Connect with us


Sara Carter says if Biden ‘really cared’ about border crisis ‘he’ll stop it’



Screen Shot 2021 08 16 at 9.12.39 AM

[brid autoplay=”true” video=”845490″ player=”23886″ title=”Sara%20Carter%20calls%20Biden’s%20border%20policy%20a%20’disaster'” duration=”undefined” description=”Fox News contributors Joe Concha and Sarah Carter and former acting ICE Director Tom Homan call Biden’s border policy a ‘disaster'” uploaddate=”2021-08-14″ thumbnailurl=”//” contentUrl=”//″]

By Jenny Goldsberry

Sara Carter blasted President Biden on Hannity Friday night, claiming he doesn’t really care about the border crisis. She told host Leo Terrell if he really cared, he’d stop illegal immigration entirely.

Earlier last week, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was caught in a leaked audio saying admitting the border crisis is out of control. “This is unsustainable,” he said. “We can’t continue like this . . . Our system isn’t built for it.” Terrell asked Sara how the left is getting away with the hypocrisy of mask and vaccine mandates in the states, but not having a system built to safely process migrants. Instead, there’s an open border for migrants who are potentially sick.

“If President Biden says he truly cares about the people coming in here, he’ll stop it,” Carter said. She pointed out the high COVID-19 cases among migrants. In some towns, it’s as high as 40%. Even border patrol agents are suffering, with 400 currently under quarantine. Meanwhile, according to Carter, local residents complain “resources are strained.”

“A lot of DHS officials I’ve spoken to, a lot of federal law enforcement and local law enforcement are saying flat out that President Biden is derelicting his duties,” Carter said.

As a result, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) called for Secretary Mayorkas to resign last week.

“He has been an abject failure at securing our borders and our country,” Johnson tweeted.

You can follow Jenny Goldsberry on Twitter @jennyjournalism.

Continue Reading


Supreme Court rules anti-abortion doctors lack standing to sue FDA



Supreme Court

In a unanimous decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-abortion doctors who challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the abortion pill mifepristone lack the standing to sue the federal agency. This ruling preserves the FDA’s existing approval of the drug.

The opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, emphasized that the plaintiffs presented “several complicated causation theories to connect FDA’s actions to the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries in fact.” However, none of these theories were sufficient to establish Article III standing, which requires a personal stake in the dispute.

National Review reports the lawsuit was filed in November 2022 by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and four pro-life doctors. The plaintiffs claimed that the FDA had no authority to approve the two-pill chemical-abortion regimen under Subpart H, a federal code section allowing expedited approval for drugs treating “serious or life-threatening illnesses.” They argued that pregnancy is not an illness but a normal physiological state.

The plaintiffs also challenged the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 decisions to relax restrictions on mifepristone, such as increasing the gestational age for its use, reducing required office visits, allowing non-doctors to prescribe the pills, and permitting mail delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abortion opponents expressed disappointment with the decision. Erin Hawley, a lawyer with ADF, criticized the FDA for allegedly endangering women by allowing the use of mifepristone without in-person medical supervision. Ingrid Skop from the Charlotte Lozier Institute and Katie Daniel from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America echoed similar sentiments, stressing their concerns about the safety of mail-order abortion drugs.

President Joe Biden, however, applauded the decision, highlighting the ongoing risks to women’s rights to necessary medical treatment in many states.

Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion stated that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a direct injury that would force them to participate in abortion procedures against their conscience. He added that concerns about the potential for increased emergency room visits did not justify legal standing.

Kavanaugh noted that doctors and citizens opposed to FDA regulations should seek changes through legislative and executive branches rather than the courts. This decision aligns with a previous lower court ruling that found the legal challenge was filed too late, beyond the statute of limitations.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, suspending the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. This decision was subsequently overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which restored access to the drug. The Supreme Court’s stay ensured that the drug remained available while legal proceedings continued.

Democratic lawmakers welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley described it as a “major relief & victory for anyone who has ever or will ever need essential medication abortion care.” Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized the challenge as baseless and underscored the safety and effectiveness of chemical-abortion pills. She warned of ongoing efforts by Republicans to impose a nationwide abortion ban and called for continued protection of reproductive freedom.


Continue Reading