In a published report of suicidal ideation rates drawn from the Turnaway Study, the abortion advocacy group Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) asserted that their findings proved that abortion has no effect on suicidal ideation. Therefore, laws requiring notification of abortion's link to higher suicide rates were not based on good science. But how good is the science ANSIRH offers to displace the evidence of an abortion-suicide connection? The Turnaway Study upon which they rely is drawn from a non-random, non-representative convenience sample that suffered from a 68% refusal rate and a 50% attrition rate. No conclusions applicable to the general population of aborting women can be drawn from such a sample. Moreover, on closer examination, ANSIRH's suicidal ideation trajectory analysis is severely flawed and violates Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. Basic and critical information is withheld, specifically the mean scores and number of women identified as having suicidal thoughts. Instead, readers are provided with only highly massaged results from a mixed-effects logistic regression employing thirteen covariates that appear to have been chosen precisely to water down the confidence intervals to such a high degree that virtually nothing was statistically significant. In addition, ANSIRH suggested that an attrition analysis of three of the covariates used strengthened the reliability of their finding. However, the fact that they chose not to report on attrition rates associated with the other ten covariates, much less the two outcome variables related to suicidal ideation, actually exposes the falsity of this reliability claim. Rather than proving that abortion has no effect on suicidal behaviors, ANSRIH's published analysis provides evidence of deliberate obfuscation and disinformation by a group funded and dedicated to the expansion of abortion rates around the world.

The teachings of the Catholic Church on human sexuality, contraception and the treatment of infertility are well established and clearly explained in many Church documents, including Humanae vitae and Familiaris consortio. In 2022, a book was published in Italian which reported on a seminar organised by an Academy of the Catholic Church about the ethics of life. Titled the Theological Ethics of Life (abbreviated 'ETV' in Italian), the conclusion of chapter VII contains statements about contraception and assisted reproductive technologies (ART) which, though somewhat difficult to interpret, appear to be controversial with regard to accepted Church teaching on these subjects. This paper presents a detailed analysis by a group of Australian Catholic doctors and ethicists of an English translation of paragraphs 172 and 173 of ETV and concludes that they contain statements which deviate from and contradict accepted Catholic teaching on contraception and ART. The authors also claim that a thorough up-to-date knowledge and understanding of suitable current alternatives to contraception and ART (e.g. in-vitro fertilization, IVF) which are safe, effective, readily accessible and consistent with Catholic ethics appears to be lacking in paragraphs 172 and 173 of ETV. The authors suggest a better understanding of currently available methods to assist with fertility care, aided by input from Catholic medical experts working in the areas of Fertility Awareness Methods (FAMs) and Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) would better inform ongoing debates about contraception and ART within the Church and be of service to the Faithful who should be encouraged to pursue these alternatives which are both effective and consistent with Church teaching on human sexuality and morals.

COVID-19 is a serious illness with significant morbidity and mortality. Vaccines to immunize against it were developed in record time. Mandates followed. The question to be considered is when mandates are ethical. Mandates can be used to prevent spread of an infection, prevent overwhelming the healthcare system, or protect public safety, thereby protecting the vulnerable and allowing for full flourishing of the common good. At the same time, one must be careful about respecting autonomy by allowing those who consciences do not allow them to be vaccinated to refuse. Because COVID-19 knowledge is rapidly changing as more information is known and the virus mutates, the conditions under which mandates are ethical change as well. At present, since vaccines prevent severe infection and death in high-risk individuals with added benefit for those who are vaccinated and have a history of infection, mandates can be imposed on those individuals. With an estimated 95% of the US population believed to have been infected and prior history of infection shown to be as effective as vaccination, with immunity lasting at least 500 days, and ability to prevent spread unknown at present but limited at best in the past, the vaccines therefore cannot be ethically mandated for those who are low risk for the versions released September 2023 based on information as of October 2023.

The postmodern world upholds autonomy as its greatest value, and thus prioritizes the healthy and independent. This view is flawed insofar as dependency is not equivocal to helplessness, but instead is the virtue of properly ordering one's individual life within broader society and, ultimately, in relation to God himself. Understood properly as a virtue cultivated through particular actions, genuine dependency avoids the vicious extremes of radical individualism and radical helplessness. Instead, it enables man to experience fulfillment through the development of an authentic personality in the context of a "relational subjectivity" that aims towards the common good, yet always respects the dignity of each individual human person.

The metaphor of Christ the physician features prominently in the gospels and the preaching of the Church Fathers, emphasizing that Jesus' work of healing extends beyond bodily ills to spiritual healing as well. Given that the end of medicine is "health," which involves wholeness of body and soul, Christ is uniquely able to accomplish this in us-beginning with grace in our souls in this life, and culminating in the resurrection of the body and restoration of body and soul in glory at the end of time. Drawing on the thought of the Church Fathers and Thomas Aquinas, this paper considers how Catholic health care is distinctly positioned to continue Christ's work of bodily and spiritual healing through medical and sacramental approaches-as we await our perfect and ultimate healing upon Christ's return in glory.

It is estimated that between 2.1 percent and 8.3 percent of Catholic couples remain biologically childless after exhausting all morally upright approaches for assisting reproduction. This represents a significant group within the Church earnestly seeking to live a fruitful married life in the absence of conceiving children. This essay seeks to provide a theologically and pastorally enriching exploration of marital fruitfulness for sterile Catholic couples in two ways: first, by demonstrating how the meanings of human fruitfulness and sterility have been definitively transformed by Christ and second, by exploring some of the ways sterile Christian marriages are abundantly fruitful. The insights of twentieth-century theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar are drawn upon and shaped for this purpose. The essay concludes by highlighting ways that sterile Christian couples can be supported to come to a better understanding of the abundant fruitfulness of their marriage.