Listened to Radio Six from Glasgow, Scotland Friday afternoon, as I like to do any time, but especially around mid-July.
With an a.i. announcement, six Canadian radio stations no one listened to were gone last week.
Never knew there ever was an HBO Family, let alone it had shut down just over a year ago.
PEOPLE
Woman, 45, Underwent the First Robotic Single-Port Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Performed in the U.S by a Robot Named Carol
By Erin Clack Published on July 11, 2026 07:00AM EDT
One year after receiving a devastating cancer diagnosis, Vicky Pan became part of medical history.
Pan, a 45-year-old mother of two young sons, was doing a routine self-exam when she discovered a lump in her breast. She was diagnosed with aggressive, fast-growing triple-negative breast cancer that had already spread to her lymph nodes, according to Sutter Health.
For Pan, the news was overwhelming as she faced a terrifying prognosis and fears about what her diagnosis would mean for her family.
Then, on March 9, her outlook changed thanks to a robot named Carol. Following grueling rounds of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, Pan underwent the first robotic single-port nipple-sparing mastectomy performed in the United States outside of clinical trials.
The procedure was done at the Oakland, Calif., campus of Sutter’s Alta Bates Summit Medical Center by Rita Kwan-Feinberg, M.D., MPH, FACS, a Sutter East Bay Medical Group breast cancer and robotic surgeon with specialized training. Dr. Kwan-Feinberg was assisted by Carol, a da Vinci SP robot donated by a grieving husband, Peter Read, who lost his wife, Carol Ann, to breast cancer.
According to Sutter, the single-port robotic surgical system “enables surgery through a single, small incision, enhancing precision, minimizing visible scarring and supporting a more patient-centered recovery experience.” Pan’s cancer was removed with “such microscopic precision that [her] body remained largely unchanged.”
“Anything that can help minimize the loss, anything that can help me retain some form of identity, I think is like a type of mercy,” said Pan, who had already lost her hair and physical strength to chemo.
“This procedure is about much more than just technology and restoring physical appearance,” Dr. Kwan-Feinberg said. “It reflects a commitment to care that addresses both medical needs and emotional well-being. By minimizing visible scarring and offering the potential to preserve nipple sensation and reduce complications such as skin and nipple tissue death, while supporting body image and dignity, single-port robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy embodies Sutter’s whole-person approach to breast cancer care.”
Following the procedure, Pan had a remarkably quick and smooth recovery. She was on a beach, enjoying time with her family, just three weeks later. She is currently in remission and continuing her immunotherapy treatments.
The robotic platform has received FDA clearance for use in nipple‑sparing mastectomies and is still being evaluated for long-term outcomes, per Sutter.
The Northern California-based healthcare company said the innovative surgical procedure reflects the integration of advanced technology with patient-centered care that addresses both the physical and emotional healing for breast cancer patients.
“This is what whole-person care looks like in action,” said Jill Foley, M.D., Women’s Health Service Line Chair at Sutter Health. “We can become so focused on treating disease that we forget how profoundly these procedures affect a woman’s sense of self. Innovations like this allow us to address both the physical and emotional realities of breast cancer.”
Read, whose transformative financial gift enabled the purchase of the robot technology, was on-site when Carol was delivered to Alta Bates Summit and the Carol Ann Read Breast Health Center, named in honor of his late wife. He said the moment fulfilled “a lifelong dream.”
“Helping Dr. Kwan-Feinberg and the entire team bring this remarkable equipment to Sutter Health — and ensuring our community is the first in the region to benefit from these advanced treatments — has been an incredibly meaningful journey,” Read shared.
Wouldn't the latest food bank spot be more effective if it was a dialogue between the woman and her co-workers?
Picked up WBEE Rochester Friday night with "Rob and Holly", then Sunday evening with "Sunday Night", featuring anncr taking phone calls.
Picked up Froggy 97 Watertown Monday night with "Froggy 7-Midnight."
Picked up Kiss 98.5 Buffalo late Monday night, with signal continuing to be present till at least late Tuesday morning.
Picked up K-Love Buffalo last night with good signal but tonight it's booming in like a local.
Was picking up CJRT Toronto this afternoon on my kitchen radio, also with a fairly respectable signal.
Washington Examiner
Elliot Page and the impossible promise of transition
By Kimberly Ross
Published July 10, 2026 6:00am ET
At the world premiere of The Odyssey in London, Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen Page, made an appearance. Page’s role in the highly anticipated Christopher Nolan adaptation has been controversial. A biological female who identifies as a male, Page plays a male role. But the movie’s release isn’t as shocking as what fans saw at the premiere.
Page, dressed in a brown suit that was too large, smiled for cameras, posed with colleagues, and appeared awkward while descending the stairs. It’s not as if Page has trouble walking or maneuvering. The issue is that Page is trying to present herself to the public as a male. Reportedly standing 5-foot-1, the star is diminutive in stature with no overtly masculine characteristics. The actor has undergone top surgery to remove her breasts and takes testosterone. But still, Page does not come across as male.
Most importantly, Page is not and never will be a male.
It’s easy to react to Page’s appearance and mannerisms with a measure of unbelief and near-amusement. After all, the entire display feels incredibly forced. It’s thrust upon us by a secular society that’s so eager to appease those in the trans community at the expense of reality and biological truth. On social media, Page posts topless photos as a trans male with the top surgery scars clearly visible. It’s a reminder of what we’re told to forget. If Elliot Page, born Ellen Page, believes she is a male, then we’re supposed to not only accept it but support it. This is how culture begins to deteriorate.
Watching Page at the premiere is a performance in itself and a sad one at that. There is a measure of unease to Page that is impossible to overlook.
In interviews, Page has spoken of experiencing gender dysphoria growing up. In a 2023 interview, Page said, “Dysphoria used to be especially rife in the summer. No layers, just a T-shirt — or layers and oh so sweaty — constantly looking down, readjusting my oversized T.” For whatever reason, Page felt uncomfortable in a female body.
Now, several years after transitioning, that body is still female. Hormonal and surgical manipulation do not alter DNA. The idea of “transitioning” is an impossible one. No matter how one fights against their biological makeup, it cannot change.
While Page’s appearance at the premiere is a sad one, it remains one Page actively chose. No one forced Page to disrupt hormones or have breasts surgically removed.
However, there’s an entire societal complex that encourages such behavior and says gender dysphoria can be addressed only by lying to oneself. It’s both a mental illness and a cancer combined into one. Those of us who prize truth and biological reality should be undeterred by this modern-day campaign to warp our minds.
I don’t doubt that Page has experienced discomfort in her own body. Page is neither the first nor the last to feel this way. In fact, it is almost a rite of passage to feel as though one’s body doesn’t match the inner person. This is a feature of puberty, and it can and often does extend into adulthood.
But none of this should result in drug manipulation or surgical mutilation. Each of us has inherent worth that is in no way affected by the things we feel. It is imperative that we, in this looks-obsessed society, highlight a major truth: None of us was born in the wrong body. Believing those lies leads us to make either wrong choices for ourselves or support the wrong decisions of others. Neither is good.
It’s heartbreaking, not amusing, to watch the actor formerly known as Ellen Page publicly try to present as a male. Both Page’s colleagues and the entertainment industry are only happy to affirm Page’s continued delusion. Now, Page exists in an odd in-between space where it’s painfully obvious she’s still a female trying to cosplay as a man.
Page is a very public example of the transgender movement. Unfortunately, the same story is repeated in the lives of countless others who have been convinced they were not good enough as they were created. One person embracing these lies is tragic enough. The greater tragedy is that an entire culture now applauds them.
National Review
The Smithsonian’s Leadership Must Go
By Stanley Kurtz
July 10, 2026 6:30 AM
A venerable institution is taken over by leftists who loathe America, free enterprise, religion, and the founding ideals of the institution itself. Plucky conservatives expose the stunning coup. Elites fire back: “It’s all lies and hysterical exaggeration. We’re harmless nonpartisan custodians of tradition who just want to keep up with the times.” Within a decade, more or less, it’s so obvious that the institution has been co-opted by the hard left that no one bothers to argue anymore. The only questions are just how extreme things will get, and how damaged the rest of society will be.
Who now doubts William F. Buckley Jr.’s warnings of encroaching leftism and irreligion at Yale? Who now accepts the soothing reassurances of Stanford’s administration that the study of Western civilization remains safe? Who now bothers to deny the political biases of the networks or the New York Times? Who now wastes breath insisting that conservative ideas can be freely expressed on campus? Who now claims that America’s cities are safer and cleaner than ever? For that matter, who now contends that socialists are in no position to take over the Democratic Party? Yet these were great debates in their day.
Would that this were a cyclical problem, a perpetual tug-of-war between right and left. The blight has been cumulative instead. This is our problem. Dueling political parties struggling within a shared cultural consensus are devolving into warring cultural camps acting on antithetical first principles. First the academy was seized. From there, cultural radicalism was injected into the wider social bloodstream.
That’s why I like President Trump. Like Reagan, but more so, Trump fights back. You can say that the economy and foreign policy are more important than these cultural battles. Over the long haul, however, that’s simply not true. And most everyone around today has lived that long haul. Everyone’s worried about America’s social fabric, albeit from opposite sides, and for good reason.
And now, the Trump White House presents us with a meticulously detailed, 160-page report called “Saving America’s Story.” The White House Domestic Policy Council, headed by Vince Haley, has exposed the takeover of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History by radical political activists. No surprise, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Organization of American Historians (OAH), among others, are issuing the usual deflections, condemnations, and denials. And because the Smithsonian is a semiautonomous arm of the federal government, a much-needed change of leadership is anything but guaranteed.
Yet this is a blessing in disguise. Precisely because Trump has been forced to expose, rather than immediately replace, the Smithsonian’s leadership, the public is being treated to a chapter-and-verse account of modern cultural madness. From Saving America’s Story, we learn how ideologically partisan activism metastasizes under a veneer of bipartisanship. We see how slick and condescending elites selectively disclose and disguise their true intentions. And we discover just how crazy-radical these educated elites truly are. This is a fight whose importance goes well beyond the case in question. The battle over the Smithsonian is a prototype of the wider cultural clash we’re facing — and will continue to face into the indefinite future. How it gets resolved will have broader consequences. So, let’s jump into the report.
Saving America’s Story has two big complaints: (1) The National Museum of American History (NMAH) refuses to tell America’s core story; and (2) the NMAH substitutes political activism on behalf of contemporary leftist causes for America’s well-established core historical narrative.
At NMAH, the report says, the story of America’s Founding — of the Declaration, the Constitution, ordered liberty, natural rights, and the divine source of those inalienable rights — is never systematically told. The history of America’s incomplete but courageous struggles to form a more perfect union around its founding principles is either omitted, downplayed, or reduced to a focus on slavery and little else. Too patriotic, too Anglo-centric, and too white are the museum’s evident complaints about the standard account.
This claim that NMAH shortchanges America’s central story is what has received the most pushback from historians, journalists, and liberal opinion writers. They argue that focusing on America’s flaws leads to a deeper and truer patriotism, or that displays of Thomas Jefferson’s portable desk (on which he wrote the Declaration), or a statue of George Washington solve the “core story” problem.
I’ll come back to this. But I want to focus here instead on what critics of Saving America’s Story have largely ignored: the evidence of radical political activism that actually makes up the bulk of the report.
By both tradition and regulation, the Smithsonian must be politically nonpartisan. As the White House report makes clear, however, NMAH’s leadership has remade the museum’s mission into a charter for political activism. On nearly every contemporary hot-button cultural controversy (immigration, race, “gender,” transgenderism, environment, nation vs. globalism, gun control, and abortion) NMAH has become a cheerleader for what is, in effect, the Democratic Party’s platform. Moreover, NMAH is determined to turn almost any issue, from any era, into a launching pad for present-day ideological proselytism.
What is the report’s evidence for this? (1) Repeated statements by NMAH Director Anthea Hartig and others in leadership; (2) NMAH’s “Interpretive Plan,” a guide intended to shape the message of every exhibit and initiative; (3) the “Museums as a Site for Social Action Toolkit,” a thoroughly woke primer used by a long-standing and influential staff reading group; (4) creation of a Center for Restorative History to supposedly redress harms done to racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities, along with a related Decolonization/Restorative History Plan to guide revisions of the NMAH’s operations and exhibits; (5) articles and reports written or publicly promoted by NMAH’s leadership; and (6) evidence of direct political activism both in exhibits and in educational materials created by NMAH.
Taken together, the evidence of ideologically partisan political activism by NMAH is overwhelming. And with one important exception, the report’s critics have so far managed largely to ignore that evidence, even though it makes up the lion’s share of Saving America’s Story. So, let’s have a look at political activism at the supposedly nonpartisan NMAH.
Hartig, NMAH’s director since 2019, is, by her own account, determined to tie the museum’s work to “activism and advocacy.” She is acutely aware of the regulations requiring political nonpartisanship and so is careful about how she describes her goals. Yet Hartig has said that “History as a practice . . . is for me a prime tool of social justice.” Once she took over NMAH, Hartig rewrote the institutional mission statement to direct history toward “empowering people to create a more just and compassionate future.” A traditional NMAH director would have kept out of the George Floyd controversy. Hartig, in contrast, promised to “work to reframe the traditional, celebratory narrative of U.S. history” to force a “national reckoning.” Hartig also echoed the dubious claim that modern-day policing is rooted in the practices of 18th- and 19th-century Southern slave patrols. Hartig is likewise at pains to acknowledge her supposed white privilege, ostentatiously confessing that her success is “propped up . . . by the cuhions of whiteness and the pillows of the bourgeoisie.”
I’ve watched in their entirety a number of the Hartig videos and podcasts (linked throughout and here) drawn upon by Saving America’s Story, and I can affirm that the quotes selected by the report are entirely representative and in no way out of context. In fact, I noticed many other statements in those hours of material that could have been referenced by the report.
Hartig, for example, was a proud protégé of UCLA historian Gary Nash, author of the infamous National History Standards, condemned in 1995 by a 99–1 vote of the U.S. Senate. Hartig particularly cherishes Nash’s controversial “three worlds meet” concept, which replaced the traditional narrative of America’s origins with a tale that “decenters” the European Founding.
There is also a fascinating 2021 podcast in which Hartig affirms the official Smithsonian line, saying, “We pride ourselves on our nonpartisanship.” Then Hartig quickly pivots, saying historians actually believe that pretty much everything is political. As proof, Hartig cites the NMAH exhibit, Girlhood (It’s Complicated), one of her favorite projects. The thesis of that exhibit, says Hartig, is that “girlhood is politicized and political, and that girls can act in political ways.” It is of no small interest that Hartig’s Girlhood exhibit shows up prominently in Saving America’s Story.
NMAH’s 2021 “Interpretive Plan,” issued under Hartig’s management, insists that all exhibits and activities, “whatever the topic,” must “speak to the core issues of our time, including: race and identity; gender and sexuality; environmental change; immigration and migrations; economic inequality; technological change; nationalism and globalism.” This is a prescription for monotonous activist harangues, not to mention distortion of earlier eras by viewing them through the lens of contemporary political controversies.
The Museums as a Site for Social Action Toolkit, co-authored by half a dozen current and former Smithsonian employees and used as a guide by many current NMAH staffers, is a woke nightmare. It draws heavily, for example, on the infamous “White Supremacy Culture” guide circulated widely by corporate HR offices at the height of the post–George Floyd madness. That guide condemns objectivity, a “sense of urgency,” worship of the written word, and various other innocent or admirable characteristics as supposedly execrable examples of “white supremacy.”
The White House report highlights the tool kit’s many attacks on “whiteness” and supposed “white supremacy culture,” but there’s plenty more that could have been noted. The tool kit, for example, draws on another infamous radical leftist concept, Herbert Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance” idea. Quoting Marcuse, a leading light of the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School, the tool kit condemns “tolerance, in the name of impartiality, fairness, or evenhandedness.” Such misguided tolerance, Marcuse says, licenses “intolerable ideologies and practices, and the consequent marginalization of efforts for democratic social change.” In other words, conservatives must be silenced, rather than tolerated in the name of fairness or free speech. This certainly helps explain why NMAH’s politicized exhibits don’t represent both sides of our national debates. But of course, this rejection of tolerance completely contradicts any claim for the Smithsonian’s nonpartisanship.
What about bias in the museum’s actual exhibits and educational offerings? Well, Saving America’s Story offers extensive evidence of efforts to indoctrinate middle and high school students into opposing the enforcement of federal immigration law. This included having NMAH staffers travel to Mexico City to interview deported illegal aliens, and interviewing (read “glamorizing”) illegal alien activists campaigning against the local sheriff because he worked with ICE. Students were invited to interact with this and other anti-ICE material at the NMAH website. Some NMAH materials for educators actually go beyond indoctrination, encouraging teachers to have illegal aliens enroll in the DACA program.
The White House report also reviews several exhibits designed to cultivate approval of transgenderism, for example, the Girlhood (It’s Complicated) exhibit so dear to Director Hartig. That exhibit glamorizes a contemporary transgender activist, a female-identifying male known as Jazz Jennings. In my view, the Smithsonian should altogether avoid building exhibits around contemporary political activists. But if you’re going to glorify Jazz Jennings, why not have a paired display offering an equally laudatory portrait of Riley Gaines (a noted activist who opposes the participation of men in women’s sports)? That would be authentically nonpartisan. Apparently, Herbert Marcuse and his many NMAH acolytes have ruled that out as “tolerating the intolerable.”
Hartig’s Girlhood exhibit featured some pro-abortion activism, and pro-gun-control messages as well. It’s hard not to suspect that framing an exhibit around so flexible a topic as girlhood was a clever strategy to allow Hartig to weigh in on her favorite political issues.
When it comes to individuals, Director Hartig is rightly the focus of the White House report, but she is by no means the only individual scrutinized. The report gives well-earned attention to the wild ideas of Orlando Serrano, the museum’s manager for pre-K–12 learning. For example, an academic article by Serrano describing the work of NMAH’s Center for Restorative History condemns and calls for replacing America’s entire legal system. In fact, Serrano openly condemns the entire tradition of Western classical liberalism. He also insists that restorative justice and true decolonization can never be attained until all of America’s lands are delivered to Native Americans, and the American system itself entirely “reordered.”
Saving America’s Story probes Serrano’s work in depth. Obviously, however, everything couldn’t be covered. Something new that caught my eye when I read Serrano’s wild article was his view of education. Serrano distinguishes between, on the one hand, “education,” by which he means standardized testing, enrollment rates, and measures of return on investment, and on the other hand, authentic “learning,” by which he means analyzing society “in order to . . . change the world towards justice and equity.” “Education,” says Serrano, is Western and white supremacist. “Learning” is beneficent and good. Serrano’s guides to this beneficial learning are a stable of Marxist and neo-Marxist theorists of “critical pedagogy.” The upshot is that the head of NMAH’s educational programs has swapped out traditional teaching and testing for far-left politics. Tests are supposedly Western and white supremacist, a troubling stand at a moment when the rejection of the SAT test has been proved a failure even at America’s most left-leaning universities.
In contrast to a scholarly article not likely to be read by the general public, Saving America’s Story also examines the “Reframing History” report, a project of the American Association for State and Local History. The Reframing History report may not have been produced by NMAH, but it was essentially adopted as a strategy by the museum and was rolled out publicly at a NMAH event featuring Director Hartig. Whereas Serrano’s article wears its radicalism on its sleeve, the Reframing History report is slick, subtle, and manipulative.
Superficially, the Reframing History report wants to get beyond the public debate over critical race theory and so-called inclusive history. In reality, Reframing History wants to win that debate for the CRT crowd by using language designed to soften conservative opposition. By framing history as “detective work,” for example, the report says historians can both use and get beyond the public’s supposedly naïve concern with facts, thereby building support for proposals like a government commission to “reckon” with past injustices (implicitly, a reparations commission). This is Hartig’s sweet spot, the search for language that both disguises and advances her ideological goals.
As I noted at the outset, with one important exception, critics of Saving America’s Story have managed to avoid confronting the evidence I’ve touched on here and the issue of political activism generally. That exception is an Atlantic article about the White House report by Kelsey Ables. There are a lot of problems with this piece, but I’m going to touch here on some very important concessions by Ables.
According to Ables, “when the White House says that the American History Museum ‘has not created any exhibit dedicated to presenting a general narrative of American history,’ the critique has some merit.” “Many museums,” Ables says, “have been seeking to replace those sweepy stories, which can veer white and male-dominated, with a more multipronged approach that features smaller stories. . . .” Ables acknowledges that “this has been a conversation at the Smithsonian for decades.”
I would add that the entire problem grows out of a faulty premise: that the story of the Founders and Lincoln is not the story of a nonwhite female immigrant from a non-Western culture. Abraham Lincoln remarked that although America’s many immigrants were not descended from the founding generation, by accepting the Declaration’s principles they become “as though they were the blood of the blood and the flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote the Declaration, and so they are.” This is how immigrant assimilation used to work, and could again if we encouraged it.
Ables also acknowledges merit in the White House report’s point about political activism. She grants that the Black Lives Matter movement ushered in a period of leftist advocacy at NMAH. “There is a real conversation to be had about whether museums should strive to guide viewers toward civic action and the big questions of our times or simply tell them about the past.” Indeed, there is, but the conversation we’re now having wouldn’t be happening without the White House’s Saving America’s Story report.
There needs to be a housecleaning at the Smithsonian, from Lonnie Bunch III at the top, to Hartig at NMAH, down to ideologues like Serrano, to the extent that the positions in question are replaceable. Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan at the New York Times report that when Bunch learned the White House was planning a report, he tried to issue a public letter “making plain that any review was the responsibility of the institution alone.” Fortunately, Bunch was blocked. Yet it’s outrageous that Bunch would have denied the right of the White House to an oversight report. It’s clear from repeated statements in Hartig’s many videos and podcasts that she is completely in sync with Bunch. Her problem is his problem, and they’ve both got to go.
For my part, I’m fine with withholding federal funds until Bunch and Hartig step down. Naturally, that will set off a campaign along the lines of the cries that long protected PBS. “Save the Air and Space Museum!” will be the slogan. Yet PBS is now defunded, and so should be the Smithsonian until the ideologues currently running the place step aside.
AH: Wonder which passages of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are relevant to this story.
New York Post
Outrage over LA supermarket’s despicable act after shopper dropped dead in bakery aisle
By Katie Jerkovich
Published July 11, 2026, 5:56 p.m. ET
A Southern California supermarket is facing backlash after keeping its doors open for hours with a dead shopper lying in the bakery aisle — even asking workers to block the body with shopping carts.
The shocking incident unfolded July 5 at a Vons in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Granada Hills, where a customer died inside the store. Rather than closing, management continued serving shoppers as the body remained in the store for hours, CBS LA reported.
Employee Paszion Horner-Smith — who was working as a supervisor when the customer suffered a medical emergency — got choked up when recalling the incident.
“How can anybody do that,” Horner-Smith told CBS LA. “I mean the lack of empathy is just horrible. It is horrific.”
She and another employee tried to give the person CPR, but it was too late.
Horner-Smith said she then got a call from her managers at corporate who saw the body in a surveillance video and was told they needed to block the body with shopping carts.
“I’m being called by someone in corporate because they’re looking at the cameras, telling me that I need to barricade the body by using carts,” she recounted.
The grim scene dragged on for four hours as the victim’s grieving family was forced to wait inside the store for mortuary workers to arrive, according to Horner-Smith.
“Poor family that’s just sitting there. They can’t even see their loved one,” Smith said.
“They can’t touch their loved one. They sat in the store for four hours while people continued to shop around their deceased loved one.”
A spokesperson for Vons parent company, Albertson’s, said it was “saddened by this tragic situation, and our thoughts are with the individual’s family and loved ones.”
“Our team contacted emergency responders and supported first responders as they attended to the medical emergency, as well as local police who remained present,” the company said in a statement to The California Post.
“We work closely with emergency responders and law enforcement to evaluate each situation based on the circumstances present.
The company said that out of respect for deceased and their family, no further details would be shared.
PEOPLE
Hero Mom Pushes 2-Year-Old Daughter in Stroller to Safety Before Being Fatally Struck by Train
By Gina Kalsi Published on July 13, 2026 12:28PM EDT
A 26-year-old mom pushed her 2-year-old daughter out of harm’s way before being fatally struck by a train in Germany.
The incident happened at a pedestrian crossing near a railway line in Leingarten on Saturday, July 11, at around 7:45 p.m. local time, according to a press release by Heilbronn Police Headquarters.
The unidentified mom, who was pushing a stroller, was struck by the train and died at the scene, officials added. The accident occurred at the Leingarten-Mitte level crossing, around 93 miles from Frankfurt, German news outlet SWR reported.
The train’s emergency brake was activated, and none of the 43 passengers were injured, according to police. The woman’s 2-year-old child was also unharmed.
Officials have since launched an investigation into the incident.
The woman is believed to have pushed the stroller off the tracks at the last moment, saving her child, the outlet reported.
The crossing has a pedestrian traffic light and a warning sound, according to SWR. A police spokesperson told the outlet that both of these safety features were working at the time, and there was no sign of the technology being faulty.
The train that hit the woman was identified as the RE45 regional express train on the Heilbronn–Karlsruhe line by the Heilbronner Stimme newspaper. Service does not stop at Leingarten-Mitte station, the paper noted.
The line was closed in both directions for four-and-a-half hours on Saturday as emergency services attended the scene, German news channel Tagesschau reported.
Police are now planning to analyze the train’s data, along with continuing to interview witnesses and commission an expert report, according to Bild.
Heilbronn Police did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.
