“Do no harm.”   It’s one of the first principles of ethical medical care, dating back to the ancient Greeks. But political pressure and a false understanding of patient autonomy have instead forced physicians to violate their patients’ dignity and their own conscience. It’s a troubling paradigm shift in modern medicine, especially in the OB/GYN field. Physicians are reduced to simple service providers, dispensing whatever the patient requests, rather than practicing thoughtful, evidence-based care. Consequently, prominent institutions, including the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, ACGME, now disregard physicians’ fundamental right to act in accordance with their moral principles and true care for their patients.  As a devout Catholic whose conscience rights were violated during residency, I know firsthand the restraints medical institutions impose on physicians and healthcare workers That’s why I’m urging Congress to pass the Conscience Protections for Medical Residents Act, co-sponsored by Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., and Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., to help shift medicine back to its founding principles.     Throughout my medical training, my goal was to be a pro-life voice in the OB/GYN world and treat both patients: the mom and the preborn child. I specifically avoided programs antagonistic to my beliefs and hospitals who required I train to perform abortions. The University of Texas at Austin seemed like the perfect match; they assured me I wouldn’t be pressured into anything that violated my conscience.    In reality, the opposite happened.     During my second year of residency, I anticipated my scheduled rotation at the local Planned Parenthood with deep reservations. Other residents with the same objections to abortion were forced to go in the past, so I felt pressured to go as well. The entire experience violated my conscience and what I knew to be good and true for patients. I went to my assistant program director, who was the abortionist in charge of the rotation, asking to “opt out.” Initially, I was told this would not be possible, but if I insisted, I would have to discuss it with the department chair. I insisted. Eventually, I was allowed to opt out if I could create an alternative, chair-approved curriculum.  For a weekend, I traded my student hat for my teacher’s hat, hoping that by Tuesday, I could opt out of Planned Parenthood. In the end, an alternative curriculum was never approved, and since I refused to go, I was assigned reading material to complete in the residency office.    My story only scratches the surfaces of a systemic problem that has been ongoing for years. The ACGME’s politically driven “opt-out” abortion training requirement has threatened the conscience rights protections we as physicians need to have to practice medicine effectively and ethically.   This “opt-out” criterion puts medical residents in an intimidating, career-threatening position, leaving them no choice but to challenge mentors who control grades and provide training opportunities that could impact their future in the medical field.   Coercion in the medical field should be highly discouraged. Yet, in the name of autonomy, medical bodies like ACGME and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG, make an exception for abortion. Never mind that 76 to 93% of OB/GYNs don’t perform induced abortions and are already trained to treat miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. ACOG aggressively pushes for standard and mandatory abortion training regardless, alienating a significant portion of the medical community. A 2016 study found that more than half of physicians identify as faith-based, with 65% believing in God, yet ACOG and ACGME show little concern for excluding them. In fact, another study conducted just before the Dobbs v. Jackson decision in 2022, revealed  nearly 25% of medical program directors have a negative view of students who refuse to conduct abortions based on deep moral convictions.    The result? The OB/GYN field ends up shrinking under the weight of politics dictating medical training.    Now is the time for physicians dedicated to medicine’s founding principles to act. In my letter to Attorney General Ken Paxton about the Coats-Snowe Amendment on elective abortion training, I quoted former Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, one of its co-sponsors: her goal was to “protect those institutions and those individuals who do not want to get involved in the performance or training of abortion when it is contrary to their beliefs,” while still maintaining strong medical training standards.     That’s the gold standard. Politics should protect scientific truth and ethical principles, not warp them. Now, thanks to Rep. Murphy and Sen. Lankford, we have the opportunity to revive it.    Rep. Murphy, a fellow physician and co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, also saw ACGME and ACOG’s “unchecked authority” and “political opinions in medicine.” His leadership, inspired by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has helped turn this bill into a reality.    Instead of the current “opt out” model, this bill would replace it with an “opt in” model , respecting the rights of physicians to practice according to their conscience and ethical medical approach. True conscience rights protections are  upheld and medical residents can choose without fear of retaliation.    I will always do the best for my patients: I will “do no harm.” Many other physicians agree. It’s time for Congress to step up and create safeguards to shield the medical field from political agendas. America’s medical students, physicians and mothers depend on it.    The post I Was Coerced Into Abortion Training. We Need Conscience Protections for Medical Providers.     appeared first on The Daily Signal.

House Republican Leadership wants to get its health care premium-slashing package passed this week. But will a party that has always struggled to find consensus on health care be able to get anything done? The bill in question is the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act, a bundle of targeted tweaks to Obamacare. Increased appetite to enact legislation to lower health care costs could also lead to a second budget reconciliation process, which Republicans used to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill in July. On health care, Republicans are battling against Democrat-led efforts to extend boosted premium tax credit levels set in place under President Joe Biden. As it stands now, the GOP bill will let these enhanced credits expire at the date set by Democrats under Biden, but put in place other premium-cutting provisions. The biggest policy change in the bill is the appropriation of Treasury funding toward cost-sharing reductions, a part of Obamacare. In theory, CSRs involve insurers being required to offer cheaper copays and deductibles to consumers for out-of-pocket expenses, for which the federal government reimburses them. Under President Barack Obama, funding for CSRs was originally provided directly from the executive branch to insurers, without explicit Congressional approval. This practice faced a Republican-backed court challenge before finally being cut off in 2017 during President Donald Trump’s first term. This change led to what is called “silver loading,” as insurers increased premiums on the Obamacare silver-level plan in order to make up for no longer being reimbursed for offering the legally mandated cheaper copays and deductibles. Proponents say that renewing funding for CSRs will effectively end silver loading, thereby lowering premiums substantially. Additionally, although counterintuitive, funding CSRs is likely to reduce the federal deficit, per the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan budgetary analysis office funded by Congress. This is due to the fact that higher premiums from silver loading have automatically increased the deficit costs from premium tax credits, which cover a set percentage of premiums for each income level. Fiscal Hawks So far, there is a good amount of support for the package among House fiscal conservatives because of the bill’s impact on the deficit. House Freedom Caucus chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., told The Daily Signal he supports the idea of funding CSRs. “Yes, I do [like it] because that’ll save tens of billions of dollars in subsidy costs for the federal government,” he told The Daily Signal. Still, there might be some groans among fiscal hawks as they support a bill which would pour more money into part of Obamacare, a law which created outrage among free-market conservatives in the 2010s and fueled rise of the Tea Party movement. Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images) “No,” Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, said bluntly when asked if he liked the idea of funding the reductions.  “Yeah that’s right, yeah, we spend money and it somehow saves us money,” he added, sarcastically. “It’s like the sales. I saved money because I bought more stuff.” Still, Davidson told The Daily Signal that the bill is “progress.” It includes other provisions requiring transparency from third-party pharmacy benefit administrators, as well as deregulating employers’ decisions in offering health plans. Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., another supporter of the Republican health care push, also expressed hesitancy over the cost-sharing reduction policy in principle. “Not the biggest fan, but listen, a lot of things at this time, I’m not the biggest fan,” Donalds told The Daily Signal.  Health Savings Accounts Coming Soon? Part of most Republican proposals to reform Obamacare has been instituting health savings accounts (HSAs) to replace the premium tax credits which cover consumers’ monthly costs. This is not included in the leadership-backed bill. The idea is that these funds would not go directly to insurance companies, would be less prone to fraud, and would offer consumers more flexibility. Conservatives in the House stressed Monday that they would like to see these instituted in the future. Johnson Teases Another Potential Big, Beautiful Bill in 2026@SpeakerJohnson tells The Daily Signal's @GCaldwell_news that setting up ?health savings accounts as an alternative to the Obamacare premium tax credit is "very much on the table," and that change could be implemented… pic.twitter.com/HeacKMy9w4— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 16, 2025 “What needs to happen is that there has to be expanded accounts within the confines of the ACA,” Donalds said. “So those premium subsidies, instead of going to health insurance companies, actually go to the American people.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., told The Daily Signal Tuesday that these policies remain on the table, and that he would like to implement them in 2026. It’s “very much on the table. The president likes the policy as well,” Johnson told The Daily Signal. “I think we could get broad consensus on that.” Johnson also previewed a likely budget reconciliation bill—a type of legislation that can pass with simple majorities in both chambers—next year to address the matter. “What we anticipate going into the first quarter of next year is—possibly in a reconciliation package, or in regular order, stand-alone—ideas just like this. We have a long list of things that we know will reduce premiums.” Revolt of the Moderates But what Johnson might fear more is a band of House Republicans ditching his health care bill for a Democrat-backed bill. Originally, the idea was to allow House Republicans from swing districts to bring forth an amendment on whether to extend the premium tax credits. These members, many from districts where Democrat president candidate Kamala Harris won more votes than President Donald Trump in 2024, would get a chance to fight for their preferred policy. But the proposal ran into difficulties due to the House’s CUTGO rule, which requires that any such amendment be budget neutral. This would have to require massive offsetting provisions to reduce mandatory spending. Speaker Johnson said Tuesday that this was now off the table. “There’s about a dozen members in the conference in these swing districts who are fighting hard to make sure that they reduce costs for all of their constituents, and many of them did want to vote on this,” Johnson said.  “We looked for a way to try to allow for that pressure release valve, and it just was not to be. We worked on it all the way through the weekend, in fact. And in the end… an agreement wasn’t made.” It remains to be seen whether these Republicans will offer some amendment at the House Rules committee, which will determine the rules for consideration of the bill. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn. (Eric Lee/Getty Images) The danger for leadership’s health care push is if a coalition of Republicans help move one of multiple discharge petitions now in circulation.  If one of these petitions gathered a majority of members’ signatures, it would force a vote on a bill to extend the subsidies. The Senate has already rejected a Democrat-backed three-year extension, though, so it would have little chance of reaching the president’s desk. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., told The Daily Signal that the petitions are a minor concern, and he is not whipping against them. “We don’t whip on discharge petitions, we don’t whip on rules,” he said. “We whip on bills that are the priority of the speaker and the Republican House to get across the finish line.” Speaker Johnson also expressed confidence that swing district Republicans would be on board with the premium-slashing package, saying, “one thing they will all join in unity on is voting for this bill.” The post Will the Republican Health Care Package Go Up in Flames? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As the three members of the FCC head to the Hill Wednesday for their first joint appearance before the Senate Commerce Committee, all eyes will be on Chairman Brendan Carr. The energetic agency head blazed a trail of MAGA media policy, reinvigorated the public-interest doctrine, destroyed diversity, equity and inclusion policies at Fortune 500 companies and combatted foreign influence on America’s communications infrastructure. His high-profile clashes with major media figures like Jimmy Kimmel and his close alliance with President Trump have made him a hero on the right and a villain on the left. All this will make for a more interesting hearing than the usual senatorial snoozefest over spectrum allocation.  In an administration with several big personalities, Carr stands out for his no nonsense competence. After years laboring in the agency as a staffer, general counsel and minority commissioner, Carr came in with a clear sense of how to use the powers of his office—both formal and informal—to move policy. Carr arrived in the chairman’s suite in January 2025 and immediately reinstated three complaints filed by my law firm, the Center for American Rights, alleging media bias by major networks. He shortly thereafter pried the transcript of Kamala Harris’ disastrous “60 Minutes” interview out of CBS. He next moved to confront DEI at the Fortune 500 companies holding licenses from the Commission, enforcing longstanding rules against discrimination by licensees. In the past year, T-Mobile, Verizon, Paramount and AT&T have all ended their DEI practices at the chairman’s behest. Seeing through David Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount was a major achievement for the chairman. In addition to ending DEI, Ellison pledged to bring greater viewpoint diversity to both news and entertainment and to embrace “American storytelling” as a top priority. This paved the way for Bari Weiss to come aboard as editor-in-chief of CBS News. The changes at Paramount are emblematic of broader shifts in the media landscape. Democrats and some conservatives have cried foul at times, saying that Carr’s increasingly vigorous oversight infringes on core First Amendment values. I’ve defended his approach. The chairman’s job regulating broadcasting means protecting core components of the public-interest standard like localism and viewpoint diversity. As Carr and his colleagues Olivia Trusty (R) and Anna Gomez (D) join the Commerce Committee, some senators will likely grandstand on behalf of Hollywood. They’ll focus on making Jimmy Kimmel the martyr for free speech, while ignoring the actually martyred Charlie Kirk. Expect Carr to push back by noting the important role that ABC affiliates, advertisers and viewers played in prompting Disney’s decision—Kimmel’s trenchant refusal to apologize or backtrack didn’t help either. Democrats will also likely focus on pending mergers among broadcasters, including Nexstar’s agreed acquisition of Tegna and Sinclair’s bid for E.W. Scripps. Twenty-two Republican senators signed a letter earlier this year supporting reform of the FCC’s rules capping station ownership; 22 Democrat senators joined a 2018 letter opposing that reform when former chairman Ajit Pai considered it. Carr is unlikely to make any firm commitments on ownership, given the fact these are open proceedings. A strong coalition of free-market advocacy groups, including mine, support the broadcasters in their bid for regulatory relief. Senators may also raise issues like broadband deployment and Elon Musk’s Starlink, but the topline story coming out of the hearing will be how Carr fares positioning himself as the champion for media reform and accountability. On that count, his record speaks for itself—he is consistently delivering big wins for the president’s agenda. The post FCC’s Brendan Carr Steps Into the Arena appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Republicans’ commitment to ending the mutilation of children is being tested this week with the upcoming House vote on the Protect Children’s Innocence Act.  The bill, sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and co-sponsored by more than 40 other House Republicans seeks to criminalize providing transgender surgeries or medications to minors in the United States. It also creates a right to action to sue for damages if a minor is a victim of a transgender procedure such as the administration of cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, or genital surgeries.  Laura Bryant Hanford, a visiting fellow at the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Human Flourishing at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal why establishing such a right was important.  “Unless there are teeth to the bill in terms of actual consequences for people who provide these procedures, the incentives to provide them are going to remain because it’s a very lucrative industry,” Hanford explained.  Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project, which helped craft Greene’s bill, echoed that sentiment. “The Protect Childhood Innocence Act provides the strongest protections for tens of millions of American children against a radical medical establishment that is all too willing to exploit vulnerable children for profit,” Schilling said. Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., a cosponsor of the legislation, told The Daily Signal, “What is being done to children is sick and indefensible,” adding, “This bill stops the abuse and gives victims the right to sue the adults and institutions that permanently harmed them when they were too young to consent.”  Greene’s legislation would help codify the executive order on this topic that President Donald Trump enacted during his first month in office. “The Trump administration has made great strides in protecting children, and lawmakers now have the chance to bury one of the most shameful—not to mention profitable—cases of child abuse in human history: They must take it,” Schilling contended. Mary Rice Hasson, the director of the Person and Identity Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, emphasized to The Daily Signal the need for legislation like Greene’s bill in general.  “Thousands of American adolescents have been subjected to unethical sex-rejecting interventions by a sham medical industry—the gender industry—which promised the impossible and exploited pain for profit,” Hasson said. “So called ‘gender transition’ is a promise that never delivers because no one can change sex. Instead, vulnerable kids suffer lifelong harm, disfigurement, and disability. Minors who have been harmed by these interventions deserve the right to bring civil actions against those responsible,” she concluded.  House Republicans may also consider the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, which would prohibit federal Medicaid payments for transgender procedures.  Schilling also supports that legislation telling The Daily Signal it, “will close the loopholes and put a stop to the political games Democrats have used to force taxpayers to pay for irreversible sex changes for children.”  “No American family should be at the mercy of radicals in white coats based on their mailing address, and this bill when coupled with the [Protect Childhood Innocence Act] will protect children nationwide,” Schilling concluded. The Daily Signal reached out to other cosponsors of Greene’s bill who provided statements in support of the legislation.  “Children are not political experiments. House Republicans will not allow radical ideology, bureaucratic pressure, or profit-driven interests to inflict irreversible harm on children who are far too young to understand the consequences. The Protect Children’s Innocence Act draws a clear moral line. We must protect kids, empower parents, and reject the dangerous lie that government knows better than families,” Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., said in a statement. “This legislation codifies President Trump’s executive order banning gender transition procedures for minors. So called “gender affirming care” should never be performed on minors and not funded by US tax dollars,” Rep. Stephanie Bice, R-Okla., told The Daily Signal. “Vulnerable children should never be subject to irreversible mutilation or chemical castration. I’m proud to support the Protect Children’s Innocence Act, which gives victims justice by holding medical professionals and institutions accountable for lifelong harm done under the false guise of ‘gender-affirming care,'” Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., told The Daily Signal. “I cosponsored the Protect Children’s Innocence Act because the federal government has a responsibility to protect children from irreversible harm,” Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y. said.  “No child should be subjected to genital mutilation or chemical castration for non-medical reasons or ideological agendas. This legislation makes clear that safeguarding minors and upholding basic standards of medical ethics must come before politics,” the New York congresswoman added. “Children should not be subjected to irreversible medical procedures,” Rep. David Kustoff, R-Tenn., told The Daily Signal in a statement. “The Protect Children’s Innocence Act is common sense. This bill draws a clear line by holding anyone accountable who knowingly performs these procedures on minors. It puts the focus back on protecting kids, not pushing ideology,” Kustoff added. Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., stated, “Radical transgender ideology has no place in America. Doctors should not be legally shielded when they inflict irreparable harm on their patients—especially children—by indulging in dangerous delusions that come with permanent, life-altering consequences. It is our highest duty in government to protect the vulnerable, and our laws should reflect that.” The post Republicans Weigh in on Bill Banning Transgender Procedures appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As Republicans in Congress debate whether to extend COVID-era health care premium tax credits, a prominent conservative organization is warning lawmakers not to abandon pro-life priorities. The Advancing American Freedom Foundation memorandum, entitled, “How Obamacare Subsidies Pay for Abortions” lays out a loophole in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which allows for taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortions. “While the legislative text of [Obamacare] says that an insurance plan ‘shall not use any amount attributable’ to the federal tax credit to pay for abortion services, the legislation allows subsidies to fund plans that cover abortions,” it reads. “As written today, D.C. and 25 states allow ACA plans to cover abortions… This state loophole makes the existing abortion funding restrictions toothless,” it adds. AAFF – How Obamacare Subsidies Pay for Abortions-2Download Advancing American Freedom was founded by former Vice President Mike Pence. At the end of the year, COVID-era boosts to premium tax credit levels passed under President Joe Biden are set to expire. House Republican Leadership’s new bill, set to hit the floor this week, would allow the expiring enhanced credit levels to revert back to pre-COVID levels. The baseline credit would remain.  House and Senate Democrats, as well as handful of Republicans in both chambers, have expressed support for a clean short-term extension of the current credits. But there are some Republican proposals to overhaul the premium tax credit system, many of which involve create flexible health savings accounts equivalent to the benefits of the credits. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., told The Daily Signal Tuesday that he still supports instituting flexible health savings accounts as an alternative to premium tax credits, despite this not being in his current health care package. It’s “very much on the table. The president likes the policy as well,” Johnson told The Daily Signal. “I think we could get broad consensus on that.” Johnson Teases Another Potential Big, Beautiful Bill in 2026@SpeakerJohnson tells The Daily Signal's @GCaldwell_news that setting up ?health savings accounts as an alternative to the Obamacare premium tax credit is "very much on the table," and that change could be implemented… pic.twitter.com/HeacKMy9w4— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 16, 2025 Johnson also previewed a potential budget reconciliation bill—a type of legislation that only requires a simple majority in both chambers—to tackle the issue. “What we anticipate going into the first quarter of next year is—possibly in a reconciliation package, or in regular order, stand-alone—ideas just like this,” he said. Vice President JD Vance also told The Daily Signal on Tuesday at a rally in Pennsylvania that he would favor an overhaul of the Obamacare premium tax credit system. NEW: @VP tells @DailySignal “Republicans and Democrats [will] have to figure out what can be passed together” on healthcare. “Of course, the president is going to drive a lot of that process. We're still reviewing some of these legislative texts as they come up. We believe that… pic.twitter.com/TgHWKIxcfQ— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) December 16, 2025 “We have the weirdest health care system in the world where we tax money from all of these great Americans out here and then we give boatloads of money to the insurance companies,” he told The Daily Signal. “Why don’t we give that money to the American people and let them buy insurance that works for them and their families?” Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell contributed to this report. The post Pro-Life Policy Memo: Democrats Fighting to Extend Obamacare Subsidies That Fund Abortion appeared first on The Daily Signal.