By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director, Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition
On December 15, 2023 Stephanie Taylor reported for the Canadian Press that Justice Minister Arif Virani stated that the federal government may “pause its plan” to permit euthanasia (MAiD) when a person’s only underlying condition is a mental disorder (Link).
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help to implement a successful campaign to reverse the current direction with euthanasia in Canada.
New Yorkers will be voting next November on a proposal to enshrine “abortion rights” in the state’s constitution. The vote comes as the abortion lobby attempts to expand abortion in numerous states by amending their constitutions following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. READ
A priest in Italy created a “same-sex” nativity scene featuring another woman besides Mary. The extra woman figure wore a robe in LGBT rainbow colors. READ
Hannah Kamke pled guilty to disorderly conduct after being arrested for spray-painting “LIARS” on CompassCare’s Amherst location in New York. Now Kamke is suing the pro-life center, accusing it of "medical malpractice" as she denies violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. READ
Muslim terrorists have killed at least 150 Nigerians in several attacks since December 23 and specifically targeted numerous Christian villages and homes on Christmas Eve. The terrorists began attacking Christian homes in the village of Gwana in Central Plateau State at 10 p.m. on December 23. The majority of villagers were sleeping when the terrorists opened fire. READ
Former President Donald Trump in a Tuesday speech in Iowa vowed to defend Catholics against persecution. The “Biden FBI actually targeted Catholics as potential ‘domestic terrorists’—do you believe this?” Trump said. He promised to “create a new Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian Bias, to be led by a fully reformed Department of Justice that’s fair and equitable.” READ
ABC News Wednesday published a hit piece against House
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, for encouraging his then-minor daughter to remain
abstinent back in 2015. “ABC News and their ilk have no shame,” said
CatholicVote Director of Governmental Affairs Tom McClusky. “They have made it
clear they have no problem attacking teenage girls if it furthers their
perverted agenda.” READ
A New Jersey
pregnancy resource center filed a lawsuit last week against Attorney General
Matthew Platkin after being “selectively targeted.” Platkin is “nationally
prominent among elected officials for his fervent advocacy for abortion, and
prolific in his pronouncements of hostility toward and suspicion of pregnancy
resource centers like those operated by First Choice,” a lawyer for the
pro-life organization said. READ
 |
| Cardinal Mulller |
By Dr. Maike Hickson
(LifeSiteNews) — Speaking to Jacob
Rees-Mogg of GB News on December 17, Cardinal
Gerhard Müller made some strong comments on the state of Western countries
today.
According to Müller, Jesus Christ would
not only be condemned for being the Messiah, but also for his teaching on
marriage as being between one man and one woman. The prelate responded to a
comment by Rees-Mogg who said that it “seems Pope Francis has taken some
challenging positions on ‘trans’ people.”
Müller’s remarks were given a day before
Francis and Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández’s issued the December 18 document Fiducia
Supplicans, which permitted clerics to “bless” “couples in irregular
situations and same-sex couples.”
Pointing out that “pastoral concern for
the salvation of every person” is the duty of any priest, bishop, and pope,
Müller insisted in his reply that Christ gives everybody a “chance of
conversion and a new beginning.”
“But Jesus also contradicts the
ideologues who want to relativize or even destroy marriage of man and woman and
the family of the parents with their own children,” he went on to say, adding,
“I believe that today Jesus would not be condemned only because he is the
Messiah, but he would in the USA and European countries go to prison because he
spoke out the truth about marriage between a man and a woman.”
With these words, Müller reminded us of
the saying of Jesus Christ that Christians will be persecuted for His sake.
Rees-Mogg went on to question the prelate
about the papal treatment of both Bishop Joseph Strickland and Cardinal Raymond
Burke. While Müller said he does not “know more about Bishop Strickland and
Cardinal Burke than what is written in the newspapers,” “I can personally
testify that both are devout Catholics and zealous pastors.”
“Burke is the most highly-qualified
canonist in der College of Roman Cardinals,” Müller added, before remarking
that the idea that Burke and Strickland are “enemies of the Pope” only shows
“the unChristian spirit of the authors of such absurd accusations.”
On the contrary, the German prelate
proposed a dignified dialogue with Burke and Strickland instead of treating
them harshly. “Instead of taking drastic measures that only put the Church in
the negative headlines,” Müller expounded, “I propose a respectful dialogue
between men who, because of their episcopal ordination, are appointed by Christ
Himself to be shepherds of His Church and to treat each other like brothers.”
He called these conflicts “superfluous challenges and struggles.”
In his concluding remarks of the
interview, Müller relayed a Christmas message for his audience. He first quoted
Pope Leo the Great’s Christmas appeal which reads: “Christian, recognize your
dignity and consider the price at which you were redeemed from the slavery of
death, sin, depression and the prison of the meaninglessness of a life without
God.” Then, commenting on these papal words, he urged everyone “to become aware
of their own dignity and to place all their hope in life and death in the
Little Child in the manger.”
“God does not come in the glory of power
and money and renown, but in the humility of the Child, the Crucified Young Man
on Calvary and in the light of the Risen Christ on Easter morning,” continued
the cardinal. “In Christ we find the meaning and goal of our lives.”
(The Wanderer) – Last year the
Democrats controlling the City of New York passed a law that had been proposed
by former Mayor Bill de Blasio, and supported by the current mayor, Eric Adams,
in which non-citizens were allowed to vote in certain local elections.
However, before the law could take
effect, Republicans challenged it and a local judge, Ralph Parzio, ruled that
it violated the state constitution that only allowed for citizen voting, and
struck it down. The law had been scheduled to go into effect in January of this
year.
The liberal reaction was typical: “Today, the [court]
seeks to once again revoke that right and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands
of permanent New York City residents from having a voice in the decisions that
shape our city – and choosing the leaders who make those decisions,” said the
city’s public advocate, Jumaane Williams.
But that
decision was appealed with Mayor Adams’ support. “I believe that New Yorkers should have
a say in their government, which is why I have and will continue to support
this important legislation,” the mayor said. “I look forward to bringing
millions more into the democratic process.”
There has been no resolution to the appeal, thus it is
possible that a higher court could restore it before the next general election,
thus allowing non-citizens to vote. Probably not likely, but it is a
possibility. And if it did happen, it would raise the electoral stakes
immeasurably.
Fast forward to now. New York Republican Congresswoman
Nicole Malliotakis is raising a red flag of warning that the influx of migrants
into the city could flood the voter rolls due to a requirement in the city’s
contract with those providing migrant shelters to assist migrants in obtaining
voter registration forms and to promote the distribution of campaign materials
in the shelter.
Malliotakis had received a copy of the city’s contract with
the shelter Homes for the Homeless through a freedom of information request. In
a press release she said: “The City is requiring migrant shelter contractors to distribute
voter registration cards, assist migrants in registering to vote, and promote
campaign material within the shelters themselves. … There is nothing more
important than preserving the integrity of our election system," she said. "The
right to vote is a sacred right given only to United States citizens, and
certainly not one provided to those who crossed over our border illegally and
made their way to New York City last month.”
The
city denied the allegations yet noted that the voter requirement in the shelter
contracts only apply to eligible clients and are required by law.
In
releasing a copy of the contract, a local city assemblyman, Michael Tannousis, said,
"There's a requirement in this contract that the contractor,
Homes for the Homeless, is required to give voter registration forms to the
public - anyone they come into contact with - while at the same time
prohibiting them from asking immigration status. … What is happening here? Look
at all the benefits in the contract that migrants are to be getting. Do the
taxpayers of this city get the same benefits? Absolutely not. We need New
Yorkers to wake up and see what is happening."
The contract Mallitokis released had these requirements:
“Distribution of Voter Registration Forms. In accordance [with the cited law] the
Contractor, if it has regular contact with the public in the daily
administration of its business under this Agreement, hereby agrees as follows:
“1. The Contractor
shall provide and distribute voter registration forms to all persons together
with written applications for services, renewal, or recertification for
services and change of address
relating to such services. …The Contractor should be prepared to
provide forms written in Spanish or Chinese, and shall obtain a sufficient
supply of such forms from the City.
“2. The Contractor shall also include a
voter registration form with any Contractor communication sent through the
United States mail for the purpose of supplying clients with materials for
application, renewal, or recertification for services and change
of address relating
to such services. If forms written
in Spanish or Chinese
are not provided in such mailing, the Contractor shall provide such forms upon
the Department’s request.
“3. The Contractor shall, subject to approval by the Department, incorporate an opportunity to request a voter registration
application into any application for services … provided on computer terminals,
the World Wide Web or the Internet. Any person
indicating that they wish to be sent a voter registration form via
computer terminals, the World Wide Web or the Internet shall be sent … a link on that system
where such a form may be downloaded.
“4. The Contractor
shall, at the earliest practicable or next regularly scheduled printing of its own forms
… physically incorporate the voter registration forms with its own application forms …
“5. The Contractor shall prominently display in its public office,
subject to approval by the Department, promotional materials designed and
approved by the City or State Board of Elections.”
Interesting that the ballots for the migrant shelters be printed
not only in Spanish, but in Chinese as well. Of course, after watching the
continued violation of our southern border, who’d thought of that? Perhaps the
folks who gave us the 2020 irregularities? Might be a good guess.
Of course none of this might come to pass. But, since none of the
migrants sent to shelters in New York City are being vetted, who’s to say that
the election will be on the up and up? Just understand what is happening there
and hope it is not happening anywhere else, but don’t count on it.
-30-
(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/).
A leading pro-parent activist is filing a defamation lawsuit after various media sources reportedly misrepresented harassment allegations against her. Nicole Marie Prussman chairs a chapter of Moms For Liberty based in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. READ
The Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) on Monday issued a declaration officially opening the Church to the “possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.” READ
By Bill Donohue, Catholic
League president
We’ve had it with atheist bullies. That’s why
we are asking one of their most prominent groups to consider suing us. Here’s
how this developed.
An atheist hate group from Wisconsin, Freedom
From Religion Foundation (FFRF), registered a complaint about a nativity scene
being displayed by the Toledo Fire Department in Toledo, Iowa, outside of Des
Moines. The crèche has been a feature of the firehouse for about 20 years. City
leaders initially gave in and removed the nativity scene.
Toledo Mayor Brian Sokol then decided to put
the nativity scene back at the firehouse: secular symbols now surround the
crèche. We commend him for doing so and we pledge to assist him if he is
further badgered.
In their letter to Toledo officials, FFRF said
the following: “Nativity scenes on public property are unnecessary,
inappropriate and divisive. It is irrefutable that the nativity is a religious,
Christian symbol. The best solution is to remove this nativity scene and
discontinue hosting religious displays on public property.”
FFRF is wrong. This is pure intimidation.
Nativity scenes on public property are necessary and appropriate at
Christmastime, and the only people who think they are divisive are Christian
bashers who specialize in dividing Americans.
It is entirely legal to display a nativity
scene on public property; some conditions may apply.
The Catholic League erected its life-size
nativity scene in Central Park on December 7; it will be up until after the new
year. We get a permit from the City of New York’s Parks Department every year,
and have had our nativity scene on display there since the mid-1990s.
We don’t have any secular symbols surrounding
our display—no Jack Frost or reindeers. It is purely a religious expression.
That is because Central Park is considered a public forum, open to all points
of view.
If we were to display a nativity scene on or
near City Hall, the seat of government, we would have to include secular
symbols; otherwise it might give the impression that the government is
endorsing Christianity.
Therefore, what Mayor Sokol has done is
entirely constitutional. We contacted his office today pledging our
support. We notified the mayor’s office that if FFRF wants to sue, and he is
unable to access pro-bono counsel, we will pay the legal bills to defend him in
court.
If FFRF wants a showdown over this issue, let them sue the Catholic League for erecting its nativity scene in Central Park. Good luck with that.
The Supreme Court Wednesday elected to hear a case that will determine the availability of the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone. “The case will be argued in the spring, with a decision likely by late June, in the middle of the 2024 presidential and congressional campaigns,” FOX News reported. READ
Illinois Attorney General Agrees to Permanent Injunction Blocking Blatantly Discriminatory Law
(December 11, 2023 – Chicago) Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul has agreed to an order permanently prohibiting the State of Illinois from enforcing a law that declared pro-life speech to be a “deceptive business practice” and defined as “consumer fraud” the sharing of certain information about the risks of abortion. Thomas More Society attorneys today filed, together with the Attorney General, a Joint Motion to Enter an Agreed Order, imposing a Permanent Injunction on the Attorney General. The Joint Motion was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, for the signature of U.S. District Judge Iain D. Johnston.
In July,
Thomas More Society attorneys sued the Attorney General over the law—known as
Senate Bill 1909, or SB 1909—representing the pregnancy center umbrella
group National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), along with Illinois pregnancy
centers Women’s Help Services and Relevant Pregnancy Options Center, and
sidewalk counseling organizations Pro-Life Action League and Rockford Family
Initiative. The
Agreed Order provides for a full recovery of attorney’s fees by Thomas More
Society.
Peter
Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President & Head of Litigation,
who served as lead counsel for NIFLA and the other plaintiffs, hailed the
victory as a significant win for pro-life ministries and free speech in
Illinois—which will also serve as a warning to other states across the country
that attempt to target pro-life ministries with discriminatory laws.
“The
federal court was spot on in holding that SB 1909 is ‘both stupid and very
likely unconstitutional,’” stated Breen, recalling Johnston’s preliminary
injunction order. “SB 1909 exempts abortion facilities and their speech, while
exclusively regulating pro-life organizations and their speech, in flagrant
violation of the First Amendment. This law is just one of a number of illegal
new laws enacted across the country that restrict pro-life speech—we hope this
permanent injunction, with full attorney’s fees, serves as a warning to other
states that would seek to follow Illinois and try to silence pro-life
viewpoints. We are honored to represent NIFLA and other life-affirming
organizations to protect them from unjust laws like SB 1909 that seek to put a
halt to their good work.”
Thomas
Glessner, Founder and President of NIFLA, stated: “We are elated that a
permanent injunction has been issued against Illinois Attorney General Kwame
Raoul and SB 1909, which ensures this unconstitutional law will never go into
effect. This is a huge win not only for NIFLA and our wonderful attorneys at
the Thomas More Society but especially for pregnancy centers in the state, who
serve the thousands of women in Illinois who are facing unplanned
pregnancies—all at no cost. SB 1909 was an absolute weaponization of government
that unfairly and unconstitutionally targeted pregnancy centers simply because
they refused to refer for or perform abortions. Let this be a stern example of
what awaits those who attempting to pass and enforce similar laws—look to
Illinois and save taxpayer dollars for actually helping their communities
instead of going after organizations that help women and their families.”
The Joint
Motion follows an August 3, 2023, preliminary injunction entered by Johnston,
which blocked Illinois’ enforcement of SB 1909. That court order was issued one
week after Illinois enacted SB 1909. Thomas More Society attorneys filed the
lawsuit against SB 1909 one hour after the law was signed.
Read the
Joint Motion to Enter an Agreed Order filed December 11, 2023, with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in National
Institute of Family and Life Advocates et al. v. Raoul, here; Agreed
Order (as proposed): here.
Find
details and background on SB 1909 at Everything You
Need to Know About Illinois' New Anti-Pregnancy Help Center Law [https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-illinois-new-anti-pregnancy-help-center-law].
About Thomas More Society
Thomas More
Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in
law for life, family, and freedom. Headquartered in Chicago and with offices
across the country, 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, please visit thomasmoresociety.org.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case of a licensed marriage and family therapist who sought to strike down Washington state’s ban that prevents counselors from providing minor clients with help to reduce or eliminate unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or gender confusion. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh would have voted to take the case because of the current conflict in the federal Courts of Appeal as a result of Liberty Counsel’s cases, Otto v. City of Boca Raton and Vazzo v. City of Tampa, both of which struck down nearly identical counseling bans that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in Tingley v. Ferguson.
Liberty Counsel
Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Liberty Counsel will continue until
these unconstitutional counseling bans are overturned nationwide. It is not a
matter of if, but only a matter of when, all these counseling bans will be
struck down. That day is coming. Liberty Counsel has been in this fight since
California passed the first counseling ban. Our recent wins at the Court of
Appeals sets up a conflict that the High Court will have to resolve. Government
has no authority to prohibit one viewpoint of talk therapy.”
Brian Tingley is
a licensed marriage and family counselor of over 20 years in Tacoma,
Washington. He works with children, adults, and couples dealing with marital
and family conflicts, sexual orientation and gender identity struggles,
depression, anger, and stress management. In 2018, Washington passed a law to
censor conversations between clients and counselors like Tingley by dictating
which goals they can or cannot discuss with minor clients regarding unwanted
same sex attractions, behaviors, or gender confusion. The law threatens
counselors with fines of up to $5,000 per violation, suspension from practice,
and even permanent revocation of their licenses.
Justices Clarence
Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh stated they would have taken the case.
Justices Thomas and Alito cite Liberty Counsel’s cases, Otto v. City of Boca Raton, Pickup
v. Brown, and King v. Governor of New
Jersey, as the basis for a split among the courts which satisfies the High
Court’s established criteria for granting review. Justice Thomas also invites
further challenges to these bans because he states it will return before the
High Court again. Justice Alito also references the Otto decision and questions
the continuing validity of the decision in Liberty Counsel’s case King v. Governor of New Jersey, after
the ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v.
Becerra.
Justice Thomas
wrote: “This petition asks us to consider whether Washington can censor
counselors who help minors accept their biological sex. Because this question
has divided the Courts of Appeals and strikes at the heart of the First
Amendment, I would grant review.”
“There is a
fierce public debate over how best to help minors with gender dysphoria. The
petitioner, Brian Tingley, stands on one side of the divide. He believes that a
person’s sex is ‘a gift from God, integral to our very being.’ As a licensed
marriage and family counselor, Tingley seeks to assist minors who suffer from
gender dysphoria but ‘want to become comfortable with their biological sex.’
Tingley does so through ‘talk therapy’—i.e., therapy conducted solely through
speech. The State of Washington is on the other side of the divide. Its view is
that the State should ‘protec[t] its minors against exposure to serious harms
caused by’ counseling to change a minor’s gender identity, and, as a result,
that counselors should only affirm a minor’s chosen gender identity. Washington
silenced one side of this debate by enacting S.B. 5722,” wrote Justice Thomas.
“The Ninth
Circuit’s opinion created a Circuit split. Two years earlier, the Eleventh
Circuit concluded that near-identical Florida municipal ordinances did regulate
speech. Otto v. Boca Raton. The
Eleventh Circuit held the ordinances unconstitutional because they prohibited
speech based on content and viewpoint, and could not satisfy strict scrutiny.
The Third Circuit has also held that laws restricting talk therapy designed to
change a client’s sexual orientation regulate speech, not conduct. King v. Governor of New Jersey,
abrogated on other grounds by National
Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. Tingley asks us to
resolve this Circuit split and review whether SB 5722 violates the First
Amendment. We should have.”
Justice Alito
wrote, “In recent years, 20 States and the District of Columbia have adopted
laws prohibiting or restricting the practice of conversion therapy. It is
beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech, and all restrictions on speech
merit careful scrutiny. There is a conflict in the Circuits about the
constitutionality of such laws. Compare with Otto v. Boca Raton. And the Ninth
Circuit’s holding is based on the highly debatable view that its prior decision
in Pickup v. Brown, survived at least
in part our decision in National
Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which singled out Pickup
for disapproval.”
An assailant stabbed a Nebraska priest to death on Sunday in the 100th attack on a Catholic church this year. Fr. Stephen Gutgsell died after being fatally stabbed at the rectory of St. John the Baptist parish in Fort Calhoun. According to CatholicVote’s Catholic Accountability Project, the incident represents the 100th attack on a Catholic Church this year. READ
The House Committee on Education and the Workforce announced the launch of a formal investigation into the learning environments at Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and the University of Pennsylvania after the universities’ presidents refused to categorically condemn antisemitic calls for genocide. READ
By Deacon
Mike Manno
Last week, the House Judiciary
Committee released its interim report on the FBI investigation into
“radical-traditionalist Catholics” for being possible domestic terrorists. When
a copy of the FBI memo, which outlined the agency’s concerns about certain
“right wing” Catholics, was leaked to the press last February the public and
political reaction was a fiery backlash against the FBI
While not intended for public
dissemination, the original FBI memorandum, authored by the Richmond field
office, was leaked almost immediately by a former agent and whistleblower, Kyle
Seraphin, who, for the sake of full-disclosure, was a guest on our radio
program, Faith On Trial, where he discussed the contents of the leaked memo.
That broadcast was aired the weekend of February 18 on the Iowa Catholic Radio
Network.
The 30-page heavily footnoted
committee report went into detail about how the original memorandum came to be,
how it was edited and distributed to other FBI offices. It also revealed how
the FBI brass was uncooperative with House investigators, redacting much of the
subpoenaed documents, and only dribbled out information grudgingly. It also
clearly points out that the intended use of the leaked memo could be considered
a violation of the First Amendment rights of religious communities and that it
“shows that the FBI abused its counterterrorism tools to target Catholic
Americans as potential domestic terrorists.”
It also debunked the FBI’s assertion
that the leaked memo was only intended for the Richmond office and had been
immediately withdrawn.
The committee report added, “Most concerning of all, without the disclosure of
the brave whistleblower, the Richmond memorandum would still be operative in
FBI systems, violating the religious liberties of millions of Catholic
Americans.”
According to the report, the genesis
of the Richmond memo was from an investigation of an individual who described
himself as a “radical-traditionalist Catholic,” although no one from the FBI
could identify or define that term. Yet this single inquiry became the basis
for the Richmond agency-wide memo warning about the dangers of “radical
Catholics.”
House investigators found that with the self-identification of that one
suspect, FBI agents used several suspicious and biased sources to supplement
their memorandum with additional “open source” information from the likes of
the Southern Poverty Law Center, Salon, and The Atlantic. Because of their
political and social biases, these sources were not to be relied upon by the
agency. The FBI memo’s authors admitted that these sources were not approved
for legitimate open source use, but decided to use them anyway.
The House report also indicated that
at least one priest and one parish choir director had been questioned by the
FBI, as well as an unnamed cardinal. It also confirmed that “in addition to the
investigation in Virginia, FBI Richmond relied on reporting from other field
offices across the country, including FBI Los Angeles, FBI Milwaukee, and FBI
Portland in making its assessment.”
Among some of the top findings of the
committee to date were:
There was no legitimate basis for the memorandum as a predicate for
infiltration of the Catholic community.
Documents reviewed by the House
committee showed the FBI was signaling out Americans who were pro-life,
pro-family, and supported the biological basis for sex and gender policies.
Unlike the representations otherwise
made by FBI Director Christopher Wray, the memo was not confined to the
Richmond field office but was shared with at least three other FBI field
offices.
The thrust of the original 11-page
memo from the Richmond office, was that “racially or ethnically motivated
violent extremists” were linked to individuals who held “radical-traditionalist
Catholic” views who were then characterized as anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant,
anti-LGBTQ, and who followed a white supremacist ideology.
The committee wrote: “In response to
these revelations, the Committee and Select Subcommittee began oversight into
how the FBI could allow such a memorandum to be prepared, reviewed, approved,
and disseminated. Although the FBI claims that it ‘will never conduct
investigative activities or open an investigation based solely on First
Amendment protected activity,’ this memorandum itself is proof that the FBI has
done just that, using taxpayer dollars. The FBI’s intrusion on Americans’ First
Amendment rights demands that the Committee and Select Subcommittee conduct
oversight into the circumstances of the memorandum’s creation and distribution,
and to consider potential legislative reforms to ensure the FBI upholds the
First Amendment.”
And it further reported: “Although
the FBI claimed in its response to [the Committee] to have ‘numerous’ and
‘rigorous’ policies to protect First Amendment rights, the memorandum was
reviewed and approved by two senior intelligence analysts and…the FBI’s top
lawyer in the Richmond field office. There are no indications that any FBI
employees in Richmond had any concern with the content of the memorandum until
after it was disclosed publicly.”
After the leak of the Richmond memo
local FBI officials reached out to the Diocese of Richmond and the special
agent in charge did have a later meeting with Richmond Bishop Barry Knestout.
The agent in charge indicated he tried to use the opportunity to reach out to
the Catholic community. He also said that had the memorandum not been leaked to
the public he would have used it as an opportunity to reach out anyway. When
the agency contacted the diocese about any follow-up meetings it was directed
to address all contact to the diocese’s attorneys.
In concluding, the committee noted
that religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment and the FBI’s own
policy was to “never conduct investigative activities or open an investigation
based solely on protected religious activity.”
“The Richmond memorandum, however,
paints a different picture. It is a stark reminder that sincerely held
religious beliefs must be vigorously protected or be subjugated to an
overzealous federal law enforcement focused on the ends, with little regard for
the means,” the report, in its conclusion, said.
“Under the guise of domestic
terrorism, the Richmond memorandum cast swaths of Catholic Americans as
‘radical-traditionalist Catholics’ and those practicing it as ripe
opportunities for FBI ‘threat mitigation’…Perhaps most concerning is that
without the whistleblower, this document would still be actionable in FBI
systems, potentially endangering the religious liberties of countless Americans
who might be investigated simply for espousing certain sincerely held views.
That is unacceptable and antithetical to the protections of the First
Amendment.”
At the top of its conclusion, the
Committee quoted Justice Samuel Alito from July 2022: “Religious Liberty is
under attack in many places because it is dangerous to those who want to hold
complete power.”
(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/)
FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL: An 11-year-old girl was assigned to share a bed with a male student who identifies as a transgender girl while on a cross-country school trip, according to a demand letter sent Monday. That girl’s parents are now calling upon the public school system to provide answers and clarification of its policies related to children who identify as transgender.
Represented
by Alliance Defending Freedom, Joe and Serena Wailes are calling on the
Colorado-based Jefferson County School Board and Jefferson County Public
Schools Superintendent Tracy Dorland to clarify “whether JCPS will
continue this practice of intentionally withholding information about
rooming accommodations from parents like the Waileses, who object to their
children rooming with a student of the opposite sex, regardless of the other
student’s gender identity.”
“This practice renders it impossible for
these parents to make informed decisions about their children’s privacy,
upbringing, and participation in school-sponsored programs,” reads the demand
letter, which was exclusively provided to The Daily
Signal.
“Additionally, our
clients request information related to JB
R-1 and the ability to opt out of this rooming policy
for all future school trips.”
The
Waileses describe how their daughter, who is in fifth grade, went on a
JCPS-sponsored trip to Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., in June 2023. JCPS
had repeatedly told parents that the boys and girls on the trip would be roomed
on different floors—and chaperones told the students that boys would not even
be allowed to visit the girls’ floor, as well as vice versa, according to the
letter.
Serena
Wailes also went on the trip, though she was not a chaperone.
2023.12.04-Wailes-Demand-Letter_
The Wailes’ 11-year-old daughter, who is identified in the letter as “D.W.,” was assigned to a room with three other students, according to the demand letter. Two of these students were girls from her school, and the third student was a boy who identified as a girl (named in the letter as “K.E.M.”) who went to a different school.
D.W.
and K.E.M were told that they would share a bed, and that evening, when the
students were in their room together, K.E.M. reportedly revealed to the girls
that he is a boy who identified as a girl.
“We were definitely not aware of that before we went on the trip,” Serena Wailes told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. The mother shared that this young boy was presenting as a girl, wearing girls’ clothing, and had longer hair.
Uncomfortable at the thought of sharing both a room
and her bed with a boy, D.W. snuck into the bathroom and
called her mother. Then she went downstairs and met her mom in the lobby to
discuss the matter.
Serena
Wailes told The Daily Signal that her daughter was “terrified and really upset
about the idea of sharing a bed with a biological boy—even though she had a
good relationship with this other student.”
“I
was really upset,” Serena Wailes told The Daily Signal. “One, I was really
upset that she was put in that situation at 11 years old—I don’t feel that is
fair to put kids in that kind of situation—and two, that we were not even given
the information that this was a possibility before the trip. The whole time
they’re saying, ‘Girls on one floor, boys on another, they’re not going to be
in each other’s rooms unless it is pre-approved.’ So we’re going through this
whole process, not even recognizing that this is a possibility.”
Joe
Wailes said that his wife called him from the hotel and filled him in about the
situation.
“I
felt a bit helpless,” he said. “I was 2,000 miles away. My daughter is scared
in a bathroom trying to get herself out of a situation. It was a frustrating
experience, and I just really felt like it was not a situation my daughter
should be put in.”
School chaperones called one of the trip leaders, Principal Ryan Lucas, who called the boy’s parents, according to the letter: “K.E.M.’s parents confirmed their child’s transgender gender identity and that K.E.M. was to be in ‘stealth mode,’ meaning students on the trip would not know about their child’s transgender status.”
After
a good deal of trouble, chaperones finally agreed to move the male student, with
a different female student, to another room.
“Throughout the entire evening, K.E.M.’s privacy and feelings were always the primary concern of JCPS employees,” the letter said. “After JCPS disregarded D.W.’s privacy and the Waileses’ parental rights, JCPS then silenced D.W., thus infringing on her freedom of speech, when a JCPS teacher told the three girls that they were not allowed to tell anyone that K.E.M. was transgender, even though K.E.M. voluntarily chose to share this information.”
According
to the demand letter, the school district’s policy is, “in most cases,” to room
students based on the gender they identify as, rather than their sex.
The Wailes parents have two fourth-grade children registered to attend a trip to New York, Washington, and Philadelphia in 2024, and they emphasize in their letter that the district must clarify its policies for room assignments for students, as well as parental ability to opt their children out of sharing rooms with children of the opposite sex.
“They want to make sure that every parent knows that this is a possibility and can have the opportunity to opt out or make the best decision for their kid,” Kate Anderson, director of the Center for Parental Rights at Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal. “But they also have two younger children that they want to make sure are not in the same situation that their older daughter was in.”
