BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM Cervical cancer fatalities among young women in the United States have dropped dramatically, marking a significant public health breakthrough. A new study, published in JAMA on the 27th of November, found that mortality rates for women under the age of 25 fell by 60 percent between 2013 and 2021. This discovery is a significant milestone and offers hope for a future in which HPV-related malignancies become increasingly infrequent. “We had a hypothesis that since it’s been almost 16 years [since the vaccine was introduced], we might be starting to see the initial impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer deaths,” says Ashish Deshmukh, an epidemiologist at the Medical University of South Carolina. “And that’s exactly what we observed.” While the vaccine’s direct impact cannot be definitively proved (the study did not monitor individual vaccination histories), the timing of the decline is consistent with the vaccination era, offering strong circumstantial evidence. Unpacking the role of the HPV vaccine Approved in 2006, the HPV vaccination targets a virus that causes up to six types of cancer, including cervical cancer. Deshmukh and his team examined nearly three decades of cervical cancer mortality data, divided into three-year intervals. From 1992 to 2015, cervical cancer deaths among young women declined gradually by around four percent every three years, a trend likely driven by improved screening and preventive measures. However, beginning in 2013, the decline became noticeably more dramatic, with mortality rates dropping by over 60 percent by 2021, to just 0.007 fatalities per 100,000 women. “They’re seeing this precipitous drop in mortality at the time that we would be expecting to see it due to vaccination,” says Emily Burger, a health economist at the University of Oslo. “This study is really supporting that conclusion.” These findings are consistent with a 2023 Journal of the National Cancer Institute study, which revealed no cervical cancer cases among women who received the vaccine at ages 12 or 13. What does this mean for the future? Deshmukh points out that, while cervical cancer is uncommon in women under the age of 25, the findings provide an optimistic taste of what is possible if vaccination rates rise. “The impact we are seeing is a [preview] of what we might observe in the next 20 to 30 years if we continue to improve vaccination rates,” he says. Women in their 30s and 40s, who have a considerably greater incidence of cervical cancer, have an enormous chance to reduce their fatalities. Burger concurs, highlighting the larger implications: “Ultimately, we hope we are preventing mortality and death [with the introduction of vaccines].” Challenges to vaccination rates and the path forward Despite the promising figures, HPV vaccination rates in the United States have plateaued in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic had an impact, with coverage for teenagers aged 13 to 17 increasing only marginally, from 77 percent in 2022 to 76 percent in 2023, according to the CDC. “When we look at HPV vaccination coverage in the U.S., we haven’t reached our goal,” Deshmukh says. The Department of Health and Human Services hopes to achieve 80 percent coverage by 2030, a goal that is still within reach but requires greater dedication. Critical efforts include raising awareness of the vaccine’s benefits, eliminating myths, and expanding access to healthcare. This is especially crucial as the full potential of the HPV vaccine becomes more apparent. “We have to do better in terms of improving vaccination rates,” he says. The sharp drop in cervical cancer fatalities among vaccinated young women demonstrates what is feasible — but getting there requires action now. Source study: JAMA—Cervical cancer mortality among US women younger than 25 years, 1992-2021The post HPV vaccination shows promise in reducing cervical cancer deaths among young women first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

'Cooperate and be candid'

'Sign of great hope for the nation'

Hmm

'Respectfully withdraw from consideration'

It’s hard to wrap your head around just how grotesque it is that many medical associations and the federal government have adopted the idea that it’s healthy to sterilize children in an attempt to “affirm” a stated transgender identity. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will shed much-needed sunlight on this medical scandal of epic proportions. Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice will explain how activists conspired to flip the Hippocratic Oath on its head. Meanwhile, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chase Strangio—a male who says he identifies as female—will argue that Tennessee’s law banning Frankensteinian medical experiments on kids violates federal law by discriminating on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court is hearing the case because of this discrimination argument. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld Tennessee’s law, finding that it doesn’t entail discrimination. But the Biden-Harris administration appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court took up the case—now known as U.S. v. Skrmetti after Jonathan Skrmetti, the Republican attorney general of Tennessee. I will briefly address the logic behind the pro-transgender case, then explain the medical scandal that will emerge in Wednesday’s oral arguments. The Transgender Discrimination Logic The Biden-Harris administration’s convoluted logic goes something like this: Males who claim to be female really are female on some metaphysical plane (never mind biology, tradition, and common sense), so taking experimental hormones and undergoing surgical removal of their male organs is healthy for them. Any law preventing minors—who can’t possibly give informed consent for experimental “treatments” that may leave them stunted, scarred, and infertile—from accessing this “health care” constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex, the logic goes. Why? Because such a law theoretically applies only to males who express a desire to be female and females who express a desire to be male. The discrimination angle is laughable on its face. Discrimination on the basis of sex entails different treatment based on a person’s sex, namely male or female. Tennessee’s law bans experimental transgender medical interventions for all minors, regardless of their race, creed, national origin, or biological sex. “Transgender” is not a protected category under federal civil rights statutes—even though federal agencies in the Biden-Harris administration have attempted to redefine discrimination on the basis of sex to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. When previous Congresses crafted civil rights law, they did not mean—and could not have meant—to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals by barring discrimination “on the basis of sex.” Instead, the lawmakers meant to extend to women the rights enjoyed by men. Democrats inherently understand this, and it explains why they support the Equality Act, a bill that would expand “discrimination on the basis of sex” in federal law to include gender identity and sexual orientation. The Supreme Court majority in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) used convoluted logic to rule that federal civil rights employment law bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, but the decision also painstakingly argued that this only applies to employment law, not other forms of federal civil rights law. The Biden-Harris administration has attempted to twist Bostock, essentially rewriting federal civil rights law to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The Justice Department and Department of Education have established rules that aim to effectively enshrine the Equality Act into law without a vote by Congress, in the name of “implementing Bostock.” As I explain in my forthcoming book “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” the Human Rights Campaign—a leading LGBTQ activist group—likely inspired this move. The ACLU and the Biden-Harris administration want this Supreme Court case to be about “discrimination,” not the actual medical value of the procedures in question. ?THE BIDEN EQUALITY INDEX: Why did brands like Bud Light and Target bow and scrape to the transgender movement? The answer also explains why the Biden-Harris administration pushes gender pronouns????? for illegals and "gender-affirming care"? for kids.?The Human Rights Campaign… pic.twitter.com/jlVWKFnS9Q— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) October 23, 2024 The Scandal of Transgender ‘Health Care’ So what, exactly, are the “treatments” that Tennessee sought to ban minors from accessing? Transgender advocates euphemistically refer to these interventions as “gender-affirming care” to cloak their true nature under a false pretense of compassion. Some medical professionals prescribe gender-confused children who are nearing puberty GnRH agonists, which stands for “Gonadatropin-releasing hormone agonists.” David Gortler, a pharmacologist and pharmacist who previously was a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration commissioner on policy and drug safety, previously told The Daily Signal that physicians developed GnRH agonists to help treat certain cancers that depend on estrogen or testosterone. Removing estrogen and testosterone from cancer patients to prolong their lives makes sense, Gortler said, because it prevents the progress of an invasive, malignant disease. But giving these drugs to physiologically and genetically healthy kids is a completely different story. “This drug was tested, designed, and FDA-approved for use in an older, cancer-afflicted population,” Gortler, a doctor of pharmacy, said. He compared so-called puberty blockers to the outdated, dangerous Chinese custom of foot binding, in which a young girl’s feet would be tightly wrapped to keep them from growing naturally. “Similarly, GnRH agonists block a normal, healthy development process from occurring,” Gortler said. “Just because it’s not something that isn’t directly and obviously visible doesn’t mean that it’s any less clinically, scientifically, or ethically dangerous.” Activists claim that GnRH agonists, which they dub “puberty blockers,” are temporary and reversible, but those claims remain unproven. Most patients who take these “blockers” will go on to take cross-sex hormones (estrogen for males and testosterone for females). “The human body has around 100 trillion cells,” Gortler noted. “High school biology taught us that in each of those nucleated cells, there are either XX or XY chromosomes denoting a female or male sex, respectively. No drug or medical procedure will ever be able to fight 100 or so trillion cells, and trying to do so would be a fool’s errand.” Naturally, “puberty blockers” and cross-sex hormones lead to the most controversial intervention: the surgical removal of sex organs and the attempt to replace them with facsimiles of the organs of the opposite sex. An activist organization masquerading as the authority on transgender health, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, doesn’t recommend “bottom surgery” for minors, but some minors do go under the knife. An estimated 3,678 minors have undergone surgical alterations in the past five years (including 405 minors between the ages of 12 and 18 who underwent genital surgery). ?BREAKING: A high-ranking FDA official admitted that "puberty blockers" carry an "increased risk of depression and suicidality" but called for approving them for "transgender" kids, anyway. This flips the gender ideology narrative on its head??https://t.co/dtbdVKEcap pic.twitter.com/4qXc6TZF06— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) August 1, 2024 Transgender Exception to ‘Do No Harm’ Activists argue that minors undergo these interventions only if they really need them, and that doctors and therapists must diagnose children with gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent condition of identifying with the gender opposite their biological sex) before any interventions. Yet many states ban “conversion therapy,” and many statutes apply such bans to a therapist who would counsel a male minor who thinks of himself as female from identifying with his biological sex (and vice versa). This prevents therapists from addressing the psychological roots of gender dysphoria and instead directs them to merely “affirm” gender confusion. Furthermore, doctors know that medical interventions involve serious side effects. Leaked documents from WPATH reveal that even pro-transgender doctors repeatedly acknowledged disturbing side effects of “gender-affirming care.” Doctors revealed that cross-sex hormones appeared to have caused liver cancer in teens and atrophy of sex organs that reduces sexual function. Although some acknowledged that it is problematic to require informed consent from minors for procedures with lifelong impacts, others said the ideal time for removing female sex organs is 16 or 17 years old. Even “puberty blockers” are far from safe. Gortler, the former FDA adviser, analyzed the federal agency’s Adverse Event Reporting System, or AERS, a database of reactions to certain drugs that users report to the Food and Drug Administration. “GnRH agonists account for 70,000 adverse reports,” Gortler told The Daily Signal. “While these reports still need to be reviewed, it is a remarkable number of adverse events for what should be a niche, otherwise rarely clinically indicated, class of drugs.” Yet the FDA often dismisses these reports as “not confirmed,” “not establishing causation,” “no definitive proof,” and “not establishing a rate of occurrence.” Gortler slammed the FDA for hypocrisy, noting that the agency relied heavily on the reporting system’s data to declare that hydroxychloroquine was unsafe after finding only a few hundred reports of adverse events. According to his analysis, AERS reports 70,000 adverse reactions to GnRH agonists, 2,510 of them involving children age 14 or younger. Adverse reactions include hallucinations, bone disorders, cardiac arrest, abdominal pain, migraine, mood alterations, a clot in the heart, pelvic pain, seizures, abnormal skin odor, and blindness. Among patients ages 4 to 13, a total of 21 had thoughts of suicide. An FDA official admitted that a study found “puberty blockers” led to increased thoughts of suicide among minors, but the official recommended approval for the drugs, anyway. ?'ANTI-SCIENCE': Former HHS, FDA leaders slam FDA's "duplicity" on so-called puberty blockers? after evidence reveals a high-ranking FDA official urged approval for these drugs while admitting they increase suicidality, depression & seizures in youth?? https://t.co/9hRAnm9M30 pic.twitter.com/HfRcmaTplt— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) August 14, 2024 Eunuchs As if these side effects weren’t enough, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s Standards of Care 8—the document activists present as the gold standard for transgender “health care”—endorses the idea of “eunuch” as a gender identity and claims that castration is “medically necessary” for those who identify as eunuchs. WPATH describes “eunuchs” as “individuals assigned male at birth” who “wish to eliminate masculine physical features, masculine genitals, or genital functioning.” Because eunuchs “wish for a body that is compatible with their eunuch identity,” WPATH recommends “castration to better align their bodies with their gender identity.” The state of Alabama submitted a “friend of the court” brief highlighting this issue in the Skrmetti case now before the Supreme Court. The brief notes that WPATH leaders admitted “that no diagnostic manual recognizes ‘eunuch’ as a medical or psychiatric diagnosis'” and that many authors of the Standards of Care 8 didn’t even read the chapter and some criticized it internally. “No matter: The guideline the United States says States must adopt officially recommends castration for men and boys who identify as ‘eunuch,'” Alabama’s brief notes. Where does the idea of “eunuch” as a gender identity come from? SOC-8’s own archive includes thousands of stories that “focus on the eroticization of child castration” and “involve the sadistic sexual abuse of children.” Yes, it seems this “gender identity” traces back to the most disgusting forms of pedophilia. Perverse Incentives of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ How did such a horrific ideology capture the American medical establishment? Jennifer Bilek has done yeoman’s work unearthing how billionaires who made their fortune in medicine have backed the LGBTQ movement, particularly the “T.” Transgender “treatments” also reap rewards for Big Pharma. When a male patient takes cross-sex hormones to appear female, that’s a lifelong prescription. When patients get surgery to remove their sex organs and replace them with a facsimile of the opposite sex’s organs, that’s not just a one-and-done surgery. Not only are there often complications—which can be deadly—but these new organs often require grotesque forms of maintenance. All of this keeps patients coming back. Although Tennessee’s law should have gone into effect without a legal battle in the courts, the oral arguments at the Supreme Court will shine a spotlight on this horrific scandal. According to recent polling, 72% of Americans oppose these grotesque medical experiments on kids. This case gives Rice, who will argue it as Tennessee’s solicitor general, the chance to show why most Americans are right. The post Supreme Court Case Exposes Medical Scandal of Epic Proportions appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026, can help bring us together and restore our confidence in America’s future. The nation’s positive experience celebrating America’s Bicentennial in 1976 provides that model. President-elect Donald Trump has already shared his vision to make our 250th birthday the biggest and most spectacular celebration of patriotism. He aims to “showcase the glory of every state in the Union, promote pride in our history, and put forth innovative visions for America’s future.” Trump’s vision pairs perfectly with the work already underway by America250, the bipartisan commission established by Congress in 2016 to educate, engage, and unite every American in the celebration. America250’s plans complement Trump’s ideas for our big anniversary. America250 will provide Americans with innumerable opportunities to share stories, volunteer, wave flags, and honor those who have sacrificed to preserve our freedom. Contests and storytelling platforms invite diverse answers to a question that can engage everyone: “What does America mean to you? Through the America’s Field Trip contest, students in third through 12th grade can win unforgettable field trips to the nation’s most iconic historical and cultural landmarks, such as Yellowstone National Park and the Statue of Liberty, by submitting writing or original artwork in response to that prompt. America250 plans to strengthen civic education by helping teachers instill in young Americans a deep appreciation for the principles of the Declaration of Independence. These enduring principles acknowledge that “all men are created equal” and that our Creator endows us all with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In addition, America250 has helped create state and territory commissions that will take the celebration to local communities. Outstanding among the state commissions is Virginia, the birthplace of Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson. Under the leadership of Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, the VA250 Commission has already developed education programs and celebrations that other states can model. America250 is eagerly awaiting further details of Trump’s plan. Celebrating our big anniversary can inspire Americans to reflect on our nation’s past and look toward a more prosperous and free future that embraces America’s spirit and limitless potential. Our nation’s 250th birthday can bring us together, restore our confidence, and increase our optimism as the celebration of our Bicentennial did in 1976. Much like today, the 1970s were not a time of peace and tranquility for America. Reeling from Vietnam and the Watergate scandal and struggling to control runaway inflation, Americans experienced deep divisions. In September 1975, President Gerald Ford even dodged two assassination attempts in the span of 17 days. These dynamics fueled America’s disillusionment with Washington politics and stoked a fear that our best days were behind us. The Bicentennial provided the antidote, reminding us of the courage and foresight of our Founding Fathers in establishing a system of constitutional self-government that has allowed Americans to strive toward becoming a more perfect union. As the oldest constitutional republic in the world, it is our responsibility to preserve the principles on which our nation was founded. President-elect Trump and America250 are positioned to do just that by making July 4, 2026, the Semiquincentennial, a grand birthday celebration that brings us together and moves us forward. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Trump Is Going to Give America a Spectacular 250th Birthday Celebration appeared first on The Daily Signal.

All of President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees for federal government posts will be confirmed, Sen. Ted Cruz said Tuesday after a conference with his fellow Senate Republicans.  “I think Kash Patel will be confirmed, and I think the rest of them will be confirmed,” Cruz, R-Texas—a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will vote on Patel, Trump’s pick for FBI director—told The Daily Signal. However, some Republicans have reportedly been noncommittal regarding Trump’s nomination of Patel and toward Pete Hegseth, tapped to be the defense secretary.  That marks a departure from 2021, when several of President Joe Biden’s nominees managed to get the votes of 20 or more Republican senators, along with unified Democratic support.  “You’re going to see Democrats and the media try to turn at least a couple of these confirmation hearings into a circus, and they’re going to throw as much mud at the wall as they can,” Cruz warned. “But at the end of the day, I think we’re going to see all of them confirmed. And I think the president has a mandate, a powerful mandate for change. The voters spoke overwhelmingly on Election Day and gave us a Republican president and Republican Senate, a Republican House.” The GOP will have a 53-to-47 seat Senate majority in January. Nevertheless, Trump already suffered a setback when his first choice for attorney general—now-former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.—had to step aside when it became clear he lacked unified GOP Senate support. Trump has since announced he would nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to run the Justice Department.  At the Republican senators’ gathering at the Library of Congress, Trump phoned in to welcome the senators, said Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.  “I think that we’re pretty unified, and I think that, broadly speaking, that members think that President Trump should be given wide latitude, particularly since he ran on a reform agenda,” Schmitt, also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told The Daily Signal. “He wants reformers inside those agencies, and I think that’s really important.”  “Everybody’s pretty unified in trying to move an agenda that’s reflective of where the country is,” the Missouri lawmaker said. “So, I think the country is ready for some real reform, border security, energy dominance, [and] making sure that we have an economy that works for working families.” Still, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, didn’t assert his absolute support for the Patel nomination.  “I’m anxious to meet with him,” Cornyn told The Daily Signal. “I haven’t met with him yet, but I’ve talked to people who I respect, and they believe he would be a good nominee.” Biden’s Cabinet nominees generally received uniform Democratic support, and some of the nominees had significant GOP backing.  Biden’s secretary of state, Antony Blinken, who has overseen the administration’s foreign policy, got his job with the help of 28 Senate Republican votes, confirmed 78-22. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen—a key player in Biden’s economic policies—was confirmed with an overwhelming 84 senators’ votes, of which 34 were from Republicans.  Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin—who has presided over some of the controversial military DEI policies—was confirmed with the help of 43 Republican votes, for a total of 92 senators. Only Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Josh Hawley of Missouri voted against Austin. Even Attorney General Merrick Garland—whose Justice Department has been scrutinized for alleged politicization and weaponization of the law—had the backing of 20 Senate Republicans.  Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., voted to confirm Blinken, Yellen, Austin, and Garland.  Others were far more controversial Cabinet picks. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra—known for promoting abortion policies and opposing conscience rights—got only one Republican vote, that of Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas—impeached in the House for refusing to adequately protect the border—got six Republican votes for confirmation.  The moderate Collins is quoted in USA Today saying she wants the Senate to “thoroughly vet these nominees.” Even the more conservative Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., is quoted in the newspaper as saying, “My attitude about the nominations is that that’s why God made confirmation hearings.” Patel and Hegseth are being brought in as reformers, Cruz noted during his interview with The Daily Signal.  “This was a change election, and now we’ve got to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work of turning the country around. And I think all of us are excited about that,” the Texas lawmaker said.  That’s key to the Patel nomination, Cruz said.  “You look at what President Trump campaigned on, and front and center. What the president promised the American people is ‘If you elect me, we will clean out the political corruption at the FBI and at the [Justice Department],’” Cruz said. “And I think nominating Kash Patel is honoring that promise.” Schmitt, a former Missouri state attorney general, noted Patel’s law enforcement and national security credentials for the FBI job. “I do think he’s got a lot of great, relevant experience,” Schmitt said. “He’s been the head of these intelligence agencies, was chief of staff at the Pentagon, has been prosecutor and public defender. So, a lot of experience in law enforcement. I think he’ll be great.”  The post ‘Voters Spoke Overwhelmingly’: Sen. Cruz Calls for Confirming Patel, Other Trump Picks appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The liberal line on President Biden's pardon of his son Hunter was clear: The Devil Donald Trump made him do it! On Tuesday's CNN This Morning, former Biden communications director Kate Bedingfield said that Biden's pardon on Hunter was "totally defensible," given Trump's alleged plans to go after opponents in the new administration. As she put it: Biden was responding to what Donald Trump himself and his appointees like Kash Patel have said about how they intend to use the Justice Department. Bedingfield expressed understanding of why Democrats were frustrated that Biden was not more "forthcoming" about his plans, and she wished that Biden had expressed his "ambiguity" over his intentions about a pardon differently.  There was absolutely nothing ambiguous about what Biden said. In the most unambiguous terms possible, Biden flat-out lied through his teeth, repeatedly saying, and ordering his mouthpieces to say, that he definitely would not pardon Hunter. The New York Times had adopted a similar blame-Trump line. NYT White House correspondent Katie Rogers had said [emphasis added]: I think that Biden’s thinking on this has evolved as outside circumstances have changed. He was adamant that he would not issue a pardon as president in the summer, when Hunter was convicted on federal gun charges. But a lot has changed as summer turned into fall. Biden dropped out of the presidential race. The vice president’s campaign failed, and a former president, Donald Trump, was elected while promising to stock his administration with vengeful characters who were making no secret of their interest in going after political enemies.     Bedingfield said: "The idea that Biden has somehow opened the door for Trump to do things that he was not otherwise going to do is completely ludicrous." Let's flip that notion back around on Bedingfield and Rogers. Are you saying that if Trump had lost and Kamala had won, Biden would not have pardoned Hunter? Evidence? There was a moment of levity, courtesy Republican strategist Matt Gorman: Honestly, I would have respected it more if he just said, know what? Bleep you people. I'm not letting my son rot in prison. Here's the transcript Click "expand" to read: CNN This Morning 12/3/24 6:04 am ET KATE BEDINGFIELD: I think the idea that Biden has somehow opened the door for Trump to do things that he was not otherwise going to do is completely ludicrous. I mean, it is Trump who has completely thrown norms out the window here for the now, now almost last decade.  In many ways, I think Biden was responding to, you know, what Donald Trump himself and his appointees like Kash Patel have said about how they intend to use the Justice Department. And I think, look, I think it's understandable that a father would make that decision.  KASIE HUNT: But for 10, 11 years? BEDINGFIELD: Well, but I do think, look, I wish that he had been, I wish that he had conveyed differently, that he was thinking, that he was considering doing this. I do think it is, you know, I think there are different ways to convey ambiguity when you have not made a decision.  I think even after the election, having his team say he wasn't going to do this. You know, I do think there is a cost that comes with that. And I wish that he had done that differently.  . . .  I do understand why Democrats are frustrated that Biden was not more forthcoming about how he was thinking about this. . . .  MATT GORMAN: And honestly, I would have respected it more if he just said, know what? Bleep you people. I'm not letting my son rot in prison during my, you know, who knows, like in the last decade of life, possibly. I'm not letting that happen. I don't care. I have the power to do it. . . .  BEDINGFIELD: I think the pardon itself, I will say, I think is totally defensible. And I think given the way that Trump has talked about what he intends to do, I think it's defensible. I do wish that he had had framed it differently.