Woman gives birth to unrelated baby, sues IVF clinic

A Georgia woman is suing an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic after discovering that the child she gave birth to was not biologically hers due to an embryo mixup. The devastating mistake led to a custody battle, ultimately forcing the woman to hand over the baby to his genetic parents five months after giving birth to him.  READ 

Vatican: Pope’s condition sees ‘slight improvement’

“The Holy Father's clinical condition is stationary,” the Holy See Press Office announced Wednesday evening. “The blood tests, evaluated by the medical staff, show a slight improvement, particularly in the inflammatory indices.” READ

Kansas Legislature Overrides Governor To Protect Children

TOPEKA, KS – Overriding Governor Laura Kelly’s veto, Kansas lawmakers enacted Senate Bill 63 yesterday to protect children from harmful puberty blockers, hormones, and irreversible mutilating surgeries. The Kansas legislature voted overwhelmingly to protect children by a vote of 84-34 in the House and 31-9 in the Senate – surpassing the two-thirds majority needed for an override.

Commonly referred to as the “Help Not Harm Act,” SB 63 acknowledges the biological reality of sex as male and female and prohibits doctors from “treating” gender-confused minors with these procedures under threat of losing their medical licenses. The law also allows civil lawsuits against medical practitioners who perform these interventions and defunds these procedures from state taxpayer dollars.

The law goes one step further by stipulating that state employees whose official duties include the care of children cannot even promote these gender interventions while engaged in those official duties. This portion of the law equally applies to state property.

The law reads, “Except to the extent required by the first amendment to the United States Constitution, a state property, facility or building shall not be used to promote or advocate the use of social transitioning, medication or surgery…as a treatment for a child whose perceived gender or perceived sex is inconsistent with such child's sex.”

In a joint statement, Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson and House Speaker Dan Hawkins said Gov. Kelly failed to protect children from these “harmful, irreversible, and experimental” interventions and the override of her veto was “common sense.”

Gov. Kelly followed Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson who vetoed similar bills protecting children. However, both those vetoes were also overridden.

The Kansas legislature’s override follows after Trump administration efforts to root out “false” gender ideology in the federal government. In a series of executive orders, President Donald Trump recognized the “incontrovertible reality” of two genders – male and female – and ended federal support for child medical mutilation, calling it a “dangerous trend” and a “stain on our Nation’s history.”

Kansas joins at least 26 other states in banning these procedures on minors. However, the U.S. Supreme Court may likely determine the fate of these laws later this year. In December 2024, the High Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a legal challenge to Tennessee’s similar law that protects children from medical mutilation. After the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Tennessee’s law as constitutional, the Biden administration inserted itself into the case in 2023 and appealed to the Supreme Court claiming the law violates sex-based protections under the 14th Amendment. However, Tennessee officials argued the law does not draw a sex-based line but a line on risky medical practice and that the Constitution does not grant a right to experimental gender interventions on children. While the Trump administration sent a letter to the Supreme Court rescinding Biden’s previous argument and expressing support for Tennessee’s law, the High Court must now decide whether to dismiss the case or decide the constitutionality of child medical mutilation bans. The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision in June 2025.

Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in Skrmetti arguing the states have the authority to regulate certain conduct, such as irreversible and experimental medical interventions.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Governor Laura Kelly refused to protect children, so Kansas legislators sensibly overrode her veto to keep children safe from the false gender ideology agenda. These medical interventions are harmful, scientifically unsupported, and in many cases irreversible. All states need to stand against this radical ideology.”

Trump promised to end the Biden-era weaponization of the Department of Justice (DOJ)

Last year, government lawyers, at the direction of Merrick Garland, filed a civil lawsuit under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) against several pro-lifers arising out of two peaceful rescues held at abortion centers in northern Ohio in June 2021.

Garland waited nearly 3 years to file the lawsuit, and he did so last year (2024) because it was an election year in which he and the Biden/Harris administration wanted to make abortion a principal issue in the election.

One of the main targets of this DOJ attack was Fr. Fidelis (Christopher Moscinski), a Catholic priest from New York who is a spiritual leader amongst pro-lifers as a result of his deep faith and courage.  We defended Fr. Fidelis in this civil lawsuit.

In response to the DOJ lawsuit, we went on the offensive and filed counter-claims on behalf of Fr. Fidelis against the government and third-party claims against Garland for targeting and selectively enforcing the law against pro-lifers.

As noted, Trump made good on his promise, and he directed his DOJ to dismiss this bogus lawsuit against Fr. Fidelis and the other pro-life defendants.  The dismissal was made official by the court on February 7, 2024.

Additionally, the DOJ agreed to pay Fr. Fidelis (AFLC) attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,660 for having to file counterclaims. 

Pope Francis ‘stable,’ but requires longer hospitalization

Pope Francis requires a longer hospital stay than was anticipated, the Holy See Press Office stated yesterday. “All tests carried out to date are indicative of a complex clinical picture that will require appropriate hospitalization,” Vatican News reported. READ

Report: reason for Trump's crackdown on anti-Christian bias

Tommy Valentine, director of CatholicVote’s Catholic Accountability Project, “is praising President Donald Trump for his efforts to crack down on anti-Christian bias, pointing to the hundreds of attacks on churches over the last four years,” The Daily Wire reported. Valentine has tracked hundreds of attacks on Catholic institutions, ranging from vandalism to arson.  READ

NYTimes: ‘Botched’ surgery, ‘poor care’ at Planned Parenthood

The New York Times over the weekend reported on “scores of allegations” that have been plaguing Planned Parenthood facilities throughout the country. Customers are reporting “poor care,” “botched” procedures, and staff who seem not to have been adequately trained. READ

Delaware unlawfully targets pregnancy centers

 WILMINGTON, Del. – On behalf of a nonprofit pregnancy center and a nonprofit network of affiliated centers, attorneys with Simms Showers and Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging a Delaware law that unconstitutionally restricts the centers’ ability to communicate freely and also forces them to speak messages that undermine their mission and mislead the public.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates is a nonprofit religious network of facilities with four member facilities in Delaware, one of which is A Door of Hope, located in Wilmington. Together, they are suing the Delaware attorney general over the unconstitutional law.

“Delaware’s law is unconstitutional, pure and simple. It is a classic example of the government compelling speech to punish those who hold differing viewpoints,” said Simms Showers Senior Associate William R. Thetford, lead counsel in this case. “The pro-life pregnancy centers we represent in this case are a force for good in Wilmington and the surrounding community, offering families true, life-affirming care and resources during unplanned or unsupported pregnancies. We are urging the court to affirm NIFLA’s members and A Door of Hope’s fundamental freedom to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment.”

“Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, state attorneys general have ramped up their efforts to silence, censor, and shut down pregnancy care centers across the country. Delaware now follows government officials in New Jersey, New York, Washington, California, and Vermont targeting these centers by forcing them to provide misleading information or by punishing them for their life-affirming viewpoints,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Delaware’s law runs afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in NIFLA v. Becerra that struck down compelled statements in advertising. We are urging the court to follow the Supreme Court’s guidance and respect pregnancy centers’ freedom to continue their life-saving work to women and families.”

Delaware’s Senate Bill 300, which will take effect in March, imposes government-compelled speech upon the pregnancy care centers by requiring them to post disclaimers within their facilities and in all their advertising materials that they do not have a licensed medical provider on staff directly supervising the provision of services. In the lawsuit, the attorneys explain how such a disclaimer is burdensome, misleading, and would limit the centers’ digital advertising options, thus impeding their freedom of speech.

Further, state officials are requiring the disclaimers to be posted solely because A Door of Hope serves pregnant women from a pro-life perspective, and not with any prerequisite that the center has engaged in any improper behavior. The law compels the content of speech and, in practice, regulates only speakers who wish to discuss the subject of pregnancy from a pro-life viewpoint rather than any other health topic.

The lawsuit points out that Delaware’s law is designed to target pro-life pregnancy care centers and burdens, restricts, chills, or in some circumstances prohibits their message altogether. It does not similarly impact pro-abortion advocacy groups, individuals, or facilities.

“Delaware clearly crossed the line when it passed, and the governor signed SB 300, which copies a government-compelled notice in pregnancy center ads that was struck down in NIFLA v. Becerra in 2018 by the U.S. Supreme Court, delivering a huge win for pregnancy centers and free speech,” said Anne O’Connor, vice president of legal affairs at NIFLA. “SB 300 is clearly unconstitutional as it destroys the free speech of pregnancy centers solely because they are pro-life and help women who are facing unplanned pregnancies. Instead of shutting down the free speech of places where women can obtain free, non-judgmental assistance, Delaware should be putting effort into how they can support these women and all the good that pregnancy centers do for the state and its residents.”

“Delaware’s law explicitly targets pro-life pregnancy centers like A Door of Hope, impeding our ability to continue serving women and men who are making decisions about pregnancies in a spirit of concern and compassion,” said Rachel Metzger, executive director of A Door of Hope. “Our mission is to empower women to make life-affirming and healthy decisions, particularly about sex, pregnancy, and relationships. It’s unlawful for the state to punish us for holding a pro-life viewpoint.”

A Door of Hope is a faith-based organization that provides both medical and nonmedical pro-life information and services for no charge to women facing unplanned or unsupported pregnancies. These services include adoption information and referrals, post-abortion support, parenting classes, pregnancy options counseling, prenatal vitamins, and baby items. A Door of Hope’s registered nurses also provide pregnancy tests and limited obstetrical ultrasounds. Its medical team consists of a volunteer medical doctor who serves as its medical director, a volunteer radiologist, and several RNs who provide its medical services.

Simms Showers and ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Jennings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Andrew Meck is serving as local counsel on behalf of the pregnancy centers.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.

The latest from the Iowa Catholic Conference

 

Father Keehner appointed bishop-elect of Sioux City

Bishop-elect John E. Keehner

Pope Francis has accepted the resignation of Bishop R. Walker Nickless and appointed Father John E. Keehner as Bishop of Sioux City. Bishop-elect Keehner, 59, is a priest of the Diocese of Youngstown and currently serves as pastor of four parishes:

• Our Lady of Peace Parish in Ashtabula, Ohio
• Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish in Geneva, Ohio
• Corpus Christi Parish in Conneaut, Ohio
• St. Andrew Bobola Parish in Sheffield, Ohio

Bishop-elect Keehner’s ordination and installation Mass is scheduled for May 1 at the Cathedral of the Epiphany in Sioux City. Bishop Nickless, who has served the diocese since 2006, will continue to serve as the diocesan administrator of Sioux City until the installation. For more information go to www.scdiocese.org.

Congratulations and prayers for Bishop-elect Keehner and Bishop Nickless!

Bills advancing through the process

Intermittent bad weather hasn’t stopped work at the State Capitol. Last week, several bills were advanced by a subcommittee last week with the support of the Iowa Catholic Conference:

• Both the Senate and House versions of the bill (HSB 139 and SF 220) providing needed conscience protections for medical professionals. Thanks to the Catholic Medical Association for putting us in touch with three medical students from Des Moines University, who did a great job of testifying.
• HSB 140, a bill with incentives to encourage people on probation to work and get more education so their time on probation can end sooner.
• HSB 141 allows victims of domestic violence or sexual violence to terminate a lease early if they provide landlords documentation of harm. This would reduce an economic barrier to seeking safety, so victims are not stuck with an abuser.
• SF 207, the Senate’s version of the proposal requiring age verification for adult websites.
• SSB 1057, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa which would allow a child to testify on video rather than face-to-face in court with the person accused of abusing them

The House Education Committee passed HF 391, which requires schools to present a video to students that shows prenatal human development throughout every stage of pregnancy. A similar bill has already passed the Senate Education Committee with the support of the ICC.

The Senate Education Committee passed SF 288, which requires state universities to make reasonable accommodations to students who are pregnant or who have recently given birth.

Newly-introduced bills of interest include:

HSB 145 – Support

The governor’s preschool and child care bill would allow community providers such as Catholic preschools to apply directly to the state Department of Education for funding. We’re glad the bill also keeps the current program in place where there is good collaboration and a contract between community providers and the public school district.

HF 278 – Support

The bill requires parental authorization for minors to create accounts on social media platforms.

USCCB president responds to letter from Pope Francis

“As successor to Saint Peter, you call not only every Catholic, but every Christian to what unites us in faith – offering the hope of Jesus Christ to every person, citizen and immigrant alike,” said Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in a letter responding to Pope Francis. The Holy Father wrote to the bishops of the United States affirming their work on behalf of migrants and refugees, and offered his support, moral encouragement, and prayers. 

International aid still stopped

All U.S. foreign aid is still under review, impacting our most vulnerable sisters and brothers around the world. According to Catholic Relief Services, the administration issued an exception for lifesaving humanitarian assistance, but organizations are currently not able to access money to implement lifesaving programs.

Please continue to email your members of Congress, asking them to engage with the administration to ensure these critical programs can operate during the review process and ensure organizations can access the necessary funds to deliver lifesaving work.

Encourage Congress to support refugee resettlement

Carrying out the Gospel’s mandate to care for the “least of these” (Mt. 25:31-46), the Catholic Church has served refugees in the United States since well before the official creation of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). 

Today, due to an executive order, no refugees are being resettled through USRAP. This ban impacts thousands of refugees who had already been fully processed, undergone extensive security checks, and approved for refugee status by the federal government while outside of the United States. This includes many persecuted Christians, as well as Afghans who had been approved for special immigrant visas because of the assistance they provided to the U.S. mission and U.S. service members in Afghanistan. 

On Jan. 24, the State Department issued suspension notices to domestic resettlement agencies, including the USCCB, impacting their ability to carry out services under the Reception and Placement (R&P) Program. Services provided through the R&P Program include help finding initial housing, securing employment, enrolling children in school, scheduling medical appointments, and English language classes. 

Ask your members of Congress to lift up their voice in support of upholding our nation’s bipartisan legacy of refugee resettlement. 

RFK has been Approved, Vance Name Drops JPII, and We Got a Valentine!

Report: PBS planned to skirt trump order by hiding DEI staff

PBS is closing its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) office in compliance with Trump’s executive order against DEI in the government. But a tipster reportedly contacted The Free Press to say PBS’s original plan was to shuffle its DEI executives into other departments, clinging to the controversial left-wing practice but keeping it hidden.  READ  

University System of NH Infringes Student’s Free Speech Over Pronouns

CONCORD, NH – Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter to the University System of New Hampshire (USNH) for infringing free speech by forcing a student to use personal pronouns in a newspaper article byline. Subsequently, the university apparently also engaged in retaliatory censorship by removing the entire article after the student voiced his religious objections to the pronouns. The student believes that gender is objective, not subjective, according to his Christian faith. Under the law, compelling a person to speak a message contrary to their beliefs in this way is a violation of the First Amendment. 

Liberty Counsel demands restoration of the student’s article without the byline pronouns and that no student, employee, or staff member at the university will be forced to use pronouns in their bylines or signature blocks.

In early 2024, USNH published an online news article by the student and arbitrarily added the “He/Him” pronouns to the byline without his permission. The student believes God created humans only male and female and that these sexes cannot change. Therefore, he contended that the pronouns communicated a false message that gender is subjective which is inconsistent with his Christian faith. For nearly a year, the student made multiple requests to the university to remove the pronouns from his byline. Then in January 2025, the university chose to remedy the situation by removing the entire article rather than just remove the two pronouns.

“This was an outcome that [the student] did not request, and which a reasonable observer could conclude was retaliatory and unlawful censorship,” reads Liberty Counsel’s letter.

In the letter, Liberty Counsel noted the constitutional right to free speech and expression includes both the right to speak and the right not to speak at all. The courts have affirmed under the First Amendment that government organizations cannot compel individuals into “involuntary affirmation” or force them to “mouth support” for any religious, political, or ideological view that they do not believe. 

“Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” wrote Liberty Counsel.

Liberty Counsel has requested that USNH correct its unconstitutional actions and respond to Liberty Counsel’s letter by February 28, 2025.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The First Amendment guarantees a person’s right to express, or not to express, according to his or her religious beliefs and political values. In this instance, the University System of New Hampshire has arbitrarily attached pronouns to a student’s name which conveys a false message with which the student disagrees. Compelling everyone in the marketplace of ideas to express the same message about the same idea is unconstitutional. There is also no excuse for the university’s retaliatory censorship in removing the article when it simply could have granted the student’s request to remove the pronouns. USNH needs to correct this potentially costly mistake.”

Delaware unlawfully targets pregnancy centers

 WILMINGTON, Del. – On behalf of a nonprofit pregnancy center and a nonprofit network of affiliated centers, attorneys with Simms Showers and Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging a Delaware law that unconstitutionally restricts the centers’ ability to communicate freely and also forces them to speak messages that undermine their mission and mislead the public.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates is a nonprofit religious network of facilities with four member facilities in Delaware, one of which is A Door of Hope, located in Wilmington. Together, they are suing the Delaware attorney general over the unconstitutional law.

“Delaware’s law is unconstitutional, pure and simple. It is a classic example of the government compelling speech to punish those who hold differing viewpoints,” said Simms Showers Senior Associate William R. Thetford, lead counsel in this case. “The pro-life pregnancy centers we represent in this case are a force for good in Wilmington and the surrounding community, offering families true, life-affirming care and resources during unplanned or unsupported pregnancies. We are urging the court to affirm NIFLA’s members and A Door of Hope’s fundamental freedom to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment.”

“Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, state attorneys general have ramped up their efforts to silence, censor, and shut down pregnancy care centers across the country. Delaware now follows government officials in New Jersey, New York, Washington, California, and Vermont targeting these centers by forcing them to provide misleading information or by punishing them for their life-affirming viewpoints,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Delaware’s law runs afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in NIFLA v. Becerra that struck down compelled statements in advertising. We are urging the court to follow the Supreme Court’s guidance and respect pregnancy centers’ freedom to continue their life-saving work to women and families.”

Delaware’s Senate Bill 300, which will take effect in March, imposes government-compelled speech upon the pregnancy care centers by requiring them to post disclaimers within their facilities and in all their advertising materials that they do not have a licensed medical provider on staff directly supervising the provision of services. In the lawsuit, the attorneys explain how such a disclaimer is burdensome, misleading, and would limit the centers’ digital advertising options, thus impeding their freedom of speech.

Further, state officials are requiring the disclaimers to be posted solely because A Door of Hope serves pregnant women from a pro-life perspective, and not with any prerequisite that the center has engaged in any improper behavior. The law compels the content of speech and, in practice, regulates only speakers who wish to discuss the subject of pregnancy from a pro-life viewpoint rather than any other health topic.

The lawsuit points out that Delaware’s law is designed to target pro-life pregnancy care centers and burdens, restricts, chills, or in some circumstances prohibits their message altogether. It does not similarly impact pro-abortion advocacy groups, individuals, or facilities.

“Delaware clearly crossed the line when it passed, and the governor signed SB 300, which copies a government-compelled notice in pregnancy center ads that was struck down in NIFLA v. Becerra in 2018 by the U.S. Supreme Court, delivering a huge win for pregnancy centers and free speech,” said Anne O’Connor, vice president of legal affairs at NIFLA. “SB 300 is clearly unconstitutional as it destroys the free speech of pregnancy centers solely because they are pro-life and help women who are facing unplanned pregnancies. Instead of shutting down the free speech of places where women can obtain free, non-judgmental assistance, Delaware should be putting effort into how they can support these women and all the good that pregnancy centers do for the state and its residents.”

“Delaware’s law explicitly targets pro-life pregnancy centers like A Door of Hope, impeding our ability to continue serving women and men who are making decisions about pregnancies in a spirit of concern and compassion,” said Rachel Metzger, executive director of A Door of Hope. “Our mission is to empower women to make life-affirming and healthy decisions, particularly about sex, pregnancy, and relationships. It’s unlawful for the state to punish us for holding a pro-life viewpoint.”

A Door of Hope is a faith-based organization that provides both medical and nonmedical pro-life information and services for no charge to women facing unplanned or unsupported pregnancies. These services include adoption information and referrals, post-abortion support, parenting classes, pregnancy options counseling, prenatal vitamins, and baby items. A Door of Hope’s registered nurses also provide pregnancy tests and limited obstetrical ultrasounds. Its medical team consists of a volunteer medical doctor who serves as its medical director, a volunteer radiologist, and several RNs who provide its medical services.

Simms Showers and ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Jennings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Andrew Meck is serving as local counsel on behalf of the pregnancy centers.

Enforcing our immigration laws

What the pope said

By Josh Mercer, CatholicVote vice president  It’s not surprising that the pope chose to intervene in American politics. The pope is a fierce advocate for radically permissive immigration laws. Further (and not surprisingly), the pope also does not like Donald Trump – and has repeatedly publicly attacked him both as a candidate and as president. It’s notable, for example, that the term “major crisis” – or anything of the sort – was never used to critique Joe Biden’s radical abortion and trans extremism.  But the pope is the pope.  He is the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Catholics owe him respect, even when his words frustrate us. Progressive Catholics publicly disagreed with St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict, often on topics where Church teaching is not open to debate. Many Catholics today find certain comments by Pope Francis confusing and frustrating.  The point is not “do you support the pope or not,” but whether a healthy dialogue is possible, particularly on difficult questions where the moral theology of the Church allows people of good will and conscience to disagree. So what did the pope say?  The pope’s letter acknowledges the “right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes.” But his main focus was a critique of “mass deportations" and “any measure that…identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.”  In sum, the Holy Father did not condemn the deportation of dangerous criminals. But he also called on the United States to pursue the “common good” with “creativity and strict respect for the rights of all” by opposing the deportation of those who have broken our immigration laws.  We understand that the pope does not speak authoritatively on every last thing. We are not bound to agree with his favorite color or food, for example. In some cases, the pope can and has spoken “ex cathedra” or infallibly.  In the case of immigration policy we owe the Holy Father the submission of our mind and will when it comes to his primary argument involving the timeless teachings of the Church. That is, we are bound to uphold the infinite and transcendent dignity of every person, and public policies must be judged in light of this fundamental principle.  But we also understand that applying the timeless teachings of our Church to contingent circumstances requires prudence, and often involves the unique competencies of lay people – including elected public officials.  The pope himself has encouraged the laity to take up this responsibility – repeatedly. His promptings to “make a mess” and to participate in the “Synodal Way” have encouraged the input and participation of the faithful in the discernment of the Church – and appropriately so when it comes to prudential public policy solutions.  CatholicVote will always be Catholic first. We love the Holy Father, even though his interventions often seem odd, frustrating, and at times, misguided.  So here’s some questions and our take:

 

The pope seems to suggest that basic U.S. laws and rules governing immigration are both unjust and immoral. How does he square this with the clear teaching of the Catechism that nations have a right to subject immigration to laws and regulations – and that those seeking to migrate are bound to obey these laws? Specifically, is every deportation of someone that has not committed a violent crime now deemed immoral? This strikes us as reckless and nonsensical. If the transcendent dignity of every human being must be respected, what about those harmed by unregulated mass migration? What about those communities upended, including citizens whose wages and jobs have been impacted, not to mention the catastrophic consequences such a policy encourages, including illegal drugs, human and sex-trafficking, and more. Does their dignity matter? What about the impact of encouraging mass migration without restriction on migrants themselves – including those raped, trafficked and exploited by coyotes and cartels? According to reports, when Joe Biden took office, Mexican cartels carried out approximately $800 million in drugs and human trafficking. When he left office, the cartels did nearly $13 billion in “business.” $13 BILLION. The pope and many of our bishops are strangely silent on the responsibilities of the nations that migrants are fleeing. Do these nations also bear any responsibility to the vulnerable populations that are fleeing socialist and corrupt regimes? Notably absent from the Holy Father’s harsh critique of the United States is how we got here – namely, the reckless and irresponsible failure of President Biden to enforce our laws at the border, and the implicit (and sometimes subsidized) encouragement of mass migration into the United States from nearly every country in the world. Joe Biden created a mess, and now Donald Trump and JD Vance are the problem? Are blacks, Hispanics, and a majority of Catholic voters in the United States, not to mention growing majorities in countries in Europe that object to unregulated mass migration, simply xenophobic hateful bigots?

 

The fact is that mass migration is part of a globalist, progressive project to remake the world. People have migrated to better places since the beginning of time. But what is happening today is unprecedented.  Entire nations are now at risk of being destabilized, transformed, and overrun with new populations that do not share their values, traditions, language, and culture.  Ask yourself who is benefitting from this push?  Is mass, largely unregulated, migration truly what’s best for migrants themselves – and the communities they occupy?  When communities are destabilized and inevitable civic unrest, violence, and even war comes, who will be to blame?  When Barack Obama deported more than 2 million immigrants in his first term (and a few million more in his second term) – including many who had simply broken our immigration laws – did the pope issue a “major crisis” letter? No.  When the pope spoke at the White House in 2014, he focused on climate change.   There is more (much more) that can be said.  I fear those closest to the pope have failed to give him the full picture, including of the situation in the United States.   Let’s not forget: Trump inherited a full-fledged humanitarian crisis when he took office. To repeat just a few of the numbers: 300,000 migrant children have gone missing. 68% of migrants reported being victims of violence during their trek to the United States, including one-third of women who said they were sexually abused.   In the United States, gangs like Tren de Aragua took over entire apartment complexes. Americans and migrants alike have lost their lives.  Remember Laken Riley?  CatholicVote has never argued that the United States should turn a blind eye to the plight of the vulnerable and the legitimate plight of those seeking a better life.  Many Catholics immigrated to the United States – legally and willingly subjecting themselves to the laws of the country that welcomed us.  We take seriously the moral promptings of the Holy Father.   But in this case, his intervention raises more questions than answers.  We need more voices – including more U.S. Bishops – to help Catholics think with the Church on this issue.  As a lay organization, we continue to support the enforcement of U.S. law – now focused on deporting the “worst first.”  At least on that, the Holy Father agrees.  I hope.

 

New federal numbers: most job growth went to migrants

The latest employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that 88% of all job growth in the past five years has gone to immigrants, with the majority of the workers lacking legal status.  READ