The 3 - January 5, 2026

It was announced just before Christmas that, contrary to the policy of the previous Administration, the Veterans Administration would no longer be performing abortions at its facilities.  The Washington Times reported that the VA stated...

... that it barred abortion services after receiving a Department of Justice memorandum dated Dec. 18, which concluded that the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs expressly excludes services including abortion and infertility treatments. 

VA press secretary Peter Kasperowicz said in an e-mail: “DOJ’s opinion states that VA is not legally authorized to provide abortions, and VA is complying with it immediately,” adding, “DOJ’s opinion is consistent with VA’s proposed rule, which continues to work its way through the regulatory process.”

Chris Motz, Senior Counsel for First Liberty Institute, is quoted in the article, saying: “We commend the DOJ for taking bold steps toward protecting religious freedom for those within the VA by ensuring that health care providers will not be forced to provide abortion services,” adding, “VA doctors and nurses heroically care for our nation’s veterans — they shouldn’t be forced to perform no-limit abortions against their religious beliefs..."

When we discuss matters relative to the sanctity of human life, this is often rightly applied to when life begins; to be pro-life means to believe that life begins at conception, which is consistent with the teachings of Scripture.  And, just as a human being should not determine whether or not a child should be born, when a person dies should be a matter that is left up to our Maker, not another human being.

But, just days after Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed a bill allowing physician-assisted suicide, which, according to The Daily Citizen, "legalizes physician-assisted suicide for adults who have a terminal disease with a prognosis of six months or less to live...," the governor of New York has announced she has reached an agreement with lawmakers to allow that state to legalize euthanasia.  That is according to another Daily Citizen article, which reported that both chambers of the state Legislature have approved the Medical Aid in Dying Act.

Gov. Kathy Hochul, according to that article...

...wrote in the Albany Times Union that state lawmakers will modify the bill to include a residency requirement, a five-day waiting period and a requirement that patients record their oral request to end their lives.

 The Daily Citizen also reported:

The New York Catholic bishops released a joint statement following the governor’s announcement.

“We are extraordinarily troubled by Governor Hochul’s announcement that she will sign the egregious bill passed by the legislature earlier this year sanctioning physician-assisted suicide in New York State,” the bishops wrote.

“This new law signals our government’s abandonment of its most vulnerable citizens, telling people who are sick or disabled that suicide in their case is not only acceptable, but is encouraged by our elected leaders,” they added. “Tragically, this new law will seriously undermine all of the anti-suicide and mental health care investments Governor Hochul has made through her tenure.”

In some locales, there have been attempts by school officials to keep information about a child's so-called "gender identity," secret from parents.  This is certainly in violation with the God-given roles and responsibilities of parents and represents a disrespect for parental rights.

California has had laws in place that have, according to Decision Magazine, "prohibited public school employees from sharing information with parents about their child’s sexual orientation and gender identity/expression without express consent from the child." 

Decision reported recently that, "In a landmark class-action ruling, San Diego-based U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez on Dec. 22 placed a permanent ban on California’s gender secrecy policies pushed by the state’s Department of Education."  The article related:

In his ruling, Benitez made clear that the state had overstepped its constitutional authority by sidelining parents, compelling educators to violate their consciences, and harming vulnerable children by depriving them of parental guidance. At the heart of the case was the question of who holds primary authority over a child’s welfare. The court answered decisively: parents do.

The article noted, "The plaintiffs in the case, both parents and teachers, objected to the state’s secrecy policy on the basis of their Christian faith."