As the Sun spits out more and bigger storms, videos of flares emerging from its surface help us see its power. Watching these, it usually looks like they peter out a few solar diameters away, but the truth is very different. Although the particles that accompany smaller flares can fall back as the powerful solar gravity overcomes the speed with which they are moving, some flares can travel far beyond the Earth and even the outer planets.Solar flares are localized bursts of radiation produced when energy trapped by twisted magnetic fields gets released suddenly. This accelerates charged particles from the Sun’s plasma.How far can solar flares travel?As powerful as the Sun’s gravitational field is, flares can provide so much energy that particles within them can start with velocities a large fraction of the speed of light. A combination of the Sun’s gravity and encounters with the thin material in the not-quite vacuum of space slow these particles down, but cannot stop them. Consequently, flares can travel all the way to the heliopause, the boundary where the solar wind expires, finally lacking the strength to push aside the interstellar medium.The heliopause, as we learned recently, is far from spherical. So, to answer the second question first, solar flares can travel substantially different distances depending on which direction they are fired in. We haven’t fully mapped the boundaries of the heliopause, but we know it’s about 100-120 Astronomical Units (Earth-Sun distances) at minimum.Some flares, which happen to be fired off in just the right direction, can probably reach distances of 350 AU or more. A powerful enough flare might even push the boundary out a little further for a while, like a rhinoceros running into a rubber wall.On the other hand, a few flares will run into the magnetic field around the Earth or another planet that has one, and be stopped a great deal earlier.In fact, the most obvious part of a flare is the light it emits, and that will travel forever, unless it runs into something. We can see flares from other stars, indicating that in one sense the flare has crossed many light years to reach us. The Sun’s flares are not as big as those of many other stars, but that could still be seen from hundreds of light years away with the right telescope.Flares may fade in brightness so that we can’t see them long before they reach such distances but that doesn’t mean they aren’t still going.How big can solar flares get?If, when asking about a flare’s size, you mean the question literally, then multiply the length, as described above, by the area of the flare. This area varies of course, and can be hard to measure, but flares can leap from areas on the Sun’s surface many times larger than the Earth, and they don’t get smaller as they travel.References to flares being big, however, are usually about their power. The most powerful flare to be precisely measured was in 2001. This was an X28.6 using the scale on which flares are measured, meaning it carried 2.9 x 10-3 Watts per square meter. That might not sound like much, but spread over an area far larger than the Earth, it sums to an astonishing amount of power.However, two years later another flare saturated the detectors on the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite. It has been estimated to have been an X40 or 45.    But, we know flares can get much larger than this. The Carrington Event in the 19th Century occurred well before we had the capacity to measure flares’ power. However, the effects it triggered, including electrocuting telegraph operators, make clear that this was on a much larger scale than anything we have seen in the space age.Radiation bursts captured in tree rings may indicate flares orders of magnitude larger still, although this interpretation is disputed.Either way, it looks as though to find out how powerful flares can get, we can only wait and see.

Interest in cosmetics, supplements, and diet plans that seek to stay the inevitable hand of time has arguably never been greater – but if you’re planning to try and slow down the aging process, it’s useful to know what baseline you’re starting from. There’s a tool that promises to help you do just that, providing a measure of how fast your body is aging relative to your chronological age. It has hit headlines thanks to a recent appearance on The Kardashians – but does it really work?Biological age: what is the tool measuring?The DunedinPACE tool is an algorithm developed by an international team of scientists as part of the Dunedin Study, a long-running study of human health and development following a cohort born in the early 1970s in Dunedin, New Zealand.How people are aging, and whether the biological age of their bodies’ systems is outpacing their chronological age, is one question that’s of great interest to the researchers. “People who are aging faster than their same-age peers may need more support in their lives to ensure that they maintain good health as they get older,” explained Dunedin Study Director Professor Moana Theodore in a statement.But somehow, you need to identify those people.Previous research has shown that one useful marker of biological aging is DNA methylation. This is an epigenetic marker, which means it alters how a gene is expressed in a cell without actually changing the fundamental DNA sequence. Methylation involves the attachment of methyl groups, composed of one carbon atom and three hydrogen atoms, to the DNA, which has the effect of silencing its expression.Methylation changes form the basis of the so-called “epigenetic clock”, considered to be “one of the most accurate metrics of biological age” according to a 2022 study. A 2020 review of the topic said, “It is currently well established that DNA methylation biomarkers can determine biological age of any tissue across the entire human lifespan, even during development.”One age-related disease in which methylation can play a key role is cancer. Over time, genes that play a tumor-suppressing role can become methylated and consequently silenced, which increases the risk of cancer beginning to develop. Another example is neurodegenerative disease, with some research showing a link between epigenetic changes – including methylation – and the pathology of diseases like Alzheimer’s.While there’s debate over whether aging is primarily a biological or psychological phenomenon – which will no doubt rage on – there’s no denying the fact that the passage of the years wreaks all sorts of changes inside our bodies, and that these are of scientific importance. To get the best idea of how aging may impact someone’s health, it makes sense to assess how their biological age is stacking up against their chronological age.How does the tool work?The team behind DunedinPace used this established science around DNA methylation as the basis for creating an algorithm that they said in their paper “represents a novel measure of aging that is conceptually and empirically distinct from the DNA methylation clocks,” and is more advanced than previous metrics they had developed.As modeled admirably by members of the Kardashian family on their show, someone interested in using the tool need only give a simple blood sample – in fact, the test is already available to the public in New Zealand, online and in some chemists.The blood samples are analyzed by Kentucky-based TruDiagnostic and the result, according to the team, is a bit like a speedometer readout. Assuming that on average people’s biological age increases by one year for each year of chronological aging, the tool can tell you whether you are aging faster or slower than that.Kim Kardashian’s score came out at 0.82, meaning she is aging 18 percent slower than most people of her age. Khloe Kardashian’s score was an even more impressive 0.72, putting her rate of aging at 28 percent slower than average.“Our internationally renowned scientific findings on aging, including the DunedinPACE algorithm, are used by studies all around the world to examine the causes of premature aging and whether it is associated with poorer health outcomes in later life,” said Professor Theodore.“That said, we never imagined that it would reach the Kardashians, who we recognise as leading global influencers and highly successful businesspeople.”So… does it work?We’ve established that biological aging is a real and important factor in determining someone’s risk of age-related health complications. When the researchers first published DunedinPACE, the editor commented that their tool “shows improved performance” when compared to a previous algorithm they had developed and that it could “be used to complement previously generated DNA methylation-based biomarkers.”DunedinPace is not designed to spit out a number that denotes how many “biological years old” someone is (although there are other tests that purport to do that, some of which appeared in the episode of The Kardashians). What it could do is alert the user to the possibility that they are aging prematurely compared with an average person, which could prompt them to look at lifestyle factors that could help them increase their “healthspan” – it’s not about living longer, but about living with good health for as long as possible.“Our pace of aging tool actually measures ‘whole-of-body’ aging,” Professor Theodore told the Otago Daily Times. “It’s a measure that looks at a range of body systems – your teeth, your lungs, your cardiovascular system. So it’s not just about your appearance, it’s about what’s happening internally as well.”Professor Theodore argues that too much emphasis is currently placed on chronological age, without considering biological age as well. Tests like this provide another piece of the puzzle, allowing us to peek under the hood at how our bodies are reacting to the march of time.The original 2022 study on DunedinPACE is published in eLife. 

Fox Business correspondent Charlie Gasparino blasted diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as a huge liability for American businesses.  Gasparino went after companies like Delta Airlines and Bud Light parent company Anheuser-Busch for making choices that alienate ordinary Americans during the Aug 10 edition of FOX and Friends Saturday. Gasparino told co-hosts Pete Hegeseth, Rachel Campos-Duffey and Will Cain that “the American consumer has rejected wokeness.” Gasparino said that the “American people hate this stuff,” but warned that there were far more serious consequences to wokeness and DEI than language policing and ads depicting men pretending to be women.  Gasparino, who recently published a book on DEI titled “Go Woke, Go Broke: The Inside Story of the Radicalization of Corporate America,” claimed that the tide was turning among American consumers. Gasparino noted “the rebellion” against things like Disney pushing LGBT propaganda and BlackRock pressuring companies to embrace ESG. “People are running away from this,” he said.  “If you're gonna apply [DEI] strictly across all jobs at Delta, well then you're going to get airline pilots that are picked not necessarily for their skill, but based on their racial or their gender classification,” Gasparino said. “It's a scary thing.” During the segment, Fox and Friends Saturday played a clip of Delta Chief DEI & Social Impact Officer Keyra Lynn Johnson complaining about the use of “ladies and gentlemen” in announcements to passengers. United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby similarly revealed that he wholeheartedly embraced DEI when he committed to racial and gender discrimination in hiring during an Axios interview.  DEI initiatives at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have had serious consequences, including depriving people of opportunities based on their race. The Mountain States Legal Foundation is currently suing the FAA for racial discrimination. Additionally, near-miss air collisions have risen 63% during the DEI-obsessed Biden administration’s time managing the Federal Aviation Administration. It’s good to hear that the people who make sure that giant flying tubes traveling at hundreds of miles per hour don’t crash into each other have their priorities in order.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on the dangers of leftist DEI ideology infecting corporate America.

Ian Hatchett at Breitbart found NBC political analyst Chuck Todd is still showing up with hot takes on the campaign. In a deep dive into the NBC News Now streaming channel, on Wednesday’s edition MTP Now, Todd spun furiously that  Kamala Harris benefits politically from the fact that “She doesn’t have that many fingerprints on the Biden administration” because “the Biden people did ice her out a lot, didn’t want her involved.” It's bizarre to claim that you can't blame the sitting vice president for anything the president did, like she spent the whole term sitting in the VP mansion twiddling her fingers. Todd wouldn't try to argue that Mike Pence couldn't campaign in this cycle as "not having many fingerprints" in the Trump White House, but this is the DNC spin.  Current Meet the Press host Kristen Welker and Todd were discussing the "double hater" voters -- who disliked both Biden and Trump -- and talked up how the left-leaning double haters were warming up to Harris, just the way that NBC likes it.  TODD:  I am getting more and more convinced than ever that we could actually be seeing essentially the mirror image of 2016, where Trump is the incumbent who’s not in office, just like Hillary was the incumbent who was not in office, and Harris is something new -- "we haven’t tried that." Trump was, oh, "we hadn’t tried that." And that, right now, I think is probably her best asset. Neither Welker nor Todd discussed how Biden gave her major areas of responsbility, like being the Border Czar, where Chuck wants to say she was "iced out," just as Harris wants everybody to know she never wanted to be Border Czar -- but, ahem, she was.  Welker marveled at the concept, saying it's "fascinating that we're saying she's something new. She's the sitting Vice President, running as the Shiny New Object!" Todd claimed her vice-presidency has been a "miserable experience" -- without suggesting that maybe Team Biden is racist and sexist:  TODD: This has been, I think, a fairly miserable experience for her as Vice President, because it’s pretty clear the Biden people did ice her out a lot, didn’t want her involved. It might be the best thing to happen to her candidacy. She doesn’t have that many fingerprints on the Biden administration. I think some of the public believes that! It’s why some of this polling shows they think she’s going to govern in a new direction, and it’s a fair assumption, because she really wasn’t brought into the inner circle. So many people tried to keep her out.

While the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC have continued to treat Vice President Kamala Harris to North Korean-like fawning coverage by excusing her lack of policy specifics (and zero criticisms of the ones she’s offered) and sneering attacks on former President Trump, they’ve chosen to leave behind substantive scandals about Harris and her running mate, far-left Governor Tim Walz (D-MN). Such was the case Thursday night and Friday morning with two on Walz. First, there was this story that Good Morning America and World News Tonight made the decision to hide from their viewers courtesy of....their own website, ABCNews.com. Olivia Rubin and Will Steaks had a nearly 2,000-word story starting the obvious: “Tim Walz previously faced criticism over the way he characterized his military service, records show”. Instead of getting credit for this work on one of the flagship network newscasts, Rubin was buried with a one-minute-and-45-second discussion during the 6:00 p.m. Eastern hour of ABC News Live. Rubin summarized the work she did with Steaks as having combed “through a ton of old material for Governor Walz” and found “that repeatedly his lengthy 24-year service with the National Guard has been mischaracterized at times” by Walz himself, his campaign, supporters, and voters.     She only had time to cite two examples with one having been a 2016 C-SPAN interview in which he was “introduced on television as having served in Afghanistan and he sort of nods along to that, even though he did not serve there.” The other, she noted, were murky characterizations of Walz’s record on campaign websites. While much of the network coverage that has made it to air attempted to oversimplify questions about Walz’s service to a single clip of him discussing guns he carried “in war”, even these liberal journalists conceded there was more to it (click “expand”): In early 2016, Tim Walz sat down with CSPAN for a bipartisan discussion about his opposition to President Barack Obama’s push to reduce troop levels overseas. To begin the panel, the host introduced Walz -- at the time in his fifth term as a U.S. representative -- in part by incorrectly outlining his military service. “Enlisted in the Army National Guard at 17 and retired 24 years later as Command Sergeant Major,” she said of Walz, “and served with his battalion in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.” Walz nodded in agreement at that statement, despite the fact that -- according to military records and his own admission -- although he served in Operation Enduring Freedom in Italy, he never served in Afghanistan. (....) Thomas Behrends, who took over as command sergeant major of Walz’s battalion after Walz retired from military service in 2005, has been a vocal Walz critic for years, accusing him of using a false rank after retiring and criticizing his decision to retire before his battalion was deployed to Iraq. “At the point when he quit, the balloon was deflated and all the soldiers out here, basically it was like one of their main senior leaders had died. They couldn’t believe it,” Behrends said in an interview with ABC News. (....) Walz appears to have been aware prior to his retirement that his unit was under consideration for deployment. Shortly after announcing his first run for Congress in March 2005, Walz issued a statement saying his unit had been notified of a “possible partial mobilization,” stating that he had a “responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on.” “On Thursday, March 17 the National Guard Public Affairs Office announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard,” Walz posted to his campaign website in 2005, according to a version viewed by ABC News via the Wayback Machine. “I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on specifics of the deployment,” Walz posted on the site. “As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq.” Walz also stated he intended to remain in the race even if he were to be deployed. (....) In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to National Guard records confirmed by ABC News. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement. Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a “retired command sergeant major” for years. In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn’t earn. “It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major,” said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. “It’s quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven’t been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears.” A former battalion commander of Walz’s National Guard unit also issued a scathing rebuke of the way the Minnesota governor has described his military rank since retiring and entering politics, writing on Facebook that Walz “did not earn the rank or successfully complete any assignment as an E9,” referring to the governor’s repeated use of the title. “It is an affront to the Noncommissioned Officer Corps that he continues to glom onto the title. I can sit in the cockpit of an airplane, it does not make me a pilot. Similarly, when the demands of service and leadership at the highest level got real, he chose another path,” wrote John Kolb, who became lieutenant colonel of his Minnesota unit shortly after Walz retired and launched his bid for Congress. (....) On his congressional campaign website in September 2005, according to the Wayback Machine, Walz is described as “Command Sergeant Major Walz,” who retired after serving “overseas with his battalion in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.” While correct, the website does not specify that Walz deployed to Italy, rather than to Iraq or Afghanistan where he may have faced combat. (....) “Tim Walz is misleading us about his military service,” wrote one person in the Winona Daily News in November 2006. “As Minnesota military reservists who served in Iraq, we are disappointed.” The writer said that Walz served “honorably,” but claimed that through “artful omission, Walz is leaving the impression that he served in the combat zones.” In another latter to the Albert Lea Tribune, the writer said, “I also feel misled about Tim Walz’s military service.” That writer pointed to “pictures he has on his Web site that make it look like he was in combat” as well as “links to articles such as ‘War veterans for office’ in which he was featured.” The other story came from CNN’s K-File team concerning Walz’s 1995 DUI arrest in Nebraska and some bald-faced lies by his campaigns trying to minimize the serious charge. Even though it was posted Thursday morning, it took until Erin Burnett OutFront (with Sara Sidner filling in as host) for K-File editor Andrew Kaczynski to surface and discuss it.     Kaczynski first explained to viewers the facts from 1995 (since it’s doubtful CNN’s far-left audience had ever heard of this) that “Walz was speeding over 95 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone,” “failed a field sobriety tests that was administered by a state trooper,” “ admitted in court that he had been drinking,” and went to a hospital for blood testing to show he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.128. Then, he added, Walz “took a plea deal where he pled guilty to a reckless driving charge”, but instead of owning up to it, his successful 2006 congressional campaign offered a litany of lies about what transpired, including a false claim that “hearing loss” from his National Guard service was why he failed the field sobriety test and he was allowed to drive home that night (click “expand”): Now, I’m going to give you the bullets of what his campaigns said about that. They the campaign setting Walz claimed that he had not been drinking and driving. They attributed his failed field sobriety test to hearing loss from his time in the night National Guard, not alcohol that came campaign falsely said that he drove himself to the station, that he was allowed to drive home. They said they said the DUI charges were dropped because they were unfounded and the campaign even faulted this trooper for it saying that he didn’t realize that Walz had hearing impairment they claimed a judge actually chastised the state trooper for it. Now, take a look at just one statement that his campaign put out. They said, he, quote, couldn’t understand what the trooper was telling him during the field sobriety test and the trooper refused to speak up. The DUI charges were dropped for a reason, the judge would not have dismissed them if there were anything to them. Tim drove to the station that night and drove home afterwards. I don’t think the trooper would have allowed that if there had been a problem. So, none of what they said in that 2006 race was true at all. As we saw and just looking at those details of the 1995 arrest. Of course, Kaczynski concluded with the Harris-Walz campaign declining to comment. If the shoe were on the other foot and this happened to GOP vice presidential candidate JD Vance, not only would CNN have had Kaczynski on-air sooner, but repeatedly and picked up by ABC, CBS, and NBC. Instead, because Trump is the one who embellishes and gets fact-checked into oblivion, these lies by Walz aren’t that important. To see the relevant transcripts from August 15, click here (for ABC) and here (for CNN).

A massive asset manager abandoned an alliance dedicated to crushing cheap American energy. ABC, NBC and CBS didn’t bother telling their evening viewers.  Goldman Sachs left Climate Action 100+, a gargantuan environmental social and governance (ESG) pressure group, on Aug. 13. However, for three consecutive nights, NBC Nightly News, ABC News’s World News Tonight and CBS Evening News failed to cover the latest trillion dollar asset manager to leave the Climate Action 100+, MRC Business can confirm. On the evenings of Aug. 13, Aug. 14 and Aug. 15, the Big Three networks showed more interest in a Taylor Swift concert in London than the crippled plan to use trillions of dollars to bring about massive negative changes to Americans’ standards of living.  Coincidentally, Aug. 13 was the deadline for Goldman Sachs and 129 other asset managers to submit specific answers to the House Judiciary Committee on how they plan to pressure companies to abide by the standards of the Climate Action 100+.  In a letter to one of these asset managers, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who oversees the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, cited the agenda of the Climate Action 100+ and demanded to know how the asset manager planned to enact it. The networks showed no interest in either the efforts of Jordan and Massie or Goldman Sach’s surrender. The evening after Goldman Sachs waved the white flag, NBC Nightly News pondered whether “climate change” was making dolphins and sea lions sick. Meanwhile, ABC World News Tonight covered Swift and reported the not-so-groundbreaking news that alcohol isn’t entirely healthy. On Aug. 15, all three networks continued to ignore Goldman Sachs, but did find time to cover Swift in London instead. Previously, BlackRock, State Street, JP Morgan and Pimco also withdrew from Climate Action 100+, depriving the alliance of trillions of dollars. For at least two nights following these earlier departures, NBC Nightly News, ABC World News Tonight and CBS Evening News kept their viewers in the dark about this news too.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on the dangers of ESG.

The Democrat mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, has received a subpoena from federal prosecutors as an investigation into his 2021 campaign and possible illegal foreign influence continues.Sometime last month, Adams, City Hall, and his campaign committee were subpoenaed. The subpoenas demanded text messages, documents, and other communications, sources told the New York Times, which first reported the story earlier this week.'We don’t do quid pro quo; we follow the law.'The investigation actually began when Adams first ran for mayor in 2021 but did not come to light until last November, when the FBI and other officials raided the home of Adams' chief fundraiser, Brianna Suggs. The investigation is said to involve allegations that Adams engaged in a quid pro quo with prominent leaders in Turkey.Adams fast-tracked a new Turkish consulate high-rise in Manhattan, the New York Post reported, allegedly pressuring the NYFD to give the building clearance despite safety concerns. Adams did not deny involving himself in the issue but claimed he did so as part of his responsibilities as mayor.Investigators are attempting to determine whether members of the Turkish government made illegal donations to Adams' 2021 mayoral campaign. They are also apparently looking into free business-class upgrades Adams has allegedly received from Turkish Airlines.Adams previously told a Turkish outlet that Turkish Airlines "is my way of flying."Adams and his representatives have adamantly denied all allegations of wrongdoing."We don’t do quid pro quo; we follow the law," Adams previously stated, according to PIX11. "Whatever they’re looking for, we’ll fully cooperate, and I’ll let them do their job without interference."His attorneys, Brendan R. McGuire and Boyd M. Johnson III, have similarly denied the allegations, claiming they have conducted a parallel investigation and have unearthed nothing untoward."To be clear, we have not identified any evidence of illegal conduct by the mayor," the lawyers said in a joint statement. "To the contrary, we have identified extensive evidence undermining the reported theories of federal prosecution as to the mayor, which we have voluntarily shared with the U.S. attorney."Adams' chief spokesperson, Fabien Levy, made similar comments. "As a former member of law enforcement, the mayor has been clear over the last nine months that he will cooperate with any investigation under way. Nothing has changed," Levy said. "He expects everyone to cooperate to swiftly bring this investigation to a close."Despite these denials, the allegations seem to have taken a toll on Adams' popularity. His approval rating has dropped, and several outlets noted that three Democrats have already signed up to challenge Adams in the 2025 mayoral primary.The Post reached out to federal officials for comment but did not receive a response.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Abortion is back in the news (as if it ever left). The Supreme Court of Arizona ruled Wednesday that the state’s November ballot measure will include the term “unborn human beings” to describe the person abortion kills. The Wednesday decision overturned a Maricopa County Superior Court decision that had ruled this kind of honesty was somehow biased.The decision has infuriated pro-abortion activists, who wanted the ballot to call babies “fetuses.” They say that’s impartial, because obscuring reality is a favorite — and essential — Democratic tactic for convincing Americans to support abortion any time after the first trimester.It’s tempting to believe this tactic, backed by Arizona’s Republican legislature, might be the future of fighting radically pro-abortion ballot initiatives that have successfully passed even in red states while energizing Democratic voter turnout.There are a couple of problems with this idea, however. First, you need a hard-core legislature, secretary of state, attorney general, etc., willing to push that fight. Then, you need a court willing to call out Democratic misinformation. That’s a hard combo in a lot of states, including those run by Republicans.Montana’s Republican attorney general, for example, fought pro-abortion groups whose proposed ballot language was vague, essentially enshrining in the state constitution that abortion providers can decide when an unborn baby is viable and what constitutes a health risk to the mother. In April, the court rejected his rewrite.Abortion is already legal in the state up to the time of viability, and on Wednesday, that same court overturned a Montana law that required parental assent for children to obtain abortions, citing privacy concerns the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down in relation to abortion in its Dobbs decision. You see: Not all legislators, officials, or courts are up to the task.Neither are all voters. In New York, it’s the Democrats who are currently fighting to put the word “abortion” and the phrase “LGBTQ” on the ballot, arguing that the state election commissioners’ Orwellian use of "gender expression" and "reproductive healthcare and autonomy” in the state’s Equal Rights Amendment didn’t let voters know what’s at stake.“Compare this with what happened post-Dobbs in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio in 2022 and 2023,” the pro-abortion editorial board of the New York Daily News wrote Thursday.In each state, explicit abortion protections were approved by the public to be added to the state constitution with the word "abortion" or explicit abortion restrictions or limitations (again, with the word "abortion") were rejected by the public. In every instance, the protections and the bans, the word "abortion" was used. And in every case, the pro-choice position prevailed, with constitutional protections approved in California, Michigan, and Ohio and constitutional bans rejected in Kansas and Kentucky.It’s hard to see where it’s all going to shake out, but it’s becoming increasingly clear as Democrats battle to take advantage of Americans’ innate libertarian leanings with “pro-choice” ballot measures that the next front will be the war of words.Blaze News: Arizona permitted to call potential victims of abortion initiative 'unborn human babies' in voter pamphletBlaze News: Harris seized evidence of abortionists' lucrative butchery of babies. Activist reveals who helped him fight back.Sign up for Bedford’s newsletterSign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford's newsletter.

Episode 2 of “The Coverup” – Blaze Media’s new investigative series that exposes the lies of the pandemic industrial complex – dropped last week on BlazeTV. The face of the series, Matt Kibbe, recently met with Bryce Nickels, genetics professor at Rutgers University, on X (formerly Twitter) Spaces, to reflect on some of the things laid out in episode 1 as well as discuss all the disturbing findings the series explores in episode 2. Episode 1 centered around Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University, one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration and the most censored doctor during the COVID-19 pandemic. Titled “Dissident,” the first episode was inspired partly by Pearl Jam’s 1993 song “Dissident” but mostly by “Jay's willingness to swim against the grain very early on,” says Kibbe, who admires the doctor’s perseverance despite the “hysterical attempts to stifle” him and others like him who were brave enough to speak the truth even though it landed them in hot water. - YouTube www.youtube.com Kibbe also notes that in episode 1, viewers benefit from Bhattacharya’s unique ability to “[translate] very complex ideas into something that's consumable to a lay audience.” In episode 2 – “Legislator: How Rand Paul Exposed Dr. Fauci's Lies” – which explores how deep the roots of the pandemic industrial complex go, Kibbe and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the only senator who is still relentlessly pursuing the truth about COVID, ask the following questions: Is Fauci a made man? Who is protecting him? Will he ever suffer any consequences? Why is the government funding dangerous gain-of-function research? “What we're seeing when it comes to the COVID cover-up is a bunch of interested parties whose financing and careers and reputations, and really their lifeblood, is based on the continuance of this sort of biosecurity, gain-of-function research paradigm,” Kibbe tells Nickels. The truth is, Fauci “may be personally responsible for the deaths of millions of people through this gain-of-function research that he has so full-throatedly defended throughout his entire career.” That, among other COVID mysteries, is precisely what Kibbe intends to figure out in “The Coverup.” - YouTube www.youtube.com If you haven’t already, check out episode 1 (available for free on YouTube) before watching episode 2 on BlazeTV. If you aren’t already a subscriber to BlazeTV+, join today and get $30 off your first year of BlazeTV+ with code FAUCILIED.

Is @POTUS Trying to HELP Kamala Harris With This 'Praise' or Sabotage Her Campaign?