Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. bluntly called genocide charges against Israel a “blood libel” and extolled an essay by a noted war expert that comprehensively refuted the accusation.

Kennedy, like his father before him, has always been a staunch supporter of Israel; his father Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who had served as John F. Kennedy’s Attorney General before his stint in the Senate and his 1968 campaign for president, in which he was battling Vice-President Hubert Humphrey in the primaries before Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan murdered him.

“The genocide charge is a blood libel. Thank you Major Spencer for this withering deconstruction,” Kennedy wrote.

The genocide charge is a blood libel. Thank you Major Spencer for this withering deconstruction.

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 24, 2025

The term “blood libel” vis-à-vis the Jewish people has historically referred to the false accusation that Jews murdered non-Jews in order to use their blood in the performance of religious ritual, a particularly ridiculous assertion since Jews are religiously forbidden to eat anything that has blood in it, even as small as a speck of blood in an egg. The charge has been used to foster numerous pogroms in Europe over the centuries, in which Jews were murdered en masse by the hundreds and thousands.

The essay Kennedy championed, by noted war expert John Spencer, who serves as chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute and host of the Urban Warfare Project Podcast, is titled “I’m a War Scholar. There Is No Genocide in Gaza.” Spencer was responding to a New York Times op-ed by leftist Brown University professor Omer Bartov that accused Israel of genocide.

 “Genocide is not defined by a few comments taken out of context, by estimates of casualties or destruction, or by how war looks in headlines or on social media. It is defined by specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group in whole or in part,” Spencer noted.

“That is a high legal bar. Bartov did not meet it. He did not even try,” Spencer wrote.  “Since October 7, I have been to Gaza four times embedded with the Israel Defense Forces. I have interviewed the Prime Minister of Israel, the Defense Minister, the IDF Chief of Staff, Southern Command leadership, and dozens of commanders and soldiers on the front lines. I have reviewed their orders, watched their targeting process, and seen soldiers take real risks to avoid harming civilians. Nothing I have seen or studied resembles genocide or genocidal intent.”

Spencer ripped Bartov for claiming Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comment on October 7 that Hamas would “pay a huge price” was a call for genocide, noting, “It is what any leader would say after the worst terrorist attack in the nation’s history.”

“He also cites Netanyahu’s statements that Hamas would be destroyed and that civilians should evacuate combat zones,” he continued, “That is not evidence of a desire to destroy a people. It is what professional militaries do when fighting an enemy that hides among civilians.”

“Bartov presents Netanyahu’s reference to ‘remember Amalek’ as a smoking gun,” he stated. “But this is a phrase from Jewish history and tradition. It is engraved at Israel’s Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, and also appears on the Holocaust memorial in The Hague. In both places, it serves as a warning to remain vigilant against threats, not as a call for mass killing.”

“I have studied the actual orders. They focus on destroying Hamas, rescuing hostages, and protecting civilians whenever possible,” he recalled, continuing:

Israel has taken extraordinary steps to limit civilian harm. It warns before attacks using text messages, phone calls, leaflets, and broadcasts. It opens safe corridors and pauses operations so civilians can leave combat areas. It tracks civilian presence down to the building level. I have seen missions delayed or canceled because children were nearby. I have seen Israeli troops come under fire and still be ordered not to shoot back because civilians might be harmed.

Israel has delivered more humanitarian aid to Gaza than any military in history has provided to an enemy population during wartime. More than 94,000 trucks carrying over 1.8 million tons of aid have entered the territory. Israel has supported hospitals, repaired water pipelines, increased access to clean water, and enabled over 36,000 patients to leave Gaza for treatment abroad. The IDF has coordinated millions of vaccine doses, supplied fuel for hospitals and infrastructure, and facilitated the flow of food and medicine through the UN, aid groups, and private partners.

He derided Bartov’s claim that 58,000 people have been killed in Gaza, including 17,000 children. “But these numbers come from a terrorist organization,” Spencer pointed out. “They mix civilians and fighters and count anyone under 18 as a child, even though Hamas uses teenagers and younger children as combatants. The figures are not independently verified and have been shown to contain false details, including names, ages, and sex.”

“Civilian deaths are tragic, but in Gaza, they are also part of Hamas’s strategy,” he wrote. “No military operation is judged solely by body counts or destruction figures. If we used Bartov’s logic, every major war would be called genocide. Two million civilians died in the Korean War, an average of 54,000 per month. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars killed hundreds of thousands. The fight against ISIS leveled multiple cities and killed tens of thousands. None of those wars were considered genocidal.”

“War is hell,” he declared. “It is inhumane, destructive, and ugly. But it is not automatically a crime. Nations must not target civilians. They must follow the rules of distinction, proportionality, and take all possible care to avoid civilian harm. Israel is doing that. I have seen it.”

“I have seen restraint, humanitarian aid, and deliberate compliance with legal standards, often at tactical cost,” he wrote. “This is not a campaign of extermination. It is a war against Hamas, a terrorist army embedded in civilian areas by design. The law matters. So does precision. And above all, truth matters.”

https://t.co/5qLpXD35UO

— John Spencer (@SpencerGuard) July 23, 2025

Planned Parenthood’s annual report looks different this year.

Not only does this report lack the rainbow pride flare of its predecessors — it also omits the most innovative moneymaker from its list of services reported. But did Planned Parenthood simply forget to mention “gender-affirming care,” or are they trying to push their skeletons deeper into the closet while their funding hangs in limbo?

In past reports, Planned Parenthood lumped “transgender services” in the “other procedures” subcategory. This unassuming breakdown actually triggered high levels of scrutiny after its tally leapt from 15,902 services in the 2020-2021 report to 256,550 services a year later. Though their total services did reflect a 5% general increase, likely due to COVID, the subcategory specifically reporting “transgender services” outpaced the increase, marking an unprecedented 1,514% increase.

This hike garnered the attention of national conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation, which said this “so-called gender-affirming care” was the abortion giant’s “game plan” after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. While states exercise freedom to evaluate standards for harmful abortion procedures, Planned Parenthood appears to guarantee a profit nonetheless. Exploiting and promoting modern trans agendas through cross-sex hormone distribution locks in patient dependency, rather than their historic and unstable in-and-out abortion mill business model.

In its 2023-2024 report, Planned Parenthood appears to have shied away from its new radical gender agenda that you would expect to plaster nearly every page. In fact, there are few mentions of “transgender” outside of its small hiding place in the “other procedures” footnote.

That’s where the real mystery begins.

Over the past year, the “other procedures” category dropped 56%, down from 177,237 to 77,858. Everyone who lives within 25 miles of a Planned Parenthood knows they have not taken their foot off the transgender gas, so this drop does not pass the simple smell test.

According to the report, this subcategory accounts for WIC services, pediatric care, transgender services, other adult preventative care, and high complexity visits, including infertility services. But even assuming this entire subcategory is composed entirely of transgender services, the numbers still don’t add up.

The Planned Parenthood Annual Report aggregates the data from local affiliates, some of whom release their own annual reports and are not so shy about their trans involvement.

This is where we see Planned Parenthood’s true ground game in action. Local clinic numbers have continued to skyrocket. For example, in 2023, Planned Parenthood Pacific Southwest boasted an 85% increase in “gender affirming hormone therapy” (GAHT), reporting 2,549 services in the year. However, they managed another significant increase the following year, racking up 3,433 services.

These affiliates report upwards of 10,174, 11,134, and even 17,270 “gender-affirming care” (GAC) or GAHT visits each in their areas. Reports clarify “many patients receive multiple services in a single visit.” Further, some clinics report the total number of GAC/GAHT patients. For example, North Central region reports 5,796 GAHT patients, but likely had significantly more total visits and services.

Only about half of Planned Parenthood’s total affiliates have released 2024 GAC/GAHT numbers, and by the most conservative summation, they outpace Planned Parenthood’s entire “other services” category on a national level. The available reports categorize 11,680 patients, 8,399 services, and 71,924 visits. Even if you only count “patients” and “visits” once, that totals 87,668. That is almost 10,000 more than the entire category supposedly aggregating transgender services, infertility services, WIC services, and more.

Why won’t Planned Parenthood honestly disclose their involvement with “gender affirming care”?

Planned Parenthood has cashed in billions of dollars from the American taxpayer, and their funding stream seemed like it would always grow — that is, until Congress finally cut them off for a year in the One Big Beautiful Bill. But before that, they received $792.2 million last year, according to the recent annual report. Washington Stand’s Ben Johnson reported, “U.S. taxpayers became Planned Parenthood’s largest financial contributor, supplying 39% of the organization’s $2 billion in revenue — up from 34% in the last report.”

Planned Parenthood knows its dealing of cross-sex hormones to kids violates the will of its financial base, taxpayers. In Medina v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court affirmed a state’s discretion to disqualify Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid recipient. If Planned Parenthood plans to make a case to keep funding, they will need to address their transparency issues; their recent report clearly hides gender affirming care in the dark.

But federal representatives are exposing the light. DOGE Subcommittee Chair Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s “misuse of federal funds,” requesting “ financial statements, federal funding, and documents pertaining to its abortion and ‘gender affirming’ medical and surgical interventions on children.”

Greene wrote Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill, requesting financial statements, guidance for “gender affirming care” compliance, records concerning the collection or donation of aborted fetal tissue for research/experimentation, and more.

The Subcommittee’s deadline was June 27, 2025. They have not publicly acknowledged any response from Planned Parenthood.

It’s time for reckoning. The American people demand answers for how Planned Parenthood spent their money, and it may take a subpoena from Congress to get an honest answer.

Macy Petty is Legislative Strategist for the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee dedicated to promoting Biblical values and Constitutional principles in public policy.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.