Melania Trump has addressed the past speculation concerning her son Barron Trump, and autism in her newly released memoir "Melania." The book prominently critiques the public's speculation and sheds light on the damaging effects these rumors had on Barron, Fox News reported.
In her memoir, released on Oct. 8, former First Lady Melania Trump directly tackles the rumors that Barron might have autism. These rumors originally stemmed from a tweet by Rosie O'Donnell, which included a video from the 2016 Republican National Convention. Both the post and video were taken down thereafter.
Melania described the suggestion as unkind and perceived it as an unprovoked attack on her child. She expressed disapproval of O'Donnell's actions, indicating that the tweet was not a genuine attempt to bring more attention to autism awareness.
The former First Lady made it clear that Barron does not have autism, and she discussed the negative repercussions, including harassment both online and in person, that followed the rumors. Melania revealed the deep hurt she felt seeing her son targeted in such a manner.
Dr. Agnesa Papazyan, a clinical psychologist, weighed in on the issues of public speculation concerning autism. She emphasized that conjecturing about someone's autism status from mere observations can be harmful to both the individual involved and the wider autism community, perpetuating unjust stereotypes.
Papazyan explained that when people assume diagnoses without medical evidence, it leads to misconceptions and potentially wrongful treatment or exclusion. She highlighted that autism can vary significantly, underscoring the necessity for a proper clinical diagnosis rather than assumptions based on superficial behaviors.
Clinical psychologist Nechama Sorscher also discussed the dangerous nature of these kinds of assumptions.
She stated that making baseless claims about autism is reckless and comparable to suggesting someone has health challenges without solid proof.
Being in the spotlight, Barron faced additional scrutiny due to these rumors. Sorscher pointed out that dealing with autism speculation can create a challenging environment for anyone, let alone a child with a public profile, further noting the broader implications on children with autism who endure bullying.
The bullying Barron experienced, Sorscher warned, could detrimentally affect a child's mood, self-esteem, academic performance, and general well-being. The reckless nature of the initial speculation is evidenced by its wider negative effects.
Papazyan reiterated the risks of misunderstanding or falsely identifying autism traits, which can lead to exclusion and stigmatization. Her comments echoed Melania's personal insights, reinforcing the necessity of gathering facts from professionals rather than speculation based on partial observations.
Melania's memoir recounts Barron's experience and serves as a cautionary tale regarding the dangers of public speculation and its severe emotional consequences. Her detailed narrative invites readers to understand autism through a lens of empathy and informed discussion.
Through this book and her statements, Melania Trump hopes to shed light on the challenges that can arise from misinformation and to encourage a more thoughtful approach to discussing autism in the public domain.
Her message resonates with a call for compassionate understanding and the prioritization of factual knowledge over uninformed commentary.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The state of Florida is targeting a deceptive pro-abortion ad campaign that has been launched there with cease-and-desist letters to television stations that have aired the lies.
A report from Liberty Counsel, a key legal team that has fought numerous battles against the pro-abortion ideology that has flooded America in recent years, explains it's a political ad that contains what the state Department of Health has determined is "false" information about the state's current law.
"The 30-second advertisement features a woman named Caroline who chose to have an abortion after being diagnosed with brain cancer. She suggests Florida's current six-week 'heartbeat' law would have prevented her from getting the necessary treatment to save her life and that Amendment 4 would 'protect' women like her," the report said.
The state's Amendment 4 actually would give the abortion industry literally an open door to do abortions on anyone, at anytime, anywhere.
It is the state agency's general counsel, John Wilson, who wrote in the letter that it is "categorically false" to make the claim that Florida's law, banning abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, "prohibits abortions to preserve the lives and health of pregnant women," Liberty Counsel reported.
Wilson stated, in the letter, "After six weeks, an abortion may be performed if 'two physicians certify in writing, in reasonable medical judgment, the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the pregnant woman's life.'"
The current law, which would make the amendment appear to be unnecessary, also states, "if preserving the life and health of the fetus conflicts with preserving the life and health of the pregnant woman, the physician must consider preserving the woman's life and health the overriding and superior concern," Liberty Counsel noted.
The ad is beyond false, but actually dangerous, the letter explained, as it could lead women "to believe that life-saving or health-preserving treatment is unavailable for pregnant women in Florida," the report said.
Some of the damages that could result from the airing of the ad, the state agency warned, would be that it possibly could "lead women to travel out of state for medical care, seek emergency care from unlicensed providers, or not seek medical care at all," the report said.
Those circumstances actually could be a threat to the lives of pregnant women, the letter said.
Liberty Counsel noted, "Wilson informed the television stations that 'any act' that threatens or impairs the life or health of an individual violates the state's 'sanitary nuisance law' and that the stations may be committing a second-degree misdemeanor by airing the advertisement."
"While your company enjoys the right to broadcast political advertisements under the First Amendment … that right does not include free rein to disseminate false advertisements which, if believed, would likely have a detrimental effect an the lives and health of pregnant women in Florida," the letter warns.
"While television stations have a First Amendment right to speak, that right does not extend to false and dangerous information about a ballot initiative designed to amend the Florida Constitution," explained Mat Staver, the chief of Liberty Counsel.
Melania Trump has asserted that her son Barron was denied a bank account after the Trump family departed the White House due to "cancel culture."
In her memoir Melania, which was released on Tuesday, the former first lady laments that she and Barron experienced the "venom of cancel culture" in the weeks following the Capitol disturbance on January 6, as The Independent reported.
“I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my long-time bank decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to open a new one,” she continued.
“This decision appeared to be rooted in political discrimination, raising serious concerns about civil rights violations.”
She added: “It is troubling to see financial services withheld based on political affiliation.”
In another instance, she stated, "I had an experience in the media sector that highlights the venom of cancel culture."
Melania wrote about the period of time "after leaving the White House," although she did not explicitly reference the January 6 riot.
She also stated that she was unable to participate in a media initiative because the private equity firm that was supporting it "chose not to honor our agreement due to personal animosity toward my husband."
Melania also discusses the effects of her troubled Fostering the Future scholarship program in the chapter.
Melania initiated the initiative following her departure from the White House, stating that she “pursued partnerships to channel donations for scholarships benefiting foster care children.”
However, she asserts that the “leading tech-education company” withdrew from the partnership after her involvement was disclosed and its board resolved to avoid "any public affiliation" with her.
“Despite my efforts to focus solely on children’s education and my willingness to avoid any public association with the program, the school remained firm and terminated the agreement,” she wrote.
The New York Times stated in 2022 that the Melania's Fostering the Future initiative was under investigation by the Florida Consumer Services Division because it had not been registered with them.
In response, the ex-first lady said that the press was out to "cancel" her and her philanthropic work.
It would appear that Barron is unfazed by his failure at the bank; Melania has detailed his success at a New York City university.
“He is doing great,” Melania said during an appearance on Fox News’s The Five on Tuesday. “He loves his classes and professors. He is doing well. He is striving and enjoying to be in New York City again.”
Barron, who is 18 years old, commenced his academic course of study at the Stern School of Business at New York University in September.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stormed out of the briefing room Monday after Fox News' Peter Doocy asked a question she didn't like.
The dramatic scene unfolded as Doocy probed Jean-Pierre on the federal response to Hurricane Helene, which has left a trail of devastation in the southeastern U.S., especially western North Carolina.
In the wake of the deadly storm, the federal government has been accused of prioritizing illegal immigrants and foreign nations over Americans impacted by the hurricane.
During Monday's briefing, Doocy pressed Jean-Pierre on $157 million that the administration is sending to Lebanon, as the death toll from Helene rises past 230 and many remain missing.
Doocy asked why Biden has to urge Congress to authorize additional disaster aid when his administration has funds readily available for Lebanon.
The reporter asked what the discrepancy says about Biden's "values," but Jean-Pierre avoided the question and accused Doocy of spreading "misinformation" - a favorite catchphrase of liberals calling for censorship.
“Your whole premise of the question is misinformation, sir,” Jean-Pierre said.
“Excuse me?” Doocy shot back.
“Yes, yes, it’s misinformation,” she said. “I just mentioned to you that we provided more than $200 million to folks who are impacted in the area.”
As the shouting match continued, Doocy asked whether Joe Biden was spreading "misinformation" with his letter to Congress asking for additional disaster aid.
"No, the way you’re asking me the question is misinformation,” she told Doocy. “There is money that we are allocating to the impacted areas, and there’s money there to help people who truly need it.”
“You can’t call a question that you don’t like ‘misinformation,’” Doocy responded. “That’s very unfair.”
Despite claiming there is enough money to support the victims of Helene and Hurricane Milton, Jean-Pierre urged Congress to "do their job" and authorize more funding - before snapping her binder and storming off.
Jean-Pierre has long faced scrutiny for her labored - and often evasive - responses to questions from the press corps. At times, she has been known to storm out of the room when subjected to tough questioning.
At a different briefing last week, Jean-Pierre incorrectly stated that it is "false" that FEMA has given federal resources to support illegal migrants.
The administration - and the liberal media - have taken pains to point out that disaster relief money is separate from a $650 million FEMA program to support illegal immigrants. However, that hasn't stopped the administration's critics from questioning why FEMA aid is going toward migrants at all.
With just weeks left in his term, lame duck Joe Biden promoted Jean-Pierre to a senior adviser position on Monday.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden once wildly made a claim, presumed to be rhetorical because of its incompatibility with the facts, that when a gun is used to fire a 9mm bullet at a person the shot "blows the lung out of the body."
Now his vice president, Kamala Harris, is promoting that very weapon.
It's one of the many flip-flops that Harris has adopted as she tries to position herself as a moderate in her run for the presidency.
In that mode, she's promoted fracking, which she had vigorously opposed, and she's now all of a sudden in favor of border security, which the Biden-Harris administration literally destroyed over the last nearly four years, among many other flip-flops.
But her advocacy for firearms, including her promise to shoot someone if they would break into her home, has been perhaps the most jarring reversal.
Back when she was San Fransisco district attorney, she signed onto a Supreme Cour brief demanding a ban on handguns. The justices rejected her arguments, finding there is an individual right under the Second Amendment for firearms.
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley was among those who have pointed out her attempt to move from one end of the scale to the opposite.
"The reinvention of Vice President Kamala Harris in this election has been a thing to behold. In politics, candidates often reconstruct their records to secure votes, but Harris appears to have constructed an entirely mythical being. Once ranked to the left of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and viewed as among the most liberal members of the Senate, Harris has sought to convince the public that she is actually a frack-loving, gun-toting, border-defending moderate," he explained.
He cited Harris' recent comments on a television talk show where she said she is a gun owner and, "if somebody breaks into my house, they're getting shot."
She later repeated the claim to 60 Minutes and said she's attended pistol ranges to shoot. The report said her gun reportedly is a semiautomatic Glock handgun, a firearm that often uses 9mm ammunition.
Turley noted Harris' threats are in "stark contrast" to her opposition to self-defense laws.
In fact, the Biden-Harris administration repeatedly has suggested that semiautomatics are unneeded and if there's a change on the Supreme Court, they could be banned.
Biden literally, "suggested in the past that he might seek to ban 9mm weapons," Turley noted.
"Biden saying there's 'no rational basis' to own 9mms makes the new Harris look … well … irrational," Turley noted.
Harris' record includes her statement, "Do you know what an assault weapon is? It was designed for a specific purpose, to kill a lot of human beings quickly. An assault weapon is a weapon of war, with no place, no place in a civil society."
The Biden-Harris agenda for weapons hasn't been exactly logical, either.
"President Biden showed the same disconnect as Harris between the factual and the rhetorical basis for some gun-control measures. He condemned 'high-caliber weapons' like 9mm handguns and said 'a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.'"
Turley noted, "Biden has not made any comment on Harris promising to blow away anyone coming into her house with her own Glock."
He said Harris "is not the first politician to reinvent herself on the campaign trail. For now, Harris wants to be clear that 'I have a Glock, and I've had it for quite some time.' For critics, the reload is a bit much given her record."
Her willingness to shoot someone, though, has been made clear.
"If somebody breaks into my house, they're getting shot," she stated. "Sorry, probably shouldn't have said that! Ha ha ha!"
The Gateway Pundit turned blunt, "Gun Control Hypocrite Kamala Harris Admits on Live TV That She and Walz Are Gun Owners and She Would Shoot Intruders, Then Regrets Saying It."
Her comment came in an interview with entertainer Oprah Winfrey, and the "unscripted moment laid bare her duplicity."
The Daily Mail described Harris' comments as a "shocking threat."
WND already had reported on her proclamation that any time they wanted, police could walk into a home and check whether the resident was doing what they wanted with his or her guns.
Now Tucker Carlson commented: "This is openly totalitarian. If we don't resist this, we're done."
Harris also has talked about taking action against gun owners by executive order, and not waiting for Congress to make such actions legal.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has delivered a stunning blow to a teacher's agenda to teach very young students that they could be transgender.
The lessons were delivered by a first-grade teacher, Megan Williams, in the Mt. Lebanon School District in Pennsylvania.
Without notifying parents she pushed the kids into a non-curricular lesson about transgenderism, and shockingly informed them that their parents guessed about their being male or female when they were born – and their parents could have been wrong.
The court decided for the three mothers who brought the case, Carmilla Tatel, Stacy Dunn and Gretchen Melton, and awarded them nominal damages for the constitutional rights violations by the teacher and district.
"A teacher instructing first-graders and reading books to show that their parents' beliefs about their children's gender identity may be wrong directly repudiates parental authority," the court wrote in its opinion. "The heart of parental authority on matters of the greatest importance within their own family is undermined when a teacher tells first-graders their parents may be wrong about whether the student is a boy or a girl."
The court noted the school refused even to provide parents notification, or opt-out options, for the extremist ideology that the teacher was presenting and in doing so violated the U.S. Constitution.
The judge found, "In elementary school, it is constitutionally impermissible for a school to provide teachers with the unbridled discretion to determine to teach about a noncurricular topic—transgender identity—and not to provide notice and opt out rights based on parents' moral and religious beliefs about transgender instruction, while providing notice and opt out rights for other sensitive secular and religious topics."
Vincent Wagner, a lawyer for ADF, which has fought this type of dispute over and over, said, "Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. School districts violate that right by leaving parents out of key decisions about their own children. The school district here failed to notify these parents about instruction their young elementary schoolers would receive on the sensitive topic of gender identity.
"Worse, it instructed these kids that their parents might be wrong about whether they were boys or girls—striking at the heart of parents' role in forming their children's identity. Parents' fundamental, constitutional right to make decisions about how to raise their children includes the right to the information they need to make those decisions."
Wagner added, "Without notice and a real chance to opt their children out of instruction like this, parents can't exercise their constitutional rights. We are grateful the district court protected the rights of parents to receive information and be able to make good decisions for their children."
The judge explained, "This case is about the extent of constitutional rights of parents of young children in a public elementary school to notice and the ability to opt their young children out of noncurricular instruction on transgender topics. A first-grade teacher, without providing notice or opt outs, decided to observe Transgender Awareness Day by reading noncurricular books and presenting noncurricular gender identity topics to her students. During that classroom presentation, the teacher told her students 'parents make a guess about their children's – when children are born, parents make a guess whether they're a boy or a girl. Sometimes parents are wrong.'"
The judge noted the children's "confusion" after the teacher's indoctrination.
The transgender agenda, in fact, has been a primary goal of the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, as they have promoted transgenderism in multiple ways and through multiple programs, sometimes simply re-writing various rules for the federal government in order to promote the belief, unscientific though it may be, that boys can become girls and vice versa.
The facts are that a percentage of children experience an uncertainty about their sexual identity and bodies while growing up, called gender dysphoria. Also fact is that, if left alone, a huge majority of those children resolve themselves comfortably in their physical sex after time.
The judge pointed out the obvious: "Here, the parents assert the teacher, by reading noncurricular books and instructing their young children, without notice or the ability to opt out, that parents make guesses about their children's gender at birth and may be wrong violates their constitutional rights. How to resolve whether the teacher's beliefs or the parents' beliefs are correct would be beyond the ability of most first graders."
He disposed of a long list of motions in the case and found against the district and Williams, awarding the parents "nominal damages of $1.00" on multiple counts.
Further, his ruling outlined actions for the future: "Absent a compelling governmental interest, parents have a constitutional right to reasonable and realistic advance notice and the ability to opt their elementary-age children out of noncurricular instruction on transgender topics and to not have requirements for notice and opting out for those topics that are more stringent than those for other sensitive topics."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas hospitals do not have to provide abortion care in violation of the state's law, the Associated Press reported. President Joe Biden's administration has sought to override state laws with a federal mandate.
This ruling represents another affirmation of the Texas abortion ban that Democrats have hoped to chip away at with these challenges. The administration appealed a lower court's decision to uphold the state law, but the court's ruling Monday will allow it to stand.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the decision "a major victory at SCOTUS that will protect Texas medical providers from being forced to violate State law" in a post to X, formerly Twitter Monday. "No Texas doctor should be forced to violate his or her conscience or the law just to do their job."
This is a major victory at SCOTUS that will protect Texas medical providers from being forced to violate State law. No Texas doctor should be forced to violate his or her conscience or the law just to do their job. We successfully sued and stopped the Biden-Harris… https://t.co/H6QNMyUERm
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) October 7, 2024
The ban on abortions in Texas has been in effect for more than two years. Several legal challenges have sought to overturn the law protecting the unborn in favor of a woman's right to kill her baby in the womb.
Monday's decision was the latest attempt to fail. The Biden administration claimed that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act was enough to compel doctors to commit abortions if there was a threat to the mother's life or health.
It applied in hospital emergency rooms that accept Medicare funding, which means most facilities in the U.S. Still, the justices agreed with a lower court to keep the law protecting the conscience rights of doctors and the lives of the unborn.
Vice President Kamala Harris, who has staked her chances at the White House on the bodies of those children, railed against the decision. "I will never stop fighting for a woman’s right to emergency medical care — and to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade so that women in every state have access to the care they need," Harris said following the decision.
Harris and her GOP opponent, former President Donald Trump, are using this issue as leverage in their respective campaigns. Trump was responsible for appointing the justices who overturned the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022.
Besides the national race, two candidates for Senate have similarly used the issue to motivate their respective voters in Texas. GOP Rep. Colin Allred's pro-abortion stance is pivotal to his challenge against Sen. Ted Cuz for his U.S. Senate seat.
"When I’m in the Senate, we’re going to restore Roe v. Wade," Allred said at a Fort Worth, Texas, campaign event. The Democrat's crowd heartily cheered for the slaughter of the unborn, as many leftists are fond of doing.
Notably, Cruz did not use the issue against his opponent in a campaign event on the same day. However, opponents of the law claim that women will die over this decision.
"Reproductive rights are under assault in this country, and women’s health and lives remain in danger from the chaos and confusion caused by overturning Roe," Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra claimed. Even if it were true, that does not address how liberal abortion laws cost millions of babies their lives.
The debate over abortion is ugly and disturbing to those who value human life. Unfortunately, an entire political party and its constituents believe that a woman's right to kill her child in the womb is paramount to all else.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz deflected from false statements about his whereabouts during the Tiananmen Square protests by calling former President Donald Trump "a pathological liar," Breitbart reported. The Democratic vice presidential hopeful made this remark on CBS's 60 Minutes, which aired Monday.
During the vice presidential debate earlier this month, the moderators confronted Walz about being caught in this big lie. The governor's response became infamous as he copped to the truth that he wasn't there and could be a "knucklehead at times."
Correspondent Bill Whitaker once again asked Walz about the falsehood during his interview, perhaps giving him a chance to come up with something better than calling himself names. Rather than make things better, Walz deflected by smearing Trump.
60 Minutes obliterated Harris/Walz
Wow
Tim Walz gets called out as someone Americans can't trust
pic.twitter.com/wY0pWUpA9N— Tim Pool (@Timcast) October 8, 2024
According to Fox News, Whitaker said that Walz "has been criticized for embellishing or telling outright falsehoods about his military record and about his travels to Asia in the 1980s." To his credit, Whitaker was direct in confronting him about the Tiananmen Square whopper.
"In your debate with Sen. JD Vance, you said, 'I’m a knucklehead at times.' And I think you were referring to the time that you said that you were in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square unrest when you were not," Whitaker said.
"Is that kind of misrepresentation — isn’t that more than just being a 'knucklehead?'" Whitaker prodded. Walz responded by claiming it is his opponent who is a liar.
"I think folks know who I am, and I think they know the difference between someone expressing emotion, telling a story, getting a date wrong, by — rather than a pathological liar like Donald Trump. I will own up to being a knucklehead at times, but the folks closest to me know that I keep my word," Walz claimed.
Rather than backing down, Whitaker said that the issue "comes down to the question of whether you can be trusted to tell the truth," he said to Walz. "Yeah, well, I can. I think I can," Walz replied.
Walz has claimed that Trump is "a pathological liar," but the Minnesota governor is deflecting. The most notorious of Walz's lies is that he is a combat veteran when, in reality, Walz retired just before his National Guard unit deployed to Iraq, the Associated Press reported.
He then lied about the rank he had when he was honorably discharged. Walz also misrepresented the truth about how his children were conceived when some Republicans were looking to limit in vitro fertilization fertility treatments.
As the New York Post reported, Walz said that he and his wife "have two beautiful children" because of IVF. However, the procedure they used was actually intrauterine insemination, which does not create embryos and therefore doesn't carry the same moral issues.
Walz claimed he misspoke and meant they utilized "reproductive health care like IVF" instead. It's clear from all of these situations that Walz favors whatever has the most utility rather than the actual truth about anything.
Walz is absolutely correct that he's a knucklehead. He forgot to say that he's also manipulative, dishonest, radical, and unfit for office.
David Paterson, the former governor of New York, and his 20-year-old stepson, Anthony Chester Sliwa, found themselves in a precarious situation during a stroll in Manhattan when they were allegedly assaulted by two teens, Breitbart reported.
The confrontation transitioned from a verbal disagreement to a physical altercation, inflicting injuries on both the ex-governor and his stepson.
The incident occurred on a Friday night as Paterson and Sliwa were walking the former governor's dog. Initially, they were approached by five unidentified youths near Second Avenue.
The situation began to unravel when the group of teenagers confronted Paterson and Sliwa, leading to an intense verbal exchange. Both parties found themselves in the midst of a heated conversation.
Sliwa, upon spotting three individuals climbing a fire escape, challenged them. He cautioned the teenagers that he would contact authorities.
This warning, however, served as a catalyst, quickly turning words into physical action. The initial verbal sparring grew more precarious and ultimately led to a clash.
As tensions mounted, the altercation resulted in physical injuries to both Paterson and his stepson. The former governor sustained head injuries while Sliwa suffered notable facial injuries.
The situation led to emergency medical treatment for both victims at a local hospital. The quick escalation of events caught them off guard and necessitated immediate care.
Paterson recounted the altercation with the group of teenagers, explaining that although there was an argument, the clash intensified to a dangerous level.
"The person that punched me on the shoulder, I threw them against the McDonald's window myself," Paterson described, reflecting on the chaotic scene.
Law enforcement swiftly responded to the scene following the altercation. Two children, aged 12 and 13, were apprehended on charges including third-degree gang assault.
The arrests highlight the serious nature of the incident and the decisive action taken by authorities to ensure justice.
Paterson's spokesperson expressed appreciation for the timely intervention by police and the public's support. Despite the ordeal, the former governor and his family remain focused on positive outcomes.
The spokesperson emphasized that Paterson and his wife, Mary, do not wish for the incident to be exploited for personal or political motives. Instead, they extend gratitude to law enforcement for their efficiency and to the community for its sympathy and encouragement.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Colorado's anti-family ideologues – those in governmental positions from which they have been trying to dictate residents' faith beliefs – are costing the state $1.5 million.
That's the settlement amount reached for the lawyers who defended Lori Smith's religious rights – and won at the Supreme Court where the justices again scolded the state for its anti-Christian bigotry, policies orchestrated under a homosexual Gov. Jared Polis.
A report from Complete Colorado explains the legal fees were awarded to Smith's lawyers for their victory over the state.
Smith, a web designer, had been ordered by the state to violate her Christian beliefs and promote same-sex weddings if she was going to do any business regarding weddings in the state.
She challenged the religious dictate in court and ultimately won at the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 in her favor, finding that the First Amendment protected her Christian beliefs from the anti-Christian mandates espoused by the discriminatory Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
The report explained, "That law prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against members of protected classes, which includes sexual orientation. However, Smith successfully argued that since her Christian beliefs say marriage is only between one man and one woman, the state could not force her to use her creative skills to produce websites for same-sex weddings, which she successfully argued amounts to government-compelled speech."
The report said state officials refused to comment on the massive costs of pursuing their anti-faith agenda.
Smith was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom.
"Our clients Lorie Smith and her design studio, 303 Creative, prevailed at the US Supreme Court and achieved a landmark victory — a victory that helps to protect all Americans' freedom of speech from government censorship and coercion," ADF lawyer Bryan Neihart has explained.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion in the case, stating, "The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands."
The leftists on the court claimed they wanted the right for government to dictate the beliefs of Christians in order to promote LGBT ideologies.
It was the second such catastrophic loss for Colorado at the Supreme Court on the same topic.
Earlier Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips won a similar war with the state, which tried to force him to repudiate his Christian faith and promote same-sex weddings, a case during which the Supreme Court also scolded Colorado for its "intolerance" for Christianity.