SENATOR JOSH HAWLEY DECLARES NANCY PELOSI'S ABORTION BILL WOULD FORCE PEOPLE OF FAITH TO PERFORM ABORTIONS

Sen. Hawley: House-Passed Bill ‘Would Force People of Faith, Doctors, Others to Perform Abortion’

By John Jakubisin | June 25, 2020 | 12:55pm EDT

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) (Getty Images)

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said on Wednesday that he opposes the unamended Equality Act, which passed the Democrat-controlled House last year, because, among other things, "it would force people of faith, doctors, others to perform abortions."

The Equality Acts, says an official summary, "prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in a wide variety of areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation."

“The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity," says the summary.

At the Capitol, CNS News asked Hawley: “When the House Judiciary Committee considered the Equality Act it rejected an amendment that said the act would not require biological females to face biological males in sports competition. Should biological males who say they identify as females be allowed to play girls’ sports?”

The senator responded: “Well, you know the Equality Act, unamended, as you just alluded to it, came to us on the Senate floor last week, on I think Thursday, and Senator Booker and Senator Merkley asked to pass it by unanimous consent, which means without a vote and any further debate.”

“So, I objected to that,” said Hawley, “and I objected to passing the act without the kind of amendments that you’ve identified and frankly without protections for religious liberty or protections for--one of my major concerns with the Equality Act as it is currently written, as it came to us on the Senate floor last week, is that it would force people of faith, doctors, others to perform abortions; hospitals, that are currently faith-based hospitals to allow the performance of abortions.”

“So for all of those reasons, myself and Senator Lankford objected to it on the Senate floor and stopped it in the Senate,” he said.  “And I’m opposed to it currently passing in its current form and particularly opposed to doing it by unanimous consent--where we don't have a chance to amend it, we don't have a chance to talk about it, we don't have a chance to do anything. It's just adopted like that, without even a vote.”

The Equality Act passed the House of Representatives in May 2019 by a vote of 236-173. Every House Democrat voted for the bill, as well as eight Republicans. The legislation went to the Senate floor for discussion on Thursday, June 18.

The bill also "prohibits the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 from providing a claim, defense, or basis for challenging such protections.”

“The effects of this bill is forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions, forcing doctors and nurses to perform abortions against their will, and forcing faith-based hospitals and clinics to perform abortions,” Hawley said on the Senate floor on June 18.

“H.R. 5, this bill here, would supersede existing restrictions on abortion, including funding, including health and safety standards, and other regulations that the States have passed,” he said.

“It would force faith-based adoption agencies, some of which have been helping birth mothers find a safe and loving and permanent home for more than 100 years--it would force them out of business,” Hawley said.

“It would coerce those who don't want to speak or who hold different beliefs into adopting this set of practices and principles and beliefs at work--these doctors, these nurses, and these faith-based agencies,” he said.

“I submit to you that this is not the way to find consensus in America,” Hawley said.  “This shunting aside of the constitutional rights of sincere, well-meaning people of faith is not the way to proceed.”

A new Gilded Age has emerged in America — a 21st century version.

The wealth of the top 1% of Americans has grown dramatically in the past four decades, squeezing both the middle class and the poor. This is in sharp contrast to Europe and Asia, where the wealth of the 1% has grown at a more constrained pace.

 

Josh Hawley: GOP Must Defend Middle Class Americans Against ‘Concentrated Corporate Power,’ Tech Billionaires

JOHN BINDER

The Republican Party must defend America’s working and middle class against “concentrated corporate power” and the monopolization of entire sectors of the United States’ economy, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) says.

In an interview on The Realignment podcast, Hawley said that “long gone are the days where” American workers can depend on big business to look out for their needs and the needs of their communities.

Instead, Hawley explained that increasing “concentrated corporate power” of whole sectors of the American economy — specifically among Silicon Valley’s giant tech conglomerates — is at the expense of working and middle class Americans.

“One of the things Republicans need to recover today is a defense of an open, free-market, of a fair healthy competing market and the length between that and Democratic citizenship,” Hawley said, and continued:

At the end of the day, we are trying to support and sustain here a great democracy. We’re not trying to make a select group of people rich. They’ve already done that. The tech billionaires are already billionaires, they don’t need any more help from government. I’m not interested in trying to help them further. I’m interested in trying to help sustain the great middle of this country that makes our democracy run and that’s the most important challenge of this day.

“You have these businesses who for years now have said ‘Well, we’re based in the United States, but we’re not actually an American company, we’re a global company,'” Hawley said. “And you know, what has driven profits for some of our biggest multinational corporations? It’s been … moving jobs overseas where it’s cheaper … moving your profits out of this country so you don’t have to pay any taxes.”

“I think that we have here at the same time that our economy has become more concentrated, we have bigger and bigger corporations that control more and more of our key sectors, those same corporations see themselves as less and less American and frankly they are less committed to American workers and American communities,” Hawley continued. “That’s turned out to be a problem which is one of the reasons we need to restore good, healthy, robust competition in this country that’s going to push up wages, that’s going to bring jobs back to the middle parts of this country, and most importantly, to the middle and working class of this country.”

While multinational corporations monopolize industries, Hawley said the GOP must defend working and middle class Americans and that big business interests should not come before the needs of American communities:

A free market is one where you can enter it, where there are new ideas, and also by the way, where people can start a small family business, you shouldn’t have to be gigantic in order to succeed in this country. Most people don’t want to start a tech company. [Americans] maybe want to work in their family’s business, which may be some corner shop in a small town … they want to be able to make a living and then give that to their kids or give their kids an option to do that. [Emphasis added]

The problem with corporate concentration is that it tends to kill all of that. The worst thing about corporate concentration is that it inevitably believes to a partnership with big government. Big business and big government always get together, always. And that is exactly what has happened now with the tech sector, for instance, and arguably many other sectors where you have this alliance between big government and big business … whatever you call it, it’s a problem and it’s something we need to address. [Emphasis added]

Hawley blasted the free trade-at-all-costs doctrine that has dominated the Republican and Democrat Party establishments for decades, crediting the globalist economic model with hollowing “out entire industries, entire supply chains” and sending them to China, among other countries.

“The thing is in this country is that not only do we not make very much stuff anymore, we don’t even make the machines that make the stuff,” Hawley said. “The entire supply chain up and down has gone overseas, and a lot of it to China, and this is a result of policies over some decades now.”

As Breitbart News reported, Hawley detailed in the interview how Republicans like former President George H.W. Bush’s ‘New World Order’ agenda and Democrats have helped to create a corporatist economy that disproportionately benefits the nation’s richest executives and donor class.

The billionaire class, the top 0.01 percent of earners, has enjoyed more than 15 times as much wage growth as the bottom 90 percent since 1979. That economy has been reinforced with federal rules that largely benefits the wealthiest of wealthiest earners. A study released last month revealed that the richest Americans are, in fact, paying a lower tax rate than all other Americans.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 

Economists: America’s Elite Pay Lower Tax Rate Than All Other Americans

JOHN BINDER

The wealthiest Americans are paying a lower tax rate than all other Americans, groundbreaking analysis from a pair of economists reveals.

For the first time on record, the wealthiest 400 Americans in 2018 paid a lower tax rate than all of the income groups in the United States, research highlighted by the New York Times from University of California, Berkeley, economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman finds.

The analysis concludes that the country’s top economic elite are paying lower federal, state, and local tax rates than the nation’s working and middle class. Overall, these top 400 wealthy Americans paid just a 23 percent tax rate, which the Times‘ op-ed columnist David Leonhardt notes is a combined tax payment of “less than one-quarter of their total income.”

This 23 percent tax rate for the rich means their rate has been slashed by 47 percentage points since 1950 when their tax rate was 70 percent.

(Screenshot via the New York Times)

The analysis finds that the 23 percent tax rate for the wealthiest Americans is less than every other income group in the U.S. — including those earning working and middle-class incomes, as a Times graphic shows.

Leonhardt writes:

For middle-class and poor families, the picture is different. Federal income taxes have also declined modestly for these families, but they haven’t benefited much if at all from the decline in the corporate tax or estate tax. And they now pay more in payroll taxes (which finance Medicare and Social Security) than in the past. Over all, their taxes have remained fairly flat. [Emphasis added]

The report comes as Americans increasingly see a growing divide between the rich and working class, as the Pew Research Center has found.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), the leading economic nationalist in the Senate, has warned against the Left-Right coalition’s consensus on open trade, open markets, and open borders, a plan that he has called an economy that works solely for the elite.

“The same consensus says that we need to pursue and embrace economic globalization and economic integration at all costs — open markets, open borders, open trade, open everything no matter whether it’s actually good for American national security or for American workers or for American families or for American principles … this is the elite consensus that has governed our politics for too long and what it has produced is a politics of elite ambition,” Hawley said in an August speech in the Senate.

That increasing worry of rapid income inequality is only further justified by economic research showing a rise in servant-class jobs, strong economic recovery for elite zip codes but not for working-class regions, and skyrocketing wage growth for the billionaire class at 15 times the rate of other Americans.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

Census Says U.S. Income Inequality Grew ‘Significantly’ in 2018

 

(Bloomberg) -- Income inequality in America widened “significantly” last year, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report published Thursday.

A measure of inequality known as the Gini index rose to 0.485 from 0.482 in 2017, according to the bureau’s survey of household finances. The measure compares incomes at the top and bottom of the distribution, and a score of 0 is perfect equality.

The 2018 reading is the first to incorporate
the impact of President Donald Trump’s end-
2017 tax bill, which was reckoned by many
economists to be skewed in favor of the
wealthy.

But the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S. has been worsening for decades, making America the most unequal country in the developed world. The trend, which has persisted through recessions and recoveries, and under administrations of both parties, has put inequality at the center of U.S. politics.

Leading candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, including senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, are promising to rectify the tilt toward the rich with measures such as taxes on wealth or financial transactions.

Just five states -- California, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana and New York, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico -- had Gini indexes higher than the national level, while the reading was lower in 36 states.

 

TRUMPERNOMICS:

Billionaires’ wealth surged in 2019

28 December 2019

As the second decade of the 21st century comes to a close, its most salient feature—the plundering of humanity by a global financial oligarchy—continues unabated.

Amidst trade war and the growth of militarism and authoritarianism on the one side, and an eruption of international strikes and protests by the working class against social inequality on the other, the stock market is hitting record highs and the fortunes of the world’s billionaires are continuing to surge.

On Friday, one day after all three major US stock indexes set new records, Bloomberg issued its end-of-year survey of the world’s 500 richest people. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index reported that the oligarchs’ fortunes increased by a combined total of $1.2 trillion, a 25 percent rise over 2018. Their collective net worth now comes to $5.9 trillion.

To place this figure in some perspective, these 500 individuals control more wealth than the gross domestic product of the United States at the end of the third quarter of 2019, which was $5.4 trillion.

The year’s biggest gains went to France’s Bernard Arnault, who added $36.5 billion to his fortune, bringing it above the rarified $100 billion level to $105 billion. He knocked speculator Warren Buffett, at $89.3 billion, down to fourth place. Amazon boss Jeff Bezos lost nearly $9 billion due to a divorce settlement, but maintained the top position, with a net worth of $116 billion. Microsoft founder Bill Gates gained $22.7 billion for the year and held on to second place at $113 billion.

The 172 American billionaires on the Bloomberg list added $500 billion, with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg recording the year’s biggest US gain at $27.3 billion, placing him in fifth place worldwide with a net worth of $79.3 billion.

It is difficult to comprehend the true significance of such stratospheric sums. In his 2016 book Global Inequality, economist Branko Milanovic wrote:

"A billion dollars is so far outside the usual experience of practically everyone on earth that the very quantity it implies is not easily understood… Suppose now that you inherited either $1 million or $1 billion, and that you spent $1,000 every day. It would take you less than three years to run through your inheritance in the first case, and more than 2,700 years (that is, the time that separates us from Homer’s Iliad) to blow your inheritance in the second case."

The vast redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top of society is the outcome of a decades-long process, which was accelerated following the 2008 Wall Street crash. It is not the result of impersonal and simply self-activating processes. Rather, the policies of capitalist governments and parties around the world, nominally “left” as well as right, have been dedicated to the ever greater impoverishment of the working class and enrichment of the ruling elite.

In the US, the top one percent has captured all of the increase in national income over the past two decades, and all of the increase in national wealth since the 2008 crash.

The main mechanism for this transfer of wealth has been the stock market, and the policies of the US Federal Reserve and central banks internationally have been geared to providing cheap money to drive up stock prices. The cost of this massive subsidy to the financial markets and the oligarchs has been paid by the working class, in the form of social cuts, mass layoffs, the destruction of pensions and health benefits, and the replacement of relatively secure and decent-paying jobs with part-time, temporary and contingent “gig” positions.

Since Trump was inaugurated in January of 2017, pledging to slash corporate taxes, lift regulations on big business and dramatically increase the military budget, the Dow has surged by 9,000 points. This year, Trump and the financial markets applied massive pressure on the Fed to reverse its efforts to “normalize” interest rates. The Fed complied, carrying out three rate cuts and repeatedly assuring the markets it had no plans to raise rates in 2020.

This windfall for the banks and hedge funds was supported by the Democrats no less than the Republicans. In fact, Trump’s economic policy has been given de facto support by the Democratic Party all down the line—from his tax cuts for corporations and the rich to his attack on virtually all regulations on business. Even in the midst of impeachment—carried out entirely on the grounds of “national security” and Trump’s supposed “softness” toward Russia—the Democrats have voted by wide margins for Trump’s budget, his anti-Chinese US-Mexico-Canada trade pact and his record $738 billion Pentagon war budget.

This has included giving Trump all the money he wants to build his border wall and carry out the mass incarceration and persecution of immigrants.

Trump’s pro-corporate policies are an extension and expansion of those pursued by the Obama administration. It allocated trillions in taxpayer money to bail out the banks and flooded the financial markets with cheap credit, driving up stock prices, while imposing a 50 percent across-the-board cut in pay for newly hired autoworkers in its bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. Obama oversaw the closure of thousands of schools and the layoff of hundreds of thousands of teachers, and enacted austerity budgets that slashed social programs.

Two of those running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination are billionaires—Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg. The latter, with a net worth of $56 billion, is the ninth richest person in the US. He entered the race as the spokesman for oligarchs outraged over talk from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren of token tax increases on the super-rich.

The oligarchs are not frightened by Sanders and Warren—two longstanding defenders of the American ruling class, who seek to mask their subservience to capital with talk of making the oligarchs pay “their fair share,” a euphemism for defending their right to pillage the population. The billionaires are frightened by the growth of mass opposition to capitalism that finds a distorted expression in support for the phony “progressives” in the Democratic fold.

Between them, Bloomberg and Steyer have already spent $200 million of their own money in an effort to buy the election outright.

The impact of the policy of social plunder is seen in the deepening of a malignant social crisis in country after country. In the US, society is marching backwards, as the crying need for schools, hospitals, affordable housing, pensions, the rebuilding of decrepit roads, bridges, transportation, flood control, water and sewage, fire control and electricity grids is met with the official response: “There is no money.”

The result? Three straight years of declining life expectancy, record addiction and suicide rates, devastating wildfires and floods, electricity cut-offs by profiteering utility companies. And a climate crisis that cannot be addressed within the framework of a system dominated by a money-mad plutocracy.

Not a single serious social problem can be addressed under conditions where the ruling elite—through its bribed parties and politicians, aided by its pro-capitalist trade unions and backed up by its courts, police and troops—diverts resources from society to the accumulation of ever more luxurious yachts, mansions, private islands and personal jets.

Where social reform is impossible, social revolution is inevitable. The solution to the impasse is to be found in the growth of the class struggle. The movement of workers and youth all over the world—from mass strikes in France to strikes by autoworkers and teachers in the US, protests in Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador and Brazil, strikes and mass demonstrations in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and India—reveals the social force that can and will put an end to capitalism.

The watchword must be—in opposition to the Corbyns, the Sanders, the Tsiprases and their pseudo-left promoters—“Expropriate the super-rich!”

Exclusive–Mo Brooks: ‘Masters of the Universe’ Want More Immigration to ‘Decrease Incomes of Americans’

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/10/exclusive-mo-brooks-masters-universe-want-more-immigration-decrease-incomes-americans/

Bob Gathany / AL.com via AP

 10 Mar 2019122

3:19

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) says the “Masters of the Universe” want more legal immigration to the United States to further diminish the incomes of American working and middle-class families.

In an exclusive interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Tonight, Brooks said recent demands to increase the number of foreign workers coming to the U.S. to compete against American citizens for jobs is merely an effort by corporations to deplete the earnings of Americans.

Brooks said:

I’m not a part of the Masters of the Universe crowd who thinks we ought to be bringing in all this foreign labor and the reason for it is pure economics. This is the chance for Americans and lawful immigrants who are already here who are working in the blue-collar trades, who are working in the places where wages are not as high they ought to be, this is their chance to prosper. [Emphasis added]

And to the extent you import a lot of foreign labor, then you are artificially increasing the labor supply which in turn means that you’re artificially suppressing the wages of American families who are often hard-pressed to make ends meet So I respectfully disagree that we need more foreign labor, to the contrary, I would like to see us reduce the foreign labor that comes into America so that American families who are struggling to make ends meet, particularly those of us who are earning the least amounts, would be better to take care of their own families and less likely to be dependent on the welfare. [Emphasis added]

Brooks said Democrats support for mass legal immigration is centered on the premise that increasing the number of foreign workers in the U.S. will decrease Americans’ wages, thus forcing many into poverty and becoming welfare recipients. This, Brooks said, is how Democrats create a permanent dependent class of Democrat voters.

“Don’t get me wrong, [Democrats] want to decrease the incomes of Americans so that they’re dependent on welfare,” Brooks said.

That makes them in turn likely Democrat voters and the best way to do that is to have a huge surge in the labor supply, particularly illegal aliens, that will depress their wages therefore creating more Democrats who are dependent on welfare at the same time as they bring in illegal aliens who also under Democrat doctrine will be allowed to vote and those types of voters, they’re also dependent on welfare. [Emphasis added]

“About 70 percent of illegal alien households are on welfare … plus this is a bloc of voters that seems unusually susceptible to the racial divisions that the Democrats advance,” Brooks said. “You have to look at the big picture in all of this, and to me, we should not be importing as much foreign labor as we are. We should be helping the least among us earn more and importing foreign labor that suppresses wages is not the way to do that.”

Currently, the U.S. admits more than 1.2 legal immigrants annually, with the vast majority deriving from chain migration, whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country. In 2017, the foreign-born population reached a record high of 44.5 million.

The U.S. is on track to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades should current legal immigration levels continue. Those 15 million new foreign-born voters include about eight million who will arrive in the country through chain migration, where newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country.

Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 from 9:00 p.m. to Midnight Eastern (6:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m. Pacific). 

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 

When Only One Party Defends Babies and Religious Freedom, Catholic Clergy Must Speak Out

 By Fr. Frank Pavone | June 25, 2020 | 5:20pm EDT

 

Bishops arrive for Pope Benedict XVI mass celebration at Nationals Stadium in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: VINCENZO PINTO/AFP/Getty Images)

The following commentary is excerpted from Priests for Life National Director Fr. Frank Pavone's Thursday letter to the Catholic hierarchy:

The public dialogue I am urgently inviting you to engage in at this time is based on the fact that we are not dealing with normal “political disagreements” in this election. If what divided the political parties were matters merely of prudential judgment, or policy disagreements that should be worked out by open debate, trial and error, and the corrective processes provided by our legislative, executive, and judicial mechanisms, then the official neutrality of the Church could be easily understood and implemented.

But that is not where we are right now.

We do not have a division simply on policy, but on principle. Our political divide is not simply about prudential judgments, but about "the fundamental rights of man" and "the salvation of souls" referred to by the Second Vatican Council, the Catechism, and numerous other sources.

When the Republican Party stands firmly for the principle that government cannot authorize the killing of babies, and the Democrat Party firmly rejects that principle by embracing unrestricted abortion, how is it possible for the Church “to proclaim its teaching” without discrediting (implicitly if not explicitly) the political party that so obviously opposes that teaching? As you well know, St. John Paul II called governments that legalize abortion “a tyrant state” (EV, 20). That’s pretty discrediting.

How is it possible, moreover, to defend religious freedom, where again, there is a fundamental difference of principle, not just policy, at work in our political divide? My ministry of Priests for Life and I, along with Alveda King who is part of our pastoral team, were joined shoulder to shoulder by the Archdiocese of Washington, the dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and numerous other Catholic and Christian institutions and apostolates to fight all the way to the Supreme Court for our religious freedom against mandates imposed by a Democrat Presidential Administration.

We won only because of the election of President Trump.

A serious public discussion is needed here, lest while urged by the Church to fight State mandates that restrict our freedom, we subject ourselves to Church mandates that restrict that same freedom.

What makes this all the more ironic is that we are living now in a climate where the federal government is not only defending our right to speak and teach freely on the moral dimensions of politics, but is urging us to do so! On May 4, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order protecting our religious freedom. He said,

“I want to hear from you, and so do a lot of other people. So, you’re now in a position where you can say what you want to say. And I know you’ll only say good and you’ll say what’s in your heart. And that’s what we want from you.…This executive order directs the IRS not to unfairly target churches and religious organizations for political speech. ... In America we do not fear people speaking freely from the pulpit. We embrace it.…Under my administration, free speech does not end at the steps of a cathedral or a synagogue or any other house of worship.”

This also relates also to the rights of clerics to be politically involved. Canon 287 §2 legitimately affirms of clerics, “they are not to play an active role in political parties or in directing trade unions unless, in the judgement of the competent ecclesiastical authority, this is required for the defense of the rights of the Church or to promote the common good.”

While the first part of that canon is vigorously enforced, the second part requires due attention as well. The rights of the Church and the common good are under attack in unprecedented ways by the Democrat Party. But again, after being told to defend those goods, we are left to fight with two hands tied behind our backs and a gag bearing an episcopal seal over our mouths.

In calling for more open and respectful dialogue, I speak for many priests and lay faithful with whom I have worked side by side for decades in the fight for life and religious freedom, and whose commitment to these causes has all too often been met with criticism rather than appreciation by the pastors of the Church. Indeed, even attempts to address the matter like I am doing in this letter are often met with unwarranted disciplinary action that appears to be motivated not by a concern for the good of the Church, but by the very types of partisan political agendas that clerics are warned not to pursue.

I speak also on behalf of our brothers and sisters in other Christian denominations who are strong allies in the fight for life, family, and freedom. Unfortunately, while they have courageously defended the freedom of churches to preach the Gospel and “to pass moral judgments even in matters relating to politics,” they have found much of the response from Catholic religious leaders to be disheartening.

Your Eminences and Excellencies, as I said at the outset, I write with deep respect. I am a son of the Church and have always defended her legitimate authority and prayed daily for her leaders. But this is an appeal to engage in a dialogue that the circumstances of the moment call for most urgently. The approximately 100,000 political races that comprise “the 2020 Elections” bring us to an unprecedented choice in America. Never has the political divide been more substantial or consequential.

Never has the voice of the Church been more needed; everything we stand for and have fought for is on the line. Be assured, the voice of the Church will be heard, because as you know and as you teach, the Church is more than the hierarchy. We know what is right, we know what the Church teaches, and we know how to win elections. We just would rather not feel like we’re fighting without our leaders or, worse, having our leaders fight against us.

This election is not business as usual, and therefore I have written to you publicly. Many of the faithful and I respectfully await a response from you that is likewise more than business as usual.

Father Frank Pavone is the national director of Priests for Life.