We asked our readers about their favorite Christmas carols. Here’s what you said.

Roanoke, Va., Dec 4, 2017 / 01:53 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A 15-year-old student was taken to the hospital after a woman punched her in the face outside of a Planned Parenthood in Roanoke, Virginia on Saturday morning.

The student, Purity Thomas, is a high school leader with Students for Life of America and was “peacefully sidewalk counseling” with a small group of other leaders outside of Planned Parenthood on Saturday morning when a woman sparked the altercation, the group said in a statement.

During sidewalk counseling, Students for Life leaders offer women support, encouragement and resources for pregnancy care instead of abortion.

On Saturday, the students had congregated in a grassy area outside of the abortion clinic where volunteers typically meet. Because that Planned Parenthood location performs abortions on Saturday, pro-life leaders usually offer counseling, prayer and peaceful protest outside of that location on a weekly basis.

The group of student leaders were standing away from the entrance of the Planned Parenthood when a woman reportedly threatened the group and said she would beat them up and “[expletive] them up,” the group said.

The woman reportedly approached the students and stole a sign that read “All people are made in the image of God.” At this point one of the students began filming, and the woman approached the group a second time, attempting to steal another sign before punching Thomas in the face.

The incident was caught on video.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/TBsJFJd6j3k?rel=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

“This act of violence against a group of peaceful pro-life students who were outside a Planned Parenthood offering love and support to pregnant women serves as a sad reflection on the state of debate today,” Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, said in a statement.

“It’s horrific that a minor expressing love for pregnant women was targeted for violence.”

After the incident, one of the student leaders called the police, and Thomas was taken to the hospital for her injuries. She was examined and released Saturday.

Hawkins added that this ”is not an isolated incident. Across the country we are witnessing a rise in the number of incidents of vandalism and violence against peaceful pro-life speech,” she said. “We pray that the assailant from today’s attack is brought to justice swiftly. But we also pray for the protection of those who volunteer their time to speak for the innocent, preborn infants and their mothers.”

[…]

CNA Staff, Aug 28, 2020 / 11:30 am (CNA).-  

The Spanish-language broadcast of a Catholic sister’s speech at the Republican National Convention this week replaced the words “pro-life,” with “anti-abortion,” a move that raises questions about the integrity of the broadcast.

In an Aug. 26 speech at the Republican National Convention, Sister Deirde Byrne used the phrase “pro-life” three times: once in reference to herself, once in reference to President Donald Trump, and once in reference to “America’s pro-life community.”

In all three cases, news network CNN en Español translated the phrase as “anti-aborto,” or “anti-abortion,” during its broadcast of the speech.

Byrne also used the phrase “pro-eternal life” in reference to herself. CNN en Español translated that phrase as “en favor de la vida eterna.”

“Pro-vida” is a commonly used Spanish-language idiom, used analogously to the English-language idiom “pro-life.” Proponents of the phrase say it is evocative of a broad commitment to the dignity of human life, and that “anti-abortion” is a comparatively reductive rendering which does not convey the same meaning.

The style guide of the Associated Press, widely used by journalists in the U.S., instructs journalists to “use ‘anti-abortion’ instead of ‘pro-life’ and ‘abortion rights’ instead of ‘pro-abortion’ or ‘pro-choice.’” The style guides of the Washington Post and New York Times have similar instructions. CNA’s style guide permits the use of the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”

The AP style guide’s exception, however, is for quotations, which journalistic ethics require to be reported with complete accuracy.

The Reuters Handbook of Journalism explains that “quotes are sacrosanct. They must never be altered other than to delete a redundant word or clause, and then only if the deletion does not alter the sense of the quote in any way.”

Regarding the translation of quotes, Reuters says that “when translating quotes from one language into another, we should do so in an idiomatic way rather than with pedantic literalness. Care must be taken to ensure that the tone of the translation is equivalent to the tone of the original.”

The use of “anti-aborto” rather than “pro-vida” to translate Byrne’s phrase, “pro-life,” has been met with frustration from some Hispanic pro-life advocates.

“Sister Deirdre Byrne’s speech during the Republican National Convention pointed out the importance of taking a clear pro life stance from the perspective of science, faith and simple common humanity,” Marcial Padilla, director of the Mexican pro-life organization Concience and Participación, told CNA.

“CNN en Español decided to embarrass itself, and did not have the minimum decency of translating Sister Deirdre’s words correctly. I hope CNN’s contempt is noted by the voters, who should know that they are not an objective source of information. Unfortunately  major media outlets in the world are becoming less objective transmitters of the facts and more political operators against the right to life,” Padilla added.

Mexican physician María Denisse Santos of the Coalición de Líderes Provida told CNA that ”to say that we are ‘pro life’ is to tell the truth, because we are indeed defending the right to live of the little ones. To try to hide that truth by calling us ‘anti-abortion,’ as CNN en Español did with Sister Byrne’s speech, is in fact to recognize that they are afraid to acknowledge that being ‘pro-choice’ is to be in favor of someone’s death.”

“But the truth will shine at the end, that we are pro-life and pro-eternal life,” Santos said.

One professional translator, who requested anonymity because of her position, told CNA that “it is very hard to believe that the interpreter chose to change ‘pro-life’ to ‘anti-aborto’ on her own. In our trade, we have some room to choose specific words in order to better clarify a concept, but we can’t make any kind of subjective interpretation. So much so that our interpretations are trademarked. The only reason why an interpreter would do something like that is if she or he is under a very specific protocol from the customer (client), like someone who works, say, for the UN, and needs to avoid some words for political or diplomatic reasons.”

The code of ethics for the American Translators Association explains that “linguistic integrity is at the core of what translators and interpreters do.”

Translators faced with an idiomatic expression should use “an idiom that conveys the same meaning, register, and impact” as the one being translated, the association explains. It emphasizes that “Impartial translation and interpreting requires the translator or interpreter to adopt a mantle of neutrality,” and calls it “inappropriate to “clean up” objectionable language in the target language.”

The “Translator’s Charter” of the International Federation of Translators requires that “every translation…be faithful and render exactly the idea and form of the original.” CNN en Español has not responded to requests for comment from CNA.

Polling shows that while Latino voters favor Biden over Trump, the president has the support of a larger share of Latino Catholic voters than he did in 2016. The Trump reelection campaign has emphasized its view that Trump is the “most pro-life president in history” in outreach to religious voters.

Aci Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language sister agency, contributed to this report.

[…]

A participant in the Women’s March event Jan. 18, 2020, in San Francisco holds a “Pass the Equal Rights Amendment” sign while marching. / Credit: Sundry Photography/Shutterstock

Washington D.C., Apr 28, 2023 / 15:40 pm (CNA).

Catholic bishops praised senators who stood their ground Thursday to prevent efforts to enshrine the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution. 

Senate Republicans effectively blocked a resolution that would have eliminated the already-expired 1982 deadline for states to ratify the ERA. The Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states, or 38 states, ratify amendments for them to go into effect. 

The resolution received majority support in the Senate with a 51-47 vote, but 60 votes are needed for cloture to end debate and bring the resolution to a floor vote. After failing to reach the 60-vote threshold, the motion was defeated. 

The ERA would amend the U.S. Constitution to declare that equality of rights under the law cannot be denied on account of sex. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and other opponents voiced concerns that the language could be used to claim a constitutional right to an abortion or could be used to infringe on religious liberty. 

“The Catholic faith teaches that women and men are created with equal dignity, and we support that being reflected in law,” Arlington Bishop Michael Burbidge, who chairs the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said in a statement. 

“The proposed ‘Equal Rights Amendment,’ however, would likely create a sweeping new nationwide right to abortion at any stage, at taxpayer expense, and eliminate even modest protections for women’s health and the lives of preborn children,” Burbidge added. “It could also pose grave problems for women’s privacy and athletic and other opportunities, and negatively impact religious freedom. I am grateful that the Senate did not advance this proposal that in fact expired decades ago, and I hope that Congress will focus on meaningful support for women and families in need.”

Senate Democrats held a press conference following the vote, in which they criticized Republicans for voting against cloture. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, suggested the amendment would affect the Supreme Court’s recent rulings related to abortion. 

“It is 2023,” Schumer said. “Women are under assault, politically, in so many ways, whether it’s the right to choose or women’s health care or discrimination or so many other things. It’s about time America said no to all of that. It’s about time America said no to the MAGA majority on the Supreme Court, that we need protections for women.”

Only two Republicans, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted in favor of the resolution.

The battle over the ERA goes back a century, as it was originally introduced into Congress in December 1923. Congress approved the amendment in 1972, but the next step required at least 38 states to ratify it. The deadline imposed by Congress for ratification was 1979, but only 35 states had ratified it before that date. Congress extended the deadline to 1982, but no additional states ratified the proposed amendment. Although there were questions about the legality of the extension, which was approved in 1978, the matter was never resolved in the courts because not enough states had ratified it anyway. 

When former President Donald Trump took office, Democratic lawmakers revived the effort to ratify the amendment. Three states — Nevada in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020 — voted to ratify the amendment even though the deadline had passed about 40 years earlier. 

Although this means 38 states have ratified the amendment, six of those states have rescinded their ratifications. Five states rescinded their ratifications in the 1970s and one other state, North Dakota, did so in 2021. 

The resolution before Congress would have eliminated the 1982 deadline. However, there are still unresolved legal questions concerning whether Congress would have the ability to extend or end the deadline after it expired. There are also legal questions about whether states can legally rescind their ratifications. If the ERA deadline were to be removed, it would likely open up a series of lawsuits that would need to be resolved in the Supreme Court. 

[…]