The following article has been adapted by Catholic League president Bill Donohue from a 2001 lengthy article written by Robert P. Lockwood, “NARAL, Anti-Catholicism & the Roots of the Pro-Abortion Campaign”; it is available on our website.

At that time, Bob was our Director of Research. He was former president and publisher of Our Sunday Visitor and a member of the Catholic League’s board of directors. He died in 2019.

The public debate over abortion was critical in a resurgent anti-Catholicism in the mid-1960s. With the cooperation of media, abortion became an ongoing battle waged in a war of words based on anti-Catholicism. The issue was quickly defined as Catholicism and its role in public life, rather than abortion itself.

When the Catholic Church hierarchy took a strong stand on abortion, it found itself the target, rather than the position espoused. Quickly, the public issue of whether or not abortion should be fully legal in the United States descended into a cauldron of unrelated issues of separation of Church and State, the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status, the religious affiliation of abortion opponents, alleged “Catholic power,” and the imposition of sectarian belief on American law. As one New York state legislator would thunder in the midst of abortion debate, “you have no right to come to the floor of this body and ask us to enact into law church doctrine.”

Why did Catholicism become the issue in the abortion debate? It was through a planned effort by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. Called by the acronym NARAL, the organization began as a collective of pro-abortion groups, nascent feminist organizations, illegal abortion referral services, and various Zero Population Growth zealots in the late 1960s.

One of the primary motivations in NARAL’s abortion campaign was the anti-Catholicism of its founder and first executive director, Lawrence J. Lader. Lader would effectively harness and use anti-Catholicism as a fundamental aspect of NARAL in abortion politics, legislating, public debate and media coverage. Under the influence of Lader and NARAL, Catholicism would become the issue, as much as abortion itself. According to Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of NARAL’s original members and a close confidant of Lader, this anti-Catholicism “was probably the most effective strategy we had.”

According to Nathanson, he and Lader were discussing the overall strategy for legalizing abortion in the United States in October, 1967, six years before the Supreme Court would knock down all state laws that criminalized abortion in its Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions and two years before the formation of NARAL.

After Lader described the need to activate feminist leadership to see abortion as not one of many issues but a foundational part of the feminist crusade, Lader – as recalled by Nathanson – “brought out his favorite whipping boy”:

“‘…(A)nd the other thing we’ve got to do is bring the Catholic hierarchy out where we can fight them. That’s the real enemy. The biggest single obstacle to peace and decency throughout all of history.’

“It was a comprehensive and chilling indictment of the poisonous influence of Catholicism in secular affairs from its inception until the day before yesterday. I was far from an admirer of the church’s role in the world chronicle, but his insistent, uncompromising recitation brought to mind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It passed through my mind that if one had substituted ‘Jewish’ for ‘Catholic,’ it would have been the most vicious anti-Semitic tirade imaginable.’” 

As Lader would amplify in a later conversation, “every revolution has to have a villain…There’s always been one group of people in this country associated with reactionary politics, behind-the-scenes manipulation, socially backward ideas…(I)ts got to be the Catholic hierarchy.”

Under Lader’s leadership, NARAL would quickly move to make the abortion debate appear to be a “Catholic” issue. The strategy was simple: convince the media and the public that this was a case of the Catholic hierarchy attempting to impose its will on America.

Portray all opposition from Catholics to legalized abortion as a power play by the Church with the laity marching in lockstep to its clerical overlords. Accuse the Church of abusing its tax exemption for a political power-grab. Secure the right to unlimited access to abortion by painting the pro-life position as a peculiarly Catholic notion with no rights in a pluralistic society. Pull out all the old anti-Catholic canards and focus the debate as a church-state issue.

This was the anti-Catholicism of Lawrence Lader and an infant NARAL. It would use the old nativist anti-Catholic arguments that had visceral appeal throughout American culture – the Church as authoritarian and undemocratic; the Church as an alien presence within American democracy; the Church as the enemy of separation of Church and State; the Church as attempting to impose its morality on American culture; Catholic laity as political foot-soldiers dominated by a hierarchy and incapable of individual thought – and strip them of post-Reformation theological rhetoric. Rather than a religious and racial prejudice, anti-Catholicism in the abortion debate would become a secular assumption. The pro-life position was wrong because it was Catholic, not because it necessarily lacked merit.

As Nathanson explained, in liberal circles anti-Catholicism would become a very effective tool. It still is, many decades later.

Nathanson later gave up his abortion practice, became pro-life and converted to Catholicism.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest mass shootings:

Whether the problem is mass shootings, back pain or water in the basement, all resolutions depend on an accurate diagnosis. If the diagnosis is right it doesn’t guarantee a resolution, but if it is wrong, it guarantees there won’t be one.

The ruling class, especially the media, are consumed with race and guns in America, yet the mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas and Buffalo, like those in Dayton and El Paso in 2019, have little to do with either. It is not as though there aren’t some common causes, threads of behavior that link all mass shootings. There are. But the media are looking in all the wrong places, thus providing the wrong diagnosis. This, in turn, ensures the wrong remedies.

There are five major reasons why we have mass shootings: the killer is  asocial; he comes from a seriously dysfunctional family; he has mental issues; he is fascinated by violence; and red flags were ignored by almost everyone.

Salvador Ramos is the mass shooter from Uvalde. His boss at Wendy’s where he worked said of him, “He felt like the quiet type, the one who doesn’t say much. He really didn’t socialize with employees.” His loner status was exacerbated by his heavy social media use.

Before Ramos killed the young students and the teachers, he shot his grandmother. He didn’t go to visit her—he was living with her. He was living with her because his mother was a drug addict.

One of Ramos’ friends said, “he’d cut up his face with knives over and over and over.” When he asked why he did that, Ramos said he did it for fun. He was also known for shooting people with his BB gun—random people. He said he wanted to join the Marines because then he could kill people.

Payton Gendron is the Buffalo mass shooter.

According to an AP story, “he had long been viewed by classmates as a loner.” “Most people didn’t associate with him,” said one of his peers. “They didn’t want to be known as friends with a kid who was socially awkward and nerdy.” This contributed to his isolation. “He talked about how he didn’t like school because he didn’t have friends. He would say he was lonely.” The way he dressed didn’t help: he was known to wear a hazmat suit to class (the whole-body garment worn to protect against hazardous materials).

Gendron loved violence. He described how he killed a cat who had invaded the space of his own cat, stabbing it with a knife. “It bled from the mouth….I was able to grab the cat’s tail and wind up and smack the cat’s head on the concrete ground. I did that a few times and when it went limp I grabber [sic] a hatchet and swung at its neck—20 times until it came off.”

Classmates, according to the AP, said Gendron had “a fascination with guns.” He often went target shooting by himself and contemplated what he said would be a “murder-suicide.”

Patrick Wood Crusius was the mass shooter from El Paso. He sat alone in the school bus. “He wouldn’t talk to people,” said one of his neighbors. “No one really knew him.”

His father suffered from drug and alcoholic addiction for nearly 40 years, tearing up both of his marriages. Crusius suffered from lifelong neurological and mental disabilities and spent most of his time in school in special education. He was fascinated by far right-wing extremism.

Connor Betts was the Dayton mass shooter. One of his bandmates called him a “loner.” Another peer said he was a quiet kid who kept to himself. Of the nine people whom he killed, one was his sister. His parents showed how dysfunctional they were when they issued a highly inappropriate obituary lauding him in the most glowing terms without saying a word about his victims, including their daughter.

The police said he had a “history of obsession with violent ideations with mass shootings and expressed a desire to commit a mass shooting”; he carried a “hit list” of classmates.  He was fascinated with far left-wing extremism; he was a fan of Antifa.

There is plenty of social science evidence indicating that troubled students offer many signs—indeed red flags—that should merit attention. They rarely do. While there is a lot of blame to go around, there are policies and laws that contribute to this reticence.

Experts on the workplace report that employees do not report misconduct because they fear they will lose their job or will be otherwise sanctioned by their boss. There are laws, such as those in New York City, that make public the name and address of crime victims, thus deterring them from coming forth, fearing retaliation.

We need to encourage people to come forward and to act on red flags. We also need to get to these young men early on and not pretend that they are simply eccentric. Most of all, we need policies and laws that strengthen the family, paying special attention to the needs of young men.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s attack on her archbishop:

After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proved to be insubordinate, continuously rebuffing her bishop, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, she was told not to present herself for Communion. Now she has gone on MSNBC to say that not only is he wrong, the entire Church is wrong. She said the Church is wrong about abortion, gay and transgender issues, contraception and in vitro fertilization.

There is not a single Church teaching on women, marriage, the family or sexuality that Pelosi accepts, so out of touch is she with the Catholic Church. There are atheists who agree more with the Church on these issues than she does.

To top it off, she has the audacity to say that she is against imposing her views on others.

Yet she tried to force her pro-abortion views down the throats of the Little Sisters of the Poor, mandating that they pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their healthcare plans. She is a strong proponent of the Equality Act and other measures that would impose her radical pro-abortion views on Catholic doctors and hospitals. She would also coerce Catholic doctors to perform immoral surgeries against their will.

Pelosi is at war with the Catholic Church.

Contact her chief of staff: terri.mccullough@mail.house.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a new Pew survey of Catholics:

A new survey by the Pew Research Center on Catholics and abortion found that there is a big difference between practicing Catholics (those who attend Mass weekly or more) and non-practicing Catholics (attend less often) on the subject of abortion. There is an even bigger difference between practicing Catholics and the American population.

Among all U.S. adults, 19% believe abortion should be legal in all cases, bar none. Among Catholics the figure is 13%. The figure for practicing Catholics is 4%; it is 16% for non-practicing Catholics.

About three-quarters of Catholics (76%) say abortion should be illegal in some cases but legal in others. This means the vast majority of Catholics reject the provisions of Roe v. Wade, which allows abortion through term.

Similarly, the idea that a fetus is a person deserving of rights represents the view of 44% of all Catholics, but among practicing Catholics the figure jumps to 70%; it is 35% for non-practicing Catholics, and 38% for all U.S. adults.

Most Americans (78%) are opposed to what Roe permits—abortion at 24 weeks—but the figure for Catholics is even greater (84%). Among practicing Catholics, 95% oppose abortion at 24 weeks; the figure for non-practicing Catholics is 80%.

With regard to party affiliation, about 60% of Republican Catholics believe “life begins at conception.” Among Catholic Democrats, the figure is half that. The latter is somewhat more opposed to abortion at each stage of pregnancy than Democrats overall, but they are not nearly as opposed as Catholic Republicans are.

We know from a 2014 study by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University that Catholics who attended Catholic schools attend Mass at greater frequency than Catholics who did not go to Catholic schools, and that those who received the Sacrament of Confirmation are even more likely to attend Mass.

Both reports show that Catholic schools matter. It should also matter with regard to the distribution of diocesan funding. While care for the needy must continue, there seems to be more tolerance for closing Catholic schools than there is for cutting social programs.

There is not much the bishops can do about the difference between Catholic Democrats and Catholic Republicans. This is made especially difficult given our pro-abortion “devout Catholic” Democrat president. But some bishops have been more vocal than others. Silence in the face of death is no virtue.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the rift between Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her bishop:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has been told by her bishop, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, not to present herself for Holy Communion, has been begging for a confrontation with him for many years. Now she has succeeded.

Less than two years after Cordileone was installed as the new archbishop in 2012, Pelosi, who was House Minority Leader at the time, “took the lead,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle, “in a high-profile lobbying effort to pressure San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone not to attend the controversial March for Marriage event….”

The March for Marriage was held to promote the idea of marriage,  properly understood: in other words, as the exclusive union between a man and a woman. This bothered Pelosi immensely, which is why she went public with her dissenting position. She has never stopped egging her bishop on since that time.

Americans of any religion, or none at all, would understand if an imam, minister or rabbi publicly called out a politician who claims to be of his faith for misrepresenting it. They would find it bizarre if the wayward politician called him out. This is exactly how the Pelosi feud with Cordileone began—she started publicly lecturing him, not vice versa.

Cordileone’s letter to Pelosi, instructing her not to go to Communion, was not some impulsive act. He has tried to deal with her for many years, trying to bring her back into the fold, but she resists.

At what point does a prominent Catholic lawmaker who promotes the killing of unborn babies—for any reason and at any time of pregnancy—merit sanctions by her Catholic superior? That Pelosi defends her support for abortion-on-demand as the decision of a self-described “devout Catholic” makes her offense all the more hideous.

Worse, by publicly defending what the Church says is “intrinsically evil,” she is giving scandal to the Church. To be specific, she is not simply guilty of false advertising: She is giving scandal by leading Catholics to think that they can be pro-abortion and a Catholic in good standing at the same time.

It is rather amusing to read what non-Catholics have to say about this issue. To begin with, it is none of their business. To be sure, it is their business to be for or against the Church’s teaching on abortion—that is a public policy matter—it is not their business to weigh in on the internal strictures of Catholicism, or any other religion.

The reverse is also true. We would not expect Archbishop Cordileone to tell the San Francisco Examiner how to handle their personnel matters. We would also not expect this newspaper to tell him how to deal with Pelosi. But they couldn’t resist doing so.

The Examiner has called on Pope Francis not to discipline Pelosi—”she reflects the true spirit of Christian care”—but to remove Cordileone. They want him canned.

As it turns out, nothing Cordileone said violated anything the pope has said about this issue. While the pope has said bishops should not politicize these controversies, he has also said they had a right to address these matters in a pastoral way.

Indeed, he explicitly said last year that Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion are “outside the community.” “These people who are not in the community cannot take communion, because they are out of the community. It is not a punishment: Communion is linked to the community.”

What Pope Francis said on the papal plane on September 15, 2021 is not in dispute. “Then, those who are not in the community, cannot receive communion: Excommunicated, it’s a harsh word, but they don’t belong in the community, because they were not baptized, or because they are estranged from it (my italics).” He then added that abortion is “more than a problem: It’s a homicide. No middle terms. Whomever does an abortion, kills.” It doesn’t get much plainer than that.

Ever since Cordileone became the leader of the Catholic Church in San Francisco, the local libertine-minded media have had their sights set on him. That’s because he was a leader in the Proposition 8 movement trying to secure marriage as the exclusive union between a man and a woman. So their latest salvos are hardly surprising.

Over the past decade, Archbishop Cordileone has demonstrated great prudence and patience in dealing with Pelosi. He is a man of courage and goodwill, and a loyal son of the Catholic Church.

Let the archbishop know of your support for him.

Contact his communications assistant director, Mary Powers: powersm@sfarch.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the Biden administration’s treatment of abortion protesters:

A memo issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on abortion protesters was recently made public by Axios and NBC News. It warns that in the wake of the leak of the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, abortion rights extremists “on both sides” merit scrutiny. News reports falsely argue that pro-life extremists have historically driven most of the violence.

There is no evidence upon which this unwarranted accusation can be made. If anything, not counting the violence that defines the conduct of abortion clinics, it is pro-abortion extremists who have historically driven most of the violence.

Leaving aside who has the better of this argument historically, it is clear that since the leak of the decision overturning Roe, pro-abortion extremists pose the greatest threat to law and order. Click here to see the evidence.

We could find only one case where a pro-life protester engaged in violence since the leak took place. That was when Michael Merritt Graham was arrested at the state Capitol of Arizona on May 3rd for punching another person at a rally attended by protesters on both sides.

Yes, there have been threats made by pro-life protesters on social media, but there have also been threats made by pro-abortion protesters. Actual acts of vandalism, harassment, theft, and violence, however, are coming from one side—the pro-abortion side.

The DHS is playing politics. Its contrived moral equivalency game tells us a great deal about its mindset. Not all abortion protesters are equal.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the origins of “replacement theory”:

When Naomi Judd was found dead the media immediately said she died of “mental illness.” This was a lie. The truth then came out—she shot herself.

Why didn’t the media say that Payton Gendron, the serial Buffalo killer, shot his victims because he was suffering from mental illness? It happens to be true—he had recently been taken in for a mental health evaluation  after threatening to kill his high school class (he had previously stabbed and beheaded a cat).

The media saw a bigger story here. Who cares about his mental state—it was a white kid who shot black people. Had Gendron been black, it would have been a one-day story.

The pundits and politicians were not content to blame one deranged white high school student—they had to cast their net high and wide, looking for a wholesale indictment of America.

It is true that the killer said some nutty things—he is a nutty kid. Some of what he said is patently racist. This gave the Left the opportunity to pounce—he was motivated by a radical desire to “replace” non-white people with white people. Hence, he was an exponent of the “great replacement theory,” whether he knew it or not.

On May 16, two days after the shooting, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explained that what Gendron did was the fulfillment of the “great replacement theory.” The next day President Biden repeated this accusation. Now the chattering class can’t shut up about it.

If these progressive members of the ruling class were better educated, they would know that the origins of “replacement theory” can be traced to the ruling class members of the Progressive Era, people just like themselves, not with right-wing nuts.

Madison Grant was the originator of “replacement theory.” He was a product of Yale College (1887) and Columbia Law School. He came from a blue-blooded background, or what Biden and Schumer would call the beneficiary of white privilege. He was one of the most prominent environmentalists of his time—he was an ally of Teddy Roosevelt—and a wildlife zoologist. Indeed, he contributed to the founding of the Bronx Zoo.

Grant not only wanted more human control over the environment, he wanted more human control over the human race. He was a eugenicist.

His 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race, made him the intellectual godfather of the “great replacement theory.” He wrote that “indiscriminate efforts to preserve babies among the lower classes often result in serious injury to the race…Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and sentimental belief in the sanctity of life tend to prevent the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community.”

According to Daniel Okrent, who wrote a history of eugenics, Hitler was a big fan of Grant. “Hitler studied The Passing enthusiastically, cited it in speeches, and other writings and at the time of his suicide, in the Berlin bunker in 1945, still owned a copy of the original German edition, ‘warmly inscribed’ to him by the German publisher.”

Grant’s ideas were behind the 1924 Immigration Act. It was aimed at curtailing immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, many of whom were Italian or Polish. The ruling WASP elites not only wanted to maintain Nordic hegemony, they wanted to stop the migration of Catholics.

Grant was not alone in his fondness to control the human race. Princeton University professor Thomas C. Leonard, who wrote Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics & American Economics in the Progressive Era, notes that “Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Progressive Era scholars and scientists proudly called themselves eugenicists.”

One of the leaders of the eugenics movement during the Progressive Era  was Richard T. Ely, co-founder of the American Economic Association. He wrote that “Negroes, are for the most part grownup children, and should be treated as such.” Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, agreed with his racist views.

The Catholic Church has a proud record of resisting the eugenics movement. They called it inhumane. Bioethicist and priest, John C. Berry, writes that Catholics appreciated the Church’s response. “This was heartfelt, since Catholics, with many of their numbers among the Irish and other immigrant groups in the lower social strata in both the United Kingdom and the United States, were routinely castigated as a dysgenic presence in society. Catholics often found themselves the target of eugenic enthusiasts in other churches.”

If Schumer and Biden, and all of those on the Left who are enthralled with “replacement theory,” want to learn more about those who saw this kind of thinking as having disastrous consequences, let them read Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii (“On Christian Marriage”). It is a brilliant takedown of the eugenic laws that inspired “replacement theory.”

The truth is that today’s ruling class progressives share a philosophical pedigree with the ruling class members of the Progressive Era. “Replacement theory” would not exist without them.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Biden’s selective indignation:

On May 17, President Biden celebrated a made-up event, the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. Aside from some white people who have stayed in school for too long, few around the world recognize this bizarre day. They sure don’t fall for it throughout most of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia or Russia.

Biden said he “stands in solidarity with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) people in the United States and around the world.” He condemned “hateful legislative attacks against members of our own LGBTQI+ community,” saying they “cannot be tolerated in America or anywhere else.” He ended by saying, “To the LGBTQI+ community, my administration sees you. We stand with you.”

Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed a rash of anti-Catholic incidents across the country, mostly in response to the anticipated Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. Catholic services have been crashed during Mass, pro-life centers have been firebombed, tabernacles have been stolen, threats to burn the Eucharist have been made, churches have been vandalized, and Catholic Supreme Court Justices have been harassed.

Never once has Biden said he “stands in solidarity” with Catholics, nor has he condemned the violence and the incivility. Regarding “hateful legislative attacks” against Catholics, his support for the Equality Act—which could shut down Catholic hospitals—makes him complicit in such attacks. It makes Catholics wonder: Can he see us? He sure never pledges to stand with us.

Moreover, everyone knows Biden hasn’t a clue who the “I” and “+” people are (and neither do his speechwriters—intersex persons are a fiction), so why do his handlers exploit the old man?

If our “devout Catholic” president started treating Catholics the way he treats the “I” and “+” people, we would have no complaints.

Contact White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre: Karine.Jean-Pierre@who.eop.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the need to tell the truth about biology:

There are only two sexes: male or female.

I said this to the graduating class at Ave Maria Law School on May 14, and my comments were well received. The next day, Wyoming Sen. Cynthia Lummis spoke to the graduates at the University of Wyoming and she said the same thing. She was booed and later apologized for “disrespecting” people.

Sen. Lummis should never have apologized. She told the truth.

We will never beat those who deny the existence of nature, and nature’s
God—which is what this madness is all about—if we yield to ideological maniacs who refuse to acknowledge the existence of truth.

To read my commencement address (which was given extemporaneously), click here. Those who prefer to live in a state of denial may need to have some pain killers on hand.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on pro-abortion Catholic politicians:

Catholics can disagree about many things and still remain faithful to the Church, but when they disagree with Church teachings on matters that are “intrinsically evil,” that cannot be taken lightly. Regrettably, many Catholic politicians are in open defiance of the Church’s teaching on abortion, a life and death issue.

When the draft of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade was leaked to the press, most Catholic politicians weighed in, one way or the other. We counted 86 who did so. They represent governors, congressmen and senators. There were 84 Democrats and 2 Republicans who expressed their dissatisfaction with the anticipated overruling of this decision. Here is the list.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA)
“Our daughters, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers will not be silenced. The world is about to hear their fury. California will not sit back. We are going to fight like hell.” – May 2, 2022

“California will not stand idly by as women across America are stripped of their rights and the progress so many have fought for gets erased.” – May 2, 2022

Gov. Steve Sisolak (D-NV)
“In Nevada, we’re committed to protecting reproductive rights – I’ve signed legislation affirming this right and expanding access to healthcare.” – May 2, 2022

Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ)
“A truly dark day in America with news reports that the Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.” – May 2, 2022

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)
“The ramifications of this decision would be devastating for New Mexico women.” – May 2, 2022

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY)
“For anyone who needs access to care, our state will welcome you with open arms. Abortion will always be safe & accessible in New York.” – May 2, 2022

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ)
“If this draft Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe is true, it’s an enormous step backwards for our country.” – May 3, 2022

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
“If it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated, I will just tell you that it rocks my confidence in the court right now.” – May 3, 2022

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA)
“I’m in.” – replying to Gov. Newsom’s tweet, “We can’t trust SCOTUS to protect the right to abortion, so we will do it ourselves.” May 3, 2022

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
“If true, this draft opinion that circulated last night would end a half-century guarantee that reproductive rights are protected by our Constitution.” – May 3, 2022

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
“If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.” – May 3, 2022

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
“In this moment, I want women in NJ and across the country to know that I will never stop fighting for your right to choose.” – May 3, 2022

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM)
“This is unconscionable.” – May 2, 2022

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
“We must codify the right to an abortion into federal law—even if it means eliminating the filibuster….And states like NY must open our doors.” – May 2, 2022

Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)
“If this draft opinion becomes the final opinion of the Court, I have serious concerns about what overturning almost 50 years of legal precedent will mean for women in states passing near or total bans on abortion.” – May 3, 2022

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
“If the reporting is correct, the Supreme Court could send us tumbling backward in time, stripping away a bedrock constitutional right that has granted women autonomy over their bodies and health for nearly five decades.” – May 3, 2022

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)
“The draft opinion shows why the Senate GOP denied Merrick Garland a hearing and rushed Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation. 2 stolen seats = Taking away women’s rights.” – May 3, 2022

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
“Women’s lives and their health care are not political footballs.” – May 2, 2022

“If the reporting about the draft opinion is true, America is on the path to returning to a dangerous time.” – May 2, 2022

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
“If this is true, this kind of outcome is exactly what I’ve been ringing alarm bells about—and this is a five alarm fire….In a matter of days or weeks, the horrifying reality is that we could live in a country without Roe. If this is true, women will be forced to remain pregnant no matter their personal circumstances.” – May 3, 2022

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
“The Republican-appointed Justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ)
“There’s been a lot of horrific long-term damaging news over the past several years, none have hit me like this.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ)
“The news is a reminder of what we know to be true: the Senate must end the filibuster to protect reproductive rights and make the Women’s Health Protection Act law.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)
“Pro-choice elected officials need to ban together & fight for reproductive rights at every office.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ)
“It’s outrageous the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn the right to an abortion.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)
“The Senate must send the Women’s Health Protection Act to @POTUS now to protect access to safe abortion care and save lives.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)
“This leaked draft opinion threatens the fundamental right to choose, undoing 50 years of precedent & dismantling access to reproductive health care.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)
“I am apoplectic about what this leaked SCOTUS decision will do to a generation of women in this country. There has not been one word about the responsibility of the impregnator.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA)
“This attempt could erase decades of progress and freedom for millions of women across our country.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
“[T]his is a sad day because again…it just reeks of not respecting women.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA)
“News of a draft SCOTUS opinion on Roe v. Wade makes it clear that we must act now to protect a woman’s right to choose.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA)
“A decision that overturns a half century of legal precedent will be a betrayal of our Constitution and a betrayal of millions of women who count on its protections to retain control of their own bodies and choices.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA)
“Right-wing extremists and their allies on the Supreme Court are trying to change the country. Because they cannot do so through legislation, they want to do it through the courts.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
“The Supreme Court has confirmed the validity of the draft opinion and our worst fears….We must codify Roe and protect the fundamental right to control our own bodies & lives at all costs.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA)
“We can make #RoeVWade the law of the land next year:… Eliminate the filibuster.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA)
“We can’t go back to the days where a woman is criminalized for deciding what she does with her own body.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Norma Torres (D-CA)
“We can no longer afford to wait to pass federal legislation protecting a woman’s right to choose.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA)
“I am deeply alarmed by this draft opinion.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Nanette Barragan (D-CA)
“Abortion is STILL legal right now….A right I’ll fight like hell to make sure women continue to have.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA)
“I don’t want to see women return to clandestine medical procedures.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA)
“This callous and reckless decision will threaten the lives of women everywhere.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Juan Vargas (D-CA)
“A woman’s right to make her own health care decisions shouldn’t be stripped away.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. John Larson (D-CT)
“If the Supreme Court moves forward with this draft as written, it will be devastating.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)
“[This] is a full-throated attack on Supreme Court case law that has been painstakingly built over decades to protect the right of privacy for all Americans.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-CT)
“I am horrified, ashamed, and angry.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL)
“Leaked Sup Ct opinion would set women’s rights back over 50 yrs in America.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Marie Newman (D-IL)
“Civil rights, economic rights and LGBTQ rights are next.” – May 3, 2022

“We will never stop fighting.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Chuy García (D-IL)
“Striking down Roe is a direct attack on Latinos, Black Americans, & communities of color.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL)
“If the Court formally adopts the leaked draft opinion, it would represent a radical departure from longstanding protections of personal freedom and bodily autonomy.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-IN)
“I am a staunch supporter of women’s rights, and that includes the rights to access medical treatment, to have autonomy over their own bodies, and the ability to make their own life decisions.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Cindy Axne (D-IA)
“Women have been empowered to make their own decisions about their bodies and reproductive rights for nearly half a century. and I will not stand idly by and let decades of progress slip away.”  – May 3, 2022

Rep. Anthony Brown (D-MD)
“This draft decision is extreme, it’s dangerous, and will erase decades of progress for women’s rights.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA)
“Here in Massachusetts, a woman’s right to choose remains sacred. We must continue to ensure that women across our country share that same access to vital health care resources.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)
“We must stay focused, stay organized & use every tool at our disposal to fight back.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA)
“The fight is on. We need the Women’s Health Protection Act. We need it NOW!” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
“[I]ts misguided reasoning represents an abrupt and wrong-headed departure from the basic Constitutional protections identified by Roe….” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI)
“The Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade would be an unprecedented attack on women’s health.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
“If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, no fundamental right in this country will be safe.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)
“Women’s reproductive choice belongs to women, not a right wing Supreme Court that will allow this fundamental human right to be criminalized.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV)
“5 justices shouldn’t be able to overrule our will, our rights, & our health care choices.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
“If this draft opinion is accurate, the Supreme Court is on the cusp of overturning half a century of precedent and decimating reproductive rights for millions of Americans.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ)
“The SCOTUS draft opinion would represent a dangerous erosion of women’s rights….” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
“An overwhelming majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade. That’s why republicans today are whining about leaks: to distract you from what they’ve done.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)
“This draft decision is a shocking attack on women’s health.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM)
“[I]n the face of this anticipated and devastating draft decision, NM will stand with women and families. We will remain a leader in ensuring that patients have access to the full spectrum of healthcare they need and deserve, including access to abortion care.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY)
“The Supreme Court’s leaked majority opinion to overturn #RoeVWade would have devastating consequences for women in this country.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY)
“To be clear, this leaked opinion we are seeing is a draft, not a final order. Abortion is still your legal right. If you are in need of care, please reach out to a provider immediately.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)

“This is an attack on the right to a safe abortion all over the country. We will fight this.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY)
“Time is running out—we have to expand the court before it’s too late.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)
“As we’ve warned, SCOTUS isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage + civil rights.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY)
“If true, this is a draconian step backward.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY)
“The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade will do horrendous damage to the rights of millions of Americans….” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Joseph Morelle (D-NY)
“In one fell swoop, they are poised to roll back centuries of hard-fought progress, creating a dystopia where women no longer have autonomy over their own bodies.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY)

“The Supreme Court is on the verge of decimating the rights of women across our country.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
“If the Supreme Court were in fact to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would further invite state legislatures with partisan agendas to interfere in one of the most important and private decisions a woman can make.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH)
“Every single one of my GOP opponents supports extreme, restrictive anti-abortion laws. We cannot let them near the Senate.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
“The leaked draft decision from the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, if enacted, would be dangerous—it completely disregards science and would put the health of millions of women at risk.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA)
“This is a recipe for disaster.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA)
“This is terrifying and confirms what we already knew: This extreme Supreme Court is hostile to abortion.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)
“This leaked opinion shows we were right to be terrified. The Senate must move NOW to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act.” – May 2, 2022

Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA)
“The draft Supreme Court opinion, which restricts women’s access to safe, legal abortion services, is outrageous.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA)
“If the leak’s real, #SCOTUS is going to repeal #RoeVWade – an earthshattering change which most Americans oppose and which would harm women’s access to healthcare.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI)
“If this reported leak is in fact accurate, it represents the most severe rollback of women’s rights in this country’s history, overturning decades of settled case law.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX)
“The Senate must not wait to codify Roe to ensure women have the freedom to make personal decisions with those they love and trust without politicians trying to control them.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX)
“My faith is clear: abortion must be rare and safe.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX)
“If this SCOTUS leak is real, it is not only incredibly disturbing, but it is completely unprecedented for our nation’s highest court….I urge my Senate colleagues to codify Roe v. Wade immediately.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT)
“Reports of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade will be the greatest infringement of freedom in generations.” – May 3, 2022

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA)
“By taking away a right for the first time in constitutional history, these zealots have utterly discredited the third branch of government & unleashed forces that will fracture America.” – May 2, 2022