Young v. UPS Roundtable

The United States Supreme Court will soon be ruling on the question of when employers must accommodate the needs of pregnant employees under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas joined with 22 other prolife organizations and Judicial Education Project in filing an amicus brief urging a broad interpretation. Watch the video to understand the arguments in the case. Comments by the Teresa Collett, President of UFL and the Director of the Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas begin at the 45 minute marker. You can read the brief at

 HT Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas.

Colosi writes homily hints

UFL member and moral theologian Peter Colosi has been asked by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia Office for the New Evangelization to write “Homily Ideas” once a month from November, 2014 thru August 2015 in Preparation for the World Meeting of Families. The most recent “Homily Ideas” are posted each month on the official World Meeting of Families webpage. If you scroll down at this link you can see the most recent one “February 2015 Homily Ideas” and below that to all the previous ones. The “Homily Ideas” are related to the Catechesis that was prepared especially for this event, which has 10 chapters, thus each month relates in order to the chapters and the idea is for the priest to do one homily a month to prepare his parishioners for WMOF.

Carter v. Canada

Here are a couple of articles on today’s decision from the Supreme Court of Canada invalidating laws banning physician assisted suicide. The Court overruled its earlier decision in the Rodriguez case, which had rejected a constitutional challenge to such laws.

I haven’t yet had a chance to read the decision. John Keown wrote a terrific article on the Carter case before the Court’s decision.

Conference: Healing of Human Enhancement?

“The Center for Cultural and Pastoral Research is pleased to announce a symposium on “Healing or Human Enhancement? The Future of Medicine” at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America on April 17-18, 2015….

“This symposium will discuss the profound questions surrounding the new possibilities not only for healing but also for so-called human “enhancement” by exploring the effect these have on our expectation of health and the practice of contemporary medicine.”

For more details see: the Center for Cultural and Pastoral Research.

Hat tip: Siobhan Maloney

Reflections on Roe v. Wade and the March for Life

Even though the New York Times and other media outlets routinely ignore the March for Life, the annual March on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade is one of the most significant phenomena in recent American history. In its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court thought it settled the abortion controversy. The New York Times thought so too. Yet, over 40 years later, hundreds of thousands of selfless Americans show up in Washington, D.C. in the middle of winter to protest the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade and to support the culture of life.

In Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court invalidated the abortion laws of every state in the Union and effectively required abortion on demand during all nine months of pregnancy. In later decisions (e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992), the Court gave the states more freedom to regulate abortions. But despite what some say, the Casey decision was not a moderate decision. States still have no power to prohibit abortion at any time during pregnancy.

The legal defects in Roe v. Wade were apparent from the very beginning. John Hart Ely, a supporter of abortion rights, noted that Roe “is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”  The Court simply invented a constitutional right to abortion. Moreover, the Court ignored the reality that every abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. The Court, in a false gesture of humility, said that it didn’t need to decide the difficult question of when life begins. But the Court did decide this question when it concluded that unborn children have no rights that the state is bound to respect.

Everyone understands that Roe is not a plausible reading of the Constitution. The decision is, as Michael Paulsen has noted, a running joke in constitutional law circles. Yet, the Court has continually reaffirmed Roe, in large part it seems because some of the Justices think it would undermine the Court’s authority to admit its mistake.

The errors in the Court’s “reasoning” in Roe and in Casey’s ruling to stand by Roe lest people lose confidence in the Court have been well documented for many years. (I summarized these errors in an article I wrote on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. )

I think that eventually the Court will overrule Roe v. Wade. This development will undoubtedly be due in significant part to the efforts of those who have participated in the March for Life for all of these years.

In our system, “We the People” have the final word on the great questions of life and death. Judges can’t really “settle” these issues. This sometimes takes decades but eventually the will of the people will prevail.

We can, I think, see the tide turning. The Court’s abortion decisions have not been accepted. There is constant resistance to Roe among judges, legislators, academics, and in the broader culture. Roe is in many respects an outlier. For example, unborn children have increasingly been accorded protections in other areas of the law. In a recent opinion holding that Alabama’s chemical endangerment statute protected the unborn, one of the Justices on the Alabama Supreme Court commented: “The decision of this Court today is in keeping with the widespread legal recognition that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law. Today, the only major area in which unborn children are denied legal protection is abortion, and that deal is only because of the dictates of Roe. Roe has become increasingly isolated on this point, as on many others.”

And Roe hasn’t been accepted in the broader culture. As Clarke Forsythe noted in his excellent book on Roe v. Wade, “What makes abortion uniquely controversial is that the Justices have sided with a small sect–7 percent of Americans–who support abortion for any reason at any time. And the Justices have for forty years prevented the 60-70 percent of Americans in the middle from deciding differently. The conflict between public opinion and the Supreme Court’s nationwide policy is one key reason why Roe is uniquely controversial.”

The March for Life is evidence of this. Every year, huge crowds filled with young people assemble in Washington, D.C. to protest the Court’s decision and to support the culture of life. These hundreds of thousands understand that the Court didn’t settle this issue. They understand that despite what the Court said in Casey the Court does not “speak before all others for their constitutional ideals.” In addition, the marchers understand that there is hope for the eventual reversal of Roe v. Wade and for the ultimate protection of the unborn.

Although the March for Life is largely ignored by the media, the energy and passion and joy of those who stand for life are helping to keep the issue abortion alive. The errors of Roe v. Wade and the decision’s negative consequences are more apparent with every passing year. In the end, the truth about the humanity of the unborn and of the importance of protecting the dignity of every human life will prevail.

March for Life coverage

See the links below. I still find it hard to believe how the March is downplayed in places such as the New York Times. I looked through the Times this morning and found a half a sentence referring to the March. That phrase mentioned that there were “thousands” of people in attendance.

Richard M.