On Friday, Warner Bros. Discovery announced it selected Netflix to acquire the company. WBD CEO David Salazar and the WBD board should pause and ask a simple question: Is selling America’s premier storytelling institution to one of the most ideological companies on earth really the right thing to do? To understand what’s at stake, you have to understand what WBD actually is.WBD owns the entire HBO catalog, the 128 million subscriber strong HBO Max streaming platform–arguably Netflix’s single biggest rival–and some of the most culturally influential franchises in the world. Its library defines prestige television, shapes global entertainment, and reaches audiences Netflix has never been able to dominate on its own. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, warned that Netflix should never be allowed anywhere near a takeover of WBD. In a post on X, he stated that, “this potential transaction, if it were to materialize, would raise serious competition questions—perhaps more so than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.” Not only have I warned about Netflix in the past, time and time again, so has conservative commentator Jack Posobiec. He was right when he said the deal will allow the Obamas to take control of the media and is an “obvious antitrust violation.” Anyone who values real competition or cultural balance should agree. A Netflix–WBD merger would be the largest cultural consolidation in modern American history. Netflix already dominates global streaming, shaping what the world watches and increasingly how the world thinks.WBD, through HBO Max and its unmatched premium catalog, is one of the only companies big enough to challenge it. WBD is not simply “another option;” it is the marketplace’s leading counterweight–the one platform with the brand, subscriber base, and storytelling power to keep Netflix in check. Eliminating that rival won’t just give Netflix market share. It will also give Netflix near complete narrative control. And that’s exactly the problem. Netflix is one of the most self-consciously woke companies in America. It injects progressive activism into nearly every show, series, or documentary it creates–and it isn’t subtle about it. Netflix pushes cultural messaging middle America repeatedly rejects at the ballot box, yet it keeps lecturing viewers anyway. Whether it’s rewriting historical characters in “Queen Cleopatra,: injecting modern identity politics into “Bridgerton,” or pushing heavy-handed ideological themes into teen and family shows like “One Day At a Time” and “The Baby-Sitters Club,” the company acts as if it has a duty to make its programming as politically-charged as possible. They also had no problems pushing the disgusting film “Cuties,” that sexualized children. Further, Netflix has never hidden its bias in politics. Reed Hastings, Founder, former CEO, and current executive chairman of the company, donated $2 million to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s illegal redistricting campaign in California this year–and $3 million to support Newsom when California held a recall election post-COVID in 2021. That’s the Netflix’s prerogative. What isn’t its prerogative is using corporate muscle to swallow competing voices and narrow the entire marketplace of ideas.WBD produces content for the broad middle of the country — from movies franchises like “Harry Potter” to “The Dark Knight” to apolitical, mainstream adventure programming like “MythBusters.”HBO Max regularly rivals Netflix in awards, cultural influence, and prestige storytelling. And that is exactly why Netflix wants to buy it.This acquisition is about eliminating the only competitor strong enough to force Netflix to innovate rather than dominate. Even James Cameron, hardly a conservative stalwart, warned that letting Netflix absorb WBD would be a “disaster.” As someone who chaired oversight hearings, I’ve seen what happens when powerful actors face no accountability. When I questioned tech CEOs in Congress, they all swore they didn’t suppress viewpoints or manipulate speech. But the evidence told a very different story. Now imagine giving one of those same companies control over the HBO catalog, the HBO Max platform, and a massive share of America’s creative output. Netflix already sets the tone for entertainment. Swallowing WBD would let it set the rules too. It’s no surprise, then, that reports indicate the Trump administration is monitoring the WBD sale closely to ensure the rules of competition are respected. If Netflix attempts to buy cultural dominance instead of earning it, regulators are prepared to act. But WBD shouldn’t wait for the government to stop a bad deal. WBD’s board should simply do the right thing. They should reject any acquisition that would diminish creative diversity, reduce competition, and hand one woke company a megaphone large enough to drown out every other storyteller in America. Consumers don’t just need “choice” in the abstract. They need different voices, different values, and different perspectives. Washington loves to talk about protecting competition and free expression. This is the moment to prove it–and WBD’s leadership should take the first step. The post Beware Netflix’s Media Takeover appeared first on The Daily Signal.

BREAKING: Federal Judge Orders Release of Original Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts

Spare Me the Outrage

During Friday’s show, the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View seemed as though they were on the war path against men. In multiple segments, they blamed men for everything from painful mammograms to floozy journalist Olivia Nuzzi cheating on her fiancé to President Bill Clinton supposedly not getting impeached (which wasn’t true). They even lashed out at California Governor Gavin Newsom for vetoing a bill for mandated menopause care. Their first topic of the day was an update on Vanity Fair editor Olivia Nuzzi, the floozy journalist who allegedly had affairs with sources and was suddenly playing a victim. Fill-in moderator Joy Behar gushed about Nuzzi’s burgeoning friendship with Monica Lewinsky: She [Olivia Nuzzi] also thanked Monica Lewinsky, Monica got thanked for -- she reached out to Nuzzi – who a lot of people think got dragged through the mud over her affair with Bill Clinton. A lot of people say that, that he got away, you know, easily and she didn't. That was followed up with some revisionist history from fake Republican co-host Ana Navarro, who claimed President Bill Clinton was never impeached and made excuses for why he supposedly wasn’t (Click “expand”): NAVARRO: I think that if the Monica scandal – the Clinton scandal with Monica had occurred after the Me Too movement, he probably would have been impeached. I think we see things in a different light. And by “we,” I mean people who don't follow Donald Trump because they don't see anything. But, you know, most other people who did listen to women who took the Me Too movement to heart, I think – I include myself in that. I see things differently today than I did when the Bill Clinton thing happened. BEHAR: So you would think its worse now? NAVARRO: I think because we like Bill Clinton because he’s so charismatic, because so many people think he was a good president. I think people were willing to give him a pass. But I think he would have been judged differently after me too. Unless he was Donald Trump and a Republican.   Ana Navarro falsely claims President Bill Clinton wasn't impeached after the Monica Lewinski scandal and seemingly blames Trump supporters. pic.twitter.com/0wCGnudXVF — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 5, 2025   Later in the segment, faux conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin (who failed to disclose her friendship with Nuzzi), defended Nuzzi by placing blame on Ryan Lizza, Nuzzi’s former fiancé who SHE cheated on. Farah Griffin whined that Lizza didn’t disclose Nuzzi’s impropriety prior to or during Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation for HHS secretary. Luckily, co-host Sunny Hostin stepped in to pivot the blame back to Nuzzi: FARAH GRIFFIN: The men are not getting any sort of consequence here. Also involved in this is her ex Ryan Lizza, who's written these series of stories on his Substack revealing the most intimate details about her, his former fiancée. He's also revealed information about the stories or the information she had at the time. I would argue he had as much of a journalistic obligation to put that information out a year ago when RFK was standing up for senate confirmation, not waiting so he can hide behind a pay wall and get paid after the fact. HOSTIN: But, the thing is she is the one that was doing a profile on RFK Jr. (…) But she also allegedly slept with Mark Sanford when he was running for president – that is against every journalistic standard. It's unethical.”   Alyssa Farah Griffin whines that the men Olivia Nuzzi (who's one of her friends, but didn't disclose) had affairs with AND her former fiancé weren't getting any of the scrutiny that she was. Sunny Hostin interrupts to point out that Nuzzi was the floozy: FARAH GRIFFIN: The men… pic.twitter.com/9WtC2LcuCT — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 5, 2025   Further into the show, they lashed out at Newsom for vetoing a bill for mandated menopause care. “Menopause is half the population. We're all going to go through it. The way it affects family, marriages, the workforce,” proclaimed pretend independent Sara Haines. “This is half the population, people!” she began to shout. “But it varies woman to woman. That can last a decade for you. Why are we not coming to the aid of half the population?!” Hostin did note that Newsom’s reasoning was because it didn’t take into account rising premium prices.   The View finally find something they hate about Governor Gavin Newsom (D); he vetoed state-funded menopause care: SARA HAINES: I think that the biggest part of this story is her take on menopause. Menopause is half the population. We're all going to go through it. The way it… pic.twitter.com/KPsGZc5BIg — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 5, 2025   Even later in the show, they even blamed men for why mammograms weren’t more comfortable: NAVARRO: Joy, if men had mammograms, they'd be between two velvet pillows. FARAH GRIFFIN: We're still using the tongs at the gyno. HOSTIN: Correct. Correct. BEHAR: It’s almost like they’re making – they’re like pressing down making some kind of – NAVARRO: Make a sandwich. A Cuban sandwich. BEHAR: You feel like you're in woodshop.   The View announces their new conspiracy theory that men and holding back the evolution of the mammogram machine. pic.twitter.com/mMTFDVUwAl — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 5, 2025   Hmm. Like making a sandwich you say? The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View December 5, 2025 11:03:14 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: She [Olivia Nuzzi] also thanked Monica Lewinsky, Monica got thanked for -- she reached out to Nuzzi – who a lot of people think got dragged through the mud over her affair with Bill Clinton. A lot of people say that, that he got away, you know, easily and she didn't. ANA NAVARRO: I think that if the Monica scandal – the Clinton scandal with Monica had occurred after the Me Too movement, he probably would have been impeached. I think we see things in a different light. And by “we,” I mean people who don't follow Donald Trump because they don't see anything. But, you know, most other people who did listen to women who took the Me Too movement to heart, I think – I include myself in that. I see things differently today than I did when the Bill Clinton thing happened. BEHAR: So you would think its worse now? NAVARRO: I think because we like Bill Clinton because he’s so charismatic, because so many people think he was a good president. I think people were willing to give him a pass. But I think he would have been judged differently after me too. Unless he was Donald Trump and a Republican. (…) 11:07:56 a.m. Eastern ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: The men are not getting any sort of consequence here. Also involved in this is her ex Ryan Lizza, who's written these series of stories on his Substack revealing the most intimate details about her, his former fiancée. He's also revealed information about the stories or the information she had at the time. I would argue he had as much of a journalistic obligation to put that information out a year ago when RFK was standing up for senate confirmation, not waiting so he can hide behind a pay wall and get paid after the fact. SUNNY HOSTIN: But, the thing is she is the one that was doing a profile on RFK Jr. She says that it was a digital relationship, that they didn't have sex. It was like an emotional -- FARAH GRIFFIN: I think impropriety all around, I want to be clear. HOSTIN: But she also allegedly slept with Mark Sanford when he was running for president – NAVARRO: Well, that’s what Ryan said. HOSTIN: Yeah, according to Ryan. When she was writing a story about him. And so, that is against every journalistic standard. It's unethical. (…) 11:15:22 a.m. eastern BEHAR: So, Halle Berry is hot under the collar and not just from menopause. Thoughts? SARA HAINES: I think that the biggest part of this story is her take on menopause. Menopause is half the population. We're all going to go through it. The way it affects family, marriages, the workforce, 1.3 million U.S. women enter menopause annually. 75 million are in perimenopause, menopause, and postmenopausal in this country right now. 75 percent of women who seek care are left untreated by their doctors. 80 percent of OB/GYN residents admit to being ill prepared. This is half the population, people! Half of the population is suffering and now we're at least talking about it. It's no longer in silence. But it varies woman to woman. That can last a decade for you. Why are we not coming to the aid of half the population?! (…) 11:18:10 a.m. Eastern NAVARRO: Joy, if men had mammograms, they'd be between two velvet pillows. FARAH GRIFFIN: We're still using the tongs at the gyno. HOSTIN: Correct. Correct. BEHAR: It’s almost like they’re making – they’re like pressing down making some kind of – NAVARRO: Make a sandwich. A Cuban sandwich. BEHAR: You feel like you're in woodshop. You know. They're like – [Laughter] We'll be right back.

CNN sports correspondent Don Riddell may have been reporting from snow-covered D.C. on Friday’s The Situation Room, but his hot take about the upcoming World Cup could have thawed the wintery weather. According to Riddell, Trump’s America—specifically, ICE operations—is comparable to human rights abuses in the two previous World Cup hosts of Russia and Qatar. Co-host Pamela Brown set Riddell up by giving credence to the idea that “immigration advocates” who allege similar sentiments should be taken seriously, “I want to bring you back in, Don, because there have been these allegations, as we know, of human rights abuses that have plagued World Cup hosts in the past. But now some immigrant advocates say that they're worried about detentions and deportations during the tournament in the U.S. You've covered so many of these World Cups before. What more do you know about that?”     Riddell wasted no time getting to his dumb analogy, “You know, it's fascinating. I've been at CNN 23 years, so I've been a part of all the World Cups that have happened in that time. And a lot of the build up to the FIFA World Cup in Russia in 2018 and then again in Qatar in 2022 four years later, was about the human rights abuses, and it would have been hard to imagine back then that we would be talking about similar things about a World Cup hosted by the United States, but that is where we are now, and a lot of people have a lot of concerns.” After a brief digression into ticket prices, Riddle continued, “There are fans who are perhaps on principle, thinking of boycotting the tournament. I know people who refused to even watch the last one on television because of the allegations that were made against the Qatari government, and so you have very, very similar situation playing out now, and then you may well have fans who are just afraid to come and visit this tournament because of what we are seeing, and human rights advocates are now pointing that out, and that's assuming they could even get here if they wanted to.” Riddell also lamented, “Two of the teams who have qualified, Haiti and Iran, are currently on the travel ban. That is a list of 19 countries, which may well be expanded to 30 or 32. We don't know if that will scoop up even more of the teams who have qualified for this tournament. For some of the countries who aren't on the travel ban, it is very, very difficult just accessing a visa to travel to the United States. So, that has been complicated. The U.S. government recently has said that they're going to fast-track fans who have bought tickets so that they can get a visa to come here. We'll see how that plays out.” Finally, Riddell returned to his Russia-Qatar comparison, “I referenced Qatar and Russia previously. They really tried to downplay their human rights situations once the World Cup came around. I feel like it's kind of the opposite here. Like we see the footage of people being chased down the street and detained by ICE agents. The American government isn't hiding that anymore. I guess it was never really hiding it. They're quite proud of it, but it may well make some people think twice about attending this tournament next year.” Russia poisons dissidents, including in foreign countries. There is a trend of regime critics falling out of windows, and even in 2018, Vladimir Putin had already committed several war crimes by dismembering multiple neighbors by force in unprovoked wars of aggression. In Qatar, stadiums were built using what could be described as slave labor. According to CNN, those things are equivalent to enforcing immigration law. Here is a transcript for the December 5 show: CNN The Situation Room 12/5/2025 11:08 AM ET PAMELA BROWN: I want to bring you back in, Don, because there have been these allegations, as we know, of human rights abuses that have plagued World Cup hosts in the past. But now some immigrant advocates say that they're worried about detentions and deportations during the tournament in the U.S. You've covered so many of these World Cups before. What more do you know about that? DON RIDDELL: You know, it's fascinating. I've been at CNN 23 years, so I've been a part of all the World Cups that have happened in that time. And a lot of the build up to the FIFA World Cup in Russia in 2018 and then again in Qatar in 2022 four years later, was about the human rights abuses, and it would have been hard to imagine back then that we would be talking about similar things about a World Cup hosted by the United States, but that is where we are now, and a lot of people have a lot of concerns. There are already fans who are wondering whether they're going to come to the United States because of the price of the tickets. The prices that we've seen are already two, if not three times more expensive than they were at the last tournament. There are fans who are perhaps on principle, thinking of boycotting the tournament. I know people who refused to even watch the last one on television because of the allegations that were made against the Qatari government, and so you have very, very similar situation playing out now, and then you may well have fans who are just afraid to come and visit this tournament because of what we are seeing, and human rights advocates are now pointing that out, and that's assuming they could even get here if they wanted to. It has been difficult to access tickets for some of the fans who've been trying to purchase them in the first two rounds of purchases, and then there are the travel restrictions. Two of the teams who have qualified, Haiti and Iran, are currently on the travel ban. That is a list of 19 countries, which may well be expanded to 30 or 32. We don't know if that will scoop up even more of the teams who have qualified for this tournament. For some of the countries who aren't on the travel ban, it is very, very difficult just accessing a visa to travel to the United States. So, that has been complicated. The U.S. government recently has said that they're going to fast-track fans who have bought tickets so that they can get a visa to come here. We'll see how that plays out. And this all might explain one of the reasons why Gianni Infantino and U.S. President Donald Trump have become so close. We've discussed earlier in this segment why it benefits Donald Trump. He particularly likes shiny, golden things. He's been around the World Cup trophy itself quite often recently. One wonders if one of the reasons Infantino has become so close to Trump is to try and whisper in his ear, to try and make it easier for fans and people to come and access this World Cup. I referenced Qatar and Russia previously. They really tried to downplay their human rights situations once the World Cup came around. I feel like it's kind of the opposite here. Like we see the footage of people being chased down the street and detained by ICE agents. The American government isn't hiding that anymore. I guess it was never really hiding it. They're quite proud of it, but it may well make some people think twice about attending this tournament next year.

If America had an official "documentarian laureate," Ken Burns would be a shoo-in for the job.Over the last four decades, the filmmaker has devoted his career to capturing the country's history and culture, in works ranging from "Baseball," "Jazz," and "The National Parks: America's Best Idea" to his groundbreaking 1990 masterpiece "The Civil War." And despite his avowed "yellow-dog Democrat" tendencies, he has done so with remarkable nuance.Those rallying around the American cause are portrayed as a loose collection of criminals, anarchists, slavers, and exiled aristocrats united by high Enlightenment ideals.Now, just in time for America’s 250th anniversary, Burns has returned with a new six-part PBS series exploring how it all got started.Fanfare and apprehension"The American Revolution" arrives with suitable fanfare — and an almost absurdly star-studded cast of voice-over artists. Tom Hanks, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, Paul Giamatti, Josh Brolin, Meryl Streep, Ethan Hawke, Edward Norton, and Michael Keaton are among the luminaries who provide narration. Even so, there has been a level of apprehension surrounding the show, particularly among conservatives. Could a commemoration of America's founding even work in our current moment — when even mild appeals to patriotism and national unity seem to stir up bitter partisan disputes?Burns seems to have a found a way around this by making his retelling as clinical and unromantic as possible. He is clearly passionate about the American project, but he is unwilling to embrace the mythological or nationalistic sides of that passion.Whose revolution?“It’s our creation story,” historian Rick Atkinson says as he discusses the importance of the Revolution. But most of the experts Burns showcases prefer to focus on the negative, puncturing what one calls the “unreal and detached" romanticization of the founders.Instead, we're invited to ponder the role that slavery and the theft of Native American land played in the fight for independence — not to mention a fair amount of unsavory violence perpetrated by the revolutionaries.While the series does a good job of covering the conflicts between 1774 and 1783, it takes frequent detours to discuss the issues surrounding the revolution: the role of women contributing to the war, the perspectives of English Loyalists as they became refugees fleeing the conflict, the madness of the Sons of Liberty’s antics, and the perspectives of slaves trying to survive and find liberty too.RELATED: Yes, Ken Burns, the founding fathers believed in God — and His 'divine Providence' Interim Archives/Boston Globe/Getty ImagesLiving in the tensionA pronounced classical liberalism pervades the storytelling, one reflecting the secular Enlightenment idealism that a “new and radical” vision for mankind could be found through self-determination and freedom, apart from the aristocratic and theocratic haze of Europe.This vision acknowledges progressive criticism of the era’s slavery and classism, but tries to integrate those faults rather than use them as grounds to discard the entire experiment. It attempts to live within the tension of history and sift out what is still valuable, rather than abandon the project altogether.Indeed, Burns is generally good about avoiding any sort of score-settling or modern politicking, shy of a few buzzwords. He constantly uses the word “resistance” and ends with a reflection on the potential ruination of the republic by “unprincipled demagogues,” proudly quoting Alexander Hamilton that “nobody is above the law.”The show’s consensus is overwhelmingly that the values of the Revolution were greater than the severely flawed men who fought it. To Burns, it was not merely a war, but a radical ongoing experiment in human liberty that escaped the colonies like a virus and changed the world forever. He certainly doesn’t want to throw out the liberal project, and so he constantly circles back on defending the war’s idealism.Idealism and discomfortThis accounts for the show’s title, focusing on its revolutionary implications. It wasn’t just a war, but a change in the way people thought. The show argues that “to believe in America … is to believe in possibility,” and that studying the Revolution is important to understanding “why we are where we are now.”Unfortunately, the intervening 12 hours require the viewer to swallow a fair share of dubious and rather inflammatory claims, including that George Washington was primarily driven by his class interests as a landowner, that popular retellings often “paper over” the violent actions of the revolutionaries, and that the founders were, on balance, hypocrites.Its overall perspective is that it is impossible to tell the nation’s origin story in a way that is “clean” and “neat,” with clear heroes and villains. Those rallying around the American cause are portrayed as a loose collection of criminals, anarchists, slavers, and exiled aristocrats united by high Enlightenment ideals."The Revolution" wants both this idealism and discomfort to sit equally in your mind, as you ponder how morally compromised men could change the world. As one of the historians asks, “How can you know something is wrong and still do it? That is the human question for all of us.”Overall, Ken Burns’ latest proves a very bittersweet watch, hardly the sentimental reflection on Americanism that the country’s approaching 250th anniversary demands, but also too idealistic and classically liberal to comfortably fit anyone’s agenda. It wants to lionize the founding’s aspirational values of democracy, equality, and revolution, while assiduously avoiding praising the people involved.It's a remarkably watchable and entertaining work of sober disillusionment.

With the season for Christmas shopping now in full swing, Amazon is testing out a new service for much faster deliveries. On Monday, Amazon announced the limited launch of Amazon Now, a delivery feature promising swift deliveries in 30 minutes or less. Amazon Now is first launching in parts of Seattle, Washington, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.The announcement called the service "ultra-fast" delivery.Amazon Now is first launching in parts of Seattle, Washington, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.RELATED: Amazon wants Warner Bros. so it can rule your screen Photographer: Bess Adler/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesThe service focuses on essential household items and groceries. Amazon's press release explains it will be using "specialized smaller facilities designed for efficient order fulfillment."Prime members will have to pay delivery fees starting at $3.99 for an order, and non-Prime members will have to pay $13.99.Amazon will continue to offer Prime members its usual same-day, overnight, and next-day delivery options. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights is undertaking a nationwide campaign to protect parental rights in pediatric medicine and cracking down on those institutions that fail to provide parents with access to their children's medical records, as required by Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a video on Wednesday, "A parent's right to guide their child's health decisions — that right is not optional, it's non-negotiable, and under the Trump administration, it will not be ignored."'Religious exemption rights are one aspect of true informed consent and refusal.'It appears that HHS already has one alleged offending institution on its radar.Kennedy indicated that his agency has launched an investigation into a "troubling incident" in the Midwest — where a school is alleged to have illegally vaccinated a child with a federally provided vaccine without the parents' consent.According to Kennedy, the child also had a "legally recognized state exemption" for the vaccine."When any institution — a school, a doctor's office, a clinic — disregards a religious exemption, it doesn't just break trust; it also breaks the law," said Kennedy. "It fractures the sacred bond between families and the people entrusted with their child's care, and we are not going to tolerate it."In the video, Kennedy did not identify the vaccine, school, or state involved in the case, and when pressed for comment by USA Today, HHS reportedly declined to provide any clues.RELATED: FDA finally admits COVID-19 vaccine killed kids: 'This is a profound revelation' Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty ImagesHHS indicated that its Office for Civil Rights will determine whether the school acted in compliance with the Vaccines for Children Program requirement that conditions the federal provision of reduced-cost, public-purchased vaccines for eligible children on compliance with state religious and other exemptions from vaccine laws. — (@) Extra to scrutinizing the school's conduct, HHS provided a strong reminder to health care providers in a letter on Wednesday that the HIPAA privacy rule "generally gives the parent the right to access the child’s medical records as the child’s personal representative, unless one of the limited exceptions applies."Absent limited exceptions such as in the case of children for whom health care decisions are made at the direction of a court or a person appointed by a court, HHS emphasized that "a covered entity (and, where applicable, its business associate acting on the covered entity’s behalf) may not place additional limitations on a parent’s access to the child’s medical records beyond any existing limitations in applicable law."In September, HHS' Office for Civil Rights sent another "Dear Colleagues" letter on theme, noting that providers participating in the Vaccines for Children Program must follow state laws relating to religious and other exemptions to vaccination laws."The Vaccines for Children Program should never circumvent parents' rights," CDC acting Director Jim O'Neill said of the latest initiative on the part of the HHS. "Secretary Kennedy’s decision to probe potential abuse of the VFC is a necessary step in restoring public trust in immunization policy."Children's Health Defense, which was chaired by Kennedy from 2015 to 2023, lauded the initiative.Mary Holland, president and CEO of CHD, said in a statement, "CHD strongly supports the right to informed consent and informed refusal of all medical interventions — this is the essence of what the Nuremberg Code stands for.""That document was the antidote to the medical atrocities of World War II," continued Holland. "Religious exemption rights are one aspect of true informed consent and refusal — whether that ‘informed’ nature comes from religion or science or wherever else."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Chris Murphy Trips Over a Horde of Rabid Dems in Rush to Blame Trump for Inciting Violence (Roll Tape!)

'MASSIVE Fraud Uncovered' --> New Obamacare Data Shares DAMNING Look Into Shady Subsidy Applicants