Monday, July 31, 2023

The Abortion Wars: Who’s Violent And Who’s Not?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – Last month an online publication, Rewire News Group, published an article, “Anti-Abortion and Fascist Violence Are One and the Same,” by Garnet Henderson. Speaking of abortion clinics, the first sentence of the article sets the tone: “How can clinics stay safe as the anti-abortion movement — with its deep ties to white supremacy and Christian nationalism — becomes more aggressive?”

Ms. Henderson goes on in her article conflating abortion protests, those protesters that enter abortion clinics, such as Red Rose Rescue, the January 6 riots, and true acts of violence against abortion clinics, such as the well-known abortion clinic bombings in the 1980s and suggests that they are all related to white supremacy and gun violence:

“Given the anti-abortion movement’s longstanding ties to white nationalists and other fascist groups, it’s impossible to ignore the similarities between these events and a number of anti-government actions in recent years — the 2021 attack on the Capitol, the 2016 occupation of a federal building led by members of the Bundy family, and the 2020 occupation of the Michigan state capitol, which many now see as a rehearsal for January 6. The more recent trend of attacks and armed protests outside drag shows also follows an eerily similar blueprint. For abortion providers, this raises another fear: that the next time someone forces their way inside a clinic, they could be armed.”

That is a lot of conflation. Demonstrations at state houses, the January 6 riot, and protests at kiddie drag shows don’t seem to be related to pro-lifers — of course it would probably help if I knew who the Bundy family was. It’s simply painting with too wide a brush.

She noted, “Following the Dobbs leak and decision, there were a number of highly publicized vandalisms and arsons at anti-abortion centers. A group calling itself Jane’s Revenge took public responsibility for most of these incidents…. Conservative media and lawmakers latched on to the story, demanding federal investigations.”

Well, of course, that’s true, although many of us want to know why so few of those responsible were ever apprehended, oh, I remember now, that’s because they did their dirty work at night when they couldn’t be seen.
But, I digress, after all, as Ms. Henderson says, “Anti-abortion centers contribute directly to the chaos and violence outside abortion clinics. It’s often their volunteers, seeking to intercept and misdirect patients, who do things like climb into cars, follow patients, and antagonize their companions.”

Okay, let’s settle the violent vs. violent question. There is no question that violence has occurred from both sides. We have to admit that there have been clinic bombings, shootings, and bricks thrown by adherents of both sides. But what is prevalent in my mind right now is the complete disregard of attacks on pro-life clinics, and the damnable protests that occurred at the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices, including a threat to kill one of them, the silence of the media and the Justice Department and the enormous overreaction against pro-life demonstrators. Among the most notable was Mark Houck in Philadelphia, whose house was raided by an early morning FBI swat team with automatic weapons in front of his children — who the FBI knew would be there — because he defended his son from a pro-abortion agitator over a half city block away from the abortion facility.

Should we be surprised? After all the FBI is now investigating traditional Catholics as possible domestic terrorists.

But looking at the situation it appears that all the violence is coming from one side abetted by the federal government and a complacent media. Just recently, for example, two pro-lifers who were outside an abortion clinic in Washington, D.C., were brutally attacked physically by abortion advocates who appeared to be clinic escorts.

According to one of the victims, the altercation started when she was approached by a woman who threw coffee in her face. Yet despite video evidence of the event, the local D.C. police refused to press any charges against the pro-abortion individuals who started the fight. Michael New, a professor at Catholic University of America, told LifeSiteNews that it was not the first time that D.C. police have refused to press charges against individuals who have engaged in violence against peaceful pro-lifers.

And just recently Catholic League President Bill Donohue reported on the anti-Catholic attacks against Leonard Leo, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, who was instrumental in President Trump’s selection of three conservative justices for the Supreme Court. Angered, the anti-Catholic pro-aborts have been picketing Mr. Leo’s home and business and accused him of being a member of the KKK.

“This is what happens when civility breaks down and demagoguery triumphs. The population control crowd, beginning with Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, has a long history of anti-Catholicism. Today’s iteration is even more virulent, and in some cases, such as with Antifa and Jane’s Revenge, anti-Catholic bigots turn violent, especially when the issue of abortion is prominent,” he wrote.

Anne Reed, senior policy adviser to Operation Rescue, has catalogued some of the acts of violence against pro-lifers and pro-life pregnancy centers. She wrote of one instance, “On Friday, May 26, two pro-life sidewalk advocates in their 70s and 80s were brutally attacked while praying and reaching out to abortion vulnerable women at a Planned Parenthood in Baltimore, Md. The vicious, unprovoked assault left the two pro-life heroes, Dick Schaefer and Mark Crosby, unconscious and seriously injured.”

According to Anne Reed’s report, when one of the pro-life volunteers turned his back, he was violently attacked by a man who had just handed his coffee to a clinic escort. Both men were severely beaten and now require ongoing medical care. No arrests were made.

In another incident, Reed wrote: “Last October, Ross Foti [88] was rushed to a hospital emergency room and hospitalized with a punctured lung after being violently shoved onto a fire hydrant at San Mateo Planned Parenthood. It took months before charges were filed against his attacker for ‘Battery with Serious Bodily Injury’ and ‘Battery on an Elder or Dependent Adult’.”

In another incident, “Richard Harvey, a Michigan man, received one year of community service for shooting Joan Jacobson, an 84-year-old pro-life woman campaigning against a pro-abortion constitutional amendment last September.”

In Kansas, a teen-aged girl canvassing for the “Value Them Both” constitutional amendment initiative, was attacked by a grown woman in Overland Park. “The woman shoved the girl in the chest with both hands and hit her repeatedly in the head with closed fists. She proceeded to follow the teen down the street screaming expletives and cursing her with phrases such as, ‘I hope you get raped,’ and ‘I hope you get run over by a car’,” Reed reported.

Obviously, this is only a thumb-nail version of what is happening to pro-life advocates across the country: from assassination attempts to beating elderly folks and teenaged girls, to the cowardly anti-Catholic attacks on leading pro-life leaders — this is the state of violence over abortion today. It doesn’t have to be linked to everything from Pearl Harbor to January 6, from white supremacy to the KKK.

Perhaps Henderson should take a better look at what is really going on, not the propaganda spewing from one side — the baby-killing side.

+NOTE: You can listen to Mike’s interview with Anne Reed by following the link below for episode 373.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

The Biggest Bully in School: Why Public Education Is Failing in America

Do Democrats Have A Penchant For Violence?

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President

There are extremists in both the Republican and Democrat parties, and some support violence to achieve their goals; this is true even among some self-described independents. But the enthusiasm for violence is clearly more popular among Democrats.

In a large survey recently released by the Chicago Project on Security & Threats, which is affiliated with the University of Chicago, researchers tapped hot button issues for Republicans and Democrats, seeking to measure support for violence. For Republicans, the issue was Trump; for Democrats it was abortion.

The report, “Dangers to Democracy,” found that 6.8 percent of Americans agreed that “the use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.” Among Republicans the figure was 9.5 percent. It also found that 12.3 percent of Americans agreed that “the use of force is justified to restore the federal right to abortion.” Among Democrats, the figure was 16.4 percent.

he Democrats were also the more likely than Republicans to favor using violence to attain other goals.

One in four Democrats (25.6 percent) say “the use of force is justified to protect the voting rights of Black Americans and other minorities.” But when it comes to using force “to prevent the teaching of CRT [critical race theory] in schools,” far fewer Republicans (14.6 percent) were inclined to violence.

Among Democrats, 16.3 percent are in favor of using force “against the police to prevent police brutality against Black Americans and other minorities.” When Republicans are asked if the use of force is justified “to preserve the rights of whites,” 9.9 percent agree.

The inescapable conclusion is that Democrats are more comfortable endorsing violence to accomplish their goals than Republicans are in achieving their ends.

It is striking that neither the authors of the report, nor the media who covered this story, decided to highlight this conclusion. Indeed, an article by The Hill on the survey only mentions Republicans who support violence over the treatment of Trump, never mentioning that hot button issues for Democrats elicit more support for force.

Why are Democrats more supportive of violence than Republicans? They are the party which adopts the most aggressive forms of political persuasion. They favor direct intervention, including blocking traffic, shouting down conservatives on campus, free speech gags, and unauthorized street demonstrations. Not surprisingly, they are the party that was supportive of the violence committed by Antifa and Black Lives Matter. They are also the party of abortion.

Sometimes it’s not hard to connect the dots.

Saturday, July 29, 2023

LGBT Advocates Attack Peaceful Pro-Family Event: "Paint hit me in the eyes"


While Catholic students protested against drag queen story hour events in Chicago on Monday, a group of radical leftist counter-protesters attacked them with spray paint.

Students who were part of the Catholic activist group TFP Student Action gathered outside of the Art Institute of Chicago on Monday holding signs with messages such as “Honk! Stop Promoting LGBT Lifestyle to Kids.”

Bystanders had mixed reactions to the demonstration, according to a video of the event shared by TFP Student Action on their website on Thursday.

“I strongly, strongly support what you guys are standing for,” one woman told the demonstrators in the video, identifying herself as a math teacher. “People have different opinions, they don’t even want to talk about it. They just call you names.”

A man walking by with a dog called one of the students a “hateful bigot,” while claiming that they are “living in a dream world.”

Another woman who approached the protesters told them to not “spread hate” and tried to grab the camera of one of the protesters.

“Spread the hate, it’s lovely,” the same woman later said as she was walking away. “I’m very glad I’m being taped, spread the hate.”

Meanwhile, the Catholic students continued to protest — chanting slogans such as “biology is not bigotry” and “innocence is a God-given right.”

Radical LGBT counter-protesters soon arrived at the scene, one of whom brought a bullhorn and began screeching: “Drag queen story time is f—ing harmless. Grow the f—k up.”

Another counter-protester with bright red hair disrupted a group of Catholic students praying the Rosary to shout: “LGBT rights are human rights.”

“You guys are bigots,” she claimed.

The red-haired LGBT activist returned later in the day with a can of spray paint and began spraying the students’ signs while they tried to drive her off. During the scuffle, she allegedly sprayed students and a teacher — leaving several of the Catholic protesters with paint on their clothing and even hitting at least one of them in the face.

One protester can be heard on video saying that they wanted to press charges against the LGBT activist, who left before police arrived at the scene.

The leader of the TFP group, Rex Teodosio, reported being hit in the face with spray paint — stating that his eyes “burned for about six hours,” according to a press release.

“Getting hit in the face with spray paint is not pleasant. My eyes are stinging, inflamed and bloodshot,” Teodosio said, according to the press release. “The attacker yelled ‘bigot’ and ‘hater’ as she destroyed our signs and ruined our clothes with paint — she played the victim as she committed the crime. But the sacrifice is all worth it because I know I’m building a culture that protects the innocence of children and shields them from grooming and corruption.”

The press release further notes that one of the radical LGBT activists told the Catholic students: “I hope you (expletive) die, you Christian fascist (expletive).  You will die a lonely death.”

Californian lawmakers attack parents’ rights

The California Legislature is considering two bills that, if enacted, would severely limit the rights of parents to raise their children in the state. The text of AB 957 states that it “would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.” AB 665 would allow a minor as young as 12 to be emancipated from his or her parents and transferred into state custody without a court order.  READ

Friday, July 28, 2023

Pro-Life Pregnancy Help Ministries Sue Illinois Attorney General Over SB 1909

(July 27, 2023 – Chicago) Today, Thomas More Society attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, seeking to stop him from enforcing Illinois Senate Bill 1909, a measure drafted by Raoul’s office that declares the pro-life speech of the state’s life pregnancy help ministries to be a “deceptive business practice.” Thomas More Society is representing NIFLA, a national pregnancy help center network, along with several Illinois pregnancy help centers and pro-life organizations. 

“This law is a blatant attempt to chill and silence pro-life speech under the guise of ‘consumer protection,’” explained Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation, and a former Illinois State Legislator. “Pregnancy help ministries provide real options and assistance to women and families in need, but instead of the praise they deserve, pro-abortion politicians are targeting these ministries with $50,000 fines and injunctions solely because of their pro-life viewpoint.” 

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, seeks a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against SB 1909. If temporary and preliminary injunctions are granted, they would prevent the law from being enforced while the case makes its way through the court system. 

“The state government has completely overstepped the bounds of any logical and relevant authority by inserting insane partisan politics into their governing bodies and attempting to trample the First Amendment rights of those with whom they disagree,” said Thomas Glessner, President of NIFLA. “There is no basis for their blatant attacks on pregnancy centers, who provide all of their services for free for women and their families throughout Illinois. They do so out of their deeply held beliefs of caring for one another and exhibiting human decency and compassion for those in need, something the leaders of Illinois are completely clueless about. This attempt to deny mothers their constitutional right to choose life is disgraceful and should be an embarrassment to the people of Illinois.” 

Under this new revision to the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the state seeks to curtail the speech of pro-life organizations by illegally targeting their efforts to “dissuade pregnant [women] from considering abortion care.” It also faults pro-life organizations for “pay[ing] for advertising… that is intended to attract consumers to their organizations and away from medical providers that offer” abortions, accusing the pro-life organizations of providing misleading information “overstating the risks associated with abortion.” Yet, Breen asserts, and as the filing states, that all of the abortion-related information provided by these pro-life centers and organizations is backed by scientific research. 

“In addition to being unconstitutional and extremely prejudicial,” added Breen, “state officials have not had cause to take legal action against pregnancy help centers, using the tools of the law that were already available.”This lawsuit, Breen stated, has been filed to protect the right of pro-life pregnancy help centers and sidewalk counselors across Illinois to continue their meaningful and important work of providing compassionate and competent advice, care, and support to thousands of women across Illinois facing unplanned pregnancies. 

Breen observed that the instigation of the new law, backed by Raoul, is completely without rationale or provocation. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office has not been able to provide any hard evidence that pregnancy help centers engage in so-called “deceptive practices.” According to Freedom of Information Act documents obtained from Raoul’s office, Breen shared that “the Attorney General has received zero complaints from members of the public against an Illinois Pregnancy Help Center for alleged violations of the Deceptive Business Practices Act.” 

Breen also testified before the Illinois House Health Care Availability & Accessibility Committee, which voted to advance SB 1909, despite receiving more than 17,000 witness slips from voters opposing the bill and only a little over 3,000 supporting it. 

Read the Complaint, seeking Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction from the State of Illinois’ just enacted Senate Bill 1909, filed on July 27, 2023, in the United States District Court – Northern District of Illinois Western Division, by Thomas More Society attorneys on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Women’s Pregnancy Services, Rockford Family Initiative, Relevant Pregnancy Options Center, and Pro-Life Action League, in NIFLA, et al. v. Kwame Raoul here

Read about the testimony of Peter Breen in opposition to Illinois Senate Bill 1909 given before the Illinois House Health Care Availability & Accessibility Committee on April 25, 2023, here.        

UVA Wrongfully Fired Employee for Refusing COVID Shot

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA – The Sixteenth Judicial Court in Virginia ruled yesterday that the University of Virginia Health System (UVA) wrongfully denied an employee’s religious exemption and unlawfully fired her for not taking the COVID-19 shot. The Court granted the employee injunctive relief by reversing the UVA’s firing decision and awarding monetary damages to the employee.

In McCoy v. Rector & Visitors UVA/UVA Health System, Virginia attorneys Rick Boyer, David Browne, Christopher M. Collins, Bret G. Daniel, and Patrick M. McSweeney represented plaintiff Kaycee McCoy in the case. McCoy had worked as a highly specialized cytotechnologist at UVA for nearly 10 years. In September 2021, she requested a religious exemption to the university’s COVID-19 shot mandate since the university’s vaccination policy allowed for exemptions for medical or religious reasons. A committee of UVA’s human resources personnel reviewed McCoy’s exemption request to determine the sincerity of her religious beliefs, but ultimately denied her exemption without explanation and did not allow her to appeal the decision. UVA fired McCoy in November 2021 after she did not comply with the university’s mandate according to her religious beliefs.

In granting the injunction, District Court Judge Claude V. Worrell, II, explained that Virigina courts usually leave the hiring and firing decisions of organizations alone unless a decision is “arbitrary and capricious.” Case law defines those terms as decisions made “without a determining principle.” Essentially, Judge Worrell examined whether the university stepped legally out of bounds by evaluating the sincerity of McCoy’s religious beliefs, and whether they arbitrarily chose to fire her without a clear underlying principle.

Judge Worrell wrote in his opinion, “…here, we have essentially a religious test that is being applied to determine sincerity of belief, and that is violative of the separation of church and state….”

Judge Worrell noted the realm of religion is beyond the expertise of any government body, and that since McCoy had “met all the necessary requirements to show she had sincerely held religious belief that allowed her to seek an exemption” under UVA policy, he ruled UVA denied her exemption and fired her “in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”

The ruling prevents UVA from discriminating against McCoy for the COVID shot as long as she continues to be eligible for a religious exemption. The Court ordered UVA to pay damages in the amount of McCoy’s salary from the date of her wrongful firing.

In January 2022, UVA rescinded its COVID shot mandate after Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order removing the mandate for state employees.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This is an important victory for religious liberty and for those who have not caved into these unlawful shot mandates. Forcing an employee to choose between their sincerely held religious beliefs and their job is highly unconstitutional. Applying for a religious exemption is a legal right and cannot be arbitrarily denied.”

This week's broadcast


 

FBI GIVES CONGRESS DOCS BEHIND MEMO TARGETING CATHOLICS

The FBI this week handed over to Congress internal documents relating to the bureau’s now-withdrawn leaked memo that recommended investigating devotees of the Traditional Latin Mass. The leaked memo, dated January 23, claims that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists will likely become more interested in “radical-traditionalist Catholic ideology … in the run-up to the next general election cycle.”  READ

Tuesday, July 25, 2023

Anti-Catholic Bigots Attack Leonard Leo

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President 

Leonard Leo, co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and the man most responsible for shepherding through President Trump’s appointments to the federal bench, including three Supreme Court Justices, is being attacked by anti-Catholic bigots in his hometown in Maine, simply because left-wing extremists object to his work. 

The protesters, who are doxxing Leo by showing up at his house in Northeast Harbor, are not content to object to his jurisprudential philosophy. No, they are viciously attacking his Catholicism. 

On July 22, protesters carried signs denouncing his religion and pledging to run him out of town. Leo, who is a member of Opus Dei, a traditional Catholic organization in good standing in the Church, was condemned for his membership in the group.

Anti-Catholic banners read, “Rosaries Off Ovaries,” and a recently created website depicted him as a Ku Klux Klan member (the Klan was anti-Catholic, as well as anti-black and anti-Jewish). His Catholicism was also targeted on social media. He was called a rapist and accused of violating women’s uteruses.

This is what happens when civility breaks down and demagoguery triumphs. The population control crowd, beginning with Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, has a long history of anti-Catholicism. Today’s iteration is even more virulent, and in some cases, such as with Antifa and Jane’s Revenge, anti-Catholic bigots turn violent, especially when the issue of abortion is prominent. 

What happened to Leo should be condemned by all men and women, independent of what side they choose on the subject of abortion. 

Anti-Catholic bigotry, and angry protests outside the home of a public person, have no legitimate place in public dialogue. But to those who can’t marshal a plausible defense of their abortion politics, resorting to bigotry comes naturally to them.

Abortion Activists Assault Two Pro-Life Advocates Saving Babies Outside Planned Parenthood

Abortion Activists Assault Two Pro-Life Advocates Saving Babies Outside Planned Parenthood

Monday, July 24, 2023

Defamation By The Defamers

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – There are two interesting defamation lawsuits working their way through the judicial system that become interesting in whom each names as a defendant; in both cases it is someone who holds themselves up as the pure anti-hate people.

One involves an old favorite punching-bag of ours, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the other is the attorney general of the state of New York, Letitia James.

The SPLC, as you may recall, was once an honored civil rights organization that was in the forefront of equal protection under the law. Sometime after the enactment of strong civil rights legislation — on both state and federal levels — followed by favorable results from the courts, the organization turned its attention to an expanding role. It started to label other organizations it felt that opposed civil rights as hate groups.

Now it wasn’t just the skinheads, KKK, and the neo-Nazis that it went after, if was almost any group that opposed some aspect of the SPLC’s notion of full civil engagement. Thus, legal and religious groups that opposed the LGBTQ+ platform, especially those involving trans-genderism, were cited as “hate groups” and placed on its annual hate report and its now famous “hate map.”

One such group was the Dustin Inman Society (DIS). The organization is named after a 16-year-old boy who was killed in a car accident when his car was rammed from behind by a Mexican citizen who was in the country illegally. The accident also sent Dustin’s parents to a hospital where his mother was in a five-week coma and spent the rest of her life in a wheelchair.

Charged with the death of Dustin, the driver of the other car escaped police and ran to Mexico where his whereabouts are unknown. Despite being in the country illegally, he had been able to obtain a state drivers’ license by using his Mexican birth certificate and Mexican Consular ID card.

The Society using his name lobbies for stricter, broader enforcement and other measures to curb illegal entry into the United States, and to stop aid to illegals. It describes itself in its pleadings as: “DIS is a nonprofit Georgia corporation with a stated mission and goal of promoting the enforcement of immigration laws in the United States.”

In 2018 the SPLC classified DIS as an “anti-immigrant hate group” and subsequently published a web page profile on DIS in which it claimed that DIS and its founder “pose as an organization concerned about immigration issues, yet focuses on vilifying all immigrants.”

That resulted in DIS filing a defamation lawsuit against the SPLC for making hateful comments against it by the organization that is famous for calling others haters. The matter, of course, is tied-up in other legal issues, but the SPLC did file a motion to dismiss the case against it. In April the court denied the motion and the case continues.

Now we don’t know what the outcome will be but it sure feels right that the SPLC is getting some of its own treatment. The case is being tried in the federal district court for the Middle District of Alabama.

A similar thing is happening in New York. The state attorney general there is Letitia James, who you might remember campaigned on a promise to “get” Donald Trump, and, to a degree, is trying to keep that promise.

She is also a hardened pro-abortion politician and will often use her time to disparage pro-lifers. That has gotten her into a bit of trouble recently.

It seems that last June Ms. James held a news conference to announce a new civil lawsuit against Red Rose Rescue and several members of the Red Rose staff. For those of you who do not know, Red Rose is a pro-life ministry that will sometimes enter abortion facilities with a message of life in an attempt to dissuade mothers-to-be from terminating the life of their children.

Obviously there have been several confrontations between Red Rose folks and the facilities they entered and the police who were summoned. Interestingly, while many Red Rose supporters have joined in picketing and protests outside abortion clinics, not all have ever attempted to enter a clinic.

The lawsuit Ms. James unveiled alleged that the defendants violated the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). The lawsuit principally sought to create a 30-foot buffer zone around abortion centers, thus restricting the location of any picketers and barring their access to the clinic itself. It contained no allegations of terrorism. But during the press conference Ms. James called those associated with Red Rose, including those who have never entered or attempted to enter a clinic, “terrorists” and Red Rose a “terrorist group.”

Two members of the Red Rose group who live in Michigan filed a defamation suit against Ms. James, in her personal capacity as well as her official capacity as attorney general.

“Defendant James’ labeling of those who associate with Red Rose Rescue as ‘terrorists’ is grotesque and absurd on its face; it is reckless in the extreme; it harms Plaintiffs’ public reputation; and it is an unconstitutional dereliction of Defendant James’ sworn duty to uphold the United States and New York Constitutions and to provide equal justice under the law to all persons and organizations regardless of their religious beliefs and views,” said the plaintiffs’ lawyer David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center.

The suit alleges: “As set forth in this Complaint, Defendant James has disseminated false and defamatory information about Plaintiffs, which irreparably harmed Plaintiffs’ interests and will continue to cause harm to Plaintiffs. Absent relief from this Court, Defendant James will continue to take action that unlawfully designates and targets Plaintiffs as terrorists.”

The main claim against Ms. James is that of defamation. Which, the suit claims: “Defendant James’ labelling Plaintiffs as ‘terrorists’ and belonging to a ‘terrorist group’ exposes Plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, and aversion, and it induces an evil and unsavory opinion in the minds of a substantial number of people in the community, causing irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ reputations.”

The lawsuit is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and five million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Again, it only seems fair that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. A long way to go on this yet, but it will be fun to follow. The case is in the federal district court for the Northern District of New York.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

Surprising ‘resources’ for teachers

A K-12 education consultant and public speaker recently exposed numerous resources provided for teachers to groom their students into the LGBTQ+ agenda. In an interview with CatholicVote, Deb Fillman said that the problem goes deeper than just one company providing resources to schools—the issue also lies in the school system. READ

Nurses forced to buy into CRT

Nurses in Kentucky were told they could face “discipline” after they were mandated to take an “implicit bias” training that claimed there is a “history of racism in healthcare.” The training, required by the Kentucky Board of Nursing, instructs the health care workers to “recognize the history of racism in healthcare.” Nurses were taught that examples of “covert racism” include “white silence” and phrases like “there’s only one human race” and “reverse racism.”   READ

Time To Rein In FBI Over Catholic Probes

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President 

We sent the following letter to Rep. Jim Jordan today (we urge you to contact his communications director, Russell Dye: russell.dye@mail.house.gov).

Dear Rep. Jordan:

On July 17, in your role as House Judiciary Chairman, you said you notified FBI Director Christopher Wray that he had until July 25 to turn over requested documents pertaining to the agency’s probe of orthodox Catholics; he has heretofore not fully complied with two subpoenas issued earlier this year. The deadline is tomorrow at noon. If he does not comply with your request, it is important that you follow through with your pledge and hold him accountable.

On April 11, 2023, I wrote a letter to Wray, copying you, about my concerns over this issue.

“We know from previous disclosures that the FBI was probing ‘Radical-Traditionalist Catholics’ (RTCs). To this day, we have not seen any evidence that they are a threat to anyone. Now the FBI has upped the ante, going after ‘mainline’ Catholics and dioceses.

“On February 9, I made public my concerns about the FBI’s interest in RTCs. ‘What’s next?’ Will it be a war on ‘Catholics who are orthodox?’”

My hunch that there would be a war on orthodox Catholics came true.

This is totally indefensible. It smacks of religious profiling and opens the FBI door to monitoring traditional Catholics, simply because they are loyal sons and daughters of the Catholic Church.

I commend you for your leadership on this matter. If Wray does not meet the deadline, I implore you to “take action” against him, as you said you would do. 

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

Texas Nurse Practitioner Wins Religious Accommodation Process for All VA Employees Opposed to Abortion

Waco, TX—First Liberty Institute today announced that Stephanie Carter’s lawsuit against the VA resulted in a nationwide religious accommodation process for VA employees with religious objections to being forced to participate in abortions.  Carter is a nurse practitioner at the Olin E. Teague Veterans’ Center in Temple, Texas.

“We’re pleased that the VA implemented a nationwide policy to protect the religious liberty rights of all VA employees,” said Danielle Runyan, Senior Counsel for First Liberty Institute. “Stephanie Carter is living proudly by her faith and should not be forced to choose between her faith and her career. Because of her courage, every VA employee in the nation can now seek a religious accommodation from participating in a procedure they find unconscionable.”

Ms. Carter has faithfully served veterans as a VA employee for 23 years.  When she sought a religious accommodation from participating in abortions in the fall of 2022, VA officials informed Ms. Carter that no process for such accommodations existed.  But after filing her lawsuit in December, the VA created a religious accommodation process for affected VA employees.

First Liberty asked the court to dismiss its lawsuit against the VA on Friday.

Court says FBI spied on elected officials

The FBI inappropriately searched for information on a U.S. senator using an intelligence provision intended for monitoring foreign nationals, a court opinion released Friday shows. “In June 2022, an analyst conducted four queries of Section 702 information using the last names of a U.S. senator and a state senator, without further limitation,” the court said. Section 702 allows intelligence agencies to obtain the online communications of foreign nationals without a warrant.  READ

Friday, July 21, 2023

DeSantis urges senators to back Tuberville

Presidential candidate Ron DeSantis this week said he backs Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s, R-AL, blocking of military nominations until the Biden administration backs down from its use of taxpayer funding to pay for abortions. “They are using tax dollars. They’re funding abortion tourism, which is not an appropriate thing for the military to be doing,” DeSantis said. “Day one as commander-in-chief, that [abortion] policy will go out the window."  READ

Another Jesuit-Run School Tanks On Free Speech

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President

For the past several years, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has published a survey on the status of free speech on college campuses. In my remarks on the 2021 study, I pointed out that three Jesuit-run institutions—Fordham University, Boston College and Marquette University—were listed among the worst in the nation. In the 2022-2023 survey, another Jesuit school, Georgetown, was rated #200. Only three schools out of a total of 203 were rated worse; Columbia University was dead last.

Georgetown shows such contempt for free speech that it merited a special section in the study. Three specific cases, all very serious, were cited.

In 2022, Ilya Shapiro was suspended over a tweet thread in which he criticized President Biden’s pledge to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. Dean William Treanor issued a statement denouncing the tweets, insisting that Georgetown is committed to “inclusion, belonging, and respect for diversity.” [Note: Treanor said nothing about Georgetown’s commitment to academic freedom.] Shapiro was eventually reinstated, but the damage was done; he subsquently resigned.

In 2021, Sandra Sellers was fired over a viral video in which she was unknowingly recorded talking to her colleague, David Batson, about the relatively poor performance of black students in her class. Dean Treanor condemned the two of them, pledging commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. Batson later resigned following the backlash.

In 2021, Timothy Wickham-Crowley made jokes in class that evoked racial stereotypes and for dropping the n-word when reading aloud from a course textbook. He was investigated by the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Affirmative Action. While it was determined that his conduct was not “severe or pervasive,” he was no longer asked to teach again.

These incidents say nothing about the way students, especially conservative students, feel about freely expressing their thoughts on campus. But Georgetown didn’t earn a lousy rating on the basis of muzzling the free speech of faculty alone.

It should be pointed out that Georgetown’s fidelity to Catholic teachings has long been questioned. It has two pro-abortion clubs on campus: H*YAS for Choice for undergraduates, and Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice. It has no racist clubs on campus—nor should it—but it has no problem allowing pro-abortion clubs. For liberals, racism is clearly more offensive than child abuse in the womb.

As I said with regard to Fordham, Boston College and Marquette, the time has come for these schools “to have a campus-wide forum on the root causes of Jesuit intolerance for freedom of speech.” Georgetown needs to do the same.

Censored Study Confirms COVID-19 Shots Caused Worldwide Deaths

ORLANDO, FL – A bombshell study authored by Dr. Peter McCullough and other physicians and medical researchers was quickly censored within 24 hours after its publication because it showed clear evidence that the COVID-19 shots were responsible for many deaths. Out of 325 autopsies from various global locations, the study revealed the COVID shots directly caused or significantly contributed to up to 74 percent of those deaths.

The Lancet, a renown medical journal, published the study titled “A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination” on July 5, 2023 on its “pre-print” site while the study began the months-long peer review process. However, The Lancet took less than 24 hours to remove it citing the study fell short of the journal’s “screening criteria” and that the study’s methods did not merit its conclusions.

Dr. McCullough, an internist, epidemiologist, and one of the most published cardiologists in America with more than 1,000 peer-reviewed publications to his credit, conducted the study with eight other researchers. The co-authors included senior research scientist in epidemiology at Yale University Dr. Harvey Risch, top pathologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, and former Department of Health and Human Services official Dr. Paul Alexander. The project was approved through the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health, and Dr. McCollough said the team used a standard scientific method known as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to evaluate the autopsies. Dr. McCullough stated this “standard search methodology” is something he has used his “whole career.” 

Collectively, they reviewed 678 studies investigating possible causal links between COVID-19 shots and death and identified 325 autopsies meriting further investigation. The study stated each autopsy was “independently reviewed” by three physicians to determine the cause of death. The investigation revealed:

“A total of 240 deaths (73.9 percent) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 [injection].”

“Among adjudicators, there was complete independent agreement (all three physicians) of [injection] causing or contributing to death in 203 cases (62.5 percent).”

“The most implicated organ system [receiving fatal injury] was the cardiovascular system (53 percent)…”

“Most of the deaths occurred within a week from [the person’s] last vaccination.”

These results bear similarity to a November 2022 peer-reviewed study by leading pathologist Dr. Peter Schirmacher and other top German scientists. This study examined 25 deaths finding five of them likely died exclusively from the COVID injection and all five died within 20 days of receiving the injection. 

According to Dr. McCullough, before The Lancet briefly published the study, it was rejected by both The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association as “not a priority.” He noted that in the hours before The Lancet took it down the study had 30,000 views averaging about 20 views per minute.

Dr. McCullough has been censored before without a definitive reason. In October 2021, The Lancet’s publisher Elsevier retracted a different study he co-authored with molecular biologist Dr. Jessica Rose just days after it was published. The findings from that study showed myocarditis spiked in teenagers after COVID-19 injections. Despite being peer-reviewed, Elsevier never reinstated the study though it can be found through an internet archive.

Just as a federal judge ruled on July 4, 2023 in Missouri v. Biden that the government “pressured” social media companies to censor and suppress information critical of COVID-19 injections, Dr. McCullough and his co-author Dr. Risch think medical journals are subjected to that same external pressure.

Dr. Risch stated he believed their recent study was censored “at the behest of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI)” or a similar organization because of the study’s “strong evidence” that some COVID-19 injections have led to death. The TNI was founded in 2019 by the British Broadcasting Company as an “industry collaboration” between major news outlets and global technology companies such as Google, Facebook, and others for the purpose of combatting disinformation worldwide. TNI’s partners “alert each other to disinformation that poses an immediate threat to life…so content can be reviewed promptly by platforms, whilst publishers ensure they don’t unwittingly republish dangerous falsehoods.”

“[It’s] pure Government-directed censorship, even after the Missouri v. Biden injunction,” stated Dr. Risch.

Dr. McCullough noted their study is the largest summary of autopsies of COVID-19 shot-related deaths and its medical censorship speaks to the importance of their findings.

“They are trying to kill [the study] so the world doesn’t see the data,” he stated.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Scientists are validating the dangers of the COVID-19 shots and confirming these injections have never been safe nor effective. Censoring scientific debate is reprehensible and dangerous. The government, news media, and elements of the medical and scientific communities are intentionally and knowingly trying to deceive the public.”

This week on FOT: Why corporations go woke; Pennsylvania school system says NO to religious school students

Listen now: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/  -- Episode 372



Thursday, July 20, 2023

KIRBY: ABORTION IS A 'SACRED OBLIGATION'

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby called promoting abortion a “sacred obligation” of the government in a recent White House press conference. Kirby said he had met with female military service members and spouses and claimed the majority communicated to him that pro-life laws “are absolutely having an effect on their willingness to continue serving." He added: “That means we lose talent, important talent."  READ

HHS OFFICIAL: KIDS GO THROUGH ‘WRONG PUBERTY’

In an interview with ABC News, Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine, a man who calls himself a woman, argued that subjecting minors to so-called "gender-affirming care" is necessary for suicide prevention. When asked how he would respond to those who argue “transgender medicine” should at least be disallowed until a patient is 18, Levine said: “What if you’re going through the wrong puberty? What if you inside feel that you are female, but now you’re going through a male puberty?”  READ

Free Speech On Campus: Jesuit-Run Schools Do Poorly

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has published the results of a comprehensive survey of over 37,000 students at over 150 colleges and universities; the survey was taken in 2021. [The 2022-2023 survey results were subsequently released.]

The subject of the survey is the extent to which freedom of speech is honored on college campuses. The findings are not sanguine, and this is particularly true of Jesuit-run schools.

The overall state of free speech on campus is not good. Here are a few examples found in the survey.

  • More than 80% of students reported self-censoring their viewpoints at their colleges at least some of the time.
  • More than 50% of students identified racial inequality as a difficult topic to discuss on their campus.
  • Two-thirds of students (66%) say it is acceptable to shout down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus.
  • Almost one in four (23%) say it is acceptable to use violence to stop campus speech.

As I’ve long said, there is more free speech allowed at your local pub than there is at your local college campus. This proves it. Moreover, whatever happened to the “peace loving” reputation of college kids—almost one in four say it’s okay to violently attack someone who says something disagreeable.

Marxism in practice, of course, has a long trail of bloodshed, and it is Marxism, in its cultural iteration, that is popular on college campuses these days. It’s not hard to connect the dots.

Of the 154 colleges listed in FIRE’s 2021 Campus Free Speech Rankings, the five schools with the best free speech rating, are, from top to bottom:

Claremont McKenna

University of Chicago

University of New Hampshire

Emory University

Florida State University

The five worst, beginning with the worst, are:

DePauw University

Marquette University

Louisiana State University

Boston College

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

FIRE awarded Rensselear Polytechnic its lifetime censorship award.

It may surprise some to learn that sixteen of the twenty schools that scored the lowest are private institutions, while sixteen of the twenty highest free speech institutions are public institutions.

Some other surprises include schools like the University of Mississippi weighing in at #11, while Harvard was near the bottom at #130; Princeton was #135.

Most people would expect the results to be the opposite, given the prestige of Harvard and Princeton. Maybe the Ivies would benefit by hiring faculty such as University of Mississippi law professor Ronald Rychlak (he is a member of our board of advisors): he co-founded and chaired The Declaration of Independence Center for Study of American Freedom at Ole Miss. Maybe they can hire him so he can “reeducate” the professoriate.

Regarding Catholic institutions, none were in the top twenty. In fact, none were in the top one hundred. But there were three among the worst: Fordham was tenth from the bottom (#145); Boston College was fourth from the bottom (#151) and Marquette was second to last (#153). All three are Jesuit-run institutions.

While Fordham is a disgrace, it is clear from reading the report that Boston College and Marquette are much worse. Free speech is so under fire at Marquette that the FIRE gave it special mention.

“For two years running—in 2015 and 2016 (for the years 2014 and 2015)—FIRE named Marquette one of the ten worst colleges for free speech because of its attempts to revoke the tenure of Professor John McAdams and then terminate him. It took more than three years, but McAdams ultimately won his lawsuit against the university and was reinstated to his faculty position in the fall of 2018.”

What did McAdams do that made a faculty panel recommend sanctions against him? He complained when a graduate instructor tried to muzzle the free speech of a conservative student. In November 2014, McAdams criticized Cheryl Abbate for telling a student she would no longer tolerate his position objecting to gay marriage in her ethics class. McAdams was subsequently fired. He sued.

In July 2018, Marquette said it would comply with a court order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reinstate McAdams. Abbate was not just a graduate student—she was paid as an instructor by the university.

It was the free speech of McAdams that was endangered, not Abbate’s. Indeed, she was the one who was guilty of stifling free speech, and by a student who defended the Church’s teachings on marriage at a supposedly Catholic university!

Previously, in 2014, the Catholic League criticized Marquette for telling employees at an “anti-harassment” training presentation that merely voicing objections to gay marriage may be considered discriminatory; they were urged to report such offenses. At that time, I raised the following question. “Would they bring the pope up on charges following a speech on marriage?”

What’s going on at these Jesuit schools? Why are they breeding such intolerance? The time has come for those who run Fordham, Boston College and Marquette to have a campus-wide forum on the root causes of Jesuit intolerance for freedom of speech.

Wednesday, July 19, 2023

Pennsylvania Parochial School Parents Sue School District Over Religious Discrimination

(Williamsport, Pennsylvania) Parents of Pennsylvania parochial school students are suing the public school district for violating their religious rights. Thomas More Society attorneys have filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Religious Rights Foundation of Pennsylvania and the parents of two Centre County parochial school students against the State College Area School District. The complaint calls out the district and its board for discriminating against students who attend religiously affiliated institutions by refusing to allow them to participate in the district’s extracurricular and co-curricular activities, simply due to their parochial school affiliation. 

In the lawsuit—filed July 10, 2023, in United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania—Thomas More Society attorneys assert the school district violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit seeks a court order allowing parochial students to participate in the activities previously denied to them. 

Thomas Breth, Thomas More Society Special Counsel, explained that the school district has a non-discrimination policy that permits non-parochial school students who reside in the district, including charter school and home-school students, access to school district educational programs and activities. Yet, the school district justifies its exclusion of parochial school students from the same programs and activities by claiming their inclusion would take away opportunities from students attending district schools. 

“However, the board has consistently allowed home-school students and those attending charter schools to take part in the district’s more than 100 extracurricular activities and classes, including athletic teams and Advanced Placement courses,” said Breth. “The school district has denied those same opportunities to students attending religious schools, based solely on their religious identity. That forces parochial school students to choose between their religious beliefs and the right to participate in extracurricular activities and advanced classes.” 

Breth noted that similar cases have come before the United States Supreme Court in the past, and the Court has ruled that denying generally available benefits solely on account of religious identity imposes penalties on the free exercise of religion. 

“The Supreme Court has made it clear that such denials can be justified only by a state interest of the highest order,” Breth added. “That is certainly not the case in the State College Area School District.” 

Read the complaint filed July 10, 2023, by Thomas More Society attorneys in the United States Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of the Religious Rights Foundation of Pennsylvania and parochial school parents, in Religious Rights Foundation of Pennsylvania, et al. v. State College Area School District, et al. here [https://tinyurl.com/yc7jysx6].

[Editor’s Note: Mr. Breth will be a special guest on this week’s Faith On Trial program on the Iowa Catholic Radio Network.]

About the Thomas More Society

The Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, religious liberty, and election integrity. Headquartered in Chicago and with offices across the country, the Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, visit thomasmoresociety.org.

SENATOR INTRODUCES BILL TO PROTECT KIDS

Sen. J.D. Vance, R-OH, introduced a bill in the Senate Tuesday calling for the protection of children from so-called “gender-affirming care.” If passed, the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act” would classify subjecting children to “trans” surgeries and hormone therapies as Class C felonies, which could lead to 10 to 25 years in prison or a maximum fine of $250,000.  READ

Tuesday, July 18, 2023

Judge Blocks Iowa Heartbeat Law Protecting Babies From Abortions

Judge Blocks Iowa Heartbeat Law Protecting Babies From Abortions

The Trans Controversy: American Bishops Face a Divided Nation and a Divided Church

From Crisis Magazine: Our bishops cannot ignore the percolating civil war brewing in America over trans ideology.

Read the entire report here:

https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-trans-controversy-american-bishops-face-a-divided-nation-and-a-divided-church?utm_source=Crisis+Magazine&utm_campaign=078c8ac05f-Crisis_DAILYRSS_EMAIL&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a5a13625fd-078c8ac05f-28429859&mc_cid=078c8ac05f&mc_eid=2fe5c614ca

Court Upholds Religious School’s Employment Freedom

CHICAGO, IL – A unanimous federal appeals court recently upheld the right of a religious school to make employment decisions consistent with core religious beliefs. A three-judge panel ruled that Roncalli High School under the Archdiocese of Indianapolis was entitled to the ministerial exception and was within its right when it fired a guidance counselor who revealed she was in a “same-sex marriage” contrary to the school’s biblical views on marriage.

In 2019, the Catholic Roncalli High School chose not to renew the contract for its co-director of guidance after she had notified the school the previous year that she was in a same-sex marriage, which ran contrary to her contract to uphold the school’s mission that marriage is between “one man and one woman.” Shortly thereafter, the counselor sued Roncalli contending that the school violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by firing her for being in a same-sex marriage. 

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed that claim, stating the ministerial exception allows religious institutions to determine their own employment guidelines for employees whose jobs involve religious duties or ministry.

The Court wrote “employment discrimination suits [are barred] ‘when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of the group’s ministers.’ This is what has long been called ‘the ministerial exception.’… As the [Supreme] Court explained, ‘[requiring] a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision… Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.’” 

The Court continued, “In determining whether an employee served a religious role, we show deference to the church… All arrows point one way… A religious school is entitled to limit its staff to people who will be role models by living the life prescribed by the faith.” 

This ruling marks the second time in a year this Court has ruled in favor of Roncalli High School. Also in 2018, the school declined to renew a different counselor’s contract for the exact same reason. Notably, the Indiana Supreme Court in 2022 also ruled in favor of another school in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis upholding the school’s decision to terminate a teacher for violating his employment agreement and failing to uphold the school’s religious teaching on same-sex marriage. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This commonsense ruling protects a fundamental religious liberty of faith-based organizations to employ people who align with their mission. The ministerial exception allows religious institutions to decide who to employ to represent the organization.”

Monday, July 17, 2023

Pets And Their People

By Deacon Mike Mannno

(The Wanderer) – As we move into the “dog days” of summer, I noticed an interesting report by the Pew Research Center. It found, unsurprisingly, that most pet owners see their pets as a part of their families. Now as a pet owner all my life, I decided to look into their research and do a little bit of my own on the subject.

Now, I have to confess that I am a biased witness. I was fortunate enough to grow up in a suburb of Des Moines where we had a fairly large yard in which we could let a dog run. I don’t remember too much about my first dog, only that I named him Meat Ball (my Italian coming out), and, according to my folks, I was a bit young and too small for him so he was given to one of my dad’s employees who had a small farm just out of town.

My real first pet was a little dog I named Ginger. She was as loyal as a dog could be. When my brother was born, my mom used to sit out on our front porch and let little Mark crawl around on the grass. Ginger was always near-by and I remember when anyone would walk up the street Ginger would take a position between Mark and the “threat,” show her teeth, and if the guy had his own dog, she would growl, always maintaining a position directly between my baby brother and the guy.

Now I’ve always treated my pets like part of the family, and according to the Pew research, most folks do so as well. It reports that most Americans, 62 percent own a pet and 38 percent own more than one. Of those, nearly all — 97 percent — consider them part of their families, and about half, 51 percent, say their pets are “as much a part of the family” as their human members. Women break a little ahead of men in this category with 57 percent considering a pet as much a part of the family versus 43 percent for the men.

The report indicates that the “as much” category is much higher for urban dwellers, 61 percent, with suburban residents at 47 percent and rural folks at 50 percent. Pew reported that the “as much” group was influenced by the owner’s family situation. “Unmarried pet owners and those who do not have children younger than 18 at home are the most likely to consider their pets to be as much a part of their family as a human member,” it reported.

According to Pew, dog owners top cat owners in the “as much as” category, 53 percent to 48 percent. In that dog-cat mix, 40 percent have a dog only, 23 percent have a cat, 24 percent have both, and 4 percent have neither.

The Pew report contains a lot of other interesting information concerning income brackets, racial backgrounds, such as: 68 percent of whites, and 66 percent of Hispanic adults own pets, just 37 percent of Asians, and 34 percent of blacks own pets. The report piqued my interest enough to do a bit more research.

Here is what I found: Half the dog owners in the country allow their dogs to sleep in their bed at night, 73 percent carry photos of their pet with them, only 18 percent of cat owners put their cats outdoors for the night.

Dogs are the most popular pet in the nation, found in 65.1 million households, followed by cats in 46.5 million homes, and fish in 11.1 million homes. Millennials make up the largest percentage of pet owners at 33 percent, followed by Gen X, 25 percent, and baby boomers at 24 percent.

According to the statistics, 42 percent of dog owners and 43 percent of cat owners got their pets from a store, while 38 percent of dog owners and 40 percent of cat owners say they got their pet from a breeder or shelter. Forbes Advisor reports that pet ownership has “increased significantly” over the past three decades; in 1988 only 59 percent of U.S. households had a pet.

Other interesting factoids: The average dog owner spends $1,201 annually on their pets as compared to cat owners who average $687. In addition to dogs and cats, 9.9 million households have a bird, 6.7 million have a small pet such as a rabbit, hamster, etc., 5.7 million have a reptile, and 3.5 million own a horse, although I never thought of them as pets.

Wyoming has the most pet owners at 72 percent, the District of Columbia has the lowest at 38 percent, Idaho has the most dog owners, 58 percent, and Vermont has the most cat owners, 45 percent. Those who think of the pet as their best friend is 78 percent; 89 percent say their pet has “brought them comfort” during COVID. The most popular dog breed is the Labrador Retriever, and the Ragdoll is the most popular cat breed.

Okay, so why take a column to discuss all this pet stuff? Well, to tell the truth I find this very interesting. The life and death of our pets are in a way a microcosm of our lives.

Just the other day I saw a Facebook video of a little girl getting a pet dog. In the video she was opening a box and shortly a head popped out and she began to realize what she was getting. A set of hands entered the picture and helped her open the box lid at which time she got a full view of the puppy. With help she pulled the little dog from the box, held it close to her and began to cry as she mouthed “thank you” to the person with her.

We’ve seen it all before, the surprise cat or dog given to a small child which invokes that precious response, tears and holding the new pet close as if the child was afraid someone would take it away. Great film for a pet food commercial. But I think it means more.

I remember thinking how the little girl in the video was shedding tears of joy, yet if the trajectory plays out correctly, that relationship will end with tears also as every pet owner’s dreaded decision must be made.

How close is that to our human condition? Every year millions celebrate the joy of a new relationship, be that marriage or birth. Yet we know that each of those relationships will end in tears: That’s the cycle of life. Yet how much more should that mean to a Christian?

If the figures above are correct and the vast majority of pet owners consider their pets on par with their human families, how many understand the pet-owner relationship better than the human-to-human relationship? This may be a stretch, but if we began to think of our fellow humans as well as we think of and treat our pets just maybe this might be a better place to live. Just sayin’.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)