Pro-life messaging is rare in Hollywood, especially with Planned Parenthood’s involvement in many productions. Yet Apple TV’s new dramedy Margo’s Got Money Troubles, hailed by Time as “the must-see show of the spring,” features surprisingly powerful pro-life moments and even acknowledges abortion is “taking a life.” Apple TV released the first three episodes on April 16. Elle Fanning plays Margo, who becomes pregnant after being seduced by her married professor, Mark Gable (Michael Angarano). In episode one, Mark assumes she’ll choose abortion and offers to take her to Planned Parenthood. Margo boldly states abortion is “taking a life,” which leads him to scare her into an abortion by claiming a baby would mean “aborting your future”: New @AppleTV dramedy 'Margo's Got Money Troubles' admits abortion is 'taking a life.' #prolife #MargosGotMoneyTroubles @Nick_Offerman #ElleFanning #MichellePfeiffer pic.twitter.com/CeM8aCBeFe — Dawn Slusher (@BlondeBlogger) April 17, 2026 Mark: Okay. Well, um, I want to be there to support you in any way possible. Yeah, like, I would start by calling Planned Parenthood, but I don't know if a private doctor does it or if it's nicer. I don't want you to have to go to some cheap clinic. Margo: Um… Mark: What? Margo: Sounds like you've made my decision. Mark: Excuse me? Margo: That I should have an abortion. Mark: What? I would never make such a decision for you. That is your decision to make. I mean, ours. Together. But, a woman's body, your body, your right. I totally respect that. Of course. Obviously. Are you Catholic? Margo: No. But terminating a life… that's something to think about. Mark: As is aborting your future, Margo. Your promise. Pro-abortion advocates often claim abortion would be a “sacrament” if men could get pregnant, yet this scene demonstrates how abortion benefits predatory men wishing to avoid responsibility. It’s no coincidence Planned Parenthood has covered up sexual abuse of minors or that it receives support from organizations that prey on vulnerable women such as The Hugh M. Hefner Foundation.   During a sonogram scene, Margo is stunned to hear her baby’s heartbeat and see his tiny image at 9–10 weeks gestation. We were equally stunned to see Hollywood accurately portray life in the womb: New @AppleTV dramedy 'Margo's Got Money Troubles' affirms humanity of the unborn in strong #prolife sonogram scene where Elle Fanning's character hears her baby's heartbeat for the first time at 9-10 weeks gestation.#MargosGotMoneyTroubles #ElleFanning #MichellePfeiffer pic.twitter.com/8iWa6pdj3m — Dawn Slusher (@BlondeBlogger) April 17, 2026 Margo: What's that? Doctor: Oh, that's the heartbeat. Margo: It is? Doctor: I would say, based on these measurements, that you're about nine to ten weeks. Margo: What? Doctor: Oh, I should've asked. Do you want a copy of the photo? Margo: Yeah. Doctor: Do we know what we want to do about the pregnancy? About 90% of abortions occur before 13 weeks, long after a heartbeat begins at five weeks, which is one week after a missed period. Margo later reveals her pregnancy to her mother Shyanne (Michelle Pfeiffer), who responds with dire predictions for Margo’s future rather than support. Sadly, this reflects the reality many women face during crisis pregnancies. In a tender moment, though, we witness the power of a mother’s love as Shyanne reminisces about choosing life herself, leading Margo to declare, “I want this baby. I want it more than I’ve ever wanted anything”: New @AppleTV dramedy 'Margo's Got Money Troubles' displays the beauty of a mother's love & the wonderful result of choosing life (main character Margo exists because her mother didn't abort her when faced with a crisis pregnancy herself). #prolife #MichellePfeiffer #ElleFanning pic.twitter.com/C1MVlpmvLZ — Dawn Slusher (@BlondeBlogger) April 17, 2026 Margo: You chose to keep me. Shyanne: I did. Margo: Do you believe things happen for a reason? Shyanne: I don't know. I think you want to wreck your life. Margo: I ruined your life. Shyanne: You ruined my life so pretty. Are you in love with him? Your professor?  Margo: I'm not in love with him. And I don't want him. But for whatever reason, I want this baby. I want it more than I've ever wanted anything.  Intentional or not, the scene underscores the truth that abortion ends the life of a unique human being. Margo herself wouldn’t exist if her mother had chosen differently. The eponymous novel the series is based on takes a more pro-abortion stance, unfortunately, with Margo claiming, “There’s nothing like having a baby to make you solidly pro-choice.” Both the book and the show highlight the challenges of motherhood, perhaps to discourage women from choosing life. Yet by episode three’s end, Margo tells her infant son Bodhi (Graham Hendrix), “You made my life,” rejecting the idea he ruined it: New @AppleTV dramedy 'Margo's Got Money Troubles' features touching pro-life scene where main character Margo tells her baby he didn't ruin her life despite everyone's dire predictions- 'You made my life. You made me.' pic.twitter.com/7TPC0swGOo — Dawn Slusher (@BlondeBlogger) April 17, 2026 Margo: We like getting clean, huh? Yeah. Mr. Squeaky Clean. Squeaky, squeaky clean. You know what? Don't you be listening to the nonsense that's coming out of people's mouths around here. The nonsense like how you ruined my life, or might have ruined it or… You made my life. Made it hard but made it just the same. And somehow you made me. Here I am. I'm on the precipice of utter greatness. Of which greatness I do not yet know, but I can feel it. Our greatness bell is about to chime. The show’s main premise is provocative with Margo turning to OnlyFans for income. One reviewer of the book noted how pro-abortion culture pressures women into such decisions by failing to support life: If moms were given support in a culture that celebrates life, they wouldn’t feel as if they must turn to OnlyFans or other degrading means of employment to make ends meet… Support for moms can look like… support from communities and churches. It can look like companies providing workplace childcare so mothers can be near their children. Or offering more flexible remote work options. Instead of improving our culture by making it a place where women can succeed as mothers, pro-abortion culture seeks only to give women the choice of abortion… Women who choose life are not given the help they need. Ironically, it’s pro-lifers who offer real choice- parenting or adoption. “Pro-choicers” only offer one option- abortion. As pro-aborts frantically raise money for abortion access and travel, they completely ignore women in need who choose life. The reason is obvious. Abortion is a major source of revenue. Pro-lifers provide financial, emotional, and material support because they don’t exploit vulnerable women for profit. And they don’t try to scare mothers into believing the only path to success is over the dead bodies of their children. If you watch Margo’s Got Money Troubles, expect strong language and nudity, with more of both likely as the OnlyFans storyline unfolds in upcoming episodes which begin releasing weekly starting April 22. A fitting alternative title could’ve been Margo’s Got Breast Troubles since Fanning’s breasts receive almost as much airtime as her face.   Still, it’s refreshing to see a series affirming the humanity of the unborn without Planned Parenthood getting its bloody hands on the script for once.

On Friday’s CNN This Morning, host Audie Cornish warned of the FISA extension with fears over President Trump’s “political investigations,” as she acted as if no political investigation were done under the Biden Administration. After Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project and member of the Media Research Center's board of directors, mentioned the use of FISA to spy on the 2016 Trump Campaign, Cornish implied that the usage of FISA was fine since it went after an alleged Russian connection. The discussion was led by Representative Joe Morelle of New York, who voted against a FISA extension due to fear of “overreach.” Cornish interjected with “concerns” over a Trump administration’s usage of the system: “But can you understand their concerns, even given how they now view this Trump administration as one that is inclined towards political investigations?”   On CNN This Morning, in a discussion of a FISA extension, Cornish mitigated the Obama administration's spying on the Trump Campaign in 2016 and instead feared the Trump administration's use because, as she says, they are "inclined towards political investigations." pic.twitter.com/aHHVmL7ulw — Nick (@nspin310) April 17, 2026   She continued with fear of non-neutral investigations: “I mean, there is an overall sense of people being maybe less trustful of the FBI, of intelligence officials, and feeling like the investigations are going to be politically neutral.” After Morelle pointed out the right was “concerned about the Biden administration,” and Democrats were concerned about the “abuse of the Trump administration,” Cornish posed a question to Schilling: “Yes, what - can I ask you what's going on there? Do you guys like FISA anymore or not?” Schilling said, “Oh, we hate it,” which Cornish responded to with “But I thought you wanted it after 9/11, right?” Schilling mentioned the overlooked topic in the segment of the Obama Administration spying on the Trump campaign in 2016 for an alleged Russia connection: I mean, I don't think there's any disagreement that, you know, the - Obama and his Justice Department used these FISA warrants to spy on what ended up being a winning campaign. And we don't want that for Americans. And-  Cornish stopped Schilling in his thoughts and seemed to agree with the Obama administration spying due to “foreign targets”: Well, there's no disagreement that there was an investigation into the Trump campaign when they were concerned about Russia, right? The whole point of getting FISA is to be able to go after foreign targets. Tell me if I'm wrong. What Cornish failed to admit was that that Russian connection was falsified to deceive to the FISA court into giving them the warrant for Carter Page, as an inspector general report uncovered. The FBI knew Page was a source for the CIA but falsely claimed he was working for the Russians. In the final analysis, CNN legal expert Elliot Williams rightfully mentioned that both sides of the aisle recently seem to unite on the issue of surveillance. You get elements of the right and elements of the left that have never liked it, have never liked - have always been suspicious about the government having power to look into affairs. And that's why you're seeing some votes like this happening the way they are. As Williams pointed out, it should not be difficult to agree on the issue of the need to mitigate government surveillance, something Cornish may not have wanted to do when she talked about Democrats compared to Republicans. The transcript is below. Click "expand": CNN This Morning April 17, 2026 6:55:50 AM Eastern (...) AUDIE CORNISH: But can you understand their concerns, even given how they now view this Trump administration as one that is inclined towards political investigations? REP. JOE MORELLE (D-NY): Oh, yeah. CORNISH: I mean there is an overall sense of people being maybe less trustful of the FBI, of intelligence officials, and feeling like the investigations are going to be politically neutral. MORELLE: Yes, I think on the right, they're concerned about the Biden administration. On the left they're concerned about the uses and we feel abuse of the Trump administration. It is important to note, the president urged people to vote against this bill two years ago and said that he had problems with it and was going to make a different bill when it came to the House. And, obviously, that didn't happen. It was chaos on the floor. CORNISH: Yes, what - can I ask you what's going on there? Do you guys like FISA anymore or not? TERRY SCHILLING: Oh, we hate it. No, they - no, honestly. CORNISH: But I thought you wanted it after 9/11, right? It's like - SCHILLING: Well, we did. No, but we - look, we were warned about this, right? We were warned under the Bush administration that this could be used against us. CORNISH: Overreach. SCHILLING: And it was, right? I mean, I don't think there's any disagreement that, you know, the - Obama and his Justice Department used these FISA warrants to spy on what ended up being a winning campaign. And we don't want that for Americans. And - CORNISH: Well, there's no disagreement that there was an investigation into the Trump campaign when they were concerned about Russia, right? The whole point of getting FISA is to be able to go after foreign targets. Tell me if I'm wrong. ELLIOTT WILLIAMS: True. You know, it's interesting, and it's funny having this conversation right after the conversation we had earlier about Iran, which is another thing that has scrambled American politics, but something I also remember back from when I was a young attorney on Capitol Hill, one issue unites the right and left as well, and that's surveillance. CORNISH: Yes. WILLIAMS: You get elements of the right and elements of the left that have never liked it, have never liked - have always been suspicious about the government having power to look into affairs. And that's why you're seeing some votes like this happening the way they are. (...)

Democratic socialists, like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, claim they’re going to increase “affordability” by raising taxes, but that can never work because, unlike liberal propaganda, commerce isn’t based on emotion, conservative commentator Mark Levin explained in his “Liberty’s Voice” podcast Friday. “Commerce is not emotional. It’s factual. It is what it is. It proves itself to be right every single time,” Levin explained. “But, when you’re dealing with people’s passions and emotions and you’re telling them they can get something for nothing, and not only that, somebody’s ripping them off,” common sense can lose out, because the most-prosperous citizens – those the left vilifies – are the minority among the population of voters. Levin cites the case of Mayor Mamdani's socialist promises: “Those of you who are in New York: you’re paying for all these things that are supposed to be free. In other words, he’s redistributing wealth. He’s redistributing wealth. “So, what happens when you redistribute wealth? You have less wealth, because aren’t going to create it or they’re going to leave, create it somewhere else.” “You’re giving money to the people who aren’t creating things and you’re taking it from the people who are creating things” and, in the long run, that drives out, not only those who provide jobs, but also the average citizens who can’t afford to pay the higher taxes required to provide “free” things to others.

On Friday, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals agreed to hear oral arguments in Navy veteran Zackary Young’s two defamation cases against The Associated Press and Puck News. The hearing comes after Judge William Scott Henry of Florida’s 14th Judicial Circuit threw out both cases back in August 2025. Now, there were positive signs for Young that the First DCA could breathe new life into his claims. While they were each separate cases, the First DCA had opted to conduct the oral arguments simultaneously, according to the official notices of oral argument obtained by NewsBusters. Both cases were scheduled for Tuesday, June 9 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern. The filings explained which judges would oversee the case and how time would be allotted: The argument is scheduled before Judges Roberts, Winokur, and Treadwell, but the panel is subject to change. The Court has allotted 15 minutes per side. Multiple appellants or appellees, or petitioners or respondents, must share the allotted time and must notify the Court at the beginning of oral argument how their side’s time will be divided. A possible good sign for Young, two of the judges who would hear the cases, Judges L. Clayton Roberts and Thomas D. Winokur sided with him to reaffirm that he could seek punitive damages in his successful defamation case against CNN. Their overseeing of the case could be bad news particularly for the AP. Young’s argument against them centered on their use or alleged misuse of the phrase “human smuggling” to describe his efforts to rescue people from Afghanistan during the collapse. Citing the AP’s own style guide, Young points out that that word carries a criminal connotation when, as a matter of law ruled in the CNN case, he did not commit any crime. During CNN’s appeal of punitive damages, months before trial, Judge Roberts called out the network for their use or lack-there-of of dictionaries when suggesting Young was operating a “black market”: 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.     Also pressing the importance for the definitions of words, Judge Winokur said this regarding the arguments being made by CNN’s counsel about the use of the word “black market” to describe Young’s efforts: “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.” It appears that to them, words have meaning. Another possibly good sign for Young was the cases being heard together. In throwing out the cases, Judge Henry used similar language to dismiss them as one of those “movies or television shows, sequels, spinoffs or reboots” that “should not be made.” Adding: “Often times, the story line is forced, new characters are not properly developed, inconsistencies arise between the original plot and the sequel’s, or the writers and producers are just lazy trying to cash in on a previously successful idea. These same things can be said of this case.” The use of such language in both rulings could have the judges’ attention in a bad way. Interestingly, Judge Henry lost out to Judge Treadwell, the third appeals judge on Young’s cases, in a 2025 bid to be appointed to the First DCA by Governor Ron DeSantis following the CNN case. As for the Puck case, while Judge Henry argued they did note Young won his case, the appellate judges could put a greater weight on their other comments. Ones where they suggested it was a bad sign for the country because it added to President Trump’s feud with the press and somehow a win for him too, and allegedly mischaracterized Young’s efforts in Afghanistan in a similar way to CNN. To read NewsBusters’ complete coverage of Young’s defamation suit against CNN and the fallout cases, click here.

In a war of words between President Trump and Pope Leo, the PBS News Hour is going to line up with the pontiff, who they perceive as on "their side." To attack Trump, PBS on Wednesday welcomed on Stephen Colbert's favorite priest, Father James Martin, a leftist activist hailed for being "passionate about LGBTQ+ inclusion and advocacy within the Catholic Church." The online headline for the 8-and-a-half minute segment was "Pope Leo's critiques of Trump policies hold more weight as a fellow American, priest says." It's a little odd to imply on screen that it's wrong to be "Criticizing the Pope," when PBS found people to trash Pope Benedict for being soft on child abuse when he died. Anchor Amna Nawaz threw softballs at the priest, starting with this: "So let me just ask what you thought when you heard Vice President Vance warn Pope Leo to be careful on matters of theology. What was your reaction?" This was Martin's first answer knocking Vance as obviously dumber than the Pope.  Fr. JAMES MARTIN: That you have the vice president warning the vicar of Christ, who is an Augustinian, who is at that time visiting the birthplace of St. Augustine, and who knows more about St. Augustine than most people have forgotten, that he doesn't understand just war and that he doesn't understand theology, I just found that really hard to swallow. Then Nawaz asked: "Father Martin, this idea of just war, what should we understand about that?" Martin claimed "pretty much every theologian" agrees with him that the war on Iran is not a just war. Then she really set up Martin to drop rhetorical bombs:  Easy peasy for Catholics Against Trump! PBS @NewsHour turns to leftist activist Fr. James Martin. Anchor Amna Nawaz cued him up on his insulting the Vice President for "inaccuracy and hubris" and then asked him to denounce Trump's use of Jesus imagery. "Challenging" is not a… pic.twitter.com/fTGDngIZrg — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) April 16, 2026 AMNA NAWAZ:  You posted a very lengthy response online, called out what you saw as the ironies of Vice President Vance's criticism of the pope. You also noted his conversion, and then you wrote: "We rejoice over everyone entering the church. What most of us do not rejoice over, however, is a deadly combination of inaccuracy and hubris." What did you mean by that? Fr. JAMES MARTIN: Well, the inaccuracy is that he doesn't seem to understand the tenets of just war, which you can look up all the Catholic leaders and cardinals and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that have talked about that in the past couple of days. And the hubris is telling the pope, of all people, who has a doctorate in canon law from a pontifical university and who has been an Augustinian for many years, that he doesn't understand theology. It's really pretty hard to imagine calling it anything other than hubris. So Nawaz cued him up to denounce Vance as a boastful moron twice. Then she turned over to Trump's memes either implying he's like Christ or that he's close to Christ:  NAWAZ: And, as we just reported, Father Martin, I have to ask you about these pictures. The president posted that A.I. image of himself being cradled by Jesus. That followed an A.I. image of himself as Jesus that he later deleted. That followed, we should remind people, an A.I. image of himself as pope. Do these images go too far, in your view? MARTIN:  Yes, I mean, particularly the one where he is picturing himself as Jesus. Some people have used the term blasphemy. I think it's more appropriate to call it idolatrous. The First Commandment is, you shall have no other Gods before me. And so to picture yourself as Jesus is really trespassing into that territory. And it's not just Catholics who are upset. I think any Christian who saw that would have to scratch their heads or be offended. NPR's Morning Edition on Tuesday also served up softballs for this left-wing activist priest. But at least NPR balanced it by pressing conservative Catholic journalist and commentator Michael Knowles on Monday's All Things Considered.