By Kate Scanlon
WASHINGTON (OSV News) – Some immigrant religious workers are facing legal limbo, and Catholic advocates are pushing the Trump administration to address the backlog in their visa category.

Many immigrant religious workers, such as Catholic priests and nuns, legally enter the country on R-1 non-immigrant religious worker visas. These are initially granted for a 30-month period, with one possible renewal allowing for a total of five years. During that window, they can apply for employment-based EB-4 status to remain in the U.S. without interruption.

“One of the challenges is that because the number of green cards that are issued every year is not representative of the number of people that are eligible,” said Erin Corcoran, associate teaching professor and executive director of the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

That backlog could have a grave impact on the church in the U.S. The National Study of Catholic Priests, released in 2022 by The Catholic University of America’s Catholic Project, indicated 24% of priests serving in the U.S. are foreign-born.

In April, bipartisan legislation, the Religious Workforce Protection Act, was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; and Jim Risch, R-Idaho, and in the House by Reps. Mike Carey, R-Ohio, and Richard Neal, D-Mass. All five are Catholic.

If signed into law, the bill would permit religious workers already in the U.S. on temporary R-1 status with pending EB-4 applications to stay in the U.S. while waiting for permanent residency, Collins’ office said.
Catholic organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Jesuit Refugee Service/USA and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), have backed the legislation.

A USCCB spokesperson told OSV News on Aug. 6, “We’re continuing our education efforts about the pressing need for the RWPA.”

“We remain hopeful that Congress will have an opportunity to move the bill forward before the end of the year,” the spokesperson said.

Corcoran said the legislation would allow, for example, a Catholic priest with temporary R-1 status to move from one parish to another in accordance with diocesan needs.

The bill would not increase the limit on how many visas are granted.

“It’s a very modest fix,” she said.

Despite bipartisan support, it was not immediately clear what the prospects might be for the bill once lawmakers return from their August recess, or whether President Donald Trump would sign it.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment from OSV News by publication time on whether the Trump administration would support the bill.

Dylan Corbett, executive director of the Hope Border Institute, told OSV News, “Congress and the Trump administration have a good opportunity to make an urgent targeted fix to ensure clergy and religious from abroad serving our communities throughout the country don’t become casualties of an increasingly broken immigration system.”

Corcoran said, “We’ve seen so little bipartisan solutions to problems, and we all benefit from these people being in our parishes.”

Advocacy for the bill comes as the Trump administration seeks to implement hardline immigration policies, including its pursuit of what it has called “the largest deportation in U.S. history.”

However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in an Aug. 7 interview with Raymond Arroyo on EWTN’s The World Over that the administration is trying to “create its own standalone process” for religious workers, instead of having them conflated with other immigration categories.

“And I’ve been in touch, for example, with a number of our cardinals here in the United States and bishops about that as well,” Rubio said. “We don’t want to read headlines that some Catholic Church had to close because it couldn’t get their priests here … some order closed because some nun couldn’t get here.”

Congress is scheduled to return from its August recess in early September.

By Kate Scanlon
WASHINGTON (OSV News) – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reportedly closed off a pathway for citizenship for immigrants who apply for green cards through a spouse or other family members, raising the prospect of deporting them and breaking up their families.

NBC News reported that new guidance issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services made a change to its policy manual stating that federal immigration authorities may begin removal proceedings for those seeking legal status through a spouse or other relative.

“Petitioners and alien beneficiaries should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal,” the guidance said.

In an Aug. 1 memo about the policy change, USCIS said, “Fraudulent, frivolous, or otherwise non-meritorious family-based immigrant visa petitions erode confidence in family-based pathways to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and undermine the immigration system in the United States.”

“USCIS must ensure that qualifying marriages and family relationships are genuine, verifiable, and compliant with all applicable laws,” the memo said.

Dylan Corbett, executive director of the Hope Border Institute, a group that works to apply the perspective of Catholic social teaching in policy and practice to the U.S.-Mexico border region, told OSV News, “The administration continues to insist that they are simply targeting criminals in immigration enforcement operations, but that’s not what is happening.”

“They are deploying ICE agents to arrest people showing up to their immigration hearings,” Corbett said. “They are taking away people’s legal status and making them undocumented by revoking their parole and TPS. And now they are threatening to go after those trying to pursue lawful residency.”

On social media, USCIS argued it was “consolidating and clarifying certain requirements for family-based immigration” to “increase the integrity and security of our immigration processes.”

But Corbett argued, “Rather than trying to rack up numbers with an indiscriminate mass deportation campaign, we should be focusing on offering legal pathways to migrants who are desperate to do things the right way.”

“That’s something everybody can agree on,” he said.

(Kate Scanlon is a national reporter for OSV News covering Washington. Follow her on X @kgscanlon.)

By Kate Scanlon
WASHINGTON (OSV News) – President Donald Trump on July 4 signed a reconciliation bill enacting much of his legislative agenda on taxes and immigration during an Independence Day ceremony at the White House.

“Our country has had so much to celebrate this Independence Day as we enter our 249th year. America’s winning, winning, winning like never before,” Trump said in comments at the ceremony.

“We have officially made the Trump tax cuts permanent,” he added. “That’s the largest tax cut in the history of our country. … After this kicks in, our country is going to be a rocket ship, economically.”
Previously, the U.S. House on July 3 approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in a 218-214 vote.

The Senate earlier approved the reconciliation package on July 1, after Trump urged them to do so by July 4.

Catholic leaders have alternately praised and criticized various provisions in the legislation. But in a July 1 action alert emailed to its supporters, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ultimately said the bill “currently fails the poorest families.”

Only two Republicans – Reps. Thomas Massie, Ky., and Brian Fitzpatrick, Pa., – voted against the measure. Massie cited the bill’s projected increase to the national debt, while Fitzpatrick, who is Catholic, cited the way Medicaid cuts would impact his district.

Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, USCCB president and head of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services, said in a July 3 statement after the vote, that he and the bishops had “repeatedly and consistently” urged lawmakers to make sure the bill would help families in need and “to change course” on aspects “that fail the poor and vulnerable.”

“The final version of the bill includes unconscionable cuts to healthcare and food assistance, tax cuts that increase inequality, immigration provisions that harm families and children, and cuts to programs that protect God’s creation,” Archbishop Broglio said. “The bill, as passed, will cause the greatest harm to those who are especially vulnerable in our society. As its provisions go into effect, people will lose access to healthcare and struggle to buy groceries, family members will be separated, and vulnerable communities will be less prepared to cope with environmental impacts of pollution and extreme weather.”

The USCCB president said, “More must be done to prevent these devastating effects.” He noted the church’s own teaching on human dignity and the common good compels it “to redouble our efforts and offer concrete help to those who will be in greater need and continue to advocate for legislative efforts that will provide better possibilities in the future for those in need.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at a press conference following the vote, that Republicans “did not want to waste that opportunity” of having control of both chambers of Congress and the White House to enact Trump’s agenda.

“A lot of the estimations about what this legislation would do in a negative manner to communities in my state or any other are far overblown,” Johnson said when asked about criticism of the bill from faith groups in his state. “I can tell you that this bill is going to be a great thing for everybody around the country, my constituents, especially. What’s good for Louisiana is good for America.”

During his eight hour and 44 minute floor speech – part of a House procedure known as the “magic minute” where members in leadership can speak for as long as they please during “one minute” speeches without subtracting the extra time from the debate, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y said, “I rise today in strong opposition to Donald Trump’s disgusting abomination.”

Jeffries said the legislation “guts Medicaid, rips food from the mouths of children, seniors and veterans, and rewards billionaires with massive tax breaks.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated nearly 12 million people will lose health coverage under the legislation.

Ingrid Delgado, national director of public policy and advocacy for The Society of St. Vincent de Paul USA, told OSV News “such large cuts to the social safety net are really concerning, with how it’ll impact our most marginalized.”

“The Catholic Church approaches both access to food and health care as fundamental human rights,” Delgado said. “And so the people who access SNAP in our country and the people who access Medicaid are our most marginalized and poorest brothers and sisters.”

Delgado said cuts to those programs could lead to “more people who are uninsured, who don’t have food on their tables, and more people facing the risk of homelessness.”

The legislation will significantly increase funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, and Customs and Border Patrol as the Trump administration seeks to implement its hardline immigration policies, including the mass deportation of immigrants lacking legal authorization to live and work in the U.S. It authorized about $150 billion in new spending for immigration and border enforcement. Prior to the bill’s passage, Vice President JD Vance touted immigration enforcement as the key reason he thought Congressional Republicans should approve the bill.

Others celebrated a provision in the legislation that would strip funds from Planned Parenthood for only one year – down from an original proposal of 10 years – with funding resumed thereafter.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told OSV News the day before the House vote that “this is the possible culminating point of the first year where federal taxpayers are not forced to fund Big Abortion and that would be huge.”

In a fundraising pitch on its website, Planned Parenthood said the impact of the legislation “will be immediate and devastating.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the legislation would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034. The U.S. national debt currently stands at $36.2 trillion, and has downstream impacts on the rest of society.

A June 26 letter to senators from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops praised the provision that would strip funds from Planned Parenthood while opposing others that they said would raise taxes “on the working poor while simultaneously giving large tax cuts to the wealthiest.” The letter added, “Because of this, millions of poor families will not be able to afford life-saving healthcare and will struggle to buy food for their children. Some rural hospitals will likely close.” The bishops called these provisions “unconscionable and unacceptable.”

The same day 20 U.S. Catholic bishops signed onto an interfaith effort urging the Senate to reject the bill, citing cuts to nutrition assistance and Medicaid, and its impact on immigrants among other concerns, calling it “draconian” and a “moral failure.”

(Kate Scanlon is a national reporter for OSV News covering Washington. Follow her on X @kgscanlon.)

More online at Mississippi Catholic.com

Read how 20 U.S. bishops joined an interfaith effort calling the legislation a “moral failure” at: http://bit.ly/3ImH0e2

For an in-depth analysis on how the bill’s costs could hit the poor hardest, visit: http://bit.ly/46aZHeF

By Kimberley Heatherington , OSV News

(OSV News) — It’s a question with profound implications for millions of Americans: With the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” signed into law July 4, will families thrive or languish? Will poverty increase, or decrease? Will more go hungry, or will more be fed?

In a record-breaking eight-plus hours speech from the floor of the House, Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. declared, “Republicans are trying to take a chainsaw to Social Security, a chain saw to Medicare, a chain saw to Medicaid, a chainsaw to the health care of the American people, a chain saw to nutritional assistance for hungry children, a chain saw to farm country, and a chainsaw to vulnerable Americans.”

After the bill passed, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., rejected pessimistic evaluations.

“I think a lot of the estimations about what this legislation would do in a negative manner to communities, in my state or any other, are far overblown. I can tell you that this bill is going be a great thing for everybody around the country,” Johnson said. “I think they’re going to feel this pretty quickly. Wages will rise; I think household income will go up; I think the job participation rate will increase dramatically; I think unemployment will be low.”

“This is jet fuel for the economy,” concluded Johnson. “And all boats are going to rise.”

Given dueling political assessments, how should Catholics judge future outcomes of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act?

“A basic moral test,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated in its website resources concerning the impoverished, “is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.”

After the bill’s passage, Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services, president of the USCCB, issued a statement saying, “The bill, as passed, will cause the greatest harm to those who are especially vulnerable in our society.” He cited what he described as “unconscionable cuts to health care and food assistance, tax cuts that increase inequality, immigration provisions that harm families and children, and cuts to programs that protect God’s creation.”

The bill — estimated to cut $930 billion from Medicaid, $285 billion from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — also increases the national debt on paper by $3.4 trillion, with interest pushing the bill closer to $4 trillion. According to a CATO Institute analysis of Congressional Budget Office numbers, President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign could add another $1 trillion to the debt by wiping out the predicted deficit reduction from 8.7 immigrants — including unauthorized, paroled, or asylum-seeker immigrants — that entered the U.S. during the Biden administration and have contributed to the economy.

“These cuts are going to have a staggering impact on the poor,” said John Berry, national president of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul USA, “and on people that are in the most desperate need.”

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul USA provides more than $1.7 billion in aid to more than 5 million people every year through person-to-person services, food pantries, disaster response, and more.

“There is no one that we’re supporting at this point that is not going to be negatively impacted by this bill,” Berry told OSV News. “Everybody that we serve is going to be hurt. Whether it’s the elderly, whether it’s the poor, whether it’s children — they’re all going to be hurt.”

Medicaid provides health coverage for 71.4 million Americans. New federal work rules and eligibility changes could pose complications for recipients. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office earlier projected approximately 7.8 million people could become uninsured by 2034 due to the cuts.

Reductions in SNAP could impact 40 million people — including 16 million children, 8 million seniors and 4 million disabled adults — according to the Washington-based Center of Budget and Policy Priorities. The CBPP also projects that about 600,000 low-income households could find their SNAP benefits — formerly called “food stamps” — cut by an average of $100 per month.

Nearly 28 million adults nationwide — 12.5% of the adult population — live in homes where there was either sometimes or often not enough to eat in the previous week, according to 2023 data from the Census Bureau.

On June 27, Berry urged Congress to protect Medicaid and SNAP, acknowledging “the fiscal pressures that Congress and our nation must address. But we must also ask why the poor must suffer the most — and suffer they will.”

“The tax cuts that are being pushed through for people that don’t need them are being paid for by taking money away from the people that most desperately need it,” Berry said.

He also predicted a resulting rise in homelessness.

In 2024, the rate of homelessness was the highest since the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2007 began keeping statistics.

Cuts to federal housing assistance, Berry predicted, are “only going to drive more people into homelessness because they are going to be forced into a situation where they have to decide between whether they’re going to pay their rent or take their medicines, pay their rent or eat, pay their rent or feed their kids.

“And those totally unacceptable decisions,” he said, “are going to drive more and more people into the street.”

Given the extent of federal and state reductions, nonprofits are not prepared to cover the resulting gaps, Berry advised.

The density of the bill — 1,118 pages for the House version, 870 pages in the Senate — was enough to confound even the most politically inquisitive.

“There is so much in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” said Lelaine Bigelow, executive director of the Georgetown Center for Poverty and Inequality. “And everyday Americans really don’t have time to focus on the thousands of little provisions that are in there.”

For those who are overwhelmed, Bigelow offered a summary.

“The core thing that I would tell people about this bill is that this is a transfer from things to help people in their everyday lives, like tax credits, and SNAP, and Medicaid,” she told OSV News.

“It is the largest wealth transfer we’ve ever seen in this country — and the transfer is going from the poorest to the richest,” she added.

When asked if poverty, hunger and illness are likely to increase in America, Bigelow didn’t hesitate.

“Absolutely,” she said. “We will see people lose health care. We will see people go hungry. We will also see mental health deteriorate.”

Still, the idea that such a fate only awaits someone else has perhaps reassured those who nonetheless may be impacted.

“A lot of people think, ‘This won’t affect me’ or ‘I’m not really going to see these cuts,'” Bigelow said. “But this is actually about the people in your community. It’s about the people that you’re going to church with, the kids that you see on your son’s soccer team.”

As to states or nonprofits stepping up to fill the gap, Bigelow, too, is skeptical.

“There’s a reason why we have these federal government programs — and I think being lost in this, is that they work really well. SNAP is one of the most effective tools to prevent hunger in America, and Medicaid provides health coverage to 71 million people,” she said. “States can’t operate on that same scale.”

Bigelow is dismissive of those who propose that the bill’s large tax cuts for Americans with greater levels of wealth will eventually help the poor.

“Trickle-down economics is not the way you build this country,” she said. “That is not what works. It’s not how we eliminate poverty.”

Prior to the House and Senate passing their versions of the measure, the USCCB directed a letter to each respective chamber of Congress, “both to commend certain important provisions, but also strongly to urge reconsideration of provisions that will harm the poor and disadvantaged.”

There are some family-friendly provisions in the Senate version of the bill — such as temporary tax breaks for tip income, overtime pay and interest on auto loans; a permanent increase in the full child tax credit (for families with qualifying dependent children) starting in 2025; a $1,000 “Trump account” for babies; and a temporary deduction (through 2028) for tax filers age 65 and older.

“At a general level, the beneficiaries of Medicaid disproportionately tend to be family households,” Lyman Stone, a senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, told OSV News. “And so cuts to Medicaid have a tendency to be cuts to family households. And so that section of the bill could create some difficulties for families as they think about having children.”

As to the expansion of the child tax credit, Stone explained that owing to inflation, anything less than $2,500 is effectively a cut in the credit.

Even so, an increase in this tax credit won’t help 17 million children whose low-income families don’t earn enough to claim the full credit.

Stone wasn’t thoroughly convinced about the newborn “Trump accounts,” either.

“I think the Trump accounts are very unlikely to do much to help families. Handing an 18-year- old $1,000 — maybe by that point, it’s $2,000, $3,000 — I don’t think that’s going to make a radical difference in their life, to be honest,” he suggested. “So it’s a pleasant gesture, but I’m not clear on how it’s supposed to really benefit these families.”

“On the whole,” observed Stone, “I think that the bill probably cuts slightly more money from families than it gets back in other programs.”

He paused, reflecting.

“Some people will have new positive incentives. Some people have new negative ones,” he said. “But I think it’s mostly just going to kind of shuffle things around — and not have a big impact one way or another on family formation.”

(Kimberley Heatherington writes for OSV News from Virginia.)

WASHINGTON (OSV News) — Twenty U.S. Catholic bishops have signed onto an interfaith effort opposing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would enact key provisions of President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda on taxes and immigration, calling it a “moral failure.”

The Senate is drafting its version of the budget legislation that House Republicans passed in May under rules that would allow it to pass with a simple majority and avoid a filibuster. Trump has called for the Senate to pass the bill by July 4.

A letter from more than 40 faith leaders of several faith traditions — made public by Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico, on June 26 — urged senators to reject the bill.

“We, the undersigned faith leaders, write to ask for your opposition to HR 1, the budget reconciliation legislation currently being considered by the U.S. Senate,” the letter said. “We believe that the changes made by the U.S. Senate to the legislation are insufficient and do not significantly mitigate its adverse effects.”

Archbishop Wester, who was joined by 19 U.S. bishops in signing the letter, told OSV News they thought it would be “a good idea for faith leaders to come together to express our deep and profound concern about this bill, because it’s going to hurt and harm so many people, particularly immigrants and families and those who depend on the government to assist them for their medical needs.”

“This (legislation) is really violating our Catholic social teaching in terms of a preferential option for the poor, welcoming the stranger in our midst, the common good, subsidiarity,” he said. “It’s a very draconian kind of a bill that seems to have little or no regard for the people that will be affected by it.”

The letter objected to allocating millions of dollars to the government’s mass deportation campaign, expressing concern that campaign would also infringe upon their houses of worship.

“We have already witnessed a reduction in attendance at many of our religious services in our denominations, as the threat of enforcement has deterred many families from practicing their faith,” the letter said.

It also objected to “severe cuts in healthcare coverage and food assistance to millions of both low-income citizens and legal residents, including asylum-seekers and refugees.” It argued those cuts would drive them “deeper into poverty.”

“From our various faith perspectives, the moral test of a nation is how it treats those most in need of support. In our view, this legislation will harm the poor and vulnerable in our nation, to the detriment of the common good,” the letter said. “Its passage would be a moral failure for American society as a whole.”

Among the bishops leading dioceses joining Archbishop Wester were Cardinal Robert W. McElroy of Washington; Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin of Newark, New Jersey; Bishop Steven Biegler of Cheyenne, Wyoming; Bishop John P. Dolan of Phoenix; Archbishop Paul D. Etienne of Seattle; Bishop Joseph R. Kopacz of Jackson, Mississippi; Bishop Michael M. Pham of San Diego; Archbishop Mitchell T. Rozanski of St. Louis; Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento, California; Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky; Bishop Joseph J. Tyson of Yakima, Washington; and Archbishop Edward J. Weisenberger of Detroit. Retired Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, New York, several other auxiliary bishops, and representatives of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas rounded out the Catholic signatories on that letter, which also included representatives from Protestant, Jewish and Islamic faith traditions.

The diversity of signatories, Archbishop Wester told OSV News, “are very reflective of the deep-felt concern among so many people across the country for the immigrants and for our fellow citizens who will suffer because of this bill.”

In a separate letter issued the same day through the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the conference commended senators for “provisions that promote the dignity of human life and support parental choice in education” in that legislation. But it also made clear “drastic changes” to the legislation are needed to prevent “provisions that will harm the poor and vulnerable.”

In a statement, Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services, president of the USCCB, said, “Congress must be consistent in protecting human life and dignity.”

“As Pope Leo XIV recently stated, it is the responsibility of politicians to promote and protect the common good, including by working to overcome great wealth inequality,” Archbishop Broglio said. “This bill does not answer this call. It takes from the poor to give to the wealthy. It provides tax breaks for some while undermining the social safety net for others through major cuts to nutrition assistance and Medicaid. It fails to protect families and children by promoting an enforcement-only approach to immigration and eroding access to legal protections. It harms God’s creation and future generations through cuts to clean energy incentives and environmental programs.”

Citing the letter the conference sent to senators, Archbishop Broglio said he urged them to “think and act with courage and creativity to protect human dignity for all, to uphold the common good, and to change provisions that undermine these fundamental values.”

The letter from the bishops’ conference said that it supports provisions that would strip some taxpayer funds from Planned Parenthood, one promoting school choice, and another they said would incentivize charitable giving and development.

However, they objected to Medicaid and SNAP cuts, cuts to environmental efforts, and to an increase in funds for “punitive” immigration policies.

“We urge you to remain consistent in protecting human life and dignity by pursuing a better way forward that protects rather than harms poor and vulnerable people,” the letter said. “Before advancing this bill, we ask you to think and act with courage and creativity to preserve human dignity and uphold the common good and to change the provisions that undermine these fundamental values.”

Asked about the USCCB’s letter to senators, Archbishop Wester said he was “pleased that the USCCB did list in their letter their objections to the bill.”

“I think that was a good thing from my perspective,” he said, adding that his own personal view, and that of the signatories on the interfaith letter, is that “this bill is so awful that it has to be rejected out of hand.”

Meanwhile, several pro-life groups are urging senators to approve the bill based on the provision that would strip some funds from Planned Parenthood. While Planned Parenthood has warned the decision could lead to the closure of 200 out of its 600 nationwide clinics, it is not clear how many lives would be saved from abortion as a result.

A #WeCount report published in June shows abortion in the U.S. has actually increased after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, in part due to an uptick in abortion facilitated by telehealth abortion providers.

Asked about how he would respond to those who support the One Big Beautiful Bill Act due to that provision, Archbishop Wester said abortion is “a terrible scourge.” But he emphasized if more people are “forced deeper into poverty,” it would likely further increase the abortion rate.

“We know there’s a direct correlation between poverty and abortions,” Archbishop Wester said. “In my estimation, this bill is probably going to increase the gap.”

Abortion in the U.S. is heavily correlated with poverty and low incomes. Guttmacher Institute, which supports legal abortion, reported 75% of women seeking abortion were low-income, with 50% below the federal poverty line. About six out of 10 women seeking abortion were already mothers. The top concerns reported included not being able to afford another child, losing the ability to work or continue education, or having to care for dependents or other family responsibilities.

Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, and can only afford three defections from their members if they are to pass the bill without any Democratic support.

(Kate Scanlon is a national reporter for OSV News covering Washington. Follow her on X @kgscanlon.)

By Kate Scanlon
(OSV News) — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 5 unanimously ruled in favor of the Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, which had asked the high court to overturn a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court the agency argued discounted its religious identity.

The group previously appealed a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that Catholic Charities is not exempt from paying into the state’s unemployment insurance system because its operations aren’t primarily religious under the definition in the statute requiring certain employers to do so.

Wisconsin law states religious employers in the Badger State are eligible for an exemption from paying into its unemployment benefit program if they operate primarily for religious purposes. The state argued, however, that the Catholic Charities Bureau does not meet that standard since it employs non-Catholics and does not make its service to the less fortunate contingent on Catholic religious practice, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court previously sided with the state, drawing a distinction between its mission or purpose and its “activities.”

However, in an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling violated the First Amendment by creating a preference for some religious practices over others.

“It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain ‘neutrality between religion and religion,’” Sotomayor wrote, quoting previous Supreme Court precedent in Epperson v. Arkansas. “There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.”

At oral arguments in the case in March, the justices appeared to note that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law would appear to favor religions that would limit their hiring or services to co-religionists.

Justice Elena Kagan said at that time that it might be a “matter of religious doctrine” that some religions “don’t require people to say the Lord’s Prayer with us before we give them soup.”

“I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don’t treat some religions better than other religions, and we certainly don’t do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach,” she said.

Bishop James P. Powers of Superior celebrated the ruling in a statement.

“At the heart of Catholic Charities’ ministry is Christ’s call to care for the least of our brothers and sisters, without condition and without exception,” Bishop Powers said. “We’re grateful the Court unanimously recognized that improving the human condition by serving the poor is part of our religious exercise and has allowed us to continue serving those in need throughout our diocese and beyond.”

Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a religious liberty law firm that represented the Catholic Charities bureau, said, “Wisconsin shouldn’t have picked this fight in the first place.”

“It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn’t religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion,” Rassbach said. “Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.”

(Kate Scanlon is a national reporter for OSV News covering Washington. Follow her on X @kgscanlon.)