Washington D.C., Mar 28, 2015 / 06:25 am (CNA).- A recent ruling from the Supreme Court to clarify workplace protections for pregnant women will help remedy some of the pressure placed on working women to abort rather than continue pregnancies, pro-life legal experts say. “We’re very pleased to see the outcome here,” Clarke Forsythe, chief counsel for Americans United For Life, told CNA. “There needs to be strong protection against pregnancy discrimination because women are discriminated against, because we have legalized abortion. Unfortunately, people think that because women have a right to abort, they should abort in some circumstances, especially when there may be workplace conflicts.” On March 25, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Young v. UPS that Peggy Young should get another chance to argue before a lower court that her former employer, United Parcel Service, treated her unfairly by forcing her to take unpaid leave when a doctor advised that she take lighter duty while pregnant.  In addition to refusing to reassign Young, UPS also revoked Young’s medical coverage during her unpaid leave period. She later left the company. The Fourth Circuit earlier ruled that UPS had not violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, because the employer treated pregnant workers similarly to those injured off-the-job. At the time, UPS offered accommodations only to persons in specific categories, such as those who had been injured on the job, those with conditions covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act or those who lost a license to drive a commercial vehicle. Young argued that since the company does have accommodations for other persons with temporary work restrictions, the refusal to accommodate her limitations during pregnancy was illegal discrimination, under the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer questioned both lines of argument, creating a decision that compromised between the arguments of UPS and Young. If employers do accommodate some temporary physical limitations and disabilities, the court ruled, it must also accommodate pregnancy, as well as other temporary conditions. Employers can still deny accommodation of pregnancy-related limitations for some non-discriminatory reasons, but not for the reason that “it is more expensive or less convenient” to extend these accommodations to pregnant women. The court did not clarify what these non-discriminatory reasons could be. The court also ruled that women would be able “to show disparate treatment through indirect evidence,” meaning that they do not need to prove that they themselves were discriminated against so long as there is a clear pattern of unequal treatment of pregnant employees. The majority opinion required that Young’s case be brought back to the Fourth Circuit to be decided under these guidelines because of a “genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from Young's.” In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito echoed the majority opinion’s points, commenting that UPS did not show it had “any neutral business ground for treating pregnant drivers less favorably than at least some of its nonpregnant drivers who were reassigned to other jobs that they were physically capable of performing." However, not all of the justices agreed with the court’s majority opinion. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, penned a dissent that questioned the method by which the court reached its compromise. The dissenting justices did not disagree with the idea that pregnant women should be accommodated, but rather objected to what they saw as the majority’s failure to perform its job of upholding the current law of the land, regardless of how desirable the court may find it. The majority ruling, Scalia wrote, creates a “new law that is splendidly unconnected with the text and even the legislative history of the act.” Instead of ruling on existing laws, he critiqued, the majority opinion of the court “seems to think our task is to craft a policy-driven compromise between the possible readings of the law, like a congressional conference committee reconciling House and Senate versions of a bill.” Likening the crafting of the majority’s compromise to using a “Supreme Wand to produce the desired result. Poof!” the justice harshly criticized the decision. “Inventiveness posing as scholarship – which gives us an interpretation that is as dubious in principle as it is senseless in practice,” he wrote. In a concurring dissent, Justice Kennedy reinforced his disagreement over the legal reasoning for the ruling while noting his concern for the treatment of pregnancy as a workplace-equality issue. While the case only dealt with one aspect of protections surrounding pregnancy, Kennedy wrote, the “difficulties pregnant women face in the workplace are and do remain an issue of national importance.” Sharon Gustafson, who has served as counsel for Peggy Young for eight years, told CNA that the issue of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace “still happens, and it still happens a lot.” “I believe that no woman should have to choose between continuing her pregnancy and continuing her job, especially in a situation where the employer makes all sorts of accommodations for non-pregnant employees,” she said, adding that while “we still have a lot of work to do on this case,” overall, she was happy with the decision. “What it means is that employers are no longer going to be able to discriminate against pregnant women and feel safe doing so.” Forsythe commented that this ruling could help to reverse pressures put on pregnant women to abort their children if they wish to remain in the workplace. “Pregnancy discrimination is one of the unfortunate consequences of the Supreme Court’s abortion decision in Roe v. Wade,” he explained. “Roe taught that abortion is a quick, easy, less-expensive choice,” which, Forsythe continued, “resulted in considerable pressure on some pregnant women to abort.” This pressure and discrimination, he explained, is felt in the workplace, and particularly among poor women who are confronted with free, taxpayer-funded abortion in addition to other pressures from employers or uncommitted partners. This ruling, he said, should “strengthen pregnant women’s hands in the workplace by enabling them to ask for accommodations that are given to others.” He commended the court for recognizing the “problem of pregnancy discrimination and the need for strong protection against pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.” Before the case was argued before the Supreme Court in December 2014, Americans United for Life and 22 other pro-life organizations filed a brief to the court supporting Young’s case. The brief argued, among other points, for the court to respect the Pregnancy Discrimination Act’s recognition of the “important a role pregnancy plays in women’s lives” and in society, as well as the unique and “fundamental right to bear children” that women have.   Read more

Indianapolis, Ind., Mar 27, 2015 / 05:32 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Despite media hype, a new Indiana law is not based on anti-gay discrimination, but on a 20-year legal precedent of protecting the rights of religious individuals and charitable organizations... Read more

Washington D.C., Mar 27, 2015 / 04:04 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Firing squads, gas chambers and the electric chair – these types of execution may seem like methods of the past, but some states in the U.S. are bringing them back, prompting a debate about the most humane form of the death penalty, or whether the very idea is a contradiction in terms. “I think we’re at a critical point right now where the myth that lethal injection was swift, effective and painless has been destroyed,” said Robert Dunham, director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “And there’s kind of an irony here, because lethal injection was the choice when states were moving away from other more extreme, more overtly violent forms of execution.” On Monday, Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) signed a bill to legalize a five-person firing squad as the official back-up method of execution for the state, should it be unable to obtain the three drugs necessary for lethal injection. Utah is not alone in rethinking its death penalty. Recent botched executions in states including Ohio, Oklahoma and Arizona, coupled with a shortage of the necessary drugs have several other states reconsidering the lethal injection method as well. Alabama is looking to revive the electric chair, which became the back-up method of execution in Tennessee last year. In four states – Wyoming, Arizona, California, and Missouri – gas chambers are the legal back-up method of execution after lethal injection. And in New Hampshire and Washington, hanging is a legal option. The shift to more violent means of execution in some states is forcing society to confront the uncomfortable reality of the death penalty, Dunham told CNA. “Here’s the bottom line: executions are by their very nature a violent act,” he said. “When you are terminating the life of a person against their will, that’s a violent act, and people are uncomfortable with sanctioning violence.” “They were less uncomfortable with lethal injection when it had the appearance of being peaceful. That is no longer tenable.” Rep. Paul Ray (R), who sponsored the firing squad legislation in Utah, told the Los Angeles Times that he was aware of complaints about the firing squad being less humane. “We could argue all day about what is more humane,” he said. “I think any time you have to take a human life, there may be a way to dress it up and make it look nice, but my concern is make sure that there is justice for the victim.” But while some states are arguing over which methods of execution are most humane, others are looking at moving away from the death penalty altogether. The death penalty has been trending down in the country for some time. There are 26 U.S. states and jurisdictions with no executions carried out in at least 10 years. Just last year, the country executed 35 inmates, a two-decade low. Fewer states carried out executions and there were fewer people sentenced to death in the first place, according to the Death Penalty Information Center’s 2014 end of the year report. Some of the shift away from capital punishment has been the result of botched executions. Last year, inmates in at least three different states were observed gasping for breath, choking, convulsing, and clenching their fists. In one case, an inmate took nearly two hours to die. In another, an inmate died of a massive heart attack half an hour being administered the lethal drugs. Lethal injection is generally performed using a three-drug cocktail. The first drug is an anesthetic, the second is a paralytic, and the third is the killing agent. The paralytic, Dunham said, is not present for any medical purpose, but rather to give the appearance of a peaceful passing, regardless of what may be going on interiorly in the person. But when some of all of the drugs fail in some way, it shatters the illusion of a non-violent death. “These latest botched executions have destroyed the myth that lethal injection is peaceful; and lethal injection was preferred because it was less disturbing to the public,” he said. Further driving states away from lethal injection is the inaccessibility of the lethal drugs. Dunham said many pharmaceutical companies do not want to be associated with the taking of life, and have therefore stopped providing the lethal drugs. This causes states to look for companies abroad, but since the European Union holds the death penalty as a violation of human rights, it is illegal for European pharmaceutical companies to sell the drugs to the United States. Some states obtain the drugs through what are known as compounding pharmacies, which are less regulated. Dunham voiced concern over the lack of quality assurance with these pharmacies, adding that they have been known to distribute contaminated drugs in the past. Furthermore, many doctors refuse to participate in executions, as they violate the Hippocratic Oath. This means whoever is administering the lethal injections may have sub-par medical training. Combine this with the questionable drugs, and the margin for error and botched executions is pretty significant, Dunham said. Given all of these problems, many states are struggling with what to do next. Three states – Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania – have already put a temporary halt to the death penalty. And while state returning to firing squads and electric chairs make good headlines, there are at least 13 states where bills have been introduced to abolish the punishment altogether. Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City, Utah, expressed his dismay at his state’s return to the firing squad in a statement released Tuesday, March 24. The real issue, he said, is not the method of killing but the death penalty itself. “Only God can give and take life,” he said. “By taking a life, in whatever form the death penalty is carried out, the state is usurping the role of God. Execution does violence to God’s time, eliminating the opportunity for God’s redemptive and forgiving grace to work in the life of a prisoner.” Bishop Wester encouraged Utah’s governor and legislature to pass a moratorium on the death penalty, and to look at moving away from the “state-sanctioned destruction of human life” altogether before the next execution occurs. Pope Francis has also addressed the issue of the death penalty on several occasions, most recently in a letter last week to Federico Mayor, president of the International Commission against the Death Penalty. “There is discussion in some quarters about the method of killing, as if it were possible to find ways of 'getting it right'…But there is no humane way of killing another person,” the Pope said, emphasizing, “Nowadays the death penalty is inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed.” Under Catholic teaching, the death penalty is a matter of prudential judgement, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church offers guidance in how to think about its application. The Catechism teaches that the death penalty is acceptable “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” However, it adds, such cases today “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent,” wording that was added from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Evangelium vitae. Anthony Granado, who serves as a policy advisor for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ domestic social development office, told CNA he believes that United States definitely falls under the category of countries in which the death penalty should be “practically nonexistent.” “The issue about violent criminals killing prison guards or other prisoners is not an argument for further use of the death penalty, but for reforming prisons,” he said, “and the bishops here in the United States are very much in favor of criminal justice reform.” The Church does not teach against life in prison without parole, Granado noted, but these cases should be decided very carefully and on an individual basis. Dunham agreed that the death penalty is generally speaking not necessary in to protect the public in the U.S. He pointed to studies indicating that a country is no safer when the death penalty is in place. “We’re not dealing with the Wild West and whether a dangerous criminal can be safely held in a small-town sheriff’s lock-up,” he said, “we’re dealing with super maxes.”   Part of the problem, Dunham argued, is that most people in the United States have not thought seriously about the death penalty. Europeans, who experienced more immediately the horrors of World War II, were quicker to abolish the death penalty because taking life had become “unpalatable,” he said. Once people become more informed, they tend to favor abolition of the death penalty, Dunham said. “I think as each of these different issues comes to light, the public becomes more informed. And as the public becomes more informed, its views change. And its views have been changing consistently in the same direction.”    The issue may soon take the national stage, as U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments next months in Glossip vs. Gross, a botched execution case out of Oklahoma. The court is expected to rule later this year whether lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.     Read more

Denver, Colo., Mar 27, 2015 / 02:04 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Two rather new orders of religious sisters looking to expand their missions have set their sights on the Archdiocese of Denver.   The New York-based Sisters of Life and the Rome-based Missionaries of St. Charles Borromeo will establish houses and begin their missions in the archdiocese by August of this year. In their first expansion to the western United States, the Sisters of Life will send four sisters to begin their mission in Denver. Besides the traditional religious vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, Sisters of Life take a fourth vow to protect and enhance the sacredness of every human life. The order is a contemplative and active community of women whose apostolate includes ministering to pregnant women in need, providing healing for post-abortive women, and fostering the “Culture of Life”. Founded just over 20 years ago in 1991 by Cardinal John O’Connor, the community currently has 88 members, 23 of whom are in some initial stage of formation. When considering where to expand the mission, Mother Agnes Mary, Superior General of the Sisters of Life, said the sisters asked themselves: “Where will the charism of life flourish to [the] greatest benefit of a local Church?” “While there is great vibrancy within the Church in Denver, we believe that we are prepared to offer the unique gift of being a visible witness to the Church’s proclamation of the dignity and mystery of every human life,” she told the Archdiocese.  The sisters plan on starting their mission with evangelization efforts that focus on young adults and college students on campuses including the University of Colorado, Boulder; Colorado State University, Fort Collins; and the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley. The Missionaries of St. Charles Borromeo are a fruit of the Communion and Liberation Movement, which has a large U.S. base in the Archdiocese of Denver. The order will send two sisters, Sister Elena Rondelli and Sister Maria Anna Sangiorgio, to Nativity parish in Broomfield to assist with various aspects of parish life. “They gave a lot of thought to where they’d open this next house,” said Father Michael Carvill, pastor of Nativity. “I’m very honored to have them.” Fr. Carvill is a priest of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Charles Borromeo, whose community inspired the founding of the order of religious sisters in the early 2000s. Both the fraternity and the religious sisters follow the charism of Msgr. Luigi Guissani, who founded the Communion and Liberation movement in 1954. The movement is currently present in more than 80 countries, though the Denver foundation will be the order's first in the US. According to their website, the goal of the movement is “forming its members in Christianity in order to make them coworkers in the Church’s mission in all areas of society.” The sisters’ duties at Nativity parish will include assisting with Eucharistic adoration, youth groups, and visiting the sick and homebound.   “They’re going to start their mission by serving Nativity Parish,” Father Carvill said. “Then they’ll do what the Lord will open up to them.” Read more