Bill Donohue

Who voted for Zohran Mamdani? He is the young radical Muslim socialist who was elected the next mayor of New York City. He took 50.4 percent of the vote; Andrew Cuomo received 41.6 percent; and Curtis Sliwa picked up 7.1 percent.

Let’s start with the two most important demographic segments who voted against Mamdani: Jews and Catholics. Jews voted for Cuomo over Mamdani by a margin of 63 percent to 33 percent; Catholics split the vote 53 to 33 percent, respectively. Among those with no religious affiliation—who are second in size to Catholics—Mamdani won 52 percent of them.

Mamdani walloped Cuomo with the two least sophisticated segments of the voting population, namely first-time voters and young people. He won 65 percent of the former and 62 percent of voters under 30. The older the voter the more likely he was to vote for Cuomo. No matter, seniors were outdone not only among the youngest voters, middle-age voters also broke for Mamdani.

The socialist led the field among those of every race and ethnicity, save for white voters (Cuomo won by 1 percent). An impressive 62 percent of Asians voted for the man of mixed African and South Asian ancestry. Blacks voted for Mamdani over Cuomo 57 percent to 38 percent, and the split for Latinos was 52 to 39 percent.

Men did not turn out to vote (they are 48 percent of the New York City population but they made up only 44 percent of voters) and they chose Mamdani (50 percent) to Cuomo (41 percent). Women are 52 percent of the NYC population, but they accounted for 55 percent of the voters; 50 percent voted for Mamdani, and 43 percent went for Cuomo. Mamdani creamed the field among young women voters—they are the most radical segment of the electorate—winning an astonishing 84 percent of them.

It is incontestable that in recent times both the New York Times and the Washington Post have moved far to the left of their traditional center-left position. But they drew the line with Mamdani.

Last June, the Times not only refused to endorse him when he was running in the Democratic primary, they said, “His experience is too thin, and his agenda reads like a turbocharged version of Mr. de Blasio’s dismaying mayoralty.” A few days ago, the Post said that if he succeeds with his radical policies, “New Yorkers will begin to flee.”

In other words, New Yorkers are more left-wing than the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post. This is amazing.

Does this mean that New Yorkers really believe that a man whose only full-time job outside politics was working as a counselor at a non-profit organization for about a year has the chops to do the job? No. They don’t believe him. Only 39 percent of New Yorkers say he is up for the job, as compared to 47 percent who say he isn’t.

Mamdani prevailed at all income levels, doing best with high-income voters. He tapped into a lot of economic fears. For example, New Yorkers said that their number-one issue is the cost-of-living, and Mamdani ran on a campaign to make New York “affordable.” But his basket of goodies—free bus fare, free child care, a rent freeze—cannot be done without raising taxes. Here’s the kicker: 60 percent of voters said raising taxes will “hurt the economy.”

So is Mamdani being realistic when he sports his budget-busting policies? No. Only 44 percent of voters said his polices are realistic. Cuomo, by contrast, was believable—58 percent said his policies were realistic.

In other words, a majority of New Yorkers voted for a man whom they believe (a) can’t do the job (b) will pursue measures that will hurt the economy, and (c) will promote policies that are unrealistic.

What gives? What we are witnessing is a merger of La La Land and The Twilight Zone. It’s called New York City.

Bill Donohue

We have made plain our grave concerns about Zohran Mamdani (click here), and now that he will become the mayor of New York City on January 1, 2026, we will keep a close eye on his rulings, especially as they bear on religious liberty and Catholic interests.

Specifically, we will report on his personnel picks and policy decisions, holding him accountable. This means we will not wait until January to track him. Moreover, we will provide our email subscribers and Catholic League members with contact information, so they can have their voice heard. We will post our findings on our website under “Mamdani Watch.”

Mamdani is poised to be much more than a local figure, which explains why we will monitor his every move.

Profile Of Mamdani Voters Is Telling—November 6, 2025

Mamdani’s Rulings Bear Close Scrutiny—November 5, 2025

Does Mamdani Hate Minorities?—October 6, 2025

Mamdani’s Communist Roots—September 30, 2025

Unmasking Zohran Mamdani—August 20, 2025

Bill Donohue

Tonight, at New York’s Plaza Hotel, Glamour magazine will hold its 2025 “Women of the Year” ceremony. But no one really cares about the celebrities being honored, and that’s because all of them are women. It’s just too mundane to matter.

What sells is honoring men who falsely claim to be a woman. That is what the November U.K. Glamour is doing: on the cover are photos of men who pretend to be women; they are being honored as “Women of the Year.”

Why do those who work at the U.K. offices at Glamour hate women? It cries out for an honest answer.

If there were a cover story recognizing the achievements of blacks, featuring “African Americans of the Year,” and every one of the honorees was white, wouldn’t this be labeled racist? Why, then, is it not misogynistic to honor men who are deemed to be “Women of the Year”?

Aside from J.K. Rowling in the U.K., and Megan Kelly and Allie Beth Stuckey in the U.S., there has been little pushback against this attack on women. Where are all the feminists who for years have been telling us that men occupy positions of privilege, denying women equal rights? In a perverse shift, it is now feminists who are championing the evisceration of women’s rights, promoting the interests of men who are out to destroy them. These are the new misogynists.

This fall, Glamour writer Stephanie McNeal blasted the men who harassed Irish golfer Rory McIlroy, and his wife Erica Stoll, at the Ryder Cup golf tournament held on Long Island. Many of them were rude beyond belief. McNeal didn’t hold back. “Let’s call a spade a spade: The behaviour was pure misogynistic abuse, and it’s a growing movement in American culture right now.”

Yes, it is time to call a spade a spade. We can begin by explaining why it is misogynistic to mistreat McIlroy’s wife, but it is not misogynistic to mistreat women who would make splendid candidates for “Women of the Year,” instead recognizing men who falsely claim to be a woman. What’s worse—catcalls or discriminating against women?

It is not as though McNeal hasn’t thought about this subject. Back in January she wrote a piece for Glamour titled, “Misogyny Is 2025’s Biggest Trend.” She gave as an example Mark Zuckerberg telling Joe Rogan that companies need more “masculine energy.” Another example of misogyny is removing tampons from men’s bathrooms (she did not say why the guys never complained). Abortion restrictions, which protect females in the womb as well as males, are also labeled misogynistic.

“Masculine energy” shows contempt for women. Removing tampons from men’s bathrooms shows contempt for women. Protecting the unborn shows contempt for women. But denying high-achieving women the right to be considered “Women of the Year”—awarding that right exclusively to men—does not show contempt for women.

Mainstreaming delusion has never been more chic.

Kara Dansky is a left-wing feminist activist of the old school, meaning she does not suffer from delusion. She is the author of The Abolition of Sex: How the ‘Transgender’ Agenda Harms Women and Girls. She maintains that transgender is “a made-up concept,” one that it is really a “men’s rights movement.” Indeed, she says, “It is left-wing misogyny on steriods.”

She agrees with J.K. Rowling that we are living in the one of the most misogynistic times in recent history. That the biggest misogynists are feminists, working to promote men’s rights at the expense of women’s rights, is something previous feminists never fathomed.

On the cover of the October edition of Ebony magazine, the prominent black publication, eight young men and women were featured in a story on “The Next Wave of HBCU Leaders in Beauty.” HBCU stands for “Historically Black Colleges & Universities.” All of the young men and women were black. Had they been white, Ebony would fold.

But Glamour will survive, and that’s because the new misogynists have proven to be triumphant. To put it differently, if the savants who work there can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman, then how can they be sure they are right when they complain that women are being mistreated? How do they know they’re a woman?

Bill Donohue

The short answer to this question is because Massachusetts is so liberal.

To be a liberal used to mean being tolerant, especially of free speech. No more. Today it means being an authoritarian. This has been confirmed by many surveys, including ones sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). In other words, many—not all—self-identified contemporary liberals are illiberal in their words and deeds.

Among the most illiberal states in the nation is Massachusetts. One recent example of this verity is the recent lawsuit brought by more than a dozen residents in Quincy objecting to the display of St. Michael and St. Florian on the new police headquarters. The town mayor, Thomas Koch, chose these two figures to adorn the building because they are the patron saints of police and firefighters, respectively. A judge has granted a preliminary injunction stopping the installation of the statues.

The lawsuit argues that the statues violate religious neutrality, as required by law. Mayor Koch responds by saying they were chosen “to honor Quincy’s first responders, not to promote any religion.” The legal issues are critical, but it is not fidelity to the law that is spurring the lawsuit—it is intolerance to anything Christian.

St. Michael was chosen as the patron saint of the police because of his role, as described in Scripture, of being a warrior angel who protected the people. Florian was a third-century military officer who was responsible for assembling an elite corps of firefighters. That’s why the two of them were chosen as exemplary representatives of first responders.

The Supreme Court has several times understood that religious figures can have secular connotations, meaning their non-religious activities can be appreciated independent of their religious status. One example of this would be the many schools, streets and statues named after Martin Luther King. They are a tribute to his civil rights efforts. He was also a minister, yet no one says they should be renamed because he was a man of the cloth.

Corpus Christi is a city in Texas. It means “Body of Christ.” Should it be renamed? Throughout California there are towns and cities that start with “San,” meaning “saint.” Should they be renamed? We are coming into the holiday season: the word “holiday” means “holy day.” Should we cancel that as well? Or are we not being deliriously sensitive?

What is going on in Quincy is a state-wide problem. Take Boston, barely ten miles away.

From 2006 to 2018, the city of Boston authorized 284 flags to fly atop a city flagpole outside of city hall, representing a myriad of government and private interests. But in 2018 it turned down a request by Camp Constitution to fly what they described as a “Christian” flag, maintaining that to do so would amount to government endorsement of religion. But Gay Pride flags were allowed: only Christian flags were banned.

Eventually, the Supreme Court resolved the Christian lawsuit in their favor. The high court ruled that the flagpole represented a public forum, and therefore the government could not discriminate on the basis of religious viewpoint.

Why did secular elites in Boston decide to cherry-pick one group and deny it the right to fly their Christian flag when they had no problem honoring the flags of Communist nations? Why was rejecting the Christian flag so important to them that they appealed lower court rulings to the highest court in the land? Let’s face it, they did so because of their deep-seated animus against Christianity.

The same hostility is at work today in Quincy. Historically, this is bizarre.

The last state to abandon state churches was Massachusetts. That was in 1833. But in 2016, a Pew Research Center poll found that the Bay State was tied with New Hampshire as the least religious state in the nation. In 2007, 81 percent of the residents of Massachusetts identified with a religion; in 2024, it was 63 percent. The decline was driven largely by a decrease in adults who identified as Christian. Moreover, the percentage of adults who identified as religiously unaffiliated jumped from 17 percent in 2007 to 37 percent in 2024.

One major reason for the secularization of Massachusetts is the proliferation of elite colleges and universities; it ranks second on this measure to California. This matters greatly as higher education is one of the most significant drivers of secularism in the nation. Regrettably, these days it is associated with illiberalism.

In its 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, FIRE rated 257 colleges and universities. Harvard University ranked 245, Boston College placed 251, and Northeastern University came in at 253. The study concluded that “Massachusetts is home to some of the most speech-restrictive campuses in the country.” Thus does it represent a textbook case of how liberalism has evolved into illiberalism.

Those who spend their days on campus, as administrators, faculty or students, surely consider themselves among the most enlightened and fair-minded people in America. Nonsense. They are precisely the kind of people who get exercised about the statues that adorn the Quincy police headquarters.

Nicholas Palczewski

Support for doctor-assisted suicide is losing ground. Identical studies done in 2016 and 2025 by the Lifeway Research found that in 2016, 67% of Americans agreed with it, but in 2025, only 51% of Americans agreed. Nonetheless, as this report indicates, it remains a serious problem.

See our website, under special reports, for an extended version of this report.

California

Origin

The End of Life Option Act began in 2016.

Victims

According to the Dept. of Public Health, between 2016 and 2024 a total of 8,242 people received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 5,423 people ended their lives by ingesting the drug.

Colorado

Origin

In 2016, two-thirds of Colorado voters approved Proposition 106 which allowed for the legalization of Medical Aid in Dying.

Victims

According to the Dept. of Public Health and the Environment, between 2017 and 2024, 1,995 people received life-ending drugs.

District of Columbia

Origin

The Death with Dignity Act of 2016 took effect in 2017.

Victims

According to the Dept. of Health, between 2019 and 2022 a total of 31 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 23 ended their lives by ingesting the drug.

Hawaii

Origin

Our Choice Act began in 2019.

Victims

According to the Dept. of Health, between 2019 and 2024 a total of 361 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs, ending the lives of 195.

Maine

Origin

The Death With Dignity Act became law in 2019.

Victims

Between 2019 to 2024, a total of 318 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. It ended the lives of 218 people.

Montana

Origin

In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution does not prohibit medical aid in dying. It also ruled that physicians who act on a patient’s wishes to end their own life cannot be criminally penalized. While the ruling allowed for the practice, the state legislature has not passed a law that officially legalizes it.

Victims

No official statistics are available.

New Jersey

Origin

The Medical Aid in Dying Act began in 2019.

Victims

According to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, between 2019 and 2024 a total of 409 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 362 ended their lives by ingesting the drug.

New Mexico

Origin

The End of Life Option Act took effect in 2021.

Victims

The Dept. of Health does not keep annual statistics on the number of people who have died from assisted suicide. Therefore it is unknown how many have used the practice to end their lives.

Oregon

Origin

The Death With Dignity Act was initially approved by Oregon voters in 1994, but an injunction was issued. It was lifted in 1997, allowing the law to take effect.

Victims

According to the Health Authority, from 1998 to 2024, a total of 4,881 people received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 3,243 patients died by ingesting the drug.

Vermont

Origin

In 2013, the Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act was passed.

Victims

According to the Dept. of Health, between 2013 and 2023 a total of 200 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 146 ended their lives.

Washington

Origin

The Death with Dignity Act became law in 2009.

Victims

According to the State Dept. of Health, between 2009 and 2023 a total of 3,683 people received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 2,768 people ended their lives.

Sometimes it takes a personal experience before we change. Take the case of  Montana State Rep. Greg Overstreet, who initially was a supporter of doctor-assisted suicide. When he was suffering from COVID and on a ventilator, doctors told him he had a slim chance of survival. He asked doctors to pull his ventilator after seven days, but extended it to two weeks after pleas from his wife. He soon made a miraculous recovery a week later. He noted that if it were not for his wife pleading him to extend the “do not resuscitate” order, he would not have survived. His experience led him to support the prohibition of the law.

It is striking to note that the six states with the worst record are also among the least religious in the nation. A recent Pew study of the 50 states and the District of Columbia listed California and Colorado tied for 39th, Hawaii was 43rd, Oregon was 40th, Vermont was 51st and Washington 37th.

Radical autonomy has become a secular God. Its consequences are deadly.

Bill Donohue

The divide between Americans who are religious and who are secular (religiously unaffiliated) is dramatic: it is evident in all aspects of the culture. That is one conclusion that can easily be drawn by the data provided by the Pew Research Center’s 2023-24 Religious Landscape Study. This is the third such national study, the earlier ones being in 2014 and 2007.

Demographic Profile

Christians comprise 62% of the population; 40% Protestant, 19% Catholic and 3% other Christians. Another 7% belong to a religion other than Christianity, and 29% are religiously unaffiliated.

While the share of those who are Christian has declined since 2014, it has slowed and may even have leveled off.

Among the 7% who belong to a non-Christian religion, approximately 2% are Jewish and 1% each are Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu.

Among the religiously unaffiliated, 5% are atheist, 6% are agnostic and 19% identify as “nothing in particular.”

Here are some of the findings that detail the secular-religious divide.

Political Ideology

Consistent with other surveys, this study found that “The most highly religious Americans are also the most Republican, conservative.” Conversely, secularists are overwhelmingly Democrats.

When it comes to Americans who identify as conservative, moderate and liberal, overall 33% are conservative, 38% are moderate and 24% are liberal. The only groups with a majority who identify as liberal are atheists (67%) and agnostics (57%). As we shall see, this has significant consequences.

Science and Religion

Is there a conflict between science and religion, as is often portrayed by the media and those in education? Religious Americans do not see it that way—it is those without a religious affiliation who believe there is. “Among Americans with low levels of religious engagement, 73% say science and religion are mostly in conflict, roughly twice the share of highly religious Americans who take the same position (35%).”

While the authors of this study do not say why, from a Catholic perspective there is no inherent tension between believing what God has created and a scientific understanding of the universe. Indeed, it was Catholic scientists during the Scientific Revolution who sought to appreciate the scientific basis of God’s creation.

But for atheists and agnostics, who discount the existence of God, all they have to fall back on is science, which they believe has nothing in common with God’s creation of the universe. This belief is central to their dogma.

Government and Helping the Poor

Do secularists care more about the poor than religious Americans? Many of those in the chattering class, who tend to be secularists, believe this is the case. They point to reports like this Pew study as proof.

It is true that this study shows that “Highly religious Americans are less likely to say the government should give more help to people in need.” It is also true that “Two-thirds of U.S. adults with low levels of religious engagement favor a bigger government that provides more services.” In fact, “72% of atheists say the government should provide more assistance to those in need.”

Not so fast. As I pointed out in my book, The Catholic Advantage: How Happiness, Health and Heaven Await the Faithful, the social science evidence is clear: religious Americans are the most charitable and altruistic; secularists are the least generous and the least altruistic.

The reason why secularists score so poorly on these variables has much to do with their belief that government—not private individuals or religious organizations—should provide for the poor. So of course they appear to be more concerned about the poor when they say government should do more to help them. They are the least likely to write a check or volunteer their services.

Morality

On moral issues, the religious-secular divide is astounding.

Is it better for one parent to stay at home to focus on the family? Most Americans (55%) say it is, and the more religious someone is the more likely he is to agree. The only ones who disagree are those who score “low” on this variable. So telling.

Should homosexuality, transgender people and abortion be accepted by society? Christians are the most likely to disagree. It is secularists who are the most accepting. This speaks to the premium which secularists put on individual autonomy, in contrast to the premium which religious Americans put on traditional moral values.

The more religious someone is, the more likely he is to say there are “clear and absolute standards for what is right and wrong.” Secularists are naturally moral relativists: to admit there are clear moral standards is to beg the question—according to whom? By definition, they cannot answer, “God.”

Religious Americans are the most likely to believe that public school teachers should lead their classes in nonsectarian prayers; secularists, of course, disagree. Secularists also oppose religious displays on public property. It’s too bad respondents weren’t asked if they opposed them on private property.

A strong majority of Americans believe that churches and religious organizations enhance community bonds, help the poor and strengthen morality in society. That says a great deal.

We are a divided country, and much of it is reflected, if not caused, by the religious-secular divide.

National Data on Assisted Suicide

When it comes to American’s opinions on doctor-assistive suicide, survey data have shown that Americans’ belief in the morality of the practice has decreased.

Identical studies done in 2016 and 2025 by the Lifeway Research on doctor-assisted suicide found that Americans’ support for the practice has been decreasing.

Respondents were asked if they agree that it is morally acceptable for a terminally ill person to seek physician-assisted suicide. In 2016, 67% of Americans agreed it is with 31% saying they strongly agree. In 2025, only 51% of Americans agreed with 21% saying they strongly agree.

Respondents were also asked if they believed that physicians should be allowed to assist terminally ill patients in taking their own life. In 2016, 69% of Americans agreed with 32% saying they strongly agree. In 2025, only 55% of Americans agreed with 25% saying they strongly agree.

Similarly, a 2024 Gallup poll found that only a only a “slim majority” of Americans believe that doctor-assistive suicide is morally acceptable with 53% of Americans believing doctor-assistive suicide is morally acceptable, compared to 40% who believe it is morally wrong.

Legalization by State

As of October 2025, 10 states and the District of Columbia have legalized assisted suicide, one state has legalized the practice but it has not taken effect yet, and one state has passed a bill in the legislature and is awaiting the governor’s signature.

For the states that have legalized assisted suicide, we have seen an increase in the number of victims; we have also seen an increase in the removal of a number of safeguards designed to protect vulnerable populations and prevent unnecessary death.

California

Origin

Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed the California End of Life Option Act into law on October 5, 2015; it went into effect June 9, 2016.

Victims

According to the California Department of Public Health, between 2016 and 2024 a total of 8,242 people received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 5,423 people ended their lives by ingesting the drug.

Legal Changes

In January 2022, SB 380 went into effect. The law reduced the waiting period between oral requests for medication from 15 days to 48 hours. It also removed the requirement for the patient to state a final attestation before receiving the medication.

The original 2016 law placed a provision that would allow it to expire in the year 2031. In 2025, California State Senator Catherine Blakespear introduced SB 403 in the California legislature which would remove the expiration provision, thus making Medical Aid in Dying permanent in California. The bill was passed in the state assembly and senate in September 2025 and was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 3.

In February 2025, Blakespear introduced another proposal that would expand assisted suicide to anyone to non-terminally ill patients who had a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.” She withdrew the bill in April 2025.

Results

As a result of the passage of SB 380, California saw a massive spike in patients receiving end of life prescriptions. California public health data shows that between 2021 and 2022, the number of prescriptions written spiked from 863 to 1,204. Of the 1,204, roughly 78% of patients waited less than 15 days for the medication. As a result, the number of deaths significantly increased during this time period from 522 to 853.

Colorado

Origin

In 2016, Colorado voters approved Proposition 106 which allowed for the legalization of Medical Aid in Dying in Colorado. (64.87% of voters approved of the proposition)

Victims

According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, between 2017 and 2024 a total of 1,995 people had received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. (Note: Colorado does not keep track of the number of patients who died after ingesting the drugs.)

Legal Changes

On June 5, 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) signed SB 24-068 into law. The law gets rid of safeguards in the original bill. These include:

• Reducing the waiting period for a prescription from 15 days to 7 days.
• Allowing a physician to waive the waiting period requirement if it is determined that a patient has less than 48 hours to live.
• Permitting a registered nurse to evaluate a patient’s status and prescribe the life-ending medication.

In May 2025, a federal lawsuit was filed by several advocacy groups claiming that Colorado’s residency requirement for medical aid in dying was unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jeff McComas, a Minnesota resident who is suffering from terminal cancer and is seeking to participate in Colorado’s Medical Aid in Dying program, but is unable to because he does not live in the state. As of October 2025, the lawsuit is pending in the courts.

Negative Results

The 2024 change to the law has led to a significant increase in patient prescriptions than in previous years. Between 2022 and 2023, the number of patients being prescribed life-ending medication increased from 317 to 398; between 2023 and 2024, the number increased from 398 to 510.

District of Columbia

Origin

The District of Columbia Death with Dignity Act of 2016 was signed December 19, 2016 and took effect February 18, 2017.

Victims

According to the DC Department of Health, between 2019 and 2022 a total of 31 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 23 ended their lives by ingesting the drug.

Legal Changes

As of October 2025, no changes to the current law have been proposed or enacted.

Results

Since the law went into effect there have been no reports of patients or physicians misusing the law to allow for easier access to death.

Hawaii

Origin

Governor David Ige (D) signed the Our Care, Our Choice Act into law April 5, 2018 which took effect January 1, 2019.

Victims

According to the Hawaii Department of Health, between 2019 and 2024 a total of 361 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 195 ended their lives by ingesting the drug.

Legal Changes

On June 2, 2023 Governor Josh Green (D), a physician, signed a bill amending the Our Care, Our Choice Act of 2019. The amendments included:

• Enabling advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) to act as attending, consulting or counseling providers.
• Allowing licensed marriage and family therapists to be listed as counseling providers.
• Shortening the waiting period for obtaining a fatal prescription from 20 days from the initial request to 5 days. (The waiting period can be shortened to 48 hours if it’s determined that the patient is unlikely to live past 5 days.)

Results

In 2025, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported that Honolulu police “opened a second-degree murder investigation after a doctor allegedly administer[ed] a lethal prescription dose to an 88-year-old woman in violation of Hawaii’s assisted death law.” Police allege the doctor failed to follow the rule which states that only the patient may administer the dosage. The report also mentions that “at one point [the patient] motioned for the doctor to stop, but he continued to administer the prescription.”

Maine

Origin

Governor Janet Mills (D) signed into law the Maine Death with Dignity Act June 12, 2019.

Victims

Between 2019 to 2024, a total of 318 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 218 people ended their lives by ingesting the drug.

Legal Changes

On June 25, 2025, Governor Mills signed into law a bill that expands the Death With Dignity law to allow a physician to waive the waiting period for a patient to receive life-ending drugs.

Results

Since the law went into effect in 2021, there have been no reports of patients or physicians misusing the law to allow for easier access to death.

Montana

Origin

In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled in Baxter v. Montana that the state constitution does not prohibit medical aid in dying (MAID). It also ruled that physicians who act on a patient’s wishes to end their own life cannot be criminally penalized. While the ruling allowed for the practice, the state legislature has not passed a law that officially legalizes it.

Victims

Because there is no official state law, statistics regarding the total number of victims have not been recorded.

Legal Changes

Since the 2009 Supreme Court ruling, several bills have been introduced in the Montana State legislature seeking to both legalize and prohibit MAID. However, none of them have been successful:

• In 2011, 2013, and 2015, bills were introduced in the Montana senate seeking to implement Baxter v. Montana ruling into law. None of the bills passed.
• Bills were introduced in the legislature in 2017, 2019, and 2023 that would remove legal protections for physicians who prescribe life-ending medication. They all failed to pass.
• In the 2025 legislative session, HB 637 was introduced, seeking to legalize MAID. In the senate, SB 136 was introduced seeking to ban the practice. Both bills died in the legislature.

Results

During the process of debating the 2025 SB 136, State Rep. Greg Overstreet shared a near-death experience he had. Suffering from COVID and on a ventilator, doctors told him he had a slim chance of survival. He asked doctors to pull his ventilator after seven days, but extended it to two weeks after pleas from his wife. He soon made a miraculous recovery a week later. He noted that if it were not for his wife pleading him to extend the “do no resuscitate” order, he would not have survived. His experience led him to support the prohibition of MAID.

Other lawmakers have raised concerns about the implications of administering life-ending drugs to patients. State Sen. Daniel Emrich cited the potential dangerous and painful effects of the drugs used, saying, “The drug cocktails they give them contain paralytics and these, without other drugs, will make them suffocate and die.”

New Jersey

Origin

Governor Phil Murphy (D) signed New Jersey’s Medical Aid in Dying Act into law April 12, 2019; it went into effect August 1, 2019.

Victims

According to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, between 2019 and 2024 a total of 409 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 362 ended their lives by ingesting the drug.

Legal Changes

Every year since 2022, a bill seeking to waive the 15 day waiting period for certain patients has been introduced in the State legislature. It has failed to pass. The bill was introduced in the 2025 legislative session and is currently sitting in committee.

Attempts have been made to remove the residency requirement for New Jersey’s law. In 2023, two women—one from Pennsylvania and another from Delaware—filed a lawsuit in New Jersey District Court seeking to challenge the Medical Aid in Dying Law residency requirement. The complaint was dismissed in September 2024, but is currently being appealed.

Results

Since the law went into effect there have been no reports of patients or physicians misusing the law to allow for easier access to death.

New Mexico

Origin

New Mexico’s End of Life Option Act was signed by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) April 8, 2021 and took effect June 2021.

Victims

New Mexico’s Department of Health does not keep annual statistics on the number of people who have died from assisted suicide. Therefore it is unknown how many have used the practice to end their lives.

Legal Changes

As of October 2025, no changes to the current law have been proposed or implemented.

Results

Since the law went into effect in 2021, there have been no significant reports of patients or physicians misusing the law to allow for easier access to death.

Oregon

Origin

Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) was initially approved by Oregon voters in November 1994 by a 51-49 margin; however implementation was delayed by an injunction. The injunction was lifted in October 1997, allowing the law to take effect. A ballot measure in November 1997 sought to repeal the DWDA but was rejected by voters by a 60-40 margin.

Victims

According to the Oregon Health Authority, from 1998 to 2024, a total of 4,881 people received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 3,243 patients died by ingesting the drug.

Legal Changes

In July 2019, Governor Kate Brown (D) signed SB 579 giving physicians the ability to waive the 15 day waiting period for people in extreme situations.

In July 2023, Governor Tina Kotek (D) signed HB 2279, repealing the residency restriction in the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.

In February 2025, Senate Bill 1003 was introduced. The bill seeks to both allow non-physician medical professionals to provide life-ending drugs to patients and reduce the waiting period for life-ending drugs from 15 days to 7 days. It did not pass by the end of the session and died in committee.

Results

Health plans in Oregon have encouraged cancer patients to take medicine that would end their life. In 2008 64-year-old Barbara Wagner was diagnosed with lung cancer and was prescribed a treatment drug by her doctor. Her insurance company, Oregon Health Plan, refused to pay for the drug, but instead offered to cover drugs associated with medical aid in dying. That same year, Oregon resident Randy Stoup suffered the same experience when Oregon Health Plan refused to cover the chemotherapy for his prostate cancer, but offered to cover life-ending drugs.

Research published in the journal BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care in 2023 analyzed the effectiveness of Oregon’s medical aid in dying program from its inception in 1997 to present day. The researchers found that safeguards put into place designed to protect patients are increasingly being ignored at the expense of non-terminally ill patients. They concluded that:

• “Since 2010, various other diagnoses have qualified [for medical aid in dying], including non-terminal illness, such as arthritis, complications from a fall, hernia, and anorexia nervosa.”
• “The length of the doctor-patient relationship reduced over time…falling from 18 weeks, on average, in 2010, to 5 weeks in 2022.”
• “[In] the first 3 years of the legislation doctors requested psychiatric assessment in an average of 28% of cases. By 2003 this had dropped to 5%, and in 2022, just 1% of participants underwent psychiatric evaluation.”
• “In the first 5 years of the legislation, nearly a third (30%) of participants were concerned about being a burden. Since 2017, this has been cited by around half of those opting for an assisted death: 46% in 2022.”

These findings indicate that medical aid in dying in Oregon has allowed for increased death of persons who are not terminally ill. It also suggests that other states that have legalized the practice could follow a similar path in the future.

There was also an instance where the life-ending drugs failed to effectively work. In 2005 a man terminally ill with cancer, David Pruiett, chose to end his life under Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. After completing the legal process, he got the fatal prescription, ingested the liquid “laced with powder from 100 barbiturate pills, and fell asleep. Three days later, he woke up and asked his wife why he wasn’t dead.” He told his wife that while he was unconscious, “God had told him that his action wasn’t the way to get into heaven.” He died from lung and bone cancer two weeks later.

Vermont

Origin

On May 20, 2013, Governor Peter Shumlin (D) signed into law Vermont Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act, making Vermont the fourth state to legalize medical aid in dying.

Victims

According to the Vermont Department of Health, between 2013 and 2023 a total of 200 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 146 ended their lives by ingesting the drug.

Legal Changes

On May 2, 2023, Gov. Phil Scott (R) signed into law legislation removing the residency requirement, becoming the first state to allow nonresidents to commit assisted suicide.

In January 2025, HB 75 was introduced in the state legislature, which sought to allow non-physician professionals, such as nurse practitioners, to provide life ending drugs to patients. The bill was unsuccessful, having died in committee.

Results

Since the residency requirement was lifted in 2023, clinics and physicians have been overwhelmed by the number of out-of-state patients seeking to end their life. One physician said that it “has profoundly changed my life, our clinic function,” and “We just had a lot to learn about how to pull this off logistically.”

Washington

Origin

Washington’s Death with Dignity Act became law on March 5, 2009 after voters approved a ballot initiative in 2008. (57.8% of voters approved)

Victims

According to the Washington State Department of Health, between 2009 and 2023 a total of 3,683 people received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 2,768 people ended their lives by ingesting the drug.

Legal Changes

In 2023, SB 5179 was introduced and passed in the Washington legislature. The law reduced safeguards in the Death With Dignity Act that sought to protect patients. These included:

• Allowing a physician’s assistant or nurse practitioner to make decision on patient’s terminal status
• Allowing a non-psychiatrist social worker or other mental health counselor to give a mental health evaluation
• Removing the waiting period between requests for life-ending medication from 15 days to 7 days
• Allowing for life ending medication to be sent via mail as opposed to receiving the drugs directly from a licensed pharmacist

In 2025 Washington legislators introduced HB 1876. This would seek to further remove restrictions in the Death With Dignity Act by waiving the 7 day medication waiting period for patients who are deemed not to live longer than 7 days. As of October 2025, the bill was sitting in committee.

Results

Dr. Sharon Quick, former president of the Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, said in 2021 that any changes made to Washington’s Death With Dignity Act regarding shortening waiting period “reflects a misunderstanding of dying physiology and palliative care capabilities while allowing injustice, especially for those with mental illness and disabilities.” She also noted that “depression is expected in 25 to 40 percent of those desiring to hasten death, yet less than 5 percent are referred for mental health counseling in Washington.”

Dr. Richard Doerflinger, associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, cites cases where failures to follow the protocols and safeguards have occurred. He notes that since 2009, 219 patients “have not filed their legally required report on the patient’s terminal illness, life expectancy, informed consent, or mental competency.” And for 264 patients, “the Department of Health never received a request for the drugs signed by the patient.”

Patients are also more and more likely to kill themselves for fear of being a burden. According to the State Health Reports, in 2009, just 23% of patients stated that the main reason they wanted to die was fear of “Burden on family, friends/caregivers.” In 2022, 59% of patients felt this way.

In addition, two states have passed legislation legalizing Medical Aid in Dying during the 2025 legislative session

Delaware

On May 20, 2025, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer (D) signed into law the “Ron Silverio/Heather Block End of Life Options Law,” becoming the 11th state to officially legalize assisted suicide. The law officially goes into effect on January 1, 2026.

New York

On June 9, 2025, the New York State Legislature officially passed a bill that would legalize medical aid in dying. As of October 2025, it is awaiting the signature of Governor Kathy Hochul (D).

International

Canada

Origin

In June 2016, Canada’s Medical Aid in Dying Law was passed by the Canadian Parliament.

Victims

According to the Canadian Department of Health, between 2016 and 2023, a total of 60,301 Canadians successfully used Medical Aid in Dying to end their lives. The number of victims per year has increased dramatically since it was first passed, from 1,018 deaths in 2016 to 15,343 deaths in 2023. Statistics also showed that Medical Aid in Dying accounted for 4.7% of Canada’s death in 2023, compared to 2.0% in 2019. It is particularly concerning in the province of Quebec, where approximately 7% of deaths are attributed to Medical Aid in Dying.

Legal Changes

Several changes have been made to Canada’s Medical Aid in Dying Law that have reduced safeguards. In March 2021, Canada passed bill C-7 which amended the aforementioned law to allow terminal patients to waive their declaration of consent as well as the 10 day waiting period for medication if it is determined they have less than that time to live. It would also allow persons with non-terminal illnesses to be eligible for Medical Aid in Dying if a doctor determines that the condition is “serious and incurable.”

In March 2023, Bill C-39 was passed. This amended the Aid in Dying Law to include those suffering from mental illness as eligible for assisted suicide. The law was originally supposed to take effect on March 17, 2024, but in February 2024 the Canadian government pushed back the effective date to 2027. They cited the healthcare system’s unpreparedness in dealing with the issue of mental health, saying that the extension “would provide more time for provinces and territories to prepare their health care systems…in situations where a person’s sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.”

Results

Despite the Canadian law’s pushback of eligibility for mental illness, numerous stories have come out from patients with non-terminal conditions being offered Medical Aid in Dying by medical professionals:

• Between July and November 2022, it was revealed that at least four military veterans who contacted Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) were recommended Medical Aid in Dying as a viable medical option. In 2025, another veteran came forward claiming that he was offered the option of Medical Aid in Dying in December 2023 after calling VAC to deal with mental health issues. A 2023 VAC briefing said the number of veterans offered Medical Aid in Dying could be as high as 20.
• A report released by the Ontario Chief Coroner in October 2024 showed several instances where healthy people are using Medical Aid In Dying to take their own life. In one case, a woman who suffered from anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder was deemed eligible for MAID by medical professionals because she had trouble securing proper housing. Another case involved a man who was a quadriplegic after suffering a car accident; doctors deemed him eligible for MAID because he claimed he could not live with a disability.
• The report also shows misuse of proper protocols in dealing with potential cases. A man who had a history of bowel disease and substance abuse was recommended MAID by a psychiatrist to deal with his feelings of isolation. Without going through the proper protocol, the psychiatrist drove the man to the facility where he took part in the procedure.

Since the 2021 amendment to the law allowing non-terminal patients to participate, there has been a growing number of non-terminally ill persons who have taken their own lives. In 2021 persons without a terminal disease accounted for 2.2% of all MAID deaths; in 2023, they accounted for 4.1%.

In 2019, 34% of patients said fear of being a burden to loved ones was a reason why they wanted to participate in MAID. In 2023, 45.1% of patients felt this way.

Netherlands

Origin

The Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize medical aid in dying (referred to as euthanasia) on April 1, 2002. The law stated that a person over the age of 12 who has a condition that is “unbearable, with no prospect of improvement” is eligible for euthanasia.

Victims

According to national data, between 2002 and 2023 a total of 101,751 people in the Netherlands have successfully used euthanasia to take their own lives. The number of deaths has increased every year and has significantly increased from 1,882 deaths in 2002 to 9,068 in 2023.

Legal Changes

In 2017, the Dutch government announced it would draft a law that would include elderly persons who have no illness or condition. However, as of 2025 no law has not gone into effect.

In 2020, a Dutch court ruled that those who are suffering from dementia can be eligible for euthanasia, provided the patient gives written consent while they are still cognitively functioning.

In April 2023, the Dutch government announced that children under age 12 that are suffering from a terminal illness would be allowed to participate in euthanasia.

In 2024, a bill was introduced in the Dutch parliament seeking to allow healthy persons over 75 to be eligible for euthanasia. The bill is currently being debated.

Results

In April 2024, a 33-year-old woman was allowed to end her own life after she had been struggling with depression and eating disorders. In May 2024, a 29-year-old Dutch woman was granted the right to die after suffering with severe mental illness.

In 2023, researchers in the UK studied the types of persons who are utilizing euthanasia in the Netherlands and found many cases of mental issues, particularly autism, being the main factor for a person wanting to end their life. The study looked at 39 cases of persons between 2012 and 2023 who requested euthanasia due to mental health issues. Of this, 42% cited autism as a contributing factor in their decision. Of those who cited autism, 77% cited feeling socially isolated and lonely.

There are reports of doctors not properly following the proper protocols in filling out forms for patients. According to Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Dutch doctors are required to “fill out a number of forms to explain the circumstances, and so on. And the doctors get tired of the forms….And what they do instead of going through the rigmarole of the paperwork, they just make a decision at a certain point to administer on their own initiative high doses of morphine and end the person’s life. Even if the person hasn’t asked for it. And then they can just say, ‘well, we were just managing pain. I don’t have to fill out all that paperwork.'”

Belgium

Origin

Belgium legalized medical aid in dying (referred to as euthanasia) on May 28, 2002, becoming the second country in the world to allow the practice. The law states that a patient who is in a “medically desperate state of persistent and unbearable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be alleviated” can request euthanasia.

Victims

According to Belgian data, between 2002 and 2023 a total of 33,580 people have taken their own life via euthanaisa. The number has dramatically increased from 236 in 2003 to 3,423 in 2023.

Legal Changes

In 2014, Belgium amended its law to allow children under 12 with terminal illnesses to request euthanasia.

In May 2025, a bill was introduced in the Belgian parliament seeking to allow those with dementia to request euthanasia. It is currently being debated.

Results

In 2014, Tom Mortier, a Belgian man, filed a lawsuit against the European Court of Human Rights after it was revealed that his mother, Godelieva De Troyer, was euthanized in 2012 while battling depression. Mortier’s lawsuit claimed that the doctor who carried out the euthanasia did not follow proper protocols and did not notify him or his family about his mother’s decision. Mortier also claimed that his mother’s mental illness was not a terminal condition. In 2022, the European Court ruled in favor of Mortier, saying that the Belgium government failed to adequately investigate the circumstances surrounding the euthanasia of De Troyer. Alliance Defending Freedom International, who represented Mr. Mortier, said this case “demonstrates the inadequacy of ‘safeguards’ for the intentional ending of life.”

In 2020 three Belgian doctors went on trial for unlawfully euthanizing a 38-year-old woman with psychological conditions, including autism. It was alleged that the mental illnesses the woman was suffering from did not meet the requirements for euthanasia. While the doctors were ultimately acquitted in court, the sisters of the victim believe that the doctors did not follow the proper protocols as stated by the law.

U.K.

In June 2025, the U.K. House of Commons passed a bill that would legalize medical aid in dying for persons who are determined to have less than 6 months to live. It is currently being debated in the House of Lords.

While it is still going through the legislative process, it is possible that the bill could become law by the end of 2025.

Bill Donohue

“Is the Trans and Non-Binary Fad Over?” That is the title of a recent article I wrote on the work of Eric Kaufmann, a professor at the University of Buckingham. After scouring the findings of several studies, he concluded that the trans and queer phenomenon is in serious decline. He made it clear, as others have before him, that young people who identify as trans and queer have multiple mental health issues.

So what’s up? To put it bluntly, why are these people so screwed up?

Kaufmann is reluctant to identify the independent and dependent variable, or the cause and effect. To his credit, he sheds light on this by examining the political beliefs of these young people. What he found is critical.

He is convinced that “there are significant correlations between gender, sexuality, political beliefs and mental health. In particular, trans or non-binary individuals, as well as very liberal students, are much more likely than others to be non-heterosexual. Very liberal, trans and non-heterosexual students are also more likely than other students to be anxious and depressed….”

Kaufmann’s conclusion is consistent with what he found in his 2022 report, “Born This Way? The Rise of LGBT as a Social and Political Identity.” Here are some of his most notable findings.

• Much of the LGBT rise has occurred among very liberal or far left-wing young people, and this is especially true of women
• Very liberal ideology and LGBT identification are associated with mental health problems such as depression (their happiness quotient is near zero)
• Students who major in the social sciences and humanities are especially prone to being LGBT, and the majority (52 percent) who major in race and gender studies identify as LGBT
• Non-religious students are more likely than religious students to identify as LGBT

It seems plain that ideology plays a significant role in accounting for the maladies of LGBT people. Those who major in the social sciences and humanities have long been drawn to left-wing ideologies, and those who specialize in race and gender studies are even more likely to be highly critical of the status quo. Radical ideas excite these students.

So as not to be misunderstood, most liberals do not seek to “transition” to the opposite sex, but a disproportionate number do. That still needs explaining.

To be precise, liberalism today is a far cry from the way it was understood in the nineteenth century. At that time, liberalism put a premium on free speech, especially political discourse. No more. In fact, today’s liberals have more in common with yesterday’s radicals than they do with JFK liberals.

In both Kaufmann’s 2022 and 2025 reports, he draws on the work of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) to make his point. As consecutive FIRE studies have found, today’s college students who identify as liberal are the most likely to believe it is acceptable to shout down speakers they find disagreeable.

For instance, in his 2022 report, Kaufmann found that “White female students in leading US universities who identify as very liberal and support shouting down speakers to prevent them from uttering harmful speech have a nearly 7 in 10 chance of identifying as LGBT.” This finding is startling. There is something deranged going on.

The causal sequence now makes sense.

Today’s “liberal” students do not believe in free speech, making them the most illiberal students on campus. As we learned, most are not religious, and many are militant in their secular convictions. Illiberal and secular, these students naturally evince an animus against traditional morality, and that certainly means Christian sexual ethics. For some, this manifests itself in a rebellion against nature and a desire to transcend it.

From a Catholic perspective, what the data show is entirely understandable. It is not easy to be happy if one is preoccupied with railing against one’s own biological condition. That’s not normal. Nature, and nature’s God, can never be beaten, and attempts do so not only fail, they leave behind a trail of despair.

Regrettably, those who teach gender studies, and who counsel young people seeking to “transition,” are the last ones to tell their students and clients the truth. They are doing them a great disservice. But then again many of these professors and therapists are themselves miserably unhappy, and often unstable, making this a very sick stew in the end.

Bill Donohue

Listening to the experts, the New York City mayoral race is over: Zohran Mamdani is so far ahead in the polls that he is a shoo-in. Not so fast. To be sure, a lot of things have to break just right for Andrew Cuomo to pull an upset, but that is not an impossibility.

Mamdani won the Democratic primary for several reasons. Voters were turned off by the nepotism and appearance of scandal in the administration of Mayor Eric Adams. As governor, Cuomo badly damaged his reputation with his Covid policies and multiple accusations of sexual improprieties. That opened the door to a young and energetic candidate in Mamdani who was able to mobilize some 50,000 young volunteers. But there were other factors at play, too.

The day before the June primary, the weather was predicted to be 102 degrees (it turned out to be 99). “NY Primary Falling on Hottest Day of Heat Wave Could be Bad for Cuomo,” was the headline in the New York Post. The conclusion was warranted: older voters are much more affected by bad weather patterns than young people. By contrast, the weather over the weekend, during the first days of early voting, was great, and it should be mostly fine through election day. So that pro-Mamdani factor is off the table.

Primary voters are typically the most energetic, if not extreme, of all voters, so that favored Mamdani. The primary turnout was relatively good, but in the end only 29.9 percent of registered voters participated. That is a fraction of what we are looking at now. And this time, older voters—who vote at a higher rate than any age demographic—have no reason not to vote.

On the eve of the early voting, one poll scored it 43 percent for Mamdani, 32 percent for Cuomo and 19 percent for Curtis Sliwa. Another had it 40 percent for Mamdani, 32 percent for Cuomo and 25 percent for Sliwa. But the numbers for Sliwa are not likely to hold.

It is well known among psephologists (those who study elections) that social desirability bias is often a factor. This happens when voters are uncomfortable stating their real preference, especially if their choice is seen as controversial. It is not fashionable, in most circles, to brag how great Cuomo is, but that doesn’t mean that some who feel that way won’t vote for him anyway. They will.

There is also the situation where a voter knows his number-one choice doesn’t stand a chance of winning, so he votes for the candidate who is closest to his positions and has a shot at winning. Indeed, a Gallup poll taken this year shows that a majority of Americans (54 percent) who favor a third-party candidate would switch their vote to a major party candidate if they thought that candidate could win.

While it is true that Sliwa is not a third-party candidate, as a Republican in New York City, he may as well be. More to the point, he is not likely to get 19 percent of the vote—many who like him will vote for Cuomo, just to stop Mamdani. That helps Cuomo. Moreover, in the primary, Cuomo won the lower income voter, and with the endorsement of Adams, he is likely to do well with blacks and Hispanics.

The Patriot Polling survey reveals that Cuomo is crushing Mamdani among American-born voters, but Mamdani is crushing Cuomo among foreign-born voters. That favors Cuomo. Foreign-born U.S. citizens are less likely to be registered voters, though that is less true of Asian voters, who favor Mamdani.

Thirty percent of New Yorkers are Catholic and only 29 percent say they are voting for Mamdani; 41 percent are voting for Cuomo. Jews are 16 percent of New Yorkers, and only 30 percent are voting for Mamdani; 63 percent are voting for Cuomo. Orthodox Jews are solidly in the Cuomo camp, and they are 20 percent of the Jewish population.

Historically, in the United States, as well as in Europe, low voter turnout does not mean apathy; rather, it means that voters are relatively content, so it does not matter a great deal who wins. High voter turnout is a sign that citizens are worried (usually in times of turmoil), and that is why they turn out in droves.

“NYC Early Voting Surges Over Weekend with Numbers 5 Times larger than 2021.” That was how the New York Post put it. This bodes well for Cuomo—many New Yorkers, especially Jews, are worried about a Mamdani victory.

More good news for Cuomo: the turnout over the weekend was particularly strong in Manhattan, which nearly equaled the turnout in Brooklyn. This is striking. There are over 1.1 million more residents in Brooklyn than in Manhattan, yet almost as many Manhattan voters turned out as Brooklyn voters! Moreover, Jews make up 21 percent of all Manhattan residents, so the high turnout suggests they voted in big numbers. That favors Cuomo.

The Jewish vote alone cannot push Cuomo over the line. It must be accompanied by voters who prefer Sliwa, but, knowing he can’t win, will hold their nose and vote for Cuomo.

As I said, a lot of things have to break the right way for Cuomo to upset Mamdani, but it could happen. We’ll soon find out.