The Michigan Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Friday ordering the removal of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from Michigan's ballot after he dropped out of the race and endorsed former President Donald Trump.
After RFK Jr. dropped out of the race, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, attempted to keep him on November's ballot. The motive was clear as Democrats hoped that leaving him on the ballot would divert votes from Trump.
Benson's attempt to keep Kennedy on the ballot was an obvious ploy to manipulate voters and she nearly got away with it thanks to a lower court judge who endorsed the decision to keep Kennedy on the ballot.
The Michigan Court of Appeals thankfully wasted little time in smacking down this obviously political move that was indefensibly partisan.
However, the controversy isn't over yet as Benson and Michigan Democrats have sent an emergency appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Democrats in multiple states fought for months to keep RFK Jr. off the ballot and then as soon as he endorsed Trump, swing-state Democrats are now fighting to keep him on the ballot in the hopes of helping Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Michigan Court of Appeals wrote in their decision that Benson "had no basis to deny [Kennedy's] request to withdraw his name from the ballot."
Benson had cited a Michigan state law on withdrawal requests but the appeals court found that those rules only applied to candidates running for state office, not presidential candidates.
Its worth noting that the judge that upheld Benson's claims was appointed by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. That judge, Christopher Yates, wrote "Elections are not just games, and the Secretary of State is not obligated to honor the whims of candidates for public office."
Bizarrely, it is Benson who is playing games by denying a candidate the right to withdraw from a presidential race. There is no reason to keep a candidate on a ballot who has no intention of accepting the office.
To add to evidence of Benson playing politics, Kennedy asked for his name to be withdrawn on August 23rd after dropping out. That request was left in limbo until he filed a lawsuit against Benson on August 30th.
Benson and Michigan Democrats understand the stakes in Michigan and are manipulating the rules in every way possible to achieve victory for Kamala Harris in November.
Trump and Harris are neck-and-neck in Michigan and the sluggish economy affecting the auto industry gives Trump an apparent advantage over Harris. However, Michigan is as purple as it gets and Benson's actions demonstrate that Democrats are using whatever dirty trick they can to win.
The Trump campaign and the GOP need to be watching Michigan closely as Governor Whitmer's administration cannot be trusted to be nonpartisan in administering the election there.
Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to felony tax crimes Thursday, exposing himself to jail time while avoiding a criminal trial that could have unveiled incriminating evidence of his family's overseas business deals.
He entered the plea as jury selection began in what would have been a weeks-long trial for tax evasion on $1.4 million in foreign income. The scandal-plagued son of President Joe Biden framed his decision as an act of love to spare his family public embarrassment.
“I will not subject my family to more pain, more invasions of privacy and needless embarrassment,” Hunter Biden said in an emailed statement. “For all I have put them through over the years, I can spare them this, and so I have decided to plead guilty.”
Biden was convicted in a separate gun trial in June that delved into his drug addiction and sexual exploits. His surprise plea Thursday spares his family from public scrutiny over his shadowy international business deals in countries like China and Ukraine.
"Hunter put his family first today, and it was a grave and loving thing for him to do," Hunter's attorney Abbe Lowell said.
Biden was accused of evading taxes on foreign income from 2016 to 2019, a time when he was earning millions from overseas deals involving virtually no work.
Prosecutors planned to introduce evidence that Hunter was a foreign lobbyist for Romania during his father's vice presidency. Hunter Biden was not charged under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which led critics to say he was getting a slap on the wrist.
After his plea, Biden is facing up to 17 years in prison and fines of $1.35 million.
The Justice Department had spent years slow walking an investigation of Biden's taxes before a thicket of legal troubles began to crowd around him last year. A notorious "sweetheart" plea deal blew up in court, leading Special Counsel David Weiss to file felony tax and gun charges.
Biden will be sentenced on December 16 for tax evasion, weeks after his sentencing in the gun case on November 13.
The guilty plea is likely to fuel speculation about a possible pardon from Joe Biden, who previously pledged to not pardon his son. That was before Biden ended his re-election bid in a shocking reversal.
Before entering his plea, Hunter had attempted to negotiate an "Alford" plea, which would have allowed him to plead guilty without acknowledging wrongdoing. It didn't fly with prosecutors, who said he is not entitled to "special" treatment, and his lawyers backed down.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
New York Judge Juan Merchan created controversy for himself, and for President Donald Trump, by refusing to recuse himself from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's odd legal claims, including that misdemeanor business reporting violations in Trump's businesses were felonies because of some other, undisclosed, crime.
Merchan pointedly stayed on the case despite the obvious conflict that was created when his daughter was being paid by Democrat political campaigns, including that of Trump's 2024 election opponent, at the same time as her father was ruling against Trump in the courtroom.
Now Merchan is in more trouble: He's being sued for concealing his financial records, which are required by law to be disclosed.
American First Legal confirmed it is suing the New York State Ethics Commission and Merchan "for illegally concealing Judge Merchan's financial disclosures."
Dan Epstein, America First Legal vice president, explained, "The law is clear that judicial financial disclosures must be released to the public. New York's highest court has stated that such disclosures are necessary for parties before the courts to get a fair shake. The public needs to know what Judge Merchan is hiding or even if he failed to file financial disclosures at all.
"This is especially important given the fact that Merchan appears to have engaged in unlawful campaign contributions and is on the precipice of criminally sentencing the former president of the United States. Fundamental fairness dictates a resolution of America First Legal's suit in its favor."
The disclosures being sought are from 2018-2024.
New York law requires judges to file annual financial disclosures and those must be available for inspection on request.
AFL previously requested these disclosures on June 6, 2024, and has yet to hear back.
The legal team last month wrote to the commission promising legal action if the records remain concealed.
BREAKING: Judge Merchan is being *SUED* ahead of the criminal sentencing of Donald Trump.
Merchan is being sued to release his financial disclosure forms, which may show conflict of interest in his handling of the high-profile case against the 2024 presidential candidate.
The… pic.twitter.com/rXU21nPLis
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) September 5, 2024
At ResistTheMainstream was the comment that there remain "concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding his daughter's employment at a Democratic-affiliated firm."
The report explained the background: "Merchan was the presiding judge who oversaw the six-week trial of former President Donald Trump in the New York v. Trump case. The trial resulted from a lengthy investigation conducted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office. Trump was convicted on all 34 counts of first-degree falsifying business records. He has since appealed the decision and urged Merchan to overturn the verdict."
The report explains Loren Merchan currently serves as the president of Authentic Campaigns, a company that has handled political work for prominent Democratic clients, including President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
"Clearly, Justice Merchan's daughter and her clients stand to profit handsomely from lawfare against President Trump," the lawsuit states. And the judge also has been caught contributing to Democrat causes, including Biden's campaign, the case charges.
"The lawsuit states that in July 2023, the Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a caution to Merchan for making 'improper political donations to the Biden campaign and Stop Republicans,'" the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jack Smith, appointed a special counsel to pursue the Democrats' lawfare against President Donald Trump even though he never was confirmed by the Senate as the law requires, has seen multiple setbacks.
On Thursday he was handed another.
His case against Trump over his handling of government documents already has dismissed because of the fact he never was correctly given the special counsel title. He's insisting to an appeals court that that law doesn't need to be fulfilled for him to be charging Trump.
Then there was the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, which impacts much of his J6 allegations against Trump.
It was in that case Smith was handed another setback on Thursday. A judge ruled the case now will not be resolved before the election.
A report from Fox News explains Tanya Chutkan, a judge whose previously rulings largely have attacked Trump, said a trial will not be held until after the vote.
"Chutkan held a status hearing Thursday morning in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in which lawyers for former President Trump pleaded not guilty on his behalf related to charges from Smith's new indictment after the Supreme Court ruled a president is immune from prosecution for official acts in office."
The charges were in response to a replacement indictment brought by Smith, who tried to clean up his allegations enough to pass the immunity standard set by the Supreme Court.
Chutkan's order said a new deadline for replies and paperwork from federal prosecutors and Trump's legal team now is Nov. 7th, after the election. Smith has sought a trial right away because he wants a conviction before the election.
Fox said, "The case pertains to Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Last week, the former president was indicted and issued revised criminal charges by Smith, who alleges Trump pressured former Vice President Mike Pence to reject legitimate electoral votes, in addition to mounting fake electors in key states that went to President Biden and to attest to Trump's electoral victory."
The new indictment essentially is the same as the first, except with altered language to try to meet the requirements of the high court's ruling on immunity.
"Specifically, the indictment has been changed to remove allegations involving Department of Justice officials and other government officials. It clarifies Trump's role as a candidate and makes clear the allegations regarding his conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence in his ceremonial role as president of the Senate."
Smith's claims against Trump include conspiracy and obstruction.,
Judge Juan Merchan ruled on Friday to delay the sentencing of former President Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records until November 26, three weeks after the election in which Trump could become president.
Trump's legal team had asked for the sentencing to be delayed until after the election so that it wouldn't prejudice voters. The sentencing was originally scheduled for September 18.
"The public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from distraction or distortion," Merchan said in a letter Friday.
"Unfortunately, we are now at a place in time that is fraught with complexities rendering the requirements of a sentencing hearing, should one be necessary, difficult to execute. Thus, in accordance with certain of the grounds submitted by Defendant and the reasons for adjournment provided by the People coupled with the unique time frame this matter currently finds itself in, the decision on the [motion] and the imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance - however unwarranted - that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate," Merchan said.
The ruling prompted a swift response from Trump spokesman Steven Cheung, who told Fox Digital: "There should be no sentencing in the Manhattan DA’s Election Interference Witch Hunt. As mandated by the United States Supreme Court, this case, along with all of the other Harris-Biden Hoaxes, should be dismissed."
A motion to set aside the verdict is still under consideration, with a decision expected November 12. Trump is also appealing the verdict.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche pointed out that the trial included testimony about official acts by Trump, which the immunity ruling by the Supreme Court outlawed.
Former Trump Communications Director Hope Hicks and others were forced against their will to testify against Trump, and his immunity should at least force a do-over, if anything is left to prosecute.
But prosecutors are trying to force the case forward despite the clear grounds for mistrial.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office said, "A jury of 12 New Yorkers swiftly and unanimously convicted Donald Trump of 34 felony counts. The Manhattan D.A.’s Office stands ready for sentencing on the new date set by the court."
The location of the court is one of the most hostile to Trump in the whole country, so it may not even matter what evidence is presented if they retry the case there.
It may be a clear case where the jury is willing to indict a ham sandwich if its name is Donald J. Trump.
A different judge who denied Trump's request to move the trial to federal court said the alleged hush money payments were not official acts, and neither were Trump's so-called reimbursements to then-lawyer Michael Cohen.
Trump could get up to 4 years in jail for the conviction, but he could also get probation or community service instead of jail time.
A judge denied former President Trump's request to move his New York hush money case to a federal court Tuesday, The Hill reported. Trump immediately filed an appeal Wednesday in the hopes of delaying his upcoming sentencing hearing.
Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in Justice Juan Merchan's Manhattan courtroom in May. With his sentencing hearing scheduled for Sept. 18, the GOP presidential nominee could find himself behind bars weeks before the general election if Merchan imposes jail time.
Trump is again asking U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to move his case to federal court. "The national public has an interest in free and fair elections, unburdened by the potential for the unlawful incarceration of President Trump by local officials in a single county," attorneys Emil Bove and Todd Blanche said in Wednesday's court filing on behalf of Trump.
"The public would therefore benefit from a stay that could allow Justice Merchan to avoid the ‘rat’s nest of comity and federalism issues’ attendant to the Presidential immunity defense and President Trump’s potential sentencing in the weeks before the election while the Second Circuit determines whether the appropriate forum is in this District," they wrote. It's unclear whether that will happen, however.
Hellerstein has twice turned down Trump's request for removal. The first time was before the trial began in Manhattan, and Trump's attorneys abandoned an appeal the first time around.
However, the Supreme Court's decision to broadly define Trump's presidential immunity in another case has opened the door to a fresh challenge. His attorneys argue that the issue now puts the case back into the federal courts.
The judge disagreed with this rationale in his most recent rejection. Hellerstein ruled that "nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion affects my previous conclusion" when turning down his second attempt.
Trump's attorneys were undeterred by this flat refusal in their new motion. "President Trump respectfully disagrees with the Court’s view," they wrote as they took another crack at the move.
The motion also noted that Trump is petitioning the Second Circuit to delay the ruling while the appeal is considered. This is one of many tactics attorneys are using to delay sentencing until after the election.
Trump's sentencing could bring the American election process into uncharted waters. Meanwhile, the New York Times was working overtime Wednesday to shore up support for Merchan as he mulls the most divisive sentence in modern political memory.
Painting him as a righteous judge of impeccable character, the Times acknowledged that throwing a candidate behind bars could irreparably harm trust in the judicial system. "The judge is in an impossible situation, and one that doesn’t lend itself to easy comparisons," Indiana University Bloomington law professor Charles Geyh said.
He added that Merchan's ultimate decision would have "historical implications" but noted that he was up to the task. "Within some quarters of the judiciary, there is the possibility of a judge running screaming from the room, and sort of seeking the least difficult way out," Geyh said.
"But I don’t think that this guy is showing signs of that," he added of Merchan. Nevertheless, it's undeniable that this use of lawfare against Trump will have repercussions directly proportional to Merchan's commitment to jail Trump in this witch hunt.
Trump has faced many attacks from his adversaries along the way, but the threat of jail is the most severe yet. A lesser man would have buckled already, but Trump has remained strong and steadfast throughout this ordeal, even as his future freedom hangs in the balance.
In a recent podcast appearance, former President Donald Trump expressed his willingness to consider releasing the client list of Jeffrey Epstein should he return to the presidency, according to Breitbart.
Trump discussed the Epstein client list during the Lex Fridman Podcast, hinting at potential disclosure post-election.
Former President Trump visited the Lex Fridman Podcast, where he sparked significant interest by discussing Jeffrey Epstein's notorious client list. The podcast episode aired on a Tuesday, drawing attention to Trump’s comments on this sensitive topic.
During the interview, Trump portrayed Epstein as an adept salesman who used his extravagant assets, such as private islands, to attract influential figures. He noted that "a lot of big people went to that island," emphasizing his own non-involvement.
Trump's remarks came in response to Fridman's commentary on public curiosity regarding the undisclosed list of Epstein's clients. The host articulated a common perplexity about the secrecy surrounding those who frequented Epstein’s private island.
The possibility of making the list public was explicitly addressed by Trump, who stated, "I’d certainly take a look at it" if given the opportunity. His openness to this idea marks a notable moment in the ongoing discussions about Epstein’s connections.
Further in the conversation, Trump reflected on historical document confidentiality, making comparisons to the classified files on President John F. Kennedy. He differentiated the types of secrecy involved, suggesting that, unlike other sensitive historical information, the Epstein files could be handled differently.
Trump elaborated on the complexities of releasing sensitive information, comparing the inherent risks in historical data with those potentially involved in Epstein's case. He remarked on the unique public interest in the Epstein files, hinting at a different level of public risk.
This discussion highlights a broader debate on the balance between public interest and the potential dangers of disclosing historical secrets. Trump’s inclination towards transparency in the Epstein case contrasts with his views on other confidential matters.
The former president also touched on personal resilience in public life, advising listeners to not be overly concerned with public opinion. "You can’t care too much because you end up choking," he said, emphasizing the need for a thick skin in politics.
Trump's ability to navigate public scrutiny and personal attacks was a recurring theme throughout his presidency and continues to be a part of his public persona. His comments reflect his long-held approach to not letting criticism impede his political agenda or personal actions.
The interview with Fridman offered a glimpse into Trump’s current perspectives and potential policies should he reenter the White House. The discussion ranged from his political strategies to his views on controversial figures and historical transparency.
As the presidential election approaches, Trump's comments may stir further debate and discussion among voters and political analysts alike.
The prospect of accessing Epstein's client list remains a particularly provocative element of Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
The Supreme Court of Mexico went on strike to protest the socialist president's sweeping reform of the nation's judicial system.
President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador wants all judges in the country to be elected by popular vote. Obrador is popular in Mexico, but the Supreme Court has been an obstacle to his far-left agenda.
He accuses the courts of systemic corruption, but his critics say Lopez Obrador is trying to destroy checks and balances in a partisan power grab. Skeptics also fear the reform will expose the courts to corruption by Mexico's drug cartels.
The reform passed Mexico's lower house of Congress on Wednesday, where Obrador's Morena party has a two-thirds majority. The legislators approved the bill in a sports hall after protesters blocked the entrance to the Congress building.
“We should inaugurate a wall of shame that says: ‘Today begins the fall of our Republic.’ And it should have the date and all the faces of the Morena congressmen,” Paulina Rubio Fernández, a congresswoman from the conservative opposition National Action Party, said before the vote.
Judges, law students, and court employees have been protesting the measure as a majoritarian power grab that would end democracy. The Supreme Court joined the demonstrations Tuesday, with eight voting in favor of joining the strikes and three against.
The reform bill heads to the Senate next, where it is likely to pass by razor-thin margins. Lopez Obrador's party, Morena, won elections in a landslide months ago. He wants the reform finalized before his term ends in September.
Lopez Obrador's successor, president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum is an ally of his who supports the reform.
“If judges, magistrates, and ministers are elected by the people, where is the authoritarianism?” she wrote in a post defending the move.
The proposal has faced pushback from international observers, including the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar and Canadian Ambassador Graeme Clark. Lopez Obrador put relations with both countries on "pause" in response.
"They have to learn to respect Mexico's sovereignty," he said.
The fight in Mexico mirrors the controversy over the U.S. Supreme Court, which President Biden has condemned as "extreme." Biden has proposed term limits to rein in the top court's conservative majority, which has often pushed back on his liberal priorities.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A state judge in South Dakota has scheduled a trial for later this month on charges that abortion industry promoters cheated to get the signatures they used to put a pro-abortion scheme on this November's ballot in the state.
Promoters of the lucrative abortion industry had hoped that Minnehaha County District Judge John Pekas would dismiss the complaint brought by Life Defense Fund, a prolife group that includes Dell Rapids Republican Rep. Jon Hansen.
The lawsuit accuses abortion activists of violating multiple state laws in their methods of assembling signatures for the ballot initiative.
Pekas had tossed the lawsuit months ago, but it was reinstated by the state Supreme Court which noted there was no record developed at any point, so the lower court's decision could not stand.
A report in the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader explained because of the short time before the election, and the fact that either side could go to the state Supreme Court again, the issue will be on the November ballot, but it's uncertain now whether any of those votes will be counted.
Abortion promoters had argued that there should be no arguments over their alleged misbehavior because it was too close, and discussing those issues would be "election interference."
Life Defense Fund said the abortion initiative supporters now will have to turn over all documents related to their petition circulation efforts of the abortion-up-to-birth constitutional ballot measure.
The court also pointed out it has the authority to determine whether the abortion promoters' repeated violations of petition law can disqualify them from circulation efforts in the future.
Sara Frankenstein, lawyer for Life Defense, said, "We are grateful to the court for its decision today as we move toward trial. We are anxious to finally receive the discovery in this case. LDF has disclosed its trial exhibits and witnesses and yet we have received no discovery from D4H."
The seven-day trial now is to begin Sept. 23.
It was Rapid City lawyer James Leach, arguing against any review of his clients' possible illegal activities, who said a trial amounts to election interference.
He claimed a review could damage voter confidence when citizens already believe the system is corrupt. He claimed courts "should not contribute to that perception" by allowing the ordinary course of the legal process to take place.
Life Defense Fund, in fact, cited multiple disputes over ballot questions that have not been decided until the last minute before an election, or even after.
Frankenstein noted that in South Dakota, its state Supreme Court ruled in 2021, after the 2020 election, that a marijuana-promoting measure was invalid, even though residents already had cast their votes, because it ran counter to a requirement limiting such plans to a single issue.
She explained that Dakotans for Health simply were trying to run out the clock and obtain their goal.
She noted courts have a responsibility to step in when laws are violated to get an amendment on the ballot.
Pekas pointed out that the state Supreme Court had returned the case to him with instructions to create a record, following his earlier dismissal which did not even consider the merits.
WND previously reported on documentation of problems in the ballot issue dispute.
The state fight in South Dakota is just one of many across the nation, after the UI.S. Supreme Court overturned the fatally flawed Roe v. Wade ruling, which created a "right" to abortion, in 1973.
The change didn't ban abortion, but it did turn over regulation of the lucrative industry to states, creating what is now the battleground as abortion business operators seek to assure their financial future.
Among the states, about half have now imposed major roadblocks to the commercial-level killing of the unborn, including some that have outright bans; but about half have not.
The fight in South Dakota will be seen as a precedent for more attacks on other pro-life standards around the nation.
"A Kamala (Harris) presidency means more health risks to women and more babies aborted," Caroline Woods, a spokeswoman for the Life Defense Fund, which is fighting to protect the lives of the unborn, told WND.
"When undercover videos showed Planned Parenthood executives cavalierly talking about selling baby parts in California, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris viciously went after those who exposed Planned Parenthood's illegal actions. She will act no different as president, and she has made it her goal to legalize abortions across the nation."
In fact, there have been accusations that Harris schemed to send state agents to undercover reporter David Daleiden's home, to confiscate his videos and equipment, as he was releasing a series of reports on those agendas among abortionists to sell unborn baby body parts for higher and higher amounts.
One abortionist explained the need for that: "I want a Lamborghini."
Woods' organization sued the "Dakotans for Health" which is pushing for the plan that would unleash literally unrestricted abortions by eliminating more than 100 requirements the state already has. The fight also is significant because if pro-abortions radicals can succeed in South Dakota, in the heart of America and with food production, tourism and finance as major industries – nothing like Hollywood or New York – they would feel confident of taking their campaign anywhere.
"A vote for Amendment G is a vote for the Kamala Harris' radical agenda for America. In South Dakota, we reject her extreme abortion plans that endangers women and children," Woods said.
She warned, "South Dakota can be an example to the rest of the nation by once again showing that we are pro-woman and pro-children. Amendment G is the most radical abortion measure we've seen in our country, and we will fight to make sure children aren't aborted up to birth and women are protected from unsafe, unclean medical practices."
"We want South Dakota to blaze a path for a pro-life victory and show the rest of the nation how we can beat the abortion lobby."
She said the court case revolves around allegations of unethical, even illegal, behavior by the petition collectors.
"They say 'Let the people vote,' but what they're really saying is, 'Let us cheat.' In the same way Olympic teams are banned from performing if they cheat, this abortion amendment should be disqualified from appearing on the ballot since Dakotans for Health broke South Dakota election law, cheated, and lied directly to South Dakotans to advance their radical agenda."
Reports confirm there are allegations petition circulators left petition sheets unattended, a violation. They misled signers, a violation. The tried to bait-and-switch voters, a violation.
They apparently included nonresidents, a violation.
The pro-abortion faction went to federal court, trying to get the state case killed, and the judge has refused.
Woods described the proposal as "one of the most extreme abortion laws in the nation."
It would "legalize painful, late-term abortion, all the way to the point of birth." And it would kill a multitude of existing state abortion policies that have been created over time on a bipartisan basis.
For example, a provision for parents to know when a minor daughter is being pressured into abortion would be killed.
Killed would be protections for a mother from being forced to have an abortion against her will.
Killed would be conscience protections so that doctors and nurses cannot be forced to participate in performing abortions against their will.
Killed would even be basic health and safety requirements for abortionists to follow, including requirements that abortions be done by a physician and an inspected and clean facility.
Among the allegations the abortion industry promoters are facing:
Bait and switch. A couple told pro-lifers during a Farmers Market in 2023, where abortion promoters were gathering signatures, they were telling people the petitions were regarding a tax proposal.
The couple, not named, said the signature collector even checked, when they asked for the tax petition, and said, "This is the one you want," handing them the abortion plan.
Also, abortion promoters were collecting signatures but failing to provide a required statement from the attorney general.
There also were incorrect claims that the new petition supported exactly the same thing that Roe did back in 1973. The promoter explains, "This is exactly what the Supreme Court did in '73. In the first three months, it's a woman's choice. Then there are stipulations and exceptions. … They say it's up to nine months and that's not true…"
Here is Tiffany Campbell, a petition coordinator, explaining just how extreme is the amendment.
She boasts, "The legislature can't mess with it." And "It's gonna wipe off 113 abortion regulations that we have now."
Cited are the 24-hour waiting period, parental notification, 22-week ban … "Everything goes away."
Signing the petitions twice? No problem, the extra signature is just "crossed off."
And leaving petitions unattended:
Giving incorrect information, where a signature collector accuses someone of lying if they say abortions would be allowed through nine months, which they would be.
Other videos suggest verbal abuse by petition collectors and worse.
Woods already has written in National Review that abortion activists are "doing anything they can to get their way, including deceiving voters."
She continued, "Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many conservative states like my home state of South Dakota activated trigger laws on abortion. These laws were passed while Roe was still operative and were designed to be implemented the moment Roe v. Wade was overturned. They typically outlawed abortion unless the doctor believed it was needed to save the life of the mother. Since then, the abortion lobby has aggressively centered its efforts around gathering petition signatures and putting abortion measures on the ballot in states like South Dakota, among many others."
She noted polling reveals three-quarters of Americans support abortion bans after 15 weeks.
And she said Amendment G allows non-doctors to do abortions, too.
Woods explained her organization has "over 100 hours of video capturing pro-choice petition circulators, much of which showed them breaking South Dakota law."
Such evidence already has prompted the state's attorney general to reprimand the abortion promoters.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Joe Biden's administration withholding funding from Oklahoma over its refusal to direct patients to an abortion hotline, NBC News reported. The court upheld the new regulation that replaced former President Donald Trump's prohibition on such referrals.
Almost immediately after taking office, Biden mandated that providers discuss all options with pregnant mothers, including adoption, prenatal care, and abortion. At first, Oklahoma complied with the mandate of giving out the hotline allegedly providing factual data about the procedure to callers.
However, after the 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the state refused to even provide the hotline phone number despite agreeing to do so at first. Oklahoma is now a state where abortion is illegal except when the life of the mother is in danger.
It also bars anyone from pushing a woman to get an abortion. Now, Oklahoma has paid the price as the Biden administration reallocated $4.5 million in Title X public health funding over that rule.
Oklahoma sued the administration for Title X funding as the prohibition complied with the state's new rules. The state's attorneys argued that the Department of Health and Human Services could not restrict the funding based on those rules.
They warned that doing so would cripple "critical public health services" for Oklahomans. "Depriving these communities of Title X services would be devastating," the states' attorneys said in a court filing.
However, a federal judge disagreed and would not compel the Biden administration to return the grants. Similarly, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided against Oklahoma, ruling that directing patients to a hotline was not equivalent to referring a mother for abortion.
The challenge failed at the state Supreme Court and finally at the highest court in the nation. Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted that the rules regarding funding were the same across all states.
"Congress routinely conditions federal grants on compliance with requirements contained in agency regulations, and this court has repeatedly upheld such requirements," Prelogar said. However, justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch objected to Tuesday's decision.
The latest ruling in favor of the Biden administration will surely bolster Democrats' argument about keeping abortion legal after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Reversing the Supreme Court's terrible decision that set a worse legal precedent was a feat half a century in the making.
It meant that the ability to kill babies up to the moment of birth was no longer the law of the land but rather a state-by-state issue. Although it was something conservatives worked for it and Christians prayed for, it seems to have backfired.
According to Roll Call, the abortion issue has energized Democratic voters in the 2024 presidential election. Jessica Mackler, president of the abortion activist EMILY’s List, said it has become an asset for Vice President Kamala Harris, who is radically pro-abortion.
"She is somebody who has put this issue front and center because she understands that the stakes are incredibly high for voters across the country and for people across the country. And I think that that is the reason that we see this electric energy in voters across the country," Mackler touted.
While this ruling is disappointing for Oklahoma, the embrace of abortion as a winning issue points to a larger sickness in the American soul. It's a sad fact that leftist women want nothing more than the right to kill their own children, but it's worse that their votes will move the needle accordingly.