One day after the Catholic League asked its email subscribers to contact Sen. Dick Durbin to decline the “Lifetime Achievement Award” that he was scheduled to receive from the Archdiocese of Chicago, he did just that.

The first person to raise a red flag over this issue was Thomas Paprocki, Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield. He honed in on Durbin’s pro-abortion voting record. He quickly received the support of San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone; eight other bishops followed. We chose to direct our attention to Sen. Durbin, allowing the clergy to deal with the clergy.

The Catholic League was the only lay Catholic organization in the nation to press Sen. Durbin to decline the award.

On September 23, Bill Donohue sent a letter to Sen. Durbin in the overnight mail—it was received the next morning—asking him to decline the award. He explained that when the news broke that he was to receive the award, it “created a firestorm in the Catholic community, involving both the clergy and the laity.” He stressed that by declining the award “you will help ameliorate Catholic discord,” and that “by putting the interests of the Catholic community above your own interests, it will only redound to your benefit.”

When it appeared that Durbin was not giving in, we asked our supporters to petition him to do so. On September 29, we listed the email of his chief of staff in a news release, asking our subscribers to pound away. They did. One day later, Durbin yielded. We commended Sen. Durbin for doing the right thing.

In Donohue’s letter to Durbin, he said that “the proximate cause of the backlash is your voting record on abortion,” but he hastened to add, “Your support for same-sex marriage, and your probing of the religious convictions of Catholic nominees for the federal bench, have also elicited much criticism.”

Regarding the latter issue, on September 23, prior to posting Donohue’s open letter to Durbin, he detailed the senator’s longstanding assaults on Catholics seeking a seat on the federal bench.

His opposition to Circuit Court nominee William Pryor (2003), Supreme Court nominee John Roberts (2005), and Circuit Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett (2017), were all unseemly. He probed them on their Catholic convictions, effectively promoting a religious test. Unlike other lay Catholic groups, we protested what Durbin did in each of these cases when they occurred.

The media made it sound as if it was just Durbin’s pro-abortion stance that was a problem, which was not true.

We are delighted with this victory. Thanks to our base for contacting Durbin—they made it happen!

After many months of wrangling, the confessional seal remains intact in Washington state. State officials have given up their quest to force Catholic priests to divulge what they learn in the confessional. It took an array of organizations and specialists to exact this outcome.

The Catholic League was the first lay Catholic group in the nation to write to Washington legislators about this issue, and the first to draw media attention to it.

Back in February, Bill Donohue asked the state’s lawmakers to explain, “What broke?” He pointedly asked, “where is the evidence that child molesters—in any state—report their crimes to priests in the confessional?” He noted that there is not a single instance where this has happened. He closed by saying, “If any lawmaker has evidence to the contrary, you have an obligation to make it public.” No one did.

We brought this issue to the attention of the Civil Rights Division in the U.S. Attorney General’s office. Harmeet K. Dhillon, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, took it from there, suing Washington. Meanwhile, we continued to press public officials, and law firms filed suit in behalf of the Catholic clergy.

A District Court judge blocked the discriminatory state law that singled out priests in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, allowing other professionals, such as counselors and therapists, to be exempt from the reporting law.

The pressure was coming at public officials from all sides. They finally yielded in October.

William A. Donohue

When truth doesn’t matter, all things are possible, including some very unseemly things.

There was a front-page article in the September 25 edition of the New York Times that is as fascinating as it is disturbing. Well researched, it is the story of Amy Griffin, one of the richest women in the country. She is the 49-year-old author of The Tell, a best-selling memoir that recounts her recollections of being raped on several occasions by a middle-school teacher in Amarillo, Texas, starting when she was 12.

Her recollections were not of the ordinary kind—they were druginduced memories. To be specific, she claims that her memory was repressed until she took MDMA, a drug found in Ecstasy and Molly. The allegations she made against the teacher were disclosed during therapy sessions while under the influence of the illegal psychedelic drug.

The newspaper would not have posted a 5,000 word article about Griffin unless she was a VIP. And that she is. The glitterati who came rushing to her side, promoting the book, include Oprah Winfrey, Jenna Bush Hager, Gwyneth Paltrow and Reese Witherspoon. The latter spoke for many when she said, “By opening up her heart, she became a beacon for women everywhere.”

She spoke too soon.

What do we know about the alleged rapist? We know that he has worked in the school district for 30 years and his record is spotless: there has never been one complaint made about him.

Suspicions about Griffin’s account have mushroomed. “Some have questioned the reliability of decades old memories unearthed during drug assisted therapy.” Others are questioning why no one knew anything about what allegedly happened. Where are the bruises from her violent experiences? There are many other serious issues with Griffin’s story.

She claims that subsequent to her memory being jarred, she believes that one of her childhood friends, “Claudia,” was also abused by the same teacher. But when Griffin asked her about this she said no. Griffin also writes about an incident that took place at a church youth group gathering in her house. But her family says they never hosted such an event.

In her book proposal, Griffin said another man had raped her. But she made no mention of it in her memoir. When she reported her claims of abuse to a detective, she never told him her account was a recovered memory, induced by drugs. More important, he says that from his experience, sex crimes against children typically have many victims. Yet no one, other than her, has ever accused the teacher of anything.

When New York Times reporters asked Griffin for an interview, she stiffed them for more than three months. To top things off, her lawyer said that by asking her to answer 11- pages of questions, “the mere sending of this document has caused additional trauma and extreme physical and emotional harm to a survivor of sexual assault, which is inexcusable.”

Rick Doblin is the nation’s biggest advocate of the therapeutic drug MDMA; he also connected her to her therapists. When asked about the reliability of “repressed memories,” he said, “Whether it’s real or not—meaning whether the incident actually happened—from a therapeutic perspective, it doesn’t matter. A lot of times people will develop stories that help them make sense of their life. In the therapeutic setting, what Amy went through whether it’s true or not, it has value because the emotion is real.”

This is what happens when the quest for truth is abandoned: falsehoods can be treated as a positive good—even if they ruin someone’s life—as long as they bring solace to the complainant.

Why should Catholics care about this story?

Father Gordon MacRae is sitting in a New Hampshire prison today because an ex-con claimed that once his “repressed memory” was unleashed, it allowed him to recall that MacRae abused him many years earlier. And he is not the only priest to have suffered this fate.

Sociologist Richard Ofshe and journalist Ethan Watters studied the issue of “repressed memory” and they noted that “it has never been empirically demonstrated.” Dr. Paul McHugh, the renowned Johns Hopkins psychiatrist, has long dismissed this as a dangerous idea that literally manufactures victims. Researchers at Harvard Medical School found that “repressed memory” is a “cultural creation having no basis in science.”

William O’Donohue, and other clinical psychologists at the University of Nevada, Reno, studied the literature on this subject and concluded that “there is a large amount of scientific evidence that clearly shows that repressed memories simply do not exist.” People do not forget their trauma, they said. “Indeed, traumatic events are actually quite memorable.”

The media should ask Oprah, Jenna, Gwyneth and Reese, along with Amy Schumer, Laura Dern, Naomi Watts, Anna Wintour, Savannah Guthrie, and Katie Couric, how they feel now about their heroine.

Assuming that accused men are definitely guilty of sex crimes against women has become so easy, especially for cultural elites. But as this story reveals, those who rushed to Griffin’s side are the ones with egg on their face. Throwing the first stone can be risky.

The Free Press enjoys a stellar reputation for accuracy. That is why we were shocked to read an incredible article by Laurie P. Cohen on the Catholic Church. It is one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces we’ve read on the subject.

[Some of what Bill Donohue has to say can be found in his book, The Truth About Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, published in 2021 by Ignatius Press.]

Though one would never know it from reading this article, the vast majority of clergy sexual abuse cases took place between 1965 and 1985 (see the John Jay College for Criminal Justice reports). The most common abuse was touching over a victim’s clothing. Between 1950 and 2002, four percent of the priests had an accusation made against him, and the majority had one alleged victim. A total of 149 priests (3.5 percent) were responsible for 26 percent of all the allegations. Moreover, almost all the offending priests are either dead or have been removed from ministry.

The latest data, collected between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024, show that two clergy members out of a total of 48,176 had a substantiated case of sexual abuse made against him by a minor. That’s a whopping 0.004 percent.

Cohen makes a big deal about the Catholic Church taking advantage of bankruptcy laws to mitigate its problems. That’s what Chapter 11 affords, and that is why it is a conventional option for institutions of every kind. Bankruptcy proceedings are designed to allow institutions to keep their doors open and pay creditors over time. Should the Church be held to a different standard?

Cohen mentions several times that Chapter 11 filings result in “pennies on the dollar” for victims. What makes this claim so astounding—did anyone edit this hit job?—is that it is undercut by Cohen’s own words. She cites a lawyer, Kathryn Robb, saying, “The survivors are getting pennies on the dollar and are being dragged through a process that takes four or five years.” In the very next sentence, Cohen acknowledges that one alleged victim was “awarded $11.5 million in the 2007 jury trial.” That’s a lot of pennies.

Cohen contends that by filing Chapter 11, the Diocese of Rockville Centre undermined the purpose of the Child Victims Act, which, she says, was intended to offer financial settlements to victims. The reality is that the Child Victims Act was never intended to bring about justice to minors who were abused, unless the abuser was a Catholic priest. That is why the Catholic League fought these proposals for over a decade— they never applied to the public schools (where child rape is extant).

When this law was finally passed in 2019, it did allow all victims to sue—it established a one-year “look back” provision that allowed victims to sue regardless of how long ago the alleged offense took place—but it was clear from the marketing copy of various lawyers’ and law firms’ websites that they were only interested in attracting victims of priestly abuse. Bill Donohue called one of them and said he was abused by a rabbi and was told they had no interest in helping him!

Non-biological live-in partners are the most likely to abuse a minor, but no one goes after them. Why? There’s no money in it. But there is money— and ideological satisfaction—in going after the Catholic Church. If the goal were justice, this shouldn’t count. Indeed, if the goal were justice, why hasn’t any state gone after the public schools? They don’t because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which protects them from getting fleeced. Add to this the trial lawyers and the teachers’ unions— both are an arm of Democratic Party—and it is obvious why the public schools get a pass.

Cohen is obsessed with Msgr. Alan Placa, a well-known Long Island priest. In 2002, he presided over the funeral Mass of Rudy Giuliani’s mother. After he was accused of being a molester, he was investigated by the Diocese of Rockville Centre and the charges were not deemed credible. Then the Vatican got involved, and the tribunal also cleared Placa of all wrongdoing. So why is Cohen harping on this? Does she have evidence to the contrary? Accused priests are entitled to due process, just like everyone else.

Cohen treats steeple-chasing lawyers Mitchell Garabedian and Marci Hamilton as heroes. They are anything but.

Father Charles Murphy of the Boston archdiocese was twice sued by Garabedian. When both accusers dropped their suits (in one case even family members said the offense was bogus), an archdiocesan investigation was launched. Six months later, Murphy was exonerated. He died in 2011, a broken man. Brian McGrory, editor of the Boston Globe, ripped Garabedian for what he did, calling it a “disgrace.”

When Bill Donohue read this story, he called Garabedian to see if he had any regrets in pressing charges against Father Murphy. He went ballistic, screaming like a madman. This is the same lawyer who spoke at a “victims’ meeting” in 2011 saying, “This immortal entity, the Catholic Church, should be defeated. We must stand up and defeat this evil.”

More recently, Garabedian tried in vain to nail the former bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn, Nicholas DiMarzio. He made a big splash in 2019 going public with his charges, but waited two years before he filed suit. Bishop DiMarzio was investigated by New York lawyers, underwent a two-year Vatican investigation and was cleared of all wrongdoing. He also passed a lie detector test. But this is what Garabedian does—his hatred of the Church is off-the-charts.

Hamilton’s animus against religious freedom allows her to oppose the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the seminal 1993 law signed into law by President Bill Clinton. She falsely accused Cardinal Timothy Dolan of hiding $55 million from victims when he was the Bishop of Milwaukee and has never apologized. In 2016, she told the press that the U.S. bishops pay Bill Donohue’s salary. Donohue emailed her on May 5, 2016 calling her a liar. She never responded.

Cohen attempts to make hay out of the legal dispute between the Archdiocese of New York and Chubb Insurance company. Chubb is reneging on its obligations by refusing to cover claims made by alleged victims; it was subsequently sued by the archdiocese. Chubb is making the remarkable accusation that the archdiocese “expected or intended” the sexual abuse that allegedly occurred in the lawsuits filed against it.

The mask is off. Chubb has now descended to the gutter, arguing that the New York Archdiocese actually intended for minors to be abused by priests. This is the kind of anti-Catholicism we would expect from the Klan, not a prominent insurance company.

So where’s the proof? There isn’t any—this vicious tale is made up out of whole cloth, just because Chubb doesn’t want to pay up. And guess who is on the side of the archdiocese? Victims, their lawyers and politicians who have previously been critical of the Church. Now they are furious with Chubb. But no mention of this by Cohen.

There have been two scandals related to the issue of clergy sexual abuse. Scandal I has to do with the internal affairs of the Catholic Church and the environment that facilitated it. Scandal II is the creation of many parties, including the media, the entertainment industry, advocacy groups, victims’ activists and their lawyers, state attorneys general, and others. They are bent on milking this issue, and distorting the record, so as to stick it to the Catholic Church.

What Cohen wrote exemplifies what Scandal II is all about. Shame on The Free Press for publishing this screed.

Pew Research Center’s third Religious Landscape Study is rich with revelations; previously ones were conducted in 2007 and 2014. Its latest study, which reports on findings from 2023-2024, covers a wide range of subjects, broken down by religious affiliation.

Seven-in-ten Americans belong to a religion, and all but seven percent are not Christians; three-in-ten are unaffiliated. One of the key aspects of this survey was the finding that the apparent decline in Christianity has stabilized.

More than eight-in-ten Americans believe in God or a universal spirit, and this includes the majority of the unaffiliated. This category consists of three groupings: atheists, agnostics and those who say they believe in “nothing in particular.” Seven-in-ten of the latter believe in God, as do 43 percent of agnostics and seven percent of atheists. Interestingly, only a thin majority of atheists (54 percent) are “absolutely certain” there is no God.

Eight-in-ten Americans believe “there is something spiritual beyond the natural world, even if we can’t see it”; this is also true of nearly 60 percent of the religiously unaffiliated. This includes a majority of agnostics, two-in-three of those who believe in “nothing in particular,” and two-in-ten atheists.

This suggests that there are very few materialists in America (those who believe that nothing exists outside of matter).

Politically speaking, we have known for a long time that Republicans are much more likely to score high on religiosity (beliefs and practices) than Democrats. This survey shows once again that the Democratic Party is home to secularists, the only exception being black Democrats.

Most religiously affiliated Americans have come to terms with homosexuality, saying it should be accepted, not discouraged. The exceptions are Evangelicals, Mormons and Muslims. The same breakdown is evident on the subject of same-sex marriage.

When it comes to accepting transgender people, however, there is a big divide between those who are religiously affiliated and the unaffiliated (twice as many of the former say acceptance is a “change for the worse” compared to the unaffiliated).

The issues of women in the workforce and family responsibilities depend largely on context. While most (73 percent) cheer women’s increased workforce participation, a majority (55 percent) say it is better for a child with two parents to have one stay at home. Context—marriage and the family—explains the apparent disparity. The religiously affiliated are more likely to say it is better to have one parent stay at home (59 percent) than the religiously unaffiliated (47 percent).

Context also matters in making judgments about right and wrong. A majority (55 percent) say it “often depends” on the situation, while 44 percent say there are “clear and absolute standards for what is right and wrong.” The problem with this line of questioning is that those who believe in the latter may also believe that there are times when no “clear and absolute standards” exist, hence the caveat that it “often depends.” Thus, such persons may not be holding contradictory positions.

More Americans believe religion does more good than harm. As expected, this varies widely when comparing the religiously affiliated to the unaffiliated. Unfortunately, there has been a dramatic decline in those who express mostly positive opinions about religious institutions—a drop of 12 percent from a decade ago (from 63 percent to 51 percent). Given the generally negative portrayals of religion in the media and in the entertainment industry, this is not surprising.

Social capital refers to the general wellbeing, or health, of society. We know from many studies that those who score high on religiosity possess more of the resources that service the public weal. It is not in the best interests of society, then, to discourage the responsible exercise of religious beliefs and practices. On that score, America can stand to improve.

The average person is concerned about the environment, and opposes policies that needlessly damage it. But the average person is not an alarmist. This is not true of many climate activists: some are downright dishonest, making claims that are indefensible. Worse, they are rank hypocrites.

Recently, a district judge in Montana tossed a lawsuit brought by left-wing activists who sought to check executive orders signed by President Trump on the environment. The activists claimed that Trump’s rulings escalate “climate-related dangers” to such an extent that they threaten the lives of the 22 children whom they are representing.

The judge said the courts lack the authority to block the executive orders. He also noted that what the plaintiffs really sought to do was to entice the court “to return the environmental policy of the previous administration.” That was a bridge too far.

None of this is of grave interest to the Catholic League. What does concern us is the duplicity of the plaintiffs.

They say they are interested in protecting the lives of children, yet upon examination it appears that the two prominent public interest firms that are party to this lawsuit, Public Justice and Our Children’s Trust, have no interest in protecting the lives of unborn children—just kids who allegedly may die from global warming.

Public Justice claims to fight “purveyors of corporate corruption, sexual abusers and harassers, and polluters who ravage the environment.” Our Children’s Trust claims to be the “world’s only non-profit interest law firm dedicated exclusively to securing the legal rights of youth to a healthy atmosphere and safe climate, based on the best available science.” Their interest in saving lives, however, is drawn very narrowly.

In 2022, Public Justice issued a statement, “We believe the right to abortion is a fundamental, human right.” Nowhere does it even hint at any competing right on the part of the unborn. It decries what it says are “legal efforts to undermine abortion access for those who need it has effectively put millions of peoples’ rights, autonomy, health, and lives at risk.” What about the rights, autonomy, health and lives of children who are being killed in utero?

Our Children’s Trust has filed briefs condemning the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, making plain its total lack of interest in protecting the right to life of unborn children. It is also prone to hyperbole. To be specific, it cites in its lawsuit the testimony of a teenage hiker who claims Trump’s executive orders are a “death sentence for my generation.” The lead attorney opined, “Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future.”

Making unsubstantiated claims of this magnitude seriously undercuts the credibility of Our Children’s Trust.

Facts matter. Everyone knows that if a pregnant woman’s condition is not interrupted, she will give birth to the human being she has been carrying. That’s not a matter of religion—it’s Biology 101. It is certainly noble to want to protect the environment, but it is ignoble not to protect children in the womb. Indeed, that constitutes a real “death sentence,” not a fictional one.

In a recent interview Hillary Clinton had with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, she bemoaned the current state of disunity in the country, blaming white conservative Christian men for ruining the nation. She accused them of trying to “turn the clock back” in an effort to “recreate a world that was never dominated, you know—let’s say it—white men of a certain persuasion, a certain religion, a certain point of view, a certain ideology, it’s just doing such damage to what we should be aiming for.”

Now who did she have in mind? Was she referring to those of “a certain persuasion,” “a certain point of view” and “a certain ideology” who are progressive Democrats?

Who was she referring to when she spoke about those of “a certain religion”? Might they be Buddhists?

She previously said that half of Trump supporters were a “basket of deplorables,” so we know her comment about a “certain point of view” was aimed directly at conservative Republicans. She had no problem playing the race and sex card—identifying white men as the guilty party—but on religion she balked. Yet we all know she was referring to Christians.

The woman has identity politics simmering in her brain. She doesn’t see people as individuals, but as members of a group. Then she divides the groups into classes— good guys and bad guys. The baddest of the bad guys are white conservative Christian men, people just like Charlie Kirk.

Ideas, Hillary, have consequences. Yours are lethal.

The Catholic Church regards animals to be part of God’s creation, and are therefore deserving of respect. But only men and women are made in the image and likeness of God. Moreover, animals do not share the same dignity as human beings. Nor are they capable of being held morally responsible for their behavior. As such, while animal welfare is imperative, in no way can animals be said to possess rights.

However, a new Gallup poll on morality reveals that Democrats and young people appear to be more concerned about the rights of Fido than his owner, Freddy.

When asked if abortion is “morally acceptable,” 78 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of those 18-34 agree; this compares to 20 percent of Republicans and 43 percent of those 55 and over. But when it comes to medical testing on animals, only 45 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of young people agree; the majority of Republicans (69 percent) and the oldest generation (52 percent) agree.

In other words, while nearly 8- in-10 Democrats are okay with abortion, less than half are okay with medical testing for animals. The majority of young people are also okay with abortion, but they draw a hard line when it comes to medical testing of animals.

Why are Democrats and young people showing more respect for the rights of Fido than Freddy?

From a wealth of survey data we know that Democrats and young people are the least religious; they are much more likely to answer “none” when asked what their religious affiliation is. How does this explain their moral choices?

What unites Democrats and young people, and what separates them from most Americans, is their penchant for autonomy. For many of them, autonomy is their god. Abortion, they reckon, is all about “bodily autonomy,” hence it is morally acceptable. The competing right of the child to live is given short shrift.

The interest in protecting animals cannot be explained by an affection for autonomy. Something else is going on.

Young people are more likely to own a pet than older people, and may therefore be more protective of their status. More important, however, is their relatively high exposure to videos and instruction on animal rights in school and social media. As for Democrats, they are more likely to take an expansive view of rights than other Americans (save for the life of the unborn). Because they fancy themselves as being open-minded, they regard an exclusive interest in human rights as chauvinistic.

We need to get our moral house in order. If we can’t conclude that Freddy should be awarded a higher moral plane than Fido, we are heading towards disaster.

The following report on assisted suicide was written by Catholic League senior policy analyst Nicholas Palczewski (a longer version is available on our website; it includes data on other countries).

Nationwide, support for doctor-assisted suicide is losing ground. Identical studies done in 2016 and 2025 by the Lifeway Research found that in 2016, 67% of Americans agreed with it, but in 2025, only 51% of Americans agreed.

What follows is a look at the six states that have the worst record.

California

Origin

The California End of Life Option Act went into effect in 2016.

Victims

According to the California Department of Public Health, between 2016 and 2024 a total of 8,242 people received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 5,423 people ended their lives by ingesting the drug.

Legal Changes

In January 2022, SB 380 went into effect. The law reduced the waiting period between oral requests for medication from 15 days to 48 hours. It also removed the requirement for the patient to state a final attestation before receiving the medication.

Results

As a result of the passage of SB 380, California saw a massive spike in patients receiving end of life prescriptions. California public health data shows that between 2021 and 2022, the number of prescriptions written spiked from 863 to 1,204. Of the 1,204, roughly 78% of patients waited less than 15 days for the medication. As a result, the number of deaths significantly increased during this time period from 522 to 853.

Colorado

Origin

In 2016, two-thirds of Colorado voters approved Proposition 106 which allowed for the legalization of Medical Aid in Dying.

Victims

According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, between 2017 and 2024 a total of 1,995 people had received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Legal Changes In 2024, SB 24-068 was signed into law. The law gets rid of safeguards in the original bill. These include:

• Reducing the waiting period for a prescription from 15 days to 7 days.
• Allowing a physician to waive the waiting period requirement if it is determined that a patient has less than 48 hours to live.
• Permitting a registered nurse to evaluate a patient’s status and prescribe the life-ending medication.

Results

The 2024 change to the law has led to a significant increase in patient prescriptions than in previous years. Between 2022 and 2023, the number of patients being prescribed life-ending medication increased from 317 to 398; between 2023 and 2024, the number increased from 398 to 510.

Hawaii

Origin

Our Choice Act took effect in 2019.

Victims

According to the Hawaii Department of Health, between 2019 and 2024 a total of 361 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs, ending the lives of 195.

Legal Changes

In 2023, amendments to the law were passed, including the following:

• Enabling advanced practice registered nurses to act as attending, consulting or counseling providers.
• Allowing licensed marriage and family therapists to be listed as counseling providers.
• Shortening the waiting period for obtaining a fatal prescription from 20 days from the initial request to 5 days. (The waiting period can be shortened to 48 hours if it’s determined that the patient is unlikely to live past 5 days.)

Results

In 2025, the Honolulu Star Advertiser reported that Honolulu police “opened a second-degree murder investigation after a doctor allegedly administer[ed] a lethal prescription dose to an 88-year-old woman in violation of Hawaii’s assisted death law.” Police allege the doctor failed to follow the rule which states that only the patient may administer the dosage. The report also mentions that “at one point [the patient] motioned for the doctor to stop, but he continued to administer the prescription.”

Oregon

Origin

Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act was initially approved by Oregon voters in 1994, but an injunction was issued. It was lifted in 1997, allowing the law to take effect.

Victims

According to the Oregon Health Authority, from 1998 to 2024, a total of 4,881 people received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 3,243 patients died by ingesting the drug.

Legal Changes

In 2019, SB 579 was signed giving physicians the ability to waive the 15 day waiting period for people in extreme situations. In 2023, HB 2279 was signed repealing the residency restriction in the law.

Results

Health plans in Oregon have encouraged cancer patients to take medicine that would end their life. In 2008 a 64-year-old woman was diagnosed with lung cancer and was prescribed a treatment drug by her doctor. Her insurance company, Oregon Health Plan, refused to pay for the drug, but instead offered to cover drugs associated with medical aid in dying. That same year, Oregon resident Randy Stoup suffered the same experience when Oregon Health Plan refused to cover the chemotherapy for his prostate cancer, but offered to cover life-ending drugs.

Research published in the journal BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care in 2023 analyzed the effectiveness of Oregon’s medical aid in dying program from its inception in 1997 to present day. The researchers found that safeguards put into place designed to protect patients are increasingly being ignored at the expense of nonterminally ill patients. They concluded that:

• “Since 2010, various other diagnoses have qualified [for medical aid in dying], including non-terminal illness, such as arthritis, complications from a fall, hernia, and anorexia nervosa.”
• “The length of the doctor-patient relationship reduced over time…falling from 18 weeks, on average, in 2010, to 5 weeksin 2022.”
• “[In] the first 3 years of the legislation doctors requested psychiatric assessment in an average of 28% of cases. By 2003 this had dropped to 5%, and in 2022, just 1% of participants underwent psychiatric evaluation.”
• “In the first 5 years of the legislation, nearly a third (30%) of participants were concerned about being a burden. Since 2017, this has been cited by around half of those opting for an assisted death: 46% in 2022.”

There was also an instance where the life-ending drugs failed to effectively work. In 2005 a man terminally ill with cancer chose to end his life under the law. After completing the legal process, he got the fatal prescription, ingested the liquid “laced with powder from 100 barbiturate pills, and fell asleep. Three days later, he woke up and asked his wife why he wasn’t dead.” He told his wife that while he was unconscious, “God had told him that his action wasn’t the way to get into heaven.” He died from lung and bone cancer two weeks later.

Vermont

Origin

In 2013, Vermont Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act was passed, making Vermont the fourth state to legalize medical aid in dying.

Victims

According to the Vermont Department of Health, between 2013 and 2023 a total of 200 patients received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 146 ended their lives.

Legal Changes

In 2023, a law was passed removing the residency requirement, becoming the first state to allow nonresidents to commit assisted suicide.

Results

Since the residency requirement was lifted, clinics and physicians have been overwhelmed by the number of out-of-state patients seeking to end their life. One physician said that it “has profoundly changed my life, our clinic function,” and “We just had a lot to learn about how to pull this off logistically.”

Washington

Origin

Washington’s Death with Dignity Act became law in 2009 after 58% of voters approved a ballot initiative in 2008.

Victims

According to the Washington State Department of Health, between 2009 and 2023 a total of 3,683 people received prescriptions for life-ending drugs. Of this, 2,768 people ended their lives.

Legal Changes

In 2023, SB 5179 was introduced and passed in the Washington legislature. The law reduced safeguards to existing law that sought to protect patients. These included:

• Allowing a physician’s assistant or nurse practitioner to make a decision on patient’s terminal status.
• Allowing a non-psychiatrist social worker or other mental health counselor to give a mental health evaluation.
• Removing the waiting period between requests for life-ending medication from 15 days to 7 days.
• Allowing for life ending medication to be sent via mail as opposed to receiving the drugs directly from a licensed pharmacist.

Results

Patients are also more and more likely to kill themselves for fear of being a burden. According to the State Health Reports, in 2009, just 23% of patients stated that the main reason they wanted to die was fear of “Burden on family, friends/caregivers.” In 2022, 59% of patients felt this way.

Conclusion

Sometimes it takes a personal experience before we change. Take the case of Montana State Rep. Greg Overstreet, who initially was a supporter of doctor-assisted suicide. When he was suffering from COVID and on a ventilator, doctors told him he had a slim chance of survival. He asked doctors to pull his ventilator after seven days, but extended it to two weeks after pleas from his wife. He soon made a miraculous recovery a week later. He noted that if it were not for his wife pleading him to extend the “do no resuscitate” order, he would not have survived. His experience led him to support the prohibition of the law.

It is striking to note that the six states with the worst record are also among the least religious in the nation. A recent Pew study of the 50 states and the District of Columbia listed California and Colorado tied for 39th, Hawaii was 43rd, Oregon was 40th, Vermont was 51st and Washington 37th.

Radical autonomy has become a secular God. Its consequences are deadly.

This Catholic League report details why the greatest child abuse scandal of our time—”transitioning” the sexual identity of minors—is so prevalent. It exists largely because of the policies adopted by elites in education and medicine.

Elite Education Organizations

Assoc. of Univ. Professors

In 2022, the AAUP issued a statement saying “academic freedom cannot be understood to support misgendering—referring to someone using a word or pronoun that does not reflect that person’s gender identity—or otherwise serve as an excuse for transphobia or the diminishment of trans, intersex, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary persons and their lives.”

National Education Association

In 2018, the NEA released a report, “NEA Guidance on Transgender Students’ Rights,” that was meant as a resource to teachers. It offered legal advice on how to best advance these rights.

Elite Medical Associations

American Medical Association

In 2025, the AMA issued a document, “Transgender Individuals’ Access to Public Facilities,” that said that proper medical treatments for transgender persons include “genderaffirming hormone care, puberty suppression and/or gender confirmation surgeries.”

American Academy of Pediatrics

In 2025, a resolution entitled “Recognizing Transgender Patients and Providing Gender Affirming Care,” was ranked as the most important priority for its members.

American Psychological Association

In 2025, it said that treatment for transgender youth “should aim to help children and adolescents explore and understand, rather than change, their gender identity.”

American Psychiatric Association

It defines gender-affirming therapy as “a therapeutic stance that focuses on affirming a patient’s gender identity and does not try to ‘repair’ it.”

Elite Medical Schools

Harvard Medical School

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

Mass General is the teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. It has a specialized gender-affirming care unit that “performs a variety of highly specialized gender-affirming surgical procedures tailored to meet the needs of transgender and gendernonconforming patients.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

It has a clinic that is “designed to improve the health and wellbeing of gender variant, gender diverse and transgender youth and young adults.” These clinical services are available at the age of 5.

Stanford Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No

Its Obstetrics and Gynecology claims “to be a leader in providing gender-affirming surgery.”

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No

However, it has a code of conduct that forbids “refusing to use the name or pronouns with which a person self-identifies” and “refusing to allow people to use single-gender facilities or programs most closely aligned with their gender identity.”

Columbia University’s Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

Columbia extols people to recognize “a person’s gender identity and using their correct pronouns” and demands the use of “gender inclusive language.” It has a section on youth and gender-affirming care for “children as young as 4.”

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

It specializes in “Facial Gender-Affirming Surgery.” It also gives these fellows some experience in chest and genital “reconstruction.”

Yale Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No

While Yale has scaled back its Gender Program, it still promotes transgender ideology.

Duke University School of Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

It provides gender-affirming hormone therapy for children 16 and older. For younger children, it offers therapies to “delay puberty.”

NYU Grossman School of Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

Although NYU initially indicated it would comply with President Trump’s executive order preventing child mutilation, it has since reversed course.

Washington University of St. Louis

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No

While it stopped providing “gender affirming care” to minors in 2023, its transgender center continues to provide “gender affirming care” to adults.