Two women in Georgia, along with their unborn children, are dead. If it weren’t for abortion drugs, they might all still be alive. But the abortion industry, the Left, and some in media are blaming Georgia’s abortion law. They’re wrong. Here are the facts of the two tragic cases—and how they could have been prevented. Amber Thurman In 2022, Amber Thurman sought emergency care due to complications after having an abortion using the two-drug regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol. At the time, she was about nine weeks pregnant with twins. Mifepristone cuts off a hormone that sustains pregnancy, causing the unborn child to die. Misoprostol causes uterine contractions to expel the dead child from the uterus. Thurman got the pills from an abortion clinic in North Carolina. As the abortion drug’s Food and Drug Administration warning label states (and the clinic should have highlighted), one of the possible complications is that sometimes not all of the dead child’s remains are expelled. MIFEPREXDownload This retained fetal tissue can cause an infection, which can become life-threatening. That’s exactly what happened to Thurman. The ProPublica article that initially reported these stories says that Georgia law prohibits the D&C (dilation and curettage) procedure necessary to remove retained tissue. That is totally false. Here’s what Georgia law actually says. Georgia law prohibits abortion of an unborn child with “a detectable human heartbeat.” An abortion is clearly defined as an act to deliberately “cause the death of an unborn child.” There are exceptions for cases of rape or incest, or if a woman’s life is in danger. Like every other pro-life state, no doctor is banned from treating ectopic pregnancy or miscarriages. And Georgia, like every other state in America, does not prohibit doctors from removing retained tissue. Pro-life doctors regularly perform D&Cs in pro-life states for cases of miscarriage or retained tissue. Why? Because a D&C in those cases is not an abortion. ProPublica points the finger at Georgia’s pro-life law for causing confusion or delays, but there’s no reason it should have. Thurman was clearly in a life-threatening emergency situation, and the procedure she needed to remove remaining tissue would not have been an abortion. As the American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs puts it, her case is “one of the most clear-cut cases of medical malpractice (based on the information available publicly) that we have ever seen.” ProPublica article claims that Georgia’s abortion law led to the tragic death of 28yo Amber Thurman.  Her preventable death was related to abortion – but not as the title implies. Read this ? on how physicians could have intervened to save her life…— AAPLOG (@aaplog) September 17, 2024 Thurman’s death was completely preventable. Dangerous abortion drugs and a lack of timely treatment deserve scrutiny—not Georgia’s pro-life law. Candi Miller In 2022, Candi Miller ordered abortion pills online. That means she was never evaluated in person by a doctor and never had an ultrasound to verify how far along in pregnancy she was. We don’t know if the website she got the pills from warned her of signs of complications to watch out for. For days after taking the pills, she suffered at home. According to her family, she was afraid to seek emergency care because she didn’t want to be prosecuted. She never should have been too afraid to seek help, because no states place criminal penalties on postabortive women. Miller died at home. An autopsy found that she had retained fetal tissue in her uterus, as well as some painkillers, including fentanyl, in her system. It’s not clear if she intentionally overdosed, or if she was desperate to lessen the pain of the abortion. Had she sought care in time, doctors might have been able to remove the retained tissue. In the article about Miller’s case, ProPublica yet again states that the D&C procedure to remove such tissue was a felony. And yet again, the claim is simply false. Deadly Consequences The facts of both cases haven’t stopped Vice President Kamala Harris from rushing to falsely blame pro-life laws for these women’s deaths, saying that pro-life laws prevent doctors from “providing basic medical care.” It hasn’t stopped the abortion industry from using these women’s tragic, preventable deaths as a reason to promote no limits on abortion whatsoever. It hasn’t stopped abortion advocates from spreading the deadly lie that women in pro-life states can’t seek lifesaving care. Another woman died of sepsis after taking abortion pills in 2022. Her name was Alyona Dixon, and she lived in Nevada. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) Her family is suing a hospital for wrongful death, alleging that she wasn’t properly treated in a timely manner when her abortion went wrong. But Nevada has lax abortion laws, so it’s “crickets” from the same crowd who is eager to blame pro-life laws in Georgia. The sad truth is that these cases demonstrate why we should have stronger pro-life policies to protect women from dangerous abortion drugs—not weaker ones. Here are some of the ways these women’s stories could have ended differently if better protections had been in place. When the FDA approved abortion drugs in 2000, it required heightened safety standards. For example, women had to be seen in-person by a doctor, they had to ingest the pills in-person in a clinic, and they had to have an in-person follow-up visit to ensure that the abortion was complete. Abortion pills could only be used up to seven weeks’ gestation. In 2016, President Barack Obama’s administration weakened those safety requirements. An in-person follow-up visit was no longer required, and the pills could be taken up to 10 weeks. The Biden administration weakened the safety mechanisms further. Pills now can be dispensed through the mail, and women don’t have to see a provider in person at any point. Those changes have consequences. We know, for example, that abortion pills are less effective, and complications are more likely the further along a woman is in her pregnancy. Thurman was more than nine weeks along with twins. Miller was never seen in person by a doctor; so, without an ultrasound, we don’t know how far along she was in pregnancy (and neither does the website that shipped her the pills). She may have been much further along than 10 weeks, the FDA-approved limit. Had either of these women had an in-person follow-up appointment after their abortions, perhaps a doctor would have realized sooner that they had not expelled all of their children’s remains and were at high risk of infection. Abortion drugs have known, deadly risks, which include complications like retained tissue and infection. The FDA label for mifepristone says that roughly one out of 22 women who take the drugs will have to go to the emergency room. Did Thurman and Miller know about these risks? These poor women’s tragic deaths show that removing safety mechanisms for dangerous drugs can have deadly consequences. It should spur policymakers to do more to protect women and babies, not weaken pro-life laws. Instead, the pro-abortion movement is lying about pro-life laws. Lying has consequences. How many women like Miller will not seek emergency care when they need it because they (wrongly) think a doctor won’t be able to treat them? Thurman, Miller, and their children deserved better. American women deserve better. It’s time to stop the lies. Abortion drugs end lives. Pro-life laws save lives. The post 2 Women Are Dead After Abortion Drug Complications. The Left’s Bid to Blame Pro-Life Laws Is Dishonest. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

'I Tried My Best': Trump Assassin Plotted for Months

British Labour Party Doing the Dry Run for Harris Tax Policies

Last week, news broke that New York magazine Washington correspondent Olivia Nuzzi was in a sexting relationship with her source, former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. while writing about him, and aggressively sending him nude pictures of herself. But instead of decrying Nuzzi for doing a disservice to female reporters everywhere by engaging in the type of unethical actively she once insisted didn’t really happen, most of the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View defended her on Monday’s show and blamed all men for the scandal. The ridiculous spin started with the show’s opening tease for the segment, where the announcer huffed: “Breaking nudes? RFK Jr. ignites a scandal for reportedly bragging about being sent nude photos from a prominent journalist Olivia Nuzzi. But is most of the fallout landing on her?” Coming back from their first commercial break, moderator Whoopi Goldberg suggested that Kennedy should be getting all the flack because he cheated on his wife, while ignoring the fact that Nuzzi was cheating on her fiancé, Ryan Lizza of Politico (who left his family to be with Nuzzi). She didn’t understand why Nuzzi had to live up to journalistic ethics: Now, she's been suspended by the magazine, and she issued a statement saying that their relationship was never physical, that she's sorry she didn't disclose it to her colleagues earlier. Now, he's been married to Cheryl Hines for a decade. And the question really is, why is all the fallout hitting her and not him? And why did -- if it was -- what was she supposed to disclose that she didn't disclose? Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) defended Nuzzi’s sexing by repeatedly insisting that she was sending “demure nudes.” “I also don't understand why it's all falling on her,” Hostin whined. “She's 31 years old. She's a young reporter. From what I understand is she's, you know, a fantastic reporter.”     Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin admitted she considered Nuzzi a personal friend of hers because “She was really there for me in a part of my life when she didn't need to be.” She proclaimed Nuzzi was a “world-class journalist” and “considered one of the best profile writers.” “That piece she wrote of RFK was scathing of him, she didn’t pull punches,” she boasted. Farah Griffin tried to downplay what happened by suggested Nuzzi simply “blurred ethical lines.” She had a meltdown over people calling it an “Olivia Nuzzi Scandal” and demanded people call it an “RFK scandal.”   She proceeded to cry “sexism” about the whole incident – which Nuzzi willing took an aggressive part in – and demanded that all men be blamed for it: But it goes back to just the sexism that we fall into. The reality is this: people want to make money in this business. If you put up a picture of Olivia, more people are clicking than if you put up a picture of this man. I think men need to bare a little more responsibility in this. It’s just – It's so predictable. Surprisingly, the only cast member to bring any semblance of sense to the table was Ana Navarro. After taking some shots at Kennedy, by calling him “a dog and a ho,” she pointed out that the scandal boiled down to it being a major conflict of interest for Nuzzi, who “had more to lose”: The issue here is conflict of interest. That she was covering the presidential campaign while writing pieces. And the question is, because she was having this relationship, is there a conflict of interest? If not for that, listen, you can be freaky. You can send pictures. You can do whatever you want. Just not -- not if there's a conflict of interest in your job. For her part, pretend moderate Sara Haines didn’t address the scandal, nor push back on the nonsense defense of Nuzzi. Instead she warned against sending nudes to begin with and cautioned about the rise of A.I.-generated porn images based on those nude photos. “But I would also encourage anyone online to really watch what you're putting online ever because these clouds can be hacked into,” she added. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View September 23, 2024 11:14:53 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So, former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has reportedly been bragging about being sent some nude photographs from prominent journalist Olivia Nuzzi, who did a recent profile on him for New York magazine. Now, she's been suspended by the magazine, and she issued a statement saying that their relationship was never physical, that she's sorry she didn't disclose it to her colleagues earlier. Now, he's been married to Cheryl Hines for a decade. And the question really is, why is all the fallout hitting her and not him? ALYSSA AFARH GRIFFIN: That’s the question. GOLDBERG: And why did -- if it was -- what was she supposed to disclose that she didn't disclose? (…) 11:16:01 a.m. Eastern SUNNY HOSTIN: It’s called Puck News. It’s an industry magazine, reported Friday night that Nuzzi allegedly sent demure nudes of herself to RFK Jr. During their sexing affair. So, I think that's what she had to disclose. She was also allegedly engaged to another person as well. And so, you have a married man and you have someone that's engaged. I also don't understand why it's all falling on her. She's 31 years old. She's a young reporter. From what I understand is she's, you know, a fantastic reporter. GOLDBERG: Well, you know her. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: If I can jump in because I actually consider her a friend. She was really there for me in a part of my life when she didn't need to be. I’d also say she's considered a world-class journalist. She's young but she's considered one of the best profile writers. That piece she wrote of RFK was scathing of him, she didn’t pull punches. Now, I agree, it blurred ethical lines. I don't agree with what she did. I think she will acknowledge it and take responsibility. But I am – every time I see a headline that says ‘Olivia Nuzzi scandal’, no, RFK scandal! A former presidential candidate who’s married – for I want to say the third time – who engaged in this, who’s now a top surrogate to the Republican nominee for president. But it goes back to just the sexism that we fall into. The reality is this: people want to make money in this business. If you put up a picture of Olivia, more people are clicking than if you put up a picture of this man. I think men need to bare a little more responsibility in this. It’s just – It's so predictable. And finally, I don't believe in cancel culture. I think she is a person who has cut her teeth in this industry. She unquestionably made a mistake. But I think if she takes responsibility, she should absolutely should have a path back. ANA NAVARRO: Well look, I think the reason that she’s paying more consequences is because RFK – I kind of think everybody knows by now that he’s a dog and a ho and there’s no consequences. Right? It's kind of like with Donald Trump. Right? It's baked in. He's had a long, long record of philandering for many decades. His wife knows it and seems to be okay with it. So, like, what are the consequences for him? The truth is, Olivia, who I also know and think is extremely talented, had a lot more to lose in this. And she is losing it. You know, the magazine right now is conducting a review and an investigation of the situation. It was unethical, and it, kind of, now puts all her writings in a different perspective. And they're going through them with a fine-tooth comb to see if they see any conflict of interest. That's the issue, that she was covering – The issue here is conflict of interest. That she was covering the presidential campaign while writing pieces. And the question is, because she was having this relationship, is there a conflict of interest? If not for that, listen, you can be freaky. You can send pictures. You can do whatever you want. Just not -- not if there's a conflict of interest in your job. SARA HAINES: I feel like they couldn't put the scandal on RFK because he has so many they don't really have room anymore. [Laughter] HOSTIN: There’s a lot. HAINES: Cause the headlines are like – there's a little, kind of imbalanced. But I get the optics problem. This was her beat and she did this. But I can’t – not in regard to her, but to everyone out there, we have an A.I. problem coming up that's going to put us all in nude pictures that are going to circulate. We've had it already happen. There have been incidents where people have been crushed by this. But I would also encourage anyone online to really watch what you're putting online ever because these clouds can be hacked into. There's so much stuff. So, I always say, don't take nudeys. Like, just don't do it ever! Because, like, we know too much. Like, you can't do this. [Laughter as Goldberg makes a face] Okay, wait. If you’re going to take nudey, do it on a Polaroid. HOSTIN: These were very demure nudes though. They were demure. NAVARRO: Yes, but where they mindful? [Laughter] (…)

World champion judo competitor Nemanja Majdov was suspended for five months by an international governing body for making the sign of the cross before a match at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games.Majdov is a devout Christian who makes no apologies about his faith and apparently violated the International Judo Federation's rules when he crossed himself on July 31, 2024, at the Paris games. A video posted to X showed the 28-year-old walking while in prayer in a packed arena.'The Lord has given me everything, both for me personally and for my career.'The IJF clarified its suspension in a statement posted on its website:Majdov "was charged for, 'Having shown a clear religious sign when entering the field of play and having refused to bow to his opponent at the end of the contest,' which is a violation of the IJF Code of Ethics," the organization wrote."The athlete was warned by letter in April 2018 and again in February 2022, about behaviour that was contrary to the IJF [Sport and Organisation Rules]," the statement added.Majdov made a lengthy statement regarding the incident on his Instagram page, where he often posts content related to his faith."15 days ago I received a decision that I was suspended for 5 months by the World Judo Federation (IJF) for violating their religious codes. More precisely, because of baptism when entering a match at the Olympic Games.""I was banned from participating in all tournaments, camps and preparations," Majdov continued.The judo practitioner then explained that not only did he "not want to apologize for the baptism" but that he will never apologize."The Lord has given me everything, both for me personally and for my career, and he is number 1 for me and I am proud of that. And that will not change under any circumstances. Glory to Him and thanks for everything," he added.The IJF stated that its rules are meant to "protect the ethical values and moral principles" of the sport while ensuring competitions are "dedicated exclusively for judo and where only the judo specific signs and rules are on display, equally for all." Photo by Kiyoshi Ota/Getty ImagesAt the same time, the organization said it "respects and appreciates" all cultures, nationalities, religions, and orientations. Using language typically associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, the IJF claimed it has a duty to all of its "stakeholders" to make sure they feel "respected and accepted" at all events.Majdov was the 2017 world champion, the 2023 European champion, and has a total of five gold medals at international tournaments.He said his latest suspension was "nothing new" for him but rather a "new page" in his career and life. "I'm sorry that such a beautiful and difficult sport like judo has fallen to such things," he told his fans."God gave me a great career. ... We will rest [during the suspension], and then we will return with the help of our Lord Jesus Christ to a new beginning and new victories."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Democrats have spent years regurgitating the claim that former President Donald Trump is a “threat to democracy.” And oddly enough, after years of filling the minds of American citizens with their rhetoric, Trump has literally come under fire after facing two assassination attempts in the past few months. “When you rile up your base for so long, saying that democracy is the most important thing and that President Trump is the existential threat to it, it’s how you get crazy people,” co-host of Steve Bannon’s “War Room” Natalie Winters tells Liz Wheeler of “The Liz Wheeler Show.” “You’re dealing with deranged people who are looking for a sense of purpose, and Kamala Harris [and the Democrats] with their rhetoric, they easily give it to them,” she continues. However, Winters doesn’t exactly believe the Democrats are wrong to say Trump is a “threat to democracy.” “In some ways, they are right. I just think that they misappropriate the word democracy. I always say, first of all, obviously, we’re not a democracy. We’re a constitutional republic,” Winters explains. “Trump was the aberration. Trump was the shock to the system,” she continues. “I think if you look at democracy through the lens of sort of a feigned selection of candidates.” “If you look at democracy the way that they describe it, in that sense, they are correct that President Trump is a threat to that form of democracy,” she continues, adding, “but I think the real error is that democracy doesn’t work for anyone except the elite, except the ruling class.” Want more from Liz Wheeler?To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously decided to allow residents who were allowed to vote based on a decades-old government error to vote in the November election despite not confirming their citizenship status. 'They have NOT provided documented proof of citizenship.' The court said it wanted to avoid disenfranchising a large number of voters who have citizenship but did not certify it because of the government error. As previously reported by Blaze News, the complicated election laws in Arizona set up the conditions whereby voters who had not certified their citizenship were assumed to be citizens based on their having a driver's license before 1996 and receiving a replacement license after 2004. "All of these people have attested under penalty of law that they are U.S. citizens. And, in all likelihood, they almost all [are] U.S. Citizens," said Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richer, a Republican, in a lengthy statement on X Tuesday. "But they have NOT provided documented proof of citizenship."Richer opined that those voters should not be allowed to vote in the local elections unless they confirmed their citizenship status as per state law but said that Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes disagreed. The two asked the state supreme court to decide the issue. "AZ Supreme Court ruled for defendant (Fontes). The 100k registrants will continue to vote a full ballot this election. Thank God," Richer responded. "Thank you Arizona Supreme Court for your extremely quick and professional review of this matter," he added before thanking Fontes. "Good to work with you on this one. Thank you," Fontes responded. Fontes had said that the affected voters leaned Republican and were likely between the ages of 45 and 65 years old. If the court had sided with Richer, the voters in question would have been allowed to vote only in the federal elections unless they took additional steps before November to certify their citizenship to vote in state and local elections in Arizona. The Arizona Republican Party praised the ruling to keep the voters from being disenfranchised. "We're very grateful to the state Supreme Court for protecting the voices of almost 98,000 voters who were in danger of being disenfranchised in this election," said Gina Swoboda, the state party chair in a statement on social media. "I think that, in and of itself, speaks to all of us recognizing that the weight and the responsibility of making sure that the franchise is provided to all voters outweighs any particular political interest."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Kingdom Two Crowns is the latest entry to one of the most unique strategy series around. Instead of the broader viewpoint of a more traditional take on the genre like Civilization 7 or Total War Pharaoh, Kingdom takes place from the perspective of a ruler, sitting atop a horse, who rides back and forth across a side-scrolling landscape to build structures and manage the lives of their subjects. Fortunately for fans of the series, Two Crowns is about to become a lot bigger now that a new DLC titled Call of Olympus has been announced for a quickly approaching launch date. Continue reading Pixel strategy game Kingdom Two Crowns reveals DLC, coming very soon

Kamala Harris and ProPublica are lying to you about why Amber Nicole Thurman died.

ESCALATION: Pentagon Sending Additional Troops to Middle East As Israeli-Hezbollah Tensions Increase