The Supreme Court has now ruled in favor of the idea that you don&#8217;t have to be a member of a minority group in order to be discriminated against.
That is obviously true. The fact of the matter is that you can certainly be a white, straight male and be discriminated against, or, in the case reviewed by the Supreme Court, a white, straight female.
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/05/us/politics/supreme-court-straight-woman-workplace-discrimination.html">The New York Times</a>:
<blockquote>The Supreme Court on Thursday <a href="https://archive.is/o/WjYeY/https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf">unanimously ruled</a> in favor of a straight woman who twice lost positions to gay workers, saying an appeals court had been wrong to require her to meet a heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination because she was a member of a majority group.
The decision came two years after the Supreme Court <a href="https://archive.is/o/WjYeY/https:/www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/supreme-court-admissions-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html">struck down race-conscious admissions programs</a> in higher education and amid the Trump administration’s fierce efforts to root out programs that promote diversity. The ruling will place further pressure on employers and others to eliminate affirmative action and other initiatives that seek to provide opportunities to members of historically disadvantaged groups.</blockquote>
Leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. Again, remember this was a unanimous decision, so the three leftists on the Court, Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, concurred. Despite the best attempts of The New York Times to turn the decision into a right-wing decision, it was not. It was unanimous.
The Times continued:
<blockquote>The standard for proving workplace discrimination under the law, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.” The case was brought by Marlean A. Ames, who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which oversees parts of the state’s juvenile corrections system. After a decade there, in 2014 she became the administrator of a program addressing prison rape. Five years later, she applied for a promotion. Her supervisors turned her down, saying she lacked vision and leadership skills. They eventually gave the position to a gay woman who had been at the department for a shorter time and, unlike Ms. Ames, lacked a college degree.
Not long after denying her the new position, her supervisors removed her from her existing job, telling her that they had concerns about her leadership and offering her a demotion that came with a substantial pay cut. She was replaced by a gay man with less seniority.</blockquote>
Ames claimed that she was discriminated against because she was straight.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2212-member-exclusive?elementPosition=2&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Put aside the underlying facts of the case. The question here for the Supreme Court was whether she had to — as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals suggested —prove that she was a member of a minority or face a heightened standard because she wasn’t a member of a minority group.
<blockquote>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said she could have satisfied the “background circumstances” requirement by showing that decisions about her employment were made by “a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people)” or with statistical evidence. But the appeals court said Ms. Ames had provided neither kind of proof.</blockquote>
The underlying facts of the case are less relevant than the actual ruling, which says that yes, of course, you can be discriminated against if you&#8217;re a white, straight person. If you&#8217;re a member of a majority group, you can indeed be discriminated against.
That should not be a shock in any way, shape, or form.
Good for the Supreme Court for ruling correctly.
* * *
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a></h3>

US Supreme Court Slated To Issue Opinions As Term Nears End

Supreme Court Affirms: Discrimination Can Affect Majority Groups Too

Ben Shapiro

Discrimination

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Opinion

Sonia Sotomayor

Supreme Court

Whites

Women

Former first lady Michelle Obama said that a woman’s unique ability to grow a human life inside her body is “the least of” what the reproductive system is for.
Obama, a prominent Democrat and supporter of abortion, discussed her thoughts during an <a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/0SvVgcSCgmhJysFFOPU5hR">episode</a> of her “IMO with Michelle Obama &amp; Craig Robinson” podcast on Wednesday.
The “Becoming” author said that the &#8220;frustrating thing&#8221; is that the issue &#8220;has been reduced to a question of choice, as if that&#8217;s all of what women&#8217;s health is.&#8221;
&#8220;I attempted to make the argument on the campaign trail this past election that there&#8217;s just so much more at stake because so many men have no idea what women go through,&#8221; Obama said. &#8220;We haven&#8217;t been researched, we haven&#8217;t been considered, and it still affects the way a lot of men lawmakers, a lot of male politicians, a lot of male religious leaders think about the issue of choice, as if it&#8217;s just about the fetus, the baby.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
&#8220;Women&#8217;s reproductive health is about our life,” Obama added. “It&#8217;s about this whole complicated reproductive system that the least of what it does is produce life.”
She continued, “It&#8217;s a very important thing that it does, but you only produce life if the machine that&#8217;s producing it—if you want to whittle us down to a machine—if the machine is functioning in a healthy, streamlined kind of way. But there is no discussion or apparent connection between the two.&#8221;
The former first lady’s friend, OB/GYN Dr. Sharon Malone, was a guest on the episode. She agreed with Obama’s thoughts, saying, &#8220;one of the things that is disturbing&#8221; is that the &#8220;government has gotten involved in decisions that are personal and healthcare decisions.”
“It&#8217;s not just about whether someone chooses to have a pregnancy or not, but this is a situation where a woman should have control over her body—when and if to have a baby, and to decide how that pregnancy should continue,&#8221; she said.
At another point in the episode, Dr. Malone also mentioned a link between “older sperm” and “more autism.”
“They&#8217;ll never let that secret out. That may be the key behind all the defunding everything,&#8221; Michelle Obama replied. &#8220;Then old men can keep marrying 20-year-olds. It&#8217;s like, &#8216;I&#8217;ll give you the baby you want.'&#8221;

Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama Says Creating Life Is ‘The Least’ Of What A Woman’s Reproductive System Does

Michelle Obama Says Creating Life Is 'The Least' Of What A Woman's Reproductive System Does

Abortion

Podcast

Social Issues

U.S.

Women's Rights

Truly wise people have known for a long time that college doesn’t make you smarter – in fact, it usually has the opposite effect. But despite this reality, it’s always a little jarring when an institution of higher learning makes a mistake that any 3-year-old child could identify as wrong.
In today’s episode of You Can’t Make This Up, Smith College, an all-women’s school founded in 1871, just handed an honorary degree to Rachel Levine, a four-star admiral and former Assistant Secretary for Health who also happens to be a man formerly named Richard.
It&#8217;s a big slap in the face to feminists who have been fighting for “women’s rights” since the school’s founding. It’s also an affront to all the normies out there who can plainly view the difference between girls and boys. In the case of Smith College, the school’s entire existence hinges on celebrating women. So, you know, maybe they should be able to identify one. 
But these activists running our elite institutions have long since traded common sense for total fealty to radical Left-wing gender theory proponents. No wonder people have a negative view of college these days.
Women’s rights advocate Riley Gaines, who gained notoriety after speaking out against a male competing as a woman in college swimming, <a href="https://x.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1924202136625172482" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> about the controversy on X.
“Smith college, a private *women’s* college in Massachusetts, awarded Rachel (Richard) Levine an honorary degree today,” she said. “He then delivered the commencement address. Ladies, congratulations — your graduation was led by the very thing feminism was allegedly fighting.”
Smith College was actually one of the universities to roll out and develop a formal program for Gender studies! While Smith graduates are drowning in student debt and gender studies degrees, the administration is busy handing out honorary degrees to someone who declares himself to be a woman, regardless of biological reality. 
Jeremy’s Razors believes the truth still matters, and we know exactly what a woman is. We make razors for men who accept their manhood as the solemn duty that it is, and for women who are actually women. 
And while Smith College is handing out honorary degrees like a participation trophy to a man in a dress, <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jeremy’s Razors</a> is handing women the one thing the Left refuses to: reality. Our <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/collections/womens/products/womens-2nd-gen-1-1-starter-set?selling_plan=4057563349" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Women&#8217;s Razor</a> doesn’t care about “preferred” pronouns — it cares about giving you the closest, smoothest shave this side of sanity. Five blades. Aloe and Argan oil. A curvaceous handle that grips like truth in a world that keeps slipping into delusion. No lectures. No rainbow-washed pandering. Just the unapologetic femininity of a woman who knows who she is — and isn’t asking permission to be her. <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/collections/womens/products/womens-2nd-gen-1-1-starter-set?selling_plan=4057563349" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get the razor that still knows what a woman is.</a> Because biology isn’t bigotry, and we’re not playing pretend.
There’s no virtue signaling, no rainbow razors during pride month, and precisely zero charades involving gender swapping based on feelings. We don’t give out fake awards based on gender identity. Here you’ll find sharp blades, bold values, and the kind of sanity you won’t find on most college campuses.
Smith College is confused. The media, as always, is complicit. But <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jeremy’s Razors</a>? We’re standing on principle and declaring the truth. 
Stop giving your money to woke companies. <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Shave with Jeremy’s Razors instead</a>.
Jeremy&#8217;s Razors shares common ownership with The Daily Wire.

Rachel Levine

An All-Women’s School Doesn’t Know What A Woman Is

College

Jeremy's Razors

LGBT

Transgender

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton&#8217;s latest dig at Republican women made it clear that she has learned absolutely nothing from the massive wave of backlash that hit her after her 2016 comment referring to President Donald Trump&#8217;s supporters as a &#8220;basket of deplorables.&#8221;
Clinton sat down with Margaret Hoover for an interview in early May, and Hoover used the opportunity to ask the twice-failed Democratic presidential candidate what advice she might have for the first female President of the United States.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨NEW: Hillary Clinton appears to have learned nothing from her 2016 “basket of deplorables” remark — she just smeared nearly *all* Republican women as “HANDMAIDEN[S] TO THE PATRIARCHY”🚨<a href="https://twitter.com/DailyCaller?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DailyCaller</a> <a href="https://t.co/9rrFjDdO12">pic.twitter.com/9rrFjDdO12</a>
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/1924121589555007755?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 18, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Well,&#8221; Clinton began, and then there was a long pause before she added, &#8220;First of all, don’t be a handmaiden to the patriarchy, which kind of eliminates every woman on the other side of the aisle, except for very few.&#8221;
She named Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) as one example of a Republican woman who did not fit that particular description. Hoover suggested that former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) would be another.
&#8220;Yep, there&#8217;s a few,&#8221; Clinton continued. &#8220;Look, first we have to get there, and it is, you know, obviously so much harder than it should be. So, you know, if a woman runs who I think would be a good president, as I thought Kamala Harris would be and as I knew I would be, I will support that woman.&#8221;
Lily Tang Williams, Republican candidate for New Hampshire&#8217;s 2nd House District, fired back via X: &#8220;Hillary Clinton called Republican women &#8216;Handmaidens for the patriarchy.&#8217; What does she call her own party which supports men competing with women in women’s sports, hurting women &amp; invading their private spaces? Hypocrites!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Hillary Clinton called Republican women &#8220;Handmaidens for the patriarchy.&#8221;
What does she call her own party which supports men competing with women in women’s sports, hurting women &amp; invading their private spaces? Hypocrites! 
<a href="https://t.co/RZJTanBHuO">pic.twitter.com/RZJTanBHuO</a>
— Lily Tang Williams (@Lily4Liberty) <a href="https://twitter.com/Lily4Liberty/status/1924525967529136412?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Says GOP Women Are ‘Handmaidens To The Patriarchy’ — Except Two

Hillary Clinton Says GOP Women Are 'Handmaidens To The Patriarchy' — Except Two

Handmaid's Tale

Media

Patriarchy

Politics

Republicans

Dove is at it again. The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wokest-wash-around-heres-how-dove-has-pushed-woke-nonsense" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“woke” personal care company</a> was blasted on social media this week for appearing to use a male model to advertise women’s hair products.
In a six-second ad posted by Dove on Facebook in February, the model promotes the company’s “intensive repair” hair products, but social media users noticed that something was off.
“This is a real commercial by @Dove. Another woke company trying to erase women,” wrote Libs of TikTok.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is a real commercial by <a href="https://twitter.com/Dove?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Dove</a>
Another woke company trying to erase women.<a href="https://t.co/I0Dc21sTzO">pic.twitter.com/I0Dc21sTzO</a>
&mdash; Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) <a href="https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1922018165598441837?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On Facebook, Dove limited users’ ability to comment on the video. Most of the reactions to the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DoveUS/videos/1560468317995780/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">post</a> were the laughing emoji, and another big chunk of the reactions were the angry emoji.
<div id="attachment_919879" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-919879" class="wp-image-919879 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/Screenshot-2025-05-13-at-4.48.40%E2%80%AFPM-1024x516.png" alt="Dove advertisment" width="1024" height="516" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/Screenshot-2025-05-13-at-4.48.40%E2%80%AFPM-1024x516.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/Screenshot-2025-05-13-at-4.48.40%E2%80%AFPM-300x151.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/Screenshot-2025-05-13-at-4.48.40%E2%80%AFPM-768x387.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/Screenshot-2025-05-13-at-4.48.40%E2%80%AFPM.png 1206w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot: Dove/Facebook</div>
Dove did not respond to a request to comment. 
Dove, which falls under the umbrella of uber-woke mega corporation <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ben-jerrys-sues-woke-unilever-over-alleged-censorship-of-its-leftist-views?author=Daily+Wire+Shop&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=42&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Ben+%26+Jerry%E2%80%99s+Sues+Woke+Unilever+Over+Alleged+Censorship+Of+Its+Leftist+Views" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Unilever</a>, has a history of using trans-identifying men to portray women in advertisements. For example, in 2017, Dove featured a man who claimed to be a woman in a <a href="https://www.allure.com/story/dove-realmoms-transgender-mom" target="_blank" rel="noopener">commercial</a> about mothers. Dove’s #RealMoms commercial showed Shea, a man, alongside his spouse and baby. 
“You get people who are like, ‘What do you mean you’re the mom?’” Shea says in the commercial. “We’re like, ‘Yep, we’re both gonna be moms.’”
After Dove’s latest stunt, many people on social media said this was the last straw for them. 
“I don’t buy their products, but my wife does. I guarantee you she won’t be buying any more  @Dove products after I show her this commercial. Didn’t Bud Light teach anybody anything?” <a href="https://x.com/HaveBlue77/status/1922024678790414341" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> X user HaveBlue77. 
“I always buy Dove soap, shampoo, and conditioner. Time for a change,” <a href="https://x.com/darkangelradfem/status/1922301299271315631" target="_blank" rel="noopener">added</a> @darkangelradfem. 
Another social media user, @King_ape6 <a href="https://x.com/king_ape6/status/1922018718151745909" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>, “Good thing I use @JeremysRazors products.” 
That is a good thing. Because Jeremy’s Razors will never go along with the lie that men can be women. It’s offensive and just plain wrong. 
And Jeremy’s Razors offers a bevy of alternatives to all the woke products in your bathroom, including <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/collections/fathers-day" target="_blank" rel="noopener">razors, shave cream, shampoo, body wash, and deodorant.</a> <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/collections/fathers-day" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Right now, you can save up to 47% off on Jeremy’s Razors as we celebrate Father’s Day.</a> Men and <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/collections/womens" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Women</a> deserve a personal care company that respects them for who they are and doesn’t pretend that any hairy dude can just choose to identify as the finer sex.
Jeremy&#8217;s Razors shares common ownership with The Daily Wire.

Soap

Dove Slammed For Using Masculine Model To Advertise Women’s Products … Again

Dove

Wokeness

I have spent a lot of time covering psychiatric drugs like SSRIs. The problem with these drugs is that they&#8217;re incredibly potent, potentially dangerous, and they effect the mind in ways that the doctors prescribing them don&#8217;t fully understand. And all of these problems are compounded by the fact that they are increasingly easy to obtain. In fact, as the problems with psychiatric medications become more evident, the barriers to access them only become lower. It seems that things should be working the opposite way. But that&#8217;s how it goes now. If you want to get a highly potent, dangerous, mind altering drug, you can. In fact, you probably don&#8217;t even have to leave your house.
This trend is becoming more and more common with an ever increasing array of drugs. They are very easy to get, there is very little oversight, and you don&#8217;t have to leave your house to obtain them. This is a major problem that will require all kinds of legislation to fix. But there are some steps we can, and must, take immediately to address the problem of fraudulent, life-altering drugs being handed out in large quantities to young people, basically on demand. One of those steps is to defund some of the largest distributors of these life-altering drugs, which is something that should&#8217;ve happened a long time ago.
If we can’t ban these people from operating outright, then at the very least, we should stop giving them money and tax breaks. What&#8217;s happening is a genuine crisis — and it&#8217;s not limited to SSRIs. It extends to a whole host of other drugs as well. And a new investigation by Live Action, the pro-life nonprofit, has just brought renewed urgency to this crisis, and how completely out-of-control the problem really is.
Here is part of an undercover investigation by Live Action, where they contacted various Planned Parenthood locations posing as a 16-year-old girl. And in these conversations, Live Action&#8217;s 16-year-old girl requests &#8220;gender-affirming care,&#8221; including cross-sex hormones. And Planned Parenthood responds by saying this is completely fine. They say they&#8217;ll do it virtually, over Zoom or something like that. And then they suggest that, if the girl goes to a clinic in-person, she doesn&#8217;t need to be accompanied by her mother in the examination room. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
BREAKING: New investigation from <a href="https://twitter.com/LiveAction?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@LiveAction</a> exposes Planned Parenthood for prescribing cross-sex hormones to MINORS using virtual appointments
Planned Parenthood needs to be investigated and defunded NOW.<a href="https://t.co/QsLTPIsQgj">pic.twitter.com/QsLTPIsQgj</a>
&mdash; Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) <a href="https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1920217291511288102?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This footage is part of an extensive <a href="https://www.liveaction.org/news/new-report-case-defunding-planned-parenthood/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.liveaction.org/news/new-report-case-defunding-planned-parenthood/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1746900283197000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1UnEno3qo6_DScSrBrIbmc">investigation</a> by Live Action into Planned Parenthood. The full <a href="https://www.liveaction.org/case-for-defunding-planned-parenthood/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.liveaction.org/case-for-defunding-planned-parenthood/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1746900283197000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0BHIgVXNdhMvnIkjrauySg">report</a> was just released this week. To put things in context, Planned Parenthood is the leading abortion mill in the country. They commit roughly 40% of the abortion in this country, all by themselves. And they receive something like $700 million from taxpayers every year.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1593-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
So what exactly is that money buying, aside from abortions and irreversible drugs for children? According to Live Action, citing various investigations, it&#8217;s allowing Planned Parenthood to traffic in human body parts, commit all kinds of health code and privacy violations, and engage in anti-white racism at all levels of its operation. The entire report is available online if you want to view it, and you should. I will simply highlight this one section in particular:
<blockquote>At least 40,000 patients went to Planned Parenthood for &#8216;gender affirming care&#8217; in 2023 alone, a number that has risen tenfold since 2017. The largest proportion, about 40 percent, were 18-to-22-year-olds.</blockquote>
According to Live Action, 45 out of Planned Parenthood&#8217;s 49 affiliated facilities provide this so-called &#8220;care,&#8221; and Planned Parenthood is now the second-largest provider of so-called &#8220;gender-affirming hormones&#8221; in the United States.
The report continues:
<blockquote>Planned Parenthood targets minors for gender-affirming care by disseminating pro-transgender ideology online and in schools. It has also stated that it would like to expand its gender-affirming care to a greater number of minors.</blockquote>
The report cites a video from Planned Parenthood, in which the organization claims that puberty blockers are, &#8220;like a stop sign&#8221; that pauses puberty without any potential side-effects. Planned Parenthood also provides sex education materials to elementary schools, according to this report, including, &#8220;information about puberty blockers and graphics of pubic hair art.&#8221;
In some cases, Live Action notes that Planned Parenthood was caught referring a 14-year-old undercover actor for &#8220;gender-affirming&#8221; treatments at another organization, so that he could hide his so-called &#8220;transition&#8221; from his parents. It goes on and on. Every page of this report is extremely difficult to read, and it&#8217;s all very damning. Even if you put all of the baby murder to the side — which you can&#8217;t, because that&#8217;s still obviously the most evil thing this organization does — but even if you did somehow forget about that, Planned Parenthood still remains one of the most evil organizations in the country. Their explicit goal is to permanently alter the lives of young people with surgeries and hormones, long before they&#8217;re able to consent to anything like this. And as the report outlines, half the time, they don&#8217;t even follow their own protocols, as limited as they are.
What&#8217;s left unanswered, in all of this, is why Planned Parenthood still receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. Republicans control Congress and the White House. So why the hell are we still sending so much money to these butchers? To be clear, as Live Action&#8217;s report outlines, you probably don&#8217;t even need legislation to stop this funding. There are dozens of violations listed in this report, which documents Planned Parenthood&#8217;s issues with patient privacy, fraud, trafficking of fetal remains, and so on. All of these problems, by themselves, are grounds for an executive order shutting down the funding immediately. But that hasn&#8217;t happened yet. And Congress hasn&#8217;t done anything either. Nor have they done anything about the mass prescription of SSRIs.
To be clear, Planned Parenthood should be forcible shut down, by law. The whole organization should be banned and all of its executives and employees at every level of the company should be put on trial for crimes against humanity. There should be a Nuremberg for Planned Parenthood executives. But that is not likely to happen any time soon. There are a lot of things that should happen but won&#8217;t, and this is number one on that list. So defunding them is the bare minimum. It’s not even close to the full extent of what should be done to shut down these butchers and child abusers and bring them to justice. It&#8217;s just the most meager first step. It&#8217;s the step where we at least stop forcing Americans to fund these psychopaths. And yet we haven’t even done that. Republicans control the federal government and yet somehow we are still sending hundreds of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood.
Why? What is the reason? What is the negative consequence of defunding them? The Left will be mad? The media will complain? The activists will shriek and sing protests songs in the street? That last thing is pretty painful, I admit. But is in any of that enough to override the great moral necessity of defunding an organization that kills and castrates children? Obviously not. Especially because the protesters will be shrieking anyway. The media will complain regardless. The Left will stay mad no matter what. They’re going to cry. We might as well give them something real to cry about.
That&#8217;s not to say the Republicans in Congress haven&#8217;t done anything at all. They&#8217;re technically showing up to work even though it&#8217;s not exactly ground-breaking stuff. But it&#8217;s well past time for elected Republican representatives, along with the White House, to take decisive action on the ghouls and butchers who call themselves healthcare providers. If we can defund NPR — and the White House says we can — then we can defund these abortionists too. And we can stop corporations from distributing psychoactive drugs like they&#8217;re candy, while we&#8217;re at it. This is what we voted for.

US-POLITICS-JUSTICE-RIGHTS-ABORTION

Disturbing Investigation Into Planned Parenthood Reveals Shocking New Details

Congress

Gender

gender-affirming care

Libs of Tik Tok

Live Action

Matt Walsh

Planned Parenthood

Pregnancy

Teenagers

Normally when some influencer posts a video that I find annoying and I feel the need to respond to it, I save it for my Daily Cancellation segment. Today, however, I am going to break that rule. I am going to begin with a video from an allegedly conservative influencer named Emily Wilson.
What makes this video relevant, aside from the fact that it just simply annoys me, is that it echoes a message we’ve been hearing with increasing frequency from women on the Right with, in some cases, very large platforms. Emily’s platform isn’t very large, but it is sizable enough. She has half a million followers on Instagram. I’m sure she’s a nice person. I don’t know her and have no issue with her personally. But she represents a growing, or at least increasingly evident, problem on the Right. The problem, in a word, is feminism.
Feminism is not compatible with any meaningful definition of conservatism. Whatever conservatism is trying to conserve — like marriage, the family, western civilization itself — feminism militates against. And yet many feminists have become mouthpieces in the movement, and are accepted as such, as long as they wear a MAGA hat and say that they don’t like illegal immigration or whatever.
So with that in mind, let’s listen to just the latest submission to the ever expanding conservative feminist genre:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Not to pick on <a href="https://twitter.com/emilysavesusa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@emilysavesusa</a> because I’ve been seeing a lot of girls on the right counter signaling the ‘trad’ stay at home mom lifestyle lately also, but I think this message is ridiculous.
Being a SAHM is not being ‘trapped’ by a man. That’s feminist BS. It’s also not… <a href="https://t.co/2iiwnYCb0T">pic.twitter.com/2iiwnYCb0T</a>
&mdash; Sarah Stock ✟ (@sarahcstock) <a href="https://twitter.com/sarahcstock/status/1917844165893018047?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Well, I am cringing. But not because of the trad wives. I’m cringing at this lame, half-baked attack on stay-at-home moms. And I’m cringing even more at the fact that women with these kinds of views are still embraced as “conservative.”
Try to imagine the opposite of this. Imagine a Left-wing influencer who advocates for every Left-wing policy under the sun but then comes out one day and says, “You know what? I think a woman’s proper place is in the home, raising her children.” It’s impossible to conceive of any Left-wing woman ever saying such a thing. And if she did, she would be immediately excised from the movement. That’s because leftists understand that supporting so-called traditional gender roles is fundamentally antithetical to their worldview. You literally cannot be a leftist and hold that view.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1588-member-exclusive?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
The same is logically true in the reverse. Attacking gender roles is fundamentally leftist. Which means you cannot be conservative if you hold fundamentally leftist views. You have every right to express those views. But you should not be embraced as a conservative, much less listened to as a spokeswoman for the movement. 
Now let’s go through some of the specifics here. Emily says that a woman should have a job and her own income so that she isn’t “trapped” by a man. She envisions the relationship between husband and wife as inherently competitive. Marriage is a zero sum game where both husband and wife are competing for control. Again, this is a fundamentally leftist conception. It is a recipe for divorce. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with a wife earning money. As I’ve conceded many times, a family may feel that they need two incomes in order to survive. Or they may want a second income. Or the wife might have a job that doesn’t require leaving the house and going to an office every day. But if she’s earning money as an escape hatch because she doesn’t want to be “trapped,” that is a very bad sign.
If you want to understand why it’s a bad sign just imagine how it would sound if a man adopted this philosophy. A woman on X commented yesterday that a wife needs a “backup in case their man can’t fulfill his providing roles.”
Well what if a man decided to have a back up in case his woman didn’t fulfill her wifely duties? Most people would find that objectionable, for good reason. The whole point of marriage is that you are devoting yourself entirely to your spouse. Two become one flesh. It is not possible to make that level of commitment while at the same time actively building yourself a nest egg just in case you want to leave. Saying the vows and pledging yourself to your betrothed means not having an exit plan. It means you burn the boats like Cortés and turn towards that wilderness and journey into it together, come what may.
She also says that men want to be mentally stimulated. The implication is that stay-at-home moms are too stupid to provide that sort of stimulation because all they think about is their “sourdough bread.”
This is absurdly dismissive and insulting to millions of good, godly, intelligent women who, while staying home with the children, are also capable of having intelligent conversations with their husbands. It also assumes that a woman who sits in a cubicle all day will somehow have more interesting things to say to her husband at the end of the day. Having a job as a woman does not make you smart or interesting. I hate to break it to the working women of the world, but your husband is almost certainly not intellectually stimulated by your job or your stories about your job. If he was able to choose between listening to a story about your office drama or listening to a story about what you did with the kids that day, he would prefer to hear about the latter. This is the sort of thing you would know about men if you listened to them when they try to tell you what they want, instead of declaring what you think they should want.
But the biggest problem — and the objection you hear most often from these feminist types — is the claim that somehow the stay-at-home mom arrangement is implausible, or even impossible. Emily declares that your chances of finding a man who can provide for you while you stay home and raise the children are, “Slim to none. Actually none,” she says. There&#8217;s no chance that it works out for you. There’s no chance that it works out for you or anyone you know. And yet it has worked out for countless people. It’s worked out for my wife. It’s worked out for many families that I know personally. It’s worked out for billions of human beings across the globe and through history since the dawn of civilization. Emily has written off the most normal and historically common practice as not just difficult but, according to her, literally impossible. And not just impossible, but also absurd and grotesque.
There’s a lot of this kind of thing going around. During my conversation with Tucker Carlson this week, we talked about the absurdity of gay adoption and gay parenthood.
Here&#8217;s a clip of that exchange that Tucker&#8217;s team posted:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Should gay couples be able to adopt? Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson discuss. <a href="https://t.co/q3I5vRRzVF">pic.twitter.com/q3I5vRRzVF</a>
&mdash; Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) <a href="https://twitter.com/TCNetwork/status/1918058750692180235?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Plenty of people on the Right, or Right-adjacent, took great exception to this. Glenn Greenwald is one of them. He tweeted in response: 
<blockquote>One has to be morally deranged — or totally ignorant of the grim realities of kids lingering without parents in orphanages, shelters and foster care, only to be expelled at 18 with no support — to believe that that dark hell is better for kids than being adopted by gay couples.</blockquote>
Morally deranged, he says. The view that two men should not be allowed to adopt children was held by nearly everyone in this country, and everyone across the world, until very recently. Barack Obama was against gay adoption when he first ran for president. So was every other elected Democrat. Any elected Democrat over the age of 50 was probably, at one point, opposed to both gay marriage and gay adoption. In fact, gay adoption was so obviously wrong to so many people for so long that it wasn&#8217;t even discussed. It wasn&#8217;t debated. It was just intuitively understood that children need a mother and a father. We won’t let two men adopt children for the same reason that we wouldn’t let a polyamorous polycule adopt a child. Children need a mother and a father. We are not going to deliberately put a child into a disordered environment where he is not only deprived of a mother or a father, but the role of mother or father has been replaced in an unnatural and confusing way.
This was always understood. Now, in the blink of an eye, what was always understood is &#8220;morally deranged.” The thing that everyone believed forever until approximately last Tuesday is not just wrong but shocking and upsetting and baffling. This is the game that&#8217;s played. And I, for one, am entirely sick of it.
Not everything that is old or traditional is automatically good, of course. Slavery is old and traditional — and still practiced in non-western countries. It&#8217;s also very bad. But there are basic truths about how human society is fundamentally structured. Truths that have withstood the test of time. Truths that have, while civilization held fast to them, it flourished and advanced in remarkable and seemingly miraculous ways. Truths that, minutes after our society abandoned, immediately led to decline and chaos and confusion. One of those truths is that a child needs a mother and a father. Only a man and a woman can have a baby, or should. Another one of those truths is that men and women are different, and so have different roles in the home and in society. This was an idea so basic that there wasn&#8217;t even a term for it. We only started labeling it &#8220;gender roles&#8221; at the moment that we decided to abandon it. And I would say that the results of that decision have not been good. Divorce, broken homes, declining birth rates, 60 million dead babies. And those are just the early returns.
That’s why we cannot be embarrassed to hold to a system that is ancient and timeless, and proven, tested, and vindicated by the testimony of our ancestors and by thousands of years of human experience beyond that. As conservatives, if that is not worth conserving, then nothing is.

Three businesswomen walking together in an office

Why ‘Conservative Feminism’ Is A Total Lie

Why 'Conservative Feminism' Is A Total Lie

Chemotherapy

Conservatives

Family Values

Fathers

Feminism

Husband

Marriage

Parenting

Social Media

Poorly equipped, unsanitary, and understaffed facilities. A sewage leak caused patients to vomit. Positive sexually transmitted infection results went unreported. 
The New York Times gave a shocking <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/us/planned-parenthood-clinics.html">glimpse</a> behind the curtain of Planned Parenthood. Although the legacy media usually defends and promotes the largest U.S. provider of abortion (nearly <a href="https://cdn.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/ec/f4/ecf43d92-fcd2-4d11-b299-e67b5c3ac394/2024-ppfa-annualreport-c3-digital.pdf">39%</a> of <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states">all</a> abortions in our country), some things are too egregious to ignore. 
This is what Planned Parenthood dispenses under the guise of providing “necessary women’s health care.” 
These grotesque lapses aren’t due to a lack of funding, but a lack of desire to provide quality care. According to its 2022-2023 annual <a href="https://cdn.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/ec/f4/ecf43d92-fcd2-4d11-b299-e67b5c3ac394/2024-ppfa-annualreport-c3-digital.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a>, the collective organization received over $2 billion in income, including $699.3 million in taxpayer funding and $997.5 million in private donations. Yet, they don’t prioritize “care, no matter what,” as their advertising claims. Instead, they funnel money into lawsuits and to loyal politicians, spending nearly <a href="https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/tipsheets/the-quickie-planned-parenthood-votes-launches-2024-electoral-program" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$40 million</a> in the 2024 election cycle.
Their goal is to overturn any limitations on abortion, even <a href="https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/types-attacks/trap-laws" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arguing against</a> basic safety standards that would improve care for the women Planned Parenthood claims to be concerned about.
I have seen the disintegration of Planned Parenthood’s mission firsthand, as I worked part-time for a local Planned Parenthood while I was an OB-GYN resident 30 years ago. At the time, I wasn’t concerned with my ideological differences on the abortion issue, especially since they never asked me to perform abortions. I enjoyed my time there, caring for underserved women, performing necessary gynecologic services such as pap tests, well-woman exams, STI testing, and contraceptive management. Like many Americans, I assumed that abortion was only a small part of the services they provided, and that other services were addressing women’s needs. 
When I compare Planned Parenthood’s 1996-1997 annual report, which coincides with my employment there, to today, their mission is clearly more focused on abortion to the neglect of other services. Whereas they provided 1.5 million pap tests in 1996, that has plummeted by 87% to 197,617 in 2022. Adoption referrals dropped 72%, from 6,274 to 1,721. 14,292 prenatal clients have decreased to 6,316 prenatal services.
Meanwhile, the number of abortions they sell rises every year, from 153,367 in 1996 (11.3% of the 1,366,000 abortions performed that year, <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/1998/11/abortion-incidence-and-services-united-states-1995-1996" target="_blank" rel="noopener">per</a> Guttmacher Institute) to 392,715 of the estimated one million abortions sold in the U.S. in 2022 (39%). Planned Parenthood only has a few options to resolve a woman&#8217;s pregnancy: prenatal services, adoption, miscarriage care, and abortion. <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2022-23-annual-report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">97%</a> of the time, she&#8217;s sold an abortion. As an organization, then, Planned Parenthood appears to care far less about helping women through their pregnancies or plans for adoption than they do about selling women abortions. 
My recent experiences with Planned Parenthood are far different from my impression three decades ago. As an obstetric hospitalist, I have provided care for several women who suffered complications from the abortions Planned Parenthood sold them. In each case, Planned Parenthood failed to offer them an appointment or offered nonsensical advice like “rub your tummy” when they reported heavy bleeding.
But don’t just take my word for it. The media have been recently sharing horror stories highlighting their poor-quality care.
We’ve seen the stories of incomplete abortions, an IUD placed in a pregnant woman resulting in a stillbirth, and an improperly placed contraceptive which resulted in nerve damage, reported in an exposé by The New York Times.
18-year-old Alexis Arguello <a href="https://catholicvote.org/investigation-teen-dies-from-planned-parenthood-abortion-complication/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recently died</a> after a late-term abortion at a Fort Collins, CO, Planned Parenthood. According to a physician who testified about her death, the facility waited too long to notify emergency responders when she experienced a complication during her abortion at 22 weeks’ gestation. EMS was allegedly advised not to use sirens to facilitate her rapid transport to the hospital.
Instances of Planned Parenthood employees <a href="https://lawecommons.luc.edu/annals/vol23/iss1/5/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">failing</a> to ask questions to identify and assist trafficked women and facilitating transport of minors out of state for abortions without parental notification have been documented many times.
Since Planned Parenthood facilities are preferentially providing abortion drugs, frequently by mail, women can’t go to them if they experience complications. Instead, these women will go to the ER, where hospitalists like me will care for them. And even if a Planned Parenthood facility were nearby, they would be incapable of providing proper treatment.
Planned Parenthood marketing has successfully gaslit Americans, convincing them that desperate women would have no health care options without Planned Parenthood. This is untrue. There are thousands of federally qualified health center service sites (FQHCs) in the U.S., providing many health services for women in need. Medicaid health insurance is accepted by most private health care providers, expanding the options for women, and also providing the prenatal services that Planned Parenthood rarely provides.
We must look beyond Planned Parenthood’s slick marketing and gaze into the soul of this heartless organization. Better care is available for women from other organizations, and women deserve better than what Planned Parenthood offers.
* * *
By Dr. Ingrid Skop, M.D., FACOG, Vice President and Director of Medical Affairs for Charlotte Lozier Institute.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

US-VOTE-POLITICS-DEMOCRATIC-CONVENTION

Gaslighting Women: It’s Time To Look Past Planned Parenthood’s Slick Marketing

Doctors

Federal Government

The New York Times

Right now, there is a bill headed to President Trump’s desk that will protect Americans from deepfake and revenge pornography. This is an incredible win for Americans, and something I have been fighting for my entire career. 
Over decades in the cybersecurity field, I’ve helped solve a lot of crises for government agencies, major corporations and more. But there’s a certain kind of call that I still dread getting. It starts with a trembling voice on the other end of the line: “Can you help me?” As they tell their tale, my heart sinks. A lump forms in my throat. This is another life shattered by explicit images strewn across the digital public square, each notification on their phone another dagger into their sense of safety as the image spreads.
For years, my team and I have made a point to fight for these survivors. We make calls, write letters, beg social media giants to remove the content – real photos stolen from private moments or deepfakes conjured by AI’s dark alchemy. This crime is indiscriminate. It targets the socialites, the professionals, rising stars, the rich and the poor. One professional athlete, a courageous woman I helped, saw her stolen images resurface dozens of times over several years. She told me it made her want to stop leaving her house. Even Scarlett Johansson — a global icon with every possible resource at her fingertips — can’t banish her deepfakes for good. If she’s powerless, what chance do everyday victims have? They have to watch their trauma go viral, reliving it with every view. Some, in desperation, have taken their own lives.
There are different ways to refer to this phenomenon. Terms like “revenge porn” and “deepfake” are often used interchangeably. “Deepfake” describes a specific kind of AI-produced image that usually uses a reproduction of a real person’s face. I reject “revenge porn” because while it may sound edgy in headlines, it re-victimizes the victim. People take intimate images of themselves for all kinds of reasons, from self-confidence to sharing with someone they trust. That may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it doesn’t make it okay to share those peoples’ images without their consent in ways for which they weren’t intended. That’s why I refer to these pictures or videos as non-consensual intimate images, or NCII.
It wasn’t that long ago that pornography hid behind brown wrappers and clerks who checked IDs before you bought it. Now, anyone can steal an image, fabricate a lie, and blast it worldwide at lightning speed. The Cyber Civil Rights Initiative estimates over 15 million Americans – that’s 1 out of every 23 of us – have faced NCII sharing, a number that continues to balloon as AI fuels the carnage. Deepfakes — 98% pornographic, 99% targeting women — number in the hundreds of thousands, with just 16 sites known for hosting them racking up 200 million visits in a six-month period last year.
Social media companies can do better. It’s the right thing to do, and they have the technology to do it. If their algorithm can figure out my favorite shoe color and relentlessly sell them to me, they should be able to address this plague across their platforms. They are making some efforts. Meta removed 1.2 million NCII items in 2024’s first half, but gaps persist. And it’s not entirely the fault of the platforms themselves. 

A tangle of laws and regulations used to combat NCII sharing makes the process slower and more difficult. A 2024 study found that X (formerly Twitter) left 25 reported deepfakes up for weeks, while removing copyright violations in hours – a stark sign that today’s laws prioritize property over people. YouTube and TikTok axe millions of videos over copyright claims, yet billions of views on deepfake sites reveal a glaring chasm. Victims currently have to navigate a maze of rules, pleading to faceless systems with no human to hear their pain and no guarantees the images will come down.
That’s why their haunting words echo in my mind: “Can you help me?” Yes, I can. But my team can’t chase resurgent ghosts across the internet forever.
Thankfully, Washington has woken up to the crisis. The &#8216;Take It Down Act&#8221; makes publishing non-consensual intimate imagery — real or AI-crafted — a federal crime and requires platforms to remove it within 48 hours of a victim’s plea. The bill’s sponsors are Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Amy Klobuchar – both outspoken, prominent members of their parties who have run for president in recent years. They have very little in common politically – although they are both parents of daughters. But they worked together to secure an astounding unanimous vote to pass the bill in the Senate. And this week, thankfully, it received an overwhelming victory in the House and is now headed to President Trump’s desk.
Critics, many from the libertarian tech crowd, claim the &#8220;Take It Down Act&#8221; stifles free speech, but protecting victims from abuse isn’t censorship — it’s justice. It helps the rule of law catch up with the pace of technology. It’s not about politics, it’s about people. By one estimate, over 4 million American children have been scarred by AI porn fakes of themselves or peers. The NCII porn pirates don’t care who you vote for – they will strike your family, your friends, your coworkers. The sensible updates to our laws included in the &#8220;Take It Down Act&#8221; will help us protect ourselves and each other. This is a victory worth celebrating.
* * *
Theresa Payton is the CEO of Fortalice Solutions. She was the first female White House chief information officer, serving under President George W. Bush.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

Senators Cruz And Lummis Hold Press Conference To Discuss Deepfakes

‘Can You Help Me?’ Why The ‘Take It Down Act’ Is A Lifeline For Victims

'Can You Help Me?' Why The 'Take It Down Act' Is A Lifeline For Victims

Artificial Intelligence

Deepfake

Melania Trump

Pornography

President Trump

Scarlett Johansson

Technology

White House

Detransitioner Claire Abernathy hadn’t even made it to high school yet when her doctors encouraged her to undergo a double mastectomy. Despite <a href="https://www.iwf.org/2025/04/28/new-identity-crisis-documentary-mother-and-daughter-expose-medical-industrys-transgender-manipulation-and-lies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">her concerns</a> about the procedure, her mother, Carrie, was told that affirming Claire’s gender identity was the only way to prevent her from killing herself.
Now, years later, both mother and daughter <a href="https://www.iwf.org/2025/04/28/new-identity-crisis-documentary-mother-and-daughter-expose-medical-industrys-transgender-manipulation-and-lies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opened up</a> to IW Features about how the medical system manipulated them into making permanent and irreversible decisions — the consequences of which they are still grappling with today.
The worst part? They’re not alone.
The Abernathy family is part of a growing segment of our population coming to terms with the damage done by gender ideologues. Hopefully, they will serve as inspiration for other families fighting not just gender confusion, but a manipulative industry that turns this confusion into profit.
The adolescent brain is a work in progress. We all know this to be true — after all, why else would we restrict young men and women from getting a tattoo until they’ve turned 18 or from purchasing alcohol until they’ve turned 21? It doesn’t matter how much a kid feels like an “old soul.” A young person’s prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for decision-making and impulse control, continues to <a href="https://hillcrestatc.com/teen-brain-development/">mature</a> well into their mid-20s.
Because teens go through this lengthy, often angsty developmental stage, they’re that much more susceptible to risk-taking behaviors and less capable of fully understanding long-term consequences. This is why <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one in five</a> teen drivers involved in a fatal crash had some alcohol in their system — because teens are more likely to underestimate the effects of alcohol on their bodies and overestimate their ability to drive inebriated. Similarly, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.soscij.2016.08.004" target="_blank" rel="noopener">studies</a> show that as many as one-third of tattooed adolescents regret inking up their bodies. And unsurprisingly, <a href="https://www.mdedge.com/psychiatry/article/98697/dermatology/teenage-tattoos-are-most-often-regretted" target="_blank" rel="noopener">research</a> indicates that the younger a teen is when they get a tattoo, the more likely they are to regret it later.
So why aren’t America’s trusted, highly esteemed medical professionals drawing the same conclusions about so-called “gender-affirming” procedures? While comprehensive data on regret following medical interventions in gender-confused minors is still emerging, stories like Claire’s are proof that medicalization can and does have victims. At least if you cop some bad ink, you might be able to get it <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/snl-pete-davidson-spending-six-figures-remove-all-tattoos" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lasered off</a> later. But the permanence of gender-affirming procedures adds a sickening layer of complexity and potential for regret.
Teens might swear up and down they know what they want with their lives, like an unattainable dream job or goals to jet-set around the world childless and unbothered. But I’m willing to bet that teens can, and often will, change their minds. I know I did. If you asked 16-year-old Andrea if she wanted to get married and have children, she would have laughed in your face. And, if you asked her if she felt comfortable in her female body, she probably would have similarly scoffed.
Puberty is a really rough time for any young person. That’s not only something Claire expressed to me during her interview, but it’s a reality I have lived myself. I can recall the first conscious moment I felt insecure about my body: I was in elementary school, watching a movie starring young Lindsay Lohan, and I saw how her thighs didn’t touch when she sat down on a car seat.
<a href="https://depts.washington.edu/thmedia/view.cgi?page=fastfacts&amp;section=bodyimage">Studies</a> show that as many as 40% of nine and 10-year-old girls are already trying to lose weight, and as many as 70% of normal-weight teen girls <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/many-normal-weight-teens-feel-fat/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">think</a> they’re overweight. Should parents of young girls who wrongfully believe they are fat indulge their child’s delusions and allow her to diet, or worse, get liposuction? If that sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is.
Yet, that’s exactly what the medical and entertainment industries are telling parents of gender-confused children that they must do.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Identity Crisis: Mother and Daughter Expose Medical Industry&#039;s Transgender Lies" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nj1OUvFZM4A?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In my home state of California, $28,890,512 has been spent on youth “transgender” medical interventions, according to <a href="https://stoptheharmdatabase.com/state/california/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">StopTheHarm</a>. Ethically speaking, plastic surgeons are supposed to assess the physical and emotional maturity of teen patients before they go under the knife for cosmetic procedures. So why does nearly every story of detransition reveal that medical professionals rarely, if ever, address underlying psychological issues — Borderline Personality Disorder, ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, etc. — in gender-confused youth ? And why is it that the only solution offered by most medical professionals is for these youth to have their healthy body parts modified?
And what can parents realistically do? Carrie’s experience reminds me of the old adage: Mother knows best. She knew something was off when the medical professionals rushed to transition her daughter, but was guilt-tripped and persuaded into proceeding with medicalization.
Looking back, Carrie said she realizes she should have trusted her parental intuition. Parents are often the first line of defense in protecting their child’s well-being. They should feel empowered to trust those instincts, especially when it comes to irreversible medical decisions. Carrie said it best when speaking with me: “You are the expert on your own child.”
Indeed, the Abernathy story is a timely reminder of the very real consequences of sidelining parental concerns and the dire importance of scrutinizing medical practices that clearly prioritize profit and ideology over patient well-being.
* * *
Andrea Mew is the managing editor of Independent Women Features. She is the producer of its new <a href="https://youtu.be/nj1OUvFZM4A" target="_blank" rel="noopener">documentary</a> “Identity Crisis: Mother and Daughter Expose Medical Industry&#8217;s Transgender Lies” and the author of the related breaking <a href="https://www.iwfeatures.com/documentary/detransitioner-and-mother-were-sold-the-lie-of-gender-transition-now-theyre-exposing-the-real-costs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">feature article</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Rear view of mother and daughter embracing sitting on bed

‘I Feel Robbed’: After A Double Mastectomy At 14, This Detransitioner Is Speaking Out

Gender Identity

gender ideology

Medical

transgender surgery

Normally, I don&#8217;t consider myself much of a trendsetter, especially when it comes to the online discourse among middle-aged cosmopolitan liberal women. To the extent that these people talk about me at all, it&#8217;s usually to call me a misogynist or to praise my brief appearance on &#8220;Dancing with the Stars.&#8221; In any event, on a typical day, they certainly aren&#8217;t reading my social media feeds and watching my podcast in order to pick up new lingo. We can be certain of that much.
So I was more than a little surprised to see an article that was just published by The Guardian, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">entitled</a>, &#8220;Now comes the ‘womanosphere’: the anti-feminist media telling women to be thin, fertile and Republican.&#8221; According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this article</a>, the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; is: 
<blockquote>&#8220;An organized effort to create &#8230; an alternative rightwing media ecosystem targeting young female US audiences – one of the few demographics that has, until now, leaned substantially Democratic.
This new &#8216;womanosphere&#8217; includes Brett Cooper’s channel as well as lifestyle magazines like the Conservateur and Evie, Candace Owens’s Club Candace, Alex Clark’s Maha (“Make America Healthy Again”) talkshow Culture Apothecary, conservative Christian influencer Allie Beth Stuckey’s Relatable, and swimmer turned anti-transgender activist Riley Gaines’s podcast Gaines For Girls.&#8221;</blockquote>
Before we get into the substance of this article, such as it is, I need to pull up something I wrote online a few weeks ago. <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1907550102605946958" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Here&#8217;s what I wrote</a> at the time: 
<blockquote>We hear a lot about the &#8216;manosphere.&#8217;I think it’s time we start talking about the womansphere and the corrosive effect that these shrill, toxic feminist influencers are having on the minds of young women and their marriages.</blockquote>
So there you have it. Long before The Guardian demanded that everyone start talking about the &#8220;womanosphere,&#8221; I was demanding a public conversation about the &#8220;womansphere.&#8221; All they did was add an &#8220;o&#8221; in the middle, to change womansphere to woman-o-sphere, and then they completely changed the meaning of the word, as I was using it. To me, the womansphere are the anti-man, bitter feminists on TikTok. To them, the womanosphere is a collection of the most normal, and pleasant women you’ll ever meet. And of course the other problem is that no one at The Guardian knows what the word &#8220;woman&#8221; means. But other than that, you can&#8217;t deny the striking similarity between these two made-up words. If The Guardian actually made any money, this is the part where I&#8217;d start demanding royalties. But in this case, I&#8217;ll let it slide. As the old saying goes, great minds think alike. And the not-so-great minds just steal everything and pass it off as their own.
But I don&#8217;t want to dwell on how much money The Guardian owes me, even though it&#8217;s obviously substantial. The bigger issue with the article — as with everything else published by The Guardian — is the content. The tone for this particular hit piece is set right in the headline. We&#8217;re supposed to see the Right-wing &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; as somehow nefarious and sinister because it encourages women to be &#8220;thin and fertile,&#8221; as The Guardian puts it. These two words — &#8220;thin and fertile&#8221; — are like kryptonite to the staff of The Guardian, apparently. Now, you might observe that words like &#8220;thin and fertile&#8221; are just ways of describing someone as &#8220;healthy.&#8221; And you might wonder what&#8217;s so bad about the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; encouraging women to be thin, fertile, and healthy. 
But all you&#8217;ll get from The Guardian is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this paragraph</a>: 
<blockquote>The type of woman these commentators valorize is thin, straight, fertile, traditionally feminine, conventionally attractive to men and white – though they try to avoid overt racism. &#8230; Anyone who falls outside of this narrow mold is subject to relentless mocking and disparagement.</blockquote>
Just to be clear here, the &#8220;narrow mold&#8221; that The Guardian is complaining about is simply being healthy, feminine, and attractive to males. (They do add that you have to be white as well, but they contradict themselves in the same breath, because one of the commentators they attack in this hit piece is Candace, who last I checked is not white). So all we&#8217;re left with is the &#8220;narrow&#8221; lane that literally billions of women throughout all of human history have fit through. That&#8217;s the virtually impossible standard that you have to meet, if you don&#8217;t want to be &#8220;relentlessly mocked and disparaged&#8221; by the online &#8220;womanosphere.&#8221;
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1583-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=The+Matt+Walsh+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
We all know why The Guardian believes that only a small subset of the female population can qualify as healthy. For one thing, they believe that men can become women. So that probably skews their perspective a bit, given that trans-identifying males aren&#8217;t usually paragons of physical fitness. Additionally, it&#8217;s long been established that Left-leaning individuals, wherever they are in the world, tend to be less healthy. 
Not too long ago, there was a <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5893220/#:~:text=Findings%20from%20cross%2Dsectional%20studies,report%20better%20self%2Drated%20health." target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> from researchers at Harvard and Columbia which found that: 
<blockquote>Findings from cross-sectional studies conducted in Japan and Europe have reported that individuals expressing a conservative ideology (as compared to liberal ideology) tend to report better self-rated health. In the USA, it has been reported that Republicans are less likely to report poor health in comparison to Democrats.</blockquote>
These findings shouldn&#8217;t surprise us, because an ideology that doesn&#8217;t care about personal responsibility isn&#8217;t going to have the healthiest followers. The only people who are surprised, apparently, are the writers for The Guardian. But in their confusion, they do manage to hint at one point that&#8217;s worth thinking about, which is this: The Left has decided to give the Right a monopoly on advocating for healthy lifestyles. It&#8217;s true that if someone these days promotes health, fitness, marriage, family life, et cetera, then we can assume that they&#8217;re probably conservative. All of that has become Right-wing coded. But that&#8217;s only because the Left has gone to war against everything healthy and normal. The Right is not dominating this issue because they&#8217;re mind-controlling women. They&#8217;re dominating the issue because the Left has abandoned it.
As this article continues, The Guardian doubles down on its attempt to make &#8220;being healthy&#8221; sound like an act of terrorism. 
At one point, they quote a piece from &#8220;Evie,&#8221; and then they have a coronary over it. So <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here&#8217;s the line</a> from Evie, followed by The Guardian&#8217;s meltdown:&#8220;&#8216;Our reproductive organs are made for just that – creating new life – not warding off sperm and altering our insides to make conception close to impossible,” read a recent Evie piece. 
Though some young women may recoil when conservative men like JD Vance and Elon Musk opine on birthrates and fertility, outlets like Evie are able to repackage a similar message in a more approachable way. Maggie Bullock, a women’s magazine veteran who co-writes the Spread, a newsletter about the industry, said she saw outlets like Evie as trying to be something of a &#8216;gateway drug&#8217; into more extreme conservative ideologies. &#8216;Like, we’re nice and we’re pretty and we’re not that radical, don’t worry, we’re just telling you the truth,&#8217; she said. &#8216;It feels like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.'&#8221;
So here we have Evie magazine stating that women&#8217;s reproductive organs are intended for reproduction. And The Guardian devotes about a thousand words to declaring how outrageous this statement is, even though it&#8217;s probably the least controversial thing that anyone can say in the English language. They even bring in an alleged expert — a &#8220;women&#8217;s magazine veteran&#8221; — to establish that Evie magazine is essentially a &#8220;gateway drug&#8221; to extremism, because they don&#8217;t think women should sterilize themselves.
What&#8217;s especially amusing about the accusations that this article makes — against Brett Cooper, Riley Gaines, Candace Owens, Allie Beth Stuckey, Alex Clark, and so on — is that, first of all, the article wants us to see these women as a dark and sinister force. But I know all of them. Allie I’ve known for years. Riley I&#8217;ve met a few times. I went on Alex’s show a few months ago. Brett and Candace are both friends. They are some of the nicest, most cheerful people you&#8217;ll ever meet.
The article uses words like “scary&#8221; to describe them, which is just hilarious from my vantage point. Or the vantage point of anyone who has watched any of their shows. Although I will say that Alex forced me to drink raw milk when I was on her show, and that was deeply disturbing, and also dangerous to my health. But aside from that, it was not a very scary experience.
The other thing is that all of them of course have jobs. And yet The Guardian concludes that all of these women, in reality, want women to be nothing but &#8220;submissive homemakers&#8221; who <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women">never leave the home</a> for any reason: 
<blockquote>While the women behind these outlets all have different styles and tactics, they are mostly aligned in their desire to return to a gender-essentialist worldview: women as submissive homemakers, men as strong providers.</blockquote>
First of all, any time you hear a phrase like &#8220;gender-essentialist&#8221; being used unironically, you can immediately stop paying attention to the person who says it. The term is nonsense because everyone, in a sane world, is a &#8220;gender essentialist.&#8221; Everyone should understand that gender is an essential concept, because it&#8217;s what allows human beings to reproduce. It also dramatically affects human behavior in every significant way. So if someone calls you a &#8220;gender essentialist,&#8221; the appropriate response is &#8220;yes, I am.&#8221; And by the way, the Left is also &#8220;gender essentialist,&#8221; albeit in a completely demented way. They don&#8217;t understand the concept of gender, but they certainly obsess over it, as you may have noticed. They take their fake genders extremely seriously over there. It is an essential concept in their worldview. Just in a very confused way.
The other irony here is that it&#8217;s The Guardian that wants these women — like Brett Cooper and Candace Owens — to be silent, apparently. They’ve written a gigantic article about how all of these women should shut up and stop expressing their views. Apparently they can&#8217;t grasp the idea that, as I&#8217;ve said many times, different people can choose to do different things. I&#8217;ve gone on record many times saying that, in general, women should prioritize raising families, and men should prioritize providing for their families. That doesn&#8217;t mean that women should never have a career under any circumstances. And obviously, all of the women that The Guardian is attacking in this article, would also agree with that statement, because they all have lucrative careers of their own.
We could go on for the next hour picking apart this article, but it&#8217;s honestly not worth the time. But it is worth noticing one aspect of this issue that The Guardian doesn&#8217;t talk about. Throughout all of this angst and misdirected, incoherent frustration, the one thing The Guardian doesn&#8217;t do is grapple with the fact that the alternative to the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; has already been tried. And it has completely and utterly failed. The alternative to the &#8220;narrow&#8221; lane espoused by Brett, Candace, and company is the lane of Left-wing secular feminism where women find their purpose in the workplace and either reject family and marriage altogether, or place it second in importance to the pursuit of professional success. It’s the lane where a woman doesn&#8217;t submit to her husband, but instead submits to her employer — who as it happens is often also a man. It’s the lane where a woman is so committed to her independence and autonomy that she will purchase it with the blood of her own children, which is the whole point of abortion.
We&#8217;ve tried the feminist approach for a few generations. It is actually the new thing. The trendy thing.The narrow thing. And how has it worked out? Divorce rates have skyrocketed. The institution of the family is in shambles. And, by all available metrics (including the prevalence of antidepressants), women (and men) are miserable. Here&#8217;s just one indicator. For more than 20 years, Gallup has asked women if they&#8217;re happy with how they&#8217;re being treated by &#8220;society,&#8221; whatever that means exactly. And in 2022, Gallup <a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/numbers-women-society" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recorded</a> the lowest level of satisfaction among women since they began asking the question. Yes, after all of the alleged advancements in &#8220;women&#8217;s rights&#8221; over the last twenty years, women believe they&#8217;re more oppressed than ever.
But you don&#8217;t need Gallup to tell you that. You can either talk to women who made the decision to enter the workforce, or you can go on TikTok. Every day there&#8217;s another viral video of some young woman in tears because she went out into the working world and found it horrifically dreary, depressing, and demoralizing. We’ve seen the alternative to women being thin and fertile and prioritizing their families. It has been a disaster. We got millions of broken homes, millions of dead children, and millions of extremely depressed but allegedly liberated women to show for it.
The traditional approach has thousands of years of success under its belt. The new approach crashed and burned 30 seconds after takeoff. The Guardian is using the lame new &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; branding to suggest the opposite — they want to suggest that this is some dangerous new Right-wing ideology. But it&#8217;s not. It happens to be the ideology that clearly works best for everyone, including women. It’s the philosophy that built human civilization and maintained it and helped it thrive for millennia, up until the last several decades. The Guardian might not know what women are, or what they want. But these women do. And the more the Left mocks them for wanting to be healthy and to raise families, the more women will turn away from Leftism, until the only women left supporting Democrats are men with wigs on. That is the Democrat Party&#8217;s absolute worst nightmare. And with every garbage article like this one, that nightmare for Democrats — otherwise known as progress to the rest of us — is becoming more and more real by the day.

The Guardian Newpaper To Stop Using Elon Musk’s Social Media Platform

The Left Uncovers The Sinister Conspiracy Pushing Women To Be Healthy And Happy

Brett Cooper

Candace Owens

Leftists

Riley Gaines

The Guardian

Traditional Marriage

You will not find a legal theory that&#8217;s done more damage to this country in the last half century than the idea of &#8220;disparate impact.&#8221; Whether you realize it or not, this is a legal concept that has almost certainly impacted your life at some point, along with the lives of millions of other people. In short, disparate impact allows people to sue whenever a policy — whether it&#8217;s a government policy, or the policy of a private business — has a disproportionate effect on certain demographics. It doesn&#8217;t matter if the policy is intended to be discriminatory. It doesn&#8217;t matter if the policy is completely neutral, on its face. All that matters is whether the policy affects some demographics more than others.
To give just one example: If a written test for a police academy contains basic math questions — questions which are not racist in any way — the test is still considered to be illegal under the disparate impact theory if, say, 80% of black applicants fail it. The only way to survive a lawsuit under this theory is to prove that, in reality, the disparate impact is strictly necessary for some important purpose of the business or organization. 
In practice, especially in places like New York and California, this is extremely difficult to prove. After all, we&#8217;ve been told meritocracy is now a racist concept. Why do police officers need to understand that two plus two equals four, anyway? A lot of jurors actually think like this, especially the ones who won&#8217;t venture outside unless they&#8217;re wearing two masks and a portable ventilator. Therefore, most companies and government agencies, in the end, have decided to simply water down their standards, in order to avoid the possibility of litigation. Disparate impact was the precursor for affirmative action and &#8220;equity&#8221;, as it&#8217;s called today. Mediocrity has become the norm because it&#8217;s enforced by law.
We&#8217;ve all been conditioned to accept this status quo since the 1960s, even though it&#8217;s obviously contrary to basic principles of fairness and morality. Several administrations have come and gone, both Democrat and Republican, and disparate impact has remained untouched. But very abruptly, that changed yesterday, when the Trump administration issued an executive order formally <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/">ending</a> disparate impact in this country, in all contexts.
The order is called &#8220;RESTORING EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND MERITOCRACY&#8221; and, among other things, states: &#8220;disparate-impact liability has hindered businesses from making hiring and other employment decisions based on merit and skill.&#8221;
Therefore, according to the order signed by the president:
<blockquote>It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.</blockquote>
Yes, there will be inevitable legal challenges to this executive order. Yes, Congress should immediately pass this executive order into law in order to insulate it, as much as possible, from Obama-appointed judges in Washington. But even as it stands, already, this executive order is a major step towards reforming America&#8217;s failing institutions. It&#8217;s part of a broader effort by this administration to end the era of racial grievance, which has made a husk out of everything it touched. In particular, it&#8217;s helped destroy the educational system in this country, which is now fixated on spreading propaganda instead of teaching students the skills they need to survive and function in society. Universities currently spend most of their time administering affirmative action programs, and teaching students about the evils of white supremacy and colonialism. It&#8217;s a complete waste of time — actually, it&#8217;s even worse than a waste of time — and everyone knows it.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1582-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Now the Trump administration, with this executive order on disparate impact, is doing something about it. And it&#8217;s clear that the administration had the education system in mind yesterday when they issued this executive order, because on Wednesday, the administration also took several other actions aimed at reforming America&#8217;s colleges. One of those executive <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reforming-accreditation-to-strengthen-higher-education/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">orders</a>, for example, is called &#8220;REFORMING ACCREDITATION TO STRENGTHEN HIGHER EDUCATION.&#8221; 
The text of this order points out that the national six-year undergraduate graduation rate in this country currently stands at just 64%. Yes, just 64% of undergraduates currently finish college on time.
Additionally, roughly 25% of undergraduate programs and 40% of graduate programs ultimately yield a negative return on investment for students. The Trump administration is therefore requiring an overhaul of the process through which schools are accredited. If schools can&#8217;t demonstrate a commitment to merit, instead of racial discrimination, then they won&#8217;t be accredited anymore. And for many universities, that would be a death knell. They&#8217;d immediately lose access to billions of dollars in federal funding for Pell Grants and student loans.
This is why, during the campaign, Donald Trump <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/trump-accreditors-executive-order-universities-4e4366cc?mod=hp_lead_pos1">referred</a> to the accreditation process as his &#8220;secret weapon.&#8221; It&#8217;s a way to use the established powers of the federal government to compel schools to start upholding basic educational principles. For generations, the government hasn&#8217;t used these powers. We&#8217;ve allowed pretty much every school — from community colleges to Harvard — to get away with scamming their students, discriminating along racial lines, and teaching useless classes about &#8220;decolonizing Shakespeare&#8221; or whatever. At the same time, tuition has increased exponentially because the federal money has kept flowing, in the form of easy student loans. Then, to make matters worse, college students — many of them Left-leaning — have taken this loan money and refused to repay it. In other words, people who didn&#8217;t go to college are directly subsidizing people who spent four years earning useless degrees, and then became deadbeats who are unable (or unwilling) to pay their debts.
This fraud was enabled by the Biden administration, as you probably remember. In fact, even when the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration was breaking the law, they still refused to compel college graduates to pay off their loans.
Yesterday, however, the Trump administration ended this state-sanctioned fraud. They&#8217;re now beginning the collections process on these deadbeats — including federal employees who are about to have their pensions frozen. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
White House press sec. Karoline Leavitt on defaulted student loan payments being sent to collections on May 5: “The government can and will collect defaulted federal student loan debt by withholding tax refunds, federal pensions and even their wages.” <a href="https://t.co/40ymqY435M">https://t.co/40ymqY435M</a> <a href="https://t.co/NbEgvs9o2h">pic.twitter.com/NbEgvs9o2h</a>
&mdash; ABC News (@ABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1914736600547746069?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 22, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
It&#8217;s a simple principle that everyone understands: If you borrow money, you should repay it. But Democrats attempted to suspend this principle during the last election campaign because they thought it would resonate with voters. And in some areas of the country, it did resonate. There&#8217;s a reason Joe Biden won the state of Virginia, where all of the so-called &#8220;public servants&#8221; live. But as it happens, the rest of the country wasn&#8217;t happy about assuming the debts of these alleged &#8220;public servants.&#8221; So they won&#8217;t have to assume those debts anymore.
There were other executive orders and actions that the Trump administration took yesterday concerning universities. For example, one order <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/transparency-regarding-foreign-influence-at-american-universities/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">requires</a> that universities disclose any foreign funding they might be receiving. The attorney general is tasked with overseeing compliance with this requirement as a matter of &#8220;national security.&#8221; This is a measure that&#8217;s obviously long overdue, especially after we learned that Joe Biden was stashing classified documents in his office space at the University of Pennsylvania&#8217;s &#8220;Penn-Biden Center,&#8221; which was funded extensively by the Chinese. Everyone knows that, for a long time, major universities in this country have been openly operating like de facto embassies for various countries that hate us. And now they could face criminal prosecution for doing so.
Another order that the president signed yesterday implements new procedures to <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/white-house-initiative-to-promote-excellence-and-innovation-at-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">improve</a> the quality of education at so-called &#8220;historically black colleges and universities,&#8221; which have struggled significantly in comparison to most other schools in the country. For many years, the federal government has simply flooded these schools with money, without any concern for how they&#8217;ve been wasting it. Now, pursuant to this executive order, the Trump administration will seek to &#8220;increase the private-sector role, including the role of private foundations&#8221; in funding these schools. In other words, the taxpayers won&#8217;t have as big a role.
All of these changes are necessary because, under the current arrangement, the university system in this country is failing. As a result, a lot of people — myself included — have made the rational decision to forgo college altogether. Bloomberg just published a lengthy report on this trend. Their report focuses on an 18-year-old student who just graduated from high school in Madison, Ohio, which is 45 minutes east of Cleveland. According to this student, neither he nor any of his male classmates will attend a four-year-university. They&#8217;re <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-04-21/why-american-men-think-it-s-not-worth-going-to-college-anymore?embedded-checkout=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opting out</a> of going to college, for one reason or another.
<blockquote>In this corner of the Midwest—where the median household income is $78,000 and the largest city is 47,000-strong Mentor—the share of men age 18-24 enrolled in college dropped by more than 15 percentage points in the decade through 2023, the biggest decline in any large county in the US. The average slide, by comparison, was about 3 percentage points. In 2013 half of the young men in Lake County were enrolled in college; 10 years later, that number was only 1 in 3, according to a Bloomberg Businessweek analysis of US Census Bureau data. Men opting out of college isn’t a new phenomenon: Women have outnumbered men in undergraduate enrollment for about 40 years, and the gap continues to widen. Almost half of women age 25-34 have earned a bachelor’s degree, according to Pew Research Center data; for men the rate is 37%. Between 2011 and 2022, the number of Americans attending college dropped by 1.2 million, with men accounting for almost the entirety of that drop. &#8230;. When Jennifer Schuller became president in 2023 of Lake Erie College, the only four-year college in Lake County, the drop in enrollment was palpable: She inherited a $5.6 million deficit. In the previous decade, the student body—which is majority men—had decreased by almost 20%.</blockquote>
As much as I may criticize the university system and as much as I encourage young people to not see college as the necessary default option right out of high school, I still maintain that this is not a decline worth celebrating. It&#8217;s a completely understandable decline, of course. Universities and colleges have done this to themselves. They&#8217;ve wasted hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and all they&#8217;ve done is churn out a useless product that more and more people are foregoing because it&#8217;s too expensive and pointless. It&#8217;s completely rational for millions of students to stop attending these schools. That&#8217;s true. But ultimately, that&#8217;s not the outcome we should want. A functioning country should be able to offer 18-year-olds a variety of good schools to attend, if they want to master some highly specialized skill — whether it&#8217;s engineering or programming or medicine or whatever. That should always be an option for certain students. But we don&#8217;t have that anymore.
We have a system where, even if you&#8217;re a very smart individual who could theoretically become a doctor, you stand a very real chance of being denied admission to a medical school simply because you&#8217;re white, or because you have the wrong political beliefs. And if you&#8217;re confronted with that possibility, and you&#8217;re 18 years old, why would you bother with the whole process? Why not take a guaranteed job where your skills will pay you, right away? Why subject yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and years of indoctrination, especially if it may not pay off — for reasons that are both completely unfair and completely outside your control?
Young people are asking these questions. And the only correct answer is to tell them that this insanity is coming to an end. Otherwise, the education system will continue to fail.
The good news is that finally — for the first time in a very long time — some action is being taken on this front. The other day we <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-lawyers-promoting-child-indoctrination-to-scotus-were-absolutely-humiliated" target="_blank" rel="noopener">talked</a> about efforts by elementary schools to indoctrinate children into the gender cult, and how it looks like the Supreme Court is about to put an end to those policies. Now we&#8217;re talking about how the Trump administration just issued an all-out blitz of executive orders that are designed to restore merit and competence to all of America&#8217;s institutions, including its universities. This is progress. It&#8217;s not a guarantee that these institutions will be saved — Harvard in particular is fighting back, as you&#8217;d expect — but it&#8217;s a start.
The truth is that the education system can either teach students, or it can attempt to brainwash them into the religion of leftism. Those are the options. There is no middle ground. And if there&#8217;s one thing this week has made clear, it&#8217;s that the current administration — unlike every other administration in recent history — understands that choice very well.

Menu