The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its information on the potential link between autism and vaccines, no longer ruling out the possibility of causation.   “We (HHS) are updating the CDC’s website to reflect gold standard, evidence-based science,” Health and Human Services Press Secretary Emily Hilliard told The Daily Signal.  On Wednesday, the CDC updated its page titled “Autism and Vaccines.” The website now includes three key points:   The claim “vaccines do not cause autism” is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.   Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.  HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links.  ROBERT KENNEDY: 'The Department of Health and Human Services Will Act on Acetaminophen'@RobertKennedyJr announces that cases of autism are linked to pharmaceutical products that contain acetaminophen, which is prevalent in Tylenol, when taken during pregnancy. Additionally, the… pic.twitter.com/vHr1wqwzYB— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) September 22, 2025 The Department of Health and Human Services, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., oversees the CDC. Kennedy, who joined President Donald Trump to lead the Make America Healthy Again movement, is widely known for questioning the vaccine schedule.   “News reports have claimed that I am anti-vaccine or anti-industry. I am neither. I am pro-safety,” Kennedy said in January during his opening statement before the Senate Finance Committee.   “Secretary Kennedy has launched a comprehensive review of autism’s causes, including investigations into environmental and biologic factors, with an emphasis on transparency, reproducibility, and gold-standard science,” said Hilliard. “The CDC’s site updates are part of that broader effort to ensure all public-facing information reflects ongoing scientific inquiry.”  .@SecKennedy: “We’re losing a whole generation to addiction and mental health illness and it’s not necessary…It’s a priority for us.” pic.twitter.com/6khlFBo49L— HHS Rapid Response (@HHSResponse) November 18, 2025 Jay Richards, director and senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, explained the change in comments to The Daily Signal. “For years, the CDC has misrepresented what is known, and not known, about the connection between an ever-expanding childhood vaccine schedule and the massive surge in autism,” Richards told The Daily Signal. “In reality, public health agencies including the CDC have generally avoided conducting studies that could definitively answer that question. With these changes, the CDC has finally corrected this error.” “The CDC should not be in the business of preventing vaccine hesitancy,” he added. “It should be in the business of discovering and reporting the truth, no matter how inconvenient. I’m hopeful that these official language changes at the CDC website will be followed by a serious effort at both the CDC and HHS more broadly to follow the evidence on the autism question wherever it leads.”   Now that America has removed mercury from all vaccines, I call on every global health authority to do the same — to ensure that no child, anywhere in the world, is ever exposed to this deadly neurotoxin again. pic.twitter.com/LYitY3PfRc— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) November 3, 2025 The post Do Vaccines Cause Autism? CDC Moves From Denial to Doubt   appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., faces a House Ethics Committee investigation following the introduction of a censure resolution by Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., on Wednesday that was ultimately referred to the committee. In a Nov. 19 press release, the Ethics Committee’s chairman and ranking member said they would look into whether Mills had broken the law or otherwise violated standards of conduct. The release specifically cited “allegations that [Mills] may have: (1) failed to properly disclose required information on statements required to be filed with the House; (2) violated campaign finance laws and regulations in connection with his 2022 and 2024 election campaigns; (3) improperly solicited and/or received gifts, including in connection with privately sponsored officially-connected travel; (4) received special favors by virtue of his position; (5) engaged in misconduct with respect to allegations of sexual misconduct and/or dating violence; and/or (6) misused congressional resources or status.” Mills, who represents Florida’s 7th congressional district, has denied committing any wrong. The Army veteran of the Iraq war first joined the House of Representatives in 2023 after a successful business career in the defense industry where he co-founded companies that provided risk management and security services. On Wednesday, Mace had introduced a resolution to censure Mills and strip him of his assignments on the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The House ended up voting by a margin of 310 to 103 to avoid an up or down vote on the resolution by referring it to the House Ethics Committee.  Some Republicans have blamed Mills’ alleging political maneuvering behind the scenes for the House’s failure Tuesday to censure Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett over her texts with Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing. Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., posted on X after the Tuesday night vote on Plaskett that “A handful of Republicans took a dive on a vote to strip Stacy [sic] Plaskett of her position on House intel because of her ties to Epstein. They did it to protect a Republican facing his own ethics issues from a similar vote. This backroom deal s*** is swampy, wrong and always deserves to be called out.” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., appeared to agree writing on X, “The Plaskett censure failed because house leadership exchanged that censure failure for the withdrawal of a vote to censure and refer Cory Mills to house ethics for investigation. The swamp protects itself.” Mills for his part denied participating in any backroom deal to avoid being punished by the chamber, stating on social media that he had expected to have a vote on his censure brought to the floor on Tuesday, which was also the day of the Plaskett vote. “There was no backroom deal, no negotiation, and no quid pro quo of any kind that would’ve forced the Democrats to stand down that vote against me,” Mills said in a statement, adding, “Anyone pushing that narrative is just wrong.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who has been unafraid to criticize Republican leadership in recent months along with fellow Republican lawmaker Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., decried the decision to refer the censure resolution to the House Ethics Committee. “Tonight I voted NO to refer the Cory Mills censure resolution to Ethics Committee because the House should vote yes or no to censure Cory Mills not continue to protect their own in secret committees,” Greene wrote on X. The Daily Signal has reached out to Mills’ office for comment. The House Committee on Ethics declined to comment. The post House Ethics Committee Announces It Is Investigating Congressman Cory Mills appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Tuesday, the media was filled with stories that a three-judge panel had voted 2-1 to issue a 160-page order blocking the Texas legislature’s new congressional redistricting plan.  The order claimed the redistricting was unlawfully based on race as opposed to partisanship—a claim at odds with what we all saw happen in the partisan political fight within the state legislature, which included a walkout by Democrat legislators.  What wasn’t attached to the order was the dissenting opinion by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith, a 37-year veteran of the federal judiciary who is greatly respected for his legal acumen.  His 104-page dissent came out a day later and marks the most scathing denunciation I have ever read of another judge. In this case, the judge being denounced is Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown, who wrote the majority decision, along with Judge David Guaderrama, who joined the opinion. In his dissent, Smith accused Brown and Guaderrama of “pernicious judicial misbehavior” in deliberately not providing Smith with “any reasonable opportunity” to review Brown’s opinion “and respond” before it was issued. Smith calls it “the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved.”  He spends four pages going through the timing involved and says that “any pretense of judicial restraint, good faith or trust by these two judges is gone.” Smith then starts off the substance of his dissenting opinion by acknowledging an undeniable fact: “The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom.  The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law.”  Smith proceeds to totally dismantle the majority’s decision and its unsubstantiated claim that race, not politics, was the driving factor in the redistricting. Throughout,  he repeats the phrase “I dissent” more than a dozen times. Smith even includes two pages of “a non-exhaustive list of misleading, deceptive, or false statements Judge Brown put forward,” a very serious charge against a sitting judge Smith says the list “would be considerably longer but for the press of time; there’s no lack of fodder.” Smith apologizes for his dissent being “disjointed,” but says refining it was not possible because Brown and Guaderrama “have not allowed it.”  Thus, his dissent is “far from a literary masterpiece,” but if “there were a Noble Prize for Fiction, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a prime candidate.” According to Smith, Brown’s opinion is so deceptive and so lacking in facts or law that Brown could have “saved himself and the readers a lot of time and effort by merely stating the following”: I just don’t like what the Legislature did here.  It was unnecessary, and it seems unfair to disadvantaged voters. I need to step in to make sure wiser heads prevail over the nakedly partisan and racially questionable actions of these zealous lawmakers…I’m using my considerable clout as a federal district judge to put a stop to bad policy judgments.  After all, I get paid to do what I think is right. Brown’s actions are, Smith wrote, “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism” that he has “ever witnessed” during his lengthy judicial career. According to Smith, the main question before the three-judge panel was “whether the Texas Legislature did its mid-decade congressional redistricting to gain political advantage or, instead, because the main goal of Texas’s Republican legislators is to slash the voting rights of persons of color.” Smith likened the approach of the lawyers and witnesses in this case to that of Department of Justice lawyers from the Civil Rights Division in prior Texas redistricting cases: It was obvious, from the start, that the DoJ attorneys viewed state officials and the legislative majority and their staffs as a bunch of backwoods hayseed bigots who bemoan the abolition of the poll tax and pine for the days of literacy tests and lynchings.  And the DoJ layers saw themselves as an expeditionary landing party arriving here, just in time, to rescue the state from oppression. Having worked in the Civil Rights Division, I can assure you that his observation is absolutely 100% accurate. While acknowledging that the Justice Department was not present in this case, Smith said that “the same attitudes about Texas Republican legislators have been reflected in the testimony of multiple experts and witnesses presented by these plaintiffs and, occasionally…by their talented counsel and the statements of the parties.”  But the “obvious reason” for the Texas redistricting, Smith wrote, was “partisan gain.” The majority, he wrote, “commits grave error in concluding that the Texas Legislature is more bigoted than political.”  Smith methodically points out all of the grave errors Brown and Guaderrama made in evaluating the evidence in the case over what the legislators did and how and why the new districts were drawn the way they were.  Those errors are too numerous to list here. Smith’s conclusion that the majority committed “grave error” is the key legal standard for overturning a preliminary order. Texas has already filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.  Smith says the evidence in the case, as well as outside events, like the “victory lap in Houston to celebrate” by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, tell “you all you need to know – this is about partisan politics, plain and simple.”  Regardless “of one’s political slant, it’s obvious what Texas is trying to do in 2025,” obvious to everyone that is except the two judges who joined the majority opinion: The Republicans’ national margin in the House of Representatives is so slim that squeezing out a majority might even depend, day-to-day, on whether some seats are vacant because of deaths or resignations….The new plan [in Texas] was to make more seats winnable for Republicans by moving some Democrat incumbents from their districts and rendering other districts unwinnable by Democrats. Smith describes the plaintiffs’ theory—the one ultimately adopted by Brown—as “both perverse and bizarre.” They claimed that if politics was the reason for redistricting, then the Republicans would not “have drawn five” new seats, but instead would have drawn “six, seven, or eight additional seats and that the reason they did not is that the real reason” for the redistricting was “racial animus.”  The “absurdity of that notion speaks for itself,” Smith writes. Smith concludes his dissent by citing the unfairness the majority is imposing on “Texas voters who are having a map implemented by their duly elected legislature overturned by a self-aggrandizing, results-oriented court.”  He tells the Supreme Court that Brown’s order, “replete with legal and factual error, accompanied by naked procedural abuse, demands reversal.” With this decision, Smith writes, “darkness descends on the rule of law.” The post Texas Redistricting: The Most Scathing Denunciation of a Court Decision I’ve Ever Read appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Midterm Madness: House Dems to Face a Mamdani Purge

42% of Births in Canada to Foreign Born Mothers

As she did just over a year ago, Alyssa Farah Griffin, the faux conservative for ABC’s The View, came to the defense of Vanity Fair editor Olivia Nuzzi, the liberal journalist who cheated on her then-fiancé Ryan Lizza with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. During Thursday’s episode, Farah Griffin proclaimed floozy Nuzzi was “one of the best writers of my generation” and hoped she “will come forward and defend herself” from new allegations of sleeping with another politician and a former MSNBC host. Near the top of the segment, moderator Joy Behar was perplexed that people had a problem with a journalist having affairs and sleeping with their sources: “And her ex-fiance, who’s also a political reporter, is writing a blog claiming that she had an affair with yet another politician. Okay. (…) So, what's wrong with that?” “The problem is that's unethical under journalism standings,” co-host Sunny Hostin had to explain to her. “I mean you can’t sleep with a source because there's an immediate conflict of interest in your reporting. And she gave glowing reports – She wrote glowing reports about the two men that she allegedly had affairs with.” Apparently tired of hearing Hostin list off Nuzzi’s transgressions, Farah Griffin interjected to defend and glaze her friend: FARAH GRIFFIN: If I could mention; I said before when this came up, I've been friendly with Olivier over the years and I want to give her the credibility of this. She's one of the best writers of my generation. She wrote for New York magazine. She wrote – HOSTIN: Why is she having affairs with the subjects of her – FARAH GRIFFIN: I'll get there. I remain frustrated that when this story comes up there are so many calls for her to be held accountable, her being dragged, and RFK Jr., who allegedly participated in this gets off scot-free and is in the cabinet. That bothers me.   Alyssa Farah Griffin whines that Nuzzi is being dragged for being a fluzzi and cheating on her fiance multiple times and blames "society": "I want to give her the credibility. She's one of the best writers of my generation ... I remain frustrated that when this story comes up… pic.twitter.com/OkLrO9lz1e — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 20, 2025   She went on to blame “society” and men for Nuzzi choosing to cheat and sleep around. “I think it's society's [fault],” she argued. At one point, she seemed to try to paint Nuzzi, a consenting grown adult who chose her actions to advance her career, as a victim: “The man had more power. He was 30 years older than her.” Farah Griffin did admit that Nuzzi’s actions harmed journalism. “But I think journalism matters more than ever and when you break ethical boundaries, I think that makes people lose trust in the media,” she said. “[P]eople don't trust the media because of things like this.” But, she pivoted to trying to wash Nuzzi’s hands of responsibility and blame the news media industry: But I also think this is a by-product of what's happening in journalism right now. A lot of it, like, great journalists are getting laid off left and right. It’s hard to be able to pay people for good journalism. And a lot of executives frankly are telling people your personal brand, how many Twitter followers you have, your Instagram matters more than anything. So, I think in many ways she's sort of a by-product of the moment we're in in the country, not -- it's not like something -- I just think there's so much focus on her uniquely in it rather than what does it say more about society at the moment.   Farah Griffin argues for Nuzzi's career: "The alleged RFK situation was inappropriate. I would have never engaged. I don't think women in journalism should but I think you can come back from one mistake. I don't think that should ruin your entire career. What makes me nervous… pic.twitter.com/IkGp4SWLA6 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 20, 2025   While further admitting the “alleged RFK situation was inappropriate,” Farah Griffin hoped Nuzzi could bounce back. “But I think you can come back from one mistake. I don't think that should ruin your entire career. What makes me nervous about the story it sounds like there may have been other situations. And I just hope if that's untrue she will come forward and defend herself,” she said. Nuzzi already had parlayed her journalistic malpractice into a new editor position (which Hostin accurately called into question) and a new book. The only person harmed in this was Lizza. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View November 20, 2025 11:17:13 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: And her ex-fiance, who’s also a political reporter, is writing a blog claiming that she had an affair with yet another politician. Okay. SUNNY HOSTIN: That she wrote about. She was a journalist working a story and she slept with both of the people she was profiling. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Allegedly. HOSTIN: Allegedly. [Laughter] BEHAR: Yeah, well. So, what's wrong with that? HOSTIN: The problem is that's unethical under journalism standings. Right? I mean you can’t sleep with a source because there's an immediate conflict of interest in your reporting. And she gave glowing reports – She wrote glowing reports about the two men that she allegedly had affairs with. BEHAR: So, one of them was RFK, right? HOSTIN: Well, apparently it was an emotional affair because it was just -- SARA HAINES: Someone with a worm. We don't name-names. We don’t know. HOSTIN: Text message affair. BEHAR: Is she vaccinated because that's the end of that relationship? [Laughter] FARAH GRIFFIN: If I could mention; I said before when this came up, I've been friendly with Olivier over the years and I want to give her the credibility of this. She's one of the best writers of my generation. She wrote for New York magazine. She wrote – HOSTIN: Why is she having affairs with the subjects of her – FARAH GRIFFIN: I'll get there. I remain frustrated that when this story comes up there are so many calls for her to be held accountable, her being dragged, and RFK Jr., who allegedly participated in this gets off scot-free and is in the cabinet. That bothers me. But do feel strongly. I think that - BEHAR: Now, whose fault is that? FARAH GRIFFIN: I think it's society's. I think that society needs to call for men – HOSTIN: RFK Jr. has denied it though. He said there was no affair. [Crosstalk] HAINES: It might have been another man with a worm FARAH GRIFFIN: The man had more power. He was 30 years older than her. [Crosstalk] BEHAR: One at a time. One at a time. FARAH GRIFFIN: But I think journalism matters more than ever and when you break ethical boundaries, I think that makes people lose trust in the media. HOSTIN: It does. FARAH GRIFFIN: I think that part of the moment we're in, is people don't trust the media because of things like this. But I also think this is a by-product of what's happening in journalism right now. A lot of it, like, great journalists are getting laid off left and right. It’s hard to be able to pay people for good journalism. And a lot of executives frankly are telling people your personal brand, how many Twitter followers you have, your Instagram matters more than anything. So, I think in many ways she's sort of a by-product of the moment we're in in the country, not -- it's not like something -- I just think there's so much focus on her uniquely in it rather than what does it say more about society at the moment. (…) 11:22:24 a.m. Eastern FARAH GRIFFIN: But listen! I think the RFK situation, the alleged RFK situation was inappropriate. I would have never engaged. I don't think women in journalism should. But I think you can come back from one mistake. I don't think that should ruin your entire career. What makes me nervous about the story it sounds like there may have been other situations. HOSTIN: Yes. FARAH GRIFFIN: And I just hope if that's untrue she will come forward and defend herself. HOSTIN: Yes. I hope she does. FARAH GRIFFIN: Because like I said, she is tremendously talented and I think that would really help her. BEHAR: Meanwhile she gets the bad name and these guys just walk away. As usual! (…)

POLL: What was the worst media take of the week? (Vote below)     NOMINEES:    1. Katy Tur: Shutdown Revealed Trump’s “Dark Side” “The shutdown did reveal quite a dark side of Donald Trump….Posting about the grim reaper coming to slash government jobs, laying off workers….Suing states to say, ‘No, you can’t release these SNAP funds.’...There was a certain callousness that went further than I’ve seen Donald Trump go in the past.” — Host Katy Tur on MSNBC’s Katy Tur Reports, November 12.    2. Katie Couric Blames the Victim: “Charlie Kirk’s Rhetoric Was Extreme”  “I think some people might say Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric was extreme. You know, I think that’s the conversation that happened. People condemned political violence, but they also felt a great deal of discomfort with his language, suggesting that these kinds of words lead to violence. I don’t know, I’m just kind of sharing my observations as I saw the conversations unfold.”— Host Katie Couric to Sen. John Fetterman on her podcast Next Question with Katie Couric, November 13.    3. Sunny Hostin: America is a “Sick” and “Racist” Country “I think it’s ridiculous that people don’t see what this country was founded on and what this country still is sickened with. It’s a sick country. It’s a racist country.”— ABC’s The View co-host Sunny Hostin on Behind the Table podcast, November 18.     Funded by James P. Jimirro

Tuesday’s PBS News Hour was blessed with a rare sight: A Catholic bishop as guest. But of course PBS didn’t invite him on to talk about the church’s opposition to abortion (there was little attention to pro-lifers in Wednesday’s nine-minute News Hour story on an underground network of abortion pill providers). Instead, El Paso bishop Mark Seitz was featured for his opposition to deportation of illegal immigrants under President Trump, which new Pope Leo has made a political crusade for the church. Amna Nawaz: Pope Leo spoke out today about the Trump administration's approach to mass deportation and the treatment of some immigrants. The pope was asked about Catholic bishops who have been critical of those policies. In a so-called special pastoral message, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops decried the — quote — "indiscriminate deportation campaign" and said they are — quote — "praying for an end to the dehumanizing rhetoric and violence." The pope offered his support for that message this evening. Pope Leo XIV: I appreciate very much what the bishops have said. I think it's a very important statement. I would invite especially all Catholics, but people of good will, to listen carefully to what they said. I think we have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have. If people are in the United States illegally, there are ways to treat that. There are courts. There's a system of justice. Nawaz: Before the pope's remarks, I spoke with one of the bishops behind that immigration message. That's Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, who met with the pope this fall…. CBS News previously featured Seitz in a May 2024 segment, being hailed by Pope Francis for, in his words, doing “the impossible to help the migrants” -- or, less sympathetically, shielding undocumented migrants from law enforcement. But Nawaz didn’t bring up Seitz’s immigration activism. Nawaz: If you had a chance to speak directly with someone in the White House, what would you say? Rev. Mark Seitz: ....we would express our great concern about some of the rhetoric that's been using, characterizing whole large groups of people, and giving the impression that they're criminals, that they're rapists and all of these kinds of things that have come along.... Still, Seitz’s absolute capitulation to the far-left viewpoint on one issue didn’t wholly satisfy Nawaz, who didn’t approve of the church’s hesitation to fully embrace transgenderism, and used discredited media conventional wisdom to bolster her complaint. Nawaz: Bishop, I have to ask you. At the same Baltimore conference where you approve this immigration message, I know bishops also agreed on a statement and a decision around the treatment of transgender people by the church, made the decision to officially bar Catholic hospitals from providing gender-affirming care for transgender people. Can you explain why, what's behind that decision? Seitz: ....we couldn't go along with doing something that we believe would be harmful to a person and in fact would not — would harm them for life in many cases. Then Nawaz lunged for the discredited, data-barren proposition that gender dysphoria is a genuine affliction that can be cured via “gender-affirming care," i.e. surgical and chemical castration and mutilation. (We had hoped the News Hour’s transgender obsession had ceased with the departure of reporter Laura Barron-Lopez.) Nawaz: I should note that the gender-affirming care is backed by medical professionals and by years of study. But I will also note we heard from other faith leaders this week saying — from Episcopalian faith, from Presbyterians, Reform Jews saying they feel their faiths compel them to treat transgender, intersex and nonbinary people with respect, love and equal rights. They're reading from the same holy text here, right, so why the divide? Which "holy text" has the passage on transgenderism?  A transcript is available, click "Expand." PBS News Hour 11/18/25 7:45:33 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Pope Leo spoke out today about the Trump administration's approach to mass deportation and the treatment of some immigrants. The pope was asked about Catholic bishops who have been critical of those policies. In a so-called special pastoral message, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops decried the — quote — "indiscriminate deportation campaign" and said they are — quote — "praying for an end to the dehumanizing rhetoric and violence." The pope offered his support for that message this evening. Pope Leo XIV: I appreciate very much what the bishops have said. I think it's a very important statement. I would invite especially all Catholics, but people of good will, to listen carefully to what they said. I think we have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have. If people are in the United States illegally, there are ways to treat that. There are courts. There's a system of justice. Amna Nawaz: Before the pope's remarks, I spoke with one of the bishops behind that immigration message. That's Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, who met with the pope this fall. Bishop Seitz, welcome to the "News Hour." Thanks for joining us. Rev. Mark Seitz: It's great to be with you, Amna. Amna Nawaz: So, as we noted there, this kind of message is very rare. What did you and other bishops see that said to you it's necessary to deliver this message and right now? Rev. Mark Seitz: Well, I think probably there were a lot of people that would have liked to have heard from us as a body even sooner. But it's a complicated matter with 300-plus bishops in the United States to come together around a statement. Even though there is a high deal of unanimity in terms of the issue itself, to come together on the words is challenging and we undertook that process at our last meeting. Amna Nawaz: Now, I should note that President Trump is not mentioned by name anywhere in the statement, but this is in response to his policies and his approach. And his border czar, Tom Homan, responded to your message by saying the Catholic Church is wrong. What's your response to that? Rev. Mark Seitz: Yes. Well, he has a right to his opinion, but he needs to realize he's disagreeing with the Catholic Church. Our role in the church is that we are to speak according to the Gospel and the teachings of the church. And certainly when you find this degree of unanimity between the Holy Father and the entire body of bishops of the United States, there ought to be something that causes people to look up and say, wow, this must have something to do with church teaching. Amna Nawaz: You also say in the statement, you're grateful for the chance to dialogue with public and elected officials. Have you had that chance? Are you or any of your colleagues speaking to the White House or to DHS? And what is it specifically you would like to see change? Rev. Mark Seitz: Well, we're constantly seeking to be in communication with the government. And we see ourselves as having a role of conscience formation, you might say, just speaking the basic principles that we believe that we have gotten from the Gospel and through the history of the church's reflection on these issues. We believe we have something to offer to the polity, to the state. And we do that wherever we are. So we have been in contact, but we haven't had the level of contact to this point that we would like, that we have seen in the past with the leadership of our country. Amna Nawaz: If you had a chance to speak directly with someone in the White House, what would you say? Rev. Mark Seitz: Well, I'd certainly want to have a conversation with them. But we would express our great concern about some of the rhetoric that's been using, characterizing whole large groups of people, and giving the impression that they're criminals, that they're rapists and all of these kinds of things that have come along. We would also want to remind them that this country has signed on to a law that is our own in this country, but also according to international law, that says that we will accept people into this country who are fleeing for their lives. And the law establishes a way to do that that recognizes the urgency of that acceptance in some cases. So we would remind them about that. We would ask that they be very careful when they consider actions that could result in the division of families and the separation of families or sending people, individuals or families into situations that are really threatening to their very life in some of the countries that we're considering sending people to. Amna Nawaz: Bishop, I have to ask you. At the same Baltimore conference where you approve this immigration message, I know bishops also agreed on a statement and a decision around the treatment of transgender people by the church, made the decision to officially bar Catholic hospitals from providing gender-affirming care for transgender people. Can you explain why, what's behind that decision? Rev. Mark Seitz: Well, first of all, let me say that we believe that we should love and care for every human being, and that is the goal of the church. But, sometimes, actions that a person might request might not be in their best interest, from our understanding of the human person, according to what we have received from Scripture, from the teaching of the church. And so we couldn't go along with doing something that we believe would be harmful to a person and in fact would not — would harm them for life in many cases. Amna Nawaz: I should note that the gender-affirming care is backed by medical professionals and by years of study. But I will also note we heard from other faith leaders this week saying — from Episcopalian faith, from Presbyterians, Reform Jews saying they feel their faiths compel them to treat transgender, intersex and nonbinary people with respect, love and equal rights. They're reading from the same holy text here, right, so why the divide? Rev. Mark Seitz: Well, there's always been differences based on the interpretation of the Scriptures, and I don't think that's going to end right away, although we would love to see it happen. But we read it differently than they do. And, again, we have tremendous respect and care for people who are going through this struggle. We want to support them, walk with them, but we wouldn't want to do anything that we would believe would hurt them. Amna Nawaz: Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, we thank you so much for your time, for making the time to speak with us. Appreciate it. Rev. Mark Seitz: You're welcome. God bless you and your listeners.

The horrific attack on a woman on a public train in Chicago has garnered angry responses from many — but the Democratic mayor was not one of them.The 26-year-old victim is in critical condition after a man doused her with a liquid at about 9:30 on Monday night and then lit her on fire on the CTA Blue Line train. The man fled from the scene, and police later arrested 50-year-old Lawrence Reed as a suspect.'The issue is violent misdemeanor offenders & how to stop. Be part of the solution, Mayor.' When asked to comment on whether the suspect should have been on the streets in the first place, Mayor Brandon Johnson initially called it an "isolated incident," according to a Chicago Tribune reporter."This is an isolated incident, and I don't see this as some sort of trend. And again, the level of accountability that has to happen in this moment, I trust that the federal level will do its part," Johnson said."As awful and as horrific as this tragedy is, this is an isolated incident. As we continue to invest more in our public transportation system, we want people to feel safe," he added, "and that's why I'm doing my part to ensure that these investments are getting right to the people."Many on social media thought his response was not proportional to the depth of pain the innocent victim suffered."Downplaying this as an isolated incident is absolutely insane," replied Carter Christensen, a communications strategist for ActBlue."Brandon Johnson's minimization of a woman being randomly set on fire on Chicago's public transportation system is absolutely appalling," another user responded on social media."Loop Punchers hurting women too. The issue is violent misdemeanor offenders & how to stop. Be part of the solution, Mayor," another response reads."Some dude in Chicago with 49 prior arrests lit a woman on fire in public. But somehow this dips**t can't say he should have been in jail," another response reads."Yes it's an isolated incident but maybe if his f**king city doesn't stop releasing these pieces of s**t then it can quickly go from isolated to infrequent until it becomes a common incident," another added.Reed has reportedly been arrested more than 70 times in Cook County alone and has at least 13 convictions.RELATED: Man allegedly lit random woman on fire on Chicago train — suspect had numerous previous arrests Johnson offered more serious comments at a press conference later where he expressed "shock and horror" at the attack."This is an absolute failure of our criminal justice as well as our mental health institutions. This individual was charged with dozens of felonies over the past three decades," Johnson said. "He was clearly seriously mentally disturbed and was a danger to himself and to others. The system that we had failed to intervene. ... We're also praying for her family at this time. This is a horrific tragedy that should have never happened."Reed is facing federal terrorism charges over the incident. Police have since said they have evidence that he filled a bottle with gasoline at a gas station just 20 minutes before the attack.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A former teacher in Kentucky — who was accused of asking her underage lover to kill her husband — has learned her fate for sexually assaulting a jailed minor.In April, 28-year-old Elena Bardin was arrested and initially charged with three counts of sexual abuse, solicitation of murder, and distribution of obscene material, according to a court records citation People magazine obtained. Following her arrest, Bardin was hit with three counts of unlawful transaction with a minor.'I know you say you'll take care of him, but shouldn't someone else do it so suspicion is miles away from you?'Kentucky State Police said in an April statement that Bardin "solicited a male juvenile at the Adair Juvenile Detention Center to kill her husband."But a jury acquitted Bardin of the charge of soliciting the teen to murder her husband.However, in September, Bardin was convicted of one count each of first-degree sexual abuse, unlawful transaction with a minor, and distribution of obscene material to a minor.People said the defendant's estranged husband, Michael Bardin, and the alleged victim both testified against Bardin for the prosecution.Last week, a judge sentenced Bardin to four years in prison for first-degree sexual abuse, 10 years for unlawful transaction with a minor, and 12 months for the distribution of obscene material to a minor; the sentences are to be served concurrently. Bardin also was ordered to register as a sex offender for 20 years, according to Court TV.During sentencing, Circuit Judge Samuel Spalding noted there were 193 pages of "letters, pictures, and everything else," which he described as "juicy.""The letters you sent ... they were juicy, they were things you'd see in a triple-X movie, and completely inappropriate, obviously, and I think you know that, for a young man that age," Judge Spalding stated, according to WKRC-TV.Spalding continued, "And for an educator, it was incumbent upon you to set a better example. I will say, though, the 193 pages of letters, pictures, everything else, it depicts a very intelligent and articulate young woman who was clearly articulating her thoughts and desires to this kid."RELATED: Ex-middle school teacher — guilty of 21 counts of sex crimes against daughter's underage babysitter — learns her fate Bardin — a reported mother of a 5-year-old girl — had been an English teacher at the Adair County Juvenile Detention Center, where the victim was detained.The Kentucky State Police said, "Evidence also revealed that Ms. Bardin had subjected the juvenile to illegal sexual contact and provided him with sexually explicit images of herself."Citing testimony from Bardin's supervisor at the juvenile detention center, the judge added that the former teacher had been warned to end the relationship and stay away from the teen. Judge Spalding reportedly stressed that the student had been moved to another section of the detention center."And, ma'am, not only did you not heed that advice and stop, it looks to me like you actually doubled down on the behavior after that, and that is concerning," Spalding alleged.Prosecutors accused Bardin of having a sexual relationship with the 17-year-old student who was detained at the juvenile facility.The Kentucky State Police stated, "On March 27, 2025, the Adair Juvenile Detention Center conducted a routine search of juveniles' living units where letters and explicit material were found in a male juvenile's possession sent by an Adair County School teacher assigned to the facility."The Union-Bulletin reported, "According to prosecutors, in one of the letters confiscated by investigators, Bardin talks about oral sex and having sex in the boy's cell.""I hope you enjoyed that. I did," Bardin reportedly wrote in a letter to the minor, according to the Union-Bulletin.Another letter written by Bardin allegedly said, "I know you say you'll take care of him, but shouldn’t someone else do it so suspicion is miles away from you? IDK, I'm going to miss you so (redacted) bad tonight. You look so handsome today, love. I love you."In April, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that the Adair County school district listed Bardin — with her first name spelled "Elana" — as a teacher at the Adair Learning Academy, which is part of the Adair Youth Development Center.The youth development center operates in conjunction with the regional juvenile detention center, the Herald-Leader said, citing the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice. Adair Superintendent Jason Faulkner told the paper that Bardin was an employee of the district and that she had been terminated.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!