We previously discussed the legislation passed by Washington State democrats that requires priests to violate the sanctity of the confessional to report child abuse. I described the law as “blatantly unconstitutional” in eviscerating the right to the free exercise of religion. The state is moving to create an effective system of sacramental snitches and the Catholic Church is declaring “enough.” It has announced that any priest who complies with the law will be promptly excommunicated.
We previously discussed the proposed legislation that would target priests who learn of any “reasonable” basis to believe that a child “has suffered abuse or neglect.” Despite objections from many of us that the law is unconstitutional and a denial of religious liberty, Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson signed it into law last week.
The legislation amended the state law that currently applies to law enforcement, teachers, medical professionals or child care providers to report cases of child abuse or neglect. Clergy was added to the list. The sponsors also exempted clergy from the exception afforded to lawyers and others who obtain information “solely as a result of a privileged communication.”
The law applies to any “ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or similarly situated religious or spiritual leader of any church, religious denomination, religious body, spiritual community, or sect, or person performing official duties that are recognized as the duties of a member of the clergy.”
The government and Democratic sponsors were told that canon law imposes a “sacramental seal” over the confessional. Under Canon 983.1, “it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.”
In 1813 in New York, the clergy-penitent privilege faced an early challenge in People v. Philips. In that case, Fr. Anthony Kohlmann learned in the confessional about two people who had stolen jewelry and convinced them to turn over stolen goods to him. He then returned the goods to the victims. However, after the thieves were later arrested, state prosecutors sought to force Fr. Kohlmann to testify. The court, however, ruled that he was constitutionally exempt.
Putting aside the unconstitutionality, it is a law ripe for abuse. The state would be using the church as an agent to compel confessions on the threat of damnation and then turn over the evidence to the police. Worse yet, if the priest does not give a type of ministerial Miranda, the confessant may not realize the danger. However, it is rather hard for a priest to say that a person must confess their sin while reminding them of the right to remain silent.
The Catholic Church announced that priests will be excommunicated if they follow a new law. They must choose between their faith and the risk of being criminally charged:
“Catholic clergy may not violate the seal of confession — or they will be excommunicated from the Church. All Catholics must know and be assured that their confessions remain sacred, secure, confidential and protected by the law of the Church.”
The Democrats effectively declared war on religion, and particularly the Catholic faith, with this abusive law. The matter is now set for a showdown in the federal courts and, hopefully, an expedited process for judicial review and appeals.
Washington has been one of the most aggressive states in litigating against religious rights, including its long litigation in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case.
In Washington, the governor and the Democrats have added to the four stages of the confession. Examination, confession, absolution, and penance may now be followed by incarceration.
The bill will go into effect on July 26 and make Washington just one of a relatively small number states that do not offer exemptions on such reporting for the confessional.
John Paul II stated that “Confession is an act of honesty and courage – an act of entrusting ourselves, beyond sin, to the mercy of a loving and forgiving God.” It now appears that it will demand greater courage in Washington where both priest and penitent are expected to submit to the authority of the state.
In the synoptic gospels, Jesus declared “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” This is not one of those things to be rendered to the modern demigods of Olympia.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
There’s an anonymous commenter that keeps changing the subject by saying that in most states the clergy are mandatory reporters of child abuse. That is not the the subject of today’s article, nor is it the subject of the Washington State law under discussion.
The Washington State law under discussion is not about clergy as mandated reporters of child abuse, it is about a state law that violates the sanctity of the confessional.
Try and stick to the topic, please.
“violates the sanctity of the confessional”
Not sure why a religion may define a tenet that violates our laws.
Beliefs are one thing, behavior is another. I don’t see how covering up criminal behavior relates in any way to religious freedom.
And the professor’s point about using “eternal damnation” as a threat to elicit confessions is silly. Eternal damnation is not part of our laws. Not my problem if the confessor’s beliefs are a weakness with respect to our laws.
There are confidentiality rules for multiple professions, not just priests who take confession. These include lawyers, therapists, and doctors, for example. These are professions that help people get better, do better, or be protected from the state and its enormous resources. There are some exceptions to confidentiality where the person who learns the confidential information becomes aware that a murder or sexual abuse will happen in the near future.
The government is required to accommodate religious practice, it does not stand as an authority on scriptural interpretation. You may disagree that that’s a good idea, but it’s required by the Religion Clauses, which our Founding Fathers considered so important they put them at the very front of the First Amendment.
As a general rule confessions about future conduct are not protected from any professions privildge.
That is more complicates with priests and confession.
“The seal of confession in the Catholic Church is an absolute duty for priests to maintain secrecy about anything a person confesses, including sins and intentions for future actions. However, if a penitent confesses a future plan to commit a serious crime and shows no intention to repent, the confession is not valid, and the seal of confession does not apply in this case.
Even if the seal of confession does apply, priests have the ability to take certain measures to prevent crimes without violating the seal. For example, they can provide general advice that could deter the crime or indirectly prevent it without revealing the content of the confession”
Could have that moment of silence in the confessional…
The Catholic faith requires the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Without it, people would die in a state of mortal sin, and risk their soul.
If the subject of the Confession is open to disclosure to the State, then the Act of Contrition would become an act of self recrimination. It wouldn’t stop with one crime. It would set a precedent where the State could demand full disclosure of all Confessions.
The law violates the First Amendment, and would destroy the Catholic religion.
It would also directly interfere with all Catholics practicing their faith. People would not go to Confession, for anything, once they knew the State could essentially listen in. Politicians could demand to know what their opponent said in confession. The State could put a recording device in the confessional.
There is currently attorney-client privilege, and HIPPA laws, which guard private information, neither of which is protected by our Constitution like the First Amendment freedom of religion.
The government can always come up with perfectly valid reasons to remove one Constitutional right at a time.
For those who say that anonymous confessions prevent such a disclosure, many diocese have gotten rid of the screen, and anonymous confession, partly for safety reasons. No Catholic Church anywhere near where I live has a traditional confessional with a screen. Confession is in a room where you sit with the priest, and often there is a window, where others outside can see you. When I went to confession before Easter, during an organized Reconciliation, there were so many people that priests utilized meeting rooms where almost the entire wall was a glass window.
As I’ve stated previously, it wasn’t the seal of Confession that led to the Scandal, but rather the administration ignoring accusations and relocating priests to unsuspecting parishes. Similar administrative coverups have also happened in public schools, sports organizations, the Boy Scouts, dance schools, camps, and anywhere else where adults have contact with children.
This should not just be about catholic priests or even the first amendment.
It is a bad idea to pass laws that disincentivize people from seeking help.
it is a bad idea to pass laws that will be violated.
It is a bad ide to pass laws that are unenforceable.
But bad ideas and virtue signalling are the currency of the left.
The first amendment is not about beleifs – it is about the excercise of religion – in your words behavior.
You seem to be under the delusion that everything is fair game for law.
But it is not.
This is not just about the constitution.
Virtue signaling laws are always a bad idea.
Laws that disincentivize people from seeking help are a bad idea.
We should want these people to seek help – counselors, ministers priests.
“Try and stick . . .”
Nice try. That’s a shopworn Sophist’s trick: Replace the factual topic with your evaluation of it — then claim your spin as the “topic.”
THESE —-ING COMMUNISTS ARE EVERYWHERE!
_______________________________________________________
“It Takes A Village” (“To help make our society into the kind of village that enables children to become smart, able, resilient adults.”)
– Comrade General Secretary Hillary Rotten Clinton
_________________________________________________________
“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”
– Vladimir Lenin
I appreciate this AI guy. He seems logical and relatively truthful, emerging from the communist hotbed of Google as he does.
I wouldn’t call it “a common feature” so much as an “offer you can’t refuse.”
___________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Yes, a common feature of communist regimes was the requirement for neighbors to report on each other. This was a tactic used to create a culture of fear and distrust, making individuals isolated and dependent on the state. By forcing neighbors to inform on each other, communist regimes could effectively monitor and control the population, suppressing dissent and maintaining power.
Here’s why this happened:
– Breaking Down Community Ties: Communist regimes aimed to weaken family and social bonds, replacing them with a relationship solely between the individual and the state.
– Creating a Culture of Fear: The constant fear of being reported and punished led to widespread paranoia and conformity, making it difficult for people to challenge the regime.
– Maintaining Control: By isolating individuals and fostering distrust, the state could effectively control the population and suppress any potential opposition.
– Enforcing Conformity: The threat of neighborly reports encouraged people to conform to the regime’s ideology and avoid any behavior that could be perceived as disloyal.
Generative AI is experimental.
__________________________________
AI Overview
During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, there was widespread neighbor-on-neighbor reporting and surveillance, driven by the slogan “The people have sharp eyes,” encouraging citizens to spy on each other. This resulted in individuals being subjected to public humiliation, persecution, and even violence for perceived political offenses.
Elaboration:
– Mao Zedong’s Influence: Mao Zedong’s phrase, “The people have sharp eyes,” became a rallying cry for social monitoring during the Cultural Revolution. This phrase was used to justify and encourage citizens to report on their neighbors, friends, and even family members who were deemed to be politically suspect.
– Consequences of Reporting: Individuals who were reported often faced harsh consequences. They could be subjected to public criticism, forced labor, or even violence. The widespread fear and mistrust created a climate of paranoia where people were afraid to speak out or express dissent for fear of being reported and punished.
– Impact on Society: The Cultural Revolution had a profound and devastating impact on Chinese society. The widespread social upheaval, violence, and persecution led to the deaths of millions of people, as well as the destruction of cultural treasures and the suspension of education and other aspects of normal life.
– Legacy of Fear and Trauma: The Cultural Revolution left a lasting legacy of fear and trauma on those who lived through it. Many survivors have struggled to come to terms with the horrors they witnessed and experienced, and the trauma continues to affect Chinese society today.
Generative AI is experimental.
“Generative AI is experimental.”
Indeed:
==============================================================================
The Responsible Lie: How AI Sells Conviction Without Truth
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
https://www.zerohedge.com/ai/responsible-lie-how-ai-sells-conviction-without-truth
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
“While these systems impress users with articulate responses and seemingly reasoned arguments, the truth is that what appears to be “reasoning” is nothing more than a sophisticated form of mimicry.”
==============================================================================
Say it with me… “There is no war on Christianity!”
I am not a Christian though, as a product of this primarily Christian society, my general values align reasonably well as long as you leave out the magic bits. Even I can see the anti-Christian bias on the Left. When it becomes necessary, when our Siege of Vienna moment arrives, I will side with the Christians. The socialists and the globalists reek.
#9. Hmm, just this year, and just the top three listed on a google search since only 3 links can be posted. But, nice try.
54 Christians Killed Following Palm Sunday Service
https://www.persecution.org/2025/04/16/54-christians-killed-following-palm-sunday-service/
70 Christians Beheaded in Church: What We Know
https://www.newsweek.com/christians-beheaded-congo-drc-2033864
Christians faced record level of violent attacks in 2023, Open Doors warns
christianpost.com/news/christians-faced-record-level-of-violent-attacks-in-2023-report.html
#9. If only we could have a war on stupidity…
“If only we could have a war on stupidity…”
That would require a tsunami of bloodshed…
This absurd piece by Turley is nothing more than a cheap attempt to rile up the MAGA mob.
Most states already have statutes that include the clergy as mandatory reporters of child abuse.
Washington is simply aligning itself with the majority of other states.
This is not a story worthy of attention.
It is a cheap political diatribe.
Ano
Same non-sense reply as usual.
You must really try harder.
@Anonymous
You are not a serious person. Enjoy your dollars per word. 🙄🙄 you aren’t even trying anymore, your employers must be furious. Yes, reality can be a hard deal.
Washington is simply aligning itself with the majority of other states that require clergy to report child abuse.
There are now only 4 states that do NOT require clergy to report child abuse.
This is not a story.
Turley is simply using this as a means to rile up the MAGA mob to attack a blue state.
James,
It is funny how unaware they are. They seem to think we get riled up about anything the leftists do. Most of the time we just roll our eyes at the next dumb policy they put forth or clearly un-Constitutional one. Then there is the laugh at them factor of how absurd they have become and watching them try to defend the indefensible. Notice how they have dropped the Kilmar Abrego-Garcia story? The DOJ has confirmed Kilmar Abrego-Garcia was in fact human trafficking.
The Mohsen Mahdawi story? Dropped that one too, Who Is the Real Mohsen Mahdawi?
“Supporters of the pro-Palestinian student organizer at Columbia say he is a blameless victim. Police reports, social media posts, and court filings tell a more complicated story.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/who-is-the-real-mohsen-mahdawi
Note, this is what real, objective journalism looks like.
Why do you presume this is a MAGA thing ? The majority of Catholics are democrats – or atleast they were until the Biden FBI spied on them. Catholics tend to be socially liberal.
All you are doing is pointing out the absurdity of left wing nut binary political values.
The whole business of one on one confession was made up in order to control the masses and is around for a few hundred years only. That is not a good excuse to hide child rapists from secular authorities.
https://archive.org/details/historyconfess03leauoft
The Epistle of James was written much more than a few hundred years ago – closer to 2,000 years ago. It contains this verse: Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.
Doesn’t that encompass the concept of one-on-one confession?
THE THISTLE OF JAMES IS A THORNY ISSUE.
Like an AA meeting? Very good psychotherapy…
You should do better research.
The Sacrament of Reconciliation was made official at the Council of Lateran IV in the year 1215. Acts of penance with priests were carried out for hundreds of years prior.
There was an Order of Penitents in the 300s AD.
Professor Turley, you enthusiastically inform the readers of the unconstitutionality of compelling the revelation of the confessional.
Why not inform them of the rest of that which is manifestly unconstitutional in America, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general welfare”—ALL or THE WHOLE WELL PROCEED through governmental provision of security and basic infrastructure—omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity. The same Article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY (1) the Value of money, (2) Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian Tribes, and (3) land and naval Forces.
Further, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is nothing more than a perfunctory redundancy for the purposes of clarification—a reinforcement of that which was previously codified—and may not be wielded to amend and impose separate acts that do not represent but alter the letter and spirit of the Founders and Framers.
..The Catholic Church is right on this.. has Washington State become so isolated in their woke secularism & arrogance that they forgot about one of the basic tenets of the USA is ‘THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE………..?’
Yet WA state says nothing about school teachers and young kids
I guess that’s OK with them
Dustoff
This law simply ADDS clergy to the long list of mandatory reporters as outlined in RCW26.44.030, those being as follows:
When any practitioner, county coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, employee of the department of children, youth, and families, licensed or certified child care providers or their employees, employee of the department of social and health services, juvenile probation officer, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills program staff, HOPE center staff, state family and children’s ombuds or any volunteer in the ombuds’s office, or host home program has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency.
I believe teachers are “professional school personnel”, so your comment is completely irrelevant and pointless
The priests will rat on each other? Well, the response is excommunication. Interrogate the priests?
The problem is the “reasonable basis to believe” which will easily differ from priest to priest especially depending on their politics. It reeks of the post-modern law and shades of grey mentality that’s ruined everything.
Anonymous: at 12:24 PM
Re: “… The problem is the “reasonable basis to believe” …”
TRUE, because it is second-hand testimony [Hearsay*].
In regards to (JT) the post: It is a redundant ‘Confession to God’ in direct testimony sworn in Court [so help you God].
i.e.:
I do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Promise: I promise before Almighty God that the evidence which I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sworn_testimony
—
In a court setting, the oath taken before a witness testifies is a formal declaration ensuring honest testimony
In a court setting, the oath administered to a witness before they begin testifying is a formal declaration ensuring honest testimony and solemn promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This oath, or in some cases an affirmation, ensures that the testimony given is truthful and reliable. The oath typically involves the witness swearing or affirming to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This solemn promise, often administered by a judge or clerk, reinforces the importance of truthfulness in legal proceedings.
Elaboration:
The oath is a crucial part of the witness examination process, ensuring the reliability of the testimony. Witnesses are usually asked to raise their right hand while taking the oath. The oath can be administered in various forms, including swearing on a religious text or making a solemn affirmation.
Purpose of the Oath:
The primary purpose of the oath is to ensure that witnesses provide honest and reliable testimony. It serves as a legal and ethical foundation for the testimony, emphasizing the importance of truthfulness.
Form of the Oath:
The oath typically involves the witness raising their right hand and stating: “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”. Instead of swearing, a witness can also make an affirmation, which replaces “swear” with “affirm” and “so help you God” with “under the pains and penalties of perjury”.
Alternative Form:
In some cases, the witness may be asked to raise their hand and state: “Do you swear that the evidence you shall give to the court in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [so help you God]?”.
Importance of Truthfulness:
Witnesses are legally obligated to tell the truth under oath. If they intentionally lie or give false information, they may be charged with perjury, which is a serious offense.
Consequences of Lying:
Lying under oath can lead to legal consequences, including fines, imprisonment, and a criminal record.
Role of the Court:
The judge or presiding officer typically administers the oath to the witness.
—
* Second-hand testimony, also known as hearsay, is evidence presented in court that is not the witness’s own direct observation, but rather what they heard from someone else. It’s generally inadmissible unless it falls under a specific exception to the hearsay rule, like a dying declaration or a statement made for medical diagnosis.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
What it is:
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that statement. For example, if a witness testifies about what someone else told them, that’s hearsay.
Why it’s generally inadmissible:
The hearsay rule is designed to ensure that witnesses are held accountable for their testimony and that the truth is subject to cross-examination. Second-hand information can be unreliable because it’s not subject to direct examination, and the original speaker isn’t present to clarify or refute their statement.
Exceptions:
There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow certain types of second-hand statements to be admitted as evidence.
Some common exceptions include:
Dying declarations: Statements made by someone who believes they are about to die.
Excited utterances: Statements made under the stress of a startling event.
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment: Statements made to a doctor to assist in diagnosis or treatment.
Past recollection recorded: A written record of a statement made by a witness when the event was fresh in their memory, which they can’t now recall well enough to testify about.
Impact on trials:
Hearsay can significantly impact the outcome of a trial, especially in criminal cases where the defendant’s right to confront witnesses is crucial. If hearsay evidence is improperly admitted, it can lead to a wrongful conviction or acquittal.
Correct me if I a wrong but isn’t this in effect involuntarily deputizing the Clergy as an agent of the state?
In a sense, yes. That’s true of the new trend in which “mandated reporters” is an ever-expanding scope of people.
“Show me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough therein to hang him.”
– Cardinal Richelieu
_______________________
“Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” Both were saying the same thing: if you have enough data about someone, you can find sufficient evidence to find him guilty of something.”
– Lavrentiy Beria, Head of Stalin’s Secret Police
___________________________________________________
Right On Crime Executive Director and former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman will testify that overcriminalization threatens our nation’s public safety, individual liberties, and the fair administration of justice. “Our government can and does target citizens with impunity. In fact, it’s been estimated that the average American commits three felonies a day without even knowing it,” says Tolman. An estimated 4,000 federal criminal offenses is dwarfed by an estimated 300,000 federal regulatory offenses, and no single government agency has an official count of a total number. Tolman says, “The weaponization of criminal investigations and prosecutions is buttressed by our overcriminalization problem. Both run afoul of a free society and represent threats to our nation’s values.”
– Right On Crime
With all the preliminary injunctions flying around these days this law seems ripe for such an injunction. The petitioner would suffer irreversible and serious harm and has a strong claim for success on the merits.
Gary – I was thinking the same thing. It will be surprising if the church and/or individual priests do not go into federal court seeing one. Because WA is in the Ninth Circus, their chances of success might be slightly diminished.
The significant difference between those other types of mandated reporters and priests, is that the former set of people are licensed by the state to do their jobs.
Priests are not, they hold a more direct relationship with the people they counsel that does not require permission from the state, and is also privileged communications by law.
Hmmm !!!!!
Clearly, the “constitutional rights” of religious leaders to conceal child abuse far outweigh the rights of children to live a healthy, normal life free of abuse and molestation.
The weakest among us will just have to suffer in silence as a sacrifice to religious zealotry.
This all makes perfect sense in the MAGA cult.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It sets up a limited federal government, and through amendments, it restricts the scope of the power of state governments. One such restriction is making laws that burden religious exercise. The problem is not the Constitution, but that human nature includes a great deal of evil (together with a lot of good too). Given the flaws in human nature, no system of governance will be perfect, as those who gain too much power will also use that power for evil given the evil side of their own nature.
Bottom line: bad things are going to happen no matter what. One can debate whether restricting governmental power the way the First and Fourteenth Amendments do is, in the long run, likely to lead to better or worse outcomes. However, regardless of what one concludes on that question, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. And under the Constitution, the law passed by Washington State is invalid.
You are more right than you and most Americans are willing to admit.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general welfare”—ALL or THE WHOLE WELL PROCEED through governmental provision of security and basic infrastructure—omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity. The same Article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the Value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces.
Further, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is nothing more than a perfunctory redundancy for the purposes of clarification—a reinforcement of that which was previously codified—and may not be wielded to amend and impose separate acts that do not represent but alter the letter and spirit of the Founders and Framers.
Are you in favor of suspending attorney-client privilege, where anything a client says or shows to his attorney can then be used against him in a court of law?
Are you in favor of abolishing HIPPA, so that a doctor will share medical information?
The Scandal in the Church did not occur due to the seal of the Confessional, but rather because administrators covered up reports of abuse.
The answer to your questions is they already do that.
Karen S.
HIPAA applies only to disclosure of health records between healthcare professionals and between healthcare professionals and insurance companies who exchange records electronically.
That’s it.
Disclosure of medical records in other circumstances is governed by ethics requirements stipulated by professional organizations and state law.
There are many circumstances where medical records must be disclosed without the patient’s permission, such as in response to a subpoena, court order, request from government agencies, and workers compensation authorities.
In all 50 states healthcare professionals are mandatory reporters of child abuse.
Failure to report will result in professional sanctions (loss of license) and potentially criminal charges.
HIPAA has absolutely no relevance to mandatory reporting of child abuse.
In my state I am required to take CME courses regarding detection and reporting of child abuse. Most states have this requirement.
The attorney client privilege is not absolute. There are a number of exceptions.
ABA Rule 1.6(1)
A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.
your first paragraph is completely wrong. Your first paragraph refers to “covered entities” NOT persons protected.
You do not understand HIPAA.
HIPAA applies to covered entities, that is health care professionals, their business associates such as billing agencies, and insurance companies.
These covered entities are not permitted to exchange health records without the patient’s consent.
The protected person is ALWAYS the patient.
The entire purpose of HIPAA is to protect the patient by requiring covered entities to have permission to exchange patient information.
The “I” in HIPAA stands for INSURANCE. The purpose of HIPAA is to protect the patient in terms of their insurance coverage.
When I say that HIPAA applies only to covered entities, it means that they are the ones required to comply in order to protect the patient, on pain of legal repercussions.and disciplinary action.
The doctor- patient confidentiality privilege is an entirely different issue, that can be breached in several ways by subpoena, court order, reporting of child abuse and so on.
All physicians are mandatory reporters of child abuse, and the confidentiality privilege does not apply.
HIPAA does not apply to the patient’s confidentiality privilege with a doctor, and certainly does not apply to reporting child abuse.
A doctor could breach the confidentiality privilege with a patient without breaching HIPAA, if the information is provided to a third party who is not a covered entity.
HIPAA and the doctor-patient confidentiality privilege are separate issues, that both require confidentiality, but the nature of the confidentiality is different, and it is for different purposes.
It is a HIPPA violation for a medical professional to share your private medical information with an unauthorized person, like someone who doesn’t work at that hospital, or if someone with access looks up the records of a famous person getting treated at that facility, who is not part of their care.
https://www.hipaajournal.com/common-hipaa-violations/
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html
It doesn’t matter if you don’t like it. This law is unconstitutional, and it will fail. The Catholic Church is the original Christian Church, with a history of 2,000 years. This law makes it impossible to practice Catholicism, the most common form of Christianity on the planet. Over a billion people are Catholic. The state of Washington does not have the power to destroy Catholicism.
Excuse me, its a law put forth by liberals, you just made their case. TDS on display.
The fact that Washington State is not so inadvertently called out here that it might be an epicenter for the very crime mentioned- looks like they’re trying to protect it. I am sure it’s not obvious just to me.
Hmmmmm !!!!
People here whining about priests being required to report child abuse.
Let’s consider some facts.
There is no god.
Religious indoctrination of children is by far the most prevalent form of child abuse.
The Catholic church is rife with pedophiles who molest children.
Clearly it is an assault on religion to require the the greatest abusers of children to report child abuse.
Of course, in the MAGA cult this all makes sense.
There is no god.
Good luck with that.
If you don’t believe there is a god, don’t worry about it. One day you will.
I believe there is a God. I was saying “good luck with that” to the person who doesn’t.
“There is no god.”
People have been trying to prove that one way or another for millenia and so far have failed.
Have you succeeded where others have failed ?
“Religious indoctrination of children is by far the most prevalent form of child abuse.”
ROFL.
Child abuse is common unfortunately – there is no correlation with religion.
Some of the most heinous torture of children has been by non-beleivers.
“The Catholic church is rife with pedophiles who molest children.”
False. The prevalence of pedofiles among priests is lower than other professions that work with children. The catholic church makes the news because a bit less than 1/4 of the worlds population is catholic. Also because if you are suing – they have money LOTS of money.
Regardless, statisitically there is no extraordinary prevelance of pedophiles within the catholic church or any other.
That said we should ALWAYS be extremely careful about introducing sexuality and children.
Pedophiles among teachers are atleast as common as among priests, and as we start pushing sexual education on even younger kids we practically beg pedophiles to become teachers.
“Clearly it is an assault on religion to require the the greatest abusers of children to report child abuse.”
non-sequitur – You equate individuals with institutions. Given that the 2nd largest number of pedo’s is found in public schools – the first is relatives, should we damn the government as the biggest abuser of children ?
“Of course, in the MAGA cult this all makes sense.”
This is not a MAGA issue.
But the idiocy that left wing nut laws actually accomplish anything is a left wing nut cult issue.
Can you name a single left wing nut law like this that has EVER altered a trend line ?
Most things improve over time as our standard of living rises.
We go from burning $hit, to wood, to coal, to oil, to natual gas to electric for heat – as our standard of living rises.
Contra the left the life of people in the past – indiginous people was as Hobbes described “Nasty, Brutish and short”.
Our lives, our environment all improve as we our standard of living rises – NOT as a function of left wing nut laws that attempt to micromanage peoples lives.
This is true from past to present, This is true across the world.
The conduct of people accross the world in the areas the left likes to legislate, directly maps to the standard of living of the people in that country NOT the laws they have – given that laws are even obeyed.
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
Adam Smith
Isn’t this meant for priests themselves? Treaty with a foreign nation if a priest commits a crime to extradite for trial and punishment?
John Say
Yet another babbling, incoherent mess of a comment from John Say.
Your comment is yet another of your typical aimless, incoherent, rambling, collection of disconnected and unrelated thoughts.
You speak of a “failure” to prove that there is no god.
You say that people have been trying to prove that for millennia, and have failed.
This ranks as one of your most profoundly stupid comments.
Firstly, I would point out that your statement about failing to prove that there is no god is an absurdity. You can’t prove the non-existence of an entity. You can only fail to prove the existence of an entity and thereby infer that it does not exist.
I have absolutely no interest in trying to prove or disprove the existence of a god.
I have much better things to do with my life.
I see absolutely no evidence in my life or anywhere in the real world for the existence of a god.
Therefore, I have no need or desire to “prove” or “disprove” anything.
If you wish to believe in the existence of a god, then that is YOUR problem, not mine.
The burden is on you to PROVE your assertions.
As Bertrand Russell has said, ” I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.”
Basically he is saying that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
“I have absolutely no interest in trying to prove or disprove the existence of a god.
I have much better things to do with my life.”
So, instead of trying to engage in intellectual conversation, you just come to our collective front porch, leave a steaming pile on the rug, and expect us to think you won and are morally superior? There’s a term for people like you.
-Rabble
It may not be “God” as you perceive or interpret it, but it is there.
You may call people crazy, at your disadvantage, but a whole slew of us have heard, at least once, a disembodied voice speak, as clear as day, very briefly, coherently, and with relevance to the situation.
It happens.
You know.
The clinical term for “hearing voices” is auditory hallucinations, most commonly encountered in mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.
Such hallucinations may also be encountered in major depression, and bipolar disorder.
Which disorder do you suffer from ????
Nice try, Sherlock.
Let me guess; you are very familiar with prevarication, and you excel at equivocation.
We’ll put you down as one of the deprived and not “knowing.”
This factual event was absolutely distinct and auspicious and real in delivery, content, logic, and relevance—not any other pathology or one of these:
Merriam-Webster
hallucination
noun
hal·lu·ci·na·tion hə-ˌlü-sə-ˈnā-shən
1a: a sensory perception (such as a visual image or a sound) that occurs in the absence of an actual external stimulus and usually arises from neurological disturbance (such as that associated with delirium tremens, schizophrenia, Parkinson’s disease, or narcolepsy) or in response to drugs (such as LSD or phencyclidine)
“ Some of the most heinous torture of children has been by non-beleivers.”
No. Some of the most heinous abuses involving children have been by religious zealots. History is rife with examples. The Catholic church has abused children for centuries. Sexual abuse is common among religious organizations. Most famously the Catholic church and the Evangelicals.
“ Regardless, statisitically there is no extraordinary prevelance of pedophiles within the catholic church or any other.
That said we should ALWAYS be extremely careful about introducing sexuality and children.
Pedophiles among teachers are atleast as common as among priests, and as we start pushing sexual education on even younger kids we practically beg pedophiles to become teachers.”
Not anymore, we were all in the dark when the Church hid pedophile priests by moving them around for decades.
Teachers as pedophiles are rare. If you are referring to some teachers who have been caught sleeping with students that is mostly female teachers. The Catholic church had the worst since they not only sexually abused children they also abused their faith. That’s why the church fought hard to prevent any disclosure of these heinous events that lasted decades.
Anonymous – would you still call it whining if Washington passed a law that did away with lawyer/client privilege, or required doctors and nurses to violate HIPPA? The First Amendment carries more weight than the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
All positions that come into contact with children has attracted pedophiles, and all have had similar, terrible, scandals, about administrations covering up allegations. The Catholic Church most certainly acted egregiously in the Scandal. So did everyone who covered up for Jerry Sandusky, Harvey Weinstein, the entire Hollywood Casting Couch industry, public schools who covered for predators, like the Cookie Teacher (https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/additional-victims-of-former-teacher-convicted-of-sexual-abuse-settle-with-lausd-for-3-55-million/)
You may recall the scandal when the Loudoun County School District of Virginia covered up the sexual assault of a transgender or non binary male wearing a skirt against a girl in a girl’s bathroom. The school board had her father arrested and dragged out of the school board meeting when he rightfully said they were lying.
The Scandal in the Church led to a complete overhaul of safety precautions and reporting protocols. Honestly, what always bothered me is the parents who only reported abuse to Church officials, rather than to the police. Police first, then the Church, should have been the proper order.
You said the Catholic Church is rife with pedophiles.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/
In accordance with a requirement of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, in 2002 the Department of Education carried out a study of sexual abuse in the school system.
Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church.
“[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”
Other areas that were infamous for molestation: The Boy Scouts, athletic coaches, teachers, clergy in Protestant churches, Muslim Imams, Hollywood (both the Corys from the 80s were targeted), Fashion (models are notoriously sexually abused, including and especially underage models), and so on.
In short, pedophiles are attracted to any career or job that puts them into close contact with children, in positions of authority. The more the public has learned of these scandals, the more safety precautions are put into place.
Wait a minute. If a crime was confessed to a Catholic priest in confession, even if not done anonymously, and the priest did not report it to authorities, the only other way the authorities would become aware of what was said in the confessional would be for the child abuser to report to authorities what was confessed in the confessional. I don’t think many child abusers voluntarily turn themselves in to the police. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how it would be constitutional for acts voiced in confidence to clergy, whether or not in confession, can be compelled to be reported to the State.
I can not make out what you are saying – but if you abuse a child – atleast two people know.
You and the child. Further there is often evidence.
We have far too much child abuse. But we actually catch a great deal of it. Further SCOTUS has allowed Stings – where abusers are lured by people who they only think are children and the still get convicted.
A recent study found that more than 80% of registered sex offenders in the US are homeless.
Your comment about the homeless reminded me of a problem a woman had in the next town over from me. I’m in California, a Democrat supermajority state. Democrats decided it was inhumane to force the homeless into shelters and rehab or mental health treatment. Homeless are allowed to take over sidewalks and shoot up in parks. This single mom discovered that a homeless man would look over her fence and masturbate whenever her daughter was in the backyard. He could also see into her bedroom, so she had to keep her blinds shut, and could never allow her outside onto her own property.
The DA declined to prosecute the homeless, drug addicts, or mentally ill for most crimes, so the cops couldn’t do anything.
She finally took a chainsaw to the city shade trees on the sidewalk outside her home, which took away the shade under which he pitched his tent. She told the city she had no idea who cut down the trees. He moved on, on his own, and is probably terrorizing other children, or worse.
Karen S.
Thank you for highlighting more of the Democrat woke leftist absurdity.
Gets even better. See this one? CA gas could hit $8.44 per gallon in 2026 due to refinery closures, regulations
“The new study from University of Southern California professor Michael A. Mische examined California’s historical gas prices, oil supply and refining capacity, and modeled the likely impact of refinery closures and costly new fossil fuel and refinery fees and regulations.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/ca-gas-could-hit-844-gallon-2026-due-refinery-closures-regulations?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Money may make the world go round, but cheap energy is what powers it. People are screaming about Trump’s tariffs will drive up prices, but the failed state of CA seems almost driven to make instate inflation a reality. And this has been going on long before the first Trump admin. Recently a number of Democrats voted with Republicans to reverse Biden’s EV mandates. In the trucking industry, some companies were talking about just dumping trailers at the CA state line and let someone else pick them up with their EV mandated heavy trucks to make final delivery within the state. That would add to the over all cost of living for the residents of the failed state of CA. As it has been noted, the number of middle and upper class CA resident exodus from the failed state of CA continues while the influx of low class or welfare illegals goes up.
That’s depressing. I had not read that article.
The most existential threat to Californians today is likely home insurance leaving the state. California can no longer put fires out. Hills used to be criss crossed with fire breaks, until environmental groups put a stop to it. Now fires just burn right through the hills. The reservoir that serves Pacific Palisades had a floating cover to reduce evaporation, but the cover keeps ripping. The reservoir was offline for a year, and I couldn’t find anywhere that repairs had even started. This contributed to the fire department running out of water. Fire crews just watched helplessly as the fire took a hold in neighborhoods, without a trickle of water to fight it.
We borrow Canada’s Super Scooper after their fire season is over. California’s fire season is anytime it’s not actively raining. The state wastes billions of dollars, when it should have a fleet of its own Super Scoopers, that can just drop a lake on a fire and put it out.
California politicians blame Global Warming, because they don’t want their own policies scrutinized.
As California has become unable to put out fires, and the cost of construction and rebuilds has skyrocketed, insurance companies have gone broke with payouts. Many insurance companies are cancelling policies and leaving the state. The CA Fair Plan, for those who can’t find insurance, is bankrupt at this point, even with a cost of over $12,000 a year in high fire zones.
Some of the houses that burned in Pacific Palisades had their insurance cancelled months prior, and were not insurable by the CA Fair Plan, as their home value was over the threshold.
Once enough insurance companies leave the state, the real estate market will crater. People can’t get home loans on homes that aren’t insured. People wouldn’t be able to sell their homes, which means many would just stop paying the mortgage. There could be a massive foreclosure crisis on the horizon.
Florida has a lot of natural disasters like California, yet Florida works daily to keep these disasters under control. California doesn’t. That is the difference between a state run by progressives and one run by Republicans.
“The bill will go into effect on July 26 and make Washington just one of a relatively small number states that do not offer exemptions on such reporting for the confessional.”
Can someone identify the “small number of states” referred to here?
Perhaps he meant that the “small number” is 1.
WA state is know for passing strange laws, they help no-one.
Dustoff
This is not a strange law.
Washington is simply aligning itself with the majority of other states.
With Washington added to the list there are now 46 states with this law.
This is not a story worthy of attention.
Turley is just taking a cheap shot to rile the MAGA mob into attacking a blue state.
The State of New Hasty; The State of Impolitic; and the Native American State of Not-Think-Through-Enough
I have read that there are two: New Hampshire and West Virginia. Not the usual suspects.
As a Catholic, Reconciliation is a Sacrament. Confession is sacred. A priest is supposed to die rather than violate the sanctity of confession. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is necessary to receive forgiveness for sins committed.
Anyone who thinks that a murderer can just keep going to confession and be absolved doesn’t understand the sacrament. There is an entire process that requires sincere remorse, taking responsibility for what you have done rather than blaming others, and making atonement. If a murderer, for example, wants a get out of Hell free card by just going to confession, fooling the priest into thinking he’s sorry, but fully intending to keep killing people, then he’s not at all forgiven by God.
Confession is about healing the soul, not secular punishment.
It was not the seal of the Confessional that led to the Scandal in the Church. It was the administration ignoring or covering up reports of abuse, and transferring known offenders to other, unsuspecting parishes. Likewise, schools, Boy Scout administrators, Olympic sports, and universities with athletic programs ignored reports of inappropriate behavior.
Targeting priests to violate the seal of the Confessional, which will get them excommunicated, is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Even I, a lay person, know that. I hope the Church fights this all the way to the Supreme Court.
Does anyone have a record of who introduced this bill and record of Ayes and Nays?
Democrats in Washington State roll out the red carpet for criminals, shield them from law enforcement, and call it compassion. But when the Catholic Church defends the sanctity of confession, suddenly it’s a threat? Forcing priests to betray their vows under the guise of law isn’t justice, it’s an assault on religion and a direct hit on conservative values. This isn’t about protecting anyone. It’s about control.
‘S. Meyer’ Bravo… ..you are right! the woke uni-government mindset that has possessed most Politics, entrenched in the the Deep State, is now encroahing on Religion… ever trying to erase the sacred principles on which the the USA was founded, now re: the separation of Church and State. ..again.. We must find the trail and Follow the Money being thrown at this.
The left is antisemitic, anti-Catholic, and broadly anti-religion and anti-parent. It craves power, and the strongest sources of resistance are religion, the family, and the bond between parent and child. To secure control, those bonds must be broken. That looks a lot like Stalinism.
In Turley’s purchased zeal to find something, anything, to deflect attention from the daily Trump sh!t show, he overlooks some fundamental issues: in most Catholic Churches there is a way to avail oneself of the sacrament of reconciliation anonymously— so that the priest wouldn’t know the identity of the person making the confession and therefore couldn’t turn them in. One could always go to a church in another part of the city or to an out of town church where they aren’t known. But that’s not the purpose of today’s piece— which is to criticize the Democratic governor of Washington State.
Gigi.
This piece has zip to do with Prez Trump.
Please grow a brain.
Turley has a habit of writing pieces criticizing Democrats as a deflection away from the daily bad news on the economy caused by Trump and his tariffs and ongoing public protests all over the country over his policies. My points were: 1. this piece is a deflection–you can always go to confession anonymously, so it’s not likely to really be a big issue; if the priest doesn’t know you, he can’t turn you in; 2. Turley is paid to find a way to criticize Democrats.
The law violates the First Amendment. Clearly. Without question. That is the purpose of today’s piece, penned by a law professor.