Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on where free abortion pills are being rolled out in New York City:

New York City Mayor Eric Adams is basking in pride now that some pregnant women can terminate their pregnancy for free. “For too long, health and health care has [sic] been centered around men. If men had periods…they would get a paid vacation. And if men could get pregnant, we wouldn’t see Congress trying to pass laws restricting abortion.”

How does Mayor Adams know that men can’t have periods? Many of those who share his politics don’t agree.

In 2020, Tampax flatly said, “Not all people with periods are women.” Disney agrees, which is why in the children’s movie “Baymax,” they depicted a man buying tampons.

How does Mayor Adams know that men can’t get pregnant? Many of those who share his politics don’t agree.

In 2020, Harvard Medical School hosted a discussion on maternal health, and when talking about pregnancy, every one of the panelists refused to use the word “woman.” They constantly talked about “pregnant and birthing people.” When critics took them to task, they did not back down. “Our panelists used this language because not all who give birth identify as women.”

Now take that, Mayor Adams. According to these bright lights, men can  indeed have periods and get pregnant.

More important is where Adams decided to open his freebies abortion clinic. The first of four such clinics opened today in the Morrisania section of the Bronx, more generally known as the South Bronx.

Guess who lives there? Almost 6 in 10 are Hispanic and 36 percent are black. The white population is 3.2 percent and the figure for Asians is 0.6 percent. The poverty rate in New York City is 16 percent, but in the Bronx, the figure is 26.4 percent. In Morrisania it is 40.3 percent. Its serious crime rate is double the city average.

Some things never change. Why is it that liberals always favor black and brown neighborhoods to set up their abortion clinics?

Rev. Dean Nelson, a black minister who directs Human Coalition Action, notes that “nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities [are] located within walking distance to Black neighborhoods.”

It is undeniably true that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a notorious racist. She made it clear that blacks were “weeds” that needed to be eradicated. But she wanted to keep it hush-hush. “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.” The KKK must have been proud of her.

It is bad enough to single out poor, crime-ridden minority neighborhoods to dispense free abortion pills. It is positively nauseating when public figures like Mayor Adams brag how ethical they are in doing so.

Instead of helping black and brown women not to choose abortion, Adams is bent on helping them do just that, and on the taxpayer’s dime, to boot.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Pete Buttigieg’s claim that he has a husband:

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg recently told Fox News host Brett Baier that his travel expenses were not inappropriate, especially given that other public officials have taken their spouses on official business trips. “Why is it any different when it’s me and my husband?” Baier had no answer.

Does Buttigieg really have a husband? Of course not. He may love  Chasten but he can never be his husband. Why not? Because he has been disqualified by nature.

It is true that Buttigieg is legally married, but that is a legal fiction. The Britannica Encyclopedia defines a legal fiction as “a rule assuming as true something that is clearly false.” The idea that a man can have a husband is clearly false—he can only have a wife—despite claims to the contrary.

Buttigieg’s “marriage” is recognized by the positive law, or by what lawmakers and judges posit, but it is not recognized by the natural law. The natural law, which was first promulgated by Aristotle and Cicero (and later amended by Aquinas), holds that morality is a function of human nature, and that we can arrive at moral strictures on the basis of observation and reason.

As human beings, Aquinas said, we are given to three natural inclinations, one of which is reproduction (the others being self-preservation and reason). Reproduction has been ordained by nature, and nature’s God, as the province of a man and a woman. Two men cannot reproduce anymore than two women can. It therefore makes no sense to say that people of the same sex can marry.

Marriage exists so that the sex drive of men and women can be constructively channeled in such a way as to provide for stable families, without which children suffer. But only people of the opposite sex are capable of performing this function (even allowing for the reality that some are sterile).

There is an anatomical goodness-of-fit to a man and a woman that permits them to become one flesh, and it is this union—and only this union—that allows them to reproduce. This is natural. Without a male and a female mating, the world would come to an end. Deviations from this are therefore unnatural.

Think of it this way. It is an axiom of natural law that everything has a law that is built into its nature. For example, it is a law of electricity that if we want to generate it, we must insert the plug into the socket. Having two plugs or two sockets touch each other delivers no juice. Plugs and sockets are related, but they are different, and attempts to conjoin them always render sterile results.

Here are some other analogies.

No man can have a husband anymore than a man can bear a child. He can say he does but that doesn’t make it true. A stepfather can tell strangers that he is the father of his wife’s children, but that doesn’t make it true. If someone introduced his uncle to a stranger, saying, this is my aunt Joe, no one would believe him. Those who have blue eyes can claim they have brown eyes, but that doesn’t change reality. A left-handed person can claim to be right-handed, but observation tells us otherwise. Gorillas  do not give birth to kangaroos.

Nature can be stubborn. It is not a social construct. It is fixed. The sooner we learn this verity, the better off our society will be.

So what should we call Chasten, if he is not Buttigieg’s husband? His partner. The two of them may not like it, but truth is not determined by what is popular. It is determined by what makes sense according to nature and nature’s God.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the fate of parental rights:

The bad news is that parental rights are under attack all across the country. The good news is that our side is fighting back.

It is hard for those who want to sunder parental rights to admit it openly, which is why they typically engage in stealth campaigns. The fact that those involved in this scam are working in the White House, education and healthcare is alarming. Once again, it is the ruling class that is the problem.

We have prepared a report citing several examples of this furtive agenda. Here’s a few examples.

• On April 27, 2022, President Biden told educators, “They’re not somebody else’s children; they’re like yours when they’re in the classroom.”
• On July 14, 2022, it was reported that Biden’s CDC was encouraging LGBT youth to engage with Q Chat Space. This online chat space, where youth can discuss sex, polyamorous relationships, the occult, sex change operation, and activism, is designed with a “quick escape” feature so it can easily be hidden from parents.
• On September 29, 2021, the National School Boards Association sent a letter to the Biden administration accusing parents of being domestic terrorists because parents were outraged over attempts to sneak Critical Race Theory and gender ideology into the schools.
• On September 5, 2022, it was reported that schools across the country were using changes in Title IX by the Biden administration to hide information on children’s “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from their parents.
• On September 5, 2022, we learned that Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago worked with “Gender Support Coordinators” to facilitate sex and gender transitions for students. This was done under a confidential policy that allowed this to occur behind the backs of parents. The program features radical gender theory, “kink,” and “trans-friendly” sex toys for children.

Children belong to their parents—they do not belong to the state. Parental consent is not only a right, it is an imperative. Government officials, educators and healthcare workers who disagree, and are actively subverting the rights of parents, need to be outed and dismissed.

To read the report, click here.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on two pro-life initiatives voted down by Democrats yesterday:

The passion that Democrats have for abortion rights can never be exaggerated—it even extends to declaring war on abortion alternatives.

On January 11, all but two congressional Democrats voted against a bill that would mandate medical care for infants born alive following a botched abortion (one voted with the Republicans and one voted present).

The Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act says that an infant born alive following an abortion is a “legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States,” and as such must be attended to by medical staff or transported to a nearby hospital for care.

Democrats offered two arguments against the bill: (a) they said it is already illegal for doctors and nurses not to care for any individual, therefore no new legislation is necessary, and (b) it may actually be dangerous to transport an infant to a hospital.

When it comes to combating racial discrimination, or discrimination against LGBT persons, Democrats can never get enough legislation on the books, but for some reason when it comes to infants born alive following a botched abortion, no new laws are necessary. Yet it was one of their own, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, who openly said he was against attending to such children.

Four years ago, Northam explained his support for a pro-abortion bill that codified his position.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable.” Swell. Then what? “The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” In other words, they could decide to let the baby die and not be prosecuted.

It is true that transporting an infant who survives an abortion to a hospital could be dangerous. There is a way to fix this, but the same Democrats who make this pitch have already said no to it: only physicians should be allowed to perform an abortion. But Democrats across the country have argued in favor of allowing non-physicians to perform an abortion, so it is disingenuous of them to now complain of the unavailability of physicians at abortion clinics.

On the same day Democrats voted against the bill to provide health care for babies who survive an abortion, they voted against a resolution condemning violence against crisis pregnancy centers and churches following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They said the bill should also condemn violence against abortion clinics.

These are the same people who routinely condemn the January 6 riot—where the only person who died that day was an unarmed female veteran protester—but never condemn the widespread violence committed by Black Lives Matter demonstrators and Antifa terrorists.

The fact is that scores of crisis pregnancy centers and churches been blown up and desecrated in the run-up to, and following, the Dobbs decision that returned the issue of abortion to the states. No such violence has devastated abortion clinics. Indeed, what the pro-abortion side labels as “violence” against clinics includes “anti-abortion protesters congregated outside abortion clinics.” That’s what most Americans call free speech.

The lust for abortion, combined with the refusal to condemn violence against pro-life Americans, is a black mark on the Democratic Party. That almost none of them find this problematic is deeply disturbing.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on how the United Kingdom reacted to Demi Lovato’s latest stunt:

Demi Lovato’s on-again, off-again, relationship with God blew up when authorities in the United Kingdom banned a poster for one of her albums on the grounds that it was anti-Christian. This is remarkable given the fact that Christians are now a minority in this thoroughly secular nation.

In August 2022, Lovato released her eighth album, “Holy Fvck,” but only now did she accompany it in the U.K. with a poster depicting her as Christ crucified wearing bondage attire.

The nation’s advertising watchdog organization, The Advertising Standards Authority, issued a statement about the poster saying, the “image of Ms Lovato bound up in a bondage-style outfit whilst lying on a mattress shaped like a crucifix” crossed the line. The singer was “in a position with her legs bound to one side which was reminiscent of Christ on the cross.” This, along with the title of the album, meant the poster was “likely to be viewed as linking sexuality to the sacred symbol of the crucifix and the crucifixion.”

Songs on the album are replete with Christian bashing and lyrics boasting of Lovato’s sinfulness. For example, on the title track she mocks Holy Communion, “Cause my body’s the communion/Take a bite of what I’m doing.”

Lovato does not know who she is. She has been in drug rehab and has suffered from alcohol abuse and eating disorders. After she came out as “gender fluid” in 2018 and “nonbinary” a year later, she found the time to get baptized in the Jordan River.

“I never felt such a sense of spirituality or connection to God…something I’ve been missing for a few years now,” she said at the time. “Spirituality is so important to me…to be baptized in the Jordan river—the same place Jesus was baptized—I’ve never felt more renewed in my life.”

Lovato grew up in a Baptist home in Dallas, Texas. She told Jane Fonda in 2021 about her angst. “There’s been moments in my life that have been very confusing to me, you know, being 10 years old attracted to women and not knowing what that meant as a Christian, and being raised in the South.”

She’s been through it all, including cutting herself. At the time of the Fonda interview, she tweeted, “Sometimes it seems like God just keeps throwing crap my way and I get SO angry with him.” She got really personal. “I know you’re there God. But umm… Really dude?”

She also told her Twitter fans, “Please say a prayer for all those struggling with eating disorders, self-harm, mood disorders, and substance abuse.” She checked a lot of boxes with that one.

Lovato’s latest album suggests that she is turning away from God again. But we can’t be sure given her perennial confusion. Perhaps someday she will find the right anchor. Then she won’t have to wonder if the big Dude is still around.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the death of Cardinal George Pell:

Cardinal George Pell has died at age 81. He had undergone hip surgery and was doing well until he apparently suffered cardiac arrest.

We mourn his death at the Catholic League. No priest of his stature was victimized in recent times more than him. He suffered mightily, spending over 400 days in an Australian prison for crimes he was later acquitted. The anti-Catholicism that drove his conviction was obvious to all with eyes to see.

His conviction on five counts of sexual abuse was unanimously overturned by Australia’s High Court in 2019. He was never guilty of these charges in the first place.

Pell was the victim of outrageous lies. He had been smeared, spat upon, and forced to endure solitary confinement for crimes he never committed.

This was a sham from the get-go and should never have made its way through the Australian courts.

Pell was charged with abusing two boys in 1996. One of the boys overdosed on drugs but not before telling his mother—on two occasions—that Pell never abused him. The other boy’s accusation was undercut by the dead boy’s account: they were allegedly abused at the same time and place. There were no witnesses to an offense that supposedly took place after Mass in the sacristy of a church.

Here is what the High Court said about this matter. “The assumption that a group of choristers, including adults, might have been so preoccupied with making their way to the robing room as to fail to notice the extraordinary sight of the Archbishop of Melbourne dressed ‘in his full regalia’ advancing through the procession and pinning a 13 year old boy to the wall, is a large one.” That is putting it mildly. It is preposterous.

We at the Catholic League defended Cardinal Pell for many years. Here’s a chronological list of my public statements in defense of him, all of which are available on our website.

• “Cardinal Pell Should Sue For Libel,” March 12, 2013
• “Unsubstantiated Accusations,” April 10, 2013
• “Yanked!” February 9, 2016
• “CNN Op-Ed On Sexual Abuse Is Flawed,” June 30, 2017
• “The Washington Post Is At It Again,” July 5, 2017
• “The New York Times Piles On,” July 7, 2017
• “Cardinal Pell Acquires Top Lawyer,” July 11, 2017
• “The War on Cardinal Pell,” July 20, 2017
• “Foes of Cardinal Pell In High Gear,” July 25, 2017
• “Media Cast Wide Net In Pell Case,” July 26, 2017
• “Australia’s War On Christian Kids,” July 31, 2017
• “Australian Abuse Report Deeply Flawed,” October 2, 2017
• “Media Bias Against Cardinal Pell,” January 8, 2018
• “Cardinal Pell’s Ordeal Continues,” April 17, 2018
• “Cardinal Pell’s Hearings Were An Eye-Opener,” April 24, 2018
• “Cardinal Pell Pleads ‘Not Guilty,'” May 1, 2018
• “Can Cardinal Pell Ever Get A Fair Trial?” May 16, 2018
• “Washington Post Columnist Gets It Wrong,” December 14, 2018
• “Rolling Stone’s Dishonest Hit On Cardinal Pell,” March 19, 2019
• “Cardinal Pell’s Appeal Is Justified,” February 26, 2019
• “Cardinal Pell Victimized,” August 21, 2019
• “Cardinal Pell And Brett Kavanaugh; Two Defamed Catholics,” September 30, 2019
• “Measure Of Justice For Cardinal Pell,” November 13, 2019
• “Cardinal Pell Targeted Again,” April 2, 2020

Cardinal Pell wrote about his years in prison in a three-volume set of memoirs. He was sustained by his faith, and his courage was exemplary. May he rest in peace.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the way many physicians have become politicized:

There has always been an element in the medical profession that has been given to politics, but in recent years it has become more common and more aggressive.

It would be harder to find better proof of physician politics than the letter signed by over 1,200 health officials in the spring of 2020. With Covid-19 raging, and lockdowns everywhere, these doctors reacted more like left-wing activists than professionals.

The good doctors threw caution to the wind, suspending their support for social distancing, all because they vigorously endorsed the cause of “social justice.” To be specific, many protests were launched following a few controversial incidents of police interactions with black men. That some of the protests turned into a riot—killing and injuring innocent persons, many of whom were cops—did not seem to matter.

The signatories were outraged by the “emerging narratives that seemed to malign demonstrations as risky for the public health because of Covid-19.” That was their number-one concern—bad mouthing the protesters—not the spread of Covid. They added that their goal was “to present a narrative that prioritizes opposition to racism as vital to public health, including the epidemic response.” Not only that, these protests—not all protests—were deemed “vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States.”

This backdrop helps us to understand why so many in the medical profession have said very little about the legalization of marijuana. It comes down to politics. Some issues galvanize them; others do not. To cite another example, consider their strong support for sex-reassignment surgery. Physician politics has never been more apparent.

Last week, the Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration released the findings of its annual survey and found that over 16 percent of the population, more than 46 million people, suffer from substance abuse disorder. Almost all of them did not receive any treatment.

Last month, CFAH, a health advisory organization, issued a report on the legal status of marijuana in the states. The drug is fully legal in 21 states and the District of Columbia; it is legal in another 23 states, but with restrictions; it is illegal in 6 states.

The American Medical Association (AMA) is opposed to marijuana legalization, but not in a vigorous way. In fact, the last statement it issued on this subject was to call for expunging prior marijuana arrest records, a decision that smacks of politics, not science.

On the issue of state restrictions on sex-reassignment surgery, the AMA is quite vocal, making it clear that such legislation “represents a dangerous governmental intrusion into the practice of medicine,” insisting that “trans and non-binary identities are normal variations of human identity and expression” (my emphasis).

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) lists several health concerns with marijuana use, but stays away from commenting on the wisdom of legalizing the drug.

When it comes to gender identity, the CDC offers a full-throated endorsement, imploring health providers to “create welcoming environments that facilitates disclosure of gender identity and sexual orientation.” Furthermore, clinics should work to “improve sexual health for transgender and gender nonbinary persons.”

Our leading medical guru, Dr. Fauci, has not commented on the legalization of marijuana, even though he has spent the past three years warning us about respiratory illnesses.

Interestingly, Anthony “Double Mask” Fauci, in his role as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has come under considerable criticism for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to finance attempts to turn monkeys transgender.

To be specific, he has used public monies to inject male monkeys with feminizing hormone therapy. His interest in sex is longstanding, beginning with AIDS in the 1980s. Moreover, at the height of the pandemic, “Double Mask” could not bring himself to tell gay men not to have sex with anonymous men, saying only that it is risky. Apparently, this was not as risky as going to church during the Covid outbreak, which is why church doors were shut.

Most doctors and those who work in the medical profession are good men and women who have served the public well. But there are more than a few—especially in elite positions—who have shown themselves to be charlatans, or worse. Politics has no more legitimate role to play in medicine than it does in sports.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Catholics in the new Congress:

In the 118th Congress, Catholics comprise 28% of the seats, the largest of any religious affiliation. But just how Catholic are these Catholics?

We reviewed the scorecard of incumbent representatives and senators as tallied by National Right to Life and NARAL, the two most authoritative sources measuring congressional support for the right to life and the right to abortion, respectively, in the nation. For newly elected members, we consulted their stated record on this subject when they were candidates. Here is what we found.

In the House of Representatives, there are 65 Democrats who claim a Catholic identity, 54 of whom have a perfect pro-abortion record; and all 10 of the newly elected members are in the pro-abortion camp. Of the 56 Republicans who claim a Catholic identity, 48 have a perfect pro-life voting record; one has a mostly pro-life record; and the seven newly elected members espouse a pro-life position.

This means that 98% of the Catholic House Democrats are pro-abortion and 100% of the Catholic House Republicans are mostly pro-life.

In the Senate, there are 15 Catholic Democrats, 12 of whom have a perfect pro-abortion record. Of the 11 Catholic Republicans, 7 have a perfect pro-life record.

This means that 80% of Catholic Senate Democrats are pro-abortion and 100% of Catholic Senate Republicans are pro-life.

In the last two years, both parties have become more entrenched in their positions. Even people known to be more moderate on this issue ventured closer to their party’s extreme. For instance, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine moved more to the pro-life camp. However, moving in the opposite direction was Joe Manchin of West Virginia: he had a perfect pro-life rating in the 116th Congress but dropped down to a 67% score in the last congress.

Similarly in the House, Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) became more pro-life after leaving the Democratic party. Henry Cuellar (TX-D), who was widely seen as the last pro-life Democrat in the House, earned a higher score from NARAL and a lower score from National Right to Life.

Does this mean that Catholic Republicans are better Catholics than Catholic Democrats? On the issue that the bishops regard as the “preeminent” issue of our time, namely, abortion, it certainly does. It must be said, however, that as a true measure of one’s Catholic status, one’s voting record on one issue is not necessarily dispositive.

Some argue that a congressman’s record on social justice issues is a more accurate gauge of his Catholicity. The problem with that contention is that it is much more difficult to make comparisons on such matters. To wit: Catholics who favor more government welfare programs contend that their position is better aligned with Church teachings, yet Catholics who oppose more government dependency maintain that they are more faithful to the Church’s teachings on the poor. Climate change is another issue that is difficult to score.

Ultimately, whether one is a “good Catholic” depends on factors of a more intimate nature. But it is not wrong to suggest that elected Catholic officials who maintain a decidedly pro-abortion voting record are an embarrassment to Catholics. They most certainly are. After all, the right to life is the most foundational of our natural rights. This is not an observation—it is a fact of life.

To read our tally of the voting records on the issue of abortion for all Catholics:

For the House, click here.

For the Senate, click here.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on reparations for African nations:

President Joe Biden recently said he wants Congress to write a check to African nations to the tune of $55 billion. Why? “We remember the stolen men and women and children who were brought to our shores in chains, subjected to unimaginable cruelty. My nation’s original sin was that period.”

Biden is factually wrong. He made four errors.

1. The slaves taken from Africa were not “stolen”— they were bought by Europeans from their African slavemasters.
2. Children were rarely taken: most of the slaves were men.
3. Most slaves were not subjected to “unimaginable cruelty.” This was not because the slavemasters were kind: it was because they wanted their slaves to be healthy. The worst thing they did to their slaves was non-violent: they denied them the right to keep some of their bounty, which would have allowed them to develop a work ethic. As for the cruelty, more Irish died on the ships to the New World than Africans, and that is because they were not slated to be slaves—so they were expendable.
4. Slavery is not our original sin. As Harvard scholar Orlando Patterson has detailed, it is one of the most common institutions in the history of the world. In fact, there is not a place on earth that has not had slavery at one time or another.

Here are some more facts about slavery that Biden doesn’t know.

As black economist Thomas Sowell has noted, slavery was never an issue anywhere in the world until the 18th century, and that was when the leaders in Western civilization started to condemn it. “You could research all of the 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there.”

Sowell also maintains that “Just as Europeans enslaved Africans, North Africans enslaved Europeans—more Europeans than there were Africans enslaved in the United States or in the 13 colonies from which the nation was formed.”

A CNN report on slavery found that “For centuries along the West African coast, millions of Africans were sold into slavery and shipped across the Atlantic to the Americas. The middlemen were European slave traders based in forts like Ghana’s Cape Coast Castle….”

Researcher Akosua Perbi of the University of Ghana concluded that “It was the Africans themselves who were enslaving their fellow Africans, sending them to the coast to be shipped outside.”

In September, CNN’s Don Lemon interviewed Hilary Fordwich, an English commentator and business consultant. Lemon contended that the English are immensely wealthy and that they should pay reparations for enslaving Africans. He said as much as $100 billion should be paid.

Fordwich did not disagree that reparations should be made, only that it is important to note who started the slavery supply chain.

“Where was the beginning of the supply chain? That was in Africa.” She pointedly said, “The first nation in the world to abolish it [slavery]—it was started by William Wilberforce, was the British. In Great Britain, they abolished slavery. Why? Because the African kings were rounding up their own people. They had them in cages waiting in the beaches. No one was running into Africa to get them.”

“And you’re totally right. If reparations need to be paid, we need to go right back to the beginning of that supply chain and say, who was rounding up their own people and having them handcuffed in cages. Absolutely. That’s where they should start.”

Lemon was dumbfounded. He simply said, “It’s an interesting discussion, Hilary. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We’ll continue to discuss.”

One more thing. Instead of worrying how much cash people should get for a condition they never endured, shouldn’t we be concerned with modern-day slavery?

Slavery is widespread today, though it is not well reported. The countries with the most slaves are India, China and North Korea. In terms of the highest prevalence per 1000 residents, the top three are North Korea, Eritrea and Burundi; of the top ten, half are African nations.

This raises the question: Who should pay whom for atrocities occurring in real time? It would be great if Joe Biden weighed in.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the NFL’s reaction to Damar Hamlin’s serious injury:

The day after Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin went into cardiac arrest during Monday night’s NFL game, ESPN analyst Dan Orlovsky said on air, “I heard the Buffalo Bills organization say that we believe in prayer, and maybe this is not the right thing to do, but it’s just on my heart and I want to pray for Damar Hamlin right now” (my italics). And so he did.

But why wouldn’t it be the right thing to do? Isn’t that what most Americans do in times of adversity? They pray. They don’t pray to God that he might send in the therapy dogs—they pray that he might intervene and offer relief to the suffering.

Unfortunately, Orlovsky was not acting irrationally. ESPN, like the NFL,  embraces the politics of the Left, and that means it is strongly committed to the secular agenda. However, it appears that the sports commentator has not been called on the carpet, with good reason: the outpouring of prayer has been so overwhelming that only a fool would want to sanction someone for praying in public for Hamlin.

The NFL is also experiencing a new tolerance for prayer. Every one of the 32 NFL teams amended their Twitter photo to say, “Pray for Damar.” In doing so, they followed the lead of the players who knelt in prayer on Monday night.

The NFL’s left-wing commissioner, Roger Goodell, got the memo and did not want to be seen as an outlier, especially given that most of the players who prayed were black: being the woke kind of guy he is, he did not want to be branded as insensitive, or worse.

Hamlin attended Central Catholic High School in Pittsburgh, and is loved by the school’s administrators and students for regularly revisiting his alma mater, and for his yeoman charitable work. His family issued a statement asking, “Please keep Damar in your prayers.”

Public displays of group prayer at NFL games extends back to 1990. That is when the chaplains of the opposing teams, the New York Giants and the San Francisco 49ers, requested that the players huddle in prayer after the game. Giants tight end Howard Cross, one of the spiritual leaders on the team, explained, “We were just kneeling. …A simple act of kneeling is not aggressive. You’re surrendering at that moment.”

Things have since changed. When the Colin Kaepernicks of today take a knee, it isn’t about prayer, and it certainly isn’t about surrendering to God. It’s about politics and victimhood.

Things changed again in 2019. That is when New Orleans Saints linebacker Demario Davis was fined $7,000 by the NFL for violating its “personal message” rule. His crime: The devout Christian wore a headband with the phrase, “Man of God.”

Rule 5, Section 4, Article 8 of the 2022 NFL Rulebook is titled, “Personal Messages.” Here is part of what it says. “The League will not grant helmet decals, arm bands, jersey patches, mouthpieces, or other items affixed to game uniforms or equipment, which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes of campaigns.”

This policy was invoked against Davis for his religious message. Had he waited a year, following the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020, and decided to promote a left-wing cause on his headband, he would have been applauded by Goodell.

Beginning in 2020, the NFL has refused to enforce its “personal messages” rule when it comes to “social justice” causes. In fact, it authorizes violations of its policy.

On the apparel of NFL players today can be seen such catchy phrases as “It Takes All Of Us,” “Inspire Change,” “Stop Hate,” and “End Racism.” No “End Abortion” or “Pray to God” slogans are allowed. It even has stencil displays in the end zones that say, “Black Lives Matter.”

In other words, acknowledging God is a problem in the NFL, but acknowledging a violent Marxist organization—one that is being investigated for massive tax fraud violations—is okay.

It would be so great if the NFL’s newfound support for prayer signaled an epiphany. But we won’t get our hopes up. It is much more likely that the next time there is a “prayer-like” moment during a game, the therapy dogs will be unleashed on the field.

Contact the VP for Corporate Communications: Brian.McCarthy@nfl.com