Planned Parenthood funding to possibly face reductions
The last few months have yielded some vulnerabilities for the abortion juggernaut, which had seemingly developed a head of steam in promoting abortion, even in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. On Election Day, three states turned back constitutional amendments, backed by the nation's largest abortion provider, that would have allowed abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is facing legal action in a state that actually approved one of those abortion amendments.
Then, pro-life executive orders began to flow from the White House. There were indications that the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, was looking into the significant amount of taxpayer funding going to abortion...funding that was not needed.
A CBN.com article published last week documented more trouble on the horizon for Planned Parenthood, stating:
The Trump administration may soon freeze tens of millions of dollars in federal funding for groups providing abortions, including Planned Parenthood. As soon as this week, the Health and Human Services Department could announce a hold on more than $27 million in funds, a spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal.Plus, the article noted that in the coming week, "... the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether South Carolina can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid dollars."
The department is reviewing grant recipients to make sure they comply with President Trump's executive orders and federal law. This year, the government was set to distribute $120 million in grants to organizations that deal with family planning.
...March 27, thousands of pro-lifers will join our Washington-based staff to meet with members of Congress, making the case for defunding Big Abortion.
Next Tuesday, April 1, a pro-life candlelight vigil will take place in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Satanists will be in front of the Court casting spells, curses, and hexes. And they will try their best to harass and harm the pro-life warriors that come out to pray.
Next Wednesday, April 2, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic. This case will decide whether states can limit and/or ban Big Abortion from receiving taxpayer funds. Liberty Counsel has submitted a powerful brief in this case.
Kentucky lawmakers vote to return 10 Commandments monument to Capitol grounds
A Ten Commandments monument was donated to the state of Kentucky in 1971 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles and placed on the grounds of the State Capitol, according to First Liberty, which reported that the monument was removed in the 1980's due to a construction project and a court ruling prevented it from returning. The legal organization's website reported that the state legislature passed a resolution directing the monument to be returned to the Capitol grounds - it has now, as the website notes, "become law."
A Fraternal Order of Eagles chapter in Hopkinsville, KY has kept the monument for in excess of 20 years. First Liberty elaborates on the conditions for the triumphant return of the 10 Commandments to the State Capitol in Frankfort, saying that...
...Its return was blocked by a court order based on the much maligned Lemon test. That test subsequently was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in First Liberty’s 2019 Supreme Court victory in The American Legion, which mandated a presumptive lawfulness for established symbols, displays and practices. Then in 2022 in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, another First Liberty victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court abrogated Lemon entirely and mandated that the Establishment Clause be understood and applied by original meaning, history and tradition. As the Supreme Court has explained, the Ten Commandments “have an undeniable historical meaning,” including “historical significance as one of the foundations of our legal system,” and “[s]uch acknowledgments of the role played by the Ten Commandments in our Nation’s heritage are common throughout America.”
Second federal judge rules against Presidential order against transgender individuals serving in the U.S. Military
As FoxNews.com has pointed out, a second federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from preventing transgender individuals from serving in the military. The Fox article notes that U.S. District Judge Christine O'Hearn issued a 14-day restraining order to prevent the administration from carrying out its order removing two transgender individuals from the service, stating: "The loss of military service under the stigma of a policy that targets gender identity is not merely a loss of employment; it is a profound disruption of personal dignity, medical continuity, and public service..."
The Justice Department condemned the ruling, saying that it has, as "vigorously defended" Executive Orders from the President. As Fox notes, that would include "the Defending Women Executive order that stipulates there are only two sexes: male and female." A DOJ spokesperson described O'Hearn as an "example of an activist judge attempting to seize power at the expense of the American people..."O’Hearn’s ruling comes after U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes of Washington, D.C., blocked the Trump administration from implementing its ban on March 19. Reyes said in her opinion that the Trump administration’s order was "soaked in animus" and discriminated based on a person's transgender status.