Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClearPolitics,
Dubbed a White House-in-waiting during his exile, the America First Policy Institute now seems nearly like another White House campus – almost half of President Trump’s Cabinet is expected to address the AFPI policy summit this week in Washington, D.C.
The roster of speakers reflects not just the rising influence of the new think tank but also the stunning reversal in Republican political fortunes. AFPI was born from failure. After the 2020 election, founder and then-CEO Brooke Rollins was looking to salvage the “Trump 2.0” policy portfolio, the detailed plans for a second presidential term that never came, or rather, one that was delayed.
Her motivating question at the time: “How do we continue moving forward when we are no longer in the White House?” The answer will be on full display when assorted MAGA dignitaries kick off the summit Tuesday at the Kennedy Center by toasting “the America First Moment.” After decamping to a nearby Beltway hotel for the next two days, they will celebrate the crowning achievement of the young institute.
Over 86% of the 196 federal policies that AFPI drafted and recommended in 2022, while Republicans were still in the wilderness, have been advanced or enacted during the first 100 Days of the Trump administration, RealClearPolitics is first to report.
“President Trump has kept his promises. His administration’s speed and clarity in acting on these priorities is not just impressive, it’s historic,” said Greg Sindelar, who took over as interim CEO earlier this year. “The America First Agenda was always rooted in the needs of real people, not the whims of Washington. What we’re seeing now is the natural result of a movement that's aligned with the public, led by conviction, and governed with urgency.”
Some of the policies now implemented were already standard GOP boilerplate, like border security and economic deregulation, when AFPI made their recommendations. Others directly mirror institute white papers, like the plan to reclassify the employment status of thousands of civil servants, lay off large portions of the federal workforce, and remake the bureaucracy in Trump’s own image.
Known as “Schedule F,” the expansion of executive authority was an Institute brainchild. Its mastermind, a policy wonk named James Sherk, went with Trump into the White House. So did many of the AFPI staff, and while some in the beltway will quibble over who originated what policy idea, what is undeniable is that the Trump think tank maxed out the maxim that personnel is policy.
The AFPI people are everywhere in the White House and in key positions across the administration. By their count – and reported here for the first time – no less than 73 institute alumni now work for the president. The most prominent can be found seated next to Trump in the Cabinet Room.
Rollins took a hiatus from the think tank to lead the Agriculture Department, while Linda McMahon, who chaired the AFPI board and later co-chaired the second Trump transition, now serves as the head of the Education Department. They are not the only former colleagues around the Cabinet table.
Attorney General Pam Bondi led the think tank’s legal arm before taking over the Department of Justice. Veteran Affairs Secretary Doug Collins was previously the chair of the AFPI state chapter in Georgia. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin helmed the institute’s China initiative. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner led the Center for Education Opportunity.
Other Cabinet-level officials who are AFPI alums include CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel, and National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett.
It is a full house. And by design.
“When we roll into 2024, we will have policies and we will have the people that are set to go,” predicted Keith Kellogg before the Biden presidency had even reached the halfway point. When they were new in town, the first Trump transition team faced a personnel crisis, the retired Army lieutenant general told RCP, forcing the incoming White House to scramble to find qualified staff. But with AFPI as a talent scout, he said, Trump will not “have the JV team.”
Kellogg now serves as U.S. special envoy to Ukraine.
And in this way, by identifying key personnel early and by hammering out policy ahead of time, AFPI built out-of-the-box instructions for the current president. More efficient than the original, Trump 2.0 has been defined by a flood-the-zone strategy. The speed has even awed some former Biden officials. One told Axios recently, “Gosh, I wish I could work for an administration that could move that quickly.”
While the administration raided the AFPI bench for talent, the think tank continues to churn out policy from its new headquarters in the offices adjacent to the luxurious Willard Intercontinental Hotel across the street from the White House. They have already replenished their ranks with 56 new hires this year. It is designed to be a full-stack operation.
Kellyanne Conway, who served as senior counselor to the president in the first Trump White House, leads the AFPI polling operation. [ZH: hmmmm] The topline of a poll commissioned ahead of the policy summit: “America First” policies are supported by the public by a 12-point margin (47% to 35%).
Those numbers are central to the current and overall argument of the institute. The populism of Trump is more durable than just the current moment, they insist. They believe that it can and ought to serve as an enduring foundation for the next several decades of the GOP. Their ambitions are grand. “The road ahead is clear,” said AFPI spokeswoman Jen Pellegrino. “Build on this foundation and lay the groundwork for an America First century.”
“He whoops it up with the plain people, and, thank God, whatever he is, he is not a Pharisee.”
George William Curtis, “The Pharisee” (1893)*
The Pharisee of the Gospels is a punctilious prig and a pious fraud. Christ pilloried him as a stuffed shirt who played the part of a God-fearing man while resting assured that he had nothing to fear from God. In a thousand ways the Pharisee proudly declared that his skin was circumcised; but this self-same pride made him sniff with scorn when Christ said he must circumcise his heart. The word pharisee literally means those who have separated themselves or set themselves apart, and this stock figure of scripture is best remembered for setting himself apart in a caste that claims to be “holier than thou.”
Here is the familiar text:
“The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” Luke 18:11
The Pharisee of the Gospels served to make Christianity a religion of the heart. Not invariably, of course, since hypocritical virtue-signaling appears to be the way of all flesh; but no real Christian supposes that “going through the motions” of external observance has other than carnal rewards. On the other hand, as a downside, we might say that the Pharisee of the Gospels tempts Christians to “play the part of a publican.” I daresay more than a few smite their breasts for imaginary sins in the belief that there is glory even in pretending to be less holy than thou.
Perhaps the largest downside of the Pharisee of the Gospels is, however, that it has allowed moral laxity to become a virtue. As my epigraph explains, under the negative influence of the Pharisee of the Gospels, it is easy to excuse loose living in ourselves and others because this would seem to prove that we are not, thank God, pharisees. Steering wide of the example of that punctilious prig and pious fraud, we very often become the very opposite of punctilious and pious.
Some say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I say it also echos with loud boasts,
Whatever I am, I am not, thank God, a Pharisee!
Here’s another line from George William Curtis on the downside of Pharisee of the Gospels.
“It is obvious that when the advocacy of common honesty in any relation of life is savagely and scornfully decried as Phariseeism, it is because somebody’s withers are wrung.”
He means “Phariseeism” has become the defensive retort that a scoundrel makes to anyone calling him a scoundrel. The obsolete idiom to wring one’s withers means to irritate or cause discomfort. It refers to a saddle wringing (which is to say rubbing, as when one wrings one’s hands) the bony ridge between the shoulders of a horse (this bony ridge being known to equestrians as a horse’s withers).
When a scoundrel’s withers are wrung by the charge that he is a scoundrel, his discomfort is soon palliated by the soothing thought that, whatever else he may be, he is not, at least, thank God, a Pharisee.
*) George William Curtis, “The Pharisee,” pp. 149-154 in Other Essays from the Easy Chair (New York: Harper, 1893), p. 152.
**) Curtis, “The Pharisee,” p. 153.
Planned Parenthood just released its annual report for 2023, and the numbers are shocking. The abortion giant isn’t slowing down — it’s accelerating. More abortions. More taxpayer money. More profits. Fewer actual healthcare services. Here’s what Planned Parenthood’s report reveals.
402,230 Abortions in One Year — a New Record
In 2023, Planned Parenthood committed over 402,000 abortions — the highest number in its history. That’s more than 1,100 preborn children killed every single day. One in every five people who walk into a Planned Parenthood ends up aborting their baby.
In Texas, where preborn babies are legally protected beginning at fertilization, Planned Parenthood is still open. Texas facilities don’t perform abortions within the state, but they operate as “travel agencies”, sending women to Planned Parenthood facilities in other states.
Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.
Planned Parenthood has long surpassed the ability to call itself anything other than an abortion factory.
Planned Parenthood Now Worth Over $3 Billion
With the explosion of abortion pill distribution, Planned Parenthood has grown wealthier than ever — surpassing $3 billion in assets and cash reserves. Pills cost less to provide than surgical abortion, deliver the same results, and are more dangerous to women. Thus, they deliver massive profits, allowing Planned Parenthood to keep targeting women and expanding, even in states like Texas, where abortion is illegal.
That’s why the Woman and Child Protection Act, Senate Bill 2880 by Senator Bryan Hughes and Representative Leach, is urgently needed. SB 2880 cracks down on abortion pill trafficking and gives families legal tools to hold abortionists accountable when these pills harm or kill.
$792 Million in Government Funding — Another Record
Planned Parenthood also broke its own record for government funding, raking in $792.2 million in taxpayer dollars. That’s nearly $100 million more than the previous year. While federal funds can’t directly pay for abortions, they free up other revenue so Planned Parenthood can focus on its core business — abortion.
Texas doesn’t give state money to Planned Parenthood, but Texans still fund them through federal taxes.
San Antonio and Austin are using local tax dollars to pay for out-of-state abortions, covering expenses like flights and hotels. Senate Bill 33 by Senator Donna Campbell, M.D., is crucial to stop cities from using public funds to support abortion travel.
Texas Can Push Back — But Time Is Running Out
Lawmakers must pass these bills now to protect preborn Texans and stop the exploitation of our women and tax dollars.
Dear Representatives,
I urge you to support the Woman and Child Protection Act (SB 2880 by Sen. Hughes & Rep. Leach) and the Stop Tax-Funded Abortion Travel Act (SB 33 by Sen. Campbell, M.D., & Rep. Noble).
Despite Texas’ strong Pro-Life laws, over 30,000 preborn Texans are still killed each year due to abortion pills being trafficked into our state and women being sent across state lines for abortions. These two critical bills are urgently needed to stop the flood of lethal abortion drugs and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are never used to fund abortion travel.
Every abortion ends a child’s life and puts the mother’s health at risk. Texas must take a bold stand to protect both.
Please act now to defend Life and pass SB 2880 and SB 33 without delay. Texans are counting on you.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
With these two Pro-Life bills — SB 2880 and SB 33 — Texas can strike a major blow to Planned Parenthood’s abortion empire. We must not let another opportunity pass by when precious lives are on the line.
LifeNews Note: Samantha Furnace writes for Texas Right to Life.
The post Planned Parenthood Kills Over 1,100 Babies in Abortions Every Single Day appeared first on LifeNews.com.
China's largest remaining drum tower partially collapsed on Monday, and the entire incident was captured on camera.
NEW: The roof of a 650-year-old drum tower in Anhui, China, collapses.
The incident happened at the Fengyang Drum Tower in eastern China. Officials have since launched an investigation.
The structure was first built in 1375 during the Ming Dynasty.
Part of the building was… pic.twitter.com/5Py0YJOGak
The video above shows hundreds of roof tiles sliding off the historic Fengyang Drum Tower in eastern China at the start of the week. Local media reports no injuries.
"The tile falling lasted for a minute or two," one eyewitness told the state newspaper Yangcheng Evening News.
Tiles fell from the ancient Drum Tower in Fengyang, #Anhui Province, on May 19. The tower, originally built in 1375 and rebuilt in 1995, had been under renovation since late 2023. Local authorities are investigating the incident. #architecture #China pic.twitter.com/h5U2ABXZLn
— Shanghai Daily (@shanghaidaily) May 20, 2025Another witness told state media outlet The Beijing News that "no one was in the square and no one was injured" at the time of the incident.
Located in Anhui province, the drum tower was constructed in 1375 during the Ming Dynasty, with a reconstruction phase in 1995 after it was destroyed in 1853.
China's local culture and tourism bureau reported no casualties and said the "situation is under investigation."
Authored by Kenneth Tashjy via The Epoch Times,
Enough already. It is time for colleges and universities to get tough on student protesters who hide behind masks while engaging in violent or unlawful campus demonstrations.
Let’s be clear: The First Amendment protects the right of students at public colleges to engage in peaceful protest.
If a student wants to wear a mask or face covering during a peaceful demonstration—for health reasons, fear of retaliation, or as a form of political expression—they generally have the right to do so.
But that right is not absolute.
When protests cross the line into violence, vandalism, or intimidation—as we have seen recently at institutions such as the University of Washington, Columbia University, and Brooklyn College—masks become tools of concealment, not expression.
In those moments, the anonymity they provide fosters a sense of impunity, which encourages students to act more recklessly and violently, creating a dangerous campus environment.
Masked protest in this context is not about health or symbolic speech. It is about avoiding accountability while breaking institutional rules or laws. When student actions disrupt the learning environment or threaten campus safety, their conduct falls well outside First Amendment protections.
Efforts to ban masks during protests have produced mixed legal results. Some courts have upheld mask bans, emphasizing public safety and law enforcement interests. Others have sided with protesters who argue that these bans infringe upon free speech rights or unfairly impact individuals with disabilities.
To navigate this legal minefield, institutions should move away from blanket mask bans and instead adopt targeted disciplinary measures. Specifically, schools should impose stricter penalties on students who wear masks while participating in protests that violate campus policies or involve unlawful activity.
In these circumstances, claims of disability rights or free speech are less likely to prevail when the masked activity is linked to disruptive, threatening, or illegal conduct.
Traditionally, student discipline in higher education follows a progressive model—starting with warnings or educational interventions and escalating for repeat or serious violations. This structure reflects the belief that student discipline is an opportunity for ethical development and personal growth.
But there are exceptions. And this should be one of them.
When a student chooses to wear a mask during a protest that violates institutional rules or the law, they should be placed in the disciplinary “express lane” and immediately face the most serious disciplinary consequences available to an institution—suspension or expulsion.
As a legal consultant and former general counsel with over two decades of experience advising colleges and universities, I have recommended that my clients adopt the following enhanced disciplinary sanction:
“Any student who participates in a campus protest in violation of university policies or applicable law while wearing a mask or other face covering shall not receive progressive discipline but shall instead be subject to immediate suspension for no less than one (1) academic year, or permanent expulsion, in accordance with the institution’s disciplinary procedures.”
This policy makes a clear and necessary distinction. Students who wear a mask or other face covering while engaging in a peaceful protest are protected; those who mask up to shield their identity while exploiting their student status to spread chaos and wreak havoc on their campus will be subject to immediate and severe disciplinary action.
Anonymity in these circumstances is not about protection—it is about avoiding consequences.
Adopting this approach is not about limiting speech or disability protections. Rather, it is intended to preserve the integrity, safety, and educational mission of higher education.
Students must be free to express their views, but when that expression crosses the line into lawlessness and masked misconduct, institutions must respond decisively.
By instituting enhanced disciplinary measures for masked rule-breakers, colleges will send a clear message: Peaceful protest is protected; chaos in disguise is not.
The time to draw that line is now.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (PPAC) recently published a scathing press release attacking California Governor Gavin Newsom after he dared to propose using $1.6 billion generated by Prop 35 for something other than financially propping up Planned Parenthood’s poorly run abortion clinics.
The release claims Newsom’s cuts would remove one-third of the abortion giant’s annual budget in California – a budget that PPAC seems to think the state of California is required to fund.
Describing itself as “irreplaceable,” PPAC emphasized California “must ensure Planned Parenthood health centers can keep their doors open,” calling on the state legislature to take immediate action and protect PPAC’s financial interests.
Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.
No less than four times in the short release, PPAC also dramatically lamented the possible removal of federal funding by Congress, demanding the state of California make up the difference by refraining from “slashing critical funding” and “[continuing] on its course in investing in reproductive health care” (i.e. PPAC).
“Planned Parenthood’s sense of entitlement is nauseating,” says Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, “not to mention the incredible hypocrisy. This is an organization that has been convicted of medicaid fraud, has recently been accused of financial mismanagement by its own employees among multiple affiliates, is rife with malpractice lawsuits, and is even, at this moment, facing a possible strike right from California employees over terrible work conditions. Yet California taxpayers are somehow obligated to keep funneling money to this corrupt and abusive organization? What an absolute sham.”
Days before Planned Parenthood publicly attacked Newsom, unionized workers of Planned Parenthood California Central Coast (PPCCC) voted in overwhelming numbers for a strike, citing poor working conditions like an untenable turnover rate and lack of pay for overtime – all of which workers say are creating patient safety issues.
Planned Parenthood employees say they have offered many solutions to these problems, only to be repeatedly rejected and ignored by management.
Employee grievances like these are running rampant in Planned Parenthood.
Earlier this year, the New York Times published a bombshell exposé on the crumbling inner workings of Planned Parenthood, reporting concerns and complaints from employees in as many as nine states, including California.
Untrained staff, injured patients, terrible working conditions, a ‘conveyor-belt’ approach, and massive misuse of funds were just some of the complaints voiced by employees across the nation.
Just weeks ago, a former Planned Parenthood nurse also came forward. She quit her job at the Omaha clinic in Nebraska after being asked to break protocol more than once, and then being ignored by management when she expressed concerns. Like many other employees who have spoken out, this nurse said she felt Planned Parenthood “used her passion for abortion access as leverage.”
“Planned Parenthood is doing nothing in America that merits them making any demands on taxpayers or legislatures of any state, even radical pro-abortion California,” adds Newman.
“Planned Parenthood is nothing more than Big Abortion, puffing itself up like some noble savior of women while its employees waste away, its patients end up butchered and abandoned in some ER, and its higher-ups take home six-figure salaries. The abortion cartel has been laughing at America for decades, but voters and legislators are waking up fast. Planned Parenthood is losing ground so fast because no one is buying its victim story anymore – not even its own employees.”
LifeNews Note: This article was originally published by Operation Rescue, a leading pro-life, Christian activist organization dedicated to exposing abortion abuses, demanding enforcement, saving innocent lives, and building an abortion-free America. The author, Sarah Neely, is Chief Operating Officer for Operation Rescue.
The post Planned Parenthood May Lose $1.6 Billion in Funding From Just One State appeared first on LifeNews.com.
In an embarrassing episode that will help aggravate society's uneasy relationship with artificial intelligence, the Chicago Sun-Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and other newspapers around the country published a summer-reading list where most of the books were entirely made up by ChatGPT.
The article was licensed content provided by King Features Syndicate, a subsidiary of Hearst Newspapers. Initial reporting of the bogus list focused on the Sun-Times, which two months earlier announced that 20% of its staff had accepted buyouts as the paper staggers under a dying business model. However, several other newspapers also ran the syndicated article, which was part of a package of summer-themed content called "Heat Index."
Researchers in the field refer to AI-contrived facts as "hallucinations." In this case, AI hallucinated two-thirds of the books on the list -- along with detailed descriptions -- but attributed them to real authors. Leaning heavily in the woke vein, the fabricated books included:
Ironically, another of the hallucinated books, Andy Weir's "The Last Algorithm," is described as following "a programmer who discovers that an AI system has developed consciousness -- and has been secretly influencing global events for years."
Marco Buscaglia admits he leaned too hard on ChatGPT as he created the now-infamous summer reading list for King Features
As the scandal quickly made waves across traditional and social media, the Sun-Times -- which not-so-accurately bills itself as "The Hardest-Working Paper in America" -- raced to apologize while also trying to distance itself from the work. “This is licensed content that was not created by, or approved by, the Sun-Times newsroom, but it is unacceptable for any content we provide to our readers to be inaccurate,” a spokesperson said. In a separate post to its website, the paper said, "This should be a learning moment for all of journalism.” Meanwhile, the Inquirer's CEO Lisa Hughes told The Atlantic, "Using artificial intelligence to produce content, as was apparently the case with some of the Heat Index material, is a violation of our own internal policies and a serious breach.”
The whodunnit ended quickly: Freelance writer Marco Buscaglia confessed to asking ChatGPT to give him a list of book suggestions, and says he frequently leans on the tool for his work. “I just look for information,” he told The Atlantic. “Say I’m doing a story, 10 great summer drinks for your barbecue or whatever. I’ll find things online and say, hey, according to Oprah.com, a mai tai is a perfect drink. I’ll source it; I’ll say where it’s from.” Clearly, in this instance, he was content to just roll with what AI gave him, telling the Atlantic that he shipped his (really, ChatGPT's) first draft straight to King Features, which likewise fired it off to its syndicate without scrutiny.
Do. Not. Trust. AIhttps://t.co/mhgnCWbD46
— Kyle Smith (@rkylesmith) May 20, 2025People are finding AI hallucinations throughout the articles contained in the "Heat Index" spread. One article quotes non-existent Cornell University food anthropologist "Dr. Catherine Furst." Another attributes a quote to a "Mark Ellison" who's supposed to be a resource management coordinator for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. There's a Mark Ellison with a background that's connected to the content, but he's never worked for the National Parks or talked to writer Buscaglia. There's also a quote from "Daniel Ray," editor of FirepitBase.com, a website that exists only in AI's fever dreams.
"Huge mistake on my part and has nothing to do with the Sun-Times," a contrite Buscaglia told NPR. "They trust that the content they purchase is accurate and I betrayed that trust. It's on me 100 percent." He told The Atlantic that he does his freelance work late at night; in his day job, he's a corporate editor and proofreader for AT&T. Remarkably, he implied that his customers must assume he's completely reliant on AI tools, to the extent that brought this weekend's humiliation to the Sun-Times, the Inquirer, King Features and himself.
Pathetically rationalizing his dishonestly disastrous shortcutting, Buscaglia added, “I feel like my role has sort of evolved. Like, if people want all this content, they know that I can’t write 48 stories or whatever it’s going to be,” he said, musing that he's been thinking of finding another job -- perhaps as a "shoe salesman."
Authored by Gary Abernathy via RealClearEnergy,
When our nation’s founders collaborated on a constitution to outline the country’s guiding principles and establish the structure of a new government, there were concerns that the original document allowed for federal government overreach and did not go far enough to guarantee individual liberties.
To address those concerns, James Madison wrote amendments that were strongly influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights authored by George Mason. Of the 17 amendments that were originally proposed, 10 were eventually ratified and came to be known as the Bill of Rights.
Americans’ fear of federal overreach was not relegated to the 18th century, and has been proven to be well-founded, whether in regard to our rights or the choices we make for our homes and families. Unwarranted federal interference has been a constant concern throughout our nation’s history – a fear often justified by watching Big Government infringe on the lives of our citizens time and again.
Such excess was never more evident than in the abuse of federal power to utilize threats, engage in market interference, and employ shady tax gimmicks to funnel Americans into a range of narrow choices in regard to energy sources. For four long years, the Biden administration embraced oppressive, heavy-handed bullying tactics designed to coerce Americans into a reliance on energy sources that are dangerously unreliable, routinely inefficient, and resoundingly more expensive.
Thankfully, the Trump administration is reversing as many of the previous regime’s energy mandates as can be accomplished by executive fiat. But what’s to prevent a future tyrant who wins the presidency from returning to the oppressive and coercive energy dictates that the Biden administration adopted?
It is not hyperbole to suggest that access to affordable and reliable energy is nothing less than a matter of life and death for most Americans.
Imagine the United States without reliable and affordable energy. An idle furnace that can’t heat a home in the dead of winter. A powerless refrigerator that can’t keep food safely cooled or frozen. Life-sustaining medical devices that won’t function. Stores that can’t open because the power has gone out. Goods that can’t be transported because fuel is too costly or cannot be accessed. Crops that cannot be harvested because farmers cannot afford or obtain the gasoline and diesel necessary to operate their trucks, tractors and combines. The list goes on.
Americans should never have to fear that dependable and affordable energy is subject to the whims of a fickle government swaying back and forth like a thin reed on a windy day. What resources are approved this year? What appliances can I confidently purchase? Will my electric bills skyrocket to satisfy the mandates and penalties imposed by a government enslaved to the demands of the climate cult?
One blueprint designed to codify energy certainty for all Americans is the Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES), a model for legislation quickly gaining traction that balances affordability and accessibility with responsible environmental objectives.
The ARC-ES would protect affordable and reliable energy by ensuring that:
Further, the ARC-ES would require that any state and federal funding for “green” or “clean” energy will be based on the updated and more inclusive definitions of those terms.
Nearly 250 years ago, before we ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we boldly declared our independence as a nation, proclaiming our insistence on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Similarly, Americans today can sign America’s Declaration of Energy Independence, asserting that neither life, liberty nor the pursuit of happiness can be truly realized without affordable, clean and abundant energy.
In 1789, when Madison introduced the original amendments, many argued that they weren’t necessary, and that the Constitution, as written, sufficiently restrained the government from employing powers not specifically enumerated within its framework. But others argued – correctly as it turned out – that it was necessary to spell out certain aspects of our freedoms protected from federal interference in order to eliminate any ambiguity.
Likewise, to once more guard against government tyranny and oppression, it’s important that access to affordable and reliable energy be clearly defined, and for all Americans to unite behind the self-evident truth that such energy access isn’t just good policy, it’s fundamental to our freedom and security.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.
International pressure on Israel and the Netanyahu government is already at a historic high, even from Western allies which have been sanctioning hardline Israeli settler groups and individuals, and a new international incident has unfolded Wednesday in the West Bank.
"Israeli soldiers mistakenly fired warning shots at diplomats representing the European Union, UK, France, China, Russia and other countries on Wednesday," Bloomberg writes.
An international group of diplomats and activists were visiting the West Bank town of Jenin when they reportedly came under gunfire from Israel Defense Forces.
Stillframe after shots fired.
Videos show the diplomatic group fleeing and running to their vehicles in a chaotic scene. Some of the vehicles appeared marked with flags of their respective countries.
The Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs the West Bank, issued a statement condemning Israel troops. The statement claimed the IDF "deliberately targeted by live fire an accredited diplomatic delegation."
The IDF for its part, issued a statement alleging that while the diplomatic group was approved to be in the area, it departed from the 'approved route'. The IDF did confirm that "warning shots" were fired.
"IDF soldiers operating in the area fired warning shots to distance them away," the IDF said in the statement. "The IDF regrets the inconvenience caused." The army said an investigation into the incident will follow.
Bloomberg lists that diplomats from the following were on the ground at the time: the EU, Portugal, Morocco, Brazil, Austria, Japan, Canada, India, Poland, Russia, Turkey, Romania, France, the UK, Mexico, China, Egypt and Jordan.
Below is some of the initial footage to emerge, showing the immediate aftermath of the gunfire from IDF positions:
Israeli soldiers opened fire at a delegation of foreign diplomats, including around 30 ambassadors and consuls, who were visiting the Jenin area. https://t.co/CDe96brrKo pic.twitter.com/rr8zNbknG3
— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 21, 2025France24 details based on eyewitnesses:
An aid worker, who did not want to be named for fear of reprisal, said a delegation of about 20 diplomats was being briefed about the situation in Jenin by the Palestinian Authority. The group of regional, European and Western diplomats were standing near the entrance of the Jenin refugee camp when they heard gunshots just before 2pm local time, said witnesses.
No one was injured in the incident.
Footage posted on social media showed the delegation scrambling for cover just inside the eastern entrance to the Jenin camp as loud shots ring out.
The delegation had cameras set up at the start of the alleged 'warning shots' which can be heard ringing out...
The israelis shoot at an int’l delegation visiting Jenin: the targeted group includes EU envoys; but.. but.. aren’t they your allies @EU_Commission pic.twitter.com/eTP3FoCUzz
— Sarah Wilkinson (@swilkinsonbc) May 21, 2025Likely the countries involved will soon summon Israeli ambassadors in their respective capitals, at a moment Israel is already facing international isolation, given that it has begun expanding military operations in the Gaza Strip, and amid reports of famine gripping the enclave.
Starting Friday the IDF announced an expanded mobilization of troops in Gaza for operation 'Gideon's Chariots'. Some two million Palestinians are expected to be forced into a "humanitarian zone" while most of the enclave is destroyed and flattened.
Pro-Palestine activists have been alleging a deliberate attack on the European and other diplomatic representatives Wednesday:
Israeli occupation soldiers open fire on a diplomatic delegation during their visit to Jenin refugee camp. pic.twitter.com/yI3MAyXyZZ
— Eye on Palestine (@EyeonPalestine) May 21, 2025This is probably the most pressure Israel has come under from its Western allies since Oct.7, 2023. As we previously reported, even Vice President JD Vance abruptly canceled a planned trip to Israel following the Netanyahu government's declaration that it would ramp up operations to conquer all of Gaza.
The fresh Jenin incident is certainly not going to help Israel's international standing, amid its increased isolation on a world stage. It is also the case that many of the diplomats were from Global South countries which have already long opposed Israeli policy toward Palestinians.
While states like New York are actively advancing assisted suicide legislation, Republicans in Nevada are working hard to quash any such effort.
On Friday, the Nevada Legislature put the brakes on a controversial bill, Assembly Bill 346, that would have legalized physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill, mentally competent adults with six months or less to live. Before it was shelved, the legislation already had a rocky journey.
It barely passed the Assembly with a 23-19 vote. But it hit a wall in the Senate as it failed to advance past a critical committee deadline of last Friday. Assemblymember Joe Dalia, the Democratic co-sponsor of the bill, told News 4 Fox that he predicted the bill’s failure — partly because he lacked confidence in Senate support, and partly because state Governor Joe Lombardo (R) had promised to veto the measure if it ever made it to his desk.
“We’re not deterred,” Dalia said on behalf of the Democrats pushing the effort. “[W]e’re going to keep pressing forward. … Hopefully, next session we can come back with a full head of steam and get this done.” He continued to note that their “goal from day one was to bring a bipartisan bill that got through both houses in a position where the governor would be comfortable signing it. Coming into this deadline day, we just didn’t feel like we were going to get there and bridge that divide.”
Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!
Despite Dalia’s confidence, state Republicans have proven to be equally as passionate about blocking his legislation. In fact, Friday’s development marks the sixth time since 2017 that assisted suicide legislation has been shut down. And should a bill related to this issue pass the Senate committee in the future, Lombardo’s promise remains intact.
Sarah Davenport-Smith of the Patients’ Rights Action Fund explained to LifeNews, “The bill started out in the Assembly and the first hearing was through a non-traditional ad-hoc committee of hand-picked proponents of assisted suicide.” From there, she added, “The rules of public testimony and a fair hearing did not apply. AB 346 unfortunately was amended and passed the Assembly in a 23-19 vote.” But after this, Davenport-Smith said that the NV Coalition and advocates came together to help score Friday’s pro-life victory.
As she put it, “Our NV Coalition and fellow advocates wasted no time in constantly meeting with key Senators, sending in emails, reaching outside of our Coalition to pull in more influence, and writing excellent op-eds and letters to the editor in various newspapers. Their work paid off! In the end, the votes were not even present in the Senate committee.” Looking ahead, she emphasized resilience. “We know that pro-assisted suicide advocates won’t be giving up, so we certainly won’t quit.”
Dr. Kirk Bronander, an internal medicine physician, also weighed in. In an op-ed published in the Reno Gazette Journal, he noted that, “once again, the proponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or ‘medical aid in dying’ have brought forth another bill to the Legislature trying to legalize this dangerous practice in Nevada.” He went on to explain how the bill “has many flaws, just like the laws that legalize this in other states.”
For instance, “Eligibility will be open to anyone who has been diagnosed with a terminal condition and are likely to die within six months without treatment.” The problem with this, the doctor argued, is that [the] timing of death is “difficult to determine.” And the reality is that “inaccurate diagnoses or prognoses coupled with physician-assisted suicide will result in patients dying that may have years of a good quality life remaining.”
In addition to this issue, Bronander emphasized that “PAS laws allow physicians to diagnose a terminal condition, give the prognosis and prescribe a deadly treatment.” He warned that “having a second doctor or provider sign off is not a safeguard” since it’s “easy to find one other prescriber to agree with the prescribing physician.” Ultimately, he asked, “Do you trust that every doctor has the patient’s best interest at heart? I do not.”
In his conclusion, Bronander advised caution. “Remember, it will always be cheaper for an insurance company to pay for this over expensive life-sustaining treatments,” he wrote. “The safeguards that will be touted by proponents are inadequate making it easy for abuses to occur with no ability to discover the abuse since the only victim and witness will be dead. I urge you to look into the facts and think about the unintended consequences of this bill. Let’s work to give people more care at the end of life but let’s refuse to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Nevada.”
LifeNews Note: Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand, where this originally appeared.
The post Nevada Democrats Threaten to Keep Pushing Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), sparked a mass walkout of NIH employees after suggesting that COVID-19 may have originated from a Wuhan lab and that NIH helped fund it.
During a staff town hall meeting on Monday, Bhattacharya told NIH employees, “It’s possible that the pandemic was caused by research conducted by human beings, and it’s also possible that the NIH partly sponsored that research.”
That comment prompted dozens of NIH employees to walk out of the meeting.
NEW: NIH Director @DrJBhattacharya sparks mass walkout from NIH employees after suggesting COVID-19 may have originated from the Wuhan lab — and that NIH helped fund it.
"It's possible that the pandemic was caused by research conducted by human beings, and it's also possible… pic.twitter.com/r74gv0iqcw
As the NIH employees, some wearing masks, stormed out of the meeting, Bhattacharya called after them, “Nice to have free speech. You’re welcome, you guys.”
Bhattacharya told the remaining employees, “If it’s true that we sponsored research that caused the pandemic — and if you look at polls of the American people, that’s what most people believe, and I’ve looked at the scientific evidence and I believe it — [then] what we have to do is make sure that we don’t engage in research that is any risk…to human populations.”
The U.S. has faced growing scrutiny for the NIH’s participation in controversial virus manipulation experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology where the FBI and CIA both believe the COVID-19 virus originated.
As the new director of NIH, Bhattacharya has also faced a $2.7 billion cut in funding from the federal government as well as the layoffs of more than 1,200 staff members.
Bhattacharya has argued that the cuts are necessary since, “There’s been a line of research supported by the NIH that I don’t actually fundamentally believe is scientific and that is ideological in nature.”
The new NIH director became well known during the pandemic for his support of the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for ending lockdowns for all but the most vulnerable.
The furor over a landmark bill legalizing assisted suicide in the United Kingdom is growing more acute day by day. Originally scheduled to proceed to a near-final vote in the House of Commons on April 25, resistance to the measure continues to build so that final passage now seems far from assured. Meanwhile, news stories about assisted suicide in Canada and the United States show that Britain is not the only locus of historic debates over the future of a practice that confronts a foundational principle of Hippocratic medicine — “First, Do No Harm.”
The U.K. bill, which passed its first vote last November, is now in the Parliamentary stage called Third Reading, having completed what is known in Britain as the committee stage, where a smaller group of members of Parliament (MPs) gathered to hear testimony and considered amendments to the bill, called the “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.” Fourteen of the 23 members of Parliament who participated in the committee stage were supportive of the bill in November but perhaps dozens of the original votes for the bill, which passed the full Commons 330-275, were cast with the expressed intention to move the legislation along to the next stage of the process and not to provide final endorsement.
Please follow LifeNews on Rumble for the latest pro-life videos.
As it turned out, the committee stage elucidated continuing criticisms of what is also known as the Leadbeater bill, for its prime sponsor, MP Kim Leadbeater, a Labour Party member from Spen Valley, who is a younger member of Parliament with a history in physical health as a personal trainer. The committee stage ended on March 25 with the adoption and rejection of various amendments that did not, overall, resolve questions about the impact of the legislation.
The vast majority of the amendments, and the bulk of continuing concern, can be traced to the bill’s lack of safeguards for the most vulnerable people under its jurisdiction. The lack of specific protection for the mentally ill, the financially stressed, people who fear becoming a burden on society or their family, people with physical anomalies that are difficult but not a harbinger of death in the near term — all of these, not slippery slope arguments so much as recognition of the self-sacrificing character that might persuade someone to end their life via assisted suicide, were debated in the committee stage without positive resolution. One proposed amendment would have ensured that applicants could not seek assisted suicide “because of an impairment of judgment arising from a mental disorder.” It was voted down, 12-9. Another amendment ensuring that applicants must be told the side effects of lethal drugs was rejected, 13-9.
Last week, the bill moved again before the full House of Commons in what is termed the Report Stage. As in the United States, a measure fraught with medical judgments about not only the capacity of individuals to choose assisted suicide but the adequacy of physicians and other providers to evaluate patients and assess palliative care and other options has continued to spur professional medical opposition. The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP), in advance of the debate on May 16, issued a statement reaffirming its inability to support the Leadbeater bill. Among the statement’s concerns is the lack of “a requirement for holistic assessment of unmet needs” that might lead a vulnerable person to request assisted suicide. “Treatable needs,” the RCP said, “such as intolerable pain, financial hardship and inadequate care or housing can make a person want to die. Yet the Bill makes no provision to assess unmet needs at any stage, nor consult others involved in the person’s care or life.”
The RCP statement raises practical concerns as well about the lack of a sufficient number of psychiatrists able to participate in the review panels envisioned under the bill. In the committee stage, Leadbeater advocates replaced the guarantee of individual judicial review of requests for suicide with the panel approach, and each panel would be required to have a psychiatrist among its members. The RCP argues that this is unworkable. Moreover, it raises the concern that while the bill now allows physicians, including psychiatrists, to refuse to participate in assisted suicide decisions and refer patients to another doctor instead, psychiatrists “are still required to signpost patients to information on AD/AS. For some psychiatrists who wish to conscientiously object, this would constitute being involved in the AD/AS process.”
On May 9, another RCP, the Royal College of Physicians, while still officially neutral on the legalization of assisted suicide, issued a formal statement powerfully objecting to the adequacy of the safeguards in the Leadbeater bill. It endorsed the concerns of RCPsychiatrists that another longstanding U.K. law, the Mental Capacity Act, is inadequate to the task of properly assessing the validity of a patient decision to elect suicide, compromising doctors’ ability to participate in these judgments. “We are concerned,” the RCPhysicians declared, “that patients would not have equitable choice of services because of the inequity of availability, and under-provision of end of life care and palliative care in England and Wales. These inequities of care are particularly present for more disadvantaged populations. There are widespread shortages in health and social care staff who provide these services, alongside increasing demand and very wide variation of where, when and how the services are delivered or available.”
The medical professionals’ judgments are matched by those of a wide variety of social service agencies in the nation, some of whom have taken to labeling the proposal a “state suicide service.” Groups described by one media outlet as “including Christians and other religious groups, humanists, medics and disability groups” rallied outside Parliament last Friday in opposition to the bill, which they say will have a devastating impact in an environment where health and social services are inadequate and will drive many patients to select death due to a perception of no better alternatives.
The U.K. might be the current leader in this debate over the future of a Culture of Death, but it is not the only place where this controversy is roiling the public mind. The Leadbeater bill would cover England and Wales. Meanwhile, the Scottish Parliament on May 14 voted 70 to 56 to approve separate legislation to legalize assisted suicide in that nation. The bill, backed by member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) Liam McArthur, titled the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) bill, is described as “extreme” by right to life advocates. Unlike the British bill, which requires a judgment that an applicant for suicide have only six months to live, no time limit is specified — only that the person have an “advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death.” Opponents contend this definition is so vague that it could reach people whose death is decades in the future, including “conditions such as anorexia, Down’s syndrome, and people with disabilities.”
Recent media reports from Canada describe how some physicians there are promptly suggesting assisted suicide to patients with less than terminal conditions or who have been denied medical care they seek under the nation’s unitary health care system. The situation has become so stark that in mid-April even the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) slammed the underlying Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) law as promotion of “negative, ableist perceptions” of disabled people. As in the U.K., where social service availability is under question and budgets are strained, the impulse to advance death-dealing initiatives to reduce costs is an underplayed aspect of the debate.
In the United States, news is more mixed. A proposal for assisted suicide failed in Nevada, a relatively liberal state not known for its taste in sound social policy. A bill, which has received favorable votes in the legislature, failed when Republican Governor Joe Lombardo issued a strong veto threat against it: “Expansions in palliative care services and continued improvements in advanced pain management make the end-of-life-provisions in AB346 unnecessary, and I would encourage the 2025 Legislature to disregard AB346 because I will not sign it.”
Meanwhile, in New York, where assisted suicide would potentially affect a large swath of people, the state legislature greeted the month of May by passing the Medical Aid in Dying Act (A136/S138). U.S. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) promptly scorned its passage as “putting the elderly, disabled, and terminally ill at risk of coercion and despair.” While the bill passed the State Assembly by a margin of 81-67, advocates for the disabled and their allies hope that the opposition of 20 Assembly Democrats on final passage and the need for New York Senate approval may upend the bill before it reaches Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, who has not expressed her intentions should it reach her desk.
If approved in New York, assisted suicide would be the law in 11 states and the District of Columbia. Budgetary woes in the United States alongside erosion of respect for human life are a potentially potent combination in the debate over New York’s and similar laws. As in the U.K., disability groups remain strong opponents of these statutes. They have played a major role in the U.K. in holding up passage of the Leadbeater bill, which may yet fail of final adoption and which has consumed far more time and debate than its original sponsors hoped for. An organization in the U.K. called Our Duty of Care frames the debate well. It opposes assisted suicide because “Vulnerable people must be protected from pressure to take their own lives. The lives of disabled & dying people have value and worth. Trust in the clinician-patient relationship must be preserved. It’s the only way to prevent future extension to children, people with non-terminal illness and those who are tired of life.”
We will soon know if the heroic campaign by churches, disability campaigners, members of Parliament, media voices, right to life groups, and medical leaders in the U.K. will be enough to block a law its sponsors thought would sail through to Royal Assent. In many ways, this may be the most important bill considered by any democratic body in a generation. In any event, the narrow margins at work here are a strong reminder why every vote counts.
LifeNews Note: Chuck Donovan is a 50-year veteran of the national debate over the right to life and served from 1981-89 as a writer in the Reagan White House.He is the former Executive Vice President of Family Research Council.
The post British Pro-Life Groups Fighting Hard to Defeat Radical Assisted Suicide Bill appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Last week, Peter joined Glenn Diesen for an interview on the post-trade deal economy. Peter takes on the myths surrounding Trump’s trade war with China, the real impact of tariffs on Americans, and where he sees the dollar heading as the world’s reserve currency. He explains why the perceived victories of protectionist trade policy are little more than marketing stunts, and warns about the risks of continued US borrowing and a potential dollar crisis.
Peter opens with his signature candor, cutting through the narratives around Trump’s approach to China and the broader trade war. He stresses that Americans have been misled about the true causes of trade deficits and the effectiveness of tariffs:
Well, first of all, Trump declared war and then surrendered and called it a victory. You know, the victory is that he saved us from ourselves, although it’s not a complete save. I don’t think we’re out of the woods. But, you know, Trump never had the cards to win the war in the first place. In the first place, I think he assessed the situation backwards. The whole trade war was misguided anyway, because the trade deficits are not the result of foreigners cheating us or ripping us off or bad trade deals.
He explains how the president’s business acumen translated into a branding exercise in the White House, rather than substantive reform:
I know he’s a great promoter. He’s a great marketer. That I’ll give him. I mean, he won the White House twice, right, so he sold the country on himself as the product. So he did a great job. And, you know, he’s a showman. He had The Apprentice, he had his hotels, his golf courses, you know, some of his other businesses. It’s all about branding, right? He brands the Trump brand. He puts the big Trump on everything, right?… I was curious – what are the lessons for China? Was anything achieved?
Dispelling a common misconception, Peter clearly lays out the economic reality of tariffs—contrary to claims made by several politicians, these taxes are paid by Americans, not by foreign exporters:
But again, the tariffs weren’t even on China. They were an inconvenience for Chinese companies. But the tariffs were on Americans. You know, the Chinese tariffs were on the Chinese. I mean, Trump can only tax Americans, and tariffs are an indirect tax that consumers pay when they buy products that are subject to the tariff. The actual tariff is paid by the importer, which is an American company. Now, if you import directly, right, if you decide to go on some Chinese site and order a product and they mail it directly to you, then, you know, when the package comes through customs, they add the tariff and you’ve got to pay it. The Chinese don’t pay it. The tariffs are paid by Americans. So it’s always been a lie. I pointed that out during the campaign.
When it comes to reducing trade deficits, Peter argues that policy makers want to have their cake and eat it too— pushing for a strong dollar and lower trade deficits at the same time, despite the fact that these aims are fundamentally at odds:
They want both. But of course, you can’t have both. The reason our trade deficits are so big is because the dollar is so overvalued. And so the only real way to make a big dent in the trade deficit is to have a much weaker dollar. I mean, that’ll do it. That’ll just make imports so expensive that Americans won’t be able to afford them, and so the imports will come down. And it will make our stuff a lot cheaper, whatever we got, and so we’ll export more of it. So a weaker dollar would do the trick, but of course the weaker dollar means much higher inflation in the US, which is why they don’t want a weak dollar.
Wrapping up, Peter warns that the current trajectory is unsustainable. With continued deficits, reliance on foreign creditors, and a dollar whose status as the world’s reserve currency is under threat, a reckoning is likely around the corner:
No, I think we’re going to have a dollar crisis and a sovereign debt crisis. I mean, that’s just how it’s going to end. We’re going to keep on living beyond our means until we can’t do it anymore. We’re going to keep on borrowing until the lenders stop lending to us. And I think we’re already on that path. The question is, how long does it take to really completely de-dollarize, to kind of sever this lifeline that we have? I don’t know. But, I mean, the process has started. And at some point, the pace is going to accelerate.
For more of Peter’s analysis on the US-China tariff deal, check out Peter’s latest podcast!
A rising Democratic star, often touted as “the next Obama” and a potential 2028 presidential candidate, has tapped into a long-forgotten provision of Obamacare to fund abortion, including underwriting abortions for illegal immigrants. With Republicans in Washington threatening to squeeze federal funding for abortionists, multiple states may choose to exploit the same funding mechanism — an abortion-expanding loophole which pro-life organizations, including Family Research Council, have long flagged as problematic.
Maryland Governor Wes Moore (D) signed a bill channeling the money collected under Obamacare’s abortion surcharge to fund abortions in the state. During a marathon signing session of approximately 170 bills on May 13, Moore signed legislation (H.B.930/S.B.848) establishing the Public Health Abortion Grant Program, which will give the $1 separate fee insurers collect to cover abortion in health insurance policies directly to abortionists or abortion funds that “provide equitable access to abortion” to the uninsured — including illegal immigrants. The bill also funds those without “sufficient abortion coverage” and allows the ethically challenged industry to charge the state “reasonable administrative costs.”
LifeNews is on TruthSocial. Please follow us here.
Moore boasted that the bill, which would give the abortion industry $25 million in a lump sum and $3 million annually, would help assure “Maryland will always be a safe haven for abortion access,” the same day as he cut more than $100 million from services for the disabled.
“Governor Moore is still sore that President Trump won in November, and is looking for every opportunity to oppose the president’s agenda in the swamp’s backyard,” Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “Now he’s seized on an opportunity to use taxpayer dollars to fund woke Democrat donors.”
“Last cycle, Planned Parenthood’s political action arm spent almost $70 million to elect Kamala Harris; as Congress moves a bill to — finally! — defund the hundreds of millions of dollars that taxpayers have been spending every year to prop up America’s biggest abortion providers, Governor Moore wants to reward them for their political loyalty to Democrats by creating this new funding stream,” González added.
Other Democrat-controlled states may follow Moore’s lead — especially as Planned Parenthood faces federal defunding through pending federal legislation or executive action. A dozen states collect the $1 abortion surcharge, according to KFF: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Representatives from some of those states have already contacted Maryland officials about taking similar steps, according to state lawmakers.
Delegate Lesley Lopez (D-39) asserted, “If programs like ours are duplicated across the country, we could help millions of Americans access essential abortion care — without relying on taxpayer dollars.” However, the bill — which Lopez sponsored — requires the governor to include in his annual budget an appropriation of taxpayer funding “at least equal” to the Obamacare withholdings beginning in 2027.
Insurers have until September 1 to give the state 90% of all funds collected between 2014 and 2023 under §1303(B)(2)(B) and (C) of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2026, insurers must surrender any money remaining from the abortion surcharge 15 months after the end of a plan year “to support abortion care clinical services.”
Opening the new revenue spigot left the abortion industry’s supporters overjoyed. “This is a significant moment for abortion access, not only in Maryland, but nationally,” said Cat Duffy, a senior policy analyst at the National Health Law Program (NHeLP), a group that supports Medicaid expansion — an issue at the heart of the current reconciliation bill. “For years, insurers have quietly complied with the ACA’s special rules, collecting millions of dollars intended for abortions but unable to use them.” Redirecting those funds to abortionists “finally unleashes that potential,” said Duffy. NHeLP belongs to Democracy 2025 — a Resistance movement founded by Marc Elias’ Democracy Forward — with such fellow coalition members as American Atheists, People for the American Way, and the National Education Association.
Democrats intended the abortion surcharge to quell concerns about taxpayer funding for abortions through Obamacare. But a 2014 Government Accountability Office report confirmed that numerous health insurance policies on the state exchanges covered abortion, in violation of applicable law.
FRC has long warned about the abortion surcharge. “Pro-abortion advocates claim this amendment prevents federal funding for abortion,” noted an FRC paper on Obamacare from 2016. “However, according to Section 1303, individuals who enroll in a federally subsidized health care plan that includes elective abortion coverage will be required to pay an abortion surcharge of no less than $1 per month. These dollars are to be used to pay for abortions for anyone in that plan.”
“In other words, along with tax subsidies for plans with abortion coverage, Obamacare forces everyone in a qualified health plan in a state exchange to pay a minimum of $12 per year for elective abortion coverage,” FRC observed. “Since the abortion surcharge and the rest of the plan premiums are billed as one payment, it obliterates any pretense that federal tax credits are not being used to pay the cost of elective abortion coverage.”
At present, no legislation specifically targets the abortion surcharge. In January, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) reintroduced legislation (H.R.7/S.186) to prevent federal Obamacare subsidies from going toward abortion; however, the abortion surcharge would continue.
The loophole calls additional attention to Moore, who became Maryland’s governor in 2023 and has crammed a long history of abortion extremism into his short public life. Moore stood inside a Planned Parenthood abortion facility — the Annapolis Health Center, which carries out abortions until 16 weeks — and proclaimed, “This is a safe place” in a June 2023 online video. “We are proud to be here to support the [abortion] providers,” he added.
Maryland taxpayers paid for 12,518 abortions between the 2022 and 2024 fiscal years, spending a combined total of $9.1 million in state and federal funding, according to the Maryland Department of Health.
Maryland offers taxpayer-funded abortion to non-U.S. citizens. “Are you having a baby? You may get free health care if you are not a U.S. citizen,” declares a state website titled “Healthy Babies — Pregnancy and Postpartum Coverage.”
“Effective November 18, 2024, abortion services are available to all pregnant individuals,” stated a memo from the Maryland Medical Assistance Program to all state abortionists. “Effective November 18, 2024, abortion services may be covered for minors within the scope and limitations outlined in the Maryland Minor Consent Laws,” which require abortionists to provide parental notification; they need not ask for parental consent.
Moore signed the abortion-funding bill as he introduced deep budget cuts for the disabled. Moore proposed slashing $457 million from the program that serves more than 18,000 citizens with mental or developmental delays, the Developmental Disabilities Administration: $200 million in state funding, as well as federal matching funds. Ultimately, the budget restored $300 million but still cut $164 million total from the poor and vulnerable.
Abortionists committed 39,300 abortions in Maryland in 2024, a modest increase from 2023, according to an accounting from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.
LifeNews Note: Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.
The post Maryland Governor Wes Moore Signs Bill Funding Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is overhauling a Biden-era lending initiative, citing its “alarmingly high rates” of loan default, the agency said in a May 19 statement.
Signage thanking customers for shopping at a small business. Tim Mossholder/Unsplash.com
The Community Advantage Small Business Lending Company program was designed to issue 7(a) loans to “underserved communities,” the SBA said. In the 7(a) loan program, the government offers loan guarantees to lenders, which allows the loan providers to advance credit to small businesses with special needs.
The SBA blamed Community Advantage’s high default rate on lax oversight of the program.
“Community Advantage generated a 7 percent default rate over the last 12 months—more than double that of the overall 7(a) loan portfolio,” it said.
“Additionally, the portfolio is disproportionately stressed, with multiple lenders generating early problem loan rates above 30 percent.”
A problem loan refers to any loan that cannot be recovered from borrowers quickly.
The SBA issued a moratorium prohibiting the expansion of the Community Advantage loan program effective immediately.
In addition, the agency also issued a new standard operating procedure that will mandate lenders taking part in the program to meet “prudent financial stability standards.”
Existing lenders have to “dramatically increase” their capital reserves to continue participating in the program.
SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler called Community Advantage an example of the weaponization of government programs to “tip the scale against deserving small businesses and toward preferred groups and political allies, even when it meant greater risk to American taxpayers.”
Overhauling the Community Advantage program is one of the latest steps the SBA has taken concerning its 7(a) initiative.
On April 22, the agency announced it was eliminating several policies that had resulted in compromise of the financial integrity of the 7(a) program.
The previous administration had eliminated lender fees under 7(a). It also adopted underwriting standards that ended up allowing lenders to approve loans for underqualified borrowers.
“Predictably, the program saw a massive rise in defaults and delinquencies—which the agency was unable to cover due to decreased fee income,” the SBA said.
“By 2024, the 7(a) loan program had a negative cash flow of about $397 million—the first instance of negative cash flow in 13 years.”
The SBA said it was restoring “robust rules” to end such “reckless lending” practices.
Despite changes announced by the SBA, the Small Business Optimism Index fell by 1.6 points in April, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) said in a May 13 statement. This was the second consecutive month the index was below its 51-year average.
According to NFIB chief economist Bill Dunkelberg, “uncertainty continues to be a major impediment for small-business owners in operating their business in April, affecting everything from hiring plans to investment decisions.”
“While owners are still trying to fill a high number of current job openings, their outlook on business conditions is less supportive of future business investments,” he said.
While the SBA tightens policies regarding 7(a) loans, the issuance of these loans has skyrocketed under the Trump administration, the agency said in an April 17 statement.
“Since Jan. 20, 2025, SBA has approved over 1,120 7(a) loans for manufacturers with a total loan volume of $677 million,” the agency said.
“During the same period in 2021, SBA approved less than 650 7(a) loans for manufacturers with a total loan volume of $497 million. Nearly 99 percent of American manufacturers are considered to be small businesses.”
In the first 90 days of the Trump administration, 7(a) loans for manufacturers were up 74 percent from the same period during the Biden administration.
On March 10, the SBA announced a Made in America manufacturing initiative aimed at expanding access to capital for small businesses, cutting down $100 billion in regulations, and creating the necessary infrastructure to support the “blue-collar boom.”
This month, a group of bipartisan lawmakers introduced the Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act, aimed at strengthening small businesses in the country, the office of Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said in a May 1 statement.
The bill seeks to raise the loan limit for 7(a) and 504 small-business manufacturing loans from the current $5 million to $10 million.
The act “provides small-business owners the capital they need to expand, modernize, and compete,” said Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas).
“We must continue to support and empower the job creators who keep our communities thriving. Together, we will continue driving the America First agenda forward and creating an environment where the success of Main Street is a priority.”
China has reacted fiercely to President Trump's newly unveiled plans to develop a cutting edge massive missile defense system to cover the entire territory of the United States, dubbed the "Golden Dome" - and which would utilize space.
The plan is for space-based interceptors to be able to shoot down the most advanced missiles in the world. Trump touted that the hugely ambitious project would cost $175 billion and would be completed within three years; however, the Congressional Budget Office anticipates a price tag of $500 billion over 20 years. An allotted $25 billion for next year's budget will kick off the construction.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning reacted Wednesday saying China is "gravely concerned" as the Golden Dome will "exacerbate the risk of turning outer space into a battlefield" and likely start arms race which will redefine the global order and international security system.
Getty Images
"The US, by putting itself first and being obsessed with pursuing absolute security violates the principal diminish the security for all undermines global strategic balance and stability," Mao said.
"China is gravely concerned about this," he continued. "We urge the US to give up developing and deploying the global anti-missile system at an early date and take concrete actions to enhance strategic mutual trust between countries and safeguard global strategic stability."
This is significant as it's a rare thing for Beijing to simply demand that Washington abandon an entire proposed defense system altogether.
But Trump's words from the Oval on Tuesday express the very thing China (and Russia too no doubt) is worried about:
"Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space," Trump told reporters.
The president had also said it was something prior President Reagan wanted "many years ago" in reference to the failed "Star Wars" program, which was long subject of headlines and become a famous non-fulfilled missile defense project.
Some have criticized Trump's plans as but doubling down on the "failed blunder" that was the 1980s era "Star Wars" program.
And again, it will certainly mean the race is on for China and Russia to get to space in terms of putting their own missile interceptors and systems, possibly even powerful lasers, into orbit.
The Kremlin has also weighed in on Wednesday, given it too has reportedly made advances regarding space-based military capabilities:
Golden Dome is America’s internal matter — Kremlin
'If the US believes there is a missile threat, then of course it will develop missile defense systems — as all capable nations do,' added Kremlin spox Peskov pic.twitter.com/BdT8OHUn9C
"This highly offensive system violates the principle of peaceful use of outer space," the Chinese foreign ministry had also added in the fresh comments.
But obviously with whole new branches of the US military such as Space Force, the United States (and other countries) envision that space is precisely where the future strategic edge lies. Without doubt, rivals are also worried about the 'edge' that Elon Musk's SpaceX gives the US, amid continued successes.
As a lifetime Chicago cradle Catholic and clergy sex abuse investigator and child advocate attorney, the address by Cardinal Prevost in May of 2023 at the Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo, portends alarming theological and ecclesiastic tribulation for the Catholic Church as the newly elected Pope Leo XIV guides the Catholic Church—I mean the “New Synodal Church.”
Frankly, it’s shocking and inconceivable that a newly elected pontiff would cite as his guiding light the theology of Joseph Bernardin, a known sexual predator and radical collaborator of Marxist and community activist, Saul Alinsky. Here are a few books for Pope Leo XIV to read in the first months of his pontificate: 1)Malachi Martin’s Windswept House- Special attention should be given to the grotesque and demonic first chapter where a priest assists in the Satanic Enthronement of the Fallen Angel Lucifer Ceremony. That person in the satanic ritual is known as Cardinal Leonardine aka Joseph Bernardin. Malachi Martin described the scene as pure fact, only the names were changed. 2) The Rite of Sodomy-Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church authored by Randy Engel. In grueling and authoritative detail, Ms. Engel lays out the radical progressive agenda of the Catholic clerical homosexuals which not only shaped the “AmChurch” and destroyed the lives of thousands of innocent boys. To learn about your mentor, Joseph Bernardin begin on page 562 where he is described as “a flaming homosexual.”
In 1986, Bernardin paid to send Barack Obama to California to attend an Alinsky community organizing Marxist training seminar. The radical alignment of the Chicago Catholic Archdiocese under Bernardin and the Alinsky Marxists undermined the American Catholic Church and gave birth to the moral relativism of Bernardin’s seamless garment religion, which is referenced in Prevost’s speech.
Prevost espouses the “seamless garment” radical ideology of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, former Archbishop of Chicago. It is long overdue that American Catholics wake up about the real Joseph Bernardin, not the slick media puff pieces that defined his time in Chicago as Cardinal Archbishop. Pope Leo XIV better brush up on the Chicago Way of catholicism which ruined the American Catholic Church.
Below is the speech of Cardinal Robert Prevost-Translation provided by Mike Lewis at https://wherepeteris.com/pope-leo-xiv-on-cardinals-bernardin-and-cupich-and-the-value-of-life/
Discurso de Robert Francis Prevost
First of all, I would like to greet all the authorities present here today: His Eminence Cardinal José Tolentino Calaça de Mendonça, who shares with us this great privilege this morning; His Excellency Archbishop Paulo Waltier, Apostolic Nuncio in Peru; His Excellency Archbishop Miguel Cabrejos Vidarte, Metropolitan Archbishop of Trujillo and President of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference; His Excellency Bishop Jesús Moliné Labarta, Bishop Emeritus of Chiclayo—to whom we all owe a great deal for his many years of service to this diocese and this university—and all the bishops present.
I also extend my greetings to Monsignor Guillermo Cornejo, who is today the Grand Chancellor of this university, Dr. Patricia Campos, Rector of the Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo Catholic University, the academic and civil authorities, others who are here today, my brother priests, the professors who are members of this faculty, and all distinguished participants in this ceremony.
I deeply thank the Rector and the authorities of this Catholic university for the meaningful gesture of conferring upon me the title of Doctor Honoris Causa. I am sincerely grateful, and if you’ll allow me to briefly step away from my prepared remarks, it feels as if, after hearing all these generous words, I should be heading straight to confession—because surely all of this cannot be true!
I have come here accompanying Cardinal José Tolentino, who was invited to celebrate the university’s silver anniversary. Indeed, we are truly blessed by his presence this morning. I thank him sincerely for his kind words, his goodness, and his generosity in participating in today’s ceremony, which holds great significance for our beloved Catholic university. This is a beautiful occasion as we celebrate within the framework of the 25 years of life of this cherished institution. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to all those who have been part of the wonderful history of these years.
Now, I wish to share a few thoughts and reflections that perhaps align with what the sponsor, Dr. Rosa Sánchez, mentioned during her presentation, touching upon the mission of this university, which proudly carries the word “Catholic” in its name. Indeed, it aims to genuinely fulfill its mission of forming students from a perspective that transversally embodies the principles of the Gospel as well as the teachings of the Church.
Allow me to share reflections drawn from the discourses and insights of three cardinals—all from Chicago: Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who was Archbishop of Chicago in the 1990s; Cardinal Blase Cupich, who is currently the Archbishop; and myself, as you know, born in Chicago. As the Apostolic Nuncio humorously mentioned earlier, “Chicago, Chiclayo—what’s the difference? Just a single letter.”
Forty years ago, in the month of December, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, Archbishop of Chicago, delivered a speech at Fordham University in New York. This speech was truly historic for the Church, at least in the United States. It established a very significant direction in his ministry, presenting a new way of thinking about how the Church might respond to ethical challenges and problems that arose both at that time and continue to arise today.
These reflections particularly concern issues related to the value of human life. Last week, Cardinal Blase Cupich delivered another address at Fordham University in New York, marking the 40th anniversary of Cardinal Bernardin’s original speech. Cardinal Bernardin, deeply concerned about how abortion and other social justice issues had come to divide certain sectors within the Church, offered an important response rooted firmly in Church doctrine. From this teaching, he proposed looking outward, towards society, within a framework he called a “consistent ethic of life.” Cardinal Bernardin continued developing this idea up until his death.
Bernardin’s vision suggested understanding the Church’s moral teachings as responding holistically to the many challenges affecting human life, as if they were threads woven into a single garment. This perspective outlines a path for the Church, one which remains relevant today. For instance, a Catholic cannot truly claim to be “pro-life” by maintaining a stance against abortion while simultaneously advocating in favor of the death penalty. Such a position would lack coherence with Catholic social teaching. Our thinking and teaching must manifest coherence, consistently defending the value of human life from its beginning to its natural end.
As a community of believers—and also as members of broader society—we frequently find ourselves deeply troubled by divisions, perplexed, and occasionally confused by a series of emerging questions concerning life, the relationship between the Church and society at large, and even about personal identity and our relationship with ourselves. Divisions exist among Christians. For example, within the Church, there are people who harshly criticize the Holy Father or certain bishops, rejecting their teachings, actively fostering division. Merely glancing at blogs or interviews published over the last few months, particularly before and during the concluding month of the Synod on Synodality, one encounters numerous examples of misinformation, distortions, conspiracy theories, and erroneous interpretations about many beautiful experiences we shared during the Synod.
In a certain sense, I propose that we again embrace Cardinal Bernardin’s proposal—perhaps now more urgently than ever. Building upon Bernardin’s foundation, Cardinal Cupich has recently suggested reclaiming and further developing the concept of the consistent ethic of life, expanding it into what he calls a new, integral ethic of solidarity. By embracing this proposal, the Church can offer a precious gift to the People of God and indeed to all who seek the common good. If the Church takes seriously Pope Francis’s call to embody a synodal Church, we must instill an integral ethic of solidarity into every dimension of our lives.
The consistent ethic of life emerged from recognizing that a variety of moral questions spanning the entire spectrum of life—from conception to natural death—were increasingly pressing, partly due to the rise of new technologies. Today, these advances continue to pose profound challenges to the Church, families, individuals, and society as a whole. In Cardinal Bernardin’s words, across the spectrum of life—from genetic research, abortion, capital punishment, modern warfare, to the care of the terminally ill—these diverse issues are fundamentally rooted in one essential Catholic principle: the loss of even a single human life is a profoundly significant event.
Seen in this context, abortion, war, poverty, euthanasia, and capital punishment share a common identity: each one is rooted in a denial of the right to life. We could add other contemporary issues to this list, such as the implications of artificial intelligence, human trafficking, and the rights of immigrants, among many others.
Our response to all these challenges demands coherence, anchored in respect for human dignity and a genuine reverence for the image and likeness of God inherent in every human being. If we hold—as indeed we do—that the right of every unborn child must be protected by civil law and backed by civil consensus, then our moral, political, and economic responsibilities cannot end at the moment of birth. We must strive to ensure that every child born into this world receives the care they require, safeguarding their rights to life, health, and education. Those who champion the right to life for the most vulnerable among us must be equally visible in supporting the quality of life of others who are vulnerable, including the elderly, children, the hungry, the homeless, and undocumented immigrants.
At the same time, Cardinal Bernardin emphasized clearly that each issue has its distinct moral character. Any effort to conflate these issues, without properly understanding their relative moral importance, would diverge from Catholic teaching. In other words, the Cardinal did not claim that all life issues were morally equivalent. Rather, he stressed the unique character of each challenge or dilemma—each requiring its own criteria for analysis—while simultaneously underscoring the interconnectedness of all threats to human dignity.
One of our greatest challenges today, particularly within this Catholic university and indeed across all Catholic universities, is to discover the best way to teach and promote precisely this kind of thinking. We must strive to unify efforts within the Church, in politics, and across all sectors of society, working harmoniously to build a society in which the value of every human life is respected and protected.
Catholic universities carry an immense responsibility to deepen this reflection and, following the spirit of synodality, to accompany society in this vital task: illuminating challenges and proposing viable solutions. I thank you once again and congratulate everyone for the work done at this university, particularly on this special occasion celebrating the 25th anniversary of Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo.
Happy anniversary to you all, and thank you very much.
"Bernardin Machine"
Via Headline USA,
The U.S. government no longer recommends the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy babies thanks to new guidelines from the Trump administration, which said Tuesday it will limit approval for seasonal COVID-19 shots to seniors and others at high risk pending more data on everyone else.
Top officials for the Food and Drug Administration laid out new standards for updated COVID shots, saying they’d continue to use a streamlined approach to make them available to adults 65 and older as well as children and younger adults with at least one high-risk health problem.
But the FDA framework, published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, urges companies to conduct large, lengthy studies before tweaked vaccines can be approved for healthier people.
Previously, federal policy recommended an annual COVID shot for all Americans six months and older.
In the paper and a subsequent online webcast, the FDA’s top vaccine official said more than 100 million Americans still should qualify for what he termed a booster under the new guidance.
Dr. Vinay Prasad described the new approach as a “reasonable compromise” that will allow vaccinations in high-risk groups to continue while generating new data about whether they still benefit healthier people.
“For many Americans we simply do not know the answer as to whether or not they should be getting the seventh or eighth or ninth or tenth COVID-19 booster,” said Prasad, who joined the FDA earlier this month. He previously spent more than a decade in academia, frequently criticizing the FDA’s handling of drug and vaccine approvals.
It’s unclear what the upcoming changes mean for people who may still want a fall COVID-19 shot but don’t clearly fit into one of the categories.
Provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows more than 47,000 Americans died from COVID-related causes last year. The virus was the underlying cause for two-thirds of those and it was a contributing factor for the rest.
Health experts say there are legitimate questions about how much everyone still benefits from yearly COVID vaccination or whether they should be recommended only for people at increased risk.
In June, an influential panel of advisers to the CDC is set to debate which vaccines should be recommended to which groups.
Saint Rita's life is a testament to her deep faith, as she endured numerous trials and hardships. Her unwavering faith and devotion have inspired many people around the world to turn to her intercession and guidance in times of difficulty!
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOPHer husband died during political turmoil, but her sons avoided the same fate!
She was accepted into the Augustinian Order of nuns in Cascia, Italy—the same order as Pope Leo XIV!
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOPThis represents a thorn from Christ’s crown. She received this wound during one of her many mystical experiences.
She persuaded her husband to reconcile with his many enemies before his death.
This means that it did not decay as expected!
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOPThere you can find several relics related to her life, including her wedding ring. It is said she miraculously removed it from her finger before entering the convent.
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOPShe is also a saint for feuding families, healing, and mothers.
O Holy Patroness of those in need, Saint Rita,
whose pleadings before thy Divine Lord
are almost irresistible,
who for thy lavishness in granting favors
hast been called the Advocate of the Hopeless
and even of the impossible.
Saint Rita, so humble, so pure, so mortified,
so patient and of such compassionate love
for thy Crucified Jesus,
that thou couldst obtain from Him whatsoever thou askest,
on account of which all confidently have recourse to thee expecting,
if not always relief, at least comfort;
be propitious to our petition,
showing thy power with God on behalf of thy suppliant;
be lavish to us,
as thou hast been in so many wonderful cases,
for the greater glory of God,
for the spreading of thine own devotion,
and for the consolation of those who trust in thee.
We promise, if our petition is granted,
to glorify thee by making know thy favor,
to bless and sing thy praises forever.
Relying then upon thy merits and power before the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
we pray thee grant that [here mention your request].
By the singular merits of thy childhood,
Obtain for us our request.
By thy perfect union with the Divine Will,
Obtain for us our request.
By thy heroic sufferings during thy married life,
Obtain for us our request.
By the consolation thou didst experience at the conversion of thy husband,
Obtain for us our request.
By the sacrifice of thy children rather than see them grievously offend God,
Obtain for us our request.
By the miraculous entrance into the convent,
Obtain for us our request.
By thy severe penances and thrice daily bloody scourgings,
Obtain for us our request.
By the suffering caused by the wound,, thou didst receive from the thorn of thy Crucified Savior,
Obtain for us our request.
By the Divine love which consumed thy heart,
Obtain for us our request.
By that remarkable devotion to the Blessed Sacrament,
Obtain for us our request.
On which alone thou didst exist for four years,
Obtain for us our request.
By the happiness with which thou didst part from thy trials to join thy Divine Spouse,
Obtain for us our request.
By the perfect example thou gavest to people of every state of life.
Obtain for us our request.
Pray for us, O holy Saint Rita,
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray:
O God,
Who in Thine infinite tenderness
hast vouchsafed to regard the prayer of Thy servant,
Blessed Rita,
and dost grant to her supplication
that which is impossible to human foresight, skill and efforts,
in reward of her compassionate love and firm reliance on Thy promise,
have pity on our adversity and succor us in our calamities,
that the unbeliever may know Thou art the recompense of the humble,
the defense of the helpless,
and the strength of those who trust in Thee,
through Jesus Christ, Our Lord.
Amen.
Tristan Hopper reported for the National Post on May 21 that Luc Fernandez, who co-hosts a radio talk show on 98.5 Montreal told his audience, on May 15 in French that:
doctor-assisted suicide could be a form of “liberation” for the mentally ill.
Hopper reported that Fernandez also stated that:
Quebec should enshrine “comité de sages” (committees of experts) to authorize assisted suicide “in cases where, for example, someone no longer has any parents, people who were abandoned … people who no longer receive visits … no longer have any joy in life, they have no more interest in living, who live in permanent suffering.”
Montréal disability rights group RAPLIQ responded by accusing Ferrandez of promoting a eugenic ideology and stated:
“To speak of euthanasia with logistical calm, as if it were a measure of social efficiency, is to deny the value of different lives,”
“It is to slip down a eugenic slope, the very same that has led history into the abyss.”
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.
This is not the first time Ferrandez has made comments about euthanasia. The Post Millennial reported on December 3, 2019 that Ferrandez wrote on his facebook page, concerning euthanasia for climate change that:
“Could we, for environmental, social and economic reasons, decide that we want to receive help to die so as not to be a burden for our family and society in general?”
Ferrandez’s recent comments were madewhile discussing the story of “Florence” an intellectually disabled 24-year-old woman who was profiled in a story by Le Presse. Hopper reports:
Florence, not her real name, was held in solitary confinement for eight days at Quebec’s Leclerc Institution following a perennial failure by Quebec health authorities to place her in an institution that suited her needs.
Florence is described as having the mental capacity of a small child, and suffers from Prader–Willi syndrome, a rare genetic condition in which the sufferer always feels hungry.
Florence’s story outlines the abusive care that she receives in Québec.
Hopper explains how Ferrandez responded to the “Florence” story:
Mid-way through Thursday’s segment on the case, Ferrandez suggests that Florence’s mother should have the right to end her daughter’s life via doctor-assisted suicide.
“How does the law have the right to say ‘no’? How does the state have the right to say ‘no’?” he said, to agreement from Normandeau.
He added that in extreme disability cases, the only medical solution is to “freeze” a patient in bed, and that death could be seen as “a way to end their pain.”
RAPLIQ responded by stating:
No to the trivialization of death as a “social solution.”
No to this false compassion that hides a deep contempt.
No to this morbid fantasy of liberation which is nothing but a shameful surrender.
Disability is part of the human condition.
It is not a virus to eradicate.
It is not a problem to be solved through erasure.
To reject disabled people is to reject one’s own humanity.
We choose, for Florence and for all the others:
Solidarity, not suppression.
Adaptation, not abandonment.
Dignity, not disappearance.
Quebec can do better. Quebec must do better.
Solutions exist — here and elsewhere. What’s lacking is courage.
Ferrandez is a former mayor of the Montreal borough of Le Plateau-Mont-Royal. He co-hosts a daily three-hour talk show with Nathalie Normandeau, a former deputy premier under the Quebec Liberal government of Jean Charest.
Canada approved euthanasia for mental illness alone and has scheduled to implement it on March 17, 2027.
On March 21, 2025 the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Committee report urged Canada’s federal government to:
Québec has the highest euthanasia rate in Canada at 7.6% of all deaths in 2024. Recently a Québec coroner’s inquest has investigated the death of Normand Meunier, a quadriplegic man who died by euthanasia on March 29, 2024 after developing bedsores from a lack of basic medical care. Québec expanded it’s euthanasia regime on October 30, 2024 by permitting euthanasia by advance request.
LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.
The post Radio Show Host Says Mentally Ill People Should be Euthanized appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Kelsi Sheren, on Twitter, commented on the lobbying by euthanasia groups to legalize euthanasia for “mature minors” (children) in Canada.
The response to her social media was phenomenal but it also elicited a response from some euthanasia lobby leaders who accused Sheren of fear mongering and not getting her facts straight.
Sheren responded with a link to a Global news story from February 16, 2023 reporting on the Canadian government Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) released a report calling for the expansion of euthanasia (MAiD) to include mature minors.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.
Euthanasia for “mature minors” (children) is not legal in Canada but the issue of child euthanasia is being promoted by Canada’s euthanasia lobby and a federal government committee recommended on February 15, 2023 that euthanasia be extended to “mature minors.”
I responded to the February 15, 2023 (AMAD) report by stating:
The report by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) was tabled in the House of Commons on February 15, 2023 calling for a drastic expansion of euthanasia (MAiD) in Canada. Among the recommendations, the report recommended that euthanasia be expanded to include children “mature minors.”
Recommendation 19 in the report stated:
That the Government of Canada establish a requirement that, where appropriate, the parents or guardians of a mature minor be consulted in the course of the assessment process for MAID, but that the will of a minor who is found to have the requisite decision-making capacity ultimately take priority.
This means that parents or guardians may or may not be consulted, in the euthanasia death of a child that is deemed to have decision-making capacity.
To understand Recommendation 19 better we need to go back to the draft policy developed by the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto on euthanasia for “mature minors” that was published as a report in the Journal of Medical Ethics in September 2018.
The draft policy by Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children set out what can be expected if Canada permits euthanasia for children (mature minors).
Children who are deemed, by their physician, as competent to make medical decisions would also be deemed competent to decide, with or without the consent of their parents, to be killed by lethal injection.
The Canadian government report suggested that child euthanasia and euthanasia of incompetent people by advance request be permitted. Both of these issues fundamental change the meaning of consent.
Child euthanasia is wrong, based on the meaning of effective consent.
Euthanasia is wrong because it enables doctors and nurse practitioners to literally kill their patients.
LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.
The post They Want to Start Euthanizing Children in Canada appeared first on LifeNews.com.
The US private military contracting firm set to oversee Gaza aid distribution on Israel's behalf is actively hiring for positions on LinkedIn, according to job postings shared with Middle East Eye by current and former US officials.
The firm, Safe Reach Solutions, or SRS, says it is actively looking for "Humanitarian Liaison Officers" who will "serve as vital connectors between our operational teams and the broader humanitarian community," according to one job description.
Armed men stand guard at a checkpoint manned by US & Egyptian security at the Netzarim Corridor in central Gaza, January 2025. via AFP
Another position on offer a week ago but has since closed is for a “Team Deputy/Manager” to support “day-to-day management, planning, and mission execution”.
A liaison officer position appears to be analytically focused. It says that hires will “advise on best practices for engaging with affected populations, local authorities, and community-based organizations” while monitoring developments that could impact “operational posture”.
The team deputy position is geared towards recruits with a background in operations. One of the requirements is “field experience in the Middle East, especially in conflict-affected or post-crisis settings”.
The positions want applicants with at least seven years of experience. They require applicants to be US citizens and say fluency in Arabic is preferred.
Ironically, SRS is seeking people with UN experience, but the plan to take over aid distribution seeks to supplant the United Nations, which is already capable of delivering aid in Gaza. "These mid- to senior-career professionals will help bridge communication, coordination, and trust with NGOs, international agencies, and UN bodies operating in complex environments."
Demand for the positions appears to be high. According to LinkedIn, more than 100 people applied for the humanitarian liaison officer position within two weeks.
The team deputy position also drew comments from interested users directed to "Ali Ali," SRS’s recruiting consultant. “Hi Ali I worked in Gaza last summer with the US army. I was in charge of the humanitarian aid delivery through the trident pier. Please reach out to me at your best convenience to talk more,” a LinkedIn user wrote.
The former Biden administration floated a costly pier project to bring aid into the Gaza Strip last year, but it was widely considered a failure.
American private military contractors have already started arriving in Israel, according to photos shared on social media of khaki-clad and bearded men at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. MEE couldn't independently verify the photos.
Who is Phil Reilly and his firm SRS?
MEE couldn’t identify the recruiter, Ali Ali, who has 13 LinkedIn connections and no profile photo. However, SRS is headed by former CIA paramilitary officer Phil Reilly, who has served in Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Two former US officials told MEE that Reilly had won the trust of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and several Israeli businessmen close to him. His firm has long been the favourit to secure humanitarian aid into Gaza in a project that one Israeli businessman briefed on the plans said could amount to a contract worth "hundreds of millions of dollars".
SRS was one of the private military contractors responsible for securing Gaza’s Netzarim Corridor during a short-lived truce. Fighting in Gaza briefly stopped in January but resumed in March when Israel unilaterally resumed attacking the enclave.
According to a January Reuters report, US contractors were paid $1,100 a day to work in Gaza, with a $10,000 advance for veterans.
SRS’s work during the first ceasefire was paid for mainly by the US and Gulf states, one US official told MEE. The private military contractors' weapons and supplies are likely to be supplied by the US. One US official told MEE that the salary range exceeds what the former US security firm Blackwater once paid veterans.
SRS makes no secret of its connection to Gaza on LinkedIn. It posted a glowing article from ABC News in April, titled, “How a team of 'suburban dads' secured a key checkpoint in Gaza's 'death corridor'".
UN says no aid distributed in Gaza
SRS stepped up recruitment on LinkedIn just as the US was lobbying the UN and European states earlier in May to approve the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, to oversee aid distribution. The foundation would largely supplant the UN’s role in distributing Gaza aid. It says it plans to be active by the end of May.
The SRS's job applications page reveals how Israel and the US are rapidly moving towards privatising and militarizing aid distribution in Gaza.
Another position SRS is actively hiring for is an imagery systems technician, who can analyze full-motion video. Israel says it plans to create “hubs” to distribute aid.
In the past, it has used checkpoints to separate Palestinian men and women. Earlier this month, the Israeli cabinet approved a plan that would require facial recognition technology to be applied to Palestinians before they receive any aid. It is seeking foreign funding for the plan.
This is what the coastal Rashida street in Gaza looked like before and after the ongoing war. pic.twitter.com/yc2lZYa1n7
— Sprinter Observer (@SprinterObserve) November 12, 2023The operation has been slammed by aid groups across the aisle, and the UN says it will not take part in the foundation’s work. Israel announced on Monday that it would allow some humanitarian aid into the enclave.
The UN said on Tuesday that Israel had allowed four trucks with baby food to enter the enclave, and a few dozen other trucks with flour, medicine, and nutrition supplies. However, the UN has not been able to distribute the supplies.
"Israeli authorities are requiring us to offload supplies on the Palestinian side of Kerem Shalom crossing and reload them separately once they secure our team's access from inside the Gaza Strip,” UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said. "Today, one of our teams waited several hours for the Israeli green light to access the Kerem Shalom area and collect the nutrition supplies. Unfortunately, they were not able to bring those supplies into our warehouse," he said.
Humanitarian experts say Gaza is on the brink of mass starvation. UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher said on Tuesday that 14,000 babies could die in the next 48 hours if aid did not reach them in time.
The GENIUS Act moved through a procedural vote on Monday (66-32), and has just passed its latest hurdle (69-31) allowing Senate Republican leaders to bring the legislation to the floor for debate and a final vote, as soon as this week
A challenging amendment pricess awaits as the Senate bill, if passed, would need to be reconciled with a version approved by the House Financial Services Committee, and then both chambers of Congress must agree on a single bill before sending a final version to President Donald Trump for his signature.
"There are still a lot of moving pieces," said Jennifer Schulp, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of the bill’s key backers, said on May 15 that she thinks it’s a “fair target” to have the GENIUS Act passed by May 26 - Memorial Day in the US.
* * *
As CoinTelegraph's Zoltan Vardai detailed ahead of the vote, stablecoin adoption among institutions could surge as the United States Senate prepares to debate a key piece of legislation aimed at regulating the sector.
After failing to gain support from key Democrats on May 8, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act passed the US Senate in a 66–32 procedural vote on May 20 and is now heading to a debate on the Senate floor.
The bill seeks to set clear rules for stablecoin collateralization and mandate compliance with Anti-Money Laundering laws.
“This act doesn’t just regulate stablecoins, it legitimizes them,” said Andrei Grachev, managing partner at DWF Labs and Falcon Finance.
“It sets clear rules, and with clarity comes confidence. That’s what institutions have been waiting for,” Grachev told Cointelegraph during the Chain Reaction daily X spaces show on May 20, adding:
“Stablecoins aren’t a crypto experiment anymore. They’re a better form of money. Faster, simpler, and more transparent than fiat. It’s only a matter of time before they become the default.”
Source: Cointelegraph
The GENIUS Act may be the “first step” toward establishing a “unified digital financial system which is borderless, programmable and efficient,” Grachev said, adding:
“When the US moves on stablecoin policy, the world watches.”Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis, a co-sponsor of the bill, also pointed to Memorial Day as a “fair target” for its potential passage.
Grachev said regulatory clarity alone will not drive institutional adoption. Products offering stable and predictable yield will also be necessary. Falcon Finance is currently developing a synthetic yield-bearing dollar product designed for this market, he noted.
Yield-bearing stablecoins issuance. Source: Pendle
Yield-bearing stablecoins now represent 4.5% of the total stablecoin market after rising to $11 billion in total circulation, Cointelegraph reported on May 21.
Despite broad support for the GENIUS Act, some critics say the legislation does not go far enough.
Vugar Usi Zade, the chief operating officer at Bitget exchange, told Cointelegraph that “the bill doesn’t fully address offshore stablecoin issuers like Tether, which continue to play an outsized role in global liquidity.”
He added that US-based issuers will now face “steeper costs,” likely accelerating consolidation across the market and favoring well-resourced players that can meet the new thresholds.
Still, Zade acknowledged that the legislation could bring greater “stability” to regulated offerings, depending on how it is ultimately worded and enforced.
UnitedHealth Group shares dropped as much as 7.5% in premarket trading Wednesday in New York, following a Guardian investigation that revealed the health insurer shelled out "Premium Dividend" and "Shared Savings" bonuses to nursing homes that reduced hospital transfers for sick residents.
The Guardian's investigation is based on thousands of confidential corporate and patient records obtained through sources, public records requests, and court filings, along with interviews with nearly two dozen current and former UnitedHealth and nursing home employees, as well as two whistleblower declarations submitted to Congress.
The report offers a new snapshot into UnitedHealth's daily operations at nearly 2,000 nursing homes across the country, where it manages Medicare Advantage coverage for more than 55,000 long-term residents.
Here are some of the key findings from the report:
UnitedHealth stationed in-house medical teams at nearly 2,000 nursing homes, incentivizing them to lower hospitalizations through financial rewards like "Premium Dividend" and "Shared Savings" payments tied to hospitalization rates.
Internal records show UnitedHealth monitored nursing homes using "admits per thousand (APK)" metrics and set "budgets" for hospitalizations. Facilities with high APKs were denied bonuses.
In multiple documented cases, patients were denied urgent hospital care, leading to serious harm, including permanent brain damage. Whistleblowers say these incidents were hidden or minimized.
Nurse practitioners were pressured to push "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) orders, even when patients had previously expressed the desire for life-saving treatments.
UnitedHealth also incentivized increased enrollment in its Institutional Special Needs Plans by offering large payments to nursing homes, which in some cases leaked confidential patient data to help sales teams directly solicit families—often bypassing consent rules.
The Guardian noted:
In several cases identified by the Guardian, nursing home residents who needed immediate hospital care under the program failed to receive it, after interventions from UnitedHealth staffers. At least one lived with permanent brain damage following his delayed transfer, according to a confidential nursing home incident log, recordings and photo evidence.
A current UnitedHealth nurse practitioner, who recently submitted a congressional complaint regarding the nursing home program, stated:
"No one is truly investigating when a patient suffers harm. Absolutely no one.
"These incidents are hidden, downplayed and minimized. The sense is: 'Well, they're medically frail, and no one lives for ever.'"
A former national UnitedHealth executive said:
"APK drove everything. You gain profitability by denying care, and when profitability suffers for the shareholders, that's when people get crazy and do things that are not appropriate."
Two current and three former UnitedHealth nurse practitioners said that UnitedHealth managers pressured them to persuade Medicare Advantage members to change their "code status" to DNR, even when patients had clearly expressed a desire to receive all available life-saving treatments.
UnitedHealth responded to the Guardian's report, rejecting claims that its employees have prevented hospital transfers.
The Guardian's report comes at a time of crisis for UnitedHealth. Last week, shares logged the worst weekly crash since 1998 after a Wall Street Journal report said the Department of Justice has been conducting a criminal investigation into the company's Medicare practices. In addition, UnitedHealth suspended its 2025 outlook, and its CEO abruptly exited.
In the premarket session, shares fell as much as 7.5% after the Guardian's report.
Only one Wall Street analyst—CFRA's Paige Meyer—had a "Sell" rating on UnitedHealth earlier this year, out of roughly 30 tracked by Bloomberg. Wall Street, it seems, was overly bullish on the insurer—now shares have imploded.
Luc FerrandezHopper reported that Fernandez also stated that:
Quebec should enshrine “comité de sages” (committees of experts) to authorize assisted suicide “in cases where, for example, someone no longer has any parents, people who were abandoned … people who no longer receive visits … no longer have any joy in life, they have no more interest in living, who live in permanent suffering.”Montréal disability rights group RAPLIQ responded by accusing Ferrandez of promoting a eugenic ideology and stated:
“To speak of euthanasia with logistical calm, as if it were a measure of social efficiency, is to deny the value of different lives,”This is not the first time Ferrandez has made comments about euthanasia. The Post Millennial reported on December 3, 2019 that Ferrandez wrote on his facebook page, concerning euthanasia for climate change that:
“Could we, for environmental, social and economic reasons, decide that we want to receive help to die so as not to be a burden for our family and society in general?”Ferrandez's recent comments were madewhile discussing the story of "Florence" an intellectually disabled 24-year-old woman who was profiled in a story by Le Presse. Hopper reports:
Florence, not her real name, was held in solitary confinement for eight days at Quebec’s Leclerc Institution following a perennial failure by Quebec health authorities to place her in an institution that suited her needs.
Florence is described as having the mental capacity of a small child, and suffers from Prader–Willi syndrome, a rare genetic condition in which the sufferer always feels hungry.
Florence's story outlines the abusive care that she receives in Québec.
Hopper explains how Ferrandez responded to the "Florence" story:
Mid-way through Thursday’s segment on the case, Ferrandez suggests that Florence’s mother should have the right to end her daughter’s life via doctor-assisted suicide.
“How does the law have the right to say ‘no’? How does the state have the right to say ‘no’?” he said, to agreement from Normandeau.
He added that in extreme disability cases, the only medical solution is to “freeze” a patient in bed, and that death could be seen as “a way to end their pain.”
RAPLIQ responded by stating:
No to the trivialization of death as a “social solution.”
No to this false compassion that hides a deep contempt.
No to this morbid fantasy of liberation which is nothing but a shameful surrender.
Disability is part of the human condition.
It is not a virus to eradicate.
It is not a problem to be solved through erasure.
To reject disabled people is to reject one’s own humanity.
We choose, for Florence and for all the others:
Solidarity, not suppression.
Adaptation, not abandonment.
Dignity, not disappearance.
Quebec can do better. Quebec must do better.
Solutions exist — here and elsewhere. What’s lacking is courage.
Ferrandez is a former mayor of the Montreal borough of Le Plateau-Mont-Royal. He co-hosts a daily three-hour talk show with Nathalie Normandeau, a former deputy premier under the Quebec Liberal government of Jean Charest.
Canada approved euthanasia for mental illness alone and has scheduled to implement it on March 17, 2027.
On March 21, 2025 the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Committee report urged Canada's federal government to:
Québec has the highest euthanasia rate in Canada at 7.6% of all deaths in 2024. Recently a Québec coroner's inquest has investigated the death of Normand Meunier, a quadriplegic man who died by euthanasia on March 29, 2024 after developing bedsores from a lack of basic medical care. Québec expanded it's euthanasia regime on October 30, 2024 by permitting euthanasia by advance request.
Over the past few days, there have been many headlines about Adriana Smith, a pregnant woman who has been on life support for over three months.
Smith went to the hospital with a severe headache. The hospital negligently sent her home without doing a CT scan, and, therefore, missed multiple blood clots in her brain.
Smith slipped into a coma and, despite medical intervention, was declared brain dead. She has been kept on life support at a Georgia hospital ever since, in the hopes that her son may be born alive.
When the story broke, he was 21 weeks along, now 22 weeks. According to a recent study, babies born at 22 weeks who receive medical treatment have a 41% chance of surviving.
April Newkirk, Smith’s mother, ignited a media firestorm when she spoke to reporters about her daughter’s situation. She expressed grief over Smith’s condition and frustration that doctors didn’t allow her, as Smith’s closest relative, to make the decision whether to disconnect life support.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!
Newkirk said, “I’m not saying we would have chosen to terminate her pregnancy, but what I’m saying is we should have had a choice.” She claims Smith’s doctors told her they couldn’t disconnect Smith due to Georgia’s pro-life law.
Since then, pro-abortion groups have been loudly screaming about how egregious this case is. Mainstream media outlets have covered the story, all blaming Georgia’s pro-life law for putting a family through hell. Smith’s doctors are being condemned for trying to save her baby.
Even though Newkirk didn’t actually say she wanted life support shut off, pro-abortion activists have been demanding it.
Secular Pro-Life’s Monica Synder wrote a comprehensive article about the case. She cited a systematic review which found that, in cases of maternal brain death, 77% of babies were born alive, and 85% of those born alive were “normal” at 20 months of age (i.e., not disabled).
The women in the study were all over 20 weeks pregnant when they suffered brain death, and were on life support for an average of around seven weeks. Smith was earlier in her pregnancy. It’s possible this may change the odds for her son.
Snyder discussed how, despite the strident headlines all over the mainstream media, it is likely not Georgia’s abortion ban that influenced Smith’s doctors, but a 15-year-old law that directly addresses pregnant people on life support. Synder writes:
It’s more likely that Georgia’s law regarding withdrawing life support for pregnant patients is the issue. GA Code § 31-32-9 states that doctors can’t withdraw life support from pregnant patients unless both (1) the fetus isn’t viable and (2) the patient had an advanced directive explicitly stating she wanted withdrawal of life-sustaining measures.
Note this code isn’t a result of Dobbs. It was enacted 15 years prior, in 2007. Most states have similar measures, including pro-choice states such as Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
Snyder’s article has a map that shows which states have similar laws.
Other pro-life groups and news sites have published similar articles.
If one reads Code 31-32-9, it seems obvious that it’s the reason life support hasn’t been discontinued in Smith’s case. It literally deals with that exact situation. But that hasn’t stopped pro-abortion activists from insisting pro-lifers are wrong.
Jessica Valenti, a pro-abortion activist whose Substack has a large following, wrote:
Now, faced with the incredible suffering [pro-lifers’] policies are inflicting on Americans, the anti-abortion movement is either looking away or shirking blame…
Live Action, for example, put out a release claiming that it’s not the state’s abortion ban forcing the hospital to keep Adriana’s body alive—but other state laws about the withdrawal of life-support. It’s an assertion I’ve seen repeated by close to a dozen other anti-abortion activists and organizations.
She then quotes Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr:
There is nothing in the LIFE Act that requires medical professionals to keep a woman on life support after brain death. Removing life support is not an action ‘with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy.’
One would think that Carr, who is in charge of prosecuting those who break Georgia’s law, would know what it says and means. But Valenti insists he’s lying. The evil pro-lifers, she insists, are covering things up, and we just want to hurt people:
They planned for this. Anti-abortion legislators and activists knew this would happen—they knew their laws would devastate families and lives—and they passed them anyway…
Republicans are running from the expected and planned consequences of their own law because they know that voters are furious. They’re cowards. It’s that simple [emphasis in original].
Jessica Valenti says her audience consists of “journalists, abortion providers, community activists, clinic escorts, policy-makers, and more.”
I don’t want to assume all her readers feel as she does. But to Valenti, and I’d guess to many pro-abortion activists, we pro-lifers aren’t people who have deeply-held beliefs about the value of early human life, we are cardboard cut-out villains who live only to tear apart families, hurt people, and control women.
Several pro-life groups, including Live Action, have pointed out that Smith was pregnant with a wanted child. This wasn’t a woman who was hit by a car on her way to an abortion facility. Smith had chosen life and was, by all accounts, looking forward to bringing her child into the world.
Yet none of the pro-abortion activists commenting on the case seem particularly concerned about what Smith herself would have wanted.
Monica Synder says:
If abortion advocacy were primarily about autonomy, you’d think Smith’s likely perspective would be worth at least considering…
It’s a testament to how very little abortion advocates value unborn children, that even in a case where the woman (1) cannot be harmed by continuing the pregnancy and (2) may very well have wanted her child to live, the framing is outrage that her son’s life is prioritized.
Pro-Choice activists claim decisions about abortion should be left to the pregnant person—the person whose body the baby is developing in. So, one would think their main concern would be determining what Smith would have wanted for her own body and her own baby. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.
An example of this is Monica Hesse’s piece in The Washington Post:
Hesse describes herself as a “professional feminist.” She summarizes Smith’s case, and writes:
Those events already constitute almost any definition of tragedy; in addition to the baby [Smith] was planning to welcome with her boyfriend, she already had another young son who will now be left without a mother. But what happened next turned the situation from a tragedy into an absolute horror show.
Hesse then quotes Ed Setzler, the Republican senator who sponsored Georgia’s pro-life law:
I think there’s a valuable human life that we have an opportunity to save, and I think it’s the right thing to save it. To suggest otherwise is to declare the child as being other than human.
Hesse responds:
This is hideous. This is hideous. The person who is not currently being treated as human is Adriana Smith. She is being treated as an incubator in the most literal sense of the word, her lifeless body forced to breathe so that it can sustain the struggling baby inside it.
And, yes, I am using the word “baby” instead of “fetus.” I am using that word because I have no doubts that Smith would have used that word. This was a wanted pregnancy and a planned dream of a planned family, and when that is your mindset, you think of the embryo as your baby from the moment you see a flickering heartbeat. [Emphasis in original]
Hesse engages in the same type of magical thinking I see so often, where whether a baby in the womb is a person depends on whether his mother wants him. A wanted fetus/baby is a human being. An unwanted one is just tissue.
There is, of course, no logic to this. But Hesse admits that Smith wanted her baby, and wanted to give birth. She demands that the baby die anyway.
I read a few of the comments. Those commenting all agreed with Hesse and discussed how awful it was that Smith is being kept on life support. There was the usual demonization of those horrible pro-lifers, and much criticism of Republicans on other issues (some of which I agreed with, but little of which was relevant to the actual case).
I decided to post my own comment. This is what I wrote:
Can I ask a question to the pro-choice people in these comments?
Doesn’t being pro-choice mean that the pregnant person (and no one else) decides what happens to her pregnancy? That she has control over whether her fetus/baby can use her body? My body my choice?
And didn’t this woman WANT her baby? Didn’t she decide she wanted to give birth? She didn’t get hit by a car on the way to an abortion clinic. She was planning a birth.
Wouldn’t the pro-choice stand be to go with her wishes?
Monica Hesse seems to be saying, Adriana Smith wanted her baby and wanted to give birth. She made a CHOICE to have her baby. But she’s dead now, so what she wanted doesn’t matter.
Now it’s MY choice. I’m going to overrule what she actually wanted and make her pregnancy end, make sure the baby she wanted to live will die, because I think the whole idea of keeping her on a respirator is icky.
It if were me- if I were Adriana, and I was excited and happy to be pregnant, I would WANT my baby born. I would WANT them to keep me on life support. Why would I want my baby to die with me?
Today, I’ve seen many of my friends say the same thing on FB.
I’ve read numerous articles about this case, talking about how horrible it is. And not a single ONE has said anything about what Adriana Smith would have wanted. It’s like nobody cares.
So what does pro-choice actually mean? If the woman whose body the BABY IS IN doesn’t matter? If her wishes don’t matter one bit?
Hesse, can you please explain to me– WHY are you pro-choice? What do you base your beliefs on? Because it doesn’t seem to be the woman’s right to choose. Otherwise, why would you disregard Adriana’s?
There were only a handful of responses, and, not surprisingly, none answered the question.
Two people claimed that the baby would be disabled and wouldn’t have a life worth living. One claimed the family should make the decision. Another said whoever was going to raise the baby should decide. This commenter mentioned the father. No one seems to have bothered to interview him and ask his opinion.
One commenter said that many women choose themselves over their babies when pregnancy threatens their life, but this isn’t relevant. Smith is already brain-dead; the death of her baby won’t save her life. It’s not a choice of one life or another, it’s a choice between one death or two deaths.
The last commenter said that she had once been in a medically induced coma and found the experience so traumatic that she now has a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate Order). If she were pregnant, she said, she would want them to honor the DNR, and would want her baby to die with her. A decision she can make—but what would Smith have wanted?
Hesse herself, unsurprisingly, never responded to my comment.
Since I started this article, April Newkirk gave another interview. Despite all the assumptions from pro-abortion people over the past week, Newkirk WANTS her daughter’s baby to live.
She is quoted as saying, “We’re just hoping he makes it.”
She isn’t upset about the life support, it turns out, she is upset that the decision wasn’t hers. It seems she would have made the same decision the doctors did. She just wanted to be the one to decide.
Newkirk says:
We didn’t have a choice or a say about it. We want the baby. That’s a part of my daughter. But the decision should have been left to us — not the state…
[R]ight now, the journey is for baby Chance to survive — and whatever condition God allows him to come here in, we’re going to love him just the same [emphasis mine].
In the original interview that touched off the whole media firestorm, Newkirk never said she didn’t want the baby. That was widely assumed by pro-abortion people, but it appears it was never true.
Newkirk has started a GoFundMe. Some of the comments from donors reflect the belief that life support should be turned off.
[W]hat’s being done to Adriana and her unborn child in the name of “preserving life” is not a miracle. This is not God’s will. It is not divine intervention. It is a misuse of power, a violation of dignity, and a painful delay of sacred closure.
Your daughter’s soul deserves peace. Your grandchild deserves a transition—into life or into spirit—that is led by love, not experimentation.
I believe in a God who honors free will, the natural cycle of life and death, and the sacredness of grief.
And I believe that Adriana’s story is awakening many of us to truths that society tries to bury… Many of us see the truth and are standing with you, not in false hope, but in real love and spiritual clarity.
And:
I pray Justice will prevail and Adriana and her baby will be allowed to rest together. You should have been given a choice.
We should all be rioting outside of that hospital and demanding this broken law be rectified.
The GoFundMe has so far earned over $90,700.
As recently as an hour ago, I was still seeing memes on Facebook declaring that Smith was being kept on life support against her family’s wishes. It remains to be seen if anyone on the pro-abortion side will acknowledge that the family actually wants the baby.
LifeNews Note: Sarah Terzo covered the abortion issue for over 13 years as a professional journalist. In this capacity, she has written nearly a thousand articles about abortion and read over 850 books on the topic. She has been researching and writing about abortion since attending The College of New Jersey (class of 1997) where she minored in Women’s Studies. This article originally appeared on Sarah Terzo’s Substack. You can read more of her articles here.
The post Adriana Smith Wanted Her Baby. Her Choice Should be Respected appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Bitcoin just surge to a new record high, $109,500, extending its recent post-pause recovery and up over 60% since President Trump was elected...
BTC ETF inflows continue to build...
...and we suspect there is more to come, if the recent surge in global liquidity is anything to go by...
The aggregate open interest in Bitcoin futures surged to a record high on May 20, raising questions about whether bearish positions are now at risk.
Since Trump's Liberation Day (and now amid the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'), while gold has rallied solidly, Bitcoin appears to have been the preferred position for global uncertainty (after testing down to pre-election levels)...
As Bitcoin Magazine's Oscar Zarraga Perez reports, a new report from River reveals that the United States dominates Bitcoin ownership globally, holding about 40% of all available Bitcoin.
With 14.3% of its population owning Bitcoin, the U.S. outpaces Europe, Oceania, and Asia combined.
Corporate America also leads in Bitcoin holdings. Thirty-two U.S. public companies, with a combined market cap of $1.26 trillion, hold Bitcoin as a treasury asset. These firms account for 94.8% of all Bitcoin owned by publicly traded companies worldwide. Major holders include Strategy with 569,000 BTC, U.S. mining companies with 96,000 BTC, and others with 68,000 BTC, totaling 733,000 BTC in the U.S., compared to 40,000 BTC held elsewhere.
Since China’s ban on Bitcoin mining in 2021, the United States has become the global leader in Bitcoin mining, responsible for 38% of all new Bitcoin mined since then. The U.S. attracts miners thanks to its stable regulatory environment, access to deep and liquid capital markets, and abundant energy resources. These advantages have helped the U.S. increase its share of the global Bitcoin mining hashrate by over 500% since 2020, solidifying its position as the center of the industry.
Bitcoin is also emerging as America’s preferred reserve asset, overtaking gold. Over 49.6 million Americans are in favor of holding Bitcoin, compared to 36.7 million who still prefer gold.
The US government’s bitcoin advantage is greater than that of gold, where the US accounts for just 29.9% of the world’s central bank gold reserves.
“Because there is a fixed supply of BTC, there is a strategic advantage to being among the first nations to create a strategic bitcoin reserve,” said the White House on March 7, 2025.
Politically, support for Bitcoin is gaining significant momentum across the U.S. government. As of now, 59% of U.S. Senators and 66% of House Representatives openly support pro-Bitcoin policies, signaling a notable shift in political attitudes and greater acceptance of digital assets as key components of America’s economic future.
The study highlights that Bitcoin ownership is highest among American males aged 31-35 and 41-45, with ownership rates ranging from 3% to 41% within these age groups.
Politically, those identifying as “very liberal” or “neutral” are more likely to own Bitcoin than conservatives, though conservatives still make up a significant portion of holders.
Finally, as we detailed yesterday, global sovereigns have been 'quietly' gathering exposure to the cryptocurrency with StanChart's Geoff Kendrick targeting $500k by the end of Trump's term in office for the largest cryptro currency.
Oil prices are modestly higher ahead of this morning's official energy inventory and supply data, but have come dramatically back off the overnight spike highs driven by CNN headlines suggesting Israel is ready to strike Iranian nuclear enriuchment sites.
“Either the impact on the oil market in case of an attack is assumed to be low, or the probability for an attack is assumed to be low,” said Bjarne Schieldrop, chief commodities analyst at SEB AB.
Wednesday’s gain “is not much when we are talking bombs in the Middle East major oil producing region.”
Overnight also saw API report another sizable crude inventory build, while products drewdown (again)...
API
Crude +2.5mm
Cushing -443k
Gasoline -3.24mm
Distillates -1.4mm
DOE
Crude +1.33mm
Cushing -457k
Gasoline +816k - biggest build since January
Distillates +579k
A smaller than expected crude build was offset by an unexpected build in Gasoline stocks according to the official DOE data...
Source: Bloomberg
Including a 843k barrel addition to SPR, total US crude stocks rose for the second week in a row...
Source: Bloomberg
US Crude production was up very modestly last week - hovering just below record highs - while the rig count continues to reject Trump's 'Drill, baby, drill' narrative...
Source: Bloomberg
Geopolitical concerns have for now overshadowed expectations of looser balances heading into the second half of the year, as OPEC and its allies bring back barrels to the market.
Source: Bloomberg
US shale oil output hasn’t peaked and can still expand, but not if prices are near $50 a barrel, ConocoPhillips’ chief executive officer said Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Trump will not be best pleased if geopolitical tensions raise the price of oil and wreck his inflation-busting drill-baby-drill hopes of declining pump prices for the average American.
By Elwin de Groot and Michael Every of Rabobank
Iran’s Khamenei said nuclear talks with US are unlikely to “lead to any outcome”… as US intel says Israel is preparing for a strike on Iran, seeing oil prices move higher. The Israeli press also says Iranian efforts to recruit Israeli agents have skyrocketed, Tehran trying to arrange high-profile assassinations inside Israel to mirror what Israel can do inside Iran, increasing the pressure further. That’s as President Trump is reportedly frustrated by Gaza war and wants PM Netanyahu to "wrap it up"; and the EU will review its association agreement with Israel, as their officials say diplomatic efforts stopped the EU from already halting the agreement; and the UK suspended trade talks with Jerusalem and attacked its ‘repellent’ extremism. Moreover, US Secretary of State Rubio said of Syria: “It is our assessment that, frankly, the transitional authority, given the challenges they’re facing, are maybe weeks —not many months— away from potential collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions, basically the country splitting up,” which is justification for the US and EU removing sanctions on it. In short, the entire energy-rich region is in flux. And so is much else.
The IMF just asked the US to reduce its fiscal deficit as the Big Beautiful Bill will cut taxes and boost spending much further; and that’s as Reuters says the US ‘is preparing for a long war with China that could hit its bases and homeland’ and Trump is set to launch a "Golden Dome" missile defence system that will cost $175bn and almost certainly won’t be ready within his term of office, as promised. Trump reportedly also wants the UK to boost defense spending to 3% of GDP by 2029, so within the current parliament, increasing its fiscal deficit too.
Against that backdrop, the downgrade of the US by Moody’s last Friday may have not come as a huge surprise and its debt was already trading “as if” it no longer belonged to the AAA bucket. Still, the re-rating of US debt is having potential effects in corners of the market. Managers of Hong Kong’s Mandatory Provident Fund system are flagging they may be forced to sell their Treasury holdings, since the pension fund only allows them to invest more than 10% of their assets in Treasuries if the US has a AAA or equivalent rating from an approved rating agency. Japan’s Rating & Investment Information is the only approved agency left out there having the US at the highest rating level. The rating agency keeps the US’ rating on stable outlook and has indicated that the situation “hasn’t significantly changed” since it made its assessment in February.
But other scenarios could obviously play out. The US Congress is moving closer to endorsing Trump tax-cuts, leading to a significant increase in deficits and debt: with the IMF publicly calling for the US to reduce its deficit, such a scenario could lead to a gradual reduction in the share of Treasuries in various investment portfolios. Potentially, so could Trump considering an executive order to open US retirement plans to private equity, which would allow savers to access funds focused on “corporate buyouts and other high-octane deals” - so fewer US Treasuries(?)
Meanwhile, whereas European/German long-term yields are trading at levels that are still some 30-40bp lower than in early March --when the EU’s and Germany’s defence and infrastructure spending plans startled markets-- those in the US and Japan are trading close to or even higher than the levels seen in early March. A 20y bond auction in Japan saw the lowest demand since 2012 and this pushed the 30y Japanese yield to its highest level since its 1999 debut. It certainly doesn’t help when your own prime minister acknowledges the country’s fiscal situation is “extremely poor, and worse than Greece’s” – even if their intent is to signal opposition to fresh tax cuts financed by additional debt issuance.
Japan’s core inflation rate has come down from its peak levels of nearly 3% y/y in late-2023 to sit at just over 1.5%. That level, however, was only surpassed twice in the past thirty years: in 2014 and 1997. But in both instances the inflation spike was due to significant changes to the VAT system. If Japan has now entered (?) an episode of more ‘normal’ inflation, it could lead to more persistent upward pressures on (real) bond yields, which would raise interest costs.
And, like in the US and Europe, the central bank has been dialling down its bond purchases, which, next to weaker demand for bonds, could also be contributing to higher liquidity-risk premiums. Japan’s public debt ratio (214% in 2024) is the highest among developed economies. The BOJ still holds a staggering share (around 50%) of public debt on its balance sheet, but even if the central bank does not slow down its purchases, the ‘net’ amount of debt would still be in the 100%+ range and comparable to that of – indeed – Greece’s, back in 2007.
We want to avoid burning our fingers on the Japanese bond market – betting against it is commonly known as the widow-maker trade. But we ponder whether Japan could serve as an example for Europe or even, perhaps, the US – Japan, after all, has been the test case for many unconventional policies in recent (monetary) history.
First off, the country may be better placed than both of these peers to tackle bond market turbulence, and the impact of higher yields on governments’ financing costs. Only 12% of JGBs is owned by foreign parties. So, arguably, the government could introduce some form of wealth tax to claw back part of interest payments on its bonds. Note the similarities with the suggestions for a so-called Mar-a-Lago accord, in which the US could try to lessen its debt servicing costs by forcing its allies to term out their debt holdings at a below-market return, or by imposing some form of tax on foreign holders of Treasuries. The major difference is that Japan’s solutions could be less controversial, since domestic tax policies would suffice to achieve the desired outcome.
However, such a clawback only gets Japan so far. A wealth tax that offsets the higher debt servicing costs helps to contain the fiscal deficit and debt, but that does not provide the government with additional fiscal space to pursue its strategic goals, such as defence spending or reducing dependence on foreign inputs (note the similarities with the European situation here). Barring monetary support, more substantial tax increases or spending cuts in other areas would be required – and that could quickly erode support for the ruling party.
Alternatively, the BOJ could resume its government bond purchases. But this would arguably lead to higher inflation and would probably weaken the currency – at a time when the JPY is already under increased scrutiny of the US administration. Japanese finance minister Kato yesterday said that "[…] exchange rates should be set by markets, and that excessive volatility in currency moves has an adverse economic and financial impact." Weakness in the yen could undermine any trade agreement between the US and Japan. So, to mitigate this impact of quantitative easing, could the BOJ simultaneously raise its policy rates in an attempt to achieve a currency-neutral policy mix of higher rates and de facto yield curve control?
Meanwhile, in trade: China’s Xi stepped up calls for industrial self-sufficiency --so, no rebalancing then?-- and China said it will respond to US chip curbs; Malaysia is to press ahead with Huawei AI, testing the US position on that issue, as Nvidia’s CEO says US chip curbs on China are ‘a failure’; G7 countries are discussing tariffs on oversupplied, low-value Chinese products; the EU is considering a €2 de minimis charge on incoming Chinese packages; the EU is also expected to propose a quota for Russian gas, potentially offering companies a legal way to end their contracts; the US believes new sanctions on Russia may harm peace talks; India imposed restrictions targeting nearly 42% of inbound goods from Bangladesh; and Japan is taking a hardline position ahead of trade talks, demanding the US remove all reciprocal and sectoral tariffs on it.
So, yes, much is in flux.
After weeks of turmoil and negotiations, House Republicans are inching closer to passing their sweeping domestic-policy package, anchored by a multi-trillion-dollar suite of tax cuts, as Speaker Mike Johnson races to finalize the legislation ahead of the Memorial Day recess.
ouse Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., at the US Capitol on May 6. Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg via Getty Images file
Following a personal visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday by President Donald Trump and a flurry of behind-the-scenes bargaining, House GOP leaders believe they are nearing a deal with key factions. The House Rules Committee convened late into the night and early morning hours Wednesday, preparing the reconciliation bill for floor action. The committee had only just concluded its first panel - which included the chairs and ranking members of the Oversight, Budget, Armed Services, and Financial Services Committees - shortly before 4:30 a.m. (and then returning to their coffins for a nap?).
The second panel will include top lawmakers from House Homeland Security, Judiciary, Natural Resources and Transportation and Infrastructure committees, while a third panel will include the chairs and ranking members from Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, Education and the Workforce & Ways and Means.
In total, 537 amendments have been submitted to Rules - none yet from Democrats. Notably, GOP leadership has still not released its long-awaited manager’s amendment, which will incorporate many of the compromises Johnson negotiated to appease internal party divisions, including revisions to SALT, Medicaid work requirements, and clean-energy tax credits, Punchbowl News reports.
Despite the complexity, Johnson is moving aggressively. He hopes to pass a rule and hold a full floor vote as soon as today - a schedule driven by his desire to meet the Memorial Day deadline, avoid attendance issues later in the week, and capitalize on rare momentum.
The legislative sprint follows a dramatic shift in tone after Trump met Tuesday morning with warring GOP factions and urged unity. Several Republican holdouts publicly maintained opposition afterward, but six senior Republicans involved in the talks said many were privately seeking off-ramps - policy concessions that would let them support the bill while still claiming political victories.
As Just the News notes, a final push will require some conservatives to make a leap of faith, like Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), the chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, is taking.
"Look as a conservative, I want to save as much money as I can, and we have pushed for that in the Republican Study Committee," he told the outlet on Tuesday. "But the President was pretty clear that we've worked five or six months straight on this, and it is time to get it done.
"That doesn't mean that a guy like me doesn't want more. Yes, of course I do. But I also want to govern, which means you don't get 100% of everything you want every single time. You have to come back and do it again, and we will," he said during the John Solomon Reports podcast.
Trump tax cuts; the largest in history with an average $5,000 decrease per household, and includes 'No Tax on Tips, Overtime or Social Security.'
Immigration and Border Security:
“Big, Beautiful Deportations”: funding for 1 million deportations per year
Completion of the border wall
Expansion of border personnel - including 10,000 new ICE agents, 5,000 customs officers & 3,000 Border Patrol agents - and $10,000 bonuses for front-line border workers
Medicaid Reform:
Remove 1.4 million illegal migrants from Medicaid
Requires work for benefits starting January 2029
Spending Cuts and Fiscal Reform:
$1.6 trillion in mandatory spending cuts - the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years - though the Penn Wharton Budget Model predicts deficits of nearly $3.3 trillion, even when accounting for "positive economic dynamics," while the Joint Committee on Taxation sees the House reconciliation bill increasing deficits by $3.8 trillion through 2034.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers projected that the bill would boost GDP by 4.2% to 5.2% in the short run — a staggering level of growth that goes far beyond the mainstream consensus, via Axios.
Repeals all of Biden’s “Green New Scam” subsidies & ends electric vehicle mandates
Social and Cultural Measures:
Ends taxpayer-funded sex reassignment procedures for minors
Infrastructure and Modernization:
Major overhaul of air traffic control systems
Support for Families and Workers:
Launch of "MAGA Accounts" for newborns (tax-advantaged savings)
Increased child tax credit, strengthened paid family leave, and repeals IRS gig worker reporting rule (>$600 for Venmo/PayPal)
Support for Farmers:
$10 billion+ in tax cuts & eliminates death tax to aid generational farm transfers
One of the most contentious sticking points has been the state and local tax deduction, or SALT. Republicans from high-tax states have demanded relief from the $10,000 cap implemented in 2017. After intense pressure, Johnson offered a revised framework: a $40,000 cap for households earning up to $500,000 (down from a Tuesday proposal for income up to $751,000), with the cap and income threshold escalating 1% annually for ten years. While it falls short of SALT advocates’ hopes - particularly in addressing the so-called marriage penalty - it’s more than many conservatives are comfortable with.
"This is purely a House play and designed to deal with the political challenge they have to get to 218," Senator John Thune (R-SD), a longtime opponent of expanding SALT, said in an interview Tuesday. "But, I mean, that seems like an incredibly generous offer."
Thune alluded to possible markups in Senate committees once the legislation arrives from the House. But that’ll be dictated by the House’s timing and what senators think of the proposal.
“I’m a regular order guy. I think you can improve the product,” Thune said. “But obviously, depending on what happens in the House and the timeline we have to work with, getting committees up and going and doing their thing takes a while - and how ready the product is for prime time… There are certain things the Senate wants to have its imprint on.” -Punchbowl
Meanwhile, to placate the House Freedom Caucus, Johnson has proposed accelerating the phase-out of clean-energy tax credits enacted under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Initially scheduled to begin after 2028, the new plan would start the phase-out in 2028, with a carveout for nuclear credits. Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) signaled progress Tuesday evening, backing off prior demands to slash Medicaid funding and saying talks were “moving in the right direction.”
Still, not all conservatives are satisfied. Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) are expected to vote no. Others are calling for the party to return to a two-bill strategy - a position rejected months ago by both House and Senate GOP leadership.
ROY just came out of confab with Johnson super sad. Says “we will see” if he still a “no” https://t.co/Xh3NuZULr5
— Erik Wasson (@elwasson) May 21, 2025Despite those tensions, GOP leaders are betting on Trump’s endorsement and the pressure of a looming deadline to push the bill through. “Things don’t get better when you hold it out there,” one senior Republican said. Another added bluntly: “It’s easier to break up with someone from a basement over email. Harder to do it in person, face-to-face.”
Meanwhile, Democrats are preparing their messaging campaign. A memo from the House Majority Fund - a group aligned with Democratic leadership — advised lawmakers to focus on how the GOP legislation would raise prices for everyday Americans while benefiting the wealthy, rather than lean on technical deficit arguments or hyperbolic language.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) added fuel to the fire Tuesday night, estimating that the Republican bill would increase the deficit by $2.3 trillion over the next decade. The CBO projected automatic spending cuts to Medicare and other safety-net programs without congressional action and warned that the bill would boost the incomes of the wealthiest 10% of Americans while reducing incomes for the bottom 10%.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA), ranking member on the Budget Committee, called the legislation "absolutely devastating" for working Americans. Protesters gathered outside the Capitol on Wednesday morning, denouncing proposed cuts to Medicaid.
Despite the fierce opposition, House Republican leaders believe they are close. And if the manager’s amendment is released in time, Johnson may force the issue by calling a floor vote before lawmakers - including members of his own party - have had a full opportunity to digest the final terms.
For Johnson, the choice is strategic: act quickly or risk watching weeks of work fall apart under the weight of delay.
