into Russia, stored in special compartments aboard freight trucks, driven to at least four separate locations, thousands of miles apart, and launched remotely towards nearby airbases.”  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0r1jv0rn0ko 

If this is true, Russia’s strategic nuclear forces were attacked from inside Russia.  This seems to be a massive failure of Russian intelligence.

Curiously, the Russian English language sites, RT and Sputnik, have little to say this morning about the successful attack that Ukraine claims destroyed one-third of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet.  Instead, the news services babble on about the second round of peace talks.

There are also Russian news reports that two bridges inside Russia were blown up resulting in deaths and injuries.  https://sputnikglobe.com/20250601/bridge-collapses-disrupt-rail-traffic-in-russias-bryansk–kursk-regions-seven-dead-and-66-injured-1122163963.html 

It seems that Putin still does not realize that Russia is at war.

Putin’s Condition for Peace is the Roll Back of NATO’s Border from Russia

Paul Craig Roberts

During the long conflict in the Russian provinces in Ukraine, I have posted many reports on the ever-widening war.  We are approaching the point where the conflict opens into a full-fledge war.  The question is:  Does anyone in the Western governments understand this?

It remains to be seen whether the successful Ukrainian attack on Russia’s strategic bombing fleet will finally wake Putin up to the cost of his ever-widening war.  The cost is likely to rise as the Europeans have removed all limits on the weapons and on the range of the missiles that will be supplied to Ukraine.  Is this a negotiating tactic to pressure Putin, or is it Europe’s entry into a war with Russia that European politicians have recently talked so much about?  If it is the latter, why does Trump permit it as it undercuts the peace negotiations that Trump said would end the conflict?

I have explained Putin’s patience with the conflict in terms of his hope that peace negotiations can be turned into a wider agreement that achieves mutual security and an end of the conflict between Russia and the West.  Putin’s view of what these conditions are have gone without examination in the Western world.  Instead, there have been absurd demands that Putin agree to an immediate cease fire before he knows what the agreement is, that Putin agree to give back some of the conquered territory, that Putin drop his demand for demilitarization of Ukraine, and so forth.  

It is long past time for the West to come to terms with Putin’s conditions for peace.  Putin’s principal condition is that NATO be rolled back from Russia’s borders to the position that existed in the late 1990s.  In other words, the failure must be rectified of the Clinton regime to keep the promise made by Washington that in exchange for Soviet approval of the reunification of Germany, NATO would not move one inch to the East.

NATO must roll itself back from Russia’s borders.  No more Poland, Finland, Romania in NATO.

If peace negotiations turn out not to be an opportunity for Putin to achieve a broad agreement that addresses Russia’s security requirements, a likely consequence is that Putin will find himself under pressure to drive NATO out of Ukraine as a demonstration that NATO can be defeated. If a mutual security agreement is not then forthcoming, will the Kremlin conclude that Russian security is impossible to obtain unless NATO is driven out of Europe?

I have emphasized from the beginning of this conflict that what originated as a low level conflict would, as a result of the restraint Putin put on Russia’s conduct of the conflict, widen and eventually spin out of control.  It remains to be seen whether the successful Ukrainian attack on Russia’s strategic forces will wake Putin up to this fact.

Possibly Putin has not yet rid himself of his hopeful delusions, but Russia has. If Putin is again refused a mutual security agreement, as he was in the winter of 2021-2022, thereby forcing Russia’s entry into Donbas, the conflict in Ukraine could cease being limited to a military operation to protect the Russian occupied provinces now reincorporated into Russia.  Putin will be pressured to take off his constraints on the conflict.

Russia intends to be sovereign, and Russia intends to survive, with or without Putin.

 If you look at the data on Russian armament production, it has increased dramatically, and it is not deployed on the front in Ukraine.  It seems that Russia is building a powerful military force that NATO cannot withstand, especially if Washington is preoccupied with Iran and China.

The real question is whether Europe and America are even capable of fighting.  No European government has the support of its ethnic nationality. Are white European and American ethnicities willing to fight for governments that have intentionally overrun citizens with immigrant-invaders?  In the United States discrimination against white American citizens is institutionalized. The Assistant Attorney General in the US Department of Justice has revealed the fact that it is the intent of the US Civil Service to make white heterosexual Americans second-class citizens: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/05/27/will-the-effort-to-restore-equal-treatment-under-law-for-white-americans-succeed/

In the Western world, the narrative is that it is Russia that is in the wrong and the US, NATO, and Ukraine that are in the right.  This is nonsense, and the Russians know it.  

The West used the Soviet collapse to break up Russia, turning former Russian and Soviet provinces into independent countries.  Then the West financed and orchestrated “color revolutions” that overthrew Russian-friendly governments, installed Russian-hostile governments, and used them as in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 to attack Russians and Russian interests.  Similar attempts were unsuccessful in Belarus and in former Soviet Central Asian provinces.  On top of these hostile Western moves against Russia, US missile bases are operative in Poland and Romania.

Is it possible that Western policymakers think that Russia does not see the hostility directed against them?  If this hostility cannot be ended and rolled back with a Great Power Agreement, is Russia preparing for a wider war with the West?

For Russia this is an existential issue.  It is a serious mistake for the West to continue its provocations of Russia. All of humanity is at risk.

Putin could not care less about a negotiated peace in Ukraine.  He wants an end to the 75-year old East-West conflict, and that requires a rollback of NATO to its 20th century border, the end of sanctions, the end of Washington’s hegemony.   This is the real issue, and no one is discussing it.

I think that Putin’s hope for a great power agreement is unrealistic.  It exceeds the imagination of the American foreign policy community. The Western world is lost in its own false narratives.  War will be the result.  This time Russia won’t stop at the border with Western Europe

Papal conclaves are a big deal. The one that elected Pope Leo XIV was only my third, as it was for everyone just shy of 50 years old. And, barring tragedy for either Pope Leo or myself, I only have maybe two or three more. A papal conclave is the kind of major event a person only experiences a handful of times in their life. Such experiences take on a special significance in part because of the…

Source

From the Roman office. ℣. Grant, Lord, a blessing. Benediction. May God the Father Omnipotent, be to us merciful and clement. ℟. Amen. Reading 4 From the Sermons of St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople. On the Ascension, tom 3 Then Christ went up into heaven, He offered unto the Father the First-fruits of our nature, and the Father marvelled at the offering…

Source

Editors’ Note: In recognition of the 100th anniversary of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, this article is the first in a three-part series on religious freedom. 

“The child is not the mere creature of the State.” 

With those words, issued a century ago, a unanimous Supreme Court recognized that “the fundamental liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose” prevents the government from attempts to “standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.” Parental rights include the right to choose private education. 

Few cases have more profoundly shaped the intersection of education, parental rights, and religious freedom than Pierce v. Society of Sisters. Deciding amid a wave of nativist sentiment and efforts to homogenize American culture through compulsory public education, the Court struck down a Ku Klux Klan–backed Oregon law mandating public school attendance for all children. In doing so, it affirmed the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children—a principle that has since become a cornerstone of constitutional law. 

Nevertheless, Pierce left several critical questions unresolved. While the decision prohibits the state from banning private schools, it remains unclear whether the state may require private institutions to offer an education “substantially equivalent” to that provided in public schools. Similarly, although Pierce affirms the right of parents to opt out of public education altogether, it does not directly address whether parents whose children attend public schools may selectively exempt their children from specific classes or curricular content they find objectionable. 

These questions are currently the subject of cases in New York and Maryland that have the potential to shape the debate over parental rights, religious liberty, and education for the century to come. 

From Parental Duties to Legal Obligations 

Understanding Pierce and its progeny requires first noting its context. The principle that parents have primary authority over the upbringing and education of their children has deep philosophical and legal roots. In his Second Treatise of Government, for example, John Locke argued that parental childrearing authority precedes, and is independent of, political authority. Influenced by Locke, Sir William Blackstone wrote of parents’ common-law duty to provide for the maintenance, protection, and education of their children. Blackstone, in turn, was one of the legal commentators most familiar to America’s Founders. 

Parents’ obligation to direct their children’s education led to laws requiring the education of children, beginning with the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1642. Five years later, in order to ensure that all children could read the Bible, the Colony began requiring communities above a certain size to make teachers of reading and writing available for all children and to establish grammar schools. Whatever the instructional setting, however, the primary authority to direct children’s education remained with their parents, and the household remained the most important agency for transmitting learning, skills, and moral values. 

Again led by Massachusetts, by 1918, every state had enacted laws requiring parents to send their children to a public school or to a private or parochial school that met certain standards. This movement threatened to shift primary control over children’s education from their parents to the state. 

Enter the Supreme Court. 

In 1919, the Nebraska legislature enacted a criminal law requiring that instruction of all subjects, in private or public schools, be in English until children passed the eighth grade. A Lutheran teacher convicted of teaching reading in German challenged the law, arguing that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Ratified in 1868, the amendment prohibits states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 

In Meyer v. Nebraska, the case that resulted, the Supreme Court held that “liberty” under the due process clause includes not only “freedom from bodily restraint” but also “those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The Court held that the teacher’s right to teach “and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children . . . are within the liberty of the amendment.” The Court struck down the Nebraska law, declaring that it “materially . . . interfere[d] with . . . the power of parents to control the education of their own.” 

Two years later, the Court would build on Meyer’s broad conception of liberty in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, further solidifying the constitutional protection of parental rights in education and pushing back against state efforts to monopolize schooling. 

Pierce v. Society of Sisters 

Oregon first enacted a compulsory school law in 1889. The law required parents to enroll children ages eight to fourteen in a public school or a private or parochial school that met certain standards. However, in 1922, Oregon voters passed a ballot initiative requiring that children attend public schools exclusively, banning attendance at parochial or secular private schools. The driving motivation behind the initiative was to outlaw Catholic schooling. 

Two private schools, one Catholic and one secular, challenged the law as violating “the right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training” and “the right of schools and teachers . . . to engage in a useful business or profession.” As in Meyer, the Court did not question the state’s general authority to require attendance at “some school.” Requiring attendance only at a public school, however, would destroy private primary schools. Citing Meyer, the Court held that this “unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” 

This liberty, of course, is not in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both Meyer and Pierce were examples of what is often called “substantive due process,” or giving substantive content to the “liberty” in the due process clause by recognizing unenumerated rights. 

The legitimacy of courts’ finding unwritten substantive rights in a written Constitution intended to govern them has long been debated. While the Supreme Court has used this method to create novel rights with no historical, cultural, or legal roots, such as same-sex marriage or abortion, the Court in Meyer and Pierce tapped into the centuries-long tradition, noted above, of parental authority to direct the upbringing and education of their children. In fact, in the 2000 case Troxel v. Granville, the Court would describe this right as “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” 

While this parental right is unenumerated, it is perhaps more appropriate to say that the Supreme Court recognized rather than invented or created it. One of the Court’s most potent statements in Pierce hearkened back to the common law: “The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” 

Determining the Framers’ intentions can be difficult; as can identifying the content and ideal application of unwritten rights, even those with such deep roots. Pierce holds that the state cannot abolish private schools, but can it impose regulations that effectively compel private schools to so closely resemble public schools that they lose their distinctive character? This remains unclear. 

Likewise, Pierce affirms that parents’ right to direct their children’s education includes opting out of public schools altogether. But if parents choose to enroll their children in a public school, do they forfeit their ability to opt out of particular educational programs or courses of instruction? Pending cases before the courts may soon clarify. 

Private Schools and Substantial Equivalency: The New York Yeshiva Case 

Orthodox Jewish schools, known as yeshivas, look very different from the standard public school. They tend to begin the school day earlier and end much later, and most of the day is spent studying religious texts: the Torah, halacha (Jewish law), and especially the Talmud, a vast compendium of rabbinic legal debates, biblical exegesis, and stories covering innumerable topics including ethics, theology, philosophy, history, torts, agriculture, commerce, ritual law, and more. Most yeshivas, particularly among the Modern Orthodox, also offer robust secular studies. But a subset of more traditional Haredi Orthodox Jews minimize secular studies in their schools. 

Since 2018, the Haredi yeshivas have been under assault by New York State Education Department (NYSED) bureaucrats and their media allies, who allege that the yeshivas are failing to provide an education that is “substantially equivalent” to that of the public schools. The New York Times ran a series of articles highlighting the claims of Young Advocates for a Fair Education, a group of formerly Haredi graduates of yeshivas they claimed left them unprepared for higher education. They are pushing NYSED to enforce stricter educational standards for their former schools. 

Others argue that the yeshivas prepare the children they serve to live as productive members of their community and the broader society. Dr. Moshe Krakowski of the Modern Orthodox-affiliated Yeshiva University, for example, spent years studying Haredi yeshivas and finds that their classroom activities, grappling with the meaning of primary sources written in multiple languages, “more closely resemble upper-level humanities coursework in a university than clerical training.” 

Just as the Pierce case had implications far beyond the Catholic school at the center of the lawsuit, resolution of the yeshiva case will have broad ramifications for parental rights and religious liberty generally. To what extent can the government regulate private schools before it violates the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children? Can the government require private schools to provide instruction “substantially equivalent” to public schools? 

Enacted in 1894, New York’s substantial equivalence statute was born of the same anti-Catholic motivations as the 1922 Oregon compulsory education law at issue in Pierce. It also paralleled so-called “Blaine Amendments,” constitutional provisions adopted in New York and nearly forty other states prohibiting any public financial support for parochial schools. 

At the time, public schools functioned as de facto non-denominational Protestant schools, where teachers led students in Protestant prayers and taught the Protestant version of the Bible. The Supreme Court would later condemn the “shameful pedigree” of the Blaine Amendments, observing that they were “born of bigotry” and “arose at a time of pervasive hostility to the Catholic Church and to Catholics in general.” 

Even though Catholics and other religious minorities were forced to pay for the supposedly “nonsectarian” public schools via their taxes, the Blaine Amendments ensured that the Catholics’ own “sectarian” schools would receive no taxpayer assistance. But the Protestant majority went even further than denying public funds to parochial schools. They passed a law requiring that the education provided at private schools be “substantially equivalent” to that offered at public schools. However, as Catholics were keen to show that they were just as American as anyone else, with few exceptions, the law essentially remained unenforced for more than a century. 

That changed in 2018, when New York State Education Commissioner MaryEllen Elia announced new “guidelines” that substantially reinterpreted the substantial equivalence statute. These revised guidelines require private schools to provide instruction in eleven specific subjects for a minimum of 17.5 hours per week. 

To monitor adherence, NYSED would, along with local authorities, conduct inspections of private schools. Schools found to be noncompliant risked losing access to public support programs, including funding for textbooks, transportation, and school meals. In more severe cases, the commissioner could require parents to enroll their children in another school and declare truant any children who remained enrolled at a noncompliant school.

Within a few months, New York was facing three separate lawsuits from organizations representing Jewish, Catholic, and independent schools challenging the new guidelines on constitutional, statutory, and procedural grounds. Citing Pierce, the lawsuit filed by a Haredi-aligned organization called Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools (PEARLS) argued that the statute violated the rights of parents to direct their children’s education and to choose an education that aligned with their beliefs. They cited First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, among other claims. These parents do not want an education that is “substantially equivalent” to what public schools offer: the education they desire for their children is substantially different. 

In 2019, a trial court in Albany County nullified the new guidelines, finding that NYSED had failed to follow the proper procedure when issuing them, ; but the court did not address  the merits of the constitutional claims. NYSED soon began the process of issuing new guidelines following the proper procedures, including allowing public comment. Within a span of three months, the department received more than 140,000 public comments about the proposed guidelines, the vast majority of which were opposed. 

The New York Board of Regents adopted the new guidelines, which closely resembled the previous attempt to revise the substantial equivalence guidelines, in September 2022. Soon after, New York Education Commissioner Betty Rosa declared that one yeshiva failed to meet the substantial equivalence guidelines and must develop an improvement plan or face closure. PEARLS and several yeshivas quickly filed suit. A year later, a trial court judge invalidated the statute’s enforcement mechanism, holding that the burden to ensure a child received a substantially equivalent education fell on the parents, not the schools. In other words, parents could meet the statute’s requirements using a variety of education options—tutoring, homeschooling, virtual learning, etc.—but no one education provider needed to meet all the statutory requirements. 

However, the victory was short-lived. Last year, the New York Court of Appeals overturned the trial court judge’s decision, holding that a “child attending an institution for a full, lengthy school day period who is not receiving or obtaining a substantially equivalent education in the basics of arithmetic, English, science, and history . . . cannot adequately supplement this substandard curriculum in the few hours remaining in the week.” 

Nevertheless, the lawsuits bought the yeshiva advocates sufficient time to push back politically. The New York legislature recently modified state law to allow more pathways for private schools to demonstrate substantial equivalence and to phase in the compliance mechanisms. But if the case returns to court, many questions remain. To what extent can the state override parental rights in the name of educational oversight? At what point does imposing secular education standards on religious schools violate the Free Exercise Clause by interfering with religious practice? And are Haredi Orthodox yeshivas being subjected to unequal treatment compared to other non-public or religious schools?  

The last question could prove decisive for the yeshivas. NYSED only counts yeshiva classes taught in English toward their substantial equivalence requirements, while accepting multilingual instruction in public schools and other private schools. Courts are unlikely to permit this double standard, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decisions in two COVID-era cases. 

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the Court declared that the constitutional requirement of religious neutrality is met only if religious groups are treated as well as the most favored secular category under the law. In that case, New York State had closed churches and synagogues due to COVID, but allowed certain “essential” businesses to remain open. The Court temporarily enjoined the executive order, allowing the houses of worship to reopen. 

In a subsequent case, Tandon v. Newsom, the Supreme Court clarified that “government regulations are not neutral and generally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.” Therefore, if public schools and other private schools can meet state standards with classes taught in Spanish, Arabic, or other languages, then yeshiva classes that are taught in Yiddish, Hebrew, or Aramaic should also be deemed compliant. 

Parental Opt-Out in Public Schools: Mahmoud v. Taylor 

Parents clearly have the right to opt out of the public school system entirely, and that right might extend to private schools that offer a substantially different education. But if they choose to enroll their child in a public school, can they opt out of individual classes and lessons, or must they accept the whole package? This spring, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which should answer this question. 

In October 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education announced a policy requiring the use of LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks as part of the English Language Arts curriculum for elementary school students. The content of the books, as well as materials provided to teachers for fostering discussion and answering questions, makes clear that the school board intended to challenge or “disrupt” students’ traditional views about gender and sexuality. The immediate firestorm of controversy came not only from parents on religious grounds, but also from teachers and even administrators who questioned this program’s efficacy and age-appropriateness. 

In response, the school board agreed to notify parents when the storybooks would be used and, as it does in other contexts, allow them to opt their children out. The board’s “Guidelines for Respecting Religious Diversity” even state that schools should accommodate parents’ requests to opt their children out of instruction they believe “would impose a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.” Less than a year later, however, the school abruptly, and without explanation, rescinded this notice-and-opt-out policy, requiring all students as young as three years old to receive this instruction without exception. The board even advised teachers not to inform families when this controversial material would be used. 

A group of parents from various religious traditions filed suit, arguing that this mandatory policy violated their right to exercise religion, which includes directing what their children learn about sexuality and gender. The lower courts held that requiring young children to participate in such instruction not only does not violate their parents’ right to exercise religion, but that it does not even impose a burden on that right at all. 

This case does not raise the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children in the general way that Pierce did, but it does show how this unenumerated parental right can intersect with enumerated rights such as the free exercise of religion. The best outcome will be for the Supreme Court to hold that denying any notice or opt-out, especially after having allowed them before, infringes on the parents’ right to exercise religion. At least in these circumstances, that right involves directing the upbringing of their children regarding sensitive matters such as gender and sexuality. 

In other words, the Supreme Court should not only reverse the lower court decisions by concluding that the school district’s policy places a substantial burden on their religious exercise, but also by explaining clearly that this exercise of religion is intrinsically linked to their responsibilities as parents. 

Courts have held that, while the parental right recognized in Pierce includes deciding which school their child will attend, it may have less force regarding matters within schools such as curriculum development or administration. This does not mean, however, that policies or actions in those categories will not undermine, perhaps significantly, parental authority regarding their children. One way to mitigate this potential damage is to show how school policies, such as the promotion of gender ideology through social transition, do not fall within those categories of items traditionally left to schools’ discretion. 

Mahmoud presents another possibility. A parent relying on the First Amendment right to freely exercise religion may have a more potent claim regarding the use of objectionable material on sensitive subjects than a parent asserting only a general Pierce-style parental right. The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud, therefore, will be instructive regarding the breadth and substance of rights that parents can defend when it comes to their children’s upbringing and education, even within the educational context itself. 

The Legacy and Future of Pierce 

Many originalists and textualists remain critical of courts’ using the due process clause to establish any substantive rights and skeptical of the Supreme Court’s attempt to limit recognition of unenumerated rights to certain categories. Nonetheless, as explained, the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children has deeper roots than other unenumerated rights and, when combined with the right to exercise religion, can have a more concrete connection to the Constitution. 

For a century, Pierce v. Society of Sisters has endured not merely as a bulwark against government overreach, but by establishing as a foundation for that resistance the primacy of parental authority regarding their families. This fundamental principle is older than America itself. By giving this right, already recognized in the common law and colonial statutes, constitutional status, the Supreme Court ensured that it would continue to influence debates over the limits of state authority in regulating private education and the extent of parental rights in public school settings. 

Parents’ authority over their children’s education is being challenged as much today as it was by states like Oregon a century ago. Cases like the ones discussed here will continue to arise as government finds new ways to substitute its ideology for parental prerogatives. Especially where other rights, such as the free exercise of religion, are also involved, Pierce remains a solid basis on which parents can insist on their proper place in the family and society. 

Image licensed via Adobe Stock.