Bill Donohue comments on the California bill that would allow those who claim they were molested in a private institution more time to file lawsuits:

On August 14, SB 131 lost in the Assembly Appropriations Committee by a 6-4 vote; there were seven abstentions. Yesterday, it passed 12-4. The bill now heads to the Assembly; it could be voted on as early as Monday.

It was the Democrats who made the difference between last week and this week. Last week, they were indecisive; this week they decided to cast their vote in favor of a bill that discriminates against the Catholic Church.

We need a lawmaker who will introduce a bill that discriminates against the public sector. The bill should suspend the statute of limitations in cases involving the sexual abuse of minors who were victimized in a public school or any other public entity. All private institutions, including Catholic schools, would be given a pass.

This is the only way to send a message to the public about this phony war on child abuse. Anyone who is serious about this issue would never entertain a bill that had selective application. 

Bill Donohue comments on New York State Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s friends at NARAL Pro-Choice:

There is no organization that Gov. Cuomo loves more than NARAL, the most radical pro-abortion organization in New York State. And there is only one organization in New York State that received an exemption from his new lobbying reporting law for tax exempt groups—NARAL.

The New York Times reported today that the lone exemption to NARAL was granted by the state ethics commission because it contended that its donors might face “harm, threats, harassment, or reprisals”; these conditions are grounds for exemption. But the decision to grant the exemption was done in private, behind closed doors, thus contradicting Cuomo’s call for transparency.

What the Times did not disclose is that this same slippery exemption was written into the regulations broached by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on June 7: this regulation, which applies to the political expenditures of non-profits, is being touted for its “groundbreaking effort to bring transparency to the political process.” Will NARAL be exempt from this regulation as well?

The only New York politician with the guts to do anything about this outrageous scam is Senate GOP leader Dean Skelos. In his August 1 letter to Daniel Horwitz, Chairman of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, Skelos said of the donor disclosure law, “This regulation should be repealed and the information should be made public.” We agree.

NARAL-NY is corrupt. In 2011, Kelli Conlin, who headed the group for 19 years, pleaded guilty to stealing $75,000 from NARAL; in 2012, she was slapped with another lawsuit accusing her of ripping off hundreds of thousands to finance her extravagant lifestyle. Are we to believe that no one at NARAL knew about her illegalities? And this is the group that is being given preferential treatment in skirting the law? Thus far this year, NARAL-NY has spent $425,000 in lobbying, and no one has benefited more than Cuomo.

We are contacting New York lawmakers, Ethics Chairman Horwitz, and others, asking them to support Sen. Skelos’ requests.

Contact Daniel Horwitz: dhorwitz@lchattorneys.com

Bill Donohue comments on the three-part PBS documentary, “The Life of Muhammad,” which debuts tonight:

No one likes to see his religion trashed, and from everything we have learned about “The Life of Muhammad,” Muslims have nothing to worry about. The New York Daily News says the film could be subtitled “Islam 101,” boasting that “If it helps with greater understanding, it has done its job.” A professor who appears in the series praises it for its “balance.”

However, a look back at PBS’ treatment of the Catholic Church yields few films that could reasonably be dubbed “Catholicism 101,” or that could in any way be praised for promoting “greater understanding.” In fact, most of the films were flagrantly imbalanced.

Nowhere is Muhammad depicted in the series. This is said to be in keeping with Koranic prohibitions against showing images of the prophet. But the Koran only condemns idolatry; it does not forbid representations of human beings. Indeed, there are illustrated Korans that depict Muhammad. Also, if showing human figures is taboo, why did Muhammad allow his wife, Aisha, to play with dolls? (She was 6-years-old when he married her, and 9 when the marriage was consummated; he was in his fifties.) Moreover, Muhammad himself kept copies of Jesus and Mary from destruction.

Oxford professor Tariq Ramadan erroneously says in the film that “We never represent or have any images of any of the prophets.” Faris Kermani, the producer and director, does not deny that Ramadan is wrong. He simply says that he decided to respect “the current Muslim view, understanding that this has not always been the case.” So kind.

PBS has a long history of disparate treatment when it comes to portrayals of Islam and Catholicism. I hasten to add that its treatment of Islam has not always been fair, either. Click here to read more about this issue.

Bill Donohue explains why the need for a petition:

The Catholic community, led by the bishops, has voiced its objections to the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate on several occasions. The Obama administration has made “accommodations” and other revisions, but the fundamental problem remains: the HHS mandate adopts a definition of what constitutes a “religious employer” that is entirely too narrow; and the religious liberty abridgement entailed in this edict represents an unfair burden on Catholic non-profit organizations, and Catholic-owned private businesses.

The amount of time and money spent trying to reconcile the HHS mandate with legitimate First Amendment concerns has been considerable, and without a satisfactory conclusion. Indeed, almost 70 lawsuits have been filed. The only sensible outcome is for the administration to withdraw the mandate altogether.

The problems inherent in ObamaCare are serious. From delaying “out-of-pocket costs” to postponing the employer mandate, it is evident that even those who support this legislation are growing weary. Add to this the more than a thousand waivers that have been granted, and the loss of support by labor unions, and the result is alarming. But none of these factors are as important as the constitutional issues that the HHS mandate presents: even if ObamaCare can be salvaged, the problems posed by the mandate remain.

The petition drive that we are launching today will end September 30, six weeks from today. We will forward the petitions to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on October 1. Please encourage family, friends and members of your parish to sign it. To sign it, click here.

Bill Donohue comments on a California bill, SB 131, that would suspend the statute of limitations for one year in cases where someone claims he was molested when he was a minor in a private institution; the law applies to those who were 26-years-old in 2002:

Good news: SB 131 never got out of committee today. While the bill can still be voted on during this legislative session, time is running out. The fact that it stalled today is encouraging.

This bill has more to do with punishing the Catholic Church for offenses alleged to have been committed decades ago than it does with protecting minors today. The bill is also an affront to fairness on another level: it gives the biggest offenders of all—those who work in the public schools—a pass.

The Catholic League salutes the California bishops, ably led by Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez, and the California Catholic Conference. We also commend all those Catholic League members in California who let their voices be heard; we were happy to lead them. It goes to show that if our side is to win, we must raise our voices. No one can hear those who speak softly.

Bill Donohue comments on the inconsistent way Facebook applies its global standards for unacceptable fare:

On July 1, the Catholic League filed a complaint with Facebook about an entry that showed an edgy picture of the Virgin Mary with the inscription, “Virgin Mary Should’ve Aborted.” This was the reply: “We reviewed the page you reported for containing hate speech or symbols and found it doesn’t violate our community standard on hate speech.” When others continued to protest, the page was taken down, but then other pages, similar in content, appeared; they are still posted.

Alison Schumer, who works in Facebook’s communication department, said in June that “hate speech” is defined as “direct and serious attacks on any protected category of people,” but that “distasteful humor” does not qualify. That is an eminently defensible definition. But if that policy was violated when a cartoon of a naked Muhammad was posted—this happened last September when a French magazine took liberties with the prophet—then why does Facebook currently allow the Virgin Mary to be assaulted? It censored the French page.

Two other issues are involved. First, the policy that Schumer defended speaks to categories of people, not individuals. But it was invoked against the French magazine because of its assault on an individual. The point being that if the anti-Muhammad post had to be taken down, why not the anti-Virgin Mary page? Second, the cartoon (not a photo) was a depiction of Muhammad lying on his stomach, with his butt exposed. If the reason for taking down this page is nudity, then how does Facebook explain doctored photos of Sarah Palin sitting on a chair with her legs spread, wearing a blouse, panties, nylons, and high heels? It’s still up.

Overall, Facebook does a very fair job. But it owes Catholics an explanation. Better yet, simply treat Mary the way it treats Muhammad.

Contact Facebook’s press room: press@fb.com

Bill Donohue comments on the fate of SB 131:

Tomorrow, the California Assembly Appropriations Committee will once again take up the issue of suspending the statute of limitations for cases involving minors who allege they are victims of sexual abuse. SB 131 would allow anyone who was 26-years-old in 2002, and claims to have been molested, one year to file suit. To those interested in justice, the bill appears to be fair. But there is just one problem: most of those who meet the criteria are not legally permitted to file suit. How can this be? Because it does not apply to anyone who was violated by a public employee, such as a public school teacher, aide, counselor or coach. For them—and they account for the lion’s share of abuse—it’s just too bad.

The purpose of this outrageous bill is to sock it to the Catholic Church. In California, lawmakers already suspended the statute of limitations for private institutions; they did so in 2003. But public school teachers have never been subjected to this condition. In other words, the bill is nothing more than a vindictive effort to punish the Catholic Church.

Leading the fight against this bill are the California bishops, and the California Catholic Conference; we are particularly taken by the aggressive leadership of Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez. We are proud to play a support role: The Catholic League has contacted well over 10,000 members in California asking them to weigh in on this issue.

If California lawmakers are truly serious about combating the sexual abuse of minors (most surely are), then they should a) not make exceptions for private or public institutions and b) concentrate on current cases of abuse. To do any less—to carve out a privileged position for some, or to focus on the past, not the present—is an exercise in grandstanding. It is not what leadership is all about.

Contact the chairman of the California State Assembly Committee on Appropriations,
Mike Gatto: assemblymember.gatto@assembly.ca.gov

Bill Donohue comments on CBS’ refusal to fire a contestant who promotes child porn on its reality-TV show, “Big Brother”:

One week ago today, August 5, on the live-feed program of “Big Brother,” reality-show contestant Spencer Clawson touted the virtues of child pornography. Specifically, he joked that he likes to masturbate to child porn, especially when it involves kids who are “3 or 4 years old.” He was back on the broadcast show last night.

It would be wrong to say that CBS has no standards: last month it issued a statement regarding “Big Brother” that said it was “weighing carefully issues of broadcast standards.” It did not say what it would take to fire a contestant, just that it has standards. Those standards, we now know, were obviously not violated by Clawson.

It would also be wrong to conclude that “Big Brother” is a free-fire zone where anything goes. In fact, contestants have been fired before. What does it take? Try throwing furniture or throwing food [click here].

Last month, a female contestant made anti-black, anti-gay and anti-Asian comments. The host of the show, Julie Chen, who is Asian, went on TV the next day to register her objections: it was “the Asian ones [that] hit me the most.” She objected to comments about “squinty-eyed” Asians, and a quip about “go make a bowl of rice.” Stuff like that upsets Julie. Delighting in child porn apparently does not.

Fortunately for Clawson he didn’t throw a box of child porn films at someone.

Contact Chen’s spouse, CBS CEO Les Moonves: lmoonves@cbs.com

Bill Donohue comments on the way CBS CEO Les Moonves is handling the controversy over Spencer Clawson’s remarks made during the live feed of “Big Brother 15” on August 5:

Les Moonves has had several days to fire Spencer Clawson from the reality show, “Big Brother 15,” but he refuses to do so. However, two other contestants were terminated [from their day jobs] for making racial slurs.

On the live feed of the last episode, Clawson joked how he likes to masturbate to child pornography. “I love it when they’re around 3 or 4 years old,” he said. “My favorite ones are when you can tell they’re in a basement.” He added that masturbating to child porn “is my favorite thing there is.”

Moonves’ wife, Julie Chen, is the host of this show. Moonves said the show was a “social experiment” and that his wife “would kill me if I didn’t” watch every show. “What you see there [in the show] unfortunately is a reflection of how certain people feel in America.”

In 2007, radio shock jock Don Imus made a racial joke on CBS. Moonves didn’t say that his joke was “unfortunately a reflection of how certain people feel in America.” He simply fired him.

Moonves explained his firing by saying Imus “has flourished in a culture that permits a certain level of objectionable expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people. In taking him off the air, I believe we take an important and necessary step not just in solving a unique problem, but in changing that culture, which extends far beyond the walls of our Company.”

Bottom line: CBS has infinitely more tolerance for those who joke about child porn than it does for those who tell racist jokes. Our culture cannot put up with the latter, but it must accommodate those who delight in the spectacle of 3 and 4-year-olds being sexually abused.

Contact Les Moonves: lmoonves@cbs.com

To read Bill Donohue’s special report,”On the Front Line of the Culture War: Recent Attacks on the Boy Scouts of America,” Click here.