1. Mainstream Media Mislead on Polling on State Abortion Referendums, By Michael J. New, National Review, June 11, 2024, 1:23 AM, Opinion
Multiple polls have been recently conducted about upcoming state-level ballot propositions that would place legal abortion in state constitutions. Most of these polls have shown that these abortion ballot questions are leading by substantial margins. In particular, there have been polls from FloridaArizonaMissouri, and South Dakota. Mainstream-media pundits have expressed confidence that these ballot propositions will succeed and will be a boon to President Biden and other Democrats running for office.
However, a closer look at the polling results reveals a different story. When evaluating ballot propositions months before the election, the key metric is not the lead but the level of support. Indeed, a substantial body of polling from abortion ballot propositions in Michigan in 2022 and Ohio in 2023 found that the level of opposition increased during the course of the campaign but that the level of support remained about the same. Nearly every poll conducted in Ohio and Michigan showed that between 55 and 60 percent of voters planned on voting for a proposition that would place legal abortion in the state constitution. That accurately predicted what happened on Election Day.
When the recent polling results are analyzed in that context, a different picture emerges. An average of six statewide polls shows that about 56 percent of Florida voters plan to vote for Amendment 4, which would place legal abortion in Florida’s state constitution. That is four percentage points short of the 60 percent threshold needed for passage in the Sunshine State. Similarly, recent polling shows 53 percent of South Dakota voters and 44 percent of Missouri voters plan to vote for abortion ballot propositions in their respective states. Pro-life victories are within reach in the Show-Me State and the Mount Rushmore State.

Defeating these state-level abortion ballot questions will doubtless require a considerable investment of resources from the pro-life movement. However, pro-life prospects are better than what many media outlets are reporting.
2. Abortion Groups Say Tech Companies Suppress Posts and Accounts, The groups say they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services., By Emily Schmall and Sapna Maheshwari, The New York Times, June 10, 2024, 12:08 PM
TikTok has briefly suspended the account of Hey Jane, a prominent telemedicine abortion service, four times without explanation. Instagram has suspended Mayday Health, a nonprofit that provides information about abortion pill access, without explanation as well. And the search engine Bing has erroneously flagged the website for Aid Access, a major seller of abortion pills online, as unsafe.
The groups and women’s health advocates say these examples, all from recent months, show why they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services.
They say the companies’ policies on abortion-related content, including advertisements, have long been opaque. But they say the platforms seem to have been more aggressive about removing or suppressing posts that share information about how to obtain safe and legal procedures since the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. And when the platforms do restrict the accounts, the companies can be difficult to contact to learn why.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, an organization dedicated to abolishing abortion, said big technology companies had routinely limited its and other groups’ pro-life speech, suspending accounts and blocking ads with little explanation.


3. The EEOC’s Disdain for Religion, By Rachel N. Morrison, National Review, June 10, 2024, 1:25 PM, Opinion
On May 22, 2024, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) filed its first lawsuit in 45 years. The USCCB, along with the Catholic University of America (CUA) and two Catholic dioceses, sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over its final rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).
The PWFA filled a gap in employment law: It requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” for the “known limitations” related to an employee’s “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” unless it poses an “undue hardship” on the employer’s business. The “pro-mother, pro-baby” Act passed with bipartisan support and the USCCB’s blessing.
Congress directed the EEOC to issue a rule implementing the act. However, the EEOC’s PWFA rule, which goes into effect on June 18, turned the act on its head. The EEOC broadly defined “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” to include abortion and other nonmedical conditions such as the use of contraception and fertility treatments, including IVF. Under the PFWA rule, employers are mandated to accommodate their employees’ abortions, contraception use, and fertility treatments. The USCCB’s “Annual Report on the State of Religious Liberty in the United States,” published in January, identified the EEOC’s PWFA rule as one of the top five “largest threats to religious liberty in 2024.”

Under the PWFA rule, religious employers face a constant threat of costly, time-consuming, and intrusive investigation, enforcement, and litigation, even if they ultimately receive protection under a religious defense.
Just last year, the EEOC inserted itself into a Seventh Circuit case, filing an amicus brief arguing that the appellate court should not review a college’s religious defenses until after all the other underlying employment discrimination claims are fully litigated in the district court. As former EEOC general counsel Sharon Fast Gustafson and I noted, that case was “about the EEOC’s using the power and resources of the federal government to force religious employers to muster a lengthy legal defense or capitulate.” The process is the punishment.
The CUA, unfortunately, knows about this all too well. After a teacher brought an employment discrimination claim, the EEOC dragged the university through two years of investigation and four years of litigation (including a one-week trial and appeal) before the D.C. Circuit held that the lawsuit was barred by the First Amendment and RFRA.
Nothing in the PWFA rule or the EEOC’s response to the USCCB and CUA guarantees the same thing won’t happen again.
But don’t worry — religious employers “may raise” religious defenses, and the EEOC will “take great care” in considering them.
4. Pope Francis to meet Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, other top comedians at Vatican, By Hannah Brockhaus, Catholic News Agency, June 8, 2024, 8:11 AM
It’s no joke: Pope Francis will take the mic in front of over 100 comics, stand-up comedians, and humorists, including Americans Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Fallon, at the Vatican next Friday.
Jim Gaffigan, Conan O’Brien, Chris Rock, Tig Notaro, and Whoopi Goldberg are the other U.S. comedians expected to take part.
The June 14 meeting was organized by the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education and Dicastery for Communication and “aims to establish a link between the Catholic Church and comic artists,” according to a June 8 press release.
As of June 8, a list of 105 comics and humorists from 15 countries had confirmed their participation in the papal audience.


TCA Media Monitoring provides a snapshot from national newspapers and major Catholic press outlets of coverage regarding significant Catholic Church news and current issues with which the Catholic Church is traditionally or prominently engaged. The opinions and views expressed in the articles do not necessarily reflect the views of The Catholic Association.
Subscribe to the TCA podcast!

“Conversations with Consequences” is a new audio program from The Catholic Association. We’ll bring you thoughtful dialogue with the leading thinkers of our time on the most consequential issues of our day. Subscribe today or listen online and enjoy our entertaining and informative weekly episodes.