U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy recently said that from his own experience, parenting has been “more stressful than any job I’ve had.” He notes that his view is shared by parents across the nation.

After painting a dour picture of parenting, he explains, “That’s why I am issuing a surgeon general’s advisory to call attention to the stress and mental health concerns facing parents and caregivers, and to lay out what we can do to address them.” He further says that we must identify “policies” and “programs” to improve matters.

What he said is not backed up by the data. For example, married men in America are about twice as likely to be very happy, compared to their unmarried peers. Also, men and women who have the benefit of a spouse and children are the most likely to report being “very happy” with their lives. Finally, a combination of marriage and parenthood is linked to the biggest happiness dividends for women.

Now if these same people were asked if it is stressful to raise children, no doubt they would agree. So what? Experiencing stress does not negate the possibility of being happy.

Winning the World Series or the Super Bowl is stressful for the players. It is also a source of tremendous happiness. The two emotions are not necessarily contradictory.

This is a familiar pattern. Government officials announce they are going to fix a problem that is largely of their own making. They are good at contriving issues that demand an expansion of the government.

TV talk-show icon Phil Donahue died on August 18. He did not ascribe to Catholic teachings on sexuality but he was a very generous supporter of St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital. He was married to Marlo Thomas, daughter of entertainer and founder of St. Jude, Danny Thomas. St. Jude is known for treating children with severe health issues, and not charging anyone a dime.

Bill Donohue was a guest on Phil’s shows for many years. He told the National Catholic Register that he “thoroughly enjoyed mixing it up with him. He [Phil] told his producers on several occasions the he loved having me on even though we usually clashed. That made him unusual—he was not afraid of confronting a conservative. He was a real man. And I always appreciated his kindness. May he rest in peace.”

Those who scream the loudest about helping minorities are almost always the same ones who are doing everything they can to keep them in their place.

Proof: It is mostly Democrats who champion minority rights, and it is mostly Democrats who want to force minorities to attend schools they wouldn’t send their own children to (the Democratic Platform explicitly rejects school choice). That’s because Democrats are owned by the National Education Association (NEA), the largest labor union in the nation. Almost all their funding goes to the Democrats.

In short, no advocate of the poor should be taken seriously if he is opposed to school choice. They are the enemy of the poor.

The good news is that the march for school choice cannot be stopped. In fact, there are some 80 education choice programs available in at least 30 states, and the push for more is relentless. Here are some examples.

• In 2011, Arizona was the first state to offer an ESA, education savings account. It provides a fund for students to pay for various forms of education.
• No state has pioneered school choice more than Florida. We are talking about tens of thousands more children enrolling in private or charter schools or homeschooling.
• In March, Alabama joined 10 other states in enacting universal or near universal education freedom legislation.
• In November, Colorado voters will decide whether to encode school choice in its state constitution.
• Georgia offers a variety of school choice programs, including two private school choice ones, charter schools, magnet schools, homeschooling and inter and intra-district public school choice.
• Iowa has essentially what Georgia has.
• Indiana has four private school choice programs: ESA, school voucher, tax-credit scholarship and individual tax deduction.
• Voters in Kentucky will decide in November whether they want school choice. One school district, Pulaski County, has been accused of violating the law by using social media to tell voters to vote “no” on the ballot initiative.
• School choice advocates are lobbying lawmakers in North Carolina to clear the waitlist for families seeking scholarships under the state’s school voucher program. Roughly 55,000 are on the list.
• Texans are strongly in favor of school choice, and so is Gov. Greg Abbott, but lawmakers are mostly opposed. In the spring, Abbott succeeded in persuading voters to dump six incumbent Republican opponents of school choice.
• In March, Utah expanded its ESA program, essentially doubling the number of students who qualify.
• Also in March, Wyoming adopted its first school choice program, though Gov. Mark Gordon used his line-item veto to narrow the eligibility of the ESA initiative.

Those opposed to school choice allege that funds for these alternative schools effectively siphons money away from traditional public schools. This is inaccurate.

First, it is a fundamental right of parents to decide which school their children should attend, not school unions. Second, it is a myth that public schools suffer a financial hit when school choice programs are instituted.

A few decades ago, economist Milton Friedman surveyed this argument by discussing the situation in the District of Columbia. At that time D.C. was spending more than $11,000 per year per student in public schools (today the figure is more than double that). The D.C. voucher plan at that time called for a maximum of $7,500.

Therefore, Friedman argued, “For every voucher student who leaves the public school for a private school, the system would gain more than $3,500. Far from taking money away from public schools, vouchers increase the funds available per remaining student.”

On this issue, the Democrats are on the wrong side of history. Beholden to their benefactors at the NEA, they are willing to put their heel in the face of black Americans who simply want the same right to select the school of their choice as afforded most Americans. They should not be denied.

Bill Donohue has long admired the erudition and courage of Mark Levin, the influential author and Fox News host. But his recent show featuring a so-called victims’ advocate was a disaster. Quite frankly, he was ripped off.

On his August 24 show, Mark had as his guest Joey Piscitelli. He was identified as a leader for 20 years with Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). He alleges that when Kamala Harris was the San Francisco district attorney she did not prosecute priests who were accused of sexually abusing minors (he claims to have been a victim).

He further contends that the district attorney whom she beat “in early 2004,” Terence Hallinan (he is wrong—she beat him in 2003 and took over in 2004), was hot on the trail of the Archdiocese of San Francisco but Harris never followed up. He attributes her inaction to Archbishop William Levada, “the most powerful bishop in the United States.”

Having closely followed this issue for decades, and having assisted in effectively busting SNAP (it is a shell of its former self, and even then it was not an organization), and having authored a book on this subject, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, Bill Donohue is in a position to checkmate Piscitelli’s account.

If Harris showed favoritism to the Catholic Church, we would need to know if she prosecuted other professionals who interact with minors. For example, did she prosecute public school teachers, or members of the clergy from other religions? This is important because most of the offenses committed by priests occurred in the last century (mostly between 1965 and 1985). In education, the problem is ongoing. If Harris did not pursue teachers, why should she have pursued priests?

From Donohue’s own research on this issue, subsequent to the publication of his book, he learned that Hallinan was able to secure Church documents on 40 former or current priests. It is important to note that in June 2003, approximately six months before Harris took over as D.A., the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a California law from 1994 that retroactively eliminated the statute of limitations for crimes involving the sexual abuse of minors.

Instead of asking why Harris did not pursue criminal cases against molesting priests—when the high court said such offenses were time barred—perhaps we should ask why Hallinan was so aggressive in singling out priests for prosecution, even using a grand jury to bring indictments. He was on a tear, seeking 75 years of Church documents.

Why would a D.A. want to spend his resources seeking to obtain the files on priests extending back to the 1920s? The San Francisco Chronicle, not exactly a Catholic-friendly source, labeled Hallinan’s pursuit “a fishing expedition.”

Where did Hallinan get the documents on the 40 priests? The archdiocese voluntarily turned them over in May 2002. By the way, lay employees were among the 40, and most of the priests were no doubt dead or out of ministry.

There is no question that San Francisco Archbishop Levada was seeking to protect the anonymity of accused priests. In doing so, he was doing what the leaders of every religious and secular institution do in these situations. Do the media open their books to the authorities on sexual abuse allegations? Do school administrators? Does Hollywood? In short, Levada was not an outlier, as Piscitelli suggests.

While serving as San Francisco District Attorney, Harris was asked why she would not make public those documents she possessed on priests. Linda Klee, her chief of administration and spokeswoman, told a reporter, “If we did it for you, we would have to do it for everybody. Where do you stop, and where do you start?”

Elliot Beckelman is a former prosecutor in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office who dealt with clergy sexual abuse cases.

He defends Harris’ decision not to release Church documents. “I don’t think a district attorney should float that out there if a person can’t defend themselves. It’s a very serious charge, a sex crime. The Catholics, like other minorities, feel picked upon, and I thought for the integrity of the investigation that we don’t have running press conferences to make out that the Catholics are worse than the Jews—which I am—or worse than the Hindus. There’s always a balance that comes to sexual assault investigations.”

Beckelman does not exaggerate. SNAP has smeared the Catholic Church for decades. Its longtime leader, David Clohessy, was deposed in 2012 and shown to be a fraud. Five years later, after he was sued by an employee for accepting financial kickbacks and funneling money to SNAP via dummy organizations, he resigned. He was also shown to have more interest in sticking it to the Catholic Church than in doing anything constructive to help victims.

Clohessy admitted that there never was a SNAP office—he “worked” from home. It still has no office: its “staff” consists of persons with emails and a cell number.

Those who victimize minors are despicable. Ditto for those who exploit this issue for ideological and financial profit.

The crazies descended on Chicago, whipping up hatred against Jews and Christianity. Their goals are unambiguous: destroy Israel and destroy Christian sexual ethics. The former is easier to comprehend, but the latter deserves more attention, especially as it relates to the former. First a little background.

According to a New York Times story last November, “On Oct. 7, scores of Hamas gunmen swept into Israel towns and military bases near the border with Gaza, opening fire on people in their homes, on the streets, and at a music festival. The attackers fatally shot the elderly, women and young children, according to survivors; others were burned after attackers set their homes ablaze.” Most—70 percent—were civilians.

The protesters in Chicago are not upset with Hamas for killing 1,200 innocent Jewish civilians on October 7, 2023. Their only regret is that they didn’t finish the job.

“March On The DNC 2024, Chicago, IL,” is the name of the coalition. Its central aim is “Stand with Palestine! End U.S. Aid to Israel” and to “stop our government from arming and supporting this genocide!” But it also lists as one of its goals, “Defend LGBTQIA+ & Reproductive Rights!”

A look at some of the groups that are part of the coalition underscores the nexus between the political (anti-Israel) and the sexual (anti-Christianity) aspects of the protest.

Bodies Outside of Unjust Laws says, “We demand national legislation to expand access to abortion, support families, and defend the rights of trans and queer people.” It explains its founding, stating, “We are a national coalition formed to demand a federal response to the wave of attacks on our bodily autonomy.” Naturally, they add, “We demand an end to US funds going to the genocide in Palestine.”

CODEPINK not only hates Jews and hates Christian sexual ethics, it wants to kill unborn children in Israel. Earlier this year, it issued an urgent call for “Reproductive Justice in Gaza/Palestine & Everywhere!” Of course, it demands an end to U.S. aid to Israel. It showed what a fraud it is when it said it was “an enthusiastic supporter of the rights of gay and lesbians to join and serve openly in the military,” but after that goal was achieved it issued the following statement: “To the LGBT community: Now that you can join the military, please don’t!” For good measure, it also wants to “Defund the Police, Defund the Military.”

Democratic Socialists of America not only has nothing to say about the Hamas attack on innocent Israelis on October 7, it blames Jews for defending themselves. “Since October 7, Israel has continuously engaged in provocative military aggression, aimed at expanding its brutal war into Lebanon.” It is also an “advocate for LGBTQIA+ liberation.”

Jewish Voice for Peace is a pro-Hamas organization that has played a prominent role in demonstrations against Israel. Its Chicago affiliate is part of the coalition; it has previously supported the Chicago Dyke March Collective. Its members “were present at Dyke March wearing Jewish symbols, including Stars of David, t-shirts with Hebrew, kippot, and sashes with Yiddish script.”

Thank God for Abortion—yes, such a group exists—has been around for several years. Although it is primarily interested in killing kids, its members have launched protests in Grand Central Station in New York City on behalf of Hamas. It also pays for a float at Gay Pride Parades. Its leader, a young woman, brags openly about her two abortions, saying to her followers, “I celebrate your life to have 20 abortions—I’ll throw you a party.”

In the 1960s, Wilhelm Reich, a cultural Marxist from the radical Frankfurt School, helped create the intellectual seedbeds that led to the pro-Hamas and pro-LGBT coalition. He blended Freud’s ideas with those of Marx, envisioning a world where individuals would enjoy sexual liberation and society would experience a revolution. It was only fitting that he was a sex maniac and a member of the Communist Party.

That is what is driving the Chicago protesters. They see oppression everywhere. Hence, they are convinced that the only true liberation is to shed their sexual and political shackles. According to their logic, Israel must be destroyed because it is an outpost of Western oppression and Christianity must be destroyed because it promotes sexual repression.

These people are not only mad, they are a threat to a free society. A sensible society would deal with them with dispatch.

In 2016, Donald Trump squared off against Hillary Clinton, and he won the Catholic vote by a margin of 52 to 45. In 2020, Trump narrowly took the Catholic vote, beating Joe Biden 50-49.

Two recent polls of Catholics came to different conclusions. An EWTN News/RealClear Opinion Research survey showed Harris winning 50-43 over Trump. But a Pew Research poll showed Trump winning 52-47.

Why the difference? One reason may be because the EWTN survey was based on self-identified Catholics; the Pew survey was based on Catholics who are registered voters.

In virtually every instance, Protestants tend to vote Republican and Jews tend to vote Democrat. Catholics are the swing vote—they can go for either Party.

It is important to note that there are more Independents than there are Republicans or Democrats. They constitute a plurality of voters.

In short, Catholics and Independents may decide the election.

The 2024 Democratic platform notes, “For generations, LGBTQI+ Americans have summoned the courage to live authentically and proudly, even when it meant putting their lives and livelihoods at risk.”

However, it seems the speakers at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) could not summon “the courage” to speak “authentically and proudly” about their full-throated endorsement of the most radical LGBT policies ever implemented. They appear to be unwilling to put their political “lives and livelihoods at risk.” Even taking a fleeting second to explain who the “+” people are appears to have been too much for them.

No, rather than defending the record of the Biden-Harris administration, the DNC featured a stealth campaign to obfuscate the barbarism and depravity at the heart of the policies promoted over the last four years. Instead, the DNC has chosen to put a “joyful” and moderate spin on their agenda in hopes of appealing to normal voters in the swing-states.

While the Democrats might lack the fortitude to highlight their “accomplishments” on these issues, here is just a brief summary of what the Biden-Harris administration has done:

• On the first day of the Biden-Harris administration, it implemented an executive order allowing boys into the girls restrooms and locker rooms and to compete in girls sports.
• The Biden-Harris administration has rolled back religious liberty protections for medical providers compelling them to provide “gender affirming care.”
• The Biden-Harris administration has routinely championed the Equality Act. This act would effectively gut religious liberty protections and eviscerate women’s sports and other legal protections. It would compel Catholic Hospitals to provide “gender affirming care.”
• The Biden-Harris administration adopted a rule that if foster parents refused to support “gender affirming care” they would have their children taken from them.
• The Biden-Harris administration regularly condemned states like Florida, Texas, and Tennessee for defending parental rights and protecting children from mutilation in the name of “gender affirming care.”
• The Biden-Harris administration sought an appeal to mandate that Catholic doctors and hospitals would have to provide “gender-transition” surgeries.

You would not have heard any mention of these policies from the DNC speakers. There were platitudes about children “being who they are and loving who they love” as Michelle Obama put it, or Barack Obama’s insistence “that true freedom gives each of us the right to make decisions about our own life,…what our family looks like,…[and] who we marry….”

The DNC speakers were happy to go on about “book banning.” Vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, and Secretary Pete Buttigieg were happy to mention this. Of course, they left out that the books are not being banned, but instead, parents are calling on education officials to keep books out of schools that are not age-appropriate (they feature graphic sexual content).

But what makes this political expedience even more outrageous is for the past four years we have been told by the Biden-Harris administration that “trans” kids are facing a crisis in this country. To drive this point home, they have turned to Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Rachel Levine, a man who pretends to be a woman. Levine has assured us that “Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives.” If what he says is true, why would the DNC not give him a prominent platform to highlight this?

We at the Catholic League have the courage these speakers lack. This is why we had a billboard calling for the end of gender transitioning just outside of the United Center. Additionally, we ran 30 radio ads on WLS 890 AM, one of the most prominent radio stations in Chicago. The radical LGBT agenda seeks to upend our nation, and the promotion of gender affirming care for minors is child abuse. This is a critical issue that we will never walk away from. The American people need to be leveled with, but the DNC speakers won’t do that.

Bill in the News (Fox News): Catholic League President Bill Donohue told Fox News Digital on Monday that Harris’ snub of the Al Smith dinner sent “an unmistakable message to Catholics.” The campaign previously told the media that Harris would not attend the dinner in order to campaign in a battleground state.

Simultaneously to skipping the Al Smith dinner, Harris held a campaign rally in Wisconsin, where she told two pro-life student protesters that they were “at the wrong rally” when they yelled, “Jesus is Lord,” and, “Christ is King” last Thursday. READ MORE HERE

Bill Donohue

Can abortion be funny? Some think so. While most liberals would not agree that it is, it remains true that the only ones who do are secular liberals. Some are prominent Americans. If they are not mocking pro-lifers, they are joking about abortion.

On October 17, Vice President Kamala Harris mocked Christian students, much to the applause of her fans. When Harris began to defend abortion at a Wisconsin rally, two young people shouted, “Christ is King.” She could have let it go. Instead, she berated them.

“You guys are at the wrong rally.” As is her wont, she laughed heartily, and the crowd loved it. Yet when pro-Hamas protesters shout her down, she simply insists on her free speech rights. But on this occasion, that was obviously deemed inadequate. These were Christians—they deserved to be belittled.

Recently, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer insulted Catholics by going for the jugular—she ridiculed the Eucharist. We made sure everyone found out about it. Then she lied about what she did. What was not generally reported was how she reacted when the subject of abortion came up.

Liz Plank, the podcaster with whom Whitmer mocked Holy Communion, said to the governor, “Okay, and you have two daughters. When they come back home and they leave their Stanley Cups lying around, do you ever think about getting a post-birth abortion?” Whitmer broke out into uncontrollable laughter, saying, “Thank you for raising that because there is no such thing.”

In fact, there is. Babies are born alive as a result of a botched abortion. Some not only live to tell their story, they have organized to inform Americans about it. Yet Whitmer thinks it’s funny. If she had any guts she would confront these survivors face-to-face, and then share her sense of humor with them.

Less well known pro-abortion advocates think the same way. About a decade ago, some male students at Hunter College in New York City decided to play a game mocking abortion. They stuffed balloons under their shirts, pretending to be pregnant, and then used plastic forks and knives on each other to pop the balloons. Students yelled, “Kill that baby! Kill it!”

Four years ago a girl went on TikTok bragging about her second abortion. Two years ago she was outdone by Alison Leiby. She performed a comedy show, “Oh God, a Show About Abortion.” It was a celebration of her recent abortion. Why did she do it? “I wrote the show to help people understand and laugh about abortion.” That way more women will find it easier to make the decision to abort their child, and may even get a good chuckle out of it.

Almost as bad as these people are those with whom they live and work and refuse to confront them. Many of them know it is sick to laugh about abortion, but they don’t want to appear “judgmental.” But that in itself is a judgment.

Our society has become increasingly debased. When abortion is treated as legitimate comedic fare, the most vulnerable among us are next in line. History shows that desensitizing the population yields ugly results.

Michael P. McDonald

On October 25, Conclave will appear in movie theaters across the country. This thriller about a fictitious papal-election has garnered glowing reviews on the film festival circuit. In fact, the movie has garnered a 94 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes.

In its fawning review, the Hollywood Reporter notes, “The film raises timely issues of sexual and racist prejudices within organized religion, while also acknowledging the sexual scandals that have rocked the Church in recent years.” Entertainment Weekly adds that “much of the film interrogates the gap between the Catholic Church’s sins and the true meaning of faith….”

Since Conclave is about the intrigue surrounding the election of a new pope, one might wonder how these negative elements fit into the plot. Unfortunately, the reviews are scarce on specific details, but looking at the 2016 novel it is based on provides more insight.

Like the movie, the novel revolves around the political intrigue of a papal election. Of course, the leading candidates have some sort of moral failing.

• Cardinal Joshua Adeyemi from Africa who holds traditional views had an affair with a nun and fathered a child ruling him out of contention.
• Cardinal Joseph Tremblay a smooth Vatican insider is involved in a scandal of selling Church offices and appointments to bolster his support.
• Liberal Cardinal Aldo Bellini who favors modernizing the Church is a suffering hero rejected by the College of Cardinals.
• Foiling Bellini is the ultra-conservative Cardinal Goffredo Tedesco, a boorish man.

In the middle of the conclave there is an attack by Islamic terrorists prompting Tedesco to effectively call for a new crusade, ending his candidacy. Ultimately, the conclave selects Cardinal Vincent Benítez, a relatively unknown prelate from the Philippines who currently serves as the Archbishop of Baghdad. In a final twist, it turns out Benítez is intersex with what looks to be male reproductive organs but is female.

The author, Robert Harris, claims he has no real religious tradition. However, he is a devout British liberal, even authoring a novel to attack Tony Blair, which was made into a film in collaboration with sexual predator Roman Polanski. In fact, the pair worked on three films. Harris even defended Polanski from his critics saying his crimes are a problem of culture and fashion.

In the novel’s Acknowledgements, Harris cites a slew of dissident Catholic writers including John Cornwell, a British author known for the totally discredited book Hitler’s Pope.

It is equally instructive to consider what some of the people associated with the movie have said:

• Director Edward Berger—”If the Catholic Church wants to survive and take a step into the future it needs to change quickly….”
• Leading actor Ralph Fiennes—”When religious things become so codified, so doctrinal and extreme, then they become for me very frightening.” He then criticized Pope Benedict XVI, “I don’t think anyone who considers themselves an enlightened Catholic can like him.”
• Supporting actor Stanley Tucci played the anti-Catholic Boston lawyer Mitchell Garabedian in Spotlight, lauding his work. That tells us volumes about Tucci’s real agenda.

Given what we know about Conclave from the fawning critics, the novel, and what people associated with the film have said, Conclave is more a piece of anti-Catholic propaganda than it is a work of art. It might have stunning cinematic sequences and a star studded cast, but those things do not redeem the underlying ugliness of the project, namely it aims to paint the Catholic Church in the most negative light possible.