This post, I feel certain, will not be well-received by some readers. But I implore you to read it carefully. Make sure you understand exactly what I am saying—and what I am not saying— before reacting, with understandable anger, given the subject matter.

That subject matter is the horrible shooting murder recently of two courageous young New York City police officers—and the response of New York City Councilwoman Kristin Richardson Jordan of Harlem, where the murders took place.

Jordan, in a statement of condolence to the families of Officers Jason Rivera and Wilbert Mora, sparked public outrage by also sending condolences to the family of the shooter, Lashawn McNeil, who was shot and killed by police after killing Rivera and Mora.

To put this in full context, it’s important to acknowledge that Jordan, a democratic socialist with a “political style” that the New York Times calls “revolutionary activist,” has been quite radical in her anti-police rhetoric. She has “equated the policing system with slavery” and called not just for “defunding” the police, but for the “abolition” of police departments, according to the Times.

And it does seem distasteful, to say the least, for her to have led a vigil just days after the murders that seemed to memorialize not just the slain police heroes, but their killer as well.

So stipulating Jordan’s demonstrated anti-cop agenda, my attention here is focused on a larger question: Do the families of those who have committed horrific crimes ever merit our compassion and condolences—and our prayers?

Often, I submit, they do. Consider Shirley Sourzes, Lashawn McNeil’s mother.

Days after the shooting, with Officer Rivera dead and Officer Mora near death, she told the New York Post she deeply regretted having called 911—not because her son was also dying, although she must certainly have felt that too; but because her son had shot both responding officers.

As the Post reporter told it:

“‘A weeping Shirley Sourzes said she is beside herself thinking about the parents of the two shot cops, slain rookie NYPD Officer Justin Rivera and critically wounded Finest Wilbert Mora.

“‘If I knew, I never would have made the phone call,’ said the mom, whose plea to 911 about her mentally unstable son brought officers to the Harlem home Friday evening—when an armed McNeil allegedly opened fire on them without warning.

“’I would never have called!’ Sourzes said.”

Addressing herself at that time to Officer Rivera’s parents—surely she had the same sentiments when Officer Mora later died— the Post story continued:

“’I would like to say to Mr. and Mrs. [Rivera] that I am deeply sorry,’ the mom said through tears. ‘I know that there is not words that I can express. Your pain. Your sorrow.

“‘Me and my family are not proud of my son taking of life.

“‘There is nothing I can say to heal your sorrow, but God is a comforter. … And I know that he sent your son to do his will,’ she said, addressing Rivera’s parents. ‘I don’t understand it. It’s not fair. My heart goes out to you and your family.'”

Speaking of her son, Ms. Sourzes told the Post “His mental state is very distorted, and that’s all I can say.

“I told him to submit himself to help. At this point, his mental state was incapacitated. He thought he was God, and he wouldn’t submit himself to no one.”

Think of all the anguish this mother has gone through and is going through: the pain of seeing her son’s mental state deteriorate; repeated run-ins with the criminal justice system as his behavior became violent; the constant fear of what harm he might bring on himself, or do to others; the heartbreak of having to call the police on her own son, as his behavior that night became threatening; the horror of watching him shoot down two police officers who answered her call for help. 

This is the lot of so many who have a family member struggling with violent mental illness: anguish over their loved one’s suffering; a sense of powerlessness when nothing they or others do seems to help; the constant fear that their loved one poses a danger to himself or others; and, when lethal harm does result, their overwhelming grief and sense of guilt.

To pray for, and offer condolences to, these stricken families in no way diminishes the sorrow and compassion we feel, or the prayers we offer, for families whose loved ones have been violently killed by a mentally disturbed person.

As a Catholic Christian, my heart goes out to all of them; along with my prayers that they experience God’s healing love and consolation.

“Whataboutism.”

I first realized this was a “thing” when I was accused of it for posting a blog, after last year’s January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, in which I called for an end to all the violence—from that Capitol riot by some Trump supporters, to the far more lethal rioting by some on the left that had swept our cities over the previous year. 

Then I began to see the term regularly used by progressives to characterize any attempt to defend misbehavior by Trump supporters (which I was not doing) by calling out similar misbehavior by anti-Trumpers.

So I was interested the other day to see progressive talking head Joy Reid engaging in a little “whataboutism” of her own. As she endeavored to deflect criticism of President Biden for calling Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy a “stupid SOB” (the president didn’t abbreviate the offensive term), she said, in effect, What about the “F… Joe Biden” signs brandished by Trump supporters?

Actually, she referenced the “Let’s Go Brandon” phrase that some have creatively substituted for the anti-Biden obscenity. But that at least injected some much needed levity into our overheated political climate, and testified, even if unintentionally, to the repugnance of the profanity it was being used to replace.

It seems that to progressives, “whataboutism” is only wrong when employed against them by the Trumpies. When they want to use it to defend their progressive president’s offensive remarks, that’s perfectly OK.

And often, the progressive left’s answer to “Whataboutism” seems to be a “SoWhatism” to sometimes worse behavior by those they agree with. The January 6 riot was presaged in Wisconsin 10 years earlier by government workers taking over the statehouse to block passage of bills they didn’t like? So what, they were trying to block conservative legislation, so that was OK. Rioting by left-wing activists throughout 2020 that terrorized our cities? So what, those were insurrections against the police and against Donald Trump, so that was OK. Democrats constantly refusing to accept the legitimacy of elections they lost (Bush in 2000, Trump in 2016, Stacey Abrams 2018 defeat in Georgia)? So what, they were trying to delegitimize Republican election victories, so that was OK.

Now, having said all that, let me clearly register my disgust at those “F… Joe Biden” banners, chants, tee shirts, etc., that regularly mar protests and rallies of the pro-Trump, populist right.

To be sure, I am absolutely appalled by the disastrous performance of the Biden administration, from the Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco, to the chaos and human suffering on our southern border, soaring inflation at home and dangerous aggressions of our adversaries abroad. Add to that more people having died of COVID on his watch than on President Trump’s—after he said Trump “should not remain as president” given the number who died when he was in office—and we have some idea of the utter failure that has been the Biden presidency.

And I am especially appalled that Mr. Biden, who wears his Catholicism on his sleeve, achieved his party’s nomination by completely caving to its most extreme pro-abortion demands, even promising to force all of us to be complicit, with our tax dollars, in the killing of unborn children.

But all this can be said—forcefully, as I have just done—without resort to vulgar obscenities meant to offend rather than persuade.

I try, when someone on “my side” of an issue or political contest engages in questionable rhetoric or actions, to ask myself how I would react if those on the opposing side engaged in similar behaviors.

In the current climate, the question answers itself. I don’t like it when President Biden resorts to profanity and personal insults; nor should I like it when his critics do. I was outraged 10 years ago when those protesters seized control of the Wisconsin statehouse to block Gov. Scott Walker’s initiatives. So I should have been, and was, outraged when a mob tried to seize the U.S. Capitol a year ago to stop Biden’s election from being certified.

Now I will agree, there are far worse things poisoning our politics and culture than foul language. And I certainly don’t pretend that I never utter a profanity myself, in momentary anger or frustration. But I don’t go shouting them publicly, parading them on banners, or otherwise shoving them in people’s faces.

And I submit that the coarseness of language that permeates virtually every aspect of modern society—from politics, to music and sports, to everyday interactions—is a contributing factor to the polarization that plagues us today. At the very least, it demonstrates disrespect for the sensibilities of others. At worst, it communicates hate. And hateful language can presage hateful actions.

So I implore those who share my strong opposition to President Biden and his policies: Don’t like his uncalled for profanity, at news conferences or on the campaign trail? Outraged by Snoop Dogg’s “F…the Police” rap lyrics? Turned off by crotch-grabbing, profanity-spewing pro athletes? Tired of being bombarded with profanities in daily conversation?

Me too.

So please, in the name of consistency and decency, lose the “F… Joe Biden” chants and banners.

On the Feast of the Holy Family, Pope Francis warned against a coming “demographic winter” brought on by declining birth rates.

Many couples in Italy, he lamented, are reticent about having children, or “prefer to have none, or to have just one.”

“It’s a tragedy,” he said, “which goes against our families, against our country, and against our future.”

He had previously warned about this back in 2015, noting projections that by 2024 in Italy, “there will be no money to pay pensioners because of the fall in population.”

Nor is Italy unique.

The late distinguished Catholic theologian, philosopher, and commentator Michael Novak warned similarly of a coming “demographic tsunami” here in America. Low birthrates, and “54 million abortions in the United States since 1973,” he wrote in 2013, have blasted “a gaping hole” in projected funding for Social Security and Medicare, and threaten future generations with insurmountable national debt.

China, after years of a brutal “one-child” population control policy that included forced abortions and sterilizations, is desperately trying to reverse its self-imposed “demographic suicide,” as China expert Steven Mosher terms it. It is now pursuing a “three-child policy,” necessary, it says, “to actively respond to the aging of the population.”

“That’s putting it mildly,” Mosher wrote last June. “China today is literally dying, filling more coffins than cradles each year.”

Global fertility rates are “dangerously low,” warns the World Bank. A chart in Newsmax magazine last June showed country after country, in every region of the world except Africa, with birth rates well below replacement levels.

“So many people, including smart people,” observes Tesla CEO Elon Musk, “think that the population is growing out of control. It’s completely the opposite. Please look at the numbers—if people don’t have more children, civilization is going to crumble.”

We are warned of what has been termed “an inverted population pyramid,” where the elderly outnumber working age people, who in turn outnumber children.

The result will be not enough working people to sustain social security, pension systems, or social services. Novak noted that Social Security and Medicare were based on a model of seven working people paying into those systems for every retired person taking benefits out. That ratio is now less than three workers for every retiree—and dropping precipitously as life expectancy increases and we baby boomers surge into retirement.

Governments are now scrambling to reverse the very de-population trends they helped set in motion. Some European nations are exploring various government benefits to incentivize childbirth. Self-proclaimed “Family-Friendly Hungary,” Newsmax reports, is providing free fertility treatments, “$30,000 loans to couples who promise to have babies, and lifetime tax exemptions for having four or more children.”

Here in the United States, some are pushing for mandatory paid family leave and universal childcare to encourage childbirth. Others, however, warn that such programs will entail inflationary government spending and intrusive government mandates on the private sector; that they will encourage single parent families and favor two-income families over those with a stay-at-home parent.

And of course, the prevailing belief of the last 50 years—that the earth has become dangerously overpopulated—is still held by many, who want a continuation of the population control policies that have brought us to this situation.

I do not lightly dismiss their concerns. But I reject the assertion that crises like world hunger and environmental degradation are simply the result of “too many people.”

Recall that Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb—his 1968 doomsday book that jump-started much population control hysteria—predicted that a worldwide famine was imminent.

Yet just the opposite has happened. As Novak wrote in 2013, “Over the last 30 years we have reduced the number of poor in the world by over 1 billion persons.” Similarly with the environment: AOC’s protestations about the human “carbon footprint” notwithstanding, the United States is by all accounts more environmentally sound today than we were a half-century ago.

Yes, humans can be very wasteful, sometimes destructive exploiters of the earth’s resources. But human ingenuity can also—with God’s stewardship—be applied in extraordinary ways to sustain our planet and its population. And that is exactly what has happened over the last 50 years. Human innovation and technological advances spurred vast exponential increases in our food supply and great strides in environmental protection.

More such progress is needed, of course; but preventing the birth of future generations that can contribute to that progress is hardly the way to get there.

Our own country’s political and cultural propagandizing against motherhood and childbirth surely make it difficult now for the government to be taken seriously in promulgating the opposite message.

Instead, our governments—state and national—should begin by stopping their anti-family propagandizing; correcting whatever policies are in place that discourage couples from having children; working to strengthen the economy, so people are less fearful about being able to support children; and ending the abortion carnage that has deprived us of tens of millions of human beings who could now be in our workforce and communities, helping sustain us economically while making vital contributions to the culture according to their particular gifts and talents.

In short, if we want to encourage young couples to be open and welcoming to God’s gift of new life, the first thing we must do is stop dehumanizing humanity.

I try in this blog to avoid rank partisanship.

While my writings clearly reflect a generally (but not exclusively) conservative approach to political and cultural issues, I strive not to be doctrinaire or partisan in expressing them. I try to examine issues thoughtfully, in the light of Catholic moral and social teaching, and to weigh carefully the arguments of those with different viewpoints.

But I am compelled now to single out New York’s ruling Democratic Party for what I can only describe as a shameless attempt to manipulate our election process to its partisan advantage—in direct defiance of the will of the people, as expressed at the polls less than a month ago.

As I wrote in a previous post, I had become involved in an effort to inform voters about three proposed state constitutional amendments we felt were a threat to voting integrity. Two of them, Election Day voter registration and universal access to absentee balloting, we believed were susceptible to widespread fraud.

The other measure would have undermined the independent redistricting commission that we voters established in 2014 to try to assure nonpartisanship in the redrawing of Congressional and state legislative district lines. As Newsday pointed out in an editorial urging a “No” vote, this amendment was an attempt by “Albany’s Democratic supermajority” to “trash the commission’s work and draw its own maps.”

On Election Day, voters agreed. They defeated the redistricting amendment, along with the Election Day registration and expanded absentee ballot amendments, by a significant margin.

But on Thanksgiving eve, Gov. Kathy Hochul very quietly signed legislation doing exactly what the voters had just rejected: empowering that Democratic legislative supermajority to take control of the redistricting process away from the independent commission.

Can there be a more blatant show of contempt for the will of the people?

Seven years ago, voters spoke clearly, adopting the independent redistricting commission. Then this year, they spoke even more loudly and clearly, rejecting the Democrat-passed amendment that would have undermined that commission.

But rather than accept that, Gov. Hochul and the Democratic state legislature moved to impose by legislative fiat what the voters had just rejected.

This from a party that is forever accusing Republicans and conservatives of “undermining democracy.”  

It seems that New York’s Democrats are all for democracy—until they lose an election.

Then there is the proposal before the New York City Council, expected to pass this week, that would allow non-citizens to vote in city elections.

Of course, the Democratic City Council majority portrays this as something that will “expand democracy.” Skeptics can be forgiven for seeing it as designed to expand the Democratic Party’s voting base.

Sponsors argue, not without merit, that holders of green cards or work authorizations, who are paying taxes and governed by our laws, should be able to vote. But the more persuasive argument, to me, is that people who are not, at least yet, fully invested as citizens of our nation and state— and who are citizens of other countries, including countries hostile to the United States and our interests—should not be empowered to help choose our government leaders.

And, as one who has always been pro-immigration, I have another reason for opposing this bill. It can only heighten resentment and hostility toward immigrants. When voters are told they must share their franchise equally with those who are not permanently invested in America as citizens; when they see that elections and policy choices can be tipped by the votes of those who are citizens of other countries; it will, quite understandably, make more people less welcoming toward immigrants.

For that reason, it frustrates me that many immigrant advocates would support a bill that actually exploits immigrants, for partisan political advantage, in a way that can only prove harmful to them.

New York City residents who share these concerns should contact your city council representatives immediately, urging them to oppose this bill.

Meanwhile, court challenges, both to this bill and Hochul’s redistricting bill, are reportedly already in the works. Let’s hope they succeed—for the sake of our democracy.

Over Thanksgiving weekend, my wife Eileen brought family and friends together to celebrate my 70^th birthday.

It was especially meaningful, coming exactly ten years after I was diagnosed–on Thanksgiving eve 2011–with colon cancer.

The ensuing ordeal–surgery, then six months of chemotherapy–was made worse by a simultaneous career crisis. Two weeks earlier, the Diocese of Rockville Centre had laid off half our staff at The Long Island Catholic (TLIC)–the first step toward killing the diocesan newspaper which I edited.

When a friend, months later, asked about both situations, I told him the prognosis for my health was good; that of The Long Island Catholic, decidedly less so.

While that proved accurate, neither situation would improve in the short term. In September 2012, just after my chemo treatments ended, the diocese informed me that our weekly newspaper was being terminated, replaced by a new monthly magazine–part of a national Michigan-based conglomerate–and virtually all my remaining staff let go.

Weeks later, experiencing severe chest pain, I was diagnosed with major artery blockages. Bypass surgery was not an option; it would likely worsen my condition, a surgeon explained. Relying on medication that seemed largely ineffective, I struggled, without help, to provide all local content for the new magazine while working with the Michigan editors on layout and design. Then came Superstorm Sandy, which only added to my workload and stress. Things seemed to be spiraling downward.

But God was in control; and He would give me what I needed to overcome both my health and career crises.

First and foremost was His gift of so many loving family members and friends, whose prayers, support, and encouragement would see me through. Most vital were my children, whose love for me and mine for them filled me with determination to get healthy and to sustain my career, so I could continue to be there for them and provide for them; and my wife Eileen, whose love and courage during those frightening days sustained me, as she has throughout all the challenges we have faced together over the years. She was then, as she has always been for our family, a pillar of faith and strength, without whom I cannot imagine having gotten through those twin ordeals.

God placed me in the hands of outstanding doctors and medical staff who brought me through both the cancer and heart blockages, guided me back to good health, and continue to provide quality care today.

They gifted me with not only their medical skills, but with calming reassurances that helped me maintain the positive outlook so vital to recovery. I’ll always remember our first meeting with my oncologist, who, after explaining my chemo protocol, soothingly assured me, “You’ll be fine. You’re going to go through this and get on with your life.” Which, with his continued care, is exactly what has happened.

Ironically, even as circumstances at TLIC added to my stress, my role there proved critical, in a way only God could have planned, for my medical recovery.

A reader, Terence O’Flanagan, a retired doctor, became a regular correspondent during my time as editor. Aware of my cancer, he inquired about my health, and, learning of the artery blockages, put me in touch with a cardiologist he highly recommended, Dr. Gary Ross Friedman–who I say, without exaggeration, gave me my life back. He implemented a much more aggressive medication regimen, and sent me to Dr. Jeffrey Moses, a world-renowned cardiologist who, in three procedures over several months, implanted eleven stents.

“When this is all done,” Dr. Friedman assured me, “you’re going to be good as new.” And I was. Sadly, this marvelous man, who had given new hope and new life to me and so many others, was subsequently stricken with pancreatic cancer, and died just a couple of years later.

While his loss is incalculable, to his patients and surely to his family, I can only be thankful that Dr. Friedman was there when I needed him, thanks to God’s loving providence and the caring intervention of Dr. Terence O’Flanagan–who, with his wife Carolyn, would become our good friends before Terence also passed on early this year.

Professionally, God helped me work through my health issues to steward TLIC magazine through its first three years. Then, as I prayed for discernment, He guided me to accept Bill Donohue’s generous offer to return to the Catholic League in 2015, providing me with the job security I needed for my family–and did not have with the diocese, which has now discontinued The Long Island Catholic altogether. For the first time in 60 years, the Catholic Church on Long Island is without a print communications organ–a situation I will address further in a coming post.

But that is for another day. Today I want to reflect thankfully on how God’s love sustained me through two grave crises that occurred simultaneously in my life ten years ago.

I don’t know what the future holds. But whatever lies ahead, I know God will be with me. For I saw and felt His loving presence throughout that frightening time; and I see it every day, in the love and care of all the good people He has placed in my life, who have manifested for me what it means to be Christ to others.

The Catholic left’s outcry against Archbishop Jose Gomez’s recent address to the Congress of Catholics and Public Life in Spain, deploring anti-Christian secularization, was predictable.

They imply that in labeling certain “new social justice movements” “pseudo religions,” the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is rejecting the entire concept of “social justice.”

But Gomez has always been a strong advocate for social justice—properly understood. What he is opposing now are groups promoting a “Marxist social vision” and “broad patterns of aggressive secularization.”

“As our Popes have pointed out,” he notes, “secularization means ‘de-Christianization.’” And this aggressive secularization is being driven by “an elite leadership class” that “has little interest in religion and no real attachments to the nations they live in or to local traditions and cultures.”

Witness this elite’s trampling on traditions and cultures of developing nations, deriding their religious beliefs while imposing western practices they find morally abhorrent: population control and abortion, anti-family policies, gender ideologies that Pope Francis terms “demonic.”    

This elite class, Gomez says, “is in charge in corporations, governments, universities, the media, and in the cultural and professional establishments” —all power centers secular and religious progressives previously indicted as forces of oppression and exploitation.

Now that those elites have embraced the cultural left, however—and as “religion, especially Christianity,” is their primary target for repression—their power and wealth are welcomed, even as their exploitation of the world’s vulnerable continues apace. Think of western corporations relocating production facilities to poor nations, where they pay poverty-stricken workers a pittance; or to China, whose Communist government provides them with outright slave labor.

This elite, Gomez points out, envisions a “global civilization” built on “a consumer economy” —something else progressives previously found exploitive, of workers and the poor. But with “woke” corporations now pouring profits from that economy into numerous left-wing causes, why worry about exploited workers and slave laborers who make those profits possible?

Fordham theologian Father Bryan Blasingame claims Gomez “blanketly characterizes social justice movements such as Black Lives Matter as pseudo-religions based on profoundly atheistic ideologies that are hostile to Catholic belief.”

But Gomez does not “blanketly” characterize anything. He details precisely the kind of social justice movements he is criticizing. And as he never mentioned Black Lives Matter, it is Blasingame who, however unintentionally, suggests BLM fits that characterization.

“Most Black Catholics I know,” Blasingame says, “declare that Black Lives Matter precisely because of our allegiance to what the archbishop calls the Christian story.”

This conflates the slogan—with which no faithful Catholic can disagree—with the self-proclaimed Marxist, and therefore atheist, roots of the BLM Global Network. And it ignores BLM involvement in the violence that devastated cities last year—victimizing primarily communities of color—or the threats last week from BLM of Greater New York leader Hawk Newsome, who promised “riots,” “fire,” and “bloodshed” if incoming African American NYC Mayor Eric Adams does not do their bidding.

This is the “extremism,” the “harsh, uncompromising and unforgiving approach” Gomez deplores.

Citing the police killing of George Floyd as “a stark reminder that racial and economic inequality are still deeply embedded in our society,” Gomez recognizes that these movements are often a response “to real human needs and suffering.”

But this too—like atheism and violence—is an inherent characteristic of Marxism: exploiting real suffering and injustice to impose “cures” that are often worse than the disease.

“These strictly secular movements,” Gomez observes, “are causing new forms of social division, discrimination, intolerance, and injustice.”

“We all want to build a society that provides equality, freedom, and dignity for every person,” he says.

But the cultural left rejects that assertion, insisting that only those who are “woke,” steeped in identity politics, victimhood, and left-wing ideology—and appropriately contemptuous of the rights of those who are not—really care about promoting human dignity, equality, and freedom. The rest of us are to be canceled, defamed as racists and white supremacists, our freedom of belief and expression censored—violently, if necessary—from the public square.

These “profoundly atheistic” movements, the archbishop points out, promise a false, human-centered utopia while denigrating Christian beliefs “about human life and the human person, about marriage, the family and more.” Thus, he concludes, they must be engaged “not on social or political terms, but as dangerous substitutes for true religion.”

“That does not mean we remain passive in the face of social injustice,” he stressed. “Never! But we do need to insist that fraternity cannot be built through animosity or division. True religion does not seek to harm or humiliate, to ruin livelihoods or reputations.” 

“The world does not need a new secular religion to replace Christianity,” he says. “It needs you and me to be better witnesses.”

That is critical for American Catholics. While our brothers and sisters in different parts of the world—the Middle East, China, North Korea—endure persecution, imprisonment, even martyrdom for their Catholic faith, we are often unwilling to risk far less—being ridiculed, socially ostracized, shunned professionally—for defending our faith.

Archbishop Gomez is telling us that must change—now!

“We need to proclaim Jesus Christ. Boldly,” he urges. “We should not be intimidated by these new religions of social justice and political identity.”

For “The Gospel remains the most powerful force for social change that the world has ever seen.” 

Besides electing candidates for local offices this year, we voters in New York State will also be deciding whether to add three new amendments to our state constitution. All of them deal with elections and voting—and all of them, in my view, will undermine voting integrity, with dire consequences for our efforts to protect the unborn.

You may not even be aware of these propositions. There has been very little publicity or discussion about them. And reading the wording on the ballot will not be very helpful. It is short and innocuous, with little explanation and no discussion of their pros and cons.

For this reason—and because of my concerns about their potential impact on our efforts to protect life, defend religious freedom, and uphold parental rights and family values—I have gotten involved in a grass roots effort to inform New Yorkers about these proposals before we vote (early voting begins this weekend, and Election Day is Tuesday, November 2).

Ballot Proposition 1: Redistricting. This state constitutional amendment would undermine the Independent Redistricting Commission adopted by voters just seven years ago to end partisan redrawing of state and Congressional legislative districts. This would empower the majority party to control redistricting to its partisan advantage.

But don’t take my word for it. Newsday editorialized last week that “Albany’s Democratic supermajority is trying here to tinker prematurely with New York’s new system for drawing state and federal district lines,” in order “to trash the commission’s work and draw its own maps.”

“Vote no” on Proposition 1, Newsday urges.

We have already seen what this one-party stranglehold on state government has meant for the unborn in New York: enactment of a radical pro-abortion law that goes even beyond the extremes of Roe v. Wade. And there remains the looming threat of legislation targeting pro-life pregnancy support services for extinction if they do not refer for abortions.

Ballot Proposition 3: Same Day Registration. This proposition would amend the state Constitution to allow Election Day registration, with no adequate time for verifying the eligibility of new registrants before they vote. And they will vote by machine, rather than paper ballot, so their votes cannot be disqualified if it is later determined that their registration is invalid. Moreover, such last-minute new voter registration will only encourage more of the kind of 11th hour negative smear campaigns, often based on half-truths or outright falsehoods, that so poison our political system.

Ballot Proposition 4: Absentee Ballots. This proposition would amend the state Constitution to allow “no-excuses” absentee voting. Currently, New Yorkers must have a reason—illness, disability, scheduled absence from home on Election Day—to vote by absentee ballot. Allowing universal absentee voting will—as we saw last year, when such voting was allowed due to the Covid pandemic—result in extraordinary delays in tallying election results. Worse, it is an open invitation to vote harvesting and outright fraud.

Again, don’t take my word for it. In 2005, a bipartisan commission chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Reagan and Bush White House Chief of Staff James Baker warned that “Absentee ballots remain the largest source for potential voter fraud” through such corruption as ballots being intercepted in the mail, pressure and intimidation of voters, and vote-buying schemes. They recommended extensive safeguards against such practices before absentee balloting is expanded. None of those safeguards are included in this proposed amendment.

Here in New York, amending the state Constitution is a two-step process. Proposed amendments are first passed by the legislature. Then they are placed on the ballot—and We the People have the final say on whether they are enacted. Please consider this information carefully before voting on these three proposed amendments. And please feel free to share it with others.

—————————————————————————————————————————

For those who would like to alert others to the negative impact these proposals are likely to have on pro-life efforts, I offer the brief summary below. It takes no position on how to vote and references no political party. Please feel free to reproduce it for mailings, email distribution, hand-outs, publication on social media platforms, or in Church bulletins. (You may include my name and/or contact information for attribution, or not include it, as you see fit.)  

N.Y. State Constitutional Amendments Endanger the Unborn

Three proposed state constitutional amendments on the ballot in New York this November threaten the integrity of our elections and bi-partisanship in government—both of grave concern to us as pro-lifers.

Ballot Proposition 1 would undermine the Independent Redistricting Commission adopted by voters just seven years ago to end partisan redrawing of state and Congressional legislative districts. This would empower the majority party to control redistricting to its partisan advantage.

We have already seen what one-party government has meant for the unborn in New York: enactment of a radical pro-abortion law that goes even beyond the extremes of Roe v. Wade. And of course, there is the looming threat of legislation targeting pro-life pregnancy support services for extinction if they do not refer for abortions.

Ballot Proposition 3 would allow voter registration on Election Day. This allows no adequate time for verifying the eligibility of new registrants before they vote—an open invitation to fraud.

Ballot Proposition 4 would establish universal access to absentee ballots. In 2005, a bipartisan commission chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former White House Chief of Staff James Baker warned that “Absentee ballots remain the largest source for potential voter fraud.” They recommended extensive safeguards—none of which are included in this proposed amendment.

This is what is at stake for the pro-life cause if Ballot Proposals One, Three, and Four are approved by New York voters on Election Day.

CONTACT: Rick Hinshaw, rick.hinshaw@aol.com

“It is my wish, then, that in every place men should pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger.” — 1 Timothy 2:8

When I started this blog a little over a year ago, my intention, amid the rancor and vitriol that seems to poison virtually all political, cultural, even spiritual discussion these days, was to offer what I hoped would be reasoned, civil discourse—and to invite reasoned, civil responses—in addressing many of the great issues that challenge us in today’s world.  

That is in fact what I have tried to do throughout the long course of my career in primarily Catholic communications. I don’t always succeed, even to my own satisfaction, let alone the judgments of others.

Some would note that I don’t always show the respect that I call for others to demonstrate—a failing that, on occasion, I readily concede. Particularly when I encounter a stridency and lack of respect from proponents of differing views, I don’t always successfully resist the urge to respond in kind. But I try.

Others want me to be more assertive, more confrontational, more angry, in challenging opposing viewpoints and those who express them—particularly on fundamental issues of justice, human rights, morality and the sanctity of life—and to call out, by name, those who—whether I agree or disagree with their views—resort to ad hominem attacks, hateful language, and mischaracterizations or outright distortions of opposing points of view.

So let me be clear. I do get angry, about many things that I see in this world: from the mass killing of innocent children in the womb, to the unnecessary scapegoating of immigrants; from insensitivity to all manner of human suffering, wrought by such maladies as poverty, illness and disease, mental or emotional disabilities, war and terrorism, crime and punishment, government oppression, and on and on; to attacks on the family, and on religious liberty.

And I get especially angry at efforts to shut down reasoned discourse and debate—either through, as mentioned above, distortions of other viewpoints and personal attacks on those who express them; or, in today’s cancel culture, outright prohibition of, or creation of “safe spaces” to avoid hearing, any views different from one’s own.

But I know I ought not indulge that anger, for several reasons.

First, because it is counterproductive. As I learned from my earliest days in the pro-life movement, the goal, in promoting any issue or cause, is not just to win arguments. It is to change minds and hearts. And that is seldom accomplished by responding with anger and intolerance toward those who disagree. I have always found it more effective to listen, patiently and respectfully, to the views of others. This helps me to respond more effectively; it has also prompted me, on occasion, to adjust my own views in light of a new insight I might gain from hearing a different perspective.

Certainly, with regard to abortion—while never lessening my conviction that innocent, pre-born human life must be protected—listening to others has helped me to be less judgmental of those who, genuinely moved by compassion for all manner of human suffering, erroneously see abortion as an acceptable and effective solution.

It is neither. But before I can try to make others see that, I must understand where they are coming from. Only then can I respond, persuasively, in a way that might open their minds and hearts to more life-affirming approaches.

The second, and more important, reason that I—that all of us—must strive to avoid indulging our anger is because of what it does to us. It hardens our hearts and poisons our souls. It makes us so much less than God wants us to be.

Yes, as Jesus showed with His haranguing of the money changers in the temple, there is such a thing as righteous anger. I remember thinking, again in my early days of pro-life activism, that anger was wholly justified—indeed, called for—by the massive, violent killing of God’s most precious beings: innocent, defenseless children in their mothers’ wombs. And we can all think of other injustices so cruel, so inhuman, as to justify our anger.

It is not wrong to feel anger in such situations. But it is self-destructive to indulge that anger.

Rather, when we encounter cruelty and injustice, we are called to act, in whatever ways we can, to protect those being victimized; to advocate for them; and to persuade their persecutors—forcefully, yes, but without anger and hatred, even if they exude such toward us—to begin acting with justice, with compassion, with respect for the humanity of others.

And we are called, above all—as Paul wrote to Timothy—to “pray, lifting up holy hands—without anger.”

If you want a preview of what we are in for should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, just observe the pro-abortion hysteria over the Texas “heartbeat” law protecting the lives of helpless infants in their mothers’ wombs.

“Extremist law” blares a headline in The Atlantic over an inflammatory charge that “conservative legislators in Texas” are “willing to let pregnant patients suffer and die.”

“Vigilantism,” shrieks NARAL Pro-Choice America about the law’s empowerment of private individuals to bring civil suit against purveyors and abettors of abortions. One would think abortion promoters, after years of falsely accusing pro-lifers of wanting to “put women in prison,” would be relieved that this law avoids criminalizing abortion. And, as vigilantism involves private action without regard to legal process, it hardly applies to bringing suit in a court of law.

Nor is the hysteria limited to words. The head of Georgia-based game development studio Tripwire Interactive was forced out after tweeting his support for the law. And Newsweek published a list of “Companies Who Donated to Co-Sponsors of Texas Abortion Bill,” clearly inviting blacklisting. Add to this the quiescent toleration, by progressive politicians and mainstream media, of last year’s left-wing rioting that destroyed lives and property and terrorized cities across America, and we have some idea of the hatred and violence that await if Roe is overturned.

To be sure, there is also negative reaction to the Texas law among Republicans and conservatives–including some who identify as pro-life, and whose sincere prudential differences with the law’s approach should be respected.

But there are also those establishment Republicans and economic and foreign policy conservatives who are ambivalent–and in some cases outright hostile–toward the pro-life cause. They want pro-life votes as part of their electoral coalitions; but they never really work to advance pro-life policies, either because they see them as politically detrimental, or because they don’t actually believe in the pro-life cause.

Look, these folk are telling pro-lifers now: pro-abortion President Joe Biden is in serious political trouble, with the Afghanistan catastrophe, the ongoing border crisis, and the COVID spike. But the Texas abortion law is allowing him to distract attention from those things, solidify his base, and jeopardize our chances to take back the White House and Congress–without which, we cannot advance pro-life legislation.   

But pro-life people have been hearing this for fifty years. Just elect us, they are told, then we can help your cause. Then once these politicians do get elected, there are always other issues that take precedence. Or, as in this case, they don’t like pro-life “tactics.” There is always some excuse for deferring action on pro-life initiatives. But come the next election, they are back seeking pro-life votes.

Should pro-lifers, to mollify such ambivalence, turn their backs on true pro-life public officials, like those in Texas, who act courageously to protect unborn lives? If they do, who can they expect will ever stand with them again?   

Some pro-life politicians and commentators echo the objections of ambivalent Republicans and conservatives: the Texas law is “too extreme,” it will be politically damaging. Others are discomfited by the strategy–using civil actions by private citizens to prevent abortions.   

David French, in a thoughtful and moving piece that deserves a thorough read and detailed discussion, nevertheless labels the Texas law “dangerous.”

That’s ironic. French, who is clearly pro-life, surely understands the mortal danger that innocent children–tens of millions of whom have already been killed–are in every day, as long as our culture of unrestricted abortion remains intact; the danger to women, too many of whom have already been killed, physically injured, or emotionally scarred by the brutality of abortion; the danger to other vulnerable populations, as long as the abortion culture’s “destroy the victim” mentality dictates our responses to human suffering; and the danger to our nation as now, almost 50 years on from Roe v. Wade, the breakdown in respect for human life is evident in the violence that permeates our city streets, college campuses, even political protests.   

These are the existential dangers that drive the pro-life movement; and any approach, however imperfect or temporary, that peacefully mitigates them while the work goes on to build a culture of life, is welcome.

As Nathanael Blake writes in The Federalist, “We should cheer Texas’s new law prohibiting abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, and we should rejoice as it saves lives and changes the culture.”

“For the first time since Roe v. Wade,” observed the Catholic bishops of Texas, “the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a prolife law to remain while litigation proceeds in lower courts. We celebrate every life saved by this legislation.”

That is the bottom line.

By crafting this law to involve civil rather than criminal liability, Texas enabled it to immediately take effect. Once it did, Blake quotes the New York Times, “Abortion clinics reported dramatic drops in patients on their schedules. And pregnancy crisis centers, where anti-abortion groups offer pregnancy services, reported surges in phone calls and walk-ins.”    

 While legal challenges are heard, right now, every day that this law is in effect, lives are being saved.

That is indeed cause for celebration–and for gratitude, to Gov. Greg Abbott and the pro-life legislators of Texas.                                     

“The tumult and the shouting dies,

The Captains and the Kings depart.

Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice–

An humble and a contrite heart.”

I first used that verse from Rudyard Kipling–immortalized in the title of Taylor Caldwell’s novel, The Captains and the Kings–when I wrote about the last New York governor who resigned in disgrace amid sexual scandal.

That was Eliot Spitzer, who quit in 2008 after being caught regularly patronizing a prostitution ring–even as, while New York’s attorney general, he had prosecuted such criminal enterprises. 

Now it is Andrew Cuomo, resigning after an investigation commissioned by NY Attorney General Letitia James concluded that he had sexually harassed 11 women–and physically groped at least one–who were either subordinates or with whom he had dealings as governor.

As with Spitzer, sexual misbehavior was far from the only scandal engulfing Cuomo. Indeed, among those investigating other allegations against Spitzer was none other than then-NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.  

Since Cuomo took office in 2010, we have seen:  

• the Moreland Commission, which he established ostensibly to root out corruption in Albany, then abruptly dissolved when it reportedly got too close to corruption in his own office;
• his “Buffalo Billions” economic project, which ultimately saw two Cuomo operatives–including family political confidante Joseph Percoco, whom Andrew had dubbed his father Mario’s “third son” –sent to prison for bribe-taking;
• most egregious of all, the nursing home scandal, in which Cuomo and his health commissioner ordered those facilities to accept COVID-positive patients into their vulnerable, elderly populations; then–as admitted by the governor’s own chief assistant–Cuomo manipulated figures to underreport, by thousands, the number of subsequent COVID-related deaths among nursing home residents;
• a related investigation into whether he illegally utilized state workers to promote a book he authored touting his heroic leadership during the pandemic.

For faithful Catholics, other actions by the self-professed Catholic governor also constitute scandal: proudly enacting same-sex “marriage” in New York, and signing a radical pro-abortion law that goes even beyond the extremes of Roe v. Wade. It allows no limits regardless of fetal age or development; no parental rights regarding abortions for minors; no protection for pro-life taxpayers from forced complicity in abortions; no requirement that abortions be performed by licensed physicians; and no legal protection for babies born alive following a failed abortion.

So, is Andrew Cuomo’s political career finished? Not likely, if the past, and the specifics of his drawn-out resignation, are any indication.

When I quoted those lines from Kipling regarding Eliot Spitzer, I naively assumed he was through with politics. Alas, he “rose again” five years later, running for Comptroller of New York City (he lost the Democratic primary). Nor was he alone. Anthony Weiner, driven from Congress in a sexting scandal, re-emerged to run for mayor of NYC–and was polling well, until he again was caught sexting, this time with a minor, and had to withdraw.

Nor is it only Democrats, or only in New York. South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, whose political career seemed over when he was caught in an extra-marital affair–in South America, while lying to constituents and media as to his whereabouts–later ran and got elected to Congress.

Cuomo, as pundits across ideological lines are observing, seems already to be laying the groundwork for a political comeback. In resigning, he gave himself a two-week grace period before leaving office, very publicly continuing to issue various government edicts. He used a farewell address not to apologize or accept responsibility, but almost as a victory lap–denying any wrongdoing, condemning the AG’s investigation as a “rush to judgement,” and touting his accomplishments, as though he were departing honorably after a successfully completed term.

He seems very much in the mold of his predecessors-in-scandal: driven by an insatiable lust for power; an obsession with being in the public eye, unable to distinguish between public fame and public shame; and possessed of an apparently messianic impulse that tells them their governance is absolutely indispensable to us.

I would commend to Andrew Cuomo a different–and decidedly more Catholic–path: that chosen by John Profumo, the married British secretary of war who in 1962, at the height of the Cold War, resigned after being caught in an affair with a woman who was at the same time cavorting with a Soviet spy.

As Peggy Noonan recounted in a beautiful 2013 column in the Wall Street Journal, Profumo never sought a return to political power. He spent the next 40 years working at “a rundown settlement house” for the poor in east London. He did “the scut work of social work,” Noonan wrote, “washing dishes and cleaning toilets. He visited prisons for the criminally insane, helped with housing for the poor and worker education.” And learned, as he attested 40 years later, “humility.” 

I would humbly urge Andrew Cuomo to do likewise. Let the tumult and the shouting of public adulation die; let the captains and the kings of political power depart. Find instead–in true service to others, not the contrived “public service” of political power and prestige–Kipling’s “humble and contrite heart.”

In short, be Christ to others–as we are all called to do.         

---