In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, then-North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) stated, "This decision is a victory for the many North Dakotans who have fought so hard and for so long to protect the unborn in our state."The law 'protects unborn children throughout gestation from abortion, except to prevent the death of the mother as well as other exceptions.'While Burgum was ultimately right in claiming victory, his celebration was premature as it pertained to the Roughrider State. It was not, after all, until Friday when abortion was formally and finally banned in the state.Quick backgroundThe overturning of Roe triggered a 2007 law making it a Class C felony to perform an abortion in North Dakota, except to save the life of the mother or in the case of rape or incest.Just prior to the law taking effect, the abortionists from the Red River Women's Clinic who moved their abortion clinic from Fargo to Minnesota successfully sued to get an injunction.Months after South Central Judicial District Court Judge Bruce Romanick blocked the law, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the abortion ban would remain blocked while the legal battle over the law's constitutionality proceeded.Jon Jensen, chief justice on the court, noted that the abortionists had "demonstrated likely success on the merits that there is a fundamental right to an abortion in the limited instances of life-saving and health-preserving circumstances, and the statute is not narrowly tailored to satisfy strict scrutiny."Republican state Sen. Janne Myrdal, the former head of ND Choose Life, subsequently introduced a similar piece of legislation, which repealed and replaced the 2007 law. Myrdal's Senate Bill 2150 passed the North Dakota House and Senate in landslide votes and was ultimately ratified by Burgum in April 2023.Desperate as ever to keep abortion legal, the abortionists behind the initial challenge filed an amended complaint asking that the same judge who previously gave them an injunction would deem the ban unconstitutional under the North Dakota Constitution.RELATED: 'Abortion Is Everything' book for kids calls killing unborn children 'human superpower' Photo by © Ralf-Finn Hestoft/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty ImagesRomanick proved happy to oblige them, stating on Sept. 12, 2024, that the law was "void for vagueness" and that it was violative of the North Dakota Constitution, which supposedly recognizes a fundamental right to choose abortion before viability.The state kept pressing the issue in court — North Dakota Attorney General Drew H. Wrigley (R) appealed Romanick's decision — and prevailed.Victory at lastThe North Dakota Supreme Court reinstated the abortion ban on Friday. While three of the five justices deemed the ban "unconstitutionally vague," the state constitution requires at least four justices to agree in order to find a law unconstitutional.In his dissent, which was joined by Jensen, Justice Jerod Tufte said that the state district court erred both in concluding the law was unconstitutionally vague and in concluding that the state constitution protects a right to abortion broad enough to conflict with Senate Bill 2150.Pro-abortion activists were apoplectic over the codification of the people's will on the matter of abortion in North Dakota."This decision is a devastating loss for pregnant North Dakotans," Meetra Mehdizadeh, senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. "As a majority of the Court found, this cruel and confusing ban is incomprehensible to physicians."Tammi Kromenaker, executive director of the Red River Women's Clinic, complained that "making it illegal just makes it harder" to get abortions.Pro-live activists, alternatively, were overjoyed.Ingrid Duran, the National Right to Life's director of state legislation, welcomed the decision, noting that the law "protects unborn children throughout gestation from abortion, except to prevent the death of the mother as well as other exceptions."Myrdal, the Republican who introduced the legislation, reportedly said that she is "thrilled and grateful that two justices that are highly respected saw the truth of the matter, that this is fully constitutional for the mother and for the unborn child and thereafter for that sake."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Ten years ago, I sat in the dark at the Public Theater in downtown New York City, surrounded by a murmuring crowd, waiting for the curtain to rise on a brand-new play called "Hamilton."At that point in time, Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hip-hop musical had yet to become the behemoth it is now. Quite the opposite — there were no cast albums or Disney+ recordings, and aside from a few regional workshops years earlier and its word-of-mouth reputation as the “next big thing,” no one in the audience had any idea what we were in for.A pansexual Latina Anne Frank with an Afro-Caribbean tiger mom and a chronically 'neurospicy' closet case for a dad? Now you've gone too far.Expanding the formThe next few hours were filled with a strange, albeit thoroughly impressive, showing of lyrical prowess. Miranda had somehow managed to turn historian Ron Chernow's 818-page Alexander Hamilton biography into a crowd-pleasing, pop-culture-infused depiction of the earliest days of a fledgling America.More provocative was Miranda's deliberate choice to cast primarily black and Latino actors to portray the founding fathers. While a few nitpickers balked at the spectacle of "people of color" portraying slave owners, most marveled at the audacious ingenuity of it: What could be more revolutionary than retelling the American story so that it reflects all Americans?The crowd left the theater excited. There was no doubt that we had witnessed something groundbreaking. If Aaron Burr could be black and Alexander Hamilton Puerto Rican, what else was possible?Decolonizing 'Diary'Eight years later, lyricist and composer Andrew Fox stumbled upon an answer. It came to him in the form of a (since-deleted) 2022 Twitter thread hotly debating a never-before-asked question: Did Anne Frank ever acknowledge her white privilege?As is often the case, the online arguing devolved into acrimonious ad hominem and fruitless whataboutism. Fox realized that mere words would never get to heart of the matter. As with "Hamilton," it would take the power of musical theater to win hearts and minds. And he would do Miranda's non-white casting one better — reimagining Anne Frank herself as a person of color.And so Fox and librettist Joel Sinensky set out to transform the "Diary of Anne Frank" into "Slam Frank," an intersectional, multiethnic, gender-queer, decolonized, anti-capitalist, hyper-empowering Afro-Latin hip-hop musical.Originally slated for three weeks at small off-Broadway venue the Asylum, "Slam Frank" has become a massive hit for the theater, which recently extended its run through the end of December.Piercings and PatagoniasWant diversity? Look no farther than the viewers showing up in droves. At any given performance, you can find a septum piercing, a Patagonia vest, and a pair of bifocals all in the same row.Yes, even liberals enjoy "Slam Frank," despite the outrage it has provoked in some of their compatriots. “This whole project is head-spinningly grotesque and offensive,” went one post to the r/JewsOfConscience sub-Reddit. “Bringing up the holocaust and not mentioning the current genocide in Gaza just gives me the ick,” lamented another.The irony of takes like these is thick, since one can imagine these same critics of "Slam Frank" being perfectly open to the idea of race- and gender-swapping other historical characters. But a pansexual Latina Anne Frank with an Afro-Caribbean tiger mom and a chronically "neurospicy" closet case for a dad? Now you've gone too far.RELATED: 'Anne Frank' kindergarten is being renamed for the sake of diversity: 'We wanted a name without a political background' TIM SLOAN/AFP via Getty ImagesA real productionThe show's earliest marketing attracted attention with a simpler question: “Is 'Slam Frank' a real musical?”The answer is a decisive "yes." "Slam Frank" is not a social media gimmick or an expertly crafted exercise in long-form rage- bait. Again: It is a full-length show, with a cast, that is being performed on regularly scheduled dates at the Asylum NYC.I know because I've seen it. "Slam Frank" is not just a real production, but an entertaining one. It is smartly written, balancing humor with sincerity, featuring songs composed and performed with impressive musicianship. Think Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s "The Book of Mormon" or the award-winning puppet extravaganza "Avenue Q" — but with a final gesture of leftist piety that pushes the logic of your average keffiyeh-clad student protester at Columbia to uncomfortable extremes.The shocking finale is played so straight that plenty will miss the satire, and even those in on the joke may notice how easily it could be mistaken for peak-wokeness agitprop. If there is a clear "message" here, the show's creators aren't about to clarify it. "Slam Frank" is happy to offend each viewer in whatever way he, she, or they wish to be offended. How's that for inclusive?

In 2023, a group of German climate change activists protested for their cause by gluing themselves to objects at the Hamburg and Dusseldorf airports and spray-painting pieces of art.This week, a court found that the group was liable for €403,000 in damages to the Lufthansa Group, a landmark decision that could have far-reaching consequences for other protests.'The Last Generation isn't protecting the climate; they're engaged in criminal activity.'The figure equates to over $467K in U.S. dollars. The group also has to pay €700,000 in related costs, meaning the total figure is over $1.28 million.The protesters of the Last Generation group infiltrated the airport on July 13 and caused 57 flights to be canceled. Lufthansa sued for repayment of costs from payments to airline customers as well as additional kerosene consumption.If the defendants fail to pay the damages, they will each face two years in prison.Industry experts believe the order will influence other ongoing lawsuits against climate change protesters.In 2022, Last Generation activists along with others orchestrated disruptive protests at facilities in the U.K., Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands. German law enforcement authorities threatened to place Last Generation members in "protective custody" to prevent the disruptions.The groups at the time were demanding higher taxes on people who fly more frequently as well as a ban on private jets.RELATED: Climate protesters glue their hands to floor of car exhibit, get upset Volkswagen won't bring them bowls to defecate and urinate into In 2023, the group made headlines when a frustrated German woman grabbed a protester blocking traffic by the hair and dragged her out of the way. She was dubbed the "brutal blonde" by some in the media who applauded her efforts after video of the incident went viral online."The Last Generation isn't protecting the climate; they're engaged in criminal activity," Transport Minister Volker Wissing said at the time.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A shooting near the White House led to two National Guard troops being shot, according to early reports from the scene in Washington, D.C.The Metropolitan Police Department said the scene was secured and a suspect was in custody. '[We] heard multiple shots fired as we passed Farragut West. A member of the National Guard fell while others rushed onto the scene.'A White House correspondent for NTD News said she witnessed the shooting."National Guard shot near the White House at a little before 2:15," Mari Otsu said on a social media post. "I was in an Uber to work, with my cameraman, and heard multiple shots fired as we passed Farragut West. A member of the National Guard fell while others rushed onto the scene," she added."Area still on lockdown and Secret Service being deployed," Otsu wrote.She added a video of the law enforcement response to the area.President Donald Trump had ordered a surge of troops into D.C. in order to combat the violent crime rampant in the area. The order was met with legal challenges from critics who accused him of acting unlawfully.Department of Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem confirmed the shooting on social media. "Please join me in praying for the two National Guardsmen who were just shot moments ago in Washington D.C.," she wrote on social media. "@DHSgov is working with local law enforcement to gather more information." RELATED: 'Knock the hell out of them': Trump federalizes DC police, readies National Guard to crack down on crime D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, admitted that the troop surge lessened crime in the district, but she was immediately assailed by other Democrats who were angry that she credited the president. She has since announced she is not seeking re-election.This is a developing story, and more information will be added as it becomes available.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Since the 1990s, after Somalia's central government collapsed and civil war broke out, Somalis have been immigrating to the United States, especially to Minnesota, where the first organized refugee resettlement began. Today the state has the largest population of Somalis in the country by a wide margin.Given that Somalis are by and large Muslim, many conservatives worry that their growing numbers are contributing to what they call the “Islamification” of the nation — the gradual cultural, political, and demographic takeover by Islamist influences. Somalia-born Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar (D) inflames these fears with what many have labeled a Somalia-first rhetoric and an openly Muslim agenda.Just a few days ago, President Trump made waves by announcing that he is ending the Temporary Protected Status program that has allowed hundreds of Somalis to stay long-term in the United States, citing claims of "fraudulent money laundering" and "Somali gangs."Sara Gonzales, BlazeTV host of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” is thrilled and hopes Trump’s plan goes through.She does, however, wish it would have happened sooner, as now 72% of Somalis who have immigrated to the United States have since become naturalized citizens. “We need to completely reform the way that people are allowed to do that so quickly. ... You have people like Ilhan Omar who are going through the process ... who don't appreciate anything this country has given them, even though they've risen to the level that they've risen to, who really don't want to assimilate at all,” says Sara.In a recent speech responding to President Trump’s announcement, Omar audaciously declared that Somalis are “the fabric of this nation” and insisted that they “aren’t going anywhere.”“The audacity to say such a thing when you don't plan on assimilating,” scoffs Sara. “The streets of Dearborn, Michigan, and certain parts of Minnesota basically look like Tehran. That is not the fabric of our nation.”“I want you to understand how dangerous this is,” she says, playing a video clip of a Somali police officer from Minnesota saying in his native tongue that Somali officers work for their “own people” (fellow Somalis) and are different from “white officers.”“How can you be both the fabric of our nation and also claiming we are so separate that only we who come from Somalia can represent you?” asks Sara.“Both of those things cannot be true at once.”Further, because these Somali officers have pledged allegiance to the Somali people, we have to ask ourselves, “What law will these police officers enforce?” Sara adds.Then there is the recent exposé by BlazeTV host and investigative journalist Christopher Rufo that alleges billions in welfare fraud by members of Minnesota's Somali community, with some stolen funds remitted to Somalia via hawala networks and ultimately supporting the Al-Qaeda-linked terror group Al-Shabaab.“Somalians were setting up fraudulent autism treatment centers, and they were sending all of these bills, all of these charges, to Medicaid, and then they were reimbursed by taxpayers, and then they funneled that money overseas to terror groups,” says Sara, citing Rufo’s report.Because these fraudsters are largely naturalized citizens, she says, eliminating TPS for a minority population of Somalis accomplishes “essentially nothing,” she snaps.“What else are we going to do to get these people the hell out of our country?”To hear more of Sara’s analysis and commentary, watch the episode above.Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.