Simone Biles’ Attack On Riley Gaines Had Nothing To Do With ‘Empathy’
Glenn Greenwald Scandal Proves Tolerance Is Not A Virtue — It’s High Time Conservatives Start Acting Like It
this entire episode should be taken as a lesson for conservatives
House Republicans to hike up Harvard endowment tax in reconciliation
As reconciliation talks continue, House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith revealed that the Republican-led tax bill will hike up Harvard University's endowment tax, in addition to codifying many of President Donald Trump's campaign promises.
During a members-only GOP conference on Capitol Hill, Smith told members that Harvard's current 1.4% endowment tax under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will be bumped up to 21%, according to a source on the call. Harvard continues to be in the hot seat after the Trump administration announced they would be canceling millions of dollars in federal grants, noting that taxpayer funds are a "privilege."
'We're delivering on no tax on tips, no tax on overtime pay for the 80 million workers affected, and achieve tax relief for seniors.'
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
In addition to the increased endowment tax on Harvard, the GOP tax bill is also aiming to codify Trump's incredibly popular policies like no tax on tips and no tax on overtime, according to a source on the call. Other line items are focused on boosting pro-family policies, like indexing the child tax credit for inflation and improving adoption tax credits.
"We're delivering on no tax on tips, no tax on overtime pay for the 80 million workers affected, and achieve tax relief for seniors," Smith said during the call.
The legislation is also focused on reinvesting in Americans and includes 100% immediate expensing for new factories in the United States, according to a source on the call. The bill further bolsters American manufacturing by including deductibility of auto loan interest for American-made cars.
Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
These provisions mirror Trump's directives to incentivize American manufacturing while renegotiating international trade deals to benefit the United States. In just the last week, Trump has finalized major trade deals with both the United Kingdom and China.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Pete Buttigieg’s Claim That Black Babies Are Cheaper Is ‘Ignorance,’ Says Adoption Expert
'There was actually a discount'
Kansas Republicans Plan Veto Override To Protect Adopting Families From Religious Discrimination
[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-08-at-8.33.17 AM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-08-at-8.33.17%5Cu202fAM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]Kansas House Speaker Dan Hawkins and Senate President Ty Masterson promised that Kelly's 'veto cannot stand.'
Adoption Is The Pro-Life Antidote To The IVF Onslaught
Elon’s baby-mama drama exposes the right’s pro-family hypocrisy
It’s only a matter of time before Elon Musk goes from the face of tech support to the poster boy for child support. The billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter) is currently embroiled in some serious baby-mama drama with Ashley St. Clair, the conservative influencer who claims to be the mother of his 13th child.
St. Clair caused quite a stir late last week when she used the social media platform owned by Musk to announce she had his baby five months ago. She claimed she went public because a reporter was planning to do so — against her wishes — and ended her statement by asking the media to honor her privacy. The New York Post published an exclusive interview the next day about her “whirlwind romance” with the billionaire.
The belief that a man’s bank account can replace his presence in the home ignores a fundamental truth: Fatherhood is about more than money.
The relationship between St. Clair and Musk is a private matter, but the response to her announcement from conservatives says a lot about the state of pro-family discourse on the right.
Several congratulated St. Clair, 26, on her new baby. It’s easy to see why pro-life activists and influencers on the right would celebrate the birth of a new baby. Children are a blessing from God, regardless of the circumstances of their conception.
Acknowledging that reality is important in a society that determines the worth of babies by how wanted they are by their mothers. If the mom-to-be is excited to be pregnant, the baby is a “bundle of joy.” But if she doesn’t want the child, then the same life at the same stage of development is called a “clump of cells” that can be destroyed at the nearest abortion clinic.
No one disputes the inherent worth of every child. But when conservatives congratulate adults who intentionally create broken homes, they undermine their pro-family bona fides.
It is difficult for an influential figure to publicly celebrate a child in this circumstance without appearing to endorse the parents’ decisions. Consider this: If a Republican politician known for his strong pro-life stance announced that he was expecting a baby with his mistress and planned to divorce his wife of 25 years, how would his conservative allies react? It’s unlikely they would take to social media to offer their blessings.
The response to St. Clair highlights a stark contrast between what many conservatives claim to support — intact, two-parent families raising children — and the culture they reinforce through their public affirmations.
Musk has had more than a dozen children with four women. He’s previously stated that “a collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far.” He is a pro-natalist with the mindset of Malcolm X. He wants more babies to be born — by any means necessary.
His views align closely with pro-life Christians, the most socially conservative faction of the Republican Party. But a pro-baby movement that ignores the benefits of a married mother and father is hardly “conservative.”
Stripping marriage from the family formation equation paves the way for commercial surrogacy, unregulated IVF, and same-sex adoption. This shift has consequences.
Today, 40% of American children are born to unmarried parents, and one in four grows up in a single-mother household. For years, conservatives have lamented the breakdown of the black family, where 70% of children are born out of wedlock. They have correctly linked this crisis to the cycle of multigenerational poverty that plagues many inner cities.
Their analysis has never been limited to economic security. Every time a multimillionaire entertainer like Nick Cannon or an athlete like Cam Newton announces a new baby, social commentators predictably criticize their lack of commitment, the consequences of broken homes, and the argument that children need presence over presents.
Yet, when the father in question is a billionaire with ties to the most beloved Republican president since Ronald Reagan, some right-wing commentators suddenly apply a different set of rules.
One conservative commentator made his standard crystal clear:
Pretending that what happens far too often in the black community — getting knocked up by brokeys and bringing into the world children that have to be raised on the taxpayer dime — is similar to procreating with a billionaire is intellectually dishonest.
I responded online, pointing out that his argument only makes sense if a father’s primary role in the home is financial. This assumption has driven left-wing thinking for decades.
Progressives often respond to discussions about family structure by calling for more social spending. To many liberals, a father in the home is nice to have but not necessary, as long as government programs support low-income single mothers.
Apparently, some on the right share the left’s low view of men. Only partisan tribalism could justify the belief that a child is better off with a wealthy, conservative-friendly father who won’t acknowledge them, sees them sporadically, and refuses to commit to their mother.
Children need more than financial support. They thrive with a father’s affection, protection, direction, and correction — things a man juggling a dozen children across multiple states cannot possibly provide consistently.
The belief that a man’s bank account can replace his presence in the home ignores a fundamental truth: Fatherhood is about more than money.
Marriage establishes the duties and obligations husbands and wives have toward each other — not just their financial responsibilities to a child. Men need women, women need men, and children need both parents. The best way to meet those needs is within a loving, low-conflict household where a married mother and father are committed to each other and their children.
Despite what some conservatives may believe, a child raised in that environment is far more privileged than one with a wealthy but absent dad.
The Most Pro-Family Thing Trump Can Do Is Ditch His Support For Child-Commodifying IVF
Keen observers highlight a hopeful sign of change on CDC website in searches for 'abortion'
President Donald Trump's pro-life pick to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. David Weldon, has yet to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate; however, life-affirming changes are already afoot at the national health agency.
Keen observers discovered last week that when users searched the term "abortion" on the CDC website, a prompt appeared atop all the results stating, "Also try: adoption."
The hyperlinked term "adoption" takes users to a wide-range of CDC search results about adoption, including the adoption experiences of men and women and a national survey of adoptive parents.
According to The Hill, the change likely took place after federal agency websites went dark late last month.
Agency websites were rendered temporarily inaccessible on Jan. 31 because efforts were being taken behind the scenes to ensure that the main sites and their subpages complied with a White House order concerning the removal of race-obsessive DEI language and references to gender ideology.
'Abortion is not healthcare.'
A notice appeared on the homepage for the CDC's data portal indicating that it was "temporarily offline in order to comply with Executive Order 14168 Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government and the [Office of Personnel Management] notice dated January 29, 2025, 'Initial Guidance Regarding President Trump’s Executive Order Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (Defending Women)," reported NBC News.
While CDC pages on supposed radical health disparities, on transvestites, and on homosexual men were eliminated, it appears the slight nudge toward adoption as opposed to eliminating a life was added.
Various pro-life advocates and organizations celebrated the subtle albeit meaningful change.
Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) took it as an admission that "abortion is not healthcare," noting, "Glad we're finally making that clear."
Libs of TikTok wrote, "I love it!"
LifeNews.com stated, "Good times!"
Of course, the change was decried by pro-abortion activists and elements of the liberal media. For instance, the leftist blog Jezebel complained both that "politicians across the political spectrum almost universally glorify the adoption industry" and that the CDC's current engine does not detail "psychological impacts of adoption on birth mothers."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories