But killing humans should never be offered as a sort of 'solution' to financial hardship.

Key Takeaways:

• The Center for Reproductive Rights recently released a flawed, non-peer-reviewed study promoting the message that women need abortion because having children is too expensive.

• Abortion advocate Jessica Valenti appeared on Vox Media's "America, Actually" podcast to discuss abortion, which she claims is an "affordability" issue.

• Several commenters on X were horrified by this idea, noting that it isn't acceptable to kill anyone simply because they're deemed 'too expensive.'

The Details:

An 'affordability' issue?

"Abortion, Every Day" creator Jessica Valenti recently appeared on Vox Media's "America, Actually" podcast, where she argued it is a mistake for Democrats to ignore abortion while campaigning for the midterms in favor of economic issues.

According to Valenti, the ability to kill one's preborn children is an economic issue.

She stated (emphases added):

"It is an affordability issue, right?

Like, you'd be hard-pressed to find something more important to your financial life than whether or not to have a child, than whether or not that you're going to be forced into pregnancy or not even just forced into pregnancy, but forced into massive medical debt, because your pregnancy goes wrong and you can't get an abortion.

And then you're in real medical trouble, and you go septic, or you lose an organ, right? There's a million ways that that works, but I also think that this issue reaches so far beyond individual people."

While pregnancy and raising children can be expensive, the answer to this is not to advocate for killing people; after all, if a parent said it cost too much money to continue caring for their two-year-old, not many people (outside of <a href="/news/first-child-euthanized-netherlands-disabled">the Netherlands, anyway</a>) would argue that it is acceptable to kill that child. In addition, "forcing" a woman "into pregnancy" seems something more akin to "The Handmaid's Tale" than reality, so it's unclear what Valenti meant by this.

There are real systemic issues involved, as Valenti pointed out, which particularly affect Black women, and yet, the solution is to offer more support, not killing. Offering women death isn't a solution; it merely upholds the status quo and redistributes the injustice, ending the life of an innocent human being.

What incentive is there to invest the time and money necessary to truly support women when they can just be pushed toward abortion instead?

Maternity care deserts

Valenti also mentioned maternity deserts, saying, "You're looking at states like Idaho, which has lost a third of its OB/GYNs. Maternity wards are shuttering. Some women have to travel hours and hours just to give birth."

Maternity care deserts (areas where there is little to no maternity care) are a legitimate problem, but killing one's preborn child certainly isn't a solution to this. If anything, the decrease in population (exacerbated by abortion) is making this problem worse.

A 2022 March of Dimes report found that 36% of all counties are considered maternity care deserts, and “access to maternity care is diminishing in places where it’s needed most, impacting nearly seven million American women of childbearing age and roughly 500,000 babies.”

Rural communities are most impacted, putting those women and children at most risk.

However, the solution is not abortion. And as a 2023 article published in the JAMA Health Forum explained, policy recommendations to address maternity care deserts do not involve abortion; instead, recommendations include investing in the workforce, building community-based services, and expanding health coverage for pregnancy and childbirth.

All of those things would help address the systemic issues noted by Valenti.

Many viewers were not convinced by her arguments, and found them disturbing, commenting on X.

One wrote, "Oh Vox… do we want to go down this road? If we want to justify eliminating people from the population because they’re financial burdens, you might not like where we end up."

Another followed the argument to its logical conclusion, writing, "Why not infanticide by this logic?"

Another person asked, "Did you just equate killing babies to affordability?"

Yet another commenter pointed out, "By that measure we should be killing the elderly, the handicapped, and anyone else who is a 'burden to a family."

Another stated, "I’m very pro choice but it’s weird to be this obsessed with abortion. Get a new shtick."

Another pointedly claimed, "'It's expensive out there, killing your kids is a simple and easy budget hack to keep your personal finances on track.' -Democrats"

Zoom Out:

A non-peer-reviewed University of Michigan study, funded by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, claimed that women in pro-life states are more likely to pay increased health insurance costs. The researchers compared women ages 18–44 from 2019–2025 in states with pro-life laws versus states without them.

The group posited that pro-life laws led to higher medical costs, which researchers assumed would occur because more pregnancies are carried to term rather than aborted — and as prenatal care can be expensive, insurers may ultimately pass some of those costs along.

However, pro-life states didn't show higher direct hospital and doctors bills, which researchers suggested means insurers are spreading additional health care costs associated with pregnancy onto beneficiaries.

This study is not peer-reviewed, and the researchers don't seem to have directly observed this happening. They aren't matching insurance claims showing higher maternity-related costs to specific insurers, and then showing that those same insurers raised employee premium contributions in response. The abstract itself calls the evidence “suggestive.”

The researchers also excluded several states that expanded Medicaid during the period, which creates another problem. The pro-life states examined are disproportionately Southern, lower-income, more rural, and have very different labor markets, employers, insurance markets, and health systems from states like Massachusetts, New York, and Washington.

The study relies heavily on the idea that, absent pro-life laws, the trends would have continued moving similarly, despite the existing differences already present among these states.

For example, employer health insurance premiums rose 7% nationally in 2023, another 7% in 2024, and 6% in 2025. Employee premium contributions also substantially differ for things completely unrelated to abortion. In 2024, workers in the South paid an average 28% of family premiums versus 22% in the Northeast and 23% in the Midwest.

Employee contributions also vary hugely by employer size and industry. That also means that the differences found in the study could just as easily be explained by regional labor-market differences.

The Bottom Line:

Both with the University of Michigan study and the Valenti interview, the message is the same: if people are too expensive, it's better to just kill them.

Surely we, as a society, can do better than this.

Key Takeaways:

• Dr. Gary Rodin and Dr. Madeline Li wrote that while they support MAiD, it has gone too far.

• They gave an example of a woman approved for euthanasia merely because she could no longer cook for her family.

• With therapy and her family's support, she was able to see that her life still had value, and chose not to die.

• This story has a happy ending, but what happens to those without access to therapy and family support?

The Backstory:

Dr. Gary Rodin and Dr. Madeline Li, who both work with patients diagnosed with advanced stage cancer, are professors of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and wrote an op-ed for the New York Times discussing the expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada.

While both said they still support MAiD, they also argued it has gone too far.

"Too many people are receiving the procedure without the opportunity for careful reflection about it with a health provider," they wrote. "In some cases, patients are being approved who should not be."

Canada has the fastest-growing rate of assisted suicide in the world, with reports showing people are being killed because of loneliness, poverty, disability, and an inability to access health care services.

The Canadian government just this week stated that it would not pursue its original plan to approve MAiD for individuals with solely a mental health diagnosis — at least, for now.

The Details:

Rodin and Li told the story of a patient who had become despondent after she was no longer able to cook for her family. She was in her 70s and the matriarch of her family, and making Sunday dinners was seemingly a large part of her identity.

"She sought and received approval for assisted dying after she lost the ability to cook," they noted. "She felt she had lost her value to her family."

Thankfully, the woman was given access to therapy and had support from her family, which helped her to understand she still had value, even if she wasn't able to cook for them.

"She decided not to go through with ending her life, at least for now," they said. "That Christmas, her family gathered and she sat proudly at the table, while others did the cooking and serving."

Yet what happens when someone isn't given access to therapy, or their family doesn't give them the support they need? It has long been confirmed that most people who request assisted suicide are not afraid of a long, painful death, but cite a fear instead of losing autonomy, not being able to enjoy life, or a fear of being a burden on their loved ones.

All too often, assisted suicide practitioners appear to confirm these fears, rather than affirm that the person's life still has value.

The Bottom Line:

Rodin and Li pointed to this woman as a particularly horrifying exception to the MAiD rule, but the reality is far more disturbing. Stories like hers are far too common already, and will only grow in a country that continues to determine who is acceptable to kill and who is not.

Key Takeaways:

• Birth fathers can experience many of the same emotions birth mothers do, including trauma.

• The effects of adoption on birth fathers are severely underresearched.

• Many fathers do not have the right to stop an adoption, even if they want to raise their child.

• There are multiple cases in which birth fathers' rights to their children were denied in the adoption process.

• It is important for birth fathers' rights not to be disregarded or ignored in the adoption process.

The Details:

When it comes to the adoption process, the focus is understandably is on the birth mothers. Yet though a child has two parents who are affected in the situation, the role of the birth father is often absent or not considered in the adoption narrative.

During the forced adoptions of the Baby Scoop era, birth fathers were just as present, and many were given no opportunity to know about the adoption, much less consent to it. Even in the case of the forced adoption redress program in Victoria, Australia, birth mothers are eligible while birth fathers are not.

Cheyne Bull, a psychologist and adoptee, explained for Vanish.org:

In the era of closed adoptions in Australia, fathers were almost never named on original birth certificates. It has been found that one likely reason for this was that if the father was never named, they wouldn’t have legal rights over their children and therefore couldn’t stop the child from being adopted.

Having no father recorded on original birth certificates has reinforced the stereotype that fathers 'abandoned their responsibility.' This in turn has made it much more difficult for adoptees to search for their fathers, due both to a lack of information as well as the belief that their fathers didn’t ever want to be found.

Yet in reality, fathers can experience trauma, though that trauma is often ignored or downplayed.

As one analysis found, the effects of adoption on birth fathers are extremely under-researched.

In the analysis, researchers looked at 100 academic papers about adoption published from 2000–2022, which at least potentially involved birth fathers. They found:

• Just 12 actually included birth fathers as participants.

• Only five focused specifically on birth fathers.

• The rest discussed birth fathers based on what birth mothers, adoptive parents, professionals, adoptees, and records said.

Because of this, birth fathers are seen as absent, irresponsible, and uncaring. Yet when birth fathers are actually interviewed, the results couldn't be more different.

Fathers routinely said they...

• loved and felt bonded to their child.

• thought about the child frequently.

• wanted information about how the child was doing.

• wanted a relationship with and felt responsibility for the child .

• felt grief after the adoption.

This grief, researchers said, was often described as disenfranchised, because it goes unrecognized. Yet many birth fathers said they continued grieving for years, if not their entire lives.

While it is true that sometimes, fathers are absent or did not care about a potential adoption, it is not as common as some might expect.

Frequently, fathers are kept out of the adoption process, for a multitude of reasons. At times, the birth mother doesn't want him involved, case workers do not engage him, he is not listed on the birth certificate, and few laws give him any say in the decision.

And even after the adoption, fathers are often erased; one study in the analysis found that fathers' names, ages, birthplaces, and other identifying information were recorded less than a third of the time.

This is astonishingly similar to abortion, in which fathers have little-to-no say over the fate of their own children, and the conversation focuses almost entirely on the mothers.

Zoom In:

While the era of forced adoptions has largely passed, fathers still do not have universal rights to their own children.

Shockingly, this varies by state — meaning in one state, a father has a right to parent his child, while in another, the child can be placed for adoption whether he approves or not.

Some states effectively put the burden on the birth father to proactively protect his rights, even if nobody personally tells him an adoption is happening. So if he does not intervene within a set amount of time, even if he wasn't notified, he has lost the right to his own child forever, because the state assumes "implied consent" to the adoption.

Even if the birth father discovers he has a child who was placed for adoption and says he never consented to it, in certain states like (but not limited to) Arizona, Arkansas, and Alabama, his consent will have been deemed unnecessary, as he did not come forward in the required time frame. There is no consideration given to a birth father who was not informed, and therefore, could not consent.

Even a Supreme Court decision, Lehr vs. Robertson, upheld this injustice. In that case, the biological father wasn't given notice before his child was adopted by the mother's husband, and therefore, he hadn't registered with New York's putative-father registry. He later argued that the adoption was invalid because he had a constitutional due-process right to notice.

The Supreme Court said no, arguing that New York had given him an easy mechanism to protect himself: register. Had he done that, he would have been entitled to notice. The Court said that because receiving notice was within his own control, the Constitution did not require the state to give him individualized notice simply because he was the biological father.

The dissent noted that the mother and the court knew who the father was and where he was, yet he still wasn't personally notified of the adoption, which violated due process. But that wasn't part of the majority opinion.

Reality Check:

There are many examples in which birth fathers have fought to have the right to their children, and many of them take place in Utah, which puts an unusually strict burden on fathers.

If the father does not take a series of steps, which include filing a parentage action, filing notice with the state, submitting an affidavit saying he is willing and able to take custody of and provide support for the child, and offer to pay pregnancy and birth expenses according to his means, he can lose the right to his child... even if he doesn't know the mother is pregnant.

This even applies to men who don't live in Utah, which has given the state a reputation for a place where mothers can go to relinquish their children without fathers being allowed to intervene.

In Carlton vs. Brown, Carlton was in Pennsylvania, and the pregnant mother went to Utah without telling him. After she gave birth there, she placed the baby for adoption, and told Carlton their baby had died. He later discovered the child was actually alive and had been adopted, and tried to challenge it. While he was given a technical victory, with the Supreme Court ruling that a lower court wrongly denied his parentage petition, he was not able to get his daughter back, and the finalized adoption remained intact.

In O'Dea v. Olea, the couple was living in Wyoming when the mother got pregnant. When the father found out the mother was considering abortion, he tried to persuade her not to, offered to help with medical expenses, and offered her a home. She later told him she miscarried. Months later, in May 2006, he learned she might still be pregnant. He contacted her and discovered that she was indeed still pregnant and was planning adoption.

He immediately told her he wanted a relationship with the baby. He contacted the adoption agency he thought she was using — LDS Family Services in Montana — and told them he intended to parent the child. That agency stopped providing adoption-placement services to her because of his objection. He also registered with Wyoming’s putative-father registry, as well as Montana's, and he sent notice to LDS Family Services in Utah saying he intended to assert his rights.

The day the mother gave birth, she called the father telling him she was in Utah, to stop contacting her, that he would not father nor see the child, but that he would pay child support. He took that to mean she was no longer considering adoption. And because she had lied to him before, he didn't believe that she was actually in Utah. Yet the day after giving birth, the mother placed the baby for adoption, and to make matters worse, the Utah adoption agency already knew about the father.

Before the birth, the agency had checked Wyoming to see whether anyone had filed there. On June 15, the day the baby was born, Wyoming officially told the Utah agency that he had registered as the putative father. Yet because he had not registered in Utah, the adoption was allowed to proceed.

He contested that, but the Utah Supreme Court ruled against him.

There are many, many, many, many, many, many, many similar examples.

The issue is so pervasive that a class action lawsuit has even been filed against the state of Utah by a group of biological fathers. That case was dismissed with no ruling given, and while there have been some minor court victories, fathers in Utah — and other states — can still have their children taken away from them, even if they fight to keep them.

The Bottom Line:

The conversation about adoption should not only focus on birth mothers. Fathers have a role to play in their children's lives too, and they can be emotionally and psychologically affected by both abortion and adoption.

Go Deeper:

Read other articles in this Live Action News adoption series below.

• <a href="/news/adoption-cost-unethical-practices-money">Adoption costs vary widely. Where does the money go?</a>

• <a href="/news/open-adoption-transforming-troubled-industry">How open adoption is transforming a once-troubled industry</a>

• <a href="/news/why-parents-choosing-ivf-over-adoption-complicated">Why are parents choosing IVF over adoption? The truth is complicated.</a>

Key Takeaways:

• SIRA, a pregnancy resource center in Gainesville, Florida, has purchased a former Planned Parenthood facility.

• Planned Parenthood closed in June due to a reported lack of clients.

• Over the past five years, SIRA has reportedly served 2,786 unique clients. With its expansion, it hopes to serve even more.

The Details:

The former Planned Parenthood building at 914 NW 13th St. in Gainesville was purchased September 10 for $345,000 by the SIRA pregnancy resource center. Kathy Gratto, SIRA's executive director, announced the acquisition last Thursday, at the organization's annual fundraising gala.

“Closing procedures began, and the seller found out that it was a crisis pregnancy center that wanted to buy the building, and there was pushback, which we expected,” Gratto said. “So with some legal extra steps, and two closings, for which Planned Parenthood paid all the costs, on September 10, SIRA became the proud owner of the 914.”

Gratto noted the divine impact of the pregnancy center taking over a former Planned Parenthood:

“Many of you in attendance tonight are rejoicing with us and witnessing the fruit from your sacrifice, commitment, prayers and investment. God always has a plan. We have hopes and desires and missions and goals. We pray, and we wait, and in the waiting, our faith grows, and God continues to reveal Himself. And as you can see, He’s still the God of miracles.” 

The Backstory:

The Gainesville Planned Parenthood closed at the end of June, with the organization citing a lack of patients (though an <a href="/news/planned-parenthood-closures-restructuring-telehealth">intentional move to telehealth</a> is also part of a broader restructuring plan nationwide). Though the facility reportedly hadn't committed surgical abortions "in recent years," it did provide cross-sex hormones to individuals, as well as abortion referrals.

SIRA had been operating next door to the Planned Parenthood since 1997. According to the Alachua Chronicle, the faith-based pregnancy center began in 1974, under the name Women’s Resource and Medical Clinic. In May 2016, it changed its name to SIRA to reflect the services it also offers to men. The center offers ultrasounds, counseling, pregnancy and STI testing, life skills classes, abortion recovery, and much more.

Over the past five years, SIRA has reportedly served 2,786 unique clients, at no cost to those clients. Gratto said the new space will allow SIRA to continue expanding.

“There’s still much to be done in our community, and in the fight for life,” Gratto said. “We have a lot of work and planning ahead of us."

The Bottom Line:

Pregnancy resource centers exist to provide real and ready help to pregnant and parenting families. Planned Parenthood Gainesville's closing for 'lack of patients' all while a pregnancy center next door is booming, is a telling sign that what pregnant women really want is support.

In June 2025, we experienced a very early pregnancy loss—a chemical pregnancy. It was brief,  but it was still a pregnancy, still a baby we had begun to hope for, and still a loss. After that loss, our desire to have another baby did not go away. We already had our firstborn, and we were wanting to grow our family.

When we became pregnant again, there was so much hope surrounding that pregnancy. After what we had experienced in June, seeing another positive pregnancy test felt like another opportunity to believe that maybe this time would be different. 

But from the beginning, there were concerns. 

Numerous health concerns

One of the first major concerns was a high nuchal translucency measurement. At first, doctors  were worried that our son, Grayson, could have Down syndrome, but we accepted that and waited to see how he would develop.

That initial concern was cleared up, and for a while, we allowed ourselves to believe that maybe the worst was behind us. In December, we genuinely felt like our prayers had been answered. We thought perhaps the things doctors had seen early on had resolved, and we could finally move forward with a healthy pregnancy. 

They didn't. 

As the pregnancy progressed into February and March, more problems were discovered.

We learned that Grayson had heterotaxy syndrome, a rare condition affecting the arrangement and  development of the body's organs, along with severe congenital heart defects.

His heart anatomy was extraordinarily complex. The portion of his heart separating the upper chambers from the lower chambers was almost nonexistent, which caused severe regurgitation because it could not close properly. His aorta was also connected to the wrong chamber. Both of his valves were also going into the same chamber, which caused poor circulation and flow. 

With every appointment, there seemed to be another problem. As the weeks went on his case became more and more complex.

Preparing for Grayson

We were repeatedly given the option to terminate the pregnancy. We were told, in different ways  and at different appointments, that Grayson might not survive and if he did, he would have a poor quality of life.

Yet we never stopped seeing him as our son. We never stopped loving him. 

Even when the medical news became increasingly devastating, we continued to hope, pray, and prepare for him. 

At our 29-week appointment, he began developing hydrops and I started to notice a decrease in his movement. He was beginning to have symptoms from the heart defect. We were told that Grayson was unlikely to survive for long after birth. 

I was also beginning to have health problems, and the decision was made to schedule surgery for 30 weeks.

There are some moments in life that divide everything into a before and an after.

That was one of them. 

We knew before he was born that he was not expected to survive for long. But knowing something  intellectually and experiencing it as your reality are two completely different things.

We still had  to choose his name, prepare for his birth, and imagine meeting our son while knowing we might only have minutes with him.

Grayson's Arrival

On April 17, 2026, Grayson was born by planned C-section. 

He was perfect. 

He was beautiful. 

And he was alive. 

For approximately one hour, Grayson was here with us. One hour that somehow held an entire  lifetime.

To us, it was heartbreakingly short. But to him, it was his whole life outside the womb — and we wanted that life to be filled with love. 

His life was short, but it was not meaningless. He was wanted. He was loved. He was prayed for.  He was fought for. He was and is our son.

Key Takeaways:

• A surrogacy agency came under federal investigation after it was discovered that a Chinese couple had acquired 21 children through surrogacy.

• The couple were both employees of the agency, and allegedly, babies born through the agency in the U.S. (as American citizens) were then being transported back to China.

• Authorities have now arrested the couple on charges of child abuse, with 15 children removed from the home.

• The abuse the children reportedly suffered is horrific, with their nanny instructed to abuse them in ways that would not leave "visible marks."

The Backstory:

American citizenship scheme

In July of 2025, news broke of an investigation into Future Springs Surrogacy.

The for-profit company allegedly employed Silvia Zhang and Guojun Xuan, who also served as the supposed intended parents. However, a federal source told the Daily Wire that the government believes babies were being born to surrogates in the United States, thereby giving them American citizenship, and then were sent back to China.

Though 15 children were removed from the home at the time, the couple are biological parents to 21 children. Nineteen (19) were born through surrogates. The other six children were also located, though it is not clear if they were taken into state care as well.

'Organized reproductive trafficking'

“We believe this case points to a form of organized reproductive trafficking, and the public should be outraged," Kallie Fell, executive director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture, said at the time. "And it won’t stop unless we hold the fertility industry accountable and close our borders to international surrogacy arrangements.”

Part of the investigation began after a two-month-old baby was taken to the hospital with head trauma. Staff called police, who then visited Xuan and Zhang's home; there, they found security footage which revealed a nanny, Chunmei Li, violently hitting and shaking the baby.

Zhang and Xuan were arrested for felony child endangerment; a warrant was issued for Li, but she remains on the run.

The Details:

Police have now announced new charges against Xuan and Zhang. Both have been charged with conspiracy to commit child abuse and witness intimidation.

• Xuan has been charged with one felony count of child abuse, one felony count of accessory after the fact, and five felony counts of dissuading a witness.

• Zhang has been charged with one count of accessory after the fact, and four counts of dissuading a witness.

Both have pleaded not guilty.

Li has been charged with assault likely to cause death, though she has still not been found.

Mitchell Krems, who represents the couple, told NBC News, “He’s exercising his civil liberties to be able to have as many children as he wants,” claiming the number of children was a response to the restrictive one-child policy in China. “There’s no law against that. He moved to the United States so he can exercise his liberty to have as many children as he wants."

Subjected to constant abuse

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman, however, described it differently, saying the couple's home was a "house of horrors" where children were subjected to constant abuse.

In the case of the beaten two-month-old, Hochman said the couple didn't seek medical care until days later. He also pointed out that the surrogates hired by the couple were lied to about how many children the couple had or why they were hiring surrogates.

“One surrogate in particular… was paid for both a first and second surrogacy,” he said. “She was told initially Zhang was a single mother struggling to conceive when she agreed to act as a surrogate. That was a false statement. Another surrogate, they said they were seeking the miracle baby, and they paid that surrogate $135,000."

Hochman said the couple had set up over 30 cameras around the house, and watched as the children were abused. The couple reportedly laughed as they saw the children being hit, spanked, and slapped. They also sometimes ordered the nannies to hit the children harder.

On occasion, the nannies were filmed taking the children into an enclosed room with no cameras; what they were doing could not be seen on the cameras, but the children were heard screaming from inside.

Don't leave marks

Some of the children were allegedly beaten with sticks at first, but Xuan instructed the nannies to stop — not to protect them, but because the abuse would leave visible marks. According to the complaint, Xuan instructed the nannies on “the importance of disciplining the children in a manner that would not leave visible marks.”

“This case is unprecedented. It is horrific. And the physical abuse, beating and punishment that these very young children received is despicable,” Hochman said.

The couple is accused of helping Li to hide and avoid arrest, even though the two-month-old was beaten so severely that the child reportedly suffered a brain bleed.

The Bottom Line:

If convicted, Xuan faces 17 years in prison, while Zhang could serve 11 years.

Key Takeaways:

• The abortion pill isn't as safe as it's claimed to be.

• The abortion pill's safety system was set up because women died.

• Abortion pill prescribers are ignoring safety protocols.

• The prescribers putting women at risk are allowed to stay in business.

• Most physicians don't prescribe the abortion pill.

• Illegal abortion drugs are flooding into pro-life states.

• A drug that has intentionally killed millions can't be considered 'safe.'

While mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex was approved in 2000, the way it is dispensed has changed significantly over the years. Most recently, in 2023, the Biden FDA loosened the drug's REMS safety requirements to allow it to be dispensed in pharmacies and by mail.

Here are 7 things to know about the abortion pill:

 #1: The abortion pill isn't as safe as it's claimed to be.

The abortion pill has a black box warning for sepsis and hemorrhaging, along with infection, which is rarely discussed (if at all) by mainstream media. Instead, abortion proponents claim the abortion pill is as "safe as Tylenol" — a claim that has been <a href="/news/fact-check-abortion-pill-safer-tylenol-viagra">debunked</a>, and which not even <a href="/news/abortionist-cant-answer-abortion-pill-safer-tylenol">abortion industry experts</a> have been able to verify.

• 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. 

• The manufacturer’s medication guide notes that up to seven percent (7%) of women will “need a surgical procedure” to complete the abortion. 

• A more recent 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.

Estimated impact on women:

• 21.3K to 44K likely 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.

Shanyce Thomas testified that after she was sold the abortion pill, she suffered severe complications, including septic shock:

The cramps were unbearable. It felt like somebody was stabbing me in my stomach. Planned Parenthood told me I was fine, but I still had fetal remains inside me. I had to undergo multiple surgeries and a partial hysterectomy.

Multiple deaths have also been associated with the deadly drug.

Women have testified to the trauma of seeing their dead aborted children in the shower or toilet, and some have sent graphic ‘proof of death’ images to providers. 

#2: The abortion pill's safety system was set up because women died.

Following multiple deaths, the FDA issued warnings and required abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories to issue letters to healthcare providers. The drug was then placed under a safety system for monitoring, called REMS.

• 2002: "We have received... reports of ruptured ectopic pregnancies (including one death from hemorrhage due to a ruptured ectopic pregnancy)...Because ectopic pregnancy may be present despite your best efforts to rule it out before starting Mifeprex treatment, you should be mindful of the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy throughout the treatment period and have a plan for its management."

• 2004: "Danco Laboratories is providing this information to assist you in taking care of patients who may present in an emergency room setting following treatment with Mifeprex® (mifepristone) and misoprostol. In particular, you should be aware of the rare events – serious infection, prolonged heavy bleeding and ruptured ectopic pregnancy."

• 2005: "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is aware of four cases of septic deaths in the United States."

• 2006: "The Food and Drug Administration has been informed of two additional deaths following medical abortion with mifepristone (Mifeprex)."

Despite the concerns, the FDA was pressured to loosen those requirements.

REMS initially required the pill's manufacturers to report all adverse events — but in 2016, Big Abortion schemed to get this changed to report fatalities only, and urged clients to lie about complications (attributing them to natural miscarriage).

Predictably, fewer adverse event reports began to show up.

Despite its current lax safety protocols, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was expected to update a federal judge in Louisiana on the status of its ongoing abortion pill review. The agency told the court that FDA doesn't plan to complete the review until March of 2027.

#3: Abortion pill prescribers are ignoring safety protocols.

Abortion pill prescribers regularly violate the REMS safety protocols by failing to:

• Rule out ectopic pregnancies

• Verify pregnancy/gestational age

• Handle complications or refer to someone who can

Instead, they prescribe the drug past FDA-approved limits, without a confirmed pregnancy, and advise women to lie to medical personnel if they experience complications. 

Prescribers are also required under the FDA's REMS to have the “[a]bility to assess the duration of pregnancy accurately” and the “[a]bility to diagnose ectopic pregnancies.” However...

• The abortion industry admits it does not rule out an ectopic pregnancy for every abortion pill client, placing women at risk.

• Even pro-abortion emergency room physicians have warned that they are seeing more women presenting to ERs with undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies after taking the abortion pill.  

• Abortion pill prescribers fail to properly date pregnancies, spend less than five minutes with clients in telehealth appointments, and do little to no follow-up, while prescribing the drug much later than the approved gestational limits. 

#4: The prescribers putting women at risk are allowed to stay in business.

Profitable abortion pill manufacturers are contractually required under REMS to decertify prescribers who are out of compliance, but these manufacturers admitted to the Senate HELP Committee that they have not decertified a single one, despite their disregard for the safety rules. 

So far, the FDA appears to have done little in response to this.

Despite the fact that the drug manufacturers are obligated to ensure that the rules are followed, it appears they have washed their hands of any involvement. This means that no one is ensuring that safety rules are being followed — and if rules are broken, no one is being decertified.

An August 2026 report, led by Senator Bill Cassidy for the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said, "the lack of guardrails ensuring a sufficient provider-patient relationship creates accountability gaps for a product that carries risks of significant adverse health outcomes."

The Committee's investigation found "a consistent pattern of a lack of transparency regarding the operations of mifepristone sponsors," raising "critical questions about the effectiveness of their oversight... to ensure compliance with REMSrequirements."

#5: Most physicians don't prescribe the abortion pill.

The only thing the abortion pill (200 mg mifepristone) is FDA-approved for is the termination of pregnancy — the killing of a living preborn child.

Live Action News previously documented that historically, physicians spurned the abortion pill.

We found that less than one percent of licensed physicians are certified prescribers of the abortion pill, and potentially just 23% of licensed OBGYNs prescribe the drug — despite fearmongering that the drug needs to be available for other indications.

#6: Illegal abortion drugs are flooding into pro-life states.

Abortion drugs illegally flood into pro-life states due to pro-abortion "shield" laws passed by pro-abortion states.

These laws do not protect women who take abortion drugs or who are coerced by others who order the drugs online without their knowledge, and they don't protect women who are injured or die due to reckless prescribers seeking profit.

Shield laws protect the abortion industry.

Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana have filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the “shield laws” in New York, California, and Massachusetts, calling them "swords disguised as shields and driven into pro-life states."

The laws were put in place by extremely pro-abortion lawmakers shortly after the Dobbs Supreme Court decision overturned Roe v. Wade, as explained in the court document filed by pro-life Plaintiff states.

A separate lawsuit filed against the individuals and groups shipping the drugs into pro-life states contends that these states are also suffering harm because they cannot enforce the laws of their own states due to pro-abortion shield laws.

#7: A drug that has intentionally killed millions can't be truly 'safe.'

The FDA reports that 7.5 million women used the abortion pill between 2000 and 2024.

In June, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute updated its national abortion estimates for 2025, increasing estimated abortion pill totals to 734,435. This equates to...

• 61,203 abortions by pill per month

• 2,012 per day

• 84 per hour

• One abortion pill abortion every 43 seconds

These are real human beings whose lives are being ended.

Go Deeper:

"Without Guardrails" series:

• 'Without Guardrails': Abortion pill manufacturer refuses to disclose revenue

• 'Without Guardrails': Are abortion pill companies putting profit over safety rules?

• 'Without Guardrails': Report shows most physicians don't prescribe abortion pills

• 'Without Guardrails': Abortion pill report exposes stunning lack of accountability

"Dear FDA" series:

• Dear FDA: Abortion pill manufacturers abet unlawful mailing of drugs into pro-life states

• Dear FDA: Why are you aiding the breaking of federal laws about abortion?

• Dear FDA: Who is overseeing the abortion pill's prescribers?

• Dear FDA: Who paid for the removal of abortion pill safety protocols?

"A person's a person, no matter how small." ~ "Horton Hears a Who," Dr. Seuss

On July 29, 2026, I was 19 weeks and two days pregnant with my baby when I went in for a checkup and found her heart had stopped.

Our family was devastated.

"Perfectly formed"

The doctor gave me options, and I chose to deliver my baby so I could see her body. I’d only been a few days out from my scheduled anatomy scan, where we’d have learned the gender. Instead, I went in two days later for labor and delivery. 

Nothing could have prepared me for the heartache of seeing my beautiful baby born dead.

We found out she was a girl, and it turns out she hadn’t been growing for a while. She was the size of a 13-14 week fetus, despite having gotten a solid heartbeat at my last checkup at 14 weeks.

She was whole and complete, born still in the sac. Her fingers and toes were perfectly formed. I could even see that some of her facial features were similar to her siblings. She was beautiful, and no doubt, my daughter, now an angel on the other side. We named her Lily Noelle. 

Remembering Lily Noelle

My other children came to the hospital to meet her and say goodbye. They adored her, and didn’t want to leave her.

My eight-year-old son told me he feels sure her toes would be ticklish if she was still alive. Even my two-year-old held her and said, “That baby died!” They were heartbroken and still talk about her.

My mother is making her a stocking for us to write letters to her each Christmas. We chose to bury her in a cemetery with her great-great-grandfather rather than bring any harm to her body. Now we have a place we can go see her when we miss her. 

Choosing life

It is legal to abort a baby this well-formed and perfectly complete in the majority of states in the USA. Even a small child can clearly discern that this little fetus is truly a baby, and a person, all on her own.

I have six other children, one of those through adoption. Children are not only life’s greatest blessings; they are our highest purpose.

If you are considering abortion, please take a good look at my little Lily Noelle, and reconsider.  You can do this!

Love your baby, make the sacrifice, and give him or her a chance at life. I promise you, in so doing you will find your life. God loves you, and He loves your baby, too. Trust Him. 

Key Takeaways:

• Reports given to the Senate HELP Committee indicate that 38 deaths are now associated with the use of mifepristone, the abortion pill.*

• The number of adverse events reported prior to 2016 compared to those reported after 2016 are drastically different, though the abortion pill's manufacturers claim they continued to report all adverse events of which they were made aware, though the FDA changed this requirement in 2016 to report only fatalities.

• The Committee wrote, "Up until the March 29, 2016 change, Danco had reported about 4,000 non-fatal adverse events associated with the use of Mifeprex. However, since this change, Danco has only reported about 150 non-fatal adverse events over the last 10 years."

The Details:

A report published by the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee this past summer detailed two additional deaths associated with the abortion pill:

• The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) website (updated in April 8, 2026) only indicates that "As of December 31, 2024, there were 36 reports of deaths in patients associated with mifepristone since the product was approved in September 2000."

• Responses sent to the HELP Committee by the drug makers suggested that 38 deaths, not 36, have been associated with the drug.

This comes as the FDA is slated to issue an update regarding its safety review of the drug mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex.

Adverse events before 2016

The abortion pill was approved in 2000, and prescribers were then required to report all adverse events to Mifeprex manufacturer Danco Laboratories, which was to then report these to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Following multiple women's deaths, the FDA issued warnings and required Danco to issue letters to healthcare providers. The drug was then placed under the FDA's REMS safety system for monitoring.

• 2002: "We have received... reports of ruptured ectopic pregnancies (including one death from hemorrhage due to a ruptured ectopic pregnancy)... Because ectopic pregnancy may be present despite your best efforts to rule it out before starting Mifeprex treatment, you should be mindful of the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy throughout the treatment period and have a plan for its management."

• 2004: "Danco Laboratories is providing this information to assist you in taking care of patients who may present in an emergency room setting following treatment with Mifeprex® (mifepristone) and misoprostol. In particular, you should be aware of the rare events – serious infection, prolonged heavy bleeding and ruptured ectopic pregnancy."

• 2005: "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is aware of four cases of septic deaths in the United States."

• 2006: "The Food and Drug Administration has been informed of two additional deaths following medical abortion with mifepristone (Mifeprex)."

Despite the concerns, pressure was mounting to loosen those requirements.

In 2015, as Live Action News previously uncovered, Danco had little interest in loosening the safety protocols and was also short by millions of dollars to even attempt it.

Some claim Danco 'dragged its feet' because it knew that loosening safety protocols would open the door to generic competitors — which is exactly what happened.

By 2016, Danco had the millions it needed, obtained from unknown sources, and filed a new drug application approved by the Obama FDA. This expanded use of the abortion pill from 7 weeks gestation to 10 weeks and removed requirements that prescribers must report all adverse events, instead requiring only deaths to be reported.

Deaths associated with abortion pill

The FDA reports that between 2000 and December 2024, “approximately 7.5 million women” used the abortion pill regimen to end preborn babies’ lives.

In addition, the FDA's current website reports that 36 deaths* of women associated with the drug were also reported. But that number appears to differ from what manufacturers of the drug reported to the Senate HELP Committee.

Correspondence published in an August 2026 report entitled, "Mifepristone Without Guardrails: An Investigation Into How Chemical Abortion Drug Makers Are Putting Mothers and Babies At Risk," indicates the number is now 38.*

A letter to the HELP Committee from Danco noted that the manufacturer of Mifeprex sold "More than six million" drugs since "approval in 2000."

In that same period, "Danco has identified 29 instances in which an individual subsequently died after taking Mifeprex."

GenBioPro, the generic abortion pill manufacturer, provided the HELP Committee "a list of all deaths associated with the use of mifepristone that GBP has reported to FDA since the date of approval in 2019." One of the nine (9) deaths reported by GBP occurred in July of 2025.

GBP also noted that, "Between FDA approval of the ANDA in 2019 and 2023, GBP sold more than 850,000 units of generic mifepristone throughout the United States."

Investigating Deaths

Danco claimed it promptly investigated "all serious and unexpected adverse events, including deaths, consistent with its regulatory obligations," but acknowledged it has "not conducted any postmarketing studies on fatal and/or non-fatal adverse events since Mifeprex’s approval in 2000."

Danco's investigations include:

promptly requesting detailed case information from the reporter, actively following up with health care providers to obtain relevant medical history and outcomes, and submitting the information to FDA and any new information that may become available.

While abortion pill sponsors suggest they investigate all deaths and adverse events, Big Abortion has a long history of covering abortion-related injuries or deaths, lying about the cause of death, failing to call 911, relegating emergency vehicles to back doors, or sending women to emergency departments where they have influence and could receive cover.

In some instances, medical malpractice lawsuits — not the medical examiner or the abortion facility — correctly linked the cause of death to an abortion.

Adverse events total

As of the most recent published summary dated December 31, 2024, the FDA reported 4,252 adverse event cases resulting from the abortion pill since 2000.

To the HELP Committee...

• Danco reported 4,172 (including deaths) sent to the FDA between 2000 through February 28, 2026 (received by FDA between April 2001 and March 2026).

• GenBioPro's reports to FDA indicated 21 (including deaths) received by FDA between June 2019 through May 2026. The last adverse event report by GBP, allegedly occurred in November of 2025, and was listed as "Drug Ineffective."

• Nearly 60 were assumed to have been reported by other sources.

By The Numbers:

Danco Laboratories, GenBioPro (GBP), and generic manufacturer Evita Solutions told the Senate HELP Committee they are required to report all adverse events as well as fatalities to the FDA, despite the 2016 REMS changes removing non-fatal reporting requirements from prescribers.

The HELP Committee looked into adverse event reports before and after the 2016 REMS changes and found a "stark contrast between the number of non-fatal adverse event reports submitted before and after the 2016 REMS change removing the reporting requirement."

The Committee wrote:

Up until the March 29, 2016 change, Danco had reported about 4,000 non-fatal adverse events associated with the use of Mifeprex.

However, since this change, Danco has only reported about 150 non-fatal adverse events over the last 10 years.

GBP’s generic mifepristone product was approved in April 2019, after the 2016 REMS change, but in the seven years since its approval, GBP has only reported about 10 non-fatal adverse events, along with the nine aforementioned deaths it has reported.

... In another illuminating example from these summary reports, there were 97 ectopic pregnancies reported from September 2000 through December 2018. Notably, this number remained at 97 in the December 2024 report, meaning that zero ectopic pregnancies were reported to FDA during that six-year period where FDA reports 3.8 million women took mifepristone.

This is statistically impossible; as Live Action News has documented, even pro-abortion emergency room physicians have warned that women are presenting to ERs with undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies after taking the abortion pill. Their warnings were detailed in 2023 to the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJOM).

Did Danco receive this well-published news for an investigation and report?

Still, by their own admission, prescribers of the drug indicate that the further along a woman is in pregnancy, the less effective the drugs will be, indicating a higher degree of failures.

So we are to believe that fewer adverse events have occurred, even as prescribers of the drug...

... fail to rule out ectopics

... fail to properly date pregnancies

... spend less than five minutes with clients in telehealth appointments, and

... do little to no follow-up

... all while prescribing the drug much later than the approved gestational limits?

This simply strains credulity.

The Senate HELP Committee was also suspicious, writing (emphases added):

These findings raise questions about whether the removal of the requirement for certified prescribers to report non-fatal adverse events had a chilling effect on the number of adverse events reported to the drug sponsors.

While the drug sponsors are still required to report non-fatal adverse events they receive to FDA, this requirement does little good if the non-fatal adverse events are not reported to the drug sponsors in the first place.

This concern is magnified when you consider that since the 2023 REMS changes, prescribers can now prescribe mifepristone fully anonymously online, making it next to impossible that non-fatal adverse events would be reported to the drug sponsors.

Even the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals "characterized the elimination of the adverse event reporting requirement and the subsequent reliance on the absence of non-fatal adverse event reports to demonstrate mifepristone’s safety as a 'deeply troubling' 'ostrich’s-head-in-the sand approach,'" the Committee added.

Behind The Curtain:

Live Action News has documented that for decades, the abortion industry has participated in a scheme to hide abortion pill complications by advising women to present to emergency rooms and falsely claim that they are experiencing natural miscarriages.

This deception virtually guarantees that complications have been underreported as well as misreported for many years, and quite possibly will never be accurately reported. 

The REMS was placed to assure safety, yet manufacturers of the drug also openly admitted to the Senate HELP Committee that not a single prescriber has ever been decertified, despite public evidence that they are flouting the REMS.

The numbers simply don't add up.

*Not all of these deaths were causally attributed to the drug.

Key Takeaways:

• An appeals court has upheld a lower court's ruling that placed a temporary injunction on a South Dakota law prohibiting abortion advertising.

• The state's law originated after Mayday Health advertised the abortion pill in the state last year, even though South Dakota prohibits most abortions.

• The advertising law remains on hold while a lawsuit filed by Mayday Health proceeds through the courts.

The Backstory:

Mayday Health, an organization that runs a website promoting abortion pill delivery, started advertising the abortion pill at South Dakota gas stations last year, despite a state law protecting nearly all preborn children from abortion. This led Attorney General Marty Jackley to file a cease-and-desist letter against the organization.

Lawmakers followed Jackley's actions by passing legislation in March prohibiting the "dispensing, distribution, sale, or advertisement of certain articles or things for purposes of an unlawful abortion..." South Dakota maintained that because abortion is illegal in the state, Mayday couldn't advertise where to purchase the abortion pill. Mayday filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that its advertising practices were protected by the first amendment right to free speech.

In a July ruling, U.S. District Judge Camela C. Theeler sided with Mayday and issued a preliminary injunction against the law while the lawsuit proceeds through the court.

Following that ruling, Jackley and South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden filed an appeal, asking the 8th Circuit Court to overturn Theeler's ruling and keep the law in place.

“The Court has legalized the solicitation and aiding and abetting of an illegal drug and erroneously broadened the scope of the term advertising,” the state's appeal stated, adding that the ruling “could just as easily protect the solicitation and aiding and abetting of online methamphetamine sales by groups who claim to simply ‘provide information’ about methamphetamine and offer consumers the ‘choice’ to commit an illegal act.”

The Details:

In a brief order issued October 1, the appeals court upheld Theeler's ruling, denying the state's request to reinstate the abortion advertising ban.

Mayday Health immediately claimed victory on social media, stating, "WE WON IN FEDERAL COURT." However, the court's ruling is not the final say in the case, as it only upholds a preliminary ruling. Mayday's lawsuit against the state continues in federal court, as the court works to decide if the ruling is constitutional.

As Governor Rhoden remarked in July: “I remain confident that our law is not only constitutional — it’s vitally important.”

Should families trust this pro-abortion, biased organization of subspecialists? Is this really "reproductive justice"?

Key Takeaways:

• The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recently issued a statement position revealing its heavy pro-abortion bias, which stated that abortion is a "core component" of being a maternal-fetal medicine doctor.

• The statement, authored by individuals involved in and/or linked to the abortion industry, also indicated that anyone receiving a prenatal diagnosis should be informed of their abortion options; not only that, but the group recommends practitioners discuss with patients the potential "economic implications" of having a child with a disability.

• The group advocated for earlier diagnosis of fetal anomalies through genetic screening and testing, which is notoriously unreliable, so that abortion can be committed earlier.

• The group strongly and repeatedly urged referrals for "abortion care," and states that "offering perinatal palliative care is not a substitute for providing or enabling access to abortion care."

• SMFM claimed that due to "expertise and leadership positions within institutions," MFM specialists have a "unique position to uplift core tenets of reproductive justice – in particular, the ability to choose to be pregnant or not."

The Details:

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) — a membership organization founded in 1977, representing "over 6,500 members" including "Maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) subspecialist physicians" and others — has been granted over $1 million by the pro-abortion Buffett Foundation.

In 2021, the Society claimed that abortion is an "essential component of reproductive healthcare," while noting at the time that "only a small proportion of MFM physicians currently perform dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures."

This is what a D&E abortion entails:

A 2024 position paper from the Society states that it "supports the right of all individuals to access the full spectrum of reproductive health services, including abortion care" and "opposes legislation and policies that limit access to abortion care or criminalize abortion care and self-managed abortion."

SMFM also supports the expansion of the abortion pill and the use of lethal feticides to "euthanize" — as some put it — it the preborn child in the womb.

SMFM: 'Abortion is safer' than carrying to term

SMFM's September 2026 statement alleges that "abortion is statistically safer than continuing a pregnancy to term," which contradicts abortionist Curtis Boyd, who claimed abortion past 18 weeks is more dangerous than childbirth.

In addition, only one study (from 2012) has shown that abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth, and those results have been unable to be replicated.

SMFM claimed that "adverse maternal outcomes" are based on "underlying medical, social, and contextual factors," revealing the fact that the group's abortion advocacy has little to do with the physical health of the mother or preborn baby.

The solution, according to SMFM, is to build "systems that can optimize care when abortion is restricted."

Advocating intentional killing for "high-risk pregnancies"

SMFM defines a "high-risk pregnancy" as "one that places the pregnant person, fetus, or infant at increased risk for death or residual injury and typically requires additional resources, procedures, or specialized care to optimize outcomes."

A "high-risk pregnancy," therefore, does not merely mean that an expectant mother is having health issues; it includes the idea that a child may require "specialized care" or "additional resources" once born.

These "fetal conditions that can result in a high-risk pregnancy include fetal growth restriction, fetal anomalies, and infections," says the group, adding, "These examples do not include all health conditions that might elevate risk."

Without defining the 'standard of care,' SMFM also claimed that "reproductive health services, including abortion" are necessary, but emphasized that "legal restrictions on abortion... make it challenging or impossible for clinicians to practice standard-of-care..." which frighteningly seems to imply that intentional killing is part of the job for MFM clinicians.

The obviously pro-abortion group then states "it is critical to emphasize that... MFM subspecialists," OBGYNs, and "complex family planning subspecialist colleagues are the high-risk pregnancy and abortion care experts; no other personnel are better trained to assess the risk of pregnancy complications to maternal and perinatal health."

Unfortunately, those "experts" appear to think that killing is care.

Though the group never explains how intentionally killing a preborn child falls under the "standard of care," it concludes that "Abortion care is a core component of practice for MFM subspecialists nationwide."

Fetal Anomalies

Search and Destroy

SMFM advocates for "earlier diagnosis of fetal anomalies" to allow "for more timely provision of abortion... especially in states with gestational duration restrictions." But early diagnosis should be a time to prepare parents, not an earlier opportunity to end a life.

Yet, SMFM claims that "All patients with a new diagnosis of a fetal anomaly should have the option of abortion care."

"Abortion care" in this context means the intentional killing or expedition of death for a child with a prenatal diagnosis.

SMFM went on to to suggest expanding "access to prenatal screening and diagnosis, including early noninvasive genetic screening and first-trimester anatomy ultrasonography" for the purpose of earlier destruction, writing that "abortion care is one of several options that should be discussed with patients in the setting of an unexpected fetal diagnosis...."

But early prenatal screening, in particular, is highly unreliable. As Live Action News previously reported, "certain prenatal genetic tests are wrong up to 93% of the time. This has major implications, given the fact that families have frequently reported experiencing pressure to abort after receiving a prenatal diagnosis for a child."

"Ethical obligation" to pressure patients?

The society suggests that "Counseling regarding abortion should be included in options for pregnancy management" by "providing information and referrals about lawful abortion care," emphasizing that "offering perinatal palliative care is not a substitute for providing or enabling access to abortion care."

Horrifyingly, SMFM also writes:

Providers have an ethical obligation to discuss the mental health and health resource utilization (i.e., economic) implications of having a child with one or more health issues...

abortion care should always be discussed as a management option for any person diagnosed with a fetal congenital anomaly during pregnancy.

Furthermore, the availability of maternal-fetal surgery for a particular congenital anomaly does not preclude abortion care as an option, either at the time of diagnosis or even after maternal-fetal surgery.

SMFM also advocates for "reduction" in cases of "multifetal gestation" with "reduction," which is the intentional killing of preborn babies to reduce their number. The video below shows the targeting of a preborn twin using a potassium chloride injection:

The coldness of the physician is telling:

"The needle is into the baby's heart and you can see the baby's heart beating... Once we are sure it is in the heart, we inject potassium chloride into the heart... We wait.... The heartbeat of the twin which is reduced is stopped here."

Uplifting 'core tenets of reproductive justice'

SMFM noted one of its goals is to "improve access to reproductive healthcare," encouraging clinicians to "advocate for comprehensive reproductive health counseling, inclusive of abortion care, as well as facilitation of abortion care, as an essential part of fetal care centers or fetal therapy programs.

SMFM claimed that due to "expertise and leadership positions within institutions," MFM specialists had a "unique position to uplift core tenets of reproductive justice – in particular, the ability to choose to be pregnant or not."

"Self-managed abortion (SMA)" was defined as "Steps taken to end pregnancy outside of the formal healthcare system. After SMA, patients may seek clinical care for potential complications or to confirm the abortion is complete."

SMFM also wrote of the apparent importance of "[c]ollaborative partnerships with institutions and clinics in surrounding states that provide abortion care," and called "abortion funds" an "essential resource."

The Evident Bias:

The SMFM's statement was assembled by SMFM's Reproductive Health Committee and co-authored by Justin R. Lappen, who chairs the Committee.

Lappen once testified that he commits abortions "up to 21 weeks, 6 days" at the notorious Preterm abortion business in Ohio and served "as Associate Residency Program Director in Obstetrics and Gynecology and Assistant Director of a Ryan Residency Training Program in Family Planning." (Read more about Ryan Residency Programs, largely funded by billionaire abortion philanthropist Warren Buffett.)

Other authors include:

Ashish Premkumar, who pledged to provide abortions and recently disclosed that he is a consultant for the generic abortion pill manufacturer, GenBioPro.

He co-authored a paper which alleged that "exposure to abortion procedures during residency is directly linked to interest in pursuing abortion-related training in maternal-fetal medicine (MFM)," concluding that "MFM subspecialists are in a unique position to provide abortion-related reproductive care...."

Adam Crosland received a grant from a “University of California Abortion Registry (UCAR)” proposal. His LinkedIn "interests" include Planned Parenthood and Physicians for Reproductive Health.

Leilah Zahedi-Spung is also an abortionist from Tennessee who relocated to Colorado where abortion is permitted into the third trimester. She testified before a Senate hearing that "abortion is lifesaving" and "compassionate healthcare."

The Bottom Line:

Given the SMFM's strong bias and argumentation in favor of abortion, families referred to maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists should be aware that the information they receive from such "experts" may trend toward death rather than real healthcare.

Key Takeaways:

• Canadian MPs voted down bill C-218, which would have prohibited the expansion of MAiD for individuals with mental illness as their only health concern.

• Just hours earlier, Justice Minister Sean Fraser announced that the government had decided not to move forward with its plan to expand MAiD to include people whose sole health condition is mental illness.

• Fraser also said legislation would be put forward in the coming weeks to indefinitely extend the ban on MAiD for people whose sole health condition is mental illness.

• MPs also hope to decriminalize the use of advance directives to allow MAiD to be carried out on individuals with conditions such as dementia.

The Details:

Justice Minister Sean Fraser and Health Minister Marjorie Michel hosted a mid-day press conference, where Fraser stated:

“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."

In 2021, Canada expanded MAiD to remove the requirement that the person's death be "reasonably foreseeable." A UN special rapporteur condemned this decision, and in June, a House-Senate committee called for amendments to the Criminal Code to "indefinitely exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness from eligibility for medical assistance in dying.”

Fraser explained:

“Having reviewed the report, considered the recommendations, dug in deep to understand the reasons behind those recommendations, and had my own department conduct its engagement to assure that I was comfortable with the final report, I believe that the recommendations are legitimate and I agree with them at the end of the day."

Fraser also said that this Fall, the federal government will introduce legislation to indefinitely extend the ban on MAiD for people whose sole health condition is mental illness.

However, later in the day on Wednesday, MPs voted against Bill C-218, which would have prohibited the expansion of MAiD to Canadians based on mental illness alone, in a 187-141 vote. This allows the door to remain open to the future expansion of MAiD for mental health reasons.

What's Happening Now:

Canadian MPs plan to legislate to allow people to use advance directives to request that MAiD be used to kill them, even if they are no longer mentally capable of making that decision. Currently, a person must be mentally capable of consenting to MAiD both when their request is initially made and at the moment that the doctor injects them with the deadly drug cocktail.

Under an advance directive, a person can be approved for euthanasia that will be carried out in the future after they have lost their cognitive abilities to dementia, Alzheimer's, or similar conditions.

“The Liberal government is playing with lives,” said Jeff Gunnarson, National President of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC). “It voted down a bill that would protect the mentally ill while claiming it will introduce its own protections. And on the same day, it says that it plans to make euthanasia more available for those suffering with dementia. The Liberal government is still bent on expanding death—it just changed its target.”

Key Takeaways:

• The FDA filed a court document Wednesday stating that it expects its safety review of the abortion pill will not be completed until March of 2027 once study results are gathered by mid-December of this year.

• The March 2027 expected completion timeline is more than two years after HHS and the FDA promised to study the abortion pill mifepristone's safety.

• The abortion pill will remain on the market while the review continues.

• The abortion pill is responsible for the deaths of more than 7.5 million children in the U.S. alone, and its serious risks to women remain severely underreported thanks to pro-abortion administrations' loosening of the drug's safety system.

The Details:

The court document, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, states, "FDA is on track to obtain study results by mid-December 2026. FDA will then need to review and evaluate/interpret the results and draft a report. FDA expects to complete that process not later than March 2027."

In the meantime, the drug remains on the market and available through mail-order — an allowance that is <a href="/news/swords-disguised-shields-lawsuit-protecting-lawbreaking-abortion">wreaking havoc</a> among <a href="/news/get-facts-states-fight-mail-order-abortion">pro-life states</a>.

Live Action founder and president Lila Rose called the FDA's response "unacceptable."

NBC News reported:

The update Wednesday is in response to an order by a federal judge in Louisiana for a progress report on the safety review.

The FDA is a defendant in a Louisiana suit challenging its telehealth provision, which has largely been responsible for preserving nationwide access to abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Louisiana filed the case on behalf of a woman who said her boyfriend had ordered abortion pills and forced her to take them.

In May, a federal appeals court granted Louisiana’s request to reinstate a nationwide requirement that mifepristone be dispensed in person. But the Supreme Court quickly blocked the decision while the case plays out.

The Court document also noted:

In addition to these studies, FDA is conducting a review of the Mifepristone REMS Program. Among other things, that review encompasses consideration of arguments and information submitted to the Agency in multiple pending Citizen Petitions.

These Petitions advocate for a wide range of agency actions, including reinstating certain REMS requirements previously removed from the REMS, such as the requirement that the drug be dispensed only in certain healthcare settings (the “in-person dispensing requirement”). 

It added:

Following completion of its study and review, FDA will decide whether changes to the Mifepristone REMS Program are necessary and, if applicable, initiate any such changes in accordance with established processes.

The FDA says it is "performing a “TreeScan” analysis (a statistical data mining method), which will allow FDA to discover unknown safety concerns (if any) contained in the data regarding the use of mifepristone through 70 days gestation," and is "using a variety of data sources contained within Sentinel, a distributed database, to conduct the study."

The Backstory:

Jordan Boyd, staff writer at The Federalist, summed up the backstory on X:

... FDA responds to court-ordered deadline with claims it will complete its mifepristone safety review in March 2027. That’s 2+ years after HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary first pledged to “study the safety” of abortion pills.

U.S. District Judge David Joseph initially granted the FDA a stay allowing its current mail-order abortion scheme to continue as long as the agency agreed to provide the court with a review status update “on or before six months from the date of this [Apr. 7th] order.”

Joseph warned that “should the agency fail to complete its review and make any necessary revisions to the REMS within a reasonable timeframe, the Court’s analysis – and the weight accorded to these factors – will inevitably change.”

As previously reported by Live Action News:

[In April,] the judge ordered the matter "STAYED pending completion of FDA’s ongoing review" but would only afford FDA a "time limited period of deference to complete its review," writing that the "stay granted to FDA will not remain open-ended."
He ordered:

• 60 Days: FDA must produce entirety of the administrative record to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

• 6 Months: FDA must file a report providing the Court with the status of its review.

• 14 Days: After FDA completes its REMS review, FDA shall file a brief advising the Court of any agency action.

"Should the agency fail to complete its review and make any necessary revisions to the REMS within a reasonable timeframe, the Court’s analysis – and the weight accorded to these factors – will inevitably change," the judge wrote.

The Bottom Line:

The abortion pill regimen, mifepristone and misoprostol, has killed more than 7.5 million preborn children since it was approved by the FDA in 2000. It is now the most common method of abortion in the United States, and it comes with risks to women.

Many of the resulting complications have gone <a href="/news/dumping-patients-pushing-lie-misled-abortion-pill">unreported and underreported</a> due to previous FDA decisions revoking a requirement to report any adverse events (no matter how serious or life-threatening) other than deaths.

As the FDA stalls, more babies' lives are put at risk, and even women are put at risk as a result of the Biden FDA's decision to allow the drug to be <a href="/news/fda-abortion-pill-timeline-events">mailed to women</a> without so much as a confirmed pregnancy.

Key Takeaways:

• Catholic Archbishop George Thomas urged Nevada voters to vote no on Question 6 in the upcoming election.

• Question 6 seeks to establish a constitutional 'right' to abortion.

• Thomas warned that it could remove parental notification laws, allow non-physicians to commit abortions, and eliminate health and safety standards for abortion facilities.

• Voters already approved the amendment in 2024, but it needs to pass another vote before it can be added to the state constitution.

The Details:

Thomas' exhortation came on Respect Life Sunday, an annual observance in the Catholic Church held on the first Sunday in October. In a letter posted to the Las Vegas Archdiocese's social media pages, Thomas urged the faithful to understand that Question 6, a proposed amendment to the state's constitution, "will have grave and lasting consequences for vulnerable unborn lives."

Thomas noted that if passed, the amendment would dangerously expand abortion, remove parental notification requirements for minors seeking an abortion, and potentially enable non-physicians to commit abortions. He also warned that the amendment could eliminate health and safety standards for abortion facilities.

He wrote:

Unborn children have no voice and cannot defend themselves. As Catholics, our faith requires us to protect the inherent dignity of every human life and to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Our faith also calls us to approach moral issues of great consequence with truth, prayer, and a well-formed conscience....

I encourage you to vote no on Question 6 and invite your friends and family to do the same.

The Big Picture:

Nevada law already allows abortion up until 24 weeks of pregnancy, and even later if the mother's physical or mental health is believed to be in danger — essentially meaning that in some cases, an abortion may be committed up until birth if doctor says so. Yet abortion advocates want to take that pro-abortion stance even further by cementing abortion in the state's constitution.

The ballot measure set to go before voters reads:

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

Nevada voters already approved the ballot measure in a vote held in 2024. However, state law requires the measure to pass twice before it can be added as an amendment to the state's constitution.

The Bottom Line:

If voters say 'no,' the status of abortion in the state will remain unchanged. If they say 'yes,' what few abortion restrictions remain will likely eventually be eliminated.

Key Takeaways:

• The March for Life announced its theme for 2027: "The Truth is Pro-Life."

• Three-time World Series champion Clayton Kershaw of the Los Angeles Dodgers is scheduled to speak.

• The theme is timely and necessary as postmodernist thinking permeates society, claiming there is no objective truth.

• Under the postmodern view, the life of a new human organism begins when a popular vote or a woman's opinion says it begins.

The Details:

OSV News reported that Hayden Sledge, chief of staff at March for Life, told reporters during a press call that "the soil is prime for us to make the case for the truth, for life."

"Every January, people of different ages, backgrounds, faiths, and life experiences come together in Washington around one shared truth that every human life has worth," she said.

According to the March for Life website, "We are living in a remarkable moment. Across the country, especially among young people, there is a renewed desire to seek what is true, good, and lasting.

"The 2027 March for Life theme, 'The Truth is Pro-Life,' is an invitation to follow the truth where it leads. The truth about the unique dignity of every human life. The truth about life in the womb. The truth about what women deserve. And the truth that no circumstance can erase the value of a human person."

It added, "When we seek the truth with courage and compassion, it leads us to life."

Currently scheduled to speak at the 2027 March for Life is three-time World Series champion Clayton Kershaw of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Additional speakers have not yet been announced.

Why It Matters:

The Postmodern Problem

The theme is timely and necessary as society faces an increase in postmodern thought, which rejects objective truth, on the grounds that "truth" is unique to each person and shaped by individual experiences and backgrounds.

The postmodernist view holds that, essentially, circumstances and opinion determine whether or not a human being is indeed a human being. Abortion supporters have claimed that deciding when life begins is up to the child's mother — because in postmodern thought, there is no truth to when life begins. In postmodernism, the pregnant woman gets to determine if and when her child is a valuable human being, regardless of scientific proof and evidence.

Her child's value, rights, and humanity are awarded based on her own personal beliefs and experiences — her own subjective opinion. This erroneous thinking would insist that there can be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

Human Rights Determined by a Vote?

In its Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court correctly determined that there is no constitutional right to abortion; however, it gave the power to decide abortion laws to the states. Now, each state determines whether the person in the womb is a human being at all, and if so, at what stage of development, and depending upon the circumstances of their conception (ie: rape).

Thanks to Dobbs, states now determine — via state legislator votes or state constitutional amendments — what is true about when life begins and, in the case of abortion, who is a valuable human.

What this means is that America is repeating the mistakes of its past, just in a different way — and is still treating certain humans as if they are less human.

It's the "tyranny of the majority," in which human rights are put to a popular vote, and the result allows discrimination against certain human beings.

History shows us that depriving human beings of their human rights by popular vote can lead to great atrocity.

Germany's Nuremberg Laws passed unanimously by a parliament made up entirely of Nazi Party representatives. The laws declared that only people of 'German blood' could be citizens, and they stripped Jewish persons in Germany of their citizenship and political rights, leading to discrimination and the mass killing of Jewish persons, disabled persons, Black persons, and others. More than six million Jewish people (and millions of others) were killed during the Holocaust because of that vote.

But that unanimous vote didn't make the Nuremberg Laws right, good, ethical, or true.

We have human rights based on our human nature, not because of any other arbitrary factors. It's not something that should be up for popular vote, nor is it something that can be subjectively redefined so as to lose all true meaning.

The Bottom Line:

The truth is that human life begins at fertilization when a new unique human being is formed. There is no arbitrary point between fertilization and birth in which the human embryo or human fetus suddenly "becomes" a human being deserving of human rights, and birth does not change the nature of the being in the womb.

Every human being deserves to have his or her human rights acknowledged and protected.

Key Takeaways:

• Two psychiatrists say that while they support assisted suicide and euthanasia, they fear requirements have become too lax in Canada.

• In an essay for the New York Times, the doctors said "[t]oo many people are receiving the procedure without the opportunity for careful reflection about it with a health provider. In some cases, patients are being approved who should not be," like in cases of poverty or loneliness.

• Doctors are allegedly under pressure to push assisted suicide on patients as a means of cost savings.

• Though the psychiatrists don't believe assisted suicide should be available to anyone who wants it, they still support assisted dying for certain people.

The Details:

Dr. Gary Rodin and Dr. Madeline Li are professors of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. They both work with patients who have advanced stage cancer, and said that MAiD is a frequent topic of conversation as they counsel patients. One of the doctors (they don't say which) has committed euthanasia on patients.

While they both still see assisted suicide and euthanasia as "dignified and profoundly meaningful," they now believe that "[t]oo many people are receiving the procedure without the opportunity for careful reflection about it with a health provider. In some cases, patients are being approved who should not be."

They continued, "Reports have emerged of people seeking assisted death in the context of poverty or loneliness, raising concerns that they may feel they have no other options."

Assisted suicide was meant to be "an option only for patients with a 'reasonably foreseeable' natural death, but in 2021, Parliament removed the 'foreseeable death requirement.' Now, Canada's MAiD is "one of the most permissive in the world, allowing assisted dying for almost any form of subjectively intolerable suffering that has a medical basis, or even for medically unexplained physical symptoms," wrote Li and Rodin.

Since then, Canada has reached the fastest growing rate of assisted death in the world.

Rodin and Li believe that the effort to make assisted suicide and euthanasia a human right has led to the drastic number of people applying for assisted suicide.

Any law that prevents a person who wants to die from being approved for death is seen as interfering with a person's autonomy. If a person says they are experiencing intolerable suffering, how could a doctor tell them otherwise?

Rodin and Li explain:

A study published earlier this year looked at how Canadian physicians involved in medical assistance in dying understood their role. One provider described being “just a conduit really for someone’s desires and someone’s choices.”

In a separate but similar study, another provider professed to have no role in evaluating suffering — though one of the legal requirements to receive the procedure is that a clinician must confirm that the patient is experiencing intolerable suffering.

Determining that degree of suffering “is entirely up to the patient — 100 percent,” that provider said.

Rodin and Li, however, think that despite the rights of patients to make decisions about their health, "doctors have an important role in guiding those decisions." They wrote:

"There is an old saying about surgeons that is apt here: Good ones know how to operate, better ones know when to operate, and the best know when not to."

Zoom In:

The MAiD law requires that a person's request be approved by two clinicians, either a doctor or nurse practitioner.

• On Track 1, the patient must have an illness that will cause a "reasonably foreseeable death." Sometimes a person can be approved for and undergo euthanasia on the same day.

• On Track 2, the person does not have to have an illness that will cause foreseeable death. After approval, they must wait 90 days to die.

There is no requirement for conversation or reflection between the patient and the clinicians, or that the patients attempt a treatment of any kind, even if one is available.

Yet Li and Rodin wrote:

We’ve seen how beneficial it is to pause and reflect with our own patients. One of them, a woman in her 70s, was the matriarch of her family, the one who made Sunday dinners. She sought and received approval for assisted dying after she lost the ability to cook. She felt she had lost her value to her family.

Through counseling, she came to understand that her family valued who she was, not what she did for them. She decided not to go through with ending her life, at least for now. That Christmas, her family gathered and she sat proudly at the table, while others did the cooking and serving.

They asked whether Canada has "done enough to help people sustain their sense of dignity and meaning in life. Death must not become the only kind of relief people can imagine."

Why It Matters:

Rodin and Li made valid points. Doctors should be doing more in Canada to discuss assisted suicide with patients and assess them for mental health concerns.

However, doctors are allegedly under pressure to push assisted suicide on patients as a means of cost savings.

And though Rodin and Li don't believe assisted suicide should be available to anyone who wants it, they still support assisted dying for certain people — certain people they deem acceptable cases for death.

As a society, many consider suicide a tragedy when the person who dies is young, healthy, and able-bodied. That's what Rodin and Li are essentially saying: that certain sick people should not be allowed to undergo assisted suicide.

The question is, does the world see that as discrimination against seriously ill individuals, or discrimination against everyone else?

Suicide is tragic, no matter who chooses to end his or her own life.

The Bottom Line:

Legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia are discriminatory, eugenic acts against the sick, elderly, and disabled. Canada seems to want to end that discrimination by allowing anyone who feels they are suffering to access assisted suicide.

Instead, we should end that discrimination by disallowing assisted suicide and euthanasia for everyone, because no human should be told that their life is no longer of value or worth living.

Every human life has meaning and purpose, from fertilization to natural death.

Key Takeaways:

• A poll conducted by Pro Life Campaign in Ireland found the majority of respondents are in favor of keeping a mandatory three-day waiting period for women before they have an abortion.

• Irish lawmakers are currently considering legislation that would overturn the waiting period requirement.

• Pro Life Campaign spokesperson Eilís Mulroy said that over a five-year period, 10,534 women did not return for abortions after the three-day waiting period had elapsed.

The Details:

The poll, conducted by Pro Life Campaign and carried out by Amárach Research, surveyed 877 respondents between July 28 and August 4, 2026.

Of the respondents, 55.3% said they support retaining the three-day waiting period, while 44.7% were in favor of eliminating it.

“We are very encouraged, though not surprised, by these results. Public support for retaining the three-day reflection period has been evident for months and, if anything, appears to be strengthening," said Pro Life Campaign spokesperson Eilís Mulroy.

Mulroy also noted (emphasis added):

“As more people hear the full case for retaining the three-day reflection period, we believe public support will grow even stronger. Replies to parliamentary questions show that, over a five-year period, 10,534 women did not return to proceed with an abortion after the three-day period had elapsed. That’s an incredible figure and one that, in our view, proves the life-saving impact of the waiting period. We hear from women all the time about how important the reflection period was to them in providing that extra space to think through such a profound and life-altering decision.

The Backstory:

When abortion was legalized in Ireland in 2018, it was required that women wait three days after initially meeting with an abortionist before the abortion could actually take place. This waiting period was seen as a necessary requirement to ensure that a woman has full, informed consent before making life-altering, life-ending decision to abort.

In June, the Irish political party Sinn Féin introduced legislation to remove the waiting period. At the time, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald claimed:

“We believe that this legislation will be passed. The three-day wait should never have been introduced and has had serious consequences. It is time for the law to change, and this would be a significant move towards compassion and ensuring barriers to women accessing healthcare are removed.” 

According to Pro Life Campaign, the legislation is still being considered in the Dáil (Irish Parliament).

The Bottom Line:

Since abortion's legalization in Ireland, the number of preborn children killed has skyrocketed.

As the Pro Life Campaign comments emphasize, waiting periods save lives — and many people are in favor of keeping them. If abortion really is about "choice," as so many abortion advocates claim, wouldn't they want to ensure the woman has time to reflect that she is making the right one?

Key Takeaways:

• Appalachian State University applied for a Plan B donation to help supply its students with emergency contraception.

• The application was approved, and the school received more than $9,000 worth of Plan B to give to students.

• Students can get Plan B without giving their name or email address.

• Students who take Plan B must be aware that certain symptoms could signal an ectopic pregnancy, which requires an immediate medical visit.

• As Live Action News previously noted, emergency contraception "can prevent healthy progesterone rise in the second part (luteal phase) of the cycle.... If significant enough, ovulation could occur (and possibly fertilization), but research wouldn’t catch or capture it because of the Plan B-caused lack of progesterone rise." Plan B can alter the uterine lining, making it potentially inhospitable to the newly-created human being.

The Details:

According to The Appalachian Online, App State's Hailey Richard, who works for the university's Wellness and Prevention Services, applied to Plan B for a grant at the beginning of the semester.

She had been searching for donations because App State ran out of Plan B early in the year, and she instead sent a male student to an off-campus pharmacy to buy it. Speaking with that student inspired her to keep searching for donations and grants that could be used to get Plan B for students.

"He seemed so stressed out," she said, "and I felt really bad for him."

After telling the male student where to get Plan B (it is unclear if the girl involved wanted to take the drug), Ricard found the Plan B One-Step Emergency Contraception Donation Initiative. She submitted an application and was approved within days. When she heard the news, she "literally screamed in the middle of this coffee shop."

Plan B typically costs up to $50, and Ricard said the price is a barrier for students. It usually runs the school $5,772 for its typical supply, but the retail value of the Plan B donated to App State is about $9,598.

It could last just six months at the rate that the students use it, which could also signal that students are engaging in reckless sexual activity with little thought to its potential effects.

“Removing that barrier and just being able to have it be affordable and accessible is our biggest goal,” Ricard said.

She also explained that students can get Plan B and contraception from the Wellness and Prevention Services front desk without providing even a name.

“A lot of the time students coming in are already nervous. I don’t want them to feel stigmatized when they’re picking up these items,” Ricard said.

Why It Matters:

Perhaps the nervousness and stress indicate that unmarried college students should be focused on academics, not on hooking up and having sex when they aren't prepared to become parents.

Pregnancy doesn't just happen, so 'feeling bad' for a student for potentially facing an unplanned pregnancy doesn't do any good, especially when it's the adults who have been encouraging sex among students as part of the college experience. Yet, when they face a potential pregnancy, there is stigma and shame attached, with school leadership telling them it's better to keep it a secret.

It isn't the sex App State is trying to keep secret; it's the potential pregnancy that's viewed as the problem.

Further, not knowing anything about the students who take Plan B, including when they last had sex, could be risky. Plan B is not necessarily complication-free. Symptoms such as severe lower abdominal pain and heavy vaginal bleeding could signal an ectopic pregnancy, which requires an immediate medical visit. If no one is aware that a student took Plan B, a student could be put in physical danger.

In addition, these young women are afraid of becoming pregnant, but some of them already may have conceived. And, as previously reported by Live Action News, there’s nuance around whether Plan B can act as an abortifacient. Plan B is supposed to prevent pregnancy by stopping or delaying ovulation. Scientific research usually measures successful ovulation by a) rupture of a mature follicle (and release of the egg that was inside, which is now available for fertilization), and b) a certain rise in progesterone (which is produced by the corpus luteum, the leftovers of that ruptured follicle).

However, hormonal contraception and, in particular, emergency contraception, "can prevent healthy progesterone rise in the second part (luteal phase) of the cycle. This is called a luteal phase defect. If significant enough, ovulation could occur (and possibly fertilization), but research wouldn’t catch or capture it because of the Plan B-caused lack of progesterone rise," explained Live Action News author Anne Marie Williams, RN, BSN.

The effects of Plan B could then prevent implantation of the new human being into the uterine wall, which would end his or her life that began at fertilization.

In 2023, Plan B's manufacturer removed the language about this potential effect from the drug's pamphlet, leaving the women who take the drug unaware.

The Bottom Line:

Handing out Plan B for free and anonymously is a disservice to the students and families who have entrusted App State with their care and well-being.

In addition, the three Plaintiff states have filed a civil lawsuit against abortion organizations, which they refer to as an "Illegal enterprise," for "Violating Federal Public Nuisance Common Law."

Key Takeaways:

• A lawsuit filed by Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana challenges "shield laws" enacted by the pro-abortion states of New York, California, and Massachusetts, which protect individuals who mail abortion drugs into states where it is illegal.

• The Plaintiff states claim “shield laws” violate the Constitution and federal law by "promoting and facilitating the distribution of thousands of illegal abortion drugs through the mail and preventing pro-life states from enforcing their own laws."

• The Plaintiff states also say that "the avowed purpose of the shield laws" is "to facilitate abortions not in shield-law states but in pro-life states. For that reason, 'shield laws' are not shields at all—they are swords disguised as shields and driven into pro-life states."

• The Plaintiff states are asking the Supreme Court to hold that these abortion "shield laws" violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the equal-sovereignty doctrine, the federal common law of public nuisance, and the Dormant Commerce Clause, and are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to "enjoin officials in New York, Massachusetts, and California from enforcing their shield laws."

The Backstory:

Pro-abortion shield laws do not protect women who take abortion drugs, who are coerced by others who order the drugs online without their knowledge, or who are injured or die due to reckless prescribers seeking profit alone. Shield laws protect the abortion industry.

The laws, filed in states controlled by extremely pro-abortion lawmakers, were put in place shortly after the Dobbs Supreme Court decision overturned Roe v. Wade, as explained in the court document filed by pro-life Plaintiff states. It reads:

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this Court “heed[ed] the Constitution and return[ed] the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” States that favor abortion are thus free to deregulate as they see fit, and pro-life states are just as free to regulate as they see fit.

... After Dobbs, however, pro-abortion states immediately began to enact so-called telehealth “shield laws” aimed at facilitating abortion in pro-life states that have restricted or banned abortion.

... The power of a state’s shield law rests not in any one provision within that law but in the combined effect of all its provisions, which attempt to predict—and eliminate—all legal or professional problems a shield law state resident might otherwise face for violating pro-life states’ laws.

By embedding such provisions throughout their legal codes, shield-law states seek to assure their residents that they may, in fact, violate pro-life states’ laws without any fear of repercussions.

The lawsuit comes as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is under court order to respond regarding the timeline for its safety review of the abortion drug mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex.

The Details:

Swords disguised as shields

Plaintiff states claim “shield laws” violate the Constitution and federal law by "promoting and facilitating the distribution of thousands of illegal abortion drugs through the mail and preventing pro-life states from enforcing their own laws," their press release stated.

Their Bill of Complaint to the Supreme Court began:

This case arises from one of the most serious interstate aggressions in our Nation’s history, violating, among other things, the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the states...

Telehealth shield laws attempt to immunize health care providers, pharmacies, and other actors that illegally dispense abortion drugs into pro-life states from both liability in those states and professional repercussions in shield-law states.

... [S]hield-law states seek to assure their residents that they may, in fact, violate pro-life states’ laws without any fear of repercussions.

"And that is the avowed purpose of the shield laws: to facilitate abortions not in shield-law states but in pro-life states. For that reason, 'shield laws' are not shields at all—they are swords disguised as shields and driven into pro-life states," the Court document stated (emphasis added).

Plaintiff states also noted:

The Biden Administration’s action opened the door to a broad-scale, mail-order abortion scheme that would allow organizations, prescribers, and pharmacies in pro-abortion states to prescribe and mail abortion drugs into pro-life states.

The problem with that scheme is that it would plainly subject the out-of-state actors to civil and criminal liability in pro-life states and expose them to professional repercussions in their own states. That is why shield laws exist.

"Although shield laws take different forms across various pro-abortion states, the shield laws adopted by New York, Massachusetts, and California and challenged in this case are a representative cross-section," they stated, adding:

Predictably, organizations, prescribers, and pharmacies in shield-law states—emboldened by the promise of protection—have seized the opportunity to illegally mail abortion drugs into pro-life states with impunity.

They do so openly through websites advertising the sale and shipment of abortion drugs in prolife states. They are just as open about their “scheme to undermine [this Court’s] decision in Dobbs.”

... The results are striking. According to one report, Louisiana is experiencing approximately 1,000 abortions a month despite Louisiana’s abortion ban; Arkansas is experiencing approximately 300 every month; and Alabama is experiencing approximately 700 every month.

According to the same report, each abortion results from out-of-state drugs.

The Plaintiff states are asking the Supreme Court to hold that these abortion "shield laws" violate:

• the Full Faith and Credit Clause

• the equal-sovereignty doctrine

• the federal common law of public nuisance

• the Dormant Commerce Clause

They are asking the Court to "enjoin officials in New York, Massachusetts, and California from enforcing their shield laws."

States file against 'Illegal enterprise' for 'Violating Federal Public Nuisance Common Law'

The three states have also filed a civil suit in the Western District of Louisiana against 30 defendants for violating federal public nuisance common law as well as state consumer-protection laws.

They allege defendants engaged in "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."

In our constitutional system, the sovereign, co-equal states are endowed with the power and responsibility to regulate within their borders for the health and safety of their citizens..

This case involves a sweeping, coordinated scheme to violate such laws through individuals and organizations who do not reside in the forum states and swear to never set foot in those states. They instead advertise illegal services online in the forum states, accept payments for certain products from individuals in those states, and then illegally ship those products to addresses in those states.

This is not accidental or incidental: They acknowledge that their conduct is illegal— some even do business only in states where their conduct is illegal, and others send 95% of their monthly shipments to such states.

Illegal 'Pill Pipeline'

Referring to this as the the "pill pipeline," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told Fox News Digital that investigators have conducted controlled purchases and received pills packaged in small bags, sometimes in quantities she said exceeded what would ordinarily be prescribed.

"We've seen it for ourselves," Murrill said. "There's no supervision, there's no healthcare, there's no communication whatsoever. It's all done online."

"These are not healthcare providers, they are illegal drug traffickers," she stated.

Calling it an "illegal enterprise," Plaintiff states alleged that the following organizations or individuals, "through a sweeping, coordinated scheme, have flooded illegal abortion pills into pro-life states by advertising, prescribing, dispensing, and shipping abortion drugs," directly into pro-life states.

"They are some of the defendants in this case—and their mission is 'to operationalize [their] middle-finger rage,' 'thwart red-state attorneys general,'" Plaintiffs wrote. They named the following:

Brandon Nouhavandi; Jessica Nouhavandi; JBN Operations LLC; Cambridge Reproductive Health Consultants (d/b/a The Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project); Angel Foster; Susan Yanow; Maureen Paul; Remy Coeytaux; Margaret Simeone; A Safe Choice Inc.; A Safe Choice Network Inc.; Remy Coeytaux, MD, PC (d/b/a Choix Reproductive Health); Optio Women’s Health, Inc.; Abuzz, LLC; Manisha Kumar; Ishani Village LLC; Christie Pitney; Christie Pitney Nursing and Reproductive Health Inc. (d/b/a Forward Midwifery, Nursing, and Reproductive Health); Forward Midwifery PLLC; Robin Tucker; R. Tucker Limited (a/k/a R. Tucker Chartered, a/k/a Metro Area Advanced Practice Healthcare); Metro Area Modern Reproductive Care, LLC (d/b/a Roxy Clinic); Charlene Eisenberg Reproductive Health Collaborative, Inc. (a/k/a CE Repro, a/k/a CE Repro Fund); Pea Conn LLC (d/b/a Southern Woven); Southern Woven Health PLLC (a/k/a Woven Health Partners); One Plus Four LLC (d/b/a We Take Care of Us); Robin Hewlett; CSA ASC LLC (d/b/a We Take Care of Us); Timothy Paik-Nicely; and With Open Arms Center for Reproductive Choices, Inc. (d/b/a Choices Rising)

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. In Louisiana alone, their actions have resulted in the hospitalization of women and the deaths of thousands of unborn babies."

The lawsuit added that "abortions have proliferated by the thousands within Plaintiff States' borders," but "not because of local doctors and nurses, or even underground abortionists, risking arrest by violating those laws." Instead, they blame "an army of individuals and organizations in other states like California, New York, and Massachusetts fixed on perpetrating "a scheme to undermine [the Supreme Court's] decision in Dobbs."

The Plaintiffs point out the fact that deception is rampant throughout the entire process:

The organizations carry out this scheme by widely advertising that abortion drugs are “safer than Tylenol” or even “driving a car.”

They also severely downplay the rate and nature of adverse reactions to abortion drugs that frequently demand emergency care.

And if emergency care is necessary, they actively encourage women to lie to healthcare providers in Plaintiff States by saying that they are simply suffering a miscarriage.

Cost to Babies and Women

The lawsuit contends that "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," adding:

At least some Defendants know this because they routinely receive communications through their online platforms confirming that they have succeeded in terminating unborn babies’ lives.

Abuzz, for example, has received pictures like (and including) the following from all over the country:

The States also wrote that they have reports and even sworn affidavits noting that healthcare 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.

"Defendants well know the severe consequences of their conduct because they routinely receive communications through their online platforms confirming the symptoms women are experiencing," including this photo, sent to Abuzz:

Plaintiff States requested that the Court enter an order and judgment that grants the following relief and "that the conduct alleged herein constitutes a public nuisance under federal common law."

The Bottom Line:

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall wrote on X that "This is a coordinated scheme by bad actors from out of state to defy Alabama law and harm people in our state... If state sovereignty means anything, it means Alabama cannot be forced to accept the death of unborn children and the harm it causes to mothers because someone outside our borders disagrees with our choice to protect life.”

Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill told Fox News Digital, "This is drug dealing and it's illegal. And we're going to continue to do everything that we can to enforce the laws in our states."

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin wrote on X, "The rule of law matters, and with this action, we are taking action and sending a clear signal that our states take our laws seriously."

On Monday, October 5, the City Council of Snyder, Texas (pop. 11,251), voted to make their city the 100th city in the U.S. and the 83rd city in Texas to adopt an ordinance outlawing abortion. ​The city of Snyder is located on U.S. Highway 84 and U.S. Hwy 180 in Scurry County, about 90 miles southeast of Lubbock (pop. 266,878), 80 miles northwest of Abilene (pop. 129,043), and 50 miles northeast of Big Spring (pop. 28,862).

The Process:

The ordinance was initially considered on September 14 as a result of a successful citizen initiative petition process. While the ordinance advanced in a unanimous 6-0 vote at last month’s meeting, the Snyder City Charter required the ordinance to survive a second and final reading before the local law could go into effect.

After a brief presentation by Right to Life Across Texas at the October 5 meeting, Snyder Mayor Stephanie Ducheneaux asked for a motion on the second and final reading of the “Ordinance outlawing abortion, declaring Snyder a Sanctuary City for the Unborn.” Mayor Pro-Tem Sarah Jamison made the motion to adopt the ordinance on its second and final reading. Councilman Julian Dominguez and Councilman Kenny Miller both seconded the motion – at the same time. Council members Ralph Hernandez and Thomas Strayhorn joined Jamison, Dominguez, and Miller in voting in favor, making the vote a unanimous 5-0. 

After the meeting, Mayor Pro-Tem Sarah Jamison shared:

"As I sat in the council meeting tonight, I thought back to conversations with our previous mayor [Tony Wofford] about the importance of Snyder becoming a Sanctuary City for the Unborn. I was proud to cast my vote in support of this ordinance and of Snyder becoming the 100th city in the nation to take this stand. As council members, we have a responsibility to act within the authority given to our city and to consider lawful safeguards that protect the most vulnerable among us. 

For me, that responsibility is also deeply rooted in my Christian faith. Scripture teaches that God created every life with value and purpose. Psalm 139 tells us that God forms us in the womb, and Proverbs 31:8 calls us to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Protecting unborn life must also include compassion and support for mothers and families- which is why this ordinance goes out of its way to educate about the Thriving Texas Families Program. I am proud to stand with a council who is willing to lead with courage, compassion, and faith."

The Ordinance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Snyder Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance also educates about the Thriving Texas Families Program and directs people to the Texas Pregnancy Care Network website for resources available to women experiencing unexpected pregnancies. 

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

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

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

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

Attorney Bryan Guymon with Underwood Law Firm, who serves as legal counsel for the City of Snyder, was present for the meeting. Guymon has served as a city attorney for several cities that have adopted the ordinance, including: Slaton, Morton, and Sudan. While no litigation against the city is expected over the passage of the ordinance, the City of Snyder received a letter from Attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell – former Solicitor General of Texas – offering to represent the City of Snyder at no cost to the city or taxpayers for any litigation that may arise from the passage of their ordinance outlawing abortion and abortion trafficking.

The Progress: 

Since June 2019, 124 political subdivisions (100 cities and 24 counties) have passed local measures outlawing abortion throughout the United States, including 105 (83 cities and 22 counties) in Texas. Since August 2023, over 50 political subdivisions in Texas have passed ordinances identical in substance to the Snyder Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance.

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

Key Takeaways:

• In 2023, New York was one of several states to stockpile abortion pills.

• The pills have now expired, without any ever being dispensed by the state.

• Governor Kathy Hochul has not indicated that she will replace the expired pills.

The Backstory:

In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. While some states strengthened their abortion laws, others put pro-life laws protecting preborn children into place.

In 2023, District Court Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk overturned the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of mifepristone, which had originally been approved for use in the United States in 2000.

Though that decision ultimately was struck down, the abortion industry at the time moved to promote misoprostol-only abortions, despite carrying a high failure rate. 

Multiple states also began preparing for the possibility of mifepristone being banned in another court decision by stockpiling the pills. This included New York state, which Hochul announced at at a press conference for Planned Parenthood of Greater New York.

“Once again, states have become the battleground on these fights and the latest steps to tear down these rights have only strengthened our resolve, so I’m proud to announce that New York State will create a stockpile of Misoprostol, another form of medication abortion," she said.

The Details:

According to a new report from the Gothamist, all 150,000 pills stockpiled by Hochul have expired. None were ever distributed, and the state is allegedly set to destroy them all.

Cadence Acquaviva, a spokesperson for the New York Department of Health, also said there are no plans to replenish the supply.

“Despite ongoing politically motivated attacks on reproductive healthcare across the nation, New York remains a safe harbor for anyone seeking these critical services,” Acquaviva said.

Hochul initially said she would purchase 1.8 million pills, with the intention of ensuring a five-year supply. The Department of Health ultimately only bought 12,500 from AmerisourceBergen, now known as Cencora. The full amount was never acquired.

It is not clear why New York didn't distribute the pills, nor why it will not restock them. As the Gothamist pointed out, California gave its stockpiled abortion pills to abortionists, and Oregon has already ordered new pills. Washington traded in its stockpile when it expired and passed legislation allowing the pills to be given out for free.

According to KFF, 58% of abortions committed in the state of New York in 2025 were chemical abortions.

How It Works:

The abortion pill regimen is comprised of two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol.

The first drug (mifepristone) is taken, which acts to block the pregnancy-supporting hormone progesterone, depriving the preborn child of nutrients it needs to survive. Misoprostol, typically taken 24-48 hours later, causes contractions to expel the preborn child from the uterus.

Risks to women include hemorrhage and even sepsis, which is listed in a black box warning on mifepristone.

Recent analyses have found a that 11% of women experience serious adverse events due to the abortion pill, including a study in Ireland.

Many women have reported having seen the recognizably human remains of their preborn children following chemical abortions.

The Bottom Line:

It is a surprising development that New York would not take this opportunity to promote abortion yet again. It remains one of the most pro-abortion states in the country.

Today, she works as an oncology nurse in the same unit that saved her life.

Key Takeaways:

• Harris found a lump in her breast when she was 14 weeks pregnant; she was soon diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma, the most common form of breast cancer.

• Her first doctor recommended abortion, but she got a second opinion, and was given treatment during her pregnancy until she was able to safely deliver her daughter at 36 weeks.

• She created a foundation to support other pregnant mothers fighting cancer.

• Harris has since become a nurse, and works in the same oncology unit which saved her life.

The Details:

Alicia Henry Harris and her husband were thrilled when they learned she was pregnant with their first child. But when she noticed a lump in her breast at 14 weeks, she initially assumed it was her milk coming in early. Instead, she was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma, the most common form of breast cancer.

"Hearing the words 'you have cancer' while carrying a baby felt like my whole world stopped," she wrote for Cure Today. "I remember holding my stomach and praying for strength, not just for me but for the tiny life growing inside me."

In an interview with Brighter, she said her doctor encouraged her to have an abortion; she refused and sought another opinion, so she could allow herself to go through treatment while pregnant, saying that her baby gave her motivation to survive.

In her second trimester, Harris underwent surgery to remove the lump, and then went through chemotherapy in the third trimester.

"One time, baby girl kicked so hard during treatment, the nurse jumped and said, 'Was that you or the baby?'” she told Brighter. "I said, 'That’s her letting you know she’s fighting too.'”

Every kick, she said, was another push to keep fighting. At 36 weeks, she was induced, and safely delivered her daughter, Journi. She immediately continued treatment, including radiation, after giving birth.

As she wrote for Cure Today:

I was recovering from childbirth, learning to care for a newborn, and still sitting in chemo and radiation appointments. My body was tired, my mind was foggy from chemo brain, and I often felt like I was running on empty. But I kept pushing through because giving up wasn’t an option.

The nurses who cared for me became my family during that time. They didn’t just treat my cancer, they treated my spirit. They asked about my baby, celebrated my small wins and gave me hope on the days I felt like I couldn’t do it anymore. Their compassion and kindness stayed with me long after treatment ended.

When I finished treatment, both my baby and I had made it through. I named her Journi because that’s exactly what it was — a journey of faith, pain and strength. The fight that my baby and I went through together changed me forever.

Zoom In:

Harris created a non-profit foundation, Journi For Two, to offer more support and resources for pregnant mothers fighting cancer, including after they have overcome it.

"After you ring the bell, that’s only the beginning of something that’s a lot longer. Survivorship is forever,” she told PEOPLE. “Nobody really understands what survivorship is, because you really lose a part of yourself after all of that. Going through treatment and having to go through postpartum while having radiation and while doing treatment was just a hard time, really hard time."

The foundation looks to offer both financial and emotional support, through their pregnancy, postpartum, and motherhood journeys. Yet she still wanted to do more to give back.

What Happened Next:

Harris went back to school at the age of 40, with the goal of becoming a nurse.

"Going back to school while raising a toddler and still healing was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done," she admitted. "There were nights when I studied with my daughter asleep on my chest, reading the same line over and over because my brain was still foggy from chemo. Some days I questioned if I could really do it, but then I’d remember the nurses who carried me through. I wanted to be that for someone else."

Harris had worked in the beauty industry for 20 years prior to this, and said she struggled with imposter syndrome. But she was able to graduate from nursing school, and now works in the same oncology unit that saved her life.

She said she wants to be able to do for other women what was done for her: reassure her that she was not alone, and that she could do this.

“I had a nurse that told me the same thing during my first appointment, and she held my hand, and she told me, ‘Listen, it’s gonna be okay. I was once in your shoes, and look at where I am today,’” she said.

The Bottom Line:

"Being a breast cancer survivor shaped me as a nurse," she said in a video for Uniform Advantage. "As a mom, a survivor, a nurse, I want to make sure that no other mother feels alone while battling cancer."

Key Takeaways:

• A fact sheet from the Reproductive Health Access Project instructs women about how to use the abortion pill beyond the FDA-approved gestational limit of 10 weeks.

• The sheet guides abortion pill users about how to use abortion pills for 14-20 weeks gestation, which is during the second trimester of pregnancy. It does, however, state that the abortion pill is more likely to fail at later gestation.

• Abortion pill manufacturers are contractually required to decertify prescribers out of compliance with the REMS for mifepristone Program (such as RHAP), but they have thus far decertified no one.

• The fact sheet warns women that at 14 weeks or later, they are likely to see recognizable body parts of their aborted children.

• The sheet instructs women to flush the remains down the toilet if small enough, but if too large, to wrap them in layers of plastic and dispose of the body in the household trash to avoid potential legal consequences.

The Details:

Abortion pills 'less effective the further along you are'

WARNING: Image of abortion victim below.

RHAP claims on its website that it "trains, supports, and mobilizes primary care clinicians to ensure equitable access to sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion."

RHAP's Fact Sheet: How to Use Abortion Pills for 14-20 weeks, dated June 2026, explains how to use mifepristone and misoprostol "for an abortion between 14-20 weeks with simple-to-follow steps and illustrations."

Though the FDA has only approved the abortion pill regimen up to 10 weeks or 70 days of pregnancy, RHAP's "guide" leads women to assume it is safe and effective weeks later, well into the second trimester of pregnancy.

Groups like Planned Parenthood are not only prescribing the drug past FDA limits, but are selling the abortion pill without verifying pregnancy or "just in case," in clear violation of the FDA's REMS safety requirements.

RHAP's fact sheet tells women to first "[m]ake sure you are pregnant," and separately admits that "The FDA states that mifepristone is not approved for advanced provision of medication abortion."

The "guide" then acknowledges that the further along in pregnancy a woman is, the higher her chance that the abortion drug regimen, (mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex and misoprostol) will fail, increasing her risk for an incomplete abortion:

This guide shows you how to use pills for an abortion if you are 14 to 20 weeks pregnant. If you are less than 14 weeks pregnant, the process is different, and you can view the instructions in our How to Use Abortion Pills Fact Sheet...

Medication abortion becomes less effective the further along you are and it is more likely you will need help from a clinician....

Abortion pill manufacturers Danco Laboratories, GenBioPro, and Evita Solutions are contractually required to decertify any prescribers out of compliance with the REMS for mifepristone Program.

So far, as abortion pill manufacturers recently admitted to the Senate HELP committee, they have not decertified a single one.

Fetus with 'head, arms, legs' but it's 'OK not to look'

Abortion pills work to end the life of a living preborn embryo or fetus. It is, in the simplest of terms, killing. In 2023, the FDA approved the mailing of the drugs as well as pharmacy dispensing.

Despite the best efforts of abortion propagandists, women have reported emotional trauma after seeing their dead child in the toilet or shower floor after a self-managed abortion at home.

RHAP's "guide" tells women they are likely to see fetal parts such as a "head, arms, or legs."

WHAT WILL I SEE?

You will pass blood, clots, a fetus, and a placenta. It is okay not to look. The fetus will be several inches long, and you may see a head, arms, or legs. If your pregnancy is early, the placenta may pass with the fetus and may be too small to see.

The placenta may pass after the fetus and may look like a blood clot. You may be able to feel the umbilical cord attached to the placenta. If so, you should not pull on the umbilical cord. You should keep using misoprostol every 3 hours until you pass both the fetus and placenta. If you are unsure, you may keep using misoprostol every 3 hours.

Instructed to dispose of child's body with 'household waste'

WARNING: Image of abortion victim below.

To make this fact sheet even more horrific, RHAP answers the question of what women should do with the "contents that [they] pass" as follows:

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.

"Legal risk" is likely referring to the fact that improperly disposing of human remains, including human fetal remains, is illegal in certain states.

RHRP was founded in 2005 by Linda Prine, Ruth Lesnewski, and Lisa Maldonado —and according to Philanthropy.org, "Its largest funder is The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation" (Warren Buffett). RHAP publishes a few "fact sheets" on the abortion pill, which don't seem to provide as much detail as the other one discussed in this article..

The Bottom Line:

The dehumanizing of the preborn child, as evident in this "guide," is hardening our culture and likely to lead to the further devaluing of life later in pregnancy and even after birth.

A memo spells out what Democratic lawmakers want to accomplish in the first 100 hours, first 100 days, and first year — and one of their key goals is to make abortion a federally protected 'right.'

Key Takeaways:

• The Cost-of-Living Healthcare Working Group sent a memo to Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries urging the expansion of abortion — with no limits — within the first 100 hours of the 120th Congress convening on January 3 if Democrats take control of the House.

• The memo includes the push for H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, which would allow abortion to be treated as as a form of health care so that women can participate in the economy.

• It also includes H.R. 4611, The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, which would force taxpayers to fund abortions. It specifically targets Black and Native children for abortion.

• The memo makes it clear that pro-abortion legislators will not rest until abortion is available for any reason at any time and on the taxpayers' dime.

The Details:

According to the National Right to Life Committee, the Cost-of-Living Healthcare Working Group (headed by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Terri Sewell) Memo sent to Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in part, "... Republican attacks on reproductive rights have made contraception and essential reproductive care harder and more expensive to access."

Pro-abortion legislators claim that the U.S. must "[r]estore reproductive freedom nationwide, [r]eestablish a federal right to abortion care and end restrictions that prevent people covered through federal health programs from receiving abortion coverage.” 

The key bills they hope to quickly push through regarding abortion are H.R. 12 (the Women's Health Protection Act) and H.R. 4611 (the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance/EACH Act).

According to The Hill, Jeffries recently stated that "House Democrats are poised to take back the majority" in the House after the November elections.

H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, is insulting to women

The Women's Health Protection Act carries several purposes that add up to abortion on demand, and pro-abortion lawmakers want it passed in the first 100 hours. These purposes include:

• Treat abortion the same as 'medically comparable procedures.' "[P]ermit people to seek and obtain abortion services, and ... permit health care providers to provide abortion services, without harmful or unwarranted limitations or requirements that ... single out the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures; ... do not... significantly advance reproductive health... or... make abortion services more difficult to access" (emphasis added).

There is no procedure that is "medically comparable" to abortion, because induced abortion is the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being. Medicine is meant to heal, but the goal of every induced abortion is a dead human being. In addition, abortion facilities are often unregulated and not required to report complications.

• Protect women's equal participation in the economy. The bill also aims "[t]o promote access to abortion services and thereby protect women's ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States."

This idea that abortion is necessary for the economy forgets that the 63 million babies killed by abortion in the U.S. would have grown up to contribute to that economy.

Women are capable of success without killing

It is entirely unnecessary for women to kill their own children (born or preborn) to "participate equally in the economic and social life" of the nation. It's insulting and sexist to claim women must be allowed to kill their children to be equal participants in the economy with men.

Mothers are capable of having successful careers, but it's also completely acceptable for them to stay home full time with their children. Women should not have to abort their babies for the sake of their careers.

Mothers fought against workplace discrimination long before Roe

In addition, Roe v. Wade is not what gave women a spot in the workforce or their right to vote. Dedicated women fought against sexual discrimination in the workplace, fought to open higher up positions for women, and fought for access to higher education. It was during and after World War II that women entered the workforce in record numbers, decades prior to Roe v. Wade.

Statistics show that a huge proportion of these women were mothers, and the U.S. Labor Department identifies World War II as the turning point for women’s increased employment outside the home.

• "[P]rotect people's ability to make decisions about their bodies, medical care, family, and life's course." Bodily autonomy and control are two of the main talking points of the pro-abortion mindset and H.R. 12 latches right on. One of its goals is to ensure that preborn human beings are killed under the guise of bodily autonomy and health care.

No one has the right to kill an innocent human being. Killing is not health care, family members are not disposable because they are 'inconvenient,' and children are not obstacles to a life well lived.

• "[E]liminate unwarranted burdens on commerce and the right to travel." The bill admits "there is an interstate market for abortion services..." Abortion is a money-making endeavor. Under the act, women would have the "right" to abortion prior to the undefined and highly subjective point of 'viability' without limitation or requirement. This means under H.R. 12, no state would be allowed to restrict abortion prior to this subjective time (which is often left to be determined by the abortionist).

But killing innocent human beings should not be a money-making opportunity. People who make money from the deaths of human beings cannot be trusted to speak the truth about it, especially not when a profit motive is involved.

H.R. 4611, The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH) Act targets Black and Native babies

This bill would ensure that anyone using a federally-sponsored health care plan such as Medicaid or VA insurance, and who is under federal employment, would pay nothing for an abortion. It would end the Hyde Amendment, which has been in place for 50 years, to protect taxpayer money from being spent on abortions. Pro-abortion legislators want this bill passed in the first 100 hours.

H.R. 4611 states:

All people should have access to abortion services regardless of actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, language, ancestry, citizenship, immigration status, sex (including a sex stereotype; pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition; sexual orientation or gender identity; and sex characteristics), age, disability, or sex work status or behavior.

It also says that a "person's income level, wealth, or type of insurance should not prevent them from having access to a full range of pregnancy-related health care, including abortion services."

This is a direct attack on children already at risk of abortion because their mother is in the military or is underprivileged. If a woman who is already facing an unplanned pregnancy is told that an abortion will be "free" but is told nothing of the support available to her as a mother, she is likely to feel as if abortion is her only option.

In fact, H.R. 4611 states plainly, that "[m]ore than 40 percent of youth and children under age 19 and 12 percent of young people aged 19 to 25 get their health insurance through government programs" and "Women of color are more likely to be insured by the Medicaid program." It also notes that 25% of "non-elderly American Indians and Alaska Native (AIAN) women" use Medicaid.

This is the direct targeting of Black and Native babies for abortion as well as the babies conceived by teens or young women.

It also claims that since Roe was overturned, "19 states" have enacted laws to protect preborn children "at an arbitrary point in pregnancy."

The existence of a new human life or the start of the new human's heartbeat are not arbitrary points, but this is the basis of the pro-abortion argument that there should be no gestational limits on abortion.

This makes it obvious that they don't believe a human being in the womb should have any rights, even the right not be killed, at any point up until birth. And unfortunately, in the Netherlands, the right to not be killed has been <a href="/news/first-child-euthanized-netherlands-disabled">taken from born children</a> as well.

The Bottom Line:

Abortion is not health care. Its goal is to kill not heal. Human life does not begin at birth, it begins at fertilization and no child should be killed because their mother faces discrimination in the form of ageism, racism, or economic discrimination.

Women shouldn't be told they have to sacrifice their children's lives in the name of finances. Families should receive financial assistance and support to help them rise up. The dollars that would be spent to kill should instead be spent to care and assist.

The push to pass these bills within 100 days of January 3 makes it clear that pro-abortion legislators will stop at nothing to ensure every preborn child is targeted for abortion, specifically those they consider less valuable than others.

All children in the womb has an equal right to life and protection regardless of who their parents are.

Key Takeaways:

• An abortion pill locker, known as an 'abortomat,' now sits in an abortion center across from Parliament in Warsaw.

• A person who contacts the Women Help Women foundation can obtain a six-digit pin code to open one of the lockers and access the pills.

• Though most preborn children are protected from abortion in Poland, there are no legal consequences for women who commit their own abortions with abortion pills.

The Details:

The device — called an 'abortomat' — is the brainchild of the Women Help Women (WHW) foundation and the Abortion Dream Team (ADT), a Polish activist group.

According to Notes from Poland, the abortomat contains 22 numbered lockers and a numeric keypad. Chemical abortion pills are inside each locker. A person who contacts WHW for a six-digit pin code can open one of the lockers and access the pills.

“The abortomat transforms a closely guarded, criminalised procedure into something as simple as picking up a package,” wrote ADT. “A door that opens when all others have slammed shut.”

The device is located in Warsaw, across the street from Parliament, in the abortion pill center run by ADT.

Kinga Jelinski, director of WHW, likened the device to parcel lockers, which are popular in the nation.

“Parcel lockers are everywhere in Poland – people joke about our ‘paczkoza’, our obsession with them," she told Balkan Insight. “So why not use that same technology for abortion pills, where getting them to someone faster can actually matter?”

Zoom In:

Polish law protects nearly all preborn children from abortion, but there's a loophole that prohibits women from conviction if they carry out their own abortion with abortion pills.

Abortion activist Justyna Wydrzyńska, who was previously charged with illegally providing abortion pills, used this loophole to justify the abortomat, because it eliminates a person from illegally providing the pills.

“The abortomat is not a human being, and the person collecting the pills, in accordance with the regulations, is not breaking the law,” said Wydrzyńska, according to Wirtualna Polska.

Why It Matters:

One of the device's selling points is that it allows women (or perhaps men, too) to access the abortion pill anonymously. This means there is no medical or physician oversight for a woman when she undergoes a DIY abortion at home, on her own.

This matters, as the abortion pill comes with serious risks:

• One study found that the abortion pill is four times more dangerous than a first trimester surgical abortion.

• Research from Ireland also showed that 12% of women report to the ER for infection or bleeding after taking the abortion pill.

• In addition, one report states that "removing the in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion pill puts women at increased risk of serious adverse events — an estimate of 13.50 percentage points higher than for in-person dispensing."

• In an analysis of insurance data, researchers found reportedly found a 22 times higher event rate of "serious adverse events" (complications) than the rate currently held by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These complications included hemorrhaging, infection, sepsis, transfusions, hospitalization, and more.

The ability for the abortion pill to be accessed anonymously also makes it easier for predatory men to secure the chemicals to trick, coerce, or force women into abortions these women don't want.

This has happened frequently, as the abortion pill has become more readily available around the globe.

The Bottom Line:

Pregnant women need tangible support and encouragement that tells them, 'You can do this' — not an easier ability to kill their preborn children while risking their lives in the process.

Key Takeaways:

• TV personality Dame Esther Rantzen has died following a battle with lung cancer.

• She was an advocate for legalized assisted suicide, pushing for the UK to legalize the deadly practice.

• Rantzen joined Dignitas the same year she was diagnosed with cancer, and said she would travel to Switzerland to die.

• She died at home, surrounded by her family on September 30.

The Details:

Dame Esther Rantzen, founder of the charity Childline and a proponent of legalized assisted suicide, was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2023. She had been an advocate for assisted suicide for years prior to her own diagnosis, but said that experiencing cancer cemented her support for physician-assisted death.

The same year she was diagnosed, Rantzen joined Dignitas, a Swiss organization that carries out assisted suicide, which is said to have cost her about £15,000.

"When I decide my life is no longer worth living, I will have to travel to Zurich to die, which will cost at least £15,000," she said, "so it is not a solution for everyone.” But she felt "going to Switzerland is the only way."

She also said that she wanted to die by physician-assisted death to protect her family from witnessing her "bad death," which could destroy their memories of her. In March, she told the BBC that she had stopped cancer treatments and that her oncologist called her an "outlier" because she was living longer than they had expected.

On September 10th, she criticized the UK's prohibition on assisted suicide as "messy and cruel." The following day, UK lawmakers did not pass the bill that would have legalized assisted suicide.

Rantzen died on September 30 at the age of 86.

Why It Matters:

Her desire to protect her family from witnessing her natural death is a common reason that individuals seek assisted suicide. Dying naturally has been erroneously classified as undignified. Studies have found that people who are elderly, disabled, or dying do not fear the pain and suffering they may endure, but fear being a burden on their loved ones. The pro-assisted suicide group Death with Dignity even encourages assisted death under the idea that "family members also deriv[e] peace of mind from knowing they will not have to helplessly endure watching a loved one die a horrible death."

No one should feel that they are better off dead at any point in their life, regardless of their health status. Intentionally ending your own life to prevent your family from caring for you in the final days, weeks, and months of your life is a tragedy.

Key Takeaways:

• David Mobbs was diagnosed with an aggressive and terminal form of motor neurone disease in 2023.

• When he became bedridden and couldn't care for himself without help, he reportedly begged for his wife, Kylie Truswell-Mobbs, to kill him.

• She agreed and gave him a lethal cocktail of drugs.

• Truswell-Mobbs was charged with, and later acquitted of, murder.

The Backstory:

David Mobbs was diagnosed with a terminal motor neurone disease in 2023, and his condition quickly deteriorated. The former firefighter had been independent, but within just a few months, became bedridden and couldn't walk, move, or use the bathroom without assistance.

As his diagnosis was terminal, Mobbs — who lived in Victoria, Australia — would have qualified for assisted suicide. But the process would have taken over a week, which he allegedly declared would be too long to wait. So he asked his wife, Kylie Truswell-Mobbs, to kill him.

On December 5, 2023, Mobbs reportedly could no longer talk and could only communicate by blinking or by using a letter board if someone helped move his hand. "That night he begged to die,” Ruth O’Gorman, Truswell-Mobbs' defense attorney, said. “There was nothing secret about it. It was done with full knowledge of her sons and number of carers.”

Detective Inspector Rod Watts confirmed Mobbs was dying, but hit back on the notion that killing her husband was an acceptable thing for Truswell-Mobbs to do.

"We will allege that the man was in his last stages of life," he said. "However, a 50-year-old Alexandra Hills woman took unlawful actions in administering lethal levels of prescription medication to accelerate his death."

Truswell-Mobbs gave him a combination of painkillers, which ultimately killed him.

The Details:

Truswell-Mobbs was charged with murder, but this week, she was acquitted and convicted instead of merely aiding a suicide, to which she pleaded guilty. With the approval of prosecutors, she was given a suspended sentence and was able to leave the court.

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Caroline Marco said Truswell-Mobbs was facing "exceptional and difficult circumstances," and that Mobbs wanted to die. "He was approaching the end of his life and suffering considerably," she said, adding that Truswell-Mobbs killed her husband out of "compassion."

In his sentence, Justice Tom Sullivan said Mobbs was in a "deplorable state" and that it was therefore acceptable for Truswell-Mobbs to kill him.

"He had been very ill for a significant period of time," he said, adding, "I accept what you did … was motivated by love and affection in your case."

Why It Matters:

As in numerous other similar cases, in which a caregiver murders their terminally ill or severely disabled family member, it is being framed as a loving, romantic decision made out of compassion. In reality, while it is undeniable that what Mobbs was experiencing was difficult and painful, that does not mean his life no longer held value or wasn't worth living.

The opinion that Mobbs was in a "deplorable state" and that it was a compassionate act to kill him is ableist and eugenic. Rulings like this will lead to an increase in similar discriminatory killings, whether the person asks for death or not. In the Netherlands, a child under the age of two was recently <a href="/news/first-child-euthanized-netherlands-disabled">euthanized</a>, something he or she was unable to consent to, because the adults around the child decided his or her life was not worth living.

The Government has published an Equalities Impact Assessment on the ‘abortion up to birth clause‘ in the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which makes it no longer illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, and at any point up to and during birth.

The Assessment also reveals that it would no longer be a criminal offence for a woman at full term to lie to an abortion provider about her unborn baby’s age to obtain abortion pills to end the life of her fully formed unborn baby.

It states that a woman could “deceive a registered medical practitioner about the gestation of her pregnancy in order to procure an abortion by pills via pills by post beyond the 10-week time limit” without the possibility of a criminal conviction for doing so.

Through the passing of this law, women who have previously been convicted or cautioned for criminal offences related to abortion in regard to their own pregnancies will be pardoned, and relevant records are to be deleted. The Government has stated that it does not know how many arrests or investigations this will impact, as data is not available relating to this. This means that Parliament has legislated for a potentially widespread deletion of records, the extent and scope of which the Government cannot quantify.

Majority of abortion-related offences proceeded against involved male defendants

The law change was forced through by campaigners who focused on using the idea that women were being prosecuted for ending their own pregnancies. In these Assessments, however, the Government admits that the majority of prosecutions relating to this were actually for men. These offences have been used against men who forced abortions on women, including Stuart Worby, who secretly administered abortion drugs without the woman’s consent. Only seven cases have involved female defendants. 

The changes brought in under the Crime and Policing Act 2026 nullify any abortion-related criminal effects for women in relation to their own pregnancies arising from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 regarding abortion.

However, the Equality Impact Assessment admits that not only are prosecutions in relation to these Acts “low in volume”, but that the “majority of abortion-related offences proceeded against have involved male defendants, amounting to 71% of cases (17 out of 24 cases where the defendant’s sex was recorded)”. Only 7 out of 24 cases proceeded against involved female defendants.

Furthermore, the assessment concedes it does not know how many of these seven women were “pregnant and acting in relation to their own pregnancy”.

Impact assessment assumes no increase in late-term abortion based on “limited evidence”

In addition to the Equality Impact Assessment, the Ministry of Justice has also released an Impact Assessment for the abortion up to birth clause of the Crime and Policing Act. The assessment assumes that “there will be no change in the incidence of abortions post a gestation of 24 weeks”. However, it immediately concedes that there is “limited evidence” to justify this assumption.

The assessment makes reference to the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand, saying that following the change in the law, the average gestation at the time of abortion decreased. 

What the New Zealand data shows, though, is that there was a 43% increase in late-term abortions, which coincided with the change to the law to allow abortion up to birth in the country. 

Data, obtained by an Official Information Request by Right To Life New Zealand to the New Zealand Ministry of Health, revealed that there were 120 abortions where a baby was at 20 weeks gestation or later in New Zealand in 2020, compared to the previous year when there were 84.

The Impact assessment also admits that “If there were an increase in late-stage abortions following the legislation, this could result in increased health costs”.

At the end of the document, and despite the admitted limited data on which the assessment makes some of its assumptions, the Government states it has “no plans to formally evaluate these provisions”.

The Government has also admitted, under a section entitled “Indirect discrimination”, that by passing this law, there will be “arguably an indirect differential treatment” of certain people, meaning that different categories of people may be treated differently under the exact same law. According to the Equality Act 2010, indirect discrimination “occurs when a policy which applies in the same way for everybody has an effect which particularly disadvantages people with a protected characteristic”.

MPs and Peers called for delay in commencement of abortion up to birth clause until impact assessment release

These Assessments have only been published after the Act has already received Royal Assent and become law, meaning that any concerns raised by them were not available for MPs and Peers to base their analysis and subsequent votes on.

After the abortion up to birth clause was approved by the House of Lords, a cross-party group of 79 MPs and Peers wrote to the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, and the then-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, calling for delaying the commencement of the ‘abortion up to birth’ clause (241) until an impact assessment and guidance for police, prosecutors and healthcare professionals have been published and approved by both Houses. 

This coincided with Baroness O’Loan, former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, supported by a large cross-party group of Peers, tabling a Regret Motion at Third Reading in the House of Lords, which noted their regret “that no impact assessment was conducted in relation to clause [241 and 242], and that therefore the House has not been able to assess its potential effects on vulnerable persons, women’s health, criminal law, and policing”.

Polling has revealed that the public opposes abortion up to birth and legalising sex-selective abortion. 89% of the general population and 91% of women agree that gender-selective abortion should be explicitly banned by the law – and only 1% of women support introducing abortion up to birth.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “It is deeply troubling that these Equalities Impact Assessments were not conducted in relation to the abortion up to birth clause of the Crime and Policing Act before it became law. If they were, perhaps MPs and Peers may have been more aware of just how terrible and badly thought out the law they have passed is”.

“The abortion up to birth clause is one of the most extreme pieces of legislation ever introduced in Parliament. Pro-abortion MPs hijacked a government Bill to rush through this radical and seismic change to our abortion laws after just 46 minutes of backbench debate”.

“This was the first time this extreme amendment had been debated in Parliament. There had been no prior public consultation, no impact assessment, and no evidence sessions on this far-reaching change to our laws”.

“This is the most significant change to abortion legislation since the Abortion Act was introduced in 1967. There is no public appetite for this change, and it was not part of the Government’s manifesto”.

“There are now almost 300,000 abortions every year in this country. Britain’s abortion time limit is already double that of the most common abortion limit among EU countries. These Assessments have highlighted that there are now even fewer safeguards for women and fewer protections for the unborn, even late in pregnancy”.

“The law change will likely lead to the lives of many more women being endangered because of the risks involved with self-administered late-term abortions and also tragically lead to an increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended well beyond the 24-week abortion time limit and beyond the point at which they would be able to survive outside the womb”.

Key Takeaways:

• A Texas mother, 'Maria,' is accused of helping her husband, Derek, rape her teenage daughter to act as a 'surrogate.'

• He allegedly fathered multiple children with the girl, some of whom the couple raised, pretending Maria was the mother.

• One of those children was later allegedly raped by the man as well.

The Details:

As reported by Click2Houston using pseudonyms from legal documents, "Maria" has been charged with trafficking a child or disabled person and the continuous sexual abuse of a child. She is alleged to have helped "entice, harbor, provide or obtain a child so the child could become the victim of sexual assault," reported the outlet.

According to court documents, Maria's daughter, "Lena," said Derek propositioned her for sex when she was a teenager so that she could act as a surrogate for Maria, who could not become pregnant. Maria witnessed him rape Lena and was a part of the plan to get Lena pregnant.

Lena gave birth to "Ava" in 2009, whom Maria and Derek were raising as their child. Lena said she gave birth to several other children fathered by Derek and that it was her "job... to get pregnant for her mother."

Maria concealed the pregnancies and raised some of the children as her own, pretending to be the one pregnant with Ava, even going to the hospital under the guise of giving birth.

Ava testified that she was raped by her father, Derek, when she was 12 years old, between Christmas 2021 and Easter 2022. Ava said Maria left her alone with Derek at a hotel where he allegedly gave her pills. In another instance, Ava is said to have witnessed Maria and Derek engaged in sexual activity and was then sexually assaulted by Derek. Documents also state that Maria directed Ava during the assault, paid her money, and told her not to tell.

Eventually, Ava told someone about the abuse, and an investigation was opened.

What's Happening Now:

Maria was not in custody at the time of Click2Houston's reporting, but felony charges had been filed against her.

Derek is currently serving a life sentence after being found guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child involving his stepdaughter in August 2026.

Key Takeaways:

• On September 28, pro-lifers marched to Belfast City Hall in support of preborn babies.

• The event was in response to a plan to light up City Hall green in celebration of International Safe Abortion Day.

• The planned pro-abortion lighting never happened due to a procedural intervention by the Democratic Unionist Party.

The Details:

According to the BBC, a procedural intervention by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) likely thwarted plans to illuminate Belfast City Hall, with the DUP invoking the council’s “call-in” mechanism before the event was due to proceed.

Under the procedure, 15% of councillors can initiate a call-in if they argue a decision was made without proper consideration—referred to as procedural grounds—or would have an unequal effect on part of the district, known as community-impact grounds.

Once triggered, the council may seek legal advice to review the decision.

Pro-Life Support

As the day unfolded, hundreds convened in Belfast’s Donegall Place for a public witness organized by Precious Life, Northern Ireland’s leading pro-life organization. 

The group represented a broad cross-section of society—spanning generations, faith communities, political viewpoints, and lived experiences—yet who were united by a shared belief that all human beings, from fertilization onward, possess intrinsic worth. 

From the outset, the gathering was notable for its diversity and sense of purpose. Families mingled with students, seniors stood alongside young parents, and Catholic clergy joined residents determined to make their voices heard.

Some participants travelled from outside Belfast, while others arrived directly after their workday. Banners and placards were visible throughout the crowd, and white LED lights were passed from person to person.

As evening set in, the small lights assumed a significant meaning. Gradually, they illuminated the deepening darkness over Belfast, and the group began its walk through the city center toward City Hall.

Public Witness for the Dignity of Unborn Children

The procession was calm, deliberate, and deeply impactful. It did not feel like a routine public gathering or a merely ceremonial gesture; it was an act of public witness. Each light carried by a participant expressed the belief that unborn children have dignity and should not be disregarded or treated as expendable.

Looking along the route at the continuous line of white lights, I felt renewed hope. In a society where abortion is increasingly presented in positive terms, the march showed that many people are still prepared to speak publicly in support of mothers and their preborn children.

When the group reached Belfast City Hall, the sight was unforgettable.

In front of the unlit building, hundreds of participants raised their own white lights in support of the message, “Choose Life.” The juxtaposition was unmistakable: a public landmark expected to feature in a pro-abortion campaign instead formed the backdrop to a large, peaceful demonstration in support of preborn babies. 

For me, that was the emotional center of the night. I stood facing City Hall and contemplated the thousands of preborn children whose lives hinged on whether adults recognized their humanity. I thought about women who are facing difficult pregnancies, who may feel alone, pressured, frightened, or convinced that they have no real alternatives to abortion.

A genuinely compassionate society should never tell a woman that ending the life of her child is her only path forward. It should offer practical support, emotional care, housing, financial help, friendship, and hope.

Precious Life ensured its position was highly visible across Belfast. A truck fitted with a large digital display travelled through the city carrying the messages “CHOOSE LIFE” and “ABORTION? NOT IN OUR NAME.” When the crowd later assembled at City Hall, the vehicle was stationed prominently at the entrance gates, its illuminated slogans visible to pedestrians and passing motorists in the city center. 

Such visibility was crucial. Too often, the pro-life movement is portrayed as though it speaks only for a small minority. Yet the demonstration that evening displayed something different: there are many people in Northern Ireland who oppose the notion that abortion should be publicly celebrated. Tens of thousands of people had signed a petition spearheaded by Precious Life resisting the proposed illumination of City Hall. 

Broad Support for Preborn Children

Moreover, the gathering included speakers from across the pro-life movement.

Councillors Tracy Kelly and Ron McDowell, who had opposed the proposed illumination during the council process, addressed the crowd.

Former DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr., Aontú representative Aiden Carlin, Liberty NI’s Nathan Anderson, and Barry Mallett of Guardians of the Faith were also among those who spoke. Their presence reinforced the fact that concern for preborn children crosses organizational and political boundaries.

Additionally, Adele Best spoke about her experience with abortion and the harm it caused in her own life. Her testimony brought a necessary human reality to a debate that is too often reduced to slogans.

In remarks to Live Action News after her speech, Best said:

“I have had two abortions. I was told it was safe and that I would get on with my life. It was not safe for my children, and it was not safe for me. After the first, I sank into depression and dark thoughts I never want another woman to experience. The second time, I was pressured into it by my boyfriend. There was no real choice.

But God did not leave me there. The Holy Spirit healed me, set me free from shame, and showed me my children are safe with Him. That's why I speak. Women and men who have been through abortion need to know there is healing, forgiveness, and hope. And any woman facing that decision today needs to know she is not alone and there is help."

Likewise, Liam Gibson, the Policy and Legal Officer of Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), remarked:

“The proposal to light up Belfast City Hall in green originally came from the National Women's Council of Ireland, a group with close ties to the New York-based Centre for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The color green was chosen to link this campaign with the so-called Green Wave Movement that is dedicated to legalizing abortion across South America...

[T]o claim that there is an obligation under international law to legalize abortion is a total lie. In fact, both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognize that ‘the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth…’ It’s also a lie to claim that legalizing abortion makes it safe."

He added:

The proposal to light up Belfast City Hall to celebrate abortion backfired spectacularly. Not only was the plan halted, but it brought hundreds of people onto the streets to defend the right to life of the most vulnerable members of the human family.

Ultrasound reveals baby’s heartbeat

Notably, a pregnant mother named Emma took the stage. An ultrasound Doppler was placed against her abdomen, and through the public-address system, her baby’s heartbeat sounded across the area outside Belfast City Hall.

For a few moments, everyone listened to her baby's steady, distinct, and undeniable heartbeat. It carried across the very civic space where an abortion-related display had been planned. As I took in the gathered crowd, the lights held aloft, and City Hall illuminated in white, the contrast felt especially powerful: abstract public language about abortion juxtaposed against the immediate, tangible sound of a baby’s heartbeat. 

That was why the evening mattered.

The gathering concluded with a musical performance by Rachel Shields, while the mood throughout remained calm, reflective, and steadfast. Even as the crowd dispersed, white lights still shone around the gates of City Hall.

The Bottom Line:

“Instead of Belfast City Hall becoming the backdrop for a celebration of abortion, the evening became the backdrop for an extraordinary public witness for life. Hundreds of people. Hundreds of lights," said Director of Precious Life Bernadette Smyth. "A giant CHOOSE LIFE message. A baby's heartbeat sounding across Belfast. And one united voice saying: WE CHOOSE LIFE. We showed Belfast that the voice for LIFE cannot simply be ignored," she said. "Last night was a powerful reminder of what can happen when people stand together with courage, determination, and hope. Our work continues and our message remains as clear as ever: CHOOSE LIFE.” 

Key Takeaways:

• Members of Congress, led by Rep. Chris Smith and Sen. James Lankford, urged the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to investigate Planned Parenthood's use of federal funds.

• The request comes amid concerns that Planned Parenthood has violated applicable federal laws, regulations, and program requirements.

• The legislators asked for a review of the funding received by Planned Parenthood to assess that it has complied with rules, determine if fraud or abuse were carried out, and evaluate if consequences are required.

The Details:

The letter states in part, "We write to request that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) review and, if appropriate, initiate an investigation into the activities of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. and the organization’s affiliates, which receive federal funding connected to programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."

It continued:

Concerns have long been raised regarding the organization’s compliance with applicable federal laws, regulations, and program requirements governing the receipt and use of federal funds.

In particular, these concerns relate to whether Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., and the organization’s affiliates have adhered to applicable requirements governing program integrity, financial accountability, and the proper use of funds provided through HHS-administered programs.

The legislators cited various concerns, including:

• the Small Business Administration's investigation into whether 38 Planned Parenthood affiliates acted in accordance with the law when they received $88 million in loans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• accusations of Planned Parenthood affiliates "making false statements, violating federal criminal laws, and knowingly failing to disclose violations of criminal law," including failing to report suspected child abuse, as <a href="/news/planned-parenthood-failed-report-child-sexual-abuse-decades-part-one">reported</a> by Live Action News.

The legislators asked for HHS to:

• Review the federal funding streams received by PPFA and its affiliates through HHS programs, grants, contracts, or subawards.

• Assess whether PPFA and its affiliates have complied with statutory, regulatory, and grant conditions associated with that funding.

• Establish whether evidence exists of fraud, waste, abuse, misrepresentation, or other violations of the federal health programs.

• Evaluate whether enforcement actions are warranted.

The Bottom Line:

If the proposed investigation is carried out and evidence of misconduct is found, the legislators ask that IG Bell consider consequences for Planned Parenthood, including administrative remedies and suspensions from federal healthcare programs.

"Planned Parenthood and its affiliates have faced serious allegations involving the use of federal funds and compliance with federal law. Those allegations deserve a thorough review," Lankford said, adding, "The HHS Inspector General should follow the facts, determine whether federal laws and funding requirements have been violated, and hold accountable anyone who has misused taxpayer dollars."

Key Takeaways:

• St. Timothy's Anglican Church in Nova Scotia regularly hosts "hot potato" nights for parishioners to discuss controversial or difficult topics.

• Their upcoming hot potato night is set to discuss MAiD, with attendees provided with a hot potato "with all the toppings" and a "beverage."

• The church posted an explanation on Facebook about the purpose of the event before seemingly deleting their page altogether.

The Details:

St. Timothy's Anglican Church in Hatchet Lake announced plans to host a "hot potato night," an ongoing event series which offers attendees a baked potato bar and a beverage while they discuss controversial or difficult subjects. The next hot potato night was scheduled for October 5, with MAiD as the subject.

The flyer promoting the evening described MAiD as a "legally available, end of life option" and a "deeply personal decision." The church also said staff from Nova Scotia Health (NSH) who participate in MAiD were planning to "deliver a presentation on criteria, process, and the things people consider." Nowhere was there any notion of the taking of one's own life being a negative, or something to be discouraged.

The backlash was swift.

One person wrote on social media:

People should be able to walk into a church at their lowest point and find a reason to keep living. Helping the government make assisted death more acceptable is a betrayal of that responsibility.

Another person wrote:

No words can adequately describe how outrageous it is for a CHURCH to participate in something that has become so sinister. Canada is literally Marketing suicide to people who are simply depressed. God forbid. Literally.

And another stated:

So let me get this straight. The church is putting on an event about how you can legally end your own life, with a free baked potato and some sour cream? Is this country even real anymore?

Kelsi Sheren, a veteran who often speaks against MAiD, likewise called attention to the event, writing on X:

Let me be very clear, Nova Scotia and the Veterans Association RCMP did this to their veterans as well about a year and a half ago.

They were supporting and 'educating' people with PTSD on how to end their lives because there's actually no care and no support in Canada including health care.

Zoom In:

After the backlash, St. Timothy's posted an explanation, seemingly in an attempt to quell the controversy.

The church said their hot potato nights had previously discussed topics like Israel and Palestine, human trafficking, mental health, advance directives, and more. The baked potato bar was meant to be an alternative to "the usual coffee and sweets."

Yet while the church insisted there was no positive or negative intentions surrounding the subject at hand, their verbiage suggested otherwise:

MAID is a difficult topic. It is absolutely not our intent to convince anyone that they should support it — that choice is deeply personal. It is absolutely not our intent to marginalize anyone who wants to learn more about that choice either.

... If you are interested in learning more about MAID, either for yourself or so you can better understand what someone else is contemplating — we hope you can make it and that the conversation is helpful.

There was no acknowledgement of why so many people found it to be distasteful for a church to host a discussion on MAiD, nor why it could be something to potentially avoid. Instead, the church presented it as merely a personal option, and had people who commit MAiD there to speak about it. There were also no anti-MAiD speakers, or pro-palliative care speakers, listed to give an opposing view.

After the backlash, St. Timothy's either deleted its social media pages altogether or made them private.

The Bottom Line:

A church is the last place where suicide should be promoted or encouraged.

Key Takeaways:

• Nick and Savannah Roberts were told their little girl, Wren, would likely die at birth. Wren beat the odds, and is now three weeks old.

• She has a rare genetic mutation which has resulted in three heart defects. She has spina bifida, her stomach is located in her chest, and she is lacking a spleen.

• Despite her medical conditions, Wren is meeting milestones. Doctors have called her life "unexplainable."

• Wren's life is a reminder that doctors can't always predict every medical outcome.

The Details:

Wren's parents, Nick and Savannah Roberts, learned 20 weeks into Savannah's pregnancy that Wren likely wouldn't survive birth. She has a rare genetic mutation which has resulted in three heart defects, she has no spleen, and her stomach is placed in her chest. She also has spina bifida.

Nick and Savannah leaned on their faith and prepared a funeral for their little girl, expecting that it would take place the weekend after Wren's birth. Nick even arranged for attendees to wear pink, rather than black, and the couple bought outfits for the occasion.

When Wren was born, the couple expected she would pass shortly thereafter.

"We just pushed through and held on to God, and prayed that He would just give me an hour, or even a couple minutes just to hear her cry. Because that's all, at that point, all I really wanted was just to hear her cry. And He gave me a lot longer than that," Savannah told WDSU News.

Indeed, Wren defied the odds — and kept right on living. After a spinal surgery at one week, Wren is now three weeks old and meeting milestones like drinking from a bottle, yawning, stretching, and cooing.

Zoom In:

Dr. Gabriella Bluett-Mills, a complex care pediatrician at Ochsner Children’s Hospital, said there are only about 15 documented cases with the same genetic mutation as Wren.

"I’d say Wren is one in a million,” Bluett-Mills said. “I’ve never seen all of these things together before.”

"Every doctor that sees her, they just laugh. They say this is unexplainable," Nick said.

Savannah called Wren a miracle.

“There’s a reason that it happened, and now looking at her, I’m so glad that it happened because I don’t want any other baby,” she said. “I want her.”

The Bottom Line:

Dr. Bluett-Mills remarked that doctors can't predict every medical outcome — an important reminder in a day and age when so many parents are pressured to abort their preborn children due to a medical diagnosis.

"We don't know every single answer," Bluett-Mills said. "And we have to just follow along and let [Wren] lead us and show us what she's capable of doing."

Key Takeaways:

• A traveling memorial, Aftermath, was created by Kansans for Life in response to the skyrocketing number of abortions in Kansas since a 2019 state Supreme Court ruling.

• The memorial displays 19,811 medical-grade fetal models, each representing a child lost to abortion in Kansas in 2024. The display also includes information to give visitors an opportunity to learn and take steps toward action.  

• On September 22, four members of the Kansans for Life Team publicly and respectfully extended multiple invitations to Kansas Supreme Court justices to see the display, but they declined.

• Despite this, approximately 150 people stopped to view the exhibit, and it was seen more than 5,000 times by cars observing the display on the busy road.

The Backstory:

Kansas has become a destination state for abortion since 2019, when the Kansas Supreme Court found a so-called “right” to abortion in the state constitution while deciding the Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt case. Following the 2019 ruling, abortions nearly tripled in Kansas in just five years, increasing from 6,916 abortions in 2019 to 19,811 abortions in 2024.  

The Details:

AFTERMATH, a first-of-its-kind, traveling memorial never before seen in the United States, was created in direct response to the skyrocketing number of abortions in Kansas following the state Supreme Court’s radical 2019 ruling and subsequent rulings eliminating commonsense protections for women.  

Spanning the size of a basketball court, Aftermath displays 19,811 medical-grade fetal models — each representing a child lost to abortion in Kansas in 2024. Alongside the display, visitors encounter information that helps explain how Kansas arrived at this point because of radical rulings from the state Supreme Court. Compassionate banners and brochures direct women who have been hurt by abortion to resources. Visitors have an opportunity to both learn and take steps toward action.  

Since the launch of Aftermath in September 2025, Kansans for Life has taken the exhibit to 26 communities, schools, and churches statewide.  

On September 22, four members of the Kansans for Life Team were in Liberal, Kansas, to bring the Aftermath display to the community with the help of dedicated volunteers, while the Kansas Supreme Court justices held a special session at Liberal High School. KFL worked the entire day to engage with the media, meet the Supreme Court justices, and interact with the community alongside the Aftermath exhibit. 

Members of the KFL Team publicly and respectfully confronted the justices, including Chief Justice Eric Rosen, at an event at the local community college in the morning and during and after the court’s public hearing in the evening. KFL personally extended multiple invitations to the justices to see Aftermath. They declined. 

The Impact:

The Aftermath display impacted the local community. Approximately 150 people stopped to view the exhibit, including students leaving the high school. There were over 5,000 total impressions of the display, with cars slowing down on the busy road and curious drivers observing Aftermath. 

A father and his young daughter left a rose beside the models in remembrance. One woman even arrived intending to protest, but after talking with KFL and walking through the display, she agreed that the staggering loss of life represented there was unacceptable. 

“It was overwhelming to see all those little babies and the bigger babies, all representing the abortions performed in a single year in Kansas. Over 19,000. It was heartbreaking. There’s been a 200% increase in abortions in Kansas since their court ruling,” said Dawn Epp, who volunteered with KFL at the event. 

The Aftermath display remained until well after dark, with attendees from the court session and curious onlookers dropping by after sunset. Though none of the justices made an appearance at Aftermath, they and the Liberal community were fully aware of the display’s presence and the challenge it delivered them—to acknowledge the devastating loss of life in the state due to the Court’s radical abortion rulings.  

Josh McDonald, grassroots director for Kansans for Life, said:

“Aftermath brought the truth of the tragedy of abortion to light in Liberal. The truth challenged the pro-life community to step up and get active, and they answered the call.

The display moves people from apathy to action, causing even pro-abortion citizens to question their positions. Some of these will even admit the tragedy is too heavy, yet the justices are refusing to look and acknowledge the consequences of their radical rulings."

KFL gives special thanks to the volunteers and supporters who made it possible to bring the truth of Aftermath to the Liberal community, memorializing each of the 19,811 lives lost. 

Key Takeaways:

• Abortion advocates have introduced a bill to the Dutch parliament calling for the reclassification of abortion as health care, removing it from the criminal code of the Netherlands.

• The law currently allows abortion up to 24 weeks. After, it is allowed for a serious fetal health diagnosis and when the child is considered likely to suffer after birth.

• The MP who introduced the bill, a former midwife who has assisted with abortions, said keeping abortion under the criminal code adds to the stigma and shame women feel about abortion.

• In 2023, abortion rules were updated in Netherlands to allow family doctors to prescribe the abortion pill and to lift the mandatory five-day waiting period.

• Earlier this month, Dutch health care inspectors allowed the nation's only online abortion pill business to continue operating despite its failures.

The Details:

Behind the bill is the feminist group Dolle Mina, which played a role in the country's legalization of abortion under the nation's Termination of Pregnancy Act in 1981.

MP Lisa Vliegenthart, a former midwife who has assisted women with abortions, gave the bill to abortion advocates on Monday morning outside of parliament.

"This is  incredibly important because abortion is healthcare, and as far as I am concerned healthcare has no place in the criminal code,” she said. “That is why we want to remove abortion from the criminal code and include it in healthcare legislation.”

Under the Termination of Pregnancy Act, which passed by a slim margin of 76-74 in the lower house and 38-37 in the Senate, women can undergo an abortion until about 24 weeks or pregnancy.

After 24 weeks, the law allows women to have abortions when 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. All abortions must be committed by a doctor in a licensed clinic or hospital.

Pro said that the proposed bill would keep those requirements in place, but place them under healthcare instead of the criminal code.

“Of course abortion has to be carried out carefully,” Vliegenthart said. “But you don’t need the criminal code for that.” She said that keeping abortion under the criminal code adds to the stigma and shame women feel.

In 2023, abortion rules were updated in Netherlands to allow family doctors to prescribe the abortion pill and to lift the mandatory five-day waiting period. Earlier this month, Dutch health care inspectors allowed the nation's only online abortion pill business to continue operating despite its failures.

Thuisabortus.nl has been giving the abortion pill to women without a doctor's oversight of their health. The site’s founder, GP Peter Leusink, called the requirements "outdated laws," but under the threat of being shut down, it has begun calling every woman who requests the abortion pill to ask her how far along she is and inform her of all potential complications and follow-up care.

It has prescribed 1,680 abortion pills since April.

Zoom Out:

The Netherlands is an example of how the culture of death takes root in a society, and the damage it can cause.

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:

Abortion and infanticide are not health care. It is not necessary to intentionally kill an innocent human being in order to provide medical care to another person.

Cercle Allocation Services is the fetal organ harvesting company that took possession of an infant believed to have been born alive at a late-term abortion clinic in New Jersey two years ago, based on expert analysis of medical records in the recent investigative documentary “What Happened To Clementine?” by The Center for Medical Progress, who made the public records request.

The new documents include purchase orders from a UCLA laboratory to Cercle in August and September of 2023, for a total of $16,065 for 21 fetal body parts—14 livers and 7 thymus glands. The purchase orders show each individual organ being billed at a separate $765 price.

The purchase orders were apparently revised multiple times by UCLA at Cercle’s demand, to remove sales tax from the orders so it would look like only “services”, rather than “items”, were being sold.

In a September 2023 email, Cercle’s Account Manager told UCLA, “The overriding issue is the use of terminology that we must not use due to their improper implication that we are selling taxable items,” and, “Due to the nature of our business we must be very careful and clear that we invoice fees for our procurement services (untaxable).” The Account Manager wrote that “notations of ‘Total Tax’ and ‘Total Price Includes Sales Tax’ would imply that we are selling the items received (which are illegal to sell). Therefore, it is quite important that Purchase Orders are created to authorize payment for our Services, which can be tied to the sample dates and numbers”.

The purchase orders show that Cercle billed UCLA for as many as five $765-per-body-part charges in a single day.

42 U.S. Code 289g-2 makes it a federal felony to “transfer” “any human fetal tissue” for “valuable consideration”.

Recently published studies note that Cercle was previously doing business as Advanced Bioscience Resources, a fetal organ harvesting company that maintained extensive government contracts.

ABR, along with its longtime business partners at Planned Parenthood, was the subject of Congressional criminal referrals in 2016 after investigations prompted by CMP’s undercover video reporting. Planned Parenthood has supplied aborted fetuses to ABR/Cercle since the 1990s.

CMP previously released undercover video interviews with ABR admitting that sometimes aborted fetuses “just fell out” of patients in the operating room. ABR’s procurement manager Perrin Larton—now with Cercle—testified under oath in 2019 that intact fetuses were harvested “every couple months”, and that sometimes she saw fetal hearts beating after being cut out. ABR has sold FDA-regulated “current Good Tissue Practice” (cGTP) fetal organs for up to $7,000 each to taxpayer-funded laboratories.

The new public records documents from UCLA also show that in March 2025, Cercle had to cancel an order for fetal brain because it was unable to procure it. The medical records reviewed in CMP’s documentary “What Happened To Clementine?” show Cercle’s research procurement site in New Jersey, the Cherry Hill Women’s Center, using large doses of the labor-inducing drug Misoprostol on abortion patients. According to expert analysis, the time intervals and procedure steps recorded after that point leave barely one minute for the 5-month-gestation infant, named Clementine by her parents, to be taken out of her mother in the operating room.

“These new records from Cercle’s abortion side business harvesting baby body parts show the extreme financial incentives that exist for ‘research’ abortions to deliver whole, preemie-size babies alive—as appears to have been done to baby Clementine and her mother, and potentially thousands of others,” notes David Daleiden, founder and president of CMP.

Elise Ketch, associate reporter with CMP, states, “Mass organ harvesting for fetal research is the beating heart of the abortion industry. Behind all the fiercest defenders of abortion you can find a tie to profits from this black market. You just have to look.”

Thomas Kearns, the father of baby Clementine from the documentary and founder of the Clementine’s Voice advocacy group, says, “Looking at the prices on this page reminds me of what they claim my daughter Clementine’s life was worth. I’m reminded that these body parts came from children just like my daughter Clementine—children who were more than just a liver or a thymus. The value that Clementine and these children had to offer the world was not a price tag from a business exchange. They are not just their body parts or organs. They had souls, they had families, they had their own lives if they were not interrupted by the abortion and organ harvesting industry. This is the same agency that took my daughter two years ago. Were the babies in these purchase orders harvested with the same partial-birth abortion methods as my daughter?”

Key Takeaways:

• A new report from the Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board in Victoria, Australia, shows there were 140 voluntary assisted dying (VAD) deaths from June 2025-July 2026.

• This was a 59% increase over the previous year.

• VAD deaths are projected to rise even further, as a number of safeguards will be removed next year.

• Despite the high numbers, advocates are still calling for more people to utilize VAD.

The Details:

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board's (VADRB) report, which covers from July 2025 to June 2026, shows that there were 140 voluntary assisted dying (VAD) assisted suicide and euthanasia deaths in that year, up from 88 deaths the year prior, marking an increase of 59.09%.

A total of 2,188 people have died via assisted suicide or euthanasia since 2019. VAD deaths now account for 1.1% of all deaths in the state — nearly four times the rate recorded when VAD was first legalized in 2019-2020.

The report authors were "pleased" that the removal of a host of initial "safeguards," scheduled to take effect in 2027, will likely lead to an even greater increase in euthanasia deaths in the future.

Among the safeguards set to change are the removal of a "gag clause" that prohibited doctors from suggesting VAD to their patients. Other changes will:

• extend the medical prognosis timeframe

• reduce the waiting period

• remove a third assessment

• expand practitioner eligibility

Zoom In:

Though the numbers are alarming, VADRB's report views the increase in deaths in a positive light.

"It has become an established, and proven safe and compassionate end-of-life care option for eligible Victorians," the report notes, calling euthanasia "highly valued and treasured by Victorians at a most vulnerable time in their life."

The report authors also express dismay that VAD isn't more widely used, writing:

The increasing number of requests likely reflects growing community awareness of VAD. This is reassuring. However, the number of requests from culturally and linguistically diverse Victorians remains much lower than expected. This suggests that more needs to be done to share information about VAD more equitably across our population, particularly with those who do not speak English at home.

Commentary:

The overall tone — that euthanasia is a positive thing that should be more widely available — is par for the course when the culture of death takes precedence. When illness, suffering, and even loneliness are viewed as inconvenient and expensive — while the value of each human life is dismissed — suicide becomes an attractive option foisted upon the most vulnerable.

Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, Chief Executive of Right To Life UK, noted that Victoria is headed down the same 'slippery slope' seen so often in places that have legalized euthanasia:

“Euthanasia deaths in Victoria have risen by 400% in five years and they rose by nearly 60% in the last year alone.

Sadly, as in other jurisdictions, once assisted dying is made legal, often more and more people have their lives ended every year.

This will likely only get worse once the law expands. The removal of safeguards and the expansion of assisted suicide and euthanasia in Victoria, Australia, is a very concerning development. It provides yet another example of how the slippery slope of assisted suicide so often becomes a reality, and that there is a clear tendency towards reducing safeguards and widening the eligibility criteria in places where assisted suicide has been legalised."

The Bottom Line:

Euthanasia is not dignified or caring. Instead, treating each person with dignity and providing them the best palliative and medical care possible is the answer.

Key Takeaways:

• The Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India released a paper criticizing population policies as the fertility rate in India continues to plummet.

• The Population Foundation of India (PFI) responded by further arguing to move away from population control.

• India has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world.

The Backstory:

The Economic Advisory Council (EAC) to the Prime Minister released a paper, "The Ghost of Population Past: How Population Control Persists in India," which pointed out that the government is still promoting population control, even as the fertility rate in India plummets.

A country needs a fertility rate of approximately 2.1 children per woman to reach replacement rate; India's overall fertility rate is roughly 1.9. However, as the EAC paper pointed out, it is significantly lower throughout the country, with multiple states having dropped as low as 1.3.

While the overall population of India remains large, the population is aging, and births are decreasing, which will inevitably lead to population collapse.

Yet the EAC paper pointed out the government still incentivizes population control:

• There are cash payments for people who undergo sterilization.

• Payments are given to health workers who persuade people to be sterilized.

• Payments are given to providers who commit sterilizations.

States like Gujarat, West Bengal, Punjab, and Andhra Pradesh are among those with strikingly low fertility rates, yet which still pay people to be sterilized. Other states still impose a two-child limit, where having more than two children affects things like government employment, welfare benefits, or standing for local office.

“Roll-back all direct benefit transfer payments, including acceptor payments, wage-loss compensations, and enhanced incentives to acceptors and service providers, related to sterilisations,” the paper recommended.

The Details:

In response, the PFI has recommended backing off population control policies as well.

"India's demographic transition remains deeply uneven," Poonam Muttreja, Executive Director at PFI, said, adding:

National averages hide significant differences across states, districts, income groups, rural and urban populations, and levels of education and access to health services. Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and parts of central and eastern India continue to have a younger age structure and different development needs from states such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, West Bengal, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh.

The PFI also pointed out that women are the ones largely being sterilized, which insinuates some level of pressure or coercion. Less than one percent of sterilizations are committed on men. And while PFI didn't say birth control should be barred altogether, it did say the state must stop pressuring people into sterilization.

"The role of the state is not to push families to have fewer or more children," Muttreja said. "It is to ensure that every person, especially women and young people, has the information, services and freedom to make informed decisions about their lives."

The Bottom Line:

Countries across the globe are struggling with population decline, but the countries seeing some of the worst free-falls are those with a history of strong population control policies, such as China, India, and South Korea.

Yet, today, de Lacvivier finds himself at the heart of Japan’s nascent March for Life, navigating a culture largely indifferent to the pro-life cause and a demographic emergency that looms over the country’s future. 

In a wide-ranging interview with Live Action News, de Lacvivier opened up about his journey, the distinctive difficulties of promoting a pro-life message in a country where Christianity is a minority religion, and why, in his view, the struggle to protect unborn life cannot be separated from upholding the family as God designed it. 

A Father’s Conviction

For de Lacvivier, the call to defend unborn life came from lived experience. “

As a Catholic father of eight, safeguarding children before birth felt like an obvious and essential duty to protect the family, which is the bedrock of society, he told Live Action News.

His resolve to defend life hardened when he faced a startling truth about his own origins: “I came to realize that I myself might have been aborted—or at the very least, left frozen in a lab, since I was conceived via IVF.”

His relocation to Japan was the result of Divine Providence. “I live here and I love this country, so I owe it a contribution to the common good. This is my modest way of repaying what Japan has given me: the chance to raise my family in tranquility,” he stated. 

Cross-Cultural Realities

Living between French and Japanese cultures has altered de Lacvivier’s method of pro-life advocacy.

At first, he was convinced that mere appeals to natural law would be enough to convince the Japanese public about the need to protect all human lives. 

“Defending innocent life is, in the end, primarily a question of natural right,” he pointed out to Live Action News. 

However, as the years passed, he realized the downsides of that approach in Japanese society, where the prevailing attitude toward pro-life advocates is a quiet, pagan apathy. He said:

“The pagan public opinion here is indifferent. It won’t say abortion isn’t murder—but it quietly kills its children for convenience, for comfort, without it bothering anyone, all while making a lot of money for doctors.

After all, in the pagan mindset, abortion is nothing new; it allows the elimination of children from questionable or forbidden relationships.”

Having said that, Japan’s demographic catastrophe — with a dismal fertility rate of below 1.0 in Tokyo and the median age of the population currently over 50 — has forced politicians to pay attention.

A Providential Career Detour 

De Lacvivier’s career path reads like a providential detour. “To be frank, God chose the professions I practice, which I would never have chosen myself,” he admitted.

He explained that he also saw it as part of his responsibility to help organize the Tokyo March for Life, an initiative that has endured a series of difficult seasons. Although the 2024 march attracted roughly 80 participants, internal conflicts have exacted a heavy price on the group.   

“2025 and 2026 have been terrible,” de Lacvivier admitted. “The march is going through an internal crisis. The historical organizer effectively stepped down, and I had to take over as best I could to manage a transition.”

A Culture Averse to Protest

Japan, as de Lacvivier highlighted, “doesn’t have a culture of demonstration.” Such circumstances prevent unique challenges.

“It’s unusual here, but there is something to fight for. We must position ourselves firmly in the political sphere, avoid being seen as a cult, and go directly to the highest levels of power. It’s doable, but it requires strategy and people,” he said, adding that building a diverse coalition in a country where public religious expression is rare has proven difficult.

 “Pray for the march in Japan, because it is on the verge of disappearing. Yet the potential is enormous.”

Protest and Public Reparation

For de Lacvivier, the March for Life is both a political protest and an act of “public reparation” for the sin of abortion.

“If a society commits a public sin, as members of that society we are also responsible, even against our will. So we must repair and fight.”

Nonetheless, de  Lacvivier maintained that the March for Life must remain primarily political. “The March for Life has above all a political goal: to correct the disorder committed against natural law and the family.”

This political goal, he continued, “must include religious reparation, praying that ultimately the State itself will do justice to God and the family institution by restoring and repairing.”

The Demographic Emergency

The abortion rate in Japan is staggering: 130,000 to 160,000 abortions per year in Japan, with over 100 million since 1946, de Lacvivier said, adding:

“This is key and central: Japan loses 600,000 souls every year. The median age is over 50. We are in a country of old people, and this is not an image: in my neighborhood, we will certainly be the only survivors in 20 years."

Beneath the surface of economic success, de Lacvivier observed that Japan was a country gripped by moral decay, veering toward nationalism and racial prejudice as it sought to blame immigrant communities for problems it faced.

“The pro-life fight is also an opportunity to make people aware of this profound modern Japanese malaise and offer solutions to overcome it,” he told Live Action News. 

Under Japan’s Maternal Protection Act, abortion for economic reasons is allowed. In view of this, de Lacvivier’s demands are clear:

“First, abortion must no longer allow doctors to make money. In practice, even if it’s illegal, infanticide can be committed here for money. The State does not seek to punish or enforce the law. Obviously, this law must be abolished, and a strict application of the law that still prohibits abortion must be restored.”

Yet de Lacvivier contended that the deeper issue Japan has been facing for years is a cultural one: 

“It’s a question of education and formation about what the family is and the distinct roles of father and mother. LGBT and feminist attacks are deep here too, and women are the great victims of an education that makes them anything but mothers or women."

Concrete Policies for Life

When asked what concrete pro-life policies he would advocate, de Lacvivier is uncompromising: 

“Severely prosecute killer doctors and abortion clinics. Eliminate any possibility of selling this ‘service.’ And for large families, why not give a ‘salary’ to a stay-at-home mother who has more than a certain number of children? Japan already gives a lot of money to families, but it does not reward stay-at-home mothers at all. On the contrary, the state wants to make them work. There is a contradiction there that truly prevents solving the problem."

Strategy and Solidarity

De Lacvivier offered a sobering assessment of how the Catholic Church in Japan engaged with the pro-life movement. 

“The clergy here is very liberal; that complicates things. Our internal divisions don’t help. We simply need to make the organization of the march independent, led by laypeople, and laypeople from all backgrounds.”

Notably, the Tokyo March for Life receives support from La Marche pour la Vie in France, and de Lacvivier is looking even more westward too:

“I would also like to have the support of the March For Life in the United States. It’s a strong argument in Japan to be supported by the United States or Western Europe: it gives the movement more voice, more legitimacy, and shows that this is not a strange thing.”

Outreach to non-Catholics remains a central focus for de Lacvivier in his pro-life advocacy in Japan.

“Once the March For Life is strong enough, it can do apostolate through witness, as in 2018. Today, unfortunately, that’s not possible.” To reach people outside Christian circles, he presents the message through the lens of natural law and the protection of the Japanese nation, that is seeing dwindling numbers.

“Objectively, the homeland is dying from lack of children.”

Gaps and Opportunities

While practical assistance is available for women dealing with unplanned pregnancies in Japan, it remains limited in scope, according to de Lacvivier. 

There is an old initiative called Akachan Post, which allows abandoned children to be taken in (rather than aborted). There are also representatives of the Lejeune Foundation for those with Down syndrome.

But the gaps are immense, he said. The State is not involved, and resources are scarce. Ideologically, "everything is given over to liberal and LGBT propaganda, but no Catholic magnate funds the pro-life fight, as in the United States or elsewhere,” de Lacvivier admitted. 

Yet he remains positive and upbeat about the pro-life cause, saying, “We are dwarfs, but we fight valiantly.”

Engaging Japan’s medical professionals is another challenge that de Lacvivier singled out:

“We need to reactivate old medical networks, especially midwives. Hostility from the medical community is to be expected, but we need to raise awareness further and demonstrate outside abortion clinics, with the idea of perhaps saving a life through witness and showing a mother that there are other solutions than killing her child.”

A Vision for the Future

Looking ahead to the future of the pro-life movement in Japan for the next 5-10 years, de Lacvivier’s vision is both ambitious and humble. 

“Both legal change and cultural shift are needed. We must entrust everything to God, and from a human perspective, do three things: consolidate the movement, make it independent, and lay-oriented with a Japanese and female leadership, and then aim our efforts directly at the highest level of the Japanese state.”

For pro-life advocates worldwide, de Lacvivier’s account underscores that the struggle to defend life is global, even where the front lines appear strikingly different. In Japan, as in other countries, what hangs in the balance the need could hardly be greater: the very future of a nation, the wholeness of the family, and the inherent dignity of every human being from conception until natural death.

De Lacvivier's prayer for Japan is simply, "Que Dieu nous aide — May God help us.”

Key Takeaways:

• 30,000 people gathered for the fifth National March for Life in Bratislava on September 20.

• Participants called for an end to abortion and surrogacy.

• Attendees also received a special message from Pope Leo XIV, read by the Apostolic Nuncio, Nicola Girasoli.

The Details:

Participants gathered at Bratislava's Freedom Square to call for the protection of the preborn.

"Thousands of families, young people, pro-life organizations, churches, and supporters from across Slovakia came together to publicly stand for the protection of every human life from conception to natural death," Dmitrij Olšovský, spokesperson for the National March for Life, told Live Action News.

In a press release, he emphasized that the pro-life movement hopes to eliminate abortion while also helping and caring for mothers in need:

“Our long-term goal is the protection of every human life from conception to natural death. In our context, this primarily means the repeal of the unjust abortion law, which denies unborn children the right to life. At the same time, we want to be a society that does not leave a mother in need alone, but offers her real help and support.”

Organizers also placed an emphasis on ending surrogacy, as they are issuing a petition that calls on the National Council of the Slovak Republic to enact a complete ban on surrogacy in the criminal code.

“Surrogacy turns a child into a commodity and a woman’s body into a tool to fulfill someone else’s wish. However, a child is not a product, and a woman should not be a means to obtain one. We are convinced that surrogacy is contrary to the dignity of both the woman and the child,” said Milena Olšovská, another spokesperson for the National March for Life.

That sentiment was echoed by Fr. Ivan Ružička, Secretary General of the Slovak Bishops’ Conference.

“We believe that a child can never become an object of a contract, and a woman’s body should not become a means to fulfil someone else’s wishes,” Fr. Ružička said. “That is why we are calling for a complete legal ban on surrogacy in Slovakia.”

Zoom In:

Participants also received a special message from Pope Leo XIV, who sent a greeting read by the Apostolic Nuncio, Nicola Girasoli, calling the march an "opportunity for prayer and witness" to the "precious gift of life." The statement continued:

"A gift of life that must be welcomed and protected at every stage—from conception to natural death. The Holy Father simultaneously encourages the promotion of a culture capable of caring especially for the most vulnerable and defenseless, thereby contributing to the building of a more fraternal and supportive society."

The Bottom Line:

Patrik Daniška, main coordinator of the National March for Life, remarked that the march was an opportunity for those within the nation to advocate for the dignity of all human life.

“There are moments we can be proud of as a nation, when we acted justly and stood on the right side of history. National Marches for Life are among these moments," he said. "Through them, we show that we care about justice, truth, and genuine love that is not selfish; about respect for life and the human dignity of every single person."

“Against all odds, Christa Pike is conscious, speaking, and continues to receive critical medical care," her attorneys said in a statement. "Despite the severe damage she endured to her arms, she is still handcuffed and shackled to the bed. Her recovery is medically unprecedented. Her prognosis remains unclear but, at a minimum, we expect a long recovery,” attorneys for Pike said in a statement."

They further expressed gratitude to hospital staff, who "treated Christa like a human and have provided exceptional care to her.”

Dr. Joel Zivot said that while this is a good development, it is still too early to know what it will mean for her in the future, and that she remains in the ICU.

“She has recovered to a certain degree that she’s able to be off a ventilator and able to speak, but in no way would I announce her free of further serious risk," he said. "There’s still a lot of bad things that can happen here, even when everyone is doing their job well.”

10/2/2026: A second botched execution by lethal injection in Tennessee, which left an inmate alive and in clear physical distress, has led to a halt of executions and a review into the process — one which is disturbingly similar in some ways to so-called 'assisted dying.'

Key Takeaways:

• In 1995, Christa Pike confessed to the murders of Colleen Slemmer and two other people, and was sentenced to death. A stay on her execution was overturned.

• Pike's execution was botched, and she was taken to the hospital after two attempts to kill her by lethal injection failed. This is the second botched execution by lethal injection in Tennessee so far this year.

• Governor Bill Lee has now halted all scheduled executions, and asked for an independent review be conducted into the lethal injection process.

• This matters, because the drugs used in executions are often the same as those used in assisted suicide/euthanasia, and these deaths are often far less peaceful and quick than many realize.

The Backstory:

In 1995, an 18-year-old Pike believed 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer was trying to steal her boyfriend, 17-year-old Tadaryl Shipp. Three people — Pike, Shipp, and 18-year-old Shadolla Peterson — lured Slemmer to an isolated wooded area, where Pike and Shipp beat and tortured Slemmer before killing her. Within 36 hours, all three were arrested, and Pike immediately waived her Miranda rights and confessed to the murder.

While all three were charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, Peterson took a plea deal and served as a witness for the prosecution, receiving only probation. Shipp was found guilty and was sentenced to life in prison; Pike, however, was given the death penalty.

In 2004, Pike was found guilty of the attempted murder of another inmate but claimed her attempted murder was an effort to protect the other inmates from her. One of the inmates testified that Pike's actions likely saved her life. Pike's attorneys tried to have her death penalty sentence overturned due to suffering extremely traumatic events in her formative years, and just before the scheduled September 30 execution, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a stay. The Supreme Court quickly overturned the stay, allowing the execution to move forward.

The Details:

Pike's failed execution

When the execution attempt took place, witnesses were present but Pike did not die as expected after the first set of syringes were administered. Per protocol, after five minutes, a second set of syringes were given; again, Pike did not die and was reportedly moving, talking, and complaining of pain. She said her arm was burning and painful, saying it felt like it was "going to burst." She lifted her head up off the gurney and kicked her feet so much that the sheet covering her fell off.

WPLN Reporter Catherine Sweeney described Pike's breathing as "very ragged" and complaining that "there was a spot that was burning and hurting and asked if that was normal. None of it was normal." 

Tori Gessner, a reporter and anchor at WKRN of Nashville, said she has witnessed five executions, and strongly agreed that this was not a normal experience. She said Pike claimed her "arm feels like it's about to burst open" and then began "breathing, moaning, snoring... and she was clearly still alive." The curtains were closed, then opened, then closed again, all while witnesses heard Pike continuing to snore.

May Martinez, Slemmer's mother, also said witnesses were not given any information about what had happened, saying that the execution was attempted, but "she didn't die," and then "they asked all the victims to leave," and they were unaware of what had transpired until later when they were told it had failed and "she's on her way to the hospital."

Pike remained conscious throughout, and at some point was transported to the hospital by ambulance. Her attorneys said her current condition is not known, though she is reportedly still alive. Dr Joel Zivot, a professor at the Emory University School of Medicine, told the BBC, "It's very possible that as a consequence of the delay of the beginning of resuscitation she will have a brain injury."

Pike's attorneys said in a statement to USA TODAY, "We take no pleasure in being right, but the concerns raised by Ms. Pike proved to be true: difficult vein access, blown veins, degraded pentobarbital, no emergency medical care available when things inevitably go wrong, all under a protocol that remains veiled in secrecy."

An earlier failed execution

This is the second time so far this year that an execution has been botched in Tennessee, after the failed attempted execution of Tony Carruthers in May in which the execution team repeatedly failed to establish an IV line to deliver the fatal drugs after multiple attempts. A central line was then attempted, but that failed as well. He was said to be groaning in pain and "oozing blood."

Dr. John Greer, a retired Nashville hematologist, told NPR placing a central line is difficult, and should only be attempted by trained health care workers who specialize in that procedure; as the BBC reported:

"Placing a central line is not just sticking a needle in a person's arm," he said.

Greer said the doctor has to tap a large vessel above the heart. He said that it's a risky procedure in which an error could cause a collapsed lung or heavy bleeding — and that only those with specific training and routine practice should attempt.

"And I cannot imagine that there would be someone who's doing these routinely who would be involved in this procedure," Greer said.

Following this, Carruthers was granted a one-year reprieve.

Execution and Assisted Dying:

The drugs used in executions are often the same as those used in assisted suicide, and as witnessed by Pike and Carruthers, these deaths are far more grisly than many realize.

Many assume that lethal injection and euthanasia merely cause someone to fall asleep and then die painlessly, but in reality, the drugs cause pulmonary edema. This means the person's lungs fill with fluid, and he/she drowns in his/her own secretions.

But because the person is given a paralytic first, both in lethal injections and euthanasia, it is therefore impossible to know what pain or suffering the person might be experiencing.

Experiments with assisted suicide and euthanasia have also been excruciating, with one cocktail said to be “burning patients’ mouths and throats, causing some to scream in pain.”

These are not peaceful, humane deaths, whether during execution or euthanasia.

Zivot said in a previous op-ed

The death penalty is not the same as assisted dying, of course. Executions are meant to be punishment; euthanasia is about relief from suffering.

Yet for both euthanasia and executions, paralytic drugs are used. These drugs, given in high enough doses, mean that a patient cannot move a muscle, cannot express any outward or visible sign of pain.

But that doesn’t mean that he or she is free from suffering.

Zoom In:

Though this was the second botched execution this year, and media witnesses stressed how abnormal the situation was, the Tennessee Department of Corrections initially insisted otherwise.

"The Tennessee Department of Correction followed every step of the State’s lawful, established execution protocol approved by the Attorney General’s Office," department spokesperson Dorinda Carter told the Tennessean. "The lethal injection chemical in the protocol has consistently been effective, and the protocol does not allow for additional procedures beyond what was carried out this evening. Christa Pike has been transported to an off-site medical facility."

However, in a statement, Lee said he had halted any future executions, though he had previously refused after Carruthers' botched execution. "The Department of Correction did exactly what they should," he said. "It should not affect executions in the future."

Yet now, after the second failure, he has altered course.

“Carrying out a lawfully imposed sentence is among the state’s most serious responsibilities,” he said. “The people of Tennessee expect it to be done in a manner that is not only legal and constitutional, but is effective.”

He also called for an independent third-party review to be conducted into the lethal injection process.

Four executions were scheduled to be carried out in Tennessee this year; two (Carruthers and Pike) were botched, while one was carried out without incident. There is one more that had been scheduled to take place in December, though it has been halted for now.

But is there more to the story?

Key Takeaways:

• An Abortion Access Field Sustainability Survey created to "assess the self-reported financial stability of abortion clinics and funds" claims that most patients can't afford their in-clinic abortions and that abortion funds are drying up.

• Reportedly, clinics are also laying off workers and cutting back service days with some "reducing or forgoing staff salaries in order to stay open."

• Philanthropists are now said to be funding "advocacy or organizing, and more systems-change level work.”

• However, Big Abortion has complained about abortion funds drying up before. Creating outrage fuels donations.

The Details:

Surveying Abortion Providers

The data comes from a new survey of abortion providers analyzed by the pro-abortion Autonomy News (AN) which is self-described as "a new worker-owned reproductive rights and justice publication co-founded by Garnet Henderson and Susan Rinkunas," who "do not subscribe to traditional ideas about 'journalistic objectivity.'"

Little public information about the Abortion Access Field Sustainability Survey is available, but, according to Inside Philanthropy (IP), it was created to "assess the self-reported financial stability of abortion clinics and funds."

Autonomy News wrote:

New survey data shared first with Autonomy News outlines a snowballing crisis: A majority of patients cannot afford their in-clinic abortions. Abortion funds are seeing a corresponding increase in clients as their resources dwindle.

Many clinics are offering increasingly large discounts to help patients get the care they need, which means absorbing financial losses.

That’s according to the Abortion Access Field Sustainability Survey, a quarterly survey on the self-reported financial stability of abortion clinics and funds led by Abortion Bridge Collaborative (ABC) Fund and the abortion information site I Need an A.

The groups have been collecting data since the end of 2024.

The ABC Fund is housed at the Women Donors Network; according to its 2025 report, the fund spent over $1M on the following:

• Supporting self-managed abortion trainings, wrap-around care, and doula collectives...

• Funding online pharmacies and fostering the work of organizations utilizing shield laws...

• Increasing staff capacity at local clinics and offsetting costs for abortion procedures...

• Helping independent clinics launch, move to new states, or adjust their services...

• Preserving vital all-trimester care providers...

• Supporting general operating costs to keep clinics and grassroots abortion funds open, including salaries, volunteer stipends, utilities, rent, digital software, security systems, and equipment.

ABC Fund

ABC claimed in its 2025 report that it "moved nearly $4 million to more than 40 organizations in support of abortion access and practical support for abortion seekers," adding that the grants "resourced new or alternative pathways to care, from online pharmacies to self-managed abortion trainings, doula collectives, and more."

IP claimed:

The ABC Fund was created to ensure “that abortion care endures across the U.S.” using a participatory funding model to strengthen abortion infrastructure, and to back a range of community-based providers and advocates, as well as offer practical support for those seeking the procedure.

The goal? “To fill critical funding gaps in the field,” Leena Barakat, president and CEO of Women Donors Network, told IP shortly after the fund was established.

Since its founding, the ABC Fund has awarded over $16 million, with $100,000 as the average grant size.

The fund has granted dollars to "I Need an A, telehealth provider The MAP, and RISE Collective," among others, reported AN.

 Clinic Closures

Amanda Beatriz Williams, director of ABC Fund, told AN that clinics are laying off workers and cutting back service days with some "reducing or forgoing staff salaries in order to stay open."

"Clinics that have already cut staff or procedure days could be under a lot of strain if they suddenly get more patients for in-person care," Williams added.

AN reported:

At least 23 independent abortion clinics—meaning those not affiliated with Planned Parenthood—shuttered in 2025, according to Abortion Care Network, a national association for independent abortion providers.

About 25 Planned Parenthood clinics that offered abortion care also closed. Without more philanthropic support, Beatriz Williams and Nall said, those numbers could keep increasing. 

Abortion travel has also decreased as abortion pills flood into pro-life states; however, the increased price of gas and lodging appear to be taking their toll.

Cedar River Clinic, which commits abortions in the pro-abortion state of Washington, wrote on social media:

After Dobbs clinics and abortion funds saw a spike in donations, but that spike is flattening of late. We know this is in part due to the affordability crisis -- which is impacting both our patients, and independent abortion clinics as a result...

While we live in a pro-abortion state, that does not assure that abortion will be accessible...

We need sustainable funding for brick-and-mortar clinics like ours to help those needing essential lifesaving abortion care.

Williams pointed out to Inside Philanthropy that the ABC Fund is able to meet just half of the requests they receive:

We’ve also seen that some providers are resistant to increasing what they’re charging patients, and that puts them in a financial bind. A lot of clinics are running deficits, and are generally struggling to obtain sustainable support from philanthropy. So it is an ongoing challenge.

Philanthropic Priority Changes

“A lot of funders have changed priorities,” Williams told AN. “They prefer to fund advocacy or organizing, and more systems-change level work, which is so desperately needed.”

This was echoed by IP, which wrote:

The survey found, unsurprisingly, that many clinics and abortion funds are struggling financially, as are many patients...

Amid an overall shortage of resources, a number of funders in the field still prefer to support abortion advocacy and systems change work, rather than providing direct service support, according to Williams.

"Some stalwart abortion funders, employing a range of strategies, are in it for the long haul, including Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, Ford Foundation, Freedom Together Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and David and Lucile Packard Foundation; MacKenzie Scott has also provided generous support for reproductive rights," wrote IP.

But donations are drying up, claimed AN:

One survey respondent, Utah Abortion Fund, said “we rely heavily on individual donors, but when they are also having to decide between food and rent, it becomes unsustainable.”

DC Abortion Fund said, “we've seen a major decrease in recurring donors. The long term impact on that budget will be tough to manage without new sources of funding, which we struggle to find.ˮ

We've Heard This Before:

This is not the first time Big Abortion has complained about abortion funds drying up, and it likely will not be the last.

After all, creating outrage fuels donations.

In 2024, abortion funding groups alleged that “gargantuan amounts” of abortion funds were “funneled” to “vague” political efforts, as ‘well-funded' and ‘out-of-touch legacy orgs’ like the National Abortion Federation (NAF) and Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) focused on elections.

Suspiciously, the most recent abortion funding deficit claims are now arriving just prior to an election.

Mail-order dispensing at risk?

Live Action News has previously documented that many of the abortion facility and Planned Parenthood closures were simply a ruse to garner sympathy, as they pivoted to a virtual model away from brick-and-mortar locations.

But the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently examining REMS safety regulations on the abortion pill mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex regarding mail-order and pharmacy dispensing.

Reading between the lines, this could provide motivation to push for more philanthropic funding to support brick-and-mortar facilities, which claim they need "multi-year, unrestricted grants to really gain some stability."

AN wrote:

[T]he Trump administration could move to restrict access to medication abortion after the midterm elections by ending telehealth prescriptions.

This would mean more people needing in-person appointments, which would only exacerbate the budget shortfalls clinics face.

Barriers and delays are also known to push abortion seekers later into pregnancy, at which point they’re more likely to need in-clinic care.

... As Kaori Sueyoshi, the survey lead with I Need an A, put it, “every single day we let the providers and clinics live in the state of fragility, we are one day further to a reality where there are fewer to no clinics remaining.”

... Clinics that have already cut staff or procedure days could be under a lot of strain if they suddenly get more patients for in-person care.

“Whatever may come with medication abortion, it's going to continue to be really important to support the frontline organizations. As funders, it's really important for us to invest now in that infrastructure, so that when the time comes, they are as well-resourced as possible," Williams claimed.

“Second- and third-trimester care is so vastly critical and will always be needed, and for that reason brick-and-mortar clinics truly need to survive,” Williams added. 

Hyde Stands in the Way

The most recent funding fearmongering comes near the 50th anniversary of the federal Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal dollars from funding abortion except in limited instances.

AN acknowledged the role of Hyde:

Most people cannot use their insurance for abortion, thanks to the federal Hyde Amendment and state-level bans on even private coverage. Budget shortfalls in abortion care are not new: In 2024, local abortion funds and clinics navigated cuts from the country’s largest abortion fund, operated by the National Abortion Federation.

But as the affordability crisis worsens, groups responding to the Abortion Access Field Sustainability Survey said they’re seeing callers who need more assistance than ever, alongside less philanthropic support and fewer grassroots donations. 

The Bottom Line:

The end game is not for Big Abortion to take less in terms of profit, but for the American taxpayer to get increasingly saddled with the cost of funding abortion all the way up to birth.  

Key Takeaways:

• Sharon Stone is an American actress and model known for playing femme fatales.

• She recently appeared in an interview with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson, where she said she had undergone an abortion as a teenager.

• Many female celebrities have credited abortion for their career success.

The Details:

Sharon Stone is an American actress who got her start in Hollywood as a model before breaking into acting. Her first major role was in "Total Recall," and she would go on to star in other movies like "Basic Instinct," "Casino," and "Sphere." She has been nominated for an Academy Award, and has won Emmy and Golden Globe awards.

Stone recently appeared on "IMO" with hosts Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson, where she said she had an abortion as a teenager while dating an older man.

Stone said:

"My boyfriend was 23, was an engineer on the railroad, an electrician on the railroad, which was, in our town, a very tony job, right? It was a super high paying job," she said. "I mean, he had a fancy car, a fancy motorcycle, his own place, regular employment. And being an electrician on the railroad was like top drawer, right? 

But he didn't have any knowledge or information that I should have some kind of birth control. And I had no... like, when I tell you, I could have been the girl who gave birth in the bathroom stall."

She initially had no idea she was pregnant, until her parents and her boyfriend thought she had been gaining weight, and finally realized she was pregnant. Stone first revealed that she had an abortion in her 2021 book, "The Beauty of Living Twice." She wrote that after the abortion...

“I was bleeding all over the place and far worse than I should have been, but this was a secret and I had no one to tell. So I stayed in my room and bled for days. I was weak and scared and then just weak.”

In her interview, Stone hit back against laws protecting preborn children, making some specious claims:

"Now we don't want to give women care, OB/GYN care, and we want to prosecute women for having a miscarriage. What kind of arcane b*** is this? If men got pregnant, you could get an abortion from a vending machine."

Zoom Out:

Multiple female celebrities have spoken positively about abortion, and how they believe women need to end their preborn children's lives to be successful.

This includes actresses Michelle Williams, Stevie Nicks, Alyssa Milano, and Cecily Strong, who have all positively spoken about having abortions, and credit their successful careers to their abortions. Actress Busy Philipps specifically credited abortion for giving her a “beautiful life.”

Michelle Williams accepted a Golden Globes award while visibly pregnant, and in her speech, advocated for abortion, insinuating that she had one herself in the past, which allowed her to be successful.

“I’m grateful for the acknowledgment of the choices I’ve made, and I’m also grateful to have lived at a moment in our society where choice exists. Because as women and as girls, things can happen to our bodies that are not our choice. I’ve tried my very best to live a life of my own making, and not just a series of events that happened to me, but one that I could stand back and look at and recognize my handwriting all over — sometimes messy and scrawling, sometimes careful and precise — but one that I had carved with my own hand," she said, adding:

"And I wouldn’t have been able to do this without employing a woman’s right to choose, to choose when to have my children and with whom.”

By Sharon Stone's admission, however, her own abortion was a traumatic experience, one that even more women will likely experience with the increase in at-home, telehealth abortions. Women can order pills online, without any supervision from a doctor, and then take them at home, alone, where they bleed and suffer all the potential side effects and risks on their own.

The Bottom Line:

Abortion is not empowering, and no woman should feel forced to choose between her child and her education or career.

The report, released earlier this month, says the ‘Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board’ for Victoria, Australia found “no evidence” that any aspect of the euthanasia and assisted suicide process or the dispensing of the lethal drugs contributed to the unintended death by suicide of the partner.

Despite the unintended death, the Board claims the euthanasia and assisted suicide programme “continues to operate safely” and it has not altered its assessment of “the safety and integrity” of the assisted suicide framework.

The report states that, in April 2026, the person who had been found eligible for assisted suicide and had the lethal drugs supplied to them died in the hospital without having ingested the lethal drugs. The applicant’s partner, according to the report, “is assumed to have consumed the [assisted suicide] substance at some point over the subsequent 2 days”.

Under the law in Victoria, any unused lethal assisted suicide drugs must be returned to the relevant pharmacist within 15 days after the death of the person they were intended for, whether they died by assisted suicide or not. Despite the 15-day provision in the law, the “contact person”, whose responsibility it is to return the drugs, managed to use the unused assisted suicide drugs to end their own life.

Potential for almost 700 unused assisted suicide drugs to remain in the Victorian community

Between June 2019, when assisted suicide and euthanasia became legal, and 30 June 2026, there were 2,452 instances of assisted suicide drugs being dispensed for self-administration, yet only 1,755 people have ended their lives by self-administering these substances over the same time period. 

This means that there could be more than 697 unused batches of lethal drugs in the community right now in Victoria or elsewhere, even sitting in someone’s bedside drawer.

The total figure for the number of unused batches of lethal drugs that have been returned to date has not been published.

Non-compliance issues

The 2025-26 report has also found issues of non-compliance with the law. 21 completed applications reviewed by the Board were not in compliance with the law, and six of these were due to “a delay in the return of the unadministered substance by the contact person”. 

In five of these cases, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board revealed that the substance was returned late; the other case resulted in the death of the individual above. 

The report also explains that “no penalties were applied” in those instances of non-compliance with the law.

Euthanasia deaths in Victoria have increased by 400% in only five years

According to the report, there was a 59.09% increase in instances of euthanasia for the year 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026, when there were 140 cases of euthanasia, compared with the previous year, when there were 88.

The report also reveals that deaths by assisted suicide and euthanasia in 2025-26 accounted for 1.1% of all deaths in Victoria, almost four times higher than the first year of operation in 2019-20, when euthanasia and assisted suicide deaths accounted for 0.3% of all deaths in Victoria.

There were a total of 512 deaths by euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2025-26, an increase of 31.62% from the previous year, when there were 389 such deaths.

Over the course of just a year, the number of applicants for assisted suicide and euthanasia who did not access palliative care increased from 118 in 2024-25 to 179 in 2025-26, an increase of over 50%.

Since 2019, when the state began ending the lives of some of its own citizens by assisting in their suicides and by euthanasia, to the end of June this year, a total of 2,188 people have ended their lives by assisted suicide and euthanasia in Victoria. The number of people who have ended their lives in this way has increased by 153.47% in the five years from the reporting year 2020-21 to the reporting year 2025-26.

Of the 512 deaths in 2025-26, 372 (72.66%) were instances of assisted suicide, where the person who wishes to die ingests or otherwise takes the lethal substance themselves, and 140 (27.34%) were instances of euthanasia, where a medical practitioner administers the lethal substance to the patient to end their life.

Only three applications in the year 2025-26 involved referral for an additional assessment regarding decision-making capacity. Since assisted suicide and euthanasia were made legal in June 2019, there have only been 38 such referrals.

Significant expansion of assisted suicide and euthanasia law in Victoria to take place in 2027

In 2027, a significant expansion of the assisted suicide and euthanasia law is set to take place in Victoria. This change was agreed only six years after the law came into effect in June 2019.

The raft of changes made by the Government of Victoria, Australia, includes increasing the prognosis limit for those who want to end their lives by assisted suicide or euthanasia from six to 12 months and ending the restriction on doctors raising the possibility of assisted suicide or euthanasia with one of their patients unprompted, according to reports.

Previously, individuals had to have been given a prognosis of death within six months in order to access state-assisted suicide or euthanasia, unless they had been diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disease, in which case their prognosis could be extended to those with a life expectancy of 12 months. Now, the law has been changed to double the eligible life expectancy to 12 months for all conditions. 

Doctors will also be allowed, for the first time, to raise the topic of state-assisted suicide and euthanasia unprompted with patients thought to be nearing the end of their lives, as well as requiring health practitioners who conscientiously object to assisted suicide and euthanasia to provide information to patients. 

According to reports, the requirement for individuals with a neurodegenerative condition to have a third assessment before being able to end their lives by assisted suicide or euthanasia has also been removed. The time limit between the first and final access requests has been decreased, from nine days to only five days. 

The eligibility rules have also been changed to allow people who have lived in Australia for only three years to end their lives by assisted suicide or euthanasia, even if they are not citizens or permanent residents of the country.

Additionally, changes to the law have been made to make it easier for medical practitioners to join the programme to administer assisted suicide. The eligibility rules for practitioners have been changed to make it easier for them to get involved in the programme, while permits have been simplified and a new administrative practitioner role has been created. 

According to the new annual report on assisted suicide and euthanasia in Victoria, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board “expects further growth in [assisted suicide and euthanasia] applications following the legislative change”.

Chief Executive for Right To Life UK, Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, said “A bereaved person has died after taking assisted suicide drugs prescribed for their partner. Yet the body overseeing assisted suicide in Victoria still insists the system is safe. It is extraordinary to give that reassurance when drugs supplied through the system appear to have been used to end someone else’s life”. 

“Victoria’s Health Minister must commission an urgent, wider review of the assisted suicide system, including how lethal drugs are stored and returned and whether claimed safeguards in current legislation protect people in practice”.

“We have seen this before. In Queensland, a person died in 2023 after taking assisted suicide drugs prescribed for their spouse. A coroner later warned of ‘further calamity and heartbreak’ if nothing changed. Victoria is now reporting a similar tragedy”.

“This case comes as euthanasia deaths in Victoria have risen by 400% in five years, and they rose by nearly 60% in the last year alone”. 

“Sadly, as in other jurisdictions, once assisted dying is made legal, often more and more people have their lives ended every year”.

“This will likely only get worse once the law expands. The removal of safeguards and the expansion of assisted suicide and euthanasia in Victoria, Australia, is a very concerning development. It provides yet another example of how the slippery slope of assisted suicide so often becomes a reality, and that there is a clear tendency towards reducing safeguards and widening the eligibility criteria in places where assisted suicide has been legalised”.

“People nearing the end of their lives deserve protection and the best possible care, not a pathway to suicide”.

Nick and I always knew adoption would be part of our story. We just never imagined God would  write it this way. 

Not in our timing. Not in our way. And certainly not in a way we could have ever dreamed. 

Preparing Hearts

We are high school sweethearts, and early in our marriage, we felt the Lord calling us to adoption. In 2020, with two little girls at home, we stepped forward in obedience and began the process. 

After years of waiting, we experienced the heartbreak of a match that didn't lead to adoption.  We grieved deeply while also celebrating that a birth mother had chosen to parent her child. 

That experience taught us that adoption holds both joy and grief, and it deepened our trust in  God's timing. 

Then, on May 16, 2023, after another difficult morning, I sat beneath the big tree in our front yard and prayed, “Lord, bring us our baby. Bring us a son.” 

Three and a half hours later, Nick called. 

“Kelsey… we've been matched with a baby.” 

Our son was on his way. 

But while God was preparing our hearts to become Shepherd's parents, He was preparing his  birth mother, Mikayla, to make one of the most courageous decisions of her life. 

The Beauty and Heartbreak of Adoption

When Mikayla saw those two pink lines, she was terrified. Her pregnancy was unplanned, but  from the beginning, she knew something profound: 

The circumstances of Shepherd's conception did not determine the value of his life. 

He was not an accident. He was not a mistake. He was intentionally created by God. He was being knitted together in her womb on purpose and for a purpose. His life was worthy. So she prayed for God's will and for the strength to take the next step. 

There were several paths in front of her. She could parent Shepherd, attempt to co-parent, or  choose adoption. She began meeting weekly with an adoption case worker, praying and honestly considering what each path would mean. 

As the weeks passed, God closed some doors, and one remained open: adoption.

At six months pregnant, Mikayla began looking at prospective adoptive families. She prayed that  God would make it abundantly clear if there was a family He wanted her to choose. 

Then she opened our book. 

She saw a mom and dad with two curly-headed little girls who loved each other and loved Jesus. She read our letter to her and saw that we didn't simply want a baby. We wanted an open adoption. We wanted a relationship with her. 

She chose us. 

When we met at Olive Garden in May 2023, we talked for hours. We laughed, cried, and dreamed about what could be. When we told Mikayla she could choose Shepherd's middle name, something shifted in her heart. 

Maybe, just maybe, she wouldn't disappear from his story. 

Over the next three months, we built trust. We FaceTimed, planned for the hospital, introduced  our families, and took one day at a time. 

Mikayla spent her pregnancy preparing not only for Shepherd's arrival, but for the grief she  knew would come. She wrote letters, made gifts, prayed, and poured her love into him. 

She wasn't simply preparing for a birth. 

She was preparing to make a deeply sacrificial decision for her son and place him into a loving  home and family. 

On August 10, 2023, Mikayla met Shepherd. 

And from his very first moments, he was surrounded by love. 

She welcomed Nick and me into the hospital room soon after his birth. I gave him his first bottle.  Our rooms were next to each other, and we spent those precious days together. Talking, laughing, crying, eating takeout, watching his first bath, and marveling at this tiny boy we all loved. 

But adoption is both beautiful and heartbreaking. 

Mikayla was making an incredibly sacrificial choice because she believed placing Shepherd into  our family was what was best for him. Her grief did not mean she loved him less. 

It meant she loved him deeply. 

Before we left the hospital, we gathered together one last time in Mikayla's room. Her dad  prayed over all of us as we prepared to begin this new chapter.

And then I made Mikayla a promise. 

“This is not the end. This is just the beginning.” 

I meant every word. 

Moments later, we walked out of the hospital together. 

Mikayla and I carried Shepherd between us as we made our way toward the cars. I will never  forget that walk. 

One mother had carried him for nine months and chosen life for him. 

Another mother was preparing to bring him home. 

And between us was a little boy who was already deeply loved by both of us. 

The morning after we brought Shepherd home, I FaceTimed Mikayla so she could see him safe  and snuggled in his new home. We continued texting almost every day. 

The "Big Fam"

Three weeks later, about 20 of us gathered together. Birth family and adoptive family, all  celebrating the same little boy. 

We called ourselves “The Big Fam.” 

Nearly four years later, that name has become our reality. 

Mikayla is like a little sister to me and one of my closest friends. She stays at our house,  FaceTimes regularly, and shows up for birthdays, soccer games, dance recitals, holidays,  vacations, and ordinary days. She loves Shepherd's sisters deeply, too, intentionally building  relationships with them because they are part of her family, too. 

We celebrate Big Fam Christmas together. We have taken summer vacations together. We  make memories together. 

This is what open adoption looks like for us. 

It isn't simple. It holds joy and grief, love and loss, beauty and brokenness. But Shepherd's story began with a courageous woman choosing life. 

His unplanned beginning did not make his life less valuable. 

His circumstances did not determine his worth. 

His life was worthy because he was created by God. 

Mikayla chose life for her son, and then she courageously trusted God with his future.

And God took that “yes” and built something none of us could have imagined. He didn't replace one family with another. 

He expanded a family. 

Shepherd gained parents who adore him, a birth mother who loves him fiercely, sisters who love  him, grandparents on both sides, and a Big Fam surrounding him. 

We gained a son. 

And we gained Mikayla. 

What began with two pink lines and a frightened young mother became a story of courage,  sacrifice, redemption, and a family built by love. 

And every time I look around our Big Fam, I am reminded: 

God was writing a story long before any of us could see the ending. 

Mikayla chose life. 

Shepherd was worth choosing. 

And because of that courageous “yes,” all of us are family.

Key Takeaways:

• A baby girl was surrendered in Racine, Wisconsin, on September 27, in accordance with state law.

• The baby is in the care of child protective services, which will search for an adoptive home for her.

• This is the second infant surrender at the Racine Safe Haven Baby Box.

The Details:

The Racine Fire Department (RFD) announced that the baby girl was placed in the Safe Haven box around 1:00 p.m. on Sunday afternoon. Per protocol, she was taken to Ascension All Saints Hospital for assessment, where it was determined she was in healthy condition. She is currently with child protective services, which will seek an adoptive home for her.

“The priority of the Racine Fire Department is always the safety of our community, including its most vulnerable members. We are thankful that this parent chose a safe option and that this baby is now receiving the care and protection they deserve. Resources like the Safe Haven Baby Box exist to prevent tragedy,” RFD said, in a press release.

Zoom In:

This marks the second infant surrender at the Racine location, which was installed in December 2024.

In 2023, Wisconsin lawmakers expanded the state's safe haven law to allow for the use of baby boxes for infant surrender. Baby boxes allow a parent who feels unable to care for their infant to surrender that child anonymously, per each state's safe haven law.

In Wisconsin, a parent can surrender a child up to 30 days old.

Monica Kelsey, founder of the Safe Haven Baby Box organization, had a message for the parent who surrendered the baby.

"To the parent who utilized our Safe Haven Baby Box, I just want to say, 'thank you.' Thank you for keeping your child safe, and for trusting us and trusting the fire department to take it from here," Kelsey said. "Your baby was picked up in a matter of minutes, and given immediate medical care... Your baby is safe, and your baby is healthy."

Kelsey explained on a recent podcast that she addresses the parents who surrender because some have called into her organization's hotline and explained they closely follow social media to make sure their child is safe and healthy.

"That's important, because these mothers are watching," she said.

The Bottom Line:

Safe Haven Baby Boxes exist as an option for desperate parents who feel they may have no other choice. They, along with safe haven laws, are meant to deter infant abandonment, which remains a prevalent problem throughout the country.

Key Takeaways:

• Henry Mack of the Florida Department of Education sent out a memo to school districts last week reminding them that they have "statutory duties" to protect students from sexually explicit materials.

• The memo also informed school superintendents that they must ensure their schools “apply Florida law and the training" as opposed to talking points from the American Library Association or activist parent groups.

• The memo confirmed that “if the school board denies a parent the right to read passages [in a school board meeting] due to content... being pornographic or harmful material, the school district shall discontinue the use of the material in the school district.”

The Backstory:

Sexually explicit books find their way into K-12 schools through multiple avenues, including the ALA's recommended book lists sent to libraries across the country. In addition, programs and groups attempt to promote gender ideology, abortion, and more through lists like AFY’s “Hope in a Box,” which claims to equip “K-12 educators with LGBTQ-inclusive curricula, training and mentorship" through a “curated book list, curriculum guides, and toolkits” sent to schools across the country, including Florida. 

In August, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick spoke with Bonnie Wallace, legislative liaison with Recover America, who raised awareness that some Texas school districts are allegedly failing to adhere to state law. They are continuing to allow minors access to sexually explicit and vulgar materials in school libraries.

Patrick and Wallace noted that certain advocacy groups are now collaborating to protect the minds of children. Utah resident and concerned parent Brooke Stephens founded Rated Books, and helped to get legislation passed aimed at removing such explicit content from schools.

“To most people, it’s obvious that many of these books are not intended for children,” Stephens told Live Action News.      

Rated Books has detailed book reports and a rating system (ranging from 0 for all ages to 5 for adult-only/deviant content). Using this system, Live Action News identified 70 books from AFY’s “Hope in a Box” catalog, of which over 20 were categorized with a 3/5 rating or higher. Eight books were rated 4/5 and one was rated 5/5. These books included content such as: 

graphic or gratuitous violence; explicit sexual nudity; graphic depictions of sexual activities, shockingly profane, sexual, or obscene content to denigrate or ridicule revered religious figures, symbols, or texts; and reference or links to BDSM, sex toys, kinks and fetishes, animal cruelty, cannibalism, body horror/gore and violence; explicit descriptions or depictions of aberrant sexual activities including sexual assault, battery, bestiality, or sadomasochistic abuse.   

What's Happening:

The Memo

In his memo, Florida Commissioner Mack cited recent testimony given by a parent who read aloud sections of these explicit books at a recent school board meeting. Mack wrote:

Protecting the innocence of Florida’s children is among the most serious responsibilities entrusted to public school leadership. Parents want to trust districts to protect and educate their children, but it’s not easy to trust them when the parents have to act as the quality-control mechanism for which materials are available to their children in a school library.

The memo also informed school superintendents that they must ensure their schools “apply Florida law and the training, not PEN America or ALA talking points, and not a parent activist checklist either.” 

This is relevant, as Live Action News previously reported on the long standing relationship between the American Library Association, PEN America, and Planned Parenthood, and how the relationships have helped to advance both the pro-abortion and gender ideology propaganda.  

If You Can't Read It, Neither Can They

Graphic books are continuing to be identified across the state.

After auditing school libraries in Palm Beach County Florida, Bonnie Wallace was invited by author and Pastor John Amanchukwu to testify with him and others during a school district board meeting, where she read aloud some of the more egregious materials.

Wallace told Live Action News:

"The district has just about every bad book, including a book about a 12 year old boy being groomed by his middle school teacher and having graphic sex (BOY TOY, by Barry Lyga).... There are also many books which glamorize and trivialize abortion, including A SPARK OF LIGHT by Jodi Picoult.”

Pro-abortion author Jodi Picoult likens the intentional killing of the preborn human child in an abortion to an “ice cream cone,” while also detailing explicit scenes of rape, incest, and gender ideology. Rated Books scored the book as 4/5 with a content warning of adults only.

While gearing up to read the book, “Let’s Talk About It” by Erika Moen & Matthew Nolan, Pastor John Amanchukwu was cut off multiple times so a board member could read a warning to parents. 

Amanchukwu advised board members:

“If you have to give a warning because of the books, then maybe the books should not be in the school system. If you’re concerned about people online, the children, what about the kids who go to the library… this is insane."

Even after the school board member gave the content warning, the board still censored Amanchukwu's reading of the book due its vulgar content. 

The memorandum sent to Florida schools confirmed Amanchukwu’s testimony, citing statute 1006.28(2)(a) which states that “if the school board denies a parent the right to read passages due to content... being pornographic or harmful material, the school district shall discontinue the use of the material in the school district” (emphasis added).

Washing Hands of "Adverse Effects"

Live Action News also reported that Erika Moen and Matthew Nolan’s books are not only promoted by some Planned Parenthood affiliates, but the author’s other books, like the “Drawn to Sex” series — which are just as vulgar and are equally ranked as a 4/5 “adult only” by Rated Books — were directly sponsored by Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette in 2017. 

During the interview between Patrick and Wallace, Wallace noted that Moen and Nolan’s book comes with a disclaimer in which authors and publishers “expressly disclaim[s] responsibility for any adverse effects which may result from the use or application of information contained in [the] book,” while pointing readers to “look up interviews with your favorite porn performer.” 

Live Action News found that the authors also promote their website in the books which have additional graphic content on subjects like “Kink & BDSM.” Other authors provide information on how to use and where to buy items like an acrylic knife for times when a “light spanking isn’t enough” for use on themselves and others, claiming that “[d]espite how sharp and pointy it is, you’d be hard pressed to actually draw blood with [it].” 

Taking Action: 

“It’s becoming more evident — incidents of harmful content inside our children's library books is not just a problem in Texas but is a problem throughout our country. I've been in thousands of libraries and have yet to find a clean library. Not a single clean library... yet!” Wallace told Live Action News. 

“I'm extremely grateful that the Florida Commissioner of Education is throwing down the gauntlet! I'm hopeful that Texas Commissioner Mike Morath, Texas Education Agency, will do the same thing and come alongside Henry Mack. The time for being timid and tolerant is over,” she stated.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick promised to find a way to cut funding for school districts who continue to disregard state law. Florida’s Commissioner Mack promises to do similar, stating: 

To be perfectly clear: when the Department receives credible allegations that a district has failed to comply with its statutory responsibilities, I will use the authority provided by law to the fullest extent…

Make no mistake, the Department will hold districts, and the superintendents who lead them, accountable for failing to protect students from inappropriate content and material. 

Key Takeaways:

• Patricia de Oliveira Santos was from Brazil, and traveled to the Netherlands to visit her boyfriend, Dennis van E., who lived in the Netherlands.

• During her last visit, she was very late in pregnancy and the baby was a boy, which reportedly infuriated van E.

• He pressured her to have an abortion, and when she refused, he forced her to drink abortion pills and consume a fatal cocktail of drugs, which led to her death. She was between 32 and 37 weeks pregnant.

• Van E. has been sentenced to less than 16 years in prison for the murder of his girlfriend and preborn child.

The Backstory:

Van E. was arrested in 2019 after Santos died. Neighbors told police that while van E. was a long-time resident, the woman found dead, who was later identified as Santos, had only arrived several days earlier.  

"We only saw the woman a few weeks ago, but we had the impression that she had moved to live there," neighbor Leo Barbiers told the NL Times. "I think she was South American or something. If I ever heard Dennis call, he spoke in Dutch first and then switched to Papiamento."

By 2020, prosecutors were saying van E. had been attempting to pressure Santos into an abortion. Though van E. claimed it was Santos who wanted the abortion, and had attempted to have one multiple times in Brazil, prosecutors said text messages between the two proved otherwise.

Van E. repeatedly told her he did not want a boy, and told her to have an abortion over and over again while she was in Brazil. When she told him she didn't even have money for food, much less an abortion, he said he would only send her money if she went through with the abortion.

Santos' sister, Fabiana, said she had been afraid of van E., and confirmed he had been pressuring her into abortion, though the relationship didn't seem to initially be toxic.

"They've been together for three years," Fabiana said, adding that he regularly visited Brazil, and it was on one of these trips that Santos got pregnant. "He was always very polite with my mother and everyone at home."

He eventually asked Santos to spend time with him in the Netherlands, and bought her a plane ticket to travel to Europe on September 28, with a return ticket arranged for December. Fabiana said she heard from Santos daily at first, but then communication slowed.

"Things were changing," she said. "She even said he was very jealous, but did not say he was violent. I don't think he wanted the baby anymore."

Santos then pleaded with her sister to try to reason with van E.

"My sister said that her boyfriend changed, that he spoke aggressively to her and wanted her to abort the baby. She asked me to talk to him so that he would give up the idea of abortion," she recalled, and said she messaged him on WhatsApp. "He read my messages, but did not respond and blocked me. I started to get worried, but my sister texted me later saying that he had given up on the abortion and that everything was fine."

Yet on October 18, van E. messaged Fabiana and said Santos had died, having bled to death after an illegal abortion.

The Details:

According to prosecutors, van E. forced Santos to drink abortion drugs (media reports do not specify what kind), and then take a cocktail of lethal drugs, including MDMA, cocaine, and alcohol.

This caused a uterine tear; Santos' baby died, and Santos herself hemorrhaged and bled to death. She was between 32 and 37 weeks pregnant.

In 2024, van E. was found guilty, with the court calling his actions "[c]ruel, unscrupulous and perverse."

The court confirmed that he ordered the abortion pills online, and let Santos and her baby bleed to death in his apartment. "Your plan was clear, the fetus had to die," the court said.

Van E. was sentenced to just 16 years in prison and a mandatory stay in a psychiatric facility afterward, but he appealed, claiming to have been asleep while Santos was dying.

This, prosecutors said, was impossible, and they pointed to signs of violence as further evidence. Even if she had taken the drugs herself, prosecutors said Santos would have been in "immense pain" — she had injuries to her face, and several of her teeth were found in her mouth and throat.

“The suspect let her bleed to death," prosecutors said.

Prosecutors agreed to a three-month reduction in sentence, making his total time in prison 15 years and nine months. The final verdict from the court will take place next month.

The Bottom Line:

Homicide is a leading cause of death for pregnant women, including women who refuse to kill their preborn children at the demands of their abusive partners.

Key Takeaways:

• Michael Goessling's quest to find his biological parents brought him face to face with the famous singer-songwriter, Michael McDonald.

• Goessling had always known he was adopted and wondered about his birth parents, while McDonald had also been wondering about Goessling for nearly 60 years.

• Goessling was born when his parents were just 14 years old, and they placed him for adoption despite the emotional pain it caused them.

• McDonald called the opportunity to meet his son and grandchildren a "wonderful, wonderful experience," adding, "What a gift... Adoption is a wonderful option."

The Backstory:

According to First Alert 4, Michael Goessling knew he was adopted but was unaware of who his biological parents were. After taking a 23andMe DNA test, he found the connections he was looking for.

"Always knew I was adopted," he told First Alert 4. "Had a wonderful childhood. I could not pick two finer folks to raise me."

That couple, Paul and Kay Goessling, adopted him and raised him in St. Louis after his biological parents, both 14 at the time, chose to place him for adoption.

While his childhood was stable and happy, Goessling did wonder where he came from. WIthin 36 hours of taking the DNA test, he received an email about a half-brother. From there, he met his birth mother in person.

As for his biological father, he met him over a phone call. During their conversation, Goessling asked his father what he did for a living. He told him he was a musician and that he was about to go on a tour that would take him through St. Louis.

"And I said, 'Are you Michael McDonald?' And he said, 'Yeah, I'm afraid so," recalled Goessling.

The Details:

McDonald has had a long and successful musical career as a singer-songwriter both with the Doobie Brothers and Steely Dan, and later embarked on a solo career.

All of this came after he conceived a child when he was only 14 years old. He and Goessling's biological mother remained friends and both wondered about their son over the years.

McDonald said:

"We always talked about him. And it always came down to our greatest fear was, how did life treat him? I always carried that guilt with me.

But just to know that he was okay and that he had a good life, and a life certainly that I wouldn't have been able to afford him at that time, was a great reward. The real rock stars in this story are his adoptive parents."

When McDonald and Goessling, whose first names are coincidently Michael, finally met in person, McDonald was able to meet his grandchildren too.

"When he first saw me, he put his arms out, gave me a big old bear hug and told me he loved me, and I told him the same," said Goessling.

McDonald added, "It was a wonderful, wonderful experience to see Michael and to get to meet my son after all these years thinking about him."

As for meeting the daughter-in-law and grandkids he didn't know he had, he said, "Yeah, I'm still wrapping my head around that. My daughter-in-law is just the daughter-in-law you'd hope for. And the kids are two of the greatest kids you'd ever meet. I'm just so proud of them."

He added, "What a gift... Adoption is a wonderful option."

The Bottom Line:

In a FaceTime call, Goessling was sure to tell McDonald, "I really appreciate you giving me a shot in this world."

And that sums of the gift of adoption. A pregnant 14-year-old today would likely be expected to have an abortion or even be pressured or forced to do so, causing her untold pain alongside the death of her child.

But placing a child for adoption (which is not the same as foster care), while emotionally painful for the biological parents, allows the child to live his life.

Adoption is not perfect, but it exists to help <a href="/news/adoption-traumatic-heal-wound-abortion-creates">heal wounds</a> and give the child his best chance possible, while opening the door to a beautiful future family reunion.

Key Takeaways:

• On Monday evening, the body of a four-month-old baby girl was found in a Los Angeles dumpster.

• On Tuesday, police detained and later arrested the baby's biological mother, Takiyah Babers, in connection to the death.

• Babers' foster parents say they had been caring for the baby girl, named Luna, and had brought her to Babers for a visit.

• Police have not released information as to how Luna died.

The Details:

According to KTLA, on Monday, the body of a four-month-old girl was found in a dumpster across the street from an elementary school. That person originally thought the baby girl was a doll.

"Someone was dumping trash and I guess saw the body in the dumpster and called 911," said Los Angeles Police Department Juvenile Division Lt. Dave Hoskins. "The body was found wrapped in a blanket."

The police took the baby to a local hospital, but she was pronounced dead.

On Tuesday morning, a woman was detained by police and on Tuesday evening, police identified her as the baby's mother and announced her arrest.

“The LAPD’s Juvenile Division-Abused Child Section responded and investigated the circumstances leading to the child’s death,” police officials said in a press release. “Through their investigation, detectives identified the suspect as 19-year-old Takiyah Babers. Babers is a resident of Los Angeles and is the biological mother of the victim."

Zoom In:

Herman Johnson and Laura Lacy came forward to state that Babers is their foster daughter and that they had been helping to care for the baby girl, named Luna.

“Anytime she called me to come over here and take the baby, you know, it was strange to me," said Johnson. "She couldn’t control the baby. So, that’s when me and Laura took the baby and we had the baby ever since the baby was like two weeks old.”

Lacy added:

"I have no love for her. Why? Because she had no love for that innocent baby. I don’t feel nothing for her. I love her and I still want to know why. What was the problem? Why did you do that? You had no reason to do that. I was taking care of your child for you. Didn’t even go in the system. I was going to do it. I’m the grandma.”

The couple had been raising Luna while allowing Babers to visit her. They had dropped Luna off with Babers on Monday for one of those visits.

“She called me yesterday, told me to drop the baby off. I should have just kept her, like I started to do, but that’s just a back thought. It’s a sad situation. The baby can’t protect herself. She was just an innocent little baby,” Johnson said.

While at home, they saw the news that a baby had been found in a dumpster and they rushed to Babers' home where Luna was nowhere to be found. They said Babers changed her story about where the baby was, saying she had her and then saying that the baby's father had her.

Johnson and Lacy are said to be helping with the investigation and a vigil is being held for Luna. There is also a GoFundMe to help pay for funeral costs.

Through tears, Lacy told KCAL/KCBS:

"Why would you throw her away? She didn’t do anything. What did you call me to bring her home for? Why would you call me... and then do this to her? I don’t believe this. I’m still in disbelief.”

What's Happening Now:

Babers' bail has been set at $2 million and the case will go to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office for consideration.

Key Takeaways:

• The UK announced it will begin offering two weeks of unpaid bereavement leave for those who suffer a miscarriage, undergo an abortion before 24 weeks, or lose an embryo during IVF transfer, including via surrogacy.

• Critics call it an "insult" to liken the experience of miscarriage to abortion.

• While some say the policy is needed, they also note that it brings a serious question into the spotlight: are human embryos human beings worthy of love and grief, or clumps of cells that can be destroyed as though they are meaningless?

The Details:

According to reports, beginning in April 2027, bereavement leave will be expanded to include workers and their partners who suffer a miscarriage or who undergo an abortion. It also includes those who have an unsuccessful IVF embryo transfer, even in cases of surrogacy.

According to the new rules:

Leave will be available to employees who experience all types of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks (including terminations and IVF embryo transfer loss). Leave will be available to the person who experienced the pregnancy loss, the other biological parent, partners, and intended parents in a surrogacy arrangement.

Employees will be eligible to take two weeks of unpaid leave on their first day of employment, and it can be spaced out of the course of 56 weeks.

Companies are not allowed to ask the employees for proof of the miscarriage or abortion, and are not allowed to fire an employee for taking the leave.

“No one should have to fight for time to grieve,” Kate Dearden, minister for UK’s Future of Work, said. “These changes back people going through some of the hardest moments of life, whoever they are and wherever they work.”

Commentary:

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) responded to the announcement, saying:

The policy is an insult to those in genuine need of better bereavement leave legislation, which should exist because something, or someone, of significance has been lost.

Abortion deliberately brings about the end of the unborn child whose loss the state will now recognise as grounds for mourning, though not defending.

On the one hand, the organization said, the government believes it is acceptable to kill preborn children through abortion because they are mere "clumps of cells," but, on the other hand, believes that the very people who sought that preborn child's death deserve time to mourn the loss. SPUC asked:

If an unborn human life is significant enough for its loss to warrant statutory bereavement leave, why does that recognition disappear when considering whether that same life deserves protection?

The same goes for embryos whose lives are lost during the IVF process. More human beings die during IVF than are born, and the fertility industry routinely destroys these young lives or keeps them frozen for decades. Yet parents who lose a child to IVF will now receive bereavement leave.

Are these embryos human children worthy of mourning or not?

Helen Gibson, founder of Surrogacy Concern, said:

Extending bereavement leave to commissioning parents through surrogacy risks further entrenching a harmful practice which we should be working to eliminate, not further normalise.

The policy admits what the fertility and abortion industries ignore in the name of financial profit: human embryos are human beings whose lives matter, and whose deaths are always tragic losses.

John Deighan, CEO of SPUC, stated:

SPUC will always stand for the dignity of the unborn, so we will always welcome policies that allow mothers to grieve miscarried children.

The tragic and unintentional loss of babies wounds families and parents should not be forced back into work before they are ready. This scope of this announcement, however, is too wide and is an insult to those who have experienced miscarriage.

Abortion trauma is real, but rewarding abortion with a policy designed to comfort those who miscarry is horrific; it puts abortion on an equal footing to miscarriage—it is not.

Whilst the child has equal dignity in both scenarios, one requires intentional violence to end destroy life, the other is a grave and spontaneous tragedy.

The Bottom Line:

As Deighan noted, "The Government have shown that they have no consistent ideas when it comes to life in the womb. Is it valuable and something to love and grieve or not? We know the answer.”

Beginning in 1981, I had the honor of serving alongside Henry Hyde in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was a brilliant, one-of-a-kind lawmaker—who, to this day, remains the great defender of unborn children and their mothers.

When he first offered his amendment, Rep. Hyde said, “An innocent, defenseless human life, in a caring and humane society deserves better than to be flushed down a toilet or burned in an incinerator. The promise of America is that life is not just for the privileged, the planned, or the perfect.” 

Today, nearly 2.7 million people are alive because of Henry Hyde’s amendment. In other words, this critical protection saves about 60,000 children from the violence of abortion each year.

Thanks to Henry Hyde, 2.7 million people—who would have otherwise been aborted—were able to enjoy the first and most basic of all human rights: the right to life. They experienced the ability to grow, thrive, and eventually have families of their own—all because public funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent deaths.

Polling data consistently reflects what the 2026 Marist Poll found in January 2026: the majority of Americans do not support taxpayer funding for abortion.

However, the billion-dollar abortion industry continues to cleverly market the cheap sophistry of choice, while going to extraordinary lengths to downplay the suffering and pain experienced by the battered baby victims in the womb—as well as the coercion or pressure exerted on the mother to end the life of her unborn child.

As pro-life Americans work to replace abortion violence with compassion and empathy for women and the children in the womb, the Hyde Amendment continues to stand as one of the most important human rights advances of the past 50 years.

My pro-life colleagues and I are committed to continuing this essential work and ensuring that taxpayer dollars support both mother and child and do not fund the destruction of children through abortion.

We continue to oppose the Hyde violations in the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA)—Obamacare—which created taxpayer-funded ACA health insurance plans that include coverage for elective abortion. According to a GAO report released earlier this month, these plans that violate the Hyde Amendment covered 4.4 million individuals this year alone.

For the above reasons—and many more—Congress must make permanent the life-saving Hyde Amendment by passing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (HR 7), legislation I’ve introduced to: 

• Make the Hyde Amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent and government-wide (Soon after enactment of Hyde in 1976, other abortion funding “riders” were enacted into law. In 1983, for example, I authored the ban on funding abortion in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. Most must be legislatively renewed each year. Again, HR 7 makes the funding restrictions permanent); and

• Ensure the ACA, until repeal, conforms with the Hyde Amendment.

 Someday, future generations of Americans will look back and wonder how and why such a seemingly smart and enlightened society could have permitted and perpetrated the violent deaths of more than 66 million children by abortion, often with government enabling and subsidy.

History will note, however, the struggle of Henry Hyde and the millions of pro-life Americans who joined him in his unrelenting quest to protect and defend the rights of unborn children.

The Hyde Amendment, one of Henry Hyde’s lasting legacies, reaffirms the fundamental truth that every life is precious and irreplaceable. It is well past time that we make it permanent law.

Author Bio: Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican, is the Co-Chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.

Key Takeaways:

• Pope Leo recently took a trip to Lourdes, France, a site associated with miraculous healings.

• In statements to a group which included wheelchair users, he denied cultural portrayals of the ill and disabled as burdens.

• His theme throughout his trip to France was the sanctity of life.

• Pope Leo spoke against both abortion and euthanasia, specifically criticizing France's government for legalizing both.

The Details:

Pope Leo made a four-day trip to France, under the motto of “That the world might have life.”

During the trip, he visited the shrine at Lourdes, which is often associated with miraculous healing. There, he spoke against euthanasia and abortion before a crowd of over 150,000 people, many of whom were reportedly wheelchair users. He also spoke at a care center for the ill on the shrine's grounds, telling residents that their lives have value, and that no law can eliminate their inherent dignity.

"No human law should make you lose the certainty of your dignity," he said. "It is impossible to consider it normal to give death. What is legal is not necessarily moral. Here in Lourdes, City of Sickness and Hope, I call on the whole community of those who dream to remember the profound meaning of their vocation, the link to suffering and not to suppress it."

He repeatedly denied the notion of the disabled being a burden, saying instead, “You are the beating heart of our humanity and a precious treasure for the Church.”

The pope also criticized using algorithms to decide what someone's life may be worth, whether in abortion or euthanasia. “No one ever has the right on the basis of laboratory algorithms, to decide the life of a given embryo or elderly person!” he said. “Medicine must never become the servant of programmed death.”

Assisted suicide was criticized as "false compassion," and he pointed out that what is legal is not always moral. He said:

“In the face of current trends that seek to redefine the value of human life in illness, suffering and old age, the grotto of Massabielle stands as a place of Christian hope. Here, no one is turned away due to their frailty.

Your crutches, your wheelchairs and your hidden tears are not obstacles; instead, they are the very place where you are fully respected and welcomed, and where you can experience a transforming encounter with the infinite love of God."

He also encouraged French bishops, who have been fiercely opposing the legalization of assisted suicide in France, which took effect in August:

"The voice of the church has every right to be present in public debate in France. Even if it is not always heard, it is expected. Even if it is not followed, particularly on essential questions touching the foundations of civilization, it is necessary; do not doubt this.

I know your determination and your courage — you demonstrated them clearly during the recent debates on the end of life — and I invite you to persevere, together with all people of good will who defend the same values."

Zoom Out:

France, once a staunchly Catholic country, has become extremely secular, and in recent years, further cemented a culture of death.

In 2024, France was the first country in the world to make abortion a constitutional 'right.' Abortion was decriminalized in France in 1975, and was initially legalized through 14 weeks of pregnancy. While preborn children remain protected from abortion after 14 weeks of pregnancy in theory, abortions can be committed later in pregnancy if two physicians agree it is necessary to save the woman's life, or to prevent injury to her physical or mental health — the latter of which creates a large loophole for abortion to happen for virtually any reason.

This summer, France also legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia. The law took effect on August 19, and allows French citizens or long-term residents with serious, incurable, and life-threatening conditions considered to be advanced or terminal to die.

They are required to self-administer the lethal drugs, unless they are physically unable to do so, in which case a doctor can legally kill them.

The Bottom Line:

The culture of death is invasive and disturbing, confirming views that insinuate some lives are not worth living. Yet as Pope Leo said, every life has dignity and value, no matter what a nation's laws may say.

Key Takeaways:

• The Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport will conduct a private investigation into donor conception abuses.

• The investigation will look into government "failures" that allowed a man named Simon to father 199 children through sperm donation, despite being known to government officials.

• The government admitted that it has no jurisdiction over private donation practices. Many of Simon's children were conceived via private donation.

The Details:

Health Minister Sophie Hermans announced that the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) will conduct a private investigation into donor conception abuses.

The announcement follows a report from early September which revealed that a man known as Simon has been able to father 199 known children through sperm donation, skirting a 2025 policy change which placed a 12 child maximum per sperm donor.

Simon's activities continued, despite being known to authorities.

“I hope this step shows that I recognize that things went wrong and that I want those failures to be properly investigated,” Hermans said after announcing the investigation, noting that "it is important to look at the issue as a whole."

According to the NL Times, the investigation will examine the VWS's role in donor conception, as well as the role of the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate (IGJ). A research funding organization, ZonMw, will oversee the work, which is expected to commence next year.  

Though the government is looking to curtail donor abuses, there appears to be a loophole in that it has no jurisdiction over private donations, which means that sperm donors like Simon, who primarily connect with women through social media and other platforms, would be able to continue their donations with no ramifications. Hermans also acknowledged that her office would not be able to limit private donors.

“That is difficult to say, but it is the honest answer,” she admitted.

The Backstory:

In 2025, the Netherlands tried to shore up its sperm donation regulations, dropping a 25 child limit down to 12. Despite the cap, Simon — who had been donating sperm since 2017 — was allowed to continue his donations, and his actions were even known to the Ministry of Health.

Shockingly, he was even placed on a committee to evaluate the sperm donor law. As part of that committee, he reportedly advocated for eliminating a cap of 25 children per sperm donor.

One mother tried to file a police report against Simon for violating the country's Donor Act, only to be told that, "according to the Donor Act, only fertility clinics or other healthcare professionals can be held criminally liable for violating the law."

The Bottom Line:

As long as sperm and egg donation are legal in some capacity, government efforts to restrict or regulate it will have limited effects. Regardless of the legality of donor conception, it is always morally wrong because it commodifies children and deprives them of a real relationship with at least one of their biological parents.

Key Takeaways:

• A report shows that Canada's birth rate in 2025 was 1.26 births per woman, identical to the all-time low recorded in 2024.

• The average age of mothers at the time of childbirth rose to 31.9 years old.

• The Yukon territory had the lowest rate in Canada, with just 1.02 births per woman.

The Details:

Statistics Canada released data on September 23, showing that the country continues to have one of the world's lowest fertility rates, with just 1.26 births per woman. A birth rate of 2.1 is generally considered to be the replacement rate.

Additionally, the average age of mothers at the time of childbirth has risen to a high of 31.9 years of age. In 1976, that age was 26.7.

Though British Columbia led the nation in lowest birth rates from 2013-2024, that position was claimed by the Yukon in 2025, where the rate was just 1.02.

The Big Picture:

Demographers attribute falling population rates globally to many reasons, including economic difficulties and couples choosing to delay having children.

McMaster University professor Dr. Bruce Newbold spoke to Your Morning Vancouver about the low fertility rates, noting that the high cost of living and a desire to have everything "ready" in terms of housing, career, and finances are reasons why many couples opt not to have children.

"Couples will look at how much income they're making, how much they have to spend on housing, and then they start to do some calculations. Ok, how much does it cost to have children? To clothe them, to feed them, to put them through school all the way through university? And they start looking at the numbers and say, 'That's just too much,'" he explained.

Canada is far from alone in dealing with this issue. Countless other countries have demonstrated similar low birth rates, including Japan, Jamaica, Singapore, France, Poland, Taiwan, and the United States.

The Bottom Line:

Despite low fertility rates, women are still encouraged to abort their preborn children if they feel inclined to do so, while elderly and vulnerable populations are pressured into euthanasia — especially in Canada, which boasts some of the highest euthanasia rates in the world.

With such a pervasive disregard for the sanctity of life, it's not surprising that many people fail to see the value and beauty in having and raising children.

Key Takeaways:

• On the Dr. Daf Show, Live Action founder and president Lila Rose discussed various pro-life beliefs in a debate with a panel of pro-abortion women.

• Rose addressed multiple issues, including whether women should be jailed for miscarriage and whether the "burning IVF clinic" scenario proves anything at all about human dignity or worth.

• Other pro-abortion myths were mentioned and addressed, as well.

A Few Highlights:

Claim: Miscarriage = involuntary manslaughter

One debater on the Dr. Daf panel of women attempted to equate miscarriage to involuntary manslaughter:

"So... suppose abortion is made illegal...

How would we deal with miscarriages? Would that be like involuntary manslaughter?... If a fetus or an embryo is equivalent to a human life, I mean, like, if a child dies under your care, typically you'll be investigated if you were negligent.

So, I mean, I think that every miscarriage would have to be investigated to make sure that they didn't they weren't actually lying and they had gotten an abortion or something or if they were underweight, overweight, if they'd been drinking, if they did drugs.

I mean, if they had, like, thyroid issues, diabetes, and then I mean, we'd have to do what we'd have to do, right? We'd have to put them away for like one to three years in the county jail."

Well... no.

What would be the purpose of jailing a woman who has no idea how or why her natural miscarriage occurred, or how she might have prevented it?

The vast majority of first-trimester miscarriages are caused by chromosomal abnormalities, which are out of the woman's control. And in general, if half of all miscarriages are caused by undeterminable factors, how would charging a woman with involuntary manslaughter bring about justice in such situations?

WebMD notes that while there are some possible common contributors to miscarriage (emphasis added), "Be aware that you can do everything 'right' and still have a miscarriage. Try not to add guilt or self-blame to your emotional burden."

The debater clearly portrayed all women who miscarry naturally as guilty — and women who grieve their miscarriages already tend to blame themselves, so these comments are highly insensitive to those women:

"But if you miscarry and it's your fault because you're underweight, overweight, you have diabetes, thyroid issues. That would be... just incredible negligence, right? Because you would have killed a person. If if a fetus or an embryo is a person, you would have killed it. Even if you didn't mean to, it would be very tragic. But it would be, you know, it would be because of you."

Rose responded to the debater by saying that no pro-life law in any state prosecutes women for miscarriage, and that intentional killing by abortion is not the same as an accidental death (miscarriage), adding, "In a miscarriage, that is something outside of your control as a woman and it's a tragedy that happens." She added:

"I think it might be different if a woman was intentionally trying to cause a miscarriage, ultimately an abortion by taking an abortion drug or something of that nature.

But if she has a medical condition, a lot of women cannot help that.

So the pro-life states that have banned abortion, miscarriage is absolutely in no way, shape, or form criminalized."

In some cases, there have been suspicious circumstances surrounding miscarriage which were then investigated (largely, illicit drug use) which have led to manslaughter charges based on certain interpretations of state manslaughter statutes. However, such cases were also happening well before Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, and more than 95% of these cases involved maternal substance abuse during pregnancy.

As LegalOverview.com pointed out, "The key legal question is always intent." The site also states, "... People have gone to jail after pregnancy loss, though not for miscarriage itself. Prosecutors use related charges like feticide, illegal abortion, or drug delivery to an unborn child."

It's as Rose stated: natural miscarriage itself is not criminalized.

The Later Abortion Myth

The same debater then made the false claim that later abortions are only done for life-threatening cases or in cases of fetal abnormality, as members of the panel nodded along (emphasis added):

"They only happen, um, if like, the the fetus is like, not viable at all or if the mom is going to die, and it's typically a very horrible experience for everyone involved because that baby is very much wanted. Um, that's like, that's a third trimester abortion."

This is incorrect, and pro-abortion research has been refuting this idea for, quite literally, decades.

As Live Action News previously reported (emphases added):

A 1988 Guttmacher study noted that only 2% of women seek late-term abortions because of a fetal abnormality. 

Pro-abortion researcher Diana Greene Foster has stated, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service, that abortions for fetal abnormalities “make up a small minority of later abortion.” Foster’s 2013 study published by the Guttmacher Institute states, “data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”

In addition, a 2010 paper from Julia Steinberg with the pro-abortion Bixby Center for Global Health states, “Research suggests that the overwhelming majority of women having later abortions do so for reasons other than fetal anomaly (Drey et al., 2006; Finer et al., 2005, 2006; Foster et al., 2008).”

There are several facilities that commit later abortions. One of those, the Dupont Clinic in Washington, D.C., advertises abortion past 26 weeks for any reason, stating (emphasis added), “If you are 26 weeks or later into your pregnancy, we can still see you, regardless of your medical history, background, or fetal indications. We do not require any particular ‘reason’ to be seen here – if you would like to terminate your pregnancy, we support you in that decision." (Note that the third trimester begins at week 28.)

In addition, any mother later in pregnancy whose life is at risk can have the baby delivered either by induction of labor or by emergency C-section; no intentional killing by abortion needs to happen in such a case.

Yet, the myth that later abortions are only done if the mother or baby is in a serious situation persists.

The "Burning IVF Clinic" Scenario

Other points the panel mentioned were the usual attempted "gotcha" questions, like:

"... Let's say an IVF clinic is on fire. There's a bunch of, you know, fertilized eggs in there. There's also a crying baby. Uh, you can save one. You can grab an armful of the fertilized eggs or you can save the crying baby. Which one do you pick?"

But as Rose pointed out, which lives a rescuer chooses to save in a split-second emergency says nothing at all about the value or dignity of those human lives. The "burning IVF clinic" scenario was addressed in a previously released video from Live Action:

Rose responded:

"... I think just like if there were two kids in there, one was my kid and one was somebody else's kid, I'd run to my kid first, right?...

But if... I run to that newborn baby crying because I hear it crying, like, I want to go protect it. So, I'm going to run to it, right? And I'm going to try to save it.

That doesn't mean that the other babies on ice, these embryos that are, you know, literally on ice... doesn't mean that they don't have human value.

... So who you save in an emergency situation, like a fireman who goes into a house and he saves the baby before maybe he saves the adult man, right? It doesn't mean the baby has more human value than the adult man....

If I go into an emergency situation, I'm saving a crying baby because it's crying and I want to grab it and protect it, right? And those those embryos on ice... I'm going to run and try to save them, too. But that doesn't mean that the embryos on ice aren't human, aren't individual human lives, and don't have value.

And it doesn't also mean that it would be... moral to go and kill those embryos....

In the burning... building situation, me saving the baby versus the man doesn't mean that all of a sudden it's okay to go and kill the man.

That's what we're talking about right now."

Watch the entire video debate here.

Key Takeaways:

• At the annual FedEx meeting, a shareholder resolution was introduced, putting FedEx on notice that it could face legal risks and risks to its reputation if it allows the business to be used for shipping abortion drugs.

• The resolution stated that over the next year, FedEx should evaluate "how it oversees risks related to distributing mail-order abortion drugs such as mifepristone and detailing any strategies beyond litigation and legal compliance the company may deploy to mitigate these risks."

• The FedEx board opposed the resolution, but official votes still must be counted.

• A different group successfully convinced Costco not to sell the abortion pill, and presented a similar proposal to UPS.

The Details:

During the annual FedEx meeting, Pia de Solenni, vice president of corporate engagement of Catholic capital advisory firm IWP Capital, brought forward a shareholder resolution authored by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys putting FedEx on notice that it could face legal risks as well as risks to its reputation if abortion groups use it to mail abortion drugs.

The FedEx board opposed the resolution, but official votes still must be counted.

“FedEx prohibits the shipment of Kinder Surprise Eggs,” de Solenni told The Daily Wire. “If the company can prohibit a candy toy, it can prohibit a drug that violates the law in more than 20 states and has harmed a growing number of women, not to mention destroyed countless human lives.”

The candies she mentioned, Kinder Surprise Eggs, are banned in the U.S. due to fears that children can choke on the small toys hidden inside the candies. FedEx also bans the shipping of cigarettes, loose tobacco, smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes, cigars, and cash.

The resolution stated that over the next year, FedEx should evaluate "how it oversees risks related to distributing mail-order abortion drugs such as mifepristone and detailing any strategies beyond litigation and legal compliance the company may deploy to mitigate these risks."

However, the board said it didn't find this to be "practicable" or "a good use of company resources, given its broad scope."

“If adopted as proposed, the proposal would result in unnecessary expense and burdens with limited benefit to our stockholders,” the board said. It also said that it is "committed to operating in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and maintaining robust policies and procedures designed to support lawful and ethical business operations."

Yet, 17 states protect most babies from abortion either from fertilization or after six weeks of pregnancy. Selling the abortion pill in those states could therefore violate state laws.

While other states have such pro-life laws on the books, they are currently blocked from taking effect due to lawsuits.

Zoom Out:

Inspire Investing, which successfully convinced Costco not to sell the abortion pill, presented a similar proposal to UPS.

According to Principles for Responsible Investment, in 2025, shareholders requested "the Board of Directors of UPS assess and issue a report within the next year, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, evaluating how it oversees risks related to distributing mifepristone and detailing any strategies beyond litigation and legal compliance the Company may deploy to mitigate these risks."

The Bottom Line:

UPS and FedEx are currently allowed to ship the abortion pill even into pro-life states despite the existence of the Comstock Act, anti-obscenity statutes that make it a crime to send abortion-related items and pornography through the mail or across state lines. However, there is no way for them to know if the drugs they are shipping are being used lawfully or not. Women have been forced to take the abortion pill after it was <a href="/news/fda-fails-act-more-women-coerced">ordered</a> by someone else with the intention of tricking, coercing, or forcing them into an abortion.

Pro-abortion legislators have moved to repeal the Comstock Act, however they have been unsuccessful thus far.

Key Takeaways:

• Newsom made a surprise veto on an abortion bill in September, shocking the abortion industry.

• He has since signed a raft of pro-abortion bills.

• California is one of the most pro-abortion states in the country.

The Backstory:

Despite having previously signed an executive order barring California agencies from cooperating with states looking to extradite abortionists for violating their pro-life laws, Newsom vetoed a bill which would have codified that executive order into law. It also would have expanded the order to include California abortionists who commit abortions in violation of a state's pro-life law outside of California.

In his statement explaining the veto, he said that while he otherwise supports the bill, he disagreed with how it infringes upon the authority of each state's governor.

While I share the author's views on the importance of protecting these important health care services, extradition is an exclusively executive function. When discretionary, that discretion is appropriately placed with the Governor.

I am troubled by the precedent that would be set if an outgoing administration agreed with the Legislature to erode the executive authority of an incoming Governor based on their shared policy preferences, regardless of how righteous and well-intended those actions may be.

The Details:

After this, Newsom announced he had signed a package of bills related to reproductive health care. Some of these bills improve access to legitimate health care, like expanding midwifery care and lactation services. Many, however, expanded abortion.

The bills include:

• AB 1854: Further strengthened shield laws to protect abortionists who break the laws of other states

• AB 1973: Allows non-physicians to commit abortions past the first trimester

• AB 2531: Expands the Reproductive Privacy Act to expand abortion access for military veterans

• AB 2540: Requires California community colleges to commit chemical abortions on campus

In his statement, Newsom said the package is an effort to protect "freedom" in California.

"Freedom means being able to make deeply personal decisions without elected officials inserting themselves in pursuit of a political agenda," he said. "California is protecting that freedom and showing the nation, particularly under increasingly severe attacks by the Trump administration, what is possible when we put patients and people first — not politics."

Why It Matters:

Abortion is not freedom, and expanding it can put women's lives at risk. And protecting human life isn't a "political agenda" — it's the responsibility of government to do so, and doing the opposite creates unjust and illegitimate laws, stripping the natural right to life from innocent human beings.

As Live Action News previously reported on the issue of allowing non-physicians to commit abortions:

There are many risks associated with abortion, including infection, hemorrhaging, damage to the cervix and uterus, scar tissue formation, harm to the uterine lining, and even death.

According to a 2013 study from the Ryan Residency abortion training program at the University of California San Francisco, abortions committed by non-physicians are more likely to end in complications than those committed by physicians — meaning this push from the abortion industry to allow non-physicians to commit abortions puts women’s health and lives at risk.

The bill forcing chemical abortions to be available on campus at community colleges likewise puts students at risk, as health centers at such colleges are rarely equipped to handle the risks and realities of abortion pills.

Senate Bill 24, which was passed in 2019, already forced the University of California and California State University student health centers to dispense abortion pills. And just as state universities opposed Senate Bill 24, the Health Services' Association of California Community Colleges opposed AB 2540, saying they do not have the infrastructure or staffing to handle on-campus abortions and the complications that will inevitably follow.

The Bottom Line:

Promoting and expanding abortion does not help and empower women; it takes countless innocent preborn lives, and causes various kinds of harm to women desperate enough to resort to it.

On Saturday, pro-life advocates gathered in Lithuania's capital for the annual Vilnius March for Life, calling for greater support for mothers and families amid growing national debates over abortion, assisted reproduction and Europe’s declining birth rates.

Participants marched from Martynas Mažvydas National Library to Cathedral Square to publicly affirm the value of human life and oppose abortion.

Organizers and participants carried messages including “Every life matters” and “Let’s not stop the beating heart,” while calling for greater support for mothers, fathers and children.

Key Takeaways:

• Vilnius March for Life: Pro-life advocates marched through Vilnius’s city center, calling for protection of human life and greater support for families, all while celebrating life starting from conception.

• Lithuania’s political debate: Organizers say proposed changes to IVF and increased debates around abortion in the country raise questions about the dignity of the family.

• Baltic demographic crisis: Speaking to Live Action News, guest speakers from Latvia and Poland warned that financial incentives alone cannot solve the Baltic demographic crisis, noting that negative cultural attitudes toward marriage, parenthood, family life, and traditional roles of masculinity and femininity are central to the problem.

The Details:

Simonas Streikus, one of the organizers of the Vilnius March for Life, told Live Action News that the event comes as Lithuania’s traditionally family-oriented society faces growing political and cultural challenges.

Streikus pointed to proposed changes to assisted reproduction that would broaden access to single women and unmarried couples. From his perspective, such proposals raise questions beyond individual rights or medical progress, including “the dignity of human life, the wellbeing of children, and the long-term consequences for society.”

But Streikus said the March for Life is more than opposing particular legislative proposals. One of the movement’s central challenges, he said, is turning Lithuania’s attachment to family values into sustained healthy civic engagement.

“It is one thing for people to say that family and children are important,” Streikus said. “It is another to actively defend those principles in public life.”

Zoom In:

For Streikus, the March is ultimately a public witness to the value of human life and a call to personal responsibility. Its purpose, he said, is to “help those who are uncertain to choose life” while reminding them that “they are not alone.”

He hopes participants will return to their homes and communities with “renewed strength, faith and courage,” carrying the message of the culture of life into their families, workplaces, friendships, and wider communities.

“The most powerful witness,” Streikus said, may not be “a speech or a political campaign,” but the genuine example of someone who lives according to their pro-life convictions holistically “with joy, courage and love.”

Furthermore, for Streikus, this authentic witness extends beyond empty slogans or fake gestures. “We are all responsible for one another,” he said, stressing that a culture of life is built through everyday decisions and through the way society supports mothers, children, and families.

Zoom Out:

The concerns voiced at the Vilnius March for Life extend beyond Lithuania.

Speakers from Latvia and Poland described declining birth rates and changing attitudes toward marriage and parenthood as a broader Eastern European challenge.

Agnese Irbe, a Latvian pro-life advocate and speaker at the March, told Live Action News that Latvia’s demographic decline has become increasingly severe.

“During the last 10 years the number of children born in Latvia dropped by half,” Irbe said. “That’s a horrible drop.” She estimated Latvia’s fertility rate at “1.1 or 1.2,” calling it “dangerously low.”

Irbe argued that the demographic crisis cannot be explained solely by economic conditions. “It is a modern individualist movement. It’s a philosophical crisis. It’s a moral crisis,” she said, also pointing to “a fear of having children.”

For a country of Latvia’s size at around 1.6 million citizens, Irbe described the consequences as potentially existential.

“For a very small nation like Latvia,” she said, “these dangerously low numbers are something of a catastrophe.” She warned that Latvia could eventually face “extinction or assimilation by other nations living nearby.”

Irbe acknowledged the economic pressures facing young families but questioned whether financial assistance alone could reverse the trend.

“I do not believe it is necessarily true” that more money would automatically lead to more children, she said, arguing that cultural beliefs about family and parenthood also influence decisions about having children.

Polish pro-life advocate Marcin Perłowski, director of Poland’s Centrum Życia i Rodziny, also spoke with Live Action News while serving as a speaker at the Vilnius March for Life.

Perłowski said declining birth rates are connected to changing perceptions of marriage and family. He stated that young people are increasingly exposed to a “false understanding of independence,” in which marriage, children, and family responsibilities can be presented as obstacles to personal freedom.

He said this affects both women and men, although in different ways.

Some young women, he noted, are encouraged to seek fulfillment primarily through “big corporations, careers, and so on,” while motherhood and family life can be portrayed as sources of hardship. Men, he said, face a parallel cultural message in which “manhood is often equated with a false understanding of independence.”

“I wouldn’t say that the crisis of families lies on the weakness of men or on the weakness of women,” Perłowski said.

Instead, he called for campaigns addressing men and women separately, encouraging men toward fatherhood and challenging what he considers misleading cultural messages about independence and family life aimed at women.

Perłowski also pointed to Poland’s experience with financial assistance for families, explaining that social programs had not produced a “demographic boom.” While acknowledging that economic pressures can make starting a family difficult, he said financial incentives alone cannot resolve the problem. 

He suggested that governments should also reduce burdens on families and give them “the space to develop,” including by changing social attitudes toward larger families.

The Bottom Line:

For Streikus and the other organizers of Lithuania’s March for Life, cultural change is fundamental to building a society that values human life.

That is why the Vilnius March for Life is conducted not as an aggressive political protest, but as a public celebration of life, family, and community.

By creating an atmosphere of joy and solidarity, filled with traditional Lithuanian folk songs about family and testimonies of life, organizers sought to show that a culture of life is not defined only by what it opposes, but by what it celebrates.

Key Takeaways:

• Former President Joe Biden received the Sonia Schorr Sloan service award during a Planned Parenthood of Delaware gala event on September 24.

• In remarks to the crowd, he lamented the overturning of Roe v. Wade, calling the current status of abortion in America "dark days."

• His wife, former first lady Jill Biden, also spoke, referring to abortion as "health care" and a personal choice.

• Despite his Catholic faith, Biden was a radical abortion supporter during his tenure as president.

The Details:

Biden received the 2026 Sonia Schorr Sloan Service Award during the 22nd annual Planned Parenthood of Delaware Chocolate and Champagne Gala on September 24. Sloan was a longtime Democratic activist, as well as president of Planned Parenthood of Delaware from 1980 to 1984. She also served on its board of directors until she died in 2019.

In his remarks to attendees, Biden said he was “outraged and appalled” when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, referring to it as a "crisis."

"While there are indeed dark days, let's remember. We are one of the only countries in the world that time and again has come out of every crisis we face stronger than we went into that crisis every single time," Biden said.

Former first lady Jill Biden also spoke, praising her husband as someone “who stood with Planned Parenthood and millions of Americans in defending the fundamental right of women to make their own decisions about their own bodies and their own futures.”

“When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, I watched Joe confront the reality that our granddaughters would grow up with fewer rights than the generation before them,” she said. “But he was not willing to accept that. As president, he used the power of his office to defend access to reproductive health care.”

Zoom In:

During his time as president, Biden was considered an extremely pro-abortion president.

Despite repeatedly touting his Catholic faith, he removed restrictions on abortion pill distribution, funneled millions to pro-abortion entities, enacted policies which allowed abortions through the Department of Veterans Affairs, targeted pro-life activists, and much more.

Abortion was often featured as one of his top campaign priorities. After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, he signed an executive order in an effort to further protect abortion.

The Bottom Line:

Though abortion supporters regularly claim that abortion is health care and a personal decision, it is really the direct and intentional homicide of an innocent human being. There is never a "right" to kill an innocent child.

Key Takeaways:

• Over the decades, little has changed regarding how abortion workers view their professions. They have referred to it as "dirty work," have stated they feel "ostracized" and isolated, say they are not respected and/or are stigmatized, and more.

• Many express having difficulties with dealing with the direct killing and/or disposal of the remains of aborted children.

• Many also express disdain toward women who come for repeat abortions and who choose not to use contraception to prevent pregnancy.

The Details:

"Dirty work"

In a 1978 paper entitled, "What Abortion Counselors Want from Their Clients," Carole Joffe described abortion work as “dirty work," writing in part:

Dirty work... has several components: it can be physically repellent, symbolically degrading, morally dubious, and yet, under certain conditions... Abortion counseling encompasses all these aspects of dirty work.

The physically trying parts of the job involve confrontation with blood, vomit, and, in some instances, discernible fetal parts.

A certain symbolic degradation occurs with the counselor's responsibility for the post-abortion cleanup, which includes disposing of the "products of conception."

In 1993, the late pro-life strategist, Mark Crutcher sent an undercover survey to 961 U.S. abortion providers and then published the results in a report called Project Choice. Those results showed:

• 69% of the nation’s abortion providers say they are not respected in the medical community.

• 65% feel ostracized...

• Almost 1 in 5 has been denied hospital privileges...

• 64% say that performing abortion causes a negative impact on the non-abortion part of their practice.

• 60% say that their prestige as a physician is damaged...

• 38% express moral misgivings about the abortion procedure.

Staffers have described dismemberment (D&E) abortions as evoking moral qualms, feelings that the procedure is "horrible," “emotional distress,” and “nightmares.” 

In 2013, late-term abortionist Susan Robinson admitted:

'Being an abortion provider is very stigmatized. Other doctors look down on you and think of you as like the lowest of the low.'

Abortion staff have long been conflicted surrounding abortion, with some OBGYN residents stating in a 2015 report:

• If my first task as a physician is to do no harm, how can I justify harming a fetus?

• Seeing the fetus on an ultrasound scan and then watching it as we did the procedure really shook me to the core.

A paper published in 2022, "Providers’ experiences with abortion care: A scoping review," found:

... [P]roviders discussed the challenge of disclosing their work... and... noted that they do not feel comfortable talking about their work at home as their partners think that abortion is “distasteful”... that some family members or friends would never speak to them again if they knew about their work....

... [M]any described the challenge in deciding whether to share their involvement in abortion care... that disclosing their work could damage existing friendships....

... [M]any said that they were morally challenged by certain aspects of care. These included experiences with the fetus, differences between surgical and medical methods, providing care for cases that are medically indicated versus those that are not, and select cases where providers believed that abortion is being used as a method of contraception.

The paper also described abortion workers' feelings about being faced with the death of innocent preborn children:

Many discussed how contact with the fetal remains is a difficult aspect of care. Midwives in Japan noted sadness, confusion, and guilt when handling the remains, while nurses in the UK described the experience as “undignified”, “horrible”, and “like a bereavement”.

Increasing gestational age at the time of abortion was also a significant challenge.

Authors cited a U.S. provider, who said:

"You always see the pictures that anti-choice people protest with mangled fetuses and stuff. I had never really connected that to our work, so I was like, ‘wow, this actually is, at that point, a little fetus.’ Which is surprising to me, but it didn’t change the way I feel about abortion at all...."

Staff burnout, ambivalence, and nightmares have also been cited among U.S. abortion staff.

Adding To the Evidence:

Live Action News recently discovered the existence of another source reinforcing the existence of abortion workers' negative emotions.

A publicly available PowerPoint uploaded by FIAPAC.org, a group founded in 1997 that holds international conferences on abortion, discusses 'Repeat abortion provoked negative emotions' among abortion facility staffers. The presentation's author also claimed that abortion workers experience judgmental opinions, a "sense of isolation," and negative views about their chosen profession.

The Background

The presentation, entitled "Abortion Care Research: The Staff Perspective," was presented by Dr. Edna Astbury-Ward, who was the "Visiting Research Fellow Institute of Health, Medical Science and Society Social Inclusion Research Unit Glynd ŵr University Wrexham."

The author presented her findings as part of a paper at the 9th Conference of the International Federation of Professional Abortion and Contraception Associates (FIAPAC) in October of 2010 in Seville, Spain. The findings were included on the FIAPAC website and were also documented in a separately published paper. Dr. Astbury-Ward's conference attendance, according to her presentation, was "sponsored by Marie Stopes International [MSI]" (now MSI Reproductive Choices, due to the group's efforts to distance itself from its eugenic history). The UK-based abortion provider claims to now work in 36 countries across six continents.

The PowerPoint presentation noted that the author conducted "in depth semi-structured face to face interviews... with 8 staff who provided care for women before, during and after abortion." The staff worked at "a variety of settings such as community contraception clinics, gynaecology wards and abortion assessment clinics."

Though this is a very small number of participants, the findings reinforced what abortion workers have been saying for decades.

What the Presentation Showed

The presentation noted "emotional challenges" of the job, including "[p]ersonal opinions compromised, [r]epeat abortions, [f]oetal abnormality." According to the presentation:

• Staff were motivated by a desire to provide care for women in need.

• Abortion care work was challenging at times.

• Isolation was experienced as part of the job.

• Repeat abortion provoked negative emotions.

• Foetal abnormality commanded greater sympathy.

• Inequitable access to abortion compromised care.

• Evidence of some judgemental [sic] opinions.

Dr. Astbury-Ward found that, like in the U.S., working in abortion elsewhere is an "considered... an unpopular job" and that abortion workers experience "isolation," "fear," and "vulnerability":

Working in abortion care presented a unique set of social, emotional and practical challenges for staff...some staff expressed a sense of isolation from other colleagues.

They said that those who didn’t work in abortion care considered it an unpopular job and perceived patients requesting abortion as more ‘challenging ‘and ‘problematic’ than other patients, partly because of the...emotional investment which is associated with the role.

Staff’s sense of isolation was manifested because they felt they couldn’t talk to others about their job...

Unpopular Work

Dr. Astbury-Ward's PowerPoint also noted:

You need to look at the whole picture[;] this is not just a woman with a pregnancy inside her uterus that you need to empty. It’s the whole social, psychological aspect of an unplanned pregnancy. It’s all part of the complex picture.

In her paper, she added:

Although staff said personal opinions did not have a place in the delivery of care some were unable to disassociate themselves professionally from their own deeply held personal convictions.

In addition, some said that they felt unable to voice opposition to an expectation that they would work in this area if it was included as part of a wider women’s health remit...

Negative Emotions about Repeat Abortions

Dr. Edna Astbury-Ward's PowerPoint slide entitled "Repeat Abortions" contained these quotes, seemingly from abortion staff:

• “I don’t think anybody likes it when we see women coming in again”

• “oh second one”

• “another one within a year”

• “oh dear what is she doing”?

• “silly girl”.

She additionally wrote in her paper:

The subject of repeat abortion provoked particularly negative staff emotions for personal and professional reasons, especially if patients repeatedly accessed abortion services because of non use of contraception.

Often staff admitted they wanted to ‘lecture’ patients about the issue and some implied that eventually patients may be less likely to receive good care in these instances.

However staff reported that women who requested abortion for foetal abnormality were likely to receive more sympathy, understanding and care.

The Bottom Line:

"In 2008, 50% of all abortion patients reported having one or more prior abortions, a proportion that has remained stable since 1993," according to a 2018 published report. "The majority of abortion patients was using contraception at the time of conception, including those obtaining second- and higher-order abortions."

And this fact, among others, regardless of how much abortion workers say they support the act of abortion, still seems to make them uncomfortable with the killing.

The majority of children born with anencephaly will not survive long after birth — but parents deserve to know that they have life-honoring options.

Key Takeaways:

• Tennessee couple Amanda Jablonski and Brandon Chancey learned their second child, Daisy, had anencephaly at 22 weeks.

• They sought a second and third opinion and were told that Daisy would likely die in the womb or shortly after birth. Doctors told them they could go to Chicago, Illinois, for an abortion.

• In Tennessee, abortion is legal to 'prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.' Since there was no immediate risk to Jablonski's health, doctors in Tennessee could not legally commit an abortion.

• The couple traveled to Chicago to have an abortion after 22 weeks. There is one abortion facility in Chicago that advertises abortion at that point in gestation, and describes the procedure as a two-day D&E abortion, which involves dismemberment of the preborn baby.

• Many women have carried their babies to term following a diagnosis of anencephaly, receiving assistance from perinatal hospice programs.

The Details:

According to WBIR, Amanda Jablonski and Brandon Chancey were expecting their second child, a daughter named Daisy. During a routine ultrasound at 22 weeks, they learned that she had anencephaly and just a one percent chance of survival. They were heartbroken.

"We were really excited. I think you drop your shoulders a little bit when you have a healthy baby," Jablonski said. "You don’t realize how hard it is. People take it for granted – because all of the stars have to align for the baby to come out healthy."

She added, "You walk in the doc excited to see your kid, and you walk out realizing your child is not going to make it."

The Possible Risks

Chancey was worried about the risks that Jablonski might face while pregnant with a baby with anencephaly. “So now my wife’s life is in danger, because pretty much the brain... and everything is just floating around inside my wife, which we accepted, but you can get very sick," he claimed. 

However, clarification is needed:

• Research has found that there is an increased risk of needing a blood transfusion, higher rates of preterm birth, and higher rates of C-sections in pregnancies with children diagnosed with anencephaly — but while the maternal morbidity (illness) rate is higher, maternal mortality (death) is not considered to be elevated.

• The need for a blood transfusion was the risk that increased the most compared to pregnancies without anencephaly — and, when excluding cases of blood transfusions, a 2023 study found "the composite outcome was not statistically significant" — meaning there was no meaningful difference in outcome between carrying a baby with anencephaly to term versus carrying a baby without anencephaly to term.

It is unclear what doctors specifically told the couple, but at the time, it appears they did not consider Jablonski's life or health to be in danger.

In fact, she explained, "Basically, the way the law is now, since Roe v. Wade got overturned, since I’m in good health at this moment in life, my life was not in jeopardy – I would have to wait until my life was in jeopardy."

She noted that because her life was not at risk, "they couldn't induce my labor."

This is accurate. According to research published in The Linacre Quarterly regarding inducing labor following a diagnosis of anencephaly:

The purpose of the induction of premature labor would be to relieve maternal anxiety and mourning.

In such a rationale, the child in a Kantian sense, is being used as a means to an end. The end is the laudable goal of improving the mental state of the mother and the child's prognosis is hopeless for long term survival.

Nevertheless, induction of labor irrespective of the unborn child's best interests will inevitably lead to further devaluation of the anencephalic child in particular...

For any woman whose life is at risk, inducing labor for a preterm delivery would not be considered an abortion because of the intent (saving the mother's life). Inducing labor with the intent of hastening a child's death, however, would be considered an abortion.

What Tennessee's Law Says

• Tennessee's Human Life Protection Act defines abortion as "the use of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device with intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with intent 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..." (emphasis added).

• It also states that it is an "affirmative defense" if, "in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman" (emphasis added).

In other words, a woman's life does not have to be at imminent risk for an abortion to be legally carried out in Tennessee, but some criteria must be met.

After seeking second and third opinions, the couple ultimately went to Chicago to have an abortion. This, again, appears to demonstrate that three doctors in Tennessee didn't believe there was a significant threat to Jablonski's health that necessitated an intervention.

Yet, Chancey stated, "We were forced to travel pretty much to save Amanda's life."

Going Alone

WBIR claimed Chancey was not able to attend the abortion with his wife due to "privacy and protests."

WBIR does not offer any details on the facility that carried out the late abortion, but a Google search revealed one listed in Chicago that commits abortions after 22 weeks: Hope Clinic.

Though a late abortion could be carried out at a hospital, the fact that WBIR mentioned the presence of protesters indicates that the couple's abortion was likely carried out at a designated abortion business.

Hope Clinic is an "all trimester" facility in Chicago that is sadly known for 911 calls due to injuries to its abortion clients.

“I walked her down the hall at the hotel into an Uber – I sat in a hotel room by myself – hoping my wife will show back up,” said Chancey about his concern over protestors and not being allowed to go with his wife.

With Hope Clinic's track record of botched abortions, this would be a valid concern.

Why It Matters:

Warning: Image of abortion victim below.

This story is tragic, first and foremost, because a couple learned their baby was more than likely going to die either during pregnancy or shortly after birth. The loss of life, especially the life of a new baby, is heart-wrenching. Add to that loss the misconceptions and misunderstandings that led to the baby's premature death by abortion, and it becomes even more tragic.

The Reality

Pro-abortion influencer Jessica Valenti took to social media to share her outrage that the couple traveled for an abortion.

"I want to make this clear," she said. "Her baby had no skull, no brain, fetal parts were floating around in her body, and she still did not legally qualify for an abortion in Tennessee. I need people to understand that this is what pro-life laws look like in practice."

Pro-life laws protect preborn babies from being intentionally killed; that's the point. But "fetal parts" do not 'float around' the mother's 'body.' Aside from the undeveloped skull, babies with anencephaly are whole, and are surrounded by the fluid-filled amniotic sac inside the mother's uterus. To say otherwise is inaccurate.

As described by Hope Clinic, abortions after 16 weeks "require one to two visits, depending on your individual circumstances and gestational age." It explains:

These procedures involve a combination of vacuum aspiration and dilation and evacuation (D&E).

On the first visit, you may receive medications or cervical dilators to begin softening and opening the cervix in preparation for the procedure. The second visit is typically when the surgical abortion takes place. D&E is a method that combines suction with specialized instruments to safely remove the pregnancy. Our experienced team will support you through every step, including pain management, emotional care, and post-procedure recovery.

The "specialized instruments" used to remove the baby in a D&E include a Sopher clamp that the abortionist uses to grip the baby's arms and legs and pull them off of the baby's body and out of the uterus one by one until he removes all of the pieces of the now-dead baby.

Here's former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino's description:

“Reach in again, pull again and pull out an arm… Sometimes a little face comes out and stares at you.”

This is when "fetal parts" may "float" around — when the baby is dismembered during the abortion procedure.

There is another option besides dismembering the baby diagnosed with anencephaly or letting a woman get incredibly sick or die if there are complications.

Carrying to Term and Palliative Care

Though babies with anencephaly are likely to die at or shortly after birth, palliative care is an option to make a child comfortable and protect him or her from suffering while being held and treasured by his/her parents in that short time outside the womb.

As explained by the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, which is a pro-abortion organization:

Perinatal palliative care refers to a coordinated care strategy that comprises options for obstetric and newborn care that include a focus on maximizing quality of life and comfort for newborns with a variety of conditions considered to be life-limiting in early infancy.

For the purposes of this document, the term 'life-limiting' includes lethal fetal conditions as well as others for which there is little or no prospect of long-term ex utero survival without severe morbidity or extremely poor quality of life, and for which there is no cure.

There are several perinatal care options in Tennessee for parents facing a life-limiting diagnosis for a preborn child, and the organization Be Not Afraid provides supports and resources to families as well.

Professor of Pediatrics, Eugene F. Diamond, explained that the loss of a child will be difficult regardless of when the child dies. Killing a child ahead of natural death will not alleviate pain; it will only hasten the child's death. Diamond wrote:

There is currently insufficient evidence for the therapeutic effect of such procedures. The parents of anencephalic children will need to be provided with long term support and counselling regardless of when the baby is born.

In fact, research shows it is actually beneficial to the mother to carry her baby to term following a prenatal diagnosis.

• In a study of 267 parents who lost a child due to a diagnosis of anencephaly, women who had abortions reported significantly more despair and depression than women who carried to term. Additional research on infant loss found that while any prenatal or infant loss is traumatic, “[r]isk of complicated grief was found to be especially high after termination of a pregnancy due to fetal abnormality.”

• In a study of 405 parents who carried to term following the prenatal diagnosis of a life-limiting condition, 97.5% of participants reported an absence of regret in carrying to term.

• Another study determined that “[c]ouples experienced selective termination as traumatic … [T]he women ultimately felt as if they were betraying themselves and their babies.”

If serious complications arise, inducing labor is legally allowed in Tennessee to protect the mother's health without dehumanizing or intentionally causing the death of the child.

Zoom Out:

The media doesn't often share stories of carrying to term with a baby with anencephaly; it goes against the narrative that abortion is necessary when children are diagnosed with certain health conditions in the womb.

But parents facing such a diagnosis often choose to carry to term and spend as much time as possible with their children.

Rachel Morrow and her husband spent the pregnancy with their son Ezra honoring him. Ultimately, Rachel was induced at 36 weeks to protect her own health. They held onto hope that he would be born alive, but he died during the delivery. Still, they never regretted the decision to carry him for as long as possible. They and their surviving children continue to honor his life.

Kari Williams learned that her daughter Marley had anencephaly. "To be told that her life was not compatible, I was devastated. Then [the doctor] suggested I induce the next day. And I looked at her. I gave her a funny look, and I said, ‘Do I have to?’ and she said no, but she thought it would be best since the baby wouldn’t survive and I had high blood pressure.” Williams refused to prematurely end Marley's life and carried her until her water broke at 34 weeks.

"When they told me she was breathing, I was so relieved. They told me she wouldn’t be born alive. So for her to be alive and breathing was amazing to me," she said.

Marley was able to meet her mother, father, brother, uncles, aunt, and grandmother in the five hours she lived after birth.

Gary and Amie Rohan were told that one of their twin girls had anencephaly. Willow Nevaeh died just five hours after being born.

“BOTH our babies are beautiful, precious human beings, with the only thing being that sadly one’s life is destined to be cut short," said Gary. On the twins' first birthday, the couple celebrated Bella Rae turning one and held a remembrance for Willow, calling it, "The most perfect day for our perfect girls.”

Sonia Morales learned that her preborn daughter Angela had anencephaly, but her skull wasn't completely open like some babies with the condition. Morales was offered an abortion but refused. "I knew I had to defend her right to life," she said, adding, “Even if it is a few minutes or hours, we are going to love her, and we’re going to make sure she is respected with dignity. And that’s what we did.” 

Angela lived for nearly four years after her birth. Morales considered herself "blessed" to have "extra time" with her daughter.

Joe and Ann Baker learned their daughter Ember had anencephaly and decided to travel with her while she was still in the womb, to build memories. After birth, Ember lived for just over an hour. “We loved her well, and it was life-changing for our whole family,” Baker said. “It’s just amazing to see this little baby. She was very peaceful, and it was just precious, just that little bit of time. She just felt loved.”

Andy and Stephanie Schoonover learned at 12 weeks that their daughter Grace had anencephaly. "[W]e wanted to give that baby life in whatever way that God intended that life to look," said Andy. Grace was born at 39 weeks and, to everyone's surprise, came out crying. Andy read books to her, she was baptized, and she lived for 10 and a half hours, settled peacefully on Stephanie's chest.

"It was a joyful time to be able to experience her life... We know for certain that she felt love," said Stephanie.

The Bottom Line:

When a preborn baby is most likely going to die at some point due to a health condition, abortion proponents tend to argue that aborting them is justified because they are going to die anyway. But a child's life is inherently valuable, regardless of disability or life expectancy, and should always be respected and cherished until its natural end.

Parents deserve to know that with expectant management, doctors can mitigate risks to the mother, and if a baby must be delivered early to protect the mother's life, this isn't legally considered an abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• Taiwan officials arrested a Chinese national and two Taiwanese individuals for operating an illegal surrogacy network.

• The network is known to have sold 25 children to 22 men; all were either single or involved in same-sex partnerships.

• The men used Thai surrogates, who traveled from Malaysia to Taiwan to give birth.

• The men were allowed to pay extra to choose the sex of their baby, and 84% (21 out of 25) of the babies were boys.

• Surrogacy is illegal in Taiwan.

The Details:

The Taichung District Prosecutors’ Office arrested a Chinese national named Cheng, along with Taiwanese nationals named Hsu and Wu, for their roles in operating the cross-border surrogacy ring.

According to the Taipei Times, the ring allegedly solicited clients online, charging between NT$2 million and NT$4.5 million (US $62,976 and US $141,697) per newborn.

What Investigators Found

• The surrogacy group advertised egg donors of different nationalities, ethnic backgrounds, educational levels, and occupations.

• Prospective clients were allowed to pay extra to choose the sex of their baby.

• These clients then traveled to Malaysia to donate sperm, while the egg donor provided her egg.

• There, the embryos were created via IVF and implanted into surrogate mothers.

• Those surrogates later traveled to Taiwan to give birth.

How The Perpetrators Were Caught

The ring was busted when the Taichung Special Operations Brigade of the National Immigration Agency noticed that several Thai women overstayed their permitted time in Taiwan after giving birth.

It was discovered that the women, all surrogates, had traveled to the country in their eighth month of pregnancy to give birth; their children were then delivered to Taiwanese men who had paid for their surrogacy services.

Police say they found 22 Taiwanese men had commissioned the births of 25 newborns through the surrogacy network; 84% (21 out of 25) of those newborns were boys.

The clients involved in this surrogacy scheme were all either single or involved in same-sex partnerships.

As the ring leaders, Cheng, Hsu, and Wu have all been charged with violating Taiwan's Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, which outlaws surrogacy. Two more Chinese nationals have also been implicated and are currently on a wanted list.

The Big Picture:

As investigators dismantle the surrogacy network, the biggest question is the legal status and parentage of the 25 newborns. Surrogacy is wrong because it views children as commodities, creating them at the whim of adults who feel entitled to have a baby.

Surrogacy is also a highly unregulated industry. Because there is virtually no oversight, anyone with the financial means to do so can essentially buy a child without any screening to ensure that child is going into a safe home.

Sadly, there are numerous instances of predators gaining unfettered access to children through surrogacy.

The Bottom Line:

Children are not products to be bought and used on demand. Surrogacy is a demeaning practice that caters solely to adults without offering children any safety or protection.

Key Takeaways:

• When Raquel Rose discovered she was pregnant, she decided to have an abortion.

• While attending Catholic Mass a few days before the scheduled abortion, she had a profound experience that led her to cancel her appointment.

• After telling her family and professors about her pregnancy, they each responded with support, helping Rose to realize that her fears about having a baby were unfounded.

• Today, she owns the Catholic lifestyle brand, "The Little Rose Shop."

The Details:

“I found out I was pregnant in a Chipotle bathroom. I was living with a roommate at the time, and I didn’t want there to be any way she could find [the pregnancy test] in the bathroom," Racquel Rose told Live Action News:

“The moment that I saw the two lines, it literally felt like all my insides dropped out of me. Have you ever had one of those nightmares where you’re falling off a cliff into black nothingness and that sheer panic? That’s literally what it felt like. I was so scared, horrified. ... I think I was under spiritual attack, all that shame, embarrassment, fear.” 

Having been an athlete in high school and a star student throughout college, pregnancy was not part of Rose's plans. She was not in a relationship with her child’s father, and she feared disappointing her family, friends, and the young women in her Bible study. 

She explained, “I basically went into deep depression, despair, isolation. There was not a single person that I told. It felt like a spiritual attack where you’re just alone with yourself, and you’re spiraling.”  

Having been raised in the Catholic faith and with pro-life values, Rose acknowledged, “In my head, I knew that abortion was not a good choice to make. But in my heart, I felt like I had no other choice and I was so panicked and not thinking clearly. After a few days of being so sick to my stomach, I called and scheduled an abortion.”

The moment that changed everything

About a week before Rose’s abortion appointment, she went to Mass, which was serendipitous, or providential, given that she called her faith at the time “not that deep.”

Feeling ashamed of the secret she carried within her, she stood in the back of the church and “felt like such a hypocrite.” All the same, “I stayed, and everything felt like it was directed straight at me. The reading was the story of the Prodigal Son, and I felt like I was the Prodigal Daughter.”

But the moment that changed everything came during the consecration, when (according to Catholic belief) the priest consecrates the bread and wine, and they become the Body and Blood of Jesus Himself. “When the priest raised the Host, I felt like Jesus pierced my heart and said, ‘I love you. Your brokenness is not too much for me, and I love you.’"  

At the exact same time, shimmering evening light shone through the stained glass windows, and Rose felt a sense of hope welling up within her, thinking about how “stained glass windows are a bunch of broken pieces of glass put back together to make something beautiful.” 

She shared, “It was this really big consolation in my heart, and for the first time I felt this little speck of hope in my heart, ‘ok, maybe I don’t have to go through with this.’” 

She canceled her abortion.

Telling her family and friends

Rose felt convicted about telling her parents the news next. She considers it a blessing that her mom was out of town at the time because “I don’t know if I would have had the strength to tell her in person.”

On the phone, she poured out the news, telling her mom, “I’m so sorry, I didn’t mean to disappoint you like this.” 

Her mom paused. 

And then she responded, “Raquel, I love you, I love you, I love you.” 

When Rose went on to tell her dad and brother, “They basically had the same reaction.” 

Summing up the responses of her family and close friends and even her professors, Rose said, “In those moments, my fear basically got squashed. All this fear that had been swirling in my head, I was like, ‘ok, that was a lie.’”

Far from the judgment, condemnation, and condescension that she’d feared, Rose received unwavering support from those closest to her, including a baby shower thrown by her college friends. 

When she saw the ultrasound, she realized she already loved her baby

Rose and her mom went together to a pregnancy resource center for a free ultrasound. When she saw her baby on the screen, she said, “It was another consolation to me because in those moments when I was isolated, depressed, and alone, I felt like life was just black and white. There was no more color.” 

But the stained glass windows in the church “felt like color coming back into my life.” Similarly, when she saw the color on the black-and-white ultrasound screen to indicate her jellybean-sized baby’s heart muscle pumping, “it was just another moment where I was like, ‘There is color here. There can be color with choosing life.’” 

That was “also the moment when I realized, ‘I love this baby.’ When I saw her, it was clear to me, ‘I love her so much.’” 

As a student-mother, her life changed

Unsurprisingly, Rose’s life changed in multiple ways after she welcomed her daughter just before midterms during her senior year of college.

Her professors at the mid-size state school she was attending accommodated her with virtual class attendance (long before the days of COVID mainstreamed virtual attendance and classes).

She was also able to graduate on time as originally anticipated. 

Less spontaneity, more meaning

But there were real changes, too, like moving back in with her parents for support as she navigated new motherhood. Having a new baby, with all the accompanying responsibilities, sleep deprivation, and need for creative multitasking, meant less free time for spontaneous or late-night hangouts with friends. 

Still, Rose took the changes in stride. 

When her daughter was born, she wondered, “What was I so afraid of? She’s perfect, and I love her so much. All of this was worth it to hold her in my arms.”

And while college is stereotypically a time of self-centeredness, “focusing on my dreams and plans,” Rose learned, “Not everything is about me; the world does not revolve around me. And there’s real sacrifice to be made, but it’s worth it because there’s someone else that you care about and you love, and it’s a much more fulfilling way to live when you’re not only living for yourself.” 

What's Happening Now:

The major life shift of becoming a new mother combined with the spiritual reawakening had major implications for the life Rose lives today.

Seeking to take ownership of her faith, and to incorporate it daily in ways her young daughter could receive, Rose began making coffee mugs with prayers on them, baby blankets and swaddle blankets with Scripture, and other religiously-themed versions of ordinary high-touch household items.

Eventually, she founded The Little Rose Shop, which grew over time into a multimillion-dollar business. Rose marvels that the beauty and blessings, both personal and professional, in her life today followed those two terrifying pink lines so many years ago. 

Rose responded immediately and confidently when asked what she’d share with other young women experiencing unplanned pregnancy:

“I would tell her to not be alone. Do not be afraid of reaching out to some trusted people. You don’t have to do this alone. You’re not meant to do it alone. Don’t let your mind fool you that you’re all alone in this, because you’re not.

Once you find some people to open up to, you’ll realize that there are so many people who are in your corner and want to help you. It will be hard, but it will be worth it.”

Key Takeaways:

• An Ohio judge has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Issue 1, which established a "right" to abortion in the state's constitution.

• The judge did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit, which claimed that the constitution could only be changed by a constitutional convention, but instead ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.

The Backstory:

In 2023, Ohio voters passed Issue 1, an amendment that enshrined the "right" to abortion in the Ohio state constitution, eliminating the state's law protecting preborn children from abortion beginning at six weeks.

In May 2026,  Representative Levi Dean, Representative Jennifer Gross, and Lebanon City Council Member Kristen Eggars, filed a lawsuit against Issue 1, arguing that its passage was unconstitutional.

In their legal challenge, the plaintiffs noted that in order to change multiple portions of the state's constitution — which they maintain is what Issue 1 did — the constitution itself states the correct process for such a change is to hold a constitutional convention.

Janet Porter, president of Faith2Action, noted at the time:

As explained by a landmark California Supreme Court decision concerning a ballot process nearly identical to Ohio's, a voter-enacted ballot initiative is invalid whenever fundamental constitutional rights are implicated.

The Details:

On September 22, Butler County Common Pleas Judge J. Gregory Howard dismissed the lawsuit. Howard did not rule on the merits of the legal challenge, but instead determined that Dean, Gross, and Eggars lacked standing to bring the suit in the first place, as they couldn't argue that they were personally harmed by the new amendment.

Howard said that because Dean and Gross had brought their suit as private individuals, rather than in their roles as public lawmakers, they could not argue that the amendment infringed upon their ability to enact abortion-related laws.

He also dismissed a claim from Eggars that the amendment infringed upon her right to prevent her minor daughters from getting abortions without her parental consent.

"Plaintiff Eggers does not allege that either of her daughters are pregnant or likely to be, or that they would likely seek an abortion without parental consent. Plaintiff's pure speculation does not establish individualized injury sufficient for standing," Howard wrote.

Baby Levi was born at only 25 weeks and six days’ gestation after his mother, Taytum, was diagnosed with a subchorionic haemorrhage, which occurs when blood collects between the uterine wall and the fetus’s amniotic sac. 

While doctors initially expected this haemorrhage to resolve itself by the second trimester, it continued to grow and a second haemorrhage developed, increasing the likelihood that Taytum would experience a preterm labour. 

Taytum went into early labour, but her placenta abruptly separated from the uterus, requiring an emergency caesarean section. 

Nick, Levi’s father, could not believe how quickly the baby was born after Taytum went into labour, saying, “I just saw a baby and had no idea. I couldn’t imagine that they got him out that fast”.

Taytum was taken into surgery to stop the bleeding, while her newborn baby was brought to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and intubated. 

“I was in shock from seeing my wife go under and meeting my son for the first time all within 30 minutes”, Nick said. 

Baby Levi would remain in the NICU for the next 135 days, with both parents visiting their son separately and together at various times throughout each day. 

“The first day we left the hospital and left him there was a really weird empty feeling”, Levi’s father revealed, adding, “You feel guilty for leaving him. He’s so innocent, you wanna help him, but there’s nothing you can really do”.

After spending such a long time in the NICU, Taytum recalled that the doctors and nurses now “know us better than our family and friends”. 

“They’ve seen us at this level that no one else ever has”, she said.

Life in the NICU is “a rollercoaster, ”baby’s family says

The first months of baby Levi’s life were not plain sailing. He experienced several complications while in the NICU, including bradycardia, a slower-than-normal heartbeat, which required additional monitoring periods.

Nick said “The NICU, you’ll hear, it’s kind of cliché at this point, but everyone says there’s ups and downs, it’s a roller coaster”. 

“We found […] it’s even more of a rollercoaster. It can change hour to hour”, he said.

Taytum’s goal was for her baby boy to be home with her for Mother’s Day, revealing that she felt like the family “missed out on so many holidays and just spent them in the walls of the hospital”.

Eventually, after over four months in hospital, Levi was able to go home, and it was Mother’s Day the very next day; Taytum described the day as “amazing”.

Now, baby Levi is growing well at home, marking a distinct milestone in his development. Previously, the baby boy was barely registering on the growth chart, but has recently reached the third percentile. 

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “Baby Levi’s story shows the true strength of all premature infants, and his development is a testament to the dedication of his family, and all the doctors and nurses who cared for him”.

“We hope the family continues to enjoy their time together at home”.

Key Takeaways:

• A report from the Congressional Budget Office found the U.S. population will stop growing by 2056.

• After the U.S. fertility rate peaked in 2007 at 2.12 births per woman, it has steadily declined.

• In 2024, the fertility rate declined to just 1.60 births per woman, far below the replacement rate of 2.1

• CBO projections put the fertility rate at 1.58 births per woman in 2026, and 1.53 births per woman in 2036, with that low rate remaining for the following 20 years.

• The U.S. population's growth is projected to slow to zero in 2056, then begin to shrink in the following years.

The Details:

Each year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) makes 30-year population projections based on existing laws, policies, and demographic trends. This year’s report is based on data and policies as of September 30, 2025. The report provides valuable insight into the relationship between population, policy, and economy, and helps the government assess potential policies and actions.

This year’s population report from the CBO reveals a dangerously low U.S. fertility rate and holds a bleak forecast for the US population over the next few decades.

Since peaking in 2007 at 2.12 births per woman (barely above the replacement rate of 2.1), the US fertility rate dropped to just 1.60 births per woman in 2024. This drop is due in part to the steep decline in births among women under the age of 25. The CBO report projects that the fertility rate will drop even further this year to 1.58 births per woman. Projections show that in 2036, the birth rate will drop to 1.53 births per woman, and that rate will hold fairly steady for the following 20 years.

The CBO predicts that over the next 30 years, the U.S. population will grow older on average, with births falling short of deaths beginning in the year 2030. 

Why it Matters:

The report offers a grim prediction:

Over time, the negative net contribution of births and deaths increasingly offsets the positive contribution of net immigration, until population growth slows to zero in 2056. The population is projected to shrink thereafter.

Immigration is currently offsetting the low birth rate among Americans. Foreign-born mothers have a higher fertility rate than native-born American women, and nearly 25% of all U.S. births are now to immigrant women. 

Key Takeaways:

• The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a block on a provision of a Tennessee law that made it a felony to 'recruit' a minor for an out-of-state abortion.

• The plaintiffs challenging the law, Rep. Aftyn Behn and Rachel Welty, argued that the provision violated their right to free speech.

• In 2025, a judge blocked that portion of the state law. The state then appealed.

• The appeals court upheld the 2025 ruling.

The Backstory:

In 2024, Rep. Aftyn Behn and family law attorney Rachel Welty filed a lawsuit against a Tennessee law that prohibits the abortion trafficking of minors. The duo, who refer to themselves as "abortion advocates," argued that a portion of the law violated their First Amendment right to free speech, as they felt it prevented them from "counseling" pregnant minors about how to obtain abortions across state lines without parental permission.

In July 2025, Judge Julia Gibbons from the Sixth Circuit Court overturned that portion of the state's law, striking the provision that made it a felony for anyone to “recruit” a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental consent. Gibbons ruled that a prohibition on "recruitment" was a violation of the right to free speech.

The law’s other provisions, which make it illegal to transport a minor out of state for an abortion, remained.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti then appealed that ruling.

The Details:

In a 2-1 September 24 ruling, the three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Gibbons' ruling. Judge Jane Stranch said the state's law “criminalizes speech that encourages a minor to get an abortion yet is silent on speech encouraging a minor to carry a pregnancy to term with or without parental involvement.”

She also said the state had “no compelling interest in shielding its citizens from information about activities outside its borders.”

“The Recruitment Provision goes further than regulating the content of Welty’s and Behn’s protected speech," Stranch wrote. “It also restricts what opinions or perspectives they may express.” 

The Bottom Line:

One of the law's supporters, Rep. Jason Zachary, previously commented that the lawsuit challenging the law was an attack on parental rights.

“The law in question is about parental rights, period,” he said on X. “The language prohibits an adult who is not the parent/guardian of a minor from facilitating an abortion for that minor without the parent’s consent. This is common sense. Unfortunately, the radical left’s obsession with aborting babies led to this legal challenge.”

Key Takeaways:

• Katie Murphy and her partner Stephen Kirby went to the hospital to give birth to their baby but were told they had come in too soon.

• They left, but later that day headed back to the hospital. This time, they were too late.

• Baby Cody was born in the parking lot of a KFC before paramedics could arrive.

• He earned himself the nickname "Colonel Cody" for his unique entrance into the world.

The Details:

Katie Murphy, 33, had begun experiencing labor pains at home the morning of August 29 when her partner, Stephen Kirby, 32, drove her to the hospital. The hospital sent Murphy home, telling her it was too early for her to deliver the baby. But Murphy’s labor pains continued and the couple headed to the hospital again that evening. 

But the baby wouldn't wait.

“My water broke and…as we had to ring an ambulance, my partner could only get into the KFC car park, and I gave birth at KFC car park before the ambulances could get here, in the front seat,” Murphy recalled.

Kirby caught his son just as he was born, the couple said.

Ambulance staff soon arrived on the scene.

“Thankfully, the ambulances arrived shortly after and the amazing staff took us to the hospital directly, with my shell-shocked partner following closely behind us in the car,” said Murphy.

Baby Cody weighed a healthy 7 pounds, 8 ounces and quickly became a favorite of the midwifery staff, who ordered KFC in his honor, Murphy recounted.

“It was decided that we have to take him to KFC for his first birthday and get him his first weekend job there,” Murphy said.

Inspired by his unique birthplace, Cody’s parents have come up with a special nickname for him — Colonel Cody — after Colonel Harland Sanders, the founder of KFC.

“We call him Colonel Cody, and I think that nickname will definitely stick with him for life… It was definitely not the birth I expected, but it was worth every bit of pain, and now he has a very weird story to tell his school friends when he grows up,” Murphy said.

KFC staff are also celebrating Cody’s birth.

"We're honored to have been the place of Cody's birth and are sending bucket loads of love to the whole family, along with some KFC merch and vouchers to help them celebrate,” stated a member of the KFC team.

Cody has joined his four-year-old big sister at home, and the happy parents are thankful for the first responders and hospital staff who made sure mom and baby were well cared for.

Zoom Out:

Cody is not the first baby to be born in a restaurant parking lot.

Analysia Beck gave birth to her son Micah in the snow at a Wisconsin McDonald's parking lot. Baby Micah was fittingly dubbed "Little McFlurry."

Sha’nya Bennett gave birth outside of a Krispy Kreme in Alabama. Krispy Kreme promised baby Dallas a yearly birthday party until adulthood.

Michelle Cisneros gave birth to her daughter Valentina in the parking lot of a Jack in the Box restaurant in California.

“In life, there are a lot of things you can prepare for,” Valentina's father, Darren Campbell, said. “You can’t prepare for delivering your child in the passenger seat of your car.”

Key Takeaways:

• A new video ad campaign in Spain tells women it's "okay" to have an abortion.

• The campaign also reminds regional governments that they are required by law to offer abortions at public healthcare centers.

• There is never a "right" to take an innocent human life.

The Details:

The campaign, which has the slogan, "You have the right to an abortion and to have one in the public healthcare system," was touted by Minister of Health leader, Mónica García. García said the ad is meant to demonstrate that having an abortion is "okay," and women shouldn't feel bad about choosing to end the lives of their preborn children.

“There isn’t just one way to experience and talk about abortion. Some feel relief, sadness, doubt, while others are certain. Every woman has the right to experience it without anyone imposing on her how,” García said.

In the video ad, a young woman talks about the different feelings that may occur when a woman discovers she is pregnant, saying:

"Maybe you'll get excited and talk about it with your family, or maybe not. Maybe you'll be sure, or maybe not. Maybe they'll want to make you feel guilty, or maybe they'll support you along the way. Then, maybe you'll decide to have the baby, or maybe not. Maybe you'll decide to have an abortion. And that's okay. 

Think what you think, feel what you feel and decide what you decide, everything will be fine. Because you have the right to have an abortion and to do it in the public system.”

García said she wants women to understand they can "talk openly" about abortion.

"This campaign was created to tell them that they have the right to decide, and the public healthcare system has the obligation to support them," she said.

The campaign launched on September 22, and the video is projected to air "soon" on Spanish media.

Zoom In:

Part of the ad campaign's intent is to ensure that regional governments know they are required by law to commit abortions in public healthcare centers.

Despite the law, the majority of abortions currently happen in private clinics. According to data shared on elDiario, 78% of abortions were performed in private clinics under contract with the government in 2024.

García said this shows “how much progress still needs to be made” to expand abortion access in the country.

The Bottom Line:

Despite the propaganda, abortion is not a personal healthcare decision — it's the taking of an innocent human life. There is no circumstance or situation in which a woman and her doctor have the "right" to end the life of a preborn child.

Key Takeaways:

• Anastasia Rogers was arrested outside of a San Francisco Planned Parenthood facility last year.

• Two months prior, a warrant had been issued for her arrest over a video she filmed outside of the facility, which prosecutors alleged violated the FACE Act.

• Rogers' first trial ended in a mistrial after jurors could not come to a unanimous decision.

• The San Francisco Attorney General initially sought a retrial, but all charges have now been dropped.

The Backstory:

In December of 2025, Anastasia Rogers was arrested outside of a Planned Parenthood facility in San Francisco, California while peacefully advocating for preborn children and handing out pamphlets, which police admitted she was legally allowed to do, as she was not within the 25-foot buffer zone area.

According to Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, Rogers was "was handcuffed and taken into custody for simply distributing pregnancy resource pamphlets. She was not obstructing access, making threats, or violating the law. The arrest is based on a false allegation from an on duty Planned Parenthood security guard."

Yet officers said Rogers had an existing warrant out for her arrest, related to a video she had previously uploaded to social media, which Planned Parenthood said was an example of "intimidation," and therefore, violated California's FACE Act.

The video, which can be seen below, was said to contain "threatening language" due to Rogers' use of the phrase "unalive them" in reference to what happens to preborn babies inside the Planned Parenthood facility. A protective order was also placed against her, barring her from continuing sidewalk outreach.

Rogers was represented by the Life Legal Defense Foundation. “ What she was trying to communicate was what the escorts do is ‘unalive’ their children, and given complications that can result from abortions gone wrong, actually injure or sometimes even kill the women who are going in,” Rogers' counsel Michael Millen told KQED.

The Details:

Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust released a statement saying that all charges have been dropped, and the protective order has been lifted.

In Rogers' first trial, a judge declared a mistrial after the jury could not come to a unanimous decision. As Live Action News previously reported:

Nine of the 12 jurors found Rogers not guilty of distributing a social media video with the intent to intimidate, while 10 of the 12 jurors found her not guilty of videotaping an abortion facility escort with the intent to intimidate.

However, the San Francisco District Attorney's Office announced it would seek a retrial.

“In my years as a criminal trial attorney, I have never seen or heard of the prosecution re-trying a case after ten jurors voted to acquit the defendant,” Allison Aranda, Life Legal Director of Criminal Litigation and one of Rogers' attorneys, said.

Now, prosecutors have apparently abandoned their strategy of retrying a case that already seems they would have likely lost for a second time.

The Bottom Line:

Pro-lifers were heavily targeted under the federal FACE Act by the Biden administration — though in this instance, at least, a miscarriage of justice was avoided.

Key Takeaways:

• Idaho voters will decide on Proposition 1 in November.

• The ballot initiative will create a "right" to abortion in the currently pro-life state.

• Almost $2 million has been put towards the initiative in the last week, largely from out-of-state dark money groups and billionaires.

The Backstory:

Idaho is one of four states with abortion on the ballot this November. Voters will decide on Proposition 1, the ballot language for which was approved earlier this month.

Currently, most preborn children are protected from abortion in Idaho; if passed, Proposition 1 would undo that law, and establish a "right" to abortion before viability for any reason, and after viability in cases of "medical emergency."

Idahoans United for Women & Families, a pro-abortion group, is behind the initiative, and received over 110,000 signatures, far more than the 70,725 minimum requirement for it to be placed on the ballot.

This is the language Idaho voters will see on the ballot:

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

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

The Details:

Boise Public Radio reported that $1.8 million has been donated to fund the initiative this week, and the money appears to have largely come from out-of-state donors.

• Government That Works PAC gave the most significant amount of $600,000. It is a dark money group which does not disclose its donors and has ties to George Soros, a billionaire with a long history of funding abortion groups and initiatives. The PAC has also been linked to Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, who was previously sued for his dark money funding of abortion initiatives.

Other billionaires, including those below, also donated:

• Gwendolyn Sontheim Meyer is a billionaire heiress whose great-great-grandfather was William Wallace Cargill, the founder of Cargill. She lives in California, not Idaho, and donated $250,000; she previously made even larger donations to pass a pro-abortion initiative in Ohio.

• Jill Grossman is another donor who gave a quarter of a million dollars. She likewise does not appear to live in Idaho, and is a known donor and supporter of Planned Parenthood.

• Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, might be the most notable donor. Bloomberg is a billionaire who has donated to numerous abortion efforts across the country. He is a real estate investor with properties around the globe, including in Florida, Bermuda, the Hamptons, New York City, and London.

  Bloomberg previously funded an abortion effort in Kansas, giving $1.25 million to defeat a pro-life amendment, and made other large donations to pro-abortion efforts in Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. He also has donated millions to Planned Parenthood, and has expressed hostility toward pregnant employees, who have alleged that he complained if they became pregnant. In at least one instance, he allegedly told a pregnant employee to “kill it,” in reference to her preborn child.

The Bottom Line:

Like some other pro-abortion amendments passed since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the move to pass Proposition 1 seems to be a move by out-of-state billionaires instead of a grassroots effort.

Key Takeaways:

• U.S. Army veteran Haotian Bai is accused of running a surrogacy business catering to Chinese intended parents who are seeking to raise children who have US citizenship.

• Patriot Conceptions offers both an English and Chinese version of its website, and uses a China-based app to communicate with prospective clients.

• One of the clients is allegedly Xu Bo, a Chinese billionaire who has allegedly fathered 100 to 300 children through surrogacy.

• Issues with Chinese adults commissioning babies through U.S. surrogates have been raising concerns about a potential national security threat.

The Details:

The surrogacy agency, Patriot Conceptions, was founded and is run by U.S. Army veteran Haotian Bai. The agency has been accused of hiding details regarding the genetic, intended parents of the babies from the surrogates who are paid to carry them.

Those surrogates are allegedly found through social media, and are paid between $60,000 and $120,000 dollars each for the use of their uteruses to carry babies for wealthy Chinese couples who want babies that will be considered American citizens.

One of those surrogates, "Judy," said she carried a baby for Xu after responding to an Instagram ad for Patriot Conceptions.

Patriot Conceptions is based in Irvine, California, but the children are typically taken to China to be raised after birth, according to The Post, which also reported that having an American-born child who is able to claim U.S. citizenship is "seen as a status symbol among the wealthy" in China.

In 2024, Bai said that about 40% of his surrogacy clients were "international." However, the Post reviewed Patriot Conceptions' promotional materials and found that most of those "international" clients are from China.

There are both Chinese and English versions of the company's website, and it uses WeChat, China's messaging app, to connect with clients. Intended parents travel to the U.S. on tourist visas, create their embryos, and have them implanted into American women.

They can also create embryos in China and ship them to the U.S. to be implanted in American surrogates.

The Backstory:

The Post reported that Bai came to the U.S. in 2012 to attend Iowa State University. After graduation, he "joined the Army to get citizenship." At that time, non-citizens were allowed to join in a deal that got them fast-tracked for Green Cards.

“The Army was recruiting Chinese students to join the officers program. When he joined the military, I was proud of the guy. He seemingly did extremely well in the military,” a source told the Post about Bai.

But later, while living in Hawaii, Bai was accused of selling Hawaiian legislative internships to students from China.

Hawaii House of Representatives member Matthew LoPresti, whose office worked with sensitive national defense information, told the Post, "All of a sudden, I started getting these Chinese interns... assigned to my office somehow. I still don't really understand how that happened... I didn't ask for them or approve them."

This was around the same time frame as the 2018 false ballistic missile threat alert that was sent from the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, said The Post.

By 2019, Bai was running Pacific Surrogacy, another U.S.-based agency that worked with Chinese intended parents. All of the company's finances were based in China, according to The Post. Bai also ran an app called TrustUS that was created to facilitate international bank transfers.

Zoom Out:

Patriot Conceptions is not the first surrogacy agency to come under fire for marketing its 'services' specifically to Chinese citizens.

In a July press release, Expecting.Ai, which is based in Israel, announced the launch of...

[t]he largest Chinese-language surrogate database designed for intended parents seeking U.S. surrogacy options. At launch, the database includes hundreds of ready-to-match surrogate profiles from vetted U.S. surrogacy agencies across the country.... The new Chinese-language database allows intended parents from China and Chinese-speaking families worldwide to review U.S. surrogate profiles, understand key profile details, and inquire about specific surrogates directly through the Expecting.Ai platform.

In 2025, it was revealed that Xu had fathered as many as 300 children through American surrogates. When a judge noticed his name appearing on repeated parental rights applications, including for four preborn babies at the same time, she denied his applications.

But Xu was able to successfully appeal that decision. Xu's name came up as a client of Patriot Conceptions.

In addition, one surrogacy agency was deemed a "national security threat" in 2025, and is being federally investigated for the neglect of babies. Future Springs Fertility was found to have 21 babies in the home of the "intended parents," Guojun Xuan and Silvia Zhange, who had created the agency. Those babies were removed from their care, but others had allegedly already been taken to China.

In Florida earlier this year, surrogate Kyla Simpson made headlines when she revealed she had given birth to triplets for a single man in China who had not come to get the children nearly two years after their births. She decided to fight for custody after two men whom she had never met showed up at her home attempting to retrieve the children for the intended father, Chen Zhou.

And, as reported by the Post (emphasis added):

Earlier this year, The Post blew the lid off thousands of Chinese women who’ve turned the Northern Mariana Islands into a birth-tourism factory—paying up to $45,000 so their babies automatically become US citizens—exploiting a loophole that has produced an estimated 1.5 million American children now being raised in China.

They will one day be able to vote and sponsor relatives through chain migration.

The Bottom Line:

Babies born on American soil get American citizenship and valid American passports, giving them unrestricted access to the United States.

Legislators are currently concerned that Chinese parents are flocking to pay American women to carry their babies, who are then raised in China under the Chinese Communist Party. They can then come back to the United States later and potentially acquire sensitive government jobs.

The American fertility industry is largely unregulated, with no required background checks on intended parents. It has led to concerns of child sexual abusers creating children whom they will have full access to, and now, the lack of regulations could have caused a national security threat.

The UK News Letter reported, "But to the pleasure of several hundred people gathered outside the front gates of city hall, as the sun went down the building was lit with its standard lights." The publication added, "There may still be a chance the illumination could happen at a later date, however, and political wrangling over the issue is likely to continue."

9/26/26: Belfast City Hall is unlikely to be lit up green in honor of abortion as planned next week.

Key Takeaways:

• A Belfast City Council committee voted in favor of lighting the building up green in honor of Safe Abortion Day on September 28.

• That decision was later finalized with a full vote from the city council, despite a petition opposing the move submitted with over 20,000 signatures.

• The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) used a call-in procedure to halt the lighting, and it is now unlikely to take place on September 28 as planned.

The Backstory:

International Safe Abortion Day is commemorated annually on September 28, and earlier this month, the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee of the Belfast City Council voted to light up the Belfast City Hall building green to commemorate it. The request was made by the National Women's Council of Ireland, which claimed:

International Safe Abortion Day is a global day of action to demand access to safe and legal abortion care everywhere. The day highlights the public health importance of ensuring access to safe and legal abortion care for all those who need it.

A full council vote was held the next day, and the lighting was formally approved, even though a petition had been submitted with 20,000 signatures opposing the display.

The Details:

The BBC reported that a last-minute maneuver has likely stopped the lighting of Belfast City Hall from taking place on September 28th as planned, after the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) used a call-in procedure to put a stop to it.

As the BBC explained:

A "call-in" can be requested by 15% of councillors, if they believe a decision was not properly considered - known as procedural grounds - or that it would disproportionately affect a section of the district, also known as community impact grounds.

The council can then ask a lawyer to examine the decision.

The Belfast City Council is challenging the procedure, but as a decision is unlikely to be made on the issue before Monday, it seems that the lighting is unlikely to take place.

Precious Life, a pro-life group based in Northern Ireland, welcomed the news, but said it still plans to hold a protest outside City Hall on Monday.

“We’ve seen huge numbers sign petitions, and online polls show huge majorities against this disturbing decision, yet the majority of the Council members wanted to celebrate abortion,” the group said in a statement.  “That hasn’t changed."

The Bottom Line:

The very notion of safe abortion is an oxymoron, as every successful abortion takes a human life, while countless more women are injured, traumatized, and killed.

Yet in October 2021, she and her sister, Christie, found themselves scrambling against a Canadian healthcare system that had approved Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) for their mother, Donna, even as undeniable signs of psychiatric distress emerged. 

Key Takeaways:

• Alicia Duncan and her sister, Christie, were powerless to stop the Canadian MAiD machine that rushed their suicidal mother toward medically-assisted death.

• Duncan's book, "The Other Side of the Straitjacket," recounts her mother's story, which is a cautionary tale for those who believe assisted dying can ever be made safe through application of procedural safeguards.

• It is a horror story showing how little oversight and examination are required for a person to be approved for death, and how stopping the euthanasia process of a loved one once it has begun — regardless of objections, concerns, or medical evidence presented — is largely impossible.

• Duncan believes, "No one should become eligible for death because appropriate care is unaffordable, unavailable locally, or subject to an impossible wait. A treatment has not failed if the person was never able to receive it. The healthcare system failed.” 

The Details:

Donna, a retired psychiatric nurse, had no terminal illness but grappled with intense anxiety, paranoia, malnutrition, and the lasting aftermath of a concussion. Though she made clear to her daughters that she did not wish to die, she just could not “live like this anymore,” according to Duncan. 

Ultimately, Canada’s healthcare system interpreted Donna’s anguish as a clinical verdict rather than a cry for support.

Just four hours after her release from an involuntary psychiatric detention triggered by a suicide attempt, Donna was euthanized, to her daughters' horror. 

Donna’s experience, now recounted in Alicia’s memoir, “The Other Side of the Straitjacket,” stands as a chilling cautionary tale to those who assume assisted dying can be rendered safe solely by adding procedural safeguards.

Her case discloses how swiftly a care-oriented system can morph into one of expediency—presenting death as the answer to pain that might otherwise have been tackled through treatment. 

The Backstory:

The Final Days: A Family’s Desperate Intervention

Donna’s deterioration started following a car crash and concussion in February 2020.

By autumn 2021, she was consuming only about 800 calories daily, leaving her physically weakened and mentally unsteady. Her family’s long-standing doctor declined to evaluate her for MAiD, convinced she was not nearing a terminal condition.

Still, Donna persisted, and within days she obtained approval from two MAiD assessors—one of them a nurse practitioner who saw her just once before signing the authorization

Duncan and her sister discovered the planned procedure on October 24, with the procedure scheduled for October 26. They swiftly reached out to the hospital, the assessing clinicians, and law enforcement, pleading for the process to be paused so a thorough psychiatric assessment could take place.  

“We told them she was in crisis and asked them to stop the process long enough for her to receive a proper psychiatric assessment,” Duncan told Live Action News.

Following legal advice, the sisters secured an emergency court injunction.

A judge agreed there was enough evidence to question Donna’s capacity, temporarily delayed her MAiD procedure, and ordered a psychiatric assessment. 

Upon learning her death had been postponed, Donna tried to take her own life.

She was then admitted to the same psychiatric ward she had once overseen and was placed under a 48-hour involuntary hold. However, when she was discharged on October 29, hospital staff were aware she planned to go home and follow through with MAiD.

About four hours later, she was euthanized. 

Safeguards That Failed: The Illusion of Protection

Donna’s case laid bare the dangerous divide between what is technically “legal” and what is genuinely “ethically secure,” Duncan maintained. 

Police launched an unprecedented investigation into her death in Canada, only to shut it down—not because all actions involved were lawful, but because evidence was regarded as inadequate. 

Meanwhile, Fraser Health Authority refused to grant Donna’s MAiD assessment files to Duncan, in her role as executor, or to investigators, invoking privacy statutes that needed Donna’s consent—even though she had already died.

Such a situation gave rise to a self-reinforcing loop of non-accountability: the documents necessary for scrutiny were withheld, the inquiry was dropped for lack of proof, and that very dismissal was later cited as confirmation that no wrongdoing had taken place.

The chronology alone displayed how readily safeguards can be circumvented. Donna's daughters had just 48 hours to act.

“It reveals how quickly a scheduled death can become almost impossible to challenge,” Duncan told Live Action News, adding: 

“They managed to secure a temporary injunction, but even that did not produce a coordinated clinical response to an escalating psychiatric crisis. We managed to secure a temporary injunction, but even that did not create a coordinated clinical response to what was clearly an escalating psychiatric crisis.

Most disturbing was that her suicide attempt and involuntary psychiatric detention did not end the MAiD process. She moved from a psychiatric hold to an assisted death within hours  of leaving the hospital. 

Families should not have a veto over a capable adult's medical decisions. But when a family  brings forward credible evidence of suicidality, impaired judgment, coercion, or untreated mental illness, there must be an independent mechanism capable of stopping the process. 

In Canada, we discovered that the safeguards were largely controlled by the same people whose decisions we were questioning."

Zoom Out:

Dangerous Expansion: MAiD for Mental Illness

As of the time of reporting, Canada has postponed—but not scrapped—its proposal to extend MAiD eligibility to individuals whose only underlying condition is a mental illness, with rollout still slated for March 2027. 

In view of this, Duncan believes that this planned expansion ought to be halted permanently. After all, medical professionals lack the ability to definitively judge whether a psychiatric condition is untreatable or to forecast that someone will never recover, she reasoned.  

Although psychological distress can be profound and long-lasting, prognoses remain inherently uncertain—and feelings of despair may themselves be manifestations of the disorder under evaluation, she noted. 

Recounting Donna’s case, Duncan said:

“She was approved despite serious psychiatric symptoms and a suicide attempt immediately before she died. If the existing regime could not safely distinguish those states in her case, expanding eligibility directly on the basis of mental illness would be extraordinarily dangerous.” 

MAiD as System Failure

Duncan says she views her mother's death as a "system failure," adding:

"MAiD became the answer before the causes of her desperation had been properly addressed. She was not choosing between death and meaningful, accessible care. She was trying to escape a condition she believed would never improve.

Compassion is not always agreeing with a person at their lowest point. Sometimes it means staying with them through the crisis and refusing to treat their hopelessness as a final prognosis.” 

Duncan added:

“My mother's case demonstrates that the current Canadian system already struggles to  distinguish suicidality from a reasoned request for assisted death. She was approved despite serious psychiatric symptoms and a suicide attempt immediately before she died. If the existing regime could not safely distinguish those states in her case, expanding eligibility directly on the basis of mental illness would be extraordinarily dangerous."

Instead, what Donna needed was coordinated psychiatric and medical treatment: a comprehensive assessment, nutritional rehabilitation, specialist follow-up for post-concussion cognitive changes, and time to stabilize. 

The Big Picture:

Growing numbers of international watchdogs cite Canada as a warning about the perils of assisted suicide, but Duncan noted parallel patterns in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, select regions of Australia, and an expanding roster of U.S. states.

Yet the most alarming shift extends beyond legislation—it’s cultural.

Dignity, once regarded as an intrinsic quality belonging to every person, is now often framed as a matter of judgment. When someone is self-sufficient and contributing, their existence is labeled dignified. When they rely on others, live with disability, or struggle with mental illness, their life begins to be regarded as lacking dignity. 

When the dignity of human life becomes conditional, someone must determine which lives continue to qualify.

Already, Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer has quantified the healthcare savings tied to MAiD, while the UK’s impact evaluations have measured the economic consequences of legalizing assisted dying. With strained medical systems, aging demographics, and the high price of delivering intricate care, MAiD slashes end-of-life expenditures, and governments acknowledge this fiscal advantage all too well. 

“Canada’s original debate was largely framed around competent adults experiencing intolerable suffering near the end of life," Duncan noted. "Less than a decade later, eligibility had expanded to people whose natural deaths were not reasonably foreseeable, and the law included a future expansion for mental illness alone. Once assisted dying is accepted as healthcare and access to it is framed as a right, every exclusion creates pressure for the next group to be included."

Among Duncan's deepest worries is the vast authority wielded by MAiD assessors in Canada.

The Criminal Code consistently defers to the judgment of the attending physician or nurse practitioner, placing life-and-death determinations in the hands of individuals whose personal interpretations, beliefs, and comfort with risk can vary widely.

Although the law mandates that assessors possess expertise related to the condition causing a person’s suffering, “expertise” does not equate to specialization.

A clinician may deem himself sufficiently informed about a disorder without holding the advanced training required to accurately diagnose it, evaluate its likely course, or judge whether additional interventions might offer relief.

What's Needed:

Both Duncan and her sister have been traumatized by the whole ordeal.

“The trauma came not only from losing our mother but also from knowing we saw a crisis unfolding, tried to intervene, and were treated as an obstacle,” Duncan stated. “I understand how permanent despair can feel. I also know that timely treatment and support can change what a person believes is possible.”

Duncan's memoir focuses on her mother Donna, their household, and the moment they placed faith in the very systems meant to identify Donna’s acute distress but failed them. She told Live Action News:

“I hope her story becomes a lens through which readers look more closely at the institutions we are taught to trust and defer to. I want it to incite curiosity: Who holds the power? What happens when professionals get it wrong? Who is allowed to raise concerns? And what accountability exists after an irreversible decision has been made?

Most of all, I want readers to understand that this could happen to a family they know. It happened to ours."

Duncan's advice to families who receive sudden notice that a loved one is scheduled for MAiD would be to "begin with open communication" in an effort to understand the person's fears and feelings in the situation. She stated:

“In an end-of-life context, some people have been led to fear that their death will inevitably be  painful, frightening or undignified unless they choose an assisted death. Families can help by learning about appropriate palliative-care options and making sure their loved one understands what care may be available. 

It is also important to tell them clearly that they are not a burden. Feeling like a burden is a recurring factor reported in Canadian MAiD cases, and it can profoundly shape what appears to be an autonomous decision.” 

Duncan is passionate about end-of-life care reform, for she thinks that people need honest information about palliative care, pain and symptom management, the dying process, and the support available to families. 

She insists they should not be frightened into believing that an assisted death is the only way to avoid pain, indignity, or becoming a burden.

“No one should become eligible for death because appropriate care is unaffordable, unavailable locally, or subject to an impossible wait,” Duncan reinforced. “A treatment has not failed if the person was never able to receive it. The healthcare system failed.” 

Duncan also called for government accountability, telling Live Action News: 

“Canada needs to report much more than annual totals. Reporting should include underlying  diagnoses, eligibility track, prognosis, assessment timelines, assessor specialties, and whether the person had recent emergency visits, suicide attempts, psychiatric detention, cognitive impairment, or substance-use concerns. 

We should know what treatments and supports were recommended, which were actually available, whether they were attempted, and how long the person had been waiting. Governments should also report whether requests were influenced by housing insecurity, poverty, loneliness, caregiver burden, or lack of disability support... Public confidence should be earned through evidence, not demanded through secrecy." 

The Bottom Line:

Duncan contends that the story of her mother Donna is not an anomaly. Rather, it is the tip of the iceberg for many others who have been or would be affected by assisted dying laws.

For those who believe every human life possesses inherent dignity—from conception to natural death—Alicia Duncan’s story is an urgent call to act before more families find themselves on the other side of the straitjacket, watching helplessly as the system chooses death over care.

The letter argues that the relaxed safety restrictions of mifepristone, such as no longer requiring an in-person doctor visit and allowing interstate mail-order prescriptions, poses significant safety concerns and undermines state abortion laws.

The letter reads:

Dr. Overton’s confirmation hearing provides an important opportunity for her to make clear what she plans to do about the FDA’s extremely permissive policy governing mifepristone. 

There are good reasons the FDA policy should not be this permissive.

First, there are serious concerns about the safety of the drug. As just one example, a recent study found that nearly 11 percent of women taking mifepristone have a serious “adverse event” within 45 days of taking it.

Second, the permissiveness of the current policy is increasing the risk of abuse, especially by men who seek to force women to have abortions without their consent or knowledge. By allowing mifepristone to be obtained without an in-person medical visit, the current FDA policy makes it more difficult to screen vulnerable women outside the presence of potential abusers.

Third, mail-order abortion is undermining state laws enacted to protect unborn life and women.

Despite pro-life laws in at least 20 states, abortion numbers continue to rise due to the Biden administration removing the in-person dispensing requirement and shield laws in pro-abortion states protecting abortionists mailing abortion drugs into pro-life states, noted the letter.

“The FDA is central to this system because it is the federal agency responsible for the approval and protocol governing mifepristone, the most common drug used to kill children in the womb and the only drug designed with abortion as its primary purpose,” reads the letter. “We are told that the FDA is conducting an ongoing study of mifepristone. However, that study has supposedly been ongoing for nearly two years. The question is straightforward: Will Dr. Overton at least agree to revert to the policy in place before the Biden administration, a policy that provided at least some minimal safeguards and medical oversight for women until that elusive review is complete?”

The letter also lists a series of questions that should be answered during Dr. Overton’s confirmation hearing September 24, 2026, before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

The questions include:

• Will she immediately restore the safeguards that existed before the Biden administration while the FDA completes its review of mifepristone?

• Will she decisively end the Biden-era protocol for mifepristone rather than continue allowing this dangerous drug to be dispensed under the current regimen?

• Will she investigate the adverse events associated with mifepristone and ensure that FDA policy is based on a rigorous examination of the drug’s impact on women?

• How will she address a mail-order-abortion system that enables abusers to obtain abortion drugs and use them against women without their knowledge or consent?

• How will the FDA address the interstate distribution of mifepristone that is undermining the laws of states seeking to protect unborn life and women? 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “President Trump’s FDA has not yet restored the abortion pill’s safety restrictions and continues to abide by Biden-era policies on chemical abortions. The abortion pill cruelly kills innocent babies in the womb and harms women. Mail-order abortion drugs circumvent pro-life laws designed to protect women and babies. The FDA needs to end mail-order abortion drugs and become protectors of life rather than purveyors of harm.”

Key Takeaways:

• A new fertility business will let women store their eggs for free if they agree to give half of their eggs away.

• The business believes that this is more ethical than paying women for their eggs.

• Women who sign up to give away half of their eggs in exchange for free storage cannot use any of their eggs until a stranger (or strangers) claims the half that were given away.

The Backstory:

When Lauren Makler launched her new company, Cofertility, she had been through two major surgeries and treatments for a rare abdominal condition that causes masses to grow throughout her abdomen, diminishing her chances of having a biological child. She explored the possibility of using another woman's eggs, but while researching, she felt the system was "antiquated" and "icky."

She wrote for an essay in Motherly:

It was hard to reconcile that the future of my family could be reduced to clunky systems that placed an overemphasis on superficial and classist attributes, relied on cash compensation and felt hollow and opaque. 

Unlike many people who go through the fertility industry and use donor eggs, donor sperm, or surrogacy, she worried about what her potential future child might think of the financial compensation their biological mother received in exchange for them.

Makler cited a Harvard study that found that 62.2% of adults who are donor-conceived think that the exchange of money for eggs and sperm is wrong, and 40.6% are "disturbed" by the fact that money was exchanged in relation to their conception.

In addition, 85% reported feeling a shift in their “sense of self” after learning they were donor-conceived, and about half sought psychological help to cope. About 74% said that they often or very often think about being donor-conceived.

Makler was also concerned with "the real lack of ethnic diversity among donors" and how she thought the "entire experience felt like a disservice—to myself, to all those going through infertility and to communities like the LGBTQ+ community who rely on donors as an essential part of starting a family."

Makler decided to 'reimagine egg donation as human-centered, open and empowering...' She explained:

By bringing together egg donation and egg freezing—two things that go hand in hand—we’re creating a fertility care and third-party reproduction ecosystem that drives meaningful impact on both sides. 

The Details:

Makler created a "Freeze by Co platform," in which women can freeze and store their eggs for free when they agree to donate half of their eggs to strangers who want them.

"Intended parents" are matched with one of these women before the women are allowed to start their egg freezing process. No match means no babies for anyone.

If no one wants your eggs, you don't get them either.

"So many of my friends regret not freezing their eggs in their twenties, but the cost prevented them from doing so. We’re honored to change this narrative for women, while simultaneously improving the family building experience. It’s a win-win. But in order to start your freezing process, you first have to match with a family. The sooner you complete your application (and the more robust it is!), the sooner you’ll match and the sooner your own journey can begin," Makler wrote (emphasis added).

The pressure and fear of running out the biological clock because of the expense of egg freezing is a tactic to get women into the program.

In a nutshell: financially vulnerable women who are worried about their future fertility and can't afford the astronomical fees of egg freezing have to agree to hand over their own eggs — potentially used to create future biological children — to strangers before they are allowed to store the eggs they get to keep or create the children they would get to keep.

These aren't women who started out thinking they wanted to be egg donors. These are women who want to have biological children and are being coerced into a manipulative, unethical quid pro quo.

Makler somehow thinks this is more ethical and "less transactional" than paying willing egg donors.

This isn't "human centered." It's centered on the desires of adults with money to judge, pick, and choose from the eggs of vulnerable women who are waiting to access the service promised to them at the expense of some of their future biological children.

And despite what Makler said about her concerns for the children, the children still aren't being considered at all. One day they may still learn that their biological mothers gave them away, in desperation, to strangers.

The Bottom Line:

Makler's sister ultimately froze her own eggs for Makler to use one day, presumably so she could have a child who was genetically her husband's and her sister's. But Makler never used those eggs.

She became pregnant naturally.

Meanwhile, the CoFertility system is really not all that different from the tragedy of underprivileged women who feel forced to sell their babies so they can afford to care for the other children they have at home.

Key Takeaways:

• Kristin is an Air Force veteran who was diagnosed with Stage IV ovarian cancer while living in Canada.

• Doctors in Canada told her there were no treatment options which could save her life, and encouraged her to consider medical assistance in dying (MAiD).

• She repeatedly asked for life-saving interventions, which were refused, so she traveled to the United States for treatment instead.

• Eventually, she and her husband moved to Texas, where her cancer is now in remission.

The Details:

Kristin's story was shared by Texas Right to Life, which interviewed her husband Donovan. He said after Kristin was diagnosed with Stage IV ovarian cancer, she was told the only option would be MAiD. At that time, necessary treatments which could prolong or save her life were denied.

"They lied to her and said that the HIPEC surgery wouldn't ever save her life, but it did," he said. "They lost her chemo requisition, so she never got started on that. She didn't even meet her Canadian oncologist. It was always by a phone."

HIPEC is an advanced treatment for several cancers, including ovarian, which typically begins with a surgery to remove all visible tumors. Heated chemotherapy is then circulated, allowing the chemotherapy to penetrate deeper into the cells. It is known to increase survival rates.

Donovan said Kristin repeatedly sought medical care as her condition worsened, only to be turned away. That led her to temporarily travel to the United States to get treatment, and then return to Canada, only for the cycle to repeat itself again:

Every time she went to the hospital begging for help in the ER because her lungs were filling with fluid and she was drowning in them, they kicked her out and sent her home with opioids because they didn't have anybody there to drain her lungs. 

So now she's getting closer to death and in a wheelchair, in a last-minute decision, she decides to try her luck in the United States. So now we're evacuating her from Vancouver Island on BC Ferries to get her into a hospital in where they immediately got her into the system, got her started on chemo, and gave her that life-saving HIPEC surgery.

... [S]he has another medical emergency and finds herself again in a Canadian hospital, rotting and dying and nearly about to go septic. So again, I have to unplug her from the machines and evacuate her by car and ferry back to the Seattle hospital and she's sick as a dog, puking bile this whole time. 

They get her into the hospital and guess what? She is about to go septic and they give her immediate surgery and save her life again. But she comes back to Canada and guess what? The cancer is coming back now. And so again, she has to leave. 

Over and over, this pattern continued until finally we decided enough is enough and we got me a green card.

Once the couple was permanently living in Texas, Kristin received state-of-the-art treatment and began to recover.

"She's had already two recurrences and she's going into a third remission," Donovan said. "She's back squatting 175 pounds for five in the gym just last week. Does that sound like somebody who's ready to die, Canada? Does that sound like somebody who needs to kill themselves with MAID?"

Zoom Out:

Canada's MAiD program has become one of the most extreme in the world. It is estimated that 17,000 people were killed by MAiD in 2025 alone, and deaths from MAiD now make up five percent (5%) of all deaths in Canada.

The MAiD program is set to expand to include mental illness in 2027.

Reports show that people have been offered MAiD for reasons like poverty, homelessness, and an inability to access disability or mental health services; additionally, over a fifth of applicants claim “isolation or loneliness” as reasons for their request to die.

The Bottom Line:

Not every life can be saved with additional medical treatments, but patients should be given the chance to try if that's what they want — and either way, they shouldn't be encouraged to commit suicide.

Key Takeaways:

• The "Sanitary Food Preparation Bill" was passed in 2025, which included an amendment legalizing assisted suicide.

• Despite facing numerous legal challenges, the law took effect September 12.

• Several hospitals and health care institutions are now opting out of committing assisted suicide.

The Backstory:

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed Senate Bill 1950, the "Sanitary Food Preparation Bill," into law in 2025. Despite being a food preparation bill, it included an amendment hidden within the text of the legislation to legalize assisted suicide.

The law took effect on September 12, though several lawsuits have been filed against it.

As Live Action News previously reported:

The first was filed in June by the group End Assisted Suicide, a coalition of disability and patients rights advocates, which claimed it put the lives and well-being of people with disabilities at risk.

“Assisted suicide laws in New York and Illinois create a separate and unequal system in which people with life-threatening disabilities are offered death instead of the support programs everyone else gets,” Matt Vallière, president/executive director of plaintiff organization Institute for Patients’ Rights, said. “These legal actions are about affirming that every person has inestimable value and dignity, regardless of age, disability, or prognosis, and ensuring that no one is treated as disposable under the law.”

The second was filed on August 11 by a coalition of religious plaintiffs, including Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki, the Lutheran Care Center, and four physicians. The group is represented by the Thomas More Society, and claimed the law violates the constitutional right to freedom of speech and religion.

“Illinois is forcing faith-based hospitals, nuns, and doctors into supporting the state’s assisted suicide regime," Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at TMS, said. "The law commands Catholic hospitals, religious nursing homes, and faithful doctors to promote suicide’s alleged ‘benefits,’ refer patients to suicide drug prescribers, and then lie on death certificates to cover it up. This immoral scheme flagrantly violates religious liberty and free speech rights, and we intend to stop it.”

Several temporary restraining orders have been placed against the law as it applies to these specific plaintiffs, but it has otherwise been able to take effect.

The Details:

KHQA reported that several hospitals and health care systems are refusing to commit assisted suicide.

The first was Blessing Health System, which said in a statement that none of its "entities, providers, employees, or facilities will prescribe, dispense, facilitate, or otherwise participate in medical aid in dying," and also cited the numerous lawsuits against the bill as further reasoning as to why it would not participate.

"Blessing Health System is committed to providing compassionate, patient-centered care that supports individuals and families through every stage of life, including serious illness and end-of-life care," the statement read, concluding:

Our commitment to caring for patients facing serious and terminal illnesses remains unchanged. We will continue to provide comprehensive, high-quality care focused on helping patients and families navigate complex healthcare decisions.

Now, two more health care organizations — Quincy Medical Group (QMG) and Jacksonville Memorial Health — have said they will opt out.

QMG released a statement, saying:

Quincy Medical Group (QMG) is here for our patients and their families through all of life’s stages, including the times when serious or terminal illness brings difficult decisions.

Under Illinois’ End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act, also known as Deb’s Law, healthcare providers and healthcare institutions in Illinois may choose whether to participate in the medical aid-in-dying process. QMG has elected not to participate.

Our QMG physicians and care teams will continue to be there to support patients and families as they navigate their care and the decisions that come with it.

Jackson Memorial Health said:

We recognize this is a deeply personal topic, and we are committed to providing respectful and compassionate care to all patients at the end of life.

Memorial Health has joined many other hospitals across the state in opting out of the End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act, and we will not provide medical aid-in-dying care.

However, if a patient requests these services, we will assist in referring them to a physician or organization that would be able to evaluate their request.

McKellar told Live Action News, “On the evening of the date, I thought he was directing me to a local restaurant. Instead, he led me to his house where I endured a traumatic nonconsensual sexual encounter.”

'The Whole World Had Stopped'

Stunned and afraid, McKellar acquiesced to the assault, thinking it was the safest way to get out of the situation and finally escape.

Reeling from the deception, McKellar found her way home but couldn’t bring herself to go inside. Instead, she went to her ex-boyfriend’s place, someone who had also sexually abused her.

“I felt disconnected somehow,” she said. “I wanted to avoid dealing with any of my emotions. I thought that by sleeping with my ex-boyfriend, it would erase the experience I suffered through hours earlier.”

Five weeks later, McKellar discovered she was pregnant. She knew one of the two men had fathered her child but wasn’t sure who. 

She noted, “Despite all the challenges I was dealing with, I still had earned a scholarship and was doing well in my studies. Suddenly, I am dealing with an unexpected pregnancy. I felt as if the whole world had stopped.”

When the pregnancy was confirmed by her doctor, McKellar wondered how she was going to tell her family and friends. The circumstances around the pregnancy were so disturbing and felt shameful.

“I felt alone and scared,” McKellar said, “My life had no stability. I was extremely stressed and was ultimately kicked out of the place where I was living.”

A friend then connected her with someone who allowed McKellar to live in her shed for six weeks while she wrapped up her life in Sydney and moved back to her hometown of Adelaide.

Paternity Test Leads to Pressure to Abort

“I had never considered having an abortion. I instinctively knew I was a mother," McKellar said. "But when I had a paternity test done and learned my ex-boyfriend fathered my child, he tried to convince me to have an abortion.”

It wasn’t just her ex-boyfriend who pressured her to end the pregnancy; well-meaning friends did so as well.

“I had friends who told me I’d be ruining my life or giving my baby a bad life," she said. "One offered to cause a miscarriage by pushing me down the stairs.”

When she returned to Adelaide, she found her parents to be wonderfully supportive, telling her they’d do everything they could to help her get through the pregnancy and subsequent motherhood.

“Everyone who provided for me made a difference during this challenging time,” she said. “I had briefly thought about killing myself, but there was a fight in me that kept me going. I cannot underestimate the importance of community support.”

Choosing Real Empowerment

For McKellar, she realized that some of the most painful and tough experiences are often ones that can redirect one’s life journey.

“I was on a destructive path," she recalled. "Being a mother put me on the road to healing, helping me become a better version of myself. Having an abortion would have broken me.”

The birthing experience, she says, was both profound and healing. It was a natural physiological process characterized by a high level of energy coursing through her body – much like an electrical surge.

"I felt so in control of my body while giving birth to my son," McKellar said. "For me, as a woman, it is an empowering moment.”

She believes birth is a natural process that moves in synchronicity with nature, not against it.

“Abortion, on the other hand, is an interruption to that natural process,” she noted.

Using Her Gifts to Save Babies

While McKellar and her son stayed with her family for a year, she soon found herself trying to find another place to live when her family moved overseas. 

“I even tried to get back with my son’s father but that didn’t work out,” she said. “I was homeless again and had to fight to get back on my feet.”

She knew she was good at painting, but she needed some flexibility as a single mother. She took a position as a tattoo artist for some time, yet felt called to do more to save the lives of preborn babies.

McKellar said:

“Despite all the challenges I’d been through, my son was my biggest blessing of my life. He was happy and healthy and expanded my capacity to love. I knew women were being lied to that abortion is a solution to their problems.”

As she reclaimed her Christian roots, she became convicted that abortion is the most urgent issue in the present day. “I had friends who opened the door for me to do pro-life work with Bird Flip,” she said. “At first, it was casual work, then it blossomed from there.”

Bird Flip, a pro-life advocacy group, seeks to flip the narrative on abortion by engaging the younger demographic to speak out publicly against abortion.

McKellar said, “We’re taking on the abortion industry and proclaiming that abortion is murder, which goes against the mainstream in Australia.”

The organization hosts rallies and events and promotes pro-life bills through government lobbying. The use of videos and other content helps to educate the public about the devastation of abortion.

“Our content creation has evolved to include paintings, and that’s where I come in,” McKellar said. 

She has painted large banners depicting graphic scenes, like a needle containing a lethal dose of potassium chloride piercing the heart of a preborn child.

“I was disappointed when my pregnancy interrupted my career as a painter and felt sad to see others in my field advance,” McKellar said. “But now, I’m using my talent in a big way to further the pro-life cause. Art can be useful in the fight to save babies.”

Key Takeaways:

• Carmello Brooks, a University of Houston football player, has been accused of assaulting Nariah Harley because she wouldn't take the abortion pill.

• Harley wants to retract any claims that Brooks assaulted her.

• Brooks is also facing charges for an August incident in which he allegedly assaulted another pregnant woman.

The Details:

Carmello Brooks, 19, was arrested last week for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend, Nariah Harley, because she refused to take the abortion pill. Brooks reportedly squeezed Harley's arms, slammed her to the ground, and sat on her.

Though news reports indicate investigators believe the assault happened because Harley refused to take the abortion pill, Harley has since retracted any statements that would implicate Brooks, telling investigators she would feel "forever guilt" if the charges ended his football career.

She now claims the bruises on her arms are because she would not leave Brooks' apartment, so he picked her up and "gently put [her] out the apartment."

A University of Houston Athletics spokesperson responded to the allegations, saying, “We are aware of an incident involving a Houston Football student-athlete. We take all allegations of this nature very seriously and are gathering more information."

Zoom In:

This is not the first time Brooks has been accused of assaulting a pregnant woman.

He is also facing charges for a separate incident in August, in which he went to the home of a different pregnant woman after he learned of her pregnancy.

Once there, he allegedly became aggressive and tried to leave with the woman's keys. The woman pushed the door shut, partially detaching the door handle and causing damage.

The Big Picture:

The widespread prevalence of abortion, and its easier access due to the <a href="/news/mail-order-abortion-pill-traffickers">abortion pill&apos;s availability by mail</a>, has increased the danger pregnant women face when they don't want to abort their preborn children, but the abusive men in their lives do.

Previous research indicated that over 60 percent of all women who abort faced pressure or coercion to do so. When they refuse, they are at greater risk of violence. Homicide is one of the leading causes of death of pregnant women, and many of those deaths occur at the hands of a romantic partner.

The Bottom Line:

Pregnant women and their preborn children deserve protection from violent and abusive men and from the predatory abortion industry.

In an extensive interview with Live Action News, Brennan described how her family background, religious convictions, and personal experiences with injustice catapulted her into direct activism — contending that prayer, instead of politics alone, will eventually bring about the collapse of abortion within her lifetime. 

Key Takeaways:

• Claire Brennan of Northern Ireland was convicted in December 2024 of violating the country's abortion clinic buffer zone for engaging in prayer outside an abortion business.

• The charges against her were finally dropped in May 2026, after witnesses failed to show up and other evidence against her was deemed insufficient.

• Brennan told Live Action News that she will keep praying and providing support outside clinics, working within the 150-meter restrictions as far as possible while advancing a broader legal challenge to the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act. 

• Brennan's pro-life beliefs stemmed from growing up in a large family "surrounded by children's laughter." Today, she has four children of her own, and a grandchild.

• Brennan’s case has attracted attention beyond Northern Ireland, with pro-life campaigners condemning the buffer-zone legislation as an “oppressive” measure that demands “consent and silences dissent” while outlawing peaceful prayer and conversation. 

A Home Filled with Life:

Brennan explained that her belief in the need to defend every unborn child did not originate in theological study about the dignity of every human life but stemmed from the lived experience of being part of a large family.

“I grew up in a large family — one of eight children — and was surrounded by children’s laughter,” she stated. “Our home was the epicenter of life.”

From age 11, Brennan babysat and “adored” her nieces and nephews, she recalls, acknowledging to Live Action News that when she married at 31, she and her husband were “desperate to become parents.”

The couple conceived soon after their wedding and later welcomed four daughters. 

“Children made my home complete,” Brennan says. “Each child brought more joy and enriched our lives.”

Currently a grandmother to a two‑year‑old grandson, Brennan said that hearing children’s laughter in her home again was a profound blessing and told Live Action News that “nothing is more important to me than spending precious time with my children and grandchild.” 

The Call to Pray:

Brennan attributed her activism to a deep‑seated instinct to “stand against injustice,” which she conceded she felt called to even as a child protecting “the rights of the weak.”

Her mother‑in‑law was a prominent pro‑life activist with the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) and prayed outside a Belfast abortion advisory clinic that referred women to England. 

At first, Brennan turned down the invitation, explaining that she had small children to care for at home and that she still viewed Northern Ireland as a pro‑life nation. 

However, her stance shifted when Marie Stopes established an abortion clinic in Belfast. 

“A righteous anger came over me,” Brennan said.

Even with three young children and a three-week-old newborn at home, she joined the protest on the clinic’s opening day, breastfeeding her baby during the demonstration to “show the world the beauty of life.”

Initially, Brennan thought that government opposition would lead to the clinic’s swift closure; instead, the abortion mill continued operating under legal protection, while pro-life individuals offering prayer and information faced criminalization. 

For five and a half years, Brennan maintained a faithful presence outside the Belfast clinic as part of a prayer and outreach campaign she believed led to its closure—the first abortion facility, she posited, ever to shut down voluntarily.  

“Five thousand hours of prayer helped close it down, along with the endless sacrifice of people who stood in the freezing cold and reached out to women,” Brennan avowed. “I had seen the power of prayer… I realized that I could make a difference.” 

After abortion was legalized in Northern Ireland through Westminster legislation, Brennan shifted her efforts from one clinic to another.

She told Live Action News that she had witnessed three facilities close after prayer and outreach: first, the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast; then, a center in Ballymena; and later, a clinic in Coleraine. 

“I will continue to pray outside Coleraine Hospital where I am now until it closes or the hospital closes,” she pledged. “I will keep moving on until abortion is illegal, unthinkable, and unutterable from our lips.” 

Treating Prayer as a Crime:

Brennan was first arrested under the new buffer-zone legislation on October 3, 2023, outside Causeway Hospital in Coleraine, where she and fellow pro-life activist David Hall were praying the Lord’s Prayer and holding a “Pray to End Abortion” sign within the designated zone.

Police ordered them to leave; both refused to comply and were arrested. 

“I had been praying outside the boundary of Coleraine Hospital for almost two years when I heard that buffer zones were going to be imposed,” Brennan revealed. “I felt desperately sad that our country’s democracy had stooped so low that even prayer could become a crime.”

After weighing the risks with her husband — who was worried about the possibility of prison and fines — Brennan proceeded with her activism with his support. On the day she was arrested, pro-abortion activists showed up, yelled that Brennan and Hall were breaking the law, and summoned the police. 

“We stood our ground and did not leave. We did not deny Christ,” she divulged. “Sadly, history was made that day in Northern Ireland. I was arrested for the act of praying on 3 October 2023,” Brennan told Live Action News.

Brennan was subsequently convicted in December 2024 at Coleraine Magistrates’ Court and was fined £750 (a little over $1000 USD) — £300 (about $400 USD) for unlawful protest and £450 (about $600 USD) for refusing to leave the buffer zone — and has stated she would refuse to pay and accept up to a week in prison instead of submitting to the pro-abortion pressure. 

Judicial Bias and the Battle for a Fair Appeal:

Brennan’s court fight took a striking twist during her appeal, upon learning that Deputy County Court Judge Ciaran Moynagh, who was hearing the case, had received the “Humanist of the Year” award from Humanists UK in 2018 and had a documented record of abortion‑related activism.

She then lodged a formal complaint alleging apparent bias, contending that a fair hearing was unattainable before a judge with such a background.

In court, Brennan informed Moynagh that she had reported him to the Chief Lady Justice and asked him outright whether he believed he could adjudicate her case impartially. On November 11, 2025, Moynagh proclaimed that he would recuse himself “out of an abundance of caution” to ensure justice was “seen to be done,” prompting a retrial.

“Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done,” Brennan declared to Live Action News. “How could I have a fair trial with this new information? How could my Christian rights be protected in law by a judge who, I believed, openly denied the laws of God?"

Having said that, she credited the recusal to “powerful prayers that people around the world had offered for my case” and said that she now hopes her appeal will be heard by a different judge, with further proceedings expected in the High Court and, eventually, the UK Supreme Court. 

Personal Cost and Future Witness:

Brennan portrayed the case as “one of the biggest challenges of my life,” recounting times when she felt “completely alone” and grappled to find a legal team willing to take the fight “from a position of faith.”

Many lawyers told her, “You can’t beat a Supreme Court ruling,” she said, but she reaffirmed her belief that “Jesus [i]s the Supreme Judge over all the courts.”

After praying for assistance, she was contacted by Christian Concern, whose team supported and guided her at every stage. Although the pro-life legal group does not have rights of audience in Northern Ireland, its director, Andrea Williams, arranged for senior barristers to sit alongside Brennan in court and coach her as a litigant in person.  

“Christian Concern has been my greatest Godsend throughout this entire process,” Brennan told Live Action News. “They were there when I was at my lowest point, and they were there when I wanted to share our victories.”

The case against Brennan fell apart in May when witnesses didn't show up to testify against her. As Gript reported:

... [A]t her trial hearing, the conviction was overturned by District Judge King after key charges were dropped, witnesses failed to attend, and the remaining evidence was deemed insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Looking to the future, Brennan says she will keep praying and providing support outside clinics, working within the 150-meter restrictions as far as possible while advancing a broader legal challenge to the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act. 

“I have faith that we will win this battle, and I will continue fighting alongside them in the war against abortion and for the least of the Lord’s little ones — my baby brothers and sisters in the womb,” Brennan said. 

The Battle for Free Expression:

Brennan’s case has attracted attention well beyond Northern Ireland, with pro-life campaigners condemning the buffer-zone legislation as an “oppressive” measure that demands “consent and silences dissent” while outlawing peaceful prayer and conversation. 

As her appeal and associated cases progress through the courts, Brennan presented her testimony as part of a broader struggle for religious freedom and the dignity of all human lives. 

In remarks cited by Christian Concern, Brennan once said, “These censorship zones are unjust. They silence prayer, restrict free speech, and prevent women from hearing that there is another option besides abortion.”

A Divine Appointment:

Burmich told Live Action News, “I was having lunch with the president and CEO of the center when he told me he was resigning and that God told him I was to be his successor.”

Startled, Burmich told the man that while he “loved him,” he was also “crazy.”

But with an executive-level background in marketing and more than 25 years of experience leading growth at venture-backed startups, as well as serving on the centers’ board of directors for several years, Burmich was well-positioned to do the same for Choices Pregnancy Centers.

Yet he had doubts he was the right person for the job.

“There was no way that was happening," he said. "I never had any inclination to head a non-profit organization, which was really a ministry. It was a massive responsibility and one I didn’t necessarily feel qualified to do.”

Yet that didn’t deter his friend, who insisted he was going to tell the board that Burmich would be his successor.

So Burmich did the only thing he could do at such a crossroad: he prayed about it for three months.

He said, “My wife immediately encouraged me to take the position. She said that I was always complaining that although I was making lots of money, I wasn’t doing anything to impact others, so why would I not do this?”

Burmich put together a “vision document” for the organization and presented it to the board. 

“It was a rather ambitious vision,” Burmich said. “Like many non-profit organizations, the center was doing what they could with what they had but I wanted us to go higher, to think bigger than what we thought was possible."

He accepted the position the following week after his presentation. Then he went to work.

Setting Up for Success:

First, Burmich identified a “pay gap” within the organization. Because the average salary was so low, it was difficult for the center to find the right people to fill openings. He suggested generating more revenue to be able to hire key staff.

“We needed to expand our footprint, and to do so, needed the right internal structure,” Burmich said, explaining that he wanted the organization to function less like a ‘mom and pop shop.’”

He started by creating new positions, which eventually resulted in restructuring roles.

Burmich said he took his example from for-profit businesses, saying this "helped solidify our foundation, positioning us to better reach our goals and serve the women in the community."

He then sought out the right people to help bring new strategy and fundraising ability to the organization, bringing individuals on board from other established pro-life groups to transform and innovate in many areas, including marketing, advertising, and branding.

Rebuilding the client services team was also key.

Amid all the reorganization and hiring of staff, Burmich kept his eye on the bottom line. “I wanted to be a good steward of our finances," explained Burmich. "In fact, the same financial template is still in place today, seven years later.”

Under Burmich's leadership, Choices has seen revenue and funding increase, leading to the organization's ability to launch a mobile medical unit, expanding its outreach.

Serving Women Statewide: 

Looking ahead, Burmich seeks to expand medical services to meet burgeoning demand — now on track to serve more than 6,000 clients this year.

“Our client load is exploding,” Burmich said. “We attribute that increase to our marketing efforts and to partnering with other entities to serve abortion-minded women.”

While Burmich admits those conversations are harder and are taking longer, he sees an opportunity to better serve these women with the mobile unit Choices launched a year ago.

“The mobile unit is a fully equipped pregnancy resource center on wheels, strategically parked in specific parts of the state," Burmich told Live Action News. "We have some big believers in this concept who are helping bring this vision to fruition.”

The Bottom Line:

Burmich’s vision to transform a small network of pregnancy resource centers into a thriving organization is a model that can be replicated across the country. 

“We want women to know they’ll always be treated with care and compassion no matter what they ultimately choose to do,” he said.  “And now, we’re uniquely positioned to serve more women in the Phoenix area than before.”

Apparently everything has to be about abortion — even frozen pizza.

Key Takeaways:

• DiGiorno, the frozen pizza company, recently featured it's tagline, "It's not delivery. It's DiGiorno." on its social media.

• It allegedly wrote on Threads, "It's Not Delivery. It's ____."

• The pro-abortion group Plan C commented "Abortion" and DiGiorno allegedly removed that comment.

• Plan C was outraged at the comment's removal, and chose to repost the comment "abortion" on the original post.

• It seems inappropriate and crass to 1) discuss abortion on a frozen pizza company's social media post, and 2) appear to joke that getting an abortion means you won't be 'delivering' a baby.

The Details:

On September 19, DiGiorno allegedly posted its familiar tagline to Threads with a fill-in-the-blank option: "It's Not Delivery. It's ______."

Plan C replied in the comments: "Abortion."

Later, Plan C took to social media to complain that its comment on DiGiorno's post had been deleted. And it wasn't happy about it.

"I wanted to give them the opportunity to reflect and do the right thing, so I reposted the comment with a lowercase 'a' this time," Plan C wrote (emphasis added).

Eliza Orlins, a public defender, also jumped into the conversation, writing, "THEY DELETED THE POST. So, let's Streisand effect this s**t. Spread this screenshot far and wide. @plancpill's response deserves to be seen."

The 'Streisand effect' refers to an effort from Barbara Streisand to sue a photographer in 2003 for $50 million for violating her privacy with the publication of an aerial photograph of her home. But her efforts only made the photo more widespread.

Orlins accused DiGiorno of attempting to suppress Plan C Pills' comment. As the owner of the social media account, DiGiorno is free to block followers and delete comments.

An Oddly-Placed Comment

What's odd is the fact that Plan C, which exists to promote abortion, feels it's acceptable to promote abortion (and itself) on a frozen pizza company's social media post, and then publicly complain when that comment is removed.

If Plan C meant to joke about how "It's Not Delivery [of a baby]. It's abortion," the joke seems, at the very least, insensitive.

Not the time. Not the place. Not funny.

Sadly, the abortion industry is dangerously unregulated. It has become nearly as easy to order the abortion pills to your home as it is to order a pizza for delivery.

Anyone can go to an abortion pill website, enter in some information, and have the pills shipped to them. Even <a href="/news/women-harmed-abortion-pill-letter-todd-blanche">abusive men</a> have ordered the pills and forced their pregnant girlfriends to take them.

Some women who have had the abortion pill <a href="/news/texas-sues-new-york-abortion-pills">shipped to them</a> have suffered <a href="/news/new-york-abortionist-felony-abortion-louisiana">adverse events</a> such as hemorrhage, incomplete abortion, and life-threatening infections. The delivery of the abortion pill means death, delivered straight to a person's mailbox.

The Bottom Line:

Induced abortion is not a joke. It's the direct and intentional killing of a living preborn human being. Shaming a pizza company for deleting an inappropriately placed comment shows how desperately pro-abortion groups want to normalize and trivialize abortion, and complain when someone doesn't agree.

Key Takeaways:

• Apoorva Tadepalli wrote a piece in the New Yorker claiming that early pregnancy is ambiguous.

• Rather than admit the scientific reality of pregnancy, Tadepalli insinuated that If a preborn baby isn't likely to survive or guaranteed to survive, then it isn't really pregnancy.

• Tadepalli's view appears to be shaped significantly by a personal experience of multiple pregnancy losses.

• Pregnancy exists and is real regardless of whether the baby can survive until childbirth.

The Details:

In the New Yorker, Tadepalli wrote of the supposed problems with pregnancy being diagnosed early, due to what she described as "binary" pregnancy tests, as early pregnancy seemingly does not count for Tadepalli.

"What I did not understand the first time I tested positive was that pregnancy tests draw a misleading, somewhat arbitrary, binary between a state of pregnant and not pregnant," she wrote. "You can be kind of pregnant, a little bit pregnant, almost pregnant, or maybe pregnant, and still test positive for pregnancy."

As 'proof,' Tadepalli pointed to pregnancy complications like chemical or ectopic pregnancies.

"You might test positive if you’re going to have a miscarriage in a week, if you’re currently miscarrying, if you had a miscarriage a week ago, or if you have a fetus inside you that’s dead but not coming out," she said.

While Tadepalli is correct that a woman could test positive in all of these circumstances, none of these change the fact that the woman was still, at one point, pregnant.

An early miscarriage does not mean the preborn baby did not exist, just as the death of a born individual does not mean the person did not exist.

Even more bizarre was her description of what pregnancy tests do; according to Tadepalli, they "capture a moment in time at which an embryo has implanted and is interacting with the uterus in some way."

Tadepalli's mindset has seemingly been shaped by multiple pregnancy losses. She appears to have refused to acknowledge that she was actually pregnant until very close to her due date (emphases added):

This is fairly late in a pregnancy, but I have not felt pregnant for very long at all.

It was only very recently that I began thinking that I would probably actually have this baby. For most of this year, I wasn’t pregnant; I had not yet miscarried. I was pregnant for now, but who knows?

After being pregnant so many times, what does that even mean? (Once, my friend, an ob-gyn, was trying to explain my chemical pregnancy to me, and I asked her, dryly, if it would be helpful to think of myself as definitely pregnant only after I had given birth.)

Time moves differently when you are pregnant after multiple early losses. With every day, your odds of delivering a healthy baby get a little better, but new questions and uncertainties arise constantly that make you feel like you’re moving backward.

While it is understandable to have hesitancy or difficulty bonding with a preborn baby due to a fear of another miscarriage, this has no bearing on whether a person is or is not pregnant.

Zoom In:

Reaction to Tadepalli's article was swift.

"So, you're only pregnant if you 'feel' pregnant or like you will 'probably actually have this baby?'" Ericka Anderson wrote on X. "What *is* this article?"

Contend Projects opined that the article's ideas are part of an ongoing effort to call into question the meaning of when life — and pregnancy — begins:

This is not new. The New Yorker is recycling what abortion advocates have sold for 50+ years: that a woman can be “almost pregnant.” It worked before. That is why so many people today think pregnancy begins at implantation. They are doing it again.

For example, in October 1964, at the Population Council’s Second International Conference on Intra-Uterine Contraception in New York, the problem was the IUD. If it acted after fertilization, it might be labeled abortifacient.

Conference chairman Dr. Howard C. Taylor Jr. said the fix out loud: “It has been suggested that we ought to set our definition that pregnancies start at implantation.” Implantation—versus fertilization—when a human life actually begins.

ACOG did it in 1965, and just like that, a woman was magically “almost pregnant” between fertilization and implantation. Not science. A fraudulent redefinition so the industry could keep the word “contraception.”

A woman is pregnant when a new human being begins to exist. There is still no such thing as being “almost pregnant.”

Kristan Hawkins, presidents of Students for Life of America, responded with a video on Instagram:

Isabel Brown likewise reacted on Facebook:

Reality Check:

From all scientific standards, there is no denying when a new human life begins: fertilization.

In "Human Life and Health Care Ethics, Vol. 2," James Bopp discussed this first moment of a new life:

The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another.

Professors Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia wrote in "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology" that life begins at the moment of fertilization, saying, "Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote.”

The Endowment for Human Development, a nonpartisan scientific non-profit group, released a documentary about the development of human beings inside the womb. Of fertilization, EHD states:

The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.

Medical experts and medical textbooks agree that a new human life exists at that first moment of fertilization.

The Bottom Line:

The living, growing human being who has been newly conceived is alive, even if that human fails to survive to birth and beyond. But death does not erase existence altogether, and even if pregnancy only lasts for a short time, it still happened... even if this reality causes grief due to loss.

Key Takeaways:

• An estimated 6,000 people participated in the annual March for Life in Germany on September 19.

• The march took place in both Berlin and Cologne.

• Counter protesters disrupted the Cologne event, but it was able to proceed as planned.

The Details:

Participants gathered in both Berlin and Cologne, marking the fourth time the annual march took place in two cities at the same time. According to CNA Deutsch, organizers estimate that between the two locations, a combined 6,000 people attended, marching under the theme, "The right to life is a human right."

The event's organizers, the Federal Association for the Right to Life (Bundesverband Lebensrecht), focused on key pro-life issues including abortion, assisted suicide, and surrogacy.

The chairman of the German Bishops' Conference, Bishop Heiner Wilmer, offered a greeting to participants prior to the march's start.

"It is precisely where life is vulnerable, where people have no voice, or where their right to exist is questioned, that we see how seriously we take human dignity. The March for Life draws attention to people whose lives are not respected, recognized, or considered less worthy of protection," he said.

Berlin

Berlin's march was attended by several Catholic bishops, including Rudolf Voderholzer, Bishop of Regensburg.

“I consider it my civic duty to give a voice to those who still do not have a voice or can no longer have one,” he said.

Teodora Paul, president of Students for Life Bucharest, addressed the crowd in Berlin, drawing a parallel between the Berlin wall and the 'wall' that separates the born from the preborn. She explained:

"Almost forty years ago, here in Berlin, a world leader stood at the Brandenburg Gate and spoke some famous words about the Berlin Wall. The wall separated brothers and sisters who belonged to the same people. Addressing another powerful world leader, he said: open this gate! tear down this wall!...

And today there is a wall separating protected humanity from disposable humanity: the wall between the born and the unborn. Behind this wall, we, the adults, as societies, dehumanize the unborn. This has resulted in the greatest denial of human rights in history: even by the lowest estimate, the lives of more than one billion of our brothers and sisters have been intentionally taken!

The main ideological framework for the intentional destruction of unborn human beings is the denial of their humanity. This is why I call this war the Unhuman War."

Cologne

While smaller than Berlin's, Cologne's march was disrupted by pro-abortion protesters, who threw paint on an information stand, staged sit-ins, and deployed purple smoke bombs. One also sprayed paint on a banner while speakers were on the stage, and faces criminal charges for property damage.

Despite the counter demonstrations, the march was able to proceed as planned.

The Bottom Line:

Organizers from Bundesverband Lebensrecht appeared buoyed by the number of people who attended as a witness to life.

“In all, well over 6,000 people (4,200 Berlin, 2,100 Cologne) of all generations set out today to take to the streets for the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death,” the group said.

Key Takeaways:

• A wrongful death lawsuit in New Mexico is the first of its kind to award a settlement to the estate of an aborted baby, who was defined as a "person" under the state's Wrongful Death Act and was therefore "entitled to equal protection under the law of New Mexico and the United States."

• Attorney Mike Seibel noted the inconsistencies in the state law, stating, "You can collect for the death of the unborn baby as a person, but you can still murder the unborn baby under New Mexico law."

• In Wabbington v. Boyd, a 26-week baby's estate received a $200k settlement after a complaint argued that the baby's mother was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of the abortion, and therefore could not provide proper informed consent.

• The complaint also asserted that the abortionists engaged in unfair trade practices, including "offering funeral services for aborted babies without any intent to transfer the aborted babies to the funeral home."

• Records also indicate that no effort was made to discuss "reasonable alternatives including continuing the pregnancy with meth cessation support and referral to treatment."

• Seibel noted that "The abortion industry preyed on the mother's vulnerable condition for profit... failed to properly inform her of programs to help her substance abuse... [and] failed to properly consent her" before committing an abortion. They then "billed the taxpayer under Medicaid for a procedure that typically costs tens of thousands of dollars."

The Details:

In the case, Wabbington v. Boyd, a "26-week-old viable fetus" was declared a person. The lawsuit was recently settled for $200,000 against late-term abortionists Curtis Wayne Boyd (doing business at that time as Southwestern Women's Options/SWO), Emily Cohen, and the late Carmen Landau.

It was another victory for medical malpractice attorney Mike Seibel and his co-counsel Justin Hall, who both operate the website AbortionInjury.com.

Acknowledgment of Personhood

The complaint and subsequent settlement was obtained via an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request by Live Action News.

It acknowledged the personhood of Baby Wabbington, who was tragically killed by induction abortion at 26 weeks gestation, and whose estate was awarded the $200,000 settlement.

The "final Order Appointing Personal Representative" read in part:

... Baby Wabbington was a 26 week old viable fetus and pursuant to Salazar v. St. Vincent Hospital...is a person as defined under the Wrongful Death Act and is entitled to equal protection under the law of New Mexico and the United States.

Seibel told Live Action News:

This is the first time that an abortionist has ever been sued for the wrongful death of a baby. There have been numerous cases for injuries to the mother, but in this case both the mother and the baby’s estate sued.

This case recognized the baby to have an estate, and receive compensation for wrongful death, as a 'person' under New Mexico law. 

“In order to establish personhood, we must establish that the baby has rights. The more they have rights the less you can just kill them. The more rights we establish, the better our case for personhood becomes," Seibel added.

The case was settled and dismissed with prejudice on September 14, 2026.

Complaint Accusation: Lack of Informed Consent

The complaint also centered around a lack of informed consent for the baby’s mother who, according to court documents, was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time she consented to the procedure in 2020.

Had the mother been properly consented, she should have been informed of state programs that would assist her during her pregnancy and despite her drug condition. 

"The estate itself is going to recover... and the informed consent was the basis for that," Seibel told Life Issues Institute.

The complaint (with the name of the child's mother redacted) read in part:

Defendant, Curtis W. Boyd M.D.P.C., Carmen Landau and Emily Cohen knew or should have known of [redacted's] use of methamphetamines as she had a prior abortion where they noted her use of methamphetamines.

[Redacted] also told the counselor of her use of methamphetamines and the counselor placed that information in the notes. The counselor noted that [redacted] was anxious and avoided eye contact when she appeared for her interview.

Despite having knowledge of a substance abuse history and signs of intoxication of methamphetamine use, Defendants attempted to get informed consent from Plaintiff...

[Redacted] could not legally give informed consent as she was intoxicated. Plaintiffs attempted to get [redacted] to sign a consent to treatment to terminate pregnancy. Despite having no legal capacity to consent, [redacted] signed the consent for medical treatment...

The lawsuit alleged that the abortionists failed to:

• "recognize that [redacted] was not legally competent to give consent as she was intoxicated with Methamphetamine use."

• "... counsel or refer [redacted] the New Mexico Children Youth and families department for all of her options as being substance affected when pregnant."

• "... inform [redacted] and obtain her proper consent while sober."

Yet the providers still "[p]erformed the abortion without proper informed consent."

Seibel claimed there was...

... no documented assessment noted on the consent forms despite known meth use disorder and observed signs of anxiety and avoidance. And no evidence that the provider explored signs of ambivalence or distress.

"Published research demonstrates that stopping methamphetamine use at any time during pregnancy — including the third trimester — improves key outcomes," Seibel noted, further stating that "Established New Mexico programs specifically designed for pregnant women with substance use disorders were never offered or discussed."

These included:

• Milagro Program (UNM Health) which provides "prenatal care and substance abuse treatment."

• G.R.A.C.E. Program (Lovelace Women’s Hospital, Albuquerque) which offers care to pregnant women "struggling with opioid addictions" or "women living with addictions during and after pregnancy."

"This omission deprived the patient of material information needed to make an informed decision," Seibel noted.

Complaint Accusation: Unfair Trade Practices

The lawsuit also accused SWO and the abortion doctors of unfair trade practices by:

(A) [Attempting] to release prospective liability for medical negligence...

(B) Attempting to persuade patients not to sue for malpractice;

(C) Disclaiming any liability for emotional distress against public policy;

(D) Attempting to prevent women and patients from suing for emotional distress;

(E) Attempting to persuade patients to release malpractice liability in contradiction with well settled law of New Mexico.

(F) Offering funeral services for aborted babies without any intent to transfer the aborted babies to the funeral home.

The complaint was clear that "Defendants knew or should have known that [redacted] was intoxicated with methamphetamines" and therefore they "breached their duty to provide inform consent."

In addition, despite the mother's request to "release the baby's remains to Riverside Funeral Home to have services," the complaint alleges that "the body was placed in a medical waste container and destroyed."

The complaint concluded that:

The acts of the Defendants were so willful, wanton, and reckless they require the imposition of punitive damages.

Complaint Accusation: Failure to Discuss Alternatives

Seibel alleged that "Records contain no discussion of reasonable alternatives including continuing the pregnancy with meth cessation support and referral to treatment."

Seibel pointed to the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)'s "Guidance on Pregnancy Options Counseling" which states that "Appropriate pregnancy options counseling addresses... access to resources that reasonably could be anticipated to be needed."

The guidance adds that "clinicians should involve patients in an unbiased discussion."

This part is particularly interesting:

... [I]f a patient has expressed understanding of a fetal condition diagnosed prenatally, understanding of the availability of management options, and a clear desire to continue the pregnancy, it would not be person-centered to continue to bring up abortion as an option at every visit if there has not been a significant change in fetal status and additional counseling is not desired by the patient.

... an episode of pregnancy options counseling can reasonably and appropriately conclude when a patient expresses ambivalence or decision deferral... Clarifying whether the patient would like more information to support them may be helpful...

Separately, ACOG writes: "All patients should be routinely asked about their use of alcohol, nicotine products, and drugs, including prescription opioids and other medications used for nonmedical reasons."

ACOG additionally writes that, "The informed consent process ideally begins before decision making so that the patient is able to make an informed choice... based on clinical information, the patient’s values, and other considerations of importance to her."

The lawsuit contended that:

At the time of her elective abortion procedure, [redacted] did not know that she was free to seek medical assistance for medical complications at any medical facility. At the time of her elective abortion procedure, [redacted] did not have the capacity to fully understand the consent agreement.

"ACOG guidelines and committee opinions require screening for substance use in pregnancy, brief intervention, counseling on options, and referral to appropriate treatment resources. Providers are expected to discuss alternatives such as stopping or reducing use while continuing pregnancy care," Seibel contended.

Zoom Out:

Manipulative Abortion Training

Perhaps Boyd and his cadre of abortionists were misled by resources like the 2026 TEACH abortion training curriculum, which appears to suggest that drug impairment does not disqualify informed consent — a seemingly ludicrous claim.

On page 31 (image below), you can read the manipulation involved in abortion counseling:

The National Abortion Federation's (NAF) 2026 Clinical Guide is clear that "The clinician must ensure that accurate information is provided about the abortion process and its alternatives, and the potential risks and benefits. The patient must have the opportunity to have any questions answered to their satisfaction prior to the abortion" (emphasis added).

Inconsistencies in the Law

Seibel emphasized that New Mexico law "makes no sense," noting, “You can collect for the death of the unborn baby as a person, but you can still murder the unborn baby under New Mexico law." He added:

In New Mexico, they have a law that veterinarians cannot kill dogs with digoxin without giving them painkillers first.

They do not have that for the baby.

If a baby has the right to collect for wrongful death of an abortion, it has a right to live.

Every time we give the unborn baby rights we solidify personhood.

"We're talking about personhood... for the first time where a baby is actually recovering against the person who killed it," Seibel stressed in the video interview below.

Seibel told Live Action News:

The abortion industry preyed on the mother's vulnerable condition for profit.

They not only failed to properly inform her of programs to help her substance abuse, but they failed to properly consent her before ending the life of her preborn child.

They then billed the taxpayer under Medicaid for a procedure that typically costs tens of thousands of dollars. 

The Bottom Line:

"This settlement recasts the informed consent debate to give a powerful tool to collect damages against an abortionist. In addition, it confirms the existing standard of care for women facing substance abuse disorders," Seibel claimed.

"But, most importantly, it was the first ever case where the dead aborted child, identified as a 'person' in the court record, was able to collect damages against the abortion industry," he stated.

Seibel encourages women who may have a similar case to contact AbortionInjury.com.

Key Takeaways:

• Disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein has faced numerous charges of rape and sexual assault in multiple states, giving rise to the #MeToo movement.

• He was convicted of committing a first-degree criminal sexual act in New York against production assistant Miriam Haley, though this conviction was later overturned.

• Weinstein was again found guilty, and sentenced to 15 years in prison in New York, though there are other legal battles continuing in California as well.

• While a Hollywood producer, Weinstein was a vocal supporter of abortion and frequently donated to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion chain.

The Backstory:

In 2022, Weinstein was found guilty of several sexual assault charges in California, after over a dozen women came forward with accusations of rape and abuse in 2017. That led to the #MeToo movement and his first convictions in 2020 in the state of New York, where he was sentenced to 23 years in prison on charges of rape and sexual assault.

He was sentenced to serve 16 years in California, though that conviction is currently undergoing resentencing.

“Harvey Weinstein forever destroyed a part of me that night in 2013. I will never get that back,” Jane Doe 1, one of his victims, said in a statement. “The criminal trial was brutal. Weinstein’s lawyers put me through hell on the witness stand. But I knew I had to see this through the end, and I did… I hope Harvey Weinstein never sees the outside of a prison cell during his lifetime.”

In 2024, one of the rape convictions in New York, regarding his assault of production assistant Miriam Haley, was overturned. The judge called for a new trial to be held.

Abortion is a tool often used by abusers to hide their crimes, which is perhaps by Weinstein was such an ardent supporter of the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business, which has a long history of aiding sexual abusers and covering up sex trafficking and child abuse. 

The Details:

Weinstein has again been found guilty, and sentenced to 15 years in prison in New York. Haley said the experience has been incredibly difficult for her.

“I have been further traumatized in exercising my right to hold him accountable,” she said, adding, "It has often felt that I was the one on trial."

Despite being imprisoned on Riker's Island, Assistant District Attorney Nicole Blumberg said Weinstein offered nearly $2 million to a podcaster in an effort to contaminate the jury pool before the trial. Even after sentencing, Weinstein has continued to maintain his innocence.

The Bottom Line:

Miriam Haley explained that she has never been able to regain a feeling of safety, as Weinstein allegedly hired private investigators to follow her and his defense attorneys mocked her in the media.

“Having been sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein has had a devastating effect on my life and sense of security that may never go away. Making the decision to speak up will have me looking over my shoulder for years to come," she said. “It’s a life sentence for me."

Key Takeaways:

• Haile McAnally was previously pro-abortion, but became pro-life after a horrifying abortion experience.

• After taking abortion pills, she hemorrhaged in her bathtub and thought she was dying.

• McAnally believes women are not being warned enough about the dangers of the abortion pill regimen.

The Details:

In an interview with Fox News Digital, McAnally described her horrific chemical abortion.

She said that though she had always dreamed of being a mother, when she got pregnant, her boyfriend was not supportive.

"He asked me what I was gonna do about it and hung up the phone, and I haven't talked to him since," she said, and added that she was scared to raise a child alone.

The pro-abortion community, however, gave off an impression of supportive sisterhood.

"I remember seeing the pink signs everywhere and the marketing that says ... the sisterhood will take care of you," she said. "And as someone in that position where you're scared, and you are looking for answers somewhere, and you don't wanna be alone and being so young at the time, that was a very enticing message."

So McAnally went to an abortion facility, which she described as cold and dark, and was given abortion pills.

"They took my money, and they sent me back to this room where ... this doctor was going to walk me through everything that was going to happen that day. That's where the consent kind of happened, in that room, and he didn't know me from Adam. He really didn't ask about my background and anything medical that's ever happened," she said.

After signing the consent forms, she took the first pill at the abortion facility, and then went home to take the second pill as directed. At first, everything seemed like it was going as planned. She sat on the toilet and was bleeding, which she was told to expect.

But then, things began to get worse:

"[A]fter about two hours, I was still bleeding out. And I started feeling really weak. I knew that what was happening was not right, but I couldn't really comprehend what was going on."

At that point, she took herself into the bathtub, where she continued hemorrhaging — so much so, that she had to receive a blood transfusion.

"I just laid there and thought that was the moment that everything was over, and, partially, I felt like it was punishment for me making that decision.

But at the end of the day, I remember waking up, and I was in the hospital and my friend had come home, and she had realized that I was laying in the bathtub unconscious at the time, and she called 911, and I had a blood transfusion done."

The Big Picture:

This is just one example of how dangerous chemical abortions can be. And those dangers are amplified with the rise of mail-order, DIY abortions.

The FDA temporarily enabled abortion pill distribution by mail and expanded the REMS safety rules to limited mail-order pharmacy distribution in 2021; REMS was weakened even more by eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement, allowing the abortion pill to be permanently shipped by mail beginning in 2023.

Meanwhile, the abortion pill is frequently described as "safer than Tylenol." Yet as Live Action News has explained:

A valid comparison of hospital visit frequency must account for the frequency with which both drugs are taken. Fortunately, this data is available. This 2016 study sought to analyze trends in acetaminophen-related adverse events, and tracked the rate of annual ER visits relative to annual sales of the drug. It found that, for the year 2012 (the most recent year covered by the study), there were 282.1 acetaminophen-related ER visits for every 1 (one) million units sold. Assuming typical dosage to be equivalent to two tablets, this means that .056% of doses sold resulted in a hospital visit (282.1/500,000 = .00056).

But even this number is inflated compared to mifepristone’s hospital visit rate, because it includes children and people who intentionally overdosed, populations which are irrelevant to mifepristone’s calculations. 

And what is mifepristone’s hospital visit rate?

A recent study conducted by the abortion industry itself found an ER and urgent care visit rate of 6%. That’s 107 times greater than the rate for acetaminophen/Tylenol, which again, is actually a low number if we were to compare equivalent populations.

An analysis of a large insurance database found adverse events occurred at a rate 22 times higher than what has been reported on the FDA label. Another study found that chemical abortions are four times more dangerous than first-trimester surgical abortions; a study from Ireland found 12% of women had to go to the emergency room for bleeding or infection, while an additional 16% suffered incomplete abortions after taking the abortion pill.

Another study found that women were not adequately warned or prepared for how painful the chemical abortion process would be.

The Bottom Line:

McAnally now identifies as pro-life, and is speaking out to warn other women about abortion.

"Planned Parenthood told us that this is what is women's empowerment. This is what women do when they can't handle it. They take this route, and they don't acknowledge the pain it causes," she said.

"The same pills I took under direction of medical professionals, they can be shipped anywhere at any time. I can't imagine being a young woman in college and maybe finding herself in this position, ordering these pills online, not knowing what kind of maybe pre-medical condition she has, and she finds herself in the same position."

Key Takeaways:

• Multiple reports covering separate time periods found an excessive number of boys born to Indian parents in the UK.

• Demographers warn it may be due to sex-selective abortion or IVF.

• Baby girls are reportedly being abandoned at maternity wards as well.

The Details:

Massive Gender Imbalance

The Times reported that multiple government reports have raised alarms about gender imbalance among Indians living in the UK. It is also believed that this imbalance is due to sex-selective abortions, or IVF.

Two reports, covering 2018 to 2022 and 2019 to 2023, found higher numbers of boys born among third-or-later births to families with Indian ethnicity. Three more reports found the same pattern, including mothers born in India who immigrated to the UK.

There have typically been roughly 105 boys born per 100 girls in the UK for decades; for Indian families, the ratio fits this pattern in first and second births. In third or later, an imbalance appears, with 113 boys born per 100 girls. For mothers born in India, the imbalance grew ever higher, with 117 boys born per 100 girls.

The rate of 117 boys was “surprisingly high,” according to Sabu Padmadas, a professor of demography and global health.

Son Preference

“In cultures where son preference is found, sex-selective pressures are generally stronger for third or higher births," Josh Wilde, a demographer at the University of Oxford, said, and added that it suggests the possibility of sex-selective abortion.

Rani Bilkhu is the founder of Jeena international, a human rights charity that especially focuses on ethnic minorities. The organization has helped women who have faced abuse and coercion to give birth to boys.

“Only a son will give her value, and make her feel she has done something worthwhile. This is the real reason," she said, adding that it is still “embedded in the psyches of even highly-educated Indian women born and raised in Britain."

This has led to the abandonment of baby girls.

“I know women who have left their baby girls in the maternity ward. This is happening in the UK, not in some remote Indian village," she said, adding that she was asked firsthand, “Why have you allowed yourself to have another girl? Why couldn’t you just go and find out?”

She added, “Women grounded within our community know what is going on. This is gender violence before a girl is even born.”

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said sex-selective abortion is not legal in the UK, but it seemingly is still happening.

The Big Picture:

Around the world, sex-selective abortion continues to be a problem, even in India, where although it is now illegal, it persists. Without the existence of sex-determining ultrasounds, it is believed that there would be approximately 63 million more women and girls born in India between the 1970s and today.

But the problem is not limited to India alone; imbalanced sex ratios are present in other countries as well, particularly Asian countries like China and Nepal. It is so pervasive that the United Nations (UN) has estimated that 142 million girls are missing globally due to a cultural preference for male children. 

As seen in these reports, it is not just occurring in Asian countries, but throughout the world. This is not the first time the issue has been raised in the UK, and a Live Action investigation found that it occurs in the United States as well. 

The Bottom Line:

No human being should be targeted for extermination simply because they are seen as the "wrong" sex.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2022, Newsom signed Executive Order N-12-22, protecting abortionists from being extradited to pro-life states after violating those states' laws.

• Assembly Bill 2164 would have codified this executive order in law and strengthened the shield laws in California.

• Newsom vetoed the bill, sending shockwaves through the abortion industry.

The Details:

Newsom's 2022 executive order banned California state agencies from cooperating with state agencies in pro-life states looking to extradite abortionists for violating their laws regarding abortion. This includes forcing medical records, patient data, billing records, or other information which could assist another state's investigation or legal case to remain confidential.

Assembly Bill 2164, meanwhile, would have strengthened the executive order to apply to California abortionists who committed abortions outside of California. These restrictions would have been codified into state law, rather than as an executive order from a sitting governor.

Despite Newsom's ardent support for abortion, he vetoed the bill. In a statement, he explained why:

While I share the author's views on the importance of protecting these important health care services, extradition is an exclusively executive function. When discretionary, that discretion is appropriately placed with the Governor.

I am troubled by the precedent that would be set if an outgoing administration agreed with the Legislature to erode the executive authority of an incoming Governor based on their shared policy preferences, regardless of how righteous and well-intended those actions may be.

Zoom In:

Abortion activists reacted with dismay to Newsom's shocking veto.

“Steve Hilton has made it very clear that he is willing to send California abortion providers to other states to face criminal charges, and we are deeply disappointed by Governor Newsom’s failure to get AB 2164 over the finish line to protect them," Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju said in a statement. "California must remain a safe haven for reproductive freedom and cannot leave abortion providers one election away from extradition.”

Kimya Forouzan with the Guttmacher Institute, formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood, likewise criticized the veto.

“By moving extradition protections beyond the reach of future state governors and extending them to providers' prior acts, the state would have ensured that providers have stronger protections against restrictive states that seek to prevent them from prescribing and mailing abortion pills,” Forouzan said.

Key Takeaways:

• Talk show personality Guillermo Rodriguez is paired with pregnant pro dancer Witney Carson on Season 35 of "Dancing with the Stars."

• During an interview, show co-host Julianne Hough noted the existence of Carson's preborn baby, referring to the dance partners as a 'trio'.

• Rodriguez noted on the show that he believes "women can do everything," highlighting that motherhood and career are not mutually exclusive and that mothers are capable of achieving career goals.

The Details:

During an after-dance interview with Season 35 contestant Guillermo Rodriguez (better known as the sidekick to Jimmy Kimmel on Jimmy Kimmel Live) and pro dancer Witney Carson, Hough highlighted the existence of Carson's preborn baby.

"So you basically have two partners dancing, with Witney with the baby. What's that like — having a trio right now?" she asked Rodriguez.

He responded, "You know what? Witney is the best. You know what, she's an example that women can do everything. Women are the best. She's pregnant and she's dancing."

In a separate interview, Rodriguez said, "You know why she's pregnant and... dancing? Because women are the best! Women are the best! Women can do anything and so we're doing it."

Carson revealed on August 17 that she is pregnant with her third child with husband Carson McAllister. As reported by TODAY, people wondered if she would be able to continue dancing on the show while pregnant.

“I love to dance, and I love to compete, and I want to grow my family, as well,” she said. “I don’t feel like people necessarily have to lose parts of themselves to keep growing their family. That’s kind of my mantra. I’m gonna stay true to what I love and continue on my career and continue to grow my family. It’s a big blessing to be able to do both.”

She said that she will "be careful to make sure I don't overdo it" but noted that it's "perfectly safe to do all the things..." She laughed, adding:

“Listen, I’m prepared for it, kind of. I’ve never danced this far pregnant ... But listen, I will make it happen. I mean, I’m not injured. I’m just pregnant.”

Why It Matters:

Women have been told for decades that they must sacrifice their fertility and their children's lives to focus on their careers. After the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022, companies began <a href="/news/companies-paying-abortion">virtue signaling</a> by announcing they would begin paying employees' costs to travel out of state for abortions. The pressure on women to abort children in order to keep their jobs or get promotions is very real.

After Live Action released its <a href="/videos/your-pro-choice-boss-would-rather-pay-for-this-than-maternity-leave">satire video</a> <a href="/videos/pro-choice-bosses-want-you-to-stay-profitable-abortion-ensures-that-prochoicebosses">series</a>, "Pro-Choice Bosses," women began sharing personal stories of pregnancy discrimination from their employers. Comments included:

• "My 9-5 job won’t pay for my maternity leave but they will fly me out of state and pay for my abortion. Like can they be any more obvious about wanting us to be a slave to their machine and be miserable childless employees just to save money[?]"

• "I had a similar experience when I was 19 and working and found out I was pregnant for the first time my female manager even offered to take me to Planned Parenthood so that I could get an abortion and she got upset with me when I told her I wasn’t going to kill my baby.”

• "I was discounted from getting a job years ago...even though I was top candidate, until they found out (I told them) I was pregnant."

• "Even retail jobs don't want you to get pregnant. Mine fired me and said to re apply when I was ready to come back after giving birth."

• "I landed a prestigious job at a law firm when I was 18... I found out I was pregnant that Oct, and my boss, one of the partners of the firm, said 'You need to get an abortion and never tell your mother.' In those exact words. I kept my baby, and I ended up quitting that job 6 months in...that same man sexually harassed me on my last day of work....I grew to become a college graduate twice, have 2 more awesome kids, and have garnered a lengthy history of wonderful, esteemed positions."

• "My pregnancy and motherhood was such an inconvenience to their livelihood that they fired me 2 weeks after giving birth. My two weeks was a paid vacation I had earned. I actually worked remotely 3 days after giving birth and throughout that vacation. Had I had an abortion, I would have kept my job.”

Several celebrities have boasted about their own abortions and their decision to sacrifice their children's lives to grow their careers. They have sent the message the women can't have equality or equal access to jobs without killing their preborn children:

• Actress Michelle Williams: She credited her Golden Globes win to an abortion she had, saying, “And I wouldn’t have been able to do this without employing a woman’s right to choose, to choose when to have my children and with whom.”

• Actress Busy Philipps: "Here I was sitting in Los Angeles in my beautiful office of my own late-night talk show. Soon, I would be driving my hybrid car to my beautiful f***ing home, to kiss my two beautiful and healthy children and my husband who had taken the year off to parent so I could focus on my career. And I have ALL OF THIS. ALL OF IT because — because — because — I was allowed bodily autonomy at 15."

• Stevie Nicks: "If I had not had that abortion, I’m pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac. There’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly. And there were a lot of drugs, I was doing a lot of drugs … I would have had to walk away.”

• Actress Alyssa Milano: When she became pregnant twice in 1993, she had two abortions. "I had a career, and a future, and potential," she said.

This is what makes Rodriguez's comments so important.

The Bottom Line:

Rodriguez's comments did receive backlash on Facebook, such as: "'You know why she's pregnant? You know why she's dancing? Cause women are the best.' is so unintentionally hilarious as if that's all women are good for[.] no shade to Guillermo I know what he meant."

However, it's highly unlikely that Rodriguez meant to say that his dancer partner is only 'good for' having babies.

Mothers are capable of having successful careers, especially when they are given support and flexible options, such as being able to bring their baby to work, work from home, and have access to in-house daycare at the office.

Rather than boasting that they will pay for abortion-related expenses, companies should be creating healthy work environments for families that will create company loyalty and boast employee morale while helping families and children thrive.

Key Takeaways:

• Live Action News previously reported that some abortionists begin a late-term induction abortion by lethally injecting the preborn child, and then sending the mother to a hospital in her home state to deliver a stillborn baby.

• News reports and Reddit threads have examples of women who have chosen to have their nearly full term babies lethally injected with a feticide prior to a planned stillbirth, paying thousands (or even tens of thousands) of dollars in the process.

• Many portray it as compassionate or "humane" to "euthanize" a preborn child with a drug that causes a fatal cardiac arrest.

• Research shows that the vast majority of women who choose late-term abortion do so for the same reasons as those who choose to abort early in pregnancy — and the reasons have little to do with health or safety.

The Details:

Use of feticide in abortion

In the third trimester of pregnancy, the abortion method most often used is induction abortion. This typically involves injecting the living preborn baby with a feticide (such as digoxin or potassium chloride/KCL) to cause fatal cardiac arrest in the child. Then, labor is induced to deliver the stillborn baby.

Though myths to the contrary persist, reasons for killing a preborn baby in later abortion are, according to pro-abortion researchers, largely the same as those given for early abortion (financial, relational, etc.).

Yet, when describing so-called 'terminations for medical reasons (TFMR),' rather than calling abortion what it is, some are referring to the feticide injection as a form of 'euthanasia.'

A 'very hard thing to do'

Kate was 36 weeks pregnant when she paid $25,000 to “euthanize” her preborn baby at (now-retired) abortionist Warren Hern’s Colorado facility via an induction abortion, according to Yahoo News:

“The whole first day was counseling and testing to make sure it was safe to do the procedure. They want to make sure you completely understand what is going to happen and that no one is pressuring you into the decision.

At the end of the day, I signed all the paperwork, and the doctor injected the baby with a drug that, over a few hours, slowed her heart to still. It was a very, very difficult day. Euthanizing the baby is, obviously, a very hard thing to do. 

After the injection, he asked how I was feeling, and I just said, “I feel so sad. I’m going to miss her.”

'Euthanized' at a clinic, delivered in home state

Live Action News previously detailed how some abortion providers are committing "injection only" abortions — something this Reddit user seems to be referring to:

I don’t want any damage done to my baby. I want to hold them and cuddle them and do all the things we’d do with a natural still born....

I’ve read that having the euthanasia (for lack of better term) could be done at one of these clinics and I could return to my state for L&D of the “still born.”

... The idea of getting on a plane or doing a 2 day drive after losing my baby really scares and concerns me. Id still be bleeding, I’d be very raw emotionally, again in a new unfamiliar place, being away from medical help if it’s needed and flying would require being around other people.

In response, a separate Reddit user wrote:

Two things to add:

First, there have been some post-Dobbs challenges coordinating this kind of care with hospitals in TX.

Discuss with your doctor if they'd have any issue taking care of you after an injection. Sometimes I've had doctors tell me "it's fine we'll just have her show up on L&D and act like it happened on its own." I don't like that. I don't want you needing to keep any secrets from any part of your care team...

Second, there are also MFM offices that can do them with your husband present and possibly for a lower cost to you. The challenge is that they don't advertise.

Another Reddit user wrote:

... I had to go on my gut and move quickly... at that clinic, we began the procedure with euthanizing injection, so I never got to meet my baby earthside.

I did get to view her body, and that was important to me, but there was a part of me which grieved mightily for never holding her, living, in my arms....

The video below proports to show fetal "reduction" of a preborn twin using a KCL injection:

'Euthanizing injection' for 'induced stillbirth'

On a thread entitled "TFMR support," a Reddit user seeking "induced stillbirth" at 36 weeks referred to receiving the "euthanizing injection" that killed her baby:

I was 36 weeks. The process was identical to giving birth of my full term babies, only shorter labor and quicker recovery.

The process is birth: induced stillbirth... I had euthanizing injection day 1. Day 2 and 3 were laminaria (10 minute appointments that were not comfortable but were also not long), and then was induced Day 4.

Was in labor for 2.5 hours then started pushing spontaneously and was rushed to delivery. Baby was out very quickly...

A 'humane' euthanizing injection?

A Substack post from a woman whose "baby’s brain had not developed properly" claimed she "was offered neither palliative care for my baby... nor abortion care to prevent her suffering," so she opted for what she called a 'humane' abortion:

I had to travel from Boston to Colorado to access the abortion care that I needed to give my baby peace...

I was in my 36th week of pregnancy for the 4-day outpatient procedure. It was absolutely devastating, but it was humane. It was gentle. It was kind.

I was able to induce a stillbirth through euthanizing injection, and then very gradual dilation and induction of labor. I came home to my 30th birthday with an empty womb and empty arms and the enormous weight of taboo on my shoulders. The hardest thing I hope I ever have to experience.

These are abortions, says Kate Carson, who had her "euthanizing injection" abortion in 2012:

"There is no corpse in the world that is more precious than a living, breathing human body," she admits.

Another video below purports to show the so-called "humane" process of killing the baby in the womb:

'Euthanizing injection' over 'painful medical interventions'

In another thread, a Reddit user who paid Warren Hern to abort her baby said she would opt for the 'euthanizing injection' over 'medical interventions':

So given the choice between c-section birth into a cascade of painful medical interventions that we could not legally refuse vs. termination, my decision was crystal clear.

My procedure went like this:

Day 1: patient education and euthanizing injection

Day 2: laminaria insertion (like 10 minute procedure)

Day 3: old laminaria out, new laminaria in (another 10 min)

Day 4: induction of labor and vaginal delivery without anesthesia. Of my 3 births, my birth at the clinic was by far the easiest... Dr. Hern did a quick sweep of my uterus with suction to prevent retained placenta and other complications. I was able to eliminate within a half an hour...

'Euthanizing the fetus'

Huffington Post described this 34 week abortion as 'euthanizing the fetus':

Kathryn K. was 32 weeks pregnant when she sat in a room with “six doctors and medical professionals” at Denver Children’s Hospital...

The team referred Kathryn to Dr. Hern, who first reviewed her file with the doctors in Denver and then performed his own ultrasound and exam before euthanizing the fetus and inducing labor at 34 weeks.

Late term abortionist Susan Robinson once described the "first part of the procedure" this way:

We sedate the patient and euthanize their fetus, their baby, with an injection. The fetus passes away, doesn’t feel anything.

A Reddit user claimed, "The doctor who performed the feticide seemed aloof at first, which initially upset me. Later, I realized that his job was to compassionately euthanize much-wanted babies for broken families, and I understood. "

'Euthanizing' Healthy Fetus

Undercover recording captured abortion staff at Southwestern Women’s Options (SWO) — a late-term abortion facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico, operated at the time by abortionist Curtis Boyd — telling a “healthy woman posing as 25 weeks pregnant” that they intended to “euthanize the fetus.” 

As previously documented by Live Action News, the disturbing recording was released by Abortion Free New Mexico and Priests for Life, and was published by the New Mexico group, Pro-life Witness.

In detailing the late-term abortion, the facility staffer told the caller that the 25-week abortion would be a “three to four day process” of “labor and delivery” which would result in a “stillborn” baby.

On the first day, the doctor, referred to as “she,” would “use a medication" to “euthanize the fetus” and “stop the fetal heart on that first day,” according to the staffer.

Coming Full Circle:

According to the Human Life Review's Spring 1988 issue, journalist Nat Hentoff once wrote:

It is hardly news that, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973, many predicted that infanticide, euthanasia, and other horrors would soon follow.

The logic of the Court’s “quality of life ethic” clearly applies to human life at any stage. It only remains to legalize the “right to die” of “competent” persons and the “right” of parents to be rid of offspring that fail to meet their expectations, etc.

It has long been obvious that there are plenty of doctors willing to collaborate (even instigate) the process of deliberately killing those whom German doctors — pioneers in the advocacy of such “treatment” even before Hitler came to power — once described as living lives “not worthy to be lived.”

When abortion was decriminalized by the U.S. Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade in 1973, many predicted it would result in euthanasia and infanticide. 

And it has.

Recently, details emerged about the shocking legal euthanasia of a two-year-old child with disabilities in the Netherlands.

The act of killing a human being, born or preborn, is not merciful, humane, or compassionate — no matter the reason or the condition of the victim.

Key Takeaways:

• A woman known as J Hewitt has won a lawsuit against her former employer, Elite Hair Lounge, after an employment tribunal found she was wrongfully terminated due to her pregnancy.

• Hewitt was 19 and working as a trainee stylist when she became pregnant. Her manager suggested she have an abortion.

• Hewitt did not abort her baby, and went on to face various instances of pregnancy discrimination. She was fired when she inquired about returning to work after maternity leave.

• The employment tribunal awarded her nearly £30,000.

The Details:

The 19-year-old woman, known as J Hewitt, was working as a trainee stylist at Elite Hair Lounge in Stockwell, London, when she told her manager, Edna Houshyar, she was pregnant in December 2023.

Shockingly, Houshyar suggested Hewitt "should have an abortion as she was too young." Houshyar also questioned whether the baby's father was “around."

As her pregnancy progressed, Hewitt experienced discrimination; she was wrongfully marked late after attending a medical appointment and was also told she could not leave for an ultrasound visit.

As Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) reports, "Despite her job requiring prolonged periods of standing, the tribunal found that the salon did not discuss adjustments or conduct a risk assessment."

SPUC further details:

In January 2024, Hewitt was signed off work after suffering pregnancy-related migraines. Houshyar subsequently told her: “I don’t think with this situation that you have, and all these days that you are asking for a day off, you can continue.”

The case culminated on 18 January, when Hewitt messaged her manager asking what would happen to her job during maternity leave and whether she could resume her apprenticeship after giving birth.

Around 20 minutes later, she was informed that her apprenticeship had been terminated because unspecified “milestones” had not been met.

After Hewitt challenged the dismissal and raised the abortion remark, the salon cited lateness, absences, and poor customer service. However, the tribunal found no contemporaneous evidence of performance problems, no previous verbal or written warnings, and concluded that Hewitt had taken no unapproved days off.

Hewitt's case was heard by an employment tribunal, who agreed with her claims of automatic unfair dismissal, direct pregnancy discrimination, and direct age discrimination, which were all upheld in whole or in part.

Employment Judge Beckett ruled that Hewitt's pregnancy was the “reason, or principal reason” she was fired, noting that the that fact she was terminated within minutes of asking about maternity leave was “important evidence” that her termination was due to her pregnancy.

A remedy judgement ordered Elite Hair Lounge to pay Hewitt £29,489.62.

Zoom In:

Women have long faced pregnancy discrimination in the workforce, especially because abortion has become so prevalent.

Often, women feel they have no choice but to abort their children in order to keep their jobs and their livelihoods. A large number of companies are willing to subsidize abortion travel or abortion procedures, but will not extend benefits to pregnant and working mothers.

Many mothers choose abortion because they feel they have no other choice. As long as abortion remains legal, pregnant women will continue to experience discrimination.

Key Takeaways:

• Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has denied an emergency appeal request from surrogate McKenna West regarding a California court ruling which stated that West has no legal or physical claim to the baby she carried.

• After the baby boy was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, West refused the abortion the genetic parents demanded. West chose to relocate to Texas, where doctors at a certain hospital had a 100% success rate in the first of three specialized surgeries the baby required to survive.

• When the genetic parents refused to commit to providing the baby boy with life-saving care, West sought custody of him.

• Kagan said the Supreme Court will not intervene, leaving the California court ruling in place that West has no legal or physical claim to the baby she carried and birthed.

The Details:

Supreme Court Justice Kagan, the justice who oversees emergency filings in California, said on Tuesday that she would not intervene in a case regarding West's custody of the baby she carried and protected from abortion as a surrogate.

Earlier this month, West filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that West has no physical or legal claim to the baby, referred to as "Gabriel" by West prior to his birth and named "Rumi" by his genetic parents.

West asked the Supreme Court to block that ruling out of concern that the baby's genetic parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, would remove the baby from Texas and fail to provide him with life-saving care in their home state of California.

West's attorney, Lincoln Davis Wilson of First and Fourteenth, called out the behavior of the baby's genetic parents throughout the situation:

“While disappointed at the Supreme Court’s ruling, McKenna takes great comfort in how these legal proceedings have prompted the contracting parents to say they are committed to provide the baby with the lifesaving care he needs. That’s what McKenna has been fighting for from day one.

Still, the contracting parents have acted duplicitously. They claim McKenna has been on a ‘publicity tour,’ but she hasn’t said anything publicly about this case in many weeks.

Meanwhile, just a few days ago, they provided the media with exclusive photos of the baby from his hospital bed while issuing a statement of their own.

And after faulting McKenna for receiving donations, they are now soliciting them."

He continued (emphasis added):

"Most egregiously, the contracting parents pose in their legal papers as the sole defenders of the baby’s life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They demanded that McKenna abort the baby as soon as they learned of his medical condition.

They refused to commit to his lifesaving care until a court order, entered over their objection, forced their hand.

And even now after his birth, they remain under a court order to continue providing that care. Every life-saving decision has been made for them, not by them."

Also this month, the Texas Supreme Court denied West's request for the baby to remain in Texas for his ongoing healthcare. It noted that the baby's doctor indicated an "ICU-to-ICU transfer" is in the "child's best interest."

However, the court upheld the order that "stabilizing and life-sustaining care" must be provided to the baby and that no one is allowed to delay his necessary care.

The Backstory:

West agreed to act as a surrogate for the couple, but at 20 weeks learned the baby had hypoplastic left heart syndrome, which is a serious but treatable condition.

Gilkar and Ahmed requested an abortion, but West ultimately refused. She went to Texas to give birth knowing that doctors in Dallas had a high success rate with the first of the three heart surgeries the baby would need.

She asked the genetic parents to commit to providing the baby with the care he would need, and when they didn't, she began her fight for custody to ensure that he received care.

Now, Gilkar and Ahmed are suing West for $100,000 along with attorney's fees and additional damages. The custody fight appears to have ended, but that lawsuit remains ongoing.

“Through this entire saga," said Wilson, "McKenna’s focus hasn’t wavered: to protect the life of the baby she carried.”

Key Takeaways:

• The annual Swiss March for Life took place in Zurich-Oerlikon on Saturday September 19.

• EWTN News estimates over 2,200 pro-lifers attended.

• The event was delayed after 200 masked protesters on bicycles blocked the route and set off firecrackers.

• Event organizers have been unable to hold the event in Zurich's city center for several years, after city officials denied them the necessary permits.

The Details:

The march was held September 19 in the market square in Zurich-Oerlikon. According to EWTN News, it attracted over 2,200 supporters, many of them families with young children.

Blue News reports that 200 masked protesters on bicycles delayed the march's start, blocking the route and setting off firecrackers. After several warnings, police shot water cannons at the protesters, who then dispersed but continued to gather at various spots throughout the march. No injuries were reported.

The event, which has been held since 2010, has been the center of controversy for the past several years, as the City of Zurich has prevented organizers from gathering in the city center, refusing to issue permits for the event.

Instead, the March has been forced to take place in the area of Zurich-Oerlikon, which lies on the northern outskirts. March organizers contend that this is a “disproportionate restriction” on the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.

Zoom In:

Abortion is legal in Switzerland for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. The country is also well known as a hotspot for "euthanasia tourism," as it allows those who are not Swiss citizens to travel to the country to participate in 'assisted dying.'

Beatrice Gall, president of the Swiss March for Life, told EWTN News that abortion is not an issue which is widely discussed.

“There is no public debate and no objective examination of the facts; instead, people remain silent about the high abortion rates, the suffering this causes many people, and the consequences thereof,” Gall said.

She is hopeful that the march can return to Zurich's city center, as greater visibility is necessary so that “communication, dialogue, and discussions with people can begin.”

Key Takeaways:

• Ezra Frech was born with several limb differences; he was missing most of his left leg and several fingers on his left hand.

• Most of the remainder of his left leg was amputated when he was two; he has been using a prosthetic for most of his life.

• Frech is a Paralympian who has won multiple medals in international competition, including the Paralympics, competing in track and field.

• He is currently a contestant on "Dancing with the Stars" — an opportunity which he has used to continue his disability advocacy.

The Backstory:

Ezra Frech was born in Los Angeles with several limb differences. He was missing several fingers on his left hand, and most of his left leg.

Frech began using a prosthetic leg before he turned one, and at two, the remainder of his leg was amputated. Yet he was never defined by his disability, competing in multiple sports throughout his childhood.

He eventually began to participate in track and field, where he excelled, and after watching the 2016 Paralympic Games at age 11, made that his goal.

Within just three years, he was competing internationally for Team USA, and made his Paralympics debut in 2020. He continued competing in para-athletics internationally, medalling each year in the World Championships, until the 2024 Paralympics came. There, Frech fulfilled his dream of not only competing in the Paralympics, but emerging as a champion. He earned gold medals in the men’s 100-meter T63 and high jump T63 events, and came in fifth in the long jump. His high jump also set a Paralympic record.

In addition to his own athletic career, he has remained dedicated to providing access to adaptive sports for others. He founded Angel City Sports, which provides free year-round adaptive sports opportunities for children, adults, and veterans with disabilities in Southern California, and hosts the Angel City Games — one of the largest adaptive sports events in the country. He also works as a public speaker and advocate.

The Details:

As a current contestant on "Dancing with the Stars," Frech is competing with dance pro Daniella Karagach. He scored one of the highest scores to date in the premiere, in which he danced an Argentine tango.

Present in the audience was Amy Purdy, a double amputee and Paralympian who likewise competed on Dancing with the Stars; Frech spoke about seeing her perform on the show when he was younger.

Purdy wrote on Instagram:

When I was asked to do DWTS in 2014, as a double leg amputee, I had no idea what was possible. Seeing someone like me on TV showing the possibilities was rare. Ezra watched me on the show and now here we are… I’m sitting in the ballroom watching HIM.

That’s the power of representation. Sometimes seeing someone else do something doesn’t just inspire you it expands what you believe is possible for your own life. And now Ezra gets to do that for someone else. Full circle.

After completing his dance, Frech spoke about the experience of dancing with limb differences.

"It was intimidating, honestly, leading with a left hand that's missing fingers, a left leg that's not there... we met so many challenges, but we kept at it," he said. "We kept working. And that first section, we're only connected with my left hand and leading with my left side. And so we wanted to lean into the disability as much as possible."

He also spoke on Instagram about the experience, writing that it "[m]eans the world to get to represent the disabled community on such a powerful stage like @dancingwiththestars."

The Bottom Line:

Disability makes someone different, but not inferior or incapable. Ezra Frech and other disabled athletes like him are a perfect example of this.

Planned Parenthood's business model is focused on both the killing of preborn human beings and sex-rejecting services (which it refers to as 'gender-affirming care.' According to the abortion industry leader, these destructive procedures go “hand in hand.”

Key Takeaways:

• Medical watchdog group, Do No Harm, sent a formal complaint in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services seeking an investigation into potential medical coding fraud perpetuated by Planned Parenthood affiliates that provide "transgender" services.

• The group alleges that it found, with the help of a private data broker, evidence that Planned Parenthood "... may deliberately use incorrect diagnosis codes in patient records and on billing claims to ‘disguis[e] treatment for gender-related mental disorders as another, physical illness’ for which both public and private insurers would be more likely to reimburse a claim.” 

• At least one Planned Parenthood affiliate is on record, stating that it uses code E34.9 (for “endocrine disorder, unspecified”) and others “in order to get payment for the services,” as Live Action News previously reported.

The Details:   

On Tuesday, as reported by the Daily Wire, the medical watchdog and advocacy group Do No Harm sent a letter to the HHS Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) with allegations of “a potential nationwide miscoding scheme” by Planned Parenthood affiliates, relating to hormones “seemingly linked to gender dysphoria.”

Do No Harm wrote in its complaint:  

Planned Parenthood affiliates have a strong financial incentive to engage in systematic miscoding: insulating the multi-billion-dollar market for sex-rejecting procedures from scrutiny. Over the last decade, the transgender industry has evolved into a lucrative business, with expenditures on sex-reassignment surgery and crosssex hormones alone expected to approach nearly $4 billion annually.

In the letter, the group asks for HHS to investigate Do No Harm's findings:

We write to share our findings related to our analysis of Planned Parenthood affiliates’ provision of cross-sex hormones to young people and to respectfully request that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) open an investigation into the coding practices of Planned Parenthood and its regional affiliates.

The formal complaint alleges:  

• Approximately 5,700 patients, 22 years old or younger... “appear to have received 11,000 to 12,000 gender-related prescriptions from Planned Parenthood affiliates between 2015 and 2025." 

• About “800 received 1,100 to 1,200 hormone prescriptions seemingly linked to gender dysphoria but lacking the correct diagnosis codes for the associated office visit.” 

Do No Harm points out that medical treatments are traditionally “reimbursed only when medically necessary.”

But medically unnecessary, sex-rejecting procedures provided by Planned Parenthood and others “... may deliberately use incorrect diagnosis codes in patient records and on billing claims to ‘disguis[e] treatment for gender-related mental disorders as another, physical illness’ for which both public and private insurers would be more likely to reimburse a claim.” 

Working with a private data broker, Do No Harm analyzed the coding practices of Planned Parenthood for 'gender-affirming care.' The group detailed:

This investigation involved examining diagnosis codes from medical claims for office visits at Planned Parenthood affiliates and hormone prescriptions where the prescriber was also associated with Planned Parenthood affiliates.

By comparing medical-claim data with prescription-claim data, Do No Harm identified a set of patients who had prescription claims from a Planned Parenthood–related prescriber within 30 days of an office-visit claim at a Planned Parenthood–affiliated facility.

The group's press release states, "When a provider intentionally uses an inaccurate medical code for a medical condition, this isn't a harmless error. It's fraud by which claims can circumvent the scrutiny they may otherwise face… This is why HHS must further investigate Planned Parenthood’s potential scheme."

Do No Harm’s allegations and letter come on the heels of last month's decision to end federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIPS) funding for sex-rejecting procedures on minors after a final rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), part of HHS, was released. 

Immediately after, HHS released its report, “Wolves in White Coats,” after an investigation of more than 225 hospitals and facilities like Planned Parenthood uncovered “approximately $50 million in insurance claims for puberty blockers billed using endocrine disorder diagnostic code E34.9 (Endocrine Disorder, Unspecified)."

In response, Vice President JD Vance called for "criminal prosecutions" for providers named in the report — which included Planned Parenthood mentioned affiliates — should further investigations confirm intentional miscoding to defraud Medicaid or private insurers.

In a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche, Vance stated that providers who intentionally miscoded treatment to defraud Medicaid or private insurers 'should go to prison.'"

Planned Parenthood affiliates in the HHS report spanned across more than 15 states, as Live Action News reported.

The Backstory: 

Do No Harm is a group of “physicians, nurses, medical students, patients, and policymakers focused on keeping identity politics out of medical education, research, and clinical practice” who believe in “... making healthcare better for all – not undermining it in pursuit of a political agenda.”

In late 2024, the group launched its Stop The Harm database after analyzing insurance claims data from 2019 to 2023 of sex-rejecting procedures on minors nationwide. 

At the time, Stop the Harm reported that it identified: 

• 13,994 minors who underwent sex-rejecting treatments; 

• 5,747 minors that underwent body damaging surgeries; 

• 8,579 minors that received medically unnecessary hormones and puberty blockers—with over 62,000 prescriptions written. 

In August 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the launch of investigations to “examine whether some of the practices in gender-affirming care are deceptive and require greater scrutiny” offered by groups such as Planned Parenthood, clinics and children’s hospitals across the country. 

During the workshop, psychiatrist, author and speaker Dr. Miriam Grossman pointed out that Planned Parenthood and other clinics openly claimed to utilize International Classification of Diseases codes, like 34.9 (for “endocrine disorder, unspecified”) and others “in order to get payment for the services,” as Live Action News reported. (Read Live Action’s in-depth report on Planned Parenthood’s involvement with sex-rejecting ‘care’ here.) 

Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania's website previously claimed the affiliate used the code, stating: 

In order to meet the needs of most insurance companies and patients, we typically use the code E34.9. We recognize that much of the language around billing for gender-affirming care is troublesome. We recognize this is medically necessary care and will work to decrease barriers to get folks the care they need.

In April 2026, Do No Harm released a report mentioning the same Planned Parenthood affiliate’s self-reported use of the E34.9 ICD code. 

In May, the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) similarly questioned if some affiliates are “commingling federal funds and using them for unpermitted purposes.”

The subcommittee claimed the possible commingling of funds included “cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and surgical referrals, with allegedly little to no medical or psychological evaluation,” sending demand letters to multiple Planned Parenthood affiliates, reported Live Action News.  

Several letters were subsequently sent to multiple Planned Parenthood affiliates, many of which cross over with HHS/DOJ referred affiliates, and include:

• Planned Parenthood of North Central States (PPNCS, formerly Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, PPMNS)

• Planned Parenthood of Michigan (PPMI)

• Planned Parenthood of Illinois (PPIL)

• Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio (PPGOH)

• Planned Parenthood of Greater New York (PPGNY)

• Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties (PPOSBC)

• Planned Parenthood of Southern New England (PPSNE)

• Planned Parenthood of Maryland (PPM)

• Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky (PPGNHAIK)

• Planned Parenthood of Northern, Central, and Southern New Jersey, Inc. (PPNCSNJ

A Call to Action: 

Do No Harm stated in its letter to HHS:

The machinery behind this potential fraud reflects an extreme ideology, intent on thwarting accurate review of reimbursement claims submitted for sex-rejecting procedures.

Despite their hold over private medical organizations, sex-rejecting procedures lack a recognized, accredited medical subspecialty; unified professional authority; or comprehensive, evidence-based clinical guidelines endorsed across medical disciplines.

The group is asking for HHS “to determine whether and to what extent these miscoded office visits cause pharmacies to fill prescriptions for cross-sex hormones and other sex-rejecting procedures for which claims are submitted to the federal government for reimbursement.”

The Bottom Line: 

Despite the fact that multiple Planned Parenthood affiliates are now facing scrutiny from advocacy groups, from a congressional subcommittee, from HHS and even potentially he DOJ, it is important to remember that Planned Parenthood has regained its taxpayer funding. 

The question is, 'Why are the U.S. taxpayers forced to fund Planned Parenthood’s deadly and destructive practices?' 

Just days later, the Texas Supreme Court denied West's request for the baby to remain in Texas for his ongoing healthcare, noting that the baby's doctor indicated an "ICU-to-ICU transfer" is in the "child's best interest," and that “the timing of the recommended transfer is ripe now..."

Key Takeaways:

• A Texas District court vacated the Emergency Order Granting Temporary Relief of the Protection of the Child that had been requested by Texas in August.

• The District Court heard a motion from the guardian ad litem of the baby to modify that emergency order, finding that the genetic parents "have not refused any recommended medical treatments" for Baby Gabriel/Rumi.

• Certain aspects of the Emergency Order remain in place, including that 'stabilizing and life-sustaining care shall be provided.'

The Details:

On September 15, the District Court heard a motion from Susan Duesler, the Guardian Ad Litem of Baby Gabriel/Rumi, to allow genetic parents Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed to modify the court's emergency order that ensured the baby stayed in Texas for care. The court found that the genetic parents "have not refused any recommended medical treatments for the child since his birth," and "have consented to all recommended medical treatment for the child." It also found that "[t]he child is not being placed on hospice and is as well now as his treating physician believes he is expected to be before the next planned surgery."

The baby was born via surrogate (West) after the genetic parents pressured her to have an abortion; West instead sought and found specialists to treat the baby's condition in Texas. At the time, there was concern that Gilkar and Ahmed may not follow through on providing the baby with the necessary care. The State of Texas blocked them from removing him from Texas under the Emergency Order, and Duesler was appointed to act in the best interest of the baby.

The Court has now determined that some of the "restrictions" under the Emergency Order "are no longer medically recommended or necessary to protect the child's health, safety, and welfare, and in fact, may increase the risk to the chid's recovery and longevity." It ruled, "[I]t is in the best interest of the child and for the safety and welfare of the child to modify the Emergency Order." It continued:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Emergency Order is hereby VACATED...

This means that the genetic parents can move Gabriel/Rumi to California, their home state, but only if the doctors approve it.

The Court included that while the Emergency Order is vacated, certain aspects remain in place:

• Duesler shall remain as the Guardian Ad Litem

• stabilizing and life-sustaining care shall continue to be provided to the baby

• no one can delay that care

• no doctor can provide care that is not medically indicated

• the parties have the right to seek further temporary orders

The additional, unspecified relief that was requested by Duesler, Gilkar, and Ahmed was denied, according to the document.

"[T]he parents' right to direct medical care for their child is also firmly established in the law," said the Court, adding:

In this case, the evidence establishes that the child's highly-qualified treating physicians, have made and are making recommendations that are in the child's best interest and are life-sustaining, and that the parents have consented to such recommendations.

It is not the Court's job to interfere with medically recommended care of a medically fragile child, and the Court will not do so. Those decisions are to be left to the parents in concert with the medical professionals entrusted with his care.

The Backstory:

Baby Gabriel/Rumi was born this summer to surrogate McKenna West, a nurse and single mother of two small children who was seeking a way to make more income without being apart from her children.

She believed that the baby's genetic parents would not ask for an abortion even if the baby received a health diagnosis. However, after the baby was diagnosed with HLHS, they pressured her to have a second-trimester abortion.

West was shocked, and she ultimately could not bring herself to go through with what would be a D&E dismemberment abortion.

West knew she was putting herself at risk of financial ruin, but she did not want to put the baby through such a horrific procedure — a procedure that also carried significant risks for her.

Because West refused to have an abortion, Gilkar and Ahmed stopped sending West money and wanted her to return the money they had already paid her, as well as additional damages for not aborting the baby. They are suing her for $100,000, far more than what they paid her.

West found doctors in Texas who specialized in the surgeries that the baby would need, with a 100% success rate with the first of the three surgeries. She decided to fight for custody of the baby unless Gilkar and Ahmed would commit to getting him the surgeries. They reportedly have yet to do so.

Key Takeaways:

• Two women both left Oklahoma to have abortions after their preborn babies were diagnosed with potentially life-limiting diagnoses.

• They, along with a pro-abortion group and two doctors, are suing the state of Oklahoma.

• The lawsuit claims Oklahoma's pro-life law violated their right to "life and liberty."

The Details:

According to reports, Magon Hoffman and Sheena Hamlin each chose to leave Oklahoma to undergo abortions after their preborn children received serious health diagnoses. Doctors told each of them that their babies would either be stillborn or die "an agonizing death," according to the Missouri Independent.

Joining Hoffman and Hamlin as plaintiffs are two physicians, Dr. Elizabeth Pinard and Dr. Sarah Mashburn, as well as the Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, a political activist group. The lawsuit claims that the state's pro-life law violates their right to "life and liberty, their substantive due process rights, and their rights to equal protection," and asks that the same "'right to life-saving abortion care' that the state Supreme Court gave in 2023 to women facing a medical diagnosis of their own be given to women who receive a 'fatal fetal diagnosis."

What Oklahoma law states

Oklahoma defines abortion as:

the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female 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, to remove an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous miscarriage, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant female or her unborn child.

Induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of a preborn child — is allowed in the state to save the life of the mother, though many medical experts have stated that it is not medically necessary to intentionally kill a preborn child.

Oklahoma statute states:

No abortion of a viable unborn child shall be performed or induced except after written certification by the attending physician that in his best medical judgment the abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent an impairment to her health. The physician shall further certify in writing the medical indications for such abortion and the probable health consequences if the abortion is not performed or induced.

There is no exception to allow abortion on children who receive a prenatal diagnosis.

Magon Hoffman's story

According to the Oklahoma Voice, Hoffman began suffering from heavy bleeding in 2022 when she was 14 weeks pregnant. She was told she had a "huge blood clot," and was placed on light bed rest. She later learned she had placenta previa, a condition in which the placenta covers the opening of the cervix.

At 19 weeks, she underwent an anatomy scan with a maternal-fetal medicine specialist (MFM). The baby's head was measuring smaller than expected, compared to the body, and the baby was diagnosed with anencephaly, a neural tube defect in which the skull does not form properly and the baby's brain is exposed to amniotic fluid. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that "There is no known cure or standard treatment for anencephaly. Pregnancy loss is high. Almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth."

<a href="/news/angela-gabriel-born-anencephaly-every-child-deserves-protection">Angela and Gabriel, born with anencephaly, show why every child deserves protection</a>

The doctor gave her two options. As the lawsuit notes, Hoffman could:

• "leave Oklahoma and terminate the pregnancy"

• "stay in Oklahoma and continue the pregnancy to term, while seeing the MFM for close monitoring up to 37 weeks, when she could be induced."

If she chose to carry to term, the doctor told her that her baby would live for a few hours to a few days, but that she would be "blind and dying." He said that at birth they would provide the baby with "comfort care." The lawsuit notes:

He then tried to convince Ms. Hoffman to carry to term. He gave Ms. Hoffman his card. He told her she didn't need to worry about contacting her obstetrician about the diagnosis; he would handle that. Ms. Hoffman was distraught. She knew there was no way she could continue the pregnancy. When she got home, she started to make plans to travel out of state. She tried calling the MFM repeatedly, but he would not return her calls. She started to feel more and more alone, isolated even from her family. She wished someone - anyone - would speak to her about her pregnancу.

She decided to travel to New Mexico for an abortion, and paid about $3,000 between travel, lodging, childcare, and the procedure, which took two days. According to the lawsuit:

Ms. Hoffman was dilated on the first day and her pregnancy was evacuated on the second.

The lawsuit makes no mention of how the baby died, whether by lethal injection (<a href="/videos/3rd-trimester-late-term-abortion-induction-abortion-what-is-abortion">induction abortion</a>) or by dismemberment (<a href="/videos/2nd-trimester-surgical-abortion-dilation-and-evacuation-d-e">D&amp;E</a>), before she was "evacuated."

Hoffman reportedly later suffered anxiety and depression, and was afraid to have another baby. She did ultimately get pregnant again; her baby was not diagnosed with any conditions. .

Sheena Hamlin's story

In 2024, at 21 weeks, Hamlin underwent an anatomy ultrasound and, according to the lawsuit, her doctor "discovered multiple unusual findings." She was sent to a high-risk doctor for a more detailed ultrasound, and was ultimately told that her preborn baby girl, named Ellie, was "not compatible with life." The lawsuit explained:

The MFM suspected that Ellie had Meckel-Gruber syndrome, a lethal condition characterized by occipital encephalocele, kidney cysts, scar tissue in the liver, and the presence of extra fingers and toes.

An occipital encephalocele is a condition in which the brain protrudes through an opening at the back of the skull. The doctor expected Ellie to die in the womb, but said she might survive to birth. If she did, her "lungs were so severely underdeveloped that she would suffocate almost as soon as the umbilical cord was cut," states the lawsuit.

Hamlin and her husband thought abortion was the best answer, and spent $4,000 to abort the baby in Illinois.

After her death, it was confirmed that Ellie did have Meckel-Gruber syndrome, and genetic testing showed that Hamlin and her husband are both carriers for the condition. This would mean that there is a 25% chance that any child they conceive would have Meckel-Gruber syndrome.

In preparation for future pregnancies, they underwent IVF and tested each embryo so as not to implant any who test positive for the condition.

The idea of an 'agonizing death'

Palliative care is provided to children born with life-limiting conditions and those who will likely not survive. That care includes oxygen and efforts to provide comfort and manage pain. Pain relievers, massage, swaddling, feeding tubes when necessary, and skin-to-skin contact with the parents are all ways to comfort the baby.

Dying by dismemberment, as most often happens in a second-trimester D&E abortion, offers no such comfort. The baby's arms and legs are torn from her body before her head is crushed.

The lawsuit

The suit argues that, because "definitive diagnostic testing is generally only available in the second trimester" and "certain structural conditions cannot be visualized on ultrasound in early pregnancy," later abortions are necessary. It states:

Fatal fetal conditions are a narrow subset of diagnoses that are sufficiently severe that a pregnancy is unlikely to result in a surviving baby. These are conditions where the pregnancy is likely to end in miscarriage or stillbirth or, in the event of a live birth, the infant's survival will not be sustained-with or without medical support.

It claims that these conditions, including Trisomy 18, Trisomy 13, and bilateral renal agenesis, are "fatal," though there are children with these conditions who have <a href="/news/study-shows-babies-trisomy-13-living-longer">survived</a> and <a href="/news/mom-fights-baby-life-limiting-diagnosis">thrived</a>. In fact, Trisomy 18 is no longer <a href="/news/hospital-omaha-hope-families-babies-trisomy-18">classified</a> as "incompatible with life."

<a href="/news/mom-fights-baby-life-limiting-diagnosis">Mom fights for baby with life-limiting diagnosis, who is now thriving: ‘I didn’t think twice’</a>

The lawsuit also claims it is "traumatizing to force patients to continue a pregnancy with a fatal fetal diagnosis ... Feelings of powerlessness and overwhelm come not just from the diagnosis, but also from having no meaningful choice about medical decisions or what happens to one's body."

It also argues:

The Bans prevent some families from having even a few hours with their baby, as inducing early delivery may be considered an abortion.

Because the Bans create a risk of criminal prosecution for early inductions, patients and their families may be forced to continue the pregnancy to full term, even when that delay increases the risk of fetal demise or stillbirth and means that the baby will not be born alive.

This cruelly deprives Oklahoma families of the opportunity to have any time-even a short time-with their living child.

Intent Matters

• An induced early delivery with the express intent of leaving the baby to die can be considered an abortion, because the goal is the baby's death. Birthing a baby with the intention of letting that baby die might avoid a stillbirth, but ultimately <a href="/news/pro-life-ministry-founder-ember-hour-birth">shortens</a> the time the parents have with the baby.

• However, an induced early delivery when the mother's health or life is at risk is not an abortion, because the goal is to save the mother and, when possible, save the baby.

Misleading Claims

The lawsuit goes on to cite faulty data that claims the risk of death during <a href="/news/msnbc-guest-claims-abortion-safer-birth">childbirth is 14 times higher</a> than that of abortion. This is a debunked claim. These study results have never been replicated, and an analysis by the Equal Rights Institute revealed that the researchers manipulated the data.

Another false claim in the lawsuit is that abortion is "health care." Health care is meant to heal, not harm or kill.

Why It Matters:

If either Hoffman or Hamlin had needed to end their pregnancies to save their lives, it would have been legal for their doctors to deliver their babies, even if their babies were too young to survive outside the womb, and despite the babies' health diagnoses.

The fact that the doctors did not deliver the babies seems to indicate a likelihood that the mothers' lives were not in immediate danger.

The lawsuit argues:

Every year, many pregnant Oklahomans receive a diagnosis that means their pregnancy will end in miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of an infant shortly after birth. Pregnant people should have the freedom to discuss these circumstances with doctors and loved ones, decide on the best course of action, and effectuate their decision, free from stigma or discrimination. But that is not the reality that Oklahomans face.

It continues:

... [T]he Bans take away pregnant Oklahomans' ability to act on their own decisions. Instead, every patient who receives a fatal fetal diagnosis is forced into the State's idea of the best way forward: continuing the pregnancy and giving birth, despite the likelihood of miscarriage, stillbirth, or watching a newborn die shortly after birth. The Bans require these Oklahomans to continue to carry a pregnancy that will not result in a child they can take home, which can traumatize both pregnant people and their families.

Things to Note

• The lawsuit argues that delivering the baby early so that the parents can hold the baby as the baby dies should be allowed, but isn't, because it is considered an abortion. However, the lawsuit also claims that the parents should be able to abort the baby to avoid "watching a newborn die shortly after birth." Which is it that they want: to hold the baby as she dies, or to abort her to avoid holding her as she dies?

• Killing a child, even a child in the womb, is never the right course of action. It isn't compassionate or respectful to dismember a child or inject them with a drug to cause cardiac arrest. And research shows it is beneficial to the mother to carry her child to term following a prenatal diagnosis.

  In a study of 267 parents who lost a child due to a diagnosis of anencephaly, women who had an abortion reported significantly more despair and depression than women who carried to term. Additional research on infant loss found that the “[r]isk of complicated grief was found to be especially high after termination of a pregnancy due to fetal abnormality.”

  Furthermore, in a study of 405 parents who carried to term following the prenatal diagnosis of a life-limiting condition, 97.5% of participants reported an absence of regret in carrying to term. Another study determined that “[c]ouples experienced selective termination as traumatic … [T]he women ultimately felt as if they were betraying themselves and their babies.”

  Further research shared by the organization Be Not Afraid supports this; it says that parents who carry to term report being emotionally prepared for their child’s birth and death, and that they felt “a sense of gratitude and peace surrounding the brief life of their child.”

• The lawsuit goes on to state that the state's pro-life laws "violate pregnant Oklahomans' fundamental rights to life and liberty, their substantive due process rights, and their rights to equal protection," and that the state "has no interest whatsoever in forcing these patients to continue their pregnancies and give birth, and it therefore cannot justify this interference with fundamental rights." It claims, "The Bans are unconstitutional as applied to people whose pregnancies have been diagnosed with a fatal fetal condition."

  However, this ignores completely the fact that abortion deprives an innocent human being of his or her inherent right to life, violating that foundational right for children because of their health status.

  It is not "rational" to abort a baby because she is sick or disabled. Implying that it is "rational" is coercive, and sends the message that parents are expected to abort their babies following a diagnosis. It is not rational to end the life of one's own innocent child, and it is not rational to expect a mother to end her baby's life.

The Bottom Line:

The lawsuit seeks to see, at minimum, an exception added to the law that allows abortions on babies with a diagnosis, but insists parents must be able to choose abortion when they feel it is in the best interest of their families. This could open the door to abortion at any time for any reason, robbing a human being of his or her right to life based on the parents' feelings.