Faith in Action Blog
Angela (Andersen ’87) Connelly Back in December, the state of Washington’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) implemented a ruling on gender identity, making it permissible for the state’s residents to enter either men’s or women’s restrooms and locker rooms purely on the basis of “gender identification,” and irrespective of biology. Now an effort is under way to repeal that ruling and create safe restroom and changing areas for all Washingtonians. Leading that effort is a graduate and governor of Thomas Aquinas College, Angela (Andersen ’87) Connelly.
In her capacity as the founding president of the Washington Women’s Network, Mrs. Connelly is working to collect the requisite 246,372 signatures to put state initiative I-1515 on the November ballot. If approved by the voters, I-1515 would allow for the restoration of sexually segregated bathrooms and locker rooms in public and private institutions, and require them in public schools. The measure would also ensure reasonable accommodations for public-school children who are not comfortable using the boys’ or girls’ facilities.
“There are schools opening up the bathrooms and the showers (to everyone), which is absolutely unacceptable,” Mrs. Connelly recently told Tacoma’s News-Tribune. “They’re all required to do it by the HRC mandate.” The campaign to overturn the mandate, she says, is about common-sense protection. “We want to protect transgender kids. … We want to protect boys. We want to protect girls. It feels like that overly broad HRC mandate does not do that.”
In support of the campaign, Mrs. Connelly recently appeared on the My Catholic Faith podcast with Dr. Thomas Curran, director of Trinity Formation Resources. “Inclusiveness means women and children, too,” she told Dr. Curran. “Women and children have a human right to be safe and to have privacy and to have dignity, just as every single person does.”
As of last week, the Yes on I-1515 campaign had collected 200,000 of the 246,372 signatures it needs to get the initiative on the ballot. The deadline is tomorrow, July 8. Please pray for Mrs. Connelly and her efforts!
Dr. Adam Seagrave ('05)“Most of us have a profound appreciation for our mothers that transcends description,” begins Dr. S. Adam Seagrave (’05) in a new essay, timed for Mother’s Day, in The Public Discourse. An assistant professor of political science at Northern Illinois University, Dr. Seagrave then proceeds to consider the current state of motherhood in terms of social and public policy.
Americans’ affection for their mothers, he observes, does not translate into an appreciation for motherhood itself, particularly the stay-at-home variety. “As long as full-time motherhood does not produce some immediate economic benefit, economic and social pressures will continue to effectively foreclose this choice for many women,” he writes. “If it matters that women have a genuine choice in their own pursuit of happiness, this is a serious problem. It becomes even more serious when we consider that fully 84 percent of women don’t think it’s best for their children for them to work full-time outside the home. Women have indeed been empowered to work outside the home, but in many cases and in many unforeseen ways, they also have been forced to do so against their wishes.”
So, as his Mother’s Day gift to moms elsewhere, Dr. Seagrave proposes “a significant tax deduction for households with a full-time parent … on the order of 150 percent of the mean individual income.” That may not seem as charming as a bouquet of roses or a box of chocolates, but, “such a deduction would provide women with a less constrained choice between being a full-time mother and pursuing work outside the home. It would also signal the value that society should place on the inestimable contribution of motherhood.”
And, on Mothers’ Day in particular, what could be more worthwhile than that? “Motherhood is a more important task for society than any other private occupation or public service,” Dr. Seagrave concludes. “No woman who would choose full-time motherhood should be unduly constrained by economic or social pressures to give up her all-important vocation.
Meghan Duke (’08) and Elizabeth (McPherson ’99) Claeys (Photos: Dana Rene Bowler)
Wednesday morning, while the United States Supreme Court held oral arguments in the case that the College and 34 co-plaintiffs have filed against the HHS Contraceptive Mandate, Women Speak for Themselves organized a rally outside the Court. Among the speakers at the rally were two alumnae of the College, Meghan Duke (’08) and Elizabeth (McPherson ’99) Claeys.
A former managing editor of First Things who is now a writer in The Catholic University of America’s Office of Marketing and Communications, Miss Duke spoke about her time volunteering for the Little Sisters of the Poor, who have become the focal point of the national debate on religious freedom. Mrs. Claeys, who is chairman of the Washington, D.C., Board of Regents, spoke about the importance of the Catholic faith to the College and pressed the key points in the College’s case. The full text of her remarks is available via the College’s website.
Dr. Adam Seagrave ('05)In honor of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the National Park Services, Dr. Adam Seagrave (’05) has penned a thoughtful piece for The Public Discourse about the role of the national parks — and Nature more broadly — in the American political tradition. “Over the past 400 years, we Americans have had a very different relationship with nature than the Europeans have,” writes Dr. Seagrave, “and this relationship has powerfully informed what is best in our political culture and public discourse.”
An assistant professor of political science at Northern Illinois University, Dr. Seagrave is the author of The Foundations of Natural Morality: On the Compatibility of Natural Rights and the Natural Law and editor of Liberty and Equality: The American Conversation. A regular contributor to The Public Discourse, Dr. Seagrave observes, “It was because of Americans’ early and unique experience with ‘Nature’ that they came to embrace Locke’s political philosophy in the eighteenth century, with its emphasis on the importance of natural rights and the natural law for politics.” Yet as the country became further removed “from this original experience of nature, through the passage of time and the development of artificial civilization and culture, the original meaning and political significance of nature progressively began to be forgotten. … By the early twentieth century, we were ready to ‘progress’ beyond the founders’ and Lincoln’s ideas, which now seemed naïve, about the political relevance of a grand and significant ‘Nature.’”
By restoring our awe, or reverence, for nature, Dr. Seagrave concludes, the National Parks play a vital role in helping Americans to “connect — or rather reconnect — with something important and distinctive about our national heritage.”
The full article I available via The Public Discourse.
- Alumnus Examines ISIS and Philosophy (2015)
- Alumnus Reviews Fellow Grad’s New Book (2015)
- College’s Latest Alumni Author (2014)
- Two Class of 2005 Authors in The Public Discourse (2013)
- What Pro-Lifers Can Learn from Frederick Douglass (2013)
- Recent Reads by Alumni Authors (2012)
David DaleidenOn January 25 a Texas grand jury indicted David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), the organization that exposed Planned Parenthood’s program of fetal organ-harvesting. Prosecutors in Harris County filed charges against the two documentarians, alleging that they tampered with a governmental record by using fake IDs to gain access to Planned Parenthood. Prosecutors further charged Mr. Daleiden with attempting to purchase or sell human organs as part of his sting operation against the abortion giant.
In the days since, Catholic scholars and attorneys have been divided over the ethics of CMP’s undercover operations as well as the justice of the charges against Ms. Merritt and Mr. Daleiden. Among those who have weighed in are two alumni of the College — faithful Catholics, committed champions of the unborn, and practicing attorneys, both — who have presented thoughtful perspectives.
Tim Cantu (’10)Writing for the Catholic legal blog The Campion, Tim Cantu (’10) argues that the indictments are, even if unfortunate, legally sound and just. “David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt are charged with crimes of which they are almost certainly guilty. Were their intentions noble? Yes. Was it in service of a good cause? Yes. But to a prosecutor, one charged with carrying out the law instead of making it, that does not and cannot matter,” Mr. Cantu observes. Appealing to the example of St. Thomas More, he notes, “The ends do not justify the means; if we wish to defy a just law, we must accept the consequences of that choice under the law. The law exists not only as a sword against the wicked; it is also our shield, and by misusing or disregarding it we weaken that shield at our peril.”
Katie Short (’80)Meanwhile, Katie Short (’80), co-founder and vice president of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, which is defending Mr. Daleiden in three civil suits, has found fault with the grand jury’s reasoning. “The tampering charge, which is a felony offense, is for the use of a California identification in order to enter the Planned Parenthood clinic for the purpose of investigation,” Mrs. Short tells LifeNews.com. Yet Texas law “provides a defense where the false information has ‘no effect on the government’s purpose for requiring the governmental record,’” she continues — and the purpose of the law in question is to prevent minors from purchasing alcohol, not to shield Planned Parenthood from undercover investigation.
Moreover, a press release issued by Mrs. Short’s Life Legal Defense Foundation contends that the law against attempting to purchase or sell body parts has been, at the very least, unevenly applied. “Daleiden was … charged with human organ trafficking, a misdemeanor charge, for allegedly offering to purchase fetal body parts from Planned Parenthood,” the statement reads. “Inexplicably, Planned Parenthood was not charged with the corresponding crime of offering to sell human organs.”
That disparity, Mr. Cantu acknowledges, may hint “that this was a politically motivated indictment designed to punish Daleiden and Merritt for having the wrong cause,” although the “mere existence of the indictment does not establish that.” Still, he adds in a footnote, “There is a good counterargument that this is a case ripe for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and [the district attorney] should drop these charges.”
Viewers of the Super Bowl may remember the lighthearted Doritos ad about the unborn baby who, at his or her ultrasound appointment, develops a craving for the bag of nacho-cheese chips that Dad is eating nearby. (See video, above.) The 30-second clip, which was the most shared ad from this year’s game, drew chuckles from most Americans — except for the pro-abortion scolds at NARAL. The ad, the pro-abortion lobby complained on its Twitter feed, employed the “antichoice tactic of humanizing fetuses.”
Katrina Trinko (’09)Writing for the Daily Signal, Katrina Trinko (’09) observes that NARAL, its humorlessness notwithstanding, may be on to something. No, the ad is not political, as NARAL suggests it is, but it does reflect a cultural reality that the pro-abortion lobby surely dreads.
“Moms and dads are now developing relationships with their children long before the due date, sometimes even announcing both name and sex to friends and family before the baby is born,” writes Miss Trinko, the Daily Signal’s managing editor and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. “And that’s what’s frightening to NARAL and other pro-abortion advocates. … [The] increasing awareness that these unborn babies are growing and developing does raise questions about current abortion policy in the United States.”
The Doritos Super Bowl ad, Miss Trinko concludes, was effective not because it engaged in political advocacy, but “because it resonated—and that should terrify pro-abortion advocates.”
A number of alumni and their families joined the College’s Washington, D.C., Board of Regents to brave the snow for the national March for Life on January, 22 — the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Among those marching were Maggie Wynn (’80), Paul White (’95), Nora (Maher ’96) and Rory Nugent (’97), James Layne (’08), Cristina Schardt (’14), and Abby Quinan (’14). In the above photo, the group stands before the United States Supreme Court building at the end of the March.
Bl. Mother Teresa presents the 1982 Commencement Address at Thomas Aquinas College.
In anticipation of Friday’s March for Life in Washington, D.C., Sean Fitzpatrick (’02) has penned an article for Crisis about two women who loom large in America’s ongoing debate about the morality and legality of abortion — Bl. Mother Teresa and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mother Teresa, who will be canonized this year, was an ardent defender of the unborn; Mrs. Clinton, who will likely be on November’s presidential ballot, is an unstinting champion of abortion “rights.” Yet few might remember that, nearly two decades ago, their paths crossed, and the soon-to-be saint had a notable influence on the would-be president.
Mr. Fitzpatrick recalls a poignant exchange between the two:
“Why do you think we haven’t had a woman as president yet?” First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton asked her guest over their lunch at the White House.
The little woman sitting at table with Mrs. Clinton did not hesitate in her reply.
“Because she has probably been aborted,” said Mother Teresa.
Yet even though Mother Teresa was direct, even blunt, in her language, she had the insight and wisdom to find common ground where she and Mrs. Clinton could work together. Writes Mr. Fitzpatrick:
Although Hillary Clinton was, and remains, a supporter of legalized abortion, she agreed with Mother Teresa that adoption was a preferable alternative. Speaking to her afterwards, Mother Teresa told Mrs. Clinton of her desire to continue her mission to find homes and families for orphaned, abandoned, and unwanted children by founding an adoption center in Washington, D.C. .... Hillary Clinton did the necessary legwork and succeeded in opening The Mother Teresa Home for Infant Children in 1995 in an affluent section of Washington, D.C.
To appreciate fully the grace and influence of Mother Teresa, one must read Mr. Fitzpatrick’s fine article, Marching for Life, Mother Teresa, and Mrs. Clinton, in full. The headmaster of Gregory the Great Academy in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick writes frequently for Crisis. This is the second year in a row that he has written an article pegged to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. (See last year’s Funeral March for Life.) He concludes this year’s story on a hopeful, inspiring note:
This Friday, pro-life Americans march to … convert the hearts of those like Hillary Clinton. Mother Teresa would have Americans do no less. She herself showed us how to protest against abortion fearlessly. She herself marched peacefully but purposefully, to save the lives of children in any way she could. She shook the walls of the White House with her entreaties, and the Gates of Heaven with her prayers. The marchers in DC gather to rekindle the perfect and patient passion of Mother Teresa — a power that broke through, even to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Members of the Thomas Aquinas College community will be participating in both this year’s March for Life in Washington, D.C., and the Walk for Life West Coast in San Francisco. Please join us!
Please pray for Mary Bridget Neumayr (’86), a graduate of the College, a member of the Washington, D.C., Board of Regents, and the eldest daughter of Founder and Senior Tutor Dr. John W. Neumayr. Miss Neumayr underwent surgery last week to remove a gastrointestinal tumor, and now awaits biopsy results.
A graduate of the Hastings College of the Law, Miss Neumayr is the senior energy counsel for the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives, where she works on energy and environmental matters. Please pray for her health, for her well-being, and for good news in her test results.
Lauretta Brown (’13) interviews Sean Cardinal O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in 2014.
With the new year close at hand, Lauretta Brown (’13) finds herself commemorating two significant anniversaries. It was a little over a year ago that she became a fulltime reporter at the Cybercast News Service (CNS) — and shortly thereafter that she unsettled House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi with a frank question about abortion.
Just weeks into her job at CNS, Miss Brown went to Mrs. Pelosi’s weekly press briefing to query the California Congresswoman about her opposition to the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Eschewing the distracting political angles, Miss Brown cut to the chase, asking, “Is an unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy a human being?”
When the Minority Leader responded with the usual pro-abortion boilerplate, Miss Brown’s CNS colleague pressed further. “My question is pretty simple,” she began. “Legislation aside, when it comes to the matter of whether or not an unborn child is a human being at 20 weeks’ gestation, what is your personal take on it? If it is not a human being, then what do you believe it is?”
A simple question, to be sure, but one to which Mrs. Pelosi refused to provide a straightforward answer. “She was dumbfounded, offended. She would not answer,” Miss Brown recalls. “She said she had been around a lot longer than I had. She said she was a Catholic mother, and she knew more about having babies than the Pope. She raised up all kinds of tangential issues, but never answered directly.”
Asking the tough and important — but too often overlooked — questions, Miss Brown says, is among her greatest joys as a political reporter. “I try to find stories that maybe are not being reported on as much,” particularly those that touch upon matters of the right to life, religious freedom, and the plight of Christians in the Middle East. “That’s our mission, to find stories that aren’t being reported as widely, and bring those to life.”
Yet when she graduated from the College in 2013, Miss Brown did not envision a career in journalism. She intended to become a lawyer, and was considering offers from law schools when a friend told her about an internship at CNS — a short-term commitment, or so she thought when she agreed to take the position. She soon, however, developed a love for journalism and set aside all thoughts of law school. In short order, her internship turned into a trial position that, last December, became a fulltime job.
Since then, Miss Brown has worked to report the untold stories from Capitol Hill. She has interviewed numerous notable figures political, cultural, and religious, including presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, entertainers Geena Davis and Leona Lewis, and Church prelates such as His Eminence Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, and His Excellency William Lori, Archbishop of Baltimore.
When cutting through politician’s all-too-common dissimulations, she says, she finds herself drawing upon her Thomas Aquinas College education. “Smart reporting is always improved through critical thinking, looking at statements, and saying, ‘OK, what is factual about this?’” she observes. “I have been shocked at how much, in conversations and in my writing, I’ve been able to draw back on my experience from the College. It has been a tremendous help.”