news – Simplified Information by Nicole Shapiro, J.D.

Doesn’t the Life of Every Human Have Equal Worth?

For a few minutes, consider yourself as Fatima, a resident of Gaza, and then decide.

Picture yourself as Fatima, a resident of Gaza. You are 17 years old, youthful, yet severely malnourished because of lack of food. Your will is strong, but your body feels like it’s about to collapse. You hear of potential aid with food coming your way, yet freeze at the thought of approaching with a pan, remembering that many of your neighbors don’t come back alive. You want to escape the place you are at, but you are weak, thirsty, famished, sleep-deprived, without a car, dealing with the stages of mourning, and hardly able to think straight. Now, you are told to simply leave Gaza.

Where would you go?

Seriously. As Fatima, where would you go?

Here are some options to think about:

To the south, you have Egypt, a path that is closed.

To the east, you have Israel.

To the north, you have Israel.

To the west, you have the sea.

Now that you have your options, how would you get there?

You, Fatima, don’t have a car, money, your family members have been killed, and you don’t even know how or when you will get your next bite of food.

Now, strategize a plan for yourself.

Not so easy, is it?

Fatima is a symbolic representation of the many lives in Gaza. She’s a privileged representation, since many Gaza residents have extra layers of hardship, such as mutilated bodies, the responsibility of many children, religious discrimination for being Christian, and being under the age of twelve.

As Fatima, imagine feeling the physical pain of hunger and experiencing its mental effects. Starvation is a slow process of human decay involving physical, mental, and emotional pain. You know that innocent people were kidnapped, yet lack understanding why your life, and that of your neighbors, decreases in value due to crimes committed by members of a terrorist organization.

If it happened to you,

a) would you consider it an act of justice to be punished for crimes you did not commit?; and

b) would you consider it a reasonable suggestion to be told to leave when you don’t have a place to go or resources to make a move?

Destruction of the Innocent Doesn’t Result in Peace

Two things can be true: 1) to be horrified and denounce the way Hamas, a terrorist group, has treated the Israeli victims, and 2) be also horrified at the response by the Israeli forces, which have shown a pattern of negligent and abusive war tactics resulting in killing, mutilation, and starvation of civilians in Gaza, including children under the age of twelve and women, who did not cause the attack.

A nation has a right to defend itself from attacks, but not at the expense of innocent civilian life, such as by restricting access to food and medical aid supplies, shooting at starving civilians attempting to get food, creating an environment of man-made famine, and through a pattern of bombing places of prayer, hospitals, and schools.

Most nations have policies in place that protect human life, since it’s recognized, morally and legally, that every human life has value. Many nations around the world have citizens who are kidnapped; however, they are not permitted to bomb the locations of the perpetrators due to the potential harmful effects on innocent civilian lives. In the same way, Israel should not be excused from its long-term negligent and abusive war tactics.

A Path of Hope

There could certainly be a path of hope for the residents of Gaza. Nations have united in the past with the purpose of protecting human dignity.

Leaders of powerful nations could act, not out of necessity, but in the name of humanity, and most importantly, justice in the eyes of God.

When you are called before your Creator and asked what you did for His children in Gaza, what will you be able to say?

“And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink ….’” (Matthew 25:40-42, RSVCE)

Time will tell what each nation does with its position of power as a response to the cries-for-help from the children of Gaza.

But, we ought to consider one thing: when does indifference become complicity?

Scripture quotations are from The Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1965, 1966 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Did You Know that Many Taxpayers Unknowingly Fund Abortions?

The Battle in Court that Might Change it All

Although many Americans disapprove of ending the lives of unborn children, they are forced to financially support abortions through their taxed income.

How Are Taxpayers Funding Abortions?

Through Medicaid. Throughout several decades, the federal government has tried to prevent taxpayer money from funding abortions. For example, the Hyde Amendment of 1976 is a legislative provision that restricts federal funding for most abortions; however, its scope has been modified by Congress over the decades. In 2025, President Trump’s Executive Order 14182 rescinded two Executive Orders, EO 14076 & 14079, by the prior administration. EO 14076 and 14079 allowed loopholes for federal funding of abortions.

Trump’s Executive Order 14182, titled Enforcing the Hyde Amendment, emphasizes, “For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent Federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a longstanding consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice. However, the previous administration disregarded this established, commonsense policy by embedding forced taxpayer funding of elective abortions in a wide variety of Federal programs… It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion.”

Then, how are taxpayers funding abortions, if the Hyde Amendment prevents it?

Medicaid is funded jointly by the federal government and the states through state-specific matching programs. Each state assigns the medical providers who receive Medicaid funding. Therefore, when abortion clinics, and their affiliated providers, receive Medicaid reimbursement through state funding, taxpayers end up financially funding abortion clinics.

Why Should You Care?

Taxpayers should not be forced to fund abortions because of the physical pain caused to the innocent victim, the unborn child. Scientific research, through laboratory and clinical evidence, demonstrates that unborn children feel pain as early as the first trimester. The American College of Pediatricians presented scientific data in their 2021 report by Dr. Robin Pierucci, “Fetal Pain: What is the Scientific Evidence,” which highlights that “a large body of scientific evidence demonstrates that painful or noxious stimulation adversely affects immature human beings, both before and after birth” and babies in the womb may feel pain as early as 12 weeks gestation.

From a biological analysis, human life begins at conception, meaning the moment of fertilization. This is because biologists agree that when fertilization occurs, a unique zygote (the scientific term for a new human organism) is formed, containing original DNA, distinct from the parent’s genetic material. In the second edition of the scientific textbook, Human Embryology & Teratology, of 1996, Dr. Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Dr. Fabiola Muller declare, “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization.” Embryologist Keith L. Moore in the seventh edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, of 2003, further agrees, “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization.” Dr. Moore and Dr. Persaud emphasize, “Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” (The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth ed., Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, p. 1). Cell biology researchers and Doctors, Janetti Signorelli, Emilce Diaz, and Patricio Morales, assert, “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”(“Kinases, Phosphatases and Proteases during Sperm Capacitation,” 2012).

Therefore, fertilization (the moment of conception) is the leading biological view of when human life begins. In 2021, a scientific research paper by Steven Andrew Jacobs, J.D., Ph.D., called “The Scientific Consensus on When a Human’s Life Begins,” highlights that “experts in biology were surveyed to provide a new perspective to the literature on experts’ views on this matter. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human’s life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. The founding principles of the field Science Communication suggest that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available.”

This means that a 40-year-old man contains the same genetic blueprint (complete set of DNA) as he did when he was an unborn child in his mother’s womb. Merriam-Webster defines homicide as “a killing of one human being by another,” death as “the cause or occasion of loss of life,” and child as “an unborn or recently born person.” A human death is a homicide if the dead person was once alive and is now dead because of the act of another human being. Under U.S. Code, “child abuse’ means intentionally or knowingly causing death or serious bodily injury to a child” (18 U.S.C. §1111 (c)(3)). Consequently, performing the act of homicide, as in, intentionally ending the life cycle of the 40-year-old man, is equally as unethical as ending the life cycle of an unborn child. Putting worth on humans based on their age introduces an argument of human-value based on ageism, which insinuates that a toddler’s life has less worth than a teenager’s life, due to their age and developmental stage-in-life difference.

The States that Stand Up for Unborn Children and Taxpayers

Some states are standing up for unborn children and taxpayers by preventing abortion clinics from being funded by Medicaid. For example, in 2022, Indiana passed the Senate Enrolled Act 1, which terminated the licensure of abortion clinics. Before the Senate Enrolled Act 1, Indiana was the first state to deny Medicaid funding to abortion clinics. In 2011, Indiana passed the House Enrolled Act 1210 (HEA 1210), preventing Medicaid funding of abortion clinics: “An agency of the state may not: 1) enter into a contract with, or 2) make a grant to any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed that involves the expenditure of state funds or federal funds administered by the state…. This section does not apply to hospitals licensed under IC 16-21-2 or ambulatory surgical centers licensed under IC 16-21-2.”

Alabama’s 2019 Human Life Amendment Act (HB 314) declares its intent is “to make abortion and attempted abortion felony offenses except in cases where abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother; [and] to provide that a woman who receives an abortion will not be held criminally culpable or civilly liable for receiving the abortion.” However, the state was prevented from criminalizing the act of performing an abortion by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent, at the time, of Roe v. Wade, 1973. Then, in 2022, when Roe was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the injunction (order preventing Alabama from enforcing the Human Life Amendment Act) by the U.S. District Court was lifted, and Alabama was able to terminate its Medicaid contracts with abortion clinics; thereby, enforcing a complete abortion ban, except “to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother,” through its Alabama Human Life Protection Act.

In 2018, the governor of South Carolina, under Executive Order No. 2018-21, barred abortion clinics from acquiring reimbursement through Medicaid: “WHEREAS, the preservation of life is the ultimate right to be protected and necessarily includes the life of unborn children; and … WHEREAS, the General Assembly has expressed, in section 43-5-1185 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, as amended, that ‘State funds appropriated for family planning must not be used to pay for an abortion; and WHEREAS, the payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life; … I hereby direct DHHS [South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services] to deem abortion clinics…and any affiliated physicians or professional medical practices, that are enrolled in the Medicaid program as unqualified to provide family planning services and, therefore, to immediately terminate them upon due notice and deny any future such provider enrollment applications for the same.”

The Battle in Court – What’s Next?

A crucial decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is coming up, and its impact could be significant. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit prohibited South Carolina from terminating abortion clinics’ participation in the Medicaid program as qualified providers. The issue revolves around Section 1902 (a)(23) of the Social Security Act, which provides that “any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the services….” The Supreme Court granted hearing arguments regarding whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualifier-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider (Medina v. Planned Parenthood, 2025). Eunice Medina, the Director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, argued before the Court that Section 1902 (a) (23) of the Social Security Act only creates a benefit not a private right to enforce.

What decision do you think the Supreme Court will make?

We’ll find out around June of 2025.

This upcoming decision is important not only for South Carolina but also for any state looking to follow in South Carolina’s footsteps. If the Court agrees with Medina’s argument and establishes that individuals don’t have a private right to sue when states disqualify abortion facilities as ‘qualified providers’ under the Medicaid Act, other states would have a smoother process of terminating the Medicaid contracts with abortion clinics. And as a result, preventing taxpayers from funding abortions.

UPDATE: Medina v. Planned Parenthood

On June 26th, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) published its ruling, which favored South Carolina. In its decision, SCOTUS asserted that §1396a (a)(23)(A), Medicaid’s qualified provider provision, does not create individual rights because Congress did not include language that creates rights in the provision, such as ‘guarantee’ and ‘free choice.’ Additionally, SCOTUS expressed that it will analyze what Congress enacted, rather than engage in speculation. Therefore, South Carolina will not be restricted from defunding Planned Parenthood. Now, the states will have an easier time defunding abortion clinics; thereby, protecting the lives of the unborn children and their state’s residents from paying for abortions.

For the complete SCOTUS opinion, you may go to the following URL:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1275_e2pg.pdf

The War Against Parents by Schools and States

Teachers Mandated to Lie and Omit Information from Parents

States and school districts throughout the United States are implementing laws and guidelines that undermine parents’ right to information about their children. Parents have a constitutional right to make judgments about the upbringing of their children, including in the sphere of education. But can they make those judgments if states and schools prohibit parents from learning information vital to their children’s well-being? In particular, many states are allowing schools to keep parents from learning about their children’s change of gender identity and the counseling they are receiving in that regard.

A century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parents have a constitutional right to choose how to bring up their children and that this right is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923). The Fourteenth Amendment states, “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.” The Court in Meyer established that “without a doubt, [liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to … marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.”

The Court continued, “The [Northwest] Ordinance of 1787 declares, ‘Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” The Court thus not only highlighted the right of parents to make decisions concerning their children’s upbringing, protected by the right to liberty, but it also established that the right to liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to worship God. It therefore made clear that individuals not only have the right to decide their religion, as stated by the First Amendment, but also to make decisions regarding religion, morality, and any other matter that relates to raising and shaping the mentality of their children. The Court even reaffirmed that religion and morality are necessary to the happiness of individuals.

Then, in 2000, the Supreme Court stated in Troxel v. Granville, “In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” The Court, thus, reaffirmed that parents’ rights with respect to the upbringing of their children are fundamental and should receive a high degree of protection.

Putting Minors in Charge

So then, why are states such as New York, California, and Oregon dismissing this right, and doing so over ideas that are not protected by the Constitution? Such states are favoring the promulgation of alternative cultural views in the classroom, especially those related to sexuality, and are disregarding parental rights in the process.

In June 2023, the New York State Education Department (NYSED) issued a new guidance to school districts, titled “Creating a Safe, Supportive, and Affirming School Environment for Transgender and Gender Expansive Students,” which stated, “The student is in charge of their gender transition…. Some TGE [transgender and gender expansive] students have not talked to their families about their gender identity because of safety concerns or lack of acceptance and may begin their transition at school without parent/guardian knowledge.” Moreover, when “TGE students disclose their gender identity to school personnel . . . it is important that school personnel receiving this information keep it confidential, unless the student explicitly states otherwise.”

In Oregon, not only is the state Department of Education instructing schools to hide information from parents, but the legislature enacted a bill in 2023, called House Bill 2002, which allows minors, as young as 15 years of age, to acquire gender-related surgeries without parental consent. And, in its 2023 guidance for schools, titled “Supporting Gender Expansive Students,” the Oregon Department of Education tells school districts, “To the extent possible, schools should refrain from revealing information about a student’s gender identity, even to parents, caregivers, or other school administrators, without permission from the student.” These laws and school guidelines not only allow minors to make life-changing decisions on their own; they also encourage them to defy the authority, advice, and guidance of their parents.

Contrary to the messages sent by authorities in New York and Oregon, the Supreme Court in 1979 asserted the inability of minors to make proper judgments on their upbringing and reaffirmed its constant holding that parents are best suited to decide whether a life-changing decision would be beneficial or detrimental to their child’s wellbeing. In Parham v. J.R., the Court stated, “The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions …. Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments.”

By putting minors in charge of their own upbringing, schools are explicitly denying parents their constitutional right to make decisions for their own minor children. Moreover, not only are they preventing parents from acquiring the information necessary to assess the state of their children’s mental, physical, and spiritual health, but they are also defying parental decisions that don’t align with the child’s judgment.

Hiding Crucial Information from Parents and Forcing Teachers to Lie

Even in conservative states, such as Alaska, Idaho, and Kansas, a war against parents by schools is being waged. In Alaska, the Anchorage School District has issued administrative guidelines that allow faculty members to hide information about students’ gender from their parents. The district’s guideline, called “Working with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students and Employees,” declares, “Generally, notification of a student’s parent about his or her gender identity, expression or transition is unnecessary.” In Idaho, the Middleton School District guideline, titled “Gender Identity and Sexual Education”, disregards the Supreme Court’s language on parents’ rights, asserting instead, “School employees should not disclose a student’s transgender status or sexual orientation to other individuals, regardless of setting, including the other school personnel or (in the case of middle school, junior high school, and high school students) the student’s parents/guardians, unless they have a legitimate need to know or unless the student has authorized such disclosure. Action in violation of such student confidentiality may subject an employee to discipline, up to and including possible termination and for certificated personnel, a report to the Professional Standards Commission.”

School guidelines that force teachers to lie to parents undermine teachers’ own First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of their religion. Yet, on August 28, 2023, the state of California filed a lawsuit against Chino Valley Unified School District, one of the few districts in California that demand parental notification by the school of a child’s change of gender identification.

In Kansas, the guidelines for public schools instruct school personnel to “not disclose information that may reveal a student’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation to others, including parents” (“Kansas City Kansas Public Schools Guidelines for Transgender and Gender Non-conforming Students at School”). These guidelines discriminate against parents who would oppose their child’s change of gender by making schools purposely withhold vital information from them; consequently, parents who disagree with the ideology of changing genders are prevented from making a healthy parenting choice.

From analyzing the clear language of the Supreme Court in conjunction with the Fourteenth Amendment, one can easily see the discrimination that parents, especially conservative ones, face in some states raises to an unconstitutional level. Parents cannot make the best decisions for the well-being of their children if schools and states forestall them from obtaining vital information. As Troxel highlights, parents have the right to make such decisions because their children do not have the maturity or life experience to understand the consequences of their choices. States ought to bear in mind that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed in several cases that parents have a constitutional right to “direct the upbringing and education of children under their control” (Troxel, quoting Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925). Purposely withholding information constitutes a violation of parental rights because it denies parents the knowledge they need to make good decisions for their minor children.

Fighting Back

Throughout the nation, parents are having to defend a right they already have in accordance with the Constitution and as affirmed by the Supreme Court. Some state legislatures are helping them by bringing up bills protecting parental rights, with regard not only to schools but also to other areas of life. For example, Florida enacted the Parent’s Bill of Rights in 2022. Louisiana, Georgia, and North Carolina have enacted similar laws, and other states are in the process of doing so. Such laws help ensure that parents become aware of the ideas being taught and promoted among their children in school and how these ideas may affect their well-being.

On the federal level, H.R.5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act, passed the House of Representatives in March 2023; However, it did not pass the Senate. The bill would have been a major win for parents since it reaffirms parents’ legal right to be made aware of a child’s change of gender, pronouns, or of sex-based accommodations at school as well as access to school curricula and teaching materials. The bill would have been especially helpful for parents in states whose policies ignore or seek to override their rights.

Parents should inform themselves of the situation in their state, and take it into account in making choices for their children’s education and even, where feasible, in choosing where to live. The choice to live in one state versus another could mean the difference between retaining and losing the freedom to raise their children in accordance with their own values and to guide them in the making of crucial choices.

This article was first published by Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity.