This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'When we examine her Test Scores, we will find out that she is NOT qualified for office but, nevertheless, far more qualified than Crockett, who is a seriously Low IQ individual, or Ilhan Omar, who does nothing but complain about our Country'
In the wake of an impeachment suggestion by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, President Donald Trump uncorked a fierce criticism of the New York congresswoman and fellow Democrats, saying AOC should be forced to take a cognitive test.
In a lengthy post on Truth Social Tuesday, Trump said: "Stupid AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the 'dumbest' people in Congress, is now calling for my Impeachment, despite the fact that the Crooked and Corrupt Democrats have already done that twice before.
"The reason for her 'rantings' is all of the Victories that the U.S.A. has had under the Trump Administration. The Democrats aren't used to WINNING, and she can't stand the concept of our Country being successful again.
"When we examine her Test Scores, we will find out that she is NOT qualified for office but, nevertheless, far more qualified than [Jasmine] Crockett, who is a seriously Low IQ individual, or Ilhan Omar, who does nothing but complain about our Country, yet the Failed Country that she comes from doesn't have a Government, is drenched in Crime and Poverty, and is rated one of the WORST in the World, if it's even rated at all. How dare 'The Mouse' tells us how to run the United States of America!
"We're just now coming back from that Radical Left experiment with Sleepy Joe, Kamala, and 'THE AUTOPEN,' in charge. What a disaster it was! AOC should be forced to take the Cognitive Test that I just completed at Walter Reed Medical Center, as part of my Physical. As the Doctor in charge said, 'President Trump ACED it,' meaning, I got every answer right.
"Instead of her constant complaining, Alexandria should go back home to Queens, where I was also brought up, and straighten out her filthy, disgusting, crime ridden streets, in the District she 'represents,' and which she never goes to anymore. She better start worrying about her own Primary, before she thinks about beating our Great Palestinian Senator, Cryin' Chuck Schumer, whose career is definitely on very thin ice!
"She and her Democrat friends have just hit the Lowest Poll Numbers in Congressional History, so go ahead and try Impeaching me, again, MAKE MY DAY!
On Saturday, as Trump unleashed U.S. military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, AOC posted an online message stating: "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers.
"He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment."
Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is shooting down the impeachment call, saying "it's going anywhere."
"Of course, no [he should not be impeached]," Fetterman said Monday on Fox News.
"She knows it. I know it. We all know it … that's not going anywhere. He's been impeached twice, and now he's still our president as well too, so it's not going anywhere, and I don't think [bringing it up is] helpful."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump thanked Iran for giving America "early notice" about missiles the Islamic Republic fired at a U.S. military base outside of Doha, Qatar, on Monday.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump said: "Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered.
"There have been 14 missiles fired – 13 were knocked down, and 1 was 'set free,' because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done.
"Most importantly, they've gotten it all out of their 'system,' and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE.
"I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
In a follow-up message, Trump said: "I'd like to thank the Highly Respected Emir of Qatar for all that he has done in seeking Peace for the Region.
"Regarding the attack today at the American Base in Qatar, I am pleased to report that, in addition to no Americans being killed or wounded, very importantly, there have also been no Qataris killed or wounded. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
The president wrapped up his thoughts in a final post indicating: "CONGRATULATIONS WORLD, IT'S TIME FOR PEACE!"
Analysts on Fox News suggested Monday's events could act as an "off-ramp" for all sides to end hostilities.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Can a state force all workers at a Ford plant to purchase Toyotas? Can Republicans be forced to donate to Democrats? Can vegetarians be forced to buy meat and eat it? Are bureaucrats allowed to coerce a Muslim to fund a Christian event?
Silly questions to be sure. But none of them less than what the state of Oregon has done, and has prompted the question before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Can those with religious objections to abortion be forced by the state to pay for abortion?
It was James Bopp Jr., of the Bopp Law Firm, who argued before the court that it should overrule a lower court's claim that Oregon can require Oregon Right to Life, a pro-life group, to pay for abortion.
"This case is saturated with examples of the exact things the Constitution prohibits. The First Amendment does not permit the government to favor secular organizations over religious ones. It does not permit the government to favor only the religious organizations of which it approves. It does not permit the government to draft laws in a way that achieves a religious gerrymander to ensure disfavored religious organizations cannot receive certain benefits. And it does not permit courts to second guess whether an organization's religious beliefs are, in fact, religious. The Ninth Circuit panel's decision should be easy since the trial court disregarded the principles in so many ways," Bopp said.
At issue is a mandate from the state of Oregon, that demands health insurance plans pay for abortion.
"Even though ORTL objects to abortion on religious grounds, Oregon declined to provide an exception that would cover ORTL—all while the state did include both secular exceptions and exceptions for other religious organizations in the Mandate. Accordingly, in plain violation of ORTL's religious liberty, the Mandate requires ORTL to purchase employee insurance plans that cover abortion, the very thing ORTL is devoted to fighting against," the law firm's report said.
It is uncertain exactly when the 9th Circuit will issue an opinion on the fight.
Bopp told the court the lower court judge "overlooked several key factors in its determination. For example, although ORTL had provided ample evidence of its religious beliefs, the trial court doubted ORTL's religiosity. Similarly, although the Mandate contains numerous secular exceptions, the district court relied on the single religiously-oriented exception (a minor exception which only gave an exemption to churches) to conclude that the law was favorable to religion. The district court even found that another exception that says nothing at all about religion, but instead focuses on coverage offered in 2017, is nonetheless a religious exception."
The legal team explained, "The government may not require anyone to do something that violates sincere religious belief all while giving others a pass based on secular criteria. Furthermore, the government may not pick and choose religious 'winners' and 'losers' by creating its own definition of 'religious.'"
Lois Anderson, of ORTL, said, "The attempt by the state to force Oregon Right to Life to finance abortion—the precise human rights violation we are dedicated to opposing—is blatantly unconstitutional and obviously unjust."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Tom Homan, President Donald Trump's border czar, is warning of Iranian sleeper cells inside America who could retaliate in the wake of U.S. military strikes in Iran on Saturday.
Appearing on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel, Homan said there were "1,272 nationals of Iran released into the country" during the administration of Democrat President Joe Biden.
"You compare that to the Trump administration, you have zero," he explained. "Under Joe Biden, we had over 10 million people cross that border."
"But my biggest concern from Day One, beyond the fentanyl, beyond the sex trafficking of women and children, were the 2 million known gotaways. Over 2 million people crossed that border, we don't know who they are, where they came from, because they got away because Border Patrol was so overwhelmed with the humanitarian crisis that Biden created."
"What gives me any comfort at all is that you don't have [former FBI Director] Christopher Wray there. You've got Kash Patel there. You don't have [former DHS Secrtary] Alejandro Mayorkas there anymore, you got Kristi Noem. And you certainly don't have Kamala Harris as a border czar."
"Do we know where every one of the 2 million [gotaways] are? No. We don't know who they all are. We don't know why they're here, where they came from. But we do know [from] border intelligence over the last four years, they found prayer mats south of the border. They found identification from people from Iran, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Syria south of the border.
"So we know that some terrorists have crossed that border. We'd be a fool to think zero crossed. The thing is, though, we've got President Trump as a commander in chief who's put all resources on that.
"That's why President Trump from Day One, ICE operations, despite what the left media says, he has been focused on national security threats and public safety threats, and between ICE and the bureau we've removed thousands of national security threats because of President Trump's leadership on this."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Israel and Iran are at war.
Leaders of the small Middle East democracy are worried about their continued existence, amid Iranian threats to wipe the country off the map, and are insistent the rogue Islamic regime cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, which could do just that.
President Donald Trump is being pushed both directions, from one side to get America involved and just end the continued threat from Iran. The other side says it's not America's fight and he must stay out.
Then there's Russia and Ukraine still launching rockets, blowing up things and killing people in a war that's gone on for years already.
Further, China is threatening Taiwan, and there's war in Africa.
Franklin Graham, chief of the worldwide Christian ministry Samaritan's Purse, has posted online a simple request.
"Will you join me in lifting up President Donald J. Trump in prayer?"
He explained, "From our earthly view, we see ominous storm clouds gathered around the globe. With Iran and Israel engaged in war, Russia and Ukraine in continued deadly conflict, China imposing an imminent threat to Taiwan, war in Sudan, and more, it seems as though the whole world is on the brink of fracturing."
He said, "Our President needs wisdom and strength from God. The decisions he is called upon to make will affect each one of us, our country, and the entire world. I pray that God will direct his steps as he leads our nation through the most turbulent times we have experienced in decades."
Graham then quoted Matthew 24:7, "The Bible tells us, 'For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has handed California Gov. Gavin Newsom a huge loss in his fight with President Donald Trump over the activation of National Guard troops to protect federal assets during the ongoing Los Angeles riots.
That violence, attacks on federal officers, destruction of vehicles, vandalism of buildings and more, started when federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers launched a raid to deliver warrants and make arrests in a cartel criminal investigation, involving, among other things, laundering money.
Local activists claimed it was nothing but immigration raids and triggered riots, with Trump calling out National Guard troops to protect federal assets.
Newsom sued, and a leftist local judge ordered the president to return control of the troops to Newsom.
That now has been put on hold.
Explained constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, "Gov. Gavin Newsom just lost a major ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that President Donald Trump is likely to prevail in his deployment of National Guard troops. Newsom and various Democratic politicians have insisted that Trump's order is unlawful and that Newsom has to agree to any request for deployment. The Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that Newsom does not have such a veto over deployments."
The appeals court action blocked an injunction created by a leftist, Charles Breyer, the entry level court judge "who suggested in open court that Trump was acting like another 'King George.' He then wrote an opinion that included many Democratic talking points — suggesting, for example, that Trump was creating disorder by calling out the National Guard to deal with disorder," Turley explained.
"Breyer further indicated that the violence in Los Angeles was relatively minor, despite potentially deadly attacks on law enforcement, arson, and looting," Turley noted.
The appeals court cited the justifications for calling on the troops to include:
"Whenever— (1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; (2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or (3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia."
Breyer claimed Trump could not use part three "if there was any possibility of executing federal laws absent the use of the National Guard troops."
The appeals court said that was misguided, as, "Section 12406 does not have as a prerequisite that the President be completely precluded from executing the relevant laws of the United States in order to call members of the National Guard into federal service, nor does it suggest that activation is inappropriate so long as any continued execution of the laws is feasible."
"Defendants have made the required strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. We disagree with Defendants' primary argument that the President's decision to federalize members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 is completely insulated from judicial review. Nonetheless, we are persuaded that, under longstanding precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor to § 12406, our review of that decision must be highly deferential. Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under § 12406(3), which authorizes federalization of the National Guard when 'the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' Additionally, the Secretary of Defense's transmittal of the order to the Adjutant General of the California National Guard—who is authorized under California law to 'issue all orders in the name of the Governor,' CAL. MIL. & VET. CODE § 163— likely satisfied the statute's procedural requirement that federalization orders be 3 issued 'through' the Governor," the ruling said.
Even if there was a procedural mistake, the court said, "that would not justify the scope of relief provided by the district court's TRO. Our conclusion that it is likely that the President's order federalizing members of the California National Guard was authorized under § 12406(3) also resolves the Tenth Amendment claim because the parties agree that the Tenth Amendment claim turns on the statutory claim. We also conclude that the other stay factors—irreparable harm to Defendants, injury to Plaintiffs, and the public interest—weigh in Defendants' favor. Thus, we grant the motion for a stay pending appeal."
The court ruling acknowledged the violence of the riots, how protesters blocked traffic and used shopping carts to barricade a street for hours, rioters who attacked federal officers and threw mortar-style fireworks at them.
Others were "dangerous" because they threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at officers, burned vehicles, vandalized property.
The result was that officers were injured.
Trump's response was to call the Guard troops to protect federal officers and property, and Newsom demanded that the order be reversed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed a state law in Tennessee that bans the infliction of transgender procedures on minors.
The 6-3 ruling revealed a pointedly leftist trio on the court demanding the agenda of chemically and surgically altering children to accommodate what almost always is a temporary gender dysphoria.
The majority opinion, supported by the conservative members of the court, was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The ruling found the Tennessee law does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Regarding the state's SB 1, Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions, while Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Ketanji Jackson and Elena Kagan.
"We are asked to decide whether SB1 is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. We hold it is not. SB1 does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review," Roberts found.
The ruling is significant, as there are about 20 other states that have similar laws preventing the infliction of body alterations and mutilations on minors.
The case revolved around the fact, according to the court, the "growing number of states restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity."
In Tennessee, SB1 "prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for the purpose of (1) enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's biological sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's biological sex and asserted identity."
"At the same time, SB1 permits a healthcare provider to administer puberty blockers or hormones to treat a minor's congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury," the court noted.
Three "transgender minors," their parents, and a doctor challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A trial judge halted the law but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to take effect, as the law "did not trigger heightened scrutiny and satisfied rational basis review."
The ruling said SB1 "is not subject to heightened scrutiny because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review."
The law's classifications are based on age and medical condition.
"Classifications based on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review," the court explained.
In fact, the plaintiffs claimed the classifications were based on sex, but they are not, the ruling said.
"The law does not prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex. SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to any minor to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence, regardless of the minor's sex; it permits providers to administer puberty blockers and hormones to minors of any sex for other purposes," the ruling said.
Also, the ruling said, "the court rejects the plaintiffs' argument that, by design, SB1 enforces a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex."
The court said, "Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence carries risks, including irreversible sterility, increased risk of disease and illness, and adverse psychological consequences. The legislature found that minors lack the maturity to fully understand these consequences, that many individuals have expressed regret for undergoing such treatments as minors, and that the full effects of such treatments may not yet be known. At the same time, the State noted evidence that discordance between sex and gender can be resolved through less invasive approaches. SB1's age- and diagnosis-based classifications are rationally related to these findings and the State's objective of protecting minors' health and welfare."
"In today's historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism," said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. "A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand. I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood."
Roberts wrote, "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."
Leftists who brought the fight to create mandates for transgenderism, one of Joe Biden's highest priorities while in office, included an official of Lambda Legal, who said, "This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive."
Sotomayor explained the basis for her claim it is sex discrimination, asserting in her dissent, the "law conditions the availability of medications on a patient's sex. Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Billionaire Elon Musk, the former head of President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, took a shot Tuesday at the credibility of the Wall Street Journal, saying the newspaper "sucks" at journalism.
Musk posted a meme on X mocking the @WSJ handle of the publication, suggesting it stands for "We Suck at Journalism."
While Musk himself did not pinpoint what may have triggered his sentiment, his Grok artificial intelligence device explained, "Elon Musk's dislike for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) stems from a series of critical articles they've published about him, which he and his supporters perceive as inaccurate, misleading, or agenda-driven. Here are the key reasons based on available information:
Critical Reporting on Personal and Professional Life: The WSJ has published several articles that Musk believes misrepresent him. For instance, a January 2024 report alleged pervasive drug use by Musk, raising concerns among his companies' directors, which he denied and labeled as "trash." Another April 2025 article claimed Musk was secretly trying to create a "legion" of offspring, citing controversial personal details, which Musk dismissed, comparing WSJ unfavorably to TMZ.
Tesla Succession Claims: In May 2025, the WSJ reported that Tesla's board was seeking a successor for Musk as CEO due to his focus on government roles and Tesla's declining stock price. Musk and Tesla's board called this "absolutely false," accusing the WSJ of unethical journalism for not including their denial. Musk publicly stated this was a "deliberately false article" and a "discredit to journalism."
DOGE and Government Role Criticism: The WSJ has scrutinized Musk's role in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), including a February 2025 report about a team member's resignation after racist tweets surfaced, which Musk may have seen as unfairly targeting his leadership. Additionally, a December 2024 editorial criticized Musk and Trump over a "budget fiasco," suggesting Musk's influence led to governance issues, which likely fueled his frustration.
Perceived Bias and Sensationalism: Musk has repeatedly called out the WSJ for what he sees as biased or sensationalist reporting. In posts on X, he's described the WSJ as "the worst newspaper in the world," unfit even for "parrot droppings," and accused it of lying with "sheer audacity." His mother, Maye Musk, also criticized a WSJ article as "dishonest" in May 2025, reflecting a family sentiment against the outlet.
Broader Media Distrust: Musk's criticism aligns with his broader skepticism of mainstream media, particularly outlets like the WSJ, which he views as part of an establishment pushing narratives against him. He's suggested the WSJ's reporting is driven by motives to undermine his influence, especially given his high-profile role in Trump's administration and his ownership of X.
On the other hand, the WSJ has defended its reporting, stating in response to Tesla's denial that it stood by its claims and that Tesla was given a chance to comment before publication. Some argue Musk's reactions are strategic, redirecting attention from negative stories or rallying his base against perceived media bias. His public feuds, like challenging the WSJ to drug tests, amplify this narrative.
Musk's dislike seems rooted in a pattern of WSJ articles that he believes unfairly target his personal life, business decisions, and political influence, coupled with his distrust of traditional media. However, the WSJ's perspective suggests they're holding a powerful figure accountable, highlighting a tension between investigative journalism and Musk's public persona."
Just last week on June 10, the Journal posted a story titled, "U.S. Agencies Tracked Foreigners Traveling to See Musk."
The paper reported: "Several U.S. government agencies in 2022 and 2023 tracked foreign nationals coming and going to Elon Musk's properties, according to people familiar with the matter.
"The investigation included the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department. It focused on people visiting the tech billionaire, from countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, who might have been trying to influence him."
There is plenty of reaction to Musk's assertion about the Journal sucking, including:
"Perfect!"
"There is no coming back from that name."
"Don't remember the last time I VISITED any legacy corporate media websites like WSJ… Let alone read an article from them. X is where it's at."
"I had to get a subscription when in college- it was the biggest waste of paper I've ever seen! It was so far left even new college liberals were unimpressed!"
"I've been calling them this for years. I'm glad to see that a lot of people are starting to see it now."
"Every mainstream media does. It's what they do the best."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has shot down a lower court's "bully tactics" that allowed state officials in New York to force religious objectors to pay for abortion.
The decision comes in Diocese of Albany v. Harris, and cited the high court's own earlier decision in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.
The issue is leftists in various states keep trying to force religious organizations and others to pay for abortion, which violates the religious rights of people in those groups.
The court's announcement Monday about its decision was brief: "The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the court of appeals for New York for further consideration in light of Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry."
Becket, the organization that was fighting the case on behalf of the religious group members, explained further: "The Supreme Court has ordered New York courts to reconsider Diocese of Albany v. Harris, a case challenging New York's abortion mandate, in light of Becket's unanimous victory in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. In 2017, a group of Catholic and Anglican nuns, Catholic dioceses, Christian churches, and faith-based social ministries challenged New York's mandate forcing them to pay for employees' abortions. After New York courts declined to protect the faith groups, Becket and Jones Day asked the Supreme Court to step in."
It's not the first trip to the high court for the case, Becket noted, "In 2021, the justices reversed the lower courts' rulings and told them to reconsider the case, but the courts ignored that instruction. Now the Supreme Court has ordered the New York courts to go back to the drawing board."
It was the New York State Department of Financial Services that had demanded an abortion mandate for health care plans. At that time, it promised to exempt all employers with religious objections.
"But after facing pressure from abortion activists, New York narrowed the exemption to cover only religious groups that primarily teach religion and primarily serve and hire those who share their faith. This exception does not apply to many religious ministries—including the ministries challenging the mandate here—because they serve all people, regardless of faith," Becket explained.
"For example, the exemption doesn't extend to the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm and their Teresian Nursing Home because they serve the elderly and dying regardless of religious affiliation."
Becket spokesman Eric Baxter noted, "New York wants to browbeat nuns into paying for abortions for the great crime of serving all those in need. For the second time in four years, the Supreme Court has made clear that bully tactics like these have no place in our nation or our law. We are confident that these religious groups will finally be able to care for the most vulnerable, consistent with their beliefs."
"Religious groups in the Empire State should not be forced to provide insurance coverage that violates their deeply held religious beliefs," explained Noel J. Francisco, of Jones Day, which also worked on the case.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A decorated Major League Baseball pitcher reminded the world Who it is that originated the rainbow Friday night during his team's "Pride Night" game against the San Francisco Giants.
Three-time Cy Young Award winner Clayton Kershaw wrote a Bible reference on his rainbow-logo Los Angeles Dodgers cap: "Gen 9:12-16" – which speaks of God's covenant with "every living creature."
Reports Fox News, the reference to the biblical book of Genesis was written on the front of his cap. Genesis 9:12-16 reads:
"And God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.'"
As Fox reported, Kershaw notably protested the organization's decision in 2023 to honor the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence before the team's Pride Night game that season. Kershaw said his opposition was based solely on the group's mockery of Christianity.
"I don't agree with making fun of other people's religions,"Kershaw said. "It has nothing to do with anything other than that. I just don't think that, no matter what religion you are, you should make fun of somebody else's religion. So, that's something that I definitely don't agree with."
The Giants beat the Dodgers, 6-2.