Congressman Henry Hyde died on November 29 at the age of 83. Asked to comment on his death, Bill Donohue said, “The pro-life community has lost a giant of a man with a giant of a heart—Rep. Henry Hyde. His courageous defense of the least among us inspired millions of Americans to stand up for the rights of the unborn. We have lost a national treasure.”

Hyde served in the House from 1975 to 2006 and served as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2001. In 1976, just three years after the infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, the Illinois congressman attached an amendment to a spending bill that banned federal funding for abortions. It soon became known as the “Hyde Amendment,” and to this day it has bound every Republican presidential candidate to honor it.

According to former Vatican diplomat John Klink, the Hyde Amendment is thus far responsible for saving the lives of over 1,000,000 babies. While there are other legislators who have done yeoman work protecting the lives of the least among us, no one did more to save the lives of the unborn than Hyde.

Hyde was also well liked, even by his ideological adversaries. Always the gentleman, he will be affectionately remembered by all who knew him.

We expect that his death will lead to the institution of many “Hyde Awards” for those who follow in his footsteps.

The goal of the Catholic League was to stop “The Golden Compass” from meeting box office expectations, thus making it unlikely that there would be a movie based on the second and third volumes of Philip Pullman’s trilogy, His Dark Materials. Looks like we won on both counts.

Even our adversaries begrudgingly concede we were victorious. The movie did so poorly that after two weeks out, it took in $4 million less than “Alvin and the Chipmunks” did in one weekend!

Film critic Roger Ebert, who loved the film, said “the box office was wounded by attacks of religious groups.” He added that “The criticism was led by the Catholic League and its talkative president William Donohue.” He concluded that “Any bad buzz on a family film can be mortal, and that seems to have been the case this time.” The buzz was so bad that Hollywood reporters are now saying there won’t be a film version of Pullman’s second and third books.

The Catholic League sold 25,000 copies of its booklet, “The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked,” before running out. We made sure that every bishop, Catholic schools superintendents and directors of religious education received a copy. As we said from the beginning, our concern was less the film—the most anti-Catholic elements were being watered down—than the trilogy of books from which it was based.

Those who unwittingly validated our interpretation of Philip Pullman’s work included American Atheists and the National Secular Society in the U.K. Both were angry, as were Pullman’s fans, that the film didn’t deliver the red meat of anti-Catholic bigotry that they craved. Donohue congratulated the leaders of both groups on TV for their honesty, if not for their bigotry.

Regrettably, the review by Harry Forbes and an associate, representing the USCCB, was mostly positive. Indeed, Forbes found it difficult to believe that Pullman was attacking the Catholic Church. He referred to Pullman’s “very much fictionalized” church as “a stand-in for all organized religion.” But this was simply wrong: Pullman made it crystal clear that his target was the Catholic Church. [For more on the Forbes debacle, see p. 10.]

The victory over “The Golden Compass” followed closely on the heels of  the Catholic League victory over the Miller Brewing Company. In both instances we called for a boycott (which is not something we do too often), and in both instances we got what we wanted: a total apology and a box office flop.

William A. Donohue

Abortion activists never tire of bragging how much they want to empower women, allowing them to make informed choices regarding abortion. The truth is just the opposite: champions of abortion are threatened by knowledge, especially scientific knowledge. Their goal, to put it bluntly, is to deny women information that might entice them to keep their babies. Consider the evidence.

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, but what happened last October proves my point—the media refused to disseminate information that might have made women pause before deciding on an abortion. To be specific, in a scientific study by Patrick Carroll published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, it was determined that the incidence of breast cancer increases with the incidence of earlier abortions. Using standard statistical techniques, the British researcher, who studied eight European countries, was able to conclude that abortion is the “best predictor” of breast cancer trends.

So why is it that pro-life people like yourself are learning about this for the first time by reading this article? Because the media, which is decidedly in the pro-abortion corner, fears that if this information gets known, it will work against their cause. Indeed, the only journalist to write about this story in the entire nation was Dennis Byrne in the Chicago Tribune.

The same media, by the way, didn’t mind trumpeting the fact that a recent study showed that women who have a couple of drinks a day increase their risk of breast cancer by 13 percent. But even though abortion raises a women’s risk of breast cancer by at least 30 percent, that statistic was still deemed too threatening to report.

More proof that science is the enemy of the pro-abortionists can be seen in reading their reaction to sonograms. NARAL and Planned Parenthood have done everything they can to keep women ignorant about the latest scientific advances. That is why they oppose virtually every state and federal law allowing for informed consent. They are positively frightened by ultrasound pictures. Indeed, an abortionist from Long Island recently admitted that “no woman is going to want an abortion after she sees a sonogram.” He’s afraid he may lose his job.

An evangelical organization, Heidi Group, estimates that 90 percent of women considering an abortion decide against doing so once they are introduced to ultrasound technology. Lawyers representing the abortion industry instinctively know this is true, which explains why one of them, Florida attorney Barry Silver, confessed that if women had access to such techniques it would “eviscerate a woman’s right to choose.” Silver wasn’t exactly truthful: it is not the right to choose that is in jeopardy—it is the choice to abort.

As far back as 1989, a pollster for NARAL, Harrison Hickman, expressed his worst fear: “Nothing has been as damaging to our cause as  the advances in technology [that have] allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because now people talk about that fetus in much different terms than they did fifteen years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something I have an easy answer how to cure.”

That’s right. When “they talk about it as a human being,” it’s lights out for abortion rights activists. Better to pretend the baby is a clump of cells, or a thing that lacks “personhood.” That’s the problem with pictures of babies in utero, they give away the store. And this, more than anything, explains why young women are becoming more pro-life.

None of this is new. The only choices the so-called pro-choice side has ever championed are the ones it likes. Here is what Simone de Beauvoir, the French feminist, told her American colleague, Betty Friedan, in 1976: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice.”
This is the way totalitarians talk, not advocates for tolerance.

Four years ago I debated Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt on the Phil Donahue show. Phil, of course, was totally on her side, so I pulled a fast one on the two of them. I read two sentences: “An abortion kills the life of the baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health.” Taking the bait, Phil angrily said, “Who said that?” I answered, “Planned Parenthood in 1963, 40 years ago.”

So the pro-abortion side knows what the truth is. Indeed, after my exchange with Phil, I turned to Feldt: “Were you wrong? Were you wrong back then? What’s your answer? What happened? Did somehow the baby become some kind of a turtle? Actually, we do have more respect for the turtles in Florida. We have the Endangered Species Act.”

Feldt, of course, simply dodged the issue and rambled on about preventing unplanned pregnancies.

Our side doesn’t have to dodge anything—all we have to do is tell the truth. Their side has to lie. They also have to keep women from learning about scientific breakthroughs that undermine their cause. Nothing they do is honorable.

Here are some examples of attempts to censor Christmas in 2007:

· For 75 years, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce sponsored the ‘Hollywood Christmas Parade.’ When it refused to sponsor the parade this year, the L.A. City Council took over, renaming it the ‘Hollywood Santa Parade.’

· The Department of Housing and Urban Development has censored Christmas religious symbols from its housing complexes.

· No Christmas decorations are allowed on school buses in parts of Vermont.

· A public official in Wisconsin wants to rename the State Capitol Holiday Tree the Christmas Tree, but is being opposed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

· Chattanooga has banned a live nativity scene from its public festivities.

· Sonoma City Council has nixed religious displays on the Plaza.

· Voters in Berkley, Michigan have forbidden a crèche at City Hall.

· Fort Collins, Colorado says it is okay to have green and red lights outside city buildings, but only secular symbols are allowed inside.

· Residents in Olean, New York are fighting over privately owned nativity scenes being displayed in city parks.

· A nativity scene in front of the Ypsilanti Township fire hall in Michigan has been banned.

· No religious symbols are allowed in Seattle-Tacoma airport, but trees made of cardboard are legit.

· Nativity scenes at Texas Tech are not permissible, but a tree is okay. The official in charge says, “We’re not saying it’s a holiday tree, because it’s a Christmas tree, but we choose to do a tasteful tree that really anybody can embrace.”

· After one person complained about a nativity scene in Shawnee State Park in Ohio, the state parks’ chief ordered a ban on crèches from all parks. It took the governor to overturn this decision.

· In Wesley Chapel, Florida, Jesus was banned from a holiday display.

· The mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island censored all religious displays.

· Government officials in Tehama County, California tried to ban Santa in office displays but had to reverse their decision after a protest.

· A nativity scene in Olean, New York was removed from the City Hall lawn after Wiccans placed the pentacle alongside it.

· A crèche was banned from Triangle Park in Manistique, Michigan.

· Freedom from Religion Foundation asked for an investigation of Ohio Governor Ted Strickland to determine whether or not he violated his oath of office to uphold the constitutions of Ohio and the United States by allowing nativity displays at public parks and offices.

· After a Catholic sued and won demanding a crèche alongside a menorah in Briarcliff Manor, New York, local officials banned both the Christian and Jewish symbols.

· The Dickens Christmas Festival in Saginaw, Michigan was renamed the Dickens Holiday Festival so the city could advertise in local schools. The schools ban the words “Santa,” “Christmas” and “Nativity.”

· Atheists Alliance International put up a tree on the lawn of Chester County Courthouse outside Philadelphia with copies of the covers of books saying, “Why I Am Not a Christian,” etc.

· Americans United for Separation of Church and State is trying to block the display of a crèche in Shelby County, Alabama.

· Freedom from Religion Foundation is trying to stop the display of nativity scenes in three Wisconsin towns.

As we commented to the press, these multicultural monsters are rearing their ugly heads once again, showing what they really mean by tolerance for diversity. The good news is that more and more Americans are fighting back against these cultural fascists.

The following are locations where crèches and Christmas displays were attacked during the Christmas season:

· Foreman, Arkansas
· Rogers, Arkansas
· Antioch, California
· Glastonbury, Connecticut
· Arredondo Farms, Florida (three instances)
· Bal Harbour, Florida
· Fort Walton Beach, Florida
· Panama City, Florida (more than a dozen instances)
· Tampa, Florida
· Bainbridge, Georgia
· Schaumberg, Illinois (two instances)
· Mandeville, Louisiana
· Minneapolis, Minnesota
· Kearney, Missouri (two instances)
· Kirkwood, Missouri
· Bozeman, Montana
· Concord, New Hampshire
· Greensboro, North Carolina
· Lattimore, North Carolina
· Westbury, New York (the homeowner was assaulted)
· Elyria, Ohio
· Sylvania Township, Ohio
· Lancaster, Pennsylvania
· Sioux Falls, South Dakota
· Leesburg, Virginia
· West Springfield, Virginia
· Marlow, West Virginia

In perhaps the sickest incident, an elementary public school coach in Marietta, Georgia drove students around the area in his pickup truck instructing them to thrash Christmas displays after dark; they also created obscene displays with some of the adorning statues.

We were pleased that the Washington Post gave credit to the Catholic League’s work tracking this issue in its edition of January 3.

A father with two sons in a public elementary school in the Maryland suburbs of Washington D.C. contacted the Catholic League after attending the school’s “Winter Concert.” While the man was troubled by the lack of any religious songs at a concert so close to Christmas, one act in particular really concerned him. A class of children sang the song “The Twelve Days of Christmas.” In the school’s version, however, the word “winter” replaced any instance of “Christmas.” Bill Donohue quickly fired off an e-mail to the school’s principal, a portion of which appears here:

Assuming I have not been misinformed, this bowdlerizing of a secular Christmas song is absolutely absurd. Is it your belief that non-Christians in attendance would be thrown into shock by lines such as “on the third day of Christmas my true love sent to me three French hens?” Do you really assume that non-Christians are so bigoted as to be bothered by children singing the actual lyrics to this much-loved tune?

Furthermore, is it the opinion of [the school] that the pupils on stage are oblivious to the actual words of the song? And if you do acknowledge that the kids are likely familiar with “The Twelve Days of Christmas,” don’t you think that such an exercise in censorship sends Christian kids the message that there is something dirty about the word “Christmas?”

Lastly, what exactly are the twelve days of winter? Any twelve days chosen at random, or must they start on December 22? Silly question, perhaps, but it underscores how ridiculous it is to purge the song of its reference to Christmas.

It didn’t take long for the principal to write back to Donohue. According to the principal, the school’s choral director had previously received complaints from some parents who claimed to be offended by religious songs that were once a part of the program. In order to avoid such complaints this year, the director not only purged the show of all religious songs, but she even went so far as the strip it of any mention of Christmas in an effort “to make the program as neutral as possible so as not to offend anyone.”

Fortunately, the school principal realized that the choir director’s actions had the opposite effect, and promised to look into this matter for future years. The principal said she would inform the choir director that Christmas music “is appropriate in the context of our students’ performance as long as we are not giving preference to one religion over another.”

So in the end, common sense reigned. The Catholic League is grateful to the parent for calling this issue to our attention, and to the principal for listening to reason and pledging to resolve the situation for the future.

Many people feel helpless to combat the multicultural madness that we see each Christmas season. But as this situation shows, it doesn’t take much to enact positive change.

On October 24 Catholic League president Bill Donohue wrote to New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein in regards to the display of crèches in the schools. Donohue wrote, “There is no constitutional prohibition or court ruling that disallows the display of nativity scenes in the New York City public schools.”

Donohue received a response from John DeMicoli of the Department of Education (DOE) responding for Klein. Mr. DeMicoli stated that the DOE “permits the display of holiday secular decorations with secular dimension.”

Donohue responded on November 21 stating:

“The 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in 2006 that the Department’s policy of allowing the display of Jewish religious symbols (menorah) and Islamic religious symbols (star and crescent) was constitutional because it did not deny Christians secular symbols (the Christmas tree). However, it stressed that the federal district court erred when it declared the menorah and the star and crescent secular in nature—they are clearly religious (New York City claimed that the Jewish and Islamic symbols were secular). Ergo, the Department of Education is denying Christians parity with Jews and Muslims by not allowing them to display their religious symbols. Moreover, the circuit court explicitly said, ‘We do not here decide whether the City could, consistent with the Constitution, include a crèche in its holiday displays.”

Donohue wrote to the DOE’s General Counsel, Michael Best, asking to provide equal treatment for Christian religious symbols in the schools because Jewish and Muslim symbols are represented. Best’s reply to Donohue was that the courts have upheld the DOE’s policy and that there is nothing wrong with it.

On December 4 Donohue commented on this issue:

“It is plain that although New York City is not barred by the courts from permitting a crèche alongside the menorah and star and crescent, it has elected to do so. This is not a matter for the courts, but for the legislature.” Donohue mentioned the work of City Councilman Tony Avella, introducing a resolution that would grant parity to Christians.

 “Everyone knows,” Donohue continued, “that Israel would never allow nativity scenes in the schools while banning menorahs, telling Jews to be satisfied with secular symbols. And it is beyond comprehension to think that in the Islamic world, crèches would be permitted but not the star and crescent. So why is it that in a nation where 85 percent of the population is Christian, Catholics and Protestants are told to be satisfied with Christmas trees while Jews and Muslims get to display their religious symbols?”

On December 13 a press conference was called at City Hall to discuss this topic. Donohue and Avella addressed the media at the event, as did Rabbi Yehuda Levin of Jews for Morality and Martin Kelly, National Director of the Ancient Order of the Hibernians. The Catholic League will continue to fight for parity in the schools and it is nice to know that we have such admirable people behind us.

On December 7, Gener8Xion Entertainment, a prominent Protestant film company, released “Noëlle.” The film, which is a story about two dissatisfied priests questioning their vocations, was promoted as “a parable of forgiveness and grace.”

In the synopsis provided by Gener8Xion, it accurately describes Jonathan Keene as “a young Catholic priest seemingly devoid of genuine human emotion”; his job is “to do what he does best: shut down a failing parish.” Then there is “the child-like Fr. Simeon Joyce, a faithful but disillusioned priest who blatantly disregards church regulations, uses church monies to pay an old fisherman’s medical bills and spends most of his time drinking at the local pub.”

Viewers learn that the only reason Fr. Keene became a priest is because he felt guilty about getting a girl pregnant, when he was in college, and pressured her to have an abortion. Fr. Joyce, the alcoholic, has serious reservations about celibacy and his idea of heaven is the local Christmas party. Fr. Joyce tells Fr. Keene he wants to marry a woman named Marjorie so he can help raise her illegitimate child, saying he ‘made a vow to God not to the Church.’ But Fr. Keene is also in love with Marjorie: he is shown bolting in the middle of Midnight Mass to be with her, knocking over a filled chalice and ripping off his vestments.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented on the film stating:

“We’ve seen the movie and it’s a gem. Both priests are portrayed as losers. Throughout the film, confession is trivialized, celibacy is ridiculed, the Virgin Mary is disrespected, nuns are belittled, last rites are mocked, and priestly vocations are caricatured. In short, that which is uniquely Catholic is trashed. However, the plot and the acting are so deliriously absurd that it is impossible for us to get too worked up about this flick.”

“Stereotypes about Protestant ministers abound, raising the question, why didn’t Gener8Xion choose to mock one of their own clergy? Similarly, given that the film’s writer, David Hall, has said that his primary interest was in ‘dealing with hypocrisy,’ why didn’t he consult with Sen. Charles Grassley about all those ‘prosperity church’ pastors being investigated for ripping off their flock? We know why, and that’s why the Catholic League exists.”

On January 29 and 30, New York City’s Carnegie Hall will be home to “Jerry Springer: The Opera in Concert.” The production is ostensibly a spoof on the television chat show of which Mr. Springer is host. On his show, Springer trots out America’s unfortunates and questions them about their family problems, sexual deviancies and emotional plagues. Tensions often flare between the guests, resulting in fisticuffs and occasional assaults with folding chairs.

The musical to run at Carnegie Hall surpasses the original in its vulgarity and obscenity. It also adds as much trashing of Jesus and the Blessed Mother as can be crammed into 120 minutes. The musical is set partially in Hell, thus opening the story up to include a “conflict resolution” segment between Jesus and Satan. A few of the “highlights” include: Jesus, fat, effeminate and wearing a loincloth, is accused of being a homosexual, to which he replies, “actually, I am a bit gay”; Eve, angry at being cast out of the Garden of Eden, reaches under Jesus’ loincloth and fondles Him; the Virgin Mary is described as being “raped by an angel, raped by God”; Jesus sings, “I am Jesus, son of man, son of Mary, son of God. So…do not f–k with me.”

All of this occurs among such story-lines as a man becoming sexually aroused by dressing up in a diaper and having his girlfriend treat him like an infant (the choir shrugs off this deviancy, suggesting, “For some morning Mass, for others hairy a–”), and a mother, wearing an oversized crucifix, informing her stripper daughter that she wishes the girl had died at birth. The musical’s twisted moral is summed up in a speech given by the character of Jerry at the end: “Energy is pure delight. Nothing is wrong and nothing is right. And everything that lives is holy.”

We’ve long noted that blasphemy often follows obscenity, and Jerry Springer’s television show has given the musical’s writers much material with which to work. What is unusual, however, is that Carnegie Hall would provide this vile production with a home. The hall’s board and staff recently renewed its mission to “present the finest artistry” on its three stages. If “Jerry Springer: the Opera in Concert” is considered among the finest musical works in the entire city of New York, our society is in trouble for sure.

Let Sanford I. Weill, Chairman of the Board of Carnegie Hall, know what you think of his once-great institution wallowing in such filth. Write to him at 881 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10019-3210 or e-mail publicaffairs@carnegiehall.org.

Every Christmas season, Planned Parenthood e-mails its supporters a Christmas card titled, “Choice on Earth.” This year the e-mail had an accompanying video featuring, “Moments that inspired us in 2007.” One of the highlights of the year was the opening of a new clinic in Aurora, Illinois.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue ripped into Planned Parenthood and its supporters, stating:

“Planned Parenthood says it stands for choice. So do serial killers and rapists. Jeffrey Dahmer believed in choice as well. Choice, of course, carries no moral quotient by itself—it must have an object. And the object of choice that Planned Parenthood prizes is killing kids in utero. But to admit this is to admit to a moral monstrosity. Which explains why it prefers to talk about a woman’s ‘right to choose,’ without ever finishing the sentence.”

The introductory statement to the video says, “It’s been quite a year for Planned Parenthood and the women, men and families that we serve.” Notice that they didn’t mention women, men and children. That’s because the kids are a problem.

Donohue continued that it’s, “not just any kids. The kids of white people are not a problem—it’s the kids of minorities that exercise Planned Parenthood.” Planned Parenthood was founded for racist reasons—African Americans were the original problem—the organization has now evolved into fixing another problem: Latinos. That’s why it boasted about setting up its spanking new clinic in Aurora, a town that is heavily Latino.

Donohue concluded, “If Planned Parenthood needs to rip off some special day in the calendar in order to sell its sick message, let it pick some day other than Christmas. We recommend Day of the Dead.”