After issuing a temporary injunction against a Tennessee law that would ban abortion in most circumstances, U.S. District Judge William Campbell blocked on Friday the law from taking effect while it is being challenged in court.
Campbell cited imprecision in the bill’s language as well as the likelihood that portions of it would be found unconstitutional in court as reasons for issuing the additional injunction against it while litigation is ongoing. The Tennessee Senate passed a bill banning abortions on June 19 by a 23-5 party line vote.
The legislation bans abortion after the point at which a fetal heartbeat can be detected – as early as six weeks into pregnancy. The bill also has a provision would automatically enact a ban on abortion at ten different stages of pregnancy, should the heartbeat portion of the bill be struck down in court.
It also banned abortions that were sought on the basis of race, sex, or a diagnosis of Down syndrome.
Those portions of the bill are being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), its Tennessee affiliate, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed a lawsuit against the bill after it was passed. Governor Bill Lee had signed the bill into law on July 13.
A temporary injunction against the law was instated by Campbell the day the bill was signed into law.
“We all have the responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our community,” Lee said at the signing ceremony. “The most vulnerable in Tennessee includes the unborn.” He added that the bill was “arguably the most conservative, pro-life piece of legislation in the country.”
In his memorandum, issued July 24, Campbell said that vague language in the bill raised numerous questions. He wrote that a physician “attempting to comply with the statute must determine what it means to ‘know’ that his or her patient is seeking an abortion ‘because of’ the sex or race of the unborn child, or a diagnostic test indicating Down syndrome…”.
These undefined terms raise unanswered questions such as: “Will the physician be subject to criminal sanction only where the patient explicitly states she seeks an abortion for a prohibited reason, or could the physician be arrested for providing an abortion where the patient’s file or a referring physician includes a reference to a prohibited reason?” Campbell wrote.
“The lack of precision by the legislative body that approved its language also impermissibly delegates the task of answering these questions to law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and the courts or juries,” he wrote.
Campbell added that in his view, based on precedents set by the Supreme Court and other courts, the plaintiffs have demonstrated “a strong likelihood” that the sections of the bill banning abortion after 6 weeks, or on the basis of sex, race or diagnosis are “unconstitutional.”
“Applying binding Supreme Court precedent and the factors required for the extraordinary remedy of an injunction…the court concludes that an injunction should issue,” Campbell wrote in his memorandum granting the injunction.
A heartbeat-based abortion ban passed the Tennessee House last year but Republican Lt. Gov. Randy McNally did not support it in the Senate.
Similar laws in Mississippi, Ohio, and other states have been struck down in court.
If the law takes effect, a doctor who performs an illegal abortion would face a Class C felony.
According to a local Fox affiliate, the day after the first injunction was issued against the bill, Lee promised to defend the abortion ban, “whatever it takes in court, we will defend it.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
San Diego, Calif., Aug 24, 2018 / 11:00 am (CNA).- The Bishop of San Diego has explained why he did not respond to a 2016 letter alleging sexual misconduct on the part of Archbishop Theodore McCarrick and other Catholic clerics.
The letter was sent to Bishop Robert McElroy by psychotherapist Richard Sipe.
McElroy has been reported as a frontrunner to succeed Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC. Calls in recent weeks for the cardinal’s resignation follow an Aug. 14 Pennsylvania grand jury report on clerical sexual abuse, which questions the cardinal’s handling of sexual abuse allegations during his tenure as Bishop of Pittsburgh.
The bishop now faces questions regarding accountability and transparency surrounding abuse reports.
A former Benedictine priest, Sipe left the priesthood in the 1970s and married a former nun. He then spent several decades studying clerical sex abuse and calling for reform, and was a source for the Boston Globe team of reporters who broke the story of the 2002 Church sex abuse scandal.
Sipe estimated that 50 percent of priests are living unchastely, and 6 percent of clergy are abusers, though those estimates have faced frequent challenges from other researchers, including a 2004 study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the U.S. bishops’ conference.
Sipe wrote to Bishop McElroy in 2016, listing allegations against half a dozen bishops – including then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick – and warning of a broader problem of chastity violations among clergy.
“Sooner or later it will become broadly obvious that there is a systemic connection between the sexual activity by, among and between clerics in positions of authority and control, and the abuse of children,” Sipe wrote in the letter.
“When men in authority – cardinals, bishops, rectors, abbots, confessors, professors –are having or have had an unacknowledged-secret-active-sex life under the guise of celibacy an atmosphere of tolerance of behaviors within the system is made operative.”
The letter, which was published on Sipe’s website, drew media attention following the psychotherapist’s death earlier this month.
On Aug. 17, McElroy issued a public statement on the matter, noting Sipe’s death on Aug. 8. He said that Sipe had requested to meet with him about clergy sex abuse in 2016.
Over the course of “two long, substantive, cordial and frank discussions about the history of clergy sexual abuse in the United States,” McElroy said, Sipe made allegations against several bishops – including some who were then in ministry – and said that he was planning to approach the apostolic nuncio, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, about the issue.
McElroy said he raised concerns that some of the Sipe information may be inaccurate.
“In two instances we discussed, I had certain knowledge of individuals being investigated and cleared yet he still leveled accusations against them,” the bishop said.
“Dr. Sipe stated that he was making many of his allegations against existing bishops based on information that he had received from his work in legal cases on behalf of survivors of abuse,” McElroy said, but asked if he could share specific corroborating documents, Sipe said he was unable to do so.
After Sipe requested a third meeting but was told by the McElroy’s assistant that the bishop could not meet with him that month, he hired a process server who came to the office, posing as a donor wishing to hand-deliver a check, McElroy said. The process server delivered a letter from Sipe.
McElroy said he did not respond to that letter because Sipe’s use of a process server, and apparent dissemination of the letter, made him untrustworthy.
“After I read it, I wrote to Dr. Sipe and told him that his decision to engage a process server who operated under false pretenses, and his decision to copy his letter to me to a wide audience, made further conversations at a level of trust impossible.”
Sipe’s July 28, 2016 letter warned of a widespread culture of illicit sexual activity among clergy. Pointing to his time as a staff member at three major seminaries, he said that patterns of sexual behavior are often established “during seminary years or in early years after ordination when sexual experimentation is initiated or sustained.”
“A serious conflict arises when bishops who have had or are having sexually active lives with men or women defend their behavior with denial, cover up, and public pronouncements against those same behaviors in others,” he said. “Their own behavior threatens scandal of exposure when they try to curtail or discipline other clerics about their behavior even when it is criminal as in the case with rape and abuse of minors, rape, or power plays against the vulnerable.”
In the letter, Sipe listed allegations against several bishops, including reports of misconduct by Archbishop John Neinstedt and Bishop Robert Brom, abuse by Bishop Thomas Lyons and Bishop Raymond Boland, and cover-up by Cardinal Richard Mahoney.
He also said that he had interviewed 12 priests and seminarians who described sexual advances and activity on the part of then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
Sipe referenced a settlement against McCarrick, which he said described the cardinal’s sexual behavior and included correspondence from him.
McCarrick’s sexual propositions and harassment were covered up by intimidation, Sipe said, with priests and seminarians unwilling to speak up about it, for fear of risking their reputation and facing retaliation.
In one case, he said, a priest was told by the chancery office, “if you speak with the press we will crush you.”
In a recent letter to diocesan clergy, responding to the Pennsylvania grand jury report, Bishop McElroy lamented “the complicity of the leadership of the Church, which magnified abuse in so many instances by placing fear of scandal and a clerical culture above the foundational need to protect minors at all costs.”
He added that “(e)very bishop in our land bears a collective debt of guilt for these acts of abuse,” and called for cooperation in creating “not only a new structure, but also a new culture within the life of the Church.”
Ordained a priest in 1980, McElroy became the secretary of San Francisco Archbishop John Quinn two years later. He continued in graduate studies and parish work until he was appointed vicar general under Quinn in 1995.
Quinn would resign the following year, at age 66, amid complaints over his plan to close some of the city’s historic churches, and accusations that the archdiocese had failed to act on allegations of sexual abuse by two priests.
In 2017, McElroy delivered the homily at Quinn’s vigil. He praised the late archbishop as “a man who combined continuity and transformation, and in that identity lay his greatness as a leader in the church in the United States.”
McElroy remembered Quinn for his work in nuclear deterrence and outreach to AIDS victims, as well as his collaboration with laity and women religious, and his call for “a rearticulation of Catholic teaching on responsible parenthood.”
McElroy would go on in 2010 to become an auxiliary bishop in San Francisco, and was named Bishop of San Diego in 2015. In that role, he has echoed Pope Francis’ emphasis on poverty and care for the environment.
Reports that McElroy might succeed Wuerl in Washington first surfaced in the fall of 2017. Wuerl, 77, submitted a letter of resignation to Pope Francis in 2015, at the customary age of 75, though it has not yet been accepted by the pope.
Denver, Colo., Oct 11, 2022 / 16:00 pm (CNA).
Many YouTube videos produced by Catholic or pro-life organizations will now bear an abortion disclaimer and links to an abortion webpage, as YouTube claims that abortion is a top… […]
A Chase bank building in Wilmington, Delaware. / Credit: Harrison Keely, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
CNA Staff, Mar 25, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Legislators in several states are moving to address the practice of “debanking” as part of an effort to stop what some critics say are anti-conservative measures employed by major U.S. financial institutions.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines debanking as “the act by a bank of closing someone’s account because they are regarded as a risk legally, financially, or to the bank’s reputation.” Critics have claimed that the practice is used by banks to antagonize certain groups, including conservatives and other political activists.
For example, the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit earlier this month against one of the largest banks in the United States. President Donald Trump claims he was a victim of debanking after Capital One allegedly closed hundreds of his organization’s accounts soon after his supporters’ Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.
In her recently-released memoir, Melania Trump alleged that she and her son, Barron, were also debanked.
The Ruth Institute, a global coalition designed to equip Christians to defend the family, alleged it was debanked in 2017. Just two years ago, a Memphis-based Christian charity called the Indigenous Advance Ministries also claimed that it had been debanked by Bank of America.
In another high-profile case, in 2022 former U.S. senator and ambassador Sam Brownback announced that his nonprofit group the National Committee for Religious Freedom had been debanked.
Ambassador Sam Brownback speaks on Feb. 6, 2018. Credit: Jonah McKeown/ CNA
Over the past decade, other high-ranking individuals and grassroots organizations have reportedly faced debanking, including Nigel Farage, who led the Brexit effort in the United Kingdom; evangelist and motivational speaker Nick Vujicic; Moms for Liberty, a parental rights advocacy group; Christian author and preacher Lance Wallnau; and Timothy Two Project International, a Christian ministry.
U.S. bishops ‘monitoring’ debanking; legislators move to address
While it’s unclear to what extent debanking has affected U.S. Catholics, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops acknowledged the phenomenon in its 2025 religious liberty report.
“In recent years, individuals have raised concerns that banks are discriminating on the basis of political and religious viewpoints,” the report read.
“In response to incidents like these, some states have begun passing laws intended to prevent politically motivated debanking,” the bishops noted. “However, the U.S. government argues that these laws hamstring banks, who need to be able to account for potential customers’ exposure to foreign actors. The lack of transparency, though, makes it difficult to ascertain why someone like Ambassador Brownback would be debanked.”
According to the report, the USCCB is “monitoring this issue but has not taken a position on it.”
Taking action against debanking
Some lawmakers are moving to address the controversy via legislation.
An anti-debanking bill in Idaho was sent to the state governor for signature last week.
The Transparency in Financial Services Act would prohibit “large financial institutions from discriminating against customers based on their political or religious views” and would give customers the right to request the reason for denial from an institution.
Montana’s Republican-sponsored Equality in Financial Services Act and South Carolina’s anti-debanking bill — similar to Idaho’s bill — have made some progress in the state Legislature, while Georgia’s Freedom of Speech and Belief Act failed to pass at the beginning of March.
Some see changes in bank policy, or even legal changes, as potential solutions to debanking.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — a legal group committed to protecting religious freedom and freedom of speech — worked with Indigenous Advance Ministries to file a consumer complaint following its alleged debanking in 2022.
“No American should ever fear losing access to their bank account due to their religious or political beliefs,” Lathan Watts, ADF’s vice president of public affairs, told CNA.
In its 2023 Viewpoint Diversity Score Index, ADF found that 7 out of 10 of the largest commercial banks — including Chase — have “hate speech” or “reputational risk” policies that contribute to debanking.
JPMorgan Chase, a top American bank, recently adjusted its policy, agreeing to protect clients against political and religious debanking in its code of conduct after 19 attorneys general petitioned the bank to cease its debanking practices in 2023.
“Chase’s policy change is a significant step by our nation’s largest bank to uphold financial access for all Americans,” Watts said. “This change provides necessary protections for customers like Ambassador Brownback, whose account at the National Committee for Religious Freedom was unexpectedly canceled in 2022.”
Watts shared his hope that other banks will take similar measures.
“Alliance Defending Freedom actively engaged with Chase in these negotiations, and we are hopeful that other banks will follow suit in safeguarding fundamental financial freedoms,” Watts said.
Jennifer Roback Morse, the founder and president of the Ruth Institute — an organization dedicated to combating the effects of the sexual revolution — recalled her own experience allegedly being debanked.
“In 2017, the Ruth Institute was one of the first organizations to be attacked in the banking arena,” Morse told CNA. “In our case, our credit card processor cut us off with no notification, or explanation, except to say that we ‘violated its standards.’”
Ruth Institute President Jennifer Roback Morse speaks on “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo” on June 13, 2019. Credit: “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo/EWTN News screenshot
While there was no clear explanation, Morse believes it was due to a leftist law center labeling the organization as a hate group.
“We surmised this was because we were listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s ‘Hate Map’ for our opposition to the redefinition of marriage and other LGBT-issues,” Morse said. “Thankfully, we were able to secure another credit card processor fairly quickly.”
Morse told CNA that banking “is a highly regulated, semi-monopolistic industry, comparable in some respects to public utilities such as electricity and water.”
“I am in favor of banks being legally required to be transparent and even-handed in their standards,” she said.
“Alternatively, if banks are permitted to engage in viewpoint discrimination,” she argued, “I would urge that bakers, florists, therapists, and other professionals also be permitted to refuse service to potential customers for any reason they choose.”
“A disappointed customer can find an alternative photographer a lot easier than they can find an alternative bank,” Morse noted. “And it is a lot easier to participate in the business world without a photographer or florist than to survive without banking services.”
‘A balanced approach’
While conservative legislators are pushing these anti-debanking bills, support for this legislation is not entirely united within the conservative movement.
A recent poll found that while a majority of conservatives are concerned about debanking, nearly three-quarters of conservatives expressed support for banks having the right to choose their own clients.
The poll by the Tyson Group found that conservatives “do not support broad government intervention that prevents financial institutions from making risk-based assessments when determining their customers.”
“When informed that legislation could force businesses to provide services to customers at odds with their values and the conservative movement, many expressed hesitations,” the study noted.
“As conservatives push for greater accountability from regulators, they also seek a balanced approach to debanking that avoids unintended consequences and protects the rights of both consumers and businesses.”
Some opponents of anti-debanking laws maintain that restrictions against debanking could have unintended consequences.
In South Carolina, for example, an anti-debanking bill under consideration, the Equality in Financial Services Act, would prevent financial institutions from discriminating when providing financial services.
But a Republican executive committeeman from Richland, South Carolina, is concerned that such an anti-debanking law could require pro-life banks to work with abortionists.
“Stopping abortion and protecting children requires winning hearts and minds but also cutting off the financial pipeline that enables these activities,” Eaddy Roe Willard, Richland GOP executive committeeman, told CNA. “Misguided legislation at the state level will only make it harder to do that.”
Leave a Reply