New York Governor Kathy Hochul is being sued by nuns because they will not call their trans patients “they,” and they will not put those of the opposite sex in the same room in their care facilities. Hochul identifies as Catholic.

The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne operate a Westchester facility that serves the sick and dying. Their specialty is treating cancer patients who cannot afford care, providing housing, meals, nursing, and palliative treatment. Their home serves low-income men and women, who, without their help, would lack hospice services.

The nuns take in patients with no financial resources. They rely entirely on charitable donations and their own labor. Many of these patients are uninsured, homeless or abandoned. The nuns provide medical treatment, daily companionship, meals and a stable living environment. And people of all faiths, or none at all, are welcome.

But none of this matters to Gov. Hochul. She is determined to shove the radical LGBTQ agenda down their throats. She would rather close their facility, throwing their patients to the curb, before she would allow the sisters to honor their religious tenets. To be specific, unless these nuns allow men who falsely claim to be a woman the right to access a women’s bathroom, and refer to them as “she” and “her,” they will have to go out of business.

Hochul’s punishment does not to apply to the Church of Christ, Scientist. They are entitled to a religious exemption. If the nuns do not ratify Hochul’s discriminatory policy, they will be fined $2,000 for the first violation, $5,000 for repeat offenses and $10,000 or one year in prison for “willful violations.” The sisters can be punished even if “no element of evil motive” is extant.

The nuns are being represented by the Catholic Benefits Association. What Hochul is doing is malicious and anti-Catholic. Indeed, she is one who is exhibiting evil intent, not the nuns. She is the professed enemy of the sick and dying.

There is nothing new about die-hard secularists trying to game the courts. They typically like to say that their newly found group qualifies as a religion and is therefore entitled to the same First Amendment protections afforded Christians and members of other recognized religions.

However, there is something novel about Hoosier Jews for Choice arguing that their religious beliefs demand that their adherents have a religious right to abort their baby. This invocation is occasioned by a restrictive abortion law in Indiana.

Hoosier Jews for Choice says that its Jewish members champion abortion rights and bodily autonomy, and, most important, they argue that their religious beliefs require access to abortion. They say that “under Jewish law and religious doctrine, life does not begin at conception and a fetus is considered a physical part of a woman’s body, not having a life of its own or independent rights.”

Leaving aside the overriding biological issue, the most salient legal matter before the court is whether this entity is truly a religious organization. Of secondary importance is whether this belief is an accurate reflection of Jewish convictions.

Is abortion access a Jewish value? Yes, according to the Women’s Rabbinic Network it is. But don’t tell that to Agudath Israel of America and other Orthodox Jewish groups. They opposed Roe v. Wade and are staunchly pro-life. Even those religious Jews who allow that abortion is acceptable under certain circumstances maintain that abortion is never something to celebrate. Indeed, they say that saving lives is what guides Jews, not ending it.

If Hoosier Jews for Choice qualifies as a religion, and its women must have access to abortion, what if it claimed that the parents of newborns should have the right to kill their kids until their offspring are 28 days old? That’s what Princeton professor Peter Singer believes. While he is a Jewish atheist, there is no reason why Hoosier Jews for Choice couldn’t reach the same conclusion, invoking religious reasons for infanticide.

This begs the question: What is the legal definition of religion? It has already been decided by the Supreme Court that Secular Humanism is not a religion. Moreover, declarations of a religion can be made by anyone, but are they legally valid?

According to the District Court of Colorado, for a belief system to qualify as a religion, it must possess five characteristics: (a) it must address ultimate ideas (b) it must contain metaphysical beliefs (c) it must prescribe a particular moral or ethical system (d) it must involve comprehensive beliefs and (e) it must be accompanied by accoutrements of religion. Fortunately, this is not a legal bar that is easy to clear.

Regarding the latter, this would require such factors as having (a) a founder (b) seminal writings (c) designated gathering places (d) keepers of knowledge (e) ceremonies and rituals (f) an organized structure (g) holidays (h) dietary rules (i) prescribed religious clothing and (j) opportunities for propagation. These strictures alone would screen out many fraudsters. Hopefully, they nix Hoosier Jews for Choice.

What makes this case so rich is that the ACLU brought it to the Indiana courts. It has typically sought to restrict religious rights, not expand them. It was founded in 1920 by an atheist, Roger Baldwin, and it never listed religious liberty as one of its original ten goals, though it did list freedom of speech, assembly and the press.

In short, the ACLU is a dishonest broker trying to game the courts, while seeking to deny the right of unborn babies to live. That they are wrapping their case in religious garb makes it all the more depraved.

We deal with issues all the time that require multiple rounds of fact checking. That’s because there are so many bogus comments, stories, reports and studies that have surfaced that it makes us skeptical. There is no substitute for doing your own homework.

The latest “arbiter” of truth is AI. From our perspective, AI is a useful tool, but it is no more dispositive than any other resource. This is particularly true when it is generating interpretative responses, or making normative judgments about persons or events.

Here is one example where AI did not fare well. We sought to evaluate a comment recently made by Miranda Devine, a columnist for the New York Post.

In her April 2 column, Devine wrote the following:

“When a black cop, Michael Byrd, shot dead an unarmed white woman, Iraq war veteran Ashli Babbitt, on January 6, 2021 during the Capitol riot, Democrats conspired to hide his identity, pay him secret bonuses, and ensure he suffered no consequences.”

Asking Google AI to evaluate the veracity of Devine’s statement generated this response: “The claim is largely false or misleading, mixing verified facts with unsupported conspiracy allegations.” The response also notes “there is no evidence of a partisan conspiracy to hide his identity or provide secret bonuses.”

The AI response offers these points as evidence for its claims:

“Shooting Fact: U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd shot and killed Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021, as she attempted to climb through a broken window near the Speaker’s Lobby while lawmakers were being evacuated.

“No Consequences/Clearance: The U.S. Department of Justice (April 2021) and the Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility (August 2021) concluded the shooting was lawful, within department policy, and did not violate criminal law. Byrd was not disciplined and was later promoted to captain.

“Hidden Identity & Threats: Byrd’s identity was not ‘hidden’ by Democrats, but rather withheld for months by Capitol Police due to ‘numerous credible and specific threats’ against him and his family after his name was leaked on right-wing websites.

“Secret Bonuses: While Byrd has been praised by his department, claims of ‘secret bonuses’ to reward the shooting are largely unsupported or misinterpret standard department retention or security actions.

“Pardon Claim: Claims that Joe Biden granted a ‘secret pardon’ to Byrd are false; Reuters reports that Byrd’s name does not appear on any official pardon lists.”

We investigated Google’s AI statement and found it wanting.

“Shooting Fact:”

This is an accurate summary.

“No Consequences/Clearance:”

As AI notes, Byrd was investigated by Capitol Police and the Justice Department for the shooting. Both investigations cleared him of wrongdoing. But as Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton points out, in most officer involved shootings the cop is usually investigated by a grand jury. In this instance, Byrd faced no such scrutiny. Rather, he was investigated by his own agency and the Justice Department. This may be defensible, but it is in stark contrast to how Black Lives Matter offenses are handled. Grand juries are typically demanded to ensure there is no cover-up. Apparently, AI cannot make this connection.

“Hidden Identity & Threats:”

AI tries to make a technical distinction between the Capitol Police and Congress. Yes, technically the Capitol Police withheld Byrd’s identity. However, as the attorney for the Babbitt family, Terrell Roberts, claimed, “The U.S. Congress wants to protect this man. He’s got friends in high places, and they want to protect him.” AI did not seem to believe this information was worthy of consideration.

“Secret Bonuses:”

It was later disclosed that Byrd received a $37,000 retention bonus, and that he received help accessing funds for officers wounded in the line of duty. But this was not well reported, and indeed it was kept under wraps for some time. The chairman of the Capitol Police Union complained that the bonuses were above what other officers received. This prompted the union boss to call on Capitol Police to either give everyone else the same bonus that Byrd received or force him to repay the excess amount.

“Pardon Claim:”

This is a red herring. Devine never said he received a pardon. Thus, no correction was needed. AI could just as well have told us that Byrd was suspended for leaving his loaded firearm in a public restroom in the Capitol, or that he was disciplined for shooting at a moving car while he was off-duty. In other words, AI not only makes a false comment, it makes no mention of relevant facts.

In the showdown between Miranda Devine and AI, she wins going away.

Houses of worship need enhanced protection these days from anti-religious bigots. In recent times, virtually every major religion has had some of their houses of worship vandalized or invaded. Moreover, congregants have been subjected to taunts and threats. At stake is the First Amendment right to freely practice our religion.

While this is a nation-wide problem, it is a pressing concern to New Yorkers. Jews, in particular, have been targeted more than any religious group. What happened last November was despicable. Two hundred protesters showed up outside Manhattan’s Park East Synagogue holding vile anti-Jewish signs. They also yelled vicious comments at Jews going to synagogue, taunting them ferociously. This was totally unprovoked and totally indefensible.

Fortunately, the New York City Council elected a Speaker in January who is standing up against these bullies. Julie Menin is leading the fight against attacks on all houses of worship. Bill Donohue wrote to her expressing our support for her efforts, requesting we play an active role. She is being sent recent news releases we have written on this subject.

Included in this batch are statements Donohue has made about Mayor Zohran Mamdani. As you can see, his religious messaging is very troubling, and his penchant for hiring religious bigots is just as ominous. This does not bode well for the future, which is why the Catholic League supports Speaker Menin’s call for legislation that would provide greater protection for houses of worship.

The First Amendment means nothing unless it is enforced. That means that those who seek to undermine religious liberty must be defeated. The Catholic League is delighted to join the fight.

February 27, 2026

Hon. Julie Menin
New York City Council Speaker
City Hall
New York, NY 10007

Dear Speaker Menin:

The leadership you have shown in combating anti-religious bigotry is commendable. As president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, headquartered in New York City, I have not only fought anti-Catholicism, I have fought anti-Semitism, joining forces with Jewish allies on many occasions for over three decades.

Accordingly, I would like you to add the Catholic League to the list of organizations that support your efforts to protect houses of worship from being bullied, harassed and otherwise threatened. Freedom of speech is precious, but when it is invoked to inhibit another First Amendment right, namely the free exercise of religion, it is indefensible.

In particular, the attack on the Park East Synagogue last November was despicable, and I said so in print, on radio and on TV. Yet some New York City notables, such as Zohran Mamdani (before and after he won the mayoral race), have made light of it.

It would help if you could put us in touch with those on your staff with whom we can work. Thank you for your defense of religious liberty.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

President

P.S. See enclosures

The invasion of Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota rightly triggered a visceral response on the part of people across religious communities. These Nazi-like tactics have also taken place in Catholic churches and Jewish synagogues. If there is one Catholic church that is singled out for protest, it is St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.

Here is a list of some of the famous invasions. We are not counting incidences committed by mentally disturbed people.

“Stop the Church” AIDS/abortion protest (December 10, 1989):

• During a Sunday Mass celebrated by Cardinal John O’Connor, members of the militant homosexual activist group ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power), and the Women’s Health Action and Mobilization (WHAM!), infiltrated the cathedral as part of the “Stop the Church” demonstration. They disrupted the service by shouting slogans against the Church’s opposition to abortion and sex education policies in public schools. They laid down in aisles, chained themselves to pews, and desecrated a consecrated Eucharist. Cardinal O’Connor was forced to abandon his sermon. Dozens of protestors were inside the church, and over 4,500 protesters demonstrated outside; over 100 were arrested.

Radio stunt (Aug. 15, 2002):

• “Shock jocks” Opie and Anthony encouraged listeners to have sex in risky places, and two of them had sex during the day in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, on a holy day of obligation, in front of men, women and children. It was a staged event, arranged by the radio hosts: they had comedian Paul Mercurio inside the Cathedral so he could give a graphic description of the stunt on his cell phone. The Catholic League contacted the FCC and Viacom, the media giant that owned the host station. In due course, the radio show was cancelled and the “shock jocks” were fired.

Animal-rights activists (March 27, 2016):

• Six animal rights activists from the group Collectively Free interrupted the noon Easter Sunday Mass during a moment of silence. They stood up and chanted “Easter is a time for love! No more shedding animal blood!” to protest animal exploitation and the consumption of Easter ham. One of the protesters was arrested.

George Floyd Protests (May 30, 2020):

• During the Black Lives Matter protests, protesters spray-painted the F-word, “BLM,” “NYPDK” along with the phrase “no justice, no peace” on the facade of the Cathedral. One of the stairs was also spray-painted with George Floyd’s name. Two people were charged the following month for the crime.

New Year’s Protest (January 1, 2021):

• On New Year’s Day 2021, police officers responding to a protest on Fifth Avenue found the acronym “ACAB” tagged on the cathedral. Video from the scene shows protesters blocking two NYPD cruisers and banging on the hood of one, and shouting expletives at officers. No arrests were made.

Transgender Funeral (February 15, 2024):

• Cecilia Gentili was a man who falsely claimed to be a woman. He was also an illegal alien, a drug addict, a prostitute, a trans activist, and an atheist. At Gentili’s funeral service at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, transgender activists dressed as hookers, disrupted the Mass by dancing in the aisles, sang “Ave Cecilia” when “Ave Maria” was sung, and shouted, “St. Cecilia, Mother of All Whores.” Cardinal Dolan ordered a Mass of Reparation be held as a response to this vile incident.

Gaza ceasefire protest (March 30, 2024):

• Three pro-Palestinian protesters affiliated with Extinction Rebellion interrupted the Easter Vigil Mass by standing front and center, unfurling a banner reading, “SILENCE = DEATH.” They shouted “Free Palestine” and demanded a ceasefire in Gaza. They were dragged out by security, and all three were arrested.

There have also been incredibly obscene incidents like the 1994 parade up Fifth Avenue marking the 25th Anniversary of the Stonewall riot. Men and women went naked in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, masturbated in the street, engaged in Satanic dances and extended their middle finger at the Cathedral.

Catholics who are angry about some issue do not act this way. But militant secularists have no respect for boundaries, do not believe in dialogue and are not averse to using violence to further their goals. They are a menace to society, and too many members of the ruling class refuse to condemn them.

It is true that we can never truly know what is in another person’s heart, but when a politician makes his religion a central aspect of his public persona, yet pursues policies that inherently contradict his faith, it raises serious questions. The following Democrats are clearly guilty of playing the religion card when it suits them.

Being Religious

Former President Joe Biden

“My religion defines who I am.” He added, “I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi

“I’m a Catholic, a devout, practicing Catholic. I take great comfort in my faith, come from a very Catholic family, largely pro-life.”

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani

“I am Muslim, and I refuse to apologize for this.” He added, “I will not change who I am….I will not change the faith that I am proud to belong to.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar

“I think my faith as a Muslim is very important.”

Catholic Church on Abortion

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

Biden

He started out having mixed feelings about abortion, but in time he adopted the far-left position. As president, his administration used every available resource to promote abortion, even exploring novel ways to circumvent state laws restricting the barbaric practice.

Pelosi

She opposes laws that ban the killing of babies who are 80 percent born (partial birth abortion), and she has even won Planned Parenthood’s highest award. Her extreme position on abortion, along with other major departures from Catholic teachings, earned her a ban on receiving the Eucharist from San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone.

Islam on Abortion

In general, the Islamic view favors the sanctity of human life over abortion. Most Muslim scholars apply the Quran’s passages against the taking of innocent human life to the issue. This is true across many different schools of Muslim thought, and both Sunni and Shia Muslims generally disapprove of abortion.

Mamdani

He opposes any restrictions on abortion. That is why his voting record consistently receives a 100 percent score from Planned Parenthood.

Omar

She has been a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act in the last three sessions of Congress. This legislation seeks to remove most restrictions on abortion and removes religious exemptions.

Catholic Church on LGBT Issues

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” and are contrary to the natural law. Further, the Catholic Church rejects transgenderism, which Pope Francis called “demonic.”

Biden

In 2016, as vice president, he officiated a “gay wedding.” As president, he championed transgender procedures for minors and rescinded conscience protections to force Catholic doctors to perform these procedures.

Pelosi

She has supported legislation that would redefine marriage and has even gone so far as to say that same-sex marriage is “consistent” with Catholic teaching. Additionally, she champions transgenderism, including gender “reassignment surgeries” for minors.

Islam on LGBT Issues

In Islam, same-sex relationships are considered taboo. In 34 Muslim-majority countries, homosexual activity is illegal, and none of the 47 Muslim-majority countries recognize “gay marriages.”

Mamdani

He is a huge advocate of the radical LGBT cause. He supports transgender rights across the board and disagrees with the Islamic belief that there are only two sexes. He regularly attends gay events, including parades. He wants the LGBT curriculum to be mandatory in all New York schools, making no allowance for private or parochial schools. Mamdani has also pledged that he will spend $65 million in taxpayer money for sex-reassignment surgery.

Omar

She supports men competing in women’s sports and is proud to march in the Twin Cities Pride Parades. She favors ending conversion therapy, calling it “a form of torture.” In 2023, as Muslim parents joined with their Christian and Jewish neighbors in Montgomery County, Maryland, to protest the school district’s decision to compel their children to participate in lessons which promoted LGBT themes. She co-sponsored a resolution condemning their response.

Biden, Pelosi, Mamdani and Omar like to wear their religion on their sleeves while working to undermine core religious teachings on marriage, the family and sexuality. The media should hold them accountable but too often they give them a pass.

The Catholic League supports the accommodation of religion, whether it be in public or private venues. But we find it bizarre, if not troubling, when venues not known to accommodate religious expression decide to do so by singling out one religion. This is what the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City has done. The religion it is singling out is Islam.

On the first floor, in Room 961 of the Robert Lehman Collection, in between paintings of the Virgin Mary with baby Jesus, there is a standup sign that reads as follows:

For the month
of Ramadan
we invite you
to use this space
for prayer and
reflection

All are welcome

We have a hard time imagining the Met welcoming Catholics. But if they did, we have a suggestion. Why not erect the following sign?For the 40 days
of Lent,
we invite you
to use this space
for prayer and
reflection

All are welcome

What makes the Muslim-only policy even more inexplicable is how out-of-character it is. While the Met has long featured religious iconography, it also has a reputation of promoting raunch.

In October 2023, the Great Hall of the Met displayed gay bondage and sado-masochistic imagery. It used obscenities, and slogans such as, “May you fill yourself with lust,” to describe what the New York Post said were “images of seemingly naked males with their genitals blurred out and men standing over other men who appear to be wearing dog collars.”

One woman who spotted this “artistic creation” said, “I saw a wasteland ‘Mad Max’ scenario with people dressed in S&M gear and others who looked as if they were fornicating with the earth.” She said a portrayal of women was so sick that “It looked Satanic and demonic to me.”

Leaving aside the Met’s fondness for gay sexual expression, why does it feel obliged to welcome Muslims during Ramadan but not Catholics during Lent? Is this its idea of multiculturalism? We have long known that this ideology has less to do with paying tribute to religious and ethnic groups outside our Judeo-Christian heritage than it does in devaluing it.

The Met’s elite must feel very good about themselves. Their goal, no doubt, is to showcase their commitment to inclusion and diversity. But bowing to Muslims, by excluding Catholics, shows how morally bankrupt their commitment really is.

Sameerah Munshi quit President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission on March 13. She cited “two deeply troubling developments: the official removal of Carrie Prejean Boller for her deeply held beliefs about Palestine and the federal government’s illegal war against Iran, undertaken without clear constitutional or congressional authorization.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, (CAIR), rushed to defend both women, saying they were the ones who “actually stand up for religious liberty.” They commended Munshi for her courage and said it was “unconscionable” that the White House would remove Prejean for her remarks on “Israel’s genocide in Gaza.”

On February 11, the Catholic League called for the Religious Liberty Commission to oust Prejean Boller; minutes later it did. We did so for reasons that both Munshi and CAIR refuse to acknowledge.

In Bill Donohue’s news release about Prejean Boller, he noted that she is “a former Miss California and a convert to Catholicism. She does not run a Catholic organization, has no Catholic credentials as an author or instructor, and indeed represents no one but herself. For her to say, without qualification, that ‘Catholics do not embrace Zionism’ is presumptuous and arrogant.”

It just wasn’t just this remark that got Prejean Boller into hot water. She blamed Jews for killing Christ, again without qualification, and was known to show up at meetings wearing a Palestinian flag pin. In other words, she is an activist, not someone sincerely committed to religious liberty.

Munshi’s comment about the “illegal” war against Iran makes her sound sophomoric. There have been five wars declared by Congress in American history: War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. There is nothing illegal about U.S. operations in Iran.

We are delighted that both of these women are no longer on the panel. How they got by those doing the vetting remains a problem. For example, Munshi flashed “Free Palestine” on her social media platforms, and did so after October 7, 2023. That is when 1200 innocent Jewish men, women and children were slaughtered by Hamas. That should have been a red flag, but apparently it wasn’t.

The AP Style Guide sets the tone for both print and electronic media, even conservative outlets are impacted. Consider what the AP Style Guide has to say on the matter of transgender ideology. It commands writers to only use preferred pronouns and makes allowance for the use of the singular “they.” The guide promotes the unscientific notions “sex assigned at birth” and “nonbinary/gender fluid” people. Indeed, the AP Style Guide appears to be ripped right out of the manifesto of the most militant trans activist.

While Fox News and the New York Post have reputations of representing right of center perspectives, in recent years both outlets have quietly embraced the woke left’s distortion of the English language and rejection of the laws of biology in the name of transgenderism. Both have used, and continue to use, the approved language of transgenderism in their reporting, making them virtually indistinguishable from their competitors in the mainstream media.

For instance, on January 13, 2026, both Fox News and the New York Post featured stories about the Supreme Court examining the ability of the states to protect girls’ sports from boys. Both outlets refer to the male athletes involved in the legal challenge with feminine pronouns.

In other instances, both outlets take pains to avoid pronouns altogether and continually refer to the individuals by their last names. While this at least solves the pronoun problem, the articles are inevitably framed around “transgender women” but never once is it acknowledged that this is a man who falsely claims to be a woman. This appears to be both outlets’ preferred strategy when dealing with high profile figures such as Congressman Sarah McBride (DE-D), the only member of Congress that openly claims a transgender status. Although on August 2, 2025, New York Post used female pronouns to refer to McBride.

With that said, there have been some efforts to reflect biological realities and respect the rules of grammar. However, the only time either Fox News or the New York Post observes these is when reporting on individuals who claim a transgender status that have committed serious crimes. Though this appears to be a more recent development.

For instance, in 2022 both outlets covered the case of Demetrius “Demi” Minor, who killed his foster father stabbing him 27 times. Minor claimed to be a woman and was incarcerated in New Jersey’s only female prison. During his time in the women’s prison, Minor had sex with two female inmates who became pregnant.

Of course, if you read the article posted on Fox’s website on July 17, 2022, you may not have realized this was about a man in a women’s prison. The headline reads, “NJ transgender woman transferred from women’s only prison after impregnating 2 inmates, report says.” The sanity, not to mention the rules of the English language, rapidly deteriorates from there. When describing how Minor was moved to a new facility, the article reads that he “is the only woman” confined there.

The New York Post was not any better in its coverage. In an article that ran on August 5, 2022, this line appeared: “she had impregnated two other inmates.” This is a complete bastardization of English.

But, beginning in 2023, following the horrific attack on the Covenant Christian School in Nashville, in which a woman who falsely claimed to be a man killed six people including three young children, both outlets have used the correct pronouns for people who claim a transgender status involved in violent crimes. In the cases of Audrey Hale (Covenant Christian School, March 27, 2023), Robert “Robin” Westman (Annunciation Catholic School, August 27, 2025), Jesse Van Rootselaar (Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, February 10, 2026), and Robert “Roberta Esposito” Dorgan (Pawtucket, RI, February 16, 2026) both outlets accurately reflected biological reality in their coverage.

It would appear that the only time Fox News and the New York Post deviate from the transgender convictions of their counterparts in the mainstream media is when the subject has committed a truly gruesome act and no one in their right mind will rush to ensure you are using his preferred pronouns. This is hardly a principled stand in defense of reason and common sense.

A few months ago Bill Donohue wrote a letter to Kash Patel, the director of the FBI, about anti-Christian acts of violence. He copied Sen. Josh Hawley, Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Jim Jordan. The letter was returned to our office, with a stamp that said it was refused. Really?

We have been in contact with the FBI a lot over the past few years. Under the Biden administration, the FBI was spying on Catholics, and we demanded answers. We have also been in contact with the FBI over reports of anti-Christian bigotry. We never had a problem mailing our correspondence, reports, etc. Until now.

Curiously, the letter that was returned was seriously damaged, but it was not of the ordinary sort, e.g., a tear on the top or bottom that may have occurred as a mishap when going through a machine. No, this was a large hole in the middle of the envelope, right where the name and address was printed. In other words, it was a cut-out, suggesting it was tampered with.

We also sent the letter electronically to the FBI, so they received it. But the problem remains. Our envelope lists our logo, name and address, so it’s obvious who sent it. We suspect foul play but we can’t prove it. Thought you’d like to know.