The celebrity circus is trying to convince Americans to fund Planned Parenthood – and they aren't buying it
Remember when Taylor Swift's last-minute endorsement of Kamala Harris won her the presidential election? Or remember how just calling something "brat" (inspired by singer Charli XCX) was enough to catapult voters into liking and voting for Democrats?
Yeah, I don't remember that happening either.
That is why it is so maddening and confounding when the Left pulls celebrities out of a hole. Because it almost never works.
Enter the latest tone-deaf Leftist experiment.
Last week, 250 rich, elite celebrities, alongside Planned Parenthood, took out a full-page ad in the New York Times insisting we plebeians forcibly fund Planned Parenthood through our federal tax dollars. How is that for freedom?
This has all the awareness of the peak cringe COVID-19 Imagine celebrity sing-along.
According to Planned Parenthood's exclusive Rolling Stone write-up, the celebrity campaign includes the following slogans: "I'm for Planned Parenthood. For Freedom. For Healthcare. For You and Me."
Here is why all that sloganeering is a load of rubbish.
Planned Parenthood would not be paying tens of thousands of dollars and calling on over 200 celebrities for a New York Times ad, if they weren't nervous about something. That nervousness stems from the fact that Democrats no longer oversee the federal purse. Rightfully so. The current administration and Congress recognize that Americans cannot sustain giving another $800 million to fund the largest abortion giant in the country.
Last week, the House passed President Trump's "One Big Beautiful" bill and as of today, it is with the Senate. As part of promises to cut waste, the bill stops hundreds of millions of forced taxpayer dollars to Big Abortion. Naturally, Planned Parenthood sees the writing on the wall. No longer will everyday Americans be forced to use their money to artificially keep this organization alive. They are crumbling and they know it.
But don't just take my word for it; take the word of the newspaper that they placed the ad in.
In a direct counter to the campaign's "For Healthcare" line, a recent article in the New York Times argues that money is not being used to help patients, but rather to fund the politics of its abortion lobby. The grisly New York Times story features atrocious conditions at Planned Parenthood, like botched abortions and leaking sewage that caused patients to vomit. A Missouri branch was shut down for using moldy abortion equipment on women. Staffers confessed to botching STI tests and not informing patients when they tested positive for sexually transmitted diseases. Story after story in the article shares testimony from staffers painting a scary reality on the ground. It leaves the reader without a doubt that Planned Parenthood lacks basic health and safety standards.
However, the New York Times ad campaign emphasizes Planned Parenthood providing birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and then at the bottom of the list they mention abortions and trans treatments. But in Planned Parenthood's recently released annual report, their own data confirms cancer screenings, pap smears and breast exams plummeted by 50%. Their STI testing was down 38%. In fact, the top three items were: abortion, transgender treatments, and political spending–those have all skyrocketed. Last year, they spent nearly $70 million to try and elect Kamala Harris and other Democrats.
So, why on earth are our country's richest and most famous clamoring for us to provide our hard-earned dollars to an organization that is actively causing harm to women and children? Your guess is as good as mine.
What are we really looking at here? A flailing political machine desperate to rake in taxpayer dollars with glitter and hashtags, hoping we will be too dazzled to notice the rot underneath.
But Americans are not stupid—we do not need Hollywood to tell us what health care is, or what it is not. We do not need millionaire activists lecturing us about "freedom" while demanding our money to fund an organization with a failing record and a partisan agenda. We all know that Hollywood Leftists love Planned Parenthood. But they should not demand that the rest of us foot the bill for their pet projects.
The era of celebrity politics is over. The American people are wide awake—and we are not buying it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ex-Trump Aide Spells Out How Elon Musk Could Gain Ultimate Revenge On The President
Former White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin explained Wednesday why she believes tech billionaire Elon Musk could now actually 'tank Donald Trump's entire legislative agenda.' Griffin, a co-host on ABC's 'The View,' warned that Musk's vocal opposition to Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful' spending bill could sway Republicans in Congress, especially those worried about the consequences to their seats if they cross the world's richest person. Musk recently slammed the bill as a 'disgusting abomination' for how it will hike the national debt. He had previously staked his reputation on slashing federal spending in his now-ended role running Trump's unofficial Department of Government Efficiency. Trump, for now, has remained silent on Musk's criticism. Griffin, who served in the Trump administration during his first term, noted how the bill has measures on energy, border security and extends Trump's tax cuts. 'If Republicans decide, 'Oooh, we don't want to get on the wrong side of Elon,' that is what Donald Trump is banking it all on,' she continued. 'And that is kind of devastating for his administration.' 'On the flip side, those Republicans, if you're in a House district, you're like, 'I'm afraid of Donald Trump,' but Elon Musk, because of the dark money system we live in, he can come in and primary you by just pouring millions and millions into your race.' All Musk needs to do, she suggested, is 'peel off a handful of Republicans' to tip the balance of power in the House. Watch here: Critics Cackle Over Mike Johnson's Awkward Confession About Elon Musk Phone Call 'You Wussed Out': David Mamet Reveals Trump's 20-Minute Call After He Committed A MAGA Sin Critics Gasp At Trump Official's 'The Thing That Matters' Declaration
Bloomberg
31 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Israel-Backed Gaza Aid Group Suspends Operations for Second Day
An Israel- and US-backed mechanism to distribute food in Gaza suspended operations for a second day following a series of deadly incidents near its sites that drew international criticism. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a Swiss-based nonprofit, launched in Gaza last week following a months-long Israeli blockade of the territory, and says it has handed out enough food staples for millions of meals. But the roll-out has been dogged by overcrowding and at least one incident in which Israeli forces, citing a security threat, fired toward Palestinians headed to a GHF aid center.
Medscape
35 minutes ago
- Medscape
Catching Resistance Early: Can New Breast Cancer Drug Help?
CHICAGO — Can spotting an emerging ESR1 mutation early and changing first-line drugs before progression improve outcomes in patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer? Interim findings from the SERENA-6 trial suggest that may be the case. Patients who switched from a first-line aromatase inhibitor to camizestrant, an investigational next-generation oral selective estrogen-receptor degrader, at the first signs of an emerging ESR1 mutation demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival compared with those who continued their initial regimen. Notably, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing allowed investigators to identify ESR1 mutations, which emerge at the time of disease progression in about 40% of patients on a first-line aromatase inhibitor and lead to treatment resistance. Camizestrant, which has shown activity in patients who develop ESR1 mutations, helped improve first-line outcomes and has 'potential to become a new treatment strategy,' according to co-principal investigator Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in medical oncology at the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England, who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. Results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine . This trial also demonstrated 'the clinical utility of ctDNA monitoring to detect and treat emerging resistance in breast cancer,' said Turner. While praising the findings, others were not convinced that the SERENA-6 results warrant a change in practice yet. 'Based on first-line progression-free survival alone, this could represent a new regulatory approval path,' said invited discussant Angela DeMichele, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. But, DeMichele cautioned, 'I cannot recommend the SERENA-6 strategy at this time.' One key reason, DeMichele noted, is that it's too early to tell whether this strategy improves overall survival. If camizestrant is approved based on progression-free survival and quality of life, DeMichele wondered, is it worth going through the ctDNA testing process if the drug doesn't help patients live longer? Paolo Tarantino, MD, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School in Boston, echoed this sentiment in a tweet on X: 'Outstanding results, though not ready for clinical practice (yet),' adding that it will also be 'important to take into account financial, psychological, and systemic costs of the strategy.' Using ctDNA to Track Resistance In the study, 3256 patients who had received at least 6 months of treatment with aromatase inhibitors and CDK4/6 therapy (palbociclib, ribociclib, or abemaciclib) received ctDNA testing with Guardant360 CDx every 2-3 months at the time of routine staging exams. Overall, 315 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected and had no radiologic evidence of disease progression were randomly assigned to either switch from the aromatase inhibitor to 75 mg of camizestrant daily (n = 157) or continue their aromatase inhibitor/CDK4/6 regimen (n = 158). (An additional 233 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected were not included for a variety of reasons, including disease progression and consent withdrawal.) At the planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 16.0 months in the camizestrant group and 9.2 months in the aromatase inhibitor group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.44; P < .00001). At 24 months, only 5.4% of patients who had continued their initial first-line treatment had not progressed compared with 30% of patients on camizestrant. The progression-free survival findings were consistent across clinically relevant patient subgroups. Patients who switched to camizestrant also showed improved time to deterioration in global health status and quality of life — a median of 23.0 months vs 6.4 months in the aromatase group (aHR, 0.53). At the time of the interim analysis, overall survival data were immature, with 20 deaths in the camizestrant group and 19 in the aromatase inhibitor group (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.48-1.73). As for time to second progression, there were 38 events in the camizestrant group and 47 events in the aromatase group, but the findings were also immature. As for adverse events, 60% of patients in the camizestrant group had a grade 3 or higher event, 10% of which were deemed serious compared with 46% in the aromatase group, 12% of which were serious. Neutropenia (45% vs 34%, respectively) and anemia (5% in both groups) were the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events. Only 1% of patients on camizestrant discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Overall, Turner concluded that 'for people with HR-positive advanced breast cancer, the results of SERENA-6 show that camizestrant plus CDK4/6 inhibitor could be a new treatment option to use at the point of ESR1 mutation detection during treatment with first-line aromatase inhibitor plus CDK4/6 inhibitor — but before the cancer grows.' Despite the promising findings, DeMichele highlighted several key unanswered questions and challenges. Notably, will this strategy lead to longer overall survival and demonstrate clinical utility? Overall survival and time to second progression are currently not known, DeMichele said. The trial did not address whether first-line treatment gains would be lost if camizestrant was given in the second-line setting after anatomic progression. DeMichele also noted the high cost and potential anxiety associated with serial ctDNA testing. Overall, 'the full complement of financial, psychological, and systemic costs is needed to fully assess utility and feasibility for implementation,' she added. SERENA-6 was supported by AstraZeneca. Turner disclosed consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Inivata Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Relay Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, and Roche. DeMichele disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Pfizer.
