Woke Brands Back Off Pride Month as American Fury Grows

For most CEOs, Pride Month couldn’t have come at a more inopportune time. As companies like Target, Bud Light, and others desperately try to control the flames burning down their brands, this annual test of LGBT loyalty is putting most businesses in a position they’d rather not be in: outraging an already agitated consumer base or ticking off the lobby they’ve worked two decades to appease. Faced with the choice of becoming unprofitable or politically unacceptable, what will the big companies do?

Read the rest of the story from Suzanne Bowdey in The Washington Stand at:

https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/woke-brands-back-off-pride-month-as-american-fury-grows

Attacks On Catholic Hospitals, And Other Folly

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – In an action that electrifies the Radical Left who must be salivating over the possibilities, the government in the Australian Capital Territory in Canberra has voted to forcibly take over a Catholic hospital from the Sisters of the Little Company of Mary who have been running the hospital according to Catholic principles.

According to the district’s same-sex married chief minister, Andrew Barr, it was done because the hospital would not allow certain procedures. You can guess what they were: abortions and transgender surgeries. A recent study by the government, “Inquiry into Abortion and Reproductive Choice in the ACT (Australian Capital Territory)” found the hospital “problematic due to an overriding religious ethos.” The study described the hospital’s “ethically fraught dependence” over the sisters’ management.

The report’s section on abortion was captioned “stigma and harassment.”
The study led to a bill passed by the government ordering officials to move into and take charge of the hospital operations on July 3. The bill listed no compensation for the nuns’ whose property is being taken.

Canberra Archbishop Christopher Prowse called the action “shocking.”
Church Militant reported that the archbishop wrote to his faithful: “I am deeply troubled about the situation and its implications, slamming the “shocking news” of the state’s decision to “compulsorily acquire” the hospital. . . . I am also concerned that this action, based on obsessive government control, would deprive future Catholic generations in Canberra of the choice of hospital care based on the ethos of our cherished Catholic faith.”

We have seen and reported on moves by Democrats and left-wing groups that have tried by lawsuit to do the same thing here in the United States. Discrimination and civil rights suits have been lodged against Catholic hospitals for their failure to provide what the far-left considers necessary medical treatment, such as ripping a baby apart in its mother’s womb. They have even sued to stop hospital mergers if one of the parties is a Catholic entity which subscribes to Catholic medical ethics. Some of these efforts have been joined by public officials, including state employed attorneys as well as state attorney generals.

Fortunately, up until now none have achieved the desired results. But, as you know, the left will keep trying until it wins. We see that in other similar areas. For example, proponents of physician-assisted suicide worked nearly 20 years to pass their legislation in Hawaii.

And just last week I reported on legislation which passed the overwhelmingly Democratic Colorado legislature and signed by the Democrat governor which prohibits the use of the drug progesterone for women who have taken the abortion pill and now have changed their minds. If you remember, progesterone opens the way for nutrients and oxygen to get to the baby, reversing the effect of the abortion pill which blocks them.

If states like Colorado can do that to pregnant women who have decided that they want their baby, what else might they do? Remember, there is an election coming up and the parties are starting to position themselves to take advantage of favorable issues. In the last election, the Democrats avoided a voter tsunami against them by defending abortion rights without limit. Can you imagine what some legislative candidates might do? Attorney general? Governor?

If you can imagine it, they will try to do it. Keep your eyes open and your ears to the ground. The rumbling from Australia may be coming to your neighborhood soon — and probably with a lot of money from the usual suspects including George Soros.

In another matter. . . .

It so happens that I love baseball. If you followed any of my writings during the last post-season, when my Phillies went to the World Series, you understand this.

I love baseball, but not the Dodgers. It has nothing to do with the Dodger-Philly rivalry, or some of those season ending losses. Nope, nothing on the field of play. It has to do with a group of nuns. Yes, a group of very special nuns. They call themselves “The Sisters of the Perpetual Indulgence.”
They are, simply put, a blasphemous and anti-Catholic drag group that mock real nuns. And their usual dog-and-pony show includes a drag show with the “sisters” attired in mock habits, dancing around a “crucified” man and doing a strippers’ pole dance on the cross. That apparently goes over well in Dodger land.

Now the Dodgers, as many teams do, are hosting a “pride night” at the ball park, and have invited the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to not only attend the game, but to receive the team’s Community Hero Award.

When that was first announced the controversy drove the Dodgers to rescind the invitation, but the backlash to the backlash was enough to force the Dodger organization to backtrack and re-invite the group that does nothing but mock and blaspheme the Catholic religion. But there is still the lingering question: What have these drag-queen nuns done to deserve a hero award?

I bet right now Brooklyn is finally over the loss of their precious Trolley Dodgers.

There might be more dodging in LA as this plays out.

And on another front….

Back in 1984 the Supreme Court decided a case called Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The case involved the interpretation of the Environmental Protection Agency rules dealing with an amendment to the Clean Air Act. The NRDC had challenged an EPA regulation and the court had ruled in NRDC’s favor.

The crux of the case involved the agency’s interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that unless clearly erroneous, deference must be given to the agency decision. Thus was born what became known as the Chevron Doctrine.

Then last year the High Court threw a wrench in the mix. It held in West Virginia v. EPA that the EPA had overstepped its authority in a case involving the Clean Power Plan. The ruling gave many to understand that the dreaded Chevron Doctrine might be on the way out — good news for those seeking to curtail “Big Government” and the power of the bureaucracies.

This year the court took another step in curbing the agencies. It ruled in Seckett v. EPA that the agency had overstepped its authority in a wetlands case. Now a lot of conservatives, especially those uncomfortable with the EPA, are seeing another case that further weakens the Chevron Doctrine.

And what gives them further hope is that the court has agreed to hear in its next term Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo which challenges a decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld a lower court’s decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s interpretation of federal fishery law by relying on Chevron. Legal commentators see this as perhaps the death knell for Chevron.

Now why do I mention this here? Simple. After watching the “deep state” take adverse action against religious and civil liberties, it is nice to see that the Supreme Court is moving along to correct an imbalance that deep state characters have used to frustrate private parties because they did not snap to attention when a federal bureaucrat snaps his fingers.

Of course, elections and human morbidity sometimes play a large part in what comes out of the court. Watch, cross your fingers, pray, and express yourself. Remember, it’s a Republic, if we can keep it.

(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/)

Medical Schools are now offering ‘gender-affirming’ care for toddlers

This week on Faith On Trial: Left maneuvering around SCOTUS; Australia takes Catholic Hospital from pro-life nuns

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

Responses To CUNY Law Speech Speak Volumes

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President 

When I was growing up, if anyone had made an anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-police, anti-military speech at a public forum, it would have generated tremendous controversy. 

Regrettably, the response to a vile assault on America, Israel, the police, and the military—made by a crazed female Muslim bigot at the City University of New York (CUNY) on May 12—has been overwhelmingly restrained. Some have even applauded her vicious speech at the commencement ceremony. 

Fatima Mousa Mohammad condemned her own school, CUNY, for training and cooperating with “the fascist NYPD, the military” and for training Israeli soldiers “to carry out that violence globally.” She also told the law school graduates that their new profession represents “a manifestation of white supremacy that continues to oppress and suppress people in this nation and around the world.” Finally, she called for a “revolution” to fight against “capitalism, racism, imperialism and Zionism around the world.” 

Had Mohammad spoken this way in some Muslim-run nations about their society, she would have been killed. 

I come from a family of Irish cops and other law enforcement agents. I am a veteran of the United States Air Force. I have a long history of fighting anti-Semitism. As such, I have no tolerance for such an ignorant and wholly unjustified assault. This would be outrageous if said on social media. That it was said at a publicly funded university makes it obscene. 

Fortunately, a statement by the top officials at CUNY was excellent. The Board of Trustees slammed the address as “hate speech.” Jeffrey Lax, a long-time member of the faculty, was also spot on. 

Gov. Kathy Hochul, who appoints members of the CUNY governing board, said nothing herself, allowing a spokesman to offer a lame response. New York City Mayor Eric Adams was only slightly better. 

The ADL was appropriately critical of Mohammad’s “anti-Israel propaganda.” More pointed was Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, who said, “Jewish students are not welcome at CUNY Law School. That has to change.” Lee Zeldin was spunky enough to call for an end to CUNY’s taxpayer funding. 

We heard from City Councilman Ari Kagan, Councilwoman Inna Vernikov, State Assemblyman Simcha Eichenstein, and Congressman Ritchie Torres. They did not take kindly to the speech. 

But where was Sen. Chuck Schumer? Where was Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand? Where was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Where was Rep. Jerry Nadler? Nadler was likely sleepwalking, AOC no doubt agreed with the speech, and Gillibrand may as well be the “Invisible Woman.” But for Schumer not to say anything is the real disgrace. 

Defending Mohammad’s rant was Sudha Setty, the dean of CUNY Law School. She is not an educator—she is a bigoted activist and should be fired. Councilwoman Shahana Hanif accused CUNY of “bullying” the speaker, commending her for being so “brave”; thus did she align herself with hate mongers. The New York affiliate of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) praised their fellow Muslim for her defense of human rights, effectively disabling its credibility; it has no moral leg to stand on. 

People like Mohammad come to the United States, the only country in the world that is being invaded by migrants from around the globe—all of whom are seeking human rights and economic wellbeing—yet they denounce America, saving their real venom for those who defend it at home and abroad. In a sane society, she and her ilk would be run out of town.

Study: Most American corporations receive failing grades in religious freedom, free speech

By Tyler Arnold, Catholic News Agency

A report that reviewed the policies of 75 major American corporations found rampant disregard for religious freedom and free speech in virtually every company and only saw eight businesses improve from last year.

The report, conducted by Alliance Defending Freedom, rated each business in three separate categories: the market score, which considers its policies toward its customers and vendors; the workplace score, which considers its policies toward employees; and the public square score, which considers its political spending and public positions on free speech and religious freedom.

Nearly two-thirds of the corporations evaluated in the report scored 10% or lower in ADF’s 2023 Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index, which ties together all three categories. Twelve percent of the corporations finished with a rating of 5% or lower. Only five corporations had a rating of 15% or higher.

“Threats to freedom don’t just come from the government but from major corporations like financial institutions and big tech companies that have concentrated power over essential services and communication channels,” ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice President for Corporate Engagement Jeremy Tedesco said in a statement.

“Too often, these corporations de-bank or de-platform Americans, citing policies that give them unbounded discretion to censor people for their views,” Tedesco added. “That needs to change. Companies need to take seriously the way their policies and practices can chill the exercise of speech and religion and deter individuals from participating in the democratic process.”

The best-rated corporation was Fidelity National Information Services, which received 50%. The second best-rated corporation was M&T Bank, which received a 27% rating, and the third best-rated corporation was BOK Financial, with a 17% rating. Both Apollo Global Management and Fifth Third Bancorp tied for the fourth-best rating with a rating of 15%.

Some of the lowest-rated corporations were Airbnb with a 2% score, and Alphabet and Amazon with 4% scores. Several corporations scored 5%: Twitter, Walt Disney, Pinterest, Microsoft, eBay, and PayPal Holdings.

The most improved company was Fidelity National Information Services, which jumped 32 percentage points from its score last year. M&T Bank improved by 11 percentage points, GoDaddy improved by 6 percentage points, and Citigroup improved by 3 percentage points.

Two businesses performed substantially worse than they did the previous year: Paychex dropped by 23 percentage points down to a score of 12%, and Truist Financial dropped by 16 percentage points to a score of 8%.

Tedesco told CNA that the low scores are primarily caused by left-wing activists demanding policies that restrict freedom of speech and religion. He pointed to S&P and other stock market trackers that use environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) scores, which force businesses to adopt progressive social policies or risk poor ratings in the stock market. S&P famously cut Tesla from the S&P 500 due to its low ESG rating.

The activists “weaponize [corporations] as tools of censorship” and many have been “badgered and bullied into bad decisions [and] bad policy-making,” Tedesco said. The ADF ranking intends to “have a positive impact on these companies” and “shed light” on the effects of these policies, he added.

“This is going to be a long-term process,” Tedesco said. “There’s no overnight solution.”

Religion Clause: New Iowa Law Addresses Sexual Materials In School ...

Last Friday, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed SF 496 (full text) which prohibits public schools from providing "any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation to students in kindergarten through grade six. It adds the requirement that various programs and educational materials be "age-appropriate", which is defined in the law as:

topics, messages and teaching methods suitable to particular ages or age groups of children and adolescents, based on developing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral capacity typical for the age or age group. “Age-appropriate” does not include any material with descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act....

School libraries can only contain "age-appropriate" material, except (pursuant to a pre-existing section of Iowa law (Sec. 280.6)):

religious books such as the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran shall not be excluded from any public school or institution in the state, nor shall any child be required to read such religious books contrary to the wishes of the child’s parent or guardian.

The new law amends the statutory health education requirement to eliminate the required teaching about "HPV and the availability of a vaccine to prevent HPV, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome."

The law prohibits schools from giving parents false or misleading information about a student's gender transition intent and requires school districts to inform parents of their student's request for gender-affirming care from a licensed practitioner employed by the school district.

The new law also provides:

[A] parent or guardian bears the ultimate responsibility, and has the fundamental, constitutionally protected right, to make decisions affecting the parent’s or guardian’s minor child, including decisions related to the minor child’s medical care, moral upbringing, religious upbringing, residence, education, and extracurricular activities. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

The law also requires school districts to publish policies relating to parents' requests for removal of materials from school libraries or classrooms and policies for requesting a student not be provided with certain materials.

Largest Retailer in America Is Selling Disturbing 'Pride' Clothes for Children and Even Newborns

Largest Retailer in America Is Selling Disturbing 'Pride' Clothes for Children and Even Newborns

Christian Teacher Banned from Teaching for Good for Calling a Girl a Girl

Christian Teacher Banned from Teaching for Good for Calling a Girl a Girl

Biden HHS urges pro-abortion groups to counsel minors without parents’ knowledge

By Calvin Freiburger

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – The Biden administration is promoting sex education materials that offer staff for organizations like Planned Parenthood tips on speaking to teenagers about sex behind their parents’ backs, according to a bombshell report.

May is National Adolescent Health Month, for which the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS’s) Office of Population Affairs is promoting a variety of resources ostensibly geared toward “building on young people’s strengths and potential, encouraging meaningful youth engagement in adolescent health activities, and highlighting key topics in adolescent health.”

The Washington Stand reported on one such resource, a document from the Reproductive Health National Training Center (RHNTC) offering “tips and strategies” for “ways to adapt your family planning project’s services to meet young people’s emerging needs” during “uncertain times” such as pandemics.

One section focuses on the “unique confidentiality issues” with speaking to teenage clients via telecommuting rather than in-person office visits.

It advises “reproductive health” workers to, among other things, confirm that they are using a minor’s own phone number rather than their parents’, reassure them they will not share the minors’ personal information, offer “flexibility and expanded hours for scheduling of virtual visits,” begin meetings by asking if the minor is alone in the room or if other family members are within earshot, explaining to parents that “just as with visits at the clinic, part of the visit is devoted to one-on-one time with the young person”; and suggest that minors use vague yes/no answers or type comments in chat boxers rather than speak them aloud.

The document then shares several suggestions from minors themselves, such as having them take calls in bathrooms or cars and use headphones so others in the house cannot hear what the “health” worker is saying.

It also offers “creative” ideas for delivering contraceptives to minors, such as mail delivery in unmarked packaging, curbside pickup at clinics or other community locations, or mobile vans for delivery to neighborhoods.

Deputy assistant secretary for Population Affairs and director of the Office of Adolescent Health Jessica Marcella suggested that all this is simply part of “amplifying the important role of youth-serving professionals and other caring adults in their interactions with young people.” But critics call it the latest in left-wing radicals’ efforts to circumvent parents in imposing their radical values on children.

The idea that “it takes a village to raise a child,” which Marcella also invoked, is “simply an attempt to replace parents. It takes a family to raise a child — not a village,” said Family Research Council Center for Human Dignity director Mary Szoch. “It takes a loving mother and father who work together to teach their child to strive for the good, true, and beautiful. Since day one, the Biden administration has worked to replace mothers and fathers with a village — and not just any village, but one that is only made up of people intent on leading teenagers down the path of self-destruction and death.”

President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre have all recently articulated variations of the sentiment that children ultimately belong to society as a whole, which critics say is indicative of disrespect for parents’ right to have the primary and final say over significant impacts on their children’s development, and a preference for the government to supersede their authority.

Top of Form

That bias is particularly concerning to many Americans in light of the Biden administration’s full-throated support for abortion on demand and the surgical and chemical “transitioning” of children suffering from gender dysphoria.

Forcing Abortions On Women

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – The Democrats in Colorado have enacted a new law that prohibits the use of the drug progesterone to offset the tragic effects of the abortion bill.

Just a little background. Progesterone is produced naturally and is used regularly to assist pregnant women at risk for miscarriage or pre-term birth. Progesterone assists the mother’s body to produce nutrients for the developing fetus — nutrients without which the fetus would die and be expelled from the mother’s body.

Thus, for decades progesterone has been used to prevent the loss of the fetus.

Now when a woman seeks a non-surgical abortion by use of the abortion pill, the medications work to undo what progesterone does. The abortion pill is a two-step process. In the first step the woman takes mifepristone, a pill that blocks progesterone receptors, blocking the delivery of nutrition and oxygen to the developing child which results in its death. A second pill, misoprostol, is taken 24 hours later which causes the expulsion of the dead child.

Crisis pregnancy centers around the nation have found that women using progesterone after having taken the first abortion pill, mifepristone, can serve to re-establish nutrition and oxygen to the fetus, thus saving the pregnancy. In fact, in several states the use of progesterone to reverse the effects of the abortion is required information that must be given to abortion-minded women seeking a non-surgical abortion.

But not in Colorado where the baby-killers in charge determined that informing pregnant women of this option is a deceptive trade practice which should subject medical personnel and their clinics to heavy fines and the revocation of their licenses.

In April the overwhelmingly Democrat legislature passed SB23-190 which prohibits the use of progesterone for only one thing — to prevent women who have changed their mind about the abortion pill to step back, reassess their status, and to continue their pregnancy.

In other words, in Colorado women are not free to change their minds about abortion, but must continue to kill their offspring regardless of the reason why. So ardent are these pro-abortion politicians that any medical measure to reverse an abortion must be outlawed.

Into this comes a set of mother-daughter Catholic nurse practitioners who operate an independent health care facility, Bella Health and Wellness, offering “life affirming” care. It has successfully used progesterone to save pregnancies from the final effects of the abortion pill regime. But, of course, saving babies is not in the best interest of the politicians who run the state so Bella Health and Wellness found itself subject to enormous fines and the nurses a loss of their professional licenses.

With the help of Becket Law (formerly the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty), Bella Health filed suit in federal court against the state and its administrative agencies tasked with enforcing the law.

“Although Colorado claims to recognize the ‘fundamental right to continue a pregnancy,’ its new law, SB 23-190, actively thwarts women from making that choice, and makes it illegal for nurses and doctors to assist them or even inform them about their options,” said the lawsuit.

The suit argues that the law advances no public health goal and irreparably harms pregnant women that could be helped by the clinic.

“Indeed, mere hours before SB 23-190 took effect, a woman contacted Plaintiffs, requesting their help in reversing an abortion after taking mifepristone. Under Bella’s care, she received an initial dose of progesterone to reverse the effects of mifepristone and is now under follow-up care. SB 23-190 would deprive this woman of the ability to exercise her fundamental right to continue her pregnancy, leaving her at risk of being forced to undergo an abortion she no longer desires,” the suit alleges.
“It also forces Plaintiffs to imminently choose between exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs by offering this woman and her child life-affirming health care — or facing the loss of their licenses and severe financial penalties,” it said.

The lawsuit alleges that the law was based on anti-religious animus, citing its legislative history and statements of its sponsors, one of which is mentioned here:

“The debate surrounding SB 23-190 shows that it targets religious organizations in Colorado that offer alternatives to abortion. Sen. Janice Marchman, one of the bill’s sponsors, stated that the bill’s reference to ‘anti-abortion centers’ referred to ‘faith-based organizations’ that offer alternatives to abortion in Colorado. She labeled these organizations ‘fake clinics’….

“Marchman lamented that ‘Colorado has more than 50 religious-based’ organizations ‘that encourage women to keep their babies or link them with adoption agencies,’ and she accused these ‘ideologically driven’ religious organizations of ‘trad[ing] on the goodwill of legitimate medicine to defraud patients’ by ‘us[ing] disinformation, intimidation, shame, and delay tactics to withhold essential and time-sensitive reproductive healthcare’ and by ‘lur[ing] people in and steer[ing] them away from abortion.

“Marchman also stated that these ‘fake clinics’ were the ‘only ones that can prescribe abortion pill reversal.’ And she argued that these ‘fake clinics’ must be stopped from offering this ‘life threatening’ procedure,” the suit argued [cites omitted].

Of course, the naming of names didn’t end there. The suit continued to quote anti-religious language from several of the other sponsors of the bill.

The suit alleges that the law violates the Free Expression Clause of the First Amendment, in several respects; violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; and the law was void for vagueness.

It asked that the law be declared unconstitutional, for damages and attorney’s fees.

On April 14 this lawsuit was filed. On April 24 the court held a hearing during which state officials promised that it would not in any way try to enforce the law until the matter could be tried in court. On April 28 the court entered the stipulation in a separate order and further ordered that the state must file a status report within two days of any “material action” that occurs in the rulemaking process as set forth by the law in question.

Since this is coming out of Colorado I have few hopes that it will be resolved quickly. The state is deep blue and has administrators who will keep at it until they have their way. For example, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop won his truffle with state administrators at the Supreme Court over refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage. So, what did the state do? It went after him for refusing to bake a “transition” cake, celebrating an individual’s sexual transition.

There’s another case from Colorado in front of the High Court right now, 303 Creative, in which graphic designers offer designs and websites celebrating traditional marriage, but are restricted in doing so because of the state’s interpretation of its public accommodations law. That’s what you get when you paint your state so blue that it loses all common sense.

The state has been turned over to people who are so single-minded and who will not back down or accept a loss. This may take years followed by Progesterone II, III, and possibly IV.

(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/) 

Church Sues School District After Discriminatory Leasing Process

Murrieta, CA – On Tuesday, a lawsuit was filed by Advocates for Faith and Freedom on behalf of The Pines Church challenging the Hermon School Committee for their inflammatory and discriminatory leasing processes that unfairly scrutinized church activity. The Hermon School Committee in the past has leased their properties to secular organizations and did not scrutinize their beliefs on sensitive religious and political topics.

The Pines Church was unfairly targeted because it was a church, and the Committee did not want to associate with them. Their beliefs in traditional Christian ideologies opened the door for the Hermon School Committee to discriminate against them by inquiring about their beliefs on sensitive cultural issues like gender identity, issues that bear no relationship to whether the church qualified for a lease. Their conduct violates the First Amendment, as well as Maine’s Public Accommodation Laws.

“Public institutions that seek to lease their facilities for revenue should not be able to discriminate based on religious or political conditions,” said Mariah Gondeiro, Legal Counsel and Vice President for Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “The Hermon School Committee has a history of leasing their properties to secular organizations without persecution. We are advocating for fair and equitable treatment under the law, and The Pines Church was denied that opportunity by the Hermon School Committee.”

“We are understandably disappointed with the process in which we had to go through, but we are not discouraged,” said Pastor Matt Gioia. “We have seen the Lord move through our church and grow our community so much since our founding. We are hopeful that we will be able to continue our worship and fellowship without discrimination.”

Advocates for Faith & Freedom is a non-profit law firm dedicated to protecting constitutional and religious liberty in the courts. Our mission is to engage in cases that will uphold our religious liberty and America’s heritage and to educate Americans about our fundamental constitutional rights

New podcast -- this week on Faith On Trial

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

Sandra Merritt Asks SCOTUS To Take Planned Parenthood Case

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Liberty Counsel has filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the previous ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against Sandra Merritt in Planned Parenthood’s multimillion-dollar civil lawsuit for her undercover investigation of the abortion giant. The implications of this case have far-reaching First Amendment consequences involving free speech and undercover journalism.  

In the petition for writ of certiorari, Liberty Counsel asks the High Court to consider “whether the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause protects newsgathering journalists, who operate under an alias to document and expose what they reasonably believe to be unlawful conduct, from being subjected to punitive liability for ‘fraud.’ This case concerns whether, and to what extent, the press may raise the First Amendment as a defense against generally applicable tort laws when undercover journalists gather and publish truthful news of significant public importance. Accordingly, the First Amendment not only protects the publication of news; it also protects the newsgathering process, including undercover investigations, because ‘without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.’” 

Merritt and David Daleiden, founder of Center for Medical Progress, released videos in 2015 exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal trade in aborted baby body parts, after a 30-month undercover operation. The videos showed Planned Parenthood executives haggling over prices of aborted baby body parts and discussing how they change abortion procedures to obtain more intact organs. 

In October 2022, a three-member panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled against Merritt and Daleiden regarding numerous errors of the trial court, including: (1) the award to Planned Parenthood of millions of dollars in “damages” involving publication of Planned Parenthood’s own words, without any proof that the undercover videos were false or deceptive, in violation of the First Amendment; (2) the use of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to punish constitutionally protected undercover journalism intended to expose unethical and criminal wrongdoing; (3) the award to Planned Parenthood of “damages” involving legally recorded conversations without allowing the jury to hear those conversations, and without requiring Planned Parenthood to prove that the conversations recorded in public places were “confidential;” and (4) the failure of the district court judge to recuse himself from this case, despite the appearance of impropriety resulting from his connections to Planned Parenthood. 

Liberty Counsel then filed a request for an en banc (full court) review and presented argument that the appeals court should reverse the lower court’s ruling, order a new trial, and strike the punitive damages award. The Ninth Circuit denied the request. 

In 2019, the case was heard by San Francisco’s U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick III, who is the founder of the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center that houses the Planned Parenthood of Northern California facility in its complex. In 2017, the defense requested that Orrick recuse himself from the case and he refused. Judge Orrick severely restricted the evidence, and at the end, gave instructions to the jury on how they should rule on critical issues. The jury decided in favor of the abortion giant on each count, including RICO, and awarded more than $2 million in damages. The court subsequently awarded Planned Parenthood nearly $14 million in attorney’s fees and costs, for a total judgment of over $16 million.  

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Sandra Merritt is asking the Supreme Court to undo the blatant injustice of this case. Every journalist and person who values free speech and a free press should be concerned with the implications of this case. We will fight for the free speech rights of all people.”

They Seen Their Opportunities And Took ’Em

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – There was once a political machine that controlled New York City and much of New York State as well. It was formed in 1786 and became the repository of all the notable political leaders of the day, as well as their henchmen. It was a place where the local Democrats ruled and, if you wanted to get ahead, you joined and worked your way up.

It was called The Tammany Society, taking its name from Tamanend, a tribal leader of the Lenape Tribe, and using American Indian names to designate their leaders, such as the Great Sacherm, for its leader. Of course, we know it today from history as Tammany Hall.

In 1842 in a shanty town outside of what is now Manhattan, a baby was born and given the name George Washington Plunkitt. Young George grew up in rough times, working as a butcher’s apprentice before starting a construction business. Being attracted to politics he joined the Tammany Society and ultimately was elected to several terms in both the New York Assembly and Senate, where he amassed a fortune.

At the turn of the last century, he sat down with a reporter, William L. Riordon, for a series of articles on his life and political thoughts. Those articles were later published in a popular book, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, in 1905. That book was recommended to me by my graduate political science professor, and later I assigned it to my political science students in my State and Local Government classes.

If you can find the book, buy it, download it, borrow it, but read it. It will put a smile on your face and questions in your head, and you won’t forget it.

But there was one chapter in the book you should read first, which isn’t hard since it is the first chapter on “Honest Graft and Dishonest Graft.” In it, Sen. Plunkitt explains how he became wealthy during his numerous terms in office.

“Everybody is talkin’ these days about Tammany men growin’ rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin’ the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There’s all the difference in the world between the two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics and I’m gettin’ richer every day, but I’ve not gone in for dishonest graft — blackmailin’ gamblers, saloonkeepers, disorderly people, etc. — and neither has any of the men who have made big fortunes in politics,” he said.

He then went on to explain what honest graft is, using example after example. In the first he tells of the city planning a new park at a designated place. He, of course, is tipped off about the plan and its location and, before any public notice is given, he goes out and buys the land at rock-bottom prices and after the park announcement is made he sells it for a nice profit.

“Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight? Of course, it is. Well, that’s honest graft,” he says.

Other examples he used, including hiring practices and pay raises for city employees, buying up land for a bridge before public notice, then selling it when plans are announced; buying up old granite bricks dug up from a street re-paving project and manipulating the bidding so that he was able to purchase the lot for pennies; swamp land that would be needed to complete a park — all examples of honest graft, famously saying, “I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.”

This, he says is, how he got rich from honest graft and how most other politicians get rich the same way, they never steal a dollar from public coffers, they just seen their opportunities and took ‘em.

“That is why, when a reform administration comes in and spends a half-million dollars in tryin’ to find the public robberies they talked about in the campaign, they don’t find them.

“The books are always all right. The money in the city treasury is all right. Everything is all right. All they can show is that the Tammany heads of departments looked after their friends, within the law, and gave them what opportunities they could to make honest graft.”

Now you might wonder why I bring this matter to you.

In the past few weeks, a House committee has reported on some rather questionable cash payments to Biden family members, including several grandchildren of the president. While the specific origin and purpose of the monetary transfers remain hazy, the origins appear to be mostly foreign, and the money was delivered through at least twenty different corporations, all formed by a Biden family member in Delaware and Washington, D.C.

Now I am not a criminal lawyer, nor have I ever investigated an operation such as this, but my colleagues who have described this as classic money laundering. Empty corporations are formed as a device to obscure the source of said funds and to make it more difficult to connect the source of the money to the eventual recipient. That was plainly shown by the House committee.

What is important here is the response by Biden political defenders in the Democratic Party and in the media

“Nothing here,” they shout, claiming that there is no direct link to the president as a recipient. Some party loyalists claim that while this may look bad for the president, it is not illegal. The media have for the most part taken up a similar defense. The New York Times headline was: “House Republican Report Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by President Biden.”

It reported that, “After months of investigation and many public accusations of corruption against Mr. Biden and his family, the first report of the premier House GOP inquiry showed no proof of such misconduct.”

And Time Magazine reported: “[The House] Investigation of Biden Relatives Swings and Misses on Allegations of Influence Peddling.”

And so, the question arises: Is this the Twenty-First Century version of honest graft? Perpetuated by successors of the original Tammany men? Or is the Biden Bunch just victims of an overzealous political witch-hunt?

Either that or we have a new political family living by the motto: We seen our opportunities and we took ’em.

(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/)