Planned Parenthood, ACLU Fight to Keep Child Marriage Legal

If you think child brides are the stuff of faraway cultures, think again. In 2017, child marriage was legal in all 50 states in America.... Read More The post Planned Parenthood, ACLU Fight to Keep Child Marriage Legal appeared first on The Daily Signal. Read More

New Evidence Shows FBI Used Multiple Offices to Spy on Catholic Churchgoers

The House Judiciary Committee today unveiled newly subpoenaed evidence Wednesday making it clear that FBI Director Christopher Wray misled members of Congress when he claimed a controversial anti-Catholic memo was limited to one FBI office. The evidence in ... Read More

Arrest Made in ‘Demonic’ Death Threat Against Sonja Shaw

By Ben Johnson, The Washington Stand

After enduring weeks of threats ranging from litigation to dismemberment, a pro-family school board member has two reasons to celebrate. Police have arrested a woman who left a death threat in a “demonic” voice after the board required teachers to tell parents if their children begin identifying as transgender. And a California assemblyman has asked the attorney general to explain whether his investigation of the school district was designed to punish officials who dare to “disagree with the narrative of the ruling political party.”

The Chino Valley (California) Unified School District Board of Education adopted a policy that parents will be informed within three days if their children begin using a name or “pronouns that do not align the child’s biological sex,” seek to join a sports team or use the facility of the opposite sex, or try to change their school records. Sonja Shaw shepherded the motion past legal threats from Democratic state officials to a 4-1 majority on July 20.

The next day, violent and disturbing messages began to pour in, starting with a phone call placed by a man from another state. Investigating that call led police into began unraveling the tidal wave of intimidation that deluged the CVUSD board in general and Shaw in particular. “Why are people so angry about notifying parents and keeping people in the loop?” asked Shaw.

Shaw revealed on “Washington Watch” in late July that the district became deluged with death threats in the days after adopting its parents’ rights policy, including an anonymous call threatening “to kill me, and they said that they were going to dismember my body parts.” Nameless, faceless email accounts told Shaw they planned to murder her, kill her children, and slaughter their pets — often including accurate details of her home life.

Then, police announced late last week that they arrested 52-year-old Rebecca Morgan of Berkeley for threatening Shaw.

“She left multiple messages for me,” said Shaw. “She also left one other message for one of our other [CVUSD board] members.” At times, “she was changing her voice to an almost demonic voice,” Shaw told One America New Network (OAN). “She was very specific on what she wanted to do,” telling her Shaw to “keep one eye open when you sleep.”

Shaw thanked police and felt privileged she could suffer threats for her stand because, “as much as it hurts and it’s scary, I think it also revealed who’s after our kids.”

California’s Christian leaders also praised the police work, while hoping that “every person responsible for sending the threatening messages is held accountable. No one should feel unsafe simply for doing their job. However, Christians should expect this kind of backlash when doing God’s work,” wrote Sophia Lorey of the California Family Council.

Shaw says the crucible of LGBTQ hatred has brought her closer to Christ. As worldly powers and people around her raged, Shaw’s faith in Christ deepened. “God kept showing me hope [in] Jeremiah 29:11,” she said. “I have drawn closer and closer to God during this time and look to Him for direction and protection.”

The police investigation continues. Meanwhile, Shaw said she and others in the community are taking precautions to protect their loved ones. “I’m applying for my CCW [Concealed Carry Weapons license]. We also took my girls to go learn how to shoot,” she said. She added that her family received “comforting” offers by “people in the community who said that they would come and stand in front of my home and take shifts” standing sentry.

“I won’t back down and will stand in the gap to protect our kids from big government bullies,” Shaw has said.

State authorities responded to the explosive situation by further threatening CVUSD members. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) opened a civil rights investigation into the board last week, saying there is a chance the “forced outing” of minors who identify as transgender to “unaccepting” parents could possibly lead to “potential abuse.”

But state officials believe Bonta is the one who may be guilty of abuse. California Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R) sent a letter asking Bonta to explain the “legal basis” for his investigation and whether Bonta is “similarly investigating school districts implementing policies that violate the civil rights of parents.”

Essayli accused the California Department of Education of giving “faulty advice” that “students possess a legally cognizable privacy interest from their parents. .... Never in the history of our jurisprudence have we held that children have a right to privacy from their parents.” Bonta’s legal theory “violates 100 years of United States Supreme Court precedence that has consistently said that parents, not schools, possess the fundamental right to raise their children.”

“As a result of the CDE advice, public schools in California are increasingly implementing illegal, unconstitutional and unethical policies that exclude parents from the affairs of their children,” while the “actions of CVUSD are in keeping with fundamental constitutional principles.”

If Bonta declines to explain himself, Essayli will be forced to conclude the probe was “designed to chill the political activities of local school boards who disagree with the narrative of the ruling political party in Sacramento.”

The school board has a long history of defying the LGBTQ narrative when it infringes on fundamental rights or the purpose of education. CVUSD previously adopted a resolution supporting Essayli’s Assembly Bill 1314, which would require schools to notify parents if children begin to identify as members of a different sex. It died in the Democrat-dominated chamber in April. On June 15 — literally in the middle of Pride Month — the Chino Valley School Board voted to prevent teachers from flying LGBT flags in the classroom, again by a 4-1 vote. (Board member Donald Bridge cast the lone no vote on these motions.)

When told such flags made children feel “safe,” Shaw replied, “If a teacher has to fly a flag in the classroom to show a kid this is safe space, that is a teacher problem.” 

California’s increasingly besieged Christian parents hailed Shaw’s resolute stand. “Christian leaders need to stand firm, undeterred by intimidation, and emulate the fortitude and bravery demonstrated by individuals like Shaw,” wrote Lorey. Shaw has repeatedly promised not to take a backward step in her quest to protect parents, and children, from teacher-activists and the transgender industry.

“Regardless of threats, I’m not going away,” Shaw said.

Pro-Life Advocate Jim Havens Vindicated in Upstate New York Legal Battle

(August 10, 2023 – Rochester, NY) Jim Havens—a Rochester, New York, area pro-life advocate—has been vindicated in his lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James and the City of Rochester, after both state and city denied him the right to approach an abortion facility to speak in favor of life. Thomas More Society attorneys represented Jim Havens when he and the sidewalk counseling organization he founded, ROC Love Will End Abortion, were banned from sharing information about abortion and offering life-affirming alternatives outside of a Planned Parenthood abortion facility on University Avenue in Rochester.

 The reason given for this violation of his First Amendment rights was a court-ordered injunction issued against different parties in a 2005 court action. “Of course, when a court enjoins a person in a legal proceeding from engaging in something that is ordinarily legal, it does not prohibit others who were not involved in that legal proceeding from engaging in that activity,” said Thomas Olp, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President. “When the Thomas More Society pointed that out to the City of Rochester in September 2018, the city agreed and notified us that Havens and ROC would not be covered by the existing injunction.”

“But that position was reversed when the State of New York got involved. For that reason, Havens and ROC sued the State and City to secure his First Amendment rights and to prevent them from applying the 2005 injunction—in which he was not named—to him and his ministry,” continued Olp. “The federal court in the Western District of New York denied him those rights, claiming that because he knew—and had associated—with some of those individuals to which the 2005 prohibition applied, that he was ‘in active concert or participation’ with them. The court then dismissed Mr. Havens’ case with prejudice.”

“We then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,” Olp explained, “and the appeals Court agreed with our initial position. The Court reversed the lower court’s decision and declared that Jim Havens and ROC—who were not named parties in the litigation resulting in the 2005 injunction and not legally identified with those who are—cannot be bound by it.”

The lawsuit was sent back to the lower court with orders to apply the appellate court’s opinion restoring Havens’ and ROC’s First Amendment rights.

This week on Faith On Trial: Illinois law curbing rights of crisis pregnancy centers; Biden's attempt to twist pregnant protection law to mandate abortions

 And a discussion of the new Minnesota law denying newborns who survive abortion no medical care.

New info: 'anti-Catholic- memo not just from Richmond

The FBI director “may have lied under oath” about the Bureau’s infamous January memo against so-called “radical traditional” Catholics. New evidence shows the contents of the memo did not originate solely with the FBI’s Richmond, VA field office, but were part of an effort that spanned the FBI offices of Portland and LA.  READ

 

Massachusetts Bans Couple From Adopting Foster Kids Because They’re Conservative Christians

Mike and Kitty Burke

By Ryan Colby, LifeNews.com

A religious couple in Massachusetts took the Commonwealth to court today for banning them from welcoming vulnerable children into their home through the Commonwealth’s foster care program. In Burke v. Walsh, Mike and Kitty Burke wanted to foster and someday adopt children in need of a family. Even though Massachusetts has a foster care crisis, state officials refused to let the Burkes foster any children in the state. 

The reason was their religious beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and gender. With the help of Becket, the Burkes are asking the court to ensure that qualified families no longer suffer for their religious beliefs and that vulnerable children are given a loving home. 

Mike and Kitty Burke are a Catholic couple from Massachusetts who have long wanted to become parents. Mike is an Iraq war veteran, Kitty is a former paraprofessional for special needs kids, and together they run a business and perform music for Mass.  Mike and Kitty began exploring becoming foster parents through the state’s foster care program, hoping to care for and eventually adopt children in need of a stable, loving home like theirs. 

“After months of interviews and training, and after years of heartbreak, we were on the verge of finally becoming parents,” said Mike and Kitty Burke. “We were absolutely devastated to learn that Massachusetts would rather children sleep in the hallways of hospitals than let us welcome children in need into our home.” 

Children in foster care throughout Massachusetts are waiting for families like the Burkes. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) currently does not have enough foster homes or facilities to meet the needs of the children in its care, leaving over 1,500 children without a family. The crisis has become so extreme that the state has resorted to housing children in hospitals for weeks on end. Now more than ever, Massachusetts needs the help of parents like Mike and Kitty to foster children in need. 

During their application process, the Burkes underwent hours of training, extensive interviews, and an examination of their home. Mike and Kitty completed the training successfully and received high marks from the instructors. However, during their home interviews, the Burkes were troubled that many questions centered on their Catholic views about sexual orientation and gender dysphoria. In response, the Burkes emphasized that they would love and accept any child, no matter the child’s future sexual orientation or struggles with gender identity. 

However, because Mike and Kitty said they would continue to hold to their religious beliefs about gender and human sexuality, they were denied the ability to foster. The couple’s home study said, “Their faith is not supportive.” 

DCF officials said that while they had strengths, their answers about sexuality and gender barred them from being licensed.  This denial was as unnecessary as it was unconstitutional. Massachusetts law protects the religious liberty of foster parents. And Massachusetts is supposed to put the best interests of children first. 

“It takes the heroic effort of parents like Mike and Kitty to provide vulnerable children with loving homes through foster care,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Massachusetts’ actions leave the Burkes, and families of other faiths, out in the cold. How can they explain this to children waiting for a home?”

Joe Biden is Illegally Forcing Americans to Fund Abortions and Abortion Tourism

Joe Biden is Illegally Forcing Americans to Fund Abortions and Abortion Tourism

Minnesota babies who survive abortions no longer entitled to lifesaving medical care

 Minnesota abortion reporting forms no longer must note 'whether the abortion resulted in a born alive infant' or 'any medical actions taken to preserve the life of the born alive infant.'

By Matt Lamb 

MINNESOTA (LifeSiteNews) – Babies who survive abortions will no longer be counted under a new Minnesota pro-abortion law that is now in effect. 

Babies who survive abortion also have fewer rights after the state’s Democratic leaders passed the legislation, in effect as of August 1, that lessens the medical care requirements for those infants. 

The new law removed a requirement that abortion reporting forms include information on “whether the abortion resulted in a born alive infant,” “any medical actions taken to preserve the life of the born alive infant,” “whether the born alive infant survived” and “the status of the born alive infant, should the infant survive.” 

The law also changes the “reasonable measures” requirement to say that “medical personnel” should provide “care for the infant who is born alive.” There is no longer a requirement to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.” 

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) criticized the change in an August 1 statement. 

“Minnesota lawmakers have revoked basic protection for newborn babies, and now the fate of newborns who survive abortion will be hidden from the public,” MCCL Co-Executive Director Cathy Blaeser stated. “Why do lawmakers want to keep us in the dark? This appalling extremism is not what Minnesotans asked for. Our elected officials must restore protection for newborns who are at risk.” 

“In recent years, five born-alive infants were reported in 2015, five in 2016, three in 2017, three in 2018, three in 2019, and five in 2021, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. This information will no longer be available,” the group noted. 

Democratic Party embraces infanticide

The change in the law is part of a trend of Democratic Party leaders embracing legalized infanticide as an official agenda item. 

The use of the ambiguous word “care” reflects the comments by former Democratic Virginia Governor Ralph Northam who infamously appeared to endorse infanticide. 

When asked in 2019 about a radical bill that would allow abortions one second before a baby was born, Gov. Northam reflected on his own experience as a pediatrician. 

“So, in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen: The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desire, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam stated. 

Other Democratic leaders have also taken the official position that abortion should be available through all nine months of pregnancy without any limits at taxpayer expense. 

Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois signed legislation to allow abortions up until the moment of birth. He also wants this enshrined into the state constitution, as previously reported by LifeSiteNews. 

Illinois is the place where then-state senator Barack Obama voted “present” in the state legislature on a bill to require basic care for babies who survived abortions. It is also where nurse and pro-life activist Jill Stanek testified that babies were left to die after “live birth abortions.” 

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, vetoed commonsense legislation that would protect babies who are born alive during abortions. 

In her April veto message, the leftist governor claimed the bill was “uniformly opposed by the medical community, and interferes with the relationship between a patient and doctor. It’s simply not the state’s role to make such difficult medical decisions for patients.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation in September 2022 that could be interpreted to decriminalize infanticide, according to pro-life experts.

“SAFE” Act Laws Protecting Children Upheld in Two States

CINCINATTI, OH – The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled the laws of two states banning puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and medical mutilation for minors were constitutional and could remain in effect. The legislatures of Tennessee and Kentucky overwhelming voted to enact the “Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act” earlier this year and the laws, which have only minor differences, are the first of their kind to be upheld in federal court.

The Appeals Court ruled 2-1 on July 8, 2023, in Tennessee’s case, and ruled 2-1 again on

July 31, in Kentucky’s case, to remove the preliminary injunctions of lower courts finding that the legal challenges to both laws were likely lacking enough merit to win. Tennessee’s case will proceed to trial with a final ruling expected in late September. 

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged both SAFE laws on behalf of at least 10 families alleging the laws violate U.S Constitution’s due process and equal protection guarantees. They asserted that parents have a due process right to make medical decisions for their children and that the SAFE acts commit sex-based discrimination violating equal protection rights. The Appeals Court flatly rejected each claim. 

Chief Judge Jeffery Sutton wrote the majority opinion in Tennessee’s case, an opinion that carried over to Kentucky’s case, acknowledging that parents have the right to make decisions about their children. However, he noted there was no consensus in the medical field regarding treatments for gender dysphoria and the U.S. Constitution does not take over the “field” in absence of any consensus. 

Judge Sutton wrote, “The challengers have not shown that a right to new medical treatments is ‘deeply rooted in our history and traditions’ and thus beyond the democratic process to regulate.” He further stated that since the Food and Drug Administration has not approved hormone drugs for these purposes, it was difficult to “constitutionalize” their use as a guarantee and it was “well within a State’s police power to ban off-label uses of certain drugs.” 

The Sixth Circuit was also skeptical about violations of equal protection. The Court cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic June 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. 

Judge Sutton stated, “The [SAFE] Act bans ‘gender-affirming care’ for minors of both sexes. The ban thus applies to all minors, regardless of their biological birth with male or female sex organs. That prohibition does not prefer one sex to the detriment of the other. If a law restricting a medical procedure that applies only to women does not trigger heightened scrutiny, as in Dobbs, a law equally appliable to all minors, no matter their sex at birth, does not require such scrutiny either.” 

Circuit Judge Helene White, who partially dissented in both cases, stated that while she believes that both laws discriminate who can get “cross-sex hormones” based on sex, she concurs with allowing Tennessee’s law to take effect because the lower court “abused its discretion” applying the injunction to all people in the state rather than just to the plaintiffs in the case. 

While Tennessee’s SAFE Act requires minors undergoing hormone treatments to stop by March 31, 2024, Kentucky’s version, one of the most protective in the nation, requires minors to begin weaning off current treatments immediately. Judge White would have kept the injunction against Kentucky in place due to believing the stricter timeline would cause “harm” to those already undergoing treatments at the time the law took effect. 

At least 21 states have passed laws protecting children from medically mutilating procedures. Arkansas 2021 SAFE Act was ruled unconstitutional in June 2023 after a full trial and is under a permanent injunction. Currently, SAFE Act-style laws in Alabama, Florida, Indiana, and Oklahoma have also been challenged and are on hold while their lawsuits are adjudicated.  

In the Tennessee opinion, Judge Sutton pointed out this “recent proliferation” of legislation and explained the “crux” of these cases lie within judicial restraint to keep policy making and debate within the confines of elected legislatures. 

Judge Sutton wrote, “Leaving the preliminary injunction in place starts to grind these all-over-the-map gears to a halt…What makes it bearable to choose between the two sides is the realization that not every choice is for judges to make. In this instance, elected representatives made these precise cost-benefit decisions…As for the public interest, Tennessee’s interests in applying the law to its residents and in being permitted to protect its children from health risks weigh heavily in favor of the State at this juncture.” 

The U.S. State Department notes that Female Genital Mutilation or Cutting (FMG/C), also called “Female Circumcision” in some parts of the world, is unlawful. 

“It is against U.S. law to perform FGM/C on a girl under the age of 18, or to send or attempt to send her outside the United States so FGM/C can be performed. Violation of the law is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, fines, or both. There is no exception for performing FGM/C because of tradition or culture. Cutting and other procedures that injure the female genital organs of a girl under 18 are prohibited under U.S. law.” 

If Female Genital Mutilation is unlawful, how much more should other forms of genital mutilation be unlawful? 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “There is no constitutional right to mutilate children. Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and mutilating surgeries are often irreversible. There is little difference between female genital mutilation, which is unlawful, and these harmful genital mutilations. The Constitution’s language does not protect these barbaric procedures.” 

For more information about state laws protecting against gender ideology, visit Liberty Counsel’s website here.

Defunding The Culture War

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President 

The ongoing culture war between those who adhere to Judeo-Christian principles on one side, and militant secularists on the other, is increasingly taking on a political dimension. While there has long been funding for anti-Catholic art exhibits, what’s relatively new is the decision by Democrats to force taxpayers to fund the radical LGBT agenda. This issue is currently at a fever pitch. 

On July 18, at a hearing on funding for transportation and housing programs, members of the House Appropriations Committee got more than testy—they engaged in the kind of verbal abuse we would expect from cable TV talking heads, not members of Congress. 

Rep. Mark Pocan, a homosexual Democrat, branded Republicans who disagreed with him “bigots,” resorting to foul language while making the case for the radical LGBT agenda. Worse was Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the most anti-Catholic pro-abortion Catholic in the House. She called her critics “terrorists.” After she was called out for her invective, she asked that her “offending words” be withdrawn. But the damage was done. 

Politico, the liberal media outlet, published a fine piece on this story (none of the major dailies covered it). 

“What Do Drag Shows, Pride Flags and Latino Museums Have to Do with Roads and Parks?” The headline, while baiting, hit on something real: Republicans are becoming much more aggressive in tackling social and cultural issues. Perhaps that is because they realize, as a Gallup poll recently found, that social conservatism is rebounding. 

Some of the issues that are being hotly debated include providing for so-called gender-affirming care; diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; the distribution of Pride flags; drag queen workshops, performances and documentaries; and dishonest exhibits that portray Hispanics as “victims.” 

The national debt has never been greater, yet some members of Congress think we should pay for these ventures, several of which are morally offensive. They are taking their cues from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the influential gay activist organization. 

To show how extremist HRC is, consider some of its objectives:

 

• It believes that it is acceptable to allow a person who misidentifies as transgender to use whatever bathroom he wants. In other words, women who object to showering with men have no rights. 
• It contends that by ensuring safety and fairness in women’s sports that this amounts to a total ban on transgender persons from participating in athletics. However, transgender persons are not prohibited from competing against each other. But this is not what HRC wants—it wants males to compete against females, effectively destroying women’s sports.
• It contends that LGBT persons are being discriminated against if students and teachers are not forced to use “preferred pronouns.” In other words, it wants the government to abridge the free speech rights of students and teachers by mandating what words they must use when identifying those who have misidentified their sex, or who falsely think that they are more than one person (as in being called “they”).
• It is strongly opposed to parental rights. For example, it is opposed to state laws that notify parents if their child has chosen to adopt a transgender identity.
• It argues that age restrictions on drag queen shows—of any kind—are tantamount to discrimination against the performers. Moreover, it contends that protecting children from sexually explicit material is an expression of bigotry. 

It is fashionable to say both sides are crossing the line these days. With rare exceptions, this is not true. 

Those who are promoting the anti-science view that the sexes are interchangeable are all liberal Democrats. These are the same persons who want to gut women’s sports, allow boys to share locker rooms with girls, dictate what pronouns people must use, nullify parental rights, and expose children to perverted theater. To top things off, they want the taxpayers to flip the bill for their sick agenda. 

Paradoxically, referring to those who object to this madness as “terrorists” may actually be a good sign. It suggests that the DeLauros of this world are losing, and in an act of desperation, the only ammo left in their armor is vitriol.

Journalists’ Self-Reflection

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – If you have been a reader of this column for any amount of time, you know that I am extremely interested in the state of journalism today. My undergraduate degree was in journalism and I practiced that profession for many years after graduation before turning to more lucrative pursuits.

Of course, as you can see, I’ve never totally given up the profession; I’ve had my hand in it, and followed it for the better part of my life. I suppose that in a way I’m still a journalist (at least at heart) although my position now is not as a reporter or an editor — which I did formally — but more as a commentator as I do here and on my radio program.

So, I was interested when I found a report from the Pew Research Center on how journalists see their jobs. In fact, the report found that of the nearly 12,000 journalists surveyed 70 percent were either “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with their jobs, and 77 percent said they would go into the news business all over again. Also, 70 percent were excited by their jobs, and 75 percent were proud of their jobs.

But that rosy picture was clouded somewhat by how they described the news industry today: 72 percent, when asked to describe it in one word, described it negatively. “Struggling” or “chaos” was used by 42 percent; “biased” or “partisan,” 7 percent; “difficult” or “stressful,” 6 percent; and 4 percent of the journalists described their industry as “inaccurate” or “untrustworthy.” Only 3 percent used the descriptive “important.”

“Despite mostly positive assessments of their jobs, journalists recognize the instability and turmoil in the news industry more broadly,” the authors of the report wrote.

The report continued: “Journalists were asked in a pair of open-ended questions to write down what the news industry does the best job of these days, and what it does worst. Overall, the responses indicate that journalists think the profession is good at getting the news out and adapting to changes in the industry. But getting the story right and issues related to bias and partisanship rise to the top as areas journalists think the industry handles worst.”

Getting the news out as the best job and getting the story right as the worst job each tied at 23 percent of the journalists surveyed.

Obviously there are a lot of facts and figures in the report, which you can read for yourselves, so we need not go into them here. But there was one section of the report that, to me, was particularly interesting. It dealt with how differently the public and the journalists themselves viewed their work.

As the report put it: “Journalists and the American public stand far apart on how well they think news outlets do in many of their core functions.” For example, when asked to rate journalists in five different categories, here is what the report showed:

Covering the most important stories of the day: Very/somewhat good: journalists 67 percent, public 41 percent; very/somewhat bad: journalists 19 percent, public 36 percent.

Reporting the news accurately: Good: journalists 65 percent, public 35 percent; bad: journalists 22 percent, public 43 percent.

Serving as a watchdog over elected officials: Good: journalists 52 percent, public 29 percent; bad 34-44 percent.

Giving voice to the underrepresented: Good: 46-24 percent, bad: 35-45 percent.

Managing or correcting misinformation: Good: 43-25 percent, bad: 40-51 percent.

These findings correspond to how the surveyed journalist felt about how they were perceived by the public, as reported by Pew:

“Relatively few Americans have a high level of trust in news outlets — and journalists sense that. About four-in-ten journalists (42 percent) say they think the public as a whole has little or no trust in the information they get from news organizations, and a similar share (44 percent) say they think the public has some trust. Only 14 percent of the journalists surveyed say they think the public generally has a great deal or even a fair amount of trust in the news. Given those views, it makes sense that about half of journalists (52 percent) say it is not possible to report news that nearly everyone finds accurate.”

Interestingly, the journalists surveyed were more concerned with news consumers following media outlets with similar political views than was the public. Roughly 94 percent of the journalists saw this as either a major problem, or a minor problem. Only 5 percent did not see it as a problem. This concern cuts across journalists who work for media outlets who favor the political right as well as those outlets who favor the left.

“Among those who say their organization’s audience leans to the right politically, nearly three-quarters (73 percent) say the political sorting of news audiences is a major problem, as do 71 percent of those whose audience leans to the left and 79 percent of those who say their audience is more politically mixed,” says the report.

In a separate survey of 10,441 adults, “roughly four-in-ten U.S. adults (39 percent) say it is a major problem when people with similar political views get news from the same organizations. About the same percentage (36 percent) say it is a minor problem, while 23 percent say it is not a problem at all — nearly five times the share of journalists,” it added.

There was a troubling section to the report that had to do with harassment of journalists. Of the television journalists, 58 percent reported being harassed, 10 percent reported being harassed once, 36 percent a few times, and 12 percent many times. For radio journalists, 41 percent said they had been harassed, their figures were 11 percent, 24 percent, and 5 percent; print, 39 percent harassed, 8 percent once, 26 percent a few times, and 5 percent many times.

Please don’t harass your journalist friends. I am harassed enough by calls about my car’s extended warranty, debt relief, and energy savings. I’m okay but my cat is on pins and needles and hides under the bed when the phone rings.

The report of nearly 12,000 journalists included reporters, columnists, editors, hosts, and anchors as well as bloggers, photo journalists, producers, analysts, and program directors. The bulk of the journalists came from the first category made up of reporters, columnists, writers, and correspondents which totaled 63 percent of the total surveyed. Of the surveyed journalists, 85 percent were full-time.

The report was produced by Pew staffers Jeffrey Gottfried, Amy Mitchell, Mark Jurkowitz, and Jacob Liedke and for anyone interested in the subject, it makes a good read.

(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/)

Iowa school district investigating LGBTQ books

Iowa’s Urbandale Community School District will review nearly 400 books that were flagged for depictions of sex acts and references to “gender identity.” The district will review 374 books to figure out whether they violate a new state law. Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the law in May, barring “gender” ideology and books that depict sex acts from schools for students younger than seventh grade.  READ

Gen X joins millennials in neglecting Mass

Church attendance has dropped off since 2020 for Generation X more sharply than for other age groups, according to a new survey. The survey of 2,000 adults conducted by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University found that the percentage of people ages 39 to 57 who attended a worship service during the week, either in person or online, fell to 28% in 2023, down from 41% in 2020.  READ

FIRE statement on 2020 election indictment of former President Donald Trump

As an unapologetic, nonpartisan defender of the right to free expression, FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) vigorously opposes expanded application of criminal statutes to increase potential liability for speech protected by the First Amendment. While fraud and speech integral to criminal conduct do not enjoy First Amendment protection — the government may, for example, criminalize lying on an insurance claim, or passing a note to a bank teller to commit bank robbery — these exceptions must remain narrow and well-defined in our laws and jurisprudence. 

The federal indictment of former President Trump on charges related to his actions between the 2020 presidential election and President Biden’s inauguration implicates these First Amendment exceptions and the need for their narrow application. 

The Department of Justice correctly acknowledges that former President Trump had “every right” under the First Amendment to “speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won.” 

But the indictment argues former President Trump did far more than that. It claims he violated federal law by using “knowingly false claims of election fraud” to try to “get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results” and “convince the Vice President to use the Defendant’s fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them.” These actions, DOJ alleges, defrauded the United States and violated 18 U.S. Code § 1512, which prohibits “corruptly . . . obstruct[ing] . . . or imped[ing] any official proceeding, or attempt[ing] to do so.”

In the United States, no one is above the law and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It will be up to a jury, in its role as factfinder, to decide whether former President Trump violated federal law. To convict, a jury must hold DOJ to its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that former President Trump (1) knew his election fraud claims were false but repeated them anyway — “corruptly” — in an attempt to (2) have others ignore their legal duties in order to (3) prevent certification of the electoral vote. 

The First Amendment’s bar against criminalizing protected speech demands nothing less.

#

More about Fire: The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression's mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. For more information: https://www.thefire.org/