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?

She used to be pro-choice — until a Facebook comment changed her mind



As one of the most vocal conservative advocates for the pro-life cause, it may come as a shock to some that Allie Beth Stuckey used to be pro-choice — but without realizing it.

“I’ve always considered myself pro-life. I just have known reflexively and because I was raised in a Christian household that abortion is wrong, that it’s killing a human being, and that that is wrong, but I also knew that there were these rare exceptions that I thought needed to happen sometimes,” Stuckey explains on “Relatable.”

“I posted something to that effect on Facebook; I guess maybe I just adopted the general Republican position that yes, abortion is wrong, should be illegal, but there’s rape, there’s incest, there’s fetal anomalies. And I thought that was a sophisticated, nuanced, but fully pro-life position,” she continues.


When Stuckey posted this to Facebook, someone replied in the comments asking what the difference is between a baby conceived in rape and a baby not conceived in rape.

“That comment stopped me in my tracks,” she recalls. “I think that really had a big effect on how I started thinking about abortion, but I realized either in that moment or just over time that I was thinking about abortion, even as someone who called myself staunchly pro-life, as an abstract issue, as a political issue, and not from the perspective of the baby, and not really as murder.”

When she changed the lens through which she was viewing what she thought was just a “procedure,” she ultimately changed her mind.

“I wasn’t thinking about it in realistic, stark, terms, and that is that it murders a child and that the humanity of that person that’s being killed does not change based on the circumstances surrounding its conception,” she explains.

“I don’t know who that commenter was, but I’m thankful for them,” she continues, adding, “And you just never know how God is going to use your insistence upon speaking the truth in love.”

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.

Colorado Democrats: State can save money by funding abortion, killing 30% more babies



Colorado Democrats are more than willing to blow taxpayer money on programs for illegal aliens; however, when it comes to coverage for American mothers and their unborn babies, they will apparently appeal to lethal ways to reduce spending.

State Democrats are advancing legislation that would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution; require the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to fund abortions for Medicaid and Child Health Plan Plus program participants using taxpayer dollars; and force public employee insurance plans to fund abortions for plan members — something they are not presently required to do.

Senate Bill 183 — a consequence of Colorado voters' overwhelming support last year for Colorado Amendment 79, which set the stage for the use of public funds for abortion — passed the state Senate in a 22-12 party-line vote on March 12.

Prior to the bill passing the committee on health and human services on Tuesday, Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie (D), a prime sponsor of the legislation, indicated that the use of taxpayer funds to kill babies could save the state a little bit of money.

"That savings comes from the averted births that will not occur because abortions happened instead," McCluskie said in a video shared to social media. "So a birth is more expensive than an abortion — so the saving comes in Medicaid births that will not occur."

"This bill will actually decrease costs for our health care policy and financing department, our Medicaid expenditures, in both this year and out years as the savings from averted births outweigh the costs of covering reproductive health care for all Coloradans," continued McCluskie, who was endorsed last year by Planned Parenthood.

'Abortion care services represent a one-time expenditure.'

While the Colorado House speaker indicated the state will initially see an "increase to general fund of $1.5 million," over time, the taxpayer-subsidized elimination of human life will ultimately lead to "cost savings."

McCluskie was referencing a state fiscal analysis that made the following assumptions and assertions:

  • 333,330 women ages 15 to 44 will be enrolled in Medicaid or the Child Health Plan Plus program in fiscal year 2025-2026;
  • 1.67% of members from this cohort will seek abortions each year;
  • 50.4% of abortions will be performed "procedurally" and 49.6% will be chemical abortions;
  • "abortion procedures are assumed to be reimbursed at a rate of $1,300, and medication abortions are assumed to be reimbursed at a rate of $800";
  • taxpayer-funded abortions through Medicaid/CHP+ will increase the number of unborn babies killed by 30%; and
  • the average reimbursement cost for child birth is $3,850, which is funded by state and federal programs.

According to Democrats' calculus, abortions will not only save the state on total reimbursement costs for the delivery of children but will likely also spare the state from having to deal with additional costs that might arise in relation to human beings whose lives they failed to "avert."

"Medicaid-covered births typically involve additional social safety net impacts for the child, whereas abortion care services represent a one-time expenditure. These impacts have not been addressed in this fiscal note," said the fiscal note on SB 183.

"On net, the bill will decrease costs for HCPF by about $286,000 in FY 2025-26 and $573,000 in FY 2026-27 and ongoing," continued the fiscal note. "These impacts are the net result of increased costs for abortion services and decreased costs from averted births."

State Rep. Kenneth G. DeGraaf (R) tweeted, "Holy Human-Haters, Batman! 'Killing people is less expensive than caring for them' coming soon from a eugenicist near you."

"Paying for abortions for low income women will save our state millions of dollars on 'averted births,'" wrote Republican state Rep. Brandi Bradley. "Margaret Sanger would be so proud."

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

Trump Derangement Syndrome: State Rep Sterilizes Herself To Protest President

'Treated as currency'