Pro-Life Sanctuary Cities Aren’t Political Theater, They’re Actually Saving Lives
These city ordinances are not 'hollow gestures,' but real-world solutions that make an actual difference in the fight against abortion.These city ordinances are not 'hollow gestures,' but real-world solutions that make an actual difference in the fight against abortion.Louisiana seeks arrest of California doctor accused of sending abortion pills to the Bayou State
The Bayou State has reportedly issued an arrest warrant for a Northern California doctor accused of sending abortion pills to a Louisiana woman in 2023 — a woman who has indicated she was pressured to take the drugs and is now "haunt[ed]" by her chemical abortion.
"On multiple occasions, I have raised concerns about the unlawful distribution of these pills in our sate and the harm that it does to women," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement. "It’s dangerous, irresponsible, unethical, and illegal to distribute these pills to strangers in violation of the criminal laws of our state, without any relationship whatsoever to the individual who may ultimately be consuming them."
'I would have told the doctor that I wanted to keep my baby.'
"I will enforce and defend the laws of our state, including suing the governors whose shield laws purport to protect these individuals from criminal conduct in Louisiana," added Murrill.
The warrant for Remy Coeytaux's arrest is the latest action in a broader battle between red and blue states over federal approvals for mifepristone — an abortion drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has indicated is linked to a number of serious adverse events as well as the deaths of dozens of mothers.
Rosalie Markezich, the recipient of the drug who is now "haunt[ed]" by her chemical abortion, has joined Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill in requesting to join a lawsuit aimed at prompting the FDA to prohibit telehealth prescriptions to mifepristone. Texas and Florida are similarly keen to get involved in the lawsuit that was revived last year by Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho.
Markezich claimed in a court filing earlier this month that despite initially celebrating her pregnancy, her boyfriend "soon changed his mind," then used her personal email address and mailing address to obtain mifepristone and misoprostol "from an online provider that his sister has used multiple times before."
RELATED: The abortion pill’s body count — and the progressive cover-up behind it
A few days after allegedly forwarding to Remy Coeytaux the $150 her boyfriend sent her, Markezich received the drugs by mail.
According to her declaration, Markezich changed her mind about killing her child, but her boyfriend, who apparently "had anger issues and a criminal record," allegedly coerced her into taking them — and she proved unable to throw them back up.
"The trauma of my chemical abortion still haunts me," said Markezich. "Had the FDA required an in-person visit with a doctor before dispensing the drugs, my boyfriend would never [have] been able to obtain the drugs that he made me take. I also would have told the doctor that I did not want to take them. And I would have told the doctor that I wanted to keep my baby."
'Safeguards for women regarding the administration of mifepristone have been significantly reduced.'
Murrill, who has not elaborated on what charges Coeytaux faces or when the warrant was issued, said in a statement to the Associated Press that Markezich is bravely representing many women "who are victimized by the illegal, immoral, and unethical conduct of these drug dealers."
Coeytaux, who did not immediately respond to the Associated Press' request for comment, is also named in a civil complaint filed in July with the federal court for the Southern District of Texas.
The Texas complaint, filed on behalf of Jerry Rodriguez, alleges that Rodriguez's girlfriend, Kendal Garza, became pregnant with his child but was ultimately pressured by her estranged husband to use abortion drugs allegedly obtained from Coeytaux "to murder Mr. Rodriguez's unborn child."
Weeks after the filing of Rodriguez's suit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ordered Coeytaux to cease and desist from mailing abortion drugs into the state of Texas and indicated such conduct not only violates Texas state law but the federal Comstock Act of 1873, which prohibits the mailing of abortion-related drugs.
Whereas some red states have laws on the books enabling mothers to take legal action against out-of-state abortion drug pushers, several Democrat-run states — including California, as of Friday — have passed laws shielding abortion-pill peddlers from legal consequence for violating other states' abortion bans.
While the multi-state lawsuit that Markezich and Murrill seek to join could end up resolving this conflict, the Trump administration may end up deciding independently to impose restrictions on mifepristone prescriptions.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary reportedly told Republican state attorneys general in a Sept. 19 letter that the Department of Health and Human Services was conducting a safety review of the abortion drug.
"Recent studies — such as the study by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), which you highlighted in your letter — indicate potential dangers that may attend offering mifepristone without sufficient medical support or supervision," said the letter. "FDA's own data collected between 2000 to 2012 indicated 2,740 adverse events, including 416 events involving blood loss requiring transfusions. Since then, safeguards for women regarding the administration of mifepristone have been significantly reduced."
A coalition of 20 Democratic attorneys general cited Kennedy's letter in a joint statement on Monday where they noted, "If access to mifepristone is challenged, we will take action to protect it."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Leftists Feign Sympathy For Autistic Babies They’d Happily Abort
True compassion is equipping women to build strong, healthy pregnancies so fewer problems ever arise — not telling them to end the life of their child when challenges appear.The Medical Profession Doesn’t Want You To Know About Alternatives To Embryo-Destroying IVF
'We are in a fertility crisis; you would think that any physicians with expertise in this field would be a welcome addition.'For Children, Surrogacy Always Creates A Deep, Gaping Hole Where A Mother Should Be
Like a sapling wounded early, my life bent and grew around the gaping wound of abandonment. It became a part of me.Study warns of possible link between world's most popular painkiller and autism
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. raised the alarm earlier this year about the meteoric rise of reported autism cases in the United States, underscoring at a press conference, "We are doing this to our children, and we need to put an end to it."
"The [autism spectrum disorder] prevalence rate in 8-year-olds is now 1 in 31," said Kennedy, referring to a study that examined children born in 2014. The health secretary noted further that American boys face an "extreme risk" of ending up with autism, stating that they have a 1 in 20 chance of being diagnosed with the condition — or a 1 in 12.5 chance in California.
Kennedy promised President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting in April that "by September, we will know what has caused the autism epidemic and we'll be able to eliminate those exposures."
A study published this month in the peer-reviewed medical journal BMC Environmental Health could prove valuable to the Department of Health and Human Services' campaign to narrow down the possible causes of autism.
Researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, University of California Los Angeles' School of Public Health, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai systematically reviewed 46 "well-designed" studies incorporating data from over 100,000 participants regarding the relationship between neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and prenatal exposure to acetaminophen.
'The research team’s findings strengthen the evidence for a connection and raise concerns about current clinical practices.'
Acetaminophen, the drug sold under the brand Tylenol in the United States and Canada, is the most common over-the-counter pain and fever medication used during pregnancy and is reportedly used by well over 50% of pregnant women worldwide.
The researchers found that 27 of the studies reported "significant links" between acetaminophen exposure in the womb and NDDs and noted that "higher-quality studies were more likely to show positive associations."
"Overall, the majority of the studies reported positive associations of prenatal acetaminophen use with ADHD, ASD, or NDDs in offspring, with risk-of-bias and strength-of-evidence ratings informing the overall synthesis," said the study.
RELATED: FDA blasts 'politically motivated' criticism over review of SSRI health risks during pregnancy
When specifically evaluating the studies pertaining to Tylenol use and autism in children, the researchers found "strong evidence of a relationship between prenatal acetaminophen use and increased risk of ASD in children."
The drug freely crosses the placental barrier, "reaching levels in fetal circulation similar to maternal circulation within less than an hour of maternal ingestion."
According to the researchers, the drug:
- "undergoes oxidative metabolism via the enzyme CYP2E1 — present in fetal brains, placenta, and lungs — to produce toxic metabolites";
- "affects prostaglandin and endocannabinoid pathways, which are involved in prenatal neuronal development";
- has been shown in animal models to increase "oxidative stress markers in the fetal brain and is associated with neurodevelopmental deficits"; and
- "directly perturbs hormone-dependent processes, affects neurodevelopment and reproductive disorders, and might alter steroidogenesis in the placenta and induce placental damage."
Dr. Diddier Prada, an assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said in a release, "Our findings show that higher-quality studies are more likely to show a link between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and increased risks of autism and ADHD."
"Given the widespread use of this medication, even a small increase in risk could have major public health implications," added Prada.
Mount Sinai noted that while the damning study "does not show that acetaminophen directly causes neurodevelopmental disorders," "the research team’s findings strengthen the evidence for a connection and raise concerns about current clinical practices."
RELATED: Jab first, ask questions never: Vaccine truths your doctor won't tell you
The medical community has long raised concern about the possible downsides of acetaminophen consumption during pregnancy.
An international coalition of public health experts said in a consensus statement published on Sept. 23, 2021, in the journal Nature Reviews Endocrinology that "increasing experimental and epidemiological research suggests that prenatal exposure to APAP [acetaminophen] might alter fetal development, which could increase the risks of some neurodevelopmental, reproductive, and urogenital disorders."
'This work is ongoing, and the department will follow the science wherever it leads.'
"Epidemiological studies consistently suggest prenatal APAP exposure might increase the risk of adverse neurodevelopmental and behavioral outcomes, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, language delay (in girls) and decreased intelligence quotient," said the experts. "Collectively, the studies suggest that the timing and duration of maternal APAP use are critical factors."
HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard told Blaze News that HHS does not comment on outside studies. Hilliard noted, however, that "under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS is taking action guided by gold-standard, evidence-based science. This work is ongoing, and the department will follow the science wherever it leads."
Tylenol does not appear to be particularly pleased with the study.
A company spokesperson for Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, said in a statement to Blaze News, "Nothing is more important to us than the health and safety of the people who use our products. We continue to evaluate the science, and this study does not change our view that there is no causal link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and fetal developmental issues."
"To date, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and leading medical organizations agree on the safety of acetaminophen, its use during pregnancy, and the information provided on the label," added the spokesperson.
A source close to Tylenol noted further that "it appears the study was designed for litigation and not public health, as two of the authors are experts for the plaintiffs in the acetaminophen litigation."
Harvard University's Dr. Andrea Baccarelli, one of the authors on the study, served as an expert witness on matters of general causation involving acetaminophen use during pregnancy in a multi-district litigation class-action lawsuit against Tylenol.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
FDA blasts 'politically motivated' criticism over review of SSRI health risks during pregnancy
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is pushing back against criticism from medical establishmentarians over the agency's willingness to take a closer look at the health risks posed by antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, during pregnancy.
Various health organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accused FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, his agency, and the participants in an expert panel discussion that Makary hosted last month of disseminating "inaccurate" information and of making "outlandish" claims.
'Adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents.'
An FDA spokesperson defended the agency's discussions with experts on the topic, suggesting to Blaze News that the critiques of the agency's expert advisory process were "politically driven."
Dr. Jay Gingrich, professor of developmental psychology at the Columbia University Medical Center, noted during the July 21 panel discussion that while expectant mothers suffering depression have long been prescribed SSRIs, it was not until recently that any substantial research was undertaken to determine whether these drugs improved outcomes in the mothers' offspring.
JAMA Medical News confirmed that no randomized clinical trials have been undertaken, due partly to ethical concerns. Despite the absence of such trial data, 6%-8% of pregnant women are reportedly prescribed SSRIs in the United States.
After observing in rodent trials that the mice born of female mice exposed to SSRIs exhibited "stark changes in behavior" and "changes in the brain," Gingrich explored with Finnish researchers whether SSRI exposure in the womb was similarly consequential for human children and found that it was.
RELATED: 'It's immoral': RFK Jr. axes Biden vax reporting requirement, targets doctors' 'hidden incentives'
A study co-authored by Gingrich and published earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications provided further confirmation of negative impacts, revealing that "adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents and also had greater activation of the amygdala and other limbic structures when processing fearful faces."
The study concluded that "SSRIs are a common therapeutic strategy in perinatal maternal emotional disorders, however the present cross-species data and prior studies on single species indicate that we need more mechanistic understanding of how pharmacological factors like SSRIs impact early brain development and later result in maladaptive behaviors."
'The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings.'
Dr. Adam Urato, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at MetroWest Medical Center in Massachusetts, told his fellow panelists that he has observed in recent years women increasingly taking antidepressants during pregnancy, in many cases thinking SSRIs "don't affect the baby or cause complications."
"These drugs alter the mom’s brain. Why wouldn't they affect the baby’s?" said Urato. "We can see it on prenatal ultrasound. The ultrasound studies show SSRI-exposed fetuses have different movement and behavior patterns. After birth the newborn babies can have jitteriness, breathing difficulties, and higher rates of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit."
"The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings," Urato underscored. "For example, there's currently no warning regarding preterm birth or preeclampsia. The postpartum hemorrhage warning needs to be strengthened. But perhaps the major shortcoming is that the label doesn't make clear that SSRIs alter fetal brain development."
The concerns raised by Gingrich, Urato, and the other panelists evidently ruffled some feathers at organizations that champion the use of SSRIs during pregnancy.
Steven Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, rushed to complain, stating shortly after the conclusion of the panel discussion that it "was alarmingly unbalanced and did not adequately acknowledge the harms of untreated perinatal mood disorders in pregnancy," adding, "Robust evidence has shown that SSRIs are safe in pregnancy and that most do not increase the risk of birth defects.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' current practice guidelines reportedly recommend SSRIs as a first-line pharmacotherapy for mothers between the time of conception and up until a year after the baby's birth.
Fleischman told JAMA Medical News last week that the panel may "incite fear and cause patients to come to false conclusions that could prevent them from getting the treatment they need."
'Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health.'
Marketa Wills, CEO of the American Psychiatric Association, echoed Fleischman in a July 25 letter to Makary, stating, "We are alarmed and concerned by the misinterpretations and unbalanced viewpoints shared by several of the panelists."
"The inaccurate interpretation of data, and the use of opinion, rather than the years of research on antidepressant medications, will exacerbate stigma and deter pregnant individuals from seeking necessary care," wrote Wills.
In addition to stating that "the overall evidence suggests that individuals can and should take SSRIs prior to or during pregnancy, when they are clinically indicated for treatment," Wills claimed that "recent meta-analyses have found no association between prenatal SSRI exposure and overall risk of birth defects."
The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine similarly complained, suggesting that the panelists made "unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims."
RELATED: RFK Jr. pulls plug on mRNA jabs because they 'pose more risks than benefits'
Other groups similarly outraged by the discussion of possible downsides to drugs characterized as safe and effective include Postpartum Support International, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, and the Massachusetts General Hospital for Women's Mental Health.
An FDA spokesperson told Blaze News, "The claim that the FDA’s expert advisory process is 'one-sided' or politically driven is insulting to the independent scientists, clinicians, and researchers who dedicate their expertise to these panels."
"FDA expert panels are roundtable discussions with independent panels of scientific experts that will review the latest scientific evidence, evaluate potential health risks, explore safer alternatives, and individual experts may offer their recommendations for regulatory action," continued the spokesperson. "This initiative is part of the FDA’s broader efforts to apply rigorous, evidence-based standards to ingredient safety and modernize regulatory oversight, thoroughly considering evolving science and consumer health."
The spokesperson noted that "Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health" and stated that suggesting "his engagement on women’s health signals a desire to manipulate outcomes is politically motivated and undermines the serious work being done to improve care for millions of women."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Why Restorative Reproductive Medicine Is More Pro-Woman Than IVF
Restorative reproductive care is both medical and patient-centered, but is not yet standard practice for the treatment of infertility.England Codifies A Culture Of Death
Women will now have more time to abort their children, and everyone will finally have a say in how and when they die.Baby wars: Trump voter birth rate outpacing Democrat voters in record numbers
Republicans are having more babies than Democrats, and the difference has only increased in the Donald Trump era.
Several reports, along with data from the National Center for Health Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show a clear relationship between red and blue counties and their fertility rates.
Not only do fertility rates get higher the more a county votes for Republicans, but the contrast with Democrat counties is growing stronger over time.
'We need a culture that values our children intrinsically.'
According to a data analysis by the Institute for Family Studies, Trump support equals more families. For every 10% increase in Trump votes in 2024, there is an expected fertility rate increase of 0.09 in a woman's lifetime.
The IFS also noted that in counties that had less than 25% of their votes going to Trump, like D.C., the median fertility rate was 1.31. In counties with a more than 75% vote share for Trump, the median fertility rate was 1.84. Of course, 2.1 or above is the ideal replacement rate, but the contrast is still large.
Moreover, the gap in fertility rates has grown by 85% in the last 12 years.
In the Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney era of 2012, there was an 8% fertility difference between red and blue counties. According to the IFS, that difference has more than tripled to a 26% difference in 2024.
RELATED: America last: Hillary Clinton lets truth slip about illegal aliens and low US birth rates
In counties with more than 100,000 people, the "most Democratic" voter turnout correlates with a drastically lower fertility rate than the rest of the country, with a 1.37 birth rate. While moderate Democrat numbers are closer to the American average, the swing is big toward the "most Republican" counties, which average a 1.76 birth rate.
The Republican fertility advantage can be directly attributed to marriage, says Grant Bailey, research associate at IFS.
"Republicans (and conservatives) marry at higher rates, and married adults have much higher fertility rates than do singles," Bailey told Blaze News. "With that said, even within marriage, conservatives have more children than their liberal peers."
Bailey explained that even many married liberals never have children, and that drives an even bigger divide between the fertility rates across party lines.
RELATED: Hormonal birth control: As bad for you as smoking
"It’s no secret that birth rates have been in free fall worldwide for decades and that continuing on our current course will spell economic and social disaster for many," Erika Ahern told Blaze News.
Ahern, an author at CatholicVote and a mother of seven, said that increasing a family’s demand for children requires "a shift in how we as a society value children and family altogether."
Ahern added, "Instead of emphasizing the cost and inconvenience of children, we need a culture that values our children intrinsically."
According to CDC data, the top 10 states with the highest birth rates in 2023 were Republican, and the bottom 10 were Democrat.
South Dakota is the only state with a birth rate above 2, at 2.01. Nebraska, North Dakota, Alaska, and Louisiana round out the top five.
On the bottom end, Vermont has just a 1.3 birth rate, the worst in the nation. Other than Oregon, which ranks 48th on the birth rate list, the Northeast dominates the bottom of the rankings. Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island are all near the bottom, with birth rates of 1.4 or below.
In 2022, Vermont, Wyoming, and Delaware had the fewest births by state in the country, with five states having fewer than 10,000. This can be attributed to population size for all but Vermont, which came in last on the CDC's fertility rate rankings for 2022.
California had by far the most births of any state in 2022, approximately 420,000, but nowhere near the highest fertility rate; it was 11th worst.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com