Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood announced it will open a facility in New Orleans later this year.

• It plans to offer certain telehealth services, minus abortions (which are illegal in Louisiana), this summer.

• The facility will be part of the Planned Parenthood Great Plains region.

The Details:

On June 24, Planned Parenthood announced its plans to open a new facility in New Orleans before the end of the year, with telehealth services (minus abortions) in the state scheduled to commence later this summer.

Louisiana will be incorporated into the Planned Parenthood Great Plains region, which already covers the Arkansas, Kansas, western Missouri, and Oklahoma areas. Other facilities under this affiliate are also planning to open in various states.

“Access to reproductive health care has become increasingly uneven across the United States. Instead of care, communities with the most unmet needs are met with new restrictions and disruptions. The loss of Planned Parenthood health centers providing services in Louisiana reflected that reality. The return of care underscores Planned Parenthood’s commitment to remaining in the South to meet people where they are and create more pathways to accessing high-quality health care for as many communities as possible,”  Alexis McGill Johnson, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said. 

Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said that patients from Louisiana have been patronizing its 13 facilities to obtain abortions that she noted are becoming harder to access in their home state.

"When we took a hard look at the patients who had been coming to Planned Parenthood [in Louisiana] and the lack of resources for those patients trying to find other providers, we knew that there was a gap we could fill," Wales said.

Zoom In:

The New Orleans facility is expected to offer contraception, STI testing and treatment, so-called "gender-affirming care," pregnancy testing, care related to perimenopause and menopause, vasectomies, cancer screenings, and other services.

It will not, however, commit abortions on site. Wales said the facility will instead assist patients seeking to travel to states where abortions remain legal.

“They do still fortunately have a constitutionally protected right to travel, and Louisianians should have every kind of support, whether it's from Planned Parenthood, abortion funds, friends and family in other states to get out of state and access care that is legal in other states," Wales said. 

Louisiana has long been acknowledged as one of the most pro-life states in the United States. Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Louisiana’s trigger law took effect, banning most abortions and reinstating the state’s dedication to protecting preborn children. The law mirrors the will of many Louisiana residents, and is a culmination of years of pro-life advocacy and legislative action.

In view of this, Planned Parenthood’s return is a direct affront to Louisiana’s pro-life values and laws. While the organization alleges that it offers essential health care, Planned Parenthood’s core identity and revenue model have historically been heavily linked to abortion.

Data from Planned Parenthood’s own yearly reports consistently reveal that abortions contribute considerably to its earnings, even as it obtains significant taxpayer funding. Moreover, the wider cultural impact of Planned Parenthood’s presence should be denounced.

Establishing a facility in New Orleans could impact public perception, particularly among young people, by deceptively portraying the organization as a trusted healthcare provider instead of an entity deeply entrenched in the practice of killing preborn babies and harming the bodies of born children and individuals struggling with gender confusion. 

Reopening a clinic could also position Planned Parenthood as able to dispute Louisiana’s pro-life laws in court, or to quickly broaden abortion services should the legal landscape change once more. 

The Bottom Line:

To counter the insidious presence of Planned Parenthood, pro-lifers in Louisiana need to bolster  alternatives that truly support women and families. Pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and community-based support can offer life-affirming care for both mother and child, instead of resorting to abortion as the default option to deal with crisis situations. 

Key Takeaways:

• Capt. Brandon Jones-Adams put abortion pills in the drink of a woman who had become pregnant after the two were in a consensual relationship.

• She noticed a residue in the cup and, when she began experiencing severe cramping, immediately went to the emergency room.

• The victim suffered the loss of her preborn child at 13 weeks of gestation.

• Jones-Adams pleaded guilty to intentionally killing a preborn child, domestic violence, fraternization, and conduct unbecoming of an officer; he was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The Details:

Jones-Adams met his victim in 2024, when they were both assigned to Joint Base Lewis-McCord (JBLM). Though she was a junior enlisted soldier, they began a relationship, which continued through a nine-month deployment to South Korea. In May of 2025, while still in South Korea, the victim realized she was pregnant.

They both returned to JBLM. In August, the victim was at Jones-Adams' home, and he poured her a drink. After she drank it, she noticed a residue in it and became concerned. Her fears were realized after she began cramping, and she went to the emergency room on base.

She told hospital staff what she suspected happened, but it was too late. Her preborn baby died at 13 weeks of gestation.

Zoom In:

The Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Division was eventually notified, and it was discovered that Jones-Adams had ordered mifepristone. Searches on his phone revealed multiple attempts to obtain mifepristone, the first drug of the abortion pill regimen, and he eventually ordered it online using a fake name.

He has since pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including intentionally killing a preborn child, domestic violence, fraternization, and conduct unbecoming of an officer. He could have been sentenced to between four and 12 years in prison, and was given the maximum sentence of 12 years. He was stripped of all pay and allowances and was also dismissed from the Army, which is equivalent to a dishonorable discharge for officers.

“What Mr. Jones-Adams did was a disgusting act that killed an unborn child and violated the victim’s trust and autonomy in the most personal way,” Special Agent in Charge Michele Starostka of Army CID’s Western Field Office said. “When someone crosses that line, we will throw every resource we have into the investigation and make sure they face full accountability.”

The Bottom Line:

Atrocities like this will continue so long as the abortion pill is allowed to be dispensed on the internet, and women will continue to be <a href="/news/mail-order-abortion-pill-traffickers">victimized</a> by abusive men.

Farrens used her witness to drive home the point that the circumstances of a person's conception do not determine his or her worth.

Key Takeaways:

• Anne Farrens spoke at the Young Leaders Summit, sharing the story of how she learned she was conceived in rape.

• After spiraling into a destructive lifestyle which culminated in an abortion at age 17, Farrens found redemption and healing through Christ.

• She lamented that many people believe abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, saying “What I truly hear is that it would be better if you weren’t here.”

• Suffering is real, she said, but life still has value.

The Details:

Farrens began by asking the audience, "How many of you in this room have ever felt different?” She recounted that many people in society had been telling her she was different her whole life, with some calling her an "abomination." The difference, though, isn't visible to the human eye.

“The difference about me is the way I was conceived,” she explained. “I was conceived when a violent serial rapist broke into my mother’s home… I was conceived in rape.”

Farrens described a childhood that was "idyllic" until she learned the truth at age 12. With her newfound knowledge, she wrestled with fear and self-hatred, believing that the evil act of her biological father somehow defined her.

“I was worried that because of who my biological father was… that meant I was bad.”

That belief led her down a destructive path of addiction, abuse, and eventually an abortion at 17. This abortion had a lasting impact on her life. “Having an abortion is something you cannot undo," she said. "But you can be forgiven.”

Farrens spoke of the profound suffering she caused herself, her parents, and others, but said she ultimately found redemption in Christ.

Bringing her pain "into the light” and surrendering it to God became the path to her healing. “It’s the only way I could be free,” she said. “I had to give it all to God.”

Zoom In:

Farrens also challenged one of the most common exceptions made in abortion debates: rape.

“I hear it all the time… ‘I am 100% pro-life, except in the cases of rape.’”

To many, she said, that statement sounds compassionate. But to her, it carries another message entirely: “What I truly hear is that it would be better if you weren’t here.”

That reality shaped the crux of her message: suffering is real, but life still has value.

“Suffering is real, but God can redeem it,” she said.

In a touching moment, Farrens introduced her mother to the audience as she reflected on her mother's courageous "yes" and steadfast faith. "She welcomed me as a gift. She trusted God in her fear. She protected me so fiercely. And she never gave up on me all through those hard years," she told attendees.

The Bottom Line:

Farrens offered a final encouragement to those suffering: “Never, never give into it, because God will make it into something so spectacular."

Key Takeaways:

• Chanetta Smith was 24 weeks pregnant when she was referred to LeRoy Carhart's Maryland abortion facility by a “national abortion services company."

• Her medical records from Carhart said she underwent a routine dilation and evacuation (D&E) and was discharged in stable condition.

• In reality, she had to be taken to the emergency room in an ambulance and had suffered numerous lacerations, as well as a uterine perforation and rupture.

• Smith had to undergo multiple surgeries over the next 18 months to repair the damage from Carhart's botched abortion.

The Details:

According to the lawsuit, Smith was referred to Carhart's abortion facility in January of 2023. She was 24 weeks pregnant at the time, and traveled from her home in Delaware to Carhart's Maryland facility. While it is not known which organization referred her to Carhart, he maintained certification with the National Abortion Federation (NAF) despite a long history of injuries and deaths.

Smith underwent a D&E abortion procedure, which typically takes several days to complete. At her first visit, the staff performed an ultrasound, gave her oral medication, and inserted laminaria (seaweed sticks) into her cervix to begin the process of dilation. She returned the next day and was given more oral medication, before Carhart then committed the dismemberment abortion procedure, during which the baby's arms and legs were torn off his/her body and his/her skull was crushed.

According to Carhart, the procedure went smoothly:

Neither Dr. Carhart nor the CARE Abortion Clinic produced notes that detailed the performance of the procedure by Dr. Carhart, other than to record that Ms. Smith was dilated further using "mixture of Pratt and Denison Dilators", that her cervix was dilated to 49, that the fetal injection was given at 12:23 p.m., that Plaintiff Smith tolerated the procedure "very well", that there were "no complications" and that she was allegedly stable and discharged.

In actuality, the procedure was horrifically botched, and Smith almost died.

After committing the abortion, Smith began to seriously hemorrhage, and she began saying she felt extremely cold and like she was going to die. Emergency services needed to be called, and she was taken to the hospital in an ambulance. EMTs gave her medication to try to stop the bleeding, as well as fluids.

By the time she reached the hospital, Smith's life was at risk. Her blood pressure was dangerously low, at 57/32, and her hemoglobin count was just 4.3, indicating she had lost nearly two-thirds of her blood volume. She had to be given multiple transfusions of red blood cells, FFP (fresh frozen plasma), and platelets to keep her alive. In the meantime, she became lethargic, was shaking violently, and had a fever, all signs that her organs were shutting down.

When hospital staff performed an ultrasound, they found retained "products of conception," meaning Carhart did not complete the abortion, and left parts of her baby's body inside her uterus.

Zoom In:

At this point, hospital staff realized she was too sick to receive adequate care, and after being stabilized, she was transferred to the University of Maryland (UMMC), which had a higher-level trauma center. There, she was diagnosed with hemorrhagic shock and was rushed into the operating room. In addition to committing a second abortion procedure, to remove the body parts Carhart had left behind, staff found tears in her vagina and cervix. Smith was discharged the next day, though her condition didn't improve.

Five days later, she went to another emergency room, saying she had constantly been leaking urine, and new scans were performed; only then was the full extent of Carhart's damage revealed. Her uterus had been perforated and ruptured, and she had a vesicovaginal fistula, or a hole between her bladder and her vagina. A two-inch pocket of infected fluid or blood had pooled outside, which was physically crushing her ureter (the tube that carries urine from the kidney to the bladder). Because this had caused urine to get backed up, her right kidney had become swollen.

By July of 2024, Smith was still suffering, having had a bladder catheter inserted for seven months. A urology expert finally discovered that Carhart's botched D&E had also torn a hole in her ureter. Over 18 months later, the damage from Carhart's abortion was fixed, with surgeons having to cut her kidney tube away from the damaged area, carve a new opening into her bladder, and sew the kidney tube back into a different part of her bladder, with a stent left inside of her.

Carhart had been dead for a year by the time Smith's suffering was finally over.

The Big Picture:

At the time of this abortion, Carhart was 81 years old and had liver cancer, yet he continued committing abortions. He died at the age of 82 in April of 2023. And sadly, Smith's experience was far from rare; Carhart committed multiple issues, including botched abortions, throughout his career.

There had been numerous complaints filed against Carhart, including allegations of unprofessional conduct like altering patient charts, talking on the phone while committing abortions, and falling asleep while injecting a patient with lidocaine. He also allegedly committed an abortion on a patient who had active tuberculosis, and didn’t allow his staff to wear masks during the procedure. A staffer likewise accused him of, bizarrely, leaving the facility in the middle of an abortion procedure to go outside and throw rocks at the window.

Former staffers said Carhart allowed abortions to be committed without the proper licensing, and that he lied about the gestational age of preborn children in order to circumvent the law. He was also accused of keeping his facilities in an unsafe condition, with dried blood on surgical instruments, missing narcotics, illegal drug use by employees, and illegal abortions. Other complaints said he illegally disposed of biohazardous waste, private patient medical information, and drugs.

Carhart also had been accused of animal neglect, with four horses and two dogs confiscated by authorities. Animal control officers found the animals emaciated, and left in mud and excrement a foot deep. One horse was allegedly in such poor condition that it would have died without receiving immediate intervention.

Strangely, the emergency number given to Carhart’s abortion patients was found to belong to his wife’s horse business.

Carhart was known to be responsible for the deaths of at least two patients: Christin Gilbert and Jennifer Morbelli. In both cases, the women’s families desperately tried to reach staff at Carhart’s abortion facilities, but they ultimately received no emergency care.

In the years preceding his death, Carhart was accused of botching increasing numbers of abortions, even coming under investigation by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services after a 35-year-old woman allegedly suffered internal hemorrhaging, coded at least once, and needed life-saving surgery. According to a witness, this was because the staff at Carhart’s facility “let her lie there too long” before finally calling 911.

In addition, Carhart "mangled" two patients so horribly and just days apart that when ER hospital staff carried out surgery on them, they were so traumatized by the <a href="/news/late-term-abortionist-mangled-patients-babies-traumatized">injuries</a> that hospital administrators sent an e-mail to staff to acknowledge the trauma they experienced.

The Bottom Line:

There can be no denying the pain and trauma Smith went through, and Carhart's estate should be held responsible.

Is the abortion advocates' fight truly about saving women, or about broadly legalizing the intentional killing of preborn babies, in any and all circumstances?

Key Takeaways:

• Kaitlyn Kash shared testimony with Congress claiming that because of pro-life laws, she had difficulty getting a D&C immediately after the birth of her daughter.

• However, the Center for Reproductive Rights stated that "the hospital had difficulty locating the equipment and staff for the procedure." It hasn't been specified as to why this was the case.

• A hospital social worker reportedly told Kash the hospital "[doesn't] do those procedures anymore."

• Based on Texas law, there's no reason why any hospital shouldn't or couldn't carry out D&C procedures that do not intentionally kill preborn children.

• Laws to protect preborn children from being intentionally killed would not interfere with prenatal and postnatal care if mass confusion weren't being spread through pro-abortion groups and media.

The Details:

Kaitlyn Kash has faced immensely difficult experiences that can change women forever, including a miscarriage, an abortion, and a prenatal diagnosis.

But during the Senate Spotlight Forum, she chose to share a traumatic and frightening experience immediately following her daughter's live birth in 2023, which had nothing to do with abortion or Texas's pro-life law, helping to conflate abortion and actual health care.

Postpartum hemorrhage

It was shortly after giving birth to her daughter that Kash's doctor told her that they were struggling to remove the remaining placental tissue.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights:

[Kash] needed a dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure to remove remaining placental tissue, but the hospital had difficulty locating the equipment and staff for the procedure.

While waiting, Kaitlyn’s condition deteriorated, and after vomiting, losing blood, and losing consciousness, she was transferred to the ICU, where she was later told she was lucky she hadn’t lost her uterus.

Kaitlyn still struggles to understand why the hospital had so much trouble providing her with routine postpartum care.

That is indeed the question.

Was it because of the pro-life law or because the hospital was not prepared? A hospital social worker reportedly told Kash before she was discharged that the hospital didn't do D&Cs anymore.

If this off-handed remark from a social worker is true, it was a huge red flag that this hospital, Ascension Seton Medical Center, or at least its administration, did not understand that Texas does not prohibit D&C procedures. In fact, no state law does.

Texas law prohibits using a D&C only if used to intentionally kill a preborn child. Using a D&C to intentionally kill equals abortion. Using a D&C to remove retained placental tissue does not equal an abortion.

Yet, Kash told Congress:

"When politicians get to decide what healthcare is moral and immoral, every woman you have ever loved is put at risk."

Intentional killing cannot reasonably be considered "health care," but it can be reasonably considered "immoral" to commit such an act. A D&C is not 'an abortion'; it's a procedure used to clear the uterus. The procedure itself is neither moral nor immoral.

But it is possible for a D&C to be used immorally to intentionally kill preborn human beings.

That is what pro-life politicians in Texas have determined to be immoral — the killing innocent human beings in the womb. D&C procedures may be used for diagnosis and treatments that do not involve intentional killing, such as treatment for miscarriage and uterine polyps.

Kash continued:

As I lay there holding my baby on my chest, my doctor informed me that my placenta was not delivering. I needed a D&C, a procedure used to clear tissue from the uterus.

And yes, it is also used in abortions, and I needed it quickly.

Fifty minutes after my daughter's birth, I started violently throwing up and shaking, still in the delivery room, waiting to go to the OR. When they finally took me back, I remember [hearing] rushing and shouting. I lost consciousness as I went into hemorrhagic shock.

My records indicate that we were finally able to start my procedure one hour and 59 minutes after my daughter's birth. When I woke up, I had lost half of my blood and I was told that I'm lucky I still had my uterus.

Instead of spending my daughter's first night in the world with her, I was in an ICU bed while a nurse cared for my baby three floors away.

This is inarguably a horrible experience.

Retained placental tissue must be removed quickly, according to research. One study found that "[u]ntreated, retained placenta is considered the second leading cause of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH)." It also found (emphasis added), "Although retained placenta is an obstetrical complication encountered relatively infrequently on the labor and delivery floor, recognizing patient risk factors and understanding management are important steps in mitigating this morbidity."

So was Kash's care delayed due to the law, due to a medical team's lack of preparedness, due to a media blitz spreading confusion about the law, or even due to advertising carried out by pro-abortion groups? Accounts like this are told by women across the country, even in pro-abortion states, because it isn't due to pro-life laws; it's often due to negligence. Again, a D&C is not in and of itself an abortion, and Texas does not prohibit D&Cs. Texas prohibits induced abortions.

Kash went on to say:

"After attempting to get answers on what had gone wrong, a hospital social worker listened to my account. When I got to the part about the D&C, she interrupted and plainly stated, 'Well, we don't do those procedures anymore.' That one sentence said everything. This delay wasn't chaos; it was policy.

You do not know the healthcare you need until you need it. You can be against abortion for yourself. You can never choose it, but you cannot restrict access to a category of medical care without consequences that reach every pregnant person in this country...

These states' bans are forcing unimaginable pain and pushing hundreds of thousands of women into impossible situations they never saw coming. Trust me, I never saw it either."

There's no reason that Ascension Seton shouldn't or couldn't carry out D&C procedures that do not intentionally kill preborn children.

In 2024, the hospital released a statement written by the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA), saying:

... Catholic health care providers do not perform elective abortions and remain committed to protecting and upholding the dignity of every human life..." It added, "... Catholic hospitals in the United States are held to the exact same clinical standards of care and adhere to the same policies as every other hospital in the country."

... Catholic medical providers ... care for pregnant women follow guidelines set forth by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). ... [T]here is nothing in the ERDs [ethical and religious directives] that prohibits a Catholic health care provider from providing medically indicated care to a woman who is suffering from serious or life-threatening conditions during pregnancy.

Kash claims the delay in her care was due to "policy." But the Center for Reproductive Rights didn't say this when it shared Kash's story.

It said that the hospital had difficulty finding the staff and the equipment to carry out the D&C.

Even if the hospital thought it couldn't legally carry out a D&C, why would it fail to prepare for the inevitable serious emergency?

Kash's abortion and miscarriage stories

The story Kash told Congress had nothing to do with abortion, but there's a reason that either she or the Center for Reproductive Rights chose it as the story to share.

It's the one most likely to convince well-intended people that abortion must remain legal because this type of emergency could happen to any woman.

It is something that is out of their hands — not like choosing abortion for a fetal diagnosis, which is a decision Kash also made.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, when Kash was pregnant with her second child, she learned at 13 weeks that her baby had severe skeletal dysplasia and was "unlikely to survive until birth or would suffocate soon after being born," likely because it can cause issues with lung development. There are 450 genetic conditions that are classified as skeletal dysplasia, ranging from mild to severe.

Kash wanted to know her options, and she was told to seek a second opinion "outside Texas." She traveled to Kansas to have an abortion. It's unclear why she didn't share this story with Congress, other than that it may have happened before Roe was overturned.

It's important to note that one of the 'established risk factors' for retained placental tissue is a previous abortion.

Kash became pregnant again, but miscarried at seven weeks and was prescribed "a medication to help her pass" the baby, but because the drug is also used for chemical abortion, she said she "struggled to find a pharmacy to fill the prescription."

It is unclear which drug is being referenced here. But if this is referring to mifepristone, then difficulty in finding a pharmacy to fill would be is unsurprising because a pharmacy has to be specifically certified to carry it. According to the FDA, "Mifepristone may only be dispensed by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber, or by a certified pharmacy on a prescription issued by a certified prescriber. To become certified to dispense mifepristone, pharmacies must complete a Pharmacy Agreement Form."

If they are talking about misoprostol, it is unclear why it would have been difficult to get the medication.

After another miscarriage, Kash became pregnant with her daughter.

The Bottom Line:

In a Facebook post, the Center for Reproductive Rights claimed,:

"Kaitlyn Kash's experience illustrates how abortion bans can affect far more than abortion care itself. When she needed a routine D&C procedure to remove retained placental tissue, delays in accessing care landed her in the ICU.

These are the consequences medical experts have warned about for years. Pregnancy, miscarriage, and postpartum recovery can all require urgent medical intervention, and patients depend on providers being able to act quickly when complications arise.

But when abortion bans create confusion, fear, and legal risk around standard medical procedures, patients can face dangerous delays in care."

Laws to protect preborn children from being intentionally killed would not interfere with prenatal and postnatal care if mass confusion weren't being spread through pro-abortion groups and media.

It is actually quite simple: If an act is being carried out to kill a preborn child or ensure a baby is not born alive, it is an induced abortion and is prohibited by pro-life laws.

If the intent is not to kill the baby, it is not an abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• The abortion industry, or "Big Abortion," sells abortion as acceptable; it does so, in part, by dehumanizing preborn children. This is the industry's "sleight of hand," using manipulation and misdirection for its own gain.

• Some in the industry have described preborn children as "nothing" and "nobody."

• Many have referred to a preborn human being as "the pregnancy." At other times, they refer to that same preborn human being as "pregnancy tissue." And they dislike use of the terms "baby" and "heartbeat," claiming that more "medically accurate" terminology should be used (but typically only when the woman's decision is to abort the baby).

• Some claim the preborn child looks like a "blood clot," a "cotton ball," a "dot" or "dryer lint."

• Others know that women seeking chemical abortions might see the body parts of their preborn children — but they attempt to minimize this by comparing the child's developmental size to candy instead of showing or describing to them the actual heads, hands, and feet they may see.

Background:

According to a database describing the meaning behind various idioms:

The phrase “sleight of hand” has been used for centuries to describe a type of skillful deception or manipulation. While its exact origins are unclear, it is believed that the term was first used in medieval times to refer to the tricks performed by street performers and traveling magicians.

Over time, sleight of hand became associated with more sophisticated forms of deception....

... Today, this idiom can be applied to a wide range of activities that involve skillful manipulation or misdirection – from card tricks and stage magic to political maneuvering and corporate espionage.

The Details:

Big Abortion markets death by dehumanizing the preborn child, when in fact, the child in the womb is very much a human being.

'House' with 'No People Inside'

Instead of "trusting women" with the truth that abortion targets a living human baby for violent death, Gabi Theard, a patient coordinator at the Women's Reproductive Clinic of New Mexico (a "pill only clinic," operated by her abortionist father Franz Theard), claims in an Instagram post that she tells her patients there is "nothing" and "nobody" in the womb during an abortion.

Of course, if "nothing" was in the womb, there would be no abortion. She wrote:

"The house is going through a demolition but there are no people inside... Nothing is in there right now - at all. All we're looking for is the house that it would have grown, but there is nobody inside that house."

"It's the way I like to position it, for especially for the ones that are just terrified of the process or feeling a lot of guilt of shame."

In other words, use whatever works to get a woman to agree to an abortion.

Viewing 'baby' terminology as 'medically inaccurate'

To get a clearer look at the deliberate deception implemented in selling women abortions, we can examine the TEACH curriculum (Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare), which partners "with Planned Parenthood affiliates, telehealth medication abortion providers, Family Medicine residency programs, and physicians and Advanced Practice Clinicians (APCs)...to train the next generation of clinicians in comprehensive reproductive healthcare."

TEACH's 8th Edition (2025) states:

• "We use gestational 'duration' rather than 'age”'which personifies the fetus, and we focus on weeks gestation rather than trimesters" (Upadhyay 2023).

• "We use 'medication abortion”'instead of 'medical abortion' to represent medication-based methods and avoid implying medical necessity" (Upadhyay 2023, Weitz 2004).

• "We avoid 'elective' and “'herapeutic' abortion, which imply moral judgment on who is entitled to abortion care" (Watson 2018).

When discussing ultrasounds, TEACH advises, "Use clear and simple language when discussing US findings; avoid triggering language that is medically inaccurate (ie “baby,” “heart beat,” etc.)."

For abortion, TEACH advises providers say "pregnancy" rather than "baby." However, if the woman refers to the "pregnancy" as a "baby" then the provider is allowed to "mirror" her language.

(How noble of them.)

In reality, a "pregnancy" is not dismembered or poisoned in utero, and a "pregnancy" cannot die. Women do not lose "pregnancies." They lose their children in utero. "Pregnancy" is the state of being pregnant with a preborn child.

'Blood clot' or 'cotton ball'

TEACH advises that abortion providers describe the embryo or fetus as resembling a 'blood clot' or 'cotton ball.'

When an abortion client asks if an abortion with "hurt the baby," TEACH suggests telling her:

“No, this will not hurt the baby. The fetal nervous system is not developed enough to feel pain at this point in the pregnancy. Still, it may be comforting to know that any pain medication you receive will also reach the fetus.”

... Before 9 weeks, it is difficult to visualize fetal parts. You can say, “The pregnancy may look like a blood clot or a cotton ball.” [emphasis added]

If asked, "What will I see when the pregnancy passes?" TEACH curriculum also advises:

• At <9 weeks LMP, blood and clots are usually visible, and a gestational sac may be seen (white frond-like material in clumps), but it is unlikely to identify an embryo. [emphasis added]

• At >9 weeks LMP, a fetus may be identifiable; counsel people accordingly.

TEACH adds separately:

At >9 weeks gestation, one may see a recognizable embryo or fetus. Visualization of pregnancy tissue is available at the MYA network and size and characteristics are available at Perinatology.com. [emphasis added]

In reality, as Live Action News previously documented, the pro-abortion MYA Network deceptively portrays the embryo/fetus as a "cotton ball" type of substance. However, before the MYA Network's photos were taken, the actual embryos were removed, and the gestational sacs were rinsed.

The MYA Network images look eerily similar to images included in the TEACH Curriculum to represent a "gestational sac."

Interestingly enough, the website Perinatology.com, listed by TEACH, states that at 7 weeks "embryonic age" which is "Gestational age 9 weeks," the "heart is beating at about 170 beats per minute." But if you search the TEACH curriculum, the beating heart is never mentioned (and, of course, "heart beat" is a term not to be used).

At "Gestational age 10 weeks (2.3 months) — fetal age 8 weeks" Perinatology.com states:

• Fingerprints are being formed... and bone cells are replacing cartilage.

• The adrenal glands are starting to produce catecholamines and the pituitary is starting to release ADH and oxytocin.

• The fetus can make IgM. [Note: According to Cleveland Clinic, "immunoglobulin M) is a type of antibody that your body makes to help you fight off infections."]

• The average fetus at 10 weeks is 1.22 inches (3.1 cm) long and weighs about 1.2 ounces (35 grams).

At "Gestational age 11 weeks (2.5 months) — fetal age 9 weeks" the website states, "The fetus is starting to have breathing movements. It can open its mouth and swallow" and "weighs about 1.6 ounces (45 grams)."

'Pregnancy' looks like a 'dot' or 'dryer lint'

Planned Parenthood's website markets two different ways to discuss the preborn child, depending on the desired outcome.

On its pregnancy month to month web page, the organization gives details about the growing embryo. Yet, as documented multiple times by Live Action News, Planned Parenthood has been shown to use deceptive marketing.

For example, on Planned Parenthood’s “How Pregnancy Happens” web page, the corporation’s video clearly shows the embryo inside the pregnant mother.

However, when Planned Parenthood is attempting to sell a woman the abortion pill (which is, according to the organization, about 70% of the over 400,000 abortions they committed last year alone), the abortion corporation does not give women this same information.

Instead, Planned Parenthood's abortion pill video compares the embryo or fetus to a "dot."

In both instances, Planned Parenthood refers to a preborn child unscientifically as "the pregnancy."

Separately, however, Planned Parenthood's blog tells women that "early in pregnancy" ("pregnancy" being used not to refer to the child but as the state of gestating a child in this case), preborn children are merely "pregnancy tissue" that "looks similar to dryer lint."

(Apparently, to Planned Parenthood, the child is both "the pregnancy" as well as the "pregnancy tissue.")

Planned Parenthood wrote:

Some people are worried their medication abortion didn’t work because they’re expecting to see more blood, tissue, or large clumps to come out.

But at the early stages of pregnancy when taking abortion pills is an option, it’s very likely that all you’ll see is what looks like a period. This is because early in pregnancy, the pregnancy tissue looks similar to dryer lint, which, mixed in with blood, is often not very noticeable.

The exact same deceptive language was documented in Live Action News' series, "A Nation Deceived," where researcher Sheena Rodriguez detailed Planned Parenthood's comprehensive sex-ed curriculum:

Utilizing debunked photographs, Planned Parenthood’s curriculum aims to dehumanize the preborn human child living and growing inside of the mother’s womb by depicting him/her as nothing of consequence. But this intentional distortion of reality perpetrated by Planned Parenthood could never actually replace the truth. 

The truth is that from the moment of conception, an individual human being is human and is alive, evidenced by the continued growth and further development of trillions of unique human cells and DNA.

Showing candy instead of a baby

The website INeedanA.com — linked to by many in the abortion industry, including abortion pill manufacturers Danco Laboratories, GenBioPro, and Evita Solutions — acknowledges online that the growing fetus may have a "head, arms, and legs" and notes that "see[ing] the fetus" may have "surprising" effects.

Yet, instead of showing what women may expect to see (because showing a preborn child with arms and legs and a recognizable human appearance could hurt their bottom line), they show... candy.

Asked, "What should I expect if I take the pills after 12 weeks? Will I see a fetus?" INeedanA responded:

It can vary a lot, depending on how far along the pregnancy is. The further along the pregnancy is, the larger and more developed the fetus will be (with a head, arms, and legs). It can be surprising to see the fetus, so it’s good to be aware of this ahead of time.

Here's what the website doesn't show when a woman takes the abortion pill around 10 weeks:

Instead, INeedAnA writes, "To give you a sense of how large the fetus might be based on how long you’ve been pregnant, we’ve broken down size ranges with candy since candy is easily available and a consistent size." 

The Bottom Line:

Abortion is the violent taking of human life. Abortion profiteers are using sleight of hand deception to manipulate women into purchasing death for that child.

While the deceptive marketing tactics employed by the larger abortion industry are beginning to catch the attention of some state attorneys general, more needs to be done.

Key Takeaways:

• House Bill 1313 was signed into law by South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden earlier this year.

• The bill requires curriculum on prenatal development to be included in schools, including a high-definition ultrasound and a high-quality computer-generated rendering of prenatal development.

• The Board of Education Standards has approved three videos for use, including Live Action's "Baby Olivia" video.

The Backstory:

Rhoden signed House Bill 1313 into law in March, which required South Dakota schools to include prenatal development in its curriculum. Live Action founder and president Lila Rose applauded the legislation in a press release, saying:

... This law will help ensure that students in South Dakota are taught the reality of human development in the womb through medically accurate, visually compelling instruction, including resources like Live Action’s Baby Olivia and Baby Oliver videos, which reveal the humanity of the preborn child from the very beginning. 

With South Dakota now becoming the seventh state to enact this kind of life affirming prenatal education law, it joins Idaho, Kansas, Tennessee, North Dakota, Indiana, and Iowa in advancing fact based standards that teach students the truth about life before birth. I urge every state in the nation to follow this example with bold action that protects the preborn and supports mothers and families, so that every child is welcomed and every human life is cherished.” 

While Live Action's Baby Olivia wasn't explicitly mandated, the bill did require that the videos cannot include information from groups that commit or promote abortion, or are affiliated with a group that does, like Planned Parenthood. The videos were required to be age-appropriate and based on scientific research.

The Details:

The South Dakota Searchlight reported that the South Dakota Board of Education Standards approved three videos, which State Education Secretary Joe Graves said had all been vetted for scientific accuracy.

“Will there be a controversy somewhere? It’s possible. But I don’t see it being based on there being any inaccurate information in the videos,” Graves said.

One of the approved videos is Live Action's "Meet Baby Olivia," which features scientifically accurate computer animations showing milestones in prenatal development.

If schools choose the "Baby Olivia" video, it must be shown with “How a Human Embryo Develops into a Fetus,” which is produced by Encyclopedia Britannica. Both videos are freely available online.

The third option would cost schools money, starting at $29. It is a 42-minute DVD, titled, “The Biology of Prenatal Development,” and was created by the Endowment for Human Development. Shannon Malone, the department’s director of learning and instruction, said the state is considering licensing the DVD and making it available on its website.

The Bottom Line:

Multiple states across the country have enacted "Baby Olivia" legislation.

“Live Action and the medical experts we collaborated with stand by the scientific accuracy of every aspect in Baby Olivia,” Rose said. “Baby Olivia is a medically accurate, animated glimpse of human life from the moment of fertilization…. Every student in America should have access to world-class educational materials on the science behind human development in the womb.”

Key Takeaways:

• Natasha, Gemma, and Helen all grew up unaware that they were donor-conceived.

• After taking at-home DNA tests, they learned their respective dads were not their biological fathers. They all share the same biological father.

• They met in their 30s, and are glad to have found each other, despite feeling that they missed a great deal of time together.

The Details:

Gemma and Helen Hicks grew up together, believing the man who raised them was their biological father. It wasn't until their late 20s that they learned they were donor-conceived. "Back then sperm donation was a Wild West and many parents were told to raise the child as their own, they were conditioned to not say," Gemma told the BBC.

Because records were so limited, they initially weren't sure they were biologically related to each other. A DNA test revealed that they had been conceived using the same sperm donor and that they had other siblings. While they love the siblings they found, they didn't escape the confusion that comes with learning they were donor-conceived.

"I physically felt different, I felt like I didn't know who I was, and I began to question every tiny thing that I did, wondering if it was down to my genetics," Gemma said.

Helen had a different experience; it was as though she always knew she was different from her family and the news of her conception made her understand why. "I had a really weird overwhelming sense of calm wash over me, I look back at certain points in my life and suddenly things made a lot of sense to me," she said.

They've been able to connect with two sisters, one of whom is Natasha Goldstein-Opasiak. Like her sisters, Natasha didn't know she was donor-conceived until her 20s, and didn't take a DNA test until she was 31.

"Never in a million years did I think I'd find siblings," she said. "You get an email notification saying you've got relatives, essentially. It's literally like Tinder, it says you've matched - here are your half sisters."

The three sisters arranged to meet and felt an instant connection. "We always say that we were drawn together like magnets," Gemma said. "I think within a minute of sitting down at the table with Nat, we realised we talk the same way, we've got the same views on things it's quite weird, but magical."

They also realized they had a lot in common, which was bittersweet.

"It's so sad that we were denied access to each other growing up, we could have hung out and shared birthday parties - it's so sad to think so much has been missed," Gemma said, adding, "I didn't really grow up in a creative household, but knowing that we're from quite creative stock. Everything aligns, your sense of worth aligns as well."

Thankfully, they at least know their heritage has not changed, which Gemma said was important to them. "I think being Welsh was such an important part of our upbringing, we grew up with such a strong sense of pride," Gemma explained. "Fortunately for us not much has changed. I don't know how it would have felt finding out we're French or something, I would be really sad feeling that Welsh community wasn't part of our makeup."

Helen added, "Once you do find out who you actually are, and we are so lucky that we have been able to do that, it gives you such a sense of peace."

Now, they have started a podcast together, and say they are inseparable, as they have 30 years to catch up on.

The Big Picture:

In the United Kingdom (UK), the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) regulates the fertility industry, and Gemma acknowledged there has been progress made... only for it to be quickly reversed as the fertility industry exploded.

"The HFEA has done so much work into making sure that it's regulated, people get to know who their donors are," she said. "The laws have improved so much, but sadly it feels like all of that hard work is going back on itself with the rise of things like Facebook sperm. We were born in an era where there were no rules, it's not that different now. I just think if we can be the voice for the next generation of donor-conceived kids, hopefully that it might inspire some parents to think twice about keeping it secret or not asking questions."

Serial sperm donors have become increasingly common, leading to donor-conceived children having hundreds, if not thousands, of half-siblings.

As Gemma noted, both buyers and sellers have turned to social media to circumvent laws regarding sperm donation, often leaving the children conceived in the dark.

To no surprise, children conceived using donor gametes have begun lamenting that they feel they've been mass-produced. Nevertheless, even as these donor-conceived adults speak out, the number of women buying sperm to become single mothers has increased rapidly. This leaves donor-conceived children intentionally deprived of biological fathers, as well as knowledge of their medical background and heritage.

The Bottom Line:

A Harvard Medical School study found that a majority of donor-conceived children believe donor conception practices to be unethical and immoral.

“I am a human being, yet I was conceived with a technique that had its origins in animal husbandry,” one donor-conceived person wrote in a book for Anonymous Us. “Worst of all, farmers kept better records of their cattle’s genealogy than assisted reproductive clinics … how could the doctors, sworn to ‘first do no harm’ create a system where I now face the pain and loss of my own identity and heritage?”

Key Takeaways:

• House Bill 5295, known as the Reproductive Health Privacy Act, requires health information exchanges and electronic health vendors to have the technological capability to keep a woman's abortion off of her electronic medical record.

• Pritzker has signed the bill into law, and it will take effect on July 1, 2027.

• Passed in the name of "privacy," the bill could potentially endanger women who are experiencing abortion complications.

The Details:

In a press release, Pritzker announced that he signed House Bill 5295 into law. It will take effect July 1, 2027, and according to the press release, will:

Prohibit entities that maintain or facilitate the transfer of health information, including health information exchanges and electronic health vendors, from sharing sensitive medical information across state lines.

Require these entities to develop and enable the following features to protect patient privacy.

Separate sensitive medical information from the rest of the patient’s record.

Limit user access to sensitive medical information.

Automatically disable access of sensitive medical information to people and entities outside of the state.

The bill was specifically designed to keep abortion-related medical records a secret from pro-life states, with the idea of preventing prosecutors in those states from using records to pursue criminal cases related to abortion.

"Since Roe was overturned, we’ve seen women’s lives endangered by draconian measures limiting reproductive freedom across the country," Pritzker said. “The State of Illinois will always stand up for women’s reproductive freedom while aggressively rejecting anti-woman, anti-choice policies. I'm proud to sign the Reproductive Health Records Privacy Act — which represents another step forward in protecting reproductive freedom."

Why It Matters:

Illinois has made itself an abortion destination, and as such, this legislation could potentially put women's lives at risk. If a woman undergoes an abortion in Illinois and then experiences complications after returning to her home state, medical professionals may not be able to properly treat her if they are not aware of her abortion, which may not appear in her medical records.

 Rep. Bill Hauter, a physician, noted this exact issue during a House debate before the bill passed.

“We rely, as medical professionals, on the medical record to be complete and accurate and private,” he told The Center Square. “To say that this information is unimportant… ignores real-world scenarios where it could be critical to patient care.”

Most Illinois abortion businesses have not registered as ambulatory surgical centers and are therefore not held to certain health and safety standards. Illinois Right to Life Action pointed out in a fact sheet about the Illinois Reproductive Health Act of 2019:

The new law specifically allows any abortion facility to voluntarily apply for a license as an Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center, and thereby subsequently subject themselves to all of the rules and regulations under the previous language of the law intended to protect patients.

The vast majority of Illinois abortion clinics have chosen to not be so licensed. A few abortion clinics - those that provide general, epidural or spinal anesthesia - are still required to be licensed by the State.

The Bottom Line:

Illinois has become a radically pro-abortion state, ensuring abortion remains easily accessible and widespread, while ignoring the risks it poses to women.

Key Takeaways:

• Jérémy Doku is a member of the Belgian National Football Team, which is currently competing in the World Cup.

• He told reporters he would temporarily leave the team during competition so as not to miss the birth of his first child.

• Doku received public criticism for missing a game, which then caused more backlash.

• After his son was born, Doku returned to the team, and only missed one game.

The Backstory:

Earlier in June, Doku announced that his wife, Shireen, was pregnant and due in July, which presented a challenge for the star footballer. While the World Cup is a once-in-a-lifetime event, so is the birth of your first child, and Doku said he did not intend to miss it — not even if Belgium was still participating in the quarterfinals of the tournament.

Doku told Reuters:

“It ​depends on when it happens, but it's my first child, so I ‌would ⁠definitely want to be there. If you ask me what I want, my answer is that nobody wants to miss the birth of their first child. But I also ​know that football ​involves many ⁠other considerations. I know the federation supports its players and understands their situations. We'll see what we ​can do."

Doku plays football professionally for Manchester City, so travel by plane would have been necessary from the United States to London to attend the birth.

This plan was harshly criticized by female L'Equipe channel presenter France Pierron, who called childbirth a "disgusting moment." She opined:

"The World Cup is an incredible joy. There are hundreds of footballers who would kill to be in your shoes. It might never happen again in your life. You're living out a childhood dream, yet you're going to walk away from it all to attend the birth of your child - a disgusting moment, if you'll pardon the expression, where the dad is completely useless."

But viewers did not pardon the expression.

Pierron's comments were criticized in return, including by athletes like former boxer Brahim Asloum. “A baby is your entire life," he said. "A World Cup is over when it is over.”

English footballer Ollie Watkins likewise hit back at Pierron:

"I think someone labelled it disgusting and I think for a start that's not a way to label a birth. I've seen what my wife had to go through and that was quite smooth sailing but I know family members and friends that haven't had it that way.

It only happens once - welcoming your first child to the world - and it is a blessing. There's a lot of times where you're away from family and friends during the season and it's very difficult, so to miss that would be tough and I see where he's coming from."

After significant backlash, the channel itself issued an apology for Pierron's remarks. The Globe reported:

L'Equipe also issued a statement distancing itself from Pierron, saying the network "disassociates itself" from comments that were "very far removed from the group's values," the Athletic reported, adding L'Equipe also apologized to Doku and its viewers.

The Details:

Doku participated in Belgium's first match, which was against England, but missed the game against Iran to be by Shireen's side, with the blessing of his team.

"With the approval of and accompanied by one of our team doctors, Jeremy travelled to London to be with his wife for this unique occasion," the team said in a statement. "Jeremy will rejoin the squad tomorrow evening in Seattle as preparations continue for next match against New Zealand."

The team also posted a video of the Belgian team celebrating Doku's return, saying he was "[b]ack in camp after the most important assist of his life" (emphasis added).

Doku and his wife welcomed their son, Praise, and announced the news with a sweet message posted to social media:

Thank you to everyone for the love, prayers and kind messages over the past few days.

Shireen and Praise are doing great, and my heart is full of gratitude. Welcoming my son into the world is one of the greatest blessings God has ever given me.

Thank you to the team for the support, now it's time to get back to football and represent my country on the biggest stage.

"Every good and perfect gift is from above."
James 1:17

Doku will now play in the team's final group match against New Zealand.

The Bottom Line:

Playing in the World Cup is an incredible accomplishment, but as many parents know, there are few (if any) greater, more life-changing moments to experience than the birth of one's own child.

[...] After the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, state laws that protected unborn babies before 24 weeks of gestation were routinely struck down by various courts.

However, on September 1, 2021, the Texas Heartbeat Act took effect. This legislation protects unborn babies in Texas after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which science has proven can happen as early as the sixth week of gestation.[2] This marked the first instance since Roe that a law protecting unborn babies well before viability was in effect for an extended amount of time.

Additionally, after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women‘s Health Organization, it became much easier for states to enact laws that protect the unborn.

Currently, 13 states protect all unborn babies and four have a Heartbeat Law in effect that protects the unborn after a fetal heartbeat can be detected.[3]

Some question the impact of these recently enacted pro-life laws. Abortion estimates released by the  Guttmacher Institute[4] show abortions increasing each year from 2023 to 2025. Similarly, estimates released by the Society of Family Planning [5] have found that the incidence of abortion has been increasing in the United States since 2022.

However, there are reasons for concern about these abortion estimates. The most recent estimates released by the Society of Family Planning indicate that in 2025, 28% of all abortions were done via telehealth.[6] Estimating the exact number of abortions done by telehealth is difficult. Some women who order abortion drugs online may change their minds and decide to carry their pregnancy to term. There are anecdotes that some women order abortion drugs for future use.

Furthermore, even if the estimates from Guttmacher and the Society of Family Planning are correct and abortion numbers have been increasing in recent years, it is still possible that newly enacted pro-life laws are still preventing abortions and saving lives. Guttmacher data indicates that the U.S. abortion rate began to increase in 2017, five years before Dobbs.[7] As such, it is possible that absent these pro-life laws, the overall number of abortions performed in the United States could be higher.

Regardless, during the post-Dobbs era, there have been clear difficulties with accurately measuring the number of abortions that are performed. However, one way to effectively measure the impact of recently enacted pro-life laws is to analyze birth data. If the number of births increase seven months after a pro-life law takes effect,[8] that is powerful evidence that some women are forgoing abortion and instead carrying pregnancies to term.

This Charlotte Lozier Institute policy analysis will summarize the findings of six different studies that analyze state-level birth data to estimate the impact of recently enacted pro-life laws. Three of these studies specifically analyze the impact of the Texas Heartbeat Act (New 2022,[9] Bell et al. 2024,[10] University of Houston 2024[11]). The other three studies analyze the impact of multiple state-level pro-life laws (Dench et al. 2024,[12] Bell et al. 2025,[13] Springer 2026[14]). Each of these studies finds very strong statistical evidence that these newly enacted state level pro-life laws are significantly associated with increased state birth rates. Overall, there is a strong consensus among economists, political scientists, and public health scholars that recently enacted pro-life laws are correlated with increased birthrates – suggesting that these pro-life laws are saving lives.

[...] Three studies have analyzed Texas birth data to assess the impact of the Texas Heartbeat Act....

Read the entire analysis at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Key Takeaways:

• Italy and Chile have issued a declaration to abolish surrogacy.

• The countries are calling for a ban on international surrogacy and an international binding agreement.

• They maintain that surrogacy results in multiple human rights violations and abuses, for both women and children.

The Details:

The countries, joined by Cameroon and the Holy See, came together during an event moderated by ADF International, prior to the European Union’s Human Rights Council. In their declaration, the international groups stated their ultimate goal to abolish surrogacy, calling for an international moratorium on the practice in the process of creating an international binding agreement.

The declaration noted that surrogacy results in multiple human rights violations and abuses, including the commodification of both women and children, and the unnatural separation of children with the women who carried and birthed them.

The coalition cited other abuses of surrogacy, including coercion, medical risks, exploitation, and loss of agency.

Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, supported the declaration, saying:

“The states that are joining the declaration today recognise that surrogacy raises… fundamental concerns relating to human dignity [and] the commodification of women and children. They recognise that these concerns are not only limited to commercial arrangements, but that fragmented national approaches will facilitate the growth of a global cross-border market that transfers harm onto women and children in more vulnerable jurisdictions…This declaration shows that policy action is possible."

Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International, also emphasized the need for a coordinated international response to stop the harms of surrogacy.

“International law already supports the position that surrogacy is incompatible with human dignity and the rights of both women and children – yet its rapid expansion and cross-border loopholes demand a coordinated global response,” he said.

The Big Picture:

Though surrogacy has been a booming business internationally, some countries are starting to take notice of its inherent harms. According to ADF International, Italy became the first country to outlaw surrogacy in 2024, and in 2025, Slovakia also banned the practice. Earlier this year, Chile took steps to begin banning surrogacy.

Last fall, the European Union issued a resolution condemning surrogacy. In early 2025, Alsalem issued a report to the United Nations calling for a ban on all commercial surrogacy.

Why It Matters:

As noted in the declaration, surrogacy exploits both women and children, treating them both as commodities.

Often, wealthy foreigners will use international surrogates in poor countries. These women, living in poverty, turn to surrogacy as a way of being able to provide for their families. Few realize that they are at a higher risk for numerous complications, including gestational diabetes, hypertension related to pregnancy, and post-birth bleeding complications.

The children, too, are at risk of low birth weight and prematurity. Separating babies from their birth mothers, biologically related or not, is also known to cause trauma, and can even be known to permanently alter adult brain function.

There have been many surrogacy-related horror stories, including human trafficking, scams, child abandonment, and forced abortions.

The Bottom Line:

By its very nature, surrogacy is wrong. More countries need to recognize this and fight for its complete abolition.

Key Takeaways:

• An 18-year-old has allegedly died following an abortion in Pakistan.

• According to reports, after she was raped over a period of months by her employer's son and driver, and was then given abortion drugs. After taking the drugs, she suffered serious complications and was taken to a hospital.

• At the hospital, the girl was taken to surgery and ultimately died.

• Although the employer had tried to silence her, she gave police a written and video statement detailing her assault before her death.

• Police have now added murder charges to the assault charges and are re-interviewing those involved.

The Details:

According to reports, then teenager was raped by her employer's son and the employer's driver. In both written and video statements, she said she was sexually assaulted multiple times over the span of months by the two suspects and that her employer knew but tried to silence her. When she became pregnant, they took her to a private facility in Raiwind for an abortion.

The rapes were not exposed until the girl was taken to a government hospital for surgery after suffering multiple abortion-related complications. Police said the girl had taken abortion drugs at four or five months pregnant. She suffered severe complications and was rushed to the Services Hospital in Lahore on May 23.

Police said a report was then filed regarding the sexual assaults, but the girl spent two days at the hospital and ultimately died during surgery. Police then added murder charges against the men. The abortion facility may also face charges if the investigation proves it was negligent.

Zoom In:

The driver was arrested and taken into custody, but her employer's son was let out on bail. Before her death, the teen had changed her story to accuse only the driver. According to the Minute Mirror, police believe she was coerced to do so by her employer and her father.

Police are awaiting the results of a post-mortem examination that will reveal more details about the cause of her death. Due to the girls' death and additional murder charge, the police will re-question those involved.

The Bottom Line:

Abortion is not safe; it carries multiple risks. Although deceptively touted as "safer than Tylenol," taking the abortion pill includes risks like incomplete abortion, hemorrhaging, and life-threatening infections. When mifepristone ("the abortion pill) is taken beyond 70 days, the risk of incomplete abortion and infection increase.

Abortion drugs are dangerous for women, but they have killed millions of innocent children.

Key Takeaways:

• Lawmakers in Parliament voted June 16 to enshrine abortion as a constitutional 'freedom.'

• The procedural vote occurred three months after an initial approval in March.

• Luxembourg is now the second country, following France, to declare a constitutional right to abortion.

The Details:

According to the Luxembourg Times, lawmakers voted 51-6, with two abstentions, in favor of putting the 'freedom' of "voluntary abortion" into the nation's constitution.

The vote adds Article 15 of the nation's constitution, reading:

The freedom to resort to voluntary termination of pregnancy is guaranteed. The law determines the conditions under which this freedom is exercised. 

The procedural vote occurred three months after an initial approval in March. In the country, constitutional amendments require two votes at least three months apart, each with a two-thirds majority without proxy voting.

“I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that we are making history today,” said Marc Baum, from the left-wing Déi Lénk party.

Lawmaker Gérard Schockmel, who voted against the measure, said it did not take into account the rights of the preborn, while calling the push for the amendment “feminist ideology.”

Zoom Out:

Luxembourg is now the second country to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right, following France, which made its declaration in 2024.

Lawmakers say the vote does not change the country's current abortion law, which allows abortions up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, but will make it harder to pass future laws restricting abortion.

However, in the United States, abortion advocates have sought the overturn of nearly all preborn protections and abortion restrictions in states that have enacted constitutional protections for abortion. In many cases, the courts have agreed.

The Bottom Line:

Regardless of what lawmakers or a court may say, there is never a "right" to kill an innocent human being. Freedom does not give one license to take the life of the preborn child.

Key Takeaways:

• Bennett's mother was in an abusive relationship when she became pregnant; Bennett's father pushed for an abortion.

• While at the hospital, a counselor told Bennett's mother abortion was her best option.

• A janitor asked her if she wanted to keep the baby, and Bennett's mother answered 'yes.'

• That "yes" allowed Bennett to survive, and she encouraged the attendees to also have the strength to say yes.

The Details:

Bennett began her speech by talking about the power of the word "yes," and said it opens up doors to opportunity. In her case, it was the word "yes" that saved her life.

"My mother got pregnant with me and she was in a toxic, abusive, unhealthy relationship," she said. "My father pressured her and coerced her to get an abortion. She went to her mentor at church and unfortunately her mentor said, 'if you come back to this church, I will be the first person to put my foot in the door and not let you in.'"

With that much pressure on her, Bennett's mother spoke to a counselor, who told her abortion was her best option. So she made an appointment to get an abortion.

"They put her in a white robe and they told her to just wait, wait for the abortion doctor to call her in and for her to end my life," she said. "And in that moment, as she was waiting in the hallway, there was an African American janitor who saw her, and she walked up to her, and she lifted up her chin, and she looked her in the eyes, and said, 'Do you want to have this baby?' And I think you can guess what my mom said. She said yes."

Even though she had already paid, and the abortionist was furious, Bennett's mother left the abortion facility, saving Bennett's life.

Zoom In:

Bennett then moved on to the 'yes' she gave God, and her husband's 'yes' as well.

"I said yes to living out the calling that God had for me. And as I've done that over the years, after finding out my story, as I've been a pro-life advocate for over 20 years, I've been speaking about the value of preborn human lives and fighting for women and mothers and children.

And at the beginning of the pandemic, I was going to speak at a pregnancy center banquet. It was like March 2020. I was on a plane to California, because I'm from Connecticut. And I'm on the plane, and me and my husband at this time in our lives, we were licensed to be foster parents, but we had not got a match. So we would get matched and they would say no. And so we were just waiting. And I'm on the plane, really afraid I'm going to get COVID. But I'm also watching a movie about foster care and I'm crying my eyes out. And I'm like, God, I just, I don't know when you're going to match me with a child, but (4:41) I just really want you to, and I'm like, begging the Lord. And at that time, my husband is home in Connecticut and he gets a call. He gets a call from DCF, the Department of Children and Families. 

And they say this to him: we have a baby boy. It's a newborn boy. Would you take him today? And my husband says, 'well, I can't talk to my wife because she's on a plane, but I know what she would say. So yes.'" 

That "yes" led to Bennett's son Isaiah after the couple's struggling with infertility and miscarriage. Attendees were told to remember the power of saying yes, and what it had done in Bennett's life.

"My mom said yes when the janitor, who she believes was an angel, said, 'Do you want to have this baby?' My mom said yes," she said. "Then I grew up. I said yes to God. I grew up. I said yes to my husband. And then he said yes to our son."

The Bottom Line:

Bennett urged attendees to listen to what God wants of them, no matter how big or small, concluding, "Whatever it is, when God tells you, I want you to give your — say it with me! — yes."

Planned Parenthood's president Alexis McGill-Johnson noted that this leaves Planned Parenthood with a remaining 550 brick and mortar facilities.

But is this factually accurate?

Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood president Alexis McGill Johnson recently testified that Planned Parenthood now has 550 brick and mortar facilities, claiming 100 closed since Dobbs, and 20 of those since the Medicaid defunding of abortion providers nearly one year ago. But based on published claims, it is more likely that these 100 closures occurred between 2015 and 2026, not since Dobbs in 2022.

• Even now, as Planned Parenthood shutters brick-and-mortar facilities, it increasingly relies upon telehealth — including mail-order abortion pills. Its “Virtual Health Centers (VHCs)” across the country are part of a larger restructuring plan it put in place years ago.

• In 2025, while Planned Parenthood averaged 600 facilities, "serving" slightly more than 2M clients, FQHCs far outnumbered them.

• Planned Parenthood is an abortion corporation, ending the lives of over 1,190 preborn babies every single day while receiving nearly $2.3M each day from American taxpayers. The corporation continues to be largely kept afloat by taxpayer funds. If politicians fail to act, within days, it will regain access to millions in federal Medicaid dollars.

The Testimony:

100 centers closed

In a panel organized by Senator Patty Murray and other pro-abortion politicians this past week, Planned Parenthood president Alexis McGill-Johnson described the "consequences" of Dobbs and the defunding of abortion providers as "devastating," by floating these numbers:

"Planned Parenthood is the nation's leading provider of sexual and reproductive health care. Every year over 2 million patients rely on around 550 Planned Parenthood health centers for affordable birth control, cancer screenings, wellness exams, STI testing and treatment, and abortion, which we proudly serve - where legal.

...Since the Dobbs decision, more than 100 Planned Parenthood health centers have closed across 18 states. More than 20 of those health centers have closed since defund."

Planned Parenthood continues to use its marketing clout to deceive the public by shifting the focus away from its changing business model (intentionally downsizing brick and mortar centers in favor of expanding telehealth or Virtual Health Canters), to enhance profits. The move, largely enacted to thwart a cashflow problem, was planned long before the defunding measure was passed.

Even now, as Planned Parenthood shutters brick-and-mortar facilities, it increasingly relies upon telehealth — including mail-order abortion pills. Its “Virtual Health Centers (VHCs)” across the country are part of a larger restructuring plan it put in place years ago.

The Facts:

Closed Health Centers

"More than 100 Planned Parenthood health centers have closed across 18 states. More than 20 of those health centers have closed since defund," claimed McGill Johnson.

FACTS: Today in 2026, Planned Parenthood's website still claims it operates 600 facilities nationwide; it claimed to operate 600 facilities in 2025, as well, and Planned Parenthood has repeatedly used this number every year since 2017 (as seen in its annual report) prior to both the 2022 Dobbs decision and the 2025 defund measure.

In its 2015 annual report, Planned Parenthood wrote: "In 2015, nearly 650 Planned Parenthood health centers served 2.4 million women, men, and young people."

Based on these published claims, 100 Planned Parenthood facilities have closed, it is more likely that it occurred between 2015 and 2026, not since Dobbs in 2022.

Contraceptives

"Last November, visits for birth control were down by 20% compared to the same period the previous year," claimed McGill-Johnson.

FACTS: In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved the Opill contraceptive for over-the-counter dispensing. And, just prior to the defund, contraceptives as a service at Planned Parenthood had already decreased over 43% (from just over 4M) in 2009.

STI Testing

McGill Johnson stated that STI testing "declined by 11%."

FACT: These services at Planned Parenthood have been down over 43% since 2009.

Breast Exam Visits

McGill Johnson claimed, "In December, breast exam visits declined by 25%."

FACTS: PP's 2024-2025 annual report, published before defunding was enacted, revealed that breast screenings had already dropped over 15% from the previous year and had plummeted over 85% from 2000.

The Reality:

Planned Parenthood believes that the "crisis" caused by the defund and Dobbs resulted in "cancers go[ing] undetected and STIs go[ing] untreated." However, as Live Action News previously detailed, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC), which do not commit abortion, should be funded instead of Planned Parenthood.

In 2025, while Planned Parenthood averaged 600 facilities, "serving" slightly more than 2M clients, FQHCs far outnumbered them.

"Nationwide, nearly 1,400 Health Center Program grantees operated at more than 16,000 sites, providing affordable primary and preventive care on a sliding fee scale to more than 32.4 million patients," claimed the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website.

Service data for 2025 is not available yet, however comparing FQHC data to Planned Parenthood we find that in 2024:

• FQHCs performed nearly 13 times (12.61) more Pap tests than Planned Parenthood. 

• Overall cancer screenings (breast and Pap) at FQHCs outnumbered Planned Parenthood centers nearly 10 to 1.

• FQHCs provided nearly five times more HIV testing than Planned Parenthood.

• FQHCs provided more than 87 times the number of prenatal care services as Planned Parenthood.

Why It Matters:

Planned Parenthood is a corrupt organization which has built a billion-dollar empire using American taxpayer dollars, frequently endangering the health of the women and children it claims to serve — by killing preborn children in the womb and, more recently, grooming born children to reject the biological reality of their sex.

From 2024-25, before the BBB took effect, a record breaking $832 million was funneled to Planned Parenthood from taxpayers’ pockets while it killed more than 434,000 preborn children – a record number on both counts.

During that same "killer year," Planned Parenthood’s own reports showed plummeting health care services, like cancer screenings and well woman exams, among other actual health services, all while reporting net assets of more than $3.1 billion.

McGill-Johnson admitted that "bans do not stop abortions," which is likely why Planned Parenthood is prescribing the abortion pill "Just in Case" or without a confirmed pregnancy, in violation of the FDA's REMS safety regulations.

The Background:

June 2024: Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which had a pro-death strangle hold on states since 1973.

In Dobbs, the ruling held that:

The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

Dobbs enabled states to enforce pro-life laws already on the books (previously overruled under Roe) or to pass new protective measures. While pro-life states were protecting life, pro-abortion states were passing laws to "shield" providers who knowingly violate those laws.

July 2025: President Trump signed into law the "Big Beautiful Bill (BBB)," removing Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers — unfortunately, for just one year.

However, the bill went through numerous court battles before it finally went into effect, and at the time, Planned Parenthood announced that nearly 200 of their facilities would be “at risk of closure.”

September 2025: PP claimed that 50 of its centers had been "forced to close.”

June 2026: the pro-abortion group KFF.org had claimed Planned Parenthood closed 57 facilities across 20 states since January 2025. Then Alexis McGill-Johnson claimed that 100 centers have closed since Dobbs, including 20 due to the defund measure.

July 2026: The Medicaid defunding measure is set to expire if politicians fail to extend it or make it permanent. If the defunding measure is extended Planned Parenthood is already predicting it will result in "as many as 150 more Planned Parenthood" facilities which "could shut down."

The Bottom Line:

In her discussion, Alexis McGill-Johnson credited the "anti-abortion movement" with defunding Planned Parenthood and making it harder to "get an abortion":

"This week marks four years since the Dobbs decision. It also marks nearly one year since President Trump and Republicans in Congress defunded Planned Parenthood by aiming to block Medicaid patients from using their insurance at Planned Parenthood health centers.

These things did not happen by accident. They are a part of the anti-abortion movement's coordinated decades-long plan to make it harder for everyone - everywhere - to get an abortion."

Planned Parenthood is an abortion corporation, ending the lives of over 1,190 preborn babies every single day while receiving nearly $2.3M each day from American taxpayers. The corporation continues to be largely kept afloat by taxpayer funds. If politicians fail to act, within days, it will regain access to millions in federal Medicaid dollars.

Palmeri aired that interview content anyway, titling it, "What Happens When Pro-Life Congresswoman Cammack Needs an Abortion?"

There's a huge problem here: treatment for an ectopic pregnancy isn't an abortion, and isn't classified as one under any pro-life state law.

Key Takeaways:

• Cammack suffered an ectopic pregnancy in 2024, and initially was delayed care over confusion regarding Florida's pro-life laws.

• She had to show doctors the text of the law showing that treatment for ectopic pregnancy is not legally an abortion.

• When Cammack received treatment, her preborn baby had already died, and was not actively killed. Her life was imminently at risk.

• Cammack has come forward since the story aired, noting that she has learned a (so far unnamed) pro-abortion group had been geofencing ads near the hospital to scare medical staff into believing that if they provided certain medical aid to a woman suffering a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, they would go to jail.

The Backstory:

In 2024, Kat Cammack suffered an ectopic pregnancy and required emergency care, but doctors at a Florida emergency room delayed treating her amid confusion over the state's pro-life law.

Cammack's story was published in 2025 by the Wall Street Journal under the misleading headline, "Republican's Life-Threatening Pregnancy Collided with Florida's Abortion Politics." It was then shared by multiple media outlets, including The Independent, which continued the confusion by claiming, "Republican lawmaker with ectopic pregnancy nearly died amid new Florida abortion laws — but blames the left."

While these articles claimed the state's pro-life law prevented doctors from acting (and criticized Cammack for blaming the "fearmongering" of abortion advocates for the negligent care she received), they also pointed out that Cammack was "forced to pull up the letter of the law on her phone" to show doctors that ectopic pregnancy care is not legally an abortion.

It was only then that she was given the care she required.

Read more about Cammack's story here.

The Details:

Despite Cammack's request not to air the portion of the interview that included her personal ectopic pregnancy story, journalist Tara Palmeri did so anyway, because "her firsthand account of seeking emergency medical care under Florida's abortion laws is too important to ignore." Palmeri said:

Cammack described what it was like to face a life-threatening pregnancy complication in Florida, a state with restrictive heartbeat abortion laws.

She spoke about needing an emergency medical procedure and how she believes delays in treatment nearly cost her her life. The conversation became emotional because it transformed what is often a political debate into a truly personal story.

After the interview, Congresswoman Cammack asked me not to air that portion of our discussion. She said she feared renewed backlash and concerns for her family's safety. She had discussed this experience publicly before, and the interview was conducted on the record without any conditions on the topics we could discuss. I thought really carefully about her request.

As a journalist, I often deal with sensitive subjects, and I take it very seriously to protect vulnerable sources when appropriate. But Congresswoman Cammack is a public official discussing a matter that relates directly to one of the most consequential policy debates in this country."

During the interview, Palmeri asked Cammack:

"I do want to talk about something that you have spoken publicly about, an extremely vulnerable moment in your life and I applaud you for doing that because I know it's not easy, but you know, you suffered a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy and you had to make the decision to terminate that pregnancy to save your own life; what was that like?"

Palmeri was wrong from the start: Cammack didn't "make the decision to terminate that pregnancy." She was suffering from a cornual ectopic pregnancy, the most dangerous form. Cammack didn't choose between herself or her baby, who had no heartbeat.

Even a heartbeat had been detected, her situation was such that once a rupture occurred, the baby would have died, and Cammack was at risk of death as well.

The fact that abortion advocates still continue to insist there is no difference between ectopic pregnancy treatments, miscarriage treatments, and abortions is, quite frankly, the reason why many women have been put at greater risk. They choose to ignore not only science but the law, which draws clear distinctions between induced abortion and miscarriage/ectopic treatments.

Then, they use women's stories for their own agenda. In fact, they've admitted to doing so.

Cammack told Palmeri her experience was "awful" and "heartbreaking," and reminded Palmeri that there was no heartbeat, after it took about 10 days to receive a proper diagnosis. This is not uncommon, and doctors often cannot tell if a woman is miscarrying or if the pregnancy is ectopic.

Once they confirmed it was ectopic, they had to act quickly. As Cammack explained:

"They said that given where it was, because the HCG levels were continuing to rise, it would eventually rupture and it would cause internal bleeding, and there was a very real risk of dying. That's when they told me, 'You have to go now. You have to go to the ER.' And they gave me two options. They said, 'You can either do the surgery, which, because of where this ectopic is, you will likely lose your uterus. Or you can do a shot of methotrexate, which is a cancer drug.' It stops the chemical from continuing to produce.

And so I go into the ER, and they bring me back, and then all of a sudden it was like, 'Wait, we have questions.' And that started me down the path of 1. how broken the system is and 2. how politics has really, really endangered a lot of women's lives in very vulnerable moments."

Zoom In:

Palmeri asked Cammack if she thought the heartbeat law in Florida needs to be changed:

"When you met that resistance with doctors, did you think to yourself, 'We've got to change this law?' You're an educated, eloquent congresswoman. Imagine if you didn't know the law, you were just a regular person, perhaps coming from a disadvantaged background, you get the same sort of diagnosis; how do you convince your doctors that it's worth the penalty... that it's worth it to risk their professions to save your life?"

But again, Palmeri's question reveals she hasn't done due diligence as a journalist.

Doctors didn't have to "risk their profession," because ectopic pregnancy care is not an abortion, and this is clearly defined in the law — so, no one was risking their professions... they were only misled into believing they were. So why were they confused?

Cammack said a nurse told her there were some things an admin had to "figure out" because, according to the law, if they gave her a shot of methotrexate, they would be held liable. Cammack told them that wasn't true, and the nurse agreed with her.

The nurse then showed Cammack an ad she had saved on her phone, which claimed that any nurse, doctor, or technician who helped any woman who was miscarrying or having an ectopic pregnancy would go to jail.

"I sat there in disbelief... I said, 'You've got to be f-ing kidding me," said Cammack. "And I looked at the group, and it was a pro-abortion group that was against the Florida law, and come to find out.... they had been geofencing around hospitals and any system that they could to scare doctors and nurses away from providing care."

It was a multi-million dollar ad campaign meant to frighten medical teams out of treating women, and Florida eventually tried to sue the group.

In the emergency room, Cammack pulled up her phone and read them the law, and they said they still had to do some checking.

She finally got the care she needed, but when she told the story, she received death threats.

People claimed she called the governor and got an exception, which Cammack claims is false. She continues to receive threats from "pro-choice" people who told her she should have bled out and died. They even threatened her daughter. She said people don't want to know the facts.

But then Palmeri said:

"I just want to pull back a little bit from there. Yes, I think the disinformation is horrible, right? Obviously intended to confuse, create chaos, and show the weakness in the law, right? Or at least the impression that these laws haven't been properly communicated to hospitals. The people who are in charge of this have not been trained. They ... don't have awareness from the government, the administrators.

Why do you have to go through an administrative process in a life-threatening situation? ... Clearly, there are some flaws in this law. But ... you have to understand that laws that have a penalty like that is going to breed misinformation, whether it's accurate or not. Does it make you at least want to rethink these abortion laws in some way?"

Cammack replied that after their "rainbow baby" was born, she became even "more of an advocate for life. ... And in talking about the ways that these are written and communicated, we absolutely have to do a better job. And we have to understand the danger of playing politics with issues like this."

She's not wrong. While pro-life laws can be very clear, it often takes a lot of wording to get there.

Under Florida law, abortion is defined as "the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus." This alone leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation.

Abortion should be clearly defined as an act to intentionally and directly kill or cause the death of the preborn child. The goal of an induced abortion is a dead baby.

There will always be so-called exceptions that the law will need to spell out, including that physical medical emergency treatments are not abortions and that certain cancer treatments are also not abortions.

The Florida law does this by stating that after six weeks, abortion is illegal except under certain exceptions, including medical emergencies.

On May 2, 2024, the day after the six-week abortion law took effect, and in the same month in which Cammack experienced the ectopic pregnancy, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration published rules for hospitals and abortion businesses regarding emergencies during pregnancy.

Medical emergencies, including ectopic pregnancies, were described as presenting “an immediate danger to the health, safety and welfare of women and unborn children in hospitals and abortion clinics.”

Even the Abortion Defense Network understands this, writing:

The legal consensus is that the definition of “abortion” excludes the “removal” of a fetus that is “dead” (generally understood to mean there is no cardiac activity present in the embryo or fetus) and management of an ectopic pregnancy (including use of methotrexate and surgical removal).

This means that treatment for miscarriage where there is no cardiac activity (including medications, D&C, D&E, and labor induction) is not an abortion under Florida law and thus is not prohibited.

The Big Picture:

Despite Palmeri complimenting Cammack, calling her a feminist, and even hearing Cammack stating that headlines are not the whole story, Palmeri ran the interview with the headline, "What Happens When Pro-Life Congresswoman Cammack Needs an Abortion?"

She said she "carefully thought" out the decision to run the interview, despite Cammack's safety concerns. But that decision appears to have been made on the same day, and perhaps within minutes of their conversation. Palmeri received heavy pushback on social media, and also earned a response from Cammack, who penned "The Truth About My Ectopic Pregnancy — and the Lies That Followed." In that post, Cammack explained:

Recently, I was interviewed about sexual misconduct on Capitol Hill and the work we're doing to protect women. The host pivoted to one of the most painful experiences of my life: an ectopic pregnancy that nearly killed me. I was brutally transparent. She then told me she was going to air it on Father's Day. The first Father's Day my family would experience since our rainbow baby was born.

I asked her to hold off on publishing that portion of the interview for security reasons. I told her the specifics in detail. She didn't care. She denied my request, saying the story was "in the public interest." Fine. Then let's tell the whole story.

Cammack continued:

I have received hundreds of death threats. Against me. Against my daughter. Against my team.

Recently, one man who made specific threats against my family skipped his court date. Law enforcement cannot find him. They are still looking for him. This was the issue that brought this man to my doorstep. That is why I asked her to hold off until they could locate him. It wasn't because the facts were inconvenient as you've been led to believe. That was the environment in which this interview aired. That is why I asked for a delay. Not because I wanted the story buried. Not because I was unwilling to talk about what happened. I was asking for time while law enforcement searched for someone who had threatened my family.

There is a difference. A very important one.

And shortly after Palmeri published the interview, more threats against Cammack came in, including:

• I hope you drop dead

• Hope you and your kid get run over by a bus

• Hope you and your kid get shot

• Hope your kid gets shot. Again and again

Cammack again explained the medical emergency she experienced, and the treatment:

The purpose of my treatment wasn't to terminate a viable pregnancy," she wrote. "It was to prevent a rupture that could have killed me. It has never been classified as an abortion. Not in Florida. Not in any of the 50 states. Not by ACOG. Not by major medical organizations. Not even Planned Parenthood.

She then explained how Planned Parenthood's website used to share the truth, saying, "Treating an ectopic pregnancy isn't the same thing as getting an abortion." After Roe v. Wade fell in 2022, it removed that wording.

"Because the truth had become inconvenient to the narrative they wanted to run," she said. "The narrative that pro-life laws prohibit emergency medical care. They don't."

She also explained (emphasis added):

The law contained explicit protections for treatment of ectopic pregnancies and medical emergencies threatening the life of the mother. The words are in the statute. The authority existed. So why was there confusion? Why was there a delay in my care that night?

The Bottom Line:

Cammack explained what she thinks caused the delay:

A pro-abortion group spent millions geofencing false ads around Florida's hospitals, telling doctors and nurses they'd face criminal prosecution for treating miscarriages and ectopics. The nurse treating me showed me one of those ads on her phone. It was a lie. And it created confusion at exactly the moment clarity mattered most.

She noted:

Florida ultimately threatened legal action over those ads because they misrepresented what the law actually said. THOSE groups and those advertisements endangered women. And now many of those same groups are using my story—my baby—to push the exact same lie.

She concluded:

The pro-abortion lobby is demanding that you stop applying logic. They want you to believe a baby is precious and worth grieving when it's wanted — and simultaneously a clump of cells unworthy of any protection when it's not. Both cannot be true at the same time.

That is not a political opinion. It's the most basic principle in all of human reasoning. Aristotle called it the principle of non-contradiction: a thing cannot both be and not be the same thing simultaneously.

They need you to abandon logic to accept their position. Don't. They need you to believe that a miscarriage, an ectopic pregnancy or a stillbirth belongs in the same conversation as elective abortions of healthy babies and moms. Their entire agenda depends on it.

Of course, the language with which NAF stated this fact was much more nuanced, but the intent is the same:

As the leading professional membership body for abortion providers nationwide, NAF supports abortion care and access throughout pregnancy and opposes legislation and policies that interfere with that care, including viability limits and gestation-based bans.

In part one of our series on the National Abortion Federation (NAF), Live Action News documented how NAF sought to hire an “Intelligence Analyst” to create “dossiers” to track pro-life activities. In part two, we documented how NAF worked to get mainstream medicine to 'save' abortion. In part three, we expose that abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy is NAF's goal.

Key Takeaways:

• The National Abortion Federation's newly issued policy position, released on the fourth anniversary of Dobbs, which overturned Roe v. Wade, openly calls for an end to all restrictions on abortion — including those that restrict it for babies who could survive outside the womb.

• NAF is openly admitting what the pro-life movement has long stated, which is that "viability" is a highly subjective term, which can be determined arbitrarily by numerous individuals — and, according to NAF, the mother of a preborn child might even have a say in determining that child's "viability."

• NAF's policy position portrays viability limits and/or restricting abortion based on the gestational age of the preborn child as abortion bans, and says they are not "merely reasonable limits" on abortion.

The Details:

Opposing 'viability' limits to allow abortion 'throughout pregnancy'

The NAF made the policy announcement on the fourth anniversary of the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v. Wade, writing on their Facebook

Since Dobbs, abortion bans and restrictions have forced patients to travel farther, pay more, delay care, and face heightened risks of criminalization, surveillance, and forced pregnancy.

This is why today, NAF is releasing its first policy position since Roe was overturned to affirm abortion access throughout pregnancy and oppose viability limits and arbitrary gestation-based abortion bans.

Viability limits and gestation-based restrictions are not reasonable compromises. They are abortion bans that substitute political judgment for evidence-based care, patient autonomy, and the realities providers see every day.

NAF's policy position

NAF's 2026 "Policy Position on Abortion Access Throughout Pregnancy" states that women should "retain the ability to make decisions free from government interference," which is a ridiculous statement on its face (after all, we have something called laws in every nation of the world), but it goes beyond the ridiculous to the profane when you realize what "decision" they really mean.

Specifically, the NAF policy seeks to end "legal restrictions and bans like viability." In other words, NAF does not care if a baby can survive outside the womb; any "legal restriction" against killing that child at any age must be eliminated, according to NAF.

Later abortions typically involve either the dismemberment of a living preborn child or an induction abortion in which the child is fatally injected in the heart or head with digoxin or potassium chloride prior to induction of labor to deliver a stillborn child. (However, sometimes, if organ harvesting is involved, the child is not injected with feticide, and therefore, may survive the induction.)

The NAF claimed that "Legal restrictions and bans like viability and gestation-based lines create dangerous environments for clinicians and patients."

Not so.

Even late-term abortionist Curtis Boyd admitted that later abortion procedures are far riskier than childbirth.

In addition, in a case where a medical emergency or health situation does arise, it is then far safer to deliver the child alive early instead of targeting the baby in utero with a risky abortion.

And finally, even the abortion industry, insurers, and others admit that late-term induction abortions are so dangerous to women that they should never be committed in freestanding abortion facilities, when the standard of care is a hospital or hospital-like facility.

NAF's word salad for unrestricted abortion on demand included the term "evidence" multiple times by citing pro-abortion studies and the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Live Action News has repeatedly revealed ACOG's pro-abortion bias. ACOG makes it no secret, yet the public still considers them to be an impartial organization. (Read more here and here.)

NAF suggested that "Rigid legal cutoffs that ban or restrict abortion care at viability or arbitrary gestational lines substitute political considerations for medical and personal decision making." Given the fact that "arbitrary" trimester markers were put in place by Justice Harry Blackmun the in Roe v. Wade decision, this would be laughable if it weren't so deadly.

Lastly, NAF claims that "Good abortion laws support principles of good medicine" — but intentional killing isn't health care, no matter how often someone chants it.

NAF's latest "Policy Position" follows a study published in JAMA Network Open which called for taxpayer-funded abortion up to birth, or in their terms, "expand[ing] the availability of later abortion," especially "in states with Medicaid coverage," because the authors identified "challenges" to abortion if "care is more expensive."

And when tax dollars are on the line... follow the money.

Beyond the gibberish

After decades of propping up the Roe v Wade abortion decision as the "law of the land" by groups like NAF, including the term viability NAF is now openly admitting what few abortion proponents have been willing to state until now. NAF begins by stating:

Viability is not a single, fixed point in pregnancy.

Then it goes on to state what determines so-called "viability" — and it may surprise you:

It depends on clinical circumstances, fetal conditions, available medical resources, and the judgment of the patient and care team...

Wait just a minute... this appears to state that an abortion client gets to play a role in determining her child's ability to survive outside the womb. NAF continues:

While viability and gestational cut-offs are often presented as merely reasonable limits on abortion, they are, in fact, abortion bans.

This statement reveals quite clearly that abortion, for NAF, is not actually about a woman's bodily autonomy. If it were, then delivering the baby at "viability" and helping that child would seem to be the "reasonable" action. But NAF is in the business of ensuring that preborn babies — even those with high chances of survival outside the womb of the woman — die. After all, the woman paid for a dead baby, so it is NAF's job to ensure she gets a dead baby.

The viability-rule enacted in Roe was unsound and “arbitrary” and was never based on science but was instead  a political decision. The Justices deemed viability as the point in pregnancy when the child could survive outside the womb (which, at that time, was approximately 24 weeks; today preborn children can survive when born even earlier).

The overwhelming scientific evidence surrounding the humanity of the developing child in the womb was overlooked and dismissed when Roe v Wade was decided.

Now that Roe has fallen as a result of the Dobbs decision, abortion advocates are changing their definitions. For instance, ACOG writes:

While there is no single formally recognized clinical definition of “viability,” the term is often used in medical practice in two distinct circumstances.

In the first, “viability” addresses whether a pregnancy is expected to continue developing normally. In early pregnancy, a normally developing pregnancy would be deemed viable, whereas early pregnancy loss or miscarriage would not. 

In the second, “viability” addresses whether a fetus might survive outside of the uterus. Later in pregnancy, a clinician may use the term “viable” to indicate the chance for survival that a fetus has if delivered before it can fully develop in the uterus.

Clinicians most commonly focus on the periviable period, which refers to weeks 20 through 25 and 6 days of a pregnancy.

Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), largely comprised of abortionists and cited by NAF, claimed that the term “later” (as in later abortion) is a "relative term," because "for people seeking abortion care, 'it is when the gestation of a pregnancy becomes a factor in whether or how they are able to access abortion care.'"

Pro-life definitions and terms are much more consistent; a human baby is conceived at the moment of fertilization, and this was once common knowledge, even among those who advocated abortion.

Eventually, however, population control enthusiasts associated with ACOG worked to change the definition of the beginning of life from fertilization to implantation (in the uterus). These events are several days apart.

For decades it was universally acknowledged that a baby's heartbeat could be detected just a few weeks post fertilization, until that scientific fact became too inconvenient, and ACOG and abortion enthusiasts at large began to blur the lines again.

They're not only changing their definitions, but making it difficult to track those changes; NAF's website has been changed from "prochoice.org" to "nationalabortionfederation.org" which makes it harder to locate archived statements.

Continual redefinitions and policy changes are not "evidence" of anything except a desperation to escape the truth about the humanity of preborn children and convince society that killing them is "healthcare."

'Forced' pregnancy and 'make-believe' musings

In a press release, Brittany Fonteno, President and CEO of NAF, claimed NAF is vowing to “ensure the laws of our land respect evidence-based care for women and pregnant people” because “[p]eople deserve abortion access throughout pregnancy.”

Fontana refers to pro-life protections as “extreme” policies which “force” women “to stay pregnant.” But pregnancy is a natural reproductive process that continues until culminating in birth, unless it is interrupted accidentally by miscarriage or intentionally by abortion. Therefore, abortion itself is the use of "force" to intentionally end the pregnancy and cause the death of the child.

Fonteno then appears to take a swipe at Live Action’s "Baby Olivia" video, writing that “anti-abortion extremism pushes the boundaries of make-believe in medicine — animating fetuses, embryos, and zygotes.”

But fetuses, embryos, and zygotes are merely stages of human development... it is the same living person from fertilization onward. Using computer animation to show what medical, 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds already show isn't "make-believe."

It just makes abortion proponents uncomfortable, for obvious reasons.

The Bottom Line:

NAF, which describes abortion as a "fundamental human right," and once criticized the ban on gruesome partial-birth (D&X) abortions, is not only motivated by its own pocketbooks, but clearly wants the public to believe that restricting the killing of preborn human beings is unreasonable.

It isn't.

Key Takeaways:

• Switzerland recorded 78,200 births in 2025.

• The fertility rate stands at just 1.28 births per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1, and is at an all-time low.

• Despite the decline, the country remains a world leader in assisted suicide deaths and "death tourism."

The Details:

In 2025, Switzerland had 78,200 births, 100 fewer than 2024. According to the FSO, this marked the fourth consecutive year that births had dropped, and was a 10% decline over births registered in 2015.

The country's fertility rate stands at just 1.28 births per woman — a significant drop from 1.54 a decade ago, and substantially lower than the 2.1 replacement rate. This record-low number is also lower than the EU average, which is 1.34.

According to the report, if the trends continue, deaths are projected to outpace births in the mid 2030s.

Zoom Out:

Researchers point to a number of reasons why countries are experiencing declining birth rates, including economic difficulties, housing challenges, and uncertainty in the labor market.

However, the lasting effects of the culture of death — including abortion and assisted suicide rates — are rarely considered.

Though it is experiencing a demographic crisis, Switzerland remains one of the world's leaders in assisted suicide deaths. In many countries, 'assisted death' laws are often accompanied by stipulations that those accessing assisted suicide be considered terminally ill; however, Switzerland has no such requirements and allows physically healthy individuals to legally end their own lives.

The country is also home to Pegasos, an organization that specializes in helping people kill themselves. Founded by Philip Nitschke, who is commonly known as “Dr. Death, Pegasos allows foreigners to participate in what has been called “death tourism,” where they pay large amounts of money to commit suicide. 

In April, Live Action News reported the story of a physically healthy mom from the United Kingdom (UK) who worked with Pegasos to travel to Switzerland to end her life. In 2022, a pair of sisters from Arizona went missing, only for friends and family to later learn the women had both undergone assisted suicide in Switzerland, despite the fact that they were healthy.

Unfortunately, these stories are not unusual.

The Bottom Line:

In order for a society to thrive, all life has to be cherished and valued. A country that deems it acceptable to kill those considered 'less-than' — whether they are in the womb, elderly, or simply tired of living — should not be surprised when it fails to flourish.

“I was filled with shame and guilt,” Chis told Live Action News. “I knew I couldn’t dishonor my parents. It wasn’t their fault I had gotten pregnant and I felt it would be unjust to subject them to embarrassment and humiliation.”

Though she had attended church services regularly with her family all her life, God seemed distant to her at that time. Rather than seeking help in her faith community, she said she “pretty much ran away from the church.”

But she found little support outside that community.

Friends at school encouraged her to end the pregnancy, and her boyfriend also took a “hands-off” approach. She was ultimately left to face a life-altering decision alone. 

“I felt like I had to hurry up and schedule the abortion, put the experience behind me, and get right with God,” she said. “I was a desperate and frightened young woman trying to find a quick way out.”

Because she was still a minor, the abortion clinic staff found a legal workaround to enable her to get an abortion without her parents’ knowledge.

A Message of Hope

After the abortion, she first felt relief – the experience behind her, she was looking forward to graduating. But relief gave way to tormenting thoughts that plagued her continually.

“I felt sad; it seemed surreal what I had done,” Chis recalled. “I wondered who would love me. Self-condemnation and hopelessness weighed heavily on me. I couldn’t talk with anyone — particularly Christian women.”

Despite feeling disconnected from the church, she continued to attend services. One day, she was in her room and experiencing negative thoughts when she had a personal and transformative encounter with the Lord.

“He told me that He knew what I had done but also that I was the one who He had come for,” Chis recalled of the emotional moment. “Immediately, Luke 19:10 came to mind, [which says Christ] "came to seek and save that which was lost.’ For the first time, I felt hope, that I could be saved, that God could get me out of this pit.”

Eventually, Chis sought counsel from a pastor she trusted, sharing her story openly and honestly with him and expressing her desire to be baptized. The pastor responded with kindness, meeting her with grace and compassion. This supportive encounter reignited her connection to the church, and she felt drawn back to her faith community once again.

“After I got baptized, I got back on track and eventually met my husband,” she said. “I wondered at the time if I should share my background with him, so I prayed about it.”

But her concerns, though understandable, were unfounded; her future husband  also responded with love and acceptance. This allowed her to enter marriage with a sense of freedom, honesty, and transparency.

“Years later, I came across a post-abortive healing ministry called ‘Surrendering the Secret,’ Chis said. “So much more healing occurred; it was a transformational experience.” Eventually, she began leading a group of women using that same curriculum to help them find the healing and freedom she had experienced.

The Church’s Role... and a New Mission

Chis began to realize that God was still writing her story. He had given her a desire to see the church become a stronger place of refuge and healing for post-abortive individuals.

“The church has a big role to play in helping post-abortive men and women who are grappling with the shame of abortion in helping them to find redemption and healing,” she said. 

Because of this conviction, she now partners with churches, training pastors and providing them with practical tools and resources to minister effectively to women and men in their own congregations who have been wounded by abortion — individuals who are spiritually and emotionally where she once was.

She also recognized that church leaders need resources tailored specifically for this type of ministry, so she developed an online resource platform that features practical tools, guidance, and educational materials.

“The goal of this digital space was to empower pastors to better support individuals dealing with the trauma of abortion, providing them with the knowledge and resources necessary to foster healing and hope within their congregations,” Chis noted.

That’s also how her podcast, “Spotlight on Life,” came to be. Through engaging in honest conversations with individuals involved in the pro-life movement, Chis aims for her podcast to expand and educate more faith communities, so they, too, can be motivated and equipped to minister with compassion to those facing the challenges of abortion regret and recovery.

“I believe God has redeemed my story,” Chis said. “I went from no hope to thriving. Now, my mission is to help others do the same.”

Key Takeaways:

• A child under the age of 12 has become the first to die under a euthanasia law enacted in 2024 in the Netherlands.

• Previously, the Netherlands allowed euthanasia for individuals over the age of 12, and babies under age one.

• The 2024 law allowed children between ages one and 12 to die by euthanasia, regardless of consent.

• The first child to die under that law was killed at the end of 2025, though no details about the child's health condition, gender, or age were released.

The Details:

The child's death at the end of 2025 was reported to a committee that reviews all late abortions and physician assisted deaths of children. That committee's annual report was submitted to parliament on June 22, and the child's death has been referred to the public prosecution service, a committee of four doctors, which will decide if the doctors involved in the child's death complied with the rules. No details were given regarding the child's age, gender, or medical condition.

Under the law, children from ages one to 12 can die by euthanasia if they are considered "terminally ill," and are “suffering hopelessly and unbearably" with no cure. Doctors can decide with the parents, and potentially the child, to end the child's life. But the guidelines do not require the child to have any input at all into his or her own forced death.

“This decision is always made in consultation with the parents and, if possible, also with the child,” the government website states.

The Backstory:

In 2002, the Netherlands enacted the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act, which codified euthanasia for individuals over age 12 deemed to be suffering from an illness or disability with no hope of recovering. It was in 2004 that the Netherlands first allowed doctors to end the lives of infants up to age one if the parents and doctors agreed to it, the baby was currently experiencing suffering, and expected to experience future suffering as well. That could include an illness deemed terminal or a serious disability.

Deaths for mental health reasons also became more common as two decades passed. From 2002 to 2010, about one to two such cases existed each year. In 2023, there were 138 euthanasia deaths for mental health, and in 2024, 219 people died from "psychiatric euthanasia" — an increase of 60% in one year.

In 2023, lawmakers passed a controversial expansion of the eligibility guidelines to include children of all ages. Children age one to 12 can be euthanized by doctors and at the decision of the parents alone. Children ages 12 to 15 can choose to be killed with parental or guardian consent while those ages 16 and 17 can do so without their parents' consent. Children under the age of one can also die by euthanasia if the doctors and parents agree.

The Bottom Line:

No one should be killed because of an illness or disability.

While these laws are written to make the euthanasia of children appear to be acts of mercy, it is never ethical to kill anyone, let alone a child who is incapable of giving free consent to his or her own death.

Children are particularly vulnerable to coercion if their own parents are the ones who suggest it.

Palliative and comfort care should be provided and medical professionals should do everything possible to make sure sick and disabled children are well cared for. But increased access to euthanasia results in decreased access to palliative care and overall healthcare as the 'choice' to die because an expectation and a way to save money.

The Society of Family Planning (SFP), a pro-abortion organization that publishes #WeCount abortion data, estimates that 1.13 million abortions took place in calendar year 2025. In a June 2026 press release, SFP stated, "Abortions remain elevated, driven by telehealth and shield law provision telehealth," which "accounted for 29% of abortion care in the U.S. by the end of 2025."

Key Takeaways:

• In a June 2026 press release, #WeCount data estimated 1.13M abortions for 2025, stating that the number was "driven by telehealth and shield law provision telehealth" accounting for 29% of abortions that year.

• #WeCount claimed that "where abortion is banned, nearly all [over half] abortions were provided via telehealth under shield laws" in 2025.

• #WeCount's national abortion estimates are similar in number to what was published in March of 2026 by the Guttmacher Institute.

• Neither the FDA nor the drug’s manufacturers tasked to police prescribers appear to be decertifying anyone who violates state law or flouts the FDA's REMS safety protocols.

The Details:

But, according to #WeCount data, "Growth in the monthly number of abortions has slowed."

The monthly average number of abortions climbed from 77,560 in 2022, to 85,780 in 2023, to 92,400 in 2024, to 93,900 in 2025. Note that the 2022 monthly average reflects a partial year of data.

National abortion estimates

Since Dobbs, the Guttmacher Institute along with the SFP have been the two organizations publishing estimated abortion data nationally. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has yet to release data for 2023, relies on reports sent to them by states that require the reporting of abortion statistics.

#WeCount's national abortion estimates are similar in number to what was published in March of 2026 by the Guttmacher Institute, the former "special affiliate" of Planned Parenthood. However, Guttmacher specified that their totals were an underestimation.

• Guttmacher Institute (published March 2026): 1,126,000 abortions for 2025.

• SFP's #WeCount data (published June 2026): 1,126,760 abortions for 2025.

Pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute authors previously acknowledged that the reason abortions have spiked in recent years is due to the abortion pill — specifically the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) erosions of safety regulations removing the in-person dispensing requirement and enabling the drug to be shipped by mail. 

This appears to be confirmed again by SFP's #WeCount analysis.

#WeCount's Claims

"In 2025, the percentage of abortions provided via telehealth increased compared to previous years, up from 25% in December 2024, and up from 5% in April 2022... Most abortions continue to occur in-person, although the number of inperson abortions decreased slightly from 2024 to 2025," the press release states.

#WeCount claims:

• There were approximately 1.13 million abortions in the formal healthcare system in 2025. The number of abortions within the U.S. healthcare system is higher than before Dobbs.

• In-person care still makes up the majority of abortions, but that number decreased from 2024 to 2025.

• By December 2025, 29% of all abortions occurred through telehealth. This represents an increase from 25% in December 2024.

• In states without bans on abortion care or telehealth abortion care, the proportions of abortions provided via telehealth varied widely, from 10% in New York to 44% in Nevada.

• In states with total bans on abortion care, telehealth made up 97-100% of all abortions in 2025.

• The number of abortions in 2025 in some states with total bans, such as Louisiana and Texas, has surpassed the number of abortions before Dobbs.

• In other states with total bans, such as Idaho, Indiana, and Tennessee, the number of abortions in 2025 remains well below the number of abortions in 2022.

Over half of mail-order abortions provided under shield laws

In May 2026, Guttmacher claimed: 

• Data from the Society of Family Planning shows that as of December 2025, more than one in four clinician-provided abortions in the United States were provided via telehealth. 

• Data from Guttmacher’s Monthly Abortion Provision Study show 91,000 abortions were provided via telehealth to states with total bans in 2025. 

However, the latest #WeCount data suggests the number of abortions provided under shield laws was almost double that figure.

"Telehealth abortion grew from 5% of all abortions in April to 2022 to 29% in December 2025," wrote #WeCount, adding that "where abortion is banned, nearly all [over half] abortions were provided via telehealth under shield laws" in 2025.

The number and proportion of telehealth abortions provided under shield laws has increased over time. As of December 2025, more than half (54%) of telehealth abortions are provided under shield laws.

... By December 2025, abortions provided under shield laws totaled 14,870 per month....

SFP added:

• The number of abortions provided via telehealth has increased; across 2025, over 300,000 abortions were provided via telehealth.

• By December 2025, 29% of US abortions were provided via telehealth.

• Shield laws continue to facilitate abortion access, with nearly 15,000 abortions per month provided under shield laws by December 2025. [emphasis added]

Over at Ms Magazine, pro-abortion author Carrie N. Baker observed:

These numbers are likely just the tip of the iceberg—an undercount of abortion within the medical system because not all providers report their numbers, especially telehealth providers serving patients living in states with abortion bans. These numbers also do not include the growing number of women obtaining and using abortion pills outside of the medical system.

Shield laws undermine pro-life states

In 2024, Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which had a pro-death stranglehold on states from 1973.

In Dobbs, the ruling held that:

The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

Dobbs enabled states to enforce pro-life laws already on the books (previously overruled under Roe) or to pass new protective measures. While pro-life states were protecting life, pro-abortion states were passing laws to "shield" providers who knowingly violate the laws of other states.

In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration eroded REMS safety measures for the abortion pill Mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex to allow for mail order and pharmacy dispensing. As a result, abortion drugs are now being shipped into states that have legislatively banned them, many which have also passed shield laws to protect providers. (This has prompted multiple lawsuits against the FDA's 2023 REMS changes; six states are involved so far.) 

For example, #WeCount data claims that, in the State of Texas, where abortion is not legal in most cases, over 47,000 abortions by pill were recorded, the overwhelming majority were sent into the state under so-called shield laws.

Neither the FDA nor the drug’s manufacturers tasked to police prescribers appear to be decertifying anyone who violates state law or flouts the FDA's REMS safety protocols. 

The Background:

Society of Family Planning (SFP) believes in "just and equitable abortion" and has published position statements opposing limits on abortion at any gestational age or for any reason, calling abortion "essential."

In 2022, SFP launched the #WeCount abortion data collection project. The official journal of SFP is Contraception, which publishes numerous abortion studies often cited by the media or court briefs.

The SFP was founded in 2005 thanks to a generous contribution from the Packard Foundation, and is heavily funded by the Buffett Foundation.

In recent years, abortion philanthropist Warren Buffett (the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation) poured approximately $18 million into SFP, and millions even further back. Both Packard and Buffett were investors in the manufacturers of the abortion pill, namely either Danco Laboratories or the generic manufacturer, GenBioPro — regular exhibitors and sponsors at SFP events.

According to SFP:

#WeCount data include abortions within the formal US healthcare system, defined as medication or procedural abortions provided by a licensed US clinician operating within their licensed scope of practice.

#WeCount data do not reflect self-managed abortions, defined as ending a pregnancy without the involvement of a licensed clinician operating within their licensed scope of practice, such as medications provided by community networks, clinicians providing care outside their licensed scope of practice, or websites that sell medications outside of the formal US healthcare system.

The Top Priority:

Mail-order dispensing increases the risk of coercion, as men have obtained and secretly administered abortion drugs to pregnant women without their knowledge or consent. The in-person visit requirement typically screens for such coercion.

"Since many women residing in states with strong pro-life laws are obtaining abortions via telehealth, these telehealth abortions are undermining many pro-life laws that were passed since the Dobbs decision," wrote Dr. Michael New at National Review.

"The pro-life laws that have been passed since Dobbs have certainly done some good. Multiple analyses of state birth data have shown that these laws have saved thousands of lives. However, these state pro-life laws are weakened by the presence of telehealth abortions," Dr. New claimed.

Liberty Counsel submitted the brief on behalf of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and the Douglass Leadership Institute, a group of nonprofit faith organizations that represent or minister to more than 70,000 people in Hispanic and African American communities across the United States.

In the brief, Liberty Counsel argues that the FDA removed Mifepristone’s safeguards without adequately addressing whether the drug would be safe for women. As a result, widespread abortion access is exposing unmonitored women to dangerous complications and reinstating the restrictions would correct the FDA’s failure to ensure drug safety.

In addition to administrative lapses, Liberty Counsel raises the question of “why” Mifepristone is “owned by the Population Council,” an organization “founded by eugenicists with a nefarious history of promoting population control.”

When the eugenics movement fell out of favor with the fall of Nazi Germany, John D. Rockefeller III in 1952 founded the Population Council to advance eugenic population control, but under different guises, which today include “reproductive health,” “reproductive choice,” and “family planning.” 

The Population Council has routinely provided “funding, research, and advocacy to legitimize and expand access to abortion” to reduce minority birth rates and preserve the “quality” of the population according to their standards, wrote Liberty Counsel. 

“Many eugenicists drew ‘the distinction between the fit and the unfit ... along racial lines,’” the brief reads.  Eugenicists like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and her colleagues used terms like “unfit” and “feeble-minded” as “code words for the poor, blacks, and other minorities.”

Building on that history, the Population Council’s ownership of Mifepristone represents a continuation of these eugenic goals, noted Liberty Counsel. 

For years, Planned Parenthood has “intentionally located 86 percent of its abortion facilities in or near minority neighborhoods in the 25 U.S. counties with the most abortions,” wrote Liberty Counsel. “These 25 counties contain 19 percent of the U.S. population, including 28 percent of the African American population and 37 percent of the Hispanic/Latino population. In 12 of these counties, Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos are more than 50 percent of the population. In comparison, African Americans are only 12.6 percent of the U.S. population, and Hispanics and Latinos are 16.3 percent.”

“The public interest is not served by a regulation that turns the mail into an instrument of a eugenicist agenda,” and reinstating Mifepristone’s safety protocols would stop abortion from becoming “a tool of modern-day eugenics,” concluded Liberty Counsel.

Liberty Counsel’s brief recommends the Fifth Circuit reverse a lower court decision that denied restoring the FDA’s safety rules. 

On May 8, 2026, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals preliminarily ruled that the FDA must reinstate the in-person requirement for dispensing Mifepristone. However, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 7-2 to administratively block that ruling and keep mail-order access to Mifepristone available while the Fifth Circuit reaches a permanent decision. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Abortion is directly rooted in the eugenics movement. Today, chemical abortions are a disturbingly effective tool to murder unborn babies in the womb, especially in minority communities, thus continuing the discriminatory practices of eugenics. Chemical abortions harm women physically and emotionally and cruelly kill defenseless children. The FDA can no longer be allowed to ignore Mifepristone’s safety dangers and allow a eugenic drug unfettered access by mail to destroy innocent lives and harm women.”

Key Takeaways:

• Margaret Sanger's Negro Project — the targeting of Black Americans by eugenicists — could come to fruition in a relatively short period of time.

• According to the Population Reference Bureau, dedicated to informing people around the world about the population, health and the environment, long periods of low fertility rates have an "irreversible consequence.”

• The total fertility rate for Black women in 2023 is 1.400, which is near the level considered impossible to reverse.

The Details:

Margaret Sanger's Negro Project Nears Completion

“The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." – Margaret Sanger, December 18, 1939 

There is no question that Planned Parenthood is racist.

In 1965, Black Americans led by the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam and the NAACP, knew that Planned Parenthood was targeting Black Americans for extermination.

Even at a meeting of the Council of Philadelphia Anti-Poverty Action Committee in 1965, Cecil Moore, president of the local NAACP chapter, condemned a Planned Parenthood program for northern Philadelphia because 70% of the population was black. He labeled the plan as "replete with everything to help the Negroes commit race suicide."

And it does not stop here.

A June 18, 2020, open letter written by current and former staffers of the Planned Parenthood of Greater New York stated, “Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist, white woman. That is a part of history that cannot be changed.”

La Verne Tolbert, Ph.D., a former Planned Parenthood board member (1975-1980), wrote in response to a Washington Post article dated July 21, 2020 (emphases added):

“Margaret Sanger’s goal, as attested with her own words, was to limit the growth of the Black population. Read any of Sanger’s autobiographies. She considered blacks and other 'minorities' as inferior. Birth control and abortion are not gratuitously designed to help African Americans. Abortion is to reduce the Black population, which has been very effective.”

It is clear, very clear, that Planned Parenthood is both a racist and eugenic organization. A facilitator of genocide. It is also clear that Planned Parenthood knew that abortion is child sacrifice, literally murder, because it ends a human life. In Planned Parenthood’s own brochures, in 1952 and in 1964, they admitted that “An abortion requires an operation. It kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”

Considering all of the above, the details get worse.

Total Fertility Rate:

A statistical reconstructed estimate of the total fertility rate for Black women in the 1850s was 7.9 births per woman.

In order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, there must be a total fertility rate of 2.11 children per family.

A total fertility rate of 2.11 represents replacement-level fertility, or in other words, the average number of children per woman that is needed for each demographic to exactly replace itself, generation after generation, naturally. With anything less than a 2.11 total fertility rate, a culture will decline.

According to the Population Reference Bureau, dedicated to informing people around the world about the population, health and the environment, long periods of low fertility rates have an "irreversible consequence.”

A total fertility rate of 1.3 is considered impossible to reverse, because it would take 80 to 100 years to correct itself, and there is no economic model that can sustain a culture during that time.

In 2023, the total fertility rate for Black women was 1.400.* This fertility rate is knocking on the door of irreversibility.

The Bottom Line:

Today, Margaret Sanger must be singing and dancing in her grave. Her Negro Project will become a reality in less than 100 years.

As such, and from our perspective... abortion in the Black American community needs to end now!

My wife and I are praying and fasting (Mark 9:14-29) mightily for our people.

The Daisy Chain Fields Festival will donate 100% of the concert proceeds to non-profit organizations for women and girls... and several of them are abortion groups as well as abortion-supporting organizations.

Key Takeaways:

• Olivia Rodrigo is a pro-abortion advocate, and has even received an award from Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion chain.

• She announced the launch of her Daisy Chain Fields Festival, an all-female concert with singers like Chappell Roan, Sarah McLachlan, and Stevie Nicks.

• 100% of the proceeds from the festival, to be held in Irvine, California on August 29, will go to organizations dedicated to helping women and girls.

• Several of the organizations are abortion organizations, including the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood.

The Backstory:

Rodrigo is an outspoken abortion activist who previously found herself in hot water for partnering with the National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF) to hand out emergency contraception and information on how to get an abortion at her concerts, where children make up a large portion of the attendees. Eventually, Rodrigo was forced to stop the initiative, which included handing out condoms and lubricants, after the backlash became too loud to ignore.

She launched a pro-abortion fund, giving $2 million from her Guts World Tour proceeds. Among the recipients was NNAF.

Last year, she accepted the Catalyst for Change award from Planned Parenthood of Greater New York at their annual gala. Upon accepting her award, she insinuated that women cannot be successful without access to abortion:

"We live in a world that politicizes our bodies and uses harmful ideologies to deny us safety and health care. And it breaks my heart to think that, because of oppressive laws and outdated policies, some of those girls may not get to follow their dreams the way I’ve been able to follow mine."

The Details:

Rodrigo announced the Daisy Chain Fields Festival on Instagram, which will feature an all-female lineup consisting of past and present all-stars. The festival will take place on August 29 in Irvine, California.

She also made it clear that the festival is political in nature in her Instagram caption.

"Daisy Chain Fields features an all-women lineup and 100 percent of the net proceeds will go to charities dedicated to advancing and advocating for women and girls," she wrote. "The lineup is truly insane and full of my heroes and friends. I firmly believe that joy, community, and music can be the drivers of meaningful change and I’m hopeful this festival will be just that."

The performers, according to People, include Rodrigo herself, along with:

... Chappell Roan, KATSEYE, Doechii, Mitski, Rachel Chinouriri, Bikini Kill, Garbage, the Breeders, Eli, Not For Radio, Santigold, Die Spitz and Quiet Light. An official poster for the Irvine festival also teases "special guests" Stevie Nicks, Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and [Sarah] McLachlan.

All of the festival's proceeds will go to 10 organizations, at least three of which are abortion organizations: Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the National Institute for Reproductive Health. (Several of the other organizations appear to partner with pro-abortion groups in some way.)

Presale tickets sold out within an hour.

The Center for Reproductive Rights celebrated the partnership on X, writing, "Excited barely begins to cover it. We cannot wait to come together with so many incredible artists and organizations at #DasiyChainFields to fight for the rights of women and girls everywhere!"

Of course, abortion inherently denies the most intrinsic life — the right to life — to millions of preborn girls across the globe, to say nothing of the damage it causes to post-abortive women. Yet, according to People, "For Rodrigo, the event is a dream come true, as well as her way of pushing back on the 'cruelty in the world' today."

It seems Rodrigo and her associates would prefer to ignore the cruelty of abortion itself:

The Bottom Line:

Parents of children who are Rodrigo's fans should be aware of her extreme support for the killing of preborn human beings before they decide if they will continue to buy her albums and attend her concerts.

Key Takeaways:

• Last weekend, Mayday Health hired a plane to fly an abortion pill advertisement over the third round of the US Open tournament at Shinnecock Hills in Southampton, New York.

• The organization defended the ad, saying it spreads information about abortion pills at "high traffic events."

• Mayday Health gives online visitors information about where to access the abortion pill, even in states where abortion pill distribution is illegal. It does not provide information about the risks or dangers of the pill.

The Details:

According to the New York Post, the plane flew over third-round play at Shinnecock Hills for 90 minutes, pulling an ad reading, "Abortion Pill By Mail Mayday Health."

One fan told the Post that not everyone was thrilled to see the ad, saying:

“It just felt gross and divisive. I’m sure that’s exactly what this group intended, which is a real shame.

These kids kept pointing at the banner asking their parents ‘What does that say?’ And it was clear they had no clue how to respond. I mean, what do you even say?

Especially when there are so many golfers and spectators who are strong in their faith — this felt like an intentional distraction by outside agitators to undermine the tournament.”

Leo Raisner, executive director of Mayday Health, defended in an email to the Daily Caller the group's decision to fly the plane.

“Mayday Health spreads information about abortion pills at high traffic events all across the country. We want people to know that abortion pills are safe, effective and FDA approved,” he said.

Zoom Out:

Mayday Health was formed in 2022 in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Though it doesn't directly offer the abortion pill, it operates a website that compiles a list of abortion pill businesses willing to ship the pill nationwide, even into states where abortion pill distribution is illegal.

The organization has run into legal trouble after advertising in pro-life states like South Dakota and Kentucky. Though it has historically targeted women in pro-life states, it recently launched an ad campaign at a series of laundromats in Southern California, insinuating that lower-income women likely to use the laundromats need to abort their preborn children.

The organization also misleads people into thinking that the abortion pill is safe, when the opposite is true. According to a recent analysis of a large insurance database, the abortion pill's adverse events occurred at a rate 22 times higher than the rate reported on the drug's Food and Drug Administration label. Another study found chemical abortions to be four times more dangerous than first-trimester surgical abortion. Known side effects include severe cramping, contractions, and heavy bleeding, as well as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headaches; risks include incomplete abortion, hemorrhage, infection, and even death.

For many women, taking the abortion pill is a traumatic, life-altering experience, as shown through Live Action's I Saw My Baby campaign.

None of this information is located on Mayday's website.

The Bottom Line:

Women deserve to know the truth about the dangers of the abortion pill. An organization that spends large sums advertising a dangerous way to end the lives of preborn children, rather than putting that money toward helping pregnant women and babies, clearly does not have the best interest of women at heart.

Key Takeaways:

• In April, HHS announced its guidelines for recipients of 2027 Title X funding.

• The guidelines require that organizations do not commit or refer for abortions.

• The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association filed a lawsuit against these guidelines, alleging that the rules violate Title X.

The Backstory:

Under rules announced by HHS in April, facilities that commit or refer for abortion would be ineligible to receive Title X funding.

"None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning," the guidelines state. "The Hyde Amendment expressly prohibits the use of federal funds administered by HHS to pay for elective abortion."

The notice continues (emphases added):

We expect recipients to demonstrate how their Title X projects maintain strict separation from prohibited activities and contribute to broader HHS efforts to safeguard life-affirming, lawful, and ethical program delivery. Key strategies include, but are not limited to, implementing robust financial and programmatic safeguards; providing clear guidance to staff and subrecipients on Hyde requirements; and establishing monitoring processes that ensure ongoing compliance among staff and subrecipients.

The Details:

NFPRHA and FHCCP have filed a lawsuit against the HHS rules. NFPRHA is a network organization that represents state and local health departments, clinics, and Planned Parenthood centers that offer "sexual and reproductive health care" to low-income and uninsured individuals. It also works with organizations that fund abortion groups.

According to its mission statement, "NFPRHA advances and elevates the importance of family planning in the nation's health care system and promotes and supports the work of family planning providers and administrators..." It aims to ensure that "all people can access ... family planning and sexual health care..."

FHCCP is a non-profit organization that supports a network of health centers in Pennsylvania. It does not commit abortions; however, it does partner with Planned Parenthood. In 2026, it was awarded $2.7 million in funding, according to the HHS.

The American Civil Liberties Union is representing NFPRHA and FHCCP, arguing that HHS is violating the intent of Title X. According to the complaint, NFPRHA believes the requirements are a political move that violate the purpose of Title X to "offer a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning methods and services."

"We believe that the funding announcement is designed to favor the kind of providers the administration would rather see in the program," said Clare Coleman, president and CEO of NFPRHA.

The complaint alleges, "The [funding notice] enables defendants to pick winners and losers based on political alignment, as opposed to merit and the ability to provide high-quality Title X services. This is not how federal grants should be awarded, and, specifically, this is not how Congress instructed defendants to make Title X grants."

Why It Matters:

The first Trump administration put in place something known as the "Protect Life Rule," requiring a separation both fiscally and physically between a provider's abortion business from its family planning business. However, the current Trump administration has not yet restored the Protect Life Rule. In early June, a coalition of 159 lawmakers sent a letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., urging the Trump administration to restore the rule.

The current rule differs from the Protect Life Rule.

Most Americans do not support taxpayer-funded abortion, and a 2025 poll found that most Americans support cutting taxpayer funding specifically to Planned Parenthood.

Sixty percent (60%) of registered voters said they agreed with the idea of eliminating Planned Parenthood’s public funding.

While taxpayer dollars are not legally allowed to directly pay for abortions, with some exceptions, money is fungible. The same facilities and staff used to dispense birth control may be used to maintain the abortion side of a business.

Meanwhile, there are 13,540 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) that provide a wide range of comprehensive health services for women and do not commit abortions.

The Bottom Line:

Kelsey Hazzard, president of Secular Pro-Life, shared an article about the dangers of a “PP monopoly on family planning” in which she pointed out how Planned Parenthood often takes money away from community health centers.

"With so many more locations, FQHCs and health departments are in a better position to help a greater number of people access contraception," she wrote. "But they’ve barely gotten an opportunity to show it, because Planned Parenthood has historically gotten the money, and keeps suing to claim entitlement to FQHC and health department family planning funds."

Key Takeaways:

• French legislators have been debating an assisted suicide bill over the past year.

• The bill has failed to pass the Senate twice.

• Those who oppose the bill have called for a referendum, allowing French voters the ability to have a say.

• The French Constitutional Council has denied a referendum, denying French citizens this opportunity.

The Backstory:

For the past year, French lawmakers have debated a controversial bill legalizing “assisted dying” or euthanasia, with the National Assembly passing the bill twice and the Senate rejecting it both times. 

Consensus on such a life-or-death matter has been unachievable. On June 2, members of parliament and senators held a joint committee meeting to try to reach agreement on the final version of the bill but were not successful. 

In the case of a blocked bill, the French executive government has the power to give the National Assembly the final vote to definitively decide the issue. 

The proposed bill is currently in its third review with the National Assembly from June 22 to June 26. The Senate will then review the text, but is expected to reject it as it has in the past.

Either way, the National Assembly will have the power to legalize euthanasia with the final vote on July 15.

The Details:

Opponents wanted to give the French people a chance to vote on such a key social policy that could profoundly change French culture.

Senator Francis Szpiner, from France’s conservative party, Les Républicains, led the referendum initiative along with nearly 200 parliamentarians.

As reported by Infovaticana, the goal of the referendum was not a vote for or against legalizing euthanasia. Rather, the referendum’s aim was to prevent the act of actively ending a patient’s life from being considered as “treatment,” “therapy,” or “care.” 

But, on June 17, the Constitutional Council, France’s highest constitutional authority, rejected the bid for a referendum, on the grounds that “assisted dying” was a societal issue that did not fall within the scope of Article 11 of the Constitution. 

Les sages or “the wise,” as members of the Constitutional Council are called, noted that a referendum was only applicable to “reforms relating to the nation’s economic, social or environmental policy and the public services that contribute to it.”

Since euthanasia has not yet been legalized, the Council determined that there was no law to be amended.

Senator Szpiner and his cosponsors disagree with “the wise” and certainly considered the question of euthanasia to fall under the umbrella of a “social policy.” 

The Bottom Line: 

The fight to protect France’s culture of life is not over. 

French bishops have called for a novena from June 21 to June 29, asking the French people to pray that legislators reject the culture of death by upholding the Hippocratic Oath of defending and accompanying life until its natural end. 

Protests against the bill also are happening around the country, showing that many French people view their elderly not as cumbersome but as unique human lives with dignity and value. 

Key Takeaways:

• Live Action and other pro-life groups and individuals will host "Defund Day" rallies at nine locations on Saturday June 27.

• The rallies will occur outside Planned Parenthood facilities, and are meant to send a message to our nation’s lawmakers to extend the federal Medicaid defunding of Planned Parenthood.

• President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," signed on July 4, 2025, defunded abortion businesses of federal Medicaid dollars for one year. That defunding is set to expire on July 5 unless Congress votes to extend it.

The Details:

Pro-lifers around the country will gather on June 27 for "Defund Day" demonstrations at select Planned Parenthood locations. The initiative's goal is to bring pro-lifers together for a moment of united, national activism that will be amplified online to send a clear message to our nation’s leaders: Extend the Defund of Planned Parenthood! Defend life!

Rallies are currently scheduled at nine locations in California, Florida, Texas, Michigan, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C.

Those who cannot attend an in-person demonstration are encouraged to sign up as Digital Defund Day Ambassadors, who will help spread the online message that Congress needs to extend the federal Medicaid defunding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses.

The Backstory:

On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed "The Big Beautiful Bill," which included a provision to strip federal Medicaid funding from abortion businesses, including Planned Parenthood, for one year. That funding is slated to be restored on July 5, 2026, unless lawmakers vote to extend the defunding.

Learn More:

Defund Day rally locations and times can be found below. To sign up to attend an event, visit DefundPP.com and fill out the form at the top of the page.

Orange County, CA

Planned Parenthood - Orange Health Center

700 S Tustin St, Orange, CA 92866

11 AM PT

Washington, DC

Planned Parenthood - Carol Whitehill Moses Center

1225 4th St, NE, Washington, DC 20002

10 AM ET

Tampa, FL

Planned Parenthood - North Tampa Health Center

236 E. Bearss Avenue, Tampa, FL 33613

10 AM ET

Orlando, FL

Planned Parenthood - Orlando Health Center

11500 University Blvd, Orlando, FL 32817

10 AM ET

Jacksonville, FL

Planned Parenthood - Jacksonville Health Center

5978 Powers Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32217

9:30 AM ET

Denton, TX

Planned Parenthood - Denton Health Center

2436 S Interstate 35, #360, Denton, TX 76205

10 AM CT

Waco, TX

Planned Parenthood - Waco Health Center

700 West Highway 6, Waco, TX 76712

8 AM CT

Livonia, MI

Planned Parenthood - Livonia Health Center

15707 Farmington Rd, Livonia, MI 48154

10 AM ET

Albuquerque, NM

Planned Parenthood - Eubank Health Center

4630 Eubank Blvd NE, Albuquerque, NM 87111

9 AM MT

Key Takeaways:

• A Polish pathologist has been accused of experimenting on preborn babies after 34 bodies were found buried in her backyard.

• She could face up to 12 years in prison.

• Charges against her include desecration of human remains, unlawful disposal of medical waste, and more.

The Details:

The case revolves around a doctor who was arrested after authorities discovered the remains of 34 human fetuses buried in the garden of her former residence, officials stated. The disturbing discovery was made by construction workers excavating part of a property in the southeastern village of Lutoryz, where Magdalena H., a 57-year-old pathologist, had previously lived.

The pathologist, who has no past criminal background, is purported to have used the fetuses for experimental purposes and could face a jail term of up to 12 years. She has been charged with desecration of human remains, unlawful disposal of medical waste, and leaving hazardous materials in an unapproved location.

Construction workers uncovered suspected medical waste at the residence and prosecutors in southeastern Poland were notified before the bodies were discovered.

A large-scale search operation, involving dozens of officers, ground-penetrating radar, and trained dogs, culminated in the discovery of at least 34 fetuses buried on the property.

“This waste was most likely used by the detained woman to perform tests,” claimed Krzysztof Ciechanowski, the spokesman for the District Prosecutor’s Office in Rzeszow.

Zoom In: 

Magdalena H. allegedly obtained the bodies from a hospital in Rzeszów, where she was employed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and ran tests on them at her home.

Investigators also unearthed tens of thousands of microscope slides, paraffin blocks, and what were characterized as fragments of documentation during the search.

As many as 50 bodies may still be buried on the property, as dozens of officers continue an extensive search of the site. The nature and purpose of the alleged experiments remain unclear.

“On June 10, 2026, the District Prosecutor's Office in Rzeszów was notified of the discovery of significant quantities of medical waste items, mainly paraffin blocks and microscope slides, on the premises of a property in Lutoryż,” a police statement read. 

“These items were discovered during excavation work on the property. Among the discovered debris was a human fetus and other remains that could have been early-stage human fetuses or fetal fragments. Medical experts were dispatched to the scene and confirmed that the remains were those of human fetuses.”

At the moment, the property’s present owners, a young couple, are not thought to have been aware of the fetal remains buried on their land.

Although details remain limited as forensic probes continue, officials have indicated that the condition and placement of the remains suggest premeditated actions instead of accidental or legally compliant disposal. Regional prosecutors are currently conducting probes together with medical oversight bodies.

Poland maintains some of the most protective laws in Europe for preborn children, with abortion legal only in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life or health is at serious risk.

If proven that the doctor performed experiments outside legal frameworks, the case could represent a grave violation of Polish law, as well as fundamental medical ethics.

The Bottom Line:

Once respect for life is diminished, abuses can occur behind closed doors.

This case has also sparked wider questions about how societies protect the dignity of the preborn, even in contexts where abortion is legal in some situations.

Be it by more robust legal protections, enhanced oversight, or renewed dedication to the dignity of every person, the Polish authorities’ response to this incident may influence future attitudes to medical ethics and the defense of life.

Key Takeaways:

• MAiD is expected to expand to include mental illness in 2027, though legislation has been introduced to stop it.

• 5% of all deaths in Canada are currently due to MAiD.

• The Special Parliamentary Euthanasia Committee voted to recommend against a government expansion of MAiD to include mental illness.

The Backstory:

Since its legalization, deaths from MAiD have climbed to five percent (5%) of all deaths in Canada, with over a fifth of applicants claiming “isolation or loneliness” as reasons for their request to die.

Canada is on track to reach 100,000 deaths from euthanasia and assisted suicide in just a decade.

Reports show that people have been offered MAiD for reasons like poverty, homelessness, and even an inability to access disability or mental health services. And these abuses are likely to worsen if the government continues with its plan of legalizing MAiD for individuals whose sole diagnosis is a mental health condition.

Legislators introduced C-218 to stop this expansion, and a special parliamentary committee was held to examine the issue.

The Details:

A report by the joint House and Senate committee on Medical Assistance in Dying has recommended that the government "indefinitely exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness from eligibility for medical assistance in dying."

Numerous witnesses testified before the Special Parliamentary Euthanasia Committee about the need to halt the expansion, including the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. Should the government choose not to follow the report's recommendation, MAiD for mental illness will be legal on March 17, 2027.

Despite the recommendation, some pro-euthanasia legislators are already fighting to keep the expansion alive.

"When you have bad inputs, you have bad outputs," Kristopher Wells, a dissenting senator from Alberta, told the BBC. "That is why we're calling into question the reliability and the credibility of the report and the recommendation."

However, warnings against expanding MAiD for mental illness haven't just come from the committee. A 2023 poll showed that just three out of 10 respondents would support MAiD for mental illness alone, and a 2024 Canadian poll revealed that "only 42% [of respondents] said they are in favor of expanding eligibility to include cases of mental illness alone. An additional 30% said they didn’t know whether they supported such an expansion, while 28% outright oppose it."

The Help Not Harm campaign urges Canadians to express to their MPs the importance of supporting Bill C-218 for these reasons:

• Ethical duty to protect life during crisis. Mental health crises are often temporary. Society has a responsibility to offer care, hope, and protection—not a permanent solution to temporary suffering.

• MAiD contradicts suicide prevention efforts. Allowing MAiD for mental illness sends a conflicting message at a time when Canada is investing in suicide prevention and crisis support.

• Potential for expansion over time. Many Canadians worry that eligibility criteria and safeguards could gradually weaken, expanding access beyond what was originally intended. 

• “Irremediable” mental illness cannot be reliably determined. There is no medical consensus on when a mental health condition is truly untreatable, making accurate and ethical assessments extremely difficult.

The campaign also notes that "In any given year, 1 in 5 Canadians experience a mental illness."

The Bottom Line:

Expanding MAiD for mental illness will only further push Canada into the culture of death, encouraging those who are suicidal to believe that their lives are, in fact, not worth living.

Key Takeaways:

• On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v. Wade.

• Live Action has launched an annual 40-day campaign which will begin each year on the anniversary of Dobbs.

• Participants sign a pledge and commit to prayer for the 40 days from June 24-August 2, along with one sacrifice and one concrete act of service.

The Details:

Individuals are invited to join the Until It Ends campaign, which runs from June 24-August 2. The 40-day campaign consists of prayer, sacrifice, and service, with the goal of advocating for the lives of our preborn brothers and sisters.

Participants commit to pray each day for an end to legalized abortion, and to choose one thing to sacrifice. As the website explains:

You choose one daily enjoyment to surrender for the full 40 days. Pick something that costs you. Something you will notice. Examples include coffee, ice cream, alcohol, social media, streaming services, fast food, or video games.

Additionally, pro-lifers commit to service through the campaign, with suggestions including:

• Weekly volunteering at a pro-life pregnancy resource center

• Sidewalk outreach outside abortion facilities

• Peaceful public witness and local protesting

• A weekly donation, matched by the cost of what you gave up

• Hosting a small group gathering to recruit others into the pledge

The pledge states:

I pledge that each year, for 40 days after the Dobbs anniversary through the end of July, I will give up __________ as a personal reflection to remind me of the urgency to work towards the end of abortion. I will pair my sacrifice with action by committing to __________. I will repeat this pledge every year until abortion ends.

Why It Matters:

While Roe has fallen, abortion is legal in multiple states, and mail-order abortion pills have meant that the number of abortions being committed across the United States is rising.

Yet the Dobbs decision has led many Americans to believe the fight to save lives is behind them.

The "Until It Ends" campaign looks to the Dobbs anniversary as a sign of what is possible, while also looking ahead in the fight:

Abortion has endured because it has been normalized, funded, and defended with relentless discipline. We will end it with greater discipline. When thousands of people choose a real cost and pair it with prayer and action, we can experience revival and victory. 

The Bottom Line:

Sign the pledge to join the "Until It Ends" campaign today, and invite your family and friends to participate as well. We look forward to the day when legalized abortion ends, once and for all.

Key Takeaways:

• Furedi previously led BPAS as chief executive, and is a self-described "pro-choice campaigner."

• She published an op-ed opposing efforts to legalize assisted suicide in the United Kingdom (UK), saying it puts vulnerable people at risk.

• Furedi ignores the ultimate risk posed to the most vulnerable human beings in existence: abortion.

The Details:

The controversial “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)” bill failed to pass Parliament in April, and MP Lauren Edwards is already vowing to reintroduce it. Though assisted suicide advocates have pushed hard for legalization, voters have expressed widespread concern about the bill, particularly with regard to coercion and profit, with disability advocates most vocally opposing it.

After the first bill failed, polling found that voters do not think legalizing assisted suicide is a priority, while another poll found that just 1 in 3 said they want the bill reintroduced.

Furedi evidently agrees with these voters, writing in an op-ed for Kent Online that it would be a "serious mistake" to legalize assisted dying, and particularly disagreed with framing it as pro-choice. She wrote (emphases added):

As somebody who has dedicated their entire life to campaigning under the banner of “choice,” I can tell you this legislation is a serious mistake.

“Choice” doesn’t take place in a vacuum. People make decisions within families, institutions and cultural contexts. They are shaped by access to care, levels of support, and perceptions of their own worth. That is especially true at the end of life.

When considering ending their lives, vulnerable people will likely be under the influence of potentially deadly pressures not always easily detected. Is their illness burdening the lives of friends and family? Are they costing too much on the NHS?

At the same time, the devastating news of serious ill health or impending death can create a kind of internal pressure that does not lend itself to rational decision-making. Sick people are just as impacted by depression and suicidal thoughts as physically healthy people.

She continued by pointing out that vulnerable people will be especially at risk, explaining, "Progressive politics is supposed to be attentive to power, context and inequality. Yet in this debate, those contextual concerns are often stripped away in favour of an oversimplified narrative of individual choice."

Why It Matters:

All of Furedi's statements are correct, and ironically, could be made about abortion as well.

The most vulnerable human beings in existence are the preborn, and many women opt for abortion because they feel pressured, lack support, and — as Furedi so eloquently said herself — have "contextual concerns... often stripped away in favour of an oversimplified narrative of individual choice."

Catherine Robinson, spokeperson for Right to Life UK, said Furedi's opposition shows just how extreme the assisted suicide push is.

“Despite her appalling record on abortion in which she oversaw the deaths of tens of thousands of unborn babies during her time as head of BPAS, Ann Furedi recognises the danger that assisted suicide would pose for many vulnerable people," she said. "The solution to hardship at the end of life is not to normalise suicide."

The Bottom Line:

While it is a good thing to fight against legalizing assisted dying, it is inherently contradictory to fight to save one group of vulnerable people while actively promoting death among another group.

As our nation marks the fourth anniversary of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I find myself reflecting not merely on a legal decision, but on a deeply personal reality: I am here because a woman facing overwhelming circumstances chose life.

This reflection is dedicated to the mothers who made that same choice when every visible factor suggested otherwise.

Circumstances didn't determine my value

In contemporary discussions surrounding abortion, much attention is given to difficult circumstances, and rightly so. Poverty, addiction, relational instability, fear, abandonment, and uncertainty are genuine hardships that deserve compassion and practical support.

Yet amid these conversations, we often fail to ask a fundamental question: Does the difficulty of a circumstance diminish the value of the life growing within it?

My own story compels me to answer that question with a resounding no.

I was conceived in adultery. My father was married to another woman, and his wife was approximately eight months pregnant with their son at the time of my conception. The timing was so close that my brother Cam and I were both born in 1992, only 10 months apart.

By every modern metric, my conception represented a situation many would classify as undesirable, complicated, or irresponsible. Yet the moral failure surrounding my conception did not diminish the inherent worth of the life that resulted from it.

That distinction matters.

A society committed to justice must be able to condemn sinful or irresponsible behavior while simultaneously affirming the dignity of every human life involved. The circumstances surrounding a person's conception may be tragic, painful, or morally wrong, but they do not determine that person's value.

Courage in the face of addiction

My parents' circumstances were equally complex. My mother was a Black woman recovering from crack cocaine addiction, with little financial security and already raising five children. My father also had a history of drug addiction.

After finding recovery, he founded a drug rehabilitation center in Florida, where he served as a counselor. It was there that my parents met. My mother entered the program as a client seeking freedom from addiction, and my father was among those helping others pursue the same recovery he had experienced.

Their story was already marked by brokenness, redemption, and human frailty long before I was conceived. Yet despite their shared history of addiction and recovery, my conception occurred within a deeply complicated situation. My mother now found herself carrying a sixth child conceived with another woman's husband.

Under the legal framework of Roe v. Wade, she could have chosen abortion. Many would have considered that decision understandable. Few would have blamed her.

Instead, she chose life.

Not because her circumstances suddenly improved. Not because financial security appeared. Not because the future became clear.

She chose life because she believed that the existence of her child carried greater significance than the difficulties surrounding that child's conception.

I share these details not to shame my parents, but to honor the courage required to choose life amid circumstances that many would have viewed as hopeless.

Through faith in Jesus Christ, both of my parents experienced redemption and restoration. Like every believer, their stories are not ultimately defined by their failures but by the grace of God that transforms lives.

My mother's decision to carry me to term remains one of the clearest demonstrations of courage I have ever witnessed. Her story also exposes a troubling assumption that often underlies abortion advocacy: that some lives become less valuable when conceived under undesirable conditions.

Yet if human dignity is intrinsic rather than conditional, then its value cannot fluctuate according to income, parental readiness, relationship status, social approval, addiction history, or the circumstances of conception.

A child conceived in stability possesses no greater humanity than a child conceived in chaos.

Character cultivation can't come from courts

The timing of my conception also carries a unique historical significance.

I was conceived in 1992, the same year the Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While the Court was preserving the protections established by Roe v. Wade, my mother was making a different choice, choosing life despite circumstances that many would have viewed as justification for abortion.

Three decades later, the Court reversed course, returning the authority to regulate abortion to the states.

Whether one celebrates or laments that decision, it has forced America to confront questions that legislation alone can never resolve.

The abortion debate has always been about more than law. It is fundamentally a question of human dignity: What does it mean to be human? When does human life possess value? Upon what basis do we assign rights and worth?

Courts may answer legal questions, but they cannot form moral character.

Laws can restrain behavior, but they cannot cultivate virtue.

For that reason, the long term health of any society depends not merely upon its legal framework but upon the moral convictions of its people. A culture that values human life must also cultivate the virtues that help sustain and protect it.

This reality requires us to address subjects that modern culture often avoids: self discipline, sexual responsibility, accountability, and the virtues necessary for human flourishing.

Among those virtues is chastity, the biblical conviction that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman.

Such a view is often dismissed as outdated or unrealistic. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that societies thrive when they uphold standards that govern human desires rather than surrender to them. Freedom without discipline eventually becomes bondage. Liberty without virtue eventually deteriorates into disorder.

Scripture teaches: "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor" (1 Thessalonians 4:3–4).

These teachings are not arbitrary restrictions imposed by a distant God. They are expressions of divine wisdom intended to protect human flourishing.

One of the greatest failures of modern discipleship is that we often tell young people what behaviors to avoid without adequately explaining why those behaviors matter. We warn against consequences while neglecting to teach God's design.

A generation deprived of moral reasoning will eventually reject moral conclusions.

Young men and women deserve more than prohibitions. They deserve truth.

They deserve to understand the relationship between virtue and freedom, discipline and purpose, obedience and blessing.

They deserve examples of people willing to speak honestly about past mistakes while pointing to the redeeming power of Christ.

Testimony remains one of God's most powerful instruments for discipleship. Redemption stories remind us that failure need not be final and that obedience remains possible through the power of the Holy Spirit.

My Right to Exist

Returning to the central theme of this reflection, I remain profoundly grateful that my mother chose life.

I was her sixth child and my father's eleventh. My existence undoubtedly represented pain, complexity, and difficult consequences for multiple individuals, especially for my father's wife. Those realities should neither be ignored nor minimized.

Yet neither should they be used as an argument against my right to exist.

Many who read this article may sympathize with the circumstances of my birth. What I hope they will also consider is whether the very hardships that evoke their sympathy would have been sufficient grounds to justify my elimination before birth.

That question lies at the heart of the abortion debate.

As we remember the overturning of Roe v. Wade, may we do more than celebrate a judicial milestone. May we pursue a deeper cultural renewal rooted in compassion for mothers, reverence for human life, personal responsibility, and moral courage.

And may we pray that this generation learns to seek righteousness above convenience and God's wisdom above cultural trends.

For every child conceived, regardless of circumstance, bears the image of God.

I know this not merely as a matter of theology.

I know it because I am one of them.

If even one senator votes against a bill, that bill will not pass. Ultimately, requesting unanimous consent could expose which senators are willing to vote against seemingly commonsense, life-affirming bills.

Key Takeaways:

• On Wednesday, pro-life Senators will request unanimous consent for five pro-life bills.

• If the bills fail to get unanimous consent, they will not move forward.

• Ultimately, the request of unanimous consent could expose which senators are willing to vote against seemingly commonsense, life-affirming bills.

The Details:

Five senators plan to introduce five pro-life life bills for unanimous consent on Wednesday, meaning they will request immediate passage of the bills. If even one senator objects to a bill, that bill will not pass. Ultimately, this effort could show who in the Senate is willing to vote against seemingly commonsense, life-affirming bills.

The bills that will be put up for unanimous consent are:

1. The Conscience Protection Act (S. 1756). This bill, introduced by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), would amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit discrimination against health care entities that do not take part in abortion. It would also "strengthen implementation and enforcement of Federal conscience laws." The bill states that "the Federal Government, and any individual or entity that receives Federal financial assistance, including any State or local government, may not penalize, retaliate against, or otherwise discriminate against a health care entity on the basis that such health care entity does not or declines to— ... provide, perform, refer for, pay for, or otherwise participate in abortion;... provide or sponsor abortion coverage; or... facilitate or make arrangements for any of the activities specified in this subsection.

2. Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (S. 4329). This bill, introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), would prevent Title X family planning funds from going to facilities that commit abortions. The law would not apply to hospitals and would allow exceptions for abortions committed due to a "physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed" or if the child was conceived in rape or incest.

3. The “More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed Act” MOMS ACT (S. 1630). Introduced by Sen. Katie Boyd Britt (R-Ala.), this bill would provide more opportunities for mothers to succeed by offering wider access to resources and support for pregnancy, childbirth, and early childhood development.

4. The Support And Value Expectant (SAVE) Moms and Babies Act of 2026 (S. 3697). Introduced by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), the bill would direct resources toward mothers and children rather than abortion businesses. It would "amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the approval of new abortion drugs, to prohibit investigational use exemptions for abortion drugs, and to impose additional regulatory requirements with respect to previously approved abortion drugs..." This would include no allowing label changes on mifepristone "to approve the dispensing of such abortion drug after 70 days gestation; or to approve the dispensing of such abortion drug by any means other than in-person administration by the prescribing health care practitioner." It would also ensure mifepristone would again "be subject to a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy ... that at a minimum ... require health care practitioners who prescribe such abortion drug to be certified in accordance with the strategy..." among other safety rules.

5. The Forced Abortion Prevention and Accountability Act (S. 2955). Introduced by Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), this bill would "establish Federal penalties for the knowing and intentional administration of any abortion-inducing drug to a woman without her informed consent, if the abortion-inducing drug has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce..." Under the bill, a woman who is "administered an abortion-inducing drug in violation of subsection (a) may, in a civil action against any person who administered the abortion-inducing drug, attempted to administer the abortion-inducing drug, or conspired to commit an offense described in subsection (a) or (b), obtain appropriate relief" including "verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation...statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of all injuries occasioned by the violation; and... punitive damages."

The Bottom Line:

These bills could lead to culture changes, making abortion a less enticing option for women facing pressure to have abortions, and could help protect women from the health risks associated with abortion.

This is how a new documentary released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) — which reveals horrifying details about a late-term abortion carried out on a baby girl named Clementine — begins.

CMP founder David Daleiden and associate reporter Elise Ketch interviewed Clementine's mother (who has chosen to remain anonymous) and father in 2025 about the experiences that led to the death of their daughter, who was about five months gestation, at the Cherry Hill Women's Center in New Jersey.

This abortion business is "one of the top 10 third trimester abortion centers in the country and... a fetal organ harvesting site..." according to the documentary.

The film, "What Happened to Clementine?" additionally states:

"Medical records shared with CMP reveal chilling evidence that a little girl was delivered alive prematurely at 5 months and one day gestation at the Cherry Hill Women's Center in New Jersey and then trafficked for organ harvesting through Cercle allocation services."

Watch the documentary, which features expert testimony from OB/GYNs along with documentation and evidence for these claims, below:

The film contains a call to action at the end, asking viewers to:

• "Ask HHS and DOJ to escalate investigation of Clementine's case + compliance at abortion centers"

• "Contact congressional representatives to demand oversight of federal fetal trafficking investigations & funding"

• "Donate to Clementine's family's legal fund and nonprofit"

• "Speak up & share your story"

Key Takeaways:

• In the series of short, dramatized videos, a woman calls her boyfriend sobbing, saying that she passed the body of her baby into the toilet.

• She cries that she didn't know this was what having a chemical abortion would be like.

• While the short videos are fictional, they depict the real-life experiences of countless women.

The Details:

In new short dramatized videos from Live Action, a woman is seen calling her boyfriend in tears and pain, telling him that she took the abortion pill and there is a baby in the toilet.

"There is a baby in the toilet. There's a baby in the toilet, Sam," she cries. She tells him she took both of the drugs of the abortion pill regimen — mifepristone and misoprostol — and states, "But the website didn't say it was going to be like this. It didn't say it was gonna be like this. It said, it said it was just gonna be some tissue, not, not this. There's a baby, a whole baby in the toilet, Sam! I can see its arms and its head.

She sobs, "Sam, what did we do!? Why did we do that?"

In the second video, Sam arrives at his girlfriend Aileen's home. She tells him the baby is in the toilet as he remarks about how much she is bleeding. As he looks to see the baby, he calls 911. Aileen has passed out.

Reality Check:

The videos are hard to watch, but they depict the truth of what so many women experience when taking the abortion pill. They are led to believe that taking these drugs will be like having a heavy period, but the reality is much different.

Desiree Merced shared her experience with the abortion pill, saying:

"I literally delivered a baby. I delivered this baby. It was like, the baby was ... laying fetal position, and I saw the little tiny limbs, little arm, like... little everything. There was a tiny umbilical cord.... [T]he baby's heart was still beating. Oh, that killed me. That was a lot. I screamed."

She apologized to the baby repeatedly. She bled uncontrollably for months, felt weak, and had stabbing pain in her back.

Staff at Planned Parenthood, where she got the abortion pill, told her it was normal, but after a friend brought her to the hospital, she learned she was in toxic shock and needed emergency surgery. The abortion was incomplete, a known risk of the abortion pill, and doctors had to remove remaining pregnancy tissue that was "rotting."

Joy Singh believed abortion was her only option when she became pregnant, and she took the abortion pill. "The second pill [misoprostol] initiated the worst pain I’ve ever felt. When my baby came out into the toilet, I picked it up and held it in my hands for some time, crying over the loss," she said.

The Bottom Line:

Live Action's I Saw My Baby website shares the story of countless other women who have suffered the trauma of taking the abortion pill.

Key Takeaways:

• Dr. Sean McDowell shared that despite his tough childhood, his father still saw that he was a valuable child of God.

• McDowell called his father his hero, and asked the audience if they were a hero to anyone in their lives.

• He urged them to use the gifts and power God gave them to help those who can't speak for themselves: the vulnerable, including the preborn, those at risk of euthanasia, and those questioning their gender.

The Details:

McDowell's father — Christian apologist, evangelist, and author Josh McDowell — had a difficult childhood with an alcoholic father. He also suffered sexual abuse at the hands of someone who lived on the family farm, and his older sister died by suicide. At one point, McDowell's grandfather told his father that he was never wanted and was a mistake. McDowell's father once said he had no good memories from his childhood.

But McDowell's father told him, "My value doesn't come from how people treat me. My value doesn't come from how I was conceived. My value doesn't come from how many subscribers I have on YouTube or books I sell or how famous I am. My value comes because I am made in the image of God and have infinite dignity and value and worth."

His father also said he was grateful he grew up in an alcoholic home because "it's out of that pain and out of that brokenness that God has broken my heart and motivated me to speak up for people who cannot speak up for themselves."

Zoom In:

Sean McDowell told the audience, "Friends, my dad is my hero. ... I admire my dad because he's spent his life standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves. He spent his life caring for those who can't care for themselves. He spent his life defending those who can't defend themselves. So let me ask you a question... Who do you think considers you their hero?"

He added:

All of you, whether you realize it or not, you have a voice. You have a voice. The question is, how are you going to use it?

Are you going to use it to elevate yourself? Are you going to use it to make money? Are you going to use it for yourself? Are you going to use it like Jesus said — You only find life when you give it away?

... Now, the world is dark... But Jesus is the light and he says the darkness will not overcome it. The way we overcome darkness is by speaking truth and shining the light. The question is: Will your life be that light?...

Will you use the power God has given you? And yes, God has given it to you to help those who cannot help themselves. Who are those without a voice today?

Friends, 60 million unborn people have lost their lives because of abortion. Who's going to speak for them?...

What about those not only at the beginning of life but at the end of the life right now...?

The Bottom Line:

McDowell urged the audience to use the power God has given them to help those who cannot help themselves, like the preborn babies targeted for abortion, individuals who are targeted for euthanasia, or people suffering from gender confusion and being told lies.

"Friends, you are made in the image of a God who loves you," he said. "You are not a mistake. You are not an accident. The question is, are you going to speak truth boldly and be a hero for somebody who cannot speak for themselves?... Who considers you a hero?"

Key Takeaways:

• A recent article presented the abortion pill as a pathway to escaping domestic violence.

• Abortion supporters claim that easy access to the abortion pill is vital for helping women escape abusive relationships.

• Allowing the abortion pill to be ordered online and shipped in the mail has allowed abusive men to coerce and force women into abortions.

The Details:

A recent article published by The Morning Call shared the story of Carrie Frail, a member of the United States Air Force (USAF) who found herself in an abusive relationship. As she prepared to leave her partner, she learned she was pregnant. Tragically, she felt her best option was to abort her baby.

"I firmly believe he would have killed me at some point," she said, "whether accidentally or intentionally." He threatened to hit her in the stomach until she had a miscarriage.

Ultimately, Frail said she took the abortion pill because she didn't think she'd be able to get away from her abuser otherwise. So while she was worried he would cause her to miscarry, she chose to have an abortion out of fear and a lack of support.

"I was too wrapped up mentally and emotionally in my life with him that ... I needed to be able to leave without giving him a phone number or letting him know where I was," she said. "I still believe that an abortion saved my life" (emphasis added).

Sadly, an innocent human being was intentionally killed due to the decision that resulted from this belief.

Zoom Out:

While abortion proponents argue that the abortion pill must remain available through the mail for women in abusive relationships who need "discreet" abortions, pro-lifers point out that countless women have been tricked and forced into taking the abortion pill after it became available to order online.

One of those women, Rosalie Markezich, is a plaintiff in a lawsuit alongside the state of Louisiana against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that aims to restore a previous safety rule mandating an in-person visit with a certified abortion pill prescriber.

Using Rosalie's email address, her baby's father went online, pretended to be her, and ordered abortion drugs from California doctor Remy Coeytaux. Coeytaux mailed the drugs to her home without any verification as to whether it was truly Rosalie ordering the drugs, how far along she was, how old she was, or any other testing.

After the abortion pill arrived, her then-boyfriend pressured her to take them.

"I kept telling him, 'I want [the baby]. I don't want to abort my baby.' At that moment, he said I would ruin his life if I had this baby, and I told him, 'What about mine?'" she explained. "Eventually, after all of the shouting, I told him that if I aborted my child, I would never be the same. I did not wish to or want to take the pills. He stopped the car very suddenly and snapped at me. I've been around abusive men before, so I know the signs and I know when I need to watch my back. I was terrified. I was crying."

She continued, "Eventually I said, 'Fine,' and came up with a plan to take the pills and immediately go throw them up. I felt coerced. He was watching me do it."

Sadly, Rosalie's baby did not survive, despite her plan.

Rosalie is far from alone.

Jeffery Smith, John Welden, Jin Mimae, Ronald Powell, Manishkumar Patel, Mason Herring, Darren Burke, Hassan-James Abbas, Emerson Evans, and others are just some of the men named in the press for slipping or forcing abortion drugs upon women.

The Bottom Line:

According to research, most pregnancy-associated homicides are "linked to the lethal combination of intimate partner violence and firearms. Preventing men's violence towards women, including gun violence, could save the lives of hundreds of women and their unborn children in the US every year."

The solution to domestic violence is not more violence. Induced abortion is the direct and intentional killing of preborn children. When a woman is being abused, she needs support and help escaping that abuse, and her baby should be allowed to escape the abuse with her.

Pressure to abort her baby, even internal pressure, is an extension of the abuse. Killing her baby perpetuates the violence and passes it on to her child.

Allowing the abortion pill to be available online and shipped through the mail has opened the door to abusive and coercive abortions, permitting violence against women and children.

Key Takeaways:

• Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the Diocese of Springfield and Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford in challenging the Illinois Human Rights Act.

• The plaintiffs say the law would require them to hire employees that do not espouse their religious beliefs or pro-life views.

• The case was dismissed by a judge in March, prompting the appeal to the 7th Circuit Court.

The Details:

The plaintiffs in the case are represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which filed an opening brief with U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in early June. They are challenging a state law that would require them to hire employees that do not share their religious beliefs on important issues like abortion.

The lawsuit was initially filed in March 2025, but dismissed by a court in March 2026, after U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer said there had been no effort to enforce the law against the plaintiffs, therefore the harm they fear "is for now, hypothetical."

Pallmeyer's ruling prompted ADF to file its appeal, arguing that the threat of enforcement “constitutes an injury-in-fact,” which therefore gives them standing to sue.

Zoom In:

The law at the center of the case is the Illinois Human Rights Act. As ADF previously explained in a news release:

The Illinois Human Rights Act dictates how religious employers must speak and act regarding employees’ voluntary reproductive decisions like abortion and contraception. The law penalizes churches and religious organizations if they discipline or refuse to hire employees based on voluntary reproductive decisions like abortion, even when the religious entity considers the act murder of innocent life.

Attorneys for the plaintiff contend the law violates “their rights to expressive association, free exercise of religion, religious autonomy, free speech, and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

ADF is fighting a similar battle in Michigan, where it filed suit on behalf of the Plaintiffs in Right to Life of Michigan v. Nessel. ADF noted in a press release earlier this year:

Michigan amended its employment law to re-define “sex” discrimination to include “the termination of a pregnancy.” It is now illegal for Right to Life of Michigan and Pregnancy Resource Center to recruit and hire only those employees who share these organizations’ pro-life views and who agree to refrain from engaging in conduct contrary to those views.

Going further, the law also requires these organizations to offer abortion coverage in their insurance plans in direct conflict with their very mission. As a result, the law threatens their ability to advocate for their pro-life views and to serve women and families in need consistent with their beliefs.

The Bottom Line:

“Illinois can’t force pro-life religious organizations to bend the knee to the state’s secular view of abortion,” said ADF Senior Counsel Caroline Lindsay. “The Constitution protects the right of religious ministries to choose messengers who will advance—rather than contradict—their pro-life mission and religious beliefs. We urge the court to uphold these ministries’ fundamental rights to determine their own membership and message so they may serve their communities consistent with their faith.”

In People v. Heartbeat International, et al., the California Attorney General is seeking nearly $20 million in penalties against Heartbeat International over its promotion of APR through its Abortion Pill Rescue Network (APRN). This case will decide if state attorneys general have the right to issue ruinous fines against a charity whose viewpoints those AGs disfavor. Heartbeat has asked the court to find that the First Amendment protects their speech and women’s rights to access information about all available options following a chemical abortion.

“California claims to fight for women's choices. But seeking the 'death penalty' in fines to silence the charity she calls when she changes her mind is not freedom — it's control,” said Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International. “No mom should be denied the chance to save her own baby's life. Heartbeat will always fight for a mother’s right to know and her right to choose life.”

California conceded that it has received no complaints from California women regarding APR. Instead, the trial will include testimony from mothers who sought help through Heartbeat's network and are today raising healthy children after choosing to reverse their abortion — firsthand accounts of the access to information this case puts at risk.

"This is the first case of its kind to reach trial, and the implications extend far beyond Heartbeat International,” said Danielle White, Esq., general counsel for Heartbeat International. “A ruling in California's favor would hand attorneys general across the country a roadmap to penalize any non-profit organization that provides women with information the state disagrees with." 

APR has been offered to women since 2012, using progesterone — an FDA-approved hormone safely prescribed during pregnancy since the 1950s — to counter the effects of mifepristone if administered within 72 hours. Statistics show more than 8,000 lives have been saved following the protocol.

Heartbeat International maintains that the state's case represents an unprecedented use of consumer protection law to restrict the free flow of medical information, with consequences that would reach well beyond California.

Heartbeat International remains committed to ensuring no mother faces that decision alone. Through its Abortion Pill Rescue Network, Heartbeat operates a 24/7 helpline connecting women with a nationwide network of medical professionals trained to provide APR treatment because no woman should be forced to complete an abortion she no longer wants.

For many years, it has been nearly impossible to separate family planning from abortion in foreign aid. Trump’s America First agenda prohibits that funding and redirects US foreign policy toward domestic security and national interests. For example, 2027 saw a significant decline in global health funding from $9.4 to $5.1 billion.

Representative Grace Meng (D-NY) was critical of this shift in priorities. Specifically, she highlighted the Trump Administration’s disruption of millions of dollars that flow to overseas abortion groups through family planning aid. Meng claimed the Trump Administration is “attacking women” because of its resistance to distribute $10 million worth of contraceptives that are currently in a Belgian warehouse. Rubio replied that the “government of the United States is not going to be involved in distributing contraceptives and all these other things around the world.”

The Trump administration’s agenda seeks to optimize health, especially for women, by improving healthcare infrastructure across the world and transitioning recipient countries to self-reliance. Rubio said that almost every foreign aid program “involves more women, girls and children than they do adult males because of the nature of the aid that we’re providing.”

In that same exchange, Meng argued that this is a significant shift from the past and that a new plan is needed....

Read the entire article at C-Fam.

There seems to be a sudden onslaught of people compelled to call women who have had abortions murderers. I am not sure what the motive is. No one knows better than these women that their children are dead and they are responsible. Even those who proclaim to be pro-abortion know it, although they may hide it behind erratic behaviors.

Whenever I see such condemnatory statements, I think of the thousands of people I have seen over the past 30 years of doing post-abortion ministry to women, men, and siblings — those who came to us filled with guilt, shame, and grief.

I also wonder how many people have not come forward for healing for fear of being judged. These statements are broad for sure, a blanket of judgment of every post-abortive woman.

Speak the truth in love

A recent post I saw proceeded to tell post-abortive women that we may not like to “admit it, or to see it,” but we are “all murderers.” Still another rejoiced at the death of an 18-year-old from a second trimester abortion because she was murdering her baby.

There seems to be a contingent out there determined to make us proclaim our sin — to make us suffer as if we were not suffering already.

I wonder what they hope to accomplish by that.

I understand the frustration, especially in seeing those who seemingly do not care that over a million unborn babies die in our country each year.

It is hard.

It is hard to hear someone brag about having had 20 abortions or treating abortion as if it were no big deal.

It is hard to hear those laughing or mocking the deaths of the unborn.

It is hard to keep loving, to be the face of Christ to those who would act this way, but that is exactly what Christ did for us.

This banter will never bring about good. One thing it is accomplishing is taking the hope of forgiveness and healing away for many who are living in despair, even leading them to more abortions because they, by these standards, are doomed to hell already.

It also leads to more questions:

• Are the people who coerce women murderers too?

• What about society who has endorsed and allowed abortion and sold it as a right for women, many who grew up with legalized abortion, with women believing the lies?

I wonder if they ever consider the despair they may cause someone that can easily lead to suicide in those who already hate themselves and feel the sin is unforgivable. Are they “murdering” someone spiritually by taking away hope in God's mercy?

The truth is, only God can completely end abortion and while we must always educate and speak the truth of abortion, it needs to be spoken in love — not in watering down what abortion is (like those who call it “pregnancy loss”) or giving false compassion or excusing it for any reason.

Abortion is always wrong, but at the same time we proclaim the truth, we must proclaim the mercy and love of God who came to call sinners to repentance.

Miracles of His mercy

Yes, we who participated in the death of our children can be called murderers, but I do not remember Jesus calling the woman at the well an adulterer, or the woman caught in the act of adultery a prostitute, or making any of the great sinners that He encountered shout out their sins.

Instead, where there was no love, He put love.

He called them to their dignity as children of God and transformed them by His love.

He gave them the gift of His mercy then told them to "sin no more.”

In turn, they then became miracles of His mercy, proclaiming what He had done for them.

Over the past two years, we at Entering Canaan, a post-abortion ministry, have begun a group called Penitents of Love. Its participants have all experienced the forgiveness, love, and mercy of God. As a result of this, they are filled with gratitude because they know well the magnitude of their sin and His forgiveness more than anyone, and they have committed themselves to prayer and penance.

Every Thursday they meet online to offer the rosary and other prayers for several intentions, including an end to the abortion and the conversion of all involved and for their own sin of abortion. Although they join in prayers on Thursdays, this is a daily offering.

Which is likely to do more to convert people, and to end abortion: shouting that they are murderers, or encouraging them to join other women who confessed their sin and now choose to live their lives in devotion to God?

God is patient with us. Yes, I am a murderer, but more importantly, He is God who died on the cross for the forgiveness of sin — even the sin of abortion.

Abortion, the ultimate failure of love, was conquered by the ultimate sacrifice of love on the cross.

In the end, coming to know that love and sacrifice is what will end abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2023, Arkansas legislators passed a law requiring a monument be built to honor the lives of the more than 230,000 babies killed by abortion in the state from 1973 to 2022.

• The law created a trust to raise funds for the construction of the monument.

• Construction will begin on the 'living wall' monument after funding is raised. It is expected to cost at least $229,000.

The Backstory:

According to NPR, Arkansas legislators passed a law in 2023 that required a pro-life monument to be built in honor of the preborn children who were killed in the state between 1973, when the Supreme Court forced legalized abortion on every state in its Roe v. Wade decision, and 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling. There were 236,243 preborn children killed by abortion in Arkansas over those 49 years. Immediately after the Dobbs decision was released, a law protecting most preborn children from abortion took effect in the state. The law, Act 310, created a trust fund to raise the money to fund the monument.

Submissions were open for individuals to submit designs, and a design from artist Lakey Goff was chosen. After some controversy involving costs, submissions were reopened and a "living wall" design featuring flora and fauna by Sen. Kim Hammer and Rep. Mary Bentley nearly identical to Goff's, but at a third of the cost, was approved.

The Details:

Hammer and Bentley hope to have the monument completed in 18 months, dependent on fundraising. The estimated cost is $229,000, and private individuals have donated $28,790 thus far, however, some requested refunds when the state did not go with Goff's design.

"This has to be paid for completely before construction can start," explained Capitol Arts and Grounds Commission Chair Stephen Bright.

The monument will be built in a grassy area behind the Capitol. Commissioner Michael Harry said that since there may be crowds, such as those at the annual March for Life, that wish to visit the monument, it should be placed in an easily accessible area. The grassy area was once the site of a prison that housed both Union and Confederate soldiers.

“I think this new location can accommodate that, whereas the other two locations could not have,” Harry said. “It would have been a logistical nightmare.”

Key Takeaways:

• Millie Dwyer was delivered by emergency c-section after doctors discovered she had a condition called hydrops fetalis, which was caused by Turner's syndrome.

• Millie was given just a 2% chance of survival due to her diagnoses.

• She beat the odds and survived; after 115 days in the NICU, she is now home with her family.

The Details:

In January, Millie Dwyer was delivered by c-section after doctors discovered she had hydrops fetalis, a condition that causes abnormal fluid buildup in a baby's body. Doctors say the condition was triggered by Turner's syndrome, a condition that affects only females and results when one of the X chromosomes is missing or partially missing.

According to KITV, Millie was given just a 2% chance of survival due to her diagnoses.

“Something I never thought would happen to us,” said Dylan Dwyer, Millie’s dad. “You never think you’re gonna have the sick kid, but it just gets thrown at you, and you just gotta figure it out day by day and here we are, five months later.”

Zoom In:

Millie's mom, Tayla Schager, said that when Millie was in the womb, she had a cystic hygroma behind her neck, which then migrated to her stomach. That caused Millie's bowels to perforate in utero, swelling her stomach to 40 centimeters around. After birth, doctors worked to treat the condition.

“They drained 100 milliliters out of her stomach at first. They could have gone more than that, but that could have sent her body into shock ultimately,” Schager explained.

Millie's heart nearly stopped when she was two weeks old, but she pulled through that as well.

After 115 days in the NICU, Millie is now home with her family. Millie still faces health challenges, but her family is supporting her.

“She’s playing with her toys. She gets so excited. You smile at her, she smiles back, she coos just like a normal baby,” Schager said. “We’re very lucky to have her. She’s really a miracle baby.”

The Bottom Line:

Millie's story is an important lesson showing that dire diagnoses are not always a death sentence. The medical community would do well to seek more ways to heal preborn children instead of advocating for their deaths by abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• 1,000 Americans were polled by YouGov on behalf of Americans United for Life (AUL).

• Nearly 70% of Americans said patient "safety" should be prioritized over ease of access to the drugs (safety regarding the drugs' intended victims was not included in the poll).

• A similar number said there should be stronger safeguards on the abortion pill.

The Details:

The Washington Times reported on the poll, which found that most Americans think safety regarding the abortion pill mifepristone is more important than easy access. "Since the Dobbs decision, abortion advocates have tried to convince women that access matters more than our own safety," Sarah Zagorski, AUL senior director of PR and communications, said. "More than two-thirds of Americans have rejected that deception."

86% of respondents said health care providers should properly educate patients and obtain informed consent before prescribing the abortion pill.

Furthermore, 68% of respondents said safety should be a priority over ease of access, and nearly the same amount — 67% — said there should be stronger safeguards. Despite this, a plurality did say they wanted mifepristone to remain available.

“When the Biden administration removed in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone, they removed any guarantee that women receive informed consent,” John Mize, CEO of Americans United for Life, said. “Americans predominantly agree that safety and informed consent should be the highest priority, and now we have the polling to show that the abortion pill is no exception. Increased safeguards are popular considering the risks at hand and align with the best interest of women nationwide.”

Why It Matters:

Safeguards surrounding the abortion pill have been steadily weakened since first being approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000. At that time, mifepristone could only be taken up to seven weeks, required an in-person doctor's visit, and any adverse events also had to be reported.

Eventually, it was approved through 10 weeks gestation, the requirement to see a doctor in-person was removed, and non-fatal adverse events were no longer required to be reported.

The FDA temporarily enabled abortion pill distribution by mail and expanded the REMS to limited mail-order pharmacy distribution in 2021, and then further weakened the REMS by eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement and allowing the abortion pill to be permanently shipped by mail. (You can read the full timeline of the abortion pill in the U.S. here.)

Despite the lack of reporting of non-fatal adverse events, the abortion industry has been advertising mifepristone as safe, even calling it safer than Tylenol or Viagra. As Live Action News' previously explained:

A valid comparison of hospital visit frequency must account for the frequency with which both drugs are taken. Fortunately, this data is available. This 2016 study sought to analyze trends in acetaminophen-related adverse events, and tracked the rate of annual ER visits relative to annual sales of the drug. It found that, for the year 2012 (the most recent year covered by the study), there were 282.1 acetaminophen-related ER visits for every 1 (one) million units sold. Assuming typical dosage to be equivalent to two tablets, this means that .056% of doses sold resulted in a hospital visit (282.1/500,000 = .00056).

But even this number is inflated compared to mifepristone’s hospital visit rate, because it includes children and people who intentionally overdosed, populations which are irrelevant to mifepristone’s calculations. 

And what is mifepristone’s hospital visit rate?

A recent study conducted by the abortion industry itself found an ER and urgent care visit rate of 6%. That’s 107 times greater than the rate for acetaminophen/Tylenol, which again, is actually a low number if we were to compare equivalent populations.

A recent analysis of a large insurance database found that adverse events occurred at a rate 22 times higher than that reported on the FDA label. Another study found chemical abortions to be four times more dangerous than first-trimester surgical abortion. Additionally, another study from Ireland found 12% of women had to go to the emergency room for bleeding or infection, with an additional 16% suffering incomplete abortions.

Still another study found that women were not prepared for how painful the chemical abortion process would be.

The Bottom Line:

Americans should be skeptical of any claims that the abortion pill is as "safe" as the abortion industry and media allies portray it to be.

Key Takeaways:

• Jackson County Circuit Judge Jerri Zhang overturned numerous Missouri laws protecting preborn children.

• Overturned laws include restrictions on the abortion pill, requirements for abortion facilities and abortionists, and a waiting period along with informed-consent information.

• Planned Parenthood facilities in the state have announced plans to begin abortion pill distribution this week.

The Details:

According to The Hill, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging 30 of the state's laws restricting abortion and protecting preborn children following the state's passage of Amendment 3 in 2024, which affirmed abortion as a constitutional "right."

On Thursday, Jackson County Circuit Judge Jerri Zhang sided with the abortion giant in halting those statutes.

As a result of Zhang's ruling, chemical abortions via the abortion pill will be available in the state for the first time since 2018. Additional laws Zhang declared unconstitutional include:

• A requirement that abortion facilities meet special licensing requirements

• A 72-hour waiting period for abortion-minded women

• Hospital admitting privileges for abortionists

• A requirement that abortionists have a state-approved complication plan

• A requirement that a physician is present when a woman takes the abortion pill

• A requirement that women receive an educational pamphlet with informed-consent information, including information that says, “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”

• A requirement that the preborn child's remains be sent to a pathologist after a surgical abortion

The only laws Zhang upheld are:

• a requirement that a woman meet in-person with a physician prior to receiving the abortion pill.

• a requirement that only doctors may commit abortions.

Her ruling did acknowledge that she expects the abortion fight to continue to the state's Supreme Court.

“The court has given this matter much thought and has tried to decide this matter as expeditiously as possible so the parties may continue their litigation journey to the Missouri Supreme Court,” she wrote.

Representatives for Planned Parenthood said the organization will begin offering the abortion pill at facilities in Kansas City and St. Louis on Monday and in Columbia on Wednesday.

What We're Hearing

Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, celebrated that abortion will now be more widely available.

“This decision brings compassion and common sense back to Missouri health care,” she said in a statement. “For too long, politicians forced patients to leave the state for an evidence-based and trusted form of abortion care. Now, that care is coming home and with it, we move closer to fulfilling the promise of reproductive freedom Missourians demanded.”

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway lamented the ruling in a social media post on Thursday:

My heart is broken by today’s ruling. This is exactly the Pandora’s box we warned of, and the women of Missouri will pay the price.

This radical decision gives abortion providers a free pass to police themselves.

Women are no longer entitled to the same level of care in an abortion clinic that they would receive in other healthcare settings: providers are no longer required to maintain complication plans or insurance, and the state cannot even conduct basic health and safety inspections to ensure patient safety.

The Bottom Line:

Hanaway said her office will "expeditiously appeal this dangerous decision to the Missouri Supreme Court."

"I will never stop fighting for the safety of women and children," she said.

Key Takeaways:

• Abortion is legal in Australia, with individual states able to enact their own regulations and restrictions.

• In the state of South Australia, abortion is currently legal through 23 weeks of pregnancy, and can be committed after that point if there is a risk to the physical or mental health of the mother.

• A new bill would have removed the "mental health" exemption, which is often considered a significant and subjective "loophole" in abortion laws.

• The bill failed to pass the lower house in a 36-9 vote.

The Backstory:

Family First MP Sarah Game introduced the bill for the third time, and it previously passed the upper house of the South Australia Legislative Council, immediately sending it to the lower house for review. Abortion is legal through 23 weeks of pregnancy in the state, and can be committed after that point if there is a risk to the physical or mental health of the mother, or the baby is diagnosed with fetal abnormalities.

Game's bill would have removed the "mental health" exception, a catch-all term often used by abortion advocates to create a loophole which allows abortion for virtually any reason.

The bill also initially would not have allowed abortion due to fetal abnormality, but an amendment added in from Labour Party MP Tung Ngo removed this. Ngo said that while he doesn't support late-term abortion, he was "against forcing families into suffering when the medical reality is clear and the outcome is heartbreak."

Under the legislation, two doctors would have had to attest to the abnormalities and testify that these abnormalities would be "incompatible with life."

The Details:

After less than two hours of debate, Game's bill failed in a 36-9 vote. One Nation MP Chantelle Thomas complained that the debate was rushed, and didn't give MPs enough time to consult with their constituents.

"This is a matter on which members should rightly be afforded a conscience vote and as much time as possible to consider it," she said. "It is disappointing that the members, some new and some old, will now not be able to consult properly with the constituents before speaking for them — especially on such an issue that weighs heavily on many South Australians."

Health Minister Blair Boyer said the existing laws already had stringent enough safeguards, while also arguing that abortion is health care. “It was very hard fought and won by people who bravely stood in this place and voted for it and who stood on the shoulders of people who bravely called for it from outside this parliament for many, many years before I’ve had the good fortune to sit here,” Boyer said.

Yet induced abortion — the intentional, targeted killing of a preborn child — is not medically necessary. A preborn child at 24 weeks and beyond could be delivered and treated with human dignity, and it is not necessary for an abortionist to intentionally kill the child in order to treat an illness or complication. Babies born as young as 21 weeks have survived with medical care.

The Bottom Line:

If a woman faces life-threatening complications during pregnancy, the baby can be delivered without being intentionally killed.

Even if the preborn child does not survive the premature delivery, it is not an induced abortion if the intent is not specifically to kill the baby, but to save the mother.

At least one justice, however, thinks the Court's refusal to help is a mistake.

Key Takeaways:

• While dozens of other student clubs at Noblesville High School in Indiana were permitted to post flyers freely, administrators rejected the pro-life club’s flyers over the phrase, “Defund Planned Parenthood” printed on them.

• The case hinged on a 1988 Supreme Court decision that gave schools broad authority to restrict speech they could reasonably be seen as endorsing — a standard Justice Samuel Alito argues has never been consistently applied and is now overdue for correction.

• Students for Life of America responded to the ruling, writing: “Schools love to talk about diversity and inclusion. Until a student wants to advocate for preborn children.”

The Backstory:

During her freshman year in 2021, a Noblesville High School student, known in court papers as E.D., started a local chapter of Students for Life of America, and  attempted to hang flyers around campus advertising the club’s first meeting. The flyers, drawn from a national organization template, featured students holding signs reading “Defund Planned Parenthood” and “I Am the Pro-Life Generation.”

Administrators told her the flyers did not comply with the school’s requirement that wall postings remain politically neutral, and asked her to strip them down to basic meeting information. When her mother came to school to advocate for the flyers, the principal took that as outside interference and suspended the club. It was later reinstated, but by then, the family had decided to take the matter to court, contending the school had singled out their daughter’s club because of its pro-life message.

The Details:

The Supreme Court declined on June 15 to take up the case of the student, leaving intact lower court rulings that sided with the school. Both the federal district court and the Seventh Circuit found that the school’s content policy had been applied evenhandedly, and that no constitutional violation had taken place.

Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissent, arguing that the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to clean up decades of conflicting precedent on student speech rights.

The selective nature of the school’s enforcement did not go unnoticed. 

Students for Life of America responded to the ruling on X, writing: “Schools love to talk about diversity and inclusion. Until a student wants to advocate for preborn children. Justice Alito says SCOTUS should have heard the case. We completely agree.”

The Big Picture:

The case was never about just one student’s flyers.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the student alongside an Indianapolis law firm, argued that the legal standard governing student speech has become so “inconsistently” applied across the country that a student’s free speech rights now depend largely on geography.

At the center of the dispute is the Supreme Court’s 1988 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision. In that case, the court ruled that schools may restrict speech in channels that could “reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school,” requiring only that the censorship be “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns” — a far lower bar than the standard set by the court’s earlier 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines decision, which held that schools could not restrict student expression unless it would “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.”

Justice Alito’s dissent argued that the gap between those two standards has created real confusion in the lower courts. “Since Hazelwood was decided, lower courts have struggled to ascertain its precise limits,” he wrote, “and in my view, clarification by this Court is in order.”

He went further, noting that the question at the heart of Hazelwood is closely tied to a broader distinction the Court has addressed repeatedly in the decades since: the line between government speech and private expression. 

“Courts must be very careful when a government claims that speech by one or more private speakers is actually government speech,” Alito wrote, “because it can be difficult to tell whether the government is using the doctrine as a subterfuge for favoring certain private speakers over others based on viewpoint.”

He concluded: “I would grant the petition to clarify the relationship between Hazelwood and our subsequent government-speech decisions. In an appropriate case, we should do so.”

The Bottom Line:

For now, the court’s refusal to act leaves in place a legal landscape where a pro-life student’s First Amendment rights depend less on the Constitution than on the circuit court that happens to cover her school.

Key Takeaways:

• Rylee Rumsey and Kayla Strickland became pregnant at the same time, and joked for months they would have their babies on the same day.

• Their due dates were only one week apart.

• On June 7, Rumsey went into labor, and Strickland followed a few hours later.

• Both babies were born on the same day, in the same hospital, with the same doctor and medical team, and even weighed the exact same amount.

The Details:

Sisters Rylee Rumsey and Kayla Strickland were both shocked and thrilled when they got pregnant at the same time. "When I called her, I was freaking out a little bit, like, hey, I'm pregnant, don't tell anyone," Rumsey recalled of telling her sister the good news. But Strickland, it turned out, was pregnant also.

The two sisters were able to bond throughout their pregnancies because they were at roughly the same gestation the entire time. “It’s like 4 a.m. and I need someone to talk to, I can just call or text her, take a picture, ‘Hey, does this look normal?’” Strickland said.

Their due dates were initially about a week apart, and they both thought it they would never have their babies on the same day.

“She’s gonna give birth first. I can help her through the first couple days, weeks postpartum,” Strickland said.

Instead, they went into labor just a few hours apart.

Zoom In:

The sisters' mother, Stephanie, was shocked when the news came.

“Being with one of them where they’re pregnant at dinner and the other one calling me, saying, ‘Mom, I’m on my way to the hospital.’ The other one, an hour and a half later: ‘Mom, I’m in labor.’ Would have never ever, ever imagined that,” she said, even though that was exactly what ended up happening. “A lot of praying and a lot of back and forth, back and forth."

“I think it worked out perfectly because she had to be at the hospital one time, one place," Strickland said of her mother.

Both sisters went to Mercy Gilbert Medical Center on the same day in labor.

Both delivered baby boys, each weighing 8 pounds, 6 ounces, with the same doctor and medical team.

“Never did we think we would be, let alone pregnant at the same time, but then give birth on the same day within the same couple hours,” Strickland said.

The story made the sisters instant celebrities on the labor and delivery floor.

The Bottom Line:

The heartwarming story shows an incredible coincidence that has led to a family memory that will be cherished for generations.

Key Takeaways:

• Angel Jones and her boyfriend met a man with whom they connected with on Snapchat; the man then attempted to rob them. Jones was 26 weeks pregnant at the time.

• With the gun to his head, Jones's boyfriend attempted to fight off the robber. When the robber shot at him, the bullet missed and struck Jones.

• The bullet shattered Jones' arm and lodged in her chest. It hit her spinal cord, and she is currently paralyzed from the waist down. She also went into labor.

• Doctors are working to stop labor and have given Jones medications to help her son's lungs and brain, as they expect him to be born prematurely.

The Details:

As reported by The Mirror, 18-year-old Angel Jones was 26 weeks pregnant when she and her 19-year-old boyfriend went to Toledo to meet a man with whom they had connected on Snapchat. That man attempted to rob them at gunpoint.

With the gun to his head, the boyfriend attempted to fight off the man and push the weapon away. The gun went off, and a bullet struck Jones, shattering her arm and striking her spinal cord, leaving her paralyzed from the waist down. Doctors are not sure if Jones will walk again. The shooting also sent her into premature labor.

According to a GoFundMe set up for the couple and their baby:

During the robbery, the gunman pulled the trigger while holding the weapon directly to his head. In a desperate act to protect his pregnant girlfriend, he fought back and tried to wrestle the gun away from the attacker. The gunman fired to kill him, but missed, and the bullet shattered Angel’s arm and tore into her chest instead.

Zoom In:

Jones' mother, Brandy Jones, said, "The bullet shattered Angel’s arm, traveled directly into her chest, and lodged there before surgeons could remove it. The blast injury from the gunfire caused a devastating fracture to her 12th vertebra, leaving her spinal cord severely traumatized."

She said her daughter has shown "incredible bravery."

Jones is awake and talking, and doctors are working to slow down contractions and prevent early labor. They have given her "aggressive medications to rapidly develop her baby boy's brain and lungs."

“He currently weighs just 1 pound, 9 ounces. Every single day he stays inside her is a miracle," said Jones' mother.

The Bottom Line:

Babies born as young as 21 weeks have survived with proper medical care — and with doctors fighting for his life, Angel's baby has a good chance of survival. A 2016 analysis shows that infants born at 26 weeks have a survival rate of 89%; a study from that same year showed an 86% chance of survival.

Yet abortion is allowed even beyond these ages in at least <a href="/news/third-trimester-abortion-in-america">nine states and D.C</a>. In some states with pro-life laws, there are exceptions that allow abortion on babies because of a prenatal diagnosis.

Key Takeaways:

• Thousands of people participated in the 2026 annual March for Life in Rome, Italy.

• Organizers wanted to show the beauty and joy in choosing life.

• Abortion is currently legal in Italy through 12 weeks gestation.

The Details:

The March began at the Piazza della Repubblica and included thousands of participants from all across Italy.

Maria Rachele Ruiu, a prominent Italian pro-life advocate who participated in the March, told EWTN News that the marchers aimed to demonstrate not just the right to life, but also the beauty and joy of the pro-life cause.

“We want to show that choosing and protecting life is not only right, important, and necessary but also beautiful,” Ruiu said.

 Ruiu pointed out how the Italian press often mischaracterizes those who stand for the right to life for the preborn and the vulnerable; the March is an opportunity for the pro-lifers to share their joy.

“We want to parade through Rome to show our true face: happy people,” Ruiu said. 

Zoom In:

Massimo Gandolfini, who served as spokesperson for the march, referenced in his speech Italy’s current abortion law and a potential expansion of legal assisted suicide.

“We see that this right [to life] today is deeply wounded and heavily attacked with abortion law, and with this rumored law on assisted suicide, to which we are totally opposed,” Gandolfini said. 

Italy legalized abortion in 1978, and under current law, women are allowed to abort their babies up to 12 weeks for any reason; women are able to obtain abortions in the second trimester and beyond if medical professionals label their situation as urgent. The abortion pill is legal through nine weeks of pregnancy in Italy.

Italian law permits assisted suicide for patients determined to be suffering irreversible pathology with intolerable physical and psychological pain, in accordance with a 2019 Italian Constitutional Court ruling. Pro-life advocates are concerned by rumors of the law’s expansion.

“We want to demonstrate to keep attention high on a fundamental issue, which is the right to life. The right to life is the right that underpins every other right of a civil society and a democratic society,” Gandolfini said.

The Bottom Line:

Famed singer Andrea Bocelli sent a message to marchers, which was played at the rally. Bocelli’s mother was pressured by doctors to abort her son, but she chose life.

"Life, when welcomed and not feared, multiplies, and the civilizations that have prospered are those that have invested in new generations,” Bocelli said.

Key Takeaways:

• Makala Pendley had been living in Indianapolis with her boyfriend, who was also the father of her children, and she was reported missing in February.

• The family moved to Mexico earlier in the year.

• Pendley's body was found early in June, and her children were found safe.

The Backstory:

Makala Pendley and her seven children were living in Indianapolis with her boyfriend, Joseph Jude Butler Jr., who is also the father of her children. The two had been together off and on since she was 16, and according to family, it had been a “toxic relationship." Pendley and her children had been reported missing by the Metropolitan Police in February.

Her sister, Maurica Lambert, said Pendley, her boyfriend, and their children fled to Mexico at the beginning of the year. Court papers, obtained by Noticieros Televisa, revealed Pendley was assaulted by Butler at a Mérida, Yucatan home in August 2025. Two days later, the children were taken into custody by Mexican authorities, but were later returned to Pendley. 

The Details:

On June 8, the gruesome discovery of Pendley’s body was reported. She had been left on a dirt road, beaten and naked.

“Based on the time of death, she had been at the location where she was found for between 8 and 12 hours,” Chiapas state prosecutor Jorge Luis Llaven Abarca said in a press conference. “The deceased woman’s death was caused by traumatic brain injury secondary to blunt force trauma.”

Pendley was six months pregnant at the time. The prosecutor confirmed that the primary suspect is Pendley’s boyfriend.

In a GoFundMe set up by Pendley's sister, Jennifer Lambert, she said her sibling was found “stabbed, raped, sodomized, naked, with her head bashed in."

Butler was also no stranger to criminality. His arrest records show previous crimes of robbery, fraud, assault, and rape.

Pendley’s children are “safe and in good health.” Authorities are working with the United States Embassy to reunite them with their family.

Jamie Dowdy told WTHR 13 News, “Her laughter, everything about Makala, she was just… whenever you seen her, no matter what she was going through, her eyes lit up. The biggest thing right now in this moment is getting our children back over here where they belong with their family who loves them and is going to raise them.” 

The Bottom Line:

During a Facebook Live briefing, Abarca also made it clear that, if Butler is found guilty, he will advocate for the maximum sentence of 100 years for the charge of femicide.

Femicide is an extremely troubling issue in Mexico, and is defined as the killing of a person based on gender. Evidence of the practice includes sexual violence, body left in public, and prior threats by perpetrator, all of which apply to this harrowing case.

Key Takeaways:

• Aisha Malik went into premature labor at 23 weeks pregnant.

• Her son Zayd weighed just over one pound, and was small enough to fit in the palm of her hand.

• After over 100 days in the NICU, Zayd has finally been able to go home.

The Details:

When Aisha Malik, from Newton Mearns, delivered her son Zayd at only 23 weeks in January, he was small enough to fit in her palm. Weighing a mere 1.2 pounds, he then endured a 123-day battle for survival.

"There was a lot of uncertainty and a lot of fear and anxiety... but he got over every hurdle that came his way," Malik said, adding, “He was one of the smallest babies the doctors had seen, and there wasn't a lot of confidence that we would get here. It's just amazing that he's made it and he's thriving."

Over the course of around four months in the NICU at Queen Elizabeth, Zayd encountered a series of grave medical challenges, such as sepsis, acute kidney failure, 13 blood transfusions, and three major operations. The infant was also diagnosed with chronic lung disease during his hospitalization. In total, Zayd spent 84 days in intensive care, along with 32 days in high-dependency care and eight days in special care, as medical teams offered continuous, around-the-clock treatment.

Following months of medical procedures and intensive care, Zayd — whose name means “growth and progress” — was finally discharged on Tuesday, June 2, arriving home precisely one week after his original due date.

Zoom In:

Malik said her son overcame extraordinary odds, defying expectations and the predictions they were given.

“He was the size of my hand, so we were looking at the journey ahead thinking, 'How are we going to get through this?' We still had 17 weeks until his due date,” she said.

Zayd, who was reunited with his siblings, Saif, 6, and Omar, 8, still needs oxygen, but given everything he has already experienced, his family remains hopeful for the future.

“He was one of the smallest [the doctors] had seen, and there wasn't a lot of confidence that we would get here, but it's just amazing that he's made it and he's thriving," Malik said.

Although Zayd presently requires oxygen around the clock, Malik remains optimistic. The mom also voiced her gratitude to staff at the Queen Elizabeth's neonatal ward, saying, “The care was just amazing, they were just really, really great, and I couldn't have asked for a better outcome.” 

She especially thanked nurse Tracey Clinton, Dr Louise Leven and surgeon Gregory Walker, who she said “saved our son's life multiple times." She continued,

Zayd has defied all the odds stacked against him. From the minute I went into labor there was a lot of uncertainty, fear and worry, but it's so nice now to be through all of that and see that it all worked out, and that he's doing so good now.

Case studies like Zayd’s highlight how progress in neonatal medicine has dramatically boosted survival rates for premature babies in recent years. As per some studies, infants born at extremely low birth weights now have considerably higher chances of survival than in previous generations, owing to advances in respiratory support, nutrition, and infection control.

Approximately 19% of babies born alive at 23 weeks survive, based on figures from the NHS.

The Bottom Line:

For pro-lifers, such stories are a strong reminder how a tiny baby weighing just over a pound still displays the same intrinsic dignity as any other human being.

In view of overwhelming odds, Zayd’s miraculous survival is not only a medical success, but also a potent reinforcement of the resilience of life itself. 

Key Takeaways:

• In 2022, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade.

• Gallup polling found at the time that a slight majority of Americans supported legal abortion.

• Today, 49% of respondents would make abortion illegal in all or most circumstances, while 48% would have it legal in all or most circumstances.

The Details:

In 2022, after Roe, Gallup reported 53% of Americans wanted abortion to be legal "in all or most circumstances" (the circumstances of which remain undefined), the majority view for the first time ever. Four years later, the divide between those who support legal abortion and those who oppose it has narrowed, with pro-life sentiments taking a slight lead.

In the latest Gallup poll, 49% of respondents said they want abortion illegal in all or most circumstances, compared to 48% who want it legal:

According to Gallup’s May 1-17 Values and Beliefs poll, 48% of Americans would prefer abortion be legal in all (33%) or most (15%) circumstances, while 49% prefer it to be illegal (17%) or legal in only a few circumstances (32%).

This split is similar to the close division of views on legality generally seen since 2022, but it contrasts with the quarter century before, when majorities of Americans consistently favored having abortion be legal in only a few circumstances or not at all....

A slight majority of U.S. adults continue to identify as pro-choice, and a plurality consider abortion morally acceptable. The country has shifted from leaning toward more restrictive abortion laws to being split between restrictive and expansive laws.

Zoom In:

As Dr. Michael New pointed out at National Review, these slight gains occurred despite a strong cultural support for abortion in the media:

During the past few years, supporters of legal abortion and their allies in the mainstream media have worked overtime to argue that Dobbs caused a surge in public support for legal abortion. It is true that some polls did show modest gains in “pro-choice” sentiment after the Dobbs leak.

However, it should be noted that not one pro-life incumbent has lost a statewide election since Dobbs. This includes governors who signed strong pro-life laws. More important, this poll adds to a body of survey data that pro-life sentiment has rebounded in the past four years.

Polling from last year likewise indicates a surge in pro-life views, with several polls showing the highest number of pro-life responses since Dobbs. Still more polling found the number of young adults who call themselves pro-life is growing.

Notably, when polling asks specific questions regarding circumstances or gestational age, results show even greater pro-life results. In January 2026, the Marist/Knights of Columbus poll found that "most respondents — despite the majority also identifying as 'pro-choice"'instead of 'pro-life' — support restricting abortion to the first trimester and/or to cases of life of the mother, rape, or incest," as reported by Live Action News at the time. "57% of respondents support limiting elective abortions to no later than the first trimester."

The Bottom Line:

It is encouraging for the pro-life movement to see gains in abortion-related polling, no matter how small.

As the Associated Press and most major news outlets frame it, if one Christian participates in a widely accepted but immoral and unethical societal practice, then it is must be that Christian who is right, and all of the other Christians must be wrong, judgmental, and controlling.

Let's examine this situation for what it really is.

Key Takeaways:

• Dr. John Gordon is an IVF doctor who says he had a crisis of conscience about his profession due to his Christian faith.

• He pivoted to a form of IVF he feels is more 'ethical,' but many things about the nature and function of IVF call into question its ethicality.

• Gordon's fertility clinic still offers traditional IVF methods, and still participates in overtly unethical IVF practices.

The Details:

Dr. John Gordon built a successful career and financial stability from the practice of IVF. Then he had a "crisis of conscience" regarding the creation of human lives in a lab, and the subsequent deaths of the majority of them. But to him, that didn't mean he had to stop practicing IVF; according to PBS, he simply had to "pivot" in order to make room for a more 'ethical' version.

And as is usually the case, the mainstream media entered the scene, attempting to assuage the consciences of other Christians about IVF by promoting Gordon and his ideas, holding him up as an example of sorts in how they, too, should think. The Associated Press and PBS News, therefore, both imply that every Christian can, and should, ignore the commodification of human beings and the massive destruction of life in IVF — if not morally, then politically.

The insinuation is that because Gordon is a "man of faith" who supports IVF, then IVF must be morally acceptable. This is a common manipulative tactic — and a form of the "appeal to authority" fallacy — used against people of faith in order to lead them into supporting something that has traditionally been viewed as unethical or immoral.

'Crisis of conscience'

Tiffany Stanley wrote for the Associated Press:

As co-director of a fertility clinic in suburban Washington, D.C., Gordon grew troubled over helping create surplus embryos, which would often languish in storage or be discarded. With the expansion of genetic testing, couples could choose the sex of their baby. They could screen out painful or fatal diseases, but also milder impairments like hearing loss.

"'It's too morally problematic,' Gordon thought. 'I don't know where you draw the line.'"

This statement highlights that Gordon was "troubled" over the "surplus embryos" just as most Christians are. But, according to the article, that didn't mean he couldn't continue to support and participate in IVF — he just had to find the line in the sand where he felt comfortable with a moral wrong — removing the objective wrong of IVF and making it relative, meaning each person can find their own level of immorality (or not) in relation to IVF.

That's the apparent goal of the AP article — to convince Christian readers that there are ethical and moral ways to commodify human beings.

In 2018, Gordon's wife, Allison, urged him to change how he practiced IVF, so he bought a practice in Tennessee, molding it to reflect what he saw as an ethical way to carry out IVF. He would only create a couple of embryos each time, he wouldn't genetically test or discard embryos, and he wouldn't donate embryos to science.

"Living with" the moral implications?

"I need to practice in a way that I can live with the decisions I'm making," he said (emphasis added).

Though this seems an effort to reduce the damage of IVF, if one was actually taking a right and moral action, would one truly have to view it as "liv[ing] with the decisions" one is making?

There's a serious issue here: There is no way to spin IVF to make it ethical.

Reducing the damage does not make it acceptable. It just makes it possible for Gordon to live with a diminished amount of guilt. Despite his best efforts, his business, Rejoice Fertility, still:

• treats human beings as commodities.

• creates human beings in a lab and grades them for 'quality assurance and quality control'.

• allows embryos to be indefinitely frozen.

• allows the destruction of embryos deemed 'non-viable'.

In addition, IVF...

• more often than not, uses pornography and masturbation as means to collect sperm (which can involve sexualizing individuals other than one's wife).

• deliberately separates the procreative act from the marital act, relying on a third party (other than God) to directly bring about conception.

Zoom In:

Rejoice Fertility practices "Natural Cycle IVF," which it says involves "retrieving the single egg produced in an unmedicated cycle" and "mini-stim IVF," which uses "a combination of clomid pills and low dose injections with the aim of retrieving 3-8 eggs."

Yet, it says that "95% of our IVF cycles are either Natural Cycle IVF ... or Mini-stim IVF," leaving five percent (5%) of the cycles unaccounted for and potentially involving the creation of more embryos.

The facility also has an embryo adoption side to it. Gordon is the doctor behind the birth of baby Thaddeus Pierce, who had been frozen for more than three decades.

While the fertility clinic does not offer preimplantation genetic testing — a common practice that leads to the destruction of embryos with conditions like cystic fibrosis or Down syndrome — it does offer "rigorous" quality assurance and quality control of the embryos that it creates. It says this is "to ensure the very best care for every embryo."

According to the website, "Since many of our patients wish to limit the number of fertilized eggs to 6-8 (as opposed to the 20-30 in most clinics), every egg matters even more than usual. ... We are a 'no discard' program so every viable embryo is either transferred in the same cycle in which it was fertilized or it is frozen for use in a future cycle." And yet, Rejoice also offers Stimulated Cycle IVF — which it states has a goal of harvesting 8-15 eggs.

It seems odd that Rejoice uses dehumanizing language, such as "fertilized eggs," when they are not "eggs" anymore at all — they are new human beings, or zygotes, with their own unique DNA.

Though Rejoice insists that none of the humans that are considered high quality or "viable" are thrown away, they may be frozen, and those deemed 'non-viable' may indeed be discarded.

So while the clinic may not be testing for Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis, Rejoice Fertility is still grading embryos and deeming some to be 'non-viable.' As the website states (emphasis added), "No viable embryos are destroyed."

But those embryos could still successfully reach birth. Research published by the National Institutes of Health explained (emphasis added):

It must be clearly recognised that a discarded embryo has a zero chance of producing a pregnancy, while a poor-quality embryo, deemed non-viable by a novel test, may still have a chance of producing a healthy baby. After all, the nature of any test includes false positive and false negative outcomes, and no test is 100% accurate.

As for "viable" embryos who are not implanted or destroyed, Rejoice Fertility appears willing to freeze them indefinitely:

Patients who have frozen embryos remaining that they do not wish to use after their family is complete, can choose to keep them in storage at Rejoice until they have made the sometimes-difficult decision of what to do with them.

Patients can choose to donate their leftover embryos to another couple for a chance at life, or they can choose to ship the embryos out of our lab to a different storage facility or clinic of their choice.

• How can a family be "complete" when one or more of its children is frozen in a storage facility based on the desires of the adults in the family?

• How can embryos once so deeply desired by their parents become 'surplus' products kept in storage facilities?

• How can a company that claims to value human embryos discuss the 'quality control' and 'shipping' of humans like products, and fail to recognize that it is treating them as commodities?

Another ethical red flag for Christians considering IVF is that pornography and masturbation are widely used to collect sperm.

Even with married, Christian couples who are creating just one embryo using their own gametes, the man is typically given pornography and instructed to use images of someone other than his wife to masturbate.

This, ethicist Stephanie Gray Connors explained, is akin to having an affair (after all, Christ had some things to say about lusting after others and adultery). This should be deeply concerning for Christians.

Commentary:

Stephanie Gray Connors is clear that there is no ethical way to do IVF — even if only one embryo is created. She told Jonathon Van Maren on The Bridgehead podcast:

"There's still the risk of human error because even if you're creating one embryo, that embryo is out of the woman's body. It's in a lab. And is that embryo gonna be inserted in the right mother's body? Is the sperm sample the right sperm sample, or is it someone else's?

There still is a risk that someone could be created and/or inserted in the body of what should be the genetic mother, who would never be able to come into existence, morally speaking, in the marriage bed.

And by that I mean, is not the offspring of the mother and father, is not in the biological mother's body because of human error, because we have turned the creation of life into something that gets manufactured, which then is my second point, and I think to address this issue that... if we narrow the parameters, is, at the end of the day, we don't have a right to another human being."

During the 2025 Live Action Women's Summit, Gray Connors further explained:

"The reality is, regardless of our intentions, the process of IVF involves manufacturing, and humans ought not be manufactured.

It involves putting parts together, piecing things together, making something. But we ought to be begotten, not made. If you think about the one flesh union, a couple might say, when they know they're fertile, 'Let's make a baby.' But you still aren't making a baby when you engage in sexual union.

You can optimize the likelihood of conception by knowing your fertility. But what sperm hits what egg, what moment you conceive, if you conceive at all, all of that, there is a hands-off element to a receptivity instead of manufacturing."

Gray Connors is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is the most vocal religious group against all forms of IVF.

Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Senior Ethicist at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, noted in a 2018 article that the concern isn't that humans conceived using IVF are somehow 'less human' or 'less valuable' than children conceived naturally — they aren't — but that they are treated as if they are less human, and there is now an entire industry built around producing new image bearers of God in a lab:

Adding up the grave harms from IVF gives us a long list: IVF turns procreation into “production.” It dehumanizes embryonic children, treating them as objects to be frozen, manipulated, abandoned or de­stroyed.

Since the practice began in 1978, millions of embryos have be­come warehoused in liquid nitrogen, abandoned in frozen “orphanages.” Millions more have been outright discarded as biomedical waste.

In­stead of “loving our children into being” through the one-flesh union of husband and wife, IVF mass-pro­duces children in clinics, assembly-line style, under the impetus of mar­ket capitalism. Children born by IVF, moreover, experience roughly double the rate of birth defects of regularly conceived children. 

Over the years, these kinds of concerns have been mostly glossed over or ignored — we’ve grown ac­customed to frozen orphanages, and to the high toll involved in the proc­ess of assuring that a few of our em­bryonic children survive and success­fully implant. We downplay the risk of birth defects. Our insensitivity and desires have trumped a clear sense of ethics. 

Protestant voices are also speaking out about the immorality of any type of IVF.

While Allie Beth Stuckey, host of the Relatable podcast, believes that creating one embryo may be "better" than creating a dozen or so, she told Live Action's Lila Rose:

"You still have to ask the questions — the ethical, moral, and Biblical questions — as Christians of what happens when we take conception outside of its intended context, which is in the context of love, in the context of sex between a husband and a wife. ... Whenever technology takes us from what is natural to what is possible, we have to ask, 'Is this moral?'

Sometimes it is; not all technology is bad. But when you're talking about creating life and creating life outside of its intended context, there are just going to be a lot of consequences, a lot of questions that we have to ask."

IVF is unethical because every human life is precious and made in the image of God; no one should ever be considered "leftover" or be destroyed for being "less than," or be indefinitely frozen because his or her parents chose to carry a different child who was pre-screened and hand-selected by a fertility specialist or even by AI.

The process fails to show the respect that every human, whether conceived naturally or via IVF, is due.

Psalm 139:14 (NIV) states, "I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." The word "fearfully" carries the meaning of something sacred that inspires reverence, godly fear, and awe. Human beings should never be treated as a commodity to be purchased, produced, sold, transferred, frozen, or destroyed at will.

As John M. Haas, Ph.D., president of the NCBC, stated in a preaching position paper (emphases added):

The children conceived through IVF are precious in the sight of God, as are all children. Even though the means by which they were conceived are immoral (as are some other means by which children are engendered, such as sexual activity outside of marriage), they are loved by God and should be loved and cherished by us as well.

The Bottom Line:

IVF involves moral and ethical actions that treat human beings as if they are products without dignity, when in fact, every human being has incalculable value.

Creinin is a consultant on the payroll of abortion pill manufacturer, Danco Laboratories.

In part one of this two-part series, Live Action News detailed Creinin's claims about the 'abortion pill reversal' (APR) protocol. Part two examines Creinin's statements, under oath, about the abortion pill itself.

Key Takeaways:

• Abortionist Mitchell Creinin admitted in deposition testimony regarding the abortion pill that the much-touted idea of misoprostol-only abortions (promoted by the abortion industry and others) is not FDA-approved.

• Creinin also claimed that abortion pill side effects are minimal, yet admitted that women do seek care at hospitals when experiencing complications; he claimed this is only because women live further away from their prescribers.

• He admitted there are no long-term studies evaluating the safety of abortion pill use.

• He admitted that the failure rate of the abortion pill increases with gestational age, but also said he prescribes it later than the FDA-approved protocol.

• He also admitted that he does not check to confirm a live, intrauterine pregnancy before prescribing the abortion pill; the FDA requires prescribers to have the ability to confirm pregnancy/gestational age, as well as ectopic pregnancy.

• He admitted that neither progesterone nor mifepristone show evidence of causing birth defects, and noted that attempting to compare the abortion pill's safety profile to a drug like Tylenol or penicillin (which the abortion industry does) is like trying to "compare an apple and an orange," and a "false way of looking at things."

The Context:

Creinin's deposition was taken in response to a lawsuit, People of the State of California v. Heartbeat International & Real Options, filed by the State of California. It alleges the pro-life organizations “used fraudulent and misleading claims to advertise an unproven and largely experimental procedure called ‘abortion pill reversal (APR).'”

‘Abortion pill reversal’ (APR), a protocol which uses the hormone progesterone in an attempt to outcompete the effects of the abortion pill mifepristone, has come under fire by states led largely by pro-abortion politicians.

The deposition was taken by Attorney Paul Jonna on behalf of the defendants. Attorney Hayley Penan represented the State of California.

The Details:

During the deposition, Creinin made several surprising admissions about both 'abortion pill reversal' and the abortion pill protocol itself. Some are detailed below:

1) Misoprostol-only abortion pill protocol isn't FDA-approved

The abortion pill protocol consists of two drugs — mifepristone and misoprostol — which are taken a number of hours apart.

Creinin explained what the abortion pill, mifepristone (200mg) is:

"It is an antiprogestin, meaning that it is a progestin that doesn't activate the progesterone receptor. It actually blocks the progesterone receptor, meaning or rather than blocks, it binds to the receptor and does not activate it...

Mifepristone, by binding to the progesterone receptor, will block any progesterone or any progestin, for that matter, from binding to the receptor."

The second drug in the regimen is misoprostol. About this drug, Creinin explained:

"So the misoprostol will weaken the attachment of the pregnancy in the uterus and increase the uterus's sensitivity... to prostaglandins. It also has some cervical softening effects. You follow [mifepristone] with misoprostol to cause the uterus to cramp and contract. It will then expel that pregnancy at a higher rate than if you just give them mifepristone alone."

Creinin acknowledged that the use of misoprostol in the abortion pill regimen is an "off-label" use of that drug, and using misoprostol alone for this purpose is not FDA-approved:

"You are asking if misoprostol is approved to be used by itself for abortion? No, there are no FDA trials for its use by itself for abortion...It does not have FDA approval."

Here's why this matters: "misoprostol-only" abortions are often promoted by abortion proponents (and by the abortion industry itself) as an alternative method to use — despite its lack of approval by the FDA for such use — when the abortion pill protocol of both drugs is restricted or unavailable.

2) Side effects and ER visits

Creinin typically tells his patients of the abortion pill regimen (mifepristone and misoprostol):

"We've established that some people can get nausea, vomiting, headaches, tiredness, but again, those rates... the data is very hard to establish because people are feeling that way from pregnancy anyway.

But there is a slight increase in those side effects, but it is otherwise, that's pretty much it, if you are looking for side effects."

The 2023 mifepristone label for mifepristone includes a black box warning of serious bleeding, infection, and possible sepsis.

While Creinin claimed the drug regimen is safe, he admitted, "I've had patients who have used mifepristone and misoprostol in combination and gone to the emergency room."

He added:

"You know, if somebody comes from three hours away to get her medication abortion because there is no provider near her, and she starts to bleed heavily and she's worried, she's going to go to an ER, versus if somebody lives close to where they got their care, they are going to go see that doctor."

Surely, this is all the more reason to go back to requiring in-person visits to obtain the abortion pill, instead of allowing it to be dispensed by mail.

Creinin also admitted to having a patient die after a surgical abortion.

3) No long-term safety studies regarding abortion pill use

Asked if there were any "long-term longitudinal studies of the health effects of taking mifepristone," Creinin responded:

"No, because it's not presumed to have any health effects long term, but if you feel that it does, I would like to know what you are worried about so I can answer that question.

... [N]o, there are no long-term safety studies of their use."

4) Failure of the drug increases with gestational age

Mifepristone (200mg) has only been approved by the FDA for use up to 70 days/10 weeks gestation, which means that even when prescribed according to the FDA's limits, failures happen.

Creinin said (emphases added):

"I explain to [abortion pill patients], based on their gestational age, the likelihood that they may need a procedure to complete the abortion process...

I tell them what their rate will be based on their gestational age. You know, the label shows it's from 92 to 97 percent effective, but that efficacy is higher in early gestation and lower as they get closer to 10 weeks."

Creinin admitted to prescribing mifepristone "up to 11 weeks," which is past the FDA-approved limit (and which some other abortion businesses, like Planned Parenthood, do as well; emphases added):

"When somebody is between 71 and 77 days and they have a strong preference for medication over a procedure... I explain the data that's available to that looks at its use beyond 70 days. I treat them very differently. I give them two doses of misoprostol sublingually...

But I explain that they have a higher rate of failure, which may be as high as 15 percent. But that is up to them to decide what they want to do in those circumstances...."

Like other abortionists, Creinin uses the drug "for labor induction" abortions into the second or third trimester "up to 26 weeks, or possibly even greater."

5) Giving abortion drugs without 'checking' for a 'live intrauterine pregnancy'

Prescribers of the abortion pill are mandated under the FDA's REMS safety system to have the "[a]bility to assess the duration of pregnancy accurately" and the "[a]bility to diagnose ectopic pregnancies accurately." Note, however, that it does not require those prescribers to actually assess either of these things — it only requires that they have the "ability" to do so.

Creinin admitted to prescribing the drug without confirming pregnancy:

• Q: "Have you ever prescribed mifepristone to a woman without first checking to see if she has a live intrauterine pregnancy?"

• A. "Yes."

Interestingly, Creinin called it "malpractice" to prescribe mifepristone to a woman who wants to keep her baby.

6) A 'successful' abortion results in a dead baby

When asked, "Did you ever have a successful abortion where the fetus or embryo is still alive at the end?" Creinin responded:

"By definition, that's impossible. It can't be successful and still have a continuing pregnancy...I would say that the pregnancy is no longer continuing."

Keep in mind that this is the same "doctor" who once described his later dismemberment (D&E) abortion procedure this way:

Q: "What do you do to evacuate the contents of the uterus?"

A:

"If it is head first, it's very, very, very difficult to try and grasp the head as the very first thing. So, with every D&E, the way I have been taught, the way I have always done it...it is to try and grab a lower limb to convert the position to breech and then proceed with the evacuation.

If it's already breech, or if it's transverse, that's easier to grab a lower extremity. After grabbing the lower extremity, I am going to pull the pregnancy or pull whatever part I have grasped through the open cervix until there is resistance from the lower uterine segment and the internal os.

My goal is to try and remove the fetus as intact as possible.

...I will continue to pull, and it's the pressure of the fetus against the lower uterine segment that actually results in dismemberment of the fetus. And where that is going to happen on the fetus will vary from patient to patient.

...The fetus will either continue to come or will begin to break apart. It will break apart wherever or whatever it is. It may be in the middle of the leg, it may be at the abdomen, it may be at the chest, just depending on the dilation and the size of the fetus, et cetera, just on that individual case."

7) Comparing safety of abortion pill to other drugs has no basis

In a March 2026 deposition, Creinin was asked if "medication abortion is safer than penicillin," and responded:

"I don't have a basis for making that comparison... I also understand the risk profile for medication abortion in the context that it's administered. There's different contexts in which penicillin can be administered.

...You're trying to compare an apple and an orange."

When asked, "So you wouldn't be comfortable saying under oath that medication abortion is safer than penicillin, correct?"

Creinin replied, "I can't."

When asked, "Would you be comfortable saying under oath that medication abortion is safer that Tylenol?"

Creinin's response was telling:

"... You know, it's you're looking at medication abortion, you're only... comparing it to what the other option is. Tylenol is given for something completely different. That's a just a false way of looking at things.

I can't answer that question."

Creinin was asked to confirm "under oath" that this statement (below) is true:

"The standard medication abortion regimen... consisting of two medications, mifepristone and misoprostol, has been proven to be incredibly safe, safer than penicillin, Viagra, and even some over-the-counter drugs like Tylenol."

Creinin dodged the question:

"I'm not an expert to discuss those things. If you want to ask the district or the state attorney about those statements, that's fine.

But I'm not that expert."

8) Admitting that neither mifepristone nor progesterone cause birth defects

When Creinin was asked, "So there is no evidence that the component of the APR protocol can cause birth defects; is that correct?"

Creinin responded:

"If you're referring specifically to somebody is given progesterone, will it cause birth defects, progesterone is not known to cause birth defects."

When asked, "And neither is mifepristone; correct?"

Creinin responded, "That is correct."

When asked, "And there's no evidence that providing progesterone after mifepristone causes birth defects either; correct?"

Creinin responded, "Yes, there is no evidence."

Conflicts of Interest:

Live Action News previously documented Creinin's connections and conflicts:

• He receives consulting fees,  compensation, an honorarium, and provided “third-party telephone consults,” for Danco Laboratories.

• He is the previous medical director of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, as described by Oxford University Press.

The APR trial is slated to begin on June 24, 2026.

Key Takeaways:

• Wyoming judge Thomas Campbell has permanently overturned three abortion-related laws.

• Campbell ruled the laws were all unconstitutional, and, stunningly, claimed the abortion industry has proven "that abortion is inherently safe."

• The blocked laws include an ultrasound requirement, a requirement that abortion facilities register as ambulatory surgical centers, and a law banning off-label use of the abortion pill.

• Speaker of the Wyoming State House Chip Neiman confirmed that the state intends to appeal Campbell's ruling.

The Details:

The June 12 order from retired District Court Judge Thomas Campbell in Natrona County court declared the three laws unconstitutional, but doesn't result in any immediate changes, as each of the laws had already been temporarily blocked by Campbell during court rulings in 2025.

In his latest decision, Campbell said that the pro-abortion advocates who had challenged the three laws had proved “that abortion is inherently safe.”

The laws impacted by Campbell's ruling include HB 42, which had required abortion businesses to be registered as ambulatory surgical centers. This common-sense law ensures abortion facilities have things like hallways wide enough to fit ambulance gurneys and working elevators, yet Campbell claimed that assertions that such things help women (who may be injured and require medical attention) were "unsubstantiated."

Campbell's ruling also overturned HB 64, which required a woman to receive an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion in order to ensure she had informed consent. An ultrasound is also important before a woman undergoes an abortion to ensure proper gestational dating, as well as to rule out an ectopic pregnancy.

"The State offers no cogent evidence illustrating that a waiting period is necessary for any purpose,” Campbell said of the law.

Finally, it overturned HB 164, which bans the use of abortion pill off-label. As Cowboy State Daily explained, "Campbell also maintained that the carveout under Wyoming’s off-label protection law acted like a harm to those prescribing chemical abortions."

“As the Plaintiffs aptly note, mifepristone and misoprostol are the most common medications prescribed for a chemical abortion,” Campbell wrote, “the combination of which is considered an ‘off-label indication’ for the drugs.”

Speaker of the Wyoming State House Chip Neiman confirmed that the state intends to appeal Campbell's ruling, telling Wyoming Public Media he was "deeply saddened" at the decision.

“It just convinces me that our judiciary has zero respect for innocent life,” he said.

Commentary:

Abortion cannot be "inherently safe," as it intentionally ends the life of a human being in the womb. It is also not "inherently safe" because "Inherent" means "intrinsic," or " inseparably attached or connected." This claim seems akin to the abortion industry's debunked and repeated insistence that the abortion pill is "safer than Tylenol," which has been shown to be entirely false.

Recent analyses have shown the abortion pill is far riskier than the FDA's label indicates, with anywhere from 6-12% of women visiting ERs and experiencing serious adverse events as a result of taking the drug — but thanks to the removal of the FDA's requirements to report anything other than deaths, the abortion industry has effectively made abortion appear safer than it actually is.

The families of women like Jamie Lee Morales, Christina Stile, Lakisha Wilson, Jennifer Morbelli, Tonya Reaves, Christin Gilbert, Tamiia Russell, Keisha Atkins, and Cree Erwin-Sheppard — who died from abortions within and after the first trimester — Holly Patterson (who died from the abortion pill), __ who died from the abortion pill, along with Shanyce Thomas (who nearly lost her life after taking the abortion pill), would likely disagree with the idea that abortion is "inherently safe."

Zoom Out:

Wyoming lawmakers have consistently been at odds with the state's judicial system, having passed a number of pro-life protections in recent years that subsequently get halted by the courts.

In January, the state's Supreme Court struck down the state's law protecting virtually all preborn children from abortion, as well as a law banning abortion pills. In that ruling, the justices claimed that "ending fetal life" is "women's healthcare."

More recently, in April, a judge placed a temporary injunction on the state's "heartbeat law," which protects children from abortion after about six weeks in pregnancy.

The Bottom Line:

Common sense laws meant to protect women should abortion complications occur (which happens frequently), and to ensure women have informed consent before undergoing such a life-changing procedure should not be controversial. The abortion industry's fight against these laws further solidifies that the industry does not care about women, but only wants to see abortion expanded at all costs.

Key Takeaways:

• Doctors found a tumor growing on the surface of the placenta at a routine 25-week ultrasound.

• Later scans revealed the tumor was affecting blood circulation between the placenta and the preborn baby, putting stress on the baby's heart.

• The baby had already begun to experience signs of fetal heart failure.

• Doctors performed surgery in the second trimester, successfully cauterizing the blood vessels supplying the tumor and severing the tumor from its blood supply.

• The mother is now home; she and her preborn baby remain stable.

The Details:

At just 25 weeks of pregnancy, a standard anatomy scan uncovered the tumor growing on the surface of the placenta. Subsequent ultrasounds revealed that the tumor was actively affecting the circulation of blood between the placenta and the preborn baby, putting considerable stress on the baby’s heart, and was already beginning to cause fetal heart failure.

Yet it was still very risky to deliver, due to the baby's gestational age.

The medical team decided to proceed with an emergency intervention instead. Dr. Yuval Gielchinsky, director of Beilinson’s Fetal Medicine Center, in collaboration with Dr. Kinneret Tenenbaum, who leads the hospital’s Twin Pregnancy Clinic, performed the operation.

Utilizing an endoscopic technique, the doctors accessed the uterus, located the blood vessels supplying the tumor, and cauterized them to sever the growth from its blood supply. 

“In advanced stages of pregnancy, delivery can sometimes be the solution. But in this case, the patient was only 25 weeks pregnant. The only option left was endoscopic intervention,” Gielchinsky said, adding that such an option was viable only if the tumor is located in an accessible part of the placenta. 

Placental tumors are considered uncommon, and while many are benign and develop slowly enough to not impact a normal pregnancy, severe cases can redirect blood flow away from the preborn baby, potentially causing grave complications. These complications may include fetal anemia, low platelet counts, an excessive buildup of amniotic fluid, and preeclampsia in the mother.

After undergoing the significant surgical procedure, the mother was closely monitored in Beilinson's maternal-fetal medicine unit until she was discharged in stable condition. She will continue to obtain specialized outpatient follow-up care at the Fetal Medicine Clinic.

Zoom Out:

For pro-life advocates, this case is more than a medical success story; it is an illustration that preborn children can be directly helped, healed, and protected when medical personnel choose life. 

What makes this case so remarkable is not only the technical dexterity of the procedure, but the underlying recognition that the preborn child was a patient deserving of life-affirming help.

Confronted with the grim reality that early delivery would likely give rise to extreme prematurity and severe complications, the medical team selected a more challenging path: intervening within the womb to treat the baby before birth.

This move casts a spotlight on a growing field of fetal medicine that continues to push boundaries once conceived as  impossible. Surgeons are no longer limited to treating conditions after birth; they are increasingly able to diagnose, monitor, and even treat life-threatening conditions before a child is born. 

The Bottom Line:

At a time when prenatal life is often discussed only through the lens of abortion politics, a “fetus” who is either “viable” or otherwise, this story challenges us to reflect on the consistency of how we treat preborn human life.

When doctors go to extraordinary lengths to rescue the life of a child in the womb, they spark key questions about how society defines personhood and care. If a baby at 25 weeks can be a patient, undergoing surgery and obtaining life-saving treatment, it becomes increasingly impossible to deny the reality of that life. 

The controversy, Parker said, opens up an important discussion about how pro-lifers should participate and respond in public conversations about abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• In the latest episode of Human Matters with Sami Parker, Parker explored the reaction to the viral news that YouTube couple Jesse and Ashley Ridgway had aborted their preborn son diagnosed with Down syndrome.

• Parker explained that it is important for pro-lifers to always speak the truth, but to do so in a loving manner.

• "This story stops being nearly as compelling to people to consider taking the pro-life position when pro-lifers respond with hate," she said.

The Details:

Parker reflected on the widespread reaction to the Ridgway's story (which Live Action News covered here), pointing out that the pro-life response is incredibly important.

Abortion, she noted, is not an issue that is often trending on the newsfeed of millions of people. When it is trending, it's often because the pro-abortion media is twisting a story to make pro-lifers or pro-life laws look evil. A story like the Ridgways', in which average people (who aren't activists on either side of the issue) have overwhelmingly responded with outrage.

"A viral story that makes a lot of people take or sympathize with the pro-life position very rarely happens," she pointed out.

However, not all of the comments have been helpful to the pro-life point of view. She shared several social media posts calling the couple "evil" and "murderers."

"This story stops being nearly as compelling to people to consider taking the pro-life position when pro-lifers respond with hate," she said.

"How we respond to stories like this as pro-lifers, and particularly as Christians, matters so much," she explained. "One, because we are being a witness to the pro-life movement... [and] second, and most importantly... is we are being a witness to Christ."

Zoom In:

Parker reminded Christians that we are called to "speak the truth in love."

"People who are on the fence about this issue are watching how both sides respond," she explained. "And I can tell you from years of experience trying to convince online users to be pro-life, cold hard logic and facts alone never wins [sic] a person over to our side."

She said the pro-abortion side is skilled at making its position look like love, using empathetic language to mask the ugliness of abortion and what it does to preborn children. As a result, many people are drawn to that side, without considering the realities of what abortion entails. When pro-lifers respond without love, it further pushes those people away.

This doesn't mean pro-lifers should shy away from the truth, but should instead pair that truth with love. She pointed to Christ's encounter with the woman at the well as a perfect example as to how Christ confronted the woman's sin while extending compassion and an invitation to healing.

“Jesus named her sin. Yes, he spoke that truth,” Parker explained. “But he did it in great love for her and she felt that.”

The Bottom Line:

"If the pro-life movement wants to win, and winning means saving babies, saving mothers, saving fathers, the pro-life movement has to be known for our love," Parker said.

Key Takeaways:

• The bishops' statement emphasized their continued rejection of MAiD.

• Rather than helping people to die, the bishops said Canada should be offering better health care for vulnerable Canadians.

The Details:

The bishops reinforced their staunch rejection of euthanasia and assisted suicide, calling for a national commitment to authentic palliative care instead.

Their statement emphasized key data while voicing reservations over the ongoing expansion of MAiD, and its consequences on vulnerable individuals in Canada:

Grave concern is warranted regarding the continued expansion of the eligibility criteria for “MAID,” which puts increasing numbers of Canadians at risk. In 2016, only individuals whose death was “reasonably foreseeable” were eligible for “MAID” with so-called “safeguards” in place.

Subsequent legislation in 2021, however, considerably broadened the criteria, expanding access to include those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, but whose condition is “grievous and irremediable.” On this occasion, we reject complacency with the status quo on euthanasia in Canada. Formed by the Gospel, we are called to draw near to those who suffer: not to ignore, trivialize, or abandon them in their pain or despair, but to accompany them with compassion, practical care, and hope (cf. Lk 10:30-37).

We actively seek opportunities for effective, collaborative strategies to provide concrete and compassionate support to those living with serious physical or mental illness, those with disabilities, and those nearing the end of life, as well as their families and caregivers. As disciples of Christ, we affirm that every human life is a gift, holds profound dignity and value, and is part of a human community (cf. Mt 25:31-46).

True compassion does not answer suffering with death, but accompanies those who suffer with hope, presence, palliative care, and relief of pain. Together with healthcare professionals, patients, and families, our faith teaches that we must strive for proportionate treatment options that neither unduly prolong nor intentionally hasten death, but instead offer life-affirming and compassionate care.

The statement from the standing committee urged a renewed spirit of prayer for those who are sick, suffering, or nearing death, as well as for their families, caregivers, and medical professionals.

Additionally, the statement calls for prayer for individuals who have perished via assisted suicide and for those who mourn them, while urging a transformation of hearts and minds toward a culture that embraces every human life as a gift and faithfully supports the most vulnerable.

Zoom In:

When Canada initially legalized MAiD in 2016, eligibility was restricted to adults who were deemed “terminally ill.” Successive legislative changes and court decrees have drastically widened access, with adverse ramifications for those involved.

At the moment, individuals do not have to be terminally ill to qualify for MAiD in Canada. Those suffering from chronic conditions, disabilities, and even non-life-threatening illnesses may request assisted death. 

Canada is approaching an unprecedented milestone, with projections indicating that over 100,000 individuals will have died by MAiD by the end of 2026. 

This sobering threshold arrived 10 years after the legalization MAiD in 2016 under former pro-abortion leader Justin Trudeau. An estimated 45 Canadians lose their lives to MAiD each day in the country.

The Bottom Line:

Assisted suicide laws can coerce individuals who feel like a liability to their families or the health care system to end their lives intentionally.

Recent years have witnessed various high-profile cases in Canada garnering international attention, including reports of individuals procuring MAiD owing to homelessness, and insufficient or restricted access to medical treatment. These cases have boosted criticism that the MAiD system is betraying and failing those it alleges to help. 

Key Takeaways:

• Sen. Josh Hawley sent a letter last week to Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz urging him to investigate Planned Parenthood for fraud for using Medicaid and Medicare funds to administer gender transition drugs to minors.

• Hawley pointed out that Medicaid and Medicare programs are designed to help needy and older Americans afford basic healthcare, yet Planned Parenthood received $1.5 billion in Medicaid and Medicare funding over a three-year period.

• Hawley referenced a Live Action investigation, in which an undercover journalist posing as a 16-year-old girl was offered cross-sex hormones at the first appointment, even virtually.

The Details:

Hawley's letter urged Oz to investigate Planned Parenthood for using Medicaid and Medicare funds to administer gender transition drugs to minors.

Hawley wrote:

“I appreciate your focus on combatting fraud in our nation’s healthcare programs and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being used for their lawful, intended purposes. As you continue work to uncover fraud in the Medicaid and Medicare programs, I urge you to direct your investigative efforts toward Planned Parenthood and its role in pushing transgender madness onto minor children." 

He referenced a Government Accountability Office finding that Planned Parenthood received $1.5 billion in Medicaid and Medicare funding over a three-year period, despite the fact that both programs are designed to help needy and older Americans afford basic healthcare.

"In other words, billions of taxpayer dollars have been taken from those in poverty and the elderly and given to Planned Parenthood," he wrote.

Hawley's letter also referenced a Live Action investigation showing Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country were willing to provide cross sex hormones to teens as young as 16 with no parental supervision.

[Planned Parenthood] openly advertises that it provides sex-change drugs and refers for transgender surgeries. According to one recent report, Planned Parenthood’s provision of this so-called “gender-affirming care” has exploded—with a 40% year-over-year increase. Public reporting clearly shows that these “services” are provided to minors. Undercover investigations have revealed that numerous Planned Parenthood facilities would prescribe sex change drugs to a minor at the first appointment, without any medical documentation whatsoever. The organization has even exploited legal loopholes to provide these dangerous and irreversible gender-transition drugs to minors without their parents’ consent. This is unconscionable.

The Big Picture:

Live Action and Live Action News have repeatedly exposed Planned Parenthood's role in providing cross-sex hormones and other gender-related "services" to minor children.

As referenced above, the Live Action investigation conducted last year featured an undercover journalist posing as a 16-year-old female, who called Planned Parenthood facilities offering ‘transgender services’ in eight states/territories.

Staff at seven of the 33 facilities contacted confirmed they would prescribe cross-sex hormones at the first appointment, even virtually.

At five of the facilities, staff said the 16-year-old girl did not need proof of having undergone therapy, mental health clearance, or prior documentation as part of a mental health assessment before Planned Parenthood would prescribe cross-sex hormones.

The fact that the journalist told these facilities she was a minor did not prevent them from offering her these life-altering "services."

Live Action researcher Sheena Rodriguez recently released a four-part series on Live Action News detailing Planned Parenthood's "transgender pipeline" for minors, and showing how Planned Parenthood's abortion and transgender ideologies go hand in hand.

The Bottom Line:

In his letter, Hawley pointed out that Planned Parenthood is slated to once again begin receiving federal funds on July 5, after a one-year hiatus — a fact he said was a "grave error."

The organization’s transgender activities appear at the least to subvert Congress’s intent to direct Medicaid and Medicare funds to basic healthcare needs. They may also violate regulations governing how these dollars may be spent and fail to comply with Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rules.

Hawley called on Oz and CMS to seriously look at the organization for fraud, writing, "I therefore urge you to act to ensure Planned Parenthood cannot defraud our nation’s healthcare programs."

Key Takeaways:

• Previous Live Action investigations found that Planned Parenthood is willing to dispense cross-sex hormones to minors without parental knowledge or consent, and without a mental health evaluation first. Some prescribe the hormones the very same day as the first in-person or telehealth visit.

• A new undercover investigation featuring detransitioner Chloe Cole found that, while Planned Parenthood is all too happy to help children with so-called "gender affirming care," it offers no help for those that regret it and wish to 'detransition'.

• Planned Parenthood facilities were either unwilling or unable to offer support to 'detransitioners'.

• A one-year ban on Planned Parenthood funding is set to expire on July 4, 2026, unless Congress acts.

• Watch the investigation, read the Live Action report on Planned Parenthood's 'transgender pipeline' for minors, and sign the petition asking Congress to extend the defunding of Planned Parenthood here.

The Details:

Live Action conducted previous undercover investigations, revealing that Planned Parenthood is willing to dispense cross-sex hormones, like testosterone, to minors without their parents' knowledge or consent. This was frequently done without a mental health evaluation first. Now, a new investigation has been released, featuring detransitioner Chloe Cole.

Cole contacted Planned Parenthood facilities across the country with one question: "Do you offer support for people seeking to detransition?" The answer, over and over again, was no, revealing a disturbing pattern.

While Planned Parenthood promotes "gender affirming care," its facilities are either unable or unwilling to provide support for those seeking to undo the damage done by these "services."

READ THE REPORT: Planned Parenthood's Path to Destruction

Planned Parenthood has once again been exposed as a dangerous organization that offers one-way destruction pathways for children, when what these children need and deserve is protection, not often irreversible medical experimentation.

Why It Matters:

Last year, Congress passed a one-year ban stripping hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding from Planned Parenthood. But that ban will expire on July 4, 2026, restoring hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to the abortion giant, unless Congress passes legislation to stop it.

Live Action founder and president Lila Rose said in a statement:

Live Action’s undercover investigation with detransitioner Chloe Cole exposed Planned Parenthood’s one-way body harm pipeline. Planned Parenthood is willing to prescribe cross-sex hormones and push vulnerable people including minors further into dangerous  so-called ‘gender-affirming care,’ but when someone comes back seeking help to detransition, Planned Parenthood has no answers, no support, and no services to help reverse the damage.

Planned Parenthood is already the largest abortion chain in America, killing over 400,000 innocent preborn children every year. Now it has expanded its business model into the exploitation of confused and vulnerable young people through cross-sex hormones and transgender services. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize this destruction.

I am calling on Congress and President Trump to extend the defunding of Planned Parenthood before it expires on our nation’s birthday. America should protect the vulnerable, not fund the organizations that profit from harming them. Defund Planned Parenthood now.

READ THE REPORT: The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood

The Bottom Line:

Voters must demand Congress defund Planned Parenthood and stop taxpayer-funded gender transition pathways for minors. Sign the Live Action petition now and make sure your voice is heard.

Visit DefundPP.com for more information.

Key Takeaways:

• Mayday Health was formed in 2022 in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, with the goal of telling women how to access mifepristone, also known as the abortion pill, even if they live in a pro-life state.

• The group has been running ads promoting abortion in pro-life states.

• The latest ad campaign from Mayday Health includes ads inside California laundromats.

The Details:

Though California is an extremely pro-abortion state, Mayday Health has launched an ad campaign in laundromats — to target a very specific demographic. MayDay Health founder, Leo Raisner, explained that it chose to advertise in laundromats in an effort to reach "working class clientele."

Calo News reported that pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) outnumber abortion facilities in the state, which led Mayday to launch the ad campaign at 50 laundromats across Los Angeles and San Diego.

“We know that these laundromats serve a high number of Spanish-speaking clients, so in every single laundromat, we put out both English and Spanish advertisements,” Raisner said.

The majority of abortions in the U.S. are committed on unmarried, non-white women, which could be why Raisner chose to target Hispanic women. According to the latest data, Hispanic Americans comprise 19.2% of people living in the United States, but account for 21.2% of abortions. 

Zoom In:

Raisner also used scare tactics to argue why women, even in pro-abortion California, need greater access to abortion. “Oftentimes, maternal deaths happen because there are severe medical emergencies that could have been prevented had women had the right to choose to terminate their pregnancy,” he claimed.

This is not based in fact, and recent analyses show that pro-life states do not see higher rates of maternal mortality. Additionally, induced abortion — the intentional, targeted killing of a preborn child for death — is not medically necessary.

“In situations where the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy, her pregnancy must end and her baby must be delivered,” neonatologist Kendra Kolb said. “These situations occur in cases of mothers who develop dangerously high blood pressure, have decompensating heart disease, life-threatening diabetes, cancer, or a number of other very serious medical conditions. Some babies do need to be delivered before they are able to survive outside of the womb, which occurs around 22 to 24 weeks of life. These situations are considered a preterm delivery and not an abortion.”

Raisner also repeated the debunked abortion industry lie that mifepristone is safer than Tylenol.

“Abortion pills have been FDA approved for two decades," he said. "The anti-abortion movement would love for people to think that this medication is unsafe, but it's just not. Abortion pills actually lead to fewer hospitalizations than Tylenol. This is an extremely safe medication."

But as Live Action News' own analysis revealed:

A valid comparison of hospital visit frequency must account for the frequency with which both drugs are taken. Fortunately, this data is available. This 2016 study sought to analyze trends in acetaminophen-related adverse events, and tracked the rate of annual ER visits relative to annual sales of the drug. It found that, for the year 2012 (the most recent year covered by the study), there were 282.1 acetaminophen-related ER visits for every 1 (one) million units sold. Assuming typical dosage to be equivalent to two tablets, this means that .056% of doses sold resulted in a hospital visit (282.1/500,000 = .00056).

But even this number is inflated compared to mifepristone’s hospital visit rate, because it includes children and people who intentionally overdosed, populations which are irrelevant to mifepristone’s calculations. 

And what is mifepristone’s hospital visit rate?

A recent study conducted by the abortion industry itself found an ER and urgent care visit rate of 6%. That’s 107 times greater than the rate for acetaminophen/Tylenol, which again, is actually a low number if we were to compare equivalent populations.

According to a recent analysis of a large insurance database, the abortion pill's adverse events occurred at a rate 22 times higher than the rate reported on the drug's Food and Drug Administration label. Another study found chemical abortions to be four times more dangerous than first-trimester surgical abortion. As Live Action News previously explained:

Recent research from Ireland about the abortion pill showed 12% of women went to the ER for bleeding or infection. In addition, 16% suffered incomplete abortions.

This percentage corresponds with a recent U.S. insurance database analysis from the EPPC, showing a nearly 11% “serious adverse events” rate after taking the abortion pill.

Yet another study found that women were not prepared by the abortion industry for how painful the chemical abortion process would be. Known side effects of mifepristone are severe cramping, contractions, and heavy bleeding, as well as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headaches. Other risks include incomplete abortion, hemorrhage, infection, and death.

Raisner, however, as the founder of an abortion pill-promoting organization, likely has a financial motivation to promote mifepristone as easy, necessary, and safe.

The Bottom Line:

This is simply another example of how the predatory abortion industry exploits vulnerable populations, spreading lies and misinformation in an effort to make money from the desperation of women and from the deaths of countless preborn children.

Key Takeaways:

• Abortionist/researcher Mitchell Creinin — whose tiny study on 'abortion pill reversal' (APR) has deceptively been used to claim that APR (use of bioidentical progesterone to counter the actions of the abortion pill mifepristone) is dangerous — couldn't swear under oath one way or the other about the effectiveness of APR.

• Creinin admitted in a deposition that, while he doesn't "recommend" progesterone for women, "in the short term, it's safe" and agreed that "progesterone probably won't hurt a woman if she's under medical supervision."

• He admitted that attempting to "do statistical analyses on ten people or three people" is "not science," yet this is exactly what his APR study (starting with just 12 participants and dropping to 10) attempted to do.

• Creinin's study was funded by the Society for Family Planning, yet he stated he didn't believe that this was a conflict of interest even though he is a founding member of SFP, served as former deputy editor of SFP’s official journal, and currently sits on the journal's editorial board.

• In the past, Creinin has stated that he believes contraception and abortion are important to keep the world's population in check.

The Details:

In the deposition, Creinin also discussed the fact that he committed over 5,000 abortions and has been on the payroll of abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories.

Creinin's declaration stated:

I am a clinical expert in the provision of abortion, having provided care for over 5,000 patients as an integral component of my practice.... I teach on topics related to abortion, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and contraception.

Backdrop for Deposition

‘Abortion pill reversal’ (APR), a protocol which uses the hormone progesterone to assist women who change their minds after taking the first drug (mifepristone) of the abortion pill regimen, has come under fire by states led largely by pro-abortion politicians.

Creinin's deposition was taken in response to a lawsuit (People of the State of California v. Heartbeat International & Real Options) filed by the State of California. It alleges that pro-life organizations “used fraudulent and misleading claims to advertise an unproven and largely experimental procedure called ‘abortion pill reversal (APR).'”

To make his case, California Attorney General Rob Bonta gathered evidence from radically pro-abortion sources, some with ties to the abortion pill’s manufacturer.

• September 2023: CA AG Bonta announced the state's lawsuit (The People of the State of California v. Heartbeat International & Real Options).

• February 2024: The Thomas More Society filed a response asking the California Superior Court to throw out the lawsuit.

• June 2024: Court denies Heartbeat's challenges to jurisdiction and to the complaint after the initial hearing.

• February 2026: Heartbeat International (HBI) which operates the Abortion Pill Rescue® Network (APRN), claimed the protocol has saved "more than 8,000 lives."

The trial is slated to begin on June 24, 2026.

Creinin's APR 'Study'

Creinin's study — which has been heavily criticized as being unreliable and even deceptive in its conclusions — has been used to allege that “abortion pill reversal” is unsafe, despite the fact that progesterone has been <a href="/news/doctors-miscarriages-hormone-scorned-abortion-pill-reversal">safely administered</a> to women at risk of miscarriage for decades.

This study sought to enroll 40 participants, but utilized just 12 participants at first (this number dropped to 10 when two left the study); it was halted after two women dropped out and three women experienced “severe hemorrhage requiring ambulance transport to hospital.” Creinin's deposition later acknowledged one of those patients "did not arrive by ambulance."

Two of those three women received only the abortion pill and a placebo (in other words, no progesterone to counter the effects of the abortion pill), and one received progesterone only.

Creinin's minuscule study was funded by the Society of Family Planning (SFP) — an organization founded with a “generous contribution” from the David & Lucile Packard Foundation and receiving millions from the Buffett Foundation (both early investors in the abortion pill).

Creinin was a founding member of SFP, serving as former deputy editor of SFP’s official journal – Contraception – and currently on the journal's editorial board.

Asked about the reputation of SFP, Creinin admitted in deposition that "I don't always agree with everything, all their statements or whatever."

When asked, "Do you think that there is a conflict of interest with you being one of the founding members of SFP?" Creinin responded, "Heck, no."

Admissions about APR

1) Progesterone used "Off Label" is "Safe"

Abortion proponents often criticize the APR protocol for "off label" usage, yet Creinin admitted to prescribing progesterone "off-label."

He clarified:

I don't recommend it. I offer it to patients and tell them the pros and cons, and it's the patient who decides if she wants to use it... In the short term, it's safe. In the long term, there is an association with thyroid cancer. So it's up to them to decide if the... potential benefit outweighs the potential risk.

Creinin agreed that "progesterone probably won't hurt a woman if she's under medical supervision."

In the deposition, Creinin was asked, "Do you recall what you meant when you made this statement" in an e-mail, which read, "Note that claims about progesterone being safe are true, but that is not the safety issue here."

Creinin responded:

It's very similar to the questions you've just been asking me. Progesterone may be safe, but the safety issue here is about not using misoprostol.

2) No Evidence APR Doesn't Work

Creinin was asked, "Can you swear under oath that APR does not work?"

He responded, "My answer is yes, but I can also say that I have no evidence that it does work."

Asked to clarify "yes" or "no" Creinin stated:

I'll make it clear. I cannot swear under oath.

I can swear, okay... There is... no evidence that APR works, and there is no evidence that it does (sic) work.

So what I can swear under oath is both of those.

Asked, "Can you swear under oath that APR is unsafe?"

Creinin responded:

"Safety" is how you define it. But if if you want to talk about side effects, giving progesterone is unlikely to cause significant side effects.

If there is no benefit to the treatment, there is a potential for something long-term that could be a problem. Right? So depends how you, again, define "safety."

3) Statistical Analyses on Ten People 'Not Science'

During the deposition, Creinin unknowingly discredited his own study, which involved a small sample size beginning with just 12 participants and dropping to 10:

• Q: "How many medical organizations are you aware of internationally that disagree with ACOG's position on APR?" A: "Other than the associations related to pro-life organizations, I'm not aware of any.

• Q: "And how many of those associated with pro-life organizations are you aware of? ... They don't count to you, though." A: "They are...bound to uphold science in the same way, and they demonstrate they don't when they try to do statistical analyses on ten people or three people. That's not science. So if they're not going to do science right, then then they're misinterpreting data, very similar to how the FDA currently is."

• Q: "They did statistical analysis on ten people? Is that what you said?" A: "If they want to try to do that kind of stuff, then that's not science."

In response, Creinin was asked, "That sounds like what you did, though, doesn't it?"

4) Admitted to being a consultant for abortion pill manufacturer, Danco Laboratories

Creinin's declaration also acknowledged his work as a "consultant" for abortion pill manufacturer, Danco Laboratories:

I have provided consultative services for Danco Laboratories since 2002.

As a small pharmaceutical company without a full-time medical division, Danco contracts with a few experts to be available to provide consultation to medical professionals who contact the company with medical questions about their product, which is a requirement for them as a company.

I get paid $300/month for this service and have been paid the same amount for the duration of my service.

Creinin is a professor at the University of California Davis (UCD) and the Director of Complex Family Planning Fellowship at their Medical School.

In 2002, Creinin was sent a corrections letter by the FDA for another study, where he was cited for:

• Failure to ensure that the requirements for obtaining and documenting informed consent were met

• Failure to conduct the study in accordance with the investigational plan

• Failure to maintain complete, accurate, and current records relating to the investigation

Zoom In:

In 2010, Creinin published "Family planning, population growth, and the environment" where he claimed, "Family planning is the most humane and viable strategy for human survival" and "environmental justice."

The editorial read, in part (emphases added):

The wild card effects of global warming and degradation of ecosystem services contribute further to our concerns about overpopulation... Both rich and poor nations have a responsibility to limit family size and future population growth.

The world cannot sustain unchecked consumption in rich nations, nor high fertility in poor nations.

Asked in the deposition about the editorial, Creinin stated:

Family planning is contraception and abortion. It allows people to have pregnancies and be pregnant and have children when they want to.

... The biggest part of our carbon footprint issue right now is that we have more users than the earth can handle, so that the earth is not able to recreate what we need on a yearly basis.

So we're using more of the earth's resources and affecting the environment on a yearly basis than the earth can regenerate or provide. So the biggest problem, in my opinion, along with my coauthor -- one of the biggest problems is the amount of the population on the earth.

The more users there are, the more we use up the earth, and the more the earth can't provide appropriate food and environmental sustainability for us to survive as a people.

Will this affect us in 1,000 years, in 10,000 years?

Who knows?·

But the environmental science had demonstrated that this is one of the biggest problems we have.

So family planning, which is part of people controlling if and when they have children based on what they want, is a big part of the -- I don't want to say "solution" -- but of the answers to this problem that we've been dealing with for 50 years.

Key Takeaways:

• Baby Sylvie was born extremely premature, at just 25 weeks gestation and weighing just one pound.

• Doctors initially told her parents that she would not survive.

• Sylvie continues fighting for her life in the NICU.

The Details:

The infant, known as  Sylvie, was born extremely premature, months before her due date. Though 24 weeks is still generally considered to be the point of viability, babies born around this period can face many potential complications, some of which can be life-threatening. However, babies have survived premature birth as young as 21 weeks.

Sylvie’s mother, Presley Stevens, shared that her daughter has continued to defy expectations. Born just over two weeks ago weighing only one pound, Sylvie remains in the NICU at Le Bonheur, where she is showing remarkable strength, even as she faces an uphill journey ahead to survive. 

Stevens said that Sylvie is already gaining weight, and is showing a lively, spirited, and resilient personality. The mother explained that her daughter was named after her great-grandmother, Sylvia, who was known for her strength and determination. 

“She truly is a miracle,” Stevens said, and recalled the poignant moment when Sylvie entered the world.

“I didn’t get to hold her or anything, but they pushed her over to me and I was just in awe of her because I didn’t think we would be here at all,” she said.

Zoom In:

Early in the pregnancy, every checkup appeared normal. However, during the anatomy scan — typically performed between 18 and 22 weeks to assess the baby’s development — Stevens said doctors discovered that Sylvie was considerably smaller than anticipated. 

“That doctor told me, 'I just want you to understand your baby won’t survive this.' So, she is truly a miracle. She was weighing and measuring in the less than first percentile,” Stevens said.

Instead, Sylvie entered the world determined to survive, and has continued to exceed expectations with each passing day.

“We kept hearing them say her heartbeat and it was going up. Just every single time they would say a number, it was getting higher. So, we knew then like this might be OK. She might make it,” Stevens said.

Sylvie will remain at Le Bonheur for the foreseeable future, as she continues to encounter complications, such as a grade four brain bleed and developing hydrocephalus. Doctors are waiting for her to grow stronger before proceeding further. In the meantime, Stevens and her husband commute over an hour from their home in Hickory Flat, Mississippi, every other day to accompany their daughter.

“We do have a 5-year-old at home. This is when her brother got to meet her for the first time because he couldn’t meet her at the MED, but he could meet her at Le Bonheur, so he got to see her. He’s so excited. He said 'look mom, she’s as tiny as my hands',” Stevens said, and noted she was recently able to hold her daughter for the first time.

Stevens’ mother-in-law created a GoFundMe campaign to help support Sylvie and her family, which has already raised over $9,000.

Babies born at 25 weeks gestation are regarded as extremely premature, born roughly 15 weeks before a full-term pregnancy. At this stage, babies typically weigh between 600 and 900 grams (about 1.3 to 2 pounds) and are around 13 to 15 inches in length. Their lungs, brain, and other vital organs are still underdeveloped, making survival and long-term health outcomes particularly undetermined. 

Yet despite the grim prognosis, Sylvie continues to fight, backed by neonatal intensive care and the unwavering love of her parents.

The Bottom Line:

Stories like Sylvie’s emphasize a profound reality: medical predictions are not certainties. Although doctors may depend on data and past experience for prognoses, each child is unique, and outcomes can differ immensely. Thanks to progress in neonatal care, survival rates for babies born at 25 weeks have risen, leading to many premature infants going on to live healthy lives.

For parents, the decision to pursue treatment in such situations typically boils down to hope: the belief that their child’s life, regardless of how fragile it may be, is worth every effort to save. 

Such cases prove the inherent dignity and value of every human life, regardless of size, age, or perceived viability. Medical professionals who work in NICUs frequently witness these small victories — tiny infants gaining weight, breathing more independently, or reacting to their parents’ voices. Each milestone showcases the humanity of these children, who, though small in size, are no less deserving of compassionate care and support. 

Key Takeaways:

• Fr. Mark Mary Ames spoke to attendees at the Young Leaders Summit in March.

• He touched on the spiritual side in the fight for life, noting that "this is a battle."

• He outlined the "four Ds" of the enemy's tactics: discouragement, distraction, feigned domination, and direct attacks on holiness.

• These can all be fought with prayer, community, and meekness.

The Details:

Fr. Ames noted that the fight against abortion is both cultural and spiritual, urging attendees to recognize both the visible and invisible dimensions of the fight for life.

“This is a battle,” he explained. “The battle for our culture, the battle for our souls, the battle to build a culture of life. It’s just a real battle.”

Drawing from his experiences in New York City, he described monthly prayer processions to a Planned Parenthood facility in Manhattan. These peaceful walks often drew aggressive counter protesters, especially after the overturning of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Often, police would be on hand to intervene as these protestors tried to block and stop the pro-lifers.

“We’re just trying to walk, trying to pray, trying to give witness,” he explained. “And there’s another opposing force who’s quite angry, quite aggressive… trying to intimidate us.”

He attributed some of the aggression and anger seen from these protestors to a spiritual struggle. “There’s certainly a human component to it,” he said, “but also there’s very much a spiritual component to it.”

Zoom In:

Fr. Ames outlined what he called the “four Ds” of the enemy’s tactics: discouragement, distraction, feigned domination, and direct attacks on holiness.

Discouragement convinces pro-life advocates their efforts are meaningless. “Satan’s going to try and tell you your efforts aren’t going anywhere… that you’re wasting your time,” he told the audience.

Distraction, he said, is another tactic which pulls believers away from prayer and focus.

Feigned domination is the illusion that pro-life advocates are isolated or losing. “There’s going to be a lot of voices trying to tell you that you are all by yourself,” he said. “But my brothers and sisters, this is not real.”

Finally, Satan will directly attack our holiness through an interior battle. "Satan is coming after you," he warned. "And he's coming after your own relationship with the Lord, trying to tempt you into sin, trying to lead you down the wrong path."

The Bottom Line:

Fr. Ames offers three ways to fight the enemy's tactics: prayer, community, and meekness.

“The battle begins by you and I becoming men and women who know the Lord,” he said, stressing that faith must move beyond private devotion into public witness.

Pro-lifers must then go out "as a team," witnessing together doing things like the prayer procession to Planned Parenthood.

Finally, it is important to be meek, which, he emphasizes, does not mean to become a "doormat."

"Meekness is to have this confident posture that the victory is already won."

In reality, the reason the woman has not been given a D&C or other treatment is because doctors often wait to carry out such procedures for two distinct reasons — and neither of those reasons has anything to do with the abortion law.

Key Takeaways:

• Ashley Brown claims she is experiencing a blighted ovum/anembryonic pregnancy, in which an embryo fails to form in the implanted sac. This is the most common cause of miscarriage in the first trimester.

• Brown, however, is blaming South Carolina's pro-life law for the fact that doctors are making her wait to have two follow-up ultrasounds to confirm the diagnosis before they decide on next steps about treating the miscarriage.

• This plan is based on the standard of care for this condition, not the state's pro-life law.

• South Carolina law does not include miscarriage in its definition of abortion, and therefore, miscarriage care is not restricted in the state; even pro-abortion groups have admitted this.

The Details:

Ashley Brown's story reached People magazine this week following her June 9th video in which she claims she is being denied miscarriage management amid a 'nonviable pregnancy.' She said her levels of Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which is primarily produced by the placenta during pregnancy, were dropping — a potential sign of miscarriage — and that an ultrasound showed an anembryonic pregnancy (formerly referred to as a blighted ovum). This is described by the Cleveland Clinic as "when a fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall, but the embryo fails to develop."

The gestational sac and the placenta continue to grow, but the embryonic sac is empty. It is the most common cause of first trimester miscarriage.

While some women diagnosed with an anembryonic pregnancy wait for the miscarriage to happen on its own before undergoing treatments, others ask for a D&C procedure or medication to cause the body to complete the miscarriage.

In some cases, however, doctors have found that it was too early in pregnancy to see the embryo on an ultrasound, and then a follow-up ultrasound showed that the baby was alive and growing.

Brown insists that she is indeed experiencing an anembryonic pregnancy based on her dropping hCG levels and the opinion of at least two doctors.

Following a video in which she noted that she has had five previous miscarriages, she discussed her nausea and cravings at six weeks. At that time, Brown said her hCG level was high and that she was having an ultrasound a week later.

A update in the next video on June 6 revealed that her hCG number "did not even double in seven days" despite an early increase. "It does not look like this pregnancy seems to be viable," she said tearfully. "... I don't really have any explanation for it other than a not viable pregnancy." She also said they had learned the gender of the baby the day before.

After experiencing some pain on her right side, she then requested an ultrasound, but the doctor said she thought her hCG numbers were fine and were what they should be for six weeks. But Brown was worried she was having an ectopic pregnancy, so she went to the ER, where she underwent a transvaginal ultrasound and abdominal ultrasound.

She was told her hCG number had dropped, and that she had an empty sac, no yolk sac, and there was no heartbeat — an anembryonic pregnancy — and that her pain was caused by a hemorrhage next to the sac. The dating of the pregnancy showed her to be a week behind where she should be. She then said she was "denied a medical abortion" and was told to have a follow up ultrasound in a week with her OB:

"He goes, 'Yeah it looks like it's not a viable pregnancy. Your HCG is dropping. It's impossible for you to be a week behind and there's an empty sac and at five weeks and four days, if it was a viable pregnancy, we'd at least be seeing like a yolk sac and a fetal pole, so I agree, not viable, right?.' 'So okay great, you agree it's not viable.'

'I don't want to see my empty sac in a week. Can we do a D&C, give me a pill, something to help me pass it? I'm going on vacation next week. I do not want the trauma of having a miscarriage while I'm on vacation with my family.' He didn't even say, 'I'm sorry.' He said, 'No, unfortunately the law says in South Carolina that we have to go by the ultrasound and the ultrasound recommendation is a followup in a week.' I also have to have counseling."

This, however, is not unusual. Emergency rooms do not typically provide miscarriage management. They usually refer women to an OB/GYN, as they did in Brown's case. A single hCG test or ultrasound is often not enough to confirm a miscarriage. The one-week follow-up with her OB would have helped to confirm this.

Brown went for a second opinion, and that OB allegedly said she would need two more weekly scans before she could undergo a D&C.

Then, in a video on June 13, Brown said:

"Come with me to see my dead baby to make sure it's really dead. No, you did not hear me wrong. I really said that because my baby died in me almost two weeks ago but we have to make sure its really dead two more times before they'll help me remove it because my body's not doing that by itself.

If you're thinking, 'Well that sounds wrong,' you would be right. Law says I have to have two more scans before they'll help me remove it."

But South Carolina's abortion law does not say this. The call to have her undergo follow-up ultrasounds is based on pregnancy- and miscarriage-related standards of care.

Ultimately, the first follow-up ultrasound did show a yolk sac, yet her hCG was still dropping. She said she was told that doctors knew the pregnancy was 'not viable' but that she had to wait '11 more days' to have another ultrasound.

What an expert says:

In a YouTube video regarding 'blighted ovums,' including what causes them, how they are diagnosed, and how they are treated, Dr. Lora Shahine explained, "We often offer just a follow up ultrasound to sort of say maybe its just a little slow developing, maybe we just give it a little bit more time and we might see a a yolk sac the next time you come in. ... maybe you actually ovulated later than you thought...."

She added:

"So it can be so frustrating to be pregnant, highly desired pregnancy, and you go in to get an ultrasound. You want that reassurance that everything's OK, and be told, 'Gosh we're not sure. we need to follow up with more blood test or another ultrasound to really help you figure out what's going on' and I know that is such a difficult situation to be in but when you are really wanting to build your family and it seems like the right thing to do sometimes just waiting to be 100% sure it is the right thing."

Again, this 'watch and wait' approach is not due to the state's pro-life law. It's standard of care that was in place even when Roe v. Wade was in effect.

What the law says

No one is denying that miscarriage is traumatic. But South Carolina's Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act does not prevent miscarriage care.

The law defines abortion as (emphasis added):

[T]he act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child.  Such use, prescription, or means is not an abortion if done with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, or to remove a dead unborn child.

In other words, the state law makes it clear that abortion does not include any action taken to remove a dead preborn child, whether it be by a D&C or a drug like misoprostol.

In addition to excluding miscarriage treatment from the definition of abortion, the law also states that an abortion can be carried out when necessary "to prevent death or serious risk of a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions." And it also lists which "medical conditions constitute a risk of death or serious risk of a substantial and irreversible physical impairment..." including "blighted ovum..."

There is clearly nothing in the pro-life law that prevents Brown from getting a D&C or taking a drug to cause the body to complete the miscarriage.

Even pro-abortion groups state this, including the Abortion Defense Network which notes (emphasis added), "Medical care for ectopic or molar pregnancies, medical emergencies, miscarriage, pregnancies where the fetus has a fatal anomaly, and pregnancies with no cardiac activity is legal" and "... treatment for miscarriage where there is no cardiac activity (including medications, D&C, D&E, labor induction) is not an abortion under South Carolina law and thus is not prohibited."

Zoom Out:

Without seeing Brown's medical records, its impossible to fully know what doctors have told her and whether or not doctors are confused about the law, or Brown is confused about what the doctors are telling her.

Either way, it's clear that the state's abortion law allows Brown to undergo miscarriage care and does not consider that care to be an abortion.

In addition, the standard of care for a suspected anembryonic pregnancy or blighted ovum includes multiple repeat ultrasounds.

One reason is because it can be less risky to let nature take its course rather than put a woman through an invasive procedure. However, another reason to wait is that there have been cases in which the baby was younger than expected and on a second or third ultrasound, a heartbeat was detected and doctors realized the mother was not actually miscarrying.

Even if there is a miscarriage happening, according to Baby Center, some "... women will carry the blighted ovum for several weeks."

Baby Center explained:

Because it can be hard to tell the difference between a very early normal pregnancy and a blighted ovum, strict ultrasound criteria must be met before making the diagnosis. In many cases, a follow up ultrasound two weeks later is necessary to confirm the diagnosis.

That "strict ultrasound criteria" includes:

• Mean Sac Diameter (MSD) ≥25 mm with no visible embryo

• if the initial scan shows a gestational sac but no yolk sac, a diagnosis is confirmed only when no embryo with a heartbeat is seen ≥ 14 days later

• if the initial scan shows a gestational sac with a yolk sac, and there is no embryo with a heartbeat is seen ≥ 11 days later, a blighted ovum can be confirmed

If it is indeed an anembryonic pregnancy (blighted ovum), Baby Center noted:

You're very likely to miscarry – that is, to expel the gestational sac and pregnancy tissue – by the end of your first trimester. The miscarriage process can take weeks, though, and once you find out the diagnosis, you may find it's too emotionally wrenching or physically uncomfortable (if you're cramping a lot) to wait for a spontaneous miscarriage.

It noted that there are three options:

• watch and wait for the miscarriage to happen naturally while tracking hCG levels and performing a repeat ultrasound seven to 14 days later to see if a yolk sac or heartbeat appear, along with a final scan to confirm the diagnosis

• take misoprostol to cause the uterus to contract and essentially force the body to complete the miscarriage

• undergo a D&C procedure to clear out the uterus

And it's important to remember that Brown went to an ER, where miscarriage management is often not an offered service.

The law is not preventing Brown from undergoing a D&C or taking misoprostol; the standard of care is. While she is confident that she is miscarrying, doctors appear to be following protocol. If the diagnosis was confirmed, she would likely be given the choice of how to manage her miscarriage based on what her doctor feels is the safest option.

The Bottom Line:

Brown still has a third and final ultrasound planned at which doctors will make the final diagnosis. Live Action News will update this article when further information is available.

"They are heartbroken over what has happened, and they also understand that the birth couple are also suffering,” Marcereau said. “They had to make the heartbreaking decision to not fight for custody.”

Marcereau said they met with the birth parents several times, during which there were "lots of tears and hugs," and that they would have preferred to have custody of Shea. But, Marcereau explained, it “would have been an incredibly uphill legal battle, and they just didn’t feel that that was going to be what was in the best interest of Shea.”

He said the biological parents intend to file a lawsuit against the clinic and the doctor responsible.

“They have been placed in such a difficult situation that no one should be placed in, and the decision they have been forced to make has just been agonizing,” he said. “It’s just inexcusable.”

6/17/2026: The two sets of parents involved in an embryo mix-up in Orlando have come to a custody agreement for the baby, born in December of 2025.

Key Takeaways:

• Shea came into existence through in vitro fertilization (IVF), and was mistakenly implanted into the womb of Tiffany Score, who was not Shea's biological mother.

• Score and her husband Steven Mills quickly realized Shea was not of caucasian descent, and filed a lawsuit against the Fertility Center of Orlando.

• Shea's biological parents were eventually found, though they have remained anonymous.

• The two sets of parents have come to a custody agreement, allowing both to be a part of Shea's life.

The Backstory:

Score and Mills filed an emergency lawsuit in January against the Fertility Center of the Orlando. After undergoing IVF, Score gave birth to a baby girl who was a different ethnicity, and not biologically theirs. Though the couple said they had "emotionally bonded" with the little girl, who they named Shea, they sought to find her biological parents.

By April, the Fertility Center of Orlando had shut down, and weeks later, Shea's biological parents had been identified, though they have remained anonymous. DNA testing revealed that Shea is South Asian, and her potential parents were therefore able to be narrowed down to one South Asian couple from 16 potential parents, all of whom had egg retrieval and embryo transfer dates in the same time frame as Score's.

“This ends one chapter in our heartbreaking journey, but it raises new issues that will have to be resolved,” a statement from Score and Mills read. “Only one thing is as absolutely certain today as it was on the day our daughter was born — we will love and will be this child’s parents forever.”

The Details:

Score and Mills announced they had come to a custody agreement with Shea's biological parents.

The two couples have come to a "mutually devised custody agreement" in which the names of the biological parents will continue to remain anonymous, and Score and Mills will remain as permanent custodial parents of Shea. A statement from Score and Mills:

"Tiffany and Steve recognize the public interest in the details of their IVF experience, and they appreciate the role the news media has played in bringing them and Shea to the point where Shea’s genetic parents were able to be identified and fears about Shea’s future have been settled.

However, Tiffany and Steve are committed to respect the privacy concerns of Shea’s genetic parents with whom they have begun and intend to continue to foster a relationship of friendship and trust. They are also committed to protecting Shea from harmful intrusion on her privacy."

A court hearing was held on June 15 to finalize the agreement, and while details are not known, it appears to be akin to an open adoption, in which the biological parents will remain part of Shea's life.

The Bottom Line:

Ultimately, IVF commodifies children. But due to the increasing accessibility of IVF and genetic testing, more people are experiencing stories like this one, including adults.

Key Takeaways:

• Jeffery Lee, 49, was convicted of a 1998 double homicide and was scheduled to be executed using nitrogen gas on Thursday.

• The Supreme Court issued an emergency ruling blocking the execution, saying the method was likely unconstitutional.

• Eight people in the United States have been executed using nitrogen hypoxia.

• The assisted suicide industry heavily promotes this method of death, including as a do-it-yourself method of suicide.

The Details:

According to the Equal Justice Initiative:

Last year, Mr. Lee filed a federal lawsuit challenging nitrogen suffocation as cruel and unusual punishment because it “causes inmates to experience prolonged air hunger and feelings of suffocation, which evoke severe anxiety, fear, and physiological distress.” The suit claimed the method cruelly superadds pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment because it triggers the person’s survival instincts to breathe oxygen while also preventing them from doing so.

Alabama’s use of the experimental method has raised serious concerns that it causes significant and lengthy suffering. Forcing a person to breathe nitrogen gas through a facemask until they die from lack of oxygen, Justice Sonia Sotomayor recognized, inflicts the “unnecessary psychological terror” of “conscious, excruciating suffocation” and “severe emotional suffering” while “consciously experiencing the ‘primal urge to breath.’”

The New York Times reported that Lee was given a last-minute reprieve from the Supreme Court, which issued an emergency ruling. A federal appeals court had previously blocked Lee's execution, and the state of Alabama asked the Supreme Court to overturn that decision.

Lee was due to be killed through experimental nitrogen hypoxia, and would have been the ninth person in the United States to do so. In this method, the inmate has a mask strapped to their face, and is forced to breathe in pure nitrogen. The person is effectively suffocated to death.

Previously, Judge Emily Marks of U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama sided with the state and gave the OK for the execution to move forward. Lee appealed, saying an execution via firing squad would be faster, more humane, and less painful.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit disagreed with Marks and sent the case back to her, at which point she reversed her ruling and permanently blocked Alabama from killing Lee using nitrogen gas.

The Big Picture:

Execution via nitrogen hypoxia is still considered experimental, though several people have been killed using it.

It has been criticized as being torturous. A previous execution using this method, for a man named Kenneth Smith, took over 20 minutes to cause death. Smith's convulsions were so violent that the entire gurney shook, and one reporter publicly reported that the death was particularly horrific.

“I’ve been to four previous executions and I’ve never seen a condemned inmate thrash in the way that Kenneth Smith reacted to the nitrogen gas,” Lee Hedgepeth said. “Kenny just began to gasp for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes total.”

However, this exact same method is frequently promoted by proponents of assisted suicide.

The Sarco pod

Philip Nitschke, founder of the “Sarco” assisted suicide death pod, is ardently against execution by nitrogen hypoxia, not because it’s inhumane or torturous, but because it's how he kills people in Sarco, and the negative coverage of such executions harms the assisted suicide movement.

Nitschke complained, “Nitrogen hypoxia has been advocated for over 15 years by the right to die movement as an effective way to obtain a quick, peaceful and reliable Do It Yourself (DIY) death.”

Indeed, people have begun killing their loved ones using nitrogen and calling it assisted suicide.

One woman has been killed through Nitschke's Sarco device, and there were numerous questions raised about her death. Though the woman, who has not been named, was allegedly unconscious within 30 seconds, a motion-activated camera turned on in less than three minutes. The window to the outside of the Sarco pod fogged up, and had a dark spot on it, 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.

Present at her death was Florian Willet, co-president of The Last Resort, which is an affiliate of Nitschke’s Exit International. He was on the phone with Nitschke at the time, and was seemingly concerned.

“She’s still alive, Philip,” he said.

The woman allegedly took 30 minutes to die, and a forensic scientist later said she had “serious neck injuries” reminiscent of strangulation, though Last Resort claimed this was due to the woman’s medical diagnosis of skull base osteomyelitis.

The Bottom Line:

The drugs used in assisted suicide are frequently also used in death penalty executions, and are significantly more violent than most expect.

Instead, Klusendorf said, you just need to know where to start.

Key Takeaways:

• Scott Klusendorf addressed attendees at Live Action's Young Leaders Summit in March.

• He told the audience it's important to focus on the main thing in the abortion debate: the morality of intentionally ending a human life.

• He then laid out three key questions he believes every pro-life advocate must answer: What is the unborn? What makes humans valuable? And what is our duty?

• He explained that dignity is not based on size, development, intelligence, or dependency.

The Details:

Klusendorf emphasized that when speaking about abortion, it's important to focus on the “main thing” in the abortion debate: the morality of intentionally ending human life. He noted that abortion debates often get sidetracked into discussions of “choice, privacy, [and] trusting women,” but insisted that the core issue should remain whether abortion unjustly kills an innocent human being.

“The best way to make a defense for the pro-life view,” he said, “is to keep the main thing the main thing.” He encouraged the audience to focus on a simple, logical framework:

“Premise one: it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Premise two: abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Conclusion: therefore, abortion is wrong.”

Zoom In:

He then laid out three key questions he believes every pro-life advocate must answer:

• What is the unborn?

• What makes humans valuable?

• What is our duty?

Klusendorf turned to embryology to answer the first question: "What is the unborn?"

“From the earliest stages of development, from the one-cell stage, you were a distinct, living, and whole human being,” he stated. He stressed that the unborn child is not merely part of another human being, but is “already a whole, living member of the human family.”

He illustrated this by contrasting embryos with ordinary body cells. While skin cells are alive and contain DNA, they are merely part of a larger organism. Embryos, by contrast, are complete organisms in their earliest stage of development.

Next, he addressed the issue of human value, arguing that dignity is not based on size, development, intelligence, or dependency. He warned that if those traits determined worth, then human equality would collapse.

“If physical development gives us value and you’ve got more of it than me, then you have a greater right to life than me,” he said.

He pointed the audience to the acronym SLED: Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. These, he argued, are the only differences between an embryo and an adult — and none justify killing.

“There’s no essential difference between you, the embryo, and you, the adult, that would justify killing you at that earlier stage of development,” he said.

The Bottom Line:

Klusendorf concluded by encouraging listeners in their duty to stand for the unborn and to remain steadfast despite criticism. He acknowledged the social cost of holding a pro-life position when it seems as if society is against you.

“Do you want to be liked in this world or rewarded in the next?” he asked.

"It's okay if the world hates us. Jesus said the world would hate us. Don't let that turn you away from being a good witness for Christ."

Key Takeaways:

• KFF.org, a pro-abortion organization, claims that 57 Planned Parenthood centers closed their doors in 2025.

• However, KFF admits that it does not know how many closed as a direct result of federal Medicaid or Title X defunding.

• KFF details the fact that many pro-abortion states vastly increased their state funding to offset any financial shortfall to Planned Parenthood.

• Several months before Congress began discussing the potential of defunding Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding, Planned Parenthood began shifting toward a virtual business model that utilizes virtual health centers and the PP Direct app, in order to remain financially solvent.

• The federal Medicaid defunding of abortion providers was for one year only; Congress has until July 4 to vote to extend the move or make it permanent. If it fails to do so, the nation's largest abortion business, along with other abortion businesses, will again receive federal Medicaid dollars the day after America celebrates its 250th anniversary.

The Background:

In July of 2025, President Trump signed into law the "Big Beautiful Bill (BBB)," removing Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers — unfortunately, for just one year.

However, the bill went through numerous court battles before it finally went into effect, and at the time, Planned Parenthood announced that nearly 200 of their facilities would be “at risk of closure.”

In September 2025, it claimed that 50 of its centers had been "forced to close.”

But, as Live Action News documented, many Planned Parenthood closure announcements were misleading, because the abortion corporation was already planning to move toward an online virtual business model to consolidate facilities and remain financially solvent. (Consolidation of facilities and merging of affiliates isn't new for Planned Parenthood; this has happened more than once in the past.)

The Medicaid defunding measure is set to expire this July 4 if politicians fail to extend it or make it permanent.

The Details:

KFF noted (emphasis added):

Since January 2025, 57 Planned Parenthood clinics across 20 states have closed or consolidated with other sites. It is not clear how many of these closures are due to the losses in Medicaid and Title X funding or mergers with other clinics, but these closures reflect a reduction in access points for reproductive health care.

However, it is known that Planned Parenthood affiliates are increasingly offering services by way of virtual health clinics and through their PP Direct app — like those in the pro-abortion state of Illinois, where four Planned Parenthood centers closed in March of 2025, months before the BBB was passed by Congress. These planned closures were announced in January of 2025.

Strikingly, these closures happened in a state that is heavily funding abortion, which KFF noted:

In response to federal Medicaid and Title X funding restrictions, at least eleven states have enacted legislative measures or relied on executive action to use state-only funds to mitigate financial losses for Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health safety net clinics.

State strategies varied from covering full funding gaps on an ongoing basis to appropriating specific emergency grants and supplemental allocations. For instance, California has committed over $230 million in state funds and emergency grants to stabilize its extensive network of clinics, while other states like Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Mexico have authorized targeted allocations ranging from $2 million to $8 million to offset lost federal Medicaid and delayed Title X funds.

Additionally, states like Colorado, New York, and Washington have implemented statutory mechanisms or supplemental budget proposals to guarantee continued state-level reimbursement for prohibited entities....

In 2023, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker announced his plan to funnel $23M toward pro-abortion initiatives, including abortion training and an abortion hotline, and more, even as the state attempted to shutter pro-life pregnancy centers. Illinois even announced an additional abortion fund in January of 2026 — the Prairie State Access Fund, in partnership with the Michael Reese Health Trust, which partners with private abortion organizations.

In other words, many of Planned Parenthood's closures were planned in advance, or did not come about as a direct result of the Medicaid defunding — though it is possible that some closures came about as a result.

But to see a clearer picture of the way Planned Parenthood and its allies spin the facts, in October of 2024, Planned Parenthood announced three closures in Missouri under the guise of providing greater access to abortion (emphasis added) — and an admittedly intentional move toward "virtual care access":

Richard Muniz, interim president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, said patient care can be transferred to other Planned Parenthood locations. He said the goal is to increase virtual care access and get patients in touch with providers sooner, and then into appointments more quickly.

It is clear that Planned Parenthood closures were occurring well before the federal Medicaid defunding, due to Planned Parenthood's own plans to restructure and move toward a money-saving virtual/telehealth model.

Reality Check:

Planned Parenthood has built a billion-dollar empire using American taxpayer dollars to endanger the health of the women and children it claims to serve — by killing preborn children in the womb and, more recently, grooming born children to reject the biological reality of their sex.

From 2024-25, before the BBB took effect, a record breaking $832 million was funneled to Planned Parenthood from taxpayers’ pockets while it killed more than 434,000 preborn children – a record number on both counts.

During that same "killer year," Planned Parenthood’s own reports showed plummeting health care services, like cancer screenings and well woman exams, among other actual health services, all while reporting net assets of more than $3.1 billion.

Today, the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's abortions are committed by pill, while the organization pivots to offering the abortion pill "Just in Case" — without a confirmed pregnancy — against Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved REMS safety requirement.

Why It Matters:

Dehumanization: Targeting Minors

As Live Action News previously noted, "Planned Parenthood employs dehumanizing rhetoric and frameworks to equate preborn humans to "dryer lint" using debunked images to sanitize the mass genocide of human life."

In Live Action News' series, "A Nation Deceived," researcher Sheena Rodriguez detailed Planned Parenthood's dehumanization tactics used on minors in comprehensive sex-ed curriculum:

Utilizing debunked photographs, Planned Parenthood’s curriculum aims to dehumanize the preborn human child living and growing inside of the mother’s womb by depicting him/her as nothing of consequence. But this intentional distortion of reality perpetrated by Planned Parenthood could never actually replace the truth. 

The truth is that from the moment of conception, an individual human being is human and is alive, evidenced by the continued growth and further development of trillions of unique human cells and DNA.

Planned Parenthood's dehumanization tactics extend beyond abortion to so-called ‘gender affirming care’ practices, which even target minors.

"Planned Parenthood sexualizes and indoctrinates minors as a precursor to ‘transition.' It then acts to aid minors and young adults in 'transitioning' through the administration of puberty blockers and hormones and by referring them for life-altering surgeries," Rodriguez separately wrote in her 'Beyond Abortion' series, calling on Congress to investigate Planned Parenthood for "gender-affirming fraud."

Planned Parenthood's euphemistic “gender-affirming care” has seen explosive growth, and generally includes the following:

• Providing ‘gender affirming sex ed’ (which is actually indoctrination) that leads to the acceptance of the intentional use of pronouns that are contrary to a person’s biological reality. This is often a precursor to ‘social transition.’

• Breast binding (or “chest binding”) is the medically unnecessary compression of breast tissue for the purpose of appearing more masculine. Planned Parenthood provides education and resources on binding.

• “Tucking” is defined by the group Genspect as “the practice of males compressing their genitalia into the groin or up between the legs to produce a “feminine” appearing crotch.” Genspect further describes “tucking” as “another do-it-yourself intervention that causes harm” and “is not recommended.” Planned Parenthood also provides education and resources on how to "tuck."

Live Action’s previous investigation also showed that the corporation targets minors and is willing to offer them hormones, sometimes the same day of a virtual call. It promotes pro-transgender ideology online and in schools, and has said it would like to “expand” these services to even more minors.

Abuse allegations

Allegations of abuse at Planned Parenthood have lingered for decades. The abortion corporation’s discrimination, documented Medicaid fraud, HIPAA violations, failure to report child sexual abuse, and massive privacy breaches of client data, should disqualify Planned Parenthood from getting one dime of taxpayer funds.

Planned Parenthood employees have testified that the organization is “steeped in white supremacy,” with “segregated offices,” “systemic racism” reported at multiple affiliates, and alleged unequal treatment of Black and minority employees.

An internal audit confirmed that the corporation still has a racism problem – and employees say it regularly violates labor laws, discriminating against pregnant and disabled employees, and more.

And tragically, as Live Action's own investigations documented, when children are sexually groomed by predators, Planned Parenthood is there – but not to help. Employee testimony and criminal court records have shown Planned Parenthood repeatedly violates federal regulations by failing to report the sexual abuse of minors.

In addition to these abuses, recent news stories have indicated that "care" at some Planned Parenthood facilities is resulting in patient injuries and death.

Recent examples from Live Action News:

• Eighteen-year-old Lexi Arguello died after undergoing an abortion at a Planned Parenthood in Fort Collins, Colorado, in 2025. She was 22 weeks pregnant.

• A 33-year-old woman underwent a chemical abortion at a Planned Parenthood facility in Salem, Oregon. She experienced heavy bleeding and felt faint, and was taken to the emergency room.

• An 18-year-old patient was injured at the Chicago Near North Planned Parenthood in March. She experienced a uterine perforation, which is a serious injury that can cause severe hemorrhaging, internal bleeding, and even death.

Why It Matters:

While Planned Parenthood has closed over 50 facilities, it has no intention of ending its lethal and dehumanizing practices. In fact, even as federal dollars were defunded in 2025, Planned Parenthood gained funds from pro-abortion states, as previously stated.

This corrupt organization continues to be largely kept afloat by taxpayer funds. If politicians fail to act soon, it will regain access to millions in federal Medicaid dollars.

It was in July of 1970 that Planned Parenthood began to focus on an abortion business model — more than 55 years ago. And yet, for decades, it has successfully portrayed itself as a "health care provider." But what other "health care provider" has ended the lives of nearly 8 million defenseless human beings in their mother’s wombs by abortion while collecting $12.3B from taxpayers over 25 years?

This July, as we celebrate our nation's 250th anniversary, politicians need to act, and to give American taxpayers their independence from forcibly supporting an organization that harms children for profit.

Go Deeper:

Read Live Action News' "DEFUND 250" series, showing documented reasons why Planned Parenthood must be permanently defunded of taxpayer dollars:

• 10 Planned Parenthood scandals and abuses

• Planned Parenthood endangers clients with easy access to cross-sex hormones

• Top 10 most horrifying Planned Parenthood abortion stories

• Planned Parenthood staff describe its disturbing practices

• 10 times Planned Parenthood has killed or injured patients

• 10 times women said Planned Parenthood coerced or forced them to abort

• Planned Parenthood's record of misleading the public

• Employees allege internal corruption at Planned Parenthood

• 10 lawsuits reveal why Planned Parenthood is not a leader in health care

• 10 facts Planned Parenthood lied about or denied

• Planned Parenthood's top 10 disqualifying privacy violations

• 10 shocking moments from the Planned Parenthood body parts scandal

• 10 times Planned Parenthood misled clients and the public

• 10 times Planned Parenthood's sex ed misled and groomed kids

• 10 times Planned Parenthood deceived women

• Taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood helps to create more abortionists

• 10 times Planned Parenthood helped child predators

• 10 times Planned Parenthood's racism was revealed

More can be found in Live Action’s Report: "The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood."

At the same time, most are in favor of greater access to IVF alternatives, and most want infertility treatment options — like restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) — before and beyond IVF. Couples wish their healthcare practitioners were discussing these health factors with them long before six or twelve months of devastating negative pregnancy tests, and before jumping straight to IVF as their only treatment option. 

Key Takeaways:

• Recent surveys reveal that while a majority of Americans approve of IVF, close to half are unaware of IVF's risks to mothers and babies.

• A surprisingly sizable percentage of survey respondents who had used IVF did so for reasons other than infertility; some of those reasons were eugenic in nature.

• When restorative reproductive medicine was described to respondents, the vast majority responded positively to the idea, and most also welcomed the idea of attempting to treat infertility naturally before turning to IVF.

• Overwhelmingly, respondents said they wished that conversations about fertility and health would take place proactively, long before attempting to conceive a child.

The Details:

Two studies asked Americans their opinions on IVF and RRM

A new analysis published in the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine summarized two 2025 nationally representative surveys assessing Americans’ “public awareness, perceptions, and preferences in fertility treatment.” The analysis was performed by three healthcare practitioners associated with the International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine (IIRRM). 

Survey #1 was conducted on behalf of The Heritage Foundation by J.L. Partners. McLaughlin & Associates conducted the second survey for RRM advocacy and research organization Women’s Reproductive Health Foundation. 

Most Americans support IVF, but many don’t know what it is

According to the McLaughlin survey of 1,000 adults...

• 59% reported a very or somewhat favorable opinion of IVF generally.

• 79% somewhat or strongly approved of IVF when defined as "a process ... [in which] a woman’s ovaries are hormonally stimulated to produce eggs, and the eggs are surgically removed from her body then combined with sperm in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo or embryos are then transferred back into her uterus with the aim of pregnancy and a baby. Extra embryos often are frozen for possible future use."

In the J.L. Partners survey...

• 81% strongly or somewhat supported IVF. 

• 56% were able to correctly identify the basics of the IVF process when given on a multiple-choice question. (This percentage corresponded closely with the 55% of respondents who considered themselves somewhat or very familiar with IVF. )

Most don't know IVF's risks

• 84% of McLaughlin survey participants agreed that “information about possible negative outcomes” was very or somewhat important when couples receive counseling on fertility treatment options.

• Concerningly, when asked about familiarity with the mom-specific risks of IVF, only 52% of J.L. Partners respondents were aware of some or all of the following possibilities: “preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, severe maternal mortality, and Cesarean section.” 

Most don't know what to do with “leftover” embryos

Neither study specifically assessed respondents’ knowledge of baby-specific IVF risks, but given the increased risk of “preterm birth, low birth weight, cancer, congenital heart defects, and developmental issues,” 41% of J.L. Partners respondents believed that these risks should play a major factor and another 36% said they should play a minor factor. 

J.L. Partners respondents were split on how to care for unimplanted embryos, with...

• 31% saying they should be donated to other couples.

• 17% advocating that they be frozen indefinitely.

• 21% advocating they be used for research.

• 11% voting to discard.

• 20% stating they were unsure.

Using IVF for reasons other than infertility

Less than 1% of J.L. Partners survey participants had used IVF, but among those who had, infertility was the main reason for less than half of these individuals (43%).

Participants’ primary reasons for using IVF also included:

• the mother’s age

• a desire to avoid passing on genetic disorders

• designer purposes (ranging from choosing the child’s sex to selecting for intelligence or athletic ability)

An unsettling 43% of J.L. Partners survey participants agreed that “[p]arents should have full control and should be able to select for traits like sex or intelligence,” while 35% disagreed and 22% were unsure.

Choosing an embryo based on sex or based on expectations about athletic ability, intelligence, or some other trait is eugenics.

There isn’t yet research into the ways that parents’ expectations of their “return on investment” for $20,000, $40,000, or $60,000 babies will shape their relationship with their children. But non-infertility reasons for IVF arguably give parents a false sense of control and certainty over their children’s lives from the very beginning. 

Support for restorative reproductive medicine

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) derided restorative reproductive medicine in a 2025 issue brief, calling it a “nonmedical approach” that, “When provided as the primary or only option… can expose patients to needless, painful surgical  interventions; limit their access to the full range of evidence-based fertility care interventions; and delay time to pregnancy, while potentially increasing overall costs.”

But when the politically-loaded language is stripped out, Americans support RRM as strongly as they do IVF. 

79% responded very or somewhat favorably to the McLaughlin survey question that read:

Another process called restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is sometimes recommended for patients experiencing infertility. RRM focuses on finding and treating the underlying factors causing a couple’s fertility problem. RRM aims to restore reproductive function so patients can conceive and have a baby naturally. Knowing this, do you approve or disapprove of RRM? 

J.L. Partners survey participants were asked, “If medical advancements made it easier to improve natural fertility without relying on IVF, which would you consider a better option for couples facing infertility?”

• 70% opted for “treating the infertility first.”

• 14% preferred IVF as a first-line treatment.

• 16% were unsure.

Desire to proactively address metabolic and men's health

Of course, some will object that surveys funded by organizations supportive of restorative reproductive medicine are far from objective, though the survey questions for each are publicly viewable and the raw data can be requested. 

But another survey, conducted in America and Europe (a 60/40 percentage split) in 2026 by global fertility benefits vendor Carrot Fertility – which administers fertility benefits for companies like Salesforce – similarly found that couples want other infertility treatment options before and beside IVF.

Of the over 1,000 participants, 89% knew of IVF but just 58% were interested in using it for two main reasons: high cost and invasive nature. 

Fully 78% would rather have information about other options to try before IVF. 

“Other options” in the survey included:

• timed intercourse with ovulation (which is the focus of fertility awareness methods and natural family planning).

• intrauterine insemination.

• addressing metabolic health (especially insulin resistance).

• addressing men’s health factors, which are the sole cause of 20% of infertility cases and a contributing factor in up to 50%.

80% of Carrot Fertility respondents were interested in treating male factors, but just 43% of men (and even fewer women) had had a healthcare practitioner discuss this with them.

Respondents additionally specified that they wanted these kinds of conversations to be proactive as opposed to reactive, long before a couple tries to conceive.

In fact, in an op-ed for The Free Press, an IVF doctor candidly acknowledged that his industry is thriving in part because of OB/GYNs’ “silence,” noting, "The patient who arrives to my office in tears at age 33 is the one the gynecologist never had a thoughtful, baseline conversation with." 

The Bottom Line:

IVF is the first infertility treatment that comes to mind for most Americans, but most know little of its risks.

In equal numbers, they are open to restorative reproductive medicine as a first-line or additional option, and they seek information about all available treatments that aren’t predicated on undergoing months of fruitless attempts to conceive. 

As a result, the girl was forced to deliver her baby by emergency c-section at just 23 weeks. As of Friday, June 12, the infant was still hospitalized.

Key Takeaways:

• Authorities say Jamelle Kelly, 39, gave his pregnant daughter abortion drugs without her knowledge or consent.

• The teen, who was 23 weeks pregnant, was forced to deliver her baby by emergency c-section.

• As of June 12, the infant was still alive and being treated in the hospital.

• Though Louisiana protects preborn children from abortion and prohibits the distribution of abortion-inducing drugs, abortionists have been able to flout those laws, mailing abortion pills into the state without any legal ramifications.

The Details:

Jamelle Kelly, 39, of Carenco, Louisiana is accused of poisoning his pregnant 17-year-old daughter with abortion drugs to abort her child without her consent. The girl became ill and was hospitalized, where she underwent an emergency c-section to save her baby's life.

According to news reports, the girl was just 23 weeks gestation at the time of delivery. Her infant weighed approximately one pound at birth, and is expected to be hospitalized for a considerable amount of time due to prematurity.

Kelly has been charged with two felonies, including attempted first-degree feticide and domestic abuse/battery of a pregnant victim. He was released on bail on June 15, after just four days in jail.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill released a statement concerning this incident, saying:

“My prayers are with this mother and her baby, now fighting for life.

This terrible case shows the dangers of mifepristone and its illegal, irresponsible, and unchecked distribution in our state. We’ve challenged the Biden administration’s reckless expansion of dangerous mail-order abortion drugs with no oversight at all from a doctor. This isn’t healthcare — it’s criminal battery and attempted murder.

Anyone who secretly gives abortion drugs to a woman without her knowledge will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Zoom In:

Though news reports do not detail the type of drug Kelly gave to his daughter, the widespread availability of the abortion pill though the mail without adequate vetting or doctor oversight has resulted in many instances in which abusive men have accessed the drugs and then used them to force, coerce, or trick women into taking the drugs without their knowledge or consent.

Louisiana law protects nearly all preborn children from abortion, and it also outlaws the distribution of abortion-inducing drugs. However, those drugs are still being shipped into the state from various suppliers, as 'shield laws' in pro-abortion states protect these suppliers from any legal ramifications.

The abortion pill regimen, consisting of the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, are only FDA-approved up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. This case adds to the evidence that 1) people are obtaining and administering abortion drugs past FDA limits for the abortion pill regimen and 2) women and babies are being put at risk because of it.

The state of Louisiana has sought legal action against several abortionists for abortion pill trafficking, including Remy Coeytaux of California and Margaret Carpenter of New York (who has since relocated to Ireland); however, officials in both of those states promised to protect these law-breaking abortionists.

The Bottom Line:

Easy access to the abortion pill has proven to be increasingly harmful to women who want to keep and parent their babies, only to have abusive men try and kill their preborn children. Women, and their children, deserve complete protection from the dangers of abortion.

“It is unconscionable that so many members of the Oireachtas voted to remove a provision when it has been shown that thousands of women attended an initial abortion appointment but did not proceed after the three-day waiting period. The issue now goes to committee, and no doubt the choreography will begin retrospectively to build the case for why the waiting period needed to be abolished. For such senior members of Government to be party to this charade is shameful. They pretend to listen, but in reality they engage only with voices they already agree with. Call it what you like, but it isn’t democracy.

“Having said all that, the pro-life side has every reason to be hopeful about the future. The response to this bill has made it abundantly clear that there are very many people who are committed to making this country a better, safer and more welcoming place for pregnant women and their babies, and that work will continue this week and for as long as it takes. Those in power who pretend to engage with all sides, but who do not, are losing more and more public support by the day....

6/16/26: Irish political party Sinn Féin has unraveled plans to introduce legislation that would eradicate  the mandatory three-day waiting period for abortion in Ireland, reigniting debate over the country’s abortion laws and sparking concern from pro-life advocates. 

Key Takeaways:

• Irish political party Sinn Féin says it has the votes to eradicate the country's three-day waiting period for abortion, which has allowed women the chance for truly informed consent since the country opened its doors to abortion in 2018.

• Opponents of the waiting period claim women already give abortion deep thought and that the wait won't deter anyone from getting an abortion; proponents say otherwise.

• One pro-life leader in Ireland is calling out leaders like Micheál Martin and Simon Harris of "a massive breach of trust with voters" for promising safeguards when they voted "yes" for the abortion referendum in 2018, who are now supporting the elimination of this key informed consent safeguard.

The Details:

Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald verified that the party will introduce legislation in the Dáil (House of Representatives) on June 16 meant to eliminate this provision, the Irish Examiner reported. McDonald declared:

“We believe that this legislation will be passed. The three-day wait should never have been introduced and has had serious consequences. It is time for the law to change, and this would be a significant move towards compassion and ensuring barriers to women accessing healthcare are removed.” 

Additionally, McDonald alleged that women who choose abortion have carefully considered the decision, claiming that eliminating the mandatory waiting period would not deter anyone from taking additional time if they feel it is necessary. 

“Any woman taking this decision will have given it deep thought and removing the mandatory wait does not mean that a woman cannot take more time if she wishes,” the pro-abortion politician alleged. 

"We believe that there is widespread support across society for removing the mandatory three-day wait and that the legislation will be passed,” she said, without offering figures to back her claims. 

The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA), "a leading provider of early abortion care," has portrayed the waiting period as "paternalistic," with IFPA Medical Director Dr Caitríona Henchion claiming, "Our data insights are in line with the views and experiences of leading medical experts, and of the World Health Organisation, that an enforced waiting period before abortion care is unjustifiable and patronising.”

She tellingly noted (emphasis added), "We hope that the review process will result in the removal of barriers to timely access to abortion, including the medically unnecessary and arduous waiting period.”

According to RTE, other leaders spoke against eliminating the waiting period:

Áontú leader Peadar Tóibín said there has been a surge in abortions since they were legalised but "no effort by the political establishment" to understand either why, or to consider "the human cost, the human devastation"....

Last year there were 10,852 abortions in Ireland, Mr Tóibín said. This is compared to 2,879 in 2018, which he said is a threefold increase.

"It's equivalent to 400 class rooms of children who are no longer here with us today," he said of the 2025 figure, describing it as "absolutely heartbreaking".

He claimed that the rate of abortion "is now affecting the birthrate of this country", adding that it is not the only factor affecting it.

He said that the authors of the report which recommended removing the three day waiting period did not consult any woman who had availed of the waiting period.

Deputy Tóibín said he had been in contact with a woman who had availed of the three day wait, decided to have a child, and could not imagine her life had she not done so.

He criticised Sinn Féin for pushing this bill.

Independent TD Michael Healy Rae said that abortion now "ends the lives of one in every six babies" born in Ireland, and described it as a "national tragedy".

The Background:

In May, Ireland’s Dáil dismissed the Social Democrats’ Reproductive Rights Amendment Bill by a margin of 85 to 30.

The proposed legislation tried to end the three-day waiting period, remove all present criminal penalties, and revise the conditions under which abortion is permitted in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities.

Government lawmakers were allowed to vote based on their own judgment instead of along party lines, RTE reported.

The Big Picture:

Supporters of the three-day waiting period have alluded to evidence suggesting that waiting periods allow some abortion-minded women to recalibrate their decision and to be fully informed before deciding whether to end the lives of their preborn children. 

Doing away with the waiting period could increase the risk of coercion for women to abort their children. Without a built-in pause, they say, women may be more susceptible to pressure from partners, family members, or others who may coerce them to abort their children.

The waiting period in these circumstances acts as a safeguard to aid women from being rushed into abortion without ample time to explore life-affirming alternatives.

Commentary:

In response to McDonald’s announcement, pro-life group Precious Life, based in Belfast, Northern Ireland, released the following statement on its Facebook page: 

“We urgently ask for your prayers over the next 48 hours as a crucial piece of legislation comes before Dáil Éireann (Irish Parliament) that will make abortion even easier to obtain in the Republic of Ireland. At this critical moment, we ask all people of faith to join together in prayer...

That God will touch the hearts and minds of TDs and lead them to oppose this legislation.

That the dignity and value of every unborn child will be recognised and protected again.

That women facing unexpected pregnancies will receive the support, compassion and practical help they need.

That truth, wisdom and courage will prevail in the debates taking place on Tuesday and Wednesday.

That God's Will be done in Ireland and that a culture of life will flourish."

Eilís Mulroy of the Pro Life Campaign in Ireland also commented in an emailed press release, calling the vote a "massive breach of trust with voters":

“Many people who voted Yes in the 2018 referendum did so following assurances from people like Micheál Martin and Simon Harris that the three-day wait would be an integral part of any new law. Their decision today to renege on that assurance - particularly so soon after the referendum - represents a massive breach of trust with voters.

Both men know that close to 11,000 abortions take place in Ireland every year and that over 60,000 abortions have happened since the law changed in 2019. Abortion now ends the lives of 1 in every 6 babies in Ireland.

It is deeply regrettable that both leaders have refused to listen to women who regret their abortions and feel betrayed by the State for failing to ensure they were properly informed about alternatives to abortion and the supports available should they have chosen to continue their pregnancy.

Not only have Micheál Martin and Simon Harris failed in this regard, they are now going one step further by supporting the removal of the life-saving three-day wait....

At what point, we have to ask, are TDs going to stop facilitating abortion and start working to reduce Ireland’s soaring abortion numbers?"

Mulroy added, “We are most grateful to the members of the Oireachtas who have spoken out against this bill, and we urge all TDs to vote No at Second Stage tomorrow.”

The Bottom Line:

Recent figures have revealed that the number of abortions in Ireland has steadily escalated since legalization in 2018, a trend that pro-life advocates say highlight the importance of more robust protections for unborn lives.

Instead of getting rid of safeguards, policymakers should channel more resources into life-affirming aid for pregnant women, including financial assistance, housing support, and access to perinatal care.

But the culture of death is rarely satisfied and always trends toward removing barriers that might allow for life to flourish.

Key Takeaways:

• End Assisted Suicide, a coalition of disability and patient advocacy organizations, filed federal lawsuits on June 11 against assisted suicide legislation in New York and Illinois.

• Both states have recently passed laws which are scheduled to take effect in the upcoming months.

• The lawsuits challenge the constitutionality of each new law, arguing that they threaten the life and well-being of individuals with disabilities by singling them out for lethal drugs, rather than providing equitable care.

The Details:

Both lawsuits were part of an initiative by End Assisted Suicide, a coalition of of disability and patient advocacy organizations. The suits, filed June 11, challenge the constitutionality of each state's assisted suicide legislation, arguing that the laws threaten the life and well-being of individuals with disabilities by singling them out for access to lethal drugs, rather than for the provision of equitable care.

“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,” said Matt Vallière, president/executive director of plaintiff organization Institute for Patients’ Rights. “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 coalition leading the lawsuits is comprised of the national organizations Not Dead Yet, NCLI, Institute for Patients' Rights, and United Spinal Association. Other organizations and individuals local to either New York or Illinois round out the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, which are the fourth and fifth such suits brought by End Assisted Suicide.

Zoom In:

The lawsuits are seeking to overturn recently-passed legislation in two separate states.

Illinois

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed SB 1950, legalizing "assisted death" in December 2025. The law is scheduled to go into effect in September. That bill was passed by state lawmakers as an amendment to a completely unrelated food service preparation bill.

The plaintiffs challenging the law argue that it violates the “ethical obligation of every physician to do no harm."

Ebony Payne is a quadriplegic who has joined the suit as a plaintiff.

“I joined the lawsuit because of personal experiences that brought me really close to death and the people who I leaned on to do the right thing became the people to do the opposite. It [the Illinois law] is a trainwreck and is not what you expect from people who are obligated to do no harm,” Payne said.

New York

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the state's assisted suicide bill, S138 in January. The law, which allows those who are considered terminally ill to access lethal drugs, will take effect in August.

“When states legalize assisted suicide while simultaneously cutting home care and community-based services, they send a dangerous message: that death is a solution for disability and lack of support,” said plaintiff Sharon Shapiro, a board member at the Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled.

“This is not ‘choice,’ it’s discrimination,” she said.

The Bottom Line:

All people deserve to be protected from the threat of state-sanctioned, state-approved death.

Key Takeaways:

• First Lady Melania Trump has announced Fostering the Future accounts, an expansion of Trump accounts for foster youth.

• Trump accounts are tax-deferred savings accounts created specifically for children under age 18.

• Governors in 23 states have promised to set up the accounts for children in their states' care.

The Details:

Melania Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the new accounts, called Fostering the Future Accounts, on June 11. Under the initiative, states will be allowed to open Trump accounts on behalf of children currently in foster care.

Trump accounts are tax-deferred savings accounts created specifically for children under age 18. The accounts were announced last year under President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill."

“Fostering the Future Accounts give foster children the same chance for asset ownership and long-term wealth building as every other American child. By investing in our foster youth now, we help strengthen America’s workforce, communities, and economic future,” the First Lady said.

“We are embedding foster youth into the fabric of this program from the outset,” Bessent explained. “When Trump Accounts launch on July 4, every eligible child in America will be able to participate, including those for whom the state serves as a legal guardian.”

According to a White House press release, governors in 23 states have thus far promised to set up the accounts for children in their states' care.

Zoom In:

The announcement comes as part of the Trump administration's “Fostering the Future” initiative to help those in foster care and to provide better career and educational support for foster youth. In advance of that initiative last year, the First Lady announced a $25 million investment to help secure housing for young people transitioning out of foster care.

According to federal data, there are more than 400,000 children in foster care, many of whom are considered financially vulnerable.

The Bottom Line:

Foster children are an at-risk population, and they need help and support. Any initiative designed to better the lives of these children should be supported.

Key Takeaways:

• In April, the controversial “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)” bill failed to pass Parliament.

• Multiple polls found that the majority of voters in the UK do not want the bill reintroduced or see it as a priority.

• Labour MP Lauren Edwards announced she will reintroduce the bill anyway, even as some in her own party protest.

The Backstory:

Despite a concerted effort to force the bill through, Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill failed to pass, as in Parliament all legislation must pass by May, or it will automatically fail. That is exactly what happened in April, as it 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.

Voters expressed widespread concern about the bill, particularly with regard to coercion and profit, even as advocates pushed for assisted suicide to be legalized in the UK.

Disability advocates strongly spoke against the bill, 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.

Grey-Thompson noted that, as the assisted suicide bill was being considered, the National Health Service (NHS) was also looking to cut between £5bn and £6bn from disability benefits, which would then encourage disabled Britons to die.

"When you understand that we live in a relatively able society, there will be people who sit on the panel who will decide that a disabled person has nothing to offer society and will allow them to end their lives," she said.

Turner spoke of having survived an eating disorder, and signed an opposition letter which said the bill "could make individuals with eating disorders eligible for assisted death at times when they are unable to access or accept treatment. Many young people who could recover with effective care might instead receive lethal medication during a period of despair.”

The Details:

Though polling has indicated the bill is likely to struggle again, Edwards still announced she will reintroduce the bill, and said peers need to "finish the job." Edwards, an MP in the House of Commons, said it will be up to the House of Lords to ensure it passes.

"Laws passed in the House of Commons are then refined by the House of Lords but they don't have the opportunity to block them," she said. "It's perfectly reasonable for us to ask the House of Lords to finish the job."

She also argued the bill only struggled to pass due to a small number of MPs in the House of Lords:

This long overdue change to the law was supported by MPs during the last session of Parliament and was prevented from passing only by the decision of a minority in the House of Lords to talk it out and stop it coming to a vote.

I believe it is a fundamental democratic principle that the elected chamber, the House of Commons, should decide what does and does not become law in this country.

We owe it to all those terminally ill people and their families who are depending on this Bill to ensure that Parliament can come to a final decision on the question of choice at the end of life.

And I believe it undermines public trust in our democracy more widely if we cannot deliver on a measure that is supported by a very large majority of voters in all parts of the country.

However, the bill is expected to face even more opposition, as members of the Labour party are in disagreement over passing it, with numerous party members speaking against its reintroduction.

“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.”

After the bill failed the first time, polling found that more MPs would oppose it if reintroduced, with only 41% of MPs responding they would vote “Aye” again, and 45% saying they would continue to vote no. And though Edwards slammed the House of Lords for blocking it, approximately 61% of poll respondents said they supported the constitutional authority of the House of Lords to amend, block or reject legislation.

Additionally, voters overwhelmingly responded that legalizing assisted suicide is not a priority, indicating that Britons don't want this legislation either. In another poll, just 1 in 3 said they want the bill reintroduced.

The Bottom Line:

Care Not Killing released a statement slamming Edwards' reintroduction of the bill. Dr. Gordon Macdonald stated:

“We are obviously disappointed by this illogical and ideological decision to bring back the a deeply flawed bill. A bill that was so riddled with errors not a single doctors’ group or disabled group supported it.

A bill that even before it went to Committee in the Commons saw an important safeguard removed, namely the High Court overseeing each application. A bill that was so poorly drafted even sponsor in the House of Lords had to table 74 amendments.

Trying to introduce an assisted dying law is a complex and technical matter that must not be rushed, because if it is, vulnerable people will pay the price with their lives."

"Indeed when the main arguments are put to members of the public, support for changing the law drops to just 13 per cent..." Macdonald added. "[P]olling consistently shows the public would rather Members of Parliament to concentrate on fixing the palliative, addressing the housing crisis, easing the cost of living crisis, tackling immigration and many other issues over introducing a law to allow people to kill themselves.”

The coalition of attorneys general claim tons of abortion-related medical waste enter U.S. waterways annually and urge the EPA to add Mifepristone to the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). The CCL is a regulatory tool under the Safe Drinking Water Act that identifies contaminants that are not yet subject to any water protection regulations. Once a substance is on the CCL, it triggers federal safety studies on its health effects whereby the EPA must then decide how to regulate the substance.

The letter states that the FDA’s “unlawful and unsafe” deregulation of Mifepristone over the last 10 years has resulted in an “upsurge” in at-home chemical abortions where “tainted medical waste” is being flushed into wastewater systems that are not designed to remove such contaminants.

The letter notes that, “by design,” the “endocrine disrupting chemicals” in Mifepristone starve a baby to death in the womb, and “it follows” that these substances will remain active in the water even after water treatment whereby unintentional ingestion through the public water supply could cause health complications, especially among pregnant women. 

“We therefore urge this agency to abide by its duty to identify the contaminants most harmful to ‘sensitive subgroups,’ including pregnant women,’” reads the letter. “The health of pregnant women and Americans everywhere may depend on it.”

Joining Missouri AG Hanaway in the petition is: Alabama AG Steve Marshall, Alaska AG Cori Mills, Arkansas AG Tim Griffin, Florida AG James Uthmeier, Idaho AG Raul Labrador, Indiana AG Todd Rokita, Kansas AG Kris Kobach, Kentucky AG Russell Coleman, Louisiana AG Liz Murrill, Nebraska AG Mike Hilgers, Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond, South Carolina AG Alan Wilson, and Texas AG Ken Paxton. 

In parallel, Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) introduced in the U.S. House in March 2026 the “Clean Water for All Life Act.” The bill seeks to mandate in-person doctor visits for prescribing abortion drugs, a doctor to be present during an abortion, and to require “catch kits” to prevent water supply contamination. 

Rep. Miller noted that “one in ten women and girls” who take abortion drugs “need serious medical care afterward,” making the abortion pill both a human health and environmental hazard.

 “These do-it-yourself, at-home, chemical abortion pills are allowing women to expel the baby into the toilet, and it’s going into our wastewater,” she stated. “So my bill is going to put an end to this reckless practice that harms women, degrades human dignity, and contaminates our environment.” 

Since May 2025, Liberty Counsel Action (LCA) has helped elevate the issue of abortion-related contaminants in the nation’s water supply within the federal government through its initiative: “Abortion in Our Water” (AIOW). LCA has presented both the FDA and EPA with evidence that chemical abortion drugs are contaminating America’s drinking water and has recommended that federal agencies assess U.S. water sources for potential abortion pill contaminants and their possible adverse effects, and initiate proper disposal protocols for the aborted fetal remains and medical waste associated with chemical abortions. LCA also recommended the FDA suspend the drug’s current approval until the assessment is complete. 

LCA Chairman Mat Staver said, “With more than 600,000 at-home abortions every year, the American people deserve clear, scientific data regarding the abortion-related contaminants entering into our water. The potential for endocrine-disrupting chemicals in our water is not a partisan debate, rather it presents a federal obligation to investigate and make decisions that protect environmental safety and public health. Not only are long-lasting metabolites from Mifepristone entering our water, so are human remains. The water systems were never designed to filter out these chemicals and human remains. Chemical abortion is a public health crisis that must be addressed.” 

The Bill’s long title is “A Bill to require that an infant born alive after an attempted termination of pregnancy receives appropriate medical treatment and care; to make provision about enforcement of that requirement; and for connected purposes.”

The date for Second Reading is yet to be announced.

This is the second pro-life Bill to be introduced to the House of Lords this week. On Tuesday 9 June, Lord Moylan’s Complications from Abortions (Annual Report) Bill received its First Reading in the House of Lords, having been drawn in fourteenth place in the House of Lords’ Private Members’ Bill ballot.

The procedure for House of Lords Private Members’ Bills

At the beginning of each session of Parliament, two days after the State Opening of Parliament, a ballot is held to select and allocate the order in which the first 25 Private Members’ Bills will be introduced in the House of Lords. Usually, a large number of Peers enter the ballot, providing a short and long title of their bill. The order of the ballot determines the order in which the bills receive their First Reading in the House.

Private Members’ Bills in the Lords do not generally get enough allocated time to be able to progress through all their stages in the House of Lords, but if they do, they can then be supported by an MP and continue in the Commons. 

However, in the Commons, Lords Private Members’ Bills do not have priority over bills introduced by MPs, so unless the Government chooses to give them time, they rarely become law. 

Peers usually use Private Members’ Bills as an opportunity to raise the profile of an important issue by having it debated in the Lords, and through accompanying campaigning and media opportunities. 

Following the publicity and momentum for reform that this generates, a law change may then be secured at a later date through another mechanism, such as a Private Members’ Bill in the Commons or a Government Bill, or an amendment to it.

Babies born alive after an attempted abortion

Following a change in the law during the last Parliament, so that it is no longer illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, and at any point up to and during birth, Baroness O’Loan’s Infant (Born Alive) Protection Bill aims to ensure that the law is clear regarding the protections due to babies born alive following an attempted abortion.

The change to the law introduced earlier this year through the Crime and Policing Act 2026 will likely lead to a significant increase in the number of women performing dangerous late-term abortions at home, endangering the lives of many more women.

It will also likely lead to an increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended well beyond the 24-week abortion time limit and beyond the point at which they would be able to survive outside the womb.

Tonia Antoniazzi MP, who brought forward this law change, said in an interview that she was comfortable with women being able to abort a viable baby at 37 weeks.

91% of 28,000 respondents to a poll run by The Telegraph said they were opposed to the extreme law change that was subsequently made.

High numbers of babies born alive after abortions in Australian states after abortion “decriminalised”

Following law changes to “decriminalise” abortion, starting with Victoria in 2008, abortion is now allowed up to birth in all states of Australia. 

State laws in Australia allow for abortion right through to birth on physical, psychological and social grounds when approved by two doctors; these can be the abortion operating surgeon and anaesthetist.

This has, in practice, allowed for de facto abortion on demand, for any reason, right through to birth in Australia.

In the state of Victoria, of 310 late-term abortions (after 20 weeks), 33 babies were born alive and subsequently died. These deaths were recorded as “neonatal deaths” rather than deaths by abortion.

In 2008, a UK report found that 66 infants were born alive after NHS terminations in one year. The majority of those 66 babies took over an hour to die. 

In the state of Victoria, scores of babies have been left to die after being born alive following a number of ‘failed’ terminations, according to one official review. 

The review reported that in 2011 there were 40 ‘terminations of pregnancy’ after 20 weeks ‘resulting in live birth’. Victoria’s population of 5.5 million is just a tenth of Britain’s.

Between 2005 and 2015, 204 babies were born alive as a result of abortions in Queensland.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “Babies born alive following an abortion should have the same rights and receive the same standard of care as any other baby born at the same gestation. Sadly, the fact that it is no longer illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, and at any point up to and during birth, means that late-term abortions outside a clinical setting are far more likely. Babies who survive such abortions need the full protection of the law, as Baroness O’Loan’s important Bill would ensure

Key Takeaways:

• In 2023, Campaign Life Coalition hosted an event in Canada at which it featured images of abortion victims.

• The Parliamentary Protective Service acted to ban the signs.

• Campaign Life Coalition and a pro-life advocate filed a legal challenge against that decision and won.

• An Ontario court ruled that federal authorities breached Campaign Life Coalition's constitutional rights by banning the signs on Parliament Hill. 

• According to the ruling, photographs of abortion victims do not constitute “obscenity.”

The Backstory:

In May 2023, CLC hosted a press conference ahead of its annual National March for Life. Before the start of the event, officers from the Parliamentary Protective Service banned the group's signs featuring the images of abortion victims from being displayed, alleging the images were excessively graphic and infringed Parliament Hill’s demonstration guidelines, according to JCCF. 

In turn, CLC, together with an individual participant, filed a legal challenge against both the decision to implement the restriction and the underlying rules that gave rise to it. 

“Abortion is not an abstract issue,” CLC’s Maeve Gainey (then Roche), who was barred from showcasing the images, declared. “It has real victims. The images PPS tried to censor due to a bad policy reveal the truth about what abortion does to preborn children. We do not display these images because they are pleasant. We display them because they are true.” 

The Details:

In a June 11 decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS) violated the Charter-protected freedom of expression of CLC and one of its members during a 2023 pro-life event. 

Notably, the Court determined that by forbidding the signs, PPS breached the CLC's freedom of expression as guaranteed by Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that this violation could not be justified under Section 1 of the Charter, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) reported. 

In its decision, the Court pointed out that freedom of expression was a significant pillar of Canada’s democratic system, finding that the PPS behaved irrationally by applying vague and subjective criteria to forbid signs it deemed as “obscene” or as encouraging “hate or violence.” 

The ruling conceded that although activities on Parliament Hill may be governed by certain regulations and reasonable restrictions, those rules must nevertheless respect constitutional safeguards for political speech. 

The Court rebuffed the notion that expression deserves protection only if it is deemed precise, convincing, or publicly acceptable. 

Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir responded to the Court ruling, saying: 

Parliament Hill has long been a place where Canadians gather to communicate political messages directly to lawmakers and to the public. We are pleased that the Court recognized that constitutional freedoms cannot be restricted through subjective and unpredictable censorship.

Highlighting that Parliament Hill has long served as a venue where Canadians come together to deliver political messages straight to lawmakers and the public, Gunnarson  likewise remarked:

We are pleased that the Court recognized that constitutional freedoms cannot be restricted through subjective and unpredictable censorship.

The Bottom Line:

This case mirrors a wider trend of escalating restrictions on the ability to transmit the pro-life message in Canada. The court’s recognition that abortion victim photography does not constitute “obscenity” may also be important in future legal challenges. Such imagery has long been a hotbed of contention, with critics maintaining that it is too graphic for public display and pro-life advocates insisting that it is an indispensable tool for unraveling the horrors of abortion. By reinforcing that these images fall within the purview of protected expression, the court decision bolsters the legal footing of pro-life groups hoping to use visual materials in their advocacy.

Key Takeaways:

• David Kimble knew he was adopted, but it wasn't until he was married and starting a family that he wanted to know about his biological parents.

• After locating his mother, he learned that she didn't know who his father was. He was either her childhood boyfriend or a man who had raped her.

• A DNA test eventually showed that his biological father was the man who raped his mother.

• The experience has made Kimble more pro-life, and he believes every preborn child deserves his or her life.

The Details:

While Kimble's wife was pregnant with their first child, they were told that their baby had a congenital health condition. They underwent amniocentesis, as early testing often gives false positives.

“As my wife waited to undergo amniocentesis to confirm the diagnosis, she said whatever the outcome, she was adamant that she would not terminate the pregnancy,” Kimble told Live Action News.

It was a torturous five-week wait until the amniocentesis results revealed that the baby did not have a congenital condition after all. Despite the good news, Kimble couldn’t help but wonder if he should father more children, not knowing about his medical background.

Two years following the birth of his child, Kimble considered initiating a search for his biological parents to address the lingering questions he had regarding his genetic heritage.  

“I recall seeing my original birth certificate in my adoptive parents’ home which included my mother’s name, age and the city in which she was from," he said. So, he drove to her hometown library and located her picture in a high school yearbook. 

Then, Kimble discovered a program on AM radio that was dedicated to helping adoptees reconnect with their biological parents, providing him with additional guidance in his quest to locate his mother.

“I found my mother’s name through property records and located where she lived around the time of my birth,” Kimble said. “So, I visited her old neighborhood and saw a lady raking leaves. The woman remembered my mother’s family and told me my grandmother had a business in town.”

He found this grandmother’s business in the phone book’s white pages and called her.

Kimble said, “When I told her who I was, she cried, telling me she’d been wondering about my whereabouts for years. I discovered my mother was currently living in Alaska.”

Mother and son connected over the phone, and she later traveled back to her hometown, allowing the two to meet. It was then that Kimble learned he has two half-siblings.

A shocking revelation 

It wasn’t until after her visit that Kimble learned more about the circumstances that resulted in his conception.

Kimble reflected, “She wrote me a very long letter. In it, she told of a summer when she was 14 when she went to visit a boyfriend who moved to Texas. Her mother let her go for an extended period. During that time, she had sexual relations with him.”

One evening after returning home, Kimble's mother was with friends when she was raped by a 23-year-old married man.

“She didn’t know who my father was, given the situation," he said.

Not wanting to upset his adoptive parents, Kimble decided to keep quiet about what he had discovered — and he did — for a time.

“When I turned 50, my wife wanted to find my biological father,” Kimble explained. “She reached out to my mother, who gave her two names; one was a man now living in Israel and his brother in Miami.”

He eventually connected with his mother’s childhood boyfriend in Israel and sent him a DNA test.

Kimble said, “He wasn’t my biological father, so I knew then my father was the man who raped my mother. I later learned he had died in prison in 1988.”

Kimble’s reflection on his mother’s strength

As Kimble reflected on the journey that led him to discover his biological roots, he was moved by the strength his mother demonstrated as a young teenager. Kimble was grateful that his mother chose life. Although Roe v. Wade had not yet been decided when he was conceived, abortion was still available.

“She was very scared at the time,” he noted. “She didn’t want anyone to know what had happened and, although she had hoped her boyfriend had fathered her child, she also suspected the man who raped her.”

Kimble realized, too, that when his adoptive parents were unable to initially conceive biologically, they turned to adoption to build their family.

“They stood on the side of life as well so naturally, I, too, am pro-life,” Kimble said. "Even when they later had two biological children, they never treated their adoptive children any differently.”

Why It Matters:

Today, Kimble is a father to five children. He’s built a successful and affluent career and often finds ways to give back to his community. He believes abortion is abhorrent and wonders why, if most Americans are against late-term abortion, it’s still legal.

Kimble said, “Rape is such a horrific act. If my mother had access to abortion, she might have chosen differently. Yet a baby conceived in rape or incest had nothing to do with the act itself. My success story is not what the abortion industry wants people to hear.”

The pro-life movement, he noted, must continue to highlight the humanity of the baby in the womb to challenge the abortion activists’ mantra of, “it’s just a clump of cells.”

“Winning the simple battles is where it counts,” Kimble said. 

Kimble noted that meaningful progress in larger societal debates begins with individual actions and steadfast commitment to core principles.

*Name has been changed to protect privacy.

Despite the City's looming budget crisis, Mamdani has said he would allocate $65 million to so-called 'gender-affirming care,' including funding community health providers that offer such 'services.'

Key Takeaways:

• At the Pride event, Mamdani touted the $15 million his administration has given to 'gender-affirming' initiatives.

• He previously promised $65 million to such efforts, which included funding for community health centers, which Planned Parenthood claims to be.

• Planned Parenthood of Greater New York Votes PAC endorsed Mamdani in 2025, and Planned Parenthood Greater New York offers 'gender-affirming' services, including to minors.

The Backstory:  

While running for mayor of New York City, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani vowed to make NYC an “LGBTQIA+ Sanctuary City,” promising to “immediately” allocate $65 million of taxpayer-subsidized funding toward ‘gender-affirming care’ (GAC). As a supporter of a socialist economic and political ideology, which historically denies the basic fundamental rights of preborn children, Mamdani also promised to “double city tax funding” for NYC's Abortion Access Hub and NY State’s Abortion Access Fund. These campaign promises earned Mamdani the endorsement of Planned Parenthood of Greater New York Votes PAC in July 2025.  

Live Action News previously explained that Planned Parenthood views both GAC and abortion through the lens of its “core principle” of “bodily autonomy,” which it defines as “having the power to make personal decisions about one’s own body and future, free from political interference, violence, and oppression.” Consequently, Mamdani and Planned Parenthood promote the same dehumanizing propaganda and want to use taxpayer funds to fuel the pro-'gender-affirming care' and abortion agendas.  

The Details:

During a recent “Pride Month” event, Mamdani explained:

"As a first step, my administration has made a $15 million investment in gender affirming care over the next two years. And we will continue to use every tool at our disposal to ensure that trans and gender non-conforming New Yorkers can live with dignity, safety, and freedom they deserve."

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York boasts 6,755 'gender affirming hormone therapy visits' in its annual report ending June 30, 2025. It offers this 'service' at every PPGNY location, with 14 centers offering hormones to minors. In the report, it states:

Select PPGNY health centers provide gender-affirming hormone therapy for people aged 16 and 17. Minors must have a parent present for consent.... Many patients receive their prescriptions the day of their first appointment after having conversations with the clinician if appropriate. There is no prescribed number of appointments or waiting period to get prescriptions – it is individualized.

A recent Gallup poll indicated that support for abortion and GAC, particularly for minors, has decreased across the political spectrum among Americans polled.

Despite this, some Mamdani supporters criticized the wide difference in amounts —$65 million promised vs. $15 million given — and the alleged exclusion of GAC 'treatments' for minors in his recently announced appropriations. These differences could be due to the “fiscal crisis” that has caused the “largest budget gap the City has faced since the Great Recession,” according to NYC’s Executive Budget for fiscal year (FY) 2027.   

To combat alleged budgetary deficits, Mamdani and Governor Kathy Hochul announced $1.5 billion in aid from the state to help fund Mamdani’s initiatives, which include $60 million for “public health” — including GAC and abortions. 

In May, the FY 2027 NYC Budget was released with Mamdani pointing to the previous gubernatorial administration and federal cuts for financial deficits. Still, the Division of Family and Child Health reported connecting over 14,000 women to abortion through the NYC Abortion HUB from November 2022 to January 2026. The Mayor’s Analysis of Agency Budget for fiscal year 2027 reported that, of out-of-state women who called or texted to obtain access to abortion, “75 percent of patients were from Texas, Georgia, and Florida.”  

New York has increasingly allocated state funding for abortion and GAC, both of which are legal in the state for adults and minors. In April, Planned Parenthood affiliates claimed that funding and reimbursements for abortions had been delayed.

Despite this claim, PPGNY reported 32,452 in-clinic and chemical abortions in its annual report, which increased from 28,086 in 2022. Furthermore, PPGNY reported over a 75% increase that same year in the number of ‘gender-affirming hormone treatments.’

The Bottom Line:

Despite the ongoing “fiscal crisis,” which Mamdani claimed to be the “largest budget gap the City has faced since the Great Recession,” the Mayor and the state executive and legislative branches continue to boastfully prioritize funding for induced abortion — including of preborn children brought in from out-of-state — and sex-rejecting, life-altering practices.  

Key Takeaways:

• In 1994, the United States hosted the men's FIFA World Cup for the first time and is currently hosting it for the second time.

• Eleven cities are hosting World Cup matches across the country, along with five cities in Canada and Mexico.

• NICUs are celebrating soccer fever with adorable outfits for their premature patients.

The Backstory:

The 2026 men's FIFA World Cup is being held in 16 cities across North America, with the United States co-hosting alongside Canada and Mexico. The bulk of the games will take place in the United States in:

• Atlanta

• Boston

• Dallas

• Houston

• Kansas City

• Los Angeles

• Miami

• New York/New Jersey

• Philadelphia

• San Francisco Bay Area

• Seattle

The World Cup is held once every four years and is considered the largest and most prestigious single-sport tournament in the world. Forty-eight national teams from across the globe compete to be crowned champions in football (soccer), with Argentina the current reigning champion.

The Details:

Multiple NICUs are celebrating the international event with their tiny patients, dressing premature babies in adorable World Cup-themed outfits. In North Texas, where Dallas is located, several hospitals are getting into the football spirit.

"It’s World Cup week here in Dallas!" Methodist Health Dallas-Fort Worth wrote on Instagram. "These babies are ready for the big game! Across Methodist Health System, nurses are getting in the spirit by dressing these little ones in their most festive soccer-themed outfits."

El Paso Children's Hospital dressed its preemies in festive outfits as well. "Team USA’s three newest super fans from the Laura and Pat Gordon Family Advanced Level 4 NICU at EPCH are ready to enjoy their very first FIFA World Cup experience!" the hospital wrote. "As the whistle blows and the matches begin, our children on their recovery journeys will be watching closely and cheering on their favorite teams!"

Nurses at UT Southwestern Medical Center made handcrafted outfits for its patients as well.

Texas Children's in Houston said its "tiniest fans" are ready to join the game:

Saint Luke's Hospital in Kansas City also celebrated the World Cup.

"From their very first day, newborns at Saint Luke’s hospitals across the metro are joining the celebration, suited up, snuggled in, and ready for kickoff," the hospital wrote. "They may be a little early to pick a side, but one thing’s for sure — the next generation of soccer superstars has officially entered the game."

In Toronto, St. Joseph’s Health Centre and St. Michael’s Hospital both celebrated with their preemies too.

The Bottom Line:

Having a child in the NICU can be stressful for parents, and efforts like this help make it a little bit easier.

Key Takeaways:

• A Planned Parenthood affiliate in Alaska is suing to overturn the state's law prohibiting telehealth distribution of the abortion pill.

• The lawsuit seeks a temporary injunction on the law, which it says is unconstitutional.

• The abortion pill is dangerous to women, and those dangers are compounded when it is distributed without an in-person visit with a doctor.

The Details:

The lawsuit claims that the telehealth abortion law violates the supposed constitutional right to abortion. It seeks a preliminary injunction against the prohibition as the suit proceeds.

According to The Hill, the only abortion facilities in the state are operated by Planned Parenthood and are located in Anchorage and Fairbanks. The plaintiffs are seeking the law's repeal in order to expand abortion for women who may otherwise have to travel far distances to one of these abortion businesses.

“The restriction creates unnecessary barriers that fall hardest on people in rural and remote communities, survivors of violence, and those already facing economic hardship — sometimes barring patients from care entirely. Simply put, this telehealth ban is yet another unnecessary barrier to abortion access, and Alaskans deserve better,” Rebecca Gibron, president of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaiʻi, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky, said in a statement.

The state's acting Attorney General, Cori Mills, said the state has no comment on the case.

“We will have to review the complaint and have no comment on the specific allegations,” Mills told The Hill. “As a general matter, the department will defend the law, which carries a presumption of constitutionality and represents state policy validly enacted by the legislature and the governor.”

Zoom Out:

Abortion advocates often paint abortion safety laws as onerous and a barrier; however, these laws are in place to protect women.

An in-person, physical examination prior to a chemical abortion was the standard of care for years. However, as Live Action News previously reported, in 2016 the Obama administration removed "the requirements that women or teen girls take the first drug in front of a clinician, in-person at the location of a certified prescriber and that the manufacturer report the drug’s non-fatal adverse events (complications). The drug’s allowed use was also extended for use on preborn children up to 10 weeks (70 days) of pregnancy."

The Live Action News report further states:

In April of 2021, the Biden administration FDA temporarily enabled abortion pill distribution and expanded the REMS to limited mail-order pharmacy distribution. By December of 2021, the Biden FDA had further weakened the REMS by eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement and enabling the abortion pill to be permanently shipped by mail.

In-person distribution enables a woman to receive an ultrasound and blood tests beforehand to confirm her preborn child's gestational age and to rule out an extra-uterine pregnancy or any other contraindications that may put the mother at risk. A report from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) states that "removing the in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion pill puts women at increased risk of serious adverse events — an estimate of 13.50 percentage points higher than for in-person dispensing." 

A separate EPPC report found that nearly 11% of women (10.93%) experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or other serious or life-threatening adverse events following a mifepristone abortion — meaning one in ten women experience at least one serious complication from taking the abortion pill within 45 days. The abortion industry does not explain what a woman living in rural Alaska should do if she experiences one of these complications without direct care or oversight from a doctor.

Finally, Live Action News has documented many cases in which abusive and predatory men have coerced, forced, or tricked women into abortions the women did not want, simply because these men were able to easily access the pill through the mail. Without direct, in-person dispensation, women are at risk of suffering at the hands of such abusers.

The Bottom Line:

Telehealth restrictions are not only designed to protect preborn children from abortion — they are also intended to keep women safe.

Key Takeaways:

• Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has ordered six abortion businesses to cease advertising and mailing abortion drugs into the state.

• Alabama law protects most preborn children from abortion and prohibits the distribution of abortion-inducing drugs.

• Multiple studies have shown that the abortion pill is dangerous to women and is obviously lethal to preborn human beings.

The Details:

According to a press release, AG Marshall's office sent the cease-and-desist letters to six businesses on June 9.

Each company is accused of "illegally advertising, facilitating, and enabling the sale and procurement of chemical abortion-inducing drugs to consumers in Alabama." Alabama law protects nearly all preborn children from abortion, and it also prohibits the mailing of chemical abortion drugs like the abortion pill.

The letters demand that the recipients halt all advertising and illegal distribution of abortion-inducing drugs within the state. Violators face possible legal action under illegal trade practices, which includes a fine of up to $2,000 per violation.

“Alabama’s law is clear, abortion is illegal in this state. These companies are not only breaking the law, they are deceiving Alabama consumers about the very real dangers of these drugs. That stops now. Anyone who tries to exploit Alabamians for profit while flouting our laws will be prosecuted to the fullest extent permitted by law,” AG Marshall said in the release, adding:

Each company assures women that abortion pills are “safe,” even though medical evidence directly contradicts the claim. For instance, a 2025 analysis of an all-payer insurance claims database identified that of 865,727 women prescribed Mifepristone, 10.93 percent experienced serious adverse symptoms including sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, and other life-threatening complications. 

The cease-and-desist letters were sent to Plan C, a project of Possibility Labs, San Francisco, CA; Southern Woven, New York, NY; ybycmeds, Sanborn, NY; Abortion Pills in Private, United Arab Emirates; Red State Access, New York, NY; and Cambridge Reproductive Health Consultants, Cambridge, MA.

Why It Matters:

Though the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization allowed states to create their own laws surrounding abortion, these laws are being undermined by abortion businesses that advertise and mail abortion-inducing drugs into pro-life states.

As noted in Marshall's press release, the abortion pill is risky for women despite the abortion industry's claims otherwise. A recent analysis of a large insurance database found that adverse events (complications) from the abortion pill occurred at a rate 22 times higher than that reported on the Food and Drug Administration's label for the drug. Still another study found that the abortion pill is four times more dangerous than a first-trimester surgical abortion.

Complications from the pill can include severe cramping, contractions, and heavy bleeding, as well as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headaches. Other risks include incomplete abortion, hemorrhage, infection, and even death.

The Bottom Line:

Both women and their preborn children deserve to be protected from the dangers of the abortion pill and other chemical abortion-inducing drugs.

Key Takeaways:

• The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is appealing on behalf of a Massachusetts pro-life pregnancy center targeted by a state-funded smear campaign launched after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision.

• State officials partnered with a pro-abortion advocacy group to brand pro-life centers as “dangerous” and “deceptive,” directing taxpayer dollars toward a campaign that specifically named the center by name and linked its clinic location on official government webpages.

• Internal government documents obtained during the case reveal officials explicitly discussed how to address the religious character of pro-life centers.

• The ACLJ is pursuing a “multipronged legal campaign” including FOIA requests, a federal lawsuit, and a public counter-campaign to defend pregnancy resource centers nationwide.

The Details:

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed its opening brief this week in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on behalf of Your Options Medical Centers (YOM), a faith-based pregnancy resource center that has operated in Massachusetts for over 25 years without a single patient complaint.

For a quarter century, YOM has served women facing unplanned pregnancies with free ultrasounds, counseling, and practical help. After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling in 2022, that was apparently enough to make it a target.

Before long, Massachusetts had channeled more than one million in taxpayer dollars into a campaign branding pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) as both “fake clinics” and a “public health threat.” 

Rather than act through its own agencies alone, the state also recruited Reproductive Equity Now, a pro-abortion organization, to work alongside officials in gathering complaints and applying pressure to centers like YOM. The center found itself named on official government webpages, its Revere clinic photographed and displayed for public identification.

The real-world consequences followed quickly. 

Zoom In:

One physician resigned after concluding that the professional risk was no longer worth it, and women who might otherwise have sought life-affirming care began going elsewhere. Meanwhile, the state’s own campaign partner filed a complaint against the center’s medical director with the Board of Registration in Medicine. That investigation has now stretched past the two-year mark, and has yet to produce a single finding against her.

What the ACLJ wants a federal court to see is not just a hostile campaign, but a selective one.

Internal government planning documents raise the question directly: officials asked, in writing, how they wanted to address the “religious” dimensions of pro-life centers. That language, the ACLJ argues, is evidence of targeted hostility toward a specific religious viewpoint dressed up as public health enforcement.

The lower court looked at the state’s actions piece by piece and found no constitutional violation, but the ACLJ argues that approach missed the point entirely. Viewed as a whole, the coordinated campaign including the funding, the partnership, the regulatory pressure, and the investigation paints a picture “the First and Fourteenth Amendments” were designed to address.

Alongside the federal appeal, the organization is pursuing FOIA requests and a public counter-campaign it hopes will expose the broader pattern of government-assisted pressure on pregnancy resource centers across the country.

The Bottom Line:

Pregnancy resource centers exist to give women something the abortion industry would rather they never find, which is simply a reason to choose differently. That said, what happened in Massachusetts was not oversight; it was a coordinated attempt to make the truth harder to reach, funded by the public and executed through the machinery of state regulation.

The First Circuit will now decide whether that distinction matters under the Constitution.

The cases, some involving diagnoses of brain tumors, ignite urgent questions about the safety of hormonal contraception and the sufficiency of informed consent for women prescribed these drugs. 

Key Takeaways:

• Numerous women have filed lawsuits against Pfizer after being diagnosed with brain tumors.

• Other reported complications include eye abnormalities, vision problems, and seizures.

• There have been many similar lawsuits regarding complications of Depo-Provera.

The Details:

According to reports from Scottish media outlets, various women have filed lawsuits against Pfizer after being diagnosed with intracranial meningiomas, a kind of brain tumor, after using Depo-Provera.

The injectable contraceptive, administered every three months, contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic hormone designed to suppress ovulation. 

A number of women have experienced other serious health complications, including eye abnormalities, vision impairment, and seizures. These individuals maintain that they were not informed of the possible risks before taking the contraceptive. 

Some have claimed that they were prescribed Depo-Provera for years without being notified of any associated with tumor growth, only realizing the possible connection after learning of their serious health diagnoses. 

• Tammy Croston, a 47-year-old from Cupar in Fife, experienced partial blindness after starting Depo-Provera in 1999. She took the injection intermittently over a number of years before doctors found four benign tumors in her brain. Complications resulting from the surgery to remove one of them led to the loss of vision and function in her right eye. 

• Kirsty Moore of Dundee suffered from a bulging eye and a brain tumor after taking the injections for more than two decades. Moore was diagnosed with a benign tumor in 2021 after experiencing persistent headaches and discovering a swelling in her right eye. Since then, she has undergone four surgical procedures to remove the growth, which is located on her optic nerve. Yet in spite of several repeated operations and ongoing medical care, the tumor has continued to recur. 

Regarding the escalating number of cases of Scottish women affected by Depo-Provera, Croston said: 

This number is worrying and will only continue to grow the more people find out about the jab's link to brain tumours. This case is really going to exceed everyone's expectations. When women who have been on this jab who have tumours realise the direct correlation, it will only escalate further. It's time for Pfizer to be held accountable.

Zoom In:

A 2024 study released in the British Medical Journal disclosed that long-term use of Depo-Provera is linked to a dramatically higher risk of developing meningioma brain tumors.

Legal firms representing affected women allege that Pfizer failed to adequately warn patients of the potential risks associated with long-term use of the drug. Patrick McGuire, senior partner at Thompsons Solicitors Scotland, admitted that the firm has been contacted by over 100 women throughout Scotland, and is currently acting on behalf of more than 50 of them. 

“We’ve been inundated by calls,” McGuire said.

“It’s quite shocking when you think that many Scottish women have been affected over the years, who’ve for years simply been suffering in silence. It’s certainly the biggest, quickest uptake I have seen in any of the group actions that I’ve ever been involved in,” the attorney added. 

McGuire also outlined his objectives about the outcome he seeks from Pfizer on behalf of the claimants, saying, “They should apologise, they should stand up, they should admit they’re wrong and they should pay each and every victim of this scandal fair and just compensation.” 

The Big Picture:

The Scottish cases are part of a broader international wave of litigation. In the United States, over 1,000 lawsuits have reportedly been filed against Pfizer over similar claims. Plaintiffs contend that Pfizer either knew, or should have known, about the link between the Depo-Provera and meningioma development, but did not adequately inform healthcare providers or patients about the risks. 

Medical studies have divulged the relationship between synthetic progestins and tumor growth. Although meningiomas are often benign, their location in the brain can cause profound complications, such as seizures, vision loss, and neurological impairment. In some cases, surgery is required, with its own set of substantial risks.

For the women affected by Depo-Provera, the ramifications have been serious. Several have reported long-term health issues, job loss, and emotional trauma. 

Pfizer, however, has not conceded liability in these cases. As with many pharmaceutical lawsuits, determining causation and corporate responsibility will likely entail complex scientific and regulatory arguments. 

The Bottom Line:

The situation brings to light once again the moral questionability of contraception itself. Depo-Provera has long been contentious, not only for its health risks, but also for its potential early abortifacient effects, as it may deter the implantation of a newly-created human being.

Key Takeaways:

• Squires said God's plan is not for men and women to be alone.

• Modern culture encourages men and women alike to be separate and resentful of each other.

• Rather than waiting for marriage until everything else in life is perfect, Squires said marriage should be the cornerstone on which a life is built.

The Details:

Squires began his discussion by pointing out that human beings are meant to live in community with each other:

"We're going to talk a little bit about God's design. And one of the things that I want you to take away is that God's design for humanity is such that he created men and women to need each other, to create, sustain, protect, and enjoy life," he said. "So we need each other. So forget what the culture tells you. They want to pit men against women, women against men. We literally fit together like hand in glove. So I'm going to talk to you for a little bit of time — let's start with two becoming one."

He explained that, going back to Genesis in the Bible, God created man and woman in His own image. "This is where we get our dignity," he said. "This is where the importance of life comes from, that we were created in God's image. Created us for one another."

But as Adam and Eve suffered a fall, the same is occurring in today's culture:

"We are seeing this play out today in real life, in online life and social media, where there are forces that want young men to be resentful, to live in despair, to become self-destructive. Young men, they want you to be addicted to pornography and to gambling. They want you to lock yourself in your basement. And this is not good for the family.

Each of us has a role to play, because there are also forces operating on Eve, who want to deceive Eve, and they've been telling Eve, they've been telling women since at least 60 years, that men are toxic, marriage is oppressive, the home is a prison, and children are a burden. And so each side is being messaged by the enemy to reject the design that God has for humanity. So what I'm saying to you is, we need to reject their rejection of God's design, right? So men, you need to know what type of Adam you are. And young ladies, you need to know what type of Eve you are."

Zoom In:

Squire addressed a major problem around the world, which is that people are getting married at older ages than ever before. "You need to know who you are, because you need to know what you want to build."

Rather than waiting for everything else in life to be perfect before pursuing marriage, Squire said marriage should come first:

"You can choose the cornerstone view of marriage. This is where young people tend to get married a little earlier, and Live Action is definitely going to help you with that, with some of the things that they have planned today. You have cornerstone view of marriage, where you build a life together on the foundation of your relationship. Or you can have the capstone view of marriage, where you build a life together after you have accomplished several personal and professional goals.

So you don't only get your college degree, you get your master's, you get your PhD, you make partner at the firm, you buy several properties, and then your passport has more stamps in the post office. Then at the ripe old age of 45, you said, now I'm ready. That's the cornerstone view. If we don't change what we're doing, we're going to end up with the tombstone view of marriage, where people have more life behind them than they have ahead of them."

He also added that people need to think of family in intergenerational terms, and not just with their immediate nuclear family:

"Part of the goal is to order your life in such a way where your children get the benefit from what you pour into them, and what your parents pour into them. And it's an intergenerational transfer.

The older people get the benefit of the youth, the younger people get the benefit of older wisdom. And particularly young men, this starts with you because the righteous man walks with integrity, and blessed are his children after him."

The Bottom Line:

Squire concluded by urging attendees to build their lives on the word of God.

"Be a solid, stand-up man of integrity where your public life matches your private life," he said. "Get the basics down. Stable job. Stable mode of transportation. Some place to lay your head. Then you're in a position to enjoy the gift that God has for you and that wife, and then start a family."

Key Takeaways:

• The study found that women wanted more information on complications than they were given during the informed consent process.

• Most women cited bleeding, pain, and impact on mental and emotional health as complications for which they were unprepared.

• There have been multiple recent studies finding that the abortion pill is more dangerous or painful than women are led to believe.

The Details:

The study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that women are not being properly informed about the complications they may experience after taking the abortion pill. Women aged 23 to 55 who had undergone chemical abortions were surveyed about their perceptions of the informed consent process.

Respondents said they wanted more information about various aspects of their experience:

• Over 50% about bleeding

• 48% about pain

• 33% about mental and emotional health

• 29% about incomplete abortion with retained tissue

• 21% about a failed abortion with their preborn child born alive

Respondents also said they felt confused about whether their pain and bleeding could be considered normal or if they were severe enough to constitute an emergency.

“These findings raise real questions about whether women are being given all the information they want and need to be fully informed,” CLI Senior Research Associate Tessa Cox told the Daily Caller. “Our results underscore a serious reality: Informed consent for abortion drugs needs to be far more than just a box to check. Given the broader context of the increasing availability of abortion drugs online and through the mail, there are serious ramifications, not only as the lives of unborn babies are ended by these drugs but also as women’s safety is put at risk. The stakes are too high for informed consent to be treated as a formality."

The Big Picture:

The abortion pill is heavily marketed as safe, and no different than having a heavy period. It's no wonder, then, that post-abortive women are reporting they were not properly prepared or informed for what they would actually experience.

A recent insurance database analysis from the Ethics and Public Policy Center found that adverse events from the abortion pill occurred at a rate 22 times higher than that reported on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) drug label. Another study found that mifepristone is four times more dangerous than a first-trimester surgical abortion. As Live Action News previously reported:

Recent research from Ireland about the abortion pill showed 12% of women went to the ER for bleeding or infection. In addition, 16% suffered incomplete abortions.

This percentage corresponds with a recent U.S. insurance database analysis from the EPPC, showing a nearly 11% “serious adverse events” rate after taking the abortion pill.

Still another study found women were not properly prepared for how painful undergoing a chemical abortion would be, with respondents saying that comparisons to period pain were "inaccurate and misleading."

Planned Parenthood downplays the reality of chemical abortions on its website, saying women can expect to feel “tired and crampy” and that it’s “kind of like having a really heavy, crampy period.”

Women not only can undergo extreme pain, but also trauma due to blood loss and due to seeing the body of their dead child.

The Bottom Line:

The abortion pill is dangerous and needs to be taken off the market, yet it is growing increasingly common, leaving a trail of injured, traumatized women and dead preborn children in its wake.

Key Takeaways:

• A New Jersey committee has advanced A2218/S2260, which would prohibit "interference" with abortion and 'transgender' services.

• The legislation makes it a crime to harass or block individuals from accessing abortions, while elevating the protected status of abortionists and abortion businesses.

• The bill would also allow a person to sue anyone who “causes a reasonable person to suffer damage to the person’s business or personal reputation, financial harm, or pain and suffering, mental anguish, or emotional harm” due to committing or receiving an abortion.

• The bill's opponents warn it infringes on the First Amendment right to free speech, as well as parental rights.

The Details:

The General Assembly Appropriations Committee advanced A2218/S2260 on June 8. The legislation would make “interference with reproductive health services,” a criminal offense; these "services" include abortion and cross-sex hormones for minors.

As Fox News reports, the bill would "make it a fourth-degree crime to harass, harm or block individuals from accessing or providing such services, while extending protections to providers against extradition to states that have criminalized reproductive or transgender treatments."

The bill also contains a civil liability provision that would allow a person to sue anyone who “causes a reasonable person to suffer damage to the person’s business or personal reputation, financial harm, or pain and suffering, mental anguish, or emotional harm” because the person facilitates, performs, or receives "reproductive health services."

Protections would also extend to abortionists and businesses committing abortions and would extend to people traveling to the state for abortions. Legal consequences would also apply to "interference originating from outside the state."

Violators inflicting "significant bodily injury" face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $150,000.

If the bill is enacted, New Jersey would become the first state in the nation to pass such a measure.

Lawmakers in the full Assembly were originally slated to vote on the bill June 11.

However, according to a Facebook post from New Jersey Right to Life, that vote has been postponed to a later date "to address constitutional issues" in the bill.

Why It Matters:

Various groups are warning that this measure could have a chilling effect on free speech and parental rights in the state.

Gregory Quinlan of the Center for Garden State Families warned that the legislation would threaten the work of pro-life sidewalk counselors. “We could be 100 feet away and just praying and still be found in violation," Quinlan told the New Jersey Monitor.

Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, said the bill infringes on the First Amendment right to free speech. “The threat of prosecution is enough to silence lawful speech. And that happens to be exactly what this bill is designed to accomplish,” she said.  

Even the New Jersey Press Association is opposing the measure, warning it could impact truthful reporting.

“These bills lack basic constitutional safeguards and would punish truthful reporting relating to reproductive health care services, as well as protected opinions about such services,” said New Jersey Press Association Chairman Brett Ainsworth.

“For example, contrary to what the Constitution requires, the expansive language means a reporter could be civilly or criminally liable for publishing an article about the troubling practices of a reproductive healthcare services provider, even if the reporting was well-documented and fully accurate,” he elaborated. “A provider could simply assert his or her reputation or emotions were harmed by that truthful reporting.”

The Bottom Line:

Though New Jersey has already cemented itself as a radically pro-abortion state, this measure takes protecting abortion to an unprecedented level. Women deserve to know that abortion is not their only option. When pro-life speech is silenced, the only winner is the abortion industry.

Key Takeaways:

• A parliamentary committee is examining whether to allow euthanasia for mental health in Canada.

• The association which trains doctors to commit euthanasia refused to share its curriculum for review.

• Over 3,000 doctors have taken the curriculum, which was funded by taxpayer dollars.

The Details:

As reported by Canadian Affairs, on April 14, members of the parliamentary committee agreed to ask the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) for its curriculum module on MAID and mental health illnesses. CAMAP refused to do so, telling Canadian Affairs that because the module is a live online class, it would not be possible for the committee to review a copy of the curriculum. It will not make the curriculum public.

“CAMAP recognizes that there is significant public interest and ongoing discussion regarding MAID and mental disorders,” CAMAP told Canadian Affairs in an email.

“However, the purpose of the curriculum is not public advocacy or public education; rather, it exists to support health-care professionals in understanding and applying the existing legislative and clinical framework within their practice.”

CAMAP did offer to allow the committee members to participate in a session of the curriculum "so they could experience the curriculum in the context in which it is designed to be delivered. That invitation was not taken up."

Zoom In:

Nearly 3,000 doctors have taken the CAMAP curriculum, which was funded by the government through Health Canada at more than $3 million a year. "Based on this reality," wrote executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Alex Schadenberg, "one would think that the federal government, in some way, actually owns the killing curriculum."

Some of those who were on the working group to build the curriculum have become harsh critics, saying it ignores loneliness and homelessness as factors in a MAiD decision, and that the curriculm discourages doctors from helping people improve quality of life with disabilities.

It “presumes that disabled people’s lives are not just harder, but plausibly unlivable,” said Catherine Frazee, an academic who resigned from the working group, wrote. Two others also resigned from the working group.

Frazee explained that in one case, a homeless 19 year old with cerebral palsy who had escaped an abusive environment was approved for MAiD. In another case, a young man with disabilities was approved for assisted death when he expressed that he feared he'd never have a family of his own.

The Bottom Line:

Canada has been considering allowing individuals with mental health illnesses and without a life-threatening diagnosis to access euthanasia for years. Its original launch date was pushed back amid controversy.

Now, the government is seeking to allow euthanasia for mental health reasons by March 17, 2027. Meanwhile, the number of people dying by euthanasia in Canada is steadily rising each year, and the government stands accused of considering assisted death a <a href="/news/canada-doctors-pressure-euthanasia">cost-saving measure</a>.

Key Takeaways:

• Wilson said that culturally, people focus on the wedding more than the actual marriage.

• She explained that the true beauty in marriage is watching people live out their marriage vows, particularly in challenging times.

• In a period when society encourages people to fear commitment, Wilson encouraged attendees to commit anyway, and live the vocation to which they are called.

The Details:

Wilson began her speech by recalling her own wedding day, which she said was a beautiful, incredible day. Yet too often, today's culture focuses too much on the wedding, and not enough on preparing for marriage.

"Marriage is often sold to us as a wedding day," she said. "I meet women who say, I wanna get married because I wanna have a wedding, right? I wanna pick out my wedding gown... It's so beautiful to watch a couple proclaim their wedding vows to each other... It's so beautiful to watch it happen, but what is even more beautiful is watching a couple choose to live those vows... to really, truly live them."

People will say their marriage vows, but fail to actually mean them, rather than remaining committed to their spouse through sickness and health, for richer or poorer. Wilson said this is largely because culturally, commitment is not encouraged:

"You and I live in a culture that's terrified of commitment. And you might be sitting in your chair and you're terrified to commit to anything in your life. You're afraid to commit to a university. You're afraid to commit to a vocation. You're afraid to commit to going out with your friends on Friday night, right? You're afraid to commit to anything at all. 

You might live your life in indecision, and hemming and hawing about everything in your life, and you're just like, 'oh my gosh, what am I gonna do? And I don't wanna make a choice, and I don't know.' Any of you feel like that in your life? We're afraid to commit constantly."

Wilson explained there are usually two reasons people fear commitment.

"We wanna keep our options open," she said. "And we don't know what we're really committing to, and we're really afraid of the unknown of that. When I make that commitment, I'm scared of what's gonna happen because there is an unknown portion of this, and I wanna know what it is in order to commit to it."

Zoom In:

Marriage, according to Wilson, has become harder in our culture, as we have become a people that struggle with following through. "We've become unreliable and we've become lazy, struggling to follow through on anything that we say," she said, and added that people often don't want to grow:

"Our culture has lulled us to sleep, into sloth, into laziness, with distractions, and with constantly taking the easy way out. But committing in a counter-cultural way to a life of service and love and humility and giving is the call for all of us in our lives, no matter what vocation God may call you to.

Maybe that's to marriage, maybe that's to the priesthood, maybe that's to the religious life, maybe that's to single life. He calls all of us to humility and service and trust and love; we have to decide that we're gonna commit to that." 

Ultimately, Wilson said commitment is what sets us free:

"A wise and rooted person knows that when you're so committed to the person, if you're called to marriage, that you have vowed your life to, your eyes aren't even looking around to see what better options are out there.

Because you're fixed, you're focused, and you're locked in on the commitment you made and following through on that commitment that you made, right? This is the person, this is the vow, this is the goal, is to walk toward heaven together, right?

There is a richness and a depth to this commitment, to the commitment of marriage that has been lost in this world that is worth living in our own lives today."

She explained that making a marriage work requires being a person who follows through on their commitments.

"Stop procrastinating, and that will mold you and shape you to be more ready if God calls you to marriage, to serve immediately, to love immediately, to not say, 'I'm gonna do it next week, I'm gonna do it next month. I'm gonna do it next year.' You're gonna do it now..." she said.

The second requirement is to be obedient to what the Lord asks of you. "Whatever you call me to do, whatever you call me to share, whatever you want me to do, I'm open to it," she said.

The Bottom Line:

"Committing to marriage has stretched me, and challenged me in so many ways, and I've done it so imperfectly, and I'm so grateful for the Lord's mercy, for my husband's mercy, and seeing me through every step of the way in that imperfection of my follow-through," Wilson concluded. 

"But most importantly, as you commit, it's going to call you to keep your gaze fixed on the Lord, who called you into something greater than yourself, who says, in that moment with Peter, with all of the disciples out on the water, He says to them in that moment, and He says it to us today: 'Take courage, it is I, do not be afraid.'" 

"He says that to you, He says that to me," she said. "So my brothers and sisters, be not afraid to grow. Be not afraid to be obedient, be not afraid to commit, be not afraid to serve, to love, to lay down your life for something greater than yourself. Jesus will always be with you every single moment. Be not afraid."

Key Takeaways:

• An Arkansas circuit court judge has reversed a previous decision and is allowing a lawsuit against the state's pro-life law to move forward.

• Six women filed suit against the law for various reasons, but none actually required an induced abortion which intentionally kills the preborn child. Some simply didn't wish to be pregnant.

• Some argue that the state law is unclear, but in reality, the law allows induced abortions for medical emergencies, which means that a lack of knowledge about the state law or possible negligence may have contributed to the women's situations.

The Backstory:

Six women filed a lawsuit against Arkansas's pro-life law, claiming to have been harmed by it. The law, which protects most preborn children from abortion, took effect in June 2022 following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The women, along with an OB/GYN, asked the circuit court to deem the law unconstitutional and block its enforcement temporarily as the case proceeded.

On April 30, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Cara Connors dismissed the lawsuit based on a 2025 law, Act 975, which transferred jurisdiction over certain constitutional lawsuits out of circuit courts to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

However, shortly before Connors dismissed the case, the state Supreme Court ruled Act 975 to be unconstitutional.

The Details:

In May, Connors reversed her ruling. The case against the state's pro-life law will now proceed.

“We are glad that we can now expeditiously move toward a hearing on our request to block the abortion bans while this lawsuit continues,” Amplify Legal, a pro-abortion group which is representing the women, said in a statement. “Our clients will testify to their horrific experiences under the abortion bans, and we look forward to demonstrating why the state’s remaining jurisdictional arguments are without merit.”

Jeff LeMaster, spokesperson for the office of Attorney General Tim Griffin, said the AG "will continue to vigorously defend the state's duly passed abortion laws."

Why It Matters:

The six women in the case had varying reasons for seeking abortions, but none of them needed to intentionally kill their preborn children. Induced abortion, which is regulated by many pro-life states, is the direct and intentional killing of a preborn child. However, some have stated that Arkansas' law lacks clarity on this point.

• Emily Waldorf suffered cervical insufficiency and preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) and needed an induced delivery of her child, not an <a href="/news/support-abortion-save-womans-life">induced abortion</a> (intentional killing).

• Theresa Van was told at her 20-week ultrasound that her baby girl was measuring small and not moving much, and that there was no amniotic fluid. She then developed placenta previa, which would require a C-section and a hysterectomy, not an abortion. Her baby was stillborn.

• Chelsea Stovall learned at 19 weeks that her baby had a congenital diaphragmatic hernia, meaning the baby's stomach and bowels were in his/her chest cavity. She was told her baby was not likely to survive, but this does not necessitate an intentional killing.

• Allison Howland learned she was pregnant after a sexual assault. She did not need an induced abortion.

• Kishaya Holloway claims she simply did not want to have children.

• Leitaea Lowrimore suffered an ectopic pregnancy, and the doctor wrongly refused to treat her according to the proper standard of care. Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not an induced abortion.

None of these women needed an induced abortion. An induced abortion is the direct and intentional killing of preborn children. Arkansas law defines abortion as:

the act of using, prescribing, administering, procuring, or selling of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the purpose to terminate the pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the termination by any of those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child.

This definition alone can be problematic because it implies that it would be illegal for a doctor to carry out any procedure — such as a preterm induced delivery — that would likely lead to the death of the baby. But, the law also states that an abortion is allowed for a medical emergency:

'Medical emergency' means 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.

And it also says:

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.

Waldorf and Lowrimore were denied the care they needed because the hospitals, whether the doctors or the risk assessment team, did not understand the difference between intentionally killing a preborn child and carrying out a medical procedure to save the mother's life.

Ghazaleh Moayedi, an abortionist in Texas, told ProPublica, "It’s been five years, and people are still like: ‘I don’t know what we can do.' That’s willful ignorance at this point.” Moayedi is correct.

Induced abortion in cases of prenatal diagnosis, as with Stovall and Van, is not necessary. It is an act of eugenics to kill a child because he or she is not deemed healthy.

Holloway and Howland did not need an abortion or medical care during their pregnancies. They simply didn't want to be pregnant.

The Bottom Line:

Pro-life laws do not stand in the way of women receiving standard medical care while pregnant. It is when hospitals misunderstand the law, fail to learn the law, or act negligently, that women suffer from these medical errors in judgment.

Key Takeaways:

• Pope Leo XIV became the first pope in history to address members of the Spanish Parliament this week.

• He called on lawmakers to defend life "from conception to its natural end."

• Spain has expanded both its abortion and euthanasia laws in recent years.

The Details:

The pope's remarks came on June 8, during the first papal visit to the country in 15 years. His statements marked the first time in history a pope addressed Spain's parliament. Among his wide-ranging comments, he addressed the need for lawmakers to defend life at all stages.

“Every truly just society is built upon the recognition of the inviolable dignity of the human person,” Leo said. “Such dignity precedes any concession by the State and cannot be subordinated to shifting social consensus or the whims of the majority at any given moment. It belongs to every human being by the very fact of their existence, and for this reason, it must guide every positive legal system.”

He warned lawmakers against a "throwaway culture" which views life as expendable, saying:

In this sense, if life ceases to be recognized as a fundamental value, what future can our societies have? Can a community that casts into the shadows the unborn child, the elderly, the sick, those who suffer in silence, or those who depend entirely on the care of others be called fully just?

The defense of human life is neither a partisan issue nor a confessional interest: it is a goal of civilization.

Every human life must be recognized and safeguarded from conception to its natural end, in every circumstance of its existence. When this certainty is obscured, the most vulnerable are the first victims, and the law loses its deepest meaning: to serve and protect every person.

For this reason, the moral greatness of a nation is manifested, above all, in its capacity to accompany, protect and love those lives that are most fragile.

Why It Matters:

In recent years, Spain has become radical in its expansion of abortion and euthanasia. According to 2024 data, there were 106,172 abortions in the country that year, the highest figure in more than a decade. Lawmakers have also...

• moved to make abortion a constitutional 'right'

• criminalized pro-life activity outside abortion facilities

• called for a "blacklist" of doctors who refuse to commit abortions

Assisted death has also expanded since the country legalized euthanasia in 2021. Since that time, advocates have called on expanding the law to allow for legalized death for mental illness cases. In a highly publicized case earlier this year, a young woman was allowed a euthanasia death following a failed suicide attempt, despite pleas from her family for the Spanish courts to intervene.

The Bottom Line:

As Pope Leo reiterated, all human life has human dignity. Each human being deserves to be defended at all stages.

India’s fertility rate has plummeted to below replacement level, a demographic change garnering global attention and sparking crucial questions about population policy, cultural priorities, and the long-term ramifications of faltering birth rates in the country thought to have the world’s largest population at the moment. 

Key Takeaways:

• India's fertility rate has dropped to below replacement level.

• Elon Musk spoke out against the decline in the fertility rate, saying it is the "most educated" that are having fewer children.

• India has a controversial track record of coercive family planning measures such as forced sterilization.

The Details:

Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk recently singled out the phenomenon, alluding to data depicting how India — long linked to rapid population growth — is presently witnessing a fertility decline that could reshape its future.

India

As per recent figures, India’s total fertility rate has fallen below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, the threshold needed to sustain a stable population without immigration.

In a post on social media platform X, Musk penned: 

“India's birth rate has fallen below replacement. Among those most educated, India's birth rate fell below replacement many years ago.” 

Strikingly, Musk was reacting to figures circulated by AF Post, which also shared the significant population decline over the past 10 years, with fertility rates decreasing from 2.3 to 1.9. 

In addition, the report highlighted drastic regional differences, pinpointing that Delhi’s fertility rate has fallen to 1.2. Furthermore, AF Post referenced a June 4 analysis released by The Economist, which suggested that India’s population may soon start to contract, perhaps at a quicker rate than earlier projections had predicted. 

Similar findings were reaffirmed in the United Nations Population Fund’s 2025 State of World Population Report, which showed that India’s fertility rate now stands at 1.9 births per woman, below the replacement benchmark. When fertility falls beneath this level, and without adequate migration, populations tend to shrink over time as each successive generation becomes smaller than the previous one, based on a report by Newspoint. 

With a population exceeding 1.46 billion, India overtook China in 2023 to rank as the most populous country in the world.

Observers have consistently posited that higher levels of education, rapid urban growth, greater participation of women in the workforce, and evolving attitudes toward family size have all played a role in lowering fertility rates across much of India.

For instance, an analysis by The Economist highlighted education as one of the key drivers behind India’s declining fertility rate. The Economist article stated: 

“But demographers have long shown that what really counts is girls’ education. Schooling means that girls gain more autonomy and a greater say in life’s decisions. It is no coincidence that, in the 1990s, both India and much of Africa saw a huge surge in girls attending schools. It is only in the few places where most girls still don’t go into formal education—like Niger, northern Nigeria or Chad—that fertility has hardly budged. Education shoves down fertility in another way, too. The more aspirational parents get, the more they need to invest in each child. This dynamic is accelerated when public schools are dire. Remarkably, 39% of Indian children went to fee-paying schools last year, up from 32% in 2015. Parents are caught in an educational arms race. If your neighbours have few kids and spend more on their education, your own will be out-competed unless you do the same.” 

With this recent piece of news, India currently stands at a crossroads. While population stabilization has often been portrayed as a policy “success," especially after years of government-sanctioned family planning campaigns, observers cautioned that long-term declines below replacement level can spark economic, social, and cultural challenges.

Already, various developed countries across Europe and East Asia are witnessing aging populations, declining workforces, and rising pressure on social systems. In view of this, India’s shift suggests that even developing economies are not immune to such impacts. 

Australia

Musk also recently spoke about the declining birth rate in Australia, saying that Australians are “disappearing."

Australia's fertility has been below the replacement rate for nearly 50 years, but the birth rate hit a record low of 1.48 in 2024, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). However, Australia’s population continues to rise at 1.6% annually, mostly through immigration.

One commenter on X noted that the abortion rate in Australia could be part of the reason for the decline:

The Backstory:

These shifts cannot be analyzed independently from the ethical and human consequences of India’s population control policies.

India has controversial track record of coercive family planning measures such as forced sterilization, particularly during the 1970s, as well as ongoing concerns about sex-selective abortion and the trivialization of unborn life. Once fertility declines are driven in part by societal pressures that exalt certain lives at the expense of others, the implications trickle down beyond demographics into issues of justice and human dignity.

The Bottom Line:

India’s case is particularly important due to its massive size and global influence. As the country navigates its demographic future, policymakers will need to balance economic development with life-affirming and family-friendly policies that promote childbearing and parenthood. Such efforts should entail encouraging a culture that honors and values every human life from the moment of conception.

Key Takeaways:

• Belgium's justice minister has proposed expanding the abortion limit from 12 weeks to 14 weeks.

• The proposal would also allow rape victims to abort up to 18 weeks, and would reduce the mandatory waiting period.

• The proposal is an attempt to compromise between various political groups, rejecting an "expert" panel's 2023 recommendation to expand abortion generally to 18 weeks.

The Details:

Currently, Belgian law allows abortions up until 12 weeks after fertilization (14 week gestation/LMP). Verlinden has now introduced a draft law that would expand that time frame to 14 weeks after fertilization (16 weeks LMP), with children conceived as a result of rape allowed to be killed until 18 weeks (20 weeks LMP).

The proposal would also shorten a mandatory waiting period between the first visit with the abortionist and the actual abortion appointment from the current six days to just two.

The Brussels Times reports that Verlinden's bill is an attempt to compromise between various political ideologies in the country. “For me, the limit is 14 weeks. I will not negotiate beyond that, nor entertain political bargaining,” she said.

According to Belga News Agency, the proposal will next be discussed by the government before being sent to Parliament.

Abortionist Dr. Anne Verougstraete, part of a group of "experts" who gave abortion recommendations in 2023 to the government, told the Times:

"It is a shame... We agreed on a minimum limit of 18 weeks after conception, and we wanted to do away with the mandatory waiting period. But even before the report was published, CD&V made it clear they would not go beyond 14 weeks." 

Zoom In:

Though the proposal would expand the current abortion law, pro-abortion advocates are unhappy, claiming it doesn't go far enough.

Abortionist Dr. Anne Verougstraete, who advocated for legalized abortion at later stages, suggested that the abortion industry's goal is to "help" women who currently travel to the Netherlands for abortion:

"It is a shame... We agreed on a minimum limit of 18 weeks after conception, and we wanted to do away with the mandatory waiting period. But even before the report was published, CD&V made it clear they would not go beyond 14 weeks.

By extending the legal limit to 14 weeks, we would be able to help 22% of the women in Belgium who currently travel to the Netherlands for an abortion.

If we were to extend it to 18 weeks, that figure would rise to 74%."

In other words, the industry that kills preborn children for profit would like to see more o this business remain within Belgium.

Reality Check:

Though politicians will often aim to compromise on abortion law by implementing certain gestational limits or guidelines, there is no circumstance or age at which it is acceptable to take an innocent human life.

Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the preborn child, through starvation, dismemberment, or poisoning.

Such actions cannot be morally acceptable at one stage of development and unacceptable at the next — it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being.

Key Takeaways:

• Relationships get too intense too quickly, according to Evert, and should focus on building a foundation of friendship first.

• Evert said people should date for the purpose of finding a spouse, not a boyfriend or girlfriend.

• People must focus on healing themselves before they can have healthy relationships, he noted.

The Details:

Evert began by pointing to his grandparents as an example of God's plan for human love.

"They had 10 kids, and their names were Joseph and Mary. So you can't beat that," he said. "And coolest thing about them, they would flirt with each other constantly. I just grew up watching this."

He added:

"Now she passed away a couple of years back. I remember standing at her funeral and my grandpa's next to the casket, and he's real weak. He's had knee and hip replacements. And he's trying to get close to her one last time. He's leaning, he's shaking. And he just gave her one kiss on the nose. And he said, 'Bye, babe.'

And I saw that and I'm like, dude, that's it. Like, that's what I want. Like I want a love that's stronger than death. But how do we get there from here, where we live in a culture where more people hook up than even hold hands?"

The first thing young adults need to do, he explained, is build a strong foundation of friendship:

The biggest building in the world is the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. It stands a half mile into the sky, built on the sands of the Middle East. Well, how do you engineer that?

Underneath it are hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete. Think of that as the foundation of friendship under the structure of romantic love. We've got to lay the foundation of friendship. In other words, try to enjoy the season of singleness. And I know some of you may be thinking, Jason, I have enjoyed that season quite long enough. Thank you very much. That's like telling someone who lives in Antarctica, enjoy the season of winter. I've had enough. I'm ready for summer.

Why am I telling you to savor what you want to end? Well, I'm of the opinion that dating relationships, for the most part, get a little too intense too fast.

Because people rush into intense relationships too quickly, they can't truly learn about the other person.

She's only known the guy three weeks, then four weeks in, reality hits. And she's like, oh, I didn't know he flirts with other girls. I didn't know he looks at porn. I didn't know he drinks. I didn't know he builds a methamphetamine lab in the closet with his friends on Wednesdays. I didn't know that. It's like, sweetheart, thus the point to take your time. And if you could just kind of hold back a little bit, you get some benefits."

Zoom In:

Evert encouraged people to look at dating more like a job interview and focus on the qualities they envision in a future spouse. It also includes self-assessments, and making sure they are ready for marriage, too.

"... Finding real love is not about just finding some perfect person to complete you. It's about loving your future husband or wife enough today to grow in perfection and virtue to become the person who they deserve for you to be. Which means we've got to take a very mature and sober assessment of our interior lives.

Is there junk going on in my life right now that I know full well, if I brought this into my vocation, it would be toxic to a marriage? If so, you deal with it right now because marriage is not a car wash. It could be an addiction, excessive laziness, or a lack of ambition. It could be things like lust and pornography."

He further encouraged young adults to reject the culture regarding relationships today, and focus on love, marriage, sex, and babies, in that order.

"When our culture starts rearranging them and dropping out steps, civilization itself begins to crumble, to the point where we are at now, where we have a culture of single people who pretend like they're dating," he said. "The dating people behave like they're married, and the married people seem to think they're single. Everything is out of order."

The Bottom Line:

Above all, Evert said to follow God's plan, concluding, "Do not be afraid to trust Him with your body and with your future, because every person who seeks the kingdom of God will find himself."

Key Takeaways:

• The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs has specified that embryos available for adoption are human children.

• In its funding notice, it says that each embryo is a "child already in existence." This marks a departure from the Biden administration's guidelines.

• The notice also prohibits grantees from discarding or destroying the embryos, from using the embryos for embryo-destructive research, and from using the embryos to create new embryos.

• It is estimated that over one million embryos are frozen in storage in the United States alone.

The Details:

As reported by the Daily Signal, the Office of Population Affairs issued a funding opportunity notice Wednesday seeking grant recipients in the embryo adoption process that would prioritize the embryo's best interests as human beings — a significant departure from the Biden administration's guidelines.

The funding notice states (emphasis added):

"Embryo adoption is distinct from infertility treatment. Rather than addressing the reproductive needs of prospective parents, it serves the needs of a child already in existence, offering that child the opportunity for life within a stable and loving family."

The notice also prohibits grantees from discarding or destroying the embryos, from using the embryos for embryo-destructive research, and from using the embryos to create new embryos.

Grantees will be required to “center the rights and long-term wellbeing of the child in all program design and service delivery,” including by assessing adoptive families through home visits and background checks.

Emma Waters, a Heritage Foundation family policy expert, told the Daily Signal the notice “refram[es] embryo adoption not as a treatment for infertility, but as an act of charity toward a child already in existence who is in need of a loving home.” 

“The uncomfortable truth is that our loose approach to IVF has left millions of human embryos in indefinite storage, many of whom are destined to be discarded,” she said.

Zoom In:

The Embryo Adoption Awareness and Services Program under the OPA is defined as a program that "supports grants, cooperative agreements and/or contracts that aim to increase public awareness of embryo donation/adoption."

Established in 2002, the program facilitates a frozen embryo adoption awareness campaign and it may also fund projects that make embryo adoption an attainable option for infertile couples.

It is estimated that over one million embryos are frozen in storage in the United States alone. These are "surplus" embryos created through in-vitro fertilization (IVF), and then frozen indefinitely as couples become unsure what to do with them. Frozen embryos — which are each a unique and distinct human person in the earliest stages of development — are just one of the many moral and ethical issues related to IVF.

According to a report from Live Action News, "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."

The Bottom Line:

Recognition that each embryo is a child deserving of a loving family is a significant step in acknowledging that IVF creates human beings. It stands to follow, then, that the procedure which creates and subsequently destroys so many human beings — or leaves them in a frozen limbo — is inherently wrong.

The same dehumanizing ideologies used to justify the mass genocide of preborn children are also used to physically distort and damage the healthy bodies of adolescents and young adults.  

Planned Parenthood seemingly continues to evade scrutiny, despite having received millions in taxpayer subsidies — so the public deserves to know what these surgeries are, along with their risks and possible long-term ramifications. 

The Background:

Planned Parenthood and many of its affiliates boast of being leaders in "gender affirming care" (GAC), claiming to aid gender-distressed individuals, including minors, in social, medical and legal ‘gender affirming transition.’ This vague euphemism, GAC, may include social, medical, and legal interventions.

Read more about social and medical interventions in parts two and three of this series.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

The Details:

Body Damaging Surgeries 

As part of its services in the “medical transitioning” participation, Planned Parenthood and many of its affiliates boast of offering referrals for body-damaging surgeries as part of its medicalized GAC interventions.

However, due to Planned Parenthood's vagueness in reporting its transgender 'services,' it is not known how many referrals, or what type of surgeries, affiliates have been involved with. Research on sex-rejecting surgeries is limited, mostly due to the small percentage of the population undergoing these procedures and the lack of studies where participants are re-evaluated over time.

Nevertheless, the few available credible studies identify the negative ramifications upon health and quality of life following ‘gender-affirming’ surgeries. 

Despite the lack of credible beneficial evidence and the readily available studies illustrating the vast negative impacts and potential risks, Planned Parenthood and many of its affiliates boast of providing referrals for body-damaging surgical procedures, including for minors (allegedly only in states where allowed). 

Types of Sex-Rejecting Surgeries 

Content warning: Graphic descriptions

The multiple types of surgeries Planned Parenthood affiliates may refer for include: 

Mastectomy & Breast Implantation (‘chest’ surgeries) - For the purpose of  ‘gender affirming care, ’ these two types of surgeries, double incision mastectomy or breast implants (also lumped in as a ‘chest surgery’ for GAC), are used to either appear more masculine or more feminine. 

• Double incision mastectomy - the removal of healthy breast tissue for the purpose of appearing more masculine; two large incisions are made to remove large amounts of breast tissue and “[t]he nipples and areolas are removed, reshaped, and then replaced (if desired) to achieve a more masculine appearance.”

• Breast Implantations (as applied to GAC) - The medically unnecessary implantation of faux-breasts on a male for the purpose of appearing feminine; pseudo-breasts are created by “inserting a gel or liquid-filled implant into a pocket formed behind the breast tissue or under the pectoral muscle and centering each implant beneath the two nipples.” 

Metoidioplasty - For the purpose of ‘gender affirming care,’ metoidioplasty is the artificial enlargement of a woman’s clitoris, achieved with the use of hormones such as testosterone. If the clitoris reaches roughly four to six centimeters in length, it is then used to craft together a neophallus, or a surgically constructed faux-penis.

Phalloplasty (Colpectomy) - The medically unnecessary (for the purpose of ‘GAC’) surgical attachment of a man-made appendage aiming to appear like a pseudo-penis for the purpose of mimicking male genitalia.

A standard phalloplasty involves the fashioning of “an appendage made out of a woman’s forearms” that is then sewn “into her groin” and can be done with or without the surgically removing of the vagina—often done in conjunction with a colpectomy.  For the purpose of GAC, a colpectomy is a medically unnecessary surgical procedure where surgeons “remove the vaginal wall and sew the woman up” according to senior fellow at MacDonald-Laurier Institute and Director of Genspect Canada, Mia Hughes. Hughes further referred to the colpectomy procedure as a “ghoulish crime,” particularly when done on young girls with virginity intact, which she stated is a growing population among youth suffering from gender distress.  

Done together, phalloplasty and colpectomy procedures are frequently a “multistaged process” that may include:

• Creating a faux-penis

• Lengthening the urethra 

• Creating the tip (glans) of the faux-penis

• Creating the faux-scrotum

• Removing the vagina, uterus and ovaries (sterilization)

• Placing faux erectile and testicular implants

• Skin grafting from the donor tissue site  

Vaginoplasty - for the use of ‘gender affirming care,’ vaginoplasty is a multi-step sex-rejecting surgical procedure that involves removing the male penis, testicles, and scrotum to construct a pseudo-vulva and pseudo-vagina. The process of vaginoplasty involves rearranging existing genital tissue to create a vaginal opening and external female-appearing genitalia, including the labia. According to John Hopkins Medicine, a variation of this procedure, called vulvoplasty, achieves a feminine-appearing outer genital area but with a shallow pseudo-vaginal canal that cannot be used for sexual intercourse.

Risks Associated with Sex-Rejecting Surgeries 

Males who undergo medically unnecessary surgeries attempting to mimic the female anatomy through vaginoplasty or similar procedures frequently experience significant complications, primarily because the constructed pseudo-vagina creates a surgically induced wound that the body naturally attempts to heal. Some studies and reviews report adverse outcomes, including:

• Neovaginal stricture (the body's attempt to close the wound).

• Infections, hemorrhaging, and neovaginal prolapse (where the faux vagina falls out of place).

• Pervasive urogenital malfunctions (complications that may impact the urinary tract and associated reproductive organs), including incontinence, urinary obstruction and sexual dysfunction.

• Other severe issues can include: tissue death, and fistulas (where two body parts abnormally connect), which can require additional correcting and risky operations.

Females undergoing medically unnecessary surgeries of phalloplasty and colpectomy and metoidioplasty procedures — for the purpose of attempting to mimic the male body — also reportedly face extraordinary risks and complications. Procedures such as phalloplasty and metoidioplasty present a high risk of adverse outcomes, particularly involving the artificial construction of a man-made urethra, and include similar complications or damage to urinary tract and associated organs with some reports citing a complication rate exceeding 75% in some patient populations.

Some studies report the common necessity for multiple follow-up surgeries to address surgical failures or complications. Both male and female sex-rejecting procedures are commonly associated with permanent sterilization. 

Some research suggests that undergoing sex-rejecting procedures does not alleviate the primary psychological distress. In fact, some studies and follow-up analyses report mental health struggles that endure or worsen, as surgical alterations to the body cannot resolve deep-seated psychological trauma and distress.

It is important to note that much of the credible research and analysis conducted on this issue tends to focus on adults rather than children. It is logical to wonder how much more severe the long-term impacts may be on minors and youth, whose minds and bodies are still developing. 

A recent Finnish register study published by Acta Paediatrica aimed to “examine the prevalence of severe psychiatric morbidity among gender-referred adolescents.” It provides grim insight of what the long-term consequences for youth undergoing medicalized GAC might look like. The study reported to examine the Finnish nationwide cohort, whose participants were all under 23 years of age while receiving medicalized interventions between 1996-2019. The results were “sobering,” according to Mia Hughes. 

“For more than a decade, supporters of these interventions have argued that they reliably improve mental health and can even be “life-saving” for trans-identified youth. Yet this Finnish study – one of the largest and most robust to date – found no such benefit. Instead, it linked the treatments to a marked worsening of mental health,” stated Hughes.  

In her National Post op-ed, Hughes went on to explain (emphasis added): 

The study found that those referred after 2010 showed significantly higher psychiatric needs overall, leading the authors to conclude that for some young people, ‘mental health challenges may manifest as concerns related to gender identity.’...The researchers also compared those who received medical interventions (38.2 per cent) with those who did not. The non-medicalized group had high psychiatric needs at referral — unsurprising, given Finland’s strict criteria that reserved treatment for the most stable adolescents — and showed little change in mental health status at the follow-up point two or more years later.

Yet in the medicalized group — those selected precisely because they initially presented with relatively stable mental health — specialist psychiatric care use rose sharply after commencing medical treatment: from roughly 10 per cent to 61 per cent among males receiving “feminizing” treatment, and from 22 per cent to 55 per cent among females receiving “masculinizing” treatment.

Human Body Count

As Live Action News has pointed out, due to the vagueness in reporting by Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, it is unknown how many minors Planned Parenthood and its affiliates have referred for body-damaging surgeries. However, there is some information available on the number of minors who have undergone the knife. 

The Stop the Harm database identified and analyzed insurance claim filings between 2019-2023, and reported the following unique individual minor patients who underwentgender-affirming” surgery procedures across the U.S.:

Reality Check:

Each number in the chart is far more than a number on a page. Each represents a human being, a minor still developing, who underwent medically unnecessary surgical procedures based on a lie that goes against the biological reality of who he/she is and who he/she was meant to be, while never addressing the core issue of gender distress.  

How many of these people, if any, received GAC from Planned Parenthood at any point in the ‘pathway’ to ‘transition’? Was any of it done utilizing fungible taxpayer funds? American taxpayers deserve answers. The victims of these predatory procedures deserve justice.  

One thing is clear: neither Planned Parenthood's life-ending abortions nor its ‘gender-affirming care’ is healthcare. And Americans shouldn’t be forced to pay for any of it.