In a recent study, alarming concerns have emerged regarding the simultaneous administration of Covid-19 boosters and flu shots among the elderly population. This study, generously backed by the FDA, has unearthed a disconcerting statistic, revealing that senior citizens who opted to receive both vaccines concurrently faced a 20-35% elevated risk of stroke.

The investigation meticulously scrutinized Medicare claims filed by a substantial cohort of over 5.3 million individuals aged 65 and above who had received either the Pfizer or Moderna Covid vaccine. Disturbingly, within this demographic, those who supplemented their Covid-19 vaccination with a high-dose flu shot were found to be more susceptible to the formation of blood clots in their brain.

The crux of the issue, as deduced by the researchers behind this inquiry, appears to be the high-dose flu shot itself, a vaccine specifically authorized for individuals aged 65 and older. It’s essential to clarify that this study, though it underscores the increased incidence of stroke among this particular group, does not explicitly assert that the combination of the flu and Covid shots directly causes this heightened risk. After all, it’s an age-old adage that correlation does not equate to causation.

It’s worth reiterating that I’m not a medical professional, so I’ll refrain from offering any definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly a matter that warrants careful consideration.

Recently, the political arm of Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, made a startling claim: they denied the existence of abortions up until the moment of birth. This denial is not only shocking but deeply concerning for those of us who hold a conservative, pro-life perspective. In this blog post, we will dive into this issue and explore why we must stand up for the sanctity of life, especially in its most vulnerable stages.

It all started when Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called for accountability during the second Republican presidential primary debate. He rightly criticized the Democrats for their support of what he termed “extremism” in abortion, allowing it “all the way up until the moment of birth.” In response, Planned Parenthood Action Fund claimed there was “no such thing as ‘abortion up until birth.'” They labeled it as “pure propaganda used by politicians who want to play politics with people’s medical decisions.” But is it really just propaganda?

Pro-lifers wasted no time in pushing back against this assertion. A Community Note pointed out that, currently, the “right” to legal abortion has no gestational limit in seven states. Despite the challenges in data collection due to underreporting and inconsistent state reporting, available data indicates that over 1% of annual abortions occur at or after 21 weeks, amounting to at least 10,000 late-term abortions annually. Shockingly, more than 50,000 preborn babies are terminated each year after 15 weeks.

In the legislative arena, we’ve seen a concerning trend. Last year, almost every House Democrat supported the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that would compel all 50 states to allow abortion for any reason until fetal viability and even up until birth if an abortionist deems it necessary for the mother’s “health.” In 2020, only two Senate Democrats voted in favor of legislation to ban abortion at 20 weeks. Democrat leaders continue to avoid specifying any abortion restrictions they would accept.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of this debate is the fate of babies born alive following failed abortions. These innocent infants are fully separated from their mothers. While it is technically illegal to end their lives under the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, the law lacks the necessary criminal penalties for meaningful enforcement.

Efforts to protect these babies have been met with resistance from Democrats. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which mandates basic medical care for these infants, was voted against by nearly all Democrats in January. Even when they held power, Democrats consistently blocked such legislation from reaching a vote.

Despite claims that late-term abortions are only sought for extreme medical circumstances, the truth is quite different. Nearly every current abortion ban explicitly allows for life-saving treatment in emergencies, even if it results in the loss of the preborn child. Many medical experts, including former abortionists, confirm that intentionally ending the child’s life is neither necessary nor the most prudent option for saving the mother’s life. Furthermore, the vast majority of abortions are not sought for medical reasons but for social, career, or financial considerations.

Some abortion advocates try to downplay the issue of infanticide, dismissing it as a myth. However, several former insiders of the abortion industry and policy scholars have testified before Congress or admitted under oath that infanticide still occurs and often goes unaccounted for in official statistics. The Abortion Survivors Network estimates that two out of every 1,000 abortions result in a live birth.

Despite recent discussions about abortion rights following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it is clear that public opinion remains firmly against late-term abortion. Entities like Planned Parenthood may try to deny this harsh reality, but we, as conservative, pro-life moms, must remain steadfast in our commitment to defending the sanctity of life from conception to natural birth. Our voices are essential in advocating for those who cannot speak for themselves and ensuring that every life is valued and protected.

In a bold and principled move that sets him apart from his fellow Republicans, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is also a prominent candidate for the 2024 presidential race, made headlines last week by rejecting millions of federal aid dollars aimed at promoting “green” initiatives under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This decision by DeSantis has created a stir and stands in stark contrast to the typical GOP approach to such matters.

As reported by Politico on August 30, DeSantis turned down a substantial sum of money, including $350 million designated for what they call “energy efficiency incentives,” over $340 million for a program offering rebates to Floridians who opt for more energy-efficient appliances, $3 million for pollution control measures, and $24 million in infrastructure grants.

The White House must be frustrated because they have limited means to force Florida into accepting this money. DeSantis’s rejection undermines the administration’s efforts to reshape states in line with their green agenda, a significant part of President Joe Biden’s re-election pitch.

Politico pointed out, “So far, DeSantis is the only governor signaling his intent to block these energy rebates. However, on the smaller sums of money, he has company. He’s one of four governors turning down pollution mitigation funding from the IRA. The others include the Republican governors of South Dakota and Iowa, along with Kentucky’s governor, who happens to be a Democrat.”

The Inflation Reduction Act, despite its name, has little to do with reducing inflation. Instead, it allocates funds to a wide array of unrelated left-wing causes, including support for the abortion industry and enhancing the activities of the Internal Revenue Service.

Daniel Horowitz, a senior editor at The Blaze, applauded DeSantis for being the lone governor who is “standing strong against turning his state into a green dystopia.” Horowitz criticized many of DeSantis’s fellow GOP governors, accusing them of being overly reliant on corporate interests and federal funding, eagerly accepting federal dollars.

Horowitz argued that the battleground for this struggle over our freedom, prosperity, and way of life is primarily in red states. He emphasized that if Republican governors and legislatures refuse federal funding for the Green New Deal, much like they initially rejected Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, it would be a significant setback for the green “transition.”

He expressed deep concern that these governors, lured by the promise of federal funding, are jeopardizing the long-term well-being of their states, possibly turning them into European-style societies where fossil fuels contribute only a small fraction to electricity generation. In his view, this could permanently diminish the quality of life in these states and pave the way for a more extensive overhaul of our traditional way of life under Democratic leadership.

Horowitz concluded, “Unfortunately, the temptation of federal funding often weakens the resolve of red-state Republicans. This is why they’ve fallen for green energy schemes in the past. DeSantis stands out as an exception, showing that he remains steadfast against identity politics and corporate interests. He’s ready to reject federal incentives that could potentially turn red states blue.”

DeSantis’s recent stance exemplifies his proactive conservative approach, prompting calls for him to join the GOP presidential primary race. However, it’s essential to note that former President Donald Trump continues to hold a commanding lead in the nomination race, even though questions persist about his ability to defeat President Biden.

As primary voting begins next January with the Iowa caucuses, DeSantis’s supporters are hoping that his impressive grassroots campaign operation will deliver a victory that could reshape the course of the nomination contest.