null / Credit: MIA Studio/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 27, 2025 / 15:52 pm (CNA).

A new survey has found the majority of adults in the U.S. support allowing Christian prayer in public schools, shedding light on how Americans approach the ongoing debate surrounding religious expression in educational settings. 

According to Pew Research Center, 52% of adults support allowing public school teachers to lead their classes in prayers that refer to Jesus, with 27% saying they strongly support it and 26% saying they favor it. 

“Renewed debates are happening across the United States about the place of religion — especially Christianity — in public schools,” the report stated, citing the recent Supreme Court even-split ruling regarding Oklahoma Catholic charter schools, among other legal debates across the country. 

The June 23 report also comes just two days after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law requiring public schools there to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom at the start of the 2025-2026 school year. 

The legislation requires that a “durable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments” be hung in each Texas public elementary or secondary school classroom.

Pew’s report is based on data from its 2023-2024 Religious Landscape Study, which surveyed 36,908 U.S. adults from July 17, 2023, to March 4, 2024. 

Overall, 46% of American adults oppose Christian prayer in public schools, with 22% strongly opposing. While Pew’s report indicates the majority of adults support Christian prayer in public schools, it notes that support varies widely from state to state. 

The majority of adults in 22 states across the southern and Midwestern parts of the country including Mississippi, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Kentucky, South and North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, and Michigan said they supported the practice. 

The majority of adults in 12 states — California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Colorado, and Illinois — and the District of Columbia said they opposed Christian prayer in public schools. 

Data in the remaining 16 states is divided, with roughly half of adults in states including Delaware, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Arizona, and Maryland saying they favor allowing Christian prayer. 

“Once the survey’s margins of error are accounted for, support for teacher-led Christian prayer in these states is not significantly different from opposition,” the report states. 

The report also found that “a slightly larger share of Americans say they favor allowing teacher-led prayers referencing God (57%) than favor allowing teacher-led prayers specifically referencing Jesus (52%).”

null / Credit: MIA Studio/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 27, 2025 / 15:52 pm (CNA).

A new survey has found the majority of adults in the U.S. support allowing Christian prayer in public schools, shedding light on how Americans approach the ongoing debate surrounding religious expression in educational settings. 

According to Pew Research Center, 52% of adults support allowing public school teachers to lead their classes in prayers that refer to Jesus, with 27% saying they strongly support it and 26% saying they favor it. 

“Renewed debates are happening across the United States about the place of religion — especially Christianity — in public schools,” the report stated, citing the recent Supreme Court even-split ruling regarding Oklahoma Catholic charter schools, among other legal debates across the country. 

The June 23 report also comes just two days after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law requiring public schools there to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom at the start of the 2025-2026 school year. 

The legislation requires that a “durable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments” be hung in each Texas public elementary or secondary school classroom.

Pew’s report is based on data from its 2023-2024 Religious Landscape Study, which surveyed 36,908 U.S. adults from July 17, 2023, to March 4, 2024. 

Overall, 46% of American adults oppose Christian prayer in public schools, with 22% strongly opposing. While Pew’s report indicates the majority of adults support Christian prayer in public schools, it notes that support varies widely from state to state. 

The majority of adults in 22 states across the southern and Midwestern parts of the country including Mississippi, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Kentucky, South and North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, and Michigan said they supported the practice. 

The majority of adults in 12 states — California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Colorado, and Illinois — and the District of Columbia said they opposed Christian prayer in public schools. 

Data in the remaining 16 states is divided, with roughly half of adults in states including Delaware, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Arizona, and Maryland saying they favor allowing Christian prayer. 

“Once the survey’s margins of error are accounted for, support for teacher-led Christian prayer in these states is not significantly different from opposition,” the report states. 

The report also found that “a slightly larger share of Americans say they favor allowing teacher-led prayers referencing God (57%) than favor allowing teacher-led prayers specifically referencing Jesus (52%).”

null / Credit: New Africa/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 27, 2025 / 15:22 pm (CNA).

A Texas law that requires porn sites to verify that its users are at least 18 years old can remain in effect after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday, June 27, that the law does not violate the Constitution.

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s majority found that Texas is within its authority “to shield children from sexually explicit content” and that this authority “necessarily includes the power to require proof of age” to access pornographic material.

“Unlike a store clerk, a website operator cannot look at its visitors and estimate their ages,” the opinion continued. “Without a requirement to submit proof of age, even clearly underage minors would be able to access sexual content undetected.”

Texas is one of 24 states that has enacted age verification laws to access pornography on the internet in recent years. The ruling sets nationwide precedent for lower courts reviewing legal challenges to laws in other states.

According to Texas law, a website must verify the ages of all users if “more than one-third of [the website’s content] is sexual material harmful to minors.” The law allows parents to sue websites if their child accesses pornographic material when the website was not complying with the age verification law. The law does not permit pornographers to retain personal information after the verification is complete.

The law also imposes fines of up to $10,000 per day on websites in violation of the law and an additional $250,000 fine if a child is exposed to pornographic content because the website was not verifying the ages of its users. 

“This is a major victory for children, parents, and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement.

“Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures,” he added. “I will continue to enforce the law against any organization that refuses to take the necessary steps to protect minors from explicit materials.”

Pornographers sued Texas in 2023 shortly after the state enacted the law, asserting that the age verification rule places a burden on adults who are trying to access pornographic material and violates their First Amendment right to access speech. The pornographers, through their trade association called the Free Speech Coalition, have been engaged in lawsuits against other states that require age verification.

In a statement on X after the ruling, Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Alison Boden called the Supreme Court’s ruling “the canary in the coal mine of free expression.” She called the decision “disastrous for Texans and for anyone who cares about freedom of speech and privacy online.”

The court was not convinced by that argument. 

In the opinion, Thomas wrote that the law “is simply to prevent minors” from accessing content — not adults. The ruling acknowledges that the law creates a burden on adults but calls the burden “incidental” and found that “adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification.”

“An age-verification requirement is an ordinary and appropriate means of enforcing an age limit, as is evident both from all other contexts where the law draws lines based on age and from the long, widespread, and unchallenged practice of requiring age verification for in-person sales of material that is obscene to minors,” the opinion read.

Dani Pinter, who serves as senior legal counsel for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), told CNA that the free speech argument “defied common sense,” noting that identity and age verification are regular parts of most people’s lives.

Prior to states passing age verification laws, Pinter said very few pornographic websites had any type of age verification. She said “many don’t do anything at all” and some simply ask a user to “click a box that says you’re 18 or older.”

“Virtually no pornography website restricts minors,” she said.

Even in states that have adopted age verification laws, Pinter warned most websites “have not been compliant” but that some websites have “just withdrawn from the states” altogether. She said she hopes the Supreme Court’s confirmation of the constitutionality of the law will bolster compliance and lead to more states — or even the federal government — passing similar laws to protect children online.

The ruling, Pinter said, is “very historic” and “spells a new era where there is now a path forward to protect kids online.”

null / Credit: New Africa/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 27, 2025 / 15:22 pm (CNA).

A Texas law that requires porn sites to verify that its users are at least 18 years old can remain in effect after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday, June 27, that the law does not violate the Constitution.

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s majority found that Texas is within its authority “to shield children from sexually explicit content” and that this authority “necessarily includes the power to require proof of age” to access pornographic material.

“Unlike a store clerk, a website operator cannot look at its visitors and estimate their ages,” the opinion continued. “Without a requirement to submit proof of age, even clearly underage minors would be able to access sexual content undetected.”

Texas is one of 24 states that has enacted age verification laws to access pornography on the internet in recent years. The ruling sets nationwide precedent for lower courts reviewing legal challenges to laws in other states.

According to Texas law, a website must verify the ages of all users if “more than one-third of [the website’s content] is sexual material harmful to minors.” The law allows parents to sue websites if their child accesses pornographic material when the website was not complying with the age verification law. The law does not permit pornographers to retain personal information after the verification is complete.

The law also imposes fines of up to $10,000 per day on websites in violation of the law and an additional $250,000 fine if a child is exposed to pornographic content because the website was not verifying the ages of its users. 

“This is a major victory for children, parents, and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement.

“Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures,” he added. “I will continue to enforce the law against any organization that refuses to take the necessary steps to protect minors from explicit materials.”

Pornographers sued Texas in 2023 shortly after the state enacted the law, asserting that the age verification rule places a burden on adults who are trying to access pornographic material and violates their First Amendment right to access speech. The pornographers, through their trade association called the Free Speech Coalition, have been engaged in lawsuits against other states that require age verification.

In a statement on X after the ruling, Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Alison Boden called the Supreme Court’s ruling “the canary in the coal mine of free expression.” She called the decision “disastrous for Texans and for anyone who cares about freedom of speech and privacy online.”

The court was not convinced by that argument. 

In the opinion, Thomas wrote that the law “is simply to prevent minors” from accessing content — not adults. The ruling acknowledges that the law creates a burden on adults but calls the burden “incidental” and found that “adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification.”

“An age-verification requirement is an ordinary and appropriate means of enforcing an age limit, as is evident both from all other contexts where the law draws lines based on age and from the long, widespread, and unchallenged practice of requiring age verification for in-person sales of material that is obscene to minors,” the opinion read.

Dani Pinter, who serves as senior legal counsel for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), told CNA that the free speech argument “defied common sense,” noting that identity and age verification are regular parts of most people’s lives.

Prior to states passing age verification laws, Pinter said very few pornographic websites had any type of age verification. She said “many don’t do anything at all” and some simply ask a user to “click a box that says you’re 18 or older.”

“Virtually no pornography website restricts minors,” she said.

Even in states that have adopted age verification laws, Pinter warned most websites “have not been compliant” but that some websites have “just withdrawn from the states” altogether. She said she hopes the Supreme Court’s confirmation of the constitutionality of the law will bolster compliance and lead to more states — or even the federal government — passing similar laws to protect children online.

The ruling, Pinter said, is “very historic” and “spells a new era where there is now a path forward to protect kids online.”

USCCB President Archbishop Timothy Broglio speaks at the bishops’ spring meeting, Thursday, June 13, 2024. / Credit: USCCB

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 27, 2025 / 13:31 pm (CNA).

As the Senate considers provisions for the “One Big Beautiful Bill” budget reconciliation, U.S bishops are asking lawmakers to protect vulnerable groups. 

“The bishops are grateful that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes provisions that promote the dignity of human life and support parental choice in education,” Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), said in a statement. 

“These are commendable provisions that are important priorities for the bishops.”

“Still, Congress must be consistent in protecting human life and dignity and make drastic changes to the bill to protect those most in need,” Broglio said. 

“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,” he continued. “This bill does not answer this call. It takes from the poor to give to the wealthy.”

In a letter sent to senators signed by Archbishop Borys Gudziak and Bishops Robert Barron, Kevin Rhoades, Mark Seitz, David O’Connell, and Daniel Thomas, the bishops detailed their stance on certain bill provisions.

Broglio said: “I underscore what my brother bishops said in their recent letter to find a better way forward and urge senators 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.”

In the letter, the bishops said they “strongly support” the bill’s plan to end “taxpayer subsidization of major abortion and ‘gender transition’ providers such as Planned Parenthood” and the bill’s support for “parental choice in education.”

The bishops also stated their agreement with “the inclusion of a $1,000 ‘above-the-line’ charitable deduction in the Senate bill” and said it is “a very positive step in the right direction.”

However, the bishops are not in support of cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They urged senators to protect these programs, adding that “the changes to SNAP will cause millions of people to go hungry.”

The bishops also disagree with “the unprecedented increase in funding for immigration enforcement and detention,” which they said “would disproportionately impact immigrant and mixed-status families with strong ties to American communities.”

They added that cuts “to clean energy incentives and the repeal of environmental programs and energy efficient loans … will lead to increased pollution that harms children and the unborn, stifles economic opportunity, and decreases resilience against extreme weather.”

In agreement with the letter, Broglio said the bill “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,” he said. “It harms God’s creation and future generations through cuts to clean energy incentives and environmental programs.”

USCCB President Archbishop Timothy Broglio speaks at the bishops’ spring meeting, Thursday, June 13, 2024. / Credit: USCCB

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 27, 2025 / 13:31 pm (CNA).

As the Senate considers provisions for the “One Big Beautiful Bill” budget reconciliation, U.S bishops are asking lawmakers to protect vulnerable groups. 

“The bishops are grateful that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes provisions that promote the dignity of human life and support parental choice in education,” Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), said in a statement. 

“These are commendable provisions that are important priorities for the bishops.”

“Still, Congress must be consistent in protecting human life and dignity and make drastic changes to the bill to protect those most in need,” Broglio said. 

“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,” he continued. “This bill does not answer this call. It takes from the poor to give to the wealthy.”

In a letter sent to senators signed by Archbishop Borys Gudziak and Bishops Robert Barron, Kevin Rhoades, Mark Seitz, David O’Connell, and Daniel Thomas, the bishops detailed their stance on certain bill provisions.

Broglio said: “I underscore what my brother bishops said in their recent letter to find a better way forward and urge senators 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.”

In the letter, the bishops said they “strongly support” the bill’s plan to end “taxpayer subsidization of major abortion and ‘gender transition’ providers such as Planned Parenthood” and the bill’s support for “parental choice in education.”

The bishops also stated their agreement with “the inclusion of a $1,000 ‘above-the-line’ charitable deduction in the Senate bill” and said it is “a very positive step in the right direction.”

However, the bishops are not in support of cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They urged senators to protect these programs, adding that “the changes to SNAP will cause millions of people to go hungry.”

The bishops also disagree with “the unprecedented increase in funding for immigration enforcement and detention,” which they said “would disproportionately impact immigrant and mixed-status families with strong ties to American communities.”

They added that cuts “to clean energy incentives and the repeal of environmental programs and energy efficient loans … will lead to increased pollution that harms children and the unborn, stifles economic opportunity, and decreases resilience against extreme weather.”

In agreement with the letter, Broglio said the bill “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,” he said. “It harms God’s creation and future generations through cuts to clean energy incentives and environmental programs.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2025, ruled Maryland parents can opt out of LGBT-themed lessons in public schools, upholding their right to the free exercise of their respective religions. / Credit: PT Hamilton/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Jun 27, 2025 / 12:26 pm (CNA).

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who had sued a school district over its refusal to allow families to opt their children out of LGBT-focused lessons. 

In a 6-3 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court ruled on June 27 that the parents — who included Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims — were “entitled to a preliminary injunction” against the Montgomery County Board of Education, one that will allow them to excuse their children from the controversial lessons while the case is remanded to lower courts for further proceedings. 

The parents “are likely to succeed on their claim that the board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise,” the court said. 

The reading materials, the Supreme Court said — which include promotions of same-sex “marriages” — are “designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

The materials go beyond mere “exposure,” the justices said, and “burdens the parents’ right to the free exercise of religion.”

Under the district’s policy, the school board only permitted opt-outs in narrow circumstances, mostly related to sexual education in health class. It did not permit opt-outs for coursework that endorsed the views that there are more than two “genders,” that a boy can become a girl, or that homosexual marriages are moral.

Some of the coursework initially introduced in the curriculum was designed to promote these concepts to children as young as 3 years old in preschool.

One book involved in the dispute, called “Pride Puppy,” taught preschool children the alphabet with a story about a homosexual pride parade, which introduced children to words like “drag queen,” “leather,” and “zipper.”

It also introduced young children to Marsha B. Johnson, a drag queen, gay rights activist, and prostitute.

Lawyers with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty represented the parents in their lawsuit. On Friday, Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, called the ruling “a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America.”

“Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission,” he said. “Today, the court restored common sense and made clear that parents — not government — have the final say in how their children are raised.”

The lawsuit against the school district, located just north of Washington, D.C., was filed in May 2023. 

The Supreme Court took up the controversial case in January of this year after two lower courts ruled against a group of parents who sued the Montgomery County board over the school district’s having provided LGBT-themed lessons and reading materials to their children. 

Both the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against the parents, claiming they had no right to be notified or opt their kids out of the sexuality-themed literature. 

The school district initially allowed the parents to opt out but changed its policy less than a year later. It removed the LGBT puppy book and another book from the program curriculum last year, though the books were still available at school libraries.

During oral arguments in April, most of the justices on the high court appeared sympathetic toward the parents in their lawsuit. 

In a dissent to the Friday ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor claimed the decision could usher in “chaos” for public schools around the country.

Sotomayor suggested that the LGBT materials in the dispute represented merely “a range of concepts and views” and “new ideas.”

“Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,” she alleged.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2025, ruled Maryland parents can opt out of LGBT-themed lessons in public schools, upholding their right to the free exercise of their respective religions. / Credit: PT Hamilton/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Jun 27, 2025 / 12:26 pm (CNA).

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who had sued a school district over its refusal to allow families to opt their children out of LGBT-focused lessons. 

In a 6-3 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court ruled on June 27 that the parents — who included Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims — were “entitled to a preliminary injunction” against the Montgomery County Board of Education, one that will allow them to excuse their children from the controversial lessons while the case is remanded to lower courts for further proceedings. 

The parents “are likely to succeed on their claim that the board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise,” the court said. 

The reading materials, the Supreme Court said — which include promotions of same-sex “marriages” — are “designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

The materials go beyond mere “exposure,” the justices said, and “burdens the parents’ right to the free exercise of religion.”

Under the district’s policy, the school board only permitted opt-outs in narrow circumstances, mostly related to sexual education in health class. It did not permit opt-outs for coursework that endorsed the views that there are more than two “genders,” that a boy can become a girl, or that homosexual marriages are moral.

Some of the coursework initially introduced in the curriculum was designed to promote these concepts to children as young as 3 years old in preschool.

One book involved in the dispute, called “Pride Puppy,” taught preschool children the alphabet with a story about a homosexual pride parade, which introduced children to words like “drag queen,” “leather,” and “zipper.”

It also introduced young children to Marsha B. Johnson, a drag queen, gay rights activist, and prostitute.

Lawyers with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty represented the parents in their lawsuit. On Friday, Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, called the ruling “a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America.”

“Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission,” he said. “Today, the court restored common sense and made clear that parents — not government — have the final say in how their children are raised.”

In a Friday statement, meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops hailed the Supreme Court for upholding parental rights to directing their children's educations.

"Public schools in our diverse country include families from many communities with a variety of deep-seated convictions about faith and morals," Bishop Kevin Rhoades, the chairman of the bishops' religious liberty committee, said in the statement.

"When these schools address issues that touch on these matters, they ought to respect all families," Rhoades said. "Parents do not forfeit their rights as primary educators of their children when they send their kids to public schools."

Stressing that children "should not be learning that their personal identity as male or female can be separated from their bodies," the bishop said in cases where a school teaches this ideology, "it ought to respect those who choose not to participate."

The lawsuit against the school district, located just north of Washington, D.C., was filed in May 2023. 

The Supreme Court took up the controversial case in January of this year after two lower courts ruled against a group of parents who sued the Montgomery County board over the school district’s having provided LGBT-themed lessons and reading materials to their children. 

Both the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against the parents, claiming they had no right to be notified or opt their kids out of the sexuality-themed literature. 

The school district initially allowed the parents to opt out but changed its policy less than a year later. It removed the LGBT puppy book and another book from the program curriculum last year, though the books were still available at school libraries.

During oral arguments in April, most of the justices on the high court appeared sympathetic toward the parents in their lawsuit. 

In a dissent to the Friday ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor claimed the decision could usher in “chaos” for public schools around the country.

Sotomayor suggested that the LGBT materials in the dispute represented merely “a range of concepts and views” and “new ideas.”

“Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,” she alleged.

This story was updated on Friday, June 27, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. with a statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Pro-life activists participate in a Celebrate Life Day Rally at the Lincoln Memorial on June 24, 2023, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 27, 2025 / 11:41 am (CNA).

This weekend six pro-life organizations will host a three-day-long event in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the third anniversary of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

After a successful 2024 event, the Celebrate Life Weekend returns June 27–29 for three days of events that mark the anniversary of the June 24, 2022, decision and encourage “the pro-life generation to fight for equal rights for all — born and preborn — through the 14th Amendment,” according to the Students for Life of America (SFLA) website.

“Last year, we mobilized the youth vote to celebrate Life after Roe v. Wade’s demise,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA, in a press release. “Now, we’re building on our momentum to create even more pro-life victories — calling on Congress to defund Planned Parenthood while also fighting for equal protections for preborn lives.”

The weekend will be hosted by SFLA, Students for Life Action, Vitae Foundation, Sidewalk Advocates for Life, And Then There Were None, and Pro Love Ministries.

The celebration kicks off Friday evening with a gala in downtown Washington, D.C. Athlete and advocate Riley Gaines will be the keynote speaker alongside other pro-life leaders who organizers say will “highlight the help available for mothers and their children, born and preborn.”

Other confirmed speakers at the gala include Hawkins; Dr. Abby Johnson, president of And Then There Were None and ProLove Ministries; Lauren Muzyka, president and CEO of Sidewalk Advocates for Life; and Brandy Meeks, president and CEO of Vitae Foundation.

On Saturday a diaper drive and rally will be held on Capitol Hill. The event will feature the confirmed speakers from the gala as well as additional guests who will speak about the pro-life movement and the push “to defund Planned Parenthood.”

According to Johnson in a Facebook media post, the event will be the “nation’s largest diaper drive.”

An expected 392,715 diapers will be donated to pregnancy care centers and families in the local community. Each diaper represents “a preborn life ended by Planned Parenthood last year.”

In addition to the two events, the National Celebrate Life Conference will hold other gatherings for registered attendees on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to “offer training and strategy to rally and educate the pro-life generation, as well as key legislators.”

The conference’s mission is to “unite pro-life women and men to celebrate, collaborate, and strategize for the protection of preborn children and to make abortion unthinkable in our culture.”

Pro-life activists participate in a Celebrate Life Day Rally at the Lincoln Memorial on June 24, 2023, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 27, 2025 / 11:41 am (CNA).

This weekend six pro-life organizations will host a three-day-long event in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the third anniversary of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

After a successful 2024 event, the Celebrate Life Weekend returns June 27–29 for three days of events that mark the anniversary of the June 24, 2022, decision and encourage “the pro-life generation to fight for equal rights for all — born and preborn — through the 14th Amendment,” according to the Students for Life of America (SFLA) website.

“Last year, we mobilized the youth vote to celebrate Life after Roe v. Wade’s demise,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA, in a press release. “Now, we’re building on our momentum to create even more pro-life victories — calling on Congress to defund Planned Parenthood while also fighting for equal protections for preborn lives.”

The weekend will be hosted by SFLA, Students for Life Action, Vitae Foundation, Sidewalk Advocates for Life, And Then There Were None, and Pro Love Ministries.

The celebration kicks off Friday evening with a gala in downtown Washington, D.C. Athlete and advocate Riley Gaines will be the keynote speaker alongside other pro-life leaders who organizers say will “highlight the help available for mothers and their children, born and preborn.”

Other confirmed speakers at the gala include Hawkins; Dr. Abby Johnson, president of And Then There Were None and ProLove Ministries; Lauren Muzyka, president and CEO of Sidewalk Advocates for Life; and Brandy Meeks, president and CEO of Vitae Foundation.

On Saturday a diaper drive and rally will be held on Capitol Hill. The event will feature the confirmed speakers from the gala as well as additional guests who will speak about the pro-life movement and the push “to defund Planned Parenthood.”

According to Johnson in a Facebook media post, the event will be the “nation’s largest diaper drive.”

An expected 392,715 diapers will be donated to pregnancy care centers and families in the local community. Each diaper represents “a preborn life ended by Planned Parenthood last year.”

In addition to the two events, the National Celebrate Life Conference will hold other gatherings for registered attendees on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to “offer training and strategy to rally and educate the pro-life generation, as well as key legislators.”

The conference’s mission is to “unite pro-life women and men to celebrate, collaborate, and strategize for the protection of preborn children and to make abortion unthinkable in our culture.”