Key Takeaways:

• Last week, the USCCB and other Catholic groups submitted public comments opposing the Trump administration's proposal to expand IVF insurance coverage.

• In a 17-page letter, the bishops warned that IVF commodifies children and treats them like property.

• They encouraged coverage for Restorative Reproductive Medicine as an alternative to IVF.

• The Catholic Church opposes IVF in part because it results in the destruction of human life in its embryonic stage.

The Details:

In May, the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services under the Trump administration announced a proposal to expand insurance coverage for IVF treatments. The USCCB submitted its 17-page letter opposing that proposal on July 13, the final day of the public comment window for that proposal.

The letter affirmed the desire to welcome children and expressed support for expanding fertility-related coverage, provided that coverage respects preborn human life.

“The Church affirms the deep desire of spouses to welcome children and supports medical efforts to address infertility. At the same time, public policy should not promote practices that undermine the dignity of human life or sever the connection between procreation and the marital act,” the letter said. “The USCCB therefore evaluates the proposed rule both positively and critically.”

The bishops warned that IVF “commodifies our fellow human beings and treats them like products and property" and that “the exclusivity of the marriage bond in its most unique context and unnaturally [separates] the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect (that is, regarding the unity of the spouses) of the marital act.”

The USCCB was joined by the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), and the National Association of Catholic Nurses, USA (NACN-USA) in speaking out against the proposal.

Zoom In:

The USCCB suggested more focus be placed on Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) as an alternative to IVF. RRM focuses on finding the underlying causes of infertility.

The group wrote:

“RRM approaches generally recognize that infertility is a symptom of an underlying condition, not a disease in and of itself; and they therefore seek to restore normal reproductive function by identifying and treating its root causes. In contrast to restorative reproductive medicine, in vitro fertilization does not aim to treat the underlying causes of infertility but seeks to bypass them — in a sense, overriding the symptom.”

The letter requested that RRM be included in insurance coverage so that couples “can make meaningful use of that flexibility by affording them the opportunity to know of the full range of possible fertility care that can identify and heal a patient’s underlying conditions while safeguarding human life and dignity.”

Why It Matters:

The Catholic Church opposes IVF in part because it results in the destruction of human life in its embryonic stage.

According to a study published in Fertility and Sterility, as many as 13 million children have been born through IVF around the world since 1978. Each IVF cycle typically creates multiple embryos which are then screened and graded, with only the most desirable embryos implanted. The rest are either frozen indefinitely, destroyed, or fail to implant in another IVF cycle.

According to research published in Reproductive Biomedicine Online, over 2.5 million IVF cycles are performed every year, with only 500,000 babies born annually.

The bishops' emphasized the widespread destruction of IVF in their letter, writing, “IVF, especially as practiced in the U.S., kills or freezes at least as many preborn children as abortion — at a magnitude of hundreds of thousands or perhaps over a million per year.”

The bishops also noted that the common practice of freezing embryos "is also a profound and terrible violation of their dignity and rights."

“Hundreds of thousands of our smallest brothers and sisters in the U.S. are experiencing this fate right now,” they added.

The Bottom Line:

The bishops urged the Trump administration to focus on infertility treatments that respect life at all stages.

“The proposed rule represents a valuable opportunity to advance real solutions to infertility that respect the God-given dignity of parents and of children, born and preborn,” they wrote. “We urge the Departments to refocus the rule on therapeutic, restorative treatments, and to abandon its inclusion of IVF, which is profoundly flawed both legally and morally.”

Key Takeaways:

• Safe Haven Surrender Boxes were recently utilized in Kentucky, Indiana, and Texas.

• The boxes are a safe, legal option allowing for a parent to anonymously surrender an infant she feels unable to care for, according to the guidelines of each state.

The Details:

The Safe Haven Baby Boxes organization announced July 13 that three babies have been surrendered over the past several months utilizing boxes in Kentucky, Indiana, and Texas.

Danville, Kentucky

An infant was surrendered in May at the Safe Haven Baby Box located in the Danville Fire Department.

"As firefighters, we're here to help people on their worst days. The fact that a mother trusted us with her newborn is something our department will never forget," Fire Chief Mike McCurdy said. "When the alarm sounded, our crew responded, and within moments, a newborn was safely in our care. That's exactly why the Baby Box is here to provide a safe option, protect life, and offer hope when it's needed most."

Indiana law allows for infant surrenders up to 45 days after birth. According to news reports, the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services is now working to find an adoptive family for the baby.

Marion, Indiana

In June, a mother surrendered her baby at the baby box location in Marion General Hospital in Marion, Indiana.

According to a news release, the baby has been placed with the Indiana Department of Child Services as an adoptive family is found.

“We are grateful this mother trusted our program on one of the hardest days of her life to keep her baby safe,” founder Monica Kelsey said. “When communities are prepared for safe surrender, vulnerable members of those communities are protected.”

The Woodlands, Texas

A baby was surrendered in Texas in the month of July at The Woodlands Fire Department Station 6.

“This Safe Haven Baby Box exists for moments exactly like this,” Fire Chief Palmer Buck said. “Today, a baby is safe because someone chose a secure and legal option during what was undoubtedly a difficult situation. We are grateful the system worked as intended and that the baby is now receiving the care they need.”

How It Works:

The Safe Haven Baby Boxes organization has installed newborn safety devices, dubbed 'baby boxes,' in fire stations, emergency medical services buildings, and hospitals around the country. The boxes are climate controlled and activated with a silent alarm; when the child is placed in the box, the door automatically locks, protecting the baby, while the alarm alerts emergency responders. The child is rescued within minutes.

The aim of the program is to prevent infant abandonments, which continue to be a prevalent problem.

Monica Kelsey, founder of the Safe Haven Baby Box organization, has said that anonymous surrender is a key feature of the boxes' design.

“Once you give women a safe, legal, anonymous and loving option — they will use it,” Kelsey said. “We have all seen the stories of these babies being abandoned in this country...If they do use the safe haven baby box, it offers no shame, no blame, and no names."

The Bottom Line:

In addition to the Safe Haven Baby Boxes, the organization runs a national hotline to help parents in need. That hotline is available 24/7, can be reached at (1-866-99BABY1) or online at www.shbb.org.

'Wounds inflicted by men'

LeCoure told Live Action News, “With my family unit blown up, I went to live with my father. I became rebellious and got swept up in alcohol and drugs. I distanced myself from the church and because most of my wounds were inflicted by men, I turned into an anti-man teenager who embraced feminism by the age of 18.”

She became attracted to New Age spirituality, dabbling in the occult, including meditation and yoga. Soon, she was so immersed in these practices that she started traveling internationally to teach yoga workshops in exotic locations.

On the outside, she appeared to have a glamorous lifestyle but inside, she felt like she was dying.

“I was living in Morocco managing a yoga retreat and at the height of my career, flying back and forth to the U.K.,” LeCoure noted. “Everything was at my fingertips. At the time I was in my mid-30s, a proud, sexually liberated feminist. I had a fling with a local man and got pregnant.”

Though she took the “<a href="/news/fda-plan-b-label-abortion">morning after pill</a>,” the drug failed to prevent her from conceiving. She was deeply tormented, agonizing over her decision to seek an abortion.

“I was always about my career which came first. I didn’t want to lose my livelihood," LeCoure said. "While Morocco was a Muslim country, where abortion was prohibited, I had made my decision.”

She was aware of an underground network that provided abortions but decided to travel to Spain where abortion was legal and where it was rare to see pro-life sidewalk counselors outside the clinic.

Conflicting emotions

“Though I was convinced that what I was doing was about healthcare, I showed up at the clinic a tormented woman, sobbing hysterically,” LeCoure said. “The staff there showed me nothing but irritation and annoyance.”

Later, she wondered if the outcome might had been different had someone been there, intervening on her behalf and advocating for life. But that day, she went with the belief that the absolute worst thing a woman could experience was an unplanned pregnancy. Despite this, she sensed her body was communicating to her that there was a life growing in her womb.

“I was trying to suppress that voice of intuition communicated to me that the creation of life is sacred, the knowing that the bond between mother and child was instantaneous," she noted. "I experienced such a turmoil of emotions.”

Yet, she had never heard of '<a href="/news/abortion-regret-real-attempts-dismiss">abortion regret</a>.'  

“The mainstream media was effective in conveying that abortion was routine, that it was no big deal,” LeCoure said, “It was so casually accepted in our culture.”

While she didn’t remember much during the procedure, she recalls waking up filled with grief and remorse.

LeCoure said, “I was weeping uncontrollably and was told to cry quieter.”

Doubling down

Despite her anguish, after her abortion, LeCoure doubled down on her pro-choice stance.

“I was in denial, refusing to face the reality of what I had done,” she said. “Continuing to be a pro-choice feminist allowed me to run from the responsibility of ending the life of my preborn child. Facing that atrocity would have killed me.”

Then it was early 2020 and the world shut down in response to the Covid pandemic. LeCoure lost her coveted career. It was a time of confusion as she tried to gain her footing amid a dark time.

“Nothing made sense anymore," she told Live Action News. "I was losing faith in the platform I had clung to. My career was gone and with it, my lifestyle. Though I grappled with depression and anxiety, I was still unwilling to look deep inside.”

Her relationships with men continued to be a battle of the wills as LeCoure struggled to gain the upper hand — and by doing so, emasculating the man with whom she tried to establish a relationship.

Memoir eventually leads to healing

Around this time, she completed a memoir detailing her travels to 40 countries as a yoga guru. A friend introduced LeCoure to her mother, who was an editor.

“After reading my memoir, she encouraged me to return to the Catholic church,” LeCoure noted. “She told me that my story wasn’t yet over.”

Later, the same woman directed LeCoure to Rachel’s Vineyard, telling her how the ministry helped her to heal from the trauma of abortion.

“I wrestled with whether I wanted to attend the retreat, and I did go in the end but all the way there, I was fighting with myself, tempted to turn around but I kept going," LeCoure said. "I started weeping once inside the retreat.”

There, she made her first confession to a priest in 23 years. Her penance, he told her, was to look at the stars in wonder. 

“He showed me such compassion,” she said. “I felt the mercy of God enter my heart. I went into the retreat as a raging feminist, then I surrendered to the Lord on my knees and came out as a devout Catholic woman.”

While the agony of her abortion will be forever with her, LeCoure felt God’s mercy and grace gave her the strength to truly grieve and to finally heal.

She was asked to share her testimony at a fundraising gala for Rachel’s Vineyard.  As the video circulated, she received more invitations to share her story.

“I say ‘yes’ to whatever God asks of me,” LaCoure said. “As a former feminist, I now advocate for marriage and families. I was duped into thinking freedom, and a career would give me happiness, yet it didn’t.”

Key Takeaways:

• A prenatal development website cited in the TEACH abortion training manual points to similar developmental markers highlighted by the Baby Olivia video and website.

• Baby Olivia has received criticism from pro-abortion groups who have spent decades hiding the truth about prenatal development.

• The similarities in prenatal development markers show not just that Baby Olivia is accurate, but that human beings develop rapidly in the womb, and much more is known about their development than is often shared with the general public.

The Details:

The TEACH (Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare) abortion training manual published by the University of California San Francisco's (UCSF) Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, an abortion training site, links to the prenatal development website Perinatology.com. This website specifies similar developmental markers highlighted in Live Action's Baby Olivia video and website.

"Visualization of pregnancy tissue is available at the MYA network and size and characteristics are available at Perinatology.com," the TEACH curriculum states.

While the pro-abortion MYA Network deceptively portrays the embryo/fetus as a substance resembling a cotton ball or dryer lint, the actual embryos were removed prior to being photographed, and the gestational sacs were rinsed.

In juxtaposition, Perinatology.com shows a more accurate depiction of the developing baby.

Why It Matters:

“Baby Olivia” is a computer-generated educational tool portraying human development in the womb, introduced in 2021 by Live Action and created with the support of medical experts and world-class artists.

The information and timeline (from fertilization) used in Baby Olivia is identical to that utilized by the Endowment for Human Development, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving health science education and public health. It states that it is "committed to neutrality regarding all controversial bioethical issues."

Today, lawmakers in multiple states have included Baby Olivia tool as an option to educate students with information about human development.

But Baby Olivia has received criticism from pro-abortion groups who have spent decades hiding the truth about prenatal development. Through sleight of hand euphemisms and falsehoods, the pro-abortion movement and its allies in the medical community have misled women to believe that abortion is a simple medical procedure that removes mere "tissue" or "cells."

The reality is much different.

Pregnancy Dating

Baby Olivia's gestational markers are calculated relative to fertilization (sometimes referred to as "conception") and dating is calculated based on "fetal age" versus last menstrual period (LMP) or "gestational" age, which adds approximately two weeks.

Perinatology.com, included in the TEACH abortion training manual, was created by Mark A Curran, M.D., F.A.C.O.G and "written by maternal-fetal medicine specialists and genetic counselors."

They explain it this way: "Conceptional age ≈gestational age − 2 weeks."

Yet, Baby Olivia has been accused of inaccuracy and deception for its use of fetal age. Clearly, this is not the case.

Fetal Heart

BabyOlivia.com states:

Week 3:

By week three, Olivia's heart is beating. Her brain and gastrointestinal tract have begun to form, and the cells for her nerves, blood, and kidney have appeared. Her mother may know of Olivia’s existence through a pregnancy test at this stage.

Perinatology.com appears to share the same information:

Gestational age 5 weeks (1.2 months) — embryonic age 3 weeks.

The brain, spine, and heart have begun to form. By the end of the week the heart will be pumping blood.

Fetal Limbs

BabyOlivia.com states:

Week 4

At just four weeks, the buds of Olivia’s arms are and legs are visibly forming, and the right and left hemispheres of her brain are beginning to take shape.

Perinatology.com similarly notes the formation of limbs, and even more:

Gestational age 6 weeks (1.4 months) — embryonic age 4 weeks...

The embryo is about the size of a pea....

The eyes, nostrils, and arms are taking shape.

The heart is beating at about 110 beats per minute and sometimes may be seen using a transvaginal ultrasound at this time.

Fetal Movement

BabyOlivia.com states:

Weeks 5-6

At weeks five and six, Olivia moves spontaneously and reflexively, her bones begin to develop, and her brain activity can be recorded.

Perinatology.com notes the presence of movement as well:

Gestational age 7 weeks (1.6 months) — embryonic age 5 weeks...

The hands and feet are forming, as well as the mouth and face.

The heart is beating at about 120 beats per minute. Movement of the embryo can be detected by ultrasound.

By week 7 the trachea and bronchi of the lungs have formed, and the pseudoglandular stage of lung development begins.

Perinatology.com adds:

Gestational age 8 weeks (1.8 months) — embryonic age 6 weeks

The embryo is about the size of a bean. The fingers and toes are developing.

The adrenal glands begin DHEA-S secretion and the testes begin to secrete testosterone...

Over One Million Heartbeats

BabyOlivia.com states:

Weeks 7-8

Olivia can bring her hands together, she can hiccup, she has had over one million heartbeats, and her ovaries and the cells needed for future generations of children are present.

Perinatology.com describes a beating heart and more:

Gestational age 9 weeks (2.1 months) — embryonic age 7 weeks

The heart is beating at about 170 beats per minute...

Gestational age 10 weeks (2.3 months) — fetal age 8 weeks

The embryo's tail has disappeared and it is now called a fetus. Fingerprints are being formed, and bone cells are replacing cartilage.

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

170 heartbeats per minute x 60 (per hour) x 24 (day) = 244,800 heartbeats per day.

Now a Fetus

BabyOlivia.com notes:

Weeks 9-10

Olivia’s stage of human development now classifies her as a fetus. She can suck her thumb, swallow, grasp an object, touch her face, sigh, and stretch out in her mother’s womb.

Perinatology.com also notes mouth movements and swallowing:

Gestational age 11 weeks (2.5 months) — fetal age 9 weeks

The fetus is starting to have breathing movements. It can open its mouth and swallow...

Gestational age 12 weeks (2.8 months) — fetal age 10 weeks

The fetus is starting to make random movements.... The heartbeat can usually be heard with an electronic monitor at this time....

Note: The image appears to show the fetus sucking his/her thumb.

Quickening

BabyOlivia.com states:

Weeks 11-14

Olivia can play in the womb and her taste buds have matured to discrete tastebuds. By week 14, Olivia’s lips and nose are fully formed, she makes complex facial expressions, and her mother can finally feel her movements.

Perinatology.com

Gestational age 13 weeks (3 months) — fetal age 12 weeks...

All major organs are formed now, but they are too immature for the fetus to survive out of the womb....

Gestational age 14 weeks (3.2 months) — fetal age 12 weeks

The fetus’s toenails are appearing. The gender may sometimes be seen...

Gestational age 15 weeks (3.5 months) — fetal age 13 weeks

Fetal movement may be sensed now (called quickening)....

Gestational age 16 to 17 weeks (3.7 to 3.9 months) — fetal age 14 to 15 weeks...

Hearing is beginning to form... The canalicular period of lung development has started and will continue until about 25 weeks.

Brain and Lungs

BabyOlivia.com states:

Weeks 15-16

The neuron multiplication of Olivia’s brain is mostly complete and she is sensitive to touch. At this stage of development, ultrasounds can detect speaking movements in her voice box and her teeth are beginning to grow.

Perinatology.com notes:

Gestational age 16 to 17 weeks (3.7 to 3.9 months) — fetal age 14 to 15 weeks...

Hearing is beginning to form...

The average 17-week fetus is 8 inches (20.4 cm) long...

The pseudoglandular stage of lung development ends at about 17 weeks...

Gestational age 18 weeks (4.1 months) — fetal age 16 weeks

The ears are standing out, and the fetus is beginning to respond to sound...The cerebellar vermis can be demonstrated to be fully formed on ultrasound at this age.

Survivability outside Womb

BabyOlivia.com states:

Weeks 19-21

By 19 weeks old, her heart has beaten over 20 million times. At 21 weeks old, Olivia could survive outside of the womb with medical assistance.

Perinatology.com points out:

Gestational age 20 weeks (4.6 months) — fetal age 18 weeks

The fetus is covered in fine hair (lanugo), has some scalp hair, and is capable of producing IgG and IgM (two types of antibodies)...

Gestational age 21 weeks (4.8 months) — fetal age 19 weeks

The fetus is now able to suck and grasp, and may have bouts of hiccups. Some women may begin feeling Braxton Hicks contractions at this time...

Gestational age 23 weeks (5.3 months) — fetal age 21 weeks

The fetus is having rapid eye movements during sleep...

The website links to a Survival and morbidity tool which indicates that babies at 22 weeks (gestation), or 20 weeks fetal age, have a range of survivable chances outside the womb.

Sounds in Environment

BabyOlivia.com states:

Week 27

Olivia can recognize her parents’ voices and will react to sudden loud noises. Her eyes respond to light, and she also has a functioning sense of smell.

Perinatology.com notes:

Gestational age 26 weeks (6 months) — fetal age 24 weeks

The fetus can respond to sounds that occur in the mother's surroundings. Its eyelids can open and close...Survival out of the womb at this age would be expected to be approximately 87%.

Gestational age 27 weeks (6.2 months) — fetal age 25 weeks...Survival out of the womb at this age would be expected to be approximately 94%.

Gestational age 28 weeks (6.4 months) — fetal age 26 weeks

The fetus has eyelashes and its skin is red and covered with vernix caseous....Survival out of the womb at this age would be expected to be approximately 94%.

Gestational age 29 to 31 weeks (6.6 to 7.1 months) — fetal age 27 to 29 weeks

The average fetus...weighs 3 pounds (1379 grams).

Birth

BabyOlivia.com states:

Week 38

Olivia exhibits breathing movements, she can produce tears, her umbilical cord is typically twenty to twenty-four inches long, and she will weigh between six and eight pounds at birth.

Perinatology.com notes:

Gestational age 37 to 38 weeks (8.5 to 8.7 months) — fetal age 35 to 36 weeks

The fetus is now considered to be early term.

The average 37-week fetus...weighs 6.7 pounds (3028 grams)...

The fetus is now full term.

Gestational age 39 to 41 weeks (9 to 9.4 months) — fetal age 37 to 39 weeks...The average 41-week fetus...weighs 8.3 pounds (3787 grams).

The Bottom Line:

The similarities in prenatal development markers show not just that Baby Olivia is accurate, but that human beings develop rapidly in the womb, and much more is known about their development than is often shared with the general public. States that have introduced prenatal development curricula for students are teaching them science, not propaganda.

On a late Friday afternoon in November, the boyfriend sought Liberty Counsel’s help to prevent the family member from coercing an out-of-state abortion scheduled to happen that Monday in Chicago. Within 24 hours, Liberty Counsel intervened with a demand letter to the pregnant girl’s family members confronting their attempt to coerce an abortion against her will. The letter, sent in coordination with the Florida Attorney General’s Office, informed family members that it is“illegal in every state” to coerce an abortion and that the girl’s own parental rights for her unborn child were superior to theirs.

As a result of the letter, one family member of the girl promptly emailed a screen shot of cancelled travel arrangements to Illinois that would have amounted to forced abortion trafficking. 

In the letter, Liberty Counsel noted that the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act makes it a federal crime, in certain circumstances, for anyone to kill a baby in the womb against the mother’s wishes. Any third party, including a relative, who causes a baby to be killed in the womb may be guilty of “fetal homicide,” the letter reads. While parents still have the legal duty to protect, provide for, and care for pregnant minor daughters, a minor girl has the legal right to choose life, and direct the care and upbringing of the child in her womb.

“That right is hers – not anyone else’s,” wrote Liberty Counsel.

When Liberty Counsel received confirmation that the coercive abortion plans were cancelled, it was revealed that the flights, hotels, and Lyft rides for the abortion appointment were being paid for by the Chicago Abortion Fund (CAF), even after the teen told CAF’s partner Florida abortion clinic she was being forced to get an abortion against her will.

CAF claims it is the “largest abortion fund” in the United States, and offers financial “support” to those “facing barriers” to an abortion, including covering travel and logistical expenses out of pro-life states with strong protections for unborn life. Data from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute shows that 25 percent of women (one out of four) travelling across state lines for an abortion go to Illinois. CAF notes that it has spent more than $20 million on abortion appointment travel and costs since the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade. CAF relies on financial support from the City of Chicago, Cook County, the state of Illinois, as well as from fundraisers and donations. In August 2025, Cook County earmarked a $2 million grant for CAF.

Yet, research shows that abortion funding organizations like CAF and abortion facilities enable coerced abortions. A 2023 study published in the Cureus Journal of Medical Science, which surveyed 1000 women who had abortions, found that 24 percent of the women reported that their abortions were coerced, unwanted, and inconsistent with their values. As for Liberty Counsel’s teen client, CAF’s partner Florida abortion clinic still pushed and attempted to manipulate her into an abortion even after she informed the staff she was being coerced against her will. The Florida clinic tried to hide from her the ultrasound pictures by putting them in an envelope to be thrown away and noted, “If you see it, you’re going to want to keep it.” Yet, Florida law requires that pregnant women be afforded the opportunity to see ultrasound photos and video. The clinic forged ahead engaging its “partners,” the CAF and a facility in Chicago, to arrange and pay for the abortion travel and logistics even though the pregnant teen told the clinic she was being coerced by a family member and didn’t want an abortion.

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Right before the July 4, 2026, weekend, Liberty Counsel’s teen client gave birth to her beautiful daughter. We celebrate this baby girl who has the unalienable right to life, and we commend this baby’s young parents who courageously chose life amidst intense pressure to kill the unborn baby. Regardless of the circumstances, a pregnant minor possesses the same constitutional rights as any mother to care for her unborn child. Liberty Counsel’s rapid response saved an unborn life that was days away from being killed, and foiled the Chicago Abortion Fund from aiding and paying for a coerced out-of-state abortion meant to evade Florida’s pro-life laws. Coercing minor girls across state lines against their wishes into forced abortions is illegal and reprehensible. Death trafficking has no place in society.” 

Key Takeaways:

• Jersey, a self-governing British Crown Dependency, passed legislation in February allowing assisted dying.

• The bill received royal assent, which is necessary approval from the British monarch, last week.

• The bill will allow those with a terminal illness to request assisted suicide or euthanasia, provided they meet certain guidelines.

The Details:

Lawmakers in Jersey, a self-governing British Crown Dependency, passed the Assisted Dying (Jersey) Law in February. Last week, the legislation received royal assent, a necessary step in which the British monarch approves legislation.

Under the bill, certain adults with a terminal illness will be eligible to request assisted suicide or euthanasia. In order to qualify, a person must have lived in Jersey for at least 12 months, be suffering "unbearably," and have a life expectancy of six to 12 months. The legislation allows for assisted suicide, in which the afflicted person takes the lethal substances themselves, or euthanasia, in which a doctor or nurse practitioner administers the concoction that ends the patient's life.

Jersey's minister for health and social services senator, Tom Binet, was enthusiastic about the bill's approval.

 “I’m delighted the Assisted Dying Law has been granted royal assent. Our focus now is on continuing our work to get the service set up and running," he said. “There is still a lot of work to do, but I’ve every confidence that we can do it within the schedule we set ourselves.

Dr. Gordon Macdonald, executive director of Care Not Killing, expressed disappointment at the legislation's passing.

“This legislation will fundamentally alter health and palliative care on Jersey and put the lives of vulnerable people at risk, exactly as we have seen in those places that have introduced assisted suicide or euthanasia," he said.

Why It Matters:

Though proponents often tout safety measures and "guardrails" to ensure that assisted dying legislation passes, legislation that permits suicide inevitably targets the sick, elderly, and vulnerable.

Often, vulnerable people feel pressure to choose assisted suicide as they fear becoming a burden on their loved ones. Reports have also revealed that most people who requested assisted suicide are afraid of losing their autonomy and of not being able to enjoy life as they did before.

Because assisted dying is "cheaper" than continued healthcare, experts in the UK have warned that it could become a preferable solution over caring for terminally ill people with palliative care.

The Bottom Line:

There is no situation in which suicide is morally acceptable, and it should never be considered a legal, dignified, or preferable option. All human life is valuable.

Key Takeaways:

• A Pennsylvania judge has overturned a state ban on Medicaid-funded abortions while a lawsuit against the ban proceeds to the state's Supreme Court.

• The law prohibiting taxpayer-funded abortions had been in place since 1982, and was the subject of a lawsuit filed in 2019.

The Backstory:

In April, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled 4-3 that the state's ban on taxpayer-funded abortion is unconstitutional, determining that the state's constitution includes a "right" to abortion. The ruling overturned a 1982 law that had prohibited Medicaid-funded abortions.

In May, Attorney General Dave Sunday filed an appeal in an attempt to uphold the state's law. That appeal automatically placed a temporary stay on the court's decision, maintaining a block on taxpayer-funded abortions.

"My responsibility as Attorney General is to defend the rule of law and defend statutes without interference of personal opinion or political posturing,” he said at the time.

The law was originally challenged by a group of abortion businesses in 2019, who argued that it violated the constitutional equal protection rights of low-income women. In 2021, a seven-judge panel ruled against the abortion businesses and dismissed the case.

However, in 2024, the state's Supreme Court ordered the lower court to reconsider the case, leading to the legal wrangling today.

The Details:

On Wednesday, Commonwealth Court Judge Matthew Wolf ruled that the April decision allowing Medicaid-funded abortions must stand while the Supreme Court considers the case.

"This court has held the coverage exclusion cannot be enforced without violating [constitutional] rights," Wolf said. "Thus, continued enforcement of the coverage exclusion irreparably injures providers and their prospective patients as a matter of our most fundamental law."

Melissa Reed, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Keystone, issued a statement praising Wolf's ruling.

“For decades, politicians singled out people with low incomes and denied them insurance coverage for abortion care simply because they relied on Medicaid,” Reed said. “Every Pennsylvanian deserves the freedom to make their own health care decisions without financial barriers standing in the way. Regardless of income level or type of insurance, Planned Parenthood Keystone will now be able to provide critical care.”

The Bottom Line:

Maria V. Gallagher, Executive Director of Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation also issued a statement describing taxpayer-funded abortion "a tragedy of immense proportions."

"Working together, we can reverse course and ensure that unborn lives are protected in Pennsylvania," Gallagher said.

Key Takeaways:

• William Kelly of Ossipee, New Hampshire, was found guilty of two counts of second-degree murder after killing Christine Falzone and her preborn child.

• The case marks the first fetal homicide conviction since the state passed its law in 2018.

• The law only recognizes preborn children 20 weeks gestation or older as victims of fetal homicide.

The Details:

On July 9, a jury found William Kelly of Ossipee guilty of killing his girlfriend, Christine Falzone, and her preborn child at the home they shared in December 2023. Falzone was between 35 and 37 weeks pregnant at the time of her murder.

According to reports, after Christine's death, authorities found numerous injuries on her body in various stages of healing, indicating a history of abuse. An autopsy revealed she died from multiple blunt force trauma injuries.

“Our thoughts remain with Christine Falzone's loved ones, who have endured an unimaginable loss,” said New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella after the verdict. “We are grateful for our dedicated trial team, the diligent investigators who worked this case, as well as for the careful work of the jury throughout this trial. Domestic violence can have devastating and irreversible consequences, and we hope this verdict provides a measure of justice for Christine and her unborn child.”

Kelly is scheduled to be sentenced in August.

Zoom In:

New Hampshire passed its fetal homicide bill in 2018; in 2024, prosecutors decided to use the law for the first time in charging Kelly for two counts of second-degree murder.

Notably, the law does not apply to all preborn children killed in the womb, but only those at least 20 weeks gestation. This exclusion denies the humanity of preborn children through half of pregnancy.

"If you have someone who lost a baby at 18 weeks, it can’t be prosecuted, and that would be very, very hard to deal with,” former House member Kathleen Souza previously lamented.

A bill attempting to expand the law to include all preborn children failed in the state House earlier this year.

Why It Matters:

There are two victims when a pregnant woman is killed — the mother and her preborn child. Yet not every state recognizes that child as a homicide victim. In 2023, the family of a pregnant woman killed in Connecticut was disheartened to learn that her alleged murderer faced just one murder charge, not two.

“I think they should give him double homicide. I don’t know where they were going with one because those were two people," said one family member at the time.

New Hampshire has made strides in recognizing that some preborn children can be murder victims, but a preborn baby at 19 weeks — or even 1 week — gestation is no less human than one at 20 weeks. A person's value does not depend on his or her age or size. All humans deserve protection from the moment of conception.

The Bottom Line:

Pro-life groups in the state are encouraged that the law recognized both Christine Falzone and her child as victims.

"While we mourn these two lives cut short, we are comforted that the justice system stood up for both Christine and her unborn child today in New Hampshire," said Jason Hennessey, President of NH Right to Life. "Our hope is that in light of this tragedy, Granite Staters will more fully value and want to protect human life, both born and preborn."

Key Takeaways:

• A 911 call in Fort Collins, Colorado, reported injuries from a 23-year-old woman who may have been experiencing abortion complications.

• The Fort Collins Planned Parenthood has injured at least 10 women in the past year, and last year was responsible for the death of 18-year-old Lexi Arguello.

• Despite the numerous injuries, the state of Colorado does not require abortion businesses to meet licensing standards or safety requirements.

The Details:

According to the Operation Rescue investigation, public dispatch records show a 911 call was made on Friday, June 12 from a Days Inn motel in Fort Collins. The 23-year-old female victim reportedly “had an operation earlier [that day]” and needed emergency care for “stomach pain and severe vaginal bleeding.”

The EMS code for this injury was “Delta Medical,” indicating a severe or life-threatening event. Responding units also indicated a need for blood, possibly indicating a blood transfusion was necessary. First responders reportedly needed help from Days Inn staff to gain access to the room, as the woman was unable to get up and answer the door.

Operation Rescue speculates that this injury could be linked to the Fort Collins Planned Parenthood, which is just six miles from the hotel. Local sidewalk counselors confirm that the Fort Collins Planned Parenthood commits abortions on Fridays.

The motel's location along I-25 in an area of low-cost hotels, is reportedly known for human trafficking.

Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, stated:

“It seems very possible that this woman was experiencing an abortion complication, and who knows what else. Colorado officials have done all they can to turn their state into an abortion destination — or, as we call it, an abortion devastation. There are no gestational limits, and abortion clinics are not required to undergo any inspections or any licensing process. It’s a human trafficker’s dream. And, when other women come in from surrounding states, unaware of the injuries piling up at these unregulated clinics, they are just left to enter at their own risk.”

Zoom Out:

In 2025, 18-year-old Lexi Arguello died following a botched abortion at the Fort Collins Planned Parenthood. Arguello visited the abortion business when she was 22 weeks pregnant. Arguello died of an amniotic fluid embolism (AFE), a known complication of abortion. Because of the AFE, she developed disseminated intravascular coagulation. 

According to Dr. Keri Kasun, who testified during an investigation into Arguello's death, the Planned Parenthood facility delayed her transfer to the hospital by instructing emergency responders to turn off lights and sirens — a tactic often used by the abortion industry so as not to attract attention to the injuries that are occurring behind closed doors.

Arguello's death isn't the only instance of injury; Operation Rescue has reported at least 10 other injuries at this facility, all within the past year.

The Bottom Line:

Despite the numerous abortion injuries — and even death — Colorado lawmakers have done little to protect women from dangerous abortion businesses, as they are not required to be licensed or undergo safety inspections.

“Colorado abortion radicals holding public office may be determined to ignore these incidents and leave the public to fall victim to dangerous, unregulated abortion operations,” said Newman, “but Operation Rescue and a growing coalition of pro-life organizations and leaders within the state will not be silent."

By publishing a near-identical Bill to the much-criticised version that failed in the previous parliamentary session, the Bill’s supporters have made clear their highly controversial intention to use the Parliament Acts to bypass the House of Lords to force the Bill into law should the Lords fail to pass the Bill again. 

The ability to use the Parliament Acts not only requires the Bill to be brought back in a near-identical form, but also means that it could not be amended in the House of Commons, making it impossible for MPs to amend the Bill in the House of Commons to fix the dozens of widely-publicised and serious flaws in the Bill.

"An uphill battle"

The Second Reading vote on the revived Bill on 11 September will now be a referendum on the use of the Parliament Acts for a controversial Private Members’ Bill, as well as on the deeply flawed and unsafe Bill to which MPs will not be able to make amendments. This means September’s vote will be a very different proposition to the previous Second Reading vote on Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill.

As only 12 MPs need to change their minds for the new assisted suicide Bill to fall, and since seven MPs from Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who had backed the previous Bill at Third Reading have already said they do not support plans to force it into law via the Parliament Acts / bringing back the Bill in this new Parliamentary session, Lauren Edwards now faces an uphill battle to pass the Second Reading vote on 11 September.  

"Extraordinary" use of the Parliament Acts

The Parliament Acts have only been used a handful of times (seven times since 1911) for Government legislation, and never for a Private Members’ Bill like Lauren Edwards’ assisted suicide Bill.

It would be extraordinary for them to be invoked for a Bill that passed the Commons by a narrow margin, with fewer than 50% of MPs voting for it at Third Reading, and which was not in the Government’s manifesto. 

The Bill has been published on the day MPs leave Westminster for the summer recess, giving MPs only nine sitting days to consider the Bill before the Second Reading debate on Friday 11 September.

Dozens of major flaws in the Bill

In October last year, a House of Lords Select Committee took evidence from the relevant Royal Colleges, professional bodies, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and mental health and domestic abuse charities on the Bill that has now been brought back in near-identical form by Lauren Edwards. None would confirm that the Bill is safe, and neither would Government ministers when the Committee asked them to.

Among those raising concerns about the dozens of flaws in the BIll were:

• The Royal College of Physicians

• The Royal College of Psychiatrists

• The Association for Palliative Medicine / CLADD Group

• The British Association of Social Workers

• Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse

• The Royal College of Pathologists

• Mind charity

• The British Geriatrics Society

• The National Down Syndrome Policy Group

• The Equality and Human Rights Commission

• The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee

• The Royal College of GPs

• A former Chief Coroner

• Care England

• The Royal Pharmaceutical Society

• The Royal College of Nursing

• The Chair of the New Zealand Parliament’s Health Committee inquiry into assisted suicide

• Hospice UK

• Age UK

• The Children’s Commissioner

• Disability rights campaigner & former Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson

• The Mental Health and Disability Law Committee

Changing his tune?

Long-time advocate of assisted suicide and the sponsor of Kim Leadbeater’s Bill in the previous session in the Lords, Lord Falconer, himself conceded that a number of changes are needed to make the Bill safer.

He said that “[The NHS clause] is currently very wide, and as the deregulation committee said, needs to be limited” and he admitted the Bill has poor protections for young adults who “may be more emotionally impulsive and more easily influenced”.

He also raised specific concerns about the fact that suicidal patients detained in care homes or hospitals for their own safety may still be eligible under the Bill he sponsored. Falconer recognised too that a person who wants to end his or her own life should be asked for their motivation since “it might throw some light on circumstances that suggest classic coercion”.

Falconer also acknowledged legitimate concerns surrounding online advertising for assisted suicide, the serious dangerpresented by the possibility of remote consultations prior to assisted suicide, and that there should be some means for recording the reasons for withdrawals from assisted suicide.

However, with the proposed Parliament Acts route, even such flaws in the Bill, which are acknowledged by supporters of the assisted suicide Bill, cannot be addressed by the House of Commons. MPs would need to push through essentially the same flawed, unsafe Bill which left the Commons in the previous parliamentary session.

PM Andy Burnham likely to oppose revived Bill

The Edwards Bill is also likely to struggle without the support of the incoming Prime Minister, Andy Burnham. Keir Starmer was well-known for his consistent support for assisted suicide and the pre-election promise he gave to celebrity campaigner Esther Rantzen to make time for a debate on it. 

However, in contrast, The New Statesman reported that Andy Burnham may oppose a new assisted suicide Bill, and would not welcome its return.

The article stated that, should Burnham become Prime Minister, “it is hard to see a world in which he would welcome this Labour Party-dividing legislation”.

Burnham has said he supports the principle of assisted suicide, but has set a precondition that hospices must be “properly funded and sorted out” before any law change.

He previously stated, “[In] terms of the implementation of it, I would say there should be a kind of requirement that the hospices of this country get properly funded and sorted out before that law change comes in”.

He added that palliative care is not “in the strong position it should be in”, stating that, “Consequently, you can’t have this law change with an underfunded hospice movement”.

Given the end-of-life care crisis in this country, Burnham’s precondition, that palliative care is properly funded before assisted suicide is introduced, has plainly not been met. It therefore seems unlikely he could support the revived assisted suicide Bill.

Burnham’s position is similar to that of Wes Streeting, the former Health Secretary who came out in support of Burnham’s bid for leadership. Streeting is also not opposed to the principle of assisted suicide, but has said that end-of-life care is not in a condition where people at the end of their life would have genuine freedom to choose an assisted death. On this basis, the former Health Secretary opposed the Leadbeater Bill at both Second and Third Readings. 

Bill's return will divide Labour Party at worst possible time

The return of the assisted suicide Bill will distract Labour from focusing on core priorities, undermining any attempted political reset planned by incoming Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

After Lauren Edwards announced she would bring the Bill back, several Labour MPs took to social media to point out that bringing back the assisted suicide Bill would fuel the flames of current tensions in the Labour Party, causing further division, at the worst possible time. These MPs include Adam Jogee, David Smith, Rupa Huq and Kirsteen Sullivan. Other MPs, including Ashley Dalton, Emma Lewell, Antonia Bance, Allison Gardner, Daniel Francis, Uma Kumaran, Ian Byrne, Scott Arthur and Andrew Pakes, alongside Labour Peers and former MPs Luciana Berger and Barbara Keeley, all also expressed serious concern about the return of the Bill.

Still more Labour MPs reposted the concerns of their colleagues, including Chi Onwurah, Jess Asato, Mary Glindon, Melanie Ward and Patrick Hurley, as well as former Labour rebel Karl Turner, who predicted defeat for a new Bill, making the division this Bill will cause pointless. Former Labour MPs Diane Abbott and Rosie Duffield also publicly opposed the return of the Bill.

Given the ongoing turmoil in the Labour Party and the fact that 42% of Labour MPs (160, including several Cabinet Ministers) voted against the Bill at Third Reading in 2025, many MPs will be dismayed at the return of a controversial Bill that will cause division and distract from other priorities, while also leading to a backlash from constituents, especially when it will likely fail. 

A similar Bill has recently been rejected in Scotland, where, strikingly, 85% of Labour MSPs (17/20) opposed the Bill. Many new intake Labour MPs likely voted for the Westminster Bill previously because of the support of Keir Starmer early on in their parliamentary careers.

In a recent lead article, The Times newspaper described plans to invoke the Parliament Acts for the assisted suicide Bill as “a constitutional outrage” and “unconscionable”. The Times View also defended the House of Lords’ “detailed scrutiny” of the previous Bill, which has been smeared by Bill supporters, as doing “the country a service”. Bill supporters have claimed that a small group of Peers blocked the Bill in the House of Lords and have used this narrative to justify the return of the Bill.

The reality is that over 140 Peers actively opposed the Bill in the House of Lords, including leading experts, while numerous Royal Colleges, professional bodies and groups representing vulnerable people expressed their concerns with the Bill at a House of Lords select committee in the autumn, as outlined above.

Poll shows no public mandate for reviving failed Bill

An MRP poll of over 10,000 people, the largest public poll conducted on assisted suicide since Kim Leadbeater’s Bill was introduced in October 2024, has shown that there is no mandate from the public to revive Leadbeater’s failed assisted suicide bill and circumvent the House of Lords to push it into law.

Full details on this polling, including constituency-level results for Lauren Edwards’ constituency, are available in this press release from The Other Half here.

Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, CEO of the charity Right To Life UK, which campaigns against assisted suicide and in support of better access to palliative care, said:

Lauren Edwards has chosen to bring back a Bill that is near-identical in form to Kim Leadbeater’s deeply flawed and unsafe Bill from the previous parliamentary session. 

The Bill retains dozens of serious flaws identified by Royal Colleges, professional bodies, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and disability, mental health and domestic abuse charities.

The near-identical Bill makes it clear that assisted suicide campaigners are paving the way for the highly controversial use of the Parliament Acts to bypass the House of Lords to force it into law. Utilising the Parliament Acts route would mean it would be impossible for MPs to amend the Bill in the House of Commons to fix the dozens of serious flaws in the Bill....

Read the entire press release at Right to Life UK.

Key Takeaways:

• A pro-abortion organization has secured enough signatures to place a ballot measure guaranteeing the "right" to abortion before Idaho voters in November.

• Pro-life groups say that if the measure passes, it will undo nearly all pro-life protections in the state.

• Idaho law currently protects nearly all preborn children from abortion.

The Details:

The pro-abortion organization Idahoans United for Women & Families has reportedly gathered enough signatures during its petition initiative to place the measure on the ballot in the general election on November 3. The group says it received more than 110,000 signatures, surpassing the 70,725 minimum requirement.

Similar to constitutional amendments instituted in other states around the country, the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act "establishes a right to make private reproductive health care decisions, including abortion up to fetal viability and in medical emergencies." It lumps together the killing of preborn children by abortion with childbirth care, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and more.

The Act states:

"Every person has the right to reproductive freedom and privacy, which is the right to make personal decisions about reproductive health care that directly impact the person’s own body, including but not limited to the right to make decisions about:

i. Abortion;

ii. Childbirth care;

iii. Contraception;

iv. Fertility treatment;

v. Miscarriage care; and

vi. Prenatal, pregnancy, and postpartum care.

The act would serve as a law, and would not impact the state's constitution.

“Put very simply, this law restores us to the standard that we had under Roe in Idaho for nearly five decades,” said Melanie Folwell, director of the Idahoans United for Women & Families campaign. That "standard" was the legal killing of preborn children in the womb.

Zoom In:

After the overturn of Roe v. Wade, an Idaho law protecting nearly all preborn children from abortion went into effect. Should this ballot measure pass, pro-life groups warn that it would undo those crucial pro-life protections.

David Ripley, the CEO of Idaho Chooses Life, told the Associated Press the group will be actively campaigning against the proposal.

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

In an op-ed published Monday, Idaho GOP chairwoman Dorothy Moon decried the ballot measure as "radical and deceptive."

"Abortion is not about freedom, it’s not about privacy, and it’s certainly not about reproduction. Abortion is the deliberate destruction of a unique and precious human life, which is why the Idaho GOP will always oppose this barbaric practice," she wrote.

The Bottom Line:

Despite what voters may choose to decide, there is never a justified or legal reason to kill an innocent preborn child.

Key Takeaways:

• A federal judge has placed a temporary injunction on two Michigan laws.

• One prevented pro-life groups from refusing to hire someone that supports abortion; the other forced them to provide abortion coverage in their insurance plans.

• The laws had been challenged in a lawsuit brought by Right to Life of Michigan and Pregnancy Resource Center.

• The judge sent clarifying questions to the Michigan Supreme Court.

• He also insinuated that the pro-life plaintiffs were likely to win their case.

The Details:

U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker issued a preliminary injunction on July 10 against Michigan laws that prevented pro-life organizations from screening potential employees to ensure they espouse pro-life values, and required those organizations to provide insurance benefits for abortion.

Jonker also denied a request from the state to drop the case.

The injunction was issued at the request of Right to Life of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case challenging the state's laws, which was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

Jonker said numerous "unsettled questions" surrounding the state's law, which he believes will best be handled by the Michigan Supreme Court. According to The Detroit News, he will send a certified question to that court, which can then choose to reject or consider the questions presented.

He also expressed belief that the pro-life groups were likely to win their case.

“In the Court’s view, if Right to Life and PRC must employ, or accept as volunteers, anyone that ‘advocates’ for abortion, and if they must also provide abortion-related care as part of their health insurance plans, ELCRA likely violates their expressive association rights,” he said.

ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart, who represented the plaintiffs in court, praised the ruling:

“The government can’t force pro-life organizations to sabotage their own beliefs by requiring them to employ staff who endorse abortion—a decision that harms women and ends innocent lives.

The First Amendment protects the right of these organizations to hire employees who can carry out and share the message of hope and joy associated with the gift of life. For these pro-life groups, the messenger matters. The court made the right decision by protecting their constitutional freedom to hire employees who share their views in word and deed so that they can express messages consistent with their beliefs.”

The Backstory:

In 2023, Michigan amended its Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act [ELCRA] to add protection of "the termination of a pregnancy" under the definition of sex discrimination. Right to Life of Michigan and Pregnancy Resource Center then sued the state, arguing that change meant they could no longer refuse to hire someone based on that person's views on abortion.

The pro-life groups also challenged a separate 2023 law which repealed the Abortion Insurance Opt Out Act, which had required women to pay for an additional insurance rider for abortion coverage. With that repeal, pro-life groups were mandated to provide abortion coverage in their insurance plans.

As an ADF press release previously explained:

Michigan amended its employment law to re-define “sex” discrimination to include “the termination of a pregnancy.” It is now illegal for Right to Life of Michigan and Pregnancy Resource Center to recruit and hire only those employees who share these organizations’ pro-life views and who agree to refrain from engaging in conduct contrary to those views.

Going further, the law also requires these organizations to offer abortion coverage in their insurance plans in direct conflict with their very mission. As a result, the law threatens their ability to advocate for their pro-life views and to serve women and families in need consistent with their beliefs.

What's Next:

Jonker's ruling is only temporary, and the lawsuit will continue to make its way through the court. However, Amber Roseboom, president of Right to Life of Michigan, called the injunction a "welcome reprieve" as the case continues.

“The court’s decision is a welcome reprieve and reaffirms our fundamental right to hire employees who agree with our life-affirming mission," she said. "Any attempt by state officials to force organizations like Right to Life of Michigan to employ staff who do not agree with our fundamental mission is a wild misuse of power and defies common sense."

Key Takeaways:

• Sarah Morse is from the United States, and says she is a devout Roman Catholic.

• During a discussion in her history class, Morse said her high school students asked her opinion about various political issues in the United States.

• When asked about abortion, she said she opposes it as a Catholic, but that it was fine for the students to disagree.

• Morse said she was fired within hours.

The Details:

The Telegraph reported that Morse, who is originally from the United States (US), is a teacher in Scotland, which is part of the UK. She had been asked to cover a history class at Arbroath High School when she was asked for her opinion on things like Donald Trump and abortion during a discussion on life in the US.

On abortion, Morse responded, “I am a faithful Roman Catholic and I am against it.”

The students then further asked her about abortion if a woman had been raped, to which Morse replied that the preborn child should “not be punished but understood that people would disagree with her."

The same day, she was called to the office, where she was fired.

“When I was summoned to the office, I thought it was to go through paperwork and school procedures, such as fire drills after accepting an extension to my contract," she said. "Instead, I was summarily dismissed. I was not offered any sort of right of reply, asked for my account of what happened or how my legally protected beliefs were raised in the context of a history class and the head teacher [Karen Thomson] wouldn’t even see me.”

Zoom In:

Morse is now suing the Angus Council for discrimination, saying the school infringed upon her free speech.

 “At no time did I attempt to persuade any student to adopt my position. I taught them that it is possible to have hard conversations with respect and that disagreement is a natural part of a free society," she said. “To be ‘cancelled’ and lose my livelihood because of my religious identity is a terrifying precedent for the teaching profession in Scotland. I will not teach anywhere in this country ever again. It’s been an absolute nightmare.”

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) is supporting her campaign. Michael Robinson, executive director of SPUC, said:

Government guidelines on political impartiality in the classroom do not prohibit the mention of a teacher’s legally protected beliefs, provided there is no attempt to persuade.

Sarah, a teacher with considerable experience acted as a facilitator of open, respectful dialogue – for which she has been punished with the loss of her career, pay and damage to her reputation. Chillingly, there was even the veiled threat to add this information to Sarah’s record. The implication of this comment [is], if you go without a fuss, then we won’t record that you are pro-life, which will impact your employment opportunities.

The school did not follow any due process. There was no attempt to ascertain from Sarah what had happened, and the headteacher was not present and would not even see her. This latest incident of trying to silence someone with traditional or religious views is utterly disgraceful and should worry us all. Sarah did nothing wrong, she simply answered questions from a group of young people about her legally protected beliefs.

As she said, it was normal along with questions about more [of] the trivial aspects of living in the US. Our legal team are now preparing legal action against the school and the local authority for discrimination and Sarah is looking forward to her day in court.

The Bottom Line:

Pro-life speech has been increasingly under attack in the UK, with pro-life activists arrested just for standing silently near abortion facilities. Morse may be the latest example of a larger problem within this pro-abortion nation.

Key Takeaways:

• Baby Isaac became the youngest baby at University Hospital in Coventry to survive, after his birth at 22 weeks.

• Isaac's parents have credited the hospital team for their "amazing" care, and call his survival a "miracle."

• Abortion is permitted until 24 weeks in the UK, because that is considered the point of "viability;" stories like Isaac's show that this is an arbitrary term.

• A recent study in the U.S. also showed that babies have a better chance of surviving at 22 weeks if given active treatment.

The Details:

Baby Isaac was born in February at just 22 weeks three days gestation, weighing 1.2 pounds — about as much as two sticks of butter.

He received care at University Hospital in Coventry, in the United Kingdom (UK), and now holds the distinction of being the youngest-born baby ever to survive at the hospital.

“It’s a miracle to be fair that he’s here with us. [I] didn't really think this day would come," Isaac's dad, Tatenda, said.

His mom, Vimbay, credited her faith with carrying the family through the challenges of Isaac's stay, as well as the "amazing" hospital team.

"Isaac wouldn't have got to where he is now without them," she said. "There have been moments of fear and moments of exhaustion, but there have also been moments of hope, and my faith has carried me through this."

After months of care, Isaac now weighs six pounds, and was discharged from the hospital to be home with his family.

Zoom In:

In the UK, abortion is allowed for any reason up to 24 weeks, which is widely considered to the point of so-called "viability." However, studies and real life experiences continue to prove that "viability" is completely arbitrary, especially as medical care continues to advance.

A recent study out of the United States found that 34% of infants who were given active treatment after a birth at 22 weeks survived at one year, compared with just 8.6% of babies who were not given "active treatment." Such treatment is defined as "antenatal corticosteroids, cesarean delivery, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, neonatal antibiotics, surfactant, or mechanical ventilation (immediate or for >6 hours)."

"Active treatment at 22 weeks significantly improves the 1-year survival. Its rising national use reflects growing clinical acceptance and highlights a potential shift in the threshold of viability in U.S. neonatal care," the study authors concluded.

The Bottom Line:

Both the study and little babies like Isaac continue to prove that viability is an arbitrary term, and that infants are able to survive and thrive if given the chance.

"Isaac's journey is a powerful example of the strength shown by babies, families and staff every day in our neonatal services," said Chief Nursing Officer Tracey Brigstock. "We are incredibly proud of the care, compassion and expertise shown by our teams."

Key Takeaways:

• Before the law legalizing abortion took effect in Ireland, there were 2,879 abortions committed in 2018.

• In 2025, that number soared to 10,600 abortions committed in 2025.

• 1 in 6 pregnancies now end in abortion in the country.

The Details:

The latest abortion figures in Ireland indicate a drastic and disturbing rise from the 2,879 abortions committed in 2018, before Ireland’s abortion law had time to take effect. Statistics from 2024 and 2025 show that, tragically, 1 in 6 pregnancies now end in abortion in Ireland.

In response to recent government data, an article from Irish pro-life group Pro Life Campaign (PLC) called for accountability from the Irish authorities: 

The latest Department of Health numbers come with an appropriate, if unintended, health warning based on previous annual releases.

For 2021, for example, the Department of Health released figures suggesting that 4,577 abortions had taken place that year, a drop of 2,000 on the previous year. However, based on reimbursements made to GPs in 2021, the HSE indicated that 6,686 abortions had in fact been performed.

The Department of Health subsequently admitted there was a discrepancy in the official figures it had presented to the public and gave an undertaking to rectify the matter. Almost five years later, it still has not done so.

If the official figures released by the Department are correct for 2021, then abortion-providing GPs fraudulently claimed close to €1 million from taxpayers for terminations they did not perform. The only other explanation is that the Department of Health underreported the number of abortions carried out that year by approximately 2,000. Whatever the truth may be, the Department of Health still owes the public a full and detailed explanation.

PLC spokesperson Eilís Mulroy slammed the recent data as “deeply concerning,” pointing out that there are “65,000 reasons why government policy in this area has to change,” referring to the approximate number of abortions committed in Ireland since 2019. 

The PLC highlighted that, since abortion was introduced and legalized in Ireland, “there is still no State-backed service whose sole purpose is to ensure that women who are conflicted about having an abortion can access timely information and practical support if they wish to continue their pregnancy.” 

“The State-funded agencies responsible for addressing unplanned pregnancy operate as a de facto fast-track service to abortion,” Mulroy said, adding:

Even a cursory review of these agencies’ websites suggests that their structures are overwhelmingly geared towards abortion. We hear from women all the time who regret their abortions and describe feeling rushed, pressured or carried along by the process, only to be left feeling abandoned and failed by the State afterwards. Women and their babies deserve so much better than this status quo continuing.

Zoom In:

Mulroy contended that the number of abortions currently taking place is far greater than what political leaders said would be committed when they called on people to support the 2018 “Repeal” referendum. 

“Yet in recent months, the only changes in which these leaders have shown any interest are proposals that would lead to still more abortions, not less – their support for the removal of the three-day reflection period being a case in point.,” she said. 

The Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference (ICBC) opposed a piece of legislation put forward by Irish political party Sinn Féin last month that would eradicate the compulsory three-day reflection period before an abortion can take place. The bishops' letter read:

Over 90 percent of abortions in Ireland take place in the first 12 weeks but, in a society that is otherwise collapsing under the weight of research statistics, there is no attempt to even find out why. Neither the State, nor the mainstream media, seem to have any interest in exploring what leads women to choose abortion or what happens to them afterwards. We acknowledge with gratitude those public representatives who have courageously affirmed the right to life of the unborn. Unfortunately, there are some who seem determined at all costs to widen the scope of the present law. 

Eventually, the Irish House of Representatives (Dáil) passed the pro-abortion measure by a margin of 86 to 70. 

The Bottom Line:

The scale of Ireland’s abortion figures has renewed debate about Ireland’s post-referendum trajectory, with the country’s latest abortion data acting as a sober warning about what happens when a nation trivializes preborn life. 

Once abortion is normalized, the focus in the public imagination and government circles moves away from protecting life and toward managing its destruction. 

Key Takeaways:

• The vote on Wednesday was the fourth time the National Assembly had approved the text, but with each successive review, the voices in support of the bill decreased.

• The majority in France’s Senate repeatedly voted against the bill, and last week refused to even review the text for a third time.

• In order to pass the bill, Macron’s government invoked article 45 of the Constitution that gave the National Assembly the power to have the final say on the matter.

• The bill contains no conscience protections for those opposed to participating in the process of assisted dying. The language of the bill is ambiguous and permissive, and is likely to create abuses and uncertain situations.

• The Constitutional Council has a month to debate its constitutionality before the law is enacted.

The Details:

After months of debate and failed attempts by opponents to place guardrails around the legislation, the bill on euthanasia and assisted suicide passed by a slim majority of 291 votes in favor, with 241 votes against, and 29 abstentions. 

The vote on Wednesday was the fourth time the National Assembly had approved the text, but with each successive review, the voices in support of the bill decreased:

• May 2025: 305 votes for, 199 against

• February 2026: 299 votes for, 226 against

• June 2026: 295 votes for, 232 against

The majority in France’s higher chamber, the Senate, repeatedly voted against the bill, and just last week refused to even review the text for a third time. The Senate promptly voted against it on July 7, calling for the government to stop the legislative process to better address concerns surrounding the fast-moving bill and find consensus. 

But the Macron government’s eagerness to deliver on a promise of reform during his second term drove the vote on Wednesday before the summer recess. 

With two deeply divided chambers, no consensus, and blocked votes between the Senate and the National Assembly, Macron’s government invoked article 45 of the Constitution that gave the National Assembly the power to have the final say on the matter. 

This life-or-death issue of euthanasia profoundly divides French society, and opponents of the bill sought to deliver a referendum directly to the people — a move that was initially proposed by President Macron himself early on but was subsequently rejected by the Constitutional Council in June.

Zoom In:

Outcry over Celebrating Death

Many opponents to the bill felt outraged by the attitude of presumed victory by their counterparts prior to the vote as manifested by a planned reception to celebrate the passage of the law. 

As reported by Le Figaro, the minister in charge of government relations with Parliament, Laurent Panifous, organized an event for the evening of July 15 to celebrate the adoption of the euthanasia bill. He invited citizens who were part of France’s Citizen Convention on end-of-life care as well as the rapporteurs on the bill to the celebration. 

While Mr. Panifous was more subdued on the subject, the Economic, Social, and Environmental Council (CESE), which advises lawmaking bodies, was not, inviting the guests to a “celebratory cocktail” and offering taxpayer-funded transportation and overnight accommodation to the guests.

Bruno Retailleau, leader of Les Républicains (LR), criticized the event and the left’s repeated catchphrase “dying with dignity” by saying on social media:

“Where is the dignity in celebrating with champagne a law dealing with the suffering and death of the most vulnerable? This isn’t a football match!” 

Mr. Retailleau was not alone in his thinking. The public outrage was so strong that Mr. Panifous rescheduled the celebration to avoid any “ambiguity” as to the true nature of the event.

Challenging the Constitutionality of Assisted Death

The public outrage is fueled by the feeling that there has been a deliberate lack of exchange and consideration for palliative care professionals in addressing such an anthropologic rupture to French culture. 

Ségolène Perruchio, doctor and president of the French Society for Palliative Care (SFAP), criticized the text saying, “There was no attempt at compromise, no listening to the concerns expressed by caregivers and by certain patient associations.”

In her view, “[t]he parliamentary process has not worked: the Senate has rejected this text three times without any compromise being found.”

But there is one last resort for opponents to the bill. The Prime Minister, Sébastien Lecornu, and the President of the Senate, Gérard Larcher, have referred parts of the text to the Constitutional Council. 

The Council is the same body that rejected the parliamentarians’ bid for a referendum but is now set to review the bill again for constitutionality with a particular focus on three points:

• the short withdrawal period for individuals (set at two days in the current text)

• weak safeguards for legally incapacitated adults

• the absence of a conscience clause for healthcare facilities that refuse to be involved assisted dying

The Prime Minister's office states that it is trying to ensure "the application of the law (...) can be carried out in full respect of the principles that our Constitution guarantees and, in particular, human dignity."

What It Means:

France has now joined the eight European countries that have already legalized either euthanasia (lethal injection by someone other than the patient) or assisted suicide (lethal injection by the patient himself). 

French lawmakers are preparing to leave on summer holiday relieved that the job is done, but much of French society is still fighting under the weight of too many unanswered questions.

Critics point out the inherent flaws of the text, and the ambiguous and permissive language that will create abuses and uncertain situations where the liberty of one person to take his own life violates the dignity of another to respect it. 

The absence of an assiduous conscience clause means that individuals who refuse to participate in the fatal procedure will still have to violate their consciences by referring the patient to someone who will assist in the death. 

It also means that institutions whose very mission is to protect and accompany life to its natural end are in danger of having to close their doors to an increasingly aging population in France.   

The Bottom Line:

The Constitutional Council is expected to reach a decision by August 15. The legal body could uphold the current text, clarify and institute a more restrictive reading of the text, or strike down certain provisions of the text entirely. A sliver of hope remains for the defense of life.

Key Takeaways:

• Larry Black, Jr. was shot in the head, but remained conscious long enough to run from his attacker and get help.

• He remained able to communicate with his family in the hospital.

• Black was on the table in the operating room, with surgical staff preparing to harvest his organs, until his neurosurgeon intervened and saved his life.

• Disturbingly, Black is not the only person with a similarly disturbing case.

The Details:

In September, KFF Health News reported about Black's experience. He had been on the way to his sister's apartment in St. Louis when he was shot in the head.

“I didn’t know I was shot at first,” Black said. “I literally ran like a block or two away.”

He eventually collapsed, but kept fighting to live; he crawled to a woman's house, where he cleaned his head with hydrogen peroxide and wrapped towels around the wound. An ambulance was called, and his sister, Macquel Payne, arrived just before he was taken to the hospital.

“I’m hearing Larry say, ‘I’m good, sis,’” Payne said. “‘I’m OK.’”

Once at the hospital, Black kept drifting in and out of consciousness, and doctors quickly assumed he was brain dead. “I got to hitting my hand on the side of the ICU bed,” Black said. “They was like: ‘That’s just the reaction, the side effects of the medicine. Ask him some questions.’”

So Payne asked him to "blink twice" for yes as she asked him a series of questions, which he did. Eventually, she asked he wanted to live; he again blinked twice. Yet hospital staff claimed the movements were involuntary.

And almost immediately, his family was approached about organ donation.

“I remember my mom saying, ‘Not right now,’” Payne said. “‘It’s kind of too soon.’ She was like, ‘Well, can I at least leave you some brochures or something?’ Then my mom got a little agitated because it felt like she was being, like, pushy. I believe in saving lives. But don’t be pushy about it.”

Eventually, hospital staff convinced the family Black was brain dead, even as he continued to signal that he was still alive.

“I’m like, ‘My brother’s in there tapping on the bed,’” Payne said. “They said, ‘That’s just his nerves.’ But I’m like, ‘No, something’s not right.’ It’s like he was too alert. He was letting us know: ‘Please don’t let them do this to me. I’m here. I can fight this.’ They were saying that’s what the medicine will do, it affects his nerves.”

Zoom In:

Medical staff arranged for Black to have an honor walk, in which an organ donor is honored for giving the gift of life. A video of the experience shows Black with his eyes still open as his family sobs in the background.

Meanwhile, his father, Lawrence Black Sr., refused to believe his son was dead.

Black was under the care of Zohny Zohny, a neurosurgeon who heard about the honor walk over the intercom, with no clue that it was his patient being wheeled into an operating room for organ donation.

Initially, Zohny was scared to take action.

“This is my first year,” Zohny said. “Your first year out as a neurosurgeon is the riskiest time for you. Any mistakes, anything small, basically derails your career. So the moment this happened, my legs went weak and I was very nervous because, at the end of the day, your job as a doctor is to be perfect.”

Zohny said Black hadn't even been given a brain death exam, and sprinted to the operating room.

Staff had already removed Black's surgical gown and had begun cleaning his chest and abdomen. Zohny got there just in time, but still had to fight with hospital staff to get them to stop.

“Get him off the table! This is my patient. Get him off the table," he recalled saying, though the team claimed his family had consented to the organ donation, to which Zohny responded, “I don’t care if we have consent. I haven’t spoken to the family, and I don’t agree with this. Get him off the table.”

Though he knew it could put his job at risk, Zohny intervened anyway, and told Black's family there was a chance he could not only survive, but recover.

Black was taken back to the ICU, and was removed from sedation. Two days later, he woke up.

“I had to learn how to walk, how to spell, read,” Black said. “I had to learn my name again, my Social, birthday, everything.”

After 21 days in the hospital, Black was discharged. While he still suffers some side effects from the shooting, he survived, and now has a wife and children. And unsurprisingly, he is no longer willing to be on the organ donor registry.

Zohny no longer works at that hospital.

The Big Picture:

Black is far from alone in this kind of disturbing experience. This year, another family came forward with a similar story, this time in Kentucky.

Anthony Thomas ‘TJ’ Hoover II was admitted to Baptist Health Richmond in 2021 after experiencing cardiac arrest. Like in Black's case, his family was approached about organ donation, and they agreed. But during the honor walk, he showed signs of awareness.

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

Yet more signs that Hoover was not brain dead kept occurring, and the organ procurement team wanted to harvest his organs anyway, according to Natasha Miller, who works at the hospital as an organ preservationist for Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates (KODA).

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

Two doctors refused to move forward with the surgery, Miller said, but a KODA supervisor pressured them to continue to surgery anyway. The incident was so traumatizing that several KODA workers allegedly quit.

Like Black, Hoover is still alive, and is demonstrably not brain dead.

Read more in this article regarding the "two medically and legally recognized pathways through which one could become an organ donor," according to the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations.

The Bottom Line:

Organ donation is a beautiful sacrifice that gives the gift of life. Yet being an organ donor should not mean risking your own life, or families being pressured into making a decision, as they so often are.

Key Takeaways:

• Acting AG Todd Blanche told lawmakers in a Congressional hearing that he would commit resources to end illegal abortion pills flooding across state borders, look into cases of coercion with regard to the abortion pill, and review a previously rendered slip opinion regarding the federal Comstock Act.

• Blanche refused to answer questions regarding the "litigation strategy" of opposing pro-life states who are attempting to halt the flood of mail-order abortion pills into their states.

• He also noted that the FDA has a "process" they are allowing to move forward, and that the current DOJ does not defend or agree wth the Biden FDA's 2023 decision to allow for mail-order abortion drugs.

The Details:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently in litigation with multiple states over the erosion of abortion pill safeguards that took place during the Biden administration in 2023, enabling the drug to be shipped by mail.

Todd Blanche, the current Acting Attorney General, had previously been confirmed by the Senate to serve as deputy attorney general.

During Wednesday's Senate hearing regarding his nomination for Attorney General, Blanche was clear that he did not view it "appropriate" to discuss legal strategies regarding the abortion pill with lawmakers.

However, after questioning by three U.S. senators, Blanche acknowledged that the Trump DOJ opposes Biden-era changes to the abortion pill safeguards (known as REMS), despite having worked to halt several state lawsuits over the matter.

Blanche also told the lawmakers he would commit resources to end illegal abortion pills flooding across state borders, look into cases of coercion with regard to the abortion pill, and review a previously rendered slip opinion regarding the federal Comstock Act.

DOJ will 'commit resources to stop' illegal mailing of abortion pills

During the hearing, Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.) mentioned the late Senator Lindsey Graham and his dedication to protecting preborn children when she questioned Blanche regarding the abortion pill — specifically the removal of the in-person dispensing requirement through the Biden FDA's 2023 expansion to allow mail-order dispensing.

"We are losing children and we are putting women in harm's way," Senator Britt said.

She then recounted the coercive way men who obtain abortion drugs through the mail have forced them upon unsuspecting pregnant women, calling it "sick and twisted" and telling Blanche that this "must stop."

"Can you commit to me today that this administration and the DOJ will prioritize taking meaningful and thoughtful action?" Senator Britt asked.

In response, Blanche stated:

"Absolutely, Senator. And it's not only what the Department of Justice can do, but its what the FDA is doing right now for the first time in a decade — actually doing real studies about the safety and the appropriateness of these drugs.

And, you know, I’ve seen video myself of what appears to be pills coming even from overseas to young women, and doesn’t matter who applies for it, anybody can get it. There’s no instructions; they just come dumped out of a little plastic bag, and and it’s wrong.

And I very much commit our resources to stopping this."

DOJ not defending Biden mail-order rule

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) also grilled Blanche, asking what he described as a "Missouri-specific" question regarding laws in the state that "protect the unborn" and "limit use of the chemical abortion drug" to require that a woman would "need to see a physician" for the drug to be prescribed "under Missouri law."

Sen. Hawley pointed out how Missouri and other pro-life states are currently in court for abortion pill litigation, "fighting over Joe Biden's" abortion policy:

"Because under Joe Biden's abortion rules, it doesn't matter what your state law is. It doesn't matter what the voters of my state do. You can just mail in this abortion drug, no prescription, no follow-up visits for the mother, no medical support at all.... You can mail these in from overseas, from India, for Heaven's sake...."

Hawley previously sent a demand letter urging the DOJ to investigate abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories.

Senator Hawley then pointed to the "massive increases" in abortion since the Biden FDA rule took effect in 2023, asking, "I hate that we have these Republican states in court against a Republican administration. It just seems to me and there's got to be some solution to this.... What do you think that is?..."

Blanche told Hawley, "I share your concerns" but "I don't want to talk about litigation strategy here — it's not appropriate." He added, "We are not defending what Biden did. And will not."

Blanche added:

"The FDA has a process that we're letting them go forward in... [I]t takes a year. They've committed to do it in significantly less time than a year. And we... will protect the life of the unborn and work with states... to make sure they do that in the best way.... I want to get to a solution here as well.... I very much share your concerns, Senator."

Blanche reiterated that the DOJ is not defending the Biden policy of mail-order abortion, stating, "It's in all of our pleadings."

The Senator pushed further, asking Blanche why, "while the FDA's doing its review," the administration has not put in place "President Trump's rules" — meaning the in-person dispensing requirements that were in place prior to when the Biden FDA eroded the REMS.

Blanche reiterated that he didn't want to discuss "litigation strategy," adding, "We very much believe that the Biden rules were wrong...."

He continued:

"We have to have studies that we can defend in court.... We're trying to let FDA do their work so we can continue to protect the lives of unborn children... and the state's laws...."

Blanche also stated that he is "committed" to looking into cases of coercion regarding the abortion pill.

Live Action News has documented many instances in which women claim they were tricked, coerced, or forced into taking abortion drugs they didn't want, because the Biden FDA's decision to relax standards allowed for the widespread availability of mail-order abortion drugs.

Reversing slip opinion by Biden Administration on Comstock Act

Senator Ted Cruz also discussed "the Biden administration rule concerning the abortion pill" with Blanche, but Cruz pointed out that federal law, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461–1462 — otherwise known as the Comstock Act — "provides that every article or thing designed, adapted or intended for producing abortion... is declared to be non-mailable."

Senator Cruz was direct in his line of questioning:

"I have to admit that statutory text, to me, looks quite straightforward. It is not subtle, it is not difficult, it is straightforward.

As you know, during the Biden administration, the Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion concluding that those provisions generally do not prohibit mailing abortion drugs unless the sender intends them to be used unlawfully....

Now, Office of Legal Counsel opinions may be reconsidered when the attorney general concludes they are inconsistent with the law. Is that right?"

"That is right," Blanche responded.

"Will you commit to carefully reviewing that opinion to ensure that it faithfully reflects the actual statutory text that Congress enacted?" asked Cruz.

"Yes," Blanche stated emphatically.

Senator Cruz continued:

"Will you commit that the Department will carefully evaluate every lawful action available to ensure the faithful enforcement of the Comstock Act and other federal pro-life acts?"

Blanche again answered in the affirmative.

The Backstory:

In 2000, the FDA initially approved the drug, mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex, for the "termination of pregnancy" in a regimen with a second drug called misoprostol.

As the years went on, use of mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex was expanded multiple times, including in 2016, when, with funds from Big Abortion groups like Planned Parenthood, the US manufacturer at that time - Danco Laboratories - sought to erode safety regulations known as REMS for the drug.

In 2023, additional erosions under Biden's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed the required in-person dispensing of the drug to allow for mail-order and pharmacy dispensing, prompting multiple lawsuits challenging these erosions.

Last month, a senior FDA official confirmed that the promised safety review of mifepristone is moving forward, and could be completed within months with some speculating it could happen by September of this year.

Meanwhile pro-life states, which contend that their laws protecting preborn life are being trampled, have pushed back against the Department of Justice (DOJ) for requesting their lawsuits be halted while the safety review is conducted.

In addition, there is evidence that the manufacturers of the drug: Danco Laboratories, GenBioPro, and Evita Solutions, may not be properly training prescribers and could be turning a blind eye to their reckless disregard for REMS safety requirements by failing to decertify those who are not in compliance with the REMS program.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2025, Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region purchased the Women’s Med Center in Dayton, previously owned by Martin Haskell, inventor of the dilation and extraction (D&X) or "partial-birth" abortion procedure; the center also has a long history of injuries to women.

• The Ohio Department of Health had previously revoked the facility's license for failing to meet state health and safety standards, sparking a multi-year legal battle.

• Planned Parenthood is now suing the Ohio Department of Health, claiming it is intentionally not filing change of ownership paperwork.

The Backstory:

The abortion facility in question was originally known as the Women’s Med Center of Dayton, and was previously owned by Martin Haskell, who invented the dilation and extraction (D&X), or "partial-birth" abortion, procedure. That procedure is now federally banned.

When committing a D&X abortion, the baby is fully delivered breech, or feet first, except for her head, which is left inside the vaginal canal. The abortionist makes an incision in the base of the baby’s neck, inserts a suction cannula, and suctions out the baby’s brain. Only then does the abortionist remove the baby's head from the vaginal canal.

Women's Med Center of Dayton also has a long history of injuring women.

The Ohio Department of Health revoked the facility’s license in 2014, claiming the facility failed to meet state health and safety standards. The facility appealed the ruling, but continued to operate without a license as the case made its way through the court system. The facility lost its appeals twice, and the Ohio Supreme Court also ruled against the facility twice. In 2019, the Ohio Department of Health approved the facility’s application for a new license with a name change, whcih allowed the facility to reopen.

As Ohio Right to Life explained:

There are safety standards for every ambulatory surgical facility. In fact, Planned Parenthood has previously been cited by the Ohio Department of Health for failing to comply with state regulations at its Cincinnati facility. Furthermore, the Dayton facility had previously lost its license due to lack of a transfer agreement with a local hospital. A transfer agreement is critical for continuity of care if there is a medical emergency during or after an abortion procedure.

The Dayton facility tried to regain the license and was denied by the Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court. It was not until the same clinic created a new corporate entity, then applied for a new variance and license that Amy Acton's Department of Health approved the application, allowing the facility to continue operating after years of litigation had upheld the revocation of its previous license.

In January of 2025, Planned Parenthood purchased the facility, but women have continued to be injured there.

The Details:

Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region filed a lawsuit with the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, and asked for the Ohio Department of Health to be found in contempt of court. The abortion corporation is claiming discrimination due to the alleged delay in processing the paperwork.

“We purchased Women’s Med Center in Dayton more than 18 months ago and promptly filed our change of ownership documentation with the department,” Nan Whaley, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, said. “They’ve been sitting on that paperwork ever since, and we’re tired of waiting.”

In the meantime, Whaley said Planned Parenthood is relying on none other than Martin Haskell.

“The delay has forced us to rely on the kindness of the previous Women’s Med Center owner, Dr. Martin Haskell, by requiring him to maintain his license until the state transfers ownership to us,” Whaley said. “That’s unsustainable, it’s unfair to Dr. Haskell, and it leaves us wondering: Would this be happening if we were any other health care provider?”

Though Planned Parenthood likes to position itself as a legitimate health care provider upon which millions of Americans rely, the reality is quite different: the organization's legitimate health care services are few, with birth control and abortion its main focus, with more than 400,000 abortions every year.

Overall, Planned Parenthood serves just 2% of American women of reproductive age, and according to its own annual reports, the few health care services it does provide have plummeted in recent years, all while abortions have steadily increased.

Furthermore, abortion — the intentional, targeted taking of a preborn life — is not health care. In emergency situations, a woman may need to have her preborn baby delivered earlier than a point at which survival is possible. This may secondarily lead to the baby's death; however, the intention is not to kill the baby but to save the mother's life.

The Bottom Line:

The Ohio Department of Health has not released any comment. If the court rules in Planned Parenthood's favor, the department can face fines and corrective action to be taken as ordered by the court, while individuals within the department deemed responsible for the offense could potentially face jail time.

The case ignites tough questions about the commodification of children in surrogacy and the pressure placed on surrogate mothers to abort preborn babies. 

Key Takeaways:

• A Canadian couple hired a surrogate, and prenatal testing revealed the baby might have a cleft lip and palate, as well as a minor heart defect.

• The couple instructed the surrogate to abort the baby at 22 weeks.

• After the surrogate refused to have an abortion, objecting because it was solely for cosmetic reasons, the couple sued her.

• More prenatal testing revealed the baby did not have genetic issues, and that minor defects could be easily fixed with surgery.

• The couple was eventually convinced to proceed with the pregnancy.

The Details:

An Ontario couple ordered their surrogate to abort their baby at 22 weeks gestation after prenatal testing indicated the child might have a cleft lip and potential genetic issues. 

A letter from the couple to the surrogate read:

“Considering that medical tests indicate that the fetus has, or is likely to have, a genetic, chromosomal or other abnormality or defect, and in accordance with article 8.5 (a) of our surrogacy agreement… we want to inform you of our wish that the pregnancy be terminated. Although very difficult, this decision is free and informed.”

In a lawsuit submitted to the Ontario Superior Court this May, the couple alleged the surrogate mother did not sufficiently notify them about the baby’s health, placed the child in danger, inflicted emotional distress, and breached their confidentiality — claims the surrogate strongly rebuffed. 

The couple filed the lawsuit despite the fact that the surrogate had pushed for additional testing, and the couple ultimately decided to proceed with the pregnancy after specialists ruled that the preborn baby was healthy overall, with only a minor birth defect.

The surrogate mother was unwilling to end the baby’s life solely because of a defect that could potentially be treated with surgery.

Zoom In:

Both the surrogate and the agency director who facilitated the match say the relationship between the surrogate and the couple started to deteriorate following the fallout over the abortion demand.

Accepting the child, but suing for damages

“That’s when everything changed… they wanted a termination,” Sally Rhoads-Heinrich, owner of Surrogacy in Canada Online, said.

Strained relations between the parents and the surrogate appeared to have escalated when she opted to proceed with a home birth, and subsequently filed a small claims case seeking reimbursement for her out-of-pocket costs. Although that dispute has moved to arbitration, the couple has since served the single mother, a corrections officer, with a broader civil lawsuit represented by Faskens, a prominent Bay Street law firm.

Although the lawsuit did not specify an exact amount of damages, the surrogate said the plaintiffs have admitted they are seeking roughly $600,000.

“What I find most difficult in this is they are suing the woman who brought their son to them,” Rhoads-Heinrich said. “How is their son going to feel some day if he learns that?” 

"They threw me away"

“You know I’m a single mom, you know I have a daughter, and you’re basically suing me for my house. It seems very s—ty, it’s just awful,” the surrogate mother said. “I just feel used … They didn’t get the perfect child they wanted and they threw me away.” 

The surrogate also insisted that she was diligent in notifying the couple about the health of the preborn baby, did nothing to put the preborn child at risk, and ensured the couple’s identities were not disclosed in any external communications about the pregnancy.

After the birth of the baby, the surrogate maintained that the couple took the baby home and largely ceased contact with her. The surrogate therefore requested a reimbursement of roughly $10,000 in outstanding expenses, including lost income during the pregnancy, missed pension contributions, and transportation costs.

The Big Picture:

Canadian surrogates are in high demand, yet are prohibited by law from charging commercial fees, unlike their counterparts in the United States and certain other countries. Canadian surrogates are limited to reimbursement for documented expenses.

While most become pregnant out of a desire to help others, some end up unpaid or, in some cases, left to take full responsibility for the child if the intended parents back out.

As reported by the National Post, Juliet Guichon, a bioethics professor at the University of Calgary, said the Ontario case emphasizes the ongoing vulnerability of women who carry children for others, usually at personal risk, adding that the parents seem to be penalizing the surrogate for supposedly violating their agreement.

“Moreover, they earlier sought to end the fetus’s life for a medical condition that… can be completely overcome by surgery and therapy. The question arises as to whether it is in the best interests of the child to be raised by these people,” Guichon said.

However, Guichon pointed out that Canadian law clearly reinforces a pregnant woman’s ultimate authority to decide whether to proceed with an abortion, irrespective of the views or wishes of others, including a co-parent.

This is not the first time a surrogacy arrangement has clashed with the abortion demands of intended parents. Similar cases have made headlines in North America before, including Crystal Kelley’s refusal to abort a child with disabilities and other legal battles in which intended parents tried to impose abortion decisions on surrogate mothers.

These stories reveal a troubling trend: when a preborn child’s health condition does not fit the expectations of intended parents, the latter regard the child’s life as disposable. 

The Bottom Line:

Surrogacy contracts can contain abortion clauses or other terms that reduce children to a set of conditions. Yet the reality is that no parent, no contract, and no fertility arrangement should empower one person with the ability to terminate the life of a preborn baby.

This case is a reminder of how vulnerable preborn children can be when adults approach fertility and surrogacy as a marketplace transaction leading to the potential destruction of life. Yet preborn babies born to surrogate mothers should not be treated as abstract “issues” to be managed, but as children whose value does not hinge on genetic perfection. 

Key Takeaways:

• Jackie Coombe, a substitute teacher, met Jaden nearly three years ago when he was in her second grade class.

• When she heard Jaden was seeking an adoptive family, she applied.

• Jaden moved in with her in December, and has now been officially adopted.

The Details:

Jackie Coombe finalized her adoption of 11-year-old Jaden from foster care last month. The two met when Coombe was a substitute teacher in Jaden’s second grade class.

Coombe told Good Morning America (GMA) that Jaden’s spiritedness and energy stood out to her when she subbed for his class over a period of seven months.

Coombe, who is 53 years old and divorced with two adult children, had considered adoption, but hesitated due to life circumstances and fears. 

"I had been thinking about adoption for years … and it just never seemed to quite fit in with what I was doing, or I was scared," Coombe told GMA.

But she missed raising young children, and when she heard that Jaden was looking to be adopted, Coombe decided to start the process with Jaden. He moved in with her on a temporary, supervised basis last December.

Zoom In:

Jaden obviously felt at home, even before the adoption was finalized this summer, Coombe said.

"He's been saying since the day he moved in, in December, that he's adopted already," Coombe said. "He would argue with you if you told him he wasn't.”

Finalizing the adoption moved both Coombe and Jaden deeply. 

"I may have cried," Coombe told ABC News, according to GMA.

Coombe said that Jaden has shown a “huge change” in his personality since the adoption papers were signed and he was formally adopted.

"He's more bubbly. He's more happy to talk to people.… I guess it meant as much to him as it did to me to actually have the judge say, 'You are adopted,’” said Coombe.

The Bottom Line:

Coombe encouraged others like her to consider adoption. Being married or being the perfect parent is not a prerequisite for giving a child love, she noted.

Jaden has brought joy into her life. “I get to go relive a childhood with him,” Coombe told the Observer Local News.

Dig Deeper:

Read more stories about adoption through foster care:

• <a href="/news/family-adopts-multiple-baby-die-two-days">Family adopts multiple children, including baby girl given two days to live</a>

• <a href="/news/teen-adopted-christmas-love">Teen adopted at Christmas: ‘I felt actual love, and I felt like I was part of a family’</a>

• <a href="/news/suspended-student-principal-adopted-her">Suspended student thought principal was the ‘bad guy’ until he and his wife adopted her</a>

They have now decided to move forward with donor eggs, writing, "Whoever our future babies are, they will be so so loved and so wanted no matter how we end up starting our family."

Key Takeaways:

• Singer Olivia King has shared her fertility struggles with her followers, explaining that she is now going to use donor eggs.

• Despite the decision to use donor eggs, doctors have not said that it is her eggs that are the problem, highlighting that IVF does not exist to solve infertility.

• IVF and the use of donor eggs and sperm carry significant physical risks and emotional risks to everyone involved.

• Children are not commodities that adults have a right to have. They are human beings who have a right to their biological parents.

The Details:

In a June Instagram post, King updated her followers on her quest to have a baby, which has involved attempts with both intrauterine insemination (IUI) and in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Ultimately, she and her husband underwent six IVF cycles; she also had surgery for endometriosis, and she lost her gallbladder due to all of the hormones injected through the process.

Doctors were able to retrieve a total of 72 eggs, and created 28 embryos. None of their embryos survived; each stopped growing before a transfer could be attempted. Now, they are going to use her husband's sperm and eggs they "purchased" from an unknown woman to create more embryos. But it might not even be an issue with her eggs that is the problem, which highlights what a Band-aid 'treatment' IVF truly is.

"I'm praying the donor eggs cure our problems but we are not 100% sure the issue is with my eggs so we will see," King wrote.

This is a red flag — doctors should be attempting to locate the cause of the infertility before attempting IVF. If the fertility problem is not with King's eggs, then swapping in the eggs of another woman is likely just going to cause further heartbreak and more loss of life.

Zoom Out:

IVF does not get to the root of the problem, often leaving many couples in debt, without children, and with countless lost embryos treated as if they are disposable products.

King and her husband originally created 28 embryos. Were they planning to welcome 28 children? As 30-somethings, probably not. So if they got the number of babies they wanted, what would have become of the remaining 20-plus embryos? They could create and lose even more using the donor eggs.

King and other women like her deserve to know about restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), a specialized field that focuses on identifying and healing the underlying conditions that cause infertility and restoring the reproductive system.

As explained by the International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine:

Unlike conventional approaches that use treatments that suppress normal physiology to deal with dysfunction, RRM seeks to work with the body, treating reproductive abnormalities, not by bypassing the body’s processes but by diagnosing, understanding, and addressing underlying health concerns. This approach improves overall wellness and restores reproductive abilities such as fertility.

The Big Picture:

IVF carries serious risks for women, including ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, pelvic infections, hypertension, internal bleeding, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and higher rates of c-sections. There are risks to the children too.

King lost her gallbladder to IVF. The internet is full of women sharing stories of gallbladder issues connected to IVF. While pregnancy alone can cause some women to have issues with their gallbladder, the high estrogen levels and swift hormone fluctuations associated with IVF can slow gallbladder movement, altering the chemical makeup of the bile, increasing cholesterol in the bile, and diminishing the gallbladder's ability to empty.

This can cause gallstones to form and lead to a cholecystectomy, the removal of the gallbladder. Afterwards, IVF cycles will be paused until the body can recover.

Why It Matters:

King is honest that deciding to use donor eggs is emotional for her:

I’d be lying if I said this post didn’t break my heart a little. Writing this caption with tears streaming down my face but I know whatever God has planned for us is something greater than we could ever imagine. Whoever our future babies are, they will be so so loved and so wanted no matter how we end up starting our family.

Over the past year, I’ve started to grieve the idea of having a biological baby. We’ve taken the steps to get here mentally and actually purchased donor eggs before this last IVF cycle even started. It was a little bit of a risk but maybe I knew in my gut we’d need them.

The next step is waiting on insurance and then we can try to fertilize these eggs and I will take you through that journey with me as well. To me, I’ve come around to not caring as much about the physical body and genetics our kids have. I feel like no matter that physical body, the little souls that are meant for us, will hop into a healthy body when they’re ready.

First, "little souls" are not waiting around to "hop into a healthy body."

Every time an embryo is created, a new human being is formed, and more human beings <a href="/news/shocking-number-lives-lost-ivf-surpasses-abortion">die</a> during the process of IVF than from abortion. The embryos created using her husband's sperm and a "donor's" eggs will be a completely new person who is biologically half of her husband's DNA and half of the donor's DNA. That's just the fact of the matter.

This is why her heart is breaking. She has lost 28 children and now feels that her best option is having her husband create babies with a stranger's gametes, convincing herself it's the same thing.

And the idea of the babies hopping into a "healthy body" is troubling. What if a baby doesn't have "a healthy body?" What then? So many desperately wanted children quickly become unwanted and lose their lives once a doctor tells their parents they aren't "healthy."

The Other Side:

Saying that these babies will be so wanted and so loved doesn't help the children cope with the identity crisis they will inevitably have when they learn that they are donor-conceived. Adults created through donor gametes have warned us over and over again: donor conception is emotionally damaging to the children created — no matter how much the adults raising them "wanted" them. These children lose one of their biological parents, not by accident or death, but by design.

Yet no one seems to think about how the children will feel. They are just supposed to be grateful that they exist.

A study out of Harvard Medical School revealed that 62% of children conceived through donor technologies believe it to be unethical and immoral. They feel like business transactions. 

One man conceived using donor sperm explained, "I am eternally grateful for my life... However, being 28 years old now and having reflected extensively on growing up as a donor-conceived child of a single mother, I would not advise any other women or couples to conceive a child in this way."

Gemma, who is donor-conceived, explained that when she learned of her conception, "I physically felt different, I felt like I didn't know who I was, and I began to question every tiny thing that I did, wondering if it was down to my genetics."

Another woman said that learning she was donor-conceived made her feel "gross."

Some donor-conceived individuals have learned that they have hundreds of siblings. One couple had already been married with three children when the husband learned they came from the same sperm donor. He didn’t know how to tell his wife. “I can’t help but think ‘This is my sister’ every time I look at her now,” he told advice columnist Dear Prudence.

Then, there's the issue with your spouse having a child with someone else — stranger or not. One woman explained that after infertility, she and her husband chose sperm donation, and she became pregnant. But now her husband "barely interacts" with the little boy. After discussing her concerns with her husband, she said they had a big argument:

He ended up shouting that he hates DS (dear son) and that going with a donor was a mistake. Then he stormed out and slept on the sofa. This morning he just got up and went straight to work without a word.

I feel sick. We agreed on this together. I know it’s complicated and I know he’s struggling, but DS didn’t ask for any of this. He’s just a little boy who wants his dad.

I’m heartbroken and angry and don’t even know what to do. I feel like I’ve got to protect DS from his own dad.

This behavior is likely the result of emotional turmoil. According to Men’s Health, using a sperm donor can feel “emasculating and confidence-sapping” for men and can cause feelings of “grief” and “loss.” One man said that learning his body does not create sperm made him feel “worthless.”

And it doesn't just happen to the intended fathers.

One man, who found out he was conceived using a donor egg, explained, "Years and years later I still wonder and ponder, ‘who is my REAL Mother’… My current Mother [never] even really cared to grow a bond with me… It makes sense why now."

The Bottom Line:

The desire to have a child is natural and understandable, but children are human beings; they aren't something that adults are owed or have a right to have.

Just because adults desperately want to be parents doesn't mean they have the right to play with children's lives — create them, test them, abort them until they finally have one that fulfills their wishes but leaves the child forced to live up to some idealized version of who they are supposed to be.

Reproductive technology has caused massive problems worldwide, and the children are the ones suffering.

Key Takeaways:

• On a recent podcast, two female detransitioners discussed how gender ideology impacted them, and how their true, underlying struggles were ignored as a result.

• The women also noted that destructive gender ideology, abortion, and assisted dying are all connected as part of a culture of death, seeking to destroy human beings and their human dignity.

The Details:

After turning 18, Maddie Durbin, the American host of The Bridge podcast, says she lived as a transgender man for six years and began detransitioning three years ago. Durbin began her podcast in hopes that speaking candidly on the topic would be beneficial for those seeking healing from the trauma and harm brought about by gender ideology.  

Impacts of Gender Ideology

In the first interview in Durbin's Detransitioner Series, Faith G. shared her experiences that led her to detransition after coming to the realization that the providers in her home country of Canada “didn’t have a clue what they were doing.”

Faith began socially transitioning at age 15 while struggling with mental health. As Live Action News' series, Beyond Abortion, explains, social transition interventions may include acceptance and use of incorrect sex pronouns, changing outward appearance to present as the opposite gender/sex or as gender neutral, and use of medicalized practices such as breast binding and tucking. 

Though she was dealing with suicidal thoughts, Faith said that instead of focusing on underlying mental health diagnoses, the hospital insisted that she was a candidate for puberty blockers.

Faith noted that medical diagnostic testing is typically used to determine what illness or condition the medical provider is aiming to treat. However, when it comes to ‘gender affirming care’ (GAC), typical protocols seen in real healthcare practices, meant to heal, seemingly no longer apply. She said:

“I needed someone who was an expert to look at me and say, ‘Oh, this isn’t what you’re struggling with. You have these other things [mental health struggles]. Deal with these first. But they didn’t do that. And because of that and they treated it like a completely separate issue; there were things that were overlooked and that were completely ignored." 

The Fight for Justice 

Faith said she began detransitioning at 24 years old.

“I had to step back to what I was born as… and figuring out what damage was done… and how do we fix it.”

But the journey to recovery and healing is not easy. Live Action’s undercover investigations have exposed how eager Planned Parenthood is to prescribe body-altering hormones to minors, even on the same day — but when calls come in asking for help to heal, there is silence. And then there are the legal struggles.   

Legal Battles: Statute of Limitations

Durbin spoke of the legal battles across national borders when seeking justice, due in part to statute of limitations. For many who have been harmed by gender ideology, the short time frame allotted to bring these types of medical malpractice cases is far too short — expiring merely two years after starting ‘gender-affirming’ treatments in some areas.

A recent case in Texas Supreme Court (SCOTX) was decided in favor of detransitioner Soren Aldaco. The Texan reported that SCOTX reversed the lower court's ruling which stated that Aldaco’s claims “began when Soren Aldaco’s surgery occurred, not when it was recommended” and may help to set the precedent needed for other detransitioners.

Ideological Beast

Such a short statute of limitations is “not really realistic,” Durbin stated. “When we’re talking about what this issue is… it’s almost like this large ideological beast that we’re tackling because it's something that people actually start to believe about themselves. That there’s something wrong with them. That these surgeries and treatments are ‘medically necessary,’ that we need them…. Coming out of it is kinda, like, mind shattering, world shattering… It’s very disruptive to your life.” 

An “ideological beast” is a proper description.

Live Action’s latest report breaks down much of that “beast” that must be defeated, which Planned Parenthood and all who promote and provide ‘gender affirming care’ and its ‘grooming’ tactics are bolstering. That “beast” is a political and ideological agenda known as Queer Theory, which is rooted in neo-marxism and aims to dismantle traditional frameworks and challenge objective reality.

The report further explains that “any group that promotes ‘gender-affirming’ ideology is in agreement with and a propagandist of Queer Theory.” That ideology is rampant throughout the education system and every major institution with which Planned Parenthood is associated. With federal Medicaid funding recently restored to Planned Parenthood, the American taxpayer is forced to fund it along with its ideological propaganda, which teaches minors to spread its message among peers.   

Behind the Curtain:

Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide 

Seeing an underlying dehumanizing connection between euthanasia and the gender-ideology agenda, Durbin asks Faith how she views the relationship is between the two.

“Our MAiD service is out of control,” Faith responded. “I think its absolutely absurd that you can have two different people who say, ‘I’m going to kill myself’ for different reasons” and only one seems to get any type of medical attention.”

This same idea is often used to manipulate parents into "transitioning" their children, with so-called experts claiming that the only choices are 'transition' or eventual suicide.

Live Action News has reported that Medical Aid in Dying, or MAiD, makes up 5% of all deaths in Canada, and surpassed 100,000 deaths in 2026.

Durbin said that as a detransitioner experiencing grief, she realized she would likely be a candidate for MAiD. But she questioned why the government wouldn't "help people to choose life" instead of offering death.

This isn’t just a Canadian problem. In the U.S., 13 states and the District of Columbia have legalized assisted suicide. Live Action News reported that a bipartisan group of Congressional lawmakers recently sent a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. asking for oversight and the establishment of “reporting requirements in the hospice program to better monitor the provision of medically assisted suicide for discrimination against people with disabilities, older adults and other vulnerable populations.”   

'Normalizing murder' 

The podcast conversation then shifted towards abortion, with Durbin asking about the state of abortion laws in Canada.

“It's become normalized and some use it as a form of contraception,” Faith responded. “Once you rip away… what looks like freedom… it’s like underneath it, we’re normalizing murder." 

In March, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI)—which relies on voluntarily provided information from abortion businesses, hospitals and other facilities across Canadian provinces and territories — reported 102,705 preborn lives ended by abortion.

According to National Right to Life, CIHI 2024 reported numbers are the “second-highest number of abortions recorded in the last [20] years (after 108,784 abortions recorded in 2011),” and noted suspicions of underreporting possibly due to the proliferation of chemical abortion drugs.

The Big Picture:

In the U.S., Planned Parenthood, a self-proclaimed ‘leader’ in GAC, provides an elucidating portrayal of the pseudo-scientific protocols associated with GAC. Live Action Research Fellow Carole Novielli reported on the “lack of rigor” in Planned Parenthood’s “informed consent” model for GAC, which “simply means that it allows people (even minors) to self-diagnose with no mental assessment of any kind, and often gives them cross-sex hormones often upon first visit.” 

Live Action News has reported on several testimonies by detransitioners where Planned Parenthood prescribed hormones or puberty blockers despite young patients openly divulging struggles with mental illness, suicidal thoughts, and trauma from sexual abuse. Instead of addressing the root causes of the patients distress, vulnerable youth and adults alike are often manipulated by clinics and providers like Planned Parenthood when these patients need truthful and compassionate healthcare the most.        

The Bottom Line:

Dehumanization of one class of human beings results in the dehumanization of all.

The casualties of a culture of death know no bounds when the humanity and inherent right to life of an entire class of preborn human beings is denied. After killing the most innocent among us, body-harming procedures, euthanasia, and assisted suicide are an easy progression — all built upon a lie that says human life doesn’t matter. But life does matter.

Despite the lies of a culture that celebrates death, the truth is that life is beautiful, life is worth fighting for, and life is worth living, because as Durbin concluded, “Life is the greatest gift and we should value and cherish that… more than anything else.”    

Key Takeaways:

• Lawmakers in the Isle of Man approved an assisted dying bill last year. After some amendments were made, that bill has now been sent to the United Kingdom (UK), where it needs to receive Royal Assent.

• A coalition of Christian churches called Churches Alive in Mann has spoken out against the bill.

• The coalition warns that there are no sufficient safeguards in place, and that vulnerable people will be increasingly at risk, should the bill become law.

The Background:

Members of the island's legislature initially approved a bill to legalize assisted suicide last year. However, because the island is a British entity, all new laws must receive formal approval in the form of Royal Assent in order to proceed.

Earlier this year, the UK’s Ministry of Justice said it was unable to recommend the bill for Royal Assent, as it didn't fully comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.

At issue was the lack of protections such as:

• independent oversight

• safeguards against coercion

• clear assessments of mental capacity

None were clearly spelled out in the legislation.

According to Christian Daily, amendments were made to the legislation in June, and the bill has been re-submitted for Royal Assent. That assent must be granted by August 13, or the bill will automatically fail.

The Details:

Christian churches are continuing to speak out against the legislation, as Rev. Bill Leishman, minister of Broadway Baptist Church, told Christian Daily that it is "not a done deal."

"In reality, there is still a slim chance that it will fall," said Leishman. "Lots of Christians on this Island are praying for this."

Leishman is a spokesperson for Churches Alive in Mann, an ecumenical coalition of Christian denominations and churches on the island, with members including the Church of England, Methodist Church, Catholic Church, United Reformed Church, Living Hope, Elim Onchan, Salvation Army, and Broadway Baptist.

The group is staunchly opposed to assisted dying; last month, it issued a statement, "Response to Assisted Dying Bill Amendments," calling out many of the problems with the legislation.

According to Manx Daily, the group said "several major issues remain unaddressed, including:

• the attending doctor not needing specialist experience in terminal illness

• only one medical professional required to be present when life‑ending medication is taken

• the attending professional not necessarily needing to be a doctor

• safeguarding and psychiatric referrals that can be disregarded

• no protection for job applicants who conscientiously object.

The group also noted that the legalization of assisted suicide will place vulnerable people at risk of coercion.

"The very existence of this legislation will inevitably cause some of our elderly, disabled or vulnerable people to feel more of a burden," the churches said in their joint statement, as they continued:

More worrying still, we believe the proposed amendments don't go far enough in guarding against coercion. As churches, we are often there to support people experiencing pain and difficulty, and we speak up now out of deep concern and compassion for all who would be impacted by this legislation.

The Bottom Line:

In their statement, Churches Alive in Mann pointed out that legalized suicide is an affront to the dignity of the human person.

"For thousands of years, 'Do not kill' has been an ethical foundation for many civilisations. We believe that all human life is a sacred gift from God," they said. "The value of any member of our society is not determined by variable measures of the quality of life. The premature ending of individual lives will inevitably diminish the high value we place on all lives."

Key Takeaways:

• Mark Harrington of Created Equal recently filmed an interaction with a student who shared that he is against abortion because he is an abortion survivor.

• Though they are seldom reported, there are many abortion survivors. Live Action News has shared some of their stories.

• The Abortion Survivors Network is an organization to provide support and resources to those who survive abortion.

The Details:

In the video, the student stops to talk to Harrington, who is filming the interaction.

"Do you have any thoughts on abortion?" Harrington asks the student.

"I'm very against it," the student responds.

After further questioning from Harrington, the student shares that he was born in Russia, and was later adopted. When he was 13, he did some research and found his biological mother. He reached out to her to find more of his story.

"She was a drug addict on the street," he said. "And then she tried to abort me twice, and it failed both times."

He explained that she tried the abortion pill, but it was "too late," and then the second time she planned to go get an abortion, but the money she intended to use was stolen from her.

"The whole reason I'm here is because abortion failed," the student said. "I'm also a Christian, so I believe that everyone has a right to life."

Zoom In:

Though they are seldom spotlighted in the media, abortion survivors do exist. People like Josiah Presley, Sarah Zagorski, Melissa Ohden, Linda Swayn, Amy Miles, Claire Culwell and others have all gone public with their abortion survival stories — countless more have not.

A 2024 report from the Family Research Council found that there are at least 277 known cases of abortion survivors in the United States — though the real number is likely much higher, as there are no federal abortion reporting guidelines. Additional abortion survivors, like the young student interviewed by Harrington, hail from around the world.

In some cases, abortion survivors may need additional support or resources to help them process the knowledge that they survived an abortion attempt. Abortion survivor Melissa Ohden has created The Abortion Survivors Network as a platform to "empower the abortion survivor community and those impacted by unsuccessful abortions."

Go Deeper:

Read more incredible abortion survival stories from Live Action News:

• <a href="/news/abortion-survivor-jaelyn-rape-adoptive-value">Abortion survivor Jaelyn, conceived in rape, has taught her adoptive family that each person is valuable</a>

• <a href="/news/abortion-survivor-saved-40000-women-babies-abortion">Abortion survivor has saved over 40,000 women and babies from abortion</a>

• <a href="/news/abortion-survivor-speaks-purpose-destiny">Abortion survivor speaks out: ‘I have a purpose and a destiny’</a>

• <a href="/news/woman-survived-abortion-god-protected-abortionists-tool">Abortion survivor speaks: ‘God protected me from that abortionist’s tool’</a>

Key Takeaways:

• In June, Jackson County Circuit Judge Jerri Zhang overturned multiple Missouri laws protecting preborn children.

• This included a restriction on abortion pills, which included a requirement that a woman take the abortion pill in front of a physician.

• Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities began dispensing abortion pills just days later.

The Backstory:

In 2024, Missourians voted in favor of Amendment 3, which made abortion a constitutional "right" in the state. What has resulted since then is an eradication of some of the most commonsense provisions to protect women and restrict the killing of preborn children in the state.

Planned Parenthood sued to overturn 30 restrictions on abortion, and in June, Jackson County Circuit Judge Jerri Zhang sided with the abortion corporation.

Zhang declared numerous restrictions to be unconstitutional, including waiting periods, requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges, informed consent requirements, and more. Zhang specifically overturned the requirement that the abortion pill be taken in the presence of a physician, though she upheld a requirement for women to meet a physician in person before receiving the abortion pill.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway slammed the ruling in a statement, saying:

My heart is broken by today’s ruling. This is exactly the Pandora’s box we warned of, and the women of Missouri will pay the price.

This radical decision gives abortion providers a free pass to police themselves.

Women are no longer entitled to the same level of care in an abortion clinic that they would receive in other healthcare settings: providers are no longer required to maintain complication plans or insurance, and the state cannot even conduct basic health and safety inspections to ensure patient safety.

The Details:

Local news outlets reported that Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities began dispensing abortion pills in late June. It's the first time chemical abortions have been officially allowed in Missouri since 2018.

"We've had procedural abortion restored for over a year now after the 2024 right to reproductive freedom went into effect," Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, told KSHB. "We recently rolled out medication abortion at our Gladstone location, which is the first time in decades that a facility that hadn't previously had abortion can help with these services."

Planned Parenthood Great Plains began committing chemical abortions on July 1. “We expect the demand to remain really high,” Wales said.

Dr. Margaret Baum, chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, likewise told the Missouri Independent that she began dispensing abortion pills on June 22nd.

Sam Lee, a pro-life activist, told the Kansas City Star that this does not bode well for women or preborn children in the state. “Medication abortions are much more prevalent than surgical abortions," Lee said. "We anticipate there’s a lot more abortions being performed in Missouri than there were before."

The Bottom Line:

Hanaway said she plans to appeal Zhang's ruling, but in the meantime, countless preborn children will be killed by chemical abortions.

Key Takeaways:

• A Berlin court convicted palliative care physician Johannes M. of 15 counts of murder, and sentenced him to life in prison, with preventive detention to follow, along with a judicial guarantee that he will never practice medicine again.

• Prosecutors say he administered lethal combinations of drugs to patients without their knowledge or consent during home visits, then set fire to their apartments on at least five occasions to destroy evidence.

• The victims, all of whom were receiving care at the time of their deaths, ranged in age from 25 to 94. The court found that none of their deaths were imminent.

The Details:

Between September 2021 and July 2024, Johannes M. made home visits as a palliative care physician across several German states. His patients were critically ill, but none of their deaths, the court found, were imminent. That distinction mattered to no one more than the victims’ families, who sat in court and listened to a man explain that he had convinced himself he was doing them a favor.

“Throughout it all, I thought this was the best thing for everyone,” he told the court.

The mechanics of the killings were clinical. According to the Berlin prosecutor’s office, lethal combinations of drugs came without warning and consent, an anesthetic and a muscle relaxant his patients never knew they were receiving. The relaxant, prosecutors said, “paralysed the respiratory muscles, leading to respiratory arrest and death within minutes.”

On at least five occasions, Johannes M. left a body and came back with a match, setting fire to his victims’ apartments in an effort to destroy the evidence. Days before his arrest in July 2024, he killed two patients in a single day: a 75-year-old man in the Berlin district of Kreuzberg and, a few hours later, a 76-year-old woman in the neighboring Neukoelln district. His attempt to burn down the woman’s apartment failed when the fire did not catch.

Zoom In:

Johannes M. offered the court nearly a year of silence before last month’s confession, in which he acknowledged having “killed people” and professed to finally understand “the extent of the suffering” he had caused. 

The families of his victims were less forgiving. The mother of the youngest victim, a 25-year-old woman who died in 2021, wept in court. “She never said she didn’t want to live anymore,” she said.

The son of a 72-year-old victim said his mother had been planning a trip to the Baltic Sea with her sister. “My mother wanted to keep on living,” he said.

Presiding judge Sylvia Busch said the 15 convictions may represent only a fraction of his actual crimes. Prosecutors are investigating more than 70 additional deaths linked to the doctor, with further exhumations still planned. If those cases are proven, German media say, it would constitute one of the most extensive series of murders the country has ever recorded.

Notably, the case draws uncomfortable comparisons to that of Niels Hoegel, a German nurse convicted in 2019 of murdering 85 hospital patients with lethal injections between 2000 and 2005. More recently, a palliative care nurse was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of 10 patients and attempted murder of 27 others. 

The Bottom Line:

Germany has now produced three major cases of medical professionals killing patients in their care within a single generation.

Key Takeaways:

• South Tyrol Health Councillor Hubert Messner included assisted suicide in an omnibus legislation package, claiming it would not legalize assisted suicide or euthanasia, but create a legal framework for it.

• Italy’s Constitutional Court allowed assisted suicide under certain conditions, and South Tyrol would follow these conditions, essentially allowing assisted suicide to be committed there.

The Details:

The South Tyrolean government, spearheaded by Health Councillor Hubert Messner, has tried to include assisted suicide rules within a larger omnibus package of laws.

Messner claimed that there was a need to offer health care personnel with a clear legal framework in this sensitive area. While the bill does not intend to create new “rights," it plans to clarify procedures, responsibilities, and standards for those working in health care facilities, in adherence to guidelines already laid out by the Constitutional Court.

Messner further said that the government’s plan was to provide regulatory tools that permit the consistent application of the Constitutional Court’s rulings. In view of this, the politician claimed:

It was never a matter of introducing euthanasia. Our intent was and remains to create a clear regulatory framework for those who assume responsibility in a legally sensitive area. Even a different technical classification of the law does not change anything in this regard.

The proposed framework would reportedly not create a “new right” to assisted suicide, but is an attempt to streamline assisted dying after Italy’s Constitutional Court allowed limited exceptions under certain conditions. According to the plan, a patient would apply through the provincial health service, undergo review by a multidisciplinary commission, and receive information about palliative care and the option to refuse treatment. If authorized, the process would be bankrolled by the province.

Zoom In:

The political debates are likely to be heated, particularly on a matter that the South Tyrolean People's Party (SVP) no longer wants included in the bill at all — a measure allowing assisted suicide for people who wish to end their lives voluntarily due to an incurable illness and unbearable pain.

To eradicate an article from the bill, the state legislature must either vote against it by a majority, or someone must file a motion to strike it. Such a motion has been filed by assisted suicide proponent, Dr. Franz Ploner. 

Legalizing assisted suicide can gradually reshape medical culture, making death appear more convenient than long-term care. Professional and policy discussions have hinted that autonomy, dignity, and loneliness frequently reveal deeper desperation, inadequate care, and social abandonment.

The decision to include such an important matter (assisted suicide) into a larger legislative package is arguably imprudent, as any legislation pertaining to the fundamentals of medicine, ethics, and human dignity necessitate a distinct public parliamentary process.

Legislation passed through speed and bundling with other laws can undermine public scrutiny and make radical shifts appear as the norm.

The Bottom Line:

South Tyrol’s inclination towards assisted suicide is alarming, as it depicts how quickly assisted suicide can move from court decision to administrative policy to ordinary law. When lawmakers fail to defend the vulnerable, the language of “compassion” and “choice” is frequently invoked to push for a culture of death and abandonment.

The better answer is not a quicker route to death, but the provision of life-affirming alternatives like companionship, pain relief, hospice care, and comprehensive support.

Key Takeaways:

• Actress Laura Vandervoort is best known for her role as Kara Zor-El (or Supergirl) on "Smallville."

• She married Adam Coates in September of 2025 and announced a miscarriage in 2026, having never officially announced their pregnancy.

• Vandervoort shared a reel with an ultrasound photo, explaining that she had experienced a miscarriage.

The Details:

Laura Vandervoort is a Canadian actress, most known for her role on the CW television series "Smallville," which portrays the early years of Clark Kent's life before becoming Superman. Vandervoort starred as Kara Zor-El, the cousin of Superman, also known as Supergirl.

In 2023, she was engaged to Adam Coates. The two married in September of 2025, which she gushed about on Instagram.

"The minute I got to him at the end of the aisle, I kissed him," she wrote. "We’d been apart since the evening before. I was nervous and excited and overwhelmed with love. He’s my safe place and all I knew was I needed to be near him. Adam chuckled and whispered to me, 'baby, we aren’t supposed to kiss yet.' I hadn’t even realized I’d done it. I didn’t care. I love this man."

Though no public announcement was made, Vandervoort became pregnant this year. No message was shared with followers until she suffered a heartbreaking miscarriage, which she shared in a reel.

Accompanying a photo with ultrasound photos and pregnancy tests, in the reel, a child's voice says:

"Hi Mommy, it's been a month. I never got the chance to introduce myself. I would love to be your baby, but God said I should be Mommy and Daddy's angel. I promise, Mommy, I will wait for that special moment until I can finally hug you. I will watch over you and Daddy. I'll miss you forever."

In the caption, Vandervoort wrote that she was 11 weeks pregnant, and that two months later, the loss is still painful.

"Miscarriage loss is a loss. A death that has no funeral and a life no one knew existed but a few," she wrote. "We heard your heartbeat, twice. The second time it was stronger than before. Plans that were made, nursery ideas in my heart, excitement and hope. Fear and love. Moving through the past few months has been a challenge in many ways. Every week I know how far along I would have been. Every pregnancy announcement stabs in ways I wish it wouldn’t. Every pregnant woman I see I wonder if that’s what I would have looked like." She added:

Our visit to the emergency room that day was made even more traumatizing by a doctor who told us our babies [sic] heart had stopped in front of an entire waiting room of people.

But we move forward in the day to day activities, like nothing happened. But something did happen... something life changing and devastating for us both. And it's still heavy. You are never forgotten little one. 💔

She urged more people to be open about the grief of pregnancy loss

"I wish more people would have discussions about this as it’s incredibly common yet at the time we felt very isolated in the experience," she said. "Keep the conversations going."

The Bottom Line:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 1 in 4 pregnancies ends in loss, yet it remains something most people remain silent about.

Over time, that has begun to change, as celebrities and public figures like Vandervoort have spoken openly about their losses, giving their preborn children the dignity and humanity they deserve.

Key Takeaways:

• The West Alabama Women's Center, estimated to have ended 80,000 preborn human lives, has rebranded into a health center with the help of millions in funding from Melinda French Gates, who is known for funding pro-abortion groups.

• However, the WAWC's anti-life ideology remains the same, as it tells patients that "we at West Alabama Women’s Center strongly believe that EVERY pregnancy poses harm to a patient’s health and life...."

• Prior to the end of Roe v. Wade, WAWC was one of the most notorious abortion centers in the country for botched abortions, patient deaths, and failed health inspections.

The Details:

The West Alabama Women’s Center, located in Tuscaloosa, rebranded some time ago to become WAWC Healthcare, broadening its services to include pregnancy care, mental health services, and on-site labs. This center, estimated to have ended the lives of more than 80,000 preborn human beings, is remaining open with support from a $5 million grant linked to Melinda Gates. Gates established the organization Pivotal, which has distributed more than $200 million in funding for “women’s healthcare initiatives."

With such financial backing, the WAWC could expand to four times its original size. And, in fact, the center appears to have moved to a new location in Tuscaloosa:

WAWC now encapsulates on-site medical laboratories and has broadened its services to offer mental health treatment for women, alongside routine health screenings and pregnancy-related services, Alabama Public Radio (APR) reported. 

In remarks quoted by APR, pro-abortion activist Robin Marty, who spearheaded the WAWC through that change, claimed that the wider healthcare model had been the planned aim. 

“It was always meant to be a full-spectrum health care center; it was always going to have contraceptive services, and it was always going to have birthing services and maternal health support. This is the chance for us to be able to put all of these services together in one place,” Marty claimed.

Following the repeal of Roe v. Wade and the enactment of Alabama’s laws protecting preborn human beings from abortion, the center pivoted into a wider medical model instead of shutting down completely.

As Live Action News reported last year:

Historically, the former abortion business was just that — an abortion business. The Post claims it was originally supposed to be a “full-service operation” (presumably health care) for women. “But,” said [Robin] Marty, “there was so much need for abortion that we were never able to really expand.”

In other words, the facility was all about abortion based on the supply and demand principle of economics and business. Its staff knew where the money was, but not where the need was.

It was seeing “several hundred patients” each month who just “evaporated overnight” when pro-life laws took effect in the state — because its true business was not offering actual health services or support for families. That is, not until abortion was no longer legal.

But until abortion was heavily restricted in Alabama, West Alabama Women's Center was known as one of the most notorious abortion centers in the country, attracting abortion-minded pregnant mothers from across the state and neighboring regions. 

• In May of 2020, shortly before its 81-year-old abortionist retired, an abortion patient was sent from the facility in a non-emergency vehicle, barely able to walk. It was later confirmed that this patient died. There was no record of the center calling 911 for assistance for the patient.

• Later in 2020, the abortion center's new medical director, Leah Torres, had her license suspended for reportedly "committ[ing] fraud in applying for a certificate of qualification to practice medicine in Alabama.”

• The Yellowhammer Fund bought the abortion center in 2020 through a crowdfunding campaign. Robin Marty (mentioned above), who had been the Fund's communications director, then became the communications director for the abortion center.

• In 2021, the center was sued for a botched abortion which left a woman suffering from a lacerated cervix, perforated uterus, and damage to multiple uterine blood vessels; staff left her unattended in a recovery recliner for an hour.

• In 2022, the center failed a health inspection for using rusty surgical instruments.

Pivotal has admitted that the Tuscaloosa center is an illustration of how locally rooted organizations can increase access to other healthcare services, and its leadership has portrayed the clinic as a training hub for other providers. 

Given the center's history, this idea seems questionable.

Behind the Curtain:

Melinda French Gates, former wife of Bill Gates, has a long history of funding anti-life, pro-population control initiatives. As Live Action News previously reported:

[Melinda] Gates has spent over $1 billion promoting abortion — not merely contraception — around the world, including the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion organization. Her foundation has paid journalists to promote abortion, has donated to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) — which was known to be behind China’s coercive One Child Policy, which involved forced abortions — and has given tens of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, America’s top abortion provider.

Zoom In:

The question is whether this former abortion center would ever truly be able to holistically and completely affirm the dignity of all human life, born or preborn, and dismiss the anti-life ideology that once made abortion its main business.

As of the time of writing, nothing in the mainstream media reports has indicated that the rebrand of WAWC would undergo any such moral reckoning. Its website is still heavily pro-abortion, claiming on its page about pregnancy:

The state of Alabama has banned nearly all abortions. While we at West Alabama Women’s Center strongly believe that EVERY pregnancy poses harm to a patient’s health and life and that no person should be forced to continue a pregnancy or give birth against their will, Alabama law prevents pregnant people from obtaining an abortion to protect their health or life in nearly all instances.  

We also know that the state of Alabama has a variety of ways of criminalizing a pregnant person. 

As for the last line, the website offers no citations as proof of this claim.

WAWC's pivot reveals just how rapidly former abortion-centered institutions can subtly change their language following the prohibition of abortion in certain states. Such framing and rebranding are significant, as the ultimate goal is arguably not life-affirming medical access for the women these institutions claim to serve, but the regularization of a network that can maintain abortion-era infrastructure under a novel label.

Pro-abortion networks typically try to circumvent political setbacks and legal restrictions by rebranding, reallocating services, and positioning themselves as essential community institutions. In the case of the WAWC, what once acted as a business ending the lives of innocent preborn humans is now being lauded as a blueprint for “community healthcare,” even as its past remains crucial to its raison d’etre. 

The Bottom Line:

The Gates-backed initiative is not likely to be restricted to the WAWC. Pivotal has conceded that its recent grants are part of a much larger investment in women’s health around the globe, with the group presently widening its scope beyond reproductive years to include midlife, menopause, and mental health.

This broader agenda should be scrutinized closely by pro-life advocates, as it implies that Gates’ campaign is not only local but meant to impact public policy, public perception, and the future landscape of women’s healthcare well beyond Tuscaloosa.  

Authentic women’s health should never require the continued celebration of abortion-tainted institutions. Communities should insist more firmly on genuinely life-affirming care that supports mothers and children without preserving the legacy of abortion. The roots and anti-pregnancy ideology remain, and this is something that rebranding can never erase.

Key Takeaways:

• Anhydramnios is a condition in which there is no amniotic fluid in the womb, and is often related to kidney defects or failure.

• A new study looked at the effects of amnioinfusion on babies with anhydramnios.

• The study found that over 90% of the women who received amnioinfusion treatment delivered living babies, with nearly two-thirds who survived to receive dialysis.

The Details:

Medical Xpress reported on a study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), in which researchers examined whether amnioinfusion — regular saline injections into the uterus — increases the chances of survival in preborn babies diagnosed with kidney defects or failure, leading to anhydramnios.

Anhydramnios typically occurs when a preborn baby's kidneys are not properly formed, which then leads to a lack of amniotic fluid in the uterus. This fluid is replenished by the baby's urine throughout pregnancy, and without functioning kidneys, the baby is unable to urinate.

This can be life-threatening, as amniotic fluid is necessary for the lungs to develop, and for the baby to practice breathing as the pregnancy progresses.

The Renal Anhydramnios Fetal Therapy (RAFT) trial was conducted in 13 medical centers across the country, though it was spearheaded by Johns Hopkins Children's Center.

"Without enough amniotic fluid, the fetus's lungs cannot develop properly, often leading to severe respiratory issues after birth," Meredith Atkinson, M.D., M.H.S., pediatric nephrologist at Johns Hopkins Children's Center and co-lead of the RAFT study, said.

Patients whose babies were experiencing kidney failure were enrolled into the trial, with 32 pregnant women ultimately participating. Regular amnioinfusions began at 26 weeks gestation, and while some babies were born prematurely, over 90% of trial participants gave birth to a living baby with 65% surviving for at least two weeks and undergoing dialysis.

"The RAFT trial marks an important step forward in fetal therapy. Building on this work, the RAFT 2 study explores how serial amnioinfusions may offer a new treatment pathway for patients with fetal renal failure, highlighting the value of a multidisciplinary approach and helping families make more informed decisions in complex situations."

Zoom Out:

Former U.S. Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) was one of the first people to undergo this groundbreaking treatment, after her preborn child was diagnosed with Potter's syndrome, a condition resulting from insufficient amniotic fluid.

Previously, Potter's syndrome was considered fatal, and Beutler was urged to have an abortion. Instead, Beutler and her husband went to Johns Hopkins every week to receive amnioinfusion treatment, though it wasn't easy; after learning amnioinfusion was available, she said most hospitals wouldn't even consider it. But it saved their daughter's life.

“As soon as fluid was introduced to her face you could watch her chest fluctuate in and out. She was practice breathing,” Dan Beutler said at the time.

Herrera Beutler made it through just five weeks of amnioinfusions before going into premature labor at 28 weeks.

“Someone said ‘Look down at your baby,'” Herrera Beutler said. “We looked. She looked up at us, tiny, 2 pounds, 12 ounces. She looked up at us and she opened [her] mouth drew a breath, then cried. And that doesn’t happen if your lungs can’t breathe.”

Their daughter, named Abigail, became the first known baby to survive being born with no kidneys. She then survived on dialysis until she was able to receive a kidney transplant from her father. Abigail is now almost 13 years old and thriving.

The Bottom Line:

Medical advancements have increasingly been able to address conditions previously seen as fatal. Every child deserves to be given a fighting chance at life.

Key Takeaways:

• Missouri Senate Bill 999, the "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act," was signed into law by Governor Mike Kehoe on Monday, July 13.

• The bill carries penalties for those who take actions that lead to the death of a child born alive during or after an abortion. Violators may be prosecuted for first-degree murder.

• Missouri's bill is considered stronger than the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, as the federal bill contains no penalties for those who violate the law, and all federal attempts to pass a bill with penalties since 2002 have failed.

The Details:

According to the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” or Senate Bill (SB) 999, any medical professional who intentionally carries out or attempts an action that leads to the death of a child born alive may be prosecuted for first-degree murder, a charge that carries the possibility of capital punishment.

KZRG noted that "The measure also expands the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review Board and directs it to monitor maternal deaths in maternity care deserts."

The bill stipulates that any baby delivered alive after an abortion or attempted abortion procedure “shall have the same rights, privileges, and immunities as any other person, citizen, and resident in Missouri.” 

The bill also states:

Any licensed, registered, or certified health care provider present in the provider's professional capacity at the time a child is born alive during or after an abortion or attempted abortion shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life, health, and comfort of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious provider would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age. Any person who knowingly performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive shall be guilty of first-degree murder.

A previous draft of the measure permitted legal action against individuals connected to unlawful abortions, including cases of self-managed procedures, should abortion become illegal again in Missouri. Those provisions were removed after Senate Democrats convinced the bill’s sponsor, Republican State Sen. Brad Hudson of Cape Fair, to drop the liability language and incorporate initiatives addressing protections for vulnerable individuals, the Missouri Independent reported. 

Supporters of SB 999 have posited that the present federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 does not provide sufficient safeguards for such infants. 

The 2002 Act, while stating that a child who is born has the same rights as any other child, contains no penalties for those who break the law. Subsequent laws seeking to add penalties have repeatedly failed to pass.

The Response:

In response to the signing of the bill, Missouri Right to Life declared: 

Missouri Right to Life extends our deepest gratitude to Governor Mike Kehoe for signing Senate Bill 999, which includes the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. We also extend our sincere thanks to Senator Brad Hudson, Representative Brian Seitz, and Representative Holly Jones for their diligent work in guiding this legislation through the House and Senate. The most vulnerable among us deserve every opportunity to thrive. This legislation ensures that babies who survive attempted abortions receive the same level of medical care as any other newborn, giving them the chance at life every child deserves. 

The legislation’s passage has shown that Missouri lawmakers are willing to codify explicit legal safeguards for babies who survive abortion attempts. When a child is delivered alive even after a failed abortion attempt, the medical team’s first duty should to preserve life and provide care.

The Bottom Line:

Missouri defining live-born infants as fully protected persons is a long-overdue acknowledgment that every child born alive should be regarded with dignity and care. In light of this, born-alive measures remain a powerful rallying point for pro-life advocates to remind others that protecting children should not be conditional based upon whether that child was 'wanted' by his or her parents.

The event was organized by Precious Life in collaboration with the Life Institute, and featured speeches, prayer, and a march through the city centre.

Key Takeaways:

• Organized by two pro-life groups in Ireland, a rally drew hundreds on July 4 to Belfast in support of protecting human life and dignity.

• Attendees expressed concerns about the growing encroachment on the free speech and expression of pro-life individuals in Ireland, urging the Belfast City Council to reconsider certain draft regulations.

• For those gathered at City Hall, the message was clear: the defense of religious views and pro-life expression remains a cause worth advancing.

The Details:

Beginning at 1:30 p.m., participants gathered for the rally, many holding placards affirming the dignity of human life and the prominence of faith in public life. This rally took place in wake of pro-life advocates' rising concerns over legislative developments in Northern Ireland that they say curtail both religious practice and pro-life expression.

Restricting pro-life expression

Since 2023, legislation has prohibited pro-lifers from maintaining a presence outside abortion facilities, a measure widely criticized by campaigners as limiting peaceful witness. More recently, proposed bye-laws authorized by the Belfast City Council in February 2026 increased those concerns. Critics argue that the draft regulations could considerably limit public expressions of faith and pro-life advocacy in the city.

Among the most debated provisions is a suggested 70-decibel limit on amplified sound, which critics have contended would render public preaching, prayer, and outreach challenging. Additional measures could quell the display of pro-life imagery and the distribution of literature, raising questions about the future prospects of street evangelization and public engagement.

Some speakers at the rally warned that the proposed bye-laws could set a worrying precedent for restricting peaceful expression in public spaces. They argued that such measures risk marginalizing voices advocating for life and faith while limiting opportunities for dialogue.

Organizers called on the Belfast City Council to reconsider the draft regulations and to engage in meaningful consultation with community stakeholders. These organizers reaffirmed the importance of safeguarding civil liberties, including the right to gather, speak, and pray in public.

United against the culture of death

Addressing the crowd, Precious Life founder Bernadette Smyth voiced her gratitude to attendees for their commitment. 

“Thank you for marching. Thank you for praying. Thank you for standing up for life,” Smyth said, highlighting that the rally represented a united stand against what she described as a “culture of death,” while reinforcing that many in Northern Ireland remain committed to protecting the unborn.

“We will not be silent while innocent children continue to lose their lives to abortion,” she added, calling on supporters to remain steadfast “until every child is welcomed, every mother is supported, and every human life is protected.” Besides, Smyth pointed out  the spiritual dimension of the gathering, stating, “We gathered here to proclaim that every human life has dignity, value, and worth.”

The rally also featured contributions from younger voices within the movement.

Grace Carlin, a youth speaker who volunteered with Precious Life, spoke about the importance of youth engagement in public discourse.

“It was a real privilege to volunteer with the Pro Life Campaign and Precious Life at the Rally for Life, Faith and Liberty in Belfast in 2026, and to have the opportunity to speak as a young person about an issue that means so much to me,” Carlin stated. 

Furthermore, Carlin described the event as both encouraging and unifying:

“The day was a wonderful opportunity to meet like-minded people from across Northern Ireland and beyond who are committed to promoting the dignity and value of every human life. I was encouraged by the positive, peaceful atmosphere and by the willingness of so many people to come together in support of what they believe.”

Additionally, Carlin urged greater involvement from her generation:

“As a youth speaker, I wanted to encourage other young people to become involved in respectful public discussion and to recognise that our generation has an important voice. Whatever our background, we all have the opportunity to make a positive contribution to society through service, compassion, and civic engagement.”

Attendees echoed similar sentiments about the day’s atmosphere. Anthony, who traveled from London to attend the rally, described his experience as overwhelmingly positive.

“My overall experience of the event was excellent,” he said. “I loved walking around Belfast city centre singing pro-life chants and was surprised to see many positive reactions from the bystanders in Belfast. I was also honoured to stand on the stage at the event waving my pro-life flag.”

The rally concluded with a renewed commitment among participants to continue peaceful advocacy. Many remained in prayer after the speeches, while others engaged passers-by in conversation, reflecting the movement’s emphasis on both witness and dialogue.

Precious Life has declared that its campaign efforts will continue in the months ahead, focusing on resisting restrictive measures and promoting a culture that supports both mothers and their preborn children. Rally organizers articulated their belief that lasting change will come through sustained public engagement, prayer, and compassionate outreach.

The Bottom Line:

As debates over abortion and public expression continue in Northern Ireland, the Belfast rally stands as a visible display of ongoing grassroots mobilization within the pro-life community. For those gathered at City Hall, the message was clear: the defense of religious views and pro-life expression remains a cause worth advancing.

Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood Votes, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-choice America), the ACLU, and Emily's List have pledged a combined $114M dollars to elect pro-abortion political allies during the 2026 midterms.

• More than 44% of that funding is coming from Planned Parenthood.

• While Planned Parenthood claimed the one-year defunding measure resulted in the closure of "nearly 30" facilities, the organization had implemented plans prior to 2025 to shift to an online business model with Virtual Health Centers, which includes the sale of mail-order abortion pills.

The Details:

Planned Parenthood Votes, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-choice America), the ACLU, and Emily's List have pledged a combined $114M dollars to elect political allies during the 2026 midterms, who will prop up abortion.

Approximately $50.5 million of that amount (over 44%) is coming from Planned Parenthood.

The groups are seeking to:

• Unseat lawmakers who “defunded” Planned Parenthood of federal Medicaid for one year.

• Elect pro-abortion candidates up and down the ballot.

• Protect the "right to abortion, fighting back against anti-trans measures, and protecting state courts from politicized judicial selections and ballot measures affecting abortion."

• Effect a sea-change in governing power to elect pro-abortion Democrats at the state level.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which receives close to a billion in taxpayer dollars each year, is a 501(c)(3), yet according to the group's most recent financial audit:

PPFA... maintains primary domestic offices in New York City, NY, Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA. The Organization is also associated with 49 independent entities, the Planned Parenthood Affiliates (PP Affiliates), all of which are separately incorporated in their respective states and which collectively constitute PPFA’s membership. The PP Affiliates in turn have 111 ancillary entities (including 44 501(c)(4) organizations, which in turn have 61 Political Action Committees). [emphasis added]

... The individual entities within the Organization have interrelated directors/trustees and share common facilities and personnel. Various expenses, including occupancy costs and salaries, have been allocated among PPFA, the Action Fund, and PP Global based upon services rendered by common personnel and usage of common facilities.

1. Planned Parenthood Votes ($47M)

Planned Parenthood Votes (PPVotes) recently pledged $47 million to "to unseat lawmakers who 'defunded' Planned Parenthood, take power back in key states, build enduring majorities and advance protections for reproductive care and rights in others, and win races up and down the ballot to build support for a lasting, durable right to abortion" (emphases added).

"The 'We Decide' campaign will focus on electing unapologetic champions who are unafraid to fight for abortion, reproductive freedom, and Planned Parenthood," PP Votes wrote in its release.

The multi-million dollar campaign will seek to:

• "Build support for a lasting, durable right to abortion."

• "Oust vulnerable anti-abortion incumbents" 

On the #WeDecide 2026 pledge to vote page, Planned Parenthood vowed to stop those who oppose abortion, writing:

Republicans are moving to ban mifepristone, one of the two medicines used for medication abortion. They're trying to shut down Planned Parenthood health centers everywhere to make it harder for people to get an abortion. And they're just getting started. But we can stop them.

PP Votes previously described itself as a "Super PAC," which "can make unlimited independent expenditures for or against federal candidates and work in state races where permitted by state law." However, today, PPVotes describes itself as merely "an independent expenditure committee registered with the Federal Election Commission."

2. Planned Parenthood Action ($3.5M)

Separately, Planned Parenthood Action has pledged nearly $2 million to "stop congressional Republicans" who sought to defund the abortion corporation.

The "investment" as PPACT calls it, "follows the organization's $1.5 million efforts announced in April and expands the legislative map to target House Republicans in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania" PPACT wrote.

According to Planned Parenthood Federation of America's (PPFA) latest audit, the Action Fund was incorporated in 1989 to "further PPFA's mission" and is described online as a "501(c)(4) independent, nonpartisan, not-for-profit membership organization formed as the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America ('PPFA')."

"Both the Action Fund and PPVotes engage in advocacy and/or electoral activities in support of the missions of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, which are separately incorporated 501(c)(3) organizations that provide health care services, and PPFA," the organization claims online.

Planned Parenthood's political money laundry scheme has been operational for some time. In 2018, PPVotes and PPACT vowed $20 million toward their Win Justice campaign. A similar amount was pledged in 2016. In 2017, the organization pledged $500K to organize “an army of volunteers” to support their 650 centers across the country.

“We’re in the fight of our lives,” Sarah Standiford, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes, told Politico. Standiford claimed the abortion corporation was vowing to do everything PPVotes can to “elect unapologetic champions of reproductive freedom” and “make sure members of Congress who voted against Planned Parenthood lose their jobs.”

3. Reproductive Freedom for All ($23M)

On the anniversary of the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v. Wade, Reproductive Freedom for All (RFFA) announced its pledge of $23.5 million towards the abortion organization's "My Body. My Ballot" campaign. The effort is seeking to "hold anti-abortion politicians accountable, and elect reproductive freedom champions in key races across the country."

The organization's release complained that "Anti-abortion politicians and extremists have made clear they will not stop at overturning Roe. They are attacking medication abortion, undermining emergency abortion care, defunding Planned Parenthood."

RFFA was previously known as NARAL Pro-Choice America; it has gone through multiple name changes. NARAL was founded by eugenics proponents as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. Leaders of the organization were instrumental in fabricating lies about illegal abortion mortality rates to catapult the decriminalization of abortion prior to Roe.

4. EMILY’s List ($15M)

Emily's List, described by media as an "influential Democratic-aligned political action committee" announced its "2026 State Power Plan" in January. The $15 million campaign seeks to target "nine states where building Democratic centers of power in 2026 will make an immediate impact: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin."

The organization, which has a goal to "work to elect Democratic pro-choice women up and down the ballot and across the country," is spending their millions in hopes that they will "build a Democratic pro-choice trifecta" in specific states and "see a real sea-change in governing power this year."

5. ACLU ($25.5M)

This week, the ACLU announced a $25.5M voter education electoral program to "educate voters on critical races and ballot measures affecting abortion, LGBTQ rights, voting, fair courts, and democracy protections in the 2026 midterm elections."

The organization plans to spend $12.5M of that money to target ballot initiatives which protect "the right to abortion" or oppose "anti-trans measures."

Zoom In:

In May of 2023, Planned Parenthood made the “strategic decision” to restructure and lay off staff at the national level, reportedly shifting those dollars to “build a powerful movement for abortion access at the local and state level.”

The abortion corporation has been under scrutiny after accusations of abuse, scandal, fraud, racism, pregnancy discrimination, breaches of privacy, and Medicaid fraud have piled up against Planned Parenthood — all of which violate federal requirements for obtaining taxpayer funding.

In July of 2025, Congress passed the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” a budget reconciliation bill which included a one-year defunding of abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from federal Medicaid dollars. During this time, Planned Parenthood claims to have received "over $400 million in emergency funding" from pro-abortion states, in the past year.

Then, on July 4, 2026, the federal funding was restored, allowing Planned Parenthood to again receive taxpayer dollars.

While Planned Parenthood claimed the one-year defunding measure resulted in the closure of "nearly 30" facilities, the organization had implemented plans prior to 2025 to shift to an online business model, which includes the sale of mail-order abortion pills. Its brick and mortar closures and establishment of “Virtual Health Centers (VHCs)” are part of a larger restructuring plan it put in place years ago.

And while Planned Parenthood's services have been in decline even prior to the defunding, abortions and tax dollars have skyrocketed.

• Contraceptive services: decreased over 43% (from just over 4M) in 2009.

• Breast screenings: plummeted over 85% from 2000.

• STI testing: down over 43% since 2009.

In what has been described as a "killer year, Planned Parenthood committed a record 434,450 abortions while receiving $832million in taxpayer dollars, according to the organization's latest 2024-2025 annual report.

Since the year 2000, Planned Parenthood has:

• committed nearly 8M abortions (7,969,391) while providing just 331K prenatal care services.

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

• received a greater than 310% increase in taxpayer funding (nearly $203M v $832M – year ending 6/30/2025).

The Bottom Line:

National abortion data for 2025 has revealed that tragically nearly 66 million abortions have been committed since 1973 when the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling forced legalized abortion upon every state in the nation. Increases in abortion numbers have been seen in the past few years due to the explosion of unregulated mail order abortion pills.

Spending millions of dollars in the upcoming election to guarantee the targeting of even more vulnerable preborn babies in the womb and further expand an already horrific abortion holocaust is simply (pardon the pun) heartless overkill.

Key Takeaways:

• California Assembly Bill 2540 would force community colleges to provide access to the abortion pill either on campus, via telehealth, or through community partners.

• Proponents say the bill would close the gap for community college students who are pregnant.

• Opponents say it is unattainable because the community college health centers are small and may be staffed by just one nurse.

The Details:

California's Assembly Bill 2540 seeks to force community colleges with student health centers to dispense the abortion pill beginning in 2029 on campus, via telehealth, or through community partners, if the legislature provides the funding.

It would also force them to advertise the availability of the drugs.

Those in support of the legislation say it will help students who have transportation, cost, privacy, or insurance concerns when abortion is not available on campus, losing sight of the fact that the vast majority of community college students don't live on campus (and most do not even offer campus housing). There are about 100 community college campuses in California (including around a dozen with on-campus housing), though not all have health centers.

The bill is step two in an attempt to ensure college students in the state have easy and even free access to abortions, which may pressure students to feel that abortion is necessary for them to finish school instead of continuing pregnancy and parenting.

In 2019, the state passed Senate Bill 24, which forced the University of California and California State University student health centers to carry the abortion pill beginning in 2023. This bill would also affect those schools by forcing them to advertise the abortion pill on campus, which they had not been previously required to do.

What We're Hearing:

“We are closing a critical gap by ensuring that community college students, one of the most diverse and economically vulnerable populations in our state, have the same access to care as their peers at four-year institutions,” Assemblymember Catherine Stefani told lawmakers during an Assembly Health Committee hearing in April.

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, opponents of the bill say that community college health centers "vary widely in structure and capacity, with many operating under limited staffing models or contracting services out to community providers and hospitals."

In fact, the Health Services' Association of California Community Colleges does not support the bill. In a letter to legislators, it said community college health centers do not prescribe the abortion pill, nor do they have sufficient staffing or the infrastructure that would be required to dispense the drugs.

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

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

The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office estimates that implementing the bill could cost between $7 million and $27.9 million in one-time startup costs, plus between $5.6 million and $9.3 million a year to maintain.

Students currently pay about $23 per academic term to fund the health centers, and Stefani said the state (taxpayers) would pay for the abortion pill for students through Medi-Cal reimbursements.

Why It Matters:

Forcing taxpayers to fund abortions for students is unethical and coercive. No one should be forced to fund abortions, and students who are feeling pressured to finish school may be pushed into abortions they don't want because they are easily accessible and "free."

Those who do take the abortion pill could be left alone to suffer the medical complications largely associated with the drugs, such as hemorrhaging, incomplete abortion, and infection, as there is often no follow-up care when the abortion pill is distributed via telehealth.

Key Takeaways:

• Nicholas Geary and his girlfriend were allegedly huffing air dusters together, and Geary got angry that she was huffing while pregnant.

• He admitted to shooting his girlfriend in the back, though he claimed it was in self-defense.

• The victim, who has remained anonymous, said Geary has been threatening to shoot her in the stomach and kill the baby.

• Both the victim and the baby survived.

The Details:

According to court documents, Nicholas Geary was arrested after police were alerted to the shooting when the victim went to the hospital to receive treatment for gunshot wounds.

Sheriff Scott Reed said the couple got in a fight after they both had been huffing. “They had been huffing air duster that you clean your keyboard off with, and it made them both high, and evidently, that’s what started the fight,” he said.

Geary allegedly became angry that his girlfriend was huffing while pregnant and started punching her in the stomach. He then shot her in the back. While Geary has admitted to the shooting, he claimed it was in self-defense. Geary said he feared for his life because his girlfriend was known to carry knives.

Geary's girlfriend told police he had repeatedly been threatening to "kill the baby" in the preceding days, telling her he would first shoot her in the stomach and then shoot her in the head. Though she said she didn't want to press charges, police felt Geary posed a violent threat to both her and her preborn child, and he was arrested.

“Anytime there’s violence like this, it has to be dealt with. And if it’s not, it’s going to escalate,” Reed said.

Mary Ann Owens, CEO of The Women’s Safe House, agreed. “We need that to happen more often because that’s one of the reasons that women don’t pursue it,” Owens said.

Geary is currently being held without bond and is facing charges of first-degree domestic assault, first-degree attempted murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action.

The Bottom Line:

Homicide is known to be a <a href="/news/pregnant-women-die-homicide">leading cause of death</a> for pregnant women, higher than any pregnancy complication. Many incidents stem from domestic violence, often when a woman refuses to have an abortion at the father's request.

Baby Luca was delivered by emergency Caesarean section seven weeks before his due date, weighing just 3lb 5oz, after they found that his heart had stopped beating. Medical staff continued working to resuscitate him for approximately an hour before successfully restoring his heartbeat.

Three months into the pregnancy, scans showed that baby Luca had gastroschisis, a condition in which a hole in the abdominal wall allows part of the bowel to develop outside the baby’s body.

The condition affects around one in every 2,000 babies and can increase the likelihood of premature birth and low birth weight.

Doctors initially told his parents, Demi and Charlie, that Luca’s condition was not severe, and the pregnancy continued without further problems for several months.

Concerns during the pregnancy prompt emergency hospital trip

When Demi was 30 weeks pregnant, she became concerned after she could no longer feel Luca moving. She rushed to the hospital and was later transferred for further scans. After six days of observation, she was discharged.

Demi returned two days later for additional checks. She and Charlie were told Luca’s “bowels were fine” and that his condition “would be monitored every few weeks” at the hospital.

Less than two weeks later, Demi again noticed that Luca was not moving. She returned to the hospital, where doctors found that his heart rate had flatlined, meaning his heart was not pumping blood.

Baby Luca was subsequently delivered immediately by emergency Caesarean section without a heartbeat, and doctors worked to revive him for around an hour before their resuscitation efforts succeeded.

His dad, Charlie, said that “Seeing him born dead was so hard. It took the doctors around an hour to work on him. It’s the longest hour I’ve ever been through”. 

Following the birth, Luca was transferred to another hospital for specialist treatment, accompanied by his father. Demi remained behind to recover from the Caesarean section. She discharged herself eight hours later, despite being advised to remain under observation for 24 hours.

“There was nothing stopping me from being with my Luca”, she said.

Demi’s sister drove her to the hospital, where she was reunited with Charlie and their baby boy.

Three operations

Luca underwent an operation to place his bowels inside his abdomen and later required two further procedures. He now remains in hospital, and doctors have warned his parents that his condition is still serious. However, he has since been taken off the ventilator that was supporting his breathing.

Luca’s father, Charlie, said “Me and Demi got to hold him the other day and got to do skin-to-skin contact for the first time. That was amazing. It was quite literally like holding my world in my hands”, he explained. “I’ll never forget that moment”.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, commented “Luca’s survival is a striking example of what can be achieved when a seriously ill baby is given sustained medical care. His story underlines why medical vulnerability should never diminish a child’s right to care and protection”. 

“Every baby, before and after birth, should be treated as a patient whose life is worth fighting for, regardless of how uncertain the prognosis may initially appear. Every unborn child deserves a chance at life”.

Bland was convicted of aggravated murder, including "murder of a pregnant victim to terminate her pregnancy."

Key Takeaways:

• Edward Bland Jr. was given two life sentences in prison with no possibility of parole.

• He was convicted of aggravated murder, including the "murder of a pregnant victim to terminate her pregnancy."

• One of his victims was his cousin, who considered him to be her best friend.

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

The Details:

On April 2, 2024, Prince William County, Virginia. police received two separate calls from an apartment complex. One reported a carjacking, which is what led to Bland's arrest, and the other caller said a man was seen running through the parking lot with a gun.

While on the scene of the stolen vehicle, the Shenandoah County Sheriff’s Office relayed a message that Bland, whom they had located 70 miles away along with the vehicle, was not only linked to the carjacking but had also confessed to a double murder.

After tracing Bland’s last location, the police returned to the apartment complex to find Harris and Payne both deceased with gunshot wounds to the head. 

James Caison, Harris’ father, told WUSA9 he had heard the news from one of his sons. "He was just crying. I was like, 'What's going on?' He was like, 'Lele's gone, someone killed her.' I was like, 'What?' I was just like so, so weak," he said. "She meant a lot. Everyone loved her."

He added that it made it even worse when he found out that Bland was the one accused of the murders. "They were cousins. But they considered themselves the best of friends. That was her best friend," he said. 

While a motive has not been given, according to the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney, Bland was convicted of aggravated assault, including the "murder of a pregnant victim to terminate her pregnancy."

Bland was also found guilty of aggravated murder killing more than one person, second-degree murder, carjacking, and three counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He has been sentenced to two life terms without parole, as well as 74 years with 15 years suspended.

“This was a horrible and senseless crime. The defendant took the lives of two innocent people, one of whom was pregnant," said Commonwealth’s Attorney Amy Ashworth. "The families have suffered unimaginably, and we are appreciative of their patience and support as we vigorously pursued justice on their behalf. We hope they find peace now that the guilt phase of the trial has concluded.”

During the emotional sentencing, family members of both victims spoke. Angela Payne, Asia's mother, told Bland, "I forgive you for killing my baby."

May Twyman, Leann's mother, said, "I pray he never sees the light of day and may God have mercy on his soul."

The Bottom Line:

Homicide is a leading cause of death among pregnant women.

Research shows that women in the U.S. who are pregnant or have recently given birth are more likely to die by homicide carried out by an intimate partner than to die from pregnancy-related causes. Researchers from the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor found that U.S. women who are pregnant or were pregnant in the past 42 days die by murder at more than twice the rate that they die of bleeding or placental disorders, which are the leading causes of pregnancy-related deaths.

According to research, most pregnancy-associated homicides are "linked to the lethal combination of intimate partner violence and firearms. Preventing men's violence towards women, including gun violence, could save the lives of hundreds of women and their unborn children in the US every year."

Key Takeaways:

• A resident reported the tragic discovery of a deceased baby on the shoreline of Lewisville Lake on Friday morning.

• The baby appeared to have been between five and six months' gestation at the time of death.

• It is not yet clear if the baby was born alive.

The Details:

The Lewisville Police Department reported that the body of a preborn baby was found on the Lewisville Lake shoreline. A resident found the baby while walking on the shoreline and called to report it. Police responded, and the baby was estimated to be between five and six months' gestation, meaning the child may have been old enough to survive outside the womb.

Babies born as young as <a href="/news/defying-odds-preemies-survived-21-weeks">21 weeks</a> (five months, one week) have survived when born prematurely.

Currently, police do not know if the baby was born alive or was stillborn. According to WFAA, the baby was "intentionally discarded at the lake."

Anyone with information about this case is encouraged to contact Detective Craig Holleman by emailing cholleman@cityoflewisville.com or by calling 972-219-3620. Anonymous information can also be shared with the Denton County Crime Stoppers online or by calling 1-800-388-TIPS.

The Big Picture:

Every state has a Safe Haven law that allows parents to voluntarily relinquish a newborn. In Texas, parents can anonymously surrender a baby 60 days old or younger to a hospital, fire station, or emergency medical services station.

Another option for parents is a Safe Haven Baby Box. Currently, there is not one in Lewisville, but there are boxes installed in over 20 states, with multiple locations in Texas. These provide parents the opportunity to surrender their baby without having to fear a face-to-face confrontation. Typically installed in a fire station or hospital, the boxes have doors that open on both sides, and the inside of the box is climate-controlled. When an infant is placed inside, an alarm alerts emergency officials to retrieve the baby immediately.

The Bottom Line:

The goal of Safe Haven laws and baby boxes is specifically to prevent tragedies like this most recent one in Texas. When someone feels desperate and unable to parent, they have the opportunity to surrender their baby safely and without consequence, rather than abandon them and potentially cause the child's death.

Key Takeaways:

• A report from British Columbia's Ministry of Health shows there were 2,807 euthanasia deaths requiring "follow up" to obtain missing information or clarify existing information.

• Twelve percent of the errors indicated doctors and nurse practitioners "required education... to ensure they understand legal requirements and the professional standards associated with MAID.” 

• In total, there were 4,169 euthanasia deaths in the province in 2024, up from 2,767 deaths in 2023.

The Details:

The report hails from British Columbia's Ministry of Health and reveals that there were 4,169 Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) deaths in the province in 2024 (a separate instance within the report claims 4,190 deaths). This is a staggering jump from the 2,767 deaths reported in 2023.

More than half of those deaths, totaling 2,807, had errors requiring “follow-up." According to the report, "follow-up" means obtaining missing information or clarifying existing information.

More than 12% of the errors, or 353, indicated that the doctors or nurse practitioners involved in the deaths "required education... to ensure they understand legal requirements and the professional standards associated with MAID.” 

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told CCN that the numbers are especially troubling because British Columbia leads Canada in the percentage of deaths caused by MAiD.

“It’s all very shocking that you have such a large amount and percentage of errors in British Columbia,” Schadenberg said. “It’s clear there are huge problems.”

Zoom Out:

MAiD errors are not a new problem, especially in British Columbia. Last year, similar findings were reported in the province, as there were "2,833 ‘reporting issues’ and ‘completion errors’ in the paperwork for 2,767 MAiD deaths and for 1,041 cases in which euthanasia was applied for but not completed." 

In 2024, a similar report found that there were also hundreds of euthanasia deaths in Ontario committed in violation of MAiD laws.

Strikingly, though abuses and violations continue to mount, little has been done to stop the ever-increasing influx of MAiD deaths. Euthanasia is now the fourth leading cause of death within the country.

The Bottom Line:

Thousands of errors in implementing euthanasia reveal that laws and safeguards do not guarantee that people will remain safe from abuses.

Amanda Achtman, ethics director of Canadian Physicians for Life, pointedly noted that all MAiD deaths are in 'error,' because euthanasia is not healthcare, "but rather abandonment."

“The staggering level of errors surrounding the practice of euthanasia in Canada betrays a level of indifference and callousness toward Canadian patients at end of life,” Achtman told CCN. “At the same time, every euthanasia death is a medical ‘error’ because it is an aberration of sound medical practice rooted in the Hippocratic oath to ‘do no harm.’”

This week, Erika Carrillo—a mother of three from San Mateo—testified about the intense pressure she faced to abort her child, her immediate regret after taking the first abortion pill, and her late-night search for a way to save her baby’s life. 

Carrillo told the court her partner was “adamant” she could not have the child and was in the room when she received the abortion pill. She twice told the nurse practitioner she was not sure she wanted to proceed—and never said she was sure—but took the pill under her partner’s pressure because she “felt like I had no other option.”  

She went home, refused to take the second pill in the chemical abortion regimen, and within hours was searching online at 2:00 a.m. for any way to save her baby. She found a website referencing Abortion Pill Reversal(APR), called the Abortion Pill Rescue Network’s helpline, and was quickly connected to a RealOptions clinic. 

At RealOptions, Carrillo testified she was “nervous” but that she “felt warm and welcome”—that the staff treated her “without judgment.” She received an ultrasound confirming her baby was still alive—the first time she had seen her child—and began the progesterone treatment at no cost. She was told the treatment was “not a guarantee” and was never pressured to initiate it. Carrillo was a single parent without a vehicle, so RealOptions arranged volunteer transportation to get her to appointments. As the pregnancy continued, staff members “were always warm and reassuring,” even surprising her with a take-home fetal heartbeat monitor so she could hear her baby’s heartbeat at home when she was worried.  

Carrillo gave birth to a healthy boy, now approaching his tenth birthday. Carrillo told the court she chose to share her story because “every woman should be able to advocate for themselves” and because she believes women in similar situations—pressured, isolated, and without support—deserve to know that APR “is an option for them.”

On cross-examination, her account was not materially challenged. 

As trial proceeds, two more mothers—who began the abortion pill regimen but were able to save their babies after starting the APR protocol—will testify. Elizabeth Barrett and Uyen Pham are scheduled to take the stand in the coming weeks. 

Barrett has stated in court filings that she took the first abortion pill at a Planned Parenthood clinic despite telling staff she was ambivalent—then received a text from her boyfriend while still at the clinic saying he wanted to keep the baby. She and her boyfriend found information about APR on the third or fourth page of Google results, a doctor called her back within fifteen minutes, and she began progesterone treatment that day. She gave birth to a healthy daughter, and the clinic continued supporting her after delivery—even sending a car seat to the hospital. 

Pham has stated in court filings that she regretted her decision almost immediately after taking mifepristone in July 2024, before taking the prescribed misoprostol. A friend stayed up all night researching her options and provided a phone number. Pham was connected to Heartbeat International, then to RealOptions, and was seen that same day—less than 24 hours after taking mifepristone. She gave birth to a healthy son with no complications.  

These success stories of courageous mothers who chose life could cease to exist if California prevails in suppressing the speech of Heartbeat International and RealOptions.

Key Takeaways:

• Senators James Lankford (R) and Tim Kaine (D) and Reps. Greg Murphy (R) and Luis Correa (D) have sent a letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calling for more reporting requirements where physician-assisted suicide is legal.

• The letter points to numerous problems with assisted suicide, including discrimination against vulnerable populations, chance of elder abuse, lack of drug oversight, negative impact on suicide rates, and lack of informed consent.

• Numerous disability groups have been actively fighting assisted suicide legislation for years, pointing to many of the concerns indicated in the lawmakers' letter.

The Details:

In their letter dated July 9, Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), along with Reps. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) and Luis Correa (D-Calif.) point to the various abuses that can occur with legalized assisted suicide, asking for federal oversight into a matter that has thus far been left to individual states to determine.

The letter states:

Physician-assisted suicide raises significant informed consent issues as well as concerns about disability and age discrimination. The vast majority of patients receiving physician-assisted suicide are enrolled in hospice—90% in Washington.

This poses challenges for HHS and CMS’ regulation of patient health and safety within the hospice program. We urge HHS and CMS to implement reporting requirements in the hospice program to monitor physician-assisted suicide for discriminatory practices against vulnerable populations...

The letter notes that in many cases, legalized assisted death sends a message to disabled people that their lives are less valuable.

In other cases, loose laws coupled with elder abuse and age discrimination often enable anyone — even someone who could profit from a patient's will or a disinterested caretaker — to act as a witness to the lethal drug request.

"These circumstances," the lawmakers say, "enable the possibility of financial exploitation."

The letter writers take issue with the fact that assisted suicide drugs are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the taking of human life. Further, they note that "physician-assisted suicide undermines America’s national posture of suicide prevention."

"Peer-reviewed data shows that where physician-assisted suicide is legalized, rates of suicide increase," they point out, noting the danger this poses as America faces an "epidemic of suicide."

"Physician-assisted suicide undermines suicide prevention services, normalizes premature death for vulnerable populations, and pushes society away from robust care, support, and the protection of life," they state.

Zoom In:

The letter makes several specific requests, asking Kennedy to monitor physician-assisted suicide practices for the following:

• Discrimination against individuals with disabilities, older adults, and other vulnerable populations;

• Proper disposal of unused medication and prevention of drug diversion;

• Insurance denials of life-sustaining medical care that offer to cover physician-assisted suicide drugs instead; 

• Drug complications;

• Consistency of drugs prescribed “off-label” for use in physician-assisted suicide;

• Compliance with federal restrictions on using funds, directly or indirectly, for health care items or services for physician-assisted suicide.

The Big Picture:

Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia have legalized physician-assisted suicide. Though there are often "guardrails" or laws designed to ensure that a person seeking assisted death meets certain qualifications, as the letter writers noted, often too little is done to ensure that proper informed consent is taking place. They say:

There are grave informed consent issues within physician-assisted suicide. Patients spend little time with the physician providing physician-assisted suicide relative to the course of their disease.

Only 0.5% of patients received mental health referrals, even though many physician-assisted suicide patients show signs of depression, which can impair the decision-making process.

On top of this, “it is common for medical prognoses of a short life expectancy to be wrong,” and under the definition of terminal illness in physician-assisted suicide laws, “[t]here is no requirement that the doctors consider the likely impact of medical treatment, counseling, and other supports on survival.”

Numerous disability groups have been actively fighting assisted suicide legislation for years, pointing to many of the concerns indicated in the lawmakers' letter.

The Bottom Line:

"Every person has inherent worth and dignity, including those facing their final days,” Lankford said in a statement. “Hospice should be a place of compassion, comfort, and care, where the suffering are surrounded by loved ones and quality health care, not a place where they feel quietly pressured to end their lives through assisted suicide.”

Key Takeaways:

• The ACLU has pledged $25.5 million for its "voter education electoral program" ahead of the midterm elections.

• Abortion is one of the issues on which it aims to 'educate' voters.

• The organization and its affiliates will focus specifically on fighting a measure that is seeking undo the 'right' to abortion in the Missouri constitution. It will also promote a referendum in Virginia to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right in that state.

The Details:

In a July 6 press release, the organization announced its "largest ever" investment of $25.5 million for its "voter education electoral program." That program aims to 'educate' on the issues of "abortion, LGBTQ rights, voting, fair courts, and democracy protections."

According to its release, the ACLU and its affiliated foundations will focus in part on nine priority states, including Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Part of the funding will focus specifically on Missouri, where voters will be faced with a referendum seeking to remove the so-called "right" to abortion from the state's constitution. Efforts will also be focused on Virginia, where voters will decide on an amendment to make abortion a constitutional "right." In every instance, the ACLU will seek to expand and boost abortion.

Zoom In:

The ACLU noted that its funding efforts to sway voters have worked in the past, pointing to a campaign it ran to influence voters regarding a Wisconsin Supreme Court race, which led to the overturn of the state's 150-year-old restriction on abortion.

The organization also boasts that in Ohio in 2023, the ACLU, ACLU Foundation, and ACLU of Ohio helped defeat a 2023 ballot measure that would have made it more difficult for voters to amend the state's constitution; that vote came just 12 weeks before voters enshrined a "right" to abortion in the state's constitution.

The organization says it played a "leading role" in securing abortion in the state.

More recently, the organization pointed to the fact that the chemical abortion pill is now available in Missouri for the first time since 2018, due in part to litigation spearheaded by the ACLU.

The Bottom Line:

The ACLU is entirely beholden to abortion, having worked for years in promoting and boosting the intentional killing of preborn children under the guise of "rights." Its commitment to pledge millions to push abortion even further is a sign that pro-lifers must fight more than ever for innocent preborn lives.

Key Takeaways:

• A British couple says a Sri-Lankan surrogacy agency used the wrong sperm when producing their twins via IVF.

• The couple discovered the mistake via a DNA test after they applied for the children's British citizenship.

• A UK judge last week granted the couple's request to adopt the babies they thought were their biological children.

The Details:

Known in court documents as PP and QQ, the couple, who used a Sri Lankan surrogacy agency to conceive their twins, had intended to use the husband's sperm when producing their embryos. After their twins were born via an overseas surrogate, they secured DNA tests in order to apply for British citizenship for the children.

The mother said the result — which showed the children were not biologically related to the husband — “struck us like a thunderbolt.” She also said she and her husband would push forward with adopting the children because they were "meant for us."

The Sri-Lankan agency, Wish Fertility, claims the couple signed a form indicating their approval that donor sperm be used. PP and QQ deny ever signing such a document.

Last week, a court judgement confirmed the adoption request for the couple. In the ruling, Mr. Justice Peel said the couple was “blameless” and “desperate to bring up the children, whom they adore.” He noted the sperm mix-up was “an inadvertent error, perhaps as a result of poor internal processes, or was intentionally done (for whatever reason) is not clear."

Why It Matters:

In the largely unregulated IVF industry, mistakes happen frequently. As more people turn to advanced reproductive technologies like IVF and surrogacy, human error (and sometimes nefarious intent) results in children who are conceived using the wrong sperm, mothers who are implanted with the wrong embryo, and embryos that are accidentally missing or destroyed. This often results in a legal quagmire that can be difficult to untangle.

Impacted the most — but often considered the least — are the children born of these proceedings, who will struggle with the implications of the 'mistakes' made during their conception. Many people conceived via these methods are now starting to speak out and share how their conception has shaped them.

One woman told the pro-children’s rights organization Them Before Us:

“Somehow, somewhere, my parents developed the idea that they deserved to have a baby, and it didn’t matter how much it cost, how many times it took, or how many died in the process. They deserved a child. And with an attitude like that, by the time I was born they thought they deserved to have the perfect child… as Dad defined a perfect child. And since they deserved a child, I was their property to be controlled, not a person or a gift to be treasured.”

The Bottom Line:

Though the desire to have a child is good and understandable, there is never a moral justification for IVF and surrogacy, which commodifies and exploits both women and children.

The linchpin of Creinin’s testimony is a 2020 UC Davis study in which he gave mifepristone to pregnant women and then randomized them to receive either progesterone or placebo, purportedly to test whether progesterone could reverse the abortion process. He halted the study early and published the incomplete results as a double-blind trial (although questions are now being raised about the strength of his study design). That study is the scientific backbone of the AG’s case and is being used to argue that APR is ineffective and poses serious safety risks. 

Paul Jonna, Thomas More Society Special Counsel and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP, led the defense’s cross-examination of Dr. Creinin. Here are 10 moments from court that raised serious questions about his testimony—and the case built around it.

1. He Privately Called His 2020 Study “Pseudo-Blinded”—Then Told the Public and the Court It Was Double-Blind

The double-blind study design was a hallmark of Creinin’s 2020 UC Davis study on Abortion Pill Reversal. But internal UC Davis emails reveal that the Investigational Drug Service warned Creinin repeatedly that they could not produce a matching placebo. The IDS pharmacist wrote that the placebo would “look absolutely nothing like the active.” The progesterone pills were stamped with identifying marks; the placebo was not. The research coordinator handling the pills was not blinded. Creinin acknowledged all of this in private, writing in an email to his team: “Guess this is pseudo-blinded.” 

Despite that, he described the study as double-blind in the published paper itself, and testified in court that blinding was never a concern. 

2. His Private Estimates on Mifepristone-Only Efficacy Undermine His Theory—So He Left Them Out

Creinin’s central argument against APR is that the “continuing pregnancies” seen in reversal data aren’t evidence that progesterone works—they’re simply pregnancies that would have survived mifepristone on their own. If that’s true, the continuing pregnancy rate after mifepristone alone should be high enough to account for the results. 

But in an unpublished peer-review response shown in court, Creinin privately estimated that the continuing pregnancy rate after mifepristone alone is “most likely just 8 percent.” He then kept that figure out of his published article, noting he’d “prefer not to bring it up.”  

The problem is obvious: if only 8% of pregnancies continue after mifepristone alone, then the significantly higher continuation rates seen in APR data cannot be explained by mifepristone failure—progesterone is clearly doing something. And Creinin's own private words reveal he thinks that’s more likely than he’s publicly said. 

3. His Published Study Wrongly Characterized APR Recipient as Suffering “Severe Hemorrhage”

Creinin’s study listed three women as experiencing “severe hemorrhage”—Subjects 8, 10, and 11. Subject 8 was the only one in the progesterone group, making her the linchpin of any argument that APR causes dangerous bleeding.  

But evidence presented in court by Thomas More Society attorneys told a different story. Her hospital chart listed her chief complaint as “vaginal bleeding minor,” her diagnosis was spontaneous abortion without complication, and she was never diagnosed with hemorrhage by the hospital. Creinin’s own clinical note describes her bleeding as “mild to moderate.” She needed no transfusion, no aspiration, no intervention at all—unlike Subject 11, who was in the placebo group and actually required a blood transfusion. The bleeding was consistent with what is routinely expected from the abortion pill regimen.  

If Subject 8 never actually experienced a severe hemorrhage, as this evidence shows, then Creinin’s own study data shows zero severe hemorrhages in the APR group and, ironically, provides evidence that APR is safer than its critics claim. 

4. He Admitted No Component of APR Is Known to Cause Birth Defects

The AG’s complaint calls it “misleading” for Heartbeat to tell women that the birth defect rate after APR is “less than or equal to the rate in the general population,” claiming there is “no credible support” for the statement.  

But under oath, the AG’s own expert confirmed that mifepristone is not known to cause birth defects, progesterone is not known to cause birth defects, and there is no evidence that any component of the APR protocol causes birth defects. His own study’s consent form told participants the same thing: “The two drugs used in this study, mifepristone and progesterone, are not known to cause birth defects.” The AG says there’s no credible support for the claim. The AG’s own expert—and his own consent form—say otherwise. 

5. He Can’t Say APR Doesn’t Work—and He Can’t Say It’s Unsafe

After two days of cross-examination, Jonna closed with two questions. Can you swear under oath that APR does not work? “No.” Can you swear under oath that it’s unsafe? “Qualified, no.” 

The State’s own expert, after years of publicly opposing APR, could not tell the court that it doesn’t work or that it's unsafe. The AG brought Dr. Creinin to close the door on Abortion Pill Reversal. Under cross-examination, the record he brought with him opened it wider. 

6. He Can’t Back Up the AG’s “Safer Than Tylenol” Claim

The AG’s complaint asserts that chemical abortion is “safer than penicillin, Viagra and even some over-the-counter drugs like Tylenol.” The State’s own expert couldn’t agree with that claim under oath.  

To not directly contradict it either, he dodged, arguing that the drugs serve different purposes and can't be compared. If the comparison doesn’t hold up, it shouldn’t be in the Attorney General’s complaint. 

7. His Published Study Incorrectly Reports a Patient Arrived by Ambulance—and He’s Never Corrected It

In the 2020 UC Davis study, Creinin reported that Subject 10 was transported to the hospital by ambulance. Hospital records show she walked in on her own. When presented with the records at his October 2025 deposition, he acknowledged the error. Eight months later, at trial, he confirmed he had taken no steps to correct the published record. 

8. The Attorney General Had Access to the Largest APR Safety Dataset—and Their Expert Never Reviewed It

Heartbeat International released its full deidentified dataset—8,800 patient entries—to the Attorney General during the litigation. Creinin, the AG’s own expert, never reviewed it. The data showed that out of 8,800 cases, only three women needed transfusions (and two of those hadn’t taken their progesterone), or that there were just 11 hospital admissions and 88 ER visits. When asked whether that data, if accurate, would help show APR is safe, Creinin conceded: “If the data was true, yes.” 

9. He’s Been Cited by the Federal Government for Research Violations

A 2002 HHS warning letter cited Creinin for failing to obtain proper informed consent from study participants, failing to follow the investigational plan, and failing to maintain complete and accurate records. He confirmed these warnings under oath. 

10. He Believes the World Needs More Abortions to Survive

Near the end of cross-examination, the court heard about Creinin’s broader worldview. He co-authored a 2020 paper in the journal Contraception that explicitly builds on Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb—the 1968 book widely regarded as a foundational text of the modern population-control movement. The paper praises Ehrlich’s warnings about "unchecked population growth" and adopts his environmental-impact formula to argue that population reduction is the key variable.  

Creinin and his co-author write that “family planning”—their term for abortion and contraception—is “the most humane and viable strategy for human survival,” that “both rich and poor nations have a responsibility to limit family size,” and that the world “cannot sustain … high fertility in poor nations.” To achieve this, they argue countries must make abortion widely available. These are not the views of a disinterested scientist—they place the AG’s expert squarely within an ideological tradition that has long advocated population control in developing nations through expanded abortion access.

According to ‘Registrar (assisted dying) Annual Report to the Minister of Health – June 2026′, there were a total of 486 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide in New Zealand from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, a 48.17% increase from the same period in 2022-2023, the first full year in which euthanasia and assisted suicide were available, when there were 328 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the country.

In the year 2025/26, the 486 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicides accounted for 1.29% of all deaths in New Zealand. 

7% of applicants reported having a disability, and one in five applicants were not receiving palliative care at the time of application.

Only 16 applicants had a psychiatric assessment to check for competence to make an informed decision about assisted suicide.

Fewer than 1 in 10 applicants (8.33%) had a neurological condition, a relatively small proportion, despite the need for people with neurological conditions to access assisted suicide or euthanasia regularly being referred to by campaigners as a key reason for introducing assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Since euthanasia and assisted suicide were made legal in New Zealand in November 2021, 1,696 have ended their lives through these means.

The report also reveals a decline in the number of doctors willing to be involved in assisted suicide and euthanasia. The number of practitioners on the Support and Consultation for End of Life Choice (SCENZ) Group list, which connects patients with doctors willing to assess or carry out assisted deaths, fell from 148 in March 2023 to 121 in March 2025.

While doctors can provide assisted suicide or euthanasia to their own patients, those treating individuals outside their care must be on this list. The shrinking numbers have led to reports of doctors travelling long distances to assess patients, raising concerns about discomfort with helping a patient end their own life among healthcare professionals.  

The data also reveals a clear ethnic disparity in those accessing assisted suicide and euthanasia. New Zealand European/Pākehā applicants accounted for 81.1% of applications, while they represent 67.8% of the population. In contrast, Māori applicants made up only 4.9% of applications, despite representing 17.8% of the population; Asian applicants made up 2.49% of applications, despite representing 17.30% of the population; and applications from Pacific peoples made up 0.77% of applications, despite representing 8.90% of the population.

Of the 486 people who died, 94.65% (460) died by euthanasia, where a doctor or nurse ended a patient’s life either through ingestion (1) or through injection (459). 26 people (5.35%) ended their lives through assisted suicide. The key legal distinction between the two is who carries out the act: in euthanasia, it is a third party who ends the person’s life, while in assisted suicide, the person ends their own life.

Attempts to expand the law

Under the current law in New Zealand, a person can end their life by assisted suicide or euthanasia if they are thought to have six months left to live.

However, there have been attempts to expand the law beyond the current six-month prognosis limit. Last year, ACT Party MP Todd Stephenson tabled a Members Bill to remove this.

ACT Party leader David Seymour MP also called for the six-month requirement to be scrapped in 2022, only a year after the law came into effect in 2021. Astonishingly, this is from the same David Seymour who, before the Bill to introduce assisted suicide and euthanasia became law in New Zealand, told the NZ Parliament that opponents’ claims that the law would be expanded in the future were a “slippery slope fallacy”.

New Zealand became the first country in the world to introduce assisted suicide and euthanasia by popular vote in a binding referendum on 19 September 2020, and this came into force on 7 November 2021.

Polling at the time suggests that as many as 80% of voters were unclear about what they were voting for, thinking that the law would permit physicians to turn off life support. This, in fact, was already legal and not the subject of the referendum.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “The huge increase in euthanasia and assisted suicide in New Zealand found in the most recent report is a cause for alarm. New Zealand appears to be following the same trend as many other countries that have introduced euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation in recent years – a steep increase in deaths through assisted suicide and euthanasia”.

“The experience of New Zealand should serve as a portent of what to likely expect in England and Wales should Lauren Edwards’ assisted suicide Bill become law”.

Key Takeaways:

• Twin sisters were diagnosed with two serious health conditions in the womb, including Twin-to-Twin transfusion syndrome, in which one twin receives too much blood and one receives too little.

• Options included taking no action, selectively aborting one baby, and surgery to try to save both babies.

• The parents chose surgery and both girls survived.

• The grateful parents named one of the girls after the doctor who saved them.

The Details:

Geraldine and Oscar learned at their 16 week ultrasound that their identical twins had two serious health conditions: Twin Anemia Polycythemia Sequence (TAPS) and Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS). TAPS is a condition in which one twin has more red blood cells than the other and TTTS is when one baby gets too much blood and nutrients and the other gets too little. Without treatment, there was an 80-90% chance that at least one of the girls would not survive.

"We went from a routine scan, to an hour-and-a-half later being told you’ve got to make a decision fast if you want them to survive," Oscar explained.

Geraldine told ITV News, "It was scary. They said there were a few options. We could do what they call 'selective restriction' and choose one baby over the other, or do nothing, or we could have this laser ablation."

In a selective reduction, one of the babies would be chosen to be aborted. The parents opted for the surgery, which would involve using laser ablation to seal the abnormal placental blood vessels. There was a 90% chance one twin would survive and a 70-80% chance both would survive. About 10% of the time, neither baby survives.

Dr. Asma Khalil, a professor from Liverpool Women's Hospital carried out the procedure.

"We use a laser to seal the connections between the blood vessels, essentially separating the circulation of each baby," Khalil said. "We know by doing this you increase the chance of a healthy life for both babies."

The surgery was successful, and the girls are now 10 months old, happy and healthy at home after being born prematurely at 29 weeks. They spent a combined 70 days in the neonatal care units of Liverpool Women's Hospital and Ormskirk Hospital.

Their parents named them Luna and Asma, after the doctor who saved them.

"They'll always know that she was named after the surgeon who saved her life," the parents said of baby Asma.

Khalil called it "deeply humbling" and "one of the greatest honours of my career."

Why it Matters:

Some parents have opted to abort one of their twin babies due to a TTTS diagnosis, however, selective reduction abortion carries the risks of miscarrying both babies, premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, bleeding, and infection. Those who choose abortion also have a greater risk of mental health problems. A study on abortion after a prenatal diagnosis found that “[c]ouples experienced selective termination as traumatic … [T]he women ultimately felt as if they were betraying themselves and their babies.”

In addition, some people have reported that losing their twin in the womb can have a lasting emotional impact on them. There is even a support group called Womb Twin Survivor to help people understand their underlying feelings of loneliness, fear of abandonment, and preoccupation with death. Choosing to abort one twin over another sets the surviving twin up for emotional and and mental health struggles.

Key Takeaways:

• Two couples who each received a prenatal diagnosis of anencephaly for their preborn daughters shared their stories with Live Action.

• Despite the option to abort their babies, and the knowledge that their daughters wouldn't live long after birth, the couples both chose life.

• They spent the remainder of their pregnancies making memories with their babies and cherishing every moment.

• After birth, they were able to hold and love their children, helping to bring them all closure as they and their babies were able to bond.

• Research shows it is beneficial to a mother's mental health to carry to term after a life-limiting diagnosis.

The Details:

The video, When A Preborn Baby Has a Terminal Diagnosis, features Joe and Ann Baker as well as Andy and Stephanie Schoonover, two couples who each lost a daughter to anencephaly.

Ember Baker

The Bakers were so excited to be expecting a daughter after having three sons. Then, at the 12-week ultrasound, they learned heartbreaking news. Ann explained:

She said, 'You know, we reviewed the ultrasound, and it's just so clear that your baby has what's called anencephaly.' She started to talk to me about it because I didn't know what it was. Like, I didn't know if she was talking 'bad news' like your baby's gonna be disabled. The more she talked, she was just like, 'It's 100% fatal. It's just this rare, rare birth defect that happens, and your baby will not survive longer than, probably, a few hours.

Joe thought it must be a mistake. He didn't want to believe that there was nothing they could do to save their baby. They wondered how they can move forward and what their options were.

"Suddenly, the only option that's given — in the nicest way of terms, 'We're gonna be talking about terminating your pregnancy.' And that is the most bizarre thing in the world because that's the whole point of going to the doctor, like, the doctor is there to save our little baby," said Joe.

As a part of the pro-life community, Joe couldn't believe he was being given this 'option.' But it was never a consideration for them.

Right away, Ann knew she had all of these places that she wanted to take her daughter, Ember, to, so they began a journey and spent the rest of the pregnancy traveling and making memories at their favorite places. They invited people to send them artwork for Ember's delivery room to make it vibrant for her.

Ember lived for one hour after birth, which Ann called "the most sacred, special hour" of her life.

Grace Schoonover

The Schoonovers were thrilled to be having their first child, but at the 12-week ultrasound, the technician saw a concern. The doctor told them their baby had anencephaly, explaining that the condition was considered "not compatible with life."

"It was almost an out-of-body experience," said Stephanie. "Because here I'm lying on that table and I'm looking at my daughter's silhouette, and she looked perfect to me. And everything that he was describing went against what I felt that I was seeing. There was no cure. There was no surgery. There was nothing other than carrying this pregnancy out or to terminate it."

"We saw five fingers and five toes and a beating heart and these lips moving as if they were inhaling air or blowing us kisses," said Andy. "And we looked and said this looks like a baby to us.... And so we wanted to give that baby life in whatever way that God intended that life to look."

Stephanie said they now understood the fragility of that life and now wanted to make the most of it. They wanted to be intentional about the memories they were going to make with baby Grace. Andy played with Grace by pressing on Stephanie's stomach as Grace kicked him back.

Grace was born at 39 weeks, and to everyone's surprise, she came out crying. Hearing her voice was an amazing gift. Andy read two books to her, a chaplain baptized her, and she settled in peacefully on Stephanie's chest. That's where she stayed, alive, for 10 and a half hours.

"It was a joyful time to be able to experience her life... We know for certain that she felt love," said Stephanie.

Why It Matters:

These couples are not braver than other parents facing such a diagnosis; they just loved their daughters amid their own fear and sadness.

Unfortunately, many parents are pressured into abortions, with doctors and society telling them that aborting a baby with a life-limiting diagnosis is the more compassionate act to take. But abortion only serves to bring more trauma to the family and treats the baby as less valuable or less human than a 'healthy' child.

Carrying to term after such a diagnosis and having moments like the ones Grace's and Ember's parents had with them treats the baby with human dignity, and 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.”

Key Takeaways:

• 14 women have sent a letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, urging him to settle with Rosalie Markezich in her lawsuit seeking to stop mail-order abortion pills.

• Markezich sued the FDA after her then-boyfriend forced her to take the abortion pill, killing her preborn child.

• The letter writers, who say they all have been harmed by abortion drugs, call on Blanche to protect women from the harm of mail-order abortion.

The Details:

The letter writers reference the case of Rosalie Markezich, who is suing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after her then-boyfriend ordered the abortion pill online and then coerced her into taking the drugs, forcing an abortion she did not want. The writers urge Blanche to "side with Rosalie Markezich and settle her legal case immediately so abortion drugs are no longer sent through the mail in ways that put women at risk."

"The Department of Justice must act now to protect women by listening to and standing with Rosalie Markezich, rather than fighting against her in litigation," the letter states.

The letter writers, who say they all have been harmed by abortion drugs, call on Blanche to protect women from the harm of mail-order abortion.

"The federal government should not defend policies that make it easier for men, abusers, traffickers, or anyone else to obtain abortion drugs in a woman’s name and pressure her to take them in isolation," they said.

The letter was sent to Blanche on July 8 by Tramelle Jones, Sara Huff, Elizabeth Henschel, Dora Rhode Esparza, Jannette Houston, Grace Cardoso, Abby Johnson, Kelly Lester, Erin Woods, Alani Harmon, Haile McAnally, Shanyce Thomas, McKenzie Kaupa-Thiesse, and Jessica Williams.

"We do not all share the same story, the same zip code, or the same season of life. But we are united in asking the Department of Justice to recognize the harm women have suffered and to act before more women are placed in similar danger," they stated.

The Backstory:

Rosalie Markezich discovered she was pregnant in October 2023, and was excited to welcome a new baby into the world. Her boyfriend at the time was not supportive. Without her knowledge, he ordered the abortion pill regimen through the mail, and then forced her to take the drugs, resulting in the loss of her preborn child. Markezich later sued the FDA for its policy allowing mail-order abortion.

The letter writers place the blame squarely on the FDA and its allowance of mail-order abortions, saying:

"We grieve with Rosalie because many of us recognize parts of our own stories in hers: the pressure, the confusion, the fear, the absence of real medical care, and the feeling that the system was designed to move drugs faster than it was designed to protect women. No woman should be forced, pressured, deceived, or abandoned into taking drugs that end her child’s life and place her own health at risk.

The FDA’s illegal abortion drug policy is responsible for this danger, and it is the same policy the Department is defending in court. This is not abstract. Rosalie herself says, 'If mail-order abortion wasn’t a thing, I’m 100% sure I would have my child…. I do not believe a doctor would have prescribed me the drugs if I told her I did not want them.'

These drugs were placed in her hands without an in-person medical visit, without meaningful screening for coercion, and without the protection of a medical professional who could have looked her in the eye and asked whether this was truly her choice. She has said the trauma still haunts her.

Live Action News has documented many instances in which women like Markezich were tricked, coerced, or forced into taking abortion drugs they didn't want, due to the Biden FDA's decision to relax standards and allow for widespread mail-order abortion pill availability.

The Bottom Line:

The women called on Blanche and the DOJ to protect women from further harm.

"Settling this case would send a clear message that women’s safety matters, that coercion is real, that state laws protecting women and unborn children deserve respect, and that the Department of Justice will not ignore the real-world consequences of weakened abortion-drug safeguards," they wrote.

Key Takeaways:

• Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad ruled that a 14-year-old rape survivor can have a third-trimester abortion.

• Prasad said having the baby would cause more trauma and violate her constitutional rights.

• The abortion was ordered to be committed within one week.

The Details:

On July 3, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad ruled that not intentionally ending the baby's life by induced abortion — a child who is old enough to survive outside the womb — would cause the girl additional trauma and violate her rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The girl had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted in December, but after she was threatened by her abuser, she did not inform her family about it. When she began experiencing severe abdominal pain in June, she was found to be pregnant. Her family called the police.

Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, abortion is legal through 20 weeks with approval from one doctor, and legal from 20-24 weeks with the approval of two doctors, though only for minors, women with disabilities, and rape survivors. After 24 weeks, abortion is allowed if a state-established Medical Board diagnoses the baby with a health condition.

Justice Prasad said the girl had voluntarily expressed she wanted to have an abortion and that there was no reason not to allow it.

A medical board evaluated the girl and reported that she was physically and mentally healthy at 28 weeks and five days pregnant, well beyond the typically-estimated age of 'viability' (the ability of a child to survive outside the womb).

The board noted that an abortion this late in pregnancy carried risks of infection, bleeding, and cervical injuries, but also claimed that carrying to term could cause the girl physical and psychological distress.

What's Happening Now:

The judge ordered the preborn child be killed within one week by a specialized team that included two gynecologists and a surgeon — which means it has likely already been committed. The chief medical and health officer was told to coordinate the abortion and ensure full pre-operative and post-operative care in hopes of minimizing the risks to the teen.

As for the rapist, a criminal investigation is ongoing, and the medical team that commits the abortion was told to preserve the baby's body or a DNA sample to use as evidence.

Why It Matters:

Rape is a violent trauma and abortion does not help the woman to heal or to forget that the rape occurred. Instead, abortion is another act of violence with two victims: the woman and her child. Like rape, nothing can erase abortion. Instead, some rape survivors who have chosen abortion have said their abortions were worse than rape — because in the abortion they were the ones who made the choice to end their child’s life. Abortion was not part of their healing as they were promised, but instead became an obstacle to their healing.

An abortion at nearly 29 weeks gestation is often carried out by a D&E dismemberment procedure that tears the child's arms and legs off of his body before the abortionist crushes his skull. The other option at this gestational age is induction abortion, in which the abortionist often injects the baby's heart with a feticide to cause cardiac arrest and then the mother delivers a stillborn baby.

“I could never ever deal with my rape because I was so focused on what I had done in choosing abortion,” explained rape survivor Ashley Sigrest. “And that’s what people don’t understand when they tell rape victims, 'Oh yes, have an abortion so that way you can go on and we can deal with the rape.' But the abortion just makes the rape 1,000 times worse because now you have these two horrible events that you have to deal with.”

The Bottom Line:

Abortion after a rape punishes an innocent child with the death penalty for the crimes of his father, and can increase the mother’s risk of things like alcohol use, drug use, depression, and suicidal thoughts. 

It's possible that this young girl, like many mothers of children conceived in rape, was told that her child shouldn’t be here. But a human being’s value is not dependent on how or when he was conceived. Human life begins at the moment of fertilization, and that human life is innocent. 

A Florida family is celebrating a miracle, as Navy veteran Ethan Preseau, 28, woke up after an 'honor walk' just prior to a planned organ donation.

Key Takeaways:

• Ethan Preseau was moving items into his new home when his girlfriend realized he had been outside for too long. She found him unresponsive on the ground.

• His family asked for 10 days before life support was turned off. They planned his funeral and planned to donate his organs.

• On day 10, the nurses disconnected his life support, but Ethan didn't die. Instead, he woke up.

The Details:

In early June, Ethan Preseau and his girlfriend, Piper Wade, were moving into their new home in Pensacola, when Ethan went to get suitcases from the truck. When he didn't return, Wade went to check on him and found him lying unresponsive on the ground.

"You don't want to see someone that you love in that state," Wade told ABC 3. "So I just freaked out and I immediately — I don't know CPR, but I understand what it is, so I tried to do that for a second. But I realized I don't know what I'm doing, so I ran inside as fast as possible and I called 911 and they were there so fast. Maybe in like 30 seconds they were there."

At the hospital, Preseau was put on life support and doctors learned he had an infection in his heart. A GoFundMe posted by Preseau's family, however, suggests that at one point, Preseau was breathing on his own.

"When they did the brain MRI, the MRI showed that the thalamus was black and dead. So we had absolutely no hope," said Ethan's stepmother, Denice Preseau.

Wade asked that they give him a chance — at least 10 days before removing life support.

According to the family's GoFundMe page, "Per his previous request, Ethan’s organ donation was set up. The one caveat being that they could only use his donation if his heart stopped within an hour of being unplugged."

"It's not supposed to be the father burying the child," said Preseau's father, Jeffrey. "It's supposed to be the other way around."

His family planned his funeral and on day 10, the nurses, staff, and family lined up for Preseau's honor walk, a tradition carried out for patients who are donating their organs.

After the honor walk, nurses presented his family with an American flag for his service and then removed Ethan's life support and allowed his family to say their final goodbyes. The family then went to take a walk on the beach. As they walked, the phone rang. It was the hospital.

As the family rushed back into his room, Ethan followed his father with his eyes, turned his head, and smiled.

"When we walked in and saw that, I immediately got the nurse. ... And he's like, 'Well, maybe he's just doing this movement, you know, from this and that,'" his father said, adding:

"And it was so funny. He came in. He's like, 'Ethan, Ethan, stick your tongue out for me.' And he goes and stuck his tongue out and he turned and looked at me and his eyes was the size of silver dollars. And he's like, 'Hold on, I got to go get two nurses to witness this.' So the two nurses he got were two of the nurses that did the honor walk with us. And they came in, asked him the same thing, stick out his tongue, and they started crying. They're like, 'Oh my gosh, this is a miracle.'

The one doctor did say, 'I can definitely see this in the medical books in the future because they're all baffled. I mean the doctors are baffled, the nurses are baffled... he's doing his commands and stuff and it's just, it's unbelievable. I mean, everybody that walks in, the chaplain walked in and she was like, 'This is a miracle.' It's nothing short of a miracle that my son is coming back out of this."

According to the family's GoFundMe page, Preseau has now been transferred to a rehab facility for people with traumatic brain injuries, but he is smiling, laughing at jokes, and using sign language to communicate.

His stepmother, Denice, wrote on the page in a July 11 update, " He’s able to say a few words, but it’s hard to make out what he’s trying to communicate. He’s also in good spirits and laughs at our 'dad jokes.' We are overwhelmed by the outpouring of support and truly blessed beyond measure. Our cup overruns with the grace of God."

Zoom In:

In response to the local news reports and Live Action News' reporting on Preseau's story, a representative for the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations (AOPO), reached out to Live Action News via email.

The AOPO told Live Action News that, while not knowing the specifics of Preseau's case, he did not appear to have received a declaration of brain death, stating, "Context from the GoFundMe arranged for Ethan’s recovery underscores that he was not brain dead."

The representative referenced paragraph 5 of the family's page, which states, “Per his previous request, Ethan’s organ donation was set up. The one caveat being that they could only use his donation if his heart stopped within an hour of being unplugged.” The AOPO noted:

[H]ad Ethan been brain dead, there would have been no need for the one hour wait after he was removed from ventilator support; that is specifically part of the process for patients passing away via circulatory death.

The AOPO then clarified that "There are two medically and legally recognized pathways through which one could become an organ donor after passing away":

• Donation after brain death (DBD) occurs after a patient has irreversible loss of brain function and is declared brain dead through neurological testing.

• Donation after circulatory death (DCD) occurs after a doctor determines a patient is in an irreversible condition and the family decides to withdraw ventilator support with the expectation that death will follow. Donation would then proceed only after the patient’s heart permanently stops beating, death is declared by the hospital and donor authorization is confirmed.

In either scenario, organ donor eligibility is only ever considered after all lifesaving efforts have been exhausted by the hospital. Even then, decisions about medical treatment, end-of-life care (e.g., a family deciding to withdraw ventilator support), and the declaration of death are made by a patient’s treating physicians and are kept separate from the organ donation process.

Detailing some of the typical processes involved in organ donation for "potential DCD cases such as Ethan’s," the AOPO stated:

... [O]nce ventilator support is withdrawn the hospital team closely monitors the patient while the donation team remain on standby. If the patient does not pass away within a required timeframe (60-120 minutes depending on the hospital), then the process is immediately halted and hospital staff resume caring for the patient.

If the patient’s heart and breathing do stop permanently, and this continues for an additional required period (2-5 minutes, again depending on the hospital), then the hospital team will officially declare death. 

The AOPO also claimed that situations in which organ donation is authorized are "under even more oversight" and that "it's not unheard of for potential DCD cases to be authorized and preparations made, but the patient doesn't pass away once life-sustaining care is withdrawn."

Though it may not be unheard of, it seems clear that, given Preseau's medical team's amazement at his recovery, it is exceedingly rare.

Why It Matters:

There is a great deal of controversy over the idea of brain death and organ donation and what that means and looks like. There are many stories about individuals who have awakened after declarations of brain death.

In response to the existing confusion surrounding brain death, in 2020, Texas Right to Life released a brief, informative video including three questions that concerned family members can ask hospital staff in the event of discussions about a loved one being brain dead:

1. “Is there any activity or function in his or her brain stem?”

2. “Has a blood flow study been run?”

3. “Have the test results been assessed by a neurologist?”

American Life League notes, “If [brain death] were identical and equivalent to death, why would it be necessary to coin a new term?”

The pro-life group argues, “Death is the total cessation of all brain activity, including the brain stem, combined with the cessation of cardiopulmonary functions. Neither the cessation of brain activity nor the cessation of cardiopulmonary functions alone is sufficient. A person is either truly dead or he is still living. The 'brain death' diagnosis indicates that, in fact, the patient is not actually dead.” 

Singapore is staring down the barrel of an existential demographic crisis. With our total fertility rate (TFR) plummeting to a historic low of 0.87 in 2026, the panic is palpable. In response, a familiar chorus is growing louder: calls for the government to step in, open the public purse, and aggressively expand access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

The proposed solutions — more subsidies, fewer regulations, and a blind faith in science to engineer our way out of a societal decline — are as predictable as they are flawed. 

Before we rush to embrace IVF as the silver bullet for our baby bust, we must confront the uncomfortable truths about this industry. Not only is expanding ART a mathematically futile strategy for reversing our demographic collapse, but it also forces us to cross profound ethical boundaries, reducing human life to a disposable commodity.

The Mathematical Illusion of IVF

First, let us dispel the myth that IVF can save Singapore’s population. Proponents of expanding ART access paint a picture of a technological miracle that will fill our empty nurseries. The data tells a starkly different story. 

International evidence from developed nations shows that even with widespread access and generous funding, IVF and related technologies contribute, at most, to around 10% of a country’s total live births. For a nation with a TFR languishing below 1.0, a 10% bump is a drop in the ocean. It is mathematically impossible for IVF to pull Singapore out of its demographic death spiral. 

Furthermore, throwing more public money at IVF yields diminishing returns. As subsidies expand, they inevitably fund increasingly complex, expensive, and experimental procedures. These interventions benefit a shrinking pool of patients with severe fertility issues, draining public resources for minimal societal gain. We are treating the symptom — infertility — while ignoring the root causes of our demographic decline: the crushing cost of living, punishing work cultures, and a hyper-competitive education system that makes raising a child feel like an insurmountable burden.

The Ethical Cost: Creating Life to Destroy It

The most glaring blind spot in the push for IVF is the profound moral cost of the procedure itself. The IVF industry operates on a fundamental, yet rarely discussed, premise: the mass creation and subsequent destruction of human embryos. 

To maximize the chances of a successful pregnancy, fertility clinics routinely create multiple embryos. The "best" are implanted, while the rest are frozen, donated to research, or simply discarded as medical waste. It is estimated that globally, millions of embryos are discarded every year. This is the dark underbelly of the fertility industry. In our desperate bid to create life, we have normalized the industrial-scale destruction of it. 

For those who believe that human life begins at conception, IVF is not a pro-life technology; it is a profound violation of human dignity. We are treating human embryos not as nascent lives deserving of protection, but as consumer products subject to quality control, grading, and disposal. 

The Eugenics of Genetic Screening

This commodification of life is most evident in the push to normalize Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A). Proponents argue that screening embryos for chromosomal abnormalities like Down syndrome is necessary, especially given the trend of older motherhood. They are demanding public subsidies to fund this screening.

We must call this what it is: a modern form of eugenics. PGT-A involves grading human embryos and discarding those deemed "defective." Beyond the chilling ethical implications of deciding which lives are worth living, the science itself is deeply flawed. Numerous large-scale clinical trials worldwide have consistently shown that PGT-A does not significantly improve IVF success rates. Major professional bodies in the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) caution against its widespread use. 

Worse still, the testing is notoriously unreliable. There have been numerous cases of misdiagnosis leading to the discarding of perfectly viable, healthy embryos. In Australia, the fertility company Monash IVF was forced to pay $56 million to 700 former patients after faulty genetic testing destroyed their chances of parenthood. Are we prepared to use public funds to subsidize a flawed technology that routinely discards healthy human life?

The Egg Freezing Fallacy

The recent legalization of elective egg freezing in Singapore has sparked calls for further subsidies and an extension of the age limit. The narrative is that egg freezing helps women, buying them time to find a suitable partner. 

The reality is far less empowering. Overseas studies reveal a devastating truth: the overwhelming majority of women who freeze their eggs never use them. Estimates suggest that fewer than 1 in 10 women will return for their frozen eggs. Subsidizing this procedure would result in a colossal waste of public funds and a massive accumulation of unused biological material.

More importantly, egg freezing is a technological band-aid for a sociological problem. The primary reason women delay marriage is the "mating gap" — the persistent incompatibility in marriage expectations where women, who increasingly outnumber men in university graduation rates, struggle to find partners with equal or higher education. Freezing eggs does not solve this societal mismatch; it merely delays the inevitable heartbreak and exploits women's anxieties for profit.

The Slippery Slope: Surrogacy and Beyond

As we liberalize ART regulations, we inch closer to the ethical abyss of surrogacy. Proponents often frame surrogacy as an "altruistic" act, but the reality is almost always commercial. Permitting surrogacy opens the door to the exploitation of vulnerable women. It risks creating a black market where impoverished women, often from less developed neighboring countries, are rented as incubators for wealthy Singaporean couples. The potential for diplomatic fallout and transnational custody disputes is immense, not to mention the profound moral degradation of treating women's bodies as commercial vessels.

Furthermore, the push to expand IVF access to single women and same-sex couples highlights the inherent contradictions in our legal framework. How can we justify state-funded IVF for single women while our public housing policies actively discriminate against unmarried mothers? How can we permit IVF for same-sex couples while prohibiting same-sex marriage? We are attempting to engineer non-traditional family structures through medical technology while our social policies remain fundamentally opposed to them.

The Bottom Line

Singapore’s demographic crisis is real, but IVF is a false savior. It is a costly, inefficient, and ethically fraught industry that commodifies human life and exploits the desperation of aspiring parents. 

Instead of pouring millions into the fertility industry, the government must address the structural issues that make having children so difficult in Singapore. We need radical reforms to our education system, genuine support for work-life balance, and policies that make housing and living costs manageable for young families. 

We must build a society that welcomes children naturally, rather than relying on laboratories to manufacture them at the cost of countless discarded embryos. True pro-family policy respects the dignity of human life from its very beginning. It is time to stop looking for technological shortcuts and start doing the hard work of making Singapore a place where families can naturally thrive.

Key Takeaways:

• The state of Indiana settled a lawsuit in 2025, in which the Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) agreed to release state abortion records.

• Abortionists Caitlin Bernard and Caroline Rouse sued to block the release of the reports.

• Multiple courts, culminating in a ruling from the Indiana Court of Appeals, blocked the release of the state's abortion reports.

• The state appealed, but the Supreme Court allowed the lower court decision to stand in a unanimous ruling.

The Backstory:

In May 2024, a pro-life organization called Voices for Life sued the state after it did not release its annual abortion report, which is required under Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act.

IDOH refused to release the records due to confidentiality concerns, though no names or identifying information have been included in past reports.

Voices for Life sued, represented by the Thomas More Society, and argued that it has been viewing the state’s annual abortion records as a way to ensure that all laws and regulations surrounding abortion are followed.

The group further pointed out that, since 2022, it had found nearly 700 instances of probable abortion violations by analyzing the records, and then filed complaints with the state health department and the attorney general’s office over those violations. Attorney General Todd Rokita supported the lawsuit, and issued an advisory opinion stating that the records should be released.

Bernard and Rouse filed their own lawsuit to block the release, and Marion County Superior Judge James Joven ruled in their favor with a temporary injunction. In December of 2025, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the injunction.

The Details:

The Indiana Supreme Court refused to overturn the decision from the appeals court, in a unanimous order that ruled abortion reports should be treated as confidential medical records.

“Exposing patients’ medical records to the public is as disturbing as it is unlawful,” Stephanie Toti, the executive director of the New York-based Lawyering Project, which represented Bernard and Rouse, said. “We will continue to stand with our clients and their patients to ensure people’s private medical information is kept out of the hands of anti-abortion activists.”

The attorney general's office said it is reviewing the state's options.

The Bottom Line:

Without the release of the abortion reports, there is a severe lack of accountability for abortionists in Indiana.

Anne Hathaway and Natalie Portman are pregnant at 43 and 45, respectively, and the jewelry designer Jennifer Meyer just had her third child at 49. In recent years, Hilary Swank gave birth to twins at 48, Halle Berry had her second child at 47, and Janet Jackson had a baby when she was 50. Erin Andrews, who recently turned 48, has said she’s trying to have another child via IVF, and on the latest season of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Bozoma Saint John has been chronicling her efforts to get pregnant at 49.

Jaime Knopman, a reproductive endocrinologist at CCRM Fertility of New York, says patients come in all the time talking about a celebrity they read about in Us Weekly who got pregnant after 45. “They’ll be like, ‘But she did it, so I want to do it too.’”

One woman who did IVF at 48 told me that reading about celebrity pregnancies gave her hope. “Every time I heard about another person having a baby at 49 or 50, I was like, Oh, thank God.”

Yet women who likewise think they can easily have children in their 40s and beyond are finding themselves saddled with massive debt and diminished hopes. The most recent study, cited by The Cut, found that less than 3% of women who begin in vitro fertilization (IVF) at 45 will have a live birth, and by the age of 46, it drops to nearly zero.

Yet the fertility industry will encourage women to continue trying, over and over again, and rake in tens — if not hundreds — of thousands of dollars.

As one woman told The Cut:

They always seem to find a way to frame it as like, ‘A lot of women are doing this, it’s perfectly fine, and your risks are low.’ Their primary motivation is to churn people through this process and make as much profit as they can.

7/10/26: New research confirms that women aged 49 or older will still struggle with pregnancy complications and infertility even if they use donor eggs in the IVF process.

Key Takeaways:

• Women are increasingly advised to freeze their eggs or use donor eggs so they can put off having children during prime childbearing years until they are older.

• A new study presented at a meeting for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) found that women 49 and older still struggle with infertility, even when using donor eggs.

• Aging was found to affect the uterus, making it more difficult for eggs to implant.

The Details:

The ESHRE study examined 2,760 single blastocyst transfers performed in 1,774 women, all of whom had received donor eggs, between March 2021 and December 2024. The goal was to determine what role the uterus plays in implantation and successful pregnancy. Researchers found that age 49 seemed to be the threshold at which fertility became more difficult, even when using donor eggs:

Compared with women aged 35–40, women 49 and older had significantly lower odds of achieving a live birth and more than double the odds of miscarriage. Cumulative live birth rates also declined substantially with age, from 80.0% among women age 35–40 to 62.5% among women age ≥49 who transferred all available embryos.

The study also found age-related changes in the lining of the uterus, known as the endometrium. While the thickness of the uterine lining remained similar across age groups, the proportion of women with a trilaminar endometrial pattern—a feature generally associated with a uterus that is receptive to embryo implantation—declined significantly with age, from 94.7% among women age 35–40 to 81.0% among women age ≥49.

Lead author Dr. Beatrice Crestani said that while this shouldn't discourage women from using donor eggs, the study proves that women can't reset their biological clock simply by using younger eggs.

"For many years, reproductive aging has been seen primarily as an ovarian issue, meaning that if you replace older eggs with donor oocytes, you essentially 'reset' the reproductive clock. Our findings suggest the picture is more complex," she said. "Donor eggs clearly overcome the problem of egg quality, and outcomes remain very good for many women even into their late 40s. However, beyond the age of 49, we observed lower live birth rates and higher miscarriage rates despite the use of donor eggs, suggesting that age-related changes in the uterine environment may also influence reproductive success."

Why It Matters:

In recent generations, children have largely been raised hearing that marriage and parenthood should be delayed until everything else in their lives is in place, focusing particularly on building a successful career before starting a family. Subsequently, young adults are increasingly saying they never plan to have children at all.

Still, most people plan to have children one day, and with the rise of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), assume that they can use donor eggs and sperm if they can't get pregnant naturally; in essence, the mindset is that freezing eggs, or using donor eggs from a younger person, will stop the effects of aging on fertility.

However, as Live Action News has previously explained, freezing one's eggs is not a guarantee of future fertility:

The study found that the chance of a live birth from frozen eggs is only 39%. Dr. Alan Penzias, a fertility doctor at Boston IVF Fertility Clinic and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, told The New York Times that data from his center are consistent with the study. Women who freeze their eggs at his clinic have only a 33% chance of having a baby using those eggs.

“Counseling should be clear that there is no guarantee and that the value of delaying having a child must exceed the benefit of delay,” Dr. Penzias said.

National data on the success rates of having a baby after freezing your eggs remain unknown, Dr. Timothy Hickman, president of the society and medical director of CCRM Fertility in Houston, told The New York Times. Women are trying to buy time in hopes of having a baby in the future but there is no guarantee — and it could cost them tens of thousands of dollars. Once they have paid to retrieve, freeze, and store their eggs, there are still costs associated with the IVF process, which carries its own low success rate.

For women under 35, IVF has a success rate of just 44.5%, dropping to 2.8% for women ages 42 and over, according to data. Just seven percent of babies created through IVF survive to the newborn stage of life.

And now, another study is indicating that donor eggs don't solve the problem of age-based infertility, either.

Indeed, as Dr. Crestani said, the issue is far more complex, and as inconvenient as it may be, the reality is simply that women cannot delay childbearing indefinitely.

The Bottom Line:

The average age of parents in the United States is rising; for first-time mothers, it has risen to 26, while for fathers, it’s 31. For most people, pregnancy is still possible at those ages. But delaying parenthood into the 40s only creates more issues down the line.

Key Takeaways:

• Late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo was the subject of an undercover Live Action investigation, in which he stated that he and his staff "would not help" a child who survived an abortion. His facility was also the subject of an undercover investigation which led to ethics complaints for requiring patients to take Xanax (which can cause drowsiness and impair memory) before meeting with the abortionist and giving final consent for an abortion. 

• His facility, Washington Surgi-Clinic, is the facility where over 100 aborted children were found in a medical waste box in 2022, including five who appeared to be nearly full-term.

• In 2025, the license for Santangelo's facility expired and was not renewed.

• Santangelo's medical license expired in June 2026 and has not been renewed.

The Details:

Pro-life watchdog group Operation Rescue reported that, as of July, Santangelo's medical license has expired, though it is still eligible for renewal. That means he cannot currently practice medicine in Washington, D.C., though he remains licensed in the state of Maryland.

Last year, Live Action News confirmed that the Washington Surgi-Clinic's license (Santangelo's D.C. facility) had expired; nearly a year later, it is still not registered with D.C. Health on its list of ambulatory surgical centers.

Shortly before the license for the abortion facility expired, Santangelo was spotted walking into the facility with cast on his arm and needing assistance from others to walk.

Given that Santangelo is still licensed to practice medicine in Maryland, it is not clear if he is retiring or simply leaving D.C. and relocating.

The Backstory:

Lauren Handy and Terrisa Bukovinac, both members of the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU), were outside the Washington Surgi-Clinic in 2022, where they encountered a medical waste truck driver picking up waste from the facility. After speaking with the driver, he gave them a box marked as a biohazard, which contained the bodies of aborted children.

“After he confirmed the boxes were from Washington [Surgi-Center], I asked him, ‘Would you get in trouble if we took one of these boxes?’” Bukovinac explained. “And he asked, ‘What would you do with them if you took one?’ Lauren said we would give them a proper burial and a funeral.”

There was a red bag inside, containing the bodies of 110 aborted babies. Most were victims of first-trimester abortions, but five had clearly been aborted at significantly later gestational ages, with some appearing to be nearly full-term. One of the babies, who was given the name “Harriet” by the pro-life activists, was suspected to have been the potential victim of a federally-illegal D&X (partial-birth) abortion.

Handy and Bukovinac contacted the homicide unit of the Metropolitan Police in D.C., asking for the police to pick up the bodies and arrange for forensic examination; instead, police came to arrest Handy and eight other pro-life activists, charging them with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

The same day, police held a press conference claiming that no crime had taken place at Santangelo’s facility, despite the complete lack of an investigation or autopsy.

Years prior to this, Santangelo had been the subject of a Live Action undercover investigation in which he said that during an abortion, he cuts the umbilical cord and waits for the child to die by cardiac arrest as a result of exsanguination rather than injecting the child with a feticide first. He also said he and his staff would not give aid to a child who survives an abortion procedure.

In a 2022 Live Action investigation, a 28-weeks-pregnant undercover investigator visited Santangelo's facility acting as if she was seeking to abort her healthy baby. Not only did staff have no issues with such a scenario, but they also refused to even allow the woman to meet with the abortionist to ask questions until the woman had agreed to take Xanax — a drug that can cause drowsiness and impair memory, impacting her ability to give informed consent to the abortion. This led the investigator to file an ethics complaint with the D.C. medical board.

Santangelo has not been investigated for the deaths of The Five, nor for suspicion of committing infanticide. He is also responsible for the death of at least one woman — Rebecca Carey Charland.

The Bottom Line:

Santangelo appears to no longer be committing abortions. Only time will tell if this truly is the end of the <a href="/news/formal-complaint-medical-license-abortionist-butcher-dc">Butcher of D.C.</a>, or if he is simply planning to set up shop elsewhere.

That should concern every policymaker in Washington.

Key Takeaways:

• Beginning January 1, 2027, the American Medical Association (AMA) will implement significant changes to maternity care billing codes, arguing that the changes will improve transparency, provide more detailed information about services, and account for the increasingly complex ways maternity care is delivered.

• Insurance companies, employers, government programs, and providers — not the AMA — determine reimbursement and cost sharing. When providers must update billing systems, insurance companies must revise payment structures, medical offices must retrain staff, and contracts must be rewritten. Those costs do not simply disappear. They become part of the broader expense of delivering health care.

• These costs are likely to fall on families having children, which creates another financial obstacle at a time when they already feel they cannot afford children.

• The Trump administration and many lawmakers have recognized that affordability is crucial, and the health care system must recognize it as well. The AMA should reconsider this change, and Congress should continue pursuing policies that lower the cost of childbirth.

The Issue:

A crisis of values... or affordability?

For generations, the American dream was built around the idea that families could work hard, buy a home, raise children, and build a better future for the next generation. While previous generations certainly faced their own challenges, the basic pathway toward family formation was often more attainable.

Today, that pathway has become increasingly difficult.

Young families are facing a combination of economic pressures unlike anything many previous generations experienced:

• Housing prices have surged.

• Childcare costs have become one of the largest expenses facing working parents.

• Healthcare costs continue to rise.

• Inflation has increased the price of everyday necessities, from groceries to transportation.

The result is that many Americans who want children are questioning whether they can realistically afford them. This is not a crisis of values. It is a crisis of affordability.

Americans have not stopped believing in the importance of family. They have not stopped wanting children. They are responding to the reality around them.

When the cost of starting a family becomes overwhelming, fewer people feel confident taking that step. That is why family affordability must be a national priority.

The Trump administration and many lawmakers in Congress have recognized that strengthening American families requires more than simply encouraging people to have children. It requires addressing the economic pressures that make family formation harder. The administration has emphasized lowering costs for working families, expanding opportunities for parents, and creating an economic environment where families can thrive.

Those efforts show an important reality. If America wants stronger families, government policy cannot ignore the financial challenges families face. A culture that values children must also value the families who welcome them. And that means making childbirth more affordable.

Childbirth should not be a financial obstacle

Bringing a child into the world should be one of the most celebrated moments in a person’s life. It is a moment filled with hope, responsibility, and joy. It is the beginning of a relationship between a parent and a child that will last a lifetime. Yet for many families, the joy of welcoming a child is accompanied by anxiety about medical costs.

The United States has some of the highest childbirth costs in the developed world. Depending on insurance coverage, location, complications, and the type of delivery, families can face thousands of dollars in expenses related to pregnancy and childbirth.

Even families with insurance are not immune.

Deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, hospital charges, and unexpected medical expenses can create significant financial stress during a period when families are already preparing for major life changes.

A mother should not have to wonder whether she can afford the medical care required to bring her child into the world.

A father should not have to worry that welcoming a child will put his family under financial strain.

And policymakers should not accept a system where the cost of childbirth becomes another barrier standing between families and the children they hope to welcome.

Drastic change in billing codes likely to increase family costs

Beginning January 1, 2027, the American Medical Association will implement significant changes to maternity care billing codes.

For decades, maternity care has largely operated under what is known as the global maternity care model. Under this system, prenatal visits, labor and delivery services, and routine postpartum care are generally bundled together into one coordinated payment structure.

The philosophy behind this model was straightforward. Pregnancy is not a collection of unrelated medical transactions. It is a continuous process requiring coordination between mothers and their health care providers. The system was designed to encourage doctors to focus on caring for the mother and child throughout the pregnancy rather than creating a system centered around individual billing events.

The AMA argues that its new maternity coding framework is necessary to modernize the system and better reflect the realities of modern obstetric care. The organization says the changes will improve transparency, provide more detailed information about services, and account for the increasingly complex ways maternity care is delivered.

But policymakers and family advocates have raised important concerns.

The issue is not whether maternity care should evolve. The issue is whether this change moves the system in the direction families need.

The American health care system is already complicated enough.

Patients regularly struggle to understand insurance policies, medical bills, deductibles, and coverage limitations. Adding additional layers of billing complexity risks making it harder for families to understand what they owe and why they owe it.

The AMA does not directly determine what a patient pays. Insurance companies, employers, government programs, and providers ultimately determine reimbursement and cost sharing. But the structure of the billing system matters.

When the health care system becomes more complicated, the burden often falls on patients. Providers must update billing systems. Insurance companies must revise payment structures. Medical offices must retrain staff. Contracts must be rewritten.

Those costs do not simply disappear. They become part of the broader expense of delivering health care.

At a time when families are already struggling with affordability, policymakers should be looking for ways to simplify childbirth, reduce costs, and improve support for mothers instead of introducing additional uncertainty.

A call to reverse course:

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) has been one of the strongest congressional voices raising concerns about the AMA’s maternity billing changes. 

Carter has warned that moving away from the existing bundled maternity care system could increase administrative burdens, undermine coordinated care, and create additional challenges for patients and providers.

In his letter to the AMA, Carter urged the organization to "reverse its decision and preserve the existing bundled maternity CPT framework.”

Carter’s concern shows a larger issue facing health care policy. Patients should not be forced to navigate a more complicated system at one of the most important moments of their lives.

Pregnancy is not merely a medical event. It is the expansion of a family. Health care policy should reflect that reality.

Taking Action:

The pro-life movement has always argued that every life has dignity and value.

That belief requires action. It means supporting mothers facing difficult circumstances. It means strengthening communities that provide resources for families. It means expanding support systems that allow women to confidently choose life.

And it means confronting policies that make family life unnecessarily difficult.

If policymakers want to build a stronger culture of life, they must recognize that affordability is part of that mission.

A family should know that welcoming a child is not something they must fear financially. This is why childbirth affordability matters.

For the pro-life movement, this is a central part of the conversation. Protecting life is not only about defending children before birth. It is also about supporting mothers after they make the courageous decision to bring those children into the world.

A true culture of life requires a culture of support. It requires policies that help mothers. It requires policies that strengthen families. It requires removing unnecessary burdens that make choosing life more difficult.

That is why the debate over maternity care costs matters.

The Bottom Line:

The AMA debate comes as lawmakers are increasingly recognizing that family affordability is one of the defining challenges facing America.

That is why congressional proposals focused on reducing the cost of childbirth are so important. The Make Birth Free proposals and other maternal health initiatives reflect a growing recognition that if America wants to support families, it must address the financial pressures families actually experience.

The Trump administration and many lawmakers in Congress have recognized that affordability must be central to America’s future. Now the health care system must recognize it as well. The AMA should reconsider a change that risks adding complexity to an already difficult system. Congress should continue pursuing policies that lower the cost of childbirth.

And America should recommit itself to a simple principle: A country that values life must support the families who welcome it. Childbirth should become more affordable. Not more complicated.

Key Takeaways:

• Rabindranath Nagappa had a patient who was addicted to drugs and financially insecure.

• He paid her to have sex with him multiple times, and prescribed her addictive drugs, despite knowing about her addiction to amphetamines.

• When she got pregnant, he coerced her into having an abortion and then paid her $54,000.

• After having the abortion, the woman entered rehab; Nagappa fled the country and no longer practices medicine.

The Details:

The Herald Sun reported on Nagappa's scandal, which seemingly became public after a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing, in which he was found guilty of three counts of professional misconduct.

Nagappa and the patient, who was not named, were in contact between 2016 and 2020. According to the Australian Medical Board, the woman was his patient first, and though she was known to be addicted to amphetamines, as well as financially insecure, Nagappa still prescribed her addictive drugs, such as diazepam and oxycodone, without there being any medical reason to do so. Additionally, he began paying her for sex, making 548 payments totaling $119,000.

The woman eventually became pregnant. She told investigators that "In 2018, she fell pregnant to him. Dr Nagappa convinced her to terminate the pregnancy and paid her $54,500 to compensate her for this."

Though she said their relationship was consensual, describing it as "strictly business," she said that relationship changed after the abortion. She entered rehab and stopped seeing him.

The medical board still condemned their relationship as inappropriate and unprofessional, and added that Nagappa provided substandard care as a doctor. Furthermore, he opened himself up to blackmail, as a man romantically interested in the woman found out about the coerced abortion and began using it to extort Nagappa. The woman, however, said she did not know about the blackmail, nor agree with it.

Nagappa was ultimately slapped with three counts of professional misconduct; the medical board concluded:

Our decision is another reminder to health practitioners about the dangers of bringing one’s personal life into professional practice. The consequences for Dr Nagappa have been drastic. He lost his professional standing, adversely impacted a patient, hurt his family and became the subject of an alleged blackmail.

Nagappa fled Australia and is currently living overseas, and says he no longer practices medicine.

Zoom Out:

Abortion is frequently used by abusers to cover up their crimes while the abortion industry looks the other way.

In the United States, as Live Action’s Aiding Abusers investigation uncovered, there has been a systemic, decades-long cover-up of child sexual abuse by the abortion industry, including sex trafficking. The investigation includes recorded cases, interviews with former workers, and more. In another investigation, Planned Parenthood told actors posing as traffickers to pretend to be the guardians of minors and lie about the ages of their victims.

Numerous real-life predators have been aided by the abortion industry.

A report published by the Annals of Health Law in 2014 found that Planned Parenthood is well known to trafficking victims, who had “significant contact with clinical treatment facilities, most commonly Planned Parenthood.” Survivors have frequently testified to having undergone multiple abortions, typically at the demand of their pimps, with one saying Planned Parenthood was specifically chosen because “[they] didn’t ask any questions.”...

"I got pregnant six times and had six abortions during this time. Several of them were from a doctor who was a client — he did them back door — I came in the back door after hours and paid them off the books. This kept my name off any records… At least one of my abortions was from Planned Parenthood because they didn’t ask any questions."

Numerous studies have likewise found that traffickers use abortion to not only keep their victims able to work, but as a tool of subjugation.

The Bottom Line:

Abortion does not empower women or protect them from abuse. In reality, it enables abusers to hide their crimes and avoid accountability for the violence perpetuated on their victims.

Key Takeaways:

• Operation Rescue has reported three injuries occurring within three months at the Park Hill Planned Parenthood in Denver, Colorado.

• The facility commits later abortions up to 25 weeks of pregnancy.

• Abortion businesses are the not required to be licensed or inspected in the state of Colorado.

• In 2025, 18-year-old Lexi Arguello died following a botched abortion she received at a Planned Parenthood in the state.

The Details:

Of the three most recent reports, the first 911 call occurred on March 10, with a report of a 31-year-old patient experiencing "high heart rate." The computer-aided dispatch (CAD) report was marked “37C02," which Operation Rescue notes indicates suspected acute heart problems, or could even mean a heart attack.

On April 7, emergency medical personnel were called for a 26-year-old patient experiencing  “chest pain that goes to the back.” The CAD was marked with the same 37C02 code.

The third incident occurred on May 27, when 911 was called for a patient who was "bleeding extensively." The CAD report also noted, “There is SERIOUS bleeding.” 

Zoom In:

The Park Hill Planned Parenthood facility advertises surgical abortions up to 25 weeks of pregnancy — well past the typical age at which babies can survive outside the womb. As Live Action News has previously reported, late stage abortions are much more dangerous when committed outside a hospital setting, which could lead to more injuries to women.

Operation Rescue notes that it has documented eight injuries to abortion clients at the Park Hill facility over the past two years. In 2025, abortion injuries in Colorado alone made up nearly one-third of the total injuries reported by the organization. The state is also home to the Fort Collins Planned Parenthood, were 18-year-old Lexi Arguello died following a botched abortion last year.

Despite the high number of injuries, abortion businesses are not required to be licensed or undergo safety inspections in the state of Colorado.

“Women are being brutally injured in growing numbers at these unregulated, unlicensed clinics, and officials are doing nothing. It’s abhorrent, and clearly indicates Colorado does not care about women," said Sarah Neely, Operation Rescue COO. "It cares about making sure babies can be killed through all nine months of pregnancy, and that those doing the killing receive the highest level of protection from any consequences.”

The Bottom Line:

Operation Rescue president Troy Newman blasted the state for continuing to turn a blind eye at the injuries occurring inside the state's abortion businesses.

“In the name of ‘abortion access,’ Colorado officials continue to not only allow, but intentionally foster back-alley abortion operations across the state,” Newman said. “No other ambulatory center in Colorado is allowed such privilege and protection — abortion clinics, alone, are exempt from licensing, inspections, and regulation. And they certainly don’t undergo any investigation, even when they kill a young 18-year-old girl or injure multiple women."

Key Takeaways:

• In 2026, Canada surpassed 100,000 euthanasia deaths.

• There were an estimated 17,700 deaths from euthanasia in 2025 alone.

• Deaths from Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) now make up 5% of all deaths.

The Details:

Alex Schadenberg with the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, using 2025 Canadian euthanasia data, reports that Canada saw an estimated 17,700 deaths from euthanasia in 2025.

In 2023, there were 16,499 reported deaths from MAiD, which represented 5.1% of all deaths. This was a 6.9% increase from 15,427 in 2023. Health Canada has not yet released official data, but some provinces have gradually begun to release their numbers.

"Based on the official euthanasia data from Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta[,] and Nova Scotia, in those provinces, there were 10,196 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 which was up from 9501 in 2024 representing a 7.3% increase. These provinces represent about 67.7% of Canada's population," Schadenberg wrote, predicting that there ultimately would be "17,700 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 representing about 5.6% of all deaths and a 7.3% increase from 2024."

Officially, Canada has seen just over 76,000 total deaths from MAiD. However, EWTN reported that, including deaths in 2025 and 2026, the country has surpassed 100,000 such deaths in the 10 years it has been legalized.

“With 10 years of legalized medical homicide, Canada has the blood of over 100,000 victims on its hands — blood that cries out to God for justice,” David Cooke, the campaigns manager for the Ontario-based Campaign Life Coalition, told EWTN. “Canada’s euthanasia program is on a killing spree.”

It is a claim echoed by Schadenberg, who argued, "Based on this data, I estimate that there have been approximately 1,500 reported Canadian euthanasia deaths every month in 2026 and as of June 30, 2026, that there have been approximately 103,175 Canadian reported euthanasia deaths since legalization."

The Big Picture:

MAiD has become a leading cause of death in Canada since euthanasia was legalized in 2016, with legislators considering allowing euthanasia for mental illness; that is currently slated to take effect in 2027. Deaths from MAiD now make up five percent (5%) of all deaths in Canada, with over a fifth of applicants claiming “isolation or loneliness” as reasons for their request to die.

Reports have meanwhile shown that people have been offered MAiD for reasons such as poverty, homelessness, and an inability to access disability or mental health services. These abuses will almost certainly get worse if the government continues with its plan of legalizing MAiD for mental illness.

The Bottom Line:

Canada has become the world leader in euthanasia in just 10 short years, and tragically, shows no signs of slowing down.

Key Takeaways:

• Leah Allington shared that she had an abortion in 2024 because of her financial status. She didn't want to make her two born children share a bedroom. She had already decided to abort when she developed extreme vomiting.

• She said she didn't want an abortion and was "devastated" about it, but that she also doesn't regret it and is now "happy" she ended her child's life.

• Today, she lives in a three bedroom home and has a part-time job, which she says would not have been possible without abortion.

The Details:

Leah Allington, 28, said she wanted to be open about having had an abortion so that she could find closure and encourage other women. She explained that she had two young children when she learned she was pregnant for the third time in July of 2024.

She and the baby's father immediately knew that because of their circumstances, they would abort their youngest child.

Then, Allington began experiencing extreme vomiting, likely hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), which affects up to three percent of pregnant women and requires medical intervention to prevent dehydration and malnutrition. Allington did take one trip to the hospital where she was put on IV fluids.

A few days after that, she called an NHS facility to schedule an abortion.

In the UK, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks and will be committed at the taxpayers' expense if two doctors agree that carrying the baby to term would cause a greater risk to the mother's physical or mental health than an abortion would.

Allington claimed in a video:

"I don't think I missed a period, I think I just had some sort of feeling that something wasn't right. My first thought [after seeing positive pregnancy test] was, I know I can't keep it, and I was upset. Then I started throwing up; it was scary, it was out of nowhere as well.

I think it's almost like a sign that I was making the right decision; my body was simply rejecting it, essentially. I came home from the hospital, or the next day, I called the clinic. They were all so lovely, there was no judgment at all."

Why would the abortion facility staff judge her? She's a client they were set to profit from.

The HG was not a 'sign'. Regardless of HG, Allington ultimately aborted her baby because of her living situation. Her family of four was in a two-bedroom flat and she and her partner were sleeping in the living room so that her two older children could have their own rooms.

This is telling. It's nice that she wanted her children to have their own spaces but it wasn't necessary. This wasn't a dire situation. Lots of siblings share a bedroom. And it's doubtful that she asked her three-year-old and nine-year-old children if they wanted their baby sibling sacrificed so they could continue to have their own bedrooms.

Quiet coercion

One peer-reviewed study revealed that most women who have abortions (64%) feel like Allington — they don't actually want an abortion but think they should have one.

It's the false and coercive idea that if you don't have a certain size home or bank account, its more responsible to kill your preborn child.

As Margaret Sanger, the eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood, famously and horrifically argued, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

And yet, after years of claiming women had to "shout" their abortions with pride, the current pro-abortion push is to claim it's okay to be sad about it.

As Allington said:

"I think something that people don't talk about when they have an abortion is, that you're allowed to be sad. Nobody wants to have an abortion. I was devastated and upset, it's not a nice process to go through. But I do not regret it and I never will.

I'm happy I had an abortion and I'm happy my family don't have to suffer. If I didn't have the abortion, we wouldn't have end [sic] up where we are now."

Allington credits her abortion with the fact that her family is now in a three bedroom house with a garden, and that they recently booked their first holiday. She credits ending the life of her third baby for allowing her to get a part-time job in the evenings.

"We're in a much better position and situation for not having a third child," she said, adding that she wanted to share her abortion experience "to get closure and help other women."

If she's happy about her abortion, why would she need "closure"?

Sadly, it appears she put money and status ahead of her baby's life. Then, she tried to blame pro-lifers.

"I just think there's such pressure to keep the babies, but no one actually cares the next day," she said. "The pro-lifers that are protesting, the next day they're probably going to work, they don't care about this one person's baby. It doesn't affect them."

What pro-lifers do

Perhaps if a pro-lifer had been able to reach Allington and offer her help, her baby would still be alive today, because pro-lifers offer support and follow through on it.

Just one example is the work of The Good Counsel Network. One client, Isabel, shared that when she became pregnant, her brother said he would not allow her to live with him if she had the baby. Fearing she would be a homeless mother, she decided on an abortion, but outside the abortion business, she was met by a pro-life sidewalk counselor from the Good Counsel Network.

“She greeted me, offered me a leaflet and I decided to talk to her,” explained Isabel, who shared her story at Be Here for Me. “I was lost, I didn’t know what to do with the pregnancy. She asked me why I was there and I told her everything. She was like, ‘If there is any way I could get support for you, would that put you in a position where you felt you did not have to terminate the pregnancy’ and I said ‘Yes, if I am able to get the support, I do want to keep this baby’. So I was assured.”

The Good Counsel Network found Isabel a home and once her baby was born, provided her with baby gear and financial support. That's what pro-life groups provide.

Sadly, many areas in the UK are banning sidewalk outreach like that which Isabel received. Pro-lifers are no longer being allowed to offer life-affirming assistance to women seeking abortions, who are possibly under coercion.

Why It Matters:

Allington's words ultimately serve to further coerce women into believing that they must have abortions based on their financial status. Isabel is one of countless women helped by pro-lifers and Allington could have received the same kinds of assistance.

In addition, people who have lost siblings to abortion have shared the pain that they live with as a result. Penelope learned at age 16 that her mother had an abortion. “Knowing I wasn’t inconvenient enough to end up the way my sister was, and the fact my mother felt she needed to do what she did out of vulnerability, pressure, and panic makes me feel guilt in that I was spared and that I couldn’t help her choose life at the time,” she explained.

Chloe lost her twin siblings to abortion. “I felt heartbroken, and at times, I feel guilty,” she said. “I struggled with depression before I found out, and after finding out about the abortion I constantly questioned my worthiness of being on this planet. I always felt (and still feel) like there’s an important part of my life missing.”

Another sibling survivor explained the pain they felt after learning of their mother’s abortion. “We let it drop and I forgot about it,” they wrote. “But I had not really forgotten. I didn’t think about it consciously for years.” But then, “Suddenly I found myself thinking about my little brother! I became disoriented and lost control of the car for a moment as I burst into tears having lost him. I was astounded by my reaction, but I couldn’t shake the sadness and longing to have known him.”

Key Takeaways:

• A constitutional court in Malta has dismissed a case brought by Andrea Prudente, who claimed her fundamental rights were violated when she was denied an abortion while visiting the country in 2022.

• Prudente received medical treatment when she began experiencing pregnancy complications, but doctors refused to kill her child through induced abortion. Those doctors later testified that Prudente's life was not in danger, and her baby may have survived if given the chance.

• Prudente traveled to Spain for an abortion, and then filed a lawsuit seeking to derail Malta's pro-life protections.

• In its ruling, the court dismissed the case and upheld the current law, which protects nearly all preborn children from abortion. The court also stated that Prudente was "used by so-called pro-choice individuals" who exploited the case to try and dismantle the law.

The Background:

Prudente was 16 weeks pregnant and visiting Malta on a "babymoon" in June 2022 when she began prematurely bleeding. She received treatment at Mater Dei Hospital, where doctors were actively monitoring her condition and administering antibiotics. Despite receiving medication to prevent miscarriage, her water broke and her placenta became partially detached.

Prudente then insisted that her life was at risk and she needed an abortion. Her doctors refused, maintaining that the intentional killing of her child was not necessary. Eventually, she traveled to Spain where she aborted her child.

After Prudente filed her lawsuit, the doctors who treated her testified that she never needed an abortion — and that her baby may have survived, if given the chance.

The Details:

In the ruling dismissing Prudente's case, Judge Miriam Hayman rejected Prudente's claim that her life was at risk, and said she received appropriate medical treatment while visiting the country. Hayman also said Prudente was “used by so-called pro-choice individuals,” who exploited the case to try and dismantle the country's protections for preborn human beings.

Hayman said:

“Through her own research, and undoubtedly because she was spoken to by pro-choice – ergo pro-abortion – doctors, the plaintiff was terrified that she would die of septicaemia if an intervention to terminate her pregnancy did not happen. Through Google and through the information she was receiving, the poor mother was subjected to fear and strong emotional pressure that either the baby is removed from her or she dies.

A priori, the court has no issue with declaring that this woman was used by so-called pro choice individuals, so that, without considering her emotions and the father’s, present the most extreme legal changes that they desire. She played ball to their beliefs.”

In addition to dismissing Prudente's lawsuit, Hayman ordered her to pay all legal costs associated with the case.

The Bottom Line:

The ruling marks a win for preborn children in Malta, who have been at risk thanks to abortion advocates who are looking for any angle possible to undo the country's pro-life protections.

Key Takeaways:

• Applegate said finding out she was pregnant was the most "incredible news," though she experienced complications early on.

• She bled for several weeks due to a hematoma, which resolved by 16 weeks.

• After she began bleeding again at 22 weeks, doctors realized her cervix had already begun to dilate.

• Applegate was transferred to a hospital with a Level 3 NICU and gave birth prematurely to her daughter, Alara, at 23 weeks.

The Details:

Jessica-Jane Applegate and her partner, Declan Jermy, learned in January that they were expecting a baby. She shared on JustGiving that finding out she was pregnant was "the most incredible news" and that they "couldn't have been happier." However, the pregnancy was not without its challenges.

"The early weeks weren't easy," she wrote. "I experienced bleeding for many weeks due to haematoma, but thankfully it resolved by 16 weeks. That same week, we found out we were having a little girl. We were over the moon and already had the perfect name picked out — Alara."

During an appointment at about 22 weeks, Jermy told doctors that Applegate had been experiencing bleeding again and asked them to examine her.

"While we were waiting, I had a very large bleed," she wrote. "After 48 hours in hospital waiting for the bleeding to settle, they discovered my cervix had already opened. By then, I was at a hospital that couldn't care for a baby born at 22 weeks."

She was already four centimeters dilated and doctors suggested a transfer to a hospital with a Level 3 neonatal intensive care unit that had the ability to care for Alara and give her a better chance of survival. Transferring would be risky, but they wanted to give Alara the best chance possible.

Once at the new hospital, Applegate was put on bed rest to try to delay delivery for as long as possible and she made it to 23 weeks and two days. Alara was born on May 29, weighing just over one pound. Her due date was September 23.

"She was placed on life support immediately after birth, and from that moment, our lives changed forever," she said. "We know Alara will remain in hospital until at least her original due date, possibly longer, as she continues her fight. We are incredibly grateful that she is receiving the specialist care she needs, even though it means being far from home. Thankfully, the hospital has kindly provided shared accommodation for parents so we can stay close to her."

Now about six weeks old, Alara has overcome surgery and blood transfusions, and continues to improve. She is also taking part in a research program in which doctors and researchers will study her progress to help improve care for future micro-preemies.

"We are now hoping she will soon be strong enough to begin spending short periods of time off the ventilator another huge step forward in her journey," wrote Applegate.

Why It Matters:

Pro-abortion media outlets have exploited stories like Applegate's to promote abortion on demand.

Emily Waldorf also suffered cervical insufficiency, and though her baby was just 17 weeks, the treatment she needed — even including early delivery — was not legally an abortion because the intent was not to kill the child. Waldorf's baby could have been delivered just as Applegate's was.

Whether or not a baby survives is not the determining factor in what makes action an abortion; it is the intent and goal of the action that matters.

The Bottom Line:

Cervical insufficiency, or incompetent cervix, causes up to 25% of miscarriages in the second trimester; though there are treatments, those treatments aren’t always successful, especially if labor has already begun. However, induced abortion — the intentional killing of the baby — is not one of those treatments.

Key Takeaways:

• The Republic of Ireland legalized abortion in 2018 with the law taking effect in 2019, and there were 6,666 abortions committed that first year.

• Since then, there have been a total of 46,861 abortions committed.

• Despite this, only 1 in 10 doctors are willing to commit chemical abortions.

The Details:

The Journal reported that, between 2019 and 2025, over 46,000 abortions were committed in Ireland — an increase of more than 600% compared to 2019. Currently, abortion is legal in the country through 12 weeks of pregnancy, though exemptions exist in cases where a mother's life is at risk, if she could be at risk of "serious harm," or if the baby has a fatal abnormality.

According to the Irish Medical Times, most abortions have been committed within those first 12 weeks. 2024 saw the highest numbers of abortions committed, at 10,852. 584 pregnancies were committed due to suspected fatal abnormalities, and 30 abortions due to the risk posed to health or life.

HSE National Women and Infants Health Programme Dr. Aoife Mullally said abortion is an "essential element" of health care, claiming, "In a global climate where reproductive rights are increasingly under pressure, safeguarding and sustaining these important services must remain a priority to ensure that people can continue to access the care that they need and are legally entitled to.”

Still, the majority of doctors in Ireland refuse to commit abortions. While the number has increased since 2019, just 1 in 10 have signed up to "provide medical abortion." Out of an estimated 4,600 GPs, just 480 have been contracted to commit abortions.

According to the "Termination of Pregnancy services in Ireland report 2019-2025," all 19 maternity units across the country commit chemical abortions. Only eight, however, commit surgical abortions, and just three commit manual vacuum aspirations. The sites that do not commit surgical abortions will do so in the case of something considered an emergency.

The Big Picture:

As abortions have skyrocketed in Ireland, birth rates have plummeted.

The fertility rate has fallen to 1.5 children per woman, far below the replacement level of 2.1 needed, with births dropping sharply, from 68,930 in 2013 to 54,678 in 2023. There were just 54,125 births in 2025, and in just 10 years, Ireland has lost nearly 18% of its annual births.

All the while, legislators are looking to continue expanding abortion. Currently, the country is set to eliminate the three-day waiting period for abortion, which carries the possibility of increasing the risk of coercion for women.

Without a waiting period, women could be more susceptible to pressure or coercion from partners or family members to abort their children.

The Bottom Line:

Ireland, a formerly pro-life country, seemingly has taken large and unfortunate strides toward embracing the culture of death.

Politico reported that Planned Parenthood spokesperson Nora Walsh-DeVries, the group's VP of political and legislative affairs, told Politico that the one year defunding measure (which ended on July 4, 2026) caused "'irreparable damage,' to many communities where access to health services is already scarce." Yet, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) are meeting those needs every day.

Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood claims that the one-year federal Medicaid defunding of abortion providers led to the closure of "nearly 30" facilities, yet it also states that it received over $400M in emergency funding from abortion-friendly states in that same time frame.

• A Planned Parenthood VP claims that the defunding caused "irreparable damage" to communities, suggesting that Medicaid patients simply went without care; yet Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities by a factor of nearly 30:1.

• Planned Parenthood had planned the closures of multiple brick-and-mortar facilities before the federal defunding in an effort to expand its telehealth and Virtual Health Clinic services.

• Though Planned Parenthood warned last year that the defunding could close 200 of its centers, this simply did not happen. Planned Parenthood is well aware that even feigned outrage raises funds — and it did.

• While Planned Parenthood garners political sympathies and gains access to millions in state and federal tax dollars, Americans are losing access to actual medical and obstetric care in both rural and urban hospitals.

The Backstory:

• June 2025: A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic will allow states to redirect taxpayer dollars away from abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood.

• July 2025: Congress passed the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” a budget reconciliation bill which included the defunding of abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from federal Medicaid dollars for just one year.

• September 2025: Planned Parenthood sued and successfully blocked the provision until September 2025, when it took effect.

• July 2026: The one-year defunding period expired on July 4, 2026, allowing Planned Parenthood to again receive taxpayer dollars.

The Details:

Defunding didn't close 200 facilities

On July 1, 2025, Planned Parenthood announced that nearly 200 of its facilities would be “at risk of closure” if they were defunded.

One year later, that prediction never materialized.

In a Congressional panel just last month, Planned Parenthood president Alexis McGill-Johnson claimed that "More than 20 of those health centers have closed since defund."

But, in its recently published "One Year of 'Defunding' Planned Parenthood" report, the organization has changed that total to "nearly 30," while admitting that new centers opened.

The corporation wrote:

Since President Trump and his backers in Congress “defunded” Planned Parenthood on July 4, 2025, nearly 30 health centers have closed... New health centers opened in two key states — Colorado and Virginia — since the “defund” law was signed. [emphasis added]

Live Action News previously documented that facility closures appear to contradict totals published by Planned Parenthood online, which have not changed for several years.

Still, there is no doubt some Planned Parenthood facilities have closed as the organization implemented plans prior to 2025 to shift to an online business model, which includes the sale of mail-order abortion pills. Its “Virtual Health Centers (VHCs)” are part of a larger restructuring plan it put in place years ago.

In its latest 2024-25 annual report, Planned Parenthood recorded receiving a whopping $832 MILLION in taxpayer dollars in one year alone, raking in a total of nearly $12.3B from taxpayers since 2000.

To beef up profits, the organization is now selling abortion pills 'just in case' (without a confirmed pregnancy), in violation of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) REMS safety program.

'Attacks' fuel donations

Planned Parenthood also claimed, "Despite Attacks, Access to Care Preserved & Expanded." The corporation strategically plays the victim, refusing to end its gruesome abortion business while blaming pro-life "attacks" for limiting Medicaid access.

Planned Parenthood knows, as the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) previously reported, that "outrage tends to fuel donations; the more restrictions on abortion, the more it benefits the national office."

According to its 2024-25 annual report, private revenue increased $98.1M (over 14%) from the previous year.

Where does that money go?

According to WSJ, "Some former staff members describe the national office as bloated, with too many employees making too much money in undefined roles."

A look at Planned Parenthood's 2025 990 revealed that their president, Alexis McGill-Johnson, acquired over $1M in "compensation" while overall compensation to corporation's executives at the national office alone totaled over $7M — an increase from 2024.

Planned Parenthood's 2024-25 expenses recorded $61.2M spent on "public policy," $13.2M to "engage communities," $56.9M for "advocacy," and $144.3M for "fundraising" that same year.

While the defunding measure cost Planned Parenthood $700 million in Medicaid dollars in 2025, the organization announced:

Fourteen states... publicly committed over $400 million in emergency funding to cover essential health care services for patients who use Medicaid insurance. [emphasis added]

These included:

• California: $320M

• Colorado: $4.4M

• Connecticut: $8.5M

• Illinois: $4M

• Maine: $2.25M

• Massachusetts: $7M

• Nevada: $1.2M

• New Mexico: $3M

• New York: $35M

• Oregon: $17.5M

• Rhode Island: $1M

• Vermont: $600k

• Washington: $15M

Abortions not impacted

Planned Parenthood's report claimed that "The nearly 30 Planned Parenthood health centers that have closed served approximately 10,400 abortion patients annually."

Yet, oddly, Planned Parenthood spokesperson Nora Walsh-DeVries admitted to Politico:

The impact of this defund did not result in less abortion care. It just resulted in less people being healthy, less people being able to get care and access... And there’s not a way to put a number on how many people were not able to come in and get a cancer screening, and what that did to them. [emphasis added]

Planned Parenthood's latest annual report indicated that it controls nearly 40% of the U.S. abortion market share, disbursing $3.7 million to assist more than 12,200 abortion clients that same year.

Since the year 2000, Planned Parenthood has:

• committed nearly 8M abortions (7,969,391) while providing just 331K prenatal care services.

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

• received a greater than 310% increase in taxpayer funding (nearly $203M v $832M – year ending 6/30/2025).

Ironically, total cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood have dropped 82% in a 20-year period, from a high in 2004, well before the 2025 defund measure.

A 'lifeline' that kills?

Planned Parenthood wrote:

For many people who have no other way to get high-quality, affordable health care, Planned Parenthood health centers are a lifeline. Before “defunding” took effect, around half of all visits to Planned Parenthood health centers were from patients who relied on Medicaid, and 64% of Planned Parenthood health centers were located in health professional shortage areas, rural areas, or medically underserved areas.

It strains credulity to describe an organization that intentionally kills preborn human beings as a 'lifeline.' The organization's so-called "high quality" care has been diminishing for years. As clients, services, and facilities have decreased, the organization's abortions have skyrocketed.

While Planned Parenthood claims its locations are in "health professional shortage areas, rural areas, or medically underserved areas" it was actually closing facilities following a restructuring plan implemented well before the defunding effort.

In May of 2023, Planned Parenthood made a “strategic decision” to restructure and lay off staff at the national level, reportedly shifting those dollars to “build a powerful movement for abortion access at the local and state level.”

The decision followed the resignation of its “political organizer-in-chief,” the late Cecile Richards, as well as other high-ranking leaders. 

Medicaid patients 'going without care'?

Planned Parenthood claimed that since the defunding, Medicaid visits "dropped by about 25% or over 250,000 visits," suggesting "a significant number of patients who use Medicaid are simply going without care."

But is this a reasonable assumption?

Taking Planned Parenthood's word that its Medicaid clients simply went without any medical care is absurd on its face; in 2025, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), described as "important safety net providers in rural areas" outnumbered Planned Parenthood facilities by nearly 30:1, operating at "more than 16,000 sites" and serving "more than 32.4 million patients."

In 2025, Planned Parenthood's website claimed to operate around 600 facilities, and recently its president claimed that number was down to 550 facilities "serving" slightly more than 2M clients.

FQHC service data for 2025 is not available yet; however, comparing FQHC 2024 data to that of Planned Parenthood, we find:

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

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

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

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

Planned Parenthood's services were declining even prior to the defund:

• Contraceptive services: decreased over 43% (from just over 4M) in 2009.

• Breast screenings: plummeted over 85% from 2000.

• STI testing: down over 43% since 2009.

Why It Matters:

Planned Parenthood had a "killer year," according to its 2024-2025 annual report, committing a record 434,450 abortions with nearly 8M abortions since 2000.

This funding continued despite accusations of abuse, scandal, fraud, racism, pregnancy discrimination, breaches of privacy, and Medicaid fraud piling up against Planned Parenthood — all of which violate federal requirements for obtaining taxpayer funding.

And while Planned Parenthood garners political sympathies and gains access to millions in state and federal tax dollars, average Americans are losing, as Business Insider recently documented:

• Since 2005, 110 of the US' rural hospitals have closed permanently, 24 of which have shut their doors in the last five years.

• Nearly 800 more rural hospitals are currently at risk closure due to financial distress, the Center for Healthcare Equity and Reform estimates.

•  Over 500 hospitals closed their labor and delivery departments in the last decade, more than half of which were in rural areas.

• A recent report from the Government Accountability Office found that more urban hospitals closed than opened between 2019 to 2023, with many reporting financial distress and outdated equipment in the years before closure.

The Bottom Line:

The only real "irreparable damage" taking place is the funding of a corporation that ends the lives of over 1,190 preborn human beings by abortion every single day, nearly 50 per hour, and one every 73 seconds.

Key Takeaways:

• An amendment which would add abortion as a "right" in the Delaware constitution passed the Senate in 2025, with a two-thirds majority.

• Under the Delaware constitution, the bill would need the same number of votes to pass the House, and to then pass both chambers again after the general election.

The Details:

In March 2025, the initiative passed the Senate by a 15-6 vote, narrowly surpassing the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment. According to Delaware’s constitution, the bill would also need the same supermajority in the House, and then again in both chambers following the next general election. 

Senate Substitute 1 for Senate Bill 5, sponsored primarily by Delaware State Senator Bryan Townsend, tried to add a woman’s "reproductive freedom" to the Delaware constitution, making it more challenging to undo than an ordinary state law. Based on the bill, “reproductive freedom” would have covered pregnancy, prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion, miscarriage management, and infertility care.

The state would still reportedly be allowed to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except in cases when the mother’s life or her physical or mental health were at risk.

"Viability," however, is a nebulous term which is highly subjective, and is not based solely on a preborn child's gestational age. The National Abortion Federation claims that "Viability is not a single, fixed point in pregnancy... It depends on clinical circumstances, fetal conditions, available medical resources, and the judgment of the patient and care team..." (emphases added).

In other words, "viability" appears to mean whatever the abortionist wants it to mean.

Moira Sheridan, president of Delaware Right to Life, spoke against the bill during a House Administration Committee meeting earlier in June. She said the group was glad it never made it to the House floor, as “practically speaking we just dodged a bullet.” 

“This legislature is relentlessly focused on abortion and will surely bring it up again, especially if they gain a supermajority in the midterm elections, which is likely if faithful Catholics choose to sit them out,” Sheridan said.

The significance of the amendment transcends mere procedure; if it is passed, it would lock in a legal framework that treats abortion as a protected “right” instead of a catastrophic and intentional killing of an innocent human life. 

Zoom In:

Delaware already has one of the more permissive abortion climates in the region, and abortion advocates have lobbied for years to boost pro-abortion rules. The state legislature moved to further normalize abortion in 2025, with the Senate approving the constitutional amendment by a 15-6 vote, but the House never brought it to the floor before the session ended. 

Pro-abortion lawmakers typically portray such amendments to existing rules as “freedom” measures, yet pro-life critics maintain that this kind of wording regularizes abortion, while making limits to abortion harder to protect. 

Earlier in 2026, pro-life advocates in Delaware also raised eyebrows regarding legislation they believed jeopardized free speech near abortion facilities. In late June of 2026, pro-life pregnancy centers experienced a victory after Delaware officials agreed to stop enforcing a law targeting them. Together, these developments suggest a state where the abortion lobby continues to be  active, but pro-life activities persist. 

The defeat of Delaware’s abortion-constitution amendment is a temporary victory for the pro-life movement. However, the amendment can be revived in a future session and brought back before lawmakers again.

The Bottom Line:

For pro-lifers, the lesson from Delaware is clear: vigilance matters. Legislative delays can buy time, but they do not end the campaign to enshrine abortion “rights” in law. The pro-life movement will need to continue to protect both mother and child, rather than supporting and constitutionalizing the murder of preborn life.

Key Takeaways:

• Not Forgotten Ministries held the grand opening of its Garden of Remembrance for Preborn Babies on June 19.

• The garden, located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, is on the property of a former abortion facility.

• "As someone who had an abortion inside this building, this garden is living proof that God can redeem even the most painful places in our stories," said Not Forgotten Ministries founder Tori Shaw.

The Details:

Not Forgotten Ministries' Garden of Remembrance for Preborn Babies held its grand opening on June 19 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. It is located on property that formerly belonged to the Arcadia Women's Clinic abortion facility from 1979 to 2007. About 20,000 children were killed at that facility, including the baby of Not Forgotten Ministries' founder, Tori Shaw, who died there 27 years ago on June 19, 1999.

"As someone who had an abortion inside this building, this garden is living proof that God can redeem even the most painful places in our stories," Shaw told Live Action News. "For me, this garden is a full-circle moment. I walked into this building in 1999, broken and afraid. Today, I stand on the same ground watching God turn my place of pain into a place of peace for others. What once represented my deepest shame has become a sanctuary of healing."

The garden includes statues and a fence where women placed padlocks in honor of their babies.

Why It Matters:

The abortion friendly media will share stories of abortion as an act of feminist strength and women's freedom, but countless women who have lived through abortions share that it is anything but. Women who have had abortions have suffered from emotional and mental health concerns, from deep grief and regret to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Abortion trauma is often unrecognized and untreated, leaving women feeling alone and pushing them to suppress their pain. Symptoms include anger, nightmares, drug and alcohol abuse, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, and self-harm.

Not Forgotten Ministries helps women to overcome their abortion trauma through retreats and one-on-one support. Having a space to remember their aborted baby helps women to find the healing they need to forgive themselves and move forward.

It strikes me that these church leaders were more concerned with faithfulness to God than with my approval, even as they followed the teachings of Scripture into contentious waters.

And that’s exactly why I trusted these leaders - because truthfulness is trustworthy, even when the truth may be unpopular.

In many churches, though, the social etiquette required for popular approval has seeped in, and abortion has become a topic too controversial to address.

But the church is not called to the politeness of silence.

“I don’t talk about abortion because I’m not going to discuss politics in the pulpit,” the pastor says.

The fact that abortion is debated politically does not mean it is inherently a political issue. The church did not follow abortion into politics; politicians intruded into our space, turning a profound moral issue into a political one.

The moral and spiritual question of abortion is preeminent: Does one person have the right to end the innocent life of a preborn human being? And the Bible guides us to the heart of God: God creates human life in His image and life is valuable even before birth.

Yet many churches will not publicly address this question at all.

"Silence on abortion is acceptance,” said Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International. “A church that is silent on the matter of abortion repeats the sinful silence of Adam in the garden when Eve was tempted. Eve was deceived, while Adam was a passive bystander.”

When churches avoid the topic of abortion because of its political implications, they teach us to compartmentalize our lives - to separate our political voice from our call to follow Christ.

Pastors, how can we do that and still walk by the Spirit? How can we submit our lives to Christ, yet treat our civic responsibilities as off limits to His lordship?

Several states will be voting on abortion this Fall. Here in Virginia, we will be asked to approve an amendment to enshrine abortion as a right in our state.

Yet as church members across the state decide how they will vote, many churches will say nothing about abortion, even as thousands of unborn children lose their lives in Virginia each year.

But pastor I need you to do something different. Scripture calls on you to actively lead from the front – because God knows you are aware.

“Rescue those being led away to death;
hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,”
does not He who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who guards your life know it?” 
Proverbs 24:11-12

May your concern over my sin be greater than your concern about offending me.

“Beg them not to abort their babies,” a woman told me over 10 years ago. She had been raped several years earlier and was pushed to have an abortion, because her family thought it would be “best” for her. But years later the tears flowed freely. “I got over the rape, but I never got over the abortion,” she told me.

The “politically safe” silence provides little comfort for the ongoing heartache of an abortion she can’t undo.

“But I don’t want to make our members mad – they’ll leave the church,” the pastor says.

Avoiding unnecessary divisions for the sake of unity is a Biblical goal. But preserving unity for the sake of attendance is not the paramount goal of the church – and there are times when the cost of unity is the sacrifice of truth.

Jesus did not alter truth to accommodate an angry or offended crowd. Even as the crowd dwindled to a smaller band of followers, He did not soften His message to keep the masses.

As imitators of Christ, we are called to holiness, not ambiguity. Refusing to address abortion may keep members in the pews, but it leads us to compromise with the world.

If truth is not taught from the pulpit, what’s the purpose of preaching?

“I’ve got people in the church who greatly grieve an abortion in their past, and speaking on abortion from the pulpit would hurt them – I won’t do that,” the pastor says.

Silence on abortion leads some into sin, but it also cuts another way: leaving those already wounded by a past abortion to believe their sin is unspeakable.

Forgiveness has no meaning where sin is never named.

And thus, the silent church functions in a painful paradox: the silence intended to protect becomes the barrier to healing.

Scripture speaks directly to this:

“When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long…then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD’ – and you forgave the guilt of my sin.” (Psalms 32:3, 5)

Silence increased the weight of David’s sin. Acknowledging sin was the pathway to experiencing the fullness of forgiveness.

“I had an abortion 30 years ago and I didn’t think anyone could help me,” a woman whispered to me on the phone several years ago. She’d heard our pregnancy center offered post-abortion healing. For years, she felt the heavy burden of shame and regret – and no one led her to the cross.

Even sitting in church every week.

The blood of Christ is bold – pastors lead us so that our proclamation of it is equally bold.

“Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Tim 4:2-4)

There is a call to gentleness and compassion – but those characteristics should be in the context of speaking truth, not in place of truth.

“The church needs to actively champion the wonder and beauty of every child by weighing into the mission field created by abortion," said Godsey. 

The question is not whether abortion is difficult to address. It is whether the church will be faithful enough to address it anyway.

Pastors, we need you to lead us. We need you to tell us the truth, even when it is unpopular, uncomfortable, or costly. May your concern for our holiness be greater than your concern for our approval.

Key Takeaways:

• In the latest episode of Human Matters with Sami Parker, Parker discusses the problems with surrogacy.

• She notes that while surrogacy likely started as a place of compassion, it quickly led to the exploitation of women and the commodification of children.

• Being pro-life, she says, means recognizing that children have dignity and rights.

• She calls on pro-lifers to reject reproductive practices that intentionally separate children from their parents.

The Details:

Host Sami Parker opens by showing clips and headlines highlighting how babies have been exploited through surrogacy arrangements. Those headlines, she says, are not isolated cases, but rather a natural consequence of treating children as products rather than people.

"We did not board the surrogacy train at baby marketplace," she says. "We got on at the stop that sounded reasonable and compassionate when there was an infertile couple and this altruistic woman who could be paid a little bit for her troubles.... But there's this thing about trains... the train will keep moving down the line."

She points out that some of the first critics of surrogacy were early feminist writers, including Gena Corea, who warned decades ago that reproductive technologies would commercialize women's bodies and eventually pave the way for artificial wombs and other forms of human manufacturing. Those predictions now appear increasingly plausible as researchers pursue technologies capable of creating eggs and sperm in laboratories.

Parker notes that though Corea was right in many respects, Corea failed to identify the primary victim of surrogacy arrangements: the child.

Zoom In:

Parker acknowledges the heartbreak of infertility, but argues that compassion for adults must never override the dignity and rights of children.

She explains:

"But being pro-life does not simply mean wanting more babies to be born. Being pro-life means recognizing that every human being has inherent dignity from the moment of conception. And therefore it is wrong and should be illegal to kill them. But in recognizing that, it means that children are not products — they are people. Which also means that adults don’t have a right to children. They aren’t owed children. 

Parker then points to teachings from the Catholic Church, as well as leaders from various Christian denominations who have condemned surrogacy as a violation of the dignity of both women and children.

"The Christian case against surrogacy," she says, "begins with the truth that every human being is made in the image of God."

The Bottom Line:

Parker calls on pro-life advocates to remain consistent in defending every human life while rejecting reproductive practices that intentionally separate children from their biological parents. The child should always be treated as a person, not a product.

"It is good to have compassion for people who want children, but your compassion must always prioritize the rights of the most vulnerable person in the situation, which is always the child," she said. "And if our compassion fails to center the children and their rights above the desires of adults, this train will keep going. And we aren’t even sure how terrifying the final destination looks yet."

Key Takeaways:

• After multiple scandals, the Netherlands put stricter regulations in place to govern sperm donors.

• A law bans donors from fathering more than 25 children across 12 families.

• There are also regulations regarding the age of sperm donors.

• Fertility clinics have repeatedly been caught flouting these regulations, putting countless children at risk.

The Details:

A new report found that Dutch fertility clinics were allowing men to continue donating sperm even when they are too old to legally do so or have surpassed the maximum number of offspring allowed per donor. Furthermore, these errors were not a mere oversight; the clinics knew they were breaking the law and did so anyway.

Making matters worse, the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate — the government watchdog tasked with overseeing health care — also knew and did nothing.

The Medisch Centrum Kinderwens (MCK) is one of the largest fertility clinics in the Netherlands, and between 2006 and 2017, used sperm from 36 donors even though those donors had already fathered more than the legal limit allowed, affecting over 1,200 children and over 900 mothers. Additionally, the clinic allowed men over the age of 45 to donate, and the sperm was shipped for use out of the country against the donors' wishes. Some of the donors were over 50 years old.

“If I had known that the donor was over twice my age at the time, I would never have said yes,” one anonymous mother said. She felt "cheated" by the clinic. Another donor was aghast to find out that his sperm was used overseas against his wishes; he has 25 known children in the Netherlands and 25 known children abroad.

The Donor Child Foundation said in a statement that it was disturbed to find out the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate had known about these violations for six months and did not take action.

Zoom Out:

There have been multiple controversies regarding the fertility industry in the Netherlands, and the scandals show no signs of abating.

The Leiden University Medical Centre’s (LUMC) sperm bank, now closed, was found to have disturbing data upon investigation. Nearly half of all children fathered through the clinic had at least 25 siblings, and many had no father listed at all.

“The results of the research so far show that of the 1173 descendants, 440 descendants have more than 25 half-brothers/sisters. But it has also become clear that there is a lot we do not yet know or cannot find out. For example, it is not possible to determine from which donor the donor sperm was used for 102 descendants,” LUMC admitted in a statement, adding, “The people involved feel cheated.” It could mean that 102 people have no idea who their biological father is or their close-in-age biological half-siblings.

Nico Kuyt was a sperm donor in his 30s; he is one of the donors whose sperm was shipped overseas against his wishes. He thought he would be aiding scientific and medical research and helping a small handful of infertile couples to have children. He was horrified to find out he has at least 50 children, and suspects there are more.

“It is theft of something very intimate,” he said. “It is playing with life. That is absolutely forbidden. You must respect life at all costs.”

The Bottom Line:

The underregulated fertility industry is causing widespread harm to the children it creates. Many donor-conceived children have said they feel they have been “mass produced” or betrayed. A Harvard Medical School study also revealed that nearly half of donor-conceived children have said it is unethical, and they sought out psychological or psychiatric care after learning how they were conceived.

Key Takeaways:

• Oregon passed the Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA) in 2017, which includes exemptions for religious organizations.

• Oregon Right to Life requested to be included in that exemption, but was refused.

• The group sued in 2023 to block the state mandate, and a judge ruled against them in 2024.

• After an appeal, the law was found to be unconstitutional in 2026, though questions remained as to whether it would apply to just Oregon Right to Life, or to other similar organizations.

• A judge has now ruled that it applies solely to Oregon Right to Life.

The Backstory:

Oregon lawmakers passed the RHEA in 2017, which required all insurance companies in the state to include coverage of abortion. An exemption was included for religious organizations, but pro-life organizations with strong moral opposition to abortion would still be forced to include coverage for abortion in their insurance plans.

In 2023, Oregon Right to Life (ORTL) sued. In its lawsuit, the group said the state needed to give a compelling reason why organizations like ORTL are not able to receive exemptions, and explain why it only applies to religious groups.

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

ORTL appealed that ruling, and earlier this year, U.S. District Court Judge Mustafa Kasubhai said the mandate was unconstitutional, though it was a narrow victory. He asked both ORTL and the state of Oregon to submit briefs with arguments as to what relief should be granted; ORTL asked for the RHEA to be struck down entirely.

The Details:

On July 1, Kasubhai ruled that ORTL does not have to abide by the abortion coverage mandate because the mandate violated ORTL’s First Amendment right to religious freedom. But, his ruling will only apply to ORTL, not other employers.

“The Court declines to grant relief to ‘all other employers’ with similar objections,” Kasubhai wrote.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement, "At this time, we do believe the impact is limited, as this ruling addresses a specific religious exemption claim brought by one organization. Our office will use every tool available to the state to defend access to abortion and Oregon’s Reproductive Health Equity Act, including appealing this decision.”

Tina Kotek was speaker of the Oregon House when the 2017 law was passed, and is now governor; in response to Kasubhai's ruling, she said she would continue to work to protect abortion.

“I was proud to champion the Reproductive Health Equity Act because Oregonians believe health care decisions belong to individuals — not employers, not politicians, and not the courts,” she said in a statement. “At a time when reproductive rights are under attack across the country, Oregon has been a leader and a safe harbor. We are not going to back down now.”

Norman Williams, a seemingly pro-abortion professor of law at Willamette University, meanwhile complained that ORTL's success could inspire other pro-life organizations to also fight against being forced to fund abortions. Williams explained:

On the judge’s view, any organization, no matter how secular, that opposes paying for health insurance that includes abortion-related services on religious grounds would be entitled to a religious exemption — a view that could create enormous opportunities for for-profit companies who object to this mandate to now claim religious scruples for doing so.

The Bottom Line:

Oregon Right to Life Executive Director Lois Anderson praised the ruling as a victory for all pro-lifers within the state.

“It was always absurd for Oregon to attempt to force Oregon Right to Life, as a pro-life organization, to fund abortion — the very practice we are dedicated to opposing. Yesterday, the federal court agreed,” she said in a statement. “This is a win for Oregon Right to Life, but more than that, it is a victory for all pro-life Oregonians.”

Key Takeaways:

• Guttmacher states that 16,150 abortions were committed in New Mexico in 2025, out of 1,129,900 total abortions committed in the country.

• That equals a rate of 39.5 abortions per 1,000 women, far higher than even extremely pro-abortion states.

• Other heavily pro-abortion states reflected lower abortion rates, including California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.

• Only Washington, D.C. (which is not a state), has a higher abortion rate (43.4).

The Details:

Abortion-Free New Mexico issued a press release on Monday, announcing the results of the Guttmacher Institute’s Monthly Abortion Provision Study (2025). New Mexico saw 16,150 abortions committed last year, which results in an estimated rate of 39.5 abortions per 1,000 women. The only jurisdiction with a higher abortion rate is Washington, D.C., but as a federal district and not one of the 50 states, that gives New Mexico the highest abortion rate of any state in the country.

Even states with extreme pro-abortion policies have lower rates, such as:

• New Jersey (36.2)

• Illinois (34.6)

• Maryland (31.3)

• New York (30.5)

• California (22.9)

Abortion-Free New Mexico stated that there were over 10,000 out-of-state women traveling to New Mexico to undergo abortions, constituting the majority of abortions committed in the state — nearly two-thirds of the state's total.

"New Mexico has become the nation’s abortion capital," Tara Shaver said in the press release. "While our state struggles with violent crime, failing schools, child poverty, addiction, and a child welfare system in crisis, state leaders continue making abortion their defining public policy priority. New Mexicans deserve leaders committed to protecting children, strengthening families, and restoring public accountability — not expanding the abortion industry.”

Zoom In:

New Mexico legislators have intentionally turned the state into an abortion haven, eliminating virtually all restrictions and ensuring abortion remains easily accessible.

This effort has been largely spearheaded by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, who has called the killing of preborn children by abortion a "fundamental human right." She ensured millions in taxpayer funds were given to build an abortion facility operating in partnership with the University of New Mexico; the university is known for committing abortions up to 23 weeks and 6 days. Reports from Live Action News have also documented the university’s involvement in research and experiments using the remains of aborted babies. 

Most recently, the state passed legislation removing the requirement to report any abortion data. Previously, abortionists were required to file confidential statistical reports within five days of committing an abortion. Identifying details about patients were kept confidential, so it posed no risk to women undergoing abortions. The decision to eliminate reporting, therefore, eliminates a vast amount of concrete data about abortion in New Mexico, and obliterates the opportunity to have transparency within the abortion industry.

The Bottom Line:

States like California and Illinois are widely seen as leaders in abortion, but New Mexico should not be overlooked for the dangers it poses to both women and their preborn children.

Key Takeaways:

• Pharmacists in Illinois are now able to prescribe hormonal birth control and emergency contraception.

• The only requirements are to sit through an online training session and review a patient screening questionnaire.

• Eligible for the program are the vaginal ring, arm patch, Depo Provera injection, oral hormonal contraceptives, and the Ella emergency contraception pill.

• Plan B and the progestin-only contraception Opill are already available over-the-counter. 

The Details:

On June 24, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) released an updated Standing Order for Reproductive Health granting pharmacists wider prescribing powers for certain kinds of hormonal contraception and emergency contraception. Standing orders are common in medical settings, referring to an action that can be taken or a guideline that can be implemented without a physician’s participation or direct approval. 

After sitting for an online training session and reviewing a patient screening questionnaire, Illinois pharmacists are now authorized to prescribe the vaginal ring, the arm patch, Depo Provera injection, oral hormonal contraceptives, or Ella emergency contraception pill without any physician or mid-level practitioner oversight. 

Emergency contraceptive Plan B and progestin-only contraception Opill are both available over-the-counter. 

Patients who are ineligible for a pharmacist prescription based on their screening questionnaire results are to be referred to a doctor’s office. 

Why It Matters:

Live Action News has repeatedly described the abortifacient nature of hormonal contraceptives, including emergency contraceptives. Illinois’ standing order on reproductive health makes pharmacists indirectly complicit in abortions. 

While the standing order does not explicitly say that all pharmacists are required to undergo this training, its purpose is “to ensure that Illinois residents can easily access self-administered contraceptive methods, emergency contraception, and pregnancy tests at their local pharmacy to help with family planning and reduce unintended pregnancy.”

If the goal is for every “local pharmacy” to participate, what about the conscience rights of pharmacists, who — like a Texas nurse practitioner fired by a CVS MinuteClinic for refusing to prescribe hormonal contraception — don’t want to assist in abortion, or are morally or ethically opposed to the prescription of hormonal contraceptives? No mention is made of the professional expectations in this scenario. 

The IDPH press release announcing the updated standing order made note of other abortion extremism, reading “Under the leadership of Governor Pritzker, IDPH has taken steps to further protect access to reproductive health care.”

Among the related actions spearheaded by Pritzker were a 2023 plan for extensive networking between state agencies and publicly funded hospital systems, like the University of Illinois at Chicago, to create a “hospital navigation program” for “patients who present for abortions at clinics who need a higher level of care than can be provided at the clinics.”

A nurse-staffed hotline will assist “patients with complex medical needs in scheduling appointments within hospital systems, acquiring required pre-operative testing, and arranging payment, transportation, and childcare for treatment.”

Five million dollars in capital funding will be administered by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) to help abortion providers “fund improvements and repairs, new construction, security upgrades, and equipment to increase capacity and enhance safety, which includes the purchase of vehicles for mobile care units.”  

In 2024, Pritzker announced that $2 million had been awarded to three groups — Midwest Access Project (MAP), Planned Parenthood of Illinois (PPIL), and the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) College of Nursing — specifically to train health care practitioners to commit abortions. 

And in 2025, Pritzker reiterated “that pregnant women in the state have the right to the full range of life-saving care, including abortions, when they are in Illinois emergency rooms.”

This is nonsensical, because the proper treatment for medical emergencies that arise late in pregnancy would be an emergency C-section, which can be performed in minutes, not a multi-day abortion procedure.

If a medical emergency arises early in pregnancy and the baby has to be delivered before the age of viability, this tragic unintended consequence of providing medical care to save the mother’s life would not constitute an induced abortion, which is an act to deliberately kill the baby.

The Big Picture:

Illinois politicians’ fixation on ever-expanding abortion and contraceptive access comes at a time when national support for birth control is at an all-time low since Gallup polls began tracking it in 2012. 

To be sure, the vast majority of Americans still believe birth control to be morally acceptable, but 17% now say otherwise, a number many would have considered unthinkably high a decade ago. Growing numbers of Americans also oppose teen sex and sex outside marriage, the very situations that often lead girls and women to seek out birth control. 

In fact, opposition to hormonal birth control has shifted out of the religious and political right contexts into broader societal awareness and acceptance, so much so that mainstream media is paying attention. Even VOGUE is covering body literacy and the health data that the female fifth vital sign, the menstrual cycle, communicates. 

Mainstream media isn’t just acknowledging that fertility awareness methods and natural family planning exist. They’re finally addressing the many and varied harms of hormonal birth control, even if through a paternalistic, head-patting lens.

One need look no further than the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use that Illinois pharmacists, included in the standing order, should reference before prescribing contraception without physician oversight.

The multi-colored, many-columned chart acknowledges that hormonal contraceptives in particular may be a poor option for women with:

• current or past breast cancer

• kidney disease

• liver disease

• risk for blood clots

• diabetes or vascular complications

• migraines with aura

• high blood pressure

• ischemic heart disease

• lupus

... and those who are smokers.

Health conditions aside, hormonal birth control is associated with causing health problems, even death, and unintended consequences, like benign brain tumors requiring surgery, even for healthy young women. Most recently, birth control pills have been linked to an increased risk of binge eating. 

The Bottom Line:

Illinois’ expansion of pharmacist prescribing powers for hormonal contraception and emergency contraceptives is in line with its track record of abortion and contraception extremism, but out of touch with broader cultural trends. 

A small town outside Montreal, Québec, legally recognized the rights of trees on June 9. Eco Jurisprudence Monitor reported that Terrasse-Vaudreuil is the first municipality in the world to adopt the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Tree.

The town’s resolution states that a tree is a “sentient being,” and that humans “must act in fraternity and solidarity with trees.” Furthermore, the motion declares that trees are “living entities deserving of protection, including the right to life.”

Terrasse-Vaudreuil Mayor Michel Bourdeau went as far as saying that “a tree is like a human being. It breathes, it lives, it takes in water.”

While this town granted trees legal rights, another classification of living beings in Terrasse-Vaudreuil has no legal protection: preborn human beings.

A legal vacuum

This came about in 1988 when the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Morgentaler stripped preborn children of all protections under the law. The decision deemed the existing 1969 law, which permitted abortions while offering some protection to the preborn, “unconstitutional.” The judges struck down the legislation. This created a legal void that left preborn babies defenseless.

The Supreme Court justices, however, called on Parliament to establish a new law that would grant the preborn child some protection while respecting a woman’s right to the security of her person. However, each proposed attempt failed.

The result is that Canada is now left with a legal vacuum in which abortion is permitted throughout pregnancy—without restriction. The country’s Criminal Code allows for abortion at any stage, including late-term, by unscientifically holding that “a child becomes a human being...when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.”

Accordingly, if the head of a child is revealed during birth, but not the whole body, the child could legally be killed, because he or she is not yet considered a “human being” and has no legal protection. 

Worthy of human rights

Though preborn children are not legally considered human beings worthy of human rights in Canada, science conclusively indicates that human life begins at fertilization. At that moment, a new human life is formed with a unique genetic code that directs the child’s growth and development from within. This DNA helps determine countless biological traits, including sex, hair color, blood type, facial features, body structure, and many inherited characteristics.

Only three weeks after fertilization, the preborn baby’s central nervous system begins to form. During the fourth week, the young child’s heart begins to beat. Then, eight weeks after conception, the child forms visible fingers and toes.

Even in their smallest form, human beings are part of nature and are worthy of protection. Humanity is the highest form of life on Earth, and all human beings have intrinsic value.

Humans are created with the capacity to love and to be loved by others. They have a strong capacity for empathy and compassion toward not only human beings, but other creatures as well. Human beings are also unique among all other higher life forms in that they frequently follow systems of selfless morality.

In addition, humans use reason and logic. With these faculties, along with their capacity to act freely, humans are able to build, create, and cooperate with one another toward a common good. Humans also have a wide array of skills and talents that set each person apart and can benefit society.

Is it not the greatest moral contradiction that a town recognizes the “right to life” of a lower form of life, namely a tree, but disregards that of a higher form of life, namely a preborn child?

Humans before trees

Instead of endorsing a declaration on the rights of trees, the town would do better to look to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares that “everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.” That right should include the preborn.

In response, Canadian pro-life group Campaign Life Coalition has launched a petition to the Prime Minister of Canada calling on Parliament to introduce legal protections for preborn children. The petition urges Canadians to reject the moral contradiction of publicly recognizing a tree’s “right to life” while leaving children in the womb without legal protection. “Humans must come before trees,” the petition states.

Human beings are the pinnacle of creation — the highest form of life in nature. If a Canadian town can recognize the value of a tree, it can recognize the humanity of a child. Should human beings not have greater protection than trees?

Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood North Central States announced the closure of its Iowa City facility.

• Planned Parenthood claimed the closures were the result of politics.

• The news comes more than a year after the closure of four other Iowa facilities, as well as multiple others in 2023 and 2017.

• While Planned Parenthood blames the Trump administration, it has been working towards a virtual-centered business model for years.

• Iowa recently enacted a law calling for in-person-only dispensing of the abortion pill.

The Details:

Planned Parenthood's Iowa City clinic is set to close, leaving just one other Planned Parenthood facility in the state.

While the abortion giant is quick to blame politics, it will continue to operate via virtual appointments in the state. It will also consolidate its Iowa City 'services' to its Susan Knapp Health Center in Des Moines and restructure to offer more services virtually. That may not include the abortion pill, however, as the state just passed a law requiring in-person dispensing of the two-drug regimen.

"By protecting our core infrastructure now, we will be ready to expand care again when the pendulum shifts — because it will," said Planned Parenthood North Central States President and CEO Ruth Richardson in a statement. "After seeing the resilience of our patients, communities, supporters, champions, and our staff and providers, I believe we have what it takes to sustain our strength and build back."

Yet, Planned Parenthood has been shutting down brick-and-mortar facilities for years. The closure comes about a year after Planned Parenthood announced it would be closing four other facilities in Ames, Cedar Rapids, Sioux City, and Urbandale. It also closed facilities in Des Moines, Cedar Falls, and Council Bluffs in 2023, and Bettendorf, Burlington, Keokuk, and Sioux City in 2017.

In the meantime, Iowa has passed a law requiring women to obtain the abortion pill in person, meaning Planned Parenthood's plan to provide virtual-only abortion pill sales may get derailed.

Zoom Out:

The abortion industry has been shifting to a telehealth model, and the abortion pill has become the go-to method to end the lives of preborn children. The abortion pill accounts for about 80% of all abortions at Iowa's Planned Parenthood facilities, according to Planned Parenthood North Central States (PPNCS), as total abortions in the state fell 80%.

As previously <a href="/news/planned-parenthood-virtual-health-centers-expand-closes">reported</a> by Live Action News, Planned Parenthood's “Virtual Health Centers (VHCs)” are popping up across the country as part of a larger restructuring plan put in place years ago, not because of the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

As explained by Live Action Research Fellow Carole Novielli, "Competition from independently run and largely unregulated virtual abortion dispensaries could be putting financial pressure on Planned Parenthood to close brick-and-mortar facilities and move online. Virtual dispensaries are profitable because they require fewer overhead costs while providing less than a few minutes of implied care with little to no follow-up."

Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood promotes "gender-affirming care" for minors, and has dispensed cross-sex hormones to minors without their parents' knowledge or consent.

• Planned Parenthood Keystone openly gives insurance providers the billing code for “endocrine disorder, unspecified” when giving hormones, claiming it is required to get the drugs approved.

• Multiple physicians have said that doing this could be considered fraud.

• Live Action News has reported extensively on this potentially fraudulent activity.

The Details:

The Washington Examiner reported that Planned Parenthood facilities in Pennsylvania, which operate under three different affiliates, have been openly using billing codes for endocrine disorders when prescribing cross-sex hormones, rather than using accurate billing codes. Specifically, the code used is "E34.9 (endocrine disorder, unspecified)" rather than the accurate "F64.9 (gender identity disorder, unspecified)."

This is something the abortion corporation openly discloses. On the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania website, it reads:

In order to meet the needs of most insurance companies and patients, we typically use the code E34.9 (endocrine disorder, unspecified) and occasionally will use F64.9 (gender identity disorder, unspecified) if necessary. 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 getting folks the care they need. If you have concerns about the specific billing claims being used with your care, please speak with your clinician.

The Planned Parenthood Western Pennsylvania site uses similar language:

Below are a list of ICD-10 diagnosis codes your provider may use:

E34.9 Endocrine disorder, unspecified
Z79.899 Other long term drug therapy
F64.1 Gender identity disorder in adolescence and adulthood
F64.8 Other gender identity disorders
F64.9 Gender identity disorder, unspecified
F64.0 Transsexualism

(Note that while we don't like the wording used in many of these codes, they are used by insurers and medical billers on a national basis and we are unfortunately required to keep the wording the same when using them because of that.)

It is not clear if other affiliates likewise engage in this kind of duplicity, but these Pennsylvania affiliates appear to be the only ones openly admitting to it.

Why It Matters:

Reports have been filed exposing this deceptive practice, including with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as doctors warn that it could amount to fraud.

“A huge amount of energy has been spent to develop, find which ICD codes can be used that will justify the [gender] interventions under a false pretense without pushback from insurance companies,” Dr. Eithan Haim told the Washington Examiner. “They’re actually inducing the disorder that they’re claiming to treat. Once they’re started on hormones and all that s***, they have an endocrine disorder, but it was just one that was given to them by their doctors."

In the report for Do No Harm, Dr. Kurt Miceli wrote, “Utilizing these ‘alternative’ codes is misleading and contrary to the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting, which requires providers to ‘[c]ode to the highest level of specificity when supported by medical record documentation.'"

Dr. Miriam Grossman testified before the FTC that the fraudulent use of these billing codes is intentional to ensure payment.

“These are physically healthy people. They have no medical diagnosis whatsoever,” she said. “They have a psychiatric diagnosis. But this E34.9 is being used in a fraudulent way, I would say, in order to get payment for the services."

Go Deeper:

Live Action News has reported extensively on this potentially fraudulent billing activity by Planned Parenthood. Read the links below for more:

• It's time to investigate Planned Parenthood for 'gender-affirming' fraud

• Planned Parenthood's immersion in 'transgender care' shouldn't get a pass

• Experts explain why ‘transgender care’ providers like Planned Parenthood deserve scrutiny

• Beyond Abortion: Planned Parenthood’s role in 'medically transitioning' minors

House File 2788, signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds on May 19 and in effect as of July 1, requires patients to see a physician in person before taking abortion-inducing drugs, including the abortion pill, mifepristone.

Key Takeaways:

• Iowa now requires in-person physician appointments before abortion-inducing drugs may be prescribed or dispensed, making telehealth-only abortion in the state illegal.

• Abortionists must screen patients for signs of “coercion or abuse,” obtain written informed consent, and dispense the abortion pill directly in a healthcare setting. Violations carry professional discipline and civil liability. Patients face neither.

• Iowa abortionists must comply. Those operating under shield laws in states like Minnesota, Illinois, and New York face no such requirement and may continue prescribing and mailing abortion drugs to Iowa patients — a workaround with legal footing that is increasingly contested.

The Details:

The bill defines pregnancy in terms that leave little room for ambiguity, describing it as “the human female reproductive condition of having a living unborn child within the pregnant woman’s body throughout every stage of the unborn child’s life and development, from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth.”

Before prescribing or dispensing abortion-inducing drugs, providers must obtain written confirmation from patients that they have been informed of the specific risks, including “hemorrhage, failure to remove all tissue of the unborn child, sepsis, sterility, and possible continuation of the pregnancy.” They must also inform patients “that women using abortion-inducing drugs have suffered trauma from seeing the remains of the unborn child in the process of a chemical abortion.”

The dispensing restriction itself is categorical. Under the new law, “a person shall not dispense an abortion-inducing drug in this state unless the drug is dispensed in a health care setting directly to the woman prescribed the drug.” Abortionists who run afoul of that requirement “shall be civilly liable to any interested party for all damages caused by the abortion-inducing drug.”

Chuck Hurley of The Family Leader said the law reflects a medical reality that telehealth prescribing ignores.

“These pills are designed to kill babies,” he said. “You get a pill in the mail. And you take the pill and you have an ectopic pregnancy, you're going to either die or be in the emergency room.”

Miscarriage treatment, care for incomplete pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancy treatment are each addressed separately and excluded from the law’s scope.

What's Happening Now: 

Iowa’s law lands in the middle of broader national uncertainty over medication abortion. The Supreme Court ruled on May 14 to keep mifepristone, the first drug of the abortion pill regimen, available via telehealth and mail nationwide, blocking a Fifth Circuit decision that would have reinstated federal in-person dispensing requirements. That ruling preserved, for now, the ability of Iowa patients to obtain abortion pills from out-of-state telehealth providers operating under shield laws; the new Iowa law prohibits Iowa abortion businesses from using telehealth to distribute abortion drugs.

As of July 1, Iowa’s new law requires a physician visit, a signed consent form, and a mandatory waiting period between a woman and abortion pills. The law makes clear: abortion drugs do not belong in a mailbox.

Key Takeaways:

• Baby Safir was born at 22 weeks and given a 10% chance of survival.

• Following a challenging year, he recently celebrated his first birthday.

• Safir has overcome medical obstacles and is doing well.

• Such a premature birth reflects the reality of life inside the womb: the child may be small, fragile, and medically vulnerable, but that does not make him less human or less deserving of protection.

The Details:

Safir was born at just 22 weeks, weighing a mere 1 pound and 3 ounces. At the time, doctors cautioned his parents, Fahmida and Shaharier Islam, that his likelihood of survival was only 10%. The news was particularly harrowing for the couple, who had previously lost a premature son at just eight days old after labor began far earlier than expected.

“Suddenly, it happened. My bleeding started, [it was] pain[ful], and he was born,” Fahmida recounted to The Palm Beach Post.

Sharing her perspective, Shaharier recalled the deep sense of despair he felt when his son arrived far too soon.

“When he was born, our hope [was] already gone because we thought he might not survive,” he said. “We didn't expect that he [would] survive.” 

Recounting Safir’s arrival in the neonatal intensive care unit at Palm Beach Children’s Hospital, medical director Dr. Michelle Herring, had this to say: 

He’s a teeny baby, and if you think about that when he was born, he’s really at the limits of viability. At 22 weeks, it is extraordinarily premature, so a very fragile little child.

Likewise, Dr. Adrian Florens, a neonatologist, echoed:

The chances of survival are low. Let's say, if you want to say, 90% of them don't survive, and once we get into the complication aspect of it, 90% of them have severe complications.

Weighing merely one pound, three ounces at birth, Safir spent his entire first year battling to survive, undergoing numerous surgeries and overcoming a slew of serious medical challenges.

"He's had a very rough journey. He's been through a lot," said Allie Soderholm, one of baby Safir's nurses. "He's a fighter, obviously, as you can see."

"He's really a miracle. He's just a miracle. He's so strong," she continued. "He just lights up the room. Every nurse, every doctor, every therapist just loves him."

Why It Matters:

Safir’s case is significant as premature birth reflects the reality of life inside the womb: the child may be small, fragile, and medically vulnerable, but that does not make him less human or less deserving of protection. Safir’s story quietly debunks the notion that any life should be measured by convenience, certainty, or strength. 

Extreme prematurity often becomes a focal point in public debate where the language of “viability” is used to draw a line between who is and isn't human and worthy of life. Stories like Safir’s remind us that viability is not a moral boundary, but a medical estimate that can evolve with time, technology, and committed care.

Safir’s story also demonstrates the essential contributions of neonatal medicine, family support, and hospital staff who refuse to give up on the smallest patients. Although not every outcome is the same, the willingness to offer care instead of relegating a child to statistics is proof of the pro-life principle that every life has worth from the beginning.

Another Texas-border city will be considering an ordinance to outlaw abortion trafficking. On Monday, June 8, a citizen-initiative petition with over 1,550+ signatures was filed with the City of Seminole, Texas (pop. 7,952), proposing a Sanctuary City for the Unborn (SCFTU) ordinance further outlawing abortion. Eighteen days later, on Friday, June 26, City Secretary Devan Hawkins Butler confirmed that the requirements for the initiative petition had been met and that the Certification of Petition Sufficiency would be presented to the city council at its next meeting on Monday, July 13. Once the results of the certified petition are presented to the city council, it shall become the city council's duty to adopt or reject the ordinance within 60 days. If the city council fails to pass the ordinance as proposed, the ordinance shall be the subject of a city election in which voters may accept or reject it at the polls.

​A Key Location

​Located about 30 miles away, the City of Seminole is the closest Texas city to the City of Hobbs, New Mexico (pop 41,604). When Roe v. Wade (1973) was overturned in the Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) decision on June 24, 2022, and abortion facilities could no longer operate within the State of Texas, the City of Hobbs became the primary target for one of the largest independent abortion providers in the nation – Whole Woman’s Health. At the time of Roe’s demise, the abortion business had facilities in Fort Worth, McKinney, Austin, and McAllen. While Whole Woman’s Health had signed a lease on an old dental office in Hobbs, the introduction of a Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance in Hobbs led the abortion provider to abandon its lease and open its new facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico – over five hours away. The Hobbs SCFTU Ordinance was adopted on November 7, 2022.

The Proposed Seminole SCFTU Ordinance

If adopted, the Seminole SCFTU Ordinance will provide some of the strongest levels of protection for pregnant mothers and their unborn children from the tragedy of abortion. The ordinance will:

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

2. Prohibit elective abortions on residents of the City of Seminole – regardless of where the abortion takes place.

3. Prohibit abortion traffickers and abortion trafficking organizations from trafficking women, including minors, through the City of Seminole for abortions across state lines.

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

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

6. Prohibit Texas waste management companies from transporting through the City of Seminole 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 ordinance is enforced the same way as the Texas Heartbeat Act, not by law enforcement but by giving private citizens the ability to file a lawsuit against any individual or organization in violation of the ordinance.

Measure Has Support of Texas Legislators

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

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

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

Since August 2023, 50 political subdivisions have passed ordinances identical in substance to the proposed Seminole SCFTU ordinance. Among those cities are Brownfield (pop. 9,976), Wolfforth (pop. 9,600), and Wellman (pop. 205).

Successful Citizen Initiative Petition Processes in Texas

The petition is the fourth successful citizen-initiative petition filed in Texas this year seeking to further protect pregnant mothers and their unborn children from the violence of abortion. To date, eleven cities in Texas have considered Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinances as a result of a successful citizen-initiative petition process. Six of those cities saw the measure placed on a citywide ballot. Out of those six votes, only one city rejected the measure. The six cities that considered a SCFTU ordinance on a citywide ballot are:  

1. Lubbock (pop. 264,000): Adopted by voters May 1, 2021, with 62% voter approval.  

2. Athens (pop. 13,121): Adopted by voters November 8, 2022, with 58% voter approval.

3. Abilene (pop. 124,407): Adopted by voters November 8, 2022, with 53% voter approval.

4. San Angelo (pop. 101,612): Adopted by voters November 8, 2022, with 56% voter approval.

5. Plainview (22,343): Adopted by voters November 8, 2022, with 69% voter approval.

6. Amarillo (200,000): Rejected by voters November 5, 2024, with 59% of voters rejecting the measure.

Five city councils chose to adopt the measure themselves as a result of successful citizen-initiative petitions, thereby avoiding additional costs incurred by a citywide election:

1. Slaton (pop. 6,235): Instead of the ordinance going to the May 7, 2022 ballot, the Slaton City Commission adopted the ordinance in a 4-1 first-reading vote on November 15, 2021, and a unanimous 5-0 second and final reading vote on December 13, 2021.

2. Lindale (pop. 6,730): Instead of the ordinance going on the November 8, 2022 ballot, the Lindale City Council adopted the ordinance in a unanimous 4-0 vote on March 24, 2022.

3. Brownfield (pop. 9,976): Instead of the ordinance going on the November 3, 2026 ballot, the Brownfield City Council adopted the ordinance in a 5-3 vote on May 7, 2026.

4. Muleshoe (pop. 5,158): Instead of the ordinance going on the November 3, 2026 ballot, the Muleshoe City Council adopted the ordinance in a 4-1 vote on May 11, 2026.

5. Ranger (pop. 2,469): Instead of the ordinance going on the November 3, 2026 ballot, the Ranger City Commission adopted the ordinance in a unanimous 4-0 first-reading vote on May 26, 2026, and a unanimous 3-0 second and final-reading vote on May 28, 2026.

The Seminole SCFTU citizen-initiative petition was not the only petition that was circulated in the City of Seminole in support of the ordinance. In 2020, residents of Seminole began signing wet-signature and online petitions in favor of the measure, amassing well over 500 signatures.

Residents throughout Seminole are confident that the overwhelming support shown in these grassroots efforts will encourage their city council to add these life-saving protections for pregnant mothers and their unborn children by further outlawing abortion and becoming one of the next Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn.

Key Takeaways:

• After Carhart's death, Malloy was hired as the medical director for Carhart's abortion facilities in both Nebraska and Maryland.

• Malloy has no license to practice medicine in Nebraska, and his Maryland license is on probation.

• He spent four years in prison due to Medicaid fraud.

• Malloy also has numerous malpractice cases against him.

• Three more medical emergencies have since been uncovered, two of which occurred after his license was put on probation.

The Details:

Operation Rescue reported that it has discovered three more medical emergencies occurring under Malloy, two of which happened within the last month. While the actual audio and computer-aided dispatch (CAD) reports were either not supplied or heavily redacted, Operation Rescue was able to obtain radio dispatch between first responders. This gave some insight into what happened.

The first occurred in August of 2025, when emergency services were dispatched to CARE Clinic for a patient suffering a hemorrhage.

The next two emergencies occurred within a week of each other. There was a 911 call on June 2, 2026, and the radio dispatch only called for "OBBLS," which could mean "obstetrical basic life support" or "ongoing basic life support."

Just three days later, on June 5, 2026, 911 was called again for a patient who was hemorrhaging.

Since the only "services" CARE Clinic offers are abortions, these emergencies could only be abortion-related.

Why It Matters:

Malloy has a long, troubling history, of which these injuries are just the latest example.

After his death, Carhart's daughter, Janine Weatherby, hired Malloy as his replacement, including at the abortion facility in Nebraska, even though Malloy isn't licensed to practice medicine there. Weatherby, who is not a doctor, told The Times, “In the wake of Carhart’s death, Dr. Tyrone Malloy took over as medical director. However, Malloy primarily operates out of the Maryland clinic as its main doctor.”

Malloy's scandal-ridden history includes a conviction for Medicaid fraud in 2014, for which he was sentenced to prison for four years. He served less than two years in prison, and afterwards, his medical license in Georgia was reinstated. His malpractice cases include the 1999 death of a newborn baby following a C-section and the 2008 death of a 23-year-old woman whose uterus and intestine he had perforated during a late-term abortion.

In May of 2026, not long before his two most recent medical emergencies, news broke that Malloy's license to practice medicine in Maryland had been put on probation as the result of a 2024 complaint from an emergency department physician that Malloy delivered "substandard care" for a third-trimester abortion patient.

After an investigation, the state also found deficiencies in his records, including failure to document the administration of medications and a patient's admission to the ER.

Key Takeaways:

• House Bill 232 was meant to protect medical employees from being forced to partake in abortions.

• The bill passed the House in March and the Senate in May.

• Gov. Kelly Ayotte vetoed the bill, saying it was unncessary.

• Countless medical professionals with conscience objections to abortion have faced pressure to participate in abortion procedures and abortion-related activity.

The Details:

House Bill 232 would have ensured that medical employees were protected from being forced to participate in abortions based on their "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction." Healthcare facilities would have been required to provide employees with written notice of their right to request reasonable accommodations and to file complaints with the state if those accommodations are denied. The bill passed the House in March and passed the Senate in May. Abortion is legal through 24 weeks in New Hampshire and after 24 weeks for babies who receive a serious diagnosis or when the mother faces a medical emergency.

Gov. Ayotte vetoed the bill, saying that such a law already exists at the federal level. During her campaign, she had promised not to enact any further pro-life laws in the state, and in 2025 she vetoed a prenatal education bill.

State Rep. Katy Peternel, who supported the HB 232, said it was written to "protect health care professionals from being forced to participate in the ending of a human life." She added that it would have helped New Hampshire "attract providers who value motherhood and family."

Ayotte, however, said on Thursday that the bill was not necessary. “Federal law has long protected the religious beliefs or moral convictions of medical professionals and the right to decline to perform or assist an abortion. This federal right of conscience protects those in New Hampshire who work for abortion providers. Therefore, this bill is unnecessary and does not create any greater protections for New Hampshire medical professionals," she said.

Kayla Montgomery of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England celebrated the veto. "On behalf of the Granite Staters who overwhelmingly opposed this anti-abortion bill, a solution in search of a problem, we thank Governor Ayotte for keeping her vow to veto anti-abortion legislation," . Over the past two years, the Legislature considered 16 anti-abortion bills, and all have failed thanks to the commitment and determination of reproductive health and rights supporters, advocacy organizations, legislators, patients, and providers."

The Bottom Line:

The bill was not "a solution in search of a problem." Pro-life healthcare professionals face issues with conscience protections across the country. In 2020, Fracis Manion, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice said that in just a two week span, "I have spoken with a nurse threatened with termination for questioning her hospital’s allowing an abortion to be performed, a doctor threatened with firing over her request to be accommodated when faced with administering a certain drug that she believes is an abortifacient, and a technician told he must sign a form that would effectively require him to participate in abortions whenever his employer unilaterally decides that patient care requires him to.”

Megan Kreft, a physician assistant working under the umbrella of the Catholic health care organization, Providence Medical Group, said that after accepting her position she was called into a meeting with her medical director and the regional medical director after she refused to prescribe Plan B because it can act as an abortifacient.

In 2019, a nurse at the University of Vermont Medical Center won a lawsuit after being forced to assist in an elective surgical abortion. She had been told she had to participate because even her personal opposition to abortion could be grounds for termination.

Key Takeaways:

• Police were tipped off that hormone injections were being administered in a residential apartment.

• A raid was conducted and after some investigation, authorities uncovered a multi-region scheme involving recruiters, medicine suppliers, sonographers, document forgers, and fertility clinics.

• Indian law permits women to donate eggs just once in their lifetime, but at least one woman had her eggs harvested over 45 times, causing serious damage to her body.

• Numerous other women living in slums reported similar experiences.

The Details:

The Indian Express reported on the disturbing stories of several women, using pseudonyms.

Neeta Prasad and her family live in a one-room shack in the Ulhasnagar slum, and she finds work by sweeping floors and cleaning utensils, while her husband works as a cook. Together, they were barely making enough money to get by, when a relative told her about what seemed like an easy way to get more money.

“She said I could make Rs 20,000 by donating my ‘stree beej’ (eggs)," she said. "My body naturally produces them every month and since I had children of my own, I could donate them and get paid."

Prasad agreed, and first received hormone injections for two weeks, followed by regular ultrasounds. Then she was given a trigger injection before being taken to a clinic, where a doctor sedated her and removed her eggs.

From the very first procedure, she was in pain and vowed to never do it again. “The woman giving me the injections said it was normal. She told me I was helping women who could not have children,” she said. “I was scared although I received Rs 20,000."

Yet her financial pressures continued, and so when she was asked to donate, she continued to say yes, until she had undergone the egg retrieval process over 45 times.

Another woman, Roshani Shaikh, was living in Maharashtra’s slums and began to struggle even more after her husband abandoned her. A woman who she knew only as "madam" coordinated her egg retrievals.

“I thought I could move to a better area and improve my life. My friends had been donating eggs for years and they were earning good money,” she said. “When I held Rs 20,000 in my hand after every procedure, the pain my body had gone through suddenly felt very small."

Suman Patil said she had been left with crippling debt after her husband left her for another woman, and was recommended to the egg donation network by friends. “They told me I could make Rs 30,000 every month on the side," she said. "I experienced severe cramps and bloating, but the money kept me going.”

Eventually, Badlapur police received a tip about hormone injections being given in a residential apartment. Together with government doctors, police conducted a raid. Their investigation uncovered a network that spanned multiple states, and found a vast supply chain made up of doctors, pharmacists, recruiters, medicine suppliers, sonographers, document forgers, fertility clinics, and more. 15 people have been arrested so far, and charged with human trafficking, exploitation, forgery, and violations of the ART Act.

Similar scandals have been uncovered in India recently, indicating a much deeper issue with the fertility industry.

Zoom Out:

It is extremely common for people across the globe to sell their eggs and sperm because they need money to pay for everything from rent to college tuition. What's more, the fertility industry often uses exploitative measures to encourage more women to donate.

And all the while, women are rarely informed of the risks they are taking, either as donors or as recipients.

Women who donate eggs are risking complications like Ovarian Hyper Stimulation Syndrome (OHSS), which is portrayed as rarer than it actually is.

Wendy Kramer, founder of the Donor Sibling Registry, explained:

[O]ur research paints a different picture. In our first published study of 155 egg donors, we found that 30.3% reported Ovarian Hyper Stimulation Syndrome (OHSS).

In our second survey of 176 egg donors in 2014, we found that 32.4% of egg donors reported complications such as OHSS and infection.

In our third Study of 363 egg donors in 2021, 22.4% reported experiencing OHSS.

It is not known if there are any long-term risks of egg donation because there has not been much research dedicated to it. And as Jennifer Lahl, the founder and president of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, told Live Action founder Lila Rose that women are lured in to donation both by the promise of money and slick marketing lingo meant to tug at their heartstrings.

"The marketing is very slick. When two of my daughters were students at the University of California Berkeley, their school paper had an ad: $100,000 for an elite donor. So it’s very eugenic, it’s very selective.

It’s all flowery, ‘Make dreams come true,’ ‘Help a family.’ You’ll see young girls who have sold their eggs say, ‘Well, you have so many eggs, I’m not using them anyway.’

So there’s this lure, and people go, ‘Well, I like to help people and, sure, that money sounds great, and I’m not using my eggs right now. Why not sell some?’ But, there’s the drugs."

Women are given numerous drugs, both to increase egg production, and a trigger shot of HCG to release the eggs from the follicles.

“[T]wo of the women in ‘Eggsploitation’ [a documentary about the fertility industry] lost their ability to ever have their own children. So their fertility was permanently damaged,” Lahl said.

“You don’t count things if they don’t count, and these women don’t count so we don’t count them … the best you can do is CDC data that has an annual report on assisted reproductive technologies in America, and the best you can get is how many IVF cycles were performed, frozen embryos, fresh embryos, but it doesn’t tell you who these women are,” she added.

The Bottom Line:

The global fertility industry is shockingly under-regulated, and women will continue to be exploited and harmed if drastic changes are not made.

The state of Louisiana has argued that the FDA’s policy of allowing women to obtain chemical abortions via telehealth violates their sovereignty. That is because the legality of telehealth abortions makes it logistically difficult for Louisiana to enforce its pro-life laws. The state has also argued that their Medicaid program has incurred costs due to injuries suffered by women who obtained chemical abortion drugs online. The appeal is scheduled to be heard on September 9.

Back in May, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay in this exact case. This briefly halted telehealth abortions. However, two abortion pill manufacturers quickly appeared the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing telehealth abortions to continue as they considered the appeal. Later in May, they granted the plaintiff’s application for a stay. This meant that telehealth abortions could legally continue until the Fifth Circuit issued a final ruling in the case.

Overall, Louisiana has a very good chance to win the case. The fact that Fifth Circuit granted Louisiana a stay back in May indicates the judges found their arguments persuasive. That said, ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to make a decision about the legality of telehealth abortions.

Even if they decline to hear an appeal on this particular case, there are several other cases pending in federal courts. These include separate cases brought by attorneys general in Florida and Texas. Also, the state attorneys general of Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas have joined a revised lawsuit that was filed by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in 2024. As such, the Supreme Court will be unable to avoid the issue of telehealth abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• In July of 2025, Congress passed the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” a budget reconciliation bill which includes the defunding of abortion providers like Planned Parenthood for just one year.

• The bill originally called for abortion businesses to be defunded for 10 years, but this was amended, without explanation, to defund them for just one year — a fact not widely known by the public.

• Despite a series of legal challenges, the defunding was ultimately allowed to stand.

• The one-year defunding period expired on July 4, 2026, allowing Planned Parenthood to again receive $800 million or more in taxpayer dollars.

The Details:

The United States celebrated the 250th anniversary of its founding on July 4, 2026, but as it did so, it restored nearly $1 billion annually in taxpayer money to the nation's largest abortion chain — which is also one of the nation's top providers of "transgender" services, including to minors.

In July of 2025, Congress included a one-year “defund” provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which blocked Medicaid payments to certain abortion organizations for “the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment” of the law, which was July 4, 2025. Under the text of the legislation, family planning organizations that commit abortions and also received $800,000 or more in Medicaid funding in 2023 would lose that funding for one year, which applied to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit to stop the defunding, but after a great deal of legal wrangling, courts ruled against it; the abortion organization dropped its suit in February.

Congress had one year to take action and ensure federal taxpayer dollars through Medicaid didn't resume flowing toward businesses that end preborn lives. That didn't happen. Now, with the one-year period at an end, Planned Parenthood will get this funding again.

In a press release, Live Action founder and president Lila Rose issued a statement, saying:

On America’s 250th birthday, Congress had the chance to honor the founding promise that every human being has a God-given right to life. Instead, by failing to extend the defunding of Planned Parenthood, lawmakers have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow back to the largest abortion chain in the nation. This is a moral failure and an urgent betrayal of preborn children, women, and American taxpayers....

This failure must be corrected immediately.... It is a horrific and preventable atrocity that on the very day we are celebrating our blessed liberty, our federal government is once again funding the killing of our own children.

Rose also noted that, "On July 16, Live Action will lead a nationwide day of prayer with a live webcast, calling on Americans to pray, speak out, and demand that Congress defund Planned Parenthood now.” 

Why It Matters:

There are numerous reasons Planned Parenthood should not receive a dime of taxpayer funding. This is an organization that kills hundreds of thousands of preborn children through abortion, pushes ideological sex education and gender-transition services on children, aids sexual abusers, and much, much more.

Live Action's Vice President of Communications and Government Relations, Noah Brandt, wrote in a recent op-ed at the Daily Wire:

Planned Parenthood is not a local charity that stumbled into politics. It is the nation’s largest abortion organization. Its 2024-2025 annual report lists 434,450 abortions committed, each of which is a precious child killed. The same year, they reported $832 million in government reimbursements and grants. It also lists tens of millions of dollars spent on explicit sexual education, public policy, and advocacy expenses.

The organization says its health centers provide hormone therapy and other “gender-affirming” services. Its website lists estrogen and anti-androgen hormone therapy, testosterone hormone therapy, puberty blockers, surgery referrals, and transition support. Planned Parenthood has been described as the second-largest provider of gender hormone therapies in the United States. And they offer nothing to minors who regret transitioning.

Live Action News' DEFUND 250 series lays out in explicit detail the many reasons why Congress should have acted — and now must not fail to act — to defund Planned Parenthood, once and for all:

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthoods-racism-revealed">'DEFUND 250': 10 times Planned Parenthood's racism was revealed</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-moments-planned-parenthood-body-parts">'DEFUND 250': 10 shocking moments from the Planned Parenthood body parts scandal</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthoods-misleading-public">'DEFUND 250': Planned Parenthood's record of misleading the public</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthoods-history-child-predators">'DEFUND 250': 10 times Planned Parenthood helped child predators</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthoods-privacy-violations-disqualify">'DEFUND 250': Planned Parenthood's top 10 disqualifying privacy violations </a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-10-horrifying-planned-parenthood-abortions">'DEFUND 250': Top 10 most horrifying Planned Parenthood abortion stories</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-10-reasons-planned-parenthood-needs-to-be-defunded">'DEFUND 250': 10 Planned Parenthood scandals and abuses</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthood-misleads-clients-public">DEFUND 250: 10 times Planned Parenthood misled clients and the public </a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthood-killed-injured-patients">'DEFUND 250': 10 times Planned Parenthood has killed or injured patients</a>

• <a href="/news/10-facts-planned-parenthood-lied-about-denied">'DEFUND 250': 10 facts Planned Parenthood lied about or denied</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthood-employees-internal-corruption">'DEFUND 250': Employees allege internal corruption at Planned Parenthood</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthood-sex-ed-misleads">'DEFUND 250': 10 times Planned Parenthood's sex ed misled and groomed kids</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-10-lawsuits-planned-parenthood">'DEFUND 250': 10 lawsuits reveal why Planned Parenthood is not a leader in health care</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthood-collaborates-abortion-training">'DEFUND 250': Taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood helps to create more abortionists</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthood-easy-access">'DEFUND 250': Planned Parenthood endangers clients with easy access to cross-sex hormones</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthood-staff-disturbing-practices">'DEFUND 250': Planned Parenthood staff describe its disturbing practices</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-10-times-planned-parenthood-coerced-forced">'DEFUND 250': 10 times women said Planned Parenthood coerced or forced them to abort</a>

• <a href="/news/defund-250-planned-parenthood-disturbing-deception-women">'DEFUND 250': 10 times Planned Parenthood deceived women</a>

The Bottom Line:

Americans should not be forced to fund an organization they ideologically oppose, but more so, an organization that causes such widespread harm. The absolute least Congress can do is stop giving almost $1 billion of our Medicaid dollars to Planned Parenthood — not just for a year, but forever.

Key Takeaways:

• Actress Justene Alpert and her husband received a genetic diagnosis for their son during her second trimester of pregnancy. They were told their baby would not "make it to full term."

• In an Instagram post, Alpert described the agony she and her husband were put through by their doctors, who urged them to immediately abort their son.

• Alpert and her husband were robbed of cherished moments with their son by a medical establishment that devalues certain children, that sees them as medical complications instead of people.

• No parent should be put in such a situation to where they are told the merciful thing to do is to kill their own child. They deserve emotional support.

The Details:

Justene Alpert, who is known for her roles on 9-1-1 and Bosch, wrote in a June 25th Instagram post that on December 22, 2025, "my happiness and ... light were taken from me." She was entering the second trimester of a pregnancy she had just begun to announce when she received a call that her baby had a genetic condition and "wasn't going to make it to full term."

She wrote:

It's hard to swallow this news because I was looking at his little heart beating on the screen. He had the most beautiful profile. He had his dad's nose. I was ready for him. But then they pointed out the fluid, the organs, etc.

... The specialist spoke to us not only about our baby's condition but the high risks that I would be subjected to as a woman my age. In situations like this I've always been a 'shoot it to me straight' kinda gal. And then I heard the phrase that I never imagined hearing when we were ready to have a family. "We highly recommend that you terminate this pregnancy and we need to do it quickly if so."

It is unacceptable and cruel for medical professionals to utter such words to parents.

Alpert is 36, and any "risk" that exists "due to her age" would exist whether her baby had received a diagnosis or not. Telling her she had to immediately abort her baby or she would be in danger makes little sense. Without the diagnosis, her doctors would have helped her through her pregnancy. With the diagnosis, suddenly her body was incapable of carrying to term, and they were incapable of doing their jobs to care for both mother and child. Why?

Alpert doesn't explain which test indicated a genetic condition, but early testing (often inaccurate) or even more advanced testing can be wrong. Let's not forget, doctors can be wrong too. They can say a child won't survive a pregnancy, but that's not a guarantee.

Alpert continued:

Just then the light that was in me blew out. I almost describe the quickness as if you were standing on the side of the road and an F1 car flew by you. Your hair, immediately flipped up and slapped against your face so that when you try to look out, all you see are the infinite strands of hair that once outlined your face. That fast. Gone.

A decision that shouldn't exist

She added:

We didn't want to have to make this decision. No mom or dad should ever have to be put in this place. The shame and guilt is unfair. Having to do this is something that is rarely spoken of and seems to not have the same kind of empathy as other situations. It's the worst pain and many suffer silently out of fear of being judged or simply misunderstood.

She's right: "No mom or dad should ever have to be put in this place." No parent should be told they have to end their child's life at all, let alone "quickly."

The trauma of that will never go away. No time to absorb the news, no time to process, no time for second opinions, no time to find organizations like Be Not Afraid, no time to learn that carrying to term would be a huge gift and blessing and, statistically speaking, much better for Alpert's own mental health.

So why do doctors put parents in this position?

There is no medical reason to intentionally end anyone's life, including that of a child in the womb. If Alpert's life was actually at risk, preterm delivery would be the moral, compassionate, and medically appropriate response. It's unclear how Mads' life was ended, but options at the start of the second trimester include D&E dismemberment, D&C suction, or forced labor either before or after injecting the baby with a feticide to cause cardiac arrest.

Research shows that having an abortion after a prenatal diagnosis frequently leads to worse mental health outcomes for mothers than carrying to term.

• A study found that women who have undergone an abortion due to a fetal diagnosis “ultimately felt as if they were betraying themselves and their children.” However, those who carried to term shared feelings of closure and peace.

• The Journal of Clinical Ethics reported that 97.5% of parents who chose to carry to term rather than abort did not regret the decision. “Parents valued the baby as a part of their family and had opportunities to love, hold, meet, and cherish their child,” it explained.

• In addition, according to Perinatal Hospice and Palliative Care, which provides resources for parents who are facing such a diagnosis, significant research shows that women who have an abortion following a prenatal diagnosis suffer “physical and emotional pain, with psychosocial and reproductive consequences.”

The "choice" to abort is a disservice to families. It's not an "easy fix." It is killing the most vulnerable members of those families.

'The grief and trauma'

Alpert spoke to this when she told other moms who may be in that position:

It's okay NOT to be okay. Bawling? Normal. Throwing up from the grief and trauma? Didn't know this. Normal. If we're being honest again, Mason and I desperately prayed for either a miracle or a miscarriage. Never had that on my bingo card. Still feels unreal.

Being told she had to kill her baby was unnatural and very much not normal. It added to the trauma of the diagnosis. It added to the grief and the guilt she already felt that her baby was not healthy.

Why It Matters:

Alpert wrote to Mads, saying:

To our baby boy, Mads Mason Trueblood, thank you for making me a mom. You are the one who gave me the backbone when I was doubting if I was ready to be a mom or not. Boy oh boy, kiddo. I was ready for you. I was ready to bling out a jersey with your number on it, to teach you how to play rough when your dad would walk away after his safety speech, to have a tiny protector, to give you so many hugs and kisses to. I was ready to be yours.

Alpert could have been and should have been encouraged to welcome Mads for who he was, 'genetic condition' and all.

She should have been told that she would get to hold him and love him at birth, and she should have been encouraged to fight for any chance at life for him.

Without knowing the diagnosis, it's impossible to know what that would look like. Maybe Mads would not have survived after birth, but Alpert wouldn't have been the one to choose to end his life.

She should have been told that she would be able to love him if his life were indeed short. She should have been told how much peace that would bring her.

She was robbed of cherished moments with her son by a medical establishment that devalues certain children, that sees them as medical complications instead of people, that believes these children are better off dead when a doctor's job is to find their patients the best care possible for a good life, no matter how short that life may be.

Alpert and her family deserved better. Every family deserves better.

Go Deeper:

• Be Not Afraid can connect parents to parent care coordinators to help them navigate a prenatal diagnosis.

• Perinatal Hospice & Palliative Care offers support for families and their babies who may die before or after birth.

• Mom who embraced baby's life despite life-limiting diagnosis now helps others do the same
  

Key Takeaways:

• A new study linkssmart phone usage to lower birth rates.

• AT&T was the exclusive carrier for iPhones for five years. In counties with the highest prevalence of AT&T iPhone usage, birth rates were found to have the greatest decreases.

• Based on the NBER study, the future of our country's fertility depends on our ability to harness screen use.

The Details:

From 2007-2011, AT&T was the exclusive cellular carrier for the brand-new iPhones. In 2025, America’s birth rate, 1.6 children per woman of child-bearing age, was far below the replacement level of 2.1 children/woman. The two may be connected more than most people might think, according to a provocative new research study which found that, as smart phone usage increases, birth rates tend to decrease. 

That conclusion led CNN’s Michael Smerconish to rhetorically ask, “Is the iPhone the most effective form of birth control ever invented?” during a June 27th interview with Caitlin Myers, professor of economics at Middlebury College and co-author of the study. 

Across the country, counties where AT&T iPhone prevalence was highest were the same places where birth rates dropped the most, especially for teens and twenty-somethings.

That’s according to a June 2026 research study released by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Myers and her co-author — Ezekiel Hooper, her 24-year-old stepson — overlaid county-by-county fertility data with AT&T smartphone broadband coverage. The study examined data from June of 2007, when the iPhone went on sale, through February of 2011, when Verizon users were first able to use a version of the iPhone 4.

Teens and women in their twenties experienced drops in childbearing, while births to women in their thirties didn’t trend upward as would have been expected, given general trends toward later childbearing.

Myers and Hooper estimated that 20-35% of the birth rate decrease in women aged 15-29 was due to smartphone use. Similarly, they posited that smartphone use lowered the expected birth rate increase in 30-44 year old women by 81-84%. 

The researchers wrote:

Overall, the diffusion of the iPhone explains 33–52% of the decline in the general fertility rate among women aged 15–44. National-survey evidence on time use and sexual behavior is consistent with the iPhone reducing in-person interactions, increasing pornography use, and reducing sexual frequency.

Zoom In:

Myers explained that when economists observe declining birth rates, they ask:

[w]hether births are falling because people are just choosing to have fewer children, they want to have fewer children, or whether there’s something else going on where they’re just not as likely to form relationships or get pregnant.

And one of the clues there is that when you ask people the number of children they’d like to have, the number they give is larger than the number they’re ending up having. Some piece of this story is about people not even achieving their desired fertility.

America’s birth dearth isn’t "no big deal," as dismissive mainstream references to “pronatalism” would seem to suggest. Our ongoing “demographic winter” has real, serious consequences for the whole nation, as this 2008 documentary presciently, if sometimes dramatically, identified. 

As the NBER study observed:

This demographic shift touches every aspect of American life—from the viability of Social Security and Medicare to the future of economic growth, from housing markets to educational systems, from military recruitment to political representation. The babies not being born today represent missing workers, consumers, taxpayers, and innovators of tomorrow.

The Big Picture:

Smerconish pointed out that in 2008, the economy collapsed. Since births tend to decrease when the economy dips, could that be the real driver of falling birth rates? Is a housing market crash or other marker of economic instability to blame? 

As Myers pointed out, researchers can control for or account for these kinds of factors. And when those analyses were done, Myers noted, the iPhone-birth rate connection remained. 

During an interview with The New York Times opinion writer and author of "Rethinking Sex," Christine Emba, Smerconish summarized, “If you’re on your phone, you’re not having a personal interaction. And if you’re not having a personal interaction, you’re not having sex.” 

Emba replied:

"I think that the fertility rate is actually kind of a lagging indicator. Having babies is the very end result of all of these social interactions that come before. First, you have to get outside of your house. Then you learn to talk to people. Then you form relationships, start dating, maybe get married and have sex, and finally, at the end, you might have a child… But the iPhone is preventing us from even starting at the beginning, even having those basic interactions that lead to relationships."

The Bottom Line:

In January of 2026, Jean Twenge testified before the U.S. Senate on the effect smartphones have on youth mental health and academic performance. Twenge is a psychology professor and author of multiple books on the pitfalls of screen use for Americans of all ages.

At the same time, ‘bricking’ one’s phone is an increasingly popular means of unplugging from technology for some regular, preset length of time. A 2025 survey found that Gen Z workers desired more, not less, in-person interaction. These and a plethora of other data points suggest fatigue with the virtual world, even as smartphone addiction is a widely-recognized phenomenon. 

Based on the NBER study, nothing less than the future of our country depends on our ability to harness screen use — particularly the handheld screens most of us have on our person all day, every day — in a way that serves, not enslaves, us. 

Following party-line votes in both chambers, the state legislature passed legislation on June 30 that would criminalize interference with facilities that provide abortion and so-called 'gender affirming care' and shield providers from prosecution under laws enacted in other states. 

The bill now heads to Governor Mikie Sherrill, who is expected to sign it.

Key Takeaways:

• New Jersey passed legislation making it a criminal offense to obstruct access to facilities providing abortion and 'transgender' services, carrying penalties as steep as 10 years in prison and $150,000 in fines if someone is injured.

• The bill shields New Jersey providers from extradition to states that have criminalized the procedures they commit, effectively making the state a legal sanctuary for abortion and 'gender transition' procedures.

• Republican opponents warned the bill fails to distinguish between adult and minor patients, raises serious free speech concerns, and could restrict pro-life sidewalk counseling outside abortion facilities.

The Details:

Broadening the state’s existing abortion protections to include 'gender affirming care', the bill creates a new fourth-degree criminal offense for blocking or harassing patients, staff, or volunteers at covered facilities. The Assembly approved the measure 55 to 23, the Senate 25 to 15, with every Republican in both chambers voting against it. 

Sponsors framed it as a defensive measure against what they described as escalating pressure from the Trump administration and the ripple effects of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision returning abortion regulation to the states.

Bill sponsor Assemblywoman Luanne Peterpaul (D-Monmouth) was direct about the scope of the legislation. “This bill isn’t about trans individuals,” Peterpaul said. “This bill is about human rights, and about women getting reproductive care.”

For Khadijah Silver, director of gender justice and health equity at Lawyers for Good Government, the bill amounted to a declaration of jurisdictional independence — “a firewall against outside interference,” with New Jersey “drawing a clear line, requiring health care providers in this state answer only to the laws that already govern them.”

Republican opposition, however, was equally direct. Assemblywoman Dawn Fantasia (R-Sussex) argued the bill sweeps too broadly: “The bill does not differentiate between children and adults. That’s highly problematic,” Fantasia said. “Adults can make adult decisions. Children — that’s different.”

Assemblyman Brian Rumpf (R-Ocean) went further, accusing the majority of subordinating constitutional principles to ideology. New Jersey, he said, was “turning the Constitution on its head.”

Pro-life advocates have also raised concern about the bill’s treatment of sidewalk counseling outside abortion facilities. An earlier version even contained language critics said could expose journalists to criminal liability — that provision was stripped before final passage, but the counseling question remains unresolved.

Tuesday’s votes coincided with a Supreme Court ruling upholding laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar biological males from competing in women’s sports.

The Bottom Line:

New Jersey has handed providers of abortion and 'gender affirming care' a legal shield, and for those who believe every human life is sacred from the moment of fertilization, the bill is not a protection but an offense.

It not only insulates from accountability the taking of preborn lives and the permanent alteration of children’s bodies, but also erects legal barriers against states that have chosen to protect both, and signals that in New Jersey, the sanctity of life and human dignity are things the majority refuses to protect.

Key Takeaways:

• Jawad Javed is the division head and medical director of Neonatology with OSF HealthCare Children’s Hospital of Illinois in Peoria, Illinois.

• After Javed had been in practice for a few years, his son was born prematurely at 32 weeks.

• His son is now a healthy 13-year-old, but he said the experience changed how he communicates with the families of.NICU patients.

The Details:

Javed has been practicing medicine since 2001, and completed a fellowship in neonatology in 2008, working in the NICU at OSF HealthCare Children's Hospital. But he couldn't truly understand what the families of his tiny patients were going through until he joined their ranks.

His son, now 13, was born prematurely at 32 weeks, and he became a NICU parent himself.

Despite being a doctor, Javed still struggled to really understand everything.

"I was a new neonatologist at that time and had only been in practice for a couple of years," he said in a press release. "Nothing can quite prepare you for having a premature baby. It didn’t matter how much I knew. My wife's a pediatrician; it didn't matter how much she knew. It's terrifying, and those first moments when the baby is born and they're rushing you off to the NICU; it is a blur."

He said he was only able to absorb around 10% of what doctors were telling him, despite being a doctor himself, due to his emotional state.

"Sometimes as a provider, you feel like you want to give everything. But sometimes families just need time to digest what just happened," he explained.

That experience changed how he practiced medicine, and now, 13 years later, he still remembers that experience, even as division head and director of neonatology. He said:

"It was a blessing in disguise early in my career. It changed how I communicate with families.

Those conversations that we have with families might be some of the most important moments each day for them.

For the provider, you might be seeing 20 patients, but that family is waiting to hear about the next plan and the next decision."

Why It Matters:

Approximately 12% of babies will be born prematurely, and many of them will spend time in the NICU. The more premature the baby, the more extensive the medical needs. According to the OSF press release, their Level IV NICU includes specialties like surgical support, neurosurgery, orthopedics, ophthalmology and pediatric cardiac surgery.

These are needed because these tiny patients were still developing in the womb, despite having come a long way since fertilization. As Live Action's Baby Olivia shows, there is still much development that takes place in the third trimester.

At 24 weeks post-fertilization (26 weeks LMP/gestation), babies can be startled in the womb, with increased movement, increased heart rate, and swallowing. Lungs begin creating a substance that will enable the baby to breathe after birth. By 26 weeks, babies have developed a sense of smell, and their eyes can produce tears. By 27 weeks, eyes can react to light outside of the womb, and they can hear sounds, like their mothers' voices.

Breathing movements occur at least 40% of the time by 30 weeks, all preparing for birth. But being born prematurely disrupts that final stage of development.

The Bottom Line:

Parenting a premature infant is one of the most challenging things a person can do, as Javed learned firsthand. And having a NICU doctor who has been there and understands will surely help the families he cares for.

• Since 2022, the year that the Dobbs Supreme Court ruling overturned Roe v. Wade, nearly 4.6 million preborn children have lost their lives by abortion.

• Now, due largely to the mailing of abortion pills, estimated abortions totals have climbed by over 21% (21.47%) since 2020, and nearly 16% (15.8%) since 2022, while the abortion rate has increased by nearly 24% since 2017 and over 11% since 2022.

Key Takeaways:

• Guttmacher's updated abortion data for 2025 allows us to estimate that nearly 66 million abortions have been committed in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade was made the law of the land.

• Since Roe was overturned by Dobbs in 2022, abortion numbers have increased nearly 16% and the abortion rate has increased by over 11%, which is likely due to the removal of the FDA's in-person requirements on the abortion pill.

• In 2017 the abortion rate was at 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44. In 2025 (based on data published March 2026), the rate was 16.7.

The Details:

Who reports abortions?

Since Dobbs, the Guttmacher Institute along with the pro-abortion Society of Family Planning (SFP)'s #WeCount have been publishing estimated abortion data nationally. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has yet to release data for 2023, relies on reports sent to them by states that require the reporting of abortion statistics, and is not as comprehensive.

• Guttmacher, which has funneled at least $100 million to Planned Parenthood, did not begin publishing abortion data until 1973. In past reports, Guttmacher relied on the “Institute’s Abortion Provider Census (APC), fielded every three years since 1974″ and described as “the most comprehensive data collection effort on abortion provision in the United States.” Guttmacher claimed that “Each census is a sustained effort requiring a long fielding period, significant follow-up and substantial time and effort from abortion providers themselves.” In late 2023, after nearly 50 years of using the same methodology, Guttmacher changed and began publishing monthly abortion estimates, which it openly suggested is less reliable than the previous method. The amount of reported data has changed over time but is still considered and underestimation because currently, Guttmacher does not include data about 'advance provision' of abortion pills (which is not FDA-approved), the number of abortions provided under "exceptions" to pro-life laws, or abortions "not provided by US clinicians" —which would include the ordering of the abortion pill through a website.

• #WeCount data, according to SFP, includes "abortions within the formal US healthcare system, defined as medication or procedural abortions provided by a licensed US clinician operating within their licensed scope of practice" but the data does "not reflect self-managed abortions, defined as ending a pregnancy without the involvement of a licensed clinician operating within their licensed scope of practice, such as medications provided by community networks, clinicians providing care outside their licensed scope of practice, or websites that sell medications outside of the formal US healthcare system." SFP was founded in 2005 with a contribution from the Packard Foundation. SFP is heavily funded by the Buffett Foundation.

National death toll

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

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

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

Since 1973, the estimated death toll of preborn lives ended by violent abortion has now reached nearly 66 million, with over 4.6 million of those abortions committed since the year the Dobbs decision was decided (2022).

Abortions in 2025

Data for 2025 was previously released by Guttmacher and SFP as follows:

• Guttmacher Institute (published March 2026): 1,126,000 abortions for 2025, also claiming the 2025 total was largely unchanged from the 1,124,000 estimated in 2024.

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

However, in June of 2026, Guttmacher updated abortion data for 2025 from the 1,126,000 estimated total previously reported to:

• 2025: Updated to 1,129,900 in June 2026 — an increase of nearly 4,000.

Abortion rates

The highs and lows for abortion rates (abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44) are listed below:

• 1973: The year that Roe v. Wade was decided, the abortion rate was 16.3.

• 1980 and 1981: Abortion rates peaked at 29.3.

• 2017: In 2017, the abortion rate dropped to lowest on record, falling by 20%, "from 16.9 in 2011 to 13.5 in 2017."

More recently, the abortion rate has been increasing:

• 2020: "the abortion rate increased from 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in 2017 to 14.4 per 1,000 women, a 7% increase," Guttmacher reported.

• 2025: "The abortion rate in 2025 was 16.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44. This is the same as the rate for 2024, a 5% increase from 2023 (when the abortion rate was 15.9), and a 16% increase from the 2020 rate," wrote Guttmacher in March.

The 16.7 rate is close to the same rate seen in 1973 and similar to rates from 2011 and 2012. While rates were substantially higher in the immediate years after Roe, increases since 2017 and again post-Dobbs are a cause for concern.

Abortion estimates (so far) in 2026

According to Guttmacher's "monthly abortion provision" data, a total of 292,130 abortions were committed in the first quarter of 2026 as follows:

• January 2026: 102,510

• February 2026: 92,230

• March 2026: 97,390

These estimates are also subject to change.

Abortion increases since Dobbs

The Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court ruling overturned Roe on June 24, 2022.

• Between 2022, when an estimated 975,700 (full year) were committed, and 2025, when there were an estimated 1,129,900 abortions recorded by Guttmacher, abortions have increased over 16%.

• Between 2022 (full year), when Dobbs overturned Roe and 2026 (first quarter estimates), nearly 4.6 million abortions have been estimated to have been committed.

Abortion rates have also risen by more than 11% since 2022:

• 2022: 15 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.

• 2025: 16.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 (based on data published March 2026)

Abortion increases since mail order

In 2023, President Joe Biden's Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) eroded REMS safety requirements for the abortion pill known as REMS, by removing the in-person dispensing requirement for the drug and enabling mail-order abortion pill and pharmacy dispensing.

A look at abortion data reveals an increase of more than 21% in recent years:

• In 2020, Guttmacher previously reported a national total of 930,160 abortions and first claimed that "medication abortion crossed the threshold to become the majority of all abortions." By 2023, Guttmacher recorded an estimated 1,059,000 abortions, an increase of nearly 14% (13.85%) from 2020.

• However, when we compare 2020 abortion totals (930,160) to the updated 1,129,900 estimated for 2025, we can see a drastic increase of over 21% (21.47%).

• Between 2022 (975,700) and 2025 (1,129,900), abortions increased nearly 16% (15.8%). 

Pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute authors previously acknowledged  that "it is likely that the increased availability of telehealth medical abortion has contributed to the overall increase in abortions in the US."

This was also confirmed in a second analysis from SFP's #WeCount data. In a June 2026 press release, SFP wrote, "Abortions remain elevated, driven by telehealth and shield law provision telehealth," which "accounted for 29% of abortion care in the U.S. by the end of 2025."

The Bottom Line:

We have no way of knowing the true damage done by abortion in terms of provable, hard numbers — but what we can surmise is that the erosion of in-person dispensing for the abortion pill has caused abortion numbers to skyrocket to levels we have not seen since 2009.

While the numbers are increasing year after year, they are still not as high as they were at their peak in 1990, when 1.6M abortions were committed that year.

Abortion is the intentional ending of a human preborn life, and must be abolished.

The bill now goes to the Senate, which will likely strike it down once more, before returning to the National Assembly for a final, decisive vote on July 15.

Key Takeaways:

• The National Assembly approved the text twice, in May 2025 and February 2026, but the Senate struck it down. It will now return to the Senate, and if rejected again as expected, the text will go to the National Assembly for a final vote.

• French president Emmanuel Macron has made legalizing "assisted dying" a priority in his second term.

• An amendment that would have protected private institutions from having to participate in assisted suicide procedures was rejected.

• All attempts to place freedom of conscience guardrails around the legislation or to stop it have failed.

The Backstory:

In a vote of 295 to 232 on June 30, the National Assembly took one step closer to enshrining in the law the right to assisted suicide or euthanasia, which the bills refers to as “assisted dying,” a flagship promise for Macron’s second term. 

The legislative body had already approved the text twice (the first time in May 2025 and the second in February 2026) but the Senate struck it down both times.

The current text should become the final version of the bill. If the Senate rejects it as expected, the text will return to the National Assembly for a final vote and can no longer be amended at that point. 

Opponents of the bill have tried several strategies over the past year to stop the legislation or, at the very least, place guardrails around it to protect the autonomy and freedom of conscience of individuals and institutions.  

But all attempts have failed.

The Details:

According to Camille Galliard-Minier, Minister for Autonomy and People with Disabilities, “[The aim is to] allow everyone, wherever they are, to benefit from this new right.”

During the most recent examinations of the bill, an amendment that would have protected private institutions from having to participate in assisted suicide procedures was rejected.

This means that Catholic and other religious institutions will be forced to assist in a person’s decision to intentionally end his or her life in direct violation of the institutions' right to religious freedom — and in contradiction to their faith and ethical beliefs. 

A portion of the conscience clause remains in the text but is limited to a medical professional’s right to refuse participation in assisted suicide procedures. That same individual, however, would still have to refer the patient to someone willing to assist in causing the person's death. 

As reported by The European Conservative, Bishop Matthieu Rougé of Nanterre decried this rejection of the amendment as an attack on freedom of conscience, religious freedom, and the autonomy of institutions.

The Bottom Line:

Protesters continue to pray that the National Assembly will vote down the bill on euthanasia. But it is probable that, on July 15, France will join other European countries who have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

The Bishop of Nanterre looks forward to a papal visit in September where he expects Pope Leo XIV to encourage Christians to continue serving the sick and the elderly despite facing such restrictive laws. 

Key Takeaways:

• The woman, known only as Jane Doe, said being an LASD deputy had been her lifelong dream, but despite having a military background, she was not hired.

• A high-ranking supervisor said he would hire her if she had sex with him; believing she had no choice, she complied. That supervisor later coerced her into having an abortion against her wishes, even driving her to the abortion facility.

• He is alleged to have trafficked her to two other supervisors for sex.

• Doe said she eventually became suicidal and had an emotional breakdown.

• She is suing to force the county to produce the supervisors’ files as part of the discovery process for her lawsuit.

The Details:

The Westside Current reported that Doe filed a lawsuit against the LASD, alleging:

• sexual battery

• gender discrimination

• assault and battery

• negligence

• negligent hiring and supervision

• failure to prevent harassment

• civil rights violations 

The three supervisors are not named in the suit, but she is seeking to force the county to produce their personnel files. They are a division chief and two other supervisors; the chief and one of the supervisors retired, while the other supervisor resigned.

Doe said her dream had been to become a LASD deputy, and with a military background, she felt she was eligible. “However, that dream quickly became a nightmare as Doe was subjected to a harrowing and sustained pattern of sexual abuse perpetrated by high-ranking LASD officials,” the lawsuit said.

In 2006, she applied but was not hired. Later, at a conference, she met the LASD division chief, who was in his 50s; Doe was in her 20s. She says he told her that if she slept with him, she would be hired. She said she felt she had no other choice, so she agreed.

“This conversation kicked off a horrific cycle of sexual abuse by (the division chief) and other LASD supervisors that lasted for six interminable years,” the lawsuit said.

She was hired and entered the academy, but the division chief introduced her to another supervisor and instructed her to “take care of him sexually." After graduating the academy, Doe was assigned to the Twin Towers jail, where she was introduced to another supervisor and was directed to have sex with him also.

In 2010, Doe became pregnant, and the division chief coerced her to have an abortion, even though she did not want one. He went so far as to drive to the abortion facility to ensure she went through with the procedure.

By 2012, Doe suffered an emotional breakdown and became suicidal. Though she filed complaints with the LASD’s Special Victims Unit, her lawsuit said the investigation was designed to “designed to bury her allegations” rather than honestly assess what had happened.

The first hearing is scheduled for July 15.

Why It Matters:

Abortion is a tool frequently used by abusers to cover up their crimes, and the abortion industry has shown that all too often, it is willing to look the other way.

As Live Action’s Aiding Abusers investigation found, there has been a systemic, decades-long cover-up of child sexual abuse by abortion businesses. The multi-part video series covered sex trafficking, recorded cases, interviews with former workers, and more. In still another investigation, Planned Parenthood advised actors posing as traffickers to pretend to be the guardians of minors and lie about the ages of their child victims.

Tragically, numerous real-life predators have also been aided by the abortion industry, and not just in undercover investigations using actors.

A report published by the Annals of Health Law in 2014 found that Planned Parenthood is well known to trafficking victims. These victims had “significant contact with clinical treatment facilities, most commonly Planned Parenthood.” Many survivors testified to having undergone multiple abortions, often at the demand of their pimps, with one specifically saying Planned Parenthood was chosen because “[they] didn’t ask any questions.”...

"I got pregnant six times and had six abortions during this time. Several of them were from a doctor who was a client — he did them back door — I came in the back door after hours and paid them off the books. This kept my name off any records… At least one of my abortions was from Planned Parenthood because they didn’t ask any questions."

Numerous studies have also found that traffickers use abortion to subjugate their victims and keep them working.

The Bottom Line:

It is not known if the abortion facility in Doe's case asked any questions as to her situation and as to whether or not she truly wanted the abortion. Given that she was turned over to her abuser after the abortion was committed, however, it seems likely that the abortion was committed, no questions asked, and Doe sent on her way without any help to escape from her situation or save her preborn child's life.

Key Takeaways:

• Russia legalized abortion in 1920, when it was still part of the Soviet Union.

• Over the 70 years of the Soviet Union's existence, over 200 million abortions took place.

• Abortion remains extremely common in Russia.

• Countless women are suffering after having had abortions, and post-abortion retreats can help offer them healing.

The Backstory:

Soviet Russia legalized abortion in 1920 — the first country in the world to do so. It was widely promoted by the government, contributing to a heavily pro-abortion culture. Under 70 years of Soviet rule, over 260 million abortions were committed.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, abortion remains extremely common in Russia, though it has fallen from recent decades.

Abortion rates have been falling in recent years, to an estimated 13.1 abortions per 1,000 women in 2026, much to the consternation of pro-abortion groups.

Culturally, the abortion rate in Russia has been high because of its use as a method of birth control and family planning.

The Details:

Vatican News reported that post-abortion healing retreats like Rachel's Vineyard are now thriving in Russia. Psychologist Irina Maltseva explained that the prominence of abortion has created a country-wide cultural trauma:

In the Soviet era, abortion was considered a routine procedure. It has a destructive impact on the entire family, leading to psychological issues, emotional detachment, and even violence. That is why I believe that today, across the post-Soviet world, nearly every person is affected — directly or indirectly — by the consequences of post-abortion trauma.

Consequently, post-abortion retreats have been growing since the 2000s, with Maltseva having attended one herself in 2018.

“I didn’t have the money to participate,” she said. “When I called the vicar and explained my situation, he said: ‘Promise me that you will dedicate yourself to protecting life.’ And I promised.”

There, she met Sister Stella Witter, who helped Maltseva build a network of post-abortion retreats, with six teams holding them across Russia and Kazakhstan.

"Monasteries and parish houses became the venues for 'Rachel’s Vineyard' in these countries," Sr. Stella said. "This solved many logistical issues. The sisters know the parishioners and their life stories well. They invite people to the retreats and provide spiritual support."

Viktoria Ilyinskaya, who now volunteers at the retreat, was also an attendee, and said it opened her eyes to how many people need healing.

"I came to the Vineyard with my own pain, my own abortions," she said. "There were a priest and sisters in my group. I rebelled: why are they here? It’s not like they’ve had abortions. But as I lived through my pain alongside everyone else and saw the tears of others, I realized how deeply we all need healing."

The groups have also begun other pro-life activities, including spiritually adopting preborn children, Lenten Way of the Cross prayers for the preborn, and all-night vigils held on the anniversary of the legalization of abortion in Russia.

Maltseva added:

"For many, these forms of prayer become the tears they are finally allowed to shed. After an abortion, a silence often settles over a family. I still remember a man who approached me during a Vineyard retreat and said, 'I feel such pain. My heart is about to burst. What is happening to me?' I told him: 'This is the pain for the children lost to abortion, a pain you never permitted yourself to feel.'

He was attending the retreat with his wife. On the third day, for the first time during the spiritual exercises, he sat beside her and held her hand. They wept together. Those tears transformed their lives."

The Bottom Line:

Post-abortion trauma and regret are real, and affect post-abortive men and women. Organizations like Rachel’s Vineyard and Deeper Still can guide these people down a path towards healing and hope.

America should take seriously the damage that abortion causes, and learn a lesson from the post-abortion grief of Russian men and women.

Key Takeaways:

• Earlier this year, Noelia Castillo Ramos was euthanized after suffering from paralysis after a failed suicide attempt; Ramos had previously been sexually assaulted.

• She was initially approved to undergo euthanasia, but her father unsuccessfully fought to save his daughter's life.

• The Spanish Supreme Court has now ruled that close family members can appeal the approval of euthanasia.

The Backstory:

Geronimo Castillo, Ramos' father, launched a two-year court battle after she announced her wish to be euthanized. Represented by Abogados Cristianos (Christian Lawyers), Castillo argued that Ramos had a history of suicidal ideation and mental illness.

After a brutal sexual assault, which took place while she was already institutionalized for mental health issues, Ramos tried to take her own life. She survived, but she was left a paraplegic, and eventually decided to apply for euthanasia. Though Ramos was not ill or dying and had a history of suicide attempts, her application was still approved.

Despite her father fighting fiercely to stop the euthanasia and save her life, Ramos was killed in March at the age of 25. Disturbingly, on the day she died, Ramos' own attorney said she could not change her mind because her organs had already been committed for donation.

The Details:

The Spanish Supreme Court has now ruled that family members of those seeking to undergo euthanasia can legally challenge their decision to die. The ruling passed easily, with 23 judges voting in favor, and only nine against.

The Catalunyan government had previously filed an appeal for a local court decision, which recognized a father’s standing to challenge his adult son's euthanasia; the Supreme Court rejected the government's appeal.

In the ruling, the Supreme Court said those who can challenge euthanasia must be a member of the person's "close" family, and have "a sufficient capacity for knowledge and empathy with them to be able, if necessary, to detect possible flaws in the understanding and comprehension of the situation in which the applicant finds themselves."

If a person can demonstrate they have a close relationship with the person seeking to die, and can provide "reasonable indication of proof" that the person's death would breach euthanasia protocols, they can file a legal challenge to block it.

However, the court also recommended creating a dedicated court for this issue, so suicidal people seeking euthanasia aren't made to wait years to die, as Ramos was.

The Bottom Line:

Spain legalized euthanasia five years ago and since then, 1,668 people have been killed, according to official data published by the Spanish Ministry of Health. According to a report issued by the Professionals of Ethics Association last week, legalized euthanasia has led to the “abandonment of clinical effort” in situations where it appears to be an “easier and less costly” option. 

Year over year, the number of individuals dying by euthanasia in Spain has increased as it is promoted “as an altruistic choice, based on arguments regarding organ donation and bequests to pro-euthanasia associations.”

Critics like pro-family advocacy group the California Family Council believe Wiener’s amendments would allow child predators convicted of felonies to run for public office, despite their crimes.

The Details: 

The amendments separate sexual offenses committed against adults from those committed against children; as written, they would recognize violations against adults but not children. 

The amendments read (emphases added):

(3) (A) “Sexual assault” means a violation of Section 261, 286, 287, 288, 288.5, or 289 of, or former Section 288a or 289.5 of, the Penal Code. [offenses against adults]

(B) “Sexual assault” does not include a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289 of the Penal Code. [denies offenses committed against children] 

The codes emphasized above that Weiner is seeking to remove with his amendment include: 

• Sodomy against a minor - Section 286, subdivision (b) - “any person who participates in an act of sodomy with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.” 

• Oral copulation against a minor - Section 287, subdivision (b) - “any person who participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.”

• Sexual penetration of a minor - Section 289, subdivisions (h) or (i) - (h) - “any person who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.” (i) - “any person over 21 years of age who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 16 years of age shall be guilty of a felony.”

Wiener's website bio states that he:

... is a past Chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus and the Senate Budget and Housing Committees... served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, representing the district previously represented by Harvey Milk.... He also served in a number of community leadership roles, including co-chair of the San Francisco LGBT Community Center and on the national Board of Directors of the Human Rights Campaign. 

Zoom In:

During the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendment Committee hearing held on June 30, California Family Council President Greg Burt testified against the bill, stating: 

"When we read the… amendment to AB 2691, our honest reaction was that it could not be real. We assumed we misread it. We sat in our office and tried to imagine how anyone could stand up and defend it.

So I’m here today genuinely hoping [you] will tell us why crimes against children are being carved out of this bill…

Barring people convicted of felony sexual assault and human trafficking from holding public office is good policy. We want to support the bill. But... we were told this committee chair [Wiener] demanded exempt convictions for felony sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration against children….

Here is where the bill now stands: a person convicted of felony sexual assault against an adult would be barred from public office. A person convicted of the same act against a minor would not be." 

No rationale offered

In other words, Burt asserts, a perpetrator who assaulted an adult is disqualified from running for office, but if that offense is against a child, the perpetrator “may run for school board.”

Burt further claimed that “no one has offered a rationale,” and points out that the “Committee’s own analysis does not offer one.” 

“Other states put children first… but this amendment puts California in the opposite direction. It protects child victims least exactly where the protection is needed most,” Burt concluded. 

Senator and Vice-chairman of the Committee Steven Choi stated that until the amendments were added, he was a “strong supporter” of the bill. But with the amendments that Choi stated explicitly allow for “pedophiles and child groomers” to hold elected office, he “cannot in good conscience support the bill.”  

“I cannot understand why these exclusions have been made,” Choi stated.  

The author of the bill — a former board member of Planned Parenthood Central Coast Action Fund — Senator Dawn Addis, was directly asked by Senator Choi why the amendments, which contradict the bill's original intention (to protect the general public from sexual predators from obtaining positions of authority) was allowed. 

Addis’ response did not address the concerns but defaulted to boasting that the bill was the “first in the nation” of its kind.  

Chairman Wiener called opposition to the bill nothing more than “political cynicism," claiming that such voices are upset that the bill “didn’t include enough crimes.” Wiener suggested that those with concerns about the amendment “could introduce whatever bill you want to introduce in the future” to address the concerns, aimed at protecting children from sexual predators holding positions of power.   

This is a nonsensical argument. Instead it should be asked why these specific offenses, which were included in the original text of the legislation, were intentionally removed in the first place. 

AB 2691 passed out of the committee and is expected to move to the California Senate floor. 

Another bill derailed

During the same committee hearing, AB 2753, a bill aiming to prevent persons on the registered sex offenders list from running for elected office, was considered.

Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria shared that this particular bill was written to prohibit scenarios recently experienced in the city of Fresno (in her district and where Soria previously served as a city councilmember) after a registered sex offender, convicted of possession of child sex abuse materials, attempted to run for city council.

“Our community was shocked and outraged that a registered sex offender could run for office,” Soria stated.

Under Wiener’s leadership, an amendment was added to this bill as well, to limit restrictions to those on the register under “tier 3,” or those mandated to remain on the sex offender registry for their lifetime. 

Wiener urged the Committee to vote against AB 2753, stating that in 2017, “1 in 400 Californians” were on the sex offender registry. Wiener stated that the sex offender registry “is not a form of punishment” but is a “tool for law enforcement to be able to monitor people who may potentially cause a risk.” 

During the hearing, Assemblywoman Soria explained why she rejected Wiener's amendment, stating: 

"The bill that is in front of us does not create any new crimes. It does not expand the sex offender registry, nor does it change who must register…. It simply says that if California currently requires someone to register as a sex offender, they should not be entrusted with the honor of elected office…

My community and I feel very strongly about these individuals seeking to run for elected office and we do believe that we must draw the line there."

However, following Senator Wiener's recommendation, AB 2753 failed to advance.    

The Bottom Line:

Encouraging local residents to get involved, the California Family Council stated, “California deserves laws that protect children—not loopholes that raise serious questions about who can hold public office.” 

Key Takeaways:

• Dr. Tlaleng Mofokeng worked as an abortionist in South Africa before being named special rapporteur on the right to health for the UN.

• She has held this position for six years and will now step down.

• In her final report, she aggressively promoted extreme pro-abortion policies.

The Backstory:

In 2020, Mofokeng was appointed to her position, which is part of the “Special Procedures” of the Human Rights Council. Though it is an unpaid position, it is considered influential, and her role was to examine and report on situations regarding the right to health care in different nations.

Her experience before joining the UN was as an abortionist in South Africa, and she also served as Vice Chairperson of the Sexual and Reproductive Justice Coalition of South Africa. Unsurprisingly, she was an enthusiastic promoter of abortion. Mofokeng also heavily promoted prostitution, euphemistically referring to it as "sex work."

In an op-ed — shockingly published by Teen Vogue — Mofokeng compared being a prostitute to being a doctor. "I am a doctor, an expert in sexual health, but when you think about it, aren't I a sex worker?" she wrote. "And in some ways, aren't we all?"

Her jaw-dropping remarks continued:

I find it interesting that as a medical doctor, I exchange payment in the form of money with people to provide them with advice and treatment for sex-related problems; therapy for sexual performance, counseling and therapy for relationship problems, and treatment of sexually transmitted infection.

Isn't this basically sex work? I do not believe it is right or just that people who exchange sexual services for money are criminalized and I am not for what I do.

Is a medical degree really the right measure of who is deserving of dignity, autonomy, safety in the work place, fair trade and freedom of employment? No. This should not be so. Those who engage in sex work deserve those things, too.

Sex-trafficking and prostitution are both closely connected to abortion. And there is a big difference in being paid to provide medical care to an individual and being paid by an individual who aims to use you as a nameless means to their own sexual pleasure.

In an interview with the South African Sunday Times, she said, “There is a lot of judgment, even in medicine, around the morals and values around porn… my take is that if it is not hurting anyone, then go ahead.”

This comment presumes that the consumption of pornography doesn't "hurt" anyone, but this simply isn't the case. Fight the New Drug points out that pornography "can fuel sex trafficking," profits from "nonconsensual content and abuse," distorts "consumers' understanding of healthy sex," and "can promote sexual violence."

The Details:

During her tenure, Mofokeng argued in favor of "self-managed abortion," despite the dangers associated with it, and called for total decriminalization of abortion worldwide.

These ideas were echoed in her final report, in which Mofokeng wrote about "the right to health as an enabler of human dignity." Unsurprisingly, Mofokeng argued that intentionally killing preborn humans (in other words, abortion) is a key factor in enabling human dignity.

"In sexual and reproductive health rights, dignity requires respect for decisions about reproduction and sexual life and protection from punitive legal restrictions on bodily autonomy that generate stigma and discrimination," she wrote. "Restrictions that punish abortion seekers, providers or those who assist them can force individuals into unsafe practices and deter them from seeking or providing post‑abortion care."

In countries where abortion is not completely legal, Mokofeng argued for these countries to:

adopt measures to achieve legislative and legal reforms to move towards decriminalization and immediately mitigate harm, including by ensuring access to information and sexual and reproductive health education, affordable contraception, non-stigmatizing care and strict confidentiality protections for post‑abortion and emergency care.

This, she said, is necessary for "the right to health to be realized."

Mofokeng also disturbingly applauded Spain for:

the regulation of conscientious objection and the creation of a registry of objecting professionals constitutes important instruments that is aimed at avoiding the scenario wherein collective objection limits the right to abortion.

In reality, this is a blacklist of doctors with conscientious objections to participating in or committing abortions.

“This is difficult to see as anything other than an attempt to restrict freedom of conscience,” said Manuel Martínez-Sellés, president of the Madrid College of Physicians, adding that “objector lists” could be used “to discriminate against doctors who refuse to take part in acts they consider morally wrong.”

The Bottom Line:

A replacement for Mofokeng will be named in July, but the UN has become increasingly pro-abortion, and the last two people to hold Mofokeng's position had likewise been pro-abortion extremists. It seems probable that the same trend will continue.

Key Takeaways:

• Gakpo and his partner, Noa van der Bij, are parents to one child, a son named Samuel.

• They were expecting their second child, a boy named Elijah, with van der Bij due in October.

• Van der Bij broke the news on social media that the couple had suffered a heartbreaking pregnancy loss.

• Gakpo decided to continue playing, and after scoring a goal, fell to the ground sobbing while surrounded by his teammates.

The Details:

In May, van der Bij shared a carousel of photos on Instagram with Gakpo and their son, Samuel, to share they were expecting again. "Our little family is growing," she wrote. "[W]e can’t wait to meet you."

Tragically, the couple lost their son, who they had named Elijah. Though they have not said how far along van der Bij was, her due date was in October, making her at least 22 weeks pregnant when she broke the news, which classifies their loss as a stillbirth; pregnancy loss before 20 weeks is classified as miscarriage, and after, stillbirth.

"With broken hearts, we share the devastating news that our baby boy passed away during pregnancy," van der Bij posted to her Instagram Stories on June 27. "Thank you for your love and support. Elijah Raphael Gakpo. Forever loved. Forever our son."

She then added another post with a photo of a candle and a cross at church, and said they had gone there to pray as a family:

We went to church to light a candle. Afterward, we walked to the church playground with our son Samuel. There was only one other child there. His name was Elijah. There could not have been a more beautiful sign from God. He reminded us that our little boy is never far away.

Gakpo shared himself about the loss, writing, "This is an incredibly difficult time for our family. We kindly ask for our privacy and space. Thank you for your understanding."

Zoom In:

His team has been publicly supportive of him in his grief, and said they would respect whatever decision he made regarding playing in the competition. Ultimately, Gakpo chose to carry on, though his teammates and coach said it is a sad reminder that some things are bigger than sport.

"It's awful news, and you're right, it reminds us that football is secondary and there are much more important things in life," Dutch captain and Liverpool teammate Virgil Van Dijk said. "Cody is dealing with it, and he's determined to help the team reach the next round."

Head coach Ronald Koeman agreed, adding, "As you said, it was very sad news that Cody and his family received. We've done everything in our power to support him as players and staff."

The support Gakpo had from his team was on full display in their most recent game. The Netherlands advanced to the knockout round of the World Cup, and in their game against Morocco, Gakpo scored a crucial point, allowing the team to take the lead.

Immediately, he fell to his knees and openly sobbed; his team, however, didn't hesitate, and surrounded him in an open show of support — even the substitutes who were not currently on the field.

When Gakpo rose to his feet, he was still openly weeping, but pointed to the sky, seemingly in tribute to his preborn son. On Instagram, van der Bij shared the photo to her stories and wrote, "So proud."

The Netherlands ultimately lost in a penalty shoot-out, and have been eliminated from the World Cup.

The Bottom Line:

Pregnancy loss has typically been covered up and kept quiet, leaving countless grief-stricken parents to suffer alone and in silence.

Gakpo's bravery and open emotion helps bring awareness to the reality of pregnancy loss, how painful it is for both parents as well as siblings, and the difference support from a community can make.

LCA urged the SAB’s Drinking Water Committee, comprised of experts in various realms of environmental and water-related science, to list Mifepristone on the Contaminant Candidate List 6. This list is a regulatory tool under the Safe Drinking Water Act that identifies contaminants that are not yet subject to any water protection regulations.

LCA was only one of two organizations to present the Mifepristone issue to the committee. In its presentation, LCA Public Policy Analyst Abigail Forman summarized LCA’s 41-page written comment by presenting the key concern behind the abortion drug.

In summary, Forman reported that Mifepristone was designed, and FDA approved, to end the life of an unborn child. As a result, the drug generates medical waste setting it apart from other drugs, and contains active metabolites that retain the ability to block progesterone, a vital fertility hormone.

Mifepristone is widely used at home by approximately 700,000 women annually, but conventional wastewater and drinking water treatment plants are not designed to remove these contaminants. Since we know components of the drug have been found in rivers and wastewater effluents internationally, Forman noted that it is highly likely Americans are ingesting trace amounts of a still active progesterone-blocking drug—a vital concern as the nation faces a fertility crisis.

Forman also cited a 2024 scientific study describing Mifepristone as widely distributed in the environment and among the most alarming public health concerns. 

The Drinking Water Committee is meeting between June and August 2026 to review the Contaminant Candidate List 6 and consider additional contaminants that should be included on the list. Since the list is only updated every five years, Forman stated that listing Mifepristone on this specific upcoming list matters because it will name the drug as a distinct contaminant out from under a broader pharmaceuticals category and will guarantee the drug will get evaluated without a delay of another five years.

Underscoring this, Forman pointed out that while the EPA may choose to prioritize drugs on the “Human Health Benchmarks for Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water” review, that list currently does not include Mifepristone. However, it does include the second drug in the abortion pill regimen, Misoprostol, “even though it has a very short half-life—about 30 minutes—and is excreted as inactive metabolites.” Forman also noted that Misoprostol is listed for its ability to reduce the risk of NSAID-induced gastric ulcers, not for its abortifacient properties.

“By contrast, Mifepristone has a long half-life exceeding 30 hours and produces active metabolites, making it far more likely to persist in the environment and ultimately be ingested in drinking water,” Forman stated. “This inconsistency aligns with a pattern that has become even more apparent in recent years—the unwillingness of politically neutral, objective entities to even question let alone criticize anything having to do with abortion. The EPA should treat Mifepristone as the distinct contaminant that it is and include it and its metabolites by name on the final list to avoid monitoring and research delays.”

Liberty Counsel Action President John Stemberger said, “The federal government needs to properly evaluate Mifepristone's  environmental and public health implications, which have been ignored for far too long. By being named directly on Contaminant Candidate List 6, it will get the evaluation it needs and will not be overlooked by the EPA.”

It is not our intent to enter into the ethical arguments regarding MAiD, nor to provide a moral argument for or against MAiD. . . . No matter where people are in their life journey, we as a Christian community and Christian leaders in particular are called to respond pastorally to the needs and concerns of the people before us. Wherever the church serves, we are the Body of Christ reaching out to the suffering, the sick, and the dying. When someone reaches out for pastoral care, the church responds: there is a duty of pastoral care.

If the Anglican Church can’t enter into an ethical argument about euthanasia what is the point of being a church? And given that suicide has always been considered an egregious sin in Christianity from its very early days, wouldn’t “Christian” pastoral care be obligated to at least try and help the suicidal person decide not to be made dead?

Here is another justification for blessing a euthanasia killing in the document:

Death is a natural part of life, and in the spirit of the Church’s continued ministry, we are called to walk alongside health care agencies and practitioners to offer a pastoral response and presence to those who are dying. As the Book of Alternative Services notes, “if the sick could not get to church, then the Church [. . . should] come to them.”

Natural death is “a natural part of life.” Being killed is not. Moreover, is it really properly a Christian act to “walk alongside” a doctor or nurse practitioner who kills?

The earliest Christian ethical writing dating from about 100 — the Didache — explicitly condemns “murder” as profoundly sinful. True, Canada has legalized this particular form of homicide, but the issue with regard to a church is not statutory legality, but rather, ethics and morality.

The document spouts false premises and shallow rationalizations for supporting being euthanized:

People who choose MAiD freely and without coercion may indeed be ready to go. They have been living with and suffering through complex health challenges and they want the pain to stop. They want to be able to sleep. They desperately do not want their families and loved ones to watch and wait, wondering how much longer? They have exhausted all medical options, and they know, everyone knows, that there is no cure. Some wish, most of all, not to be alone at the time of their death, and to die well. Some, who are Christian, also desire not to be alone at the time of their death, and to die well, and with the grace and blessing of God and with the presence of the Church at their side.

The law in Canada does not require that “all medical options” be exhausted. And how can putting oneself out of their loved ones’ misery be blessed? Moreover, every suicidal person is “ready to go.” If someone who is disabled or ill can be supported spiritually in having themselves made dead, why not also any other suicidal person?

The rite, which can include Communion, contains the litany to God, “We put our trust in you.” Considering the context, many Christians will find that prayer deeply ironic.

By offering the supposed imprimatur of Christ — because that is whom the church is supposed to represent as His mystical body — to being euthanized and euthanizing, the Canadian Anglican Church has further normalized killing as an answer to human suffering.

Perhaps even worse, its validation could result in deaths that might have been prevented as receiving the blessing could become the tipping point for some suicidal persons choosing lethality over struggling on.

This will be of no consequence to those who are not believers. But for Christians throughout history, blessing euthanasia would be a most profound scandal.

Kim Bok-Soon, a woman I will probably never meet, changed my life in an immeasurable way. 

When you think of people who change the world, who comes to mind?

Perhaps politicians whose signatures alter the course of history. A pioneering physician whose discovery saves millions of lives. An inventor, philanthropist, or entrepreneur whose ideas reshape society. Maybe a musician or actor whose work has brought joy through their art.

Kim Bok-Soon is none of these things. No, she is “just” the woman who gave birth to my husband.

My husband’s birthmother almost seems a caricature of the woman abortion advocates say desperately needs access to “reproductive healthcare”, a euphemistic way to say, “needs to end the life of her unborn child.” 

An unplanned pregnancy in South Korea

She grew up in a rural South Korea, as the only daughter among six children. She fell in love with a young man in the area. The only name I have for him is Lee, his family name, which was passed onto my husband and remains as one of his middle names. He was the oldest son in another large family. 

Bok-Soon and Lee had been dating for a couple years when her father had a stroke. She was in high school at the time and dropped out to help take care of her father and work to make up for his lost income. When she was 20, Bok-Soon found herself unexpectedly pregnant. 

I have no way of knowing this for certain, but Korean friends have shared some cultural context with me of why a years-long relationship did not find marriage as the answer to my husband’s unplanned-for existence. Being the eldest son and in college at the time, that position came with a level of prestige that would have made his family very unfavorable to the prospect of him marrying “down”. 

Bok-Soon moved to the city and got a job there to hide her pregnancy from her family. This isn’t uncommon in South Korea, where being a single mother is much more taboo and life-altering than it is in the United States. The social stigma surrounding unmarried motherhood in South Korea was, and remains, severe. Her family probably would’ve disowned her. She likely would have lost her job. Finding housing as a single mother would have been extraordinarily difficult. Marriage prospects would have been slim to non-existent.

I’m sure she held on to the hope that Lee would do right by her and marry her.

Instead, when she was seven months pregnant, he chose that "convenient" moment to begin his mandatory military service. Because he was in college, he could have postponed it until graduation.

Choosing life and adoption

I can’t imagine the devastation she felt. They had created this child together, yet she alone was left to bear the consequences.

So here she stood: poor, undereducated, abandoned by the father of her child, with no family or societal support.

And she still chose life.

Bok-Soon made the painful decision to place my husband up for adoption. Besides the priceless gift of my husband, she gave us the gift of giving birth in a hospital, legally relinquishing him, and leaving all the details I just shared with you. No secret at-home birth with my husband in a basket on a street corner. 

Little Lee Sung Soo came into the world, Bok-Soon stayed in the hospital with him for 4 days, and then she said goodbye

I don't know whether she gave him his name, but Sung Soo comes from Chinese characters meaning "accomplish" and "protect."

He’s AJ now, but every time I look at our three children’s features and see something that I don’t recognize looking at my husband’s face or mine, I wonder about Lee and Kim Bok-Soon. 

I think about the brave decision she made and then recommitted herself to every day that followed.

If the wrong person would’ve spoken into her life while she was pregnant, would my husband exist? 

Would I have met the love of my life? 

Would that love have produced our three gorgeous children? 

Ripples across generations

My husband has served in the United States Navy for eighteen years, supporting and defending the Constitution and leading sailors as a Chief Petty Officer. He has influenced countless lives through his leadership, his integrity, and with his infectious smile and eyes that twinkle with mirth. The world would be a different place without him.

You could argue that he is only one man among billions.

You would be right.

But he is also a masterpiece of God’s handiwork, a unique genetic code that has never existed before and will never exist again from the moment that Bok-Soon and Lee came together to create him. 

The small pebble that Bok-Soon figuratively threw into the water when she chose life for her son continues to send ripples across generations.

As Maximus said in "Gladiator": "What we do in life echoes in eternity."

(I couldn't write about my husband without sneaking in a Gladiator quote.)

I thank God every day for my husband, and I hope that one day I can thank my Korean mother-in-law in person.

The impact of one story like my husband’s is impossible to quantify amongst all the heart-rending statistics about abortion.

According to the World Health Organization, 73 million babies are aborted worldwide every year. In the United States, about 1 out of 3 pregnancies ends in abortion. 

What we cannot calculate are the friendships never formed, the courage never displayed, the wisdom never shared, the songs never sung, and the quiet acts of kindness that never ripple outward because one life was ended before they took their first breath.

I think of that scene in "Children of Men," when the nurse Miriam is recounting to the main character Theo her memories of the beginning of the end of society, when the babies stopped being born, “As the sound of the playgrounds faded, the despair set in. Very odd, what happens in a world without children’s voices.” 

The world is missing so much laughter. It is a quieter and grayer place without those souls lost to abortion, and it breaks my heart. 

Moms, Dads, your baby is a blessing, like sunshine, warming everything its light touches. 

So throw the pebble, choose life, and watch the ripples go on and on and on. 

On Wednesday, June 17, the City Council of Comanche, Texas (pop.4,294) rejected a Sanctuary City for the Unborn (SCFTU) ordinance that would have further protected pregnant mothers and their unborn children from the violence of abortion. The vote was 3-1.

While Mayor Mary Boyd was supportive of the passage of the measure, the mayor could only vote if there was a tie, and there was no tie. Councilmembers Jackie Escobar-Gutierrez, Jimmy Cuellar, and Mayor Pro-Tem Esmeralda Cumba all cast their votes against the measure, and Councilman Rick Griffith cast the lone vote in favor of the measure. Councilman Shane Stalnacker did not vote, as he was absent from the specially-called meeting.

The failed vote came as a shock to many in conservative Comanche County, where 86.78% voted Republican in the November 2024 Presidential Election.

Comanche resident Crystal Morin shared:

“The vote made by our Comanche City Council does not represent us, and it does not represent those unborn children who have no voice. I refuse to believe that I live in a city out-of-step with the pro-life beliefs and values of the State of Texas. I want to be a voice and help save lives and do the right thing and stand up for those unspoken voices.” 

Ironically, the vote by the Comanche City Council came just four days after delegates to the Republican Party of Texas 2026 Party Convention in Houston adopted “Protect Life” as one of their eight legislative priorities for lawmakers. One of the strong pro-life planks adopted at the convention read:

Abortion is not healthcare; it is homicide. Until the abolition of abortion is achieved, we support laws that restrict and regulate abortion, including but not limited to . . . Supporting the right of Texas political subdivisions to protect mothers and their preborn children in their communities by passing enforceable city or county ordinances that further ban abortions within their county or city limits, closing loopholes in state abortion laws.

The Proposed Comanche SCFTU Ordinance

Had the pro-life measure been adopted, the Comanche SCFTU Ordinance would have provided the strongest level of protection for pregnant mothers and their unborn children from the tragedy of abortion. The ordinance would have:

1. Prohibited elective abortions and the aiding or abetting of elective abortions within the City of Comanche by extending the private enforcement mechanism of the Texas Heartbeat Act from the point of detectable heartbeat to the point of fertilization.

2. Prohibited elective abortions on residents of the City of Comanche – regardless of where the abortion takes place.

3. Prohibited abortion traffickers and abortion trafficking organizations from trafficking women, including minors, through the City of Comanche for abortions across state lines.

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

5. Recognized 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 prohibited such organizations from doing business within the City of Comanche.

6. Prohibited Texas waste management companies from transporting through the City of Comanche 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 ordinance would have been enforced the same way as the Texas Heartbeat Act, not by law enforcement but by giving private citizens the ability to file a lawsuit against any individual or organization in violation of the ordinance.

The County Attorney Goes To City Hall

Prior to the vote of the Comanche City Council, residents of Comanche addressed the city council during the public comment portion of the meeting. The vast majority opposed passage of the ordinance.

The loudest member of the public opposing the measure was Comanche County Attorney Molly Odgers. The county attorney, who ran as a Republican, was elected to the office in the November 2024 General Election and sworn in for her first term in January 2025.

At the meeting, Odgers questioned whether the ordinance was “necessary, prudent, and in the best interests of the citizens of Comanche.”

To Odgers, the City of Comanche was addressing a matter they did not need to address – brought about by outside individuals and organizations. Odgers stated:

“Our city government should be focused on addressing the needs and concerns of local residents, not advancing the agenda of outside organizations or individuals who have little stake in the long-term consequences for our community.”

In making such statements, Odgers appeared unaware that this measure was the result of Comanche residents seeking to have their city council consider it for the past 7 years.

Despite the measure not having the support of the county attorney, the measure did have the support of conservative Senators and Representatives from across the State of Texas. In August 2023, now-House Speaker Dustin Burrows and 19 other Texas Senators and Representatives penned a letter “To Texas City Councils, County Commissions, and Local Officials” in encouraging Texas cities and counties to pass ordinances outlawing abortion. The letter from conservative elected leaders across Texas stated:

Currently there are over 50 political subdivisions in Texas which have passed local ordinances prohibiting abortion within their jurisdictions. As elected officials who voted for state legislation allowing these local actions, we are thrilled to see this wave of pro-life action at the local level and hope to see these ordinances continue to spread across our state – even in a post-Roe Texas.

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.

During her lengthy 600+ word speech against the ordinance, County Attorney Odgers said nothing about the real and pressing problems of abortion trafficking and abortion-pill trafficking that are impacting pregnant mothers and their unborn children. Instead, Odgers argued that the ordinance “could expose the City to significant legal and financial risk” and accused those promoting the ordinance of “advancing a broader political agenda rather than protecting the financial interests” of the City of Comanche. 

In making such statements, Odgers did not mention the last time a city in Texas was sued over a SCFTU ordinance, which was the City of Lubbock on May 17, 2021. Two weeks later, on June 1, 2021, Federal District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled in Lubbock’s favor. The outcome of that lawsuit became a part of history.

In "The Story of Abortion in America: A Street-Level History 1652–2022," published by Crossway in 2023, Marvin Olasky and Leah Savas wrote:

The day the ordinance went into effect, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Planned Parenthood could not sue the city of Lubbock because the city had no role in enforcing the ordinance. To challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance, the abortion business would have to first violate the ordinance and then wait for a lawsuit, which could be costly.

So Planned Parenthood complied with the ordinance and halted the abortions in Lubbock. [Attorney Jonathan F. ] Mitchell later noted that it was the first time since Roe v. Wade that an abortion ban had survived a court challenge.

A total of 78 political subdivisions in Texas – 57 cities and 21 counties – have passed similar ordinances since the last lawsuit was filed. The cities of Eastland, Cisco, Abilene, San Angelo, Mullin, Clyde, and Ranger are just a handful of the many cities that have passed such ordinances since Lubbock. Texas’ SCFTU ordinances were not written to get cities sued, but to prevent cities from ever being successfully sued. 

Wins and Losses

Odgers inquired how many cities have rejected SCFTU ordinances. While the majority of Texas political subdivisions (cities and counties) that took a final vote on the SCFTU ordinances adopted the measure, a small minority of cities and an even smaller minority of counties did not. That has almost always been the result of local leadership having a pro-choice majority or acting on bad advice from attorneys whose beliefs and values were not aligned with conservative Texas values.

The breakdown of the numbers is as follows:

• 83.47% (101) of all political subdivisions in Texas that took a final vote on the ordinance adopted it and kept it, while 16.53% (20) rejected it and still reject it.

• When looking only at cities in Texas, 81.63% (80) adopted and kept the measure, while 18.37% (18) rejected it and still do.

• Among counties in Texas, 91.30% (21) adopted the measure and kept the measure, while 8.70% (2) rejected the measure and still reject the measure.

The Bottom Line

While the Comanche City Council rejected this opportunity to further outlaw abortion, the fight is far from over. Those interested in learning more about the Comanche SCFTU Initiative are encouraged to check out Abiding Life Fellowship’s web page devoted to the measure and read the research packet provided to the mayor and city council. 

Citizens interested in seeing their city or county pass an ordinance further prohibiting abortion, carefully written within the framework of their state and local laws, are encouraged to sign the online petition.

Forbes' article on the study mirrors the narrative of multiple pro-abortion articles, claiming that pro-life laws "are forcing doctors across multiple specialties to delay or withhold standard pregnancy care, putting women’s lives at risk due to fear of legal consequence."

Key Takeaways:

• Researchers conducted video interviews with just 40 physicians across nine pro-life states (with an average of less than eight years practicing medicine among them), yet the study is being touted as if it should be interpreted broadly.

• The doctors were self-selected participants in the study, which makes them less likely to be a reliable, varied pool of participants and more likely to hold the strongest opinions.

• Some of the physicians' frustrations centered around feeling as if there were delays in care due to pressure to reach a definitive diagnosis before treating a patient, requiring a woman to have more than one scan or test to determine a condition and course of treatment, and general complaints about having to consult with other doctors or get second opinions out of an alleged fear of prosecution.

The Details:

For the study, researchers conducted "semistructured interviews... via videoconference" in an attempt to show that "abortion bans" are having negative effects on women who aren't seeking elective abortions — and the media has eagerly spread this narrative.

Forbes gushes that the researchers are "affiliated with top hospitals and universities," and points to a biased study about the alleged "economic cost of abortion restrictions," seemingly never looking ahead to the impending economic crisis created by a plummeting birth rate.

The "qualitative study" was published on June 22 by the JAMA Network and was "conducted between May 13, 2024, and May 23, 2025." Researchers interviewed only "40 US physicians practicing in 9 states [Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia] with total abortion bans." The study notes that "[p]articipants included physicians from emergency medicine, family medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology specialties...." Out of these, 18 were OB/GYNs, eight were in family medicine, and 14 were in emergency medicine. They averaged less than eight years in practice.

The study's introduction in JAMA begins with clear bias, claiming that "Loss of abortion access carries significant risk, as morbidity and mortality of pregnancy and childbirth exceed those of abortion," linking to the single study that actually showed such a result from Drs. Raymond and Grimes in 2014 — with results that have never been replicated.

Buried near the end of the study is a section describing its "limitations" — including significant issues like self-selected participation or purposive sampling, along with the use of snowball sampling, defined as "a non-probability sampling method where existing participants help recruit future participants." The "Limitations" section reads (emphases added):

... As with all qualitative work, the findings rely on subjective participant accounts that may be infused with personal beliefs or recall bias. Participants self-selected into the study [known as purposive sampling]. which may lead to overrepresentation of those with the strongest opinions or particularly challenging experiences. Finally, we did not capture the perspectives of physicians who ultimately left states with abortion bans, whose experiences may differ meaningfully from those who remain.

While a list of the study's largely open-ended interview questions is available, what isn't offered to readers is full documentation of the answers researchers received from participants who volunteered for the study. And yet, the study design used an "interpretivist paradigm," which "focuses on understanding the subjective meanings and experiences of participants." The study noted:

The semistructured interview guide was used to explore clinical decision-making, patient care, counseling practices, and the influences of abortion bans on physicians’ professional responsibilities. Interviews lasted 30 to 45 minutes and were audiorecorded with participants’ consent. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, reviewed for accuracy, and deidentified. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently and continued until thematic saturation was reached.

The study's data sharing statement reads:

The data generated and analyzed in this study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the topic and the potential risk of participant identification. In the current legal and political context surrounding abortion care, even deidentified qualitative data may pose risks to participant confidentiality and safety; therefore, data will not be shared.

Dr. Ingrid Skop of the Charlotte Lozier Institute told Live Action News via email:

"Once again, JAMA has demonstrated its ideological commitment to sowing confusion about laws protecting unborn life, even at the risk of unnecessarily harming women.

No conclusion can be drawn from the experiences of only two OB/gyns sampled from each pro-life state. Nevertheless, these doctors are confused, because no pro-life law prevents care of miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or immediate treatment, including abortion, in obstetric emergencies."

Zoom In:

Despite this statement, the authors included within the study a small chart of partial commentary obtained from participants. Some of the complaints from doctors (in states that treat preborn children as actual human beings) included:

• Feeling pressure to get a "definitive diagnosis" before treating pregnant patients

• Policies that may require a woman to have more than one scan or test to determine proper course of action

• Needing to consult a hospital's legal team/cardiology before completing a C-section

• Confusion about how/whether to treat ectopic pregnancies

• Concern that the pathologist might contradict the doctor's pre-procedure diagnosis

• Concern that not immediately offering an abortion is like "playing God"

• Feeling the need to get a second opinion from radiology regarding a suspected miscarriage

• Inability to let a miscarrying patient diagnose herself with miscarriage

... and more.

Researchers also noted (emphasis added), yet didn't include :

A few EM physicians reported no change in ectopic pregnancy management, often because they routinely consulted OB-GYN physicians. One EM physician expressed that state-level exceptions were sufficient to guide timely care:

The [state] Medical Board released a statement … confirming that procedures to treat [ectopic pregnancy] are not abortions … we could do whatever was medically necessary ... didn’t have to wait until the woman was basically dying to intervene. That’s always been clear to me, but I guess it hasn’t been clear to others.

And perhaps that's really the issue here. Hospitals need to make clear policy based on state law, and inform their physicians of this policy. Most hospitals have had years to make this happen. So why isn't it happening everywhere?

Researchers also noted:

A few OB-GYN physicians reported that they could still offer abortion for previable PPROM at their institutions. However, most physicians stated that PPROM alone was no longer considered sufficiently life-threatening to allow intervention, and termination was allowed only in cases of sepsis, significant bleeding, or fetal demise.

The PPROM Foundation has a detailed list of treatment protocols for the condition, stating in part (emphases added):

There are three treatment options in pregnancies affected by PPROM: elective termination of pregnancy, expedient induction of pregnancy, and Expectant Management. Much depends on the gestational age at rupture and presenting complications (infection, fetal or maternal distress).

Treatment must be individualized, especially with consideration of gestational age at rupture and with an assessment of the predicted maternal, fetal, and neonatal risks for complications.

Traditionally, termination of pregnancy pre-viability was the preferable option because of the presumed risk of maternal sepsis and very poor fetal outcome. In the past two decades, there has been a dramatic improvement in neonatal outcomes after preterm birth because of the use of antenatal corticosteroids...

The patient choosing Expectant Management must monitor symptoms closely for infection, watch for contractions or signs of labor, avoid unnecessary internal exams, attend regular appointments with the maternal-fetal medicine specialist, comply with activity level as directed by the physician, and notify the provider in the event of any changes to condition...

The Bottom Line:

Overall, this study is small, anecdotal, and relies on self-enrolled individuals (with relatively brief careers in medicine) who, therefore, likely have the strongest opinions on the subject. There is no solid data here, and certainly not enough information to be gleaned from an average of just five physicians per surveyed pro-life state.

Ultimately, this qualitative study fails to provide proof of much at all.