Pro-choice pastor claims ‘most women seeking abortions are religiously affiliated’



During a sermon at the First Congregational Church in South Portland, Maine, retired Presbyterian minister Marvin Ellison attempted to claim that abortion can be an act of love — and that the women seeking them are often religious themselves.

“This morning, I speak from my experience as a volunteer chaplain for Planned Parenthood. Without naming names or breaking confidences, I want to just speak about a few things I’ve learned from women who’ve received abortions and candidly shared their story with me,” the pastor explained.

The pastor went on to claim that “most women electing to terminate a pregnancy are religiously affiliated.”


“So I’ve listened to and prayed with Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish women. With Muslim and Buddhist women. And with conservative evangelical women. And some confided in me that they had never expected to find a Christian minister inside Planned Parenthood. Maybe outside the clinic protesting, but they hadn’t imagined that they would meet a Christian minister inside the clinic,” he said.

BlazeTV host Pat Gray is in disbelief.

“How do you make that case, that yeah, Jesus is fine with you ending the life of your child?” Gray asks.

“He wants to send you a child and then have you terminate that child. Wait, what? ... It doesn’t even make sense,” he adds.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

When criminals are 'victims': Why ‘shout your abortion’ culture is going mainstream



A recent article from Life News centers on Becca Rea-Tucker, radical feminist and author of the pro-abortion book “The Abortion Companion: An Affirming Handbook for Your Choice and Your Journey,” openly celebrating her abortion — and BlazeTV host Steve Deace warns this is becoming a trend.

“And you can see she’s wearing a T-shirt there. ‘Thank God for abortion,’” he says, reading her shirt. “That’s blaspheming of the Holy Spirit, I would argue, right there, the unforgivable sin with a middle finger up in the air. She wants you to know. She can’t wait to brag about it. She wants to shout her abortion,” Deace says.

“Now I don’t know how many of the women that are killing their babies these days feel the way that Becca Rea-Tucker does. I just know I’m seeing more of Becca Rea-Tuckers than I’ve ever seen before,” he continues.


Which is why Deace believes pro-lifers desperately need to work on their argument.

“Let me walk you through an exercise. Wait a minute. So you think this thing inside of me that I just got pregnant with seven weeks ago, you think that’s a life?” Deace asks.

“Should fully and completely and totally have all the benefits and accouterments and rights of a fully aged man in his prime?” he continues, using his 33-year-old executive producer Aaron McIntire as an example.

“A child at 7 weeks, a zygote, a fetus at 7 weeks of development ought to have the full rights therein of a 33-year-old man in his prime, married with a couple of kids and a mortgage, paying the bills. They’re the exact same being. That’s what you guys think,” he says.

“So if I pull out a gun right now and shoot Aaron, I should be punished. Maybe even given the death penalty. ... All right, I go across the street to Planned Parenthood to kill my kid. Nothing,” he adds.

“You’re using that retarded messaging, and Becca Rea-Tucker is just laughing at you right in your face. And by the way, thumbing her nose at God and shaking her fist at God and everything else, right?” he asks.

Deace notes that Tucker is also quite literally “flipping the bird at Christ,” while conservatives argue over whether or not she’s a victim of circumstance.

“And you’re like, ‘Listen lady, were you abused?’ ... That looks like a criminal to me. Doesn’t look like much of a victim to me. If she’s a victim, then every criminal is. Marinate on that one. If she’s a victim, every criminal is,” Deace says.

While he doesn’t have a solution to this issue because the right is “completely and totally politically asinine,” he does ask that conservatives ask themselves a question in response to the “shout your abortion” trend.

“Why Becca Rea-Tucker is not the very definition of a murderess by your own admission. What’s the theological case for that?” he asks, adding, “Does one exist?”

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Bible does support the death penalty. Here's why.



Pope Leo’s recent remarks linking abortion and the death penalty have reignited the age-old debate over whether someone can truly be “pro-life” while supporting capital punishment — but BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey says the answer is an unequivocal yes.

“When he’s talking about the death penalty not being pro-life, then what he is essentially saying is that God is not pro-life because God is the one that commands the death penalty,” Stuckey says.

“God says in Genesis 9, ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed. For God made man in his own image,’” she explains.

“The answer to, ‘Does it still apply today? Because is it still true today?’ is yes,” Stuckey says. “God still makes us in his image. We are still made in God’s image. So we read right there that the reason for the death penalty for murder is because of the value of human beings, and the value of human beings as image-bearers of God has not changed.”


“Then that means that that is still a good punishment for murder. That doesn’t mean that it has to always be the punishment for murder,” she continues.

Throughout scripture, Stuckey points out that “God gives mercy to certain people,” but it doesn’t “negate the command.”

“God actually gives the death penalty for a variety of crimes in ancient Israel. But we as Christians don’t have to abide by all of the ceremonial and cleansing laws of ancient Israel because Jesus has become our cleansing. He has become our sacrifice,” she explains.

And it’s not just in Genesis 9 where this same principle is reflected, but also in the New Testament.

“In Romans 13, we read that the government is instituted by God to bear the sword against the evildoer. That’s not just an analogy. That is a symbol of execution. That is a God-ordained government directive to restrain evil."

While some make the argument that one of the Ten Commandments is “thou shall not kill,” Stuckey explains that it’s actually “thou shall not murder.”

“Murder and killing aren’t the same thing. If you are killing someone in self-defense, that’s not murder. If it is a just war and you are killing someone, that is not murder,” she says.

“So I am actually pro-life for the same reason that I am pro-death-penalty, because I care about innocent life. Because human beings are so important and so valuable that the crime of killing one of us is so hefty that the only commensurate punishment for it is execution,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

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.

Alvin Bragg drops charges against woman who attacked pro-life advocate



In the middle of conducting man-on-the-street-style interviews for her YouTube channel, “Her Patriot Voice,” pro-life advocate Savannah Craven Antao was attacked by a woman named Brianna Rivers — and New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg just dropped all charges against her.

“She’s out there on the streets. This woman walks up and the interview — I don’t know, I’m going to say it escalated very quickly,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales comments.

Antao asked basic questions about Rivers’ beliefs surrounding abortion, to which the woman answered that if a woman doesn’t want a baby, she should “just get rid of it.”

“What happens in an abortion?” Antao asked.


“They literally suck the life out of you. They’re going to take the whole baby out. And as they should, because I shouldn’t be a taxpayer paying child support and food stamps,” Rivers replied, audibly yelling.

“You should be a taxpayer paying for abortions?” Antao asked again.

“Exactly. For a woman who didn’t want the baby in the first place, that doesn’t make sense to me. Don’t ever sit here and lock yourself down with a man who already told you he doesn’t want to be with you,” Rivers said.

“But you don’t get to kill the baby just because their dad didn’t want that,” Antao replied.

“You can,” Rivers said, to which Antao replied, “Should we kill the kids in foster care?”

“Why not!” Rivers screamed.

When Antao brought up that the woman appeared to be okay with killing not only unborn babies but babies in foster care, Rivers punched her in the face.

Antao was faced with stitches and $3,000 in medical bills, and Rivers was charged with second-degree assault.

“But it was dropped because Alvin Bragg’s office apparently is full of DEI hires, I guess. I don’t know. They missed a key filing deadline, and they didn’t even turn over evidence to the court in time,” Gonzales says. “Imagine letting the real criminals, the violent criminals, run free because you can’t be bothered to hit your deadlines.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Tim Walz pretends 'disgusting' Nazi Germany comparison isn't divisive



In a recent interview, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) urged Americans to tone down violent and divisive rhetoric — emphasizing unity and civil debate as core to the nation’s strength.

“The president has done this, knowingly divided. He uses words like, ‘the enemy,’ ‘the enemy within,’ and we’ve never used that language,” Walz said in the interview.

However, Walz has contributed to much of the inflammatory rhetoric himself, and BlazeTV host Pat Gray has the receipts.

“Think about how easy it would be to be a damn Republican,” Walz shouted on stage at a DNC summer meeting. “Oh, what should I wear today? This stupid, freaking, red hat. What should I say today? I don’t know, just make sure it’s cruel. Who do we listen to? That guy, oh, the felon in the White House.”


“That’s not divisive at all,” Gray says sarcastically on “Pat Gray Unleashed.”

“And neither is this,” he adds, before playing another damning clip of Walz.

“My record is so pro-choice, Nancy Pelosi asked me if I should tone it down. I stand with Planned Parenthood, and we won!” he yelled.

In yet another clip, Walz is confronted in a congressional hearing about calling ICE agents under the orders of Trump “a modern-day Gestapo.”

“Do you realize how disgusting that is considering the history of Nazi Germany? Would you like to recant that statement?” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) asked Walz.

“What I said congressman, and I have a long history of supporting law enforcement, I said President Trump was using them as his modern-day Gestapo,” Walz answered.

“Right,” Gray says in disbelief. “That’s the problem.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Pro-life leader: Democrats only ‘win’ the abortion debate by hiding what abortion is



When it comes to abortion, the Democrats never describe what they’re intent on defending. Instead, they pick and choose words that represent a woman’s freedom rather than the murdering of a baby.

“They pretend to be talking about abortion, and they talk about women’s rights, the Constitution, women’s health freedom. Well, we agree with all those things. We just don’t agree with the killing of babies,” pro-life leader Frank Pavone tells BlazeTV host Steve Deace on the “Steve Deace Show.”

“They don’t want to admit that the baby’s even there,” he adds.

This is why when it comes to changing the way Americans see abortion, Pavone points to a South Dakota law that required that abortionists say to women getting the procedure, “This procedure is about to destroy a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”


“The law actually provided those words as what that abortionist had to say to the woman,” Pavone says. “Now, Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry objected, and they said, ‘Oh, that’s just ideology and belief. You can’t require somebody to say that.’ And when the court looked at it, the conclusion they came to was: This is not ideology or belief. This is simply scientific fact.”

“The court said, ‘No, no, no, no. The difference with this is, this is the only procedure that involves the intentional destruction of a human life,’” he continues.

“And so that is where I think we have to begin. How do we get to the end of abortion? Maybe we ought to start by defining abortion,” he adds, noting that this is why there is so much miscommunication between the left and the right when abortion becomes the topic of debate.

“In a sense, we’ve had a pretend debate in America over abortion. We think of the word, we’re thinking about the destruction of a whole, separate, unique, living human life. We’re thinking about an act of violence. The other side uses the same word, but they’re thinking about freedom and rights and women’s health,” he explains.

“It’s like, what in the world are we talking about? What is an abortion? And the only way that the other side ... ‘wins’ any of their battles is precisely by not facing that question,” he adds.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Woman celebrates her ‘abor-bor,’ claims her pit bull always ‘wins’ over a baby



The left’s side of the abortion debate is evil enough as it is, but a woman on TikTok decided to take it a step further and add her pit bull — a breed well known to attack children — into the mix.

“As many of you saw, I had an abor-bor earlier this year, not only because I don’t want children right now, but you want to know the real reason? I already have a baby, it’s this one right here,” the woman said proudly as she panned her camera to the pit bull behind her.

“He cost me a lot of time and energy and money, and if I had to choose between a human baby’s needs and this one, I’m choosing this one every time,” she continued.


“That’s why this fall, there’s only one candidate protecting our reproductive freedoms, and if she doesn’t win — don’t make me choose between a human baby and this one — because this one wins every freaking time,” she added.

“My political ideology is whatever makes that illegal,” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey comments. “Every part of that, actually. There’s so many things in that clip that I think should be illegal; having an abortion and owning a pit bull.”

“This really just goes to show disordered priorities and disordered desires just put your whole life out of whack,” she says. “That’s really what’s happening here. When you worship the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever, amen, as Romans 1 tells us, then everything gets distorted and disordered.”

“Like, if you cannot see how absolutely depraved and backwards and dark that is, this is, like, a spiritual issue, a demonic problem here, then you need to be reading your Bible and praying a lot more,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

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.

MASSIVE WIN: Planned Parenthood takes major hit to abortion 'care'



The Supreme Court has ruled that South Carolina has the power to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics — and liberals have once again taken an opportunity to fire off pro-abortion messages as if their lives depend on it.

“I’m happy to have a conversation, a back-and-forth, a civil discussion about the merit of the pro-life argument, but when the other side is literally screaming, screaming, literally screaming, and having an epic meltdown over less babies being killed in the womb,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales comments, “we’re past reason.”

The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, centered on whether low-income Medicaid patients can sue under Section 1983 in order to choose their own qualified health care provider.


South Carolina had blocked Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which the organization argued violated a federal law. However, in a 6-3 decision, the Court did not side with Planned Parenthood — and now all states can block Medicaid from funding Planned Parenthood clinics.

While federal law already prevented Medicaid from funding abortions, Planned Parenthood had a loophole.

“Planned Parenthood will tell you they just offer health care, they’re just here for women’s reproductive health, it’s all health care,” Gonzales says.

“And so, the way that this defunds Planned Parenthood, this law, is that Planned Parenthood receives 33% to 43% of its total revenue, that’s $2.03 billion dollars, from the government each year,” she explains, “Medicaid reimbursements account for about 75% of that funding. So if you do the math, that’s like $600 [or] $700 mil.”

“But about 50% of Planned Parenthood’s patient visits are covered by Medicaid. That’s 5 million annual visits,” she continues, noting that the left is now acting as if their access to health care has been cut.

“There are federally qualified health centers that are nationwide. There’s, I think, like, 1,300 centers that serve 13 million-plus patients. You’ve got county and city public health clinics that accept Medicaid, and I mean, they do all this while not killing babies,” she says, adding, “It’s almost like the left’s argument on killing babies is entirely disingenuous and evil.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Michelle Obama makes bizarre pro-abortion argument: The 'least' of what the female body does 'is produce life'



Former first lady Michelle Obama appealed to pro-abortion Americans by claiming a woman's reproductive system is not primarily intended for bearing children.

On her podcast, "IMO," Mrs. Obama and her guests discussed an alleged bias against women among lawmakers and the pharmaceutical industry, leading to a discussion in support of abortion on demand.

'So many men have no idea about what women go through. Right? We haven't been researched. We haven't been considered.'

Co-host Craig Robinson kicked off the festivities by asking guest Dr. Sharon Malone, an ob-gyn, where women should go to get "proper information" regarding reproductive care, in vitro fertilization, menopause, and more. This related to Obama, as she suffered a miscarriage in the late 1990s and later used IVF to conceive her daughters, Malia and Sasha.

Without answering the question, the doctor immediately shifted to accusing the pharmaceutical industry of not advancing products for women out of bias, "because there's no money to be made" there.

This set Obama off on a tangent about abortions, during which she claimed a lack of investment has led to difficult decisions for pregnant women.

RELATED: Obama judge blocks Trump — gives Harvard, foreign nationals what they want at America's expense

"So many men have no idea about what women go through. Right? We haven't been researched," Obama claimed.

"We haven't been considered, and it still affects the way a lot of male lawmakers, a lot of male politicians, a lot of male religious leaders think about the issue of choice, as if it's just about the fetus, the baby. But women's reproductive health is about our life."

The explanation fell short of a compelling argument, however, with Obama saying that producing children is actually the "least" important function of a woman's reproductive system.

"It's about this whole complicated reproductive system that does — the least of what it does is produce life. It's a very important thing that it does, but you only produce life if the machine that's producing it — if you wanna, you know, whittle us down to a machine — is functioning in a healthy, streamlined kind of way."

She added, "But there is no discussion or apparent connection between the two."

RELATED: David Hogg spills the beans to undercover reporter about who really controlled the Biden White House

US President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, and daughters Malia and Sasha walk to board Air Force One at Cape Cod Air Force Station in Massachusetts on August 21, 2016. NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images

Blaze News spoke to Emily Erin Davis, VP of communications for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, who said hearing Obama's comments was "heartbreaking."

"It's sad to see someone who once represented our country speak about women and children this way," Davis said. "Comments like these don't just devalue motherhood — they devalue womanhood itself."

Similarly, Blaze News' Rebeka Zeljko described Obama's remarks as "absurd" and "damaging to women."

"Many women regard motherhood as their greatest, most fulfilling accomplishment. The only people who 'whittle us down to a machine' are those who dehumanize unborn children and equate an abortion with taking a Tylenol."

After Obama's obscure explanation about women's bodies, Dr. Malone asserted that a woman must "have control over her body, when and if to have a baby, and to decide how that pregnancy should continue."

The doctor insisted she was not referring to abortion, however, and said she was referring only to a miscarriage or when the mother's life is in danger.

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

The abortion pill crisis Big Pharma doesn’t want you to see



A bombshell new study has found that women are suffering serious harm from chemical abortions at a rate 22 times higher than what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or abortion pill manufacturers are reporting to patients.

The federal government must step in now to protect women. It can no longer shirk its responsibility by “leaving it up to the states.”

If a drug is this dangerous, Big Pharma should not be allowed to hide its risks from women.

The study from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which analyzed insurance claims of 330 million U.S. patients and over 850,000 cases of mifepristone abortions since 2017, is the largest and most comprehensive study ever conducted on the effects of America’s most common chemical abortion drug.

The numbers don’t lie

While the FDA and abortion drug manufacturers tout serious side effects in only 0.5% of cases, actual insurance claims from patients reveal the number is much higher: Nearly one in nine women experience severe or life-threatening events within 45 days of taking mifepristone, including sepsis, hemorrhaging, blood transfusion, infection, and surgeries tied directly to the abortion drug.

Nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States are now chemical, according to the Planned Parenthood-founded Guttmacher Institute, suggesting that hundreds of thousands of women over the past 10 years have suffered serious complications. That is neither “rare” nor “safe” by any definition.

By contrast, according to the EPPC, the federal government’s claims of the drug’s “safety” rely on small, outdated trials — some conducted over 40 years ago — on a combined total of only 31,000 mostly healthy women in doctor-controlled environments.

In real-world environments, however, the abortion drug has proven significantly more dangerous.

The EPPC study found 10.93% of women suffered significant harm from taking the drug. What other FDA-approved drug would remain on the market with such a high rate of serious adverse events?

No state is safe

In light of this data, the federal government can no longer justify the lifting of oversight protocols for the abortion drug. Under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, critical safety measures — such as in-person supervision by a doctor and adverse event reporting — were eliminated. These federal safeguards must be restored, and the drug’s safety and FDA approval must be re-evaluated.

This is not a mere “states issue.” Abortion drugs are often shipped across state lines without a doctor’s involvement. Pro-abortion states like California should not be allowed to pump this dangerous drug into Texas or other states that have enacted reasonable protections for women and their babies.

The leaders we send to Washington, D.C., cannot hide behind federalism on this issue under the guise of “leaving it up to the states.” If just one aggressively pro-abortion state is allowed to ship abortion pills nationwide, women across all 50 states remain at risk — even if the other 49 state legislatures vote to protect them.

Women deserve the truth

Regardless of opinions on abortion, all Americans should agree on this: Women have a right to accurate information about the drugs they take. If a drug is this dangerous, Big Pharma should not be allowed to hide its risks from women. And the FDA cannot turn a blind eye, becoming complicit in a cover-up.

We must demand that the FDA take action. I’ve joined with dozens of pro-family leaders nationwide in writing a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to act. The letter reads, in part:

All the original safety protocols on mifepristone must be restored, and the FDA must investigate mifepristone, reconsidering its approval altogether. The lives of women and unborn children and the rights of states depend on it.

Furthermore, here in Iowa — home of the first-in-the-nation presidential caucus — we are committed to making safeguarding women from the dangers of mifepristone an issue for any candidate who seeks to follow President Trump in the White House. We urge voters to ask the same of any of their candidates: If you seek federal office, will you insist on seeing the safeguarding of women as a federal issue?