A billionaire who backed Donald Trump for president is now putting his money behind a new "anti-woke" venture capital fund with the purpose of backing right-wing, pro-MAGA startups, Forbes reported on Monday.
Specifically, the project is being bankrolled by Marc Andreesen, a venture capital executive who is also advising tech billionaire Elon Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency" task force to recommend trillions of dollars in spending cuts to grants and public programs.
He is partnering with New Founding, an obscure company that earlier this year created a plan to build an isolated right-wing Christian community in Kentucky for people to "disappear from the cultural insanity of the broader country."
New Founding, according to David Jeans, is now setting up "a venture capital fund to invest in what it calls 'aligned companies,' startups that oppose progressive ideologies and are intent on both 'cultural and economic disruption.' It’s one of a small but growing number of VCs vocally rejecting ‘wokeism’ and building their investment thesis on core conservative values."
New Founding "decries leftists as 'anti-human,' celebrates technology as a singular force that will define a new era of prosperity, loves crypto and sees the internet ('deeply American in ethos and design') as a means to its ends. 'Our project offers a powerful avenue,' a manifesto on its website published in July reads, 'both to develop the class of people who can ultimately challenge the incumbent regime and to acquire the resources, territory, and institutions that will enable this effort,'" said the report. Its end goal is to use technology to reshape America along theocratic and pro-MAGA values.
Andreesen, according to the report, invested a "six-figure sum" in the project on a "limited partner" basis.
So far, this venture and other firms like Azoria Partners and 1789 Capital which have made similar promises to invest in "anti-woke" companies, are raising small amounts of money compared to the major investment firms, but they are hoping to grow — and are convinced in part that they'll get better returns by rejecting companies that are committed to diversity and inclusion.
As all of this is going on, Democrats have sought to shine a light on the influence of billionaires into MAGA ideology and governance, in particular accusing Trump's administration of being a puppet to Musk's business goals.
The man accused of gunning down a health insurance executive in a brazen hit in New York pleaded not guilty Monday to state charges including "terrorist" murder.
Luigi Mangione wore a white shirt, burgundy sweatshirt and was shackled during his appearance in a Manhattan court where he was flanked by police officers, an AFP correspondent saw.
Monday's hearing came after Mangione, 26, appeared in a New York court last week to face federal charges also including murder following his dramatic extradition by plane and helicopter from Pennsylvania, where he was arrested at a McDonald's restaurant.
The suspect is charged in both state and federal court in the December 4 shooting of UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson.
Thompson's murder brought to the surface deep public frustration with the lucrative US commercial health care system, with many social media users painting Mangione as a hero.
If convicted in the state case, Mangione could face life imprisonment with no parole. In the federal case, he could technically face the death penalty.
Mangioni's attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo has sought clarity on how simultaneous federal and state charges would work, calling the situation "highly unusual."
Mangione was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, on December 9 following a tip from staff at a McDonald's restaurant, after a days-long manhunt.
He had traveled to New York by bus from Atlanta about 10 days before the crime, the Department of Justice said. After checking into a Manhattan hostel with false identification, he allegedly performed reconnaissance near the victim's hotel and the conference venue where the shooting took place.
Early on December 4, Mangione allegedly tracked Thompson, walked up behind him and fired several gunshots from a pistol with a silencer, the DOJ said. Afterward, he fled on a bicycle.
Democrats should not even consider treating Donald Trump like a normal president and try working with him on the issues, former conservative turned anti-GOP columnist Jennifer Rubin warned in The Washington Post on Monday — and any efforts to do so are "unwise, premature and embarrassing."
In recent days, particularly following the chaotic near-government shutdown that unfolded last week when tech billionaire Elon Musk blew up bipartisan negotiations in the House, Democrats have found a more oppositional voice. But since the election there has been more talk of trying to find areas of consensus, particularly on Cabinet nominations — which would be a fool's errand, Rubin argued.
"A depressingly high number of elected Democrats are declaring their intent to find 'common ground' with President-elect Donald Trump and his crackpot Cabinet picks," wrote Rubin. "Democrats strain credulity if they imagine they can find common ground with someone who vows, among other mind-boggling schemes, to imprison opponents, deploy the military against immigrants, snatch the power of the purse from Congress and pay for tax cuts for billionaires with cuts to entitlements and other programs that serve ordinary Americans."
The last week should wipe any thought of this out of Democrats' heads, Rubin argued, because Democrats worked as hard as they could for a bipartisan, consensus deal on keeping the government open, and it fell apart at the finish line because Musk gave the GOP marching orders against it. Some observers argue Trump came out the loser of this particular exchange — but if this continues to happen, it will leave Democrats humiliated, she warned.
Much better, she concluded, for Democrats to get on a war footing right away for the American people, and ensure that Trump's behavior cannot be normalized again.
"There might be times when Trump accidentally stumbles into positions Democrats previously held. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And when Trump by happenstance betrays his base or reverses a ridiculous position, Democrats should know when to say yes," she wrote.
But at the end of the day, Democrats need to understand the stakes: "He barely won, in part because many of his voters thought he would not do the radical things he promised. But Democrats do have a mandate: to stop him when they can. Instead of 'find common ground,' maybe they should strive to 'give no quarter.'"
The 37-page report, which is due to be officially released on Monday, alleged that "there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of Congress."
While rumors about Gaetz's alleged behavior have been floating around for years, many political observers were nonetheless revolted to see it documented in such lurid detail.
Former Republican Ana Navarro-Cárdenas expressed revulsion at Gaetz's alleged actions and marveled that President-elect Donald Trump actually nominated him to be attorney general.
"This report is beyond disturbing," she wrote on X. "It alleges criminal acts, including with a minor. And Gaetz is the guy Trump initially wanted to be his Attorney General. God help us."
Former Republican pollster Sarah Longwell made a similar point about what the Gaetz pick said about Trump's judgement.
"Trump wanted this guy to be the highest law enforcement official in our country," she marveled on BlueSky.
Software engineer Alex Cole zeroed in on allegations that Gaetz paid for sex with an underage girl and tied it to Republican rhetoric about Democrats supposedly sexualizing children.
"So all this time Matt Gaetz has been the groomer Republicans warned us about?" he wondered.
Looking to the future, elections forecaster Lakshya Jain predicted doom for Gaetz's ambitions to become Florida's next governor.
"Many implications of this becoming official, but one of the non-legal ones is that Gaetz’s career in elected office is probably done," he wrote. "Virtually no chance he wins the 2026 Florida gubernatorial primary (unless Trump pulls out all the stops for him and the field is split)."
Washington Post conference Catherine Rampell highlighted a particularly strange passage from the ethics report in which Gaetz's former girlfriend informed the women he was allegedly paying for sex that he was "a little limited in their cashflow this weekend" and asked them if "it can be more of a customer appreciation week."
And Media Matters's Matt Gertz, who is frequently mistaken for the former Florida congressman on social media, lamented that his near-namesake was once again making headlines for all the wrong reasons.
"Just cruising into the holiday season, nothing bad could possibly happen today oh come on," he wrote on BlueSky.
Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) is filing a legal complaint to try to block release of the House Ethics Committee's report into him, reported NBC News — but he's probably too late for it to matter.
This comes after reports that the committee, which has been wrestling with whether to release the full details of the report, is finally moving to do so — and after large portions of its content were already leaked, including confirmation the committee found substantial evidence for accusations that Gaetz engaged in statutory rape and illicit drug use.
Gaetz has continually denied all of these allegations, which have floated around for years, but which he claims were part of an extortion racket against himself and his family.
Gaetz's request for a restraining order "accuses the committee of an 'unconstitutional' attempt 'to exercise jurisdiction over a private citizen through the threatened release of an investigative report containing potentially defamatory allegations, in violation of the Committee’s own rules,'" noted the report. His legal team further asserts that the release of the report "represents an unprecedented overreach that threatens fundamental constitutional rights and established procedural protections."
The former congressman was initially Trump's pick for attorney general, but he withdrew amid the controversy over releasing the report, and indications that Senate Republicans did not have the votes to confirm him.
Although Republicans flipped the U.S. Senate in the 2024 election and ousted longtime Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana and Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen.-elect Ruben Gallego defeated far-right MAGA Republican and conspiracy theorist Kari Lake.
Gallego, in January, will be taking over the seat presently held by outgoing centrist Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (a former Democrat turned independent).
Lake has now lost two statewide races in Arizona — first the 2022 gubernatorial race, then the state's 2024 U.S. Senate race — but President-elect Donald Trump hasn't forgotten about her. Trump picked Lake to head the Voice of America.
In a column published by The Bulwark, Never Trump conservative and former GOP strategist Tim Miller describes his encounter with Lake at a recent event hosted by far-right MAGA Republican James O'Keefe. Lake, according to Miller, made it clear that she wasn't the least bit happy to see him.
Lake, Miller says, angrily told him, "Don't touch me," described him as "fake news" and a "liar," and repeatedly said, "You are a piece of s--t."
"Conspiracist" Laura Loomer, according to Miller, was among the attendees and intervened.
"Loomer made her way through the crowd of onlookers, stood next to Lake and echoed her assessment that I was a lying POS, but in a tone that was more appropriate for a public gathering," Miller recalls.
"Loomer's calm disdain, mixed with curiosity about my presence, seemed to cause Lake's manic rage to peter out. Throughout Kari's tirade, I think I mostly smiled awkwardly. Though who can say? Unless she releases the video, I can't be sure what I looked like."
Miller stresses that although Loomer wasn't glad to see him, she didn't lose her cool — unlike Lake.
"The Lake exchange, while frivolous and a quite a bit cray, was telling," Miller argues. "Her behavior was the most unhinged — by far — of anyone I encountered. But it reflected the broader vibe I got from the attendees: People just didn't seem as happy and fulfilled as I expected."
President-elect Donald Trump is in charge of a party falling apart at the seams before he even takes office, wrote Amanda Marcotte in a Salon analysis published on Monday.
This comes amid reporting that Trump is already needled by Democrats' newly emboldened attack strategy of painting him as second fiddle to tech billionaire Elon Musk, who by all accounts was the architect of last week's chaos that collapsed a bipartisan spending deal and briefly appeared to put America on track for a government shutdown over the holidays.
With hours to spare before that shutdown would take effect, Marcotte noted, "Democrats handed Musk — sorry, Trump — the first major loss of his presidency, a presidency which technically doesn't start for another month. The funding bill passed, with all the major provisions Musk tried to strip out returned. The fight left the Republican coalition divided and weakened. It also revealed that an aging, tired Trump is currently controlled by his biggest donor."
Trump had been counting on the media to puff up his strength and invincibility into the start of his term, following his narrow popular vote plurality. But now, wrote Marcotte, "it's clear that the GOP is being held together with safety pins. MAGA was never coherent ideologically but held together by Trump's cult of personality" — and Democrats appear to be done licking their wounds and are now ready to fight, with a newly found strategy that is genuinely doing damage.
Their message, though, goes beyond simply saying that Trump is beholden to Musk and hoping it drives him up the wall, Marcotte argued — it's a coherent, ideological narrative that could become Trump's Achilles heel for holding together his entire coalition.
"Democrats are ... using this to drive home a simple but important message: Trump and Republicans are puppets of predatory billionaires," wrote Marcotte. "The 'President Musk' jokes flew fast and furious, helping reinforce the point that Trump is in this to enrich himself and his friends, at the expense of the poor souls who believed his lies that he wanted to do something about inflation."
The lesson of the last week, Marcotte concluded, is that "All it takes is a little discipline and a little spine, and Democrats can get Republicans to hate each other so much that getting work done feels impossible for the would-be fascist leaders."
President-elect Donald Trump has thrown away what should have been the honeymoon period of his incoming presidency — and replaced it with a shambolic mess, MSNBC’s Steve Benen wrote Monday.
And he added that the chaos of Trump's pre-presidency is entirely of his own making — and could have easily been avoided.
Benen wrote that the weeks before inauguration are usually “a period of time in which an incoming American leader is able to bask in his or her victory, welcome congratulatory wishes, and imagine a world of exciting possibilities before the real work begins on Inauguration Day.”
But in Trump’s case, he wrote, “the Republican keeps stepping on rakes.”
Benen’s prime example was last week’s crisis over the spending bill — and Trump’s sudden addition of demands to increase the debt limit.
“A stopgap spending bill was working its way through the legislative process on Capitol Hill, which generated very little interest from Mar-a-Lago — that is, until late Wednesday afternoon, when Trump published an item to his social media platform demanding that congressional Republicans add a debt ceiling increase to the bill. Failing to do so, Trump added, would be 'a betrayal of our country.'
“Roughly an hour and a half later, he published a follow-up piece, adding that any Republican who would be 'so stupid' as to approve a spending bill without increasing the debt limit 'should, and will, be Primaried.'
“On Thursday, Trump echoed his demand. A day later, he did it again.”
What puzzled Benen was why.
Republicans were openly confused about why he was bringing up the debt ceiling, while Democrats suggested Trump himself was displaying mental decline.
And the bill that passed Friday completely left out Trump’s demand — suggesting he was not as powerful as he suggests, Benen wrote.
“The one thing Trump wanted was the one thing he didn’t get,” he went on.
“He didn’t have to suffer this embarrassment. In fact, he didn’t have to do anything. He chose to intervene, in the 11th hour, with an odd and unnecessary demand, which Republicans rejected and left Democrats wondering aloud about his mental health.
“If this were a rare setback in an otherwise flawless transition phase, it’d be easier to overlook. But the opposite is true: In the seven weeks since Election Day, Trump and his team have careened from one failure to another, as part of a pre-inaugural process that can only be described as shambolic. What’s more, by some measures, it’s getting worse, not better.”
According to Vanderbilt University historian Nicole Hemmer, this kind of outside influence is hardly novel for Republicans, who for decades received their marching orders from the late right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh.
Writing at MSNBC, Hemmer argued that there are "eerie historical parallels" between Limbaugh's influence over the party and what Musk is pulling off right now.
"For three decades, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh bent the party to his will by dangling the threat of his millions of loyal listeners — and reliable voters — over their heads," she wrote. "As Musk tests the power of X to discipline Republican lawmakers, he is also testing whether he can replicate Limbaugh’s singular influence over the GOP — and whether he can use his power to both amplify Donald Trump’s political will and assert his own as well."
However, Hemmer also noted that there were clear limits to Limbaugh's powers and that Musk may soon find he has some of the same limitations.
"Limbaugh had the power to destroy but not create, something Musk is beginning to learn about his own posting politics," she wrote. "Hours into Musk’s online tirade, Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vancejoined in, pressuring Republicans to oppose the deal. They did, scuttling the bipartisan agreement and substituting a Musk-Trump alternative that went up for a vote the next day. That bill, too, failed. A government shutdown was only avoided with hours to spare — and without a debt ceiling hike, Trump’s chief demand."
Hemmer also cautions Republican lawmakers that they "may want to think twice before handing their power over to an antidemocratic and unpredictable billionaire," although she doubts that many of them will see that way "given their track record on that front."
A shutdown appeared likely after some bills that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) supported failed in the U.S. House of Representatives. But a last-minute bill passed in the House with a 366-34 vote and passed 85-11 when it went to the U.S. Senate.
According to Axios' Andrew Solender, however, House Democrats are "sending an early warning signal" to Johnson that he " shouldn't count on them to rescue him again."
In an article published Monday, Solender reported, "Johnson will have the barest of majorities next year — and he's staring down growing unrest within the Republican conference. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has said he will vote against Johnson's reelection as speaker on January 3, with several other Republicans saying they are undecided. With a majority as narrow as 219-215, Johnson may only be able to afford to lose one vote."
A House Democrat, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told Axios, "I have thought multiple times that I would help Johnson in a tough speaker vote because he was true to his word even in hard times. That has absolutely changed now.
“Trust is all we have in these negotiations. I thought Johnson was truly different. He's no better than (former House Speaker Kevin) McCarthy. He's getting no help from me, and I know many of my colleagues feel the same."
“The gambit, a welcome opening for a party that struggled to fashion a convincing message in the election and that has been flailing ever since, seems to have worked," wrote Stephen Collinson.
The strategy — used by multiple Democrats over the past weekend — is to take aim at the president-elect’s sense of security by suggesting his ally, Elon Musk, is really pulling the strings in his administration.
They “are trying to tweak Trump’s vanity, mockingly suggesting that even after winning a second term, he is still not as powerful as the South Africa-born tech mogul whom he put in charge of slashing the size of government once the president-elect takes office,” Collinson wrote.
The scheme saw several Democratic Party representatives on the weekend TV shows, suggesting that Musk’s tweets on the spending deal — which many say killed the first bill proposed by Speaker Mike Johnson — showed who was really wielding power.
“This is a predictor of what’s likely to happen,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) on “State of the Union.”
“We’re not just going to have President-elect Trump as a billionaire rage-tweeting at 4 a.m. We’re going to have Elon Musk also injecting instability into how we tackle very complicated and important issues for our country.”
“On Wednesday morning, Elon Musk proved that he is the real leader of the Republican Party, because over the course of about four or five or six hours, he tweeted nonstop against the deal that had been negotiated and agreed to by all sides,” Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA) said on CNN.
And it appears to have hit home, with Trump actively taking the bait.
“No, he’s not going to be president, that I can tell you. And I’m safe, you know why? He can’t be — he wasn’t born in this country.”
Collinson added, “Trump’s comments suggested at the very least that the constant coverage of Musk’s role has caught his eye and that he resents the idea that his new best friend is the power behind the throne.
“They will also stoke fresh speculation over how long the president-elect, who doesn’t normally like to share any spotlight, will tolerate Musk’s soaring profile.”
Speaker Mike Johnson has fallen out of favor with Donald Trump who is now considering throwing him overboard in favor of a new leader of the House, insiders close to the president-elect told Politico Monday.
Trump is furious about the spending deal that was put together in a desperate effort to keep the government open Friday — specifically that Johnson failed to push through a debt ceiling hike.
“Amid the chaos in Washington, I was in Palm Beach talking to people close to the past and future president and called up other confidants afterward,” wrote Rachael Bade.
“This much became clear to me: Not only is Trump unhappy with the funding deal, he’s unhappy with Johnson, too.
“He’s unhappy that he didn’t get the debt ceiling hike he made clear he wanted. He felt blindsided by the initial deal Johnson struck with Democrats. And, in the end, he was unimpressed with the entire chaotic process, which left the incoming administration questioning whether Johnson is capable of managing an even thinner majority next year.”
One Trump insider told Bade bluntly: “The president is upset.”
Now the incoming president is considering if it is to his benefit to avoid what would likely be a bitter fight to replace the speaker right before his new administration begins, or if he should wait it out.
“No one thinks he’s strong. No one says, ‘Damn, this guy’s a fighter,’” another insider told Politico about Johnson. Yet another said, “I don’t see how Johnson survives.”
But the Trump confidants claim he is undecided on what to do — and is instead watching how things unfold.
Politico reported Trump’s temper began to fray when he was blindsided by what was in Johnson’s initial deal. The speaker’s team had told members of the administration, but not Trump himself.
Then a second bill was floated and, after being told the debt ceiling provision was part of it, Trump decided to endorse it.
“When that deal failed spectacularly, with 38 Republicans voting against it, Trump’s team was floored — and felt Johnson had made Trump look foolish for weighing in,” Bade wrote.
“‘You can’t bring the president a deal that you say you have the votes for if you don’t have the votes,’ one said.”
Trump stayed out of the next effort, which passed the House but did not have the debt ceiling provision that the president-elect wanted.
“Those close to Trump don’t expect the president-elect to outright call for Johnson to go, though that could still happen,” Politico reported.
“What seems more likely is that, should Trump decide he’d prefer a different partner leading the House, he simply lets Johnson flail as he struggles to land 218 votes.”
“... The president recognizes the difficulty of electing a speaker right now — any speaker — is not easy,” one of the Trump confidants said.
“So Trump has decided to keep his powder dry as things play out — intentionally so, I’m told,” Bade wrote.
But she concluded, “The reality is this: Trump now sees him as waffling and weak.”
CHICAGO — The Aid for Women pregnancy clinic in Chicago’s Edgewater neighborhood might be one of the nicest offices I’ve visited for medical advice.
The clinic is located in the storefront of a newly constructed modern apartment building. Its windows are adorned with images of beautiful, diverse women, advertising free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds. With tasteful neutral tones throughout, the lobby has a cascading wall fountain with the nonprofit’s logo and a woman’s silhouette image, creating a peaceful atmosphere.
Yet, the clinic is not a medical office even though medical procedures and tests are offered there. Aid for Women is one of as many as 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers, or CPCs, operating throughout the country that present as healthcare clinics but are typically nonprofits with an agenda to stop women from getting abortions.
Aid for Women pregnancy center in Chicago's Edgewater neighborhood in December 2024 (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)
A new study from the University of California San Diego published on Dec. 2 analyzed the websites of 1,825 crisis pregnancy clinics, including Aid for Women, and created a database, choicewatch.org, to provide unbiased data about the services provided by these groups.
“We just want to start a policy debate around these issues,” John W. Ayers, leader of the study, told Raw Story. “With the new administration, there's a chance CPCs could be federally funded, and if those federally funded dollars are going to CPCs, under what conditions can they be given to maximize society benefits and reduce the harms?”
Ultimately, the paper’s authors are calling for greater scrutiny of these clinics, particularly around the services offered, provider qualifications and conformity with regulations and medical best practices. Generally, such pregnancy centers are exempt from the licensing, regulations and credentialing requirements of healthcare facilities.
“When it comes to crisis pregnancy centers, there's a lot of unknown unknowns,” said Ayers, who is an adjunct associate professor of medicine and epidemiologist at the University of California San Diego. “Our study is independent of your position on abortion, and so, we just want to give data and solve this problem of there being no data.”
Doctors like Kristyn Brandi, an OB-GYN in New Jersey, often find crisis pregnancy centers to be “angering” and “annoying," requiring reeducation of patients after visiting a clinic, she said.
The clinics can also be dangerous to women’s health if unsafe and unproven procedures like “abortion pill reversals” are offered (Aid for Women advertises such a procedure on its website). Ayers and Brandi both pointed out that abortion pill reversals are not recommended by medical professionals and put patients at risk for hemorrhaging and sepsis as they involve pumping the body with progesterone after a first abortion pill is taken, even though the process of ending the pregnancy is likely already underway and no longer likely to be viable.
A screen shot from the Aid for Women website about abortion pill reversals
“At crisis pregnancy centers, they are not healthcare centers, and so they aren’t under the same regulations and rules that doctors and other healthcare providers have to abide by, which is really concerning as a healthcare provider knowing that I have many patients that go there first and then come to me for healthcare,” Brandi told Raw Story. “Hearing the stories about what these patients encounter when they go to these centers is really disturbing.”
Susan Barrett, executive director of Aid for Women, did not respond to Raw Story’s requests for comment.
‘Very weird and off’
When I first visited an Aid for Women clinic, I was just shy of five weeks pregnant. Several at-home early detection pregnancy tests came up positive, but I figured it didn’t hurt to have professionals confirm for me as I waited for my regular OB-GYN appointment at 10 weeks pregnant.
But rather than having a doctor or nurse confirm the pregnancy for me, I conducted the test myself at Aid for Women.
Instead of leaving a urine sample behind a mini door in the bathroom for technicians to grab as I was used to at doctor’s offices, I brought my sample back to a meeting room with an advocate and was told that I would be administering my own pregnancy test since there wasn’t a nurse on site at the time to do so.
I used a dropper to apply a sample to my test and had to write down that, yes, I understood my test was positive.
Brandi said typically patients at a medical practice are “not running their own samples” due to regulations requiring that collection and testing is accurate and a “real result” is being reported.
“It's weird for going to a healthcare center and having to do the stuff you would just do at home,” she said when told about my experience.
At the appointment, I spoke with an advocate about my “pregnancy intention,” a question also asked on an intake form where clients indicate whether they’re planning on parenting, abortion, adoption or are undecided.
The advocate made it clear that the center does not offer abortions but did not explicitly express disapproval for those seeking abortions.
However, the 20-plus-page informational booklet provided to me featured several pages on the risks and drawbacks of abortions, alongside photos of depressed-looking women.
Scan of pages in Aid for Women brochure about abortion
Raw Story shared the pamphlet with Brandi, an abortion provider, who said she was “struck” by the language in the brochure and found it to be “very focused on misleading information” and “very graphic depictions” of procedures like a dilation and evacuation surgical abortion, also known as a D&E.
“It was very much leading with all the risks, which I will not say that there are no risks to abortion care, but the risks are incredibly low and much lower than things like live births and C-sections,” Brandi said. “I make sure that when I counsel patients, I do absolutely tell them the risks, but I make sure to balance that information with all the benefits if they seek abortion, what are the health benefits to them versus continuing the pregnancy … there wouldn't be a field of OB-GYN, if pregnancy was always safe.”
Brandi also took issue with other components of the Aid for Women brochure, calling some parts “just very weird and off.”
For instance, the brochure’s timeline of the pregnancy does not reflect the “medically accurate” dating method, she said, and milestones noted such as the beginning development of a baby’s brain, spinal cord and heart at four weeks is misleading, she said.
“Usually at that time we have maybe three or four cells that are cardiac cells that eventually will turn into a heart in some time,” Brandi said. “It's not inaccurate, but it's misleading to say that those things are developed yet when they're definitely not developed in a significant way.”
Scan of pages in Aid for Women brochure about fetal development
Brandi noted that as an abortion provider, she looks at fetal tissue after a procedure, which typically isn’t seen until about 10 weeks pregnant, and it’s not visible to the naked eye at that point. The brochure said “a little face, fingers and toes” appear as early as six weeks and included images.
A first ultrasound experience
After my first visit, I decided to return to the clinic for another free service offered: an ultrasound. I didn’t have to pay hundreds of dollars or use insurance, so I decided to get an early sneak peek before my regular 10-week appointment.
I brought my husband with me to the clinic when I was just shy of eight weeks pregnant, and we heard our baby’s heartbeat for the first time, which was an exciting, emotional moment. I can imagine hearing a heartbeat that early for an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy might evoke upsetting emotions instead.
A sonographer conducted the ultrasound to check for basic criteria of a viable pregnancy such as noting if a heartbeat was present and that the pregnancy was located in the uterus. She produced two ultrasound images that didn’t look like much yet — I’d say the image resembled a small shrimp-shaped blob.
At barely eight weeks, I had a long way to go until the baby had any chance at surviving outside of the uterus. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology reports that premature births at 23 weeks have a 23 percent to 27 percent survival rate, which grows to 67 percent to 76 percent by 25 weeks of gestation and continues to go up from there.
I showed my ultrasound to one of my regular OB-GYN doctors, who accurately predicted the sonographer wanted to show me the heartbeat. Brandi reviewed the ultrasound and corresponding report, calling it “similar” to a typical report.
My report was signed off for review by an OB-GYN, Robert Lawler — something Brandi said is rare to find at crisis pregnancy centers.
Lawler was featured in a 2013 article by the Chicago Catholic, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Chicago, about a new OB-GYN practice he opened in the southwestern Chicago suburb of Downers Grove, Ill., to conform to the teachings of the church.
“I had visions of meeting the Lord at Judgment Day and him saying to me, 'OK, Robert, what part of 'intrinsically evil' did you not understand about contraception?'" Lawler said in the article.
The practice seems to have since closed as it has both an inactive phone number and web domain. A handful of negative Yelp reviews for the practice complain about lack of transparency about Lawler’s religious influence on his practice.
“He lets his personal religious beliefs undermine the health and well-being of the victims he lures into his office,” wrote one reviewer in March 2018.
Lawler appeared on an episode of the “Family Talk” show by Evangelical Christian author and psychologist James Dobson, where he discussed his opposition to a 2017 Illinois abortion bill that “forces pro-life doctors and nurses to violate their consciences and advocate for the murder of babies in the womb,” according to the video description.
As of January 2024, Lawler is now the medical director for labor and delivery at OSF Little Company of Mary Medical Center, a healthcare system in Illinois founded by the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis.
Lawler could not be reached at his OSF office in the southwestern Chicago suburb of Oak Lawn, Ill. He did not respond to Raw Story’s request for comment through Aid for Women.
‘Lying to women in vulnerable positions? Let's cut that out.’
For comparison I also visited a Planned Parenthood clinic a mile away from Aid for Women to confirm my pregnancy there as well.
The Planned Parenthood clinic was certainly not as stylish and welcoming as the Aid for Women office. It was located in a small strip mall next to a Dollar General. The waiting room was dark, and front office staff were seated behind plexiglass.
But the experience reflected that of a typical doctor’s office visit, where I entered a room with an exam chair (I was brought to a room that resembled a personal office with a desk, chair, side tables and sink at Aid for Women).
I answered some medical questions at Planned Parenthood and got my test result through a MyChart portal. I was given some informational materials that included statistics and risks of different procedures, and I was told that if I proceeded with the pregnancy to start taking a prenatal vitamin.
Scan from "Abortion Options" brochure from Planned Parenthood
I chose not to go through the ultrasound experience at Planned Parenthood because I didn’t want to prematurely use my insurance benefits before visiting my regular doctor.
Planned Parenthood clinics are regulated as healthcare facilities and must abide by regulations like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to protect patient privacy.
When I went to Aid for Women, I asked about HIPAA and was told my information would be protected. I was given a "care and competence" commitment agreement that promised to hold client information in "strict and absolute confidence;" however, there was no mention of HIPAA on the form, and the Aid for Women privacy policy does not mention HIPAA.
"One thing that really worries me, especially in this Dobbs moment, is privacy," Brandi said, referencing Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 landmark Supreme Court decision that overturned the right to abortion protected by Roe v. Wade. "I think many people when they go to a healthcare center, they expect that the healthcare providers are not going to like share their information and talk about them to other people because we abide by rules like HIPAA that protect patients’ privacy. Because these centers aren't health care centers — they look like health care centers — but they have no reason to protect your privacy."
Spokespeople for Planned Parenthood did not respond to Raw Story’s request for comment.
A Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago's Edgewater neighborhood (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)
The intake form I filled out during my visits at Aid for Women had me initial that I understood all questions on the form were optional, but when I didn’t fill in some information, such as my address, I got pushback from staff to include those details.
“I think when people are pretending to be doctors and have no legal liability if something bad happens, that's really concerning and scary to think about, that patients are trusting these centers when they don't necessarily get the health care that they deserve in these moments,” Brandi told Raw Story.
I returned to the Aid for Women Clinic months later at 37 weeks pregnant to learn about what support services the center offered. When I requested my medical records, I was required to give my address and was given a two-page report from my ultrasound, nothing else from the first visit or any other paperwork.
At this visit, like all my previous visits, the advocate asked me about my housing situation and made sure I had support and wasn’t experiencing any abuse. The nonprofit runs maternity homes and offers referrals for healthcare and community support resources.
I signed up to watch videos from the clinic’s "Earn While Your Learn" program to prepare for my impending labor and delivery experience. Clients who complete various tasks such as watching lessons and doing homework, participating in the nonprofit's newsletters and reviewing the center online can earn points to enter a monthly raffle to win essential baby supplies like a stroller or a crib set. The videos were produced by a group called True to Life Productions, who did not immediately respond to Raw Story’s request for comment.
Aid for Women’s nonprofit tax filing is transparent that it’s a pro-life organization, describing itself as an operator of “pregnancy help centers, pregnancy medical clinics and residential programs to assist women in difficult and unexpected pregnancy situations so that they might choose life.” The nonprofit reported more than $2.5 million in contributions in 2023 and paid Barrett a salary of $101,519.
According to the data provided on choicewatch.org, Aid for Women is affiliated with Heartbeat International, an international pro-life group that supports the largest network of crisis pregnancy centers.
A screen shot about Aid for Women from choicewatch.org
While I visited Aid for Women knowing what type of facility it was, clients in crisis might not be aware of its pro-life mission and could be susceptible to misinformation.
“I think what our study does is it shows some of these crisis centers are bad actors, and CPCs can get behind getting rid of them," Ayers said. "Pro-life, pro-choice, lying to women in vulnerable positions? Let's cut that out."
Aid for Women pregnancy center in Chicago's Edgewater neighborhood in December 2024 (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)
A screen shot from the Aid for Women website about abortion pill reversals
Scan of pages in Aid for Women brochure about abortion
Scan of pages in Aid for Women brochure about fetal development
Scan from "Abortion Options" brochure from Planned Parenthood
A Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago's Edgewater neighborhood (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)
A screen shot about Aid for Women from choicewatch.org