This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

There are some noted cases where women – white women – have identified as minorities. Sen. Elizabeth Warren's identity as a Native American is an example.

Then there are those who call themselves transgender – even though their actual gender never changes.

There's even the Indiana Republican who jokingly called himself a "lesbian woman of color."

And now a trend is resurfacing in news reports of something on which WND has reported for years – those who call themselves transabled.

They aren't disabled, but pretend they are. Or have surgeries to actually acquire a disability.

It is Fox News that has reported on those with "body integrity identity disorder."

The report explains, "The point of 'changing the identifier' from a psychiatric condition (BIID) to an advocacy term (transableism) is to 'harness the stunning cultural power of gender ideology' to the cause of allowing doctors to 'treat' BIID patients by 'amputating healthy limbs, snipping spinal cords or destroying eyesight,' according to Evolution News and Science Today (EN), which reports on and analyzes evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues."

The report explained some of those involved in the ideology "mutilate themselves," while other ask surgeons to amputate a limb. In transgenderism, already a key agenda point for Joe Biden, advocates encourage the amputation of strategic body parts in a patient's attempt to "change" genders.

The National Institutes of Health confirms the transabled are people who "desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or desire a paralysis."

Those who are disabled are offended, and a 24-year-old student told Fox, "It’s embarrassing, and I don’t know if you can be considered a serious human being if you alter your body like this, instead of getting the appropriate mental help you need."

In rare extreme cases, people actually try to blind themselves in order to be disabled.

Jane Orient, an internist and chief of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, said, in the report, "In my opinion, both transgender and transabled persons suffer from a delusional disorder. The Oath of Hippocrates adjures physicians to do no harm. Mutilating the body is an objective harm even if makes the patient subjectively feel better."

A few years ago, the Guardian reported on a 69-year-old Dutch man who said he does not feel his age – and started a battle to make himself legally 20 years younger.

"When I’m 69, I am limited," he said at the time. "If I’m 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car. I can take up more work. When I’m on Tinder and it says I’m 69, I don’t get an answer. When I’m 49, with the face I have, I will be in a luxurious position."

At WND, it was eight years ago that it was reported a Canadian university teacher has argued doctors should amputate the limbs of able-bodied, physically healthy individuals who consider themselves "transabled," positing such extreme procedures will help those people feel "empowered."

Clive Baldwin, a Canada Research Chair in Narrative Studies who is an associate professor of social work at St. Thomas University in New Brunswick, Canada, says he has interviewed almost 40 people who identify as "transabled."

He told "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" at the time an amputation may be, in some circumstances, the "best way" to manage the feelings of being "transabled."

Baldwin described "transabalism" as "the desire or the need to move from being able-bodied to disabled. Because, the general consensus at the moment is one's body map in one's brain does not align with one's physical body."

He said being "transabled" is not a lifestyle choice but is "very much a deep felt need to become this way because their bodies are wrong."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

ABC News refused to air a portion of its interview with Robert Kennedy, Jr., the recently announced Democrat primary challenger to Joe Biden, because it disagreed with his criticism of COVID vaccines.

Rather than play the full interview so that viewers could evaluate Kennedy's own words, ABC chose to censor them, with reporter Linsey Davis giving what Kennedy said was a "defamatory disclaimer" on air: “[W]e should note that during our conversation, Kennedy made false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines. We’ve used our editorial judgment in not including extended portions of that exchange in our interview,” she said in the interview published April 27.

Davis added, “[Kennedy] also made misleading claims about the relationship between vaccination and autism. Research shows that vaccines and the ingredients used in the vaccines do not cause autism, including multiple studies involving more than a million children and major medical associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the advocacy group Autism Speaks,” according to an Epoch Times report on the manipulated interview.

"The claims in question were not listed, and ABC did not return a request for comment," Epoch Times reported.

Kennedy issued a long tweet April 28 in response to what he called the journalistic "hatchet job": "USC 315 makes it illegal for TV networks to censor Presidential candidates but Thursday, ABC showed its contempt for the law, democracy, and its audience by cutting most of the content of my interview with host Linsey Davis leaving only cherry-picked snippets and a defamatory disclaimer," he said.

"Offering no evidence, @ABC justified this act of censorship by falsely asserting that I made 'false claims.' In truth, Davis engaged me in a lively, informative, and mutually respectful debate on the government’s COVID countermeasures. I’m happy to supply citations to support every statement I made during that exchange," he continued, adding, "I'm certain that ABC’s decision to censor came as a shock to Linsey as well.

"Instead of journalism, the public saw a hatchet job. Instead of information, they got defamation and unsheathed Pharma propaganda," he said. "Americans deserve to hear the full interview so they can make up their own minds. How can democracy function without a free and unbiased press? As President, I will free FCC from its corporate captors and force the agency to follow the law by revoking the licenses of networks that put the mercantile ambitions of advertisers ahead of the public interest."

Twitter added an advisory note to Kennedy's tweet: "Readers added context they thought people might want to know." It reads: "47 USC 315’s censorship prohibition applies only when candidates 'use a broadcasting station.' The law explicitly exempts newscasts & news interviews, which [they] are allowed to censor," and was followed by a link to that portion of the U.S. Code in question.

Turley: 'Wrong for country and journalism'

Legal analyst Jonathan Turley assailed ABC News for "actively seeking to prevent voters from hearing a presidential candidate on an issue of great public interest and debate."

As described Monday in his column, the George Washington University law professor and frequent Fox News contributor said, "ABC is now claiming the right to censor presidential candidates to protect the public from harmful thoughts or disinformation, including major issues behind a campaign. It is wrong for both the country and for journalism."

"We do not have to be protected from dangerous thoughts by the media," Turley wrote. "A far greater danger lurks in the indoctrination and orthodoxy that comes from censorship."

As Turley reported, ABC’s Davis began the interview with a condescending and skewed description of Kennedy's work, describing the son of the assassinated attorney general under President John F. Kennedy as “one of the biggest voices pushing anti-vaccine rhetoric, regularly distributing misinformation and disinformation about vaccines, which scientific and medical experts overwhelmingly say are safe and effective based on rigorous scientific studies.”

As WND and others have reported, there is a growing skepticism in the medical field of the government's COVID vaccine narrative that the shots are "safe and effective" — repeated ad nauseam in the last two years and now again by Davis. Dissenting doctors like Peter McCullough have earned the respect of many millions worldwide by bucking the government line on COVID and simply informing the public of the risks associated with the shots, including a spike in "sudden deaths" and myocarditis injuries thought to be a product of the vaccines.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton plans to investigate "whether [COVID vaccine] companies misrepresented the efficacy and safety of the vaccines and manipulated vaccine trial data," WND reported Monday.

Turley pointed to the double-standard in how ABC News treated Kennedy versus how it covers Biden, whose record as a serial liar (and plagiarist) long preceded his occupancy of the White House: "It is not clear where ABC draws the line. Joe Biden has made so many false statements that the Washington Post gave him a 'bottomless Pinocchio.' Likewise, many view contested claims over climate change and transgender issues to be dangerous. Will ABC now be censoring these other candidates or positions?"

Several news programs, not all of them on the political right, have conducted uncensored interviews with Kennedy, his campaign website states, providing links to each.

Kennedy took a dig at ABC by announcing his April 29 interview with CNN: "Thanks to Michael Smerconish @CNN for hosting me in this far-ranging and uncensored interview. #Kennedy24."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Pharmaceutical companies that made billions of dollars off of the COVID-19 shots purchased by the U.S. government now are under investigation.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he's begun looking into claims of alleged COVID vaccine fraud.

Actions by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson will be reviewed for possible violations of the state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, according to a new report in Becker News.

New York Post columnist Miranda Devine commented on the "sickening" profits by the "Big Pharma bosses" during the pandemic, when they were "overselling billions of people around the world on the wondrous qualities of their vaccines."

"Moderna chief executive Stéphane Bancel made nearly $400 million last year on his stock options and still owns a reported $2.8 billion of shares in the company plus his salary and perks. His Pfizer counterpart, Albert Bourla, pocketed a $33 million salary last year, on top of the millions in Pfizer shares he sold," she reported.

But, she added, "But before they ride off into the sunset to count their filthy lucre, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton plans to investigate whether their companies misrepresented the efficacy and safety of the vaccines and manipulated vaccine trial data."

She reported Paxton "also wants to know whether the pharmaceutical giants engaged in gain-of-function research and misled the public about it."

Paxton said in a statement, "The catastrophic effects of the pandemic and subsequent interventions forced on our country and citizens deserve intense scrutiny, and we are pursuing any hint of wrongdoing to the fullest."

Devine explained, "The Texas investigation could have widespread implications for the legal immunity granted to manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccines and open the door to class-action lawsuits from people injured by the mRNA jabs, amid reports of rare but serious adverse effects."

Paxton added, "This pandemic was a deeply challenging time for Americans. If any company illegally took advantage of consumers during this period or compromised people’s safety to increase their profits, they will be held responsible."

He said the public must know if any of those shot requirements, mandates or any other public health policy was based on "flawed or misleading research."

He pointed to the obvious "vested interest" the companies had in promoting their own products, which subsequently made them billions of dollars.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis already has called for a grand jury investigation into potential crimes related to the COVID-19 vaccinations.

The dangers, so far, have been documented to include risks of coagulation disorders, acute cardiac injuries, Bell’s palsy, encephalitis, appendicitis, and shingles.

Among the targets of the investigation are documents concerning the companies' "decision-making behind pandemic interventions forced on the public, especially when a profit motive or political pressure may have compromised Americans' health and safety."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Sometimes well-intended regulations, such as antitrust agendas, can go too far to the detriment of U.S. companies and the American marketplace.

The current FTC campaign to break up certain American-owned tech firms will likely only benefit Chinese-owned companies like Huawei, Tencent, Baidu, and Alibaba. That's not good for U.S. competitiveness.

On their face, antitrust laws can ensure fair competition among businesses operating in the United States.

Dating back as far as 1890, our U.S. Congress worked to restrict concentrations of power that might reduce economic competition in the United States with the Sherman Act. 1914 brought us the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, further laying the foundation for antitrust legislation.

To be clear, regulation has a proper place to ensure thriving fair competition in the American marketplace. To that end, the DOJ, FTC, and state attorneys general are investigating and suing problem actors like Facebook, Google, and Twitter that continue to bully, censor, use, and abuse the American people. But if we regulate American-owned companies in ways Chinese-owned companies are not subject to, American companies, American competitiveness, and ultimately American consumers stand to lose out.

Unfortunately, however, that's exactly what's happening today.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A Pennsylvania county is reversing its ban on free speech in a public park after being ordered to take that action by a federal judge.

The case involved Kevin Gaughen and Dave Kocur who were kicked out of a Doughin County park and decided to sue for the government's infringement of their 1st Amendment rights.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Express worked on the case, and lawyer Jeff Zeman said, "Kevin and Dave knew their First Amendment rights and tried to stand up for them. But Dauphin County insisted on ignoring the commands of the Constitution. That’s why FIRE got involved."

The fight developed in Fort Hunter Park, where the county's parks director imposed a ban on political speech.

The county official banned the two from collecting petition signatures in the park. But the court order to the county to reverse course "acknowledges that Dauphin County’s ban on political speech violated the First Amendment," FIRE reported.

The county will also pay $91,000 to settle the case.

"This victory isn’t just a victory for Dave and me, it’s a victory for everyone in Dauphin County," said Gaughen.

Gaughen, a board member of the Keystone Party of Pennsylvania, joined Kocur to go to the park to try to collect signatures from voters to be on the ballot.

"On June 11, 2022, the pair stood in an open area of Fort Hunter Park, part of the Dauphin County public park system, asking passersby to sign nomination petitions. They engaged with park visitors about their new political party for about an hour before park security guards approached them and ordered them to stop. The duo correctly pointed out they had the right to engage in political speech in a public park. Then Parks Director Anthea Stebbins arrived and ordered Gaughen and Kocur to stop what they were doing, telling them the county bars all political activity inside Fort Hunter Park," FIRE explained.

The lawsuit, which was filed after the county initially rejected a request to correct its policies, resulted in the end of the "unconstitutional ban on speech in a public park" and vindication for the plaintiffs.

"It shouldn’t have taken a lawsuit for Dauphin County to open their parks to political activity," said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick. “Thanks to Kevin and Dave, Pennsylvanians can now talk politics in Fort Hunter Park without fear of government censorship."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The presence of materials that essentially are pornographic or obscene in public and school libraries have become at issue in recent years as parents become aware of the offensive materials and protest.

Those items are in libraries often because of pro-LGBT agenda activists who want to see their lifestyle choices promoted to the point they are accepted.

They argue the First Amendment allows such materials, even though case law has made clear those protections don't apply to obscene and patently offensive publications.

Now reports confirm that one state is looking at taking what would be a very hard line against those purveyors: possible criminal penalties.

Just the News confirms a new bill in the Georgia legislature would make school librarians liable for the distribution of obscene materials to students.

SB154 would require that the law regarding the "sale or distribution of harmful materials to minors" would be "applicable to libraries operated by schools."

The proposal from state Sen. Greg Dolezal would make the distribution of such materials "a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature."

In the report, Martha Bongiorno, of the Georgia Library Media Association, insisted that those materials were needed by children.

"If we really care about our students and their mental health and helping them become well-rounded citizens of the world, we need to be able to provide the materials to do that," she said.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said the state's current law "shields the gatekeepers at public libraries — plus those at any school, college or university — from criminal prosecution for sharing materials considered irredeemably sexually explicit."

Cindy Martin, a co-plaintiff in a successful federal lawsuit against Forsyth County Schools over free speech connected with books in libraries there, said there are "explicit books" that are problematic, the report said.

"Martin and Alison Hair had charged there were obscene books in Forsyth school libraries and a federal judge agreed that the school violated their speech rights by banning Hair from meetings," the report said.

She had read into the public record a sexually suggestive passage from one of the books – a passage the library considered fine for children but banned by the board because of "profane" language.