Key Takeaways:

• Abortion advocates are touting a highly contested 2025 study published in JAMA — insinuating that OB/GYNs fled Idaho after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade — to bolster their claim that Idaho's abortion law should be changed. But the best available evidence refutes the claim that Idaho’s pro-life protections have reduced the amount of women’s healthcare in the state.

• Additional published JAMA research of significant cohort size contradicts the other JAMA study's claims, showing that "the number of OBGYNs did not significantly change across policy environments" after Dobbs, and even increased by more than 8% in states (like Idaho) where abortion is banned.

• Other research shows that the number of Idaho's women's health practitioners (obstetricians, gynecologists, and midwives) is comparable to or better than that of multiple other states (including those that do not protect preborn children from abortion, like Virginia).

• The latest available federal provider data, from September 2025, put Idaho at 47.7 women's health practitioners per 100,000 women — extremely close to the national rate of 48.1 — and at the state's highest women's health provider rate of the previous six years.

The Issue:

Is the availability of OB/GYN care a major issue in Idaho, beyond what's likewise occurring in other states? The answer appears to be no.

America’s Health Rankings, which uses federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services provider data, tracks the number of obstetricians, gynecologists, and midwives per 100,000 women age 15 and older.

Unlike the JAMA study, the measure is not limited to physicians actively delivering babies, so the two datasets are not directly comparable. But it does provide an independent look at the broader reproductive-health workforce using the same methodology across all 50 states.

Where Idaho ranks

Those numbers have remained relatively stable in Idaho. America’s Health Rankings reported:

• 47.4 women’s-health providers per 100,000 women in 2021

• 45.8 in its 2023 report

• 47.5 in its 2024 report

• The latest available federal provider data, from September 2025, put Idaho at 47.7 providers per 100,000 women (an apparent increase from all the years prior) — extremely close to the national rate of 48.1.

• In fact, Idaho's women's-health provider rate in 2025 hit its highest rate in six years, showing consistent increase since 2023.

➡️ Strikingly, Idaho and Virginia (which couldn't be more different regarding state abortion law) were both close to the national average of 48.1, with Virginia coming in at 48.3 per 100,000 women in 2025. In 2024, the two states' rates were identical, at 47.5.

Among Idaho’s neighbors, rates ranged from a stunningly low 35.5 in pro-abortion Nevada to 73.3 in Oregon, with Wyoming at 46.8, Montana at 57.2, Utah at 54.2, and Washington at 57.9.

Interestingly, the pro-abortion state of California was significantly lower than Idaho, with a rate of 44.9 providers for every 100,000 women, further weakening the argument that pro-life laws are the cause of a shortage of women's health care providers.

It's also worth noting that the provider rates in Idaho didn't crater post-Dobbs as one might expect if pro-life laws were truly chasing away women's healthcare providers; in fact, they increased.

Separate JAMA study contradicts claims

A separate JAMA study, released in April 2025 (just three months prior to the other JAMA study), analyzed 60,085 OBGYNs and noted that "the number of OBGYNs did not significantly change across policy environments, increasing by 8.3% in states where abortion is banned, 10.5% in states where it is threatened, and 7.7% in states where it is protected after the Dobbs decision."

Dr. Ingrid Skop, M.D., FACOG, pointed to this study as well, telling Live Action News:

Abortion activists have long claimed that pro-life laws would prompt a mass exodus of OB-GYNs from pro-life states, leaving women without access to obstetric care. However, the data hasn’t supported these claims. A 2025 JAMA study found 94% of OB-GYNs stayed in the same practice location when their state implemented pro-life protections, nearly the same rate as pro-abortion states.

The reality is the vast majority of OBs don’t perform elective abortions, so pro-life laws (as long as the emergency exceptions are properly understood) should not affect their practice or cause them to change locations.

Rather than perpetuate these baseless claims that have confused physicians and instilled fear into women, medical associations should educate physicians to prevent any confusion and reassure women that caring for their unborn children does not mean doctors cannot care for them also.

Other research

In October 2026, Gabrielle Sorresso, a fifth-year Ph.D. candidate at the Cornell Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy (and according to her CV, a member of the eugenicist-founded Population Association of America), released her own analysis of the number of OBGYNs in Idaho. She used publicly available federal data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the U.S. Census Bureau. Sorresso compared Idaho's OBGYN numbers to those of neighboring (pro-abortion) Washington state. She wrote (emphasis added):

I measure the number of OB-GYNs billing Medicare per 100,000 women aged 15 to 44 in Idaho, in neighboring Washington, where abortion is protected, and in the United States as a whole. Idaho’s abortion ban took effect in August 2022.

Because the period before the ban (2016 to 2021) and the period after it (2022 to 2024) differ in length, I express the change in each as a yearly rate.

The number of OB-GYNs per woman in Idaho was falling before the ban and continued to fall after it. Washington followed a similar path over the same years, and the decline was faster after 2022 in both states and in the country as a whole.

This measure is imperfect, since it counts only OB-GYNs who billed Medicare for at least 11 patients in a year and so misses those who see few Medicare patients, often those focused on obstetrics. However, when comparing between states and across time this should matter less, as billing Medicare is plausibly unaffected by a ban.

Sorresso included a graph of her research, below, at GitHub...

... as well as this table:

Maternal and infant health

Measures of maternal and infant health also show no deterioration since Idaho’s abortion restrictions took effect.

The 2025 March of Dimes Report Card, based primarily on 2024 birth data, gave Idaho a B-minus for preterm birth. Its preterm birth rate was 9.1 percent, compared with 10.4 percent nationally, ranking Idaho seventh among all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

The rate has fluctuated within a relatively narrow range over the past decade: 8.5 percent in 2020, 9.0 percent in 2021, 8.9 percent in 2022, 8.7 percent in 2023 and 9.1 percent in 2024. March of Dimes found that the increase between 2023 and 2024 was not statistically significant.

Other measures on the latest report card also place Idaho near or above national benchmarks:

• Its infant mortality rate was 4.4 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared with 5.6 nationally, ranking eighth in the nation.

• About 82.2% of births were to mothers receiving adequate prenatal care, ranking Idaho 10th in the nation.

• Its low-risk cesarean rate of 20.1% ranked third, and its maternal mortality rate of 19.9 deaths per 100,000 births is lower than the national average of 23.5, with the state ranking 15th among states and jurisdictions with reportable data (better than the abortion destination state of Illinois).

While these measures don't directly disprove the JAMA study — as America’s Health Rankings includes gynecologists and midwives who may not deliver babies, and the March of Dimes figures measure health care utilization and outcomes rather than the exact number of physicians — the broader data provide important context.

The Backstory:

A study published in JAMA Network Open in July 2025 claimed that the number of OB/GYNs practicing obstetrics in Idaho fell from 268 in August 2022 to 174 in December 2024, a net decline of 94 physicians, or 35%.

Researchers identified 114 doctors from the original group who stopped practicing in Idaho during that period, while 20 new OB/GYNs entered the state. Those who left the obstetric workforce did so for a variety of reasons, such as retiring or changing specialties, with just 23 leaving the state.

The timing of the decline has frequently been linked to Idaho’s post-Dobbs abortion laws protecting preborn children from abortion. The study itself explicitly blames the change on pro-life laws, opening with the Supreme Court’s June 2022 Dobbs decision and the subsequent passage of Idaho’s pro-life laws. The discussion specifically described the decline as having occurred “following changes in state-level abortion laws after Dobbs,” clearly insinuating the change in Idaho's laws were the cause of the decline.

That insinuation has since been repeated directly in news coverage, statements from medical groups, and policy debates, further suggesting that Idaho’s pro-life laws drove OB/GYNs out of the state.

Yet, while the JAMA study pointed to a decline after the laws changed, it was not designed to determine how many departures were caused by those laws.

Its numbers include physicians who retired, stopped practicing obstetrics, or otherwise left the workforce for reasons that may or may not have been related to abortion policy.

Of those who left Idaho, it is unclear how many, if any at all, did so specifically as a response to pro-life laws being enacted.

A 2022 article noted that "High Medical Malpractice Premiums Are Driving OB-GYNs Out of Business," and the March of Dimes points out that Idaho's fertility rate has been on the decline since 2014. Neither are noted by the JAMA study as possible contributing factors to a possible exit of OBGYNs from the state.

What's Happening Now:

Questions about the July 2025 JAMA study’s underlying data have since become the subject of a public-records lawsuit against Boise State University.

In December 2025, the Idaho Family Policy Center requested “all documents” and “all data” related to the research.

Boise State provided just a two-page spreadsheet showing county-level numbers of OB/GYNs from 2022 through 2024. IFPC sued the university in July, arguing that a study drawing from licensing boards, physician websites, professional registries, local knowledge, and direct physician confirmation should have generated substantially more underlying documentation.

The lawsuit has since revealed that additional research files do, in fact, exist.

In court filings, Boise State acknowledged that co-author Jaden Traylor had produced multiple versions of the data for related research projects. The university described the spreadsheet provided to IFPC as a “preliminary dataset” that it believed was responsive to the request, while maintaining that other spreadsheets were outside the scope of what IFPC had asked for. Boise State has argued that it interpreted the request in good faith and provided the responsive material in its custody.

IFPC has also raised questions about apparent irregularities in the spreadsheet it received.

The group says two Idaho counties were shown as having negative numbers of OB/GYNs, an impossible result if those cells represented actual physician totals. It is unclear whether the negative numbers reflect a coding or transcription error, a mislabeled change variable, or a substantive problem with the underlying count.

Ada County District Judge Nancy Baskin has ordered the university to provide her with the disputed spreadsheets for an in-camera review before she rules on whether they must be released to IFPC. Boise State was given 10 days to provide those records. As of Oct. 28, no ruling had been issued.

IFPC says the hearing also revealed that researchers did not retain records documenting how they determined whether individual physicians had left Idaho or stopped practicing obstetrics.

In its account of the hearing, the group quoted Judge Baskin as responding that such a lack of records “seems like an unusual protocol for anything of a scientific nature.”

Though the lawsuit concerns Boise State’s compliance with Idaho’s public-records law, not a judicial review of the study’s scientific validity, the existence of additional datasets, the description of the released file as preliminary, and the unresolved questions about how physician-level classifications were documented have made the underlying research records part of an ongoing dispute over how valid the study's conclusion can truly be.

The Bottom Line:

Idaho’s Defense of Life Act says, “Medical treatment provided to a pregnant woman by a health care professional as defined in this chapter that results in the accidental death of, or unintentional injury to, the unborn child shall not be a violation of this section.”

It seems unlikely, given the significant data from other sources, that women's lives are more at risk in Idaho post-Dobbs than prior to it.

Go Deeper:

Read more about how claims that pro-life laws drive medical professionals away is not supported by the data at the links below.

• Dobbs and Medical Deserts: Will Pro-Life Laws Drive Away Doctors and Lead to Hospital Closures?

• A New Study Shows That OBGYNs Are Not Fleeing States with Pro-Life Laws

• JAMA: Obstetrician and Gynecologist Physicians’ Practice Locations Before and After the Dobbs Decision

Key Takeaways:

• NASCAR driver Joey Logano and his wife Brittany adopted two children from foster care during an emotional courthouse ceremony.

• The couple spoke of God's blessing and guidance as the children joined their family.

• In 2013, they started the Joey Logano Foundation to help children and young adults in crisis, with a focus on foster care.

• They are sharing their story to inspire others to foster or adopt.

The Details:

Joey Logano posted a video to his social media on October 22, detailing the special courthouse ceremony that officially turned the family of five (including three biological children) into a family of seven.

"After many days of limbo and uncertainty, today is day one of forever," Brittany said. "For your Dad and I, day one of forever was a while ago. We both knew that you were our babies almost immediately after meeting you."

Joey told the children during the ceremony:

“Basically, all of this, just to say that God’s blessed us. Basically, letting Him take the steering wheel. Sometimes we want to control our lives and control everything we can, but in this case, we let go, and He guided us to the right place, for sure, with you guys."

According to reports, the Loganos welcomed the two children into their home in early 2026 through the foster care system. Joey had previously discussed the calling the couple felt to open their home to fostering.

“We talked about it for years and talked [ourselves] out of it for many… being busy and can we really handle all of that," he said. "Eventually, you know what, [we] just felt like we kept getting called back to it.”

He was also quick to praise his biological children for their willingness to open up their home, as well as Brittany, whom he called a "superhero."

“You’re giving a couple of kids the opportunity to become whatever they want to be,” he said of adoption, continuing:

“I think that’s probably the most rewarding part, but also seeing that my biological children, how they have shown how big their hearts are. I was kind of always wondering about my kids sometimes.

I think when you’re home, you always see how your kids can sometimes do things that push you to the edge, but to see how opening they’ve been about helping, and they all share rooms now, and they got to share all their stuff now and all. It’s just a different life. And, they’ve been great.” 

This isn't the first time that the Loganos have stepped up to help kids in need. Joey and Brittany also founded the Joey Logano Foundation in 2013. The foundation has a mission to "support children and young adults in times of crisis with a focus on the foster care system."

The Bottom Line:

Joey said he's sharing his family's foster care and adoption journey in order to inspire others to follow suit if they feel called.

“We’ve been blessed to be able to do that,” he said. “The fact is there’s a lot of great kids out there that need a home and need somebody to love them and hug on them and tell them about their potential. And we’ve had a lot of people that, you know, pushed us along to do it.”

Key Takeaways:

• No Matter What: A Pop-Up by Planned Parenthood was featured in New York and LA, with a third unannounced city coming up.

• The exhibit highlights several claims and sexist comments that are aimed at convincing women they need Planned Parenthood, birth control, and abortion to be successful and free.

• It claims without proof that pro-life laws send women to the ER, while neglecting to mention that anywhere from 6-11% of women (according to various studies and analyses) who take the abortion pill end up there.

• It also claims that the Trump administration has made decisions that have led to Planned Parenthood closures, but Planned Parenthood's telehealth business model includes planned closures of several of its brick-and-mortar facilities.

The Details:

In June, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) opened its "immersive art installation in New York City — No Matter What: A Pop-Up by Planned Parenthood." It was a two-day event that was marketed as "a series of profound sensory experiences that ground [visitors] in the care Planned Parenthood health centers provide."

PPFA claimed, "The installation also educates the public on the real-life devastation brought on by the Trump administration's 'defunding' of Planned Parenthood." The abortion giant claims that the year-long defunding of Planned Parenthood forced facilities to shut down, causing "a deepening health care crisis."

A second installment of the pop-up took place in Los Angeles in October, and a third is planned at a yet-to-be-disclosed location.

Zoom Out:

The pop-up contains several claims and sexist comments that are aimed at convincing women they need Planned Parenthood, birth control, and abortion to be successful and free.

The forced closure claim

A sign at the event claims, "The local Planned Parenthood health center that you or a friend has visited in the past has been forced to close. Without it, there's no health care provider in your area that you trust to listen to you, support you, and provide you with the expert sexual and reproductive health care you need."

But the truth is:

• Planned Parenthood closures started long before the one-year defunding

• Federally funded community health centers (offering the same services aside from abortion) outnumber Planned Parenthood locations and always have

Let's take a look — Planned Parenthood facilities began closing more than a decade ago due to financial shortfalls and deficits as its number of services, clients, and donors declined. It also closed facilities in favor of a more virtual-based business model to cut overhead costs. As previously explained by Live Action News:

Restructuring, closures, and even the expansion of its telehealth program to ALL of its affiliates began long before any discussion of federal defunding.

Read more here.

And while Planned Parenthood is attempting to scare women into thinking they can only trust the staff at its facilities, the truth is that patients have attested to being treated horribly by Planned Parenthood staff members.

• Women have filed lawsuits claiming Planned Parenthood pushed them into unwanted abortions

• Patients have filed suits due to botched abortions, improperly implanted birth control, and failure to notice a patient was four months pregnant before inserting an IUD that caused the child's death.

Other options in California

Meanwhile, the state of California has 171 federally qualified community health centers (FQHC), which, according to The California Health Care Foundation, operate 2,421 individual service sites across the state. The Foundation reported that in 2024, the number of patients receiving care at FGHCs increased 24% to 5.8 million despite a decline in federal funding.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of patients were covered under Medi-Cal state insurance.

Other options in New York

According to Statista, New York has 63 FQHCs. The Community Health Care Association of New York State (CHCANYS) reports services at 850 locations serving 2.3 million New Yorkers a year.

According to its website, "CHCANYS supports FQHCs with tools and information necessary to maintain and improve existing programs, strengthen core services, and build new programs. Our highly-skilled staff work to ensure that all New Yorkers have continuous access to high-quality, community-based health care services through health policy leadership, regulatory reform, and grassroots advocacy."

The ER claim

Another of the signs in the Planned Parenthood exhibit states:

Stop. Something's wrong and you need medical help right now.

Because the local Planned Parenthood health center was forced to close and there are limited health care providers in your area you end up in the ER.

The ER visit costs you thousands of dollars and you now have major unexpected medical debt.

The truth is that, as stated, Planned Parenthood has been moving itself out of communities for more than a decade, and it is Planned Parenthood sending women to the ER, thanks to its telehealth abortion pill.

The abortion pill (mifepristone) comes with a black box warning for sepsis and hemorrhaging, along with infection, but that information is typically not disseminated by the mainstream media and is downplayed by Planned Parenthood itself. Marketed as being '<a href="/news/cecile-richards-abortion-pill-safer">safer than Tylenol</a>,' the truth is:

• The FDA’s 2023 mifepristone label acknowledged that 2.9 to 4.6% of women who take the abortion drug will need emergency care, and six percent (6%) of women who took the abortion pill in a telehealth study required emergency care. 

• The manufacturer’s medication guide notes that up to seven percent (7%) of women will “need a surgical procedure” to complete the abortion because of the abortion pill's high failure rate (which, by the way, increases with gestational age).

• An analysis, “The Abortion Pill Harms Women,” published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), found that nearly 11% of women (10.93%) who take the abortion pill experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or other serious or life-threatening adverse events as a result.

Because the Biden administration lifted safety regulations that had been in place on mifepristone for 20 years, the abortion pill became available via telehealth and online.

Women are now taking the abortion pill (or being drugged by someone else) without any medical oversight, meaning they might be well past the FDA's gestational limit for the abortion pill (increasing their risks), may be experiencing an ectopic pregnancy (which is a medical emergency), or may have a contraindication that makes taking mifepristone dangerous for them.

There is also no follow-up appointment available to women who order the abortion pill in this way, and they may be too afraid to seek help when necessary because pro-abortion tall tales have convinced them that doctors will let them die.

Read more here.

'Birth control is potential'

A large installation in the exhibit claims "birth control is potential."

This is a sexist comment that implies women cannot reach their full "potential" if they have children. It's straight out of the pro-abortion playbook. Abortion was sold to the American public as a final step in achieving equality for women. The first step was legalized birth control. But nearly five decades later, legalized abortion hasn’t liberated women.

To claim that women must have birth control and abortion access to reach their potential or be equal to men is to imply that women are not equal without them — that because of their fertility, they are somehow “less than.” 

'Abortion is freedom'

The same installation claims 'abortion is freedom.' In 2023, it became clear that this was the new mantra of the abortion industry. It was no longer about "choice," but "freedom." As previously reported by Live Action News:

The term ‘pro-choice’ was successful for so long because most Americans don’t want to be accused of being “against” someone else’s ability to make “choices.”

By framing abortion as a “choice” (and hiding the victims), the abortion industry was able to convince Americans that abortion was nothing more than someone’s decision to not become a parent — and no one had the right to tell them otherwise. This tactic has largely worked, and most Americans have no idea how rapidly children develop in the womb or what an abortion entails.

Now that “choice” has been given to the people by way of state governments following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade, describing abortion as a “choice” no longer works to the advantage of abortion advocates.

Without Roe in place to force legalized abortion upon every state, the people in individual states can now choose to vote in favor of pro-life leaders and laws protecting preborn children from abortion — which means the pro-abortion marketing machine had to come up with a new propagandistic message.

What fits the narrative better than the idea of freedom? Americans love freedom...

But the very act of abortion ignores the freedom that belongs to every human being, including those in the womb, to live out their own lives. No one should use their personal freedom to oppress innocent people, especially not to the point of death.

The Bottom Line:

Planned Parenthood is an abortion business that purports to be a healthcare organization and is not the only or best option for women who need cancer screenings and wellness checkups.

The abortion pill is dangerous. Abortion kills preborn children and harms women. Children are gifts — not burdens.

Key Takeaways:

• A study from the Guttmacher Institute claims that shield laws allowing practitioners in pro-abortion states to mail abortion pills into pro-life states may be the reason why a decrease in abortion-related travel was seen between 2023 and 2025.

• From 2023-2024, abortion travel decreased nearly 14% while telehealth abortions increased nearly 200%.

• From 2024-2025, abortion travel decreased just over 16% while telehealth abortions increased just over 27%.

The Details:

Study Goals

The study, "Telehealth Provision and Travel for Abortion Care in States With Total Bans," was published in JAMA Network Open and was funded by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health. Two authors (Rachel K. Jones and Abigail R. A. Aiken) are associated with the Guttmacher Institute.

The study authors began accurately, stating, "The Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade with the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022, and by 2023, 13 states had banned abortion."

However, past this point, the authors use misleading language, suggesting that Dobbs resulted in "forcing many people to travel out of state for care."

1. No one was "forced" to do anything

2. Abortion, the intentional killing of a living preborn child in the womb, is in no way "care."

On the contrary, abortion forces death on a living human baby and sometimes the mother is forced or coerced into it.

The authors' goal: To "understand whether travel for abortion care declined as telehealth abortion increased between 2023 and 2025 in the 13 states with total bans during this period" as a result of the "shield laws implemented in 8 states" which "offer legal protections for clinicians to prescribe abortion pills to patients in all states, including states with abortion bans."

The authors' findings: Shield laws "provided residents of ban states the option of accessing medication abortion... by mail," and "accounted for most abortions... to residents of ban states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas."

The data included 90% of Planned Parenthood, non-Planned Parenthood facilities, which "play[ed] key roles in abortion provision in their state and online-only clinics with caseloads of more than 50 abortions per month" and "facilities drawn randomly from all remaining abortion facilities."

In addition, "Counts include abortions provided by brick-and-mortar facilities and those provided by online-only clinics. Counts do not include any provision from community networks or websites that sell drugs without prescriptions."

Study Findings

The study suggested that the passage of shield laws, beginning in July of 2023, essentially flipped the script on abortion travel.

This enables women to remain in their home state, order abortion drugs online, and end the lives of preborn children, disposing of them by flushing them down the toilet (if small enough), or by hiding them in the trash, or by some other method. It should be noted that due to a "no-test" protocol, women are obtaining the drugs well past the FDA's 10-week gestational limit for abortion pill use.

Live Action News crunched the numbers:

• Between 2023 (89,620) and 2024 (77, 090) abortion travel decreased nearly 14% while telehealth abortions (24,460 in 2023 v .71,180 in 2024) increased nearly 200%.

• Between 2024 (77,090) and 2025 (64,590) abortion travel decreased just over 16% while telehealth abortions (71,180 in 2024 v. 90,460 in 2025) increased just over 27%.

Still, authors noted that, despite the shield law protections enabling telehealth abortion, 60,000 women still traveled out of state for abortions in 2025.

Guttmacher further summarized the findings:

• In 2023, the number of residents of total-ban states who traveled out of state to access abortion care (89,620) was more than three times higher than the number who accessed care via telehealth (24,460). 

• By 2025, the majority of residents in total-ban states obtained their abortion via telehealth: 90,460, compared to 64,590 who traveled out-of-state for care.  

The authors wrote:

Between 2024 and 2025, the increase in the number of abortions provided under the protection of shield laws was greater than the decline in residents who traveled out of state. It is possible that the availability of abortion under the protection of shield laws allowed people who would have been unable to travel to obtain wanted abortions.

Still, in 2025, more than 60 ,000 residents of ban states traveled for care, indicating continued demand for abortion funding and practical support.

Note that the authors emphasized a "continued demand for abortion funding and practical support" while assistance and resources for pregnant moms to keep and raise their babies was not mentioned.

"The implementation of shield laws may have facilitated access to care that many residents were already obtaining via licensed physicians who mailed medications from outside the US," they hypothesized (emphasis added).

Study Limitations

The authors noted that their study was limited because abortion drugs sent through the mail under shield laws "do not necessarily represent abortions," as some women "may have obtained abortion medications from multiple clinicians and others may not have used the medications they received."

Also, patients may have been "reluctant to report" travel from an 'abortion ban' state, and therefore, counts "could be underestimated."

Ironically, as was the case in other JAMA studies, authors claimed their "data" was "too sensitive to share" so the data cannot be reviewed.

The Backstory:

Despite the fact that the federal Comstock Act already restricts the shipment or mailing of “abortifacient matter through express companies, common carriers, or interactive computer services,” abortion pills are being shipped across the country and flooding into states that restrict abortion — while so-called "shield laws" in pro-abortion states protect those who ignore pro-life laws.

• 1973: Legalized abortion is thrust upon every state in the country under the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

• 2022: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health reversed Roe but failed to offer national protection to the preborn child in the womb. Instead, the Court ruled that "the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," enabling a patchwork of abortion protections and expansions state by state.

• 2023: FDA's abortion pill safety protocols (REMS) were eroded to remove in-person dispensing and allow for mail order and pharmacy dispensing of the abortion pill. By the Spring of 2023, states led by radical pro-abortion lawmakers began to propose so-called shield laws to prevent abortionists in those states from being prosecuted for sending abortion drugs into states where it is illegal. These laws do not protect women.

• 2025: Guttmacher Institute estimated a total of 1,129,900 abortions committed in 2025. That same year estimated abortion pill totals reached a staggering 734,435 annually (61,203 abortions by pill per month, 2,012 a day, 84 hourly, and one abortion pill abortion every 43 seconds). Guttmacher claimed: "Data from the Society of Family Planning shows that as of December 2025, more than one in four clinician-provided abortions in the United States were provided via telehealth."

• 2026: States began pushing back, filing lawsuits targeting shield laws.

The FDA's 2023 changes to abortion pill safety protocols (REMS) are likely the main culprit behind national abortion increases and the flood of pills entering even pro-life states. Adding to this are the failure to enforce federal prohibitions, and drug manufacturers who aid and abet illegal efforts while failing to police or decertify prescribers who are not following the rules.

Live Action News previously found that:

• Beginning in 2017, the United States saw the end of a long-term decline in the number of abortions, with numbers beginning to tick upwards year after year. By 2020, abortions totaled 930,160 — an increase of nearly 8% from 2017.

• By 2023, the year that mail order abortion pills were permanently enabled by the FDA, abortions had increased nearly 14% (13.85%) from 2020 and then increased again in 2025 by over 21% (21.47%).

• Today the abortion pill makes up at least 65% (or more) of all abortions (an estimated 734K+ in 2025 alone) currently committed in the United States.

'Swords disguised as shields'

While shield laws profit Big Abortion, they are often harmful to pro-life states, to women, and deadly to the preborn lives they target.

A lawsuit filed by three states against shield law providers alleges defendants engaged in an "illegal enterprise" by "deliberately bypassing safeguards," "misrepresented the safety, efficacy, legality, and FDA status of the drugs they sell," left out "material information about serious complications, the limitations of remote screening, and what can happen when a woman needs emergency care."

The lawsuit displayed the victims:

The Plaintiff states claim that the listed individuals and organizations "made false or misleading representations concerning the safety, effectiveness, legality, risks, and appropriate use of abortion-inducing drugs, including minimizing potential complications and the need for in-person medical care.

The lawsuit states in part:

Plaintiff States are incurring classic quasi-sovereign harms within their borders. Their laws are intended to protect the lives of unborn babies in Plaintiff States from the moment of conception—and yet Defendants’ conduct terminates those lives in violation of Plaintiff States’ laws.

The States also claimed that due to illegal abortion pills flooding their borders, providers are treating abortion pill complications "on a daily basis," with complications like "hemorrhaging requiring blood transfusions," "incomplete abortions" requiring further treatment, blood transfusions, and more.

Abortion providers are shielded from accountability, which is likely the true agenda behind shield laws.

Key Takeaways:

• On October 27, 1967, Great Britain's Abortion Act received royal assent, making it legal to commit abortions through 28 weeks of pregnancy. It took effect on April 27 of the following year.

• Right to Life UK reports that there have been more than 11 million preborn lives taken since then.

• The Crime and Policing Bill passed earlier this year decriminalized self-induced abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason.

The Details:

In a press release, Right to Life UK marked the anniversary of Great Britain's Abortion Act receiving royal assent, allowing it to become law. This allowed abortion through 28 weeks gestation if two medical providers said it was necessary to prevent risk to the mother's life, physical or mental health, or that of her family members.

The limit was lowered to 24 weeks in 1990, but abortions can still be committed at any time if the preborn baby has been diagnosed with a disability, even one as easily correctable as a club foot or cleft palate.

According to Right to Life UK, 11,256,470 preborn babies have been killed in abortion since then. This equates to one preborn baby killed by abortion every two minutes.

At an event to mark the 50th anniversary of the Abortion Act in 2017, Lord Alton criticized the resulting loss of life:

"Upon whom is this everyday violence visited? No one less than the most innocent, the most vulnerable, the child in the womb. Now whilst the abortion lobby who support and wish to extend this practice and the related abortion industry who benefit it deny it, this is a stark reality.

It is a matter of biological fact, simply undeniable, incontrovertible, but from conception, from the time that a human sperm fertilises a human ovum, a new human being begins to exist, as with every member of every mammalian species.

What abortion involves then is not a mere removal of potential life, or a clump of tissues, or a blob of jelly. It's the willful killing of the smallest and most helpless member of the human family in the very place where she should be safest, her mother's womb."

He added that the anniversary marked the "greatest shame of our nation," and mourned the spread of the culture of death.

“As those who recognise and champion human dignity, it is our role and our duty to stand for every silenced voice," he said. “[W]e are not going away, we are not going to remain quiet whilst injustice occurs and we are not going to stop working and educating and campaigning and fighting till we live in a society where the humanity, the dignity and rights of every member of our nation are together recognised."

What's Happening:

The Crime and Policing Bill was passed earlier this year, and included a clause which effectively decriminalized women undergoing abortions through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason, so long as the women are committing the abortions themselves.

This bill passed with less than one hour of debate, with Clause 208 specifically declaring that “no offense is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”

Baroness Monckton put forward an amendment to remove Clause 208, which failed, and she later slammed parliament for allowing its inclusion.

Decriminalization would, she said, put women's lives at risk “by removing the current legal deterrent against administering an abortion away from a clinical setting right up to birth."

The law also allows women to commit DIY abortions for any reason, including sex-selective abortion.

The Bottom Line:

Catherine Robinson, Right to Life UK spokesperson, called for pro-lifers to mark the anniversary by taking action, saying:

... As we pause to reflect on this tragedy, this day also serves as a call to action for people around the country to renew their efforts to do everything they can to help ensure more lives are saved from abortion in the future. 

This includes contacting MPs and Peers, asking them to ensure that protections for unborn babies are introduced and safeguards are strengthened to protect both mothers and babies – as well as volunteering with pregnancy support centres and joining other pro-life efforts that support mothers and their children in pregnancy and beyond.

By taking action, each one of us can be part of building a pro-life nation that protects and defends the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death.

I’m a family physician who completed a women’s health fellowship and spent nearly 20 years caring for pregnant mothers and delivering often difficult diagnoses. I’ve been on both sides of this news, and over the years, I’ve advocated for people with Down syndrome and learned how to best walk families through the challenges, but also the joys, of Down syndrome, and I want to do the same for you.  

I remember how it felt finding out during pregnancy. It gave me time to process the news, mourn the child I had imagined, and celebrate the child I was given. As a physician, I also knew about the significant medical challenges that could lie ahead.  

Sadly, many physicians offer termination as the solution, often in the same conversation that the diagnosis is delivered. Like many parents, I remember being overwhelmed and surprised by the news. What I needed, and what many parents need today, is an honest conversation about the diagnosis while also receiving medical and community resources and support - not despair, abortion, or even sugarcoating.  

The pregnancy was a roller coaster of unknowns and medical scares, but the birth was joyous. His diagnosis didn’t change our love for him, and the journey to getting him earthside was that much sweeter. 

If I were your physician, here’s how I’d walk you through this season.  

What You Shouldn’t Hear 

First off, here’s what you shouldn’t hear:  

“I’m sorry.”  

When a physician delivers the news of a Down syndrome diagnosis, it is easy to focus on the possible medical complications and treat Down syndrome as catastrophic news. The diagnosis may be unexpected, but your child is not a tragedy.  

As you attempt to wrap your mind around the extra challenges that may be associated with a Down syndrome diagnosis, you don’t need your first interaction with someone regarding the news to be despair. You need love, support, celebration, and congratulations. If I were in the room with you, I’d say, “I understand this is unexpected news,” instead of expressing sorrow.  

Equipping with Support 

You need support from a good medical team, but it doesn’t end there. Yes, Down syndrome can be associated with additional medical and developmental needs, but that’s only half the picture.  

You should surround yourself with family and friends who will walk beside you in this journey, but I would also connect you with an expectant family and another family who has a child with Down syndrome. This will give you a realistic understanding of what life is actually like raising a child with Down syndrome.  

It’s easy to go on a Google-ing spree and rely solely on information from physicians or online sources, both of which may be outdated or incomplete. However, connecting with these families, having one-on-one conversations, and discussing their first-hand experience and advice fills a gap in understanding that healthcare teams and parents may not see, which is the beauty in the diagnosis and the fierce, indescribable, and unique love that a child with Down syndrome brings.  

I have this in my son, and I’ve found many other parents feel the same.  

The Joys of Down Syndrome According to Science 

And it’s not just my experience. It’s what literature actually demonstrates.  

Research shows that parents raising a child with Down syndrome often experience joy and satisfaction. Nearly four in five parents of children with Down syndrome report a more positive outlook on life as a result, according to a study published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics.^1 

Parents are often concerned about how the diagnosis will affect their other children. In a study examining the perspectives of 822 siblings of people with Down syndrome, 96% reported affection toward their sibling with Down syndrome, and 94% said they were proud of their brother or sister with Down syndrome. Additionally, 88% of older siblings felt they were better people because of their sibling with Down syndrome.^2 

In a U.S. study published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics, researchers surveyed 284 people with Down syndrome ages 12 and older. Ninety-nine percent said they were happy with their lives, 97% liked who they were, and 96% liked how they looked.^3 

The Time to be Alive with Down Syndrome 

Down syndrome isn’t a death sentence. In fact, now is the best time for your child to be born with Down syndrome. With advances in medicine and early intervention, people born today with Down syndrome are thriving. For example, the average life expectancy of an individual with Down syndrome is now approximately 65 years, compared with just 10 years in the 1960s and 25 years in 1980. 

Research shows that early intervention is associated with reaching developmental milestones earlier, improved learning ability, and a better quality of life. 

Let’s Shift the Narrative 

There is a more balanced approach to delivering a Down syndrome diagnosis, one that honestly communicates potential medical concerns while also recognizing the joy, value, and dignity of every child. 

As a physician and mother, I want parents to know they don't have to walk this path alone, and that there’s a better way to do it: with support from family and friends, families experiencing Down syndrome, and a medical team that respects you and your child's life.  

Down syndrome has challenges, but take it from me: it's 100% worth celebrating.  

References 

1. Skotko BG, Levine SP, Goldstein R. (2011). Having a son or daughter with Down syndrome: Perspectives from mothers and fathers. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155, 2335-2347.

2. Skotko BG, Levine SP, Goldstein R. (2011). Having a brother or sister with Down syndrome: Perspectives from siblings. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155, 2348-2359.

3. Skotko BG, Levine SP, Goldstein R. (2011). Self-perceptions from people with Down syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155, 2360-2369. 

Instead, the former student midwife has turned one of the most harrowing chapters of her life into a public witness for conscience, the freedom of pro-life expression, and the preborn.

Key Takeaways:

• Former UK midwifery student Sara Spencer, an American living in Scotland, disclosed that she was pro-life in a private Facebook conversation which later led to suspension, eventual exoneration, and ongoing discrimination against her.

• Spencer encourages individuals in healthcare to speak up and stand up for their pro-life convictions and against the discriminatory idea that those with pro-life beliefs should not enter healthcare professions.

• Today, Spencer is raising her family and doing speaking engagements to spur others on to oppose the "dominant culture in Britain, which discriminates against pro-lifers and seeks to silence them."

The Backstory:

Spencer, an American-born mother of four now living in Scotland, was suspended from her NHS Fife midwifery placement in 2024 after disclosing in a private Facebook conversation that she was pro-life.

While Edinburgh Napier University subsequently exonerated her through its Fitness to Practice process, the experience did more than disrupt her training—it altered the course of her life. 

Today, Spencer speaks openly about cancel culture, freedom of conscience, and the pressures confronting pro-life students across British universities and healthcare institutions. Her message goes beyond her own experience of injustice: silence spreads, but so does courage—and one person willing to speak can prompt others to do the same. 

A dream interrupted

Spencer had never envisioned a career in midwifery. Raised in Southern California until she was 15, she later moved to Idaho, where she became a Christian during high school. She went on to study religion and psychology at Pepperdine University, with no early ambition to work in healthcare.

Everything changed after she relocated to Scotland in 2016 and became a mother. The midwife-led maternity care she received revealed a model of care grounded in confidence in women’s bodies.

Experiencing three births with little or no medical intervention felt empowering to her, and she hoped to help other women encounter that same dignity.

“Midwifery doesn’t regard birth as a medical event or pregnancy as a medical condition, but as natural, normal, healthy events,” Spencer told Live Action News. “I love that about midwifery.”

Later, she enrolled at Edinburgh Napier University and described midwifery as “the dream job I never knew I wanted.” 

However, before Spencer could complete her training, her midwife dream clashed with the realities of professional and institutional pressure.

The Facebook comment that changed everything

In April 2024, someone posted a question in a private midwifery Facebook group: did midwives provide abortions, and could a midwife refuse to participate on grounds of conscience?

Spencer responded thoughtfully.

She pointed out that while midwives do carry out abortions, the law also defends their statutory right to conscientious objection. Referencing the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Code, Spencer explained that professionals who object must notify colleagues, managers, and patients and must ensure that a suitably qualified colleague assumes responsibility for the person’s care. 

Her reply in full was: 

"Yes, midwives do provide abortions. And yes, you have the right to refuse to take part. The law protects your statutory right of conscientious objection. You do not need to provide abortion care if you object to abortion.

‘Paragraph 4.4 of the Code states that nurses, midwives, and nursing associates who have a conscientious objection must tell colleagues, their manager, and the person receiving care that they have a conscientious objection to a particular procedure. They must arrange for a suitably qualified colleague to take over responsibility for that person’s care.’ (NMC)

I am a pro-life midwifery student. Feel free to message me to chat more if you like. ♥️” 

Strikingly, Spencer's last sentence changed the direction of her life: “I am a pro-life midwifery student.”

She understood that her remark would not be well-received. Other participants in the discussion had already implied that anyone with reservations about abortion ought to reconsider pursuing midwifery altogether. One participant even lambasted religious belief as “baggage” for the profession.

Spencer felt compelled to react to such responses. 

“I felt like the [original poster] was being unfairly pressured to think that her pro-life beliefs made her unfit to train as a midwife,” she admitted. “I didn’t mind that it would inevitably invite a reaction against me — I welcome debate, and I knew I was legally entitled to my views.”

“You know what you wrote”

On April 18, 2024, Spencer’s manager at her NHS Fife placement requested to speak with her privately.

Spencer recalled her manager's words: “The conversation I need to have with you right now is not going to be an easy one."

According to Spencer, she was notified that several people had reported her comments, though their identities were never divulged. The issue was then put forth to Edinburgh Napier University.

That same day, a lecturer emailed to claim that Spencer had identified herself as a student midwife during a discussion on termination of pregnancy, sparking concerns about her conduct and professional standards.

The complaint was also passed to the university’s Fitness to Practice office. Spencer stated that the allegations claimed she had articulated her personal beliefs inappropriately, besmirched the university’s reputation, failed to consider how her actions affected others, and used social media irresponsibly.

At first, Spencer was instructed that she could continue clinical placements during the investigation. Within hours, however, she realized that her placement manager did not want her back.

Staff were reportedly “uncomfortable” supporting her learning, and the placement was no longer deemed as a healthy environment for her.

On May 2, a Fitness to Practice officer told her that NHS Fife had formally requested a pause in placements, Spencer recounted. Her later subject access requests, she revealed, uncovered something more severe: NHS Fife had decided to suspend her from placements across the health board.

For Spencer, the ramifications were immediate and personal. She had to forfeit three weeks of clinical placement hours and was notified that attendance was essential unless illness or injury prevented it.

“I was not unwell,” she acknowledged. “I had no broken limbs. I deeply wanted to continue my midwifery training, and yet I was being prevented from doing so for one reason only—I was vocally pro-life.”

Cleared, but not restored

The university investigation eventually culminated with a “no case to answer” outcome. Spencer was cleared of all allegations.

“It was so refreshing and encouraging to have finally had my beliefs listened to and received charitably and fairly,” she conceded. 

Nevertheless, her vindication felt incomplete.

According to Spencer, NHS Fife initially rejected the outcome of the investigation, demanded an explanation, and said it had been preparing witnesses for a more serious panel stage. Her professors told her that if NHS Fife did not accept the university’s decision, she might need to relocate to another health board to continue training.

When Spencer was eventually allowed back into placements, she returned to an environment where she felt watched and vulnerable, she testified. 

Then came what Spencer describes as the most shocking part: months after her exoneration, professors continued to describe her earlier comments as “inappropriate.”

“That sent a message that should disturb all students,” Spencer declared. “You can proceed to do everything right, abide by every rule, cooperate fully with any investigation, be officially absolved of all allegations, and still be considered by your peers, colleagues, supervisors, and professors as guilty.”

What's Happening Today:

A dominant, discriminatory culture

At the moment, Spencer is no longer training as a midwife. After successfully completing and passing her first year, she went on maternity leave to give birth to and care for her fourth child.

Her family also relocated further north in Scotland for her husband’s job, making continued study at Edinburgh Napier impractical.

But leaving midwifery did not mean leaving the issue behind.

Her experience made her think more about the issue of the freedom of expression for pro-life students in the United Kingdom.

Spencer points to an alarming trend of universities and student bodies targeting pro-life groups and speakers, citing cases at institutions including Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling, Aberdeen, Exeter, Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford, and King’s College London.

Additionally, Spencer referred to the 2020 report Free2Speak, published by SPUC and the Alliance of Pro-Life Students, which recorded discrimination against pro-life groups at several Scottish universities. In one case that Spencer alluded to, Tobias Bailey, president of the Stirling University Catholic Society, faced complaints after posting about a 40 Days for Life vigil.

The student union suspended the Catholic Society; after Bailey contested the decision with support from SPUC, the society was reinstated.

Spencer views her own case as part of that broader cultural pattern.

“The dominant culture in Britain, which discriminates against pro-lifers and seeks to silence them also pervades the NHS and UK educational institutions,” she proclaimed. “The pressure is immense for pro-lifers to either hide their pro-life convictions in professional and educational settings or else to simply not pursue careers in healthcare in the first place.”

The “chilling effect”

Spencer has become a speaker at pro-life events, including the SPUC national conference, where she addressed why young people should resist cancel culture. She is also poised to speak at SPUC’s yearly Youth Conference in England in 2027. 

Her central concern is what psychologists and advocates call the 'chilling effect': when people see others punished for expressing a view, they begin to censor themselves before anyone penalizes them.

During her investigation, Spencer testified, a friend in the midwifery program admitted that she shared Spencer’s values but did not have the courage to say so aloud.

“I am very sympathetic to this; truly, I am,” Spencer said. “But the fact that she knew it was best to keep her beliefs to herself lest she be punished for them is exactly the problem.”

Spencer’s message to young people who fear that speaking honestly might cost them friends, marks, placements, or job prospects is blunt: speak the truth regardless. 

“Please, when the opportunity presents itself, take the risk,” she exhorted. “Every time we speak up anyway, we embolden others to do the same.”

Her message to young people who believe their voice does not matter is clear. 

“In the present time and culture, it matters enormously,” she said. “When a pro-lifer speaks their mind and stands their ground, it sends shockwaves through the people and institutions that oppose us.”

Conscience and the future of midwifery

Spencer believes the right to speak one's conscience safeguards pro-life practitioners and upholds the wider principle that no one should be shut out of the caring professions on account of genuine moral or religious convictions. 

“To say that people who sincerely hold a certain moral or religious view are not allowed to enter certain careers is patently discriminatory,” she proclaimed, dismissing the notion that pro-life beliefs make someone incapable of compassionate midwifery care:

“To suggest that someone with pro-life beliefs cannot be a good midwife or cannot provide compassionate care to women is a deeply discriminatory comment.

This comment suggests that the vast majority of practicing Christians around the world, as well as many Muslims, many Hindus, and many irreligious people committed to non-violence, are all, by definition, unfit for the work of caring for pregnant, birthing, and postpartum women.”

For Spencer, the preborn child is a real person rather than a theoretical idea. As she sees it, being a midwife means looking after both the mother and her baby. 

“We believe that the unborn child is one of the most vulnerable members of the human species,” she told Live Action News, “and we believe we have a moral imperative to stand up for them.”

The Bottom Line:

Spencer urges people on every side of the abortion debate to avoid reducing their opponents to caricatures. 

“There are good, rational, and sincere people on the other side of this issue, too,” she said. “We do ourselves no favors by making the same negative assumptions of all pro-choicers that they do of us.”

Spencer’s aim is to prove to young pro-life people that their beliefs are worth speaking up for and that one person’s courage can be contagious.

Key Takeaways:

• Babies have been surrendered recently in Safe Haven Baby Boxes in both Oklahoma and Indiana.

• The Oklahoma surrender was the first ever in the state using a baby box, while Indiana's surrender was the state's 90th using a baby box.

• Safe Haven Baby Boxes provide options for parents in crisis, and also offer help to the parents who choose to surrender.

The Details:

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Oklahoma had its first-ever surrender in a Safe Haven Baby Box last week, as an infant was placed in the device located at St. Francis Children's Hospital.

"We recognize the love and courage it can take for a parent to make this decision, often under incredibly difficult circumstances," said Doug Williams, president of Saint Francis Hospital. "We are grateful this parent knew there was a safe place to turn, and we want others who may be facing similar circumstances to know they have that option, too. No parent should feel that they have nowhere to turn."

"This mother's decision was an act of love," Monica Kelsey, the founder and CEO of Safe Haven Baby Boxes, said in a news release. "She chose life. She chose safety. She chose hope."

Terre Haute, Indiana

Indiana's 90th Safe Haven Baby Box surrender occurred Monday morning at the Sugar Creek Township Fire Department in West Terre Haute.

Sugar Creek Fire Chief Darrick Scott said the surrender involved a "beautiful, baby girl" who appeared healthy.

In a social media post, the department discussed the surrender further, writing:

While this is a deeply emotional moment, it is also a reminder of why these boxes exist—to provide a safe, confidential option for a parent in crisis and give a newborn the opportunity for a safe future.

We are grateful that this resource was available when it was needed. Our thoughts are with everyone involved, and we hope this little one’s future is filled with love, safety, and endless possibilities.

The Terre Haute Baby Box is one of 152 baby box locations in the state of Indiana.

Why It Matters:

Safe Haven Baby Boxes provide a safe, secure, and anonymous way for parents in crisis to surrender an unharmed child they feel unable to care for, without any legal penalty. All children deserve a chance at life instead of being aborted or abandoned to die after birth.

When the child is placed inside one of the baby boxes, a silent alarm immediately alerts authorities, who respond within minutes. In most cases, the child is later placed for adoption. The parent who surrenders also finds information in the box regarding local resources and support.

The Bottom Line:

Parents looking for more help can also call or text the Safe Haven Baby Box hotline at 1-866-99BABY1.

Key Takeaways:

• In an interview for The Dating Blind Show, Jackie said she has a "body count" of 1,572.

• She is 20 years old and said she began having sex at age 18. If she is being honest about her tally, that would amount to an average of more than two different sex partners every day.

• While this seems unlikely, the comment sparked reactions that were largely unfavorable, in a culture that also mocks the idea of sexual restraint.

The Details:

While there is ongoing debate over whether or not Jackie is being honest about having slept with 1,572 people (it seems she may have said it for the shock value), the clip struck a nerve across social media.

In the video, which is from The Dating Blind Show, Jackie is asked about her "body count" — the number of people she has had sex with. She claimed that she has slept with 1,572 people, while 21-year-old Matthew — her "blind date" — said his "body count" is zero and that he came on the show to "lose [his] virginity."

This content may be sensitive for some viewers:

During the vulgar video, Jackie said she first had sex at age 18 in the bathroom at her workplace — Chuck E. Cheese. Since she is 20 years old at the time of the video, that means her other claim about her "body count" would amount to an average of two different sex partners every single day in a span of two years.

For many viewers, this was a clear indication that she had fabricated her "body count" just to get a reaction out of Matthew. It garnered reactions from across the country.

Comments ranged from a simple "Gross" to, "How very sad for her. No self respect. No respect for her body. Close that s**t down honey."

Others called it out as a lie, while some celebrated how "sexually free" she is.

One person wrote, "How did you even keep track," while another said, "My opinion[:] it is not attractive to treat your body like a community center Everybody can get in."

Others wrote, "What is wrong with this world," "Intimacy is one of the closest ways to connect with someone and yall just turned it into a hobby," and, "Western culture baby."

On Instagram, viewers wrote:

• 1. Wtf 2. How? 3. This happens when no one wants to repeat

• Thats a freakin village

• Why did she keep track and memorized it

• She’s so damaged you can see it in her expressions

• You can shame people and it’s not jealousy it’s disgust

• I wouldn’t go near that thing

Because of her comment and her seemingly nonchalant attitude about sex, social media was not kind.

Comments attacked her, insulted her, and degraded her.

Whether it was a lie or not, it's clear that most people don't believe in the libertine "sexual freedom" that groups like Planned Parenthood promote — or at least not for women.

Zoom Out:

Nearly every episode of this dating show is as disturbing as this one and its very existence highlights why sex should be reserved for marriage.

None of the individuals — not even those who claim to be virgins — treat sex with the maturity and respect necessary.

As explained by Live Action founder and president Lila Rose:

"Sex belongs in marriage. When a society treats sex like 'it’s just casual' it ends up wounding hearts, breaking families, and discarding the vulnerable. It enables broken families, fatherless homes, abortion, and abuse. 

Sex isn’t meaningless—it’s powerful, sacred, and ordered toward love and life. When we separate it from commitment and responsibility, people get hurt—especially women and children. If we can’t uphold sexual ethics, we’re not progressing—we’re collapsing. A society that forgets the purpose of sex is a society in free fall."

Though many have claimed that the "True Love Waits" type of "purity culture" of the 1990s instilled some damaging ideas into their minds about self-worth and sexual purity, the pendulum has clearly swung too far in the other direction... and even non-religious people seem turned off by it.

As Live Action News previously reported:

Purity culture was a response to the libertinism brought about by the sexual revolution. It was an “attempt to rescue marriage, or really, virginity until marriage from the decades-long attack” from the sexual revolution, says Rose.

Yet, this “sexual prosperity gospel” that was supposed to be a guarantee of “marital and sexual bliss” didn’t deliver what it promised. While Rose says purity culture had good intentions and is closer to the truth, it “fumbled in its delivery” and created “disenchanted young people” who often ended up walking away from the idea of sexual purity entirely.

Rose noted in Live Action's "The Truth About Sex" series, "It is true that sex can lead to tremendous harm when it is misused…. the better something is, the worse its harms when it’s misused…."

She added that “sex is far too powerful” for it to ever be casual, as it is "one of the most bonding things that you can physically do with someone,” creating emotional and psychological bonds between partners (whether we want it to or not, thanks to hormones). It also creates new human beings, which Rose says is "one of the greatest powers that we have."

The Bottom Line:

Treating sex lightly and boasting about casually "bonding" with a thousand people is damaging. Even our highly sexualized culture might be waking up to this fact.

Key Takeaways:

• A rally was held on Tuesday in Missouri to inform voters about Amendment 3, which would repeal a previous ballot measure that made abortion a state constitutional right.

• Amendment 3 would protect most preborn children from abortion and restore safety protections for pregnant women facing medical issues.

• It would also ensure parental notification for abortions on minors and protect minors from so-called gender transition procedures such as cross-sex hormones, sex-change surgeries, and puberty blockers for minors under age 18.

The Backstory:

On November 3, Missouri voters will vote on a constitutional measure that would ensure protections for miscarriage care, ectopic pregnancy treatment, and emergency care for women, and protect most preborn children from abortion.

Amendment 3 would also protect minors from so-called gender transition procedures. If passed, it would place a state constitutional ban on cross-sex hormones, sex-change surgeries, and puberty blockers for anyone under the age of 18. It would also allow families to sue medical professionals who carry out these procedures on minors.

According to the official ballot language, the amendment would impact abortion in the following ways:

• Repeal the 2024 abortion amendment, removing the state constitutional "right" to abortion through viability.

• Allow the legislature to regulate abortion once again.

• Ensure parental consent before a minor obtains an abortion.

• Permit abortion only in limited circumstances the state describes as medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, and rape or incest during the first 12 weeks.

• Restore state-described health and safety standards for abortion businesses.

Every child deserves protection of the law, but, as explained by Live Action's Director of Government Affairs, Mark Wiltz, the choice is not between this amendment and a perfect pro-life law; it is between this amendment and a state constitution that considers every abortion a right.

Polling on the amendment has shown there is a good amount of support behind it. Coalition for Life Founder and Executive Director Brian Westbrook told Live Action News that internal polling shows 51% of voters are in favor of the amendment and 45% are against. The Catholic Archdiocese and all of the Catholic bishops in the state support Amendment 3, and the Baptist Convention voted last week to unanimously support it.

"In 2024," he said, "There was a black and white decision: no abortions or all abortions. Since then there has been a lot of noise and a lot of discussion about the lawsuits Planned Parenthood filed that removed all of the safety regulations regarding abortion in Missouri, so there are a lot of people upset about that. .. This amendment is not the same. It's not black and white no abortion or all abortions. It says, for those who think there should be exceptions, there are exceptions... It's going to grab the attention of people in the middle on abortion."

Westbrook explained that if passed, Amendment 3 will put Missouri in a better position than it was in prior to the fall of Roe v. Wade in June 2022. Abortion was legal through viability, but because of safety regulations, Planned Parenthood had essentially left the state. The day after the Supreme Court overturned Roe, a trigger law took effect in Missouri, allowing preborn babies to be protected from abortion.

"Planned Parenthood just gave up on Missouri," he said. "They simply didn't want to comply with common sense safety measures. They could go 20 minutes to the east or west and operate across the state border. Why would they bother with Missouri?"

Now, regulations on abortion in Missouri have been stripped. Amendment 3 would put them back in place, including required handwashing stations, medical malpractice insurance, informed consent, and parental notification. Prior to the fall of Roe, Planned Parenthood had left Missouri and was committing the majority of abortions out of state. So while some pro-lifers might be bothered by Amendment 3 including exceptions for abortion, Westbrook notes, "Is Planned Parenthood going to keep abortionists in Missouri if they can only do it for exceptions and with all of the regulations? They have never wanted to comply with these. We can save the babies who are the exceptions because Planned Parenthood doesn't want to bother with just a handful of abortions in the state. They'd rather just send their abortionists across the state line."

The Details:

The pro-life event held on Tuesday was a partnership between Missouri Right to Life; Coalition Life; Her Health, Her Future; and other groups.

It featured Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, former Co-Deputy Director of the FBI and former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, pro-life advocate Kate Sickles, transgender whistleblower and former case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center Jamie Reed, and detransitioner Chloe Cole.

On stage with the speakers were Missouri women and doctors who support Amendment 3.

In her speech, Sickles shared, "In 2017, state health inspectors went into the Columbia, Missouri Planned Parenthood and found dried baby fetal parts and rusty, moldy equipment."

That facility was shut down, but in 2024, pro-abortion groups came into the state telling Missourians that women were dying in hospital parking lots due to a lack of ectopic pregnancy care. "That was simply not true," said Sickles.

Planned Parenthood then sued the state to block the safety standards. They succeeded in blocking all but two. The Planned Parenthood that was shut down for seven years because of failure to meet safety standards reopened the day after those safety standards were blocked.

AG Hanaway spoke about people she knows personally whose mothers refused abortion and how Hanaway can't imagine life without them, including the son she adopted.

"I'm just gonna ask you," she said, "do you want to save unborn children? Do you want to protect the health of women and stand up to that judge who overruled every single safety protection for women?" The crowd applauded as she asked them to get more people out to vote in favor of Amendment 3.

Cole shared her detransition story, saying that she was only 12 when she told her parents she was a boy. She ultimately went on puberty blockers at age 13 and underwent a double mastectomy at 15, both decisions she came to regret. "I still had stuffed animals on my bed," she said. "... I still had action figures and toys on my shelf."

Less than a year later, at age 16, she was longing to be a feminine woman, get married to a man, and have children of her own. The damage had already been done.

"I have to live with the lifelong consequences," she said, " and so do my mom and dad."

Amendment 3 would protect minors in the state from the same fate.

The Bigger Picture:

Westbrook told Live Action News just how vital it is that Amendment 3 passes. Also on the ballot is Amendment 6, which would turn the state from a constitutional republic to a direct democracy and allow citizens to collect signatures and pass laws.

"It shifts the power in a massive way to ballot initiatives getting most of the power," said Westbrook. He explained that it would cement all of the approved amendments from 2010 through 2026, and the only way they could be changed or removed would be with an 80% vote in both the House and the Senate. Amendment 6 is unfortunately likely to pass, said Westbrook. So if Amendment 3 were to fail, the previous amendment from 2024 would become much harder to undo. It could take a decade.

The Bottom Line:

A YES vote on Amendment 3 repeals the 2024 abortion amendment that made abortion a right through all 40 weeks of pregnancy. A YES vote will protect the majority of preborn babies from abortion and put safety regulations back in place. A NO vote leaves the amendment in place. Absentee voting is already underway, and Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

On November 8, a new Massachusetts law is set to take effect that, instead of tightening the standard for abortion after 24 weeks, removes the standard. From then on, the only standard will be “the professional judgment of the physician.”

The old law already allowed abortion after 24 weeks if the physician judged it necessary to save the mother’s life or protect her physical or mental health, or if the child had a lethal or grave diagnosis.

So what does this new law allow that the old one didn’t?

Key Takeaways:

• Massachusetts' new abortion law allows a physician to commit an abortion past 24 weeks without requiring any conditions to be met first. The old law required one of four conditions to be met in order for a physician to make this decision.

• Now, any woman at any time during gestation — even one who is healthy, with a healthy preborn child near birth — only needs to find a physician willing to end the life of her child.

• Justice requires us to stand in the place of everyone a decision touches, but the new law protects only the judgment of the physician and woman — not the child. Yet, under Massachusetts law, the same child is a victim if killed by an assailant, but a lawful termination if a physician kills that child.

The Details:

The law, H.5595, titled “An Act Prioritizing Patient Access to Care,” was signed by Gov. Maura Healey on August 10. The old law began with a prohibition that “no abortion may be performed except by a physician, and only if” one of four conditions was met.

The new law replaces this prohibition with explicit permission that “an abortion may be performed by a physician.”

It will be objected that a physician must still judge. But the old law also turned on the physician’s judgment, only it required that judgment to be about something. Under the new law, the judgment is the measure.

But is an abortion justified because the physician judges it so, or does the physician judge it so because of something about the case? Whether any act is justified depends on what the act is and its circumstances. A law can name those circumstances. It decides what kinds of reasons count and the physician can decide whether this case has one.

The old law did this by giving four distinct reasons, and the physician judged whether the case met one. None of these reasons justifies intentionally ending a child’s life, but the old law at least attempted to state when a late-term abortion was justified.

The new law no longer gives any reasons, but leaves it up to the physician to determine what counts as a reason at all, and whether this particular case has one.

Two physicians, left to their own discretion, can look at the same pregnancy and reach opposite conclusions, and the law can’t say either is wrong. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court noted how difficult it is to coherently draw lines around fetal viability, then asked whether those questions must “be left entirely to the individual ‘attending physician.’”

Massachusetts has answered yes.

Rep. Christine Barber said in a House press release that the bill “guarantees medical expertise as the standard of care.”

Standards of care tell a physician how to do a procedure, but leave open whether intentionally ending a child’s life is warranted at all. Barber gets it backwards: the old law made medical expertise the standard, as each of its four reasons was a medical finding, and the new law adds cases with no medical finding.

A woman 35 weeks pregnant with a healthy child and no threat to her own health now needs nothing but a willing physician.

The new law also forbids any “medical review process” from overriding “the professional judgment” of physician and patient. As Live Action News reported in August, it strikes the requirement that abortions after 24 weeks happen in a hospital.

Why It Matters:

Clarify rather than repeal

Supporters made their case through stories that Healey described as “filled with a lot of pain and anguish and heartache.”

The most prominent came from Kate Dineen, who in 2021, at 33 weeks, learned her son had suffered a stroke in the womb. She was told that she might still be able to seek an abortion if she traveled out of state, and since her diagnosis “didn’t qualify for an exception,” her doctor’s hands were “tied by Massachusetts state law.” She traveled 500 miles to Maryland.

State Sen. Robyn Kennedy made the broad case: “medicine does not always fit into clearly defined legal categories.”

Kennedy is right that gray areas sometimes arise at the edges of the statute’s categories. The legislature already added one category a year after Dineen’s case: “grave fetal diagnosis.”

Even after that change, Nicole Martin, a mother 31 weeks pregnant, learned that her son’s brain had stopped growing, and her doctors couldn’t tell whether this counted as “grave.”

If the categories are unclear, the remedy isn’t to repeal them, but to clarify them.

Repealing every limit because a few cases are hard is, as Trent Horn argues in "20 Answers: Abortion," like repealing “all speed limits just because there are rare cases in which they need to be ignored to get someone to a hospital.”

What justice requires

The woman 35 weeks pregnant with a healthy child and no threat to her health, who needs only a willing physician, sits nowhere near a gray area. At that stage, a child can be delivered. Even at 28 weeks, 94% of babies survive to discharge.

Supporters ask us to stand in the mother’s place, but justice requires us to stand in the place of everyone a decision touches. The new law protects only the judgment of two people, physician and patient, and no one is required to stand in the child’s place.

In 2023, in Commonwealth v. Ronchi, Massachusetts’s Supreme Judicial Court upheld a first-degree murder conviction for killing a full-term unborn child, because causing the death of a viable fetus “before or after it is born, is homicide.”

Yet under Massachusetts law, the same child is a victim if killed by an assailant and a lawful termination if a physician kills that person.

The Bottom Line:

While abortions in Massachusetts at 24 weeks or later are rare (84 in 2023 and 99 in 2024), the injustice of an act is not determined by how rarely the weakest suffer it.

As a Catholic, Healey has spoken of “our responsibility to care for others, especially those who are the most vulnerable among us.” I take her at her word, and that is what makes this so grievous.

Only God knows her heart; I know what the act is. This law permits a child who could be delivered alive to be killed instead, and the killing recorded as “care.”

Key Takeaways:

• Six former employees have filed a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood Southeast and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

• The suit alleges that PPSE violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

• The former employees allege that a newly-hired CEO was making changes to the organization that were counter to Planned Parenthood's pro-abortion mission.

The Details:

Six former staff members of PPSE say they were wrongfully fired after they raised concerns about leadership in 2025.

Jaylen Black, Hannah Davis, Kim Luong, Kaylah Oates-Marable, LaTerria Shelby, and Jessica Swanson are suing PPSE and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. for unspecified damages, alleging the organization violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The lawsuit alleges that PPSE — which operates in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia — "installed a new executive leadership team unaligned with the organization's mission and values, much less its core sensibilities about the dignity of its own employees."

It said the "six plaintiffs openly challenged PPSE’s drift from its mission and its curtailment of its services and outreach to a LGBT community that has faced constant political and legal attack."

The suit states that (former) CEO Mairo Akposé had no ties to the abortion industry when she got a job as Chief People and Culture Officer, where she worked for one year before becoming CEO. It also says that she "scrubbed PPSE from her professional identity" and that in her own lawsuit against PPSE filed on October 14, she describes herself as a "practicing Christian."

The lawsuit notes (emphasis added):

After the 2024 presidential election, Akpose told senior level staffers that one of her goals was to rebrand PPSE’s mission as less centered on abortion rights.

At one point, in the presence of Georgia State Director Oates-Marable and Black, the Vice President of External Affairs, Akpose observed that “we talk about abortion too much, we focus too much on it.”

Both Black and Oates-Marable objected and cautioned Akpose about downgrading a key PPFA priority, especially when the Georgia legislature was debating the criminalization of abortion from the onset of pregnancy.

The staffers complain that Akposé "began to distance PPFA from alliances with the LGBT community related to public policy and sexual education and awareness initiatives" and stopped "partnering in Pride-themed events."

In addition, the complaint states that Akposé hired Karen Rene, who had previously called herself "pro-life," and had referred to an abortion procedure as "'dismembering babies,' a jarring adoption of anti-choice rhetoric that stunned and outraged several partners of PPSE who were present."

First-trimester suction aspiration abortions, D&C abortions, and second-trimester D&E abortions (D&E being the most common to involve intentional dismemberment) can all lead to the dismemberment and disarticulation of the body of a preborn child:

The lawsuit also states that Rene questioned female staff members about their desire to have children but did not speak to male staff members in such a way, "creating a gender-based hostile environment."

The six former staffers allege that they were let go from their jobs after voicing concerns that PPSE was moving in a direction counter to Planned Parenthood's abortion-centered mission.

In the meantime, Akposé, who was terminated in December after staff went public with their complaints in an online campaign called “Save PPSE," filed a Title VII complaint against PPSE on Oct. 14, alleging racial and religious discrimination.

The Bottom Line:

Despite its previous claims that abortion is only a tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood does (something even the <a href="/news/washington-post-3-pinocchios-planned-parenthoods-3-percent-figure">Washington Post debunked</a>), this lawsuit makes clear that abortion is "a key PPFA priority." In fact, employees have stated that they were pressured by the organization to sell more abortions.

Planned Parenthood has faced other lawsuits, including filings from injured patients, parents of abused children, and states that alleged fraud.

Key Takeaways:

• Idaho's Proposition 1 will create a "right" to abortion in the currently pro-life state.

• Teigen is set to speak at a pro-abortion rally in Boise this week in support of Proposition 1.

• She has repeatedly claimed she underwent a medically necessary abortion, when in fact doctors desperately tried to save both her life and that of her baby.

The Details:

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Teigen will appear at a pro-abortion rally in support of Proposition 1, where she will speak to mothers and urge voters to support the pro-abortion initiative.

Teigen's appearance was also promoted by Idahoans United for Women and Families on social media, echoing claims that Teigen had a medically necessary abortion.

"In 2020, Chrissy lost a deeply wanted pregnancy to a serious complication and needed medically necessary abortion care to protect her health," the group claimed (emphasis added). "Here in Idaho, moms facing that same heartbreak have been sent out of state for care. On Wednesday, Oct. 28, Chrissy, who spent her teen years in Idaho Falls, will meet with Idaho mothers who’ve lived this, then rally with all of us for YES on Prop 1."

Reality Check:

But originally, Teigen didn't describe the loss of her baby boy as an abortion, and has only in recent years begun to call her experience a 'medically-necessary abortion.' Her original description of the medical emergency does not fit the definition of abortion.

An abortion is the intentional, targeted killing of a preborn child; the goal is to bring about the death of the baby. In Teigen's case, her son died, but doctors tried valiantly to save him through various medical interventions.

Teigen had originally been placed on bed rest due to issues with the placenta, and eventually, was admitted to the hospital due to bleeding. Her son Jack remained healthy at first. But eventually, there were catastrophic complications, and Jack died — and by Teigen's own admission, doctors did everything they could to save him.

“We are shocked and in the kind of deep pain you only hear about, the kind of pain we’ve never felt before,” she wrote. “We were never able to stop the bleeding and give our baby the fluids he needed, despite bags and bags of blood transfusions. It just wasn’t enough” (emphases added).

Over two years later, and only after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade, Teigen began to describe the experience was an abortion, saying her husband — singer John Legend — was the one who made her see it that way.

“I was talking about it from a place of, ‘I feel so bad for … anyone who’s ever had to go through that, and they’re not able to make a choice of their own body,’ and he was like, ‘Well, you had an abortion,’” she said. “I was like, what? I had no idea … I just assumed that I had miscarried.”

Legend has claimed "she was miscarrying, and bleeding out, and all these things were happening" and that "Her life was in danger," while also claiming she had an abortion that pro-life laws would not allow.

This is false, and a reading of Idaho's own Defense of Life Act (and even its allowances for actual induced abortion) makes clear that abortion is considered an act with the intent of bringing about the death of a preborn child.

Jack experienced a tragic natural death, which doctors tried to prevent. It is unclear if he was delivered early in an effort to save Teigen's life, but the goal was absolutely not to ensure Jack died.

No one — not Teigen, Legend, or their doctors — intentionally sought to cause Jack's death. His death was unable to be prevented, despite medical interventions to save his life and to protect Teigen's.

Zoom Out:

A woman in Idaho had a similar experience which she recently wrote about. And like Jack, her daughter did not survive. However, she correctly pointed out that she did not have an abortion, and abortion was not necessary to save her life.

Valerie Abraham had a placental abruption at 18 weeks, and said her doctors treated both her and her daughter as individual patients. This, she explained, was the highest standard of medical care, and gave both her and her daughter dignity (emphases added):

I knew full-well that if the bleeding couldn’t be controlled, they were prepared to escalate the interventions, but they didn’t jump to a “nuclear” option right away. They followed ACOG guidelines on treatment, and stabilized me while keeping me informed on my baby’s prognosis in a rapidly developing situation.

After my body went into pre-term labor, they jumped in with more life-saving care for me to stop the hemorrhage. I received the same medications abortion advocates claim women won’t have access to in abortion-ban states.

I delivered a tiny baby girl who reached out her delicate fingers and grabbed my husband’s hand and opened her mouth. She lived for 43 minutes after birth. We held her, prayed with her, and treasured every minute of her brief life.

We named her Amal after a great aunt, and we filled out her birth certificate and death certificate on the same day.

Amal died with dignity instead of trauma because of Idaho’s current laws. I was given life-saving, and health-saving care because of Idaho’s current laws.

As Abraham pointed out, there is nothing in Idaho's current laws, which protect most preborn children from abortion, that prevents women from receiving life-saving medical care.

And while the baby may not survive the interventions needed to save a mother's life, such as an early delivery, the goal is not to cause the child's death, differentiating these treatments from abortion.

The Bottom Line:

Women deserve better than fear-laden propaganda promoted in an effort to scare them into supporting death for their own children.

Key Takeaways:

• Zurich, Switzerland, has removed conscience protections from Christian care homes and hospitals that had previously refused to offer assisted suicide.

• The new law will impact 30 Christian facilities.

• Zurich now joins Geneva and Valais in removing conscience protections for assisted suicide, forcing these religiously and ideologically opposed organizations to help people end their own lives.

The Details:

According to SwissInfo, two-thirds of Zurich voters approved an amendment on September 27 to remove conscience protections from faith-based institutions that had previously refused to cooperate in 'assisted dying.'

The new law will impact 30 Christian care homes and hospitals, which, SwissInfo reports "must now open their doors to Exit, Dignitas, and other assisted suicide organisations, or relocate their operations to another canton that does not yet have such regulations."

Zurich now joins Geneva and Valais in removing all conscience protections for assisted suicide.

What We're Hearing:

While many lauded the amendment as a way to eliminate the inconvenience of needing to move to a new facility in order to access death, others were opposed.

Notably, the Zurich cantonal government warned against the measure because of the conflict it will now likely create within Christian palliative care homes, which seek to comfort and aid those who are ill and dying.

The Catholic church has also spoken out against the new measure. Bishop Joseph Marie Bonnemain of the Diocese of Chur released a statement, saying:

Where the termination of a life is legally regulated and socially accepted as a possible response to severe suffering, our view of vulnerability, dependence, and dignity changes. A person’s dignity does not depend on whether they are healthy, capable, autonomous, or free from pain. It remains, it must remain inviolable — especially in illness, despair, and at the end of life.

Many people who express a wish to die don’t simply want to die. They don’t want to be alone, be a burden to anyone, suffer unbearable pain, or lose control over their lives….

I fear that this law — despite all the protective measures it includes and the understandable motives of its many supporters — could create expectations.

Those who perceive themselves as weak, in need of care, or costly might one day believe they are doing others a service by dying.

A truly compassionate, humane society conveys the opposite: You are not superfluous. You are not alone. Your life, even in its greatest fragility, is precious.

The Bottom Line:

Suicide is no less a tragedy simply because the person committing it is elderly or ill, nor does the state's sanction dictate whether or not an act is moral.

Every human life deserves to be cherished and protected, and Christian caregivers should never be forced into participating in the evils of assisted death.

Key Takeaways:

• Authorities in Kuwait have arrested a Turkish national who was in possession of "abortion pills," though the name of the drugs are unspecified.

• The unnamed suspect had seven of the drugs in his possession and 98 more were later found at his residence.

• He admitted after his arrest to entering Kuwait on a monthly basis and bringing 56 "abortion pills" each time with the intention to sell them.

• Black market abortion drug sales are a growing problem, even in the U.S.

The Details:

According to the Ministry of Interior, Kuwait authorities learned that the suspect had been involved in selling and distributing abortion drugs. They located seven pills in his immediate possession and another 98 pills at his residence. The pills were valued at KD 1,040 (US $3,346).

He confessed that he had been visiting Kuwait on a monthly basis on a tourist visa and on each visit, he brought 56 pills with him. He planned to sell them in Kuwait.

According to reports, the unnamed suspect and the drugs were referred to the proper authorities for legal proceedings to be carried out.

Why It Matters:

Abortion drugs are being trafficked around the nation, even into the United States, via online sales. A fact sheet published by Charlotte Lozier Institute research organization found that “72 unique websites” are selling the drugs online.

Online abortion pill distributor Aid Access was likely shipping abortion pills into the United Stated through India without Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. In March of 2019, the FDA sent a warning letter to AidAccess.org to cease shipments of the pills to the U.S.

In addition, a 2025 investigation from The Sun found that a black market abortion pill ring is flourishing in the United Kingdom (UK). International sellers are targeting women on social media platforms like Facebook.

Numerous online abortion pill chains source their pills from shoddy factories in India and China through doctors who prescribe pills to women they have never met and have never examined. The pills are manufactured in India and then shipped to the customers.

There is no assurance that there are no contraindications or that the pills are actually being ordered by the abortion-seeking women themselves.

“The key danger with so-called ‘black market’ abortion pills is that they are often used without medical supervision, at incorrect doses, or well beyond the recommended time frame,” said pharmacist Deborah Grayson of Practice With Confidence, adding:

Women have reported experiencing extremely traumatic outcomes — excruciating pain, heavy blood loss described as ‘gushing’, vomiting, sweating and intense emotional distress — all without medical support. That kind of experience, particularly if complications arise, can be both dangerous and frightening.

If any pregnancy tissue remains, surgical intervention may be required, which carries its own risks — especially if the womb is damaged in the process. The further along the pregnancy, the greater the danger.

The Bottom Line:

Regardless of the extra dangers associated with online abortion pill sales or black market sales, the abortion pill has been found to be <a href="/news/study-abortion-pill-four-times-dangerous-surgical">4x times</a> more dangerous than a first trimester surgical abortion, yet the abortion industry markets the pills as safe.

Key Takeaways:

• A Brooklyn man is the prime suspect in an attack against a pregnant woman inside her apartment.

• The suspect and the victim are allegedly married.

• The man is alleged to have used rubbing alcohol to start the fire that burned the woman's face, neck, and back.

• She is currently in stable condition in the burn unit.

• Homicide is a leading cause of death for pregnant women.

The Details:

According to News 12, the 38-year-old woman was deliberately set on fire in her apartment in Crown Heights.

Police officers responded at about 5 p.m. and found her suffering burns to her face, neck, and back. It is believed that her partner used rubbing alcohol to start the fire.

While police said the suspect is the woman's current or former boyfriend, the victim's mother told News 12 that the suspect is married to the victim.

The woman's family members said the woman is the mother of a young child and is also pregnant. She is reported to be in stable condition in the burn unit.

No arrests have been made, but police say they know who they are looking for.

The Bottom Line:

Homicide is a leading cause of death for pregnant women.

In the U.S., women who are pregnant or have recently given birth are more likely to be murdered than to die from obstetric causes, including hemorrhage and sepsis. These homicides are often linked to domestic violence.

While abortion supporters argue that easy access to abortion will decrease these homicides, this most recent attack took place in New York, where abortion is very accessible.

Men who want women to have abortions sometimes use threats of violence to coerce women to have abortions they don't want.

Smyth went on to co-found the All-Ireland Rally for Life and also founded Stanton Healthcare Belfast, a pregnancy support center.

Key Takeaways:

• Bernadette Smyth has been working in pro-life activism in Northern Ireland for nearly 30 years.

• One of her organizations, Precious Life, was founded as a grassroots street outreach and has since reached hundreds of thousands of people through engaging with the public on the streets.

• In 2015, Precious Life helped establish Stanton Healthcare Belfast, a pregnancy support center offering women practical assistance and an alternative to abortion.

• In October 2019, Westminster intervened during the suspension of Northern Ireland’s devolved government, and decriminalized abortion, allowing abortion up to birth. This changed the urgency and intensity of Precious Life's outreach.

• Since that time, Precious Life has held regular commemorative events for babies lost to abortion.

• The group also opposes Northern Ireland’s safe access zone legislation, arguing that it restricts peaceful prayer, leafleting, and offers of help outside abortion facilities.

The Backdrop:

Almost 30 years after establishing Precious Life, Smyth remains undiminished in her commitment campaigning against abortion through political lobbying, legal challenges, and grassroots street outreach. Her campaigning has made her one of Northern Ireland’s most prominent pro-life figures — praised by allies, challenged by critics, and, in her own account, driven by the conviction that every human life is created in the image of God and deserves protection.

Her activism has unfolded against a backdrop of profound legal and political upheaval. When she founded Precious Life, abortion was illegal in Northern Ireland. But in 2019, while the Northern Ireland Executive was suspended, Westminster legislated to change the region’s abortion law.

For Smyth, this marked a turning point: the cause she had pursued for decades became an even more urgent fight to protect unborn life.

Taking it to the Streets:

Precious Life did not begin in a boardroom; it began on the streets.

In its early years, the organization established information stalls in towns and cities, distributed leaflets, gathered petition signatures, and organized major pro-life gatherings. Smyth regards this grassroots presence as the foundation of its work.

“Throughout the years, Precious Life has talked to hundreds of thousands of people through our pro-life street outreach,” Smyth said. “In an era when people often hear only what they want to hear, it is the task of pro-life activists to engage with the public on the street.”

Precious Life’s annual summer roadshow has visited Belfast, Derry, Coleraine, Enniskillen, Newry, Ballymena, Portrush, and Armagh, bringing prayer, leafleting, and face-to-face conversations directly to local communities.

“We bypass the media and meet people face-to-face,” Smyth said of the 2026 roadshow. “People stopped. People listened. People’s hearts were stirred and minds were changed.”

These encounters can have an immediate impact on women facing unexpected pregnancies.

“Our work on the streets is multifaceted,” she explained. “In the long term, many babies are saved because of the information we distribute. But sometimes a baby is saved literally ‘on the spot.'"

From Campaigning to Practical Support:

In 2015, Precious Life helped establish Stanton Healthcare Belfast, a pregnancy support center offering women practical assistance and an alternative to abortion. Its services include free ultrasound scans, pregnancy support, and essential supplies for mothers and babies.

“Our experience at Stanton has shown that over 70% of women considering abortion will ‘choose life’ when they see their baby in an ultrasound scan,” Smyth said. “During an ultrasound, we literally see miracles happen.”

Describing an ultrasound as “a window to the womb,” Smyth recalls the powerful moment when a woman sees her unborn baby moving on screen.

“It’s truly amazing to watch a mother’s eyes intently follow the movements on screen and see that moment of realization dawn when she recognizes the beautiful humanity of her precious baby for the first time,” she said.

For Smyth, the impact of Stanton’s work is best illustrated by the personal stories of women and children whose lives have been changed. She recalled meeting a young mother, Mel, on the street a few years ago. Mel later returned with her daughter, Anaya, to thank the volunteers who had supported her.

“Thank you for being a witness for life, and thank you for being there for me. Without your help, Anaya would not be here today,” Mel said.

Stories like this demonstrate, Smyth believes, the lasting difference that practical support can make at a crucial moment. They also explain why she continues her work despite criticism and legal challenges.

A Defining Political Moment:

Smyth’s decades-long campaign reached a turning point in October 2019, when Westminster intervened during the suspension of Northern Ireland’s devolved government. Abortion was decriminalized, and a legal framework was established permitting abortion up to the moment of birth.

Precious Life responded with renewed determination, organizing counter-demonstrations, a lobbying campaign, and a March for Life that brought together thousands of people from across Ireland.

“22nd October 2019 was one of the darkest days in Northern Ireland’s history,” Smyth recalled. “Westminster broke all principles of democracy and devolution by forcing abortion on Northern Ireland.”

She argued that a decision with such profound moral and human consequences should never have been imposed by the British government against the wishes of those who had spent decades campaigning to protect unborn children.

“After all our years of campaigning to keep abortion out of Northern Ireland, literally overnight, we went from being a country where the womb was the safest place for unborn babies to a country where the womb became the most dangerous place for unborn babies,” she said.

Rather than accept the changes, Precious Life intensified its campaigning, launching the Fightback and Repeal Section 9 campaigns to challenge Westminster’s intervention and call for the restoration of legal protection for unborn children.

Making the Invisible Visible:

Since the law changed, Precious Life has held regular commemorative events for babies lost to abortion. Rows of tiny baby shoes represent the lives lost, transforming statistics into a powerful visual reminder of what Smyth sees as the human cost of abortion.

“The sight of those tiny shoes laid out creates a profound visual impact,” she recalled. “Each pair of baby shoes represents an innocent life lost. These memorials are not just symbolic; they are real.”

She continued: “We are talking about real children, real loss, and real tragedy.”

Smyth regards abortion as “the greatest human rights issue of our time” and believes that remaining silent in the face of injustice is a moral failure.

During a recent commemoration, she quoted Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil… Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Her response was clear: “And so we will not be silent. We will not abandon these children. We will continue to be their voice.”

Defending Free Speech and Public Witness:

In recent years, Smyth has increasingly campaigned to defend freedom of religious expression and the right to engage in peaceful pro-life advocacy. Precious Life opposes Northern Ireland’s safe access zone legislation, arguing that it restricts peaceful prayer, leafleting, and offers of help outside abortion facilities.

“Now, simply holding a sign, distributing information leaflets, talking to a woman or offering her help, or even praying outside an abortion center” can attract penalties, Smyth said. “The work of Precious Life will continue, and we will not be deterred by this draconian law.”

Moreover, she has criticized Belfast City Council’s proposed bylaws, which Precious Life believes could restrict public preaching, prayer, and pro-life imagery in the city center.

For Smyth, the issue extends beyond abortion to the freedom to express Christian beliefs in public.

“If pro-life truth and the Christian faith can be silenced in Belfast today, it will be silenced in Derry, Dublin, Cork or London tomorrow,” she warned.

The Fight for the Future:

Smyth’s activism is deeply rooted in her Catholic faith. She often cites Proverbs 24:11 — ”Rescue those being dragged to the slaughter” — as a scriptural call to defend the vulnerable.

Almost 30 years after founding Precious Life, Smyth remains determined to continue campaigning until unborn children receive legal protection.

“We will never be silent. We will never surrender,” she told supporters at the All-Ireland Rally for Life. “We will keep speaking, marching, and standing together until abortion becomes not only illegal but unthinkable in Ireland once again.”

Her message is also a call to action:

“We cannot sit back and wait for change. We must be the change. We must rise up, speak out, and actively proclaim a culture of life in every town and city. Every unborn child deserves a voice, and every woman deserves real support.

We must never give up, never be silenced, and never abandon this mission until every unborn child is protected and legalized abortion becomes a thing of the past.

The Bottom Line:

"Together, we are making a difference," Smyth said. "Together, we are giving a voice to the voiceless, and together we will end abortion in our lifetime.”

Key Takeaways:

• The Zimbabwe Constitutional Court overturned a ruling that would have allowed abortion to be expanded to include mental health-related reasons.

• The nation's Termination of Pregnancy Act protects preborn children from abortion with some exceptions, including rape, incest, when the mother's life is at risk, and prenatal diagnosis.

• A lawsuit argued that the law's exclusion of mental health reasons for abortion was unconstitutional.

• The High Court ruled that sections of the TOP Act were unconstitutional; however, the Constitutional Court declined to confirm the High Court’s ruling and overturned it.

The Details:

Under its 1977 Termination of Pregnancy (TOP) Act, Zimbabwe protects preborn children from abortion, except in cases of rape and incest, when the mother’s life is determined to be at risk, and in cases when the preborn child has a health condition.

An abortion activist challenged the law’s exclusion of mental health reasons as an abortion exception, as well as the law's lack of indication that women with intellectual disabilities who are pregnant have been subject to “unlawful intercourse.”

The case argued that the pro-life protections were unconstitutional because pregnancy could potentially worsen the conditions of women with serious mental health ailments. The case also argued that current abortion law denies women legally protected abortion for mental health conditions by not recognizing them as victims of sexual misconduct.

The Zimbabwe High Court ruled in favor of the abortion activist plaintiff, stating that sections of the TOP Act were unconstitutional. However, on October 14, the Constitutional Court declined to confirm the High Court’s declarations and set aside the lower court’s ruling.

The Backstory:

Zimbabwe’s law has been under attack for years by abortion activists looking to expand abortion. International abortion funders, including the Gates Foundation and MSI Reproductive Choices (formerly Marie Stopes International), invest in the abortion lobby in Zimbabwe and other African nations.

Earlier this year, Zimbabwe lawmakers considered legislation that could overhaul the existing abortion law by permitting abortions on request through 12 weeks of pregnancy, or up to 20 weeks, depending on the woman's health, mental state, or economic situation. Thus far, that legislation has not been passed. Christians in the nation have posed opposition to attempts by the abortion industry to corrupt the nation’s pro-life law. 

One Christian woman from Zimbabwe, Maria Shingi, has spoken out against abortion expansion. Shingi underwent an illegal abortion procedure a decade ago after conceiving a child through an affair. She suffered devastating physical and emotional effects from the abortion, even succumbing to alcoholism.

“When abortion is legalized, what is legalized is not only a procedure but a lie: that abortion resolves crisis, that it liberates women, that it averts mental health, that it leaves no permanent mark,” Shingi told Christianity Today. “I am here as living evidence that this is untrue.”

Key Takeaways:  

• Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains now has an abortion/'gender-affirming care' business next to its recently relocated teen/young adult center (which caters to the LGBTQ+ community) in Albuquerque.

• The teen/young adult center, known as "The Space," encourages interaction between minors as young as 13 and adults through PPRM's Teen M’Power and M’Power groups.

• In the past, the teen and adult commingling events have included the “Lavender Prom” that offered attendees ‘free rapid HIV testing,' several “all ages” drag events, and a holiday ‘gift giving’ program where MPower adults are encouraged to purchase requested gifts for teens. 

The Details: 

PPRM announced the opening of its second abortion/‘gender affirming’ facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico, right next door to its newly relocated meeting spot called “The Space,” intended for adults and teens aged 13-29.

“The Space” is PPRM's latest location for its Teen M’Power and M’Power groups, where both minors and adults can get tested for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, but also for those who “... might be questioning or curious about their own sexuality,” according to local news outlet, KRQU. 

President and CEO of PPRM, Adrienne Mansanares, boasted of its expanding ability to end the lives of countless in the womb and selling its medicalized gender ideology, telling the Santa Fe New Mexican, “Being here in New Mexico is such an honor and a privilege because we have so many protections.”

To be clear, Mansanares is referring to protections for abortionists, as well as the abortion and gender ideology industries, which profiting from the killing of preborn children and the body-harming practices of ‘gender affirming care.’    

The Background: 

PPRM already has its Eubanks location on the northeast side of the city that conducts chemical and surgical abortions. This newest location on the southeast side is “... among Albuquerque’s most densely populated areas,” Mansanares told the Santa Fe New Mexican.

There are no limits on abortion in the state, and the legislature continues to establish New Mexico as one of the most anti-life states in the Union, as a destination ready and willing to end the lives of the preborn and those seeking assisted suicide, as well as providing sex-rejecting services to individuals from surrounding states. Live Action News recently reported on the additional abortion businesses planned with the use of state tax dollars.   

New Mexico state officials continue to expand and fund the opening of abortion facilities — luring women from other states to end the lives of their preborn children — and PPRM has seen nearly 10,000 women from out of state since the passage of the Texas Heartbeat Act in 2021. 

Last month, in an interview with KRQE, Planned Parenthood’s New Mexico HIV Program Manager, Tommy Sloan, announced the affiliate's new location for “The Space.” The facility for its LGBTQ+ groups, TeenMPower and MPower Albuquerque, is a “community drop-in center offering free rapid HIV testing, safer sex kits, PrEP and PEP navigation, and community support… designed for LGBTQ2S+ teens and adults,” according to the PPRM website.

Teen MPower is one of many Planned Parenthood-affiliated groups that specifically targets teens ages 13-18. MPower Albuquerque is “for gay, bisexual, queer, and questioning men and trans individuals ages 18-29.” 

“By having this space here, it forces everyone [adults and vulnerable teens] to actually come together and actually interact with each other… " Sloan told KRQE. "We could be talking about their sexual health, their own identities, and we create a space here where they can come talk about that without feeling any pressure to live up to whatever it is they’re feeling.”   

Why It Matters:

The signage inside The Space (as shown on the facility's website) bears neon lights in the shapes of frequently sexualized 'fruit emoji' symbols.

Live Action News also reported concerns voiced by one local pro-life group, New Mexico Alliance for Life, that shared concerns of PPRM groups' predatory tactics targeting vulnerable minors struggling with their identities.

In the past, the teen and adult collaborating events have included the “Lavender Prom” that offered attendees ‘free rapid HIV testing’ during the event, several “all ages” drag events, and a holiday ‘gift giving’ program where MPower adults are encouraged to purchase requested gifts for teens. 

Teen M’Power has also hosted movie watching events with movies like “Three Months,” which Live Action News reported having “sexually explicit scenes including mutual masturbation, drug and alcohol use, and attempts to normalize sexually transmitted diseases like gonorrhea and HIV.” 

Placing a new facility for "gender-affirming" care and abortion next to a center frequented by teens drives home <a href="/news/nation-deceived-comprehensive-sex-ed-grooming-propaganda">the point pro-lifers have been making for years</a>: Planned Parenthood <a href="/news/planned-parenthood-sex-educator-warns-sexualization-children">grooms teens</a> for <a href="/news/abortion-business-provider-sex-education-children">early sexual activity</a>, then directs those teens toward its sex-related "services."

The Bottom Line: 

Planned Parenthood has been known for aiding abusers by covering up and failing to report sexual abuse of children and instead offering birth control and abortions that only furthered the abuse. And now PPRM thinks it is appropriate to create a ‘space’ where strangers ranging from minors as young as 13 to adult males discuss sexual topics, view sexualized content, obtain sex kits, and have access to abortions and birth control right next door.

The General Comment was circulated in draft form last year and immediately faced pushback from the government of Argentina and the Holy See for including a right to “effective access to safe abortion services for adolescent girls.”

The Holy See called this “unacceptable,” noting that “there is no recognized ‘right to abortion’ under international law” and that a lack of access to it “does not and cannot constitute a violation of international human rights obligations.” 

The Holy See also criticized the draft for “effectively ‘adultifying’” children, “treating them as autonomous agents independent of their family.”

The Holy See also opposed references to LGBTQ children in the draft, pointing out that such terms “lack a generally agreed legal definition in international law.”  Egypt also objected to these references and insisted that any reference to abortion must be subject to national legal standards. 

Due to the controversy, the committee postponed a final decision on the text at a meeting earlier this year.

The final language in the general comment remains under wraps until its final, edited form is published in the coming weeks.

During the committee’s recent session, the committee also reviewed the periodic reports of seven countries.  Kazakhstan faced criticism over laws restricting minors’ access to “age-appropriate information concerning sexual orientation and gender identity” and was ordered to ensure that sex education was mandatory and included “accurate and non-stigmatizing information on sexually transmitted infections and HIV, sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The committee told Tajikistan to “recognize the right to identity of lesbian, gay, bisexual...

Read entire article at C-Fam.

Key Takeaways:

• Damarion Winston Goler fatally stabbed his girlfriend, Talic Mersina, in 2024.

• Mersina was 28 weeks pregnant at the time of her death.

• Goler was found guilty of second-degree murder, homicide causing death of an unborn fetus, and tampering with evidence in a homicide case.

• He is scheduled to be sentenced in early December.

• Homicide is a leading cause of death of pregnant women.

The Backstory:

On March 24, 2024, police responded to a call regarding "loud screaming" from the neighbor of Damarion Winston Goler, 33, and Talic Mersina, 31, at their apartment in Sterling Heights, Michigan. They found blood both outside and inside the apartment, but a victim was nowhere to be found. They then received a 911 call from another location regarding a man covered in blood. Upon investigating, they found Goler, with an injured Mersina in a car nearby.

Mersina was rushed to the hospital, but both she and her preborn baby were pronounced dead from the stab wounds. She was 28 weeks pregnant at the time of her death.

Goler was taken into custody and has been held without bond since his 2024 arrest.

The Details:

Goler was charged in the stabbing death of Mersina, and during the two-week trial, Medical Examiner Mary Pietrangelo testified that Mersina had suffered more than 60 “blunt-force” injuries and more than 50 “sharp-force” injuries.

A jury ultimately found Goler guilty of second-degree murder, homicide causing death of an unborn fetus, and tampering with evidence in a homicide case.

“I hope this conviction brings some measure of closure to the victims’ family. The defendant has been held accountable for his actions, but no verdict can undo the tragic loss or erase the pain this family has endured,” said Macomb County Prosecutor Peter J. Lucido.

Sentencing is scheduled for December 3. The charges carry a maximum penalty of life in prison.

Zoom In:

Homicide is one of the leading causes of death for pregnant women, and many of these are domestic violence situations. A 2022 article published in the British Medical Journal found that women are “more likely to be murdered during pregnancy or soon after childbirth than to die from the three leading obstetric causes of maternal mortality (hypertensive disorders, haemorrhage, or sepsis).”

Key Takeaways:

• Sofia Franklyn had an abortion at five weeks gestation, about 48 hours after learning she was pregnant.

• She admitted she has suffered from shame and guilt that she feels no one prepared her for.

• Abortion trauma is real, and 34% of women have reported suffering from anger, shame, and regret after an abortion.

The Details:

In her book, Franklyn describes learning she was pregnant after returning home to New York from a work trip to Los Angeles. She had been feeling bloated, and her boyfriend, Aidan, suggested that she might be pregnant.

"...I reassure him [it] isn't possible because I took the Chinatown version of Plan B," she wrote. "I pee on a stick to prove it."

But she's proven wrong. She was pregnant, and as soon as possible, she headed to Planned Parenthood, the nation's biggest abortion business. There, the pregnancy was confirmed. She was about five weeks pregnant.

"'Okay... Can I get an abortion?' I ask, genuinely not knowing what comes next."

Planned Parenthood attempted to schedule an abortion for the following week, but that didn't work for Franklyn, as she was to be in Europe two days later.

"I have to get it now," she told them. So, Planned Parenthood found room in its schedule for the abortion the next morning. As she returned to Planned Parenthood for the appointment, her mother and brother were flying to New York to meet her before heading off on a family-only trip to the Amalfi Coast for Franklyn's birthday.

On the trip, she decided to tell her mother about the abortion. She wrote:

When I finally tell my mom, once a [21]-year-old pregnant with me, I feel guilty for being [30] and getting rid of it within [48] hours. I think about the so-called life I’m protecting by not having a baby—the partying, the numbing, the running. How can I bring new life into the world when I don’t live a life worth keeping myself?

But her emotions didn't start and end with guilt over aborting her baby without a second thought. She wrote that "my feelings about my abortion are, in many ways, still pending, and frankly, it still feels very wrong to share publicly."

Yet, she chose to share because she explained that she wanted other women to be prepared for the emotional trauma:

When you have an abortion, the take-home packet gives you explicit instructions on what to do if you bleed through two pads per hour. But nowhere does it include guidance on the emotional clusterf**k that’s to come.

I took the pills at home, and weeks later I couldn’t recognize myself in the mirror, physically or mentally, and I couldn’t figure out why. I felt crazy.

I later learned that there is a physiological, hormonal, neurological chain reaction that occurs. No one prepares you for that part. At the time, all I had were Reddit threads and an off-handed comment my friend made to check my hormones months after.

Getting some answers, no matter how disparate, made it less scary.

She claims she wants "women to know that other women are having abortions. They are just not talking about it. We aren't supposed to."

But that's only partially true. The media tells women to 'shout their abortions,' and not to be ashamed. Yet, the shame often comes anyway, and that's what women are told they shouldn't feel: shame, regret, guilt, and pain.

Why It Matters:

Franklyn is not alone in her abortion-related emotional pain. Abortion supporters repeatedly deny or diminish the existence of abortion trauma. But countless women have come forward with their personal stories.

One study, conducted by Support After Abortion, found that 34% of women suffer “adverse impacts” like anger, shame, and regret after taking the abortion pill.

From the way Franklyn writes about her abortion, it seems that she chose abortion out of fear. She wonders, 'how she can bring new life into the world when she doesn't live a life worth keeping herself.' What she failed to see in that 48-hour window between the pregnancy test and abortion was that a baby would have changed the trajectory of her life — and not in a bad way.

Zoom Out:

This kind of trajectory change happened to a woman named Candice, who shared her story, explaining that she was 25, divorced, and suffering from addiction when she lost custody of her three children.

When she found out she was pregnant, her boyfriend wanted an abortion; she didn't. And then, after giving birth, her son was taken from her because of her drug use; that's when she decided it was time to straighten out her life.

“That was the last day I chose drugs,” she wrote. “I went to rehab & accepted Christ into my life. I made every parent visit, did every class, passed every drug test & worked my butt off to reunify just eight months later.”

In addition to getting off of drugs, she regained custody of her son and reunited with her husband. She got sober and eventually regained custody of her other children.

The Bottom Line:

Babies, even those who arrive unexpectedly, can enhance a life and motivate parents to improve their situations and do better for the sake of their child.

Maybe that baby was exactly what Franklyn needed. Now, she needs to heal from her abortion.

Instead, they were shocked to learn they were having identical twins and heartbroken to learn that the pregnancy was 'ultra-high risk' and that "most people" in that situation would have an abortion. But when Pompliano returned home, traumatized and full of fear, she felt the "impulse" to look at her ultrasounds again.

After checking with ChatGPT, she realized her doctor had made a huge mistake that could have cost her babies their lives.

Key Takeaways:

• Polina Pompliano and her husband were pregnant with what they thought was their third baby.

• At an appointment, an ultrasound revealed they were expecting identical twins.

• The doctor, however, told the couple that the babies didn't have a membrane separating them, which made the pregnancy very high risk. She told them most people would abort.

• When she got home, Pompliano felt something inside her tell her to look at the ultrasounds again. When she did, she saw a faint line.

• She uploaded the images to ChatGPT, which told her that the line was the membrane that the doctor couldn't find.

• The doctor later admitted the mistake, but Pompliano switched practices, had a healthy pregnancy, and gave birth to two boys who are now a year old.

• The trauma she endured caused her to begin catastrophising, constantly worrying about what could happen.

• Now, when she feels herself worrying, she reminds herself that 'right now, everything is okay'.

The Details:

In an essay, Pompliano explained that in February 2025, she and her husband "went to the doctor expecting the routine excitement of hearing a heartbeat for the first time. Instead, we discovered I was pregnant with identical twins. Shock. Disbelief. Excitement. The celebration lasted less than a minute."

The doctor continued to scan the babies for about 10-15 minutes. It was clear to Pompliano that she was looking for something. Finally, she explained that she couldn't find the membrane that should be separating the babies. If there wasn't a membrane, the high-risk twin pregnancy would become "extraordinarily high risk," wrote Pompliano. She continued:

I immediately started shaking because the energy in the room had changed so dramatically. She explained that without a membrane, the babies would likely be born extremely prematurely and could face severe neurological complications.

Then she said the sentence I still have nightmares about: “This is the time when most people choose to terminate the pregnancy.”

Pompliano said she began to feel "a strange cocktail of dread, grief, anger, disbelief, and a physical nausea that made me feel like I might collapse."

In an interview months later, she shared that those words from the doctor still "haunt" her.

Pompliano and her husband took the ultrasound images and went home, where she stuffed them in a drawer and sat on the couch.

"After a few minutes, I felt an overwhelming urge to look at them again. I still can't explain where that impulse came from. All I can say is that I believe in God, and I believe something beyond me got me off that couch," she wrote.

When she looked at the ultrasound pictures again, she noticed a faint curved line with her "non-doctor eye." She saw it on one image after the next and began Googling ultrasound images of twins who share an amniotic sac like hers. Those images looked just like the images she was holding in her hands.

Not knowing what to think or how she could see something that the doctor couldn't, she decided to upload the images to ChatGPT, and ChatGPT said that the faint curved line was, in fact, the membrane the doctor couldn't find.

"My immediate reaction was that it had to be wrong," she said. "There was simply no way a machine had spotted something that an experienced physician had spent ten minutes looking for. But I couldn’t stop thinking about it. I barely slept that night. The next morning, I uploaded the ultrasound to the patient portal and asked the doctor what the line represented."

Walking outside, she saw herself in a window reflection and thought, "I looked awful." She continued:

Then, almost as if the words weren't mine, I heard this sentence in my brain: "In this moment, everything is okay."

She felt a sense of peace as she realized that everything really was okay. Nothing bad had happened yet. Not really. Her twins were alive and well. There was only the possibility that something might go wrong in the future.

Her doctor called her later that day and admitted that she had made a mistake.

"Normally I’m quick to forgive people," wrote Pompliano. "This time, let me tell you, it was hard. It wasn’t that she had missed something — obviously doctors are human. It was the casualness with which she delivered the news and the complete absence of an apology. I could feel my blood pressure rising as one thought repeated in my head: 'You robbed me of the best day of my life.'”

After switching OB/GYN practices, her pregnancy continued safely. Pompliano and the babies were monitored closely, and she gave birth at 36 weeks and four days to baby boys.

Yet throughout the pregnancy, even with reassurances from her new doctors, she caught herself worrying about bad things that hadn't occurred. She "was constantly living inside second- and third-order consequences of events that hadn't happened — and, as it turned out, never would."

As she began to panic at one of the appointments, her doctor reassured her, "Right now, everything looks good."

She got goosebumps hearing those words again.

"I’ve thought about those words often over the past year because I’ve realized they apply to more than just pregnancy," she said. "Whenever my mind starts catastrophizing about work, my family, my health, or the future, I notice that I’m almost always trying to solve problems that don’t exist. I’m fearful about a future I haven’t lived."

Zoom Out:

Catastrophizing can be an effect of PTSD, which a traumatic experience like the one she went through can cause. According to Psychology Today, "As adults, individuals with a history of trauma may find themselves catastrophizing when faced with situations that feel similar to their past experiences... These moments can trigger emotional memories, pulling them into a mindset shaped by fear and unresolved pain."

As explained by Priory Group, "Someone with PTSD might view their trauma as evidence the worst-case scenario can occur, leading to catastrophised thinking." For people who have this tendency, having a traumatic experience means they are 274% more likely to develop PTSD, according to a study from Clinical Psychological Science.

Pompliano said she now knows that while bad things can and do happen, there is a "massive difference between preparing for reality and suffering through imagination."

Why It Matters:

Pompliano's traumatic experience never had to happen. And it didn't happen because her doctor made a mistake. She explained that it happened because of how the doctor handled it.

The doctor "turned on the bright overhead lights, looked directly at us, and said, 'Let's talk'" before telling the couple that their situation was so bad that "most people" in their shoes choose to "terminate," as if it were normal and not a big deal to abort the babies you were so excited about just minutes before.

Parents of children with health conditions such as Down syndrome have <a href="/news/parents-down-syndrome-abort-worst-case">reported</a> similar experiences in which doctors paint a grim picture or focus on the worst-case scenario and immediately advise or even expect abortion. One mother shared that her doctor scheduled an abortion without her consent after her daughter was diagnosed with Trisomy 18.

Abortion has become so normalized that even women who don't want abortions feel as though they should have them. <a href="/news/prenatal-screening-pro-life-tool-hijacked-abortion">Prenatal testing</a>, and even now-standard ultrasounds, are being used to seek out potential issues to target babies for abortion.

"High-risk" doesn't mean that the worst will happen. And 'the worst' isn't a disability or a health condition; the worst thing that could happen is the baby's death. Abortion ensures that.

Pompliano's words that 'right now, everything is okay' must be understood by every parent facing fears about their preborn babies based on predictions that haven't come true.

But even if the predictions do come true... even if a preborn child is diagnosed with a health condition or the pregnancy does face a major complication, there is never a need to have an abortion.

Induced abortion is the direct and intentional killing of preborn children. It's making the worst happen out of fear of the worst happening. In an emergency, doctors can deliver babies without intentionally killing them.

The Bottom Line:

Every baby is worth fighting for, and every mother deserves a doctor who will do everything in their power to ensure their babies are treated with respect and given the best medical care possible.

Key Takeaways:

• Lila Rose addressed guests at the 2026 Live Action Life Awards Gala, emphasizing that education changes hearts and minds, but prayer is at the heart of bringing about this change through the power of the Holy Spirit.

• Live Action is advancing core initiatives, including Baby Olivia legislation, Live Action's Ambassadors Program, Live Action's North Star Fellowship, and an upcoming feature-length documentary film.

• Rose pointed out that every single individual, even those ideologically opposed to the pro-life position, has incredible worth and dignity and needs our love and prayer.

The Details:

The Future We Need

Lila Rose addressed the enthusiastic crowd by explaining that when she travels, she sometimes gets the opportunity to meet individuals directly impacted by the work of Live Action who chose life for their babies. When this happens, it brings everything into perspective.

Rose asked:

"When you imagine the future, what do you see? Will our children grow up in a country where families are strong, where faith is alive, and every child is welcomed?

Or will our children inherit a world that has grown colder, lonelier, and increasingly willing to abandon the people who need us the most? I believe that we are standing at a turning point."

Rose noted that America is becoming far less welcoming to children, pointing out that the U.S. fertility rate is well below replacement level, which impacts not just the economic and employment sectors of society, but families themselves.

"The deepest losses will never appear on a government spreadsheet," she noted. "It means fewer brothers and sisters, fewer cousins around the Thanksgiving table, fewer young families in our churches, grandchildren who will never be born. And the greatest tragedy, the one that compounds all the others, is this: Every year in America, more than 1 million children are killed by abortion. Every one of them had a mother and a father. Everyone was a living human being already here, already one of us."

A Spiritual Battle for Hearts and Minds

This tragic change didn't happen overnight, and it won't be remedied overnight.

Building a culture of life that welcomes human lives and recognizes human dignity for all humans — including those in the womb — takes time and perseverance. And it cannot be accomplished by sheer force of will.

Rose went on to explain:

"Friends, we have to remember that in this spiritual battle for hearts and minds, our work will only be as effective as the love that we receive and give from Jesus.

As Christians, we know that faith is a gift. We cannot argue somebody into receiving the gift. Live Action is in the mind-changing business. We exist to move hearts and minds and to save lives. But a true conversion, a heart truly broken for the babies, a heart truly healed is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

That is why prayer is the most important part of our work.

So pray for those who have not yet received the gift. Love them. Always speak the truth and never forget that the person who disagrees with you is somebody that God loves."

Educational Efforts and Achievements

Rose noted that Live Action is working hard to educate future generations through Baby Olivia bills, bringing prenatal development education to public schools, and has made great progress, with this prenatal education now required in eight states (Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee). But there is much more work to be done, and there is strong opposition.

"We are competing against an industry that has spent decades teaching Americans to look away from the child and hiding behind words like choice, healthcare, and pregnancy tissue," she noted.

Live Action's educational efforts go beyond this. "Every week, Live Action publishes dozens of news reports, hundreds of pieces of persuasive pro-life content, and videos, all reaching millions of people," Rose said, drawing specific attention to several additional "core initiatives" Live Action is advancing, including Live Action's Ambassadors Program, North Star Fellowship, and an upcoming feature-length documentary film.

The Bottom Line:

As Rose pointed out, every single individual, even those ideologically opposed to the pro-life position, has incredible worth and dignity. "No one, no matter what they have endured, no matter what they have gone through, is too far gone for redemption and for triumph."

Watch Lila Rose's full speech here.

Key Takeaways:

• The University of Minnesota's College of Design hosted a pro-abortion, university-funded symposium.

• The "Reproductive Justice: Design(ing) Post-Roe" event received funding from the university's Imagine Fund Special Events Grant Program.

• The event included panelists who discussed "design for reproductive care environments in Minnesota and beyond."

The Details:

According to Campus Reform, the "Reproductive Justice: Design(ing) Post-Roe" event received funding from the university's Imagine Fund Special Events Grant Program. In addition to funding research and scholarships, The Imagine Fund gives financial assistance for public events that involve arts, humanities, and design. Its funding typically ranges from $5,000 to $15,000.

The amount given for the Reproductive Justice: Design(ing) Post-Roe was not revealed publicly.

The Minnesota Daily advertised the event as free and open to the public, writing on its website:

The College of Design invites you to an interdisciplinary event at the intersection of design, reproductive justice, and public health. The in-person program explores the current state (and challenges) of design for reproductive care environments in Minnesota and beyond, and features speaker presentations followed by a moderated panel and roundtable discussions.

All are welcome, including students, designers, researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and advocates interested in safe, equitable, and accessible care in their communities.

The goal was to examine how to physically structure clinics and healthcare facilities to ensure they are private, equitable, legally compliant, and 'safe' as women travel from out of state of abortions.

It also focused on how the building impacts a woman's autonomy and access to abortion, specifically when a facility, like Red River Women's Clinic, closes down in one state due to pro-life protections and relocates to a pro-abortion state where a standard office building is then repurposed as an abortion business.

The event included panelists who discussed "design for reproductive care environments in Minnesota and beyond." Panelists included:

• Lori Brown, FAIA, a professor at the Syracuse University School of Architecture

• Tammi Kromenaker, director of the abortion business Red River Women's Clinic in Moorhead (previously of North Dakota)

• Dr. Asha Hassan, who is affiliated with the university's Medical School and its Collective for Reproductive Health Research & Justice

• Candice Davis, a conceptual and interdisciplinary artist

Terri Howard, vice president of equity at the architecture firm HGA acted as the facilitator and organizers included Terresa Hardaway, PhD, Associate Professor of Graphic Design & Director of Design Justice, College of Design; Aidan O’Connor, Director, Goldstein Museum of Design; Teri Kwant, ACD Trauma Informed Design Educator and Consultant; Karen Lu, FAIA, NOMA, Associate Principal, Snow Kreilich Architects; Malini Srivastava, Associate Professor of Architecture; and Jennifer Yoos, Professor of the School of Architecture.

Why It Matters:

Such an event at a university normalizes abortion — the direct and intentional killing of a preborn child — while ignoring the existence of pro-life students and professors who stand in favor of human rights for all members of the human species.

Option Line is a fully staffed bilingual contact center that receives inquiries by call, text, chat, its center locator, and website. The contact center is managed by Heartbeat International and has connected more than nine million to pregnancy help since opening in 2003, responding to more than 5,000 inquiries for help each day.

Along with providing consultation on abortion, adoption, and parenting, scheduling appointments in real time and maintaining an above industry standard answered call rate, Option Line consultants provide a profound human presence to those they serve, a lifeline at a critical time.

Each year Option Line consultants can attend a retreat to rest and recharge, and share what brought them to serve along with accounts of the impact they make.

“We're also there for all the other needs”

Shayla* has been at Option Line since 2020, joining with a career change from teaching music. She wanted to contribute to the mission of serving the people who come to Option Line for help.

“I feel like we're on the front lines to reach those callers, even if it's just for needs for like diapers or resources,” she said, “but we're also there for all the other needs that are involved in their pregnancy.”

Contacts sometimes don't even know what they need, she said, so Option Line consultants are there to help assess and connect them to the right resources.

The day prior to sharing her reflection Shayla took a call from a 15-year-old girl who was 20 weeks pregnant. The young woman had decided to have her baby but then learned her boyfriend had cheated with her best friend, disrupting her thinking.

“She was just broken and just crying,” Shayla said, “and she didn't know what to do, and she wanted an abortion, and she wanted it fast.”

Shayla spoke with the girl for some time and was able to convince her to hold off on deciding in her emotional state.

“She was just hurt and she needed to talk with someone and get an ultrasound done,” said Shayla.

Shayla was able to help her navigate her emotions and pursue pregnancy help to examine her options.

“That was a win for her,” said Shayla.

Having always been supportive of pregnancy centers, Shayla said it is a whole different level of being involved working at Option Line. It motivates her to encourage others to go to the next level in supporting pregnancy help as well.

Option Line’s work is fulfilling, essential

Sunshine* has served at Option Line for around a year and said that while it makes a “huge difference” to be there for moms facing unplanned pregnancy, it also makes a difference in the lives of the babies’ fathers, the grandparents, and their entire families.

Sunshine had worked at her local pregnancy center, but life changes took her away from that, and she had a desire to continue in life-affirming work.

“The work that I do is extremely fulfilling, alongside of essential,” she said. “It's very needed.”

She once took a call from a woman who was pregnant who needed help finding a maternity home. The woman had a calm about her that was not typical for many contacts, Sunshine said, which she took note of as she provided information and resources for her local pregnancy center and maternity homes.

“However, the Lord placed it on my heart to pray for her and meet her in her spiritual need,” Sunshine said. “And in the end, she was crying, but I knew that the Lord let her know that He was there with her outside of just providing those physical resources that she needed in the moment.”

She remarked on the importance of serving women facing unplanned pregnancy, who might feel as though they are alone.

“Working at Option Line has meant the saving and redeeming of lives that people think are not important,” Sunshine said.

Sunshine fought back tears when sharing that she had considered abortion prior to her pregnancy with her son, owing to her relationship situation.

“However, from the moment that I knew that I was pregnant with him, there was no doubt that I was going to have him,” she said.

Later, after contacting her local pregnancy center for assistance Sunshine then went to work for the center.

“Being on the back end of that, I always remind our callers of what we offer,” she said, “even if what we offer isn't exactly what they're asking for, because it really does make a difference. And I wish that I knew more about the pregnancy center and the services that they offered at the time.”

“There is hope, and a new future that she can be hopeful for”

Ruth* has been with Option Line for more than 16 years and also stresses the importance of ministering to the entire family surrounding an unexpected pregnancy whenever possible.

“I have recently been thinking about the mamas that call” she said. “Not the ones that are pregnant, but the ones that are calling for their daughters or for their sons.”

A lot of times they may be calling intending to get that first ultrasound scheduled or to get the pregnancy confirmation, Ruth said.

“But I always stop and say, “How are you doing? This must be really hard for you,”” she said.

Ruth recalled speaking with a woman calling for her daughter who was 16, pregnant, and going into her sophomore year of high school.

“She was not planning for her daughter's school year to look like this,” Ruth said. “And so just being able to comfort her and let her know that we're here for her daughter - but we're also here to acknowledge the pain and maybe dreams that are broken for her right now - and that there is hope, and there's a new future that she can be hopeful for.”...

Read the entire article at Pregnancy Help News.

Now, it seems the industry isn't concerned that women are ill-informed of potential risks when they take the abortion pill, claiming that requiring them to sign an informative patient agreement form "does not appear to be useful" to Big Abortion's goal of "streamlin[ing]" the way it provides the abortion pill to purchasers.

Key Takeaways:

• A recent, non-peer-reviewed JAMA Internal Medicine "study" funded by abortion pill investors and donors claims that the FDA should remove a requirement for abortion pill clients to sign a Patient Agreement Form instructing them on the approved protocols and administration of the drug.

• The form requires them to agree that they have been informed about abortion pill risks, including heavy bleeding; infection; potential for fever, pain, or discomfort; and other signs of "a serious infection or another problem (including an ectopic pregnancy)," among other potential complications.

• The study of less than 600 participants (from less than half a percent of certified abortion pill prescribers) showed concerning results, especially given the fact that 40% of the women said they had taken the abortion pill before.

• Nearly a fourth did not know how long to wait before taking the second drug in the abortion pill regimen, nearly a third didn't know how to properly take the second drug (in the cheeks of the mouth), one-fifth didn't know the possible signs of infection (with most not even knowing they could get an infection from the abortion pill), and 10% had no idea when to seek emergency care.

• In addition, 83% thought an incomplete abortion is "rare" when it can be as high as 7%.

• The results were also concerning because the study was in person and under strict protocol — which is very unlike real-world use.

• Despite all of these results and more, the researchers claimed the form "does not appear to be useful" to "streamlining" provision of the abortion pill.

The Details:

The proliferation of abortion pills under the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) now-eroded safety protocols to allow for mail-order and pharmacy dispensing means the abortion industry profits by spending little to no time with abortion clients, doing no follow-up, offloading women to ERs when complications arise, and forcing women to dispose of their own dead children into the toilet (or even the household <a href="/news/fact-sheet-abortion-pill-fda-body-parts">garbage</a> if the body is too big to flush).

A recent, non-peer-reviewed JAMA Internal Medicine "study," titled "Mifepristone Patient Agreement Form and Medication Abortion Knowledge," was funded by original investors in the abortion pill, and urges the limiting of informed consent by removing the Patient Agreement Form (PAF) required under the FDA's REMS safety system.

Study approval and funding

The study proposes that the FDA should consider removing the mifepristone Patient Agreement Form (PAF) required for the abortion pill under the REMS safety system, because authors believe the form "does not appear to be useful" to their goal of "streamlin[ing] medication abortion provision."

The Patient Agreement Form instructs clients on the approved protocols and administration of the drug.

Clients sign that they have been informed about abortion pill risks, including:

• heavy bleeding

• infection

• potential for fever, pain, or discomfort

• and other signs of "a serious infection or another problem (including an ectopic pregnancy)," among other potential complications.

The "study" was funded by some abortion pill investors and included "the Susan Thompson Buffet Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Lucinda Watson," the authors wrote.

It was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at the UC San Francisco (UCSF) and conducted from January to October of 2025 at select abortion facilities "where medication abortion/abortion is legal and in states/facilities where minors are able to consent for their own treatment for abortion care," claimed the IRB approval.

• Study sponsor: University of California (UC), heavily funded by the Buffett Foundation.

• Principal Investigator and co-author: Abortionist Daniel Grossman, who openly advocates abortion pills in "advance" of a pregnancy and is pushing over-the-counter dispensing. He previously suggested that emergency room doctors should avoid documenting abortion pill complications.

Disregarding human factors

In the IRM, Grossman acknowledged the study had "not undergone scientific/peer review" and said "[s]tudy data are not publicly available."

When the IRB asked whether the study "may have risks to an embryo or fetus," authors responded "N/A" (not applicable) — yet abortion drugs intentionally target embryos and fetuses for death.

IRB asked, "Do you anticipate that this study may collect information that State or Federal law requires to be reported to other officials, such as elder abuse, child abuse, threat to self or others, or HIV status and other reportable conditions?"

Researchers responded "No," despite the fact that they recruited minors (under age 16) for their study, with no detail as to how they might rule out the possibility that a minor's pregnancy resulted from abuse or statutory rape, which is required to be reported.

Participants

The 593 participants (15 years or older) received a monetary gift card for participating. They were hand selected from three Planned Parenthood abortion facilities in Minnesota, Colorado, and California, as well as from Choices in Illinois, and Aria Medical in Kansas.

They were given the "mifepristone medication guide before being randomized into a study group" according to clinical trial methodology.

Randomized groups:

• Control group: received PAF before survey (301)

• Exposed group: received PAF after survey (292)

While "Participants and clinic staff were unaware of study group assignment prior to randomization" the clinical trial noted that "Following group assignment, masking was not maintained because the study design required participants in one group to be exposed to the intervention (receive, review, and sign the PAF) prior to completing the knowledge assessment."

In other words, clinic staff knew which clients were in each study group.

Why It Matters:

The results of this study were concerning.

The FDA-approved abortion pill regimen is made up of mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex as well as misoprostol.

Nearly 40% of all participants acknowledged they had a previous chemical abortion, indicating previous counseling and explanation of the patient agreement form.

Authors specified "both" of the study groups were "allowed to use any materials received during the visit, including the medication guide, while answering survey questions."

1) Administration

• 9% (8% in control/11% in exposed) did not understand which drug to take first.

• 23% did not comprehend how long they should wait before taking the second drug (misoprostol).

• 32% did not comprehend that misoprostol should to be taken buccally (in the cheeks of the mouth) versus vaginally.

2) Infection

• Nearly 20% failed to understand that “Feeling sick with nausea, weakness, vomiting, or diarrhea for longer than 24 h... could be a sign of infection.”

• 14% did not comprehend they could "get an infection after taking medication abortion.”

3) Emergency Care

The study asked a series of questions regarding when to seek emergency care, and nearly 10% of participants answered incorrectly, revealing potential dangers for complications:

➡️ This is not proof that informed consent is "not useful" — it is proof that it IS necessary.

These clients were in-person when selected for this study and still 9-10% failed to fully understand the risks. Imagine what the number would be if this had been done by mail-order!

The authors even noted the difference, yet apparently decided that putting more women at risk by not properly informing them of the risks is acceptable:

[...]people exposed to the PAF were significantly more likely to know to contact a “health care provider” right away if they had a fever of 100.4 °F or higher than the control group.

4) Failure of Drug

Even more disturbing is that 83% thought that a continued pregnancy after taking the drugs was "rare" when the patient agreement was clear this can happen 2-7% of the time, and only half of the participants understood this fact.

This was among the questions identified as answered incorrectly "least often," the authors noted.

The potential consequences of this lack of knowledge are staggering.

In 2025, there were an estimated 734,435 abortion pill abortions.

• 21.3K to 44K potentially present to ERs annually after taking abortion pills.

• 15K to 51.4K abortions by pill likely fail each year, resulting in follow-up surgical procedures or additional drugs to complete the abortions.

Despite claiming the PAF is not useful, consenting for the study included a "Consent form and other study documents... in the participant’s primary language" and "dialogue, using open-ended questions about the nature of the study or the experimental treatment, the risks and benefits of participating, and the voluntary nature of participation."

How many (if any) women are going to get this kind of consent and discussion from mail-order abortion?

Reality Check:

Authors' questionable conclusions

The authors noted that an "analysis of internal FDA documents" indicated "FDA scientists had recommended removal of the PAF," suggesting it was “duplicative of the informed consent and counseling processes.” But that decision was later overridden by the FDA commissioner.

Despite this, the authors concluded that the "FDA should consider removing the PAF requirement to streamline medication abortion provision" and determined that "some [PAF] requirements impose additional administrative burden without clear evidence of improving patient outcomes," adding — despite the concerning results of their own study — that the PAF "does not appear to be useful."

Pro-life medical malpractice attorney Mike Seibel disagreed with this assessment, telling Live Action News:

"This study shows that, after standard counseling at these facilities, patients already had high knowledge of medication abortion.

That high baseline knowledge is evidence that the current combination of in-person care and the required patient agreement form supports meaningful informed consent.

In clinical care, the goal is the highest practical level of informed consent to protect patient autonomy — not the minimum that can be shown on a quiz."

Study authors were associated with Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), founded by an abortionist. ANSIRH is a program within UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, which trains abortionists. 

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), is the publication of the pro-abortion American Medical Association (AMA). Letters from AMA and ACOG to the White House were credited with expanding access to the abortion pill under the Biden Administration. AMA opposes rolling back those expansions.

Limited study with strong protocols not indicative of real-world use

The study sampled 593 participants, yet over 700K abortion pills were prescribed last year alone and millions over the past decade. In addition, less than half a percent of the estimated 8,200 certified abortion pill prescribers (.0006) took part in the study.

Seibel warned that the "small sample drawn only from specialized facilities... does not justify removing existing safeguards":

"A study limited to three Planned Parenthood sites and two independent clinics with strong protocols does not tell us what happens at weaker clinics or in telehealth-only settings.

In my experience, many weaker clinics and telehealth-only models do not provide the same level of counseling. We should not weaken REMS safeguards based on data that exclude those models.

The form is not merely redundant paperwork; it functions as a structural safeguard that supports the counseling patients actually receive. We should not eliminate a mechanism that helps ensure high-quality informed consent."

"If the patient agreement form is driving providers to educate patients thoroughly, removing it is not streamlining care—it is removing a proven safeguard for informed consent," Seibel, who operates the website AbortionInjury.com, added. "Changes to the REMS or the patient agreement form should not be made on the basis of this study alone; broader research that includes weaker protocols and telehealth models is needed first."

Key Takeaways:

• Safe Haven Baby Boxes recently installed new boxes in Davenport, Iowa; Baldwin, Wisconsin; and Kansas City, Missouri.

• New boxes will open soon in San Antonio, Texas, and Manitowoc, Wisconsin.

• Safe Haven Baby Boxes provide a safe yet anonymous option for parents who may feel uncomfortable with a face-to-face surrender.

The Details:

Safe Haven Baby Boxes recently celebrated the opening of three new boxes, with two more scheduled in the days ahead.

Davenport, Iowa

Iowa's fifth Safe Haven Baby Box has now been installed in Davenport, at MercyOne Genesis Davenport Hospital on 1227 East Rusholme St.

The box was officially opened during a blessing ceremony on October 19.

"We're the biggest hospital. It's really important for us as the center to have this resource for our outreach locations," Lauren Lovedy with MercyOne said. "We have now an upgraded NICU, we have a pediatric unit, we have 24/7 neonatology. If a baby does need medical attention, we're here to do that for them. We're not delaying care. Not only are we getting them safe, we're getting them the care they need." 

Iowa law allows parents in crisis to legally surrender babies up to 90 days old.

Baldwin, Wisconsin

The ceremony to formally install the Safe Haven Baby Box in Baldwin took place at Baldwin EMS at 1225 Cedar Street on October 20.

The box arrived in Baldwin thanks in part to Perin Dooley, a critical care paramedic duty supervisor with Baldwin EMS who saw the need for an anonymous surrender option for parents in crisis.

“For our crews too. We’ve gone on some pretty bad calls and any call with a child is not a call that we want to go on," she said. "This is at least a positive that we’re able to help somebody who’s in a crisis and be there for the baby and care for the baby."

Wisconsin law allows for surrender of infants 30 days or younger.

Kansas City, Missouri

Kansas City welcomed its newest Safe Haven Baby Box during a blessing ceremony on October 21. The box is located at the Kansas City Fire Station 14, 8300 N. Brighton Ave.

“The Baby Box provides another option for someone who may not feel comfortable with the face-to-face surrender," said Battalion Chief Kelsey Whetro during the unveiling ceremony. “No matter which option someone chooses, the goal is the same at the end of the day: to protect the life of the baby and ensure that everyone receives the care that they need.”

Missouri law allows for the safe surrender of infants 90 days or younger.

San Antonio, Texas

San Antonio will be home to three new Safe Haven Baby Boxes, located at San Antonio Fire Department Fire Stations #7, #24 and #18. All three will be unveiled in a ceremony at Fire Station #7, 1414 South St. Mary's Street, San Antonio, on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 11 AM CDT.

A press release notes that "these three Baby Boxes mark the 484th, 485th and 486th Safe Haven Baby Box locations in the nation and the 24th, 25th, and 26th in Texas."

"Because the people of San Antonio stepped up, a parent who feels out of options now has a safe, legal, and anonymous one close to home. We pray this box is never needed, but if it is, San Antonio will be ready," said Monica Kelsey, Founder and CEO of Safe Haven Baby Boxes.

In Texas, infants must be 60 days or younger for legal surrender.

Manitowoc, Wisconsin

Wisconsin's newest Safe Haven Baby Box will be located at Manitowoc Fire Rescue Department Station #3, 3820 Dewey Street. After its installation on October 28, the state will be home to 10 Safe Haven Baby Boxes.

"No mother should ever feel like she has nowhere to turn," said Monica Kelsey. "With this Baby Box, Manitowoc is telling every parent in crisis that there is help, there is hope, and there is a safe place for their baby."

The public is welcomed and encouraged attend the blessing and official unveiling, which is scheduled for 12pm CDT on October 28.

Zoom In:

Safe Haven Baby Boxes are temperature controlled boxes installed within a building like a fire station, EMS station, or hospital. Inside each box is a bassinet to hold an infant. When the child is placed inside, the door automatically locks and triggers a silent alarm, alerting first responders. The child is retrieved within minutes and given appropriate medical care. The boxes are designed to provide a safe yet anonymous option for parents who may feel uncomfortable with a face-to-face surrender.

Depending on state law, children are be placed with either foster families or adoptive families.

Key Takeaways:

• Reno resident Taylour Dickinson, 30, was sentenced to 8-20 years in prison for attempted murder after placing her newborn son into a dumpster. This is the second child Dickinson has placed into a dumpster; the first did not survive.

• She was sentenced to 8-20 years in prison and received credit for time served of 473 days.

• Dickinson claimed to have "extreme remorse" and "never intended harm" to the baby. She also said she had an "undiagnosed mental health disorder."

The Details:

According to News 4, 30-year-old Taylour Dickinson was sentenced to 8-20 years in prison and received credit for time served of 473 days.

She initially entered a not-guilty plea, but ultimately pleaded no contest to the attempted murder charge of her newborn son, who survived.

Under a plea agreement, prosecutors dismissed an additional charge of "child abuse, neglect, or endangerment."

The Backstory:

On July 5, 2025, a woman reported hearing a baby crying inside a dumpster at the Elevate Apartments on Sun Valley Boulevard in Reno, Nevada.

Police from Washoe County Sheriff's Office responded, and the son of a family who had seen the baby climbed in and handed the baby to police.

The baby boy was in a white trash bag and had been left there for about 10 hours. Police wrapped him in a survival blanket and he was taken to Renown Regional Medical Center.

When questioned, Dickinson denied knowing about the baby, but a DNA test confirmed she was the mother.

She later told police that she didn't know she was pregnant. She said she thought she had passed "blood and clotting."

Before her sentencing, she told Judge Egan Walker that she had "extreme remorse" and "never intended harm" to the baby. She also said she had an "undiagnosed mental health disorder."

However, this is the second time Dickinson has put a baby in the garbage.

In 2023, she gave birth, wrapped the baby in a blanket, and put him or her into the garbage. The baby died. In that instance, the medical examiner did not find a cause of death and Dickinson escaped charges.

This time her baby survived.

Why It Matters:

There has been an uptick in reports about abandoned and murdered newborns — and while abortion supporters are attempting to link these cases to legal protections for preborn children, the incidents are occurring in pro-life and pro-abortion states alike. And every single state has a Safe Haven law, allowing for the safe surrender of an infant up to a certain age at designated locations.

In Nevada, where this attempted murder took place, abortion is legal for any reason through the first 24 weeks (six months) of pregnancy and after 24 weeks for so-called health reasons. However, infants can be surrendered up to 30 days after birth in the state.

Dickinson said she thought she passed "blood and clotting." Such language mirrors the pro-abortion euphemisms spun by abortion groups and abortion-friendly media outlets to dehumanize preborn children. Countless women have had abortions believing that the child was just "pregnancy tissue" or "clumps of cells," only to learn that their babies were living human beings with beating hearts.

But abortion supporters are promoting the idea that these lives don't matter after birth either.

Long-time pro-abortion activist Jessica Valenti has complained about an investigation that took place after an infant’s body was found in a dumpster at a Toledo apartment complex. She wrote on her blog, “Apparently someone reported pregnancy remains found in a trash bin outside a Toledo apartment complex — and instead of recognizing it as a private medical loss, police opened an investigation.”

Abortion enthusiasts expect police to now ignore dead bodies because the child's death might have been natural or might have been a legally approved killing.

There's no other group of individuals whose deaths would be expected to be ignored by police when found in a public dumpster.

Phrasing like "private medical loss" is just another way to dehumanize preborn children and convince people to 'mind their own business.' This is how Roe v. Wade happened in the first place. The Supreme Court (and eventually the American public) bought the idea that killing one's own child is a 'private matter' and that anyone who tries to stop it is overstepping into someone's personal, private decision-making process.

The Bottom Line:

The wide access and availability of the abortion pill will only serve to increase the number of babies left in dumpsters, garbages, and toilets as women now take the drugs alone at home at any point in pregnancy with no medical oversight, and then <a href="/news/mail-order-abortion-pill-dead-babies-dumpsters">discard their babies</a>.

Key Takeaways:

• The practice of global surrogacy is growing and is projected to become a $79 billion industry by 2031.

• In the U.S. there are scant federal regulations for either IVF or surrogacy.

• From 2013-2022, the CDC reported an approximately 176% increase in the use of gestational carrier surrogacy.

• In most wealthy European countries, surrogacy is banned. It is also banned in places like China and Taiwan, which is why many foreign nationals are now seeking out American surrogates. This means that children born to American surrogates (who have parents who are not citizens of the U.S.) are automatically American citizens.

• Regardless of whether IVF is used or whether money is exchanged, surrogacy violates the human rights of the child who is conceived.

The Details:

Surrogacy is growing

The widespread acceptance and use of IVF and surrogacy have commercialized the production of human life — treating human beings as objects to be purchased and negotiated — as evidenced by business growth projections.

According to the surrogacy agency, Angels Creation Reproductive Center (ACRC) Global Fertility Holding Group, surrogacy is growing for several reasons, including “improved IVF success rates, greater social acceptance, expanded insurance coverage, and growing awareness among LGBTQIA+ couples and individuals facing infertility challenges.”

In the U.S. there are scant federal regulations for either IVF or surrogacy. Most regulations, if any, are on the state level. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) confirms this reality, stating: 

“In the U.S., GC [gestational carriers] arrangements are governed under state-specific statutes, court opinions, and regulatory policies. Many states statutorily permit GC arrangements; others have no statutes or case law specifically permitting or prohibiting GC usage, and some prohibit GC arrangements, making surrogacy contracts void and unenforceable. To date, there exists no overarching federal statute governing the use of GCs.”

However, since the majority of surrogates use IVF, there is some data that is collected and reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is reported as the number of embryo transfer cycles used by a gestational carrier surrogate.

It is important to note that this data makes no indication of how many embryos were used, destroyed, discarded or miscarried in the process; how many live births resulted; or how many embryos were created for the purpose of using surrogacy. It merely reports the number of transfer cycles that used a surrogate. 

From 2013-2022, the CDC reported an approximately 176% increase in the use of gestational carrier surrogacy. (2013: 3,517, 2022: 9,734). The ASRM, which also receives data from participating IVF clinics across the U.S., reported a staggering 648% increase from 2004 to 2023. 

The Global Surrogacy Business Model 

Last month, during a BBC News report, Washington Sun reporter Emi Nietfeld said that the U.S. surrogacy market is “estimated to be a $9 billion industry in 2026, up from $5 billion two years ago.”

Nietfeld notes that in most wealthy European countries, surrogacy is banned.

The BBC reported that Italy, Spain, France, and Germany are some of the European countries which “outlaw all forms of surrogacy.”

In many eastern countries like China and Taiwan, surrogacy is also outlawed. Live Action News recently reported on a study which showed that “nearly one-third of intended parents in the United States are foreign nationals, and 40% of them are Chinese.” 

As Nietfeld’s reporting suggests, the surrogacy market is very profitable – so much so, that its growth trends and forecasts are tracked and analyzed globally like other business ventures.

Mordor Intelligence estimated that the global surrogacy market size will grow from $23.66 billion (2025) to $28.91 billion (2026). Mordor lists projections for 2031 at a staggering $78.68 billion and reports the industry’s compound annual growth rate (CAGR), which helps to measure estimated average growth over time, at 22.19% from 2026-2031. 

Mordor also reports: 

• In 2025, IVF was attributed to 66.12% of the surrogacy market size and “is expected to advance at a 24.42% CAGR through 2031.” 

• A breakdown of intended parents showed that heterosexual couples represented 76.05% in 2025. Same-sex couples accounted for roughly 14% of reported intended parents but represented the estimated “fastest growth at 22.68% CAGR to 2031.” 

Concerns with International Surrogacy 

Since surrogacy is allowed in the U.S., American women have become a prime target for wealthy international buyers.

Nietfeld points to the lack of laws restricting surrogacy and IVF practices in the U.S. as one of the reasons why people from around the world are using U.S. women as surrogates.

“Sex selection is a routine part of IVF… you can become a surrogate [intended] parent if you’re old, if you’re single, the child doesn’t have to be genetically related to you [the intended parent] at all. And you can have as many kids as you want,” she reported. 

But there’s another incentive. “One big draw about surrogacy in America, which is that any child born here, even if it’s via surrogacy, automatically receives citizenship. And that American passport is a huge benefit to many parents from other countries,” Nietfeld stated.  

Concerns over international surrogacy continue to rise. Live Action News has reported on recent cases:

• A Chinese couple who acquired 21 children through surrogacy; the couple was recently arrested and charged with child abuse

• An Army veteran secretly pairing Chinese citizens with American surrogates

• A website geared towards Chinese nationals that targets American surrogates

Trouble in Texas

Recently, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick issued a formal directive to state Senators, known as an interim charge, to investigate concerns with international surrogacy in the state. In response, the state Senate’s Health and Human Services (HHS) committee held a fact-finding hearing in July.

During the hearing, Dr. Tara Das with the Texas HHS State Registrar of Vital Statistics department reported that from 2016 to 2025, the state experienced a nearly 170% increase in reported surrogate related births. 

The exact number of international surrogacy cases in Texas is unknown. State agency officials explained that currently Texas is not made aware of surrogacy contracts and births until after a child is born. Das explained that all birth certificate information listed under the mother is referring to the woman who delivers the child and explained that is the “guidance that is provided at the national level.”

After the child is born, in accordance with Texas Family Code, Chapter 160, the surrogacy agreement must be validated by the courts, then the intended mother and father are named as the parents and placed on the birth certificate.   

Jennifer Lahl, registered nurse and founder of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, also testified that some surrogacy services “... explicitly market their services to global clients, offering them [international clients] travel support, visa help, and turning their trip into a vacation.”

Lahl further claimed that one of the primary targets of the international surrogacy market is “military wives for their wombs.”

Senator Lois Kolkhorst, chair of the HHS committee, posed a hypothetical question to Lahl, asking if any person from around the world could simply google any surrogate company by typing, “I want an American surrogate.”

Lahl affirmed Kolkhorst's assumption, stating, “... And you can say, I want a Danish sperm…and you could say I want an egg donor from Columbia because I want a smart, Ivy league egg donor…” and essentially construct a 'designer' child.  

“Many European countries prohibit surrogacy because they recognize that the human body, motherhood, and the parent child relationship should not be subjects of a contract or a transaction,” Lahl stated, further noting that “French law effectively treats surrogacy as a form of prohibited commodification, akin to exploitation or slavery like practices.”  

When asked by Kolkhorst if there were any cases of suspected abuse or neglect regarding surrogacy cases in the state, Audrey O’Neil with the Texas Department of Family Protective Services (DFPS) reported that since May 2025, three cases of abuse associated with surrogacy were reported. In two of the cases, the intended parents were non-citizens, and in the third the intended parent was an American with a “serious history of child abuse.”  

The Bottom Line:

The desire to have children is good and natural; however, no one has the right to obtain a child.

Surrogacy is a grave violation of human dignity, and dehumanizes both the child and the woman by treating them as objects — like a commodity to be commissioned and used in a monetary exchange to fulfill the desires of adults. Regardless of whether IVF is used or whether money is exchanged, it violates the human rights of the child who is conceived.

The global surrogacy market and increasing concerns with the growing number of scandalous international surrogacy cases serve as reminders that surrogacy shouldn't be merely regulated; it should be illegal.

Key Takeaways:

• Jack Ball was found guilty of murder in the deaths of his sister, Bethany Ann Israel, and her preborn child.

• Ball allegedly was angry about her pregnancy and said she was "no longer innocent."

• While Ball had attempted to use a mental health defense, the judge dismissed it, saying that the evidence shows he understood and knew what he was doing when he dismembered her.

• He planned the murder, inviting his sister to his home where they would be alone and where he had hidden weapons.

• He drove to a neighborhood where he left part of her body on a person's lawn.

• Police found him in a backyard with a self-inflicted wound to his neck.

The Details:

Jack Ball, 25, was initially charged with two counts of second-degree murder in the May 23, 2024 deaths of his sister and her preborn child. Bethany Ann Israel, 30, was 17 to 18 weeks pregnant at the time.

A judge later indicted Ball on two counts of premeditated first-degree murder and two counts of intentional second-degree murder. He pleaded guilty on January 21, 2026, to two counts of first-degree premeditated murder in exchange for the dismissal of two second-degree murder charges.

Ball attempted to use a mental health defense, but the judge said he failed to meet the burden of proof and rejected that defense.

"The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that [Ball] understood the wrongfulness of the act when he killed Ms. Israel and her unborn child," the judge wrote.

"In his journals, [Ball] fantasized repeatedly about killing, dismembering, along with engaging in necrophilia and cannibalism. [Ball] explained later that he enjoyed the process of journaling as it helped him think things through. This is evident by the detailed plans for murder that are found in his journals and the fact that he acted in accordance with those plans on May 23, 2024."

Ball was allegedly angry about Israel's pregnancy, saying she was "no longer innocent."

He is scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday afternoon. A first-degree murder conviction in Minnesota carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison.

The Backstory:

According to court documents, Ball had invited Israel to his home for dinner, but when she did not return home, her mother drove to Ball's home and saw him leaving. She entered the home and saw a "significant amount a blood." Family members called 911, and an officer found "bloody knives and several dismembered body parts" inside the home.

According to CBS News, Ball's car was found by police in a neighborhood in which a resident reported a man placing what looked like a body part on his lawn. Police found Ball in a nearby backyard with a self-inflicted knife wound to his neck.

Court documents showed that Ball had spent months allegedly planning the murder, arranged for his sister to come to his home for dinner alone, and hid weapons around his house. Documents also show that police found a "bloody saw, hatchet, and large, bloody, knives" as well as "[s]everal dismembered body parts."

The Bottom Line:

<a href="/news/pregnant-women-die-homicide">Homicide</a> is a leading cause of death in pregnant women in the U.S., exceeding all maternal health issues.

Key Takeaways:

• Hereditary Prince Alois has refused to approve a bill that would have legalized abortion through 12 weeks in Liechtenstein.

• The bill passed parliament in a 13-12 vote last month, but cannot proceed without Alois' approval.

• Abortion remains legal only in cases of severe risk to the mother's health, or sexual assault.

The Backstory:

Currently, most preborn children in the nation of 40,000 are protected from abortion, as abortion is only permitted in cases of severe risk to the woman's health or if is a result of a sexual assault. Advertising abortion is also prohibited.

Last month, the nation's parliament approved a bill that would have legalized abortion and would have allowed for abortion advertising, narrowly passing on a 13-12 vote. Under the bill, abortions would be legal through the first trimester of pregnancy.

The legislation followed a citizens’ referendum initiative which garnered 4,970 signatures — roughly a quarter of the nation’s voters.

The Details:

Hereditary Prince Alois announced Tuesday that he was withholding his approval of the legislation. Because laws in the nation can only pass with his say so, the attempt to legalize abortion fails.

In a statement, he said "he remains convinced that the proposed reform is not compatible with ensuring adequate protection of unborn life as a fundamental legal value."

“I am convinced that many people share the objective of providing the best possible support to women in difficult situations while at the same time protecting unborn life,” he added.

He also noted that he "supports efforts to improve information, counselling and support for women before, during and after pregnancy."

This marks the first time Alois has used his veto power during his reign.

Abortion activists are unhappy, while unsurprised by the decision. As reported by The Guardian:

The news left campaigners in the principality, home to some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe, reeling. “We’re not really surprised, but still disappointed,” said Tatjana As’Ad, who led the initiative to overhaul the law and who works for the small leftwing party, Free List. “It’s surreal what’s happening right now in 2026 in a state in the middle of Europe.”

The veto would do little to actually prevent abortions from taking place, she said. “Liechtenstein will continue to have a situation where abortions are banned, but we know they’re happening. The veto just means they will continue to take place abroad.”

Let's apply this logic generally: Homicide is illegal, yet it still takes place. It will likely continue to take place. However, this doesn't mean the government should decriminalize it and make it legal simply because it continues to take place. Protecting human life is an important and legitimate function of government.

The Bottom Line:

All preborn children deserve to be fully protected from the evils of abortion, regardless of the nation where their mother resides.

On Tuesday, November 3, residents of Seminole, Texas (pop. 7,952), near the Texas-New Mexico border, will cast their final votes on Proposition B, advertised as Proposition 2.

If adopted, the measure would further prohibit abortion and abortion pill trafficking, protecting pregnant mothers and their unborn children from the tragedy and violence of abortion.

The History of the Effort in Seminole: Pre-Roe v. Wade

The effort in Seminole began with Jacob Ginter and Dwight Friesen, two community members who wanted to see their city outlaw abortion. On October 3, 2020, Ginter created a Facebook group titled Make Seminole A Sanctuary City for the Unborn and shared an online petition with the community. Ginter wrote:

“I want to see abortion outlawed for the same reason I wouldn't want to see children shot down, kidnapped, and abused. They need to be protected. No more sitting around and waiting for someone else to fix the problem. We need to do something.”

Pastor Jake Fehr of Mennonite Evangelical Church said he wanted abortion outlawed in Seminole “because life begins at conception and we the people are the voices of those who can’t speak for themselves,” while Pastor Klassen of Community Church said he wanted it outlawed because “human life is protected in the Constitution of the United States” and because “Life begins at conception!”

Friesen and Pastor Fehr organized the first group meeting in support of the effort at Mennonite Evangelical Church on October 7, 2020. At the time, only 15 Texas cities had passed such ordinances. Among those were Big Spring (pop. 28,862), Colorado City (pop. 4,146), Whiteface (pop. 449), New Home (pop. 320), and Westbrook (pop. 312).

​Despite hundreds of people signing the online petition supporting the measure, the city council did not put the ordinance on its agenda.

By the end of the year, the West Texas cities of Morton (pop. 1,608) and Ackerly (pop. 251) had outlawed abortion, and Lubbock (pop. 266,878) was heading to the May 2021 ballot. Soon, Lubbock became the largest city to outlaw abortion in the nation, stopping abortions at the Lubbock Planned Parenthood.

Inspired, many other cities followed Lubbock’s lead, but Seminole did not.

The History of the Effort in Seminole after the end of Roe

​After Roe v. Wade (1973) was overturned in June 2022, Texas’ pre-Roe v. Wade criminal abortion statutes, which outlawed abortion from the point of conception, went back into effect. This forced abortion facilities throughout Texas to either stop elective abortions or move to another state.

Whole Woman’s Health, one of the largest independent abortion providers in the nation, then set its sights on Seminole’s neighbor to the west, the City of Hobbs, New Mexico (pop. 41,604).

Not wanting an abortion facility in their community, Hobbs adopted a Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance in November 2022, which prevented the abortion facility from opening in the city. Instead of opening 30 minutes from Seminole, the abortion provider abandoned its lease in Hobbs and opened over five hours away in Albuquerque, where it later boasted that 95% of its clients were Texas residents.

​Recognizing abortion trafficking as a problem, 20 Texas Senators and Representatives penned a letter supporting cities and counties in passing such measures statewide. The August 2023 letter read as follows:

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.​

On December 10, 2023, a community meeting was held at First Assembly of God with Pastor Joe Lapusan, New Mexico Senator David Gallegos, and the Right to Life Committee of Lea County. At that meeting, it was shared that Lea County and the City of Hobbs were already doing as much as they could to push back against the abortion industry from establishing in Southeast New Mexico.

Although Hobbs had been successful in deterring two different abortion providers from establishing within the city, it was still being targeted. By adopting an ordinance prohibiting abortion trafficking, Gaines County and Seminole could help make Hobbs a less attractive destination for abortion providers seeking to target Texas residents for elective abortions in New Mexico.

At the time, 50 Texas cities and four Texas counties had passed SCFTU ordinances, most in West Texas.

Lubbock County (pop. 327,394) was the largest county to pass the measure. Although the ordinance never advanced as an agenda item in Seminole or Gaines County, cities and counties continued to adopt the pro-life measures, including Dawson County (pop. 12,130), Brownfield (pop. 9,976), Wolfforth (pop. 9,600), Muleshoe (pop. 5,158), and Borden County (pop. 631).

​During this time, Seminole community members were still signing the online petition. Seminole resident Kimberly Foutz wrote:

“Our state prohibits abortions. By any means whatsoever, you should not be allowed to go somewhere else to kill your child. Texas should be protecting its future children, not allowing a glitch where people are still allowed to take their baby’s life.”

​After no traction with the city or the county, citizens started an official citizen initiative petition authorized by the Seminole City Charter. After collecting 1,551 new signatures and submitting them to the City of Seminole, the City found the petition met the requirements outlined in the Seminole City Charter, and the Seminole City Council finally considered the SCFTU ordinance.

Although the initial agenda showed that the Seminole City Council tried to send the measure to the ballot without voting to accept or reject it, the City of Seminole corrected course and added a supplemental agenda with a clear vote for or against the ordinance, as required by the Seminole City Charter.

Despite overwhelming support, the Seminole City Council rejected the measure in a unanimous 7-0 vote. That rejection sent the ordinance to the November 3, 2026, ballot.

​Planned Parenthood Praises Seminole’s Mayor and City Council

​The next day, on August 11, 2026, a member of the Governing Board of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas — which serves Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, and many other communities across Texas — celebrated the Seminole Mayor and City Council's rejection of the SCFTU Ordinance.

Kim Gonzalez called the vote, “A win for common sense and local governance in Seminole, Texas,” stating:

Last night, the Seminole City Council voted unanimously to reject the proposed "Sanctuary City for the Unborn" ordinance, taking a clear stand for sound municipal policy. The pushback came directly from local leadership: Councilman Joe Stewart (Pastor at First Baptist Church Seminole) spoke out strongly against the measure's private civil enforcement mechanisms, emphasizing that personal faith does not require supporting flawed legal policies. Mayor Chet Clark echoed these concerns, noting that existing state laws already make local measures redundant while raising alarms over provisions that restrict citizens' freedom of movement.

Councilmen Lloyd Glass and Landon Sims led the official action to reject the ordinance on the floor. Together, the council demonstrated that true public service means respecting individual freedom, keeping local law balanced, and rejecting extreme policies. Now, the proposed ordinance goes to the voters. I hope the citizens of Seminole follow the council’s lead and reject it at the ballot box.

Gonzalez concluded her post, stating:

Instead of passing redundant ordinances, our focus should be on addressing actual community needs, like the critical shortage of OB-GYNs and accessible healthcare facilities in our region.

Seminole Hospital District At-Large Board Member Angela Pustejovsky Carter and her husband, Attorney Marlin Carter, liked Gonzalez's Facebook post.

In Seminole, Angela Carter and Attorney Bonnie Ericson have led the charge against the local measure’s passage. A sign across from the Gaines County Courthouse, paid for by Angela Carter, reads, “Seminole: This is our home. These are our neighbors. And this is our decision. You can be pro-life and vote against Prop 2.”

The Vote for Life

​If adopted by the residents of Seminole, Prop B (Prop 2) would close loopholes in Texas anti-abortion laws relating to abortion trafficking, abortion pill trafficking, and the trafficking of aborted remains for disposal in Texas landfills.

While the Seminole Mayor and City Council, along with Planned Parenthood, believe that measures like Prop B (Prop 2) are unnecessary and that Texas has the matter covered, pro-life advocates across the state and nation see the matter differently. 

Christina Garza, Chief of Operations for the Albuquerque-based sidewalk counseling ministry known as the Cherub Initiative, shared, “We have seen, and are continuing to see young women from other states such as Texas, including women from Gaines County, come for their abortion appointments.”

Pastor Carl Toti of Trinity Church in Lubbock delivered a 7+ minute message encouraging Seminole residents to get out the vote in November. 

In its Texas Pro-Life 2026 Voter Guide, Texas Right To Life, the state's largest and oldest statewide pro-life organization, encourages Seminole residents to vote for Prop B (Prop 2).

NIFLA, the legal advocate for over 1,700 affiliated pregnancy centers in America, including The Life Center in Andrews, Texas, also supports the measure.

In August, NIFLA founder and president Thomas Glessner stated:

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) fully supports the proposed Seminole Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance, which was brought forth by the citizen initiative petition in Seminole, Texas. These ordinances are not new to the pro-life movement or to NIFLA.

These ordinances have been passed in many jurisdictions with NIFLA pregnancy center members, including cities like Lubbock, Odessa, Abilene, San Angelo, and Big Spring, and have proven to be an effective deterrent to abortion.

​

​If a majority of voters vote FOR Prop B (Prop 2), Seminole will become the 84th city in Texas and the 101st city in the nation to pass a SCFTU Ordinance. Seminole would also become Texas's sixth pro-life ballot victory since the initiative began, following victories in Lubbock (May 2021), Abilene, San Angelo, Plainview, and Athens (November 2022). 

If a majority votes AGAINST Prop B (Prop 2), Seminole will become the second city in Texas where voters have rejected an anti-abortion ordinance on a citywide ballot – following Amarillo (November 2024). 

Early voting began on October 19, 2026, and runs through October 30, 2026, with Election Day on November 3, 2026.

Key Takeaways:

• An infant was safely surrendered in a Safe Haven Baby Box in Knoxville, Tennessee, on October 20.

• A spokesperson said the infant "appeared to be in excellent health."

• Tennessee law allows the surrender of infants 45 days or younger.

• Safe haven laws provide an option for parents in crisis, in an effort to curtail infant abandonments.

The Details:

The safe surrender happened at the Knoxville Fire Department's Station 17 on Western Avenue on October 20.

In a news release, KFD spokesperson Tim Woods said that after receiving the alert, three crew members responded and found the newborn in the box, who "appeared to be in excellent health." The child was transported to a local hospital for evaluation, per protocol. He or she will enter into the foster care system and be placed for adoption. (Each state has its own protocol regarding infant surrender, foster care, and adoption.)

According to Woods, other babies surrendered via the state's safe haven law have been adopted quickly.

Zoom In:

Tennessee law allows mothers to surrender infants 45 days or younger to designated facilities. As long as the infant is unharmed, there is no threat of prosecution and a guarantee of confidentiality.

The state has a hotline, 1-866-699-SAFE, which mothers can call to learn more about their options.

Why It Matters:

Safe Haven Baby Boxes are a valuable resource for parents who feel unable to care for their infants, but want to ensure they are placed in safe and caring homes. The boxes, which allow for parent anonymity in accordance with the law, help to prevent infant abandonments.

Monica Kelsey, founder of the Safe Haven Baby Boxes organization, was left in a hospital as an infant after her 17-year-old mother refused an abortion. Her mission to help mothers in crisis and save babies began after a trip to South Africa, where she saw similar baby box devices being used.

She's said of her mission: "This is all Jesus saying to me, 'I've equipped you and I've called you for such a time as this.'" She added:

"I stand on the front lines of this movement as one of these kids that wasn't lovingly and legally anonymously and safely surrendered in a safe haven baby box but now I've dedicated my life... to give birth moms today the opportunity to keep their child safe."

Key Takeaways:

• Turkish authorities have announced the arrests of people involved in an illegal egg trafficking network.

• Forty-one (41) women reportedly traveled outside the country to sell their eggs, with investigators determining there were 811 sales.

• Turkish Justice Minister Akın Gürlek said egg trafficking disregards human dignity and bodily integrity.

The Details:

On Monday, Turkish Justice Minister Akın Gürlek announced arrests in correlation with the egg trafficking network, which extended to Northern Cyprus, Albania and Georgia, generating around two million euros.

“Turkish citizen women were directed abroad and engaged in egg sales in exchange for financial gain," he explained.

Gürlek said authorities were pursuing judicial proceedings against 53 people, including 41 alleged egg 'donors,' two OB/GYNs, four travel organizers, and one 'ringleader,' Of those, 36 have been arrested, one is already in prison, and there are warrants out for 16 more.

An investigation, which found that Turkish women were leaving the country to sell their eggs to IVF clinics abroad, was launched after a complaint submitted to the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER).

“Within the scope of the investigation, it was determined that a total of 811 egg sales were conducted by 41 women,” Gürlek noted.

Zoom In:

Egg and sperm donation are strictly prohibited in Turkey.

Apart from the moral implications of women selling their eggs so that others can create children (who will likely grow up never knowing their biological mothers, nor their family health, background, or heritage), there are also health risks to the women.

One of the complications is Ovarian Hyper Stimulation Syndrome (OHSS), which causes the ovaries to swell and become painful. Severe cases may require hospitalization. Additionally, the long-term effects of large doses of hormones to mature as many eggs as possible have not been studied.

Jennifer Lahl, the founder and president of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, told Live Action's Lila Rose that reproductive health companies market egg 'donation' as an easy way to make money in order to lure vulnerable women.

"The marketing is very slick. When two of my daughters were students at the University of California Berkeley, their school paper had an ad: $100,000 for an elite donor. So it’s very eugenic, it’s very selective.

It’s all flowery, ‘Make dreams come true,’ ‘Help a family.’ You’ll see young girls who have sold their eggs say, ‘Well, you have so many eggs, I’m not using them anyway.’

So there’s this lure, and people go, ‘Well, I like to help people and, sure, that money sounds great, and I’m not using my eggs right now. Why not sell some?’ But, there’s the drugs.”

The Bottom Line:

On X, Gürlek further expounded on the country's fight against illegal egg trafficking.

“We are steadfastly continuing our fight against criminal organizations that direct women into illegal reproductive cell trafficking, disregarding human dignity and bodily integrity ...

No financial gain is above human dignity and bodily integrity. Under the leadership of our President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, we will resolutely continue our efforts to uncover all connections of criminal organizations, identify those responsible and ensure they are held accountable."

Part of the reason for this is because induced abortion and maternal healthcare in emergencies have been conflated by a pro-abortion media and the abortion industry, causing confusion among women and turning even cases of clear <a href="/news/preventable-pro-abortion-media-weaponizing-maternal-deaths">medical neglect</a> into calls for induced abortion to be legalized through all nine months of pregnancy.

Key Takeaways:

• President Trump signed a new executive order this week to advance women's health.

• The order was met with criticism as the Trump administration has cut funding to certain research and health care intitiatives.

• However, complaints about the order also attacked it for not including abortion.

• Notably, a similar order from former President Biden in 2024 also did not include abortion.

• Abortion is not healthcare and data show that legalized abortion worsens maternal health outcomes.

The Details:

The executive order, "Advancing Women's Health to Improve Outcomes in All Phases of Life," is "committed to advancing women's health and ensuring that medical research, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment reflect the highest quality scientific evidence, with the goal of improving health outcomes in all phases of life."

It continues:

"Despite considerable advances in biomedical science, many diseases and conditions that disproportionately or uniquely affect women have not received the level of research, clinical attention, and treatment that other diseases and conditions have received."

Former President Biden signed an executive order with a similar goal of expanding federal research on women's health conditions in 2024.

Trump's order rescinds Biden's and replaces what Biden created to be a first-lady led initiative with a formal White House task force led by officials.

Neither order mentions abortion.

While there have been criticisms regarding Trump's order lacking new funding dedicated to women's health and previous budget cuts to federal medical research projects, there have also been complaints from abortion supporters that the order does not include abortion, that there is an ongoing medical review of the abortion pill mifepristone, and that the administration cut federal Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood for one year. That funding has since been restored.

On X, social media users reacted to the executive order announcement with short-sighted comments that illustrate how the idea of "women's healthcare" has become synonymous with abortion for far too many years:

• "I'm pretty sure 'shifting away from the fight for women's rights' won't help women's health."

• "How the hell do you call that advancing women's healthcare? Where are reproductive rights? Where is abortion access? Where are the protections for women suffering miscarriages ectopic pregnancies, or life-threatening pregnancy complications?"

• "I mean, stop making women bleed out or die of sepsis when a pregnancy goes sideways. Stop cutting funding for rural hospitals. That seems like a good thing for women's health but here we are."

• "Women's healthcare rights have been decimated due to draconian abortion laws in several states. All due to Trump's efforts."

• "Sure. Then bring back legal abortion. Women's rights include the right to health care."

• "Meanwhile, she does nothing about women who could die or become sterile from a miscarriage due to stupid anti-abortion laws."

Why It Matters:

Let's be clear. <a href="/news/pro-life-docs-abortion-healthcare">Abortion is not healthcare</a>. It is intentional killing, and state laws protecting preborn humans define it as such. Intentional killing is not necessary to protect women's health.

America had legalized abortion in every state for nearly 50 years and still had a high maternal mortality rate compared to other nations, including nations with pro-life protections in place.

Induced abortion's goal is to ensure that the preborn child dies; even the pro-abortion ACOG has defined it this way, as Live Action News previously reported.

No procedure aimed at protecting a pregnant woman's health or life carries the intent to kill the preborn child inside her.

Miscarriage treatment, ectopic pregnancy care, and induced labor or emergency C-sections do not carry the intent that baby dies, and are not abortions. They are all completely legal in every state.

In 2013, while Roe v. Wade was still in effect, the U.S. saw 28 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. For comparison, according to a report from the United Nations, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates each had eight (8) maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, Uruguay had 14, Switzerland had six (6), Sweden, Spain, and Italy saw four (4) each, Slovenia and Slovakia had seven (7) each, Poland had three (3), Israel had two (2), and Malta had nine (9). Lebanon (16), Serbia (16), Saudi Arabia (16), Latvia (13), Libya (15), Lithuania (11), and Qatar (6) all had lower rates than the U.S.

➡️ The U.S. maternal mortality rate rose from 12 deaths for every 100,000 live births in 1990 to 28 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2013 — and increase of 136% under Roe v. Wade.

Meanwhile, the majority of the nations that saw lower maternal mortality rates than the U.S. had stronger pro-life laws in place.

In 2013...

• The UK allowed abortion through 24 weeks with the approval of two doctors.

• The UAE, Libya, Qatar, and Lebanon did not allow any abortions unless the mother's life was at risk.

• Uruguay, Switzerland, Slovakia, Latvia, and Lithuania allowed abortion through 12 weeks.

• Sweden allowed abortion through 18 weeks.

• Spain allowed it through 14 weeks.

• Slovenia and Serbia allowed abortion through 10 weeks.

• Saudi Arabia and Poland allowed abortion only when the mother's health or life was at risk or in cases of fetal diagnosis.

• Italy allowed abortion in the first 90 days.

• Women in Israel needed an abortion to be approved by a hospital committee.

• Malta didn't allow abortion for any reason.

But in the U.S., under Roe, abortion was allowed through birth under the loophole of 'maternal health' which was defined so expansively that it included a woman's "financial" and "familial" health.

Following a peak of 916 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1918, the U.S. saw the maternal mortality rate plummet to a low of 7.54 in 1984. It began to rise again in the 1990s, which is when abortion numbers peaked as well, at 1.6 million.

The maternal mortality rate reached 17.4 in January 2019 before hitting 33.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in February 2022 — before the Dobbs decision overturned Roe.

Since then, that rate has steadily dropped and was at 15.4 in February 2026, according to preliminary data from the CDC.

The Maternal Mental Health Alliance graphed the maternal death rates of several nations from 1990 to 2023, showing the sharp incline in the U.S. beginning in 2000, while other nations saw a decline. (Oddly enough, 2000 was also the year that <a href="/news/sobering-human-cost-abortion-pill">the abortion pill was introduced</a> into the United States.)

Data from The World Health Organization showed that by 2020, the U.S. was 'lagging behind in fight against maternal mortality.' A graph from Statista showed rates of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births across several nations in 2020:

In 2020, Norway had the lowest maternal mortality, at 1.7 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Canada had a rate of 11, and the US had a rate of 21.1.

These numbers were all prior to the fall of Roe, during the years in which abortion was widely accessible and legal in every U.S. state at least through viability (presumed to be 24 weeks) and after viability for health reasons that included a woman's physical, mental, financial, and familial health.

With such a broad scope of 'health' reasons, abortion was allowed for virtually any reason as long as there was a doctor willing to commit late abortions. (<a href="/news/the-final-few-3-late-term-abortionists-who-drag-on-a-gruesome-profession">There were and are</a>.)

There's no evidence that expanding the availability of induced abortion will improve the maternal mortality rate. The factors that influence maternal mortality are vast (including substance abuse, etc.).

The Bottom Line:

Legalized abortion has done nothing to protect women's health because it is not healthcare. It does not treat or heal. The goal of abortion is always to kill.

Her story is not simply about one woman’s harrowing legal ordeal. It ignites a question that should worry members of the general public: can a free society outlaw and penalize a citizen’s peaceful presence and private thoughts?

Key Takeaways:

• UK pro-lifer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce grew up in a Catholic household where human dignity was respected and lived, which led to her eventual involvement in the pro-life cause.

• Eventually, the local 40 Days for Life campaign gave way to a witness walk in Birmingham, England, which grew into March for Life UK, which she currently spearheads with friends and colleagues.

• She and her fellow pro-lifers stood outside abortion businesses offering life-affirming alternatives to women who were interested — and many were interested, according to Vaughan-Spruce.

• The UK began passing draconian laws against free speech outside abortion businesses, and Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for standing within an abortion business buffer zone on a day the business was not open, silently praying. For this, she was arrested. And the arrests and harassment against her have continued, despite certain victories.

• Vaughan-Spruce's legal team maintains that simply being present and praying quietly does not amount to a criminal offense.

• The purpose of the movement, according to Vaughan-Spruce, is not simply to prevail in debate but to touch hearts through truth and compassion.

A Pro‑Life Calling Formed at Home:

Raised in a Catholic family where respect for every human life was lived, not merely discussed, Vaughan‑Spruce was influenced by her father’s work with vulnerable people leaving a closing psychiatric hospital. She learned from her father’s example that human dignity cannot be measured according to productivity, independence, or social usefulness.

Moreover, “being pro‑life is the natural default position of any child, unless taught otherwise,” she told Live Action News. Witnessing vulnerable people find stability and belonging in her family home helped her see that pro‑life concern must extend beyond the unborn to every person in need.

As a teenager, Vaughan‑Spruce perused war stories and imagined how she would have responded in moments of historical moral crisis. Then came a harder realization: “What am I doing now for the unborn facing the dangers of abortion?”

Eventually, she came to view abortion as a present-day battle in which an entire class of human beings is being deprived of the chance to live. 

She got involved in the pro-life cause after reading about prayer outside abortion centers in a magazine linked to the legacy of St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe. She soon found that others were already praying for the pro-life cause through 40 Days for Life, and that organized prayer gave her a structure for pro-life witness in the public domain. 

From Local Prayer to a National Movement:

The local 40 Days for Life campaign eventually inspired something larger.

Vaughan‑Spruce and fellow volunteers organized a witness walk into Birmingham city center, and wondered if such an event could become a national annual witness to the dignity of all human lives, born and unborn. 

The March for Life UK grew from that conviction. Today, the organization continues to hold public marches, educational events, and training meant to help people clearly and compassionately articulate their views resisting abortion.

Currently, Vaughan‑Spruce spearheads the movement alongside friends and colleagues.

For her, her pro-life mission has always had two parts: defending unborn children and supporting their parents. Before so-called buffer zones limited pro-life outreach, she recalled how volunteers offered abortion-minded women leaflets and asked a simple question: “Would you like us to help you?”

Help for Women Who Wanted Another Way:

Notably, Vaughan‑Spruce dismissed the claim that pro‑life presence outside clinics is inherently hostile. She revealed to Live Action News how many women approached volunteers because they wanted to continue their pregnancies but felt the brunt of family pressure, housing insecurity, debt, or financial hardship.

“I would hope that even those who disagree with me would still recognize the importance of someone being able to continue pregnancy when they want to,” Isabel shared with Live Action News.

“We helped these women and couples continue pregnancy because of the support we offered them,” she disclosed. That support included practical assistance, help with debts, friendship, or simply a listening ear.

Some of those relationships endured over the years. Vaughan‑Spruce admitted that she has remained in contact with women she met outside clinics and has witnessed their children grow up.

For her, that is the crux of the pro‑life mission: not condemnation, but offering tangible help to women and children. 

Additionally, she has a message to those who dissent from her pro-life views: whatever one believes about abortion, surely everyone can support a woman’s ability to continue a pregnancy when she wants to do so.

Arrested for Praying in Her Head:

In December 2022, Vaughan‑Spruce was standing outside a Birmingham abortion facility that was closed at the time. Police approached and interrogated her. In response, she divulged that she was simply standing there and “might” be praying in her head. She told Live Action News:

“It was a very surreal experience. So police officers approached me and asked me what I was doing. I said as I was simply standing there, and I said I might be praying in my head, and that was enough for them to arrest me.

They heavily searched me, and I was locked in a police cell for many hours before being questioned. I had to identify myself, and I was asked questions about what was going on inside my head. Ultimately, I was charged with engaging in an act that was intimidating service users.

Just to be clear, that abortion center where I was praying at was closed, so I was not intimidating service users, which shows how farcical that charge was."

She was charged with breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order and accused of allegedly daunting service users, despite the facility being closed at the time.

In February 2023, prosecutors offered no evidence of Vaughan‑Spruce’s alleged wrongdoings, and she was acquitted. Nonetheless, the relief was short-lived. 

Shortly afterward, she returned to the same public street to pray quietly, only to be detained once more — this time by six police officers. She said that an officer told her that her prayers were offensive.

Although the second case was eventually discontinued, it didn't change the months of anxiety and uncertainty. In 2024, West Midlands Police resolved her civil claim, which alleged unlawful arrest, assault, and violations of her human rights, with a £13,000 settlement.

The force maintained that the agreement did not constitute an admission of liability.

'Second-Class Citizens':

For Vaughan‑Spruce, the real cause for concern extended beyond how the British police behaved towards her; it lay in the legal reasoning behind buffer zones. While laws can govern conduct, she reiterated that they should never relegate individuals to second-class status because of their beliefs. 

A public street is still a public space, and people who hold pro-life convictions retain the same right as anyone else to walk there, stand there, and pray there, she noted. 

“If we are living Christian faith and pro‑life beliefs, we have to stick to our beliefs,” she elaborated. “There will be some cost to it.”

That price can assume many forms: being ostracized socially, losing friendships, facing difficulties at work, struggling financially, or lying awake at night. Yet Vaughan‑Spruce reaffirms that Christians should be ready to bear such costs while remaining grounded in Christ and fortified through prayer. 

A New Legal Battle:

The controversy surrounding Vaughan‑Spruce and the British authorities has not ended.

In October 2024, England and Wales introduced a nationwide buffer-zone law, establishing 150-meter exclusion areas around abortion facilities. Within these zones, it is now unlawful to deliberately seek to influence a person’s decision regarding abortion services.

Later, Vaughan‑Spruce was charged under the legislation for allegedly standing and praying silently inside one of these zones. She has entered "not guilty" pleas to five counts, while her legal team maintains that simply being present and praying quietly does not amount to a criminal offense.

A judge has reportedly indicated that standing within a buffer zone, by itself, is not unlawful.

Vaughan‑Spruce’s legal team, supported by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) UK, argues that the case tests freedom of thought and religion.

Her attorney has said the question is what exactly she is being charged for, given that standing in the zone is not against the law. 

What March for Life UK Is Doing:

Vaughan‑Spruce’s ongoing legal case has not altered March for Life UK’s central approach to advancing the pro-life cause. She told Live Action News that the organization remains focused on public witness, education, reporting, and training, while seeking support from legal organizations where appropriate.

Nevertheless, she remains careful to distinguish her personal actions from the organization's work. When praying outside an abortion facility, she acknowledged that she does so as an individual Catholic woman instead of as a representative of March for Life UK.

The organization's wider mission remains cultural: helping younger people understand the reality of abortion, equipping pro-life advocates to communicate clearly and effectively, and encouraging both clergy and laypeople to engage with compassion and conviction.

Vaughan-Spruce told Live Action News:

“We connect with legal groups like ADF supporting me personally. When I go outside an abortion center, I am going there as an individual Catholic woman who wants to go to prayer, not as a March for Life UK representative.

We will go to March for Life UK, and we continue to report on them. We will continue to do our public witness events, education, and training for people to learn how to speak effectively on this issue, priests, etc., to help—generally creating awareness of the damage abortion causes and promoting dignity of life."

The Role of American Allies:

Vaughan‑Spruce also believes organizations, like Live Action in the United States, can play an important role in the pro-life movement. In her view, human life cannot be divided by nationality: there are no “American babies” or “British babies,” because every person is made in the image of God.

Social media, she contended, enables pro-life education to transcend national borders. Women in different countries often face comparable fears, while men encounter similar pressures, and both the United States and the United Kingdom continue to face legal and cultural debates over abortion.

Vaughan‑Spruce sees international solidarity as a way to bolster grassroots efforts, provided it supports rather than overrides local leadership and the particular needs of each country.

“Change comes from the bottom up too,” she pointed out, showcasing the importance of helping young people understand the abortion debate and articulate the truth about the dignity of all human lives for themselves.

A Culture Worth Changing:

Vaughan‑Spruce is frank in her assessment that Britain’s abortion laws are “seriously bad” and that political progress appears limited. Even so, she has noticed signs of cultural change: a rising Christian awakening, greater involvement from men, and post-abortive women courageously telling their stories.

In her view, the pro-life movement must be premised on partnership between men and women, since abortion affects both.

The purpose of the movement, she conceded, is not simply to prevail in debate but to touch hearts through truth and compassion.

Key Takeaways:

• The Isle of Man, an entity in the British Isles, has received Royal Assent for its assisted dying bill.

• This legalizes euthanasia on the island for those who are considered terminally ill and have lived on the island for at least five years.

• Lawmakers say they do not yet have a date for when the new law will go into effect.

• Previously, 74% of medical professionals who were surveyed said they were opposed to assisted dying.

The Backstory:

Members of the island's legislature approved its assisted dying bill last year. Because the island is a British entity in the British Isles, any legislation needs to receive Royal Assent as a formal stamp of approval in order to take effect.

However, in April, the UK’s Ministry of Justice said it was unable to recommend the bill for Royal Assent, as it didn't fully comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. The ministry particularly pointed to the bill's lack of protections — such as independent oversight, safeguards against coercion, and clear assessments of mental capacity — as a reason why the bill would not receive approval.

Isle of Man lawmakers then made the requested amendments and it was sent back to the UK for approval.

The Details:

The UK formally granted Royal Assent to the reworked Assisted Dying Bill on October 20.

Under the legislation, those adults who have lived on the island at least five years and are considered terminally ill with a prognosis of 12 months or less to live will be able to access assisted dying if they wish.

As ITV reports, "This choice must be confirmed through a formal declaration witnessed and countersigned by two registered medical practitioners 'in order to protect individual autonomy, ensure all care options are explored, and detect any possible coercion.'"

Lawmakers say they do not yet have a date when the new law will go into effect, as they "will not begin until government is confident it is genuinely ready."

"This will require listening carefully to those affected, drawing on clinical, legal and safeguarding expertise, and remaining open with Tynwald [parliament] about the decisions still to be made," a statement explained.

Alex Allinson, who authored the bill, praised its passage.

"This is the culmination of decades of campaigning by island residents and their politicians to ensure greater choice, compassion and dignity for those facing a terminal illness," he said.

Many who campaigned against the bill are mourning that it is moving forward. The group Manx Duty of Care said it was "deeply disappointed" and called on members of parliament to repeal it at once.

Zoom In:

It is also unclear whether or not medical professionals will be willing to assist people in ending their own lives.

Live Action News previously reported that one-third of medical professionals surveyed in 2023 indicated they would consider leaving the island if assisted dying were legal. In that survey, an overwhelming 74% of respondents said they were opposed to assisted suicide.

The Isle of Man Medical Society said it continues to oppose the legislation and it will continue to fight for those who are vulnerable.

"While we acknowledge the constitutional process, the IOMMS maintains its firm and steadfast position regarding the profound risks this legislation poses to healthcare, vulnerable patients, and the medical profession across the Island," a spokesperson said.

"The IOMMS position remains grounded in the clear consensus of local clinicians: 74% of doctors on the Island oppose assisted dying. Our fundamental concerns regarding this statute and its upcoming implementation remain unchanged."

Key Takeaways:

• Lawmakers in Poland have passed two measures: one which would allow abortion for 'severe fetal abnormalities,' and another which removes criminal penalties for helping a woman obtain an abortion.

• The measures still need to pass through the upper senate, which can amend but not overturn them.

• They also need approval from President Karol Nawrocki, who is expected to veto both.

The Details:

The country's lower house of parliament passed two measures Tuesday evening: one which would allow abortion for "severe fetal abnormalities," and another which removes criminal penalties for helping a woman obtain an abortion.

Both bills will proceed to the upper senate, which has the ability to propose amendments to the bills but cannot block them altogether. That power only rests with President Karol Nawrocki, who has previously expressed his opposition to abortion and his commitment to upholding the sanctity of life.

The parliament does not have the two-thirds majority that would be necessary to overturn a likely block.

In response to the measures, a spokesperson for President Karol Nawrocki reiterated that he “supports the protection of life from conception to natural death.”

Zoom In:

According to Politico, the first bill would allow a woman to abort her preborn child if the child has a "severe and irreversible fetal abnormality or an incurable illness threatening the fetus's viability. It would also set deadlines for hospitals to provide lawful abortions and require written explanations for refusals."

The second bill removes all criminal penalties currently in place for assisting or encouraging a woman to get an abortion. It would also provide legal protections for medical professionals who commit an abortion when the woman's life is threatened or when the preborn child has a "fetal abnormality."

The measures come as abortion activists work to promote abortion within the country. Earlier this month, the group Women Help Women launched an 'abortion pill locker' where anyone can access abortion pills to use for at-home abortions (though the law prohibits abortions, there is no criminal penalty for a woman who commits her own abortion at home).

Nevertheless, these measures don't go far enough for some abortion extremists. “What does this mean for women who need abortions now? Nothing, because none of these bills would help them,” lamented the organization Legalna Aborcja on X.

The Bottom Line:

Poland has long been considered one of the world's strongest pro-life countries, but those protections are constantly under attack. The fight for preborn lives continues.

Key Takeaways:

• D’Amber Davis adopted the baby of Katelyn Sparks, her gas station clerk, after Sparks told her she would be unable to care for him after giving birth.

• Davis helped Sparks find medical care so she could continue her pregnancy.

• Sparks remains in the baby's life, and calls Davis her "big sister."

The Details:

D’Amber Davis routinely visited the same gas station every day. On one of those visits, she noticed that the clerk, Katelyn Sparks, was pregnant.

The two struck up a conversation; Sparks, who was 33 weeks pregnant, told Davis she felt she would be unable to care for the baby when she gave birth.

“In my mind I’m just like, instantly, I got to get this baby,” Davis said. “Not knowing nothing. I just know I got to get this baby.”

Davis had reportedly already considered adoption, but told herself she wanted to wait until she had finished school and was in a better place financially. After encountering Sparks, however, she felt perhaps the time was now.

Her young son, who was with her, provided the confirmation she was looking for.

“My son looked at me and he said, ‘Mama, we gotta get that baby,’" she said. "And there was confirmation.”

Davis returned the next day to speak with Sparks about her idea. Sparks, who hadn't had any prenatal care, agreed.

Davis helped Sparks find a doctor so could finish her pregnancy receiving care, and weeks later, baby Nolan was born weighing a healthy 7 pounds 8 ounces.

Zoom In:

Davis officially adopted Nolan after his birth, but that wasn't the end of the story for Sparks, as she has remained in little Nolan's life.

"I'm his mom, but that's his bio mom, and he will forever know that," Davis told WMAZ.

Sparks, who visits Davis and Nolan, credited Davis for treating her like family.

“She’s more or less like my big sister,” Sparks said. “She’s helped me get closer to my entire family through this more than I thought it would."

The Bottom Line:

Davis emphasized that adopting Nolan has been a wonderful experience.

“I thought he needed me, but I really needed him,” she said. “I love my kids to death, but I also love Nolan, and I don’t love him any different. He’s my own. He’s my son. He’s my life. He’s my world.”

She also talked about the importance of adoption.

“To be a family, y’all don’t have to have the same DNA or blood,” she said. “It’s just about being there for a person, a child.”

A new report from the Australian Human Rights Commission provides insight into what pregnant and parenting women are facing at work.

Key Takeaways:

• A report from the Australian Human Rights Commission highlights personal stories from women who feel they were discriminated against at work due to pregnancy.

• Women faced issues such as job elimination or a reduction in scheduled shifts after they had babies.

• A 2024 survey found that 92% of parents reported discrimination when they returned to work after having babies.

The Details:

The Australian Human Rights Commission's report includes case studies of women who said they were unfairly treated by their employers during or after pregnancy.

“Frequently, when a woman does tell that she is pregnant… she will experience either performance management, or suddenly – if she’s in insecure work, and we know that migrant women and women targeted by racism are more likely to be an insecure and shift work – then the shifts will dry up,” said Ann Cody, sex discrimination commissioner.

“The third thing that happens is redundancies [the elimination of a role] – and they are ‘sham redundancies’. They’re not… because the job is no longer required or has been eliminated within the workplace, it’s because they no longer want that woman working in the job because she’s pregnant and is going to leave.”

The number of such complaints to the Human Rights Commission increased from 52 in 2023 to 71 in 2025, but not everyone files a complaint. Complaints filed with the Fair Work Commission are higher, according to Cody, but they don't always include reports of discrimination.

Cody said:

“If you make the loss of a job look like a redundancy, the employer is the one who has all the evidence to show whether or not the job has actually disappeared, and yet it’s the complainant, it’s the woman, who has the responsibility, that burden, of bringing a complaint.

We know that when women are having their child, or are pregnant, that’s a really vulnerable time. And so then to put on top of that, ‘Now it’s your responsibility to make a complaint to either the Fair Work Commission or to the Australian Human Rights Commission’, sometimes that’s just too much.”

Zoom In:

The Guardian shared specific stories from the report, including that of Luisa, an HR manager in the healthcare industry whose job was eliminated one month after telling her employer that she was pregnant. She had told her employer that after the baby was born, she planned to return to work and her husband would be the one to take parental leave.

“Her employer questioned who would support Luisa after the baby was born, because her family lived overseas,” the report said.

Another mother, Michelle, said that after she asked to work longer shifts instead of multiple short ones so that she could care for her children and her sick father, her employer stopped giving her shifts altogether and then dismissed her from the role.

Another woman, Emily, said that despite the existence of a specified breastfeeding area at work, she was discouraged from taking breaks to pump.

Instead, she was "expected to work uninterrupted, long hours and was unable to take her lactation breaks," according to the report. "Despite the available space and policies, the culture and attitudes in her workplace made Emily feel unsupported and led her to stop breastfeeding her child earlier than she wanted to.”

The Bottom Line:

Cody is calling for a followup survey to be carried out to check for changes in reports of discrimination.

The chief executive of the independent, not-for-profit parent and child advocacy group Parenthood, Georgie Dent, told the National Press Club in September that another survey was critical.

“It must be reinstated,” she said. “We can’t fix what we’ve stopped counting.”

Key Takeaways:

• Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten and his male partner have announced they are using a surrogate and an egg donor to have a child.

• The women are both friends of the men. The Netherlands prohibits commercial surrogacy.

• The men said they are "grateful" to the women and their families for making their "dream" come true.

• It's another example of how the fertility industry puts the desires of adults ahead of children's rights to their mother and father.

The Details:

The men posted on Instagram, "A very special person is on the way. See you in 2027, little one. There are no words big enough to thank our egg donor, our surrogate mum Lisa and both their families. None of this would be possible without you."

The political party D66, of which Jetten is the leader, said that both women are friends of the men. Dutch law prohibits commercial surrogacy, in which the surrogate is paid to carry the child.

"There is no commercial surrogacy involved," it explained. "The surrogate mother and the egg donor are known to Jetten and Keenan. They are pleased to be able to help fulfill the wish of the two fathers-to-be to have a child in this way."

Jetten said he and Keenan are "incredibly grateful" because "we now have the opportunity to make our dream come true."

Lisa, the surrogate, reiterated this, saying, “Surrogacy feels like a very special way to help make the dream of our dear friends come true."

Why It Matters:

This is another <a href="/news/eugenics-side-fertility-industry">example</a> of how the fertility industry and adults put adult desires ahead of the natural rights of the children.

The focus of the announcement is on the donor and the surrogate, two women that this baby likely won't ever know as mothers.

It is unclear what relationship the child will have with the women who are bringing him or her into the world, but it is not uncommon for children of same-sex couples to be absent a mother or a father.

What is typically seen as a tragedy — a child's loss of a mother or a father — is normalized for the sake of a same-sex couple's "dream."

As in all cases of egg and sperm donation, surrogacy, and IVF in general, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight, the wants and the desires of the adults in the situation are prioritized over the rights and needs of the child.

Children benefit from having both a mother and a father as each brings something unique to the child's life. As explained by The Talking Brains Center:

The presence and involvement of both parents play a crucial role in shaping a child’s emotional, social, and cognitive development. While each parent brings unique qualities to the parenting journey, their combined influence helps create a balanced and nurturing environment.

The roles of the father and mother may differ, but both are equally vital in a child’s life.

It also noted, "Mothers are often the primary source of comfort and emotional support" while "Fathers often encourage their children to explore, take risks, and develop problem-solving skills."

Research from the Journal of Child and Family Studies states that mothers are usually more emotionally available, self-controlled, and responsive to their children. Fathers are more likely to provide discipline and structure.

In addition, children who are raised by their married, biological parents do better emotionally and academically. They are also physically safer than when living with an adult who is not biologically related to them.

Now-adult children who were created via egg or sperm donation or carried by surrogates have reported negative aspects such as:

• the desire for a mother or father that they kept secret for fear of hurting the parents raising them;

• an identity crisis in which they wonder about an entire half of their family (and themselves) that they don't know;

• and never feeling a connection with the parent who is not biologically related to them.

The Bottom Line:

Children have a right to be known and loved by their biological parents. Sometimes that is not possible because of death or circumstances in which the biological parents are unable to take care of the child.

But with egg and sperm donation and surrogacy, the child is created with the full intention of denying him or her this right.

Key Takeaways:

• A 35-year-old pregnant woman was stabbed after arguing with a man last Friday.

• The man was later apprehended and has been arrested.

• The woman and her preborn baby are reportedly in stable condition.

• Though this woman fortunately survived the attack, homicide is a leading cause of death for pregnant women.

The Details:

Michigan State Police reported that the 35-year-old woman was injured in Royal Oak Township, Michigan, on the evening of October 16. According to reports, a man visiting the home to see his child stabbed the woman after an argument, before fleeing the scene.

Troopers responding to the home were able to provide medical assistance to the woman. She was transported to a local hospital for treatment, and both she and her preborn child survived and were in stable condition as of Sunday.

The 35-year-old man was later located and arrested. He is currently being held at Oakland County jail, and the investigation remains ongoing.

Zoom In:

Thankfully, both mother and baby survived this assault, but that isn't always the case.

Homicide is a higher threat to pregnant women than any obstetric cause of death. According to research published by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in January 2025, between 2005 and 2022, of 20,421 maternal deaths, 1,407 were due to homicide. Many of these cases were domestic violence incidents.

Earlier this month, a Florida man was arrested after a similar incident in which he allegedly stabbed and strangled his pregnant girlfriend, landing her in the hospital. In September, a Louisiana man was found guilty of the 2019 murders of a woman and her preborn baby. In August, a pregnant Rhode Island woman was allegedly stabbed to death by her boyfriend. The list goes on.

The Bottom Line:

Live Action News regularly publishes stories of violence against pregnant women, underscoring the real need for both women and their preborn children to be protected from dangerous, abusive men.

Key Takeaways:

• Surrogacy prior to IVF (traditional surrogacy) consists of introducing sperm to the womb of a surrogate who is also the child's biological mother.

• One of the more well-known controversial cases of traditional surrogacy was that of "Baby M," in which the biological mother/surrogate was traumatized by having to give her baby up, and was eventually awarded custody despite a surrogacy agreement with the purchasing family.

• The first surrogate-born baby by IVF, Jill Brand, was born in 1986 after her parents experienced a tragedy with a prior pregnancy which left her mother unable to carry a child.

• Today, surrogate births — for all sorts of reasons — are estimated to be into the thousands per year.

The Details:

Surrogacy before IVF

Prior to the proliferation of IVF, traditional surrogacy involved using artificial insemination to introduce sperm into the womb of the surrogate (who was, therefore, also the child’s biological mother).

This was the case in 1976, when the first surrogate contract in the U.S. was written up by attorney Noel P. Keane in Dearborn, Michigan. In an 1983 interview with The New York Times, Keane claimed that there were “over 2,000 couples interested in surrogate parenthood.” At the time, Keane claimed he had “300 available surrogates” and that 35 babies had been born through his orchestrated contracts. 

Traditional surrogacy differs from what is commonly referred to as using a “gestational carrier” where there is no biological relationship between the woman whose womb is used to carry the child.

The Case of "Baby M"

One of these cases became known as “Baby M,” which was the topic of controversy spawning outrage nationwide in 1987. The case involved five individuals: a baby girl nicknamed Baby M, William Stern (the biological father of Baby M), and William's wife Elizabeth Stern. 

The Sterns hired Mary Beth Whitehead (traditional surrogate and biological mother) who was married to Richard Whitehead. Mary Beth gave birth to a baby girl, who the Sterns named Melissa.

According to reports, Mr. and Mrs. Stern paid $10,000 to Mrs. Whitehead after Baby M was born, and another $7,500 to the Infertility Center of New York (ICNY). The Baby M case went to the courts and hit the news nationwide after Mrs. Whitehead became distressed at having to hand her biological daughter over to the Sterns in accordance with the contract.

Court records indicated that Mrs. Whitehead was so distressed at the separation from her daughter that the Sterns were concerned she might commit suicide. They agreed to surrender the child to her with the understanding that the separation would be for a week.

“Mrs. Whitehead became deeply disturbed, disconsolate, stricken with unbearable sadness. She had to have her child. She could not eat, sleep, or concentrate on anything other than her need for her baby,” court documents stated. 

The Sterns handed Baby M to Mrs.Whitehead for the agreed-upon week, but this quickly turned into four months.

Mrs. Whitehead and her husband fled with Baby M to Florida, where Mrs. Whitehead's parents lived. Court documents state that the Whiteheads and Melissa [Baby M] spent several months moving between “... roughly twenty different hotels, motels, and homes in order to avoid apprehension.” 

Originally, a lower court in New Jersey upheld the surrogacy contract and placed custody of Baby M with Mr. Stern.  

However, the case was appealed; ultimately, the Supreme Court of New Jersey struck down the lower court's ruling in a vote of 7-0, ruling that the surrogacy contract was not enforceable, and although full custody was granted to the biological father, the NJ Supreme Court restored the natural parental rights of the biological mother/surrogate (Mrs. Whitehead). 

“While we recognize the depth of the yearning of infertile couples to have their own children, we find the payment of money to a 'surrogate' mother illegal, perhaps criminal, and potentially degrading to women,” Judge Wilentz wrote, adding: 

“Mr. Stern knew he was paying for the adoption of a child; Mrs. Whitehead knew she was accepting money so that a child might be adopted; the Infertility Center knew that it was being paid for assisting in the adoption of a child. The actions of all three worked to frustrate the goals of the statute.

It strains credulity to claim that these arrangements, touted by those in the surrogacy business as an attractive alternative to the usual route leading to an adoption, really amount to something other than a private placement adoption for money.” 

Judge Wilentz further stated, “The evils inherent in baby-bartering are loathsome for a myriad of reasons. The child is sold without regard for whether the purchasers will be suitable parents.” 

A Long Way from Criminalization

Media picked up the story from across the country and a few states began passing laws prohibiting or limiting surrogacy.

Michigan was the first state to criminalize surrogacy for profit with the Michigan Surrogate Parenting Act of 1988. That ban was lifted in April of 2025 after the passage of the Michigan Family Protection Act, allowing for the legal rental of a woman’s womb.

Despite the NJ Supreme Court ruling, surrogacy use only grew with the advancement of IVF, which allowed the shift from traditional surrogacy to gestational carrier surrogacy. 

“Very quickly there was a switch to the non-genetic surrogacy where the effort was, well, let’s try to get around the opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court,” Mrs. Whitehead's attorney Harold Cassidy stated in a recent interview with RetroReport. 

Surrogacy with IVF 

In June of 2026, the first surrogate-born baby conceived through IVF in the U.S., Jill Brand, turned 40. After struggling with infertility, Brand’s parents, Elliot and Sandye Rudnitzky, turned to two pioneers of IVF, Dr. Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards. In 1982 the Rudnitzky family traveled to England “determined to stay until they became pregnant.”  

“Miraculously, our first attempt at IVF was successful. I was pregnant! We returned to New Jersey with a new sense of hope. As my pregnancy progressed, I reveled in my growing belly and in the flutters of movement I felt within,” Sandye wrote. 

However in the seventh month of pregnancy, Sandye suffered from a ruptured uterus that led to an emergency c-section, a “devastating hysterectomy,” and the birth of Elliot and Sandye’s daughter, Heather. Tragically, after 13 days, Heather passed away.

A few months after the tragic loss of their daughter, Sandye stated that “Elliot had an epiphany: ‘What if we created an embryo with IVF and had a surrogate carry the baby?’” The Rudnitzkys went on a mission to find a doctor willing to take the unprecedented step of IVF, coupled with renting the womb of another woman not biologically related to the child. 

At the time, Judge Marianne O. Battani ruled that the biological mother and father would be recognized as the legal parents, stating, ''We really have no definition of 'mother' in our lawbooks,'' the judge said in her order. '''Mother' was believed to have been so basic that no definition was deemed necessary,'' reported The New York Times. 

Dr. Wulf H. Utian of Mount Sinai Hospital — who had previously spent time in his early career researching causes of death of women in South Africa (where he is from) after abortions — was willing to take that leap and became known as the pioneer or “father” of IVF gestational surrogacy. Jill Brand was born in 1986.

During a recent interview with CNN, Dr. Utian was asked about the Rudnitzky case.

“So you were operating in somewhat of an unknown with respect to the law?” the CNN interviewer asked.

Dr. Utain responded, “It was not somewhat of an unknown; it was totally unknown. It was never done. So we had to try and think of every aspect before we went ahead. Ultimately, I got the legal sign-off.”

Today, Jill Brand claims to be the “living embodiment” to the “importance” of surrogacy, stating, “That’s a couple that really wants a baby. That’s a child that is going to be really loved. Why take that away?”  

Where We Are Now:

In an interview with RetroReport, founder of Circle Surrogacy, John Weltman claimed “at least 99% is now gestational or egg donor surrogacy,” which allowed for the shift in public opinion to become more accepting of the practice.

Weltman estimates surrogate births in the U.S. are “several thousand a year.” RetroReport notes that a significant push for the decriminalization and acceptance of surrogacy is in part due to homosexual couples pushing for the practice. 

Circle Surrogacy claims that it has received over 1,000 applications from women looking to become surrogates. 

One surrogate, Jenni, noted that surrogates “have to be OK, recognizing this is not my baby, and yes, I’m offering my body."

The same-sex couple who used Jenni as a surrogate said, “She got to be a rock star for nine months to these two gay guys in New York.” The couple said they paid at least $120,000 to procure the children, which included the purchasing of the egg and the cost of the IVF process.

Jenni was compensated about $30,000 for the renting of her womb.

“We were not in need financially," Jenni stated. "That being said, I never like to downplay the fact that yes, I was compensated to carry these kids and it helped our family.”

Correspondence from abortion pill manufacturers Danco Laboratories, GenBioPro (GBP), and Evita Solutions to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee revealed this data in an August 2026 report entitled, "Mifepristone Without Guardrails: An Investigation Into How Chemical Abortion Drug Makers Are Putting Mothers and Babies At Risk."

Key Takeaways:

• According to a Senate HELP Committee, abortion pill manufacturer Danco has certified 5,927 pharmacies to dispense the abortion pill, GenBioPro (GBP) has certified 127, and Evita has certified two.

• However, the Committee report also noted that "GBP’s data on certified pharmacies are an undercount ... because a certified pharmacy with multiple dispensing locations across multiple states (such as CVS, Honeybee Health, or ArioRx) is only listed once."

• In addition, an estimated 8,200 abortion pill prescribers have been certified, and none have been decertified by the manufacturers, despite the fact that some prescribers openly flout the FDA's safety protocols for the drug and should, therefore, be decertified.

• There is evidence that mifepristone is being tested as a contraceptive (in a 25 or 50 mg dosage), while the abortion pill contains a higher dosage (200 mg) of mifepristone. If the FDA's abortion pill review doesn't go the way the abortion industry hopes, it is plausible that any approved "contraceptive" use of the drug in lower dosages could allow for the drug to still be dispensed in pharmacies, and still used for abortions.

The Details:

Requirements for Prescribers

According to the HELP Committee report, "[...] in order to prescribe mifepristone, a prescriber must be certified. To become certified, a prescriber must sign a Prescriber Agreement Form attesting that they meet the requirements outlined in the Mifepristone REMS Program."

Certified prescribers must:

(1) provide the certified pharmacy a signed Prescriber Agreement Form;

(2) assess the appropriateness of dispensing mifepristone when contacted by a certified pharmacy about patients who will receive mifepristone more than four calendar days after the prescription was received by the certified pharmacy; and

(3) obtain the NDC and lot number of the package of mifepristone the patient received in the event the prescriber becomes aware of the death of the patient.

Number of Pharmacies Certified

According to the HELP Committee report:

Danco provided its total number of certified pharmacies as of September 2025, and produced a state-by-state breakdown, including how many certified pharmacies in each state provided a mail order option.

GBP did not provide a total number of certified pharmacies, but did provide a state-by-state breakdown, noting that some of the certified pharmacies listed in a state may also have multiple dispensing locations across multiple states that are not reflected in the data provided, thus resulting in an undercount.

Evita provided the number of certified pharmacies it had, broken down by state.

The Committee estimated that Danco has certified 5,927 pharmacies, GBP has certified 127, and Evita has certified two.

States With the Most Certified Prescribers

An estimated 8,200 abortion pill prescribers had been certified — Danco (5,250), GBP (2,950), Evita (0) — at the time the report was published. These states had the highest number of abortion pill prescribers:

• California: (2,061 - Danco)

• Colorado: (166 - Danco)

• Hawaii: (101 - Danco)

• Minnesota (143 - Danco)

• New York (305 - Danco)

• Washington (188 - Danco)

The Committee noted:

Danco stated that in addition to the number of certified prescribers listed in the above chart, it has 1,131 additional certified prescribers from multi-state health care systems and pharmacy chains, but that Danco does not have a geographical breakdown of this set of certified prescribers.

Collectively, the certified prescribers from multi-state health care systems and pharmacy chains are located in AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, KS, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, VA, VT, WA, and DC

That's 27 states plus D.C.

Despite the media hype, a majority of licensed physicians are not certified prescribers. In fact, less than 1% of licensed physicians are likely to become certified prescribers.

States with the Most Certified Pharmacies

States with highest number of retail pharmacies dispensing abortion drugs:

• California (287 Danco/34 GBP)

• Hawaii (70 Danco)

• Illinois (109 Danco/5 GBP)

• Massachusetts (75 Danco/14 GBP)

• New York (79 Danco/13 GBP)

The HELP Committee noted:

Danco stated that in addition to the number of certified pharmacies listed in the above chart, one multi-state pharmacy chain has 4,941 certified pharmacy locations across the United States, but that Danco does not have a geographical breakdown of its locations.

Collectively, the multi-state pharmacy chain has certified pharmacy locations in CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR, PA, RI, VA, VT, WA, and DC. [22 states plus D.C.]

While Danco did not identify the multi-state pharmacy chain it was referring to in its response, the states listed on Danco’s website where CVS Pharmacy dispenses Mifeprex are identical to the states the “multi-state pharmacy chain” Danco referred to dispense Mifeprex.

Therefore, it is safe to assume that Danco is referring to CVS Pharmacy here.

States with highest number of mail-order pharmacies dispensing abortion drugs are:

• California - 71

• Illinois - 25

• Michigan - 13

• New Jersey - 11

"GBP’s data on certified pharmacies are an undercount of the total number of certified pharmacies in each state because a certified pharmacy with multiple dispensing locations across multiple states (such as CVS, Honeybee Health, or ArioRx) is only listed once... Evita’s data include only the number of certified pharmacies it currently has by state because it does not currently have any certified prescribers," the report clarified.

In a May 29, 2026, response letter to the Committee, Evita wrote, "Evita confirms that it has certified two pharmacies to date: one located in South Carolina and one located in Montana."

The HELP Committee also noted:

On their respective websites, both Danco and GBP provide a list of select certified pharmacies that have consented to disclosure, but these are not comprehensive lists of all certified pharmacies.

Danco's website lists...

• CVS Pharmacy is currently dispensing in the following states: CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NV, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VA, VT, WA

• Denver Health Discharge Pharmacy (Denver, CO)

• Pavilion Pharmacy UC Davis (Sacramento, CA)

• Pucci’s Pharmacy (Sacramento, CA)

• Schraft’s (Cedar Knolls, NJ)

• Southwest Health Systems Pharmacy (Cortez, CO)

• T&T Pharmacy (Los Angeles, CA)

• Walgreens (Multiple States)

Danco adds that "Not all certified pharmacies dispensing MIFEPREX have elected to be listed here..."

GenBioPro's website lists multiple independent pharmacies by state. In addition:

• CVS Pharmacy: Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington.

• Mail-order pharmacies ArloRx and Honeybee Health.

Auditing Pharmacies

Both Danco and GBP were asked to produce a list of audits they have conducted on their distributors and certified pharmacies, to include the results of each audit, and to produce a copy of the audit rubric they use for each type of audit.

Danco provided a template of its audit questionnaire for authorized distributors, but did not provide one for certified pharmacies.

GBP did not provide audit rubrics for distributors or certified pharmacies.

However, both sponsors provided a high-level summary of observations of noncompliance identified in distributor and pharmacy audits (Danco’s distributor audits date back to 2011, while GBP’s date back to 2023). Both sponsors also included a generalized overview of their audit processes, but without requested details.

The report noted that "The REMS requires mifepristone sponsors to decertify health care providers and pharmacies that “do not maintain compliance with certification requirements."

Live Action News previously documented that "Danco and GBP both reported that neither has ever decertified a certified prescriber," despite those prescribers publicly flouting REMS requirements.

"GBP has not had cause to decertify any certified prescriber or certified pharmacy since the launch of GBP’s generic mifepristone in 2019," stated a June 4, 2026, letter to the Committee from GBP.

However, "Danco has decertified two pharmacies, both between October 2024 and September 2025..." the report claimed.

Why It Matters

The abortion industry has been attempting to increase distribution of the abortion pill. Yet, early on, abortion advocates identified obstacles: 

• Physicians did not want to sign the prescriber agreement for fear that the list, which was maintained by Danco Laboratories, would eventually become public.

• Many doctors were unwilling to stock the abortion pill even if willing to prescribe it. 

Abortionist Daniel Grossman, who is a sponsor of pharmacy clinical trials for the drugs, wrote in Ms. Magazine:

In 2019, we published a survey of obstetrician-gynecologists… to see how many provided abortion care and why or why not. One reason ob-gyns did not offer medication abortion is that they do not want to stock the abortion pill in their clinics.

Now, as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) works on its now-delayed abortion pill safety review, industry insiders are pushing for the drug to be sold over-the-counter, even rolling out a prototype packaging called "MiMi" for the move.

Abortion insiders also schemed to get the drug on pharmacy shelves by approving it for "other indications."

Today, there is evidence that mifepristone is being tested as a contraceptive (in a 25 or 50 mg dosage), while the abortion pill contains 200 mg of mifepristone.

While the contraceptive drug has not been approved in the U.S., one can assume that if it is, women could be advised to substitute multiple smaller dosages of the mifepristone contraceptive drugs for the 200 mg abortion pills if the FDA's safety review doesn't go the abortion industry's way.

And where would they be stocked? On the pharmacy shelf, of course.

The Backstory:

The abortion pill (mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex) was approved in 2000 and has only ever been approved for the termination of pregnancy (abortion). It was eventually placed under a REMS safety system to monitor dangerous adverse events and could only be dispensed in-person by a licensed medical doctor or clinician.

Those safeguards were later eroded to allow the drugs to dispensed by pharmacy and by mail-order. Sponsors who oversee manufacturing of the drug are Danco Laboratories (set up by the eugenics founded Population Council in the 1990's to initially distribute Mifeprex), GenBioPro (approved in 2019), and Evita Solutions, LLC., approved in 2025. The latter two oversee manufacturing of the generic abortion pill mifepristone (200 mg).

Go Deeper:

Live Action News' 'Without Guardrails' series previously documented:

• Additional abortion pill-associated deaths

• Failure to hold prescribers accountable

• Manufacturers place profit above safety and fail to disclose revenue

Dancer Witney Carson has been dancing while pregnant — with her baby is referred to as a third dance partner — and paralympian Ezra Frech discussed what it's like to dance with missing fingers and a prosthetic left leg.

Now, another cast member has shared that he and his fiancée are expecting a baby.

Key Takeaways:

• Tyler Cameron, who once appeared on The Bachelorette, is on this season of Dancing With the Stars.

• On the October 20 episode, he and his fiancée announced they are expecting a baby during his dance.

• After the dance, host Alfonso Ribeiro announced they would be holding a gender reveal right there on stage.

• Pink confetti then burst through the air as the couple celebrated that they are having a girl.

The Details:

Tuesday was Dedication Night on Dancing with the Stars (DWTS) and The Bachelorette alum Tyler Cameron dedicated his dance with pro-dancer Sharna Burgess to mothers. It featured a voiceover by Cameron in which he spoke to his late mother, who died of a brain aneurysm in 2020. During that voiceover, his fiancée, Tate Madden, joined him on stage as Cameron said:

"Hey, Mama, there's so much I wish I could tell you. You would've loved the woman I'm gonna marry... she's going to be the most incredible mama, just like you. And we're gonna have a baby. I can't believe I'm gonna be a dad. Wish you were here. Hope that I make you proud. I love you and I miss you every day."

He finished the dance by kissing Madden's baby bump.

When the dance was complete, DWTS host Alfonso Ribeiro announced that the couple did not know if they are having a girl or a boy and that they would be doing a gender reveal right then and there. Pink confetti then burst through the air.

Cameron responded to the news, saying:

"I get to be a girl dad. What a gift."

As the judge got underway, judge Bruno Tonioli praised the couple for "dancing with three hearts beating as one."

Live Action founder and president Lila Rose responded to the announcement on X, "Beautiful... Babies truly are a blessing."

Zoom Out:

During the same episode on Tuesday, contestant Ezra Frech dedicated his dance to his mother. After the dance, he said, "I'm a shell of myself without my mother and the confidence that she instilled in me is the reason I'm able to walk around the dance floor with my prosthetic leg out...."

Tonioli called it "Absolutely so inspiring, life-affirming, really. Your positive attitude, your strength of character are unique. You really are a lesson to us all."

The Bottom Line:

Life is always a gift — and this season, DWTS has shown that pregnancy does not have to keep women from pursuing their dreams and goals; people born with 'disabilities' are capable and worthy of life; and marriage, children, and family are worthy fighting for and celebrating.

Key Takeaways:

• The Delhi High Court has ruled that a 16-year-old teen can abort her 31-week preborn baby.

• The court claimed the girl should not have the burden of bearing and raising a child.

• Third-trimester abortion is the intentional killing of a preborn child, which comes with many risks and which is not medically necessary.

• The court also undermined its own ruling by stating that if the child survives the abortion, he or she should be placed for adoption.

The Details:

News reports say the Delhi High Court ruled that the teenager could abort her 31-week preborn child because "she should not be expected to bear and raise a child." But adoption is legal in India.

The court also insinuated that protecting the life of the preborn child affects the mother's ability to "live with dignity."

“Thus, it was held that it would not be appropriate to expect the minor rape victim to take the burden of giving birth and raising a child, especially in a situation where she herself is passing through the age of adolescence,” Justice Mini Pushkarna said.

Typically, abortion in India is allowed up to 24 weeks for rape survivors, though a court can allow abortion at even later stages in certain instances.

Zoom In:

In its ruling, the court also noted that should the preborn child survive the abortion, he or she should be given all possible medical care and then later placed for adoption.

This very stipulation undermines the court's reasoning that abortion is necessary so that the girl does not have to raise the child. The very availability of adoption should negate any reason for the child's death in the womb.

Reality Check:

At 31 weeks, the preborn child is capable of living outside of the womb if given proper medical treatment. An abortion at this late stage is a gruesome, multi-day procedure in which the mother is first given mifepristone to starve the preborn baby of oxygen and nutrients. She may also get an injection of digoxin, which causes fetal cardiac arrest.

The preborn child typically dies within 24 hours of the digoxin. On day two, the mother is given misoprostol to induce labor. Usually, she will deliver her dead child within 24 hours of starting the misoprostol.

The entire process is described in this video by former abortionist Dr. Patti Giebink:

Third trimester abortion also comes with a host of medical risks, including incomplete abortion, cervical laceration, infection, hemorrhage, uterine rupture, and even death.

Notably, though the Delhi Court ruled the teen could abort so that she could avoid "the burden of giving birth," an abortion does not eliminate the fact that she must give birth to a dead baby. Labor and delivery are still going to happen with an induction abortion at 31 weeks, whether the baby is born dead or alive.

The abortion industry likes to pretend that an abortion simply makes the baby disappear, but this is not reality. Instead, the teen will now live not only with the trauma of sexual assault, but also with the trauma of delivering a dead child.

The Bottom Line:

Rape is a tragic, traumatic experience, but so is abortion. An innocent preborn child never deserves to die for the sins of his or her father.

Key Takeaways:

• Raul Reyes believes the church can transform the fight against abortion on a global scale.

• To help accomplish this, Reyes' ministry (Life Equip Global/Choose Life Global) educates pastors and Christian leaders worldwide to establish and multiply life-giving ministries that defend preborn human life, strengthen families, proclaim the Gospel, and restore a biblical culture of life.

• Reyes believes the church can change hearts and minds on abortion, and also reach out to minister to women who need healing from past abortions.

The Details:

The Awakening

Reyes' passion for promoting life has involved leading and planting pregnancy resource centers across the country and the world. Currently, he leads Life Equip Global (soon to be renamed Choose Life Global) where he continues his international work awakening the church to the global abortion crisis.

Reyes told Live Action News:

“In many countries, the church has a strong influence on its communities, but it has been largely silent on the abortion issue. Globally there are just 1600 pregnancy resource centers concentrated mainly in Canada, England and Australia. We need to tap into the infrastructure that’s already there by providing the knowledge and tools to help stop the genocide of unborn children.”

Reyes was called by God to the pro-life movement while working in Florida managing a Christian bookstore. There, he read a book by Frances Schaeffer, founder of the evangelical Christian pro-life movement.

Reyes said:

“That’s when I learned that 90% of abortions are performed at 10-12 weeks gestation. My wife was 10 weeks pregnant with our first child at the time. The correlation prompted me to call out to the Lord, apologizing for not doing enough to save babies. I asked him to direct me where I needed to go.”

Planting Pregnancy Support Centers

Not long afterward, Reyes and his wife were invited to join a steering committee by friends launching a pregnancy support ministry in Florida.

“I served on the committee for two years," Reyes said, "then shortly thereafter was asked to serve as president where I remained for 14 years before transitioning to international pro-life ministry at Life International in Michigan.”

There, he was tasked with planting pregnancy support centers worldwide. When finances became tight, Reyes moved to Colorado, working with Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, as representative to the Hispanic community. Later, he served as president at what once was the largest pregnancy support center in the country: Choices Pregnancy Centers of Greater Phoenix.

“After five years, it was time to prepare the ministry for new leadership,” Reyes said. “God has blessed me with the unique ability to recognize entrepreneurial Christian pro-life leaders, like <a href="/news/never-envisioned-transforming-pregnancy-centers-god-plans">Marc Burmich</a>, who has such a heart for God. I tapped him as my successor at Choices Pregnancy Centers in Phoenix. His business acumen has expanded the vision of the centers.”

Launching Life Equip Global

Leading Choices, along with his experience in instituting pregnancy support centers globally, readied Reyes for his current venture as founder of Life Equip Global. Its mission has distinctive challenges and opportunities which he has met with technology. 

At the core of Life Equip Global’s curriculum is a clear mission: to equip pastors and Christian leaders worldwide to establish and multiply life-giving ministries that defend preborn human life, strengthen families, proclaim the Gospel, and restore a biblical culture of life.

Training prepares the Church to prevent unplanned pregnancies, support women and families facing pregnancy decisions, and bring healing to those wounded by abortion. 

Reyes noted:

“We’ve developed an online educational curriculum under the umbrella of Global Life Academy so pastors anywhere can access the tools and resources needed to advance life in their communities.”

But, noted Reyes, the Church also has an important role to play in guiding hurting women to Christ and teaching them about his mercy:

“Given that there’s 73 million abortions per year around the world, there’s an alarming number of women who are suffering.

Through the Church these women can find healing and redemption. We’re all wounded people in some form, but Jesus paid the ultimate price, so we don’t have to live in shame.”

While Reyes recognizes the importance of leveraging laws to reduce abortions, he notes that in some countries where abortion is illegal, rates are still high.

Reyes believes:

“You must change hearts and minds to eradicate abortion. The Church transcends language, cultures and economic conditions. Using the power of the Holy Spirit is critical to promote the dignity of life in a way no legislation can.”

He points to “The African Awakening” — a book he authored — which speaks of a strategy of starting in one small place to help multiply the message.

“In our Global Life Academy training we use Live Action videos to help educate through powerful messaging and imagery,” Reyes said.

Reyes has seen firsthand the success of his program. Life Equip Global has trained over 500 pastors around the world. He recalls that in India where he was training 30 pastors who led 10,000 churches, he was told by one of the pastors that a couple had come to him the previous week for counseling regarding continuing an unexpected pregnancy. He had advised them to have an abortion. 

“During a break in our training, he got on a phone call and came back to tell me I had saved one baby,” Reyes said. “Once he learned the truth, he no longer supported the couple having the abortion and called to tell them not to do so.”

Another pastor in Kenya, Africa, shared his testimony to tell how he, too, had been changed through Life Equip Global which had equipped him to train 1,000 pastors and save 50 babies:

“Life Equip Global didn’t just train me. It changed how I see every life. I came in as a pastor with a heart for my community, but I had never fully seen the battle for life as my battle. That training shifted something deep in me. I stopped being a pastor who agreed with the pro-life message and became a radical advocate and defender of life, unwilling to stay silent while lives are lost.”

The Bottom Line:

For this ardent defender of life, the mission continues. 

“I plan to travel soon to Kenya for in-person training," Reyes said. “Until the Lord returns, we will keep equipping the Church to defend life, strengthen families, and bring the hope of the Gospel to the world.”

Key Takeaways:

• Both the Labor party and a Liberal National Coalition have made campaign promises that abortions in Victoria will be cost-free to women seeking abortion.

• This means the policy will be implemented regardless of the outcome of an upcoming election.

• Supporters insinuate that 'free' abortions are necessary for low-income women who struggle with expenses; however, no financial help is being offered by the parties for expenses associated with pregnancy or parenting.

• Free abortion is not a solution to poverty, and only exacts more pressure on women to choose abortion.

The Details:

According to the Guardian, last Thursday the Labor party in Victoria promised it would spend $30 million to make abortion 'free' if it wins the upcoming election.

“Only Labor will protect a woman’s right to choose,” Labor’s health minister, Ingrid Stitt, boasted.

In response, Opposition leader Jess Wilson also promised that a Liberal National Coalition government would match that offer if elected, though she refused to promise to expand abortion laws.

“Victorians know where I stand on this issue. There will be no changes to abortion laws under a government I lead. Full stop. And I think it’s incredibly disappointing to see Labor playing politics with women’s reproductive rights five minutes before an election,” she said.

As a result of these campaign promises, abortion in Victoria up to 16 weeks will be 'cost-free' to abortion seekers no matter who wins the election, with expenses such as GP and specialist consultations, scans, tests or medication expected to be completely covered. Travel expenses for women who live in rural Victoria are also expected to be covered.

Zoom In:

Victorian Council of Social Service CEO Juanita Pope called the promise a "critical step forward," insinuating that low-income families need 'free' abortion due to the rising costs of everyday items.

"With abortion costs typically amounting to over $1,000, that can mean choosing between paying rent that month, putting food on the table, or accessing critical reproductive healthcare," she said.

But offering women 'free' abortions rather than financial support to help them raise their children is a form of coercion, as these mothers feel pressured to choose the 'free' abortion due to financial circumstances.

If a family needs help putting food on the table or paying rent, they don't need to be told that they should kill their children in order to make ends meet. Instead, they need financial assistance to ensure that the needs of all family members — born and preborn — are provided for.

The Bottom Line:

There is no such thing as a 'free' abortion. All abortions come at a financial cost; when they are free to women aborting, taxpayers are usually the ones footing the bill.

Women need financial support and guidance, not an offer to kill their preborn children at no financial cost to them.

The cost, however, of ending an innocent human life, is incalculable.

Key Takeaways:

• A Quebec man has twice been ticketed for carrying a sandwich board bearing a pro-life message.

• The first ticket was withdrawn, but days later another ticket was issued.

• City officials say the signs violate an ordinance prohibiting the use of sandwich boards for commercial advertising.

• Legal counsel maintains the boards expressed personal views, and were not used for commercial purposes.

The Details:

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announced that Brian Jenkins has been ticketed for holding a sandwich board reading, "Let us pray for the end of abortion."

Jenkins was first ticketed for holding his sign in 2025; however, that ticket was withdrawn by the city of Sherbrooke on September 30, 2026. On October 3, Jenkins was issued another citation for again holding a pro-life sign. Both tickets were issued because city officials claim he violated an ordinance prohibiting the use of sandwich boards for commercial advertising.

 “I was confused when I was told that I was in violation of a municipal ordinance, especially since I had not been approached in the previous four years while doing the same activity,” Jenkins said.

News reports do not indicate why the city withdrew the first ticket only to issue another one days later.

Zoom In:

Jenkins is being represented by the Justice Centre, which has announced it is bringing a constitutional challenge on behalf of Jenkins.

The group maintains that the signs were not commercial in nature, and instead simply stated Jenkins' personal views on abortion. The group argues that his rights of personal expression are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“This is a case where law enforcement agencies, in addition to applying their regulations in a clearly illegal manner, attempted to use them to suppress speech they did not like,” said constitutional lawyer Olivier Seguin.

Seguin also noted:

“Canadians should not have to guess whether expressing their convictions will bring another prosecution. Fair process requires clear communication, consistent enforcement, and respect for constitutional freedoms. A bylaw governing commercial advertising should not be used to silence peaceful expression.”

The Bottom Line:

Around the world, pro-life activity is being stifled as jurisdictions seek to limit free speech through the use of buffer zones, ordinances, and other limiting mandates.

“Uhhh, hi? I’m here for second trimester bleeding.”

In retrospect, this may not have been the best way to tell the ER registrar I was in the middle of a massive hemorrhage, not just experiencing minor bleeding. But alas, Emily Post didn’t cover “tactful ways to tell the front desk you’re having a life-threatening emergency.” Thankfully, the staff caught on despite my understatement, and the ER team moved quickly after that.

I found myself being whisked out of the regular ER bay into a trauma bay and watching nurses place a second IV (massive transfusion protocol prep) while the team stood poised to intervene the second it became necessary.

I was expecting our fifth baby. One day prior, we had surprised my family with news that it was a girl. The next night I lay in a trauma bay, trying to process the unexpected diagnosis of placental abruption just shy of 18 weeks. 

Key Takeaways:

• A mother in Idaho writes of experiencing a placental abruption at 18 weeks and notes that she and her baby were treated with dignity and medical professionalism.

• She says she received the same interventions and medications that "abortion advocates claim women won’t have access to in abortion-ban states."

• The bleeding could not be stopped, and her daughter, whom she named Amal, was delivered early and survived for 43 minutes after birth.

• She notes that "the only times a woman is unnecessarily in danger is when she is in the hands of a careless physician who is too lazy (or too politically motivated) to complete due diligence or provide competent care."

• She says voters are being deceived about Proposition 1 in Idaho, which would not save pregnant women's lives in medical emergencies; it would open the floodgates to legalized elective abortion in the state.

• She says no state has outlawed proper medical care, and that she is "voting no on Prop 1 because I have experienced obstetric care for a high-risk situation, and I know that Idaho law respects the mother, the baby, and the physician."

The Details:

Compassionate doctors who treated us as two patients

According to the slew of posts I see across news sites and social media campaigns, I should have been fearing for my life because I live in a state with a near-total abortion ban (Idaho), where obstetric care is (so they say) still in the dark ages.

Instead, I found compassionate, competent physicians who took care of me AND my baby.

I knew full-well that if the bleeding couldn’t be controlled, they were prepared to escalate the interventions, but they didn’t jump to a “nuclear” option right away. They followed ACOG guidelines on treatment, and stabilized me while keeping me informed on my baby’s prognosis in a rapidly developing situation.

After my body went into pre-term labor, they jumped in with more life-saving care for me to stop the hemorrhage. I received the same medications abortion advocates claim women won’t have access to in abortion-ban states.

I delivered a tiny baby girl who reached out her delicate fingers and grabbed my husband’s hand and opened her mouth. She lived for 43 minutes after birth. We held her, prayed with her, and treasured every minute of her brief life. 

We named her Amal after a great aunt, and we filled out her birth certificate and death certificate on the same day. 

Amal died with dignity instead of trauma because of Idaho’s current laws. I was given life-saving, and health-saving care because of Idaho’s current laws. 

Damaging lies

As I have read some of the accounts of mothers telling their stories as justification for why Prop 1 is needed, I’m shocked at the ways mothers in similar positions as mine have been manipulated and lied to.

A recurring theme is “I could have DIED under Idaho’s current laws!” No. Fellow moms, you have been manipulated and lied to. Nothing prevents physicians in Idaho from using their good judgment to preserve life.

In case there was any doubt, case law from Adkins v State of Idaho has already amply clarified that a physician’s good-faith judgment is sufficient to permit life-saving care for a mother, even if the result is (sadly) the loss of the pre-born infant.

Nothing stands in the way of proper medical care for women and their babies. 

Nothing… except the lies circulating on news sites and social media.

An Idaho OB who made a tremendous fanfare about sending women out of state for emergency pregnancy care later admitted under oath that he had never even read the current law.

THIS performative malpractice is what endangers women in Idaho. Not the law. 

Propaganda that puts women at risk

And it’s not just Idaho. Across the US, the abortion propaganda machine continues to tell women they’re not safe in states with abortion restrictions or bans.

In reality, the only times a woman is unnecessarily in danger is when she is in the hands of a careless physician who is too lazy (or too politically motivated) to complete due diligence or provide competent care.

As the wife of a trauma surgeon whose entire life is centered on emergency protocols and life-saving interventions for all kinds of patients, including pregnant women, I know the high ethical and professional standard physicians are expected to hold themselves to.

The OBs across the U.S. who either failed to treat a complication or sent women out of state are the ones we need to hold accountable.

When hearing a claim that they can’t adequately treat obstetric emergencies like mine, one can’t help but wonder if they are not even fully familiar with their own professional treatment guidelines, since absolutely nothing in the standard procedures for treating a placental abruption require abortion.

ACOG, Merck, etc. all provide professional guidelines and treatment algorithms for cases like this. Anyone can look them up. But did these OBs forget them? These physicians position themselves as tragic heroes when in reality they have abandoned their professional and ethical obligations.

If they are willing to fudge here, where else in patient care are they willing to fudge?

Prop 1 won't provide healthcare. It will bring elective abortions.

Once you understand the current law and availability of emergency obstetric care in Idaho, you begin to realize the fundamental change Prop 1 brings is elective abortion on demand, not women’s healthcare.

Look up the full text of the existing law including Adkins v Idaho case law, and the full text of Prop 1. Don’t settle for reading social media memes and summaries.

And to my fellow Americans in other states, watch Idaho closely this election.

Learn to recognize the propaganda around you.

No state has outlawed safe medical care.

Hold your physicians to the Hippocratic oath they swore to uphold. We are already experiencing a (sadly warranted) crisis of distrust in the American medical system. Don’t let performative malpractice weaken the system further. 

The Bottom Line:

I am voting no on Prop 1 because I have experienced obstetric care for a high-risk situation, and I know that Idaho law respects the mother, the baby, and the physician. 

The state has been called the “euthanasia death capital of Australia” after the new annual report, published today, revealedthat 2.9% of deaths are now caused by euthanasia or assisted suicide, the highest proportion for any state in Australia and one of the highest assisted death rates in the world, which, at its fifth full reporting year, is second only to Canada when it was five years into the assisted suicide law operating there. 

In the report, the outgoing Chair of the Western Australian Voluntary Assisted Dying Board, Dr Scott Blackwell, acknowledgedthat activity across the assisted death service was “more than 10 times higher than predicted at implementation”. 

Second highest proportion in the world at year five

The data in the report covers the fifth year of the law operating in Western Australia. A review of euthanasia and assisted suicide laws globally, comparing the proportion of assisted deaths at year five of the operation of the laws, shows that the proportion in Western Australia is the second highest in the world at year five. 

The data shows that only Canada, widely regarded as having one of the most extreme assisted death laws in the world, had a higher proportion at year five of the operation of its law. The 2.9% of deaths in Western Australia at year five is just behind where Canada was at year five, with 3.2% of all deaths caused by assisted suicide or euthanasia.

The annual report for Western Australia for the year 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026 shows there were a total of 541 deaths by euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2025-26, an increase of 182% from 2021-22, when there were 192 such deaths. 

Of these, there were 508 cases of euthanasia during this time period, compared with 147 cases for the same time period in 2021-22, the first year the law was in operation. The remaining 33 cases were assisted suicide. 

Data suggests ‘doctor shopping’ could be happening in significant numbers

More than a quarter, 333 (26.7%), of patients who made an initial request for assisted suicide or euthanasia in 2025-26 mademore than one First Request. 

The report states that multiple requests can occur when a “practitioner refused a patient’s First Request and the patient made a First Request to another medical practitioner”, raising concerns about ‘doctor shopping’.

This data has prompted calls for Western Australia’s Health Minister, Meredith Hammat, to investigate potential doctor shopping as part of an urgent inquiry into Western Australia’s assisted suicide system (see comment at end).

Despite concerns, Board calls for expansion of the law

Despite the data showing surging assisted death numbers and issues with the operation of the law in Western Australia, the board overseeing the operation of the law, whose membership includes several people who have previously advocated for the introduction of assisted death laws, has called for the further removal and expansion of the law in Western Australia.

In the 2025–26 annual report, Western Australia’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Board recommended reviewing the existing requirement that patients must be expected to die within six months, or 12 months for neurodegenerative conditions, including consideration of extending or removing these time-to-death limits.

The Board also recommended amending Commonwealth legislation to remove restrictions affecting the provision of assisted suicide and euthanasia services through telehealth and the electronic transmission of prescriptions for lethal substances.

Nine-day waiting period “safeguard” being bypassed in one in four cases

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2019 specifies a designated waiting period of nine days between the First Request and Final Request.

Since legalisation in July 2021, the statutory nine-day waiting period between a patient’s First Request and Final Request has been waived in 648 cases (26% of Final Requests), allowing patients to make their Final Request before the waiting period had elapsed.

In 2025-26, the proportion of Final Requests made before the end of the nine-day designated waiting period rose to 29.1%, with 227 Final Requests made within the nine-day period, the highest annual proportion since legalisation.

In one case in 2025-26, a patient died by assisted suicide or euthanasia just one day after making their First Request. 

A significant proportion of patients cite reasons other than concern about inadequate pain control

At first assessment, almost one in three patients, 32.0%, cited being a burden on family, friends or caregivers, or concern about becoming a burden, as a reason for requesting an assisted death. 

Almost three-quarters of patients, 706 (74.8%), cited being less able to engage in activities that made life enjoyable, or concern about this, as a reason for seeking assisted suicide or euthanasia. This was the most commonly reported reason. 

A further 557 patients (59.0%) cited losing autonomy, or concern about it, while 539 (57.1%) cited loss of dignity, or concern about it. 

Additionally, 39.7% cited inadequate pain control, or concern about it.

Increase in number of patients not receiving palliative care

Over the course of just a year, the number of applicants for assisted suicide and euthanasia who were not accessing palliative care at the time of their First Assessment increased from 124 in 2024-25 to 167 in 2025-26, an increase of over 34%.

Of these, 154 had not received any palliative care in the preceding 12 months.

Non-English speaking patients received no assistance from an interpreter

Six patients found eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia in 2025–26 were recorded as speaking English either not at all or not well, while a further 80 were recorded as speaking English well rather than very well. 

However, fewer than five eligible patients received assistance from an interpreter during their First Assessment. 

Even if all patients who received interpreter assistance were among the six with the lowest English proficiency, at least two of those six patients did not receive interpreter assistance during their First Assessment.

Nine practitioners responsible for majority of accepted first requests

Just nine practitioners were responsible for accepting 578 First Requests for assisted suicide or euthanasia in 2025-26, accounting for 51.6% of all accepted First Requests.

In addition, 21 practitioners accepted a First Request despite not having completed the Western Australian Voluntary Assisted Dying Approved Training at the time of accepting the request. These practitioners also did not complete the training during the reporting period....

Read entire article at Right to Life UK.

While abortion supporters frequently blame pro-life laws for the abandonment of preborn children and infants, death is never an acceptable solution to a crisis situation — and life-affirming options are available.

Key Takeaways:

• Another infant has been found dead, this time in a dumpster in Forth Worth, Texas.

• The mother has been located and is facing a capital murder charge for drowning her newborn before she and her boyfriend threw the body in a dumpster.

• News reports appear to be increasing about babies being found abandoned — both dead and alive — across the country.

• Abortion supporters frequently blame pro-life laws for the tragic abandonments and deaths of these children, but they are occurring in both pro-life and pro-abortion states.

The Details:

On October 18, police were called to Drummer's Inn on West Camp Bowie Boulevard in Forth Worth around 8:55 p.m. for reports of a deceased child in a dumpster. A homeless woman found the baby while searching for items in the dumpster. She told a friend and together they called 911. The baby girl was taken to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

Fort Worth Police Department told CBS News Texas that investigators returned to the motel on Monday to review surveillance video. Fox 4 News reported that on October 19, police were called to carry out a welfare check on Avia Cantrell, 23, at the request of her sister-in-law, who told police that Cantrell was pregnant and due soon. She also told police that Cantrell has a history of having a baby that no one knew about.

Police contacted Cantrell at the motel where she had been living for two years with her boyfriend, 26-year-old Camron Baker, and three other children. They said she "seemed nervous when speaking with" police and denied being pregnant.

Surveillance footage from June showed Cantrell appearing pregnant and additional footage showed Cantrell going to the dumpster with a box of items, including a car seat.

Eventually, Cantrell admitted to police that she gave birth to a full term baby girl at the motel on October 14 while in a full bathtub. The baby was moving, but Cantrell said she left the baby face-down in the water for about 30 minutes. She then said when the baby's feet were white and she believed the baby had died, she covered her up and put her inside a bag that matched the description of the bag found by the homeless woman. According to police, she then called Baker at his job and told him she gave birth and the baby was gone.

She and Baker told police that they didn't call for help because they did not want to "catch a case." They kept the baby's body in that bag in their motel room for four days. Then they put the baby in the dumpster.

According to reports, Cantrell told police that this had happened before, claiming she had thrown away another baby whom she had miscarried.

Cantrell is charged with capital murder and Baker is facing the charge of abuse of a corpse. They are both in custody at this time.

The Real Problem:

Just in the past week, at least two more infants have been found dead. One was found in a park in Austin, Texas and the other at a recycling center in Utica, New York. Such cases appear to be on the rise, and abortion supporters have been quick to blame pro-life laws.

However, the very fact that these infant deaths and abandonments are occurring in both pro-abortion and pro-life states indicates that this isn't an issue of whether or not a state allows abortion.

The devaluing of certain human beings

The issue lies in society's view that certain persons are not human beings based on whether or not their mother wants them, whether their mother believes her child is a human being or not, whether the baby can 'survive on his/her own', and whether he or she is considered "healthy."

Given those parameters, we shouldn't be shocked when a mother gives birth in a parking lot or in a motel, scoops the baby up with trash bags, and drops him in a dumpster — as was seen on security camera video footage from Texas in 2024.

There must be a serious disconnect. If she's been told that her child's worth is determined by her own opinion of him, then if she doesn't want to see his humanity and value, she won't.

Possible contributing factors

There are likely many factors that have led to more infant abandonments in Texas (and elsewhere) — maternity care deserts, high population of uninsured women and non-citizens, and a lack of education on Safe Haven locations. Regardless of the legality of abortion in Texas, there are far more abortions taking place in the state than infant abandonments.

In fact, abortion itself, unregulated and via the abortion pill, could be helping to increase the number of bodies found in dumpsters, toilets, recycling plants, and other locations.

The unseen bodies

In 2024, at least 18 babies were known to have been abandoned in Texas. That same year, there were 78 reported abortions in the state and a reported 7,000 to 28,000 women who left Texas for abortions or who accessed the abortion pill through telehealth. Each one of those babies is dead; we just haven't seen their bodies. And Americans like to pretend those bodies don't exist.

But they do. And they are often found in dumpsters too.

Aborted babies are dumped into sewers, stored in freezers, incinerated and burned, kept as <a href="/news/horror-stories-abortionist-klopfer">trophies</a> by abortionists, and thrown into dumpsters. Yet the masses aren't crying out in horror or blaming anyone for these tragedies.

A Michigan abortion facility was once caught throwing the bodies of preborn children into dumpsters; another Michigan facility near Detroit was also found with the bodies of aborted babies in its dumpster. Multiple abortion facilities, including Planned Parenthood, were fined over $50,000 after they dumped the bodies of aborted children at landfills. Pro-lifers have testified about finding bodies in dumpsters behind abortion facilities.

Despite what people imagine, these aren't 'pregnancy tissue;' they are human beings. In the book "Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices," former abortion worker Paula Sutcliffe shared:

I saw the bits of feet, bits of hands, the mangled heads and bodies of the little people. I saw pain and felt pain.

In addition, an article in the American Medical News quotes a doctor who witnessed an abortion:

You can tell by the contours on their faces that that aborted fetuses feel pain, said obstetrician Matthew Bulfin, M.D…. He described a case of a 25-year-old woman administered a prostaglandin abortion, who expelled her fetus in the middle of the night.

Before hospital nurses arrived, she witnessed “thrashing around and gruesome trauma on his face, and knew that the fetus had suffered.”

In 2022, pro-life activists opened a medical waste bin from Washington Surgi-Clinic and discovered the remains of 110 aborted babies, including five whom experts have stated were likely old enough to have survived outside the womb. But the media and authorities went after the people who found the babies instead of the people who paid for and carried out their executions.

The person who killed these babies was never investigated for potentially carrying out illegal abortions. It was business as usual. These babies were treated with the same disregard and callousness as the babies who were killed and put in dumpsters after they were born, but most people didn't bat an eye.

The Bottom Line:

Babies who are killed before birth and put in dumpsters are just as worthy to be mourned as the babies who were killed after they were born and then abandoned or left in dumpsters.

And they all deserve justice.

Key Takeaways:

• NFL Hall of Fame football coach Tony Dungy spoke with Sage Steele, saying he is 'pretty sure' he was let go from NBC due to his Christian faith and pro-life stance.

• Dungy has been outspoken about being pro-life, even speaking at the March for Life in 2023.

• Dungy and his wife are adoptive parents and have fostered more than 100 children.

The Details:

Sage Steele told Dungy that it seemed like his departure from NBC "was tied to you being more and more vocal about your beliefs with faith, with being pro-life."

He replied, "There are some things that, I guess in TV especially, they want you to be careful because they want to attract everybody. They want to have an audience of everyone. They don’t always appreciate you speaking about your faith. But for me, I’m always going to do that. I'm going to try and do it in a respectful way, but people are going to know that I’m a Christian."

Dungy has always been outspoken about his pro-life stance, even speaking at the March for Life in 2023. Steele asked Dungy if he had asked NBC for permission to speak at that massive and publicized pro-life event. He said he did not.

"And they were not happy that I went because … their point is, ‘Hey, we’ve got audience on all sides of the spectrum. We don’t want to push away anyone just making statements like that.’ And I said, ‘Well, I get it, but this is an important topic to me. I was asked to speak and because it was important to me, I did,'" he explained.

He further shared:

"They knew where I stood. I knew where they stood… there are some things I’m not going to try to turn an audience away, but things that are important to me I’m going to talk about. If somebody asked me a question about my faith and am I a Christian, I’m not going to say no. I’m not going to shy away from it."

He added that he "was pretty sure" NBC parted ways with him because of his public comments.

"There were things that they didn't want me to talk about and we had a good understanding. They knew who I was when I got hired and, you know, it is what it is," he said.

But ultimately, he doesn't exactly know why he was let go and believes "it really doesn't matter."

The Background:

Tony Dungy and his wife, Lauren, adopted eight of their 11 children, and have fostered more than 100 children.

As Live Action News previously reported, Lauren told TODAY in 2022:

"We love children; children are a passion, and we just believe that we could pour into them, and just help them, guide them through life. And we had our children; we had eight children that we adopted, and then foster children started coming into our lives. We’re currently parenting three children, and so, it’s a full household, but we enjoy it.”

She added:

“We made that decision early on, that when we were going to foster children, we wouldn’t say no, because we know the children are in crisis, and they need a home. They need stability. They need love. So we opened our door to the kids, and we’ve had over 100 children walk through our door.”

The couple also runs the Dungy Family Foundation, which has "worked with Christian organizations and pregnancy care centers, as well as organizations focused on youth development, in Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Indiana," according to the Foundation's website.

The Bottom Line:

Dungy confirmed he has no plans to ever stop speaking up for this faith or for vulnerable born and preborn children.

"I said I've got to do it in the right way, and I can't do it in a belligerent manner," he stated, pointing out that despite his beliefs, he was "also not doing it on 'Sunday Night Football.' I'm not going to use that platform as, 'Oh, by the way, stop talking about the game tonight. Let me just make a point about abortion.'"

In the challenge, Liberty Counsel filed the opening brief in the Court of Appeals of Virginia on behalf of Charla Bansley, District 3 Supervisor for the Bedford County Board of Supervisors, who argues that Virginia officials failed to follow the constitutionally required process for placing House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR 1) on the ballot. 

While HJR 1 will stay on the ballot through the election process, the courts could still rule the measure unconstitutional no matter the results of the vote. 

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

In July 2026, Campbell County Circuit Court John T. Cook dismissed the challenge. Judge Cook ruled that Bansley did not have standing as a state official or a voter herself to bring the case. The judge also determined that the procedural rules in the constitutional amendment process were not actually mandatory and the legislature’s retroactive repeal of those rules after the fact cured any procedural deficiencies.  

In the appeal, Liberty Counsel argues the circuit court erred in three respects.

First, the court ignored the 120 years of legal precedent in Virginia where voters have had standing to challenge flawed constitutional amendment procedures. The brief states that Virginia’s Supreme Court precedents establish that Bansley has standing from her fundamental right to vote and from her county of residency in which she is a voter that has been affected by the constitutional violations. 

Next, Virginia case law requires strict compliance with procedures governing constitutional amendments.

“The Supreme Court of Virginia has long held that the procedures to pass a constitutional amendment must be meticulously followed or the amendment will fail,” reads the brief.

Finally, Virginia case law also disfavors retroactive repeals which do not erase or “cure” past violations of the law. The legislature’s retroactive repeal violates due process because it deprives citizens of their right to challenge government failure to follow constitutional requirements and attempts to validate conduct that was unlawful at the time it occurred, reads the brief. 

The only remedy available is to declare HJR 1 “null and void,” concluded Liberty Counsel.

In May 2026, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled a congressional redistricting referendum was invalid due to similar constitutional deficiencies. 

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said:

“This case will likely go to the Virginia Supreme Court after appellate review is completed. Virginia’s House Joint Resolution 1 is invalid because the General Assembly advanced it to a second legislative vote without completing the constitutionally mandated notice and posting requirements that must occur after its first passage. The Virginia Supreme Court in 2026 has already declared invalid a different proposed amendment for failing to follow proper constitutional amendment procedures. Voters deserve certainty on a state constitutional amendment before an election, not after.”

Key Takeaways:

• Laken Snelling admitted in August 2025 to 'ending the life' of her newborn son.

• She had given birth at home, and the baby's body was later found by roommates in her closet.

• The baby boy died from asphyxia, a severe lack of oxygen.

• Snelling was sentenced to the recommended 10 years in prison and received 415 days of time served while under house arrest.

The Backstory:

Laken Snelling was arrested in August 2025 after a baby boy was found by roommates in her closet wrapped in a "blood-soaked" towel inside a trash bag. She initially misled authorities into believing the baby boy died accidentally, but later admitted to a health professional that she heard him "whimper" before she killed him. She ultimately admitted that she "deprived him of oxygen."

“I was under a lot of emotional stress and my baby came unexpectedly,” she said in court. “And instead of helping him, I ended his life and afterwards I cleaned up and didn’t tell anyone.”

The Kentucky Medical Examiner's Office found that the baby boy, whom his father — 22-year-old college football player Izaiah Hall — has named McCoy Cade Hall, had been born alive and died from asphyxia by undetermined means.

Snelling pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges.

The Details:

According to Court TV, Judge Diane Minnifield ordered a pre-sentence investigation before deciding on the sentence.

As part of a plea deal, prosecutors recommended 10 years for manslaughter and one year for each of the other three charges Snelling had pleaded guilty to, including abuse of a corpse, tampering with physical evidence, and concealing the birth of an infant.

Minnifield did sentence her to the recommended 10 years, and on October 16, Snelling was led out of court by deputies to begin serving that sentence. She received 415 days of credit for time served under house arrest.

“Based on the nature of this charge, you’re not even probation eligible to be considered,” Minnifield told Snelling, adding:

“You know, this is a crime of violence. This is a crime that took the life of a baby — innocent, that did nothing, you know, did nothing but come out and breathe, and that's it.

You’re going to have a lot of time. You’re young, you’re 22 years old. You’re going to have a lot of life. This family of Cade is going to have a lot of life ahead of them, but this hole will never go away. This loneliness, this just now in the pit of your stomach, it’s never going to go away. You’re going to have to find ways to live with it and all of that’s only going to come by God.”

The Bottom Line:

The family of little Cade is grieving his loss.

As reported by The Globe, Izaiah Hall told the court, "I don't wish the worst on Laken. What happened… it is what it is. I can't change it. My family can't change it. It hurts in a way that's unexplainable."

One of Hall's family members added, "You imagine birthdays, holidays, first steps, first words, laughter, hugs, kisses and all the little moments that become lifelong memories. For Cade, those possibilities were taken away before he ever had the chance to experience them."

Her focus is to “speak for those who can’t,” a phrase she bore on a t-shirt the day she shared her story with Pregnancy Help News.

A life saved

Matisse always knew her biological mother’s identity and that she was raised by her grandparents. Given that her mother was in high school when she got pregnant, Matisse’s grandmother did not want her daughter to miss out on her young life.

So, alongside her uncles Matisse was brought up in a home where she was cared for, but deep inside her heart she felt, “unwanted, unloved, and undesired.”

“My poor little heart still has no idea what it is like to be held by a mother or father who deeply loves me,” Matisse said.

Today she praises God for the sidewalk counselors who pray outside abortion centers like the Planned Parenthood where her mother was dropped to abort her. Matisse believes she was spared because “somebody was praying.”

“I wish I knew who they were,” she said. “But alas, I have no doubt I can give them a great big hug when I go home (to heaven) someday.”

Matisse was in her early thirties before she was informed of her mother’s trip to Planned Parenthood.

“I had just returned from my very first time out ministering on the sidewalks in front of the busiest abortion center in the Southeast,” she told a group of women at a local church event. “Earlier that week, the Spirit had nudged me to go out and serve.”

That day Matisse brought along her four-month-old child, then the youngest of six, to pray outside an abortion facility. That day a mom visiting the facility chose life for her child and Matisse was delighted to pray over her while she wore her own child in a baby wrap.

“After our time there, we all gathered together and prayed, parted ways, and returned to our lives,” she recalled.

Matisse felt overwhelmed with gratitude and wanted to share what happened with others.

“I got on my computer and wrote all about it online,” she said. “I was so on fire for the Lord and wanted to tell everyone!”

Learning the truth

Her posting on social media prompted a phone call from her biological mother, and the disclosure of how Matisse might have been aborted.

“I remember walking my backyard listening to everything she had to say,” she said. “Absorbing all of my history that I had never, ever, heard.”

That history would include her grandparents driving her mom to Planned Parenthood to resolve a situation they had just learned about, and her mom had hidden for months.

They were stunned to learn that Matisse’s mother was seven months along, and as she returned to the car, she informed them that she was too far in her pregnancy for an abortion. Matisse was born six weeks later.

A spiritual battle

This filled in some blanks for Matisse as she listened because she had often heard her mother say that she didn’t have to have her. Now she understood what that meant.

Matisse said her birth mother is avidly pro-abortion and was outraged at her daughter’s posting about a “save” outside an abortion center.

Matisse said her mother is now angered when she credits God for saving her that day her mother went to Planned Parenthood. She recognized how her post had stirred up a spiritual battle that had long affected her mother’s heart.

Matisse has served outside abortion facilities now for roughly a decade, ministering to women, proclaiming the gospel, and praying for abortion to end. She trusts that her interactions with her family earlier and since are all part of God’s plan.

“And here’s a lesson I learned; sometimes you will labor, toil, plant seeds, and yet not experience the fruit,” Matisse explained.

One of the abortion centers was shut down and Matisse shares that victory when giving her testimony.

Matisse’s grandmother, like her mother, is also a defender of abortion to this day. She is highly resistant to answering Matisse’s questions about how her life was spared and the early years of her childhood.

“I didn’t and still do not see why any of this should be important for you to know,” her grandmother wrote to her. “It happened a long time ago and can’t be a ‘do over’ . . . it’s done.”

“What you say is ‘unimportant history’ has always been written on my heart,” Matisse responded.

Grateful for her life

As the mother of now 10 children on Earth and one in heaven following a miscarriage, Matisse is grateful for her life. She homeschools her children and is focused on their knowing the value of life, and most of all that the source of salvation is Jesus.

Matisse shared the message from two Scripture passages when corresponding with her grandmother (Genesis 50:20 and Romans 8:28) stating, “What man intends for evil God uses for good,” and “God works all things together for His good.”

Matisse longs for the day when her grandparents, her mother, and her father, whom she has not seen since she was five, will surrender their lives to the Lord. She also longs to know more about her first five years of life. But she trusts that God will continue to complete her “tapestry” in His own time.

*A pseudonym

Key Takeaways:

• Four pro-life medical organizations are calling for the CDC to release overdue abortion reporting and implement more accurate methods of calculating maternal mortality rates.

• They want the CDC to update the standard for reporting from the World Health Organization standard currently being used.

• A new standard would better illustrate the impacts of ectopic pregnancies, miscarriage, and abortion on maternal mortality rates.

The Details:

The pro-life organizations, which represent thousands of medical professionals, sent their letter to Erica Schwartz, the current director of the CDC. In it, they call for the agency to release overdue abortion reporting data and to implement more accurate methods of calculating maternal mortality rates, including abortion in that data.

They note that currently, the United States uses the World Health Organization (WHO) standard for calculating maternal mortality rates; however, that standard "fails to include a denominator reflective of all pregnancy outcomes." An updated standard seeks to include the number of deaths associated with miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, and abortion.

As the National Review explained:

Having updated, more specific information will make CDC data the standard — rather than abortion-industry Guttmacher Institute statistics — providing a better understanding of what’s going on in women’s reproductive health care as it involved pregnancies. 

"Abortion reporting remains voluntary and early pregnancy losses are undercounted," the letter states. "Under these conditions, ratios weighed against live births alone cannot reflect the risk women face in any given pregnancy outcome."

The coalition suggests that the WHO standard can continue to be used to compare international rates, but within the U.S., a "multi-metric model" which includes expanding voluntary abortion reporting should be used to "protect American health."

“Global public health is critical, but the CDC should work first for the advancement of American health, not bureaucratic international agencies,” said Gavin Oxley, author of the AUL policy brief and Director of External Affairs & Media Strategy. “ He continued:

"Flawed maternal mortality metrics hold hostage the data that women and their healthcare providers need to make informed medical decisions, working to the advantage of the abortion lobby. Women deserve to know the real risks associated with pregnancy outcomes, from childbirth to abortion.”

The Bottom Line:

John Mize, CEO of AUL, stated:

“While only Congress has the authority to mandate state abortion reporting, the CDC still has a role in advancing gold-standard reporting by expanding the voluntary elements requested.

We urge Director Schwartz and agency leadership to expand anonymized abortion reporting as far as their congressional authority allows to advance public health and inform federal policy decisions.”

Key Takeaways:

• Alice Cooper wrote in his memoir that his ex-girlfriend underwent an abortion during their relationship.

• Cooper was unsure if the baby was his and he took no responsibilty for the baby.

• He said while he grew up in a Christian church and knew the church saw abortion as a serious sin, he also felt that the church saw abortion as a private issue between a person and God.

• The church must speak out against abortion in order to save lives.

The Details:

Cooper wrote that he and Lang had been together "for about a year" when she became pregnant but that neither of them was ready to be parents. He knew his own parents were "not pleased" about his relationship with Lang in the first place because he was "[s]leeping with her out of wedlock...."

“They let her crash on the living room sofa, and she and I had to grab whatever intimate time we could whenever we could,” Cooper wrote of his past relationship. “Then she got pregnant. Could things have gotten any worse? I don’t know if my parents knew, although it wouldn’t have been the end of the world if they did.”

He claimed Lang was "sleeping around" and was "far from being a Goody Two-Shoes," saying, "I told myself there was only a one-in-five chance I was the dad." He added, "While I felt really bad for Cindy, I never took any responsibility."

Raised in the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite Church, a part of the Latter-day Saints), Cooper knew that abortion was a sin, but because the church leaders didn't speak of it, abortion was something that Cooper saw as being between the person procuring the abortion and God.

“There’s no doubt that our church considers abortion a serious sin, but its attitude toward people in such a pickle tends to be pastoral rather than political,” Cooper wrote. “It has never engaged in public anti-abortion activism, treating it instead as a private moral issue between the individual and God, and requiring repentance and spiritual counseling rather than excommunication.”

He said "abortions were hugely expensive" and he didn't think they should get married, so Lang "made her mind up to have it taken care of" and "scraped the money together" to have the abortion in Detroit. Cooper didn't go with her.

Commentary:

Cooper's comments about the church and abortion should be heard by every church leader.

While Cooper knew that his church considered abortion to be a "serious sin," he didn't seem to realize what that ultimately meant for the persons involved in the abortion. And that's the fault of the church that he attended and the spiritual advisors there who allegedly failed to teach.

He alleged that the church treated abortion as a "private moral issue" — and therefore, because it was 'private' (as the pro-abortion ideology says we must), it allegedly didn't speak out against it. In failing to speak authoritatively from God's Word about the killing of preborn children, a church leads its members into believing that abortion is a subjective moral issue, rather than an objective one.

Induced abortion is the direct and intentional killing of human beings — human beings who, according to Scripture, are made in the image and likeness of God. Additionally, Proverbs 6:16-17 states that there are "six things the Lord hates," and seven that are "detestable" to Him, including "hands that shed innocent blood." Killing innocent people is a sin.

Abortion is objectively wrong. It is always wrong to kill an innocent human being, which is what abortion does.

The humanity of the preborn child is not dependent on his age, his health status, his parents' financial or marital status, or his mother's opinion on when life begins — and, therefore, neither is his inherent right to life.

Cooper's story proves that every Christian leader must speak the truth about abortion and children in the womb and should receive women and men and their 'unplanned' babies with love and assistance so that no Christian is ever afraid to return to the church or seek help out of the fear and shame that might push them toward abortion.

Lives, created by God with purpose, are on the line.

Abortion, the intentional killing of a preborn child, has been sold to the American public as 'healthcare.' But a procedure carried out with the intent of ensuring an innocent human being dies is not healthcare; it is an act of violence. The procedure that demonstrates this perhaps the most graphically is the second trimester D&E abortion.

WARNING: Images of abortion victims below.

Key Takeaways:

• Induced abortion is the intentional killing of a preborn child; it is not healthcare.

• In the second trimester, the most common abortion procedure is a D&E dismemberment abortion.

• In a D&E, the abortionist tears the arms and legs off the child and then crushes her skull.

The Details:

In the second trimester, the most commonly used abortion procedure is a dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion, which involves the dismemberment of a preborn child. A D&E abortion is typically committed between 14 weeks and 22 weeks of pregnancy. It's important to realize that babies born as young as 21 weeks can and do survive.

The procedure typically takes two days to complete, including time for the cervix to dilate. Sometimes the baby is injected with a feticide to cause cardiac arrest before dismemberment; sometimes not.

Once the cervix is dilated, a suction machine is used to remove the amniotic fluid. Then the abortionist uses a Sopher clamp, which has rows of teeth for grasping, to grip onto the baby's arms and legs and pull them off of the baby. The final blow is the crushing of the child's skull.

Dr. Kathi Aultman, a former abortionist, explained:

"Usually the most difficult part of the procedure is extracting the fetus's head.... The abortionist must open the clamp widely to grasp the head and then crush it so it will fit through the cervix. The abortionist knows he has crushed the skull when a white substance — the fetus' brain — leaks out through the cervix."

The fetal body is 'reassembled' to account for all parts.

It is as horrific as it sounds and it is unnecessary.

Preborn human beings are not 'products of conception' or 'pregnancy tissue'. These euphemisms dehumanize children in the womb and make killing them easier to accept.

In addition to dismembering the innocent child, the D&E abortion can cause uterine perforation, damage to bowel, bladder, and other organs, and infection that can lead to death. D&E procedures have left women "mangled." Physical trauma and injury to the cervix can also put future babies at risk. This isn't healthcare.

The Bottom Line:

In the second trimester, if a pregnancy must end for medical reasons, doctors can carry out a C-section (which takes less than an hour) or induced labor, and attempt to save both mother and child.

"Dismemberment abortions rip a living human being limb from limb, a human being capable of feeling pain, and after 20 weeks capable of living outside of the mother’s womb," said Dr. Donna Harrison, Director of Research of the American Academy of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "The grotesqueness of dismemberment abortion is apparent to anyone who analyzes the procedure."

She added, "These unborn children are our patients who die in a particularly inhumane way during dismemberment abortions. It is important to remember that elective dismemberment abortions are not necessary to save any woman’s life."

Key Takeaways:

• Idaho voters will vote on Proposition 1, a measure that seeks to make abortion a "right."

• Live Action took to the streets of Idaho to ask voters their opinion on the measure.

• Some expressed support for abortion, while others said they oppose the measure because abortion is murder.

The Backstory:

Idaho law currently protects nearly all preborn children from abortion. Proposition 1, the "Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act," seeks to undo those protections.

If it passes, the measure would establish abortion as a "right," restrict the state's ability to enact abortion regulations, and allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

See a full breakdown of the ballot measure and its implications here.

The Details:

A Live Action interviewer asked Idaho residents whether or not they will vote for Proposition 1 when the measure is put before voters on November 3.

The responses were varied. One man contended that abortion should be legal because outlawing it is "government control." He also countered that late-term abortions "just don't happen" — a claim that is patently false.

However, another responder said that she would be voting 'no' on the proposition, explaining that she had once been pro-choice, but eventually changed her mind.

"All abortion is murder," she said, noting that during an abortion, a baby dies. "Abortion is not an undo button," she said. "These children are our future...we've murdered our future."

Another woman posited that the state's current preborn protections have benefitted women, noting that Idaho's maternal mortality rate has gone down every year.

"I believe that abortion is very dangerous for women, especially when we're talking about all of the mail-order abortions or not having an ultrasound requirement," she said.

A mother of five also expressed her opposition to abortion.

"In my opinion, abortion is murder," she said. "And we regulate murder, we have laws against murder...I disagree that a woman should have a right to kill her baby."

The Bottom Line:

Abortion is the direct and intentional taking of a human life, and can never be considered a "right." Idaho voters should vote "no" to ensure that preborn children are protected.

Baby Millie was born prematurely, weighing only 2.3lb, in August. Due to her early arrival, her parents were unable to properly hold her when she was born, as she was immediately placed into an incubator.

Her father, Alistair, said, “You could kind of put your hands in and sort of hold her a little bit but it was weeks before we were able to do that. But for a proper cuddle it was a good few weeks”.

At the beginning of October, mum Tayla and dad Alistair were finally able to bring their daughter home from the hospital for the first time. Baby Millie spent 20 days at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle before being transferred to the Northumbria Specialist Emergency Care Hospital in Cramlington for the remainder of her nine weeks in hospital.

Tayla is also doing well, with Alistair saying she “feels fine now, just a relief”.

“They were long days for her at the hospital because she was leaving the house at eight every morning”, he said.

Millie is not the couple’s first premature baby

Going through such a difficult time with a premature baby was not Alistair and Tayla’s first time doing so. The couple’s first child, Maya, was born prematurely in November 2022.

She was born weighing only 3.13lb at just 31 weeks’ gestation. 

The Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle did not have enough space for baby Maya at this time, so she had to stay in James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough, meaning her parents had a gruelling 130-mile round trip between their home and their baby. 

Now, Maya is “over the moon” that her baby sister is finally joining her at home, and has been helping her parents care for the tiny baby. 

“She wanted to [..] help do the bottles, help put her in the bath. She’s been doing really good”, Alistair said. 

“It’s been a roller coaster but last night it was great having the two of them and Tayla back home. It was amazing. She still sleeps half the time really, just gets up for her bottles”, he added.

Father is running long distances to raise money for the charity that helped during his premmies’ early days

Alistair has been raising money for the charity Tiny Lives, which he says helped support their family through the difficulties surrounding premature births. 

“As a family we experienced first-hand the incredible care and support provided to premature babies and their families. The incubators, monitors, uncertainty, long days and nights, and the incredible people who look after babies when they are at their most vulnerable”, the father said.

Alistair said that the charity helped them out by giving them helpful things like a care package and parking passes for the hospital.

“They provided lots of little things that make it easier and reassure you, as the first time we had a premature baby, we didn’t really know anything whatsoever”, he said.

In 2025, Alistair ran 62 miles to raise money for the charity, and last week he completed an impressive 100-mile run fundraiser. 

“There were some incredibly tough moments, both physically and mentally, but every single mile was worth it”, he said.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “We are so glad that Millie and Maya are finally home enjoying their lives together, having overcome their own troubles as premature babies”.

“Both Tayla and Alistair are inspirational, and we are sure that the charity Tiny Lives is very grateful for such an impressive fundraising effort on their behalf”.

Key Takeaways:

• Khloé Kardashian told her mother that she has named one her remaining frozen embryos Tyla and that her daughter True has been telling people about her 'frozen sister.'

• Kardashian also states that she 'owns' her frozen embryo and she doesn't have to have the permission of the biological father, her ex, to try to implant that embryo.

• The conversation highlights the commodification of children that is inherent to the IVF process.

The Details:

In the clip, Khloé Kardashian, 42, speaks with her mother Kris about embryos she has frozen after having two children with her ex Tristan Thompson — daughter True, 8, and son Tatum, 4 (born via surrogate). She has previously said that she has more than one frozen embryo, though she has not specified a number. One of those embryos is a girl, whom she refers to as her True's 'sister'.

In the clip, she told Kris, "I was on the phone, and I was talking to the doctor, and I said out loud, like, something about, there’s . . . she has a sister in the freezer, or something like that. And so now True is like laser-focused on that she has a sister in the freezer. And she's told people."

She added:

"The sister has a name . . . I actually love the name, so I think I want to use this name, if I ever do it. Tyla. True named her Tyla. Tyla, True, Tatum. How cute! But here's the thing. I own the embryo outright. Don't even need to tell Tristan this is happening, 'cause I own them. They're my embryos.

When we broke up, I had him sign that I could have it. And it's legally done, yada, yada. So it's my embryo. But I don't know if I have the bandwidth to have another baby."

In an interview clip from the same episode, Kardashian explained to the camera:

"It definitely bums me out that True might not have a sister. I love sisters, and I do believe that every girl needs a sister. And I personally would love another daughter. But also I’m getting older, and it’s a lot, and I just be like . . . I don’t know if this is something I can handle."

Previously, on a March episode of her podcast "Khloé in Wonder Land," Kardashian made similar comments, saying she still had "a few more embryos in the freezer..." and adding:

"I think I have one girl left, and I have been contemplating, like, do I just do this? Do it on my own, do this? But I don't know if emotionally I could handle this. ... But when you put an embryo in, there’s no guarantee that it will take. So I also was thinking I could try that, and if it doesn’t work, then it means that God didn’t want me to have another baby, and that’s fine. But I don’t even think I have the emotional capacity."

She noted:

And True knows she has a sister in the freezer. And she will tell people that. I’m like, we need context, though. They’ll think I have a little girl in my freezer.

Zoom In:

This is a prime example of how in vitro fertilization (IVF) commodifies children. Kardashian admits that the frozen embryo is True's 'sister.' But she also says that she 'owns' that frozen daughter, treating her child as a commodity, and she worries people will "think I have a little girl in my freezer." She both humanizes and dehumanizes her child in a matter of minutes.

Abigail Anthony reported for National Review:

In just that short video snippet, Khloé implicitly or explicitly confirms that 1) frozen embryos are owned 2) they are regarded as property whose use — and ultimate fate — is determined by the owner, and 3) the ownership is contractually and legally regulated, not strictly decided by biological origin. I would further insist that Khloé is admitting that the frozen embryo is a human being. If Khloé reads National Review, she might object to that last point by saying the frozen embryo is something like a potential human being; I’d counter that referring to the frozen embryo as a “sister” and “daughter” with the name “Tyla” concedes that she is a human being.

The way she speaks about Tyla, it's possible that if Kardashian doesn't give her frozen embryos a chance at life she might regret it someday, especially since True is aware of her 'frozen sister' and talks about her.

Frozen embryo guilt is real among parents who use IVF and make more embryos than the number of children they want to have. Suddenly, they find themselves with two born children, and the remaining embryos they once so desperately wanted have become burdens that they don't know what to do with. Would Kardashian be able to do 'discard' Tyla, an embryo whom she has already named as a daughter? Would she not see and feel the loss that would be suffered by her entire family if Tyla does not live?

The Bottom Line:

Kardashian's words indicate she knows (like everyone does) that frozen human embryos are human beings. They might not implant or survive pregnancy, but the length of their lives isn't what makes them human.

Not all newborns will live to be teenagers and not all teenagers will live to be adults. But babies aren't considered 'potential adults' for a reason. Everyone is a human being from the moment of fertilization, and Tyla (along with every other frozen embryo) deserves her chance at life.

Key Takeaways:

• A baby girl was found dead in a Utica, New York, recycling center last week.

• She was estimated to be about two weeks old.

• Police say the investigation into her death will take time, and are pleading for her mother to come forward so they can understand what happened.

• New York has an infant abandonment law allowing the legal surrender of infants up to 30 days old.

The Details:

A deceased infant girl was found on the morning of October 14 in a recycling sorting area at the Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Authority in Utica, New York. According to KTRE, she was estimated to be about two weeks old.

Utica police held a press conference at which Captain Mike Curley explained that the investigation into how the infant got there will take time, noting that the facility services five counties.

The department is working with the Onondaga County Medical Examiner's Office in its investigation and is appealing to the public to help by reporting any suspicious or unusual activity.

Zoom In:

Curley also emphasized the impact something like this has on a first responder, with KTRE noting that affected officers are being offered counseling.

"Most of us have young children. Most of us have seen the birth of a child and seen exactly how that can be... to have to witness that, as part of any investigation, things take time," he said. "When you're exposed to a situation like this that takes time before you can move on, there's an exposure that our officers have to deal with."

Utica Police Chief Mark Williams petitioned the mother to come forward and explain what happened.

"I would just make a passionate plea to the birth mother of this child. She may have a story to tell, but we need to know it," he said. "This baby girl deserves proper burial and an identity.”

The Big Picture:

Like every state, New York has a safe haven law that could have helped the mother of this child choose life.

The Abandoned Infant Protection Act allows a parent to surrender an infant in the first 30 days of life. According to the Office of Children and Family Services:

A parent is not guilty of a crime if the infant is left with an appropriate person or in a suitable location and the parent promptly notifies an appropriate person of the infant’s location.  A hospital, staffed police or fire station are examples of safe and suitable choices.

Safe surrender laws were designed to deter infant abandonments like what appears to have happened in this case.

Key Takeaways:

• Catherine Mockler was raised pro-life, but her convictions grew when she had a personal experience with a man who had nearly been aborted.

• She began advocating for preborn babies when she was still in school. She sought to defend the lives of the most vulernable, including her brother, who has Down syndrome.

• In standing up for preborn babies, she has faced division and lost friends. Despite wanting to quit at times, she persevered.

• Mockler now works for a pro-life organization sharing stories ranging from abortion, human dignity, prostitution, family life, bioethics, and end-of-life concerns.

The Details:

Today, Mockler hosts and creates content for SPUC’s SPUCTV. Through interviews, storytelling, and public advocacy, she argues that unborn children, women facing crisis pregnancies, people with disabilities, and older people all deserve protection. SPUC frames its mission as one of defending the right to life “from conception to natural death,” standing in opposition to abortion and assisted suicide.

Yet apart from the campaigns and the camera is a story impacted by conviction, loss, faith, and perseverance.

A conviction formed early

Mockler's earliest memory of defending preborn babies takes her back to school.

“I was always pro-life as a Catholic,” she told Live Action News. “My earliest memory was in secondary school, being one of two girls to stand up during a debate for the pro-life position in a classroom full of girls.”

Admittedly, Mockler's pro-life stance was not an easy position to hold. Yet she felt she had no choice but to speak out for preborn lives.  Besides, Mockler had a personal reason for understanding vulnerability: her brother has Down syndrome.

“I knew I needed to defend those who were deemed more vulnerable in the womb,” she acknowledged. 

At that point, nonetheless, Mockler did not fully realize how far the abortion debate would go.

“I did not understand at the time that certain people are obsessed with legalizing abortion up to birth,” she said. 

A vision that made it personal

During her college years, abortion ceased to be an abstract moral question and became deeply personal for her.

One night, as Mockler prayed about a young man she liked, something happened that, she said, altered the course of her life.

“The Lord showed me in a vision a baby crying with an injection going into it, and I heard an audible voice of a man crying in the middle of the night,” she recalled. 

The next day, Mockler told her friends what she had seen, and they wondered whether it might be connected to abortion.

A few days later, as she and the young man she was interested in walked together to an event, he began to confide in her.

“He told me that doctors tried to abort him, but his mother stood her ground,” she disclosed. 

For Mockler, the encounter revealed something far deeper than a political argument. 

“It appeared that it still deeply affected his sense of worth as a man and wasn’t open to love,” she stated. “This was the first encounter I had on the spiritual significance of abortion.”

From belief to burden

Mockler had always believed that speaking up for preborn children was right, but her convictions deepened during a graduate program in Dublin. There, she lived with a Christian friend who led a monthly prayer group for the preborn.

“Every time I joined, the more scales would fall from my eyes,” she divulged.

Roughly three months into the program, Mockler returned home from work, opened her Bible, and felt overcome by emotion. 

“I felt a burden and wept over the loss of the unborn babies,” she explained. 

She said that the Holy Spirit gave her a contention: “One day you will weep even more when you hold babies of your own over the loss of lives.”

Furthermore, the words of Psalm 127:3 became a recurring theme in her pro-life convictions:  “Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.”

The cost of publicly speaking out 

Speaking publicly as pro-life came at a cost for Mockler. 

“Yes, I had certain family members not be happy, and friends and neighbors unfriend me on Facebook or unfollow me on Instagram,” she said. Yet she refused to let these setbacks prompt her to withdraw her views.

“Anyone who knows me knows I am quite strong, by God’s grace,” she declared. “I also grew up in a big family, so you learn to develop thick skin with siblings.” For Mockler, these losses were small compared with what she believed was at stake.

“It doesn’t bother me, as it’s a small price to pay to defend lives,” she said. 

Moreover, Mockler has found new friends among the pro-life community. 

“I have met far more wonderful people since then in the pro-life movement who have been great friends and like family to me,” she said. “God can restore what we lost.”

Her father’s example

Strikingly, Mockler said that it was her own father who shaped her pro-life convictions the most.

“He raised me to defend the vulnerable,” she said. During Ireland’s abortion referendum, her father put up signs for the preborn in public notwithstanding resistance.  

“He has instilled in me the faith and confidence to do this work, and his prayers have protected me,” she told Live Action News. 

Nonetheless, Mockler is cognizant that not everyone has that kind of support.

“A lot of women didn’t have a father to offer them the same,” she  said. “I now am trying to help women in this area.”

Mockler's Catholic faith remains indispensable in her understanding of human dignity, particularly through Pope John Paul II’s "Theology of the Body." 

“It has been such a tremendous resource in my faith journey to help unpack the understanding of the gift of our bodies,” she said. “When I understand my own worth and dignity, it gets easier to protect other people’s worth and dignity.”

Learning perseverance

Pro-life work has not been easy for Mockler; in fact, she came very close to quitting at the outset. 

“As soon as I started, I wanted to quit,” she said, laughing. “It was hard.”

In addition, Mockler mentioned spiritual discouragement, division, and the weight of confronting painful realities. 

“The enemy can come in to discourage you and cause disunity,” she said. “But I look back at that time, and I didn’t understand how to protect myself spiritually or know about boundaries, rest, and the importance of physical exercise to help handle what I have to deal with."

Mockler has since learned that perseverance demands more than passion. 

“You need boundaries. You need rest. You need to look after your body and your soul,” she explained.

A leap of faith to Belfast

Mockler's path  to SPUC started with a significant leap of faith. During COVID-19, while she was living in Dublin and praying about her career, one verse kept coming back to her: Psalm 127:3. 

“I felt the Lord prompt me to leave my family and friends and move to Belfast in January with five bags and no job,” she said. Eventually, she did make the move. 

“I said, ‘OK Lord, if it’s Your will, it’s Your bill,’” she recounted. 

Just three weeks later, Mockler went to a prayer meeting. Though job offers were starting to arrive, she could not shake a sense of unease about them. 

Then someone told her, “You slayed giants. Now God is sending you a team this week to slay even more giants with.”

Only days afterwards, a Facebook message arrived about a position with SPUC. She went through three rounds of interviews before being hired. When she was subsequently invited to relocate to Scotland, she once more turned to prayer for guidance. 

“I kept hearing, ‘Jesus holds these babies close to His heart,’” she said. 

Behind the camera at SPUCTV

Mockler's SPUC career began in video content creation and she came to understand how to treat other people’s stories with sensitivity. 

“How to be a good listener with guests who open up on our show,” she said. “It’s a privilege to steward their hearts this way on the platform we have.”

Importantly, Mockler conceded mistakes made along the way, but she values what they taught her.

“I made plenty of mistakes, and I am grateful for the lessons learned and the team we now have at SPUCTV,” she said. “When we have a spirit of excellence, that in itself is a form of evangelism.”

More than abortion

People who think the pro-life movement is focused solely on abortion may be taken aback by the wider message SPUC promotes. 

“At SPUC, we advocate for all lives to be protected because they are just as precious,” she said. She shone a spotlight on people with disabilities and chronic illness, along with elderly people, who are vulnerable to euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

“There are certain politicians determined on pushing euthanasia and assisted suicide on these vulnerable people,” she stated. “We defend life in those cases too.”

The stories that stay with her

Notably, SPUCTV’s Heart to Heart offers in-depth interviews with guests who explore topics such as abortion, human dignity, prostitution, family life, bioethics, and end-of-life concerns. Of all the interviews Mockler has hosted, one stands out as particularly moving: her talk with Helena Croft, the founder of Streetlight UK, an organization that supports women involved in prostitution. 

“Interviewing Helena Croft, who works entering the brothels to help women in prostitution, and how some of them have had abortions, really opened my eyes,” she said. What impressed Mockler most was Helena’s courage. “I was struck by Helena’s bravery too. It is something I would love to explore more.”

A voice for those who cannot speak

For Mockler, taking part in events like the March for Life goes beyond a symbolic gesture. She sees it as a responsibility. 

“It means not being bullied into silence by the pro-abortion movement,” she said. She holds that preborn children, more than anyone, must rely on other people to be their voice. 

“The unborn babies need our hope,” she said. “Unlike other advocacy groups, the unborn can’t defend themselves or call for help. When we show up publicly to be a voice for them, others’ minds and hearts can be softened towards the unborn."

The Bottom Line:

If Mockler could speak directly to a woman experiencing an unexpected pregnancy, her message would be simple: “You are not alone. There are lots of people who have your back and want to support you, who can offer resources to you.”

Significantly, Mockler hopes women would realize that courage is possible, even when the future feels daunting.

“Even though it’s hard, you can do hard things,” she reaffirmed. “Your and your baby’s lives matter.”

For Mockler, such messaging is the crux of the pro-life movement — not judgment — but protection, practical help, and hope for both mother and child.

Key Takeaways:

• Chinese nationals are increasingly using foreign surrogates, as surrogacy is illegal in China.

• International surrogacy has become a booming industry in China, with multiple agencies making arrangements for would-be parents.

• Women are often drawn to surrogacy to avoid the "motherhood penalty" on their bodies and careers.

The Details:

The Financial Times reported on the growth of international surrogacy in China. Surrogacy is illegal there, and the United States has become a popular destination for hopeful parents.

According to a new study, between 2014 and 2020, nearly one-third of intended parents in the United States are foreign nationals, and 40% of them are Chinese.

Initially, couples in China hiring surrogates largely were struggling with infertility. But there has been a rise in young women who are not infertile using surrogates, preferring surrogacy over giving birth themselves.

Surrogacy allows them to avoid the so-called "motherhood penalty," which is the supposedly negative impact pregnancy will have on their bodies and careers.

“The ‘motherhood penalty’ persists over a long period in China,” Lu Pin, a Chinese women’s rights activist based in New York, told the Financial Times. “The fear is well founded and a product of how the environment works against women in both public and private lives.”

Dr. Xiao Yi, a traditional Chinese medicine doctor who specializes in fertility, likewise said she had seen an increase in patients who were afraid of pregnancy and childbirth.

“Chinese women worry about how it will impact their appearance and whether they can return to their normal weight and womb health,” she said.

Several women told the Financial Times they wanted to become parents, but didn't want to experience pregnancy themselves. “I didn’t want to give birth to a baby. It’s a risk to your body and health and you hear about crazy stories about the side effects for women giving birth,” one woman said.

25-year-old Kitty Sheng said she was worried about the impact pregnancy would have on her appearance, as well as her career and finances.

“If I remain unmarried, I will have to bear all the costs of pregnancy and postpartum recovery myself, and that really isn’t very different from the cost of having a child through surrogacy,” she said, adding, “Whether it’s the fact that my career is in a growth phase, that I care about my appearance, or that I don’t want to get married — those are all considerations for myself."

Zoom In:

The population in China has been steadily dropping, despite attempts at correction following decades of the restrictive One Child Policy. As Live Action News previously explained:

Anyone who violated the policy was punished; on the more lenient side, families were merely fined. However, some visibly pregnant women were literally dragged off the streets, their children forcibly aborted.

A cultural preference for sons quickly led to a gender imbalance resulting in millions of missing girls today, as people sought sex-selective abortions if pregnant with girls instead of boys. This imbalance further contributed to an epidemic of human trafficking and the highest suicide rate among women in the world. Still today, the population consists of 104.34 men to every 100 women, according to NPR.

One-fifth of the population is aged 60 or over, and getting older, which is straining the government’s health care and pension systems, leading to desperate attempts to boost fertility rates — like subsidizing IVF.

And as reported by the Financial Times, young adults are wary of becoming pregnant, leading to the explosion of the international fertility industry. Agencies have been created specifically to market American surrogates to Chinese nationals. Their babies will be American citizens, which reportedly adds to the appeal for the hopeful parents (and also creates <a href="/news/army-vet-pairs-chinese-nationals-american-surrogates">potential future national security issues</a> for the U.S.).

This is still allowed to continue, despite one surrogacy agency having been deemed a "national security threat" in 2025, the couple behind it having been arrested for child abuse on their 21 children. A Chinese billionaire is also believed to have fathered as many as 300 children through surrogacy.

The Bottom Line:

Surrogacy needs to be banned entirely. The current practices are nothing short of a real-life "Handmaid's Tale."

Key Takeaways:

• A Texas woman using the name Maria Puerto is suing Students for Life of America for $459,782, most of which she will not see if she wins.

• She claims that she was 'forced' to have two children because of a pro-life law that Students for Life supported in Texas.

• Puerto said she lost her scholarship money and job because of her pregnancy, and her babies' father left during her second pregnancy.

• She blames Texas pro-life laws for her circumstances rather than other factors or decisions.

• Puerto is suing the group under HB 7, a law that prohibits the manufacture, distribution, mailing, prescribing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas and allows private citizens to file civil lawsuits against violators.

• It appears this is a scheme for Puerto to get $10,000 for herself, with the rest of the money going to pro-abortion causes, based on the claim that SFLA ordered the abortion pill regimen (despite the purpose of this action — to show how it is far too easy for Texas residents to obtain the drugs).

The Details:

In an Instagram post, SFLA president Kristan Hawkins announced that she "and three Students for Life staff members are being sued in Texas."

She explained:

Get this, for saving a baby from abortion. That's what we're getting sued in civil court over. A mother who said she was forced to have a baby after an incremental pro-life law was passed that we were helpful in passing — says she was forced to have a baby, therefore, we should pay the cost of rearing her child. About $500,000.

So this is an interesting day. It's not everyday that you get sued for saving babies, so I guess I'm honored to say, 'Yes. Students for Life and my life's mission is working and we're saving babies.' And by the way, incremental pro-life legislation saves babies.

Hawkins also noted that she "feels so bad for this child" — two children — who will always have written proof that their mother wanted to abort them and then let the world know that she didn't want them.

The lawsuit explained

The pro-abortion Amplify Legal filed the lawsuit for a woman who is using the pseudonym Maria Puerto. Amplify Legal is the legal advocacy practice and litigation arm of the group Abortion in America.

Puerto is suing SFLA under HB 7, a law that prohibits the manufacture, distribution, mailing, prescribing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas and allows private citizens to file civil lawsuits against violators.

According to the lawsuit:

Texas law apparently does, however, allow anyone, including Ms. Puerto, to seek at least $100,000 from anyone who “mail[s], transport[s], deliver[s], prescribe[s], or provide[s] an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state” or “intends” to do so.

In March 2026, Kristan Mercer Hawkins, Lydia Taylor Davis, Jamie Curry, Megan Roos, and other unknown individuals associated with Students for Life of America, a well-known anti-abortion organization, openly and flagrantly violated this law, the so-called “Woman and Child Protection Act,” also known as House Bill 7.

With nowhere else to turn for assistance, Ms. Puerto is seeking financial compensation from Ms. Hawkins, Ms. Davis, Ms. Curry, Ms. Roos, and Students for Life under H.B. 7 in the amount of $459,782—the average cost of raising two children from birth to age 18 in the state of Texas.

The SFLA staff members allegedly filmed themselves ordering abortion drugs undercover in Texas, according to the lawsuit, to show how easy it is for anyone to obtain the pills. The lawsuit states, "It is thus unclear what Defendants did with the abortion pills and/or if they engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation(s) to obtain the abortion pills. According to [journalist] Ms. Littlefield’s reporting, Ms. Hawkins used the name 'Wanda' in at least one of the orders for abortion pills, while Ms. Davis posed as a 'minor.'"

Amplify Legal alleges that this action violated HB 7. Therefore, the suit claims, since "anyone" can file a civil case against someone for the manufacture, distribution, mailing, prescribing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas, Puerto is filing a civll suit against the SFLA members for allegedly calling to order the abortion pill while in Texas.

However, the law has an exception if the drugs are not purchased for the purpose of abortion. It states (emphases added):

Sec. 171A.002.  APPLICABILITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER.  (a) This chapter does not apply to and a civil action under this  chapter may not be brought against:...

(9)  a person who manufactures, distributes, mails,  transports, delivers, prescribes, provides, or possesses  abortion-inducing drugs in this state solely for one or more of the  following purposes:
(A)  treating a medical emergency;
(B)  removing an ectopic pregnancy; 
(C)  removing a dead, unborn child whose death was  caused by spontaneous abortion; or 
(D)  a purpose that does not include performing,  inducing, attempting, or assisting an abortion, other than an  abortion performed in response to a medical emergency.

The lawsuit admits that SFLA's "Instagram post and associated events appear to be nothing more than a publicity stunt" and the abortion pills were not procured for use in an abortion. Yet, the suit still argues that "their stunt appears to violate the plain language of Texas House Bill 7."

What happened to Puerto

Puerto claims she became pregnant twice while on birth control. After learning she was pregnant with her first child in 2022, she lost her college scholarship because of missed classes due to morning sickness, and she had to leave school. According to the suit, "Puerto was told that because these absences were 'unexcused,' her financial aid was revoked. With no way to pay for her classes, Ms. Puerto was forced to quit school, never to return. 'My great desire was to help my community and my state through this career that I had chosen, but my state did not support me.'"

She was also allegedly fired from her job at a convenience store due to frequent bathroom breaks and the inability to lift heavy objects.

Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded schools, including in relation to pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, and related medical conditions. Under Title IX, schools must provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant students, similar to those it gives to students with temporary medical conditions, including flexible scheduling and work extensions. But, the lawsuit claims Puerto was unaware of this until it was too late to file a lawsuit regarding the pregnancy discrimination she allegedly faced.

Hawkins noted that SFLA "stands alongside pregnant and parenting women to ensure that their Title IX rights aren't being violated" and could have helped Puerto. In the past, SFLA has filed lawsuits against schools for violating pregnant women's Title IX rights as Puerto's appear to have been violated. If she had contacted SFLA at the time of her first pregnancy, she could have received help in keeping her scholarship and staying in school.

Puerto became pregnant again in 2024, at which time she said she became depressed, primarily because she was having a girl. The suit states, "After her first child was born, she had no way to pay for childcare and no way to finish her degree. Finances became increasingly tight. In 2024, Ms. Puerto became pregnant again and the cycle repeated. For the second time, she felt she had no other choice and was forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Ms. Puerto struggled with severe depression throughout her second pregnancy, especially after she learned she was having a daughter. 'When I found out I was having a girl, I felt so much pain. Since Roe was overturned, women have not experienced a free Texas. We have no ability to decide about our own bodies, our own families, our own lives.'"

Yet, she blames Texas for what was ultimately the result of her own use of her freedom.

"I was so young, with every direction in life still an open possibility," Puerto said. "But... Texas laws chose my way for me."

But did they?

Puerto chose to have sex while in college, which carries the risk of pregnancy. Pro-life laws did not force her to have sex, force her to become pregnant, or force her to parent her children rather than place them for adoption; they simply state that she could not intentionally kill her preborn children.

After she became pregnant for the second time, the father of Puerto's children allegedly abandoned her. According to reports, Puerto now shares a bed with her two children in a room at her mother's home. She hasn't found a job that pays her enough money to afford childcare and said Texas has not helped her with childcare, paid leave, housing, or food.

However, single mothers in Texas can receive government assistance including food benefits and monthly cash assistance, housing support, and community services.

But despite filing the lawsuit under the guise of obtaining money to help care for her children, Puerto would only see about two percent (2%) of the compensation if she were to win the case.

Maria Puerto would get 2% of the financial compensation

Amplify Legal states in the lawsuit, "Maria Puerto is in Dire Need of Resources to Support Her Children," yet if she wins the case, she would only see about two percent (2%)of the financial compensation she is seeking. The suit claims:

Maria Puerto is a twenty-six-year-old single mother of two children, ages three and one. Ms. Puerto is a predominately Spanish-speaking citizen of the United States.

Ms. Puerto never met her father until she was well into her teens. Growing up, her mother worked hard to make ends meet, but often struggled to pay for Ms. Puerto’s school supplies.

For many years throughout her childhood, Ms. Puerto was sexually assaulted by a member of her family. She did not tell anyone of the abuse until she was an adult.

In 2022, Ms. Puerto and her boyfriend learned she was pregnant for the first time.

Because Ms. Puerto had been taking contraception pills every day without fail, the pregnancy came as a complete shock. Still, she did not have access to transportation or the economic resources to pay for travel out of state. And her mother, now elderly and disabled, was relying on her and her siblings for support. “It was either pay for my mom’s medicine or get an abortion.” Ms. Puerto had no choice but to continue the pregnancy.

The case is built around garnering sympathy and support for Puerto, yet If Puerto wins her lawsuit, she would not see the $459,782 she is seeking despite the claim that this amount is "the average cost of raising two children from birth to age 18 in the state of Texas." Instead, she would only get about $10,000; the rest (nearly 98%) would go to the pro-abortion group Jane's Due Process, which helps teenage girls skirt parental consent laws to undergo abortions without their parents' knowledge. As reported by The Texas Tribune:

If she wins the lawsuit, Puerto would be entitled to $10,000 of the award, as she has no connection to the defendants. According to a Tuesday statement by Abortion in America, she plans to give the remaining award to Jane’s Due Process...

In other words, the money wouldn't help a single mom of two; it would force SFLA to fund an abortion organization.

Zoom Out:

Amplify Legal is the same group that sent Live Action a 'demand letter' in July, attempting to require the pro-life group to stop stating that abortion is 'killing,' among other demands.

Founder and President Lila Rose released the following statement regarding that letter:

“Abortion is an act of killing. It deliberately ends the life of a living human child. That is the truth abortion activists want to forbid anyone from saying out loud. They want abortion placed beyond moral judgment, even when the child targeted is disabled or has received a difficult diagnosis. They know that controlling the language is essential to making abortion easier to accept, because people intuitively understand that abortion kills a child and that every baby deserves a chance at life. Those children are human beings. Their lives have dignity, and they have a right to live.

Americans have every right to say that openly and forcefully, without fear of being dragged into court for refusing to adopt the deceptive language preferred by abortion activists.

... Our journalism gives a voice to children in the womb who cannot speak for themselves and reports the truth about abortion and the abortion industry. We will not be pressured into using language that hides what abortion does or makes the killing of a preborn child easier to accept.... Threats will not stop us from calling abortion what it is or from fighting for the right of every child to live. We will keep fighting, and we will win.”

Key Takeaways:

• Talarico is running for the United States Senate, representing Texas.

• He is a Presbyterian seminarian, and claimed in a recent town hall that the Bible is silent on abortion; therefore, Christians can support its legality.

• This same claim was repeated by Talarico earlier this year.

• The Bible is not silent on abortion, and Christianity has always been pro-life.

The Details:

During a televised town hall on October 14, Talarico debated Jodi Hunt — a Catholic and executive director of the Neuhoff Institute for Ministry and Evangelization at the University of Dallas — on the issue of abortion. The conversation started when Hunt (after noting the two had a lot in common) specifically asked Talarico about abortion.

"As you know, Catholics, we tend — and I myself included — to be a one-issue voter," she began. "And abortion is a large part of that, and dignity of the human person and natural law."

Hunt noted that, like Talarico, she's a theologian, but claimed they differ because her faith teaches her to respect life even before birth:

"We believe that, at the moment of conception, there's a human life to protect. And so we struggle with the idea that it's the woman's right to choose, because it takes two people to create that being, and the woman is the bearer of that child into the world.
And through co-creation, that child has been created.

So as people, we are to protect that life at all costs. And so, what makes it difficult for us to vote Democrat is that we have this idea that, if you cannot provide policies or support policies that protect the most innocent among us, who is the unborn child, how can we trust that you're going to provide policies to protect the rest of Texans and to promote dignity and human life in that?

So I challenge you on that. And to provide some feedback on how would you convince me, as a Catholic voter, that I can trust you that you would protect the most innocent among us?"

Talarico thanked her for asking the question, and acknowledged that many voters have similar feelings on the issue.

He then tried to argue that, despite supporting abortion, he is still 'pro-life' because he supports policies addressing things like climate change, poverty, and war. He also repeated the debunked claim that the Bible is silent on abortion, insinuating that Christians can support it.

Ultimately, he claimed that, while he and Hunt may come to different conclusions, they have the same moral goal:

"Some of my spiritual heroes, like Pope Francis and Pope Leo, are pro-life, and they are consistently pro-life. They're not just against abortion, but they are against poverty, against climate change, against war.

So I can respect anyone like you who is consistently pro-life, and I actually think there's common ground we can find here.

We may come to different moral and ethical conclusions when it comes to the question of should abortion be legal or not. It sounds like you and I do come to a different conclusion. That's okay. We're both Christians, and the Bible is silent on the issue of abortion.

It means you and I both have to look at different scriptures to try to come to a conclusion. But what I think we can do is actually come together on reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies and the number of abortions, because if we treat this issue as a public health problem and not a culture war problem, then we can actually make progress together."

Hunt immediately countered the core of Talarico's argument:

"I just want to add that the Bible is not silent on abortion. There is the Ten Commandments, thou shall not kill. And as Catholics, we take great insult, I guess, sometimes when it's spouted that way.

But I also want to add, I know I'm up on time, but contraception and age-appropriate thing also, when it comes to Catholic vote, is a very trying thing for us, because we believe the parents are the primary educator of our children.

And so one of the things that we really struggle with is having any government interference with how we educate our children. So I know we're going to agree to disagree on that, but I do appreciate your comments on tending to the life from the womb to the tomb, and I think that's one common ground we can come to."

The Backstory:

In June, Talarico made near-identical statements, claiming the Bible does not condemn abortion. He also claimed that Jesus Himself did not speak against abortion, insinuating that He therefore would have supported its legalization:

"I trust Texas women to make decisions about their own bodies, to shape their own destinies in consultation with their family members, their doctors, their faith leaders. I don't believe that's a place for government. I don't believe it's a place for politicians. I don't believe it's a place for the state. And that's a belief I hold not despite my faith, but because of my faith.

Jesus never talks about abortion. The Bible is silent on abortion. And when that happens with a social issue as important as abortion, we Christians have to take Scripture as a whole. And we've got to try to make some kind of ethical determination."

Pro-life leaders roundly condemned his remarks at the time, with Live Action founder and president Lila Rose tweeting, “'Jesus never talked about infanticide, so it must be ok.' It is sick and shameful to use Jesus Christ as an excuse for politically supporting the killing of unborn children."

Reality Check:

The Catholic Church is staunchly pro-life, and always has been. According to the Catechism, "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."

The Didache, the Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles, is one of the earliest known Christian documents, and also speaks against abortion, saying, "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill a child once born.”

But to directly rebut Talarico's point, the Bible itself is also not silent on abortion.

The Bible makes it clear that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ at the moment of conception (fertilization) — not at birth, but at the exact moment when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit inside Mary, His mother.

Luke’s gospel further reiterates this point. During the visitation, when Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth, both women are pregnant. When Elizabeth hears Mary’s greeting, Luke wrote that John the Baptist leaped in [his mother’s] womb, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and addressed the preborn Jesus as "My Lord":

And she cried out with a loud voice and said, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.'

In that scripture, the Greek word “brephos” is used for “baby” and “infant," with this term used elsewhere in the Bible to refer to both preborn and born children, insinuating that the two are seen and identified the same way.

The Old Testament also refers to children as being “conceived and born." There are numerous examples, including Eve having conceived and born Cain, and Sarah having conceived and born a son (Isaac) to Abraham.

The Bible continues to acknowledge the humanity of preborn children; one example is Isaac’s children, Jacob and Esau, who are described as struggling together in Rebekah’s womb, with God saying, “[T]wo nations are in your womb.”

In the book of Judges, God instructs a Samson’s mother not to eat certain foods, because Samson was to be “a Nazarite of God from the womb.” Samson had not yet been born, and yet was already living with the dietary restrictions that were part of a Nazarite’s special declaration to God. 

Multiple well-known Bible verses further point to the humanity of the preborn:

• “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” (Jeremiah 1: 5)

• "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." (Psalm 139: 13-14)

• "Before I was born the Lord called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name. He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver. He said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.” (Isaiah 49: 2-4)

• "But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased." (Galatians 1: 15)

Through all of this, it is clear that the Bible sees preborn children as living human beings, and therefore, the commandment "You shall not murder" applies to them as well — as Hunt pointed out.

Jesus spoke against murder in Matthew 19:18, and as explained about the word "brephos," the condemnation of murder would apply equally to born and preborn children. In Matthew 15:19 -20, He emphasized that murder is an "evil thought" that will “defile a person.” In Matthew 5:21-22, He also said that murderers “will be liable to judgment.”

The Bottom Line:

Christianity, and by extension, the Bible, is not silent about abortion. It has always been clear that it is never acceptable to take innocent lives, whether born or preborn.

Key Takeaways:

• Queensland, Australia is reporting a record number of euthanasia deaths, with 1,082 people dying from Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) over the past reported year.

• Of those, 503 people reported receiving no palliative care.

• Euthanasia now accounts for three percent of all deaths in the Australian state.

• Despite this, the Review Board is recommending ways in which VAD can be expanded further.

The Details:

The ‘Queensland Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board Annual Report’ contains official figures showing that 1082 people died via Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. Of those, 836 deaths were euthanasia (practitioner administered), while 246 were self-administered (assisted suicide).

These numbers mark a significant jump from the first year VAD was legalized (2023-2024), when 793 people chose euthanasia.

The report also shows that 503 people reported receiving no palliative care prior to their first VAD assessment, a 40.11% increase in two years.

Altogether, 3,192 people in Queensland have ended their lives with VAD since its legalization. VAD now accounts for three percent of all deaths in the Australian state.

Zoom In:

The fact that thousands of people have chosen to end their own lives in Queensland — many without receiving any palliative treatment — should give anyone pause.

Yet officials in the Australian state are recommending ways that VAD be expanded even further.

In its report, the Review Board notes the need to "continue to improve education and awareness of voluntary assisted dying," saying that "limited awareness may affect people’s ability to make informed end-of-life choices and to access the scheme in a timely way."

In other words, more people need to be made aware that VAD is an option so they can legally end their lives if they so choose.

The Board also recommends that medical practitioners be more aware of VAD models, so that they can, among other things, "improve awareness of voluntary assisted dying, [and] facilitate earlier referral of patients to the HHS system."

There is no mention of the coercion that may occur under this system, in which elderly or vulnerable patients feel pressured to die because their medical practitioner presents it as an option.

Finally, the Board recommends potentially changing the eligibility requirements, particularly for "anticipated time to death/prognosis and the implications for individuals living with dementia and other medical conditions." It says "there should be broad consultation with the public and other stakeholders to determine the desirability and feasibility of amending existing eligibility criteria."

This is nothing more than the 'slippery slope' that occurs every time euthanasia is legalized, as so-called "guardrails" designed to ensure that euthanasia is not abused are eroded over time.

The Bottom Line:

The rising number of euthanasia deaths in Queensland, along with the recommendation that it be expanded even further, is not something to celebrate. All life needs to be protected, from the moment of conception until natural death.

Yet the court previously found that his Gospel message warranted a conviction and a fine. 

Key Takeaways:

• Pastor Clive Johnston appealed his conviction before the Belfast High Court after having been held criminally liable for preaching an open-air sermon within an abortion business buffer zone — not discussing abortion.

• The prosecution claims that activity within the zone may be unlawful if it could influence, upset, or obstruct someone accessing abortion services — even if no such person was present when it took place. 

• Johnston stated, "It is not the role of the state to decide when and where somebody should be allowed to engage with the Christian message. The police should not be prohibiting peaceful expressions of faith."

The Details:

As the legal arguments unfolded, it became clear that the case reached far beyond one pastor and one sermon. At stake was whether Northern Ireland could become a place where the Gospel is treated as inherently threatening — where Scripture, prayer, or even carrying a Bible within a designated area might be enough to make someone criminally liable.

Johnston said it best outside the court, in remarks quoted by The Christian Institute: 

“Nobody should be criminalized for expressing the basic truths of their faith. I preached an open-air gospel sermon on a Sunday morning about the love that God has for all people. In Northern Ireland, of all places, surely we are allowed to express such a good and hopeful message. Yet I was convicted of a crime just for this.”

The Legal Crux of the Case

The hearing, presided over by Dame Siobhan Keegan, centered on a deceptively simple question: does the buffer zone legislation require an actual, identifiable “protected person” to be present before an offense can be committed?

Johnston’s legal team contended that the zone does, and that the legislation, as drafted, refers to a “person attending” protected premises — and that without proof of such a person, no offense took place. 

The prosecution offered a different interpretation: the law is intended to safeguard the zone as a protected space, rather than depending on evidence that a particular protected person was present at the time of the alleged conduct. Under that view, activity within the zone may be unlawful if it could influence, upset, or obstruct someone accessing abortion services — even if no such person was present when it took place. 

On their end, the defense highlighted that this is a penal statute, and penal statutes must be interpreted strictly, by their plain wording. They further argued that the “mischief” of the protester — any effort to impact those accessing abortion services—was adequate to constitute an offense, even without evidence of a particular person being affected.

“You cannot find in the statute a notional person attending,” the defense claimed. “The law means what it says. A person. The person.”

Broader Ramifications 

The Christian Institute, which is backing Johnston's appeal, earlier cautioned that the District Court ruling risks turning an “abortion buffer zone” into a “Gospel censorship zone.”

Chief Constable Jon Boutcher’s earlier remarks only deepened those concerns. When asked about the implications for clergy and pastors going about their normal work in hospitals, he acknowledged that prayer, Scripture reading, and even carrying a Bible within a designated area “may constitute an offense.”

Boutcher explained that pastoral visits to patients who are not attending for abortion services are not covered by the Act — but noted that even in those cases, whether such activity is lawful “will depend on whether it could reasonably influence, cause distress to, or impede a protected person nearby.”

Ciarán Kelly, Director of The Christian Institute, put it plainly outside the court, saying, “There should be no no-go areas for the Gospel in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.”

Takeaways:

in response to Johnston’s case, Bernadette Smyth, Director of Precious Life, declared: 

No one should have to fear criminal prosecution for praying, singing hymns, or sharing the Word of God. Pastor Clive was not campaigning on abortion; he was preaching John 3:16. This case raises deeply troubling questions about the freedom to practice and express our Christian faith peacefully in public.

Smyth elaborated:

Precious Life was proud to stand with Pastor Clive in court today. We urge the Court of Appeal to uphold freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the right of every Christian to live out their faith without fear.

At Precious Life, we stand firmly in solidarity with Pastor Clive Johnston. We believe that the right to pray and peacefully express one’s faith is a fundamental freedom that must be protected.

This case is not simply a matter of law; it pertains to the moral and spiritual direction of a nation, the right to speak truth openly, and the worth of every human life, both before and after birth.

As Johnston himself testified: 

“I have confidence that my right to speak freely and express my faith is protected under UK and international law.

Likewise, it is the right of anybody in the area to be allowed to stop and listen to me if they would like to, or indeed to carry on without listening if preferred. It is not the role of the state to decide when and where somebody should be allowed to engage with the Christian message. The police should not be prohibiting peaceful expressions of faith.

I’m grateful for the work of my legal team and for The Christian Institute’s support in appealing my case today. I trust that a positive outcome will help secure much-needed public assurance that there are no gospel-free zones in Northern Ireland.

The Bottom Line:

May Johnston's confidence prove justified. And may Northern Ireland continue to be a place where the Gospel can be shared without censorship, where the vulnerable find protection, and where every child — born or preborn — is embraced as a precious gift.

Key Takeaways:

• Pro-abortion, Marxist group S.W.A.N. recently attempted a humorous post on Instagram that referred to abortion as killing.

• Though some continue to claim that 'no one likes abortion,' groups like S.W.A.N. don't pretend that abortion isn't killing human beings. They know it is, and they celebrate it.

• Through its propaganda, S.W.A.N. mocks and destroys the idea of human dignity for the weakest, most oppressed human beings.

The Details:

S.W.A.N. claims to be a “grassroots organization established in June of 2022 directly after the destruction of Roe vs Wade by the fascist Supreme Court,” with members who refer to themselves as “escorts.” They claim to “use humor” as they walk women and girls into brick-and-mortar abortion businesses that end human lives. 

“S.W.A.N. exists solely to protect and expand abortion access within Central Florida. We are explicitly anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-LGBTQ, and class conscious,” the website continues. 

Videos on the group's social media account depict its members outside of the Orlando Women’s Center (which has three physical locations that reportedly commit abortion up to 24 weeks under certain circumstances, as abortion is restricted to the first six weeks in Florida otherwise), while cursing at, hissing, and mocking pro-life sidewalk counselors.

As self-proclaimed Marxist-Communists, S.W.A.N.'s digital library consists of information, books, literature and other resources organized under files such as: Antifascism; Decolonization; Imperialism; and Feminist, LGBTQ and Marxist literature.

The group’s website includes more of its fundraising merchandise that its members wear while escorting women into the abortion business, including items like “Marxist Leninist Feminist” patches, “I’ll Still Love Abortion in Hell” t-shirts and cups, “SWANtifa” merchandise (showing the groups alignment with Antifa), “Seize the Means of Reproduction” t-shirts featuring the faces of Marxist leaders, "Abort Billionaires"-themed merchandise, and “Women Want Me, Fetuses Fear Me” hats and t-shirts. 

Live Action News has reported on similar neo-marxist undertones in Queer Theory which Planned Parenthood promotes through its messaging and sex ed programs. Communism is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide throughout history. Consequently, S.W.A.N, like Planned Parenthood, serves as a modern-day example of the ongoing deadly results of a Marxist ideology and continues to add to the victim body count. 

Though some continue to claim that 'no one likes abortion,' groups like S.W.A.N. don't pretend that abortion isn't killing human beings. They know it is, and they celebrate it.

The Bottom Line: 

There is nothing humorous about the killing of the preborn. Through its propaganda, S.W.A.N., much like Planned Parenthood, mocks and destroys the idea of human dignity for the weakest, most oppressed human beings.

Key Takeaways:

• Canada had been set to expand MAiD to include mental illness as a sole diagnosis in 2027.

• Justice Minister Sean Fraser announced earlier this month that the government will not move forward with this plan, though a bill to permanently block MAiD for mental illness alone was defeated.

• Jean Marmoreo, a family physician who became one of the first doctors to commit euthanasia after legalization in 2016, objected, saying that people with mental illness should be eligible for MAiD.

The Backstory:

Canada originally legalized MAID in 2016, and quickly reached the fastest-growing rate of assisted suicide and euthanasia in the world. People are reportedly killed in the country for non-medical reasons already, like loneliness, poverty, disability, and an inability to access health care services.

After just 10 years, the country is already on track to reach 100,000 deaths from MAiD. And though there have been numerous controversies and concerns, the government had planned to expand MAiD in 2027 to allow mental illness as the sole diagnosis required for approval to die.

MP Tamara Jansen introduced Bill C-218 in 2025, which would have barred mental illness as sole eligibility, but that bill was voted down in parliament this month. However, in a press conference, Justice Minister Sean Fraser and Health Minister Marjorie Michel announced the planned expansion would no longer take place. Fraser said:

Canada has made a decision not to move forward with the expansion that is scheduled in the Criminal Code of medical assistance in dying in circumstances where mental illness is the sole basis.

This decision reflects the conclusion and recommendations of the recent special committee that was established as between the House of Commons and the Senate, who recommended that we move forward in this direction.

The Details:

In an op-ed for the Globe and Mail, Jean Marmoreo slammed the government's decision not to expand MAiD to include mental illness. Marmoreo, by her own admission, was one of the first doctors to begin committing euthanasia when it was legalized in 2016.

To Marmoreo, the cancellation is "politically driven cowardice in the face of controversy surrounding an individual’s Charter rights of bodily autonomy." Instead, she argued that people with mental illness should be eligible for MAiD.

"I’m not talking about our newly heightened sensitivity to many mental-health issues that afflict millions of Canadians, such as social anxiety, isolation, anomie of purpose and meaning," she said. "We all carry a little mental illness from time to time."

The difference, according to Marmoreo, is that the program would be careful, even though the current MAiD practices have proven otherwise; people can be (and have been) euthanized without any of the caution she promises would be exercised in this instance. She stated:

With MAID, the threshold of eligibility would be a diagnosed mental disorder, assessed by many psychiatrists. The confirmation of grievous and irremediable suffering would follow only after every reasonable treatment has failed, exactly as we already require for cancer, ALS or end-stage heart failure.

I have often consulted psychiatrists about patients with treatment-resistant depression – in addition to their physical disease – in the same way I consult oncologists on their prognosis for a cancer patient.

Marmoreo said mental illness should be treated the same as cancer, even though mental illness can fundamentally alter someone's ability to consent to being killed:

Ottawa is also telling a patient with treatment-resistant depression or complex PTSD that their agony is less credible than another person’s cancer. All this simply because their illness resides in the brain.

Anyone who believes that the pain of mental illness is less terrible than the pain of cancer hasn’t experienced the helplessness of sitting with a family in the face of their child or loved one’s severe depression.

Marmoreo then claimed that MAiD should be legal for mental illness, because otherwise, sufferers might... commit suicide. The sole difference to her is that MAiD is more "humane" and has "safeguards and support."

So ultimately, Marmoreo is arguing that society should not prevent the suicides of people with mental illness, but simply make them more palatable.

The Bottom Line:

It is not compassionate to agree with someone suffering from depression and say their life is not worth living. People with suicidal ideation need treatment and help, not someone willing to help them die.

Key Takeaways:

• A court has awarded a father damages after losing his preborn child to abortion.

• The Plaintiff father's attorney argued in court documents that the father's ex-wife was not properly consented under Arizona law for the abortion by the defendants, Gabrielle Goodrick and Kristen Livingston.

• Court documents claimed that the child's mother was not informed about immediate and long-term medical risks of an abortion, alternatives to abortion, or the anatomical and physiological characteristics of her preborn child as required under state law.

• Despite the argument that the Plaintiff's ex-wife would have had the abortion regardless of being properly consented, the Court determined that "it is impossible to know" what she would have done had she received proper information.

• The father said he did not want "this to ever happen to somebody else.... Another man should never feel the pain that I feel."

• Tragically, the law in play at the time, the Arizona's Women's Right to Know Act, was declared unconstitutional by the Arizona state court, and women must no longer receive informed consent prior to abortion.

The Details:

The Court found that the Defendants — Phoenix abortion facility Camelback Family Planning, their owner Gabrielle J. Goodrick, and physician Kristen Livingston — failed to "comply with Arizona's Informed Consent Law." The Plaintiff had established that he experienced the "loss of parent-child relationship" that he "would have had," and that this injury "result[ed] from the violation [abortion]."

Arizona's Informed Consent Law

The law outlines that "A person shall not require a woman to obtain an abortion as a provision in a contract or as a condition of employment" and that any "physician who knowingly violates this section commits an act of unprofessional conduct and is subject to license suspension or revocation pursuant to title 32, chapter 13 or 17."

It stated:

An abortion shall not be performed or induced without the voluntary and informed consent of the woman on whom the abortion is to be performed or induced...

A statement that any physician who performs an abortion on a woman without obtaining the woman's voluntary and informed consent or without affording her a private medical consultation may be liable to the woman for damages in a civil action...based on a claim that failure to obtain informed consent was a result of simple negligence, gross negligence, wantonness, wilfulness, intention or any other legal standard of care.

Relief... includes the following:

1. Money damages for all psychological, emotional and physical injuries resulting from the violation of this section.

2. Statutory damages in an amount equal to $5,000 or three times the cost of the abortion, whichever is greater.

3. Reasonable attorney fees and costs.

The Act laid out who can file a civil action:

• A woman on whom an abortion has been performed without her informed consent ...

• The father of the unborn child if the father was married to the mother at the time she received the abortion, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct.

• A maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the mother was not at least eighteen years of age at the time of the abortion, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct.

"If the lawsuit is successful, it would establish a dangerous precedent in Arizona concerning embryonic personhood and chill the provision of abortion care," wrote the Lawyering Project, which defended the abortion facility.

The Lawsuit

In July of 2018, Mario Villegas' wife (listed as a Defendant under the pseudonym M.S.V.) was pregnant with the couple's eight-week preborn baby, when she visited Camelback Family Planning. There, Goodrick "dispensed medications to induce an abortion," the court document alleged.

J. Stanley Martineau, an Arizona attorney who represented Villegas, claimed that Goodrick "induced M.S.V.'s abortion by giving her two abortion-inducing drugs, MifeprexTM and Misoprostol." He argued in court documents that Mario's ex-wife was not properly consented under the law for the abortion.

Judge Bryan B. Chambers of Gila County, Arizona, found that defendants failed to "obtain valid informed consent" under state law, which was required at "least twenty-four hours before the abortion," among other requirements, and thus the "abortion should not have been performed[;] it was essentially an illegal abortion."

Abort73's Michael Spielman set the stage:

Though Mario Villegas—the father in the Arizona case—first filed his suit in 2020, by the time a motion for dismissal was argued in 2021, the influence of Roe was already slipping. It would be done away with entirely just a year later.

More importantly, a little-known Arizona statute from 2011 explicitly granted husbands the right to file a civil suit if their child had been aborted without procuring the mother’s full informed consent. This is precisely what was at issue in the case of Baby Villegas, whether or not Camelback Family Planning had disclosed all the information required of it to legally obtain the consent of the aborting mother.

... After a two-day bench trial, Judge Bryon B. Chambers ruled on July 22 of this year that Camelback Family Planning had not disclosed to his wife information about abortion that was required by state law. As a result of this negligence, the abortion of Baby Villegas had taken place illegally which thereby qualifies it as a wrongful death.

... The term “unborn child” appears 11 times in the act, which is itself problematic for the Arizona abortion clinics tasked with fulfilling it.

Additional court documents claimed Defendants only gave M.S.V. the "information she wanted to hear" and did not inform M.S.V. about:

• immediate and long-term medical risks of an abortion

• alternatives to abortion

• anatomical and physiological characteristics of her unborn child

These omissions were in addition to other requirements under State law.

Abortion Caused Injuries

Baby Villegas had a detectable heartbeat at the time of the abortion, which the court claimed caused the Plaintiff's injuries. Expert testimony enabled the Court to find that "more probably than not, the embryo would have been carried to term and born alive."

The baby's father claimed he was so distressed after learning of his wife's intention to obtain the abortion that he "could not eat," "function," or "focus," and he later filed for divorce claiming that he "couldn't get over the abortion part of our marriage" and continues to "carry the ultrasound image of the embryo everywhere he goes."

Despite the argument that the Plaintiff's ex-wife would have had the abortion regardless of being properly consented, the Court determined that "it is impossible to know after the abortion what M.S.V. would have done before the abortion if Defendants had complied with the [Informed Consent] Act."

"Defendants' customs and practices encouraged M.S.V. to consent to an abortion before receiving the required information, not after, as required by the statute" and "informed M.S.V. by reading verbatim from a printed form that lacked much of the required information, and that misstated other required information," court documents stated.

Losses Due to Lack of Informed Consent

The Court found that the Plaintiff had established a "loss of parent-child relationship the Plaintiff would have had" as an injury "resulting from the violation."

Therefore, the Court found that Villegas could seek damages for the "post-violation loss" of a baby that "Defendants had no legal authority to destroy without first complying with the Act."

The Plaintiff was not eligible to seek damages surrounding "pre-violation distress" regarding his wife's decision to have the abortion.

In July of 2026, Judge Bryan B Chambers wrote, in part (emphases added):

...[]this court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to $5,000.00 in statutory damages for Defendants failure to comply with Arizona's Informed Consent Law A.R.S. § 36-2153, and $62,500.00 in compensatory damages for his psychological, emotional, and physical injuries resulting from Defendants violation of Arizona's Informed Consent Law.

Finally, as the prevailing party, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment for his attorney fees and costs, however, his recovery for attorney fees is limited to the fees incurred for the portions of this case where the Plaintiff prevailed. He is not entitled to recover attorney fees incurred in pursuit of claims that were rejected by the court in pretrial motions.

Mario Villegas' testimony was that he did not want "this to ever happen to somebody else. I mean, another man should never feel the pain that I feel."

In September of 2026, the Court also awarded the Plaintiff attorneys' fees against the Defendants in the amount $58,905, as well as taxable costs against the Defendants in the amount of $2,384.70.

"On February 6 of this year, the Women's Right to Know Act was declared unconstitutional by the Arizona state court, which means that Arizona abortion clinics are no longer required to disclose any of the information formerly required," Spielman reported.

Zoom Out:

Medical malpractice attorney Mike Seibel, who recently won a settlement for the estate of aborted Baby Wabbington, reviewed the case and pointed out that as more rulings like this continue, the personhood of the preborn child becomes impossible to dispute.

He told Live Action News:

"Even though the Court did not recognize the inherent value of the preborn person, they recognized the parental relationship.

Unlike Wabbington, which had a direct finding of personhood in one of its orders, this case recognized personhood in a different arena: the relationship between a father and a child as compensable.

Since the law does not allow damages for a relationship of a non-person, this case helps build a compelling case for personhood."

Live Action News also reached out to the attorney who represented the father in this case, but had not received a response as of the date of publication.

However, in court records, Martineau emphasized that "there are many ways to keep abortion practitioners honest, and awarding damages plus fees for a wrongful abortion does just that."

Key Takeaways:

• Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier spoke with Live Action president Lila Rose about the many ways the state of Florida has worked to protect preborn lives.

• He cited the state's heartbeat bill, defeat of a pro-abortion amendment, legal action against Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry, and more.

• He also touched on efforts to stop commercial surrogacy and protect children from online predators.

The Details:

AG Uthmeier highlighted some of the ways that Florida has been a leader in protecting the vulnerable, noting that since the state's heartbeat law took effect, prohibiting abortion after the preborn child's heartbeat can be detected (around six weeks), an estimated 40,000-50,000 babies have been saved from abortion.

Additionally, under the leadership of Governor Ron DeSantis, the state was able to defeat a proposed amendment that would have enshrined abortion as a constitutional "right."

He also discussed legal actions taken against Planned Parenthood, as his office filed a deceptive trade practices lawsuit against the abortion giant over its claims that abortion pills <a href="/news/florida-planned-parenthood-lawsuit-abortion-pill">safer than Tylenol</a>.

"We survived the opponent's motion to dismiss," he said. "And if we ultimately do win, they could be liable for billions, which could bankrupt that company. So, I'm excited to go fight for truth, fight for life, and take the enemy down using any tool we have above and beyond just our heartbeat bill."

Zoom In:

Uthmeier noted steps the state is taking to restrict the flow of abortion pills into the state. Florida has sued abortion pill manufacturers, as well as the FDA, for violating the initial rulemaking approval that allowed abortion pills, calling it "inaccurate and deceptive."

He also spoke of going after abortion facilities, saying the state would "use every tool we can to go after the abortion clinics that are killing babies."

He elaborated:

"Some of that is just enforcing laws that are already on the books, sanitation issues. We shut down a clinic in the panhandle of Florida where a lot of people were coming in from out of state after finding numerous instances of normal hospital cleanliness and sanitation laws being violated.

So, I think people have to get creative here when it comes to saving lives."

The conversation also touched on efforts to stop commercial surrogacy and protect children from online predators.

The Bottom Line:

Utheimer said that he is hopeful he will see the end of abortion in his lifetime. "I do believe we have the truth on our side and the truth will prevail."

Key Takeaways:

• Trust Women was previously owned by the notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller, and later run by Julie Burkhart, who had worked with Tiller and been mentored by him.

• The facility commits abortions through 22 weeks gestation, the legal limit in Kansas.

• Staff called for an ambulance after an abortion injury in September, saying the emergency was "urgent."

The Details:

Operation Rescue reported that yet another woman was injured at Trust Women in September. Operation Rescue was able to obtain the 911 audio and 911 detail report, which revealed how serious this emergency was.

In the 911 audio, the staffer said a 30-year-old patient began bleeding excessively during a "procedure," and the interventions taken at the facility were having no effect. "We need the EMS, urgent," the staffer said.

The staffer then said the patient was sedated and breathing, but added, "She’s, uh, on two liters of oxygen, she’s had quite a bit of sedation.” She also answered "no" when asked if the patient was pregnant, indicating the abortion had been completed, and reiterated that the bleeding was serious.

The report contained a code of “21D02," and Operation Rescue explained what that meant:

The “21” signifies a hemorrhage or laceration, while the “02” indicates the patient is unconscious. “D” or “Delta” is one of the highest priorities a call can be given. It signifies an imminent, life-threatening situation.

It was also listed as Priority E1, which often denotes the most serious, life-threatening emergencies. The patient's status is not known.

The Backstory:

Trust Women is an abortion facility operating in the same building previously owned and operated by deceased late-term abortionist George Tiller. Julie Burkhart, who had worked with Tiller and been mentored by him, bought the building and founded Trust Women in his memory.

The facility was forced to temporarily close in 2024 though it reopened within two months. Allegedly, the co-executive directors, the medical director, and multiple staffers were fired without warning in April of that year. Those allowed to stay were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements; 10 of the facility’s 16 abortionists resigned in protest.

Burkhart owns other facilities in Wyoming and Illinois; her Illinois facility, the Hope Clinic for Women, has a long history of injuring women, as does the Trust Women facility in Kansas.

The Bottom Line:

The abortion industry makes it out as if women need abortions, but in reality, women's lives are being put at risk, and it is not necessary to intentionally kill human beings before they are born.

Key Takeaways:

• NICU volunteer Terry Berggren volunteers at an Overland Park hospital holding preemies as part of the Warm Arms program.

• He has personally held more than 540 premature babies.

• "We see changes in the babies when they actually have human touch," noted one of the hospital's neonatologists.

The Details:

Terry Berggren was inspired to volunteer at a Kansas City-area hospital’s Warm Arms program because of his family's previous personal experience at the NICU.

As a volunteer baby cuddler, he provides tiny babies the human contact they need when their parents are unable to hold them at the hospital.

"It's a personal success… that's who I want to be known as — the kind guy that can just take care of a kid, that lasts forever," Berggren told KSHB 41. 

Berggren's Humanitarian Award comes from the Overland Park Regional Medical Center, where he has volunteered so much time.

Zoom In:

Volunteer baby cuddlers are trained to comfort and care for premature babies when there is no one else to hold them. The volunteers hold, rock, swaddle, hug, and read and sing to the preemies, who are sometimes sick and fighting for their lives.

While baby cuddlers provide important emotional support both to the preemies and their families, who often struggle alongside the babies, these volunteers also provide scientifically proven physiological benefits for the preemies.

Hundreds of studies on the effect that human touch has on babies show that baby cuddlers can stabilize a baby’s heart rate, improve the baby’s oxygen levels, stabilize body temperature, reduce anxiety, and help the baby sleep and even gain weight.

Neonatologist Dr. Robert Holcomb, who works at the hospital where Berggren volunteers, confirmed the scientific backing for baby cuddling.

"It's incredible when you look at the studies that have been done, and we see changes in the babies when they actually have human touch," Holcomb said. "It can stabilize their vital signs. They can drop their oxygen requirements."

The Bottom Line:

Hospitals across the United States have baby cuddler programs, and allow adults to apply to volunteer.

The programs provide care for babies, but also a deep sense of purpose and meaning for volunteers like Berggren.

Berggren told KSHB 41 that he feels “a sense of calm” caring for the babies. But being known as a kind caretaker for children, he says, is the most important thing.

Key Takeaways:

• A mother to three children and living with an abusive ex-boyfriend, Belén saw an ad seeking surrogates and thought it could be a way out for her and her children.

• She agreed to be a surrogate for a wealthy gay couple, who promised to help her move out of the home she shared with her abuser.

• They reportedly refused to pay her and did not help her find another place to live.

• When she refused to sign the consent forms allowing them to take the baby immediately after childbirth, she said they screamed at and pressured her for six hours in the hospital until she gave in.

• They then reportedly took the baby out of her arms and left her with no money outside of the hospital.

The Details:

Belén's horror story was laid out in an interview with the Daily Mail.

The outlet reported that in 2022, she was 31 and working as a waitress to support her three children. She also was living with an abusive ex-boyfriend, and was anxious to escape.

She saw an ad seeking surrogates on Facebook, and thought it could give her the money she needed to leave.

"When I saw the post, I was at a point where I was emotionally exhausted from constantly trying to survive and support my three children," she said. "I was desperate to get out of the violent situation I was in at home."

She contacted the couple and met them at a cafe; after a short conversation, she agreed to be a surrogate for them.

She said they offered to pay her a small amount of tiered monthly payments based on how far along she was in her pregnancy, but the real attraction was their promise to help her find a new home. But from the beginning, she said she received little support:

I met them in March 2022. I didn’t get pregnant until January 2024. During those years, I was spending my own money to travel and undergo fertility procedures, and taking time off work to recover. They gave me no money during this period.

She said she had to beg just to receive money for food:

I called them sobbing because I couldn’t buy my children Christmas dinner. I didn’t have a penny. Only then did they give me just enough to buy some food.

In January of 2024, she was pregnant. It was not clear if Belén was a gestational surrogate — meaning the baby was biologically related to her — or not.

What Happened Next:

Struggling to survive

Once pregnant, Belén thought she would begin receiving the promised monthly payments, but money never came, even after she lost her job because she had to take time off due to pregnancy complications.

She was struggling to buy food, and her radiator also broke, meaning she and her family were struggling to keep warm in the cold. The purchasing parents allegedly shrugged this off as Belén's "hormones."

She said:

By the sixth month, I had still not received any money from them. They didn’t even give me the 120,000 pesos that I had originally been promised. I was crying and saying, "This can’t be happening." I reached the point where I had nothing to eat. I was thinking, "I’m pregnant, I’m doing this for them, and they are giving me nothing."

After appointments, however, she said the purchasing parents would take her to eat at a fancy restaurant before sending her home to her starving children. She told her therapist she felt like "a little dog that gets taken for a walk once a month."

Fear of separation

And all the while, the thought of being separated from her baby terrified her.

"I loved my baby very much. I had already bonded with him - it was impossible for me not to," she said. "I kept thinking, 'How can it be that I have to give this baby away? I’m the one taking care of him. I’m doing everything so that he is okay, and then I have to give him to people he doesn’t even know, who were barely there for me.'"

After her constant pleading, the couple eventually gave her 1 million pesos (roughly $660), but it was nowhere near enough.

Zoom In:

The 'cheapest incubator'

The couple arranged for Belén to have a therapist, but she felt it was another opportunity to manipulate her.

"I would cry to [the therapist], saying ‘these people are using me. They’re using me. I don’t want them to use me,'" she recalled. "He would scold me for not trusting them. He said they had good intentions. I was abandoned as a child. I had been homeless. He saw all those weaknesses and used them to manipulate me."

And yet the couple was exerting ever more control over her life, right down to the underwear she would wear after giving birth. "I realized that I had simply been their incubator - the cheapest one they could find that worked for them," she said.

In September of 2024, she was scheduled to have a c-section, but the thought only made her more upset.

Erasing the mother

"With ordinary pregnancies, everyone understands that the baby is going to seek out its mother, her smell, the connection, what is familiar," she said. "But with these pregnancies, it seems as though all of that is erased."

She asked for her son, named Piero, to be placed onto her chest after birth and be able to see his placenta, wanting to take advantage of as much time to bond with him as possible. The couple was allowed in the delivery room, and shortly afterwards, Piero was taken to the NICU because he looked pale.

They locked her up

Belén, meanwhile, was taken to a hospital suite, in which the couple had the larger front room, and she was left locked in a back bedroom to recover.

"They kept me shut away in the room at the back," she said. "They literally left me locked in the room. They would close the door while they stayed at the front with their visitors. From the moment he was born, I only saw them when they came to make me sign paperwork relating to neonatology. Nobody came to check on me."

When they came to ask her to sign the discharge forms after being neglected for days, she grew angry... and refused.

I thought, 'Are you kidding me? They haven't come once and now they’re sending the nurse to me so that I can sign the discharge?'

Piero's fathers came into my room and verbally attacked me. The grandmothers came in and insulted me. All four of them were screaming at me while I was lying helplessly in bed. They called me a baby thief, and threatened to take my children and send me to jail. The lawyer kept telling me that I was going to face criminal charges.

They told me that if I didn’t sign the discharge papers and leave, they were going to report me for child abandonment.

After six hours of this, Belén gave in and signed the forms.

Snatched the baby and left her on the street

She was allowed to see Piero one final time, as Argentinian law requires the mother to take the baby out of the hospital.

She said as soon as they were outside, one of the purchasing fathers snatched the baby out of her arms and ran away with him:

I held Piero in my arms at that moment. He was making little noises and crying, and I knew that he recognized me. We walked out together and crossed the clinic's exit. Then he ran. Literally ran away from me with the baby. I was left there on the street with my c-section wound, without any battery on my phone, with nothing. I had to go to a nearby cafe to charge my phone and call an Uber to get home.

Since then, she said she hasn't seen Piero once, despite the couple promising she would remain part of his life.

What's Happening Now:

Belén has now become an outspoken opponent of surrogacy.

"If you pursue parenthood consciously through the exploitation of another woman, everyone knows there is a need involved. And however much you try to romanticise it, the reality is that we need to be conscious enough to understand that sometimes our needs can't be fulfilled," she said. "We don’t go around violating other people’s bodies because we want something."

She also questioned what Piero would know about his birth:

How are you going to tell him that you left the woman who carried him abandoned with her three other children? That you used her and discarded her? How are you going to explain that to him? I know I’m criticised a lot for having loved him. And I think, 'How could you not want me to love your child? How could you not want me to show him that he is loved?'

The Bottom Line:

Belén's story is an increasingly common one among surrogates, in which the surrogate attempting to love and protect the child she carried is treated like a criminal for having any continued interest in the wellbeing of that child, despite having bonded with the baby in the womb.

The story of surrogate McKenna West is a good example of this, as she has been portrayed as attempting to "steal" a child whom the purchasing parents wanted aborted; instead, West fought to give the baby boy a chance in life and now the parents are suing her for more than she was paid by them.

Surrogate Stephanie Levesque Murphy was also treated poorly after she fought for the life of a baby with a health condition. She even offered to adopt the baby, and the purchasing parents were "offended"; they wanted the baby to be aborted instead. After the story went public due to Murphy's refusal, the parents refused to pay Murphy the thousands of dollars she was promised.

But even for preborn babies without health conditions, the surrogates are frequently treated like mere carriers or "incubators" as Belén was, carrying a child for someone willing to pay a large sum of money to obtain one. This industry is highly unregulated and is growing quickly, putting children in real danger and treating the human mother-child bond as if it either doesn't matter or doesn't exist.

We don't treat animals this way, and humans deserve better.

Zacharia has a law degree from Pepperdine University but reportedly did not pass the California bar exam. As CNN reported:

In interviews with The New York Times and Real America’s Voice, Zacharia said she had consulted Pepperdine’s president and others about how to describe her qualifications before appearing on television, and was told she could use the term “lawyer,” but not “attorney” or “esquire.” A source familiar with her thinking said that sharing the posts on social media [authored by others and referring to her as an "attorney"] was not intended to be an endorsement of using the title “attorney.”

“I think they were retweets, and I corrected the record and said that those not endorsing the title, they were retweets of a title that had been given,” Zacharia told Fox News Thursday night.

In her interview on Real America’s Voice, Zacharia pointed to the advice she said she had been given about identifying herself as a “lawyer,” adding that her degree helped support her use of the term.

10/15/26: Katie Zacharia, who was appointed as the new White House press secretary by President Trump last week, shared in 2025 that she came very close to being aborted before her birth mother ultimately chose adoption instead.

Key Takeaways:

• Katie Zacharia was announced as the new White House press secretary last week.

• She is a pro-life advocate who shared in 2025 that she was almost aborted.

• She says her mother was scheduled for an abortion, but changed her mind thanks to a 'miracle' phone call as she headed out the door to her appointment.

• Rather than abort Zacharia, her mother placed her for adoption at birth.

• Zacharia is married with four children.

The Details:

Zacharia, a mother of four, is a pro-life advocate who told "We The People with Gates Garcia" in 2025 that the circumstances of her birth are what led to her pro-life convictions.

She told Garcia, "... [T]he reason, Gates, that I am pro-life is because I was approximately 20, 30 minutes away from being aborted. I learned this when I met my biological mother when I was 18. I was then adopted as a newborn and the story really is one of a miracle."

She added:

"The story was, she had gotten a phone call. She has an appointment at, you know, 10 a.m. ... Her aunt is pulled up ready to take her to get an abortion and she's a 19-year-old single woman who had, you know, kind of been a groupie for Motley Crew, grew up with a pretty rough background of sexual abuse and is pregnant now with this baby and doesn't know what to do. And the first phone call she gets as she's leaving is from my biological father who's like, 'Get an abortion. I'll do whatever it takes.' ... Then the next moment, she's almost out the door, the phone rings again..."

This time, it was a Christian counselor calling her birth mother, Ruth, to encourage her to "consider an open adoption rather than an abortion, so you have an opportunity to know who this chidl could be and give this child an opportunity to live,"said Zacharia.

It was at that moment because of that phone call, Zacharia said, that Ruth decided not to go through with the abortion that would have claimed her baby's life. She went and told her aunt that she wasn't going through with it, and her family was reportedly angry that she didn't have the abortion. But Ruth gave birth and placed her baby girl with an adoptive family.

When Zacharia turned 18, she met Ruth and learned that she was nearly aborted and that it was that one phone call that "saved my life."

Zacharia went on to attend Pepperdine University law school, where she acted as the president of the university's Christian Legal Society chapter. She also went on to serve on the board of advisers for the White Rose Resistance group from November 2023 to February 2026, according to her LinkedIn profile.

In February, she became deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. After just one month, she resigned due to the strain the California to DC commute was causing her family. In June, she joined Trump Media & Technology Group/Truth Social as a senior communications adviser. Now she is serving as the White House press secretary.

She told Garcia in 2025 that it is a "blessing and gift" to be a part of the pro-life movement and help save the lives of preborn babies.

The Bottom Line:

When women choose adoption over abortion, they get to pick the family that will raise their child. Children placed for adoption at birth do not enter foster care.

While open adoption was not common in the 1980s when Zacharia was born, it is happening with greater frequency today thanks to the understanding that children need to know where they come from and the knowledge that taking newborns from their biological mother can cause lasting trauma.

Though no official cause of death or exact gestational age of the child was given, the incident is among an increasing number of similar stories in which the recognizably human bodies of preborn babies have been found discarded.

Key Takeaways:

• The body of a "nonviable" preborn child was found in a Texas park on Monday.

• Police haven't given any details as to the baby's gestational age or cause of death, but say it is not suspected to be a homicide.

• There have been a number of instances in which the remains of preborn children have been found discarded, thrown away, or abandoned.

• It is possible that some of these instances may be children killed by abortion, resulting from increased abortion pill use.

The Details:

Austin police reported that a deceased "fetus" was found "inside a bag in a box beneath a tree" at Roy G. Guerrero Colorado River Park on Monday evening.

According to CBS Austin, the Austin Police Department Homicide Unit, Austin Forensic Science Crime Scene Specialists, and the Travis County Medical Examiner's Office all responded to the scene. The death is currently being considered as suspicious but is not believed to be a homicide.

Authorities have not released any other information as to the age of the preborn child or the expected cause of death, but the investigation is ongoing.

Zoom Out:

This is not the first discovery of discarded preborn children that has led to a police investigation.

• Earlier this year, the body of a preborn infant believed to have been between 13 and 15 weeks gestation was found at a South Carolina water treatment plant.

• In July, a preborn baby estimated at between five and six months gestation was found "intentionally discarded" in a park in Lewisville, Texas.

• Last November, the remains of a premature baby were discovered in a garbage bag buried under a pile of leaves in Brooklyn, New York.

• In May 2025, the body of a child "found to be at an early stage of development and nonviable" was found in a dumpster in Ohio.

• In two separate instances in 2023, the remains of preborn children were found in the pipes of Texas apartment complexes.

In many of these instances, it is impossible for investigators to know if the child died due to a miscarriage or stillbirth, was born alive and then died, or was killed via the abortion pill.

However, since the abortion pill accounts for the <a href="/news/abortions-skyrocketing-63-percent-abortion-pill">vast majority</a> of abortions committed today, and since the pill is widely available <a href="/news/no-test-contact-abortion-covid-works-time">without proper gestational dating</a>, it stands to reason that some of these infant remains could be the result of an abortion.

Each abortion kills a preborn child, leaving behind that child's body. Countless women have recalled their shock and horror after taking the abortion pill and then passing the recognizable remains of a preborn child (see Live Action's 'I Saw My Baby' series). After all, seeing the dead baby is not something typically mentioned by abortionists who peddle the pill.

Often, the infant's remains are flushed down the toilet. However, if the abortion pill is taken later in pregnancy, the remains may be too large to pass.

At least one pro-abortion organization, the Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), instructs women to dispose of infant remains too large to flush "in the garbage with other household waste."

Live Action researcher Carole Novielli recently shared an RHAP fact sheet pertaining to abortion pill use between 14-20 weeks (well past the FDA limit of 10 weeks). This fact sheet instructs women what to do with the "contents that [they] pass" by saying:

This depends on where you live and what you prefer. If everything is small enough to flush down the toilet, you may do that.

If you are around 15-16 weeks or later, the pregnancy may be too big.

To lower legal risk, you can wrap it in many layers of plastic and place it in the garbage with other household waste.

It stands to reason that when the remains of preborn children are found discarded, thrown away, or abandoned, it is a very real possibility that these remains may be the result of abortion pill use.

The Bottom Line:

Regardless of how he or she died, every child is a human being deserving of respect and dignified treatment.

But laws regulating abortion do not define it this way, and stating otherwise causes mass confusion — not just among medical professionals, but among parents who have suffered losses during pregnancy and been led to believe they had abortions when they did not.

Key Takeaways:

• The definition of abortion is being conflated with other things, as women claim that any procedure that "ends a pregnancy" is an abortion (which sometimes even includes birth).

• Under this false definition of abortion, women are claiming that c-sections and induced delivery are abortions because they can end pregnancies.

• The intent of an induced abortion, however, is to ensure the baby's death. If the intent of the procedure is to ensure a dead baby, then it is an abortion.

• C-sections and induced delivery for emergency medical conditions are not performed with the intent of killing the baby, and are therefore not abortions. Doctors in these situations are attempting to save both mother and child. But if the child is unable to be saved, that does not make her death an abortion.

The Details:

Induced abortion carries one goal: to produce a dead baby.

Any other procedure that would "end the pregnancy" — miscarriage treatment, induced delivery due to a medical emergency involving the safety of the baby or the mother, c-section for medical reasons related to protecting the mother or baby, ectopic pregnancy treatment to protect the mother's life — serves a purpose of caring for and protecting the mother, the baby, or both.

Regardless of whether the baby ultimately survives, the goal of these procedures is not to ensure that the baby dies.

But abortion advocates intentionally conflate all of these procedures, which is convincing women who haven't had abortions that they have. This also tricks young men and women into believing the lie that intentionally killing a preborn child is medically necessary, and that a pregnant woman could need to have her baby intentionally killed at any moment.

Surrounded Debate

In a debate on Surrounded, Ben Shapiro was confronted with the false idea that c-sections or any kind of delivery outside of a "natural" one are abortions. The pro-abortion debater, who supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, claimed that every hospital, including the Mayo Clinic, defines abortion as the ending of a pregnancy.

Shapiro was quick to tell her that the moral issue at the center of the abortion debate is the intent to cause the child's death.

The debater asked:

"Why would you not assume that something like a c-section is an abortion? Why does the definition have to include the death of the fetus? You can say simply abortion is the ending of the pregnancy. Why would it have to end with the death of the fetus?"

Shapiro replied that if abortion didn't intend the death of a preborn child, there would be no moral issue (emphasis added):

"I just don't understand how you're removing the death of the fetus from the equation about abortion. That's literally the entire moral issue. You and I would not even be arguing if we were talking about c-sections or about natural birth."

While the Mayo Clinic does not appear to offer a definition of abortion, it discuss induced labor, saying, "The main reason to induce labor is concern for the health of the baby or the health of the pregnant person."

Clearly, the intent is not to end the baby's life.

About c-sections, it says:

Cesarean birth is the delivery of a baby through surgical incisions made in the belly and uterus.... A C-section may be planned if there are pregnancy complications. And people who have had a C-section before are more likely to need another one. But the decision for a first-time C-section typically isn't made until after labor starts.

Again, the intent is not to cause the baby's death.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) defines induced abortion as a procedure that "ends a pregnancy with medication or a medical procedure." But if you hover the cursor over "induced abortion," there's a little pop-up that states:

An intervention to end a pregnancy so that it does not result in a live birth.

As for what pro-life laws say, they all consider abortion a procedure in which there is an intent to not have a live birth.

Texas defines abortion as (emphasis added):

The act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child; remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or remove an ectopic pregnancy.

Mississippi defines abortion as (emphasis added):

the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth or to remove a dead fetus.

Alabama defines abortion as (emphasis added):

the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child. Such use or prescription is not an abortion if done with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child, remove a dead unborn child, or to deliver the unborn child prematurely in order to preserve the health of both the mother (pregnant woman) and her unborn child.

Those are just a few. Pro-life laws are clear that the difference is the intention.

Chrissy Teigen's heartbreaking mistake

Such confusion is leading to false conclusions and headlines stating women "need" abortions.

Perhaps the headlines that could cause the most damage are the ones like the BBC's article, "Chrissy Teigen says she has come to realize she had an abortion, not a miscarriage."

It's completely untrue, and has the potential to cause massive emotional, mental, and political chaos among women who have suffered from a similar type of child loss. And the BBC wasn't the only media outlet to run such a headline. People, The Hollywood Reporter, US Weekly, and the Los Angeles Times all ran headlines claiming that Teigen's pregnancy loss was an abortion.

In 2020, Teigen, who is married to musician John Legend, was pregnant with their third child, Jack, when she suffered a partial placental abruption. She was put on bedrest as doctors tried to get her to 28 weeks, but it got to the point that they could not stop the bleeding, and she was given multiple blood transfusions. Jack had to be delivered at just 20 weeks.

The youngest premature baby to ever survive was born at 21 weeks. Jack, tragically, did not survive. But his death was not intentional. The purpose of his delivery was not to end his life, but to stop what had become a dangerous situation for both mother and baby.

The doctors had fought for both Teigen's and her son's lives, but, unfortunately, Jack's could not be saved.

At the time, Teigen referred to this as a miscarriage, and while it was more likely an emergency induced delivery, it was not an abortion.

Two years later, after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, Teigen changed her story and began claiming her son's emergency delivery was an abortion.

"I told the world we had a miscarriage, the world agreed we had a miscarriage, all the headlines said it was a miscarriage," she said. "And I became really frustrated that I didn't, in the first place, say what it was, and I felt silly that it had taken me over a year to actually understand that we had had an abortion."

But Teigen's early delivery was not an attempt to end Jack's life. She wanted him to survive. She fought for his survival. His death was an unintended effect, not the goal.

As a celebrity, her words carry weight in this world. Her decision to use her words to normalize the intentional killing of preborn children as healthcare — misrepresenting what happened to her and her son — has far-reaching consequences.

Why It Matters:

Normalizing abortion as if it's only done for rare or dangerous reasons

The more intentional killing by induced abortion is falsely normalized as if it's "healthcare," the more likely people are to vote to support abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

According to a study published on Guttmacher’s website, the reasons women gave for having abortions late in pregnancy are the same reasons they have them early in pregnancy, including “raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.” Yet, there's a false belief that late abortions only happen for tragic reasons.

Doctors set the record straight

In 2023, a disturbing TikTok trend of pregnant women posting videos telling their doctors to save them instead of their babies led two doctors to speak out and let everyone know that these situations really don't exist.

"We do everything in our efforts to save both (mother and baby)," said Dr. Franziska Haydanek, an OB-GYN in Rochester, New York. "I can't think of a time where the medical team has had to make a decision about who to save in a viable laboring patient. It's just not a real scenario in modern medicine — just one we are seeing played out on TV."

Dr. Elizabeth Langen, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at the University of Michigan Von Voigtlander Women's Hospital, explained, "If mom's health is deteriorating, ultimately, she's not going to be able to support baby's well-being. And so generally, what we encourage folks to do is really support mom's health, because that's in the best interest of both mother and baby."

Haydanek went so far as to make her own video responding to the TikTok trend. She said that many women are worried about telling their husbands or partners who to choose in an emergency: the baby or her.

"Please don't feel like you have to make this choice," Haydanek said in the video. "I know firsthand how much anxiety there can be in pregnancy ... but it's just not a situation that you're gonna find yourself in."

Key Takeaways:

• Philippe Couillard was Quebec's premier in 2014, when euthanasia was legalized.

• His liberal party helped oversee the legalization.

• Couillard now says he might not support the same bill today after seeing how far it has come.

The Backstory:

Known as Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD), assisted suicide and euthanasia were legalized in Quebec in 2014 while Couillard was premier, and the law took effect in December 2015. The bill was initially introduced by the Parti Québécois, but received multiparty support from Couillard's Liberals.

Since then, Quebec has become the world leader in euthanasia, and it shows no signs of slowing down. According to the 2024–2025 Report of the Commission on End-of-Life Care, 6,268 total deaths were committed between April 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025. This comprised more than seven percent (7.9%) of all deaths in Quebec, with a nine percent (9%) increase in MAiD deaths over the previous year.

Furthermore, Quebec's Justice Minister recently announced plans to amend the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to include abortion and MAiD and to force doctors to participate in both. 

Officials also announced they are moving to potentially allow euthanasia for people via advance directives, meaning someone could still be euthanized, even if they had requested euthanasia after receiving a diagnosis of dementia but later refused assisted death. Their advance directive, combined with their dementia diagnosis, means they could be killed anyway, even if they were no longer capable of consent.

A Quebec medical group also sent out a memorandum last year, telling health care workers that they are required to cooperate with MAiD requests, regardless of any conscientious objections they may have.

The Details:

In a new interview with CBC's The House, Couillard said if he had the chance to do it again, he might not support the MAiD bill after seeing how rapidly it has been expanded.

"It was clearly reserved for terminal or pre-terminal conditions with a defined, unfortunate road to the end of life. And this is not the case anymore," he said. "I'm not sure that I would have again voted for that law with the extension that we have seen in the recent years."

Couillard also admitted that those who warned against the dangers of MAiD were right.

"I was warned about this by people opposing the law that told me, 'We see your motivation is good, but you will see, once you open the door you will not close it and it will open wider,'" he said. "And this is what happened."

A former neurosurgeon, Couillard openly said he now struggles with doubt.

"In general, when this hits me, I think about specific patients that I've known in my medical career that were in such deep distress and pain that I think we did the right thing," he said. "But I hope we didn't go too fast. I hope we didn't take this as a trivial matter, which is certainly not the case."

Key Takeaways:

• Abuzz Health, which dispenses abortion pills, tells minors that "even if [they] don't have support from your parents," they can get the abortion pill — and refers them to places providing it.

• Despite the FDA's limit of 10 weeks for the abortion pill, Abuzz refers to providers who give it to women up to 12 weeks and 6 days.

• Abuzz FAQs make incorrect claims about the safety and effectiveness of the abortion pill.

• Abuzz also tells women they don't need to disclose they've taken abortion pills if they experience complications.

The Details:

Referring Minors

Abuzz is happy to refer almost anyone for an abortion, including underaged girls, telling minors:

If you’re under 18, the resources below can help you access abortion even if you don’t have support from your parents.

It them refers them to Jane’s Due Process , Plan C Pills , and INeedAnA.

AbortionFinder.org notes, "Abuzz offers telehealth abortion pill visit and abortion pill mail delivery in all 50 states" (emphasis original).

Not So Factual 'FAQs'

The FDA has only approved use of the abortion pill up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, yet Abuzz's FAQs page tells women (emphasis added):

The clinicians we refer to will send the pills to people up to 12 weeks and 6 days pregnant. If you are 13 weeks pregnant or more, you can find services here.

The organization also promotes "just in case" abortion pills, outside Food and Drug Administration (FDA) REMS safety requirements. It lists PlanC as a place women can get abortion pills "in advance" of a confirmed pregnancy.

Also in its FAQs, Abuzz tells women:

You can store the pills for at least two years (and probably longer) in a cool, dry, dark place. It’s not recommended to store them in the bathroom because the heat and humidity can make the pills less effective.

Abuzz falsely claims the drugs are "safer than Tylenol" (debunked here and here) and advises women that "The combination of mifepristone and misoprostol has been shown to be 98% effective at ending a pregnancy."

But these claims are misleading.

• Even the drug maker's own medication guide states the drug's failure rate is between 2-7% depending on gestation. When abortion pills are prescribed later into gestation (which Reddit users claim Abuzz does), failure rates and complications rise as well.

• In addition, despite having a black box warning on the label for serious infections, hemorrhage, and the possibility of sepsis, Abuzz minimizes the risks, telling women infections "occur in less than 2% of all abortions." But infection isn't the only possible serious adverse event that can result from taking the abortion pill; the FDA’s 2023 mifepristone label acknowledged that 2.9 to 4.6% of women who take the drug require emergency care, and six percent (6%) who took the abortion pill in a telehealth study required emergency care. 

Despite the flippant sales pitch, Abuzz separately advises women to "Have a plan for how to get emergency medical care in the unlikely event that you need it."

But, when that occurs — and it could — Abuzz tells potential abortion pill users, "You do not need to say that you took abortion pills." In other words, this encourages women to deceive medical personnel by claiming they are having a natural miscarriage instead.

This intentionally skews potential adverse event reports to the FDA. It also makes pregnancy and natural miscarriage appear more risky.

Zoom In:

Online, Abuzz claims its "mission is to expand access to abortion by linking people to accurate information, pills by mail, and clinician support if desired," writing, "We aim to provide anti-racist, judgment-free, and queer-friendly care."

A lawsuit filed by three pro-life states against abortion pill businesses shipping the drug illegally into their state claimed "Abuzz, for example, proclaims that it will mail abortion drugs to 'any zip code' and 'all 50 states—'[e]ven states with bans and restrictions."

The lawsuit added:

Abuzz, LLC is a Massachusetts limited liability company located at 125 Westgate Center Drive #1036, Hadley, MA 01035. Abuzz, LLC operates the domain abuzzhealth.com. Its resident agent is Registered Agents Inc., 82 Wendell Ave., Ste. 100, Pittsfield, MA 01201.

... Abuzz engages in a widespread marketing campaign on social media that tries to glamorize abortion drugs, making them appear safe, easy, and normal. For example, Abuzz posts memes lauding access to abortion drugs to everyone “regardless of a zip code.” It also posts images placing abortion drugs alongside everyday items like sunglasses and wallets.

Through its website abuzzhealth.com, Abuzz advertises abortion drugs via “fast, discreet shipping."

... Abuzz does not provide any in-person screening for known contraindications of abortion drugs, such as bleeding disorders, certain medications, IUDs, gestation age, and ectopic pregnancy.

To the contrary, Abuzz discourages women from receiving this type of care, stating that the need for an ultrasound is a “myth,” that patients with IUDs do not need to take them out, and that blood tests (or knowledge of blood type) is not needed because patients with Rh-negative blood type do not need to worry about negative effects until after twelve weeks of pregnancy.

If there is no accurate knowledge of gestational age, and no real limit as to how late in pregnancy women are taking the drugs without supervision, then Abuzz is treating lightly any possible risk to women's future pregnancies and preborn children.

"Plaintiff States do not know every prescriber behind Abuzz, but they know of at least two: Defendant Christie Pitney and Defendant Manisha Kumar," the lawsuit added, alleging that Abuzz has mailed abortion drugs based on "fabricated pregnancy and patient information."

The Bottom Line:

Like the days leading up to and shortly after Roe v. Wade, virtual abortion pill dispensaries like Abuzz are providing anything but health care, with some admitting to having little-to-no interaction with clients and offering no follow-up.

That sort of recklessness can be harmful and sometimes deadly to women.

Key Takeaways:

• A Texas father is the first in the nation to hold his premature baby skin-to-skin using a wearable incubator.

• Dorian and Dr. Tiffany Ojemen welcomed their twins at 26 weeks gestation, and for the first two weeks they could only touch their babies through the openings of the incubators.

• Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital is the first to have a device called the "skincubator" and is testing it as part of a clinical trial.

The Details:

Tiffany Ojemen is an OB/GYN who gave birth to twins Silas and Simone at 26 weeks gestation. For the first two weeks, she and her husband, Dorian, could only touch their babies through the holes in the incubators. But thanks to a clinical trial Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital is participating in, they were able to hold their babies without removing them from their incubators.

Premature babies often require time in incubators, which controls temperature, humidity, and oxygen levels with the goal of recreating a safe womb environment. This allows preemies to continue growing and developing safely. And because their vital organs are often not fully developed, premature babies typically must remain in an incubator until they are able to maintain a stable temperature on their own, have stable oxygen levels, and reach a safe weight.

This, however, means both parents and baby miss out on crucial bonding time, which is where the skincubator comes in.

Zoom In:

The skincubator is a wearable incubator, which keeps premature babies safe in an incubator environment, while also allowing parents to hold their preemies and have skin-to-skin contact. This is helpful for more than just bonding; as the hospital explained in its press release:

Skin-to-skin care in the early days of an infant’s life is known to help stabilize their heart rate, breathing pattern, encourage growth, relieve pain, and support healthy sleep and brain development. It also helps regulate the nervous systems of both baby and mother, supporting breastfeeding and emotional bonding.

And when Dorian had the opportunity to have that bonding time with his twins, he took it, making him the first father to use the skincubator. His wife soon followed.

“I was just very nervous because they’re very small and I was scared to do skin-to-skin because I just didn’t know how vulnerable they would be,” he said. “So when I heard there’s an easy way to have them close to me, I was, like, excited about the opportunity.”

Tiffany added that the skincubator was able to reassure them and make them feel like it was safe to hold their babies.

“Before the Skincubator, we actually didn’t really hold the babies too much because they were intubated, so it was kind of difficult to get into that process, and they were also really small," she said. "It really made us comfortable with having that connection.”

The Bottom Line:

Jaclyn Ruggiero, a neonatal-perinatal medicine physician at Children’s Memorial Hermann who is overseeing the Skincubator trial, said the device gives parents confidence, and helps babies as well.

“A baby who is receiving this touch essentially is having the sense of safety activated to all of these systems from their parents’ actual skin contact, and so it helps to stabilize the normal physiology of organ systems,” she said. “It’s not just cute cuddling or holding. It’s actually a stabilizer for the central nervous system, and for all the systems that the central nervous system is in contact with.”

Key Takeaways:

• Yuill is an emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland, and chief executive of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (HAASE).

• He believes the issue of assisted suicide raises the question of the meaning of human life, and who has the authority to take it.

• Yuill argued that differentiating assisted dying from suicide has helped to hide the reality of what is actually happening.

The Details:

Dr. Yuill does not treat assisted dying as a technical issue within medical ethics. For him, it raises a far more profound question: what a society believes human life is for, and who has the authority to decide when a life has become too painful, too expensive, or too burdensome to be worth continuing. 

An emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland and chief executive of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (HAASE), Dr. Yuill told Live Action News, “I think there is a death wish amongst those clamoring for both euthanasia and assisted suicide.” 

It is a provocative argument, and Dr. Yuill is fully aware of that. Yet, as he sees it, the real danger is not simply that some individuals may choose to die. It is that society may slowly come to view death as an answer to poverty, disability, loneliness, and poor care — and then dignify that change by labelling it as “choice.”

READ: <a href="/news/university-professor-warning-letter-opposing-assisted-suicide">University sends professor warning letter for vocally opposing assisted suicide</a>

Suicide by another name

Dr. Yuill made this argument in his 2013 book, "Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation," which maintained that the key issue in the public debate is suicide rather than euthanasia. Over 10 years later, he believes that the framing of the debate still fails to take hold, because it forces people to confront an uncomfortable truth. 

“Mainstream media and politics deliberately try to play down the suggestion that ingesting deadly drugs is actually suicide,” he said. “Whereas they can support the idea that someone suffering at the end of life should be freed from their pain, they do not like to be confronted with the idea that they are facilitating suicide.”

For Dr. Yuill, the phrase “assisted dying” serves as a kind of moral laundering. The reframing shifts attention from the act itself — intentionally ingesting a substance meant to cause death — to the circumstances that lead up to it: illness, suffering, fear, and a perceived loss of control.

Dr. Yuill acknowledges that these circumstances call for compassion, but maintains that they do not change what is actually occurring. 

“Most, though not all, recognize the wrongness of suicide,” he said. “That is why the language matters.”

READ: <a href="/news/people-disabilities-speak-assisted-suicide-canada">People with disabilities speak out against assisted suicide expansion in Canada</a>

His objection goes beyond wording. In his view, euthanasia and assisted suicide rest on the same grim premise: that human difficulties, whether medical or deeply personal, cannot be resolved through the support and intervention of others. 

“Both destroy hope, such a necessary part of the human condition,” he said.

Furthermore, Dr. Yuill also sees an older impulse at work: efficiency. “I might alter what I said in 2013,” he explained, “because I think there is an impulse of efficiency that underlies the drive towards euthanasia since it was first suggested in 1870.”

From that perspective, assisted dying is not merely another expression of patient choice. It risks becoming the least expensive response to a society’s failure to deliver proper care. 

When the state becomes the final judge

Dr. Yuill’s resistance to assisted suicide does not rest on religious teaching. He identifies as an atheist, and HAASE was founded specifically to present a humanist argument against legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia. His case starts from the principle of autonomy. 

In his 2015 article, “The Unfreedom of Assisted Suicide,” he argued that legalization can reduce autonomy by handing the role of “final judge” to the state. When asked for a current example, Dr. Yuil quoted guidance issued by the British Medical Association (BMA) on voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, known as VSED.

The BMA characterized VSED as a decision made by a mentally competent person, without coercion, to cease taking food and fluids by mouth in order to bring about their own death; its guidance is designed to help doctors support patients while remaining within the law. Dr. Yuill, however, interprets its practical consequences very differently.

“Doctors have been advised to resist giving food and/or drink to a patient in their care who is begging for it,” he said. “That is the state being the final judge of the patient’s will — the immediate desire to eat and drink or the earlier expressed desire to die.”

READ: <a href="/news/bioethicists-argue-that-people-seeking-to-starve-themselves-to-death-be-terminall">Bioethicists argue people seeking to starve themselves to death can be 'terminally sedated'</a>

While he acknowledged that he does not regard VSED itself as suicide, he sees in the BMA guidance a disturbing inversion of medical duty: a patient’s present request for food or water may be superseded by an earlier declared wish to die.

“The doctor is in a position of power over the patient,” Dr. Yuill said.

He then offered a deliberately unsettling analogy: a woman who withdraws her consent to sex at the last moment, but is pressured to continue because she had agreed beforehand.

The comparison is stark, yet for Dr. Yuill, it makes a crucial point: consent expressed at one time cannot automatically override a person’s changed wishes at another. 

A coalition built on one issue

As chief executive of HAASE, Dr. Yuill has helped assemble an unusually wide-ranging coalition in the United Kingdom opposed to assisted-dying legislation. His approach depends less on lawsuits or traditional lobbying than on political education: persistent, direct, and intentionally opposed to adopting the language used by supporters. 

“Our success in the UK is down to refusing to bow down to the terminology invented by proponents,” he said. “Particularly, the argument that ingesting deadly drugs with the intent to die is somehow not suicide.”

HAASE also confronts what Dr. Yuill describes as scare tactics: the assertion that, without legal assisted dying, everyone is destined for a horrific death. The organization has commissioned its own surveys, contending that public backing declines once people grasp the specifics of proposed legislation. It has also placed Canada at the center of its case. 

READ: <a href="/news/social-scientist-health-care-serial-killers">Social scientist warns how assisted dying policies enable ‘healthcare serial killers’</a>

“We brought up the Canadian horror show relentlessly,” he said.

In 2016, Canada legalized medical assistance in dying, or MAID,  initially restricting it to people whose deaths were reasonably foreseeable. In 2021, eligibility was widened to include those with grievous and irremediable medical conditions whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable, known as Track 2.

Critics, among them disability-rights campaigners, contend that this expansion has placed vulnerable people at risk of dying prematurely, and that safeguards have failed to develop quickly enough. Canada’s proposed expansion to people whose only underlying condition is mental illness has since been postponed indefinitely, with the government pointing to unresolved disagreements over eligibility criteria and safeguards.

To Dr. Yuill, however, this is not comforting. It is proof of his point. 

“Canada illustrates how quickly ‘safeguards’ fall away,” he said. “Second, it enshrines EAS [euthanasia/assisted suicide] as a right rather than using the Dutch system, where it is more about the doctor making the decision. That means that the entire culture shifts.”

The coalition nobody expected

One of the most notable aspects of Dr. Yuill’s campaign is how wide-ranging it is. Among those he counts as allies are Reform UK, the Conservatives, Labour, the official publication of the Communist Party of Great Britain, born-again Christians, Muslims, Catholics, atheists, disability campaigners, and gender-critical feminists. 

“A real motley crew,” he said, adding, “We simply concentrated on the bill presented before us, convincing those who favored EAS in theory about the laws in that particular legislation."

In his view, advocates of assisted dying gain an advantage when their opponents are fragmented or when the issue is kept out of public debate altogether. “We learned that the other side benefits from no debate,” he said, “so we debated the issue relentlessly.”

He saw the response as more than just pushback. It reflected an understanding that this matter went beyond conventional political boundaries. 

“This issue is above politics,” he said. 

Coercion cannot be seen

The central promise of assisted-dying laws is that they will apply only to voluntary, informed, autonomous choices. Dr. Yuill does not doubt that some people sincerely request death. His concern is that the law cannot reliably distinguish a free request from one shaped by fear of being a burden.

“Coercion is remarkably hard to detect,” he said. “It depends on the abstract rights-bearing person rather than the reality of people with terrible choices to make being led down the path of EAS by circumstances.”

Rather than dwell on the legal definition, Dr. Yuill said to imagine who is actually affected: a senior citizen who feels like a liability to those around them; a disabled person surrounded by the message, stated or unstated, that death would be preferable to her condition; an autistic adult whose parents are gone and who has no one left. 

READ: <a href="/news/un-committee-disabilities-blasts-ableist-canada">UN Committee on Disabilities blasts ‘ableist assumptions’ behind Canada’s assisted suicide</a>

“I cannot envision a safeguard that can actually express such things,” he said. 

At its core, Dr. Yuill is arguing about something simple. Checks and balances take the form of forms, reviews, cooling-off periods, and signatures, while undue influence often seeps in through the general atmosphere of a community that prizes independence, disdains dependence, and gently suggests that certain people are too expensive to keep alive. 

The eugenic echo

As Dr. Yuill noted that the language of dignity and burden has a history, and has noted resonances of early 20th-century eugenics in today’s assisted-dying campaigns. He does not suggest that advocates want such results; his point is that both outlooks can make a person’s worth hinge on circumstances. 

“An EAS discussion broke out in many places in the early twentieth century,” he said. “The Soviet Union had a brief period where it legalized euthanasia, but soon revoked it after people wished to euthanize their elderly relatives.”

He recounted two episodes from Nazi Germany: the official propaganda stressing what it cost to support the mentally ill, and the resistance guided by Archbishop Clemens August von Galen. His outspoken condemnation of the killings ranks among the few instances in which opposition to Hitler’s policies succeeded. 

“What all of these pre-war movements shared was a utilitarian view of the value of human life,” Dr. Yuill pointed out. 

Zoom In:

Compassion versus autonomy

Advocates of assisted dying generally rely on a pair of ideals, individual “choice” and “compassion” toward the suffering. In Dr. Yuill’s view, the legal framework forces them apart rather than bringing them together. 

“I’m not sure you can ever encapsulate compassion in law,” he said. “We cannot be compelled to be compassionate, and nor can law itself be compassionate — it provides rules.”

Compassion, when properly understood, is directed toward another person, while autonomy concerns a person’s decisions about himself. Those are not the same thing.

“If I am motivated by compassion, it is always concerning another person, whereas autonomy is about honouring the decisions an individual makes about himself,” he explained. “We might provide euthanasia to children on the basis of compassion, but we can never do so on the basis of autonomy.”

Such a difference is important because either rationale becomes hazardous when followed to its logical end. Compassion can slide into a justification for judging that someone else’s life has ceased to be worth living. Autonomy, if treated as absolute, might oblige society to grant every request for assistance in dying. 

“Neither is a good justification for legalizing EAS,” he said. 

Care before death

Asked what he would prioritize instead, Dr. Yuill does not hesitate. “I would put hospice places at the top,” he said. “They do an incredible job.”

Dr. Yuill is encouraged that Prime Minister Andy Burnham has stressed enhancing palliative and social care before any assisted-suicide legislation is contemplated.

In Dr. Yuill’s eyes, the real choice is not between suffering and death. It is between a society that commits resources to care, companionship, pain management, disability support, and human dignity, and one that hands vulnerable people a deadly option and labels it liberty.

He then concluded with a warning that extends well past parliament, one directed at all who may find the comfortable rhetoric of choice appealing. 

“The actual person involved might be like the abstract person who wants a chance,” he said, “but might also be an elderly person who feels like they are a burden.”

Key Takeaways:

• The Scottish National Party has cancelled an event on abortion coercion that was to be held by the pro-life group Society for the Protection of Unborn Children at the SNP conference.

• Though the SNP gave approval for the event in August, it was canceled on October 11 after pro-abortion objections.

• The SPUC has announced it will seek action against the SNP.

• This is the latest example of an attempt to silence pro-lifers in the UK.

The Details:

SPUC's event on abortion coercion was scheduled to take place on October 17, alongside the SNP's Conference in Aberdeen.

The pro-life organization booked its event, titled, "No Law to Protect Her: The Reality of Coerced Abortion," in August. At the time, there were no concerns from the SNP.

However, Herald Scotland reports that all changed when a pro-abortion group, Women for Independence (WFI), got wind of the event. The group submitted a petition with 200 signatures calling for the event's cancellation, claiming it was “being presented as raising awareness on ‘the reality of coerced abortion’, this is merely a progressive veil for their outdated and bigoted beliefs."

On October 11, SNP officials announced the Party was revoking its approval and cancelling the SPUC event.

An SNP spokesperson told Herald Scotland:

“Following concerns being raised by SNP members we have taken the decision to revoke permission to SPUC to hold a fringe event at our conference.

We want SNP conference to be a place where all members can feel comfortable and it is clear our initial decision was wrong as it did not achieve that.”

Zoom In:

SPUC has now said it will seek legal advice for any actions it may take against the SNP, calling the political group's actions a breach of the Equality Act of 2010.

SPUC’s Executive Director, Michael Robinson, responded to the cancellation, saying:

“Our fringe event was on the subject of coerced abortion as we believe that no woman in Scotland should be coerced or pressured into having an abortion. The First Minister must now categorically state his views on this important issue: does he agree with SPUC that Scottish women should be legally protected from coerced abortion, if so why has he allowed a panel of expert women to be cancelled from his conference? Or is it the position of the SNP that women should not have specific coerced abortion legal protections?”

Preventing debate and discussion and cancelling valid viewpoints are behaviours associated with totalitarian regimes around the world, the rule of the mob has replaced the rule of law within the SNP.

The Bottom Line:

Free speech has been increasingly challenged in the UK, as buffer zone laws restrict pro-life activity and several teachers report being fired for stating their pro-life beliefs. This is yet another example of an attempt to silence voices willing to stand for life.

Key Takeaways:

• 163 girls under the age of 15 had abortions in 2025.

• That is 2.5 times more than the year prior.

• Over the previous five years, the number varied between 50 and 100.

• No conclusion has been reached as to what might be causing the increase, though in recent years, more general practitioners have been given the ability to prescribe the abortion pill.

The Details:

The NL Times reported that the number of girls under the age of 15 who had abortions skyrocketed in 2025. 163 girls had abortions committed on them, which was a 2.5 times increase from 2024. In the previous five years, the Health Care and Youth Inspectorate (IGJ) said the number of abortions committed on girls under the age of 15 ranged between 50 and 100 per year.

Abortions committed on girls between the ages of 15 and 19 also rose, though less dramatically. Overall, abortions rose by 1.5%, with just under 40,000 committed in 2025.

General practitioners have also been allowed to prescribe the abortion pill in recent years, with 339 committing chemical abortions last year. 392 general practitioners completed the mandatory online additional training to dispense abortion pills, making up 3.2 percent of the total 12,246 GPs registered in the Netherlands.

It is unknown if this was a contributor to the increase in abortions among teens.

Zoom Out:

The Netherlands has moved to expand access to abortion in recent years, including introducing a bill that would remove it from the criminal code.

Currently, women can undergo an abortion until about 24 weeks of pregnancy in the Netherlands. After that, the law allows women to have an abortion if the preborn baby is diagnosed with a serious health condition and is suffering or is likely to suffer after birth, with no hope of improvement. Abortions must be committed by a licensed physician in a licensed clinic or hospital.

The latest bill would keep those requirements in place, but would classify abortion as health care and remove it from the criminal code. In 2023, family doctors were allowed to begin prescribing the abortion pill — the same year legislators moved to lift the mandatory five-day waiting period.

Between abortion and euthanasia, it is clear that the culture of death is thriving in The Netherlands; this has grown to include infanticide. As Live Action News reported:

In September, it was announced that a toddler had been euthanized in the Netherlands because of a severe disability.

The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act was passed in 2002, allowing euthanasia for individuals over age 12 if they were considered to be suffering from an illness or disability with no hope of recovering.

In 2004, the law was expanded to allow infants up to age one to be euthanized if the parents and doctors agreed to it and the baby was experiencing suffering or expected to experience future suffering.

The Bottom Line:

The spread of abortion and euthanasia in the Netherlands is cementing the idea that death is the best solution to suffering.

According to a report released every two years as required under Belgian euthanasia law, there were 2,445 euthanasia deaths in 2020, accounting for 1.9% of all deaths in the region. However, the proportion of deaths in Belgium caused by euthanasia more than doubled by 2025, resulting in 4,487 deaths by euthanasia, accounting for 4% of all deaths in Belgium.

The report, which covers the two years of 2024 and 2025, also revealed there was a 12.43% increase in deaths by euthanasia from 2024, when 3,991 people ended their lives by euthanasia. Since 2003, the first full year in which euthanasia was legal in Belgium, when 235 people ended their lives by euthanasia, there has been a 1,809.36% increase in the number of people ending their lives this way.

Since euthanasia was made legal in Belgium in 2002, over 42,000 people have ended their lives this way.

Huge increase in people ending their lives who are not terminally ill

The number of people for whom a natural death was not expected in the short term, understood as meaning it was not expected in the coming months, who ended their lives by euthanasia in 2025 was 1,117. 

This represents a 259.16% increase from just five years earlier in 2020, when there were 311 euthanasia deaths where natural death was not expected in the short term. Those whose natural deaths were not expected in the short term could also be described as not terminally ill.

In the past, people who have ended their lives when death was not expected in the coming months have included people with depression, PTSD, and blindness.

The report also reveals that two individuals who were under the age of 18 ended their lives by euthanasia, one in 2025 and one in 2024. 

Additionally, the Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia, which publishes these reports, acceptedsome euthanasia cases despite the relevant procedural requirements not being followed to the letter. 

250% increase in the number of euthanasia deaths of people with various dementia disorders

In 2025, in 77 cases, dementia was recorded as the basis for euthanasia. This was an increase of 37.5% from 2024, which saw 56 deaths where dementia was recorded as the basis for their euthanasia. This was an increase of 250% from 2018.

In 2025, in 74 cases, a psychiatric disorder was recorded as the basis for euthanasia, an increase of 34.55% from 2024, which saw 55 deaths where a psychiatric disorder was recorded as the basis for euthanasia. This was an increase of 117.65% from 2018.

Across 2024 and 2025, there were a total of 532 people who were described as experiencing “weariness of living” on their euthanasia registration documents. 

There were also 15 people who ended their lives by euthanasia across the two years via an advance directive, meaning they were not able to consent to having their lives ended at the time of death, but who gave their consent at an earlier date. 

Across the two years, there were 13 couples who were both euthanised at the same time, the first time any such data had been recorded.

Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, Chief Executive of Right To Life UK, said “It is deeply alarming that in just five years, euthanasia deaths as a proportion of total deaths in Belgium have more than doubled. Sadly, Belgium is following a pattern observed in so many jurisdictions where the numbers increase year-on-year”.

“It is worrying that such large increases in the number of people ending their lives in this manner have happened, especially for individuals with certain conditions; a 250% increase in the number of people with dementia ending their lives by euthanasia in only seven years is deeply disturbing”.

“People suffering from mental or physical health conditions deserve protection and the best possible care, not a pathway to suicide”.

The so-called Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment will appear as Ballot Question 1 on the November 3 ballot. The General Assembly approved it twice, in 2025 and again in January 2026, and Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed the legislation sending it to voters in February. If it passes, it takes effect January 1, 2027.

Key Takeaways:

• The Virginia ballot amendment would group abortion in with things like prenatal care and childbirth, which are already legal and widely available. But cementing the killing of preborn children as a "right" is the true intention of the measure.

• The amendment would give those who commit abortions, like doctors and nurses, immunity from punishment and would allow third trimester abortions for vague reasons of "health" including mental health.

• Placing abortion in the state's Bill of Rights would sharply limit the people's ability, through their elected representatives, to ever protect children in the womb.

The Details:

What the amendment would do

The amendment would create a "fundamental right to reproductive freedom" covering decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care.

Abortion is the heart of the measure; the other items are already legal and widely available in Virginia.

The key provisions:

• A strict legal test. The state could not "directly or indirectly" burden this right unless it proves a compelling interest pursued by the least restrictive means. That is the most demanding standard in constitutional law, and it is a gift to abortion industry lawyers looking to challenge any regulation.

• Immunity from punishment. The amendment protects patients and the doctors and nurses who commit abortions from being punished for those decisions.

• A third-trimester loophole. The state could restrict abortion in the third trimester, except when the mother's life or physical or mental health is at risk, or when the pregnancy cannot survive. A "mental health" exception, as written, can be used to justify late-term abortions for nearly any reason.

"It doesn't change anything"? Then why put it in the constitution?

Supporters insist the amendment would not expand abortion beyond current Virginia law. But campaign promises are not constitutional text. Once the amendment is ratified, courts, not voters and not legislators, will decide what "indirectly burden" means and which existing laws survive.

Virginia is already the only state in the South that does not protect preborn children at or before 12 weeks, with abortion legal through the second trimester. This amendment would make that status quo nearly impossible to change and would put remaining safeguards, such as facility standards and limits on late-term abortion, in the crosshairs of litigation. In other states that passed similar amendments, abortion businesses went to court almost immediately to dismantle pro-life laws.

A constitutional right, not just a law

The central issue is not merely whether abortion stays legal in Virginia. It is whether ending the life of a preborn child becomes a constitutional right on par with freedom of speech and religion. Placing abortion in the Bill of Rights would sharply limit the people's ability, through their elected representatives, to ever protect children in the womb.

A child in the womb is a living human being from the moment of fertilization. A constitution should protect her, not guarantee the right to end her life.

The Bottom Line:

Vote NO on Ballot Question 1. A NO vote rejects the proposed constitutional amendment and keeps abortion out of Virginia's Bill of Rights. Early in-person voting is underway and runs through October 31. Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

Share this with every Virginian you know.

I was raised by a single mom. And throughout my childhood my mom had many different boyfriends in and out of our house.

From my little-girl understanding, my mom was my mom, but any guy she brought around, for the time that he was around, I believed that he was my dad. I didn’t think about how having multiple dads didn’t make sense. I just called all of the men who ever lived with us, “dad.” And I genuinely believed that they all were my father.

My First Hero:

Then as I got older, I observed that most people had one dad who stuck around, not multiple who came and went. So I started to ask my mom questions about who my real father was. Strangely, she was dodgy about answering my questions.

The more answers my mom refused to give, the more questions I had. Eventually, I blurted out, “Mom, do you not want to talk about my biological father because he hurt you?” 

Suddenly, my mom started uncontrollably crying. She held her hands in her face and wept, and when I asked what he did, she said she didn't want to tell me because she didn't want me to think that it defined me.

My mom went on to explain that she was in the wrong place at the right time of the month to conceive, and in an unsafe place where there was an unsafe person who took advantage of her body — and because of that, I came to be. 

Through the adversity and loneliness, my mom ended up making decisions that were not the most healthy and eventually she ended up in jail. While no one wants to end up incarcerated, my mom going to jail may have been the very thing that saved my life, because when someone is in jail they are required to receive medical attention.

Since it is the jail's responsibility to assure that inmates receive medical care, my mom received an ultrasound. 

She said there were people who advised she should just get an abortion, but to this day, my mom tells the story that when she heard my heartbeat and when she looked at the screen, she saw my little hands resting underneath my face.

She said it was that moment she knew that I was her child, and she would not abort me. For that reason, my mom was my first hero.

Entering Foster Care:

Sadly, my mom had a lot of trauma and she didn’t have the resources, community, or people to help her through all of it. She did the best she could.

She wanted to be a good mom to me. She always told me she loved me. She strived to provide for me, but when the dysfunction and abuse got so bad in our house, I went into the foster care system. I moved throughout 12 different homes, and eventually aged out.

Like 20% of youth who age out of the system, I was instantly homeless. Thankfully, after I aged out, a kind church woman named Tonya let me live with her and she became a mother figure in my life. She became a role model to me of hospitality and love and serving the vulnerable, and throughout my young adulthood to now I have watched Tonya let the drug addict, the unhoused, the pregnant teen mom, and the hungry into her home, and she would meet their needs. 

It was through Tonya’s life that I learned when we let people into our homes, radical hospitality can heal much brokenness in the world.

At the same time, my track coach told me he believed I could accomplish great things in my track career. Though other people said I was “troubled,” he showed up for me and trained with me nearly every day. Though other people said I was a “bad kid,” my track coach treated me as a beloved child of God. Despite the odds stacked against me, my senior year of high school, I became a four time state champion in track.

With the support of my community and the support of a lot of people who poured out love to me and welcomed me into their homes, I was able to attend college (which only 3% of foster youth do) on a full ride scholarship.

In 2018, I graduated from Hillsdale College, and it was there that the foundation was laid for my career as an advocate for the most vulnerable. 

Foster Care on the Other Side:

When I was 17, I did my first-ever advocacy event for foster care and adoption.

While I was still in college, I started working for a nonprofit serving foster families. When I graduated college, I started speaking and advocating all over the nation about serving the vulnerable, the preborn, the foster child, and the child waiting to be adopted. And as I shared the hardest parts of my life, I got to witness them be redeemed and used for good.

Once you see the brokenness in the foster care system, you cannot unsee it, so my husband and I started fostering.

Our journey has not been easy, and there have been many times adversity in it has made us want to give up. But we kept going because we knew there was a great need, especially for people to open up their homes to teens in the foster care system.

Three years ago, we were blessed to start fostering our teen daughter. She embraced us as her mom and dad, and our biological children declared her as their sister. She has since moved out, just down the street, after buying her own home, and we couldn’t be more proud to have witnessed another successful foster care transition. 

As Christians, my husband and I understood that even though it is so scary to say yes to, we are called to serve the orphan and the widow. And we have witnessed that God can bring healing and wholeness to the brokenness of the system if we keep saying yes. 

Not everyone can be a foster parent, but it is pertinent as Jesus followers that we ask ourselves if we can somehow, some way, welcome in a child who needs a family or serve a family who does welcome in those without.

It is crucial that we realize that family is the foundation of our nation and the future of our country depends on the next generation. It is our responsibility to love, mentor, and welcome them in.

Go Deeper:

For more information relevant to this article and topic, read the following.

• Safe House: A Guide to Practicing Radical Hospitality and Welcoming Others into Your Heart and Home

• Fostered: One Woman’s Powerful Story of Finding Faith and Family through Foster Care

Key Takeaways:

• Adele Best began living a sexually liberal lifestyle and had two abortions — one wanted and one coerced.

• When she contemplated a third abortion, she experienced a supernatural intervention and chose life for her daughter. It made her think differently about abortion.

• Today, she works to help other post-abortive women through the healing process.

The Details:

The “Ladettism” Era: Freedom That Felt Like Running

During the late 1990s and early 2000s, Britain’s “ladette” culture glorified women who imbibed liberally in alcohol, regarded casual sex as "liberation,” and wore “my body, my choice” like a banner of empowerment.

For Adele Best, that mindset meant weekends consumed by nightclubs, drugs, alcohol, and the relentless pursuit of the next thrill. She craved adventure, travel, and independence—anything that promised escape from the perceived constraints of commitment or emotional vulnerability. 

“I thought freedom meant being able to do everything the men did,” Best told Live Action News. “I wanted to experience everything the world had to offer.”

By her mid-twenties, Best had mastered the art of projecting confidence and liberation, even as an inner unrest lingered beneath the surface. The prevailing culture convinced her that sex carried no consequences and that dependence on others signaled weakness.

What appeared as “empowerment” to the outside world often concealed a profound lack of true freedom within. 

That inner conflict deepened during Best’s gap year in Asia, particularly amid Thailand’s famed full-moon parties on Koh Phangan—coinciding with the release of The Beach. Connections became fleeting; immediate pleasure and novel experiences took precedence above all else. Even so, in the heart of one such celebration, Best underwent a spiritual encounter she understood as a divine caution that her current path was leading her astray. The moment lingered in her memory, though it did not spark an immediate change in her lifestyle. 

When an unplanned pregnancy occurred, she lacked any internal compass urging her to pause. Instead, years of cultural conditioning had trained her to view an unexpected pregnancy chiefly as a menace to the very “freedom” upon which she had constructed her identity.

The Two Abortions: What No One Prepared Her For

The First Abortion: Freely chosen

Best underwent her first abortion at age 25, just weeks after completing nine months of overseas travel. At the time, she had little financial stability or direction. During her visit to the Marie Stopes clinic, she received no counseling or warning about the potential emotional or spiritual consequences that might follow an abortion.  

“I do not remember anyone sitting me down and saying, ‘This may affect you emotionally in ways you cannot predict.’ You may grieve. You may experience regret,’” she admitted to Live Action News.

After her abortion, Best quickly went from feeling “hysterically happy” to numb and depressed. She pulled away from friends, filled her weekends escaping into marijuana use, and found herself fixated on the pregnancy she had ended—particularly the date her child would have been born.

Her self-worth disintegrated. In an effort to regain control, she subjected her body to harsh regimens of restrictive dieting and excessive exercise. During her darkest moments, she contemplated taking her own life.

“For me, the abortion was not an isolated medical event. It became entwined with grief, shame, trauma, and years of trying not to feel,” she said.

The Second Abortion: Coerced

At age 30, Best underwent a second abortion while in Istanbul—a procedure she later described as taking place in a “horrible, dirty hospital,” where she was restrained in stirrups and fitted with a black anesthetic mask.

Unlike before, this time, she wanted to keep the baby. The moment she saw the positive pregnancy test, a resolve stirred within her: this baby would survive. Yet almost immediately, she faced relentless pressure from all sides. A woman she trusted urged her to abort. Her Turkish boyfriend reacted with fury, insisting, “We’re going to fix this,” reducing their child to “a blob of cells.”

A physician even warned her that if she genuinely loved her boyfriend, she would choose abortion—claiming that continuing the pregnancy would bring him shame and jeopardize his future.

Every person surrounding her echoed the same message, prodding her on to “get rid of the baby,” while every fiber of her being wanted to carry her baby to term. 

At the hospital, she pleaded for hours—weeping, shouting, and refusing to enter the procedure room. In her memory, she felt trapped, with no real freedom to walk away. 

“That is why, when we talk about ‘choice,’ I believe we also have to talk about coercion, pressure, fear, and whether a woman actually feels she has a viable alternative,” Best declared.

In the months and years following her second abortion, Best descended into a destructive cycle of heavy drinking, drug abuse, casual sexual encounters, and a crushing erosion of self-worth.

She split into two distinct identities: outwardly, the composed, high-functioning professional; inwardly, a woman teetering on the edge of mental collapse. To cope, she constructed an alter ego—“crazy Adele”—a persona defined by rebellion, extremity, emotional detachment, and self-sabotage. 

“Functioning is not the same as being well," she said. "A woman can be dressed beautifully, succeeding at work and appearing completely in control while privately falling apart."

The Turning Point: A Supernatural Intervention

At 33, Best found herself in New York, en route to schedule a third abortion—until what she describes as a “dramatic supernatural intervention” redirected her steps to downtown Brooklyn.

Years earlier, while still in Ireland, her father had encouraged her to visit a church. She had strongly resisted, convinced that embracing Christianity would dull the thrill of her lifestyle. Nevertheless, each time she stepped inside a church, she encountered an inexplicable sense of peace, joy, wholeness, and the profound feeling of finally belonging. 

Best acknowledges that crucial moment in New York as one thread in a much longer divine pursuit. In hindsight, she pointed out earlier instances in her life when she sensed a warning, a calling, or a gentle redirection—long before she was ready to yield.

By the time of her third pregnancy, that supernatural intervention did more than preserve the preborn child; it fundamentally rerouted the course of her entire life.

That pregnancy resulted in the birth of her daughter—a child who, Best conceded, has filled her life with profound joy. Motherhood transformed the abortion debate from an abstract concept into an intimate reality.

Her daughter was no longer a theoretical “problem” or a distant statistical possibility; she became a living, breathing person whom Best could hold, cherish, watch develop, and truly know.

“My life did not end when hers continued. It changed,” she said. 

How Life Has Changed:

Since 2015, Best has provided spiritual care to women affected by abortion, serving as a facilitator for post-abortion recovery initiatives like Surrendering the Secret. The lies women report believing prior to seeking help remain consistent:  

• “It’s just a medical procedure.” 

• “I’ll get over it.” 

• “I’m not ready, so I have no other choice.” 

• “A baby will destroy my future.” 

• “It’s only cells.” 

• “If I’m a strong woman, I should be able to deal with this and move on.”

“Everybody can be speaking, and the woman’s own voice can disappear underneath theirs,” Best maintained. 

Post-abortion, another set of lies can take over: 

• “I’m the only woman who feels like this.” 

• “I have no right to grieve because I chose it.” 

• “I can never tell anybody.” 

• “God could never forgive me.”

Healing can begin when a post-abortive woman realizes she can speak honestly about her experience without being turned into a political talking point or judged as a person, Best shared. 

Additionally, true safety for such a woman means being able to share the truth without fear of consequences, shame, or weaponization. Instead, what she needs is privacy, empathy, space, and the freedom to describe what really occurred, Best elaborated. 

Why It Matters:

Best frames her pro-life views in a way that puts women’s well-being at the heart of the conversation, approaching each woman with care rather than criticism. 

“I know what an unexpected pregnancy feels like when your mind immediately starts listing every reason you cannot possibly have this baby,” she posited. “Those fears are real. Telling a woman simply not to be afraid is not enough. She needs practical support.”

A truly woman-focused pro-life approach begins with questions like: 

• “What's making this pregnancy feel impossible right now?” 

• “Is anyone coercing you?” 

• “What changes would help you feel secure?” 

• “Do you need help with housing, finances, childcare, someone to speak up for you, or emotional care?”  

“I do not believe empowerment means telling a woman she must choose between her future and her child," Best said. "Real empowerment expands her options.”

She advocates for truly informed consent: straightforward, unbiased information covering the horrors of abortion itself, fetal development, available alternatives, practical support options, and the reality that emotional reactions post-abortion differ from person to person. 

She also urges thorough coercion screening and access to independent support.

“I want a culture in which no woman feels that abortion is her only realistic path because everybody around her has already decided what her future should look like,” she added. 

The Bottom Line:

To a woman in her twenties browsing TikTok or Instagram, where abortion is depicted as straightforward, empowering, and without repercussions, Best has this to say: 

Please slow down. Do not make one of the biggest decisions of your life because a slogan, an influencer, a boyfriend or even your frightened mind tells you there is only one possible future. Your life is bigger than ten seconds. Give yourself time, information and genuine support.

Key Takeaways:

• History teacher Anita Meston said she answered a student's question during an in-class discussion in which the students mentioned abortion.

• She said she was fired the next day.

• Meston is the second teacher in the United Kingdom who said she was fired for saying she is pro-life.

The Details:

Anita Meston was a history teacher at Biddick Academy in Sunderland, and is now suing for discrimination after she said she was fired for saying she is pro-life. Meston has been a teacher for 28 years, and had been teaching at Biddick Academy since 2024.

The class was learning about the bombing of Dresden in World War II, and began discussing moral questions surrounding modern-day issues, such as the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

According to ADF International, which is representing Meston, a student then asked Meston if she was pro-abortion; she replied that she is pro-life, because she is a Christian and knows women who have regretted their abortions.

The student said she knew women who didn't regret their abortions, to which Meston responded, "Fair enough." The conversation was then redirected back to the history lesson.

The next day, Meston was called into a meeting with the headmaster. Meston was told a complaint had been made, and that her contract was being terminated because she had been “sharing personal opinions on political issues with pupils." The headmaster further said there was “real concern” that she would continue to “cause harm or distress to pupils."

Meston is now suing for discrimination. In a statement, she said:

I am profoundly shocked by Biddick Academy’s decision to dismiss me for my faith-based pro-life beliefs and other mainstream personal and political views. I do not believe it is a teacher’s role to impose beliefs unrelated to the lesson in the classroom. I merely acknowledged my students’ questions and provided truthful answers before redirecting them back to the lesson at hand.

If our national education system continues to claim to foster inclusion and tolerance, this must include tolerance of perspectives with which others disagree. With the support of Alliance Defending Freedom, I am now taking legal action against Biddick Academy to ensure nobody else faces discrimination for expressing pro-life beliefs.

In a free and just society, teachers should not be fired for honestly expressing their deeply-held beliefs in response to questions in the classroom. What happened to me is nothing short of censorship, and this precedent cannot be allowed to stand.

Zoom Out:

Meston is the second teacher who said she was fired for being pro-life in the United Kingdom (UK).

Sarah Morse reached a settlement last month after she was fired from her job as a substitute teacher at Arbroath High School in Scotland, and her class was discussing life in the United States. The subject of abortion was mentioned, and Morse was asked her opinion.

“I am a faithful Roman Catholic and I am against it," she told students, and when asked about abortion after rape, added that he preborn child should “not be punished but understood that people would disagree with her."

More was fired the same day. She sued the Angus Council for discrimination, and a settlement has since been reached.

“At no time did I attempt to persuade any student to adopt my position. I taught them that it is possible to have hard conversations with respect and that disagreement is a natural part of a free society," she said. “To be ‘cancelled’ and lose my livelihood because of my religious identity is a terrifying precedent for the teaching profession in Scotland. I will not teach anywhere in this country ever again. It’s been an absolute nightmare.”

The Bottom Line:

Pro-life speech is increasingly under attack in the UK, and this is just another example.

Pro-lifers continue to fight back to ensure they are allowed to exist freely in the public without fear of persecution for expressing their beliefs.

Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood Votes is giving another $1 million for digital campaigns in Maine and Michigan.

• It had previously given $600,000 or $400,000 to ads in the same states.

• The new ads will target Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) and former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.).

• Collins, though a member of the Republican Party, has been a supporter of Planned Parenthood.

The Details:

According to The Hill, Planned Parenthood had already invested $600,000 and $800,000 on ads in Maine and Michigan, respectively. Now it has given another $1 million to campaign ads targeting Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.).

Sarah Standiford, the executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes, said in a press release that Collins and Rogers “can’t be trusted to protect our rights or our healthcare.”

Sandiford added, “It’s our job to make sure every voter knows that before they cast their ballot. Our message is resonating online and at the doors, and moving voters, so we’re putting more resources behind it in two races where we know Planned Parenthood Votes can make a big difference.”

Zoom In:

Collins has been known to be one of the few Republican legislators to cast pro-abortion votes in the Senate, including last year, when she voted with Democrats to remove a provision from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that was to prohibit Medicaid funding from being given to Planned Parenthood for one year. And Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed Collins in 2002.

Collins is currently running against Maine Senate President Troy Jackson, a Democrat who once opposed abortion, but now supports it.

“I’ve made mistakes early on in understanding” abortion, Jackson told The New York Times in July, adding, “Regardless of this U.S. Senate race, I’m really, really proud of how I’ve turned that around and … done the right thing. I mean, I was wrong.”

The Bottom Line:

Overall, Planned Parenthood Votes has vowed to give $47 million in its "We Decide" ad campaign to unseat legislators who voted to defund Planned Parenthood.

Nevada requires citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to pass in two consecutive general elections. Question 6, the so-called "Right to Abortion" amendment, passed with about 64% of the vote in 2024. If it passes again this November, abortion becomes a constitutional right in Nevada. If it fails, the amendment dies.

Key Takeaways:

• Though abortion is already legal in Nevada, a constitutional amendment is designed to be permanent, whereas a state statute can be changed by other legislation.

• Question 6 would make abortion a fundamental constitutional right until fetal "viability" as determined by the abortionist, who profits from the abortion; would allow abortion after "viability" to protect the mother's life or broad, undefined "health"; and would disallow any governmental intervention against that so-called "right."

• If abortion becomes a constitutional "right" in Nevada, the legislature cannot enact new protections for preborn children, and existing safeguards are likely to be challenged and eradicated.

• The vote will be the required second (and final) vote on the amendment. Voters who look closely the second time often reconsider.

• A NO vote keeps abortion out of the Nevada Constitution and preserves the people's ability to protect preborn children through their elected representatives.

The Details:

Nevada already has extreme abortion laws

Abortion in Nevada is already legal through 24 weeks of pregnancy, and after 24 weeks if a physician believes the mother's life or health is at risk. That policy rests on a 1990 voter-approved statute.

Nevada is already a destination for abortion, and pro-abortion lawmakers have promoted the state as a regional access point for women traveling from states that protect preborn children.

So why are abortion advocates pushing so hard for Question 6? Because a statute can be changed. A constitutional amendment is designed to be permanent.

What Question 6 would do

Question 6 would:

• Make abortion a fundamental constitutional right until fetal 'viability.'

• Let the abortionist decide when viability occurs. The amendment defines viability according to the judgment of the patient's health care practitioner — the same person who profits from committing the abortion.

• Permit abortion after viability whenever deemed necessary to protect the mother's life or "health," an elastic standard that can be stretched to cover almost any reason.

• Bar state and local governments from interfering with that right.

Why constitutionalizing abortion matters

Supporters claim Question 6 changes little because abortion is already legal. That is exactly backward.

Once abortion is written into the Nevada Constitution, the legislature loses the ability to enact meaningful new protections for preborn children. Existing safeguards for women — from informed consent to clinic standards — could face constitutional challenges from the abortion industry, just as they have in other states that passed similar amendments.

Look at Missouri. Within months of voters approving a pro-abortion amendment in 2024, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU went to court to tear down the state's pro-life laws.

Nevada should expect the same playbook.

The second vote can be won

History shows that second votes are different. Since 1980, 14 of 17 initiated constitutional amendments that faced a second vote saw their support decline, by an average of nearly nine points, according to Ballotpedia data. Voters who look closely the second time often reconsider.

Faith leaders are speaking up. Las Vegas Archbishop George Leo Thomas has urged the faithful to vote no on the measure.

The Bottom Line:

Vote NO on Question 6. A NO vote keeps abortion out of the Nevada Constitution and preserves the people's ability to protect preborn children through their elected representatives.

The Nevada Secretary of State has released its 2026 Ballot Question Guide, and mail ballots are going out now. Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

This is Nevada's final vote on Question 6 — make it count.

When evaluating current published literature on abortion bans, separating objective demographic shifts from partisan narrative is critical.

A recent qualitative study by Newton-Hoe et al. (Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2026) attempts to examine the fallout of state-level abortion restrictions on the physician workforce, but beneath its academic veneer lies a methodology heavily shaped by ideological echo chambers, small sample sizes, and a fundamental failure to account for the political biases of its respondents. In simple terms, pro-abortion advocates are disguising propaganda as “true evidence.”

It is a lie. 

According to the study, the conclusion is that physicians across multiple specialties involved in early pregnancy care reported that abortion bans affected their scope of practice, physician training, recruitment and retention, and workforce participation.

The authors concluded that these findings suggest abortion bans may impact not only abortion provision itself, but also the broader reproductive health care workforce and access to early pregnancy care.

Is that true? Hardly. Here's why:

Overt Selection Bias:

A total of just 55 physicians from 14 states completed interviews, consisting of 25 obstetrician-gynecologists, 21 emergency medicine physicians, and 9 family medicine physicians. Forty-four practiced in states with total abortion bans, and 11 practiced in states with near-total (6-week) bans. 

To obtain these 55 participants, the study utilized purposive and snowball sampling. This means there was no randomized or systematic pool from which a fixed number of prospective candidates were invited.

Instead of a defined recruitment target, outreach relied on email invitations to department chairs and institutional contacts, augmented by peer-to-peer snowball referrals. Snowball and purposive sampling methods are highly susceptible to "network bias," where like-minded individuals refer colleagues who share similar ideological leanings.

Additionally, given that thousands of physicians practice across these jurisdictions, this small, non-random sample cannot be generalized to the broader medical community.

A critical oversight from this methodology is the failure to control or deeply analyze the baseline sociopolitical viewpoints of the participants.

Physicians who hold strong pro-abortion views are inherently more likely to experience severe "moral distress" or perceive state-level protections for unborn life as "hostile" legal environments. Without accounting for the pre-existing political alignment of the participants, the study risks conflating objective legal confusion with subjective ideological disagreement over pro-life legislation.

Standard of Care Awareness vs Abortion Restriction:

Many participants reported altering their practices out of "fear" or "perceived legal risk," leading to unnecessary patient referrals. From a legal and conservative viewpoint, this highlights a communication or educational gap within hospital administration rather than a flaw in the legislation itself.

State abortion laws explicitly protect medical treatments for ectopic pregnancies, maternal life-endangering conditions, and spontaneous miscarriages. When physicians refuse to treat miscarriage complications out of an abundance of caution, it often reflects institutional timidity or misinterpretation of the law by risk-averse hospital legal teams rather than the statutory text enacted by legislators.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, when stripped of its academic framing, this study by Newton-Hoe et al. reads less like objective scientific research and more like political advocacy disguised as data.

By relying on a tiny, non-representative sample of 55 ideologically skewed respondents who chose to remain in their positions, the study systematically bypasses empirical metrics in favor of amplifying subjective anxieties and partisan talking points.

Rather than providing verifiable evidence of widespread workforce collapse, this article functions primarily as abortion propaganda, amplifying activist perspectives while masking political grievance as clinical necessity.

Key Takeaways:

• Three lawsuits have been filed against the Illinois End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act, which was signed into law after proponents hid it as an amendment to the Sanitary Food Preparation Bill last year.

• On October 5, U.S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama of the Northern District of Illinois expanded a previous temporary restraining order, allowing nearly all Catholic health care entities in the state to be protected from the law, not just plaintiffs in a lawsuit.

• Valderrama had previously placed a temporary restraining order on the law for the plaintiffs in Mary Keen Kirchoff, M.D., et al. v. Treto, Jr. and a temporary injunction for the plaintiffs in Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, Inc. v. Prince.

The Backstory:

On December 12, 2025, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed Senate Bill 1950, the "Sanitary Food Preparation Bill," into law. Buried in that law was an amendment to legalize assisted suicide, placed there after previous efforts to pass assisted death failed.

The law took effect on September 12, but at least three lawsuits have been filed against it.

The first was filed in June by the organization End Assisted Suicide, a coalition of disability and patients rights advocates. A federal judge declined that lawsuit, allowing the law to take effect.

The second lawsuit was filed on August 11 by a coalition of religious plaintiffs who argued that the law violates the constitutional right to freedom of speech and religion. On August 21, U.S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama of the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order in Mary Keen Kirchoff, M.D., et al. v. Treto, Jr. against the enforcement of provisions within the "End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients.... pending the issuance of the mandate in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in NIFLA v. Treto and Schroeder v. Treto, and this Court's subsequent ruling on Plaintiffs' expected motion for preliminary injunction." The order protected plaintiffs in the case.

The third lawsuit was filed by the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm on September 3. On September 11, Valderrama placed a temporary injunction on the law in regard to the "named plaintiffs of Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, Inc. v. Prince... and those healthcare entities acting under Cardinal Cupich’s authority and those providing care on Plaintiffs’ premises, and does not prevent the Illinois Department of Public Health or the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation from pursuing enforcement actions against non-parties who violate the Act." This order only applied to the named plaintiffs in this case.

Now Valderrama has expanded the August temporary restraining order to include nearly all Catholic health care entities, not just the plaintiffs.

The Details:

According to Thomas More Society, on October 5, Valderrama issued the Stipulated Amended Temporary Restraining Order to replace his previous August 21 order that protected the original plaintiffs in Mary Keen Kirchoff, M.D., et al. v. Treto, Jr. Under the restraining order, nearly all Catholic healthcare institutions in the state, including hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living centers, and pharmacies, are protected from being forced to carry out assisted death procedures on patients under the state's End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act.

In addition, the order "protects members of the Catholic Medical Association, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the National Association of Catholic Nurses, and the Catholic Psychotherapy Association; the physicians and institutions named in the case and those providing care on their premises; and Catholic heath care entities in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois under Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki's authority," reported Thomas More Society.

“Three weeks ago, Illinois was poised to force doctors, nurses, and Catholic hospitals to choose between their consciences and their licenses,” said Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society. “This order lifts that threat for nearly every Catholic health care institution in the state and for the members of the state’s largest Catholic and Christian medical associations. We will keep fighting until that protection is permanent.”

He added, "Catholic and Christian health care providers, from hospitals and nursing homes to physicians, nurses, and therapists, strive to heal, not harm, and for generations, have cared for the sick and dying in keeping with their faith. Illinois has no right or authority to coerce them into abandoning that mission. For now, this order protects their freedom to continue caring for patients with dignity, without the threat of losing their licenses or their livelihoods.”

The Bottom Line:

The Stipulated Temporary Restraining Order will remain in effect until the court rules on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction or as ordered by the court.

When Ally Abbott became pregnant for the first time at the age of 21, she experienced an “overwhelming feeling of anxiety” due to wanting to ensure she was doing everything “the right way”.

However, at her 20-week pregnancy scan, Ally found out that her baby had bilateral renal agenesis, a rare condition where both kidneys do not develop. 

“I just couldn’t believe that this was happening to us”, Ally recalled. “I never did come to understand how this was going to be part of our story. For this diagnosis to be so rare, why would this happen to me?”

She described how much this diagnosis affected her, saying her “whole reality had shifted at this point”.

“I quit work, I stopped eating, and literally stayed on the couch for weeks without doing anything. I had even made him a ‘memorial’ table because that’s what the doctors told me to do”, Ally revealed.

Despite being told to expect the worst, Ally did not give up on her unborn baby and decided to fight for him, saying, “I believed my baby deserved a chance, just like every other baby, regardless of his diagnosis”. 

“I knew in my heart I had to do what is right, and do everything possible for him, regardless of what the outcome could be”, the mother added.

Ally travelled more than 1,300 miles every week to get treatment for her unborn son

Ally researched what she could do to help, and discovered a small programme, over 1,300 miles away from where she lived, which offered a treatment to help her son. She decided that the journey was worth it, and at 24 weeks’ gestation, began making the long trip every week for only a 20-minute appointment. Despite the long journeys, Ally said she was “happy during the process”. 

“I could see my baby getting the fluid. I could see him drinking it. I could finally see him breathing”, she explained. 

Baby River was able to develop for a few more weeks in the womb thanks to this treatment, but he was eventually born prematurely on Thanksgiving, weighing only 3.1lb. He was not breathing and had to be resuscitated.

After being born, baby River and Ally were airlifted to a specialist neonatal intensive care unit that could help them both. 

For the next several months, medical professionals at the hospital worked tirelessly to help save River’s life. 

“I have been through a lot, but nothing has ever compared to the NICU life. That is a battle within itself”, Ally said.

Finally, after 195 days, the new mother was able to bring her son home from the hospital. 

“I just kept thinking about how multiple doctors told me my baby would not survive at all, and now he was home with me”, Ally explained. 

“I knew my baby was nothing short of a miracle. I felt so lucky and blessed that we have made it this far. It still feels unreal when I sit down and think about everything we both have been through”, she added.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “We are full of admiration for Ally Abbott fighting so hard for her unborn child. She is inspirational”.

“Unborn children are voiceless, and it is up to us to fight for their right to life”.

Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood Regina has closed its doors temporarily as it has struggled for three years to hire a full time nurse practitioner.

• The facility receives government funding to operate and supplied the abortion pill to women.

• It recently celebrated its 40th anniversary and used it as an opportunity to raise money and find monthly donors so that it has money to "use as we see fit."

The Details:

The facility, which sold the abortion pill, shut down because it could not find a full-time nurse practitioner. Despite the abortion corporation's claims that a lack of government funding has lead to its staffing shortages, PPR is funded by the government.

“Planned Parenthood Regina currently receives funding from the Ministry of Health for a variety of services related to sexual health. The ministry is aware of a temporary disruption to some of these services while PPR recruits a full-time nurse practitioner,” said the Ministry of Health in statement to CTV News.

“PPR has advised the ministry that it is continuing to provide healthcare navigation and other services that do not require the professional scope of a nurse practitioner.”

Despite receiving that funding from the Government of Saskatchewan, PPR has not been able to recruit a full-time nurse practitioner for over three years. Instead, it has had two part-time nurse practitioners.

“That worked for a bit, but we found that the nurse practitioners were not comfortable using their license that way. Everyone has come to the agreement, from the nursing staff to the nurse practitioners to the admin, is that we need a full- time nurse practitioner,” said PPR board chair Brit Sippola-Kotylak.

“Part of that reason is continuity of care, having the same person in the clinic five days a week would be incredible for people who need to do testing that’s over multiple days or [for] follow up appointments, stuff like that. It would be really great if we could get a full-time nurse practitioner to take on running this clinic and offering services again.”

The Ministry of Health has said it plans to expand its program to train and recruit nurse practitioners. PPR, which celebrated its 40th anniversary this month, held a fundraiser to support board training and hiring costs.

“We are very lucky because we get funded by the provincial government and we have some pretty solid funding, but it’s tough because that covers a lot of the clinical services and some of the stuff like, the roof over our heads, utilities, admin salaries,” explained Sippola-Kotylak.

“Then board training and stuff like that comes out of donations. We’re really hoping to build up our monthly donor base because that is money that we can use as we see fit.”

The Bottom Line:

Planned Parenthood locations have struggled to keep staff amid malpractice lawsuits, complaints of racism, and a lack of interest from OB/Gyns to commit abortions. However, Planned Parenthood historically blames a lack of funding for its string of closures across the U.S.

Key Takeaways:

• The number of pharmacies carrying the abortion pill in Australia has risen by 50%.

• The increase follows the loosening of distribution restrictions in 2023.

• Abortion advocates praised the increased pharmacy numbers for making abortion easier to access, but failed to note what happens to women when they experience complications.

The Backstory:

In 2023, the TGA loosened restrictions surrounding abortion pill distribution, allowing the drug cocktail to be prescribed by any healthcare professional and with no restrictions on pharmacies that wished to carry it.

Prior to the policy change, only about 10% of doctors and 30% of pharmacies were certified to offer the abortion pill. Abortion advocates praised the change, predicting it would increase access to abortion throughout the country.

A new report indicates those predictions were correct.

The Details:

The study published in JAMA Open Network on October 7 revealed that the number of pharmacies offering Australia's abortion pill regimen, MS-2, rose 48.6% after the TGA loosened restrictions. MS-2 consists of the same two drugs as the abortion pill in the U.S.: mifepristone and misoprostol.

Study authors compared pharmacy ordering data from 2021-2023, prior to the TGA's changes, to 2023-2025, the two years following. They found there were 2,228 pharmacies stocking it before the policy change, and 4,107 as of mid-2025. Additionally, the number of pharmacies in remote or rural areas carrying the nearly pill doubled, from 12.5% to 22%.

“It removes the unnecessary travel and stress around getting the medication once it’s prescribed. That’s super important, particularly for women who might be more disadvantaged, women living in rural, remote areas, and women who might not have the means to travel," claimed the study's lead author, Professor Kristina Edvardsson.

“If you can go to your local pharmacy and pick up this medication, it means getting care quicker."

Zoom In:

While Edvardsson praised the widespread availability of the abortion pill for those who wish to access it, there was no mention of what happens to those women when they need emergency care following abortion pill complications — particularly in rural and remote areas.

The abortion pill is not as safe as it's claimed to be. Complications include heavy bleeding, severe cramping, and contractions, as well as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headaches.

• One study found the abortion pill is four times more dangerous than a first trimester surgical abortion

• An analysis, “The Abortion Pill Harms Women,” published by 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 following a mifepristone abortion.

• Research carried out by the pro-abortion Gynuity has shown that six percent (6%) of women who take the abortion pill will require care at an ER or urgent care facility — and that is believed to be a low estimate.

The Bottom Line:

Chemical abortion is not a harmless pill you pop when you have a medical problem — it's a deadly drug that has the potential to lead to serious complications. Women don't need more widespread or easier access to this chemical cocktail. They deserve care, support, and the truth.

Key Takeways:

• Denise Mountenay underwent three abortions and suffered multiple complications.

• She also suffered from the emotional effects of abortion.

• She has produced a documentary film to educate other women on the risks of abortion.

The Details:

After the abortions she underwent, <a href="/news/three-abortions-advocate-preborn">Mountenay</a> suffered complications including infections, a scarred uterus, and breast lumps, in addition to the spiritual wounds that caused her to numb her pain with alcohol and drugs. Now, she’s using her experiences to educate women on the dangers of abortion through the production of a documentary entitled, “Truth Matters, The Impact of Choice.”

She told Live Action News, “Roe may have been overturned, but there’s still an ongoing culture war against pregnant women and children. Men are being silenced and chemical abortion is on the rise. And misinformation is still rampant. This film confronts propaganda head on while offering the truth with compassion and love.”

This documentary, she emphasizes, is not political; it is educational, evidence-based and deeply human — and it’s urgently needed to educate, equip, and awaken the public with the truth.

Over 39 years, Mountenay has traveled the world sharing her testimony. Now she wants to expose the lies being told to vulnerable women and advance the truth that abortion is not — and never has been — a safe procedure, whether committed surgically or chemically. 

Her film combines scientifically based evidence with medical experts and powerful personal testimonies from post-abortive women. These experts dispel the myths about both surgical and chemical abortion and lay bare the facts. She said these voices are rarely heard in mainstream media, yet they are essential to understanding the full picture.

“We started filming at the UN headquarters in New York in March 2025,” Mountenay said. “Since then, we’ve traveled to Edmonton and Alberta, Canada as well as to Dallas and Florida for in-depth personal interviews. What makes this documentary so unique is that we’re highlighting the miracle of life right at conception.”

The beginning of a life

Mountenay points out that we all begin life as a microscopic cluster of cells, guided by a DNA blueprint that directs these cells development into a complete, distinct human being.

“It’s absolutely phenomenal that a microscopic cluster of cells contain all the inherent knowledge to form this human being,” Mountenay said. “Science confirms the miracle.”

Risky abortion procedures are not healthcare

The film seeks to educate how risky abortion procedures are falsely marketed as healthcare while showing the truth of fetal development. Through painful recounts of women and men who were impacted by abortion and the heartfelt repentance of former abortion workers, the devastation of abortion is clearly illustrated. Likewise, the curtain is drawn back to expose the lucrative global abortion industry revealing details that are especially egregious.

“Most importantly, we discuss that healing and redemption is free for everyone," Mountenay said. "Christ offered it to me, freeing me from my past and allowing me to move forward and help others find the light.”

She hopes the film will become a key educational tool for equipping young people in faith-based schools to know the truth behind the lies about abortion.

She noted, “I am producing a 10-minute version for pregnancy support centers and a 20-minute version for high school students and pro-life groups. My hope is that the pro-life groups will make money by reselling the film.”

For these groups, the film will be available on flash drives and DVDs at wholesale prices.

Marketing the film

To help fund the film, Mountenay formed a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, “AdvancingTruthAlliance,” with a mission to “expose the deception surrounding abortion; champion the dignity of every human life; bring Christ-centered healing to families affected by pregnancy loss.” Although she and her husband have invested $35,000 into the film, they are seeking donations to help with marketing and distribution. 

An ER physician in Australia, who has supported Mountenay for 20 years, has generously contributed to the film as well. While there is no release date set, the goal is to debut the film toward the end of the year.

Mountenay prays the film will go “viral” but also realizes that she will get pushback from the abortion industry and pro-choice advocates.

“I am geared up and ready to go regardless of the nastiness I expect will arise due to the film,” Mountenay said. “When I first conceived of this idea, I had a dream of David charging toward Goliath. I see Goliath as depicting the abortion giant.”

Because the film is operating on a shoestring budget, Mountenay has worn many hats while battling many challenges. Her film editor quit, citing personal family reasons and she’s had to improvise to keep the film moving along.

The Bottom Line:

“The truth matters. That’s why I am just pressing on, one day at a time," Mountenay said. "I feel confident we will soon bring this project to fruition.”

This pro-life advocate is keeping her eye steadily on the goal of saving more preborn lives and preventing more women and men from experiencing the horrible consequences of abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• Missouri's 2024 Amendment 3 was pro-abortion and enshrined abortion into the state constitution.

• The 2026 Amendment 3 will undo the 2024 amendment, allow preborn children to be protected in most cases, and ensure parental consent for abortions on a minor.

• Every preborn child deserves the protection of the law, including children conceived in rape or incest and children diagnosed with disabilities or life-limiting conditions.

• The choice on the ballot is not between this amendment and perfect pro-life protections; it is between this amendment and a pro-abortion constitution that puts every preborn child at risk.

The Details:

In November 2024, the pro-abortion amendment known as Amendment 3 passed with about 52% of the vote, enshrining abortion through fetal viability in the Missouri Constitution. This year, a new measure — confusingly also labeled Amendment 3 — would repeal it and restore the state's power to protect preborn children.

What happened after 2024

The consequences of the 2024 pro-abortion amendment came quickly. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Missouri sued the state to strike down laws regulating abortion businesses and the people who commit abortions. Litigation dismantled Missouri's pro-life laws, allowing surgical abortions to resume in 2025 and abortion pill distribution to return in June 2026 for the first time since 2018.

Missouri went from a state that protected children in the womb to one where abortion businesses are back in operation and the state's ability to regulate them is under constant legal attack.

What the 2026 Amendment 3 would do

The Missouri General Assembly referred this amendment to voters. According to the official ballot language, it would:

• Repeal the 2024 abortion amendment, removing the constitutional "right" to abortion through viability.

• Allow the legislature to regulate abortion once again.

• Ensure parental consent before a minor obtains an abortion.

• Permit abortion only in limited circumstances the state describes as medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, and rape or incest during the first 12 weeks.

• Restore state described health and safety standards for abortion businesses.

The amendment also bans gender transition procedures for minors, a protection for children that is closely tied to restoring parental rights.

Restoring parents' rights

One of the most important pieces of this amendment is parental consent. Under the 2024 amendment, Missouri's long-standing parental consent law has come under legal challenge. Parents must sign a permission slip for a field trip — they should not be cut out of a decision that ends their grandchild's life and can endanger their daughter's health.

An imperfect measure, but a major step forward

Live Action believes every preborn child deserves the protection of the law, including children conceived in rape or incest and children diagnosed with disabilities or life-limiting conditions. Their lives are no less valuable. Some pro-life Missourians oppose this amendment for that reason, and we share their conviction.

But the choice on the ballot is not between this amendment and perfect protection. It is between this amendment and a constitution that guarantees abortion. A YES vote removes that guarantee, returns the issue to the people's elected representatives, and immediately restores protection to the overwhelming majority of preborn children in Missouri. A NO vote leaves the abortion industry's constitutional shield in place, putting every preborn child at risk.

The stakes are close

A SLU/YouGov poll of likely Missouri voters taken in September found support and opposition running neck and neck. The 2024 amendment passed by a thin margin. Turnout from pro-life Missourians will decide this one.

How to vote:

Vote YES on Amendment 3. A YES vote repeals the 2024 abortion amendment. A NO vote leaves it in place. Absentee voting is already underway, and Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Make sure your family, friends, and church know what this Amendment 3 does — and that it is not the same as the one on the 2024 ballot.