Catholic League president Bill Donohue questions why abortion is still included in the health care bills before Congress:

Two weeks into the Obama administration, a Gallup poll reported that the president received high marks from the public on most issues. The one glaring exception was abortion: only 35 percent agreed with him on allowing funding of abortions overseas. It was then revealed in another survey that a majority of Americans now consider themselves pro-life. Given this reality, why hasn’t the president asked his party members in Congress to exclude abortion from the health care bills?

The answer, of course, is that this is the most radical pro-abortion administration in American history. The number of former employees of Planned Parenthood, NARAL and Emily’s List is astounding. So extreme is the president and his staff on this issue that they are apparently willing to sink health care reform before ever excluding abortion from the final bill.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which has long been an advocate of universal health care, is so troubled by the prospect of a health care bill that funds abortion that it has pulled its support. On July 17, Bishop William Murphy said it was objectionable to make Americans “pay for the destruction of human life.” On July 29, Justin Cardinal Rigali also urged lawmakers to scratch abortion from these bills. Moreover, the USCCB has a link on its website to an Action Alert written by the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment titled, “Support Health Care Reform That Respects Life.”

The White House now has a “Reality Check” section on its website that seeks to debunk what it says are myths about the health care bills. Videos on the following subjects are available: rationing, euthanasia, veterans’ care, small business, Medicare and private insurance plans. Noticeably absent is any attempt to say that abortion is not included in these bills. There’s a reason for that—every time an amendment has been introduced to formally exclude abortion, it has been defeated.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an e-mail he received from New York University Law Dean Richard Revesz about the controversy surrounding Singaporean law professor Thio Li-ann:

It is my position that an organized campaign of intimidation forced Professor Thio to reconsider her willingness to teach a course this fall at NYU. It is also my position that Dean Revesz failed to use this controversy to educate the NYU community: faculty who reject, as Professor Thio does, the proposition that it should be legal for two men to marry is a respectable—indeed mainstream—opinion (in the 30 states that have put the issue of gay marriage on the ballot, the voters have rejected it 30 times). Therefore, efforts to pressure Professor Thio into reconsidering her appointment are not only deplorable, they represent a political attack on academic freedom, as well as her right to free speech.

Dean Revesz disagrees. In his letter to me, he said, “I welcome differing viewpoints and appreciate hearing from you.” But my letter did more than just register a disagreement—I challenged Revesz to identify a single sentence written by Thio in response to her critics that was, in his words, “offensive and hurtful.” The best he could do was to say that “comments were made [by Thio] that were viewed as offensive by those with opposing viewpoints.” This is pretty lame stuff.

It should be plain for everyone to see that Dean Revesz’s refusal to take up my challenge and point to a single sentence written by Thio that crossed the line speaks volumes. Quite frankly, Professor Thio was hounded out of NYU for political reasons. The fact that Revesz cannot provide evidence to support his position effectively vindicates Thio.

Contact Revesz at richard.revesz@nyu.edu

Dr. Thio Li-ann, professor at the National University of Singapore, was invited to teach at New York University Law School this fall. After it was discovered that the Christian professor, while serving as a Singaporean lawmaker in 2007, opposed a repeal of the law proscribing homosexual acts, NYU students and alumni organized to protest her appointment. She subsequently withdrew her interest in teaching at NYU.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue wrote to NYU’s law school dean, Richard Revesz, on July 23, the day the New York Times published a story about Professor Thio; he e-mailed it the same day. Donohue also accessed a statement by Revesz, and a letter by the professor to her critics. Yesterday, NYU law school confirmed that Revesz received Donohue’s letter, though there has been no response. Accordingly, Donohue is going public with his comments today:

I have been in contact with Professor Thio, as well as her colleagues, and I have done two interviews with the media in Singapore. Moreover, nyunews.com has covered this issue, including my remarks. In my letter to Dean Revesz I indicated that I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from NYU, and have taught in NYU’s Multicultural Education summer program for many years; I am also a donor. And still no answer. I think I know why. In his July 23 statement on Professor Thio, Revesz tried to flip the issue of intimidation by blaming her for creating “an unwelcoming atmosphere.” I then said, “You also say that ‘she replied to them [critics of her appointment] in a manner that many member [sic] of our community—myself included—consider offensive and hurtful.’” I asked Revesz to identify “a single sentence that is at all untoward.” There is none, and he knows it.

Revesz has allowed the anti-free speech bullies to score a victory. He seems to love diversity, except for the only kind that should count on a college campus—diversity of thought. When it comes to conservative Christians, Revesz’s interest in inclusion comes to a screeching halt.

Contact Revesz at richard.revesz@nyu.edu