The Free Press enjoys a stellar reputation for accuracy. That is why we were shocked to read an incredible article by Laurie P. Cohen on the Catholic Church. It is one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces we’ve read on the subject.

[Some of what Bill Donohue has to say can be found in his book, The Truth About Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, published in 2021 by Ignatius Press.]

Though one would never know it from reading this article, the vast majority of clergy sexual abuse cases took place between 1965 and 1985 (see the John Jay College for Criminal Justice reports). The most common abuse was touching over a victim’s clothing. Between 1950 and 2002, four percent of the priests had an accusation made against him, and the majority had one alleged victim. A total of 149 priests (3.5 percent) were responsible for 26 percent of all the allegations. Moreover, almost all the offending priests are either dead or have been removed from ministry.

The latest data, collected between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024, show that two clergy members out of a total of 48,176 had a substantiated case of sexual abuse made against him by a minor. That’s a whopping 0.004 percent.

Cohen makes a big deal about the Catholic Church taking advantage of bankruptcy laws to mitigate its problems. That’s what Chapter 11 affords, and that is why it is a conventional option for institutions of every kind. Bankruptcy proceedings are designed to allow institutions to keep their doors open and pay creditors over time. Should the Church be held to a different standard?

Cohen mentions several times that Chapter 11 filings result in “pennies on the dollar” for victims. What makes this claim so astounding—did anyone edit this hit job?—is that it is undercut by Cohen’s own words. She cites a lawyer, Kathryn Robb, saying, “The survivors are getting pennies on the dollar and are being dragged through a process that takes four or five years.” In the very next sentence, Cohen acknowledges that one alleged victim was “awarded $11.5 million in the 2007 jury trial.” That’s a lot of pennies.

Cohen contends that by filing Chapter 11, the Diocese of Rockville Centre undermined the purpose of the Child Victims Act, which, she says, was intended to offer financial settlements to victims. The reality is that the Child Victims Act was never intended to bring about justice to minors who were abused, unless the abuser was a Catholic priest. That is why the Catholic League fought these proposals for over a decade— they never applied to the public schools (where child rape is extant).

When this law was finally passed in 2019, it did allow all victims to sue—it established a one-year “look back” provision that allowed victims to sue regardless of how long ago the alleged offense took place—but it was clear from the marketing copy of various lawyers’ and law firms’ websites that they were only interested in attracting victims of priestly abuse. Bill Donohue called one of them and said he was abused by a rabbi and was told they had no interest in helping him!

Non-biological live-in partners are the most likely to abuse a minor, but no one goes after them. Why? There’s no money in it. But there is money— and ideological satisfaction—in going after the Catholic Church. If the goal were justice, this shouldn’t count. Indeed, if the goal were justice, why hasn’t any state gone after the public schools? They don’t because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which protects them from getting fleeced. Add to this the trial lawyers and the teachers’ unions— both are an arm of Democratic Party—and it is obvious why the public schools get a pass.

Cohen is obsessed with Msgr. Alan Placa, a well-known Long Island priest. In 2002, he presided over the funeral Mass of Rudy Giuliani’s mother. After he was accused of being a molester, he was investigated by the Diocese of Rockville Centre and the charges were not deemed credible. Then the Vatican got involved, and the tribunal also cleared Placa of all wrongdoing. So why is Cohen harping on this? Does she have evidence to the contrary? Accused priests are entitled to due process, just like everyone else.

Cohen treats steeple-chasing lawyers Mitchell Garabedian and Marci Hamilton as heroes. They are anything but.

Father Charles Murphy of the Boston archdiocese was twice sued by Garabedian. When both accusers dropped their suits (in one case even family members said the offense was bogus), an archdiocesan investigation was launched. Six months later, Murphy was exonerated. He died in 2011, a broken man. Brian McGrory, editor of the Boston Globe, ripped Garabedian for what he did, calling it a “disgrace.”

When Bill Donohue read this story, he called Garabedian to see if he had any regrets in pressing charges against Father Murphy. He went ballistic, screaming like a madman. This is the same lawyer who spoke at a “victims’ meeting” in 2011 saying, “This immortal entity, the Catholic Church, should be defeated. We must stand up and defeat this evil.”

More recently, Garabedian tried in vain to nail the former bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn, Nicholas DiMarzio. He made a big splash in 2019 going public with his charges, but waited two years before he filed suit. Bishop DiMarzio was investigated by New York lawyers, underwent a two-year Vatican investigation and was cleared of all wrongdoing. He also passed a lie detector test. But this is what Garabedian does—his hatred of the Church is off-the-charts.

Hamilton’s animus against religious freedom allows her to oppose the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the seminal 1993 law signed into law by President Bill Clinton. She falsely accused Cardinal Timothy Dolan of hiding $55 million from victims when he was the Bishop of Milwaukee and has never apologized. In 2016, she told the press that the U.S. bishops pay Bill Donohue’s salary. Donohue emailed her on May 5, 2016 calling her a liar. She never responded.

Cohen attempts to make hay out of the legal dispute between the Archdiocese of New York and Chubb Insurance company. Chubb is reneging on its obligations by refusing to cover claims made by alleged victims; it was subsequently sued by the archdiocese. Chubb is making the remarkable accusation that the archdiocese “expected or intended” the sexual abuse that allegedly occurred in the lawsuits filed against it.

The mask is off. Chubb has now descended to the gutter, arguing that the New York Archdiocese actually intended for minors to be abused by priests. This is the kind of anti-Catholicism we would expect from the Klan, not a prominent insurance company.

So where’s the proof? There isn’t any—this vicious tale is made up out of whole cloth, just because Chubb doesn’t want to pay up. And guess who is on the side of the archdiocese? Victims, their lawyers and politicians who have previously been critical of the Church. Now they are furious with Chubb. But no mention of this by Cohen.

There have been two scandals related to the issue of clergy sexual abuse. Scandal I has to do with the internal affairs of the Catholic Church and the environment that facilitated it. Scandal II is the creation of many parties, including the media, the entertainment industry, advocacy groups, victims’ activists and their lawyers, state attorneys general, and others. They are bent on milking this issue, and distorting the record, so as to stick it to the Catholic Church.

What Cohen wrote exemplifies what Scandal II is all about. Shame on The Free Press for publishing this screed.

Pew Research Center’s third Religious Landscape Study is rich with revelations; previously ones were conducted in 2007 and 2014. Its latest study, which reports on findings from 2023-2024, covers a wide range of subjects, broken down by religious affiliation.

Seven-in-ten Americans belong to a religion, and all but seven percent are not Christians; three-in-ten are unaffiliated. One of the key aspects of this survey was the finding that the apparent decline in Christianity has stabilized.

More than eight-in-ten Americans believe in God or a universal spirit, and this includes the majority of the unaffiliated. This category consists of three groupings: atheists, agnostics and those who say they believe in “nothing in particular.” Seven-in-ten of the latter believe in God, as do 43 percent of agnostics and seven percent of atheists. Interestingly, only a thin majority of atheists (54 percent) are “absolutely certain” there is no God.

Eight-in-ten Americans believe “there is something spiritual beyond the natural world, even if we can’t see it”; this is also true of nearly 60 percent of the religiously unaffiliated. This includes a majority of agnostics, two-in-three of those who believe in “nothing in particular,” and two-in-ten atheists.

This suggests that there are very few materialists in America (those who believe that nothing exists outside of matter).

Politically speaking, we have known for a long time that Republicans are much more likely to score high on religiosity (beliefs and practices) than Democrats. This survey shows once again that the Democratic Party is home to secularists, the only exception being black Democrats.

Most religiously affiliated Americans have come to terms with homosexuality, saying it should be accepted, not discouraged. The exceptions are Evangelicals, Mormons and Muslims. The same breakdown is evident on the subject of same-sex marriage.

When it comes to accepting transgender people, however, there is a big divide between those who are religiously affiliated and the unaffiliated (twice as many of the former say acceptance is a “change for the worse” compared to the unaffiliated).

The issues of women in the workforce and family responsibilities depend largely on context. While most (73 percent) cheer women’s increased workforce participation, a majority (55 percent) say it is better for a child with two parents to have one stay at home. Context—marriage and the family—explains the apparent disparity. The religiously affiliated are more likely to say it is better to have one parent stay at home (59 percent) than the religiously unaffiliated (47 percent).

Context also matters in making judgments about right and wrong. A majority (55 percent) say it “often depends” on the situation, while 44 percent say there are “clear and absolute standards for what is right and wrong.” The problem with this line of questioning is that those who believe in the latter may also believe that there are times when no “clear and absolute standards” exist, hence the caveat that it “often depends.” Thus, such persons may not be holding contradictory positions.

More Americans believe religion does more good than harm. As expected, this varies widely when comparing the religiously affiliated to the unaffiliated. Unfortunately, there has been a dramatic decline in those who express mostly positive opinions about religious institutions—a drop of 12 percent from a decade ago (from 63 percent to 51 percent). Given the generally negative portrayals of religion in the media and in the entertainment industry, this is not surprising.

Social capital refers to the general wellbeing, or health, of society. We know from many studies that those who score high on religiosity possess more of the resources that service the public weal. It is not in the best interests of society, then, to discourage the responsible exercise of religious beliefs and practices. On that score, America can stand to improve.

The average person is concerned about the environment, and opposes policies that needlessly damage it. But the average person is not an alarmist. This is not true of many climate activists: some are downright dishonest, making claims that are indefensible. Worse, they are rank hypocrites.

Recently, a district judge in Montana tossed a lawsuit brought by left-wing activists who sought to check executive orders signed by President Trump on the environment. The activists claimed that Trump’s rulings escalate “climate-related dangers” to such an extent that they threaten the lives of the 22 children whom they are representing.

The judge said the courts lack the authority to block the executive orders. He also noted that what the plaintiffs really sought to do was to entice the court “to return the environmental policy of the previous administration.” That was a bridge too far.

None of this is of grave interest to the Catholic League. What does concern us is the duplicity of the plaintiffs.

They say they are interested in protecting the lives of children, yet upon examination it appears that the two prominent public interest firms that are party to this lawsuit, Public Justice and Our Children’s Trust, have no interest in protecting the lives of unborn children—just kids who allegedly may die from global warming.

Public Justice claims to fight “purveyors of corporate corruption, sexual abusers and harassers, and polluters who ravage the environment.” Our Children’s Trust claims to be the “world’s only non-profit interest law firm dedicated exclusively to securing the legal rights of youth to a healthy atmosphere and safe climate, based on the best available science.” Their interest in saving lives, however, is drawn very narrowly.

In 2022, Public Justice issued a statement, “We believe the right to abortion is a fundamental, human right.” Nowhere does it even hint at any competing right on the part of the unborn. It decries what it says are “legal efforts to undermine abortion access for those who need it has effectively put millions of peoples’ rights, autonomy, health, and lives at risk.” What about the rights, autonomy, health and lives of children who are being killed in utero?

Our Children’s Trust has filed briefs condemning the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, making plain its total lack of interest in protecting the right to life of unborn children. It is also prone to hyperbole. To be specific, it cites in its lawsuit the testimony of a teenage hiker who claims Trump’s executive orders are a “death sentence for my generation.” The lead attorney opined, “Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future.”

Making unsubstantiated claims of this magnitude seriously undercuts the credibility of Our Children’s Trust.

Facts matter. Everyone knows that if a pregnant woman’s condition is not interrupted, she will give birth to the human being she has been carrying. That’s not a matter of religion—it’s Biology 101. It is certainly noble to want to protect the environment, but it is ignoble not to protect children in the womb. Indeed, that constitutes a real “death sentence,” not a fictional one.

In a recent interview Hillary Clinton had with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, she bemoaned the current state of disunity in the country, blaming white conservative Christian men for ruining the nation. She accused them of trying to “turn the clock back” in an effort to “recreate a world that was never dominated, you know—let’s say it—white men of a certain persuasion, a certain religion, a certain point of view, a certain ideology, it’s just doing such damage to what we should be aiming for.”

Now who did she have in mind? Was she referring to those of “a certain persuasion,” “a certain point of view” and “a certain ideology” who are progressive Democrats?

Who was she referring to when she spoke about those of “a certain religion”? Might they be Buddhists?

She previously said that half of Trump supporters were a “basket of deplorables,” so we know her comment about a “certain point of view” was aimed directly at conservative Republicans. She had no problem playing the race and sex card—identifying white men as the guilty party—but on religion she balked. Yet we all know she was referring to Christians.

The woman has identity politics simmering in her brain. She doesn’t see people as individuals, but as members of a group. Then she divides the groups into classes— good guys and bad guys. The baddest of the bad guys are white conservative Christian men, people just like Charlie Kirk.

Ideas, Hillary, have consequences. Yours are lethal.

The Catholic Church regards animals to be part of God’s creation, and are therefore deserving of respect. But only men and women are made in the image and likeness of God. Moreover, animals do not share the same dignity as human beings. Nor are they capable of being held morally responsible for their behavior. As such, while animal welfare is imperative, in no way can animals be said to possess rights.

However, a new Gallup poll on morality reveals that Democrats and young people appear to be more concerned about the rights of Fido than his owner, Freddy.

When asked if abortion is “morally acceptable,” 78 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of those 18-34 agree; this compares to 20 percent of Republicans and 43 percent of those 55 and over. But when it comes to medical testing on animals, only 45 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of young people agree; the majority of Republicans (69 percent) and the oldest generation (52 percent) agree.

In other words, while nearly 8- in-10 Democrats are okay with abortion, less than half are okay with medical testing for animals. The majority of young people are also okay with abortion, but they draw a hard line when it comes to medical testing of animals.

Why are Democrats and young people showing more respect for the rights of Fido than Freddy?

From a wealth of survey data we know that Democrats and young people are the least religious; they are much more likely to answer “none” when asked what their religious affiliation is. How does this explain their moral choices?

What unites Democrats and young people, and what separates them from most Americans, is their penchant for autonomy. For many of them, autonomy is their god. Abortion, they reckon, is all about “bodily autonomy,” hence it is morally acceptable. The competing right of the child to live is given short shrift.

The interest in protecting animals cannot be explained by an affection for autonomy. Something else is going on.

Young people are more likely to own a pet than older people, and may therefore be more protective of their status. More important, however, is their relatively high exposure to videos and instruction on animal rights in school and social media. As for Democrats, they are more likely to take an expansive view of rights than other Americans (save for the life of the unborn). Because they fancy themselves as being open-minded, they regard an exclusive interest in human rights as chauvinistic.

We need to get our moral house in order. If we can’t conclude that Freddy should be awarded a higher moral plane than Fido, we are heading towards disaster.

The following report on assisted suicide was written by Catholic League senior policy analyst Nicholas Palczewski (a longer version is available on our website; it includes data on other countries).

Nationwide, support for doctor-assisted suicide is losing ground. Identical studies done in 2016 and 2025 by the Lifeway Research found that in 2016, 67% of Americans agreed with it, but in 2025, only 51% of Americans agreed.

What follows is a look at the six states that have the worst record.

California

Origin

The California End of Life Option Act went into effect in 2016.

Victims

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

Legal Changes

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

Results

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

Colorado

Origin

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

Victims

According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, between 2017 and 2024 a total of 1,995 people had received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Legal Changes In 2024, SB 24-068 was signed into law. The law gets rid of safeguards in the original bill. These include:

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

Results

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

Hawaii

Origin

Our Choice Act took effect in 2019.

Victims

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

Legal Changes

In 2023, amendments to the law were passed, including the following:

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

Results

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

Oregon

Origin

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

Victims

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

Legal Changes

In 2019, SB 579 was signed giving physicians the ability to waive the 15 day waiting period for people in extreme situations. In 2023, HB 2279 was signed repealing the residency restriction in the law.

Results

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

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

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

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

Vermont

Origin

In 2013, Vermont Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act was passed, making Vermont the fourth state to legalize medical aid in dying.

Victims

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

Legal Changes

In 2023, a law was passed removing the residency requirement, becoming the first state to allow nonresidents to commit assisted suicide.

Results

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

Washington

Origin

Washington’s Death with Dignity Act became law in 2009 after 58% of voters approved a ballot initiative in 2008.

Victims

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

Legal Changes

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

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

Results

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

Conclusion

Sometimes it takes a personal experience before we change. Take the case of Montana State Rep. Greg Overstreet, who initially was a supporter of doctor-assisted suicide. When he was suffering from COVID and on a ventilator, doctors told him he had a slim chance of survival. He asked doctors to pull his ventilator after seven days, but extended it to two weeks after pleas from his wife. He soon made a miraculous recovery a week later. He noted that if it were not for his wife pleading him to extend the “do no resuscitate” order, he would not have survived. His experience led him to support the prohibition of the law.

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

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

This Catholic League report details why the greatest child abuse scandal of our time—”transitioning” the sexual identity of minors—is so prevalent. It exists largely because of the policies adopted by elites in education and medicine.

Elite Education Organizations

Assoc. of Univ. Professors

In 2022, the AAUP issued a statement saying “academic freedom cannot be understood to support misgendering—referring to someone using a word or pronoun that does not reflect that person’s gender identity—or otherwise serve as an excuse for transphobia or the diminishment of trans, intersex, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary persons and their lives.”

National Education Association

In 2018, the NEA released a report, “NEA Guidance on Transgender Students’ Rights,” that was meant as a resource to teachers. It offered legal advice on how to best advance these rights.

Elite Medical Associations

American Medical Association

In 2025, the AMA issued a document, “Transgender Individuals’ Access to Public Facilities,” that said that proper medical treatments for transgender persons include “genderaffirming hormone care, puberty suppression and/or gender confirmation surgeries.”

American Academy of Pediatrics

In 2025, a resolution entitled “Recognizing Transgender Patients and Providing Gender Affirming Care,” was ranked as the most important priority for its members.

American Psychological Association

In 2025, it said that treatment for transgender youth “should aim to help children and adolescents explore and understand, rather than change, their gender identity.”

American Psychiatric Association

It defines gender-affirming therapy as “a therapeutic stance that focuses on affirming a patient’s gender identity and does not try to ‘repair’ it.”

Elite Medical Schools

Harvard Medical School

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

Mass General is the teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. It has a specialized gender-affirming care unit that “performs a variety of highly specialized gender-affirming surgical procedures tailored to meet the needs of transgender and gendernonconforming patients.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

It has a clinic that is “designed to improve the health and wellbeing of gender variant, gender diverse and transgender youth and young adults.” These clinical services are available at the age of 5.

Stanford Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No

Its Obstetrics and Gynecology claims “to be a leader in providing gender-affirming surgery.”

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No

However, it has a code of conduct that forbids “refusing to use the name or pronouns with which a person self-identifies” and “refusing to allow people to use single-gender facilities or programs most closely aligned with their gender identity.”

Columbia University’s Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

Columbia extols people to recognize “a person’s gender identity and using their correct pronouns” and demands the use of “gender inclusive language.” It has a section on youth and gender-affirming care for “children as young as 4.”

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

It specializes in “Facial Gender-Affirming Surgery.” It also gives these fellows some experience in chest and genital “reconstruction.”

Yale Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No

While Yale has scaled back its Gender Program, it still promotes transgender ideology.

Duke University School of Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

It provides gender-affirming hormone therapy for children 16 and older. For younger children, it offers therapies to “delay puberty.”

NYU Grossman School of Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

Although NYU initially indicated it would comply with President Trump’s executive order preventing child mutilation, it has since reversed course.

Washington University of St. Louis

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No

While it stopped providing “gender affirming care” to minors in 2023, its transgender center continues to provide “gender affirming care” to adults.

Transgender persons need all the help they can get, and it is the responsibility of those in government, healthcare and education to provide it. Regrettably too many of those who work in these professions are functioning more as enablers than helpers, thus postponing the day of reckoning. There is nothing normal about being transgender, and the data prove it.

There is much talk about transgender persons being the victims of violent crime. This is true. But what is not generally said is that more often than not the persons who are victimizing them are transgender. Over half (54 percent) of transgender and non-binary persons have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetimes. This is not a statistic from some conservative entity—the data are provided by the pro-LGBTQ organization, the Human Rights Campaign.

In the general population, 41 percent of women and 26 percent of men have experienced such violence. Transgender individuals are 2.2 times more likely to face physical violence and are 2.5 times more likely to experience sexual violence than normal persons, i.e. those who accept their sexual status (known in the literature as “cisgender”).

In short, it is not bored frat boys who are roaming the streets on a Friday night looking to beat up trans persons—they are doing it to themselves.

Another false narrative holds that whatever maladies trans persons have, it is due to transphobia, discrimination, and the like. This skirts the real issue: their condition is organic, a function of who they are. It is not normal to be in constant rebellion against one’s nature. Not to admit to this verity is to aid and abet their abnormal condition.

Transgender individuals are self-destructive. In a study published last year by public health experts on IPV among trans women in the San Francisco Bay Area, it was found that they suffer from inconsistent hormone use and non-prescribed hormone use. These bodily altering conditions carry serious health issues. Also, men who “transition” to women are more likely to be prostitutes and drug users. Not surprisingly, they suffer from abnormal rates of depression and are more prone to suicide.

Dr. Paul McHugh is the longtime psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Medical School. He knows this subject as well as anyone in the nation, having studied “people who claim to be transgender” for decades. His wording is precise: in reality, there is no such being as a transgender person. There certainly are those who claim this status, but the truth is there are males and females. That’s it. There is no third sex, or gender, never mind dozens of them, as some have absurdly claimed.

How, then, should we treat such persons? Gender dysphoria, the feeling that one belongs to the opposite sex, McHugh says, is similar to other “disordered assumptions about the body.” For example, he argues that it makes no sense to treat “obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction.” Similarly, treatment of trans persons should not be directed at the body. “The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it.”

In a famous Swedish study, which followed-up on those who underwent sex-reassignment surgery—over a thirty year period—it was determined that such persons “have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.” Their suicide rate does not increase in the early years following surgery, but ten to fifteen years later it does—it rose twenty times that of comparable peers.

If it’s not normal to reject one’s own sexual identity, it is even more abnormal to consider oneself as belonging to, at least in part, another species. Worse, this problem is growing.

The young man who assassinated Charlie Kirk, and his lover roommate, a trans person (he was “transitioning” from male to female), were both attracted to a “furry” subculture. Such persons believe they have human and animal traits. Many give themselves names, choose a species, and attend conventions with like-minded persons. Most of them are homosexuals.

According to Mary Rooke, who has researched the “furry” population, “Furry culture is overtly sexual. Online forums are filled with depictions of humans roleplaying as animals engaging in sexual activity. Still, what’s worse is that this subculture is a version of humanity that claims we are nothing more than animals, which also happens to be a core tenet of the Church of Satan.” In one survey of “furries,” it was found that 96 percent of male respondents and 78 percent of females reported that they viewed furry pornography.

Robert Westman, the man who killed two Catholic children in a Minneapolis church in August, was also a “furry.” A trans man, who falsely claimed to be female, had a furry girlfriend. He said she was the “root of my suffering” and a “catalyst” for the attack. He also regretted “experimenting” with his sexual identity.

Those suffering from gender dysphoria need the right treatment. What they don’t need is to be encouraged to think that the heart of their problems is external to them. That is a gross disservice to them and to society at large.

By and large, the media do not want to draw attention to how violent prone many trans persons are. It’s a cover-up, and it needs to end.

Violence among transgender persons is a growing phenomenon, and it is being fueled by extreme left-wing ideologies. Their targets vary, but anyone who supports capitalism or Christianity is particularly vulnerable to their attacks.

There is no transgender bank or registry that collects data on their violent behavior, but reports from responsible journalists suggest that their behavior poses an existential threat to the social order. Here are just three prominent examples.

• In September, the person who admitted to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Tyler Robinson, lived with his lover boyfriend, who was “transitioning” from male to female. Kirk was killed because he was an outspoken Christian conservative.
• In August, the person who killed two Catholic schoolchildren in Minneapolis, Robert Westman, was a man who falsely identified as a female. He hated Catholics.
• In 2023, the person who killed three children and three adults at the Christian Covenant School in Nashville, Audrey Hale, was a woman who falsely identified as a male. She hated Christians.

There are many more such instances of trans mass shooters. It is true that most mass shooters are not trans persons, but that is of little relief; they make up about one-half of one percent of the population. What matters most is that a growing subset are being radicalized and drawn to violence.

Some of them initially get by the radar before the truth comes out. For example, Nicholas Roske is a violent left-wing activist who sought to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He also had three other Supreme Court Justices on his list to kill. We didn’t know until recently that he is a trans person who falsely identified as a woman.

Violent trans persons have friends in high places covering for them.

When the New York Times ran a story on Audrey Hale they never disclosed that the Christian Covenant School killer was a woman. Instead, they presented her as Aiden Hale, the male name adopted by the female killer. They said Hale was “being treated for an emotional disorder,” making it sound as if she suffered from an anxiety disorder, not a mental illness. ABC news did the same, referring to Audrey as “Alec.”

Law enforcement is also capable of covering for trans killers. In March, seven people were indicted for torturing and killing a man who falsely identified as a female, “Sam” Nordquist. But because some of the suspects were themselves trans persons, no one was charged with a hate crime. Such is the politics of “hate crimes.”

There is plenty of politics involved in this issue, and it is the politics of left-wing extremists. For example, Denver Communists says, “Transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, and the gender binary are all connected and deeply embedded in capitalist ideology. LGBTQ+ oppression developed with the emergence of class societies and the nuclear family under capitalism.”

In truth, it is in socialist societies like Cuba where homosexuals and trans persons have to hide—otherwise they will be punished. In the Middle East, Muslim-run countries are not exactly beacons of capitalism, and they are known for throwing queers off of rooftops. By contrast, the median income of gays in America is higher than what heterosexuals make. And they’re oppressed?

Most Americans have never heard of the Socialist Rifle Association. It is a left-wing group of transgender and communist activists who specialize in firebombing Tesla dealerships and the like. They have falsely accused innocent persons such as Charlie Kirk with calling for the lynching of trans persons, inspiring haters to pick up their weapons.

Armed Queers SLC is another group of left-wing crazies. They like to feature flyers with a hammer and sickle and rainbow flags, thus showing their support for communism and the radical LGBTQ agenda. Of course, they find a way to blame capitalism, tagging it as a source of oppression.

Antifa is the most well-known violent left-wing group in the country. It is increasingly attracting trans persons and it fully supports their extremist causes. Andy Ngo, the courageous journalist who has tracked this group more than anyone, calls it “Trantifa,” giving recognition to the sexual, as well as the political, basis of this movement. He has been beaten badly by these thugs (they dress in black, wearing masks), just for doing his job.

In July, Benjamin Song, a member of the Antifa group Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club and the Socialist Rifle Association, led ten of his followers—eight of whom were trans persons—in an armed ambush at an ICE detention center in Alvarado, Texas.

Ngo blames the media for selling the idea that trans people are being subjected to genocide, when in fact they are the ones killing innocent Americans. He adds that they suffer from mental health comorbidities and many are sociopathic. That’s a sick stew.

Most Americans want to treat people fairly, even if they disagree with their politics or lifestyle. That’s commendable. But when mentally challenged trans persons adopt a radical agenda, and are willing to use violence to achieve their goals, they must be treated as domestic terrorists. Fortunately, President Trump recently declared Antifa to be such an organization. Now it’s time to apprehend them.

We often get complaints from members who live in apartment complexes or condominiums that homeowners association managers are too restrictive in dealing with religious symbols at Christmas. We decided to do something about it. On November 19, we contacted over 2,000 of these officials, alerting them to the rights of their residents. Here is the text of the letter.

Now that the holiday season is upon us, it is important that the religious rights of owners be observed. The Federal Housing Act (FHA) of 1968 prohibits discrimination by housing providers on the basis of seven characteristics, one of which is religion. Before 1968, HOA managers had a lot of leeway in enforcing policies that restricted religious practices, but that changed when the FHA was passed.

As interpreted by the U.S. Department of Justice, the FHA permits religious decorations on doors and in common areas. This would include a Jewish mezuzah and a cross. “Similarly, when condominiums or apartments have a common room that can be reserved by residents for private activities like parties or book studies, residents seeking to hold a Bible study or other private religious activity may not be discriminated against.”

It should be noted that the Eleventh Circuit has stated, “the Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed us to give the Fair Housing Act a ‘broad and inclusive’ interpretation.'” In other words, the religious rights of residents are presumptively protected.

What the courts take seriously is any selective enforcement of HOA rules. For example, to allow a menorah but not a nativity scene, or vice versa, is a clear violation of the FHA. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that a menorah is a religious symbol (even if it is not solely religious in nature). The crèche is also religious, but a Christmas tree is not—it is a secular symbol. This needs to be said because every year there are instances where these kinds of violations occur.

HOA managers have greater latitude in adopting restrictive rules for balconies. Balconies can be kept clear from displaying religious symbols; they are not analogous to doors or common areas. However, even if the rule is “facially neutral,” there can be a violation of the law if there is evidence of an underlying intent to discriminate.

In conclusion, there should be no attempt to favor one religion over the other, nor should there be any intent to discriminate.

Wishing everyone a happy holiday season.

William Donohue, Ph.D.

President

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

We hope this will minimize these problems this year. They now have no more excuses.