Colorado Democrats really want college women to abort the next generation



Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) ratified a radical piece of Democratic legislation last week that will force colleges across the state to moonlight as dispensaries for abortion drugs like mifepristone, thereby encouraging college-age women to abort the next generation.

'College students shouldn't have to go through hoops.'

House Bill 1335 — a bill sponsored by state Rep. Lorena Garcia, a Democrat who ensured last year that all Coloradan taxpayers contribute to abortion — requires that:

  • Thirty-two Colorado colleges with student health facilities "provide abortion medication to all students enrolled at the institution";
  • On-campus pharmacies "maintain a stock of and provide access to abortion medication to students" enrolled at the school; and
  • Colleges without on-site pharmacies submit prescriptions for abortion medications to off-campus pharmacies or alternatively dispense abortion drugs through their student health centers.

The law goes into effect on Aug. 1, 2027.

Among the organizations that condemned the legislation and urged Polis to consider a veto was the Colorado Catholic Conference, which deemed HB 1335 "a violation of the sanctity of life of preborn children."

RELATED: James Talarico's WOKE CHURCH raises money to fund abortions and transgender summer camp for children

WOJTEK RADWANSKI/AFP/Getty Images

"Requiring colleges and universities to stockpile abortion pills will destroy more human life and cause serious physical, emotional and mental harm to many young women," the CCC stated. "Additionally, HB26-1335 violates the religious freedom of insurers who do not cover abortion."

Lydia Davis, a spokeswoman for Students for Life of America, warned about the dangers of abortion drugs.

Davis told the College Fix that "these deadly drugs have killed millions of babies, harmed women, and polluted our water systems with chemically tainted fetal remains flushed into our sewer systems. This bill would turn college campuses into abortion distribution centers and continue transforming our sewers into cemeteries."

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, there were at least 36 patient deaths associated with mifepristone between September 2000 and December 2024.

Adverse events have also been reported in 2,740 cases of women who took mifepristone to kill their unborn children. Between November 2012 and December 2024, 288 women who used mifepristone were hospitalized; 190 experienced blood loss requiring transfusions; and 114 suffered infections, the USDA reported.

Rebecca Weaver, director of advocacy for the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists Action, said in her written testimony to Colorado lawmakers that the legislation "imposes sweeping requirements without establishing basic medical safeguards, creating significant risks to women's health and undermining standards of care."

Lloyd Benes, a Coloradan who testified earlier this year in opposition to the legislation, echoed some of AAPLOG Action's concerns in an op-ed in the Loveland Reporter-Herald last month, stating that the legislation does not require campus clinics to provide informed consent; has no in-person dispensing requirement, raising concerns about potential coercion; has no ultrasound requirement, perhaps leaving ectopic pregnancies undetected; has no guidance on the disposal of human remains; and lacks conscience protections.

After Polis signed the bill into law, state Rep. Garcia stated, "This new law makes sure college students can easily access their constitutionally-protected right to reproductive healthcare. For college students, their entire lives center around campus, and this law makes medication abortion accessible through a student health clinic or pharmacy."

State Rep. Kenny Nguyen (D) said, "College students shouldn't have to go through hoops to receive their constitutionally-protected right to an abortion. Our law streamlines access to medication abortion accessible so college students can receive life-saving care."

Regis University, a private Catholic school in Denver, is exempt from the law, Axios reported.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Absolutely Gross’: Leftist ‘Toolkit’ Teaches Kids How To ‘Break School Rules’ And Plot Anti-ICE Protests

The booklet does not define what a protest-worthy issue is, but the pages are covered with children holding leftist slogan signs.

Artificial Intelligence Is Rewarding High School Grads For Being Dishonest Frauds

With widespread AI use, what distinguishes top graduates from their lower-ranked classmates is often just their greater willingness to cheat and lie about their work.

College professors want your child's soul. Here's how you can stop them.



As this school year comes to an end, I hear parents talking about what university their children got into and how excited the family is about this next phase of life. As a university professor, I relate to this wholeheartedly. Raising your children to finish high school and go on to university is one of the biggest duties Christian parents will accomplish.

But there is a question Christian parents almost never ask: Why do we send our children into institutions that will work against the very faith we spent 18 years trying to instill?

You will routinely find professors lambasting Christianity in their classes as an oppressive colonizer religion that must be deconstructed.

No one says it that way, of course. Instead, the conversation sounds something like this: “We’ve found a good campus. There’s even a strong Christian student group.”

Now, let me say plainly: Those groups can be wonderful. I thank God for them. But pause for a moment and consider what that assumption reveals. You are already expecting that Christian community will exist outside the mission of the university. You are hoping your child will find a refuge within an otherwise hostile environment.

In other words, you are not sending your child into a place that reinforces truth, but into a storm, and praying they find a bunker. And you are probably paying tens of thousands of dollars to do it.

That should trouble us more than it does, because it wasn’t always this way. Institutions like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale were not founded as neutral arenas of inquiry. They were explicitly Christian. Their purpose was to cultivate piety, train ministers, and teach the knowledge of God to all students.

Universities have always had a vision of truth. The only difference now is that the vision has changed.

RELATED: The pipeline from university radical to would-be assassin

Celal Gunes/Anadolu/Getty Images

Today’s university is not neutral. It is structured around a set of ideas that systematically undermine Christianity while presenting themselves as morally superior. Take the influence of Michel Foucault. Students are taught, often implicitly, that truth is not something discovered but constructed. Knowledge is tied to power. What earlier generations called “truth,” we are told, is really just the perspective of those who happened to win.

Then there is Paulo Freire, whose approach to education has become foundational in teacher training and pedagogy. Education, in this view, is not about learning what is true but about liberating the oppressed. The world is divided into oppressors and oppressed, and students are trained to dismantle the oppressors.

Guess which category Christianity lands in?

Add to this the ever-present language of “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” along with intersectionality. These frameworks redefine truth itself as something tied to identity. Moral authority is assigned based on lived experience, and disagreement is often recast as harm.

The Bible, under this lens, is no longer read as the word of God. It is treated as a cultural artifact, one that has historically supported systems of oppression.

None of this is presented as an attack on Christianity. That would be too obvious. Or at least, you would have thought so even 10 years ago. But now you will routinely find professors lambasting Christianity in their classes as an oppressive colonizer religion that must be deconstructed.

And all of this is framed to the students as compassion and empathy. It is justice. It is only fair. And “that’s not fair!” is a very powerful argument for university students.

Young people have a strong instinct for fairness. When they hear, “That’s not fair,” they lean in. But what they are rarely told is that the definition of fairness itself has been quietly replaced.

Disagreement is recast as harm, hierarchy becomes injustice, and truth becomes a tool of whoever is in power. The Bible is a social construct invented by the patriarchy to retain power.

First comes disorientation: “Everything I learned growing up is being questioned.”

Then pressure: “If you don’t agree, you’re part of the problem.”

Then isolation: fewer Christian friends, fewer edifying conversations. More immoral filth where “love is love” is used to justify the basest forms of lust.

Then internal shift: Doubt feels like intellectual maturity.

And finally, exit or compromise. Some abandon the faith outright. Others keep the label but redefine it until it fits comfortably within the system that once challenged it.

Parents are often blindsided by this. They assume education is neutral. Sure, they had atheist professors and the standard left-wing nut, but those professors were just that: nuts.

Now, the crazy is normalized and the sane, holy, and faithful are institutionalized. Don’t assume that if your child finds a good group, everything will be fine.

This is not a neutral environment occasionally disrupted by bad ideas. It is an environment structured in a particular direction, with occasional pockets of resistance. Those Christian groups we celebrate are the bastions, not the foundation.

So what should parents do?

RELATED: Christian students are pushing back — and universities are cracking

WOJTEK RADWANSKI/AFP/Getty Images

First, don’t just ask whether your children will succeed academically or professionally. Ask whether they will remain faithful to Christ. Help them equip themselves with the armor of God described in Ephesians chapter 6.

Second, prepare them intellectually. They need to understand not only what they believe, but why, and how it contrasts with the frameworks they will encounter. Teach them the Bible and the historic Christian faith.

Third, help your children make faith in Christ their own. This is not merely an intellectual enterprise. Teach your children to love Christ and put their trust in salvation by Christ alone. When they know Him as their savior and trust His promises, they will stand firmly in that day of spiritual battle.

Third, expose hostile frameworks early. Teach them about Foucault, Freire, and the assumptions behind DEI before they hear those ideas in a classroom. If they have already heard the anti-Christian, anti-Bible arguments because you covered them together as preparation, they will be ready to dismantle them.

Fourth, stay engaged. Ask what their professors are teaching. You can look up their professors on the university webpages. Their bios probably won’t say “DEI anti-Christian radical,” but you will get a good sense of what they think by looking at their published works and conference presentations.

Above all, stop assuming neutrality where none exists. This is a spiritual battle of good vs. evil.

The real question is not whether universities shape your children’s beliefs. They will. The question is whether you will prepare your child to recognize that shaping and to stand firm in the truth.

Because if Christ is Lord of all truth, then no institution gets to undermine Him under the guise of “social justice advocacy.”

All parents should prepare their children for this spiritual reality. These university professors want your child’s soul.

Golden State Warriors coach gets political — is he following in Stephen A. Smith’s footsteps?



Stephen A. Smith isn't the only big name in sports whose actions may point to a potential career change.

Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr sat down for an interview with the New Yorker titled “Has Steve Kerr Had Enough?” — and what he said was enough to set alarm bells off in BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock’s head.

“Guess who might be the next presidential candidate coming from the sports world?” Whitlock asks on “Fearless with Jason Whitlock,” pointing out that he’s not the only one who noticed.

Political consultant Frank Luntz also senses a career change for Kerr, writing in a post on X: “Legendary Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr sounds like he could run for office.”

In the interview, Kerr told the New Yorker that when he finished college almost 40 years ago, getting a job and buying a house were much simpler.


“Now that’s out of reach for most people between student debt and home prices and the economy slanted toward the very, very top 1%,” he added.

Whitlock also points out that “Steve Kerr and the Golden State ownership are [allegedly] at odds over how far he’s pushing on the political spectrum.”

“So perhaps Steve Kerr is positioning himself for a political run,” Whitlock says, noting that he has some advice for Kerr.

“Tell the left and particularly the athletic left, the professional athlete left, tell them to grow a pair, be somewhat consistent. The silence over the consistent violence directed toward President Trump is really annoying and exposes you and all of these athletes as hypocrites,” he says.

“Maybe Steve Kerr and Stephen A. Smith can pair up and that will be the tandem running for president,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trump Admin To Stop Taxpayer Funding Of Worthless College Degrees

'Now is the time for a hard reset in higher education,' the department stated.

This Classic Book Series Gave My Homeschooled Kids A Passion For History

From Gettysburg to a forgotten history book series, the past remains colorful — and teachable.

School paper of murdered college student apologizes to illegal immigrant, not victim



A student-run newspaper has apologized this week but not to the peer who was murdered.

Loyola University Chicago student Sheridan Gorman, 18, was shot and killed on March 19 around 1:00 a.m. The Department of Homeland Security said at the time she had been walking in a park with friends.

'We deeply regret these errors, and we're committed to continuing the high standards we hold for ourselves as journalists.'

DHS went on to accuse Jose Medina-Medina, "a Venezuelan criminal illegal alien," of wearing a mask and shooting Gorman as she attempted to run away.

Now Loyola University Chicago's newspaper is apologizing for characterizing the accused as an "illegal immigrant."

In an article published on Sunday, the Loyola Phoenix added an editor's note about language used in an Instagram post on Monday.

The outlet first wrote that its original headline on Instagram, "Immigrant Man Charged in Murder of Sheridan Gorman, DHS Involved," was inappropriate because it caused "harm" to "community members."

"That headline didn't reflect the most important elements in the story, and it was taken down minutes later to prevent any further harm to affected community members," the Loyola Phoenix began.


Then the student-driven paper apologized for using the term "illegal immigrant" entirely.

RELATED: College student went to Chicago park to see northern lights — and was lethally shot by illegal alien suspect, DHS says

"In the body of the original post, we described the man who was charged as an 'illegal immigrant,' using language provided by the Department of Homeland Security. That language does not align with Associated Press style, nor does it align with the values of this newspaper," the note said.

"No human’s existence is illegal, and we quickly changed our wording to reflect that."

Associated Press dropped the term "illegal immigrant" in 2013 and currently provides a bevy of alternate terms while declaring one should "use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant."

The style guide goes on to say that terms like "immigrants lacking permanent legal status" or "irregular migration" are acceptable substitutes. The guide explicitly says not to use the terms "alien, unauthorized immigrant, irregular migrant, an illegal, illegals, or undocumented," except when quoting people or government documents.

"Many immigrants have some sort of documents, but not the necessary ones," it adds.

RELATED: Will Pritzker honor ICE detainer against illegal alien accused of murdering 18-year-old college student?

Photo by Jim Steinfeldt/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Loyola's paper continued, saying it acknowledged the "harm such language can cause and the power and importance of the words we choose to use."

"We deeply regret these errors, and we're committed to continuing the high standards we hold for ourselves as journalists and members of the Loyola, Rogers Park, and Chicago communities," the message concluded.

Blaze News reached out to the article's author, Lilli Malone, who is also listed as the editor in chief of the paper, but did not receive a response.

In its report, DHS said that Medina-Medina was released into the country in May 2023 after being apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol and released again that June after he was arrested for alleged shoplifting in Chicago.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!