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.

NYT roasted for absurd take after SCOTUS rules Virginia can purge noncitizens from voting rolls: 'Very rare'



The New York Times on Wednesday issued a rather jaw-dropping X post after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Virginia can purge noncitizens from its voter rolls.

The Times' post noted that the high court was "siding with Republicans who said it was to prevent noncitizens from voting."

'NYT simps for "only a little bit of illegal voting."'

Then came the post's last sentence: "Studies show that noncitizens voting is very rare."

It would appear those final eight words raised the ire — and eyebrows — of more than a few observers.

You know, on the level of that infamous video of a burning building amid a nighttime riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during the summer of 2020 as CNN's video caption read, "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting."

Or when ABC News anchor Martha Raddatz earlier this month downplayed the crisis of Venezuelan gangs in Colorado by insisting to Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance that gang takeovers in Aurora have been "limited to a handful of apartment complexes ... a handful of problems."

So according to the Times, is it OK to keep noncitizens on voting rolls ... because they rarely vote anyway?

How are commenters reacting?

As you might expect, many commenters took exception to the "paper of record." Here are a few examples:

  • "Rare doesn't make it legal," one commenter stated.
  • "'Studies show.' Glad you can at least acknowledge that the number is not zero," another user noted. "Just an FYI, these people in this case self-identified as non-citizens. They cannot legally vote anyway. So removing them shouldn't be an issue."
  • "It doesn’t matter what your studies show," another commenter wrote. "There is no reason for non-citizens to be on any voting roll."
  • "How about just remove any chance of it at all?" another user asked. "NYT simps for 'only a little bit of illegal voting.'"
  • "Rare? Since when is rare acceptable? Have you not noticed what's going on at the Washington Post?" another commenter inquired. "Your 15 minutes of bubble liberal politics have come to an end."
  • "This is why you are trash," another user declared.
  • "Studies show that a particular crime is rare. Accordingly, laws against it should not be enacted nor enforced," another commenter wondered incredulously. "Is that how this works now?"

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

New York Judge DELAYS Trump sentencing following SCOTUS immunity ruling



It’s been quite the week for former President Donald Trump.

Not only did his debate against President Joe Biden send Democrats scrambling — the Supreme Court ruled that the president has immunity when executing "official acts."

Following that decision, Trump’s team moved to overturn the conviction of the former president in the Manhattan case, where he was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.

As a result, Trump’s sentencing hearing has been postponed until September. While many conservatives are taking it as a win, Sara Gonzales remains skeptical.

“Part of me is like what else are they planning?” Gonzales says, adding, “They don’t give up that easily.”

“It’s either that or they see all of this imploding before their very eyes, and they don’t want to look stupid, so they’re like, ‘Yeah, we’ll just delay it, and then maybe people will forget about it,’” she continues, “But you’ve got to believe that they are completely scrambling to figure out what to do.”

“All of these bombshells they thought that they had are now seemingly getting totally overturned,” she adds.

Matthew Marsden finds it interesting that the liberal response to the Supreme Court’s ruling has been overwhelmingly one of fear.

“It’s amazing how the liberals went absolutely bonkers and said that the Supreme Court ruling was about Trump,” Marsden says. “It’s just about the law; it’s about the Constitution.”


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.

Supreme Court Rulings TRIGGER Liberals | New SCOTUS Decisions Explained
play icon

Supreme Court Rulings TRIGGER Liberals | New SCOTUS Decisions Explained

 

SCOTUS sides with BIDEN in censorship case to prevent ‘grave harm’



The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration may coordinate with social media companies to censor viewpoints it deems dangerous.

“We all know the Biden regime is not going to censor leftists,” Sara Gonzales says, frustrated by the ruling.

This decision from Murthy v. Missouri saw state attorneys general who accused government officials of working with social media companies under the guise of combating misinformation and disinformation. The AGs argued that officials suppressed discussions on Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins, and vaccine efficacy.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had sided with the plaintiffs on the grounds of the First Amendment.

The Justice Department then argued that the temporary ban of this “public private partnership” would cause irreparable harm because it may prevent the federal government from working with social media companies to prevent “grave harm” to the American people and the democratic process.

SCOTUS indirectly agreed with the Justice Department by reversing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. Only Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.

They claimed that a “review of extensive government social media communications is outside of the Court’s scope,” that “allegations of past censorship are not enough to prove future censorship,” and that “injuries claimed by plaintiffs are indirect and anticipatory.”

The timing couldn’t be worse for conservatives.

“This is not really the decision that you want, walking into an election as a conservative, where like all but one of the social media platforms very much want to censor your opinion,” Gonzales says.

“The reasons that they argue that these plaintiffs lack standing just seem to be the most convoluted bogus reasons in my opinion. How can you say that past actions are not proof of future actions? Like the Biden regime has a very clear record of pressuring social media companies, Big Tech platforms to censor conservatives,” she adds.


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.

Trump WINS Again & Voter ID Laws are RACIST! | SG Unfiltered
play icon

Trump WINS Again & Voter ID Laws are RACIST! | SG Unfiltered

 

Supreme Court unanimously SHAMES leftists with Trump 14th Amendment ruling



Democrats and the mainstream media have spent the last few months trying to convince the American people that Colorado has every right to kick former president Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.

But the Supreme Court isn’t having it.

The Court ruled 9-0 that Colorado can’t use Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to remove Trump from the ballot.

Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere are pleased but note that the court may still have left Democrats an option.

“The only way this can be implemented is by legislation of Congress,” Stu explains. “They kind of leave it open as to what federal powers could be utilized there.”

In order to get Trump off the ballot, Congress would have to pass a law saying that he engaged in an insurrection and therefore should be removed.

“You can’t do that right now because the House belongs to the Republicans,” Glenn says, adding, “I wouldn’t rule anything out. A dog-faced alien could come down and take over the White House on January 7 and I would be like, 'Well, didn’t see it coming, but mhm, makes sense.'”

According to Stu, the Democrats have even more options.

“Let’s just say Donald Trump wins the presidential election and the Democrats hold the Senate and turn over the House. That new Congress takes seat on January 3, you’ll note a couple days before January 6,” Stu explains.

“And then, all they have to do is vote and say he was an agent of insurrection and therefore cannot be president of the United States,” Glenn agrees.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Supreme Court Unanimously SHAMES Leftists With Its Trump 14th Amendment Ruling
play icon

Supreme Court Unanimously SHAMES Leftists With Its Trump 14th Amendment Ruling

 

SCOTUS DISASTER: 'Conservative' judges side with libs on key border case



The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to allow the federal government to resume cutting and removing razor wire installed by the state of Texas on the southern border.

The 5-4 vote was swayed by Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, who sided with liberal judges Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor in the ruling.

“I don’t understand how you could possibly make this determination,” Sara Gonzales says, adding, “and now, while we wait for SCOTUS to hear the larger case, we just get to keep letting all of these people in unvetted.”

Stu Burguiere agrees but notes this is a process decision by the Supreme Court.

Burguiere believes it “doesn’t necessarily mean they’re arguing against Texas’ right to defend themselves,” though it does “make us more vulnerable for an extended period of time.”

He adds that while Justice John Roberts is a “lost cause,” this decision does make him nervous about Amy Coney Barrett.

“Hopefully this isn’t an indication of what’s to come,” he says.

However, with the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS has given conservatives hope that what’s to come won’t be all that bad.

“That has helped, I think certainly in that case, but it’s not a cure-all,” Burguiere says.


Want more from 'The News & Why It Matters?'

To enjoy more rundowns of the top stories of the day, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Historic Day for Life in America | 6/27/22
play icon

Historic Day for Life in America | 6/27/22