Collett on Texas HB2

Teresa Collett wrote a full explanation of the legal situation in  the Texas case before the Supreme Court, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole. “Texas Faces Abortion Showdown,” in the National Catholic Register. 

Moschella on the pope’s in-flight interview

Melissa Moschella, Professor of Philosophy at Catholic University of America and UFL Board member was quoted in the National Catholic Register article, Pope’s Words on Contraception in Accord With Magisterium, Philosophers Say, but Context Is Key, by Edward Pentin. She was explaining why Pope Paul VI’s decision to allow nuns in danger of being raped to use contraceptives was not an exception to the Church’s teaching that contraception is always wrong, since it is not an attempt to thwart the unitive and procreative meaning of a human sexual act.

Briefs in the Whole Woman’s Health case

Here is a post from Teresa Collett (as posted on the Mirror of Justice blog by Greg Sisk) concerning the Whole Woman’s Health case (the Texas abortion case currently pending before the United States Supreme Court).


On March 2 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a challenge to a Texas statute requiring abortion clinics meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and doctors providing abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. Plaintiffs claim that enforcement of these requirements will cause the closing of 75% of all abortion clinics in the state, which should be considered an undue burden per se. They also argue that the requirements do little or nothing to advance the health and safety of women, given the comparative safety of abortion over carrying a child to term. Texas responds that two to three Texas women end up in emergency rooms every week due to complications from abortion. The requirements advance women’s safety by assuring that abortions occur in facilities that are equipped to respond to complications that arise during an abortion, and the admitting privileges provide a second check of a doctor’s competency as well as promoting continuity of care should a woman need hospitalization,

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, several legal scholars, a variety of medical associations, University Faculty for Life, and the Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas lined up on the side of Texas in their amicus briefs. These briefs are available on <> , ABA Supreme Court preview, and the Texas Attorney General website at

editing the human genome

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in Great Britain has given approval for the Francis Crick Institute in London to begin altering the DNA in embryos. The embryos will be acquired through in vitro fertilization procedures and are to be killed after 14 days of life. Such callous disregard for human life reveals the inhumanity of in vitro fertilization procedures and human genome editing.

Stith quoted in March for Life article

UFL member Richard Stith was quoted in an article by Terry Mattingly of GetReligion about the March for Life called “Define ‘hundreds,’ please: New York Times does epic job of dissin’ March For Life.”

Among those in the crowd was Richard Stith, 71, an Indiana law professor who called himself a part of a segment he dubbed “lefties for life” – people who he said view abortion opposition as part of a broader “consistent ethic for life.” In that, he said, is an opposition to the death penalty and any violence against LGBT people. He said he had been a member of a group called Socialists for Life as well and always felt welcome at the march.


US Supreme Court refuses to review decision invalidating North Dakota’s heartbeat law

On Monday January 25, 2016, the US Supreme refused to review the 8th Circuit’s decision invalidating North Dakota’s heartbeat law. (MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Stenehjem, 795 F. 3d 768 (8th Cir. 2015).) The North Dakota law banned abortions when the unborn child has a detectable heartbeat. The Eighth Circuit considered itself bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The 8th Circuit did note, however, that “good reasons exist for the Court to evaluate its jurisprudence.” Among other reasons, the lower court noted that the Supreme Court’s case law “discounts the legislative branch’s recognized interest in protecting unborn children.”

At this time, the Court doesn’t appear interested in considering cases that attack Roe/Casey directly.