Former West Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell has died at the age of 85 while serving a multiple life sentence in prison. He was most recently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution-Smithfield, located about 60 miles south of Pittsburgh.According to a report by the New York Post, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections spokeswoman Maria Bivens said Kermit Gosnell died on March 1 at a hospital outside the prison system. The cause of death was not disclosed.His name became nationally known after he was convicted in 2013 of manslaughter, including the death of a patient during a procedure, as well as three infants born alive.Her case attracted intense attention not only for its brutality, but also for how it fueled America’s deeply divided abortion debate.

Why his case shocked the country

Gosnell operated the Women’s Medical Society Clinic, later described by investigators as a “house of horrors”. Authorities who raided the facility in 2010 uncovered disturbing conditions, including improperly stored fetal remains, non-sterile equipment, and unsafe medical practices.Former staff testified that he routinely performed abortions beyond Pennsylvania’s legal 24-week limit.In some cases, infants were reportedly born alive and then killed by cutting their spinal cord, a method they called “snipping.”A 2011 grand jury report painted a grim picture, calling the clinic a “baby charnel house” and suggesting that many of the alleged crimes could not be prosecuted because of destroyed records.

conviction and sentence

In 2013, Gosnell was found guilty of:

Regulatory failures and consequences

One of the most controversial aspects of the case was not just Gosnell’s actions, but the systemic failures that allowed him to continue for years.The investigators found that:

Following the scandal, two state health officials were fired and Pennsylvania tightened regulations and inspection protocols for clinics. Gosnell’s crimes soon became an issue in the broader debate over abortion, regulation, and patient safety, several years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. While abortion opponents cited the case as evidence of serious oversight failures, abortion rights advocates argued that it highlighted the risks of poor regulation rather than legal access.

miley cyrus Meanwhile, “superfan” Alex Cooper was jokingly called “a little creepy” hannah montana 20th anniversary special in Hollywood on Monday. The 33-year-old singer and actress playfully teased call her daddy The 31-year-old podcaster was blamed for making the comments while being next to her on stage at the El Capitan Theater celebrating the hit Disney Channel series, the Daily Mail reports. The Grammy winner also thanked Cooper, who hosted the show, for helping bring that old memory to life, quipping that she had “creepily” become her neighbor after interviewing her in her garden in August 2020.Miley said: “I wanted to thank Alex myself because I was heading to the archives to look at what I had collected, some people say collected, but I say collected and preserved from every era, not just from Hannah Montana, but throughout my entire career.“But I called her with this weird idea, “Do you think it might be a good idea to do a special event on Hannah Montana’s anniversary?” But because I was in the middle of it and Hannah was there, I didn’t know what you all would want.“Alex is a superfan… it’s a little scary… she’s also my neighbor, which is also scary. She got the money and then she moved in next door to me.”The Disney alum also said: “There were no other hosts there, I felt like I would just walk in next door, yeah it was weird.“And she said, “Oh my God, you live here,” and she interviewed me at my house five years ago, so she was new to where I was.”Miley added: “There weren’t any other hosts there, I felt like I’d just walk in next door, it was weird. And she said, “Oh my God, you live here” and she had interviewed me at my house five years ago, so she was new to where I was.”Miley added: “There weren’t any other hosts there, I felt like I’d just walk in next door, it was weird. And she said, “Oh my God, you live here” and she had interviewed me at my house five years ago, so she was new to where I was.”During the special, Cyrus appeared in a rare joint appearance on the red carpet with fiancé Max Morando. The couple has been together for four years.Cyrus wore a shiny metallic dress with a graphic Hannah Montana T-shirt underneath, paired with silver metallic stilettos. She wore her blonde hair straight, hanging down her shoulders.Morando, 27, wore a £423 white Celine T-shirt with black trousers and matching trainers.Cyrus and Morando first sparked a romance in late 2021 following her divorce from Liam Hemsworth, 35, who also recently got engaged.Cyrus attended with her mother Tish, 58, who wore a see-through black top with a blazer and jeans. Tish was accompanied by her husband Dominic Purcell, 56, who wore a black T-shirt, jeans and Converse trainers. Purcell reportedly “got involved” with Tish’s 26-year-old daughter, Noah, before beginning his relationship with Tish.Cyrus’ sister Brandi Cyrus, 38, was also in attendance, wearing a black leather top and matching pants. Brandi’s boyfriend, Matt Southcombe, was in attendance along with Purcell’s 26-year-old son Joseph Purcell, whom he shares with ex-wife Rebecca Williamson.Other original cast members participated, including Jason Earles, who played Jackson Stewart, Moises Arias, who played Rico Suave, Cody Linley, who played Jake Ryan, Anna Maria Pérez de Tagle, who played Ashley DeWitt, and Shanika Knowles, who played Amber Addison.

Donald Trump with the Saudi Crown Prince (Image/AP)

As the war in the Middle East enters its fourth week, a new report reveals saudi arabiaCrown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is urging US President Donald Trump to continue military operations against Iran. He described this conflict as an important moment to reshape the region.According to The New York Times, the Saudi Crown Prince has emphasized continued pressure on Iran in recent discussions with Trump. He argued that the ongoing US–Israeli military campaign presents a “historic opportunity” to rebuild the Middle East. He has said that Iran is a long-term threat to the Gulf countries and this threat can be dealt with only by removing its current government.The developments come at a time when the conflict has escalated, raising concerns over regional stability, global energy markets and the risk of prolonged war. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also sees Iran as a long-term threat, analysts say Saudi Arabia has different concerns, particularly with regard to the risks posed by an unstable or failing Iranian state.Despite these reports, Saudi Arabia has publicly denied pushing for an expansion of the war. In an official statement, the government said, “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has always supported a peaceful resolution to this conflict, even before it started”. “Our primary concern today is to protect ourselves from the daily attacks on our people and our civilian infrastructure. Iran has chosen dangerous instability rather than serious diplomatic solutions. This hurts every stakeholder involved, but none more than Iran,” the statement further said.The war has already had serious economic and security consequences for Saudi Arabia. Iranian missile and drone strikes, launched in response to US-Israeli attacks, have disrupted oil markets and put key infrastructure at risk. The Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global energy supplies, has been severely impacted, affecting exports from Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.While Trump has alternated between hinting at a possible de-escalation and hinting at further progress, he recently claimed in his Truth Social post that there had been “productive conversations regarding a complete and comprehensive resolution of our hostilities.”According to The New York Times, Prince Mohammed has argued in favor of stronger action, including targeting Iran’s energy infrastructure, and has also suggested the possibility of ground action to weaken the government in Tehran. Analysts also warn that Saudi Arabia faces a complex dilemma. While it may see strategic benefits in weakening Iran, it is also vulnerable to regional instability. Previous attacks, including a 2019 strike on Saudi oil facilities, have shown the kingdom’s vulnerability to Iranian retaliation.If the conflict continues, Saudi Arabia’s macroeconomic ambitions, particularly its Vision 2030 plan, could also be at risk. A prolonged war could deter investment, disrupt energy exports and strain financial resources, at a time when the country is undertaking major economic reforms.

A viral clip of American commentator Tucker Carlson caused controversy when he suggested that societies governed by Sharia law are “more advanced” than those in the West.The comment was made during one of his episodes of The Tucker Carlson Show.In the volume, Carlson says: “There is not a single Western city that is prosperous… They are all in moral and physical decline due to self-loathing and a lost will to live.”He further draws the comparison: “Sharia law has made Islamic societies more advanced than those in the West.”Carlson then compared it to his experiences in the Middle East. “I travel a lot in the Middle East. It’s amazing. They’re Muslim. A country governed by Sharia law. And you go there and it’s incredible to be in a place that is proud of itself, that believes in its religion and culture, that thinks ‘We’re doing something.’ It is this kind of confidence that creates stability and hospitality.”The comments sparked backlash, particularly from right-wing and MAGA voices. Laura Loomer accused Carlson of “romanticizing” jihadist societies and claimed that his comments support her long-standing allegation that he effectively “converted to Islam” or became a foreign-influenced “Cutlerson” figure.Social media users also said Carlson’s comments were meant to praise systems that oppress Christians and Jews while attacking Western values.However, Carlson’s supporters and the team rejected those claims. He pointed to the full transcript of the episode, saying none of the quotes were fabricated and that Carlson had not called for the US to adopt Sharia law. Instead, they described his remarks as an observation about why some Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates appear stable and confident compared to Western capitals.He also emphasized that Carlson has repeatedly described himself as a “fervent Christian” with no intention of proselytizing.The dispute comes amid an ongoing rift in conservative circles over foreign policy, particularly US involvement in the Middle East, support for Israel and the war on Iran.Carlson also visited Qatar a few months ago for the Doha Forum, where he interviewed the country’s Prime Minister. During the program, he announced plans to buy a house in Doha and said that he liked the city and that he was working as an “independent person” choosing where to live.

File photo: Mossad chief David Barnia

A recent report claims that Mossad chief David Barnia reportedly told Israel’s cabinet before war with Iran that regime change in Tehran is possible, but it is likely to take about a year, not just days or weeks.According to The Jerusalem Post, Barnia presented several scenarios to Israeli leaders on the eve of war, some of which suggested a few months, but a one-year time frame was considered the most likely estimate.This more cautious assessment has been obscured by recent anonymous attacks, the report said, accusing them of exaggerating the prospects for a rapid collapse of the Iranian regime.

Qualified Assessment, No Guaranteed Prediction

The main point emerging from the report is that Barnea’s position was more meritorious than some later portrayals. According to The Jerusalem Post, he did not present regime change as inevitable, but rather as a possibility dependent on a number of conditions and likely to take a significant amount of time. The report said Barnia was known to attach caveats to major intelligence assessments and that any pitches he made to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or US officials would have been strictly controlled and framed as part of a broader government strategy.However, this contradicts earlier reports which claimed that the Mossad expected a rapid coup.According to the New York Times report, Barnia told Netanyahu and senior Trump administration officials in mid-January that within days of the war starting, the Mossad could potentially help unify the Iranian opposition, leading to riots and acts of insurrection that could even lead to the fall of the government. However, the report also noted that no such rebellion had occurred three weeks into the war, and American-Israeli intelligence assessments concluded that the Iranian regime had been weakened but still intact.The Times of Israel, citing Channel 12, similarly reported that Barnia had assessed that overthrowing the Iranian regime would be possible if key military objectives were achieved first, including beheading the leadership, damaging regime institutions and weakening its ability to suppress civilians. But stressed that he also offered “disclaimers and qualifications”, noting that the situation was unstable and it could take a long time to achieve such results.Publicly, both Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump initially indicated that military action could create the conditions for regime change, but both also said that the Iranian people themselves would have to take action. Since then, the message has become more restrained. US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on Thursday that the US intelligence community assesses that the Iranian regime remains intact but largely degraded.Netanyahu has also stopped short of predicting imminent collapse. He said Israel was working to “create the conditions” for the regime’s collapse, but added, “It may survive, maybe not. If it survives, it will be very weak.”

Candace Owens responded to a viral clip about Erica Kirk, and used it to reinforce her ongoing criticism. He argued that these comments broadly reflected public opinion, leading to intense debate online. The clip, which drew mixed reactions, added fuel to the ongoing investigation from Owens’ documentary, where she questions Kirk’s background and public narrative, keeping the controversy active.

A short podcast clip has turned into a full-blown online talking point, drawing Candace Owens, Joe Rogan and Erica Kirk into a messy, fast-paced debate. What started as a casual exchange on a popular show didn’t stay casual for long. Within hours, the clip went viral on social media, garnering reactions, criticisms and curiosities.Candace Owens stepped up almost immediately. Instead of distancing herself from the moment, she leaned into it. His response added fuel to an already growing conversation, turning a viral clip into something that now feels more personal and candid.

Candace Owens sparks debate after viral comments about Erica Kirk resurface

After reposting the clip, Owens clarified his stance. “Oh no! It takes yet another commenter to point out the obvious fact that Erica’s behavior, conduct, and history is bizarre. Have you ever wondered how Joe Rogan stays on top? Because his conversations reflect how everyday people feel about a variety of topics,” he wrote, framing the situation as a reflection of public opinion rather than a controversy.The original clip comes from the March 21 episode of The Joe Rogan Experience. During the discussion, Rogan made a comment that immediately gained attention online: “I heard there’s an Erica Kirk commercial. I heard that.” This comment, blunt and unexpected, became the spark that pushed the clip into viral territory.As the conversation progressed, things got even stranger. Rogan referenced the unusual online video and said, “Maybe it was in some weird CIA documents or even CIA movies… Have you ever seen those movies? … See if you get those movies. There are some weird internal movies that they made that she was a part of,” leaving many listeners unsure whether to take the claims seriously.What makes this moment more profound is that it does not stand alone. Owens has already been openly critical of Erica Kirk in her recent documentary, where she questions parts of Kirk’s personal story and public image. This latest response seems like a continuation of that effort rather than a one-off response.This situation shows how quickly things can get out of control online. One video, a few comments, and suddenly, the conversation is much bigger than before.