Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a new Gallup poll on abortion:

The American people are against Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion. In a Gallup poll released today, a clear majority—54 percent—say abortion should be illegal or legal in only a few circumstances. That is a stark rebuke to Roe v. Wade, which effectively legalized abortion through term, and for any reason whatsoever.

By a margin of 49 percent to 43 percent, Americans believe that abortion is “morally wrong.” That is also testament to the support for the pro-life position. While slightly more Americans identify as pro-choice (49 percent) than pro-life (46 percent), it is more telling that almost half consider abortion to be “morally wrong” (self-identification is largely a function of social pressure, an outcome shaped by cultural elites).

Lawmakers in the states are tapping into this pro-life sentiment. Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently signed legislation that bans D&E (dilation and evacuation) abortions, and Missouri Governor Eric Greitens has called back lawmakers to work on new pro-life measures. This is an example of the Trump Effect, a welcome change from the pro-abortion policies of President Obama.

This battle in the culture war must continue, and pleas to become passive must be resisted. There is too much at stake—the kids need our defense—to do otherwise.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue sent the following letter today to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings asking his wife to intervene in a disturbing matter:

June 9, 2017

Mr. Reed Hastings

CEO, Netflix

100 Winchester Circle

Los Gatos, CA 95032

Dear Mr. Hastings:

Did your wife Patti Ann see Episode One of the Netflix show, “F is for Family,” the one where Greg, just back from making up with his wife Ginny—thanks to Father Pat—pulls a crucifix out of his pocket, asking the Lord for strength while chanting “vagina, vagina, vagina”?

Did Patti Ann catch Episode Six where Greg and Ginny’s son, Kevin, is shown masturbating while staring at a candle with an image of Our Blessed Mother?

Did Patti Ann watch Episode Nine where it is suggested that Father Pat, who is gay, is a child molester? In the same episode, did she catch the scene where Greg fondles Jesus’ body on a crucifix, saying, “Oh, you’ve got a swimmer’s body”?

If Patti Ann saw these episodes, I would like to hear what she thinks about them. Since this is an animated show, would she recommend it to little kids? If she has not seen these episodes, please ask her to do so and get back to me.

Excuse me for personalizing this letter, but you Hollywood guys just don’t seem to give a damn when Catholics politely register an objection.

Sincerely,

William Donohue

President

Bill Donohue comments on how the Associated Press reported on Linda Sarsour’s commencement speech at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy on June 1:

AP says that some of Linda Sarsour’s critics “have spread false internet reports claiming she supports Islamic State militants and Sharia law.” In fact, she is guilty as charged. I made such an accusation on May 22, and I stand by it.

At this year’s Women’s March on Washington, Sarsour stood proudly with her friend, Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a terrorist who was convicted in 1970 for her part in two bombings; two Israeli students were killed while shopping for groceries.

Sarsour was one of four women who invited the convicted Muslim terrorist to join with them. Why did she welcome her if she does not support “Islamic State militants”?

On February 10, 2015, Sarsour was interviewed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. The Palestinian activist expressed concerns over the treatment of Muslims in the United States, specifically complaining about the “twenty-two states with anti-Sharia bills.”

Sharia law is modern-day slavery encoded into law. It is cited by Islamic terrorists to justify oppression. Muslims who love freedom hate Sharia law, so why does Sarsour object when it is outlawed?

AP needs to correct the record. Stop covering up for Islamist fanatics.

Contact AP Managing Editor Brian Carovillano: bcarovillano@ap.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the draft of the Trump administration’s revision of the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate affecting abortion, contraception, and sterilization:

The Trump administration is poised to upend the anti-religious rights provision of the HHS mandate written by the Obama administration. It promises to be better than what President Trump initially spoke about when he was running for office.

Not only will the revised plan allow religious individuals and groups the right not to be complicit in providing for morally objectionable services, it will extend this right to non-religious persons and organizations. The reasoning of the Trump administration is both logical and equitable.

For example, if conscientious objector status applies to agnostics and atheists who morally object to military service, why should such persons  who share the same objections as the Little Sisters of the Poor be denied an exemption? To be sure, conscience rights are at the heart of religious liberty, but they are not exclusive to the faithful. Many atheists also believe that abortion-inducing drugs are immoral.

In 2015, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that the March for Life should be given the same exemption from the HHS mandate as granted to religious groups. He said that if the religious exemption was designed “to respect the anti-abortifacient tenets of an employment relationship, then it makes no rational sense—indeed no sense whatsoever—to deny March [for] Life that same respect.”

It is important to recognize that the HHS mandate should not properly be called the “contraceptive” mandate. The “HHS Guidelines for Health Insurance Coverage” as outlined by the Obama administration covered “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods.” Included in this list are such drugs as the “morning after pill,” which were designed to induce an abortion. They not only prevent fertilization, they may act to prevent implantation of the embryo.

As a general rule, the government should presumptively grant exemptions to individuals and organizations—independent of whether they are religiously affiliated or not—from cooperating with morally illicit behaviors, and this is especially true of life and death issues. While all presumptive rights are rebuttable, the government must have a compelling interest to deny exemptions.

This is one more sign that President Trump is religion-friendly, quite unlike his predecessor. Indeed, he is also showing respect for the conscience rights of non-believers.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the controversy over this year’s Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York City:

In the 1970s, I led a contingent of Catholic students from Spanish Harlem in the Puerto Rican Day Parade; I did so for several years. It was a fun event. What made it so great were the wonderful people who marched, as well as those who cheered along the parade route. That is why it is a disgrace this year to see the parade so thoroughly politicized, taken over by extremists.

The June 11 parade will honor a convicted felon, a thug who worked with terrorists, Oscar Lopez Rivera; he is being touted as National Freedom Hero. The most prominent persons supporting him are New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York City Council Speaker Melissa-Mark Viverito, both Marxist millionaires.

Lopez Rivera was a co-founder of the FALN, a terrorist organization that seeks independence for Puerto Rico, a goal summarily rejected by the Puerto Rican people for decades. He was once in command of the Chicago group, arming the terrorists with dynamite, detonators, and guns. He was also trained in making bombs. Convicted of transportation of firearms with the intent to kill, as well as the transportation of explosives, he was sentenced in 1981 to 55 years in prison (another 15 were tacked on after he tried to escape from Leavenworth). President Obama commuted his sentence before leaving office (though he was not set free until two weeks ago).

Mayor de Blasio is either ignorant, or lying, when he contends that Lopez Rivera has renounced violence. He never has. In 1999, when President Clinton offered to reduce his sentence, providing he renounce the use of violence, he refused. He said, “The whole thing of contrition, atonement, I have a problem with that.”

When Lopez Rivera was released in January, he again refused to apologize for what the FALN did: it was involved in more than 100 bombings, killing at least six people and wounding at least 130 others. New York City was hit hard in 1975 when four were killed and scores were injured at Fraunces Tavern.

The FALN’s stated goal is to lead “an armed and political struggle in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist principle” and to implement “the Stalinist ideological position….” This is what defines Lopez Rivera.

Many leaders in the Puerto Rican community have withdrawn from marching in the parade, but not Mayor de Blasio. This is a man who lied to his own children about where he and his wife honeymooned: he told them they went to Canada when, in fact, they went—illegally—to Castro’s Cuba. Prior to that he raised money for the communists in Nicaragua. His seven-figure net worth makes him a Marxist millionaire.

The other Marxist millionaire, Mark-Viverito, is even more hard core than de Blasio. Three years ago, she was described by a Puerto Rican New York state senator as a person who “has never honored the American flag at any event.” Moreover, he added, she knows nothing about the working class, availing herself of “free cars, free chauffeurs, free offices, a big salary, huge stipends,” etc.

On May 17, Mark-Viverito traveled to Puerto Rico to celebrate the release of Lopez Rivera. She immediately secured for him the honorary position in the parade, an effort made possible by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman: the wealthy radical made sure that left-wing extremists took control of the event.

Mark-Viverito hates capitalism but loves the bounty it affords her. In 1998, she signed documents on behalf of her family confirming a $186 million sale of a hospital in Puerto Rico: her father had a stake in it, which redounded to her benefit. She wound up splitting $6.7 million with her relatives from the capitalist venture.

The Marxist millionaire is not only filthy rich, she is dishonest. In 2014, she was in the news for failing to report $92,600 in rental income from her East Harlem townhouse. She also managed to qualify for a city program designed to help the poor buy homes, paying no interest on a $70,400 mortgage for her home. That same year it was disclosed that she owned four properties in Puerto Rico: two rental condos, a home worth $500,000, and 7 acres of land worth $250,000.

The Marxist millionaire could teach the Wall Street crowd a thing or two about capitalist investments, yet she pretends to be a member of the proletariat. To wit: She was arrested in 2011 for her illegal activities involved in Occupy Wall Street. “I was more than happy to participate in this action,” she said.

Both de Blasio and Mark-Viverito stuck it to Irish Catholics for years by refusing to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. As they are wont to do, they lied: They said homosexuals were barred from marching in the parade, knowing full well that gays marched for decades in the parade (homosexuals were not allowed to march under their own banner, anymore than pro-life Catholics were).

It is obvious that the mayor and the city council speaker are more at home honoring a man who hates America and champions the terrorist cause than they are in associating with patriotic Irish Catholics. The Puerto Rican people deserve better. They have been morally fleeced by these Marxist millionaires, two of the most dishonest and ideologically corrupt persons ever to hold public office in New York City.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue notes that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has asked Pope Francis to apologize for Catholic mistreatment of indigenous children in schools run by the Catholic Church.

Accordingly, Donohue is asking Trudeau to apologize to all the victims of Canadian oppression. To read it click here.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on how the media are spinning the meeting between President Trump and Pope Francis:

The first news report I heard this morning on the meeting between the president and the pope was on radio: WCBS said reporters were taking note of the fact that President Trump smiled but Pope Francis did not. That must mean something, of course. But it does not—it means nothing. As even the New York Times and the Washington Post acknowledged, the two were beaming when they shook hands. So what?

When I met the pope, he had a winning grin when we shook hands, but looked serious for a group shot. That’s the way he is. Imagine if the president wasn’t smiling and the pope was. Would that mean Trump had just been put in his place? What if neither was smiling? Would that mean they hate each other?

Other media outlets played the same game:

• “The president smiled broadly beside the pontiff, who appeared subdued and stone-faced before the 30-minute private conversation.” (NBC News)
• “They posed for photographs and then sat down at the papal desk, the pope unsmiling, as their private meeting began.” (CBS News)
• “While Trump flashed a wide grin, the Pope offered only a modest smile—his demeanor, business like.” (CNN)

There was no breaking news story about the content of the meeting, but the Vatican did release a statement saying, “Satisfaction was expressed” by both the president and the pope on several issues, including “their joint commitment in favor of life, religious liberty and freedom of conscience.” Those are non-negotiable issues of paramount importance.

Most of the media were content to recycle the same discredited story about the president and the pope from 2016.

In February 2016, a reporter from Reuters misrepresented Trump’s position on illegal immigration to the pope. The Holy Father was told that Trump thinks it is okay to break up families when deporting illegal aliens. This is untrue.

In fact, Trump explicitly told Chuck Todd that he would never do that. After the media distorted what Trump said, the pope said if someone said he was only interested in building walls, that would not be Christian. He added that he would give him “the benefit of the doubt.” Trump was then told that the pope said he was not Christian, and he responded by saying that was “disgraceful.”

In other words, both men were misled about what the other said about him. The media continued to float these falsehoods today.

President Trump and Pope Francis disagree on climate change and immigration, but they have more in common on abortion, gay marriage, gender ideology, and religious liberty than what divides them. The real difference was between President Obama and Pope Francis—on these issues and others—though the media failed to report it.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on state laws protecting unborn babies and affirming religious liberty:

Human rights legislation is quickening in the states: protections for the unborn are gaining across the nation. Similarly, there is a determined effort to secure religious liberty.

Progress against child abuse in the womb is so strong in Kentucky that it may become the first state not to have a single abortion clinic. Planned Parenthood efforts to house new abortion clinics have been stopped, and it is now illegal to kill children after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Requiring doctors to inform pregnant women of ultrasound details is also law.

On May 12, Tennessee made it illegal to end the life of an unborn baby beyond viability. The law is different from the more than 20 other states that ban abortion beyond viability: it actually requires doctors to assess viability beginning at 20 weeks.

Indiana has tightened its parental consent law by allowing a judge to inform an underage girl’s parents that she wants to abort her child. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are up in arms over this expansion of parental rights.

Lawmakers in Iowa passed a bill denying reimbursement to abortion clinics that rely on Medicaid; starting July 1, they can no longer expect to be refunded for such expenses. True health services—unrelated to killing—will still be refunded.

Catholics have sued St. Louis for disrespecting the religious liberty rights of employers and landlords opposed to abortion. The law mandates that all employers—including Catholic institutions—must respect the “reproductive health decisions” of its employees. In practice, this means that pro-abortion teachers could sue if denied a teaching job at a Catholic school.

The Texas legislature has passed a bill that respects the autonomy of foster care and adoption agencies that receive public monies. Radical homosexuals, as well as men and women who have undergone surgery to adopt the genitals of the opposite sex, are unhappy with this religious liberty legislation.

A lot of good things are happening. Is this the “Trump Effect”? If so, the pope should be very pleased when they meet.

Bill Donohue comments on a Netflix documentary series, “The Keepers,” that will premiere on May 19:

Netflix is about to air a series that imputes the integrity of the Archdiocese of Baltimore for its handling of a miscreant priest from the 1960s. It relies heavily on conjecture and voodoo psychology. It must: it lacks the evidence to make its case. But it will surely feed the appetite of those ready to believe the worst about the Church.

The series focuses on the unresolved murder of Sister Cathy Cesnik. It invites the audience to consider whether she was killed to cover-up sexual abuse at the high school where she worked, Archbishop Keough in Baltimore.

Was the Archdiocese of Baltimore involved in the cover-up? The film dances around the issue, but the implication is clear. Importantly, there is no evidence to support its thesis, but who cares? The goal is to indict by innuendo.

No one disputes that Father Joseph Maskell sexually molested students  at the high school in the 1960s. The question is whether he had anything to do with the murder of the nun. No one knows.

The docu-series relies heavily on the testimony of one woman. She says she was sexually abused by Father Maskell in the late 1960s. She also alleges that he passed her around to cops, businessmen, and local officials, all of whom abused her. She says she told this to Sister Cathy shortly before she disappeared. She also claims that Father Maskell took her to see the nun’s body, warning her about her fate should she squeal.

Here are some inconvenient facts that the series fails to acknowledge.

• The alleged victim never said a word to the officials in the Baltimore archdiocese after she was allegedly molested and after the priest allegedly threatened her. She never called the cops, either. Indeed, she never came forward until 1992.
• Sister Cathy’s body was found by two hunters at a Baltimore dump on January 3, 1970, almost two months after her last sighting. The Baltimore County Police began its investigation at this time.
• The case remained open and was extremely active through 1977. The police never got a single phone call from witnesses or victims alleging abuse from anyone associated with the Catholic Church.
• Neither the archdiocese nor the cops were made aware of Father Maskell’s abusive behavior until 1992. He was immediately removed from ministry for evaluation and treatment.
• The archdiocese reported the allegation to the civil authorities. That is when Father Maskell was investigated by the police.
• In 1994, after two other students subsequently make accusations against the priest, the archdiocese called the cops. Father Maskell was removed from public ministry.
• Detectives are asked to evaluate the charge that Father Maskell took the initial complainant to see Sister Cathy’s body, threatening her. They find inconsistencies in her story.
• After a lengthy police interview, Father Maskell is not considered a suspect and is let go. He dies in 2001.

This is obviously a sad story. But there is no evidence that the Archdiocese of Baltimore did anything wrong. Indeed, it did everything right.

Why did the accusing woman who is at the center of this story wait until the 1990s to report what allegedly happened in the 1960s? “Repressed memory,” we are told.

• The American Psychology Association studied this issue and concluded that “Most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them.”
• The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the Bible of the American Psychiatric Association, does not recognize the scientific validity of “repressed memories.”
• “Researchers at Harvard Medical School concluded that “repressed memory” is a cultural creation having no basis in science.
• In 2012, clinical psychologists and authors from the University of Nevada, Reno, studied the literature on this subject and concluded that “there is a large amount of scientific evidence that clearly shows that repressed memories simply do not exist. Furthermore research studies involving traumatic events that have been verified indicate that people do not forget their trauma. Indeed, traumatic events are actually quite memorable.”

So what would the top brass at Netflix do if they learned of a similar accusation made by a former employee against one of its officials? Would they call the cops? Hopefully, they would. We don’t know. Would they immediately remove the accused from his job—the way the archdiocese did—or would they allow him to continue until the case was resolved? How would they react if I decided to do a movie about them?

Had those behind this Netflix documentary spent more time discussing the script with the Archdiocese of Baltimore before moving forward, they may have dropped it altogether. But they didn’t—they sought very little input. That is why “The Keepers” is so scurrilous: it indicts without evidence.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds to an AP story, “Demonization of Soros Recalls Old anti-Semitic Conspiracies,” written by Vanessa Gera:

The AP news story is a wholly indefensible whitewash of George Soros, one that accuses his critics of anti-Semitism. Yet not a single anti-Semitic quote that his critics have made is cited.

AP would have us believe that Soros has “advanced human rights,” along with many other noble goals. Not for Catholics. In fact, Soros has funded more anti-Catholic groups than any person in American history. That he is a self-hating Jew who has worked tirelessly against Israel is also indisputable.

After quoting a Catholic woman broadcaster from Poland accusing Soros of using his foundations to “finance anti-Christian and anti-national activities,” the story says, “Sociologists see such rhetoric…as a modern manifestation of old anti-Semitic conspiracies.”

A Polish sociologist, who relies totally on conjecture, is then mentioned. He must resort to conjecture: He offers no evidence that anti-Semitism is driving Soros’ critics. I am a sociologist, too, and I see the broadcaster’s remark as spot-on.

I will now do what AP cannot do: I will offer proof of my accusations against Soros. I could say a whole lot more, but the following will do.

The AP story focuses mostly on Soros’ campaigns in Central and Eastern Europe, detailing his work amidst charges that he is interfering in the internal affairs of these nations. Guilty as charged—injecting himself into the sovereign affairs of other nations is what Soros does.

His many foundations, in particular his Open Society Foundations, fund anti-Catholic projects in Ireland, as well as in many African, Asian, and Latin American nations. How so? By promoting abortion and working to sideline the Catholic Church.

“For George Soros, Ireland Abortion Fight May be First Step Against Catholic countries.” That was the title of an article last year by Kevin Jones posted on the website of Catholic News Agency. Soros’ foundations funded Abortion Rights Campaign, Amnesty International Ireland, and the Irish Planning Association, all aimed at repealing Ireland’s anti-abortion law. Jones also detailed similar efforts in Mexico, Zambia, Nigeria, and Tanzania.

The Soros document that Jones cited shows how Soros’ Open Society Foundations boasted that if they won in Ireland, “a win there could impact other strongly Catholic countries in Europe, such as Poland, and provide much needed proof that change is possible, even in highly conservative places.”

In 2005, the Soros-funded PAC arm of MoveOn.org posted a smiling picture of Pope Benedict XVI holding a gavel outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Above the picture it said, “God Already has a Job…He does not need one on the Supreme Court. Protect the Supreme Court Rules.”

In 2016, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, lavishly funded by Soros, worked against the Catholic Church’s efforts to promote religious liberty; the Church was campaigning against the HHS abortion-inducing mandate being foisted on it by the Obama administration.

In 2012, Faith in Public Life, a Soros-funded entity, provided talking points to its ideological kin by instructing them on how to handle “the war on the Catholic Church.” The following year, Faithful America, which is funded by Faith in Public Life, condemned two cardinals, and the Catholic University of America, for upholding Catholic values.

Catholics for Choice is a pro-abortion, anti-Catholic letterhead that has no members, but is nicely greased by Soros. Its sole purpose is to sell the invidious notion that being pro-abortion is an acceptable Catholic position. Soros has also funded Catholics United, a bogus Catholic group that triggered a campaign against me in 2008. It tried to get me kicked off CNN and it abetted a failed IRS probe against me.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which had its IRS tax-exempt status pulled in 2013, is a real Soros gem. It was founded by John Podesta for the purpose of planting “the seeds of the revolution” in the Catholic Church. We know this because of the infamous Wikileaks documents.

Imagine a Catholic foundation that funded a “revolution” in the Jewish community by setting up dummy Jewish organizations. Would AP do a story painting the primary donor as a hero?

Jews have been harshly critical of Soros as well. In 2003, the ADL accused Soros of blaming anti-Semitism in Israel on the Israeli government. In 2006, an article in the Jerusalem Post accused Soros of  weakening support for Israel in the Democratic Party, seeking “to undermine Israel’s positions in the U.S. in general.”

In 2007, the Jewish Forward said that “The editor of the New Republic, Martin Peretz, renewed an attack on Soros that he began a month ago when he called the Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor a cog in the Hitlerite wheel.” In 2016, the Jerusalem Post noted that some hacked emails show that the stated goal of Soros’ Open Society Foundations was “challenging Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies.”

This news story by AP is an affront to the sensibilities of those Catholics and Jews who know better. George Soros is no champion of human rights. He is a manipulative atheist billionaire deserving of our condemnation, not commendation. Shame on AP for trying to make him a victim—he is a master victimizer.

Contact Vanessa Gera: vgera@ap.org