Bill Donohue comments on the final rules set forth today by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding its abortifacient mandate:

The HHS mandate forcing Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization will not kick in on August 1, as scheduled; an extension has been granted to January 1, 2014.

There are some changes in the rules worth noting, but they are not satisfactory. Attempts to distance Catholic non-profits from directly providing insurance coverage for these morally objectionable services are admirable, but we’ve been there before: five months ago we were told that more in the way of accommodation was forthcoming, and we applauded that gesture. But now we know that the Obama administration has come up short.

The Catholic community, and many others, are not asking for anything new: all we are asking for is to respect the status quo ante as it applies to this issue. It is not people of faith who sought this confrontation—it is President Obama.

Bill Donohue comments on the majority opinion in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

Throughout history it was next to impossible to discuss marriage without discussing children. That’s changed. In yesterday’s decision overturning DOMA, children were mentioned only five times, and in every instance it was the children of homosexual partners who were cited. Never once were the offspring of heterosexual unions mentioned, even though every child who was ever born sprung from such unions. All that seems to matter to the high court are the alleged rights of individuals.

No one on the Supreme Court embraces radical individualism more than Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the majority opinion. This was not virgin territory for him. Ten years ago he wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling that legalized homosexual sodomy. Some are now saying that Kennedy is the most “gay friendly” member of the Supreme Court, but this misses the point: it is not his sympathy for gay rights that motivates him, it is his sociological imagination.

When Kennedy wrote Lawrence, he relied heavily on the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that bolstered abortion rights. He coauthored that ruling, the most unforgettable line of which gave new meaning to radical individualism: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of life.”

In this asocial vision, all we have are unhinged individuals, men and women who go about their business willy-nilly, creating and recreating their world, without any collective end. Solzhenitsyn called this condition anthropocentricity, a situation wherein man is seen “as the center of all.”

I would simply call it sociological illiteracy. This is the intellectual source of our problems, not the bizarre idea of two men marrying.

Bill Donohue comments on the two decisions reached by the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of same-sex marriage:

It is clear from today’s two rulings that the ball has been moved down the field to a point where the pro-gay marriage side is in the red zone. Whether they can be stopped from crossing the goal line depends solely on the prospects of having a constitutional amendment affirming marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The 38 states needed to pass such an amendment are not the problem—we already have 38 states that have their own laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman—the problem is getting two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate to agree.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops supports a federal marriage amendment. The Catholic League does as well.

Bill Donohue comments on the New York Times’ reaction to a TV ad calling out the New York City public schools for coddling accused sexual predators:

In today’s New York Times, there is an analysis of former CNN anchor Campbell Brown’s new group, Parents’ Transparency Project, that was established to root out public school employees guilty of sexual misconduct. This is what it says about the ad: “Her case is helped by stark statistics and will appeal to parents who would not want anyone who had been accused of misconduct, no matter how minor, around children. But by blaming unions, and ignoring concerns that the city might impose unnecessarily harsh punishmentson employees, she risks inflaming organized labor, and in turn, the Democratic candidates for mayor.” (My emphasis.)

When it comes to the Catholic Church, the New York Times insists on “zero tolerance,” but not when it comes to the public schools. It wants to go light on “minor” offenses, and is strictly opposed to “unnecessarily harsh punishments.” Furthermore, it is important for officials to bow before the unions, and it is equally critical that nothing be done to undermine the prospects of a Democratic candidate for mayor.

As Campbell Brown and the New York Daily News have shown, officials have tried to fire 128 employees in the New York City public schools because of sexual misconduct; only 33 have been removed. One staffer was given a six-month suspension after admitting he was busted for “inappropriate touching.” Officials then learned that he attended meetings of the North American Man/Boy Love Association; NAMBLA advocates child rape.

The New York Times has said nothing about any of this. Why? Perhaps because it sees these offenses as “minor,” or perhaps it sees NAMBLA meetings as educational, thus not worthy of “harsh punishments.” In any event, it would be wrong to tick off the unions, and it would be immoral to put the Democratic candidates in a tough spot. But for priests….

Bill Donohue comments on the atheist quest for God:

On June 22, CNN ran a piece on atheists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a veritable religious wasteland, who meet on Sundays in a “rapt conversation” led by a “chaplain.” Described as a “church without God,” the poor souls are experiencing “Sunday school for atheists” at these “atheist services” and “atheist congregations.”

On June 24, the New York Times reported that in Baton Rouge the godless ones meet on Sundays to experience “exhortations to service.” There is “swinging and light swaying” at the “atheist service,” complete with an “impassioned sermon” led by a “hard-line atheist.”

On the front page of today’s “Metro” section in the Washington Post, there is a story about an “atheist” who starts every day on his “knees” where he “lowers his forehead to the floor and prays to God.” But is he really praying? “In a sense.” Which means, not really. Yet he speaks about “God” and his “conversion,” even attributing it to a “miracle.” We also learn about “secular chaplains” at major universities and a British book titled Religion for Atheists.

Atheists say they reject God. It would be more accurate to say they are trying to reject God. Which is why atheists are really agnostics in a hurry.

Notice how they not only appropriate the lexicon of Christianity, they even choose Sundays for their “services.” Why not Mondays? Why do they need a “chaplain”? What’s with the “swaying”? Do they have second collections? Why are there no books called Atheism for the Religious?

If someone were served a jelly donut without the jelly, he would feel robbed. Atheists feel robbed, too. Fortunately, it’s not too late to put the jelly back. Now that would be something to sway about.

The paperback edition of Bill Donohue’s Why Catholicism Matters is available today. This book has won the praise of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Cardinal Edwin O’Brien, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop Charles Chaput, Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon, and many other Catholic leaders.

The Catholic League is making it available for $15, including shipping and handling. To order online, click here.

Bill Donohue comments on President Barack Obama’s speech given in Ireland where he mentioned Catholic schools:

There are plenty of reasons to be critical of President Obama’s policies as they relate to the Catholic Church, and I have not been shy in stating them. But the reaction on the part of conservatives, many of whom are Catholic, over his speech in Ireland, is simply insane. Never did Obama say he wants “an end to Catholic education.” Indeed, he never said anything critical about the nature of Catholic schools. It makes me wonder: Have any of his critics bothered to actually read his speech?

Obama’s speech, given in Northern Ireland, properly spoke of the divisions between Catholics and Protestants. He lauded the Good Friday Agreement, noting that “There are still wounds that haven’t healed, and communities where tensions and mistrust hangs in the air.” He said that “segregated schools and housing” add to the problem. Then he said, “If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs—if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division.”

Obama was not condemning Catholic schools—he was condemning segregation. He was calling attention to the fact that where social divisions exist, the prospects for social harmony are dimmed. How can anyone reasonable disagree with this observation? Moreover, it should hardly be surprising that a black president would be sensitive to segregation, whether based on race or religion.

Some are also condemning Obama for disrespecting a Vatican official who days earlier touted Catholic education before a Scottish audience. So what? Obama’s speech, which no doubt was written before Archbishop Gerhard Müller spoke, mentioned Catholic schools in conjunction with Catholic buildings, the purpose of which was not to assess the worth of Catholic education (or Catholic buildings!), but to criticize religious divisions. In short, ripping comments out of context is an old game, and it is patently unfair to speakers and writers.

Bill Donohue comments on the June 18 vote by the California Assembly Committee on the Judiciary that keeps alive a bill that lifts the statute of limitations for one year on cases of the sexual abuse of minors; it applies only to private institutions:

Prior to the Civil War, we had one law for whites, and one law for blacks. In 1868, that was rectified when the equal protection before the law provision was encoded in the 14th Amendment. Now California Sen. Jim Beall wants to turn the clock back: he wants one law for public schools and another for Catholic schools. Differential legislation can be justified in many instances, but not when it comes to crime and children.

“Public schools and teachers have been held to a higher standard of care when it comes to the protection of children and reporting of child sexual abuse, than have the clergy and private youth-serving institutions,” said Beall. Not true. In 2007, AP did a major investigation of the public schools and found widespread sexual abuse of minors, a breakdown in enforcement, resistance from teachers’ unions to do anything about it, and grossly inadequate legislation. California was specifically cited for its negligence.

They are not shutting down Catholic schools to clean house—they are shutting down schools like Miramonte Elementary in South Los Angeles. In a subsequent audit of the Los Angeles Unified School District released last year, many highly indefensible infractions were cited. [I cited the audit and other matters in a recent letter to California lawmakers.] Moreover, school districts in San Jose and elsewhere are still telling teachers not to report cases of sexual abuse to the authorities. And unlike Catholic schools nationwide, there is still no mandatory training program for teachers and staff on how to combat this problem.

In 2008, California lawmakers unanimously passed a bill that treats public schools and private schools as equals in the application of the law on the sexual abuse of minors. They should not be turning the clock back now. When it comes to safeguarding children, we need one law for everyone. To do any less is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Bill Donohue comments on reaction to the defeat of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s “Women’s Equality Bill”:

If ever there was concrete evidence that pro-women’s organizations have never been interested in women’s rights—save for the right to kill unborn babies—it is the decision by the New York Women’s Coalition to pull its support for Governor Cuomo’s women’s rights bill after it became clear that reference to abortion would be deleted.

As reported in today’s New York Times, Cuomo admitted that the Women’s Coalition “concluded that if the abortion component was not included, they did not want a scaled-down proposal.” Furthermore, Democratic lawmakers “also said they would only support a package that included the abortion language.”

The New York Women’s Coalition is not a rag-tag group that represents a few extremist organizations: 850 organizations belong to the coalition. They are now on record of intentionally subverting the rights of women. To be specific, Cuomo’s bill dealt with such issues as pay equity, domestic violence, sexual harassment in the workplace, pregnancy discrimination, and human trafficking; all total, the bill enumerated ten women’s rights.

In other words, women who are beaten by men, discriminated against on the job, sexually harassed in the workforce, and are victimized by modern-day slaveholders, can all take a walk. Unless killing kids shortly before birth is a slam dunk, there is no need to be concerned about so-called women’s rights.

Glad to know the mask is off, once and for all.

Bill Donohue comments on Barbara Walters’ remarks made yesterday on “The View” regarding a slur made by Bill Maher:

There may be no bigger hypocrite on TV than Barbara Walters. For years, she has sat back and allowed her panelists to rip Catholic priests and Catholic teachings. Never has she challenged them, and indeed she has often laughed with them as they mock Catholicism. By contrast, when her friend Bill Maher is criticized for calling Sarah Palin’s 5-year-old son “retarded” (the boy suffers from Down syndrome), Walters finds a way to exculpate him; Maher made fun of the special-needs child in a Las Vegas theater on June 8.

On the June 17 edition of “The View,” Walters said she did not believe that Maher’s “unfortunate” comment was meant to be “mean-spirited.” This is rather remarkable given that Maher has a long and sick history of mean-spiritedness. His weekly assaults on Catholicism, made on his HBO show, are proof of his viciousness. Furthermore, Maher has previously savaged Palin.

It seems that Walters’ problem has less to do with offensive remarks than it does with the person who makes them. When Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut,” Walters saw no humor in it at all, and indeed expressed outrage. But when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a “slut,” Walters thought it was hysterical; she even feigned crying as she recounted the many times that her friend Joy Behar called her a “slut.”

Four weeks ago today, the 44-year-old daughter of Barbara Walters was arrested for drunk driving. If a “comedian” used this incident to ridicule her daughter in a public forum, no doubt Walters would take umbrage—rightly so. The last thing she would do is write it off for not being “mean-spirited.” Priests, it needs to be said, demand the same respect.

Contact executive producer, Bill Geddie: bill.geddie@abc.com