Oz suggests that states should "revalidate" any "Medicaid providers of services at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption."

"It's time to make sure that providers of high risk services are valid and meet all the requirements to deliver care to Medicaid beneficiaries," Oz said in a video posted to X. "Revalidation works. It forces accountability. It removes bad actors and it sends a clear message that the Medicaid system is not an unguarded piggy bank."

Key Takeaways:

• CMS Administration Dr. Mehmet Oz sent letters to each state which calls on governors and Medicaid directors to "revalidate" Medicaid providers who provide "services at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption."

• States are being asked to "provide a broader strategy on provider revalidations within 30 days."

• They are being asked to determine which services are "high risk" for these activities, and "to determine which "individuals and organizations" are "masquerading as health care providers" while defrauding Medicaid and the taxpayers.

• Planned Parenthood is an organization known to have documented cases of abuse, scandal, fraud, racism, pregnancy discrimination, breaches of privacy, and Medicaid fraud, which violate federal requirements for obtaining taxpayer funding. Yet, it still continues to receive Title X, Medicaid, and other taxpayer funding.

The Details:

According to Fox News:

• "The letters sent to the 50 governors all contained the same information directions, with Fox News Digital obtaining a copy sent to the state of Alabama."

• "A second letter was also sent to each state Medicaid director reiterating the call for a revalidation strategy tailored to each state."

The first letter read in part:

I write to request that your Medicaid program undertake a swift revalidation of Medicaid providers of services at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption as part of each state's program integrity obligations under federal law. At the same time, your Medicaid leaders are being asked to provide a broader strategy on provider revalidations within 30 days.

You should not, however, view that strategy as a substitute for a swift review and revalidation of high-risk providers. We are requesting that you notify us of whether you intend to carry out such a swift revalidation, along with a proposed timetable, within 10 business days of receipt of this letter.

Please be advised that failure to do so will be considered as we evaluate the likelihood of fraud in each state moving forward.

Corrupt individuals and organizations masquerading as health care providers are defrauding Medicaid, and American taxpayers, of billions of dollars each year, placing valuable resources out of reach for those the program was intended to serve: low-income senior citizens, children, and disabled individuals.

... States have the ability to designate which providers are high-risk. However, CMS expects that your definition include any provider without a National Provider Identifier.

My agency stands ready to provide any necessary technical assistance. Ensuring that taxpayer funding is used in the Medicaid program to benefit only America's most vulnerable will require a coordinated effort by State and Federal governments to put an end to brazen fraud schemes that steal taxpayer dollars from programs intended to help the most vulnerable Americans.

I look forward to partnering with you to fight the War on Fraud. Together, we can make Medicaid stronger and more effective for the millions of Americans it serves.

The Associated Press reported:

Last month, Trump signed an executive order to create an anti-fraud task force across federal benefit programs led by Vice President JD Vance. It’s unclear whether Tuesday’s move is part of that effort, though Oz has been working closely with Vance on other investigations related to the task force.

Why It Matters:

Planned Parenthood, which presents itself as a health care provider while reporting various decreasing legitimate health services year after year, is a large recipient of taxpayer dollars via Medicaid and other funds.

While the letters sent by CMS Administrator Oz do not specifically call out Planned Parenthood, documented cases of abuse, scandal, fraud, racism, pregnancy discrimination, breaches of privacy, and Medicaid fraud have piled up against the abortion corporation — all of which violate federal requirements for obtaining taxpayer funding. 

The letters were issued shortly after the Trump administration approved certain Planned Parenthood affiliates to receive Title X family planning dollars for another year. The corporation lost federal Medicaid funding under the Trump Administration's Big Beautiful Bill, but this was for just one year — set to expire the day after our nation's 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026.

Pro-life leaders are now calling on the Senate to take action to extend the Medicaid defunding of abortion businesses, including Planned Parenthood, before time runs out on July 4.

Planned Parenthood's Abuses

Planned Parenthood has been accused multiple times of Medicaid fraud, and other abuses, yet it continues to be funded. In 2022, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit against “Planned Parenthood Federation of America and several Planned Parenthood locations in Texas, seeking recovery of $10 million in payments made by the Texas Medicaid program.”

Planned Parenthood has been embroiled in additional controversies, including accusations of abuse, scandal, fraud, racism, pregnancy discrimination, privacy breaches and repeatedly failing to report child sexual abuse - all which should disqualify them from receiving any state of federal dollars.

"Official government reports and other sources have documented repeated instances in which Planned Parenthood has been caught defrauding American taxpayers. The Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) website highlights several violations, stated Live Action's report, "The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood."

Examples from the report include:

• Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains paid $18,808.92 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which relates to Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse (2017).

• The Texas Health and Human Services Commission “claimed Medicaid reimbursement of at least $129,000 for family planning services provided by Planned Parenthood of North Texas that did not comply with Federal and State Medicaid requirements” (2015).

• Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Inc. in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, agreed to pay $1,572,752.80 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (2004-2015).

• Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast (PPGC) in Houston paid $4.3 million “to resolve civil claims that it billed for items and services related to birth control counseling, STD testing, and contraceptives when they were not medically necessary or were not provided” (2013).

• Separately, PPGC agreed to pay $1.4 million in a Texas Medicaid billing fraud case (2013).

In addition, many former Planned Parenthood employees have publicly accused the agency of fraud.

Live Action's report also discussed a 2017 report published by the Charlotte Lozier Institute and Alliance Defending Freedom, which identified waste, abuse, and potential fraud — totaling at least $8.5 million across multiple locations:

• California (two audits of two affiliates): $5,213,645.92

• Connecticut: $18,791

• Illinois: $387,000

• Louisiana (two audits of one affiliate): $6,147.18

• Maine: $33,294.83

• Nebraska: $3,537

• New York (seven audits of four affiliates): $1,615,083.25

• Oklahoma: Overbilling rates have been documented as 14.1%, 18%, and 20.3%

• Texas (two audits of two affiliates): $538,703.10 - $658,735.97

• Washington (three audits of two or three affiliates):$640,595.88

• Wisconsin (27 audits of one affiliate): $95,466.04

Planned Parenthood's Funding

Planned Parenthood's recently-released 2024-2025 annual report exposes the corporation's highest recorded abortions (434,450) and taxpayer funding ($832 MILLION) to date.

Due in part to taxpayer funding under Title X as well as Medicaid, Planned Parenthood’s total revenue was approximately $2.14 billion in 2024-2025.

In the past 25 years at Planned Parenthood:

• Annual abortions have more than doubled (197k v. 434.5k)

• Taxpayer funding has increased by 310% (nearly $203M v. $832M – year ending 6/30/2025)

In 2023, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report revealing that from 2019-2021, Planned Parenthood — along with four regional abortion facilities and two international abortion organizations — received nearly $2 billion from U.S. taxpayers, a similar amount to what GAO documented for FY2016-FY2018.

Live Action News previously documented that in just those same three years, while an average of $592 million federal dollars was sent to Planned Parenthood (2019-2021), they committed 1.11 million abortions.

The report noted that Medicaid and CHIP payments “include funding from both state and federal sources."

The Bottom Line:

While revalidations are required every five years, Oz's letters are "formally asking" that states "develop and submit a comprehensive two-year provider revalidation (PR) strategy" which includes a description of how a state would ensure the "accuracy" of "provider enrollment data through revalidation and other approaches such as provider directory validation."

If states truly value "protecting taxpayer funds from fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption," then there should be no issue with putting a plan in place. That action remains to be seen.

Key Takeaways:

• An amendment to the UK's Crime and Policing Bill adds insult to injury; in addition to decriminalizing self-managed abortion up to birth, Parliament will now "expunge the police records" of women arrested and investigated for illegal abortions as far back as the 1800s.

• Some officials noted that the amendment was never brought for proper discussion and was "slipped" into the bill, which should concern citizens already alarmed by the decriminalization of intentional killing.

• Concerned lawmakers mentioned that women who killed viable, full-term babies in the past will now walk free, as will women in the future who choose to commit such acts.

• Pro-life leaders claim this amendment "disgraces" preborn children, robbing them of justice and treating them as inconsequential instead of a the victims of violence that they are. They also claimed that this amounts to a "false pardon," a "pretense that nothing wrong happens in abortion," and that it will not bring peace to anyone.

The Details:

The bill, which is a Lords amendment, would revise the UK's present Crime and Policing Bill. The Guardian reports:

The amendment to the crime and policing bill, which will also expunge the police records of those arrested and investigated over illegal abortions, was considered in the House of Lords during a phase of parliamentary ping-pong, where a bill passes back and forth between the Lords and Commons.

The bill is expected to receive royal assent – meaning it will become law – in the coming weeks. The same legislation will also put an end to prosecutions of women who terminate their own pregnancies, with a clause in the bill introduced in the Commons last year by the Labour backbencher Tonia Antoniazzi.

Antoniazzi was behind the bill decriminalizing abortion in the UK. She alleged that the new amendment would “protect the women already harmed by these outdated laws,” adding that police records could hinder employment and travel, even in cases without a conviction.

While advocates of the amendment portrayed the issue as an act of justice and mercy, critics say the amendment goes too far.

Sir Edward Leigh cautioned that "As a result of these amendments, somebody who procures a very late term abortion illegally will receive a free pardon.” He referenced the case of Sarah Catt, who induced labour at 39 weeks into her pregnancy following an affair and who was subsequently sentenced to prison in 2012.

According to the BBC:

Sarah Louise Catt, 35, of Sherburn-in-Elmet, North Yorkshire, took a drug when she was full term, 39 weeks pregnant, to cause an early delivery.

She claimed the boy was stillborn and that she buried his body, but no evidence of the child was ever found. 

Catt made a "deliberate and calculated decision" to end her pregnancy, a Leeds Crown Court judge said.

The judge who sentenced Catt portrayed the crime as lying “between manslaughter and murder.”

Sir Edward added that Catt had "shown no remorse" for the crime — a serious offense now likely to be expunged from the record entirely. But since the UK has decriminalized self-managed abortion up to birth, there are likely to be many, many more cases like that of Sarah Catt.

And now, these cases will not be treated as crimes at all. Full term, viable babies will be killed by their mothers with no criminal or legal repercussions.

The Independent noted:

Shadow Home Office minister Matt Vickers said he and “many people across the country” shared Sir Edward’s concerns, not only about the issue itself, but “the way that it was added into this Bill”.

He argued that it had been “slipped” into the Bill after committee stage and that there has not been “adequate scrutiny” of it.

In response to the amendments, pro-life group SPUC CEO John Deighan declared: 

“This law disgraces the children who have been needlessly destroyed in the past.

Once upon a time they had justice. That has now been robbed from them. Throughout the debate on abortion in the Crime and Policing Bill the pro-abortion MPs have tried to paint a picture of women as lacking the agency to make morally dubious decisions.

This is obviously untrue. SPUC believes that unborn children whose mothers kill them in cold blood – as Sarah Catt did – deserve to be seen. This amendment means they are ignored.”

Clare McCullough, founder and director of the Good Counsel Network (GCN), told Live Action News: 

“We pray that all women who have had abortions, whether freely or, as often is the case, under pressure, find pardon from God and are able to forgive themselves.

Parliament is using this measure to offer a false pardon and a pretense that nothing wrong happens in an abortion. That is not going to bring anyone peace.”

The Bottom Line:

By expunging convictions and hindering any future prosecutions, the government effectively has conveyed the message that killing viable preborn children is not a moral wrong.

While many abortion-minded women have acted under duress, poverty, or fear, the real solution to their problems is not to regularize abortion but to widen life-affirming support for pregnant women, mental‑health care, childcare, and adoption services.

Key Takeaways:

• A woman in the UK was rushed to the hospital by her husband when she suffered a seizure.

• At the hospital, which has not delivered babies since the 1990s, she was diagnosed with supraventricular tachycardia, and medical staff realized she was also in labor.

• Her heart rate surpassed 200 beats per minute, and her oxygen was dangerously low, but midwives were called in from another hospital, and doctors were able to safely deliver her baby and save her life.

The Details:

Alanna Rooke was nearly 40 weeks pregnant when she had a seizure at her home in the UK. Her husband, Simon, called emergency services, but then drove her directly to Morriston Hospital, as he was worried she could not safely wait for an ambulance, Swansea Bay News reported. 

Alanna was diagnosed with supraventricular tachycardia, a condition causing the heart to race at dangerously high speeds. Her heart rate surpassed 200 beats per minute while her blood oxygen saturation had fallen to 80%, far below safe levels.

Alanna’s husband Simon recounted: 

"I called 999 and probably lost my cool a little bit. I was asked if I could take her pulse but she was shaking so much I couldn't. I told them she was nine months pregnant and she might die. She was on the floor being sick. I was thinking 'this can't be happening?'

I took her to A&E but had to leave her there momentarily so I could move the car so it didn't obstruct the ambulances, but the receptionist who saw us was lovely, and she called a consultant."

Alanna later recalled her ordeal: 

"I blacked out in the car so I don't remember much, but I was sick and in pain in the house, and my chest was tight. I'd never had any issues with my heart before, apart from the odd palpitation I put down to exercise.I didn't realise how bad I was until I was seen by the doctors. I don't think I would be here without them or the midwives. They were all so professional."

But while Alanna's heart was in distress, she also went into labor. Two midwives were called in from Neath Port Talbot Hospital to help, as Morriston Hospital hasn't had a maternity unit since the 1990s.

Community midwife Amanda Morgan spoke of the moment they grasped the full degree of the crisis facing them at that time.

In remarks quoted by Swansea Bay News, Morgan explained, "She was very clammy and disoriented, and she was acutely unwell. We were concerned she would arrest because the heart is under the most strain when the mother is in labour.”

In spite of the dangerous situation Alanna was in, Baby Franklyn was born weighing 8lb 2oz, was moved to Singleton Hospital's maternity ward, and after six days in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), was discharged home with his family.

Claire Itzstein, a community midwife manager who assisted in the delivery, described the situation as "one of the most challenging situations due to Alanna being so acutely unwell with her ongoing cardiac emergency."

"It was very surreal to be delivering a baby next to a defibrillator,” she admitted. “We were definitely out of our comfort zone.”

Alanna received treatment for the SVT both during and following delivery. She credited the staff who attended to her with saving her life. 

Why It Matters:

Alanna's story exemplifies the value of both mother and child at the very brink of life and death. An emergency that could have ended in tragedy for both became a testament to the value of every preborn child and the lengths to which skilled medical teams can go to save both lives.

This story also contests the common media narrative that reduces maternity care to a “choice” or an inconvenience. In Alanna’s case, childbirth was not an event to be delayed, rescheduled, or regarded as optional; it was a natural, life‑giving process that, together with sudden cardiac disease, required the full capacity of the health team at the hospital to act accordingly. 

Key Takeaways:

• Clive Johnston was preaching the Gospel when he was accused of violating abortion facility buffer zone laws.

• He is accused of “influencing” people inside the restricted area by offering a sermon.

• He faces a fine of up to £2,500.

• The U.S. is monitoring his case and the UK buffer zone law as a possible violation of free speech.

The Backstory:

In 2022, Northern Ireland established eight buffer zones of 100 to 150 meters around hospitals and abortion facilities, intended to keep pro-life advocates from speaking to women seeking abortions.

According to the vague and broadly-worded regulations, it is a criminal offense for anyone to be “impeded, recorded, influenced, or caused harassment, alarm or distress” within the designated zones.

The Details:

Clive Johnston, 77, was preaching a sermon by the roadside within an abortion buffer zone in the vicinity of the Causeway Hospital in Londonderry in July 2024 when he was accused of violating buffer zone laws, namely Northern Ireland’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act, The Telegraph reported. 

Authorities purported that Johnston violated buffer‑zone rules aimed at deterring protests near abortion facilities. Yet court documents do not indicate that Johnston spoke about abortion, held up placards, or participated in any protest. Rather, he was denounced for allegedly “influencing” people inside the restricted area.

Notably, Johnston’s sermon did not address abortion, but instead concentrated on the Scripture passage John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life,” Christian Today reported.

Johnston was tried at Coleraine Magistrates’ Court. He is facing two counts as per the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act. If deemed guilty, the grandfather of seven could receive a criminal record and be slapped with a fine of up to £2,500.

The judge has chosen to reserve judgment in the case until May 7.

Last month, shortly before a planned court appearance that was subsequently delayed, Johnston articulated his gratitude to everyone who had offered him support during this difficult time. 

“I am grateful for the kind messages of support I have received from members of the public both here and abroad, and for the prayers being offered up to God about this case by many Christians," he said.

What's Happening Now:

In response to Johnston’s case, a US State Department spokesman informed The Telegraph: 

The United States is still monitoring many buffer zone cases in the UK, as well as other acts of censorship throughout Europe. The UK’s persecution of silent prayer represents not only an egregious violation of the fundamental right to free speech and religious liberty, but also a concerning departure from the shared values that ought to underpin US-UK relations.

As The Telegraph reported:

Simon Calvert, deputy director of the Christian Institute which is supporting Mr Johnston in the case, said: “Prosecuting Pastor Johnston for preaching ‘God so loved the world’ near a hospital on a quiet Sunday is a shocking new attempt to restrict freedom of religion and freedom of speech in a part of the world where open air gospel services are a part of the culture."

“Christians are pro-life. But preaching the good news about Christ is not the same thing as protesting against abortion. The Police and the Public Prosecution Service are overstepping the mark.”

The Telegraph also noted:

In December, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a British pro-life campaigner, became the first person to be charged under Britain’s buffer zone legislation.

The US condemned the prosecution, calling it an “unwelcome departure” from shared transatlantic values.

The Bottom Line:

Johnston's case mirrors an alarming trend in Britain and Ireland, where several pro-lifers have faced harassment, arrest, conviction, or investigation for prayer or witness near abortion facilities.

These episodes demonstrate how rapidly public-order laws can become speech restrictions when abortion is in the picture.

Johnston’s hearing is beyond a mere local legal dispute; it has become a litmus test for whether open-air preaching can continue within contemporary abortion buffer zones in the UK and beyond. 

Recent headlines highlight a striking development: scientists are increasingly calling for bans on boiling lobsters alive because of mounting evidence that these animals experience pain.

A new study found that when lobsters were given analgesics like lidocaine or aspirin, their escape responses to harmful stimuli diminished—suggesting not mere reflex, but a neurologically mediated experience of pain. 

The ethical conclusion drawn by many researchers is clear: if lobsters can suffer, then longstanding culinary practices must be reexamined in the name of humane treatment.

Yet this growing sensitivity toward animal suffering exposes a deeper inconsistency within modern scientific and medical discourse.

A Deeper Inconsistency

While researchers increasingly advocate for protections for crustaceans, there remains a striking silence, or at least a lack of consensus, regarding the capacity for pain in the unborn human.

Major professional organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) maintain that fetal pain is unlikely before a certain gestational threshold. However, this position is far from universally accepted, and the scientific literature reflects ongoing uncertainty rather than settled consensus.

Additionally, this argument seems less based in science and more based in an ideological desire to tolerate abortion on demand.

A 2023 scientific publication, “The fetal pain paradox,” highlights precisely this controversy: some medical authorities assert that pain perception is not possible before approximately 24 weeks, while others stand on data that the neurobiological foundations for pain may develop earlier, creating a “paradox” in how pain is acknowledged across different contexts. 

This inconsistency raises important questions about how scientific standards are applied, and whether cultural and political pressures shape conclusions as much as empirical evidence.

READ: <a href="/news/pro-abortion-researcher-preborn-pain-earlier">Pro-abortion researcher admits: Preborn babies feel pain far earlier than we thought</a>

A Contradictory Approach

In the context of in-utero corrective fetal surgery, surgeons routinely administer anesthesia, not just through the mother but also directly to the fetus/child, during in-utero manipulations. This is done to blunt stress responses, ensure stability, and, in many cases, to provide analgesia.

While some medical organizations maintain that fetal pain perception is unlikely before a certain gestational age, the very practice of administering anesthesia to the unborn during surgery reflects a more cautious, if not contradictory, approach.

If there were truly no possibility of meaningful sensory experience, the rationale for fetal analgesia would be far less compelling.

The broader ethical dilemma becomes even more pronounced when viewed alongside discussions of animal pain in other domains.

More Compassion for Animals

Debates about insect suffering, sometimes framed in terms like the “beetle pain paradox,” similarly reveal a growing willingness to extend moral concern to increasingly simple organisms, even as disagreement persists about what constitutes meaningful pain perception.

The trend suggests a scientific culture that is highly attuned to the suffering of animals, sometimes even those with rudimentary nervous systems, while remaining hesitant, divided, or just silent when addressing the moral status of the developing human life in utero.

This asymmetry is difficult to ignore.

If the capacity for pain is sufficient to prompt sweeping ethical reforms in how society treats lobsters, crabs, or even insects, then consistency would seem to demand at least equal concern for the possibility of pain in the unborn child.

To dismiss that concern outright, or to frame it as conclusively resolved when the science remains contested, risks undermining public trust in medical institutions and blurring the line between science and ideology.

The Killing Must Stop

At minimum, these parallel debates should invite discussion as to the humane treatment of the pre-born child. Science, particularly on questions as complex as pain and consciousness, rarely speaks with a single voice. When it comes to both animal welfare and prenatal life, a consistent ethic would err on the side of caution and recognize that the stakes are not merely academic, but profoundly moral.

Even if abortion providers were to sedate a child in utero prior to elective abortion, which is not the current practice, that still would not justify the deliberate killing of that child.

In other words, fetal pain control before killing a preborn child might address the pain issue, but certainly doesn’t make it moral.

When the City Council of Brownfield, Texas (pop. 9,779), voted 5-3 against the adoption of the Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance outlawing abortion and abortion trafficking in the City of Brownfield, it upset some people. It especially upset 24-year-old Natalie Chandler, who saw the City of Lubbock – located 40 miles away – outlaw abortion several years ago, becoming the largest Sanctuary City for the Unborn in the nation. Chandler was proud of Lubbock's decision.

Then, when Chandler read a Live Action News article about the loss in her own city of Brownfield, she was shocked.

"We're Better Than This"

"I remember waking up and reading the article online and feeling anger start burning in my belly, talking about it with my family, and seeing it in their eyes,” Chandler shared.

On April 9, Chandler shared the article on her Facebook page, writing, “I would’ve never thought that my town would vote AGAINST protecting the rights of unborn children and pregnant mothers.” She thought, "Brownfield is better than this.”

With guidance from Right to Life Across Texas, Chandler decided to follow the citizen initiative petition process outlined in the Brownfield City Charter in order to get her city leadership to reconsider the measure.

Article XI, § 98 of the Brownfield City Charter states:

The electors shall have power to propose any ordinance except an ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the levy of taxes, and to adopt or reject the same at the polls, such power being known as the initiative.

Any initiative ordinance may be submitted to the Council by a petition signed by qualified electors of the City equal in number to at least twenty-five (25) per centum of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election.

Chandler, as the Lead Petitioner, rallied four other petitioners: her parents – Nathan and Penny Chandler – and Kenneth and Terri Kirk, a couple from her church who are like family to her.

In addition to forming a Petitioner’s Committee and making sure the citizen initiative petition was drafted as outlined in the Brownfield City Charter, Chandler recruited the help of pro-life advocates across Texas who were ready and willing to help her collect the required number of signatures.

Chandler shared:

"What followed was one of the coolest things I’ve ever gotten to be a part of.

In addition to the help of people from throughout my community, individuals from surrounding towns in West Texas and whole families driving in from East Texas were willing to come to Brownfield and go door to door –  all in the pouring rain – informing our citizens of the ordinance being rejected, and collect signatures that would give the ordinance another chance to be considered before the council, all because they wanted to help protect the sanctity of life in a town that wasn’t even their own."

Chandler, who was able to collect over three full petition pages-worth of signatures, continued:

"We came together and spent long hours into the night planning and coordinating, verifying the collected signatures until we were bleary-eyed and getting snappy with each other. In the middle of it all, I saw strangers become friends, and my friends and family open their homes and lend us their tables, all of us bonding over the same burning desire to see life preserved."

A Successful Effort

After just a few days of collecting signatures, the Petitioner's Committee was of the belief that they had met and exceeded that required number of signatures for the initiative. 

On Monday, April 13, just hours after neighboring Lynn County voted 5-0 to become Texas’ latest Sanctuary County for the Unborn, Natalie Chandler, Kenneth Kirk, Brownfield Mayor Eric Horton, and the founder of the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn Initiative met outside of Brownfield City Hall and prayed over the collected signatures.

Soon after, the petition was filed with the City Secretary. 

Just three days later, on Thursday, April 16, Brownfield City Secretary Kelly Burris notified Chandler that a sufficient number of signatures had been obtained and that the results of the petition would be certified before the City Council at their next meeting on Thursday, April 23.

The posted agenda for their next meeting reads, under Agenda Item #6: “Discuss and consider accepting the certification of a petition for an initiative ordinance and calling for a public hearing, and take any necessary action.” 

This is in accordance with Article XI, § 104 of the Brownfield City Charter.

Chandler shared: “As we count down the days until the ordinance is presented again to the city council, this time with the resounding voice of the people to back it, I pray for God’s ‘good, pleasing, and perfect will’ to be done in our town.” 

If the Brownfield City Council City fails to pass the ordinance upon reconsideration, voters will have the final say on the matter.

As stated in Article XI, § 105, “If the Council shall fail to pass an ordinance proposed by the initiative petition, or shall pass it in a form different from that set forth in the petition therefore… the proposed… ordinance shall be submitted to the electors…” 

Support for Sanctuary Ordinances

In August 2023, Senator Charles Perry (SD-28), Representative Dustin Burrows (HD-83), and eighteen other Texas Senators and Representatives penned a letter in support of cities and counties passing such measures across the State of Texas. The letter read:

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

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

Since August 2023, 46 political subdivisions have passed ordinances identical in substance to the proposed Brownfield Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance. Among those are cities and counties like: Lubbock County (pop. 317,561), Hood County (pop. 61,598), Hopkins County (pop. 38,784), Howard County (pop. 34,860), Dawson County (pop. 12,130), Wolfforth (pop. 9,600), Lynn County (pop. 5,596), Ovilla (pop. 4,709), Cochran County (pop. 2,547), Olton (pop. 2,228), O'Donnell (pop. 704), Borden County (pop. 631), Roaring Springs (pop. 219), and Wellman (pop. 205).

Key Takeaways:

• In a 4-3 ruling, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that the state's ban on taxpayer-funded abortion is unconstitutional.

• The ruling claims there is a 'right' to abortion in the state's constitution.

• Pro-lifers warn that this ruling could pave the way for the erosion of other pro-life safeguards.

• Attorney General Dave Sunday may decide to appeal this decision to the state's Supreme Court.

The Details:

In their 4-3 ruling, justices determined that Pennsylvania's constitution includes a 'right' to abortion, and that, therefore, a 1982 state ban on Medicaid-funded abortions is unconstitutional.

The ruling was the result of a lawsuit filed by Allegheny Reproductive Health Center and Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, which financially profit from abortion.

In writing the majority opinion, Judge Matthew S. Wolf referenced the state's Equal Rights Amendment, which he said "guarantees a fundamental right to reproductive autonomy." That "right" means the state's Medicaid program must cover abortion costs.

“Recognizing the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy is an initial analytical step, but it then requires the proper level of scrutiny be applied to the governmental action,” Wolf wrote.

“We conclude that the coverage exclusion violates the Equal Rights Amendment and the equal protection provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution, beyond any genuine dispute of fact, and thus we grant providers’ application for a summary relief.”

JuristNews reported:

Because the statute infringed on a fundamental right held only by women, the ban violated equal protection provisions of the state Constitution.

The court also granted summary judgment based on the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits sex-based discrimination specifically. The court recounted recent state precedent which dictates that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is a sex-based classification. As such, the block on Medicaid funds, targeting only people who are pregnant, violates the amendment.

According to WHYY, "Wolf was joined by Democrats Michael Wojcik and Lori A. Dumas, as well as Republican Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer."

Judges Patricia A. McCullough, Anne E. Covey, and Stacy Wallace dissented from the ruling.

“I simply cannot recall another case in which this court has decided issues of such profound public importance in this kind of summary, we-believe-you-if-you-say-so fashion that does anything but give ‘full notice to the bench, bar, and public,’” Judge McCullough wrote in the dissent. “Not a single aggrieved individual has come forward as a petitioning party alleging that she has been ‘coerced’ into doing anything because she did not have access to Pennsylvania taxpayer dollars to pay for an abortion.”

“I am not convinced that a right to reproductive autonomy or anything like it exists in the Pennsylvania Constitution to afford anyone a constitutional right to obtain an abortion,” she added.

JuristNews detailed:

The decision comes on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The case previously went to the state high court in 2024, when the Commonwealth Court originally ruled against the abortion care providers. The Commonwealth Court at the time was bound by precedent dictating that classifications on the basis of pregnancy were not sex-based classifications. The state Supreme Court overturned that precedent and returned the case to the Commonwealth Court to decide the case under the new precedent.

Only a plurality of justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, found reproductive autonomy to be a fundamental right. Now on remand, the Commonwealth Court adopted the plurality’s reasoning and held, now as a binding decision in the case, that this bodily autonomy is fundamental.

The ruling starkly contrasts with developing federal rules related to abortion rights. In 2022, the US Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization rejected contentions that reproductive freedom was either a fundamental right or protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The Commonwealth Court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution is distinct from the federal constitution and extends protections under state law where federal law does not.

What We're Hearing:

Unsurprisingly, abortion advocates are delighted with the court's ruling, which will undoubtedly increase abortions in the state.

"I've long opposed this unconstitutional ban, and as Governor, I did not defend it — because a woman's ability to access reproductive care should never be determined by her income," Governor Josh Shapiro wrote on X.

Stephanie Phillips, president & CEO of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, claimed the ruling "righted a historic wrong."

“Here at PPWP, we have been opposed to the PA Medicaid abortion ban from the start. We have seen, firsthand, the harm it has caused to pregnant Pennsylvanians and are heartened to see the Court make a decision with the well-being of the people in mind, instead of the interests of political extremists,” she said.

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, lamented the ruling, saying:

“Taxpayers now in Pennsylvania will have no choice under this court ruling to fund abortions. And there are many, many millions of Pennsylvanians who think abortion is wrong. It's the taking of an innocent human life and to force taxpayers who conscientiously object to abortion to then fund it is just plain wrong.”

The Big Picture:

Pro-lifers are also warning that the ruling will likely have broader implications on all pro-life laws, including current parental consent laws and other safeguards.

“If this ruling stands, it will invite attacks on every remaining pro-life safeguard that has been put into law by lawmakers at the behest to the people of Pennsylvania over decades," Geer said.

"The court didn't need to create a sweeping 'right' to reproductive autonomy to resolve this case. And it shouldn't have. By doing so, it is now forcing all Pennsylvanians to subsidize elective abortions and threatening commonsense safeguards," added Randall Wegner, Chief Counsel of Independence Law Center.

What's Next:

According to WJAC, it is now up to Republican Attorney General Dave Sunday to decide whether or not to appeal the ruling to the state's Supreme Court.

The Kinsey Institute’s first director, Alfred Kinsey, deceived a nation by presenting the documented sexual abuse of children submitted by pedophiles – as well as the self-reported desires and experiences of sexual deviants and convicted sex offenders – as so-called ‘research’ which was then misleadingly applied to all individuals. 

Key Takeaways:

• Officials at Indiana University's Kinsey Institute (founded on Alfred Kinsey's illegitimate "research" obtained from sex offenders and pedophiles) had interactions with Jeffrey Epstein.

• The Institute's current executive director, Justin Garcia, attempted to solicit funding from Epstein in 2012 but claims he never received any.

• The late Helen Fisher, a former senior research fellow at the Kinsey Institute, exchanged emails and knew each other well enough to dine together at Epstein's home.

• The Kinsey Institute, despite Alfred Kinsey's and his associates' own checkered history and beliefs, continues to evade scrutiny even while Epstein's sex crimes come to light.

The Backstory:

In the 1950s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the Kinsey Institute, but that investigation fizzled out after a court ruling by the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, which ruled in favor of allowing the Institute to obtain pornographic material imported from China and other countries that had been seized by U.S. Customs. 

According to FBI documents and other sources, Kinsey’s colleague, pedophilia and bestiality advocate Wardell Pomeroy, alluded to how easy it would be to destroy evidence at the Institute if the FBI investigations continued. That landmark case, U.S. vs. 31 Photographs, was eventually used to expand the allowance of pornographic materials to be used for ‘education purposes’ in K-12 schools. The Institute still holds this as a ‘victory’ today.  

After the landmark case ruling, the Kinsey Institute was allowed to remain open. In 2023, the state of Indiana passed legislation intended to halt state taxpayer funds flowing to the Institute. The Institute continues to operate as a leader in sexuality ‘research’.  

Read more about Alfred Kinsey and his questionable "research" in this series and read about his largely deviant associates, who founded today's sex ed which is widely taught to children in public schools.

The Details:

Justin Garcia's email to Epstein 

In 2012, the Kinsey Institute’s current executive director Justin Garcia – who was, at the time, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute – sent an email to Jeffrey Epstein attempting to solicit funds from the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation. Garcia wrote: 

“Thank you for connecting on Linkedln. I am familiar with some of your philanthropic works, and it's a real pleasure to be in touch. Based on what limited information I know, I think we share a lot of common interests — from evolutionary biology, to behavioral neuroscience, to efforts to battle HIV/AIDS… my work primarily considers the evolutionary and biological foundations of human love, intimacy, and sexual behavior – although I also do work on risk taking, and sexual health.” 

Also mentioned in Garcia’s email to Epstein is his service as a scientific advisor for the online dating site, Match.com. 

Indiana Public Media reported that Garcia issued a statement after the release of the files, condemning Epstein. Garcia claimed, “I only later learned of his criminal background, antithetical to all of my work” further claiming that he “never met or spoke with him,” and “did not receive any funding.” 

Helen Fisher Goes to Dinner

Garcia’s colleague and former senior research fellow for the Institute, Helen Fisher, is also mentioned in the Epstein files. Fisher, a darwinistic biological anthropologist, passed away in 2024, but served at the Institute for over a decade. Garcia and Fisher worked together on multiple “Singles in America” studies in collaboration with their work at Match.com. 

Emails revealed that Fisher and Epstein lived near each other and met together on several occasions.

In 2016, Fisher was invited to dinner at Epstein’s home in Manhattan with other attending guests, including the highly controversial Woody Allen and wife Soon-Yi Previn. After the dinner, which Fisher described as “[t]errific,” her email further stated, “[t]he conversations were fascinating.... I'm a bit embarrassed about holding forth on the evolution of the penis. But I had just been reading aloud that part of my book in the audio-book recording studio…. Everyone seemed to be ok with it.”

In another email exchange, Fisher and Epstein discussed upcoming lunch arrangements with Epstein’s longtime friend (and former Israeli Prime Minister) Ehud Barak and former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, Kathy Ruemmler, who resigned from Goldman Sachs after the emails were released. 

Fisher, who was also a professor and research associate with Rutgers University, was a staunch advocate for the anti-life agenda. In a ‘love letter’ commemorating her after her passing, one person wrote: 

“Helen, you were such a passionate, outspoken advocate for female reproductive rights. I bet if I asked you how people could honor you now and I suggested, "What about contributing to Planned Parenthood so that women and girls could have their reproductive rights protected?” You would look at me with your big, beautiful brown eyes and say, “ABSOLUTELY!” 

In 1996, Fisher co-authored the book “Choices: Nine Leaders of Planned Parenthood of New York City Tell Their Stories,” which was published by Planned Parenthood of New York City. 

The Bottom Line:

Live Action News reported on Epstein’s alleged use of abortions on his minor sex trafficking victims, theft of a newborn baby, and desire to create ‘designer babies.’ Like Kinsey, Epstein displayed extraordinary moral and sexual perversions and a disturbing willingness to use children for the sexual pleasures of adults.

While the Epstein case continues to make media headlines and his co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serves a 20-year sentence, the Kinsey Institute, with its far reaching impacts on the minds and bodies of children both inside and outside of the womb, continues to evade scrutiny.   

While pro-abortion news outlets believe this to be confirmation that doctors failed to provide the standard of care because of the state's pro-life law, the evidence doesn't support this claim.

Key Takeaways:

• The Texas Medical Board has disciplined three doctors regarding the deaths of two women.

• The board determined that the doctors failed to provide the standard of care, resulting in the deaths of the two women along with the death of a preborn baby.

• Pro-abortion media outlet ProPublica continues to claim that the doctors failed to act out of fear of the state's pro-life law, yet there are no indications that this is true.

The Details:

The Texas Medical Board disciplined Dr. William Noel Hawkins and Dr. Andrew Ryan Davis in October 2025, and Dr. Ali Mohamed Osman in March 2026.

Osman and Hawkins were found to have failed to properly treat 18-year-old Nevaeh Crain, who experienced complications at six months of pregnancy and died of sepsis. Davis was found to have failed to properly treat 35-year-old Porsha Ngumezi, who had suffered a miscarriage at 11 weeks of pregnancy.

ProPublica, the news outlet that originally covered the women's deaths, continues to claim without substantiation that the doctors were acting out of fear of the state's pro-life law. From the outset, ProPublica created a narrative that placed the blame on the state's pro-life law.

Nevaeh Crain

Nevaeh Crain was six months pregnant when she went to the emergency room with abdominal pain and a headache. She had a fever and was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and strep throat. She saw Dr. Ali Mohamed Osman, who failed to even record "the presence of a pregnant uterus" and followed none of the hospital's protocols for pregnant patients. (Notably, this hasn't stopped ProPublica from continuing to blame the state's pro-life law for this medical negligence.) He put Crain on antibiotics and discharged her.

Crain was back in the ER by 3:00 am, this time at a different hospital where she was seen by Dr. William Noel Hawkins. Her temperature was then recorded at 102.8℉ and she had an "abnormally high pulse." After testing, IV fluids, a dose of antibiotics and Tylenol, her fever did not go down, her pulse remained high, and her baby's heartbeat was abnormally fast.

Despite signs of sepsis, she was again discharged.

The next day, she was bleeding, and her mother brought her back to the hospital where she saw Dr. Marcelo Totorica, who learned that Crain's baby had died. Still, treatment was delayed and Crain ultimately died seven hours after showing signs of sepsis, having received no treatment for it.

It is unknown if Totorica's actions are under investigation by the Texas Medical Board; however, Osman and Hawkins were both determined to have delayed care that "ultimately resulted in the death of both the patient and her unborn child due to complications of pregnancy."

In the Agreed Order for Osman (the first doctor), the medical board said (emphases added):

a. Respondent violated hospital policy by not sending the patient to labor and delivery for fetal heart monitoring after the patient was discharged from the emergency department.

b. Respondent noted a normal physical exam in the medical record but did not record the presence of a pregnant uterus nor the size of the baby on the abdominal exam.

c. Respondent did not elicit fetal heart tones or perform an ultrasound of the fetus while the patient was in the emergency department.

d. After being discharged by Respondent, the patient visited the emergency department two more times and was observed in a labor and delivery unit. Patient and fetus ultimately died due to complications of pregnancy and delay of adequate care.

The findings of the medical board about Hawkins (the second doctor) were as follows (emphases added):

a Respondent did not recognize the patient's immediate need for hospitalization and further evaluation.

b. Respondent inappropriately discharged the patient even though she continued to have pain and a 103 degree fever despite the administration of medications.

c. When the patient was discharged the infant had fetal tachycardia

d. Respondent did not acknowledge the patient's positive screening for SIRS/Sepsis.

e. Patient visited the emergency department one more time after being discharged by Respondent and patient and fetus ultimately passed away due to complications of pregnancy and delay of adequate care.

None of Hawkins' acts of negligence appear to have anything to do with the state's pro-life law or indicate the doctor's fear of that law.

Other facts to note:

This wasn't the first time Hawkins had failed to properly care for patients. In 2015 (well before the passage of the state's pro-life law), the Board disciplined Hawkins for failing to meet the standard of care for three different patients.

In these cases, Hawkins failed to...

• diagnose and treat a patient for appendicitis

• perform a tubal litigation as discussed with patient

• diagnose a patient's syphilis infection

• document prenatal testing orders and results

He was ordered to have his practice monitored by another doctor for a year and was required to undergo additional continuing medical education courses.

Porsha Ngumezi

Ngumezi was experiencing bleeding in early pregnancy and was passing large clots. After going to the emergency room and seeing Dr. Andrew Ryan Davis, an ultrasound showed a pregnancy sac but found no heartbeat and no embryo, which is known as a blighted ovum, a common type of miscarriage.

After several hours in the hospital and two blood transfusions, the on-call OB/GYN prescribed misoprostol to help complete the miscarriage, which Ngumezi had preferred to the other option of a surgical D&C. Doctors told her a D&C may be necessary if the misoprostol, which induces contractions, didn't work.

After taking misoprostol, she began to experience chest pain. She later said she couldn't breathe and died soon after. Her cause of death was ruled to be hemorrhage.

The Texas Medical Board found, “This delay in care led to the patient’s death." Regarding Davis, it said:

a. Respondent failed to quantify the volume of blood loss the patient had sustained since presenting to the hospital.

b. Respondent admitted patient to a med-surg unit and did not take the patient immediately to the operating room for evacuation of her uterus.

c. Respondent chose to monitor the patient's condition rather than proceed with an emergent evacuation of her uterus.

d. Patient ultimately expired, however an emergent D&C may not have had any effect on the patient's ultimate outcome.

As this doctor administered a drug to the patient to assist in the (non-surgical) evacuation of her uterus and the patient was informed a D&C might be needed if the drug failed, it seems apparent that this doctor was not acting in such a manner due to fear of the state's pro-life law.

Why It Matters:

ProPublica reported, "The Texas Medical Board has disciplined three doctors ProPublica previously investigated whose patients died after receiving delayed or inappropriate pregnancy care under the state’s strict abortion ban" (emphasis added).

The outlet also claimed (emphases added):

As ProPublica investigated those preventable deaths and five others across three states in the past few years, reporters found that abortion bans have influenced how doctors and hospitals respond to pregnancy complications. Facing risks of prison time and professional ruin, doctors have delayed key interventions until they can document that a fetus' heart is no longer beating or that a case meets a narrow legal exception. Some physicians say their colleagues are discharging or transferring pregnant patients instead of taking responsibility for their care.

In reality, this entire claim lacks credibility. There appears to be no indication that the state's pro-life law is the reason these three doctors failed to treat their patients properly. Hawkins had already been disciplined for failing to provide patients with the standard of care in 2015, years before Roe v. Wade fell and before the Texas pro-life Heartbeat Act took effect.

Further, the claims of "some physicians" is hardly proof that doctors in Texas are afraid to provide pregnant women with the standard of care because of the pro-life law. Delivering a baby to save the life of the mother is not considered an induced abortion (and has never been) under state law, because the intent is not to cause the death of the preborn child.

The Bottom Line:

Osman, Davis, and Hawkins were each ordered to complete at least eight hours of continuing medical education. Davis is also required to receive training in risk management and on the "topic of managing pregnancy complications, including miscarriages." Osman's training must include risk management and emergency obstetrics practice and risk factors. And Hawkins must train in risk management and identifying and managing infection during pregnancy.

Despite ProPublica's best efforts to make it appear as though these doctors were acting out of fear of the law, doctors in pro-abortion states have also faced disciplinary action for failing to provide the standard of care to pregnant patients who ultimately died as a result.

Key Takeaways:

• A coalition of state and national pro-life leaders has penned a letter to Senate Leader John Thune and members of the U.S. Senate, urging them to act to extend the Medicaid defunding of abortion businesses, including Planned Parenthood.

• On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed "The Big Beautiful Bill," which included a provision to strip abortion businesses of Medicaid funding for one year.

• On July 5, 2026, that funding could be restored if lawmakers fail to act.

The Details:

The coalition letter, signed by nearly 40 pro-life and conservative leaders — including Live Action founder and president Lila Rose, president of SBA Pro-life America Marjorie Dannenfelser, and National Right to Life president Carol Tobias — calls on the Senate to begin the process of ensuring Medicaid funding is not restored to abortion businesses.

The letter states:

We write as a coalition urging members of the Senate to include a provision to extend and solidify the defunding of the Abortion industry for the maximum duration permitted under reconciliation rules in a 2026 reconciliation bill.

Under current statutory budget reconciliation limitations, this means enacting a ten-year prohibition on federal funding no later than July 4, 2026. As the nation approaches the 250th anniversary of American independence, Congress has an obligation to ensure that federal spending reflects fiscal discipline, accountability, and respect for life.

The financial stakes are significant. Planned Parenthood alone receives over $830 million annually in taxpayer funding, primarily through federal health programs. Ending this funding would represent one of the most meaningful pro-taxpayer reforms Congress can enact. At a time of historic federal debt and growing budgetary pressure, continuing to subsidize the abortion industry is neither fiscally responsible nor defensible.

READ: <a href="/news/planned-parenthood-rejected-defunded">Why Planned Parenthood must be REJECTED and DEFUNDED</a>

The letter adds that abortion businesses "engage in activities that extend beyond traditional healthcare services," including:

• Providing and promoting abortion as a core organizational activity, while lobbying for nationwide abortion until birth.

• Offering or referring for gender transition interventions, including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, particularly for minors.

• Delivering sex education programs that promote inappropriate content to minors while denying parents meaningful transparency and oversight into what their children are being taught.

Of note:

• On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed The Big Beautiful Bill, which included a provision to defund abortion businesses that received more than $800,000 in Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023.

• While the bill originally defunded Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses for 10 years, that time span was reduced to just one year before the bill passed. The letter explains that "the defunding provision enacted in 2025 was explicitly limited to a one-year duration and remains the only major portion of that reconciliation package set to expire this year...."

Zoom In:

Planned Parenthood's business model has diversified beyond abortion in recent years to include "gender-affirming care," even for minors in some cases. A Live Action <a href="/videos/planned-parenthood-gave-her-testosterone-at-16-paid-for-with-your-tax-dollars">undercover investigation</a> last year found various Planned Parenthood facilities who were willing to give hormones upon a first visit, with no mental health consultation.

Planned Parenthood's abortion revenue alone is estimated at $200M annually, and its most recent annual report for 2024-25 (ending just before the Big, Beautiful Bill was signed) shows over 434,000 annual abortions — its highest number ever. The corporation's taxpayer funding hit $832M, up 5% from the previous year. — a $39.8M increase. This equates to nearly $2.3M each day from U.S. taxpayers.

Planned Parenthood willingly harms children both before and after birth.

The Bottom Line:

If the Senate fails to act, Medicaid funding will be restored to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers on July 5, 2026, less than three months away.

"We respectfully urge the Senate to act without delay and make the defunding of Big Abortion a component of a 2026 budget reconciliation package," the letter concludes.

Go Deeper:

• <a href="/news/planned-parenthood-promotes-benefits-transgender-ideology">How Planned Parenthood both promotes and benefits from transgender ideology</a>

• <a href="/news/experts-transgender-providers-planned-parenthood-scrutiny">Experts explain why ‘transgender care’ providers like Planned Parenthood deserve scrutiny</a>

• <a href="/news/transgender-identifying-individuals-planned-parenthood-cash-cows">Are transgender-identifying individuals Planned Parenthood’s newest ‘cash cows’?</a>

• <a href="/news/report-details-planned-parenthood-record-abortions-funding">REPORT DETAILS: Record-breaking abortions and taxpayer funding at Planned Parenthood</a>

Secretary Kennedy testified that Biden officials imposed a 2024 HHS rule that required prospective foster parents to support LGBTQ identities as a condition for federal funding for foster care programs nationwide. Secretary Kennedy noted the policy “dramatically constricted the pool of available parents” for children in need of good homes. His testimony was part of the HHS’ efforts to roll back these restrictions. 

“President Trump and First Lady Trump’s vision for foster care is one family for every one child,” stated Secretary Kennedy. “Currently, there are two children for every available foster family because the Biden Administration was excluding an entire class of foster families due to their religious beliefs. This is unacceptable, and we are changing that.”

The 2024 rule required foster parents to meet three conditions to qualify as a “designated placement” for fostering LGBTQ+ children. These conditions included “establishing an environment that supports the child’s LGBTQ+ status or identity,” receiving training to get the “appropriate knowledge and skills to provide for the needs of the child related to the child’s self-identified sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression,” and committing to “facilitate the child’s access to age- or developmentally appropriate resources, services, and activities that support their health and well-being.”

In June 2025, a federal judge halted the rule and determined it “likely exceeded the scope of HHS’ authority” under the Major Questions Doctrine, which leaves rewriting law on significant political matters to Congress and not the courts.

“The Court will not permit HHS’s unlawful attempt to rewrite or expand the statutory text approved by Congress to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate,” wrote U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle.

As a “partial” result of Trump administration policies, Secretary Kennedy stated “the number of foster children has dropped from 425,000 to 325,000.”

In 2025, the Trump administration committed to removing anti-Christian bias from the federal government. Under that commitment, the HHS is moving forward to remove this rule that discriminated against religious parents who oppose gender ideology and prevented them from providing loving homes to children. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Blocking couples from fostering or adopting children based on their religion or their opposition to a harmful gender ideology is unconstitutional. There is no place in the federal government for a rule that discriminates against religious parents.”

Key Takeaways:

• Not long after reports indicated that a pregnant woman lost one of her twins due to a hospital turnaways in Daegu in South Korea, another pregnant woman was found to have been refused by 16 hospitals in the region.

• Unlike the first incident, which resulted in the death of a twin and series injuries to the other twin, this pregnant mother was discharged after a delay in treatment, with her and her preborn baby in stable condition.

• South Korea's health care system appears to be in crisis across the board, not just in maternity care, with patients turned away due to a shortage of hospitals beds and providers.

The Details:

The Korea Times noted that a 36-year-old woman was 20 weeks pregnant and was refused admission by 16 medical facilities in Daegu and North Gyeongsang Province. After a three-hour delay, she was admitted to a hospital in Asan, South Chungcheong Province. The Times reported:

According to the Daegu Fire and Disaster Headquarters, a call came in at 2 a.m. on March 25 reporting that the woman, who was staying at her in-laws’ home in Dong District, Daegu, was suffering from abdominal pain.

However, when paramedics attempted a hospital transfer, "16 maternity departments across Daegu and North Gyeongsang Province declined to admit her, quoting reasons such as a lack of available beds, no obstetrician on duty, or doctors occupied with other emergencies," the Times stated.

The control center noted that the woman "was in stable condition and showed no immediate signs of labor," which led to the decision to allow a long-distance transfer to another province.

The mother was discharged following medical care, with she and her preborn baby reportedly in stable condition.

In Daegu, a lack of emergency facilities is causing the need to transport patients further away for care. The Korea Times noted, "In Daegu, the number of out-of-area transfers taking more than two hours from the arrival of emergency responders at the scene to the patient’s arrival at a hospital stood at seven in 2024, rising to 13 last year."

The Big Picture:

According to a recent New York Times article, this trend isn't limited to Daegu:

Despite being one of the wealthiest countries in Asia, South Korea has a buckling emergency-care system. A chronic shortage of E.R. doctors, fewer legal protections for physicians than in other rich nations and a quirk in the emergency response system — paramedics must wait for hospital permission before transporting a patient to an E.R. — have led to delays that can be fatal.

These hospital rejections — called “E.R. runaround,” “ambulance pingpong” or E.R. “merry-go-round” by the local news media — have become more acute in recent years, government data shows. President Lee Jae Myung has described the failures as systemic.

It isn't just impacting pregnant patients, but patients with health needs of all types.

Why It Matters:

And yet, with birth rates hitting record lows in South Korea, many hospitals have cut down on or shut their maternity wards down due to financial strain and a shortage of obstetricians. Rural areas have been hit hardest, with some expectant mothers forced to travel hours to a hospital equipped for emergency care. An article in Time reported:

South Korea is home to at least 130,000 doctors, but that isn’t enough for its needs. Latest OECD data show that South Korea has just 2.5 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants, or about two-thirds of the OECD average of 3.7. This scarcity has manifested itself in extreme ways: in one instance, a hospital had to stop offering inpatient care for children for three months because it could not hire resident pediatricians.

As Live Action News previously reported, another pregnant woman carrying twins who went into premature labor in Daegu was turned away by seven major hospitals in the region in February. It was four hours before doctors performed a C-section at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province. One of the newborn twins died; the other was left in critical condition, suffering brain damage.

The Korea Times reported that efforts are underway to attempt to remedy the dire situation:

Eom Jun-wook, head of the Daegu Fire and Disaster Headquarters, said authorities would prioritize assigning specialized personnel to the Emergency Medical Control Center, including nurses with experience in obstetrics, pediatrics and trauma care, as well as level-1 paramedics.

He added that emergency responders would also be stationed at hospitals to gain hands-on experience in specialized treatment procedures.

The Bottom Line:

As South Korea faces an aging population, its policymakers increasingly view childbirth as a national necessity.

However, the state of its maternal healthcare system (and healthcare system overall) reveals that much needs to be done to build a life-affirming culture.

Key Takeaways:

• HB26-1335 would require all public and private schools in the state to provide the abortion pill at their campus health centers.

• Schools would be able to opt-out due to religious objections, but there is no religious exemption for individuals who object to abortion.

• On-campus abortion places students in danger, as they must undergo an abortion in a dorm bathroom and often don't have transportation for emergency care if it is needed.

The Details:

HB26-1335 doesn't just apply to publicly-funded state schools, but instead would require all colleges and universities in the state with a student health center to provide the abortion pill via the health center's pharmacy.

If the health center does not have a pharmacy, a prescription must be written for the student to obtain the abortion pill off campus. According to the bill's summary, "[a]n institution is not required to provide access to or stock abortion medication if doing so would conflict with the institution's bona fide religious beliefs or practices."

During the committee hearing, Colleen Enos, director of government relations for Christian Home Educators of Colorado, noted that though schools may opt out of providing the abortion pill, there was nothing within the legislation allowing individual health care providers to do so.

“There is nothing in the statute to affirm a health care worker’s right to refuse to provide abortion pills or prescriptions according to their deeply held religious beliefs,” she said. 

The bill passed the House Education Committee on April 16 by a vote of 8-5 and next heads to the full House chamber.

The Big Picture:

The abortion pill is a two-drug regimen consisting of mifepristone (which starves the baby of the nutrients he needs to survive) and misoprostol, which causes the mother to go into labor and then deliver her dead child. This is often done while she is at home, in a toilet or a bathtub. Countless women have <a href="/news/traumatized-wish-never-abortion-pill-planned-parenthood">recounted being traumatized</a> by this experience.

Proponents of the bill don't explain how a college student living on campus and likely sharing a dorm bathroom is expected to undergo this procedure within the confines of campus living.

Further, there is no explanation as to what may happen to the student if and when complications occur. One analysis of the abortion pill's complications found that "serious adverse events" occur at a rate 22 times higher than that which is reported by the FDA. Nearly 11% of women experienced complications such as hemorrhaging, infection, sepsis, transfusions, hospitalization, and more.

A study in Ireland found that 12% of women who took the abortion pill needed to visit the emergency department due to complications, and 16% of those women experienced incomplete abortions.

Abortion supporters say that students need the abortion pill on campus because many are without transportation and unable to visit an abortion facility. What then happens to the student when she needs to get to the hospital or a doctor for emergency treatment or follow-up care when it is needed?

Many women report being severely unprepared for how painful the chemical abortion process can be.

The Bottom Line:

Bills attempting to mandate abortion pills on campus do not increase the wellbeing of women; instead, making schools a more welcoming place for parents would be a move in the right direction — not legislation that clearly puts students at risk.

Key Takeaways:

• Maison DesChamps has reportedly been sentenced to 45 days in jail and a $75,000 fine for illegally climbing the Sphere in Las Vegas in 2024.

• DesChamps made the climb to raise money for a pregnant homeless woman.

• He has a history of making climbs to raise money and awareness for pro-life causes.

The Details:

A Thomas More Society representative told Live Action News that a statement regarding the sentencing is forthcoming; however, it appears DesChamps has been sentenced to 45 days in jail and $75,000 in restitution, with credit for two days served. We await official court documents to confirm this information.

According to information posted online, DesChamps' wife is currently pregnant with the couple's first child, and is due to give birth in two months. A fundraiser has been created to help the family while he is incarcerated.

Though the fundraiser indicates that free solo climber Alex Honnold also climbed the Sphere recently with no ramifications, news reports confirm that Honnold's climb had been for an upcoming film and that necessary permits were obtained beforehand.

The Backstory:

DesChamps climbed the Sphere in February 2024 in an effort to raise money for a homeless woman named Isabel, who was considering abortion.

He did not have legal clearance to make the climb, and was arrested by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department shortly after it was completed.

Three people with DesChamps were also arrested at the time, accused of filming and helping him climb. DesChamps reportedly later agreed to plead guilty to charges of Destroying Property of Another Greater than $5000 and Conspiracy to Destroy Private Property, in exchange for a dismissal of the charges against his friends.

Media reports state that the climb caused more than $100k in damage to the structure.

DesChamps is known for making extreme climbs in an effort to raise money for pregnant mothers and their preborn children. He has climbed at various locations, including the Accenture Tower in Chicago, Salesforce Tower in San Francisco, and the tallest tower in Phoenix. These climbs have typically resulted in his arrest.

Zoom In:

In a post on the website for the organization Let Them Live, DesChamps further explained his impetus for the climb, writing:

“At 37, with a life story that’s anything but straightforward, Isabel finds herself at a crossroads. Having had to make the heart-wrenching decision to adopt out three of her children, and with twins living with her ex-husband, she’s now facing the prospect of bringing a new life into this world under the most challenging circumstances imaginable. Homeless, jobless, and with the fear of maternal and infant health risks looming large, she’s scheduled an 11-week abortion for February 10th, believing it to be her only option amidst the chaos.”

The fundraiser raised over $47,000 to support Isabel following the climb. Des Champs reported afterward that Isabel embraced life for her baby.

Key Takeaways:

• Spanish evangelicals have spoken out against an amendment that would make abortion a constitutional right in Spain.

• Their statement pointed out that preborn life is already acknowledged and protected under the Spanish constitution.

• The group argued that instead of encouraging women to have abortions, Spain should look to protect both mothers and preborn children.

The Details:

The Federation of Evangelical Religious Entities of Spain (FEREDE) released a statement voicing its concern about the government’s proposal to incorporate abortion within Article 43, which deals with the right to health protection.

The amendment seeks to ensure that abortion services are available “under conditions of real and effective equality” throughout Spain. To be approved, it must obtain a three-fifths majority vote in both the Congress and the Senate.

The pro-abortion plan is to insert a new fourth section into Article 43 of the Constitution, which addresses the right to health protection, claiming that “the state shall guarantee the right of women to voluntary termination of pregnancy under conditions of real and effective equality.”

FEREDE posited that enshrining abortion into the Spanish Constitution “undermines the protection of unborn human life” and would contradict the spirit of the Constitution.

The federation elaborated that the life of the preborn is already acknowledged and safeguarded under Spanish law, quoting Article 15 of the Constitution and various civil and constitutional provisions.

FEREDE also alluded to the case law of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights to declare that there is no absolute right to abortion; instead, it said Spain should balance the protection of mothers with that of their preborn children.

FEREDE pointed out that though Protestantism does not hold one uniform doctrine on abortion, most believers contend that life is a divine gift deserving protection from conception. The Federation also voiced doubts about whether both society and Parliament have reached enough agreement to justify the pro-abortion constitutional amendment.

“We believe that, given the complexity and controversy of this issue from legal, scientific, moral, and ethical perspectives, there is insufficient consensus in our society—nor in Parliament—to elevate abortion to the status of a constitutional right,” FEREDE said.

Zoom Out:

In October 2025, the Spanish Evangelical Alliance (AEE) contended that, from an evangelical viewpoint, human life begins at conception. 

The AEE also took issue with how public conversations around abortion concentrated only on the woman's choice, at the expense of the preborn child.  The group further singled out the urgency of expanding options and societal assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies.

Spain’s evangelicals are not alone in trying to stall the pro-abortion government's effort to enshrine abortion into the country’s constitution. 

Spain’s Catholic bishops, in a March 2026 message, wrote that abortion “can never be a right,” citing biology's consensus on the fertilized embryo as a distinct human organism with its own DNA. 

Spain’s right-wing Vox party echoed such a stance, slamming the incumbent government, with Vox leader Santiago Abascal stating that the government is pushing for policies that erode the value of human life. “That is what the Sánchez Government offers: death, pain, and misery,” Abascal said.

The Bottom Line:

Spanish evangelicals’ criticism and resistance to the country’s constitutional abortion bid exposed the proposal's moral bankruptcy. This is a reminder to pro-lifers in Spain and beyond that true societal progress lies not in promoting death, but in defending the vulnerable and constructing a genuine culture of life. 

Key Takeaways:

• Actress Elizabeth Banks used IVF and a surrogate to have her two sons, ages 13 and 15.

• She recently revealed that she underwent nine rounds of IVF to make this happen.

• Those nine rounds of IVF could have resulted in the creation of more than 80 embryos.

• Banks' story highlights the significant number of lives lost in the quest to create life artificially.

The Details:

In a recent episode of the podcast, Modern Love, Banks, 52, offered more details about her efforts to have her sons, Magnus, 13 and Felix, 15, with her husband Max Handelman. She had previously shared that she underwent IVF and used a surrogate, but now, she is sharing how many attempts it took to have her sons.

One of the first questions her fertility doctor asked was if she had ever been pregnant before. And while she initially thought it was a "weird question," Banks soon realized why he had asked it.

She had been having sex for 20 years and had never had so much as a pregnancy "scare."

"And so, it was my first wake-up call of like, yeah, maybe something's not totally right here," she said.

Because of this, Banks said the fertility doctor explained, "'I think surrogacy is gonna be for you,' ... we can go through IVF and do all the things. And we did. I did. We undertook nine procedures to have our two sons."

Why It Matters:

Banks' quest to have children is understandable, and Magnus and Felix are valued, worthy, and cherished human beings. But their lost siblings were as well.

On average, each round of IVF involves the creation of nine embryos — and research indicates that most women will go through two to three cycles before achieving a successful pregnancy, so Banks' experience of undergoing nine cycles to get two babies is higher than average.

If Banks had made just one embryo with each round, that would mean at least seven babies died, were donated, or remain frozen. If she made the average of nine, that count could be as high as 79 babies.

Key Facts

• Half of all embryos created in an IVF cycle do not survive to the blastocyst stage of life, and half of those do not pass genetic testing and are often automatically discarded.

• Only about seven percent of embryos will survive to be born.

• The embryos "left over" after the desired number of children are born are likely to remain frozen indefinitely or are donated to research or destroyed.

• IVF comes with risks for women and born children, both physical and emotional

• Surrogacy involves the intentional separation of the child from his or her birth mother, which can cause trauma that permanently alters the baby's brain, and can cause emotional, behavioral, and neuroendocrine stress responses in adulthood.

But on the quest to have the "wanted" baby, doctors and would-be parents often ignore all of those risks as well as the dead embryos (who are human beings) left in the wake.

The Bottom Line:

The desire to have children and build a family is good, but the unregulated mass production of children is dangerous for children, for women, and for a society has begun to view children as products that adults have a right to rather than the gifts that each one is.

When the creation of human life becomes a business and the demand for the 'perfect' product grows, it can only lead to the further devaluation and destruction of human life.

Faust debated IVF, surrogacy, and donor conception as 'paths to parenthood' with Kayde Mason, a surrogate, egg donor, and director of Elevate Egg Donor and Surrogacy Agency.

Key Takeaways:

• Katy Faust and Kayde Mason debated various life issues, and Faust continually redirected her arguments to focus on the needs of the child rather than the desires of adults.

• Mason has been a surrogate and an egg donor, and says she does not view even her own biological offspring as her children. She claimed that third-party reproduction is "an empowering choice for families and for the child," yet failed to explain how such an arrangement empowers the child, whose rights are typically not considered.

• Faust countered the idea that children created through IVF are the "most wanted and loved" children, and noted that when these children question their biological origins, they are often stonewalled by the adults in their lives who claim they should be "grateful" to exist. Faust called this akin to "emotional gaslighting" in an attempt to get the child to "shut up."

The Details:

On the March 24 episode of The Ellen Fisher Podcast, Faust discussed IVF, surrogacy, and egg donation with Mason, who has been a surrogate twice and donated her eggs five times.

While Mason shared much of her own personal experiences with surrogacy and egg donation as a consenting adult, Faust consistently turned the conversation towards research data and the effects third-party reproduction has on the children created.

What's best for the child

Faust explained:

"What's best for the child is when adults sacrifice so children don't have to.

It is a world where the rights of children are recognized and respected, and then adults do hard things because the only alternative is for kids to do hard things for adults, whether it's losing their life, losing their mother or father, or being treated as a designer product and a commodity. So the best interest of the child is for us to recognize those fundamental rights and then everybody — single, married, gay, straight, fertile, and infertile — conforming to those rights because the only alternative is the kid sacrifices for the adults, and that actually is the definition of injustice.

When you're forcing the weak to sacrifice for the strong, there really is not ethics involved in that, in my opinion."

Mason argued:

"I don't think we always know what's best for the child. I mean, my first thing that I would point out is that no child consents to be born. No child gets to decide what family they're born into.

And you know... I think even in all those statistics, it's not super clear what is the best family structure beyond the fact that children deserve to be born into a loving home that wants them."

She called third-party reproduction "an empowering choice for families and for the child."

Faust questioned how it could be empowering for the child, especially in an instance where the "father masturbated during college [and] sold the rights to raise you for $200."

"Maybe empowering is not the best word," Mason admitted.

Research has shown that children raised by their married, biological parents experience better academic, emotional, financial, and physical outcomes, including having fewer behavioral issues.

The most 'wanted' children

Mason argued that children whose mothers "jumped through these extra hoops" using IVF to have them "are often the most wanted children in the world, and I think that is something important."

Faust disagreed, saying that her organization collects the stories of donor-conceived children, "And every single one of these children, when they voice, 'Where is my mother? I'd really like to know who she is' ... a lot of times what they're met with is, 'You should be grateful to be alive. Do you know how much trouble we went through to have you? You are so loved and wanted.' ... It's almost a form of emotional gaslighting. And a lot of time the 'loved and wanted' and 'wanted and loved'... means 'shut up.'"

The research speaks

While Mason did not present studies to support her position, Faust referenced the study, "My Daddy's Name is Donor," which compared outcomes between children raised by heterosexual, biological parents, children created through sperm donation, and adoptees raised by neither biological parent.

The study, she said, noted that:

• "Children created through sperm donation fare worse than the children created and raised by their biological parents."

• "On many measures, they also fare worse than even the adoptees."

She added, "... there is really something distinctly anti-child about this technology...."

Mason argued that this could be explained away by the modern shift from dishonesty about the child's biological parents and anonymous sperm donation to "identified" sperm and egg donation, yet the knowledge that your father gave up his rights to you for $200 is still a part of the equation.

'They aren't my children'

When asked if the children born from her egg donations feel like her children in any way, Mason said she doesn't consider them to be her children, even though the child "shares my biology and shares my genetics, and biology can be important... parenthood is about intention, and my intent was never to be the parents to those children."

Faust then asked Mason:

"What if the child comes to you when he or she is 18 or 22 ... you may not think of yourself as the mother, but according to the surveys of children created through sperm and egg donation, they themselves would say, 'Obviously, that is my mother. That is my biological mother.' ... So what happens if your idea about this transaction is different from your biological children's idea about this transaction? ... What would you say to them?"

Mason admitted she didn't know what she would say, but "I feel that I have made a decision that I feel comfortable with by being a known donor, by leaving those options available to the child, even if that admittedly may put me in a situation that I'm not completely prepared for one day... That's the true answer."

Faust pointed out that having biological children out in the world has a ripple effect on relatives who don't know they are related to each other.

In addition, while Mason may say that parenthood is about "intent," not biology, stories of children being switched at birth or as embryos prove that biology does matter as long as the adults want it to.

When does life begin?

Toward the end of the conversation, they discussed their thoughts about human life in the womb.

Mason said she believes "giving embryos the same rights as humans is a very scary slippery slope," then compares a human organism (the embryo) to human cells like eggs and sperm, since "they're the potential for a life." She then added, "Embryos are often just a byproduct of this process."

Faust noted, "We actually don't have to wonder when life begins," adding:

"Embryology is a valid science. It's been around for a while.

And we know that unlike egg and sperm, which are not a full human, a human does come into existence when sperm and egg fuse together to create that new, never-before-seen strand of DNA and chromosomes. And that is the earliest stage of human life.

And really, the only difference between those frozen embryos and you and me is time. Time and the ability to develop.

So we do have quite a human rights crisis on our hands."

The future of reproduction

Fisher asked what Mason and Faust thought about the efforts to create robot wombs, and while Mason simply said she thinks it's better for humans to grow humans, Faust had a lot more to say that was eye opening:

"The baby assembly process needs three things: sperm, egg, and womb. Sperm is plentiful and cheap. Eggs are harder to get and more expensive, but we've figured out a way to access them on a pretty significant scale. Wombs? Much harder to find. We need to pass commercial surrogacy laws because there are not enough women willing to do this altruistically, because... it's a risky process.

And so Big Fertility is always looking for ways to drop the price. The best way to do that will be when they can cut women out of the process altogether. ... They are doing two things to cut women out of the reproductive process...

The first one is robot wombs, right? Artificial wombs. That would be so good for Big Fertility. [Surrogates] are the most expensive part of this process. ... And sometimes the woman is the thing standing between you and the product that you want."

Faust also discussed the horrific technology that artificially and intentionally creates motherless and fatherless children at a genetic level:

"The other thing that they're working on is figuring out a way to eliminate the need for eggs. And so there is this process called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG) where they will create a human egg cell out of skin or saliva or blood or hair and create a human egg that then they can fertilize with sperm.

... You can do generational compression where you create a child through this IVG process, make an embryo, then do IVG on the embryo, make another embryo. And in essence, you could make a great, great, great, great grandchild within a couple."

Read more here about IVG.

The Bottom Line:

The conversation also touched on adoption vs. third-party reproduction and how building families should be child-centric, not adult-centric. Faust also discussed embryo adoption, forced abortion in surrogacy, and the massive issue of frozen embryos.

Artificial reproduction has long-term negative effects on the children created, who have rights that are being ignored in favor of adults' desires.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2021, Anthony Thomas ‘TJ’ Hoover II was admitted to Baptist Health Richmond in Kentucky for a cardiac arrest, and was eventually declared brain dead.

• During the "honor walk" for his organ procurement, he showed what appeared to be signs of awareness, but his family was told these signs were just meaningless reflexes.

• When taken into the operating room for the surgery, Hoover began moving around and crying, prompting several doctors to refuse to move forward with the organ procurement, even though the operating staff was instructed to continue with the surgery.

• Hoover's case prompted the passage of House Bill 510, which requires medical providers to stop the process of organ procurement if there is any sign of life.

The Backstory:

Donna Rhorer told WKYT that, in 2021, her brother — Hoover — was taken to the emergency room at Baptist Health Richmond. He had experienced a drug overdose and gone into cardiac arrest; he was soon declared brain dead. Hoover's family was told he was an organ donor, so they agreed to donation in honor of his wishes.

After testing his organs to see what was viable, he was taken on an "Honor Walk" — a tradition in organ harvesting when the donor is solemnly taken through a procession to the operating room, in which the hallways are lined with family members, loved ones, and medical staff, honoring the donor's gift of life.

Yet Hoover appeared to still be alive.

“We had his honor walk Friday afternoon. During his honor walk, his eyes started opening up," Rhorer said of her brother. "He was tracking. His eyes were tracking us around. We were told it was just reflexes, just a normal thing. Who are we to question the medical system?”

Yet Rhorer's instincts were correct, and she was proven right about the traumatizing procurement experience.

"He was crying visibly"

Natasha Miller, who works at the hospital as an organ preservationist for Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates (KODA), was in the operating room when Hoover was brought in. She told NPR it was immediately evident something was wrong.

"He was moving around — kind of thrashing. Like, moving, thrashing around on the bed," Miller said. "And then when we went over there, you could see he had tears coming down. He was crying visibly."

Two doctors immediately refused to move forward with the organ procurement surgery, and Miller said the staff was extremely upset at what they had witnessed. Yet a supervisor for KODA allegedly pressured staff to continue, despite the clear signs of awareness from Hoover.

"[T]he coordinator calls the supervisor at the time," Miller said. "And she was saying that he was telling her that she needed to 'find another doctor to do it' – that, 'We were going to do this case. She needs to find someone else.' And she's like, 'There is no one else.' She's crying — the coordinator — because she's getting yelled at."

"It's very scary to me"

Several KODA workers allegedly quit over the incident, including another organ preservationist, Nyckoletta Martin. "I've dedicated my entire life to organ donation and transplant. It's very scary to me now that these things are allowed to happen and there's not more in place to protect donors," Martin said.

She noted that Hoover had shown signs of life long before he ever made it into the operating room, including during cardiac catheterization, in which the heart is tested to see if it is still viable.

"The donor had woken up during his procedure that morning for a cardiac catheterization. And he was thrashing around on the table," she said. Yet instead of stopping the organ donation process then, Hoover was sedated and staff moved forward.

"That's everybody's worst nightmare, right? Being alive during surgery and knowing that someone is going to cut you open and take your body parts out?" Martin said. "That's horrifying."

Hoover survived, and was released to Rhorer's care, though doctors said he wouldn't live long. He is still alive, though Rhorer has to care for him, as he has trouble with his memory, walking, and talking. The horrors of this case led directly to House Bill 510.

The Details:

On April 7, House Bill 510 was signed into law, and requires an immediate halt to any organ procurement if any "indication of life" is spotted. The legislation was introduced after a federal investigation into Hoover's case, and has the backing of Network for Hope, an organ donation provider for multiple states, including Kentucky.

The bill is extremely detailed in multiple areas, and defines "indication of life" this way:

"Indication of life" includes but is not limited to:

1. Spontaneous movement;

2. Vocalization or attempts to vocalize;

3. Purposeful or reflexive responses to stimuli;

4. Observed respiratory effort by a patient-initiated attempt at breath;

5. Changes in heart rate or blood pressure inconsistent with a death declaration; and

6. Any neurological or physiological sign suggesting pain perception or neurological activity;

The bill also notes:

A pause in procedure may be requested or initiated by any individual involved or present, including but not limited to:

1. Hospital physicians, nurses, or clinical staff;

2. Organ procurement organization personnel;

3. Transplant center personnel;

4. Members of the surgical or anesthesiology team; and

5. The patient’s spouse or legal representative.

It also specifies that "An individual shall not be penalized, disciplined, or retaliated against for requesting or initiating a pause in procedure."

Barry Massa, Network for Hope CEO, said in a statement:

“Organ donation is a remarkable and life-saving gift that allows thousands of individuals each year to receive life-sustaining transplants and offers hope to patients and families.

House Bill 510 highlights the importance of public trust, transparency, and ethical and clinical standards that prioritize patient safety and human dignity. These are goals Network for Hope shares.”

The organization said it had begun voluntarily implementing its own reforms in 2025, including neurological exams every 12 hours during the process of organ donation. Yet House Bill 510 goes beyond more testing.

The current standard

As Dr. Heidi Klessig, a retired anesthesiologist, explained on X, the new Kentucky law takes a stricter view of brain death than the current medical standard (emphases added):

Where the new Kentucky “pause in organ harvesting law” gets interesting is that it specifically lists things that may be considered to be an “indication of life.”

In the Bluegrass State, neurological death is defined under Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 446.400, which states there must be “a total and irreversible cessation of all brain function, including the brain stem.”

But the way most doctors diagnose brain death, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) brain death guideline, explicitly allows death to be declared while parts of the brain are still working.

This disconnect between legal death and clinical practice has been flying under the radar for years, but Kentucky’s new legislation very effectively brings these discrepancies to light.

“Part of improving organ donation safety in the Commonwealth means strengthening existing safeguards to better protect organ donors,” Majority Whip Jason Nemes (R-Middletown) said. “Implementing a mandatory pause in the procedure process when changes in a patient’s medical status arise would further ensure organ donations are conducted responsibly and safely.”

The Bottom Line:

Organ donation is a beautiful, selfless sacrifice that allows someone else to receive the gift of life. However, those wishing to be organ donors deserve to know that they are safe to make such a decision, and that they will never end up in an operating room, crying and fighting for their life, as TJ Hoover did.

Key Takeaways:

• Dr. Peter Blusanovics, a family physician from Montreal, said that Canada should pass Bill C-218 to protect those with mental illness from accessing "medical assistance in dying" (MAiD).

• The legislation would ensure that a person cannot qualify for MAiD solely based on a mental illness diagnosis.

• Dr. Blusanovics called for more support for those who are suffering, not easer access to death.

The Details:

Dr. Peter Blusanovics, a family physician from Montreal, advocated for Bill C-218, which would explicitly exclude people with mental illnesses from qualifying for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) based on that diagnosis alone.

In his speech, Dr. Blusanovics noted that more social supports must be put in place to help people — not easier access to death. He stated:

"Mental illness needs to be properly identified and treated. These Individuals do not want to die, they want their suffering to be relieved.

But there is currently lack of medical support, such as physicians, psychologists and social workers. There is lack of access to psychiatric support and long waiting lists before being assessed. There is lack of financial support: lack of housing, economic security and support from family and significant others."

He noted that MAiD offers "no solution" to the challenges those with mental illnesses are facing:

"Everyone deserves the right to be treated with dignity and with humanity. We are supposed to be a mature and evolved society that needs to take care of its most vulnerable.

We need to realize that the lack of proper care in our health care systems is not a good enough excuse to offer assisted suicide as a solution."

The Big Picture:

Since MAiD's legalization in 2016, restrictions around who can access it have been consistently loosened, and Canada is now one of the world's leaders in "assisted death." In March 2027, the reins are scheduled to be loosened even further, allowing people with mental illnesses with no other underlying medical conditions to qualify for euthanasia.

Those opposed to euthanasia launched a "Help Not Harm" campaign in March 2026, pushing for the passage of C-218, which has been called the "Right to Recover Act." The campaign aims to raise awareness about the harms of MAiD while advocating for more life-affirming alternatives, including palliative care and mental health support.

The Bottom Line:

Offering a person suffering with mental illness an easy way to kill themselves is not compassionate — it's horrific. Leaders in society should be doing everything possible to give care and necessary support to people who are suffering and in need. As Dr. Blusanovics pointed out, poor health care access is not a reason to kill someone.

Despite the small retail pharmacy percentage, 97% of prescriptions were filled via mail-order pharmacies, with the deadly drugs mailed directly to the purchaser. The study did not capture "mifepristone dispensed in person at clinics or mailed by clinics directly to patients."

Key Takeaways:

• According to a JAMA study, just 2% of abortion pill prescriptions were filled by brick-and-mortar retail pharmacies in states where telehealth abortion is allowed, while 97% were filled by mail-order pharmacies.

• The Guttmacher Institute's latest report indicates that 65% of all abortions are now done by pill, up from 63% in years prior.

• Live Action News has estimated that 731,900+ abortions were committed by pill in 2025, which translates to 60,992 abortions by pill per month; 2,005 per day; 84 per hour; and one every 44 seconds.

The Details:

Study and Conclusions

The study — "Changes in Mifepristone Use at Pharmacies After Removal of the FDA In-Person Dispensing Requirement," published April 13, 2026, in JAMA — sought to determine "whether removing the in-person dispensing requirement on mifepristone affected access through pharmacies."

Authors concluded that since the FDA's removal of the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone in January of 2023:

• 'Telehealth' abortion pill distribution "increased from 5% of all 86,970 abortions in May 2022 to 28% of the 95,270 abortions in June 2025," according to WeCount.

• It "was associated with a large increase in individuals filling mifepristone prescriptions at pharmacies, almost exclusively through mail order for individuals in states where abortion is legal and telehealth prescribing is permitted."

Reuters summarized it this way:

Research ​from the University of Southern California published in the medical journal JAMA, showed ⁠that since January 2023, pharmacies have filled about 2,700 mifepristone prescriptions monthly.

In the ​27 states and the District of Columbia where telehealth abortion is allowed, fewer than 2% ​of those prescriptions were filled at physical retail pharmacies.

In 11 states where abortion is legal but telehealth access is restricted, some 61% of prescriptions were filled at in-store pharmacies, the study found.

According to MedPageToday.com, while there were limitations to the study, authors found that:

Nearly all (99.2%) of the mifepristone fills after the policy change were in states in which abortion was legal with telehealth allowed, which had an increase of 2,398.4 users per month (P<0.001). Only 1.8% of these fills were at retail pharmacies, with the rest being mail-order.

But in the post-policy period in states where abortion is legal with telehealth restrictions, 39.4% of mifepristone users filled at mail-order pharmacies and 60.6% at retail pharmacies.

...Monthly mifepristone users peaked in June 2023. Prescriptions were primarily received from advanced practice providers and primary care physicians. In all, the database included 71,703 people age 15 to 49 who filled 80,388 mifepristone prescriptions during the study period. Mean age was 28.6.

News-Medical.net added:

Just a fraction of prescriptions for the abortion pill mifepristone were filled at brick-and-mortar retail pharmacies after federal drug regulators lifted longstanding dispensing limits, according to a new USC study in JAMA...

In these states, in-store pharmacies accounted for less than 2% of individuals using pharmacies to fill their mifepristone prescription since the FDA updated dispensing requirements under the drug safety program known as Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS).

These were largely fills at independent pharmacies rather than chains (92% vs. 8%).

Study Authors and Methodology

Authors included Christopher Scannell, MD, Pragya Kakani, and Rebecca Myerson. Lead author Dima Mazen Qato is a member of the pro-abortion World Health Organization Sexual and Reproductive Health Unit Task Force.

While no funding sources were disclosed, the WHO previously received $500K from the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, an original abortion pill investor, to update its Abortion Care Guideline, which recommends pharmacy worker involvement in abortion.

Authors used data that purported to "cover more than 90% of retail pharmacies and 60% to 85% of mail-order pharmacies," wrote MedPage.com.

The media outlet cited abortionist Daniel Grossman, who has concerning ties to Big Abortion:

However, Grossman noted the possibility that a few high-volume pharmacies might not have been included, adding to the gap in the database coverage of mifepristone use. He also noted that Qato's study doesn't answer questions about the proportion of brick-and-mortar pharmacies that are dispensing and if dispensing varies by chain versus independent ownership.

PeoplesPharmacy.com claimed in April that there are over 60,000 pharmacies across the United States. While the number of independent pharmacies are again increasing, the National Community Pharmacists Association’s NCPA Digest estimated the number of independent pharmacies fell from 19,432 in June 2023 to 18,984 in June 2024.

Retail and Online Abortion Pill Pharmacies

In 2023, generic abortion pill manufacturer GenBioPro (GBP) began publishing the names of certified retail pharmacies (including university and independent hospital pharmacies) who agreed to be publicly named. In addition, multiple mail-order pharmacies had already begun to dispense the abortion pill.

Abortion pill manufacturer Danco’s website publishes a shorter list of certified pharmacies than GBP, acknowledging “Not all certified pharmacies dispensing MIFEPREX have elected to be listed here.” Live Action News previously documented:

• Retail abortion pill pharmacy giants Walgreens and CVS partnered with Big Abortion and have recently expanded dispensing of abortion pills to more states.

• University and hospital pharmacies — as well as dozens of locally-owned pharmacies — are also becoming certified.

• Others have held the line against dispensing the abortion pill, such as Costco Wholesale, Walmart, and Albertsons, which “currently do not offer the medicine,” as of August 2025. Kroger and Sam’s Club stated in late 2024 that their pharmacies also were not selling the abortion pill mifepristone and that any appearance to the contrary was due to a third-party error.

Today, it appears that online pharmacy dispensaries, rather than brick and mortar pharmacy dispensaries, are filling the bulk of abortion pill orders.

• Danco identified: American Mail Order Pharmacy (AMOP) and Manifest Pharmacy.

• GenBioPro named: American Mail Order Pharmacy (AMOP) and Honeybee Health but later included ArloRx.

Abortion Pill Data

"In 2023, medication abortion accounted for 65% of all clinician-provided abortions in the United States; by contrast, this method accounted for 53% of abortions in 2020," the Guttmacher Institute wrote in its latest estimated report.

Live Action News estimated that 731,900 or more abortions were committed by pill in 2025, which translates to 60,992 abortions by pill per month; 2,005 per day; 84 per hour; and one every 44 seconds.

Grossman claimed to MedPageToday.com that the latest retail pharmacy data set...

... appeared to represent only a sliver of the some 60,000 medication abortions (nearly half by telehealth) that occur in the U.S. each month based on estimates from the Guttmacher Institute and the Society of Family Planning's WeCount reports.

"Some of it is that a large proportion of medication abortions during this period were provided by clinicians with medications dispensed in clinic or directly mailed from the clinic or telehealth service to the patient," Grossman claimed.

Timeline:

2000: The abortion pill, mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex, was approved by the FDA and placed under a safety system known as REMS in 2011.

2016: Big Abortion conspired to erode the REMS on the drug. The Obama FDA weakened the REMS, even removing the requirement to report the drug's adverse events other than deaths.

2020: Planned Parenthood began offering telehealth services at all of its affiliates (49 at the time), and as they continue to shutter brick and mortar facilities are moving toward Virtual Health Centers (VHC).

2023: Despite a prohibition under the federal Comstock Act, Biden's FDA weakened the REMS again to remove the in-person dispensing requirement and allow for mail order and pharmacy dispensing of the drug.

2024: Washington state announced a pilot program allowing pharmacists to prescribe as well as dispense abortion pills — without women seeing a doctor first.

2025: Chemical abortion drug accounts for 65% of estimated abortions nationally.

Why It Matters:

“Abortion stigma” has been cited as part of the reason many doctors are hesitant to prescribe the abortion pill. The abortion industry has known for years that medical staffers are reluctant to be on a list of clinicians prescribing or stocking abortion pills. To resolve this decades old problem, abortion industry insiders conspired to erode the FDA's REMS and double the number of abortion providers who offer the deadly drug.

As a result, the abortion industry lowered the standard of care for women by passing laws allowing non-physicians to commit abortions — including nurses, certified nurse-midwives, and physicians’ assistants.

In 2020, abortion insiders sought to sneak the abortion pill into pharmacies worldwide under guise of treating other conditions. They alleged if they could get the drug on the pharmacy shelf for "other indications" it would be difficult to remove it.

As the drug is shipped by mail, a growing concern lingers regarding the stability of abortion drugs.

The Context:

One study alleging that pharmacists support dispensing abortion drugs revealed :

• A lack of understanding among pharmacists about risks associated with the abortion drug.

• Barely half of pharmacists (51%) understood the percentage of patients requiring blood transfusions.

• Just 53% understood the risks of taking mifepristone.

• Just 53% understood minor consent laws for abortion.

• Just one-third (30%) understood adverse effects such as fever and chills.

• Acknowledged hesitancy among some pharmacists to dispense abortion-inducing drugs.

Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) condemned enabling pharmacies to "become abortion facilities," claiming that pharmacists "are not qualified to rule out contraindications..."

The Bottom Line:

Today’s push for so-called “self-managed abortion” and removal of important in-person dispensing safety requirements (REMS) from the abortion pill has made more medical professionals and pharmacy staff complicit in the killing of preborn children while the abortion industry rakes in profits.

4/20/26: Police in Houston are searching for a man they say is responsible for the murder of Ashanti Allen, a 23-year-old woman who was eight months pregnant with her first child at the time of her death.

Key Takeaways:

• The body of Ashanti Allen was found in a park on April 16.

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

• Police have charged the father of her preborn child, Kevin Faux, with capital murder.

• Faux previously pled guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge of assault of a family member for a domestic violence incident against Allen. It is unclear why he was not serving his jail time for that incident.

The Details:

Kevin Faux, 24, is accused of murdering Allen, whose body was found on April 16. Faux was reportedly the father of Allen's preborn child. Houston police have charged him with capital murder in Allen's death.

Police say that on April 10, Allen's mother reportedly received a strange text saying Ashanti was leaving and not coming back. She then reported her daughter missing. On April 16, searchers from Texas Equusearch found Allen's body near a bayou at Chimney Rock Park, close to West Belfort. Court documents say she was found with a cord wrapped around her neck.

Allen's father, Edward Allen, told KHOU that the family is devastated, noting that he had been about to buy a car seat and stroller; instead, he now has to bury his daughter.

"Being pregnant at 8 months with my first grandson, I can't even tell you how I feel. My body is numb. I don't think I can process the fact that my daughter is gone," he said.

Zoom In:

According to Fox 26, Faux has a history of domestic violence against Allen, and in February agreed to a plea deal in which he pled guilty to a reduced Class A misdemeanor charge of assault of a family member. That plea was the result of an incident that occurred in September 2025, in which he reportedly committed at least two acts of violence against Allen. He was sentenced to 280 days in county jail, but he was given credit for 143 days served. It is unclear why he was out of jail, given that sentence.

Allen's father told reporters the family had been unaware of the domestic violence issues his daughter had experienced until recently, because she hadn't told them.

"There have been several disputes that I was not aware of because she didn't tell us. Her mom didn't know. We got to this point and a lot of things come out about the past," he explained.

Sadly, homicide is a leading <a href="/news/pregnant-women-die-homicide">cause of death</a> in pregnant women, and many of these incidents are domestic violence situations.

The Bottom Line:

With so many incidents of violence against pregnant women, it is imperative that society seeks to strengthen protections for women and their preborn children. All pregnant women deserve to feel safe and supported — not threatened.

If you are a victim of domestic violence, please contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline, or call 1-800-799-SAFE.

Key Takeaways:

• On April 10, a woman who had undergone an abortion the day prior returned to the facility complaining of "moderate bleeding" and chest pain.

• The emergency was ranked "Charlie Medical" by dispatch, indicating a potentially life-threatening condition, though full details still are not known.

• This Planned Parenthood has a history of injuring women, and has killed at least one patient: 18-year-old Lexi Arguello.

The Details:

According to pro-life watchdog group Operation Rescue, sidewalk counselors reported seeing an ambulance arrive at Planned Parenthood in Fort Collins, Colorado, earlier this month. After securing the EMS dispatch, it was discovered that a 19-year-old patient had undergone an abortion on April 9; the next day, April 10, she returned to the facility.

According to the 911 audio, the woman complained of "moderate" bleeding and chest pain. Planned Parenthood staffers claimed the bleeding is normal, though there was no potential explanation given for the chest pain.

The dispatcher listed the emergency as "Charlie Medical" priority, which indicates a potentially life-threatening situation. It's a scenario that has played out at this particular Planned Parenthood facility before, leading to at least one death.

The Backstory:

In 2025, 18-year-old Lexi Arguello died after undergoing a 22-week abortion at the facility, in which she experienced an amniotic fluid embolism (AFE), a known complication of abortion. The AFE caused a disseminated intravascular coagulation, in which there is abnormal clotting in the blood vessels. This leads to widespread, uncontrollable bleeding, and is highly fatal if not treated quickly.

Unfortunately for Arguello, Planned Parenthood staff did not seem to take the situation seriously.

According to Dr. Keri Kasun, who testified during an investigation into Arguello's death, Planned Parenthood delayed her transfer to the hospital by instructing emergency responders to turn off lights and sirens. This is a tactic often used by the abortion industry in an effort to avoid bringing attention to the injury.

There have been other injuries at the Fort Collins Planned Parenthood facility this year — totaling four of more that are known.

The Bottom Line:

“It is an outrage that this Fort Collins Planned Parenthood continues to operate with no oversight and not one investigation despite the death of Lexi Arguello and multiple subsequent emergencies," Operation Rescue president Troy Newman said in a statement. "Operation Rescue will continue to call for stricter safety regulations, complication reporting, and the necessary transparency that allows women to understand the very real risks of abortion. Our prayers are with the 19-year-old woman involved in this latest incident and with all women who enter these facilities seeking help, unwittingly facing dangerous consequences.”

The event was an open-forum, giving audience members the chance to interact with Rose and leading to a wide-ranging discussion about a number of life-related topics.

Key Takeaways:

• One central theme Rose debated with several audience members was personhood and the beginning of human life, with one speaker arguing that an embryo is not a person and another saying that a fetus in the womb of a human mother is not human.

• Rose maintained that "if you're a human life, you're a person," noting that abortion is the taking of a human life and is therefore always wrong.

• She also discussed the racist and eugenic history of Planned Parenthood, noting that the organization has killed a vast number of human lives and needs to be defunded.

• Other topics of conversation included legal consequences for abortion, contraception, end-of-life issues, religion, politics, and how to better support mothers and families.

The Details:

Rose began with the position, "If you're a human life, you're a person." She went on to posit that abortion is destroying the life of an innocent human, and is therefore always wrong.

One speaker disagreed with this definition, arguing that 'personhood' requires consciousness, capacity for thought, or the ability to feel pain. Therefore, he said, the preborn child — especially an embryo in the earliest stages of development — is not a person. However, he struggled to define the moment at which he believes personhood does begin.

Rose pointed out the flaws in this thinking because it is based on arbitrary lines and could also exclude vulnerable born people. Instead, she said, human life at every stage deserves full protection.

“If your position is that it’s okay to kill non-person humans, but you can’t define a person, don’t you think that’s a little bit dangerous?” Rose asked.

Later, another audience member tried to argue that a fetus is not a human, suggesting instead that it is similar to sperm. Rose countered this idea, saying that "the fetus is a human life… genetically distinct from his or her mother and father." She pointed out that the fetus “just need[s] time and nourishment to grow, be born, and become a newborn.”

Zoom In:

Another audience member asked Rose to talk about the origins of Planned Parenthood. Rose explained that the organization grew from Margaret Sanger's support for eugenics and population control policies in the early twentieth century, and the racist and eugenic undertones still permeate the organization today.

Rose argued for a federal defunding of Planned Parenthood, calling it "a criminal organization that's killing hundreds of thousands of lives." In just the most recently reported year (2024-25) , Planned Parenthood killed at least 434,450 preborn human lives by abortion.

The Bottom Line:

The wide-ranging debate also touched on topics of legal consequences for abortion, contraception, end-of-life issues, religion, politics, and how to better support mothers and families.

Rose ended by suggesting a combination of cultural, political, and societal approaches to supporting life, arguing for the need for increased resources for mothers, adoption services, and pregnancy support programs. The goal, she said, is to change hearts and minds while ensuring mothers are not afraid to choose life.

Key Takeaways:

• Vet Voice Foundation (VVF) partnered with The Brigid Alliance to place billboards near Veterans Affairs (VA) clinics and hospitals.

• The billboards include messages like "We've got your six," and promise that the Brigid Alliance will handle all the logistics for abortion-seeking women.

• The Brigid Alliance said the billboard campaign was launched in response to changes in abortion coverage through the VA.

The Backstory:

In December of 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed a Biden administration rule allowing VA hospitals and clinics to commit abortions. After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, the Biden administration permitted VA doctors to commit abortions, even though federal law bars taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

The change was made under Chapter 17 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code, which governs hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, and medical care for veterans, and had never previously allowed for abortions to be committed.

Yet in 2025, the DOJ issued a new rule saying abortion is not part of VA medical benefits. As Deputy Assistant Attorney General Josh Craddock wrote, "existing law unambiguously commands that VA may not provide abortions when furnishing medical care under 38 U.S.C. § 1710 or any other provision in chapter 17 of Title 38."

He added, “Nothing about our interpretation of section 106 undermines VA’s authority to provide infertility services or authorized pregnancy care."

The Details:

Military.com reported that the new pro-abortion billboard campaign was launched near three major VA facilities in Georgia, New Mexico, and Virginia. The billboards include messages such as "We've got your six," military terminology meaning "we've got your back," written on them, along with a promise that the Brigid Alliance would handle all of the logistics: travel, lodging, and other assistance as needed.

"The main idea is to let veterans know that there are organizations out there who will help them get the health care they need, even though the VA has abandoned its obligation to take care of them in this regard," Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran and CEO of Vet Voice Foundation, said, alleging that veterans feel "abandoned" because the VA no longer commits abortions.

“The VA’s new policy strips veterans of access to essential reproductive health care and leaves many with no option but to travel long distances or go without care altogether,” Serra Sippel, executive director of The Brigid Alliance, said. “At The Brigid Alliance, 8% of our clients last year were U.S. veterans, military members or their families. Our courageous veterans should not have to be left navigating confusing and often dangerous barriers like shifting laws, inconsistent information, and growing legal risk just to get the health care they need. This campaign is about making sure they know they’re not alone in doing so. If this administration won’t show up for them, we will.”

Through the campaign, abortions will be available to veterans, service members, and their dependents.

“Our hope with these billboards is that somebody who maybe isn't aware of the policy change and walks into a VA clinic seeking care and comes out feeling distraught and abandoned, that they will be able to see this and know that there's a number they can call, someone they can reach out to help them get what they need,” Goldbeck said.

The Bottom Line:

Veterans do not need to intentionally end the lives of their preborn children. Veterans and service members need and deserve real health care, not killing.

Key Takeaways:

• Emma Vulin was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in 2024; it is a progressive, degenerative, and eventually terminal illness.

• After her diagnosis, she fought for better accessibility within Parliament, and then moved on to fighting for assisted suicide laws to be more liberal.

• Now, she is calling for people to be able to access assisted suicide through telehealth.

The Backstory:

In a previous interview with The Guardian, Vulin explained she was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in 2024, after she noticed her fingers had been feeling numb. Doctors initially thought it was a pinched nerve, but as it progressed to her arms, the reality of her diagnosis became clear.

Motor neurone disease is a condition in which the neurons associated with muscle movements, particularly those related to involuntary ones like breathing, become damaged and eventually stop working. There is no cure, and the condition is progressive and degenerative, eventually leading to death.

After her diagnosis, Vulin began using a motorized wheelchair to save energy, and brought an occupational therapist with her into Parliament, who made a four-page report on changes which needed to be made for the building to be more accessible.

“This is not just for you, this is for the people of Pakenham," she recalled being told by Trish Burrows, the secretary of parliamentary services. "If you can’t get to your seat to represent your community, then we’re not the parliament of Victoria.” There are now hand rails, automatic toilet doors, a new gate, accessible cabinet handles, and a ramp, both for Vulin and any constituents with disabilities.

Vulin said she began using eye gaze technology so she could be prepared for when she is no longer able to speak, and that her work gives her purpose. “I do have days where I’m exhausted and I think, ‘Do I still want to do this?’ Then I wake up the next day and I think, ‘No, I really do have more to give,'" she said. “Maybe it’s selfish but my community is growing and I’m not done fighting for Pakenham … It’s good for them to have a voice. And for me, it gives me a purpose … Matt’s at work and the kids are at school. If I was at home, I would just sit and cry all day.”

Yet she also said that she began considering assisted suicide fairly quickly. Not only did she want it for herself, but she wanted to make it more accessible throughout Victoria as well, by allowing doctors to bring up the subject to patients instead of waiting for patients to ask for it, extending the life expectancy requirement, and shortening the waiting period between requests. People that point out potential issues with these changes have not seemed to have made an impact.

“I write back saying, as someone that’s been personally diagnosed with a terminal, neurodegenerative illness, I’ve had the opportunity to speak to many, many people who are terminal or have lost people to terminal illnesses and … these changes are necessary,” she said. “There are barriers in place and I respect that everyone won’t want to use it – no problem. But for those that do, it needs to be accessible.”

Now, she is looking to make assisted suicide available via telehealth.

The Details:

Vulin has made a request with Attorney General Michelle Rowland to change the Criminal Code "as a matter of priority," and overturn the ban on telehealth assisted suicide. "As it currently stands, the Criminal Code provides an effective barrier to the usage of telehealth services for voluntary assisted dying assessments, something which particularly impacts those living in rural and regional areas, as well as those whose illness prevents or limits their ability to travel," Vulin wrote in her letter.

Currently, using telephone or video consultations for assisted suicide can result in criminal charges. And it appears that Australian medical professionals agree with Vulin. "Blanket banning any use of the telephone to discuss voluntary assisted dying isn't in line with the spirit of the legislation around the country," Australian Medical Association (AMA) president Danielle McMullen said. "We're not saying that people should never have to traverse [long distances] for some of this kind of care, but surely the conversations along the way [could be undertaken via phone or video call], once someone's been appropriately consented. There has to still be regulation around it."

Vulin specifically said banning telehealth from assisted suicide acts as a barrier.

"I'm proud to add my voice in advocating to the Commonwealth to remove restrictions on the use of telehealth for VAD assessments," she argued. "It just doesn't seem fair."

Yet while there is much angst over the supposed difficulty in obtaining assisted suicide in Victoria, the opposite seems to be true; there has been such an increase that the system has become overloaded, and the state has seen an increase in all suicides, particularly among the elderly.

In the last fiscal year, over 800 people applied for assisted suicide, and it is expected that the number could rise to over 1,300 by 2028.

The Bottom Line:

Telehealth assisted suicide poses numerous additional problems, including widening the potential for pressure and coercion.

"Why are women choosing to do this?" Parker asks. "Why are we opting to pay tens of thousands of dollars, go through intensive and emotional IVF transfers, and in doing all of this, signing up to raise a child as a solo parent on purpose? But also, what does this mean for the children of these women who choose to pursue motherhood without a present father?"

Key Takeaways:

• In Human Matters episode seven, host Sami Parker looks at why so many women are choosing to become single mothers through IVF.

• She says that many modern feminists don't like men, and think they can raise a child without one.

• This thinking disregards the needs of the child, who deserves to have both a mother and a father.

• Parker concludes with the idea that adults need to speak up for the rights of children, even if that means getting pushback from others

The Details:

Parker first tackles the question of why women are choosing to become single mothers. One of the problems she mentions is a modern feminist movement that promotes the hatred of men.

"The feminist view of men is that they are by default just brash and harsh, abusive, and cheaters," Parker explains, noting "if the overall opinion of men is that they’re basically useless and problematic, then of course, women are trying to avoid men in every aspect of their lives, even in the pursuit of having children."

That decision, though, has consequences for the children involved. Parker asks:

The most important question here is: what is this decision to create babies without fathers doing to the babies? That should ultimately be the thing we are most concerned about- more so than our good desire to ease the suffering and meet the wants of adults should be our responsibility to protect the rights and well-being of children.

She offers many statistics indicating that fatherless children are worse off.

"To put it simply, and it’s a really basic idea, children need and have a right to the two people responsible for creating them," she says.

She goes on to note that there are situations in which a person may have an absent or abusive father, or the mother may become a single mother through circumstances outside her control.

"But is the painful childhood without a good or present father a situation we should intentionally replicate for another child?" she asks.

She points out:

To further prove the point that we ought not allow this intentional single motherhood trend to be a thing: we look at kids who have lost one or both of their parents because of neglect or death and we feel great sympathy with them- rightly so. We recognize they have lost something great.

The Bottom Line:

Parker concludes with the idea that adults need to speak up for the rights of children, even if that means getting pushback from others.

Though the desire to have children can be good and understandable, all children deserve both a mother and a father who are in a stable, loving relationship.

The case has exposed disturbing gaps in the country’s emergency obstetric system, and reignited international debate over the sanctity of preborn life and the responsibility of medical institutions to cater to the welfare of both mother and child.

Key Takeaways:

• A woman at around 28 weeks pregnant began experiencing abdominal pain while in South Korea.

• She was denied care at seven major hospitals in Daegu, and one of her preborn twins died.

• Her surviving baby suffered brain damage from oxygen deprivation.

Daegu City and the Daegu Fire Safety Headquarters reported that on February 28 last year, a 26-year-old American woman identified as A, who was 28 weeks pregnant and was staying at a hotel in Daegu, began experiencing abdominal pain and symptoms of preterm labor.

Her husband, B, sought medical assistance from a nearby obstetrics and gynecology hospital at around 10:16 p.m. that evening, but was informed that, “We have no treatment history, so you need to go to a university hospital.”

At around 1 a.m. the following day, as the woman’s pain worsened, her husband contacted emergency services. An ambulance reached the hotel roughly 10 minutes later, but remained there for nearly 50 minutes.

During that time, paramedics reached out to seven major hospitals in Daegu, each declining to admit the patient, with reasons like “the obstetrician is currently unavailable” and “there are insufficient neonatal beds.” 

The husband eventually opted to drive his wife to Bundang Seoul National University Hospital, where she regularly received care. During the journey, the couple continued phoning hospitals in the vicinity in search of assistance. He explained that his wife had earlier undergone a cervical cerclage procedure to reduce the risk of premature birth.

As she went into labor in the car, he recounted that both her life and those of their preborn twins were in serious danger.

Unfortunately, disorganized coordination obstructed the couple’s efforts to procure medical assistance. As the husband continued driving, his mother persistently tried to contact emergency services in the Gyeongbuk and Chungbuk areas. At around 3:20 a.m., they met with a rescue team, but there were communication issues between the emergency units. The woman was not moved to another ambulance until 4:42 a.m. in an attempt to expedite the trip to Bundang.

By then, rescue records documented that her amniotic sac had ruptured and her blood pressure had dropped dramatically. 

Eventually, the mother survived an emergency cesarean section, but one of the twins died shortly after birth from hypoxia, while the other suffered brain damage and remains under medical care.

Zoom Out:

Previously in 2023, Daegu witnessed a similar tragedy when a teenage emergency patient perished after being rejected by several hospitals — a case that became referred to as the “emergency room roundabout” incident.

After that, the city implemented a “responsible emergency medical system” meant to minimize treatment delays and hospital refusals. According to this framework, the 119 Emergency Situation Management Center decides the appropriate hospital for transfer depending on the patient’s condition, instead of having paramedics contact hospitals individually. 

This tragedy is an unfortunate example of how bureaucratic hesitation and depersonalized medical systems can cost innocent lives. South Korea’s health care infrastructure, while advanced, is caving under demographic pressures. The country’s birth rate is alarmingly low — averaging just 0.72 births per woman in 2024 — sparking closures of maternity wards and a shortage of obstetricians,  particularly in remote areas.

Ironically, this situation has surfaced in a country attempting to increase births. Many hospitals have diverted resources away from obstetric and neonatal care.

The Bottom Line:

This tragedy shows how delayed obstetric care has given rise to preventable deaths. When institutions separate compassion from care, innocent lives can be lost as a result.

The right to life is not merely a legal or political issue — it is a moral basis upon which all medical ethics that claim to promote life and health rest.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2024, Germany imposed a 100-meter buffer zone around abortion facilities, preventing pro-lifers from being able to protest or minister to abortion-minded women.

• Court rulings found that this law was discriminatory, and that local pro-life groups did not have a history or harassing or intimidating women.

• A similar buffer zone law was also overturned in Austria.

The Details:

According to reports from Evangelical Focus, Pro Medien Magazin, and Livenet.ch, German authorities in North Rhine-Westphalia imposed a 100-meter buffer zone around abortion facilities in 2024, effectively preventing pro-life organizations from holding gatherings nearby. The state justified the decision under Section 13 of the German Pregnancy Conflict Act, which permits authorities to restrict vigils that “harass or intimidate” pregnant women. 

The Aachen Administrative Court, however, ruled that the measure was an erroneous application of the law. Judges found that the pro-life group, which has been active for two decades in promoting life-affirming alternatives to abortion, had been peaceful in its interactions with women entering abortion facilities.

Pregnant women come into contact with the protesters and the images for at most 10 seconds, and can therefore avoid them, the court declared. 

The court ruled that German law neither “generally prohibits the expression of opinion nor the confrontation of pregnant women with the opinions of those attending the gathering."

In a similar case in Bavaria, the Bavarian Administrative Court concluded  in September 2025 that a 100-meter “no-go zone” does not generally apply to  pro-life gatherings around abortion facilities and counseling centers.

Austria’s capital, Vienna, recently saw its administrative court reach a comparable ruling.

The organization Jugend für das Leben (Youth for Life) had intended to organize a “silent and peaceful prayer” dedicated to safeguarding the dignity and sanctity of human life near abortion facilities. Although their initiative was initially reported to the police and subsequently banned, the decision was later overturned following efforts by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International, permitting the event to proceed as planned. 

Zoom Out:

These rulings represent a major setback for pro-abortion campaigners who have pressed European cities to impose “buffer zones” around abortion clinics — areas prohibiting demonstrations, prayer groups, or leaflet distribution. 

Similar measures have emerged in the United Kingdom, alleging concerns for “emotional pressure” on women seeking abortions.

European pro-life groups have long posited that buffer zones undermine conscience freedoms while guarding abortion from moral scrutiny. For instance, Christian Concern said:

The UK has a strong heritage of upholding freedom of religion and freedom of expression. But with the implementation of abortion ‘buffer zones’ and the ability of ill-trained council officers to issue FPNs, we are witnessing these freedoms being stripped away as our Christian beliefs and even silent prayer are deemed unnecessary and a ‘risk to the public’.This investigation into buffer zones makes it evident that buffer zones have been weaponised to shut down democratic debate about abortion.As Christians, it is essential we protect our right to speak up for the vulnerable, to defend biblical values and to offer support and life-saving options rather than tolerating the inhumanity of abortion to persist in the UK. The use of Public Spaces Protection Orders and private prosecutions to silence religious beliefs and opposition to abortion is clearly a miscarriage of justice and fundamentally a breach of free speech and freedom of religion.

The Bottom Line:

As many political elites are trying to enshrine abortion as a “right” in European charters, courts are reinforcing that freedom of conscience and religion remain key pillars of European democracies. 

For the 40 Days for Life movement — currently active in over 60 countries — these victories reinforce its principle that peaceful presence and intercession can transform hearts without confrontation. The group’s local activities usually entail small gatherings praying peacefully on sidewalks for women, preborn children, and staff of abortion clinics. 

Key Takeaways:

• Professors of child and adolescent psychiatry have proposed that euthanasia in the Netherlands no longer be approved for individuals under the age of 25 for mental health issues.

• In the Netherlands, euthanasia is approved for ages 12 and older, with no parental consent required beginning at age 16.

• The professors believe that since brain development has not concluded until about age 25, patients must wait to access euthanasia until they reach that age.

• Those who want euthanasia to remain accessible to young adults and teens for mental health reasons say that not allowing euthanasia for these individuals is "inappropriate" and "paternalistic."

• In the Netherlands, autism is an approved reason to request euthanasia.

The Details:

As reported by Dutch News, the authors of research published in the Dutch psychiatry journal Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie, said they are proposing a "not now" approach to individuals with mental illness under the age of 25 who request euthanasia.

Rather than approve the requests, the professors want doctors to tell their patients that they must wait until they are older. No fixed age is given.

In addition to brain development, the professors also cited peer influence, social media, and potential improvement in treatments as reasons that young adults with mental illness should not be approved for assisted suicide.

The proposal comes as the Dutch psychiatric association NVvP revises its guidelines with four of its members in support of the new proposal.

Data show that most doctors do not participate in euthanasia for young persons when the requests are due to mental health reasons, with 45% of those requests being rejected, 47% ultimately retracted, and three percent resulting in euthanasia between 2012 and 2021.

The Other Side:

Not everyone is happy with the proposal, however. Psychiatrist Kit Vanmecheen said it is "inappropriate" and could increase suicide among young adults. But suicide is still suicide no matter how it is marketed. One that is approved by a doctor and carried out via a pharmaceutical prescription may appear less traumatic, but it's still suicide, it's still traumatic, and it's not health care.

The chairman of the KEA Foundation supporting people seeking assisted suicide for mental health reasons, Marcel Mennen, called the proposal paternalistic. His daughter died by suicide at age 31.

Zoom Out:

In the Netherlands, euthanasia is legal for 'unbearable and hopeless suffering' for individuals as young as 12 years old. Eight people under 25 died by euthanasia based on mental health concerns in 2023. In 2024, there were 13 such deaths and in 2025, there were seven.

Key Takeaways:

• Canada has been considering allowing assisted suicide and euthanasia for people whose only diagnosis is mental illness for years.

• Since legalizing euthanasia, Canada has become one of the world leaders in death.

• An assisted suicide activist recently testified that suicidal Canadians need access to assisted suicide and euthanasia... so they don't choose to end their own lives some other way.

The Backstory:

For years, Canada has been considering expanding assisted suicide and euthanasia to individuals whose only health issue is a mental health condition.

Canada, now one of the world's leaders in euthanasia deaths, has been eroding the original safeguards on MAiD and has been plagued by reports that people were being approved for assisted suicide even when they were not considered to have a terminal illness.

Despite the debate over expanding medical assistance in dying (MAID), a 2024 survey revealed that less than half of respondents support allowing assisted death solely for mental illness.

The Details:

On March 24, during a parliamentary committee debate on the issue, Jocelyn Downie, a pro-assisted suicide activist, claimed that if mentally ill Canadians are not allowed to access assisted suicide, they will end their own lives by some other route.

“What will happen," she said, "if there is an extension or an exclusion, is that people will die by suicide."

She urged that MAID be opened up to individuals when the "sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness" so that people don't die by 'regular' suicide earlier than they would die after waiting for a doctor's approval and assistance.

This isn't a new argument. According to the National Post, Downie was involved in Carter v. Canada, the 2015 Canadian Supreme Court decision that paved the way for legalized assisted suicide. "[T]he Supreme Court accepted the argument that 'the prohibition on physician-assisted dying had the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely,'" it reported.

“It is therefore established that the prohibition deprives some individuals of life,” the court wrote.

Then, in 2019, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that not allowing non-terminal individuals — namely Jean Truchon, a man who had a degenerative illness and wanted to die — to access assisted suicide violated the right to "life, liberty and security of the person."

Truchon, unable to die by physician assisted death, had "devised a plan to buy a drug on the street and to take a lethal dose, but he was afraid of having his money stolen by dealers and not getting what he wanted," the ruling said.

The court accepted the false idea that the not allowing MAID for non-terminal individuals would force them to "take hasty steps to end their lives prematurely out of fear that they will no longer be physically able to do so once their suffering becomes intolerable." Therefore, it would put them at "a heightened risk of death."

As the National Post explained, "All of this was ultimately evidence to support the court's final decision, which held that Truchon's "right to life" was violated by federal sanctions against him seeking a premature death."

Under this argument, the right to die is required in order to have a right to life.

The Bottom Line:

The government was then set to expand assisted suicide for mental illness in March 2024, but it has continuously been pushed back, and is now set to take effect on March 17, 2027. In the meantime, the debate continues.

Key Takeaways:

• House File 2563 would make it illegal to distribute abortion-inducing drugs by mail in Iowa.

• The bill passed a House subcommittee on Tuesday.

• The bill includes a requirement that the Department of Health and Human Services put information about "abortion pill reversal" on its website, but some want this provision removed.

The Details:

House File 2563 would outlaw mail-order abortion pill distribution and require that abortion pills only be distributed in-person by a licensed physician.

The bill specifically prohibits the mailing of "abortion-inducing drugs" which it defines as mifepristone, misoprostol (together known as the abortion pill), or "Any other drug, measure, or chemical approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration when prescribed or administered with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant. 'Abortion inducing drug' includes off-label use of a drug known to have abortion-inducing properties, which is prescribed with the intent of causing an abortion."

Currently, the legislation also includes a requirement that the Department of Health and Human Services offer information about "abortion pill reversal" on its website, though some lawmakers are pushing for an amendment to remove that section.

"Abortion pill reversal" consists of the administration of bioidentical progesterone (a hormone necessary to sustain a pregnancy) in an attempt to outcompete the progesterone-blocking effects of mifepristone.

This is the second bill regarding abortion pill distribution that Iowa lawmakers are considering this session. A similar bill passed through committee earlier this year, but failed to come up for floor debate.

The bill passed a House Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday, and next heads to a committee meeting.

Commentary:

Lori Stiles, an ultrasound technologist, testified in favor of the legislation, noting that in her experience, many women are completely unprepared for the reality of what the abortion pill does.

“I cannot tell you how many women I saw — middle of the night, callbacks, or any other time of the day — who had used an abortion pill and were absolutely blindsided at how it played out,” Stiles said according to News From the States. “… I have seen that, and I applaud the informed consent part of this for sure, because those women were absolutely not informed.”

Ryan Benn of The Family Leader also spoke of the importance of the legislation, noting the lack of oversight occurring with mail-order abortion pills.

“Since the Dobbs decision and the passage of Iowa’s heartbeat law, the abortion industry has developed a network of abortion drug dealers to operate outside of the medical system," Benn said. "They’ll provide abortion drugs to anyone for little or no fee. Boyfriends who don’t want to be a dad, human traffickers who stand with his money, literally anyone can get these pills."

The Bottom Line:

All women deserve to be protected from injury, harm, and coercive or forced abortions — all of which have risen with the implementation of mail-order abortion pills.

Key Takeaways:

• While births among women over 30 increased, they declined for those under 30.

• Overall, there is a 1% decrease from 2024, and 20% decrease over the past 20 years.

• Many factors are causing people to wait until they are older to have children. This can result in infertility and a move toward increased use of artificial reproductive technologies like IVF.

• A low fertility rate has multiple impacts on society, not the least of which are dire economic impacts.

The Details:

According to preliminary figures published April 9 by the CDC, roughly 3.6 million births happened in the United States in 2025 — translating to roughly 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. This marks a decrease of about 1% from 2024, and a drop of almost 20% compared with levels recorded 20 years ago. The report from the CDC read: 

The provisional number of births for the United States in 2025 was 3,606,400, a 1% decline from 2024. The general fertility rate was 53.1 births per 1,000 females ages 15–44, also a 1% decline from 2024. The fertility rate for teenagers ages 15–19 declined 7% in 2025 to 11.7 births per 1,000 females; the rates for younger (15–17) and older (18–19) teenagers declined by 11% and 7%, respectively.

In general, American women are opting to delay having children. From 2024 to 2025, birth rates increased slightly among women aged 30 and above, but those increases were outweighed by a more marked decrease among women under 30.

Some conservatives in the current Trump administration have articulated their worries that the birth rate has fallen well beneath the so‑called “replacement level” required to maintain a steady population from one generation to the next.

Observers widely admit that declining fertility rates can have tangible effects, particularly on the economy, but highlight the importance of understanding the root causes before attempting to reverse the trend.

Reality Check:

Dr. Alison Gemmill, an associate professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health, said:

Our world and our lives are complex. There are so many factors that people consider when making decisions about how and when to start a family, and they all matter. Women now have better control over their reproductive lives, so there’s not as much unintended pregnancy as there used to be. Our timelines have shifted.

Likewise, at NPR, Brian Mann said: 

After the Great Recession happened, some experts thought fertility rates would just bounce back naturally. That hasn't happened. Now some economists think maybe more women will eventually have babies when they're older, in their late 30s or 40s. There are signs that's happening, but not fast enough to reverse this downward trend.

Wendy Manning, a sociology professor at Bowling Green State University, wrote, “The declines in the age-specific fertility rates of women in their 20’s is likely related to increases in age at first marriage along with uncertainty and stress about the future.” 

Adding that occasionally  such uncertainty is not due to an “objective measure” of employment or income, Manning said that it was “more so the subjective indicators of stress about economics, relationships, and health” that influenced these women to make the decisions they did. 

The Big Picture:

Research has found that numerous couples are postponing parenthood due to financial constraints, like increasing housing and health care expenses, and stagnant wages. To tackle these challenges, the Trump administration has introduced initiatives meant to spur prospective parents to have children, including newborn savings accounts and expanded tax credits.

Dr. Sigal Klipstein, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility expert at InVia Fertility Specialists in Chicago, emphasized that finding the right partner is among the chief factors her patients contemplate when deciding to have children.

“It’s very uncommon that women say, ‘I’m a really busy professional and I just don’t have time to have babies, so I want to freeze my eggs so I can focus on my career," he told CNN. "The largest group is women who said they haven’t found the appropriate partner and don’t want to have children alone. It’s very much that they want children, but that they want them either in the context of a family or in a context of financial security, and they’re willing to wait in the hopes that they do not need to compromise."

What's Happening:

The demographic ramifications of falling American birth rates are already evident in states experiencing declining school enrollments and graying workforces.

Economists have warned that persistently low fertility could shrink the labor supply, slow innovation, and pressure social systems as the population ages.

The United States has now joined countries such as Japan and South Korea, where faltering birth rates have prompted governments to provide incentives — including cash bonuses, tax relief, and expanded childcare — to encourage family growth.

While various observers pointed out the falling teen birth rates in the latest CDC report, rising abortion rates in some states are more likely a contributing factor, together with increased dependence on chemical abortion pills disseminated by mail-order providers. 

True enough, the latest figures indicate that for many Americans, marriage and childbearing seem intimidating instead of desirable — a reversal of traditional values that once exalted the institution of the family as the cornerstone of society.

IVF isn't a solution

Meanwhile, artificial fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) cannot be seen as a true solution to America’s falling birth rates because they divorce the gift of life from the natural, marital act from which life is meant to be conceived.

While proponents often allege that IVF is a “compassionate” response to infertility, the procedure routinely involves the creation, selection, and destruction of human embryos—each a unique human life with inherent dignity.

IVF dehumanizes children, treating them as products of technology instead of persons to be received in love. Rather than hinging on artificial means that commodify life, a genuinely life-affirming approach would focus on supporting marriage, restoring faith in family, and creating social conditions that encourage children as blessings instead of liabilities. 

The Bottom Line:

With fewer births and rising cultural ambivalence toward family, America faces an uncertain demographic future.

Whether the country chooses to rebuild its foundation on life and family, or persist along the highway of decline, will likely determine the outcomes for the next generation. 

Nikki Biese, who served as the executive director of the organization for seven years, told Live Action News, “Both Mike and Jimmy were not only triathletes, but strong in their Catholic faith. They wanted to use their gifts to further pro-life principles.”

Promoting and funding a culture of life

The idea formulated when the two men biked 600 miles across Illinois during a snowy month of March, raising $14,000 for a local pregnancy support center, Living Alternatives, where Becker got to hold a baby whose mother was served by the center.

For him, it confirmed the value of human life and the need for young people to put their pro-life beliefs into action. Founding the ministry was a natural fit for these two athletes, combining their two passions to make an impact on communities across the country while encouraging young people to promote a culture of life.

“We’ve raised funds for pregnancy support centers, maternity homes and other pro-life organizations that offer supplies and counseling to pregnant women facing unplanned pregnancies as well as organizations that offer life-affirming medical care,” Biese said. 

Biese first met Becker at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He was on campus recruiting missionaries – young people who would fundraise and participate in rides for Biking for Babies. At the time, he was preparing for a 1,000 mile ride from New Orleans to Champaign, Illinois. 

Along with other fundraising efforts, the New Orleans to Champaign ride generated enough funding to build the Women’s Care Center, which is now located across the street from the Madison Planned Parenthood facility.

Ministry doors opened

“I hadn’t been raised in a faith-based family, and when I met my boyfriend, Kevin, he introduced me to the Catholic community in Wisconsin,” Biese said. “It was at the Catholic student center where I met Jimmy who was trying to raise money for a pregnancy support center in Madison. I didn’t sign up for the ride, but my boyfriend did. The physical effort was difficult for him as he was the least trained to ride the distance.”

While Biese didn’t join in rides, she was part of the support crew, handing out food and emergency supplies as well as riding along in the car to encourage the riders.

Biese said, “Sometimes, the riders feel as if they can’t complete the grueling trip, so we offer support when needed to help them along the way. The support crew is an integral part of Biking for Babies.”

Biese and her boyfriend married, continuing to volunteer with Biking for Babies.

“Over the years, Kevin and I help to share the mission of Bikers for Babies,” Biese said. “Kevin went on the rides, typically planned March through August, while I worked behind the scenes and stayed home with our children.”

In 2018, Biese, who had a background in corporate retail management, was considering returning to the workforce. Her husband mentioned that Biking for Babies had created the new position of executive director. 

Biese said, “I called my friend Sarah who was set to the take the position and told her I thought the job had my name on it. Sarah was relieved because she had been hoping someone else would step into the role.”

Her friend was later hired for another position in recruiting and marketing.

The executive director’s role, however, required Biese fundraise for her salary. 

For Biese, who was the breadwinner at the time, relying on her faith was essential to navigating through the fundraising challenge. 

Biese said, “I knew that God would provide enough to support the pregnancy support centers and pay my wage. At one point, we only had five hundred dollars in the bank after cutting checks to the centers, but donations came in a month later, including a five-thousand-dollar check from a former contact.”

How It Works

Recruiting Missionaries

She noted that with “lots of prayers” the organization was able to recruit more missionaries and quadrupled contributions to pregnancy support centers.

Missionaries are typically young adults whose ages range from 18 to 39 years and are active in the Catholic faith, although non-Catholic youth are encouraged to get involved as well. 

“Recruiting missionaries is central to success,” Biese said. “Every missionary is partnered with a pregnancy support center, one on one, so contributions depend on how many missionaries we can recruit. We trust in God and in His plan.”

To date, Biking for Babies, now in its 17th year of operation, has raised close to $2.5 million to support pregnancy help centers. They have recruited 90 missionaries to participate in their summer rides, up from 79 the previous year. Missionaries bike 600 miles in six days.

About 29% of the missionaries have chosen to return for additional rides, demonstrating their ongoing commitment to the mission. 

Young Adult Formation

Biese said, “In addition to recently onboarding our 2026 missionaries, we also launched the B4B app to support our young adult formation program.” The program teaches four key principles as outlined on the Biking for Babies website:

1. Encounter Jesus Christ,

2. Live the Gospel of life as joyful witnesses in society,

3. Learn about pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes, and

4. Pray and raise money for families facing unplanned pregnancies.

Biese, who has since transitioned into a human resources role, said, “By 2028 we want the B4B program to go coast to coast to be a national witness to the culture and beauty of every life."

She added, "We want to transform our nation into one that values life from conception to natural death and by focusing on recruiting more missionaries across the country, we’re on course to do that.”

The event highlighted both the rising visibility of the Czech pro-life movement and the increasingly heated public battle over abortion in Central Europe. 

Key Takeaways:

• This year's March for Life in the Czech Republic took place in Prague on April 11, with participants estimated in excess of 4,000.

• This year, due to disruptions of last year's event, marchers broke into smaller groups.

• Police, however, blocked Wenceslas Square where the final portion of the march program is held, allowing very few people to get through, especially those with families. As a result, the event organizer may take legal action against the police.

• Counter demonstrations took place, and five people were arrested.

The Details:

According to EWTN, the day commenced with a Mass at St. Vitus Cathedral, where about 2,000 people assembled before heading off with the pro-life procession. The homily given by Archbishop Emeritus Jan Graubner of Prague focused on the importance of the renewal of families.

The archbishop also lamented the growing selfishness and self-focus in the lives of individuals, warning that such an attitude eventually impoverishes society due to the lack of love, which allows division to flourish.

This year's changes

It was estimated that over 4,000 participants gathered for the march. Prague Morning noted that March organizers "changed their approach this year, breaking the event into dozens of smaller processions" due to "disruptions during last year’s march, when protesters blocked parts of the route."

EWTN reported:

Pro-abortion protesters attempted to block the marchers, screaming and accusing them of denying women the right to choose. Police arrested five people, but no serious incident occurred. Last year, pro-abortion demonstrators blocked the march at one point, so this time participants walked through the city in separate groups to avoid a repeat disruption.

Typically, the number of marchers doubles once they reach Wenceslas Square (Václavské náměstí), one of the cityʼs main squares, where the programʼs final portion takes place. This year, however, police blocked the square and allowed entry only to those who insisted on getting in — a barrier that was especially difficult for families with small children. As a result, the total number of participants was hard to estimate, and the turnout in Wenceslas Square was much lower than expected.

In turn, Hnutí Pro život ČR, the Czech Republic’s Movement for Life and the event’s organizer, informed EWTN News that it may file a legal challenge against the police restrictions during the day of the march. The group slammed Czech authorities for not displaying the "political will" to protect the march by closing off the square, instead permitting pro-abortion radicals to rampage freely and harass pro-life march participants. 

In response, the Police of the Czech Republic's press office told EWTN News that it had no proof of officers acting inappropriately in any manner and the Prague Regional Police Directorate failed to reply to the media outlet's request for comment.

The state of abortion in the Czech Republic

BlueWin News pointed out:

According to the CTK agency, the number of abortions in the Czech Republic has been falling for decades and stands at around 15,000 per year. Women can legally have an abortion up to the 12th week of pregnancy without having to give a reason. Abortions for medical reasons can be legal up to the 24th week.

As noted by Expats CZ:

Data from the Czech Statistical Office show recorded abortions have fallen sharply since the end of the communist era, from 113,730 in 1988 to 15,088 in 2023. The rate has dropped from about 110 per 10,000 inhabitants to roughly 14 over the same period.

The Bottom Line:

The Prague March for Life showed both the resilience of the pro-life movement and the intensity of the opposition it faces. Despite police controls and organized counter-protests, thousands still came out to defend unborn children and to call attention to women facing unplanned pregnancies.

The public square in Europe remains contested, and visible witness still matters. In Prague, that witness was large enough to draw attention, strong enough to withstand disruption, and clear enough to remind the wider culture that the abortion debate is far from settled.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2023, Oregon Right to Life sued to block the state mandate which requires all employers to include abortion in insurance coverage.

• The Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA) was passed in 2017 and includes exemptions for religious organizations, but Oregon Right to Life's request to be included in that exemption was refused.

• A judge ruled in 2024 that Oregon Right to Life must include coverage for abortion in their insurance plans, and the group appealed.

• A federal court issued a temporary ruling siding with Oregon Right to Life and found the mandate unconstitutional.

The Backstory:

In 2017, Oregon lawmakers passed the RHEA, which required all insurance companies in the state to include abortion, with an exemption included for religious organizations. Pro-life organizations with strong moral opposition to abortion, however, would still be forced to include coverage for abortion in insurance plans for their employees.

Oregon Right to Life (ORTL) sued in 2023, arguing that the state needs to give a compelling reason why organizations like ORTL are not able to receive exemptions to the mandate, and why it is only provided for religious groups.

“As a pro-life organization, no one questions that we hold deep moral objections to abortion,” ORTL executive director Lois Anderson said in a press release. “We are only asking for what every American expects, to be free to live according to our conscience and operate our organization according to our sincerely held belief that unborn human beings deserve protection from the violence of abortion.”

A year later, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that ORTL is not a religious group and therefore, does not qualify for any exemption. “Other than a fleeting reference to ‘Judeo-Christian ethics,’ there is nothing in the articles of incorporation that would suggest any religious element in plaintiff’s organization,” Aiken wrote in her ruling.

Anderson disagreed, and vowed to continue fighting.

“The state’s attempt to force Oregon Right to Life to violate our sincerely held beliefs is clearly unconstitutional and unjust. Regardless of where they stand on the abortion issue, I think most people would agree it’s absurd on its face to mandate that a pro-life organization pay for abortions — yet this is exactly what current Oregon law does,” she said. “Because we’re committed to defending the vulnerable and pushing back against injustice, we’re not about to back down. We have an excellent legal team and the Constitution on our side, and I am confident we will prevail.”

In November of 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the ORTL lawsuit to be reinstated, reversing a lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit. The case was sent back to a district court, with the court instructed to reconsider ORTL's complaint that the mandate violates the group's First Amendment rights.

The Details:

ORTL has won a temporary victory in the long-running case.

In a press release, ORTL announced that the insurance mandate has been found unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Mustafa Kasubhai gave a ruling from the bench, with the full written opinion to be released next week. He also asked both parties — ORTL and the state of Oregon — to submit briefs within two weeks on what kind of relief he should grant.

The state intends to ask for the ruling to apply solely to ORTL, while ORTL wants it to strike down the entire mandate, and the entire RHEA.

For now, the RHEA remains in effect, without Kasubhai issuing any injunction against it.

The Bottom Line:

“From the beginning, we have asserted that Oregon’s RHEA was unconstitutional and violated the rights of pro-life Oregonians," Anderson said. "It was always absurd for Oregon to attempt to force Oregon Right to Life, as a pro-life organization, to fund abortion – the very practice we are dedicated to opposing. Yesterday, the federal court agreed. This is a win for Oregon Right to Life, but more than that, it is a victory for all pro-life Oregonians.”

Key Takeaways:

• Mikayla Flores was found unconscious by her husband, Ernest, after having been diagnosed with pre-eclampsia.

• 911 dispatcher Linda Campbell remained calm, and walked him through how to perform CPR.

• With her direction and coordination of emergency crews, Mikayla and her baby were both saved.

The Details:

When Ernest Flores found his pregnant wife, Mikayla, unconscious and turning purple from pre-eclampsia, he instantly dialed 911. On the other end of the line, dispatcher Linda Campbell calmly taught him how to perform CPR.

"I was getting him to calm down. I was trying to get him calm so we could do CPR because he had already told me she was purple and then that she was pregnant," Campbell said.

After walking Flores through CPR on his wife, emergency crews reached the scene and delivered critical lifesaving treatment. Paramedics were able to find Mikayla’s pulse, and hurried her to the hospital. Meanwhile, police officers comforted the family, reassuring the father and comforting the couple's other young child amid the harrowing experience. 

Flores says he owes his wife’s and baby girl’s survival to dispatcher Campbell’s help, and to the strength of his faith:

“I'm grateful and blessed that God put her in my life at that moment and she answered the call and she told me what to do and she didn't panic. Because of you, my wife is able to live a full life. Because of you, my daughter is able to live a full life. My children still have their mother.

And she guided me and because of her, my wife and my daughter are here today, like 100% and of course God, too — like, I give all my thanks to God. Without Him my wife and daughter also wouldn't be here."

Flores said that he plans to share the story with his daughter for as long as he lives. His baby girl, now healthy and thriving, is just two months old.

READ: <a href="/news/dad-delivers-premature-twins">Dad delivers premature twins at home with life-saving help from dispatcher</a>

The Bottom Line:

Stories like this highlight the sanctity of both maternal and preborn life. In a moment of crisis, Campbell’s care did not differentiate between mother and child; both lives were of equal worth and needing medical attention. 

Campbell and other emergency dispatchers often act as unsung heroes in circumstances where life is on the line. From guiding anxious callers through CPR to acknowledging signs of obstetric emergencies like pre-eclampsia or premature labor, dispatchers often act as the first lifeline during the essential minutes that can make or break a situation.

Key Takeaways:

• A South African non-profit organization has launched an attempt to legalized assisted dying.

• The group claims people with "intolerable suffering" should be allowed to die with the government's enablement, and that the law against it should be declared unconstitutional.

• Currently, South African law classifies assisted suicide as murder.

The Details:

DignitySA mounted a major case in the North Gauteng High Court seeking to legalize medically assisted suicide in South Africa, arguing that people enduring intolerable suffering have a constitutional “right” to take their own lives. The application called for the ban on assisted suicide to be declared unconstitutional and struck down.

DignitySA defines assisted suicide as a medically facilitated death — either self-administered or committed by a physician — subject to restrictive eligibility requirements and comprehensive safeguards. Central to DignitySA’s case is its assertion that the Constitution upholds a right to assisted suicide when specific conditions are met. South African law currently classifies assisted suicide as an act of murder.

The respondents in the case include the ministers of Health and Justice and Constitutional Development, the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), and the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA).

“We have a standoff," DignitySA co-founder Willem Landman said. "Our reigning law, our common law, says it’s murder. We believe our constitution says it is a right that we have in the appropriate circumstances and with the necessary safeguards in place. This contradiction needs to be resolved. We need the recognition of constitutional rights. We need more equal treatment. Some people die a gentle and easy death. Others, for no fault of their own, die a very difficult death, and we believe this is unjust."

Zoom In:

Dignity SA is requesting the court to force Parliament to pass laws regulating assisted suicide. This legislative process would need to take place within two years, while the declaration of invalidity remains suspended. 

Landman explained:

If the court declares medical assistance in dying as unlawful, and unconstitutional, and invalid, there will be a vacuum. The court cannot write a law that would govern, and manage, and control medical assistance in dying in South Africa with all the safeguards in place.So we ask the court to direct Parliament to write a law legalising medical assistance in dying within 24 months.

Reality Check:

Although DignitySA’s argument for assisted dying appeals to autonomy and relief from suffering, pro-life advocates regard the matter through an entirely different lens — one premised on the inherent dignity of every human life, regardless of health status or disability. 

Christian Views Network director Philip Rosenthal sounded the alarm about a lack of safeguards, cautioning the legal challenge by Dignity SA could give rose to a slippery slope for euthanasia on demand.

"Changing the definition of murder to some currently undefined subjective amount of suffering where the witness is gone would make it harder to prosecute the crime of murder," he said. "Hopefully, the Pretoria High Court will throw this case out."

One need look no further than Canada or the Netherlands to see how the "slippery slope" has come to fruition with regarding to MAiD. In Canada, there have been nearly 100,000 estimated MAiD deaths in less than a decade, and in the Netherlands, an autistic teenager was recently euthanized instead of receiving help for his mental health issues.

The Bottom Line:

South Africa is a country where its hospices remain underfunded and unevenly distributed, particularly in remote regions. Instead of promoting assisted suicide, the government should focus on widening compassionate end-of-life care and life-affirming pain management for the terminally ill.

Key Takeaways:

• A shooting in Kentucky has left a pregnant woman and her preborn baby dead.

• The suspected shooter has been charged with murder and first-degree fetal homicide.

• The shooting followed a "domestic incident" and the victim honking her car horn.

The Details:

Twenty-two-year-old Ava Woodcock was sitting in her vehicle in a parking lot in Glasgow, Kentucky, when she honked her horn following what authorities described as a “domestic incident.” Moments later, a man allegedly opened fire on her car.

Police say 24-year-old Brandon Lee Bond crossed the street and began shooting into the vehicle. Woodcock's car continued moving before crashing.

She was transported to a hospital in Louisville, where she died the following day; her preborn child also died. Woodcock is survived by a one-year-old daughter.

Bond fled the scene of the shooting but was later found in a nearby wooded area and taken into custody. Authorities reported that he had been drinking and was initially "uncooperative" after his arrest.

He now faces multiple charges, including murder, first-degree fetal homicide, and evading police. The charges were formally executed by Detective Brian Starnes on April 7 as authorities continue investigating what led up to the shooting.

Under Kentucky law, causing the death of a preborn child is considered homicide unless it is carried out by the mother or a doctor.

The Bottom Line:

Authorities described the shooting as “senseless,” and the details bear that out. There was no prolonged confrontation or extended escalation, only a sudden act of violence that claimed both a young woman and the child she was carrying.

“Our hearts go out to the family and loved ones affected by this terrible crime,” the Chief of Police of the Glasgow Police Department said. 

In the aftermath, a fundraising page has been organized to assist with funeral expenses for Woodcock and her unborn child.

Key Takeaways:

• 637 lethal prescriptions were dispensed in Oregon in 2025, a record high.

• The number of deaths from assisted suicide in Oregon have likewise increased each year.

• The report indicates that assisted suicide tourism is increasing in Oregon as well.

The Details:

According to a state press release, the number of prescriptions written for assisted suicide in 2025 increased by 5% over 2024, from 609 to 637. This is based on data from Oregon's annual report on the Death With Dignity Act, which legalized assisted suicide in the state.

“What we've been seeing over the last several years is a steady overall increase in prescriptions and deaths among Death with Dignity Act participants," Tom Jeanne, deputy state health officer and epidemiologist at OHA's Public Health Division, which collects information on compliance with the Act and issues the annual report, stated in the press release.

But as Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, pointed out, it is suspected that there may be some inaccurate reporting regarding assisted suicide deaths. He explained that the numbers are often inconsistent and frequently change, and he predicts that they are higher than initially reported:

The 2025 Oregon report indicated that there were 421 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024 and 400 in 2025. Due to reporting problems there were likely 450 assisted suicide deaths in 2025....

Similar to previous years the 2025 report updated the data from the 2024 report. The 2024 report stated that there were 376 assisted suicide deaths, but the 2025 report stated that there were 421 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024. The 2025 report increased the number of 2024 reported assisted suicide deaths by 45 or more than 12%.

The OHA must have received 45 assisted suicide death reports from 2024 later in 2025. Some people suggest that the Oregon assisted suicide report is published too early for doctors to report all assisted suicide deaths. But that is not the case. The 2024 report was published on March 27, 2025 whereas in years earlier the report was published in late January or early February. Since there is no effective oversight of the law, some doctors are submitting their death reports much later and it is likely that some death reports are never submitted.

The 2025 report indicated that there were 400 reported assisted suicide deaths. I predict that the actual number is around 450 assisted suicide deaths or 12.5% higher.

Schadenberg also explained that the data is self-reported, and there is no third-party oversight ensuring the information being given is accurate. Because the deaths are self-reported, doctors concerned about a troubling or potentially disturbing case could simply choose not to disclose it.

The report also found that six percent (6%) of people given the lethal prescriptions outlived their prognosis, meaning they lived six months or longer than when the prescription was written. Likewise, six percent (6%) of the recipients had traveled to Oregon specifically to undergo assisted suicide, a four percent (4%) increase from 2024.

And sadly, as data from previous years revealed, most of those individuals did not opt for assisted suicide out of fear of a long, painful death. The most common reasons cited were a loss of autonomy, loss of dignity, and the inability to participate in activities that "made life enjoyable."

The Backstory:

Oregon's Death with Dignity Act took effect in October 1997, allowing "terminally ill individuals to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose." Terminal illness is defined by Oregon as "an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months."

First, the patient must:

• Make two oral requests to the attending physician at least 15 days apart

• Provide a written request to the attending physician, signed in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom is unrelated to the patient

The attending physician and the consulting physician must:

• Confirm the patient's diagnosis and status as terminal

• Determine if the patient is capable of making the decision to die and communicating on his own behalf

The doctor is required to inform the patient about alternatives, like comfort care, hospice care, and pain management, and must ask but not require the patient to notify their next-of-kin. If either of the two doctors believe the patient's judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder, the patient must undergo a psychological evaluation, but ultimately, is not necessarily barred from undergoing assisted suicide.

A change to the law in 2020 allowed patients to skip the waiting period (15 days between requests and 48 hours after the written request) if it was believed to exceed their life expectancy. The residency requirement was removed in 2023, allowing people who do not live in Oregon to travel to the state solely to die.

According to the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), "The law does not include any oversight or regulation that is distinct from what is done for other medical care.... OHA does not investigate whether patients met the DWDA criteria, nor how their diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options were determined."

Key Takeaways:

• Adriana Luna had just begun to attend college with the goal of obtaining a nursing degree, and had an IUD implanted to prevent pregnancy.

• She conceived despite the IUD, becoming pregnant with four identical girls.

• She and her fiancé referred to the babies as blessings.

The Details:

Against the odds, and notwithstanding the fact that she had an intrauterine device (IUD) implanted, Luna conceived a rare set of quadruplets — four identical daughters — named Amora, Analia, Arya, and A’zura. "Four blessings,” she and her husband called them.

Luna explained that she had an IUD in place when she and her partner conceived their quadruplets. Naturally, they were shocked.

“What started as the news of one baby quickly became two, and then, unbelievably, four,” the parents wrote on their GoFundMe page. 

Luna said her fiancee, Anthony Lerma , who is a twin himself, “thought I was joking” when she divulged her pregnancy to him. “Multiples do not run in my family, so this was something new,” she said. “And at the same time, I was excited, but also worried.”

Luna, who shares a two-year-old son with Lerma, said she hadn’t anticipated becoming pregnant again. She had only recently started her nursing studies at Del Mar College when she found she was expecting.

Zoom In:

Although pregnancy with an IUD is extremely uncommon, it can occur, and as noted by Yale Medicine, conceiving while an IUD is in place comes with heightened health risks. As reported by VeryWell Health:

The failure rate for hormonal IUDs is very low, between 0.02% to 0.04%, equating to one or two pregnancies per 5,000 users. Copper IUDs have a slightly higher failure rate of 0.8%, resulting in about 40 pregnancies per 5,000 users.

Conceiving with an IUD in place increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, preterm delivery, and more.

Yet Luna delivered her quadruplets safely at Corpus Christi Medical Center at 29 weeks pregnant. After their birth, all four babies were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Two of the newborns have already been discharged, and the family is waiting for the day the remaining two can return home. 

To care for her babies, Luna has stepped away from the nursing program she had begun, at least for the time being.

“I was actually one and done with my toddler,” she said, "but they just came and they're a miracle because they weren't supposed to be here at all.”

The couple wrote on GoFundMe:

“While we are beyond grateful for these four blessings, this has also brought sudden emotional, physical, and financial challenges. Caring for quadruplets means quadrupling the diapers, formula, medical care, and daily essentials—on top of adjusting to life as new parents of four newborns at once."

Zoom Out:

MSN noted that multiple births are far more common in pregnancies conceived through artificial fertility treatments like in vitro fertilization, where the chances can reach up to 30%. Meanwhile, naturally occurring, or “spontaneous,” multiple pregnancies are much less frequent. Twins happen in only about 3% of natural pregnancies, and the odds of conceiving more than two babies without medical intervention are extraordinarily tiny.  

Raising Multiples, a non-profit that supports families with multiple births,  declared that the probability of a spontaneous quadruplet pregnancy is roughly 1 in 572,000. The odds that all four would be identical are even rarer — about 1 in 15.6 million. Having a parent who is part of a multiple birth can increase the likelihood by a little.

The odds of conceiving identical quadruplets while an IUD is in place is so rare, it likely cannot be calculated.

The Bottom Line: 

Luna’s unexpected and astonishing pregnancy is a testament to how life is miraculous and can surpass all obstacles.

Key Takeaways:

• Senator Josh Hawley urged the Department of Justice in a letter to investigate abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories.

• Hawley specifically asked for an investigation into Danco's original FDA approval (which remains secretive and undisclosed to this day), marketing practices, and more.

• However, in response, the DOJ appeared to give no indication that it planned to investigate.

The Details:

The letter, dated April 14, 2026, was sent from Senator Hawley to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Hawley's press release explained that the letter called for...

... the Department of Justice to open an investigation into Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of the dangerous chemical abortion drug....

... that the Department fulfill its mandate by investigating Danco’s original FDA approval, ongoing regulatory compliance, manufacture and distribution pipeline, potentially deceptive marketing practices, and disclosure of safety risks pertaining to the company’s sole product—the chemical abortion drug, mifepristone. 

The release notes that "Senator Hawley opened his own investigation into Danco following a press conference he hosted that featured powerful testimonies from women harmed by mifepristone" and "also introduced legislation to ban mifepristone’s FDA approval for abortion and empower victims to sue manufacturers of the chemical abortion drugs." 

'Profiting at the expense of women'

Hawley's letter accuses Danco of "prey[ing]" on women, lying to them, and "profiting at the expense of women who have taken the drug and been seriously harmed by it."

In March, Hawley opened a "hotline for women who have been harmed by chemical abortion to confidentially share their stories with his office," urging those harmed to contact his office "by calling (202) 224-6154 or emailing AbortionDrugHarms@hawley.senate.gov."

In addition to Hawley's hotline, the medical malpractice website AbortionInjury.com, overseen by attorneys Mike Seibel and Justin Hall, noted that while the drug is marketed as “safe and simple," women have suffered severe complications, including hemorrhaging and life-threatening infections, after taking these drugs which have a black box warning on the label.

Hawley's April 14th letter cited an analysis, published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC):

Danco is profiting at the expense of women who have taken the drug and been seriously harmed by it. The largest study of mifepristone ever conducted found that nearly 11% of women who take the drug experience a “serious adverse health event,” such as sepsis or hemorrhaging. That rate amounts to 22 times higher than what Danco admits to on its label.

Hawley added," I recently hosted an event which featured firsthand testimonies of women who were harmed by the drug. These women deserve justice for what they suffered at the hands of this shady Big Pharma company."

Live Action has also hosted events where women harmed by the abortion pill spoke out.

Demanding investigation

Hawley's letter is asking that the DOJ and Acting US Attorney General "open an investigation" into Danco's...

• FDA approval

• Ongoing regulatory compliance

• Manufacture and distribution pipeline

• Potentially deceptive marketing practices and disclosure of safety risks pertaining to the drug.

Hawley reminded the DOJ that they are...

... tasked with upholding the rule of law and protecting every American—including women that companies like Danco prey on and lie to. This mandate includes ensuring Danco’s prompt, fulsome, and transparent compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and ongoing regulatory obligations.

"The American public demands answers to the chemical abortion drug that is flooding into every corner of the country—often contrary to state laws—and causing devastating harm to women and babies," the Senator wrote adding, "I await your response confirming the initiation of your investigation."

The Context:

Abortion pill prescribers are supposed to be certified and policed by name-brand abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories and generic manufacturers GenBioPro (GBP) and Evita Solutions; however, as Live Action News has documented, prescribers often flout the FDA's labeling or safety regulations without being decertified.

The FDA's removal of the in-person requirement for the drug resulted in the online explosion of virtual abortion pill dispensaries, with apparently no oversight from either the FDA or the abortion drug's manufacturers.

Live Action News has documented how abortion pill manufacturers may be aiding and abetting the unlawful mailing of mifepristone into pro-life states. As a result, several lawsuits have been filed by states seeking a reversal of the erosions to the abortion pill's 2023 safety regulations by the FDA.

The FDA's erosion of the REMS in 2023 violated the Federal Comstock Act which (18 U.S.C. § 1461) prohibits the mailing of “any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing [that] may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion[.]”

To date, the full record on the abortion pill approval has yet to be made public, something requested recently in the State of Louisiana's lawsuit over abortion pill harms. While the judge has 'stayed' (paused) the lawsuit until the FDA finalizes their safety review of the drug, he has ordered that the FDA has 60 days to release the administrative record to the Plaintiffs in the case.

The History:

Danco was established as the abortion pill manufacturer in the 1990's by the eugenicist-founded Population Council, which brought the pill into the United States. Live Action News has documented the conflicts surrounding the money trail and investors of the drug, namely the Packard and Buffett Foundations, among others.

Hawley's letter correctly pointed out how there was "very little information" which was "publicly available about Danco Laboratories," its investors, or its board of directors.

According to Hawley:

The company first introduced mifepristone in the United States in 2000 and, in doing so, appears to have taken unusual and extreme measures to protect itself from liability.

It was incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Its board of directors and investors remain secret. And its corporate structure remains largely shielded from public view.

Early backers appear to have included George Soros and other far-left activists who favor population control.

We do know... that chemical abortion is a lucrative enterprise for Danco—so lucrative, in fact, that mifepristone is the only drug the company makes, with investors’ returns reportedly topping 450%.

The abortion pill company's secrecy surprised even media allies at the time, as Live Action pointed out in its "State of Chemical Abortion" report:

Initially, the original manufacturer of the abortion-inducing drug was obscured by secrecy...for decades, even the location of Danco's manufacturing facility remained undisclosed.

...Following the refusal of established pharmaceutical companies to market the abortion-inducing drug in the United States, a consortium established a "secret company" exclusively dedicated to its production and commerce, according to The Seattle Times.

This protracted 11-year undertaking involved what The Seattle Times called an elaborate "cloak-and-dagger scheme” to hide the identities of participants, numerous legal disputes, and $50 million in incurred costs...

...In the years that followed, the manufacturing location remained confidential until a False Claims Act settlement against Danco in the spring of 2025 mandated the company to publicly indicate the country of origin on its packaging. Danco's current packaging now lists Spain as the country of origin.

Key Dates:

• 1994: With encouragement of the Clinton administration, French pharmaceutical company Roussel-Uclaf assigned U.S. rights of marketing and distribution of the abortion pill (known then as RU-486) to the eugenics-founded Population Council who later handed it over to Danco Laboratories, a sub-licensee of the Population Council. 

• 1996: Population Council (funded in part with investments from the Buffett and Packard Foundations) submitted its application for the drug to the FDA, and a series of clinical trials began.

• 2000: The abortion pill (Mifeprex or mifepristone 200 mg) was approved by the FDA for the “termination of pregnancy” and required to be dispensed in-person.

• 2011: drug placed under FDA's REMS safety system for monitoring serious complications and deaths.

• 2016: A coalition of abortion advocates funded Danco's move leading to the Obama FDA eroding REMS by removing the requirement that all complications (except deaths) be reported. Yet, long before 2016 changes occurred, Big Abortion schemed to hide complications by advising women at the point of sale to lie about their complications, should they ever need to visit the emergency room.

• 2023: FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement to allow for the drug to be permanently dispensed by mail or pharmacy.

• May 2025: Senator Hawley introduces bill to reinstate abortion pill safeguards and allow women to sue.

• March 2026: Senator Hawley introduces the "Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act" and opens investigation into abortion pill manufacturers. In addition, Senator Bill Cassidy leads a coalition urging FDA to "leverage its authorities to combat the illegal sale of unapproved and misbranded chemical abortion drugs into the U.S. by online entities."

• April 2026: Pro-life coalition sends letter calling on acting AG to support states' abortion pill lawsuits. Senator Josh Hawley sends demand letter to DOJ urging that they investigate "predatory" abortion pill manufacturers.

The Bottom Line:

In response to Hawley's request, a DOJ spokesperson gave no indication that it plans to investigate the drug companies, telling Fox News Digital:

President Trump’s record on protecting unborn life and defending women’s health is unmatched. The Department of Justice will continue to advance those priorities by asking courts to allow the FDA to complete its review of mifepristone safety data and by investigating any person or entity that engaged in illegal conduct putting women or unborn children at risk.

Click here to read Live Action's detailed report, "The State of Chemical Abortion."

On Monday, April 13, the Lynn County Commissioners' Court in Texas considered and unanimously adopted an ordinance outlawing abortion and declaring Lynn County a Sanctuary County for the Unborn.

The Details:

After a brief period of discussion about the ordinance, Commissioner Tate Gass made the motion to adopt the measure. The motion was seconded by Commissioner John Hawthorne. Upon a full vote of the court, County Judge Mike Braddock and Lynn County Commissioners Matt Woodley, John Hawthorne, Tate Gass, and Larry Durham all voted in favor of the measure – making the vote a unanimous 5-0. 

The vote followed the City of O’Donnell, (pop. 704), which had become the 95th Sanctuary City for the Unborn in the nation just days before. The City of O’Donnell was the second city in Lynn County to adopt a Sanctuary City for the Unborn (SCFTU) ordinance, following the city of New Home (pop. 320) in September 2020. 

First Baptist Church O’Donnell Pastor Taylor Wood told the Lamesa Press Reporter, "None of this would have happened without our high school students speaking up and initiating it."

Lizzie Cook, president of the Turning Point USA Club America Chapter at O'Donnell High School, spoke at the previous meeting of the Lynn County Commissioners’ Court on Monday, March 23. At that meeting Cook encouraged her county leadership to consider the measure in the near future.

After attending a Sanctuary for the Unborn Interest Meeting at First Baptist Church O’Donnell on April 6, Commissioner Tate Gass led the charge for the ordinance to be placed on the agenda for their next meeting on April 13. 

The unanimous 5-0 passage made Lynn County (pop. 5,596) the 20th county in Texas to outlaw abortion trafficking – following Mitchell (pop. 9,070), Goliad (pop. 7,012), Cochran (pop. 2,547), Lubbock (pop. 317,561), Dawson (pop. 12,130), Jack (pop. 8,875), Shackelford (pop. 3,105), Camp (pop.13,164), Shelby (pop. 24,179), Hopkins (pop. 38,784), Dickens (pop. 1,725),  Howard (pop. 34,860), Motley (pop. 1,063), Crosby (pop. 5,133), Borden (pop. 631), Hall (pop. 2,825), Hood (pop. 61,598), King (pop. 265), and Sterling (pop. 1,372)  counties — as well as the 22nd county and the 117th political subdivision to outlaw abortion in the United States. The effort to see political subdivisions throughout Texas outlaw abortion trafficking through the Sanctuaries for the Unborn initiative is supported by lawmakers across Texas and New Mexico.

The Ordinance:

The Lynn County SCFTU Ordinance prohibits elective abortions and the aiding or abetting of elective abortions within the unincorporated area of Lynn County, as well as the performing of an elective abortion and the aiding or abetting of an elective abortion on a resident of the unincorporated area of Lynn County, “regardless of the location of the abortion, regardless of the law in the jurisdiction where the abortion occurred, and regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion was performed or induced on a resident of the unincorporated area of Lynn County.”

As a result of the ordinance, it is now illegal “for any person to knowingly transport any individual for the purpose of providing or obtaining an elective abortion, regardless of where the elective abortion will occur” as long as such activity “begins, ends, or passes through Lynn County.”

This means it is now illegal to use the sections of U.S. Highway 84, U.S. Highway 87, U.S. Highway 380, and all sections of all other roads found in the unincorporated area of Lynn County for the purpose of abortion trafficking.

The Lynn County SCFTU Ordinance connects the county ordinances passed in Lubbock, Crosby, Dickens, King, Motley, and Hall with the county ordinances passed in Borden, Dawson, Mitchell, Howard, and Sterling. This now creates a 11,000 square mile 'Wall of Ordinances' prohibiting abortion trafficking.

The ordinances are part of a cultural shift that looks at abortion trafficking the same way as drug trafficking or sex trafficking, and is intentionally written to facilitate the end of abortion throughout the United States.

The ordinance also:

• prohibits abortion-inducing drugs within the unincorporated area of Lynn County

• prohibits Texas waste management companies from transporting and disposing of aborted fetal remains from any out-of-state abortion provider within the unincorporated area of Lynn County

• declares the organizations in violation of the federal Comstock Act – which prohibits the mailing and receiving of abortion inducing drugs and abortion paraphernalia – to be criminal organizations, prohibiting such organizations from operating within the unincorporated area of Lynn County

The Private Enforcement Mechanism

The ordinance is not enforced by Lynn County, its elected officials, or any of their employees.

Instead of being enforced criminally, the law is enforced civilly by private citizens. This is the same way the Texas Heartbeat Act is enforced: through a private enforcement mechanism that allows private citizens to file a lawsuit against anyone in violation of the law.

The Lynn County SCFTU ordinance does not allow any lawsuit to be filed against the mother of the unborn child, but only against the abortionist and those who are aiding or abetting the abortionist in the killing of an unborn child.

Highlighting the Thriving Texas Families Program

In addition to the strong protections for pregnant mothers and their unborn children within the local law, the Lynn County SCFTU ordinance also educates about the statewide Thriving Texas Families Program, which helps connect pregnant mothers to a variety of resources through centers listed on the Texas Pregnancy Care Network website and The Pregnancy Network website.

Unanimous Votes:

Lynn County’s vote was the 10th unanimous passage of the ordinance by a political subdivision in Texas this year, following the City of Matador (pop. 570), Borden County (pop. 631), the City of Lockney (pop. 1,988), Hall County (2,825), Hood County (pop. 61,598), the City of Wellman (pop.205), King County (pop. 265), Sterling County (pop. 1,372), and the City of O’Donnell (pop. 704).

The only two political subdivisions that have rejected the measure in 2026 have been Terry County (pop. 11,602) and Brownfield (pop. 9,799). While the vote against the measure in Terry County was unanimous, 4-0, the vote against the measure in Brownfield was split 5-3. 

Other cities in Lynn County that could pass SCFTU ordinances include the cities of Tahoka (pop. 2,665) and Wilson (pop. 504). The Wilson City Council originally considered the measure in October 2020, but rejected it in a 3-1 vote at their November 2020 council meeting. 

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

Fairfax served under Democratic Governor Ralph Northam's administration from 2018 to 2022.

Key Takeaways:

• Former Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax and his wife, Dr. Cerina Fairfax, were found deceased on April 16, 2026, as an apparent result of a murder-suicide. Police have stated that Justin Fairfax killed his wife before turning the gun on himself. He and his wife were reportedly in the midst of a divorce.

• Fairfax was a rising star in Virginia politics beginning in 2013, before he was elected Lieutenant Governor in 2017. He served under Governor Ralph Northam until 2022. Northam and Fairfax were both ardent supporters of abortion and had the backing of Planned Parenthood during the Northam administration.

• Fairfax campaigned for governor in 2021, but did not garner the Democratic nomination.

• Our prayers are with the Fairfax family, especially their children, during this devastating time.

The Details:

The community is understandably shocked and sorrowful at this horrific news, and friends of the family are especially thinking of the couple's children during the aftermath of this tragedy.

Fairfax and his wife, Dr. Cerina Fairfax, a dentist, had been married since 2006 and were reportedly in the process of a divorce. The AP reported:

The couple were separated and going through a divorce but living in the same house with their two children, who were home when the shootings occurred, he said. A court filing said the couple separated in 2024 and filed for divorce last year.

“We are keeping Cerina and Justin Fairfax’s family — especially their two children — in our prayers as we all process this shocking and horrifying news,” Virginia’s Democratic U.S. senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, said in a joint statement, according to the AP.

Police have stated that Fairfax killed his wife and then turned the gun on himself.

According to Fox News, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger released a statement, saying she is "praying for the Fairfax children, and I ask my fellow Virginians to hold them in their hearts and prayers," calling the incident a "horrific tragedy" and offering her prayers for the couple's entire family.

In her remarks, Spanberger also importantly pointed out that domestic violence and mental health crises must be taken seriously.

The Backstory:

Political career

Justin Fairfax served as Lieutenant Governor under Governor Ralph Northam's administration, but later failed to secure the Democratic nomination in his own campaign for the governorship in 2021, with the AP noting that accusations of past sexual assault derailed his political aspirations.

The AP noted, "A former federal prosecutor and civil litigator, Fairfax first unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination for attorney general in 2013, then won the race for lieutenant governor in 2017."

Though 2013 was Fairfax's first time running his own campaign for public office, his strong connections to the political realm began long before, assisting the campaigns of Al Gore, John Kerry, Mark Warner, and others.

Northam's administration

During Northam's tenure, scandal erupted when the governor was found to have appeared in a racially-insensitive photo in a medical school yearbook along with other allegations of a similar nature, and it appeared Northam might resign. Fairfax would have been the one to assume the office of governor had that occurred.

At that time, in 2019, Live Action News reported on Fairfax's political record with regard to abortion:

Described as “charming,” “energetic,” and “a rising star” in glowing op-eds, both recent and older, Justin Fairfax is an ambitious individual from Northern Virginia, who first ran for public office in 2013 and won the Lieutenant Governor race in 2017, during which he received an endorsement from Planned Parenthood.

As part of a statement on International Women’s Day, Fairfax identified himself as “Vice-Chair of Planned Parenthood Metropolitan Washington Action Fund,” and suggested that abortion “empowered” women.

Fairfax was called “our champion” by Planned Parenthood, which wrote prior to the elections, “Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia is honored to endorse Ralph Northam for Governor, Justin Fairfax for Lieutenant Governor and Mark Herring for Attorney General.”

Fairfax is on record slamming Virginia’s 2012 ultrasound legislation, known as the “Right to Know and See Act,” the aim of which was to ensure that all women in early pregnancy seeking an abortion have an ultrasound with the screen facing them so they have an opportunity to view it — a common-sense informed consent measure.

When this bill, previously introduced in the state legislature by his opponent, was brought up, Fairfax called the bill “the invasive ultrasound bill that forces women to have invasive ultrasounds […] I can’t think of a more intrusive thing that a government can do….”

Opponents of such legislation frequently ignore the fact that ultrasound is considered by many to be standard procedure before an abortion — so common that even Planned Parenthood mentions it — so the gestational age can be obtained by the abortionist and an ectopic pregnancy can be ruled out.

In 2018/2019, Virginia Del. Kathy Tran had introduced a bill to allow abortion up to birth, with no limits. This generated significant pushback, and at the time, Governor Northam made highly controversial remarks which many interpreted as an endorsement of infanticide.

In 2020, while serving in the Northam administration, Fairfax cast the tie-breaking vote for HB 980, a controversial pro-abortion bill. At that time, Live Action News reported:

HB 980 [did away with] with common-sense requirements, such as ambulatory surgical center standards for abortion facilities, a 24-hour waiting period, delivery of informed consent materials, and a transabdominal ultrasound before an abortion. The bill [also allowed] non-physicians such as physician’s assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified-nurse midwives, to commit abortions.

In 2020, Northam signed HB 980 and SB 733 into law, which became known as the state's "Reproductive Health Protection Act.” This act "repeal[ed] Virginia’s laws requiring a 24-hour waiting period and an ultrasound before any abortion, and overturn[ed] multiple other regulations and safety standards meant to keep women safe."

The current state of abortion in Virginia

Today, much has changed — not just in Virginia, but across the country since June 2022, when Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe v. Wade.

The <a href="/videos/1st-trimester-abortion-the-abortion-pill-what-is-abortion">abortion pill</a>'s "no-test" protocol and changes to the FDA's safeguards on the drug have made it so that women can obtain the drug online, by mail, without an in-person visit and without any ultrasound or testing to rule out an ectopic pregnancy beforehand — increasing the risk for women.

In Virginia this year, current Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed into law a bill to put a referendum before voters in November, which would make abortion a "constitutional right" in the state. As Live Action News noted:

HJ1, the "Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment," establishes the "right to reproductive freedom," which is defined as "the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.”

In response, the state's Catholic bishops issued a warning about the amendment, saying (emphases added):

The extreme abortion amendment, which will proceed to a referendum for voters to decide later this year, would go far beyond even what Roe v. Wade previously allowed.

It would enshrine virtually unlimited abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with no age restriction. Among numerous other problems, it would severely jeopardize Virginia’s parental consent law, health and safety standards for women, conscience protections for healthcare providers, and restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions.

Most tragically of all, the extreme abortion amendment provides no protections whatsoever for preborn children.

Why It Matters:

The tragic taking of life in the Fairfax family reminds us that life is sacred and precious, regardless of the circumstances. Each and every human being was created by God and is made in His image, and has inherent dignity and value, regardless of size, age, level of development, or degree of dependency. Despite political and ideological differences, we all have these things in common as human beings.

Romans 12 in the New Testament reminds us of how we are to treat one another:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

We pray for the Fairfax children and family during this time of devastation and grief, and hope they are comforted with the peace that only Jesus Christ can bring.

Key Takeaways:

• Lawmakers in the Kansas House and Senate voted to override Governor Laura Kelly's veto of HB 2729 and HB 2727.

• HB 2729 requires women to receive informed consent information prior to abortion.

• HB 2727 allows women who do not receive such information to sue the abortionist.

The Details:

• House Bill 2729 requires that abortion-minded women receive informed consent information, including information about fetal development, abortion risks, abortion alternatives, and "abortion pill reversal" information prior to undergoing an abortion. The state's Department of Health and Environment will be required to oversee the creation of standardized consent forms for this purpose.

• House Bill 2727 allows women who do not receive informed consent information to then file a lawsuit against the abortionist without first going through the state’s standard medical malpractice screening panel. Women who take advantage of this law limit their legal recovery to $5,000 in claims.

Both bills received the necessary two-thirds majority votes to override Kelly's veto, with the House voting 87-36 and the Senate voting 31-8. 

Kansans for Life (KFL), which championed the measures as they made their way through the legislature, praised lawmakers for overturning Kelly's vetoes.

“These victories reflect Kansas’ continued commitment to protecting women, families, and preborn children,” said Jeanne Gawdun, KFL Director of Government Relations. “Even after Governor Kelly vetoed each of these measures, the Legislature stood firm to ensure that women facing life-altering decisions receive accurate information and real support.” 

Zoom In:

In her veto of HB 2729, Kelly took issue with the bill's inclusion of "abortion pill reversal," parroting the oft-repeated pro-abortion argument that it is "false medical information."

“This bill requires the state to put false medical information out that has no scientific basis and only serves to mislead women,” Kelly said. “Kansans have made it clear that they want the government to stay out of women’s private health care decisions. This bill does the opposite.”

The abortion pill reversal process utilizes high doses of progesterone to counteract the abortion pill mifepristone, which deprives the baby of the nutrients it needs to survive. Progesterone is a natural hormone the female body produces when pregnant to help sustain the pregnancy and nourish the baby. It has long been used to help women with a <a href="/news/doctors-miscarriages-hormone-scorned-abortion-pill-reversal">history of miscarriage</a> to <a href="/news/uk-group-recommends-progesterone-prevent-miscarriage">sustain</a> their pregnancies. To date, abortion pill reversal has been credited with saving thousands of lives.

The Bottom Line:

Opposition to informed consent laws quickly reveal that abortion advocates don't seem to want women to have a "choice" at all. When women know their options and that help is available, they are more likely to choose life — and that's bad for business for the abortion industry.

Key Takeaways:

• As other countries cracked down on foreign surrogacy, Mexico became a destination.

• The lack of regulations and low cost make the Central American country attractive to those looking to purchase women's bodies.

• Surrogacy contracts are left up to the discretion of the parties involved, making surrogates easily exploited.

The Details:

The Central American country’s emergence as a global surrogacy destination started around the early 2010s, when restrictive laws in India and Thailand limited previous “offshore” markets for Western and Asian surrogacy agencies.

Mexico then moved into the market, with the state of Tabasco becoming the epicenter due to legal changes in the 1990s allowing surrogacy contracts. Subsequently, surrogacy agencies swarmed to Tabasco to capitalize on competitive medical costs, poor oversight, and the legal ability to publish birth certificates naming individuals biologically unrelated to a child as the child’s parents.

Since then, Mexico has become a primarily unrestricted, profit‑driven market where clinics, brokers, and intermediaries have transformed the country’s initially-budding surrogacy landscape into an all-out baby export industry. 

According to a 2024 article by Mexico News Daily: 

Tracking the exact birth figures through surrogacy in Mexico is impossible due to the lack of regulation in this area. According to news outlet N+Focus, for example, the state of Sinaloa registered 115 births through surrogacy between 2016 to 2022. Only one in five involved a signed contract.

Quoting Sofía Rosas Michel, a University of Monterrey-trained lawyer focusing surrogacy, the same Mexico News Daily article stated:

Currently, a surrogacy contract is left to the discretion of private agreements regarding the rights that the State should safeguard, such as the right to one’s family, to know one’s origins, to remain with one’s family of origin, and to have a nationality, among others.

Zoom In:

A 2017 report by El Pais detailed the situation in Tabasco, the key hub for surrogacy: 

Tabasco’s civil registry allowed the contracting parent(s) to register the baby as their legal child, using only a certified copy of the surrogacy contract.

In response to the international demand from hopeful parents whose countries don’t allow surrogacy, intermediary agencies began to spring up in search of profits.Tabasco’s law did not explicitly prohibit or permit trade.

It became common for a Mexican woman to receive between $13,000 and $15,000 (€11,700–13,500) for a pregnancy and contracting parents to pay between $50,000 and $70,000 (€45,000–63,000) for the entire process – half of what surrogacy costs in the US.

A 2022 Vice report found that for intended parents, procuring surrogacy in Mexico is considerably more affordable — around $70,000 for the full process, versus $130,000 or more in the United States. The process also is usually expedited, due to available surrogates. With commercial surrogacy banned across much of Europe, Mexico has become an attractive option for many prospective parents from overseas. 

The Mexican Supreme Court’s move protecting surrogacy accelerated the number of surrogacies in the country, effectively repealing state‑level bans and reinforcing “equal access” for all intended parents, regardless of marital status, sexuality, or nationality. 

The Big Picture:

Mexico City and other jurisdictions have emerged as appealing surrogacy destinations as well, peppered with several surrogacy agencies, an increasing number of IVF (in-vitro fertilisation) clinics, and pre‑birth‑order procedures that allow foreign parents to even eradicate the surrogate’s legal parenthood before the birth of the child.

“It is required that you sign a contract promising not to love the baby,” Anna, a surrogate mother who lives just outside Mexico City, admitted to The Critic. “I was trained by the agency to think of myself as an incubator and absolutely not a mother.”

Detailing her experience with surrogacy brokers, Anna elaborated that they “would come around the colonia [a working-class housing complex] asking if women wanted to make money … They saw I had a child, and probably heard I had left my marriage. They offered me enough money to buy my own place if I would have a baby for a couple [that were] desperate but infertile.”

Consequently, Mexico is currently a country where international surrogacy is promoted as a cheap ethical alternative to traditional adoption or domestic surrogacy.

Many Mexican surrogates hail from economically deprived or rural backgrounds, where a few months of pregnancy can yield large amounts of money — far more than they would normally make with typical employment. Surrogacy agencies promise huge sums that seem substantial on paper but still fall short of what surrogate mothers in the United States receive, as the intermediaries and clinicians absorb most of the total surrogacy fees.

The 2022 Vice article documented the issues faced by surrogate mothers: 

While many surrogacy journeys end happily, horror stories have emerged: surrogates who received far less money than promised; intended parents cheated out of tens of thousands of dollars; and foreigners stranded in Mexico because they can’t get a passport for their baby.

In 2020, baby twins born through surrogacy were abandoned at a Mexican hospital. The surrogate, who was carrying the babies for a couple living in the U.S., suffered complications when she was six months pregnant and had to undergo a C-section.

One of the babies was born with serious cognitive deficits and physical impairments. The surrogate had suffered multiple health problems during the pregnancy, she said in an interview with local radio station MVS News, including low blood sugar and fainting, but the surrogacy agency told her to just rest at home.

When she finally went to the hospital, the doctors were more concerned about the unborn babies, she said. ‘They didn’t ask me anything about me, or my health.’

Also, as The Critic noted, Mexican surrogate women seldom have legal, medical, or psychosocial support. 

 Patricia Olamendi Torres, a lawyer protesting Mexico’s surrogacy trade, lambasted the surrogacy situation, saying, “The profiteers exploit the poverty in which millions of women find themselves. They have promoted Mexico as a cheap market where you can buy a baby.” 

The Bottom Line:

A huge tragedy of the Mexican baby business is not only the exploitation of women, but the way it reconfigures the child’s place within the family.

Surrogacy, especially international surrogacy, erodes the natural bond between the birth mother and her child, dehumanizing the mother into a temporary incubator whose presence is conveniently set aside once the baby is born and transferred to the intended parents.

As a result, a child born via surrogacy is not received by their parents as a gift, born into a context of loving continuity, but is instead “designed” and “ordered,” usually via a contract drafted with a thorough consideration of genetics, cost, and convenience.

One cannot claim to be pro-life while tolerating or even encouraging a system where women’s bodies are rented and children are manufactured as per the whims of others.

Key Takeaways:

• A Nevada law requiring parental notification before a minor undergoes an abortion has been repeatedly challenged by Planned Parenthood.

• In October 2025, after years on hold and years of legal wrangling, the law (passed in 1985 during the reign of Roe v. Wade) was allowed to go into effect.

• Attorneys for Planned Parenthood argued last week in front of the state Supreme Court, saying the law should be overturned because it is "vague."

• Justices have not yet made a decision in the case.

The Backstory:

Nevada passed its parental notification law in 1985. The law requires that a parent or guardian is notified before their child receives an abortion, though it does not require the parent to give their consent. Despite its passage, the law never took effect due to Roe v. Wade.

After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, the state began enacting abortion-related laws, many of which had been dormant for years, including the parental notification requirement.

A lawsuit from the abortion industry quickly blocked the law, but a federal court later lifted the injunction. Planned Parenthood then filed another lawsuit, but that effort to block the law was also halted in the courts.

In October 2025, the law was finally able to take effect. The abortion organization then announced it would appeal that ruling, bringing the fight to the state's Supreme Court.

The Details:

Last week, attorneys for Planned Parenthood argued in front of the court to overturn the law.

According to Courthouse News Service, Planned Parenthood attorney Valentina De Fex said that because the law allows a judicial bypass process for a minor to receive an abortion without notifying her parent but does not spell out how that judicial bypass should work, the law is "vague" and should be overturned.

“Its text lacks guardrails,” she claimed, adding that doctors would be left to determine whether or not the parent had been sufficiently notified. "It leaves doctors with the question — ‘Did I do enough or should I have done more?’" she said.

In response, Attorney Heidi Stern with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office, stated that doctors are not under threat from her office, though she couldn't comment on the actions of local district attorneys.

Justices have not yet ruled on the case.

Why It Matters:

Planned Parenthood is no friend to parents, and views them largely as hindrances to its influence over minors.

As Live Action News reported last year, Planned Parenthood has shown willingness to dispense same-day cross-sex hormones to minors, without a mental health assessment or parental involvement. It responded to a Live Action undercover investigation by attempting to "set the record straight," but...

...[Planned Parenthood] did not deny that it supplies hormones to minors and that it will give hormones to a young person who wants them without a mental health assessment and on the same day as the person’s first appointment.

It’s important to note that Planned Parenthood has proven that its idea of “age-appropriate” is wildly inappropriate. For example, through its sexual education programs, it provides children with sexually explicit books, a ‘sex deck’ of cards, and other indecorous items. It also has a history of offering dangerous sexual advice to teens and of sexualizing young children.

Planned Parenthood has a long record of coercing or even forcing patients into abortion.

It has misled and sexually groomed children.

It has assisted child predators instead of protecting minors.

Planned Parenthood has showing willingness to help sex traffickers to pose as minors' guardians for the purpose of getting them secret abortions, while at the same time fighting against parental consent and notification laws.

Planned Parenthood wants parents and teens to believe it has children’s best interests at heart, but evidence proves otherwise. Planned Parenthood does not have the best interest of children — born or preborn — in mind.

The Bottom Line:

An abortion is a serious procedure which takes the life of the preborn child while forever altering the life of his or her mother.

Planned Parenthood's relentless fight against a law solely meant to ensure a parent is notified when a child undergoes this process clearly reveals that the abortion organization isn't worried about the welfare of young girls — it only wants to remove any obstacles that stand in the way of more abortion.

The spokesperson's statement came in response to a ruling issued by U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph to 'stay' an abortion pill lawsuit filed by the State of Louisiana.

Key Takeaways:

• An HHS spokesman has reiterated the intent of the FDA to complete its abortion pill safety study "sooner" than the expected timeframe.

• Earlier in April, a U.S. District judge sided with FDA by pausing Louisiana's lawsuit against the FDA, "pending completion of FDA’s ongoing review" but gave the FDA a "time limited period of deference to complete its review" which "will not remain open-ended."

• Questions remain as to whether the FDA is closely monitoring any reported adverse events data on the abortion pill. Because of changes made by the Obama administration in 2016, only deaths have to be reported.

• Several states that restrict abortion are suing the FDA over its rollback of safeguards (REMS) on the abortion pill, because the Biden FDA's changes to the REMS allowing the drugs to be dispensed by mail have negatively impacted these states and their citizens.

The Details:

"The Trump administration is facing accusations from anti-abortion advocates and others that it’s slow-walking a review of mifepristone, a prevalent form of abortion medication, for fear of political blowback ahead of the midterms," Bloomberg Law reported.

Bloomberg reached out to HHS, and spokesperson Andrew Nixon stated the safety review could be completed sooner than expected:

US Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in response to the ruling that the FDA “is taking care to do this study properly and in the right way.” In academia, such studies “often take approximately a year or more to conduct. The agency plan is to have this study done sooner than that timeframe,” Nixon said.

This report confirms statements published on the FDA website in February 2026, which also claim the safety review is intended to be completed in one year or less.

The Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary has the authority to suspend an application for a drug's approval — including the abortion pill — if it is determined that the drug would be an 'imminent hazard to public health,' according to a previous response from the FDA in the Louisiana case.

An HHS statement issued earlier this month to the media outlet NOTUS claimed the FDA “is conducting its safety study of mifepristone, including the collection of robust and timely data, evaluation of data integrity, and implementation of the analyses, validation, and peer-review.”

NOTUS added:

“Once the FDA finishes its analysis of the data, the agency will decide whether to make substantive changes” to how abortion pills are accessed, the spokesperson continued. “The agency is taking care to do this study properly and in the right way.”

The Backstory:

In October of 2025, the lawsuit State of Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration (which includes Plaintiff Rosalie Markezich) was refiled in the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division. Louisiana later filed for preliminary injunctive relief.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction over changes to the abortion pill's safety protocols (REMS) made in 2023, which enabled the mailing of abortion inducing drugs — an act already prohibited by federal law known as the Comstock Act.

On April 7, 2026, U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph sided with FDA by issuing a 'stay' in the case "pending completion of FDA’s ongoing review" but would only afford the FDA a "time limited period of deference to complete its review," writing that the "stay granted to FDA will not remain open-ended."

The Judge noted (emphasis added):

Should the agency fail to complete its review and make any necessary revisions to the REMS within a reasonable timeframe, the Court’s analysis – and the weight accorded to these factors – will inevitably change.

Abortion groups behind changes to safety protocols

In 2016, the Obama FDA changed several things about the REMS, including:

• Removing the requirement to report any abortion pill complications other than deaths

• Allowing expanded use of the drug, increasing it from seven to 10 weeks gestation

Interestingly, the 2016 REMS erosion was not one that Danco, the drug's manufacturer, originally sought. In fact, at that time, Danco claimed it was short the millions of dollars to even attempt it.

The REMS change was instead pushed and financed by a pro-abortion coalition — including groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and others — who helped the manufacturer "raise money."

On April 7, 2026, NARAL (most recently renamed Reproductive Freedom for All), expressed concern over the Louisiana case ruling.

A written statement on the group's website reads:

In January, Trump’s Department of Justice asked the court to halt Louisiana’s lawsuit while the FDA rushes through its politically motivated “review” of mifepristone, signaling that the agency could be poised to impose medically unnecessary restrictions and roll back medication abortion access on its own once its sham “review” is complete.

Today’s court decision clears the way for that bogus process to continue without being immediately disrupted by any actions stemming from Louisiana’s baseless lawsuit. Several other cases aiming to limit access to medication abortion via telehealth are also still pending.

Emily Steinert McDowell, associate director of federal policy for Reproductive Freedom for All, told Bloomberg Law that the ruling “repeatedly incorporates anti-abortion disinformation about the safety and efficacy record of mifepristone without interrogating those baseless claims.”

Now, with Louisiana’s appeal, she claims the case will go to “a conservative circuit court with even more Trump-appointed judges,” adding, “We have to be ready.”

However, Erik Baptist, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represents a Plaintiff in the case, told Bloomberg Law that “Louisiana is temporarily hamstrung from enforcing its pro‑life laws while the FDA embarks on a study that has not even started and could easily surpass a year or more."

Timelines:

The Abortion Pill

2000: FDA approved mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex.

2011: FDA placed the drug under a safety system known as REMS due to significant adverse events and deaths.

2016: Big Abortion conspired to erode the REMS on the drug. The Obama FDA weakened the REMS, even removing the requirement to report the drug's adverse events other than deaths.

2023: Despite a prohibition under the federal Comstock Act, Biden's FDA weakened the REMS again to remove the in-person dispensing requirement and allow for mail order and pharmacy dispensing of the drug.

What prompted the latest safety review

• May 2025: The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) publishes an analysis, “The Abortion Pill Harms Women,” which examined insurance data. EPPC says the records reveal serious adverse events from mifepristone are happening about 22 times more often than the FDA reports. That same month the FDA Secretary asks FDA for a complete review.

• September 2025: FDA Secretary tells Republican states that the FDA will conduct a new review of abortion pills.

• November 2025: 175 members of Congress send a letter to FDA Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Commissioner Martin Makary, MD, asking for an investigation and review of the safety of mifepristone.

• December 2025: The FDA Commissioner is accused of delaying the review. Since then, demands for the review have only grown louder.

• February 2026: FDA claims the safety review would be completed in one year or sooner.

• April 2026: HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon tells BloombergLaw.com the FDA plans "to have this study done sooner than that timeframe,” Nixon said.

Why It Matters:

The decision to halt the reporting of non-fatal adverse events (complications) of the abortion pill in 2016 may have led to faulty conclusions that the drug is safe.

FDA's removal of the in-person requirement for the drug resulted in the online explosion of virtual abortion pill dispensaries, with what appears to be no oversight from either the FDA or the abortion drug's manufacturers.

Abortion pill manufacturers aiding and abetting of the unlawful mailing of mifepristone into pro-life states prompted several lawsuits seeking a reversal of the erosions to the abortion pill's safety regulations.

The chemical abortion drug now accounts for 65% of estimated abortions nationally.

Is the FDA actually monitoring safety data?

"As with all drugs, the FDA continues to closely monitor the postmarketing safety data on mifepristone for the medical termination of pregnancy," the FDA claimed, stating (emphases added):

As with all approved drugs, when the FDA receives new information regarding adverse events, the agency reviews the new information and, as appropriate, takes necessary action. This could include, for example, providing updates to health care providers and their patients so that they have information on how to use a drug safely...

The FDA continuously reviews reports of adverse events to, among other things, determine whether they are known risks or whether they are signals of emerging safety concerns.

However, the latest document of reported adverse events published by the FDA is dated December 2024 — over a year ago.

The adverse events reporting requirement changes in 2016 were flouted in the abortion industry's deliberate attempt to hide complications from those required to report them. This then keeps the FDA in the dark about the real-world risks and complications from the abortion pill.

As Live Action News previously demonstrated, long before 2016 changes occurred, Big Abortion had schemed to hide complications by advising women at the point of sale to lie about their complications, should they ever need to visit the emergency room.

And while the Trump FDA moves to 'stay' multiple lawsuits against the abortion pill, pro-abortion advocates funded by abortion pill financial investors have renewed calls to make the chemical abortion pill available as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug.

Go Deeper:

For more information, read Live Action News' 'Dear FDA' series:

• Abortion pill manufacturers abet unlawful mailing of drugs into pro-life states

• Why are you aiding the breaking of federal laws about abortion?

• Who is overseeing the abortion pill's prescribers?

• Who paid for the removal of abortion pill safety protocols?

For more on safety information surrounding the abortion pill:

• GET THE FACTS: The abortion pill's history of eugenics and secrecy

• GET THE FACTS: Is the abortion pill truly 'safe'?

• Live Action's report: The State of Chemical Abortion a Mechanism of Death

Hull told Live Action News, “It was determined that I had cat scratch fever and I was sent home.”

The diagnosis made sense at the time since Hull had recently adopted a kitten. But she would soon learn she did not have cat scratch fever; she had a life-threatening disease.

Key Takeaways:

• Sarah Hull struggled with infertility for two years before learning she was pregnant.

• During her pregnancy, she began to experience a constant fever and was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer: anaplastic large T-cell lymphoma.

• Her doctor advised her to have an abortion, but Hull refused.

• She searched for another doctor and found one who knew of a treatment that would not harm her baby.

• Hull underwent treatment, gave birth to a healthy baby, and went on to have another daughter.

Encouraged to abort:

“When I didn’t improve, I met with my primary care physician who confirmed I had anaplastic large T-cell lymphoma, after a having a biopsy of my lymph nodes,” Hull said. “I didn’t know what was going to happen. I was terrified.”

Two days later, Hull saw an oncologist who told her she had an aggressive form of cancer. She had tumors in her lungs that she was told would eventually grow and cut off her airway, suffocating her.

Hull said, “He didn’t seem too informed about how to proceed, given I was pregnant. He advised me to abort my baby. He told me I would have a better chance to live if I terminated my pregnancy.”

She underwent a bone marrow biopsy to determine whether the cancer had spread to her bones, but after that procedure, she never went back to see that doctor.

“I would rather have died than have an abortion like he suggested,” Hull said.

This pregnancy was especially meaningful to Hull. She had struggled with infertility and had been trying to become pregnant for two years when she finally conceived.

“I was very excited when I got pregnant. My baby’s life was just starting, and I wanted her to have the best possible outcome," she said.

Renewed hope:

After her experience with the previous oncologist, Hull decided to find a new one. This new doctor offered her optimism and encouragement. He explained that, in other countries, women facing similar challenges had undergone a specific chemotherapy regimen during pregnancy. These women delivered healthy babies, and those children did not experience any long-term health complications.

“It was such a relief to get this information,” Hull said. “I felt hope.”

But her maternal-fetal medicine specialist was not so encouraging.

“The specialist made me read every drug I was going to be required to take and how it could impact my baby,” Hull said. “But I was still determined to get the treatment. This doctor, however, claimed I’d most likely experience a [miscarriage] anyway.”

Upon hearing such a dire prediction, Hull went into the bathroom and sobbed. Afterward, she went home to pray and decide how to move forward. The oncologist in charge of her care referred her to M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, telling Hull there might be new innovative cancer treatments for those dealing with similar diseases.

Hull said, “I went to MD Anderson a week before Christmas. It was there that chemotherapy would be administered that women in South America had, and their babies were born healthy with no long-term adverse effects.”

For a pregnant woman to have lymphoma, Hull noted, was rare. But the oncologist gave her hope that she could go into remission and deliver a healthy baby.

“I was still considered a high risk,” Hull said. “And it was urgent that I undergo treatment immediately, but I felt more optimistic than I had initially.”

Hull began her cancer regimen the day after Christmas, and it progressed well. Every two weeks, she underwent an ultrasound that indicated her baby was growing normally.

“She even had hair, where I had lost mine,” Hull said.

To help her cope, Hull imagined that Our Lady of Guadalupe was wrapping her arms around her baby nestled in the womb, keeping her safe. Hull’s unwavering faith in God’s mercy and grace sustained her throughout her cancer journey. No matter the challenges she faced, she continued to believe in the possibility of a positive outcome for her and her baby.

An optimal outcome:

Hull explained that she sought help from four different OB/GYNs, but none were willing to take her as a patient. She eventually found an OB/GYN who, despite being on the verge of retirement and not accepting any new patients, agreed to see her after his wife persuaded him. 

“My daughter would be the last baby he delivered,” Hull said.

To ensure her blood would clot normally, the delivery was timed between her chemotherapy sessions. Subsequent X-rays and MRIs showed her cancer was shrinking.

Ultimately, her baby was born prematurely via C-section, spending just one night in the neonatal intensive care unit. Hull was grateful for the blessing of a healthy baby amid her cancer battle.

Although Hull’s cancer ultimately went into remission, she continues to face ongoing health challenges. Due to her immune deficiency, she remains vulnerable to various diseases and illnesses.

Hull was also told she would never bear another child — but she did.

“My two daughters are just 19 months apart," Hull said. "I never regretted my decision to fight for the life of my baby.”

To protect herself from potential infections that her children might encounter in traditional school settings, Hull made the decision to homeschool. 

The Bottom Line:

“I wanted to share my story to show that doctors aren’t always right regarding women’s health outcomes," Hull said. "It’s important to advocate for your health and to know your options. I am so grateful for my two daughters.”

Key Takeaways:

• Ruby Shah was declared blind at birth and has severe visual impairment.

• She discovered she was pregnant in 2024.

• Originally she was scared that her son would be taken away from her due to her disability.

• She has since come to embrace motherhood, and is thriving with her son.

The Details:

Ruby Shah, 40, was born at just 24 weeks and was registered blind at birth. Shah has severe visual impairment, which means she cannot make out fine details like facial features or hairstyles, but she can differentiate larger shapes. She is also sensitive to light and wears sunglasses when she goes outdoors.

When she discovered she and her husband were expecting their son Michael in August of 2024, she felt deeply anxious about how she would cope with motherhood given her condition. Edinburgh Live quoted Shah as saying: 

It's hard enough sometimes just to get yourself out and about, dressing yourself - half the time my clothes are inside out, or there's a stain on them, so you're just like, Oh my God, am I going to be the same with a child? How am I going to know if they're ill? How am I going to know if they're upset?

All the NHS stuff say look for feeding cues, look for their facial expressions, look for if they're smiling. I'm like, I can't see their face, I don't know!

She described her motherhood journey as a “whole massive rollercoaster,” characterized by anxiety, self-doubt, and uncertainty about how her disability would impact her ability to care for her newborn. 

“You have challenges, but then you have some really nice moments,” Shah said. 

With the support of her 37-year-old husband David, her guide dog Sadie, and a network of fellow parents who also depend on guide dogs, the Glasgow mother has steadily built her confidence.

According to Edinburgh Live, Shah said:

“Before having a baby, everything was alien to me. I’d not really been around anyone who’s visually impaired and had a baby before. You hear about health visitors coming in and what if the place is a mess and you don’t know, or the dog’s put hair everywhere and you haven’t been able to pick that up, and they think that’s not a good place for the baby to be, it’s not a healthy place to be.

I had all those fears of, am I going to be worthy of this baby? Is he going to be seen as not being nurtured enough, not being looked after enough, and now they’re going to take him away from me because I’m not able to do as much as other people because of my visual impairment?You always work slightly harder, and you always worry that you’re not doing enough to match everyone else, and be as good a parent as you can for your baby."

Zoom In:

Practical support

Shah grew up with five siblings who all had normal eyesight, and she resolved to keep pace with those around her so she could live as independently as possible.

As a child and teenager, Shah relied on a cane for mobility, before she got her first guide dog after moving out. Shah's current dog, her third, is a black Labrador named Sadie, whom she credits with giving her the independence to travel on public transport, run errands, and visit loved ones.

Practical aid and community support helped to alleviate Shah’s worries about motherhood. She and Sadie obtained specialist training to manage walking with a pram, together with an adapted push-chair meant to make moving around easier. She also met other guide dog users who are parents, who offered reassurance and advice from their own experiences.

Shah presently uses a pram designed for one-handed use, permitting her to push it while holding Sadie’s harness with the other. Through her support network, she also learned practical tips such as organizing baby essentials so they are easy to locate, selecting zip-up clothing instead of buttons, and using brightly-colored outfits and play mats that are easier for her to detect. 

Shah also says that Sadie tries to protect baby Michael and "share her toys with him."

Finding her way

Shah’s confidence has steadily increased over the nine months since her son's birth, and says that baby Michael communicates with her in his own way by "mak[ing] a wee noise so that I know that he's smiling," which she doesn't believe is intentional, but helps her to know his emotions.

She added that "When he starts walking... I’m going to have to put an Apple tag or something on him, or like a wee beeper!"

Shah encouraged other visually impaired parents by saying that each person’s trajectory is different, and that everyone will find their own way of adapting to life as a parent.

“Everyone finds their own ways, everyone’s individual. Find your own way, and have confidence to see it through,” Shah said. 

The Bottom Line:

Shah’s prior concerns are not rare among parents with disabilities, many of whom concede increased scrutiny and a lack of understanding from the people around them. 

Life-affirming support can motivate women to welcome pregnancy and parenting. Instead of exacerbating her fears, Shah’s experience shows that with the right assistance and encouragement, disability does not prevent someone from being a responsible and capable parent.

Key Takeaways:

• Amid a lawsuit to block Idaho's law prohibiting the trafficking of minors for abortions, pro-abortion groups attempted to subpoena Right to Life Idaho for communications records.

• The federal court ruled that the pro-abortion groups must find another path to gather the information they are seeking — one that doesn't violate RTLI's freedom of speech.

The Backstory:

In 2023, pro-abortion groups that work to help minors obtain abortions, including the Northwest Abortion Access Fund and the Indigenous Idaho Alliance, filed a lawsuit to block Idaho's law banning adults from taking minors across state lines for abortions. The pro-abortion groups claimed that the law violates their First Amendment rights to speak and provide legal assistance to minors, as well as the right to travel.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the state can prohibit adults from transporting minors for an abortion without parental consent, but said the provision of the bill regarding "recruitment" of minors to have an abortion likely violates free speech.

Following this ruling, the abortion groups were still able to give information, support, and financial resources to minors seeking abortions. In September 2025, however, the pro-abortion groups subpoenaed Right to Life Idaho (RTLI), which was not a party to the case, in order to gain access to its records, including any communications the pro-life organization might have had with legislators regarding the abortion trafficking law.

RTLI filed a motion to have that subpoena quashed.

The Details:

On Tuesday, the federal district court ruled in favor of the pro-life organization.

According to National Right to Life, the court found that the "First Amendment shields political advocacy organizations like RTLI from being forced to release their communications to legislators when doing so could chill the organization's speech."

RTLI successfully argued that it relies on the ability to communicate freely with legislators and that requiring it to release its communications whenever related litigation is filed would prohibit it from effectively engaging in such communications. It would act to dissuade legislators from communicating with RTLI.

The court wrote:

Given the significance of the First Amendment rights, the Court finds, on balance, that Plaintiffs’ interests in obtaining the information through discovery before pursuing other less intrusive means, such as a public records request, are now outweighed by the First Amendment rights asserted. Plaintiffs’ reasons for not first attempting to obtain the information through other less intrusive means – inefficiency, cost, scope, and timing – do not justify infringement on the First Amendment rights asserted at this time. (Dkt. 87, 108, 130).

For this reason, the Court will grant the Second Motion to Quash without prejudice. The Court may entertain a motion to compel or other appropriate motion if Plaintiffs are unable to obtain the requested information using other means. Accordingly, the Court will extend the deadline for completion of discovery relevant to this information to June 1, 2026.

The Bottom Line:

The subpoena will not be enforced, and the pro-abortion groups must gather the information they are looking for in a manner that does not violate RTLI's free speech rights.

Key Takeaways:

• Pro-life activist Mark Houck has settled a lawsuit with the DOJ, receiving over one million dollars.

• In 2021, Houck was praying outside an abortion facility in Philadelphia when he had an altercation with an abortion facility escort who was harassing Houck's 12-year-old son. Local police and authorities declined to charge Houck with any crime.

• Houck was later arrested by the Biden DOJ when FBI agents raided his home in 2022 at gunpoint, with Houck's wife and children present.

• Houck was eventually acquitted of all charges, and filed a lawsuit against the DOJ.

The Backstory:

In 2021, Mark Houck was praying on the sidewalk in front of an abortion facility in Philadelphia with his 12-year-old son. An abortion facility escort reportedly began harassing Houck’s son and making crude remarks to the boy, causing Houck to instruct the escort to leave the boy alone. When the escort continued to approach the young boy, Houck pushed the man away.

Local police arrived at the scene and decided not to arrest anyone. However, the case was later taken up by the Biden administration's DOJ. Shockingly, on an early September morning in 2022, Houck’s home was raided by 15-20 armed FBI agents, arresting him in front of his wife and children.

The DOJ charged Houck with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act for assaulting an abortion facility escort, and he faced up to 11 years in prison. He was eventually acquitted of all charges, but the entire ordeal was traumatizing for his family.

“All of the children were screaming,” Ryan-Marie, Houck’s wife, said in an interview with Live Action founder and president Lila Rose. “My son was saying, ‘You can’t take him. He’s my best friend.’ My daughter Therese was really a mess after she saw the people in the back of the house… It was seven kids running around screaming and crying and grabbing onto my legs.”

In 2024, 40 Days for Life's Institute of Law & Justice filed a lawsuit on behalf of Houck, alleging that the FBI used excessive force during the arrest, violated Houck's civil rights and harming him and his family.

Houck has previously spoken about the impact his dramatic arrest had on his family.

“My children’s innocence was taken in an instant,” he said. “You cannot put a price on that innocence. The stuff that my wife and I have invested in our children for the last 15 years – in their protection, in their safety, in their innocence by homeschooling them, by protecting them, by teaching them – all of that was taken away in an instant. We don’t know the long-term effects of this. What’s the two-year-old going to say in five years? What’s the four-year-old going to say in ten years? How are they gonna feel around law enforcement?”

After a judge dismissed Houck's lawsuit in March 2025, Houck's legal team took the case to the Third District Court of Appeals.

The Details:

On April 9, Shawn Carney, President of 40 Days for Life, announced that Houck and his family had reached a settlement, which he called a “huge legal victory for free speech.”

"Today we have a huge announcement at 40 Days for Life and a huge legal victory for free speech, not just for pro-life Americans, but for all Americans," Carney said. "And that is the victory of our lawsuit representing Mark Houck and his family against the DOJ."

Carney said that Houck and his family received over one million dollars in the settlement.

The Bottom Line:

Carney summed up the tremendous impact the settlement has on the pro-life movement as a whole.

"Mark has made it clear that this is a bigger victory for the pro-life movement at large, that you don't have to be afraid to go out on the sidewalks," he said. "Be not afraid. Go out peacefully to pray to end abortion."

Key Takeaways:

• A bill in Alaska would allow parents to surrender newborns up to 21 days old to a baby box installed at a facility such as a fire station or hospital without prosecution.

• Two state senators voted against the bill, with one claiming that it could be misused and would allow teens to hide their pregnancies from their parents.

• Senator Löki Tobin's arguments were an attempt to turn pro-life arguments against pro-lifers.

The Details:

As of 2008, Alaska law allows a parent to surrender an infant under 21 days old to a doctor, nurse, firefighter, or peace officer anonymously without fear of prosecution. The new bill would allow a parent to surrender an infant into a baby box, installed at facilities like fire departments and hospitals, without being prosecuted. The goal is to prevent unsafe infant abandonment.

Since 2013, three babies have been known to have been abandoned in the state. Two were found dead and one was found alive despite below-zero temperatures.

"No child should die because a parent is afraid," bill sponsor Robb Myers said, according to the Alaska Watchman.

Twenty-two other states have implemented baby boxes with success — the Safe Haven Baby Boxes organization has seen over 150 babies safely surrendered, received 9,000 calls to its hotline, and referred over 500 women to pregnancy help centers.

Zoom In:

Alaska State Senator Löki Tobin, however, does not support the initiative.

"The potential misuses for these devices far outweigh the benefits," she said. She claimed that there are no waiting periods, no informed consent, and no permission from the baby's father necessary to surrender a baby.

These are common pro-life arguments against abortion, and Tobin is attempting to use them as a "gotcha moment." However, baby boxes have the intent to save lives and help women, not to end lives. While not the ideal situation, the boxes are meant to prevent desperate acts that cost innocent children's lives.

The National Safe Haven Alliance also states:

If a situation does occur that a parent wishes to reclaim the baby the parent would contact the designated state family services agency to initiate this process and consider obtaining legal assistance to regain custody of the child.

For a father that believes his newborn may be relinquished using Safe Haven law, contact state putative fathers registry to register for notification and instructions.

Tobin also argued that teens might use the baby boxes in an effort to "hide or conceal their pregnancy from their parents." She added, "Their parents' right will be denied."

But such surrenders would indicate that the baby boxes are working. In some cases, they may be working by helping teens to avoid an illegally coerced abortion at the hands of their parents, or help them to surrender their baby safely rather than cause harm due to stress or embarrassment, as has been seen so many times.

The Alaska Watchman points out:

Alaska law allows minors to undergo abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent. In fact, girls can be taken to an abortion facility by those who do not have their best interests in mind and who want the preborn baby killed.

While Tobin opposed the bill aimed at saving infants, she has yet to express any misgivings about the potential abuse or coercion of women who are pressured into aborting their babies against their will.

Her focus on abortion has instead emphasized so-called “privacy rights,” unfettered access, and opposition to any perceived barriers.

Currently, Alaska does not have a parental notification law for abortions on minors, and abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy. Therefore, Tobin's objections about "parents' rights" when it comes to baby boxes in the state seems to be little more than political theater.

The Bottom Line:

Living babies, safely surrendered to authorities without the prosecution of parents, will always be better than babies violently killed by abortion, and women suffering with the knowledge that they ended their children's lives.

The bill now moves to the state House.

Key Takeaways:

• Multiple women have sued Arkansas, claiming they were denied "medically necessary" abortions.

• The lawsuit claims Arkansas' pro-life law is "destroying not only the healthcare infrastructure of the state, but countless lives and families."

• Two more women have now joined the lawsuit, bringing the total to six, with both also claiming they were unable to undergo abortions in the state.

The Details:

Kishaya Holloway and Leitaea Lowrimore have both joined the lawsuit against Arkansas, bringing the total number of plaintiffs to seven: six women, and one doctor, Chad B. Taylor, M.D., who joined the suit "on behalf of himself and his patients."

All of the women claim they needed to have their preborn children intentionally killed by induced abortion, and were denied from doing so.

According to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Holloway did not have a medical need for an abortion. Rather, she simply did not want to have children, and while she was able to undergo an abortion in Kansas, she complained in the lawsuit of the time and money it cost her.

“I felt like I had to go through all these loops and jump through all these hoops in order to live a life that I want for myself,” Holloway told the Arkansas Advocate, adding that she was "proud" of her decision to have an abortion.

Lowrimore, however, appears to have been a victim of medical malpractice.

After having symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy, she was stunned when an emergency room doctor tried to discharge her. When she and her husband refused to leave, he agreed to admit her, and agreed that she probably was experiencing an ectopic pregnancy. However, if she was, he said he would not treat her, scared he would be sent to prison. Given that an untreated ectopic pregnancy is life-threatening, this is negligence — and Arkansas law allows doctors to do what they need to do to save a mother's life.

Lowrimore, her husband, their daughter, and her mother-in-law decided to drive the three hours to Wichita, Kansas, where she received two shots of methotrexate, a drug commonly used to treat ectopic pregnancy. During the car ride, she said her legs began to go numb, and she was afraid that she would die.

“I always assumed that if I was ever in a medical emergency, that I’d get the help I deserved, but that wasn’t the case,” Lowrimore said in a press release. “Our bodies are ours. If I want to get an abortion or need medical help, I should be able to do that — the government shouldn’t be able to tell me otherwise.”

Zoom In:

In many cases where women claim to have been denied so-called "medically necessary" abortions, the women were victims of medical neglect or malpractice; not denial of abortion.

Induced abortion, the intentional and targeted killing of a preborn child, is never the medical standard of care, and it is not the same thing as providing treatment with the intention to save a woman's life, even if that treatment may result in the death of the child. The intent is what separates the two.

It is true that some doctors blame their own neglect on pro-life laws. As Live Action News previously reported, in Arkansas, 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.

The law also notes:

It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section if a licensed physician provides medical treatment to a pregnant woman which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child.

Therefore, blame should be laid on physicians who are not acting properly, nor ensuring they are aware of what the law actually allows them to do. In some cases, it is true that legislative clarification is needed to ensure there is less confusion; however, that does not mean the laws should be overturned altogether, and abortion legalized.

The Bottom Line:

It is never medically necessary to intentionally kill a human being to save another.

Key Takeaways:

• Katie Brown thought she was having menstrual cramps, but the pain was so bad she decided to go to the hospital.

• On This Morning, she recounted the experience, describing how her mother arrived to help her, suspecting it was appendicitis.

• When an ambulance finally arrived, Brown was walking to the ambulance when she was forced to drop to the ground, and her son was born, with her mother catching the baby.

• Though cryptic pregnancies like this one are rare, there have been several cases just within the past year.

The Details:

Katie Brown, a professional dancer in the United Kingdom, was startled awake one night by what she initially believed were strong menstrual cramps. When the pain didn't subside, she called for emergency assistance. 

“I woke up, and I thought, I'm having period pains. So, I went and got some paracetamol, and then I couldn't sit down. I was like, 'Oh my gosh, these are really bad. Oh my goodness,'” Brown recounted during her recent appearance on This Morning, according to PEOPLE. “So, then it got to about 7 a.m., and I thought, 'Oh, I can't do this anymore.’” 

Brown recalled asking her daughter to get her mother, Diane, as the pain grew so intense that she felt she needed to head to the hospital. When Diane arrived, she suspected it might be appendicitis, later conceding that neither of them thought of the notion that Brown could actually be in labor.

“We rang the ambulance, and then they said, ‘Oh, we can't come for 4 hours.’ But I think they could hear me kind of being like, ‘I need to get somewhere. I need to do something,’” Brown said.

“I genuinely thought I was just having a massive poo,” she said.

What Happened:

Nonetheless, as Brown advanced toward the waiting ambulance, she suddenly felt something fall from her clothing, only to realize in amazement that she had just delivered her second child, a baby boy later named William.

“They turned up [around 9 a.m.], walked me out onto my street, and then I had to drop to my hands and knees, and he was born at 20 [minutes] to 10 a.m,” Brown said. “I was facing a lamp post, and when my mom caught him, we just heard him. He just cried straight away. And I just remember facing this lamp post thinking, 'Oh my goodness.’” 

“I could see something coming out, the shape. So I went down on my knees behind her and [caught him],” Diane said.

When Brown told her partner Conner about the news, she said he was surprised, but helped both her and her mother to remain calm .

“He was saying, ’You're doing really well, Diane. You're doing so well.’ And I'm thinking, ‘I'm not the one having the baby. I'm [laughter] just holding it. I'm just holding it,’” Diane said, before Brown added, "But no, he was great. He's been so supportive."

As she was taken to the hospital in a different ambulance from her newborn, Brown did not immediately learn whether she had delivered a boy or a girl.

Her mother Diane recalled that they were already en route to the hospital when they discovered the baby was a boy — making the moment particularly special, as boys are rare in their family. Brown chose to name her son after her father.

The Context:

Cases like Brown’s, occasionally alluded to as “cryptic pregnancies,” happen when a woman remains ignorant of her pregnancy until very late stages, or even until labor begins. Though generally rare, such situations are medically documented and can happen for a variety of reasons, such as irregular cycles, lack of noticeable physical changes, or misinterpretation of symptoms.

Live Action News has reported on a number of cryptic pregnancies.

At Christmastime last year, Melanie Smith unexpectedly delivered a baby boy after being told she would likely never have children.

In February this year, Fed Ex employee Amethyst Blumberg gave birth to a baby boy in the employee bathroom at the end of her shift, never knowing she was pregnant.

UK mom Helen Green had a surprise birth of a baby girl while she and her family were on vacation in Canada last year.

Another woman experiencing a cryptic pregnancy gave birth at Burning Man, with other attendees jumping into action to help, and an Indianapolis woman was shocked to give birth to a baby in her shower last year.

The Bottom Line:

Stories like this serve as a powerful reminder of the inherent dignity and unpredictability of human life. Even in situations where a pregnancy goes entirely unnoticed, a fully formed child is growing and developing in his or her mother’s womb, and sometimes entering the world in the most unexpected ways.

Every life, planned or unplanned, contains intrinsic value. In this case, a child who might never have been expected or “planned for” was born into a world where immediate care and concern were readily offered. 

Today, that evidence was presented by the Trump Administration in a report nearly 900 pages in length.

Key Takeaways:

• Under the Biden administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) frequently targeted the pro-life movement under the federal FACE Act, despite most threats and violence coming from pro-abortion activists.

• The media, however, has portrayed pro-life activists dishonestly and maintained that the Trump administration had no proof that the Biden DOJ intentionally targeted pro-life Americans.

• On April 14, the Trump administration released a detailed report, nearly 900 pages long, detailing the numerous ways in which the Biden DOJ targeted pro-life Americans.

• Several Biden DOJ attorneys — including prosecuting attorney Sanjay Patel, who filed "conspiracy against rights" felony charges against pro-lifers in addition to FACE Act charges in an attempt to penalize them with longer prison sentences — have been fired.

• The Biden DOJ used aggressive tactics against pro-lifers, and some Biden administration officials already had a history of lawfare against pro-lifers.

The Details:

The Trump administration has released a detailed report — with over 800 pages of exhibits — examining the Biden-Harris administration's weaponization of the DOJ against the pro-life movement. That report lists five key findings:

• "The Biden DOJ violated the rights of Americans by its biased enforcement of the FACE Act."

• "The Biden DOJ collaborated with pro-abortion groups to track pro-life activists’ First Amendment activity."

• "Biden DOJ prosecutors engaged in inappropriate conduct and comments."

• "The Biden DOJ pursued more severe charges and significantly harsher sentences for peaceful pro-life defendants than violent pro-abortion defendants."

• "The Biden DOJ sought to provide funding to pro-abortion groups."

In 2022, Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that prompted a wave of prosecutions against individuals who had previously been involved in pro-life activism — the majority of whom were peaceful and non-violent. Many of these activists were later pardoned by President Trump.

A press release from the Department of Justice's Office of Public Affairs regarding the working group report states:

Based on a review of over 700,000 internal records, the report not only details specific ways the Biden Justice Department weaponized federal law, but also outlines the corrective action taken by the current Justice Department to make right the wrongs of the prior administration.

The press release provides more context for the ways in which the "Biden DOJ weaponized the FACE Act," confirming that the Biden DOJ...

• "Closely collaborated with pro-abortion groups" — namely, the "National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, and Feminist Majority Foundation" — "to track pro-life activists’ First Amendment activity," and "gained internal information" about them. That information was used to "compil[e] evidence and dossiers that ultimately gave rise to search warrants and charges."

• "Monitored pro-life activists for years before charging them."

• "[K]nowingly withheld evidence that defense counsel requested to prepare an affirmative defense."

• "[T]ried to screen out jurors based on religion."

• "[A]uthorized aggressive arrest tactics instead of allowing pro-life defendants to self-surrender."

• "[P]ursued significantly harsher sentences for pro-life defendants than violent pro-abortion defendants," seeking an "average sentence of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants, compared to 12.3 months for pro-abortion defendants."

• "[P]rovided extensive support to abortion clinics, while ignoring and downplaying vandalism and attacks against pregnancy resource centers."

In addition, the press release says:

The Biden DOJ helped a pro-abortion group secure funding. The lead prosecutor on each FACE Act prosecution served as a reference on the National Abortion Federation’s application for a private grant. We found no record of ethics approval for the attorney to take an interest in the financial outcome of a party having business before the Biden DOJ.

Corrective actions taken by the Trump administration include:

• The issuance of pardons to several pro-life activists.

• The dismissal of "three civl lawsuits against pro-life activists."

• The issuance of a directive emphasizing that prosecuting individuals under the FACE Act must only be done "in extraordinary circumstances or in cases presenting significant aggravating factors."

Assistant Attorney General Daniel Burrows called the findings "shameful," adding that the Biden DOJ's attorneys "withheld evidence, worked to keep committed religious people off juries, and generally allowed the Department of Justice to be used as the enforcement arm of pro-abortion special interests.”

The 'Zeal' of Sanjay Patel:

As CBS News reported on April 13, "The Justice Department has fired at least four prosecutors who were involved in prosecutions under the FACE Act during the Biden administration," and among them is federal prosecutor Sanjay Patel, "who was placed on administrative leave last month" when the Trump administration's report was nearing completion.

Stacey Young, "a former Civil Rights Division lawyer who founded and leads the nonprofit Justice Connection," told CBS that the firing of DOJ attorneys "for zealously enforcing the law" is "unconscionable" and "politicizes the department's enforcement actions and punishes dedicated civil servants for doing their jobs."

Yet it appears that Patel, in particular, went well beyond "zeal" in his prosecutorial duties.

In 2022, Patel wrote an article published in the DOJ’s Journal of Law and Practice, titled “FACE Off with Anti-Abortion Extremism—Criminal Enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 248 (FACE Act).” In it, he specifically argued that the penalties for FACE Act violations were not severe enough, and suggested linking 'conspiracy against rights' over mere criminal conspiracy charges as a way to increase potential jail time. Patel wrote:

First, unlike a section 371 conspiracy, a section 241 conspiracy conviction is always a felony, even when the underlying substantive violation would be a misdemeanor. Second, section 241 violations are punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment; or up to life or the death penalty, if certain aggravators apply. And third, under section 241, the government is not required to prove an overt act or substantial step in furtherance of the agreement [emphases added].

And Patel did just that — he charged pro-lifers with conspiracy against rights, which asserts that two or more people were “conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

That law was enacted in 1870 as a protection for Black voters against Ku Klux Klan intimidation and violence. It had never before been used in conjunction with the FACE Act, until Patel linked the two. It was a novel strategy, and one imagined by Patel himself, who appears to have been a biased party on the issue of abortion; he previously “served as the Director of the Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers.” 

Anti-conservative bias may have been present in the selection of jury members, as well, as a suspicious DOJ jury questionnaire in the report shows prospective members may have been asked to mark if they read certain news sources — including LiveAction.org. It was noted that the list was very "one-sided on conservative news sources."

Squelching Dissent:

In May of 2021, the Supreme Court announced it would take on the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which had the potential to overturn Roe. Oral arguments were heard in December, and in May, a draft opinion was leaked, revealing the Supreme Court was poised to overturn Roe. Even before the ruling was made official in June of 2022, the Biden DOJ began arrests and prosecution against pro-life activists.

After the official ruling, violence against pro-lifers exploded with even the FBI acknowledging that the majority of violence and threats post-Dobbs came from pro-abortion activists — and ultimately, the Biden administration was forced to admit that there was an intentional increase in FACE Act arrests.

As Live Action News previously reported (emphases added):

From March 2022 through August 2024, at least 49 FACE Act violation charges were brought against more than 30 pro-lifers carrying out common protest efforts. Meanwhile, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified that 70% of the abortion-related attacks since the draft opinion was leaked were carried out by abortion supporters against pro-lifers.

The DOJ even admitted to targeting pro-life activists through the FACE Act in response to the overturning of Roe. As reported by The Daily Signal, Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said in December of 2022 that Dobbs increased “the urgency” of the DOJ’s efforts to ‘enforce’ “the FACE Act, to ensure continued lawful access to reproductive services.”

All but two of the arrested pro-lifers... [were] found guilty of violating the FACE Act, Conspiracy Against Rights, or both... with the longest sentence set at just under five years.

... [O]nly seven pro-abortion activists have faced charges for attacks against pro-life organizations since the wave of attacks began in May of 2022 — less than a quarter of the number of pro-lifers charged (despite the FBI director’s testimony of majority pro-abortion violence). Most pro-abortion perpetrators of threats and vandalism were sentenced to no more than one year and one day in prison.

Pro-lifers were aggressively arrested in FBI raids at their homes as if they were dangerous criminals.

Lawfare and Common Threads:

Raids

Mark Houck

In late 2022 under the Biden administration, 15-20 FBI agents were sent to pro-lifer Mark Houck's home early in the morning, guns drawn, traumatizing Houck's young children, and arresting Houck on FACE Act charges. Biden AG Merrick Garland attempted to blame local FBI for the way the raid was handled.

Houck was a sidewalk counselor at an abortion business, and a year prior, defended his 12-year-old son from an abortion business escort who repeatedly verbally accosted him and refused to leave the child alone.

Houck pushed the escort away from the child. Houck was acquitted of all charges against him in 2023, but the damage done to Houck and his family by the Biden DOJ's intimidation tactics cannot be erased.

Chet Gallagher

Pro-life activist Chet Gallagher was out of town when, according to neighbors, FBI agents arrived at his home in October 2022, guns drawn, and entered. As Live Action News reported at the time, "When agents learned Gallagher was not at home, they reportedly attempted to gain information on his whereabouts from neighbors."

Gallagher had led a "rescue" in which he and other pro-lifers prayed and sang in a hallway outside the offices of an abortion business in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, in March 2021.

Paul Vaughn

Pro-life activist Paul Vaughn was also involved in the peaceful "rescue" in Mt. Juliet, and the FBI showed up to his home in October 2022, guns drawn, traumatizing his family. As Live Action News reported:

“Vaughn was handcuffed on the porch in front of his kids after FBI agents raided the Vaughn family property while carrying assault rifles and side arms,” Cathell reported for Townhall. “Three of Vaughn’s children were outside walking through the backyard when an FBI agent armed with an AR-15 confronted the kids and questioned them. Several kids were asleep upstairs, and one child ran to her mother frantically crying, ‘The FBI is here, and they are arresting Daddy.’ Vaughn’s wife remarked, ‘They traumatized me and my children intentionally. We will never forget this.'”

Vaughn’s wife told Townhall they did not provide a warrant for his arrest, nor did they tell her where they were taking her husband.

Such raids and lawfare against pro-lifers are not new.

David Daleiden

As Live Action News recently reported, former Vice President under the Biden administration, Kamala Harris, was Attorney General of California in 2016 when she instituted a raid on pro-life undercover investigator David Daleiden's apartment (Center for Medical Progress), seizing video footage he obtained regarding the suspected sale of human body parts at Planned Parenthood.

Live Action News noted in a separate report that "E-mail exchanges... show Harris and Planned Parenthood working together to get a search warrant to obtain [the Center for Medical Progress]’s full, unedited videos. She further worked with Planned Parenthood to craft a bill which would make recording undercover conversations with 'health care providers' a crime, with the parties passing copies of the bill back and forth before submitting it."

Shortly thereafter, she ordered the raid on Daleiden's apartment where agents seized "laptops and hard drives containing undercover footage." Harris colluded with Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation, and refused to investigate the organizations themselves.

Common Threads

• After Harris left her job as California AG, Xavier Becerra assumed the position, continuing the prosecution of David Daleiden and his associates, refiling new charges even after multiple charges had already been dropped.

• Years later, Harris served as the Vice President of the United States under President Joe Biden, and Xavier Becerra was appointed as Health and Human Services Secretary in the Biden-Harris administration.

• As Live Action News noted last summer, "After the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022, the Biden administration pledged to do all it could to promote and protect access to abortion. This included the issuance of an executive order commanding Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra “to consider action to advance access to reproductive healthcare services.”

He did so by "allowing pro-abortion states to use Medicaid coverage for out-of-state residents, thereby using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion travel."

When it comes to prosecuting pro-lifers, the game — and several of the players — appear to be the same.

From early 2022 onward, the Biden administration used multiple tactics to expand abortion and shut down pro-life dissent.

The FACE Act:

MS Now recently claimed that the "main intent" of the FACE Act when it was passed was to prosecute "anti-abortion-rights protesters" (emphases added), but then admitted that the law includes "anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers" and "places of religious worship":

Last year, Trump’s DOJ announced that it would largely forego prosecuting anti-abortion-rights protesters under the FACE Act — the main intent of the law when it was passed 30 years ago.

... The law, signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1994, prohibits the use of force, physical obstruction, intimidation or interference with people trying to access reproductive health clinics, including both abortion clinics and anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. Another statute of the law... prohibits the same actions at places of religious worship.

It was passed on the heels of mounting violence facing abortion providers — including the murders of physicians — in the late 1980s and early ’90s. That rise in violence was tied to Operation Rescue, a Christian organization that organized mass clinic blockades and protests across the country, which also attracted the participation of some of the people who eventually murdered abortion providers.

The text of the law reads (emphasis added):

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit: (1) intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services; (2) intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or (3) intentionally damaging or destroying the property of a facility, or attempting to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damaging or destroying the property of a place of religious worship.

And yet, the Trump administration report shows the stark sentencing disparities under the FACE Act between pro-life and pro-abortion individuals. Pro-life individuals were sentenced to an average of nearly 15 months in prison, while pro-abortion individuals were sentenced to a third of this — approximately three months:

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Erin Hawley noted in 2024:

“The text of the FACE Act is clear. Its protections apply to, quote, reproductive health services, which is broadly defined to include not only abortion facilities, but also pregnancy centers. The FACE Act also protects churches and other houses of worship from violence, vandalism, and intimidation."

Yet, she noted that "the Family Research Council has identified 436 instances of threats or violence in 2023 alone" yet the Biden DOJ "failed to initiate a single FACE Act prosecution to protect a house of worship.”

Even so, some have been calling for an end to the FACE Act for years — like Rep. Chip Roy.

The Bottom Line:

There is now exhaustive evidence that the Biden DOJ persecuted the pro-life movement after the fall of Roe, even as the movement was consistently facing violence, threats, and harassment.

Live Action founder and president Lila Rose stated in a press release:

"A Justice Department that works hand in hand with the abortion industry while treating peaceful pro-life advocacy as a threat has abandoned its duty to protect the rights of all Americans equally. 

The pro-life movement was right to sound the alarm. Now the Department’s own report confirms that these Americans were denied equal justice, targeted for their beliefs, and subjected to a serious abuse of federal power. Every official involved in this weaponization should be fully investigated and held accountable.”

This politicized persecution should be prevented from ever happening again.

The research letter, "Accuracy of Self-Selection for Medication Abortion Using a Prototype Drug Facts Label," is receiving a great deal of abortion-friendly media attention for such a small sample size — 168 — who "completed study activities."

Key Takeaways:

• The much-touted JAMA "research letter/study" from 13 authors entrenched in the abortion industry had an extremely small sample size, yet is being used as a way to claim that women could safely use an over-the-counter abortion pill regimen.

• The research letter/study was funded by the pro-abortion Society of Family Planning as well as the Packard Foundation, one of the abortion pill's original financial investors.

• All of the research letter's authors work are associated with pro-abortion groups.

• In reality, despite the small sample size, about 9% of the participants incorrectly assumed — after reading the qualifying parameters for the abortion pill — that they were qualified to take it.

• An over-the-counter abortion pill regimen would expect women to determine gestational age and diagnoses their own ectopic pregnancy accurately.

• ER doctors have noted that women are presenting to emergency departments with ectopic pregnancies after taking the drug because there is currently a "no-test" protocol on the regimen and women can obtain it through the mail thanks to the FDA's relatively recent erosion of safety protocols.

The Details:

Small sample size and 'relatively little of substance'

"For all the authors listed here (thirteen in total, many of the abortion industry’s most well known and celebrated researchers and advocates) and all the data tables and numbers, there is actually relatively little of substance in the report," claimed National Right to Life Director of Education and Research Randall K. O’Bannon.

Unlike the previous survey of 6,950 women, this study chose to use percentages — possibly in an attempt to mask the extremely small study size. Authors claimed 93% (equating to 147 women out of 158) expressed interest in OTC abortion pill use.

Just 144 of the 168 "really met the criteria," O'Bannon explained, adding (emphasis added):

Fourteen women read the materials and thought they qualified but objectively didn’t. Their pregnancy was too advanced, had some condition that made them ineligible, or failed to note some medication they were taking that would compromise the abortion pill’s effectiveness.

Even among these patients who had probably already researched their options before visiting the clinic, nearly 9% made an erroneous assessment of their eligibility for abortion pills after reading the package insert.

This 9% error rate is huge, given the increased failure and complication rates that come with later gestations and the enormous risk posed by the rupture of undetected ectopic pregnancies (whose cramping and bleeding mimic chemical abortion’s process).

O'Bannon added:

There were no details on how a woman is to assess her gestational age beyond counting the weeks since a woman’s last menstrual period and no special advice on how to determine if she currently has an ectopic pregnancy, which the pills do not treat.

The popular "no-test" protocol for the abortion pill is what is described here, failing to assess gestational age or ectopic pregnancy before dispensing the drug regimen. As O'Bannon noted, this is very risky for women. He added:

Not a whole lot else was examined in this particular study. We do not know how many of these women actually went on to receive abortion pills or how they fared if they did; whether their abortions were “successful”; or whether they suffered serious complications. Perhaps this information will be released in a follow up study.

Diagnosing Complications

The authors claimed, "We examined abortion patients’ accuracy of self-selection to use MA [medication abortion/the abortion pill] using only a prototype OTC package and drug facts label (DFL)."

According to the research letter, some of the women who "self-selected their eligibility for [medication abortion] MA after a brief, in-person interaction with a prototype OTC package and DFL "were deemed ineligible" because of "gestational duration of more than 70 days" with "other medical contraindications" including "possible ectopic pregnancy."

💊 In a real-world situation obtaining the abortion pill OTC...

• How would a woman accurately determine "gestational duration" (unless she has a very regular cycle which she diligently tracks)?

• How would she diagnose a "possible ectopic pregnancy" (when its symptoms mimic those of the abortion pill itself)?

More problems

Grossman told KUOW:

If they were interested and eligible to participate in the study, they looked at a box that is kind of like a prototype packaging for what an over-the-counter medication abortion package might look like.

• The document links to mimi-pills.com ("MiMi" for the two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol) and not FDA safety data or the drug's label, which contains a black box warning for sepsis, among other dangers.

• It claimed "3 in 100 users... will need an in-clinic procedure..." contradicting the manufacturer's website:

About 2 to 7 out of 100 women taking Mifeprex will need a surgical procedure because the pregnancy did not completely pass from the uterus or to stop bleeding.

• The prototype packaging also failed to advise participants that the FDA's REMS safety system requires prescribers of the drug (not end users) to handle complications or failures or refer to someone who can.

• Instead, study participants were advised to diagnose their own complications and contact a healthcare provider if needed.

The MiMipills.com pamphlet says nothing about the embryo or fetus, merely referring to "the pregnancy," a deceptive marketing tactic used by the abortion industry.

It advises women to "monitor their symptoms," fails to emphasize risks of sepsis or hemorrhage (claiming only that bleeding and fever are "rare"), claims any age can use these pills, and suggests that RH factor testing and ultrasounds (to determine gestational age even possible ectopics) are generally unnecessary.

While the women were warned not to take abortion pills if they "have ever had" or "currently have" an ectopic pregnancy, they failed to explain how women would diagnose their own current ectopic pregnancies.

ER doctors have warned that women are presenting to emergency departments with ectopic pregnancies after taking the drug.

The pro-abortion authors concluded:

These findings broaden a small body of research demonstrating that people seeking clinician-supported abortion are largely accurate in self-reporting their MA eligibility, including their gestational duration.

"Due to the nature of the ethical approval obtained for this study, data will not be made public," the study's supplemental document claimed.

Behind the Curtain:

The money behind the study

The "study" was funded by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund.

The Society of Family Planning (SFP) was founded with a “generous contribution” from the Packard Foundation and receives millions from the Buffett Foundation. Both Foundations are financial investors in the abortion pill.

Funding for the study was also "supported" by the pro-abortion David and Lucile Packard Foundation, with zero conflicts of interest noted, despite the Packard Foundation's $14.2 million investment in Danco (the abortion pill's manufacturer) early on.

Researchers and groups behind the study

Ibis Reproductive Health (IBIS)

• Ibis was founded by Charlotte Ellertson, who spent years at the Population Council, which brought the abortion pill into the U.S. and set up the manufacturer, Danco Laboratories. Ibis was for years funded directly by Danco. After Live Action News exposed this financial conflict of interest, the funding connections were suddenly scrubbed from Ibis’s website. 

• Ibis is currently funded by the aforementioned abortion pill investor, the Packard Foundation.

• Study author Kelly Blanchard is current president of IBIS.

Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH)

• ANSIRH, led by Daniel Grossman, is a pro-abortion research organization out of UCSF, and is also funded by Packard.

• ANSIRH publishes the TEACH Early Abortion Training Curriculum, which promotes prescribing the abortion pill past the FDA-approved gestational limit.

Study authors Daniel Grossman, Lauren J. Ralph, C. Finley Baba, Katherine Ehrenreich, Natalie Morris, and M. Antonia Biggs are associated with ANSIRH.

Daniel Grossman is the director of UCSF’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH). Grossman's conflict disclosure in the study only stated that he "receiv[ed] personal fees from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for serving as an expert witness in cases challenging abortion restrictions." And yet:

• Grossman is a Clinical Professor at the Warren Buffett funded University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco (UCSF).

• He is a vocal proponent of expanding abortion and an abortionist with multiple conflicts of interest surrounding abortion pill studies.

• He served as VP of Research for Ibis and previously served as a senior advisor while Ibis was funded by Danco.

• Grossman has served as a consultant to Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights, and on the boards of NAF and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

• In 2019, Live Action News exposed Grossman’s ties to NARAL, and shortly thereafter, he announced his retirement from the group’s board.

• Grossman previously served on the board of the Whole Woman’s Health Alliance abortion chain.

We Testify

• Pro-abortion group that promotes abortion "storytellers" in an attempt to "break down stigma, and create a more compassionate culture."

• Claims to "support everyone’s decision to have an abortion at any time and for any reason."

• States that "abortion access is our legacy" to carry forward for "generations to come."

• Study author Emma Hernández is the Senior Communications Manager for We Testify.

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)

• Study author Nathalie Kapp, MD, is chief medical officer at IPPF.

Red River Women’s Clinic

• An abortion facility in Moorhead, Minnesota

• Study author Tammi Kromenaker is the clinic director.

Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH)

•  Study author Jamila Perritt, MD, is president of PRH and an abortionist.

University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle

•  Study author Elizabeth Raymond, MD, is in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, is a past recipient of an award from the Guttmacher Institute for her work as a reproductive health "scholar-activist," and worked for the pro-abortion research group Gynuity.

Resound Research for Reproductive Health, Austin, Texas

•  Study author Kari White disclosed a conflict that she has received grants from the Society of Family Planning.

The Backstory:

The abortion pill mifepristone (200mg) was approved by the FDA in 2000 and was placed under a safety system (REMS) in 2011 after serious adverse events were reported. These safeguards have been eroded multiple times in recent years to expand the gestational limits of the drug, remove in-person dispensing, and allow for mail-order and pharmacy dispensing. These efforts were initiated and funded by the abortion industry.

As far back as 2022, Renee Bracey Sherman, founder and former executive director of the abortion group We Testify and a former NARAL board member, co-authored an op-ed with abortionist Daniel Grossman, calling for the abortion pill to be sold over-the-counter.

In 2019, Grossman and abortion industry insiders M. Antonia Biggs, Lauren Ralph, Sarah Raifman, and Diana G. Foster co-authored the result of a survey they conducted on women’s attitudes about advance provision of abortion pills (obtaining the pills to "have on hand" before a confirmed pregnancy) as well as OTC abortion pills. As Live Action News previously documented, out of 6,950 surveyed, only 9% of the women answered “definitely yes” and 14% answered “probably yes” to wanting OTC access.

Those promoting OTC dispensing of the abortion pill are following the roadmap followed in making the emergency contraceptive Plan B OTC, as explained by abortionist Daniel Grossman:

Before emergency contraception (aka the morning-after pill) became available over the counter, clinicians often gave it to patients in advance [advance provision] to have on hand when they needed it. Given the restrictions on abortion, we should think about this strategy for abortion pills.

Neither the mechanisms of action nor the drugs in Plan B and the abortion pill are the same.

READ: Clearing misconceptions: Three differences between the abortion pill and ‘Plan B’

The Bottom Line:

According to NRL's O'Bannon, the study "still shows that written instructions alone — at least as prepared by the industry’s top experts — are an inadequate tool for patients making eligibility determinations." In other words, over-the-counter abortion pills are an unsafe idea for women as well as preborn children.

Key Takeaways:

• The second annual Live Action Women's Summit will be held on June 20, 2026 at the Hyatt Regency in Irvine, California.

• The incredible one-day event will feature dynamic speakers, meaningful conversation, and powerful moments to celebrate womanhood.

• Attendees will also have access to music, mocktails, and an exclusive shopping event, carefully curated with pro-life, pro-family brands.

The Details:

Live Action founder and president Lila Rose headlined the first ever Women's Summit last year, at a gathering designed to “encourage and equip women to stand up for life.” The event included speakers like New York Times bestselling author and minister Lisa Bevere; international speaker Stephanie Gray Connors; and author, speaker, and host of the "Relatable" podcast, Allie Beth Stuckey. See some 2025 highlights in the video below:

The second annual Women's Summit will be held on June 20, 2026, at the Hyatt Regency in Irvine, California, where women will be empowered and inspired to make a difference in their communities. Women will have the opportunity to connect with leaders, learn from impactful speakers, and meet like-minded women. They will learn how to be who they were meant to be: fierce defenders, passionate nurturers, and wise leaders.

Women will attend exciting panels and participate in meaningful conversation to explore what it truly means to live as a woman, growing in faith, relationships, motherhood, leadership, fertility and health, and so much more. The event will also include music, mocktails, and a thoughtfully curated shopping event with pro-life and pro-family brands.

Emcee Sami Parker told Live Action News that she is looking forward to this year's event, saying how much she values "the deep companionship of other women alongside me who will cheer me on, who understand my struggles and temptations, and who spur me on to be more like Christ in the way I live and love." She added, "The Live Action Women's Summit is full of women like that. That alone is one of the most wonderful and necessary things about it."

Click here for tickets (use code WS20 for a discount) and for information about sponsorship and vendor opportunities!

Zoom In:

The Summit will feature several exciting speakers for 2026, including:

Lila Rose

Lila Rose first started Live Action in her living room when she was just 15 years old. After discovering a book, several years earlier, with photos of children who had been killed by abortion, Lila was moved to help inform other young people about what abortion does to a preborn child. She organized a group of friends to give presentations to local community groups, educating them about the humanity of the preborn and the violence of abortion.

When Lila was a freshman at the University of California, Los Angeles, she noticed that while she knew fellow students were facing unplanned pregnancies, she didn’t see pregnant students on the UCLA campus. To find out what resources and support UCLA offered its pregnant students, she put herself in a pregnant student’s shoes — by posing as a pregnant student. During that first undercover investigation, the head nurse told her that UCLA “does not support women who are pregnant” and referred her, instead, to get an abortion.

"Women have been told for decades to suppress our femininity, to treat fertility like a disease, and to see pregnancy and motherhood as something to fear," Rose told Live Action News. "At the same time, innocent human lives are being treated as disposable and worthless, especially the lives of the unborn. That is evil, and women who love the truth and who love life need to rise up! That is why we created the Live Action Women’s Summit. This year, we are talking about what it means to be a Fierce Defender, a Passionate Nurturer, and a Wise Leader in this cultural moment."

Lisa Bevere

Lisa Bevere has spent over four decades empowering women to find their identity and purpose. She is a New York Times bestselling author and an internationally known speaker. Her books, which include The Fight for Female, Without Rival, Girls with Swords, Lioness Arising, and Strong are in the hands of millions worldwide. Additionally, she hosts The Fight ...

Lisa and her husband John co-founded Messenger International, an organization committed to developing uncompromising followers of Christ who transform their world. Messenger International has given away over 60 million resources in over 135 languages. Lisa is the mother of four sons, has nine grandchildren, and lives in Franklin, TN.

"The Live Action’s Women’s Summit equips us to make a difference in matters of faith, family and a courageous life," Bevere told Live Action News, adding that she plans to "share how God empowered me to face my fears and walk through a difficult and defining season in life." 

Isabel Brown

Isabel Brown is a full-time creator, activist, and author giving a voice to Generation Z as they navigate building a new American Dream on The Isabel Brown Show with The Daily Wire. Her content reaches millions of people around the world daily, covering everything from politics to dating, faith to health, and of course the latest internet trend. In 2021, she published her first book, Frontlines: Finding My Voice on an American College Campus, sharing her encounter with radical leftism from the heart of America’s university experience. Her latest book, The End of the Alphabet: How Gen Z Can Save America, makes a compelling case for why Generation Z is the last hope to save Western civilization from the upside-down Left, and why we shouldn’t write them off just yet.

Isabel speaks regularly to share her hopeful message for the West to activism organizations and student groups worldwide. She is a Contributor with The Daily Signal, appears regularly as a guest on cable news networks, and has previously worked and collaborated with Turning Point USA, PragerU, Students for Life of America, and Live Action....

Emily Wilson

Emily Wilson Hussem is an internationally recognized speaker and best-selling author who shares her faith both online and at events around the globe. Emily has written 7 books, speaks at events sharing her message on dating, relationships, and faith.

"Last year's Live Action Women's Summit was more beautiful than can be put into words, and this year you have to see it for yourself!" Wilson told Live Action News. "The Women's Summit is a place for you to be inspired, find true community, and be encouraged to live boldly and brightly in a world in need of your light. I'm so thrilled to be part of this year's event and I would love to see you there!"

Dr. Lauren Rubal

Lauren Rubal, MD, is a Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility physician with a boutique practice in Orange County, CA.... Dr. Rubal is double board certified in Integrative Medicine and Ob/Gyn. She is a FEMM Fellow at the Reproductive Health Research Institute and has completed a Fellowship with the Leonine Forum.

... Her mission is to identify the root cause and heal reproductive issues holistically....

"I'm passionate about providing women of all ages with holistic, practical information to empower and heal themselves," Dr. Rubal told Live Action News. "It is an honor to share restorative approaches that help with common hormone and nutrient imbalances, grounded in the life-affirming foundation of being wonderfully made."

Melissa Ohden

Melissa Ohden is the Founder and CEO of The Abortion Survivors Network, the only advocacy organization for abortion survivors and their families worldwide. She is the Co-Founder of the pro-life storytelling advocacy initiative, My Body, My Voice and the host of the Life Beyond Abortion Podcast.

She is a Master’s level prepared Social Worker and the author of the award winning book featuring her life story, You Carried Me: A Daughter's Memoir and most recently, the co-author of Abortion Survivors Break Their Silence.

... Although Melissa has a heart for providing help and hope to all impacted by abortion, she also strives to humanize the unborn and abortion survivors through activism. She has testified before Congressional committees numerous times....

Helen Alvaré

Helen Alvaré is the Robert A. Levy Endowed Chair in Law and Liberty at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, where she teaches Family Law, Law and Religion, and Property Law. She publishes on matters concerning marriage, parenting, and the First Amendment religion clauses. She is faculty advisor to the law school’s Thomas More and Christian Legal Societies, a Member of the Holy See’s Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life (Vatican City), and an ABC news consultant on matters touching the Holy See. She cooperates with the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the Organization of American States on matters concerning religious freedom and women’s rights.

Professor Alvaré’s most recent books include Religious Freedom After the Sexual Revolution, Christianity and Conscience, and Putting Children’s Interests First in U.S. Family Law and Policy: With Power Comes Responsibility....

Prior to joining the faculty of Scalia Law, Professor Alvaré taught at the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America...

Professor Alvaré received her law degree from Cornell University School of Law and her master’s degree in Systematic Theology from the Catholic University of America.

"I can’t think of anything I’d rather do with my 35 years of experience in the pro-life movement than to offer the hard and beautiful lessons I’ve learned to the generation carrying the torch today," Alvaré told Live Action News. "I am so grateful to the Women’s Summit for making this possible!" 

Sr. Cora Caeli, SV

Sr. Cora Caeli, SV was raised in New York, received her undergraduate degree from Marywood University in Scranton, PA, and completed Graduate Studies in Theology through Ave Maria University. She entered the Sisters of Life in 2016 and professed Final Vows on August 6, 2024.

Sister Cora Caeli has served in formation for the newest members of the community and in the Vocations Office in New York City. She has also served women and children in our pregnancy mission in Philadelphia. She currently lives at St. Mary Magdalene Convent in Denver, CO where she serves in the Evangelization Mission and is the co-host of the Sisters of Life Podcast “Let Love."...

Sarah Gabel Siefert

Sarah Gabel Seifert is the CEO and Founder of EveryLife, which she built from the ground up into the fastest-growing diaper company in American history. Under her leadership, EveryLife has expanded beyond premium baby essentials to launch EveryLife Women—a new line dedicated to supporting women through every stage of life with products rooted in the same commitment to faith, family, and uncompromising quality.

... She is a leading advocate against the depopulation agenda and the architect of the viral “Make More Babies” campaign, which garnered extensive national media coverage....

Before launching EveryLife, Sarah Gabel played a key role in building PublicSquare (NYSE: PSQH), where she launched and directed the company’s sales department, developing its structure and leading its growth from the ground up. She also previously served as the Director of a Pregnancy Resource Center in San Clemente, CA, leading her team’s life-affirming work and helping moms choose life....

“I’m really looking forward to being a part of the Live Action Women’s Summit this year and having the opportunity to share about God’s calling on motherhood and entrepreneurship, a topic I’m deeply passionate about helping women navigate," Seifert told Live Action News. "It’s going to be an amazing time!”

Anne Farrens

Anne Farrens is an emerging pro-life speaker and advocate whose life story brings a rare perspective - conceived in rape when a serial rapist assaulted her mother in their home in 1983, Anne was lovingly raised by her mom and adoptive father. She learned the truth of her beginnings at age 12, and the revelation ignited years of silent shame and spiritual attack. Anne realized through God’s faithfulness that her conception was not her crime to carry, and found healing and restoration.

With nearly 20 years of success in corporate aviation and entrepreneurship, Anne recently felt called to continue to speak when her family's story was featured on Live Action’s 2025 Face to Face series — as her life circumstance is often used to justify abortion. Today, she strives to courageously challenge assumptions and illuminate the truth around human dignity, trauma, and God’s redemptive power....

"I wish I had attended something like Live Action’s Women’s Summit when I was younger—my heart was searching for love in all the wrong places," Farrens told Live Action News. "Lila, her Live Action team, and these incredible partners celebrate the gift of womanhood with gratitude to our loving God.”

Lianna Rebolledo

Lianna Rebolledo is an inspirational speaker, journalist, and counselor who suffered a horrific rape at a young age. Despite the pressure to abort her baby, Lianna chose life for her daughter.

Lianna founded “Loving Life,” a non-profit organization that supports victims of this type of violence and offers programs for preventing it. She aims to defend human rights and help those who have suffered. After earning her Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Communication Science at the University of California, Los Angeles, she produced and hosted television and radio shows with positive content.... Lianna also speaks at conferences on women’s empowerment, domestic violence prevention, bullying, motivation, and pro-life projects all over the United States, Mexico, and South America.

Through her content, Lianna shares a powerful personal testimony and a beautiful message that gives hope and motivation so that others may also find love for life.

Christina Bennett

Christina Bennett is a pro-life missionary and activist who writes and speaks on behalf of the cause. Her passion stems from her powerful personal story.

Christina was moments away from being aborted, but a miraculous encounter with a stranger changed her mothers mind and saved Christina’s life. Upon hearing this story in her 20s, Christina dedicated her life to ending abortion, serving in various leadership roles for pro-life organizations, including at the Justice House of Prayer in D.C., then as a Communications Director at an advocacy organization, and most recently as a Client Services Manager at a crisis pregnancy center....

... Christina helps to represent Live Action on news outlets including Fox News Primetime, The Christian Broadcasting Network, and radio stations nationwide. She is a member of the National Black Pro-life Coalition....

"I’m looking forward to our Live Action Women's Summit as a time to come together and encourage one another," Bennett told Live Action News. "I'm honored to pour into the lives of incredible, passionate, women. We’ll learn from each other, grow in grace and call each other higher."

The Big Picture:

There are three different ticket options for women wishing to attend the summit, with different benefits.

Defender Package: $75

• General event access

• Lunch, along with refreshments and drinks, provided

• Access to an exclusive experience following the event with like-minded brands, music, mocktails, raffles, and more

VIP Nurturer Package: $150

• Everything in Defender Package Plus...

• VIP seating

• 1 signed copy of Fighting for Life by Lila Rose

• Exclusive VIP Gift Bag

VIP Leader Package: $750

• Everything in VIP Nurturer Package...

• 1 ticket to the VIP Dinner event on Friday, June 19, 2026, with Lila Rose, speakers, and influencers

• 1 meet 'n greet + exclusive photo with Lila Rose at the VIP Dinner

(Discount not available for VIP Leader Package)

The Bottom Line:

You don't want to miss being a part of this incredible day! Click here and use code WS20 to get your discounted tickets today for the Second Annual Live Action Women’s Summit!

Key Takeaways:

• Numerous British families traveled to Cyprus to undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF).

• An investigation uncovered that they were implanted with the wrong sperm or eggs.

The Details:

A BBC investigation discovered that a number of British families undergoing IVF treatment in northern Cyprus were mistakenly matched with incorrect sperm or egg donors.

Hinging on interviews and DNA test results, the investigation revealed that at least seven children were conceived using donors other than those selected by their parents, prompting worries about oversight and regulatory standards at clinics in the region.

Most of the claims were backed by independent DNA testing. A number of these cases seemed to be associated with the same clinician or group of clinics.

The Daily Mail noted:

Northern Cyprus has become one of the most popular destinations for British people seeking fertility treatment overseas, due to its low prices, high success rates and looser regulation. 

They also offer procedures which are illegal in the UK, such as allowing couples to choose the gender of their baby for non-medical reasons. 

Northern Cyprus also does not have an independent fertility regulator to monitor clinics and revoke licenses if necessary. 

The de facto state's Ministry of Health oversees its fertility clinics but did not respond to the BBC's findings. 

While probes are still underway, early findings seem to indicate that mistakes in labeling or handling of sperm samples may have caused the scandalous mix-ups. Whether these were one-off incidents or reflective of systemic failures is yet to be confirmed. 

The legal consequences are far-reaching. Issues regarding parental rights, citizenship, and the legal status of the children are already beginning to come forth.

Families may face complicated and long-drawn legal contests across multiple jurisdictions, especially since only Turkey recognizes Northern Cyprus. 

Reality Check:

Beyond the legal implications, the incident has reignited deeper moral debates about the nature of assisted reproductive technologies like IVF. This scandal lays bare the inherent risks in a system that detaches procreation from the marital act and reduces human lives to products of laboratory procedures. 

IVF, by its nature, commodifies human embryos and separates parenthood into biological, gestational, and social components. The confusion over biological parentage has had debilitating ramifications for families. 

Faith and pro-life institutions like the Catholic Church have perennially rejected IVF on moral grounds, as procreation should take place within the marital act and that every human being ought to be conceived in a manner that reflects their dignity as a person. 

The Bottom Line:

No amount of regulation can fully remove the risks inherent in technologies that manipulate the very origins of human life.

Indeed, this scandal functions as a sobering reminder of the complexities and risks associated with assisted reproduction. It also raises provoking questions about the controversial use of medical technology at the expense of society’s most vulnerable—the children who are conceived in such situations. 

Key Takeaways:

• Multiple lawsuits have been filed by individual states and pro-life attorneys general across the country against the FDA's abortion pill policies.

• The FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation System (REMS) safety requirements for mifepristone (the abortion pill) have been progressively weakened since the Obama administration began doing so in 2016.

• The lawsuits seek to have previous safeguards reinstated.

The Details:

After the Trump administration's removal of Pam Bondi as Attorney General, Todd Blanche was appointed to the position of Acting Attorney General of the United States. A coalition of pro-life groups, including Live Action, has sent a letter to Blanche asking him to support the pro-life lawsuits instead of opposing them, as the lawsuits aim to restore earlier REMS for mifepristone:

We, the undersigned, representing millions of Americans across the nation, call on you to use your new position to reverse the DOJ’s harmful stance of siding with the abortion drug industry.

You have the opportunity instead to stand with pro-life Republican Attorneys General who are suing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to protect their citizens from the harms of abortion drugs and to stop FDA policies that undermine our state laws.

Under Bondi, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sided with the FDA, arguing that the states do not have standing to sue. As the letter explained:

[T]o date, this Department of Justice has downplayed the harms of mail-order abortion and called for each case to be paused or even dismissed entirely. Meanwhile, thousands of abortion drugs are being mailed all over the United States daily, even from overseas, with zero oversight.

Pro-life states cannot meaningfully enforce their laws when FDA is siding with mail-order abortionists and DOJ is siding with abortion drug manufacturers. Virtually every state has some law on the books that makes the current mail-order abortion regime unlawful, even basic laws like practicing medicine without a license. Yet abortionists protected by so-called “shield laws” ship drugs nationally with impunity, pointing to FDA for cover.

The letter concluded that, with the current status of mifepristone, state laws are being undermined, women are being hurt, and there is no accountability for the abortion industry.

The Context:

Last week, a U.S. District judge sided with the Trump administration, pausing Louisiana's lawsuit against the FDA. However, as Live Action News reported:

The ruling surprisingly affirmed that the State of Louisiana not only has standing to sue, but agreed that — in the words of Louisiana's Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga — states like Louisiana are "suffering irreputable sovereign harm everyday that this 2023 REMS... remains in effect."

The judge stated that Louisiana is likely to succeed in its lawsuit should the FDA fail to roll back the REMS, as "The Fifth Circuit has twice indicated... that FDA was likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA in removing mifepristone’s in-person dispensing requirement."

The Backstory:

Mifepristone, better known as the abortion pill, was first approved by the FDA in 2000, and safety protocols were put in place (REMS) in 2011 after adverse events took place. But in 2016, the Obama administration began weakening those safety protocols, allowing the abortion pill to be dispensed for women through 10 weeks gestation instead of seven.

Additionally, the administration removed the requirement to report non-fatal adverse events (complications), meaning only deaths would then be reported. It also removed the requirement for the first of the abortion pill regimen to be taken in-person in front of a clinician, though the drug still had to be obtained via an in-person visit.

Those standards continued to be weakened under the Biden administration, which permanently eliminated any in-person dispensing requirements, allowing pills to be not only sent through the mail, but also distributed through retail pharmacies.

And though the abortion industry has continually insisted the abortion pill is safe — even safer than Tylenol, evidence has increasingly proven this to be false.

An analysis from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) found that nearly 11% of women (10.93%) experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or other serious or life-threatening adverse events after taking mifepristone, meaning one in 10 women experience a serious complication. This is 22 times higher than the “less than 0.5 percent” rate reported by the FDA.

In Ireland, another study found that 12% of women who underwent chemical abortions experienced complications severe enough to require a visit to the emergency room, with 16% suffering incomplete abortions. Still another study found that women were severely unprepared for how painful the chemical abortion process would be.

All the while, women have been told to lie to emergency room staff if they experienced complications, instead attributing the complications to natural miscarriage, which therefore makes it impossible to truly know how many women may have been injured.

The Bottom Line:

Women deserve better than the abortion pill, and it is long past time for the Trump administration to take action to protect the women and children of this nation.

Planned Parenthood deserves to be permanently defunded — and Live Action News' series, "DEFUND 250," plans to remind the public of many reasons why.

Though Planned Parenthood maintains that it needs public funding because it provides needed "health care," the reality is quite different. Instead of health and healing, women are routinely injured, and some have even lost their lives after undergoing abortions at Planned Parenthood facilities.

It's impossible to list all of these incidents in one place, as they occur with alarming frequency. Here are just a few of the most recent and egregious incidents in which Planned Parenthood has killed or injured its patients.

Key Takeaways:

• Women have been killed and injured at Planned Parenthood facilities across the country.

• These incidents are too numerous to list in one place.

• An organization that regularly injures its patients should not be receiving taxpayer dollars.

The Details:

#1: 18-year-old dies after 22-week abortion at Colorado Planned Parenthood

18-year-old Lexi Arguello died in February 2024, just days after undergoing a 22-week abortion at a Planned Parenthood in Fort Collins, Colorado. According to testimony provided during a Colorado Health and Human Services hearing following her death, Planned Parenthood allegedly admitted that it delayed getting Lexi the care she needed to survive.

Lexi died of an amniotic fluid embolism (AFE), and developed a disseminated intravascular coagulation as a result. AFE is a life-threatening obstetric complication that can occur during an abortion. Despite the seriousness of her condition, Planned Parenthood insisted on the "silent siren" treatment when requesting ambulance transfer — a tactic in which abortion facilities insist that ambulances turn off lights and sirens (so as not to attract attention), and in the process, delaying urgent care.

“Lexi’s grandfather was told by the abortion providers that she was transferred too late,” said Dr. Keri Kasun during a House hearing at which Lexi's death was discussed. “She didn’t receive the urgency of care that would be required in order to have a chance to survive this condition; instead, she got a silent siren treatment.”

#2: Woman dies after abortion at Planned Parenthood

In 2014, 24-year-old Cree Erwin-Sheppard of Battle Creek, Michigan, was found dead just days after undergoing an abortion at Planned Parenthood, and hours after being seen at an emergency room for abortion complications.

After her death, her brother, Tyler Sheppard, revealed that her medical records showed that her abortion had been botched.

Sheppard said the coroner told their family that “she’s never seen anybody as mangled as my sister was…. [The hospital] looked at the X-ray and saw her uterus was perforated and that she was bleeding internally. They still sent her home. They made it seem like it was okay, and, ‘just medicate and you should be fine.’ It felt like they were trying to cover up for Planned Parenthood… it felt like they were trying to cover up the abortion… the cause of her death, and I was upset.”

#3: Planned Parenthood waited over five hours before transferring her to the ER

In July 2012, 24-year-old Tonya Reaves died from injuries after undergoing a botched second-trimester abortion at a Planned Parenthood facility in the Chicago area. Shockingly, though Reaves began to bleed heavily after the first abortion attempt, it was more than five hours before an ambulance was called. Instead, the abortionist performed an ultrasound, revealing that the first abortion had been incomplete.

A second abortion was committed, but Reaves' pain and bleeding continued. A subsequent ultrasound showed she had a perforated uterus — a known complication of surgical abortion. By the time she received help, it was too late, and she died of her injuries.

An autopsy report later solidified Planned Parenthood's negligence, revealing that if Reaves had received appropriate care in a timely manner, she likely would have survived.

#4: 17-year-old died because of a Planned Parenthood abortion

In April 2009, Roselle Owens died after undergoing an abortion at the Margaret Sanger Center Planned Parenthood in Manhattan.

After her death, her brother, Thurman T. Owens, filed a lawsuit maintaining that Planned Parenthood misled Roselle by referring to abortion as "very common" and "safe" on its website; the abortionist who committed Roselle’s abortion even said it was “‘uneventful’ and that there were no complications,” despite the fact that Owens experienced labored breathing as soon as the procedure began.

According to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood employees didn't monitor her or provider her with appropriate care, waiting 13 minutes to call emergency personnel to the scene. That delay in care caused brain damage, eventually leading to her death five months later.

#5: Two more women injured at Colorado Planned Parenthood

Though the deaths of patients are most likely to get attention, there are far more instances in which women are injured on a routine basis at Planned Parenthood facilities nationwide.

One year after Lexi Arguello's death at the Planned Parenthood in Fort Collins, the facility is still injuring patients. Operation Rescue reported back-to-back injuries at the facility in March 2026, with a separate injury occurring in February. At least one of the injuries was flagged as potentially life-threatening.

#6: Planned Parenthood sends woman to the hospital on life support, but calls it ‘non-emergent’

In 2024, a Michigan Planned Parenthood injured a woman so severely, she required advanced life support (ALS), which, as Live Action News previously reported, is "administered to patients in critical condition who have suffered a life-threatening condition like cardiac arrest, acute coronary syndrome, or stroke."

Despite this level of severity, Planned Parenthood employees requested the ambulance pull to the building's rear entrance with a "silent siren" approach.

#7: Woman rushed to hospital after hemorrhaging at Ohio abortion business

A woman needed emergency transport to a local hospital after hemorrhaging following a suspected abortion at Planned Parenthood Dayton Surgical Center in Ohio in 2025. This was far from the first time this facility called 911, having had a long history of injuring women.

The abortionist on duty during this incident was allegedly Jeanne Corwin, who is suspected of being responsible for other botched abortions.

#8: Three woman in one month injured at Rhode Island Planned Parenthood

Between October and November 2025, pro-life watchdog group Operation Rescue reported the injuries of three women at a Planned Parenthood abortion business in Providence, Rhode Island. Unfortunately, Rhode Island law does not allow public access to 911 calls, making it difficult to ascertain details of these women's injuries.

What is known is that one of the women was experiencing a "complication after a procedure," while another was "hemorrhaging after procedure.” As has been seen in other cases, when an ambulance is required, the injury is serious, and could even be deadly.

#9: Illinois Planned Parenthood mega-facility has three medical emergencies in four days

In 2022, a Planned Parenthood mega-center in Fairview Heights, Illinois, which sits near the Illinois/Missouri border, injured three women in four days.

Known details of the injuries included sharp, stabbing pains, low blood pressure, dizziness, and cervical bleeding. Though the women were transported to the hospital, their conditions following their injuries were unknown.

#10: Two more women injured at Denver Planned Parenthood

A Planned Parenthood in Denver, Colorado, injured multiple women in 2025. Though public records were heavily redacted and/or unavailable, Operation Rescue was able to ascertain that one of the women had "difficulty breathing," which is "a red flag signifying respiratory distress, possible cardiopulmonary collapse, or a related life-threatening emergency."

A CAD report showed the second injury was classified as “37C01," which Operation Rescue noted "is reserved for sudden symptoms that indicate a potential life-threatening emergency — sudden chest pain, severe bleeding, collapse, or other unexpected acute medical events. It is seldom used for routine or minor complaints." 

The Bottom Line:

When a purported "health care" facility is killing and injuring its patients, its abundantly clear that what it's offering isn't health care. It's time to defund Planned Parenthood once and for all.

A compilation of more 911 calls and injuries can be found here.

Key Takeaways:

• House Bill 2569 would have legalized assisted suicide for adults diagnosed with a terminal illness and given six months or less to live.

• The bill was not scheduled for a hearing in an Arizona House committee.

• Concerns about coercion and oversight reportedly led to the bill's defeat.

The Details:

House Bill 2569 — also referred to as the Thomas M. Dow Act — did not move forward in the Arizona Legislature this session, and it was not scheduled for a hearing in a House committee. The bill, put forth by State Representative Christopher Mathis (D-LD18), sought to allow mentally competent adults diagnosed with a terminal illness and given a prognosis of six months or less to procure a prescription for a lethal dose of medication. According to the measure, the medication would have needed to be self-administered orally.

In Arizona, concerns about coercion and inadequate oversight contributed to the bill’s defeat. Lawmakers raised questions about how eligibility criteria would be enforced and whether vulnerable individuals could be influenced by family members, financial considerations, or systemic health care inequalities.

For over 20 years, Arizona legislators have considered similar measures. The initial proposal harkens back to 2003, and just once, in 2017, did such a bill clear a committee stage, but it did not receive support. This latest bill was reportedly backed by groups funded by George Soros.

According to existing Arizona law, assisting someone in taking their own life may give rise to criminal charges under the state’s manslaughter provisions, as elucidated in A.R.S. § 13-1103. In addition, A.R.S. § 36-3210 explicitly clarifies that the law does not condone or permit suicide, assisted suicide, or mercy killing.

Behind The Scenes:

The California Globe noted that lobbying records compiled by OpenSecrets show that Compassion & Choices, a national organization that calls for the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia, has been involved in promoting end-of-life policy initiatives at both the state and federal levels:

Compassion & Choices, which supports MAID legislation nationwide, has received funding from organizations associated with philanthropist George Soros, according to a 2016 report by Capital Research Center.

The report states that Soros-affiliated entities, including the Open Society Institute and the Foundation to Promote Open Society, provided more than $7 million to the group beginning in 2008.

The Context:

The differences between assisted suicide, euthanasia, and palliative care are often conflated by the media, leaving the public confused and unclear about what each of these entails.

As Live Action News noted in an article discussing the differences between assisted suicide, euthanasia, and palliative care:

Though end-of-life care has been debated for decades, well-meaning Americans have been misled by those who intentionally conflate palliative care with euthanasia and assisted suicide — but only one of these options is ethical. 

Some U.S. states have in recent years passed legislation allowing doctors to become both killers and suicide accomplices. While marketed to the public as a "compassionate" way to help people facing so-called "terminal" diagnoses, behind the scenes, health insurance companies and governments have touted how "assisted dying" saves them money. 

Read about the differences in this article:

GET THE FACTS: Euthanasia, assisted suicide, and palliative care are not the same

The Big Picture:

Reports from states such as Oregon and Washington have demonstrated that many patients who request life-ending drugs cite fears of being a liability to others as a primary motivation. Pro-life advocates argue that this underscores underlying social pressures that cannot be adequately addressed through legislative safeguards.

At present, 'assisted dying' is authorized in the District of Columbia and 10 states: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Pro-assisted suicide laws in states such as New York, Illinois, and Delaware are poised to take effect in 2026, which will raise the total number of states enabling the practice to 13.

Key Takeaways:

• Zoe Tighe had been to the hospital four times, complaining of abdominal pain, over six weeks. Because of her history of UTIs connected to ketamine use, doctors did not give her a pregnancy test.

• Two weeks after her last visit to the hospital, Tighe collapsed and was rushed to the hospital. She was diagnosed with sepsis, and doctors told her she was pregnant, but that her baby had died.

• Shortly after giving birth to her miscarried baby, she suffered cardiac arrest three times and died two days later.

• There is now an investigation into whether Tighe and her baby might still be alive if doctors had tested her for pregnancy on one of her first hospital visits.

• Maternal deaths have been on the rise in the United Kingdom (UK) over the last decade, and continued to rise even after Ireland legalized abortion.

• Preventable maternal deaths are not connected to pro-life laws, but are the result of medical neglect.

The Details:

Twenty-two-year-old Zoe Tighe was complaining of lower abdominal pain when she went to the James Paget Hospital (JPH) in England on April 24, May 22, June 2, and June 7, and was diagnosed with a recurring urinary tract infection (UTI) due to her prolonged use of ketamine. She did not know she was pregnant, and the hospital failed to give her a pregnancy test. Two weeks after her last visit to the hospital, Tighe collapsed at home on June 24 and was rushed to JPH.

Tighe was diagnosed with sepsis, and an ultrasound revealed she was 14 weeks pregnant, but her baby had died because of the infection, according to The Irish Sun. She was transferred to Norfolk and Norwich Hospital (N&N), but after delivering the baby, she went into cardiac arrest three times and died on June 26. Her cause of death is considered to be sepsis due to E. coli, UTI, and missed miscarriage, with ketamine as a contributing factor.

However, an investigation is looking into whether both Tighe and her baby could have survived if her pregnancy had been detected sooner.

"One of the questions is whether there being no pregnancy testing performed has altered the flow of events at all, and whether not performing the pregnancy test has caused or materially contributed to Zoe's death," a legal representative for Tighe's family said at a hearing. "Pregnancy tests ought to have been performed on several occasions at the JPH."

Rather than testing for pregnancy, doctors assumed the problem was a UTI because of Tighe's misuse of ketamine, an anesthetic that can cause bladder issues if taken long-term. She had been using it since her father died when she was 17, and had frequent UTIs as a result. She suffered so greatly that she had become suicidal.

Her mother, Jane, claimed that because of this, JPH "barely looked at" her. "She was just sent home with very basic painkillers and/or antibiotics for the UTI, which plainly didn't work at all," she said. "I honestly feel that anyone who saw her at James Paget simply didn't look beyond her ketamine issue. They were just not interested in investigating if anything else was wrong. They just kept saying they couldn't do anything for her."

Tighe's mother said she had asked doctors to do scans and to admit Tighe to the hospital, but they didn't.

When Tighe arrived at N&N, the doctor who delivered her miscarried baby said the baby had only died recently and that she didn't understand why JPH hadn't done a routine pregnancy test, which is allegedly standard for women presenting with lower abdominal pain.

Zoom Out:

According to a recent investigation by The Times, maternity deaths in the UK have been rising over the last two decades, despite recommendations given to the National Health Service (NHS) to turn the trend around.

"NHS was issued with 67 separate warnings between 2013 and 2023 to take signs of potentially fatal complications in mothers — known as red flags — seriously," reported The Times. In addition, reviews of the NHS maternity services led to 748 recommendations for improvements.

"Practitioners were also told 13 times to take reports of severe pain seriously, 12 times to act on signs of severe bleeding, ten times to be aware of heart conditions in women, and nine times to ensure maternity staff recognise signs of sepsis," said The Times.

Over that decade, there was a 50% increase in the UK's maternal death rate, from 8.54 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies to 12.80. The increase began and continued as Ireland legalized abortion in 2019. The most common causes of death were blood clots, heart issues, suicide, stroke, sepsis, and severe bleeding.

Theo Clarke, a former MP who led a parliamentary inquiry into these concerns in 2024, called rising maternal deaths "a national scandal."

"NHS maternity services are swamped with recommendations from scores of reports, and still women and their babies are being harmed by a lack of focus and leadership necessary to implement them," she said.

Dr. Clare Tower, an NHS consultant obstetrician, said that hospitals struggled to prioritize problems amid the "sheer volume" of warnings and the lack of funding.

Why It Matters:

Tragic and preventable maternal deaths also happen at an alarming rate in the United States; however, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, pro-abortion media outlets, especially ProPublica, have blamed pro-life laws for such deaths.

But medical neglect can happen even in places with liberal abortion laws, as Tighe's case shows.

Neglect can happen in any state, and sepsis can happen to anyone — and sometimes, doctors make mistakes that end in tragedy, regardless of abortion laws. Doctors and hospital systems can be at fault in patients' deaths, and often, those deaths are deemed to be preventable.

Collectively, 80% of pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. are considered “preventable,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Even in states with liberal pro-abortion laws, the majority of pregnancy-related deaths have been deemed "preventable," but that data is often ignored in order to promote a false narrative that such deaths primarily, and perhaps only, occur in pro-life states.

The Bottom Line:

If one staff member caring for Tighe at JPH had considered giving her a pregnancy test or carrying out a scan of her abdomen, she and her baby might be alive today. And that has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is legal.

Key Takeaways:

• Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Illinois, commits abortions up to 34 weeks of pregnancy.

• It has a reputation for injuring women and, rather than sending them to a nearby hospital, has them frequently transported to Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, across state lines.

• Erin King, the abortionist and owner of Hope Clinic, is married to abortionist David Eisenberg, who has gynecology privileges at Barnes-Jewish.

The Details:

Pro-life watchdog group Operation Rescue (OR) reported information about Hope Clinic's latest known injury, which occurred on March 3.

Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, following witness reports of a woman being loaded onto an ambulance on a stretcher at the facility, OR discovered that a 29-year-old woman reportedly experienced "extra bleeding" following an abortion. It is not known how far into her pregnancy the patient was, or what procedure she endured, but Hope Clinic for Women advertises abortions through 34 weeks gestation on its website — long past the period when a preborn baby can survive outside of the womb.

Interestingly, upon receiving the address of the facility, the 911 dispatcher seemed to immediately recognize that the call was coming from Hope Clinic.

After telling the dispatcher the patient was 29, having "extra bleeding," and was conscious and breathing, the Hope Clinic staffer quickly added — without any prompting — that "she'll be going to Barnes." Hope Clinic routinely sends injured patients to Barnes-Jewish Hospital, located not in Illinois, but in St. Louis, Missouri, a 20-minute drive away... even though Gateway Regional Medical Center is located across the street from the abortion facility.

After being asked if there was a nurse with her, the Hope Clinic staffer laughed, said there were four doctors there, and that "we're good."

The owner of the abortion facility, abortionist Erin King, is married to David Eisenberg, a gynecologist who works at Barnes-Jewish — a hospital designated as a Level 1 trauma center, meaning it is a "comprehensive regional resource that serves large cities and is equipped to provide the most complete and complex level of care for trauma patients."

Eisenberg has been involved with multiple abortion-related studies and is the "Division Chief of Complex Family Planning" at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. In addition, as Live Action News has previously reported:

[A]bortionist David Eisenberg (also a Washington University physician) was the medical director at Planned Parenthood in St. Louis. Eisenberg was caught practicing questionable hand hygiene at the facility and downplayed the seriousness of the health code violations. Eisenberg said that abortionists at the facility did not report complications because, according to the lawsuit, “they did not expect the state to enforce the law.”

Why It Matters:

Hope Clinic is known to have sent multiple abortion patients to the hospital with injuries. This includes sending three women to the hospital in the span of two months in late 2023; that year, Hope Clinic had 17 known injuries. Less than one year prior, a staffer was heard cavalierly laughing on a 911 call after a woman was injured.

The Bottom Line:

Despite numerous injuries happening with alarming regularity at Hope Clinic, officials continue to turn a blind eye.

“Shoddy abortionists at ‘Hopeless’ Clinic can botch any abortion, then they just send the hemorrhaging woman across the state line for Barnes and Eisenberg to clean up the mess,” Operation Rescue president Troy Newman said, adding, “This latest hemorrhage — or butchering — incident comes as no surprise. Operation Rescue has documented dozens of emergency calls from this hopeless clinic masquerading as a women’s health facility over the years. Yet Illinois lawmakers continue to turn a blind eye. Or worse, some actively protect and expand the abortion cartel."

"@prezydentpl @NawrockiKn pardoned Weronika Krawczyk, who refused abortion on her son and then warned other mothers about the abortionist Pior A. from Starogard Gd/Gdańsk," Kaja Godek of the Life and Family Foundation wrote on X.

"Thank you, Mr. President, for removing the glaring injustice that this absurd verdict represented.

"A case like Weronika's should never take place and testifies to a deep illness in the justice system in Poland. Defending one's own child's life and the lives of other children is a noble and praiseworthy act."

4/13/2026: A woman in Poland will be sentenced to prison this week for warning a pregnant woman against using a particular OB/GYN — unless President Karol Nawrocki pardons her.

In 2022, Weronika Krawczyk advised another pregnant woman not to use a particular OB/GYN and was take to court over it. Now, Nawrocki has just days left to pardon her before she is sent to jail.

Key Takeaways:

• A mother in Poland is set to be sentenced to prison for warning a pregnant mother against an OB/GYN who had previously misdiagnosed her own child and urged her to abort.

• The doctor took her to court and she was fingerprinted for having "discredited" the doctor "in the face of public opinion."

• A judge sentenced her to community service and ordered her to apologize to the doctor, despite his known history of committing illegal abortions. She refused.

• The judge has given her one month to appeal to the country's president for pardon, and if she is unsuccessful, he plans to sentence her to jail time — which means weeks away from her young child.

The Backstory:

In 2016, Krawczyk was pregnant with her second child when she went to see Dr. Piotr A.

Following an ultrasound scan, he told her that her preborn son had Down syndrome and offered her an abortion, which was illegal in Poland. At the time, abortion was only allowed to be carried out for health reasons at a hospital, but he offered to abort the baby in his private office. Krawczyk refused, changed doctors, and, at 34-35 weeks, gave birth to baby who did not have Down syndrome.

In 2022, Krawczyk was pregnant again, and had joined an online group for pregnant women when another mother asked if Dr. A was a good doctor for a difficult pregnancy. Krawczyk advised the woman not to use Dr. A as her doctor.

"She said, 'No, never go to him. He was going to kill my baby. He said the baby had Down syndrome and my baby was healthy,'" Kaja Godek of the Life and Family Foundation told Live Action News.

In Poland, under Criminal Code Art. 212, it is illegal to tell "another person, a group of persons, an institution or organisational unit, conduct or characteristics that may discredit [a person] in the face of public opinion." However, Godek noted that "at the same time exchanging opinions about doctors is quite common. We even have special websites (e.g. www.znanylekarz.pl) where you can post an opinion after a visit and people go to the websites to decide which doctor to see."

Krawczyk's advice was saved as a screenshot and the doctor took Krawczyk to court.

She contacted Life and Family Foundation for legal assistance and support. The group issued a petition on her behalf and went with her to court. The court proceedings were closed so the details are unknown to the public, but Krawczyk was sentenced to three months of community service and to reimburse the doctor of his legal costs, and was ordered to apologize to Dr. A, who has a known history of committing illegal abortions.

She refused.

"[Dr. A] wants her to apologize because he offered her an abortion when he had been punished for doing illegal abortions previously," said Godek. "If you want an abortion you have to go to a hospital, but he had been committing them in his clinic, which is forbidden."

The Details:

One month ago, the judge said that if she did not apologize to the doctor who is illegally committing abortions, he would have to give her jail time.

Krawczyk told the judge that she is hoping President Nawrocki will pardon her, and the judge gave her one month to be pardoned or he would issue her a prison sentence. That one month window ends on Friday, April 17.

Godek wrote on X:

"If the pardon doesn't come, this brave mother could end up in prison at any moment because she refused to apologize to the abortionist whose bloody services she didn't use. And here's the shocking thing: the court and the probation officer proceeded IMMEDIATELY to execute the sentence! Much faster than usual in such cases!

Weronika has already met with the probation officer, signed a statement stating that she will not apologize to Piotr A., ​​and has been warned that she faces approximately 1.5 months in prison for this. At any moment, her little children could be left without their mother for six long weeks..."

In a letter, Krawczyk shared that she would not back down. She explained:

"There is pain in me, there is uncertainty, there are tears - but there is also certainty flowing from the conviction that I didn't break my conscience. That I defended the life of my little son and other children, even if today I have to pay the highest price for it."

In a statement published by Catholic Action in Poland, the National Ecclesiastical Assistant of Catholic Action, Bishop Marek Mendyk, and the President of Catholic Action, Andrzej Kamiński said:

[T]he attempt to coerce the convicted woman into apologizing to the doctor who wanted to perform an abortion on her son provokes indignation.

No apology is owed to a doctor who has performed many abortions and proposed more. We consider the fact that the court intends to send a young mother to a penal institution for failing to apologize to be a profound negation of the values on which social life in our Fatherland is to be based.

... we appeal to the President of the Republic of Poland, Mr. Karol Nawrocki, to exercise the right of pardon toward Mrs. Weronika Krawczyk, within the framework of the prerogative specified in Article 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.

A pardon in this case will be not only an expression of mercy, but also a clear signal that the Polish state stands guard over life and highly values actions taken in its defence—even when the justice system itself fails.

Krawczyk's bishop, Bishop Ryszard Kasyna of Pelplin, issued a statement on Sunday, calling for the president to pardon her, for Catholics to sign a petition in support of Krawczyk, and saying, "As your Shepherd, I also ask: let us pray for her, her family, and her children, that God will give them strength and that the justice system will not harm this innocent mother. May this case be a reminder to all of us that defending life today can be an act of courage that requires our solidarity, prayer, and commitment."

The Bottom Line:

According to Godek, the case will be the first major pro-life case to be heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Whether or not she is pardoned will not determine the possibility of taking the case to the ECHR, The preparation to do so is in progress.

The man also allegedly killed his own young daughters, seemingly wanting to eliminate his family so he could marry a minor with the hopes that the girl would give him a son. Despite being illegal, sex-selective abortion is prevalent in India, where there is a strong cultural preference for sons over daughters.

Key Takeaways:

• An Indian man has reportedly confessed to killing his wife and two daughters because his wife was pregnant with another girl.

• The man had forced his wife to abort two previous female babies, but she refused to abort this child.

• Though illegal, sex-selective abortion is prevalent in India, which has led to the abortions of millions of little girls.

The Details:

According to the Times of India, a 26-year-old woman, identified as Farhana, and her two young daughters, aged five and nine, were found deceased, floating in a swimming pool on April 1. The woman was pregnant at the time of her death.

On Friday, police arrested the woman's husband, Mohammad Azharuddin, for the murders. Ten other people were also arrested for involvement in the killings, including Azharuddin's parents and brother, a nurse, a doctor, and a medical shop owner.

Investigators say Azharuddin was upset that Farhana was pregnant, and that he believed she was having a girl. In both 2021 and 2022, Azharuddin and his family had forced Farhana to obtain abortions against her will, because it was believed that the preborn children she was carrying at those times were also girls. This time, when her husband tried to force her to abort once again, she adamantly refused.

In retaliation, Azharuddin lured his wife and young daughters to a local swimming pool with promises of a fun evening out. He then turned off CCTV cameras in the pool's area and forced them in the water, holding their heads under as they drowned. Though he initially said the incident was an accident, he reportedly later confessed to the crime.

The New Indian Express reports that Azharuddin was further motivated to kill his wife and daughters because he had fallen in love with an underage relative who had spurned his advances because he was married.

Police say that Azharuddin believed that without his wife and daughters in the picture, he would be able to marry this young relative, believing that she would give birth to the son he wanted.

The others arrested in connection with the case face various aiding and abetting charges, including participating in illegal sex-selective abortions.

Zoom Out:

Sex-selective preference for boys over girls has long been prevalent in India. Despite the fact that sex-selective abortion has been outlawed since 1994, the practice still takes place throughout the country, resulting in the gendercide of countless females.

A report published in 2021 calculated that 13.5 million girls had been killed in sex-selective abortions in India from 1987-2016, with researchers noting that the true number of "missing" girls had likely been underestimated.

The Bottom Line:

This horrific case underscores the need for protection for women and girls throughout the world. It is unconscionable that a mother and her young daughters should die because the mother refuses to end the life growing inside her. All children deserve life, regardless of gender.

America’s economy faces a quiet but existential threat: collapsing fertility. The U.S. total fertility rate has hit record lows near 1.6 births per woman—well below the 2.1 replacement level needed to sustain a stable population and avoid long-term economic contraction.

Provisional 2025 CDC figures show the general fertility rate falling another 1% to 53.1 births per 1,000 women ages 15–44, with roughly 3.6 million births last year. This is not the population explosion Paul Ehrlich warned of in The Population Bomb. It is the opposite: a dramatic, sustained drop in births across Western nations since the early 2000s.

The age breakdown tells the story. From 2023 to 2024, birth rates declined for every group of women ages 15–34, held steady for ages 35–39, and rose only for ages 40–44—driven largely by more than 100,000 babies born through IVF in 2024, the first time that threshold has been crossed.

Meanwhile, abortion numbers and rates have climbed. The Guttmacher Institute reports an abortion rate of 16.7 per 1,000 women ages 15–44 in 2025—the highest level in over a decade.

These trends coincide with profound shifts in the American workforce. Women now outnumber men in employment for only the third time in history, dominating growth in health care, education, and other expanding sectors. Axios has aptly described this as “a woman’s economy.” 

Many women are prioritizing careers and delaying or forgoing children—a rational individual choice, but one with collective consequences when it becomes the norm.

How taxpayers subsidize abortion

Other nations have recognized the danger and acted.

South Korea, Japan, Hungary, Russia, and China have rolled out baby bonuses, child allowances, housing subsidies, and tax breaks to encourage births.

Here in the U.S., President Trump floated a $5,000 “baby bonus” for new mothers in April 2025 as one tool to reverse the decline. Yet at the same time, American taxpayers continue to subsidize the very thing working against higher birth rates: abortion.

Federal dollars do not directly pay for elective abortions thanks to the Hyde Amendment, but they do flow to Planned Parenthood and other providers for family-planning services, reimbursements, and training.

The Ryan Residency Training Program embeds abortion and contraception instruction in OB/GYN residencies across the country. And roughly 20 states use their own Medicaid funds to cover abortions beyond the narrow federal exceptions for life endangerment, rape, or incest.

In short, public policy actively supports ending pregnancies while the economy desperately needs more of them.

An economically self-defeating plan

This is not just inconsistent—it is economically self-defeating.

Paying baby bonuses while simultaneously funding abortion providers makes zero fiscal sense. It is like subsidizing both gym memberships and fast-food chains and wondering why obesity rates keep rising.

The logical first step is to stop funding abortions at every level—federal, state, and local—until fertility rates climb back toward replacement. Redirect those resources toward proven pro-natal policies: paid family leave, affordable child care, housing assistance for young families, and targeted incentives that reward births rather than prevent them.

The question is whether scarce public dollars should underwrite abortion while the nation’s demographic future hangs in the balance. The data say the answer is no.

The Baby Boom generation powered decades of robust GDP growth, expanding the tax base and funding the social safety net. Today’s low-fertility trajectory points in the opposite direction: a shrinking workforce, slower productivity growth, and a heavier burden on fewer young workers to support retiring seniors through Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs.

Fewer births today mean fewer taxpayers tomorrow. That is not a sustainable path for a superpower.

Our long-term economic health—our tax base, our innovation pipeline, our very capacity to care for an aging population—depends on more Americans being born, not fewer. It is time to align policy with that reality.

Michael Seibel is a pro-life abortion malpractice attorney based in Albuquerque. Mr. Seibel has prosecuted abortion malpractice cases on behalf of women injured by the abortion industry. He may be contacted at (505) 275-1700 or mikeseibel@qwestoffice.net. His website is: https://abortioninjury.com/

Key Takeaways:

• The assisted suicide bill, introduced by MP Kim Leadbeater, originally seemed poised to pass Parliament.

• Progress slowed in the House of Lords, where over 1,200 amendments made it near-impossible for the bill to continue.

• Advocates are trying to revive the bill before Parliament's closure in May.

• The bill faced heavy opposition, particularly from disability advocates.

The Details:

Assisted suicide advocates think that there is a slim chance for the resurrection of the bill, even as the British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is dealing with 13 suspected cases of illegal assisted suicide in England and Wales.

The bill's trajectory through the British Parliament started on rather strong footing, when Labour Member of Parliament (MP) Kim Leadbeater's private member's measure passed its Commons second reading in June 2025 by a narrow 314-291 margin, after long, drawn-out debates. The bill would allow terminally ill adults with less than six months to live, following evaluations by two doctors and an independent panel, to self-administer medication to end their lives. 

The transfer of the bill to the House of Lords ignited political pandemonium, as over 1,200 amendments, many tabled by a small cadre of opponents like Baroness Fox of Buckley, slowed its progress. Opponents argued that the legislation was deficient in protective measures for the vulnerable, with Lords discussions divulging even more loopholes.

In a collective letter addressed to MPs, critics such as Paralympian Baroness Grey-Thompson wrote, “It is now clear that the Terminally ill (End of Life) Bill will fall,” as the proposal “does not sufficiently guard against coercion or protect the most vulnerable people in our society.” 

At the moment, both supporters and detractors of the bill admit the bill won't complete scrutiny by the session's closure on May 13, 2026. Enter the revival plan that supporters have proposed: the private members' ballot on May 21, where 20 spots are drawn from 500 hopefuls. 

“The strategy is to come high up in the private members bill ballot,” Charlie Falconer, the Labour peer who has been steering the bill through the Lords, said.

Zoom In:

With around 200 MPs committed, backers stand a 92% chance at a prominent slot, encountering less resistance than government bills. Lord Falconer, architect of a failed 2014 attempt, likened it to fox hunting's path — prohibited via private member's bill after multiple failures — forecasting "significantly more than 50%" chances of success. 

“The idea is we all support that person to take Kim [Leadbeater]'s bill through again,” Labour MP Dr Simon Opher said, adding, "As it is a private members' bill, the whole committee could be supporters of the legislation, so the committee stage would only last a few hours."

Opher noted that certain MPs who previously resisted the measure would now support it, regarding the Lords' obstruction of the bill as “undemocratic."

Amidst the mobilization in favor of the assisted suicide bill, the CPS on April 2 disclosed that it is presently evaluating 13 suspected assisted suicide cases, the highest active caseload ever, in wake of 209 total referrals since 2009.

Last year alone saw 10 new cases. Prosecutions remain rare — only six convictions in 17 years. According to its website, the CPS said, “Such cases [of suspected assisted dying] are by their very nature complex and sensitive, not least due to the tragic events that surround them. Conduct in these cases can range from circumstances where a victim is being pressured to end their life, to actions wholly motivated by compassion.”

Opposing the bill, Dr. Calum McKellar of Care Not Killing denounced the “barbaric” nature of underground practices, from smuggling drugs to untested methods, calling for more resources to be channeled to palliative care rather than legalization.

Likewise, faith leaders, disability advocates, and medics like the British Medical Association caution against coercion risks for the elderly or depressed, using the example of Oregon, which has increasing faltering of safeguards for the vulnerable. The Catholic Church in England and Wales has long decried the bill as eroding the sanctity of all human lives. 

The Bottom Line:

If revived, the bill promises regulated access to assisted suicide, but critics fear a "slippery slope" to wider forms of euthanasia, as in Canada or Belgium.

Key Takeaways:

• Sebastian Aashish was raised Catholic in India, and when he learned what abortion was, it "shook" him.

• Aashish eventually founded Pro Life India, a group that provides outreach and helps to set up pro-life groups in schools and colleges across the country.

• The group's goal is to "awaken the conscience of our nation and inspire every citizen to uphold the sacred value of life" by utilizing "education, advocacy, prayer, and action."

The Details:

A desire to speak the truth

Aashish’s pro-life convictions began relatively early. “My awareness about abortion began when I was in 7th grade while preparing for Confirmation,” he recounted. A nun’s brief explanation of abortion left an indelible impression. “Even though she didn’t go into many details, even at that age I understood that it was a grave evil."

His pro-life awareness deepened during a retreat a few years later at the Divine Mercy Retreat Centre in Chalakudy. Hearing a priest narrate a real-life abortion story, Aashish admitted, “really shook me.” 

However, what Aashish discovered closer to home eventually prompted him to take action. He told Live Action News:

“When I started speaking about abortion with my own family members, I was shocked to realize how the sin of abortion—and even contraception—had quietly entered into many of our own Catholic families.

That realization disturbed me deeply. It made me feel that this is an unspoken evil among us, and if we remain silent, it will simply continue from generation to generation. That’s when I felt it was high time we started speaking openly and boldly about it."

Founding Pro Life India

Starting with social media activism, Aashish volunteered with local pro-life groups before founding Pro Life India, an initiative to mobilize young people. The group’s mission is simple but ambitious: to set up student pro-life groups in schools and colleges across the country.

“I focus on going to schools and colleges and trying to campaign for the cause of life and empower students,” Aashish told Live Action. “Young people are key to changing the culture.”

Pro Life India’s mission statement reads:

We are a patriotic and pro-life movement committed to the unwavering defense of human life from the moment of conception to natural death. Grounded in the belief that every human being is endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to life, we stand as guardians of the unborn, the vulnerable, the disabled, and the elderly.

We believe that protecting life at every stage is the highest expression of true patriotism — for a nation is only as strong as its defense of the innocent. To build a just and moral society, we must honor the dignity of every citizen, born and unborn, young and old. We oppose all forms of violence against life, including abortion and euthanasia, and we work to foster a culture where life is cherished, families are supported, and every person is seen as a gift.

Through education, advocacy, prayer, and action, we aim to awaken the conscience of our nation and inspire every citizen to uphold the sacred value of life. Together, we defend life — because a nation that values its future must first protect its most vulnerable.

Aashish’s pro-life work is rooted firmly in his Catholic faith. “I am a Traditional Catholic,” he divulged. “My work for the unborn is rooted in the belief that every human life is created by God and has inherent dignity from the moment of conception.”

For Aashish, speaking up to save unborn lives is not a solely political affair. 

“Defending the unborn is not just a political issue but a moral and spiritual duty,” he declared. “It means promoting a culture of life through prayer, education, charity, and support for mothers.”

A growing movement

In the spring of 2025, Pro Life India conducted a successful workshop in Bangalore, attended by over 40 participants representing at least seven universities across four different cities.

During the two-day gathering, organizers introduced students to the fundamental tenets of the pro-life movement, equipping them with the knowledge and skills to conduct meaningful conversations on life issues, as well as encouraging students to reflect on the deeper meaning of authentic love. The workshop also offered practical guidance to students on how to establish LIFE teams within their colleges and local communities, empowering attendees to carry the pro-life mission forward.

In November 2025, Pro Life India organized two “Student March for Life” rallies in Darjeeling, attracting hundreds of students and educators.

Pro Life India also collaborated with the Jesus Youth Pro-Life Ministry and members of YU4C to organize a pro-life exhibition in January during the Jesus Youth festival “Kallori Kondatam.” The exhibition garnered a large number of visitors, including young people, college students, and couples, many of whom were deeply impacted by what they encountered. Attendees voiced astonishment as they learned more about the importance of protecting the sanctity of human life. The exhibition featured abortion as a pressing moral issue of the times, a “modern-day holocaust,” according to Pro Life India.

For many, the visual materials and explanations acted as a powerful eye-opener to the horrors of abortion.

These events, Aashish stated, are more than simply enabling visibility. “They inspire young people to speak courageously for the unborn,” he said. 

What's Happening:

Aashish’s activism includes awareness campaigns, such as organizing pro-life exhibitions showcasing foetal development models, visuals, as well as providing expert insights to illustrate the humanity of the unborn and explore the ethical and legal aspects of abortion.

Meant to cultivate empathy and informed dialogue, these interactive events “aim to raise public awareness and promote life-affirming values across educational and community spaces,” according to statements by Pro Life India obtained by Live Action News. 

Aashish has been involved in several national initiatives, including the yearly March for Life India organized by Charis India and the National Pro-Life Summit led by Life For All.

While Pro Life India does not directly run pregnancy centers, it links women in crisis with a network of Catholic and Protestant homes providing practical support. Pro Life India also works alongside Life For All’s national pregnancy helpline, which provides counseling and assistance.

The Context:

Despite a 2021 Pew Research study indicating that most Indians think abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, the practice remains widespread. A 2015 estimate from the Guttmacher Institute put the number of abortions in India at 15.6 million yearly—a figure Aashish contended could be even higher in 2026. 

Concurrently, abortion remains a taboo subject in India, Aashish said.  “People themselves don’t know what pro-life means—that’s the truth.”

Over the years, India’s abortion laws have also become more permissive, permitting the procedure for up to 24 weeks in many cases.

In view of these developments, Aashish pointed out that women typically seek abortions because of unplanned pregnancies or social constraints, showcasing the importance of greater cultural and structural change.

“The focus should be on addressing the reasons why many women feel forced to consider abortion in the first place,” he proclaimed, alluding to poverty, lack of healthcare access, and social stigma. “If these problems were addressed, fewer women would feel that abortion is their only option.”

Aashish encourages stronger support systems: better maternal healthcare, financial assistance, and accessible adoption services. “The goal should be to create a society where women receive the help they need and no one feels forced into a dangerous or desperate decision,” he told Live Action News. 

The Bottom Line:

Despite the challenges facing the pro-life movement in India, Aashish remains hopeful, focusing on youth engagement to foster a cultural shift in a pro-life direction. 

In a society where abortion is often hidden from view, Aashish’s message through Pro Life India is direct and unwavering: silence about abortion enables injustice, but courage — especially among the young — can begin to change hearts in favor of the sanctity of life.

In 2022, my second pregnancy quickly shifted from a joyful, “typical” experience to something I never could have prepared for. My routine anatomy scan revealed that my daughter, Marsaili, had multiple serious complications.

I went in expecting to get ultrasound pictures I could show to our then four-year-old. I expected to celebrate his baby sister with him and my husband. Instead, I walked away traumatized after hours of detailed scans, an unexpected amniocentesis, and a doctor asking me if I wanted to terminate.

As frightened as we were, termination was never an option. Marsaili was our daughter. She was created with great purpose, even if we didn’t fully understand that purpose just yet. We still don’t fully understand why God chose this path for us, but I can say that He has slowly revealed pieces to us over time. 

Finding God in the wilderness

For a while, I didn’t understand why my husband and I went to high school together but didn’t meet until years later. I didn’t understand why I spent nearly a decade earning a doctorate degree in physical therapy just to quit within five years and come home. 

But after the anatomy scan, I found comfort in this: God brought me home at the right time. He blessed me with a wonderful husband and the perfect former career. Both my studies and my choice to be home were ways God had prepared me for what was to come. It made me confident that He would sustain us, and He did. 

Through every hospital stay, every ambulance call, every uncertainty, God met us in the wilderness. Even as Marsaili’s last days were approaching, I knew He would not forsake us. He had comforted us from the moment Marsaili was conceived.

We felt the presence of the Holy Spirit as she took her last breath in my arms, and we still feel His comfort to this day. But even with the knowledge that He is so good and faithful, we still find ourselves baffled by the chances of our story actually happening.

Astronomically small odds

It wasn’t until weeks before Marsaili passed that we finally got answers from genetic testing revealing why she had so many complications. She had an ultra-rare genetic disorder, and there is only one study in existence examining the condition. The study included fewer than 20 patients, which means Marsaili was likely one of fewer than 20 known cases globally with this condition.

Marsaili’s condition involves loss-of-function variants in the PPFIBP1 gene. It is autosomal recessive, which means a child has to inherit two non-working copies of the gene (one from each parent) in order to be affected. If both parents are carriers, there’s a 25% chance with each pregnancy that the child will inherit both copies of the dysfunctional gene.

I could make sense of that math. I had studied basic genetics in school. But I couldn’t comprehend how two unrelated people (my husband and I) from different ancestral backgrounds could both carry this rare genetic anomaly, meet, fall in love, get married, and then have children. If life were just a system of random events, what were the odds of that?

Given the extremely rare nature of the condition, the exact carrier frequency of PPFIBP1 loss-of-function variants is unknown. However, the study identified these variants as “ultra-rare” and absent from large population databases, such as gnomAD. Based on general population genetics modeling for recessive conditions with very few cases, carrier frequencies for variants this rare are often estimated at roughly 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 10,000 individuals.

For context, the carrier frequency for cystic fibrosis (a more widely known autosomal recessive condition) is about 1 in 25 to 1 in 30 people. That’s wildly different than 1 in 10,000.

To estimate the odds of both my husband and I being carriers of this ultra-rare gene:

• Using the higher estimate, 1 in 5,000 × 1 in 5,000 = 1 in 25,000,000.

• Using the lower estimate, 1 in 10,000 × 1 in 10,000 = 1 in 100,000,000.

So, the likelihood of two unrelated individuals both being carriers and then marrying could be tens of millions to one. And that’s before we even consider the next layer: the astronomical odds of any one person existing at all.

Biologists estimate the probability of one specific sperm meeting one specific egg (the exact combination that makes you who you are) is astronomically small. Some estimates put it at one in hundreds of trillions. And that’s just for any single person.

In our story, we’re not just talking about the improbability of a person existing in general. We’re talking about the improbability of this specific little girl existing—our Marsaili. Her exact genetic code was so rare. She was born to two parents from completely different ancestral backgrounds who unknowingly carried the same ultra-rare gene that hadn’t even been described in medical literature yet. 

The blessing

When the odds are all stacked on top of one another, it is unfathomable how miraculous it is that Marsaili existed at all. Other than divine intervention, God-breathed creation, I have no explanation for the blessing of her life.

Now some people have told me that God couldn’t be responsible for something like this. I understand that, but I don’t believe my daughter’s life was random. Where some see her as just a statistic, I see the fingerprints of God. One who is sovereign over biology, over my existence, over DNA replication, and over probability itself.

Rare does not mean random. Marsaili was not a statistical accident. She was (and still is) our daughter. She was fully and intentionally created by the God who made the stars in the sky and every hair on her head.

I still don’t fully know why the path He chose for us required us to release her into the arms of Jesus so soon, but I do know this: she was not an anomaly. She was a miracle. Her life and her story have great purpose. 

And because of Jesus, we will see her again.

What Planned Parenthood does not report is how some of its affiliates provide some of the ‘testing and treatments’ it offers to the surrounding community. Though providing “STI tests & treatments” may cause one to picture an individual visiting a brick and mortar medical facility, this isn't always the case. Planned Parenthood’s outreach programs and events involving STI testing, some of which target youth, are disturbing. 

Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) has both teen and adult groups for LGBTQ+ individuals.

• Many of the adult LGBTQ+ events offering STI testing and treatment information (such as drag shows and BDSM events) provided by PPRM’s adult MPower group are also shared and advertised on the TeenMPower social media page. 

• Last year's PPRM "Lavender Prom" was marketed to teens and adults and offered "free rapid HIV testing" during the event, which “featured 4-5 grown adult males and drag performers,” and allegedly placed “children in potentially predatory sexual situations.” 

The Details:

Recently, Live Action News discussed Planned Parenthood’s ‘grooming centers’ for teens. One such center is the TeenMP (teen’mpower), which is a part of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM). According to its website, TeenMP specifically targets youth as young as 13, marketing itself as a “group of LGBTQ+ youth and allies who come together and make memories” with promises to provide “super comfy” couches, ample free food, dance parties, and game/movie events.   

An upcoming event advertised by TeenMP is the annual “Lavender Prom,” which Live Action News noted “encourages participation across a broad age range of young teens with adults offering ‘free rapid HIV testing’ during the event.”

A recent New Mexico Alliance for Life (NMA4L) press release stated that last year's event “featured 4-5 grown adult males and drag performers,” which NMA4L stated is placing “children in potentially predatory sexual situations.” 

PPRM’s adult version of the program, MPower Albuquerque, is intended for ages 18-29 and listed by the CDC as a provider in its National Prevention Information Network. MPower Albuquerque frequently advertises its “Drag Out HIV ambassadors” events. Many of these events like the “Red Light District Dance Party” and “Devotion” are held at local venues where the PPRM group goes to offer “free rapid HIV testing.” The same local venue also hosts other events, such as the “After Dark: The Bunny Hunt,” providing “BDSM demos and tastings” and “BDSM backroom videos.” 

Many of these adult events offering STI testing and treatment information provided by PPRM’s MPower group are also shared and advertised on the TeenMPower social media page. 

In fact, the two groups often table together at events—like the 2025 “HIV Glow Walk,” which offered “free testing” and “education” alongside free “water based lube” and condoms where people in scantily dressed “drag” costumes danced inside. Other MPower Albuquerque “Social Club” events offering “FREE rapid HIV testing” include men in animal-like BDSM costumes and frequently offer a “free drink ticket” with each test. 

The Bottom Line: 

Planned Parenthood claims to be "serving" communities, but its promotion of abortions and potentially sexually predatory outreach events under the guise of "health care services" target vulnerable teens.

Lawmakers must stop enabling Planned Parenthood and must immediately cease all taxpayer funding. 

Click here to demand that Congress extends the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, the abortion organization's largest affiliate, has begun selling Botox and providing other beauty and aesthetic treatments.

• In a letter to the IRS, Blackburn said the organization needs to investigate whether selling cosmetic treatments violates Planned Parenthood's tax-exempt status.

• Blackburn said this marks a shift from Planned Parenthood's claim to be a charitable health care organization.

The Details:

In a press release, Blackburn announced that she sent a letter to Robert Malone, Director of Exempt Organizations and Government Entities at the IRS, questioning if Planned Parenthood has violated its tax-exempt status by selling cosmetic treatments.

Planned Parenthood is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charitable organization, but the New York Times recently revealed that Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, the organization's largest affiliate, had begun providing Botox and other cosmetic treatments in an effort to make up lost revenue.

Dr. Laura Dalton, the chief medical operating officer for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, told the New York Times that the affiliate was providing "cosmetic Botox injections and intravenous drips for hydration to help keep the lights on."

Dalton tried to justify the move by saying clients were increasingly seeing cosmetic treatments as part of their overall well-being.

“So I think, actually, aesthetics is an alignment with what Planned Parenthood stands for," she said. "Planned Parenthood stands for bodily autonomy. Planned Parenthood stands for: You decide what is best for you, and what you need to feel good, and to feel like your body is what you want it to be.”

Blackburn clearly disagrees; in her letter, she wrote:

Let’s be clear what is actually occurring here.

Planned Parenthood, in an effort to abuse its 501(c)(3) status, is appealing to the women’s beauty market after the Working Families Tax Cut Act (Public Law 119-21) imposed a restriction on federal Medicaid funding for tax-exempt community abortion providers.

In a clear statement of admission, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte President and Chief Executive Officer Stacy Cross, stated the affiliate broadened its services to ‘keep its doors open’ and fill in the estimated $100 million revenue gap for the one affiliate alone…” These offerings go well beyond facial injections. Now, individuals can purchase IV hydration treatments for $100 to $150, and the affiliate plans to add dermal fillers, laser hair removal, and other cosmetic services akin to a med-spa.

As the article notes, ‘[n]ow, along with access to birth control, abortions and testing for sexually transmitted infections, patients can order an IV hydration after a night of drinking—or smooth crow’s feet.’

An expansion ‘beyond a clinic’s core offerings,’ requires the stamp of approval from the National Office, meaning this is not the result of a single rogue affiliate, but a top-down expansion and messaging effort. These developments not only raise concerns about Planned Parenthood growing beyond its original mission statement, but also about the use of its federally supported resources in that expansion.

Federal cost-allocation rules require recipients of federal funding to properly separate costs associated with federally supported activities, and federal funds generally may not subsidize unrelated commercial services.

Zoom Out:

While Planned Parenthood has claimed it needs to sell these services just to survive, its most recent annual report tells a different story. Angela Vasquez-Giroux, vice president of communications at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, claimed a "hostile political environment" is decreasing its revenue, yet the annual report revealed that taxpayer funding hit a record high of $832M for 2024-25 — a $39.8M increase from the year prior. This equates to nearly $2.3M each day from American taxpayers.

Planned Parenthood also reported receiving $782.2 million in private revenue, which is more than a 14% increase from 2023-2024. Overall, Planned Parenthood’s net assets and total liabilities are currently $3.11B.

It is also true that Planned Parenthood has been closing numerous facilities in recent years. Yet this is not due to political hostility or a lack of funding; it is part of a restructuring plan put in place years ago to move away from brick-and-mortar facilities, and towards a profitable telehealth system.

Additionally, Planned Parenthood reported a record-breaking 434,450 abortions in 2024-25, up 8% from the previous year. That's 1,190 preborn lives ended every single day, which equates to nearly 50 per hour, and one every 73 seconds.

The Bottom Line:

It remains to be seen whether the IRS will respond to Blackburn's request, as it seems no matter what rules Planned Parenthood breaks, it always manages to hold on to taxpayer money.

Key Takeaways:

• Rock band Florence + the Machine has announced that Planned Parenthood will be on hand during some of its upcoming shows to offer information to concertgoers.

• The band's lead singer, Florence Welch, said Planned Parenthood is a "lifeline for millions" and can provide people the "care and information they need."

• In reality, Planned Parenthood's latest annual report revealed that it committed a record high of 434,450 abortions in just one year, while many of its other health care services continued to decrease.

The Details:

The partnership between Florence + the Machine and Planned Parenthood was announced in an April 6 press release, which detailed that members from some of the abortion organization's affiliates will be on hand during stops of the band's upcoming tour, "Everybody Scream."

The announcement stated:

Beginning on April 8, more than a dozen Planned Parenthood affiliates will table at multiple stops on the tour to talk with concertgoers about the essential sexual and reproductive care Planned Parenthood health centers provide, which is under attack by the Trump administration and its backers in Congress.

Planned Parenthood affiliate staff and volunteers will reportedly be on hand during concerts "to talk to fans about Planned Parenthood health center services in their communities, volunteer opportunities, and the fight for access to sexual and reproductive health care."

Welch made bold claims in announcing the partnership, calling Planned Parenthood a "lifeline for millions of people," while asserting that Planned Parenthood facilities are "relentlessly attacked."

"In this moment of uncertainty for our rights, I’m proud to support Planned Parenthood and create space on my tour for them to connect people with the care and information they need," she said.

Reality Check:

Just one day after the band's announcement, Planned Parenthood released its 2024-2025 annual report, which showed that the corporation is still making plenty of cash from taxpayers.

It was a record year for the abortion business, which raked in a whopping $832 MILLION in taxpayer dollars (in addition to $782.2 million in private revenue) while killing a record 434,450 preborn children. Clearly, it wasn't a "lifeline" for those human beings, who are discarded as mere medical waste.

Further, Live Action Research Fellow Carole Novielli noted that many of Planned Parenthood's actual health care services decreased for the fiscal year, including:

• Total cancer screenings - down nearly 9%

• Breast screenings dropped over 15%

• Pap tests - down nearly 2.5%

• Preventative Care Visits dropped over 3%

• Miscarriage Care (largely undefined) declined nearly 21%

• “Other” services dropped by nearly 20,000

• "Other Procedures" dropped over 35%

"Planned Parenthood commits nearly 57 abortions for every one prenatal care service it provides," Novielli pointed out. "Since 2000, while Planned Parenthood aborted nearly 8 million preborn babies, it provided just 331K prenatal services."

Read the full analysis here.

Zoom Out:

Last fall, Welch candidly shared that she once suffered an ectopic pregnancy which resulted in a ruptured fallopian tube. She noted the sadness she experienced after the loss, saying, "I think the sound that came out of me was like a wounded animal or something. And then, that was that." 

She also said she felt "unsupported" by the music industry, insinuating that she felt forced to choose between motherhood and her career, noting that far more men in the industry had children because they had a partner at home to care for those children.

"What I'm sacrificing to keep going is more apparent, and bigger, as you get older. I will get those things, hopefully," said Welch. "I will get to have a family, but I haven't had both. Or so far I haven't, and then when I tried, I was sort of violently rebuffed."

These sentiments make a partnership with Planned Parenthood all the more disappointing, as it's an organization that thrives on selling women the lie that they can't be successful in their careers if they have children, or they can abort now and simply have a child 'later' — the very lie Welch lamented permeates the music industry.

The Bottom Line:

Planned Parenthood makes its millions killing over 1,100 innocent preborn children every day. Surely that should be enough to make "everybody scream" over the bloodshed.

The study found that maternal mortality rates are falling in both states with strong pro-life laws and states with permissive abortion policies. Since enacting its Heartbeat Law, Texas saw its maternal mortality rate drop by 2.4 percent. Other states with strong pro-life laws saw their maternal mortality rate drop by 3.3 percent.

The study was comprehensive and methodologically rigorous. The authors calculated quarterly maternal mortality rates for all 50 states and Washington, D.C., for the years between 2018 and 2023. Overall, they considered over 22 million births and over 12,000 pregnancy related deaths.

When trends were held constant, states with strong pro-life laws on average actually experienced slightly faster declines in maternal mortality than states with permissive abortion policies.

Furthermore, the study compared maternal mortality rate trends in each of the 14 states that enacted either a Heartbeat law or an abortion ban to the cohort of states where abortion remained legal.

The results were interesting.

Not one of these 14 states experienced a maternal mortality rate increase that was statistically significant.

Since Dobbs, supporters of legal abortion have worked overtime to claim that pro-life laws have resulted in maternal mortality increases. They have amplified a Gender Equity Policy Institute analysis that was not peer reviewed and largely focused on a few datapoints from Texas.

However, this analytically rigorous JAMA Network Open study which analyzed data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia provides strong evidence that pro-life laws do not increase the maternal mortality rate.

Indeed, this study and data from countries like Poland show that pro-life laws are consistent with good public health.

On March 30, the cantonal parliament voted 81 to 27 to expand assisted suicide into hospitals and retirement homes—moving the practice out of specialized clinics and directly into the institutions traditionally associated with care.

Key Takeaways:

• Lawmakers in Lucerne, Switzerland, have voted to integrate assisted dying into hospitals and retirement homes.

• Critics warn that this is dangerous, as hospitals are meant to facilitate health care, not death.

• Other cities in Switzerland are moving in the same direction.

The Details:

No need to leave the room

Until now, assisted suicide in Switzerland has largely been handled by outside organizations, often requiring patients to relocate in their final days. Supporters of the new measure framed that as an unnecessary barrier.

The solution, they argued, was simple: bring assisted suicide to wherever the patient already is.

As Social Democratic lawmaker Sara Muff put it, end-of-life “self-determination” should apply regardless of setting. Hospitals, after all, are already places where people die.

That argument carried the day.

A quiet redefinition of medicine

Not everyone was convinced, however. Some officials pushed back, arguing that hospitals are meant to heal and care for patients, not to facilitate death.

Health Director Michaela Tschuor warned against collapsing that distinction, suggesting hospitals should remain outside the scope of the law. Others raised practical concerns: What happens when medical staff object? What happens when “care” begins to include something fundamentally different from treatment?

The vote failed to answer those questions, but expanded access regardless.

Zoom Out:

Lucerne is not moving in this direction alone.

Earlier this year, Zurich approved a policy requiring care homes to allow assisted suicide on-site. Across the country, what was once confined to the margins is steadily moving toward the center of institutional life.

At the same time, the numbers are also rising. Data from the Swiss organization Exit show an increase in assisted suicide deaths in 2025, a trend highlighted by Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition as evidence of growing normalization.

“This is a significant change in Swiss assisted suicide policy and will likely expand the number of assisted suicide deaths by normalizing assisted suicide as a medical act,” Schadenberg said. “Doctors should never be given the right in law to be directly involved with killing their patients.”

Key Takeaways:

• The Masters Tournament, held in Augusta, Georgia, is the first of four major men's golf tournaments.

• Each year, the Masters opens with the Par 3 contest, a family-friendly nine-hole event in which family members, including children, caddie for the professional golfers, and wear the traditional all-white uniforms.

• The children also often take shots on the golfers' behalf, making it a beloved, low-pressure event to open the tournament.

The Details:

The annual Par 3 contest was held Wednesday before the official tournament began, a tradition dating back to 1960. Though it has been taking place for decades, it was largely a behind-the-scenes event until it was televised for the first time in 2008, and quickly became a fan-favorite event. The Masters website describes the event this way:

Of all the traditions at the Masters, none is more endearing than the annual Par 3 Contest. This beloved event, held on Wednesday of Tournament week and now televised around the world, is above all a family affair. Wives and girlfriends, children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews-all happily serve as caddies.

The sight of toddlers, outfitted in miniature Augusta National jumpsuits, toting a light bag or tending a flagstick more than twice their height brings smiles to onlookers near and far.

“[My favorite thing is] just the collection of all the kids in our group. Saving them from running in the water, picking up clubs and ice creams while trying to hit a golf shot in between all of that," Kevin Kisner said in the 2025 Golfweek Masters survey, while Jason Day added, "It’s usually just crying kids. Always an adventure trying to hold the baby between shots.”

The Masters Par 3 contest gives fans the ability to see their favorite elite golfers as more than just incredible players: as sons, husbands, fathers, and grandfathers.

“It's full circle, right?” Jordan Spieth told Golfweek in 2025. “I used to play it with myself, Justin [Thomas] and Rickie [Fowler], and we were just doing hole-in-one bets. Now, I've just got to make sure that [my son] Sammy doesn't hit somebody. It's very, very different. Very full circle. I used to see the kids out there [and think] ‘Man, that seems too far away.’ Now I have two walking around with a third on the way. . . It's a special day. This place is unlike any other. We don't do this anywhere else.”

Golfer Scottie Scheffler posted numerous adorable pictures of his family, which includes nine-day-old Remy. His wife, Meredith, participated in the tradition, wearing Remy in a white baby carrier to match her white caddie's uniform.

"This is what it’s all about!" Scheffler wrote. "Remy made his big debut and we are officially a family of four."

The Bottom Line:

Sports and career are, of course, important, and achieving a goal like winning the Masters is laudable. But the Par 3 contest reminds fans and golfers alike what is truly most important: family.

4/10/26: A U.S. District Court sided with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by issuing a "motion to stay" an abortion pill lawsuit filed by the State of Louisiana while the FDA completes a safety review of the drug, but said the state is likely to succeed in its lawsuit.

The Court also denied "without prejudice" a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the drug's manufacturers, Danco and GenBioPro, while the FDA conducts a safety review of the abortion pill.

The ruling surprisingly affirmed that the State of Louisiana not only has standing to sue, but agreed that — in the words of Louisiana's Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga — states like Louisiana are "suffering irreputable sovereign harm everyday that this 2023 REMS... remains in effect."

Key Takeaways:

• U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph ruled in favor of the FDA, allowing the agency to complete its review of mifepristone and issuing a "motion to stay" Louisiana's abortion pill lawsuit challenging the FDA's 2023 REMS.

• The judge says Louisiana has standing to sue, and is also "likely to succeed" in its lawsuit, as "The Fifth Circuit has twice indicated... that FDA was likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA in removing mifepristone’s in-person dispensing requirement."

• The judge agreed that the state of Louisiana has suffered harm due to the FDA's decision to allow the drug to be distributed without an in-person visit.

• The judge denied the abortion pill manufacturers' motion to dismiss Louisiana's lawsuit.

The Backstory:

The abortion pill, mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex, was approved by the FDA in 2000 and placed under a safety system known as REMS in 2011.

2016: Big Abortion conspired to erode the REMS on the drug. The Obama FDA weakened the REMS, even removing the requirement to report the drug's adverse events other than deaths.

2023: Despite a prohibition under the federal Comstock Act, Biden's FDA weakened the REMS again to remove the in-person dispensing requirement and allow for mail order and pharmacy dispensing of the drug.

The decision to halt the reporting of non-fatal adverse events (complications) of the abortion pill in 2016 may have led to faulty conclusions that the drug is safe.

Lawsuit - State of Louisiana v. FDA 

2022: The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) challenged the FDA's approval and erosions of REMS safety regulations.

2024: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled AHM's plaintiff doctors did not have standing to sue, and AHM eventually dropped their challenge.

October 6, 2025: State of Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration (along with Rosalie Markezich) was refiled in the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division. Louisiana later filed for preliminary injunctive relief.

January 27, 2026: Trump's FDA petitioned the Court to "stay all proceedings" until the FDA completes its review, which the FDA claimed could be completed in less than a year.

February 13, 2026: 21 states file in support of Louisiana, and 60 lawmakers filed an amicus brief in support as well.

February 17, 2026: Louisiana responds, accusing the FDA and abortion pill manufacturers of "try[ing] to scuttle the case on standing grounds."

February 24, 2026: The court heard oral arguments on pending motions and "granted the Motions to Intervene filed by mifepristone manufacturers Danco and GenBioPro."

April 7, 2026: A stay in the lawsuit was approved until the FDA safety review is completed.

April 8, 2026: Louisiana appealed the 'stay' ruling.

The Details:

FDA 'Safety Review' at Center of Case

The April 7, 2026 opinion, written by U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph, claimed to prioritize "public interest" by allowing the FDA time to complete a "safety review" of the drug.

Joseph's opinion stated:

FDA does not defend its decision-making on the merits but instead acknowledges deficits and requests a stay to complete a fulsome review of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims – a review that was announced before this lawsuit was filed and has already been initiated... FDA also has the authority to take interim actions to ensure drug safety if new information is discovered during the pendency of its review.

"In staying a case pursuant to this authority, the Court should 'balance between the harm of moving forward [with the litigation] and the harm of holding back,'" he added.

Judge Affirms State's Harm

"No doubt Louisiana has a great interest in this issue... Dobbs returned the issue of abortion to the people of the States and their elected representatives, including regulation of abortion methods, procedures, and the use of related drugs," Joseph's ruling stated.

Plaintiffs claimed injuries include:

• "harm to state sovereignty"

• "increased Medicaid expenditures, including over $92,000 in 2025 emergency room and hospitalization costs from two mifepristone-induced abortions and projections of hundreds of thousands of dollars in similar costs"

• "public-health harms, including statistically-certain emergency room visits and risks of serious and sometimes fatal infections and bleeding"

However, the judge wrote, "The 2023 REMS clearly facilitates easier access to mifepristone for Louisiana residents," reiterating that Louisiana has a "duty to enforce its own laws...."

The court pointed to evidence that:

• "[t]he 2023 REMS was approved without adequate consideration, at least in part, as an effort to circumvent anti-abortion states’ ability to regulate abortion."

• "[t]he consequences of this action were predictable – out-of-state providers and related entities would expand access to mifepristone in ways designed to reach into jurisdictions like Louisiana. These actions cause concrete and ongoing injury to Louisiana..."

Judge Affirms Louisiana's Standing to Sue

The judge's ruling also affirmed that Louisiana has standing to sue and will likely prevail in its claims:

The Fifth Circuit has twice indicated... that FDA was likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA in removing mifepristone’s in-person dispensing requirement.

Louisiana argued it has standing because:

• "the 2023 REMS causes sovereign harm by facilitating abortions that violate numerous Louisiana state laws"

• "it continues to suffer ongoing financial injury resulting from the 2023 REMS and has already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars through Louisiana Medicaid for emergency room medical care stemming from mifepristone use by residents."

The judge wrote:

Here, Louisiana alleges that an unlawful use of federal regulatory power by an administrative agency directly undermines the enforcement of its own laws and forces it to incur additional costs.

The judge noted the dilemma at play:

... if ... FDA acted lawfully in its removal of the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, then Louisiana would have no judicial recourse...

... if FDA did not act lawfully...but rather exceeded or abused the power vested in it by Congress as Plaintiffs contend, then Louisiana clearly has an interest in vindicating its sovereign prerogative under basic principles of federalism.

Citing "shield laws" enacted in pro-abortion states enabling abortion pills to flood across borders of pro-life states like Louisiana, the court document stated:

Plaintiffs further estimate that, on average, about 1,000 mifepristone-induced abortions are occurring per month in Louisiana. And, according to Plaintiffs’ expert, many of these women obtaining abortions are likely to be on Medicaid.

The judge's opinion states:

Plaintiffs have supplied evidence... identifying more than $92,000 in Medicaid costs incurred for emergency room care and hospitalizations required because of two mifepristone-induced abortions in 2025 in which the drugs were received from out-of-state prescribers.

...These two incidents alone are sufficient to establish Louisiana’s standing, but it is likely that many more Medicaid patients have required similar care due to complications from mifepristone.

Claiming "Louisiana’s harm is more than zero" the judge cited the following as sufficient for standing:

• "even if the 2023 REMS is not the 'sole cause' of Louisiana’s sovereign harms, it has surely 'exacerbated' them"

• “[m]onetary costs are of course an injury” for standing purposes.

• “even one dollar’s worth of harm is traditionally enough to” confer standing...

A state’s increased medical costs, such as increased Medicaid costs due to a federal agency action, can constitute a “pocket-book injury” sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of standing.

"For all of these reasons, Louisiana has established injury that is traceable to FDA’s actions and redressable, at least in part, by the relief requested herein. Louisiana therefore has standing..." the judge wrote, adding, the "Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their 2023 REMS challenge" (emphasis added).

Court Ruling

"After a review of the record and the complex regulatory and judicial history of this subject matter, the Court declines to grant the Plaintiffs... relief at this time," the court document stated, adding:

The record shows that FDA is currently in the process of “conducting its own review of the evidence” with respect to the current...“REMS”, “to determine whether modifications are necessary.”

And “courts owe significant deference to the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”

The judge claimed the completion of the FDA's review, not “government by lawsuit,” is in the "public interest."

He outlined potential outcomes:

On the one hand, a proper science-driven evaluation may lead FDA to conclude that the in-person dispensing requirement is necessary to comply with FDA’s mandate to ensure that mifepristone is “safe and effective” for use, and Plaintiffs offer substantial evidence supporting that possibility.

On the other hand, FDA may determine, after a thorough and scientifically-driven process, that such a requirement is not required.

Citing "prudence in issuing injunctive relief" and "five other lawsuits in federal courts around the nation addressing issues similar to those before the Court," the judge claimed:

This Court is ill-equipped to make this determination... ultimately it is FDA, not this Court, that possesses the expertise to evaluate scientific evidence and make public health judgments...

FDA’s review should be conducted and completed free from judicial interference.

Stay Not Open-Ended

The judge ordered the matter "STAYED pending completion of FDA’s ongoing review" but would only afford FDA a "time limited period of deference to complete its review," writing that the "stay granted to FDA will not remain open-ended."

He ordered:

• 60 Days: FDA must produce entirety of the administrative record to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

• 6 Months: FDA must file a report providing the Court with the status of its review.

• 14 Days: After FDA completes its REMS review, FDA shall file a brief advising the Court of any agency action.

"Should the agency fail to complete its review and make any necessary revisions to the REMS within a reasonable timeframe, the Court’s analysis – and the weight accorded to these factors – will inevitably change," the judge wrote.

The Bottom Line:

In response, the State of Louisiana has appealed the 'stay' to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

And yet, that is the concern now entering public debate, prompted in part by the reemergence of a little-known intelligence report from a handful of years ago.

Key Takeaways:

• In February, the CIA retracted a number of intelligence reports, and among them was a 2021 assessment that presented women who amplify the narrative of "traditional motherhood" as a possible "extremist" threat to national security.

• In 2023, an FBI memorandum presenting "radical-traditionalist" Catholics as a domestic terrorist threat was leaked, and backlash ensued.

• The traditional family is viewed as an obstacle to certain ideologies' vision for society — like Marxism. This view of the family as "extremist" is concerning and part of a larger pattern.

• Motherhood and family life are among the most basic and enduring features of human society—realities that precede politics and outlast it.

The Details:

In February 2026, the CIA formally retracted a number of intelligence reports after an independent review found they had failed to meet analytic standards.

Among the reports identified was an October 2021 intelligence assessment on women and extremist movements produced by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The report was titled, "Women Advancing White Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist (REMVE) Radicalization and Recruitment.”

According to findings from the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, this and other affected reports “did not meet CIA and IC analytic tradecraft standards and failed to be independent of political consideration.”

And there is good reason why.

The report explicitly turned a spotlight of suspicion on individuals who “may not openly advocate violence” but who “amplify” certain narratives, like the idea of "traditional motherhood.".

When motherhood or family life appear within the same analytical categories as extremism — even as part of a study on messaging — this is concerning.

The Backstory:

The 2021 report focused on how certain women allegedly engage with extremist movements through direct participation and by shaping and reinforcing the narratives those movements depend upon.

The report itself was narrowly scoped, but the concern among critics centered on how its categories were defined.

It described individuals who, while not necessarily involved in violence, might still contribute to the spread of certain "extremist" ideas. One of those "extremist" ideas to watch, the report noted, is when a group “has lauded motherhood and homemaking as women’s most important responsibility.”

The assessment went further, concluding that “female members have been emerging as key players” in advancing these movements by promoting what it describes as “the white REMVE view of traditional motherhood” and contributing to propaganda and recruitment efforts.

Why It Matters:

The CIA assessment is not the only example cited in this broader debate.

A 2023 FBI Richmond field office memorandum examining “radical-traditionalist Catholics” was leaked and later withdrawn after public backlash. The bureau stated that the document did not meet its standards.

When this information came to light, Steve Friend, who formerly worked at the FBI, told The Daily Signal:

“It is clear that the FBI is failing to utilize counterbalancing sources of information in its efforts to generate intelligence products. Relying solely on sources such as SPLC, The Atlantic, and Salon demonstrates the FBI is beginning with a predetermined conclusion to target traditionally conservative Americans for undue scrutiny and persecution.

In this case, the FBI sought to target individuals holding pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and pro-border enforcement political opinions.

Although many religious sects share these worldviews, the FBI placed the Catholic Church in the crosshairs in order to prop up a false political narrative about a rising threat of domestic terrorism.”

Two years prior, in 2021, federal engagement with school board conflicts—framed as a response to threats—raised concerns among parents that dissent on education policy could be interpreted as a threat to national security.

Taken together, these incidents have contributed to a growing perception that the language of extremism is being applied more broadly than before.

Seeing the family as a threat to certain ideologies

As The Heritage Foundation fellow Mike Gonzalez has observed, ideological movements going back to Karl Marx have viewed the family not as a neutral institution, but as something to be reshaped.

In "The Communist Manifesto," Marx “called for the abolition of the family,” framing it as bound up with broader social and economic structures.

Gonzalez argues that this impulse has resurfaced in more recent Marxist movements as well, noting that among the guiding principles of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation was a call for the “disruption” of the nuclear family.

"Communists indeed tell us again and again that they are at war with the family because they know it is a handy way to destroy society," Gonzalez wrote.

The family, in that light, is not simply a private arrangement; it carries moral and cultural weight that shapes how a society understands itself.

The Bottom Line:

Motherhood is not an ideology, nor is family life a threat category. They are among the most basic and enduring features of human society—realities that precede politics and outlast it.

If the language used to identify danger becomes imprecise or is weaponized against ideological opponents, it does not simply mislabel a problem. It risks obscuring the difference between what a society must guard against and what it must protect.

Key Takeaways:

• Barrett Breznik was removed from the liver transplant list on March 4, with hospital staff stating he was too sick to receive the transplant he needed.

• Barrett's mother told a local news station that despite her son's tragic death, she and her husband "will advocate for other babies with Down syndrome dealing with significant illnesses."

• People with intellectual disabilities are routinely denied life-saving organ transplants.

The Details:

Wesley and Ashley Breznik, both in the medical field, were notified on March 4 that their son, Barrett, had been taken off the liver transplant list in Kansas City due to an infection. Barrett had Down syndrome.

Barrett's father, Wesley, told FOX4 at the time, "We know how sick he is. For us, it's a pretty simple thing here… if he can get [a transplant] and survive, he lives. If he doesn't get one, he doesn't live. So, for us, it's a no brainer, that's why we're trying everything we can."

However, even after the infection cleared, doctors said he was too sick to receive a transplant.

A ventilator was sustaining Barrett’s life, and he died in late March.

Barrett's mom, Ashley Breznik, told FOX4 the heartbreaking news:

“Barrett passed away comfortably in our arms with family and beautiful staff in the chapel of Children’s Mercy Hospital. Surrounded by God’s presence and love, the one thing he knew most.

Barrett won, we will continue to carry his story. We will continue to help parents advocate for their kids. We will advocate for other babies with Down Syndrome dealing with significant illnesses. We thank everyone for the help, prayers and selflessly offering partial organ donation to save our sweetest boy.” 

The Backstory:

Barrett had heart surgery in November last year, and struggled with several infections. At around eight weeks post-operation, doctors discovered Barrett had cirrhosis; he would need a liver transplant.

Barrett’s care team initially included him on the transplant list, but after a new bloodstream infection surfaced, medical staff suspended his status on March 4 as they treated the infection. 

Ashley said doctors had hoped to reassess Barrett a week afterward, and his most recent blood tests had showed no indications of infection. But doctors did not give the green light.

“They made the decision that Barrett’s too sick to receive a liver transplant here in Kansas City,” Ashley said.

“I was devastated. To get a little hope and then, seemingly, in like a week, 10 days just ripped away. And that's not their fault, they're trying to do their best that they can do,” Wesley added.

“We fully understand how sick he is. It's all so overwhelming. We just want to make sure we have no stone left unturned and that we've done everything we can and advocated for him,” Ashley added. 

Ashley revealed that with support from the Children's Mercy pediatric ICU staff coordinating outreach, the family had contacted about 10 hospitals — but help did not come in time for Barrett.

Why It Matters:

Barrett’s tragic case demonstrates a disturbing devaluation of disabled lives. This trend ominously underscores the epidemic of how some people with disabilities, particularly Down syndrome, encounter blanket exclusions from transplants, notwithstanding legal safeguards.

While federal laws require individualized assessments relying on medical evidence and not prejudiced stereotypes, some hospitals allege “quality of life” concerns to justify their discriminatory refusals against disabled people and prioritize their more “able-bodied” peers instead. 

Sandra Jensen

Discrimination against disabled lives is not unique, in light of Sandra Jensen's 1995 battle. Hospitals refused her heart-lung transplant because of her Down syndrome, assuming poor post-op compliance, until Stanford University Medical Center accepted Jensen for transplant.

A 2019 National Council on Disability report divulged that people with disabilities are frequently denied for heart, kidney, and liver transplants, based on erroneous quality-of-life assumptions, violating the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. 

“Organ transplants save lives. But for far too long, people with disabilities have been denied organ transplants as a result of unfounded assumptions about their quality of life and misconceptions about their ability to comply with post-operative care,” the National Council on Disability (NCD) said. “Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, organ transplant centers and medical professionals are often unaware that this prohibition applies to the organ transplant process.”

Veya Vanderbrugghen

In neighboring Canada, baby Veya Vanderbrugghen, who also had Down syndrome, was denied a breathing tube and living-donor liver transplant at SickKids Hospital. Her parents fought valiantly for her before her death in 2025, but because of her disability, she was not treated as she should have been. 

The Bottom Line:

All human life has value and equal dignity, regardless of ability.

Health facilities refusing crucial life-saving care to vulnerable populations reeks of the inhuman practice of eugenics, prioritizing the utility of some human lives over the sanctity of all lives.

Pro-lifers must step up in their efforts to champion for non-discriminatory laws that reinforce the value of all human lives. 

On Wednesday, April 8, an “Ordinance Outlawing Abortion, declaring O’Donnell a Sanctuary City for the Unborn" was unanimously adopted by the city council of O’Donnell, Texas (pop. 704), making the city the 95th in the US to pass such an ordinance.

A unanimous vote

On April 8, City Councilman Joseph Luera made a motion to adopt the measure, which was seconded by Bruce Vaughn. City Councilmembers Emily Acosta, Joseph Luera, Irma Ruiz, Bruce Vaughn, and Armando Arguello voted a unanimous 5-0 in favor of the measure. 

The vote made the City of O’Donnell, located between Lamesa (pop. 9,461) and Tahoka (pop. 2,665), on U.S. Hwy 87 Business Route, the 78th City in the State of Texas and the 95th city in the nation to pass an ordinance banning abortion. The City of O’Donnell is also the 2nd city in Lynn County and the 2nd city in Dawson County to adopt a Sanctuary City for the Unborn (SCFTU) ordinance. The first city to adopt the measure in Lynn County was the city of New Home (pop. 320) in September 2020 and the first city to adopt the measure in Dawson County was the city of Ackerly (pop. 251) in December 2021.

How it began

The initiative to see O’Donnell become a ‘Sanctuary City for the Unborn’ was led by Lizzie Cook, president of the Turning Point USA Club America Chapter at O'Donnell High School.

After attending a congressional candidate forum held in Lubbock in February, where the statewide initiative was mentioned, Cook started to talk about the measure with her pastor at First Baptist Church O’Donnell and her city and county officials.

On February 23, as part of her research, Cook and chapter vice-president Kyndall Halfmann drove 40 miles west of the City of O’Donnell to attend a city council meeting in Wellman (pop. 205) where the measure was being considered. Seeing the Wellman City Council unanimously adopt the ordinance only fueled Cook’s fire to see the measure passed in her city even more. 

On March 18, First Baptist Church O’Donnell Pastor Taylor Wood and several members of the community went before the city council. There they spoke during public comment, encouraging their city leaders to consider the measure at a future meeting.

At that meeting, Mayor Max Mendieta was positive about the ordinance being considered at a future meeting and encouraged educating the community about the measure. The next week, on March 23, Cook went with her pastor before the Lynn County Commissioners’ Court during public comment, encouraging the county leadership to do the same.

Cook shared:

“There is no neutral position on this issue. A community is judged by how it treats those who cannot defend themselves. And there is no one more defenseless than an unborn child. They have no voice in this room. They have no vote in Congress. They have no power. But you do. And that means the responsibility is yours.” 

Nadia Valenzuela, one of several residents who signed the petition circulated by Cook and others, said she wanted to see O’Donnell become a ‘Sanctuary City for the Unborn’ because “It is an abomination to God to kill his innocent creation. Abortion must end.”

On April 6, Cook organized a SCFTU Interest Meeting at First Baptist Church O’Donnell, and invited elected officials and community members to attend to learn more about it. At that meeting, SCFTU Lynn County Guidesheets were made available to those in attendance and questions about the initiative were answered. 

Prior to the vote, Pastor Wood gave an impassioned speech before the city council, stating: 

"As elected officials of the city of O’Donnell, you have an historic opportunity to defend innocent women and babies from the evil of abortion and abortion trafficking by passing this ordinance. Imagine if your 14-year-old daughter or granddaughter was groomed and taken without your knowledge across state lines to an abortion clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Then, an abortion, paid for by George Soros' money, is performed on her without your consent. After being trained to lie to you and hide what happened, she’s sent back, broken hearted, confused, and irreparably harmed.

Now imagine you could pass a law to make sure no one in O’Donnell would have to go through this. You have that opportunity now."

Pastor Wood continued: 

"Every single day, thousands of babies are being murdered, their mothers are left traumatized, and the abortion industry is using our roads to transport infant body parts to Texas landfills.

There is no one more vulnerable, no one more defenseless, no one more voiceless, than an unborn child.

There are babies in the NICU in Lubbock younger than the one being killed in New Mexico as we speak. Our state representatives are begging local city councils to help close loopholes and do everything possible to protect the sanctity of life for all Texans. Who knows, there may be unborn babies in O’Donnell right now that you will help rescue...."

Pastor Wood's speech concluded by urging the council members to vote yes, and in doing so, "you are saying no to the evils of abortion trafficking, and you are saying yes to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all humans, no matter how small." 

The Ordinance

The O’Donnell SCFTU ordinance:

(1) prohibits performing elective abortions and aiding or abetting elective abortions within the city limits of O’Donnell, adding additional enforcement coverage beyond that provided in state law,

(2) prohibits elective abortions on O’Donnell residents – regardless of where the abortion took place,

(3) prohibits abortion trafficking pregnant mothers to abortion facilities across state lines,

(4) recognizes organizations in violation of the federal Comstock Act – which prohibits the mailing and receiving of abortion inducing drugs and abortion paraphernalia – to be criminal organizations and prohibits such organizations from operating within the city limits of O’Donnell, and

(5) prohibits the transportation and disposal of the bodies of aborted babies killed by out-of-state abortion providers anywhere within the city limits of O’Donnell. 

The ordinance is not enforced by the city or local law enforcement, but is enforced the same way as the Texas Heartbeat Act: through the creation of a private right of action allowing citizens to file civil lawsuits against anyone violating the law.​

The measure does not allow any lawsuit to be filed against the mother of the unborn child, but only against the abortionist and those who are assisting the abortionist in the killing of her unborn child — including abortion traffickers.

The O'Donnell SCFTU ordinance also educates about the state-funded Thriving Texas Families Program and the services provided through pregnancy care providers partnered with the Texas Pregnancy Care Network and The Pregnancy Network. 

O'Donnell is the fourth city and the ninth political subdivision in 2026 to pass a ‘Sanctuary for the Unborn’ ordinance, following the Texas cities of Matador (pop. 570), Lockney (pop.1,988), and Wellman (pop. 205), and the Texas counties of Borden (pop. 631), Hall (pop.2,825), Hood (pop. 61,598), King (pop. 265), and Sterling (pop. 1,372). All nine votes in favor of the measures have been unanimous.

The only two political subdivisions that have rejected the measure in 2026 have been Terry County (pop. 11,602) and Brownfield (pop. 9,799). While the vote against the measure in Terry County was a unanimous 4-0, the vote against the measure in Brownfield was split 5-3. 

Other cities in Lynn County that could pass a SCFTU ordinance include Tahoka (pop. 2,665) and Wilson (pop. 504). The Wilson City Council originally considered the measure in October 2020, but rejected the measure in a 3-1 vote at their November 2020 council meeting. With 62 cities and 19 counties having passed the measure in Texas since Wilson rejected the measure, many believe it is time for the City of Wilson to reconsider the measure.

Other cities in Dawson County that could pass the measure include Lamesa (pop. 9,461) and Los Ybanez (pop. 19). Lynn County (pop. 5,596) could also pass anordinance covering the unincorporated area of Lynn County. The commissioners are set to consider the measure at their next meeting on April 13. 

Get involved

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

 Key Takeaways:

• Mary Waldorf, a 40 Days for Life volunteer, discovered that second-trimester abortions were being committed at a California hospital.

• Health care providers are allegedly required to participate in these later abortions.

• Waldorf has launched a petition calling for an end to these abortions.

The Details:

Mary Waldorf, who spearheads a local 40 Days for Life initiative, said that she decided to take action after learning from a church contact and medical staff that hospital workers were required to participate in abortions. Enloe Medical Center is the primary hospital for the region, which means many local residents in the Sacramento area have few other alternatives. 

Vividly recounting  the moment she learned that abortions were being carried out at Enloe Medical Center, Waldorf said, “I spent the rest of the day just bawling because I know what a second-trimester abortion is. Everybody was shocked."

A pediatrician at the hospital reportedly told Waldorf the administration could rethink the policy if public concern grew strong enough, though Waldorf said local news outlets have ignored the dispute, and portrayed the lack of response as a “media blackout.” This prompted her to launch the petition.

“Why she told me, God only knows,. But I thought, well, if that’s the case, then what if we do a petition? I’m just somebody who goes to church, has grandkids, goes to work — I don’t know how to do [a petition]. I am not a media [figure]. But when God gives you an opportunity, you got to go for it,” Waldorf told EWTN Weekly.

Zoom In:

Waldorf further detailed how hospital employees disclosed that Enloe Medical Center had denied certain staff members the choice to refrain from being involved in abortion procedures. “They were told that the pre-op and the post-op nurses and personnel could not opt out,” Waldorf said. 

Waldorf’s petition has an ambitious goal of 10,000 signatures, which she says would reflect around 10% of Chico’s population. As of late March, the petition had garnered around 800 signatures.  

Ultimately, Waldorf said women deserve real choice, not death.

“If the mindset of people is about death, they don’t consider the child — and you have to consider both," she said. "They’re not counseling these women. What about giving them true choice? The dignity of the human person is so paramount. And I think that that is what’s being lost here completely."

The Bottom Line:

The Enloe dispute is more than a local petition drive. It is a reminder that abortion debates do not stay abstract; they involve hospitals, workplaces, and neighborhoods, where issues about conscience, patient care, and the dignity of unborn children become immediate and personal.

Waldorf’s campaign demonstrates how one worried citizen can try to mobilize a community when vulnerable lives are dehumanized and trivialized.

Key Takeaways:

• Surrogacy was previously a booming business in Ukraine, though it slowed due to the war with Russia.

• Georgia has become a popular surrogacy hub for wealthy foreigners, with the demand quickly outpacing the supply.

• As Ukrainian refugees fled to Georgia, fertility clinics began recruiting them to serve as surrogates.

• Ukrainian surrogates say they have turned to the practice so they can provide for their families.

The Backstory:

Ukraine

Surrogacy still continues in Ukraine, but over the years, it has slowed due to the war with Russia. When it does take place, the buyers are typically wealthy and foreign, while the women serving as surrogates are living in poverty. Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in the world.

Ukrainian politicians previously attempted to ban foreign surrogacy, but it has yet to be outlawed. Ukraine and other impoverished countries have been sought-after fertility destinations because they are significantly less expensive than in countries like the United States.

Georgia

Similarly to Ukraine, Georgia's politicians have made efforts to end surrogacy, but it continues to be a thriving business. This is especially true as the war in Ukraine continues, and like Ukrainian women, Georgian women who choose to be surrogates are more likely to live in poverty, turning to surrogacy as a means to provide for their families.

Currently, Georgia allows both gestational (where the woman is biologically related to the child she is carrying) and traditional (where there is no biological relation) surrogacy. It also has a legal framework in place immediately stripping surrogates of parental rights, and recognizing the would-be parents right away.

Recent surveys have found that just five percent of people renting Georgian women as surrogates are Georgian themselves, meaning the overwhelming majority are foreigners. The number of surrogate births has likewise doubled, with most surrogate mothers being single mothers living in poverty. 

The Details:

Women's Agenda, an Australian media outlet, reported on the rise of Ukrainian refugees serving as surrogates in Georgia. Specifically, their investigative team found that as the Georgian surrogacy industry has grown, there are not enough local Georgian women willing or able to rent their wombs.

As a result, Georgian fertility clinics began recruiting foreign women to serve as surrogates from countries like Russia, Belarus, Thailand, the Philippines... and Ukraine.

One surrogate, Anna, told Women's Agenda she would never have left Ukraine if there hadn't been a war; Women's Agenda said this was the case for many of the women they had interviewed, who had lost their homes and their jobs in the war. And after being forced to leave Ukraine, many were still responsible for supporting family members still left behind.

“I didn’t come here to get rich. I came because I had no other way to keep my son safe and care for my displaced family," Anna said, adding, “Surrogacy in Georgia pays in nine months what I would earn in years."

Her desperation was so great that she was willing to sign a surrogacy contract even though it was written in a language she couldn't understand. Many of the women, according to Women's Agenda, live in apartments arranged for by the fertility clinics, and contractual obligations can mandate much of the surrogates' lifestyles, including the food they eat and their daily routines.

The Bottom Line:

The Ukrainian women are refugees in extremely difficult situations, whose desperation is being exploited for the benefit of wealthy foreigners willing to use these women's wombs to get the "products" they want: children.

Key Takeaways:

• Allyson Smyth works as a NICU nurse at Main Line Health's Bryn Mawr Hospital, where she herself was treated as an infant.

• One of her coworkers cared for her as a baby.

• Smyth said her NICU stay, and the passing of her twin brother in the NICU, inspired her to choose a career in nursing.

The Details:

Allyson Smyth started work as a nurse in the NICU at Main Line Health's Bryn Mawr Hospital in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Though she was new to the job, the NICU unit was a familiar place — it's where she was cared for as an infant 30 years ago.

One of Smyth's new coworkers, Karen Lenker, was among those who cared for Smyth as a baby. Though Smyth was born 30 years ago, Lenker remembered her; when Smyth first started working, her name rang a bell.

"And that’s when it all came back," she recalled to 6abc Philadelphia. "And I’m like, ‘Oh my gosh. I took care of you all the time, I was at your first birthday party.' She brought her parents into the unit right after she started working here, so it was neat seeing them again.” 

Zoom In:

As an infant, Smyth was in the NICU for 116 days after her birth. Her twin brother, William, passed away the day after they were born. Smyth said that her experience in the NICU, and the loss of William, motivated her to choose a career in nursing.

"Hearing the story of my NICU journey definitely shaped my mindset in choosing nursing," she explained. "It really felt like a full circle moment to be able to work at Bryn Mawr Hospital in the unit that I owe my life to, and it saved my life."

The Bottom Line:

Lenker said watching babies like Smyth pull through is what keeps her working.

“It’s so neat to see the sickest babies pull through and survive,” Lenker said. “That’s why I love this job, and as I said, I’m 66, soon to be 67, and I’m still working full time. So it’s going to be a hard job to leave. That’s why I think Ally should follow in my footsteps and maybe work til 70 in the NICU. But I don’t know if she’ll take me up on that.” 

But what had caused the tumor itself? 

The answer is Depo Provera, an injectable contraceptive containing medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA). Anita had used Depo Provera from 2006 to 2012, and—although she had stopped taking it over a decade ago–it was too late. The cancer that was to kill her had already taken root in her brain.  

Brain tumor link

At the time that Anita was taking the drug, the deadly side effects of Depo Provera were unknown.  But over the last few years, evidence has emerged that prolonged use (>1 year) of the injectable contraceptive can give rise to brain tumors. We at PRI exposed these dangers in an article that we published last spring. 

The contraceptive-brain tumor link was first confirmed by a major 2023 study published in The BMJ in English in 2024. The researchers found that prolonged use of any one of several progestogens — including medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the active ingredient in Depo Provera — was associated with an increased risk of intracranial meningioma.  

Depo Provera was highlighted as a particular concern because of its widespread use by women in developed countries. Moreover, the injectable contraceptive is also a staple of population control programs run by the UN Population Fund and other agencies in the developing world.

The contraceptive-brain tumor link was further affirmed by a study published in the JAMA Network in September 2025 which found the same results. 

READ: <a href="/news/us-contraceptives-rejected-fda-developing-nations">For decades, the U.S. has sent unsafe contraceptives rejected by the FDA to developing nations</a>

Pro-abortion administration rebuffs manufacturer's request for warning

The drug’s manufacturer, Pfizer, claims to have first become aware of the risk of brain tumors from the 2023 study mentioned above. In February 2024 the company requested that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warn women of this newfound risk by including it on the warning labels for all drugs containing MPA, including Depo-Provera. 

The FDA, which at the time was under the thumb of the radically pro-abortion, pro-population control Biden administration, summarily rejected that request. The agency claimed that “the findings of the available observational studies alone do not support the addition of a warning on Meningioma risk to medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)-containing products.”

As the evidence of tumor link continued to mount, Pfizer tried again, submitting an amended application to the FDA in June 2025.

This time, the FDA relented—at least in part.  In December 2025, the agency announced it would update safety labeling for injectable Depo-Provera products, so that these would warn users of the risk of meningioma. 

The updated warning label now reads:

5.4 Meningioma. Cases of meningiomas have been reported following repeated administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate, primarily with long term use. Monitor patients on Depo-Provera CI for signs and symptoms of meningioma. Discontinue Depo-Provera CI if a meningioma is diagnosed.

While the FDA has finally admitted the truth of the MPA-Brain Tumor connection, it is worth asking why it took them so long. After all, many other countries had already acted to protect women’s health in this way. In 2024, for example, European and Canadian health agencies added meningioma warnings to high-dose hormone products like Depo-Provera. South Africa followed suit. 

The truth is that the first reports of the MPA-Brain Tumor link go back a decade or more. The Canadian health authorities have known of the link since at least 2015. That was the year that it first listed meningiomas under “Post-Market Adverse Drug Reactions” for Depo Provera. 

A delay leading to deaths

In other words, the anecdotal evidence that women on Depo Provera were developing brain tumors had been building for over a decade. But for some reason—regulatory capture?—no nation’s health agency was willing to fund an expensive peer-reviewed scientific study to confirm the link. This meant another decade went by–and many women had to die–before the risk was formally acknowledged. 

There are currently thousands of women suing Pfizer and other generic manufacturers of Depo Provera for failing to disclose this deadly adverse effect of their product sooner. Even more women now live in fear that the slightest headache will reveal that a contraceptive they once used has planted a secret tumor in their brains. 

READ: <a href="/news/us-women-brain-tumors-depo-provera-countries">As US women sue over brain tumors after Depo-Provera, what happens to women in other countries?</a>

The addition of the MPA-Brain Tumor link on warning labels may dissuade some women from using MPA-laced contraceptives. But the reality is that most Western doctors will be happy to continue prescribing it regardless of the risk to their patients of developing tumors, brittle bones, or inflamed reproductive systems. The average Ob-Gyn makes half of his profits from prescribing contraceptives of one kind or another.

The confirmation of a Depo Provera-Brain Tumor link will have even less effect overseas. Depo Provera and other drugs that are used in family planning/population control programs overseas are distributed without warning labels. The young women who receive the injections are simply told that “the shot” will stop them from getting pregnant.

Thankfully, we in the United States are no longer in the business of shipping containers full of abortifacient contraceptives—including Depo Provera—overseas.  

The Trump administration has also zeroed out its nearly $300 million annual contribution to the UN Population Fund, the biggest provider of such abortifacient contraceptives around the world.

The UNFPA and other population control groups may still claim that they are saving women’s lives by contracepting them into infertility. But the truth is that these drugs cause long-term—and in some cases life-threatening—harm.

Just ask Anita Petersen’s family. 

Key Takeaways:

• Protecting Children from Sex Trafficking (Ballot #108): This measure, titled the "Children Are Not For Sale Act," proposes a penalty of "life in prison without parole" for convictions of sex trafficking of a minor.

• Protecting Girls’ Single-Sex Sports and Locker Rooms (Ballot #109): Dubbed the "Protect Women and Girls Sports Act," this measure seeks to prohibit biological males from participating in sports designated for females, including at the collegiate level.

• Protecting Children From Irreversible Sex Change Procedures (Ballot #110): If passed, this measure would prohibit healthcare professionals from "altering biological sex characteristics... in response to a minor’s perception of sex or gender." It would also prohibit the use of state, federal, Medicaid, or private insurance funds for such surgeries on minors.

The Details:

Protect Kids Colorado, the group behind the measures, recently received approval for the ballot measures after submitting over 125,000 approved voter signatures to the state election officials, The Colorado Sun reported.  

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) joined the LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Colorado and other related organizations, and gathered outside the state Capitol on March 27 in opposition to ballot measures 109 and 110, the two measures aimed at mitigating harm inflicted on minors caused by reality-denying “transgender” ideology.  

During the Capitol event, Jack Teter, VP of government affairs for PPRM, said, “We’re all in, and we’re here today as proud providers of abortion and gender affirming care because we know this fight.” Teter is a biological woman who identifies as a man.

In response to Planned Parenthood’s position, executive director of Protect Kids Colorado, Erin Lee, responded on X (formerly Twitter), “Surprise! Our ballot measure opposition is Planned Parenthood (aka those who PROFIT from medically unnecessary sex-rejecting procedures on minors children.).”  

Live Action News has reported how Planned Parenthood continues to benefit from abortions and sex-rejecting “transgender” practices by targeting children through “sex education programs, teen clubs, and social media campaigns” and further capitalizes on minors by providing synthetic opposite sex hormones and puberty blockers with potentially life-long impacts.  

According to local reports, several hospitals across the state announced the halting of "transgender" services, citing “the risk of losing federal dollars” after Trump administration executive orders and policy changes mandated the defunding of the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children. 

Despite increased scrutiny for some of the involved clinics and hospitals, Planned Parenthood continues to provide, benefit from, and advocate for the sex-rejecting policies as a “top provider” of “transgender care,” seemingly getting a pass. 

Zoom Out: 

Abortions

• Over 74,100 abortions are committed by brick-and-mortar facilities, according to Guttmacher (read why these numbers are underestimated) 

• In a recent newsletter, PPRM reported ending the lives of 14,374 preborn children through abortion in fiscal year 2025. 

Sex-Rejecting Practices on Children/Minors

According to the Stop the Harm Database, from 2019-2023: 

• 60 children underwent body altering surgeries in Colorado. 

• 240 children were prescribed medically unnecessary hormones or puberty blockers, with over 1,700 prescriptions written.         

Patients Prescribed Assisted Suicide Drugs (“Aid-in-Dying”)

• 2017-2024 Total Count: 1,995 (according to Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment)     

Other Policies 

• Prohibiting APR: In August 2025, in Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, a federal court struck down a Colorado law which unconstitutionally attempted to prohibit medical providers from providing “abortion pill reversal” (APR). APR, which has allegedly saved over 6,000 lives, was previously prohibited in Colorado. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) represented nurse practitioner and midwife Chelsea Mynyk in the case. ADF’s senior counsel Kevin Theriot said, “Many women regret their chemical abortions, and some choose to reverse the effects of the first abortion drug, which can save their baby’s life… but Colorado’s law wrongly attempted to deny women the freedom to make that choice.”

• Title IX violations: Last month, The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found that Jefferson County Public Schools violated Title IX, stating that “up to 61 roster positions on girls’ sports teams in the District” were occupied by biologically male students. Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey stated, “The District must act now to end these violations and protect future generations of girls from sex discrimination.” 

• Attempts to stifle free speech: On March 31, The U.S. Supreme Court found in Chiles v. Salazar that a Colorado law — which attempted to prohibit licensed counselors from providing certain types of therapy to minors, conflating “talk therapy” with inhumane “conversion therapy” by broadly defining the term to include “any practice or treatment… that attempts… to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity" and any “effor[t] to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex” — “violates free speech.” As applied, Colorado law threatened possible fines and revoking of licenses if the therapy “realign[ed] identity with [biological] sex” or helped a client ‘change’ sexual attractions or behaviors as requested by the client to discuss.

• Abortion: Colorado remains a top state known for promoting abortions and considering the killing of preborn children a state constitutional 'right.' Earlier this year, Live Action News reported that Colorado increased its abortion fund by 84% in 2025. According to Guttmacher, Colorado allows abortion without any gestational limits.  

The Bottom Line: 

Speaking in opposition to protections for children on the upcoming ballot, PPRM’s VP of Legislative Affairs said, “Young people need to be free to grow up without fearing that the government is going to come for them.” 

Children do need to be free. Children need to be freed from the oppression of the hyper-sexualized ideology forced upon them in school rooms by Planned Parenthood and its allies.

Children need to be free from those who profess to be “health care professionals” who repeatedly betray the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm as they mutilate children’s healthy bodies.

Children need to be free to live and be children, without facing Planned Parenthood and the tools of the abortionist seeking to silence their beating hearts. 

Key Takeaways:

• According to a new Guttmacher report, out-of-state abortions taking place in Illinois declined in 2025 by 18.5% from 2023 (39,890 to 32,490), mainly due to the rise of telehealth abortion.

• Illinois was the destination for about 23% of the total number of women to cross states lines for abortions in 2025.

• Planned Parenthood of Illinois claimed that its facilities are handling many of the out-of-state in-person abortion visits.

The Details:

Illinois continues to be an "abortion haven" among Midwest states, with the new Guttmacher report revealing that thousands of women traveled there from out of state in 2025 to access abortions.

Hoodline Chicago reported:

According to a report by the Guttmacher Institute, roughly 142,000 people crossed state lines to obtain abortion care in 2025, and Illinois accounted for about 23% of that total with its 32,490 procedures. The same report notes that out-of-state abortions in Illinois declined from nearly 39,890 in 2023, a shift the institute links to the rise of telehealth services for people living in ban states.

This equates to an 18.5% decrease in out-of-state abortions, due to the Biden-era removal of abortion pill safeguards, removing the requirement for in-person visits to receive the abortion pill.

Guttmacher's report revealed, according to the Chicago Sun-Times:

• Illinois abortion businesses accounted for almost one in four abortions obtained by individuals traveling from other states, many of whom were motivated to seek abortion elsewhere owing to legal barriers in their home states.

• No other state equaled or surpassed Illinois in total numbers last year, as the state abortion providers carried out nearly twice as many abortions for out-of-state patients versus North Carolina, which came in second.

Planned Parenthood of Illinois claimed that its facilities are handling many of the out-of-state in-person abortion visits:

• Carbondale: around 90% of abortions were administered to patients arriving from Tennessee and Kentucky

• Waukegan: 46% of those seeking abortions traveled from Wisconsin

• Champaign: 48% came from neighboring Indiana, which has laws protective of preborn human beings

“They come from Indiana, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Kentucky and Iowa,” admitted Adrienne White-Faines, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Illinois. “These are neighboring states that also tend to have some limitations and restrictions on abortion care.”

“The abortion industry in Illinois is the wild west, which is clear by these numbers,” Mary Kate Zander, president and CEO of Illinois Right to Life told the Chicago Sun-Times. “When will Pritzker and the state of Illinois start providing real accountability on behalf of vulnerable women? It’s disgusting.”

It is unlikely that Governor Pritzker, who established his own 501(c)4 to promote pro-abortion constitutional state amendments across the country, will seek "real accountability" from the abortion industry — especially in a state with a pro-abortion Democratic supermajority.

Hoodline noted:

The numbers suggest that virtual care is easing, but not replacing, the stream of travelers.

Guttmacher’s full-year estimates show that travel for abortion care fell from about 154,000 people in 2024 to roughly 142,000 in 2025, while telehealth abortions provided to residents of ban states climbed to roughly 91,000.

Even so, the institute stresses that many patients still need to show up in person, especially those later in pregnancy or needing procedural care, which keeps certain states and clinics under intense pressure.

What's Happening:

The alarming trend of “abortion tourism,” in which women travel considerable distances for the procedure, reveals a failure to deal with the underlying needs of pregnant women, such as financial pressures, lack of support, or limited access to healthcare and resources that could enable them to carry their pregnancies to term.

Even in a state as hostile as Illinois, pro-life organizations have been trying to grow networks of pregnancy help centers, maternity homes, and support services meant to offer practical assistance to women facing unplanned pregnancies.

These groups highlight that real compassion involves offering life-affirming solutions rather than facilitating abortion. The rising number of out-of-state abortions in Illinois demonstrates the importance of continued efforts to promote a culture of life, fortify support systems for mothers, and champion initiatives that safeguard the unborn at every stage of life. 

The Bottom Line:

Killing human beings is not a solution to any social problem. Governments and social service agencies must tackle the root causes that lead women to seek abortions, including economic hardship, lack of community support, and social pressures.

Planned Parenthood deserves to be permanently defunded — and Live Action News' series, 'DEFUND 250,' plans to remind the public of many reasons why.

Planned Parenthood has a long history of pulling the wool over people's eyes when it comes to its day-to-day business dealings. It claims to care about women and says it exists to serve men, women, and families.

But Planned Parenthood has long faced allegations of racism, discrimination, poor treatment of women, and putting profits over people. Former staff, who have been exposing the truth for years, have not held back in their accusations — and it's not a good look for the abortion corporation.

Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood claims to serve, but its employees have consistently proven that this is false.

• There have been numerous documented instances and accusations of racism, discrimination, and other mistreatment, as reported by staff.

• Planned Parenthood employees have also admitted that they pressured and coerced women into abortions.

The Details:

#1: 'I was more of a salesman to sell abortions'

Former Planned Parenthood nurse Marianne Anderson explained in 2017 that they were mandated to sell more abortions:

"I felt like I was more of a salesman, sometimes, to sell abortion. We were constantly told, 'You have quotas to meet to stay open.'"

She explained that every facility had a goal for the number of abortions:

"I trained my staff the way that I was trained, which was to really encourage women to choose abortion, to have it at Planned Parenthood, because that counts — you know — towards our goal."

#2: 'We coerced women to abort'

Another former Planned Parenthood employee, Annette Lancaster, explained that women were "kind of being guided into having abortion procedures, even when they came in and they weren't really sure which way they wanted to go — if they wanted to have the procedure, or if they just wanted to come in for counseling."

When women came into the facility unsure about an abortion, Lancaster said the workers were trained to tell them, "[T]his is the best thing for you." Staff also rushed the women through the counseling. She noted:

[E]ventually I started realizing that we were lying to these women. Things that we were telling them were just lies. It wasn’t going to be better for their other children. It wasn’t going to help them continue their career or their schooling. But these were the things that we were taught to tell them, so that they could go ahead and just sign the paperwork and have the procedure done.

Lancaster also shared that, despite being told there was no quota for abortion sales at Planned Parenthood, she was reprimanded for not pressuring women into abortions if they were uncertain of their decision. As a result, her facility's abortion numbers were declining (emphasis added):

"I was being told by regional leaders and regional directors that my numbers were falling. The number of abortions that we were doing on procedure days were falling. And so, I would again come back and ask the question, 'If we have no quota, what is the issue with my numbers falling?' ... You end up being reprimanded. I was written up twice because my [abortion] numbers were going down."

She added that abortion "is a big moneymaker for Planned Parenthood."

#3: 'We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver'

In 2015, an undercover video of Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Senior Director of Medical Services at the time, discussed how she harvested organs from aborted babies.

The disturbing conversation exposed a closely-guarded secret of the abortion business — it was profiting twice from some abortions by selling the baby's body parts.

Nucatola described how she would (illegally) alter abortion procedures to procure intact organs for sale. "I'm not gonna crush that part — I'm going to basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact," she said.

She went on to state:

"I'd say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they'll know where they're putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part."

#4: Planned Parenthood is 'more concerned' with money

In 2020, former employee Jessa Crispin accused Planned Parenthood of caring more about its financial profits than about its patients. Her comments expose why the abortion corporation has been expanding into telehealth, despite claiming it has been forced to close brick-and-mortar centers because of pro-life laws.

"Planned Parenthood and other clinics charge $400–$600 (the price varies from region to region and clinic to clinic) for the combination of drugs that induce a medication abortion, despite the fact that the medication only costs about $90 for the clinics. That’s the same amount charged for the surgical procedure – and that’s if you want to experience potential white-knuckling pain during an already potentially emotionally traumatic procedure; if you want pain relief it will cost you much more," she said.

Meanwhile, staffers complained of low pay even as the salaries of CEOs of regional chapters were in the mid-six figures.

#5: 'Throw it in the toilet and flush'

Former health center administrator for Planned Parenthood of Arizona, Mayra Rodriguez, said that once they began selling the abortion pill, she began receiving shocking phone calls from patients.

One woman called and said, "So, you guys told me to push a blood clot on the toilet, and I tried to do that, but I didn’t make it. And it’s not a blood clot; it’s actually a baby. So, what do I do?"

Rodriguez explained, "You're instructed to tell them to go ahead and grab it and throw it in the toilet, and flush and don’t look."

She said the patients would say, "'But you told me it was just a blood clot, but I can actually see the hands, the feet, the face.’ And they will be crying...'You told me I was just going to feel like cramping like a period, but I think I'm dying.'"

She said they were taught to "dismiss them by telling them, 'Just put your feet up... you will be okay. Call me back in the morning.'"

#6: 'Planned Parenthood treated women like cattle'

Former Planned Parenthood manager Ramona Treviño explained that Planned Parenthood shortened its time with patients from 30-minute appointments to half that time.

“It was a struggle because I felt like Planned Parenthood treated women like cattle,” she said. “We talked about reducing the amount of time that we saw our … new patients.”

She added, “When you’re dealing with an initial patient, and that time is reduced … it just seems unethical to not spend that time with your patient and provide the proper care and explanation for something as serious as birth control,” which has a low rate of effectiveness, and then “the next option for her is abortion."

The facility did not offer prenatal care, and "women were just herded through," said Treviño. "It felt wrong."

#7: 'Minors undergoing abortions with partners of majority age'

Mayra Rodriguez (mentioned above in #5), who won $3 million in damages against Planned Parenthood for wrongful termination, said she had been fired after voicing her concern regarding dangerous practices — including verbal abuse against staff, severely injuring women, and falsifying documents.

She also said they failed to report child sex abuse.

In her complaint, she explained that she "learned that a manager on duty at the PPA Glendale facility was not complying with Arizona law […] regarding a minor undergoing an abortion surgery when her male partner was of majority age.”

This is not unusual for Planned Parenthood, which has a history of failing to comply with laws regarding mandatory reporting of potential child sexual abuse. When Rodriguez complained to the center manager, she received no response.

#8: 'A terrified look in her eyes'

Rodriguez also said she noticed something disturbing about an abortionist at one of the three facilities she directed:

"[I] began to notice a strange pattern occurring in our abortion recovery room: complications, such as perforations, or girls experiencing all manner of mistakes that resulted in blood, pain and crying, seemed to happen on the days when one particular abortionist worked out of our office—the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Arizona."

She discovered that 50% of the state's reported abortion complications were patients of this particular abortionist. There was even an incident in which a worker ran up to her with "a terrified look in her eyes." The abortionist could not find the head of the baby he had just aborted, yet he inserted an IUD anyway, claiming the head was probably just in the trash.

After Rodriguez challenged him, he did an ultrasound, and the head of the baby could still be seen in the mother's uterus. He had to then remove the IUD and commit a second abortion on the girl to remove her baby's head.

She said:

"This was our lauded doctor of many years who had the complete confidence of the Planned Parenthood executives to be placed in charge of all the other doctors in Arizona and yet he was as incompetent as someone masquerading as a physician…."

#9: 'Two hours of PTO' for selling more abortions

Former Planned Parenthood employee, the late Sue Thayer, said that Planned Parenthood would offer "two hours of PTO [paid time off]" when abortion numbers increased. They would also provide pizza parties. In order to get more women to have abortions, there was specific wording they would use:

“We would say things like, ‘Your pregnancy test, your visit today is X number of dollars. How much are you going to be able to pay towards that?' If they say, ‘I’m not able to pay today,’ then we would say something like, ‘If you can’t pay $10 today, how are you going to take care of a baby?'”

#10: 'Planned Parenthood willfully engages in discriminatory practices with malice'

In 2022, former Planned Parenthood employee Nicole Moore sued the abortion business, alleging "structural racism."

Moore’s legal claim reads:

While Planned Parenthood has publicly boasted its commitment to racial equality, the organization – whose tagline is ‘Care. No matter what’ – has blatantly ignored reports by dozens of its Black employees of systemic unequal hiring and promotion, more work for lower pay, overt hostility, and trafficking in stereotypes by leadership.

Instead of addressing the issues, Planned Parenthood has doubled down by punishing employees of color who dare to speak up, pretextually disciplining them and creating working conditions so intolerable that they are effectively forced to leave.

Moore's Planned Parenthood supervisor reportedly "publicly humiliated and berated" her "in front of other colleagues," her lawsuit said.

She was so mistreated by the company that she suffered a panic attack that left her in the hospital. After complaining to HR, she was fired.

In her lawsuit, she blasted Planned Parenthood for "willfully" engaging in "discriminatory practices with malice and/or reckless indifference to Moore's federally protected rights."

The Bottom Line:

Planned Parenthood's attempts to downplay its abortion business, despite its employees own statements about how abortion is the corporation's number one emphasis, speaks volumes.

Key Takeaways:

• Illinois is considering five anti-life bills, including one that would remove the abortion pill from the prescription monitoring program.

• Additional bills would eliminate fetal death certificates for preborn children miscarried before 20 weeks, require certain foster parents to support abortion for a foster child, allow abortion-related medical records to be kept separate from a woman or teen's medical file, and require the Department of Health to create a grant program to fund abortions in a state that already requires all insurers, including Medicaid, to pay for elective abortions.

The Details:

The five anti-life bills "in play" in the state would further push the false idea that induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of preborn children — is a right, and would also increase risks to women. The bills include:

• HB 4834, which would remove the abortion pill from the prescription monitoring program.

• HB 4839, which would eliminate the fetal death certificates for preborn children under 20 weeks.

• HB 4966, which would require foster parents in out-of-state foster placements for Illinois youth to affirm support for abortion.

• HB 5295, which would allow abortion-related medical records to be separated from a woman's other medical files.

• HB 5408, which establishes a taxpayer-funded abortion access grant program that would pay for abortions for those who don't already qualify for state Medicaid (such as non-ciizens).

Zoom In:

HB 4834 would amend the Illinois Controlled Substances Act so that the Prescription Monitoring Program does not apply to either of the two drugs in the abortion pill regimen: mifepristone and misoprostol. This electronic database allows for the collection and tracking of data on dispensed controlled substances to help doctors and pharmacists identify potential prescription abuse and high-risk drug interactions to improve patient safety. The bill states that the "Prescription Monitoring Program [would exclude] testosterone, mifepristone, misoprostol, GnRH analogues, estrogen, [and] controlled substance prescriptions as exempted under Section 313.

The Illinois Department of Health Services website states that the Prescription Monitoring Program "serves as an essential tool to ensure the safe use of controlled substances and other drugs. Utilizing the ILPMP supports clinical decisions and improves patient outcomes."

"While prescriptions would still technically be required, this change would make it significantly more difficult to track serious complications associated with the abortion pill—such as hemorrhaging, sepsis, and infection," said Illinois Right to Life in an email. The group continued:

These are not hypothetical concerns. A recent large-scale analysis of insurance data found that nearly 11% of women experienced a serious adverse event within 45 days of taking the abortion pill.

Removing this drug from monitoring systems reduces transparency and weakens safeguards for women at a time when chemical abortions now account for a growing share of procedures nationwide.

HB 4839 would amend the Vital Records Act so that "in the case of a fetal death that occurs after a gestation period of less than 20 weeks or in the case of an abortion, no fetal death certificate shall be required for the disposition of remains."

Illinois Right to Life believes this is an act that will remove recognition of the lives of these children and further allow the denial of their existence for the benefit of the abortion industry.

HB 4966 would force out-of-state foster placements to "maintain an environment" that is "supportive" of a child's "reproductive health decisions."

It states, "Youth in the care and custody of the Department of Children and Family Services deserve all the legal protections available under the law, but the current legal protections available to these youth require a suite of statutory enhancements," including the Reproductive Health Act. "Out-of-state placements do not diminish Illinois' responsibility to ensure youth are not subjected to ... denial of care that would be lawful and medically appropriate under Illinois law."

HB 5295, the Reproductive Health Records Privacy Act, would require health information exchanges to implement policies and segregate medical information regarding abortion to prevent out-of-state entities from viewing a woman's abortion-related medical records — potentially even doctors and parents of minors.

It states that the bill would "prevent the disclosure, access, transfer, transmission, or processing of medical information related to the provision of abortion care to persons and entities outside of the State; ... [and] segregate medical information related to the provision of abortion care from the rest of the patient's record."

HB 5408 would require the Department of Public Health to "establish the Abortion Access Fund Grant Program to award grants from the Abortion Access Fund to support access to abortion care services" in the state.

Additionally, it would allow the Department of Health to "establish rules necessary to implement the Abortion Access Fund Grant Program, including eligibility criteria, grant limits, application standards, requirements for the distribution and obligation of grant funds, accounting for the use of the funds, and standards for monitoring compliance with the requirements of the Program."

It would also amend the State Finance Act to make the Abortion Access Fund a "special fund" in the State treasury.

According to Capitol News Illinois, HB 5408 would "allow people with limited or no insurance to get financial assistance for abortion care in Illinois," and "require insurance companies to report to the Department of Insurance how much money is in these separate accounts, how much has been spent, and to transfer remaining funds to the newly created state Abortion Access Fund."

This will then allow the Department of Public Health to "award grants for abortion providers to cover uninsured and underinsured individuals through a new grant program."

Since "Illinois already requires state Medicaid, ACA plans and private insurance to cover abortions," the bill's sponsor admitted, "this bill is just another way the state can support people who need abortions for reasons that don’t meet federal guidelines. Advocates said it also creates a new funding stream to help providers keep up with demand."

Translation: the money could potentially pay for aborting the children of individuals living in the U.S. illegally who don't qualify for Medicaid, and it will be a massive payout to abortionists.

The Bottom Line:

Illinois has already cemented itself as one of the most pro-abortion states in the nation, and has a governor who has even founded his own 501(c)4 to promote pro-abortion state constitutional amendments across the country.

In 2019, the state's Reproductive Health Act made abortion a "fundamental right," treating it as a health care procedure and forcing all insurances to cover elective abortion (including state Medicaid). It also allowed non-physicians to commit abortions.

These five new bills would further cement abortion in a state that is already leading the entire nation in the killing of preborn children.

Key Takeaways:

• The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027 includes several pro-life provisions, including previously enacted provisions and new provisions.

• One provision would ultimately defund Planned Parenthood under the Labor, Health, and Human Services appropriations bill.

• Another provision would defund Planned Parenthood of Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program funding.

• Additional provisions would prevent the funding of HHS research that uses tissue from aborted children and research that involves the destruction of human embryos.

The Details:

President Trump released his proposed FY2027 budget on Tuesday, which includes the partial defunding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses. Additional pro-life provisions are also included in the proposed budget.

New provisions

Defunding Abortion Providers: A new provision in the bill under Labor, Healt, and Human Services states that "none of the funds made available by this Act may be made available ... to a prohibited entity."

Prohibited entities include any "affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics" that commit abortions, with an exception for babies conceived in rape or incest or when the mother has a physical condition that could put her life at risk.

This would ultimately defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses, prohibiting them from receiving funding under the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance: This new provision under National Security and Department of State Appropriations would prevent grant money from being awarded to nongovernmental organizations or international organizations if the Secretary of State finds those organizations to be non-compliant with the Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance rule, published on January 27, 2026.

Stop Federal Funding for Research Using Aborted Fetal Tissue: The budget bill also includes a new provision under Labor, Health, and Human Services to stop the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) funding of research that uses the tissue and cells of aborted children. While this provision has been previously included in legislation, it has never been signed into law.

Abortion Training Opt-In Requirement for Medical Students: Another new provision under the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations would dictate that abortion training for medical students be "opt-in" as opposed to "opt-out."

It would prohibit federal funds from going to medical training programs if those programs require students to be trained to commit abortions or opt out. Instead, these programs would have to have students opt in to the training to prevent discrimination against pro-life students or students who do not want to participate in abortions.

As Gavin Oxley explained for RealClearPolicy, “Such requirements place unethical pressures on medical students/residents to violate their conscience in order to not be targeted for their life-affirming beliefs.”

Additional pro-life provisions

The Hyde Amendment: This rider, first introduced in 1976, protects federal taxpayer dollars from funding abortions except those committed on babies conceived in rape or incest, or when the mother's life is believed to be at risk.

The Hyde-Weldon Amendment on Conscience Protection for Health Care Entities: This provision would prevent HHS funding recipients from discriminating against health care organizations that do not commit or refer for abortions.

Eliminate Funding for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Program: This is the second-largest discretionary funding stream for Planned Parenthood.

Over three years, Planned Parenthood spent $11 million in TPP funding on its teen pregnancy reduction programs that have been largely ineffective at actually reducing teen pregnancy, STDs, and risky sexual behaviors. Planned Parenthood's sex ed programs contain explicit materials and are designed to omit parents from the equation, according to former Planned Parenthood sex educator Monica Cline.

Global Health Strategy: This provision would "end the previous administration's abuse of [global health] programs" — including the funding of abortions in Mozambique through PEPFAR — "and to execute State's newly released America First Global Health Strategy."

The Helms and Siljander Amendments: Under National Security, Department of State Appropriations, the budget provisions prevent foreign funding for international abortions and prohibit federal funding from being used to lobby for or against abortion.

The Kemp-Kasten Coercive Abortion Provision: This provision would direct the president to end funding for organizations that support or take part in the management of coercive abortion programs. Earlier this year, this provision allowed for the redirection of funding from the United Nations Population Fund to maternal/child health programs.

Other provisions: The proposed budget would also...

• prevent tax dollars from funding abortions on the preborn babies of federal prisoners

• allow conscience protections for prison employees

• prevent Legal Services Corporation funds from going to organizations that take part in abortion-related litigation

• prevent Peace Corps funds from being used to pay for abortions, except for those on babies conceived in rape and incest

• prevent the funding of abortion through the Federal Employee Health Benefits program

• prevent federal and Washington D.C. revenues from being used for abortion in the District of Columbia

Commentary:

“President Trump’s 2027 budget proposal is a major step toward restoring a culture of life in federal policy," said Mark Wiltz, Live Action's Director of Government Affairs, adding:

"From reinforcing longstanding protections like Hyde and Helms to potentially advancing new provisions that would finally stop taxpayer funding from flowing to abortionists, this budget shows the will of millions of Americans who do not want their tax dollars complicit in the destruction of the preborn.

We especially commend the inclusion of provisions to defund Planned Parenthood, end federal support for research using aborted fetal tissue, and strengthen conscience protections for medical students and professionals. These are not only sound policy choices, but they are moral imperatives."

He concluded, "Now Congress must act decisively to enact these protections into law and ensure they are permanent, not temporary victories in the appropriations process.”

More mouths to feed?

University of Kansas graduate student Lilly Springer argues in a recent Economic Inquiry paper that “total abortion bans” are leading more women to sign up for nutritional programs, oftentimes referred to as food stamps. 

She wrote an increase in participants could lead to a waiting list for other impoverished citizens. This is a consequence of protecting preborn babies from being killed, Springer said.

But while the graduate student said there are no conflicts of interest, she also thanked her advisor, Daniel Dench. He is a paid consultant to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which advocates for the legality of killing preborn babies through all nine months of pregnancy.

The Fix reached out to Springer twice in the past week via email, regarding her research and her failure to disclose her connection to Dench, but she did not respond. Dench, a professor at Georgia Tech, also did not respond to three emailed requests for comment in the same time frame.

The editor of Economic Inquiry said authors are only required to self-certify there are no conflicts of interest.

“When authors submit a paper, it is their work and they are the ones responsible for it.” Tim Salmon Salmon told The Fix via email. “At submission, authors are expected to disclose any conflicts.”

Speaking specifically about Springer’s paper, Salmon said “the author indicated that there was no outside funding for the research and no conflicts of interest. The declarations made by the authors are taken seriously and authors should be expected to disclose.”

“If an author is found to have not fully disclosed, a paper could be retracted,” Salmon told The Fix.

He said authors must also submit data so others can attempt to replicate the results.

Academic "double standard"?

A well-published social scientist said that there is a “double standard” in academic journals when it comes to disclosure. 

Professor Michael New mentioned that he had previously been criticized for not disclosing his affiliation with the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute in a peer-reviewed journal, even though he was not receiving compensation from the think tank at the time.

“[R]esearchers who are affiliated with Guttmacher, ANSIRH (Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health), and other organizations that support legal abortion often do not mention potential conflicts of interest in their studies,” the Catholic University of America professor told The Fix.

Still, New says this study is beneficial because it shows “pro-life laws save lives.”

“If births increase after a strong pro-life law takes effect, that is powerful evidence that the pro-life law is preventing abortions and saving lives,” he wrote.

The academic paper looks at data from 2017-23, covering the period before and after the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

“Total abortion bans,” she writes, “had a small but meaningful impact on monthly birth rates,” which lead to a “downstream effect” on participation in food assistance programs.

She calculated an increased cost of $6.9 million due to the babies being saved from abortion.

However, she said that more data is needed, since her study only included one full year of abortion prohibitions being in effect.

Key Takeaways:

• Annaliese Holland, age 25, has Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy (AAG) and was diagnosed when she was 18.

• She is not terminally ill, but is eligible for assisted suicide.

• The date of her death has already been scheduled, but she has not announced when it will be.

The Details:

Annaliese Holland, age 25, has opted to die within months under South Australia’s voluntary assisted dying (VAD) laws.

Although the legislation is typically portrayed as “euthanasia” in general, it is more precisely categorized as voluntary assisted dying — meaning a patient is authorized to obtain lethal medication, which is usually self-administered, though in some cases a practitioner may administer it.

Holland has lived with Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy (AAG) since she was 18 and her quality of life has been dramatically affected. Although not necessarily terminal in the traditional sense, South Australian law has regarded her case as eligible for VAD. 

AAG is a condition in which the body’s immune system targets the autonomic nervous system; while it is not fatal, Holland shared that by the time her diagnosis was confirmed, physicians had already claimed that considerable damage had been done.

Holland’s public remarks highlight her yearning for control and alleviation from suffering — phrases commonly invoked in favor of assisted dying legislation.

“It was a really happy thing. When you've been sick for such a long time it becomes something that's not so scary. It sounds strange but it's incredibly empowering,” Holland said, in comments quoted by ABC News.

Holland has set a specific date for her death, though she has decided to keep it private. 

“I went through this with one of my gorgeous friends, and I saw the outcome of what happens when the public knows. It was messy,” she said. 

Holland says that when the moment arrives for her to end her life, she plans to be accompanied by her loved ones as well as her “beautiful” doctor, Chloe Furst. “She will be the doctor to administer it for me. They've told me that I can have as many people there as I want."

READ: <a href="/news/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-palliative-care-not-same">GET THE FACTS: Euthanasia, assisted suicide, and palliative care are not the same</a>

The Big Picture:

South Australia legalized assisted suicide in 2023, joining other Australian states in allowing the practice under stringent regulatory safeguards. Qualifying patients must have a grave and incurable condition, encounter intolerable suffering, and get evaluated by multiple medical professionals.

Nonetheless, critics in Australia and beyond have long cautioned that such safeguards risk being eroded as time goes on.

Meanwhile, South Australian legislation forbids doctors and other health care professionals from raising or recommending assisted suicide to patients under their care, with violations potentially resulting in disciplinary consequences.

Pro-life advocates have pointed to Holland’s case as a tangible illustration of the “slippery slope” of assisted dying laws. Initially described as a compassionate reaction for those about to die from terminal illnesses, patients with chronic conditions, disabilities, or non-terminal illnesses are gradually invoking such laws to end their lives as well. 

Zoom In:

Holland’s case also sparks discussions about how society defines “intolerable suffering.”

Critics argue that such decisions are immensely flawed, and can be impacted by societal mindsets toward disability, dependency, and productivity. In societies that value independence, autonomy and efficiency, people who need long-term care may feel — explicitly or implicitly — that their lives are troublesome to others. 

Additionally, disability rights advocates in various countries have expressed alarm that assisted suicide laws can reaffirm the notion that certain lives are less valuable than others. Death packaged as a form of 'care' risks becoming a type of societal and familial abandonment.

The Catholic Church, along with many other pro-life organizations, has consistently rejected both euthanasia and assisted suicide as serious breaches of human dignity. Church teaching maintains that suffering, while difficult, does not decrease the inherent worth of a person’s life. Instead, the Church urges life-affirming care that does not hasten death.

The Bottom Line:

As Holland edges towards her final months, her story is likely to escalate existing ongoing debates in Australia and beyond about assisted suicide. Her tragic life is a cautionary tale of how quickly assisted suicide laws can move beyond their original limits.

VAD reflects the dire state of Australian society, in which the reaction to suffering may be to eradicate the sufferer instead of providing them with care and compassion. 

The role of health care should be to care, not to kill. Patients facing grave illnesses frequently encounter depression, fear, or social alienation, factors that can expedite their urges to die. In light of this, the suitable response is not to enable death, but to offer holistic palliative care, psychological aid, and community support. 

Key Takeaways:

• Pro-life activist Delphine Chui was originally ambivalent about abortion, opposing it personally but not for others.

• After educating herself on the truth about abortion, she became pro-life — and a social media post revealing her convictions caused her to lose her employment.

• She eventually found pro-life community and began to use her journalistic skills in the pro-life movement.

• Chui is seeing that many young people in the UK are beginning to engage in more discussions regarding deeper issues like human dignity, as the UK begins to crack down on free speech.

• Chui encourages pro-lifers not to operate in fear, and to take a stand, because they are not alone, and "Your stand may give someone else the strength to keep going.”

The Details:

Chui's path into the pro-life movement did not start with passionate pro-life activism, but with a type of homecoming: a return to her Catholic faith and the truths about the sanctity of human life. 

“I had a very casual position,” Chui told Live Action News of her earlier years, which amounted to: “I wouldn’t have an abortion personally, but I don’t judge.” 

At that time, Chui was working as a journalist for a women’s magazine, submerged in a milieu where tenets of the sexual revolution, such as contraception, premarital sex, and abortion pills were taken at face value. It was only in retrospect that she realized how deeply those ideologies influenced her thinking. 

After she began to educate herself on Catholicism and what abortion truly involved — the physical reality, the suffering entailed, and its moral consequences — her perspective changed dramatically. “If we measure a society by how it treats its most vulnerable,” she said, “there’s no one more vulnerable than the unborn child.”

For Chui, the pro-life cause is not political. It is, at its crux, about the dignity of human life.

Zoom In:

Chui's public witness was not a choice at first. Unexpected circumstances pushed her into the public spotlight to bear witness to her pro-life convictions. 

Following a decision to publish a private Instagram photo from a pro-life event, Chui was left reeling when her pro-abortion employer fired her, and she lost friendships and work connections from the wider media industry. 

“That was the moment I saw how fragile our freedom of conscience really is,” Chui told Live Action News.

Silence, she realized, was no longer an option.

What ensued was providential. Chui joined Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International, an organization focused on protecting fundamental freedoms, including the right to life. There, her past experience as a journalist found a renewed sense of direction.

At ADF International, Chui created content that emphasized and elevated the experiences of individuals dealing with discrimination or persecution owing to their religious beliefs, broadening her insights into these challenges.

“Storytelling is incredibly powerful, and my journalism background allowed me to convey the human side of these legal battles effectively,” Chui said about her time at ADF International. 

One story that Chui worked on was that of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a dedicated pro-life volunteer persistently targeted by British authorities for praying silently near abortion clinics. Helping to bring visibility to cases like Vaughan-Spruce’s reaffirmed the significance of legal advocacy and cultural engagement for Chui. 

The Big Picture:

Chui’s academic background in anthropology played a part in impacting her approach to advocacy. 

Anthropology, Chui said, trained her to evaluate how societies treat the marginalized, whereas journalism taught her to listen and communicate clearly. Nevertheless, Chui was frank about the downsides of her university education as well. 

“My university was very liberal, and studying anthropology was one of the first ways I became desensitised to ideas such as ‘socially-constructed genders’. I’ve since been unlearning those perspectives and striving to see the world through a Christian anthropology,” she said.

Chui's convictions about the dignity of every human life are not only intellectual, but immensely personal.

She says that in 2020 at the Chapel of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal in Paris, she experienced a spiritual and physical healing. That encounter marked the beginning of a deeper relationship with God — one that would sustain her throughout the difficulties of “cancel culture” that lay ahead. 

“I’ve checked social media with shaking hands,” Chui said. The criticism can be especially painful when it comes from people whom she once thought were friends. Still, she said: “I can’t control what others think of me, but I can control whether I live in fear or in truth.”

Many people in Britain are hesitant to speak openly, causing prevalent self-censorship, Chui pointed out. In spite of that, Chui noticed a quiet openness, especially among the young, to truth and genuine discussions. 

She told Live Action News:

“Young people are questioning the narratives they’ve been fed. Polls show that a significant portion of students fear speaking their minds, but that also means there’s an openness for real dialogue.

I think the pro-life movement is becoming less about loud slogans and more about courageous individuals building communities and having those one-to-one conversations that change hearts."

The Way to Win:

Community-building, she believes, is where the future of the pro-life movement lies — not in slogans, but in authentic relationships. One-to-one conversations, lived witness, and supportive communities are becoming more and more crucial. 

In fact, Chui said that “community” was something she lacked. When she first faced outrage from her employers and co-workers for her pro-life convictions, she had no network of like-minded friends or mentors. She recounted:

“When I lost my work in journalism, I had no support system — no friends who shared pro-life views, no church community, and no one to discuss politics with in a way that welcomed questions or debate. That lack of support led me to quietly bow out rather than challenge the discrimination; in effect, I consented to my own cancellation because I didn’t realise I had any other options. I now know that was a mistake.

Today, I intentionally build community with people who share my convictions and who I can stand with and learn from — whether that’s Catholic friends, work mentors I admire, or even ‘influencers’ I’ve never met but who truly understand the cost of this work and inspire us."

Chui credited her perseverance in the pro-life cause to her Catholic faith. “My worth isn’t in my career or what others think of me,” she says. “It’s in being a daughter of God.” 

Even in moments of loss and rejection, Chui has realized God’s hand at work — refining, redirecting, and urging her to something deeper.

To those who castigate pro-life women as “anti-women,” Chui has a straightforward but compassionate answer. 

“Nothing is more pro-woman than telling her the truth and supporting her through every stage of life.” Authentic empowerment, she said, must include both mother and child, because “there are two bodies involved.”

Her message to other pro-lifers who feel isolated and fatigued due to the larger pro-abortion “cancel culture” at large is that they are not alone.

“Courage is contagious,” she said. “Your stand may give someone else the strength to keep going.”

The Bottom Line:

In a pro-abortion culture that often calls for conformity and silence, Chui’s witness is a reminder that the defense of life embodies resilience and quiet fidelity — one person and one act of courage to speak out for the vulnerable.

The Backstory:

As Cycling Weekly aptly put it in a 2023 article:

[I]t is an inconvenient fact for female athletes that the years of peak physical performance just so happen to coincide with the years of peak fertility… For decades, the choice for female cyclists keen to become parents seemed clear: choose your career, or a family.

In comments cited by the same 2023 article, Olympic and World champion Elinor Barker, who is also a mother, said: 

"I know that ten years ago it wouldn't really have occurred to many people that they’d be able to carry on [after becoming pregnant]. I think that has probably happened for some riders - they’ve stopped not because they wanted to but because they didn't really have the options."

The Details:

Life Time recently introduced its new pregnancy policy for its Grand Prix series, after seasoned gravel racer Sarah Sturm — twice a podium finisher in the series — revealed that she is pregnant and will be withdrawing from competition this year.

Based on Life Time’s new policy, athletes handpicked for the Life Time Grand Prix who become pregnant may step out of the series, while preserving their place on the roster for the next season. The pregnancy policy applies for just one more season; if the athlete fails to return during that period, she forfeits that guaranteed roster spot.

“I am so excited to announce this very big news,” Sturm wrote on Instagram.

“When I got pregnant my first call was to the Life Time Grand Prix to figure out what to do. This sparked a whole conversation and with the hard work of the people at Life Time we now have a pregnancy policy.” 

These recent developments are welcome, as contemporary culture has too frequently regarded motherhood and career aspirations as mutually exclusive life goals. 

However, Life Time’s recent move is a good step in the right direction, communicating the message that pregnancy is not and should not derail a woman’s ambitions, and that a woman’s aspirations as an athlete do not have to be forfeited or disappear when she becomes a mother.

The Big Picture:

At times, the realm of elite sports can appear like the last place to affirm motherhood, as it is dictated by performance, schedules, and physical demands. That's why the Grand Prix's decision is so monumental.

“This is a big deal for women in the Grand Prix and for women in sport," Sturm said. "There is so much uncertainty as an athlete, especially as a female. This policy shows us respect and trust that we are capable of continuing our careers even after we have children. Of course, we know that’s possible as women, and now we have the support from the biggest off-road race series in America."

Promoting motherhood and childbirth is not merely about talk, but about constructing environments that facilitate and celebrate family life. Pro-family policies are not about forcing women into one version of motherhood, but about eradicating the obstacles to motherhood and family life, and enabling motherhood to blend with work or public accomplishments. 

Providing a welcoming environment for mothers in women’s sports can spur other institutions to contemplate more about how they treat pregnancy, fertility, and motherhood. 

For instance, the Australian proposals outlined by a 2025 article in The Guardian suggest safeguarding pay, rankings, and career acknowledgements so women are not forced to choose between their careers and children.

Although Life Time’s move will not solve every challenge that motherhood entails, it is a step in the right direction to create cultural change.

The Bottom Line:

The best societies do not force women to choose between career excellence and motherhood, but create conditions towards a world in which both can thrive. 

Key Takeaways:

• New Mexico Alliance for Life is calling for accountability after Catholic Charities of New Mexico promoted Planned Parenthood and transgender events aimed at teens. The group stated, “[t]here is no excuse for this blatant, reckless promotion of evil…” 

• “Lavender Prom” by TeenMP (teen ‘mpower) is an event that“encourages participation across a broad age range of young teens with adults offering ‘free rapid HIV testing’ during the event.”

• The event includes games like sex-ed “Super Smash Bros."

• TeenMP hosts movie watching events for teens and allegedly showed “Three Months” which has sexually explicit scenes including mutual masturbation, drug and alcohol use, and attempts to normalize sexually transmitted diseases like gonorrhea and HIV.   

• Using the sexual attitude reassessment technique, Planned Parenthood aims to break down the teens' the inherent protective barriers by exposing them to sexually explicit content and materials.

The Details:

Sharing alleged photos of the social media accounts for the local Catholic Charities of New Mexico (CCCNM), the New Mexico Alliance for Life (NMA4L) stated in a press release on Thursday, “The contrast is troubling: a well-funded arm of the Archdiocese devotes energy during Holy Week to promoting Planned Parenthood-linked events with clear risks to minors and taxpayer-backed sexual components, while offering minimal commitment to building a culture of life in a state experiencing explosive abortion growth.”  

Referring to CCCNM as the “social justice arm of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe,” NMA4L stated the now-deleted post promoting a Planned Parenthood “prom” for teens and celebrating “Trans Day of Visibility” was “not only [an] attack [on] Catholic teaching but worse, put children in potentially predatory sexual situations.” 

In a newsletter sent to supporters, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) reported ending the lives of 14,374 preborn children by abortion and boasted of expanding its access to “gender affirming care” across all locations in fiscal year 2025. 

Live Action News has reported on the historic links between the abortion and sex-rejecting “transgender” movements, which are taught by Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funded “sex ed” programs. Both movements continue to be fueled by the ideology of sexologist Alfred Kinsey, which was based on so-called "research" obtained from child sex abuse, a rejection of the reality of the humanity of the preborn, and a rejection of the fact that biological sex is unchangeable.

Planned Parenthood continues be the nation's leader in providing abortions and a top provider of “gender affirming care,” claiming the issues go “hand-in-hand.”  Yet, Planned Parenthood continues to receive ample taxpayer funding. 

History of the “Trans” Day of Visibility 

One of the posts CCCNM account allegedly shared promoted the “Trans Day of Visibility" on March 31, and used it to “celebrate the transgender and nonbinary community.”

A report by NPR claims the “Visibility Day” was first celebrated in Michigan by psychotherapist (and biological male identifying as female) Rachel Crandall-Crocker, who started the advocacy group “Transgender Michigan.”

The organization came under scrutiny in 2024, when journalist Andy Ngo reported that Transgender Michigan’s board member, Vincent Prygoski, who served alongside Crandall-Crocker to promote the “Trans Day of Visibility,” was allegedly found in possession of extensive collections of pornography — including “... graphic images sexualizing young girls” and teenagers.

Planned Parenthood’s 'grooming centers' for children

NMA4L noted the promotion of Planned Parenthood’s upcoming sponsored event, “Lavender Prom” by TeenMP (teen ‘mpower), noting that the event “encourages participation across a broad age range of young teens with adults offering ‘free rapid HIV testing’ during the event.”

“In fact, the 2024 Lavender Prom featured 4-5 grown adult males and drag performers attending,” NMA4L stated.   

TeenMP is a PPRM group, specifically targeting youth as young as 13. PPRM’s TeenMP markets itself as a “group of LGBTQ+ youth and allies who come together and make memories,” providing free food along with activities like “dance parties” and games like sex-ed “Super Smash Bros,” with promises of “super comfy” couches. 

The taxpayer-funded TeenMP hosts movie watching events for teens. In March, the group reported watching “Three Months” which has sexually explicit scenes including mutual masturbation, drug and alcohol use, and attempts to normalize sexually transmitted diseases like gonorrhea and HIV.   

Exposing youth to sexually explicit/pornographic content and materials follows comprehensive sex ed's sexual attitude reassessment technique. It is extremely similar to the way sexual predators groom their young victims for sexual activity.

PPRM’s TeenMP also promotes its Discord chat. The Discord app has been named in several lawsuits for its alleged failures to protect children from sexual predators.

The program incentivizes becoming “Core Group” members, offering teens “free shirts and swag, gas cards or gift cards"… and free admission to outings like laser tag. “Core Group” members “must come to at least half of the events in a month, and stay past 5 p.m. for half of those.” 

Notably, the TeenMP’s social media pages promote PPRM’s adult version of the program, named MPower Albuquerque (for ages 18-29, named as a CDC-listed provider), which claims to be a “non-traditional HIV prevention and education” program. In March, TeenMP’s accounts shared PPRM’s MPower adult group’s “Drag Out HIV Ambassadors” event, featuring displayed photos of men wearing heavy makeup and sexualized clothing (drag).

Zoom Out:

This isn’t the only Planned Parenthood grooming center for minors.

In August 2023, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio (PPGOH) announced the opening of its ‘Queer in Canton’ center, claiming to be “Stark County’s First LGBTQ+ Resource Center.” The center includes ‘The Mayne Room,’ geared for youth ages 12-17, and claims to offer services to youth and adults including “monthly peer support groups and social gathering; safer injection kits for people going through hormone replacement therapy (HRT),... community closets for people who are transitioning and others to get free affirming clothes; and youth programming.” 

The Bottom Line:

NMA4L Executive Director Elisa Martinez maintained that the social promotion, seemingly removed by CCCNM, was a “cause for grave concern,” calling it “shocking and sacrilegious behavior” and an “attack… on Catholic teaching.”

Martinez called for “decisive action” and a change in Catholic Charities NM leadership, further stating, “There is no excuse for this blatant, reckless promotion of evil, especially among children…. There must be accountability from the top down.”   

Key Takeaways:

Increases in 2024-25:

• Abortions hit a record-breaking 434,450 abortions in 2024-25, up 8% from the previous year. This equates to over 1,190 preborn lives every single day, nearly 50 per hour, and one every 73 seconds.

• Based on the corporation's own past claims and Guttmacher Institute estimates, Live Action News estimates that Planned Parenthood is responsible for 42% of all chemical (abortion pill) abortions in the U.S.

• Planned Parenthood commits over 57 abortions for every one prenatal care service, and kills over 143 preborn babies for every one adoption referral.

• Taxpayer funding hit a record $832M for 2024-25, up 5% from the previous year. — a $39.8M increase. This equates to nearly $2.3M each day from American taxpayers.

• Clients up less than 1%

• Total services increased 5%.

• Contraceptives up slightly over 2%

• STI testing and treatment services up nearly 8%

• Private Revenue up over 14% ($684.1M v. $782.2M), an increase of $98.1M.

• Donors (“active individual contributors”) rose over 5% from 503K to 529K.

• Total Revenue up 5.4% 

• Prenatal Care increased nearly 10%.

• “Other Reproductive Health Services” increased over 7%. 

• Pregnancy Testing saw a slight increase. 

• Primary Care Visits increased over 6%.

• Adoption Referrals increased over 41%.

Decreases in 2024-25:

• Total cancer screenings down nearly 9%

• Breast screenings dropped over 15%

• Pap tests down nearly 2.5%

• Excess revenue over expenses was down from a previous excess of $27.4 million to a deficit of $29.3 million.

• Net Assets were down slightly from $3.12B to $3.11B.

• Preventative Care Visits dropped over 3%.

• Miscarriage Care (largely undefined) declined nearly 21%.

• “Other” services dropped by nearly 20,000.

• "Other Procedures" dropped over 35%.

The Details:

The news comes as certain Planned Parenthood affiliates are set to receive another year in Title X family planning dollars. The corporation lost federal Medicaid funding under the Trump Administration's Big Beautiful Bill, but this was for just one year — set to expire the day after our nation's 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026.

This was its largest funding source. However, the new 2024-2025 annual report calculates revenue from "the year ended June 30, 2025," which means those lost Medicaid dollars are not reflected in this report.

In 2024, Planned Parenthood reported seeing 2.09 million patients, collectively delivering more than 9.9 million services.

Abortions and Taxpayer Dollars

In 2023-2024, Planned Parenthood committed 402,230 abortions while receiving nearly $800M $(792.2M) in taxpayer funding.

The 2024-2025 report indicates that, despite the pre-planned closure of multiple brick-and-mortar Planned Parenthood centers last year, the corporation committed a record 434,450 abortions, an increase of 8% from the 402,230 it committed last year (2023-2024).

In 2024-2025, a whopping $832 MILLION in taxpayer dollars was sent to Planned Parenthood, an increase of 5% from the nearly $800M ($792.2M) it received the previous year (2023-2024).

However, after several years of accumulating excess revenue over spending, the organization saw a large drop in its excess revenue in 2024-25 ($29.3M).

Planned Parenthood now aborts over 1,190 preborn lives every single day while receiving nearly $2.3M each day from American taxpayers.

The Past Decade

Over the past decade [2014-15 to 2024-25 (year ending 6/30/25)], Planned Parenthood:

• Committed nearly 4 million abortions (3,994,041) and received over $7.08B in taxpayer revenue.

• Increased its abortions by nearly 35% (from 324k to over 434k).

In 25 Years

Since the year 2000, Planned Parenthood has:

• committed nearly 8M abortions (7,969,391) while providing just 331K prenatal care services.

• received nearly $12.3B from taxpayers while accumulating nearly $2,126M in excess revenue.

• more than doubled its abortions (197k v 434.5k).

• received more than a 310% increase in taxpayer funding (nearly $203M v $832M – year ending 6/30/2025).]

• Planned Parenthood commits nearly 57 abortions for every "prenatal service" it provides.

Still Controlling Market Share on Abortion

In March of 2026, Guttmacher updated its abortion estimates for 2025 to 1,126,000 abortions, but the former "special affiliate" of Planned Parenthood specified that this was an underestimation due to some exclusions, and was "an increase of 21% from 2020, the last year of comprehensive national estimates before Dobbs."

The 2025 totals reflect nearly 3,085 preborn babies aborted per day, 21,654 per week, and nearly 94,000 per month.

So, how much of that is Planned Parenthood's?

Between 2000 and 2025, an estimated 27 million (26,884,905) abortions were recorded by Guttmacher, of which Planned Parenthood committed nearly one third.

Today, Planned Parenthood still controls nearly 40% (38.5%) of the U.S. market share of abortions, working with "patient navigators and support staff" to help "more than 171,000 people get abortion care since the Dobbs decision — helping with logistical and travel support, as well as patient assistance funds," the 2024-25 report claimed.

It added: 

During the 2024-2025 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood affiliates disbursed $3.7 million to more than 12,200 patients to help them overcome barriers to abortion care — providing funding for transportation, lodging, meals, and dependent care while traveling to appointments.

Abortion Pill

Though Planned Parenthood’s report does not specify abortions by pill, its president has claimed that 70% of its abortion business is via this method. If that estimate holds, then it is possible the corporation committed over 304,000 chemical abortions in 2024-25. The corporation expanded services through its PPDirect app.

Based on national abortion pill estimates (732,000) for 2025 from the Guttmacher Institute, it is reasonable to estimate that Planned Parenthood now commits 42% of all chemical (abortion pill) abortions.

PP’s 2024-2025 report claimed:

In 24 states, Planned Parenthood affiliates provide medication abortion through telemedicine, reducing the need for patients to travel long distances to get the care they need.

Revenue

In 2024-2025, $832 MILLION in taxpayer dollars was sent to Planned Parenthood, up 5% from the nearly $800M ($792.2M) the previous year (2023-2024), when an estimated $200 million of Planned Parenthood’s revenue that year likely came from abortion alone.

Planned Parenthood's Government Health Services Reimbursements & Grants revenue accounted for 38% of the organization’s total revenue.

The 2024-2025 AR specifies:

National organization figures reflect operations of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. and Planned Parenthood Global, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2025. Affiliate figures reflect the operations of 49 Planned Parenthood affiliates and are based on amounts reported in affiliate audited financial statements for fiscal years ended during 2024.

Private Revenue

Planned Parenthood recorded $782.2M in "Private Contributions & Bequests" for 2024-25 which includes "foundation grants, corporate contributions, and support from more than 529,000 active individual contributors. This also includes more than $35 million in bequests."

This is up over 14% from the $684.1M in private revenue in 2023-24.

While it claimed private donations made up 34% of overall revenue (down from 47% in 2022-23), the report also noted that donors “provide approximately 91% of PPFA’s revenue and 26% of affiliate revenue...”

While “active individual contributors” rose from 503K to 529K in the past year, they fell over 8% from the 2022-23 report (576,000) and over 27% (from 727,000) in 2021-22.

Excess Revenue

The new report revealed that, after several years of accumulating excess revenue over spending, the organization saw a decrease of ($29.3M) in excess revenue.

• Planned Parenthood’s total revenue was ~$2.14B in 2024-2025 ($ 2,143.3M), up 5.4% from (~$2.03B) in 2023-24.

• Expenses totaled nearly $2.2B ($ 2,172.6M), partly due to the funding of abortion travel.

However, since 2000, Planned Parenthood has accumulated approximately $2.1B in excess revenue.

As of June 30, 2025, Planned Parenthood’s net assets and total liabilities now sit at $3.11B.

Facilities, Clients, and Services

Planned Parenthood claimed in the new report to serve "2.09 million patients, collectively delivering more than 9.9 million services."

The 2.09 million clients is up less than 1% from the 2.08M reported in 2023-2024, but down nearly 33% from its record high of 3.1M in 2006.

Total services increased 5% from 9,450,743 last year to 9,920,575 in 2024-2025.

Last month, pro-abortion lawmakers issued a report claiming that President Trump's one-year, federal Medicaid defunding of abortion providers including Planned Parenthood in the "Big Beautiful Bill" was a "disaster," and that because of it, 23 PP facilities have had to close.

Planned Parenthood claimed its defunding could result in the closure of up to 200 facilities.

Despite playing the victim, Planned Parenthood was already bleeding cash, having lost donors due to its own "mission creep." It sought a financial bailout from states with pro-abortion leadership. Planned Parenthood's decreasing clients, deliberate shift to telehealth, unionizing of staff, and multiple scandals have been the greatest cause of closures.

Virtual Centers

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

Today, its website still claims it has 600 facilities, which is clearly no longer the case as it adjusts its business model (moving toward telehealth) to enhance profits.

The abortion corporation's 2024-25 AR states:

Virtual Health Centers (VHCs) are a more efficient way for patients to learn what telehealth services are available at their local affiliate. In 2025 patients booked more than 62,000 appointments through VHCs, a 31% increase from the previous year.

Zoom In: Specific Services

Contraceptive Services/STI Treatments

Planned Parenthood’s total contraceptive services (including “counseling and care”) increased slightly over 2% from ~2.22M in 2023-2024 to ~ 2.27M in 2024-25.

However, these services are down over 43% (from just over 4M) in 2009.

The corporation did 5,422 vasectomies — its highest number recorded to date.

Overall, STI testing and treatment services increased nearly 8% in a year (from ~5.1M in 2023-2024 to ~5.5M in 2024-2025.

Total Cancer Screenings

Overall cancer screenings decreased, dropping nearly 9% (~426,268 in 2023-2024 to ~389,449 in 2024-2025.) Total cancer screenings are down 82% in a 20-year period, from a high of nearly 2.2M in 2004.

Breast screenings dropped over 15% (~191,197 in 2023-2024 to ~162,336 in 2024-2025). “Breast care” services have plummeted over 85% from a high of more than 1M in 2000. The organization occasionally partners with mobile mammogram clinics to offer screening outside its facilities, but PP only offers “breast exam” services and advises potential clients to seek referrals for mammograms.

Pap tests fell nearly 2.5% (~173,397 in 2023-2024 to ~169,081 in 2024-2025, but are down nearly 86% from a high of almost 1.2M in 2004. Less than 1% of women receive their Pap tests at Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood also offers HPV vaccinations and colposcopy procedures (down from the previous year), among other screenings.

Prenatal Services

In the mid-to-late 1990s, Planned Parenthood suggested that prenatal care was its “fastest-growing area.” But for years, this has been declining. Live Action's undercover investigation exposed this, leading the corporation to purge misleading ‘prenatal care’ text from its own website.

Today, Planned Parenthood’s website reflects the fact that only “some” Planned Parenthood facilities offer prenatal care.

Recently, prenatal care services at Planned Parenthood have started to tick up, increasing nearly 10% from 7,008 in 2023-2024 to 7,685 in 2024-2025 (quite possibly because in order to survive in abortion-restrictive states, certain centers resorted to offering more legitimate healthcare) but the service has declined drastically over time by 75% since its high in 2010.

Planned Parenthood commits nearly 57 abortions for every one prenatal care service it provides. Since 2000, while Planned Parenthood aborted nearly 8M preborn babies, it provided just 331K prenatal services.

Miscarriage 'Care'/Other Reproductive Services

Planned Parenthood’s “other reproductive health services” total (which once included a host of miscellaneous services like well-woman exams, pregnancy tests, prenatal care, and miscarriage care) increased over 7% (from 1,083,304 in 2023-2024 to 1,162,632 in 2024-2025).

The “well woman exam” category has been replaced by “preventative care visits” and decreased over 3%, from 129.6k in 2023-2024 to 125.4K in 2024-2025. The category has dropped nearly 47% from a “well woman exams” high of 235k in 2016.

“Miscarriage care” is a relatively new service category, and some speculate that this includes treating abortion pill complications/incomplete abortions. While the category is undefined, this service also declined nearly 21% (from 3,598 in 2023-2024 to 2,852 in 2024-2025).

Pregnancy testing has risen and declined over the years, landing at over one million in 2024-2025, a slight increase from 943k in 2023-2024.

Other Services/Adoption Referrals

This ‘catch-all’ category comprises “other” services — totaling nearly 164K. This was down (from nearly 183k) the year prior. Primary care visits, which include “evaluations for referral to specialists” (possibly including “gender-affirming care” referrals), increased over 6% from 61,249 reported the previous year to 65,017 in 2024-2025.

Adoption referrals ticked up in 2024-25, increasing over 41% — from 2,148 in 2023-2024 to 3,038 in 2024-2025. But adoption referrals are still down over 38% from a high of ~4.9k in 2007. This means that for every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood kills over 143 preborn children.

👀“Gender-affirming care” is not individually listed as a category on Planned Parenthood’s report. 

• While PP recorded that 45 affiliates were “providing gender-affirming hormone therapy” in its 2022-23 report, it failed to identify a number in 2024-2025.

• These services (sometimes provided to minors) are grouped under “other procedures,” which include “WIC services (a federally funded nutrition program for low-income women, infants, and children up to the age of five), pediatric care, transgender services, other adult preventive care, and high complexity visits, including infertility services.”

• In past years, the “other procedures” category skyrocketed over 1500% (~16k in 2020 to ~257k in 2021), with some suspecting “gender-affirming” services to be the cause.

• In 2024-2025, the "other procedures" service dropped over 35% from 77,858 in 2023-2024 to 50,411 in 2024-2025. By not specifying the services provided under broad categories, Planned Parenthood could easily bury these numbers wherever it chooses from year to year, making it nearly impossible to track based on annual reports.

The Bottom Line:

This corrupt organization is kept afloat by taxpayer funds, and its access to Medicaid and Title X clients.

The mountain of evidence of the decades of this corporation’s discrimination, documented Medicaid fraud, HIPAA violations, failure to report child sexual abuse, massive privacy breaches of client data, and more should disqualify it from getting one more cent of this funding.

Click here to demand that Congress extend the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Note: This article may be updated with further information.

Key Takeaways:

• The new bill would broaden existing surrogacy regulations, allowing paid genetic surrogacy.

• Genetic surrogacy is the term used to describe a situation in which the surrogate mother is actually the biological mother of the preborn child.

• Currently, Delaware law only allows gestational surrogacy, in which there is no biological link between surrogate mother and preborn child.

• Legalizing genetic surrogacy would essentially allow a woman to conceive her own biological child and then sell that child to another individual.

The Details:

Introduced in early March of this year, Senate Bill 250 hopes to incorporate elements of the 2017 Uniform Parentage Act while broadening Delaware’s laws on surrogacy. It would permit paid “genetic surrogacy,” enabling a woman to be compensated for conceiving and carrying a child genetically related to her, then relinquishing parental rights to intended parents.

Delaware currently allows gestational surrogacy, in which the surrogate has no biological link to the child. The proposed initiative would widen this framework, raising questions about how the law should deal with surrogacy dynamics that involve a genetic relationship.

Sen. Marie Pinkney, the bill’s lead sponsor, said that the proposal is designed to update Delaware’s legal system, and offer families with more options on how to proceed with their surrogacy plans. 

The lawmaker added that SB 250 revises the state’s parentage laws by including the 2017 Uniform Parentage Act, with the stated goal of ensuring every child has a clearly delineated and secure legal relationship with their parents. 

The legislation also seeks to:

• replace provisions deemed as obsolete

• guarantee equal “recognition” for LGBTQ+ families

• boost safeguards for children born through assisted reproduction or surrogacy

• outline the criteria for establishing de facto parenthood

Pinkney claimed that the measure brings Delaware in line with nationwide standards and promotes a more uniform and predictable legal structure for families.

Based on the bill’s text and assessments by advocacy organizations, SB 250 would outline legally binding agreements between intended parents and surrogates, detailing payment arrangements as well as parental rights.

Delaware has a track record of highlighting child welfare standards, including meticulous examination in adoption and custody cases. SB 250 would be a departure from that historical tradition, emphasizing contractual intent instead of post-birth evaluations of a child’s best interests. 

A recent op-ed by Josh Wood of Them Before Us published at The Daily Signal highlights the real-life scenarios playing out, proving that bills like SB 250 are a clear danger to children:

Nine states have adopted some version of the 2017 act so far. Pennsylvania had a version pending until legislators dropped the bill last year after a surrogacy scandal exposed how the language created new opportunities for exploitation. Delaware’s bill adopts the same framework Pennsylvania abandoned....

The existing gestational surrogacy framework already lacks the vetting that adoption requires, and the results are on record.

In March 2024, the FBI arrested Adam Stafford King, a Chicago veterinarian, days before he was scheduled to collect his son from a California surrogate. King had been distributing child sexual abuse material on Telegram, had admitted to drugging and sexually abusing his nieces and nephews, and had explicitly discussed his plans to abuse the newborn after taking custody.

No background check had ever been conducted.  

In May 2025, authorities in Arcadia, California, found 21 surrogate-born children (17 of them 3 years old or younger) in a single mansion, commissioned by a couple running a fraudulent surrogacy agency who told each surrogate she was helping a small family with infertility; surveillance footage showed nannies slapping and shaking infants.

Each one of these children would have been protected by the screening that adoption requires. None were protected by surrogacy law....  

Why It Matters:

The practice of surrogacy detaches procreation from the marital relationship, and brings in third-party involvement that can muddle a child’s sense of identity and belonging. There are other issues to consider, as well:

• Inter-state, or even international, arrangements that may capitalize on legal gaps.

• Surrogacy arrangements often direct the focus away from prioritizing children’s welfare, and toward agreements negotiated between adults.

• Safeguards common in adoption processes, such as screening prospective parents, are not usually part of surrogacy arrangements.

• Surrogacy has been deemed "violence against women and children" by Reem Alsalem, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, who stated that the practice is "characterized by exploitation and violence against women and children, including girls" and "reinforces patriarchal norms by commodifying and objectifying women’s bodies and exposing surrogate mothers and children to serious human rights violations.”

Nandi Gamble of the Delaware Family Policy Council denounced the proposal, criticizing the focus on adult-centered contracts at the expense of child-centered protections. 

“The best interest of the child is ignored for the sake of an adult-centered framework, where the desires of the adults are fulfilled through enforceable contracts,” Gamble wrote.

Many argue that contract surrogacy is, in reality, the buying and selling of children.

Meanwhile, legislators are contemplating additional family law measures, such as Senate Bill 236, which would grant people conceived through donor arrangements the ability to obtain identifying details about their biological parents once they turn 18.

The debate over SB 250 mirrors a larger national conversation about how various states manage assisted reproductive technologies. Although some jurisdictions have been inclined towards looser legal structures, others have kept a tight grip on monitoring such technologies in the interest of protecting children from exploitation. 

The Bottom Line:

Whether SB 250 ultimately passes or is amended further, it demonstrates that lawmakers must balance the urge to support diverse family structures against the need to maintain protections that have long been considered crucial to children’s welfare.

Surrogacy is inherently wrong, as every child deserves to be treated as a person with dignity, not as the subject of a contractual agreement.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2022, 16-year-old Katelynn Nicole Stone was found shot to death.

• Stone had been in a relationship with 21-year-old Cody Arnold, and believed she was pregnant.

• Arnold and another woman, Chelsea Shipp, murdered Stone to prevent him from being labeled a sex offender.

• Shipp was sentenced to 40 years in prison last June. In March, Arnold was convicted and sentenced to 34 years in prison.

The Backstory:

On March 27, 2022, sheriff's deputies in Jefferson County, Texas went to the home of 21-year-old Cody Arnold. Inside, they discovered the body of 16-year-old Katelynn Nicole Stone in Arnold's bedroom. Stone, who was pregnant, had been shot to death.

According to Local 12, Arnold told investigators that he had been "hanging out" with Stone and Chelsea Shipp, a 28-year-old woman with whom he was also romantically involved. He explained that he and Shipp had been using methamphetamine, and Shipp was angry because Arnold told her he was dating the teen and she was pregnant.

Arnold claimed he left the room and then returned to see Shipp take a gun and shoot the sleeping teen in the head. Arnold then claimed he covered Stone's head with a trash bag because he didn't want to look at it, and neglected to call authorities. Deputies did not find the body until the next day, when they arrived at the home for an unreported reason.

Shipp reportedly later told people, "I got rid of her" and "I shot her," because "he was going to get in trouble for getting her pregnant."

The Details:

In June 2025, Shipp accepted a plea deal in the murder and was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

On March 23, a jury also found Arnold guilty of Stone's murder. He was sentenced to 34 years in prison.

During the trial, prosecutors maintained that the duo conspired to kill Stone in order to keep Arnold off the sex offender registry.

"[Arnold and Shipp] were seen together, they were talking about what they were going to do," Prosecutor Jimmy Hamm said in his opening statement. "They were smoking meth that entire weekend to build up the courage to kill that girl."

The Bottom Line:

Homicide remains a leading cause of death for pregnant women. Often, the perpetrator is the woman's partner, who is angry that she is pregnant. Cases like this one illustrate that minor girls, women, and their preborn children all need protection from violence.

Key Takeaways:

• God Behind Bars works with inmates and their families to deliver the Gospel to them, and transform their lives.

• Incarcerated mothers at Federal Prison Camp Alderson were able to spend Easter with their children, some for the first time.

• Each mother received an Easter dress and shoes along with gifts to give to their children, and had their hair and makeup done for the occasion. They also had an Easter egg hunt.

The Details:

God Behind Bars has partnered with different ministries since 2009 to bring the gospel to prison inmates and their families. Family reunification is also a big part of their mission, with their website explaining:

These events help show the love of Jesus in tangible ways to these families, begin the process of healing past hurts, and assist in growing their relationships together to break the generational patterns of the future.

They also allow children to experience time with their loved one in a setting that doesn’t involve a stale visitation room- they get to play games, receive presents, do crafts, and enjoy a warm meal around the dinner table with their incarcerated parent.

In a recent event, God Behind Bars partnered with Federal Prison Camp Alderson, where 23 incarcerated mothers were able to enjoy Easter with their children.

Some of the women were able to hold their children for the very first time ever, and most had been separated for over three years.

Each woman received an Easter dress and shoes, and had someone to do their hair and makeup so they could feel their best during the special event.

"It's been three years, and I left my daughter when she was one, so I haven't been able to touch her, feel her," one mother said. "So she's really excited about this. I'm excited more than anything. I think I'm more excited than the baby. She's literally calling here last night. She's like, 'I get to see you.' I'm like, 'I know!' She just wants to play in my hair, she said. And just feed me food. And just play. She said, 'Can I sit on your lap?' I said, 'You can do whatever you want, baby. It's your day.'"

In addition to the Easter makeover, God Behind Bars arranged for the mothers to be able to select gifts for their children, choosing from items like Squishmallows, kites, games, candy, bubbles, and more. The prison was even decorated to make the event cheerful, and each family had a private reunion, filled with tears and emotion.

The families also enjoyed an Easter egg hunt, complete with a visit from the Easter bunny.

"I'm very grateful for this opportunity to have with my kids," one mother said. "I got on the dress with the shoes. I felt like a mother. And I'm really excited to carry this on the outside, and just remember what I've been through."

Another woman added, "It's been so long since I touched my little boy that I didn't know how I was going to react. I didn't know if I was going to cry, I didn't know if I was going to smile. I didn't know. And just to see him, and just to be able to touch him, has meant the world to me."

Another mother said:

"I'm happy just to hold my daughter for the first time. I'm blessed out of the earth. And then her asking me can I go home with her broke my heart. 

But one day, like I told her, I'll be there soon, and I will make that promise: I will do everything in my power to never leave you again. I'm going to make the right choices to stand by you, one more time, for the rest of your life."

Through tears, another mother shared how much the event meant to her.

"I try to find gratitude in the everyday things that we have in prison, like a hot shower, a nice sunny day. But I can honestly say, this is one of the nicest things that's ever been done for me. And I feel like, in a place like this, where we're so low, it just feels good to have somebody do something really nice for us."

Zoom Out:

While time in prison may be unavoidable, mothers and their children need parenting help, support, and resources. Programs like this one help strengthen the possibility of further rehabilitation, which is why more prisons are instituting resources to give families the best chance of remaining together.

Missouri, for example, has created a prison nursery program, allowing pregnant inmates to stay with their babies after being born. These mothers remain with their children, take classes, go through treatment programs, and learn life skills. The program includes communal spaces, an infant development center, a private kitchen and yard, and seven bedrooms for up to 14 babies and their moms.

An Illinois women's prison also has a pregnancy wing, where pregnant inmates receive more space and the opportunity to undergo parenting classes. A previous report from Live Action News noted that "women in the pregnancy wing receive 'around the clock education, training and treatment,' and even real beds with pillows, access to both electric and manual breast pumps, and even a refrigerator for snacks."

The Bottom Line:

The separation of mothers and children is an incredibly traumatic experience. These opportunities give incarcerated parents the hope they need to turn their lives around, and the chance for families to stay together.

The City Council of Brownfield, Texas, and the County Commissioners of Terry County, Texas, both recently rejected ordinances to declare their political subdivisions Sanctuaries for the Unborn.

City of Brownfield

On April 2, 2026, the City Council of Brownfield (pop. 9,779), located in West Texas, considered an “Ordinance Outlawing Abortion, declaring Brownfield a Sanctuary City for the Unborn.” Councilman Ray McFarland moved to approve the ordinance, seconded by Councilman Lee Gamez. When put to a vote, Mayor Eric Horton joined Councilmembers Ray McFarland and Lee Gamez in voting “Aye,” while Councilmembers Tom Hesse, Marshall Martell, J.C. Tijerina, Vanessa Valdonado, and Paul Vasquez voted “No.” By a vote of 5-3, the council rejected the ordinance.

Four Months of Indecision

That rejection came after four months of back-and-forth between conservative and more liberal factions of the city council.

The ordinance, which sought to prohibit abortion and abortion trafficking, was first considered by the council on December 4, 2025. After much discussion, Councilman Hesse moved “to table the approval of this ordinance until it could be further reviewed and discussed in a worksession.” The motion was seconded by Councilman and Mayor Pro-Tem Tijerina.

When put to a vote, Council members Tijerina, Hesse, Vasquez, Gamez, Martell, and Mayor Horton all voted “Aye” and Councilman McFarland voted “No.” By a vote of 6-1, the council tabled further consideration of the ordinance until a later date.

Shannon Thomason, who attended the meeting, commented:

Brownfield isn’t just a place on the map for me — it’s home. I grew up there, and the people, their faith, and their community spirit helped shape the person I became. Those roots stayed with me when I later served as Mayor of Big Spring, which — until Lubbock adopted its ordinance — was the largest Sanctuary City for the Unborn in Texas.

That’s why I’m grateful to the Brownfield City Council for bringing the Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance forward and giving it the thoughtful, careful consideration it deserves. I respect their decision to workshop the details, and I look forward to continuing the conversation. More than anything, I look forward to the day my hometown of Brownfield joins the many Texas communities that have chosen to stand for life.

Brownfield’s neighbor, Wellman (pop. 205), adopted a similar ordinance in a unanimous vote on February 23, 2026. In adopting the measure, Wellman became the first city in Terry County to further outlaw abortion. Many were optimistic that Wellman's adoption of the ordinance would help encourage Brownfield and Terry County to do likewise.

A lack of authority

The next time the ordinance was considered by Brownfield’s City Council was on March 5, 2026.

After a brief discussion, Councilman Hesse moved to have the ordinance voted on by their citizens during the November 2026 election, seconded by Councilwoman Valdonado.

While the city council was warned that it lacked the authority to send the measure to the ballot apart from the citizen initiative process outlined in its city charter, the council acted on the advice of Brownfield City Attorney Matt Murray, who believed the council could send the measure forward on its own, apart from the citizen initiative process.

When put to a vote, Councilmembers Tijerina, Hesse, Vasquez, Valdonado, Martell, McFarland, Gamez, and Mayor Horton all voted “Aye” in favor of the action. By a vote of 8-0, the council voted to send the ordinance to the November 2026 ballot.

Then, on March 12, 2026, Mayor Horton and the Brownfield City Council received a letter from Attorney Jerad Najvar of Chambers, Adams, Backer & Wallen, LLC, in Houston, Texas. The letter read: 

While it is clear the City has authority to adopt the ordinance outright or to order an election in accordance with the initiative procedures, the City does not have the authority to simply order an election outside the initiative process.

This letter is intended to ensure that the Council is fully aware of the legal risks associated with ordering an election outside the initiative process and, importantly, the potential financial consequences to the taxpayers of Brownfield should a court later determine that the Council acted outside its lawful authority in doing so.

The full letter prompted the council to admit their vote to send the ordinance to the ballot was an invalid action and outside of their authority.

Terry County

On March 23, 2026, the Terry County Commissioners’ Court considered the county version of the ordinance, covering the unincorporated area of Terry County. While Terry County Judge Tony Serbantez appeared supportive of the ordinance, County Commissioners Myron Bovkoon, Richard Cavazos, Martin LeFevere, and Ernesto Elizardo voted 4-0 against adopting the ordinance. The vote made Terry County the second county in Texas to reject the measure, following Mason County in September 2023.

The Terry County Commissioners' vote against the ordinance did not help those on the Brownfield City Council who supported the measure at the local level.

Realizing that their March 5, 2026, vote was invalid, the Brownfield City Council returned the city ordinance to their agenda for reconsideration on April 2, 2026.

As stated earlier, the ordinance was ultimately rejected.

The Proposed Ordinances

If passed, the ordinances would have prohibited, within their respective jurisdictions:

(1) performing elective abortions and aiding or abetting elective abortions, adding additional enforcement coverage beyond that provided in state law,

(2) elective abortions on their residents – regardless of where the abortion took place,

(3) abortion trafficking pregnant mothers to abortion facilities across state lines,

(4) mailing abortion-inducing drugs into the community,

(5) criminal abortion organizations from operating in the community, and

(6) transporting the bodies of aborted babies killed by out-of-state abortion providers into the state to be disposed of as trash.

If passed, the ordinances would have been enforced the same way as the Texas Heartbeat Act: through a private enforcement mechanism allowing citizens to file civil lawsuits against anyone violating the law.​

The ordinances are identical in substance to over 40 city and county ordinances passed in Texas outlawing abortion trafficking.

In August 2023, Senator Charles Perry (SD-28), Representative Dustin Burrows (HD-83), and eighteen other Texas Senators and Representatives penned a letter in support of cities and counties passing such measures across the State of Texas. The letter read:

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

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

Since the beginning of 2026, eight political subdivisions have passed ordinances outlawing abortion trafficking, including Hood County (pop. 61,598), Hall County (pop. 2,825), Lockney (pop. 1,988), Sterling County (pop. 1,372), Borden County (pop. 631), Matador (pop. 570), King County (pop. 265), and Wellman (pop. 205). All eight votes in favor of the measures were unanimous.

The only two political subdivisions that have rejected the measure this year have been Terry County (pop. 11,602) and Brownfield (pop. 9,799). 

All political subdivisions that considered the measure received a letter of support from Attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell, committing legal representation at no cost to them or their taxpayers for any litigation that may arise from the passage of the ordinances. Mitchell is one of America’s leading constitutional attorneys, arguing before the Supreme Court of the United States in high-profile cases like Trump v. Anderson and Garland v. Cargill.​

The Fight for Life Continues

​Despite the losses in Terry County and Brownfield, the fights in the county and the city are far from over.

​After the vote in Terry County, one resident who signed the online petition wrote: 

I don’t like living in a town that is voting against the stop of murder. It tells me they don’t appreciate my family living here. Brownfield… is such a small town to begin with; why not let it grow?

To do that, we need more babies born here to grow up and support the town and businesses. Such a sad story to see today that Terry County voted against it.

Speaking about her County Commissioner, the resident concluded, “He’s lost our vote now.”

​Brownfield and Terry County residents seeking to understand the ordinances their leaders rejected are encouraged to read the SCFTU Guidesheets for Terry County. Those wishing to see their leaders reconsider the measures are encouraged to sign the online petition at the Sanctuary for the Unborn Initiative website.

Key Takeaways:

• Aguascalientes has become the first state in Mexico to create "The Day of the Unborn Child."

• March 25th was chosen to commemorate preborn lives, coinciding with the Feast of the Annunciation in the Catholic Church.

• The Annunciation is celebrated as the day when the Virgin Mary said yes to God's request, and became pregnant with Jesus.

• Legislators hope the recognition will spur improvements in prenatal care, maternal nutrition, and paternal responsibility.

The Details:

On March 19, lawmakers in the Mexican state of Aguascalientes greenlighted the initiative to allocate a day in a year to acknowledge the value of unborn children, aligning the commemoration with March 25, the Feast of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary in the Catholic Church — a date long linked to the mystery of the Incarnation when God became man, as well as marking the start of a human life.

By setting aside a day annually, lawmakers hope to encourage the timely start of prenatal care, support efforts to improve maternal nutrition, and promote shared responsibility within families, including fathers.

The proposal was put forward by National Action Party lawmaker Humberto Montero de Alba, working alongside the citizen petition platform Actívate (“Get active”). According to EWTN News, lawmakers said the measure is “a strategic instrument of preventive public policy, aligned with the constitutional mandate for the progressive protection of human rights and with international best practices in providing health care information.” 

The recognition is an "affirmative action for maternal health” to encourage “preventive measures for the benefit of early childhood development” and spur “an institutional recognition of the dignity of motherhood”, lawmakers elaborated.

With this measure, Aguascalientes has joined a rising number of jurisdictions across Latin America hoping to promote a culture that values life at every stage.

Zoom In:

Supporters of the measure emphasized that the new observance is not merely symbolic, but intended to foster greater public awareness about the humanity of the preborn and the responsibilities of society toward both mother and child. 

For instance, Rep. Arlette Muñoz of the National Action Party said that motherhood is not merely a life stage, but a huge “transformation,” highlighting that every human life is “unique, irreplaceable, and profoundly valuable.”

Urging for an empathetic response to women experiencing difficult pregnancies, the lawmaker said these women “do not need judgment; rather, they need love.”

Muñoz also maintained that the declaration does not enforce a specific stance but instead urges the creation of supportive public policies. 

Likewise, Rep. Jedsabel Sánchez asserted that human rights ought to include “those who have no voice." Sánchez urged for this date to become “not merely a commemoration but a commitment to life, to women, and to our future generations," reinforcing that “defending girls and boys will never be a mistake.”

Abortion laws in Mexico have undergone speedy liberalization in recent years. Mexico’s Supreme Court has published decrees decriminalizing abortion at the federal level, sparking concerns about the collapse of legal safeguards for preborn children. In light of this, state-level pro-life efforts such as the Day of the Unborn Child are crucial to reiterate the value of preborn life through education, cultural initiatives, and public witness.

By assigning the commemoration of preborn babies to a date of deep religious and cultural significance, Aguascalientes lawmakers have reflected the enduring influence of Christianity in impacting public moral discourse in the region, reconnecting public life with perennial moral truths.

The Bottom Line:

Honoring the preborn need not come at the expense of women’s welfare. Instead, Aguascalientes lawmakers have portrayed the measure as part of a commitment to protect both mother and child through compassionate and life-affirming policies.

Even in view of legal and cultural obstacles, defending the preborn remains a vital and hopeful cause — one premised on the conviction that every human life, regardless of size or visibility, embodies a sacrosanct dignity worthy of recognition and protection.

Key Takeaways:

• The Fertility Center of Orlando will close its doors following a series of recent legal battles.

• Families who have worked with the clinic are now fearful about what will happen to their frozen embryos.

• Most children created through IVF do not survive to birth.

The Details:

In a statement on its website on March 30, The Fertility Center of Orlando revealed it will shut down after a couple filed legal action claiming that an error during the IVF process caused the wrong embryo to be implanted. The clinic has told all former patients that they may continue their care with CNY Fertility or request copies of their medical records to transfer to a provider of their choice.

“Patients are welcomed and encouraged to transition their care to CNY Fertility. CNY Fertility is committed to supporting your continuity of care. You will continue to see many of the same trusted and familiar faces who have been part of your care team, along with additional team members committed to supporting you on your journey,” the statement read. 

Patients who have preserved human embryos in storage may opt to transfer them to CNY Fertility or to another preferred licensed facility by April 15, the statement added.

Although the clinic did not provide a reason for its closure, it has faced multiple lawsuits in recent months.

The Backstory:

In January, Tiffany Score and Steven Mills <a href="/news/couple-lawsuit-alleged-ivf-mixup-florida">filed a lawsuit</a> alleging that the mother gave birth to a baby girl with no genetic connection to either parent. According to the filing, the couple grew worried when their daughter, born in December, seemed ethnically different from her parents. 

Additionally, a surrogate mother filed a lawsuit after delivering a child diagnosed with thanatophoric dysplasia, a severe genetic disorder impacting the baby’s bone development and lung formation. The surrogate mother said the clinic should have acknowledged the heightened medical risks and emotional strain linked to carrying a baby with congenital abnormalities, who passed away roughly 10 days after birth. 

Andrew Rader, an attorney who recently filed a lawsuit against the Fertility Center of Orlando for a former surrogate, said the abrupt closure of the clinic has ignited distress among patients and their families.

“I don’t know what’s going on with that precious material, but I’m scared. I’m scared for them, I’m scared for my clients. I’m scared for the intended parents. There was really very little information about what they should do, what’s expected,” Rader said. “What happens if they don’t elect anything because they are on vacation by April 15?” 

The Big Picture:

Although IVF has long been promoted as a solution for infertility, the Orlando case showcases the terrible human consequences of the procedure. At the crux of the lawsuit is not solely a procedural error, but confusion over the care given to embryos and whether the couple will be able to raise the baby they gave birth to.

While investigations are still ongoing, instances like this have happened in the U.S. and beyond, involving embryo mix-ups, lost embryos, and even legal tussles over child custody when biological and gestational parentage clash. 

This latest development demonstrates the inherent moral risks of regarding human embryos as laboratory material. IVF procedures typically involve creating multiple embryos, many of which are frozen indefinitely, disposed of, or used for research. Just seven percent of babies created through IVF survive to birth. Such a devaluation and commodification of early human life paves the way for human errors, such as the one alleged in Orlando, to become more likely.

Additionally, the mental toll on families involved in such cases can be serious. Parents who choose IVF typically channel considerable financial, emotional, and physical resources into the process. Discovering that a child is not biologically theirs — or that their biological child has been born to another family — adds more fuel to the fire, worsening matters. 

Hence, the problem with IVF cannot be addressed by simply tweaking or refining the industry, but in challenging its very foundational premises of conceiving a child outside the marital act. 

The Bottom Line:

This incident at The Fertility Center of Orlando is not merely about the fragile intersection of technology, morality, and human identity, but a somber reminder that in the pursuit of life, people should not forgo the inherent worth of every human being, regardless of how small.