With telehealth to access abortion on the rise nationally, the Guiding Star Project’s telehealth lead nurse practitioner Laura Ducote spoke to Live Action News via Zoom about why the time is now to ensure that authentic women’s healthcare is available in every zip code, plus the connection between restorative reproductive medicine telehealth and ending abortion. 

Key Takeaways:

• The Guiding Star Project's telehealth lead nurse practitioner discussed in an interview with Live Action News how the women's health center network is launching a telehealth pilot with plans to expand to multiple states over time.

• Across their six centers nationally, the Guiding Star Project serves approximately 5,000 women.

• The organization's telehealth pilot program will involve virtual education, virtual lactation consults, and virtual FEMM cycle education classes.

• Some examples of the many types of patients for whom telehealth could be a great fit include women in their mid-twenties struggling with PCOS and irregular or absent periods, teen girls experiencing heavy periods, and women entering perimenopause.

The Details:

Why telehealth is integral to women's healthcare and the Guiding Star Project

Ducote observed:

“Restorative reproductive medicine is becoming more well-known, but there are still a good number of areas that are underserved in having access to that type of care. That’s a huge element of why we want to bring telehealth through the Guiding Star Project [GSP].

The other part is that at some point GSP would like to have a physical center in every state and so that allows us to bring in this additional telehealth support and another layer of service to multiple centers if that kind of expansion becomes a reality.”

Across their six centers nationally, the Guiding Star Project serves approximately 5,000 women. GSP’s goal is to “max out” nurse practitioner Laura Ducote’s patient volume and then to hire additional healthcare clinicians to support the growing need.  

What the telehealth pilot currently involves  

Ducote broke down the four aspects of Guiding Star Project’s virtual offerings, noting that the telehelath pilot involves:

• Virtual education: "I’m launching women’s health talks every month, and they’re open to anyone," said Ducote. "This is an educational piece that we want to bring to every woman that doesn’t have access [to RRM] locally, teaching them to advocate for themselves with their local providers.” 

• Virtual lactation consults: Ducote said these will be "available nationally with Leah Jacobson, IBCLC and Founder of the Guiding Star Project.

• Virtual FEMM cycle education classes: "Women understanding their cycle is critical to a restorative approach to women’s healthcare,” noted Ducote. 

She also noted that “the telemedicine visits [are] provided via a HIPAA-compliant virtual platform [and] involve thorough history and medical record review, ordering of appropriate diagnostic testing, and an individualized treatment plan that could include medications, supplements, and/or lifestyle recommendations."

Ducote says Guiding Star is initiating telemedicine visits in Minnesota, but the goal is to "expand to the other states where we have physical Guiding Star locations, in Florida, Iowa, and Texas.”

Zoom In:

Ducote is a family medicine nurse practitioner with training in both the Creighton Method and NaProTECHNOLOGY and FEMM. She specializes in addressing the hormonal aspect of common reproductive concerns like endometriosis, PCOS, painful periods, infertility, miscarriage, perimenopause, and more. 

She can see female patients starting in early adolescence, as young as age nine, all the way through menopause. She explained that most any gynecological issue a woman could bring to her OB/GYN could be addressed via telehealth, with the obvious limitation that while Ducote can order blood draws or ultrasounds performed local to the patient, a relationship with a local practitioner would still be necessary for occasional in-person exams like pap smears, STD testing, or yeast infection evaluations.  

PCOS

Ducote shared several examples of the many types of patients for whom telehealth could be a great fit, like a woman in her mid-twenties struggling with PCOS and irregular or absent periods.

Such a woman would be encouraged to learn the evidence-based cycle charting method of her choice, which Ducote identified as “a unique piece about GSP, because there are a decent number of clinics that are very specific with the methods that their patients receive. Cycle education is a piece that we can provide, but the goal is to be able to assess the underlying issue of the PCOS. This can include treating high androgens or insulin resistance, helping restore regularity to her cycles, getting her hormones balanced, hopefully even before she’s trying to conceive, and potentially saving her trouble getting pregnant if desired later on.”

Once a woman has conceived, Ducote would offer both estrogen and progesterone monitoring as well as a full thyroid evaluation to help ensure a strong hormonal start to the pregnancy. 

Teen girls, heavy periods

As another example, Ducote could see a teen girl experiencing heavy periods, evaluating the underlying cause rather than Band-Aiding with hormonal birth control.

Ducote would assess for iron-deficiency anemia, a real possibility for girls and women with abnormally heavy periods. Since the top three reasons for heavy periods, in Ducote’s experience, include insulin resistance, thyroid issues, or high prolactin levels, other aspects of care would include “as much lifestyle change as possible in supporting that underlying cause” with nutritional, supplement, exercise, and – potentially – medication as treatment options, along with general puberty education. 

Perimenopause

Ducote also cares for women on the other end of the reproductive lifespan, especially educating women entering perimenopause on expected changes vs. red flags, and then prescribing medication support like hormone replacement therapy, when appropriate, for symptom management. 

Why It Matters:

Ducote explained the connection between authentic women’s healthcare delivered via telehealth and creating a culture of life, stipulating:

“If we do not make the experience that all women are having for pregnancy, their birth, and their motherhood better, we will never eliminate the desire for abortion. Even women that desire pregnancy, that are even really looking forward to motherhood, that have good husbands, that have good support – if even they don’t have excellent care, how are we going to convince a woman that doesn’t have great support or didn’t really want to get pregnant, how are we going to create a culture of life, where having a baby something that women really desire?” 

If we’re improving birth outcomes, if we’re improving the hormonal balance of the woman – potentially even early on – we can affect her pregnancy and motherhood, because we really are the best versions of ourselves when our hormones are balanced. If we’re well and we’re enjoying our motherhood, that can have a real impact on women’s desire for pregnancy, rather than them asking, ‘why in the world would I do that to myself?’” 

Increasing access to restorative reproductive medicine also works to eliminate the moral dilemma and “selective reduction” abortions caused by the IVF approach to infertility. RRM provides a life-affirming route for couples to receive answers and treatment regarding their infertility or recurrent miscarriage that can affect their lifelong health.

RRM allows them to naturally conceive in a way that honors their dignity and marriage without bypassing or suppressing their bodies’ natural design. 

For the Guiding Star Project, creating a culture of life starts early, beginning with puberty education about how fertility is a gift and the menstrual cycle is a fifth vital sign of whole-body female health.

Young girls who internalize the goodness of their female design and develop body literacy carry that knowledge and respect for their bodies forward throughout life, quietly informing their expectations for healthy relationships, decisions about when to have sex, whether to go on birth control, and more. 

Getting Started:

While, telehealth services are currently available solely to Minnesota residents, women in other states are encouraged to fill out the ‘Request Care in My State’ form to get on the waitlist for updates as the pilot expands.. To see all available services, click here. GSP operates on a cash pay model and all prices are listed clearly, with an option to book a free 20-minute clarity call beforehand.

Key Takeaways:

• Midterm elections will take place in November.

• In addition to electing state and federal representatives and senators, abortion-related initiatives will be on the ballot in four states.

• These states are Idaho, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia.

The Details:

In November, midterm elections will take place. But voters won't just be deciding on their state and federal representatives and senators. Various initiatives will be on the ballot as well, which in four states, relate to abortion.

These ballot initiatives will decide if preborn children are protected from abortion, or if they can legally be killed.

Idaho

Voters will decide on Proposition 1 in Idaho, the ballot language for which was just approved by the state Supreme Court in September. This is the language voters will see on their ballots:

“A YES vote would support creating a right to abortion before fetal viability— defined as a fetus’ ability to survive without extraordinary medical measures—and after fetal viability in cases of medical emergency; providing protections against professional discipline and civil and criminal liability for healthcare providers; and codifying a statutory reproductive right to freedom and privacy.

A NO vote would support making no change to Idaho’s current law, which preserves the life of preborn children by prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, and during the first trimester in documented cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement.”

Behind the initiative is Idahoans United for Women and Families, a pro-abortion group. David Ripley, the CEO of Idaho Chooses Life, has said local pro-lifers will campaign against the initiative.

If passed, “This is going to have a profound impact on Idaho, and will basically invalidate virtually every pro-life law that the legislature has enacted over the last 30 to 40 years," he said.

Currently, Idaho is one of the most pro-life states in the country, with most preborn children protected by law from abortion.

Missouri

Voters in Missouri first approved an "Amendment 3" in 2024, which declared a constitutional "right" to abortion in the state. The new Amendment 3, which will appear on the ballot in November, would amend the state constitution to remove the so-called 'right' to abortion.

The ballot language will read:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

Guarantee women’s medical care for emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages; 

Ensure women’s safety during abortions; 

Ensure parental consent for minors; 

Repeal Article I, section 36, approved in 2024; allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest;

and Prohibit sex-change procedures for children?”

The 2024 Amendment 3 took effect one month after that year's election. Initially, despite the pro-abortion vote, restrictions and regulations regarding abortion were still in place, but almost all of them were struck down this summer, including a requirement that abortionists have a state-approved plan to deal with complications.

Nevada

Question 6 will be on the ballot in November for Nevada voters, seeking to create a constitutional 'right' to abortion in the state. Under Nevada law, a constitutional amendment must be approved in two even-numbered election years.

In 2024, Question 6 was on the ballot for the first time, and was passed by voters. The language on the measure reads:

Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to create an individual’s fundamental right to an abortion, without interference by state or local governments, whenever the abortion is performed by a qualified healthcare professional until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy?

Virginia

The Virginia ballot measure is perhaps the most contentious of all four.

The "reproductive freedom" amendment would remove all protections for preborn children, and has faced numerous court battles. The amendment would create a "right" to abortion in the constitution. The amendment, approved by Governor Abigail Spanberger this year, would allow for legal abortion at any point in pregnancy, utilizing a broad and undefined "health" loophole.

The measure treats the killing of preborn children the same as obtaining miscarriage care and prenatal care:

Question: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; (ii) protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and (iii) allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient's health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive?

It has been called one of the most extreme abortion measures in the country.

The Bottom Line:

The decision voters make in November will decide the fates of countless preborn children in four states, for years to come.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2023, AG Paxton filed a lawsuit against Yelp for misleading consumers about PRCs.

• Yelp had attached labels to PRCs which read, “This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Crisis Pregnancy Centers typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.”

• Paxton said this label is misleading because it was attached to all PRCs, even those which do employ medical professionals.

• Yelp also sued, seeking the dismissal of Paxton's lawsuit.

• A county judge tossed Paxton's lawsuit, but an appeals court reinstated it, causing Yelp to turn to the Texas Supreme Court.

• The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that Paxton's lawsuit can proceed.

The Backstory:

Beginning in 2022, Yelp began placing labels on all PRC listings, which read, “This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Crisis Pregnancy Centers typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.”

Paxton sued, saying Yelp was misleading Texas consumers by placing the label uniformly to all PRCs, even those which did have licensed medical professionals on site. Paxton's lawsuit stated:

Defendant’s misrepresentations and failure to disclose the presence of licensed medical professionals at pregnancy resource centers dissuaded consumers from visiting these clinics in favor of clinics that perform abortion services.

The day before Paxton's suit was filed, Yelp filed a suit of its own in an effort to stop Paxton's from moving forward, though this attempt was unsuccessful.

U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson wrote that her ruling did not mean she supported Paxton, however:

To be clear, the court is not convinced that Paxton acted entirely in good faith in bringing this case against Yelp; still, Yelp has not provided enough concrete evidence of his subjective motivations to prove otherwise.

In the meantime, Yelp changed its PRC label to read, “Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers.”

Paxton's suit was thrown out by a Bastrop County judge, but Paxton appealed, and the 15th District Court reinstated the lawsuit.

The Details:

Yelp turned to the Texas Supreme Court in an effort to have Paxton's suit dismissed again, but the Supreme Court refused. In a new ruling, the justices said the lawsuit can proceed.

Previously, Yelp had claimed the lawsuit did not have standing in Texas, as the PRC labels were in place across the country, and not specifically targeting Texas PRCs. Yet the appeals court pointed out that Yelp does "substantial business" in Texas, and sends residents of Texas targeted ads.

Paxton said in his response:

There is nothing novel in holding that if a company publishes deceptive content online about Texas businesses, in violation of Texas law, and that content is viewed by Texas consumers, then it is reasonable for that company to expect to be susceptible to suit in Texas regarding those very publications.

The Texas Supreme Court did not give any reasoning in its ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed, and a Yelp spokesperson voiced disagreement with the decision.

"Yelp’s consumer notice at issue was truthful, accurate, and intended to help people make informed decisions about reproductive healthcare options," the spokesperson said.

Paxton has not yet responded.

The Bottom Line:

The legal battle over the Yelp labels will continue for now, despite Yelp's efforts to have it squashed.

Key Takeaways:

• Zachery Holmes was convicted of second degree murder and second degree feticide after shooting Tychelle Ridgley and her preborn child in 2019.

• Ridgley was eight months pregnant at the time of her death.

• Ridgley's boyfriend, Melvin Boudreaux, was the intended target of the shooting. He also was shot, but survived.

The Details:

Zachery Holmes, 36, was convicted of second degree murder and second degree feticide, along with several lesser charges, after killing 28-year-old Tychelle Ridgley and her preborn child, Me’Lo Alexander in 2019.

Ridgley was inside a home when Holmes, along with two other men, drove up and started shooting at Ridgley's boyfriend, Melvin Boudreaux, who was standing outside. Boudreaux was shot but survived his wounds.

Ridgley, hit by a stray bullet which traveled through the front door, succumbed to her injuries. She was eight and one-half months pregnant at the time of her death; her preborn baby, Me’Lo Alexander, also died.

District Attorney Jason Williams referenced Me’Lo Alexander in a statement Monday.

“We never said that this was a case about perfect people,” Williams said. “But that little, baby boy that was in his mother's belly, he was perfect. And the jury understood that he was completely innocent. He never got to breathe life."

According to NOLA.com, Holmes was found guilty of "second-degree murder, second-degree feticide, attempted first-degree murder, obstruction of justice and a handful of gun charges," but "[t]he jury acquitted him on counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and illegal carrying of a firearm by someone previously convicted of a felony, court minutes show."

Holmes is scheduled to be sentenced November 13. He faces a mandatory life sentence without parole.

Zoom In:

Sadly, cases like this one have become more common. Pregnant woman are at especially high risk of violence, and homicide is a leading cause of death for pregnant women, exceeding all the leading health-related causes of maternal mortality.

According to research published by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in January 2025, between 2005 and 2022, of 20,421 maternal deaths, 1,407 were due to homicide.

Research published in 2021 found that women were more likely to die by homicide than maternal illness.

“Homicide during pregnancy or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy exceeded all the leading causes of maternal mortality by more than twofold,” researchers concluded.

If Amendment 3 fails in November, abortion will be largely unregulated in the state, likely leading to an increase in preborn lives lost, and the potential provision of dangerous and irreversible “transgender” procedures for minors.

Key Takeaways:

• A poll of 900 likely Missouri voters, conducted by SLU/YouGov in August shows a strong divide between Missouri voters on Amendment 3, with 43% of likely voters responding that they plan to vote “Yes” on the amendment, and 44% responding that they plan to vote “No.”

• The latest poll shows a drop in support for Amendment 3 since February, when 50% of respondents indicated support for the amendment, and 39% responded that they planned to oppose it.

• Of the Missourians polled, 13% of respondents said they were unsure on the amendment in August, compared to 11% responding “unsure” in February.

• “Yes” is the pro-life vote on Amendment 3 in Missouri’s November election.

The Details:

In 2024, Missouri voters narrowly approved Amendment 3, a radical pro-abortion amendment with the same name as the pro-life amendment on the ballot for this November. The amendment passed two years ago removed essentially all protections for preborn children by making abortion a constitutional right in the state of Missouri, opening up the possibility of abortions committed up until birth; the amendment also removed health and safety standards requirements for abortion facilities as well as informed consent requirements, including the provision of an ultrasound to women prior to abortion. 

A vote “Yes” on the Amendment 3 on the ballot for this November will:

• Reinstate health and safety standards for abortion facilities, and allow inspections.

• Reestablish the ability of women and others to sue abortionists for malpractice, injury, and death.

• Restore informed consent requirements for women seeking abortions.

• Restore parental consent for minors seeking abortions.

• Limit taxpayer-funding for abortion.

• Prohibit fetal organ harvesting.

• Prohibit “transgender” procedures for minors, including sex-change surgeries, cross-sex hormones, and puberty blockers for children.

Amendment 3 will not ban abortion in cases of rape and incest (under 12 weeks’ gestation), emergencies, or fetal anomalies, but would ensure regulations such as licensing for abortionists and abortion facilities. 

The latest poll conducted by SLU/YouGov surveying 900 likely Missouri voters suggests a slight drop in support for the pro-life Amendment 3 on the ballot from earlier in the year. 

• In August, 43% of likely voters responded that they planned to vote “Yes” on the amendment, and 44% said they planned to vote “No.”

• In February, 50% of respondents indicated support for the amendment, and 39% responded that they planned to oppose it.

• Of the Missourians polled, 13% of respondents said they were unsure on the amendment in August, compared to 11% responding “unsure” in February.

The August poll suggests divides between voters based on their demographics.

More men than women support regulating abortion and “transgender” procedures for children, with 46% of men and 40% of women in favor of the amendment. While 65% of Republicans surveyed support Amendment 3, just 20% of Democrats were in favor of the amendment.

The Bottom Line:

Missouri’s Amendment 3 aims to protect vulnerable preborn babies, women, and underage girls seeking abortion, and children deceived by “transgender” ideology and lured by irreversible “sex-change” procedures.

Key Takeaways:

• An appeals court ruled Monday that the Cedar Park Assembly of God is not exempt from a state mandate requiring companies to include abortion in their insurance policies, if those policies also provide maternity coverage.

• The church had argued that the mandate violates the First Amendment freedom of religion.

• The ruling is the latest in a lawsuit that has bounced back and forth among the courts for years.

The Backstory:

In 2019, The Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland sued the state of Washington, arguing that the state's Reproductive Parity Act violated the church's First Amendment right to the freedom of religion.

The Reproductive Parity Act mandates that all employers, including religious entities, offer health insurance which covers abortion and contraceptives if it also offers maternity coverage. If abortion coverage is not included, the state law requires that employees be told how to access it.

The church, which is pro-life and employs about 140 people, sued the state.

The lawsuit bounced back and forth between courts for a number of years before a three-judge appeals court ruled last year that the church lacked standing to sue. However, the panel withdrew its opinion four months later and scheduled a rehearing.

The Details:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday as a result of that rehearing, coming to the same decision it had previously. In its 2-1 decision, the court said the church failed to prove that the Reproductive Parity Act was "hostile" toward religion.

The court noted that the church had the opportunity to purchase insurance coverage excluding abortion coverage from secular carriers, but had opted not to do so.

“We conclude that plaintiff has not shown that the challenged laws pressure it to provide insurance coverage for, or to pay for, abortion,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber, joined in the majority opinion by Judge Lucy Koh.

Rory Gray, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Cedar Park, expressed disappointment at the ruling, writing:

We are disappointed in the ruling today. While agreeing that Cedar Park has standing to sue, the court got it wrong by allowing the state of Washington to force Cedar Park to violate its faith by providing abortion coverage to its staff.

Our client believes and teaches that every human life begins at conception and actively supports and promotes pro-life efforts in its community. No church should be forced to be complicit in abortion, but the state has gone out of its way to force churches to cover and pay for abortions through their employee insurance plans.

The Assemblies of God denomination holds a pro-life position on abortion.

“The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning… has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to man…. We shall… be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?”

(This is part two of a series. Read part one.) 

Societal compromise on IVF, which disregards the dignity of the human embryo, is paving the way for the advancement of even more radical technologies, like in-vitro gametogenesis (IVG).  

Key Takeaways:

• Children created via IVG won’t necessarily have both a genetic mother and a father; instead, they could have one genetic parent, multiple genetic parents, two same-sex genetic parents, and so forth.

• Aborted babies and IVF-produced human embryos have been used in research that has aided in the advancement of IVG technologies.

• Big Fertility and radical ideology are blurring the lines between legitimate struggles with infertility and something referred to as "social infertility" (two same-sex people who cannot reproduce on their own biologically/naturally) – helping to excuse and fuel the progress of IVG. They are redefining infertility itself.

•  Scientists and other Big Fertility proponents are hoping that IVG will either replace IVF or make it more accessible and affordable—claiming that eventually IVG might be cheaper, since egg retrieval would hypothetically not be necessary. 

The Background:

IVG is an emerging, Frankensteinian technology that “reprograms” adult blood or skin cells and manipulates them to mimic those found in embryonic cells, which are additionally manipulated to imitate sperm or egg cells. The imitation sperm/egg cells that result are then used to create embryos through IVF (in-vitro fertilization). In a nutshell, this means the children who are created won’t necessarily have both a genetic mother and a father; instead, they could have one genetic parent, multiple genetic parents, two same-sex genetic parents, and so forth.

During a 2023 National Academies multi-day conference on IVG, multiple panelists explained the various ways aborted babies and IVF-produced human embryos have been used in research that has aided in the advancement of IVG technologies.

Live Action News reported how Cornell University professor Paula Cohen flippantly spoke of grafting fetal ovaries from aborted female babies and xenographed them into mice to “look at meiosis,” which is important for IVG advancements. Azim Surani with the University of Cambridge explained how the genital ridges, or the developing gonads, are taken from aborted babies to then “sort primordial germ cells from them.”  

The Details:

IVF Paves the Path 

The IVF industry has contributed to the widespread acceptance of the commodification and destruction of human beings while simultaneously helping to blur the lines between legitimate struggles with infertility and coveting of biological reality – helping to excuse and fuel the progress of IVG. IVF/IVG proponents speak of fertility as a “right” for all, regardless of sexual orientation and biological reality and utilizing their attempts to change the meaning of the word infertility and eugenics.   

During the conference, Andrea Braverman, OBGYN director with Thomas Jefferson University and board member of fertility industry advocacy group RESOLVE, compared IVG advancements with birth control due to the “freedom of family building” the advancements would offer, stating that the desire to “have a genetic offspring is a strong one.”

Live Action News previously reported how IVF groups like RESOLVE and the Gay Parenting Assistance Program (GPAP, a.k.a. Men Having Babies) have seen legislative success in changing the definition of infertility to be more “inclusive” of LGBTQ individuals who may not actually be biologically infertile at all. 

The reality is that the male and female body are complementary, and when joined together, are the only sexual union that has the capacity to result in natural procreation. Reasons why a normative couple may struggle with infertility (or the inability to conceive after at least one year) are often emotionally taxing and complex and are deserving of medical approaches aiming to uncover and treat the root cause.

In “The Facts of Life: A Review of the Science and Ethics of IVF” Dr. David Prentice with the Science Alliance for Life and Technology (SALT) wrote that IVF is not a treatment for infertility — rather, it is a “technical workaround in attempts to have a baby.”

IVG proponents aim to use the technology to “work around” not only infertility but biology itself, labeling the inability of two same-sex individuals to procreate as “social infertility.” 

Stanford professor and author Henry Greely stated that he believes there should be no distinction between “social infertility” and actual infertility, stating: 

“Much of the social infertility... certainly has a biological basis to it, such as in the aging situation; society plays a role by leading people to wait, encouraging people to wait until it becomes a biological problem. Same with the LGBTQ+ issues... but there are social issues because of biology.

... People want to have babies and if people want to have babies we better have a damn good reason to tell them that they can’t. Frankly I think the most important and the most shameful of the social infertility we’ve got in the United States, at least, is if you don’t have money and you’re infertile, you’re out of luck.”

George Washington University Professor and founding director of Health Law Initiative Sonia Suter agreed, but felt that the line of acceptance must be drawn there to avoid solo parenting:  

“... I think we want a broader definition of social infertility to avoid the kind of discrimination that occurs if we just limited to medical infertility…

So I do not see any distinction between same-sex reproduction and reproduction between two individuals who can’t reproduce either for social reasons if they’re opposite sex or medical reasons, but I do think that when we start to think about something like solo IVG…

I think the risks… are pretty significant.” 

“New” Eugenics

During the National Academies IVG conference, Katherine Kraschel, executive director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, argued that denying access to artificial reproductive technology like IVF and IVG is akin to “forced sterilization.”

Kraschel claimed that restrictions placed on ART technologies like IVF (and IVG, once advanced) is the “new eugenics” because impoverished people cannot afford it and because those in same-sex relationships cannot naturally reproduce with each other.

Kraschel claimed that the efforts to include LGBTQ under the “infertility” definition is an issue of “reproductive justice” because, according to her, heterosexual individuals can just “go try another partner” if a spouse is struggling with infertility.      

Disregard for Human Life

When IVF was first pitched to society, it was done under the auspices of helping women struggling with infertility. Live Action News exposed how the ‘dark’ legacy of early IVF pioneers, Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards, with ties to the eugenics and abortion movement, was ethically questionable and done with the intent to mock God. 

Live Action News reported that in 2023 alone, an estimated 3.8 million human embryos were created through IVF cycles, nearly half of which were “...estimated to have not survived beyond the next two stages: the blastocyst stage and the genetic testing stage.” 

Live Action News further reported: 

“Of the remaining estimate of 1,946,884 embryos, 91,360 were automatically "banked" for "future use." Of the remainder, only 95,860 survived to birth after being graded, labeled, selected, and transferred. This leaves 1,759,664 human embryos unaccounted for, who were either frozen, miscarried, donated to research, or released for embryo adoption (with the adoption rate at just 1-6%). In comparison, there were an estimated 1,037,880 abortions in 2024 in the U.S. (and 1,053,430 abortions in 2024).”  

“IVF recognizes the biological fact that a human life begins at fertilization. But the IVF industry has been unregulated and unaccountable in providing a standard of medical care that recognizes and protects the lives involved,” wrote Dr. David Prentice.

Scientists and other Big Fertility proponents are hoping that IVG will either replace IVF or make it more accessible and affordable—claiming that eventually IVG might be cheaper, since egg retrieval would hypothetically not be necessary. 

And it is this natural restriction, the limited availability to the female gamete, the egg, that currently limits the amount of human destruction caused by IVF… for now.

If (or when) IVG advances, this limitation would no longer act as a protective barrier to the mass destruction of human embryos, and the moral compromises made for IVF will ensure the unfettered transition for IVG.     

Katherine Kraschel stated that “IVF may have uniquely persuaded people on the fence about the ethics of embryo destruction because of the necessity of discarding—creating and then often discarding excess embryos in order for IVF to be a clinically viable solution for people seeking to get pregnant.”  And this, she said, could make it easier to accept IVG – but she still has concerns about a “different type of ethical discussion and perhaps more people or fewer people who may not be on board in the same way,” that they are with IVF because it would “creat[e] many more embryos that may ultimately be destroyed.”

However, in a 2022 journal article, Henry Greely claimed that IVF is so “politically popular” that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v Jackson decision is “unlikely to affect IVF very much." He wrote that “... many pro-life advocates like IVF” because “[t]hey like babies and that is what IVF provides.”

Greely believes the acceptance of embryo destruction in IVF has helped to thwart pro-life protections for preborn children in numerous states.

During the IVG conference, Greely said he believed that if IVG were proven “safe and effective,” people would want to utilize the technology and view it “in the same light as IVF.” 

The Bottom Line: 

Through the acceptance of IVF, the moral ground has been compromised and the arguments to protect human dignity and life itself fail. Professor Suter pointed this out in a recent op-ed at The Hill, writing that abortion and IVF are “actually two sides of the same issue.” 

“Each procedure allows people to make decisions about creating a family,” she wrote. "Moreover, IVF, like abortion, involves control over prenatal life.” But the truth is that both IVF and abortion control who lives and who dies. And when there is no moral principle or rational restraint left to impede its progress, IVG will merely be the natural progression of scientific advancements. 

The manipulation of natural human reproductive powers through IVG advancements will lead to the ultimate objectification of human beings. And it is in this way that human nature will become “the last part of Nature to surrender to man.” 

Key Takeaways

• Bishop Burbidge ordered all parishes in Northern Virginia to read the letter at all Sunday Masses, an action that he has never asked of priests until now.

• The first amendment uses vague language to broaden access to abortion, already legal in the state.

• The second removes language defending traditional marriage, and inserts dangerous gender ideology by separating gender and sex, which could lead to serious repercussions for pro-life causes. 

• In the letter, Bishop Burbidge says that “we must together proclaim ‘no!’ to these radically unjust ballot initiatives, in fidelity to God and for the good of all in our society.”

• Through the “Catholics Vote No” campaign, the Diocese of Arlington has provided resources and information on the upcoming vote.

The Details

The Diocese of Arlington joined other organizations standing against two proposed amendments to the Virginia state constitution. Last Sunday, the same words were heard from every pulpit as Bishop Michael Burbidge’s letter instructing Catholics to vote “no” on Virginia ballot questions one and two was read aloud.

“All of us in the Commonwealth of Virginia will soon face very serious legal threats to the sacredness of human life and the sanctity of marriage,” he wrote.

The two ballot questions mask sweeping changes that could be made to the state constitution.

• Ballot question one claims to “protect the freedom to make personal decisions” regarding reproductive health, but the actual text states that this “right” is granted to an “individual” with no qualifier, which would arguably include minors. This would erase any right that parents have to protect vulnerable children. Bishop Burbidge said, “The proposed amendment is extreme. It is unnecessary. And it is wrong.”

• Ballot question two manipulates language by “falsely separating the reality of one's sex and gender,” Bishop Burbidge said, making room for dehumanizing gender ideology.

Tom Shakely, Chief Communications Officer for the Arlington diocese, said that Bishop Burbidge believes that “this isn't just a matter of public activism or civic participation, but that it has to be rooted in who we are as Christians.”

Bishop Burbidge clarified that “the Church is not partisan,” but that it “always speaks clearly, faithfully, and truthfully concerning matters of faith and morals in public life… The Church boldly proclaims its 'Yes!' to the protection of the unborn and the sanctity of all human life.”

Sharing the diocesan “Catholics Vote No” campaign, which provides information and ways to share about the upcoming vote with others, he encouraged all to “pledge to vote” and “speak with family, friends, and colleagues, in truth and love” on these issues.

The Bottom Line:

Concluding with a message of hope, he said, “Together, with God's grace, we can protect life, liberty, and the future of our Virginia home.”

Key Takeaways:

• The family of Tierra Walker, a woman who died from preeclampsia at 20 weeks pregnant, has filed a lawsuit against the Texas Attorney General, Texas Medical Board executive director Stephen Brint Carlton, the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, and several doctors.

• The suit alleges that the state's pro-life law is responsible for Walker's death because doctors could not commit an abortion. The suit also seeks to have Texas' pro-life laws declared unconstitutional.

• Texas state law allows abortion for cases of medical emergency; however, doctors noted that her baby should have been delivered early as treatment, not directly killed by an abortion.

• The lawsuit insists that the treatment for Walker's life-threatening condition was abortion, which is at odds with the known standard of care.

The Backstory:

Walker and her baby died in 2024 when she was 20 weeks pregnant, following months of questionable care by medical professionals.

At High Risk

As previously reported by Live Action News, Walker began suffering from seizures and high blood pressure soon after discovering she was pregnant. She also suffered from diabetes and hypertension, and was at risk of preeclampsia.

While Walker requested an abortion, doctors told her she was not facing an emergency and that nothing was wrong with her pregnancy. Yet, her condition continued to deteriorate.

At 12 weeks, a blood clot in her leg was severe enough that she needed a thrombectomy to remove it.

In fact, her chart noted that she was at "high risk of clinical deterioration and/or death."

At 20 weeks, she reportedly went to the hospital emergency room and was officially diagnosed with preeclampsia. She was admitted to the hospital at first, but was then discharged with medication.

➡️ The standard of care for preeclampsia is to admit the patient and monitor her so that doctors can deliver the baby immediately if necessary. This was the standard at the time of Walker's death, and it is the standard today.

This didn't happen for Walker.

Appallingly, she was sent home, was not monitored — and three days later, her son found her face down in bed on his 15th birthday. He tried to save her life, but couldn't.

As explained by Mayo Clinic (emphases added):

The primary treatment for preeclampsia is either to deliver the baby or manage the condition until the best time to deliver the baby.

... Severe preeclampsia requires that you be in the hospital to monitor your blood pressure and possible complications. Your health care provider will frequently monitor the growth and well-being of your baby.

Redefining "Abortion"

According to CBS News, an autopsy revealed that Walker died of hypertensive cardiovascular disease and preeclampsia. She also had an enlarged heart, severe buildup of fluid in her lungs, and kidney damage. Her deceased preborn baby was found to have had no health issues and weighed about one pound.

ProPublica ran a story on Walker's death, claiming that she needed an "abortion" but conflated abortion with preterm delivery, claiming:

The treatment for severe preeclampsia, which points to a problem with the placenta, is delivery — or, at 20 weeks, an abortion.

"Delivery" is not an abortion, especially not when the intent is to save one or both lives.

An induced abortion is the direct and intentional killing of a preborn child. Induction of labor/delivery is the early delivery of a child for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, the baby, or both.

The outlet's misleading redefinition of the term "abortion" perpetuates the idea that an act which intentionally kills is instead life-saving; it's a false narrative.

The Details:

CBS News is now reporting on the family's lawsuit and repeating the same false claim:

The lawsuit pointed out that her discharge paperwork from Dec. 27 states that delivery, meaning an abortion at that stage, may be the best treatment for preeclampsia.

Both media outlets are putting words in the mouths of the doctors and medical professionals who state that delivery is the standard of care for pre-eclampsia.

Delivery, whether at 12 weeks, 20 weeks, or 35 weeks, is not an induced abortion because the goal of delivery is to save the mother and hopefully the baby, not to intentionally kill a preborn human being. The goal of induced abortion is always to produce a dead baby.

Even the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has defined "induced abortion" specifically as "an intervention to end a pregnancy so that it does not result in a live birth" (emphasis added).

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit, which names Texas Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate Ken Paxton, Texas Medical Board executive director Stephen Brint Carlton, the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, and several doctors, alleges:

For months, Ms. Walker had been asking for termination of her pregnancy — even though this was a wanted pregnancy — because she did not think she would survive the pregnancy. Tragically, she was right. An abortion at any point during her pregnancy would have saved her life.

The lawsuit specifically holds Paxton and Carlton responsible for Walker’s death, calling the state's pro-life law a “merciless blanket prohibition on abortion.” 

But delivery, not abortion, is the standard of care for such an emergency situation. And it doesn't appear that the standard of care was followed in Walker's case.

This case makes clear that Walker's life was at risk; ending her pregnancy through an emergency C-section or preterm delivery might have saved her life. It would not have been necessary to Intentionally and directly kill her baby before delivery.

There was nothing in the Texas law preventing Walker's doctors from acting to save her. The errors in treatment and failure to follow the standard of care were likely contributors to the deaths of Walker and her preborn baby.

In a 2025 interview with Secular Pro-Life's Monica Snyder, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Dr. Christina Francis weighed in, stating that Walker's case points strongly to medical malpractice:

“It is subpar care. and unless she signed out of the hospital against medical advice and went home because she refused to stay in the hospital, which I don't think happened because it's nowhere in the story… that's the only reason I could think of that someone would get discharged and on blood pressure medication after being diagnosed… and I believe, if I remember right, she died when she was about 20 weeks. So, she was only about 20 weeks pregnant when this happened. So you've got previability pre-eclampsia. By definition, that makes it severe. 

And again, there's so many questions. Was she on daily aspirin, which she should have been with that history?... But if she wasn't, these are all missteps of malpractice all along the way here. And as soon as she's diagnosed with preeclampsia at 20 weeks, there's a strong case to be made for a a delivery at that point….

But at the very least, like let's say the conversation had gone that she wasn't ready to deliver yet. She wanted to try to medically optimize things. Still, she doesn't leave the hospital. She stays in the hospital. So… that right there…[is] not at all due to the abortion law. It is complete medical malpractice.”

The lawsuit appears to point to this as well; however, the lawsuit claims that the "only" treatment for Walker's condition would have been an abortion as opposed to a preterm delivery (emphasis added):

University Health failed to appropriately screen and provide stabilizing treatment for Ms. Walker’s emergency medical conditions, resulting in her death.

... Indeed, each time that University Health discharged Ms. Walker without providing her with the stabilizing care necessary to treat her emergency medical condition—both on November 4, 2024 as well as December 27, 2024—it violated EMTALA in three independent ways.

First, University Health improperly triaged Ms. Walker, failed to ensure that she was seen by the on-call OB/GYN attending, and failed to properly screen for preeclampsia and pulmonary edema, each a violation of EMTALA’s medical screening requirements.

Second, hospital staff knew that failing to treat Ms. Walker’s preeclampsia could reasonably be expected to result in serious jeopardy to her health, including death. University Health staff documented those risks in her chart, yet still never offered Ms. Walker the appropriate—and only—stabilizing treatment for her emergency medical condition: an abortion.

Third, University Health discharged Ms. Walker without providing the stabilizing care she urgently required, causing her death.

The claim that "abortion" was the "only... stabilizing treatment" for Walker's condition is an attempt to redefine a preterm delivery as an abortion.

What State Law Said in 2024

Texas defines abortion as the intentional killing of the preborn baby. Texas law states (emphasis added):

(1) “Abortion” means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant.  The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives.  An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:

(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;

(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion;  or

(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.

In addition, SB 8, Texas' Heartbeat Act of 2021, which was in effect at the time of Walker's death in 2024, contains provisions allowing abortion in case of medical emergency (emphasis added):

Sec. 171.205.  EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS.   (a)  Sections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician  believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with  this subchapter.        
(b)  A physician who performs or induces an abortion under  circumstances described by Subsection (a) shall make written  notations in the pregnant woman's medical record of:              
(1)  the physician's belief that a medical emergency  necessitated the abortion; and              
(2)  the medical condition of the pregnant woman that  prevented compliance with this subchapter.

Changes to the Law in 2025

Today, The Life of the Mother Act, passed in 2025 as a clarification to state law, states:

It is an exception to the application of this law... in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed...

This makes additionally clear that today, a doctor who deems it necessary based on his or her "reasonable medical judgment" can even intentionally end a child's life by abortion if the mother is in danger (which leaves a lot of room for leeway, even though intentional killing isn't necessary).

In a statement to CBS News, the Texas Medical Board explained that doctors are “not required to wait until a mother’s life is in immediate danger” before providing necessary medical care. 

The Bottom Line:

It appears that doctors failed to follow both the law and the standard of care for Walker's immediate, life-threatening condition. As a result, Walker and her baby both tragically lost their lives.

Walker's aunt, LaTanya Walker, is the lead plaintiff in the suit, and told reporters, "Her life mattered. It mattered. And I wouldn't want this to happen to anyone else."

Key Takeaways:

• Burke rose to fame on TikTok and got a record deal. He had been set to go on a world tour, which was cancelled after Hernandez was found murdered at just 14 years old.

• Burke allegedly began grooming Hernandez when she was 11 years old; at 13, she got pregnant and had an abortion.

• Burke is charged with Hernandez's murder.

• His lawyers have all resigned, and have been replaced by public defenders.

• Hernandez's family is seeking the death penalty.

The Backstory:

After going viral on TikTok, Burke was signed by Interscope Records, and had been set to go on tour, which was cancelled when Hernandez was found dead in the trunk of Burke's car.

Hernandez had been missing for weeks, and it had taken so long for her to be found that her body had begun to decompose. She was just 14 years old when she died.

Previously, Burke had engaged in a sexual relationship with Hernandez, beginning when she was just 13. He had allegedly been sexually grooming her since she was 11, and their relationship led to at least one abortion.

Text messages between the two seem to indicate Hernandez may have felt pressured to abort, and afterward was deeply affected by it, writing, “I don’t like talking about it because it gets me really upset, but I’d do anything to have [the baby] back.”

Text messages also revealed that she had threatened to expose their illegal relationship before she went missing in April of 2025.

According to prosecutors, Burke killed Hernandez on April 23, 2025, stabbing her twice in a blue kiddie pool in his garage. After she slowly bled to death, he allegedly left her body there for several months, and then dismembered her with a chainsaw, placing her body in black trash bags, and leaving the bags in the trunk of his car.

The Details:

According to the Associated Press, Burke's three private attorneys have all resigned from the case. He had been represented by Blair Berk, Marilyn Bednarski, and Regina Peter, but all three filed a request with the judge to withdraw from the case. No reason was given for their exit.

“We continue to support David and his defense against these serious charges,” they said in a statement.

He is now being represented by the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office. ABC7 reported that his new attorney is Walid Kandeel.

"We recognize the loss of life underlying the allegations and extend our sympathies to those who are grieving," Kandeel said in a statement. "At the same time, David Burke is entitled to a defense that takes his circumstances seriously and carefully examines the evidence. We are committed to providing him with that defense."

Hernandez's family is calling for Burke to receive the death penalty. In a statement released on what would have been Hernandez's 16th birthday, they said:

If the death penalty were activated, it would be perfect for this kind of human being, devoid of feelings and emptiness inside, and without conscience, who only caused pain to our daughter, our family, and the world that supports our precious daughter.

But that’s not in our hands, but rather in God’s, and the California justice system.

The Bottom Line:

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said California's previous ban on the death penalty had been rescinded, but only in "exceedingly rare" cases, and that he had not yet decided whether to pursue it in Burke's case.

Key Takeaways:

• Canada legalized MAiD in 2016, and will allow MAiD for mental illness in beginning in 2027.

• MAiD has already skyrocketed since its legalization, and has become a leading cause of death in Canada.

• A bill to stop MAiD for mental illness has been introduced, and will have a vote in October.

The Backstory:

Canada legalized MAiD in 2016, and it quickly became one of the world leaders in assisted suicide and euthanasia. The country is on track to reach 100,000 deaths from euthanasia and assisted suicide in just a decade.

Already, MAiD deaths comprise five percent (5%) of all deaths in Canada; troublingly, over a fifth of applicants claim “isolation or loneliness” as reasons for their request to die.

The MAiD program is set to expand in 2027 to allow mental illness as a qualifier for death, despite the numerous controversies already surrounding the program. Reports have uncovered the fact that people are offered MAiD for reasons like poverty, homelessness, and an inability to access disability or mental health services. 

In 2025, MP Tamara Jansen introduced Bill C-218, which would bar mental illness alone from qualifying someone as eligible for MAiD. The bill would amend the current criminal code to prohibit “assisted dying” for mental illness, stating that “a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition.”

She explained why the legislation is necessary when she introduced it to parliament, saying:

Imagine your son or daughter battling depression for some time after losing a job or a broken relationship. Imagine they feel the loss so deep they’re convinced the world would be better off without them.

Now imagine this, starting in March 2027, under Canadian law they could just walk into a doctor’s office and ask them to end their life, and under our law the system could legally do just that.

... Those battling depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, are being told that death is a solution we’re now willing to offer in response to a life of suffering … that’s not health care, that’s not compassion. It’s abandonment.

The Details:

Bill C-218 had its first hour of debate in December of 2025, and has the second hour scheduled for September 23. Following that, a vote will be held on October 7. Should the bill fail, MAiD for mental illness will become legal beginning March 17, 2027.

In a video, MP Andrew Lawton called on legislators to pass Bill C-218, pointing out that he struggled with mental illness and suicidal ideation, but was able to recover. He attempted suicide multiple times but survived. As he pointed out, without Bill C-218, people like Lawton could make sure they had no hope of recovery.

"Someone going through what I was going through 15 years ago would be able to get a doctor to help them end their life. Someone suffering only from a mental illness, with no physical health issues whatsoever, will be able to access MAiD. 

Simply put, if the law on the books now were there 15 years ago, I'd probably be dead right now. What I went through didn't happen overnight. 

Through much of my teenage years and into my early 20s, I battled severe depression. I would have good days and bad days, but I started to have more and more bad days. At a certain point, I couldn't take it anymore. I made a plan to end my life once and for all. This wasn't a rash or impulsive decision. I scheduled it weeks out."

Lawton also rightly explained that mental illness changes the way a person thinks, so they are unable to have hope for a better future. He added:

"I got better. It wasn't easy, but I did. I built a future I never thought was possible, and it wouldn't have been possible had I succeeded in ending my life.

We can't give up on each other. The pain that mental illness causes is real, and it is hard. But it isn't permanent. Bill C-218 is about ensuring we keep hope alive for people struggling with mental illness. That we give them a right to recover. I got better, and others can too."

The Bottom Line:

MAiD by definition is set up to convince someone that their darkest moments are based in reality, and that it is better to be dead than alive. It encourages suicidal ideation, and if it becomes legal to be euthanized due to mental illness, that encouragement will be significantly increased.

Key Takeaways:

• Clara Munger Boyer underwent an abortion at Planned Parenthood in 2021, after being pressured into the procedure by the baby's father.

• KPS, whose name is sealed, likewise was pressured into an abortion at Planned Parenthood in 2020.

• Planned Parenthood has a history of pressuring or coercing women into abortions.

The Details:

A lawsuit was filed in federal court, claiming Boyer and KPS both had their rights violated when they were made to undergo abortions both say they did not want.

The women said the Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) affiliate did not do enough to ensure they had true informed consent, or that they had chosen to undergo the abortions freely and of their own volition.

A similar lawsuit, which included Boyer as a plaintiff, was filed last year. KPS does not appear to have been a plaintiff in the first lawsuit.

In the new lawsuit, Boyer said she is a lifelong Minnesota resident who underwent an abortion in November of 2021 at Planned Parenthood's facility in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota:

At the time of her pregnancy, Clara was unmarried and living with her parents.

When Clara discovered she was pregnant, she was surprised and scared. She had never imagined being pregnant without being married. She felt ashamed, embarrassed, and confused.

When Clara first told the baby’s father she was pregnant, he suggested an abortion. Several days later, when they next discussed her pregnancy, he again suggested abortion. If the baby’s father had supported Clara in keeping the baby, she never would have considered abortion.

Clara was experiencing so much stress that her decision-making capability was badly compromised. She felt unable to “think straight.”

Clara believed abortion was morally wrong but felt trapped by her circumstances. She felt confused by the pervasive cultural narrative promoting abortion as a “sacred” constitutional right.

Toward the end of November 2021, Clara and the baby’s father called PPMNS/PPNCS’s Rochester, Minnesota facility, which scheduled the abortion to be performed at PPMNS/PPNCS’s Brooklyn Park, Minnesota facility on November 26, 2021.

When Clara arrived at its Brooklyn Park abortion facility, PPMNS/PPNCS instructed her to sign the "consent" form while in the waiting room before she met with a doctor, nurse, or “counselor.”

The abortion facility doctors, nurses, and workers did not engage in any informed consent process and provided no counseling. There was no discussion about the nature of the abortion procedure – that the abortion would permanently terminate her relationship with her child by terminating the life of her child, an existing human being.

PPMNS/PPNCS did not screen Clara for coercion, pressure, or risk factors for psychological harm. PMNS/PPNCS did not discuss Clara’s moral and religious objections to abortion. It provided no counseling.

If Clara had been properly advised that abortion would terminate her relationship with her child by terminating the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being, she would not have submitted to the abortion. Clara did not know that an abortion killed an existing human being. If she was told that the killing of a child in utero was a murder punishable by life imprisonment, she never would have signed a “consent” for an abortion.

If Clara had been properly advised that the abortion doctors and nurses would be immunized from prosecution under the Minnesota murder statute solely because PPMNS/PPNCS secured her signature on a “consent” form, she would not have submitted to the abortion. Clara’s waiver of her rights and “consent” to the abortion was not knowing and informed, and were not voluntary in the true sense.

Clara’s abortion, which she did not want and which wrongfully deprived her of her 14th Amendment rights and interests, has caused her to suffer extreme mental and emotional anguish, including extreme shame and sadness, depression, anger, remorse, and daily psychological rumination over the loss of her baby.

KPS likewise said she faced pressure to have an abortion, and resisted numerous times; Planned Parenthood reportedly knew of her distress, but moved forward with the abortion anyway:

When KPS realized she was pregnant, she intended to keep and raise her child. She immediately sought prenatal care from an obstetrician. The obstetrician shocked her by suggesting abortion and providing her with a list of abortion facilities.

KPS’s mother insisted that she submit to an abortion.

The father of KPS’s child also demanded she have an abortion. He refused to take any responsibility for the child or provide any financial or emotional support to KPS.

KPS’s mother and the baby’s father continued to pressure her to abort. Despite the pressure being exerted upon her and the stress caused by the prospect of raising her child without any support, KPS was determined to take care of her baby on her own.

Over time, however, KPS was overwhelmed by the mounting pressure, stress of her circumstances, and lack of support, so she telephoned PPMNS/PPNCS’s St. Paul facility, which scheduled an abortion.

When KPS arrived at PPMNS/PPNCS’s St. Paul facility on the day of her scheduled appointment, she could feel her baby kicking. She began to cry and sob. PPMNS/PPNCS workers saw KPS’s distress but did nothing to help her. She fled the facility without submitting to the abortion.

KPS’s deep reluctance to have an abortion and her natural instinct to nurture and protect her baby resulted in a cycle of scheduling three additional appointments which she decided not to attend, and effectively cancelled. KPS wanted to keep her child but felt pressured to submit to the abortion. She was so conflicted and ambivalent that she scheduled and intentionally missed three subsequent abortion appointments.

Although she did not want an abortion, KPS ultimately succumbed to the pressure, stress, and confusion she had been experiencing for weeks. She contacted PPMNS/PPNCS for a fifth time, which again scheduled an abortion.

At one point during KPS’s interactions with PPMNS/PPNCS, when her baby was approximately 20-22 weeks old, a PPMNS/PPNCS worker read a script to her by telephone. There was no discussion about the script. The worker didn’t answer any of KPS’s questions, except one. KPS asked if her baby would feel pain in the abortion. The worker lied and told KPS that what was being removed was “nothing but tissue.”

When KPS arrived at PPMNS/PPNCS’s St. Paul abortion facility for her fifth scheduled appointment, PPMNS/PPNCS required her to sign the “consent” while she was in the waiting room, before speaking with a doctor, nurse, or “counselor.” PPMNS/PPNCS did not engage in any informed consent process. It provided no counseling. There was no discussion about the nature of the abortion procedure – that the abortion would permanently terminate her relationship with her child by terminating the life of her child, an existing human being.

PPMNS/PPNCS performed an ultrasound but did not allow KPS to see the screen despite her request. PPMNS/PPNCS did not tell her the age of her baby.

After the ultrasound, a worker gave KPS an oral drug. PPMNS/PPNCS did not explain the drug’s purpose or effect. After swallowing the pill, KPS told workers she did not want to proceed with the abortion and wanted to leave. PPMNS/PPNCS told KPS that because she had already taken the drug, it was “too late.”

KPS was crying when she was taken into the procedure room. Nobody from PPMNS/PPNCS asked her why she was so distressed. Instead, she was given medication that knocked her out.

When KPS regained full consciousness after the abortion, she asked to see her baby. PPMNS/PPNCS presented KPS with her child’s dismembered remains in a metal pan. KPS saw her dismembered baby’s head and other body parts. She could not stop crying.

Before she left the PPMNS/PPNCS facility, KPS requested her baby’s remains for proper burial. She was advised the remains could be released only after she paid a funeral parlor. Within several days, KPS paid the money and her baby’s remains were released to her. KPS had her baby buried.

Zoom Out:

Boyer and KPS are far from alone.

As their lawsuit pointed out, Planned Parenthood has a long history of coercing women into abortions they do not want. Some women even say Planned Parenthood staffers physically forced them into abortions they did not want — like Julianne, who was lying on the table when she told them she had changed her mind and told the staff to stop. Instead, she said they drugged her:

“The next moment, I felt a gas mask going over my face. I remember struggling as I understood what was happening to me. I awoke a few minutes later, and my first thought was, ‘I hope they didn’t kill my baby.’ I cried out and asked if they had done the abortion, and of course they had. My grief was overwhelming. So was my shock, anger, and betrayal.” 

Another woman, Aimee, said staffers pried her legs open to force her into a surgical abortion:

“I tried to close my legs, but they were spread against my will. They said I was fine and continued the vacuum tube was put in my vagina and the vacuum turned on. I said I wanted to run away and save the life of my baby. They ignored me, I was semi sedated."

Still another woman said she was strapped down so she couldn't run away:

I asked them to please unstrap me and let me leave. The anesthesia was administered, and I fell asleep to the sound of their laughter. When I woke up, I was hurting physically as well as emotionally. All around me were the sounds of other women sobbing.”

Lavonne Wilenken, a nurse practitioner who previously worked at Planned Parenthood, recounted an experience where she witnessed a forced abortion:

“The counselor left hurriedly down the hall and I followed to see exactly what was going on and what I saw in the hall was the counselor, a 17-year-old girl and her aunt, dragging her into the room as she was hollering, ‘No, I don’t want to go! Please don’t make me! Please don’t make me do this! I really don’t want to do this!’

They very hurriedly shoved her in the room where the procedure was to take place and slammed the door and the counselor came out afterwards with a sort of a peaceful smiling look on his face, and I knew what had happened. I knew that they had aborted her against her will.”

Another woman, Emily, explicitly told Planned Parenthood staff that she did not want to undergo an abortion and was being forced by her parents to do so. They did not care:

[M]y cries for help fell upon deaf ears. No one came to save me. I was degraded by the adults there and was told that I was acting like a child.

During the ultrasound, I heard my baby’s heartbeat loud and clear. Halfway through my ultrasound I stood up and ran out of the room and found myself up against a door. That is the last thing I remember aside from waking up in the recovery room.

I imagine that I was drugged to keep quiet. The staff at Planned Parenthood were concerned that I would scare the other women there preparing for their abortions.”

The Bottom Line:

Coercion is not rare within the abortion industry, and all too often, abortionists and abortion staffers look the other way, allowing women to be forced into a life-ending decision they do not want.

Key Takeaways:

• The EPA has announced a new scientific study to understand pollutants present in drinking water.

• The study will test for more than 1,400 contaminants, including the abortion pill drugs mifepristone and misoprostol.

• Pro-life group Students for Life of America is pleased at the decision, while pro-abortion apologists have characterized the testing as a move of "cruelty" and as a "distraction" from other environmental issues.

The Details:

The EPA announced the "new scientific study using cutting-edge methods to improve the agency’s understanding of what pollutants may be present in drinking water" in a press release on September 9. The study will use "groundbreaking new research," going beyond traditional testing methods, to study pollutants in water.

Politico reports the study will include looking for traces of the abortion pill. It will gather water samples “from several locations in different metropolitan areas," testing those samples for more than 1,400 contaminants, including mifepristone and misoprostol, as well as other synthetic chemicals, drugs, and pesticides.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said:

“Americans have a right to know what is in the water they drink. For decades, I fought unsuccessfully to get EPA to conduct this kind of comprehensive testing. Thanks to [EPA] Administrator [Lee] Zeldin’s courage and President Trump’s bold MAHA agenda, we are finally getting it done. EPA is going to search for pharmaceuticals, PFAS, and other contaminants that have gone undetected—and give Americans the truth about what is in their water.”

What We're Hearing:

News of the study was roundly praised by Students for Life of America (SFLA), which has lobbied to have the abortion pill's effect on drinking water studied further.

“While we are still working for mandated, on-going testing, this scientific study is an exciting first step,” said SFLA President Kristan Hawkins, who continued:

“The loss of life from chemical abortion pills begins with babies killed in the womb and sometimes even extends to their mothers. Abusers and pill pushers, an emerging abortion cartel, love the quick sale of deadly pills, but the fallout may go even further as women trying to get pregnant and endangered species suffer from endocrine disruptors in our drinking water. This testing is vital to determine water safety.”

But pro-abortion outlet Mother Jones had little difficulty gathering commentary from those in opposition to the move. It quoted Jessica Valenti from her "Abortion Every Day" Substack, where she claimed that "The cruelty really is the point here, not science or health.” The outlet also reported:

After Republican lawmakers urged the EPA to take up the water study in June, Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The 19th that, compared to other pharmaceuticals, mifepristone is taken as a one-time dose by a small portion of the population. “There are legitimate water quality threats that we need to attack and rectify in a regulatory manner,” Donley said. “And then there are things that are out in left field that just distract people.” 

However, SFLA Vice President of Media & Policy Kristi Hamrick noted that the study isn't a "distraction" at all, stating, “Mifepristone in the water, with its ability to block the fertility and reproduction of human beings and endangered species, is an issue that we deserve to know more about.”

​On Monday, September 14, the City Council of Snyder, Texas (pop. 11,251) considered and advanced an ordinance further outlawing abortion and abortion trafficking and declaring the City of Snyder a Sanctuary City for the Unborn. The ordinance was considered as a result of a successful citizen initiative petition process allowed by the Snyder City Charter.

At the meeting, City Secretary Shai Green declared before the Snyder City Council that the “petition for initiative is sufficient in all material effects.” While only 250 signatures of registered voters were required, the initiative exceeded that number, with 302 of the 475 submitted determined to be qualified signatures of registered voters living within the city limits of the City of Snyder. 

Snyder: Multiple Unanimous Votes in Favor

Councilwoman Sarah Jamison made a motion to accept the secretary’s certification of the petition, and Councilman Julian Dominguez seconded the motion. Council members Carson Matthies, Ralph Hernandez, Kenny Miller, and Thomas Strayhorn joined Jamison and Dominguez in voting in favor, making the vote a unanimous 6-0. Right to Life Across Texas made a presentation on the ordinance, and following votes were also unanimous.

Many in attendance applauded the measure, including Snyder Mayor Stephanie Ducheneaux, who presided over the meeting. 

For the Snyder City Council to officially adopt the ordinance, it must survive a second reading and final vote. That second reading vote, which is the final reading, is set for Monday, October 5.  

​After the vote, Pearlene Nolan with His Joy Ministries shared:

"I was so pleased that the Snyder City Council had a unanimous first reading vote for making us a Sanctuary City for the Unborn! Having 3 children, 10 grandchildren, and 6 great-grandchildren, I am pro-life.

I am pro-life for a higher reason as well. The Word of God says we are our Creator’s workmanship in Psalm 139:12-13. Wonderfully knit together in our mother’s womb. Also, Proverbs 6:16-18 says that, of the seven things God hates, one is the shedding of innocent blood. Put it together, and it’s imperative that we honor life. It is a gift to cherish."

​Another City Considers and Tables Ordinance

About an hour after the city council of Snyder considered its ordinance, the city council of Jayton, Texas (pop. 511) – located about 50 miles northeast of Snyder – considered an ordinance identical in substance. Following a thorough presentation on the ordinance from Right to Life Across Texas and much discussion, the council voted 4-1 to table the ordinance.

After the vote, Mayor Joseph Buerkle clarified that the council would revisit the ordinance at the next meeting after members had more time to review the documents presented.

​First Baptist Church of Jayton Pastor Blake Appleby, who was present for the Jayton City Council meeting, shared:

"I celebrate with our neighbors in Snyder in thanking their city leaders for standing up for unborn life. Many of us here in Jayton are praying for them, and I am glad our own City Council is considering declaring Jayton a Sanctuary City for the Unborn.

Passing this ordinance reflects who we are. It honors human life and gives mothers in difficult situations practical support. As our leaders continue these discussions, I pray Jayton remains a place where mothers and their unborn babies are truly protected."

The Ordinances

​The Snyder and Jayton Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinances are identical in substance to the ordinance unanimously adopted by the Scurry County (pop. 16,932) Commissioners’ Court on Tuesday, July 21. If adopted, the Snyder and Jayton Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinances will: ​

• Prohibit elective abortions and the aiding or abetting of elective abortions within the city by extending the private enforcement mechanism of the Texas Heartbeat Act from the point of detectable heartbeat to the point of fertilization.

• Prohibit elective abortions on residents of the city – regardless of where the abortion takes place.

• Prohibit abortion traffickers and abortion trafficking organizations from trafficking women, including minors, through the city for abortions across state lines.

• Prohibit abortion-inducing drugs from being mailed into the city by the creation of a localized private right of action, serving as an additional deterrent against out-of-state abortion pill distributors.

• Recognize any organization involved in the mailing and receiving of abortion inducing drugs and abortion paraphernalia as criminal abortion organizations in violation of the federal Comstock Act and prohibit such organizations from doing business within the city.

• Prohibit Texas waste management companies from transporting through the city the remains of dead babies that have been aborted at abortion facilities outside the State of Texas and brought back into Texas for disposal as trash in landfills.

Private Enforcement Mechanism

The ordinances are enforced the same way the Texas Heartbeat Act is enforced: through a private enforcement mechanism that allows private citizens to file suit against any individual or organization violating the ordinances. The ordinances DO NOT, however, allow any action to be taken against the mother of the unborn child. According to the proposed Snyder and Jayton Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinances:

Notwithstanding any other law, a civil action under this section may not be brought: against the woman upon whom the abortion was performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this ordinance, or against a pregnant woman who intends or seeks to abort her unborn child in violation of this ordinance.  ​

Measure Has Support of Texas Legislators​

In August 2023, 20 Texas Senators and Representatives penned a letter supporting cities and counties passing such measures across the State of Texas. The letter read:

While it is true that abortion is outlawed in the entire State of Texas, from the point of conception, our work is far from over. Right now, throughout the State of Texas, women are being trafficked across our borders by abortion traffickers funded by abortion trafficking organizations still operating in our state. As a result, these women are being abused and traumatized by abortion across our Texas–New Mexico border and sent back to Texas for our cities and counties to deal with the aftermath taking place in our homes, our schools, our churches, and our hospitals.

The Sanctuary for the Unborn ordinances seek to protect these institutions by putting safeguards in place to protect men, women, and their children for years to come. These ordinances, which seek to close as many loopholes as possible, do not penalize women who seek or undergo abortions, but place the penalty on the party who most deserves it – the abortionist and the industry profiting from the unjust procedure, including abortion traffickers.​​

Since August 2023, over 50 political subdivisions have passed ordinances identical in substance to the proposed Snyder and Jayton SCFTU ordinance.

Republican Party Chairman has confidence in city leaders

Scurry County Republican Party Chairman Zachary Gafford is confident that the Snyder City Council will adopt the measure on the second and final reading. Gafford shared:

This is a common-sense measure with overwhelming support among Snyder residents. The county has already spoken clearly on this, and we are confident the city will do the same.

The Numbers Keep Growing

Since June 2019, 123 political subdivisions (99 cities and 24 counties) have passed local measures outlawing abortion throughout the United States, including 104 (82 cities and 22 counties) in Texas.

Citizens wanting to see their city or county pass an ordinance to further protect pregnant mothers and their unborn children from the violence of abortion are encouraged to sign the online petition – regardless of what city, county, or state they are located in.

Closing arguments are set for September 17, 2026, before the Honorable Patrick McKinney in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, which is the final step before a ruling in a case that has spanned nearly three years and a six-week bench trial. 

The brief argues the Attorney General — who sued the two pro-life nonprofits over their communications about Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) — failed to meet his burden on every element of the case. He did not prove Defendants’ speech is commercial, did not prove any challenged statement is false or misleading, and did not identify a single woman harmed by APR, a protocol which remains legal in California and is approved for continuing education by the California Board of Registered Nursing. 

“This case was built on a discredited study and a testifying expert who couldn't bring himself to say under oath that Abortion Pill Reversal is unsafe or ineffective,” said  Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society. “What the record shows instead is an Attorney General’s office that set out after Dobbs to punish pro-life pregnancy centers for the content of their speech and the viewpoints they hold. The Constitution does not allow the government to silence charities for offering women free, religiously motivated information about a legal, safe medical option.” 

“The California Attorney General is seeking a punishment intended to bully Heartbeat out of existence, but the greatest cost would be borne by the women and pregnancy centers we serve,” said Jor-El Godsey, President of Heartbeat International. “When a woman changes her mind after beginning a chemical abortion, she deserves immediate answers, compassionate care, and the freedom to fight for her child. Our network will not abandon her nor fail to offer hope for her and her baby.” 

“After six weeks in trial, and three years of investigation, the Attorney General never produced a single woman harmed or deceived by Abortion Pill Reversal — not one,” added Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri and Jonna LLP. “He also can’t get around a basic fact: these charities give APR information away for free, and California’s advertising laws only reach speech that sells something. The evidence showed more than a thousand California women chose APR — a legal treatment — and the women who testified were grateful someone told them it existed. California protects a woman’s right to continue her pregnancy just as fully as her right to end one. That’s the irony: an Attorney General who claims to champion the right to choose spent three years attacking a reproductive choice women make in consultation with their doctors but that he disagrees with. If he wins, he won’t have protected anyone. He’ll have made sure the next woman who changes her mind never finds out she has options.” 

“What the Attorney General seeks here is extraordinary. Not a single woman has come forward claiming harm from Abortion Pill Reversal, and multiple mothers have testified under oath about their gratitude for the treatment. Yet the Attorney General asks this court to silence our truthful, non-misleading speech about a lifesaving option. Such a ruling would mark the first time in California history that a court punished a nonprofit (offering free help) under state consumer protection laws,” said Danielle White, General Counsel for Heartbeat International.  

“No woman should lose access to help simply because the government would rather she complete an abortion she doesn’t want. Heartbeat will continue to defend our right to serve pregnancy centers, speak truthfully about Abortion Pill Reversal, and stand beside every woman who chooses to continue her pregnancy.” 

The brief backs up those arguments with extensive evidence, including: 

• It’s not “commercial speech.” Heartbeat International and RealOptions give this information away for free — they don’t sell anything — and their reason for doing it is religious and charitable, not financial. California’s advertising laws only apply to speech tied to selling a product or service. 

• The science backs it up. Multiple published studies, plus Heartbeat’s and RealOptions’ own patient outcome data, show women who use progesterone after taking the abortion pill are significantly more likely to continue their pregnancies than those who don’t. 

• The lawsuit itself is unconstitutional. The brief argues the state is punishing these organizations for their religious beliefs and viewpoint, violating their free speech and free exercise rights, and interfering with California’s own law protecting a woman’s right to continue a pregnancy. 

Briefing is now complete. Once the case is submitted following the September 17 arguments, the judge will have 90 days under California law to issue a decision. 

Read the Defendants’ Closing Trial Brief in The People of the State of California v. Heartbeat International and RealOptions here.

Key Takeaways:

• Love and Medley toured together in the 1960s, and kept their interracial relationship a secret due to Jim Crow laws.

• Their relationship ended after Love had an abortion, against Medley's wishes.

• Love said she went into a "depression after the loss of the baby," referring to her abortion.

• Though Love expressed different reasons for her abortion, many women in the entertainment industry have been coerced or forced into abortions.

The Details:

R&B and soul singer Darlene Love came to fame while singing with popular 1960s girl groups, often working with Phil Spector. Love's work frequently went uncredited, though she was eventually inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2011.

A new documentary about Love's life, "Darlene Love: I Know Where I've Been" is set for release soon, and premiered on September 13 in the TIFF Docs program at the 2026 Toronto International Film Festival. In the documentary, she opened up about her three-year relationship with Bill Medley, a member of the Righteous Brothers, and the abortion that brought the relationship to an end.

“Bill Medley was somebody we knew before while we were doing background in the good old days because they did [the live-music TV series] Shindig!,” she said in the documentary. “They sounded so Black. I was shocked that they were White. Not just me, everybody.”

Both Love and Medley had been previously married and gotten divorced, and Love, with the girl group The Blossoms, went on tour with The Righteous Brothers as the opening act. Yet due to Jim Crow laws, the couple kept their relationship secret.

“We were together for three years, and nobody really knew except for people who we were traveling with, and we did quiet things. We didn’t want to make no ruffles. We didn’t want to make nobody unsafe when we were in the South," she said, adding, “We started having trouble with the agents and the managers, you know, we can’t let people know that Darlene Love and Bill Medley are having a relationship. We fought to be together: ‘Let’s be together. We don’t care what anybody says.’ So it was real close to getting married.”

Then everything fell apart when Love became pregnant. Medley begged her not to abort their baby, but she said she feared for her two children from her previous marriage.

"I went on my own with my people and had an abortion," she said. “I had to think about my children. It wasn’t nobody’s fault, you know. I’m saying it wasn’t my fault. It wasn’t his fault, but that was the end, almost like, of me and Bill.”

The abortion led to the end of their relationship, and Love fell into a deep depression.

“There came a time while I was so into this depression after the loss of the baby, that I really did pull on the faith that I thought I had — my faith in God,” she continues. “And little by little, it brought me out of it.”

Zoom Out:

Though Love's reasons for abortion may have been different, many individuals in the entertainment industry have aborted their children; some were coerced.

Abortion has long been a tool utilized by power players in the entertainment industry. At times, abortion was forced upon starlets to cover up abuse at the hands of executives; at other times, it was because women allegedly could not be seen as 'desirable' or 'sexy' on-screen if they were wives and mothers in real life.

One of the most notorious examples of this is that of Judy Garland, who was coerced into an abortion, even though she was married at the time. She and her husband, composer David Rose, were expecting a baby, but Garland's mother, MGM studio executives, and Rose himself all believed a pregnancy would derail Garland's career and cost them too much money.

When Garland wrote about it, she did so by referring to herself in the third person:

She asked her mother, “Where are we going?”

“Never mind,” she said, “you’ll see.”

They drove for about a half hour and pulled up in front of a dreary little establishment outside of town. Her mother took Judy by the hand, led her inside to a shabby little office.

In a few minutes, David, her mother, and MGM were satisfied.

Other starlets had similar experiences, thanks to “morality clauses” written into their contracts which said an actress wasn't allowed to get pregnant.

Pregnancy would be seen as an announcement to the world that the starlet had been having sex. Some starlets were even barred from getting married, and women who were married (like Ava Gardner to Frank Sinatra and Garland to Rose) were still expected to have abortions if they wanted to keep working.

Gardner is quoted as saying:

“MGM had all sorts of penalty clauses about their stars having babies. If I had one, my salary would be cut off. So how could I make a living?

Frank was broke and my future movies were going to take me all over the world. I couldn’t have a baby with that sort of thing going on. MGM made all the arrangements for me to fly to London.

Someone from the studio was with me all the time. The abortion was hush hush… very discreet.”

Some starlets, like Lana Turner, tried to fight back or resist the coercion, only to be physically held down by force during the abortion. In Turner's case, it was her own mother who did so.

The same could be said of Jean Harlow, whose mother forced her into an abortion at 18, saying, “A child could wait; her career could not.”

The Bottom Line:

Abortion is not empowering, nor necessary for a woman's career to succeed. And as Love's story shows, having an abortion did not improve her life, but made it worse. Women deserve better.

Key Takeaways:

• A couple in Greece has welcomed a baby girl after she was frozen as an embryo for 22 years.

• They decided to implant her after their 21-year-old son died in an accident.

• The baby girl was born last week and was named Georgia in honor of her late brother Giorgos.

• Georgia has had value and purpose since the moment she was created in a lab 22 years ago.

The Details:

Cristina Rapti-Tzelepi, 54, and her husband, Constantinos Raptis, 60, lost their son in an accident. Less than a year later, Cristina gave birth to a baby girl, one of their embryos who had been frozen for 22 years. The couple had used IVF to become pregnant with their son and, according to the Associated Press, had other embryos who had been kept frozen all of these years.

When they lost their son, they decided to try to have another baby. But they had to race the clock. Under the law in Greece, a woman cannot complete an IVF procedure once she is 54 years and one day old. Rapti-Tzelepi was approaching her 54th birthday.

“I only had a 2½-month window,” she said. “It was stressful, but with inner strength and our doctor and his whole team by our side, we got through every obstacle.”

She gave birth last week to a baby girl named Georgia, in honor of their late son, Giorgos.

“We decided to give life a second chance, to make a new start, bring new life into our home and keep our family’s story going,” Rapti-Tzelepi said. “My wish for her is to grow up healthy and happy, full of joy like our first child, who filled our home with laughter.”

Her husband echoed their gratitude to the doctor: "He took us by the hand and pulled us out of our deepest darkness. We escaped from that darkness, and I believe we have a lot to live for now."

Why It Matters:

Georgia is a gift, and her life has value and purpose — this was true from the moment she was created and throughout the 22 years she was frozen.

The same is true for the rest of her siblings who remain frozen.

Georgia will never know her brother Giorgos because even though they were created at the same time, more than two decades separated their births. It didn't have to be that way. Georgia and the rest of their siblings deserved the same chance at life that Giorgos was given right from the start, and Georgia deserves the chance to know her other siblings.

Frozen embryos are not 'leftovers'; they aren't spares waiting in the wings to be replacements after tragic loss. They are unique human beings, but they are too often treated as products on a shelf.

Raptis and Rapti-Tzelepi have not ruled out the possibility of traveling to another country to give a chance at life to another of their embryos.

Key Takeaways:

• Actor Tom Pelphrey won an Emmy on Monday, thanking God and his family.

• He specifically spoke of his pregnant fiancée, actress Kaley Cuoco, their young daughter, and their preborn daughter.

• In his speech, he said, "Baby girl in that belly, Daddy loves you!"

The Backstory:

The couple met in 2022 in a meeting that Cuoco described as "love at first sight." She once explained, "... Tom walked in, and I heard his voice, and I turned around, and it was like my life was over, or just starting."

They announced they were expecting their first child, Matilda, five months after they started dating. They then announced in August 2024 that they were engaged, and in June 2026, they shared that they were expecting their second daughter, with Cuoco saying, "[W]e are so grateful."

“[Completing] our little family,” Cuoco wrote in an Instagram post, “what a dream come true.”

In April, Pelphrey spoke with fellow 'girl dad' Dax Shepard, telling him about the joy he has experienced as a father:

"The gifts of getting to be a father, to finally understand what unconditional love is both ways, like ... there's nothing she could ever do where I wouldn't love her with all of my being.

And I also know... like the feeling when I walk in the room, and she is excited to see me. She does not give a f*** about anything I did or not do. What a beautiful gift."

The Details:

On Monday, as Pelphrey accepted the Emmy, he thanked God and his family:

"Wow. This is incredible. Thank you. I thank God for my life and my sobriety. I thank my family and my friends for all of your love and support all of these years....

And to my favorite actor in this room —my love, my best friend, my partner, the very pregnant Kaley Cuoco, I love you more than anything. And our family is the crown jewel of my life.

Matilda, Daddy loves you. Baby girl in that belly, Daddy loves you. Thank you. God Bless."

Cuoco cried as he spoke and could be seen mouthing, "I love you." Next to her, cheering on Pelphrey, was "Task" director <a href="/news/an-open-letter-to-avengers-actor-mark-ruffalo">Mark Ruffalo</a>, a staunch supporter of abortion, who has shared that his mother had an abortion before he was born.

According to the National Catholic Register, Pelphrey was raised Catholic and often shares his faith on social media. He also acted as the voice of Jesus in a recent audio project hosted by pro-life actress Patricia Heaton.

“I found a kind of solace in [being Catholic],” Pelphrey said. “Reading that Bible as a young boy was the beginning of how I felt like I was developing a personal relationship with God.”

Regarding playing Jesus, he said he was intimidated, but ultimately, after prayer, he took the role. "I just want to be of service," he said.

The Bottom Line:

Our children in the womb are exactly that — our children. Our love and responsibility to take care of them do not begin at birth. From the moment of fertilization, both of his daughters have been Pelphrey's "baby girl," worthy of love and life.

I have always instinctively known that all life is precious, and I was always deeply saddened by the idea of abortion. But during my time at Franciscan University, I served as a sidewalk counselor and saw that many women under the extreme stress of an unplanned pregnancy had bought into the lie that abortion would make them “unpregnant.”

I saw the aftermath of abortion, and saw women walk out after these later term abortions with looks of despondency and despair because they were now the mothers of dead babies. 

Blindsided by grief and loss

I had already been blessed with four children when I began losing my babies. Perhaps because I’m so violently ill in pregnancy, I was never worried about having a miscarriage, and tended to just be in survival mode when pregnant.

My first loss was the early stillbirth of my daughter, Gianna Rose, at 20 weeks. I birthed her on the same maternity floor I had delivered my two daughters, Mary and Thérèse Faustina.

I remember sobbing as the nurse gently explained to me that my milk may come in, and I wondered how I’d survive this level of grief.

Little did I know then that I would go on to have six more losses — four of them consecutively following this one.

It is an insanely anxiety-producing instinct to know with zero physical symptoms that another baby has died within me.

All seven of my miscarriages were what are called “missed miscarriages,” meaning I walk around looking and feeling pregnant, with no bleeding or symptoms of a miscarriage. However pregnant I look and feel, with a missed miscarriage, my baby has died within me.

My fifth loss, only two years after my first loss,  was of my son John Paul at 14.5 weeks.

My husband tried to reassure me, “You’ve earned this anxiety, honey; we have lost four babies in a row. I’m sure everything is fine.”

But I knew John Paul had died. I cannot articulate how I knew, but I knew.

I remember praying a Divine Mercy Chaplet as a sort of “hail Mary” plea to God, and tearing up while in the waiting room of my OB’s office that day.

But God knows all, and I already instinctively knew also. 

The confirmation

My doctor found a heartbeat and said, “There we go — see, Marie?” But then upon seeing me breaking out in a sweat with worry, my physician took my pulse, and realized that the rapid heartbeat was, in fact, mine. There was no other heartbeat.

I remember being sent to the hospital for the ultrasound to confirm our worst fears immediately after. While in the waiting room for the ultrasound, I kept telling my husband (and myself, really) that every little twinge or digestive movement, could be the baby... right? Maybe?

Sadly, at this point, after having lost four babies, even going into an ultrasound room was difficult for me. I couldn’t even bring myself to look at the screen, but instead watched my husband's face that was locked onto that ultrasound screen.

We both had become unofficial experts at recognizing what a baby with no heartbeat looked like on the ultrasound screen. When I saw that specific look in his eyes and his head drop, I knew.

Of course, the ultrasound tech said, “I need to go discuss with the doctor” — but we both knew. Beating hearts on the ultrasound are easy to see, and there was none. 

I birthed John Paul at home, and my husband and I had a few quiet moments with him. But then we quickly rushed to the hospital out of caution, as I had fainted the year before when birthing my fourth loss at home, Fulton Kolbe, at 12.5 weeks. Sadly, many hospitals won’t let you give birth there until you are farther along. 

Sharing the truth

Later, upon needing to do something fruitful with the mind-blowing grief I was experiencing, I posted to social media that I would be happy to share a picture privately of our sweet son John Paul with anyone.

One dear friend texted me, asking if I was serious, and if I would mind sharing it with her. This friend had been quite pro-choice, even paying for her sister's abortion and having had one herself.

“That is…..a BABY!!!” is all she could utter, over and over again. Her complete shock even surprised me. 

I have gone on to lose two more babies, Rita and Catherine, and the grief is so profound.

As a former social worker, I am aware that complicated grief is MUCH harder than the grief I have experienced and still do.

This complex grief is what women experience after an abortion, from having played a part in ending the life of their preborn babies. Miscarriage is absolutely brutal but abortion is even harder.

May the Lord in His mercy use my pain and loss to help women see this truth and choose life. 

Key Takeaways:

• CBS News conducted a year-long investigation into the surrogacy industry and found it rife with abuse.

• Vulnerable women were lured to be surrogates with promises of large paychecks and assurances that they were helping infertile would-be parents.

• Instead, buyers were found to have contracted multiple surrogates at a time, with few background checks or other safeguards in place to protect the women or the children involved.

• Many surrogates said they had no idea the would-be parents had multiple surrogacy arrangements in place, or didn't know the people to whom they were giving the children.

• California was found to be an epicenter for surrogacy.

The Details:

After one year and interviews with 32 surrogates, CBS News published the results of its investigation into the surrogacy industry. The industry is shockingly under-regulated, despite clear examples of systemic abuses.

Exploiting vulnerable women

CBS News found that many of the women contracted to be surrogates were low-income mothers in vulnerable situations, which made them easier to exploit. This includes women who were undocumented immigrants or single mothers; they hoped the money would enable them to provide better lives for their children, and that they would be unwilling to ask questions or go to authorities due to their immigration status.

Andrea is an undocumented immigrant from Honduras who decided to become a surrogate because she is a single mother, and was hoping to earn money for her children. She served as a surrogate twice, though she experienced several disturbing issues.

"I know I'm not the only one. There must be more. I feel it's an issue that isn't very well controlled in the United States, " she said. Initially, she agreed to speak to CBS News on camera, wanting to bring attention to the lack of regulations and the exploitation of undocumented women, but later refused to appear on camera, saying, "I can't. I'm too scared."

Another woman, "Judy," likewise became a surrogate to provide for her family. Judy has a seven-year-old daughter and lives with her father. She hoped to make enough money to afford a home on her own.

"I wanted to build a better life for me and my daughter," she said. It wasn't until after Judy signed her contract that she found out the intended parent had simultaneously hired multiple other surrogates. Yet at that point, she felt it was too late to back out, because she needed the money and was scared of the repercussions of breaking her contract.

"The agency should've been very transparent from before getting matched … about who it is that you're having a baby for and what the family is," Judy said.

Mystery buyers

Virtually every surrogate CBS News interviewed said their agencies were not transparent about the identities of the intended parents.

Andrea said she had a video call with a couple her agency claimed were the intended parents. Yet after she delivered, two people she had never seen before arrived.

"When the baby was born and they arrived at the hospital, it was a completely different couple," she said.

Mayra Arely Hernandez carried twins for the same couple as Andrea. She didn't meet them until the delivery, either. "It was weird," Hernandez said. "They wanted the process quick, for me to hurry, to go to the appointments, and for everything to be private."

Another surrogate, Maria Castellanos, was hired by a woman she was told was a single mother. That woman didn't show up at the delivery, causing confusion.

"So who do we hand the baby to?" Castellanos said the nurses asked. She was initially not allowed to hold the baby, either. The woman Castellanos carried the baby for hired her for another pregnancy, paying her more this time, but admitted she was not actually a single mother; she was married.

Surrogacy farming

In numerous instances, the surrogates told CBS News they didn't know until after becoming pregnant that the intended parents had engaged in what could be described as surrogacy farming: contracting multiple surrogates to have multiple children at the same time.

Judy was a surrogate for Xu Bo, a Chinese billionaire who is estimated to have between 100 and 300 children.

"The agency should've been very transparent from before getting matched … about who it is that you're having a baby for and what the family is," Judy said, adding that she has requested to meet him multiple times, unsuccessfully. "It leaves me wondering: do I even have a right to know?"

Castellanos was a surrogate for a Chinese coupled deemed a "national security threat," for having contracted surrogates across the country, with over 20 children born through the scheme. Castellanos said she had no idea.

"I was in shock," she said. "It was a fertility clinic, it was the assistants. There's no way that nobody knew."

California as the center for surrogacy

While surrogates are hired around the country, California has become a hotspot for the industry.

As CBS News reported, foreign nationals looking to use American surrogates most often travel to California to do so. "We have the most favorable laws and geographically, we are the largest state closest to mainland China or Taiwan," Dean Masserman, a partner at California law firm Vozimer & Masserman Fertility and Family Law Center, told CBS News.

However, he admitted that state laws have not caught up with the changing industry, and that they should "be updated and amended to reflect new things that have arisen."

All 32 surrogates interviewed by CBS News had their embryos implanted in California, even if they did not live there.

McKenna West, the surrogate currently fighting a battle in the Supreme Court to ensure the life and safety of the child she carried, is from Alaska and sought treatment for the baby from specialists in Texas. However, the intended parents are from California, which is where they want the baby transferred to.

Another surrogate engaged in a legal battle, Kyla Simpson, is from Florida, while the intended parent is Chinese; her twins were taken from her and are being cared for in California.

It is not clear if either surrogate was impregnated in California, as the CBS News investigation found.

The Bottom Line:

As attorney Melissa Brisman told CBS News, this is all possible because the fertility industry is extremely under-regulated.

"In most Americans' minds, it's completely unethical [for one set of parents] to have 20 surrogates going at the same time in different states without their knowledge.But there are no laws governing the number of surrogates intended parents can use," she said, adding, "You could open up an agency with $300 and an LLC certificate in most states."

Key Takeaways:

• In December 2024, Dr. Hassan-James Abbas of Toledo, Ohio, forced abortion pills into a woman he was dating.

• He used his estranged wife's information to order the pills online.

• In May, he pleaded no contest to four felony charges as part of a plea deal. Two other felony charges were dismissed.

• He was sentenced on September 11 to six months in jail, followed by two years probation.

The Backstory:

Live Action News previously reported the story of Hassan-James Abbas, a Toledo, Ohio, doctor who, despite being married, began a sexual relationship with a patient in October 2024. In December, the woman discovered she was pregnant. Abbas was not happy when she told him the news.

"I just told him that I took a test. I sent him a picture of it, you know, I was happy to talk to him about it and have a conversation," the woman said. "He called me on the phone and was screaming at me, just erratic behavior that I have never seen before."

The woman reported that on one occasion, she visited Abbas at his home, where he repeatedly offered her drinks. She refused, calling it unusual behavior. She then fell asleep, awaking to discover him on top of her, forcing a powdery substance, which she believed was the abortion pill, into her mouth.

When she tried to call 911, he took the phone from her and hung it up.

"I laid there and I went back and forth on if he was gonna kill me, you know. That was my biggest thought was that he was going to kill me," she said.

Several hours later, the woman was able to drive herself to the hospital.

It was later determined that Abbas had obtained the abortion pill online, using his estranged wife's information.

In December 2025, a Lucas County Grand Jury indicted Abbas on six felonies, including felony charges of abduction, unlawful distribution of an abortion-inducing drug, disrupting public services, deception to obtain a dangerous drug, identity fraud, and tampering with evidence.

In May, he pleaded no contest to four of the six felonies: disrupting public services, unlawful distribution of an abortion-inducing drug, identity fraud and deception to obtain a dangerous drug. It was part of a plea deal, which saw the felony charges of abduction and tampering with evidence dropped.

As explained by WTOL, "A no-contest plea is not an admission of guilt, but it allows the court to determine guilt based on the facts presented by prosecutors."

The Details:

On September 11, Judge Joseph McNamara sentenced Hassan to six months in prison, followed by two years of probation. During sentencing, he called Hassan's actions  “incredibly selfish and horrible," and dismissed the defense's claim that the woman had wanted an abortion.

“I’m glad you apologized to the victim, but the majority of your statement was about you and the impact this has had on you," he told Hassan. "...If the victim needed to have an abortion, she did not need you to use your wife’s identity to obtain the drugs for her.”

The Bottom Line:

Allowing mail-order abortion pills has resulted in an influx of women who have been victimized after abusive men ordered the abortion pills and then either forced, tricked, or coerced them into taking the pills against their will.

These situations will not stop until mail-order abortion pill distribution is outlawed.

Key Takeaways:

• California lawmakers have passed legislation that would require community colleges with student health centers to stock the abortion pill.

• The colleges would also be required to advertise the abortion pill.

• The bill follows a 2023 law requiring the state's public universities to carry the abortion pill. An estimated 1,700 abortions have been committed on campuses due to that law.

The Details:

Assembly Bill 2540 requires all community colleges with health centers to offer the abortion pill; those without student health centers will be required to refer students for off-campus abortions. It also stipulates that all universities offering the abortion pill will be required to “promote awareness of the services for abortion by medication techniques that the student health center offers, provide information on those services to students, and post the availability of those services on its internet website.” 

The legislation passed the state Assembly in May, and the Senate in August. On September 10, it was sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, who is expected to sign it.

If Newsom signs, the legislation will take effect in 2029.

Zoom In:

The bill follows a 2023 law requiring all state universities to provide the abortion pill to students.

The College Fix reports that, according to their recent analysis of data from the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, 1,700 abortions have been committed on California university campuses since that legislation went into effect.

Notably, the Health Services' Association of California Community Colleges does not support the new legislation.

As Live Action News previously reported:

In a letter to legislators, it said community college health centers do not prescribe the abortion pill, nor do they have sufficient staffing or the infrastructure that would be required to dispense the drugs.

Michelle Barkley, president of the association and a nurse at a community college, said that the health centers on community college campuses act as an entry point for students to receive health care referrals; they are not full-service clinics.

“Some of our campuses have 5,000 students,” she said. “Their health center is run by a single registered nurse."

Leandra Wells with the California Family Council testified against the bill in July, recounting her own experience as a pregnant college student.

“I was overwhelmed and afraid… This bill tells women that an abortion pill is the easiest solution, but fear is not a reason to end a life, and ending a life is not health care,” she said.

Wells got her degree three weeks after her son was born.

“This bill tells women they cannot have an education and be a mother, but we all know women are far more capable than that,” she said.

Key Takeaways:

• Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies America is working to lower the maternal morality rate and save moms and babies.

• Yet it promotes other organizations that actively support abortion and believe that pro-life laws increase maternal mortality.

The Details:

Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies America was founded by Tom and Olivia Walton; Tom is the grandson of Walmart founder Sam Walton.

It's a five-year commitment to combat high maternal mortality rates in the U.S., with a goal of cutting the rate in half by 2031.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 17.9 maternal deaths occurred per 100,000 live births in 2024 — slightly lower than the 2023 rate of 18.6. When broken down by state, the most recent data available are from 2019-2023, revealing that maternal mortality rates by state range from 10.1 to 42.1 per 100,000 live births.

What's important to remember is that this timeframe includes the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, when maternal mortality rates increased temporarily.

"For millions of moms in America, maternal health is bad and getting worse," Olivia Walton told the AP in an interview. "There’s just so much bipartisan consensus around wanting to fix this. I really think the political will is there and part of our job is to help surface that with an information campaign."

According to Fox 5 NY, Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies America hopes to fund improvements and encourage state governments to match its investments.

Dr. Neel Shah, president of the initiative, told the Associated Press that it will focus on expanding maternal health care in rural areas, training midwives, improving postpartum care, and helping states effectively implement plans to lower their maternal mortality rates.

Zoom In:

Working to lower the maternal mortality rate is vital for the health and safety of women and babies. The organization states on its website:

"Preventing maternal death takes a coalition. These organizations are leading the research, advocacy, and direct support that save lives every day. We're proud to share their work with our community — and encourage those who can to support them through donations and advocacy."

Unfortunately, several of those coalition organizations appear to promote induced abortion.

• Every Mother Counts was founded by Christy Turlington Burrs after she experienced a complication during childbirth. Her organization has invested millions to improve maternal health, but it is also a proponent of abortion. It lists "unsafe abortion" as an issue affecting maternal health and has claimed that "Abortion care IS healthcare." Despite <a href="/news/mainstream-media-overlooks-data-decrease-maternal-mortality">proof otherwise</a>, it claims that pro-life laws "have had devastating consequences."

• 4Kira4Moms helps families facing a maternal death and provides public education and legislative advocacy. It was founded by Charles Johnson IV in honor of his wife Kira. Johnson has publicly advocated for induced abortion as a 'right' and has worked alongside the Center for Reproductive Rights. He claims that abortion and a lower maternal mortality are connected.

• Chamber of Mothers, an organization that seeks to influence legislators, also claims that access to induced abortion improves maternal mortality rates.

• The March of Dimes states that it is neutral on abortion, but it has been connected to Planned Parenthood. While the organization denies a connection, it admitted that five local March of Dimes chapters gave local grants to the nation's most prolific abortion corporation, to reportedly be used "exclusively for prenatal education." The group has also reportedly supported some research that uses the remains of aborted children.

Why It Matters:

Legalized abortion does not directly reduce maternal mortality. In fact, after the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022, the maternal mortality rate dropped to pre-Covid numbers.

As Live Action News reported in 2023:

Dr. Calum Miller explained that the maternal mortality rate (MMR) — which looks at how many women die related to pregnancy — is a good indicator of how a nation is doing economically as well as how it cares for women. Malta, arguably the most pro-life nation in the world, has had zero maternal deaths from any cause in the last 12 years. Pro-life Poland also has a very low MMR.

An analysis of the maternal mortality rates of countries before and after they legalized abortion revealed that “the link between legal abortion and improved maternal mortality… is the reverse of what its advocates claim."

In fact, in the U.S. in 1971 and 1972, the maternal mortality rate was 18.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. After abortion was legalized in Roe v. Wade in 1972, the rate increased. By 2020, the rate had reached 23.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.

Meanwhile, a study published in JAMA Network Open found that the maternal mortality rates are falling in states that have strong pro-life protections as well as in states with pro-abortion laws. It analyzed data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia and found that pro-life laws do not increase the maternal mortality rate.

Key Takeaways:

• NICU nurse Brook Sifuentes had a baby girl, Autumn, who was cared for in a NICU nine years ago. As a result of her experiences, Sifuentes studied to become a NICU nurse, working at the same hospital that helped Autumn.

• Sifuentes isn't alone; other NICU moms have been so inspired that they, too, chose to pursue careers in nursing to help other NICU babies like their own children.

The Details:

According to a report from Fox San Antonio, Brook Sifuentes’ journey began unexpectedly when she was 28 weeks pregnant and attending a wedding two hours from home.

After sensing something was wrong with her pregnancy, she contacted her obstetrician and was instructed to get to the nearest hospital. Physicians determined her water had broken, and she remained hospitalized for several weeks.

At 33 weeks, her daughter Autumn was delivered and immediately admitted to the NICU.

Sifuentes stayed at Autumn's bedside, observing her newborn daughter surrounded by tubes and monitors, and observing the nurses to ask them questions so she could learn about the care her daughter needed.

Those days drove home Sifuentes' conviction that every child is valuable and resilient. This later shaped Sifuentes’ career.

After working for a decade as a licensed vocational nurse, Sifuentes returned to school to become a registered nurse with the goal of serving in neonatal intensive care.

Today, she works at Methodist Hospital in Westover Hills, where she uses her experience as a former NICU parent to support families navigating premature birth.

She explains procedures, answers questions, and reassures parents that they remain central to their baby’s care. Her personal story helps her advocate for the smallest patients and remind families that even the most fragile lives are worth fighting for.

Zoom Out:

Sifuentes isn't alone; some other NICU moms with similar experiences also felt led to help other NICU babies.

• Christine Parasram was not only born prematurely herself, but also had a daughter born prematurely who spent time in the NICU. Because she was so inspired by the demeanor and care of the NICU nurses in the hospital Parasram, who was a medical assistant at that time, decided to enroll in nursing school so she could help babies, too.

  “In the NICU, we see miracles every day," she said. "To work alongside a critical baby and to watch that baby grow and flourish and graduate and go home–it’s the best feeling ever. I can’t see myself doing anything different."

• Kim Meek experienced HELLP syndrome and had to deliver her daughter, Mary Farris, at 24 weeks. Because of the positive experience she had with the NICU staff during such a traumatic time and her and her daughter's lives, Meek enrolled in nursing school and now works at the very same NICU that helped her baby girl.

  “I work with tiny little fighters and get to witness miracles," she said. "These babies and their families have helped me heal. I am proud to be a NICU mom. I am honored to be a NICU nurse.”

The Bottom Line:

As for Sifuentes' daughter, Autumn, the once-tiny preemie is now nine years old, earning straight As and competing in gymnastics  She is a testament to the strength and potential present in every child from the very beginning.

Key Takeaways:

• A new analysis suggests infertile couples are quickly pushed toward in vitro fertilization rather than toward addressing the root causes of infertility.

• Insurance claims from five million patients were analyzed.

• The analysis found that patients rarely were given treatment based on common causes of infertility, such as endometriosis or low sperm count.

The Details:

A new retrospective insurance claims analysis conducted by researchers from the International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine (IIRRM) paints a different picture about how quickly infertile women and couples are ushered towards in vitro fertilization (IVF), and how little exploration is done of the leading (and potentially correctible) causes of male and female infertility and/or recurrent pregnancy loss. 

Act first, understand later

IIRRM researchers studied claims from five million commercially insured patients. Their goal was to answer a simple question: How consistently are guideline-recommended diagnostic and therapeutic steps completed before IVF in real-world practice?

Researchers examined whether appropriate diagnostic testing was run, effective medical treatments initiated, and time given for them to work before turning to IVF.

The study was not perfect, as no study is, because the claims analysis could not capture cash pay infertility interventions or testing done apart from procedures covered by insurance. However, the claims analysis revealed troubling information about the timeline and scope for infertility diagnosis and treatment relative to IVF. 

Lack of exploration and treatment of main causes of female infertility

Consistently, women did not receive evidence-based workups and medical interventions for reproductive conditions highly connected to female infertility — including endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), and high prolactin (hyperprolactinemia).

In a majority of cases, ASRM and the American Urological Association's (AUA) own protocols and guidelines were not followed before women and couples underwent costly, time-intensive, and invasive IVF procedures:

• Endometriosis: By month nine after the infertility diagnosis, among women suspected to have endometriosis, 78.8% had begun IVF, while only 11.6% had had an exploratory laparoscopy to confirm and treat the condition.

• PCOS: Many women with PCOS cannot conceive because they are not ovulating, but while 78.4% had begun IVF at nine months, just one in three (34.1%) had been prescribed first-line medication Letrozole to induce ovulation. In the same time frame, just 2.6% of women with PCOS had had second-line treatment laparoscopic ovarian surgery.

• Amenorrhea: Just 17.9% of women who were not having periods (amenorrhea) had had an AMH level tested, which ASRM calls a “core element” of hormonal evaluation, though 70% had begun IVF. 

Men didn’t receive adequate testing/treatment of reversible infertility factors

According to joint guidelines issued by the AUA and ASRM, an infertility workup for males should include, as summarized by the IIRRM study, “repeated semen analysis, endocrine evaluation with hormonal testing in selected populations, genetic and anatomic evaluation for men with azoospermia [no measurable sperm] or severe oligospermia [low sperm counts], assessment of sperm DNA integrity and karyotype in selected recurrent pregnancy loss populations, and treatment of clinically significant conditions such as varicocele when appropriate.” 

And yet, nine months after an infertility diagnosis:

• 72.9% of couples where the male partner had no measurable sperm had begun IVF, whereas only 20.8% of men had had karyotype testing to check for genetic causes of their azoospermia.

• Hormone testing amongst this same population topped out at 37.5% and 43.8%, respectively having basic blood testing of FSH and testosterone done.

• In men with a diagnosed varicocele (a fixable possible cause of male infertility), only 14.5% had had a varicocelectomy surgery nine months later, while 71.1% of female partners had started IVF.

• And among all men being worked up for infertility, only 7.8% had had the basic, bare minimum diagnostic testing of two (or more) semen analyses by nine months, whereas their female partners had begun IVF 79.8% of the time. 

Reality Check:

These significant gaps between evidence-based recommendations and the reality of care come even as surveys indicate that women and couples desire more options before or instead of IVF. 

“How it’s supposed to be” vs. reality

Certainly, there’s a profit motive for clinicians to recommend IVF and other assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures.

As Natural Womanhood explained, current medical coding fails to adequately reimburse RRM workups and procedures aimed at restoring natural function, compensating an 8-hour-long endometriosis excision surgery at the same rate as a 5-minute ablation of the visible endometriosis tissue on one organ. 

In reality, many health insurance companies have little or no coverage for proper infertility workups, leading some women and couples to go straight to IVF or other assisted reproductive technologies (ART) procedures, which are covered. And sometimes a woman’s OB/GYN or primary care doctor may have prescribed Letrozole, for instance, or ordered a semen analysis before the couple arrived at the fertility center’s doors.

Yet the claims analysis suggests that in many cases, root causes analysis and treatment is simply not happening. 

Aren’t IVF clinics just responding to the ticking biological clock?

One comment on the Natural Womanhood Facebook post about the IIRRM study implied that IVF centers are simply respecting the time-sensitive nature of women’s ticking biological clocks. 

The comment read, “People are not getting to the fertility center with time to spare for ‘root cause’ stuff.” Another commenter concurred, writing, “right. If you go to an academic medical center and want a thorough work up, you’ll get that! But if your priority is fertility ASAP and you go to an IVF clinic, that’s what you’re going to get. Money talks, and when so much of IVF is self-pay people put their money where their priorities are.”

But the perceived urgency of conceiving a yearned-for child is not the same thing as seeking out the emergency room in a hospital. 

Why a thorough infertility workup can take longer than IVF

It’s no secret that IVF, which overrides the system by bypassing diseased or poorly functioning tissues and organs, can sometimes produce a baby faster than a RRM approach, which methodically explores each of these areas and then seeks to restore healthy functioning where needed. 

Infertility is tricky in part because it often sits at the intersection of “reproductive, endocrine, metabolic, inflammatory, immunologic, anatomic, genetic and gamete specific factors,” as the IIRRM study noted.

Unsurprisingly, untangling the roles dysfunction in each system plays takes time, and this untangling needs to occur for both the female and the male partner. 

RRM vs. IVF

At the end of the day, RRM does not promise a baby, but strives to uncover and help heal dysfunction to the greatest extent possible.

This does not always lead to successful conception and a full-term pregnancy. But RRM doesn’t come with IVF’s health risks for moms and babies, which includes increasing risk of birth defects, childhood leukemia, low birth weight, cardiovascular issues and cerebral palsy, as well as doubling the risk of stillbirth, nor does it commodify human beings and lead to the creation of excess “unwanted” embryos or “selective reduction” abortion if “too many” babies survive implantation. 

The Bottom Line:

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” rings particularly true when it comes to infertility and IVF.

Restorative reproductive medicine’s approach of teaching body literacy and cycle charting for health to young girls entering puberty allows for identifying potential threats to infertility years, even decades, before six or even twelve months of “failed” pregnancy tests lands a woman in her OB/GYN’s office or an IVF center.  

Key Takeaways:

• A Vietnamese mother who went into labor on an international flight went into premature labor at 30 weeks.

• Five medical workers were on board and assisted in the birth of the preemie, who was under 3 lbs. at birth.

• The flight diverted to Myanmar for the mother and baby's care, and then resumed its flight to Vietnam.

• Mother and baby are said to be doing well.

The Details:

A Vietnamese mother who was around 25 years old welcomed her first child much earlier than she expected. On September 6 on Vietnam Airlines flight VN38, the woman began premature labor at 30 weeks of pregnancy.

Still three hours from Ho Chi Minh City, flight attendants made a call for help, and five volunteers who happened to be qualified medical workers came to assist.

The heroic medical staff included three Vietnamese doctors, including a cardiologist and a pediatrician, along with a foreign emergency doctor and a foreign nurse.

Dr. Ho Khanh Thanh, one of the medical staff who assisted, works for the General Planning Department of Cho Ray Hospital in Vietnam. 

As reported by DTi News, Dr. Thanh stated:

"At first, I thought she might be experiencing severe anxiety or a panic attack. But when I noticed strong contractions, I examined her and found that her waters had broken. I could also feel the baby's head."

The medical staff wasted no time in delivering the baby, who weighed only 1.3 kg (or 2.9 lbs).

"For a premature baby, the most important thing is to ensure a swift delivery. Any delay could increase the risk of respiratory complications," Dr. Thanh noted.

After about six to seven minutes, the baby was born and began breathing and crying. The medical crew used whatever supplies they could find onboard to keep the baby warm and placed the baby on the mother’s chest for skin-to-skin contact.

Using a string from a sterile mask, the staff tied off the umbilical cord.

For the medical stability of the mother and child, the Boeing 787 temporarily diverted to Yangon, Myanmar where the patients were rushed to the hospital and are now are reported to be safe and healthy.

The flight then refueled and continued its journey to Vietnam. 

The cabin crew praised the multilingual mother for her calm demeanor during the labor and her assistance in translating and communicating between the medical staff who delivered her baby. 

The Bottom Line:

Dr. Thanh remarked, “The most memorable thing was not just the baby being born under unusual circumstances, but also the calmness of the mother, the coordination of the flight crew, and the spirit of mutual support among everyone present."

West is attempting to ensure that Baby Gabriel/Rumi receives the life-saving care that he needs, which his genetic parents have not yet formally committed to giving him.

Key Takeaways:

• Surrogate McKenna West submitted an emergency supplemental brief to inform SCOTUS of recent developments in Texas courts that increase the urgency of its response to her recent request.

• That recent request asked the Supreme Court to put a stay on a California ruling that said West has no legal or physical claim to the baby she carried for nine months.

• After Justice Elena Kagan requested a response from the genetic parents by September 18, in regard to West's request for a pause on the California court's ruling, the guardian ad litem for the baby in Texas filed an emergency motion to modify the Texas court's previous order forcing the parents to provide the baby with life-saving care.

• If the California ruling is lifted, West hopes to again be a part of the Texas case so she can ensure the baby receives the medical care he needs.

The Backstory:

West was acting as a surrogate for a California couple when they began to pressure her to have an abortion after the baby boy was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious but treatable condition. West refused the abortion and sought treatment options for the baby instead, finding specialists to treat the condition with a high rate of success in Dallas, Texas.

Without the promise that the genetic parents would ensure the baby received life-saving care at birth, West decided to fight for custody in order to protect him. A court in Texas ordered that Baby Gabriel/Rumi needed to receive care and to remain in Texas for that specialized care, but now his genetic parents appear to be trying to have that ruling lifted.

After a California court ruled that West does not have the right to legal or physical custody of the baby, a Texas court dismissed her from the case that originally ruled Baby Gabriel/Rumi must remain in Texas for the life-saving surgeries.

Without West's ability to defend that decision and protect the baby, the ruling is susceptible to reversal. This led West to file a request to the SCOTUS to lift that California court's ruling, allowing her to be put back on the Texas case.

The Details:

According to the newest brief, West explained that "relief was urgently needed because Respondents N.G. and O.A. could attempt to remove Baby G. from the hospital as soon as September 17, 2026. However, that date appears to have been too conservative, and an administrative stay is now needed by 1:00 EST tomorrow."

N.G. and O.A. are Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, the genetic parents of the baby. West learned on Monday that after Justice Elena Kagan requested a response from the genetic parents by September 18, in regard to West's request for a pause on the California court's ruling, the guardian ad litem for the baby in Texas filed an emergency motion to modify the Texas court's previous order forcing the parents to provide the baby with life-saving care.

The genetic parents have joined that motion "to remove Baby G. from the hospital and from the State of Texas," according to West's brief.

"At the urging of the Commissioning Parties, the Texas court has set the hearing on the guardian ad litem’s motion for tomorrow, September 15, at 2:30 pm EDT," reads the brief. "Because [West] has been dismissed from that case with prejudice, the Commissioning Parties are maintaining that [West] may not be heard in connection with their request. That is one of the core irreparable harms described in the Application."

West is renewing her request for "an immediate administrative stay to preserve the child's life, the status quo, and this Court's jurisdiction."

The appeals court set a due date for Liberty Counsel’s opening brief in the appeal for October 19. 

The case is about whether the Virginia government followed the proper legal process to place House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR 1) on the ballot. HJR 1 aims to establish a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” in the Virginia Constitution. In July 2026, Campbell County Circuit Court John T. Cook signed an order dismissing the challenge citing the unfollowed procedural rules in the constitutional amendment process were not actually mandatory and have since been repealed.

Liberty Counsel represents Charla Bansley, District 3 Supervisor for the Bedford County Board of Supervisors, who argues that the case raises issues of exceptional public importance regarding the validity of the proposed “Reproductive Freedom Amendment.”

Bansley had requested the appeals court send the case directly to the Virginia Supreme Court without appellate review to prevent the amendment, which might be declared null and void on appeal, from becoming part of the state constitution after the November 2026 vote but before a final judicial decision is rendered. 

In the lawsuit, Bansley claims the ballot initiative is invalid after discovering Virginia’s House of Delegates missed several key procedural steps mandated by the Virginia Constitution before the amendment can go before the voters, such as distributing the amendment to all circuit court clerks statewide and posting it for public inspection three months prior to the 2025 House of Delegates election.

The lawsuit names as defendants Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates G. Paul Nardo; Commissioner of Elections Steven Koski; and other Virginia election offices and officials. Bansley is asking the court to block election officials from printing 2026 ballots with HJR 1 and to order its amendment process be restarted for the 2027-2028 legislative and election cycles. 

In January 2026, the state appeals court sent a legal challenge regarding a different proposed amendment on constitutional redistricting to the state supreme court without appellate review. The Virginia Supreme Court later ruled the amendment was invalid due to similar constitutional deficiencies. 

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said:

“This case will likely go to the Virginia Supreme Court after appellate review is completed. Virginia’s House Joint Resolution 1 is invalid because the General Assembly advanced it to a second legislative vote without completing the constitutionally mandated notice and posting requirements that must occur after its first passage.

The Virginia Supreme Court in 2026 has already declared invalid a different proposed amendment for failing to follow proper constitutional amendment procedures. Voters deserve certainty on a state constitutional amendment before an election, not after.” 

Key Takeaways:

• The Reproductive Health Access Project is offering a year-long abortion training fellowship to primary care doctors in four locations.

• There will be eight fellows in four states (Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York) who will be trained at a 'high-volume abortion site.'

• Fellows will be paid $77,049 to $105,447 and will receive a meal allowance, health insurance, and 28 vacation days.

The Details:

According to Campus Reform, the fellowship exists to train family physicians to commit abortions and to teach abortion procedures to others. The Reproductive Health Care & Advocacy Fellowship "aims to develop leaders who will promote and teach full-spectrum women's reproductive health care within primary care, specifically to underserved populations."

In other words, the fellowship intends to train primary care doctors — not OB/Gyns — to commit abortions on groups of people that abortion advocates believe should and need to be having more abortions.

There will be eight fellows per state in four states: Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York. Those approved for the fellowship can expect to receive $77,049 to $105,447 in fiscal year 2027, along with health insurance, a meal allowance, and 28 vacation days. According to the website, fellows spend the year learning to commit abortion procedures and train others to do the same at a "high-volume abortion site."

Campus Reform reviewed federal tax filings and found that from 2020 to 2023, the University of Michigan received $69,652 from the Reproductive Health Access Project. The project also gave tens of thousands of dollars to Rutgers University and the University of Washington for similar abortion training projects.

Dr. Christina Francis, an obstetrician-gynecologist and chief executive officer of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told Campus Reform:

"The euphemistically named ‘Reproductive Health Care’ fellowship at the University of Michigan only provides training in one thing a normal family medicine residency wouldn’t: performing induced abortions which intentionally end the lives of our fetal patients.

It is deeply concerning that a public university such as The U of M has chosen to blur the lines between abortion and actual care for pregnant women.”

She noted that the Hippocratic Oath "forbids intentionally ending the lives of our patients, including by induced abortion."

Why It Matters:

Induced abortion is not health care. It is the direct and intentional killing of a preborn human being, an act that is <a href="/news/pro-life-replies-abortion-never-medically-necessary">never necessary</a>. Fellowships like this train doctors to be merchants of death under the guise of health care and with the promise of making money off of vulnerable women.

Key Takeaways:

• Actor Christian Bale worked with a team to build Together California, a community designed to keep siblings in foster care together.

• The 11,000 square foot community is in Palmdale, California, and includes a dozen furnished homes, two studio apartments, and a community center.

• Foster parents will move in to the homes with the sole focus on caring for the children.

The Details:

On Friday, Bale attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony for Together California in Palmdale, an 11,000-square-foot campus that includes 12 furnished homes, two studio apartments for young people aging out of foster care, and a community center. Programs will also be offered to help support and care for the children.

There are as many as 36,000 foster children in California, and children in foster care are often separated from their siblings. Together California hopes to change that.

“It’s our job to turn their heartbreak and their pain into love and hope and a sense of future,” Bale told ABC 7. 

The Austrian American Council West helped raise nearly $9 million and the 4.7 acre parcel of land was acquired from the Los Angeles County and the City of Palmdale. Bale started Together California with Dr. Eric Esrailian, who said County Supervisor Kathryn Barger helped bring it into existence.

"I guarantee you this project is going to change the trajectory of each and every child that steps foot on this campus," said Barger.

The executive director of Together California, Tim McCormick, told ABC 7 that the community is a "place where everyone is welcomed, a place that keeps families together, a place that creates community, a place where you can find hope in the most challenging of times."

What's Happening Now:

Now that the ribbon has been cut, children will begin moving in next month.

"Perhaps the greatest legacy we can leave," said Austrian American Council West President Veronika Renelt, "is not that our names will be remembered, but that children's lives are better because we cared."

Key Takeaways:

• The UK defeated another bill aimed at legalizing assisted suicide on Friday.

• The win was credited to the countless pro-life advocates who wrote to MPs urging them to vote against the bill.

• The day after the vote, pro-lifers gathered to both celebrate and prepare to prevent future efforts to legalize assisted death.

The Details:

During the vigil, the square become a living tapestry of pro-life witness, with pro-life placards and banners reading: 

• “Safeguards won’t save you. Stop the bill.”

• “NHS: It’s cradle to the grave. Not ‘til old, inconvenient, or expensive!”

• “Assist us in living, not dying.” 

Those present included members of Care Not Killing, including Dr. Gordon McDonald and Dr. Gillian Wright, who spoke with quiet authority about the dangers of normalizing assisted suicide. 

Michael Robinson, Executive Director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), affirmed that the right to life does not expire with age or illness. Representatives from Christian Concern and CitizenGO moved through the crowd, providing words of encouragement regarding the importance of all human lives. 

The breadth of the gathering was particularly noteworthy, as those who gathered hailed from all walks of life. Amid the chants and conversations, two voices cut through the noise with particular clarity. 

Alicia Duncan told the story of her mother, who had chosen euthanasia in Canada under that country’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) regime. She said:

“As a Canadian who’s seeing the repercussions of weak legislation with regard to assisted dying laws, I think it's important to share my family's experiences with the United Kingdom and parliamentarians. My mom ended her life through Canada's medical assistance in dying regime in 2021; she was not terminal, and now we understand that she was suffering from a lifelong pattern of disordered eating, and her self-starvation and frailty were enough evidence for two assessors to end her life.

It's really troubling to see the United Kingdom put forward a bill that shares similar gaps in safeguards that Canada has, and so I am here to share my family’s experience and hopefully make some change in how people think of assisted dying legislation.”

Then there was Angelina Ireland, cancer survivor and director of the Delta Hospice Society in British Columbia. She told Live Action News that Vancouver authorities evicted her organization from its building for refusing to participate in euthanasia — a stark illustration of what could happen in Britain if conscience protections were undermined. 

“We chose to serve life,” Ireland declared, “and we were punished for it.”

Likewise, Dr. Mark Pickering of Christian Medical Fellowship remarked: 

“One of the main reasons that most people can get behind opposing this bill today is that our prime minister said that palliative care is not in a sufficient state, and therefore to talk about the choice about the end of life is a misnomer, because people don’t have a choice.

If we were in a situation where people had access to good-quality palliative care, then I think there would be far fewer reasons for assisted dying.” 

A participant in the protest, who wanted to be known only as Victoria, told Live Action News:

“I don’t think people realize the long-term implications of passing this bill. I think it would be a turning point as I work with mentally ill and vulnerable people. I have been with people at their deathbeds, and I have seen the difference good palliative care makes, and I don't think assisted suicide and making someone else a murderer are the answers to difficult situations.” 

As the hour of the vote approached, the atmosphere thickened with silent prayers. When the news finally broke, the bill was defeated with 286 voting against and 270 voting for — a wave of relief and gratitude surged through pro-lifers.

Following the vote, Archbishop John Sherrington, the lead bishop for life issues for the bishops’ conference, voiced his gratitude towards “those who wrote to their MPs to stop the bill’s progression and who assisted the campaign against the bill in other ways.” 

Additionally, the pro-life organization Precious Life wrote on its Facebook page:

“Today we are thankful that the Assisted Suicide Bill was defeated in Westminster by 286 votes to 270. Thank you to everyone who prayed, contacted their MPs and stood up for the value and dignity of every human life. Every life is precious. Every life is worth protecting.”

Yet, the real work, as many said, was just beginning: to ensure that palliative care is universal, that hospices are supported, and that no one ever feels so abandoned that death seems like the only solution forward. 

What's Happening Now:

The following day, numerous speakers and participants from the SPUC London 2026 conference acknowledged that, although the legislative threat had been removed for now, the cultural work was far from over.

Michael Robinson explained:

“It’s a victory for every vulnerable person in our country, and for everyone who refused to remain silent, everyone who wrote to their MPs and prayed. We can also learn from this victory; we proved yesterday that laws can be stopped and minds can be changed.

Yes, we must celebrate, but that does not give us permission to rest. The day will come when we become an unstoppable force that cannot and would not be stopped.” 

Refusing to rest on the pro-life camp’s laurels after the victorious results, Bernadette Smyth of Precious Life noted, “We always refuse to remain silent, because silence helps the perpetuator, not the victim. We need to guard against apathy, as evil triumphs because good people become tired."

Key Takeaways:

• Blaise Taylor murdered his girlfriend, Jade Benning, in 2023, by poisoning her with cocaine.

• Benning, who was five months pregnant at the time, delivered prematurely. Her daughter, Ivy, also died.

• In July, Taylor was convicted of second-degree murder and first-degree felony murder during the commission of a felony in Benning's death, and first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder during the commission of a felony in Ivy's death.

• He was sentenced on September 9 to two life terms, plus an additional 22 years in prison.

The Backstory:

Blaise Taylor began dating Jade Benning in 2022. When Benning became pregnant, Taylor pressured her to abort the baby, but she refused.

"I'm going to tell him today that I'm not having the abortion… so he can just get it out of his head," Benning wrote in a text message to a friend.

The couple eventually split up, but Taylor asked Benning to reconcile in early 2023.

On February 25, Taylor called 911 with a report that Benning had suffered an allergic reaction and needed medical assistance. She was five months pregnant at the time. She was rushed to the hospital where her daughter, Ivy, was delivered prematurely. Ivy died two days later, while Benning died on March 6, 2023 — her 25th birthday.

On the night she fell ill, Benning had called a friend, Nijaiha Jackson. Over the phone, Jackson could hear Benning accuse Taylor of putting something in her drink to poison her. By the time Jackson raced to Benning's home, Benning was unconscious.

“She immediately starts saying, ‘What did you do? What did you put in my drink?’ Then I heard her say, ‘Blaise, you’re scaring me,’” Jackson testified during the trial. “He said, ‘You’re scaring me.’ And she was like, ‘I know you put something in my drink. … I knew my drink tasted funny. … You did this so something would happen to the baby.’”

Investigators later determined that Taylor had poisoned Benning with a high amount of cocaine in her lemonade. During the trial, medical examiner Erin Carney testified that the level of cocaine in Benning's system was far higher than anything she had seen before.

"I could not recall anything this high," Carney said. "The circumstances surrounding [Benning's] ingestion of cocaine were very concerning, that she ingested this unknowingly. Acute cocaine toxicity caused Miss Benning to die."

The Details:

In July, Taylor was convicted of second-degree murder and first-degree felony murder during the commission of a felony in Benning's death, and first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder during the commission of a felony in the death of their unborn child.

On September 9, he was sentenced to two consecutive life terms, plus an additional 22 years, for killing Benning and her child. Letitia Quinones-Hollins, Taylor’s attorney, said she plans to appeal the sentence.

“We are extremely disappointed but not surprised by the harsh sentence,” she told PEOPLE. “It was a flawed trial of a tenuous case, and we will appeal and look forward to doing so.”

The Bottom Line:

Homicide is a leading cause of death among pregnant women. According to researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, women in the U.S. who are pregnant or who have recently given birth are more likely to die by homicide than to die from obstetric causes.

Key Takeaways:

• PPWI has filed a lawsuit to overturn Wisconsin's 24-hour waiting period before an abortion and a requirement that only physicians can commit abortions.

• The organization claims the laws violate a woman's constitutional right to liberty.

• Pro-life groups in the state have promised to fight the lawsuit.

The Details:

PPWI filed its lawsuit against the state on September 10, arguing that two abortion laws violate a woman's right to liberty and bodily autonomy:

• It maintains that non-physicians, like nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives, should be allowed to commit abortions due to an alleged shortage of doctors willing to commit them in the state.

• The abortion organization also maintains that a 24-hour waiting period, which requires a woman to visit an abortion facility twice in order to receive an abortion, poses an unnecessary hardship for women.

"The Wisconsin Constitution begins by declaring that all people are born equally free and independent, and possess inherent rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," said Tanya Atkinson, the president and CEO of PPWI. "This case asks our court to recognize what we believe that promise means: that our constitutional freedom includes the ability to make deeply personal decisions about our reproductive health care without unnecessary government interference."

The Big Picture:

Abortion is a life-altering decision for a woman and a life-ending decision for their children, which is why some states like Wisconsin require a 24-hour waiting period before she can access abortion. This waiting period is meant to ensure she has all the information she needs about the procedure and has informed consent about the process.

The procedure also carries many risks, including incomplete abortion, hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation, cervical laceration, and even death. Requiring that a licensed physician carry out this risky procedure is a common-sense measure meant to protect women from injury.

What's Happening Now:

Pro-life groups in the state have promised to fight the lawsuit.

“A woman is making a life and death decision for her unborn child,” said Wisconsin Right to Life executive director, Heather Weininger. “Maybe she goes and gets the information. Maybe she goes back and does continue with the abortion, but now they’re not leaving any availability to the woman.”

Katie Cain, the legislative and policy director of Wisconsin Family Action, noted the irony of PPWI's attempt to remove doctors from the abortion procedure.

"Abortion activists want Wisconsinites to believe abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor—but apparently this is another lie from the abortion industry that is seeking to remove physicians from the abortion process," she said.

The Bottom Line:

While every woman does have a constitutional right to liberty, there is never a right to kill another human being — even if that human being is preborn. The very first right, the one upon which all others hinge, is the right to life.

Key Takeaways:

• Pro-abortion University of New Mexico administrators are partnering with state officials to construct a second state-funded abortion facility in the state.

• The first facility, under construction in Las Cruces, was paid for by $10 million in state funding.

• The second facility would be backed by 'another $10 million appropriation from a year ago,' according to the UNM Health Sciences Center CEO.

The Backstory:

In 2022, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed an executive order directing the Department of Finance and Administration to designate $10 million for a state-funded abortion facility. It also directed the state Department of Health to "leverage State resources to expand access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion in underserved areas of the state.”

According to NMAFL, during the 2025 legislation, pro-abortion Democrats made a "last-minute move to insert language to fund a 'reproductive health center in Northern New Mexico' into HB 450, the capital outlay funding bill. Legislators were given less than 24 hours' notice of the highly controversial line-item addition that was ultimately rammed through the legislature despite public outcry." The bill ultimately passed both the House and Senate, and the 2026 legislation amended it to allow the purchase of a property for a $10 million abortion facility paid for by the state.

Now the pro-abortion legislators appear to be looking to set up the second state-funded abortion facility.

The Details:

According to NMAFL, during a UNM Board of Regents meeting earlier this year, Christopher Arndt, M.D., the interim president and CEO of the UNM Health Sciences Center, said, "And we are looking for the best locations to potentially build a like-minded clinic with another $10 million appropriation from a year ago in northern New Mexico. After discussions with the state of New Mexico, it was found that Las Vegas, New Mexico, would be the ideal location for that."

Elisa Martinez, executive director of NMAFL said she is not surprised that Las Vegas would be the chosen location for the second facility.

“It is no surprise the pro-abortion activists are targeting Las Vegas, New Mexico. With two college campuses and a central role in northern New Mexico, this community puts them within reach of young women facing unexpected pregnancies,” she said. "Just as they tried to sneak the funding for their abortion project through the legislature, pro-abortion activists are now hiding details of their plans to expand their abortion empire to Las Vegas — proof of how deeply unpopular and controversial this plan remains.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​"

The Bottom Line:

New Mexico has no limits on abortion, and is setting itself up to be the "back alley abortion clinic" of Texas, where most preborn children are protected from abortion, said Mike Seibel, Senior Counsel for Abortion on Trial, in 2022. He noted that at the time, "New Mexicans don’t want abortion. We have one of the lowest in-state abortion rates in the country and it's at about seven percent."

Key Takeaways:

• The Trump administration is drafting a rule that would give stay-at-home parents $9,000 from a program meant to help cover the cost of childcare.

• The proposal is heavily backed by Vice President JD Vance.

• One proponent said its her 'favorite' Trump administration policy.

• Opponents say the proposal idea is vulnerable to fraud, incentivizes parents not to work, and is 'socialism.'

The Details:

The Trump administration is drafting a rule that could allow some stay-at-home parents to receive approximately $9,000 annually per child. Under the “stay-at-home parent child care subsidy proposal,” a married couple could qualify for the funding if one spouse is caring for children at home and the other is working at least 35 hours per week. The family would also have to meet income requirements that vary by state.

As it stands now, families are able to apply for federal funds to subsidize their childcare costs through the Child Care and Development Fund. The fund, started by the Clinton administration, gives families $9,000 per child per year to cover day care costs. According to a ConsumerAffairs analysis, "[T]he average cost of daycare is $14,000 annually — more than 14% of the median family pretax income and twice the seven percent affordability benchmark set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services." The Child Care and Development Fund money is paid directly to the day care facilities and is meant to help low- and moderate-income parents afford child care. Some of that funding would be allocated to qualifying families in lieu of funding for daycare.

The proposed subsidy would take some of that funding and give it directly to stay-at-home parents. Vice President JD Vance is behind the proposal.  Vance has long been a vocal proponent for traditional family values. In a 2021 Wall Street Journal article titled “Biden’s Daycare Plan Is Bad for Families,” Vance was quoted as saying, “Young children are clearly happier and healthier when they spend the day at home with a parent.”

The New York Times reported, “The policy change would effectively create a government incentive for parents to stay home with their children, an idea embraced as part of a broader conservative effort to advance policies that promote more mothers staying at home.”

Fox News host, Rachel Campos-Duffy — who is married to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy — called it her "favorite policy, like ever, that President Trump has brought." She added, "The money set aside to pay for childcare is going, right now, to day care centers and to women who are unmarried, and it incentivizes people not to get married in order to get this money, and now, this says, 'No, if you're an at-home mom, you're working too, and you're gonna get a piece of that money, too.' I think it really sends a powerful philosophical message."

But while supporters of the proposed funding argue that it's unfair for two-income families using commercial daycare to get subsidies while parents who sacrifice a second income to stay home with their children don't, not everyone is behind this policy proposal, with some calling it "socialism." Campos-Duffy's Fox News co-host Lawrence Jones said, "It's definitely a political winner. I see what the president is doing, but I think it's a terrible idea. It's socialism. Just give me the money! Just give me more of my money.... Just lower my taxes."

In addition, concerns about the sharing of funds and the possibility of fraudulent claims have been raised.

The Bottom Line:

The proposal has not been enacted and is still in the drafting phase. Once completed, it would likely require White House approval and then would be up for a public comment period before finalization. If this proposal goes through, a 2027 effective date is expected. 

Key Takeaways:

• Indiana's Senate Bill 1 took effect in 2023, protecting nearly all preborn children from abortion.

• The ACLU sued on behalf of five women and Hoosier Jews for Choice, claiming the law violates religious freedom.

• A temporary injunction was placed on the law, followed by a permanent block earlier this year, which the state appealed, sending the legal battle to the state Supreme Court.

• The Indiana Supreme Court has begun hearing arguments; its decision could set the precedent to create a religious "right" to abortion across the country.

The Backstory:

In 2022, the Indiana General Assembly passed Senate Bill 1 (SB1), protecting most preborn children from abortion, albeit with exceptions included for the life or health of the mother, rape or incest, and when the child is expected to die during pregnancy or at birth. The ACLU quickly sued to block the law, acting on behalf of five women, as well as Hoosier Jews for Choice, claiming that the law violated the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Yet according to the lawsuit, at least one plaintiff has no religious affiliation or established belief:

Anonymous Plaintiff 2 does not belong to a specific religious tradition but has personal religious and spiritual beliefs that guide her life, including her moral and ethical practices.

She does not believe in a single, theistic god, but believes that there is within the universe a supernatural force or power that connects all humans and is larger than any individual person. She believes this could be described as a universal consciousness, and because of this connectedness through a supernatural force, she believes all humans are directed to act in a manner that promotes and does not harm other humans or this community of humanity.

One of her central spiritual beliefs is that people are endowed with bodily autonomy that should not be infringed upon. To do so constitutes a spiritual and moral wrong and inhibits the full expression of a person’s humanity.

Aside from the hypocrisy of killing preborn children while also claiming that humans are directed to never hurt other humans, this vague description hardly qualifies as "religious beliefs," and seemingly exists solely to create the widest loophole possible. Accepting this as a "religious belief" would essentially open the door to any woman being able to claim she should be allowed to have an abortion, with vague and meaningless spiritualized language used as a justification.

In December of 2022, Marion County Superior Court Judge Heather Welch ruled in favor of the ACLU and placed a temporary injunction against the law. The state of Indiana appealed the ruling, but an appeals court agreed with Welch, upholding the injunction.

Marion County Superior Court Judge Christina R. Klineman issued a permanent injunction against SB1 in March of 2026, but narrowed the injunction to apply only to those who claim the law violates their religious beliefs. The state filed another appeal, and the Indiana Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

The Details:

Arguments have begun in the closely watched case, as the Indiana Supreme Court decision could set a precedent either finding a religious "right" to abortion or confirming that there is none.

ACLU Legal Director Ken Falk argued before the justices that it is improper to allow exceptions for rape, incest, and health, but not religion. "It just diminishes religion to somehow require religious exceptions to take a backseat to secular ones," Falk said.

Indiana Solicitor General James Barta argued that none of the women are pregnant and therefore don't have standing. Yet Falk hit back, saying the law is causing the plaintiffs injury.

“The individual plaintiffs in this case are two women whose sincere religious beliefs have compelled them in the past to obtain abortions, but are no longer able to obtain such religiously required abortions because of Indiana’s abortion law,” Falk said. “Because of this they have been forced to change their behaviors today, in the most personal and fundamental ways, to avoid pregnancies they would not be able to terminate even when religiously required.”

Meanwhile, Josh Blackman, an attorney with the coalition and professor at the South Texas College of Law, told the Jerusalem Post there is no specific Jewish teaching about abortion. “From a theological perspective, it’s hard to say what is the single Jewish teaching on abortion," he said.

He added, “At a time when there’s growing hostility between people on the right and Jews, I'm not sure this is the best use of Jewish resources. This could actually backfire in significant ways.”

However, Cecily Routman, MSW of the Jewish Pro-Life Foundation, explained, "Jewish abortion advocates and their confederates have reconstructed Judaism into their image of a baby killing cult deserving constitutional protections. This deceit provides cover for scurrilous charges of anti-semitism and racism targeted at Christian pro-life activists and educators, and in legal challenges to life saving legislation." She further noted:

Judaism prohibits destroying the life of innocent children in the womb, permitting it (not requiring it, as some falsely claim) only in very rare cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother’s physical life. Today, this situation occurs in less than 1% of cases. Every pro-life law includes this exception. This fact invalidates the claim that legal protections for unborn citizens threaten Jewish religious practice. Judaism believes every life is precious and that God has a plan for each of us. Every person has value from conception to natural death.

[LAN Editor’s Note: Abortion — the intentional killing of a preborn child — is not medically necessary, as life-respecting alternatives are available.]

The Bottom Line:

The Indiana Supreme Court has not given a timeline of when it will rule on the case.

Key Takeaways:

• Nat and Nik Fraser-Edwards used a sperm donor to undergo in vitro fertilization, and gave birth to a son, who turned one last month. They have five remaining embryos frozen.

• Samantha Beesley and Carly Estlick are expecting their first child using a sperm donor, and had 10 embryos remaining.

• The sperm donors they used have now withdrawn consent for future use, meaning the embryos who already exist will be destroyed.

• The couples are calling for the law to be changed.

The Backstory:

Nik and Nat Fraser-Edwards used Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), a specialized kind of in vitro fertilization (IVF), and created at least six embryos. They gave birth to a son, Jude, who turned one this summer. Their remaining five embryos were frozen in storage for potential future use.

Sam Beesley and Carly Estlick also used a sperm donor to do IVF, and are expecting their first child. They have 10 embryos currently frozen.

The Details:

Both couples were given notices that the sperm donors they used to father their children had withdrawn consent. This means the sperm can no longer be used and any embryos created will be destroyed. Nat said they were blindsided.

"It was very much, 'unfortunately your donor has withdrawn his consent to use your embryos,'" she explained. "They said, 'we keep them for a cooling off period of a year and' - I think the hardest word for us was - 'we then allow them to perish.' We were absolutely floored. Yes, we'd signed something. But we didn't ever recall it being verbally said."

The same happened to Sam and Carly, with the embryos they created slated to be destroyed next year.

"When we got the letter saying he had withdrawn consent, it felt like the wind was taken out of our sails," Sam said. "We had been so focussed on the pregnancy and something going wrong, I don't think it's really sunk in yet. Carly is already grieving. In her head, they've already been destroyed. Whereas until that day in 2027, I will not stop fighting."

In the meantime, Sam said she worries the stress will affect her current pregnancy.

"I did have some reduced movements the other day and had to go to hospital. You can't help thinking, is this going to be ripped away from us as well?" she said. "This is probably our only shot at being parents. I don't know how we could afford to go through it again financially, emotionally, physically."

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the UK regulatory agency which oversees the fertility industry, said the issue is one of respect for a donor's autonomy, but that the government must change the law to prevent such situations from happening.

"It's about each person who provides an egg or sperm having that autonomy to consent and make that decision to whether they're happy for a child to be born in treatment," Rachel Cutting, HFEA's director of compliance, said. "Once the embryos in the uterus, in the woman's womb, there can't be a withdrawal of consent for that. The way that the law is written is that consent can be withdrawn from up to that point. We can look at it further, but it is for the law to be changed and that's not something within the power that the HFEA has. We can't change the law. But we are sympathetic to cases like this."

Why It Matters:

The issue of frozen embryos is widespread in the fertility industry. An estimated one million embryos are frozen in the United States alone. Each frozen embryo is a unique and distinct human person in the earliest stages of development. Yet countless embryos are left frozen in storage indefinitely until the would-be parent decides to use them, as if they are a product to be taken off a store shelf. This is one of the many moral and ethical issues related to IVF.

There are 15 embryos slated to be destroyed between these two couples alone. While they are rightly upset that the embryos are being destroyed against their will, the question remains as to whether or not they planned to welcome six to 11 children respectively. Most of the embryos created in an IVF cycle will not survive to birth, and those considered to be extras will be destroyed, frozen, or donated as if they are products.

Even when speaking about the baby they are currently expecting, Sam said, "..[I]s this going to be ripped away from us as well?" The focus appears to be on the adults' loss rather than the disrespectful dehumanizing of human embryos and preborn children.

These children were created in a lab to be intentionally kept from and raised without a father in order to fulfill the desires of adults. But then when the fathers decided they no longer 'happy for their children to be born,' the law allows those embryos to be destroyed to protect his autonomy. No thought is given to the bodily autonomy or rights of the children.

According to a report released by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), "The total number of lives lost as a result of IVF is now surpassing the number of lives lost to induced, elective abortion each year."

And while this may be ignored by the fertility industry, the scientific data is clear: from the earliest moment of development, even before reaching the embryonic stage, these are human beings. The new baby's sex, hair color, eye color, and countless other traits are already determined at fertilization, and her DNA makes her unique from every other human being who has ever existed or will ever come into existence.

And yet she will being treated like a product that can be designed, created, bought, sold, and thrown away at will.

Key Takeaways:

• Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy signed Senate Bill 9 on September 9.

• The bill allows the use of infant devices like safe haven baby boxes for infant surrender.

• Under the state's safe haven law, infants 21 days or younger may be surrendered if parents feel unable to care for them.

The Details:

Senate Bill 9 expands the state's safe haven law to allow for safe haven baby boxes. Often placed within hospitals, police stations, or fire stations, safe haven baby boxes allow for anonymous surrender of an infant parents feel unable to care for. In Alaska, parents may surrender a child 21 days or younger.

The bill was sponsored by Senator Robb Myers, who noted that it offers more options for parents in crisis.

“Safe surrender laws are a tool to help save lives,” Myers said after the bill's passage in May. “SB 9 puts another tool in the kit to help parents in crisis and keep babies in safe environments instead of the side of the road.”

Dunleavy signed the bill at a fire station in North Pole, surrounded by first responders and some of the lawmakers who made the bill possible.

Rep. Frank Tomaszewski, the bill's House sponsor, also praised its passage.

This is about choosing compassion, safety and life,” Tomaszewski said in a statement. “We want to make sure that when someone makes the courageous decision to surrender a newborn safely, there are clear, accessible and dependable systems in place to protect that child and get them the care they need.”

Zoom In:

Though the legislation allows for the use of any infant safety device that meets the necessary qualifications, those most typically used are from the Safe Haven Baby Box organization.

These 'boxes' include a climate controlled bassinet often installed in the side of a building. After the child is placed inside, the door automatically locks and a silent alarm is triggered, alerting emergency authorities. Within minutes, those responders retrieve the child. The baby may be temporarily placed with a foster family and/or with an adoptive family.

The Bottom Line:

Monica Kelsey, founder of the Safe Haven Baby Box Organization, was in Alaska to celebrate the bill's signing. She noted that Alaska is the 27th state to now allow the use of baby boxes for infant surrenders.

"We have saved over 300 babies through our Baby Boxes and the Baby Box hotline," she noted, adding that her organization is "all about saving moms and babies."

Key Takeaways:

• Abdullah Mohmand of Kentucky has been indicted on first-degree attempted fetal homicide for allegedly replacing his pregnant girlfriend's medication with a drug that can induce abortion.

• The woman told police that her progesterone pills were replaced with another drug, and she was worried about her baby.

• She said Mohmand had previously instructed her to have an abortion.

• An empty misoprostol bottle and a FedEx package, addressed to the woman but sent to Mohmand's apartment, were found by police.

• Misoprostol is the second drug used in the abortion pill regimen, meant to cause contractions and expel the preborn child.

• Mohmand is scheduled to be arraigned on September 28.

The Details:

According to reports, Abdullah Mohmand, 27, faces a Class B felony for allegedly swapping out his girlfriend's medication with misoprostol, the second drug of the abortion pill regimen. Misoprostol causes the uterus to contract and expel the baby.

If convicted, Mohmand faces up to 20 years in prison. He is also charged with violating a protective order, and is not to have any contact with the woman.

The unnamed woman went to the local hospital on May 25, telling doctors that her prescribed progesterone, which supports the developing preborn child by maintaining the uterine lining, had been replaced with misoprostol.

Women with a history of miscarriage who have early pregnancy bleeding have often been prescribed progesterone in an effort to increase the chances of a live birth.

She told Kentucky State Police that Mohmand had demanded she have an abortion, saying that his family in Afghanistan would kill him if she were to have his baby. She expressed that she feared for her baby after noticing the pills were switched.

According to Detective Aaron Hampton, in a search of Mohmand's apartment, police found an empty bottle of misoprostol and directions on how to use it to cause an abortion. They also located the FedEx envelope that the drug was shipped in to his apartment using his girlfriend's name.

Why It Matters:

Increased access to abortion drugs under the Biden Administration has made it possible for people with ill intentions to order the drugs online and then trick or force a pregnant woman into taking them.

As Mohmand allegedly did, men can order abortion drugs and then secretly administer them to the baby's mother, killing the baby (and hoping she thinks she's having a miscarriage). This story is not an outlier. Other cases include:

• April 2022: Jeffery Smith was sentenced to 20 years in prison — five years of initial confinement followed by 15 years of extended supervision — as part of a plea agreement after he was convicted of attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child. He had used mifepristone and misoprostol to spike the water of his child’s mother, who was 21 weeks pregnant at the time, because she refused to have an abortion.

• February 2024: Mason Herring pleaded guilty to injury to a child and assault of a pregnant person for attempting to induce an abortion by drugging his wife Catherine’s drink several times using misoprostol. It was the couple’s third child, and she was born 10 weeks early with developmental delays. Herring was sentenced to 180 days. “I do not believe that 180 days is justice for attempting to kill your child seven separate times,” Catherine Herring said. He was later sentenced to eight years in prison for violating his probation.

• December 2024: Stuart Worby was sentenced to 12 years in prison after spiking his mistress’s drink to cause an abortion at 15 weeks using pills supplied by one of the UK’s largest abortion businesses, The Gynae Centre. After his mistress made it clear she did not want to have an abortion, he crushed the mifepristone — the first drug of the abortion pill regimen — into orange juice, which she drank as they spoke about what his involvement would be in the baby’s life. He then deceptively inserted misoprostol — the second drug in the abortion pill regimen — inside her vaginally during sex.

• May 2025: Robert Kawada was charged with misleading a woman into taking misoprostol under the guise that he was giving her iron supplements and vitamins.

• July 2025: David Benjamin Coots pleaded guilty to second-degree assault, tampering with a witness, and fourth-degree assault for forcing an abortion drug into his mistress without her knowledge during sex. She went to the emergency room with heavy bleeding, and the pills were discovered inside her. Her baby did not survive.

• July 2025: Stephen Doohan was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison for inserting an abortion drug into his mistress during sex. The woman noticed white discharge and went to the hospital. Her baby did not survive.

• August 2025: A Texas woman filed a wrongful death lawsuit against abortion pill Aid Access and Christopher Cooprider after her baby died as a result of being drugged with the abortion pill. Cooprider secretly dissolved the abortion pills into a beverage and then tricked the woman into drinking it. He got the pills from Aid Access, which illegally ships the abortion pills into US states.

What's Happening Now:

Mohmand is scheduled to be arraigned on September 28.

His attorney, Johnny Bell, is arguing that the progesterone and misoprostol do not resemble each other, making it impossible for the woman not to notice that her pills had been switched.

He also argues that it is unlikely that if Mohmand had been planning to force an abortion on her, he would not have left out the instructions on how to do so.

Key Takeaways:

• Married at First Sight UK star Holly Ditchfield and her fiancé, Aaron Summers, announced the deaths of their premature twins last week.

• The boys, Georgie and Marley, were born at 23 weeks 5 days. They lived just nine days after birth.

• Ditchfield and Summers both expressed the impact their boys had on them, despite their short time on earth.

The Details:

Holly Ditchfield, who welcomed Georgie and Marley with fiancé Aaron Summers, took to Instagram on September 5 to share the heartbreaking news.

At 1pm on 03/09/2026, our darling Georgie peacefully passed away. Then, at 5am on 04/09/2026, his beautiful brother Marley followed him.

My boys both took their final breaths in the arms of me and their daddy. There is no greater privilege, and no greater pain, than holding your children as they leave this world.

They gave us the most precious week of our lives. A week I would live over and over again, just to have those moments with them. To hold them. To look at them. To love them. To be their mummy and daddy.

The Backstory:

In previous posts, the couple explained that the boys were born at 23 weeks 5 days, weighing just 1.1 and 1.2 pounds, respectively.

"Our tiny boys may be incredibly small, but they have already shown us just how incredibly strong they are," Ditchfield wrote in a post.

“We never thought we was going to be premature baby parents,” she said in a separate video. “As someone who’s had full-term pregnancies before, you don’t prepare yourself for ... how small your babies are going to be and how fragile they are.”

She also expressed a deep sense of loss.

“My body feels different. It feels like a part of me is no longer here, because a part of me truly isn’t ... I would have given absolutely everything to have watched Georgie and Marley grow, to hear their voices, watch them take their first steps, and see the beautiful lives they deserved to have," she wrote.

The Bottom Line:

The heartbreaking loss of the twins is a reminder that all children, no matter their age or size, are precious individuals to be loved and cherished.

"Thank you for giving us the most precious 9 days of our lives," the couple wrote in memory of their sons. "You will forever be our sons, our babies, and the biggest part of our hearts."

Key Takeaways:

• Late last year, Illinois passed the "Sanitary Food Preparation Bill," which included an amendment hidden within the bill's text legalizing assisted suicide.

• The law was scheduled to take effect on September 12.

• Several lawsuits were filed in an attempt to block the law, including one from disability advocates.

• A federal judge declined the lawsuit from disability advocates, allowing it to take effect.

• However, a second judge ruled in favor of a religious coalition, and placed a temporary injunction against the law.

The Backstory:

On December 12, 2025, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed Senate Bill 1950, the "Sanitary Food Preparation Bill," into law. It included an amendment hidden within the text of the legislation which legalized assisted suicide, after previous efforts had failed.

The law is scheduled to take effect on September 12, though several lawsuits have been filed against it.

The first was filed in June by the group End Assisted Suicide, a coalition of disability and patients rights advocates, which claimed it put the lives and well-being of people with disabilities at risk.

“Assisted suicide laws in New York and Illinois create a separate and unequal system in which people with life-threatening disabilities are offered death instead of the support programs everyone else gets,” Matt Vallière, president/executive director of plaintiff organization Institute for Patients’ Rights, said . “These legal actions are about affirming that every person has inestimable value and dignity, regardless of age, disability, or prognosis, and ensuring that no one is treated as disposable under the law.”

The second was filed on August 11 by a coalition of religious plaintiffs, including Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki, the Lutheran Care Center, and four physicians. The group is represented by the Thomas More Society, and claimed the law violates the constitutional right to freedom of speech and religion.

“Illinois is forcing faith-based hospitals, nuns, and doctors into supporting the state’s assisted suicide regime," Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at TMS, said. "The law commands Catholic hospitals, religious nursing homes, and faithful doctors to promote suicide’s alleged ‘benefits,’ refer patients to suicide drug prescribers, and then lie on death certificates to cover it up. This immoral scheme flagrantly violates religious liberty and free speech rights, and we intend to stop it.”

The Details:

One district judge refused to block the law; another blocked it.

• U.S. District Judge John J. Tharpe refused to put a preliminary injunction in place, allowing the law to take effect as planned, saying there was nothing to indicate it would put disabled lives at risk. He wrote:

“The Act exempts healthcare professionals from any duty to provide aid-in-dying care, states that a healthcare provider ‘may choose not to engage in aid-in-dying care,’ and provides that ‘only willing healthcare professionals shall provide aid-in-dying care in accordance with the Act. With this amount of discretion afforded to doctors, (one of the plaintiffs) cannot establish an immediate, imminent risk that all doctors will start inviting disabled patients to consider medical aid in dying.”

He also said that the lead plaintiff, Ebony Payne, a Chicago resident who is paralyzed from the neck down and suffers from severe asthma, had not shown that she had standing to challenge the law, and that her fears were mere speculation.

• However, U.S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama responded to the lawsuit from the religious coalition by placing a temporary injunction on the law. The state now cannot proceed with allowing the legislation to take effect.

Cardinal Cupich said in a press release:

"I welcome this decision of the court that stays the enforcement of the provisions of the Illinois End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act (EOLOA) that require healthcare providers, against their conscience, to participate in assisted suicide by compelling them to inform patients of the ‘benefits’ of suicide and their ‘right’ to kill themselves, and also help them qualify for lethal drugs, or pass them along to someone willing to help them obtain those drugs.

These obligations violate core constitutional protections of freedom of speech and religion. The law with these provisions must be struck down permanently. To be clear, the Church’s objection to this statute is not an attempt to impose Catholic teaching on non-Catholics; it is an effort to stop the State from compelling Catholic health care providers to violate their conscience.” 

The Bottom Line:

Valderrama did not say in his ruling how long the restraining order will remain in place, though it grants a temporary victory against the law.

Bomberger's story is featured in his new book, "Should Have Been Aborted," as well as in a documentary of the same name set to premiere on Angel Studios this fall. It's a powerful tale about the courage of a birth mom, the power of love, and the beauty of adoption.

Key Takeaways:

• A new documentary premiering soon on Angel Studios shares the story of Ryan Bomberger, co-founder of The Radiance Foundation, a pro-life, faith-based educational group.

• Conceived in rape, Bomberger was adopted into a large and loving family as a baby.

• He and his wife, Bethany, started The Radiance Foundation to fight abortion and promote adoption.

• Adoption has played a significant role in Bomberger's life, and is a central theme in his documentary.

The Details:

A life-altering discovery

Ryan Bomberger grew up in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, in a bustling family of 13 children — 10 of whom, including himself, were adopted.

In the documentary, he describes the love of his parents and family, noting that his parents had a heart for adopting children, looking on each one of them as loved, wanted, and special.

"Mom and Dad were meant for each other, and not only were they meant for each other, they were meant to be the parents to love the children that the world so easily discards," he recalled.

When he was 13, he learned the devastating truth that his birth father had raped his birth mother — a revelation that deeply impacted him. He was anguished over the idea that he was born of violence.

However, he explained, the traumatic situation turned into something healing and constructive. For the first time, he gave a speech about abortion, sharing his story at school. That experience eventually propelled him to the pro-life mission he is on today.

The Radiance Foundation

Bomberger’s documentary touches on his life through high school, college, and meeting and marrying his wife, Bethany. In 2009, he and Bethany felt called to begin The Radiance Foundation as a way to bring light and awareness to some of the most pressing issues of the day.

“We wanted to create an organization that actually equipped people to engage in these conversations, talking about abortion, talking about adoption, talking about fatherlessness, and other issues that were kind of extremely tied to that,” Bomberger explained. 

The first issue they decided to tackle was abortion, and they launched a billboard campaign that dealt with the disproportionate impact of abortion on the black community. The backlash was swift, as they faced pushback, threats, and were even sued by the NAACP. 

Bomberger and The Radiance Foundation didn’t back down. 

“We knew that we were right. We knew that we were speaking the truth. We knew that our passion was actually saving and rescuing lives. How can we possibly back down from that?”

The joy of family

The documentary also follows Bomberger's search for his birth mother.

Because his was a closed adoption, he lived for years not knowing who she was or any more of his origin story. When he finally learned her name — Sharon — in 2023, he was crushed to learn that she was deceased.

In October 2025, his story took another turn as he found Sharon's sister, Carol. After hesitantly reaching out to her with a phone call, he was overcome to learn that Carol had longed to hold him as a baby, had always thought about him, and couldn't wait to meet him.

Carol told Bomberger that Sharon, raped while in military service, chose adoption because she believed her baby deserved a “clean slate” and feared she could not love him as he deserved.

"It just breaks my heart that she thought that somehow she wasn't worthy of being able to meet me," Bomberger reflected.

As Bomberger met Carol and some of his other extended family — including cousins he knew in high school without realizing they were related — he discovered that he had been deeply wanted and prayed for by a biological family he never knew he had.

The beauty of adoption

Woven throughout Bomberger's story is the central theme that adoption is a beautiful gift.

He deeply respects his parents, whom he noted selflessly opened their home and their hearts to so many children in need of a family.

That love turned into a "full circle experience," when, as an adult, he adopted Bethany's daughter, Radiance, and the couple also adopted their son, Justice. "It kind of blew my mind to be the adoptee and then the adoptive father," he remarked.

In 2021, after his father's passing, he created the Henry & Andrea Bomberger Adopted in Love Fund.

"Our heart was really to help Christian families seeking to adopt. We wanted to help take away some of the incredible financial costs by awarding grants for adoption, and just honoring my parents' legacy," he explained.

At the end of the documentary, Bomberger's children shared how much adoption has meant to their family.

"Adoption is a gift that I wish everyone could experience. It's brought a lot of people into my life that I wouldn't otherwise know or get to be blessed by. Some people told my dad that he should have been aborted. Yeah, to me, I can't even imagine what my life would have been like if he was," explained his daughter, Aliyah.

The Bottom Line:

Bomberger's story is a testimony that a person's worth is not defined by their conception.

A sentiment he has shared at speaking events counters the claim that those conceived in rape are unwanted: "I'm not the residue of the rapist," he says. "I'm the resilience of my mother."

Key Takeaways:

• In 2024, the Netherlands expanded its euthanasia law to allow children of any age to be killed.

• The first child was killed under the new guidelines in 2025.

• Details have now been released about the death, which was applauded as having been "handled well."

• Details also revealed that the child, while severely disabled, was not dying.

The Backstory:

The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act was passed in 2002, allowing euthanasia for individuals over age 12 if they were considered to be suffering from an illness or disability with no hope of recovering. In 2004, doctors were allowed to end the lives of infants up to age one if the parents and doctors agreed to it and the baby was experiencing suffering or expected to experience future suffering.

Notably, the child did not need to be dying; he or she could be eligible based on a disability as well.

Lawmakers then passed a controversial expansion of the eligibility guidelines in 2024, adding children ages one to 12 able to the list of those eligible to be euthanized if their parents agreed to it.

In June, news broke that the first child had been killed under the new guidelines.

Details about the child's age and medical condition weren't initially disclosed. The case was referred to the public prosecution service; a committee of four doctors would assess the case and decide if the doctors involved in the child's death complied with the rules. 

The Details:

The NL Times reported that the committee decision has been released, with the child's euthanasia applauded as having been handled well. Details about the child's age and condition were also released, though the names remained confidential.

According to the committee report, the child was born premature at 26 weeks gestation while the parents were on vacation, and was admitted into the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The child then began experiencing complications, including sepsis.

He wasn't able to be sent to a hospital in the Netherlands until he was four months old, at which point he underwent an MRI; the test revealed brain damage, including periventricular leukomalacia (PVL).

According to Boston Children's Hospital, PVL is "injury to the white matter around the fluid-filled ventricles of the brain" which "can cause damage to the nerve pathways that control motor movements, resulting in muscles that are tight, spastic, or resistant to movement, in addition to being weak."

Babies with PVL are at a higher risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP), and this child did develop CP. The baby also developed cerebral visual impairment (CVI), although the extent of the visual impairment wasn't clear.

At eight months, the child was diagnosed with infantile epileptic spasm syndrome (IESS), a rare and severe form of epilepsy, which in this case also led to a sleep disorder, a swallowing disorder, and coughing fits.

The brain damage also led to a development delay, so by the time the child was two years old, his/her estimated developmental age was six weeks. The child could not talk, and the report alleged that the visual impairment made communication difficult. There were also some respiratory issues. The report concluded:

The child was severely multiply (intellectually and motorically) disabled, and the prognosis was that the child would remain dependent on care for life for all activities of daily living.

In other words, the child was severely disabled, but not dying.

Zoom In:

The report claimed there was no chance of any recovery or improvement in the child's abilities. The parents and doctors agreed that the child was suffering "unbearably" and that his/her life was "hopeless." The report said:

The doctor stated that the suffering stemmed not only from the epilepsy but from the child's overall picture, which included severe cerebral palsy, a visual impairment, and developmental delay. On top of this, there was infantile epileptic spasm syndrome, which was extremely difficult to treat.

The child's suffering was evident through discomfort present during the frequent epileptic seizures, such as crying, arching of the back, and shortness of breath. The child was very uncomfortable during the epileptic seizures, which occurred multiple times a day.

Pharmacological therapy for the epilepsy led to severe side effects in the child, such as restlessness, inconsolable crying, and loss of sleep.

The child was visibly short of breath, slept little to nothing, and had also developed a swallowing disorder. The doctor considered the risk of further complications at a very young age to be very high, with a substantial increase in the child's suffering to be expected.

The doctor concluded that the hopelessness stemmed from the impossibility of alleviating the current suffering and the fact that the child suffered from conditions with a limited life expectancy, without any prospect of improvement in quality of life.

Based on this, the parents asked the doctor to kill their child, and as per the law, got a second opinion. The other doctors disagreed that euthanasia was valid. As the report stated:

[T]hese doctors noted that at that time there was no continuous unbearable suffering. The epilepsy was accompanied by significant discomfort, but the epileptic seizures were not continuous.

Their conclusion was that reasonable alternative solutions existed, such as palliative options and pharmacological alternatives that could potentially lead to better seizure control.

The original doctor, however, had labeled the child's existence hopeless and full of suffering, even if the epilepsy was under control. The parents refused palliative care, and sought another "second opinion." The third doctor said:

[T]he child's unbearable suffering was clearly evident from the continuously present discomfort—apart from sporadic moments of improvement—and the very frequent epileptic seizures.

This doctor concluded that the suffering was determined by the permanent, severe brain damage with no prospect of any reasonable degree of development and the eventual permanent lack of any possibility of self-reliance.

His conclusion was that there was no possibility of reducing or eliminating the suffering in any reasonable other way than by ending life.

The child was then sedated and killed, and the committee agreed that the euthanasia was proper and did not violate any laws.

The Bottom Line:

This case is a truly disturbing example of the problem with euthanasia. This child was not dying; he or she was disabled. Yet, based on a misguided sense of compassion, multiple individuals concluded that the child's life was not worth living.

Determining that a person is suffering in order to end that person's life is completely subjective, as was seen in the doctors' varied evaluations. There is a danger when the able-bodied can arbitrarily determine worth and quality of life for those they feel are suffering or may suffer in the future.

Key Takeaways:

• A bill legalizing assisted suicide sponsored by MP Kim Leadbeater failed to pass parliament earlier this year.

• MP Lauren Edwards reintroduced the bill this summer, even though the majority of UK voters disagreed.

• Parliament has now rejected the legislation for the second time, by a vote of 286-270 in the House of Commons, where it had previously passed.

The Backstory:

In parliament, all legislation must pass by May, or it will automatically fail, which is what happened with Leadbeater's original assisted suicide bill. The “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)” bill was highly controversial, with many concerned in particular about the potential for coercion and profit, with vocal opposition coming from disability advocates like Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, a former Paralympian, as well as actress Sophie Turner, known for her roles in the "X-Men" and "Game of Thrones" series.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham likewise vowed to prioritize better funding of palliative and social care over assisted suicide.

Leadbeater's bill ultimately did not make it through the House of Lords after Labour chief whip in the House of Lords, Roy Kennedy, refused to give it additional time.

MP Lauren Edwards announced in June that she would reintroduce the bill, and blamed its original failure on a "small number of MPs" in the House of Lords. Yet the decision to reintroduce the bill was criticized, as members of the Labour party were in disagreement over passing it.

Numerous party members spoke openly against Edwards' decision.

“I’m deeply concerned that supporters are bringing the assisted dying bill back," Labour MP Ashley Dalton said. "Voters put us in power to reduce the cost of living and fix the NHS. We have debated this deeply divisive and flawed assisted dying bill for over a year and supporters have refused to listen or to make the necessary changes.”

Polling found that more MPs would oppose the bill if reintroduced.

Only 41% said they would vote “Aye” again, as opposed to 45% saying they would continue to vote no. Despite Edwards' criticism towards the House of Lords for blocking the legislation, approximately 61% of poll respondents said they supported the constitutional authority of the House of Lords to amend, block, or reject legislation.

Voters polled on the issue also made it clear that legalizing assisted suicide is not a priority; in another poll, just 1 in 3 said they wanted the bill reintroduced.

In a disturbing twist, the second reading and vote on Edwards' bill was scheduled to take place the day after World Suicide Prevention Day.

The Details:

Parliament has rejected assisted suicide for the second time, defeated in a vote of 286-270 in the House of Commons. It faced opposition from multiple groups, including leaders of the Labour, Conservatives, Reform UK and Liberal Democrat parties. None of the MPs from Northern Ireland voted for the bill.

The bill passed the House of Commons in a 314-291 vote last year.

Labour MP Ashley Dalton, who resigned from her position as health minister this year after being diagnosed with terminal breast cancer, was one of the people who spoke against the legislation, specifically pointing to issues with access to palliative care.

“Until we can say that everyone that needs it has access to high-quality palliative care, then nobody has a choice,” she said. “My days may be numbered, but that doesn’t mean that I want this chamber to rush through bad law just so I might have a chance to see it or use it."

She also slammed the notion of a natural death being undignified or painful, pointing out that palliative care in the UK, when people are able to access it, is excellent.

Dalton added:

“Far too many people do not have access to the palliative care they need, but the idea that it is not possible to alleviate pain and discomfort is false. People have been terrorised — I have been terrorised — with tales of people vomiting up their own feces, as though this is commonplace during death. It is vanishingly rare.

It is nothing short of irresponsible to scaremonger people like me into believing our deaths will be horrific when all the evidence suggests that, with access to good palliative care, deaths are, on the whole, gentle.”

As Right to Life UK noted, numerous professional and medical organizations opposed Edwards' bill, including:

... the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Commissioner, the former Chief Coroner, the British Association of Social Workers, the British Geriatrics Society, Hospice UK, Marie Curie, Age UK, the Association for Palliative Medicine, the Mental Health and Disability Law Committee, a coalition of over 350 disability organisations including Disability Rights UK, Not Dead Yet UK and Disabled People Against Cuts, Care England, Mind charity, the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, the Chair in Palliative Care at King’s College London, a Professor of Law and Medical Ethics at Oxford University, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, the House of Lords’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Professor of Public Protection at the University of Gloucestershire, more than 1,000 doctors and overseas experts. 

The Bottom Line:

Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, Chief Executive of Right To Life UK, celebrated the vote in a press release:

This is a remarkable victory for the most vulnerable in our society. They deserve protection and care, not a pathway to suicide.

After a two-year-long national debate, the country has decided to reject assisted suicide, settling the issue for a generation.

Evidence from overseas shows that, had this legislation become law, countless vulnerable people nearing the end of life would have been pressured or coerced into ending their lives.

MPs’ decision follows that of the Scottish Parliament earlier this year, which also decisively rejected assisted suicide in a landmark vote.

In both Westminster and Holyrood, parliamentary scrutiny and expert testimony have shown that assisted suicide simply cannot be legalised in a safe way that protects vulnerable people. As is tragically evident elsewhere, many vulnerable people die under assisted suicide and euthanasia laws.

But as this debate ends, the real fight has only just begun.

It is vital that MPs now unite to give full attention to fixing the fundamental issues with health and end-of-life care provision, focusing on the goal of delivering universal access to high-quality palliative care, ensuring true dignity and care for all at the end of life....

At Vanderbilt Medical Center in Tennessee that day, one medical worker knew a the life of a baby in Texas depended on whether or not one particular plane was able to fly.

This year, that medical worker and the baby met for the first time.

Key Takeaways:

• On September 11, 2001, as planes were grounded amid the largest ever terrorist attack on the U.S., a baby in Texas was awaiting a liver donated by the family of a newborn who had tragically died in Tennessee.

• Jill Grandas, the CEO of Tennessee Donor Services, called Houston's air traffic control, and the Tennessee Air National Guard was given permission to fly the organ to its recipient.

• Baby Kareena is now 25 years old, and she and Grandas met for the first time in person this week, ahead of the 25th anniversary of 9/11.

The Backstory:

Late in the night of September 10, 2001, a newborn baby tragically died in Nashville. The baby's heartbroken family decided to donate his organs to help other children. For unstated reasons, only the baby's liver could be donated.

In Houston, Texas, 780 miles away, a six-month-old baby girl was dying from liver failure.

The next morning, Jill Grandas was driving her children to school on her way to work when she heard about the attacks.

Grandas, a registered nurse and the CEO of Tennessee Donor Services, learned that the Federal Aviation Administration had ordered all planes in flight to land and no new planes to take off. But she also knew that a surgical team at Vanderbilt University Medical Center was preparing the baby's liver for transport to Houston.

They would need an airplane to get it there.

“It galvanized our resolve,” a member of the Vanderbilt transplant team said at the time. “We can’t let them win. If we don’t get (the liver) to this person, they’ll have killed someone else.”

The Tennessee Donor Services was the bridge between transplant centers, and Grandas' job was to make sure that liver got to that little girl. So, she opened the phone book and found the number for the air traffic control tower at Nashville International Airport.

As Wayne Wood reported for Vanderbilt Health News:

She took a deep breath before making the call, expecting to be told ‘no’ and expecting to have to fight and argue to get anything to happen.

What she actually found was that everyone immediately wanted to do anything possible to help.

The Tennessee Air National Guard was given permission to fly, and with an emergency crew, a C-130 cargo plane carried the 10-ounce liver to Houston, where a then-six-month-old baby girl, Kareena, was awaiting it.

"At a time when the situation was so terrifying and uncertain that national leaders were in hidden bunkers, members of the Tennessee Air National Guard risked taking to the air to get that liver to the little girl who needed it," wrote Wood. "The transplant teams at Vanderbilt and in Houston focused on their task, blocking out as best they could the terrible news unfolding around the country. The professionals at Tennessee Donor Services and the FAA worked out how to save a life in the midst of tragedy. And, before all that, a family in the midst of grief made the decision to donate the organ that saved Kareena’s life."

The Details:

Kareena is now grown up and attending law school, and though she and Grandas first spoke several years ago and are in contact, they had never met in person until now.

“She calls me every September 11 and has for the past five or six years,” Grandas said. But this week, on September 3, Grandas traveled to Texas to meet Kareena in person.

"We sat outside and talked for a while," she said. "It was a delight. It felt really natural."

She added, "We just have a connection."

Grandas told PEOPLE, “The events on that day will always be with me. Kareena is part of my 9/11 story. Now, meeting her 25 years later, it is extraordinarily moving to see what a bright and beautiful person she is. We talked all about her health, which is wonderful, her goals in life. She handles everything with such grace.”

The Bottom Line:

Grandas told PEOPLE magazine, "It was my only joy in a day that devastated our world. Because of those dedicated teams at Vanderbilt and Tennessee Donor Services who did not stop their work, because of the bravery of the Tennessee National Guardsmen who risked their lives to take to the skies, Kareena’s life was saved that day in Houston.”

Key Takeaways:

• New York legalized assisted death in 2026 and the law took effect on August 5.

• The New York Times is sharing the story of an assisted suicide startup company in the state, Quiĕtus.

• The business has nine members, including a former Buddhist monk, a palliative care doctor, a cardiologist, and a nurse practitioner.

• The Times hailed the business as "a one-stop shop" for assisted suicide that offers people a "better death."

The Details:

The New York Times shared the stories of medical professionals who have "decided to create a practice to help their clients die...." It claimed, "You can think of it as a start-up for better deaths."

Suicide, however, is not a "better death" — it's a tragic disservice to people who feel that their lives aren't worth living, who struggle with being seen as a burden, or who may have lost hope. Helping people to carry out suicide is not health care.

But, under the guise of care, the new company, Quiĕtus, is aiming to be a central hub for people who want to die but must meet the legal and medical requirements — including two medical evaluations, a mental health screening, and a prescription for the deadly cocktail that includes sedatives, morphine, and a cardiac drug.

The Times calls it "a one-stop shop ... where people can get help meeting every legal and medical requirement for a death on their own terms."

Zoom In:

Nine medical professionals work on the Quiĕtus team, including:

• Dr. Tara Shapiro, whose mother-in-law died by assisted suicide and whose sister died from complications related to Trisomy 18 when she was two years old. Shapiro was 11 when her sister died. "We were told she went to heaven. But I didn't really have a sense why," she said. She also lost her nephew when he was 21, and The Times said these deaths "made her quietly obsessive about comforting the dying."
  
  She credits her decision to become a palliative care doctor to these experiences. And she said her mother-in-law's death "turned her inside out." The Times wrote about Shapiro, "After three decades of working in hospitals, what did it mean to go from fighting off death to speeding it up? What did this mean in terms of the Hippocratic oath, that ancient and often misquoted text meant to guide the profession, with its unsubtle command to 'give no deadly medicine'?"

• David Atkins, a hospice social worker who is a former Buddhist monk who wants to "care" for the dying. Buddhists are against causing suffering, even to a fly, wrote The Times in an attempt to get the reader on board with the false idea that helping someone die is morally acceptable and even good.

• Christian Zanartu, a palliative care doctor

• Daniel Cogan, a nurse practitioner who has a history of working with patients who have chronic pain

• Dr. Rob Siegel, a cardiologist

The Times wrote:

For months, these doctors and nurses and clinicians met to figure out what it would take to set up their aid-in-dying practice, taking on seemingly unsayable questions. How on earth would they spread the word about their new clinic? Did they need business cards? How much should a patient have to pay?

There was also the question of hours — whether they would be available at all times, even if a person called wanting to die at two in the morning.

"Mr. Cogan," reported The Times, "felt strongly that taking responsibility for a person’s death meant being available. He imagined a scenario in which a patient suddenly began to feel piercing pain in the night and wanted to die. Shouldn’t the doctors leap into action to deliver on their promise of a controlled death?"

Dr. Zanartu, however, felt that if they didn't stick to a schedule they would be at risk of burnout. “Can they wait until 8 a.m.? I think they can,” he said. “I hate to say it, but we’re going to have to establish some boundaries.”

They have yet to agree, according to The Times, which failed to note that a person's middle-of-the-night phone call asking to die could signal a mental health crisis.

As with any startup, Quiĕtus staff aren't sure how many customers they will get. The Times notes that when New Jersey legalized assisted death in August 2019, 12 people were prescribed the drugs through the end of the year. But the next year, it was 101 people — with 91 actually consuming the drugs. But they know there are many people who will request help to die who won't meet the requirements.

As Cogan said, "If somebody is like, I’m paraplegic and the doctor says I might live for years but I want to kill myself, can you help me? — the short answer is, I have tremendous sympathy for your situation, and tell me more about what’s going on, but these are the terms of the law."

For now anyway.

Zoom Out:

In <a href="/news/catholic-priest-twice-offered-assisted-dying-hip">Canada</a>, assisted suicide is offered with shocking consistency, even to people who aren't dying. As a nation with government run health care, sometimes the government would rather pay a little to kill you now than a lot to help you live. A <a href="/news/canada-assisted-suicide-cost-savings">report</a> from the government proved it.

In California, where assisted suicide was legalized in 2016, people have reported receiving <a href="/news/assisted-suicide-death-medical-progress">pressure to die</a> from their insurance companies.

The total cost to die with Quiĕtus is about $12,000. Compared to hundreds of thousands in chronic illness treatments, chemotherapy, surgeries, and lifelong medications, it's more cost effective for insurance companies to kill a patient. And with the uptick in interest, the suicide business would make more money if more people could be approved under broadened regulations.

And what does it mean to 'help people meet every legal and medical requirement for death'? Are Quiĕtus members going to help people die by being strategic in their paperwork?

Under the current New York law, and most assisted death laws, a medical professional or two must say that your life is not worth living. They must confirm a suicidal person's darkest thoughts about themselves, their value as a human being, and their fears of being a burden.

Quiĕtus secured their first client on August 5, the day the law went into effect. She was a middle-aged woman with cancer. After meeting with her, Dr. Zanartu felt the realization of what he was doing.

"You’re representing relief, but you’re also representing horror. You’re the solution and the nightmare," he said.

Because a middle-aged woman likely doesn't actually want to die.

Why It Matters:

Building a business on helping people commit suicide is indeed dark.

September is National Suicide Prevention Month, yet The Times is using it to promote suicide to certain people as a way to escape what any ableist must assume to be a meaningless existence.

Celebrating legalized assisted death, especially during Suicide Prevention Month, means that the young healthy girl on the side of a bridge should be saved from suicide, pulled back from the edge. But the middle-aged cancer patient? She can apparently be pushed off the ledge, so to speak.

As described by Medical News Today, "Medicine is the field of health and healing. ... Medicine aims to promote and maintain health and wellbeing."

The Bottom Line:

Killing someone at an extremely vulnerable time in his or her life by prescribing drugs to end life is not the promotion of heath and wellbeing. It does not heal. It sends the message that certain people are no longer welcome here and confirms their fears that they would be better off dead.

After all, people trust doctors to tell them what's best for their bodies, and the doctors and medical professionals of Quiĕtus, and across New York, have been given the authority to tell patients they are right to want to kill themselves — and then give them the drugs to do it.

Key Takeaways:

• A coalition of child protection advocacy groups in Texas has teamed up to draw attention to and fight sexually explicit materials in children's school libraries and classrooms.

• These explicit materials are largely distributed and promoted by Planned Parenthood, Advocates for Youth, SIECUS, the American Library Association, and the National Coalition Against Censorship.

• Texas passed a law prohibiting explicit materials for minors by “establishing clear standards for school library content across the state” through “applying the same content standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)."

• One child protection advocacy group has established a ratings system to evaluate the books most often found in school libraries and classrooms, evaluating them on a scale of 0-5, with 0 being appropriate for "all ages" and 5 being "deviant/adult only" content. This is a tool meant to inform parents and other concerned adults.

The Backstory: 

Planned Parenthood and its allies — Advocates for Youth (AFY), SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change (formerly Sexuality Information & Education Council of the U.S.), the American Library Association (ALA), the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), and others — work together to promote pornographic content and gender-ideology that are easily accessible to minors. As Live Action News has reported, there is a historical alliance between Planned Parenthood, the ALA, and the NCAC. 

These groups also utilize the same talking points — like the erroneous claim that parents are the pesky “vocal minority” who want to “ban” books, glossing over the fact that the books are sexually explicit and not age-appropriate. These books aren't even "banned"; every single one of them is easily accessible and available for purchase across the country. 

In schools where students should be learning necessary subjects like math, science, and reading comprehension, these groups advocate to ensure that pornographic books are placed inside classrooms and school libraries, exposing minors to concepts such as rape, incest, pedophilia, sex toys, science-denying gender ideology, and information about how and where to access other pornography. 

These books find their way into schools via multiple pathways:

• The ALA provides recommended book lists to libraries across the country. 

• Many Planned Parenthood affiliates also have book recommendations for minors.

• There are also programs like AFY’s “Hope in a Box” which describes itself as equipping “K-12 educators with LGBTQ-inclusive curricula, training, and mentorship.” AFY’s program sends a “curated book list, curriculum guides, and toolkits… to hundreds of additional school libraries and Language Arts classes.”

Live Action News previously reported that “[m]any of the same books on the ALA recommended book list are sent directly to school districts nationwide through the “Hope in a Box” program, despite parental objections.”           

The Details:

Collaborating to protect children

Last month, Bonnie Wallace, legislative liaison with Recover America, appeared on Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick's podcast to discuss the child protection advocacy coalition's ongoing attempts to remove explicit materials from the school libraries.

These materials violate Texas Senate Bill (SB) 13, which expanded parental rights and prohibited explicit content by “establishing clear standards for school library content across the state” through “applying the same content standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),” which sets the standards for public broadcasts. 

In other words, if a school library gives children access to more pornographic media than what they would normally be able/allowed to access via other media, then schools are failing to protect the minds of children.

Patrick noted that the books in question are incredibly vulgar and stated that the groups advocating for children to have access to these explicit books illustrate “the undermining of family values that’s going on by the left.” 

Bonnie Wallace told Patrick on the podcast, “They hate God. They hate family. They hate men to be heads of the family… They want to kill babies [in the womb] but if they can’t kill them, then they want them perverted and their minds distorted." 

In fact, these books are so explicit that Wallace has actually been escorted out of school board meetings or had her microphone turned off because she read books aloud in those meetings — the same books that are sitting on the shelves of the district's libraries;  school board members claimed the books were “inappropriate to read out loud.”

Yet children in schools have access to these materials.

Wallace’s advocacy extends beyond Texas, as she actively collaborates with other advocacy groups like Rated Books, Protecting Texas Children, and Take Back the Classroom. 

Rated Books

Rated Books was started by Brooke Stephens to help get legislation passed in Utah in 2022 after she had concerns over the books she found in the school library. She thought that showing the principal a few of the books would fix the problem, but the books were challenged and then retained. Stephens quickly realized legislation was necessary to remove the sexually explicit content. 

State legislators wanted to see the proof of the sexually explicit, vulgar, and obscene content in the books, and evidence that the books were in fact in the schools. 

Stephens told Live Action News that the response from the other concerned individuals was immense, since “to most people, it's obvious that many of these books are not intended for children.” 

Stephens stated:

“Teams of parents worked hours and hours searching school catalogs. Grandmother groups read books and reported their findings. Teams across the nation began to work together.”

Stephens noted that the need for a rating system and summarized list of concerns about the books quickly became apparent.

The rating system established by Rated Books mirrors the Motion Picture Association’s ratings systems for movies, television programs, and video games.

The “Explicit Content Rating Scale” rates and summarizes books, scoring content on a scale of from 0 (all ages) to 5 (deviant content, adult only).  

Notably, Rated Books only documents books found in K-12 schools, and so far has found: 

• 75 books that discuss abortion

• 21 books that deal with bestiality  

• 49 books about gender transitioning/gender dysphoria   

• 39 books with cannibalism 

• 13 books about necrophilia (sexual acts or attraction to dead bodies) 

• 59 books about pedophilia 

• Over 700 books with sexual activities/depictions/references

Protecting Texas Children

Miriam Evans, Protecting Texas Children’s (PTC) Behind the Shelves Field Coordinator, told Live Action News:

“Parents assume that if a book is shelved in the children's or teen section, someone has already vetted it. What we keep finding is that no one has. Behind The Shelves exists to close that gap.” 

To help spread awareness of the vulgarity of the books, PTC and Bonnie Wallace have set up conversation areas outside libraries to show the public what their tax dollars are paying for. 

Evans says that PTC trains parents how to search their library’s books, and how to bring concerning content to board members and officials. She further explained (emphasis added): 

“To be clear: we are not flagging anatomy or health material. These are books depicting explicit sex acts-some of it directing children to pornographic websites and performers. Many books are banned for Texas State prisoners, and they are catalogued for underage children. Once a parent sees the actual pages, the conversation changes."

Lt. Gov. Patrick and Bonnie Wallace agree. 

After a profound response to their podcast discussion, Patrick and Wallace held a press conference at the State Capitol where the Planned Parenthood-recommended book, “Let’s Talk About It,” was made available to media personnel in attendance.

“We brought copies for each of you, because if you do not see the content, you cannot understand,” Wallace stated. 

“I don’t think you can accurately report on this unless you open this book. Just this one book. It will shock you,” Patrick told attending media personnel. 

What Parents Need to Know:

Ratings for AFY's recommended books

Pro-abortion group AFY's “Hope in a Box” catalog has over 200 “LGBTQ-inclusive books for all ages” listed.

So far, Rated Books has listed 70 of those books on its website. Live Action News identified over 20 with at least a 3/5 rating or higher (again, with 0 being for all ages and 5 being adult-only/deviant content). 

Eight books were rated 4/5; these included things like graphic or gratuitous violence; explicit sexual nudity; graphic depictions of sexual activities, shockingly profane, sexual, or obscene content to denigrate or ridicule revered religious figures, symbols, or texts; and reference or links to BDSM, sex toys, kinks and fetishes. 

One book, “Middlesex,” by Jeffrey Eugenides (Rated Books report linked; WARNING: GRAPHIC), was identified as a 5/5. It includes content such as animal cruelty, cannibalism, body horror/gore and violence; explicit descriptions or depictions of aberrant sexual activities including sexual assault, battery, bestiality, or sadomasochistic abuse. 

Ratings for Planned Parenthood’s recommended books

Planned Parenthood and its affiliates not only support the books promoted by coalition partners AFY, the ALA, and the NCAC, but also promote lists and authors of their own choosing, such as: 

• “Sex is a Funny Word: A book about bodies, feelings, and you,” by Cory Silverberg and Fiona Smyth. Planned Parenthood recommends this book for children, but Rated Books gives the book a rating of 4/5, as it "contains graphic illustrations involving sexual nudity; sexual activities; sexuality and alternate gender ideologies.”  

• “Let’s Talk About It” and “Drawn to Sex: Our Bodies Series” by Erika Moen & Matthew Nolan. “Drawn to Sex” was sponsored by Planned Parenthood CW in 2017. Rated Books gives both books a rating of 4/5 noting (Rated Books reports linked; WARNING: GRAPHIC). “Let’s Talk About It” concerns include “obscene sexual illustrations and commentary; obscene sexual nudity; profanity; and alternate gender ideologies.”

During the interview with the Texas Lt. Governor, Bonnie Wallace explained that "Let's Talk About It" was published by Random House Children’s Books, which added a disclaimer stating, “the authors and publisher expressly disclaim responsibility for any adverse effects which may result from the use or application of information contained in this book.”

Wallace noted that the book tells readers to “look up interviews with your favorite porn performer. Go to the sites they recommend and pay for your porn.”

Wallace said the book was awarded “2022 great graphic novel of the year for 12-year-old children.”  

• “Drawn to Sex: Our Bodies and Health”: Concerns include “abortion, alternate gender/sexual ideologies, BDSM, controversial gender, political and social commentary, crude sexual humor, explicit sexual activities/nudity, explicit sexual dialogue, gender transitioning, and sex toys.” 

• “Trans+: Love, Sex, Romance, and Being You” by Kathyrn Gonzalez and Dr. Karen Rayne, Rated Books reports linked; WARNING: GRAPHIC). Wallace explained that this book has seventy-five QR codes, and tracks the locations of those who scan it. The QR codes include locations to “nearby orgies,” pornography and sex toy sites, and sites instructing readers how to “transition.”       

Taking Action:

The number of parents, grandparents, and other concerned citizens getting involved continues to grow. 

So far, eight new PTC Behind the Shelves chapters have been established across Texas, with each chapter receiving “ongoing training, community awareness outreach” and learning how to “engage with public schools and library boards.” These groups could soon help state lawmakers ensure there is accountability. 

As the next Texas legislative session is set to begin next year, Lt. Gov. Patrick promised to find a way to cut funding for districts who continue to disregard the law.

“We are not going to have this filth and vulgarity and violence of graphic scenes of rape, of stories of teachers and students having a sexual affair, in our school libraries," he said. "We’re going to put an end to this.” 

Key Takeaways:

• The Idaho Supreme Court has approved language to go before voters explaining Proposition 1, which could create a law protecting "reproductive freedom" (including abortion).

• If it passes, the proposition will undo the state's current law protecting most preborn children from abortion.

• The group behind the proposition, deceptively named Idahoans United for Women & Families, filed an objection to the ballot measure language. That objection was overruled.

The Background:

Earlier this summer, the pro-abortion group Idahoans United for Women & Families gathered enough petition signatures to place a measure on the upcoming November ballot that would create a new law guaranteeing 'reproductive freedom,' including abortion, as a right.

Were the law to pass, it would undo the state's current law protecting most preborn children from abortion.

After the measure was approved for the upcoming ballot, it was up to the Idaho Attorney General's office and Secretary of State's office to prepare the actual language that will go before voters.

Last week, the Supreme Court denied the initial language from those offices, ruling that it was not clear and concise. On the evening of Saturday, September 5, the offices brought revised language before the court.

The Details:

On September 6, the Idaho Supreme Court approved the revised ballot measure language.

Idaho voters will see the following language on their ballot:

“A YES vote would support creating a right to abortion before fetal viability— defined as a fetus’ ability to survive without extraordinary medical measures—and after fetal viability in cases of medical emergency; providing protections against professional discipline and civil and criminal liability for healthcare providers; and codifying a statutory reproductive right to freedom and privacy.

A NO vote would support making no change to Idaho’s current law, which preserves the life of preborn children by prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, and during the first trimester in documented cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement.”

The Response:

Idahoans United for Women & Families — the pro-abortion group behind the initiative — filed an objection to the updated language.

"Rather than complying with the Court’s direction toward concision, Respondents have expanded the Yes/No Statements into lengthy substantive summaries," the objection said.

The group also argued that language "misrepresents" the state's current law protecting preborn children from abortion.

In their 4-1 vote, the Supreme Court justices overruled the objection.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador welcomed the court's ruling.

"Idahoans will see clear and accurate ballot language explaining exactly what Proposition One would do and what a no vote would preserve," he wrote on social media. "The Court overruled the proponents’ objection and approved our revised language, including its explanation that Idaho’s current law preserves the lives of preborn children while protecting pregnant women whose lives are at risk and victims of rape or incest."

What's Next:

Idaho voters will have a chance to approve or reject the proposition during the election on November 3.

Key Takeaways:

• ProPublica reported that deaths associated with ectopic pregnancy have risen since 2020.

• Despite numerous acknowledgements about the complicated nature of what is causing the increase, ProPublica continually tried to link it to pro-life state laws. This doesn't help to further women's healthcare.

• No state law restricting abortion bars treatment for ectopic pregnancy.

The Details:

A new analysis from ProPublica reported on a troubling issue: an increase in deaths associated with ectopic pregnancy. ProPublica cited data from the CDC which showed approximately 100 women died in association with ectopic pregnancies from 2014-2020. This number doubled to 200 from 2020-2025.

This is a complex issue, but that didn't stop ProPublica from immediately attempting to tie the issue to abortion laws, even as the outlet repeatedly appeared to debunk its own argument.

Throughout the report, ProPublica's reporters explained that the issue of ectopic pregnancy deaths is complex and multi-faceted, which likely has numerous contributing causes. Yet the outlet also sprinkled repeated statements throughout to ensure that the readers grasped the narrative: it's the fault of pro-life laws. Statements included things like this:

While the uptick in ectopic deaths occurred nationwide, the climb has been much steeper in states that banned abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. 

And this:

Experts told ProPublica that more research is required to determine the role of the abortion bans in the rise of ectopic-related deaths.

And this:

Caitlin Myers, an economist at Dartmouth College who studies abortion policy, said the deaths should be investigated: “This is a potentially profound consequence of the [abortion] regulation,” she said. 

ProPublica specifically pointed to Texas, which reportedly saw a 29% increase in "substantial blood loss" in 2023-2024, compared to 2018-2019.

While the increase began during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, it remained high after the pandemic was over, which ProPublica blames on the state's pro-life laws.

Zoom In:

ProPublica used the anecdotes of women who were victims of medical malpractice and neglect to drive home their pro-abortion narrative.

• Kyleigh Thurman was discharged from the hospital multiple times, with emergency room staff dismissing her concerns as miscarriage, though her OB/GYN had diagnosed her as having an ectopic pregnancy.

  “I genuinely thought I was going to die,” she told ProPublica. Her fallopian tube ruptured, and had surgery to save her life — a situation she blamed on the fall of Roe v. Wade and the passage of pro-life laws in Texas.

  However, Texas law states: "An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:

  (A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;

  (B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or

  (C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.

  Thurman was misdiagnosed and was also denied the proper standard of care. The issue was not that she was denied an abortion. Texas doesn't define ectopic pregnancy treatment as an abortion.

  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a report following an investigation into Thurman's care, and found that she was not properly screened for ectopic pregnancy, not that she was denied care and sent home out of fear of violating a pro-life law.

• Leitaea Lowrimore was a clear victim of medical malpractice in Arkansas. Despite exhibiting obvious symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy, an emergency room doctor tried to discharge her. Once the doctor finally agreed to admit her, he agreed that she likely had an ectopic pregnancy, but refused to treat her, saying it wasn't worth the risk of jail time. Eventually, Lowrimore and her husband drove to Kansas, where she received two shots of methotrexate, but understandably feared she was going to die.

  As Live Action News previously reported, in Arkansas, even an induced abortion would be allowed for a "medical emergency," defined as "a condition in which an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

  Arkansas law also notes:

It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section if a licensed physician provides medical treatment to a pregnant woman which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child.

Physicians have no excuse for refusing to provide proper care, nor for neglecting to understand the laws that regulate their medical practices.

The Big Picture:

ProPublica mentioned numerous legitimate issues relating to ectopic pregnancy, but unfortunately buried those issues beneath a pro-abortion narrative.

The outlet's assertion that pro-life laws are to blame for rising ectopic pregnancy deaths is problematic, and ProPublica inadvertently debunked itself by including the systemic problems that are likely contributing to the issue:

The ongoing COVID-19 effect

As ProPublica pointed out, the initial rise in deaths from ectopic pregnancy began during the COVID-19 pandemic, with its reporters pointing to pro-life laws as an explanation as to why the number of deaths didn't fall to pre-COVID levels once the pandemic was over.

But while the pandemic may be over, the health care system still has not recovered; it is stuck in what The Economist describes as a "doom loop," and it's not limited just to the United States — or to maternal issues like ectopic pregnancy. The outlet noted:

From admission to discharge, hospital care is now harder to access, takes longer and is of worse quality. The resulting toll includes avoidable deaths.

Almost everyone is affected: across 18 rich democracies, satisfaction with health-care quality fell sharply after the pandemic and remains well below the pre-pandemic norm.

Staff continue to be stretched far too thin, hospitals are still too crowded, and wait times too long. This is true of the United States, Europe, and Australia. The Economist continued:

Long waits for treatment have made patients’ conditions more complex.

Some diseases, such as cancers, stayed undiagnosed for longer because people avoided hospitals and clinics during the pandemic. (In America this effect was compounded by a rising avoidance of treatment due to expense.) In addition, populations are older than they were a few years ago.

All this has seen chronic conditions, such as heart disease, cancer and liver disease rise as a share of hospital workloads. Death rates, not adjusted for age, are higher than before the pandemic.

“Patients are staying longer and cost more to treat,” says Dr Richard Leuchter, an acute-medicine specialist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Patients who stay longer take up precious bed capacity. Bed occupancy is further inflated by poorly performing general-practitioner services and chock-full care homes for the elderly, both of which funnel a growing number of sick and infirm into hospitals.

The increase in deaths is not unique to ectopic pregnancy.

The same issue can be found related to numerous medical conditions, including cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, diabetes and kidney disease, and drug overdoses. While some have begun to see improvement, they still have not returned to pre-COVID rates — which raises the question of whether or not the rise in ectopic pregnancy deaths is as much of an outlier as ProPublica portrays it.

Chemical abortion vs. ectopic pregnancy

One of the issues, as with Thurman and Lowrimore, is difficulty diagnosing an ectopic pregnancy and treating it before the fallopian tube ruptures and a woman's life is at immediate risk.

ProPublica's solution is seemingly to treat every potential ectopic pregnancy as if it had a firm diagnosis, giving all women treatment before definitive diagnosis is reached:

“Seeing a mass is not the only reason to have high suspicion for an ectopic pregnancy,” said Dr. Rebecca Nerenberg, an emergency medicine doctor in New York and the clinical director at Access Bridge, which educates ER doctors on reproductive healthcare and has released evidence-based guidelines for diagnosing possible ectopic pregnancies.

Experts say that doctors should be able to offer treatment when other symptoms are present, such as plateauing pregnancy hormone levels, bleeding and abdominal pain. Patients can be treated with a procedure or a cancer drug that stops cells from growing.

It is true that doctors should not have to wait for an ectopic pregnancy to appear on an ultrasound before providing treatment. However, one example — abortion pills —exposes a flaw in that logic.

Many symptoms that could indicate an ectopic pregnancy could likewise indicate other complications, including a failed chemical abortion. This is particularly relevant, as women have been encouraged to lie to doctors and staff about the fact that they took abortion pills, and instead say they were experiencing a natural miscarriage. Assuming ectopic pregnancy rather than determining the actual complication could mean women aren't given the treatment they actually need.

A woman with a wanted pregnancy who receives methotrexate without a verified ectopic pregnancy could lose her preborn baby. Methotrexate carries a high risk of miscarriage and birth defects, so giving it to women just based on only a suspicion of ectopic pregnancy seems somewhat reckless.

This is not to say doctors who suspect ectopic pregnancy should do nothing; rather, women should be under close observation unless and until the ectopic pregnancy diagnosis is confirmed or other causes eliminated. But a handful of vague symptoms — like bleeding, abdominal pain, and plateauing pregnancy hormone levels — could apply to any number of complications, and it would be just as careless for doctors to jump to an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis as it would be for them to ignore the possibility altogether.

Systemic issues in women's health care

One of the most valid issues mentioned by ProPublica is that of an apparent lack of interest and research involving women's health care, which remains under-funded and under-researched. (Of course, if outlets like ProPublica continue to hail abortion as the cure-all for women's health and blame abortion restrictions as the bogeyman of all women's ills, this isn't beneficial to women, either.)

As ProPublica pointed out regarding ectopic pregnancy, specifically, it is an ongoing nonpartisan issue that has spanned multiple presidential administrations (emphases added):

One of the biggest challenges to reducing ectopic pregnancy deaths nationwide is the lack of awareness, research and data. 

No one, for example, is tracking whether women who experienced ectopic pregnancies also had one or more common risk factors, like a history of ectopic pregnancies, infertility or use of hormonal intrauterine devices, according to ProPublica’s review of maternal health statistics and interviews with experts. 

Nor has any published research addressed the connection between recent ectopic pregnancy death rates and untreated infections like gonorrhea and chlamydia, which increased substantially during the first years of the pandemic before declining again. Those infections can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, which causes fallopian tube scarring and raises the long-term risk of developing an ectopic pregnancy.

It is unclear why the CDC and other federal agencies across two administrations have failed to publicly respond to the increase in deaths despite having access to the same information ProPublica analyzed. 

Women, and health care issues affecting them, have long been ignored by the medical industry; it wasn't until the 1990s, for example, that women began to be regularly included in clinical trials.

Many drugs and medical devices are still modeled on how they work for men, with less research into how they affect women. This is likely why women experience more adverse events, in some cases at twice the rate men do.

Heart disease is a leading cause of death for women, just as it is for men, and yet it wasn't until 1999 that the American Heart Association acknowledged that women experience different symptoms of heart disease than men do. Research into women's health care gets significantly less funding than into men's health care, even when comparing debilitating conditions like endometriosis to minor issues like male pattern baldness.

And while it's likely inadvertent, ProPublica is contributing to this trend with its continual misguided attempts to blame abortion restrictions for a whole host of problems.

Rather than delve into the actual systemic issues leading to increased ectopic pregnancy deaths, ProPublica has chosen to reduce this, too, to a weapon in its arsenal to further a pro-abortion agenda.

Women deserve better than having a complex, important issue reduced solely to "legal abortion is the solution" because it suits an outlet's political bias more.

Women suffer when such a narrative is perpetuated by the media.

The Bottom Line:

Women deserve to know the truth about abortion and health care, rather than being misled into believing that all of their problems would be solved with more abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• Last month, David Worthington Ross allegedly caused a five-vehicle crash after driving in the wrong lane while under the influence.

• One man was killed, and a pregnant woman was injured and lost her preborn baby.

• Ross has a previous DUI conviction, and has been charged with murder.

The Details:

On August 26, Ross was allegedly the driver of a white GMC Canyon that caused a five-vehicle crash on Highway 101 near San Luis Obispo in California. He was traveling the wrong way and struck a black Dodge Charger head on, with three other vehicles then hitting the two cars.

55-year-old Cezar Roy was declared dead at the scene, and three other people were injured. One of them was Christyna Railsback, Roy's girlfriend. According to her GoFundMe page, she was 28 weeks pregnant with a baby boy.

"I was taken to the hospital because of my injuries and to check on my baby," she wrote. "Soon after arriving at the ER, doctors had to perform an emergency C-section. My baby boy did not survive. I was 28 weeks pregnant, and in the span of just a few hours, I lost both my boyfriend and my son."

Ross also had to spend five days in the hospital, and after being released, was arrested. He now faces two murder charges. He has been charged with second-degree murder for Roy's death, and second-degree murder of a human fetus for the death of Railsback's baby.

Zoom Out:

People like Ross are increasingly being held accountable for taking preborn lives, though this tends to raise the ire of abortion activists. Fetal homicide laws have been put into place in even the most pro-abortion of states, like California.

Much of this is due to Laci and Conner's Law, passed by Congress in 2004 following the murder of Laci Peterson, which also caused the death of her preborn son, Conner.

The reality is that preborn children are human beings, and as such, those that cause their deaths should have to answer for them.

The Bottom Line:

Ross will be arraigned this month, and faces multiple charges.

Key Takeaways:

• A new lawsuit has been filed accusing Amazon of pregnancy discrimination.

• Employees allege they were denied accommodations, such as the ability to take breaks or restrictions on how much weight they could lift.

• Employees say that when they took time off due to pregnancy-related reasons, they were fired or threatened with termination.

The Details:

A Better Balance, a non-profit organization dedicated to workers' rights, is representing pregnant Amazon employees who claim to have been discriminated against in violation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

A nationwide class-action lawsuit has been filed, claiming that basic accommodations for pregnant employees were not provided, and that pregnant women who took time off relating to pregnancy were either fired or threatened with termination.

Amazon was previously the subject of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints as well as multiple state investigations.

The stories of several plaintiffs were shared with USA Today.

Willamina Barclay

38-year-old Willamina Barclay had previously suffered a miscarriage while at work, and had been diagnosed with another high-risk pregnancy.

She requested accommodations relating to her pregnancy, such as being allowed to remain seated, take extra breaks, no repetitive squatting, no climbing ladders, and a 15-pound weight limit on lifting items. Some of those accommodations were denied, and others were delayed, leading Barclay to experience severe abdominal pain while lifting heavy objects.

Her sister picked her up from work to go to the emergency room, and Barclay received a "Termination Warning Email" e-mail the next day. When she continued to be ill, she provided a doctor's note explaining she was experiencing pregnancy-related issues, and was fired four days later.

"I really don’t want pregnant women to experience the things that I’ve experienced at Amazon," she told USA Today. "I don’t want them to feel like they’re disposable."

Barclay was unemployed for months afterwards, saying she struggled to find a new job because she was visibly pregnant when she went to interviews, and as such, no one wanted to hire her.

Jennifer Hatch

Jennifer Hatch is another plaintiff, and previously shared her experience with the New York Times.

She wasn't pregnant when she was first hired, and had no problems with the physical aspects of the job, like remaining standing for long periods of time. But several months later, when she got pregnant, that changed.

Her asthma worsened, and she experienced abdominal pain if she stood for too long. Her doctor provided paperwork saying she should be allowed to sit throughout the day, but Amazon refused to comply.

At one point, she was struggling to breathe, and sat down, only for a supervisor to order her to stand again. She left work in an ambulance several times with abdominal pain, and in March of 2025, returned to work only to learn she had been fired, as her hospital visits had exceeded her total allotted time off by 90 minutes.

Meanwhile, she had been working part-time at a gas station, where her supervisors were incredibly accommodating of her pregnancy.

"The manager automatically had a chair behind the register ready for me," she told USA Today.

Kristina Green

A third woman, Kristina Green, said she was fired for taking breaks to pump breast milk for her baby.

During her pregnancy, she had requested accommodations which, as with the other plaintiffs, were denied. She was allowed to take breaks throughout the day, but each one was deducted from her time-off balance.

Once she gave birth, she had access to a lactation room, but it was a 10-minute walk away, and her break time began as soon as she left her station.

"I tried not to spend a lot of time pumping because there was multiple times I got in trouble for taking too long," she told USA TODAY, and confirmed that she ultimately was fired.

Zoom Out:

Amazon has come under fire for pregnancy discrimination before.

• Patty Hernandez said she requested a less strenuous role at Amazon when she got pregnant, which was denied. Hernandez ultimately suffered a miscarriage.

• Four women at Amazon’s Oklahoma City fulfillment center alleged circumstances almost identical to Hernandez.

• In 2019, CNET reviewed seven lawsuits against Amazon filed on behalf of pregnant women, reporting, “The requests [from the pregnant women] included longer bathroom breaks and fewer continuous hours on their feet… but in all of the cases the expectant mothers were fired after telling their managers they were pregnant. Six of the cases were settled out of court.”

Unfortunately, Amazon is far from alone.

Pregnancy discrimination is alarmingly common across the country, with former employees of Walmart, Google, Walgreens, UPS, Nike, and many other corporations accusing the companies of pregnancy discrimination or mistreatment.

Yet instead of acknowledging this issue, many companies began offering female employees abortion benefits instead of providing truly family-friendly work environments, which then implicitly pressures women to choose between their careers and their children.

The Bottom Line:

Pregnancy discrimination is a serious issue that too often goes unacknowledged.

Women deserve the ability to have a meaningful career without having to fear that a pregnancy will lead to discrimination or termination from their jobs.

Key Takeaways:

• A study from Denmark published this week followed a group of pregnant women expecting female babies, and who took Tylenol (or its generic form) during pregnancy.

• Early prenatal exposure was associated with "reduced ovarian... and uterine volume" while "mid-late... exposure was associated with fewer ovarian follicles."

• Some of these results were seen both in infancy and in adolescence.

• Similar results were seen in animal studies prior to this groundbreaking study on humans.

• Researchers point out that longer follow-up and larger studies are needed to arrive at any conclusions as to the impacts of prenatal Tylenol exposure on future female fertility.

The Details:

Study authors noted that theirs is "the first human study specifically designed to investigate whether prenatal paracetamol exposure is associated with markers of ovarian development in daughters."

The COPANA study, conducted from March 2020 to November 2022, enrolled 685 "healthy singleton pregnant women of Caucasian origin" in their first trimester of pregnancy. Of those, "302 infant daughters were examined at follow-up."

The study authors wrote (emphases added):

Early fetal exposure was associated with reduced ovarian volume (−0.11 cm3, 95% CI −0.19 to −0.03) and reduced uterine volume (−0.18 cm3, −0.35 to −0.01), whereas mid–late fetal exposure was associated with fewer ovarian follicles (−1.05 follicles, −1.71 to −0.39) compared to unexposed girls.

In its report on the study, CNN elaborated (emphasis added):

The study found that girls exposed to acetaminophen in the womb had, on average, 40% smaller ovarian volume, 13% smaller uterine volume and 23% fewer ovarian follicles — the structures that contain immature eggs — compared with girls whose mothers did not use acetaminophen during pregnancy. They also showed lower levels of a hormone [AMH/anti-mullerian hormone] linked to ovarian reserve.

CNN also noted that while "this study captured only a snapshot in time" and that "researchers did not follow the girls long-term to determine future fertility," the data does extend to adolescence (emphases added):

The researchers also analyzed data from 1,210 girls in the Copenhagen Mother-Child Cohort who were followed from infancy to adolescence; their mothers reported paracetamol use during the third trimester.

That data showed that fetal acetaminophen exposure was associated with smaller ovaries during adolescence and smaller uteruses at puberty.

Data beyond adolescence is absent, requiring future follow-up and larger studies.

However, prior to any studies on humans, animal studies of the drug yielded similar results. Researchers pointed out that,"[w]hile this study cannot prove that paracetamol directly caused these differences, the findings are consistent with results from animal studies."

The study authors also clarified that more research is needed to determine the implications of the results they found, writing, "Whether these early-life differences have long-term clinical relevance, including effects on reproductive lifespan, remains uncertain and requires analyses in studies with extended follow-up."

The Bottom Line:

Until further research is completed, the long-term implications of prenatal Tylenol (acetaminopen/paracetamol) use on female fertility are unknown. At this time, pregnant women have few other options when they experience illness or fever serious enough to warrant medication.

Study co-author Dr. Margit Bistrup Fischer told CNN that taking the drug is ultimately "something we need as a society to talk about and inform pregnant women more about, so they can make an informed decision.”

In the spring of 2022, I became pregnant by my then-boyfriend, Josef. At first, I did not realize that I was pregnant. At the same time, I had undergone eye surgery, and that was what occupied my attention during those first weeks. A few weeks later, I took a pregnancy test and discovered that I was pregnant with his child. I went to the doctor alone, and the pregnancy was confirmed.

For reasons I still struggle to explain, I could not tell my boyfriend. I was afraid—deeply afraid. I knew he would pressure me to have an abortion, so I kept the pregnancy secret. I do not know whether I did this out of fear or because I had become so emotionally dependent and vulnerable within that relationship.

The baby continued to grow. She was healthy, and there were no abnormalities.

Eventually, the day came when Josef noticed that my belly was growing. He asked what was happening, and I told him.

Abortion in America

He became angry. He said that we needed to see German doctors immediately so they could look for possible abnormalities or illnesses — something that might make it possible to legally abort the baby while she was still in the womb. But I knew my baby was healthy.

He manipulated me. He told me that I would have to raise the child alone, that I had no money, that the child would have a terrible life, and that I had no family support.

But what seemed to matter most to him was his own reputation. He feared that his Christian family would not accept a child born outside marriage and that they would look down on him. He wanted to continue living his single life.

When the German doctors could not give him what he wanted, he forced me to contact doctors and clinics in America. He had researched where a late abortion might be possible. I was already in my eighth month of pregnancy, close to 30 weeks.

At that time, I remembered Live Action from my school years. I had followed their page and had already seen and read their posts. I also knew about the Surgi-Clinic in Washington, D.C.

Josef continued to pressure and threaten me until I found the cheapest clinic, and I had to research it myself.

I read about the methods. I was horrified. I remember thinking: Is this really what is going to happen to me? To my baby? I need to get away.

But where could I go? He did not want this baby. What future could I possibly have with her?

I felt as though I was going to die — inside, and almost physically as well.

I am now in therapy, and at the time I did not understand that what I was experiencing was emotional abuse. From the outside, he appeared to be a kind man. But inside the relationship, everything felt dark and dead.

He insisted on this clinic, no matter what. Then I saw its name. I recognized it from the horrifying images I had once seen online of babies in buckets—babies who were approximately the age my daughter was.

I begged him not to force me. I begged him to stop. But he continued threatening me. He told me I had no future with this child and that the child would suffer terribly.

Eventually, I called the clinic and made the appointment. They explained the procedure to me, and Josef booked the flights to America.

A horrifying experience

On the very first day, my baby was injected and died inside my womb. I was then given medication that left me feeling silenced and powerless.

I ask myself why I was not strong enough to protect my own child. But it was too late.

That same evening, in the hotel, my little girl was dead inside me. Josef pressured me to have sex with him while his own child was dead in my womb. I did not want it.

I wanted everything simply to stop, and I submitted because I felt completely powerless.

The days passed. Medical sticks were used to open my cervix. My water broke in front of the doctor while I was lying on a hard examination table. The clinic itself felt more like a makeshift back room than a medical facility.

On the final morning, I developed a high fever. I heard in the clinic that women staying in the same hotel sometimes delivered their babies on the hotel floor.

Part of me wished that would happen to me. Then I could have taken my baby, held her, and kept her forever. I gave her a name: Eloise.

But that final day became the worst day of my life.

I was told to lie down on a hard table so the medical sticks could be removed. During the procedure, one of the nurses put her entire hand inside me.

I screamed from the depths of my soul. I begged her to stop. I begged for anesthesia. It was horrifying.

Afterward, I was taken to a waiting room with two other women. There, I began having intense contractions. I screamed so loudly that I know people throughout the clinic could hear me.

It was only about four hours later that the anesthesiologist came and put me under.

Dying a thousand deaths

To this day, I do not know how my daughter came out of me. I do not know what she looked like. I do not know whether she was hurt. I do not know what happened to her afterward.

What I do know is that I was told nothing about her remains.

I fear that, like the babies I had seen in the images, she was treated as medical waste and taken away.

That thought makes me die a thousand deaths every day. It is unbearable.

I was not allowed to see her. But I begged the nurse for her footprints.

I opened the envelope in the bathroom. While I was there, almost half a liter of blood flowed onto the floor.

I was not allowed to rest. I had to get up immediately after the procedure and dress myself.

Josef was waiting outside the clinic. He told me that we had to fly straight back to Germany. I was in shock.

At the airport, my face became paler and paler. I was shaking all over. I thought I was going to faint.

Josef put his hand on my stomach and said, “Your belly is so beautifully flat now.”

Then he simply went and got something to eat.

He took selfies for his friends on WhatsApp while I sat in front of him and stared at him. I felt as though I were in a dream. I was paralyzed. Silent tears simply ran down my cheeks while I stared into nothingness.

Then we flew back to Germany.

And somewhere, my baby was gone.

The aftermath of abortion

Back in Germany, I thought things would get better. Instead, they became worse and worse.

I had many nervous breakdowns. I often screamed. Josef would simply continue sleeping, or sometimes he would turn up the radio.

Many times I lay on the sofa and wanted only to die.

It was, and still is, absolute horror.

And I had to pretend in front of his family that nothing had happened. Inside, I felt as though I had died. At that time, part of me wished that I could have died too. I believed I would see Eloise in Heaven.

Speaking for Eloise

I want to use my testimony to help women who are facing situations like the one I faced—to tell them that coercion, fear, and manipulation are not freedom, and that they deserve help and protection.

I also want to help protect babies from suffering like this. And I want to bring attention to what I experienced inside that clinic.

After I returned home to Germany, medical material continued to come out of my body. I had severe cramps, and I could have developed a serious infection.

For three years, my soul has been crying out about this calling.

Now I believe the day has finally come to speak.

I want Eloise's life to mean something. I cannot change what happened to her. I cannot go back and save her. But I can tell her story. I can speak for women who feel trapped. I can speak for children who cannot speak for themselves.

On Friday, Kagan requested that the other side respond to West's application by 4 p.m. ET on September 18. However, West had noted in her request that Baby Gabriel/Rumi could be removed from Texas "despite his treatable condition" around September 17.

West's appeal request stated, "And because the Texas Attorney General has now withdrawn from the case and M.W. has been dismissed from it, no remaining party defends that order, which may be reversed or lifted at any moment. Indeed, the child could be removed from the Texas hospital and taken to California for hospice—despite his treatable condition—around September 17, if not sooner."

Meanwhile, on Thursday, the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of West. Dr. Jill Simons, Executive Director of ACPeds, said in a statement:

“For months before birth, Baby Gabriel knew the sound of his birth mother’s voice and experienced her presence. Medical research tells us that this relationship matters. For a medically fragile baby facing major heart surgeries and ongoing medical care, excluding the woman who carried and gave birth to him deprives him of a uniquely familiar and beneficial presence at precisely the time he is most vulnerable.

We are asking the Supreme Court to grant McKenna West’s application for a stay while the validity of the California judgment is reviewed. Without a stay, Baby Gabriel may lose irreplaceable time for bonding, caregiving, comfort, and medical support from the woman whose presence he has known since before birth. Baby Gabriel is a patient with his own dignity and medical interests, and his well-being must come first.”

The brief also noted that advancements in treatments for HLHS have significantly improved outcomes for children with the condition. Research shows that hospitals and doctors with experience treating HLHS have 90% or higher survival rates for the first of the the three needed surgeries. Overall, 70% of babies born today with HLHS are expected to reach adulthood.

9/9/2026: McKenna West, the surrogate who refused to abort the baby she was carrying following his diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), has filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court with the goal of ensuring the baby boy receives the life-saving health care he needs.

Key Takeaways:

• McKenna West filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States today.

• The Los Angeles Superior Court previously ruled that West has no right to either legal or physical custody of the baby. West is requesting a stay on that ruling.

• A Texas court recently dismissed West from Texas proceedings regarding the baby boy's care and ruled that she can no longer have access to information about him.

• West is concerned that there is no one defending the Texas court order ensuring Baby Gabriel/Rumi receives the life-saving surgeries he requires and that it will be rescinded.

• If that order is rescinded, it is believed that the intended parents could take him to California and potentially deny him the care he needs, allowing him to die without it.

The Details:

On Wednesday, surrogate McKenna West's attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States.

West is asking for a stay of a California court ruling that asserted she has no legal or physical claim to the baby boy she delivered. According to her request:

"That judgment was entered in a gross violation of federal due process that warrants this Court’s review and reversal. To prevent irreparable harm in the interim, this Court should grant a stay."

West's attorneys argue that she was forced to appear in the Los Angeles Superior Court with just two days' notice, despite the requirement that cases regarding her surrogacy be handled in an Alaskan court.

West appeared in the California court to argue this point but the judge "reached a shocking conclusion." West's appeal states:

The procedural history was nearly as bad. M.W. was haled into California court on two days’ notice, without proper service, and in violation of a forum selection clause requiring litigation in Alaska.

Although M.W. made a special appearance, solely to challenge personal jurisdiction and forum, the Los Angeles Superior Court reached a shocking conclusion sua sponte: that by submitting 147 pages of exhibits in support of her jurisdictional challenge, M.W. had addressed the “substance of the issues” and thus manifested consent to litigate on the merits. App.A.64.

West's emergency application also states:

The stakes of the decisions ...are enormous. The California courts have left the judgment in place, and other states have now enforced it and given it full faith and credit—including Texas, where the child, Baby G., was born last month.

Ordinarily, [West] would have been deemed Baby G.’s mother under Texas law by virtue of giving birth to him. But because of the unlawful California judgment, she has been dismissed with prejudice from the Texas proceedings and denied any information about or control over the medically fragile child.

West's attorneys argue that the decision by the Los Angeles Superior Court has caused "irreparable harm" because Baby Gabriel/Rumi is supposed to be undergoing life-saving surgeries to treat HLHS but his intended parents may want a Texas court to revoke the order requiring that the baby receive those surgeries.

Now that West has been dismissed from that order, said her attorneys, there is "no remaining party" to defend it, and it could, therefore, be lifted or reversed at any time and Baby Gabriel/Rumi removed from the Texas hospital and doctors who are caring for him.

The concern is that his intended parents will cease providing him with care and allow him to die.

West's attorneys are clear that a "stay is needed to preserve the status quo and ensure [West] can advocate for her rights and remain informed about Baby G. during this critical time in his young life."

Justice Elena Kagan is the Supreme Court Justice who will review West's request. She could either approve it, deny it, or send it to the full U.S. Supreme Court for review.

The Backstory:

As a nurse and single mother of two small children, West was seeking a way to make more income without being apart from her children. Believing surrogacy would allow her to make some money while giving parents the gift of a baby, she signed on to be a surrogate for Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed.

It was her understanding that the couple would not request an abortion unless there was a serious risk to West's life. But then, at 20 weeks, the baby boy was diagnosed with HLHS, a serious but treatable condition that would require multiple surgeries.

West was shocked when the couple quickly requested an abortion. And though she originally scheduled a D&E dismemberment abortion, she ultimately could not bring herself to go through with it.

She knew she was putting herself at risk of financial ruin, but she did not want to put the baby through such a horrific procedure — a procedure that also carried significant risks for West.

Because West refused to have an abortion, Gilkar and Ahmed stopped sending West money and wanted her to return the money they had already paid her, as well as additional damages for failing to abort baby Gabriel/Rumi.

West, meanwhile, found doctors in Texas who specialized in the surgeries that the baby would need, with a 100% success rate with the first of the three surgeries.

She also had a place she and her children could stay in Texas, so she relocated to get the baby the care he needed. She also decided to fight for custody of the baby unless Gilkar and Ahmed would commit to getting him the surgeries.

They have not yet formally agreed to this.

After Baby Gabriel/Rumi was born, he was taken from West and she hasn't seen him since. He was able to receive the first surgery but his medical condition is currently unclear, although Gilkar and Ahmed say he has been in critical condition.

They are suing West for $100,000 and have called her "unstable" and accused her of trying to steal the baby.

“I’m not fighting to try to take someone else’s baby," West wrote in an opinion piece for The Post. "I’m fighting because this baby boy needs someone willing to advocate for and fight alongside him as he gets the ongoing treatment his fragile heart requires.”

Key Takeaways:

• The Solicitor General for the State of Louisiana presented oral arguments before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Also presenting were attorneys representing the FDA, abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories, and abortion pill manufacturer GenBioPro.

• The Plaintiffs were seeking a preliminary injunction to allow the State of Louisiana to enforce its pro-life laws while the lawsuit continues.

• Louisiana argued that it has standing to bring the lawsuit due to the harms caused by the facilitation of illegal abortions in Louisiana, coupled with the impact on Louisiana’s Medicaid costs due to some women billing for abortion pill complications.

• The state argues that it was targeted by the Biden administration, which vowed to do whatever possible to expand abortion following the 2022 Dobbs Supreme Court decision.

• The state pointed out that, despite pill manufacturers' claims that the abortion pill has a stellar safety record, the FDA has put its 'head in the sand' when it comes to the reporting of complications, with non-fatal adverse events not required to be reported for the past decade.

• This, coupled with deception in which women are urged to lie to ER personnel about complications, virtually guarantees that abortion pill complications have been underreported as well as misreported for many years, and may never be accurately reported. 

• The justices seemed critical of FDA representation's unwillingness to answer any questions unless related to the question of whether Louisiana had standing to sue.

The Details:

The State of Louisiana's appeal requested "705 stay of the 2023 REMS" safety requirements on the abortion pill mifepristone, put in place by the FDA, which enabled mail-order and pharmacy dispensing of the drug. The State contended that removing the in-person dispensing requirement for the drug has caused irrevocable harm to the State, which has laws in place to protect preborn children from abortion.

"Today we were asking for a preliminary injunction so Louisiana can enforce its law as this lawsuit continues in the court," a media relations spokesperson from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing the Plaintiffs in the case, told Live Action News.

Arguments 'very procedural'

Following the hearing, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill stated that the "arguments were very procedural... about standing, because this has been up to the Supreme Court and they issued a stay...."

Murrill reiterated that the FDA should reinstate the pre-Biden era rules, which she called "common sense":

"The evidence continues to show this is dangerous medication for women. There are a lot of contraindications to the use of this medication...

There's a Black Box warning on these pills for a reason. That's because women can become septic, they can hemorrhage... [or] require additional procedures...."

Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga began his oral argument before the Fifth Circuit by pointing to websites like Aid Access, which advertise their willingness to illegally ship abortion pills into the state.

Aguiñaga stated:

"You can buy an abortion pill online and get it by mail in Louisiana. The FDA has approved abortion pills by mail. Aid Access works with U.S. based abortion providers in so-called shield law states (this means that the states will protect the providers against legal action). Therefore, Aid Access can provide abortion services to all 50 U.S. states, including Louisiana."

Louisiana argued that it has standing to bring the lawsuit due to the harms caused by the facilitation of illegal abortions in Louisiana, coupled with the impact on Louisiana’s Medicaid costs due to some women billing for abortion pill complications.

But some justices seemed to question whether bad actors violating state laws were to blame, rather than the FDA's 2023 change.

Showing a clear bias, Talking Points Memo reported:

The state is arguing that the Food and Drug Administration is to blame for mifepristone being prescribed to Louisiana patients by blue state providers and entering the state through the mail, because it lifted the in-person dispensing requirement during the Biden administration.

It then had to add a couple more steps to find an injury, settling on the extra money it has to pay through Medicaid when certain patients who took that mifepristone go to the emergency room with complications.

The state also argues that the Biden administration was targeting Louisiana and its anti-abortion regime when it lifted the restrictions temporarily in 2021 and permanently in 2023.

Judge Stephen Higginson sounded skeptical, asking, "I'm looking at six different steps…and we're gonna attribute that to the federal government?" He questioned whether the FDA’s role is a reason abortion pills are flowing into Louisiana: “Those are state shield laws,” he said. “The government has nothing to do with the shield laws.”

But Aguiñaga argued that the state was impacted because some women who use the pills seek treatment for complications, WBRZ reported.

He cited an emergency room doctor who testified that ER personnel are seeing abortion pill complications "every day," with a majority of those patients being on Medicaid. The implication is that aftercare for abortion pill complications is likely being billed to Louisiana taxpayers. Those economic harms to the State were cause for the Court to be assured that Louisiana has standing in the case.

"Non zero is enough" when it comes to such cases in proving economic injury, Louisiana's attorney claimed.

Louisiana says it was targeted

The State contended the decision to expand access to the drug following the Dobbs ruling was paramount to "targeting" by Biden administration officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the FDA.

Texas and Florida made similar claims, pointing to statements made by those in the Biden administration including HHS Secretary Becerra, who said the administration would "use every lever" to "defend" and "strengthen" the so-called 'right' to abortion.

Then-President Biden described the overturning of Roe as “an extreme decision" and said he was “committed to doing everything in his power” to “protect access” to abortion.

Louisiana wrote in 2025:

"That targeted assault on pro-life states worked as intended.

While in-person abortions virtually vanished from Louisiana, mifepristone-induced abortions—authorized by out-of-state doctors mailing FDA-approved mifepristone—skyrocketed.

Said one mifepristone mailer: “We really don’t change things unless we’re legally required to.”

“We’re confident people in ... every state ... will still be able to get abortion pills by mail,” said another.

Increased ER visits and lack of reporting

Live Action News has documented that for decades, the abortion industry has participated in a scheme to hide abortion pill complications by advising women to present to emergency rooms and falsely claim that they are experiencing natural miscarriages.

This deception virtually guarantees that complications have been underreported as well as misreported for many years, and quite possibly will never be accurately reported. 

Following Louisiana's attorney, the Government's attorney representing the FDA was criticized by the justices for being unwilling to address any specifics other than the standing issues at hand.

The judges seemed interested in claims that, prior to the removal of in-person dispensing, about "4%" of women visited the emergency room after taking the abortion pill — but after 2023 REMS changes removing that requirement, that percentage has risen to nearly 11%, according to claims made in a published analysis from the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

"I find that very unsatisfactory, that the agency [FDA] won't give an opinion as to its own regulations," said Higginson. 

"FDA is conducting ongoing review," the FDA's legal counsel stated. "I can't predict where FDA will come out on the review."

GenBioPro's attorney claimed that about half of women presenting to the ER were only there for "reassurance" and were not admitted. However, this points to a larger problem: the REMS for mifepristone requires that prescribers have the ability to "provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding, or to have made plans to provide such care through others, and ability to assure patient access to medical facilities equipped to provide blood transfusions and resuscitation, if necessary."

If women are simply on their own and are reporting to ERs instead, this means manufacturers are not policing the prescribers properly, as required.

Women seeking "reassurance" should have been advised to contact the prescriber first rather than add to the volume of patients visiting often overcrowded emergency rooms.

An investigative report led by Senator Bill Cassidy has accused abortion pill manufacturers of being unaccountable, and of putting profit over safety by failing to decertify prescribers of the drug when they are out of compliance with the REMS.

FDA ignores complications like 'ostrich with head in the sand'

Danco attorney Jessica Ellsworth claimed mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex has a "well established safety profile."

But that safety record is dependent upon what has been reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Database (FAERS), and in 2016, Obama's FDA changed the REMS to no longer require the reporting of non-fatal adverse events due to the abortion pill.

Couple that with Big Abortion's scheme to hide complications (even prior to 2016) by advising women not to return to the prescribing clinic to report adverse events, but to instead go to an ER and lie, and the burying of complications seems evident.

Louisiana previously claimed that the FDA is like an 'ostrich with its head in the sand' when it comes to the reporting of abortion pill complications, stating:

The deficiencies in the FAERS data are of FDA’s own making.

FDA had removed the requirement that abortion prescribers report serious adverse events other than death to FDA — this stripped the FAERS database of actual reporting of non-fatal adverse events....

Faced with that fact, the Fifth Circuit expressed disbelief that, “[a]fter eliminating th[e] adverse-event reporting requirement [in 2016], FDA turned around in 2021 and declared the absence of non-fatal adverse-event reports means mifepristone is ‘safe.’”

“This ostrich’s-head-in-the-sand approach is deeply troubling,” it said, “especially on a record that, according to [FDA’s] own documents, necessitates a REMS program, a ‘Patient Agreement Form,’ and a ‘Black Box’ warning.” Id.

“And it suggests FDA’s actions are well outside the zone of reasonableness.”... For those reasons, the Fifth Circuit emphasized that “[i]t’s unreasonable for an agency to eliminate a reporting requirement for a thing and then use the resulting absence of data to support its decision”—and thus “it [is] unlikely that plaintiffs’ arbitrary-and capricious challenges will fail on the merits.”

GenBioPro's attorney claimed the FDA's decision to change the 2023 REMS was "richly supported," but he failed to mention — as Live Action detailed in our abortion pill white paper — that studies supporting safety claims were largely the product of pro-abortion authors publishing in pro-abortion journals, with some on the abortion pill manufacturers' payroll.

Reality Check:

'Continuous efforts' to increase profits

Louisiana AG Liz Murrill told media following the hearing:

"I think there are a lot of good reasons why the FDA had the REMS protocol in place. The abortion industry engaged in a continuous efforts to remove those protocols and the drug manufacturers are profiting mightily off the backs of aborted babies. It's disgusting."

Murrill added:

"What continues to really be astonishing to me is that Danco and GenBioPro are here advocating for their ability to continue to profit from these abortions, these illegal abortions in our state.

I continue to find that very troublesome that they make a lot of money off the illegal distribution of drugs in our state.

And that they should be joining with us to prevent the illegal distribution of those drugs in our state especially when we have evidence of women being poisoned with these drugs that have their brand names on them."

FDA 'jeopardizing safety of women'

"Despite repeated invitations from the court, the FDA’s attorney refused to defend the FDA’s decision to authorize mail-order abortion drugs. Rightly so. It was, and is, indefensible on many levels," Erik Baptist, Senior Counsel at ADF told Live Action News in a written statement.

He added:

Louisiana needs relief now. As we heard in the argument today, nearly 1,000 unlawful abortion drugs are flooding the state every month. This is an undisputed fact.

Meanwhile, the Biden FDA’s action continues to jeopardize the safety of women.

The FDA is not above the law. We hope the Courts will provide relief and allow the pro-life states like Louisiana to protect women and babies.

Listen below:

A date for an expected ruling was not published, but depending on the outcome, the case may return to the Supreme Court.

Key Takeaways:

• Dr. William Evans of Stephenson, Texas, has had his medical license revoked after the Texas Medical Board found he illegally prescribed an "abortive" drug to a patient.

• Evans reportedly gave the woman the prescription after he engaged in an "inappropriate sexual relationship" with her.

• There is no indication whether or not the woman took the abortion drug.

The Details:

Dr. William (Bill) Evans has been practicing medicine for 27 years. Last week, the Texas Medical Board revoked his ability to continue.

A letter from the Texas Medical Board to Evans states that the Board had discovered that Evans "had engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a patient," and "on or about December 17, 2023, [Evans] prescribed an abortive to that patient, in violation of Health and Safety Code Section 170A.002(a)."

There is no indication as to whether or not the woman took the 'abortive' drug, nor how the Texas Medical Board discovered this took place.

The letter, dated September 4, 2026, informs Evans that his medical license was revoked immediately. A notice posted at the website of Evans' medical practice, Cross Timbers Orthopaedics, indicated it was closed as of late last week.

Zoom In:

At the time Evans prescribed the abortion-inducing drug, Texas' Human Life Protection Act, which protects nearly all preborn children from abortion, was in effect.

The law requires the Medical Board to "revoke the license, permit, registration, certificate, or other authority of a physician or other health care professional who performs, induces, or attempts an abortion."

Though Evans has not yet been criminally charged, per the law he also faces a second-degree felony charge for prescribing the abortion-inducing drug, with the possibility for that charge to be upgraded to a first-degree charge if a preborn child died as a result of his actions. He could also face a civil penalty.

The Bottom Line:

There is little information given about the specifics of this case, and whether or not the pregnant woman wanted an abortion.

However, the case calls into question whether Evans abused his power as a medical authority in engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a patient, and then prescribing her an 'abortive' drug to kill her preborn child.

Key Takeaways:

• Stephanie Levesque Murphy decided to become a surrogate to help people become parents.

• After being accepted by an agency, she was matched with two couples, and had good relationships and pregnancies with both.

• It was during her third surrogacy that an issue arose. Despite agreeing with the intended parents that abortion wasn't an option, after the baby was diagnosed with HLHS, they wanted her to abort.

• Murphy refused to abort and the couple stopped financially supporting her and began making more demands. It also appeared they wouldn't be allowing surgery for the baby after birth — only "comfort care."

• After giving birth, the baby was taken away and Murphy doesn't know his name or if he is even alive today.

The Details:

After becoming pregnant with identical twin girls at age 20, Murphy felt blessed to have two babies while so many other people had tried unsuccessfully to have one. She wanted to become a surrogate to help couples with infertility. But she was turned away from a surrogacy agency because she was unwilling to have an abortion if the intended parents requested one. 

Two years later, Murphy was able to find an agency that respected her stance against having an abortion, and she was quickly matched with a couple.

During their initial meeting, they all agreed that abortion was not an option. After carrying that baby successfully, Murphy was matched with another couple and had another positive outcome.

In 2017, Murphy matched with a third couple. She explained that on the introduction call, everything went as well as it ever had. 

“They said they would never consider terminating unless my life was in danger or the doctors said that it was medically necessary,” Murphy told Live Action News. “I wasn’t even the one who said that first. I said, ‘That’s perfect. That’s how I feel.’”

She signed the contract, which she said had two separate sections about abortion. One clause said the surrogate had the right to abort or not abort. And in another, she explained, it stated the surrogate must follow the intended parents’ wishes when it came to abortion.

Murphy didn’t have a problem agreeing to this because they had all agreed that abortion would not be an option outside of an emergency.

But for some, "medically necessary" means aborting a child even for a treatable diagnosis.

Murphy became pregnant and everything went well until week 16.

Doctors found that the baby had HLHS, a rare and serious but largely treatable condition in which the left side of the heart doesn’t form properly. The doctors immediately sent Murphy to a pediatric cardiologist. 

“The doctor was amazing, spent so much time with me, said we had to take it seriously but success rates were incredible. The baby would have an amazing life. The surgeries have successful outcomes as long as we jump on it and take care of it immediately,” she explained. “He called the parents and talked to them for about an hour. I sent them flowers with a note that said something like, ‘We’re in this together. We’ve got this.’”

She told Live Action News that she texted the parents to say she was thinking about them, and the father replied, “We love you. A big part of our pain is just knowing what you’re going through.”

She didn’t quite understand the full meaning of his message until the next day.

Blindsided by an abortion request

“The next morning, I got a call from the agency saying the parents wanted to abort,” she explained. “It was very businesslike on that call.”

Murphy hadn’t seen this coming. She didn’t want to abort the baby, but she knew the intended parents could stop paying her.

Yet for Murphy, it was about the baby first - a baby the parents said they wanted, but now wanted to abort because of a treatable condition. 

She called her sister to talk about it and after hanging up the phone, she realized her young twin daughters had been listening to their conversation. They asked her if she was “going to kill the baby.”

“I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ If there’s anything in the world that would make you do the right thing, it’s your kids watching you,” she said. “I knew I needed to protect this baby.”

From then on, all communication between Murphy and the couple went through the agency. They scheduled a mediation meeting and the couple flew to Texas for it.

Murphy scheduled a sonogram while they were there. She hoped they would see their baby on the screen and change their minds. In fact, in Texas at the time, there was a waiting period law stating that a woman could not have an abortion until 24 hours after viewing an ultrasound.

But the parents didn’t even go to the appointment. In fact, they hadn’t been to any of her appointments, which Murphy considered “strange” compared to her previous surrogacy experiences.

After the ultrasound, Murphy went to a meeting with the doctors and the intended parents, in which the doctors discussed the three surgeries the baby would need. Murphy recalled:

“One of the doctors looked the father in the eyes and said, ‘I don’t know a single medical professional who would tell you to abort this baby.’ They still wanted an abortion.

I offered to adopt him… and they were so offended that I asked that.”

Though the intended parents continued to pay her medical bills and did not try to force her to abort, they stopped paying her or reimbursing her for missed work.

Then the intended father started bashing her to the doctors.

That’s when one of the doctors suggested that Murphy revoke the HIPAA paperwork she signed that had allowed the doctors to release medical information to the parents.

Murphy, however, did allow the parents to access the medical records. “I did stick to my contractual obligations in this regard,” she said, “which felt exponentially more vulnerable given the state of our relationship.”

Murphy began driving to Dallas for medical care, which affected her work hours and income. The intended parents became more demanding, and ultimately, Murphy had to find a second job.

When Murphy contacted the agency to tell them how it was affecting her, the intended parents accused her of wanting to withhold care from the baby.

Meanwhile, from what she was being told, the parents were planning to allow only "comfort care" for their son (whom Murphy calls Luca) at birth, and deny him the life-saving surgery. Murphy said:

“When I pressed the agency and doctors for answers, the response changed and I was told they weren't sure and would decide after the doctor assessed him at birth.

The one and only time I was told surgery would be performed is when the intended parents told the news they would be doing the surgery."

Ultimately, the parents issued Murphy a payment of $2,000 and agreed to pay her $500 a month to help care for the baby, and then a lump sum of $4,000 when she delivered. But she had to do whatever they said for the rest of the pregnancy.

“I had zero autonomy at all,” she said, and she worried they might not give the baby the life-saving surgery he needed at birth. “I felt so helpless.”

Thankfully, help was on the way.

Her best friend’s boss heard of her situation, and asked if he could hire attorneys for her. Those attorneys penned letters telling the parents to provide the baby with surgery and arguing that ‘comfort care’ is not health care.

Ultimately, the story was leaked to the press, and journalists contacted the intended parents.

While they told the press they planned to allow the surgeries, they later refused to pay Murphy the promised $4,000 because the story went public. 

"Of course, they could tell the news anything — that doesn't confirm Luca was provided with the necessary surgery for his survival,” said Murphy.

She gave birth by C-section in December 2017, and though she was able to see Luca briefly, she never saw him again nor has she ever received an update or photo in the nine years since his birth.

She doesn’t know his given name or if he’s even alive.

“I wondered if, when he was taken from me, if he was leaving the room to his death, and if the next time I see him is when I pass along too,” said Murphy. 

Changing the laws

Murphy noted that since this experience in 2017, surrogacy laws and contracts have not changed.

“There’s no protection for surrogates,” she said. “The baby doesn’t have rights either in surrogacy..."

She said she would like to see...

• Contracts that give the surrogates the right to say no to abortions and other medical procedures without the fear of legal or financial backlash.

• Dispute protocols in contracts for when something unexpected happens.

• Guaranteed prefunded postpartum mental health care available to surrogates after delivery.

• Protocol to appoint a guardian ad litem to give the baby independent protections.

• Waiting period abortion laws that ensure the biological, intended parents view an ultrasound, not just the surrogate.

• True informed consent for surrogates regarding how much of their lives is scrutinized.

“You’re carrying someone else’s child and they might want you to eat a certain way; they care about your lifestyle. It all affects you in your daily life,” she said, adding, “It’s not informed consent when you agree to all the terms and then they change their wishes.”

Not a complete anomaly

When Murphy first heard surrogate McKenna West’s <a href="/news/surrogate-fights-baby-heart-condition-refusing-abortion">story</a>, she was shocked. “I thought me going through that experience was a complete anomaly," she said. “I had no idea that it would ever happen again — the same exact diagnosis.”

It reignited her desire to change the laws and the contract wording.

Since then, she’s heard even more horror stories from the surrogacy industry and learned of the many <a href="/news/altruistic-surrogacy-isnt-ethical-alternative-commercial">ethical concerns</a> with the practice.

“I understand taking the baby [from the surrogate at birth], but at the end of the day, that’s not putting the baby first. Birth is already traumatic. The baby needs to regulate its heart rate and body temperature and vitals. It makes me so sad that in a situation like mine, that it would have helped the baby to do skin to skin with me,” Murphy said. “Instead he was immediately ripped from me."

She added, "It makes me sad to think about, as much as I loved my surrogacies and would hate to see it completely disappear, how do you legally and ethically regulate such an industry?”

Zoom Out:

As Live Action News has <a href="/news/elizabeth-banks-nine-rounds-ivf">reported</a>, research shows that taking babies from their birth mother — whether biologically related or not — causes immense trauma, and can permanently alter a child’s adult brain function later in life.

This can be true even with adoption at birth. The difference is that adoption exists to heal a wound created when biological parents are unable to care for a child. Surrogacy, however, deliberately creates a child with the intention of creating that wound by separating that child from his or her birth mother immediately after delivery.

Many women choose to become surrogates with good intentions, but unfortunately, there are many ethical issues involved in surrogacy:

• It involves creating embryos in a lab to then test them and grade them, deciding which ones make the cut and which should be discarded.

• It also involves paying a woman for the use of her body, which means she is often an underprivileged woman and her dignity is often violated.

• Surrogates are often <a href="/news/lance-bass-surrogacy-dehumanization-fertility-industry">treated</a> as second class citizens, with the intended parents acting as though they own the woman for the duration of the pregnancy.

• There are cases like Murphy’s and West’s in which a woman is asked to undergo a <a href="/news/researchers-abortionists-abortion-second-trimester-dangerous">risky</a> abortion procedure on a baby she has been bonding with for months.

• Then there’s the issue of taking the baby immediately from his birth mother, the only mother he’s ever known and the person to whom he is the most bonded. 

The Bottom Line:

Wanting a child is natural and good. But when it comes to the fertility industry’s lack of regulation and overwhelming ethical concerns, the ends do not justify the means. 

"If McKenna's and my story echo anything," said Murphy, "it needs to echo this: Something must change. Now. "

But this idea isn't new. In a 2024 New Yorker interview, Hern himself stated that he had lethally injected a preborn child with a health condition who was past 35 weeks gestation, and then sent the mother to the hospital to deliver her stillborn baby. Hern asserted (emphasis added), "I don’t call that an abortion. It was an interruption of a pregnancy that was hopelessly complicated."

The truth, however, is that the intentional and direct killing of a preborn child — regardless of the reason — is an induced abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• Rise Collective, comprised largely of former employees of late-term abortionist Warren Hern in Boulder, Colorado, are following in Hern's footsteps, administering lethal feticide injections to preborn children and then sending their mothers home to deliver them as "stillbirths" in hospitals.

• Warren Hern once stated in an interview that he doesn't view this as "an abortion," even though it clearly is intentionally ending the life of a preborn child and then leaving the stillbirth delivery portion of the procedure for someone else to handle.

• This is not new, and Hern is not the only one who has participated in these abortions other than Rise Collective. Indiana abortionist Caitlin Bernard inquired in 2018 about finding someone to lethally inject a patient's 22-week baby and then send that patient back to Indiana for stillbirth delivery. Other abortion businesses have also made mention of this abortion scheme.

• Medical malpractice attorney Mike Seibel predicts that "red states could see an increase of stillbirths that the media will then blame on abortion bans." He also noted that this could be considered insurance fraud.

• OBGYN Dr. Ingrid Skop noted similar concerns that the abortion industry is doing this so that women can then have their private insurance or Medicaid pay for an abortion while presenting it as a natural stillbirth.

The Background:

In the third trimester of pregnancy, the method most often used is induction abortion. This typically involves injecting the living preborn baby with a feticide (such as digoxin or potassium chloride/KCL) to cause fatal cardiac arrest so that the preborn child dies. Then, labor is induced to deliver the stillborn baby.

A Reddit user described her experience with feticide:

It was awful. They bring a giant needle and inject it into the my belly to find baby’s heart using the ultrasound... I swear it is the most gut wrenching, heartbreaking and unbearable experience that I’ll never forget... It was nothing compare to the immense emotional pain.

Then it’s done and there a sense of relief… but the baby keeps moving, slower for a bit then stops after about 12 hours, and a reminder of the brutal reality.

Another Reddit user cited "horror stories" about the KCL injection:

Last night I was reading about the injection just to be prepared. Found out it has to be directly injected into baby’s heart with ultrasound guidance and some people shared their horror stories of... the baby jumping and fighting the needle and the baby’s heart still beating the next day and requiring another injection.

I was telling this out loud to my mom and my baby girl start [sic] moving and kicking so hard for a really long time period. I have never felt her move for so long consecutively.

Live Action News previously documented how abortion industry insiders, insurance companies, universities, and abortion-friendly groups have admitted that abortions committed later in gestation (at a point at which babies have a chance to survive when born prematurely), are so dangerous that they should never be committed in an outpatient facility — and therefore fall outside the standard of care.

Dr. Greg Marchand, a board-certified OB-GYN and gynecologic surgeon who founded the Marchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery in Mesa, Arizona, confirms this, telling media that induction abortion is “something that would need to be done in the hospital."

Sometimes these gruesome procedures are funded by taxpayer dollars.

The Details:

Pro-life researcher and activist Sadie Olson tipped off Live Action News about the injection only abortions offered by Rise Collective, which shares limited details on its website under the heading "Abortion Care Up to 34 Weeks."

The 'injection only' dropdown box states in part:

You will then be brought to our exam room for an abdominal injection to safely and gently end the pregnancy

After your visit:

You will return home to your physician for the labor & delivery

OR we will help you coordinate the labor & delivery at a partnering hospital in Colorado

Rise Collective Boulder opened in October of 2025 and was founded by facility staff previously employed by abortionist Warren Hern, who announced his retirement last year.

Rise claims to be a "team of more than 13 owners, clinicians, administrators, and staff" where "providers are trained for the future."

'Injection only' assembly line abortion scheme

Administering a lethal injection of feticide without actually doing the labor induction to complete the abortion allows the abortion business to function like an assembly line by sending the woman to another physician for labor & delivery (L&D). The scheme also reduces risk to the abortion facility because later abortions are typically a multi-day process, and much can go wrong during this time.

This Reddit thread discusses "injection only" abortions occurring in multiple locations, including 'termination for medical reasons' (TFMR) in offices of maternal fetal medicine (MFM) providers.

Reddit User #1 stated:

I currently have an appointment scheduled in Boulder...for a TFMR at 27 + 4... talked about the option of getting the injection and then going home to do L&D at our hospital, but we would need my OB's support/confirmation that they can do this... our genetic counselor referred us to.

Reddit User #2 said:

If you are favoring doing injection-only, Boulder is more expensive ($10K last I heard) compared to other safe options such as DuPont ($2.5K last I heard)... if money were an issue, I could also try to help you get to an MFM's office for the injection (often <$1K).

Reddit User #3 asked:

Can I PM you? I am looking to get an injection only and dupoint [sic] quoted me 7200. How would I go about getting into a MFM quickly.

Reddit user #4 asked:

Are any of them (DuPont or boulder) good for a very late 33 week termination ? Unfortunately we learnt about the complications quite late . Boulder lady said it will be injection at their place and then delivery at a Denver hospital . What are the risks?

On a separate Reddit thread, one user wrote:

hi. some places you can get a kcl injection and come home and go to the er and it will be treated as a stillbirth. i got this done at 22 weeks in albany pa. then my doctors met me in the er the next day.

TerminationsRemembered.com, which recommends TFMR hospitals and includes "TFMR stories," shared this Dupont abortion facility review:

Due to the late stage of my pregnancy (diagnosis was received at 36 weeks), I was unable to access care for termination in Massachusetts. My hospital directed me to this Clinic. We flew there and back in the same day...The procedure was a straightforward injection and I was not in any pain for the return trip... And they were willing to be in touch with the hospital when we returned home and I was admitted for induction. (Note: for late-stage terminations, they generally recommend patients travel home to deliver.)

TheTFMRDoula.com review describes getting the "injection" and returning to the hospital for delivery.

Injection-only abortions have been committed for years

This is not the first time "injection-only" abortions have been brought to the attention of Live Action News.

An inspection of public records requests captured Indiana University abortionist Caitlin Bernard looking for someone to inject babies in another location or state with potassium chloride (KCL) and have the woman returned to her for the induction abortion in 2018:

July of 2018

I have a patient in Indiana who is 22+2wks (above my GA limit of 21+6wks)... who strongly desires induction of labor [IOL] termination. Is there anyone who would be willing to do KCl or Digoxin injection for her then be returned to us for IOL? MFM here is willing to take her back & manage induction. Any leads would be helpful -- also for future similar referrals given our GA limit. 

Thank you very much, 
Caitlin Bernard
Indiana University  

She later responds, "We have found something close to home for her... Thank you for all the great responses, I and the patients in restrictive states are eternally grateful to you all!!"

A separate IPRA request obtained by Live Action News discussed how the late-term abortion facility "Southwestern" (Southwestern Women's Options), then owned by Dr. Curtis Boyd, priced a woman from Texas for a "Dig" (short for digoxin) injection.

The nurse then said:

We should talk about pricing for this service and the possible liability involved in providing digoxin and then sending them away to deliver elsewhere, probably the wonderful land of Texas.

The Consequences:

Hiding information about complications

"This is a chilling proposal," Texas OBGYN Dr. Ingrid Skop told Live Action News. She added:

"For years, abortionists have been providing unsupervised first-trimester mifepristone/misoprostol abortions and encouraging women to hide this information when they seek medical help for complications.

Now, apparently, they have decided this is a good strategy for abortions throughout all trimesters of pregnancy.

Violates the standard of care

"Late term abortion has gone to grotesque levels," claimed medical malpractice attorney Michael Seibel, who operates the website abortioninjury.com. "There is always a risk of extramural delivery. It could take place in a car or airplane."

Seibel added:

"They’re just experimenting on patients left and right; it’s so grotesque. Is this allowed by the joint commission for hospitals? It clearly violates the standard of care because they are not being monitored.”

Dr. Skop reiterated those concerns, telling Live Action News (emphases added):

"We already know that a late abortion is more dangerous than an early abortion but providing a feticidal injection to kill the baby without a plan for delivery will increase a mother’s risk of infection and disseminated intravascular coagulation if delivery is delayed.

Likely, the abortion industry is providing this partial abortion service to decrease costs for a woman, who can then return to her home (possibly in a pro-life state), report decreased fetal movement and then be diagnosed with a “stillbirth” by a doctor who may remain unaware of the reason for the baby’s death.

The labor induction and delivery charges would then be borne by the woman’s private insurance or Medicaid (in violation of the Hyde Amendment).

Seibel suggested attorneys general in pro-life states should immediately "investigate hospitals or doctors working in collusion" with abortion facilities to finish these lethal injection induction abortions and then log them as stillbirths to avoid criminal penalties.

He warned that while "women may not be prosecuted for the abortion, they can be prosecuted for Medicaid fraud” if the delivery is billed to the taxpayer.

Seibel predicted that "Red states could see an increase of stillbirths that the media will then blame on abortion bans." Seibel also questioned:

Is this a conspiracy to violate laws and the Hyde Amendment and Red State abortion bans? And who’s paying for it?

They want to separate the killing from the procedure, so they have plausible deniability.

In the end, Seibel said he stands ready to "sue doctors and hospitals when these women have a pulmonary embolism because they’re not being monitored. Or they suffer or die from sepsis or suffer from emotional distress after delivering in their cars."

Key Takeaways:

• Cordoba was the victim of an acid attack at the hands of her then-partner, and became permanently disfigured.

• She has undergone over 80 surgeries, and still struggles to survive; as she is unable to work, she spends her days begging on the streets of Colombia.

• During a 2017 visit from Pope Francis, Cordoba told him she planned to undergo euthanasia, and he convinced her that her life was still worth living.

• She now says she is considering euthanasia again, though public support allowing her to have reconstructive surgery may have caused her to reconsider.

The Backstory:

58-year-old Maria Consuelo Cordoba was permanently disfigured after an acid attack in 2000. Cordoba had left her partner, Dagoberto Ensuncho Sánchez, to move from Cartagena to Bogotá in the hopes of better job opportunities. When she refused to move back in with Sánchez, he attacked her.

“It was my decision, I told him: 'I want to go to Bogotá to look for work',” she told the podcast V'amos Pa'eso y Derecho Pa' la Gente. “If I wasn’t for him, he told me he would kill me, that if I wasn’t for him, I wasn’t for anyone."

Their relationship had been abusive, and Cordoba sought to make a new life for herself.

"I told him I was very happy here and that I didn't like being there in Cartagena because he liked to drink a lot, and I don't like alcohol (...) he would come home drunk and try to hit me," she said. "He would punch me in the eye, make it swell up, and I didn't want that kind of cruel life either."

The night of her attack, he called and said he had arrived in Bogotá and asked her to pick him up. When she refused, he showed up at her house; the two had dinner together, and he left. But 15 minutes later, he returned. As soon as she opened the door, he attacked.

“When I opened the door he threw the acid at me," she said. "I didn't know it was acid because he had it in a can of liquor (...) I just thought he was drinking at that time of night and when I went out he threw that liquid in my face."

Cordoba had to undergo 87 surgeries and spent more than three years in the hospital.

Sánchez, meanwhile, was reportedly sentenced to just four years in prison, though Cordoba said he returned to Cartagena and didn't spend any time in jail.

What Happened Next:

Cordoba told NPR that her life had become miserable following the attack.

Even after her surgeries, she still can only breathe through tubes in her nostrils, and eat liquid food through a straw. She has to wear a mesh bodysuit at all times, as well as an elastic mask, to prevent infection and to cover her injured face. Unable to work, she survives by begging in Colombian markets. The vendors know her and her story, and often give her money to help when they can, partly due to the rise of acid attacks in Colombia.

As with Sánchez, offenders often face little to no jail time.

"What's happening with the acid attacks is terrible, terrible," Rita Velandia, one of the vendors who gives Cordoba money, said. "We are terrified of it. Being attacked with acid is incredibly terrible."

Cordoba is blind in one eye, lost one ear and her nose, and her mouth was destroyed, leaving just a small opening. "I come here to earn a living, to meet my obligations. People here know me and they know my situation," she said of the markets, and added, "I've thought about committing suicide, yes sir, I've thought about taking my life three times. I say to myself, why live? With a life like the one I have, what for?"

Just being in the sun is painful, so Cordoba wears heavy layers and carries an umbrella to protect herself.

"I'm dressed this way because I can't stand the sun, so I have to carry the umbrella and wear the mask so the solar rays do not penetrate the burns on my face. That hurts a lot," she told NPR, and all the while, people stare or ridicule her appearance. "It's hard but I don't pay attention to them. Sometimes it hurts but I have to go on with life."

By 2017, she had planned to undergo euthanasia after being diagnosed with a brain infection.

She had the date and her gravesite picked out, until she heard of a visit from Pope Francis to Colombia. She decided to meet him, in the hopes that he would approve of her plan to die. Instead, he convinced her that life was still worth living.

“He said no, he was not going to do it. He told me that I was very brave and very pretty,” she recalled. “That changed my life. Now I want to live," she said at the time. “Dr. Gustavo Quinonez was going to give me the injection, but I’m not going to do it because God is going to bring greatness to my life. So that I do not die, they will donate for the surgery that I need, which will cost several million pesos. I am going to tell Dr. Gustavo, ‘thank you very much for your injection, but it is for another’.”

The Details:

Almost 10 years later, it appears Cordoba is again struggling, so much so that she has begun considering euthanasia once more, saying that Pope Francis promised her help that never came.

“I don’t want to live like this anymore,” she said. “He told me, ‘Colombia will help you get the surgeries you need.' But you know what? No one has helped me. I’m worse.”

Capital Salud, a Colombian health care entity, confirmed she had been approved for euthanasia.

“The decision to use the authorization she has is part of her will and the exercise of her right to die with dignity," the organization said in a press release. "Capital Salud will respect and support the decision that the user freely and autonomously decides to make. Maria Consuelo will continue to be supported with respect, humanity and dignity. We will be available to attend to all her health needs.”

However, upon hearing this, the Vamos Pa Eso podcast intervened, launching a campaign to fundraise for her and arrange for the nose and mouth reconstructive surgeries she needs.

"I am very happy, very happy with those angels, that we live for that, they have achieved [for] me," she said. "I am very happy, I am not even in misery because I am not going to be in any euthanasia."

Lawyer Juan José Castro added:

"Thank you, thank you, thank you all for your generosity, for your love, for your empathy, for your understanding. And I believe that we are going to achieve something that had not been done in 26 years, and it is to give a dignified life to Consuelito so that she lives it and makes the decisions that she wants in a dignified way."

Cordoba will now begin undergoing medical evaluations to determine when she surgeries can take place.

The Bottom Line:

It is an incredible turn of events that Cordoba is able to get the health care she needs to allow her to live.

However, it is disturbing to see that Capital Salud would easily arrange for Cordoba to be killed, yet it took a crowdfunding campaign to ensure she undergoes needed surgical reconstruction.

The case challenges the FDA's 2023 REMS safety program which removed the in-person dispensing requirement on the drug mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex, allowing for mail-order and pharmacy distribution of the abortion pill.

Key Takeaways:

• Louisiana continues to appeal its abortion pill case against the FDA and the abortion pill's manufacturers before the Fifth Circuit.

• The state argues that the FDA 2023 REMS abortion pill safeguard changes violate the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, because the abortion pill by mail violates Louisiana's ability to make and enforce its own abortion laws.

The Details:

Stateline explained:

Earlier this year, the 5th Circuit ruled in favor of Louisiana’s motion to temporarily reinstate an old rule that patients could only receive mifepristone in person. The Supreme Court blocked that ruling, allowing telehealth abortion to continue as the case progresses.

Whatever the appeals court rules this time, it will likely go back to the Supreme Court for a final ruling on Louisiana’s motion to reverse the policy until the case is decided on the merits.

... The state is arguing in part that the 2023 FDA rule violated the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision by allowing for telehealth abortion and abortion by mail in states that banned abortion, like Louisiana.

The FDA has so far argued Louisiana doesn’t have standing to sue and that it needs more time to review the drug’s safety. Two mifepristone drugmakers have intervened on the FDA’s side.

The Background:

Louisiana's Claims

The Plaintiffs — the State of Louisiana and Rosalie Markezich, a Louisiana woman who says her ex-boyfriend coerced her into taking abortion drugs — represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), contended that the drug's 2023 REMS (safety regulations)...

• Were arbitrary and capricious.

• Violate the Comstock Act.

• Cause Plaintiffs’ current and future injuries in fact.

• Cause sovereign harm by facilitating illegal abortions in Louisiana.

• Cause economic harm by directly increasing Louisiana’s Medicaid costs.

Louisiana's release announcing oral Wednesday's hearing stated in part:

In the case, Louisiana is asking the court to require the FDA restore the in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion drug mifepristone. As it stands currently, out-of-state pro-abortion doctors mail mifepristone to thousands of Louisiana residents for the express purpose of causing abortions that are blatantly unlawful...

... ADF attorneys also represent Rosalie Markezich, a Louisiana woman who, under immense pressure from her then-boyfriend and fearing for her safety, took abortion drugs that he ordered online from a doctor in California. Markezich did not want an abortion, but far from empowering her to make her own choice and preserve her autonomy, the FDA’s removal of the in-person dispensing requirement enabled her boyfriend to coerce her into taking the mail-order drugs—leading to her child’s death.

In 2023, the Biden FDA permanently removed the in-person dispensing requirement from its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone. This action intentionally enabled out-of-state pro-abortion activists and doctors to blanket states like Louisiana, which has chosen to protect unborn children, with mail-order abortion drugs, thus nullifying state laws and putting unborn babies and women at serious risk.

Louisiana's Appeal

In its appeal before the Fifth Circuit, Louisiana pointed out that the state would likely succeed in its claims, writing in part:

Just days ago, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified before Congress that “we are not defending what Biden did, and will not”: The 2023 REMS is “wrong,” and Louisiana’s laws are “really what’s being violated here.”

Plaintiffs' appeal argued the following:

• Louisiana has Article III standing: Louisiana’s economic injuries establish standing

• Louisiana’s sovereign injuries confirm standing.

• The 2023 REMS is likely unlawful.

• The manufacturers’ threshold arguments are meritless.

• The manufacturers cannot rehabilitate the FDA’s reliance on FAERS data.

• The FDA’s arbitrary reliance on scientific literature is indisputable.

• The 2023 REMS violates the Comstock Act.

The Plaintiffs' appeal addressed the FDA's and manufacturers' claims, writing in part:

First, FDA strangely spends significant time slaying a straw man— insisting that the district court’s decision to stay proceedings below was not an abuse of discretion.... But buried in FDA’s brief... ultimately is a concession that Plaintiffs “never” argued otherwise in their opening brief.

The reason Plaintiffs did not argue otherwise is that the district court’s existing stay of proceedings would cause no material harm if it were coupled with a § 705 stay of the 2023 REMS—hence Plaintiffs’ challenge on appeal to the district court’s denial of relief under § 705.2 They do not challenge the district court’s existing stay of proceedings.

The Court should thus ignore FDA’s efforts to transform this appeal into one FDA wishes Plaintiffs had filed.

"By expressly asking this Court to enter a § 705 stay, Plaintiffs necessarily are asking the Court to reverse the district court’s denial of such a stay," the footnotes read.

"FDA also claims that Plaintiffs are asking the merits panel to 'defy the Supreme Court' by staying the 2023 REMS.... That rhetoric is severely overblown," Louisiana wrote, adding:

As FDA admits... Plaintiffs have agreed that this Court should stay its own decision in Plaintiffs’ favor pending Supreme Court review, even though the Supreme Court’s stay decision is “not conclusive as to the merits” of this appeal... To be sure, Plaintiffs acknowledge the Supreme Court’s unshakeable interest in resolving issues surrounding mifepristone.

The Plaintiffs then added:

With that procedural underbrush cleared, the merits of this appeal are remarkably straightforward—confirmed, in significant part, by the Acting Attorney General’s agreement that the 2023 REMS’s removal of the in-person dispensing requirement is “wrong” and the U.S. Department of Justice’s refusal to “defend[] what Biden did.

Additional arguments from the Plaintiffs' appeal claimed that the FDA "concedes that Louisiana is suffering completely predictable economic... injuries from the 2023 REMS" and that the FDA's only concern, which is "unfounded," is that "ruling for Louisiana would purportedly allow any state to sue over any federal policy it dislikes."

What to Watch For:

• Standing: Whether the judges focus heavily on whether Louisiana has demonstrated sufficient injury to challenge the FDA's nationwide rules.

• FDA authority: How the court evaluates the agency's decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act.

• Mail-order access: Whether the court views the FDA's decision to permit mailed mifepristone as legally sustainable.

• Scope of relief: Whether any eventual remedy would apply only to the challenged FDA rule or could have broader nationwide consequences.

• Relationship to the FDA review: How the litigation may interact with the Trump Administration's ongoing regulatory review.

Commentary:

Mark Wiltz, Director of Government Affairs for Live Action, told Live Action News:

"Wednesday's Fifth Circuit argument is a major test of whether the federal government can continue allowing mifepristone to be prescribed remotely and distributed by mail while the Trump FDA simultaneously conducts its own review of the drug's regulatory status."

"The abortion pill lobby has had its way with the FDA for too long. The era of rubber-stamping abortion drugs needs to end," Wiltz added.

The mailing of abortion pills has been credited for the vast increase in abortions since the Dobbs Supreme Court decision.

“If Louisiana wins this case, we’re going to see for the first time what it looks like under an actual Dobbs regime, where pro-life states get to enforce their laws protecting the unborn,” Gabriella McIntyre, legal counsel of ADF told the Hays Post.

Timeline/Important Dates:

• 2016: Big Abortion conspired to erode the REMS on the drug, and the Obama FDA weakened the REMS, even removing the requirement to report the drug's adverse events other than deaths. The decision to halt the reporting of non-fatal adverse events (complications) of the abortion pill in 2016 may have led to the faulty conclusion that the drug is safe.

• 2023: Despite a prohibition under the federal Comstock Act, Biden's FDA weakened the REMS again to remove the in-person dispensing requirement and to allow for mail order and pharmacy dispensing of the drug.

• September 2025: The State of Louisiana along with Rosalie Markezich filed a motion to intervene in an ongoing abortion pill lawsuit. Markezich alleged in her complaint that her boyfriend ordered abortion pills from a California provider and coerced her into taking the pills. Her baby died.

• August 2025: Judge Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk denied the motions by Texas, Florida, and Louisiana and moved the venue to Missouri.

• October 2025: Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) refiled the lawsuit in State of Louisiana v. FDA (along with Rosalie Markezich) in the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division.

• December 9, 2025: A new lawsuit, State of Florida and the State of Texas v. FDA, was filed in the Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls Division.

• December 17, 2025: Louisiana filed for preliminary injunctive relief.

• January 27, 2026: FDA filed a motion to stay the case.

• February 2026: 21 states file in support of Louisiana, along with another brief from 60 lawmakers.

• February 24, 2026: The case, State of Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), et al. was heard in federal court before U.S. District Judge David Joseph 

• April 2026: “A federal district court upholds Louisiana’s ability to challenge the FDA, also adding that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the case. However, the court also puts the case on hold while the FDA conducts a safety study on mifepristone. ADF and Louisiana appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit,” reported ADF.

• May 2026: "The 5th Circuit ruled in Louisiana’s and Rosalie’s favor, putting a nationwide hold on the FDA’s regulation allowing mifepristone to be prescribed online and mailed. Drug manufacturers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro sought emergency relief from that ruling at the U.S. Supreme Court. Sadly, the Court issued an order that allows high-risk abortion drugs to continue flowing into pro-life states while the state of Louisiana and ADF attorneys litigate the case back at the 5th Circuit.” reported ADF.

• June 2026: A senior FDA official under the Trump administration confirmed that the promised safety review of mifepristone was moving forward, and could be completed within months, with some speculating it could happen between September and December of this year.

• August 2026: A separate federal case brought by Florida and Texas has been paused while the FDA completes that review, with the current stay running until December 1, 2026, or completion of the FDA review, whichever comes first.

  August 2026: An investigative report led by Senator Bill Cassidy has accused abortion pill manufacturers of being unaccountable, and of putting profit over safety by failing to decertify prescribers of the drug when they are out of compliance with the REMS, which increases abortion pill sales.

The healthcare professionals, whose number includes GPs, palliative care consultants, and a former chair of one of the hospital trusts in the region, have signed an open letter urging MPs and the Government to reject the legislation. 

The group argued that the Government should prioritise investing in “high-quality, equitable, palliative and end-of-life care”, rather than attempting to legalise assisted suicide by passing Lauren Edwards’ flawed assisted suicide Bill, which they say has “major shortcomings”. 

The doctors urged MPs to listen to the many “practical concerns raised by many professional medical organisations and clinicians” about the assisted suicide Bill, which they argue would “further widen healthcare inequalities”.

Among the many medical organisations that have raised concerns about the Bill are the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and the Association for Palliative Medicine.

The signatories of the letter criticised the “lack of detail” in the assisted suicide Bill about the practicalities of such legislation, stating that they are concerned about whether the proposed safeguards could be implemented “within overstretched healthcare services”.

These concerns echo those of the Prime Minister, Andy Burnham. Responding to a question from Sam Coates, deputy political editor at Sky News, Burnham said, “I take the view that that debate – and I don’t say that there shouldn’t be a debate at some point about those issues – personally, I think there’s something that needs to happen first”.

“That is the fixing of the funding of palliative care and social care”.

“I think it is very challenging to introduce that wider debate in the context of people not receiving that care and having the peace of mind about that care. And that’s the way I kind of see this, and that’s the position I will stick to”.

They also raised concerns about the impact that assisted suicide may have on the relationship between doctors and patients – concerns which may undermine the founding principles of the NHS, which exists to save lives. 

Professor Colin Rees, a leading gastroenterology expert who has led a number of pioneering clinical trials and who co-ordinated the open letter, said that the assisted suicide Bill was “not safe”, stating that it would “disproportionately affect the socially disadvantaged, women and minoritised groups”, as revealed by the Government’s new Equality Impact Assessment of the Bill.

He added that the concerns raised by medical professionals have not been listened to by supporters of the legislation.

Dr Mark Lee, a consultant palliative care physician who also co-ordinated the letter, said that due to the dire circumstances that palliative and end-of-life care services are currently facing in England and Wales, the idea that there would be real choice at the end of life if assisted suicide were to be legalised “is merely an illusion”.

Other groups of medical professionals have recently submitted similar letters to MPs

This group of medical professionals is not the only one to have recently called for MPs to reject the assisted suicide Bill when it comes to Second Reading on 11 September.

More than 140 doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers in Yorkshire also recently called on MPs to reject the Bill, calling it “unsafe”.

In the open letter that they organised, they state, “Whatever individuals’ views on the principles of assisted dying, we are united in our analysis that this bill is not safe for patients”. 

The healthcare professionals reveal that they are “deeply concerned” about the return of the assisted suicide Bill, referring to many of the concerns that have been raised about the proposals by medical professional organisations, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, and the British Geriatrics Society. 

Referring to the current crisis in health and care services, the signatories state that the “NHS is fragile, under immense pressure, and palliative care access is inequitable and woefully inadequate”.

“Without national focus and funding reviews to bolster palliative care provision in each of these areas, we risk palliative care services becoming ever-more stretched”, they said.

The doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers explained how marginalised communities, including rural patients, people with dementia and people from minority backgrounds, “face pronounced inequities in access to palliative care, and therefore poorer outcome[s]”.

“At present, too many people do not [have access to high-quality compassionate care]. We are failing our society by denying them that care, and we would fail them again by offering an assisted death before ensuring that proper end-of-life care is available to all”, the signatories added.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said, “We are immensely grateful to all those medical professionals from across the North East and beyond who have spoken so passionately and knowledgeably about the many problems with the assisted suicide Bill”.

“This Bill is dangerous. As numerous professional organisations and disability rights charities have told us, its safeguards are inadequate, and yet its supporters seem determined to force it into law regardless”.

“MPs must take heed of these warnings and vote against the Bill at Second Reading on 11 September”.

Key Takeaways:

• After a previous assisted suicide bill failed to pass Parliament, another has been introduced.

• Philip Nitschke is the founder of Exit International, an assisted suicide group, and the creator of the "Sarco" suicide pod.

• He has also created a suicide collar, which he calls "Kairos."

• Nitschke planned to demonstrate how to use Kairos at a sold-out event this weekend, just six days before a planned vote on the new assisted suicide bill.

• He went ahead with his talk promoting assisted suicide, but left the collar in Holland for fear it would be confiscated.

The Details:

MPs and pro-life advocates called on the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, to block Nitschke from entering the UK for a sold-out event in which he would demonstrate his Kairos collar. The collar works by inflating two balloons which put pressure on the carotid artery, causing the wearer to pass out and then die. "It works like an airbag in a car: press the button, it bangs, you pass out and die," he previously said. It does not appear that anyone has actually used the collar yet, though earlier this year, he claimed he had a woman in Switzerland who would be his first "test subject."

Nitschke's demonstration was initially scheduled for September 5, less than a week before a planned vote on the UK's second assisted suicide bill. There was near-immediate backlash.

“It is deeply disturbing that Philip Nitschke wishes to advertise his latest sinister suicide device in this country just days before the nation marks Suicide Prevention Day next Thursday," Sir John Hayes CBE MP, former Cabinet Minister and one of Parliament’s longest-serving MPs, told Right to Life UK. “I am calling on the Home Secretary to urgently review the wisdom of allowing Dr Nitschke into the country for this reason. We should not be promoting suicide. The planned event is also a sobering reminder of how an assisted suicide industry would likely emerge and be promoted should MPs vote next week to change the law in this area.”

Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, Chief Executive of Right To Life UK, added:

Just days before MPs vote on Lauren Edwards’ assisted suicide Bill, Philip Nitschke plans to come to the UK to demonstrate his new ‘suicide collar’.

We are calling on the Home Secretary to urgently intervene to prevent Nitschke from entering the UK to demonstrate and promote this dangerous device.

This is not the first time Nitschke has set his sights on the UK. He previously announced plans to launch a service using his Sarco suicide pod here if the last assisted suicide Bill became law. Leading legal academics confirmed that the broad wording of that Bill would allow the Sarco to be used in Britain if it secured the approval of the Health Secretary.

Lauren Edwards’ Bill retains the same provision. It explicitly allows a device to be prepared to enable someone to self-administer a lethal substance, opening the door to Sarco pods being used for assisted suicides here.

Nitschke's talk went on as planned, but he ultimately chose not to bring the physical collar with him.

"I have left the device in the Netherlands. I feared it would be stopped at customs. We are under pressure from authorities about what they call 'giving dangerous information to vulnerable people,'" he told the Daily Mail. "It's a difficult environment. The device is not expensive to make but we are currently in the testing phase and it would be a real setback to lose it."

He further insinuated that the device could be a tool for people who want to commit suicide, even when it isn't legal, saying, "People are a little worried or frustrated by the slow pace of legislated change in the country. So they often look around and ask what else is available."

The Backstory:

Nitschke is an ardent supporter of suicide, having made numerous efforts to promote it. This includes publishing a handbook online with information about how to commit suicide, called the “Peaceful Pill Book.” It was previously available on Amazon, with the suggestion that people interested in the book also buy sodium nitrate. Amazon specifically recommended  “a small scale to measure the right dose” and “Tagamet to prevent vomiting up the liquid.”

Nitschke also came out in support of Kenneth Law, a Canadian man who sold over 1,200 similar suicide kits to people around the world, causing countless deaths. Nitschke praised Law as entrepreneurial, and even included him in Exit International materials. But after Law's arrest, Nitschke said Law's mistake was selling the kits indiscriminately.

“The information got on to the internet, younger people started to take it and die. Now the parents of younger people who end their lives are understandably very distressed," Nitschke said. "They were very unhappy about us. They said, 'why did you publish that information?' But they said: ‘Yes, but look at all these people that are using it; now all these teenagers are dying."

And while Nitschke has seemingly not yet used the Kairos device, his Sarco suicide pod has been used at least once. It works by flooding the compartment with nitrogen, which causes nitrogen hypoxia, meaning the person suffocates to death. A 64-year-old American woman was the first to die in it, for which Nitschke came under investigation. Far from being quick, peaceful, and painless, the woman reportedly took nearly 30 minutes to die. As Live Action News previously reported:

Though she was alleged to be unconscious within 30 seconds, a motion-activated camera turned on in less than three minutes. The window to the outside of the pod was fogged up, and suddenly had a dark spot on it, which Willet said was likely due to the woman’s body cramping, and her knees hitting the window. At just over six minutes in to her suicide, an alarm began to sound; [Florian] Willet, who was on the phone with Nitschke, seemed concerned.

“She’s still alive, Philip,” he said.

It reportedly took the woman 30 minutes to die. Later, a forensic scientist said she had “serious neck injuries” reminiscent of strangulation, though a source from Last Resort said the woman’s medical diagnosis of skull base osteomyelitis caused the marks.

Nitschke has also promoted implanting "kill switches" into dementia patients. These would have an automatic timer to go off on schedule to kill the patient if the individual did not turn off the alarm when prompted.

Key Takeaways:

• Preborn children are currently protected from abortion in Liechtenstein.

• Prince Alois vowed in June to veto any attempt to legalize abortion.

• The Liechtenstein parliament voted to allow abortion through 12 weeks of pregnancy.

• Prince Alois has six months — until March of 2027 — to respond to the legislation. If he takes no action, then it is considered rejected.

The Details:

Vatican News reported that the Liechtenstein Parliament has approved legalizing abortion through 12 weeks of pregnancy in a 13-12 vote. Under the legislation, abortion through 12 weeks of pregnancy would be eligible for health insurance coverage.

It must be approved by Prince Alois, which is highly unlikely.

“From my point of view, it is not right,” he said in response to the current initiative, adding that abortion goes against "the fundamental legal right to the protection of life."

Bishop Benno Elbs, apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Vaduz, urged Liechtenstein voters to remember the importance of protecting preborn life.

“The unborn child possesses an intrinsic and inalienable dignity from the beginning and therefore deserves the same protection afforded to every human life," he said, adding, "My desire is that together we can build a society in which every child is welcomed and every mother and father receive the support they need to make the right decision for their child. A society that protects life must also be a society that does not abandon people in difficulty.”

The Backstory:

In June, Prince Alois responded to a growing effort to legalize abortion in Liechtenstein by vowing to veto any such legislation.

Currently, preborn children are protected from abortion in the small European nation, and doctors are prohibited from discussing it with their patients. Doctors who commit abortions could face up to three years in prison, with limited exceptions, such as a serious risk to the woman’s life or health, rape, or pregnancy involving a girl under 14. 

However, abortion activists have launched a referendum initiative called “Time Limit Solution for Liechtenstein," demanding "legal abortion up to the third month, the repeal of the ban on providing information, and coverage of the costs by health insurance.”

Only 1,000 signatures were required, but the group secured 4,970 — roughly one-quarter of the electorate of the country.

Prince Alois has consistently maintained pro-life principles.

''Every human life, especially that of an unborn child, needs to be protected," Prince Alois said in 2011. ''Abortion is not an acceptable solution for the problem of an unwanted pregnancy.''

While he has never used his veto power before, he threatened to use it during the previous effort to legalize abortion. The prince of Liechtenstein has the power to veto any legislation or referendum, but he hasn't needed to. The 2011 effort to legalize abortion failed when 52% of voters voted against it.

The Bottom Line:

Prince Alois has six months — until March of 2027 — to respond to the legislation. If he takes no action, then it is considered rejected and will not take effect.

Key Takeaways:

• A proposed updated health code for the state of Pennsylvania would remove all references to females, replacing terms like "mother" and "pregnant woman" with "pregnant individual.

• Governor Josh Shapiro's administration is behind the language swap.

• The changes are part of a larger overhaul, which would give the Pennsylvania Department of Health unprecedented authority.

The Details:

Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro's administration is behind the language swap, which attempts to scrub all references to females in proposed changes within the state's health code.

As the Daily Wire reports:

The terms “pregnant woman” and “mother of a newborn” have been replaced with “pregnant or postpartum individual” throughout the 502-page proposal, which was announced on August 8. Women who have given birth to a stillborn baby are no longer called a “mother” but are instead referred to as a “postpartum individual” in the proposed regulation changes.

The changes are part of a larger-scale overhaul of the health code, which would give the Pennsylvania Department of Health unprecedented authority to police individuals, enter homes and businesses without a warrant, access private health information, and more, all under the guise of "disease control measures."

“Somehow, in the midst of hundreds of pages of new government mandates, the department also found it necessary to erase words like ‘pregnant woman’ and ‘mother’ in the regulations and replace them with terms like ‘pregnant individual,’” noted Republican state Sen. Michele Brooks.

The updated health code is still in the proposal stages; it remains open for public comment through September 21.

Zoom In:

The move to adopt gender-inclusive language — removing the reality that only women are biologically capable of becoming mothers — is likely an attempt to embrace the transgender ideology sweeping the nation.

Pennsylvania Family Council Chief Counsel Randall Wenger decried the move, saying:

“The changing of language in the [Department of Health] regulations represents the triumph of ideology over biology. This change of language doesn’t reflect reality; it obscures it. It erases female identity as a stable category in favor of a fluid concept of gender."

He added, "The Shapiro administration is so concerned with affirming transgender identity that it can no longer recognize the realities of biological sex. The department cannot pretend to fight dangerous diseases with its delusions about gender.”

Key Takeaways:

• About 10,000 pro-lifers attended the March for Life in London last week.

• The theme of the March was "Abortion Hurts the Family."

• Many of those who gathered were children, teens, and young families.

The Details:

Before the March, the atmosphere at the Emmanuel Center venue felt like a family reunion with a purpose. The venue acted as a vibrant indoor pro-life festival with attendees strolling around, browsing materials at various booths and exhibitions, and attending talks and family/youth activities, with the younger ones even getting their faces painted. 

Dedicated volunteers at booths from groups such as the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), The Good Counsel Network, Radio Maria England, and other pro-life groups provided information, campaigning material, merchandise, pastoral support, and opportunities to connect with all who came. 

Notably, the March's theme was “Abortion Hurts the Family,” acknowledging that abortion is not a one-off event that involves only mother and child. Instead, the ramifications of abortion spill over onto other family members, such as fathers, grandparents, and siblings, and wipe out future generations. 

As the March prepared to kick off, it was clear this was not a gathering characterized by anger or bitterness but by joy and hope.

Placards displayed messages such as “Abortion Hurts the Family" and “Abortion Bans Save Lives"; they were carried by people smiling, praying, and often holding each other’s hands. Families were everywhere, including parents with toddlers in strollers and teenagers carrying handmade banners.

Bernadette Smyth of Precious Life, Northern Ireland’s largest pro-life group, was also present at the March. Smyth wrote about her experiences on Facebook, saying:  

“We marched in London at the UK March for Life for the babies who cannot march for themselves. We marched for the 11 million unborn children whose lives have been lost to abortion, children who cannot speak for themselves. We marched to remember them, to honor their lives, and to proclaim that every human life is precious, valuable, and worthy of protection.

As Elie Wiesel said, ‘To forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time.’ We will never forget these precious children. We will carry their memory, speak for them, and continue to stand courageously for life. Their lives mattered. Their lives still matter. And their memory will never be silenced. Until the day comes when every unborn child is protected by law, Precious Life will keep marching, keep praying, and keep fighting for life.” 

Additionally, one young mother held a sign about her infant daughter, which read, “She deserved our protection from conception.” Seeing her new and growing family with such delight was a powerful testament to the bliss of welcoming new life into this world. 

Catherine Mockler from SPUC testified: 

"I attended March for Life to be a voice for those who are voiceless and cannot defend themselves. The unborn need our hope. As a society we have to put the priority back on protecting unborn children and women from abortion. It was superb to be surrounded by so many like minded people who are eager to defeat the culture of death that is rampant in our society.” 

Bishops were present at the March — 15 Catholic bishops in total — providing a sense of solemnity and spiritual leadership for the day. Catholic priests and women religious were also in attendance at the march, donned in their cassocks and religious habits as public proclamations of their faith.

“I was glad to be able to come again with my parishioners," Fr. Armand de Malleray, Superior of the FSSP Apostolate in England, shared. He continued:

"For the first time we hired a coach from Bedford. I had encouraged as many as possible to attend, especially since 15 UK Catholic bishops were coming this year. Hearing Archbishop Moth of Westminster invite all to attend the March sent a strong signal, powerfully confirmed by the official message from Pope Leo XIV himself.

The pro-life witness should be an opportunity for all religions to stand together.... Anyone with their heart in the right place and their eyes open would agree that the large crowd we were was neither hostile nor hateful but plainly joyful and grateful for the gift of human life even in its earliest stages.”

Teenage groups came in droves, singing and chanting pro-life slogans, with some wearing matching T-shirts from their parishes or schools. 

The crowd processed through the streets toward London’s Parliament Square, where speeches began from a small stage, discussing the ongoing debate over abortion law across England, Scotland, and Wales — of buffer zones around clinics, of calls for greater restrictions on pro-life expression, and of the clash between fundamentally incompatible visions of conscience and "compassion."

The Bottom Line:

March For Life UK 2026 was not merely about resisting abortion or buffer zones; it was about reinforcing the dignity of all human life in all its stages and doing so with joy, prayer, and community. 

As Amy Servais penned in an article released by EWTN Great Britain:

“There is something particularly powerful about seeing people travel from across Great Britain to stand together. The pro-life cause can sometimes feel difficult or isolating, particularly in a culture in which the language surrounding abortion has become increasingly impersonal. The march gives visible form to a community that refuses to accept that any life is disposable.”

Ultimately, the March for Life 2026 in Britain was a day of faith, family, and hope — a strong affirmation that life, in all its fragility and unpredictability, is still worth marching and fighting for. 

Key Takeaways:

• The FDA has been relaxing safety rules on the abortion pill for over a decade, leading to a lack of oversight and a lack of care for women who take it without medical supervision.

• Easier access to the abortion pill via telehealth has led to horror stories of babies found in toilets and in dumpsters.

• Taking the abortion pill after the first trimester, outside FDA-approved limits, increases the risks to women, including hemorrhage, incomplete abortion, and infection.

The Background:

The FDA approved the abortion pill mifepristone to kill growing human embryos through seven weeks in 2000. It extended that window to 10 weeks in 2016, and the abortion pill is used through 11 weeks. Planned Parenthood even markets it as safe to use through 12 weeks, two weeks beyond the FDA-approved gestational range.

A string of decisions by the FDA to continually weaken safety rules surrounding the abortion pill means women are now accessing and taking the drugs well beyond 10, 11, or even 12 weeks — and without the supervision of a doctor.

The Details:

The result of mail-order abortion pill access: traumatized and injured women, viable dead babies, and babies born alive but prematurely and at risk of complications. Sometimes, they are born alive but left for dead.

Online 'telehealth' abortion pill

Previously, an in-person doctor visit was required in order to take mifepristone, but that rule was removed by the Biden administration during the COVID pandemic. After the pandemic eased, that rule was not restored.

When a woman orders the abortion pills online, she gains access to the deadly drug cocktail even if she is in the second or third trimester because no doctor is physically evaluating her.

A report from NPR in 2024 offered an inside look at the business of online abortion pill sales — and the results proved how dangerous the online abortion market is. The fact is, there's no counseling, no physical exam, and no knowledge of whether or not the woman is dealing with any contraindications such as an ectopic pregnancy or an Rh-negative status.

A woman can log onto one of the many abortion pill websites, answer a few basic questions to see if she qualifies, and be connected with a "provider" to gain access to the drugs. What happens next is traumatic. She takes the pill at home without medical supervision and is often caught of guard by her experience — both the pain and the humanity of her child.

These women aren't seeing a "clump of cells" in the toilet. They are seeing their baby — sometimes dead and sometimes still alive. It's <a href="/news/live-action-saw-baby-abortion-pill-trauma">traumatic</a>. Plus, the later in the pregnancy, the greater the risks are of incomplete abortion, hemorrhage, and deadly infection for the mother. Even without complications, the pain of the abortion is often greater than expected as well.

In addition, when the abortion pill is taken at home, there is a body to dispose of. In the first trimester, the babies are typically flushed. In the second and third trimester, getting rid of the body is not so easy. As previously reported by Live Action News:

2015 – Abortion pill at 25-30 weeks: A woman in Indiana was sentenced to 20 years in prison after attempting to abort her viable son, who was about 25 to 30 weeks gestation, with abortion pills she bought online. He was born alive, but she wrapped him in a garbage bag and left him in a dumpster.

2020 – Abortion pill at 23-27 weeks: Shortly after the UK approved at-home abortions during the COVID pandemic, a 28-week preborn baby died after the mother took abortion drugs. In addition, two women died after taking the drugs.

2021 – Abortion pill at 23-27 weeks: An Ohio woman was indicted on charges related to the disposal of her baby in a motel trash can after she took abortion drugs. The baby was estimated to have been between 23 and 27 weeks.

2024 – Abortion pill at 21-22 weeks: During a routine traffic stop, police found the body of a baby in the back of a woman’s car. She had ordered “a pill” to abort the baby and gave birth to her stillborn son, estimated to be 21 to 22 weeks gestation.

2025 – Abortion pill at 20 weeks: An investigation was opened in Louisiana, revealing that New York abortionist Margaret Carpenter had mailed the abortion pill to a woman in Shreveport, Louisiana, who was reportedly 20 weeks pregnant. The woman threw the baby’s body in the trash and then went to the hospital. When she told police where the baby’s body was, they launched an investigation.

2025 – Abortion pill at 20 weeks: A teen girl in Singapore took online abortion drugs between 29 and 33 weeks gestation and gave birth to a living baby girl on the bathroom floor. The baby later died.

And then there's the recent case in North Carolina:

2026 – Abortion pill at 31 weeks: In the North Carolina case, a teen couple allegedly learned they were pregnant at 20 weeks. And at 31 weeks, the girlfriend, Syeisha Johnson, allegedly took the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol after ordering them online from a source in Virginia. The baby was born alive in the toilet, and Johnson called 911, but left the baby in the toilet. As of the most recent report, the baby was in stable condition at a hospital.

Advanced provision abortion pill

Despite all of the evidence against taking the abortion pill unsupervised or late into pregnancy, women can use the online sites to potentially get the abortion pill without even being pregnant.

Dr. Daniel Grossman, an abortionist, believes abortionists should give women the abortion pill before they are pregnant in an effort to expand the use of the abortion pill under “advanced provision of medication abortion.”

Writing in the LA Times, Grossman stated:

The idea is simple: Give women abortion pills before they need them — ‘advance provision,’ as it’s known — so that they can take them as soon as they discover a pregnancy. Women could get the pills from their gynecologist at the time of their annual exam, say, or the pills could be made available online.

And if a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant right away, she can take the drugs even into the third trimester. And if a friend or family member becomes pregnant, she can hand those drugs over to them without ever speaking to a doctor, increasing the chances of taking the drug beyond the 10 week FDA limit.

The Bottom Line:

The abortion industry, via the abortion pill, didn’t just offload the abortions themselves to women so they can profit financially without much overhead; they also offloaded the problem of disposing of the remains of those aborted children and the aftercare the women may need, especially the women who take the drugs so late in pregnancy.

Key Takeaways:

• A new Center Square Voters Voice Poll conducted by Noble Predictive Insights found 51% of respondents say they support mail-order abortion pills.

• 48% of respondents indicate concerns with the mailing of abortion drugs.

• With the advent of mail-order abortion, women have been tricked, coerced, and forced into abortions they did not want.

The Details:

The poll, conducted by Noble Predictive Insights from August 12-16, surveyed 2,533 registered voters — 930 Republicans, 930 Democrats, and 673 Independent voters.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of the poll respondents said they "strongly support" or "somewhat support" prescribing abortion pills online and then making them available through the mail, while just 24% indicated they "strongly oppose."

Forty-eight percent (48%) said mailing abortion pills “raises safety and accountability concerns because it may be harder to verify who is receiving or using the medication."

As The Center Square reported:

Democratic respondents and 18 to 29 year olds were most likely to support mail-order abortion pills, according to the poll. About 65% of Democrats and 65% of young people at least “somewhat support” mail-order abortion pills.

Zoom In:

Nearly half of respondents indicated concern with the mailing of abortion pills. They have good reason to be concerned.

Without an in-person visit, an abortionist may not know who is truly ordering these deadly drugs.

Since the FDA temporarily removed requirements that the abortion pill be dispensed in person by a physician (with permanent changes in 2023) under the Biden administration, there have been an increasing number of stories of men who have ordered the abortion pill online and then used the pill to drug a pregnant woman without her knowledge or consent.

Live Action News has shared some of the stories of abusive men who have tricked women into taking abortion-inducing drugs, including:

• Justin Banta —  caused the death of a six-week-old preborn child after he allegedly slipped his pregnant girlfriend abortion drugs.

• Jeffrey Smith — spiked a pregnant woman's water bottle with abortion drugs.

• David Benjamin Coot — forced an abortion drug into his mistress without her knowledge or consent.

• Mason Herring - drugged his wife Catherine’s drink several times using misoprostol, the second drug of the two-drug abortion pill regimen.

<a href="/news/boyfriend-abortion-pill-online-forced-not-alone">Rosalie Markezich</a> lost her preborn baby after her boyfriend ordered abortion drugs and then forced her to take them against her will. Though Rosalie later tried to vomit up the pills, she was unsuccessful. Sadly, she lost her baby to an abortion she didn't want.

The Bottom Line:

There are several current <a href="/news/judge-pauses-louisiana-abortion-pill-lawsuit-fda">lawsuits</a> seeking an injunction against the FDA's approval of mail-order abortion pills, and some <a href="/news/get-facts-states-fight-mail-order-abortion">states</a> have also taken action by outlawing the trafficking and distribution of abortion-inducing drugs within their borders.

However, until the abortion pill is completely outlawed, women and their preborn children will continue to be at risk.

Key Takeaways:

• Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed a law last month allowing abortion to birth for any reason, provided a doctor approves.

• A new coalition formed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and Massachusetts Family Action is attempting to collect petition signatures to force a referendum seeking to repeal the extreme abortion law.

The Background:

Massachusetts had already been one of the most liberal abortion states in the country, allowing abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks and after that time for certain exceptions — including the "mental health" of the mother.

In August, that law was extended even further, as Governor Maura Healey signed H.5595 (also known as Chapter 188), which allows abortion up to birth for any reason, provided a doctor signs off on it.

The outcry against the newly signed law was swift.

The Massachusetts Catholic bishops called the law "a radical measure which is gravely immoral," and SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser called it "extreme," noting that Massachusetts is now one of only 10 states, along with Washington, D.C., with an "all trimester abortion policy."

Even several of the state's Democrats voted against the bill; State Rep. Chris Markey said it goes “beyond the norms of acceptability.”

“I am deeply disappointed in the passage of this bill. This bill creates a very slippery slope. I believe this law puts doctors in a very difficult ethical dilemma, as well as conflicts with long-standing criminal case law,” Markey told Fox News Digital. “While many are pro-choice, you can still be pro-choice and see this law as going beyond the norms of acceptability.”

The Details:

Now, Massachusetts Citizens for Life and Massachusetts Family Action have formed a new group called the Compassionate Care Coalition, with the aim of overturning the expanded abortion law. The group filed a referendum petition last week with Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s office that would repeal H.5595.

Sam Miele, Committee Chair of Compassionate Care Coalition, said that it wasn't necessary to expand the state's previous abortion law in order to protect women. He explained:

“The law in effect today already allows the physical and mental health of the mother to be considered when an abortion after 24 weeks is contemplated. For proponents of Chapter 188 and the Governor to claim that removing these safeguards was necessary to save women’s lives is completely false. Protections for women already existed in the previous law. Protections for viable babies also existed. The new No Limits Abortion law destroys those protections.”

Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, also spoke of the law.

“Before the ink dried on Governor Healey’s politicized signature, we started receiving messages from outraged residents across the state, people sickened that Healey had legalized abortion up to birth for healthy mothers and healthy, pain-capable infants,” she said. “Every person who contacted us wanted us to ‘do something’ to restore protections for viable, fully formed babies.”

What's Next:

A spokesperson from Secretary of State Galvin's office told the Boston Herald the coalition would need to submit 37,289 signatures to local election officials by Oct. 23 to get them certified and make the ballot for 2028. Petitions would be due with Galvin’s office on November 6. More signatures would be needed moving forward.

The Boston Herald explained how the referendum petition process works in the state:

Under the Massachusetts law, a referendum petition seeking to suspend a current law must collect certified signatures equal to 2% of the votes cast for governor in the preceding biennial state election. For this cycle, that threshold is 49,716 certified signatures. If that threshold is met, Chapter 188 will be suspended and submitted to voters for repeal at the next statewide election.

The petition next heads to Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office for review.

The World Suicide Prevention Day campaign, organised by the International Association for Suicide Prevention and co-sponsored by the World Health Organisation, aims to “raise awareness around the globe that suicide can be prevented”.

The theme for the 2026 World Suicide Prevention Day is “Changing the narrative on suicide”. This year, the campaign calls for “suicide prevention and mental health to be a priority in public policy, urging governments and institutions to take action”, while also “developing and implementing evidence-based strategies, improving access to quality care, and ensuring that those in distress receive the support they need”. 

Despite this campaign, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales for those with a prognosis of six months or less, will have its Second Reading in the House of Commons the very next day. During this debate, MPs will vote on whether they believe the assisted suicide Bill should pass to the next stage of the legislative process.

Professor Louis Appleby, a research and government adviser on suicide prevention and mental health, said that this was “a contradiction, to put it mildly, in the timing”, in that the day after “Parliament will commit to preserving life, bringing people back from despair”, they will debate whether to legalise helping people to end their own lives. 

Appleby, who chairs the Government’s national suicide prevention strategy advisory group, previously warned that legalising assisted suicide would harm suicide prevention efforts. 

“My concern is that if we decide as a society, if we concede the principle that people who want to take their own lives should be helped through that crisis and out the other side, then conceding that ground [by helping people die by assisted suicide] is a huge step”, he said.

Appleby cautioned, saying that once you cross that threshold to say that some suicides are acceptable, that it is “so far removed from what we currently do and from the principle that’s always guided us on despairing individuals, that it’s an enormous change with far-reaching implications”.

Appleby pointed out that many of the reasons people end their lives by assisted dying are due to non-medical factors like isolation or depression, and that these factors can be remediated without the need to end lives.

This contradiction has been raised before in Parliament

Last year, during the previous assisted suicide Bill’s Second Reading in the House of Lords, which took place in the same week as World Suicide Prevention Day, Peers were quick to point out the contradiction in working to preserve life one day, while working to end it the next. 

Lord Morrow said that it was “with tragic irony” that just two days after they were “reminded how simply being willing to open a conversation with a person in crisis can interrupt suicidal thoughts and renew hope”, they were now being asked to legislate on enabling certain people to end their lives. 

He added that experts warned that the assisted suicide Bill would “reduce societal taboos against suicide in a way that conflicts with campaigns aimed at suicide prevention”.

Lord McCrea drew attention to this contradiction, saying, “It was only last Wednesday that we marked World Suicide Prevention Day. Today we are debating a Bill that creates an exception. One day we tell them, ‘Don’t give up’, but at the same time we make legislation to allow the NHS to give drugs to make people end their lives”.

Lord Jackson also added his argument to the debate, telling Peers, “Suicide is always a tragedy, and its effects [are] profoundly felt by whole communities as well as the immediate family”.

He reiterated, “As legislators, I believe we have a responsibility to affirm every life as having inherent and equal value, regardless of age, health, disability or circumstances. I believe we need to seek to prevent suicide, not facilitate it”.

Kim Leadbeater, sponsor of previous assisted suicide Bill, spoke about importance of suicide prevention, leading critics to decry it as “hypocrisy”

Last year, Kim Leadbeater, the Member of Parliament who brought forward the previous assisted suicide Bill, visited an exhibition in Parliament consisting of quilts made by loved ones in memory of individuals who have lost their lives as a result of suicide. Speak Their Name, the organisation that put on the exhibition, has stated that their purpose is to “help people in the UK who are bereaved by suicide”.

Leadbeater, who visited this exhibition, called it “so moving”, and said it was a “powerful reminder of the need for continued work on suicide prevention”.

Writer and political commentator Adam James Pollock drew attention to the contradiction which Leadbeater embodied by referencing the important work of suicide prevention organisations, saying that Leadbeater “appears to believe that both that suicide prevention is a good and worthy cause and also that suicide should be actively facilitated and thereby encouraged by the state for those who are believed to be nearing the end of their lives”.

He called this way of thinking “morally nonsensical”, adding, “For the Member of Parliament who has spearheaded the campaign to undermine [suicide prevention] efforts by introducing assisted suicide in England and Wales to promote the good work of a suicide prevention charity, is nothing short of hypocrisy”.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “World Suicide Prevention Day is a sobering reminder that every suicide is a tragedy”. 

“Next week, MPs will debate legalising assisted suicide in England and Wales. Doing so would critically undermine suicide prevention efforts. Vulnerable people need care and support, not suicide”.

Key Takeaways:

• In an episode of Human Matters with Sami Parker, Parker reveals a trend she's found on social media of women who are partnering with the abortion business Carafem to have at-home abortions.

• Parker questions if the women are faking having abortions or if they were pregnant and contacted Carafem to get the abortion pill for free.

• The women often show themselves preparing for their abortions, discussing what to wear to be comfortable and what items a woman can buy at Target ahead of her abortion.

• What the videos don't show is the bleeding, cramping, and trauma of those who see their babies after they are aborted.

The Details:

In a video for Human Matters, Parker explained that it "appears" women are being paid to make content out of their abortions. Carafem, which sells the abortion pill both in person and via the mail, is the primary business behind the ads.

In one, the woman, with "carafem.org" written across her entire video, says:

"Let's get ready for my at-home abortion with Carafem. You're probably wondering, 'What should I wear for an at-home abortion?' Well, you can wear whatever you want, but I prefer pajamas. Choosing an at-home abortion with Carafem allows you to be as comfortable as you want in whatever you want. So if you're seeking abortion care, reach out to Carafem today."

Another woman, Liz, shares:

"... I had an abortion. The package from Carafem includes helpful things like mints, tea, a hot pack, a pad, and nausea medication. And I just wanna grab a couple more things so I can make sure I am prepared and comfortable during my medication abortion.

Now that I'm home and unpacking my self-care items from Target and I'm looking over the items from Carafem, I know that I am ready for my medication abortion in the comfort of my own apartment."

Liz holds up a plastic Ziploc bag in which Carafem has allegedly shipped the abortion pill. "That does not give legitimate pharmacy vibes to me, but not that that's the point," commented Parker. She added:

"If you are being paid for content, you typically need to put that you are a partner with this brand or that it's an ad somewhere in the video or in the caption.

And if you don't know, all of these videos have #carafempartner in their caption.

Parker highlights a third woman, who makes what she calls an abortion "short film" as a "Wes Anderson trend." Like the other videos, it showed nothing about the actual abortion process. Parker noted that it's unlikely the women would say anything negative about their experiences because they were being paid:

"They are paying you for a video that incentivizes the public to purchase their product.

Now with that in mind, notice that these women did not show the part where they cramped, bled out in the toilet or the bathtub, and then expelled their dead baby. That was not shown. I don't even know if it was discussed.

All that was shown was the cozy part, the snacks, the fun little self-care kit, the trip to Target. That's it."

Parker also questions the legitimacy of the posts and whether the women are "faking taking the abortion pills for content, or are they pregnant, planning to buy an abortion pill already, and then reaching out to Carafem and asking if they can get a free pill in exchange for a promotional video?"

So are these video creators being deceptive? Have they actually taken the pills? Or are they actually seeking to profit financially off of killing their babies in the womb? The answer is unclear.

Parker also uncovered a video from an OB/GYN who promoted Carafem, saying she was "absolutely obsessed" with the abortion business's billboard. But Carafem commented on the video, writing, "Absolutely obsessed with our partnership." This exposes her as a doctor who is being paid to promote pills that are used to kill preborn children and that carry significant risks to women.

She's promoting DIY abortions — exactly what pro-abortion advocates rallied against for decades. But now that they found a way to make money off DIY abortions, they seem to be in favor of them.

The Bottom Line:

Parker pointed out:

"Abortion influencer doctors talk all the time about how you can order abortion pills online, and it's so easy, and it's so safe, but something I've genuinely never heard them talk about is how risky it is... abortion pill manufacturers claim that only .5% of women who take the abortion pill experience a serious adverse reaction.

They rely on the results of 10 clinical trials with a total of 30,966 participants from over a decade ago. This was before mail-order abortion pills were available. This was also before abortion pill safeguards were largely relaxed as they are today. It is outdated information at best."

A more <a href="/news/study-nearly-11-serious-adverse-abortion-pill">recent analysis</a> of real-world insurance claims data for 865,727 women who were given mifepristone, the first drug of the abortion pill regimen, revealed a serious adverse event rate of 10.93%. That would mean that one in 11 women who took the abortion pill required a visit to the ER or urgent care.

"Maybe this is a stretch," said Parker, "but that doesn't really sound like something people should be paid to promote online with a fun and casual video. It also doesn't sound like something people should be able to order online at all."

Key Takeaways:

• Poland Bishop Józef Wróbel of the Polish Episcopal Conference Expert Team for Bioethics issued a letter recently condemning surrogacy.

• The letter says, “The desire to have children cannot be interpreted as a right to have children, because a child, in the ontological sense, as a human being, is not the property of its parents."

• The letter writers call on Polish authorities to prohibit surrogacy and prevent surrogacy companies from operating within the country.

The Details:

The August 27 letter was issued by Bishop Józef Wróbel on behalf of the Polish Episcopal Conference Expert Team for Bioethics. In it, the conference denounces both IVF and surrogacy, which commodify children. “The desire to have children cannot be interpreted as a right to have children, because a child, in the ontological sense, as a human being, is not the property of its parents,” the letter states.

It goes on to point out the harms of using in-vitro fertilization, which often goes hand-in-hand with surrogacy. It also notes:

"The conception and birth of a child cannot be the subject of a commercial transaction, neither by a woman offering her body for rent for surrogacy, nor by individuals seeking to acquire children through this means."

The conference warns that often, fertility agencies promise a "healthy child." However, "[G]uarantees of healthy offspring included in offers inevitably lead to the conclusion that conceived children, if genetic or developmental disorders are detected, will be killed through eugenic abortion." The bishops remind readers that "the murder of an unborn child is always an extremely evil act."

They also point to the commodification of children, writing;

"Conducting surrogacy outside of Poland does not make it legal. Quite the opposite, this practice takes on the hallmarks of international human trafficking, which cannot be justified by either the desire to have children or the consent of nearly all parties involved.

The Team notes that the subject of the transaction are children, treated as commodities, not as persons endowed with the inalienable dignity inherent in their humanity."

Zoom Out:

Though surrogacy is not legally recognized in Poland, the conference noted the letter's importance "as more and more offers are appearing in Poland that guarantee having a healthy child through surrogacy."

According to EWTN News, the letter may also have been in response to an event to take place in Warsaw on September 12-13, by the Ukrainian fertility clinic BioTexCom: Center for Human Reproduction.

Though fertility companies appear to be pushing surrogacy, there is also a growing response to end surrogacy globally. Last fall, the European Union issued a resolution condemning the practice of surrogacy. That followed a report from United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, who called for an end to all surrogacy.

Part of Alsalem's focus was the disservice surrogacy does to the children involved. Her report said:

[F]rom birth, they experience immediate separation from the woman who carried them and are transferred to the commissioning parents – a process that can be emotionally and developmentally significant. Individuals with disrupted development of secure attachment are at higher risk of developing mental disorders. In some cases, the transfer of a child is also delayed or complicated by legal uncertainties surrounding the recognition of parentage, nationality or identity, leaving the child in limbo.

The Bottom Line:

The Polish bishops join these, and many other voices, in calling for an end to surrogacy. The letter concludes with a call to Polish leaders to prohibit surrogacy within Poland and to prevent companies offering surrogacy services from operating within the country.

Key Takeaways:

• A 28-year-old woman experienced a possible perforated uterus at a Planned Parenthood in New York.

• Planned Parenthood asked the ambulance to arrive at a side door, so as not to attract attention to the dangers of abortion.

• Abortion carries many risks, but most women are unaware of the dangers.

The Details:

Operation Rescue has received audio transcripts of two 911 calls placed from the Planned Parenthood in Hempstead on July 16. Both calls refer to the same patient — a 28-year-old woman who was said to be in "stable" condition, but needed a transport to the hospital because her uterus was likely perforated during her abortion procedure.

Pro-life watchdog group Operation Rescue notes that although the Planned Parenthood caller emphasized that the woman was "stable," that's not to say she wasn't in danger.

"In medical terms, stable does not mean uninjured or out of danger, and a possible uterine perforation is not something that can or should simply be brushed aside," the organization pointed out.

Notably, the first 911 caller asked the responding ambulance to arrive at a side door. This is a common tactic when abortion facilities call for ambulance transport, as they don't want to attract attention with ambulances arriving at the front.

“This is surreal,” said Operation Rescue president Troy Newman. “After a woman suffers possible uterine perforation and an ambulance is summoned for hospital transport, it is inexcusable to trivialize an emergency. By telling emergency personnel to please use the ‘little side driveway,’ abortion staff were possibly thwarting logistical help for a serious medical situation."

Zoom In:

Though they are rarely reported in the mainstream media, abortion injuries happen with alarming frequency.

Within the last several months, Live Action News has shared stories of multiple abortion injuries in Illinois, Colorado, and Rhode Island. These injuries are often only discovered by the pro-life movement because pro-life sidewalk counselors and other advocates are on the ground, witnessing the arrival of ambulances at facilities.

Many women book abortion appointments without realizing the real risks of abortion. Cervical or uterine tear, hemorrhage, incomplete abortion, infection, and sepsis are just some of the dangers.

Some women have even died after botched abortions, including Cree Erwin-Sheppard, Keisha Atkins, Holly Patterson, Laura Hope Smith, Marla Cardamone, Christin Gilbert, and Lexi Arguello.

The Bottom Line:

Abortion is a dangerous procedure that ends one life, and risks another. While supporters call it "health care," nothing could be further from the truth.

Key Takeaways:

• A study published in October 2025 with 18 "seasoned" abortionists revealed that D&E abortions are being pushed to the limits, up to a day prior to the third trimester (27 weeks, 6 days).

• Two types of D&Es were being committed by the abortionists — standard D&E (dismemberment) abortion and intact D&E abortion, in which the baby is aborted without being dismembered first.

• Reasons listed for later abortion were almost entirely the same as those given for early abortion (financial, relational, etc.).

• The abortion pill regimen (outside the FDA-approved guidelines) and other drugs were frequently utilized as a part of these very late abortions.

• Alarmingly, study authors acknowledged a "lack of clinical guidelines and limited published research on abortion care practices after 24 weeks’ gestation."

• Medical malpractice attorney Mike Seibel told Live Action News that failing to rely on peer-reviewed research could amount to experimentation on abortion clients.

The Details:

What is D&E abortion?

D&E abortions are committed at "more than 14 weeks" gestation, according to the National Abortion Federation's (NAF) 2024 Clinical Guide. The procedure involves dismembering the preborn child before crushing her skull.

Some abortionists committing D&Es have expressed moral qualms about the procedure, describing them as "horrible," while staff at later-abortion facilities have experienced “emotional distress” and “nightmares.”

In 2008, one abortionist admitted to "the violence of abortion" and agreed that "stereotypes that anti-abortion forces hold of us are true – that we are butchers, etc."

Abortions later in pregnancy can be lucrative, as this 2026 primer published by Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH) reveals:

'Extracting parts' vs. 'whole" and collapsing fetal skull

The study, published in Journal Contraception in October of 2025, "invited 29 physicians to participate" that did not "include practices from hospital-based physicians" — but only 18 "seasoned providers" responded.

They discussed abortions committed between "24 weeks 1 day and 27 weeks 6 days gestation (referred to as 'between 24 and 27 weeks’ gestation')" at 12 abortion facilities (note that the third trimester begins at 28 weeks, 0 days), detailing the "innovative ways" abortionists "adjust their approach" and "practices for cervical preparation and induction of fetal demise" to commit two types of D&E abortions:

• Standard D&E (extraction of the fetus in multiple parts, usually with multiple instrument passes),

• Intact D&E (extraction of the fetus primarily as a whole, although it may require collapse of the calvarium).

"Ten physicians reported preference for standard D&E, eight for intact D&E, and one physician reported no preference," authors claimed.

It should be noted that an illegal partial birth abortion procedure, known as dilation and extraction, or D&X (as coined by the procedure’s creator, abortionist Martin Haskell), delivers a fetus in the breech position with the head normally remaining inside the birth canal. An incision is then made in the back of the neck, a suction cannula is inserted, and the brain is removed to help the skull collapse.

This study exposed how some D&Es were committed just before 28 weeks and 0 days — which begins the third trimester of pregnancy:

Three-quarters of the respondents reported providing D&E through 27 weeks’ gestation, while some had limits of 24 weeks 6 days, 26 weeks 0 days, or 26 weeks 6 days... Across the sample, 2-day procedures were more common in the 24–25-week gestational range and 3-day procedures were more common at 26–27 weeks.

Fetal demise: Killing the preborn baby

To kill the preborn child, the abortionists reportedly used various drugs:

• Lidocaine 200–240mg intracardiac

• Digoxin 1–2mg intrafetal or intraamniotic

• Potassium chloride [KCL] 5–40mg intracardiac.

If the first injection of medication failed to induce fetal demise, providers typically used a second dose of the same or an alternative feticidal agent.

The authors added:

Several physicians also noted that if they cannot provide care for a patient, they may induce fetal demise before referral for hospital-based care. Physicians emphasized the importance of building trusted relationships with local hospitals for referrals.

...All but one physician, whose practice had a gestational limit of 24 weeks 6 days, induced fetal demise prior to D&E.

For 2-day procedures, respondents induced fetal demise on Day 1, and for 3-day procedures, most induced fetal demise on Day 1, and some induced fetal demise on Day 2.

What this means is that the woman would have her child lethally injected, after which she would visit a hospital to deliver her stillborn baby.

D&E abortion reasons aren't what you think

The study confirmed that later abortions are not only happening for health reasons, but because of things like "barriers to obtaining abortion care earlier, delayed recognition of pregnancy, needing more time to decide," as well as "receiving a diagnosis of a fetal impairment, or developing serious pregnancy complications or medical conditions."

"All physicians provided D&E for serious medical or fetal conditions, rape or incest, social or economic hardship, and/or upon patient request," authors added.

Though the myth persists that late abortions are only done for the most dire of health reasons, according to the previously mentioned PRH primer:

People seek abortion care later in pregnancy for many of the same reasons people seek abortion care earlier in pregnancy, including: concerns that the pregnancy and having a child would interfere with work, income, and education; inability to afford the cost of growing a family; lack of partnership or other support to raise the child; unpreparedness to enter parenthood or return to parenting young children; a change in life circumstances; and risks to the health and wellbeing of the pregnant person or the fetus.

Similar reasoning published in a PowerPoint separately authored by one of the survey designers and one of the study authors included "difficult life event such as raising children alone," a "history of substance use and/or depression," and a "recent conflict or violence with their partner."

They noted "maternal health crisis or a diagnosis of fetal anomaly" was a "small % of later cases."

Need To Know:

The abortion pill regimen isn't just used for early abortions

While the abortion pill mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex is only approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use up to 10 weeks/70 days of pregnancy in a regimen with a second drug (misoprostol), off-label use of the drugs for later abortions were recorded in this study.

According to the study supplemental, for these late, near-third trimester abortions:

• Many physicians routinely used mifepristone, more commonly in 2-day procedures.

• Some used selectively based on gestational duration or challenging dilation.

• Some avoided administration more than 24-36 hours before D&E to reduce the risk of extramural delivery.

• Almost all physicians routinely administered misoprostol on day of D&E..

"The most common reason for not using mifepristone was to reduce the risk of extramural delivery" or early expulsion of the baby. Other reasons included "excessive cervical softening which can contribute to cervical lacerations, cost, or that adequate dilation was achieved without it," authors wrote.

This study followed a previous “clinical recommendation” published by a pro-abortion group encouraging use of the abortion pill for abortions up to nearly 28 weeks gestation.

Other drugs used, including fentanyl

Antibiotics, with potential serious adverse event risks, were used by survey participants:

Most respondents initiated prophylactic antibiotics at the time of osmotic dilator placement; the remaining physicians provided one dose prophylactically on the day of the procedure.

Physicians administered antibiotics orally and/or intravenous and commonly used metronidazole or azithromycin; select respondents used ceftriaxone, doxycycline, or ciprofloxacin.

Drugs.com warns:

Ciprofloxacin is a fluoroquinolone (flor-o-KWIN-o-lone) antibiotic, it is used to treat different types of bacterial infections. It is also used to treat people who have been exposed to anthrax or certain types of plague. Ciprofloxacin extended-release is only approved for use in adults.

Fluoroquinolone antibiotics can cause serious or disabling side effects that may not be reversible. Ciprofloxacin should be used only for infections that cannot be treated with a safer antibiotic.

"While the survey did not ask about specific types of medications, some physicians used propofol for deep sedation and fentanyl, midazolam, or sometimes ketamine for moderate sedation. Lidocaine was the most common agent used for cervical anesthesia, and it was often combined with various oral analgesics or anxiolytics," the authors wrote.

Study authors acknowledge "lack of clinical guidelines"

In this study, the authors noted "an increase in the number of ambulatory facilities providing care after 24 weeks in 2026 compared to before Dobbs, and existing facilities have expanded gestational duration limitations in this moment of increased need."

Alarmingly, study authors also acknowledged a "lack of clinical guidelines and limited published research on abortion care practices after 24 weeks’ gestation."

Live Action News previously documented that committing abortions into the third trimester of pregnancy outside a surgical facility like a hospital is outside the standard of care.

Medical malpractice attorney Mike Seibel, who operates the website AbortionInjury.com, told Live Action News that failing to rely on peer-reviewed research could amount to experimentation on abortion clients:

Lack of clinical guidelines or protocols is usually a deviation from any known standard of care. What the ambulatory clinics are doing without known established guidelines, and the use of KCL [potassium chloride] in an outpatient clinic, amounts to experimentation on patients without their consent.

Late-term abortionist Mark Nichols testified that using KCL outside a hospital setting is experimenting on patients.

Behind the Curtain:

The Journal Contraception is pro-abortion and is funded by the Packard Foundation. Its current editor, Blair Darney, is associated with Planned Parenthood's former "special affiliate," the Guttmacher Institute. Alice Mark, a NAF Medical Advisor and former Planned Parenthood clinician, serves as deputy editor.

The study's "survey design" was credited to...

• Dr. Shannon L. Carr: Previously employed by late-term abortionist, Curtis Boyd, who acknowledged that carrying a pregnancy to term was safer than abortion after 18 weeks. Boyd and Carr were both named in the wrongful death lawsuit of Keisha Atkins. Carr is currently licensed to practice in Maine, worked for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, and served as Chair of the Maine Section of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG).

• Dr. Monica Dragoman: Assistant Professor of Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and director of the University's Complex in Family Planning division which commits abortions later in pregnancy.

The study was funded by Ibis Reproductive Health, a pro-abortion group currently funded by abortion philanthropists and previously funded by abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories.

Lead author Maureen Paul works with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, which advertises abortions. Paul is also a former Planned Parenthood abortionist. Additional authors included staff at Ibis: Samantha P. Ruggiero , Susan Yanow, and Sarah E. Baum.

The Bottom Line:

Big Abortion continues pushing dangerous abortion up to birth despite knowing that, as Live Action News previously documented, some abortion trainees were unable to be trained "to competence in all skills."

Lithuania’s sole pregnancy help center is facing the possibility of significantly reducing or entirely shuttering its operations due to a lack of financial resources. The center's financial strain comes as the country grapples with an ongoing decline in its birth rate alongside renewed debates over expanding abortion access.

Key Takeaways:

• National Support Hub Threatened: The Vilnius Crisis Pregnancy Center, the only dedicated facility in the country aiding women through unplanned pregnancies, risks shutting down or severely curbing services amid a funding shortfall.

• 13 Years of Impact: For more than a decade, the organization has assisted over 4,000 clients, conducted more than 20,000 consultations, and directly witnessed approximately 900 babies born to women it helped.

• Comprehensive Care Model: Assistance is voluntary, confidential, and free of charge, spanning emotional, psychological, legal, and material aid that can continue for up to three years post-birth.

• Regional Pro-Life Endorsement: ProLife Europe highlighted the center as a vital regional asset, warning that denying funding directly restricts women's access to essential support services.

The Details:

For over 13 years, the Vilnius Crisis Pregnancy Center (Krizinio nėštumo centras) has provided free emotional, psychological, and practical assistance to prevent crisis pregnancies from turning into situations of despair.

According to director Zita Tomiliniene, clients seek out the center voluntarily, looking for non-judgmental guidance and trustworthy support while navigating complex personal circumstances.

"When a woman discovers that she is unexpectedly pregnant, she may feel overwhelmed and believe that she must make an immediate decision about abortion," Tomiliniene told Live Action News, noting that staff encourage women to pause and explore every available resource before making a choice.

"‘You are not alone’ is the message we want every woman facing a crisis pregnancy to hear," Tomiliniene explained. "We have witnessed beautiful changes that can unfold when a woman is given the time, information, practical assistance, and emotional support she needs to face her circumstances with greater confidence and hope."

Tomiliniene stressed that both mother and child are "worthy of care, support, and hope," noting that the center's core mission is to help each woman realize that "even in the most difficult circumstances, there can be a way."

Beyond unexpected pregnancies, the organization provides comprehensive aid to families dealing with financial hardship, relationship breakdowns, high-risk diagnoses, miscarriage, infant loss, post-abortion trauma, and postpartum depression.

Zoom In:

The center’s holistic care model extends well beyond childbirth. Depending on individual family needs, material aid—including baby clothing, diapers, strollers, food, and hygiene products—as well as legal guidance and mental health counseling can continue for two to three years after a child is born.

Tomiliniene noted that long-term accompaniment is crucial because "choosing life is only the beginning of a family's journey."

Operationally, the center relies on roughly 60 volunteers across Lithuania. However, maintaining professional continuity requires paid staff, including a full-time psychologist, three part-time counselors, a director, and a project manager.

Funding covers essential operational and client costs, including confidential consultation rooms and storage facilities for material aid, necessities such as diapers, food, and medicine for families in crisis, volunteer training and ongoing education along with educational outreach and public awareness campaigns.

"If the Center were forced to significantly reduce or even cease its activities because of a lack of financial resources, women facing an unplanned or crisis pregnancy would have no other specialized organization to turn to for comprehensive, free-of-charge support," Tomiliniene warned.

Zoom Out:

The potential shutdown of Lithuania’s sole crisis pregnancy center carries implications that extend far beyond Vilnius, reverberating across neighboring Latvia and Estonia. 

Since specialized, free-of-charge pregnancy resource centers remain scarce across the Baltic states, shuttering the Vilnius facility would eliminate one of the largest structured pro-life support networks in the region.

The financial crisis at the center coincides with heightened legislative friction in the Lithuanian parliament, where lawmakers face growing pressure from pro-abortion activists attempting to expand abortion access. 

Pro-life advocates have condemned efforts to legalize telemedicine abortions in the country as well as proposals to classify abortion as standard healthcare.

In response to these political and demographic shifts, pro-life coalitions are preparing for the second annual Žygis už gyvybę (March for Life) in Vilnius on September 26, 2026.

Organizers intend to use the event to affirm the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, stand in solidarity with parents, and push for greater state and municipal funding for families experiencing crisis pregnancies, while simultaneously raising public awareness to help bridge the center’s critical funding shortfall.

The Bottom Line:

Regional pro-life leaders warn that the center's collapse would deal a devastating blow to maternal care across the region. 

Most notably, Antanas Urma, regional director for the Baltic States and Poland at ProLife Europe, praised the Vilnius Crisis Pregnancy Center as "one of the finest" resource centers in the region, noting that its work offers tangible proof of the movement's commitment to supporting mothers alongside unborn children.

"Denying funding to pregnancy resource centers ultimately denies women access to basic necessities," Urma told Live Action News, stressing that without reliable financial support, women have fewer practical choices available to them as they attempt to build stable, flourishing lives.

Ultimately, the crisis in Vilnius exposes a critical contradiction in current Baltic policy: as Lithuania struggles against severe demographic decline, the single organization actively helping hundreds of women bring new life into the world risks being left to fail.

Key Takeaways:

• Justin Smith was convicted of first degree murder and third degree murder for the 2021 killing of Dianna Brice and her preborn child.

• Brice was 14 weeks pregnant when her body was found dumped in a parking lot with 12 gunshot wounds.

• Smith killed Brice in a vehicle before enlisting a friend to help dispose of her body. He then set his car on fire.

• Smith remained on the run for four years before being apprehended in Atlanta in 2025.

The Details:

Justin Smith was sentenced to life in prison on August 31 after he was convicted of first degree murder for the killing of Dianna Brice, and third degree murder for the death of her preborn child, along with a number of other charges.

Brice was 14 weeks pregnant with Smith's child when she was reported missing on March 30, 2021. Her body was found six days later in a parking lot in Philadelphia; she had 12 gunshot wounds, including 11 to the head.

Investigators learned that Brice was last seen getting into a car with Smith. That car was later found abandoned and set on fire.

According to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, authorities used cell phone records to determine Smith killed Brice somewhere between University City and Kensington. He enlisted the help of his friend, Tylydia Garnett, to dispose of Brice's body; surveillance video shows the duo putting something heavy, later determined to be Brice's body, into Garnett's trunk. Smith then used gasoline to set fire to his own vehicle.

Smith remained on the run for four years before he was apprehended in Atlanta in March 2025. He was sentenced to the mandatory life without parole as well as 40-80 years consecutive.

“This was a heinous crime carried out by this defendant, taking the life of not only Ms. Brice but of her unborn child. Justin Smith may have thought he got away with it, but he will now spend the rest of his life thinking about his actions,” District Attorney Larry Krasner said. “I want to thank Assistant District Attorneys Lauren Crump and Trey Flynn for their successful prosecution and hope that it brings her family and friends a sense of closure.”

The Bottom Line:

Homicide remains a leading cause of death for pregnant women. Though news reports don't offer a motive in this instance, women are often killed when they refuse to abort their preborn children.

When abortion is normalized, as it is today, women are more at risk for standing up to abusive men who pressure them to choose abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• Sarah Morse is an American teacher living in Scotland, and a practicing Roman Catholic.

• During a discussion in her history class on American political positions, Morse was asked her position on abortion, and she answered honestly that she is pro-life.

• Morse was fired the same day.

• She sued, and the case had now been settled.

The Backstory:

This summer, teacher Sarah Morse spoke out after being fired for telling students she is pro-life, with the caveat that she understood and accepted that they might disagree.

Morse is an American teacher living in Scotland, and is a Roman Catholic. She was substitute teaching for a history class at Arbroath High School when she was asked for her opinion on issues like abortion during a discussion on life in the United States. She responded, “I am a faithful Roman Catholic and I am against it.”

After being asked her thoughts on abortion after rape, Morse replied that the preborn child should “not be punished but understood that people would disagree with her."

Morse was fired within hours.

“When I was summoned to the office, I thought it was to go through paperwork and school procedures, such as fire drills after accepting an extension to my contract," she said. "Instead, I was summarily dismissed. I was not offered any sort of right of reply, asked for my account of what happened or how my legally protected beliefs were raised in the context of a history class and the head teacher [Karen Thomson] wouldn’t even see me.”

She then sued the Angus Council for discrimination.

“At no time did I attempt to persuade any student to adopt my position. I taught them that it is possible to have hard conversations with respect and that disagreement is a natural part of a free society," she said. “To be ‘cancelled’ and lose my livelihood because of my religious identity is a terrifying precedent for the teaching profession in Scotland. I will not teach anywhere in this country ever again. It’s been an absolute nightmare.”

The Details:

OSV News reported that a settlement has been reached between Morse and the Angus Council. The details of the settlement are not known, but Morse had requested an apology, reimbursement for loss of three weeks of earnings, and $13,500 in compensation for the suffering she said she endured due to religious discrimination.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) supported Morse in her suit, and executive director Michael Robinson told OSV News that while he is glad the case has been settled, it still deserves public attention.

“Expressing a view on abortion in a reasonable manner is not something that should allow people of faith to be victimized,” Robinson said. “The widespread reaction showed that our view resonated with those who believe in the need for free speech in a democratic country. SPUC welcomes the fact that the case has been settled, stresses the need for people to stand up for themselves as Sarah did and stands ready to help anyone who might find themselves in a similar situation."

The Bottom Line:

Pro-life speech has come under attack in multiple countries, including the United Kingdom and United States, and pro-life activists must fight back as Morse has done.

Their story, however, began with love and loss.

Multiple Miscarriages

From the very beginning, Maryemma and Dominic enjoyed each other's company and went on many adventures together. The couple was always open to life, and God blessed them right away, with Maryemma conceiving shortly after getting married. In those first happy days, nothing hinted that their journey towards parenthood would be anything but blissful and simple. 

It was not long, however, before that path turned into something neither of them could have anticipated, with the couple suffering multiple miscarriages.

Maryemma and Dominic did not realize the complete extent of their fertility challenges until after two of their losses. Although those harrowing experiences contained huge sorrows, they eventually brought them closer together as a couple.

Two of their babies, who they named Francis and Agnes, remain especially etched in their memory.

Maryemma's pregnancy with Francis was an ectopic pregnancy. She required surgery to remove one of her fallopian tubes.

Yet even in those dark moments, Dominic and Maryemma encountered grace. The surgical nurses came in, told them about the loss of Francis, and prayed with them. One nurse told the couple that while he had baptized an adult before, he had never baptized a baby. Still, the nurse said he would be honored to baptize their little Francis.

“That experience during such a difficult time in our lives helped show us that there are angels all around us,” Maryemma told Live Action News. “We are so grateful for that hospital and staff. We had lost babies, but they had saved my life.”

Losing her second baby, Agnes, between 12 and 15 weeks of pregnancy, was a different experience for Maryemma, though no less challenging.

Initially, everything seemed hopeful that Maryemma could carry Agnes to term: she had morning sickness, and a couple of doctor appointments had been positive. 

Unfortunately, the couple miscarried baby Agnes in a hotel room. After that traumatic incident, the couple got to hold Agnes's tiny body and look at her. She was perfectly formed, with little hands and feet and a nose. They baptized her and buried her at the same Catholic cemetery where her brothers had been laid to rest, in a beautiful little plot called the "Holy Innocents." A priest friend assisted them in putting two of their babies to rest there.

Making Sense of Grief

For Maryemma and Dominic, their Catholic faith was not an escape from their grief; rather, it was the lens through which they made sense of it. Their series of losses taught them how important and sacred life is, even when that life in question lasted for a short period of time. 

To this very day, the couple takes baskets to the same hospital that cared for them on their babies' birth and death days— one basket for a baby born healthy and one for a baby who did not make it.

Maryemma said that this was their way of honoring the memories of the children they lost, and of pouring love back into the place that walked with them through their darkest moments. 

Trusting God's Plan

Adoption was never Plan B for Maryemma and Dominic. They had talked about being adoptive parents even before their losses, due to their pro-life convictions. 

Although others in their lives had suggested different paths for the couple struggling to conceive — in vitro fertilization (IVF), surrogacy, or simply remaining child-free — they chose to trust in God’s plan for their lives, as some of these options, like IVF, went against their Catholic faith. 

“Any normal thoughts come through any new parents' minds — fear of the unknown,” Maryemma said. “But we trust in God's blessings and plans.” 

The adoption process for Dominic and Maryemma has been long. There have been moments when the couple felt dejected and overwhelmed due to the tedious nature of the process. 

However, the prospect of holding a little baby in their arms for the first time is what powers the couple forward and keeps their hopes alive. Every time Maryemma walks into the nursery room in her house that she prepared, she feels particularly bonded to the child the couple has not yet met.

Growing Together

Experiencing infertility and loss together has changed Dominic and Maryemma fundamentally. 

“Going through that kind of suffering, you don't come out the same people,” Maryemma explained. “You grow either together or apart. I'm blessed to say it was together for us.”

Maryemma said that closeness with her husband was one of the most beautiful blessings the couple received from their babies. This closeness, she said, was one that arose from grief — not a substitute for the children they lost, but a testimony to the love that enabled them to weather through ups and downs. 

Creating Space

Maryemma's notion of parenthood goes beyond biology. Instead, “real” parenthood is the “raising, forming, and loving the children placed in your care,” she said. 

According to her, adoption embodies the dignity of every human life from the very moment of conception, as its aim is to match suitable, loving, and attentive parents who can care for every child. 

Maryemma feels that the pro-life movement should advocate for streamlining the adoption process to make it more seamless. Maryemma said churches, communities, and pro-life organizations could also continue creating spaces where couples can talk about their losses without stigma and not feel alone in their suffering.

Only recently, Maryemma pointed out, did couples around her start to speak openly about miscarriage. 

There is Hope

Despite the passage of time, Maryemma does not pretend the grief of losing her babies has disappeared. 

“You will never completely get over the loss of your precious babies,”  she admitted, “but there is a light at the end of the dark tunnel. We are so grateful that God gave us those precious babies, even if it was only for a moment in time.”

In retrospect, both Maryemma and Dominic are grateful that they did not know ahead of time the heaviness of the cross they would carry. Their form of gratitude is striking, not for the suffering they had had to endure itself, but for their realization that God’s grace met and sustained them in the moments that they never expected. 

The couples’ current hope is that their experience would help others see the beauty in giving their lives to the will of God in various seasons of life, such as in loss, in waiting, in adoption, and in the quiet certainty that the nursery will not stay empty forever.

For couples walking the journey of infertility and adoption, Maryemma's message is both honest and hopeful: the tunnel is dark, and the grief is real. Yet there is always hope.

Key Takeaways:

• The body of a newborn baby was found on the side of the road in California.

• Flock cameras and police investigation point towards Sergio Galvaz Perez, who is believed to have raped his 14-year-old daughter, and have fathered the baby.

• Galvaz Perez and his daughter are still missing.

The Details:

A warrant has been issued for the arrests of Sergio Galvez Perez and his teen daughter, after a baby, referred to by investigators as "Baby Angelita," was found on a rural road in Monterey County on August 1. The umbilical cord was still attached.

Galvez Perez is also the biological father of the deceased baby. On August 31, the Monterey County Sheriff's Office wrote on Facebook:

On August 1, 2026, at approximately 8:30 a.m., fire personnel, emergency medical services, and Monterey County Sheriff’s deputies responded to the 100 block of Struve Road after receiving a report that Baby Angelita had been found alongside the roadway.

Upon arrival, fire personnel confirmed Baby Angelita was deceased. Sheriff’s Office detectives immediately began investigating the circumstances surrounding her death.

Through the course of the investigation, detectives developed evidence indicating that a juvenile female gave birth to Baby Angelita along the side of the road and placed her on the ground before leaving the area. A post-mortem forensic examination conducted on Baby Angelita indicated she had signs of traumatic injury.

Police used the Flock automated license plate reader cameras to collect information that helped them identify a vehicle of interest; within 53 hours, the information from Flock and other investigative work indicated three persons they believe are connected to the baby's death: Galvez Perez, 38, his 14-year-old daughter, and Ofelia Gracia Ortega, 36, who is reportedly the girl's mother.

Zoom In:

“I can say without that information we received from that camera, we may have never solved that case,” said Eric Bixler, spokesperson for the sheriff's office. “So that was very instrumental in solving this case, especially the speed in which it was done. Without it, it may have taken years or never.”

Gracia Ortega was located, arrested, and book on a child endangerment charge. She posted bail and was released. Police believe Galvez Perez is hiding with the 14-year-old.

Galvez Perez is wanted on charges of incest, lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14, lewd acts with a minor, unlawful sexual intercourse, child concealment, and child endangerment.

The 14-year-old is wanted on the charge of murder.

Monterey County Sheriff Tina Nieto stated:

“Providing our detectives with effective investigative tools strengthens their ability to solve crimes and protect our communities. This case demonstrates the value of that investment.

Most importantly, we cannot lose sight of Baby Angelita, an innocent child whose life was tragically lost. We remain committed to seeking justice on her behalf.”

The Bottom Line:

Killing a baby conceived in sexual assault is a common tactic of sexual abusers who seek to cover up their crimes, often through abortion. The baby's survival can provide DNA evidence of the abuse they have been carrying out.

Live Action's Aiding Abusers docuseries and investigative report showed that Planned Parenthood in particular has a history of failing to report sexual abuse. The abortion giant "has repeatedly looked the other way and performed abortions on victims as young as 12 years old," said Live Action president Lila Rose.

In the case of Baby Angelita, police believe the 14-year-old girl killed her baby, but their reasoning has not yet been disclosed.

Induction abortion, like all forms of induced abortion, carries the intent to kill.

That isn't health care.

Key Takeaways:

• Induction abortion carries the intent to produce a dead baby.

• Inducing labor is carried out to deliver a child and provide medical care to both mother and baby.

• Though similar, the key difference between induction abortion and inducing labor is that, in an induction abortion, the intent is to cause or hasten the baby's death. The baby may be put into cardiac arrest before delivery, or be delivered early with the goal of hastening her death at birth.

• Doctors from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) confirm that intentionally killing a child or hastening a child's death is not necessary to save the mother's life.

The Details:

Since the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022, the media has been overflowing with stories of women who claim they had to have an abortion for medical reasons because their own health or lives were in danger.

But what these stories often do is conflate induced abortion with inducing labor (and delivery), claiming that inducing labor to save the mother's life is an abortion; it's not.

Killing a child for any reason is not health care, and it doesn't need to be done to save the mother.

What is induced labor & delivery, and when is it used?

⭐️An induced labor and delivery are carried out to save the mother's life or to save the baby's life; the doctor induces labor, and the baby is born. This is considered health care because the purpose is to heal and protect life.

• Depending on the child's age, neonatologists will provide necessary care to that child. Babies born as young as 21 weeks have survived when given proper care.

• Babies younger than 21 weeks may be unable to survive, and may instead be provided with comfort care, depending on the level of NICU available at the hospital where they were born.

• If the baby dies as a result of extreme prematurity despite efforts to save her, it does not make the emergency delivery an induced abortion.

Sometimes it is better for the baby to be born prematurely than to stay in the womb. This could be due to a growth restriction issue, low amniotic fluid, and other conditions, but the decision of if and when to induce labor is made in the best interest of the child.

➡ Induced labor/delivery is also the <a href="/news/abortion-not-cure-all-pregnancy-complications"><strong>standard of care</strong></a> for medical conditions related to the pregnancy, such premature preterm rupture of membranes (PPROM), when doctors are unable to prevent labor or the baby is protruding from the uterus due to an incompetent cervix. It is also often used when the mother develops pre-eclampsia or gestational diabetes that can not be controlled.

There are a host of other reasons that it may be necessary to induce labor, such as physical trauma suffered by the mother, like a car accident. But it is never the intent to cause harm to the child.

In emergencies that require immediate delivery, an emergency c-section can be performed to remove the baby from the womb in minutes. Again, depending on the child's age, she would receive immediate, appropriate medical care. This is also not an induced abortion.

Dr. Donna Harrison, executive director of The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) explained:

In these situations where a mother and her fetus must be separated in order to save the life of the mother we would try to optimize the conditions of the separation so that the fetus has the best possibility to live.  But there are cases when the baby will not survive the separation due to gestational age.

We call these previable separations. These separations are done with the intent to save both if possible, but at least to save the life of one.

AAPLOG further noted:

There is a night and day difference between induced abortion and separating a mother and her unborn child for the purposes of saving a mother’s life (preterm parturition).

There are times when separating the mother and her unborn child is necessary to save the life of the mother, even if the unborn child is too premature to live. In those tragic cases, if possible the life of the baby will be attempted to be preserved, and if not possible, the body of the unborn child is treated with respect, recognizing the humanity of the life which is lost in the separation.

In contrast, the purpose of an induced abortion is to produce a dead baby.

What is an induction abortion, and when is it used?

⭐️ <a href="/videos/3rd-trimester-induction-abortion-injection-and-stillbirth"><strong>Induction abortion</strong></a> is a process carried out in the third trimester of pregnancy with the intent of ending the baby's life. Intent to kill is not health care.

In several recent viral stories, induction abortion has been used to end the life of a baby under the guise of protecting the mother's health — or out of a distorted belief that killing is compassionate for the baby.

Many of the mothers in these cases were not experiencing emergencies, but had an increased risk of complications that could potentially become emergencies later. The intent in these cases was often to hasten the child's expected death to avoid those potential complications, or to "mercy kill" the baby because of a diagnosis.

➡ Though an induction abortion involves inducing labor in the mother, it typically involves the additional step of injecting a feticide to cause cardiac arrest in the child prior to the induction of labor to delivery a stillborn baby. Inducing such a delivery without a medical emergency and with the goal being that the baby dies, is considered an abortion.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a legal induced abortion is an “intervention performed by a licensed clinician (e.g., a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant) that is intended to terminate a suspected or known ongoing intrauterine pregnancy and produce a non-viable fetus at any gestational age.”

AAPLOG explained:

That is what an abortionist is paid to do: to kill the unborn child before delivering it, or to kill the child during the delivery process, as is done with partial-birth abortion. So the focus of the abortion procedure is on killing the unborn child, and the purpose of the abortion is to produce a dead baby.

Induced abortion, that is the deliberate killing of an unborn child prior to separating that child from the mother, is never necessary to save the life or preserve the health of any woman.

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES OF ABORTION VICTIMS BELOW.

The photos below show babies known as Christopher X and Phoenix, whose bodies were discovered in a medical waste box from a late-term abortion facility in Washington, D.C. in 2022. These children were likely victims of induction abortion, a procedure carried out to ensure their deaths.

The Bottom Line:

Intentionally killing a preborn baby by inducing cardiac arrest or intentionally hastening the death of a baby by carrying out a premature birth with the purpose of causing the baby's death are forms of abortion because the purpose is the death of the baby.

• Whether the baby was initially "wanted" or "planned" by the parents is of no consequence. The decision was made to either kill the baby in the womb or hasten the baby's death — and these are abortions.

• Delivering the baby to separate mother and child during an emergency and then attempting to save both lives is not an abortion, even if the baby doesn't survive.

Dr. Harrison explained:

Previable separations are not the same as elective abortions. The intent of an abortion was made very clear at the Supreme Court hearings over the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.

The abortionists argued that the product the abortionist is paid to produce is a dead baby, and that is what distinguishes a delivery from an abortion.

The intent of a delivery is to produce, if possible, both a live baby and live mom. The intent of an abortion is to produce a dead baby.

On its website, (AAPLOG) "affirms the Dublin Declaration," which more than 1,000 doctors have signed. It states that "direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman" and that "there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatments results in the loss of life of her unborn child."

Pro-life laws do not, in any way, restrict necessary medical care for pregnant women, but the abortion industry intentionally conflates induction abortion with legitimate medical care in order to gain <a href="/news/abortion-industry-goal-womens-health-unrestricted">sympathetic votes</a> in favor of unlimited abortion.

Regardless of how the media spins a story, it is never necessary to intentionally hasten a baby's death or intentionally kill a preborn baby.

Key Takeaways:

• A man known as "Simon" has reportedly fathered 199 children through sperm donation.

• He is said to have lied to many women about the number of children he had fathered, and used various names throughout the process.

• The Dutch Ministry of Health has reportedly been aware of his sperm donation practices since 2017, but did nothing to stop him.

• Though the Netherlands passed regulations last year capping the maximum sperm donation at 12 children, authorities say there is nothing they can do, since Simon made his sperm donations privately.

The Details:

A Dutch man, identified only as "Simon," revealed his situation in a letter sent to some of the parents who have used his sperm, according to the news outlet Nieuwsuur. In the letter, he admitted that he has fathered 199 children, with one woman currently pregnant; 179 of those children were born in the Netherlands, with others born in Belgium and Germany. Authorities are still working to determine the total number as women continue to come forward.

"I should have calculated the total number of donations much earlier, also for myself," Simon wrote in his letter. "The total number turns out to be higher than I had thought, hoped, or wanted."

The majority of those donations have been done privately, which means he did not utilize a fertility clinic.

Women with Simon's children have said that he lied about the number of children he has fathered, and used various names to identify himself, including Jesse, Johan, Daan, Sam, and Maarten. Though he claims he will stop donating and will seek professional guidance so that he can proceed in a "responsible and proper manner, in the interest of the children," many of the women don't believe it.

 "The confidence that he will stop is below zero," remarked one mother.

Zoom In:

Simon has been donating sperm since 2017; reportedly, the Ministry of Health was aware of his mass-donations, but did nothing to stop him. Shockingly, he was even placed on a committee to evaluate the sperm donor law. As part of that committee, he reportedly advocated for eliminating a cap of 25 children per sperm donor.

"This gentleman should of course never have taken a seat on the supervisory committee," Minister Sophie Hermans said. "I deeply regret that this happened anyway." 

Why It Matters:

In 2025, the country tried to shore up its sperm donation regulations, dropping the 25 child limit down to 12. But as Simon's experience proves, the industry is still largely unregulated.

One mother tried to file a police complaint against him but was denied, as the Public Prosecution Service told her that, "according to the Donor Act, only fertility clinics or other healthcare professionals can be held criminally liable for violating the law."

Private donors like Simon are seemingly not subject to any regulation.

The effects are widespread: children living without a father actively present in their lives, and siblings living in the same area without even realizing that they are related (a situation that has even led to siblings unknowingly dating).

The Bottom Line:

Ultimately, the real victims in this situation are the hundreds of children created as a commodity. Fathers matter.

Each child created deserves to have the love and attention of his or her biological mother and father. 

Key Takeaways:

• A family in Ontario, Canada, said their elderly aunt was receiving treatment in a local hospital and was repeatedly offered 'medical assistance in dying' but refused.

• The aunt said her bedmate was similarly "sold" euthanasia by the MAiD team.

• Numerous people have spoken about being pressured into MAiD in Canada.

The Details:

Alex Schadenberg, international chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, reported that a family in Ontario, Canada, reached out to him for help. Their elderly aunt was in the hospital receiving treatment, and was being pressured to consider MAiD, and the family wanted to know if there was any way to make them stop. Specifically, they were concerned that the MAiD team would continue asking, and take advantage of the woman when she was in a vulnerable position.

He explained:

The woman told me that her Aunt was asked if she wanted euthanasia twice, in a pretty persuasive manner, and she said NO.

The woman told me that her Aunt was very upset because the person in the bed next to her was sold euthanasia at the bedside. Her Aunt told her that the MAiD team sold euthanasia as a beautiful death and made the person in the bed next to her, who was not asking for euthanasia, fear that she would otherwise have a terrible death.

The Aunt was concerned that the MAiD team might do the same to her, when she was going through a difficult time.

The Big Picture:

This woman is far from alone in her experience; there have been numerous complaints about people being pressured into MAID, sometimes successfully, in Canada.

• Brigitte "GG" Stegemann was killed by MAiD despite having told staff she opposed it, and having clear signs of an inability to consent. Even though Stegemann had told staff she didn't support euthanasia due to her Christian faith, she was approached about it anyway without her family or an advocate present, and despite clear signs of incapacity. She was ultimately euthanized even though she didn't give a final verbal approval, and her euthanasia date had been arranged before final paperwork had even been completed.

• A veteran of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has also spoken out, saying he and fellow police veterans are receiving e-mails promoting euthanasia to them, framing it as an "opportunity."

• Numerous military veterans have likewise reported that they have been pressured to undergo assisted suicide or euthanasia instead of receiving health care. Kelsi Sheren, an author and veteran, testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs about this coercion. “We have 20 with written proof, more with audio recordings, and case managers admitting it,” Sheren said. “Others are too afraid to come forward — they’ve had their benefits threatened.” Among the veterans who have come forward to report being pressured to die are some who say they were seeking treatment for issues like PTSD, mental illness, and substance abuse, and were told to consider simply dying instead.

• Christine Gauthier, a veteran and Paralympian, was one of these veterans, and had merely requested a wheelchair ramp for her home. “I have a letter saying that if you’re so desperate, madam, we can offer you MAiD, medical assistance in dying,” Gauthier said. “I was like, ‘I can’t believe that you will… give me an injection to help me die, but you will not give me the tools I need to help me live.’ It was really shocking to hear that kind of comment.”

The Bottom Line:

The MAiD regime in Canada is one of the most extreme in the world, and has devolved to the point where it is not simply enough for people to choose to die; they are now pressured and coerced into it as well.

A biotech company claims to have produced “the first early human eggs from stem cells” produced with the use of female fetal tissue and human blood. This technology is known as in-vitro gametogenesis (IVG) — a dystopian and Frankensteinian technology that has wide-ranging implications, and the potential to “redefine” human reproduction.  

Key Takeaways:

• In-vitro gametogenesis, or IVG, is an emerging technology that utilizes the concepts of IVF but goes much further, into the realm of dystopian science fiction by creating the possibility of engineering children with only one genetic parent or two genetic same-sex parents.

• IVG uses adult cells from skin or blood, "reprograms" them to behave like cells found in human embryos, then manipulates them in order to create sperm/egg cells, which could be inserted by IVF into a woman's womb (or a possible future artificial womb).

• Some scientists theorize that by 2033, IVG will have been successfully used to conceive a human child. And some are hoping that IVG could be used by LGBTQ individuals who “covet” heterosexual couples’ natural ability to produce life, and who want to “create children with whom both parents are genetically related.”

• IVG researchers use aborted children to harvest and then engineer the stem cells involved in IVG.

• Dr. David Prentice told Live Action News that IVG lab attempts so far have produced “incomplete and defective gametes," but that the danger of IVG is real, even if distant, and must be prohibited.

The Details:

Bioethics experts warn that IVG could lead to the mass destruction of human life, facilitating “untold experiments on human beings in a lab,” and describe unprecedented scenarios where adult desires far outweigh the fundamental rights of children.

After manufacturing human gametes and embryos with mere skin or blood cells, future scenarios include the possibility of lab-produced children who are intentionally denied a biological mother or father, creating a precarious moral landscape where human beings are treated as industrial products rather than as unique human beings with inherent dignity.

According to Paul Knoepfler, Ph.D., a Professor at UC Davis School of Medicine in Cell Biology and Human Anatomy, in vitro gametogenesis (IVG) is a “laboratory method to create gametes, meaning sperm or eggs, from stem cells” outside of the human body such as in a “test tube.”

It is a multistep process that utilizes adult cells obtained from skin or blood, which are “reprogrammed” to “behave” like cells naturally found in human embryos (known as pluripotent stem cells). The reprogrammed cells are then known as induced pluripotent stem cells (or iPS cells), which are further manipulated to mimic primordial germ cells (PGCs) — “the embryonic precursors of eggs or sperm.”

Using existing IVF technologies, the IVG created sperm/egg would be used to produce an embryo that could then (in theory) be inserted into a woman’s womb or — if the technology were to become more advanced in the future — implanted into an artificial womb.  

What's Happening:

Last year, Live Action News reported that Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) claimed to have created human embryos from skin cells. Prior to that, in March 2023, two mice were born after an IVG-involved conception in which DNA from two male mice were used. Research was led by scientist and renowned stem cell researcher Katsuhiko Hayashi, and was conducted at Kyushu University in Japan. 

More recently, Conception, a California biotech firm, announced it had converted human blood cells into stem cells that were “coaxed” into “becoming miniature human ovaries that contain the early eggs” — which the company hopes will further advance IVG.

“The technology is one of the most complex therapies ever to be developed. We are not making just a single cell type; we are building entire mini-overies in the lab derived from stem cells, as the whole organ is important for proper egg development,” Conception reported.  

During a multiday conference in 2023 on IVG hosted by the National Academies, Paula Amato, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the School of Medicine OHSU, estimated that by early 2033, IVG will have been successfully used to conceive a human child.  

However, Dr. David Prentice, president of Science Alliance for Life and Technology (SALT), argues that the science remains “rudimentary.”

Dr Prentice told Live Action News that “getting stem cells to form truly normal and functional gametes is a very complex procedure in the normal human body,” and lab attempts so far have produced “incomplete and defective gametes.”

However, Dr. Prentice does not dismiss the progression of IVG technologies, telling Live Action News: 

“Beyond the science, the desire to produce lab-generated gametes is of great concern. Some frame this as an attempt to redefine reproduction... Others could use this as an opportunity to produce untold numbers of experimental human beings in the lab, or for bizarre methods of human embryo production such as cloning and 3-parent embryos, or genetic experiments to produce designer babies.

In every case, pursuing these desires will lead to massive destruction of human lives and should be prohibited.”

The Possible Future: 

Bioethics fellow Emily Packard Dawson warned that IVG advancements are “outpacing” existing ethical frameworks. Dawson wrote that the technology could theoretically “permit solo genetic parenting,” meaning an embryo would have only one genetic parent whose DNA was used to manufacture both sperm and egg. 

At the 2023 IVG conference, Stanford professor Henry T. Greely, author of “The end of sex and the future of human reproduction,” spoke of possible future scenarios, such as 90-year-old mothers... or nine-year-old mothers, or even the use of a deceased person’s DNA from a cell that isn't a sperm or egg to then create sperm and egg, which would theoretically then fertilize and produce a child.

During the conference, Katherine Kraschel, executive director of Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, further explained how IVG technologies could be used by LGBTQ individuals who “covet” heterosexual couples’ natural ability to produce life, and who desire to “create children with whom both parents are genetically related” (emphasis added):  

IVG/IVF could facilitate this sort of formal equality to be just like our cis gender heterosexual people... we too could point to our children and say he has your eyes and my nose in a way that I think many queer people covet...

“IVG’s virtue may depend upon one’s vision for an ideal world for LGTBQ families,” Kraschel added.

In these types of scenarios, it is clear that the concern would not be for the child but for the desires of adults. 

Abortion's Involvement: 

Conception, originally named Ovid Research, was co-founded in 2017 by Matt Krisiloff and is reported to be the “largest commercial venture” in IVG advancements. Krisiloff is also the founder of SciFounder, which provides opportunities for “funding and mentorship for early-stage startups that work on challenging technologies.” Biologist Pablo Hurtado and embryologist/former IVF clinic employee Bianka Seres are also co-founders.  

In 2021, MIT Technology Review reported that the California based biotech company received $20 million from tech industry leaders including Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI, behind ChatGPT), Jaan Tallinn (co-founder of Skype), and Blake Borgeson (co-founder of Recursion Pharmaceuticals), all of whom espouse transhumanist goals. Notably, much of IVG’s advancements are privately funded by big-tech giants. 

MIT Technology Review writer Antonio Reglado reported meeting with Katsuhiko Hayashi and his mentor after their mice pup success at Japan’s Kyushu University. Hayashi told Reglado that copying the IVG technology used in the mice experiment to human application would require tissues from aborted babies.

He said, “Scientists would have to obtain follicle cells from weeks-old human embryos or fetuses.”

And that’s exactly what Krisiloff reportedly aimed to do. 

In 2021, Reglado reported: 

At Conception, scientists began by trying the fetal-tissue approach, which they believed was the fastest way to get a proof-of-concept egg. Krisiloff made extensive efforts to obtain the material—at one point even tweeting at abortion providers directly. He also sought collaborations with UCLA and Stanford, although these efforts didn’t pan out. 

By April 2023, during the National Academies workshop, Krisiloff presented on Conception’s reported advancements using fetal ovaries during testing. He displayed a photo of a fetal ovary at 19 weeks gestation, stating, “We think we (and others) are closer to a proof of concept protocol than it may seem.”  

A few months later, NPR reported that Conception’s scientist “created the primordial cells by exposing induced pluripotent stem cells to a special protein elixir. This ingredient coaxed them into developing into cells that could become either sperm or eggs.” NPR further reported: 

Hurtado had motioned for Miller [a scientist at the lab] to say nothing more because the company doesn't want to disclose exactly how it managed to create the human ovarian follicles inside its mini-ovaries. “There are lots of parts of our research we cannot share right now,” Hurtado says. “We are still working on them.”    

Fast forward to June 2026, when Conception reported that “ovarian helper cells” are used to help “coax” the “converted blood cells into stem cells” that result in the stem cells to become “miniature human ovaries that contain the early eggs,” further claiming that “[a]n early sign of success for our mini-ovaries is that we see their organization closely mimics the structure of a developing human ovary.”

There is no clear way to currently know how the fetal tissues were obtained by Conception. Since Conception is funded by private means, restrictions regarding federal dollars being used for research involving aborted babies are not much of a concern for the company.

Regulations, or lack thereof, on research involving abortion victims are generally regulated by state legislators under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA). California allows for research on aborted babies' tissue. MIT reported that at the time, Krisiloff  “declined to say where Conception gets its tissue donations currently.”   

However, during the same April 2023 IVG conference, several other scientists explicitly mentioned using aborted babies and human embryos donated from IVF in their studies and research, including:  

• Ali Brivanlou with Rockefeller University and co-founder of Rumi Scientific, who spoke on previous studies that focused on advancements in research involving primordial germ cells (PGCs) that are needed in the IVG progress using donated embryos from an IVF clinic. 

• Azim Surani with University of Cambridge and the Gurdon Institute, who specifically stated, “we can do some studies, we can get these aborted fetuses…from about week 5, they’re quite rare at week 5 but we can get some, and we can take these embryos and we can take out these genital ridges, the developing gonads, and we can sort primordial germ cells from them.” 

• Cornell University professor Paula Cohen, who spoke of using aborted babies and grafting the fetal ovaries onto mice, noting how studying meiosis is important for IVG use, stated, “We have actually taken human fetal ovaries and xenographed them into the mouse initially to look at meiosis, but we were really surprised to see that within 10 weeks these ovaries go through to complete follicular genesis.”

• Mitinori Saitou with Kyoto University, who helped with the successful mice pup experiment and admitted to using aborted human babies along with monkey embryos while working on studying human in-vitro oogenesis (IVO) technology advancement (also helpful for the progress of IVG). He stated during his presentation, “We took out aborted fetal embryos around 10 or 11 week post-fertilization or 8-week monkey post-fetal embryos” to study ovarian cells.             

Closing Thoughts: 

Should humanity pursue a technology simply because it has the capacity to do so? As the scientific community rushes to redefine human reproduction, society must ask itself a fundamental question: what does it mean to be human?

Key Takeaways:

• Women are being enticed into predatory contracts, allegedly due to rising demand for surrogates.

• Predators often recruit desperate women on social media with the promise of large cash payments.

• Some women reported they were given no medical treatment, even as they began experiencing complications.

• Surrogates have said they were forced into c-sections and left to recover in storage rooms, without receiving postpartum medical care.

• Some trafficking rings have brought women to Europe, confiscated their passports, and held them prisoner in hotel rooms as their eggs were harvested.

The Details:

A report from the Fuller Project revealed a thriving black market based on surrogacy and egg harvesting in Europe.

As the U.S. Sun reported, the surrogacy industry is more lucrative than ever before, with current estimates predicting a massive profit increase, from $22 billion a year today to $129 billion by 2032.

While laws on surrogacy vary across Europe, the European Parliament has classified surrogacy as human trafficking. Accordingly, some countries, like Türkiye, have banned surrogacy, while others, like Georgia, embrace it. Still others, like the United Kingdom, allow only 'altruistic surrogacy.'

This atmosphere has allowed a black market to thrive, in which desperate women living in poverty agree to surrogacy or egg harvesting contracts with promises of cash payments — and an unregulated fertility industry is pulling the strings.

"One of the most important issues is the significant imbalance of power between surrogate mothers and the agencies," lawyer Nino Andriashvili told the Sun. “Surrogate mothers can be in a particularly vulnerable position. The existence of a contract does not mean a woman’s rights are protected.”

Andriashvili represented victims of a Georgian surrogacy agency, Kinderly, which used social media to recruit potential surrogates. Gulya (a pseudonym) is one example; she saw a Kinderly ad on TikTok, which promised $16,000, monthly allowances, and bonuses for carrying twins.

Gulya was a single mother whose older son had been diagnosed with cerebral palsy. She lost her job as her marriage fell apart and was struggling to provide for her children. This led her to take the risk of becoming a surrogate; the money promised would be enough for a down payment on a home.

Traveling from Kyrgyzstan’s capital of Bishkek to Tbilisi in Georgia, Gulya became pregnant with twins in months. Other women were recruited from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Russia, and were told they could earn as much as $30,000.

Zoom In:

No care, no payment

Gulya began experiencing complications, and suspected gestational diabetes. But her coordinators at Kinderly stopped communicating with her, and no testing to confirm a diagnosis, nor any treatment, was given. When she went into labor in January of 2025, she was seriously ill.

“I already had a high fever, convulsions," she recalled. "I arrived [at the hospital] at about five centimetres dilated."

She was immediately taken for an emergency c-section, and was wheeled out as the next patient was brought in. She was then left to recover in a storage room.

The twins' parents didn't arrive, and Gulya said it was painful hearing the twins cry with no one to pick them up or hold them. After being discharged, she was sent back to her apartment; the $20,000 payment she was promised never came.

She received no postpartum care, and Gulya — along with dozens of other surrogates — were left abandoned when Kinderly declared bankruptcy.

She later discovered the twin girls she birthed were for a Chinese couple who also had purchased twin boys from another surrogate, born just months earlier.

“I worry about the girls' future,” she said through tears.

"Opportunites for exploitation"

“This case is important because it showed that problems in the surrogacy sector cannot simply be viewed as contractual or financial disputes," Andriashvili said. “Systemic vulnerabilities and risks create real opportunities for exploitation of surrogate mothers and violations of their rights.”

Kinderly is far from the only scandal; other surrogacy networks have also been uncovered, with women from countries like Thailand and Nigeria lured to Europe with promises of large payments. However, these stories seem to vary based on the surrogate's ethnicity, and agencies have allegedly been dishonest about the compensation.

One woman, Grace, wanted to leave Nigeria, and the $6,000 payment to be a surrogate was seen as a way out. Yet when she arrived in Georgia, her contract had listed her compensation as $10,000; the agent who was working with her was going to keep the other $4,000. Grace also discovered that African women were paid less than Russians, Central Asians, Thais, and Filipinos. The explanation she received was that flights were more expensive and African women were harder to match.

“It's discrimination. [Our] uterus is the same,” Grace said.

She pursued surrogacy with another agency, and got pregnant after several attempts, with $26,000 promised. But when her baby was found to have genetic abnormalities, she was told to have an abortion; her contract refused payment for a miscarriage or abortion before 24 weeks, so she received just $2,000.

“They don't care about the surrogate. They just want you to be pregnant," she said.

In addition, trafficking rings have been uncovered, which take women to Europe with promises of payment and free housing. Instead, their passports are seized and they are locked in hotels, where they are given hormones to stimulate egg production. Then their eggs harvested and sold.

The Bottom Line:

Helen Gibson, CEO of Surrogacy Concern, told the Sun international surrogacy needs to be abolished, especially as growing numbers of single men are purchasing surrogate-born babies from low-income women overseas.

"The majority of single men are looking abroad for a surrogate child – that’s something to be very, very concerned about. Overseas, women cannot change their mind and have no rights over the baby," she said. "It reduces women to incubators. A mother’s instincts are overridden by contracts and their bodies are controlled before and after the birth.”

Key Takeaways:

• Witney Carson is one of the professional dancers who appears on "Dancing With the Stars," paired with a celebrity partner in the ballroom dancing competition.

• She won last year's Mirrorball Trophy with Robert Irwin as her partner.

• This season, Carson will be competing with talk show personality and comedian Guillermo Rodriguez.

• Carson will be pregnant and in her second trimester when the show begins.

The Backstory:

Carson grew up dancing, and auditioned for "So You Think You Can Dance?" in 2012, making it to the semifinals of the competition. In 2014, she was named part of the troupe for "Dancing With the Stars," a reality television show in which professional dancers are partnered with celebrities and compete in ballroom dancing.

After two seasons, Carson was promoted from the troupe to one of the show's professionals, and won the Mirrorball trophy with Alfonso Ribeiro in her second year as a pro. Last season, she was partnered with Australia Zoo conservationist Robert Irwin, and won for the second time.

Two weeks ago, Carson announced on social media that she is expecting her third child with her husband, Carson McAllister. "We’ve been keeping a secret… a new addition to the McAllister gang coming soon!" she wrote. "We are so grateful and overjoyed to be growing our family."

Carson will also be competing in Season 35, partnered with "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" sidekick Guillermo Rodriguez.

The Details:

When the next season premieres, Carson will be four months pregnant. While other pros have competed while pregnant, none have done so as far along as Carson will be.

Pro dancer Peta Murgatroyd, who is married to fellow pro Maksim Chmerkovsky, was in her first trimester when she won season 22 alongside model Nyle DeMarco.

Carson herself also competed while pregnant before, though she was earlier in pregnancy; she announced that she was expecting during the semifinals of season 22.

“I love dance. I love to compete. I love being on the show, and I also love being a mom, and I want to grow my family,” Carson recently told The Hollywood Reporter. “So if I can do both and the baby is healthy, then I am going to try and do it all, because women are amazing.”

While she acknowledged it might be a challenge, she said she was excited for the experience, and said her baby would be her third partner while she was dancing.

“It wasn’t on my bingo card to compete on Dancing with the Stars and be four months pregnant, but I think that it’s a beautiful thing,” she told Good Morning America co-host Michael Strahan. “I want to feel empowered. I want to see what my body can do. And hopefully Guillermo will be right there beside me and we can work as a team. And, you know, being a mother is the greatest blessing that I could ever ask for. So I’m very blessed.”

She also refused when it was suggested that she use fringe and clever costuming to hide her stomach.

"I don't want to hide it," she said. "I am so proud to be a woman, to be creating life and growing this human, and to be able to do the show, and compete, and grow this life is such a huge blessing. I'm so proud of it. And I'm going to kick butt while doing it."

The Bottom Line:

While Carson is thrilled to be expecting her third baby, she seemingly is ready to expand her family even more in the future. “I do want a girl,” she told PEOPLE. “So if I can get one now or with the fourth, I’ll be okay.”

GBP sells only two drugs — mifepristone and misoprostol — which are the two drugs in the abortion pill regimen.

The Details:

An August 2026 report — published by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and led by Senators Bill Cassidy, Steve Daines, James Lankford, Cindy Hyde-Smith, and Lindsey Graham — was entitled, "Mifepristone Without Guardrails: An Investigation Into How Chemical Abortion Drug Makers Are Putting Mothers and Babies At Risk."

The report noted that GBP:

... refused to provide any revenue information other than initially stating that its “sales of mifepristone account for the majority of its revenue.”

When pressed for more information, GBP subsequently stated that its “sales of mifepristone account for approximately 95% of its revenue.”

GBP refused to provide any information as to how much money it makes from the sale of chemical abortion drugs.

95% of revenue

GBP oversees the manufacturing of the first approved generic abortion drug, mifepristone (200mg), as well as the second drug used in the abortion pill regimen, misoprostol. While GBP was founded in 2012, (according to a timeline on its website), the company's abbreviated new drug application for a generic Mifeprex wasn't approved by the FDA until April 11, 2019.

GenBioPro previously admitted it had “captured a significant share of the nationwide market for mifepristone.” Media sources indicated that GBP allegedly supplied roughly two-thirds of U.S. abortion pills in 2023.

In a 2023 lawsuit, GBP acknowledged that “[s]ales of the two drugs are essentially the company’s sole source of product revenue,” adding, "Since 2019, when GenBioPro received approval from FDA to sell generic mifepristone, GenBioPro has marketed and sold more than 850,000 units of the product throughout the United States."

In March, the HELP Committee sent a letter to GBP inquiring about profits from the drug and asking GBP to "[p]lease produce an Excel spreadsheet that includes the cost, revenue, and profit from the sale of mifepristone on a quarterly basis since mifepristone’s date of approval in 2019."

The Response:

A May 11, 2026, response sent by Arnold and Porter, representing GBP, read: "GBP’s sales of mifepristone account for the majority of its revenue. Providing additional information on GBP’s annual revenue from the sale of mifepristone would disclose commercially sensitive business information."

On April 26, 2026, GBP added:

GBP currently is the sole supplier of generic mifepristone in the United States and, upon information and belief, its sales constitute a majority of the U.S. mifepristone market. GBP’s sales of mifepristone account for the majority of its revenue.

Between FDA approval of the ANDA in 2019 and 2023, GBP sold more than 850,000 units of generic mifepristone throughout the United States.

After the committee pressed further, GBP responded again (June 4, 2026)

GBP’s sales of mifepristone account for approximately 95% of its revenue. Providing additional information on GBP’s annual revenue from the sale of mifepristone would disclose nonpublic, commercially sensitive business information.

As a closely-held private entity, GBP has maintained the confidentiality of its mifepristone revenue information since the launch of GBP’s generic mifepristone in 2019.

Millions in potential abortion pill revenue

While GBP was not specific about revenue, a business profile listed by Moody's on its Cortera website suggests that overall sales for GenBioPro sits at between $10M and $25M.

If these are factual numbers, 95% could translate to between $9.5M and $23.75M for the generic abortion pill maker.

This tracks with what Danco Laboratories, (the original manufacturer) told the Committee, namely that they generated nearly $20 million annually in past years from selling Mifeprex alone.

If you add the fact that today, some abortion industry insiders have pivoted to an unapproved one-drug regimen of misoprostol only, it is possible that GBP could be profiting even more than this from abortion.

Country of origin remains secret

In its response to the HELP Committee, GBP did not publicly disclose the country of origin where abortion drugs are produced. Reports have indicated concerns over factories making generic drugs generally, but GBP assured Senators, "The facilities manufacturing mifepristone tablets for GenBioPro, Inc. have undergone FDA inspections and remain approved by the FDA for manufacturing."

However, GBP went on to claim it monitors "inspection results from its contract facilities only if the inspection results directly pertain to the manufacturing of GBP’s products."

Overall, abortion by pill is on the increase due in part to the removal of an in-person dispensing requirement by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and later, the move to mail-order and pharmacy dispensing under the Biden administration.

Predictions show market increases will continue to rise over the next several years, from $2.1B to nearly $3.7B.

Reality Check:

Abortion pill manufacturers are obligated to ensure the FDA's REMS safety rules are followed by prescribers and pharmacies dispensing the drug, yet as Live Action News has documented multiple times, this does not appear to be taking place.

In its letter to the HELP Committee, GBP wrote:

GBP has not had cause to decertify any certified prescriber or certified pharmacy since the launch of GBP’s generic mifepristone in 2019.

GBP’s audits of certified pharmacies have not identified noncompliance with the REMS certification requirements that could not be resolved through corrective actions.

Likewise, GBP has not identified noncompliance with the REMS certification requirements among certified prescribers.

Live Action News identified abortion pill providers and referral organizations clearly advertising use of the drug outside REMS requirements.

For example, Planned Parenthood, which is linked on the GBP website, offers to sell abortion drugs "just in case" a pregnancy occurs, which appears to be outside the FDA's REMS.

GBP told the committee that "any information on the linked site is solely subject to the control of the organization operating the site. GBP thus affirmatively disclaims any control or endorsement of the content of those sites."

GBP went on to write:

GBP complies with its obligations under the REMS. If an actual or suspected instance of prescriber non-compliance were brought to GBP’s attention, GBP would investigate and respond appropriately, including by decertifying the prescriber if the prescriber will not comply with the REMS certification requirements.

Just as the Committee pointed out in its correspondence with Danco, failing to decertify prescribers who are out of compliance with the REMS for Mifepristone Program potentially places "profits above the health and safety of women and children."

Behind The Curtain:

The Funding

Both the highly secretive abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro were seeded with millions in investment dollars from the pro-abortion David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Other GBP investors include:

• ReproHub, led by Christine Charbonneau, whose website claimed she "co-founded Planned Parenthood Online; and co-founded and served as Board Chair of Afaxys." The organization issued a $3.7M grant to GBP in 2024.

• Cumming Foundation, whose VP has served on the board of Planned Parenthood, invested $1M/2023.

• The Marguerite Casey Foundation shows expenditure grants of $800K (2023, 2024, 2022) to fund clinical trials related to mifepristone.

• The San Francisco-based Parsemus Foundation has granted GenBioPro loan dollars ($1.4M/2020, $500K/ 2020, $275K/2018, and $320K/2017) for, as they put it, “operations related to Family Planning.” The Parsemus Foundation was founded by Elaine Lissner in 2005 “to support further research on male contraceptives,” the foundation’s website states.

• Soros Economic Fund lists $3M given to GBP under “Other Asset Schedule” in 2023 and 2024.

Asked by the Washington Free Beacon whether the Packard Foundation stands to make a profit if the company increases in value, Packard pointed the Beacon to an online statement which acknowledged that the foundation "take[s] risks in pursuit of impact while seeking overall return of principal" so it "can recycle capital to maximize impacts over the long-term."

Location and leadership

GenBioPro is located in Nevada inside commercial office suites located at 3651 Lindell Rd (Ste D1041) in Las Vegas. A label for misoprostol published at Daily Med confirms that address, while GBP's mifepristone label lists only a post office box.

A filing in 2011 with the Nevada Secretary of State shows a registered agent of CSC Services of Nevada, Inc. Filings have listed Robert Armknecht and S. Rizzo as Treasurer, and T. Leonard as Secretary and Director. In addition, BizaPedia shows corporate records filed in Arizona naming Joseph Sinkule as serving on the company's 2011 Board of Directors.

GBP's CEO was Edward Jacobs, according to D&B and LinkedIn, and Mary Fjerstad was listed as Senior Director of Medical Affairs. Thomas Leonard declared himself as the Chief Executive Officer of GBP in a 2021 legal document, citing his duties as "tracking GBP's sales and revenue" and acknowledging that the company's financials were "a closely-held secret."

More currently, GenBioPro’s president, Evan Masingill, has been referred to as the CEO. Masingill was one of the first board members to join the abortion facility Desert Star Institute for Family Planning (DSIFFP) in 2017. DSIFFP was founded by abortionist DeShawn Taylor, described as a senior medical director and consultant for GenBioPro and one of Planned Parenthood’s former abortionists recorded in undercover video by the Center for Medical Progress.

Key Takeaways:

• Steinem was a journalist who founded Ms. Magazine and authored several books.

• She was known as a feminist leader in the 1970s, campaigning for policies like the Equal Rights Amendment.

• Steinem also pioneered the "Take Our Daughters to Work Day" movement in the 1990s.

• Steinem was an ardent supporter of legal abortion.

The Backstory:

Feminist awakening

Gloria Steinem was known as the face of second-wave feminism in the 1960s and 1970s, after escaping poverty and neglect as a child. Despite having some struggles with access to education growing up, Steinem graduated college with honors, and began a career as a journalist.

Her feminist awakening came in 1969, when she attended a "speak-out" where women discussed undergoing illegal abortions, which she called a turning point in her life.

She co-founded the National Women's Political Caucus in 1971, and continued writing. Her career break as a journalist came after she went undercover as a bunny at the Playboy Club, and exposed the degrading and demeaning environment there. Steinem later founded Ms. Magazine, the first periodical to be owned and operated solely by women, and which discussed women's issues beyond beauty and gossip.

Interestingly, she played a key role in revitalizing the Wonder Woman comic books; an avid reader of the comic books growing up, she wanted to see Wonder Woman's powers restored, and was successful in the effort. The first ever issue of Ms. Magazine featured Wonder Woman on the cover.

Steinem also helped create the "Take Our Daughters to Work Day" movement in the 1990s, which encouraged parents to take their daughters to work with them to learn about what they do, and to make girls visible and accepted in the workplace.

Steinem also co-founded the Frontline Women's Fund, giving millions in grant money to organizations dedicated to ending things like female genital mutilation, sex trafficking, and sexual violence against women in war and in communities.

Pro-abortion activism

While Steinem did much good for the feminist movement, she was also an outspoken abortion advocate. She underwent her own abortion in secret in 1957, which is why she said the abortion speak-out years later affected her so much.

“Suddenly I was no longer learning intellectually what was wrong. I knew,” Steinem said in 1983. “I had had an abortion when I was newly out of college, and I told no one. If one in three or four adult women shares this experience, why should we be made to feel criminal and alone?”

In addition to featuring Wonder Woman, the first issue of Ms. Magazine included an open letter from 53 female celebrities who said they had undergone abortions.

Steinem frequently campaigned against pro-life laws throughout her career, and remained a lifelong, ardent pro-abortion activist.

“The truth of the matter is one in three American women was having an abortion when it was illegal; and one in three is having an abortion now," she said in an interview with The Guardian, claiming, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”

She also insisted she never regretted her abortion, even dedicating one of her books to the abortionist who committed the procedure.

“[Abortion] is supposed to make us a bad person," she said. "But I must say, I never felt that. I used to sit and try and figure out how old the child would be, trying to make myself feel guilty. But I never could!”

The Details:

Steinem was preceded in death by her husband, David Bale, father of actor Christian Bale. She had no living biological children, but was stepmother to her husband's four adult children.

Her death was announced on her social media pages, with the statement noting that she passed away peacefully at the age of 92, surrounded by loved ones:

Gloria’s greatest gift was her ability to listen to others, to make others feel seen and heard. Her words, actions, and example gave people permission to be their truest selves. Gloria lived true to her independent spirit, always with curiosity and a great sense of humor.

She spent her recent years doing the two things she loved most: being in community with others and writing. She has welcomed hundreds of guests into her living room for Talking Circles, a tradition she insisted will continue long after she is no longer with us.

As Gloria wrote in her forthcoming book, 𝘈𝘯 𝘜𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘓𝘪𝘧𝘦, “I have now lived for more than fifty years in this brownstone, in rooms that have witnessed lives before mine, and will know others after I am gone.” This book, along with her commitment to her home becoming a center for social justice movements, are among the many gifts Gloria has given the world with the hope they have ripple effects for generations to come. Gloria often quoted the adage: “The flap of a butterfly’s wing can change the weather hundreds of miles away.”...

Key Takeaways:

• Kyla Simpson gave birth to triplets in November 2024 by emergency C-section. Tragically, one of the boys died from RSV complications in August 2025.

• The surviving babies continued to live with Simpson and her family for 20 months as the intended father, Chen Zhou, failed to come from China to get them.

• Simpson ultimately decided to file to block Zhou from officially adopting the children and then she sued for custody.

• The children were removed from Simpson's home and are currently in the care of a nanny as the custody battle plays out.

• The hearing to determine where the boys would live and to consider whether Zhou is a fit parent was canceled moments before it was set to begin so that an appeals court could review appeals filed by Simpson.

The Backstory:

Kyla Simpson, who lives in Florida, was acting as a surrogate for a single man in China and became pregnant with triplets. When the babies were born by emergency C-section at 22 weeks in November 2024, the intended father, Chen Zhou, did not come to get them.

One of the babies tragically died from RSV complications in August 2025, but the other babies spent nearly two years living with Simpson and her husband, Lincoln.

Zhou said he had struggled to get a visa to come to the U.S. to get the boys and, at one point, emailed to say he would be sending friends to get the babies. It was around that time that two men arrived in a black SUV at her home, but Simpson did not know who they were.

"I don't feel comfortable doing all of these things and you're not coming to get them. I said either you, the people you had listed that could, if in case you passed away or something, they would have custody of these kids... or a representative from the agency to come and get these kids. I'm not handing them over to no strangers," she said.

She didn't hear from Zhou again until February 2026 and in May, she filed papers to request the termination of Zhou's parental rights to adopt the boys.

"I say 'our kids' because blood doesn't matter to me, how they look doesn't matter to me, color doesn't matter. I birthed them," Simpson explained.

Ultimately, the boys were taken from Simpson after 20 months of living with her, and were relocated to a California apartment to be cared for by a nanny, allegedly appointed by Zhou's attorney.

Simpson and her husband filed for custody of the children and have been locked in a custody battle since June.

"I want my kids back and they deserve us. This is who they knew as mom and dad. We took great care of them, provided everything for them, their day-to-day care, you name it," Simpson said. "It's very quiet, so that's not normal for us. These last almost two years it's been very loud from crying babies to then all you hear is 'mom, mom,' running around, so now it's like the total opposite. It just feels like off."

The Details:

A hearing in the case was canceled on Tuesday moments before it was set to begin after a higher court decided to review it. The hearing had been set to determine Zhou's fitness as a parent and whether the children would be returned to the Simpson family, remain in California, or go to Hong Kong with Zhou.

However, Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeals stepped in and stopped the hearing following appeals filed by Simpson's attorneys.

The appeals court is reviewing the California parentage order, which had been signed by both Zhou and Simpson, to determine if it is valid in Florida.

"This is the best thing that has happened in a very long time for me as far as this litigation goes. We've not been getting any say so in court, not even an opportunity to speak, kind of feel like we've been placed in a corner, so to know that the 5th DCA accepted our emergency motion for stay, that feels amazing,” said Simpson.

Why It Matters:

The case highlights the inherent ethical problems with surrogacy and IVF.

The children were created with the intention that they would not have a mother, and with the plan that they be taken from their surrogate mother — the one person they have bonded with — immediately at birth.

In this case, the intended father then did not arrive to get the children, and his decision to send strangers to get the boys caused Simpson to believed he may be trafficking the children.

The children's removal from the only home and parents they have ever known after nearly two years does not appear to be in the best interest of the children.

Children are the ones who suffer when adults' desires are the only considerations.

Key Takeaways:

• Precious Life launched their annual Pro-Life Roadshow in August.

• The tour brings pro-life displays to town centers and abortion facilities across Northern Ireland.

• Precious Life is opposing the Belfast City Council's decision to light up City Hall green in honor of abortion.

The Details:

Precious Life’s “Summer Pro-Life Roadshow 2026” got underway at the start of August, as teams of pro-life volunteers brought the message of life directly to the public on the streets of Belfast and other towns, rain or shine.

The entire month saw the roadshows become a characteristic in selected town centers and outside abortion facilities across Northern Ireland, with volunteers engaging passers-by, sharing information about preborn children, and encouraging signatures on a petition for the “Repeal of Section 9” of the Executive Formation Act, as well as the re-establishment of full legal personhood for all preborn babies in Northern Ireland.

The group states on its website, "Following the unjust and draconian imposition of one of Europe’s most extreme and permissive abortion laws, the only way Northern Ireland can become pro-life again is through the repeal of this horrific law."

During a roadshow in Belfast on August 29, Bernadette Smyth, founder and director of Precious Life, said, “It rained all day in Belfast today, but our commitment to being a voice for truth and justice continues regardless.”

Smyth thanked supporters who prayed, volunteered, donated, and shared the “Repeal of Section 9” campaign online, portraying the enthusiasm witnessed in these as “only possible because people like you stand behind this mission.”

The response to Precious Life’s roadshows has been encouraging, even in smaller towns like Newry. 

“Newry is a quiet town, but we are very happy at the response we are receiving,” Smyth said, referencing the group’s August 28 witness outside the Daisy Hill abortion facility in Newry, as well as its street outreach in the town center. 

“Our presence is a reminder that true compassion means protecting life, not ending it," Precious Life wrote on its Facebook page. "Every conversation we have is another opportunity to speak for the unborn and remind our communities that every human life is valuable, precious, and worth protecting from the moment of conception."

Precious Life also visited Derry, Portrush, Ballymena, and Lisburn, with hundreds of people stopping to speak with volunteers and sign petitions to resist pro-abortion laws. 

On August 21,  Timothy Gaston MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) of the Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV), who stood with the Precious Life team in support of their campaign to restore personhood protections, joined pro-life roadshow volunteers on the ground in Ballymena. 

Smyth described the roadshow in Ballymena as “a powerful day of public engagement and a clear reminder that many people still want their voices heard on this crucial issue (of abortion).”

On 12 August, Precious Life also brought its roadshow to the seaside town of Portrush to reach out to a community that the organization does not regularly visit during the year.

Smyth told Live Action News:

“We had great conversations with many young people, who clearly understand that an unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception. We are wearing this T-shirt to help make abortion unthinkable. If we do not change the culture, and if we continue voting for nationalist and republican parties that support abortion up to the moment of birth, the situation will only get worse, and abortion rates will continue to rise.

Precious Life will continue to stand for mothers and their unborn children. We will keep battling and fighting until abortion is unthinkable and every unborn child is protected."

Precious Life is also showcasing long-term demographic concerns in Northern Ireland. By summer 2027, the number of pensioners in Northern Ireland is poised to exceed the number of children, with deaths slated to surpass births by 2030, igniting worries about pressures on health care, social services, and schools.

For Precious Life, the answer to Northern Ireland’s demographic crisis lies in a cultural and legal shift that prioritizes the protection of all human lives, including unborn lives, from the moment of conception. 

Zoom Out:

While pro-life volunteers are on the streets engaging the public about the horrors of abortion and the importance of protecting preborn life, a standoff between pro-lifers and the Belfast authorities is ensuing over Belfast City Hall. 

As Live Action News previously reported, a controversial proposal to illuminate the landmark Belfast City Hall building in green to commemorate “International Safe Abortion Day” on Monday, September 28, was voted through at a council committee. About 20,000 people signed a petition against the move; however, the final vote was cast in favor of illuminating the building.

The pro-abortion National Women’s Council of Ireland submitted a request to illuminate the building, claiming that “International Safe Abortion Day” is a day to mark access to “safe and legal abortion care.” 

Precious Life lambasted the plan as turning City Hall into “a billboard for abortion" and has kickstarted an action alert urging the public to contact the council and register formal complaints. Smyth said:

"We are inviting Christian and pro-life organizations across Northern Ireland to stand together and send Belfast City Council a clear message: City Hall is not a billboard for abortion. Catholic, Protestant, evangelical, pro-life, and community groups are being asked to add their names to this important open letter. The more united our voice, the harder it will be for the Belfast City Council to ignore it. Illuminating City Hall would inevitably be seen as an endorsement by the Belfast City Council of abortion and of a particular political campaign.

For thousands of people across Northern Ireland, abortion represents the loss of an innocent child, while Christians and people of faith believe that every unborn child has inherent dignity and worth. Whatever one’s position on abortion, a publicly owned civic landmark should not be used to promote or celebrate one side of such a divisive issue."

If the illumination proceeds, Precious Life has pledged a public protest outside City Hall on September 28 “to expose the horrific reality of abortion.” The group is joined in resistance  by the DUP, whose council group leader, Sarah Bunting, said: 

"Abortion is not safe for the unborn child whose life is ended, and that fundamental truth should not be lost behind the language being used to promote this campaign. International Safe Abortion Day is a contradiction. Its organizers are campaigning for the removal of restrictions around abortion, a political objective many people across Belfast profoundly disagree with.

Belfast City Hall belongs to everyone and should not be used as a billboard to promote one side of such a campaign. We make no apology for standing up for the value of both lives and for the unborn child who has no voice in this debate."

The Bottom Line:

All in all, the annual Precious Life “Summer Pro-Life Roadshow” is more than a mere token opposition to abortion. Rather, it is an explicit, public, and sustained presence in communities that have witnessed abortion facilities increase under present government laws. 

Precious Life is attempting to regularize and promote pro-life advocacy in public spaces, and to keep the preborn child at the heart of the abortion debate. 

Key Takeaways:

• St. Martha’s Regional Hospital Complex in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, had previously given control of the hospital to the Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA) with the promise that the hospital's Catholic identity would be protected.

• In 2019, the NSHA announced assisted suicide and euthanasia would be committed in a specific section of the hospital.

• The Sisters of St. Martha have announced they will now be removing their name from the hospital.

The Backstory:

In 2019, the NSHA quietly announced that MAID would be committed at St. Martha's Regional Hospital, the only Catholic hospital in Nova Scotia. Previously, in 1996, the Sisters of St. Martha had agreed for the NSHA to have control of the hospital, but only after an agreement was signed saying the hospital's Catholic identity would be respected and protected.

Yet, following legal threats from assisted suicide advocacy group Dying with Dignity, the NSHA abandoned its previous agreement, justifying it by saying assisted suicide and euthanasia would only be committed in a complex attached to the hospital, and not within the hospital itself.

Such attacks on religious freedom in health care have been growing; Jocelyn Downie, of Dalhousie University, singled out St. Martha’s to reporters. “[I]t’s indefensible to have a publicly funded institution have a faith-based filter on the services that are available,” she said, attacking St. Martha’s for receiving taxpayer funding while refusing to participate in abortion and assisted suicide.

The Details:

The Sisters of St. Martha have now said they will remove their name and religious affiliation from the hospital, which will now be known as Antigonish Memorial Regional Hospital. While a reason wasn't explicitly given, the statement from the sisters insinuates it could be due to friction between the NSHA and the sisters.

“We decided as sisters, after we took a discernment time, prayed and thought about it, that in order for people to realize it’s not the same hospital we will have to take the name back,” Sister Brendalee Boisvert, congregation lead of the Sisters of St. Martha, said. “I don’t believe in MAiD, I believe in palliative care and that people need support, and St. Martha’s has a strong palliative care service. That’s our personal and congregational belief; however, I respect that some people are really pushing for that.”

As of September 30, the hospital will now be free to commit abortions and MAiD, further lending credence to the notion that this is what led the sisters to remove their name from the hospital.

Initially, the sisters tried to transfer ownership to Catholic Health International, saying the number of sisters was dwindling, and the remaining sisters were also getting older. “We are diminishing, our age is older, we don’t have a lot of people in health care right now; in such a field, you need to be part of it to have a voice,” Boisvert said.

Yet the NSHA refused to honor the existing mission agreement with another health care organization the way it had with the Sisters of St. Martha.

“The spirit is alive there, there’s so many staff and doctors that have lived these values, what we call the mission; it is in the DNA of the bricks and mortar,” Boisvert said. “There’s a way to live your life with dignity to all.”

Wellness Within, a pro-abortion non-profit organization, will help with committing abortions in the hospital, and praised the change. Dr. Martha Paynter, director of research for Wellness Within, told the Chronicle Herald:

Wellness Within is thrilled the path is now clear for health professionals at the Antigonish Regional Memorial Hospital to provide a full spectrum of reproductive health-care services, and for patients in the Antigonish region to no longer face unequal barriers to care.

The mission assurance agreement has long restricted the type of health care patients could access at the hospital — willing and able abortion care providers could not serve patients in their community and patients seeking medical assistance in dying could not receive this on site.

While a policy change in 2019 allowed for patient transfer to the affiliated St. Martha’s Centre for MAID, we are hopeful that the end of this agreement will allow patients to receive dignified health care at their regional hospital.

These changes leave us optimistic for the future.

The Bottom Line:

The intentional and targeted taking of innocent, vulnerable lives — whether preborn, elderly, disabled, or ill — is not dignified, nor is it health care.

This appears to be another assault on religious freedom, and the further spread of the culture of death in Canada.

Though assisted suicide is becoming more common in Italy, there is still no law regulating the practice, and thus far national health service's participation in assisted suicide deaths has been hotly contested.

Key Takeaways:

• Domenico Zuccarella died from assisted suicide on August 25.

• His death was the first in Italy completely managed by the regional health authority.

• The Constitutional Court decriminalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2019, but lawmakers have not passed any laws regulating the practice.

The Details:

Domenico Zuccarella, 59, died from assisted suicide on August 25. Though he was the fourth person in Lombardy to die by assisted suicide, his was the first death completely managed by the Lombardy Regional Health Authority.

As Italien News reported, "Until now, those affected or organizations such as the Associazione Luca Coscioni usually had to arrange for staff, medication, equipment, and a suitable location for assisted suicide on their own. In the Zuccarella case, for the first time, the health authority itself took full responsibility for the entire process, including the medical staff who volunteered to assist."

The Luca Coscioni Association, a pro-assisted suicide organization, is pushing for the health authority's role in helping people end their lives to become the norm. The group is advocating for lawmakers to adopt legislation that would place a legal stamp of approval on the process.

“To prevent the procedure from taking so long, and also to prevent a future Health Councillor from undoing everything with the stroke of a pen, it is essential that the Regional Council approves the ‘Liberi subito’ citizens’ initiative bill,” said Filomena Gallo and Marco Cappato, national secretary and treasurer of the association.

The Big Picture:

In 2019, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled that euthanasia or assisted suicide is not a crime if it is committed for "intolerable" pain or due to a chronic, non-life-threatening condition. Though that ruling effectively decriminalized assisted suicide, the Italian parliament has never come up with legislation to legally guide the process.

According to 24 Ore Salute, lawmakers are currently debating an 'end of life bill,' and the role of the National Health Service is currently one of "the most hotly debated points."

The current text of a finalized bill that has been stalled in the Senate for months specifically excludes the National Health Service from participating in assisted suicide deaths.

The Bottom Line:

At least one politician has publicly expressed dismay that a health service which is meant to treat patients is now helping them end their lives.

“What has happened with Domenico is extremely sad news, which raises a political and institutional issue that we cannot turn a blind eye to: the risk is that the Regional Health Service will end up taking on a role that goes beyond its fundamental mission, which is to treat patients and protect life," said  Matteo Forte, a Lombardy regional councilor for Fratelli d’Italia.

Key Takeaways:

• Tina desperately wanted a baby and turned to IVF and surrogacy.

• While her sister-in-law was carrying Tina's baby as a surrogate, Tina was surprised to learn that she, too, was pregnant. The babies would be eight months apart.

• The day after Tina took the positive test, she ordered the abortion pill.

• She said the timing was 'cruel' and that her family 'needed' her to abort her baby.

The Details:

The 19th's headline reads, "Tina wanted another baby. She also needed an abortion. Texas made both harder." Texas does not restrict IVF, but it does protect preborn babies from abortion. This story shows why that is so important.

According to The 19th, Tina had been struggling to become pregnant for years and experienced "miscarriage, fertility treatment, another miscarriage, more fertility treatment and an ectopic pregnancy."

She was diagnosed with Asherman's syndrome, a condition in which scar tissue and adhesions form inside the uterus. In about 90% of women who develop Asherman's syndrome, the cause is repeat dilation and curettage (D&C) procedures due to miscarriage treatment and first trimester abortion. Other causes include radiation treatment, surgery to remove fibroids or polyps, intrauterine birth control devices, and endometriosis.

Tina underwent several surgeries, but she continued to miscarry.

Ultimately, Tina decided to take her sister-in-law up on her offer to act as a surrogate. They transferred one embryo, a boy, and her sister-in-law became pregnant. Tina was finally getting the baby she wanted — and then came the ultimate surprise.

As her sister-in-law passed the 34-week mark of pregnancy, Tina found out she was pregnant, too.

"She had asked her doctor so many questions," wrote Shefali Luthra, reproductive health reporter. "But now she had a new one: Could she get an abortion? Desperate and resolute, she needed to decide whom she could trust ..."

Once desperate to get pregnant, Tina was now desperate for an abortion.

Luthra wrote:

[Tina] and her husband never considered having three children. Staying pregnant now would mean two newborns eight months apart. It would mean another crib, maybe a bigger car. In 18 years, another stack of college tuition bills. Another pregnancy, she worried, would keep her from being there for her other two children: the daughter she had and the boy she’d been counting down the days to meet. 

Still, Tina — who had spent years trying to get pregnant again — hadn’t thought of herself before as the kind of person who would get an abortion. She had peed on so many sticks, hoping for a positive test.

Now that it was here, the thing she'd been wanting for so long, it was wrong.

When Tina told her husband she was pregnant, his response was, "Sh*t." They decided to get an abortion because, she felt, "her family needed" it.

It was portrayed as "dystopian" that she lived in Texas, where most preborn children are protected from abortion. The day after the positive test, she said she "reached out to" an online abortion pill business in Massachusetts, where abortion is allowed up to birth.

"She got a prompt response: The standard medication abortion regimen doesn’t work for people with ectopic pregnancies. Because of her medical history, she would need an ultrasound confirming that medication was safe for her to take," wrote Luthra.

So Tina went to Planned Parenthood, but it could not rule out an ectopic pregnancy and sent her to the hospital. But the hospital couldn't locate the baby, either.

The next day, she called her doctor and scheduled a time to go in. Blood work appeared normal, and an ultrasound a few days later revealed the baby was in the uterus and the pregnancy was "healthy."

So, Tina order abortion pills — mifepristone and misoprostol — online that same day with expedited shipping. She paid $250.

“I remember thinking about the irony of it all,” she said. “I remember being — it sounds silly, but almost like I felt duplicitous to myself and others because I was the person that always wanted to have another child and worked so hard and did everything within my means. I did everything I possibly could to try to have another child, and here I am pregnant and about to have an abortion.”

She had taken misoprostol before for a miscarriage, but this time, wrote Luthra, "there was a power in choosing to take pills ... She was doing this herself."

That weekend, she took the pills. After days of cramping and bleeding, the abortion was over. "No longer pregnant," wrote Luthra, "Tina could finally focus on her son, now only weeks from arriving."

Think about the implications of that statement — ending the life of one child to "focus" on the other one.

Why It Matters:

Abortion and IVF are two sides of the same coin: they both treat children as commodities that adults can create and destroy to fit their own desires.

Abortion

Induced abortion always intentionally ends the life of a human being who has been labeled inconvenient or unwanted by his parents or by society. More specifically, the first drug of the abortion pill regimen, mifepristone, kills human embryos by depriving them of the oxygen and nutrients they need to survive. The second drug, misoprostol, induces the contractions to expel that child.

Tina desperately wanted another baby — but just one baby.

The pro-abortion mindset says she was justified in aborting her baby because he wasn't conceived at her ideal time. In fact, she even claimed that "The timing was just so cruel." She saw a miracle and said, "No, thanks."

Part of the issue with the "timing" was that she was already expecting a child, but another woman was pregnant with that child. She had invested a great deal of money and time in IVF and surrogacy, and another woman had loaned Tina her own body to carry that child.

She didn't tell her sister-in-law that she was pregnant because, as Tina's husband wondered, "[W]hat if sharing this news somehow tainted what felt still like the most generous thing another person could do for them? What if it made it seem as if they didn't actually care about what their sister-in-law had given them?"

He said, "To even tarnish that a little bit is so awful because it’s such a beautiful, amazing once-in-a-lifetime gift — and then to have anything tarnish it is just so dispiriting."

However, it's impossible to know how the sister-in-law would have felt, because she never knew.

Instead of seeing this miracle baby as a gift, he was seen as an obstacle to the life they wanted — an intrusion into their plans.

IVF

On the flip side, IVF and surrogacy treat children as products that can be created, tested for quality, labeled, and then destroyed if they don't pass inspection. About a million are assumed frozen in time. Only about seven percent survive to birth.

Designer fertility businesses are popping up offering to screen embryos for IQ, height, eye color, likelihood of acne, hair color, and other traits so parents can pick their "best baby." The company Nucleus Genomics will even test embryos for a potential future risk of a health condition like breast cancer.

Nucleus founder Kian Sadeghi believes, "[T]he parent and the physician [should] decide what and how they want to implant" (similar to the pro-abortion "woman and doctor" and "choice" mantras).

It's the false and unethical idea that children are products to build, test for "quality," and destroy when they don't fit into the parents' desires.

The Bottom Line:

This story is an example of how much human beings want to believe they are in control of everything in their lives.

We aren't.

Tina couldn't control whether or not she became pregnant, so she used IVF to try to control it. Then she became pregnant when she wasn't trying, so she tried to control that with abortion.

Sometimes life throws us curveballs. She will never be able to fully control her children's lives or their health or what happens next. With her history of miscarriage, the baby she aborted may not have survived, but it would have been a miracle if he or she did.

A best friend for his or her brother. Not a disaster.

Key Takeaways:

• A surrogate in Australia learned she was pregnant with twins, but one of them was biologically hers.

• After giving birth, she was able to take her biological son home, while the intended parents of the other child brought their baby girl home.

• However, surrogacy law in Australia prohibited the children's separation until a judge formally allowed it.

• This is not the first time such a case has unfolded, highlighting the ethical questions surrounding surrogacy.

The Details:

The couple who hired the surrogate, known as BNJ and DRJ, was unable to conceive naturally due to medical reasons, and in September 2024, began working with DZ as the surrogate mother for their baby.

DZ was implanted with one embryo from BNJ and DRJ in April 2025. However, two weeks later, an ultrasound showed two babies — one boy and one girl. Genetic testing was carried out, and it was revealed that the baby girl was the biological chid of the intended parents, and the baby boy was the biological child of DZ and her husband FZ.

According to court documents, DZ "conceived separately to the... embryo implantation process, and without medical assistance."

When the twins were born in November of 2025, the baby girl went home with her biological parents and the baby boy went home with his. However, the court had to intervene because under the Queensland Surrogacy Act, twins, triplets, or "birth siblings" are prohibited from being separated after birth.

According to LadBible, Judge Jode Wooldridge found that the babies were 'gestational twins' but not 'birth siblings,' as the law states. The court allowed the babies to remain with their biological parents.

Surrogacy and family lawyer Stephen Page told ABC, “The fact that the children were conceived separately means that they were not born as a result of the same pregnancy, and therefore they were not birth siblings, as defined in section 24 of the Surrogacy Act.”

The parents plan to ensure the children grow up knowing each other and having "an age-appropriate understanding of their place within the wider family network," according to a counselor hired for the families.

Zoom Out:

This is not a one-of-a-kind surrogacy story.

In 2016, Jessica Allen accidentally gave her own biological child to a Chinese couple who had hired her as a surrogate. Allen agreed to surrogacy in the hopes of saving money to buy a house. She underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) in April 2016 and soon learned she was pregnant with twins.

"Not once during the pregnancy did any of the medical staff provided by the agency say that the babies were in separate sacs. As far as we were concerned, the transferred embryo had split in two and the twins were identical," Allen told the New York Post.

When she gave birth via c-section in December, she didn't get to see the babies, but the following day, the intended mother showed her a photo of the babies.

“Wow! They look different,” Allen allegedly told the intended mother.

Later, the intended mother wrote to Allen saying, "They are not the same, right? Have you thought about why they are different[?]"

DNA tests soon revealed that the boys were not biologically related to each other.

Allen learned that the intended parents said they didn't want the baby that wasn't "theirs," and the agency was actively looking for someone to adopt the baby. Shockingly, would-be adoptive parents were expected to pay the intended parents $18,000 to $22,000 that they wanted in so-called "compensation" for the baby boy.

Allen and her husband, Wardell Jasper, hired an attorney and were able to get their son back; an employee from the agency brought the baby to them at a Starbucks two months after his birth.

"It was the first time I saw my son [in person] — and it took place in a Starbucks parking lot," she said, adding, "I missed two months of my son’s life. Those first few weeks of bonding are so important and we were robbed of them.”

"Wardell and I... weren’t planning to expand our family so soon, but we treasure Malachi with all our hearts. I don’t regret becoming a surrogate mom because that would mean regretting my son. I just hope other women considering surrogacy can learn from my story. And that a greater good will come out of this nightmare," said Allen.

The Bottom Line:

These stories highlight the ethical questions surrounding IVF and surrogacy, which deny the dignity of children and women, treating them as commodities to be bought and even sold.

The children conceived in IVF are tested, graded, and labeled; some of them are destroyed for not making the cut.

In these two stories, the parents were ultimately able to have custody of their biological children, but there are stories with more controversial endings.

Key Takeaways:

• Mayday Health was seen flying a banner advertising the abortion pill over the Kentucky State Fair last week.

• Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman called the group's actions illegal.

• Kentucky law protects most preborn children from abortion.

• Coleman previously announced an investigation into Mayday Health after the group ran an ad campaign at several of the state's gas stations.

The Details:

Kentucky Right to Life shared a photo on Facebook of a plane pulling a banner that read, "Abortion Pills by Mail. Mayday Health." The pro-life group said the plane had been flying over the Kentucky State Fair.

"Mayday Health is back at it — flying their abortion pushing-pill-propaganda over Kentucky. Kentuckians deserve better than out-of-state activists pushing dangerous abortion drugs into our Commonwealth. We will continue to stand firm and protect life!" wrote Addia Wuchner, Executive Director of Kentucky Right to Life.

On August 29, Coleman responded to the news on X, writing, "It appears abortion activists are flying over Louisville advertising illegal drugs. They are breaking the law. Since January, our Office has been investigating mail order abortion pills. We will not tolerate this illegal danger."

Mayday Health is known for advertising the abortion pill in high profile locations; in June, its banner was seen flying over the US Open golf tournament in New York.

While the organization does not provide abortion pills, it operates a website where visitors find recommendations for five mail-order abortion businesses where they can order the lethal pills.

The group's executive director, Leo Raisner, defended its actions.

"Mayday shares information about abortion pills in states where clinics are banned or restricted," Raisner told Kentucky Today, adding, "We've found it's just as important to step outside the digital fight altogether and reach people with facts the old-fashioned, analog way."

Zoom Out:

This isn't the first run-in Mayday Health has had in Kentucky.

In January, Coleman announced an investigation into the organization after its ads were seen at several gas stations in the state.

In 2022, the state passed HB 3, which prohibits the mailing or delivery of abortion-inducing drugs in the state. Coleman has also referenced the state's Consumer Protection Act in relation to abortion pill advertising; the act "prohibits deceptive or misleading communications with Kentuckians."

“Out of state activist groups who are targeting the vulnerable here should be on notice: Keep your illegal pills out of our commonwealth or face the full weight of the Attorney General’s Office,” Coleman said at the time. “These deadly and unlawful pills cannot be allowed to continue flooding into Kentucky through the mail, and we will thoroughly pursue every lead to hold bad actors accountable.”

The Bottom Line:

Though Kentucky lawmakers attempted to pass a bill earlier this year that would have made it illegal to mail, distribute, or traffic the abortion pill within the state, the bill failed to progress.

Rep. TJ Roberts told Fox 56 News he hopes to revive the bill in the upcoming legislative session, to solidify that actions like those of Mayday Health are illegal.

“I hope that Plan C and Mayday are among the first people indicted under a bill to ban the importation of the abortion pill,” he said.

Key Takeaways:

• The abortion pill is deceptively marketed as safe and effective healthcare.

• The intent of healthcare is to heal and improve a person's life. The intent of the abortion pill is to end a human life.

• The abortion pill kills innocent human beings in the womb and also frequently causes physical and emotional harm to the women who take it.

• The FDA allegedly approved the abortion pill based on the false idea that pregnancy is an illness.

The Details:

First and foremost, the abortion pill has one purpose: to kill a living preborn child.

Based on that alone, it cannot be healthcare because healthcare is meant to care for a human being's health — not to kill. There's a reason why the abortion industry has in recent years begun to label abortion as abortion "care" — it is a deliberate effort to ignore the life that is being aborted, pretending as if intentionally killing a woman's child is caring for her.

Beyond the obvious atrocity of abortion itself, the abortion pill frequently has devastating effects on women — both physically and mentally.

Intent to kill, not heal

The abortion pill is a drug regimen that includes mifepristone and misoprostol. The two drugs work together to kill and expel the growing human child in the earliest days of her life. The abortion pill is "effective" only when the child is expelled and dead.

According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, abortion pill "failure" includes an incomplete abortion and the survival of the child.

In 2025, an analysis by the Ethics & Public Policy Center (EPPC) found that the failure rate of mifepristone, the first drug of the abortion pill regimen, is nearly double the failure rate currently listed on the FDA-approved drug label.

The abortion pill "works" when mifepristone deprives the baby of nutrients and oxygen and when misoprostol causes the uterus to contract to expel the baby's body. This video explains the process:

A 'successful' result is a dead human being. That's not healthcare. That's intent to kill.

Physical complications

The child is dead, and the mother who took the abortion pill may be physically suffering. The abortion industry often claims that taking the abortion pill is like having a heavy period and is <a href="/news/fact-check-abortion-pill-safer-tylenol-viagra">safer than Tylenol</a>; <a href="/news/bloomberg-writer-abortion-pill-safer-tylenol-truth">research</a> and personal testimony have shown otherwise.

Dr. Christine Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), told Newsmax that she has personally witnessed the harm the abortion pill is doing to women and girls:

“Women and girls are being endangered and injured every day in our country through these dangerous chemical abortion drugs.

I am a board-certified OB/GYN and I practice in an in-patient setting and I, personally, along with many of my colleagues, have seen women and girls come in through our emergency rooms with severe complications from these drugs. Complications that should be being addressed by the FDA.

Complications like heavy bleeding and hemorrhage and the need for emergency surgery, the need for admission to the hospital for blood transfusions and infections, and even one of our members took care of a woman who likely will not be able to have children in the future because of major complications that required two major surgeries to correct these complications due to these chemical abortion drugs.”

The FDA does not require that complications of the abortion pill be reported. However...

• A pro-abortion Gynuity-sponsored study published in 2021 in the journal Contraception revealed that six percent (6%) of 1,157 women who took the abortion pill visited the emergency room or an urgent care center for abortion pill-related complications. Ten of those were serious, and five of the women needed a blood transfusion.

• This data mirrors abortion complication data in the United Kingdom, where it was found that nearly six percent (6%) of women who took the abortion pill in the UK between June 1, 2019, and May 31, 2021, were treated for complications.

• A 2020 report from the abortion group Marie Stopes Australia also revealed an overall complication rate of 6.37% for women who took the abortion pill that year.

However, abortion pill prescribers often instruct women to lie to ER doctors about taking the abortion pill and tell the doctors that they are miscarrying, skewing the data on abortion pill complications.

The EPPC analysis found a nearly 11% rate of serious adverse events, including sepsis, infection, and hemorrhage. This rate is 22 times higher than the FDA's rate listed on the mifepristone label. 

Women have come forward to share their personal stories, but pro-abortion media outlets have ignored them.

• Leslie called her experience with the abortion pill “incredibly terrifying, isolating, and painful.” She said, “It should not be downplayed as similar to a heavy period or an early miscarriage. I’ve had both. The chemical abortion was a violent, unnatural pain.”

• Another woman said on the website AbortionChangesYou.com that after taking the abortion pill, she bled heavily for eight weeks, was rushed to the hospital for an emergency D&C, and still had problems with complications a year later. The abortion facility told her she could bleed for up to six weeks, but she found herself bleeding longer:

"One day at work, I started hemorrhaging.… This was probably 8 weeks [after taking the abortion pill]. I had been notifying the clinic I felt I was bleeding too long and too heavy. They always brushed me off saying yes you can bleed longer.

Well, this day I couldn’t ignore it. I was changing tampons and pads that overflowed every 20 minutes. To finish my shift, I stuffed paper towels in. Nothing would hold it until I bled down my pants in front of a patient. I made it home covered up with a jacket.

I was feeling like passing out and asked my brother to take me to the hospital. I had to admit to him what was going on."

A year later, she was still suffering from the physical trauma the abortion pill caused her body. She was “still severely anemic and having to get IV iron treatment which takes 4 hrs. I may have to do every six months the hematologist says. Have to see gyno to reduce my heavy periods.”

Mental health trauma

She, like many women, also suffered mental health effects from taking the abortion pill. She even felt she deserved the physical complications she suffered:

All this shame and illness and I knew I deserved it, I deserved to die for the baby I killed. The horror of nights not sleeping thinking of the baby. Looking at my kids thinking of another beautiful child. Couldn’t live with myself. Wishing God would take my life. But every day putting on a smile around people to mask it all. Inside I felt a disgust towards myself, towards the lie and hypocrisy.

She's not alone.

In 2019, Life Issues Institute released a documentary on the abortion pill, which included an interview with Tammi Morris. She explained:

"It wasn’t very long until after I took that pill that I began to experience labor. And it didn’t take long at all for those labor pains to intensify. Because I had already given birth to a child, my daughter, I knew what labor felt like, and I was shocked.

I thought that I would cramp, like I had with my surgical abortion, but it would be over relatively quickly. This was not that. This was horrific! This was me, alone, afraid, and feeling like I’m going to give birth to death. They didn’t prepare me for this. They told me that some tissue would be expelled from me, much like clots."

She continued:

And I was on the toilet, and I wasn’t there very long, and the urge to push was there. And I felt a mass, and then I heard a sound. Horrified, I looked down, and there was my baby. In a toilet… [I felt] devastated. This wasn’t uterine tissue. This was a formed, recognizable, undeniable baby. My baby. My fiancé’s baby.

She had to seek medical attention for serious bleeding, but what was worse was knowing she killed her baby:

I was angry, I was ashamed, I was very hard to be around, because I had this secret. I had this traumatic experience that I couldn’t share with anybody. And after all, how does the mother who killed her own child in the womb, intentionally, how does she grieve outwardly?

Also in the documentary, Elizabeth Gillett shared that after she took the abortion pill...

"I miscarried my entire child whole. It was the size of a tennis ball, probably, round, just a perfect little sack. And inside was this tiny little gummy bear. And I held him… The doctor had promised me that I would feel relieved. I didn’t feel any relief. Overwhelming guilt. Just a sickness inside that I couldn’t, couldn’t put away.

Nightmares started shortly after. I stopped eating. I became anorexic. I was later diagnosed with acute posttraumatic stress disorder."

Live Action’s webpage, “I Saw My Baby,” brings awareness to stories like these.

Salome shared, “After taking the abortion pill, I felt like my inside was being torn and sliced to pieces. I had blood all over my legs and went into the tub to wash them,” she explained. “Right before the fetus came out I started vomiting everything that I had in my system that morning. And then I bled more and I hurt more. And I started praying curled up in the blood in the tub, for the first time in years. I don’t even remember the last time I prayed before this happened.”

She added:

"After hours of hurting, I finally felt a huge physical relief and the pain was immediately gone. I managed to get up, and when I turned around, I saw the most heartbreaking thing that I’ve seen in my entire life — I saw my child.

It was at that moment that it sunk in properly that I really had been pregnant. I had been carrying the life that I created inside of me until that very moment.... I felt like part of me died. I felt angry, I felt guilty. I felt like my world was coming to an end and that I was the most terrible person on this earth."

She added, “I couldn’t believe what I was looking at. It was the most beautiful thing that I’d ever created and I destroyed it.”

Reality Check:

The lawsuit behind the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) v. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) case challenged the legitimacy of the abortion pill's approval in 2000. During that case, there was discussion over whether pregnancy is an “illness” — a classification that was allegedly used to “fast-track approval authority” of the drug — according to the plaintiffs.

“The only way the FDA could have approved chemical abortion drugs was to use its accelerated drug approval authority, necessitating the FDA to call pregnancy an ‘illness’ and argue that these dangerous drugs provide a ‘meaningful therapeutic benefit’ over existing treatments,” the pro-life plaintiffs wrote. “But pregnancy is not an illness."

Circuit Court Judge James Ho agreed, telling abortion pill manufacturer Danco's attorney, “Pregnancy is not a serious illness.” He added, “When we celebrate Mother’s Day – are we celebrating illness?”

The Bottom Line:

The abortion pill does not treat any health condition. Healthcare is meant to heal and to improve a person's life. The abortion pill kills babies while physically and emotionally destroying their mothers.

Key Takeaways:

• Dr. Kevin Yuill is an emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland in England.

• He speaks against assisted suicide frequently on social media, which the United Kingdom is considering legalizing.

• Yuill said he received a warning letter from the university due to his anti-assisted suicide advocacy which he described as a "veiled threat."

The Details:

In an interview with The Telegraph, Yuill said he received a warning letter from the University of Sunderland, where he lectures as an emeritus professor of history. Yuill regularly campaigns against assisted suicide, and is chief executive of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.

Yuill said he was sent a warning letter from the university in June, after a complaint was made about his advocacy. Initially, he was not even told what the complaint was about, and was just given the warning letter instead.

The Telegraph obtained the e-mails, and reported Yuill was told to “'reflect carefully' about his emeritus title because [it] 'carries an expectation that its use does not adversely affect the institution or conflict with its core values, including respect and responsible public discourse.'"

The complaint alleged that Yuill lacked empathy, and took issue with his description of pro-euthanasia activists as "Orwellian." It also claimed that he was causing "reputational damage" to the university, and was not objective as is expected of an academic.

This, Yuill said, was a blatant attack on his right to free speech.

“It’s an outrageous thing for them to do,” Yuill said. “It seemed to be a veiled threat, and I think it’s too reactive.”

He continued:

"That was out of order. It’s fair enough if they want to say something like, ‘Oh, we’ve received this complaint, what is your response?’ That would have been a reasonable thing. It’s a bit Kafkaesque when you get a complaint that you have no idea what it’s about, and or even which medium it was about.

Where have I said this? When have I said this? To whom have I said this? If they had just said, ‘Look, obviously, please don’t bring the university into disrepute by anything you say’, I would have assured them that I don’t."

Yuill's lawyers are asking for an apology from the university, as well as a statement expressing support for freedom of speech. He said:

“I’m hoping it will make them think twice before reacting to complaints of a similar nature, so my hope is it will be a bit of a lesson for them, which is why I’ve gone full on with this whole thing.

Not because it’s a threat to me, but for younger colleagues who are in paid positions, I don’t think it’s in anybody’s interest to have Sunderland censoring their ideas or even pushing them to self-censor their ideas.”

The Committee for Academic Freedom is currently supporting Yuill, and research director Freddie Attenborough told the Telegraph the letter is concerning. “Academic freedom means little if academics have to worry that expressing controversial views within the law might put their institutional status or privileges at risk,” he said. “Universities should be protecting the space for those disagreements, not adding institutional pressure to one side of them."

Elliot Hammer, the solicitor representing Yuill, added, “Academic freedom is incredibly important for the proper functioning of our higher education sector, and so I’m proud to represent Dr. Yuill in this case.”

The Big Picture:

This summer, Labour MP Lauren Edwards promised to reintroduce the controversial “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)” after it previously failed to pass parliament, and it was officially introduced in June. It had its first reading in July, and is set for a second reading and vote in September.

The first bill was introduced by Kim Leadbeater and failed to pass after it did not meet the May deadline for legislation to be approved. It was contested by many voters, who expressed concern about the bill, particularly about the potential for coercion and profit. It faced particularly heavy opposition from disability advocates, including Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, a former Paralympian, and actress Sophie Turner, known for her roles in the "X-Men" and "Game of Thrones" series.

In the meantime, Prime Minister Andy Burnham has vowed to prioritize better funding of palliative and social care over legalizing assisted suicide, saying these services do not receive enough funding as it currently stands.

"Personally, I think there's something that needs to happen first, and that's the fixing of the funding of palliative care and social care," he said. "I think it is very challenging to introduce that wider debate in a context of people not receiving that care and having the peace of mind about that care."

The Bottom Line:

It's concerning that assisted suicide is not only being pushed through parliament again, but that those who speak against it must now fear facing professional repercussions for doing so.

While Iceland aborts 100% of prenatal cases of Down syndrome, the United States is not far behind, due to the rise of prenatal testing and normalization of aborting “imperfect children.”

I was the scared mother of a baby diagnosed with Trisomy 21 — Down syndrome — at 11 weeks pregnant. When the world offered 'termination' and validated that action, my husband and I chose to trust God.

'Casual' Talk of Murder

I was past the age of 35 and I knew the polite term, “advanced maternal age,” was the category I was being placed in. The noninvasive prenatal testing, or NIPT, was normalized for my age bracket and I went along with the blood draw procedure, thinking knowledge was power.

If my baby was diagnosed with any genetic difference, I would educate myself and take the time during pregnancy to plan.

The morning of my results, I had two missed calls and a portal message from my NIPT provider. The alarms in my head went off instantly.

Rather than call the doctor’s office, I opened the portal and an AI bot read the results: High-risk Trisomy 21, 95/100.

While the fear was very much present, God was grounding my husband and me in that very moment. We quickly set up an appointment for an ultrasound to look for any soft markers. The doctor mentioned a few areas of concern, and a chorionic villus sampling (CVS) was set up for the following day.

The CVS procedure consisted of a needle being inserted through my abdomen and taking a sample of the placental tissue. The ultrasound and CVS were tests done to confirm a diagnosis.

But what the medical professionals missed was the very human life they were diagnosing.

No test could measure the person this baby was going to be — the life created by God to serve Him. Everyone wanted to define our child and measure our baby’s worth even before birth.

'Termination' was offered very casually, discussed like small talk rather than murder.

The Dark Underbelly of Eugenics

When I did my research, I came to know the dark underbelly of the genetic testing world, and how the majority of lives diagnosed with Trisomy 21 prenatally are aborted on a worldwide scale. 

Jerome Lejeune, a French scientist, successfully identified the extra copy of chromosome 21. He thought his discovery would be used for good, and would drive research and advancement. Instead, it led to genetic tests, which has led to abortions.

Lejeune devoted the remainder of his existence to the pro-life cause after realizing what his research was being used for. 

Prenatal testing goes far beyond providing a 'guess' for the diagnosis of Down syndrome based on an ultrasound. The NIPT was specifically designed to detect Trisomy 21. And women that fall in the advanced maternal age category aren’t the only ones urged to take this genetic test.

Many women receive the blood draw for an early gender reveal. Most countries have women take the NIPT as part of their prenatal care. It also drives a large profit. In the United States, the NIPT market is expected to grow to $36.79 billion by 2034.

Equipping the Church

How do we equip women with a high-risk NIPT in one hand and a Bible in the other? We need the church as a body to be bolder and more vocal about what is happening behind closed doors.

Women’s Bible studies, young adults’ groups, and married small groups need to be having these conversations. The physical church needs to address abortion more clearly, and if we claim to be “fearfully and wonderfully made,” the dangers of the NIPT concerning eugenics needs to be clearly stated.

How are we preparing our young women?

How are we preparing married couples before they have children?

Those medical professionals in a place of power will offer the world’s opinion. But we know Who holds the most power. We need to armor pregnant women with values that are eternal and holy.

All life is worthy, precious, and valuable. No measure from society can measure up to the love from our Creator.

The destruction of life, whether based on the NIPT or graded on a scale like IVF is currently doing, is a moral wrong that defies the gift bestowed by God. 

The Promise

My husband and I gave our complete trust to the Lord after the diagnosis. Of course there was still fear, and a list of unknowns. But the ultimate Author is the only one who knows the story.

Several weeks after our diagnosis, God gave me a promise — a dream showing the glimpse of our future in which the Down syndrome diagnosis was confirmed, but all ultrasounds showed no health concerns. In the dream, I sat in a doctor’s office holding a bright blonde-haired boy on my lap while having a conversation with another woman who had received a Trisomy 21 diagnosis, reassuring her everything would be okay. 

On the day of my c-section, as worship music filled the room, our son Rowan was born with no additional health issues.

Since that day, I have spoken with many women that have received high-risk prenatal results. My son’s hair is growing in... and it's bright blonde. All of God’s promises to me were fulfilled.

And my promise to Him will always be to advocate for the little lives that are being given so little value. Because I look at my son now and I see how he was so lovingly crafted. My little miracle.

People may say, “But what’s the miracle? He was still born with Down syndrome.” But they are missing our Creator’s heart.

The miracle is that through this experience I now better understand how our Maker sees us.

Every life is intentionally made and known by Him before we are ever formed in the womb.

Are abortion pill companies intentionally turning a blind eye to the lack of accountability among rule-breaking abortion pill prescribers for the sake of profit?

Abortion pill manufacturers have thus far failed to decertify bad actors who are out of compliance with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) REMS safety system, which increases abortion pill sales — and therefore, increases the companies' overall profits.

Key Takeaways:

• A new report from the HELP Committee found that abortion pill sales result in nearly $20M in annual revenue for Mifeprex manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, which makes only that drug.

• Danco has been shrouded in secrecy for decades, refusing to disclose "highly sensitive" information like profits and even manufacturing location. However, a legal deposition in 2022 showed that "Danco’s investors had a 452 percent return on investment over 23 years," and it has also been revealed that it manufactures the drug in Spain.

• Danco has claimed that its "annual revenue varies, but is less than $20 million per year..."

• In its report, the HELP Committee blamed Danco for a lack of accountability, which placed profit above the health and safety of women.

The Details:

An August 2026 report for the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee — led by Senators Bill Cassidy , Steve Daines, James Lankford, Cindy Hyde-Smith, and Lindsey Graham — found that abortion pills accounted for nearly $20 million dollars of revenue annually for Danco Laboratories, one of the abortion pill's (mifepristone) three manufacturers.

Danco has only one product: the name-brand abortion pill Mifeprex, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000.

Mifepristone Investigative Report

The report, "Mifepristone Without Guardrails: An Investigation Into How Chemical Abortion Drug Makers Are Putting Mothers and Babies At Risk," stated that information was requested of Danco and GenBioPro "as to the revenues and profits the companies are making," and though "[b]oth sponsors declined to provide specific information as to their financials... Danco did share some high-level insights."

The Senators wrote in a letter dated March 25, 2026 (included in the report): "Mifeprex is Danco’s only product, and Danco has stated that it would have to close its business if it was prevented from selling this drug because the company would no longer generate revenue." The letter was addressed to Abby Long, Vice President of Marketing and Operations at Danco.

That letter continued that the "level of secrecy" surrounding the manufacturing of Mifeprex by Danco is "unusual given that most pharmaceutical companies are far more transparent, including disclosing where their drugs are manufactured, their sales numbers, their leadership teams, and other basic information about their business."

Live Action News also previously documented that Danco has remained an elusive and highly secretive company for more than two decades.

The company’s executives, investors, and office locations are kept hidden, and Danco's manufacturing location sites were largely undisclosed until recently, when a false claims act lawsuit forced the company to publicly disclose that the drug is manufactured in Spain.

The Senators also keyed in, writing:

The Washington Post once characterized Danco as “[s]ecretive and obscure” and “one of the most enigmatic companies in the pharmaceutical industry.”

Some of Danco’s financial information became public during protracted litigation in 2022 involving private equity-backed investors seeking control of the company.

In a deposition in that case, Danco’s Chief Financial Officer, Angelia Van Vranken, stated that Mifeprex had “been extremely profitable,” that Danco’s investors had a 452 percent return on investment over 23 years, and that one of Danco’s top investors and executive chair of the board of directors, W. Bradley Daniel, had earned over $10.3 million in proxy fees alone.

"It is concerning that it took a court battle amongst private equity investors to reveal some of Danco’s substantial profits," the report authors stated.

Danco's Response

Abortion pill sales have increased year after year, so it is unsurprising to learn that in the first years after approval, revenue was lower than today.

Given the removal of the in-person dispensing to allow for pharmacy and mail order, the company's revenue has increased exponentially over the past five years to somewhere close to $20 million annually.

A "confidential" letter sent from Hogan Lovells US LLP, which represented Danco to the committee, read in part (emphases added):

Danco is a private company and is not able to produce this information as it is highly sensitive confidential commercial information. Annual revenue varies, but is less than $20 million per year...

Danco is not able to provide quarterly sales information, because it is highly sensitive and confidential commercial information. As provided in the April 17, 2026 Response, FDA has reported that approximately 7.5 million women have used mifepristone (both Mifeprex and generic products) in the United States for medical termination of pregnancy as of December 31, 2024.

Since approval in 2000, annual total sales revenue has ranged from $1 million to $26 million with an average of $16 million.

In each of the past five years, annual sales revenue has not exceeded $20 million.

Taxpayer Funds and Royalties

Live Action News previously uncovered documents indicating that the Population Council, a non-profit (which was founded by eugenicists, and which brought the abortion pill to the U.S. and then created manufacturer Danco Laboratories to market the drug known as mifepristone) was originally set up to receive royalties from sales of the abortion pill.

While it is unclear whether the Population Council continues to profit from the abortion pill via a royalty payment, it is undeniable that U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing its work. A review of the organization’s annual reports reveal the following:

• 2024: 18% from U.S. Government taxpayers - 6% royalties (Population Council no longer listed dollar amounts in this report, instead disclosing percentages of income from taxpayers and royalties.)

• 2020-21: $3.8 million from taxpayers - $4.1 million royalties

• 2019: $3.5 million from taxpayers -$23 million royalties

• 2018: $39.5 million from taxpayers – $22.7 million royalties (Note: A milestone payment of $20 million tied to a product licensing agreement was recognized as revenue in 2018.)

• 2017: $37.7 million from taxpayers – $11 million royalties

• 2016: $38.6 million from taxpayers – $4 million royalties

• 2015: $35.6 million from taxpayers – $2.8 million royalties

• 2014: $37.8 million from taxpayers  – $2.4 million royalties

• 2013: $37.1 million from taxpayers –  $2.2 million royalties

• 2012: $34.8 million from taxpayers – $6.5 million royalties

• 2011: $40.8 million from taxpayers – $8 million royalties

• 2010: $27 million from taxpayers – $11.1 in royalties (Note: In February 2010, the Council signed a licensing agreement with Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., granting them the North American rights to the contraceptive vaginal ring. This agreement led to a 48% increase in the Council’s royalty income for 2010.)

• And more

The Population Council is funded by the same billionaire pro-abortion philanthropists who seeded Danco, namely the Buffett Foundation (Warren Buffett) and the Packard Foundation — and others.

Profiting From Lack of Accountability

Abortion pill manufacturers are obligated to ensure that the FDA's safety rules are followed by prescribers of the drug and by pharmacies dispensing the drug, yet as Live Action News has documented multiple times, this does not appear to be taking place.

Sponsors of the drug are tasked with training, certifying, and decertifying non-compliant prescribers.

Mifepristone sponsors must, according to the FDA

Ensure that healthcare providers who prescribe their mifepristone are specially certified in accordance with the requirements…and de-certify healthcare providers who do not maintain compliance with certification requirements. 

Instead, when unaccountable prescribers break the rules, virtually none are being decertified, and no one is holding prescribers accountable for breaking the FDA's safety rules.

Danco claimed to have certified 5,250 prescribers and 5,297 pharmacies (decertifying only two).

Committee members noted this lack of decertification, writing that "[I]t is no wonder that Danco has never decertified a single prescriber when it claims to never take steps to confirm that the prescribers are actually meeting the requirements they attest to."

Profits above Health and Safety of Women

HELP Committee senators zeroed in on this and called out Danco's millions in profit as a potential motivation to not decertify bad actors like Planned Parenthood which sells the drug "just in case" of a pregnancy, flouting the drug's REMS safety requirements.

In its report, the Committee blamed the manufacturer for a lack of accountability, which placed profit above the health and safety of women, writing:

With chemical abortions provided by online clinics now estimated to account for 27 percent of all abortions in the U.S. (about 160,000 abortions in the first half of 2025), Danco must immediately implement the Mifepristone REMS Program requirements and de-certify prescribers who do not comply.

By willingly refusing to do so, Danco is putting its profits above the health and safety of women and children.

The Timeline:

1994: With encouragement of the Clinton administration, Roussel-Uclaf assigned the U.S. rights of marketing and distribution of the abortion pill (known then as RU-486) to the eugenics proponents at the Population Council. The right to distribute the drugs was later handed over to Danco Laboratories, a sub-licensee of the Population Council.

1996: Population Council (funded in part with millions of dollars of investments from the Buffett and Packard Foundations) submitted its application for the drug to the FDA, and a series of clinical trials began.

2000: FDA approves abortion pill.

2019: Trump FDA approves GenBioPro as first generic abortion pill maker.

2025: Trump FDA approves Evita Solutions as second generic drug maker.

Key Takeaways:

• A federal judge has again delayed a lawsuit seeking to revoke the FDA's original approval of the abortion pill mifepristone in 2000.

• In the same ruling, the judge denied a motion to dismiss the case from a mifepristone distributor and a manufacturer.

• The lawsuit will resume on December 1 or when the FDA completes its safety review of the abortion pill drug mifepristone — whichever comes first.

The Details:

On Sunday, federal Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the Department of Justice's (DOJ) request to delay a lawsuit filed in March by the states of Texas and Florida. Both states' attorneys general, who filed the lawsuit, agreed to the delay.

The lawsuit will resume on December 1 or when the FDA completes its safety review of the abortion pill drug mifepristone — whichever comes first.

In the same ruling, O'Connor denied a motion from mifepristone manufacturers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro to dismiss the case.

Mifepristone will remain accessible via the mail and online during the stay.

The Backstory:

Texas and Florida filed the lawsuit in 2025, arguing that "the FDA's approval and deregulation of abortion drugs have placed women and girls in harm's way."

The states also argue that "inadequate adverse event reporting" has led to the undercounting of "true rates of risks associated with chemical abortion drugs," meaning that the risks are "therefore... unknown."

The lawsuit seeks to revoke the FDA's initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 as well as the rollbacks of safety rules in place on the drug.

In a separate lawsuit, State of Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the FDA admitted that "if the Secretary of Health and Human Services finds that a drug presents "an imminent hazard to the public health,” the Secretary may suspend the approval of the application "immediately...."

The Bottom Line:

The promised safety review of mifepristone came under fire last year for its slow pace.

Pro-life medical associations and legal experts have warned that continuing to delay the reviews threatens public trust and leaves women without the safety information they deserve in order to give their true informed consent.

The delaying of the lawsuit also contributes to this lack of disclosure.

Key Takeaways:

• The Presidium of the Polish Episcopal Conference said the government is going beyond its boundaries in teaching human development.

• The bishops also said the church is being sidelined in religious education in public schools.

• They warn that education is becoming increasingly secular.

The Details:

In a statement from August 24, 2026, “A Young Person Deserves More,” the Presidium of the Polish Episcopal Conference (KEP) argued that the state is going beyond its proper role by assuming parental functions in the most intimate areas of human development — sexuality, marriage, and family life — while concurrently sidelining the church's traditional educational presence in public schools. 

Signed by Archbishop Tadeusz Wojda (KEP president), Archbishop Józef Kupny, and Bishop Marek Marczak, the bishops’ declaration proclaimed education as a shared project among family, school, religious communities, and the state, premised on mutual respect for the various competencies.

The bishops emphasized that the Church does not demand an educational monopoly, but provides a vision of the human person drawn from the Gospel, aimed at integral formation: truth, love, responsibility, and the ability to select the good.

As EWTN reported:

“Religion classes are not a privilege of the Church” but “a constitutional right” based on “freedom of conscience and religion and the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their own beliefs,” the document stresses.

They also say religious classes can help nonbelievers in schools better understand the history of the nation and Europe as well as the arts, culture, and literature. “Especially in times of crisis,” the document says, religion is a “guiding light that prevents them from getting lost.”

Two concrete policy amendments sparked the bishops’ concern:

• New scheduling and grading rules effectively put religion classes on the back burner.

• The Ministry of National Education (MEN) moved to make “health education” mandatory from 1 September, with only the sexuality module earmarked as optional.

In turn, the bishops maintained that making the sexuality component optional “does not solve the problem,” as the subject’s overall anthropological framework — its vision of the person, marriage, and family — still impacts how students understand sexuality even when specific lessons can be avoided.

Together, these changes indicate to students, parents, and teachers that religion is peripheral to the core mission of schooling. 

In context, a July 2024 education ministry regulation permitted schools to blend pupils from different year groups into a single religion class — a change that, in practice, relegated religion lessons to the very start or end of the timetable.

That move was followed by a government decision that religion grades would no longer be included in students’ overall GPA.

Then, in January 2025, another regulation halved weekly instruction time for religion classes, decreasing it from two hours to one.

Zoom In:

At first glance, each measure could be framed as a minor, administrative tweak to school logistics. Nonetheless, Piotr Janowicz, head of the Association of Lay Catechists, said, “The purpose of these changes is to usher religion and ethics out of the schools through the back door. We were completely left out of the consultations.” 

A central argument in the KEP statement is that religion classes are not a privilege given to the church, but a “constitutional right” of pupils and parents and from parents’ rights to raise children in accord with their convictions. 

Poland is demonstrating how religion can be removed from public life without being banned, through small adjustments that cumulatively secularize the school day. The bishops’ response is thus both pastoral and constitutional: they urge for an “immediate restoration” of religion classes to their proper place, and for genuine dialogue with religious communities. 

Why It Matters:

They also embrace the need for health education in schools, covering disease prevention, mental health, and responsible social attitudes, but resist the worldview embedded in the curriculum guidelines and newly published textbooks. They are concerned not only that contraception is being taught as acceptable, but also that it is presented within an anthropological framework that divorces sexuality from marriage and family, and fails to reinforce explicitly that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Health Education now includes efforts to “educate” students about “methods of contraception, the mechanism of their action, and the criteria for choosing an appropriate method of contraception” and “methods of treatment” for infertility, which could include in vitro fertilization (IVF). The Catholic Church regards IVF and contraception as sinful and immoral. 

The Polish case was an explicit illustration of a pattern visible across Western democracies: the state increasingly becomes the key moral educator in matters of sexuality, reproduction, and identity, while religious voices are administratively sidelined without formal bans. 

As per the bishops, embedding sexual-health content within a compulsory subject, even as an opt-out module, transfers authority away from parents and risks presenting sexuality outside the marital context as normal or neutral. The lack of a wide social consensus and meaningful consultation with parents, educators, and religious communities in designing the program is palpable.

The Bottom Line:

The bishops’ stance that “the state should support the family, not take over its basic functions” echoes the views of many pro-lifers that put the family unit at the crux of human flourishing, and oppose state propagation and normalization of contraception and non-marital sexual arrangements.

Pro-life advocates have long cautioned that school-based sexual education, when treated as different from marriage and family, imperceptibly influences attitudes toward contraception, abortion, and the meaning of sexuality itself.

All in all, the Polish bishops’ statement is both a warning and a model that state-sponsored sexual and reproductive education, notwithstanding “opt-out” clauses, can negatively influence  the moral horizon of a generation.

The Polish example is a good illustration of how religious authorities can resist anti-family state ideologies, not by dismissing health education outright, but by trying to respect the dignity of the person, the truth about marriage, and the primordial responsibilities of parents to be the primary educators of their children, such as in the areas of faith and morality. 

Key Takeaways:

• A band comprised of members of The Satanic Temple recently released a graphic music video depicting a woman undergoing a "religious abortion ritual" inside a Hobby Lobby bathroom.

• The Satanic Temple has targeted Hobby Lobby since a 2014 Supreme Court decision, the majority opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito, said for-profit businesses can claim a religious exemption from providing certain hormonal contraception under the Affordable Care Act.

• The Satanic Temple argued that the ruling meant that its members' 'religious beliefs' should exempt them from pro-life laws.

• The group has opened three abortion businesses: "The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic" (NM), "The Right to Your Life Satanic Abortion Clinic" (VA), and "The President’s Yuge Most Beautiful Tremendous Satanic Abortion Clinic" (ME).

The Details:

Satanic Planet is a band that includes Luke Henshaw, Justin Pearson, Dave Lombardo, and Lucien Greaves, a co-founder of TST. Last week, it released a graphic music video for its song, "Sam Alito's Mom," from its album, "Dead Deities." The song is a reference to TST's tele-abortion business that claims to offer "religious medication abortion care" through mail-order abortion pills shipped by mail in New Mexico for those "who wish to perform The Satanic Temple's Religious Abortion Ritual."

CONTENT WARNING: Disturbing language and imagery.

According to the music video, "On Friday, March 13, 2026, a satanic abortion ritual was performed inside of a Hobby Lobby bathroom."

The video follows a young woman into the store and states:

"This is a destruction ritual that serves as a protective rite. Its purpose is to cast off the guilt when choosing to have an abortion. It serves to empower the patient against those with theocratic religious convictions. The ritual wards off the effects of unjust persecution, which can cause one to stray from the paths of scientific reasoning."

The video essentially serves as a promotional piece for TST's abortion business. It gives step-by-step instructions on how to carry out the abortion ritual — the sacrificing of the woman's own child. The woman reads, "One's body is inviolable subject to one's own will alone."

As reported by The Christian Post:

After looking at herself in the mirror and taking abortifacient drugs, the woman prayerfully sits on the toilet before flushing her baby, returning to her own reflection and reading an affirmation that echoes the liturgy of the Eucharist: "By my body, my blood, by my will, it is done."

It's unlikely that the woman is actually undergoing an abortion as she is seen sitting on a toilet, smiling.

She is instructed that after she 'passes the embryo,' she should look at herself in the mirror. But a woman doesn't simply 'pass an embryo.' Taking the abortion pill involves severe cramps like labor pains, and bleeding sometimes so severe that it sends women to the ER.

As the woman leaves Hobby Lobby, the video depicts the burning of Hobby Lobby items that reference God.

Zoom Out:

Hobby Lobby has been one of TST's targets since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that the retail chain did not have to provide contraception to employees, ensuring that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects it.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the court ruled 5-4 that for-profit corporations can claim a religious exemption from providing certain hormonal contraception under the Affordable Care Act. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in that case.

TST argued that the ruling meant that its members' 'religious beliefs' should exempt them from pro-life laws. It then opened its first abortion facility in New Mexico and named it “The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic.” The group remarked that “[i]n 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options, and look what happened.” It has since opened two more facilities — "The Right to Your Life Satanic Abortion Clinic" in Virginia and "The President’s Yuge Most Beautiful Tremendous Satanic Abortion Clinic" in Maine, which opened on President Trump's birthday.

The Bottom Line:

TST claims that pro-life laws "stray from the paths of scientific reasoning."

Yet, science is clear that a new human life begins at fertilization and a human being could only be pregnant with another human being, who is equally worthy of life and protection.