Jesse Ridgway turned a child’s death into content



Every parent knows the moment. The phone call. The ultrasound. The doctor walking back into the room. The uncertainty.

We all tell some version of the same joke: “I just hope the baby has 10 fingers and 10 toes.” We spend nine months praying for a healthy baby. We celebrate reassuring scans. We cling to every piece of good news.

Some decisions are so intimate and consequential that they do not belong in the marketplace of clicks and comments.

But over those nine months, we learn the ultimate lesson of parenthood and life: We are not in control.

Last week, the country got a front-row seat to one family’s struggle with that lesson. Jesse Ridgway, a YouTuber known as “McJuggerNuggets” with more than 4 million subscribers, took to X to update followers on a pregnancy he and his wife had documented for months.

“This week, my wife and I made the very difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy due to Trisomy 21,” Ridgway wrote. He added that he had not realized the child would be “fully dependent on others for the rest of their life.” He concluded, “We made a difficult decision that we believe in the long run will be beneficial for our family.”

I suppose the baby was not yet considered part of the family.

I do not doubt that the Ridgways were scared. Every parent can sympathize with fear. Every parent can sympathize with grief over shattered expectations. But what happened next was not merely a story about fear. It was a story about what we do with fear.

The entire enterprise of parenthood is uncertainty.

Healthy babies develop cancer. Healthy babies lose their sight. Healthy babies suffer traumatic brain injuries. Healthy babies develop learning disabilities. Healthy babies struggle with addiction. The moment you become a parent, you sign a contract with uncertainty.

Parenthood does not give you guarantees. It gives you responsibility.

We do not love our children because of the outcomes they produce. We love them because they are ours. If a child develops a disability at age 6, do we decide his life no longer has value? Of course not.

RELATED: Euthanasia and the lie of the ‘good death’

Mininyx Doodle via iStock/Getty Images

Then why would we decide that at 6 months in the womb?

What is so unique about Down syndrome? It involves suffering, imperfection, and uncertainty. But so does every human life. Down syndrome simply makes those realities visible sooner.

The question is not whether this child would face challenges. The question is why challenges suddenly make a life disposable.

If Down syndrome is enough to make a life disposable before birth, what other conditions qualify? Blindness? Autism? Cerebral palsy? A missing limb? A learning disability?

Where exactly is the line?

I will make this personal. Our second child faced a possible cystic fibrosis diagnosis. The meeting with the specialist was dark. She was preparing us for devastating news. I remember sitting in my car afterward, calling my dad, and bawling my eyes out.

But the conversation was never, “Should this child live?” The conversation was, “How do we prepare to raise this child?”

That distinction matters.

Fast-forward to our fourth child, now 5 months old. Her scans showed what doctors believed was a significant kidney defect that would require either in-utero surgery or surgery immediately after birth. Again, my wife and I were terrified. Again, we began preparing.

And again, it was all for nothing.

In both cases, the doctors were wrong.

Doctors are incredibly skilled. They are not prophets. A probability is not a person.

Ridgway mentioned that doctors told him and his wife that up to 90% of women terminate after learning their child has Trisomy 21. That statistic is often cited as evidence of how difficult these diagnoses can be.

I see it differently.

I see it as evidence of how quickly our culture has confused hardship with hopelessness.

This hit me on another personal level. I volunteer at a special-needs ministry. Some of the happiest people I know have Down syndrome. Through all their challenges, they radiate a level of joy, affection, and sincerity that our country desperately needs.

After reading Ridgway’s announcement, I could not stop wondering what one of them would think if he read it. Imagine opening your phone and discovering that people are publicly discussing whether lives like yours are worth living. Imagine being told that your diagnosis makes your existence negotiable.

Parenthood can never be reduced to consumer choice. Children are not products we order. They are gifts we receive.

RELATED: What ‘fur babies,’ 2D boyfriends, and ‘sharenting’ tell us about the West's future

lchumpitaz via iStock/Getty Images

The deepest moments of parenthood often arrive when life refuses to follow the script. A parent’s love is measured by what remains after expectations disappear.

The decision itself was not the only thing that struck me. So did the need to announce it.

Some moments should produce reflection, not engagement. Some decisions are so intimate and consequential that they do not belong in the marketplace of clicks and comments. Have we reached the point where even the death of a child becomes content?

As of this writing, Ridgway’s post has more than 24 million views.

He has faced a mountain of criticism online, much of it hateful and cruel. As a Christian, I am taught to hate the sin and not the sinner. I will leave judgment to God.

But I hope this tragic and very public episode forces us to think carefully about what parenthood requires.

A child does not earn the right to live by meeting our expectations.

Parenthood begins when we decide to love a child even when life does not unfold the way we hoped. The measure of parenthood is not how we respond when life follows the script.

It is how we respond when it does not.

Media Shrug At Aborting Down Syndrome Baby But Cry ‘Eugenics’ At Sydney Sweeney’s Cup Size

The press’ reaction to the Ridgways’ murder of their unborn child is unsurprising given their history of abortion and IVF activism.

Met Gala goes full absurdity: A ROAST of Hollywood’s most unhinged looks



The 2026 Met Gala once again delivered exactly what regular people have come to expect: bizarre costumes, confusing “statements,” and celebrities competing to look as ridiculous as possible.

And one headline sums up the event perfectly: “Body as masterpiece: Nipples, skeletons, and tattoos dominate at record-breaking Met Gala,” says the Guardian.

“All those words don’t belong together,” BlazeTV host Dave Landau comments on “Stu and Dave Do America,” before judging the celebrities' looks for himself.

“I would say a very old, gross tuna ship,” he says of Madonna’s Gala look — which featured the singer dressed in all black, with long, messy black hair, and a hat with a pirate ship emerging from the top.


While Madonna’s look was the opposite of revealing, Kylie Jenner’s outfit was barely there at all.

Jenner’s look boasted nipples on the outside of her top, which BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere finds curious.

“I would say one of the goals of a bra ... is you’re trying to downplay the nipplage,” Stu says.

“This is a bra with nipples built in on the outside and apparently something that her company makes,” he adds.

Bad Bunny was also in attendance, and he dressed as an old man with more defined wrinkles and bright white hair.

“There’s probably a statement in there, but I do not care enough to figure out what it is,” Stu says.

“I don’t either,” Dave agrees.

Want more from Stu and Dave?

To enjoy more of Stu and Dave's lethal blend of wit, humor, and insightful commentary subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘Low-IQ content’: Meet the left’s new ‘radical leftist hero’



Like many of her fellow liberals, progressive podcast host Jennifer Welch used the latest attempt on President Trump’s life to show her true colors.

In a segment on her podcast “I’ve Had It,” Welch mocked Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, for her response to the assassination attempt.

Dressed in all black with a black baseball cap to match what Kirk wore in her video message, Welch said, “How would you feel if the president of the United States said he wanted to wipe out an entire population? How would you feel if your husband said, ‘Because he’s famous, he can grab them by the p***y?’”

“What would Jesus do? What would Jesus do to the black pilot? How would you feel if your husband, president of the United States, was an adjudicated rapist? How would you feel about that? How would you feel?” she said.


Welch also promoted her new anti-fascist book, saying, “Make sure you preorder my book, which I would like to dedicate to one Erika Kirk.”

“Erika, the person that I’m talking about today, fascist, is you. You. You were the racist fascist about whom I am talking to. The work that your husband’s company and that you are doing to America’s youth to make them racist, narrow-minded, hateful, and bats**t crazy is an absolute disgrace. And thank you for the outfit, hashtag inspo,” she added, while her co-host laughed uncontrollably.

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is disturbed by liberals’ new “radical leftist hero.”

“It’s alarming to me that a lot of people are watching this content, let alone like one person. I don’t understand the other worthless shrew that comes into frame and starts cackling like it’s just so hilarious,” Gonzales says, calling it “low-IQ content.”

“You’re talking about Erika Kirk’s dead husband and saying that he’s a fascist because he created Turning Point USA so that young people could have a conservative organization to look up to so that they weren’t just inundated by leftist indoctrination,” she continues.

“It’s kind of depressing that people are, anyone is, consuming this content,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

‘She sees herself as a man’: Jason Whitlock explains Megan Thee Stallion’s explosive cheating scandal



Just months after taking their relationship public, rapper Megan Thee Stallion has officially ended her romance with Dallas Mavericks player Klay Thompson — and she isn’t being shy about her reasoning.

“I’ve made the decision to end my relationship with Klay," Megan said in a statement. "Trust, fidelity, and respect are nonnegotiable for me in a relationship, and when those values are compromised, there’s no real path forward. I’m taking this time to prioritize myself and move ahead with peace and clarity.”

While many fans have sided with Megan, BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock believes there’s more to why their relationship didn’t work out.

“Don’t date a woman who calls herself a stallion, an uncastrated male horse. Megan the horse, that’s not what you want, gentlemen. She’s telling on herself,” Whitlock says, explaining that Thompson “made the mistake here.”


“One of these two people did not falsely advertise. She sees herself as a man,” he explains.

“Klay Thompson, you’re a man. You don’t want to date a woman who sees herself as a man,” he adds.

While Shemeka Michelle agrees with Whitlock, she also points out the fact that it is "ridiculous" that their relationship is such a big story in itself.

“I just think it’s so ridiculous,” she tells Whitlock. “I’ve seen multiple posts about women getting their own man back because they’re standing up for Megan Thee Stallion, and ... it shows exactly where we are, or at least where the culture is.”

However, Delano Squires believes there’s an even bigger issue at play here.

“This particular split continues a decades-long cycle of sowing discord between black men and black women. And part of the reason that concerns me is because you can’t build strong families. You can’t build a culture of marriage and strong families in any community where the default is discord between men and women,” Squires tells Whitlock.

“So that to me is the bigger thing, and I think both of these individuals represent two archetypes of what is wrong in the relationship marketplace,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Golden State Warriors coach gets political — is he following in Stephen A. Smith’s footsteps?



Stephen A. Smith isn't the only big name in sports whose actions may point to a potential career change.

Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr sat down for an interview with the New Yorker titled “Has Steve Kerr Had Enough?” — and what he said was enough to set alarm bells off in BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock’s head.

“Guess who might be the next presidential candidate coming from the sports world?” Whitlock asks on “Fearless with Jason Whitlock,” pointing out that he’s not the only one who noticed.

Political consultant Frank Luntz also senses a career change for Kerr, writing in a post on X: “Legendary Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr sounds like he could run for office.”

In the interview, Kerr told the New Yorker that when he finished college almost 40 years ago, getting a job and buying a house were much simpler.


“Now that’s out of reach for most people between student debt and home prices and the economy slanted toward the very, very top 1%,” he added.

Whitlock also points out that “Steve Kerr and the Golden State ownership are [allegedly] at odds over how far he’s pushing on the political spectrum.”

“So perhaps Steve Kerr is positioning himself for a political run,” Whitlock says, noting that he has some advice for Kerr.

“Tell the left and particularly the athletic left, the professional athlete left, tell them to grow a pair, be somewhat consistent. The silence over the consistent violence directed toward President Trump is really annoying and exposes you and all of these athletes as hypocrites,” he says.

“Maybe Steve Kerr and Stephen A. Smith can pair up and that will be the tandem running for president,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trump Gold Card visa plan breakdown: Big promises vs. small reality



The controversial Trump-backed Gold Card visa program not only claimed to offer immigrants “residency in record time,” but promised up to $1 trillion toward reducing national debt.

However, during a heated congressional hearing, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has revealed that only one applicant has been approved so far.

“The process was recently resolved with DHS who runs the program, and they do a $15,000, the most serious vetting and analysis of any potential applicant in the history of the government. Usually it was $600. These pay $15,000 for an extraordinary vet,” Lutnick explained.


“So they have approved recently one person, and there are hundreds in the queue that are going through the process, but this is a new program, and they’ve just set it up, and they wanted to make sure they did it perfectly, and so we’ve worked through that,” he added.

“Sounds pretty rigorous if only one person has been OK'd for this,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray comments, shocked.

“I mean, no matter what you think of the program, that’s a failure, right?” he continues. “And I think the program would have been pretty good if we could have raised a trillion dollars.”

“Maybe it’s because DHS was closed and couldn’t do anything,” Jeff Fisher chimes in, adding, “But again, I’m OK with no one coming in.”

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.

The trial lawyers come for online free speech



Trial lawyers are poised to accomplish in courtrooms nationwide what politicians have thus far failed to write into statute. The effects of this effort — undertaken without the deliberation of the nation’s representative bodies — are likely to rival those of even the most sweeping laws.

The product of social media platforms is not loaves of bread or pianos or widgets, it is speech, protected by the First Amendment.

A jury in Los Angeles is determining whether Meta and YouTube are liable for design features alleged to have substantially aggravated a young woman’s psychological disorders.

As thousands of similar lawsuits are ongoing — with more likely to follow — the determination of the Los Angeles jury will echo loudly in the deliberations of other juries across America.

These echoes will prove dissonant with Americans’ love for, and dedication to, free speech. Meta’s Instagram and YouTube were said to have disseminated speech too well, working too successfully to configure their products to maintain users’ interest.

This is supposed to constitute “addicting” their users. In fact, it is the aim of every business — from media organizations to retail stores to restaurants to attract and retain customers, to earn profits by marketing a product that consumers value.

In short, it is the business of entrepreneurs to give the people what they want. The product of social media platforms is not loaves of bread or pianos or widgets, it is speech, protected by the First Amendment.

Meta and YouTube are charged with having designed their products to include features — such as “infinite scroll” and individualized algorithmic recommendations — which allow and incentivize their users to view too much speech for too long.

As National Review’s Andrew McCarthy put it, “the plaintiff’s lawyers argued ... a theory that the case was not about the content but about theprocesses by which the platforms present the content." Despite titanic efforts to harden this distinction, it melts under the heat of elementary scrutiny. Platforms’ design features are impotent absent content that intrigues users.

Mike Masnick, editor of Techdirt, put it this way:

Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing?

Social media algorithms sort and distribute speech — a function without which individuals could neither access speech online nor effectively find an audience for their own speech.

RELATED: The new censorship doesn’t say ‘no’ — it says ‘no one can see it’

Delihayat/Getty Images

Whatever the plaintiff’s attorneys contend, the liability imposed upon Meta and YouTube cannot be severed from the content they host and disseminate. Without the latter, the former would never be imagined, much less found by a jury.

The plaintiff in the case, a young woman known as Kaley or “KGM,” was brought up in anguishing conditions, the daughter of a mother who physically and emotionally abused her. She “was self-harming around when she was in the 6th grade,” reads the Associated Press account of the trial.

It is unsurprising that she, as a young girl, withdrew to social media to find something like peace, fulfillment, and satisfaction. It is equally unsurprising that she used social media to excess and leveraged her every chance to obtain engagement.

More generally, it is anything but certain that users’ affinity for social media is rightly termed an “addiction.” Likewise, research purporting to prove that social media has caused an epidemic of psychological disorders among children — the research of Jonathan Haidt, for example — has proven to be faulty, rife with faulty methodology and confirmation bias.

It is obvious that some misuse social media and their lives are, consequently, diminished. But this no more indicates that the platforms are “defective” in some legally cognizable sense than the mere existence of obesity in America indicates that McDonald’s or Taco Bell’s offerings are “defective” — or that fast-food restaurants ought to be held liable for occurrences of diabetes.

RELATED: Predatory gambling apps are using loopholes to avoid state laws

Gabby Jones/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Humans are a diverse bunch. That a minority, suffering from particular difficulties or vulnerabilities, cannot engage with this product or that in a healthy fashion should not, in a courtroom or the public square, constitute the basis of a totalizing rebuke.

Should the Los Angeles verdict stand, social media companies, confronted with the prospect of liability, are bound to remake their products to prevent any allegation — credible or otherwise — that their platforms cause or worsen whatever psychological distress from which users might suffer.

“If media companies must worry about liability whenever their expressive outputs are thought to be ‘harmful,’ the universe of available content would be reduced to the safest, blandest, and least engaging stuff imaginable,” warns Ari Cohn, the lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The operations of Instagram and YouTube broke no law enacted by Congress or a state legislature to regulate the workings of social media. Even so, this litigation, if successful, will be regulatory in its effect, resulting in the contracting of the free and open internet.

Biden’s COVID censorship machine takes a hit: Missouri wins landmark ban on federal threats to Big Tech



A landmark settlement delivered a blow to the censorship industrial complex that silenced Americans during the COVID era.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) announced Tuesday that Missouri had reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. government in its Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which accused the Biden administration of violating Americans' First Amendment rights by directing social media companies to censor speech challenging the government's COVID messaging.

'For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours.'

Schmitt filed the lawsuit against the Biden administration while serving as Missouri attorney general, before securing his Senate seat.

The agreement included a 10-year Consent Decree that enforces a narrow permanent injunction on the surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The injunction prevents them from threatening social media companies with any form of punishment if those companies fail to remove or suppress content that contains protected speech.

However, this ban applies only to posts made on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube by the specific plaintiffs in the case, including Missouri and Louisiana government officials and agencies acting in their official capacity. It does not extend to other social media networks or content posted by the general public.

"The Parties also agree that government, politicians, media, academics, or anyone else applying labels such as 'misinformation,' 'disinformation,' or 'malinformation' to speech does not render it constitutionally unprotected," the agreement reads.

The court must first approve this settlement agreement.

RELATED: BlazeTV's 'The Coverup' exposes how the censorship industrial complex silenced Americans during COVID

Eric Schmitt. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

"We just won Missouri v. Biden," Schmitt wrote in a post on X. "As Missouri's Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent 'misinformation' while they pushed their narrative on the American people."

Schmitt called the Consent Decree the "first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine."

He explained that it "directly binds the Surgeon General, the CDC, and CISA: no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions to remove, suppress, deplatform, or algorithmically bury protected speech."

"For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours. The heartland fought back, and the heartland delivered," Schmitt concluded.

RELATED: 'Karma is a b***h': Trump taps epidemiologist targeted by Biden admin and censored online to run NIH

Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Benjamin Weingarten, a senior contributor at the Federalist, addressed the victory's narrow application.

"This decree is limited to the plaintiffs, but as precedent, and practically, its impact may prove orders of magnitude more powerful in protecting disfavored speech," Weingarten wrote, calling it "a momentous blow for the First Amendment."

National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, who had to withdraw as a plaintiff in the case after being appointed by the Trump administration, called the settlement "a huge win for all Americans."

"Huzzah! The consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a historic victory for free speech in the US. Though I had to switch to the government side in the case after I became NIH director, I've never been more pleased by 'losing' in my life," he wrote.

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