The Supreme Court of Finland held that Päivi Räsänen, a longtime member of the Finnish Parliament, was guilty of the “hate crime” of “insulting” a group based on sexual orientation for publishing a church pamphlet over twenty years ago. A Lutheran bishop, Juhana Pohjola, was similarly convicted for publishing the pamphlet for the church.
Chillingly, Räsänen and Pohjola are now criminals for peacefully expressing their views in the public square.
The details that led up to this outrageous conviction are truly Orwellian.
Räsänen published her pamphlet, “Male and Female He Created Them,” in 2004, when Finland, like much of the world, was debating same-sex marriage. The pamphlet was meant to help others navigate those debates.
Years later, Finland amended its “War Crimes” statute, expanding the scope of criminal “hate speech” laws to include many new protected categories, resulting in this verdict where the court ruled it is illegal to publish “insulting” content.
Räsänen is a member of the Finnish Lutheran Church. In 2019, her church announced it would join the Helsinki Pride Parade. Räsänen gained international attention with a now-famous X post in which she criticized her church’s involvement in the pride parade and shared an image of a Bible verse.
<div id="attachment_652929" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-652929" class="size-large wp-image-652929" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-1024x573.png" alt="Päivi Räsänen" width="1024" height="573" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-1024x573.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-300x168.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-768x430.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-1536x859.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM.png 1573w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Credit: Alliance Defending Freedom International</div>
A progressive prosecutor in Helsinki could not stand such an “affront” and commenced what would become an almost seven-year legal battle. She immediately launched and announced an investigation into Räsänen for criminal “hate speech.” During that investigation, she seemingly reviewed every statement that Räsänen had made on the subject of sexuality and dredged up the 15-year-old 20-page pamphlet, along with a single radio interview. She later charged Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola with hate crimes based on the Bible tweet, the pamphlet, and the interview.
Räsänen defended herself publicly by sharing links to the allegedly “offensive” material so people could see for themselves what, exactly, she was on trial for.
A Finnish lower court unanimously acquitted Räsänen and Pohjola on all counts, finding that posting Bible verses was not a crime. The case should have ended there. In the United States, if the prosecution loses, the case is closed. But in Finland, the prosecutors can keep appealing even a clear loss, which they did. The Court of Appeals again fully and unanimously acquitted Räsänen and Pohjola.
The prosecutors took one more shot, appealing to the Supreme Court. And now, in a split 3-2 decision, the Supreme Court has found Räsänen and Pohjola guilty of “insult” under the “War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity” section of Finland’s criminal code.
The logic of the decision is mind-bending. The Court, thankfully, upheld the acquittal for the Bible tweet, finding it did not meet the threshold for incitement. That’s good. But how the Court found Räsänen guilty for publishing the pamphlet is straight out of George Orwell&#8217;s 1984.
The Court argued that simply because the prosecution started an investigation in 2019 — about a tweet that the Court itself says is allowed — Räsänen should have known that her early-2000s pamphlet might now be seen as “insulting&#8221; under a law enacted years later. The Court concluded that Räsänen should have removed the allegedly insulting statements before reposting a link to them — even before any charges were filed.
So it was the very fact that she was being publicly investigated and sought to defend herself that made her a criminal and her statements ipso facto illegal.
This is not justice. This is Year Zero thinking, where an official accusation can turn someone into a thought-criminal, and any defense is used against them. It is the upside-down world.
The Court, doubling down on Orwellian reasoning, has demanded that Räsänen and Pohjola remove and “destroy” the “offending” statements from the pamphlet. This is simply the mandatory erasure of history and thought.
How many books, articles, and posts available online “might be” considered “insulting” to a group? Must publishers and authors scour their online libraries and remove anything others might find offensive? Does a mere accusation of offense now mandate people pull their beliefs and statements offline? The Court’s twisted logic points toward all these dystopian outcomes.
Päivi Räsänen has shown immense Christlike grace throughout this whole ordeal, and I pray that she receives justice soon, through an appeal or otherwise.
But the decision in her case goes far beyond just one individual. How many people will refuse to speak up if there is even the hint of controversy in their views, religious or otherwise, especially if the powers-that-be clearly disfavor those views?
Is this how Europe will use mechanisms like the Digital Services Act to silence alleged “hate speech” and export censorship online and globally?
The Finnish Supreme Court’s decision against Räsänen is an outrage against her and against the most fundamental principles of free speech. It is more obvious than ever that &#8220;hate speech&#8221; laws are inherently abusive and must be repealed. This decision should be widely condemned by people worldwide who value freedom.
***
Sean Nelson is an international human rights lawyer serving as Senior Counsel for Global Religious Freedom with ADF International.

Germany: nationwide demonstrations against NSA spying and in solidarity with Edward Snowden

The Finnish Supreme Court’s ‘1984’ Playbook

The Finnish Supreme Court's '1984' Playbook

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Bible

Finland

Free Speech

Religious Freedom

Social Media Censorship

Western Civilization

A European politician has been found guilty by Finland’s top court of “hate speech” for sharing her Christian views on marriage in a 2004 church pamphlet. 
The Supreme Court of Finland voted 3-2 on Thursday to find Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of “making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group.” The “text” she was charged over was a pamphlet explaining the Bible’s position on marriage and sexual ethics, written with Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola. 
“I am shocked and profoundly disappointed that the court has failed to recognize my basic human right to freedom of expression,” Räsänen said Thursday. “I stand by the teachings of my Christian faith, and will continue to defend my and every person’s right to share their convictions in the public square.”
Räsänen’s case has drawn the attention of United States lawmakers, who have said it demonstrates the perilous status of free speech in Europe. Lower courts previously unanimously acquitted her in 2022 and 2023, before prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court. 
The court said that the pair “made available to the public and kept available to the public opinions that insult homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation.” 
The court ordered Räsänen to remove 11 statements from the 25-page pamphlet, saying they should be removed from “public access” and “destroyed.” Pohjola was also convicted alongside Räsänen for his role in distributing the pamphlet. Räsänen will be fined around $2079, and Pohjola will be fined $1270. The foundation that published the marriage pamphlet will be fined $5775. 
The high court did acquit her of sharing a Bible verse from the book of Romans detailing the Christian understanding of sexuality. 
Räsänen was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom International and criminal defense lawyer Matti Sankamo. 
“By convicting me for expressing beliefs in a different context, the court has drawn an unclear, and I believe, dangerous line. This creates uncertainty, not only for me, but for every citizen who wishes to express their beliefs, or even more concerning for anyone who has expressed their opinions in the past,” Räsänen said during a press conference after the verdict attended by The Daily Wire. 
Räsänen, a member of the Lutheran church and Finland’s former Ministry of the Interior, said she was considering an appeal to the European Union. 
“I am taking legal advice on a possible appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. This is not about my free speech alone, but that of every person in Finland,” she said. “A positive ruling would help to prevent other innocent people from experiencing the same ordeal for simply sharing their beliefs.”
Paul Coleman, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom International, said the case showed the danger of how “vaguely worded and highly subjective hate speech laws can be interpreted and misinterpreted by anyone who looks at them.”
Räsänen said Thursday she has received thousands of messages from people around the world through the ordeal, which began over seven years ago, and said that “the process has not been in vain” and has given her an opportunity to share her faith with others. 
“I believe that this process has been in God&#8217;s hands, and even though I&#8217;m disappointed and even shocked about this conviction that I got today,” she said. “I believe that this is also in God&#8217;s hands, what happened. There is some purpose also for this situation where we are now. I trust in God.”

MixCollage-26-Mar-2026-09-50-AM-3986

A Politician Shared Traditional Christian Values. Now She Stands Convicted Of ‘Hate Speech.’

Politician Convicted Of 'Hate Speech' In Shocking Case Over Basic Christian Beliefs

Christianity

European Union

Editor’s note: The following commentary is an excerpt from remarks presented before the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission on March 16, 2026.
*** 
 
I am a full-time hospice physician in California, board-certified in family medicine with additional certification in hospice and palliative care. For me, medicine is more than a profession — it is a calling. Guided by my faith, I strive to treat every patient with compassion, dignity, and respect.
As a hospice physician, I care for patients who are often frightened, vulnerable, and nearing the end of life. My role is to relieve suffering and help patients live their final days with dignity — not to hasten death.
In 2022, California amended its assisted suicide law to require even non-participating physicians to acknowledge and document a patient’s request for assisted suicide — effectively initiating the process for obtaining lethal drugs. Even physicians who objected to assisted suicide had to record the request, provide information about it, and refer the patient to a physician who would provide it.
This was no accident. Legislative analysis before the law was passed warned that forcing physicians to document or facilitate assisted suicide was problematic and likely violated their rights, yet the state pushed the law forward anyway.
At the same time, the waiting period to obtain lethal drugs was drastically shortened — from 15 days to just 48 hours after the first documented request.
Forty-eight hours leave very little time for reflection — and often not enough time to treat the symptoms that lead many patients to request assisted suicide in the first place.
In more than 20 years as a hospice physician, I have seen how vulnerable patients are when facing terminal illness. They are often physically exhausted, emotionally overwhelmed, and fearful of becoming a burden to those they love.
Many patients arrive in hospice with severe, poorly controlled pain — especially those with advanced cancer. Some have already obtained assisted-suicide drugs. Others are considering it because they fear their suffering will become unbearable. But with proper hospice care, we can often control those symptoms within days. When pain and distress are relieved, fear fades, hope returns, and the desire for assisted suicide often disappears.
Legalizing assisted suicide has also created situations where vulnerable patients can be pressured toward it — even when it is not their true wish.
In one case, a family member asked me to encourage their mother to consider assisted suicide. She was a deeply religious woman who believed suicide was wrong, but her family hoped she might reconsider if a doctor told her it was acceptable.
In another case, I cared for a patient with questionable mental capacity whose family was strongly urging him to pursue assisted suicide, even though he was not in any pain or distress.
Thankfully, I had the freedom to protect these patients from that pressure.
Assisted suicide is never medically necessary to manage pain. The American Medical Association has stated that it is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer” and poses serious societal risks. This concern is shared by many organizations across the political spectrum, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and the National Council on Disability.
I could not in good conscience follow this law, even if it meant risking my medical license. I also could not afford to challenge the state of California on my own, but Alliance Defending Freedom <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/christian-medical-dental-associations-v-bonta/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://adflegal.org/case/christian-medical-dental-associations-v-bonta/?utm_source%3Ddailywire%26utm_medium%3Doped&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1774374008917000&amp;usg=AOvVaw02lPk3fh83ltCO52V4gZsi">stepped in</a> to defend me. Their attorneys ultimately secured a court order permanently preventing California from forcing physicians to facilitate assisted suicide under this law. But there will undoubtedly be future attempts to expand and normalize assisted suicide and force medical professionals to participate in it.
We are in the midst of a profound spiritual and cultural struggle between a culture that protects life and one that accepts death as a solution. The government should never force doctors to practice medicine in ways that violate their conscience or their duty to protect life. And no patient should ever feel that their life is a problem to be solved rather than a person to be cared for.
***
Dr. Leslee Cochrane is a full-time hospice physician in Murrieta, California.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Doctor writing a medical prescription

Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Incompatible With A Doctor’s Oath

Assisted Suicide

Hospice

When the European Union adopted the Digital Services Act (DSA), officials insisted that the sweeping regulation was necessary to tackle “illegal content,” “disinformation,” and other harmful online activity. The message was that responsible regulation would make the internet a safer place. The reality, however, is that the DSA grants the EU enormous <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-europe-plans-to-strangle-american-free-speech?author=Lorcan+Price&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=How+Europe+Plans+To+Strangle+American+Free+Speech">censorship powers</a> that endanger free speech in the digital public square, in Europe and across the world.
Now, for anyone wondering what kind of speech these powers might ultimately be used to suppress, the answer is becoming clearer. On March 5, the European Commission adopted its new <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-equality-strategy_en">Gender Equality Strategy</a>. The document leaves no doubt about the EU’s highly ideological direction, which has positioned it to become the world’s online censor through the DSA.
In the strategy, the European Commission states plainly that the DSA “recognises gender-based violence as a systemic risk, which providers of very large online platforms… have to assess and mitigate”. But what exactly is “gender-based violence”? 
According to the Commission, “online violence” includes acts that cause “psychological” harm or “suffering to women”. What this means is that if the ideological NGOs tasked with patrolling online content under the DSA object to a social media post on the grounds that it is “likely” to cause “harm” to women, major online platforms like X and Meta would be pressured to remove it as “violence”.
The nebulous definition of “online violence” put forward by the new Gender Equality Strategy makes it little more than a vehicle for digital censorship. The strategy presents itself as a roadmap for advancing equality across Europe. Yet what it reveals is a metastatic, habitual tendency on the part of EU institutions to embed contested ideological positions into policy and then frame any dissent as a threat. 
One notable passage in the strategy frames opposition to gender ideology as dangerous, warning that “anti-gender narratives … threaten the EU’s democratic space”. The strategy explicitly identifies “<a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/1f5fa936-9fba-4435-93f5-32fa220bac82_en?filename=gender-equality-strategy-2026-2030.pdf">LBTIQ+</a> women” as a protected group and links gender equality efforts with other EU initiatives focused on sexual orientation. It also adopts an “intersectional approach,” asserting that sex and gender intersect with multiple forms of discrimination and should therefore be addressed through overlapping identity-based policies.
The strategy explicitly supports so-called “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” referencing a recent pro-abortion European Citizens Initiative. This signals continued normalization and support for abortion access on the part of the EU, which it has no authority to promote.
In the strategy, the European Commission refers to the Neil Datta report <a href="https://www.epfweb.org/node/1144">&#8220;The Next Wave&#8221;</a> as a trustworthy study identifying “well-resourced global movements, and increasingly exploited through foreign information manipulation and interference”. But what this “report” does is identify <a href="https://www.epfweb.org/node/1152">pro-life NGOs</a> and research centers promoting biological reality as radical, anti-gender, conservative, and religious extremists.
It does not take much imagination to see how this framework could be deployed in the world of online censorship.
In place since February 2024, the DSA gives the European Commission unprecedented power over the world’s largest online platforms, requiring them to remove certain content and manage “systemic risks” on their services. When authorities view legitimate criticism of gender ideology as part of “anti-gender narratives” threatening democracy, the next evident step is censorship in the name of “content moderation”.
Consider the prosecution of Finnish Member of Parliament <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/free-speech-on-trial">Päivi Räsänen</a> under Finland’s national “hate speech” law. With the legal support of ADF International, Räsänen, a medical doctor, grandmother, and parliamentarian since 1995, has spent more than six years defending herself against criminal charges for posting a Bible verse on Twitter in 2019. She posted the verse to support her Christian beliefs about marriage and sexuality. Despite being acquitted twice by Finnish courts, the state prosecution has relentlessly pursued the case, which now awaits a decision from Finland’s Supreme Court. Under the DSA, we should expect to see more aggressive censorship for the simple expression of traditional Christian views like Räsänen&#8217;s.
Of course, the EU can, and should, advance authentic policies to promote equality between the sexes. But this is not that. There is no doubt that the Gender Equality Strategy strengthens the censorship regime created by the DSA. Democratic societies depend on open debate to promote true equality, not the suppression of views that challenge elite orthodoxy.
Platforms that fail to comply with DSA censorship directives face enormous fines, as evidenced by the €120 million fine levied against X, an American platform, last December. Although the penalty was formally tied to procedural violations, the platform was targeted for its pro-free speech stance, which it is now <a href="https://adfinternational.org/news/x-challenges-e120m-fine-under-eu-censorship-law">appealing</a> before the Court of Justice of the EU.
Both in Europe and across the world, including in the United States, the DSA creates powerful incentives for platforms to remove lawful content subjectively deemed problematic or suffer the consequences, which can range from crippling fines to suspension of services.
Europe has long presented itself as a defender of fundamental rights and democratic values. Yet the trajectory of its speech policies increasingly points in the opposite direction. Make no mistake about it: the EU is coming for your free speech, regardless of where you live, and it’s taking no pains to hide the kind of speech it’s after.
* * *
Dr. Adina Portaru is senior counsel, Europe, for legal advocacy organization ADF International, which is supporting X’s legal challenge before the General Court of the EU.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Symbol of transgender and female and male gender symbols

The EU’s Censorship Regime Has A New Gender Strategy And It Threatens Free Speech Everywhere

The EU's Censorship Regime Has A New Gender Strategy And It Threatens Free Speech Everywhere

Europe

Gender

gender ideology

A Tuesday hearing could determine whether abortion pills can be shipped across the country without an in-person doctor visit, a practice that has led to an increase in abortions across the United States – even in states where medication abortions are illegal.
Magistrate Judge David Ayo will hear a case from the state of Louisiana challenging regulations put in place by President Joe Biden’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that enabled the widespread shipment of the abortion drug mifepristone without an in-person doctor visit. Louisiana argues that the policy undercuts laws it passed to ban medication abortions and has asked the judge to block the regulations while the suit is litigated. 
“As much as we celebrated the fall of Roe v.  Wade, the Dobbs decision has been effectively nullified by the mail-order regime that the Biden FDA has initiated and continues to perpetuate across this country. So we have to win this case for unborn babies and their mothers,” said Erik Baptist, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom who is representing Louisiana.
During a call with pro-life leaders attended by The Daily Wire on Monday, Baptist described the case as the &#8220;most important&#8221; court battle for the pro-life movement since the Dobbs decision.
“When the Supreme Court issued the Dobbs decision and overturned Roe v. Wade, it had the expectation to send the issue back to the people, to their representatives, and also to the states,” he said. “But what happened was that the Biden administration anticipated the Dobbs decision, and then when it came out, tried to nullify that decision.”
The suit, which was filed in November, was also joined by Rosalie Markezich, a woman who says her ex-boyfriend coerced her into ending the life of their unborn child after he ordered illegal abortion pills online.
States like California and New York have enacted “shield laws” to protect abortionists from being extradited to states where they have sent abortion pills in violation of state laws.
Baptist said that the Biden administration used the FDA&#8217;s removal of the in-person requirement to push out the abortion pill throughout the country. In Louisiana, he said that there were as many as 1,000 illegal abortions every month facilitated by the mailing in of abortion drugs. Data released in December by the pro-abortion Society of Family Planning <a href="https://societyfp.org/research/wecount/wecount-june-2025-data/">revealed</a> that the number of monthly abortions across the country continued to increase in 2025 from 2024, which was itself an increase from 2023.
Ayo was appointed to the position by judges in the Western District of Louisiana, who were all appointed by Republican presidents, except for one. The hearing will examine both the merits of the case and a motion from the Justice Department to dismiss the case.
The FDA has so far resisted calls from pro-life lawmakers and advocates to put the in-person requirements back in place. In a filing in the case last month, the Justice Department argued that the mail-order abortion regulations do not undermine state laws and that ending the policy could undercut a safety review the FDA says that it is currently conducting into mifepristone.
The Department of Health and Human Services told The Daily Wire it does not comment on pending litigation.
Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who held a hearing last month on the dangers of the abortion pill, said during the Monday call that the Trump administration should restore the in-person requirement for dispensing the pill that was in place before COVID.
Mifepristone cuts off the nutrients that an unborn child needs to survive in the womb. Another drug is then taken to expel the deceased baby from the mother.
Polling released last week by Cygnal <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/republican-voters-want-action-on-mail-order-abortion-pill-as-midterms-loom?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Republican+Voters+Want+Action+On+Mail-Order+Abortion+Pill+As+Midterms+Loom">showed</a> that a large majority of Republican primary voters want the FDA to take action to crack down on mail-order abortions before the 2026 midterm elections. Nearly a third of Republican primary voters said they would be less excited to vote if Republicans backed away from pro-life policies.

President Biden Holds NATO Summit News Conference As Questions Surround His Candidacy

Pro-Life Leaders Say Biden Tried To ‘Nullify’ Dobbs. The Fight Is On.

Abortion Drug

Louisiana

Pro-Life Movement

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

What does European censorship look like, and why should Americans care? I answered that question before the <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/europes-threat-american-speech-and-innovation-part-ii">U.S. House Judiciary Committee</a> this week.
The last time I <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/europes-threat-american-speech-and-innovation">testified</a> before the Committee in September, I highlighted the censorship potential of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which at the time still seemed theoretical. My message then was that this EU law controlling online speech was poised to censor lawful expression beyond Europe, including in the United States.
Many were not convinced.
But now we have moved from theory to practice. There can be no doubt now that the DSA is the tip of a massive censorship industrial complex with global implications.
I testified yesterday before the Committee that the enormous fines recently levied on X by the European Commission prove beyond all doubt that the EU means to strangle free speech by a systematic assault on US companies. This is corroborated by the Committee’s incendiary new <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-exposes-european-commission-decade-long-campaign-censor-american" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a>, which shows that American companies are already having to adopt EU content moderation policies.
The EU has a multi-pronged strategy to open a slew of investigations, to add more and more regulations, to impose crippling fines, and, ultimately, to either break up or ban companies such as X, which are pro-free-speech.
Free speech is such a threat to European elites that they intend to either cripple X with fines and investigations or force them to bend the knee at the altar of censorship. I hope X stands strong because we need free speech in Europe more than ever.
But it goes deeper; this censorship campaign is not just aimed at destroying free speech in Europe, it’s about imposing European Union speech laws globally.
Make no mistake, Europe’s draconian speech laws are being imposed across the world via global content moderation rules.
The EU’s obsession with eliminating free speech means that they are deploying a global campaign to ensure that all speech online bans “illegal content” and “prevents systemic risk” to the “discourse”.
And the costs are borne by real people, like my client Päivi Räsänen, a longtime Finnish parliamentarian, who has spent more than six years criminally prosecuted for peacefully expressing her Christian beliefs in a 2019 Bible verse tweet. Räsänen also testified alongside me before the Committee on her ordeal, as she awaits a verdict from Finland’s Supreme Court for “hate speech” charges under the national law for “war crimes and crimes against humanity”. Of course, “hate speech” has no meaning except speech that European elites hate.
This is what European censorship looks like in practice: the process itself becomes the punishment, designed to chill speech, exhaust dissenters, and warn others to stay silent. And if this is what happens to a sitting parliamentarian in a Western democracy, Americans should have no illusion that either American companies or their citizens will be spared if these censorship regimes are allowed to normalize globally.
* * *
Lorcán Price is an Irish barrister and legal counsel for ADF International.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Uncle Sam

How Europe Plans To Strangle American Free Speech

Elon Musk

Opinion

Social Media

Twitter

The Justice Department said Tuesday that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations allowing the abortion pill mifepristone to be shipped through the mail do not infringe on a state’s ability to protect the unborn.
The position was taken in a <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.213952/gov.uscourts.lawd.213952.51.0_1.pdf">court filing</a> asking a judge not to grant a request from Louisiana to block the current regulations that allow mifepristone to be sent through the mail. The filing said that the FDA was currently reviewing the safety standards for mifepristone, and a ruling blocking the current standard could be “disruptive.” 
“Louisiana suffers no sovereign injury because it remains free to make and enforce its pro-life policies after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org,” the Justice Department said. “Nor are Defendants standing in the way of Louisiana enforcing its abortion laws against out-of- state prescribers of mifepristone.”
Louisiana and a woman named Rosalie Markezich sued the FDA last November, seeking to have a judge suspend the FDA’s current Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy standards for mifepristone. Markezich says she was coerced into taking abortion pills illegally ordered and sent into Louisiana by her ex-boyfriend. 
A White House official told The Daily Wire that nothing in the filing should be construed as the White House “defending&#8221; former President Joe Biden&#8217;s administration&#8217;s abortion drug policies.
“We’ve been very clear we have issues with that as well,” the White House official noted, saying that the Trump administration has raised issues with mifepristone, which is why it was conducting a study into mifepristone. 
“Legally speaking, it’s a question of standing,” the official said. “All we are really saying with this filing is, let’s not short-circuit this process, and let the agency, that is doing what a lot of the pro-life groups want, let them do what they’ve been tasked to do, and let that process play out.” 
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-a-leftist-network-of-websites-floods-red-states-with-abortion-pills-with-no-consequences-2">previously reported</a>, leftist activists have been shipping abortion pills into states all across the country, even in red states like Louisiana, where medication abortions are technically illegal. This mailing of abortion pills, which was greenlit by the Biden administration as a COVID measure, has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/despite-dobbs-more-babies-are-still-being-aborted-in-the-united-states">fueled an increase</a> in abortions across the country after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. 
Shield laws passed in states like California and New York have been enacted, preventing Republican attorneys general from being able to prosecute the doctors sending abortion pills into their states. States like Louisiana say the FDA regulations give pro-abortion doctors the cover to ship the pills. 
Both FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have said that they are conducting a study on the abortion pill, but pro-life advocates and lawmakers have demanded quicker action. 
“Given this widespread debate over the safety of mifepristone, FDA has concluded that the best path forward is for the agency to reconsider the restrictions on mifepristone based on all the evidence before the agency,” the Justice Department said on Tuesday. “As noted above, that evidence will include FDA’s own study.”
The department also said that a ruling by a judge to block the current mifepristone regulations would “threaten to short circuit the agency’s orderly review and study of the safety risks of mifepristone by asking this Court for an immediate stay of the 2023 REMS Modification approved three years ago.”
When reached for comment, the Justice Department said that it was committed to President Donald Trump&#8217;s pro-life agenda.
“This Department of Justice remains committed to advancing President Trump’s pro-life agenda, including through dismissing criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits against peaceful pro-life advocates targeted by the previous administration, and using the FACE Act to protect pro-life pregnancy centers,&#8221; a spokesman told The Daily Wire. &#8220;In this filing, the Department of Justice simply requested more time from the court for the FDA to complete its review of mifepristone REMS. As the Supreme Court recognized in a unanimous ruling less than two years ago, it is the role of the FDA – not the federal courts – to evaluate drug safety data and impose appropriate precautions.”
The department asserted that neither Louisiana nor Markezich was facing any immediate harm from the current regulations. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Markezich, disagreed. 
“Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, the Biden-era abortion-by-mail scheme has allowed thousands of abortion drugs to flow into Louisiana each year. We&#8217;re calling on the FDA to put a stop to it,” ADF wrote on X. “Yesterday, they submitted their reply brief in our lawsuit, Louisiana v. FDA. With [Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill] we’re asking the Court to end illegal mail-order abortions now. They agree that Biden’s scheme is unlawful, but they want to spend another year or more conducting a study. Justice delayed is justice denied. Stand with Rosalie and the State of Louisiana.”
Murrill <a href="https://x.com/AGLizMurrill/status/2016566792412365188">said</a> that the filing shows that the FDA admits the current regulations are “flawed but claims that Louisiana can’t sue to stop the 1,000 dangerous abortions a month in Louisiana that the REMS allows. That is an affront to our sovereignty and the dignity of women and the unborn. FDA should stand with us for life, not with [Gavin Newsom] and [Kathy Hochul].”
The filing was also criticized by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which has called for Makary’s ousting over his handling of the abortion pill study. 
“Today’s denial of justice by the DOJ is completely unacceptable. It slams the door on women like Rosalie Markezich and their babies, who are suffering very real harm as the Trump-Vance administration refuses to reimplement basic guardrails on deadly mail-order abortion drugs,” said SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Abortion drugs accessible by mail are killing more Americans than fentanyl, cocaine or heroin combined.”
The FDA told The Daily Wire that it does not comment on pending litigation as a matter of policy.

HHS Secretary RFK Jr. Holds Press Conference On Protecting Children From Harmful Medical Interventions

FDA Claims Mail-Order Abortion Policies Are Not Preventing States From Protecting The Unborn

FDA Says Mail-Order Abortion Policies Not Preventing States From Protecting The Unborn

Abortion

Department of Justice

Late Tuesday night, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pledged that authorities would soon arrest those who stormed Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Sunday to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement&#8217;s presence in the Twin Cities.
“There will be arrests tied to that, and people will be brought to justice for how they violated the law in that situation,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kristi-noem-promises-arrests-in-the-next-several-hours-over-church-stormed-by-anti-ice-activists?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Tim+Pearce&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Kristi+Noem+Promises+Arrests+%E2%80%98In+The+Next+Several+Hours%E2%80%99+Over+Church+Stormed+By+Anti-ICE+Activists">Noem said</a>.
To do so, the Trump administration could use a law long weaponized against pro-life protesters to prosecute those who disrupted the church service, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, made it a federal crime for pro-life protesters to block the entrances of abortion facilities. Though the law was also meant to protect crisis pregnancy centers and churches, data obtained by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) <a href="https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-reintroduces-legislation-repeal-face-act">shows</a> that 97% of FACE Act prosecutions through 2024 targeted pro-life individuals. 
While conservatives have long warned that the law has been weaponized against pro-lifers, the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-ice-activists-storm-minnesota-church-with-don-lemon-doj-launches-probe?author=Tim+Pearce&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Anti-ICE+Activists+Storm+Minnesota+Church+With+Don+Lemon%3B+DOJ+Launches+Probe">stunt</a> by leftist agitators at the Cities Church in St. Paul creates an opportunity for President Donald Trump’s Justice Department to flip the historical application of FACE on its head. 
The FACE Act penalizes those who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.”
That would appear to apply to the storming of Cities Church by a group of activists organized by the Racial Justice Network and Black Lives Matter Twin Cities. The protesters yelled and chanted slogans at worshipers, causing the service to end early. Lemon filmed the demonstration under the guise of an independent journalist and badgered the pastor of the church with questions while the disruption was taking place. 
Ryan Tucker, the director of the Center for Christian Ministries at Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Wire that the religious component of the FACE Act has rarely been used. He noted that historically, local and state law enforcement have stepped in to address FACE Act violations, but no such help appears to be forthcoming in Minnesota. 
“Here in Minnesota, at least the state attorney general has come out and said that he&#8217;s not going to do anything to assist or to pursue any violations of state law,” Tucker said. “What&#8217;s really disheartening here is that you&#8217;ve got the lead lawyer of the state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, saying that he&#8217;s not going to do anything to prosecute these individuals under those local laws, and in fact, has attempted to validate their actions, completely forgetting that the FACE Act even exists.”
Tucker added that it was very rare for activists to disrupt church services.
“The idea that one could go into a church, disrupt it, threaten the parishioners, and somehow get away with it, which is just absolutely unheard of,” he said. “Churches certainly have the right to worship freely without fear that protesters are going to invade their space and traumatize the families that are present, but that&#8217;s exactly what happened this past weekend.”
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/don-lemon-could-face-criminal-conspiracy-charges-over-involvement-in-minnesota-church-protest?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Don+Lemon+Could+Face+‘Criminal+Conspiracy’+Charges+Over+Involvement+In+Minnesota+Church+Protest">suggested</a> on Monday that the Justice Department would bring FACE Act-related charges against the protesters. 
“I see various crimes that have occurred,” she told podcaster Benny Johnson. “Exactly what they are I’m not going to flag, but the FACE Act has been mentioned as one of the predicates there. In other cases, the Biden DOJ used the Klan Act conspiracy charges tacked onto the FACE Act in the case of protests outside abortion clinics to bring much longer sentences.”
Dhillon was referring to how President Joe Biden’s Justice Department ramped up FACE Act prosecutions, pairing it with the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act to garner lengthy prison sentences for peaceful pro-life advocates who demonstrated at abortion facilities. 
Biden’s Justice Department successfully prosecuted these cases across the country — from Michigan to Tennessee and Washington, D.C. — and got lengthy prison sentences for multiple defendants. 
 Lauren Handy <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pro-life-activist-sentenced-to-over-four-years-in-prison-over-protest-at-d-c-abortion-facility">was sentenced</a> to 57 months in prison for her role in an October 20 sit-in at the notorious D.C.-based Washington Surgi-Clinic late-term abortion facility.
In another case, 64-year-old <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pardoned-pro-life-activist-says-hes-running-on-adrenaline-and-the-holy-ghost-after-trump-pardon">Calvin Zastrow</a> and 75-year-old Chet Gallagher were sentenced to prison after they participated in a protest at an abortion facility in Mount Juliet, Tennessee, that involved them praying, singing, and speaking to women arriving at the facility. They were convicted under the FACE Act and the KKK Act for conspiracy against rights, a charge that could come with over 10 years of prison time. 
Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/they-should-not-have-been-prosecuted-trump-pardons-23-pro-lifers-targeted-by-biden-doj?author=Mary+Margaret+Olohan+and+Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=%E2%80%98They+Should+Not+Have+Been+Prosecuted%E2%80%99%3A+Trump+Pardons+23+Pro-Lifers+Targeted+By+Biden+DOJ">pardoned</a> the two dozen peaceful pro-life protesters during his first week in office. 
Dhillon suggested that Lemon might be subject to the KKK Act conspiracy against rights application if it could be proved that he had knowledge of the protest before it took place. 
“Don Lemon himself has come out and said he knew exactly what was going to happen inside that facility,&#8221; she said. &#8220;He went into the facility, and then he began ‘committing journalism,’ as if that’s sort of a shield from being a part, an embedded part of a criminal conspiracy, it isn’t.&#8221;
As Lemon questioned a pastor during the disruption on Sunday, he asserted that the activists had a First Amendment right to stage a protest in the church. Tucker was unconvinced with this claim, noting that you can’t make a First Amendment claim while infringing on “someone&#8217;s ability to freely worship.”
Trump on Tuesday <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-minnesota-church-protesters-should-be-jailed-or-thrown-out-of-the-country?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Trump%3A+Minnesota+Church+Protesters+Should+Be+Jailed+Or+%E2%80%98Thrown+Out+Of+The+Country%E2%80%99">called</a> for the agitators who stormed the church to be imprisoned or “thrown out of the country.” His Justice Department appears to be ready to take that action. 
“The FACE Act is just the start. Like I said, you have material support for disruptive activities, you have conspiracy to violate civil rights, you have potentially the use of other instrumentalities to commit crimes,” Dhillon said on Monday. 
The Trump administration has already used the FACE Act to go after left-wing activists who target religious services. In September, the Justice Department <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-under-face-act-against-violent-protestors-synagogue-west">filed charges</a> under FACE against a group of protesters who targeted a Jewish synagogue in New Jersey.
Soon after taking office, Trump’s Justice Department <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-doj-rolls-back-bidens-aggressive-prosecution-of-pro-lifers?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+DOJ+Rolls+Back+Biden%E2%80%99s+Aggressive+Prosecution+Of+Pro-Lifers">issued a memo</a> stipulating that FACE Act cases would only be prosecuted in cases of violence or extreme property damage, a reversal of Biden’s policy.

Don Lemon, Nekima Levy-Armstrong

How The Law Weaponized Against Pro-Lifers Could Be Used To Prosecute Anti-ICE Agitators

Bill Clinton

Don Lemon

Donald Trump

FACE Act

Harmeet Dhillon

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Keith Ellison

Minnesota

WASHINGTON—Lainey Armistead’s first-ever trip to the Supreme Court will be to watch her own case, a high-stakes legal fight that will determine whether states have the right to keep gender-confused men from dominating women’s sports.
Armistead, a former women’s collegiate soccer player, is fighting for West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports” law, which barred transgender-identifying males from participating in women&#8217;s sports. The fight over the law will come to a head Tuesday as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on West Virginia’s law and a similar measure out of Idaho.
“I just am baffled that a girl from Kentucky who went to school and at a smaller school in West Virginia would have the opportunity to be heard,” Armistead told The Daily Wire. “By them taking up this case, they&#8217;ve told me and all the other girls that we matter and that we&#8217;re important.”
Armistead was the captain of West Virginia State University women’s soccer team and played from 2019-2022 as transgender sports debate intensified across the nation. During that time, the debate rose to a fevered pitch as University of Pennsylvania transgender-identifying male swimmer Lia Thomas won a national championship title in the 500-yard freestyle in March 2022 over female swimmers.
“I never imagined that this would be something that would be going to the Supreme Court,” Armistead said. “I&#8217;m really excited to have the opportunity to stand up for women&#8217;s safety and fairness. I had the opportunity that I had from Title IX. It&#8217;s never been abstract for me.”
Armistead joined the legal fight to defend West Virginia’s law in September 2021, becoming an intervenor in the case after hearing of female athletes in Connecticut losing to a male athlete competing as a woman.
“I heard about the girls in Connecticut who were robbed and were displaced on their podiums and missed out on opportunities due to men taking their place, and it really riled me up,” she said. “Whenever I heard about what West Virginia was doing, I felt that I had a responsibility to stand up for fairness and safety.”
The justices will hear two different sets of oral arguments on Tuesday, in the cases of West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox. The result of the cases will determine whether 27 states can keep laws in place keeping men out of women’s sports, and could impact laws protecting women’s privacy in bathrooms and other spaces.
The question <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/24-00043qp.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">presented</a> in the West Virginia case is whether Title IX, a measure that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education and related activities, prevents a state from keeping males out of women&#8217;s sports. It also asks whether the Constitution&#8217;s Equal Protection Clause limits states’ ability to designate sports teams on the basis of sex.
The Idaho case is <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/24-00038qp.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">focused primarily</a> on the Equal Protection question, not the Title IX issue. Idaho became the first state in the country to pass a women’s sports protection bill in 2019 after a series of stories began trickling out of male athletes winning track and field competitions at the high school and collegiate level.
Idaho’s law was blocked at the federal district and appeals court level after a group of gender-confused athletes sued to block the law. West Virginia won its case at the federal district court level, but lost at appeals after a similar lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said that the lower courts ignored the obvious biological differences between men and women.
&#8220;Males on average possess physical advantages and competitive athletics that begin before puberty and only intensify after puberty. And those advantages are not eliminated by testosterone suppression after male development. The Ninth Circuit departed from settled law by redefining sex to include gender identity,&#8221; he said during a press call on Thursday.
While both cases will have separate oral arguments, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a joint opinion that will address both cases.
Both states are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which helped to craft the women’s sports legislation. Jonathan Scruggs, a lawyer with ADF, said that ultimately the justices will be considering the “what is a woman?” question.
&#8220;Does your identity and the fact that you take certain medical treatments make you a woman, or is it rooted in biology? And that is something that the Supreme Court is just gonna have to face,” he told The Daily Wire.
The ACLU has argued that a person’s so-called “gender-identity” should be included in the definition of sex for purposes of federal discrimination law. They point to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton, which included gender identity in the definition of sex for purposes of employment.
More recently though, the court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Skrmetti that Tennessee and other states had the right to protect kids from transgender procedures. The court rejected arguments that shielding kids from transgender medical interventions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
“What matters more? Identity or biology?  That&#8217;s the key issue of the case. And the ACLU is pushing that identity plus hormone treatment make you a woman effectively,” Scruggs said. “Our argument is no, that biology matters, it matters in sports, it matters in reality.”
The Trump administration is set to argue in favor of West Virginia and Idaho and has taken a strong stance on cracking down on transgender ideology.
While much of the debate before the court will be about abstract legal issues, the invasion of males into female sports has been tangible for hundreds of women across the country. A recent report from the United Nations <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trans-identifying-males-are-cleaning-up-in-female-sports-this-un-report-quantifies-the-damage" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> that transgender-identifying athletes had taken away at least 890 medals from female athletes.
In Connecticut, female track and field athletes Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell lost out on at least 90 opportunities to advance or medal in an event, thanks to the participation of male athletes, Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Matt Sharp said. ADF currently has a <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/soule-v-connecticut-association-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference for allowing males into female sports.
“The moment you say one man can be on a women&#8217;s team, you&#8217;re saying that every single spot on that team can now be held by a man. You could have an all-man, women&#8217;s basketball team,” Sharp said.
Apart from the fair competition issues, Tuesday&#8217;s cases could have wide-reaching implications for women’s privacy in other spaces like bathrooms or shelters.
Adaleia Cross is a former West Virginia track and field athlete who lost out on a spot to compete in a championship because a male athlete known as “BPJ” had joined her team due to his gender-identity. According to Alliance Defending Freedom, BPJ has beaten 423 girls 1100 times and deprived them of 57 medals.
Cross says that BPJ not only took away athletic opportunities, but also made “sexual remarks” to her and other female athletes in the locker room they shared.
“B.P.J. regularly outperformed A.C. and other girls on the field, changed clothes in the girls’ locker room, and made sexual remarks to A.C. and her teammates,” a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-43/322536/20240815105603417_24-43_A.C.%20amicus%20brief.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">court filing</a> from Cross said.
Adaelia&#8217;s mom, Abby, previously alleged that BPJ made comments in the female locker room like “suck my d**k,” and “I’m going to stick my d**k in your p***y and also in your ass.”
The ACLU has denied the allegations.
&#8220;Our client and her mother deny these allegations and the school district investigated the allegations reported to the school by A.C. and found them to be unsubstantiated. We remain committed to defending the rights of all students under Title IX, including the right to a safe and inclusive learning environment free from harassment and discrimination,&#8221; the organization <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/sports/top-dems-silent-after-trans-athlete-backed-scotus-case-accused-sexual-harassment-intimidation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> Fox News.
Sharp said if states are not allowed to pass laws recognizing biological reality, the foundation of American society could be shaken.
“When you ignore biological reality, it&#8217;s not just the playing field. It&#8217;s in locker rooms, it&#8217;s in restrooms. It&#8217;s in medicine, as we saw in Skrmetti,&#8221; he said. &#8220;There are young women and girls that are tragically harmed when we ignore this.&#8221;
Armistead recognized this fact and said she was very grateful that West Virginia acted to protect women’s spaces. Excited to show up to court on Tuesday, Armistead said the case was about the chance to stand up for the truth.
“It&#8217;s a monumental and exciting day. And I just have been counting down the days to go in and see something that is going to be historical,” she said. “I am so hopeful for the outcome and hopeful that the Supreme Court will protect women and girls.”

MixCollage-09-Jan-2026-12-50-PM-1486

Supreme Court Set To Answer ‘What Is A Woman?’ In High-Stakes Trans Athlete Cases

female sports

Lia Thomas

Supreme Court

Transgender Athletes

We are at a critical moment in our shared history. A moment that calls for moral clarity and an unwavering commitment to justice. 
Christians around the globe are facing a genocide. And while President Donald Trump champions religious liberty in Syria after hosting the former al-Qaeda fighter-turned-president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, and declares <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/11/trump-deserves-credit-for-focus-on-nigerian-christians/">Nigeria</a> a “country of particular concern” because of the slaughter of Christians, we cannot be naive.
Christian persecution is already here in America. Our nation is becoming a dangerous place for faithful believers to live.
We must stand up now for the persecuted not only as individuals but as a united front for our brothers and sisters around the world.
Policymakers, churches, and ordinary citizens have a moral responsibility to ensure our nation remains a beacon of hope and freedom for all, especially those persecuted for their faith.
I know something about persecution and the price of freedom. I grew up in Communist Romania, where the freedoms we now experience in America were stolen from its citizens. Speaking the truth meant imprisonment, torture, and even death. The government sought to control every thought, every word, every breath. That’s why I became a political refugee and found a new home in America in 1988.
A <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/new-poll-74-worry-americans-could-lose-our-freedoms-were-not-careful">2024 Cato Institute survey</a> found that nearly 74% of Americans worry that if we’re not careful, Americans could lose their God-given freedoms and liberties. An out-of-control regime can gradually build persecution against Christians, making small, incremental changes that could go unnoticed until it is too late. I know. I lived it.
In Communist Romania, Nicolae Ceaușescu’s regime controlled religious organizations by appointing loyal leaders, restricting activities, and nationalizing properties. Atheism was promoted through education and propaganda, portraying Christianity as outdated. Religious groups faced pressure to align with state policies, with non-compliance leading to imprisonment, job loss, or death.
The legacy of this persecution continues to shape the religious landscape in Romania today.
While the extent and nature of persecution differ significantly between Communist regimes and contemporary American society, there are parallels in the experiences of marginalization, pressure to conform, and struggles for expression. The challenges faced by Christians today often manifest initially in social and cultural pressures rather than outright physical persecution. And we are beginning to see signs of it here.
That’s why I’m joining the “<a href="https://www.washingtonpolicyinstitute.org/events/persecuted-and-prevailing-addressing-christian-persecution-in-the-modern-world/">Persecuted and Prevailing”</a> panel on December 4, 2025, at the Museum of the Bible to promote the truth, amplify our voices, and push for legislative action to support Christians.
As a human rights attorney in Communist Romania, I defended Christians, experiencing firsthand America’s crucial support. Congressmen Frank Wolf and Christopher Smith met with me often to discuss my cases, raising awareness among U.S. policymakers and the public about Romania’s dire situation. Their efforts drew media attention to the plight of Romanian Christians under the thumb of Communism, creating urgency for supporting persecuted believers.
Wolf’s actions shaped U.S. foreign policy to prioritize religious freedom, and the global impact included co-sponsoring the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ281/PLAW-114publ281.pdf">International Religious Freedom Act</a> (IRFA) of 1998, which established a framework to combat religious persecution worldwide and monitor and recommend policies. The Congressman also backed resolutions condemning persecution in Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and China, reinforcing human rights as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.
Now it’s our turn to carry the torch forward. Citizens who have the freedom to advocate for change must pressure policymakers to strengthen global religious liberty.
We are the voice for the persecuted who suffer in silence worldwide. If we fail to speak about oppression, like what I and many others endured in communist Romania, it will most certainly take root here. This generation needs to understand the fragile nature of freedom and the courage it takes to preserve it.
Using our voice and Constitutional rights to petition our government is the only way to protect our freedom and stand for truth. If we don’t use our voice today, we risk being silenced tomorrow.
When truth is distorted, freedom fades. Pray for discernment in a world clouded by lies. Live boldly, speak the truth in love, for true freedom flows from God’s presence, which has been with America since its founding. Remember, if God’s presence fades, so will our freedom.
* * *
<a href="https://www.virginiaprodanbooks.com/">Virginia Prodan</a> is an international human rights attorney, best-selling author of the memoir “<a href="https://virginiaprodanbooks.com/get-the-book-2/">Saving My Assassin</a>,” and host of the “<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/courageous-leadership-with-virginia-prodan/id1590554517">Courageous Leadership with Virginia Prodan</a>” podcast. She serves as an ambassador on the President’s Council for National Religious Broadcasters, a member of the Advisory Board of the American Christian Leaders for Israel, and an Allied Attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.

Revolution Flag and Crowd at Polling Place

I Escaped Communist Romania. I Recognize The Early Signs Of Religious Persecution.

Christians

Communism

Congress

Faith

Murder

Nigeria

North Korea

Persecution

Sudan

U.S. House of Representatives

A coalition of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers won a big victory on Monday against New York Attorney General Letitia James over her targeting of organizations that promote a protocol that can help a mother save her child if she regrets taking an abortion pill.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit <a href="https://adflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/nifla-v-james-2025-12-01-appellate-opinion.pdf">affirmed</a> that the coalition has a First Amendment right to speak about the abortion pill reversal protocol, a process that is meant for women who want to counter the effects of taking an abortion-inducing drug. In 2024, James <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2024/attorney-general-james-sues-anti-abortion-group-and-11-new-york-crisis-pregnancy">sued</a> 11 faith-based pregnancy centers for their promotion of the protocol, claiming they were spreading false and misleading information.
“Many women regret their abortions, and some change their minds after taking the first abortion drug and want to try to save their unborn babies’ lives. They should be allowed to hear about this option and make that choice,” said Caroline Lindsay, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom who represented the coalition in court.
The protocol is a method <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/abortion-pill-reversal-a-record-of-safety-and-efficacy/">backed</a> by a coalition of pro-life organizations and involves a woman taking a prescribed dose of bioidentical progesterone to potentially reverse the effects of Mifepristone and save an unborn child if she changes her mind at the last minute about going through with the abortion.
The coalition was composed of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Gianna’s House, and Options Care Center. While James did not sue them over the abortion pill reversal protocol, they argued in court that her actions could infringe on their free speech rights. A district court agreed, granting the coalition an injunction against James. The appeals court on Monday upheld that decision.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
“The district court correctly determined that the speech at issue is noncommercial because, based on the uncontroverted evidence in the current record, the speech is religiously and morally motivated, the [National Institute of Family and Life Advocates] plaintiﬀs receive no remuneration or other financial benefit for engaging in it, and, as the NIFLA plaintiﬀs do not provide [Abortion Pill Reversal] themselves, the speech serves only to provide the public with information about [Abortion Pill Reversal] and access to third-party providers that can oﬀer [Abortion Pill Reversal],” the judges wrote.
In May 2024, James <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-york-crisis-pregnancy-centers-pick-up-legal-victory-against-letitia-james">announced</a> a suit against Heartbeat International and 11 pregnancy center organizations for promoting the abortion pill reversal protocol. James claimed that the organization was “spreading dangerous misinformation by advertising &#8216;abortion reversals&#8217; without any medical and scientific proof.”
Heartbeat International says that the lives of over 7,000 babies have been saved through the abortion pill reversal protocol. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether a Christian pregnancy center can challenge New Jersey over a wide-ranging subpoena it issued related to the protocol.

NYC Early Voting Surges Ahead Of Nov. 4 Mayoral Election

Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers Pick Up Big Win Against New York AG Letitia James

Courts

First Amendment

Letitia James

New York

pregnancy centers

U.S.

Supreme Court justices ranging from conservative Clarence Thomas to liberal Elena Kagan pressed the state of New Jersey on Tuesday about its expansive investigation targeting a Christian pro-life crisis pregnancy center. 
The justices heard arguments about whether a Christian pregnancy center can challenge a wide-ranging subpoena from the New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin that demanded donor information. The case hinges on whether the subpoena had the impact of chilling supporters of  First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and is entitled to relief in federal court. 
During oral arguments on Tuesday, many of the justices appeared skeptical of the arguments made by Sundeep Iyer, a lawyer for the state of New Jersey. 
In one exchange, Justice Thomas pushed Iyer on why the subpoena was issued to First Choice. 
“Did you have complaints that formed the basis of your concern about the fundraising activities here?” Thomas asked.
Iyer responded by saying that they had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers in general, but not specifically First Choice. Thomas then suggested that New Jersey had “no factual basis” for believing that the pregnancy center was deceiving donors and that the subpoena was a “burdensome way to find out whether someone has a confusing website.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-jerseys-war-on-crisis-pregnancy-centers-heads-to-the-supreme-court?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=5&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=New+Jersey’s+War+On+Crisis+Pregnancy+Centers+Heads+To+The+Supreme+Court">Related: New Jersey’s War On Crisis Pregnancy Centers Heads To The Supreme Court</a>
Another key question in the case is whether the subpoena could be considered “chilling” because it had not yet been approved by a court. Justice Kagan, one of the court’s liberals, pushed Iyer on that question. 
“I think here, too, you would make the same argument is that an ordinary person, one of the funders for this organization or for any similar organization, presented with this subpoena, and then told, ‘But don&#8217;t worry, it has to be stamped by a court is not going to take that as very reassuring,’” Kagan said. “Why isn’t that right?”
Other justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts, were also critical of New Jersey’s interpretation of the subpoena it had issued. 
First Choice has centers in five of New Jersey’s largest cities, including New Brunswick, Newark, Morristown, Montclair, and Jersey City. Services include free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and options counseling. They also offer a parenting program that provides essential needs such as baby clothes and diapers. 
“This court has long safeguarded the right of association by protecting the membership and donor list of nonprofit organizations like First Choice,” said Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Erin Hawley. “Yet the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena, commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers, so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”
Platkin first subpoenaed First Choice in November 2023, asking for ten years of documents related to its promotion of the abortion pill reversal, information they provided to clients and donors, personnel records, and copies of every advertisement the centers had run. 
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
Pregnancy centers across the country that support vulnerable women in blue states like California, New York, and Illinois have all faced legal challenges for promoting the abortion pill reversal protocol.

2025-Netroots-Nation

Supreme Court Justices Clash With New Jersey In Pregnancy Center Battle

Supreme Court Justices Push New Jersey Over Targeting Of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Clarence Thomas

Menu