'Scandal': Abortion radical's appointment at University of Notre Dame has local Catholic bishop outraged



The University of Notre Dame in Indiana announced last month that pro-abortion radical Susan Ostermann had been appointed director of the school's Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies.

This appointment — reportedly made by Keough School of Global Affairs dean Mary Gallagher and approved by Notre Dame provost John McGreevy — has enraged those members and supporters of the university under the impression that the institution is still Catholic.

Despite significant backlash and resignations by some esteemed scholars, the university dug in its heels, refusing to reverse course. It may come to regret doing so sooner rather than later.

Leaning into his apostolic responsibility to protect and strengthen the school's Catholic identity, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend made abundantly clear on Wednesday that Ostermann's abortion advocacy is disqualifying.

"I must express my dismay and my strong opposition to this appointment that is causing scandal to the faithful of our diocese and beyond," the bishop said in a lengthy jeremiad. "Professor Ostermann's extensive public advocacy of abortion rights and her disparaging and inflammatory remarks about those who uphold the dignity of human life from the moment of conception to natural death go against a core principle of justice that is central to Notre Dame's Catholic identity and mission."

Bishop Rhoades noted that Ostermann, an associate professor of global affairs at the university, has repeatedly attacked the pro-life movement and defended the slaughter of the unborn "using outrageous rhetoric."

RELATED: Pope Leo calls out 'inclusive' language as a painful, 'Orwellian' movement in the West

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

In a December 2022 article that she co-authored with ex-Notre Dame professor Tamara Kay, Ostermann claimed:

  • "Criminalizing abortion results in irreparable harm";
  • It is a "lie" that "abortion kills babies";
  • "There are no babies or fetuses" present during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, evidently discounting all the scientific evidence to the contrary;
  • Abortion is not dangerous, evidently discounting the perspective of the unborn baby; and
  • Abortion "doesn't affect future fertility."

In a July 2022 article she also co-authored with Kay, Ostermann claimed that white supremacy was one of the primary motivations behind the abortion abolition movement in the U.S., neglecting to mention how America's abortion regime was largely driven by racist eugenicists like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

'These are all outrageous claims that should disqualify her.'

In a May 2022 article, the radical duo characterized pregnancy and childbirth without the option of abortion as "violence," "sexual abuse," and "trauma," and abortion, alternatively, as "freedom-enhancing, in the truest sense of the word."

Among her numerous other abortion propaganda pieces is an article claiming that a ban of the abortion pill mifepristone would "violate human rights" as well as an article attacking pro-life pregnancy centers.

'Rectify this situation.'

"These are all outrageous claims that should disqualify her from an administrative and leadership role at a Catholic university," the bishop wrote.

Bishop Rhoades also denounced the radical appointee's affiliation with the Population Council, an outfit that works to enshrine pro-abortion policies around the world.

"I hope that Professor Ostermann will explicitly retract these claims, and I pray that she will have a change of mind and heart that will lead her to affirm the innate dignity of unborn babies as well as that of their mothers."

After citing the late Pope Francis' assertion that it is a "false compassion which holds that it is a benefit to women to promote abortion," Pope Leo XIV's recent reminder that "the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion," and reiterating the Catholic Church's unchanging defense of "the inalienable right to life of mothers and their unborn children," the bishop underscored that "Professor Ostermann's opposite view thus clearly should disqualify her from holding a position of leadership within the Keough School."

The position publicly championed by Ostermann is at odds with the university's official position:

Consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church on such issues as abortion, research involving human embryos, euthanasia, the death penalty, and other related life issues, the University of Notre Dame recognizes and upholds the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.

In his message, the bishop — whose diocesan territory includes the university — noted both that such "appointments have profound impact on the integrity of Notre Dame's public witness as a Catholic university" and that the university has until July 1, when Ostermann's appointment is scheduled to go into effect, to "rectify this situation."

The decision to cancel the appointment reportedly rests with the six Holy Cross priests and six laypeople on the university's Board of Fellows.

'Going ahead with this appointment is repugnant.'

Holy Cross Father Wilson Miscamble, a professor emeritus of history at Notre Dame, recently noted in First Things that the board has a "fiduciary responsibility to maintain the university's 'character as a Catholic institution of higher learning.'"

A university spokesperson told the Irish Rover that the university had yet to change its position as of Feb. 8.

The Catholic Observer reported that if a bishop determines that a Catholic university is failing to faithfully execute its mission, he can issue a formal warning, bar the celebration of Mass at the institution, and forbid the school from identifying as Catholic. He can reportedly also seek an intervention by the Vatican.

Bishop Robert Barron of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester, the newly retired Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila, and Bishop Michael Olson of the Diocese of Forth Worth thanked Bishop Rhoades for speaking out.

Bishop Barron noted that "going ahead with this appointment is repugnant to the identity and mission of that great center of Catholic learning."

Ostermann told the National Catholic Register late last month that she is "fully committed to maintaining an environment of academic freedom where a plurality of voices can flourish."

"While I hold my own convictions on complex social and legal issues," the pro-abortion radical continued, "I want to be clear: My role is to support the diverse research of our scholars and students, not to advance a personal political agenda."

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

Win for kids! Major surgeon group reverses course, comes out against child genital mutilation



Gender ideologues' false narratives and monstrous practices were never a match for common sense, close scrutiny, and ethical review. Nevertheless they were championed in recent years by radical politicians, educators, health professionals, and clerics at the expense of confused minors and mentally compromised adults.

It appears that at least one major professional medical association that previously supported so-called "gender-affirming care" is belatedly correcting course in the wake of a federal crackdown, an overwhelming shift in public opinion, and proof that the sex-rejection regime is vulnerable to civil lawsuits.

'Plastic surgeons should adopt a posture of heightened caution ... recognizing that their role is not simply technical but ethical.'

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, a group founded in 1931 that represents over 11,000 physician members, claimed in 2019 that it firmly believed "that plastic surgery services can help gender dysphoria patients align their bodies with whom they know themselves to be and improve their overall mental health and well-being." The ASPS further criticized Republican-supported restrictions on so-called "gender-affirming care."

The surgeon group signaled a major change of heart on Wednesday in a policy statement regarding its views "on breast/chest, genital, and facial gender surgery for individuals under the age of 19."

The ASPS noted that in recent years, "a number of international health systems and professional bodies initiated formal re-examinations of earlier clinical practice assumptions in response to patient presentation and a growing uncertainty about the benefits of medical and surgical interventions."

"Systematic reviews and evidence reassessments have subsequently identified limitations in study quality, consistency, and follow-up alongside emerging evidence of treatment complications and potential harms," added the ASPS.

The ASPS made repeated reference both to the United Kingdom's damning 388-page Cass Review, which underscored that the sex-rejection regime was built on weak and unreliable evidence, and to the Department of Health and Human Services' exhaustive peer-reviewed 410-page 2025 report, titled "Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices," which elaborated further on the pseudoscientific and harmful nature of so-called "gender-affirming care."

RELATED: First detransitioner to reach trial awarded $2M in groundbreaking malpractice case against doctors

Luis Soto/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

The surgeons' group noted that these reports and other scientific literature "have contributed to a clearer understanding of potential harms, while also highlighting limitations of the available evidence, including gaps in documenting long-term physical, psychological, and psychosocial outcomes."

In addition to enjoying greater clarity about the ruinous and irreversible nature of "gender-affirming care" and the lack of quality evidence to support its practice, the ASPS noted that "available evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of children with prepubertal onset gender dysphoria experience resolution or significant reduction of distress by the time they reach adulthood, absent medical or surgical intervention."

The ASPS noted in conclusion that "there is insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents" and recommended that surgeons "delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old."

The surgeon group indicated further that "plastic surgeons should adopt a posture of heightened caution, enhanced documentation, and explicit uncertainty disclosure, recognizing that their role is not simply technical but ethical."

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., among the many who celebrated the ASPS' disavowal of child sex-rejecting practices, stated, "We commend the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for standing up to the overmedicalization lobby and defending sound science."

"By taking this stand, they are helping protect future generations of American children from irreversible harm," added Kennedy.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman at the medical advocacy group Do No Harm, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News, "High praise to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for taking an important step toward ending the unscientific and harmful practice of sex-rejecting procedures on minors."

"The ASPS becomes the first major medical organization to support evidence-based and ethical medicine and reject, in their words, these harmful and irreversible procedures," continued Goldfarb. "The ASPS’s thoughtful, scientific, and well-reasoned statement today is a model for other medical organizations — namely the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and others — to follow and disavow their previous support for experimental and unscientific interventions."

RELATED: 'Not medicine — it's malpractice': Trump HHS buries child sex-change regime with damning report

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

The ASPS issued its policy statement just days after a woman who underwent a sex-rejection surgery as a minor was awarded $2 million in the first medical malpractice lawsuit brought by a detransitioner to go to trial.

Fox Varian, 22, sued her New York-based psychologist and plastic surgeon, and their respective employers, after regretting the 2019 surgery that claimed her healthy breasts.

Dr. Miriam Grossman, the board-certified child and adolescent psychiatrist who authored the 2023 book "Lost in Trans Nation: A Child Psychiatrist’s Guide Out of the Madness," told Blaze News in 2024 that such lawsuits would help to, at the very least, make practitioners "think twice before they pick up a scalpel and remove the healthy breasts" of a young girl.

"It could be the malpractice carriers will stop covering — if they have to pay out huge amounts, they may think twice about covering the malpractice of these surgeons," added Grossman.

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

Don Lemon ARRESTED over apparent involvement in church invasion; Jim Acosta whines



Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon put Don Lemon "on notice" after he allegedly joined other radicals in participating in a so-called "ICE Out Action" by storming Cities Church in Saint Paul, Minnesota, on Jan. 18.

It appeared, however, that the former CNN talking head might avoid consequence for his alleged involvement in the church invasion when, earlier this month, an activist judge refused to issue a warrant for his arrest.

Evidently, that was a surmountable obstacle.

'A house of worship is not a public forum for your protest!'

Federal agents arrested Lemon on Thursday night. Sources told CBS News that agents from the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations were reportedly involved in the arrest, which apparently came hours after a grand jury was impaneled.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Friday morning that Lemon was arrested at her direction along with three others involved in the church invasion, namely Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy.

A source told the Washington Examiner's Christian Datoc that Lemon has been charged with conspiracy to deprive rights and with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act.

Lemon's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, stated that the arrest took place in Los Angeles, where the radical was supposedly covering this weekend's Grammy Awards.

"Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done," Lowell said in a statement. "The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable. There is no more important time for people like Don to be doing this work."

RELATED: 'This is First Amendment activity': Democrats give church-storming mobs their stamp of approval

Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

Lemon — who suggested in October that "black people, brown people" should take up arms against ICE — appeared to join other radicals in disrupting a service at Cities Church, video showed. The church was targeted because of a pastor's reported role at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The leftist interlopers not only screamed and chanted but castigated the pastor and pressed parishioners individually to answer whether they support ICE.

Lemon, who lost his CNN gig amid accusations of sexist comments, seemingly slipped in and out of character as a journalist during the mob action, stating, "There's nothing in the Constitution that tells you what time you can protest. You can protest at any time. That's the whole point of it — is to disrupt, is to make uncomfortable. And that's what they're doing, and that's what I believe when I say everyone has to be willing to sacrifice something. You have to make people uncomfortable in these times."

The former CNN host also lectured lead Pastor Jonathan Parnell after Parnell said the mob action was "unacceptable" and that it was "shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship."

"There's a Constitution and the First Amendment to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble and protest," Lemon told Parnell, excusing the mob's interference and intimidation tactics.

Dhillon later responded to Lemon's defense of the mob action, noting, "A house of worship is not a public forum for your protest! It is a space protected from exactly such acts by federal criminal and civil laws! Nor does the First Amendment protect your pseudo journalism of disrupting a prayer service. You are on notice!"

Lemon is reportedly scheduled to appear in federal court in Los Angeles on Friday morning.

Liberals who were silent when Blaze News reporter Steve Baker was arrested for covering the Jan. 6 riot are apoplectic over the arrest.

Jemele Hill, a writer for the Atlantic, called the radical's arrest "horrifying," adding that "this absolutely cannot stand."

Jim Acosta, also formerly of CNN, adhered to a similar script, writing, "This is outrageous and cannot stand. The First Amendment is under attack in America!"

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

US formally ditches World Health Organization



President Donald Trump announced America's withdrawal from the scandal-plagued World Health Organization late in his first term, citing the organization's abysmal response to COVID-19, its willingness to help the communist Chinese regime cover up the spread of the virus, and its refusal to adopt urgently needed reforms.

Former President Joe Biden swooped in, however, to prevent the withdrawal, which was scheduled for July 6, 2021.

'The United States will not be making any payments to the WHO before our withdrawal.'

On his first day back in office, Trump put the country back on track for withdrawal, giving the WHO a one-year notice period as required by U.S. law. In the months since, the Trump administration has cut off funding, withdrawn all personnel from the organization, and pivoted initiatives previously executed with the WHO to bilateral engagements with other countries and outfits.

Pursuant to the president's order, the United States has — as of Thursday — officially finished its exit from the WHO.

In a joint release confirming the completion of the withdrawal, the U.S. State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services stated, "Going forward, the U.S. government will continue its global health leadership through existing and new engagements directly with other countries, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and faith-based entities."

"U.S.-led efforts will prioritize emergency response, biosecurity coordination, and health innovation, including for noncommunicable diseases, to protect America first while delivering benefits to partners around the world," added the departments.

RELATED: 'We are not doing this any more': Rubio to strip billions in foreign aid from 'NGO industrial complex'

Photo by Robert Hradil/Getty Images

In a corresponding fact sheet, the departments indicated that in addition to terminating all funding to the WHO and recalling all U.S. personnel and contractors previously assigned to or embedded with the agency, the U.S. has "ceased official participation in WHO-sponsored committees, leadership, bodies, governance structures, and technical working groups."

"Withdrawing from WHO restores long-overdue accountability and transparency for U.S. taxpayers," says the fact sheet.

The WHO, a specialized agency of the United Nations that was founded in 1948, has long depended on the U.S. for financial and technical support. The U.S., a founding member, has historically been the organization's single largest contributor, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the WHO yearly and regularly accounting for over 20% of all member-state assessed contributions.

While the Trump administration satisfied its statutory obligation to give a one-year notice, critics of the withdrawal and officials at the globalist organization claim the U.S. has not met its financial obligations under the provisions of the congressional resolution that first enabled the country to join the WHO.

The amount supposedly owing for the 2024-2025 period is reportedly $278 million.

"The United States will not be making any payments to the WHO before our withdrawal," a State Department official told NPR earlier this week. "The cost borne by the U.S. taxpayer and U.S. economy after the WHO's failure during the COVID pandemic — and since — has been too high as it is."

Lawrence Gostin, director of the WHO's Center of National and Global Health Law, told NPR, "This is a very, very public and messy divorce."

"The man says, 'No, I'm not going to pay you any money, and we're no longer married.' And the woman says, 'No, you can't not be married unless you pay me,'" said Gostin.

Unlike in Gostin's analogy, the man in this scenario is the world's pre-eminent nuclear superpower.

Despite the apparent futility of the effort, the WHO's principal legal officer, Steven Solomon, indicated earlier this month that the organization's member states will discuss whether the U.S. has met the requirements for leaving, reported Stat News.

"It’s a lose for the U.S., and it’s also a lose for the rest of the world," Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said last week of America's imminent departure. "I hope they will reconsider."

Bill Gates, a funder of some of the WHO's work, told Reuters, "I don’t think the U.S. will be coming back to WHO in the near future."

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

'Handcuff ICE' bid fails: Appeals court overrules Biden judge, restores agents' power to stop hostile mobs



Anti-ICE activists' attempts to frustrate federal immigration law enforcement in Minneapolis and elsewhere hit a snag on Wednesday.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota and three Minnesota-based law firms filed a lawsuit on Dec. 17 against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, alleging its agents violated the constitutional rights of several anti-ICE activists, including a Minnesota woman and a Somali-American who were both accused of attacking federal agents.

A federal judge who was nominated by former President Joe Biden ruled last week in favor of the radicals.

'A liberal judge in Minnesota tried to handcuff ICE agents.'

U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez prohibited federal agents involved in Operation Metro Surge and related operations in the Gopher State from:

  • "retaliating against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity";
  • arresting such persons;
  • "using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity"; and
  • "stopping or detaining drivers and passengers in vehicles where there is no reasonable articulable suspicion that they are forcibly obstructing or interfering with Covered Federal Agents."

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security promptly appealed the Biden judge's ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On Wednesday, the appellate court granted the defendants an administrative stay of Menendez's preliminary injunction.

Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared greatly pleased with the higher court's ruling.

RELATED: Anti-ICE lunacy hits new low: Activist allegedly air-horns cops investigating school threat that had nothing to do with ICE

Photographer: Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images

"A liberal judge in Minnesota tried to handcuff ICE agents who are enforcing the Nation’s immigration laws and responding to obstructive and violent interference from agitators," Bondi said in a statement on Wednesday.

"The 8th Circuit just granted an administrative stay HALTING these restrictions, which were designed to undermine federal law enforcement," continued the attorney general. "This DOJ will protect federal law enforcement agents from criminals in the streets AND activist judges in the courtroom."

Federal agents didn't waste any time taking advantage of their restored abilities.

Hours after the ruling, Greg Bovino of U.S. Border Patrol was caught on tape warning a hostile crowd of anti-ICE protesters in Minneapolis that gas was coming, then tossing a gas canister their way.

The Department of Homeland Security indicated that "Border Patrol agents who were in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area as part of a targeted enforcement operation were repeatedly harassed and blocked by hostile crowds while simply trying to take bathroom breaks."

"At each gas station where the agents stopped to use the restroom, groups of agitators appeared, yelled at them, stalked them, and even tried to prevent law enforcement vehicles from leaving, creating unsafe conditions," said the DHS. "At one stop, individuals in the crowd threw food at the agents. At their final gas station stop, someone spit on an agent. When an agent moved to detain the person who spit on him, the crowed tackled and attacked the agents while surrounding them. To safely clear the area agents had to use crowd control measures to disperse the hostile crowd."

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

Christians win BIG: New York caves on forcing nuns and churches to fund abortion after knockout SCOTUS ruling



Christian organizations spent nearly a decade fighting New York's requirement that they pay for abortions. They came out victorious on Friday, thanks in part to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June.

In January 2017, then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that the Empire State would require employers to not only pay for contraceptive drugs and devices but for "all medically necessary abortion services."

Cuomo, a Catholic, said that the mandate was one of a number of regulatory actions that would "help ensure that whatever happens at the federal level, women in our state will have cost-free access to reproductive health care."

'The state has given up its disgraceful campaign.'

While there was a religious exemption built into the mandate, it was extremely narrow.

As satisfaction of the mandate would violate their deeply held religious beliefs, a coalition of Christian groups ineligible for the exemption — including the Roman Catholic Dioceses of Albany and Ogdensburg, the Anglican Sisterhood of St. Mary, Our Savior's Lutheran Church, and First Bible Baptist Church — sued the State of New York, claiming it violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause and both religion clauses.

After years of legal setbacks, the Christian plaintiffs' fight was renewed in late 2021 when the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a mandate-affirming ruling by the state appellate court and ordered it to reconsider the case in light of its 2021 decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia. In Fulton, the SCOTUS ruled that the City of Philadelphia had violated Catholic Social Services' free exercise of religion by requiring the foster care agency to endorse homosexual couples as foster parents.

RELATED: Biden's faith attacks backfire: Support for religious liberties soars to record high under Trump, new report shows

Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images

Again, the state appellate court considered the case, and again it ruled against the plaintiffs and in favor of the abortion mandate.

The Supreme Court took up the Christian groups' subsequent appeal, and in June 2025, it ordered the Court of Appeals of New York to reconsider the case in light of its June 5 ruling in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor. In that particular case, the high court unanimously held that by denying the Catholic Charities Bureau a tax exemption that is available for religious entities, Wisconsin had violated the First Amendment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in the opinion for the court, "When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny."

That Supreme Court ruling boded poorly for New York, whose abortion mandate had a similarly narrow and problematic religious exemption.

On Friday, New York agreed to surrender its effort to coerce the Christian plaintiffs into funding abortions.

"For nearly a decade, New York bureaucrats tried to strong-arm nuns into paying for abortions because they serve all those in need," said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket and attorney for the plaintiffs, in a statement. "At long last, the state has given up its disgraceful campaign. This victory confirms that the government cannot punish religious ministries for living out their faith by serving everyone."

"The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that religious groups shouldn't be bullied for staying true to their faith," Windham added.

Per the terms of the settlement with self-identified Catholic Gov. Kathy Hochul's administration, the following entities will now be recognized as religious employers, thereby securing exemptions from the mandate: the Roman Catholic Dioceses of Albany and Ogdensburg and the Catholic Charities thereof; St. Gregory the Great Roman Catholic Church Society of Amherst; First Bible Baptist Church; Our Savior's Lutheran Church of Albany; Teresian House Nursing Home Company, Inc.; Teresian House Housing Corporation; and Depaul Housing Management Corporation.

The Sisterhood of Mary and the Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Brooklyn have dropped their free exercise claims against the state.

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

Fani Willis' failed lawfare against Trump might cost her a fortune



Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis did her apparent best to throw President Donald Trump in jail and failed miserably.

While Willis was disqualified in 2024 from the Georgia case regarding alleged 2020 election interference and the case was dropped late last year, the Democrat DA has proven unable to put the lawfare behind her.

In addition to having to fight misconduct allegations, Willis now faces the possibility of having to shell out millions to the president in attorney fees and costs, thanks to legislation ratified in May by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R).

'It's Fani Willis' fault.'

The new law, which went into effect in July, provides "for the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in a criminal case to the defendant upon the disqualification of the prosecuting attorney for misconduct in connection with the case and the subsequent dismissal of the case by the court of a subsequent prosecutor."

Although the law might appear perfectly tailored to Trump's case, the legislation had bipartisan support.

RELATED: Fani Willis has ugly meltdown when confronted with how much her office paid her ex-lover to prosecute Trump

Photo by Dennis Byron-Pool/Getty Images

Trump is pushing for over $6.2 million in restitution. As the president's legal team has reportedly already been paid, most of the requested funds would go to reimburse Trump.

Steve Sadow, Trump's lead attorney in the case, told WXIA-TV, "I feel for the people in Fulton County, because Fani Willis has involved herself in improper conduct. She's now set up a situation where her office, from funds that have been collected through Fulton County, will have to pay for it. It's Fani Willis' fault."

"At the same time, maybe Fani Willis will tell us how much money she spent from her budget pursuing this politically motivated case against President Trump," added Sadow.

Her office has since filed a motion to intervene in the matter, which states, "The statute raises grave separation-of-powers concerns by purporting to impose financial liability on a constitutional officer, twice elected by the citizens of Fulton County, for the lawful exercise of her core duties under the Georgia Constitution."

Willis' office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

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

'Incredible victory': Federal judge prohibits trans-related grooming efforts in California schools



Democrat policies proudly championed in California by Gov. Gavin Newsom have for years kept parents in the dark about their children's mental health and personal circumstances — particularly about whether their kids are masquerading as members of the opposite sex at school and undergoing a so-called "social transition" with the help of school staff.

Unwilling to lie to parents in violation of their faith and ethics, and facing the prospect of retaliation or dismissal over their dissent, Christian educators Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West filed a lawsuit in 2023 with the help of the religious liberty group the Thomas More Society.

By October, their legal challenge targeting secretive, grooming transgender policies across the state had evolved into a class-action lawsuit involving other adversely impacted teachers as well as parents.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez delivered Democrat officials and other gender ideologues a big upset on Monday, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and against the grooming regime.

Benitez noted at the outset of his 52-page ruling that long before the advent of compulsory education in the U.S., "parents have carried out their rights and responsibility to direct the general and medical care and religious upbringing of their child."

"It is a right and a responsibility that parents still hold," said the judge.

Benitez affirmed that "parents have a right to receive gender information and teachers have a right to provide to parents accurate information about a child's gender identity" — rights that Benitez confirmed have been violated by California officials.

RELATED: 'Not medicine — it's malpractice': Trump HHS buries child sex-change regime with damning report

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Image

According to Benitez, "the parental exclusion policies create a trifecta of harm." For starters,

they harm the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. They harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make healthcare decisions for their children, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs. And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the [sic] sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students.

Benitez barred California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Superintendent Tony Thurmond, and members of the California Board of Education from implementing or enforcing laws or policies in such a manner as to permit or require any employee in the state education system to:

  • mislead the parent or guardian of a minor student "about their child's gender presentation at school" by way of direct lies, denial of access to educational records, or "using a different set of preferred pronouns/names when speaking with the parents than is being used at school";
  • "use a name or pronoun to refer to that child that do not match the child's legal name and natal pronouns, where a child’s parent or legal guardian has communicated their objection to such use"; and
  • use incorrect pronouns or a false name in reference to a student "while concealing that social gender transition from the child’s parents."

The judge also ordered state education officials to prominently feature the following statement in their LGBT "cultural competency" training materials:

Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.

"Today's incredible victory finally, and permanently, ends California's dangerous and unconstitutional regime of gender secrecy policies in schools," Paul Jonna, special counsel at the Thomas More Society, said in a statement.

"The court’s comprehensive ruling — granting summary judgment on all claims — protects all California parents, students, and teachers, and it restores sanity and common sense," continued Jonna. "With this decisive ruling from Judge Benitez, all state and local school officials that mandate gender secrecy policies should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences."

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

North Dakota Supreme Court overturns lower court judge: Pro-life ban reinstated after leftist attempt to block law



In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, then-North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) stated, "This decision is a victory for the many North Dakotans who have fought so hard and for so long to protect the unborn in our state."

The law 'protects unborn children throughout gestation from abortion, except to prevent the death of the mother as well as other exceptions.'

While Burgum was ultimately right in claiming victory, his celebration was premature as it pertained to the Roughrider State. It was not, after all, until Friday when abortion was formally and finally banned in the state.

Quick background

The overturning of Roe triggered a 2007 law making it a Class C felony to perform an abortion in North Dakota, except to save the life of the mother or in the case of rape or incest.

Just prior to the law taking effect, the abortionists from the Red River Women's Clinic who moved their abortion clinic from Fargo to Minnesota successfully sued to get an injunction.

Months after South Central Judicial District Court Judge Bruce Romanick blocked the law, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the abortion ban would remain blocked while the legal battle over the law's constitutionality proceeded.

Jon Jensen, chief justice on the court, noted that the abortionists had "demonstrated likely success on the merits that there is a fundamental right to an abortion in the limited instances of life-saving and health-preserving circumstances, and the statute is not narrowly tailored to satisfy strict scrutiny."

Republican state Sen. Janne Myrdal, the former head of ND Choose Life, subsequently introduced a similar piece of legislation, which repealed and replaced the 2007 law. Myrdal's Senate Bill 2150 passed the North Dakota House and Senate in landslide votes and was ultimately ratified by Burgum in April 2023.

Desperate as ever to keep abortion legal, the abortionists behind the initial challenge filed an amended complaint asking that the same judge who previously gave them an injunction would deem the ban unconstitutional under the North Dakota Constitution.

RELATED: 'Abortion Is Everything' book for kids calls killing unborn children 'human superpower'

Photo by © Ralf-Finn Hestoft/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images

Romanick proved happy to oblige them, stating on Sept. 12, 2024, that the law was "void for vagueness" and that it was violative of the North Dakota Constitution, which supposedly recognizes a fundamental right to choose abortion before viability.

The state kept pressing the issue in court — North Dakota Attorney General Drew H. Wrigley (R) appealed Romanick's decision — and prevailed.

Victory at last

The North Dakota Supreme Court reinstated the abortion ban on Friday. While three of the five justices deemed the ban "unconstitutionally vague," the state constitution requires at least four justices to agree in order to find a law unconstitutional.

In his dissent, which was joined by Jensen, Justice Jerod Tufte said that the state district court erred both in concluding the law was unconstitutionally vague and in concluding that the state constitution protects a right to abortion broad enough to conflict with Senate Bill 2150.

Pro-abortion activists were apoplectic over the codification of the people's will on the matter of abortion in North Dakota.

"This decision is a devastating loss for pregnant North Dakotans," Meetra Mehdizadeh, senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. "As a majority of the Court found, this cruel and confusing ban is incomprehensible to physicians."

Tammi Kromenaker, executive director of the Red River Women's Clinic, complained that "making it illegal just makes it harder" to get abortions.

Pro-live activists, alternatively, were overjoyed.

Ingrid Duran, the National Right to Life's director of state legislation, welcomed the decision, noting that the law "protects unborn children throughout gestation from abortion, except to prevent the death of the mother as well as other exceptions."

Myrdal, the Republican who introduced the legislation, reportedly said that she is "thrilled and grateful that two justices that are highly respected saw the truth of the matter, that this is fully constitutional for the mother and for the unborn child and thereafter for that sake."

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

'Patently inequitable': Ketanji Brown Jackson whines after SCOTUS stays Biden judge's order in trans passport case



The U.S. Supreme Court delivered the Trump administration a victory on Thursday, prompting bitterness not only from trans activists but from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who suggested that the "regrettable" ruling might leave transgender-identifying individuals at risk of "harassment and bodily invasions."

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20 directing his secretaries of state and homeland security to ensure that government-issued identification documents, including passports and visas, "accurately reflect the holder's sex."

'Today, the Court refuses to answer equity's call.'

The Trump administration's reversal of the Biden-era policy that enabled people to choose their own sex marker as well as a third marker, "X," instead of an "M" or an "F" marker, was poorly received by some radicals.

Keen to have the government continue indulging their delusions, several transvestites joined the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and Covington & Burling LLP in a lawsuit over the passport policy in February.

In April, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, a Biden appointee, granted them a preliminary injunction preventing the State Department's enforcement of Trump's Executive Order 14168 while the lawsuit played out — but only as it applied to six of the plaintiffs. Months later, Kobick granted a class certification request and expanded the scope of her injunction.

After its appeal was rejected by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Trump administration filed an emergency stay request to the Supreme Court.

To the chagrin of non-straight activists, the high court granted the stay on Thursday, stating, "Displaying passport holders' sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."

RELATED: Trans-identifying teen agrees to plead guilty to plotting Valentine's Day massacre at high school

Photo by Hyoung Chang/Denver Post/Getty Images

The court noted further in its unsigned order, which was opposed by all three liberal justices, that the "respondents have failed to establish that the Government's choice to display biological sex 'lack[s] any purpose other than a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group.' ... Nor are respondents likely to prevail in arguing that the State Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously by declining to depart from Presidential rules that Congress expressly required it to follow."

The high court concluded that absent a stay, the government would suffer a form of irreparable injury as the Biden judge's injunction could lead to foreign affairs implications.

Justice Jackson noted in her dissenting opinion that "as is becoming routine, the Government seeks an emergency stay of a District Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. As is also becoming routine, this Court misunderstands the assignment."

After casting doubt on her "obliging" colleagues' comprehension skills, Jackson — whose past opinions have bewildered her conservative and liberal peers alike — characterized the reality-affirming passport policy as "new" and legally questionable. Then sentences later, she acknowledged that it was not new so much as a reversion to the government's long-standing policy as it existed until at least the early 1990s.

Jackson argued that the cross-dressing plaintiffs face greater harm absent injunctive relief than the government would face absent a stay, and expressed doubt whether the government faces any irreparable harm at all.

"But the Court somehow sees fit to grant the Government's stay request regardless, waving away its abject failure to show any irreparable harm and promoting a patently inequitable outcome to boot," wrote Jackson.

Jackson suggested further that the indication of an individual's actual sex on a passport amounts to a concrete injury and echoed the Biden-appointed district court judge, writing that "transgender people who encounter obstacles to obtaining gender-congruent identity documents are almost twice as likely to experience suicidal ideation, and report more severe psychological distress, than transgender people who do not face such barriers."

In her conclusion, the leftist justice complained that "today, the Court refuses to answer equity's call."

Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, joined Jackson in complaining about the court's decision, stating, "This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights."

"This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents," said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "The Trump administration's policy is an unlawful attempt to dehumanize, humiliate, and endanger transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans, and we will continue to seek its ultimate reversal in the courts."

Attorney General Pam Bondi referred to the court's ruling as the administration's "24th victory at the Supreme Court's emergency docket" and noted, "Today’s stay allows the government to require citizens to list their biological sex on their passport. In other words: there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting for that simple truth."

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