This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Cincinnati Police Chief Terri Theetge, who was sued for anti-white bias and blamed social media in the wake of a black mob's horrific beating of whites in the city in July, has now been placed on administrative leave "pending an internal investigation on the effectiveness of her leadership."
City Manager Sheryl Long told WLWT-TV: "The City continues to face serious public safety challenges that underscore the need for stability at the command level. Therefore, I've named Assistant Chief Adam Hennie as Interim Police Chief."
"Our focus remains on maintaining stability within the department and ensuring the highest standards of service to our residents. I have full confidence in Interim Chief Hennie and the department's command staff to continue their dedicated work at this time."
"DEI Police Chiefs have to go!" exclaimed journalist Nick Sortor.
Theetge's attorney held a news conference Tuesday, saying the ousted chief has done nothing wrong to warrant her removal.
"She is being used as a political scapegoat and a political pawn," said attorney Stephen Imm.
Theetge became a lightning rod of controversy after she blamed social media for publicizing the pummeling of the white victims.
"Social media, the posts that we've seen, does not depict the entire incident. That is one version of what occurred. At times, social media and mainstream media and their commentaries are misrepresentations of the circumstances surrounding any given event," Theetge said at the time.
"What that does, that causes us some difficulty in thoroughly investigating the activity and enforcing the law. Because what happens, that social media post and your coverage of it distorts the content of what actually happened and it makes our job more difficult."
"I think by the irresponsibility with social media is it just shows one side of the equation quite frequently without context, without factual context, and then people run with that and then it grows legs and it becomes something bigger that we then have to try to manage as part of the investigation," she continued.
"Social media and mainstream media and their commentaries are misrepresentation of the circumstances surrounding any given event."
As previously reported, four previous members of the Cincinnati Police Department sued Theetge for workplace discrimination against white males on the force.
The lawsuit, brought by Captain Robert Wilson and Lieutenants Patrick Caton, Gerald Hodges, and Andrew Mitchell on May 19, alleges that the city and Theetge partook in "intentional and discriminatory practices" based on sex and gender, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. The officers asserted that they "suffered harm," "damage to [their] professional reputations," and "emotional distress" as a result of the department's alleged favorable treatment toward women and racial minorities.
"The city and Chief Theetge have actively and systemically undertaken efforts to promote, advance, and make promotion and assignment decisions that are preferable to women and minorities, and to the exclusion of White men," the lawsuit reads.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two priests and a journalist have been acquitted in a Spanish court of wild claims about "hate speech" over their discussion about the elements of Islam.
It was Custodio Ballester and Jesús Calvo who had been accused by Muslims of hate crimes during a talk show in 201`7.
Also accused was the director of a digital media outlet, Armando Robles.
"The public prosecutor's office had requested a four-year prison sentence for Robles along with a 10-year ban from teaching and a 3,000-euro ($3,500) fine. In the case of the priests, the prosecutor sought a three-year sentence," according to a report from Catholic News Agency.
The decision came from a Provincial Court of Malaga.
The ruling focused on whether the spoken and written words were criminal, the report said.
Franklin Graham, chief of the worldwide Samaritan's Purse Christian ministry, said, "It's unbelievable that this Catholic priest from Spain had to go to trial to defend his right to speak the truth about radical Islam. I appreciate the fact that Father Custodio Ballester wouldn't back down, even in the face of a jail term. He was also threatened with a 10-year ban from preaching. Good news—the Spanish court acquitted him last week! I'm not a Catholic, but I'll be preaching in Spain next year and I hope to have a chance to meet him!"
CNA said the critical ruling focused on whether the statements were "hate crimes" or whether they were protected by Spain's precedents for freedom of expression.
While the court itself blasted the priests' comments, fretting "no matter how despicable and perverse the message" or how "clear offensive" the statements, it found that the elements of hate crimes were not there.
"Not only is there speech protected by freedom of expression, but we could even accept that there is intolerant speech that also exists within the scope of freedom of expression, even though it may be offensive, not only to the group or person to whom it is directed but even to the person listening to it," the court said.
It was the Association of Muslims Against Islamophobia that had complained to the prosecutor's office in Barcelona about the comments from the men during a talk show.
In a statement to ACI Prensa, CNA's Spanish-language news partner, shortly before the trial, Ballester said he felt at peace: "As Jesus Christ says, they will take us to the synagogue and the courts, and there the Holy Spirit will give us wisdom that our adversaries cannot counteract," the report revealed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a dispute involving a town's attempts to put Christian speech in a box and keep it there.
The practice of "free speech zones" has become common across the nation, at colleges and universities, in towns and counties and more.
The basis is that authorities determine that they will allow free speech by Christians, often involving members of the faith asking passersby about their relationship with Jesus, but they will allow that only in a specified area.
And that area often is in a remote, isolated and unseen location, behind buildings, on the far side of athletic stadium parking lots and the like.
The fight that the Supreme Court now has agreed to review involves Gabriel Olivier of Mississippi.
In the town of Brandon, officials adopted an ordinance that bans religious speech on public sidewalks near the city's amphitheater.
According to First Liberty Institute, the background is this: "Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who desires to share his faith with others. Standing outside of well-attended events, Olivier shares the gospel of Jesus Christ, hoping to have peaceful conversations and reach as many people as possible. He was silenced when the City of Brandon, Mississippi, adopted an unconstitutional ordinance that prohibits him from communicating his religious beliefs to others in a city park."
City officials assigned him a "protest" area "that was so far removed from the crowds no one could receive his message." When he moved closer to the traffic areas, he was arrested.
He was fined, then sued the city in federal court and challenged the ordinance.
At the district court level, the judge dismissed the case without considering the facts. That ruling cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Heck v. Humphrey, that concerns prisoners and had nothing to do with these free speech circumstances.
When the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals traveled down the same path, an appeal went to the Supreme Court, which now will review.
"Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court," Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, said. "Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans."
Allyson Ho, a partner at Gibson Dunn, which also is involved in the case, added, "We're pleased the Court agreed to take up this important case, and we look forward to presenting our arguments that Mr. Olivier is entitled to his day in court."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Alfred Kinsey, who used sex convicts and pedophiles to make up studies with wild claims that children are sexual from birth, largely is credit with triggering the dive into the massive promotions of deviant and damaging sex ideologies across America.
He was described by officials at Liberty Counsel, who have fought his agenda for years, as "a sexual pervert whose unscientific propaganda exploited women and harmed children."
He inflicted torture on children as they sobbed in pain and then claimed they were enjoying his sex experiments on them.
The results have included rampant pornography in schools, story book hours with drag queens, the claims that abuse of children is normal and more.
It was commentator Linda Harvey who said, "Let's be frank about school sex education. Many classes have become unapologetically pornographic, yet many parents are unaware their kids learn dangerous messages laced with obscenity in the guise of 'health education.'"
Liberty Counsel pointed out at the time 43 states have exemptions from obscenity laws that let sexually explicit materials be used in schools.
"Educational obscenity exemptions are but one example of the toxic legacy of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his claim that children are sexual from birth and unharmed by sexual activity," explained Mary E. McAlister, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, who has been researching the exemptions and bringing their toxic history to light.
"That claim, borne out of records of systematic child sexual abuse, was used as a basis for wholesale revision of our criminal laws through the Model Penal Code, of which the educational obscenity exemptions are a part," McAlister said.
But there has been work to respond. Just two years ago, lawmakers in Indiana killed state tax funding for the Indiana University institute launched by Kinsey.
Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver charged that Kinsey's actions are "indefensible" and Indiana University "should disassociate itself from anything related to Alfred Kinsey."
In fact, Kinsey's "research" resulted from what actually included data from "serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles, and pederasts."
The late Dr. Judith Reisman was a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law and documented the criminal abuse of more than 300 infants and children in the production of Kinsey's research. These children were ages two months to 15 years.
Now, it is time for the next step, a congressional investigation of Kinsey.
That's according to Rhonda Miller, the chief of Purple for Parents United, who explained in a column at the Federalist, "Kinsey's fraudulent research and criminal experiments in the 1940s and '50s ignited the sexual revolution with the lies that sexual perversion is normal and that children are sexual from birth. His reports, 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male' and 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Female,' laid the groundwork for comprehensive sexuality education and the repeal of legal protections for women and children. Through the United Nations, Kinsey's perversion has spread worldwide, and grassroots leaders from around the world are calling on Congress to step in."
She reported that that the idea of an investigation into what may have involved serious crimes against children arose in 1995, when Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas proposed H.R. 2749 to require an investigation to determine whether Kinsey's research resulted from "fraud or criminal wrongdoing" — and defunded agencies and institutions teaching it as credible if that was the case.
She explained, "If Congress had investigated and eradicated Kinsey's influence in 1995, the world's children would not have been perverted by it. It is time for Congress to do what it should have done 30 years ago: investigate Kinsey's crimes and fraud and defund any agency or institution that promotes them."
She pointed out Kinsey's "science" was used to damage social sciences, culture, laws and education.
"Fifty-two state laws protecting women and children were weakened or repealed as states shifted from the common law to the Model Penal Code, which was based on Kinsey's research. Many states exempted schools, museums, and libraries from laws against distributing pornography to children. Penalties for sexual crimes were lessened, and plea bargains became the norm."
Now the internet ha normalized "abusive and violent sexual behavior and fueling the demand for sex trafficking."
She noted it was her organization that worked with Indiana lawmakers to defund Kinsey's agenda.
"It's time for the federal government to step in," she said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There were numerous strange and unexplained drone sightings over the state of New Jersey during late 2024.
President Trump, when he took office in January, confirmed they were authorized to be flown by the Federal Aviation Administration for research and other reasons.
But few other details emerged.
Now, one company has confirmed it "was us."
A report in the New York Post said a private corporation, still unidentified, explained at an Army conference where it was demonstrating drone possibilities, it was responsible.
"You remember that big UFO scare in New Jersey last year? Well, That was us," one corporation spokesman told a group at the conference.
The publication said the report was from a source who was invited to the events.
The comment came at the Army's UAS and Launched Effects Summit at Fort Rucker in Augus, where the contractor also provided a look at a new and unorthodox project.
The Post it was given access to a video in which a "20-foot across four-winged flier zooms through the skies just above the tree-line."
Observers said, in the Post, "It feels like it's a UFO because it defies what you're expecting to see."
The Post noted, "All conference attendees were approved by brass at Fort Rucker, which enacted strict rules for participation, including the exclusion of any drone or craft containing any Chinese-made parts, the source revealed."
The report noted the rash of supposed drone sightings over New Jersey started Nov. 13, 2024, near an Army base, then continued across the state into December.
Officials earlier attributed the sightings to hobbyists, recreational pilots and others.
WND had reported at the time the White House said the flights were authorized but provided few other details.
It did reassure Americans, "This was not the enemy."
Online journalist Nick Sortor reacted on X, saying: "WHY DID BIDEN LIE? WHY NOT JUST TELL US THAT?"
Filmmaker Robby Starbuck noted: "This is incredible. The Biden administration let the whole country freak out for weeks about drones and a possible drone threat when they approved the damn drones. Why did they help create panic instead of telling the truth and calming people down? Lunacy."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hamas is not yet done with Gaza, despite the beginnings of President Donald Trump's multi-point peace plan in which the last of the Israelis taken hostage in the terror organization's war against its neighbor that it launched on Oct. 7, 2023, who still are living were released.
As proof, Hamas just days ago executed some of its political opponents, claiming they had colluded with Israel. Factions also have made statements that they will continue their war against Israel.
But it could be that Gaza now is done with Hamas.
In a telling statement, Khader Mehjez, an academic in Gaza, slammed Hamas.
It was in an interview with Al-Arabiya Network from Saudi Arabia that Mehjez commented, suggesting the terror group's war with Israel is over.
"I don't think that it will continue," he explained. "I believe that Hamas, as a political and military force in Gaza, is finished. It will not continue to exist. Nobody here wants Hamas."
A report from the Middle East Media Research Institute revealed that he also "accused Hamas of profiting from the war, plundering humanitarian aid and selling it in the market for several hundred times the price."
"He said that he saw images of Hamas leaders smiling and added that they were happy they had profited from the war they had started," the report said.
Mehjez called Ismail Haniyeh a "crazy man," described the Oct. 7 attack as an "act of madness," and said that the decision to carry it out was made by Yahya Sinwar, "who everybody knows was not normal."
His comments continued, "If you ask anyone here in Gaza – now that they are released from the terrorism of Hamas – you will get the same answer. Hamas brought this war upon us, and then benefited financially from the war. They would plunder all the [humanitarian] aid. They would sell it in the market for several hundred times its price – not just double or triple the price. People don't have money. They don't have cash to buy anything. The people suffered from real hunger. Things were getting worse, and these [Hamas members] did not feel the suffering of the people."
And, he said, "How can I begin to describe people who brought the war on us and made money off of it? I am angry at these people, whom I see smiling at the camera, as if the people who are being massacred are not their own people, as if this war was not their doing, as if it came out of the blue… They [smile] as if they are happy about this war. I could see the happy smiles on their faces. I interpreted this as happiness for their profits. People die and they are making profit…"
MEMRI also reported that more and more, the "Arab press" was offering criticism of Hamas for its decision to slaughter 1,200 Israelis on that October day, and take hundreds hostage.
MEMRI noted, "The writers, from across the Arab world, accused Hamas of carrying out a horrific massacre, including against women, children and innocent civilians, and of embarking on an irrational and reckless 'military adventure.' The movement, they said, chose to carry out this attack despite knowing it would lead to war and have grave consequences for the people of the Gaza Strip: vast destruction, enormous damage to infrastructure, and the death of tens of thousands."
For instance, 'Saudi journalist Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed slammed Hamas in a column he published in the Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on October 7, 2025, the two-year anniversary of the Hamas attack.
His comment: "Hamas is to blame for the collapses and tragedies. First, its attacks were a massacre of massive scale by Palestinian standards, with children, women, and civilians among the targets. It is also to blame for prolonging the tragedy, since it could have made the same concessions more than a year earlier, sparing the blood of tens of thousands of Gaza residents who have perished because of Hamas… To this day, we still cannot understand why Hamas carried out such a large-scale attack – one that was entirely predictable to provoke an Israeli frenzy and the destruction of Hamas and everyone who stood with it…"
Al-Rashed later blasted Hamas for claiming victory.
"So when the cannons fall silent, these groups [i.e., Hamas and the other Palestinian terror factions] will resort to self-aggrandizing propaganda. There is a particular kind of language that has no connection to reality or truth. After every military defeat, instead of reconciling with the wounded society and moving forward, they prepare the lexicon of defeat: they collect phrases of justification and moral reasoning for what happened, legitimize the decision to start the war, rewrite history to present themselves as the victors and promise more [war]."
MEMRI wrote, "In his column in the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Palestinian journalist and political analyst Ramzi Odeh likewise criticized Hamas for carrying out the October 7 attack and called to hold it to account."
He said, "There are three questions that remain to be answered… [and] answering them is essential to strengthening the ability of the Palestinian people and its institutions to hold accountable those responsible for what happened on October 7… The first question is: Why did Hamas carry out the October 7 attack when it knew the extent of the damage this would cause to the Palestinian people and to [Hamas] itself? It should be stressed that Hamas was fully aware of the extent of the damage that could result from the October 7 adventure, as it had already been through five wars, one of them [following] the abduction of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006, which led to about 2,000 Palestinians being killed and around a quarter of the infrastructure in the Gaza Strip being destroyed… Despite this, Hamas continued to plan the [October 7] attack for about two years, which indicates that its leadership is influenced by two main factors: First, regional pressures from forces that wanted to use Hamas to strengthen their role in the region, even at the expense of the Palestinian interest, and second, a mistaken gamble that additional fronts against Israel would be opened. This indeed happened, but [only] partially, not to the extent [Hamas] was counting on… What Hamas did on October 7 lacked political rationality and was not backed by sufficient military power to achieve any real gain."
The second question, the writer said, "What goals did Hamas achieve through this reckless military adventure?…" and third is, "Why did Hamas insist throughout the period of aggression [i.e., the war] on sidelining the PLO, despite the urgent need for Palestinian unity?… Hamas made the decision to launch the [October 7] attack on its own, and insisted on managing the campaign far from [any involvement] by Ramallah. It turned a deaf ear to the popular demands and to the regional and international pressures that called for national unity… When it was [eventually] forced to agree to the decision of the Arab summit in Cairo regarding the establishment of a technocratic committee to administer the Gaza Strip, it objected to placing this committee under the authority of the PA. This makes it clear that Hamas fears the PA more than it fears the occupation, because the occupation lacks legitimacy, whereas the PA is the legitimate representative of the Palestinians…"
Another commentary relegated Hamas to a "thing of the past," and yet another noted the costs of Hamas' recklessness, "paid" by thousands of innocent people.
"Hamas committed a crime against Gaza and its people: it brought about the destruction of the Strip and caused its people to lose their homes. Will anyone ever hold Hamas to account, or will [this] crime be glossed over, just like all the previous ones, including the crime of deepening the Palestinian schism between the West Bank and Gaza and the crime of turning Gaza into an Iranian missile base following Israel's withdrawal from the Strip in the summer of 2005? There is a need for a clear Arab initiative regarding Gaza. The Strip cannot be left at the mercy of Hamas and its calculations… In the end, the Palestinian reality cannot be repaired without accountability. If the party responsible for the Gaza tragedy isn't held to account, the disaster may repeat itself…," wrote Lebanese journalist Khairallah Khairallah.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
With the high-profile election of New York City mayor just two weeks away, the question of President Donald Trump's potential endorsement of a candidate is in focus as it could sway the result.
On Sunday, the president was asked directly about the contest by Maria Bartiromo of Fox News, and Trump appeared hesitant, saying, "I guess I haven't made a decision really."
"I think it's not good to have a communist. Would I rather have a Democrat than a communist? Barely. They're almost becoming the same thing."
Trump calls front-runner Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani a communist, while former Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo is now running as an independent. Republican Curtis Sliwa is also in the race, trailing in the polls.
But would Cuomo even accept an endorsement from Trump?
He told Fox News on Monday: "I'm running as an independent, so I wouldn't ask for President Trump's endorsement. I don't want to accept endorsements like that."
"I think President Trump is analyzing the polls, and he says Cuomo is the only person who has a chance to beat Mamdami, which is what the polls say, and he says Curtis Sliwa basically is inconsequential, which also what the polls say."
Cuomo continued to hammer away at Zamdani in the interview, saying: "His answer is always the same: tax business, tax the rich, raise taxes, raise taxes, provide everything free – free transportation, free food, free, free, free. New Yorkers know there is no free."
"You keep taxing businesses and wealthy people in New York City, there will be nobody left."
"It's very clear what is happening here," Cuomo added.
"This is still an ongoing civil war within the Democratic Party where you have this extreme radical left. That's what Zohran Mamdani represents. They are socialists, they are anti-business, they are anti-police, they are anti-law-and-order, they are anti-Israel. And I am a 'moderate' Democrat."
"I know how to govern and the far left doesn't even think about how to govern. You know Zohran Mamdani never had a job, 34 years old, he's been an assemblyman. He passed three bills, worst attendance record in the New York State Assembly. They don't get that being mayor means you have to operate. You have to manage."
When asked about criticism his campaign lacked energy and imagination, Cuomo replied: "I don't think those accusations are fair. I'm out there every day in every community. I'm at the opening of an envelope."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Iran's Shariah agenda, specifically the Islamic law and government's demand for "modesty" in women's attire, has taken a huge hit because of online videos.
They show Ali Shamkhani, "one of the Islamic Republic's top enforcers" of clothing for women that covers them up, parading around at his daughter's wedding, and she is wearing a very revealing strapless gown with a plunging neckline.
So is Shamklhani's wife, according to the reports.
A journalist's report said, "The daughter of Ali Shamkhani one of the Islamic Republic's top enforcers had a lavish wedding in a strapless dress. Meanwhile, women in Iran are beaten for showing their hair and young people can't afford to marry. This video made millions of Iranian furious. Because they enforce 'Islamic values' with, bullets , batons and prisons on everyone but themselves. … The same regime that killed #MahsaAmini for showing a bit of her hair, jails women for singing, whose hired 80,000 'morality police' to drag girls into vans, throws itself a luxury party. This isn't hypocrisy, it's the system. They preach 'modesty' while their own daughters parade in designer dresses."
Another commenter said, "He employs morality police and imprisons any woman who does not wear a veil in Iran. One rule for him and one rule for everyone else in Iran."
The Daily Mail reported, "Footage circulating on social media shows Ali Shamkhani, a top advisor to Iran's supreme leader and a member of the Expediency Council, escorting his daughter, Fatemeh, into a wedding hall at Tehran's luxury Espinas Palace Hotel. The bride wore a strapless white dress with a low neckline and entered the grand room to cheers and music."
Iranian social media, the report said, was "accusing Shamkhani of hypocrisy, considering the mandatory hijab and modesty laws that have restricted women's dress for decades."
Shamkhani was secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, which is responsible for the regime's national security, between 2013 and 2023.
He held that position, the report said, "when the government organized a brutal crackdown on the protests following the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman, who died in police custody in 2022 after being arrested for allegedly violating rules requiring women to wear the headscarf."
The report said, "The wedding of Shamkhani's daughter was reportedly held in April 2024 and attended by members of Iran's political elite."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Prosecutors working on the obstruction and perjury charges pending against ex-FBI chief James Comey, indicted recently by a federal grand jury, are suggesting that Comey hired one of the lawyers working on his case in order to suppress evidence that lawyer might have.
It's because that lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, formerly a U.S. attorney in Chicago, may have taken part in the same 2017 media leaks that also involved Comey.
A report at the Washington Examiner said prosecutors are concerned over the "extraordinary" conflict of interest created by Comey's defense team.
There the defendant hired a potential witness against him to be on his defense team, "and help keep key evidence under wraps," the report said.
Prosecutors have informed U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff that Fitzgerald may need to be disqualified.
That would be "because of his alleged role in the same 2017 media leaks that underlie the government's case. Fitzgerald, they said, was involved in the 'improper disclosure of classified information' at Comey's direction shortly after President Donald Trump fired him from the bureau in 2017," the report said.
They asked the judge for a "filter protocol" that could be applied and allow a neutral team to review communications between Comey and others, including Fitzgerald, and decide whether it is evidence or not.
Prosecutors charged that Comey actually used Fitzgerald to "improperly disclose classified information."
The DOJ previously has confirmed that Comey leaked copies of his personal memos about what he claims to have said to President Trump to multiple other lawyers, including Fitzgerald.
The report explained, "Former DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's 2019 report described Comey's actions as a serious breach of policy, saying he 'set a dangerous example' for FBI employees by retaining and leaking government documents for 'a personally desired outcome.' The watchdog said Comey kept four of seven memos in a personal safe at home after his firing and failed to notify the bureau he had done so."
Comey allegedly used the retained government memos to help "trigger" the creation of a job for special counsel Robert Mueller.
The Examiner said, "Fitzgerald's own involvement in transmitting Comey's memos to other lawyers could make him a fact witness in the case, raising ethical questions about whether he can simultaneously defend his former client."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials in the leftist city of Denver are demanding that taxpayers nationwide subsidize their abortionists at the industry behemoth, Planned Parenthood.
They have joined with officials in other Democrat-run cities to insist that Congress and President Donald Trump were wrong, and they must reverse their opinions and their actions and restore the flow of taxpayer cash to the abortionists.
It is in a report at the Center Square that the city's agenda was revealed.
"In Denver, we will always fight for the rights of women to access contraception and reproductive care," claimed Mike Johnston, Denver's mayor, in the report.
"We are proud to join this amicus brief to push back on President Trump and the Big Beautiful Bill's unconstitutional targeting of Planned Parenthood and to ensure women receive quality, life-saving care regardless of their ability to pay."
Actually, in the court case over the funding, which was rejected by congressional action in a bill signed into law by President Trump in America's democratic procedures, the abortionists are claiming they have a constitutional right to cash taken directly from taxpayers.
The report noted Trump's BBB Act blocks federal funding for one year to any healthcare provider that received over $800,000 in federal Medicaid payments in 2023 and is primarily involved in "family planning" services, is a nonprofit organization or provides abortions.
Planned Parenthood claims the restrictions are unconstitutional because they must have taxpayer cash to fulfill their constitutional right to freedom of association.
The brief from Denver, and others, said they "have significant interest in protecting access to medical care, including reproductive and sexual healthcare and family planning services, for their most vulnerable residents."
For that, they are demanding a nationwide tax.
And that money needs to be sent to Planned Parenthood, "a vital part of the healthcare ecosystem," they charge.
A lower court had issued injunctions blocking the funding cuts, for now.
But then an appeals court put a hold on that injunction.
Denver officials are arguing for something they don't need, as Colorado lawmakers already have stepped up to take money from their own residents and give it to Planned Parenthood businesses in the state.
But Denver complained that would mean less money for "other" priorities, so it wants the tax funding to come from all Americans nationwide.
The Supreme Court already has ruled states have the right to exclude abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from state Medicaid programs.
The brief also argues that keeping the funding going, through Planned Parenthood, will increase the number of women "in the paid labor force.'
And it notes that the changes mean local and state governments will have to make hard decisions about budgets, as they won't have as much money.
It claims that the congressional action was "based on an unlawful ideological basis," suggesting that the law insists on a pro-abortion "ideological basis."