ROOKE: Republicans Rally Around Rising Star In Senate Race. Let’s Not Get Too Excited Yet
'She is at least open to backing Trump's agenda'
Pro-life senator announces she will not seek re-election
With the 2026 midterms looming on the horizon, one Republican senator has announced she will not be seeking re-election.
On Tuesday, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) confirmed the rumors that have been swirling for months and officially announced that she will not seek a third term. She made the announcement in a video posted to X.
'Protecting life and the most vulnerable among us is the most important measure of any society.'
"It has been an honor to dedicate my life to the service of our great state and country. Having been raised in a family who has given me so much love and support, now as our family ages and grows, it's my time for me to give back to them," Ernst said in the video.
The Senate Leadership Fund quickly responded to the news. "We want to express our gratitude to Senator Joni Ernst for her dedicated service to our nation and the people of Iowa, both in the U.S. Senate and serving in the armed forces," executive director Alex Latcham said in a statement obtained by Blaze News. "Senator Ernst has been a steadfast conservative leader throughout her time in office, and we wish her the very best in her retirement. We are confident that Iowans will once again choose a strong fighter to represent them in the U.S. Senate next fall."
RELATED: Liberal media spins Sen. Ernst's town hall death reminder while Iowa Democrats make their play
— (@)
Ernst, 55, was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2014, making her the first woman ever elected to federal office from the state of Iowa.
Since then, she has been a reliable Republican vote. As an Iraq War veteran, Ernst has advocated for servicemen and women. She even ruffled feathers in her own party after President Donald Trump's re-election win last fall when she initially lobbied against the nomination of Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense following allegations of sexual misconduct. However, she ultimately voted to confirm him.
She has also been a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement, voting for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and to defund Planned Parenthood. "Protecting life and the most vulnerable among us is the most important measure of any society," she says on her website.
While Iowa has some of the strongest restrictions on abortion in the country, a recent Des Moines Register poll indicated that a solid majority of Iowans, 64%, say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Congressional Republicans Must Defund Planned Parenthood – Again
Congressional Republicans should defund Planned Parenthood for at least one more year, as the group is now suing over its one-year defunding.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.
Study: Abortion Doubles Women’s Risk Of Psychiatric Hospitalization
A recent study of women in Quebec, Canada, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research revealed that those who chose induced abortion were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized for a mental health problem than women who gave birth. Researchers found that, per 10,000 person-years, 104 women who had an abortion were hospitalized […]Thug who mercilessly mauled elderly pro-life worker in front of Planned Parenthood gets his sentence
In June, a judge acquitted Patrick Brice of first-degree assault over a brutal assault he carried out against 73-year-old pro-life worker Mark Crosby in front of a Baltimore Planned Parenthood in May 2023.
It was good news for the attacker as he awaited his sentencing, since the acquittal lessened the possibility of jail time.
'It's not equal justice under the law.'
Crosby's attorney Terrell Roberts — retained by the Thomas More Society to assist Crosby amid deliberations — told Blaze News in June that the judge's acquittal was the "most ridiculous decision I've seen in a long while."
All the reasons why were captured on surveillance video outside the abortion facility.
Brice — a decades-younger male who Crosby estimates stands well over six feet tall and weighed about 250 pounds — reportedly was arguing with Crosby's fellow pro-life worker, Dick Schaefer, about abortion that day.
Suddenly Brice is seen on video charging at Schaefer and tackling the 84-year-old backward into a large flower pot.
RELATED: Justice for elderly pro-lifer beaten to a pulp outside Planned Parenthood takes brutal turn
According to WBAL-TV, a witness said Schaefer was out cold "for several minutes."
As you might expect, Crosby — dressed in a blue and white "pro-life" T-shirt — runs over to help his friend.
But Brice is standing directly in Crosby's path.
And Brice easily knocks the 73-year-old down to the sidewalk and punches Crosby in the head.
Then Brice rears back his right foot and kicks Crosby in the face before finally walking away.
YouTube age-restricted the Baltimore Police video of the attack on Schaefer and Crosby — which may give some indication of its gut-wrenching nature — so you can only view it there.
Here's a local video report, though.
Local pro-life advocate John Roswell told LifeSiteNews at the time of the attack that Crosby’s “plate bone in his upper right cheek is completely fractured” and that he “is bleeding from some unidentified area behind his eye, and the bone eye orbit is completely shattered and will have to be replaced with metal" as a result of the brutal beatdown.
Crosby told Blaze News that he was blind in his right eye "for nine days" after the attack, that he spent three days at the Maryland Shock Trauma Center, that he was "spitting blood," and that a piece of his iris is missing.
He also told Blaze News he still experiences foreign body sensation, which is a "feeling that something's in your eye and you can't get it out. But I can live with that. Babies are being murdered. I give it up for them."
A few weeks after the attack, police released surveillance images of the culprit, but it wasn't until over a year later — July 1, 2024 — that police finally arrested Brice. He was indicted on charges of first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and assault on an elderly person 65 and over, according to the American Center for Law and Justice. He was released on his own recognizance, Catholic Review said.
The criminal trial for Brice took place in February 2025 in Baltimore Circuit Court. Brice's attorney — assistant public defender Matthew Connell — argued that his client didn't intend to cause serious physical injury, which is needed to support a conviction for first-degree assault, the Baltimore Banner reported.
Connell also called Schaefer and Crosby “old white men” who say “the most vile things” to women and see themselves as “religious martyrs," Catholic Review reported. He also said Brice “didn’t mean to hurt them that bad" and “made a mistake," the Banner reported.
The jury convicted Brice on two counts of second-degree assault and reckless endangerment for his attacks on Schaefer and Crosby, the Banner said, adding that jurors acquitted Brice on one count of first-degree assault against Schaefer.
However, the jury couldn't reach a unanimous verdict on the first-degree assault charge for Brice's brutal attack on Crosby — knocking him to the ground, punching him in his head, and kicking him in his face while he was on his back on the sidewalk.
Crosby was then left waiting for justice.
'Legally absurd'
The opportunity came — and went — during June's retrial of Brice's first-degree assault charge for his attack on Crosby. Circuit Judge Yvette M. Bryant — who presided over February's jury trial — presided again during the bench retrial, and she acquitted Brice of first-degree assault, the Banner said in a separate story.
Her reason? The paper said the judge concluded that it was all about Crosby's intent. Does video of the attack show him rushing over to help his friend? Or does it show 73-year-old Crosby running over to fight Brice — a bigger, taller 20-something who had just knocked Schaefer out cold?
The Banner said Bryant agreed that Brice's attack against Crosby was unjustified — but disagreed with the prosecution's contention that it was unprovoked.
"How can you claim a 73-year-old man provoked a man who just knocked out an 84-year-old man? It's legally absurd," Roberts remarked to Blaze News at the time, adding that "any judge would have to find him guilty based on the video."
Crosby added to Blaze News that Bryant stated in court that he could have "gone around Brice to help Dick Schaefer" rather than taking a path directly to his friend to give him aid. "So she's blaming me. ... I'm the bad guy."
A frustrated Crosby also told Blaze News at the time that "now the pro-abort movement will know this, and violence will continue against us."
Brice's sentencing took place Thursday.
What happened at the sentencing?
During the hearing, Roberts read Crosby's victim impact statement, which said, "Due to the brutality of the attack, I respectfully call for the court to impose a lengthy sentence of imprisonment for the defendant in this case."
That didn't happen.
Brice got no jail time. Instead, Judge Bryant ordered him to spend one year on home detention and gave him three years’ probation, the Banner reported in a separate story.
In addition, Brice must complete anger management classes, undergo drug and alcohol screening, virtually attend Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and remain in therapy, the paper said.
Blaze News spoke with Crosby and his attorney, Roberts, following Brice's sentencing. As you might expect, both were upset about it.
Roberts said that "clearly justice was not done here. The sentence for this kind of criminal act should be jail time without any question." He added that Brice's attack left "permanent" injuries and that "he fled the scene, leaving Mark and Dick lying on the ground." But instead of jail time, Brice was "walking out without any kind of punishment. It's shameless. And it pretty much means it's open season for any pro-life person working" in front of Planned Parenthood.
Crosby told Blaze News that after the judge handed down her sentence and was walking out the courtroom door, he "screamed out" at her, asking, "What about my well-being?"
He added that the Brice's sentence includes a lot of "easy stuff" and that "it's not equal justice under the law." Crosby noted that he's hoping the federal government will look at the case.
But despite his disappointment, Crosby added to Blaze News that he "couldn't ask for a better gift" than "shedding my blood on the bricks in front of Planned Parenthood and suffering pain for Jesus and the babies."
Crosby also said since the attack, "wonderful things have happened — along with the not-so-wonderful things — but there's no greater joy than saving one of God's beautiful babies from being murdered. It's a great feeling when people come up and say thank you for counseling them — and that their babies are alive and well."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Wrist Slap For Man Who Attacked Pro-Lifers Proves The FACE Act Was Always A Lawfare Tool
Until Congress passes the FACE Act Repeal Act, pro-lifers are still vulnerable to further abuse -- both legal and physical.Scandal exposed: The FBI's Catholic witch hunt just got even uglier
On July 22, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) released a new interim staff report on former President Joe Biden's Catholic spy ring.
Thanks to FBI Director Kash Patel, some of the information is new. And when pieced together with what we already knew, the picture that emerges is one of an FBI that went off the rails. Christopher Wray, who led the FBI under Biden, bears much of the blame.
This was not a mistake. It was a well-planned effort to intimidate and harass practicing Catholics.
The FBI was apparently focused on “radical-traditionalist Catholics.” Who are these people? According to the FBI’s own internal review of this matter, “investigators found that many FBI employees could not even define the meaning of ‘radical-traditionalist Catholic’ when preparing, editing, or reviewing” the Richmond Field Office memorandum that authorized the probe.
In other words, the FBI decided that these Catholics were a problem, even though agents were unable to explain who they are. FBI agents were convinced that the so-called rad-trads were “linked” to "racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists."
What made them think this way is still a mystery, but we know they found nothing. That’s because there is no record of very conservative Catholics linking up with violent thugs. Indeed, on this basis alone there was no reason to investigate them.
This didn’t stop some FBI operatives from categorizing “certain Catholic Americans as potential domestic terrorists.” They came to this absurd conclusion based on articles employees read. “How Extremist Gun Culture Is Trying to Co-opt the Rosary” is one of the gems they named as evidence of the nefarious agenda of “rad-trad” Catholics.
RELATED: The FBI was completely correct to keep an eye on Catholics
If there is one Catholic group that the FBI thought was emblematic of very conservative Catholics, it is the Society of Saint Pius X. This was not a good choice — this group is not in full communion with the Catholic Church. This is a breakaway association of Catholics founded in 1970 who were upset with the reforms of Vatican II in the 1960s. They were once excommunicated, then reinstated, but are still one step removed from being an authentic part of the Catholic Church.
I have been saying all along that the FBI’s focus on SSPX and the “rad-trads” is a ruse. Quite frankly, this was a pretext to opening the door to a much wider investigation of practicing Catholics, most of whom tend to be more conservative than non-practicing Catholics.
The evidence is conclusive.
The latest report shows that the FBI proposed a probe of "mainline parishes." It says that “FBI employees believed without evidence that mainstream Catholic churches could serve as a pipeline to violent extremist behavior.” Without evidence! Also, “The FBI seems to have considered Catholic churches as a potential hot spot for radicalization and viewed investigating Catholic churches as an ‘opportunity.’” Exactly.
As an example of this mad search for wrongdoing, the FBI investigated Catholics who evinced “hostility toward abortion-rights advocates.” In other words, Catholic activists who exercised fidelity to Church teachings on abortion — they are called pro-life Catholics — were considered a domestic threat by the FBI. Similarly, those who espoused “Conservative family values/roles” were labeled “radical.”
This tells us all we need to know about the politicization of the FBI under Biden.
It also tells us something else: It was not dissident Catholics the FBI was concerned about. It was the loyal sons and daughters of the Church. How strange it is to note that at least some dissident Catholics, and some FBI agents, were both seeking to subvert the Catholic Church.
This may not have been coordinated, but the outcome is nonetheless disturbing.
RELATED: Christopher Wray must be prosecuted
It is not just the profile of Catholics whom the FBI was examining that was a problem — it was the scope of its investigations. It started in Richmond, then spread to Louisville, Milwaukee, and Portland. Its reach even extended overseas — the FBI’s London Office was involved. This is hardly surprising given that we already knew the FBI further proposed “to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of ‘threat mitigation.’” The goal was to have a “national application” of its investigatory measures.
This was not a mistake. It was a well-planned effort to intimidate and harass practicing Catholics. The Committee and Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government determined in the last Congress that “there was no legitimate basis for the memorandum to insert federal law enforcement into Catholic houses of worship.” That says it all.
Under Biden, the FBI was looking for dirt on Catholics, especially those who are pro-life and hold to traditional moral values. This was one of the most despicable violations of the civil liberties of innocent Americans conducted by the federal government in modern times. That it took place in an administration run by a “devout Catholic” makes it all the more outrageous.
We are thankful to Rep. Jim Jordan for all the good work that he, his committee, and his staff have done.
This essay was adapted from an article originally published by the Catholic League.
'Progressive Christian' turns Bible into a Planned Parenthood parable — but truth fires back
Who knew the Christmas story was really about bodily autonomy?
That's exactly what Democrat James Talarico, a Texas state representative and progressive Christian, wants you to believe. Armed with the confidence of a seminarian with just enough theology to be dangerous, Talarico recently appeared on "The Joe Rogan Experience," where he claimed there is "no historical, theological, biblical basis" requiring Christians to oppose abortion.
Talarico wants to paint Mary as a modern feminist icon. But scripture tells a different story, one far more radical.
What's worse, Talarico argued that the Bible supports the "right" of a mother to kill her unborn child.
His argument goes like this: Because Genesis 2:7 says that Adam became a "living being" after God breathed life into him, that means life doesn't begin until birth. Therefore, an unborn child can be killed before he takes his first breath because the unborn aren't fully human.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible. It's theological acrobatics dressed up as biblical scholarship — and it's a lie.
Adam wasn't conceived in a womb, according to Genesis. He was handcrafted by God from the dust of creation, then filled with God's life-giving spirit. The moment of breath is not about biology, as Talarico suggests, but theology. It declares that God alone is the giver of life. And to use this verse as a permission slip for abortion is not just a category error, it's a hermeneutical train wreck of the worst kind.
The implications of his logic are chilling.
Biblically, it means that King David's mother would have been morally justified to exercise "choice" and abort the future king — even while God weaved him together in his mother's womb (Psalm 139) — and that it would have been justified for Elizabeth and Mary to slaughter their unborn children, John the Baptist and Jesus, just as Herodian soldiers slaughtered the holy innocents who supposedly threatened King Herod's reign (Matthew 2:16-18).
RELATED: How liberals hijack the Bible to push their agenda on you
In fact, Talarico's logic does more than attack the unborn — it undermines the Incarnation.
His argument denies the hypostatic union, the historic Christian doctrine that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. If Jesus wasn't fully human until He took His first breath, then He was not the Incarnate Son during Mary's pregnancy. But Jesus didn't become the Son of God only when he took his first breath at birth. No, he was fully God and fully human from the moment of conception. To suggest otherwise is not a minor theological error. It's heresy.
In an effort to score progressive political points, Talarico doesn't just fumble elementary theology or misinterpret a Bible verse. He actually guts the gospel and rips out the beating heart of Christian orthodoxy.
But it gets worse.
Not content with butchering Genesis 2:7, Talarico also reinterprets the Annunciation — the moment when the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26-38) — as proof that the Bible is pro-abortion.
"Before God comes over Mary and we have the Incarnation, God asks for Mary's consent, which is remarkable," Talarico told Joe Rogan. "The angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something that she wants to do, and she says, 'If it is God's will, let it be done.'"
In Talarico's telling, the Annunciation is not about God taking on human flesh to dwell with us but a story that teaches that "creation has to be done with consent." Therefore, his argument goes, abortion is compatible with Christianity because creation itself depends on a woman exercising bodily autonomy.
This pro-Planned Parenthood parable, of course, is pure fiction.
The Christian consensus has been clear-eyed about this issue for two millennia: Abortion is a grave sin. Full stop.
Neither God nor Gabriel asks Mary for her "consent." Instead, Gabriel tells Mary what she will do. "You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus" (Luke 1:31). And Mary's response? She doesn't assert her bodily autonomy, but she accepts God's will with obedience, even though she does not understand God's plan (Luke 1:34).
Talarico wants to paint Mary as a modern feminist icon. But scripture tells a different story, one far more radical: She is a confused teenage girl who trusts God with her body, future, and reputation.
It's the ultimate act of surrender. And, more importantly, it's a complete rebuke of pro-abortion ideology, which elevates a woman to giver and taker of life.
The truth is, Christianity has never endorsed abortion. The earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament — from the Didache to the church fathers and Councils — explicitly condemn abortion and equate it with murder. The Christian consensus has been clear-eyed about this issue for two millennia: Abortion is a grave sin. Full stop.
Only under the pressure of secularism, an ideology that erases God, have some Christians equivocated and, in the case of Talarico, tried to revise history. But this revision attempt is not biblical scholarship.
This is why Talarico's attempt to force the concept of "consent" into the Bible is as bewildering as it is absurd. He's not doing exegesis. He's bending his knee to the spirit of the age, using the Bible as a prop to recast the word of God into the image of progressive politics.
It's dangerous, not only because of its destructive theology, but because Talarico is not a fringe activist. He's a rising star in the Democratic Party. Rogan, in fact, urged Talarico to run for president, and Politico even believes Talarico could "turn Texas blue." That means his gobbledygook theology isn't just rhetorical — it could have real consequences.
And the cost will be measured in dead unborn babies.
Christians must not be deceived by Talarico's affable tone, seminary vocabulary, or theological sleight of hand. The Bible is not pro-abortion, and Christian theology does not treat abortion as a third-tier issue we can "agree to disagree" about. Christianity is unabashedly pro-life. From Genesis to Revelation, God reveals a radical vision of human life: It is sacred because it is human made in His image.
Mary didn't say, "My body, my choice." She said, "I am the Lord's servant. May it happen to me as you have said." That's not feminist consent. It's a rebuke of it.
Fantastic Four Might Be Hollywood’s Strongest-Ever Pro-Life Movie
The Fantastic Four: First Steps is the most pro-life Hollywood blockbuster in a long time, and maybe ever.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com