Last week, a gay couple — Logan Riley and Brandon Mitchell — went viral for posting photos of the baby boy they acquired through surrogacy. What began as a celebration quickly unraveled after it emerged that one of the men is a convicted sex offender.
Social media users raised obvious concerns. Was this arrangement in the best interest of the child? What risks come with separating a baby from his mother and placing him with unrelated adult males, one of whom has a record of sex crimes? Critics asked these questions and were met, as usual, with accusations of bigotry from gay activists. But once the facts surfaced, the activists who rushed to defend the couple fell silent.
Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.
The pattern is familiar. Critics of surrogacy are smeared until reality breaks through the narrative. By then, the damage is done — and the child is the one who suffers.
The original case for gay adoption was flimsy. It presented same-sex couples as a last resort, a solution for children who would otherwise languish in the foster system. Even its advocates admitted that two men raising a child could not replicate the contributions of a mother and father. The goal was to offer love and stability in the absence of better alternatives.
That framing has since disappeared. As the LGBTQ movement moved from acceptance to dominance, the rhetoric shifted. Gay adoption was no longer a concession. It was equal to heterosexual couples adopting, then it was superior. Religious adoption agencies that prioritized married mothers and fathers were accused of discrimination and extremism. State governments and national organizations began steering children toward same-sex households, now presented as the cultural ideal.
Once equality became unquestionable dogma, the conversation shifted again. Adoption was no longer enough. Activists turned to surrogacy — not to rescue unwanted children, but to commission biologically related ones. The moral justification evaporated. This wasn’t about saving lives so much as satisfying adult desires.
Surrogacy is sometimes described as a form of adoption. That’s misleading. Adoption involves accepting responsibility for a life that already exists, often in difficult circumstances. Surrogacy deliberately creates a child to be separated from his mother and sold to strangers.
The physical and emotional toll on the mother is severe. Surrogates are often poor, vulnerable, and pressured into contracts they don’t fully understand. Children are ordered like designer fashion accessories. There are cases of forced abortions, abandoned babies, and severe trauma — all downstream from the commodification of life.
This is not a rare byproduct. It is built into the practice.
Children raised by unrelated adults face increased risks of abuse. One study found that preschool-aged children are 40 times more likely to be abused in a household with a stepparent than in one with both biological parents. The data is not absolute, but the trend is clear: Adults, especially men, are far more likely to abuse children to whom they are not biologically related.
This should alarm anyone watching the rise of surrogacy arrangements, particularly those involving male couples. These are homes where the child has no biological connection to either adult. And in some cases, as with Riley and Mitchell, one of the men has a criminal record that would disqualify him from adopting under state law.
RELATED: Trump moves to defund hospitals mutilating kids for money
In Pennsylvania, sex offenders are barred from adopting. But surrogacy remains unrestricted. The child in this case remains in the custody of a man the law has deemed unfit to parent.
This is not some oversight. It is a structural and legal failure.
We are told that the buying and selling of human beings was one of history’s greatest evils. Our education system and popular culture treat slavery as the ultimate moral horror. Yet, in the name of equality and inclusion, we now celebrate the legal sale of children — so long as it occurs under the banner of LGBTQ rights.
And so we have elevated identity above accountability. In any other context, a convicted sex offender taking custody of a newborn would be a national scandal. But when the arrangement involves a same-sex couple, basic standards are suspended. The child becomes secondary to the cultural narrative.
Surrogacy did not enter the mainstream through a national debate or democratic vote. It arrived through the back door, marketed as compassionate and modern. Most people didn’t understand the process. They didn’t consider the ethical costs. That time has passed. Ignorance no longer justifies our complacence.
We now see surrogacy for what it is: a commercial industry that exploits vulnerable women and treats children as consumer goods. The law must catch up with the reality.
This is not just a problem for gay couples. Surrogacy as a practice should be banned for everyone. No adult has a right to manufacture a child for personal fulfillment. No amount of wealth, influence, or legal maneuvering justifies the creation of human life as a transaction.
Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.
Anti-Nazi martyr and Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote, “Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice.”
Blaze media co-founder Glenn Beck not only agrees with Bonhoeffer’s poetic statement wholeheartedly, but says it’s exactly what we’re seeing in American politics today — which he believes has been devastating for independent thought and morality.
“He was trying to figure out, I think, the same thing that we’re going through. And I think the same thing that in some ways, both sides think they’re going through because both sides are saying to themselves, ‘I can’t even talk to these people,’” Glenn says.
Both sides will point out evil based on where they're told to see it, but that’s all they can see — leaving them blind to their own moral or intellectual failings.
These people often are called "NPCs" or "non-playable characters," because they're completely unaware that they're following a script.
“Stupidity, not evil, is the greater threat. Not because it's more powerful, but because stupidity is unreachable. You can expose evil. You can argue with it. You can shine a light on it. You can resist it. But stupidity just doesn’t respond. It doesn’t engage. It just is. And it spreads,” he continues.
And contrary to popular belief, to be “stupid” doesn’t mean to be uneducated.
“He didn’t mean a lack of intelligence. In fact, some of the stupidest people he encountered in Germany were very highly educated. Some were university professors,” Glenn says.
“What he’s talking about is moral failure. It’s a willful surrender of independent thought, a kind of intellectual cowardice that allows propaganda and groupthink to take over and become the root like cancer,” he continues.
While the right often accuses the left of this, the issue exists anywhere there’s a crowd.
“Bonhoeffer called it a psychological problem,” Glenn says. “It emerges in groups and crowds and movements. Listen to this. People hand over their discernment not because they’re dumb, but because they choose not to think. They let slogans replace ideas. They let ideology replace truth.”
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
After covering a little too much darkness in the world, journalist Jessica Reed Kraus of House Inhabit has opened her Bible and started on a spiritual journey.
And BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is not only thrilled to hear it but well-aware that encountering darkness can often lead someone to the light.
“I hear from a lot of people who previously, they didn’t believe, or maybe they were just agnostic, and they didn’t know that it was actually seeing evil, in whatever context, some people it’s Hollywood, for some people it’s politics, for some people it’s in their own life, that kind of turns the light on,” Stuckey tells Kraus on “Relatable.”
“And they’re like, ‘Oh, if there’s objective evil and darkness, then there must be objective goodness and light too,’” she adds.
“Absolutely,” Kraus agrees. “That’s sort of an underlying theme now, is good and evil and darkness and light and what you’re giving your energy to.”
Some of the darkness she had seen prior to beginning her spiritual journey is attributed to covering celebrities like Britney Spears, whose fall from grace has served as entertainment for the masses — and one she could no longer cover after a certain point.
“When it weighs me in a negative and sort of a dark way, I will usually kind of back away,” she says.
However, Kraus didn’t always feel drawn to the Bible, as growing up around liberals, the topic of God was “shunned.”
“You just kind of instinctively know not to bring up God and religion,” she explains, noting that when she was working on the campaign trail with the Trump team and the Kennedy team, it couldn’t have been more different, and people were very open with prayer and faith.
“It felt like it was a really cool thing to witness,” she adds.
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The first sign of spring is said to be the appearance of a robin. That sign is followed by the first sign that June has arrived: a Pride flag, festooned with what seems to be an ever-increasing number of colors and symbols, hoisted up the flagpole, right under (or alongside) Old Glory.
For as long as most folks living in a civil society can remember, pride and lust have been counted among the infamous list known as the seven deadly sins. The list varies slightly in order and phrasing, but they are: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride.
To my knowledge, only "pride" has a flag designed specifically to celebrate its practice. However, the Pride flag doesn’t just encompass pride — it glorifies lust too — even though you can attach the spirit of pride to any of the other bad behaviors found on the infamous list.
Of course, the Ten Commandments outline the evil of all of these sins, warning of the danger of being controlled by them. Pride, along with the other deadly sins, is spiritually dangerous — and it often carries psychological and physical consequences too.
Flags, of course, are symbolic and used to unite those of similar viewpoint and allegiance. But we are aware that they can also rally people to lethal ends.
What started out decades ago as the statement, "What we do in our bedrooms is our own business," has now morphed into, "Celebrate the many ways we transform your children into our own image and indoctrinate them into our devious lifestyle."
Simply put, evil has become good, and good evil (Isaiah 5:20).
This distortion of God and nature would be comedy to the max if it weren't so pathetic and dangerous.
At the risk of making light of this very serious practice of our downward-sliding nation, might I suggest decadent flags for several of the remaining sins?
The flag for greed would be filled with dollar signs; for sloth, well, that’s easy — a giant sloth! We could pick any of the remaining 11 months that don’t have “official” flags and send one of these beauties up the flagpole.
I had a couple of ideas for gluttony, which I would like to suggest could fly through the entire month of November. Why November? Well, for one thing, we all know what happens on Thanksgiving Day.
RELATED: Pride Month is on the run. Here’s how to finish the job.
And the official flag for gluttony? Might I offer a colorful, eye-catching beauty that displays a giant glazed donut with sprinkles? Or perhaps even a tempting array of hot dogs? Or better still — both!
The official gluttony flag could flap in the breeze with (dare I say) pride all November long. (Heck, you might even want to keep it flying all through the Christmas holiday season and into Super Bowl Sunday, for that matter!)
As a nation, we need to turn from our dangerous obsession with coddling a variety of evil ways. “Speaking the truth in love,” at a minimum, is suggested by St. Paul (Ephesians 4:15). It’s obvious, though, that we must keep in mind that certain bad habits and practices have become ingrained in our culture, and pushing back against them, even gently, could have unintended consequences.
However, we need not, simply by our silence, encourage an ever-expanding drift into decadence. After all, if it is indeed true that "pride goes before the fall," we are very near the precipice. We must begin — and continue — to pull back.
Certainly, that serious effort begins with prayer to see where the spirit of our loving God leads.
And, hey, there's even a flag for that! George Washington and America’s founders flew “An Appeal to Heaven” banner — which, by the way, I suggest you display every month of the year.
Editor's note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.
While a majority of Americans identify as Christians, many of them have been misled to believe in a version of Christianity that is not biblical — for fear of how they’d be treated in the public square.
“We are told over and over again that if you, as not just a Christian, but a conservative Christian, bring your worldview into the public square, into politics, if you allow what you believe about the Bible to influence your politics, you are a fascist, you are a dictator, you’re trying to bring in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale,’ you are a Christian nationalist,” Allie Beth Stuckey tells author and apologist Natasha Crain on “Relatable.”
However, the opposite is true for progressives.
“If you’re a progressive that uses some decontextualized Bible verse to support your immigration policy or your abortion policy or your socialistic policy, that’s not Christian nationalism, that’s fine, that’s true, good Christianity,” Stuckey continues.
“It’s only when a Christian might say, ‘Well, you know, Psalm 139 makes it pretty clear that babies inside the womb are valuable or made by God, so I don’t think that it should be legal to murder them,’ all of a sudden that is prohibited in a form of tyranny,” she adds.
“I think Christians get very confused on this because we see that there’s so many different ideas out there of what is good. People start saying that what we believe is harmful and toxic and that we’re misogynous and we’re oppressors,” Crain says. “We have all these insults that are hurled at us because of our ideas about the common good.”
“What the world calls good may be evil, and what the world calls evil may be good,” she adds, noting that many Christians get dissuaded from preaching what they believe is good because others don’t like them for it.
“Jesus said, ‘If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own,’” Crain says. “So he was warning his disciples before they went out on mission. He didn’t give them warm and fuzzies and say, ‘Hey, this is going to be great.’”
“He actually gave an explanation for why they would be hated by saying, ‘If you were of the world,’ and to be ‘of the world’ literally means to be under the governing rule of Satan. Scripture is very clear that you are either of Satan or of God. You’re a child of Satan or a child of God,” she continues.
“Those who are children of Satan, they want to go their own way. It’s their own wills, their own desires. They are slaves to sin. And people who are slaves to sin are always going to hate those who are slaves to righteousness, who are children of God, because the darkness hates the light,” she adds.
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Among the speakers in the book of Job, the Lord gives the final speech (in Job 38–41) — and the last thing he speaks about is Leviathan.
What is Leviathan? Are there clues in the text or outside of the book that help us identify it? Let’s see what we see.
First, the structure of Job 38–41:
Literarily, Job’s words in 40:3-5 divide the sections 38:1–40:2 and 40:6–41:34. Why might such a division be significant? Because of the content of the respective sections of the Lord’s speech.
In 38:1–40:2, the Lord talks about things like creation, dividing the seas, giving rain, and providing for animals. We’re on board with those topics. They remind us of the things we’ve read in Genesis 1 as well as parts of Psalms that rejoice in God’s power over creation.
But in 40:6–41:34, we face two big topics: Behemoth (40:6-24) and Leviathan (41:1-34). I want to focus on Leviathan. There’s something climactic about this figure because he occupies the last part of the last big speech in the book.
This creature — Leviathan — cannot be easily led or played with (41:1-2, 5). Overcoming Leviathan with harpoons and spears would be impossible (41:7-8). None should dare to rouse this creature (41:9-10). Leviathan has incredible strength, terrifying teeth, and a back of scales (41:12, 14-17). Fire comes from his mouth (41:18-21). Normal human weapons cannot subdue Leviathan (41:26-29). He resides in the sea (41:6–7, 31). Nothing on earth is like this fearless creature (41:33). He is king over all the sons of pride (41:34).
Well, this creature sounds nothing short of horrifying, the stuff of nightmares. A common view that’s held about Leviathan is that he is a dinosaur. References to great strength (41:12), scales around the body (41:15-17), and his teeth (41:14) might all be mustered as evidence of this identification.
But I don’t think Leviathan represents a dinosaur.
Leviathan is best understood as a poetic depiction of the evil one — Satan himself. Consider eight pieces of evidence that, when taken in a cumulative fashion, make a strong case for Leviathan being Satan.
First, Job’s words in 40:3-5 are a literary division between what God spoke about in 38:1–40:2 and then in 40:6–41:34. In 38:1–40:2, we read about things in creation we’re familiar with. But in 40:6–41:34, we’re encountering ... something else.
Second, the language about the creature challenges human dominion. If Leviathan was an animal, then we would expect the language of Genesis 1:28 to apply to him. God created image-bearers to exercise dominion over creation, to subdue the creatures he made. But in Job 41, something is different. Leviathan is something that man cannot subdue.
Third, the creature breathes fire. In 41:18-21, the description of a fire-breathing monster strains our ability to correlate him with a known creature in the present or the past.
Fourth, the figure Leviathan has parallels with ancient Near Eastern stories. The ancient world viewed the sea as a place of chaos, untamable by man. The deep was foreboding and unforgiving. Here is a creature — a sea monster — showing fearlessness and who is a threat to those around him. Eric Ortlund writes that “YHWH is speaking to Job within Job’s cultural framework, drawing upon symbols common to the ANE [Ancient Near East] and the Old Testament, both in order to assure Job that God is more intimately acquainted with the magnitude and malignity of the evil at work in his world than Job ever could be, and to promise him that God will one day defeat it.”
Fifth, the figure Leviathan is mentioned in Psalms. In Psalm 74:14: “You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.” Heads? Yes, that’s plural. In Psalm 74:14, Leviathan is a multiheaded sea monster. And in Psalm 104:24-26, God has established the great sea where Leviathan dwells. With the sea being a place of chaos and evil, this multiheaded sea monster is more likely a personification of evil than a dinosaur.
Sixth, the figure Leviathan is mentioned in Isaiah. In Isaiah 27:1, we read, “In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.” Again, Leviathan is associated with the sea — evil. But what else do we read? The words serpent and dragon. These terms are strong clues that are reinforced by Genesis 3 and by Revelation 12 and 20. Satan is the deceiving serpent, and he is the raging dragon. And in Isaiah 27:1, the day of his judgment is promised. We can use language about Leviathan outside of the book of Job to help us understand Leviathan inside the book of Job.
Seventh, consider how the book of Job begins. God speaks in Job 1–2. And with whom does he speak? Satan himself. Satan is a problem in the beginning of the book. He’s traveling throughout the earth with his malevolent purposes (1:7; 2:2). What if we thought of the book of Job as having an inclusio with the figure that is Satan? He would be referenced in Job 1–2 by name and then in Job 41 by poetic depiction. Job faces evil at the beginning of the book, and at the end of the book he learns that God has dominion over Leviathan. Though man cannot defeat evil, God can. In chapters 1–2, God speaks to Satan about Job, and in chapter 41 he speaks to Job about Satan.
Eighth, the word Leviathan appears early in Job. In 3:8, Job says, “Let those curse it who curse the day, who are ready to rouse up Leviathan.” If Leviathan is associated with evil — and the evil one — then the first occurrence of the word is literarily interesting because it appears right after chapters 1 and 2 where Satan speaks and seeks to subdue Job.
Evidence inside and outside scripture suggests that Leviathan represents evil, even the evil one himself who has opposed Job and all God’s people. Robert Fyall says, "Leviathan is a guise of Satan."
At the beginning of the book, the reader clearly sees that Job cannot subdue the evil one. Satan is untamable by man, like a multiheaded sea beast in the waters of chaos. But God can overcome Leviathan. According to Jim Hamilton, "The whole book is bracketed by Yahweh’s enticing Satan to do his bidding at the beginning, and by his putting a hook in Leviathan’s nose at the end."
Yahweh rules over the deep. Evil will not have the last word.
When God begins to speak in 38:1, he’s talking about his own sovereign authority and dominion. Nothing is outside his control. The Lord reigns over his creatures. But the problem in the book of Job isn’t with the animal world. The reader is rightly concerned about suffering and evil and the sinister one known as Satan. So the climactic part of God’s words in the final speech is reserved for this. The good news isn’t that God can subdue a dinosaur. The good news is that evil will answer to the Lord.
Who can slay mighty Leviathan? God — who is mightier — can and will.
This essay was originally published at Dr. Mitchell Chase's Substack, Biblical Theology.
Former Washington Post writer Taylor Lorenz frequently concern-mongers about theoretical harms, such as those supposedly generated by unmasked Americans "raw dogging the air." It appears that Lorenz's compassion runs dry in the face of real harm and tragedy.
After a masked man walked up and fatally shot UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Wednesday, Lorenz posted on the liberal X knockoff Bluesky an apparent justification for the killing of the father of two. Despite significant backlash, Lorenz then followed up with more controversial commentary, underscoring in a blog post titled "Why 'we' want insurance executives dead" that "it's normal" to wish death on executives in the health insurance sector.
Lorenz — a blogger who has peddled plenty of fake news, doxxed Libs of Tiktok in 2022, and called President Joe Biden a war criminal for supporting Israel's war on Hamas terrorists — doubled down on her comments Monday, telling Piers Morgan of "Piers Morgan Uncensored" that she "felt, along with so many other Americans, joy" upon learning of Thompson's slaying.
"Joy? Seriously?" said Morgan. "Joy at a man's execution?"
'It feels like justice in this system.'
Lorenz suggested that if not joy, then the feeling was "certainly not empathy."
"We're watching the footage. How can this make you joyful? This guy is a husband. He is a father," said Morgan. "And he has been gunned down in the middle of Manhattan."
Lorenz tried justifying her schadenfreude by accusing the deceased of committing mass murder, then broadening her smear by suggesting that tens of thousands of Americans "died because greedy health insurance executives like this one push policies of denying care."
"So should they all be killed, then?" responded Morgan, taking his guest's argument down the rails. "Would that make you even more joyful?"
Laughing, Lorenz said that the extermination of health insurance executives would not make her more joyful. The blogger suggested that the execution of the unarmed executive was, however, useful, stating, "It is a good thing that this murder has led to ... the media elites and politicians in this country paying attention to this issue for the first time."
Toward the end of the segment, Lorenz interrupted to clarify that she was not joyful about the slaughter but "celebratory."
"I take that back. 'Joyful' is the wrong word, Piers," said Lorenz. "Vindicated, celebratory — because it feels like justice in this system when somebody responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans suffers the same fate as those tens of thousands of Americans who he murdered."
'We should not necessarily go around shooting people in the street.'
Another guest on the show, conservative commentator Tomi Lahren, suggested that to "celebrate the murder of a husband and a father simply because you disagree with his position at a company, or you disagree with the company, or you disagree with the system of health care that we have in the U.S., is, quite frankly, sick, twisted, and disgusting."
"It also goes to show that the left and many on the left have a tendency to believe that violence like this, political violence, is necessary, it's a means to an end," continued Lahren.
A poll conducted by Scott Rasmussen's RMG Research for the Napolitan News Service in September highlighted this politically charged bloodlust on the left.
The survey asked, "While it is always difficult to wish ill of another human being, would America be better off if Donald Trump had been killed last weekend?" While 69% of respondents said no, a staggering 28% of Democrats answered "yes."
Lorenz appeared to chuckle while Lahren spoke, prompting a response from Morgan: "Taylor, I don't mean to be rude, but why the f*** are you laughing all the time? I don't get it. Sorry, apologies for my language, but honestly, I find it unbelievable."
The leftist blogger suggested that she found Lahren's characterization amusing, then noted, "I agree we should not necessarily go around shooting people in the street."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
President Joe Biden, whom Cardinal Wilton Gregory of the Archdiocese of Washington deemed a "cafeteria Catholic" on Easter Sunday, has awarded the nation's highest civilian honor to Cecile Richards, a woman who made millions of dollars helping snuff out millions of American lives.
Pro-life critics have suggested a society that valued life would arrest, not award, Richards.
"With absolute courage, she fearlessly leads us forward to be the America we say we are — a nation of freedom," wrote Biden. "Through her work to lift up the dignity of workers, defend and advance women's reproductive rights and equality, and mobilize Americans to exercise their power to vote, she has carved an inspiring legacy."
'We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver.'
According to the White House, the award is "presented to individuals who have made exemplary contributions to the prosperity, values, or security of the United States, world peace, or other significant societal, public, or private endeavors."
Richards, the daughter of the late Democratic Texas Gov. Ann Richards and a former deputy chief of staff for Nancy Pelosi, served from 2006 to 2018 as president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America — an organization founded by the infamous eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who stressed the need to "apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
The abortion tallies in Planned Parenthood's annual reports indicate that under Richards' leadership, the organization slaughtered over 3.87 million babies. In her final year, when the organization killed 332,757 babies, Richards' salary was $1,033,274, having fallen short of seven figures the previous fiscal year by roughly $42,000.
The organization under Richards reportedly created the super PAC Planned Parenthood Votes and expanded its lobbying arm, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, lining the coffers of Democratic lawmakers on the one hand and pushing for increased access and federal funding to abortion services on the other.
Leftists have also credited Richards with seeing the organization through the scandal that arose over pro-life citizen journalist and Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden's undercover videos in 2015 showing Planned Parenthood officials callously talking about butchering, playing with, and trafficking baby parts.
The CMP posted a video on July 14, 2015, showing a senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood, Deborah Nucatola, state matter-of-factly over wine and lunch, "We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that 'I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact.'"
"I'd say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they'll know where they're putting their forceps," continued Nucatola. "The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium — the head — is basically the biggest part."
Richards stressed in the aftermath of the video's release, "Our donation programs — like any other high-quality health care providers' — follow all laws and ethical guidelines," reported the New York Times.
After 12 years making money off death and sterilizations, Richards co-founded Supermajority, a leftist female-led PAC that quickly netted millions of dollars from George Soros.
Richards was diagnosed in 2023 with glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain tumor with an average survival time of just over a year.
'Scary place to be.'
"Cecile Richards presided over the abortions of 3.9 million babies as president of Planned Parenthood," tweeted Live Action president Lila Rose. "She belongs in jail. Not in the White House receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
"She is literally a merchant of death," wrote Dan McLaughlin of National Review. "Hard to think of a living person who has killed more Americans."
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro noted, "Her legacy is millions of dead unborn children."
'This honor marks a dark chapter in the late stages of one of the darkest presidencies in American history.'
Kristan Hawkins, presidents of Students for Life, tweeted that with Richards at the helm, some of Planned Parenthood's victims' bodies were "dissected and sold to the highest bidder. Planned Parenthood representatives haggled over prices for livers and brains. Planned Parenthood’s abortions skyrocketed under Richards even as the organization’s number of total clients plummeted year after year. Cecile Richards is anything but honorable. What a disgrace."
Pro-Life Wisconsin pointed out that "ironically, the babies aborted under Cecile Richards' watch will never have freedom. Their rights were stripped as they were killed in ... what should have been the greatest place of safety — their mother's womb."
Edward Feser, a Catholic professor of philosophy at Pasadena City College, suggested Biden conferring the medal upon Richards showed his true colors: "The 'personally opposed, but …' Catholic Democrat line on abortion was always rank dishonesty, but to commend a ghoul like this is to drop even pretense. Biden's effectively using the last days of whatever cognitive clarity he has left to destroy his conscience. Scary place to be."
Blaze News previously reported that Cardinal Raymond Burke, a canon lawyer and former prefect of the Catholic Church's highest court, said in 2020 that Biden "is not a Catholic in good standing and he should not approach to receive Holy Communion."
"This is not a political statement," continued Burke. "I don't intend to get involved in recommending any candidate for office, but simply to state that a Catholic may not support abortion in any shape or form because it is one of the most grievous sins against human life and has always been considered to be intrinsically evil and therefore to in any way support act is a mortal sin."
Biden reiterated that he is a "practicing Catholic."
"This honor marks a dark chapter in the late stages of one of the darkest presidencies in American history when it comes to protecting mothers and unborn children," Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote, told the Washington Times. "Planned Parenthood has used billions of taxpayer dollars to profit from the tragic extermination of millions of children, while exploiting the health and well-being of countless women."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Attempts to interact with demons are growing as formerly Christian nations apostasize and invite mass immigration of peoples who worship gods that the Christian Bible says are demons.
To give a Christian response to the problem of evil means it is possible that God permits evil and suffering because He can bring about a greater good from it.
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com