Latest news with #LiveAction
Daily Mail
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Disney facing Lilo & Stitch disaster as 'disgusting' change sees fans call for boycott
Disney fans have declared they're refusing to watch the ' woke ' live-action remake of Lilo & Stitch after it was revealed that a major character had been cut. The upcoming movie is set to hit theaters on May 23 - nearly 23 years after the beloved animated classic first captured the globe. However, excitement for the flick has turned to outrage after rumors that one main character from the original wouldn't feature in the latest version. According to multiple X accounts, Captain Gantu - the main antagonist in 2002 cartoon - is not going to appear in the live-action remake. It's unclear who will be replace him as the villain, but the news left fans all across the globe heartbroken. Social media was quickly flooded with posts from angry fans, many of whom claimed they were now boycotting the upcoming remake. 'Not watching then,' one person replied to a post that said: 'Captain Gantu will not appear in the live-action Lilo & Stitch remake.' 'Well, then I am no longer interested in watching it. Huge mistake to cut him from the movie,' agreed someone else. Another user added: 'Welp, It's gonna be garbage!' 'The movie is a huge "woke" flop,' scathed a fourth. A fifth tweeted: 'The woke re-writing of history is so disgusting…' read a fifth tweet. A sixth added: 'How do you cut the antagonist of the film? Who even is the villain? 'There wasn't even a point of remake the movie in the first place, but it's even more pointless now.' Bad publicity: The movie has faced a tonne of heat before it has even been released Not happy: Social media was quickly flooded with posts from angry fans The original Lilo & Stitch followed an alien monster experiment who accidentally ended up on Earth after escaping from his creator, Jumba. Fans were already upset over the news that character Pleakley won't dress like a woman in the live-action remake. Throughout their journey to try to get Stitch back, Jumba and Pleakley wear disguises in an attempt to try to look human and blend in with everyone around them - and in the original, Pleakley, who is male, opts to wear a dress and women's wig. But don't expect the alien to dress like a female in the new version. Director Dean Fleischer Camp confirmed the news in a TikTok video earlier this month, which sparked immense criticism. While chatting with Entertainment Weekly about it afterwards, Dean explained that Jumba and Pleakley, played by Zach Galifianakis and Billy Magnussen respectively, don't put human clothes and wigs on at all in the live-action remake, so there actually wasn't a chance for Pleakley to dress up like a woman like he did in the animated flick. Instead, he explained that they use technology to morph themselves into humans. He added that he and his team did 'some tests and some character design work' to try to make Jumba and Pleakley look like they did in the original, but it just didn't work. Ultimately, he said they decided it was 'a bridge too far' and that it didn't translate well into live-action. 'The humor of them walking around Hawaii dressed in these terrible disguises where Pleakley still has one eyeball, it's a little harder to buy in live action,' he said. The director added that 'budgets' also played a part in the decision. 'If you have Jumba and Pleakley in alien disguises, then you're going to have to shortchange how much development work you can do on Stitch and these other elements,' he continued. 'It's not that they're aliens in the movie. You definitely see Jumba and Pleakley in their alien forms through a lot of the movie, but they are in human skin suits for part of it.'
Fox News
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Pro-life ally: Pro-abortion assault response 'troubling'; Trump's Planned Parenthood funding cut 'great step'
Astonishing footage of a woman assaulting a pro-life activist stunned the internet in early April, when the young advocate was conducting man-on-the-street interviews in New York City before being attacked by a pro-abortion subject. Savannah Craven Antao was assaulted by a woman who consented to an on-camera conversation regarding abortion issues. "Savannah was having these conversations," Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action, a pro-life anti-abortion nonprofit organization, told Fox News Digital. "One of them obviously went really south in that the woman that she was speaking with certainly engaged her, seemed pretty friendly but ultimately ended up getting very angry." A video captured by Antao's husband, the cameraman, caught the woman, Brianna J. Rivers, 30, throwing sucker punches. Rivers was later arrested on one count of second-degree assault, according to a report by the New York Post. Antao was left bleeding and in need of stitches. She was taken to the emergency room for treatment. "This woman kind of just marched off yelling profanities," Rose said. "You can't just go punching and assaulting people and sending them to the emergency room for stitches." The response by social media users was divided as some submitted comments in favor of the assaulter, while others were horrified by the attack and feared for their own safety as pro-lifers. "It was really troubling to see the response by some, not by all, but by some people," Rose said. "There were again people that supported abortion who said basically Savannah had what was coming to her. How dare she talk to people about this issue? She's going to get hit in the face. As if physical violence for a conversation is somehow justified." However, Rose is hopeful that basic discourse with restraint and without physical violence is still valued among Americans. "There is, I think, a growing group of people who think that violence against people you disagree with politically is okay," Rose said. "And particularly who, because they support the violence of abortion, they think that it's okay then to be violent to people that are born, too, who you disagree with." Abortion issues, a discussion point which has gained inconsistent notoriety among both Republicans and Democrats, were a focal point of the 2024 presidential elections where President Donald Trump ran as a pro-life advocate. In late March, President Trump withheld tens of millions of dollars in Planned Parenthood funds for possible violation of civil rights laws, according to reports. "I thought this was a great step in the right direction," Rose said. "Planned Parenthood claims that they are about planning parenthood, but they do the exact opposite. They destroy parenthood." "The fact that the Trump administration has removed some funding, I think, is a very positive step. The reality is that, though, the recent action by the Trump administration is only, we're talking about the tens of millions of dollars when there's $700 million that Planned Parenthood is receiving. This is a small step forward but what we need to see from the federal branch is more responsibility and accountability to stop funding abortion providers." In 2024, it was reported that "an estimated 1,038,000 abortions were provided by clinicians in states without total bans in 2024," according to the Guttmacher Institute, a non-governmental organization funded, in part, by Planned Parenthood. Among those who obtained abortion care in 2021-2022, 53% of them paid out of pocket and 30% used Medicaid to fund their treatments, according to the source. "A common rebuttal from, certainly, pro-abortion Democrats, is saying, 'Well, we're not funding taxpayer abortions. We're just taxpayer-funding abortion providers and the reality is the money is fungible,'" Rose said. "Planned parenthood is billing Medicaid and getting government funds for basically all of their other operational expenses and many other of their procedures that ultimately prop up their abortion business." Medication abortions made up 63% of the clinician-provided abortions in 2023, according to Guttmacher. "We need to see the abortion pill, which lands 1 out of every 10 women that take it with serious health consequences including emergency room visits," Rose said of the pill, mifepristone, used in combination with another medication, misoprostol, to terminate pregnancies. "We should see that dangerous drug pulled from the market." In late April, a study conducted by the Ethics & Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., revealed "severe adverse effects" for nearly 11% of women, more than 1 in 10, who used the abortion drug. "No taxpayer money should be going to them," Rose said. "They should be shut down."
Fox News
07-05-2025
- Health
- Fox News
Undercover investigation: Planned Parenthood prescribing hormones to minors with minimal oversight
FIRST ON FOX: Undercover phone calls released today by pro-life activist group Live Action reveal that Planned Parenthood clinics across several states offer cross-sex hormonal treatments to minors as young as 16 with very little parental or medical supervision. The group is now calling on Congress to defund Planned Parenthood of hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding. Live Action conducted an undercover investigation in which a woman posing as a 16-year-old minor called dozens of Planned Parenthood locations seeking "gender-affirming care." At least seven facilities told her they would prescribe cross-sex hormones at the first appointment. In several instances, Planned Parenthood assured the caller that she could choose to meet with a provider virtually and have access to cross-sex hormones as quickly as the same day, despite the person posing as a minor saying they had just begun considering changing her sex. Facilities in Minnesota and Oregon stated they could schedule the minor within days or on the same day. Five facilities stated that no prior therapy, mental health clearance or prior documentation was needed for her to obtain cross-sex hormones. 'GENDER-AFFIRMING' TREATMENTS DON'T BENEFIT YOUTH, SAYS PEDIATRICIANS GROUP: 'IRREVERSIBLE CONSEQUENCES' In addition to being the country's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood is also one of the leading distributors of sex-change drugs. Cross-sex hormonal treatments, such as taking either testosterone or estrogen, are meant to alter the body to exhibit characteristics to conform with a person's "gender identity." Besides altering the natural makeup and functions of the body, cross-sex hormonal treatments can result in several harmful side effects, including permanent infertility. Live Action President Lila Rose told Fox News Digital that the investigation exposes "a chilling reality" that "Planned Parenthood is fast-tracking vulnerable children into irreversible hormone treatments with almost no medical oversight." "These dangerous drugs can sterilize, stunt growth and leave lifelong scars. This is not healthcare. It is child abuse, and it must be stopped," she said. PLANNED PARENTHOOD UNDER INVESTIGATION BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OVER SALE OF FETAL TISSUE Live Action is calling on Congress to defund Planned Parenthood of all tax-dollar funding it receives from the federal government. "Planned Parenthood receives more than $700 million in taxpayer dollars every year. That is a catastrophe, and it must end," said Rose. "It's time for Congress and the president to act and defund this abusive corporation of the $700 million they receive from taxpayers every year." This comes shortly after Fox News Digital reported that House Republicans are discussing measures that could potentially end federal funding of groups like Planned Parenthood as cost savings in their multitrillion-dollar bill advancing President Donald Trump 's agenda. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Two sources close to the House Energy and Commerce Committee told Fox News Digital that the move was being floated as lawmakers look to find at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts to offset the cost of Trump's tax priorities. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said last week that Republicans would target "big abortion" in the budget reconciliation process . Planned Parenthood did not immediately respond for comment. Fox News Digital's Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sex ed bill going to Braun requires students view fetal development videos. Is it anti-abortion?
A controversial bill on its way to Gov. Mike Braun's desk would require Hoosier students in sex education classes to view video of an ultrasound and computer renderings of the stages of fetal development, which one national organization says is a tactic of anti-abortion groups. The video language in Senate Bill 442 was added to the bill in early April by the House Committee on Education and has drawn condemnation from Democrats who have expressed concerns over whether medically accurate materials would be shown to students. The final version of the bill was approved by both the House and Senate April 23 and now heads to Braun. SB 442 specifies that human sexuality courses in Indiana must include presentations on 'human growth and development during pregnancy,' and states they must be a minimum three-minute, 'high-definition' ultrasound video of fetal development and 'high quality' computer renderings or animation of the fertilization of egg and stages of the growth of a fetus. Similar language requiring students in sex education classes to watch fetal development videos has popped up in statehouses around the country this year, including in New Hampshire and Florida. Stateline reported in February that other Republican-led states, including Arkansas, Iowa and Nebraska, were passing requirements aimed at having students watch a video anti-abortion group Live Action created titled 'Baby Olivia.' SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, a sex education nonprofit, in a March news release said the movement to show 'medically inaccurate' fetal development videos and ultrasounds in classrooms are a tactic of 'anti-abortion extremists.' Indiana passed a near-total abortion ban in 2022. The language in SB 442 on ultrasound video and fetal development animations does not explicitly describe Live Action's Baby Olivia video. The bill says that the materials must be 'medically accurate and age appropriate.' But Senate Democrats on April 23 questioned the reasoning behind the specificity of the language in the bill, down to the minimum three-minute timeline. The "Baby Olivia" video is just over three minutes long. 'You can say that the House put it in there, but there has to be some reason why you kept it in there,' Sen. Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington, asked Republican Sen. Gary Byrne, who authored the bill. 'Is it based on some evidence that you have in terms of what is best practices with high-definition ultrasound videos on length of time?' More: Indiana already banned abortions. Now, state lawmakers are eyeing abortion pills. Byrne, of Byrneville, said he received several examples of videos that could apply to the requirement in SB 442. When Sen. JD Ford, D-Indianapolis, asked Byrne specifically if he knew about the Baby Olivia video, Byrne said he couldn't give the specific titles of the videos he watched. Byrne stood firm that individual school boards would have to approve the video shown to students in sex education courses, which is the main focus of SB 442. 'There's plenty of examples of videos,' Byrne said. 'The school boards get to choose what video they would approve, and again, the parent would decide whether they want their child to participate in that, because that would be listed on the materials used.' The video language is not the only controversy that has hit SB 442. During a conference committee meeting on April 21, Byrne said a he removed a requirement to teach consent to sexual activity from the bill. By April 23, Byrne shared in a statement that the language was added back to the bill. Contact IndyStar state government and politics reporter Brittany Carloni at Follow her on Twitter/X @CarloniBrittany. Sign up for our free weekly politics newsletter, Checks & Balances, curated by IndyStar political and government reporters. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indiana sex ed bill heading to Braun requires fetal development video viewing
Indianapolis Star
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Sex ed bill going to Braun requires students view fetal development videos. Is it anti-abortion?
A controversial bill on its way to Gov. Mike Braun's desk would require Hoosier students in sex education classes to view video of an ultrasound and computer renderings of the stages of fetal development, which one national organization says is a tactic of anti-abortion groups. The video language in Senate Bill 442 was added to the bill in early April by the House Committee on Education and has drawn condemnation from Democrats who have expressed concerns over whether medically accurate materials would be shown to students. The final version of the bill was approved by both the House and Senate April 23 and now heads to Braun. SB 442 specifies that human sexuality courses in Indiana must include presentations on 'human growth and development during pregnancy,' and states they must be a minimum three-minute, 'high-definition' ultrasound video of fetal development and 'high quality' computer renderings or animation of the fertilization of egg and stages of the growth of a fetus. Similar language requiring students in sex education classes to watch fetal development videos has popped up in statehouses around the country this year, including in New Hampshire and Florida. Stateline reported in February that other Republican-led states, including Arkansas, Iowa and Nebraska, were passing requirements aimed at having students watch a video anti-abortion group Live Action created titled ' Baby Olivia.' SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, a sex education nonprofit, in a March news release said the movement to show 'medically inaccurate' fetal development videos and ultrasounds in classrooms are a tactic of 'anti-abortion extremists.' Indiana passed a near-total abortion ban in 2022. The language in SB 442 on ultrasound video and fetal development animations does not explicitly describe Live Action's Baby Olivia video. The bill says that the materials must be 'medically accurate and age appropriate.' But Senate Democrats on April 23 questioned the reasoning behind the specificity of the language in the bill, down to the minimum three-minute timeline. The "Baby Olivia" video is just over three minutes long. 'You can say that the House put it in there, but there has to be some reason why you kept it in there,' Sen. Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington, asked Republican Sen. Gary Byrne, who authored the bill. 'Is it based on some evidence that you have in terms of what is best practices with high-definition ultrasound videos on length of time?' Byrne, of Byrneville, said he received several examples of videos that could apply to the requirement in SB 442. When Sen. JD Ford, D-Indianapolis, asked Byrne specifically if he knew about the Baby Olivia video, Byrne said he couldn't give the specific titles of the videos he watched. Byrne stood firm that individual school boards would have to approve the video shown to students in sex education courses, which is the main focus of SB 442. 'There's plenty of examples of videos,' Byrne said. 'The school boards get to choose what video they would approve, and again, the parent would decide whether they want their child to participate in that, because that would be listed on the materials used.' The video language is not the only controversy that has hit SB 442. During a conference committee meeting on April 21, Byrne said a he removed a requirement to teach consent to sexual activity from the bill. By April 23, Byrne shared in a statement that the language was added back to the bill.
