Ohio’s pro-abortion Reproductive Freedom Amendment, passed in 2023, has now been used to block a state law requiring the humane burial or cremation of aborted children. Last week, Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals upheld a ruling against Ohio’s SB 27, which mandated fetal remains be buried or cremated. The appeals court concluded “that the plain language of the Reproductive Freedom Amendment constrains the State’s ability to regulate all phases of an abortion, including conduct occurring after the procedure.” That ruling follows a 2021 decision from the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas preliminarily blocking the law, as well as a 2025 permanent injunction. Ohio Right to Life Executive Director Carrie Snyder describes that court as “the most extreme liberal court that [abortion advocates] can find.” What the Law Addressed While abortion advocates bringing suit against SB 27 focused on the 2023 ballot initiative, pro-life groups focused on the law itself. “The court’s decision to strike down Ohio’s fetal remains law removes a basic standard of human dignity from state policy,” Peter Range, a senior fellow for the Center for Christian Virtue, told The Daily Signal. “With this ruling, the remains of a child aborted at 10, 15, or even 20 weeks may now be treated under Ohio’s ‘infectious waste’ regulations—no differently than other medical waste,” he also warned. Snyder declared it “a tragedy when a human body is treated like trash,” explaining that the law was “a way to address that issue and didn’t burden a woman approaching this decision at all.” Doomed by Lawsuits From the Start Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed SB 27 into law on Dec. 30, 2020, with lawsuits quickly coming before the law even went into effect. The February 25 ruling from the First District Court of Appeals made clear that the Reproductive Freedom Amendment factored into their decision. The decision also read that “the voters of Ohio intended to create a separate, independent state constitutional basis for protecting abortion and abortion providers from State intervention, other than that explicitly allowed by the Amendment. In this regard, the Reproductive Freedom Amendment fills the constitutional void left by Dobbs [v. Jackson]. Nothing in this history or the rationale for the Amendment suggests that the voters intended to excise post-abortion conduct from its protections. Rather, the fact that Ohio voters mobilized quickly to counteract a decision of the United States Supreme Court sends a strong message of their desire to protect reproductive rights.” A press release from the American Civil Liberties highlighted the following passage, “Ohio voters said what they meant. The state may not burden, penalize, or discriminate against those who have an abortion and those who assist them in obtaining one.” Nevertheless, concerns remain about what voters were actually considering. Snyder pointed out that the amendment was not a matter of making abortion “completely legal or completely illegal,” or about medical care for concerns such as miscarriages. “That was not what they were voting on, that was what they thought they were voting on,” Snyder said. “As the court explained, the Reproductive Freedom Amendment protects conduct that occurs before, during, and after a procedural abortion,” countered Jessie Hill, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Ohio. “While this law has not been in effect for years, today’s ruling will allow our clients to focus on providing essential health care without further interference from the state. We celebrate this ruling as yet another testament to the power of Ohio’s new Reproductive Freedom Amendment, and the first affirmative interpretation from an appellate court.” Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, which was also involved in the case, directed The Daily Signal to a statement from their medical director, Dr. Sharon Liner. “We’re pleased that the court upheld the injunction blocking the cruel burial and cremation law. Abortion is essential healthcare and this law was nothing more than an opportunity to shame and stigmatize our patients. Our focus remains on the health, safety, and dignity of our patients,” Liner said. Reproductive Freedom Amendment Plays a Role Range shared with The Daily Signal that the decision to strike down the fetal remains law was expected. “This outcome is not surprising in light of the 2023 abortion amendment. Ohioans were told the amendment would not eliminate commonsense health and safety standards. Yet we are now seeing laws struck down that were designed to reflect basic respect for human life and to ensure accountability in the abortion industry,” he pointed out. The amendment could be used against other pro-life laws. “The abortion advocates are using this vote from 2023, basically as a two-by-four,” Snyder said. “Voters were not given a drop down list of things that they wanted or didn’t want as far as abortion law, so every single thing that comes up in the category whatsoever, they are pointing to this amendment.” “I do fear that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg now,” Snyder added. The amendment has further ramifications beyond laws being struck down. Both Range and Snyder expressed concerns about Ohio seeing an increase in abortions in 2025. Despite passing such an amendment, Ohio remains a red state. That’s something of a silver lining, especially compared to neighboring states like Michigan. “If we compare to Michigan, which passed a similar amendment, and they have a very radical pro-abortion majority in the governor and legislature, and so they knocked down every restriction as fast as they could,” Snyder said. “So I think in Ohio, we’re fortunate that we have pro-life majority in the legislature, we have a pro-life governor, we’re able to muffle the impact at least in the short-term.” She also referred to the Ohio Supreme Court as a “much more favorable court” than the lower courts. . The post Ohio’s Abortion Amendment Used to Block Fetal Remains Law appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It is no small thing to grasp the true significance of current events, let alone their spiritual meaning. Sure, any man can tell you that the southern states seceded because Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, and that they did so because Lincoln aimed to keep slavery out of the federal territories. Few at the time, however, understood the North’s massive economic and logistical advantage over the South, and deduced that beginning a civil war might have doomed the institution of slavery itself. It took an act of astounding genius, however—or perhaps divine inspiration—to see that God brought the Civil War upon America as judgment for the United States’ hypocrisy in denying to black people the freedom we so valiantly fought for in the Revolution. The Second Inaugural On March 4, 1865, a mere 41 days before his assassination and 36 days before the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse that ended the war, Lincoln captured the spiritual significance of an entire war in a 701-word Second Inaugural Address. With heavy poignancy, he noted that both the North and the South “read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other.” “The prayers of both could not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully,” Lincoln noted. My favorite two sentences ring like a thunderclap. “Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away,” the president said. “Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, ‘The judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'” With due humility, Lincoln does not dare to state that God brought the Civil War on the United States as the just punishment for slavery, but he firmly suggests as much. He does not suggest that the North, the force fighting for freedom, is guiltless. Perhaps for this reason, Americans have agreed with Lincoln, and honored this interpretation by etching it into the wall of the Lincoln Memorial. Americans may be surprised to hear it, but Lincoln was an unwilling abolitionist. You might say that God forced his hand. Why Didn’t Lincoln Always Support Abolition? Lincoln saw slavery as an evil, yes, but he was willing to put up with it to preserve the union. It’s hard for us, who rightly abhor slavery, to understand the political circumstances at the time. Southern slaveholders had a great deal of power, and the salient political issue wasn’t whether slavery would be abolished but whether slavery would be allowed to spread west into new lands that became their own states. One of the earliest laws in American history, the Northwest Ordinance, excluded slavery from the territories that now make up Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The Founders anticipated that slavery—which they saw as a necessary evil—would disappear because it was growing economically unprofitable. Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin changed that, and by the 1820s, southerners had started defending slavery as a positive good. The 1820 Missouri Compromise drew a line, allowing slavery in territories south of the line but forbidding it in territories above the line. Yet the southern slave interests had so much power in the federal government that they kept demanding slavery north of the line. Lincoln’s political career grew from his opposition to the notion of “popular sovereignty,” which stated that territories north of the line could enter the union as slave or free states based on the votes of white men. Lincoln’s opponent for U.S. Senate in 1858, Democrat Stephen Douglas, supported popular sovereignty. Douglas played a large role in passing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which applied this principle to the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. The law inspired a mini-civil war in Kansas, as pro-slavery settlers battled anti-slavery settlers for the incoming state’s future. Restrainers like Lincoln didn’t advocate for abolition—abolitionists were considered fringe extremists—but they did champion a return to the older principle of limiting slavery to southern states and territories. The South’s rejection of that compromise—morally flawed though it was—spurred the secession movements. When Lincoln won the 1860 election, those who wanted to expand slavery could not abide a president who wanted to restrain it. The Crucible of War The war itself convinced Lincoln to dismantle slavery. The freedmen in the North proved their mettle on the battlefield. The Emancipation Proclamation, a war measure, only freed slaves in Confederate-held territory in order to encourage revolts there. Only with the ratification of the 13th Amendment did the United States fully abolish slavery—and the states did not ratify that amendment until Dec. 6, 1865, long after Lincoln’s death. Most of us would be foolish to attempt to divine God’s purposes in human events, but Lincoln—like the humble prophet Moses before him—spoke from his own experience what God had been doing. As the Left and the Right seem ever more divided on basic truth and morality, I pray that the Almighty would preserve us from such a fate. From killing babies in the womb to mutilating the bodies of children, I can think of more than one great sin in our country today. There are times when I tremble for my country to remember that God is just. The post Abraham Lincoln’s Greatest Speech Revealed the Civil War’s Divine Meaning appeared first on The Daily Signal.

WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) — President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he had ordered the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to provide political risk insurance and financial guarantees for maritime trade travelling the Gulf, adding that the U.S. Navy could begin escorting oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz if necessary. The announcement marks one of the administration’s most aggressive steps yet to contain rising energy prices and calm oil markets amid escalating conflict in the Middle East that has raised risks to shipping through key waterways. Trump has made lower fuel costs for Americans central to his economic messaging, and the move signals a willingness to use financial and military tools to prevent disruptions to global crude supplies. “No matter what, the United States will ensure the free flow of energy to the world,” Trump said in a social media post. Trump added that more actions are coming. Global crude prices have spiked since Israeli and U.S. forces began striking Iran over the weekend, leading to fighting that has interrupted Middle East oil tanker shipments. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Energy Secretary Chris Wright were expected to meet with Trump on Tuesday afternoon to present a list of proposals to address the issue and finalize a response, two sources familiar with the plan told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Trump told reporters on Tuesday that Americans may have to live with higher oil prices for a short period, “but as soon as this ends, those prices are going to drop, I believe, lower than even before.” If higher energy prices persist, they could undermine efforts by lawmakers in Trump’s Republican Party to retain power in the congressional midterm elections in November. WAR-RISK PREMIUMS RISE Oil shipments have been largely blocked through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which around a fifth of the world’s oil is shipped, with a number of tankers damaged by strikes and others stranded. Shipping companies and insurers have begun reassessing their exposure to the region. War-risk premiums have jumped and some providers have scaled back or withdrawn coverage, industry sources say. Higher insurance costs have made it more expensive for tankers willing to risk travelling through the area, prompting some operators to delay voyages or seek alternative routes. U.S. support for tanker insurance is not unprecedented. During the Iran-Iraq conflict in the 1980s, Washington reflagged tankers and provided naval escorts when private insurers withdrew coverage. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. issued insurance policies to keep shipping ?moving amid elevated war-risk premiums. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Monday the U.S. has a “program in place” to fight rising energy prices and that it would be implemented by Wright and Bessent. “Starting tomorrow you will see us rolling out those phases to try to mitigate against that,” Rubio said. He provided no details. The administration has been reluctant to tap the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but officials could signal as early as Tuesday that they are prepared to use it if prices continue to climb, one source said. Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw and Timothy Gardner; additional reporting by Nandita Bose, Shariq Khan and Arathy Somasekhar; Editing by Paul Simao, David Gregorio and Nia Williams The post Trump Orders Oil Tanker Insurance Support, Says Navy Could Escort Ships in Gulf appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick will testify to the House panel investigating the high-profile links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  “Secretary Lutnick has proactively agreed to appear voluntarily before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,” committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in a public statement on Tuesday.  The committee did not provide a date for the testimony.  “I commend his demonstrated commitment to transparency and appreciate his willingness to engage with the Committee,” Comer continued. “I look forward to his testimony.” Lutnick told Axios, “I look forward to appearing before the committee. I have done nothing wrong and I want to set the record straight.” Last week, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., wrote a letter to Lutnick calling for him to turn over all records about his connection to Epstein.  President Donald Trump has called Lutnick “a very innocent guy.” The Justice Department released files on Epstein that showed Lutnick was at Epstein’s home in 2011, and his family met with Epstein at the private island in 2012.  Lutnick initially said that he had not talked to Epstein since 2005, which was before Epstein was convicted in June 2008 in Florida for soliciting prostitution from a minor.  Lutnick told the Senate Appropriations Committee on Feb. 10 he “barely had anything to do with” Epstein. He said to the Senate panel he didn’t recall why he had the 2011 and 2012 meetings.  Last week, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave depositions to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about their ties to Epstein. The committee has also deposed former Attorney General Bill Barr about the Justice Department’s investigation of Epstein.  The post Epstein Probe Widens as Top Trump Official Agrees to Face House Panel appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., took the Senate floor last week to call out Big Tech, targeting Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and accusing social media companies of harming young users.  Her remarks come as a case unfolds in Los Angeles County Superior Court, where 20-year-old Kaley G.M. is suing Meta and Google’s YouTube. She accuses the companies of designing addictive and harmful platforms that have negatively impacted her mental health. Zuckerberg continues to deny these accusations.  The case is part of a growing national debate over whether social media companies should be legally responsible for how their platforms affect teens’ mental health.  Blackburn said on the Senate floor regarding this case, “New court documents that were made public … revealed that nearly one in five—one in five—young teenagers have reported seeing nudity or sexual images on Instagram that they did not want to see.”  The impact of these social media platforms has shown to worsen anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.  CEO in Denial  Zuckerberg denies that his platform increases mental health risks.   “He asserted that there is no link between youth social media use and worse mental health outcomes,” Blackburn explained. “When a child is online, they are the product. The longer they are online, the richer their data.”  Blackburn also noted that when Zuckerberg testified, downplaying the accusations, he did so within feet from the parents of children who have tragically lost their lives from social media.  “Last year, Meta spent roughly $20 million fighting the Kids Online Safety Act.”  Kids Online Safety Act  Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D?Conn., and Blackburn are sponsors of the Kids Online Safety Act. The legislation would protect minors from social media, video games, and other platforms by requiring safeguards for users under 17.  Annie Chestnut Tutor, a policy analyst for the Center for Technology and the Human Person at The Heritage Foundation, said, “The revised KOSA requires platforms to obtain verifiable parental consent for research for children older than 13. This robust measure provides parents with greater autonomy over how Big Tech companies may use their children’s information.”  She added, “KOSA empowers parents by giving them the final say in their child’s privacy and account settings.”  New research and a poll show that 86% of Americans say “that they want tech companies to be held accountable for their role in the social media addiction crisis, and Congress should listen to them,” Blackburn said.  She explained that an earlier version of the Kids Online Safety Act passed “the Senate on a 91 to 3 vote. It has a veto proof majority.” However, it never passed the House before the last congressional session ended.  The post Blackburn Takes Aim at Big Tech for Harming Teens’ Mental Health  appeared first on The Daily Signal.