Coerced and silenced: A mother’s fight to challenge Minnesota’s abortion laws

Clara Munger, a plaintiff in the landmark case Women’s Life Care Center v. Ellison, is challenging the foundation of Minnesota’s abortion laws, claiming she was coerced into an abortion she did not want due to a lack of informed consent and proper counseling.

In this case, Munger and other mothers are bravely sharing their emotional and psychological scars from being coerced into abortions they never wanted.

“If anyone at Planned Parenthood, or the State of Minnesota, ever told [me] that the abortion was a murder punishable by life imprisonment, and that [my] signature operated to grant immunity from prosecution for such a murder, [I] never would have submitted to the abortion,” says Munger.

A young woman from Minnesota, Munger found herself in a difficult, emotionally charged situation when her boyfriend – the father of her child – pressured her into seeking an abortion. Despite her hesitance, she ultimately gave in to his demands. 

According to the legal complaint filed by renowned pro-life attorney Harold Cassidy, Munger’s experience at the Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS/PPNCS) facility in Rochester only deepened her distress.

“There was no counseling, no discussion of alternatives,” the complaint states. 

It continues: “Clara ruminates about the loss of her child, experiencing ‘an emptiness and hollowness’ with deep sadness, depression and anger. She finds it one of the greatest painful experiences in her life.”

Now, Munger is taking on the very system she believes failed her at the most critical moment of her life.

The case centers on the claim that neither the medical facility nor the state of Minnesota provided proper informed consent, which could have prevented Munger from going through with the abortion.

Her legal team contends that the lack of informed consent, the absence of counseling, and insufficient safeguards violated her rights.

Minnesota’s abortion laws allow abortions up to 24 weeks with minimal counseling or waiting periods. Co-plaintiff Women’s Life Care Center claims that these laws leave women vulnerable to manipulation and regret, prioritizing convenience and profit over the sanctity of life.

Women’s Life Care Center v. Ellison is not just about legal rights – it’s about the human cost of a decision that was never truly hers.

The case’s outcome could have wide-ranging implications for abortion laws and practices in Minnesota and beyond, particularly in how women are treated when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

By sharing her story and standing up against the abortion industry, Munger is igniting a critical dialogue on the future of abortion laws in Minnesota – and across the country – ensuring that every mother’s voice is heard.

Learn more about the case here. If you wish to support Munger and the other plaintiffs as the case progresses to court, please consider contributing here.

Pope’s Idea Of Poor Migrants Is Flawed

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president

 

On the eve of the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Pope Francis called him a “disgrace” for pledging to deport illegal aliens. The pope said that doing so “makes poor wretches, who have nothing, pay the price for the imbalance.”

 

If the typical illegal alien were a “poor wretch” who owns “nothing,” the Holy Father’s criticism would have merit. But such is not the case. To be blunt, his understanding of who these migrants are is flawed.

 

Historically, the poorest of the poor are rarely, if ever, the ones who migrate from poor countries to rich countries. Quite frankly, the poorest of the poor are so undernourished, and physically disabled, that they don’t have the stamina to migrate. It’s those who don’t share these characteristics who migrate.

 

This observation is backed up by the social science. Oxford economist Paul Collier has spent much of his career studying the poorest people on earth. A summary of his work found that “Those who seek entry to wealthy countries are rarely the poorest of the poor; they are those with the resources and skills necessary to migrate.”

 

This is certainly the case with those who have been crashing our southern border.

 

Migrants who are truly poor can’t afford cell phones. But many of those who have made their way to the U.S. come with them. If they don’t have one, U.S. taxpayers pay for them: we are spending over $100 million a year supplying hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with a smartphone. Moreover, if these migrants owned “nothing,” as the pope says, why is it that millions of them have money to pay the drug cartels, gangsters who exploit them in their quest for entry?

 

If these migrants were as poor as the pope thinks they are, why is it that most of them (54 percent) have a high school education or beyond? According to statistics provided by Migration Policy, 24 percent of “the unauthorized population” have a high school diploma or equivalent; 12 percent have some college or associate’s degree; 18 percent have a bachelors, graduate, or professional degree.

 

In terms of family income, 74 percent are at or above the poverty line. Indeed, 43 percent make at or above 200 percent of the poverty line. These are not “poor wretches.”

 

Americans are a generous people, but they don’t like to be played. Public officials, and those who police the border, have often noted how widespread the game of ripping off the taxpayers is. Even President Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, recently admitted that “The reality is that some people do indeed try to game the system.” These are not “poor wretches.”

 

A Pew Research Center survey found that almost 8-in-10 Americans (78 percent) believe that immigrants living illegally in the U.S. should not be eligible for public assistance. Also, “Majorities say immigrants living in the U.S. illegally are making things worse when it comes to public resources such as housing, education and health care (66%), crime (63%), and the economy (54%).”

 

Where is the compassion for these Americans?

 

Those who have come to America illegally are not a monolithic demographic. Some are fairly well off, some are not. Some are good citizens, some are not. Some are honest in their quest for citizenship, and some are gaming the system.

 

A prudent approach to the problem of illegal aliens requires that some basic distinctions be made. It also behooves us not to see them as “poor wretches” who own “nothing.” Indeed, this is true of almost none of them. 

The final corruption of Joe Biden

By Jonathan Turley, Opinion Contributor, The Hill 

 

With only 15 minutes to go as president, Joe Biden snatched infamy from the jaws of obscurity.

With record-low polling and widely viewed as a “failed” president, Biden completed his one-man race to the bottom of ethics by issuing preemptive pardons to members of his own family.

The pardons were timed to guarantee that the media would not focus on yet another unethical act by this president. He need not have worried. For four years, the media worked tirelessly to deny or deflect the corruption scandal surrounding the Biden family.

The pardoning of James Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John Owens and Francis Biden brought an inescapable clarity to the corruption of what is known in Washington as Biden Inc.

I have written about the Biden family’s corruption for decades. Influence-peddling has always been the favorite form of corruption in Washington, but this city has never seen the likes of the Biden family. Millions of dollars were secured from foreign sources and distributed to various Biden family members.

Biden repeatedly lied about the influence peddling. He long denied knowing about his son’s foreign clients or business. He denied ever meeting Hunter’s clients. Later, photos and emails showed that Biden had clearly met these clients and knew about the business deals. He was fully aware that his family was cashing in on his name and various offices.

Even Biden’s claims about handling the Trump cases were recently contradicted. While long claiming that he left these cases to the Justice Department and took no position on the merits, the Washington Post recently reported that Biden was irate over the failure to prosecute Trump before the election. He also reportedly lashed out at Attorney General Merrick Garland and said he regretted his appointment in light of the failure to nail Trump.

One of the most glaring lies was that he would never pardon his son. Few people believed him. Indeed, Hunter Biden’s bizarre criminal defense made no sense unless he knew that he had a pocket pardon if all else failed.

Once he was forced out of the presidential race, Biden was freed up to sign a pardon for any and all crimes committed over a ten-year period by his son. He insisted that he really hadn’t been lying. He claimed that no ordinary person would have been tried for his son’s crimes — a manifestly untrue statement. He also emphasized that he had to take this step as a father of a son who was a hopeless addict and has now been clean for years.

However, the latest family pardon shatters even that rationalization. These Bidens are not even charged with any crimes, but Biden wanted to give them cover from any possible prosecution for anything. It was the ultimate sign of contempt for the intelligence of the American public and the integrity of his office.

Biden has long exercised situational ethics and, with his powers coming to an end, the situation demanded that he cash out before his credit ended. In granting these pardons, Biden was seeking to protect not just his family but also himself. He was the object of the influence peddling and repeatedly lied to bury the scandal. This insulation of his family serves to move the threat farther from himself.

Biden, however, may have been too clever by half this time. In the final moments of his presidency, He broke into the open and exposed not just himself but his allies in the media. Reporters are now fully visible as willing dupes in one of the greatest corruption scandals in the history of this country.

In his pardon statement, Biden insisted that “the issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.” Of course, that is the very opposite of what most people will conclude. More importantly, the pardons will not end the threat to his family.

Figures such as James Biden have been accused of lying to Congress about the influence-peddling operation. He can still be subpoenaed and, if he lies, he can be charged with a new crime.

Indeed, after James Biden’s pardon, it will be argued that he has less of a basis to claim the right to remain silent about any alleged crimes that have been during the period for which the pardon applies. (He could argue that there is a danger of state charges, but that is less credible due to the running of statutes of limitation and other factors.)

The pardons, if anything, make such an investigation even more compelling for those who want answers to longstanding questions of corruption.

Biden sealed his legacy with a finality that escapes most presidents. While his diminished mental capacity will remain an issue for historians, his longstanding lack of ethics was conclusively established with these pardons. It was Biden’s final act of corruption.

For a president who liked to call others “lying dog-faced pony soldiers,” Biden proved that, in the world of political corruption, the ponies are entirely optional.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Statement Regarding President Trump’s Announcement that Military Members who Refused COVID Vaccine Will Receive Backpay

 Washington, D.C.—The following statement may be attributed to David Hacker, Vice President of Litigation and Senior Counsel at First Liberty Institute, regarding President Trump’s announcement that military members who refused the COVID-19 vaccine will receive back pay: 

 

The battle to restore those members of the military who stood up for their beliefs against the vaccine mandate was a long and difficult battle, but our Navy SEAL and military clients never gave up.  We are thrilled that those members of the military who were guided by their conscience and steadfast in their faith will not be penalized in their military careers and are grateful to President Trump for standing with our military and restoring these brave, faithful warriors.

 

In January 2022, First Liberty Institute and Hacker Stephens LLP, representing dozens of U.S. Navy SEALs and other Naval Special Warfare personnel, won the first injunction in the nation against the military’s vaccine mandate in Navy SEALs v. Biden.    A settlement reached in July 2024 ensures that Navy service members who refused the COVID vaccine for religious reasons have an opportunity to have their records corrected and their careers protected, considering the next three promotion “boards must not consider any adverse information related solely to COVID-19 vaccine refusal in cases in which a religious accommodation was requested.” Servicemembers who elected to leave service after being mistreated by the Navy will also get their records corrected.

 

# # #

 

About First Liberty Institute

First Liberty Institute is the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom for all Americans.

A New Day

 

The World Over January 16, 2025 | Pope Francis Autobiography: The Papal ...

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy Stockpiles Abortion Pills to Make Sure Babies Can be Killed

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy Stockpiles Abortion Pills to Make Sure Babies Can be Killed

Idaho Army National Guard Sued for “No Christians in Command” Policy

BOISE, ID – Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of an Idaho Army National Guard infantry officer against Governor Brad Little and two army generals for unlawfully removing the officer from command solely due to his personal Christian expression on biblical sexuality made outside of the military environment. An investigation into the officer, which revealed no wrongdoing, nevertheless recommended a policy to monitor potential candidates for command for any “concerning ideologies” as a way of “rooting out” any “extremism” in the ranks. In this case, the decision to remove him from command on this basis shows that his superiors believe his Bible-centered beliefs on sexuality to be concerning and essentially puts an unconstitutional “No Christians in Command” policy into action.

The investigation noted that the Idaho Army National Guard should consider “creating a policy…of conducting public records search on the Internet and on popular social media sites to see how a selected candidate portrays themselves publicly,” and that candidates for command be “scrutinized to ensure there is no concerning information within the public domain.”

In the lawsuit, Liberty Counsel contends that despite finding no evidence of wrongdoing by the officer, the Idaho Army National Guard affirmed the investigation’s policy recommendation by ordering the officer removed from command “for the mere exercise and expression of his religious views.”

These discriminatory actions violate the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Idaho Free Exercise of Religious Protection Act. Liberty Counsel seeks a permanent injunction against the discrimination of Christians in the Idaho Army National Guard and a temporary restraining order for it to restore the officer and cease all efforts to force him out of the military.

In addition to Gov. Little, the lawsuit names Adjutant General of the Idaho National Guard Major General Timothy J. Donnellan and the Assistant Adjutant General for the Idaho Army National Guard Brigadier General James C. Packwood.

The events that led to this unjustifiable policy began when Major David Worley, an infantry officer, ran for mayor in Pocatello, Idaho. During Worley’s political campaign, which he conducted strictly outside his military duties, he expressed his religious convictions and moral objections to certain issues relevant to political discourse in his community. He expressed his opposition to issues involving so-called “Drag Queen Story Hours,” pornographic material for minors in public libraries, and the medical mutilation of gender-confused children. All of Worley’s protected speech occurred off-duty in his private capacity and before he took command of the Idaho Army National Guard’s Recruiting and Retention unit.

In 2023, a subordinate senior enlisted man under Worley’s command, who claims to be homosexual and is ideologically opposed to Worley’s religious beliefs, filed a formal discrimination complaint against Worley. Despite only meeting Worley twice without incident, the complaining guardsman alleged he was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and that Worley created a hostile work environment. The complaining guardsman noted he felt “threatened and unsafe” merely due to Worley’s beliefs.

However, Worley’s Christian beliefs denote that all people are made in God’s image and have inherent dignity and are worthy of respect. He is committed to serving those under his command, regardless of political or religious disagreements, and would give his life in defense of his state and nation. As a result, the Idaho Army National Guard suspended Worley from command in July 2023 following the complaint and then illegally pressured him to resign without benefit of any counsel or notice. He rescinded his notice two hours later after contacting Liberty Counsel.

The Idaho Army National Guard then proceeded with a formal investigation into the complaint. Ultimately, General Packwood found the complaints from the complaining guardsman were unsubstantiated and found no evidence Worley did anything wrong in the workplace. Yet, out of the investigation came the recommendation that all candidates for command be scrutinized to ensure any concerning expression is discovered, reported to the Department of Defense, and investigated for extremist activity. Accordingly, General Packwood concluded Worley’s religious beliefs were “toxic” and removed him from command solely due to those protected religious views.

“The ‘No Christians in Command’ policy constitutes a religious gerrymander by unconstitutionally orphaning sincerely held religious beliefs while permitting the more favored nonreligious value systems,” wrote Liberty Counsel. “On its face and as applied, [the policy] lacks any rational basis and is irrational and unjustifiable.”

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that military members do not shed their constitutional rights when they step forward to serve the nation. Nor are the military departments immune to the laws protecting their individual freedoms. By suspending and removing Major David Worley from command over his Christian beliefs, the Idaho Army National Guard informally adopted an unconstitutional ‘No Christians in Command’ policy. The Constitution simply does not allow the military to punish those with sincerely held religious beliefs or to specifically target religion for disparate and discriminatory treatment. Governor Brad Little must ensure that the Idaho Army National Guard upholds federal and state law and protects the free speech of its service members. This discrimination against Major Worley must stop and his record must be cleared and his career restored.”

The State of Religious Liberty in the United States

Annual Report of the USCCB’s Committee for Religious Liberty:

The Annual Report summarizes developments in religious liberty at the federal or national level in the United States in 2024. In the final section, it identifies five areas of critical concern—issues where there are both threats and opportunities—for religious liberty in the coming year, with recommended actions that readers can take in response to each issue.

Law & Policy

As was the case in the 2023–2024 Annual Report, because control of the two chambers of Congress was divided, most bills that threatened religious liberty—that is to say, immunity from coercion in religious matters—did not move forward. Legislation aiming to increase access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) was introduced in 2024. The most significant threats to religious liberty at the federal level came in the form of finalized regulations by federal agencies, such as the Section 1557 rule, which implements the nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). These rules heavily focused on imposing requirements regarding abortion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The Supreme Court did not decide any cases in 2024 that dealt primarily with a question of religious liberty. However, rights of conscience played an unexpectedly key role in two decisions about abortion: Moyle v. United States and FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court limited the power of federal agencies to interpret laws passed by Congress, signaling a major change in how regulations and religious liberty will intersect in the future. The Court heard arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti regarding whether the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause bars states from prohibiting so-called gender transition procedures for minors.

Politics & Culture

In 2024, there were several significant developments in politics and culture. Two issues that were prominent in the 2024 election have implications for religious liberty: immigration and gender identity. Immigration policy becomes a religious liberty problem when religious charities and social services are singled out for special hostility. Gender identity rules have led to religious liberty conflicts, but following the election, some Democrats seemed to signal a desire to moderate on this issue. The opening ceremony of the 2024 Olympics included a display that mocked Catholics, while the governor of Michigan appeared in a social media video in which she gave a tortilla chip to a podcast host in a manner that lewdly imitated a priest giving communion at Mass. The Committee for Religious Liberty hosted a symposium on the theme of Religious Liberty in a Culture of Self-Invention. Religious charities serving newcomers found themselves the targets of lawfare, largely motivated by misinformation and partisan rhetoric related to the U.S.–Mexico border, while shocking reports of antisemitic incidents emerged from the campus protests that began following the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel.

The five areas of critical concern—threats and opportunities—for religious liberty are:

·        the targeting of faith-based immigration services

·        the persistence of elevated levels of antisemitic incidents

·        IVF mandates, which represent a significant threat to religious freedom, while the national discussion of IVF represents an opportunity for Catholics to share Church teaching and advocate for human dignity

·        the scaling back of gender ideology in law

·        parental choice in education, one of the longest-running areas of concern for American Catholics

Read the full report.

The Pope who SAW SATAN

AG nominee Pam Bondi: FBI targeting Catholics ‘must stop’

 Attorney general nominee Pam Bondi told lawmakers at her Wednesday confirmation hearing that she would put an end to what she called the “weaponization” of the Department of Justice and FBI against Catholics, pro-life Americans, and others. “Going after parents at a school board meeting has got to stop,” Bondi said. “For practicing your religion – sending informants into Catholic churches must stop.”  READ

Pam Bondi Will Stop the Liberal Lawfare That Has Targeted Americans

Pam Bondi Will Stop the Liberal Lawfare That Has Targeted Americans

Thomas More Society Petitions President Trump to Pardon 21 Pro-Lifers Targeted by Biden’s DOT

 (Washington, D.C.) On January 14, 2025, Thomas More Society attorneys submitted to the incoming Trump administration formal requests for presidential pardons on behalf of 21 pro-life advocates who have been unjustly prosecuted, convicted, and in several cases, imprisoned, by the Biden Department of Justice. In their letter submitted to President Donald J. Trump, Thomas More Society attorneys “urge that these pro-life Americans are deserving of full and unconditional pardons.”

The pardon request package includes 21 individual pardon requests, one for each pro-life advocate, outlining the specific facts of each case, their upstanding personal and moral character, and the reasons why President Trump should grant a presidential pardon. The pardon request package also includes a cover letter outlining the legal rationale for the requested pardons and explains how the Biden DOJ routinely and unconstitutionally weaponized the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and “Conspiracy Against Rights” statute against peaceful pro-life advocates.

The 21 pro-life advocates for whom Thomas More Society has submitted pardon requests are: Joan Bell, Coleman Boyd, Joel Curry, Jonathan Darnel, Eva Edl, Chester Gallagher, William Goodman, Dennis Green, Lauren Handy, Paulette Harlow, John Hinshaw, Heather Idoni, Jean Marshall, Fr. Fidelis Moscinski, Justin Phillips, Paul Place, Paul Vaughn, Bevelyn Beatty Williams, Calvin Zastrow, Eva Zastrow, and James Zastrow.

“With these requests for presidential pardons for 21 peaceful pro-life advocates, we urge President Trump to right the grievous wrongs of the Biden administration’s weaponization of the Department of Justice,” stated Steve Crampton, Thomas More Society Senior Counsel. “These 21 peaceful pro-lifers, many of whom are currently imprisoned for bravely standing up for unborn life, are upstanding citizens and pillars of their communities. Through full and unconditional pardons for these pro-life advocates, President Trump has the chance to remedy the harm done to them and their families, deliver on his campaign promises, and repair trust in our constitutional order.”

On at least three occasions, President Trump has publicly signaled his intent to pardon the pro-life advocates wrongly prosecuted during the Biden administration. In September 2023, on the heels of the FACE Act convictions in Washington, D.C., President Trump stated he would review the “cases of every political prisoner who’s been unjustly persecuted by the Biden administration.” In February 2024, in a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters in Nashville, Tennessee, Trump referenced the “pro-life activists... convicted on outrageous charges” in the Nashville FACE Act trial and pledged to review those convictions following his return to office. In June 2024, in a speech for the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Trump reiterated his earlier statements and specifically referenced 76-year-old Paulette Harlow in his remarks, who is included among the pro-life advocates requesting a full pardon in the communicated pardon request package.

“We are hopeful that the second Trump administration will spell a new day for pro-life advocates who have faced FBI raids, federal prosecutions, and severe punishment for peacefully and courageously witnessing for life,” added Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation. “By acting on the requested presidential pardons, President Trump has a golden opportunity to not only stop the lawfare against peaceful pro-lifers, but to also undo some of the unprecedented damage of the Biden administration. Inside and outside the courtroom, Thomas More Society attorneys have seen up close the harm inflicted by the Biden DOJ’s weaponization the FACE Act. Today, we call on President Trump to pardon these peaceful pro-lifers and put an end to this government overreach.”

Read the Pardon Request Package Cover Letter, “Re: Petitions for Pardon of 21 Peaceful Pro-Life Advocates,” addressed to President Donald J. Trump, by Thomas More Society attorneys on behalf of 21 pro-life advocates, here. For privacy reasons, the detailed individual requests are unable to be made public.

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 the website at thomasmoresociety.org.

Bishop Strickland Protests Pope Francis's new Liberal Cardinal of Wash D...

Catholics In The New Congress Split On Abortion

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president 

The 119th session of the Congress that began on January 3 is overrepresented by Christians. While most are Protestant, 28 percent are Catholic. Nationwide, Christians make up 62 percent of the population, but they make up 87 percent of the new Congress. Almost three-in-ten Americans are religiously unaffiliated (28 percent), though the three Congressmen who fall into this category make up less than 1 percent of Congress.

 

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has repeatedly said that abortion is the “preeminent priority” for voters. Accordingly, we examined the voting record of every returning Catholic member of Congress, and sought to ascertain the position on this issue as expressed by Catholic freshmen when they were running for office.

 

We used the scorecard of National Right to Life, and the scorecard of Reproductive Freedom (formerly NARAL), to see how they rated these Catholics. As expected, the results of the pro-life organization and the pro-abortion organization showed wide agreement.

 

To simplify matters, we will refer only to the National Right to Life scorecard. To see the complete tally of all Catholic members of Congress as scored by both organizations, click here.

 

In the House of Representatives, there are 126 Catholics: 71 Democrats and 55 Republicans. From our analysis, more Catholic representatives are pro-abortion (70) than are pro-life (54); two can be regarded as moderates.

 

Six-in-ten (59) Catholic representatives received a score of 0 percent from National Right to Life, and all of them were Democrats. Two scored near zero (both Democrats) and two scored near the middle (one from each Party). There were 44 Catholic representatives who received a 100 percent rating from National Right to Life, and all were Republicans. Nineteen, all freshman, had no scores.

 

In the Senate, there are 23 Catholics: 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans. From our analysis, more Senators are pro-abortion (14) than are pro-life (8); one, a Republican, can be regarded as a moderate.

 

Of the 14 Catholic Senators who are pro-abortion—they received a score of 0 percent from National Right to Life—all but one was a Democrat. There were 7 Catholic Senators who received a pro-life score of 100 percent; one was a freshman without a score, though he was endorsed by the Susan B. Anthony List.

 

The data show how sharply the Parties differ. The Republican Party is overwhelmingly pro-life and the Democrats are overwhelmingly pro-abortion.