Aggregator

More People Living Longer With Cancer

2 days 12 hours ago
More Americans are surviving cancer longer than ever before, according to a new annual report from the American Cancer Society. For the first time in history, seven in 10 people - about 70 percent - now live at least five years after being diagnosed with cancer. "Seven in 10...

'That would have to apply across the board': LGBT radicals panic as SCOTUS signals win for girls' sports

2 days 13 hours ago


Just six months after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning sex-rejecting genital mutilations and puberty blockers for minors, the high court's questions and remarks during oral arguments on Tuesday regarding two cases concerning men competing on girls' and women's sports teams in Idaho and West Virginia signal that gender ideologues are set to lose more ground.

Background

Twenty-seven states have passed laws and/or regulations prohibiting males from participating in girls' or women's sports.

West Virginia, for example, enacted the Save Women's Sports Act in 2021, requiring public school and collegiate sports teams to require athletes to participate on teams corresponding with their sex.

Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 15-year-old male transvestite in West Virginia who has pretended to be a girl since the third grade and taken puberty blockers, sued the state's board of education as well as other officials, claiming that his exclusion from girls' sports violated both Title IX and the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.

This case, West Virginia v. B.P.J., has been kicked through the courts and is now before the Supreme Court.

The other case taken up by the high court on Tuesday, Little v. Hecox, is highly similar.

RELATED: 'Incredible victory': Federal judge prohibits trans-related grooming efforts in California schools

Photographer: Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Lindsay Hecox, a 24-year-old male student at Boise State University who took cross-sex hormones for only one year, wanted to join the women's cross-country team, where his male physiology would serve as a tremendous advantage over his female competitors. He was unable to join the women's team on account of Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act, which banned male transvestites from competing on female athletic teams.

Like the transvestite student in West Virginia, Hecox sued, claiming the Idaho law violated his constitutional rights.

Both cases were brought to the Supreme Court by the two states' Republican attorneys general with attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom.

'If we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board.'

"Men cannot become women; their biological differences are scientifically clear. And no ideological arguments attempting to justify allowing males to enter female sports can stand against this truth," stated ADF president and chief counsel Kristen Waggoner.

The possibility that the SCOTUS will rule again against gender ideology has LGBT radicals panicking.

For instance, Erin Reed, the boyfriend of cross-dressing Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr (D), wrote that "depending on how the Court rules, these cases could reshape the legal framework governing transgender rights for an entire generation."

The Human Rights Campaign wailed: "As transgender youth continue to face numerous targeted attacks from health care to education, these cases mark another key moment in the fight against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination that could have implications beyond the sports world."

GLAAD previously stated: "Similar to misleading narratives about bathrooms and other single-sex spaces, propagating inflammatory scenarios about transgender women and girls participating in sports has become a common tactic in broader attacks on trans rights and equality."

Conservative majority signal victory for sanity

In Hecox, liberal justices raised questions about whether the case might be moot because of the transvestic student's claim that he won't attempt to compete in collegiate women's sports again; whether transvestic men with low testosterone levels might qualify as a sub-class deserving of a legal carve-out; and whether the Supreme Court could decide that while most men have an unfair advantage in women's sports, the transvestite in this particular case does not.

Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst argued in turn that the case wasn't moot, as Hecox has time left to change his mind about future participation; that it "will always be possible to carve the class down further"; and that an exception would not be administrable as it'd be invasive, requiring ongoing testosterone monitoring of the athlete.

Hurst — who on multiple occasions attempted to help remedy Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's confusion — later emphasized in his rebuttal that male athletes pose a threat to women's sports, citing a 2024 U.N. special rapporteur report that indicated that "over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports" as the result of male interlopers.

"Idaho's law classifies on the basis of sex because sex is what matters in sports," Hurst said. "It correlates strongly with countless athletic advantages like size, muscle mass, bone mass, and heart and lung capacity."

RELATED: 'Not medicine — it's malpractice': Trump HHS buries child sex-change regime with damning report

Photo by Kirby Lee/Getty Images

The conservative justices appeared to take Hurst's point to heart and signaled skepticism about the arguments alternatively advanced by Hecox's lawyer Kathleen Harnett against the Idaho law.

In addition to noting that the Idaho legislation is not discriminatory against all trans-identifying people as it does not bar women from men's sports but only men — who enjoy physical advantages over women — from women's sports, Justice Amy Coney Barrett alluded to scientific evidence indicating that testosterone is not the only advantage enjoyed by male athletes.

On theme, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked, "Why would we, at this point, jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country" while there remains scientific uncertainty and "strong assertions of equality on both sides?"

Kavanaugh, who has coached his daughters' sports teams, also raised concerns about whether allowing "transgender girls to participate will reverse" the "inspiring" success of girls' separate sports over the past five decades.

While Justice Neil Gorsuch asked whether trans-identifying individuals should be considered a "quasi-suspect" class entitled to a higher standard of scrutiny on account of their alleged history of discrimination, he appeared unconvinced by the argument that excluding boys from girls' sports is a form of unconstitutional sex discrimination.

Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Harnett on whether she was challenging the distinction between boys and girls or seeking an exception to the biological definition of girls, and expressed skepticism about the possibility of such an exception.

Roberts appeared concerned about the broader ramifications of permitting exceptions to the definition of girl for a sliver minority of challengers, noting that "if we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board and not simply to the area of athletics."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Joseph MacKinnon

US Posts Record $145B Dec. Deficit as Outlays Outpace Receipts

2 days 13 hours ago
The U.S. government posted a $145 billion budget ⁠deficit for December, up 67% or $58 billion from a year earlier due to record outlays that were inflated by calendar shifts in benefit payments and receipts, the Treasury Department ‍said on Tuesday.

Trump to Announce Phase 2 of Gaza Ceasefire Deal

2 days 13 hours ago
President Donald Trump is expected to announce the next phase of a Gaza ceasefire deal, pushing forward a plan aimed at sidelining Hamas terrorists and reshaping governance in the war-torn enclave.

ICE agent POV video in Renee Good shooting — who does it absolve?

2 days 13 hours ago


While the left continues to melt down over the ICE shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, new video from the agent’s POV has emerged — and BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales believes it’s the proof needed to absolve the agent of any wrongdoing.

“You’ll notice as soon as she starts, she realizes, ‘I’m gonna hit this guy.’ Her wife, who has just bailed from the car ... she’s out there with her phone, and she’s harassing the agents, and you’ll hear her wife say, ‘Drive, baby, drive,’” Gonzales explains on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

When one agent asks Good to get out of the car, the new video instead reveals that she hits the ICE agent with her car.


“You’re there to harass them. You’re there to cause problems. You’re there to do exactly what you just did. F**k around and find out. That’s where I’m at,” Gonzales says.

“The worst part about it is that her son or daughter, her 6-year-old, is now orphaned. That sucks. I hate that for that child,” she continues, pointing out that the child’s father has already passed away as well.

However, despite the child’s tragic situation, Good appeared to have arrived on the scene with the intention of filming herself harassing the ICE officers.

“The Daily Mail released video showing she got there four minutes earlier, as I mentioned, stops, lets her wife out of the car so they could get their Instagram likes, so she could start recording everything and harassing the ICE agents and recording herself harassing the ICE agents,” Gonzales says.

“And then it shows when she drove off, she backed up and sped towards the officer. ... In fact, she waited until she got to the middle of the road, as you can see, and just forgot how to drive,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

BlazeTV Staff

How to limit your screen time NOW — before it ruins your life

2 days 13 hours ago


On average, people spend five hours a day on their smartphones. That adds up to 35 hours per week (that’s almost a full-time job!), 150 hours per month, and 1,800 hours, or 2.5 months of time; 2.5 out of 12 months equals a bit over 20% of the year.

Although many of us are attached to our phones, most devices come with options to help you kick the habit or, at the very least, curb the impact it has on your life. Here’s how to retake your freedom by limiting your screen time on iPhone and Android.

Why are phones so addictive?

By now, we know our phones are addictive, but why? What makes that little rectangle in your pocket so appealing to pick up and even harder to put down?

At first, it was convenience. Smartphones made it easier to call family, text friends, and access the internet from the device in our pockets instead of logging onto the home desktop, dial-up signal buzzing along as we connected to the world wide web. Oh, what a time to be alive.

You can still use your phone while adding guardrails to take back your time and your sanity.

Somewhere along the way, though, smartphones morphed from fun, innovative, generally useful gadgets into little dopamine boxes that gave us a shot of those feel-good chemicals on demand, like a junkie jonesing for their next hit and getting what they want every time.

That’s not to say phones aren’t still useful. From contact lists, to calendar events, to traffic and weather at the push of a button, I can’t imagine not living without mine, and I’m sure many of you are exactly the same. But there’s a darker side to smartphones today. It’s the instant gratification now that keeps us coming back for more. Notifications, short-form videos, the latest trends online — all of it locks us in, even when we know better or want to step back.

Smartphones by themselves aren’t inherently bad, but when they’re abused, they can completely wreck your attention span, mental health, and quality of life overall. The good news is that you can still use your phone while adding guardrails to take back your time and your sanity.

How to limit screen time on iPhone

Apple’s iPhone comes with a “Screen Time” section baked directly into the Settings app. Open it up, dive in, and you’ll find several helpful options under the “Limit Usage” header.

“Downtime” restricts your phone to only the essential built-in apps (Phone, Messages, Safari, Maps, etc.), plus any other third-party apps that you set as “Always Allowed.” In this mode, you can either turn it on and off manually, or you can set a schedule for it to come on at a certain time of the day or week, like after you get home from work or on the weekend to disconnect. Once activated, you’ll only receive notifications, calls, and messages from the allowed apps and nothing else.

“App Limits” is a little less restrictive than Downtime, letting you set daily limits on specific apps instead of the entire system.

RELATED: New phone? Set it up like this — or you might kiss your data goodbye

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

You can add complete categories of apps — like your whole social media collection — or target specific apps that especially steal away your free time. Simply select the apps you want to restrict, choose how much time you’re allowed to use them per day (from 0 minutes to 23 hours), and you’re done. From there, your phone will lock down your chosen apps and notifications once you’ve used up your allotted time for the day, ensuring you put the phone down and do something else with your time. Note that even after the timer runs out for each app, Apple gives you the option to “ignore” the time limit by one more minute, 15 more minutes, or for the rest of the day, offering you more time with the app if you absolutely need it (which defeats the purpose of app limits entirely, but that’s how iPhone is set up).

If you want to get even more granular with your settings, “Communication Limits” will allow phone calls, Facetime chats, and messages from specific people during Downtime. For instance, you may only want to receive communications from your closest family and/or friends. Otherwise, you’re completely unreachable.

Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw

How to limit screen time on Android

Android phones come with an app called Digital Wellbeing. While the app may look a little different, depending on your make and model, every version basically does the same thing. It lets you track your screen time and add restrictions to help you take back autonomy from your device.

“App timers” lets you reduce the use of certain addictive apps by setting individual daily time limits. Once activated, you can use the app until the timer runs out. After that, the app will turn gray on your screen, and notifications will be silenced as it shifts into a paused mode until the next day. Unlike Apple’s App Limits feature, app timers on Android won’t let you borrow extra time for the day unless you go into your settings and disable the restriction entirely, helping you more effectively reduce app time.

“Focus” lets you set up a schedule to pause distracting apps at certain times of the day. Simply select which apps you’d like to restrict, set your schedule, and these apps will only be accessible during the days and times you allow for yourself. If you want even more control, the Modes feature in the main Settings app lets you set up different restrictions for different situations. For instance, the Bedtime mode can ensure you only get phone calls and messages from your favorite contacts at night. The Driving mode can ensure only your navigation and contacts apps are available when you get behind the wheel. You can even set up your own custom modes for work, the gym, and more.

If you’d rather be a little more lax in curbing your app usage, “screen time reminders” will nudge you with a notification if it detects that you’re spending too much time on any particular app on your phone. This can then either encourage you to reduce usage on your own, or if the app is addictive enough, you can add it manually to app timers.

When all else fails, take the nuclear option

Although our phones come with app reduction features built in, the sad truth is that device OEMs and app developers want us to use our phones. The more time we spend on these devices, the more likely we are to come back for another hit of dopamine, and the vicious cycle continues.

There’s only one tried and true way off the ride, and that’s to cut the cord entirely. That could mean deleting that addictive app from your phone so you can’t open it, even if you wanted to. It could also mean turning your device off and putting it in a drawer altogether, either for a day, a week, or however long is necessary.

Early studies show that “digital detox” has a remarkable impact on the brain, bolstering cognitive function, reducing stress, and improving sleep quality, just to name a few. Even just three days of little-to-no phone use can help, while prolonged usage prolongs negative effects and makes them worse.

Of course, everyone should choose what works best for them, but if you’re having trouble with cutting back on using your phone, the options outlined above are a great place to start.

Zach Laidlaw