CNA News

Subscribe to CNA News feed CNA News
ACI Prensa's latest initiative is the Catholic News Agency (CNA), aimed at serving the English-speaking Catholic audience. ACI Prensa (www.aciprensa.com) is currently the largest provider of Catholic news in Spanish and Portuguese.
Updated: 2 hours 14 min ago

Massachusetts city recognizes polyamorous 'civil partnerships'

Thu, 07/02/2020 - 16:30

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jul 2, 2020 / 02:30 pm (CNA).- The city of Somerville, Massachusetts, has broadened its definition of domestic partnership to give polyamorous relationships the same rights as a married couple. 

Someone who is polyamorous is in a relationship with more than one domestic partner. 

City councilor J.T. Scott, quoted in the New York Times, said that he believes this to be the first ordinance of its kind in the United States. Scott was in favor of recognizing polyamorous relationships. 

“People have been living in families that include more than two adults forever,” said Scott, adding that “Here in Somerville, families sometimes look like one man and one woman, but sometimes it looks like two people everyone on the block thinks are sisters because they’ve lived together forever, or sometimes it’s an aunt and an uncle, or an aunt and two uncles, raising two kids.”

Scott was quoted as saying that the new ordinance would legally recognize someone as having more than one domestic partner, regardless of the nature of that relationship.  

“It has a legal bearing,” said Scott, “so when one of them is sick, they can both go to the hospital.”

The city councilor said he knew of at least two dozen people in Somerville who were engaged in polyamorous relationships, though he did not specify how many households they comprised. The city of Somerville has a population of about 80,000, and, until June, did not have any sort of domestic partnership ordinance. The original draft of the ordinance specified that a domestic partnership was between two persons, which was changed to allow for polyamorous relationships. 

“I don’t think it’s the place of the government to tell people what is or is not a family,” said city councilor Lance Davis, who drafted the domestic partnership ordinance. 

“Defining families is something that historically we’ve gotten quite wrong as a society, and we ought not to continue to try and undertake to do so,” said Davis. 

According to the New York Times, the ordinance means that city employees will be able to extend health insurance benefits to more than one partner. It is unclear if private companies will also allow for employees in polyamorous domestic partenrships to share health insurance plans to their multiple partners.

Davis said that he had been told by constituents that they were happy the city will be “legally recognizing and validating” the existence of polyamorous relationships. 

“That’s the first time this is happening,” said Davis. 

Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told CNA that he was not surprised by the latest efforts to redefine marriage to include multiple people. 

“Of course it was never going to stop with same-sex couples,” Anderson told CNA. 

“Once you redefine marriage to eliminate the male-female component, what principle requires monogamy?”

The former cultural norm of marriage between one man and one woman, Anderon said, “was that only one man and one woman could unite as one flesh as husband and wife in the very same act that could produce new life, and then connect that new life with his or her own mother and father.”

“Once the law and culture says the male-female aspect of marriage violates justice and equality, we haven’t ‘expanded’ marriage, we’ve fundamentally redefined what it is. And those redefinitions have no principled stopping point,” he said.

SCOTUS rejects cases on abortion, Catholic schools, citing recent decisions

Thu, 07/02/2020 - 16:00

CNA Staff, Jul 2, 2020 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- After striking down Louisiana’s unsafe abortion law this week, the Supreme Court on Thursday instructed federal courts to reconsider two Indiana abortion laws in light of that ruling. The court also sent a case concerning Catholic schools in Wisconsin back to the lower court.

Indiana laws requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions, as well as for mothers seeking abortions to receive an ultrasound, were struck down or halted from going into effect by the federal courts. The Supreme Court on Thursday vacated those rulings and instructed them to be considered again in light of its Monday decision in June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. Russo.

One pro-life leader commended the instruction to reconsider the cases. “We are confident that the Seventh Circuit will allow these compassionate, life-saving laws to stand upon further review,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.

In the Monday decision, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Louisiana’s requirement that abortion facilities have the same admitting-privileges standards as other surgical centers. Under the law, abortionists were required to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

An abortion regulation, the court said, must promote “women’s health and safety” and cannot put “a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion.” Louisiana’s law did not meet this standard, the court said.

After failing at the federal circuit court level, Indiana had appealed its ultrasound and parental consent laws to the Supreme Court, asking the court to consider the laws as well as the legal ability of abortion clinics to file lawsuits claiming injuries to women from state abortion laws, known as “third-party standing.” Lower courts will now have to reconsider the case.

In several other cases, the Supreme Court on Thursday refused to hear appeals, including that of a lawsuit against a “buffer zone” enacted by the city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania outside of abortion facilities.

Two pro-life sidewalk counselors, Colleen Reilly and Becky Biter, had challenged the city’s law in court that had established a 20-foot barrier outside health clinics, including abortion facilities.

Both a federal district court and the Third Circuit appeals court denied their petition for relief from the law, and the Supreme Court also denied their appeal on Thursday.

Dannenfelser said she was “disappointed” at the news, saying that “buffer zones” in reality “restrict the free speech of pro-life Americans who seek to provide love and assistance to women considering abortion.”

In another case where the court denied an appeal, Hill v. Whole Woman’s Health Alliance, Indiana had denied a license to Whole Woman’s Health to open a new facility in South Bend that offered abortion counseling and the abortion pill. The state said that the organization hadn’t provided documentation of past complaints against its affiliates.

A federal district court sided with Whole Woman’s Health and granted it immunity from the regulations to open the new clinic, while also overruling Indiana’s licensing regulations in the process.

The Seventh Circuit appeals court acknowledged Indiana’s authority to license clinics, but ruled that the state acted unconstitutionally in denying Whole Woman’s Health a license for the new clinic.

Indiana then appealed to the Supreme Court to hear the case, or at least hold it until deciding Louisiana’s abortion law; the court on Thursday denied its appeal.

Also this week, in the case Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Supreme Court ruled that religious schools must have co equal access to public aid programs with secular private schools. That decision concerned a scholarship fund for private schools and the state’s constitutional bar on public funding of religious institutions, which the court found violated the First Amendment. 

Following that decision, the Supreme Court sent another case appealed to it back down to a lower court. St. Augustine Catholic school and parents of its students had sued the state of Wisconsin for not providing public busing to students of the school. A state law allows for busing of private school students, but only for one school of each religious denomination in a given area. Another Catholic school, St. Gabriel of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, was already being served in the district.

The Seventh Circuit court sided with the state, saying that it did not unlawfully discriminate against religion. On Thursday, the Supreme Court vacated that judgment and sent it back to the circuit court, to be considered in light of the court’s Tuesday ruling in Espinoza.

Mississippi bans abortion on sex, race, genetic disability

Thu, 07/02/2020 - 15:10

CNA Staff, Jul 2, 2020 / 01:10 pm (CNA).- Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves signed the Life Equality Act into law on Wednesday, July 1, banning abortion based on sex, race, or genetic abnormality. The law went into effect upon passage. 

Pro-life advocates called the signing of the law a “historic victory for the pro-life citizens of Mississippi.” 

“Starting now, unborn babies in Mississippi cannot be targeted for abortion based on their sex, race, or potential disability, such as Down syndrome,” said Susan B. Anthony List State Policy Director Sue Liebel in a statement provided to CNA. 

“Such lethal discrimination, whether inside or outside the womb, should be unacceptable anywhere in society,” Liebel added. 

About two thirds of all children prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. Several countries have prohibited ultrasounds to determine the sex of an unborn child due to the prevalence of sex-selective abortions. 

The Life Equality Act was authored by Rep. Carolyn Crawford (R-Pass Christian). It was passed in the Mississippi House of Representatives in a 79-33 vote on March 12, with bipartisan support. 

The bill passed the Mississippi Senate on June 17 by a 33-11 vote that was along party lines. The Senate bill was sponsored by Sen. Jenifer Branning (R-Philadelphia). Six days later, on June 23, the House concurred with the Senate version of the bill and sent the bill to Reeves’ desk for signing. 

Doctors who are found to have aborted a child due to their sex, race, or genetic anomaly will be guilty of a felony and face a minimum of one and a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. 

Women who are found to have undergone an abortion for these reasons will not be charged. 

Several states have banned sex-selective abortion, abortion due to potential disability, or due to the ethnicity of the unborn child. Mississippi, however, is just one of two states that have prohibited abortion for all three of those reasons. The other is Missouri.

Kentucky attempted to enact a similar law, but it was blocked from going into effect by a court order. 

There is one abortion clinic in Mississippi.

Pages