Participants in a demonstration against Proposition 1 outside the California capitol in Sacramento, Oct. 6, 2022. / Photo courtesy of California’s No on Prop. 1 Campaign
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Nov 9, 2022 / 09:22 am (CNA).
Ballot initiatives to protect and expand abortion passed across the nation on Election Day.
Americans in five states voted on the issue of abortion during the 2022 midterm elections. Three states — California, Michigan, and Vermont — proposed constitutional amendments to advance abortion. All three passed.
At the same time, citizens in Kentucky weighed a pro-life amendment and Montana voters considered a measure that promises to protect babies who are born alive after attempted abortions. Kentucky voted no to its pro-life measure. Montana’s results are still coming in, with a current majority voting no.
Stephen Billy, who serves as vice president of state affairs at the national pro-life group SBA Pro-Life America, early Wednesday morning stressed that life is still winning.
“Anyone arguing abortion is winning is missing what happened tonight,” he told CNA. “We had strong pro-life candidates at the federal and state level win because they seized on life as a winning issue and exposed the extreme taxpayer-funded abortion until birth policy of their opponents.”
“We know life is a winning issue, we know how to win on life, and we know the American people reject the extreme policy of Planned Parenthood and their candidates,” he added. “Going forward, we have to do better at using our winning strategy and using it to fight back against the millions of dollars Big Abortion puts into ballot initiatives to cause confusion and hide their extreme policy. When the voters see the abortion industry pushing abortion on demand, they reject it — and if we focus on exposing that extreme policy we will win.”
The ballot measures on Election Day follow the Supreme Court’s June decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and freed states to legislate on abortion. They also come after a pro-life amendment recently failed in Kansas.
California: Proposition 1
Proposition 1 will amend California’s constitution to explicitly protect abortion after citizens voted to pass it.
As of mid-Wednesday morning, the New York Times reported that 65.1% voted yes to Proposition 1 and 34.9% voted no, with 41% of the votes in.
Following the election results, Catherine Hadro, director of media relations for California’s No on Proposition 1 campaign, stressed a disconnect between what Proposition 1 allows and what California voters support.
“We know that more than 80% of Californians reject late-term abortion. They oppose late-term abortion,” she previously told CNA. “And that’s exactly what Proposition 1 would allow.”
The proposition reads: “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”
California currently allows abortion for any reason before viability, when a baby can survive outside the womb — generally considered to begin around 24 weeks of pregnancy. After viability, California allows abortion when a woman’s life or health is threatened.
The California Catholic Conference encouraged pro-life voters to say “no” to Proposition 1, calling it “an expensive and misleading ballot measure that allows unlimited late-term abortions — for any reason, at any time, even moments before birth, paid for by tax dollars.”
A campaign for the amendment led by pro-abortion groups, called Yes on Proposition 1, argued that Proposition 1 would “ensure that, in California, people continue to have the power to control their own bodies and personal decisions.”
Michigan: Proposal 3
Michigan’s proposed constitutional amendment, Proposal 3, will advance abortion in that state.
As of mid-Wednesday morning, the New York Times reported that 56% voted yes to the proposal and 44% voted no, with 87% of the votes in.
On the ballot, the amendment is identified as a “proposal to amend the state constitution to establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make all decisions about pregnancy and abortion; allow state to regulate abortion in some cases; and forbid prosecution of individuals exercising established right.”
In Michigan, women can obtain abortions for any reason before viability. After viability, abortion is permitted to save the woman’s life.
The Citizens to Support MI Women and Children coalition, which includes the Michigan Catholic Conference, advised pro-life citizens to vote no on the amendment. The group said it would “radically distort Michigan’s Constitution to create a new unlimited right to abortion.”
“This poorly-worded amendment would repeal dozens of state laws, including our state’s ban on tax-funded abortions, the partial-birth abortion ban, and fundamentally alter the parent-child relationship by preventing parents from having input on their children’s health,” the group said.
In support of the amendment, Reproductive Freedom for All argued that “in addition to ensuring access to a broad range of reproductive health care, this amendment would make sure no one goes to prison for providing safe medical care.”
Vermont: Article 22/Proposal 5
In Vermont, citizens voted to pass the constitutional amendment Article 22, also known as Proposal 5, which promotes abortion.
As of mid-Wednesday morning, the New York Times reported that 77.4% voted yes to the proposal and 22.6% voted no, with more than 95% of the votes in.
It reads: “That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
Abortion is legal up until birth in the state.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, which includes the entire state of Vermont, published a piece in its diocesan bulletin warning that the amendment “promises to enshrine unlimited, unregulated abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy in our state’s founding document” and “would permanently block any attempt to protect the unborn — even those who can survive outside the womb.”
Vermont Right to Life Committee urged citizens to vote no.
Led by pro-abortion groups, Vermont for Reproductive Liberty Ballot Committee argued: “We need this amendment because important medical decisions should be guided by a patient’s health and well-being, not by a politician’s beliefs.”
Kentucky: Amendment 2
Kentucky voted against a pro-life measure — Amendment 2 — which says the state’s constitution does not protect abortion.
As of mid-Wednesday morning, the New York Times reported that 52.6% voted no to the amendment and 47.4% voted yes, with 88% of the votes in.
It reads: “To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.”
Kentucky currently prohibits abortion with exceptions for saving a woman’s life or preventing serious risk to her physical health.
The Yes for Life alliance, which includes the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, asked pro-life citizens to vote yes. The group said that the amendment’s language “will prevent state judges from asserting their own preferences over the will of legislators and the voters.”
Opposing the amendment, the Protect Kentucky Access coalition claimed that the amendment would “pave the way for the state to ban abortion in all cases.”
Montana: Legislative Referendum 131 (LR-131)
Voters in Montana considered Legislative Referendum 131, which says it will protect babies who are born alive after attempted abortions.
As of Wednesday morning, the New York Times reported that 52.6% voted no to the amendment and 47.7% voted yes, with 80% of the votes in.
It reads: “An act adopting the born-alive infant protection act; providing that infants born alive, including infants born alive after an abortion, are legal persons; requiring health care providers to take necessary actions to preserve the life of a born-alive infant; providing a penalty; providing that the proposed act be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana; and providing an effective date.”
Montana law allows abortion before viability. Abortion is also permitted after viability to save a woman’s life or prevent serious risk to her physical health.
SBA Pro-Life America’s Katie Glenn previously told CNA that she found the ballot initiative in Montana — a state she said has been getting progressively more pro-life — the most interesting.
“I think that one’s different than the other four, which are all very much time-gestational bans, in that this is not a pro-life/pro-choice issue,” she said. “This is about providing lifesaving care to a child who’s already been born.”
Opposing the referendum, Compassion for Montana Families claimed that it “would introduce extreme penalties for medical providers who, at the family’s request, do not take a dying infant away from its parents in order to perform invasive and even painful medical treatments in tragic circumstances where they have no chance of survival.”
[…]
This incident should be properly investigated. But we must remember that not every accused priest is guilty, as we have seen with the case of Cardinal Pell.
Yes, and Father Gordon MacRae.
I wonder if Father Rulter was framed, the PI Gomez doesn’t have a squeaky clean record, and miss Gonzalez taped outside the office door. Why shouldn’t they get some money from the archdiocese, seems money can be a great motivator for schemers. Sounds like a set up and seems fishy.
How’s it a setup if it’s indeed him at the computer watching the gay porn? More like caught red handed.
You cannot tell who is at the computer, so you cannot accuse unless you know the facts beyond a doubt. I listened to the young woman’s account, it just doesn’t sound like her story adds up. She says she was in the office taping, and the taping is outside of the office because the door is in her filming shot. I think it’s a set up.
Fr. Rutler exonerated May 2021. The judge dismissed the case. The video was obviously a con job. She’s the security guard. She easily brings in a bald guy after hours and they fake a video. It never shows the guy’s face, much less him coming at her. According to LifeSiteNews, the lady security guard has been implicated as working for NY gangs in similar cons. I know, con artists in NYC, who would imagine? Not the first con artists to make fake sex assault charges against our Church, it’s easy money these days.
Time to give Fr. Rutler the David Haas treatment. Persona non grata now.
Praying for Fr. Rutler. A certain section hate him. I love him.
I am a parishioner & I feel this was a set-up. Father Rutler is the holiest & most devout priest I have ever met. May Our Lord Jesus Christ, protect him from this satanic attack
Check her political views firstly and then her past.
Story makes me sick. I hope it is not true.
A very well-known, respected cleric is unabashedly watching gay porn after inviting a female security guard to come in from the cold and then attempts to attack her though he was allegedly watching men engaged in sex acts. Doesn’t add up. They all smell money.
There are quite a few aspects of this accusation/story that just don’t seem plausible or believable.
Only if you refuse to accept the rot and filth in the Church hasn’t been expunged yet.
There are too many holes in this story. The claim is that this happened to her during her 2nd day on the job. Why is a petite 22-year-old girl hired as a security guard to guard grown men against potential violent rioters, when she herself is vulnerable (and if we go by her claim, she wasn’t able to protect even herself against a 75-year-old, so who was she possibly hired to protect)? Security guards, especially against rioters should be big and intimidating, (take a look at the security guards with bloodhounds that Saks Fifth Avenue hired), and perhaps undergo training to actually be able protect people against violent criminals as this specific job would have required. How long was this 22-year-old girl working as a security guard? Was she placed here merely for this job?
Not to mention that this same company also describes itself as a “high profile” private investigation firm. Also, why did this 22 year old girl call the founder of a separate “Emmy Award-winning documentary maker” and private investigation firm at 2:45am just over an hour after she claims he supposedly grabbed her? I grew up in the Bronx. What 22 year old from the Bronx can afford to hire a top “counter-terrorism who worked on high-profile murder cases” as a private investigator? People are capable of making authentic looking crime reinnacments for TV and this firm won an Emmy award for a crime documentary. We know this girl and the security firm she worked for had access to the building. It is undeniable that it is possible for someone to stage this whole thing to create that 18-second video clip only showing the back of a bald man’s head. This could be just a slightly more sophisticated smear then what happened to the good Cardinal George Pell who was proven to be innocent after being imprisoned for almost a year. What we need is security camera evidence of who went in and out of the office and buidling. And don’t tell us that the cameras spontaneously shut off that night.
Smells like someone who knows there are millions of dollars that can be made from an Archdiocesean abuse payout.
Well researched and thought through. Forget the money aspect and realise his views anger a particular vote group. I stand with Fr. Rutler
May 2021 update: Looks like you called it, probably. Our man, Father Rutler, exonerated. Case against him: thrown-out. God be praised. Hope he’s back at pulpit asap. Glad to see our Church not robbed or extorted by false accusations.
Just hold on. Don’t be so rash. This case doesn’t make any sense. He watched gay porno while she was in the office sitting behind him? What? How do you go from watching gay porn to then sexually attacking a woman? This is crazy. The woman sounds nuts.
Exactly. Arthur or Martha means something. Not being flippant.
She does not sound reasonable
The incident reminds me of Jussie Smollett. He watches the stuff knowing she is in the room? His proclivities go both ways? She texts her mother instead of just running away outside? She hires a PI to submit a police report rather than calling 911? It could be true, but those questions need good answers. If he’s guilty, then punish him. If she made it up, punish her.
I was thinking the exact same thing! He knows she is behind him and he is still going to begin watching homosexual porn?? This was the accuser’s second day on the job and he felt comfortable enough with her that he would let her see him, a celebrated priest, watcing porn? In addition, if Fr. Rutler is into men, why would he want to sexually assault a woman? It just doesn’t add up, in my humble opinion!
Even If the pc wasn’t wiped clean, it spoils be easy to subpoena the IP history, if he was habitually watching gay porn, should be Easy to prove, if there is only one instance, or none… then it spoils be easy to prove it is a false accusation.
“The alleged incident took place during Gonzalez’s second night on the job, Gomez said.”
Her second night? There’s a lot about this story that doesn’t add up, but this detail in particular suggests a frame job.
May justice prevail.
The whole story sounds like that of a stereotypical movie plot to smear a good priest. Yes, there have been evil men who committed sexual abuse after being ordained to the priesthood. These ase are evil acts. For now I cannot at all believe that Fr. Rutler has done any such evil acts that he was accused of. The right to due process is in our Constitution. He is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Anyone questioning Fr. Rutler’s innocence and taking the accusation of those living in a strictly secular society as fact should watch at least one video of Fr. Rutler speaking about any topic at all.
Fr. Rutler is, figuratively, not on the same plane of this modern and superficial world. I cannot imagine that he would concern himself with, and engage in, such perverted and diabolical acts and matters. He is not a priest who goes around wearing a t-shirt and jeans and taking goofy selfies with people he meets on the street. By this I mean that he is not trying hard to relate to secular society in an effort to better live in it, because my impression is that he has other, higher matters to concern himself with in his dedication to the priesthood. He’s written over thirty books for our edification; hosted countless EWTN shows (that any skeptics really must first watch any video of one of his shows before blindly accepting the new spoon-fed secularist belief of “guilty until proven innocent” wherein all hell immediately breaks loose for anyone who is accused); he created the Shrine to Persecuted Christians, and he has converted hundreds if not thousands of souls via his preaching about the lives of the saints and the unchanging philosophical and moral truths. Visiting his parish multiple times, one easily gets the impression that he is too committed to saving the souls of Catholics including himself to be doing absurd things. Absurd things, such as this false accusation that he was looking at homosexual pornography (on consecrated property…), while in front of a security guard, then grabbing her inappropriately. There are, without a doubt, diabolic forces behind this.
Sancte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio; contra nequítiam et insídias diáboli esto praesídium. Ímperet illi Deus, súpplices deprecámur, tuque, Princeps milítiae caeléstis, Sátanam aliósque spíritus malígnos, qui ad perditiónem animárum pervagántur in mundo, divína virtúte, in inférnum detrúde. Amen.
Be our protection Archangel Michael. Indeed.
Comments like yours make me question Jury Justice. Put your stones away.
Bottom line, this strong holy man is just plain not that stupid. This plan was put together by a stupid person.
S2E1 of “Throw Some Implausible Mud at a Catholic Priest”.
“No smoke without fire?”
Nobody innocent is ever falsely accused of something, because that false accusation is smoke so there must be a fire?
Is this the method you use to get out of jury duty, and it has taken over your life?
When I see the words ‘22-year-old female security guard’ I truly know the end for our civilisation is near.
Fr. Rutler is not a stupid man. He would have to be a complete imbecile to watch porn in the presence of a total stranger!!
I don’t know if the accusations are true or not, but several things don’t add up.
1. Why would a priest who has so conscientiously crafted and maintained his conservative/traditional priestly persona for years watch porn, knowing that someone was sitting behind him with a clear view?
2. IF he was watching gay porn, that’s an indication that he has a same sex orientation. Why then would he grab a female by her breasts?
3. Why would the guard bother to FILM him watching porn, as is alleged? He wasn’t breaking a civil law. What was her intent?
I do hope the allegations aren’t true. At this point, Fr. Rutler is innocent until proven otherwise.
A lot here is strange, but it’s unwise to comment. If it’s true, it’s quite demoralizing.
A setup and an attack on Fr. Rutler and our Church
1. All allegations must be taken seriously. 2. As frustrating and humiliating as investigations can be for all concerned, and as tempting as it is to remain engaged, Fr. Rutler is right to cooperate and to cease the public exercise of his ministry. 3. Ms. Gonzalez and Fr. Rutler will be grilled, hopefully with sensitivity and thoroughness applied in equal measure to both parties. 4. A thorough investigation of Ms Gonzalez’s phone and Fr. Rutler’s computer will clarify matters.
Let’s pray for the truth to prevail and for a speedy resolution to this unsettling story.
This thing stinks of setup, and that so many supposedly good Catholics respond immediately with a position of “neutrality” or an assumption that one of the great defenders of the faith for four decades might have committed such an act, shows how jaded and cowardly so many Catholics have become. One hopes, further, that Cardinal Dolan is not leaving this purely to the police, but is actively using his many resources to figure out who in his pastoral charge might be part of this outrage.
About fifteen years ago I attended a Mass at the Church of Our Savior on Lexington Avenue where Father Ruttler was pastor at that time. After Mass I greeted him and
commented” You need to be commended for not watering down the teachings of the Church.
In his characteristic self-effacing manner and with down cast eyes he simply said “Thank you very much, I don’t want to go to hell for preaching false doctorine.”
Has anyone else noticed that cheap latex bald cap the man in the chair is wearing? And since when did Father Rutler get arms that look like they could bench press 300 pounds?