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.Women will now have more time to abort their children, and everyone will finally have a say in how and when they die.With Abortion And Euthanasia Votes, The U.K. Rejects The Basis Of Every Human Freedom
Once a nation ceases to respect the source of human dignity, it doesn't take long to stop respecting the rights that dignity demands.Report: Despite Fewer Planned Parenthood Locations, Abortions Rise With Telehealth Pill Distribution
Planned Parenthood has 43 virtual health centers in 34 states, prescribing birth control, abortion pills, and hormone drugs for transgender interventions via online or phone appointments.House Judiciary Committee Advances Repeal Of The FACE Act Biden Weaponized To Jail Pro-Lifers
The pro-life movement repeatedly warned that the GOP-controlled Congress’s failure to repeal the FACE Act would enable future weaponization.A president’s job is to stop the burning if governors won’t
In response to widespread rioting and domestic disorder in Los Angeles, President Trump ordered the deployment of National Guard units. More than 700 U.S. Marines from the Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms were also mobilized on Monday to protect federal property around the city.
As expected, critics pounced. They claim Trump’s orders violate American tradition — calling them anti-constitutional, anti-federal, and an authoritarian misuse of executive power. They say Trump is turning the military into a domestic police force.
In moments like this, the republic must defend itself.
But that argument isn’t just wrong — it’s nonsense on stilts.
The U.S. Army Historical Center has published three comprehensive volumes documenting the repeated and lawful use of federal military forces in domestic affairs since the founding of the republic. From the Whiskey Rebellion to civil rights enforcement, history shows that federal troops have long been a constitutional backstop when local authorities fail to maintain order.
Certainly, the use of military forces within U.S. borders must be limited and considered carefully. But the Constitution explicitly grants this authority. Article IV, Section 4 states: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.”
That clause isn’t a suggestion — it’s a command. A republican government exists to safeguard life, liberty, and property. The First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, but it does not shield acts of arson, looting, or assault. When rioters threaten the public, federal intervention becomes not just permissible but, in this instance, necessary.
Article II empowers the president, as commander in chief of the Army, Navy, and National Guard (when called into federal service), to act decisively against both foreign and domestic threats. That includes quelling insurrections when state leaders fail to uphold public order.
The National Guard is not the “militia” the founders discussed. That distinction was settled with the passage of the Dick Act in 1903, which clarified the Guard’s federal identity in relation to state control. Since then, the Guard has operated under dual federal and state authority — with federal control taking precedence when activated. Once federalized, the National Guard becomes an extension of the U.S. military.
Congress codified this authority in 1807 with the Insurrection Act. It authorizes the president to use military force when ordinary judicial proceedings fail. This provision enabled presidents throughout history to deploy troops against domestic unrest. During the 1950s and ’60s, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy used it to enforce desegregation orders in the South.
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush relied on the same statute to deploy Army and Marine forces alongside the California National Guard during the L.A. riots following the Rodney King trial verdict. That was done without sparking cries of dictatorship.
RELATED: Why Trump had to do what Gavin Newsom refused to do
Those accusing Trump of violating norms by acting over a governor’s objection should revisit 1957. After Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus (D) defied federal orders to desegregate Little Rock Central High School, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in the 101st Airborne Division. Democratic Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia decried the move, comparing the troops to Hitler’s storm troopers — a reminder that hysterical analogies are nothing new.
Americans have sought to limit military involvement in domestic life. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was designed to do just that — restrict the use of federal troops in civil law enforcement without explicit authorization. But even that law has historical nuance.
The concept of “posse comitatus” comes from English common law. It refers to the authority of sheriffs to summon local citizens to restore order. In early American history, federal troops often supported U.S. Marshals. They enforced the Fugitive Slave Act, stanched the bleeding in Kansas, and helped capture John Brown at Harpers Ferry.
After the Civil War, the Army played a key role in enforcing Reconstruction and suppressing the Ku Klux Klan under the Force Acts. Southern Democrats opposed this use of federal power. But by the 1870s, even Northern lawmakers grew uneasy when soldiers were ordered to suppress railroad strikes under direction of state and local officials.
The Army eventually welcomed Posse Comitatus. Being placed under local political control compromised military professionalism and exposed troops to partisan misuse. Officers feared that domestic policing would corrupt the armed forces.
I’ve long argued for restraint in using military power within U.S. borders. That principle still matters. But lawlessness, when left unchecked, can and will destroy republican government. And when local leaders fail to act — or worse, encourage disorder — the federal government must step in.
President Trump has both the constitutional and statutory authority to deploy troops in response to the violence unfolding in Los Angeles. Whether he should do so depends on prudence and necessity. But the idea that such action is unprecedented or somehow illegal has no basis in law or history.
If mayors and governors abdicate their duty, Washington must not. The defense of law-abiding citizens cannot hinge on the whims of ideologues or the cowardice of local officials. And in moments like this, the republic must defend itself.
Georgia pro-life organization attacks bill that would classify abortion as homicide: 'Sad, but it is not a surprise'
Georgia state Rep. Emory Dunahoo (R) introduced legislation in February that would define life as beginning at conception and classify the act of abortion as homicide. House Bill 441, the Prenatal Equal Protection Act, is popular among state Republicans, having secured over 20 co-sponsors in the state legislature. It has also managed to enrage the usual suspects — those alternatively keen on stripping unborn babies of legal protections.
The pro-abortion advocacy group Reproductive Freedom for All, for instance, condemned HB 441, calling it "an extreme and politically motivated measure that would criminalize abortion at all stages of pregnancy by establishing legal personhood at fertilization."
Reproductive Freedom for All and similar radical organizations have found an unlikely ally in Georgia Life Alliance, an advocacy group that claims on its website to be "leading the fight for life in elections, policy, and education statewide."
Georgia Life Alliance recently raised eyebrows with a publicized March 19 letter to the state House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee asking that it refrain from holding its hearing on HB 411 or at least kill it in committee.
The pro-life group's executive director, Claire Bartlett, and its board chair, Bryan Tyson, noted in their letter that while the legislation "appears well-intentioned and partially aligns with Georgia Life Alliance Committee's mission," they "hold grave concerns with the impact, consequences, and outcomes of the bill which conflicts with our organizational mission."
'This is totally false.'
The duo suggested that women seeking to eliminate their babies "require compassionate support, not punitive measures"; criminalizing women "could deter them from seeking necessary medical care and support"; penalties for killing babies in the womb might lead to "unregulated abortions" or dissuade women from seeking medical or mental health care after the fact; and the recognition of the unborn child's personhood in criminal law "would add immeasurable stress to Georgia's already-existing mental health crisis."
While HB 441 clarifies that mothers who get abortions under coercion — where they reasonably believe that the execution of their child is the only way to prevent their own death or great bodily injury — would not be held guilty, Bartlett and Tyson suggested that coercion "extends to intense psychological abuse such as gaslighting, overt devaluation, control, manipulation, and oppression."
"HB 441 changes long-standing Georgia protections for women and does not address or hold accountable the abortionist, the pimp, the sex trafficker, and the irresponsible man who will face no consequence and continue to prey on women and girls for their own selfish gain," wrote Bartlett and Tyson.
Bradley Pierce, president of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion — a national pro-life nonprofit that has championed the legislation from the start — stated that "House Bill 441, the bill that Georgia Life Alliance is opposing in Georgia, would simply protect the lives of innocent preborn children with the same homicide and assault laws that protect the rest of us as born people. This is what God commands and the U.S. Constitution requires."
"[Georgia Life Alliance] claims that House Bill 441 criminalizes only women and exempts abortionists, pimps, and sex traffickers. This is totally false," continued Pierce, whose organization drew significant attention to the letter this week. "The truth is that current pro-life laws in Georgia protect a woman's 'right' to knowingly and willingly murder her preborn child by abortion. House Bill 441, on the other hand, is the only bill that is impartial and would treat everyone equally under the law."
In addition to recognizing the personhood of the unborn and applying the same penalties to the slaying of unborn babies to those on the books for killing a born person, the bill would enable the Georgia attorney general to prosecute baby slayings if local prosecutors fail to and enable parents to pursue legal action for the death of their unborn children.
Pierce added, "It was sad, but it is not a surprise to see a well-established Pro-Life lobby group oppose equal protection of the laws for preborn children in Georgia. We have seen this happen repeatedly across the country."
'Tens of thousands of babies, made in the image of God, continue to be murdered in our state every year.'
Ben Zeisloft, head of communications at the Foundation to Abolish Abortion, similarly blasted Georgia Life Alliance over its characterization of the bill, suggesting with a meme that the pro-life organization might be captive to feminism, secularism, and humanism.
Blaze News reached out to Georgia Life Alliance for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.
The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reported that the state House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee hearing, which Georgia Life Alliance tried to torpedo, ultimately took place, but the bill did not clear the state House before day 30 of the legislative session. The bill is, however, not dead. It will remain active for reconsideration through the next legislative session.
Republican state Rep. Dunahoo said during the hearing, "Tens of thousands of babies, made in the image of God, continue to be murdered in our state every year, all within the bounds of the current law. That must be changed," reported the Georgia Recorder.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Abortion Pill Reversal Saved My Son’s Life. A Pro-Life Community Saved Mine
About seven months after reversing my chemical abortion, my son arrived. I love him more than I ever feared having him.NBC News: Embryos Are Valuable And Worth Protection (But Only When They Are Wanted)
NBC News’ dangerous double standard on the fate of embryos deems life valuable and worth protection only if it is desired.Blaze News original: Pro-lifers dunk on New York Times for falsely accusing Trump of lying about Dems' abortion ambitions
The New York Times has demonstrated on numerous occasions a willingness to bend or abandon the truth, especially when doing so might further leftists' political agendas.
The paper rushed, for instance, to print Hamas propaganda in October 2023, falsely suggesting that the Islamic Jihad rocket misfire that blew up a hospital in Gaza, killing hundreds, was actually an Israeli airstrike. The paper also did its apparent best last year to furnish Democrats with the misleading narrative they needed to launch attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices — reliant upon claims that even the Washington Post knew weren't worth a jot of ink. When President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, setting the stage for mass-murdering Mexican cartels to be designated foreign terrorist organizations, the Times undermined its credibility again, suggesting that identifying and holding terrorists responsible for their actions might hurt the economy.
This is far from an exhaustive list. In fact, the Times — a paper compromised by the CIA during the Cold War — recently misled readers on another issue, claiming that President Donald Trump had misrepresented Democrats' aims regarding abortion.
Pro-life groups were quick to hammer the Times over its latest publication of fake news and its corresponding attempt to obfuscate a damning truth.
'The Times has an obligation to report this evidence.'
In a letter shared with Blaze News, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser told the executive and political editors of the New York Times that "while abortion remains an issue that evokes strong opinions, feelings, and reactions, such personal perceptions cannot overtake journalists' obligation to report fairly, accurately, and impartially."
Highlighting information the Times apparently decided to gloss over, Dannenfelser noted that "the Times has an obligation to report this evidence, cite the facts, and allow readers to come to their own conclusion without the interference of bias, omission, or misinformation that has often characterized your coverage of the issue."
'Debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party.'
Among the articles Dannenfelser raised concern about was Times health policy writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg's Jan. 24 article, in which Stolberg stated that Trump "repeated false claims about abortion rights" in his video address to pro-life advocates at the 52nd March for Life, singling out his suggestion that Democrats are pushing "for a federal right to unlimited abortion on demand up to the moment of birth and even after birth."
Of course, to accept that Trump's assertion is false would mean discounting what Democrats have said and how they have voted in recent days and years.
NBC News, which Stolberg would apparently have readers believe was dealing in Trumpian falsehoods, noted in 2023 that some Democrats "insist on a sweeping national standard that goes beyond the one set by Roe v. Wade, which gave women the right to have an abortion before a fetus is considered viable and allowed states to set limitations for abortions after that time frame."
The same report noted that the "notion of debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party, particularly reproductive rights advocates."
Multiple Democratic lawmakers have voted repeatedly to advance the so-called Women's Health Protection Act, which would codify a federal right to abortion with virtually no limitations or requirements, enabling health care providers, including incentivized abortionists, to end a child's life after fetal viability on the basis of a "good-faith medical judgment" that the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the mother's health.
National Review previously noted that the WHPA's chief sponsor in the Senate admitted that the bill "doesn't distinguish" between physical and mental health and that the legislation advises courts to "liberally construe" the provisions of the act. A risk to a mother's emotional state of mind could, therefore, potentially qualify as a risk to the mother's "health."
When asked whether he supports any limits on abortion, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, one of the many Democratic lawmakers who championed the WHPA, responded, "I don't believe so, no."
Such legislation would put the nation on a path to emulating at least eight Democratic states plus Washington, D.C., where there are no restrictions on third-trimester abortions.
Per Trump's suggestion, Democrats similarly want to minimize protections for babies who initially survive abortionists' attempted executions.
'Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence.'
When the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act went to a vote on Jan. 23, a total of 210 House Democrats voted against requiring health care practitioners to save babies who survive attempted abortions. Senate Democrats kept the sister bill from advancing a day earlier.
This is how the New York Times characterized the Democrat lawmakers' efforts to deprive abortion survivors of protection: "Senate Democrats blocked a Republican-written bill on Wednesday that could subject some doctors who perform abortions to criminal penalties, thwarting the G.O.P.'s first attempt to restrict reproductive rights since the party has secured its governing trifecta."
"The facts are in President Trump's favor," Dannenfelser said in her letter. "Democrats have not been shy about also publicly stating their support for abortion at any stage and without limits. A long list of Democrats, ranging from Senators John Fetterman, Mark Kelly, and Patty Murray, to Governor Katie Hobbs and former Governor Ralph Northam have refused to name a point before birth at which they think abortion should be limited."
"It's clear to us and to many other readers that the Times isn't just reporting on a debate but taking a side, placing its thumb on the scale in favor of the pro-abortion argument," continued the pro-life advocate. "As editors, you know well that these intentional word choices matter. The facts matter. Truth matters. Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence in legacy news publications."
Blaze News reached out to Stolberg, asking her to clarify what precisely Trump had said in the above quote that was false. The Times reporter did not respond by deadline.
The conservative nonprofit CatholicVote was among the other groups and pro-life advocates that blasted the Times for its "false reporting," stating, "Uh, @nytimes, Democrats literally just voted against giving medical care to babies who survive botched abortions and can't name a single abortion limit they support."
Tim Graham, executive editor of MRC's NewsBusters, stated, "America's most prestigious newspapers routinely paint pro-lifers as extreme. They can't seem to locate themselves on the opposite extreme. Is it because they consider themselves the moral center? Extending the 'right to choose' to terminate babies ... born alive may seem logical to them. But it defines a radical fringe."
The apparent eagerness on the part of fellow travelers to mislead on Democrats' real objectives regarding abortion might be informed by polling showing that only a minority of Americans think abortion should be legal in all cases.
A 2024 Pew Research poll found that only 25% of Americans support the legality of abortion in all cases. A May 2024 Gallup poll found that 50% of respondents supported legal abortion, but only under certain circumstances. A previous Gallup poll found that only 22% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the third trimester.
A Knights of Columbus-Marist poll revealed on Jan. 23 that 67% of Americans — including 55% of respondents who identified as "pro-choice" — said that limits should be placed on when abortion is allowed.
Emma Camp, an assistant editor at Reason, recently noted in the Atlantic, "The grim reality of later abortion is simply too much for most Americans to countenance — and reasonable policymakers should listen to them."
"Most Americans believe that third-trimester abortions should be restricted. If Democrats want a platform that truly reflects majority opinion, they should address the question of what to do about later abortions and adopt a position that protects abortions in the first trimester while limiting second- and third-trimester abortions to pregnancies with fetal abnormalities or maternal health crises," added Camp.
Democrats don't, however, appear keen to heed the concerns of Americans. Unwilling to abandon the promise of limitless abortion, they must rely on the media to gaslight the public about what they are really up to. Stolberg appeared more than willing to do her part.
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
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com