A study published two years to the day since the overturning of Roe v Wade, which ended the constitutional right to abortion access in the USA, has found that infant deaths rose by much more than expected in the state of Texas in the months following the state’s 2021 ban on abortion in early pregnancy.Texas state law Senate Bill 8, or SB8, came into effect on September 1, 2021. At the time – more than eight months before the momentous Supreme Court decision Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v Wade – this was the most stringent anti-abortion legislation in the country, outlawing abortion after the point when a fetal heartbeat could be detected. This milestone is reached as early as five or six weeks into a pregnancy, which may be before somebody even suspects they might be pregnant.There is no exemption for congenital fetal anomalies, or pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, but there is an exception made for “medical emergencies”. The highly controversial act empowers members of the public to take civil action against anyone performing or facilitating an illegal abortion, and the threat of litigation meant providers felt unable to continue offering pregnancy termination services in the state even while the 50-year precedent set by Roe v Wade remained in place.Other states sought to copy Texas’ example, and after Dobbs v Jackson, a flurry of other abortion restrictions were brought into effect. Researchers are therefore very interested in the impact that SB8 has had since 2021.The new study, led by a team at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, examined the number of infant and neonatal deaths in Texas between March and December 2022, the first set of pregnancies under a fully enacted SB8.The researchers estimate that there were 216 excess deaths of infants under 1 year old during this period, which would not have occurred had the law not been in place. The total number was 1,913, representing an increase of 12.7 percent over the expected 1,692.The pattern with neonatal deaths – that is, death in the first 28 days of life – was similar, with an estimated 145 excess deaths.“Our study is particularly relevant given the June 2022 Dobbs Supreme Court decision that returned abortion lawmaking to states and subsequent rollbacks of reproductive rights in many states,” said Dr Alison Gemmill, one of the study’s lead authors, in a statement. “These findings suggest that restrictive abortion policies may have important unintended consequences in terms of infant health and the associated trauma to families and medical costs.”The data also showed an unusual increase in the number of deaths of babies with congenital anomalies. Before SB8, it was possible to seek a termination in the state of Texas at up to 20 weeks of pregnancy if a medical issue with the fetus was detected.Infant deaths due to congenital anomalies increased by 22.9 percent in Texas during the study period – this is compared to an increase of 3.1 percent in the rest of the US. Accidental deaths also went up by 21 percent in Texas, and by only 1 percent in the rest of the country, based on an analysis of 28 states for which data were available.“Our results suggest that restrictive abortion policies that limit pregnant people’s ability to terminate pregnancies, particularly those with fetal abnormalities diagnosed later in pregnancy, may lead to increases in infant mortality,” said co-lead author Dr Suzanne Bell.The study has some limitations. It was difficult to exactly pinpoint pregnancies that had been affected by SB8 as the gestational ages of infants dying in 2022 were not available. There was also a lack of sociodemographic data, so it’s unclear whether the increased deaths were disproportionately seen in certain communities.However, the results align with previous data suggesting that stricter limits on abortion access are associated with excess infant mortality.Bell added, “These findings make clear the potentially devastating consequences abortion bans can have on pregnant people and families who are unable to overcome barriers to this essential reproductive health service.”The study is published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics.

The peregrine falcon is no slouch. Capable of achieving speeds of over 320 kilometers per hour (200 miles per hour), this rapid raptor is not just the fastest bird in the sky, but the speediest animal on the planet.However, the peregrine falcon is only able to reach these dizzying speeds when performing a kind of dive known as a hunting stoop. When it comes to level flight, there’s another bird that takes the gold.Sticking with the overall champ for now, a hunting stoop is essentially a break-neck free-fall maneuver that the falcon uses to catch its prey. Soaring to a height far above its victim – which may well be another bird – the peregrine then tucks in its wings to ensure a more aerodynamic shape before plummeting beak-first, almost straight downwards.A split-second before reaching its target – whether on the ground or in the air – the falcon spreads its wings in order to break its fall and change direction. The fastest speed ever clocked by a peregrine falcon in a hunting stoop is 389.46 kilometers per hour (242 miles per hour), which was achieved by a bird named Frightful from Washington State.Recorded as part of a documentary for National Geographic, this meteoric descent began when the falcon was released from a plane at an altitude of 5,182 meters (17,000 feet), which is far higher than a bird of this sort would usually fly. The validity of this record has therefore been challenged by some ornithologists who question whether a peregrine falcon could reach such a high speed under normal conditions.Despite their ridiculous vertical velocity, however, peregrine falcons are no match for the common swift when it comes to regular, wing-powered flight. During courtship displays – known as "screaming parties" – these small birds live up to their names by accelerating to their top speed, with the fastest ever recorded flight being 111.6 kilometers per hour (69.3 miles per hour).While this is the highest speed to have been reliably measured in a bird in level flight, it’s widely thought that the white-throated needletail – a relative of the common swift – may be able to go much faster, with unconfirmed reports suggesting a top speed of 169 kilometers per hour (105 miles per hour). For the time-being, however, the title of fastest animal in level flight actually belongs to a mammal. Putting all avian contenders to shame, the Brazilian free-tailed bat has stolen the crown by traveling at a speed of 160 kilometers per hour (99.5 miles per hour) – much to the disappointment of all the swifties out there.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: women make better astronauts (according to science). Now, thanks to a recent study on the effects of space travel on the human immune system, we have all the more reason to believe that female folk may be more tolerant to the stresses of space than men.Granted, the study was very small and the findings are preliminary, but as its authors write, it does suggest that “males appear to be more affected by spaceflight, for almost all cell types and metrics.”The researchers were attempting to understand how the unique conditions of spaceflight – including microgravity, fluid shifts, and radiation – impact astronauts’ immune responses. To do so, they focused on people who were part of the SpaceX Inspiration4 mission in 2021 – the first all-civilian mission to orbit.Overall, they found “conserved and distinct immune disruptions”. For example, markers related to inflammation, aging, and muscle homeostasis had changed after spaceflight and they identified what they call a “spaceflight signature” of gene expression. In short, space can have a big impact on the body.But they also noticed some interesting sex-dependent differences in response to spaceflight, which is an area of research that has been largely neglected.“Sex-specific variation in immune response is frequently observed in clinical settings, but poorly understood, and this phenomenon has yet to be investigated in-depth at the single-cell level during spaceflight,” the team write. To change this, they examined the immune responses of two men and two women who were part of Inspiration4, and compared with data from 64 NASA astronauts.Males, they found, experienced greater disruption to gene expression following spaceflight, with more differentially expressed genes – genes that show significant differences in expression levels between two or more groups – and a slower recovery to the baseline of this expression. Proteins, including IL-6, IL-8, and fibrinogen – which have important roles in infection defense, inflammation, and blood clotting, respectively – were also found to have sex-specific differences following spaceflight.“The aggregate data thus far indicates that the gene regulatory and immune response to spaceflight is more sensitive in males.”The reasons behind this difference are not yet clear, but senior author Professor Christopher Mason suggests it could have something to do with having a body primed for pregnancy. “Being able to tolerate large changes in physiology and fluid dynamics may be great for being able to manage pregnancy but also manage the stress of spaceflight at a physiological level,” he told the Guardian.Whatever the reason, the study’s findings have important implications for future space travel, which could mean we see the gender gap in space – only 11 percent of the world's astronauts are women! – redressed.“More studies will be needed to confirm these trends,” the researchers conclude, “but such results can have implications for recovery times and possibly crew selection (e.g., more females) for high-altitude, lunar, and deep space missions.”The study is published in Nature Communications.

There's too much talk of "expectations" before a debate, but wow, talk about setting the expectations bar low! On today's Morning Joe, Washington Post columnist and MSNBC analyst Eugene Robinson said that if Biden can "remain upright" and "make sense," that would be a "massive victory" in Thursday night's presidential debate. Jonathan Lemire teed Robinson up to discuss his current WashPost column, "For thin-skinned Trump, every week is Shark Week," wherein Robinson mocked Trump for raising a hypothetical at a rally about which would be worse if you were in an EV boat that was sinking: stay on board and risk getting electrocuted by the batteries, or jump off and take your chances with the sharks. Robinson suggested that Biden could trigger Trump into a rambling riff just by mentioning "shark and boat," or also, "water" -- a reference to another Trump rally remark in which he suggested that overly strict environmental regulations are limiting water flow in dishwashers and showers. Get him in "Trump rally" mode for the win: For now, Lemire and Robinson can share a fun chuckle at Trump's expense.  But Lemire should remember that—as we caught him saying earlier this week—Democrats are telling him that if Biden stumbles badly at the debate, he might have to drop out of the race. And the sharks circling the hapless Biden would then be named Kamala, Gavin, Hillary, and . . . Michelle? Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 6/25/24 6:14 am EDT JONATHAN LEMIRE: We know, look. Donald Trump, for minutes at at a time, can appear disciplined and on the ball. But we know that usually doesn't last.  We know that the Biden campaign is going to try to provoke rambling monologues about sharks. You, in fact, just wrote about how for Donald Trump, every week is Shark Week. And that's where it is here, too. We know that the stakes are high for Joe Biden, that he has to look like he is up for the job. But so does Donald Trump. And for a lot of Americans, Thursday night will be the first time they really hear Donald Trump in four years. They might be surprised what they find. EUGENE ROBINSON: Yeah. They might be very surprised to hear Trump 2024, who is obsessed with sharks. And so, if Biden wants to trigger him, just say shark and boat and let him go off. I mean, or say water. He has this other rap about water and dishwashers. and it's very confusing. But to get him into that sort of rally Trump mode, in which he's all over the map. He can't complete a sentence or a thought, and he's just riffing in the most bizarre way. I think that would be kind of an ideal situation for Biden. But I, I basically agree with the analysis. President Biden needs to remain upright, make sense. Do what he did at the State of the Union. And given where expectations have been set by the Republicans, that is a massive victory for Biden. Because, you know, they have essentially conditioned the Trump base to expect Biden to fall over at the debate, or to fall asleep, or simply not to have any idea where he is. And that was a huge mistake.

Earlier this week, NewsBusters was the first to report that the defamation suit against CNN could cost the network upwards of $1 billion. The possible cumulative damages were able to be that high because a Florida appeals court affirmed that plaintiff, security contractor, and Navy veteran Zachary Young was able to prove malice on behalf of CNN. And what few have seen, was the video from inside the oral arguments leading up to that ruling where two judges grilled CNN’s lawyer on their use of the term “black market” and if the network’s oversight board owned dictionaries. At the top of his statement in oral argument, CNN’s counsel Charles D. Tobin seemingly tried to suggest that CNN’s negative attitude toward Young was warranted because he wouldn’t answer their questions regarding his efforts to get corporately sponsored Afghans out of the country, Judge L. Clayton Roberts interrupted and made the point, “that we with regard to the allegations that CNN called – said Mr. Young's prices were too high. That's kind of a subjective thing, right? You know whether something costs too much, it seems like mostly opinion. Right?”     Tobin agreed and Roberts went on to question him about CNN’s use of the term “black market” (both in spoken word The Lead host Jake Tapper and the on-screen chyron). The Judge pressed Tobin on the dictionary definition: [W]hen they were talking about Mr. Young, they had his picture on the thing and there was a chyron that says he was involved in a black market. And, you know, I've looked in a couple of dictionaries –  three or four – and the first definition for black market in all the dictionaries is criminal activity. And you know, if you are accusing someone of criminal activity and they're not involved in a crime, that's usually defamation per se. Correct? In response, Tobin seemingly admitted that what CNN reported could be seen as defamatory: “Under the law where we would be looking at the defamatory meaning, perhaps it would be.” He then argued that the definition didn’t matter. “Here, we're on a question of actual malice, express malice, and outrageous conduct measured by objective standards. Under that criteria, your honor, regardless of what the meaning may be in the dictionary, which is an objective definition,” he said. Roberts then questioned Tobin on CNN’s internally lauded oversight committee known as “Triad.” He wondered if their team of editorial and legal professionals had dictionaries and/or knew what the words they used meant: ROBERTS: Tell me how the triad works. TOBIN: The triad, your honor, is a group of three different departments at CNN. It's the Standards and Practices Department, it's the Legal Department, and it's the Editorial Department, they come together and – ROBERTS: So, these are lawyers and professional writers that, you know, are used to dealing with words and have dictionaries and know how precise – what words mean? TOBIN: One would presume, your honor, that they're educated people that they've been in the business for a while. But your honor, there is nothing in the record discussing the word “blackmail” [sic] at all among any of the CNN journalists. And it is plaintiff's burden. At one point, Tobin appeared to admit that CNN was reporting on Young without all the facts about what he was doing. “[T]here is no evidence in the record that CNN, for example, knew the promises were being fulfilled or that there was a demand, there was not a demand for exorbitant fees,” he told the court. Judge Thomas D. Winokur stepped in and pointed out that “none of those things describe what could be commonly referred to as ‘black market.’ I see Judge Roberts's point that ‘black market’ clearly implies dictionary definition or otherwise, an illegal exchange of goods.” To which, Tobin conceded was “at least” a “poor choice of words” by CNN. On the question of CNN’s internal e-mails where CNN employees called Young “a shit bag,” talked about how they were going to “nail” him, and discussed how the story was going to be his “funeral,” Roberts wondered if that was “at least some evidence of malice?” Tobin asserted “It's actually the opposite.” Later in the hearing, Young’s counsel, Vel Freedman directly confronted the notion of “black market” having multiple meanings. “I would add that the ‘black market’ has one definition in every dictionary, not just the first but one in every dictionary we've looked at,” he said.  Adding: “And CNN has failed to put forward any dictionary with an alternative definition. It means illegal activity, full stop. And that's what the case law that we've to the court as well treats it: illegal activity.” Appearing to play Devil’s advocate, Roberts noted that Tobin’s suggestion was that the network used the word “in a more colloquial sense.” “So, what CNN is claiming is they took a word from the English language that has one definition and they meant when they said ‘black market,’ they actually meant ‘grey market,’ but they said ‘black market’ that has one definition,” Freedman countered. “CNN can't get up there and say, ‘Hey, Mr. Young is a serial killer,’ but actually mean that he was a good Samaritan, but they only knew that in their head.” Noting that the court was operating as a “gatekeeping function” to “ensure proper claims” met a jury, Freedman boiled down why a jury should eventually hear the case: “And to say that when somebody uses a word, that means what it means is not a sufficient showing, then I don't know what should reach the jury for punitive damages claims.” In a statement to NewsBusters, Freedman said:: "CNN claims to be the “most trusted name in news,” but their internal documents show that the only thing you can “trust” CNN to do, is ignore the facts, push an agenda, and hurt innocent people. We’re looking forward to trial." CNN did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: First District Court of Appeals – State of Florida April 9, 2024 00:16 – 05:29 timestamps (…) CHARLES D. TOBIN: Your honor. Plaintiff sued CNN for defamation concerning news coverage about profiteering in the chaotic days after the United States government withdrew their troops from Afghanistan. The record before this court shows that CNN and – CNN aired these newsworthy stories after more than two weeks reviewing information from sources including social media posts by Mr. Young where he was flippant, evasive when people asked him about his pricing model. After eight days of direct evasive communications with Mr. Young where CNN asked him about his pricing model, and he would not respond in any substance. JUDGE L. CLAYTON ROBERTS: Well, it seems to me that we with regard to the allegations that CNN called – said Mr. Young's prices were too high. That's kind of a subjective thing, right? You know whether something costs too much, it seems like mostly opinion. Right? TOBIN: It is an opinion, your honor. An opinion is not actionable. ROBERTS: So, the thing in this particular case that does seem a little more actionable was the fact that, you know, when they were talking about Mr. Young, they had his picture on the thing and there was a chyron that says he was involved in a black market. And, you know, I've looked in a couple of dictionaries –  three or four – and the first definition for black market in all the dictionaries is criminal activity. And you know, if you are accusing someone of criminal activity and they're not involved in a crime, that's usually defamation per se. Correct? TOBIN: Under the law where we would be looking at the defamatory meaning, perhaps it would be. Here, we're on a question of actual malice, express malice, and outrageous conduct measured by objective standards. Under that criteria, your honor, regardless of what the meaning may be in the dictionary, which is an objective definition. What plaintiff needed to show is that subjectively CNN intended that meaning otherwise there is no facts in the record to give rise to a reasonable jury question about actual – ROBERTS: Tell me how the triad works. TOBIN: The triad, your honor, is a group of three different departments at CNN. It's the Standards and Practices Department, it's the Legal Department, and it's the Editorial Department, they come together and – ROBERTS: So, these are lawyers and professional writers that, you know, are used to dealing with words and have dictionaries and know how precise – what words mean? TOBIN: One would presume, your honor, that they're educated people that they've been in the business for a while. But your honor, there is nothing in the record discussing the word “blackmail” [sic] at all among any of the CNN journalists. And it is plaintiff's burden. ROBERTS: Well, black market is the word that was used in the chyron. Right? TOBIN: Actually, your honor, the words used in the in the chyron and said by Jake Tapper when he introduced the story was, “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantees of safety or success.” And so in context, we maintain that it is clear on the face what CNN meant by black market, which is defined within the phrase itself, a market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantees of safety of success. And there is no dispute, there is no evidence in the record that CNN, for example, knew the promises were being fulfilled or that there was a demand, there was not a demand for exorbitant fees. We just discussed that that's an opinion, your honor, no guarantee of safety or success, the issue on punitive — JUDGE THOMAS D. WINOKUR: I hate to keep harping on this, but none of those things describe what could be commonly referred to as “black market.” I see Judge Roberts's point that “black market” clearly implies dictionary definition or otherwise, an illegal exchange of goods. TOBIN: Your honor. WINOKUR: That has nothing to do with those other descriptions in the chyron. TOBIN: If it was a poor choice of words, your honor, and at best, we argue that it was at best a poor choice of words, your honor. That may have an impact on the rest of this case below under negligent standard, actual malice. I mean, whatever standard the trial judge decides to apply. Here, in the punitive damages context, the burden was the plaintiffs in the court below to show that that is the meaning that they intended. It is not implied, it is not assumed by the court. It is based on record evidence under 768.72 of the intention for that meaning. ROBERTS: So what, what are we to make of the internal emails that were, were brought into the record where they called Mr. Young a shit bag? They said that they were gonna nail the Zachary Young and ever, said he had a punchable face, said he was an asshole and said it was his funeral, bucko. What, what do we make of those? TOBIN: Your honor. ROBERTS: Is that at least some evidence of malice? TOBIN: It's actually the opposite, your honor. It's evidence that the CNN journalists as they were taking information in, as information was coming in from different sources, sincerely believed that Mr. Young was engaging in exploitive and shady practices. (…) 11:06 – 11:46 timestamps ROBERTS: But there were no other individuals that were highlighted as providing these overpriced black market activities? TOBIN: That's correct your honor. I merely pointed out to discuss what CNN's – what the record reflects as to CNN’s motive and it does not reflect the primary motive to do this story to call Mr. Young anything other than somebody engaged in activities in a chaotic environment in Afghanistan, which was a matter not only of public interest but the U..S government's interest, the nongovernmental organization's interest, and the interest of all Americans who were trying to sort out the U.Ss government's conduct in withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan. (…) 13:51 – 15:55 timestamp ROBERTS: Don't you agree that whether Mr. Young's prices were reasonable under the circumstances is kind of just a matter of opinion? VEL FREEDMAN: I don't think the reasonableness of his prices are being sued over. I think there are two bases that are the general – that are the bases for the defamation lawsuit. The first is, as the court has noted as Judge Roberts, as you noted is the “black market” definition. And judge, I would add that the “black market” has one definition in every dictionary, not just the first but one in every dictionary we've looked at. And CNN has failed to put forward any dictionary with an alternative definition. It means illegal activity, full stop. And that's what the case law that we've to the court as well treats it: illegal activity. So, that's one basis. The second basis isn't about the amount of money he was charging, it's that he charged. ROBERTS: But do we need to look at their intent? Because, opposing counsel's argument was that they were using it in a more colloquial sense. They weren't saying this man's committing a crime. They're saying this man's doing something shady. FREEDMAN: So Judge, I think it is absurd in its face to say that they are using the word “black market” that has but one definition in the English language in a way that it wasn't intended to be used. So, what CNN is claiming is they took a word from the English language that has one definition and they meant when they said “black market,” they actually meant “grey market,” but they said “black market” that has one definition. CNN can't get up there and say, “Hey, Mr. Young is a serial killer,” but actually mean that he was a good Samaritan, but they only knew that in their head. And you know what Judge, if they did, Fine. Let them argue that to the jury. At this stage, as the court was focusing on appropriately before, we need to show a reasonable showing that a reasonable basis for punitive damages exists. Will a jury buy that argument that they meant something else when they said black market? I don't think so, but this court is only serving in a gatekeeping function at this point to ensure that proper claims of punitive damages reach the jury. And to say that when somebody uses a word, that means what it means is not a sufficient showing, then I don't know what should reach the jury for punitive damages claims. (…)

A 26-year-old woman from Pennsylvania fell to her death after plunging into a waterfall and drowning while visiting Glacier National Park in Montana. The woman's identity has not yet been released. The New York Post reported that the incident happened above St. Mary's Falls on Sunday. The waterfall is 35 feet high and a popular hiking location for visitors to explore on the park's east side.Those who witnessed the horrific incident said the woman was washed over the falls and remained submerged at the bottom of the water for several minutes before someone was able to pull her back to the surface. The individual conducted CPR on the woman until the authorities arrived, according to the report.The park authorities received several emergency calls about the drowning around 5:20 p.m. Park rangers made it to the scene around 5:45 p.m., 25 minutes after the calls were made.Though a helicopter landed nearby around 6:20 p.m. and resuscitation efforts were made, the woman never regained consciousness after being pulled from the water. The authorities called off the resuscitation efforts around 7:00 p.m., and the woman was officially pronounced dead, according to park officials.The woman's body was transported to the 1913 Ranger Station around St. Mary, Montana. The body was subsequently taken to the medical examiner in Missoula, Montana, for an autopsy.Following the incident, the national park service released a statement: "Park staff would like to thank Glacier County, ALERT, Babb Ambulance and US Border Patrol for this support, along with numerous bystanders for their immediate assistance."“The park extends their deepest condolences to family and friends of the woman and asks that the public respect their privacy," they added.The incident is currently under investigation, according to the reports. The authorities intend to notify the woman's next of kin before releasing her name to the public.Drowning is one of the leading causes of death for those who visit the park, according to park officials. In 2022, park officials said it was tied for the deadliest year in the park.As of 2017, there had been 56 visitors to the park who had drowned to death inside the park. Experts noted that hikers are often too casual with the seriousness of the terrain throughout the park. "That's sort of the beauty and the reward of enjoying nature is having that freedom to enjoy the wilderness and not have a Disney World experience where all risk is managed," Sara Newman, then-acting chief of the National Park Service's Office of Risk Management, said. "It's not risk free to come to a park like it really is in Disney World."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Andrew Cuomo, “disgraced former governor of New York” according to Dave Rubin, recently joined the “Real Time with Bill Maher” show. One subject the panel broached was immigration — arguably America’s most pressing issue. Cuomo didn’t hold back his criticisms regarding how our Democratic administration has handled the migrant crisis. Bill Maher’s Crowd Roars for Andrew Cuomo’s Message for ‘Woke’ Democrats youtu.be “I get the theory of the extreme left — we’re a land of immigrants; let everyone come in; we all came as immigrants. I get it,” he began, “but how you do it makes all the difference in the world.” “To just open the borders with no plan? You don't know where they go; you don't know who's going to pay for them; they wind up in cities all across the country.” Then, he turned his fiery words toward New York City specifically — a place that’s currently regretting its decision to be a sanctuary city. “New York has a couple hundred thousand [illegal immigrants] in hotels, costing New York City a fortune,” he said. These people have “no jobs, no training, no help to assimilate into society,” he continued, asking, “So, who did you even help?” “You have the person in your old job — the governor of New York, a Democrat — saying, ‘Don't come here.’ Those are her exact words,” Maher added. “Many mayors and governors said no” to being a sanctuary city, “but New York was more of the ideological left ... and now we're finding out 200,000 people later you needed a plan; you needed to know what to do with these people,” Cuomo said over the applause of Maher’s audience. Dave, however, goes a step further: “You have no duty to let illegal people into your country if you don't want them here,” he says, adding that Cuomo “probably would have done the exact same things” he’s now criticizing had he not been ousted from his role as governor. “I don't know that he'd be doing anything different now than Kathy Hochul except he is no longer governor, so now he can go on Bill Maher’s show and pretend, and be like, 'Well, I'm the sane one obviously. I would have had a plan, and we wouldn't have let these 200,000 people in,'" Dave mocks. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Biden administration plans to shut down Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s largest detention center, citing the fact that it is the “most expensive facility” in the nation, the New York Post reported.The South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, has the capacity to hold 2,400 illegal immigrants. The facility is run by a private prison contractor, Tennessee-based CoreCivic, according to the Border Report.'Deliberate act of amnesty through inaction.'In a June 10 press release, ICE wrote, “ICE continually reviews the overall detention capacity and in doing so, takes action to close certain facilities that no longer provide a sufficient return on investment. This includes closing the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, which is the most expensive facility in the national detention network.”The agency stated it would reallocate funding from the detention center to “increase the overall detention bed capacity across the system by an estimated 1,600 beds to better support operational needs.”“This additional bedspace is being pursued across the country and is expected to be available immediately,” it added.The Post noted that it is unclear how many illegal aliens are currently being held in the facility; however, approximately 7.4 million have been released into the United States while they await court hearings. Some of those individuals have missed their court dates and are wanted for deportation.The detention center, located roughly 75 miles outside San Antonio, was used to detain families during the Obama administration, the Post reported. Since 2021, it has been used to hold single adults.ICE Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director Patrick J. Lechleitner stated, “We continue to evaluate contracts to ensure we are financially responsible and can increase removal flights and detention bed space capacity to support the dynamic immigration landscape while operating within the budget provided by Congress.”The closing of the detention facility “will provide an overall increase in bedspace and operate at or above the FY24 appropriated 41,500 minimum bed requirement while maximizing removal flights,” Lechleitner added.John Fabbricatore, a retired Immigration and Customs Enforcement Denver Field Office director, told the Post that the decision to close the facility was not just a “lapse in judgment, but a deliberate act of amnesty through inaction.”He called Biden’s recent executive order to purportedly curb illegal immigration “nothing more than political theatre aimed at appeasing certain voter bases rather than addressing the real issues at hand.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!