Key Takeaways:

• Firefighter Alan Kent helped to deliver Chloe Huddle in 2004, and since that time, Kent and the Huddle family have had a special relationship.

• Chloe celebrated several birthdays at Fire Station 15, but didn't understand the significance of it until she got older.

• Kent recently drove over 800 miles to be there for Chloe's college graduation, and plans to be at her wedding in July as well.

The Details:

Firefighter and paramedic Alan Kent drove over 800 miles last month to watch Chloe Huddle graduate from Grand Canyon University. The relationship started between them 22 years earlier after a 911 emergency call to his fire station ended in his presence at her birth. 

“Alan was one of the first people to really hold me,” said Chloe, who graduated last month with a Bachelor's Degree in Educational Studies and a minor in Christian studies. “…We’ve just always had a bond” — one that has been celebrated all her life.

Kent says being a part of Chloe's life has been the highlight of his career. “To watch [Chloe] grow up every year, I got to really know her family, both sides. … I’ve been to her sister and her brother’s weddings already.”

And in the near future, he plans to attend Chloe’s wedding as well. The family is already talking about how to include him in the ceremony itself. 

The Backstory:

Kent and Huddle's relationship is the kind movies are made of. What started out as just another day on the job for Kent on February 15, 2004, dramatically changed when Kent and his team of firefighters and EMTs responded to a call at the home of Stacy and Todd Huddle.

Heading into the house, Kent heard screams coming from upstairs, and immediately knew what was happening. As GCU News reported:

As soon as he and a team of fellow firefighters and EMTs pulled up to Stacy and husband Todd Huddle’s home around 6 a.m. and heard the screams, Kent said, “Oh, we’re getting ready to have a baby.” He had delivered babies before in his career. “I told the guys, go grab the OB kit. This sounds like it could be it.”

Stacy Huddle, who was a nurse in Colorado Springs and had even taught labor and delivery classes, says she was “in denial,” thinking maybe the symptoms were from the flu she had been dealing with. Chloe was due a week later (on Stacy's birthday) and as labor was rapidly progressing, Stacy realized her daughter was coming on her own timeframe. 

Not long after Chloe’s birth, the Huddles brought her into Fire Station 15 to visit Alan and thank him for his help. From that moment on, a decision was made that he would be a part of her life moving forward.

For several years, Chloe celebrated her birthday at the fire station, not initially understanding the significance. “I always thought it was kind of different. But it didn’t resonate with me that this wasn’t a normal thing,” she said.

The most memorable birthday of all, she says, was her 15th.

“They’re all special in some sort of way, but my 15th birthday was the golden birthday because I was turning 15 on the 15th with Fire Station 15. That was really special because my whole family was there, my high school friends at the time were there, and it was like the first birthday at the station we’d had in a while.”

The Bottom Line:

“Alan is like another father figure in my life,” said Chloe, and the Kent family isn’t the Kent family. They're just family.”

Kent, who has one son, says of Chloe, “It’s almost like I had a daughter.”

Key Takeaways:

• The total sum of €50,411,250 was distributed to the UNFPA over a five-year period as part of Ireland’s overseas development aid.

• The Irish government claims the money went to maternal and newborn health care, infertility treatment, family planning, etc., but the UNFPA is known for supporting objectionable population control measures.

• While this vast sum was spent in this regard, very little comparatively was put toward providing life-affirming alternatives to mothers and their preborn babies.

The Details:

The total sum of €50,411,250 was distributed over a five-year period as part of Ireland’s overseas development aid. The figure was disclosed in response to a parliamentary question asked by Independent Ireland TD for Cork North Central, Ken O’Flynn.

A statement from the Irish Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade claimed (emphasis added):

“The funds involved have been provided and used for maternal and newborn health care; treatment of complications arising from childbirth such as obstetric fistula; prevention and treatment of infertility; family planning, with a particular focus on reducing unintended pregnancies among adolescents and in humanitarian settings; prevention and management of consequences of unsafe abortion; the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted disease, including HIV; and, the prevention of and response to sexual and gender based violence.”

On its website, the UNFPA claimed that its mission is to expedite “reproductive health” and “family planning” globally. These phrases typically function as umbrella language for committing and advocating for abortion. 

Zoom In:

In a recent article, the Pro Life Campaign (PLC) highlighted the Irish government’s questionable bankrolling of the UNFPA, juxtaposing the degree of international spending with what it says is a lack of government support for pregnancy care centers and other life-affirming services within Ireland. 

“It is deeply concerning that over €50 million of Irish taxpayers’ money was gifted by the Government over a five-year period to such a controversial ideological organisation. For years, the UNFPA has been at the forefront of efforts to expand abortion internationally, especially across developing nations. The Government’s decision to allocate such an enormous level of funding to the organisation, without any prior public discussion or scrutiny, makes the move even more shocking and unacceptable,” the PLC declared. 

In addition, the Irish advocacy group pointed out that not a single euro from the Irish government was put toward domestic life-affirming alternatives that support women facing unplanned pregnancies. In their statement, the PLC said:

The sheer scale of public funding committed by the Government in recent years to contentious causes such as the promotion and provision of abortion worldwide is nothing short of staggering, all the more so when you consider that the Government does not spend so much as a single cent on promoting life-affirming alternatives to abortion, either in Ireland or overseas. This is a full-blown scandal that must remain in the public spotlight until meaningful change is achieved.

Over the past five years, the Irish government has set aside millions of euros to bankroll a range of international organizations that promote abortion, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the Clinton Foundation, in addition to its recent funding allocations to the UNFPA.

Sandra Parda of the Life Institute told Live Action News:

"It is beyond disbelief that our government has the money to fund such an extraordinary amount to an organization that is so grossly embedded into promoting and spreading abortion. It seems that the government will go to extraordinary lengths into promoting, spreading, and seeking more abortions, at home in Ireland or abroad. This is all despite the extortionate amount of abortions that are happening already; it seems they are restless and unsatisfied until more babies will be murdered through abortion, happily giving away Irish taxpayers' money.

The Irish government is also more than happy to fund over 60,000 abortions that have happened in Ireland since 2019, unashamedly paying a fraction of the costs to take care of pregnant women. To this day, the government funds every abortion by paying the doctor 450 euro, whilst the doctor only receives 240-270 euro for taking care of a pregnant woman.

It makes you wonder, why does the Irish government have no shame in pushing for more liberal laws for abortion in Ireland, and spending extraordinary amounts of money funding abortions not only at home, but to organizations whose mission is to spread and promote abortions internationally, especially in developing countries?"

Kate Lawlor, who works with Gianna Care, a pregnancy resource center, likewise expressed disbelief that the Irish government would put so much money towards abortion, while refusing to help women access any alternative. Lawlor told Live Action News:

Gianna Care staff and volunteers in Ireland work very hard to remove or at least minimize the many challenges a woman may face which could otherwise prevent her from continuing with her pregnancy.

Gianna Care is unique in Ireland in providing a wide range of care and services based on a woman’s personally assessed needs. It is a not-for-profit company, which receives no government funding, and relies completely on its long-standing supporters, volunteers, and friends. We offer professional counseling to our clients at no cost to them, and we also assist with their material needs, such as buggies, nursing chairs, formula milk, nappies, clothing for babies, and essential hospital items for mothers when giving birth.

Assistance and support may continue for up to 12 months after the baby is born, as required. We also provide post-abortion support for those women who need it. All material items are donated to us by ordinary people, because many of the needs of women experiencing a crisis pregnancy are not being met by the State. It is a matter of deep concern and disappointment  for our clients whose need for help is great, and for all involved with Gianna Care, who do what they possibly can to help, to discover just how much money the State is spending on supporting abortion-related services, and how little is spent on services providing meaningful and substantial assistance so that more women are able to choose to continue their pregnancy, and on supporting and caring for those who suffer emotionally after an abortion.

The Big Picture:

In 2018, Ireland legalized abortion after the repeal of the Eighth Amendment, which had acknowledged the equal right to life of mothers and their preborn children.

Since then, government policy has gradually become in sync with broader international abortion initiatives, including partnerships with pro-abortion organizations like the UNFPA, all while life-affirming services remain underfunded. 

Although the Irish government alleges that its contributions are meant to enhance maternal health care, and decrease poverty in developing countries, the UNFPA is responsible for promoting abortion in various regions and cooperating with groups that explicitly provide or advocate for abortion services.

One key concern for pro-lifers is the UNFPA’s long term involvement in countries with controversial population control policies. Although the agency has rebuffed its role in coercive anti-life practices, pro-life groups have repeatedly singled out its presence in countries like China, where forced abortion or sterilization has been recorded.

The Bottom Line:

For many Irish citizens who oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds, the use of public money to bankroll groups connected to abortion overseas represents a grave conflict of conscience.

At a critical juncture when Ireland’s abortion regime continues to widen with escalating numbers of abortions reported yearly since legalization, international abortion funding is part of an insidious cultural and political plan to regularize abortion both domestically and globally.

In post-repeal Ireland, the issue is whether government policy will continue to inch toward broadening and increasing abortion, or invest in life-affirming measures to establish a culture that supports life at every stage.

Key Takeaways:

• Tamara Jansen, who represents Cloverdale—Langley City, testified during a recent meeting of the Special Joint Committee on MAID.

• She warned that people are calling the 9-8-8 suicide crisis hotline and asking about MAiD.

• Jansen argued this is further reason to pass C-218, which would stop the planned rollout of allowing assisted suicide and euthanasia solely for mental illness.

The Details:

During her testimony, Jansen warned that Canadians are now calling the national suicide hotline to seek out MAiD, solely because they are experiencing suicidal thoughts or ideations.

She questioned Dr. Allison Crawford, chief medical officer of Canada’s 9-8-8 suicide crisis helpline, who affirmed that not only are suicidal people calling the hotline seeking out MAiD, but that their suicidal ideations are stronger.

"Dr. Crawford, you said that up to 7% of calls to Canada's suicide crisis line have people mentioning MAiD as an option, and the majority of those callers had thoughts of suicide in just the previous two days. So if I understand that right, when MAID comes up in those 988 calls, you're talking to people who are much more likely to be in an acute suicidal state, compared to the ones who don't mention it. Is that a fair understanding of what your data is showing?" Jansen asked (emphasis added).

The answer, according to Crawford, is yes.

"Yes. I mean, we're still analyzing this as we go. As you know, 988 is a relatively new service, but we've had almost 900,000 calls and texts to the service," Crawford said, noting (emphases added):

"Seven percent represents almost 70,000 interactions. And what we're finding is that when people reference MAID, they have a much higher degree of suicidality than callers and texters that don't reference MAID. And I think that the key point here is that, people make a lot about being able to distinguish suicidality from an interest in our wish to die due to MAID. And we are seeing a great deal of overlap in those populations. And that clearly is suffering, but suffering that overlaps."

Jansen further testified that the way Canada promotes MAID is leading to suicide contagion.

"We hear and see portrayals of MAID in serene and dreamy surroundings, with the idea that this kind of death is heroic and self-sacrificing, which is, of course, very opposite to the suicide prevention messaging," she said. "Normally, we don't amplify or glorify the actions of, say, a shooter, for example, in order to avoid copycat behavior."

Jansen argued that embracing MAID for mental illness ultimately undermines suicide prevention efforts.

“You cannot tell people to call 9-8-8, hold on, and seek help, while also preparing to offer assisted death for the very same suffering,” Jansen said. “That contradiction puts lives at risk.”

Zoom Out:

Jansen introduced C-218 to stop the expansion of MAID for mental illness, which is set to take effect in 2027. The bill would amend the criminal code to explicitly ban “assisted dying” for mental illness, because “a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition.”

Since being legalized in 2016, deaths from MAID have skyrocketed in Canada, so much so that the country is now one of the world’s leaders in euthanasia deaths. It will be further expanded again if C-218 fails.

Already, there are reports of people being approved for MAID due solely to mental illness; a man in 2022 was approved for being disabled and struggling with mental illness. Others have been approved for MAID due to disability, poverty, and financial issues. 

The Bottom Line:

The information given by Jansen highlights a disturbing reality. Sending a message that assisted suicide is acceptable for "suffering" also encourages those struggling with suicidal ideation that their instinct to take their own life is correct, and should be acted upon.

In part one of this three part series, Live Action News will give a short primer on misoprostol as it relates to abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• Though the abortion industry plans to pivot to dispensing misoprostol-only abortions if mifepristone is restricted by the FDA, there are multiple concerns about using the drug alone aside from the intentional killing of preborn children.

• The drug's manufacturer never tested it for use in abortions; in fact, its use as the second drug in the abortion pill regimen is actually off-label. It was originally approved to reduce the risk of stomach ulcers caused by NSAIDs.

• Administered alone for the off-label use of abortion, the drug is estimated to fail at completing the abortion around 15% of the time.

• Unlike mifepristone, misoprostol has been shown to have a teratogenic effect on the developing child, potentially leading to birth defects.

• It is estimated that one in six babies may survive a misoprostol abortion, and they have a higher likelihood of birth defects.

• Misoprostol also carries a risk of uterine rupture during pregnancy.

The Details:

What Is misoprostol?

Misoprostol, a drug originally manufactured by Searle under the brand name Cytotec, is FDA-approved to reduce the risk of stomach ulcers caused by NSAIDs like ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin), as noted by GoodRx.

However, it is also used off-label in the FDA-approved abortion pill regimen alongside mifepristone (200mg). (The two-drug regimen is required because mifepristone alone is significantly less effective.) Misoprostol is contraindicated for pregnancy. It is considered a prostaglandin analog, which is known to induce labor. It causes the cervix to soften and dilate, and to stimulate powerful contractions of the uterine muscle (myometrium). This uterine activity expels the embryo or fetus and pregnancy tissue.

Author Carrie Baker wrote that "The use of prostaglandins for inducing abortion was discovered in the 1960s by Dr. Marc Bydgeman at the Karolinska Institutet in the Netherlands."

Misoprostol was first registered in Brazil in 1986 and was sold in pharmacies and drug stores without a prescription. It was later approved in the United States by the FDA in December of 1988. In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle & Company as “a way for Monsanto to bring to market the drugs it is developing in its biotechnology laboratories,” according to a report by the New York Times. As Live Action detailed in its abortion pill report:

Just prior to the FDA’s approval of RU-486, Searle issued a “Dear Health Care Practitioner” letter emphasizing that Cytotec was contraindicated for use in pregnant women and not approved for induction of labor or abortion.

Within a few months, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) a pro-abortion organization, responded with a citizens petition requesting that the FDA Commissioner “take administrative action to require the withdrawal” of Searle’s letter and to “rescind any contraindications for use of misoprostol in pregnancy” on the drug’s label to “conform with the agency’s approval of the mifepristone-misoprostol combination on September 28, 2000….”

Which is exactly what the FDA did.

In 2000, misoprostol was approved by the FDA to be used in the abortion pill regimen, but it is not the abortion pill (mifeprex/mifepristone 200mg)...

Consequently, misoprostol is not subject to the REMS safety system; some irresponsible actors in the abortion industry may recommend it as a one-drug regimen for abortion, even though the FDA has never approved this single-drug usage.

In 1988, New York Times (NYT) spoke to Searle spokeswoman Kay Bruno:

To test the drug's hazards in pregnancy, Ms. Bruno said Searle gave Cytotec to a small group of women in their first trimester of pregnancy who planned on having abortions. The tests, conducted in West Germany in the early 1980's, showed that the drug caused ''uterine expulsion and bleeding,'' Ms. Bruno said.

But she said the study was too small to indicate the likelihood that the drug would cause an abortion. In addition, she said, the drug was not tested at different doses, so there is no information on the dose required for an abortion.

In 2000, Searle spokesperson Claudia Kovitz told NYT that Searle "did not test misoprostol for abortions and will not be promoting its use in abortions. Kovitz pointed out, in fact, the drug carries a black boxed warning saying it is not to be used in pregnancy" (emphases added).

GenBioPro (GBP), approved in 2019 by the Trump administration as the first generic abortion pill maker, also manufacturers a generic misoprostol, 200 mcg. The drug has a strict storage temperature requirement, raising concern over stability of the drug when shipped in extreme temperatures by mail.

National Abortion Federation on misoprostol-only

"Where legally available and accessible, mifepristone and misoprostol should be used," recommends the National Abortion Federation (NAF) in its 2026 Clinical Guide under "Medication Abortion Before 14 Weeks LMP."

For the two-drug regimen, NAF recommends:

• An additional dose of misoprostol 800mcg... for patients over 63 days LMP.

• More than two doses of misoprostol may be provided for patients as gestational duration increases or if a patient is remote from care.

NAF only recommends misoprostol-only "[w]here mifepristone is either not legally available or inaccessible," but advises that "The efficacy of these regimens for pregnancy of unknown location and pregnancies from 12-14 weeks LMP is not well studied. People who use these regimens need to understand their efficacy, side effects, and the potential exposure to known teratogens if the pregnancy continues."

NAF adds:

"Patients must be offered a follow-up assessment to confirm absence of ongoing pregnancy. Confirmation can be established by ultrasonography, hCG testing, physical exam, or self-assessment."

"Mifepristone increases the efficacy and decreases the total time and doses needed for misoprostol to cause pregnancy expulsion," NAF claims of later chemical abortions.

Efficacy of misoprostol

Planned Parenthood's website claims a misoprostol-only abortion is "safe [and] effective," yet cites zero studies to show this.

The abortion corporation then claimed the one-drug regimen works 85-95% of the time, indicating it would fail from 5-15% of the time.

Using the 732,000 estimated abortion pill abortions nationally, this could translate to between 36.6K to 109.8K women annually having an incomplete abortion.

Planned Parenthood claims misoprostol "can be used up to 12 weeks from the first day of your last period," suggesting use later in pregnancy may be problematic.

Under the telehealth mail-order system, rarely are women examined to

• verify pregnancy.

• validate gestational age.

• rule out potentially deadly ectopic pregnancies, which cannot be treated using mifepristone or misoprostol.

Dr. Ingrid Skop, a pro-life OBGYN with ties to the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), has expressed concerns.

"Systematic reviews document between 15-22% of early misoprostol-only abortions fail to expel all the pregnancy tissue, necessitating surgical completion, often in emergencies," Skop told Live Action News.

Dr. Skop published research on misoprostol at CLI, citing studies addressing misoprostol failures:

• A 2010 study documented that misoprostol alone led to a 23.8% failure rate requiring surgery...The embryo or fetus continued to survive in 16.6% of the pregnancies. In contrast, there were 3.5% failures and 1.5% continuing pregnancies in the mifepristone and misoprostol comparison group.

• Likewise, a 2013 study demonstrated 38.8% failures when misoprostol was used vaginally and 29.8% when used sublingually (under the tongue).

• Similarly, a 2000 randomized trial documented that 35% of women using unmoistened vaginal misoprostol had failures requiring surgery.

• A 2019 systematic review...found 22% required surgical completion and 6.8% had ongoing living pregnancies...

• A 2023 updated systematic review by the same authors...documented only slightly improved data, with treatment failures in 15% and ongoing pregnancies in 6% of the over 9,000 women for whom this outcome was reported.

Other concerns:

Birth defects

"There is no evidence that mifepristone exposure has a teratogenic effect on an ongoing pregnancy," wrote NAF. But this isn't the case for misoprostol.

"Misoprostol exposure early in pregnancy doubles the risk of causing major fetal malformations in a continuing pregnancy, from approximately 2% in cases with no exposure to 4% in cases of misoprostol exposure," NAF stated.

"For hospital use only if misoprostol were to be used for cervical ripening, induction of labor, or for the treatment of serious post-partum hemorrhage, which are outside of the approved indication," Daily Med states, adding under the headline SPECIAL NOTE FOR WOMEN: "Misoprostol Tablets may cause birth defects, abortion (sometimes incomplete), premature labor or rupture of the uterus if given to pregnant women."

Writing at CLI, Dr. Skop adds:

Misoprostol is known to produce birth defects... Continuing living pregnancies occur 6-16% of the time when these drugs are taken, so if the drug exposure occurs during the critical period in the first trimester when the baby’s organs are forming, and if a woman subsequently gives birth, there is potential the child will suffer from devastating congenital anomalies.

Live birth potential

Dr. Skop claimed that "Nearly one in six babies continued to live, but misoprostol exposure places these surviving children at risk for potentially severe birth defects."

She added:

Misoprostol is commonly used to induce labor, so if it is used later in pregnancy in attempts to cause an abortion, living babies may deliver prematurely, potentially dying if medical care is not sought at that time. In women with one or more prior c-sections, the strong contractions induced by misoprostol can even cause uterine rupture, a potentially fatal complication for a mother.

Complications and death

Daily Med wrote under "patient information":

Misoprostol tablets may cause the uterus to tear (uterine rupture) during pregnancy. The risk of uterine rupture increases as your pregnancy advances and if you have had surgery on the uterus, such as a Cesarean delivery. Rupture (tearing) of the uterus can result in severe bleeding, hysterectomy, and/or maternal or fetal death.

This is reiterated on the drug's label.

Live Action News previously documented the death of  a 16-year-old girl in Papua New Guinea (PNG) who died after purchasing misoprostol on the street, later taking it to abort her pregnancy. 

The Bottom Line:

"These frequent and devastating complications demonstrate this regimen is 'unsafe and ineffective,' especially when used without medical oversight, as abortion advocates are increasingly recommending," Dr. Skop told Live Action News.

For these reasons and more, any promotion of, or failure to warn against, misoprostol only abortions should be recognized as callous attempts to prioritize ending unborn life over the health and safety of women.

These actions are unacceptable when performed by those who profess to care for women.

Go Deeper:

• The State of Chemical Abortion a Mechanism of Death

• BAD ACTORS: Abortion industry set to promote failure-prone abortion drug if abortion pill goes away

• Induced Abortion with Misoprostol Alone, Dr. Ingrid Skop
  

In order to gain societal acceptance, these individuals used tactics like “sexual attitude reassessment” (SAR; the intentional exposure or grooming of children and adults utilizing sexualized and pornographic material) and distorted terminology – tactics still used today by Planned Parenthood and the Future of Sex Education (FoSE) coalition (SIECUS and others) which are alleged to have “...transform[ed] K-12 schools into crime scenes instead of academic institutions" due to the sexual grooming involved.

Key Takeaways:

• Comprehensive sex education utilizes sexual attitude reassessment, or exposing children and adults to sexualized and pornographic material, which grooms them sexually and creates "trauma bonding."

• The warping of words and vocabulary is also utilized to confuse, sexualize, and dehumanize human beings in order to perpetuate the comprehensive sex ed ideology.

• Exposure to these tactics essentially "rewires" the minds of children and causes devastating societal impacts.

The Background:

The self-accredited “experts” who created CSE, their warped ideologies, and the history of SAR, which is still used in the CSE taught by Planned Parenthood and its allies, include: 

• Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956): Dubbed the “father of the sexual revolution,” Kinsey authored the two-volume "sexual bibles," which serve as the foundational doctrine for CSE. He recruited pedophiles to record their sexual abuse of infants and children and presented the information as "scientific research," which was then used as supposed 'evidence' that humans are "sexual from birth" with mature sexualized desires and comprehension.

• Wardell Pomeroy (1913-2001): A primary associate of Kinsey and co-author of the “sexual bibles,” Pomeroy served as a founding leader of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS, a purveyor of comprehensive sex ed) and later served as the first dean of the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, which pioneered SAR material and education. Pomeroy advocated for the normalization of bestiality, the sexual abuse of minors, and incest. He notoriously claimed that incestuous encounters could be enriching, satisfying, and posed no threat to the children involved.

• Mary Calderone (1904-1998): A former Planned Parenthood Medical Director, Calderone founded SIECUS for the purpose of exposing children to sexualized content using Kinsey’s fraudulent “science.” Alongside her colleagues, Calderone aimed to justify incest and the sexualization of children, stating, "a little more touching in the home… [and] the nation might not be facing ‘the present rash of feverish adolescent sexual activity outside the home.’” In other words, Calderone believed that “infant and childhood sexuality” had to be prematurely awakened, encouraged and formed by parents and other adults so the child could realize and experience sexuality throughout his/her lifetime. Calderone believed that this “responsibility” of adults to “teach” and engage children sexually was akin to teaching a child how to ride a bike or introducing them to a “new religion.” 

• John Money (1921-2006): A Kinsey Institute researcher who pioneered work at the first "gender reassignment" facility in the U.S., Money held influential board positions at SIECUS and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex (SSSS) — a primary architect of modern sex-education standards and metrics. Money later faced serious allegations of child abuse that were ignored by feminist movement and CSE leaders. Money advocated for the normalization of consensual incest involving minors, and characterized pedophilic impulses as the mere "love of children."

The Details:

Psychological manipulation

Sexual attitude reassessment (SAR) is both a tactic and a concept. SAR intentionally exposes participants (educators, professionals, and children) to sexualized and pornographic materials and ideas to induce something known as “trauma bonding.” 

In the book, “The Queering of the American Child,” authors Logan Lancing and James Lindsay characterize “trauma bonding” as a deliberate mechanism of “... exposing children to age inappropriate content related to sex, ‘gender,’ and sexuality, causing deep psychological disturbances.”

This psychological manipulation utilizes specific methods designed to subjugate the victim’s will to that of the perpetrator; in this case, to the will of those teaching CSE. It is, without a doubt, sexual grooming.

By overwhelming immature minds with explicit material they cannot cognitively process, a state of “trauma bonding” is induced. The child then becomes tethered to the source of this distress to navigate and rationalize the very trauma they have been forced to endure. 

But in the case of mature adults, the use of SAR tactics could only go so far. More had to be done to convince society and institutions to accept the ideology behind CSE: words and their meanings had to be reimagined.    

Warping of words & their meanings

Historically and currently, comprehensive sex education leaders overemphasize the idea that humans are “sexual.” Additionally, when Mary Calderone established SIECUS based on Kinseyan ideology (with an emphasis on children being “sexual from [before] birth”) for the purpose of spreading the “awareness of the vital importance of infant and childhood sexuality,” what did she mean?

"Sexual from Birth"

Human beings are sexed beings – meaning they are male or female genetically, with this fundamental and fixed biological identity encoded into each person’s DNA from the moment of conception. But the reality of being “sexed” is different from what CSE proponents mean when they say children are “sexual.” A child only possesses the latent capacity (or the underdeveloped capacity) for eventual reproductive desires and activity that is matured over time.

This is different from other capacities with which humans are born; for example, humans are born with the immediate need for food and the capacity to process and utilize it.

A newborn does not need to be taught the desire to eat or how to eat; it happens naturally and is required shortly after being removed from the umbilical cord after birth. A human is born with a sex, but awareness of sexuality — including the desires and cognitive grasp of a sexual act's natural purpose (the capacity to sexually reproduce) — is a capacity that matures slowly and is intrinsically linked to the holistic development of the individual’s physical, cognitive, and emotional faculties.

Sexual intimacy for human beings is made even more purposefully than just procreation — human sexual intimacy also creates profound physical and emotional bonds between partners. 

What Calderone meant by spreading “awareness of the vital importance of infant and childhood sexuality,” was that society needed to replace reality with distorted views (incest as harmless, etc.) matching her own.

The architects and current proponents of CSE, like Planned Parenthood, calculatedly blur the distinction between humans as “sexed” (male and female) and humans as “sexual” (with desires ordered toward sexual activity and reproduction).

In Kinsey’s book, “Sexuality of the Human Male,” for example, Kinsey claimed the pedophiles he used to obtain his so-called “research” collected semen from the infants and children they abused, and then used this as ‘evidence’ to support the claims that the child victims received “pleasure” from the abuse. Any rational adult would correctly identify this as outright abuse and as a total betrayal of adults’ responsibility to protect children from having their bodies violated. These erroneous distortions are intentional, and these perverse concepts remain at the core of modern day CSE.

Dehumanizing the human 

This tactic of intentionally distorting words and their meanings to dehumanize is duplicated multiple times over by CSE proponents. 

In CSE curriculum such as Planned Parenthood’s “Sex Ed To Go” (SETG) program. Planned Parenthood’s SETG program reduces preborn human beings who are physically composed of trillions of cells to merely “clumps of cells” that “looks similar to dryer lint.”

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

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

Why It Matters:

The ‘Rewiring’ of Minds 

CSE propagandists like Planned Parenthood and FoSE members use a combination of SAR tactics and materials in combination with the intentional distortion of words and their meanings as part of its effort to indoctrinate and deceive. 

SAR tactics and techniques bombard the participant for the intended purpose of prematurely arousing sexual knowledge. SAR is used as part of the deception, SAR tactics help to initiate the trauma bonding experience used to “re-wire” and “reform” the participant’s perceptions, and the distorted words and meanings set by CSE helps to achieve the desired outcome of widespread acceptance of sexual deviancy. 

In the U.S. Supreme Court case Free Speech Coalition v Paxton, an amicus brief submitted by the Matthew XVIII group and the Reisman Institute explained the physical changes to a person’s brain after exposure to sexually explicit material:

"Sexually explicit images such as those used in SAR to train sex educators and then by sex educators in classrooms have profound effects on the human brain, particularly on the underdeveloped brains of children.” 

These groups say this results in physical and psychological changes to the child’s brain by “trigger[ing] a chemical reaction that mimics the response to addictive substances.” 

In the case of minors’ developing brains, the brief further explains that initiating the premature production of “naturally occurring psychoactive substances” could have life-long negative consequences. This attempt to "restructure" a child’s brain is reinforced by pornographic content found in books, toys, social media, the internet, and AI chatbots.  

Devastating Societal Impacts 

Within the filed amicus brief, Audrey Warner, a former practitioner of school-based sex ed, detailed the devastating reality of the "trauma bonding" fostered by CSE.

Warner’s testimony recounted her work on a case involving a 10-year-old boy who had purportedly sexually assaulted two younger girls, ages two and four. Warner discovered that the boy was replicating the “sexual stimuli he had witnessed through exposure to sexual materials” provided to him through CSE programs. 

The pornographic material and sexualized content in CSE primes and encourages children to use graphic pornography, which some – like Warner and author Kristen Jenson – believe is to blame for the rising number of allegations of child-on-child sexual assaults. 

During a recent interview with the Epoch Times, Jenson stated, “Child-on-child sexual abuse…has skyrocketed… when I first started talking about the issue, it was at 40%... It’s now 70%.”     

In 2020, Politico reported an overall spike (over 50%) in sexual violence reported in public K-12 schools from 2015-16 to 2017-18 school years. The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights issued clarifications on the reported cases in a December 2022 Issue Brief Explainer, although the department did not provide any distinction in the data between adult-on-child and child-on-child assault cases.

The Explainer highlighted some categories such as reported cases of alleged rape or attempted rape, which saw an increase of over 70%. 

Key Takeaways:

• Barrie Drewitt-Barlow and his former partner, Tony, became the first gay men in the UK to father twins, Saffron (female) and Aspen (male), born through surrogacy in California. Both men were recognized on the children's birth certificates.

• The men obtained three more children via surrogacy before divorcing, as Drewitt-Barlow had begun a relationship with Scott Hutchinson. Previously, Hutchinson had dated Saffron, Drewitt-Barlow's daughter.

• Hutchinson and Drewitt-Barlow had three more children, bringing the total number of children Drewitt-Barlow has to eight.

• Both Hutchinson and Drewitt-Barlow were arrested this month for sex trafficking, rape, and sexual assault.

• Comments from Drewitt-Barlow show how he dehumanizes children and treats them as products to be bought and sold.

The Backstory:

In 1999, Drewitt-Barlow and his former partner Tony became the first gay men in the UK to father twins through surrogacy.

The two children, Saffron (female) and Aspen (male), were born in California, and the United States Supreme Court ruled that the birth certificates would list the two men as parents, meaning the babies would be registered as having two fathers and no mother.

The couple had three more children together, all born using donor eggs and surrogate mothers in the United States.

One of those children, Orlando, was born after Saffron and Aspen; however, the embryo implanted at that time had originally split off from Aspen's embryo. This means that, though they were born years apart, Aspen and Orlando are identical twins.

Drewitt-Barlow divorced Tony after starting a relationship with Scott Hutchinson, who is 25 years younger than he is. Hutchinson was dating Drewitt-Barlow's daughter, Saffron, at the time (though the family now claims Hutchinson was always gay and that Saffron was just helping him hide his sexuality). He has since had three more children via surrogacy with Hutchinson, bringing his total number of children to eight.

Numerous disturbing statements have been made by Drewitt-Barlow which dehumanize not only children but the women whose bodies he purchases. He has boasted about paying a model £50,000 to be an egg donor, because he didn't want his child to be "ugly." When his children were praised for being attractive, he said, "Well, you get what you pay for!"

He also said that if any of the children hadn't "come out right," they would have placed them for adoption. He added that he would never allow a lesbian to be an egg donor, as he believes they are all "fat and ugly."

When asked how the surrogate mothers react to seeing their babies before they are taken away, Drewitt-Barlow said he requires every surrogate he works with to have a c-section so they are not allowed to see them — and for other reasons: "‘They don’t see [the baby], because I always put it [the c-sections] in their contract," he said. "I don’t want my children coming out of a woman’s vagina" (emphasis added).

He also portrayed surrogacy this way:

“Absolutely. ‘Just buying a baby,’ that's what people will say. Most people could do a lot worse than spend one month of their life on drugs to give some embryos for £50,000.”

These comments, however, appear to be the tip of the iceberg, as he and Hutchinson have now both been arrested for sex trafficking, assault, and rape.

The Details:

Drewitt-Barlow and Hutchinson have both been charged with rape, sexual assault, and modern slavery trafficking for sexual exploitation. Both have denied the charges.

Authorities claim the crimes were committed between 2013 and 2026, and that the two men used their celebrity, multi-millionaire status to obtain victims. "It is alleged they have both targeted young males, they have recruited them, they have befriended them, they have groomed them," prosecutor Serena Berry said. "They have invited them to their home and other premises."

The official statement from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) read:

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow and Scott [Hutchinson] Drewitt-Barlow have each been charged with arranging or facilitating travel of another person with a view to exploitation, as well as other sexual offences including rape. We have worked closely with Essex Police as it carried out its investigation.

Multiple other suspects associated with the case have likewise been detained.

The Big Picture:

While Drewitt-Barlow doesn't have prior convictions, the case highlights how sex offenders can gain access to children — and potential victims.

There is virtually no oversight associated with surrogacy, meaning anyone can essentially buy a child without any screening to ensure that child is going into a safe home.

There are multiple disturbing examples of sex offenders (or people who have openly sexualized children) using surrogates to obtain children.

• Brandon Keith Riley-Mitchell, a Tier 1 sex offender in Pennsylvania, was convicted for child sexual abuse and possession of child sexual abuse materials. While Pennsylvania law bars sex offenders from adopting children, there are no such laws overseeing assisted reproductive technology or surrogacy.

• David John Farnell, a registered sex offender, is known for the Baby Gammy case, in which he and his wife bought twins to be carried by a surrogate in Thailand. When one of the twins, Gammy, was diagnosed with Down syndrome, the Australian couple abandoned him. They brought their daughter, Pippa, home, and despite Farnell's sex offender status, ultimately allowed Pippa to remain in the home with him.

• YouTuber Shane Dawson and his partner Ryland Adams have made numerous videos and statements sexualizing children (though they haven't been arrested or charged with sex offenses). Dawson has 'joked' about raping children, and admitted to repeatedly searching online for videos of child sexual abuse, including the victimization of babies.

Even worse is an audio clip from ‘Shane and Friends’ where he recalled a moment of asking someone to have sex with his dog. ‘If I had a child, which is the same as a dog to me,’ he said. ‘Well, I guess when they’re a baby you don’t want to picture someone f*cking them.’ His co-host shared a news story of a man who raped a 4-month-old infant and killed her.

Shane laughed and declared, ‘Amazing!’ Then he speculated how exactly the baby would have died during the sex act.

Sadly, these are far from the only instances; there are numerous other instances of predators gaining access to children through surrogacy.

The Bottom Line:

Children are turned into products to be bought, used, and sold on demand through surrogacy. Instead of being treated as human beings with intrinsic value and dignity, they are seen as items for wealthy buyers, without the protection and oversight they deserve to keep them safe.

Key Takeaways:

• In the latest episode of Human Matters with Sami Parker, Parker looks at the reasons that Gen Z is rejecting the prevalence of sex in TV and movies.

• She says that most sex scenes are a sign of lazy writing.

• She also says that Gen Z is tired of the hyper sexualization of society, and many don't want to see porn on their TV screen.

• She says Gen Zers are realizing that sex is not casual or meaningless, but affects people emotionally, mentally, and spiritually.

The Details:

Sami Parker says that Gen Z has finally had enough of the hyper-sexualized content constantly found on the TV screen. She cites a study showing that 50% of Gen Z respondents want to see more friendships and platonic relationships on screen — not sex.

She says that the reason for this shift is in layers, and each layer goes deeper than the next.

Parker notes that in many cases, unnecessary sex scenes are just a sign of lazy writing, and viewers are fed up. "People want actual storytelling," she says, noting that adding a sex scene into the script instead of actual character development is a "shortcut."

Secondly, she notes that sex is everywhere today, and people are mentally exhausted by it. When they turn on the TV at the end of the day, they do so because they want to relax, not because they're interested in seeing more sex.

Thirdly, Parker says that porn has heavily shaped the culture today, which is why it's found in so many shows and movies. She says that Hollywood uses "sexposition," putting explicit sexual content in the background of scenes to keep viewers hooked. She calls this "insulting," saying, "Instead of writing compelling dialogue or emotionally engaging storytelling, writers just throw nudity into the scene to hold attention."

Because many Gen Zers today are trying to push back on the porn and overcome addictions, they also don't want to be bombarded with sex on the TV screen.

Zoom In:

In a cultural shift, Gen Z is starting to realize that sex isn't meaningless, despite society trying to push the lie that it's simply "casual."

"This generation is constantly called the loneliest generation ever. People are desperate for real intimacy, friendship, love, and belonging," Parker says. "I think Gen Z is slowly realizing that sex and love are deeply connected because sex isn't just physical. It affects people emotionally, mentally, and spiritually."

She continues, "Maybe Gen Z, after growing up online, surrounded by hyper sexualization their entire lives, is beginning to rediscover something older generations forgot. Sex matters a lot."

The Bottom Line:

Parker concludes that, like every generation before, Gen Z wants to feel love — and they're realizing that type of true, authentic love could never be replicated on a TV screen.

"Every person wants to be well-known and well-loved. Sex, within a faithful and committed marriage, is that," she says. "It’s so much more beautiful and intimate than a screen could ever portray."

Key Takeaways:

• Travis and Leanna Hunter have been a couple since high school, and got married in 2025.

• Hunter won the Heisman Trophy, along with the Chuck Bednarik and Fred Biletnikoff Awards in college, becoming notable for playing both offense and defense, which is rare in modern football.

• Upon being drafted by the Jacksonville Jaguars in 2025, he became the first two-way player in modern-era NFL history.

• The couple welcomed their first baby in August of 2025. In a moving Mother's Day tribute, Leanna shared a message about the importance of motherhood, and her desire to have a big family.

The Backstory:

Travis and Leanna Hunter met in high school in Georgia, and have remained a couple as his football career took off. Travis was among the most highly-anticipated college recruits, and he began his career at Jackson State University.

After two years, he transferred to the University of Colorado Boulder; at both schools, he played as both a wide receiver and a cornerback. It is rare in modern football for players to play on both offense and defense, and Travis excelled at both.

He won the Heisman Trophy in 2024, which is awarded to the top player in college football, and became the first player in college football history to win both the Chuck Bednarik Award, given to the nation's top defensive player, and the Fred Biletnikoff Award, as the nation's best wide receiver.

The Jacksonville Jaguars traded up to select Travis at #2 in the 2025 NFL Draft, and his rookie season was promising before being cut short by injury. He is expected to continue as a two-way player, the first player in modern-era NFL history to do so.

Travis and Leanna got engaged in 2024, and shortly after being drafted, he and Leanna got married. The couple was also already expecting their first baby, but kept their pregnancy a secret from the public.

It wasn't until their son was born in August that they shared the news, in a moving video that chronicled their pregnancy and childbirth. Leanna called pregnancy “the most peaceful and beautiful experience of my life.”

In comments since then, Travis has called his son his "greatest accomplishment."

The Details:

For her first Mother's Day, Leanna shared an emotional message expressing her desire for a big family, as well as stressing the importance of motherhood.

Mother's Day was celebrated on May 10, and Leanna took to Instagram to share her thoughts on celebrating it for the first time as a mother. In her Instagram stories, she posted a throwback photo of herself while pregnant, writing:

Sacrificing our bodies to help aid God in creating life is truly so beautiful and I’m thankful God chose us to do so. 🤍 I want 10 more.

In more pictures, she spoke about the strength it takes to be a mom, and how important the role is. "Happy Mother’s Day to the strongest humans on the planet! Being 'mom' is my favorite title I have ever worn," she wrote, adding, "And to my perfect angel boy, I love being your mommy... You have made this transition so easy."

Both Leanna and Travis remain relatively private on Instagram, keeping their son's face hidden, and their posts remain generally infrequent, making this message stand out all the more.

The Hunters have made it clear how highly they value parenthood; on TikTok, for example, Leanna captioned a video of her stroking her son's head: "If I never accomplish anything else in life, this is enough for me."

The Bottom Line:

Motherhood is often devalued in today's culture, which is why it is so moving and refreshing to see such a high-profile couple openly speak about how important it truly is.

What isn't widely known is that it was not the mainstream medical community that 'saw a need' for abortion training and sought to address it; it was the abortion industry itself — largely led by the National Abortion Federation (NAF) — that formed alliances to help the abortion industry to advocate for and infiltrate the world of mainstream medicine to ensure that future medical professionals were trained in how to intentionally kill preborn human beings.

In part two of Live Action News' series on the National Abortion Federation (NAF), we document NAF's role in the way things are today, beginning with how NAF sought to address the "growing shortage" or "greying" of abortion providers in the 1990s.

Key Takeaways:

• In the 1990s, abortion supporters were concerned about a lack of doctors committing abortions.

• The National Abortion Federation and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists held a symposium to address the 'shortage' of abortionists.

• Medical Students for Choice was established to educate and involve a new generation of abortionists.

• Abortion training was integrated into OB/GYN training, and Warren Buffett funded efforts to ensure abortion was included in medical schools.

• By 1995, the American Council for Graduate Medical Education had issued a new set of curriculum guidelines that explicitly required training in abortion procedures.

The Details:

As previously documented by Live Action News, NAF has an extensive membership, currently overseeing "more than 450 facility members," including "private and non-profit clinics, Planned Parenthood affiliates, women’s health centers, physicians’ offices, hospitals, and virtual providers in the U.S. and Canada, and public hospitals and both public and private clinics in Mexico City and private clinics in Colombia."

But that was not always the case.

The Problem: 'Greying' of abortion providers

The 1980's brought about the closure of multiple abortion facilities as pro-life activists became more involved in peaceful prayer and demonstrations.

The "greying" (or aging) of abortion providers drew concerns from abortion industry insiders, as Clinician.com details (emphasis added):

The National Abortion Federation first identified this threat... to abortion more than a decade ago, says Vicki Saporta, executive director of the organization. In 1990, NAF convened a symposium, "Who Will Provide Abortions?" to address the growing shortage of health care providers...

NAF established the Berkeley, CA-based Medical Students for Choice to educate and involve a new generation of physicians in the provision of abortion services, notes Saporta. The student organization has more than 4,000 members at more than 100 campuses across the country, she reports.

...NAF also conducts workshops to pair residency training programs with NAF member clinics willing to be training sites in areas where training opportunities are otherwise lacking.

NAF wrote:

In 1996, there were 2,042 abortion providers in the U.S., compared with 2,380 providers in 1992, a 14% decline. Similarly, in 1996, only 703 hospitals reported providing abortion services – almost 18% fewer than in 1992... During that same time period, however, the number of abortions provided in the United States declined by just over 10%...It was clear that the number of abortion providers remained inadequate compared to the need for services...According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 87% of all U.S. counties had no identified abortion provider in 2000, and that number increased significantly – to 97% - in nonmetropolitan counties.

NAF symposium calls for mandates on abortion training

In October of 1990, NAF convened its "Who will provide abortions?" symposium. NAF described it this way:

In 1990, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) along with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) convened a national symposium to discuss what was then a newly recognized shortage of abortion providers and make recommendations to address the problem (National Abortion Federation, 1991).

Since that time, NAF — along with many allies, partners, and supporters — has made great strides in developing programs, influencing policy, and expanding abortion training opportunities to increase the ranks of abortion providers and to remedy this developing public health crisis. The 1990 symposium marked the beginning of an important reinvigoration of abortion training.

Symposium recommendations included:

• "Recruit experienced, 'graying' physicians to become involved in abortion practice, training, and public relations."

• "Develop outreach to encourage retired and semi-retired physicians to provide abortion as a transitional practice, perhaps part-time."

Pro-abortion researchers Carole Joffe and Tracey Weitz wrote (emphases added):

Various speakers, who were long-time providers and observers of abortion work, confirmed not only the nation-wide problem of a provider shortage, but also the low status of this work in the eyes of many medical professionals.

They cited the perception of abortion work as tedious and unchallenging, even among those who were ideologically committed to it. Participants also focused on the failure to routinise abortion training into ob/gyn residency programmes after Roe v Wade.

The normal mechanism by which such training would have become required – adoption by the Committee on Residency Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology (CREOG) – had never taken place.

The final report of the Symposium called for ob/gyn residencies to mandate training in first and second trimester abortion techniques. Recognising that many ob/gyns would continue not to provide abortion care, the Symposium also called for the use of mid-level health professionals – physician assistants, nurse midwives, nurse practitioners – to perform first trimester abortions, under physician supervision.

ACOG gets involved to promote abortion training

Symposium attendees sought to "[e]xpose trainees, medical students, residents, and advanced practice clinicians — to medical abortion services" through mandated abortion training.

NAF described the dilemma (emphases added):

One of three key findings from the 1990 symposium was that obstetrics and gynecology residency programs fall short of their responsibility to train physicians in abortion and contraceptive services.

From that finding recommendations were developed not only to increase the availability of abortion training opportunities, but also to develop appropriate training resources...

In January 1994, the Executive Board of ACOG released a formal statement, “To address the shortage of health care providers who perform abortions, the College encourages programs to train physicians and other licensed health care professionals to provide abortion services in a collaborative setting.

Recommendations also included:

• Promote the integration of abortion care as a required component of ob/gyn residency training...

• Develop opportunities for residents to obtain at least minimum competency in abortion procedures...

• Address physician attitudes by developing teaching and other curriculum resources for medical schools and residency training programs...

• Develop creative incentives to attract residents to train in abortion care...

• Pioneering efforts are needed to normalize and integrate abortion into the comprehensive system of health care delivery.

The abortion accreditation scheme

The next step was recruiting the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) into the scheme.

Prospect.org reported (emphasis added):

As its first national action, Medical Students for Choice collected more than 3,000 signatures to petition the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to reconsider its residency requirements for OB-GYN programs.

In February 1995, the ACGME issued a new set of carefully worded curriculum guidelines that, for the first time, explicitly required training in abortion procedures.

NAF explained (emphases added):

One important consequence was that in 1995 the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) acknowledged that abortion training opportunities had dropped to a dangerous level and adopted clear new guidelines that explicitly set forth the expectation that abortion training would be available to all ob-gyn residents...

The 1995 revision to the ACGME requirements for abortion training in accredited obstetrics and gynecology residency programs — another outgrowth of the 1990 symposium — was crucial in providing an important impetus for positive curricular changes in those programs.

The new standard evolved through a series of iterations, until a final version was adopted on July 31, 1995, for implementation beginning January 1, 1996:

"No program or resident with a religious or moral objection will be required to provide training in, or to perform, induced abortions. Otherwise, access to experience with induced abortion must be part of residency education. 

This education can be provided outside the institution. Experience with management of complications of abortion must be provided to all residents. If a residency program has a religious, moral or legal restriction which prohibits the residents from performing abortions within the institution, the program must ensure that the residents receive a satisfactory education and experience managing the complications of abortion.

Furthermore, such residency programs 1) must not impede residents in their program who do not have a religious or moral objection from receiving education and experience in performing abortions at another institution; and 2) must publicize such policy to all applicants to that residency."

NAF then recommended that "Clinics that provide abortions can 'build a bridge' to a residency program (and future abortion training program) by appointing a faculty member to their Board or medical staff."

Funding the training: 'The usual suspect'

In 1999, "Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy at the University of California at San Francisco organized the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning, designed to address the need for training in abortion and family planning within the academic community. In addition, NAF launched the Medical Abortion Education Initiative," wrote NAF.

Authors Joffe and Weitz stated (emphasis added):

With the help of a private donor, the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning was established in 1999 to offer financial and technical support for ob/gyn residencies committed to establishing abortion training.

The same donor has also funded a postgraduate Fellowship in Abortion and Family Planning. The intent of these programmes is to assure an abortion presence at leading medical schools in the United States, and to facilitate a new generation of physician researchers committed to a career in various facets of abortion care.

That "private donor" was billionaire Warren Buffett.

Buffett is not only the primary financier of the Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion; he has also funded NAF and others.

In 2017, PhilanthropyWomen.org referred to the Susan Thomas Buffett Foundation as "the single largest funder of the National Abortion Federation" including the NAF hotline.

Today Buffett funds NAF to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Bottom Line:

The history of the National Abortion Federation matters because NAF spokespersons are often cited by media outlets as "experts." These experts, sometimes presented as if they are impartial, attack pro-life measures and pregnancy resource centers. The truth is that these experts are inextricably bound to pro-abortion ideology.

Despite the fact that the FDA is still conducting a safety review of the abortion pill, and new research suggests that as many as 11% of women experience at least one serious complication from taking mifepristone within 45 days, various U.S. states have gone so far as to mandate that public universities and colleges provide students with the abortion pill – either directly on campus or through referrals.

Key Takeaways:

• Four states — California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York — require the abortion pill to be made available to students on college campuses through health centers.

• Other states — including Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Vermont — require college campuses to offer assistance with, access to, and referrals for abortion.

The Details:

The abortion pill procedure, 'self-managed' by a woman without medical supervision or medical assistance, puts women at risk, including those taking it on their college campuses and in their dorm rooms. Live Action’s white paper, "The State of Chemical Abortion: A Mechanism of Death," extensively details the dangers and corruption surrounding the abortion pill.

California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York currently require public institutions of higher learning to provide students access to the abortion pill regimen on campus.

Notably, university staff, including in California, expressed concerns over these laws. Colorado has recently advanced legislation which would mandate public and private colleges and universities to similarly provide access to the abortion pill to students.

Behind the Curtain:

A Live Action video, posted in 2018, describes how a student would likely experience a chemical abortion in her dorm:

“A chemical abortion requires the student to take two pills. The first pill, RU-486 [mifepristone], blocks nutrients to the baby. This would be taken in a campus health center [or in her dorm room without any medical supervision].

A day or two later, she takes the second pill, misoprostol. This causes contractions, cramping, and heavy bleeding to expel the baby from her uterus. She will often have headaches, diarrhea, and vomiting as well. For a girl in college, this will happen in her bathroom or dorm room. Keep in mind, college bathrooms and dorms are shared....

Chemical abortions are not risk free. Women may need corrective surgery and even life-saving medical procedures....” 

California

Under California law, as of 2023, all public universities in the state are required to offer chemical abortions either by providers on staff at the student health center, through telehealth services, or by providers associated with a contracted external agency.

In 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB24 into law, requiring  health centers at public universities to offer the abortion pill to students by 2023. All 10 University of California campuses and 23 California State University campuses are forced to participate. 

SB24 established the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund to provide the University of California and California State University with direct allocations “to support medication abortion readiness at each public university student health center.”

The bill was the result of years of pro-abortion activism, led by Democrat Sen. Connie Leyva.  Leyva began the push to get abortion pills on state university campuses in 2017, claiming that young college students need easier access to abortion. That bill was vetoed by then-Governor Jerry Brown who said that medical abortions are “widely available off-campus.” After Newsom announced during his gubernatorial campaign in 2018 that he would have signed the bill, Leyva decided to try again.

Both the University of California and California State University expressed concerns about providing the abortion pill to students, including cost and liability. Pro-lifers have expressed similar concerns. However, as of January 1, 2023, all the state universities are mandated to be in compliance with the radical abortion pill law.

The universities either provide the abortion pill directly to students on campus or refer students to outside organizations including Planned Parenthood.

Live Action confirmed through university websites that six of the 10 University of California campuses (UC Irvine, UCLA, UC Merced, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, UC Santa Cruz) offer the abortion pill to students on campus. Most of the 23 California State University campuses appear to offer the abortion pill, based on their website listings.

Multiple California universities advertise mail-order abortion pills through partnering organizations. Mail-order abortion pills on campus are cause for concern, as students are likely unprepared to manage the normal consequences of chemical abortion, let alone any complications that may arise as they go through the abortion procedure in their dorm rooms. 

UC Riverside states on its website that students can receive abortion pills in the mail from FPA Women’s Health Telehealth. The abortion pills are mailed directly to the students and virtual follow-ups are scheduled; this can hardly be considered appropriate medical care. On the university website, CSU Channel Islands refers students to FPA Family Planning Associate’s abortion pill telehealth service. CSUCI’s website also mentions grant funding for chemical abortions available to enrolled students.

Multiple California universities advertise low-cost abortion pills for students, and at least one university advertises free abortion pills for students enrolled in university health insurance plans (UC San Diego). Some university websites mention other financial assistance for students’ abortions including funds from grants and Uber gift cards.

As previously reported by Live Action News, a 2025 Campus Reform analysis has found that public universities in California are quietly adding abortion to school insurance plans. Insurance plans for both University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) colleges include abortion coverage. UC students are automatically enrolled into the university health care plan, and it is extremely difficult to opt out.

Abortions on California college campuses have been on the rise since SB24 was signed into law and went into effect in 2023. 

According to the 2025 report on the California Commission on the Status of Women & Girls website, the 10 University of California campuses facilitated a total of 297 chemical abortions and received a total of $2,492,326.63 in reimbursements from the College Student Right to Access Act grant. The report shows that the 23 California State University campuses facilities a total of 349 chemical abortions and received a total of $3,302,260.02 in reimbursements from the College Student Right to Access Act grant. 

Illinois

On August 22, 2025, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed House Bill 3709 into law, mandating that public universities and colleges, including community colleges, in Illinois provide enrolled students with access to chemical abortion drugs beginning in the 2025-26 school year.

The law requires that public institutions of higher education in the state with student health services must provide enrolled students with access to one or more health care professionals who are able to prescribe abortion pills and discuss abortion options. The institutions must provide the abortion services through student health services, telehealth services, or other external licensed providers.

The law further mandates that public universities or colleges with a pharmacy must provide the abortion pill at a physical location on campus.

Additionally, public universities and colleges in the state with student health services are required to provide students with information about accessing the abortion pill on campus on their websites. 

The law lists by name the institutions required to provide students with abortion pill access: “the University of Illinois, Southern Illinois University, Chicago State University, Eastern Illinois University, Governors State University, Illinois State University, Northeastern Illinois University, Northern Illinois University, Western Illinois University, a public community college in this State, or any other public university, college, or community college now or hereafter established or authorized by the General Assembly.”

Based on their health services websites, a majority of the institutions appear to refer students off-campus for abortions instead of providing abortions on campus.

Massachusetts

Under state law, as of 2022, all public Massachusetts universities and community colleges are required to have a “medication abortion readiness plan” and allow students to access the abortion pill directly from staff at the student health center, through referrals, or through abortion information. Massachusetts public universities and community colleges were first required to submit their abortion pill plans to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health by Nov. 30, 2023. 

In July 2022, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed H5090 into law. The extreme bill codified abortion into state law, required insurers to pay for abortions, and mandated that state colleges and universities make chemical abortions available on campus. Additionally, it put protections in place for Massachusetts abortionists. 

The legislation established the Public University Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund to help cover expenses for the universities’ and colleges’ abortion pill programs. The fund is “administered by the department of public health, in consultation with the department of higher education.” 

Under the law, all 15 public community colleges, all nine state universities, and all five University of Massachusetts campuses are required to assist students in obtaining the abortion pill.

In reviewing the websites for the Massachusetts public institutions of higher learning, Live Action News found that many of the institutions refer students to outside organizations, especially Planned Parenthood, to assist students in obtaining chemical abortions, as required by state law. Notably, Live Action News discovered that Salem State University offers the abortion pill on campus up to 11 weeks of pregnancy–which is past the FDA-approved 10 weeks gestational limit on the abortion pill.

New York

Under a 2023 New York law, every state university of New York (SUNY) campus and every city university of New York (CUNY) campus must provide students with abortion pill access. There are a total of 64 campuses in the SUNY system and a total of one university and 26 college campuses in the CUNY system.

Signed into law on May 2, 2023 by New York Governor Katy Hochul, Senate Bill S1213B requires the public New York universities to either employ or contract with individuals authorized to prescribe abortion pills, or provide students with information and referrals to providers authorized to prescribe abortion pills.

The Act went into effect on August 1, 2023, forcing 91 campuses to supply students with the deadly abortion drugs upon request.

According to research conducted by Live Action News, the majority of New York public universities refer students seeking abortion pills to a hospital system, Planned Parenthood, or a private abortion facility.

Live Action News did not find a public university website advertising abortion pills available on campus.

Several private New York institutions of higher learning, though not required by law, have expressed willingness to provide the abortion pill to students on campus. An online search showed that Columbia University and Cornell University offer the abortion pill, and Barnard College has moved towards offering the abortion pill.

States Requiring 'Abortion Access':

Connecticut 

As of January 1, 2024, all public universities in the state of Connecticut are required to provide access to abortion for students who live on campus under Public Act 23-41: An Act Concerning Access to Reproductive Health Care by Students at Public Institutions of Higher Education.

All public universities in Connecticut within the University of Connecticut (UConn) and Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) systems are required to have plans in place for providing students access to abortion either on-campus or off-campus, through information, counseling, referrals, telehealth, and transportation.

The University of Connecticut system is required to provide abortion access to its students under the law, and according to its website, UConn offers referrals for surgical abortions and offers (or will soon offer) prescriptions for the abortion pill.

It does not appear that any of the campuses within the UConn and CSCU systems currently offer the abortion pill on campus.

Delaware

Delaware law requires public universities in the state to provide students with on-site access to the abortion pill, with exceptions for universities that can only provide information and referrals.

Effective July 1, 2025, the Senate Substitute 1 for Senate Bill 301 “requires public universities in this state to provide access to medication for the termination of pregnancy and emergency contraception. The medication and contraception must be provided on-site, but consultation to provide them may be performed by a provider at the student health center or by a provider who is associated with a university-contracted external agency.”

Exceptions

The law grants exceptions to universities not equipped or staffed to provide the abortion pill on campus. These universities are, however, required to provide abortion information and referrals, including specified information on their websites.

If students request telehealth abortion services, these schools are required to accommodate the student requests by providing private space for a telehealth appointment; the schools are also required to assist students with academic accommodations if the students need them for abortions.

The primary public higher education institutions in Delaware (University of Delaware, Delaware State University) do not currently appear to offer the abortion pill on campus, but they do offer information and referrals for abortion.

Maryland

Under a 2023 law approved by Governor Wes Moore, certain Maryland public universities and colleges are required to provide students with access to abortion, either through direct provision or referrals.

HB 477, Ch. 251 states: “Each public senior higher education institution, in consultation with students, shall develop and implement a reproductive health services plan to provide at the public senior higher education institution or to refer students to a comprehensive range of reproductive health services.”

“Abortion Care Services” are listed in the law as reproductive health services that the institutions must provide either on-campus or provide to students through off-campus referrals.

The institutions required to comply with this law are: The constituent institutions of the University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland.

Based on their health services websites, a majority of the institutions appear to refer students off-campus for abortions instead of providing abortions on campus.

Vermont

Public universities and colleges in Vermont are required to provide students with access to abortion, under the Vermont Public Act 15 of 2023. 

Signed into law by (Republican) Governor Phil Scott on May 10, 2023, the Vermont law mandates that the University of Vermont and colleges within the Vermont State College system assist students in obtaining abortions, “including having in place equipment, protocols, patient educational materials, informational websites, and training for staff.”

The institutions may also provide abortions themselves.

Bottom Line:

Millions of state taxpayer dollars are potentially being directed towards the provision of the dangerous abortion pill to young students with very little medical supervision and even through “telehealth.” Students are ill-equipped to handle the normal effects of the abortion pill, let alone complications. Officials in the California public university systems expressed doubt that the universities themselves are equipped to handle the cases.

The abortion pill procedure, 'self-managed' by a woman without medical supervision or medical assistance, puts women at risk on their college campuses and in their dorm rooms. Live Action’s white paper, "The State of Chemical Abortion: A Mechanism of Death," extensively details the dangers surrounding the abortion pill, and the corruption.

Live Action and other pro-life organizations are calling on the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to immediately suspend the approval of mifepristone as an abortifacient and prohibit the distribution of abortion pills through mail-order services, and have asked U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche to side with pro-life state attorneys general currently suing the FDA over the dangerous abortion pill policies. 

Lethal for the unborn child, dangerous and potentially deadly for the mother, and costly to the taxpayer, the abortion pill's harms have serious repercussions on society.

Key Takeaways:

• Lawmakers in the Colorado Senate have passed a bill requiring all higher education institutions to offer access to the abortion pill on campus.

• Abortion supporters say the bill allows the state to be a "safe haven for reproductive rights," while opponents warn of the many risks, including the inability of campus health centers to deal with complications.

• The bill next heads to the desk of Governor Jared Polis for signature.

The Details:

House Bill 26-1335 passed the state Senate on May 13, the final day of the legislative session. The bill requires all higher education institutions — both public and private — to provide access to the abortion pill, with exceptions if they have “sincerely held” religious beliefs or if doing so would jeopardize access to federal funding.

Per the bill, those institutions with on-campus pharmacies will need to stock and provide the abortion pill. If there is no pharmacy, on-campus health providers will be required to write a prescription for the pill so the student can access it off campus.

“College students are navigating a nation that continues to undermine their right to abortion care, but Colorado is and will remain a safe haven for reproductive rights,” boasted Senator Katie Wallace. “This bill would ensure that students who rely on campus health centers are able to access the healthcare they need, when they need it, where they are.”

Dr. Tom Perille, a member of American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNS and Democrats for Life of Colorado, decried the legislation.

“Mandating abortion provision transforms student health centers beyond their traditional scope. Student health centers are designed for primary care, preventative services and limited outpatient management of common diseases,” he wrote in an April op-ed for Colorado Politics. “They are not equipped to deal with complex reproductive health services that commonly require follow-up and surgical interventions.”

He also warned that easier access to chemical abortion drugs "will exacerbate an already endemic mental health crisis amongst young adults" while increasing the risk that young women will be coerced into aborting their preborn children.

Why It Matters:

As previously outlined by Live Action News, there are many dangers associated with college students committing students in their dorm rooms — particularly because there is no clear plan for how those students will access emergency medical care if and when they need it.

One analysis has shown that 11% of women who take the abortion pill experience severe side effects, including hemorrhaging, infection, sepsis, transfusions, hospitalization, and more. Often, women experiencing these complications need to seek emergency treatment at a hospital or urgent care facility. If students who live on campus don't have their own transportation, how will they receive the care they need? How will they manage the intense bleeding and pain that comes from taking the pill while they are in a shared dorm bathroom? What happens to the remains of the preborn child they pass after the abortion is completed?

In promoting the bill, pro-abortion lawmakers failed to address any of these points.

The Bottom Line:

Pregnant college students need care, support, and to be surrounded by people that tell them, 'You can do this.' Instead, the only thing this legislation tells young women is that they need to kill their preborn children in order to be successful.

Key Takeaways:

• Reggie Hong was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 15 weeks pregnant.

• Her doctor immediately advised her to abort her preborn child. Hong refused, seeking a second opinion at the University of Kansas Health System. There, doctors told her she did not have to abort her baby in order to receive treatment.

• Hong continued her pregnancy and gave birth to a healthy little girl.

• Research has shown that many women can receive chemo while pregnant, but unfortunately, many doctors still recommend abortion after a cancer diagnosis.

The Details:

Reggie Hong, of Blue Springs, MO, was 14 weeks pregnant with her second baby when she discovered dimpling on her breast. She talked to Fox 4KC about the cancer diagnosis she received at 15 weeks, shortly after her baby's gender reveal.

“By this point, we had the results of our gender reveal, so we’d had a cake two days before the scan from hell and they found a 4.2 centimeter tumor and a lymph node that was affected, too,” she explained, adding that the first advice she received from her doctor was to kill her preborn baby.

“So we went to our OB for our next appointment and he said, ‘We think you should terminate because chemo, which is the only thing you can do in this situation, kills rapidly dividing cells. So it will most definitely kill your baby,’ and we were devastated,” Hong said.

Thankfully, Hong and her husband were unwilling to follow that doctor's advice. They found a new medical team at the University of Kansas Health System who were willing to work with both mom and baby. The Hongs were told that a cancer diagnosis does not mean a mother has to have an abortion. 

“Our surgeon, who we had spoken to earlier that day, said, that’s not true, there are chemos that are safer for babies, tons of women get through this. That’s when we moved to KU to a different doctor; they said, ‘Yeah, I think we can get you through this.’ So I’ve been on chemo, a pretty harsh chemo,” she said. 

Hong continued her pregnancy and gave birth to a little girl who is now thriving.

“My baby’s fine and we made it through. And it’s just incredible to be here,” she said.

“We decided to name her Elaina because Elaina means a light in the darkness and that’s what she was for us,” she added.

Hong said she is still in treatment, but her prognosis is good.

Zoom Out:

Sadly, some mothers — and doctors — remain misinformed when it comes to pregnant women navigating cancer. Many doctors continue to encourage mothers to choose abortion after a cancer diagnosis, despite research showing that cancer treatment is safe for the baby.

Live Action News has compiled research debunking the idea that pregnant women with cancer need abortion, as a previous article noted:

The American Cancer Society specifically reported that studies have shown that abortion does not improve outcomes for breast cancer patients, and also noted that abortion is no longer routinely recommended when a pregnant woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. According to Healthline, when abortion is recommended, it is because those doctors don’t know how to safely treat the mother while protecting the preborn child. “Today more women are choosing to treat their cancer while they’re pregnant,” it explained, adding, “Treatment choices for pregnant people with cancer are the same as treatment choices for nonpregnant people with cancer. How and when treatments are given might be different during pregnancy.”

Dr. Marc Parrish, a maternal fetal medicine doctor who was part of Hong’s treatment team at the University of Kansas Health System, told WCAX that many people are misinformed about pregnancy and cancer treatment.

“I think the biggest misconceptions are you can’t carry a pregnancy if you’re on chemotherapy, and if you do, you’re causing harm to your baby. And I would say those are not true,” Parrish explained.

He said that though it may be recommended to avoid chemotherapy in the first trimester, any effects to the preborn baby after that time are usually minimal.

“We know that it can make babies immunocompromised and it can cause them to be anemic,” Parrish said. “Both of those are correctable outside of the womb.”

The Bottom Line:

Hong had a message for pregnant women who may be faced with a cancer diagnosis.

"If you're pregnant, you don't have to terminate," she said. "You can go through it, and you can do the chemo, and come out on the other side."

Key Takeaways:

• Sharifa Jackson unexpectedly gave birth to daughter Arya at just 24 weeks pregnant.

• Arya battled a number of health challenges, including a heart defect and severe lung disease.

• She was finally discharged from the hospital after 236 days in the NICU.

The Details:

Sharifa Jackson unexpectedly went into early labor last August, when she was 24 weeks pregnant. Her daughter, Arya, was born weighing just over one pound.

Over the next months, Arya battled a number of health challenges, including a heart defect and severe lung disease. She also had to undergo multiple blood transfusions.

"I didn't know anything about a NICU or NICU life or a baby that could weigh one pound," Sharifa explained. She praised the quality of care little Arya received.

"We've been through so many hospitals. Everybody, our nurses, doctors from Jersey, to CHOP, to King of Prussia, every person who cared for her loved her so much," she said. "I never worried when we weren't at the hospital because they took care of her like their own."

Finally, after 236 days in the hospital, little Arya was able to join her parents at home.

"I think we got on the steps [and] I said, 'Whose baby is this?' Not that I couldn't imagine it happening, it was just so long we got used to living in the NICU," Sharifa said of that experience. "When you get to this point and can bring your baby home, you don't remember the other times."

Zoom In:

Sharifa and her husband, Jaro Moravek, recently went on the Tamron Hall Show to talk about life outside the NICU.

“We’re trying to figure out our new normal living outside of the hospital," Sharifa told Hall. "I mean, it’s been great. We can take her for walks, we can play with her whenever we want to, we can hold her whenever we want to. And she’s developing great."

The Bottom Line:

Thanks to advancements in medicine, micro-preemies like Arya are increasingly surviving and thriving. This family's story demonstrates that every baby, even the very smallest, deserves the best possible care and a chance at life.

Lawyers arguing for the Plaintiff in the case have also filed a motion, as the judge ruling in the same case dismissed the Plaintiff's claim that the law violates religious freedom.

Key Takeaways:

• Earlier this month Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Brian Edwards struck down a portion of Kentucky's Human Life Act, saying the definition of human being was "vague." However, he dismissed a claim that the law violates religious freedom.

• Attorney General Russell Coleman has asked Edwards to reconsider his ruling, saying he made a "manifest error of the law" in calling the language unconstitutional.

• Coleman doubled down on the state's support of IVF, saying the state's abortion law does not apply to the disposal of human embryos created via IVF.

• Aaron Kemper and Benjamin Potash, attorneys for the plaintiff in the case, have also asked the judge to reconsider, arguing that the pro-life law violates the religious beliefs of their Jewish client.

The Backstory:

Earlier this month, Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Brian Edwards struck down a portion of the state's Human Life Protection Act, which protects nearly all preborn children from abortion. Edwards said the law is "unconstitutionally void for vagueness," because the definition of "human being" within the law is "vague and unintelligible."

The state defines "human being" as "any member of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until death."

Notably, in his ruling, Edwards did not place an injunction, or halt, on any portion of the law.

Edwards' ruling was seen as a partial victory for Jessica Kalb, a plaintiff in the case, who had argued that because the state defines human beings as "any member of the species homo sapiens" beginning at fertilization, she was unable to proceed with in-vitro fertilization (IVF) for fear of prosecution.

Though Edwards did rule against that portion of the law, he dismissed Kalb's claim that the law violated her religious freedom, as he said instead the law is "religiously neutral," and does not burden the Jewish community  “any more than it burdens followers of Christianity, Islam, or Hindu from exercising their religious beliefs.” 

The Details:

On May 11, Coleman filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that Edwards made “a manifest error of law” when ruling that the state's definition of human being was vague. In his motion, Coleman also doubled down on the state's support of IVF, arguing that the the state’s “prohibition of abortions does not apply to IVF, including to the disposal of unused embryos,” while also saying that prosecuting those who practice IVF “is a gross over-reading of the Human Life Protection Act.”  

“There is … no basis to conclude that the definition of ‘unborn human being’ … could ever be used as a basis for a homicide prosecution against Ms. Kalb,” he wrote.

Kalb's attorneys, Aaron Kemper and Benjamin Potash, have also filed a motion, as they, too, were unsatisfied with Edwards' ruling.

The duo argued that the pro-life law “forces (Kalb) to plan her family under a statutory definition of ‘human being,’ that her sincerely held Jewish faith expressly rejects. Jewish law teaches that life begins at birth, not at conception, and that the life and health of the mother take priority over the developing fetus,” they wrote.

Because the state's law does not contain exceptions for things like the mother's mental health or cases of rape or incest, the lawyers say it “thus compels (Kalb) to govern her religiously commanded family planning by a doctrine her faith rejects, on terms her faith forbids.”   

However, in an op-ed detailing the Jewish pro-life position, the President of the Jewish Pro-Life Foundation, Cecily Routman, MSW, noted that Jewish law does not support abortion. "Jewish law considers abortion to be murder. Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides), an influential Torah scholar, rabbi, legal authority, physician and philosopher, declared in his compilation of Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah: “The definition of murder according to the Noahide Laws includes a person ‘who kills even one unborn in the womb of its mother,’ and adds that such a person is liable for the death penalty," she wrote.

The Bottom Line:

The squabbling on both sides fails to consider that all preborn children — even those in the smallest embryo stages — are human beings worthy of protection. Science is clear that life begins at the moment of fertilization. There is no process, procedure, or religion that makes it a right to destroy that human life.

She told the House Foreign Affairs Oversight and Intelligence Subcommittee that “there is misinformation about what kind of healthcare services the agency does and does not provide…neither UNFPA nor any other UN agency provides abortions. Full stop.”

Dean held up a UNFPA birthing supplies kit and said, “The [Trump] administration should be ashamed” for cutting funds to the agency. UNFPA reported a loss of $377 million in canceled U.S. government grants.

Dean’s comments echo UNFPA talking points: “UNFPA does not fund or perform abortions.”

However, a single example proves these to be false claims by UNFPA and Congresswoman Dean.

In 2017, UNFPA provided funding to the abortion group Ipas in order to train abortionists and to provide abortions in refugee camps in Bangladesh, where Rohingya Muslim refugees from Myanmar were living. Five years later, in 2022, Ipas continued to provide “comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services” in partnership with UNFPA at 49 locations.

In Bangladesh, abortion is illegal, but an unusual loophole exists in the law: a first-trimester abortion conducted without a prior pregnancy test is referred to as “menstrual regulation,” and is legal. An annual report from UNFPA’s Bangladesh office claims that in 2021, “UNFPA-supported midwives…conducted 2,122 menstrual regulation procedures.”

Legal technicalities aside, the procedures are identical apart from the pregnancy test, and Ipas refers to “menstrual regulation (as abortion is known in Bangladesh),” leaving no ambiguity.

However, UNFPA’s promotion and provision of abortion internationally extends far beyond Bangladesh.  Its procurement platform, the UNFPA Supplies Partnership, offers manual vacuum aspirators, which are used to perform surgical abortions, as well as misoprostol and mifepristone, the drugs used in medication abortions...

Read entire article at C-Fam.

Key Takeaways:

• Abortionist Margaret Carpenter, who has an active arrest warrant from the State of Louisiana for sending the abortion pill to two women there who both suffered complications as a result, has reportedly relocated to Ireland.

• Carpenter was protected by New York's "shield law" from prosecution, despite breaking the abortion laws of another state.

• Carpenter was also sued by Texas AG Ken Paxton for illegal mailing of abortion pills into that state.

• Carpenter has reportedly registered with the Irish Medical Council, though it is currently unknown if she is dispensing or mailing abortion drugs.

The Details:

In October 2025, New York-based Margaret Carpenter registered with the Irish Medical Council and is purportedly now residing in Dublin, Ireland.

The Irish Medical Council has declined to clarify Carpenter's professional status, sparking renewed scrutiny about Ireland’s oversight of medical practitioners and the country’s complicity in the global expansion of abortion. Ireland legalized abortion in 2018 after a national referendum that repealed the Eighth Amendment, which had acknowledged the equal right to life of the mother and preborn child. Since then, abortion services have multiplied across the country, including the availability of early abortion pills prescribed by doctors. 

It remains uncertain as to whether Carpenter plans to continue distributing abortion pills while living in Ireland. However, in 2022, Carpenter helped set up the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine (ACT), a nonprofit organization based in New York that offers both legal and technical assistance to telemedicine providers.

The group was established following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade, enabling individual states to decide their abortion laws. According to ACT’s official website, Carpenter is listed as one of its three founding members “who have harnessed their collective medical and legal expertise to meet this moment.” 

Carpenter is the subject of an active arrest warrant issued in Louisiana, where she faces allegations of breaching state law by offering abortion-inducing drugs via telemedicine to a pregnant minor. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill’s office verified with GRIPT Media that the warrant issued for Carpenter’s arrest is active. 

The reality that Carpenter is presently residing in South Dublin has raised eyebrows among pro-life advocates, who believe Ireland may be inadvertently serving as a haven for abortion providers hoping to circumvent American laws.

The Carpenter case has shed light on gaps in Ireland’s regulatory framework, especially regarding foreign practitioners and telemedicine-based abortion services. The lack of clear communication from the Irish Medical Council regarding Carpenter’s case risks jeopardizing public trust in the medical profession. 

Carpenter’s case also underscores the fact that abortion providers and advocacy groups are capitalizing on digital platforms to send abortion drugs into areas with restrictive laws, giving rise to <a href="/news/supreme-court-abortion-pill-dispensed-mail">escalating legal battles</a> in the U.S. 

The Backstory:

According to the report from GRIPT Media, Louisiana District Attorney Tony Clayton claims the physician, who was practicing in New York at the time, mailed the medication to the girl’s mother for her to administer, disregarding Louisiana’s pro-life laws, which do not allow the distribution of abortion drugs. Authorities say Carpenter was charged after her name appeared on the prescription included with the shipment. 

In 2025, PostSouth.com reported DA Clayton's remarks from a radio show about the decision to seek Carpenter’s indictment:

“It would be a groundbreaking case. I think we would be the first state to charge the clinic and the doctor. I will seek an arrest warrant and use whatever laws we have in place to effectuate that warrant.

More importantly, the issue is that the people of Louisiana and the legislators and governor have decided that abortions are illegal. To put a pill in commerce that ultimately enters into the mouth and stomach of the child, I believe that some folks have to answer to that. That’s the position this D.A.’s office takes whether that doctor is in China, New York or Alabama.” 

Regarding Carpenter’s actions, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry also wrote on X in 2025: 

“A minor in Louisiana got pregnant. She was excited to have a baby and was planning a gender reveal party. Her mom conspired with a NY doctor to get a chemical abortion pill in the mail and coerced her to take it. She ended up in the hospital. There is only one right answer in this situation: the doctor must face extradition to Louisiana where justice will be served. We owe this to the minor and the innocent life lost.” 

However, pro-abortion authorities in Carpenter’s home state of New York have pledged to defend her from pro-life indictments.

New York’s so-called “shield law” was created to address circumstances like Carpenter’s, hoping to safeguard abortion providers who break the pro-life laws of other states, even in cases where women may be harmed.

Several states have passed these shield laws, which have contributed to increased killing of preborn children by abortion drugs.

Carpenter faced renewed allegations of sending the abortion pill to another woman in Louisiana in 2025, despite having been indicted in 2024.

The second incident involved a woman in Shreveport who was supposedly around 20 weeks pregnant when she took the drugs —10 weeks past the gestational limit authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

Based on testimony by AG Liz Murrill, the woman reportedly went into labor after consuming abortion drugs allegedly supplied by Carpenter, before eventually discarding her baby. Warning of the consequences to those who contravene Louisiana laws, Murrill elaborated: “I have said it before and I will say it again: We will hold individuals accountable for breaking the law.” 

Apart from Louisiana, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against Carpenter to stop shipping abortion pills into the state, while also imposing a fine of more than $100,000 on Carpenter, after the latter sent chemical abortion drugs to a Texas mother in defiance of state law.

While Carpenter has not publicly replied to the charges, her case has drawn international attention as part of a broader legal and ethical conflict between pro-life states in the U.S. and abortion providers who operate across state lines through online services.

Despite causing harm to women, in February 2026, Carpenter was included in the 2026 TIME100 Health List of the World’s Most Influential Leaders in Health. In reality, intentionally killing preborn children is not health care.

The Bottom Line:

Whether Irish authorities will take action—or continue to remain mum on Carpenter—may have considerable ramifications for public confidence in the country’s healthcare system and its commitment to safeguarding both patients and the preborn.

Undoubtedly, Carpenter's situation reflects the rising international dimension of abortion provision — one in which geographic boundaries are increasingly crossed by telemedicine and activist networks bent on violating legal protections for the preborn and removing accountability for those complicit in supplying deadly abortion pills. 

In contrast, a majority of the public (53%) thought the Bill should either not return or, if it returns, it should be introduced with stronger safeguards, which would mean introducing a different Bill, therefore ruling out the use of the Parliament Acts to bypass the Lords.

The polling also found that only 34% of the public polled thought the Lords should not be able to block laws passed by elected MPs if the law is not in the Government’s manifesto. Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill is a Private Members’ Bill and was not part of Labour’s General Election manifesto.

Following the failure of Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill, polling organisation More in Common asked 2,041 adults in Britain at the end of April this year which safeguards would be important to them should another assisted suicide Bill be introduced. 

The polling found that the overwhelming majority of the public believes that, if the assisted suicide Bill were to return, palliative care must first be offered as an alternative to assisted suicide before assisted suicide can take place.

90% of respondents who took a position on the question thought that palliative care must be offered as an alternative to assisted suicide first. 52% of respondents agreed it was “essential” that palliative care must be offered as an alternative to assisted suicide first and a further 31% said this was “Good to have”. Only 9% thought it unnecessary.

The polling also found 71% of those who took a position were supportive of the need for approval from a judge as a safeguard. 34% of respondents agreed it was “essential” that a judge approve assisted suicide and a further 30% said this was “Good to have”.

In March last year, Kim Leadbeater removed the requirement that a High Court judge approve assisted suicide applications, despite the fact that this was presented as the flagship safeguard of her Bill, and despite assurances from her that this safeguard would not be removed. The More in Common polling shows the overwhelming majority of the public would want this safeguard in place should an assisted suicide Bill return.

The polling also found 95% of those who took a position were supportive of the need for “strict rules against family or financial pressure on the patient” as a safeguard in cases of assisted suicide. 65% of respondents agreed this safeguard was “essential” and a further 22% said it was “Good to have”.

Collapse of assisted suicide Bill

The polling comes just days after the final day of Committee Stage of the assisted suicide Bill was completed in the House of Lords, and the Bill subsequently failed at the prorogation of Parliament.

The fall of the assisted suicide Bill comes as new polling suggests that the Bill would likely fail if it were reintroduced in the House of Commons, and an analysis reveals there have been near-unprecedented levels of opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords.

Public does not support Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill

Polling from JL Partners has revealed that the public does not support Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill, even among those who support assisted suicide in principle, and it does not support forcing the Bill into law without the consent of the House of Lords.

Another recent poll by More In Common showed that the majority of the public does not support bypassing the House of Lords to force through the assisted suicide Bill, as would occur if the Parliament Acts were invoked in relation to the Bill in the next parliamentary session, as Lord Falconer has threatened.

Despite the polling including leading questions in favour of the Bill, 54% of the public polled thought the Bill should either not return or would have to pass both Houses again – whereas only 46% of those polled thought the Bill should bypass the House of Lords.

The polling showed that majorities do not support the bypassing of the House of Lords among both men and women, and among voters of every major political party.

The polling also showed that those who strongly support legalising assisted suicide remain low at just 28% of the public, a drop compared to the 32% of those polled who strongly supported legalising assisted suicide in November 2024.

The release of the polling follows ongoing campaigning from assisted suicide lobby group, Dignity in Dying, to build support for bringing back Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill in the next parliamentary session and then using the Parliament Acts to bypass the House of Lords.

Taking the unprecedented route of using the Parliament Acts to bypass House of Lords’ scrutiny of a Private Members’ Bill would be politically explosive and divisive, setting a precedent that may worry many MPs. It would be the first time ever that the Parliament Acts would be used for a Private Members’ Bill – and this recent polling confirms that taking this approach is not supported by the public.

This poll follows earlier polling, which found that 70% of the public who expressed a view believe Peers should be able to vote against a Private Members’ Bill, like the assisted suicide Bill, if they believe it would harm vulnerable people.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee and Hansard Society have both confirmed that Peers are constitutionally free to reject the Bill. As the Bill is not a Government Bill and was not in any party’s election manifesto, there is no convention requiring the Lords to pass it.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “Poll after poll has shown that it is not just MPs and Peers who have serious concerns about the now-defunct assisted suicide Bill, but the general public too. The more the public delves into the details of assisted suicide and its actual operation, the more concerned they are, as illustrated by the fact that the overwhelming majority want greater protections in any future assisted suicide Bill”.

“Hopefully, with the collapse of Leadbeater’s flawed Bill, MPs will see there is no appetite for another Bill which jeopardises the vulnerable and completely fails to address major issues in end of life care”.

Key Takeaways:

• The French National Assembly has passed a bill twice to advance legalization on assisted dying in France but both times was rejected by the highly-divided Senate.

• This week, two bills were debated; the one to advance assisted dying was rejected, while the one on palliative care passed.

• Macron is pressing for an assisted dying bill to be passed before summer recess in mid-July.

The Backstory:

The French National Assembly has passed a bill twice (once in May of 2025 and again in February of 2026) in the past year that would advance legalization on assisted dying in France. In both instances, the proposed bill was rejected by the Senate, which remains highly divided. 

The senators debated two bills this week — one on palliative care, which passed almost unanimously, and the other assisted suicide. On Monday evening, the higher chamber rejected article 2, a cornerstone to the legislation on euthanasia, effectively overturning the entire bill by a vote of 151 to 118. 

The bill would have allowed French adults with terminal or incurable illnesses to request and receive lethal medication to be self-administered or, by exception, administered by a medical professional if the patient was incapable of doing it themselves.

The bill contained a clause that would allow medical staff to refuse participation in assisted suicide procedures. The Senate also further restricted eligible patients to those with short-term life expectancy. 

The Details:

President Macron’s government is pushing lawmakers to pass the bill before the summer recess in mid-July. In the case of a blocked vote where the National Assembly and the Senate cannot find consensus, there is a possibility that the government can give the National Assembly the power to decide the matter and have the final say. 

However, Bruno Retailleau, head of France’s conservative party, Les Républicains (LR), is against such a fundamental law passing without a clear consensus and has called for a referendum. 

As reported by Lemonde, he said that the decision should be up to the French people to “decide on this very serious anthropological question. Such a fundamental text must benefit from a minimum of consensus.” 

Conservative senators were again joined by their socialist colleagues in rejecting the bill but, like last time, many socialist senators think the bill has become too restrictive, whereas many conservatives oppose euthanasia completely.

Sadly, however, the conservative party is split as well, with 68 voting for and 49 against.

Bishop Marc Aillet of Bayonne, Lescar, and Oloron appealed to his diocese to mobilize for a day of prayer and fasting and to oppose the legislation. “We must ask for the light of the Holy Spirit so that the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ remains at the heart of our laws and our civilization,” he said.

The Bottom Line:

The Senate passed a separate bill on Tuesday seeking to improve access to palliative care. The broad consensus on this legislation gives one hope that the French people will stand up for the Hippocratic Oath and protect a culture of life.

The executive government could still force a vote by the National Assembly, but the hope is that the French people can defend their dying citizens and the dignity of life via a referendum.  

The proposed legislation, which tried to broaden the country's abortion laws, was defeated by a vote of 85 to 30, with 36 abstentions, The Irish Times reported. 

Key Takeaways:

• Abortion is currently legal in Ireland for any reason up to 12 weeks (84 days) of pregnancy, and after 12 weeks for certain exceptions such as mother's life/health at serious risk.

• Social Democrats in the Irish House of Representatives sought to end the country's mandatory three-day waiting period before a woman can obtain an abortion after an initial visit, claiming the informed consent measure is a "barrier that exists... because of politics."

The Details:

The vote came after an intense debate over efforts to eradicate the country's mandatory three-day abortion waiting period and to broaden abortion for cases involving fatal fetal abnormalities. The proposed legislation emerged nearly eight years after Ireland voted to amend the constitution and its abortion laws, which had previously been considered among the strongest in the world until 2018.

The bill, known also as the Reproductive Rights (Amendment) Bill 2026, aimed to detail the process for abortions for medical reasons, including fatal fetal abnormalities, as claimed by Social Democrat leader Holly Cairns. The bill would have removed the three-day waiting period following an initial consultation with a general practitioner (GP) and decriminalized doctors (who could be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison for breaking the law).

“Doctors, families and advocacy groups have repeatedly told us this threshold is too narrow and too rigid. Doctors are being placed in impossible positions and women are still traveling as a result," Cairns, who proposed the bill, alleged. “The mandatory three-day waiting period is another example of a barrier that exists not because of medicine but because of politics and once again, it is women who pay the price."

However, it is preborn children who pay the ultimate price in every abortion.

When questioned about the bill shortly before it was debated, Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin replied that “some significant flaws have been highlighted in relation to the legislation,” adding that the topic of decriminalization was “highly problematic” and would erode “the entire legislative template that was enacted post the referendum.”

Martin elaborated that Ireland’s Minister for Health has had “good engagement” with the Social Democrats, but that a private member’s bill “isn’t the most effective way of dealing with a complex issue like this.”

According to RTE, Irish Minister Jennifer Carroll MacNeill said the bill "raised significant legal and operational concerns." RTE continued:

Of these, she said, the amendments to the three-day waiting period were the least difficult.

She told the Dáil that the reduction of the number of doctors making the decision was problematic and would create an uncertainty that, she said, would be unhelpful.

She said the dual professional signatory was a fundamental principle of safety and widely practised in healthcare. The minister said she was aware of the tragic outcomes that had already occurred where core principles of safety had not been adhered to.

On fatal foetal abnormality, she said it was extremely complex and raised many ethical issues. She said she empathised with what the bill was trying to achieve, but said the 28-day clause was not chosen at random.

She said it was chosen because it was related medically to the period where an infant is most at risk and beyond that was very complicated.

The bill was largely based on the recommendations of the O'Shea review of the Health Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy Act.

The bill, however, extended far beyond the HRTOP Act recommendations, putting at risk the balanced framework that Irish voters had been assured during the Eighth Amendment referendum in 2018.

While Ireland legalized abortion in certain circumstances in 2018, the issue has remained deeply disputed. The May 13 vote seems to indicate that a sizable number of TDs are not prepared to back additional expansions to abortion, at least for the moment. The reasons for this may vary and may not all be on the side of preborn human life.

The 36 members of Irish political party Sinn Féin abstained from the vote. Their move, which effectively avoided directly supporting or resisting the bill, ignited questions about political accountability on one of the most consequential moral issues facing the country.

What We're Hearing:

Pro-life organizations responded to the outcome by emphasizing that it reflected fragmented views in Irish society about the expansion of abortion. Dublin-based pro-life group The Life Institute published a press release, stating: 

“The Life Institute welcomes the rejection of the horrific Reproductive Rights (Amendment) Bill 2026, brought forward by Social Democrat’s leader, Holly Cairns. Our TDs in the Oireachtas have voted AGAINST this Bill, which sought to scrap the 3-day waiting period of reflection before a woman has an abortion, and expand the grounds for barbaric late-term abortions.” 

Likewise, Pro Life Campaign (PLC) spokesperson Eilís Mulroy proclaimed: 

“The defeat of the Social Democrats’ bill to abolish the life-saving three-day wait and widen the grounds for late-term abortion was hard-fought and is a very encouraging result. Immense credit goes to the terrific pro-life Oireachtas members, and to everyone who contacted their local TDs over recent days. The massive lobbying effort over the past 72 hours played a huge part in tonight’s outcome. With the heartbreaking tragedy of 1 in 6 pregnancies now ending in abortion in Ireland, the Social Democrats pushed things too far tonight - and they got their answer.”

While celebrating this victory for pro-life supporters in Ireland,  the PLC cautioned against complacency, with Mulroy saying: 

“We have to factor in that some politicians voted against the Social Democrats bill for purely tactical reasons, so they can progress their own pro-abortion bill at a later stage. So our work is never done. But tonight, we are thankful for an excellent outcome. We will keep striving to build a more welcoming and supportive society for women experiencing unplanned pregnancies and their unborn babies.”  

The Bottom Line:

Currently, the law in Ireland allows abortion up to 12 weeks, and later in cases of health/life of the mother as well as in circumstances where a condition is likely to result in the death of the fetus before birth or within 28 days after birth. 

Key Takeaways:

• In 2023, voters passed Issue 1, an amendment that enshrined the "right" to abortion in the Ohio state constitution.

• The referendum was used to overturn numerous pro-life laws.

• A new legal challenge has been introduced, claiming Issue 1 violated the state constitution.

• That legal challenge claims the state constitution cannot be changed or revised without a constitutional convention.

The Details:

Janet Porter, president of Faith2Action, announced that a legal challenge has been filed against Issue 1 in Ohio, claiming it is unconstitutional.

"If you look to what the constitution says in the state of Ohio, you cannot amend multiple portions of it with a simple ballot vote," she said. "What you have to do if you're going to change multiple portions of the constitution, you've got to have a constitutional convention. And they didn't do that. The long-awaited legal challenge to Issue 1, filed by attorneys Tom Conditt and Andy Schlafly on behalf of public officials, including Representative Levi Dean, Representative Jennifer Gross, and Council Member Kristen Edgars, makes it clear the process to revise the Ohio Constitution in fundamental ways is governed exclusively by Article 16, Section 2, which does not permit a revision of the Constitution by any means other than through a constitutional convention."

Porter said Issue 1 conflicts with at least three fundamental provisions of the Ohio Constitution.

She added, "As explained by a landmark California Supreme Court decision concerning a ballot process nearly identical to Ohio's, a voter-enacted ballot initiative is invalid whenever fundamental constitutional rights are implicated."

The Backstory:

In November of 2023, Ohio voters approved Issue 1, passing with approximately 57% of the vote in favor, and 43% against. Under Issue 1, the Ohio constitution was amended to include “an individual right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.”

It did give a provision to “allow the state to restrict abortion after fetal viability, except when ‘necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.'" Yet the idea of abortion being necessary for the mother's "health" is a vague, meaningless term, which historically has been defined so broadly that abortion is permitted for virtually any reason, including for reasons of “familial” or “financial” health, as seen in Roe v. Wade‘s partner decision, Doe v. Bolton.

Viability is also left to the abortionist, who financially profits from the abortion, to decide. Ohio’s parental notification law regarding abortion was also revoked.

Issue 1 was heavily funded by the abortion industry. Reports indicated that Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the group behind the ballot measure, comprised of a coalition of organizations including the ACLU of Ohio, Abortion Fund of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio, and the abortion facility Preterm-Cleveland, raised more than $39.2 million. Many of the donors were from out-of-state, and included the New York-based Open Society Policy Center, and the New York-based American Civil Liberties Union.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Oklahoma billionaire Lynn Schusterman, and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund were also donors. Protect Women Ohio reported that there was $35 million in out-of-state funding behind Issue 1.

The Bottom Line:

Porter also said that this lawsuit could have nationwide implications.

"So the good news is we are putting this before the court," she continued. "It'll go before the court of common pleas in Butler County, then to the appellate court, and then ultimately to the Ohio Supreme Court. But this won't just affect Ohio. When we win, it will set a precedent for every state hurt and threatened by the mob with the most money. This is the first step to breaking the curse over our state and our nation. We need to make sure the Ohio Constitution is enforced once again and not violated in multiple ways."

Key Takeaways:

• The Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Diocese of Stockholm has issued guidance for voters ahead of the country's September elections.

• The document helps voters distinguish between two categories of issues they may encounter, noting that nonnegotiable moral truths are those such as euthanasia and abortion.

• The document's commissioner says it is a matter of pastoral guidance.

The Details:

According to EWTN News, the Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Diocese of Stockholm published its voter guide in which it urges Catholics and "all people of goodwill" to become informed and engaged in public discourse, and to vote in a manner that adheres to Catholic social teaching.

The document helps voters distinguish between two categories of issues they may encounter: those subject to prudential judgement, and those which are non-negotiable moral truths.

An issue of prudential judgement, for instance, may be the economy, migration, or climate change. Moral issues, on the other hand, include those concerning life and death, such as abortion and euthanasia.

The document states that “every human being’s right to life from conception to natural death” is foundational, and that abortion and euthanasia are “serious violations of human dignity.”

Though the document helps voters determined how to vote, it stops short of endorsing any political parties or positions.

Zoom In:

As Gaudium Press reports, the document comes as several political parties are poised to attempt to amend the country's constitution to enshrine abortion as a constitutional 'right.' Additionally, lawmakers are working to expand the nation's abortion laws, while allowing at-home chemical abortions through use of the abortion pill.

Pro-life groups within the country say that the commission's document, which comes ahead of the year's September election, is “a rather bold step," particularly because issues like abortion are widely considered to be a settled matter in the country.

“Issuing such a document in an election year is meaningful because it makes a distinctly Catholic voice more visible in public debate,” said Benedicta Lindberg, secretary-general of the pro-life organization Respekt.

The commission's chairman, Fr. Thomas Idergard, SJ, called the document a matter of pastoral guidance.

“With elections approaching, the faithful request some guidance on how to apply faith in their choices as voters,” Idergard told EWTN News.

The Bottom Line:

The document is an important tool for helping Catholics, and all people, consider how to vote on serious life issues. As Fr. Idergard noted, “The Catholic Church in Sweden has always been visibly active on pro-life issues."

However, this same baby, born at 22 weeks, returned home from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) just in time for Mother’s Day 113 days later.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2025, Vivan Hernandez found out she was pregnant, but suffered preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) at 18 weeks.

• Doctors initially said her baby had just a 3% chance of survival.

• Her son was born at 22 weeks, and weighed just one pound.

• He spent 113 days in the NICU before going home with his family.

The Details:

Vivian Hernandez realized she was expecting a child over Mother’s Day weekend in 2025. Her pregnancy progressed normally at first, but at 18 weeks, her membranes ruptured, causing her water to break far earlier than anticipated. 

Hernandez was moved to HCA HealthONE Presbyterian St. Luke’s in Denver, Colorado, where her baby’s prognosis remained uncertain.

"They're like, ‘He has a 3% chance of surviving, or even that you can even get to delivery would be 3%,'" Hernandez told KUSA-TV Denver, adding that the doctors assisting her in trying to save her pregnancy could not make any promises about whether it would be successful. 

Eventually, Sebastian Moncivais was born on September 11, 2025, at just 22 weeks and one day gestation, weighing only about one pound. His father, Henry Moncivais, said, “He was as big as my hand.” 

The infant spent nearly two months in the NICU at HCA HealthONE Rocky Mountain Children’s on a ventilator, receiving intravenous nutrition along with several medications during that period. 

Dr. Jennifer Zank, a neonatologist and medical director at HCA HealthONE Rocky Mountain Children’s, admitted that there were times when she doubted Sebastian would pull through. 

"The first few weeks of his life, I was really not sure if he was going to survive. I really was not. There were days that I would call his mom, Vivian, and say, 'I'm not sure he's going to survive today,'" Zank said.

“At 18 weeks, you're not ready. There's no way you're ready. Twenty-two weeks is when you start saying, OK, maybe we've got a shot here. And even then, we're at the edge of viability,” Zank continued.

In time, Sebastian was able to feed himself and breathe independently without the help of a ventilator.

“To be born at 22 weeks and then to go home before your due date, eating everything by mouth, and really the only thing that you need is oxygen support — that speaks volumes,” Zank said. 

Zoom In: 

Baby Sebastian was discharged after 113 days in the NICU, arriving home two weeks ahead of his initial due date, and just days before his older sister Raelynn’s birthday. 

“We just didn't know if she was ever going to be able to meet him face to face, and when we were to bring him home, we actually brought him home a couple days before her birthday," Hernandez said. "That was the only thing she wanted for her birthday, was to meet her baby brother, and we were able to do that. And just that memory is the core memory that just sits with me of my two kids in the same room in the same house. It was amazing."

At the moment, baby Sebastian weighs around 12 pounds, and is achieving developmental milestones appropriate for his adjusted age after his NICU stay.

Given the circumstances, Mother's Day reminded Hernandez “of how strong, as a mom, you have to be to carry your family through the ups, the downs.” 

“If anything in this world I'm doing right, it's being their mom, and that's all I can ask for and that's all I want in this life,” Hernandez said.

The Big Picture:

Viability is typically seen as 24 weeks, though babies have survived as young as <a href="/news/defying-odds-preemies-survived-21-weeks">21 weeks gestation</a>. Sebastian's case was striking because he was discharged before his due date, able to eat by mouth, and needing only occasional oxygen support. 

Episodes like Sebastian’s birth demonstrate both the unpredictability of medical prognoses and the resilience of vulnerable infants in face of adversities. 

Although doctors depend  on statistics and percentages to help in their prognoses, individual outcomes can differ drastically. Situations involving early pregnancy complications are often portrayed in clinical terms, with emphasis on risk and probability.

Yet medical advances have also contributed immensely towards enhancing outcomes for premature infants. 

The Bottom Line:

Fortunately, in Sebastian’s case, he is now thriving outside the hospital, despite once being regarded as unlikely to live. His testimony points to the fact that every life, regardless of how fragile or delicate, is worth safeguarding and fighting for.  

Even in challenging pregnancies, choosing life can pave the way for preborn babies’ chances of survival. What once seemed like an impending loss has become a powerful testament to hope in the face of profuse challenges. 

As Hernandez acknowledged, “... My faith in God is so big and I, you know, I just literally surrendered it to God and I was like, this is Your will, not mine.” 

According to Dur, none of those babies received medical treatment following their births; instead, all were left to die.

Key Takeaways:

• Reports reveal that 17 babies were born alive following botched abortions in Alberta in 2025.

• According to Prolife Alberta, those babies were all left to die.

• Canadian law states that any child born alive is required to receive medical care, yet Alberta Health Services policy appears to let parents and doctors decide whether or not a baby will be given treatment.

• Alberta Health Minister Adriana LaGrange has promised to look into the matter.

The Details:

The information shared in Dur's exposé is also found on the website lefttodie.ca, which confirms that the numbers were provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a national agency that compiles information from hospital records.

The website also cites Canadian Criminal law (s.223) which states that "any infant born alive, under any circumstance, is a legal person," and therefore that infant is required to receive medical care through the provincial health system, Alberta Health Services.

However, as Dur notes, Alberta Health Services currently has two policies (PS-92 and HCS-183-01) which permit the non-resuscitation and non-intervention of infants born alive, if the parents and doctors so choose.

One of the policies allows parents to sign a Do-Not-Resuscitate order (DNR) before their child is even born, while the other recommends an approach of "non-intervention" for babies born younger than a certain gestational age.

Zoom Out:

Following Dur's report, Alberta's Health Minister Adriana LaGrange responded with a promise to look into the allegations that laws were not being followed.

“As our laws stand, any child who survives birth is a human being and deserves respect. We are having the Alberta Health Services review their policies and procedures,” she said during comments made at the Alberta Christian Leadership Summit last weekend.

According to Todayville, Prolife Alberta responded that LaGrange's comments were "no small statement," but the group noted that they aren't actually a promise that any changes will be made, saying, "a review announced is not a result delivered.”

This is not the first time Dur has brought attention to infants born alive following abortions. In 2025, he called attention to a shocking report revealing that 133 late-term abortions were committed in the province of Alberta between 2023 and 2024. Of those, 33 children survived.

The Bottom Line:

Every infant born alive after an abortion deserves medical care and treatment, even if doctors think it is unlikely that child will survive. As botched abortions like these cases show, there is little difference between a child inside of the womb or out of it — both are full human beings deserving of the full protection of the law.

Key Takeaways:

• A series of bills known as the Death with Dignity Act has been presented by Michigan Democrats.

• The bills would enable terminally ill adults with a six-months or less life expectancy to end their lives by lethal drugs.

• What begins as a “choice” for the terminally ill can imperceptibly influence expectations around disability, suffering, depression, and old age. The language of compassion can quickly become a system that pressures the sick and the lonely to opt for death instead of health care.

• Right to Life of Michigan's president said that "The repeal of the state’s longstanding safeguard against assisted suicide would put thousands of Michiganders at imminent risk of declining care and abandonment."

The Details:

The proposed series of bills, presented as a Death with Dignity Act, would enable some terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of six months or less to procure lethal drugs to end their lives. Under the proposal, patients would have to file several requests for assisted suicide, both spoken and in writing, with at least 15 days between them. They would also need to be examined by two physicians, may be referred for a mental health assessment, and must be notified about other options such as hospice and pain management, along with their ability to withdraw the request at any point, Fox News reported. 

The initiative would forbid doctors or anyone else from active euthanasia, lethal injection, or so-called 'mercy killing.'

It is also purported to:

• protect participating doctors and other professionals from criminal or civil proceedings (as long as they abide by the law)

• permit providers to decline involvement

• bar insurance discrimination against patients

Additionally, doctors, pharmacists, and other licensed professionals could not be investigated or punished merely for taking part in the process, provided they act within the law, Fox News notes, adding that the legislation states:

"A person who without authorization of the patient willfully alters or forges a request for medication under this act or conceals or destroys a rescission of that request with the intent or effect of causing the patient's death is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $375,000.00, or both." 

Under the law, the Michigan Health Department would evaluate cases and issue yearly reports, as well as gain access to records of prescriptions for life-ending drugs to ensure compliance with the rules.

Matching some other assisted suicide legislation, the law would prohibit health insurance providers from reducing or refusing coverage when someone plans to end their life under the Death with Dignity Act. Current insurance policies would be revised to exclude deaths from medical aid in dying as suicides.

The Backstory:

Michigan has a notorious track record of unlawful physician-assisted suicide, epitomized by Oakland County doctor Jack Kevorkian. Known widely as “Dr. Death,” he emerged as a prominent national proponent of the practice and claimed to have aided more than 130 consenting individuals in ending their lives. In 1999, Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder for the killing of Thomas Youk, a resident of Oakland County who suffered from ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease.

Before the Youk case, Kevorkian had assisted patients by offering them a mechanism to self-administer fatal medications. 

Why It Matters:

Should assisted suicide legislation be passed, Michigan would align with roughly a dozen other states plus Washington, D.C., in enabling physician-assisted death for terminally ill adults—among them Delaware, New York, and Illinois, all of which passed laws in 2025 that are presently taking effect. 

With legalized assisted suicide, vulnerable people may view themselves as liabilities instead of persons worthy of care. What begins as a “choice” for the terminally ill can imperceptibly influence expectations around disability, suffering, depression, and old age. The language of compassion can quickly become a system that pressures the sick and the lonely to opt for death rather than obtain life-affirming support.

Right to Life of Michigan president Amber Roseboom said in a press release:

"These bills are a misled attempt to save the state resources under the guise of compassionate care. The repeal of the state’s longstanding safeguard against assisted suicide would put thousands of Michiganders at imminent risk of declining care and abandonment. Turning our backs on vulnerable citizens and patients in their hour of greatest need runs counter to the core mission of healthcare, ultimately denying patients true dignity, care and compassion....

A civilized society with the best healthcare system in the world must demand more for its patients, providing the highest standards of comfort and care, not an expedient lethal option.”

The Michigan proposal sparks questions regarding the very nature of the medical profession itself. Physicians are trained to heal, relieve pain, and accompany patients through suffering, not to provide a means of self-destruction. Once the law permits assisted suicide, conscience protections and procedural safeguards may not be enough to prevent further expansion.

Republicans and faith-based leaders—especially from Catholic and evangelical circles—have consistently expressed resistance to assisted suicide, pointing to the sacredness of human life along with profound moral and ethical issues. 

“So-called assisted death endangers the weak and marginalized in a society, and it corrupts medicine and erodes our obligations to family,” U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) previously stated, according to Fox. “And we will promote and respect every life, no matter how old or sick or weak those persons may be.” 

The Bottom Line:

Michigan’s assisted-suicide bill package has far broader moral and social ramifications than simply being an end-of-life choice.

A genuinely compassionate society does not address pain with poison; it tackles illnesses and suffering with hospice, palliative medicine, presence, and protection for some of the most vulnerable members of society. 

Key Takeaways:

• Midwives in British Columbia will now be able to prescribe and manage the abortion pill.

• BC officials say the move will make abortion easier to access, especially for rural women.

• The abortion pill carries a number of risks for women, especially without doctor oversight. There is no explanation for what women, especially those in rural areas, will do if they experience complications.

The Details:

BC Health Minister Josie Osborne announced the policy change, which allows midwives to manage and prescribe Mifegymiso (a combination of the abortion pill drugs mifepristone and misoprostol), on May 7.

“At a time when reproductive health is under attack, we’re taking action to protect and uphold it here in BC,” Osborne said, continuing:

“These scope of practice changes makes it easier for people to access safe, compassionate and timely abortion services closer to home, while also strengthening pregnancy care. As a rural resident, I know how essential this is for people in communities where access can be limited. These changes will break down barriers and support more people across all their care needs.”

According to CBC News, the government is working in coalition with the BC College of Nurses and Midwives to implement the policy changes.

"We are hopeful that this will also help individuals access perinatal services and promote continuity of care, as they will not have to see multiple health providers over the course of their pregnancy," the college said.

British Columbia will now join Quebec and Saskatchewan in allowing midwives to offer the abortion pill.

Why It Matters:

Though pro-abortion officials are hailing the move as a win, it will actually be putting women in greater danger.

Multiple studies have found that the abortion pill is dangerous to women, with complications including severe cramping, contractions, and heavy bleeding, as well as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headaches. The abortion pill procedure has also been found to be four times more dangerous than a first-trimester surgical abortion.

Even one pro-abortion organization, Gynuity, found that six percent of women who take the abortion pill will require care at an ER or urgent care facility due to complications.

Last fall, there were news reports that a Nova Scotia woman nearly bled to death after taking the abortion pill, after previous reporting that a 19-year-old Ontario teen died from an infection following a chemical abortion.

At the time, Campaign Life Coalition’s Pete Baklinski lamented the pill's availability:

“How many more women must suffer—or, God forbid, die—before Health Canada admits it made a grave mistake in approving this drug? One death is already too many. And how many more preborn children must perish before our nation awakens to the horror of the holocaust it has unleashed through the abortion pill?”

“Mifegymiso is an enemy of women and of humanity,” he declared. “It must be banned.”

While abortion supporters say that giving midwives the ability to prescribe the abortion pill will benefit those in rural areas, there is no explanation as to what happens to the woman who takes these pills and then experiences complications — especially if she has been given the pill without a doctor's direct oversight.

When she experiences complications, is there a hospital nearby? If she's given the abortion pill by her midwife, there may be no doctor close by to treat her.

The Bottom Line:

The abortion pill is never safe, as it poses significant harms to women and is fatal to preborn children. If officials really cared about women, they would eliminate access to this dangerous drug — not expand it.

Key Takeaways:

• By summer of 2027, the number of pensioners in Northern Ireland are expected to outnumber children.

• Deaths are predicted to outnumber births by 2030.

• Government leaders are warning of the consequences to health care, social services, schools, and more.

The Details:

Based on recent population figures for NI, released by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), the over-65 population will surpass the number of children in NI by mid-2027. By 2030, the number of deaths will outnumber births. NI’s overall population is expected to hit its zenith at 1.94 million in mid-2031 before retreating into long-term decline, decreasing to 1.91 million by 2049.

Observers have cautioned that the real concern for policymakers is not the overall decline itself, but the specific age groups most impacted by the decrease.

The over-65 population is expected to grow by 44.7% over the next quarter century; simultaneously, those over age 85 are expected to more than double, rising from 42,900 to 96,900. Projections also reveal both the steepest decline in NI’s child population — down 23.8% — and the most significant growth in the pension-age population, which is predicted to increase 32.2%, the highest in the United Kingdom (UK). 

Observers have also warned of the consequences on health care, and how public services would be financially sustained. 

According to The Irish Times:

“If they don’t start planning for this, then there’s going to be an even bigger crisis in our public services, particularly schools and health services before the end of the decade,” says the former head of the Northern Ireland civil service, David Sterling.

Dr. Ian Shuttleworth, a population specialist at Queen’s University Belfast’s School of Natural and Built Environment, added:

“The thing which is really in common across all the different scenarios is the large increase in the proportion of people aged 75 and over.

“The obvious point to make about that is that older people tend to have more need for health services and social care. As you get older, you have more complex health needs, more co-morbidities, greater need for social care.”

Shuttleworth stated that individuals claiming that Northern Ireland is experiencing an overcrowding crisis were misidentifying the issue. Shuttleworth explained:

“What struck me was that Northern Ireland is projected to have a population decrease, as is Scotland. Talking about Northern Ireland being overcrowded — while it might be the perception of some people, it looks like a gradually falling population and an aging population are going to be the issue.”

He continued:

The one thing that really comes out is aging, and the very old in particular — people over 75 or 85 are going to have more complex needs. Basically Stormont needs to get its house in order, as does the UK government and the Irish government. Everybody needs to get their house in order. This is going to be a big challenge. What it suggests as a public policy agenda is that people in Stormont should really be starting to think seriously now about the future and about how we’re going to cope with an ageing population and meet their health and social care needs.

Zoom In:

Stormont's Department of Education has already disclosed that a decline in pupil numbers may lead to school closures in the upcoming decade. As the BBC reported: 

Stormont's Department for Education has already made it clear that a falling number of children will mean schools being closed or merged. According to the department's own projections, pupil numbers in schools are expected to fall by more than 12% over the next decade. Smaller rural schools are facing a particular struggle to remain viable.

In response to the latest developments, Age NI's Charity Director Mandy Wilson said:

“These figures confirm what older people and services are already experiencing on the ground – a rapidly ageing society that requires urgent planning and investment. With the number of people aged 65 and over set to overtake children within the next year, and those aged 85 and above projected to more than double, we would warn that health, social care and community supports must be redesigned now to meet rising and more complex needs. We stress that longer lives must be matched with longer healthy lives, calling for a clear, cross‑government strategy focused on prevention, workforce planning and supporting older people to live independently with dignity, rather than allowing pressures to escalate into crisis."

Similarly, NI pro-life group Precious Life lamented the prevalence of abortion despite the falling birth rates in the country:

As Northern Ireland faces this 'decreasing population' crisis, babies continue to be killed here EVERY DAY. The abortion law forced on Northern Ireland by Westminster in 2020 is one of the most extreme in the world, and this horrific killing of thousands of our children is supported by Sinn Fein, SDLP, Alliance Party, Green Party, PBP, and members of the UUP. Killing our children is first and foremost evil. But when it adds to already falling birth rates, it also has serious repercussions from an economic and social point of view. The “replacement level” is the level at which a population replaces itself from one generation to the next. When our birth rates fall below the replacement rate, this means we are a dying civilization.

The Bottom Line:

These recent developments in NI are not merely about aging, but also the drop in births, and the ramifications on a society that has too few children and too many people nearing the end of life. This pattern of rising older people and declining birth rates also implies a heavier responsibility on younger workers to support an increasing retired population through taxation and public services. 

Demographic decline is also never just an economic issue. A culture that regularizes abortion, postpones marriage and family formation, and regards children as optional will ultimately have to face the music via vacant classrooms, fewer workers, and fewer future parents. The case of NI is a cautionary tale depicting what would happen when a society trivializes family life and openness to life. The issue at hand now is whether NI’s leaders will respond to the country’s demographic trends with serious support for families and preborn life, or whether they will merely gloss over the issue.

Key Takeaways:

• A commercial surrogacy event was canceled earlier this month in Ireland following controversy.

• Commercial surrogacy is illegal in Ireland.

• The company running the event, Hatch, is based out of Los Angeles, California, and promotes its egg donors as beautiful and as "the gold standard." Hatch promises donors and surrogates more money with each donation or pregnancy, perks like maternity clothes, money for childcare, and money for house cleaners.

The Details:

The event, titled "Babies and Bites Dublin: The Path to Parenthood for Gay Men," was scheduled for May 6 in Dublin, but was ultimately canceled — allegedly due to "security concerns."

It had been organized by Hatch Egg Donation & Surrogate Agency, a Los Angeles-based commercial surrogacy and egg donation business that boasts "access to the largest fresh egg donor database in the nation," as well as claiming to work with "the top 5% of egg donors."

It also claims to partner with Pacific Fertility Center, but that business is also run by Hatch CEO Kristie Dolan and President Greg Wiles.

The company says it charges intended parents from $30,000 to more than $50,000 for access to "The Gold Standard of Donors." However, Surrogacy Network estimates the costs through Hatch to actually be $148,750 to $159,750.

As the event was canceled, the company explained, "We are sorry to inform that we have had to make the decision to cancel the Babies & Bites event in Dublin because of some security concerns. ... We were of course very excited to meet you all in person, and will be reaching out with suggested channels to connect so that you can learn more about this wonderful and special journey to parenthood."

Sarah Holmes of the advocacy group Genspect said the conference was canceled after she and other women brought attention to it and a formal complaint was submitted to Tusla, a child and family advocacy group, as well as the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.

"Selling babies is illegal in Ireland," Holmes said. "We need tighter regulation going forward rather than it being left to women like me to sound the alarm." She added:

"Ireland does not currently have a comprehensive legislative framework governing surrogacy, and commercial surrogacy arrangements are not permitted within the State. This raises questions about the appropriateness of hosting events that promote or faciitate entry into such arrangements, even where they ultimately take place in other jurisdictions."

The Natural Women's Council also spoke out against the conference. After it was canceled, it said, "We don't condone any threats and are sorry about whatever security concerns arose. We are however pleased that this isn't happening on Irish soil where commercial surrogacy is illegal."

Zoom In:

A 2024 review of Hatch stated:

Stay far far away from this company. They are only after your money. They are disorganized and wasted 9 months of our lives. They were downright mean and verbally abusive. They gave us scares with false medical diagnoses. If I could give negative stars I would. I could not believe the incompetence and hostility from Alex Maron and Greg Wiles. They are also scammers as they own Pacific Fertility as well and charge their own companies for services so they can pass that cost onto the customer even though they are essentially in the same office space.

Another said:

"Terrible experience. They rush you to sign with them because the matching process takes so long, and then use that commitment against you when you have questions or need more information. By then, you’ve already invested so much time, and they prey on the emotional weight of your journey not even beginning yet.

They told me they have physicians on staff checking egg donors and surrogates to ensure everyone is fully cleared before anything starts. But that wasn’t true. After my failed retrieval, they didn’t even have the decency to call or check in. We were left hanging for a week until I finally reached out, and all they could say was, 'You can pick another donor' — no discount on fees, no empathy. We ended up going with a different agency."

No businesses receive truly "donated" eggs, and Hatch's compensation packages and perks are examples of the eugenic mindset that exists with buying and producing children as though they are consumer products. Hatch pays first-time egg donors $10,000 or more per cycle, with pay increasing for repeat egg donors who have higher educational qualifications, athletic skills, or specific characteristics that deem them "super donors."

As their website reads, "And by passing through our rigorous screening process, you’ll be cherished beyond financial compensation with tailored perks and emotional rewards along your journey. We greatly appreciate your dedication, effort, and time throughout the egg donation process."

In addition, Hatch pays first time surrogates $65,000 ($70,000 for California residents), and then each surrogate is paid $10,000 more for each additional successful surrogacy. Surrogates can also get money to have their house cleaned, receive donations to their children's education, and money for childcare and maternity clothing.

The company advertises that it is "Representing the Best, Most Beautiful and Accomplished Egg Donors and Surrogates in the Country."

But based on reviews, there may not really be much of a screening process at all.

When promoting its egg donors and surrogates, Hatch may mean it to sound like its appealing to intended parents, but it actually sounds like a method of attracting egg donors and surrogates, who receive praise and free gifts, and get paid more and more money with each "donation" or successful pregnancy.

The Bottom Line:

Hatch makes it sound like a gig only for the 'exclusive' and the "beautiful." If Hatch chooses your eggs or your uterus, you are <a href="/news/eggsploitation-documentary-plight-egg-donors-fertility"><em>elite</em></a>. Or at least you feel that way when you sign the contract.

In reality, egg donation and surrogacy typically involve the rich purchasing the eggs and bodies of the underprivileged. And, as the documentary Eggsploitation shows, it is physically devastating to be an egg donor, and there are serious health risks involved with both egg donation and <a href="/news/canadian-study-tripled-illness-rate-surrogates">surrogacy.</a> Those truths, unfortunately, are often kept from women.

Key Takeaways:

• The Christian Maternity Home in Kaunas specializes in care for low-risk pregnancies, and offers pro-life, pro-family aid along with a high standard of care.

• Pope John Paul II offered the home a papal blessing in 1997.

• The Lithuanian government wants to restructure the home by merging it with a larger hospital, causing widespread protests.

The Details:

The Lithuanian government revealed in February that it would restructure the Kaunas Christian Maternity Home (KGN) by merging its staff with a larger hospital, describing the decision as an “optimization of costs.” The move was met with surprise in view of Lithuania’s already faltering birth rate, which is among the EU’s lowest at 1.18 births per woman.

Established in 1926, the Kaunas Christian Maternity Home (KGN) remains Lithuania’s last major facility of its type, specializing in care for low-risk pregnancies. In 1997, Pope John Paul II learned about KGN’s family-oriented atmosphere and high standard of care, prompting him to transmit a handwritten message with his blessing.

KGN continues to be regarded as one of the country’s top-rated places for childbirth, all while maintaining its pro-life, family-oriented policies, with widespread public backing.

The maternity home has long partnered with Caritas Lithuania, the Archdiocese of Kaunas, and various pregnancy help centers to enable mothers to give birth in safe and highly individualized settings, which most contend is not the norm in typical obstetrics wards in Lithuania.

Opponents of the merger contend that dismantling KGN, with its century-long legacy, papal recognition, and strong pro-family reputation, would leave families feeling overlooked and their concerns dismissed. 

Zoom In:

Jarūnė Rimavičė, who leads the “Let’s Save the Kaunas Maternity Home” campaign, which has gained over 12,000 petition signatures, told EWTN News that the proposed merger would jeopardize the standard of care available to mothers.

She also pointed out that some delivery rooms and wards lack private sanitary facilities for women, undermining a woman's comfort and dignity during childbirth.

“During my first pregnancy, I was looking for an opportunity of calm, physiological birth in a friendly environment, and learned that Kaunas Christian Maternity Home is just such a place for many families, so the news of the plans to close it was incomprehensible,” Rimavičė said.

Rimavičė said the “Let’s Save the Kaunas Maternity Home” campaign has garnered support from women’s and human rights groups, as well as organizations and communities focused on family life, motherhood, and the Catholic faith.  

“This is a rare situation when different groups agree on one thing – this place is important for Lithuanian families, their right to choose and the preservation of culture where childbirth is treated with respect and not in a ‘conveyor-belt’ style,”  she explained. 

Darius Chmieliauskas, editor-in-chief of the Catholic monthly Artuma and a father of five, said there are good reasons for such widespread opposition to the merger. 

 "At that time, it felt truly extraordinary for a state-owned place to choose a truly Christian way by deciding that abortions would not be performed here anymore, and an atmosphere favourable for childbirth would be fostered. Not only Christian families, but also many of those who have nothing to do with the Church are now fighting for this hospital. It is a truly impressive sign of the fight for life in Lithuania."

He also noted that the Christian Maternity Home is the only facility of its kind in Lithuania to have received a pontifical blessing. "Who else in Lithuania has such a direct intervention from the now-saint, the Great John Paul II? And all that history is being erased," he said.

Rimavičė urged the Church and others to get involved in protecting the institution, saying “The silence of the Church leaders also raises questions, considering that Kaunas Christian Maternity Home is the only institution in Lithuania that consistently fosters the values of protecting life from conception and freedom of conscience for doctors."

Catholic mother of three and obstetrics student Valdonė Miliuvienė added, “When communicating personally, we received a response that the Church’s position on this issue was neutral, it was decided not to interfere, and it was mentioned that resistance to the process should come from below, we understand – from the laity."

She added:

“Currently, two months since the announcement of the dismantling of the Maternity Home, with new testimonies of families appearing almost daily, statements in the local media, various meetings taking place in the parliament, the Presidential Palace, other state institutions, and conferences, no position of the bishops has yet been publicly announced.”

The Bottom Line:

Supporters congregated outside KGN on May 3, commemorated as Motherʼs Day in Lithuania, urging for its preservation while proclaiming its significance for families.

The situation goes beyond just one planned hospital merger; it is a litmus test of whether a country that claims it wants to boost birth rates will also safeguard institutions that actively serve both with life-affirming care.

Despite this, the misinformation is now making the rounds on social media and has racked up more than 8.7 million views.

Yet, the deception that intentionally killing preborn children is a lifesaving act is what's behind this push. If the public can be made to believe that killing a million preborn babies every year "saves lives," then the pro-abortion industry's propaganda will have been successful.

Key Takeaways:

• Though a viral tweet attempts to portray the idea that maternal mortality is higher in Texas and other pro-life states as a result of pro-life laws, going viral doesn't make it true.

• The tweet's follow-up post links to a 2024 Gender Equity Policy Institute (GEPI) study on maternal mortality (with the goal of attempting to prove that intentionally killing preborn babies is a lifesaving act for women).

• The GEPI study purports to show increased maternal mortality in pro-life states, but its smoke and mirrors. The maternal mortality rose during the COVID pandemic, before the Texas Heartbeat Act took effect. After the Heartbeat Act took effect in 2021, the maternal mortality rate declined in Texas.

• Two newer studies show no statistically significant increase in maternal mortality when compared to states with pro-abortion laws.

• Correlation doesn't equal causation. Other factors such as poverty, increasing maternal age, IVF use, and maternity care deserts may impact maternal mortality.

• The Associated Press admitted that pregnant women tragically die in both pro-life and pro-abortion states from causes deemed “preventable,” with the CDC noting that 80% of pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. are preventable.

The Details:

The post on X claims: "Pregnancy related deaths in Texas have jumped 56% since abortion was banned."

A follow-up post links to a study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute (GEPI) on Maternal Mortality in the United States After Abortion Bans. That report claimed, "Mothers Living in Abortion Ban States at Significantly Higher Risk of Death During Pregnancy and Childbirth."

It made some seriously bold claims, including:

• Women in states with pro-life laws are "nearly 2x as likely to die during pregnancy, childbirth, or soon after giving birth, compared to mothers living" in states where abortion is legal.

• "Maternal mortality fell 21% in [abortion] supportive states post-Dobbs."

• "Maternal mortality rose 56% in Texas in the first full year of the state's abortion ban..."

But while perhaps not as catchy as propaganda, here's the truth:

1. The report claims that maternal mortality increased 56% in 2022 (one year), but the data actually comes from a four-year timespan.

2. Most of the findings about worsened public health outcomes in pro-life states are due to correlation, not causation — meaning, worse outcomes cannot be directly attributed to pro-life laws, but the data is skewed to make it appear they were.

3. In pro-abortion states, the maternal mortality rate fell 20.3% from 2022 to 2023, with GEPI using 2022 as a baseline rather than comparing that to pre-COVID rates, which shows maternal mortality has increased in these states since 2016-2019.

4. Two more recent 2026 peer-reviewed studies on maternal mortality show no statistically significant increase in maternal mortality rates in states that enacted strong pro-life laws.

Skewed data

The cited report in the tweet claims, "In the first full year of Texas’s state abortion ban (2022), maternal mortality increased significantly. (10) The maternal mortality rate in Texas rose 56 percent." But this is not correct; that increase was seen over a timespan of four years, including 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 (note that some of these years were the same time frame as the COVID-19 pandemic), not one year. And it rose during COVID before falling again. When looking at the data, its clear that the maternal mortality decreased by 35% after the state's Heartbeat Act took effect in 2021 (from 43.9 to 28.5).

The data shows:

• Maternal mortality in 2019: 18.3

• Maternal mortality in 2020: 32 (up 75%)

• Maternal mortality in 2021: 43.9 (up 37%)

• Maternal mortality in 2022: 28.5 (down 35%)

The rise was not from the pro-life law, but from COVID-related maternal deaths.

Buried in footnote 10 is this admission:

"All state categories and all states experienced a spike in maternal mortality associated with the Covid-19 pandemic."

The authors claim the study attempted to correct for this spike in its findings. But looking at the data from Texas, the truth is obvious. When looking at the years further back, it's clear there has been no significant increase in maternal mortality in Texas.

Provisional data from the Texas Department of Health shows:

• In 2016, the maternal mortality ratio (defined as "the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births") in the state was 20.7 deaths per 100,000 live births.

• In 2017, the rate was 20.2 deaths per 100,000 live births.

• In 2018, the rate was 17 deaths per 100,000 live births.

• In 2019, the rate was 17.2 deaths per 100,000 live births.

2019 was the year that Texas enacted its Heartbeat Act to protect preborn babies from abortion beginning at about six weeks. That took effect on September 1, 2019. Then COVID hit.

• In 2020, the maternal mortality ratio in Texas reached 27.7 (24.2, according to the study, with COVID-related deaths removed) per 100,000 live births.

• In 2021, the ratio reached 39.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, but after removing the COVID-related deaths, it was actually 23.5 deaths per 100,000 live births.

• In 2022, the maternal mortality was 23.9, and, after accounting for COVID-related deaths, it dropped to 21.3 deaths per 100,000 live births. That's a statistically insignificant difference over 2016, when the rate was 20.7.

This information also reveals that maternal mortality in Texas was declining before COVID and that it is now returning to rates seen pre-COVID.

As for the 35% decrease in maternal mortality in 2022, the year when the strongest pro-life laws went into effect in Texas, Dr. Michael New told Live Action News:

The discussion of Texas is misleading. This current report claims that maternal mortality in Texas increased by 56 percent in 2022. However, their previous report (September 2023) indicated that maternal mortality in Texas increased by 56 percent between 2019 and 2022 (A four-year timespan -- not a one-year timespan). Furthermore, their same report (September 2023) found that maternal mortality in Texas actually decreased by 35 percent in 2022. This was the year the Heartbeat Act was enforced, and the strongest pro-life policies were in effect.

"Taking the data at face value, there was no consistent upward trajectory in the maternal mortality rate," wrote New. "Furthermore, the year Texas’ strongest pro-life law took effect, maternal mortality actually fell."  

Correlation vs. causation

Another consideration is that there is a difference between correlation and causation. Correlation is not causation, meaning that just because two variables move together (pro-life laws take effect, maternal mortality increases), it does not mean that one caused the other. There are many reasons that maternal mortality may be higher in some states than in others, and they have nothing to do with pro-life laws.

There are many outstanding questions to consider:

• Could increases in advanced maternal age impact maternal mortality? According to the National Center for Health Statistics, "Women ages 40 and older had a maternal mortality rate of 62.3 per 100,000 live births, which is nearly five times higher than the rate for women younger than 25, which was 13.7." NPR notes that while the birth rate is declining in general in the U.S., it's actually increasing among mothers aged 40-44. "Between 2013 and 2023, the percentage of births to moms aged 40 to 44 increased by almost 40%," the article notes. Since risks increase in pregnancies with advanced maternal age, how might this affect maternal mortality?

• Could increases in IVF use impact maternal mortality? From 2013 to 2022, the use of artificial reproductive technology to become pregnant more than doubled, and the number of infants born using these methods increased by 44.5%. In vitro fertilization (IVF) accounts for 99% of ART procedures. According to research, IVF is associated with an increased risk of pregnancy complications, including preeclampsia, hypertension, and gestational diabetes mellitus. Might this affect maternal mortality?

• Could poverty rates impact maternal mortality? As Dr. Michael New explained to Live Action News, "Most states that have enacted strong protections for the preborn are located in the South. Southern states typically have higher poverty rates, which tends to lead to worse public health outcomes." He then added that it is likely that "the higher poverty rate... is driving the below-average public health outcomes — not the pro-life laws."

• Could maternity care deserts impact maternal mortality? In addition to higher poverty rates in Southern states where pro-life laws are more common, much of the South is also more rural. Maternity care deserts are significantly affecting pregnant women in these states. Between 2010 and 2022, several Southern states, including Alabama and Mississippi, saw more than 60% of their rural hospitals operating without maternity services. According to Stateline, "Rural states saw the most profound losses. The states with the highest percentage of all hospitals lacking obstetrics by 2022 were North Dakota (73%), Oklahoma (63%), West Virginia (62%), Louisiana (60%), South Dakota (60%) and Mississippi (60%)." In Texas, 17 OB/GYN units closed between 2011 and 2021, according to the UTHealth School of Public Health.

"Preventable deaths" among pregnant women happen everywhere

Pro-life states are not alone in experiencing preventable maternal deaths.

• The Associated Press admitted that pregnant women tragically die in both pro-life and pro-abortion states from causes deemed “preventable.” 

• Preventable pregnancy deaths occurred under Roe, and they are still happening in pro-abortion states.

• The number of women dying in the U.S. from pregnancy-related causes more than doubled in the 20 years between 1999 and 2019 — during the reign of Roe v. Wade — according to a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association.

• A comparison between pro-abortion California and pro-life Georgia showed that despite having the same number of maternal deaths (113) from 2018 to 2020, California had the higher percentage of maternal deaths determined to be preventable.

Newer studies show no significant increase in maternal mortality

Two new studies have emerged since the 2024 Gender Equity Policy Institute's skewed look at maternal mortality.

⦿ The JAMA Network's peer-reviewed study published in April 2026, which examined "12 ,993 pregnancy-associated deaths from 2018 to 2023," showed "no significant overall increase in pregnancy-associated mortality was found in ban vs nonban states. State-specific estimates were heterogeneous, but none reached statistical significance."

Researchers were clear:

"This cohort study found that abortion bans were not associated with significant overall or state-specific increases in pregnancy-associated mortality in the early post-Dobbs period..."

The JAMA study found that maternal mortality rates are declining in all states.

According to Dr. New's review of the study, "Since enacting its Heartbeat Law, Texas saw its maternal mortality rate drop by 2.4 percent. Other states with strong pro-life laws saw their maternal mortality rate drop by 3.3 percent."

He added that "this analytically rigorous JAMA Network Open study which analyzed data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia provides strong evidence that pro-life laws do not increase the maternal mortality rate."

Results showed that from 2018 to 2023, pregnancy-associated mortality dropped by 9.8% in pro-abortion states. In states with pro-life laws (excluding Texas), there was a 2.4% decline in pregnancy-associated mortality. Texas itself saw a decline of 3.3%. The researchers explained (emphasis added):

Synthetic control analyses yielded an estimated difference of 5.1 (95% CI, −7.9 to 18.2) pregnancy-associated deaths per 100 000 live births, which was not statistically significant. Overall estimates for pregnancy-related mortality (−2.0; 95% CI, −11.5 to 7.5), maternal mortality (−3.0; 95% CI, −10.2 to 4.2), and nonobstetric causes (1.2; 95% CI, −7.3 to 9.7) were likewise not statistically significant. State-specific estimates were heterogeneous, but none reached statistical significance. Covariate-adjusted models yielded similar results.

⦿ The 2026 AJPH study, a publication of the American Public Health Association, reported, "There was no detectable increase in maternal mortality" among the 14 states that implemented pro-life laws by the end of 2022.

The study showed:

• Across all states, the maternal mortality rate rose slightly from 18 per 100,000 live births in 2016-2019 to 18.5 in 2023 after hitting a high of 32.6 in 2021, likely due to COVID.

• In pro-abortion states, the maternal mortality rate rose from 15.4 in 2016-2019 to 16.2 in 2023. (That's an increase, not a decrease, as the Gender Equity Policy Institute claimed in its 2024 study.) Rather than using the 2019 rate as it did to claim a maternal mortality increase in pro-life states, GEPI used 2022 as the baseline for pro-abortion states. According to the AJPH study, this would show 20.3% decrease in maternal mortality in pro-abortion states. However, from 2016-2019 to 2023, the maternal mortality actually increased very slightly in abortion friendly states.

• In states with pro-life laws, excluding Texas, the maternal mortality rate decreased from 26.6 in 2016-2019 to 23.7 in 2023.

• In Texas, the maternal mortality rate increased from 20.3 in 2016-2019 to 24.3 in 2023 (a 19% increase). From 2019 (17.2) to 2023 (24.3), it increased by about 41%, largely thanks to COVID, but it decreased from a high of 44.0 in 2021. GEPI used 2019 as the baseline for Texas; if it had used 2022 for a baseline, as it did for pro-abortion states, it would have shown a 13.2% decline in maternal mortality for Texas from 28 to 24.3.

As explained by New, "The only [GEPIT] finding that is slightly interesting is that they claim maternal mortality went down by 21 percent in the 24 states where abortion is legal. The authors also acknowledge that maternal mortality decreased by 16 percent overall. Back of the envelope calculations would strongly suggest that maternal mortality also fell in states with pro-life laws -- so there is no public health disaster there. That said, even in this section the authors of the report do not provide any data about the specific timeframe of these maternal mortality declines."

Zoom Out:

Data from outside the United States can offer evidence that pro-life laws actually allow for a lower maternal mortality rate.

As previously reported by Live Action News, "It is worthwhile to note that Poland has the most restrictions on abortions, yet has the lowest rate of maternal mortality. The same was once true for Ireland, prior to the country’s legalization of abortion in 2019."

In addition, pro-life Malta has a maternal mortality rate of just eight per 100,000 live births. And Chile, which protects most preborn children from abortion, has a maternal mortality rate of 10 per 100,000 live births.

Why It Matters:

The best maternal mortality rate would be zero, and improving maternal health is a serious issue on which the U.S. should be focusing. But claiming abortion improves maternal mortality is a lie that could lead to further maternal deaths.

Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of preborn children and carries significant risks to the women who choose it, both immediately and in the years that follow. Damage to the cervix and uterus from abortions can cause complications in future pregnancies that increase risks to women's health.

Most maternal deaths are preventable — not by intentionally killing preborn children, but by actually treating the source of the problem and not delaying care.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 80% (or four in five) of pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. are determined to be “preventable." It reports that the "leading underlying causes of pregnancy-related death" are:

• Mental health conditions (including deaths to suicide and overdose/poisoning related to substance use disorder) (23%)

• Excessive bleeding (hemorrhage) (14%)

• Cardiac and coronary conditions (relating to the heart) (13%)

• Infection (9%)

• Thrombotic embolism (a type of blood clot) (9%)

• Cardiomyopathy (a disease of the heart muscle) (9%)

• Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (relating to high blood pressure) (7%)

Claiming that pro-life laws cause such deaths ignores the real issues of medical neglect, mental health struggles, and substance abuse.

The Bottom Line:

The lie that pro-life laws are causing women's deaths is meant to cause emotional shock and horror among Americans to increase support for abortion, which is the direct cause of death for millions of innocent children.

Key Takeaways:

• Safe haven laws allow parents who feel unable to care for their newborn to safely and legally surrender their child.

• HB 350 in Georgia allows for the use of newborn safety devices for infant surrender, and expands the time allowed for surrender from 30 days to 45 days.

The Details:

Safe haven laws allow parents who feel unable to care for their newborn to safely and legally surrender their child.

In Georgia, HB350, known as the Eliza Jane Warner Act, allows hospitals and fire stations within the state to install baby boxes, like those from the Safe Haven Baby Box organization, for infant surrender. The law was named after Eliza Jane Warner, an infant who was found deceased in a cooler along the side of a roadway in 2019.

The new law also expands the time allowed for parents to choose to surrender their child from 30 days to 45 days.

Kemp's signature on HB350 was announced on social media by the group Bringing Newborn Safety Devices to Georgia.

"Parents in crisis will now have 45 days to safely, legally and anonymously surrender an infant. There are so many to individually thank, but in this moment, thank you to every single person who supported this effort in any way," the organization wrote. "For every prayer, kind word, phone call, email...we appreciate them all! Together we have made a difference!!!"

Zoom In:

Each state has a safe haven law, implemented to help deter infant abandonments and to provide an option for parents who feel unable to care for and raise their baby. Allowing anonymous surrender is a way to reach parents who may feel uncomfortable with the idea of handing over their baby in person.

“What the new law allows for is a truly anonymous dropping off of your baby so that there is no human that is there in that process," explained Dr. Michael Bossak, vice president, Children's Hospital of Savannah. "And so this allows for much greater access to allow patients and families to drop off babies that they may not be able to care for at that time."

Safe Haven Baby Boxes are one way a parent could choose to surrender their newborn. The boxes are temperature controlled and are activated with a silent alarm; the moment an infant is placed inside, authorities are alerted and respond immediately. Nationwide, the organization has facilitated dozens of surrenders since the first box was installed in 2016.

The Bottom Line:

Safe haven laws offer a life-affirming option for mothers and fathers who may be in crisis, and are unsure where to turn for help.

Key Takeaways:

• The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on May 14 stating that the abortion pill can continue to be dispensed through the mail as Louisiana's lawsuit proceeds.

• Following the filing of a lawsuit by the State of Louisiana that sought to reverse the FDA's 2023 changes to abortion pill regulations, the Fifth Circuit paused mail order dispensing.

• The abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories filed an emergency application before the Supreme Court on May 2, requesting a stay be placed on the Fifth Circuit's decision.

• The Supreme Court granted that request, allowing the abortion pill to be shipped through the mail again until at least May 11. It then extended the stay until May 14.

The Details:

On May 4, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary administrative stay (pause) on a ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that had suspended abortion pill dispensing by mail. The Supreme Court's stay allowed mail-order dispensing of the abortion pill to resume until May 11, but the Court then extended its ruling through May 14.

Now, the Supreme Court has indefinitely extended that stay, allowing the abortion pill to be dispensed through the mail. The stay will remain in effect as the State of Louisiana lawsuit seeking the reinstatement of the in-person dispensing requirement proceeds.

"The applications for stay presented to Justice Alto and by him referred to the Court are granted," states the ruling. "The May 1, 2026 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 26–30203, is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically."

Justice Thomas dissented, writing, "Applicants are manufacturers and distributors of mifepristone, a drug that is primarily designed to cause abortion. They complain that the Fifth Circuit’s order would reduce profits they derive from selling mifepristone. I would deny their applications because they have not satisfied their burden for securing interim relief. I write separately to note that, as Louisiana argued below, it is a criminal offense to ship mifepristone for use in abortions. The Comstock Act bans using 'the mails' to ship any drug . . . for producing abortion.”

Justice Alito also dissented, writing:

The Court’s unreasoned order granting stays in this case is remarkable. What is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215 (2022), which restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders. Some States responded to Dobbs by making it even easier to obtain an abortion than it was before, and that is their prerogative. Other States, including Louisiana, made abortion illegal except in narrow circumstances. ... But Louisiana’s efforts have been thwarted by certain medical providers, private organizations, and States that abhor laws like Louisiana’s and seek to undermine their enforcement.

These medical providers and private organizations have developed an operation enabling women in Louisiana and other States that restrict abortions to place an online order for a pill called mifepristone that induces abortion. ... After an order is placed, the drug is mailed to women in Louisiana. The manufacturers of the drug, including Danco and GenBioPro, are obviously aware of what is going on yet nevertheless supply the drug and reap profits from its felonious use in Louisiana

One might think that Louisiana could stop or impede this out-of-state interference in its law enforcement by bringing civil actions or criminal charges against the participants in this scheme. But States have effectively blocked these efforts by enacting so-called “shield laws,” which prevent Louisiana from visiting any adverse legal consequences on the perpetrators.

“We are disappointed by this decision that allows the FDA and the abortion industry to continue nullifying Dobbs and its promise to return the issue of abortion to the people. It’s high time the Biden FDA be held accountable for the destruction it has caused with this high-risk drug," said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Of Counsel Erin Hawley. ADF is representing the State of Louisiana in The State of Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Together with Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill’s office, we look forward to litigating our appeal at the 5th Circuit to protect mothers and their children.”

Live Action founder and president Lila Rose responded to the ruling in X, saying, "The Supreme Court has tragically and wrongly granted the abortion pill makers’ emergency appeal, allowing the mail order abortion pill regime to continue nationwide."

In a statement, Rose said:

Today’s order is tragic and wrong. The Supreme Court has allowed the mail order abortion pill regime to continue while litigation moves forward, enabling abortion businesses to ship deadly drugs across state lines and into states that have acted to protect preborn children. This is a direct assault on the right of states to defend innocent human life, and on the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal protection, which must extend to every human being, born and preborn. Justice Thomas was exactly right: abortion pill companies are ‘not entitled to a stay of an adverse court order based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise,’ and they cannot claim harm from an order that makes it harder for them to commit crimes.’

Justice Alito was also right that ‘equity demands that profits from unlawful activity be surrendered, not protected.’ The Comstock Act already prohibits mailing abortion drugs, and it must be enforced. No abortion business has a right to ship death through the mail, and no state should be forced to watch its pro-life laws nullified by out-of-state abortionists.

If the Trump administration refuses to act, there will be grave consequences for babies and mothers, and political consequences for Republicans in the midterms. Pro-life voters did not elect Republicans to manage the abortion pill regime. They elected them to protect children, defend mothers, and enforce the law. The FDA has the authority and responsibility to do this. The FDA must immediately pull mifepristone from the market and stop allowing pills that kill children and harm women to be mailed across America.

The FDA, which is in the process of reviewing the safety of mifepristone, said on X, "FDA is committed to protecting the health and safety of women. The Supreme Court’s order, issued today, maintains the status quo with respect to the REMS governing mifepristone. The FDA will press forward to complete its science-based safety review of the mifepristone REMS and, in an effort to provide greater transparency, will provide updates as key milestones are reached."

The Backstory:

In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) changed its safety regulations (REMS) on the abortion drug mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex to allow it to be dispensed by mail and in pharmacies. In October 2025, the State of Louisiana filed a lawsuit seeking to reverse that change.

As previously reported by Live Action News, after the lawsuit was filed, the FDA asked the courts to "stay judicial review" and pause the lawsuit as it reviewed the safety regulations of mifepristone. That stay in the lawsuit was approved on April 6, pending the FDA's safety review results. But, Louisiana filed an appeal to that decision on April 17.

The Fifth Circuit then paused mail order dispensing of the abortion pill, ruling that the "FDA's justifications for remotely dispensing mifepristone were based on flawed or nonexistent data," and that the change in safety protocols "resulted in numerous illegal abortions in Louisiana and in Louisiana paying thousands in Medicaid bills for women harmed by mifepristone."

Neither the FDA nor the abortion pill manufacturer appear to be ensuring that prescribers are following the safety rules or FDA limits.

An abortionist in New York has shipped abortion drugs to Louisiana on at least two known occasions.

In one case, the woman was reportedly 20 weeks pregnant — 10 weeks beyond the gestational age approved by the FDA for administering the drug — and threw the baby in the trash after the abortion and before going to the hospital.

The other case involved a teenage girl who was being coerced into taking the abortion pill by her mother. The girl suffered complications from the chemical abortion.

After the Fifth Circuit paused mail-order abortions, abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories filed an emergency application before the Supreme Court on May 2, on behalf of all defendants in the case. It argued that the pause of mail order dispensing "injects immediate confusion and upheaval into highly time-sensitve medical decisions..."

On May 4, the Supreme Court responded to that emergency application, granted Danco's request, and halted the pause on remote dispensing of the abortion pill.

The Bottom Line:

Allowing the abortion pill to be mailed to women without any medical oversight increases the risks of serious complications associated with the abortion pill and also increases the likelihood that women will be coerced or forced into abortions they don't want. In addition, allowing the drugs to continue to be mailed into states that have laws protecting preborn children from abortion ignores and disrespects those state laws as well as the federal Comstock Act.

Key Takeaways:

• Pre-eclampsia is a life-threatening health condition that can occur during pregnancy due to high blood pressure and the overproduction of a specific protein.

• The study found that a malfunctioning placenta causes the overproduction of a protein that leads to high blood pressure.

• A blood filtering system utilizes a monoclonal antibody to filter the blood out of the body, bind the protein and remove it, before sending the blood back into the body.

• Results were promising, but more research is needed.

The Details:

When left untreated, high blood pressure during pregnancy can escalate to pre-eclampsia, and ultimately, HELLP syndrome, which can be life-threatening to both mother and child.

According to the World Health Organization, between 5% to 8% of pregnancies are affected by pre-eclampsia in the United States each year. It contributes to 700-1,200 maternal deaths annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Treatment has historically been to deliver the baby, often prematurely.

Now, a small study published in Nature Medicine last month shows that a new treatment targeting the cause of pre-eclampsia, rather than the symptoms, is showing promise.

Dr. Ananth Karumanchi, director of the Renovascular Research Center at Cedars-Sinai, said that there is a theory that preeclampsia is caused by a malfunctioning placenta that is producing high amounts of the protein sFlt-1. This leads to toxicity. Karumanchi said that developing a drug to target the protein would mean testing a drug on pregnant women, something doctors are typically hesitant to do because of the unknown risks and side effects.

Instead, researchers created a monoclonal antibody that would bind to the protein. By using a machine to temporarily remove blood from patients, they could filter the protein out of the blood and return the blood to the patients.

“This way, we [didn’t] have to worry about anything crossing the placenta, and we could turn off the machine if a woman had a complication,” said researcher Ravi Thadhani.

The process was carried out first on baboons, and then on five non-pregnant volunteers before being tried on pregnant women who had been admitted to the hospital for pre-eclampsia. The treatment took about two hours.

Researchers found that protein levels dropped by about 17%, and resulted in lowered blood pressure. The women in the study were able to delay birth for a median of 10 days, which was double what the doctors had expected.

Zoom Out:

In another recent study regarding pre-eclampsia, researchers found that abnormal blood vessel development, which is associated with pre-eclampsia, is driven down by turning off the VGLL3 gene. In pregnant mice, researchers found that an over-expression of VGLL3 caused elevated blood pressure.

When attempted on human placental biopsies from women with pre-eclampsia, researchers "found we were able to normalize, or even reverse, features of pre-eclampsia," said lead researcher, Dr. Johann Gudjonsson.

The Bottom Line:

While Karumanchi called the blood filtering results "exciting," more research is needed.

"We need to do a formal regulatory study ... like a standard, controlled trial, where we do treatment versus no treatment," he said.

As for the gene expression study, the long-term goal is to move the research to real-world treatments.

Cochran is an artist who fashions jewelry and funnels some of the proceeds from sales to help fund pregnancy resource centers. 

An unstable childhood

“My mother got pregnant in high school and dropped out of school to marry, but her husband was physically abusive, so she left him for a couple of months to live with a friend," Cochran told Live Action News. "She started dating a man and got pregnant with me but didn’t know at the time who had fathered her child.”

When her mother returned to her husband and told him she was pregnant, the abuse escalated.

Already raising two sons amid a violent home environment, Cochran’s mother felt she wasn't fit to mother another child. She considered placing her baby with an adoptive family.

“My grandmother pleaded with my mother to keep her baby and offered to raise her child,” Cochran said. “My mother ended up falling in love with me when she saw me on the ultrasound.”

Yet, when Cochran was born, her mother left her with her other grandmother and didn’t return until a year later. 

Cochran noted, “When she did come back, she ended up in a home for abused women and children. I was two years old at the time.”

When Cochran was four years old, her mother remarried to a successful man who provided all the comforts of an affluent life.

“He’s the only man I called father,” Cochran said. "He took fatherhood seriously. But my mother ended up leaving him when I was 12. She had always struggled with consistent parenting and suffered with guilt and shame from two abortions as well as not knowing definitively who my father was.”

Because her stepdad traveled extensively, she had to relocate with her mother. She visited with him regularly until he passed away.

Eyes open to abortion's impact

When she was 19 years old, Cochran enrolled in a Christian college.

“The experience there gave me the confidence I needed,” Cochran said. “My unstable background left me with little self-esteem.”

Cochran said, “Given my personal experiences, reading Scripture during my freshman year and learning about my mother’s abortions when I was eight years old, gave me the passion to stand against abortion. I saw how greatly my mother suffered mentally.”

While she had a friend active in the pro-life movement, she didn’t feel compelled to be involved herself.

“I didn’t realize women were actually having abortions,” Cochran said. “Just three years ago, I started seeing Live Action posts and learning how prevalent abortion was. I was also influenced by listening to Allie Beth Stuckey. It was then that I started speaking out to family and friends.”

Giving back

She started noticing businesses that were donating funds to pregnancy resource centers — businesses like Seven Weeks Coffee, EveryLife, and We Heart Nutrition. 

Cochran said, “It was an opportunity to give back. My husband and I talked about formulating a business plan that involved creating jewelry to reflect Scripture. We started testing out some jewelry pieces.”

She went to the Share the Arrows event hosted by Allie Beth Stuckey in October 2024 where conservative, Christian women meet to grow and encourage each other in their faith.

“The three pro-life companies were present,” Cochran said. “I was so inspired by their business models that it was placed on my heart to also support pregnancy resource centers.”

She further honed her business plan and in late November 2024, launched her jewelry line, using Instagram to get the word out. 

Cochran said, “I originally decided to call my jewelry line, ‘GiveBYG’ but didn’t think it was feminine enough so I thought of ‘Natan’ which, in Hebrew means to give and to receive.”

All her jewelry items, found on the Natan website, have Biblical names and verses attached to them – prompting the wearer to think about Scripture with a beautiful reminder.

“We donate 20% of our profits to pregnancy resource centers and have given $22,809 in the first year after we launched,” Cochran said. “We have also donated 100 Bibles to a center in need so everyone who comes into the center has an opportunity to know the Gospel.”

Continuing the journey

Cochran explains that though her business is still in its early phases of development, she envisions establishing a program that would span three to six months, specifically designed to support women in crisis who are currently unemployed.

Through this initiative, these women would have the opportunity to craft jewelry pieces, providing them with a source of financial assistance and self-confidence as they work toward stability and self-sufficiency.

“My mother’s story is the inspiration behind this vision,” Cochran said. “I have been praying about this journey as it unfolds.”

Key Takeaways:

• A resurfaced video shows KSI talking with his mother, in which he said if he gets a girl pregnant, he will "punch the baby."

• Past videos also showed him trivializing and joking about rape.

• This attempt at humor devalues women and preborn lives.

The Details:

In the video, which has since been removed, KSI can be heard chatting with his mother about his sex life, with his mother asking him to always use a condom. Reacting to his mother’s statements, KSI said, “If she gets pregnant I’ll just punch the baby.” 

His mother replied,“No, you can’t say that,” to which the influencer answered: “I’m kidding, I’m kidding, I’m not going to do that.”

The clip, uploaded in 2017 to KSI’s YouTube channel with 17 million subscribers, prompted one viewer to write, “I’m sick of abusive males.” 

In turn, domestic abuse campaigners lambasted KSI’s comments as vulgar and deeply offensive, with Veronica Oakeshott of the domestic violence charity Women’s Aid among those voicing their displeasure:

“Comments like this are never acceptable to make, even if it is meant as a joke. It’s a sad truth that pregnant women are even more likely than other women to experience domestic abuse. Such ‘jokes’ make this kind of criminal behaviour, which women do experience, seem less serious, and indeed life-threatening, than it is."

However, people familiar with KSI claimed that the former boxer felt remorseful over his “stupid and wrong” statement about pregnant women. They claimed that the video is nearly a decade old, and "like many people, as they have grown older, KSI looks back on that time with deep regret and recognises his language was both stupid and wrong. KSI has grown and matured significantly since then, and those words do not reflect whatsoever who he is today and the values he holds."

KSI also faced accusations of trivializing rape, with past videos showing him making crude remarks to and about women. 

The social media star is estimated to be worth about £80 million. He first rose to prominence on YouTube in 2009, posting FIFA gameplay and commentary that attracted millions of subscribers, and established him as one of Britain’s best-known YouTubers. KSI has also served as a judge on Britain’s Got Talent since 2025. 

Zoom In:

For pro-life advocates, this incident is a reminder of how casually pregnancy and motherhood can be treated and devalued in celebrity culture, even though every preborn child is a vulnerable and innocent human being deserving of dignity and protection. 

The aforementioned story is simply more than one celebrity’s tasteless joke. It showcases a wider disorientation in contemporary culture, where preborn babies can be scoffed at, denigrated, and trivialized as if they are disposable. A genuine pro-life and compassionate culture would treat pregnancy with care, protection, and gratitude, instead of with crass and degrading statements. 

Pregnancy that is treated badly in public culture demonstrates how the battle for life is not only legal and political, but also cultural. 

KSI’s resurfaced comment has rightly drawn condemnation because it crossed a line from crass banter into violent dehumanization.

The Bottom Line:

Pregnancy is not a punchline.

Comments similar to those made in the past by KSI — words that can reach millions — can influence those who are young and impressionable, and already feel animosity toward children.

Key Takeaways:

• A group of pro-life advocates demonstrated in front of Parliament on May 5.

• They commemorated over 11,000 lives lost and pointed out that 32 infants are known to have been born alive following attempted abortions.

• The group is calling for lawmakers to reinstate protection for the preborn in Northern Ireland.

The Details:

Precious Life, NI’s most prominent pro-life advocacy group, gathered other pro-life advocates on May 5 at the steps of Parliament Buildings in Stormont. The commemoration acted both as a memorial for the preborn and a renewed call for lawmakers to reinstate legal safeguards for innocent preborn lives. 

Addressing attendees, Precious Life Director Bernadette Smyth quoted recent abortion statistics published by the NI Department of Health in December 2025. As per the data released, 2,899 abortions were committed between 2024 and 2025 alone. Smyth disclosed that since abortion was legalized in 2020, a total of 11,193 unborn children have been deprived of the chance to live. 

Framing the figures in stark terms, Smyth pointed out the gravity of the situation. 

“11,193 babies is the equivalent of entire towns such as Downpatrick, Limavady, Ballyclare, or Ballymoney,” she said. “It also represents 448 classrooms full of children — an average of 43 babies every week, six every day.” 

The commemoration reflected pro-life resistance to legal revisions implemented by Westminster, which broadened abortion access to NI in 2019. Critics of these pro-abortion amendments have lambasted how the decision bypassed local democratic processes, and imposed abortion policy on the region.

Smyth reinforced that criticism, denouncing abortion as “the greatest human rights abuse of our time,” and calling on both political leaders and the public not to ignore its consequences. 

Citing British abolitionist William Wilberforce, she cautioned, “You may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say you did not know.”

The Precious Life director also highlighted the various methods of abortion, explaining that many early-stage abortion methods entail the use of the drug mifepristone, which deprives the preborn child of progesterone, causing the preborn child to die. She described the process in somber moral terms, revealing how many  innocent preborn children “were poisoned and starved to death.”

Zoom In:

One of the most disturbing concerns broached during the event involved cases in which babies reportedly displayed signs of life following abortion procedures. Based on figures obtained through Freedom of Information requests, 32 infants were born alive after attempted abortions, and were later issued death certificates.

“These babies survived the abortion that was meant to end their lives before birth,” Smyth said. “The intentional death of any child in the womb is horrific, but it is especially disturbing when a baby is born alive and does not receive life-saving care.”

Precious Life has submitted further questions to the Department of Health requesting more information on how such “born-alive” cases were documented and managed. The group is asking whether these infants were legally recognized as live births, what medical care they obtained, and what clinical guidelines influenced decisions about life-sustaining treatment.

Furthermore, the organization is championing for transparency regarding whether mothers would be notified if their baby is born alive, and who eventually determines whether treatment is supplied or denied. In view of this, Smyth characterized these issues as “fundamental human rights concerns” that demand urgent investigation and accountability.

In her speech at Stormont, Smyth criticized what she called a contradiction within the NI healthcare system. “While our Health Service is in crisis, abortion is being prioritized,” she said. “While women need real support, abortion is being promoted. While families wait years for treatment, funding for abortion is ring-fenced. This is not health care. This is injustice.”

Smyth also alluded to civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., stating, “Those who accept evil without protesting against it are really cooperating with it,” asking citizens not to remain apathetic. 

With government elections poised for 2027, Precious Life used the event to call on voters and elected representatives alike to adopt a definite stance on abortion policy. The group is advocating for the revocation of Westminster’s abortion framework, and the restoration of legal protections for preborn children. 

“We call on every MLA and elected representative to end this practice and stand for the most basic human right — the right to life,” Smyth said. 

The Bottom Line:

The commemoration culminated in a renewed promise from Precious Life to continue its advocacy efforts through public awareness campaigns, education initiatives, and political engagement. The organization reaffirmed its long-term aim of building a society in which abortion is both illegal and, in its words, “unthinkable.”

Returning to Wilberforce’s words, Smyth ended her address with a final challenge: “Let it not be said that I was silent when they needed me.”

Key Takeaways:

• President Donald Trump announced a proposal that would allow employers to offer a supplemental insurance option that would provide coverage for IVF treatments.

• Trump also boasted that his Trump Rx program has resulted in millions in savings for IVF drugs.

• Though it is often championed for bringing life into the world, IVF unfortunately results in the widespread destruction of human embryos — each a unique human life.

The Details:

Under the proposed rule, employers would be able to offer a supplemental insurance option that would cover fertility treatments and IVF procedures, much like supplemental vision or dental insurance. The proposal was announced as a joint effort of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury.

“I’m pleased to announce that the Department of Labor is issuing a new rule to formally create a fertility benefit option for employers that can be offered to all employees outside of their normal health insurance plans. It’s a big deal, they were not properly taken care of. Katie Britt knows that better than anybody,” Trump said during a press conference at the Oval Office on Monday, referring to Senator Katie Britt of Alabama.

“I shouldn’t admit this, but the first time I really heard about the fertility was Katie. She said, ‘Sir, we have to do something.’ And I’m a quick study. So I learned everything there is to learn in about three, four minutes, and I became the father of fertility,” Trump quipped.

During the press conference, Trump also touted his Trump Rx.gov program, which offers discounted IVF drugs.

"Since we launched the website just a few months ago, over 19,000 Americans have used those fertility medicines and discounts and saved more than $15 million just in a short period of time," he said, noting that projected savings will rise to $4.6 billion over "a fairly small number of years."

The Backstory:

Trump's public support for IVF dates back to the 2024 campaign trail, where he promised that the Republican Party would be "the party for IVF."

Shortly after taking office in February 2025, he issued an executive order expanding IVF, promising to lower the costs and reduce barriers to the practice. That was followed in October 2025 by an announcement that he would create a plan to make IVF more affordable as an employer insurance benefit. The proposal unveiled this week appears to follow up on that promise.

Why It Matters:

Though it is often championed for bringing life into the world, IVF is unfortunately not pro-life. It results in the widespread destruction of embryos — each unique, individual human beings — and by its very nature, it turns children into a commodity.

According to research published in Reproductive Biomedicine Online, over 2.5 million IVF cycles are performed every year, but of those, only 500,000 babies are born annually — roughly 20 percent. The remaining embryos either fail to implant, are discarded, or are frozen indefinitely.

Instead of promoting expanded access to a procedure that ends so many human lives, the Trump administration could instead be funding efforts to advance Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM), which attempts to get to the root cause of fertility problems.

As Live Action News previously reported:

While IVF has long been the mainstream and accepted way to combat infertility, it's been seen by many doctors as a band-aid approach to infertility rather than a healing approach. RRM, as the National Catholic Bioethics Center explained, "aims to treat the root causes of dysfunctions that make it difficult or impossible for couples to conceive and bring to birth children."

In an article published by The Heritage Foundation, Waters explained that RRM-based treatments have a higher success rate than IVF. According to Waters:

"RRM succeeds even after IVF has failed, at a fraction of the cost, especially across multiple pregnancies. One study published in 2024 found that 40% of couples previously diagnosed with infertility conceived naturally after undergoing RRM-based treatments compared with a 24% success rate with IVF. Another 2018 study found that 32.1% of women who had an average of two failed IVF cycles conceived naturally following targeted medical interventions with RRM."

The Bottom Line:

Though the desire for children is good and understandable, it is not ethical to create children via IVF. Care must be taken to ensure the advancement of measures that protect all human life — even the very smallest among us.

Key Takeaways:

• Acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas spoke to Live Action founder and president Lila Rose by phone about his regret over his past legal involvement with Planned Parenthood.

• Diamantas stated that he was an attorney in private practice in Florida when he was assigned to a case involving Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando. He later came to regret his involvement and asked his superiors that he be removed from the case.

• Diamantas says he is pro-life and cares about the pro-life cause, and that his moral opposition to abortion is what led him to ask for removal from the case in Florida.

• Diamantas told Rose that reviewing the abortion pill remains a top priority for the administration and for him.

The Details:

Past Planned Parenthood involvement

Speaking by phone with Lila Rose on May 13, 2026, Diamantas stated that he regrets his past involvement as an attorney in Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando v. MMB Properties, saying he was assigned to the case by his law firm, performed work on it, but ultimately regretted his involvement due to his moral opposition to abortion. Diamantas then asked his superiors to remove him from the case.

Diamantas told Rose he considers himself pro-life, and that he cares deeply about the pro-life cause.

The abortion pill

Rose also raised the issue of the abortion pill with Diamantas, pointing to an Ethics and Public Policy Center analysis which states that nearly 11% of women who take mifepristone experience serious adverse events.

This is a 22x greater rate than what is listed on the FDA's label for the drug. Rose also noted the sobering death toll of preborn children as a result from the approval and availability of the drug, which is estimated at around 7.5 million lives between 2000 and 2024. Recent estimates from the Guttmacher Institute claim that the abortion pill now makes up at least 65% of all abortions in the U.S. annually.

Diamantas responded by telling Rose that reviewing the abortion pill is a top priority for him and the Trump administration FDA. 

The Backstory:

It was announced on May 12 that Marty Makary, who served as FDA Commissioner for 13 months, had resigned from his position amid controversy. As Live Action News previously reported, Makary received criticism from pro-life politicians and advocacy groups for failing to produce a promised review of the abortion drug mifepristone.

As Live Action News also stated, concerns mounted about Acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas' past involvement with Planned Parenthood in Florida as an attorney in private practice. Diamantas "was appointed as a Senior Counselor and Acting Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods at the FDA by Kennedy in February 2026."

Taking Action:

Rose told Live Action News, “I appreciated the opportunity to speak with Acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas directly. He was candid about his past work while a junior attorney for Planned Parenthood, his regret over that involvement, his moral opposition to abortion, and his stated commitment to the pro-life cause."

However, she continued:

"Now we need to see action. The FDA must urgently take action on mifepristone, confront the mounting evidence of harm to women, and address the abortion pill regime that has killed millions of preborn children. We and millions of Americans across the nation who value the right to life expect this administration to advance strong pro-life protections for both mothers and their children.”

Key Takeaways:

• Charlene Carter was fired from Southwest Airlines after she sent pro-life messages to the Transport Workers Union because the union was supporting the 2017 pro-abortion Women's March.

• Carter filed a lawsuit against Southwest and the Union, and a federal court sided with her.

• Southwest appealed, but the appeals court uphold the original ruling.

• Nine years after her case began, Carter was awarded nearly $1 million.

• Southwest is not out of the woods yet as the judge found the airline in contempt for its "misleading" messages to employees following a court order.

The Details:

Charlene Carter worked for Southwest Airlines for two decades before she she was fired from her job for standing up for her pro-life views.

In 2013, Carter resigned from the Transport Workers Union Local 556, but she was required to keep paying dues. Then, the union supported the 2017 pro-abortion Women's March, and Carter sent an allegedly "graphic" message to the union leadership expressing her disapproval and her pro-life views. The union president reported the messages to Southwest, and Carter was fired as a result.

Email communications revealed that members of the union mocked Carter for being unable to prevent her money from going to the pro-abortion cause. A union member called Carter an "incredibly dangerous" "cancerous tumor" that must be "eradicated when ever possible or it spreads." He also wrote that he was in favor of "targeted assassinations."

Carter filed a lawsuit and in 2022, a federal jury sided with her and ruled she was wrongly terminated. The court said that her messages were about religious expression and Southwest had not attempted a religious accommodation before firing her.

Southwest appealed, arguing that Carter's pro-life messages were a form of harassment, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision. U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr told the airline to reinstate Carter and pay her $810,000 in damages and $150,000 in back pay. The airline, however, did not do so.

Judge Starr held Southwest in contempt for failing to pay Carter, and last week, the airline finally followed through, paying her $946,102.87.

"Today is a victory for freedom of speech and religious beliefs," said Carter. "Flight attendants should have a voice and nobody should be able to retaliate against a flight attendant for engaging in protected speech against her union."

What's Happening Now:

The legal battle remains ongoing.

Judge Starr held Southwest in contempt for failing to comply with a court ordered notice to employees regarding religious discrimination. The airline sent "misleading" messages to employees by saying it "does not discriminate" against employees for religious beliefs while also warning them they should not engage in workplace communications similar as Carter's. That order was deemed to be inadequate.

According to Live and Let's Fly, the district court is still considering if Southwest should face additional penalties as a result.

“No one has ever wanted you here. If you find a family that will actually love you, go be with them.” Those were the words spoken to me like a broken record, reminding me over and over that I was unwanted, abandoned, and despised. The very people who brought me into the world seemed determined to make me want to take myself out of it. 

Born into brokenness

I was born into brokenness. I can’t remember exactly when the abuse started because I truly can’t remember much of my life before it. What I do know is that I never thought it would end. Home was the place where I endured pain, suffering, and hurt at the hands and words of the people who were meant to love me most. I was so confused as to why it was happening to me. 

Instead of hating them, I started to hate myself. I was a free-spirited child who slowly became a broken and shattered middle schooler, and eventually a suicidal and hopeless high schooler. 

I was threatened into staying silent about the abuse I was enduring at home. My voice was stripped from me as I did everything I could to survive each day. Tomorrow did not feel promised. I held on as long as I could, praying for a miraculous escape, but my hope began to fade as the days passed without change. 

How my 'last day' became a new beginning

One night in late May 2010, I decided that I was finally going to go through with ending my life. As I went through what I thought was my last day at school, I was called into my school counselor’s office. She told me she had received concerns from multiple people about my safety and well-being. I played it off and said it was actually a friend who was in danger. I sat there as she called DHS on speakerphone to ask what they could do to get “this friend” into safety. I was terrified of being found out, so it felt like a relief when she seemed to believe my lie. 

When I got home that day, everything changed. I was so badly injured that I couldn’t even grasp what had happened before I was chased out of the home.

I ran to the nearest store with a black eye and blood dripping from a cut beneath my eye. A good friend happened to be there. When she asked what happened, I told her I had fallen and a branch hit my eye. She did not believe me. We got into her car, and she called our youth pastor. 

Soon, I found myself standing in a grocery store parking lot surrounded by police cars and fire trucks. I was a scared and confused 17-year-old, realizing that the escape I had dreamed of was finally happening. Yet I felt frozen because I had never known anything different.

Abused, neglected, unworthy, rejected, and abandoned was my normal. I had no understanding of what life outside of those labels could look like. The day I planned to end my life became the day I entered the foster care system. My life was preserved. 

Extended foster care and breaking down walls

My youth pastors became emergency licensed so I could stay with them, and I spent the next four years in their home. Everything felt new, yet I was still carrying the weight of a lifetime of trauma. That trauma showed up in my behavior, my words, my emotions, and the way I saw the world. It created challenges and misunderstandings that eventually led to relationships changing. Once again, I felt rejected.

I aged out of foster care at 18 without being adopted, and I chose to sign myself back in [for extended foster care] because I needed support to navigate adulthood. 

Even so, my dream of having a forever family did not disappear. I tried to bury that dream because I believed it was no longer possible. But a couple who entered my life in 2012 as worship pastors would become part of a story I could not have imagined.

I had built walls to keep people out, especially adults. I tested boundaries and challenged authority. Still, they remained steady. They moved through every wall I built with patience and care. Slowly, I began to trust again. 

A forever family

Over time, I noticed something changing in my heart. My longing for a family grew stronger, and I began to recognize that longing in my relationship with them. They had treated me like their own from the very beginning. It just took years of healing for me to accept that I could belong in that way. 

I never thought I would say it out loud, but one day the topic of adoption came up.

“We’d adopt you!” they said.

When those words were spoken, tears filled my eyes. I never thought I would hear that as a 26-year-old, as someone who had aged out of foster care, as someone who once felt completely abandoned.

I later learned that this had been on their hearts for years. 

On May 31, 2019, I stood in a courtroom surrounded by people who loved me as I was legally adopted. We celebrated afterward, marking the day I officially became a daughter.

The courthouse had once been an orphanage, which made the moment feel even more meaningful. During the hearing, the judge paused, wiped away tears, and thanked us for letting him end his week with our case.

Before we left, he said, “This is a happy day for the foster care system.” He was right. 

Spaces of belonging

It has been one of the greatest privileges of my life to learn what it means to be a daughter. I now share this story to honor what God has done and to advocate for youth still in the foster care system, especially those who have aged out alone.

My heart is to see more seats added to tables, to see more people open their lives to vulnerable youth and create spaces of belonging. 

My story is still unfolding. Redemption and restoration continue with each passing day. And the gift of being here to experience it is something I will never take for granted.

On the morning of Monday, May 11, the Collingsworth County Commissioners’ Court considered an ordinance outlawing abortion and declaring Collingsworth County a Sanctuary County for the Unborn. After a brief period of discussion about the ordinance, County Judge Scot Martindale and Collingsworth County Commissioners Keith Martin, Joel Sherwood, and Richard Johnson all voted in favor of the measure – making the vote a unanimous 4-0. 

The vote followed the City of Brownfield (pop. 9,976), which had become the 96th Sanctuary City for the Unborn in the nation on Thursday, May 7, and just before the City of Muleshoe (pop. 5,158) became the 97th Sanctuary City for the Unborn in the nation on Monday night. 

The unanimous passage made Collingsworth County (pop. 2,652) the 21st county in Texas to outlaw abortion trafficking – following Mitchell (pop. 9,070), Goliad (pop. 7,012), Cochran (pop. 2,547), Lubbock (pop. 317,561), Dawson (pop. 12,130), Jack (pop. 8,875), Shackelford (pop. 3,105), Camp (pop.13,164), Shelby (pop. 24,179), Hopkins (pop. 38,784), Dickens (pop. 1,725),  Howard (pop. 34,860), Motley (pop. 1,063), Crosby (pop. 5,133), Borden (pop. 631), Hall (pop. 2,825), Hood (pop. 61,598), King (pop. 265), Sterling (pop. 1,372), and Lynn (pop. 5,596) counties — as well as the 23rd county and the 119th political subdivision to outlaw abortion in the United States.

The addition of the City of Muleshoe later that night brought that number to 120. The effort to see political subdivisions throughout Texas outlaw abortion trafficking through the Sanctuaries for the Unborn initiative is supported by lawmakers across Texas and New Mexico.

The Collingsworth County SCFTU Ordinance

The Collingsworth County SCFTU Ordinance prohibits elective abortions and the aiding or abetting of elective abortions within the unincorporated area of Collingsworth County, as well as the performing of an elective abortion and the aiding or abetting of an elective abortion on a resident of the unincorporated area of Collingsworth County, “regardless of the location of the abortion, regardless of the law in the jurisdiction where the abortion occurred, and regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion was performed or induced on a resident of the unincorporated area of Collingsworth County.”

As a result of the ordinance, it is now illegal “for any person to knowingly transport any individual for the purpose of providing or obtaining an elective abortion, regardless of where the elective abortion will occur” as long as such activity “begins, ends, or passes through Collingsworth County.”

This means it is now illegal to use the sections of U.S. Highway 83, State Highway 203, and all sections of all other roads found in the unincorporated area of Collingsworth County for the purpose of abortion trafficking.

The Collingsworth County SCFTU Ordinance connects with the county ordinances passed in Hall, Motley, King, Dickens, Crosby, Lubbock, Lynn, Dawson, Borden, Howard, Mitchell, and Sterling to create a ‘Wall of Ordinances’ prohibiting abortion trafficking almost 12,000 square miles in length. The ordinances are part of a cultural shift that looks at abortion trafficking the same way as drug trafficking or sex trafficking, and is intentionally written to facilitate the end of abortion throughout the United States.

The ordinance also prohibits abortion-inducing drugs within the unincorporated area of Collingsworth County, prohibits Texas waste management companies from transporting and disposing of aborted fetal remains from any out-of-state abortion provider within the unincorporated area of Collingsworth County, and declares the organizations in violation of the federal Comstock Act – which prohibits the mailing and receiving of abortion inducing drugs and abortion paraphernalia – to be criminal organizations, prohibiting such organizations from operating within the unincorporated area of Collingsworth County.

The Private Enforcement Mechanism

The ordinance is not enforced by Collingsworth County, its elected officials, or any of their employees. Instead of being enforced criminally, the law is enforced civilly by private citizens.

This is the same way the Texas Heartbeat Act is enforced: through a private enforcement mechanism that allows private citizens to file a lawsuit against anyone in violation of the law. The Collingsworth County SCFTU ordinance does not allow any lawsuit to be filed against the mother of the unborn child, but only against the abortionist and those who are aiding or abetting the abortionist in the killing of an unborn child.

Highlighting the Thriving Texas Families Program

In addition to the strong protections for pregnant mothers and their unborn children within the local law, the Collingsworth County SCFTU ordinance also educates about the statewide Thriving Texas Families Program, which helps connect pregnant mothers to a variety of resources through centers listed on the Texas Pregnancy Care Network website and The Pregnancy Network website.

Picture: The Collingsworth County Judge and Commissioners take a picture with Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn Initiative founder Mark Lee Dickson after a unanimous 4-0 adoption of the ordinance outlawing abortion and abortion trafficking. 

The 11th Unanimous Vote For Life This Year

Collingsworth County’s vote was the 11th unanimous passage of the ordinance by a political subdivision in Texas this year, following: the City of Matador (pop. 570), Borden County (pop. 631), the City of Lockney (pop. 1,988), Hall County (2,825), Hood County (pop. 61,598), the City of Wellman (pop.205), King County (pop. 265), Sterling County (pop. 1,372), the City of O’Donnell (pop. 704), and Lynn County (pop. 5,596). 

The City of Muleshoe (pop. 5,158) was almost unanimous, adopting the measure in a vote of 4-1. While the City of Brownfield (pop. 9,976) had rejected the measure in a 5-3 vote on April 2, the measure was adopted 5-3 on May 7, after a successful city initiative petition. The only political subdivision to have unanimously rejected the measure in 2026 is Terry County (pop. 11,602), where the vote was 4-0. 

Other cities in Collingsworth County that could pass a SCFTU ordinance include the cities of Wellington (pop. 2,215) and Dodson (pop. 93). Citizens who wish to see their city or county pass an ordinance to further protect pregnant mothers and their unborn children from the violence of abortion are encouraged to sign the online petition – regardless of what city, county, or state in which they are located.

Key Takeaways:

• A Montana district court judge has rejected challenges against Montana's 2024 pro-abortion state constitutional amendment.

• The petitioners believe that the amendment was "not properly presented to voters for approval."

• The judge rejected petitioners' arguments, claiming that "the rules for a constitutional initiative do not require the full printing of the text on the ballot itself. In analyzing the Montana Constitution" and must only be filed in full with the Secretary of State.

The Details:

Yellowstone County District Judge Thomas Pardy set aside challenges brought by state Representative Amy Regier and the Montana Life Defense Fund, who had repeatedly contested the process used to place Constitutional Initiative 128 (CI-128), the 2024 ballot initiative that enshrined the “right” to an abortion in the Montana Constitution, on the ballot. The pro-abortion measure passed with 345,070 votes in favor versus 252,300 against.

A press release from the ACLU Montana noted:

The Court’s decision affirmed that the overwhelming passage of CI-128 was constitutionally valid, finding that “there is no factual basis upon which Petitioner could recover based on the claim before the Court.” The Court’s dismissal rejects a challenge by anti-abortion groups that CI-128 was not properly presented to voters for approval.

"This decision was the first by a district court, and was an attempt to litigate the constitutional amendment voters approved in 2024, which allows abortion up to the point of fetal viability," the Daily Montanan reported.

The Montana Life Defense Fund insisted that the amendment was invalid because the full text of the initiative did not appear on the ballot, thus preventing voters from fully evaluating the ramifications of the pro-abortion measure.

Pardy rejected this argument, saying Montana law does not require the complete text of a constitutional initiative to be printed on the ballot. The Daily Montanan noted:

... a five-page ruling by Pardy said that the rules for a constitutional initiative do not require the full printing of the text on the ballot itself. In analyzing the Montana Constitution, Pardy said the full text is required to be submitted to the Secretary of State, but is not required to be printed in full on the ballot.

The judge reasoned that if the framers of the 1972 state constitution would have wanted the full text, they would have required it.

The Backstory:

Previously, the Montana Life Defense Fund had submitted two separate petitions to the Montana Supreme Court, contending that both supporters of the measure and state election officials failed to abide by constitutional requirements. Since the state’s highest court has jurisdiction over disputes entailing the amendment process, it usually deals with such cases.

In both instances, the Montana Supreme Court claimed that while the dispute hinged on an amendment already approved by voters, Regier and the Montana Life Defense Fund did not show why a district court could not properly handle the case, according to the Daily Montanan.

The justices also declared that, because the amendment had already taken effect, there was no upcoming election or urgent deadline mandating the Court's immediate intervention. 

The justices claimed that if the district court ruled against Regier and the Fund, the two groups could still appeal to the Supreme Court.

In 1999, the Montana Supreme Court decreed that the Montana Constitution’s general right to privacy also encapsulated individual medical decisions, including abortion. The passage of CI-128 included direct language to the Montana Constitution, indicating that Montanans have the “right” to  “make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion.” 

Why It Matters:

This recent Montana ruling is a sober reminder to pro-lifers that even after the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022, abortion supporters have persisted in trying to enshrine abortion “rights” into state law and constitutions.

Montana’s constitution has one of the stronger state-level abortion protections in the country.

Once abortion is cemented into state constitutions, pro-life lawmakers face major obstacles to advancing the pro-life cause even when they can influence parts of lawmaking. Ballot initiatives and constitutional campaigns, therefore, remain a key hotspot for pro-lifers and abortion activists in the post-Roe era.

Strikingly, Montana’s latest ruling reveals how deeply entrenched pro-abortion mindsets have become in some states, particularly in areas where voters have already voted in favor of pro-abortion constitutional amendments.

The Bottom Line:

In the near future at least, pro-life advocates will likely have to rely immensely on long-term public educational campaigns to change hearts and minds towards valuing the dignity of all human lives. 

Key Takeaways:

• Alberta lawmakers introduced the bill to provide "safeguards" around euthanasia in an attempt to "protect vulnerable Albertans."

• The bill was passed on April 18th, and will soon be signed into law.

• Under the legislation, people who are not terminally ill will not be eligible for MAID, and health care providers are barred from introducing MAID to their patients.

The Details:

Alex Schadenberg reported that AB18 was passed on April 18th, and is set to be signed into law soon. While it will not stop Albertans from being euthanized, it does provide more safeguards, protecting those in vulnerable situations from being pressured into death.

The Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act would:

• ban MAiD for anyone for whom death is not "reasonably foreseeable," requiring a 12-month terminal prognosis

• require that anyone accessing MAiD be over the age of 18

• ban MAiD for mental illness alone

• prohibit doctors from referring patients to MAiD practitioners outside of Alberta

• enshrine conscience protections for medical professionals

• require MAiD practitioners contact the doctors who have previously cared for the patient before approval

Additionally, medical professionals would be barred from suggesting MAID or bringing it up in conversation. It also allows health care institutions, such as religiously-affiliated hospitals, to refuse to participate in euthanasia.

"This legislation strengthens safeguards and restores clear limits on eligibility to protect vulnerable Albertans facing mental illness or living with disabilities," Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said in a press conference when the bill was first introduced. "Those struggling with severe mental health challenges need treatment, compassion and support, not a path to end their life at what may be their lowest moment."

Why It Matters:

The issues AB18 is addressing are happening with alarming regularity in the rest of Canada. Since legalizing euthanasia in 2016, deaths from it have skyrocketed across the country, including in Alberta.

According to data from Alberta Health Services, there were 1,242 MAID deaths in 2025, a 10% increase from 2021.

Across Canada, people have been approved for MAID due to disability, poverty, and financial issues. The country is also on track to allow euthanasia with mental illness as the sole diagnosis, with it expected to be permitted by 2027.

In less than 10 years, nearly 100,000 people have been killed through assisted suicide or euthanasia in Canada, and it is now one of the leading causes of death.

The Bottom Line:

While Alberta will still permit euthanasia, AB18 is at least a step in the right direction, protecting the most vulnerable people from being pushed into dying.

On Monday, May 11, the City Council of Muleshoe, Texas (pop. 5,158), passed an ordinance outlawing abortion and abortion trafficking, declaring the City of Muleshoe a Sanctuary City for the Unborn (SCFTU). The 4-1 vote in favor of the measure made Muleshoe the 97th city in the nation and the 80th city in Texas to pass an ordinance outlawing abortion.

Bringing the Ordinance to Muleshoe

SCFTU Ambassador Rebecca Snow met with Councilman Jackson Myers about the effort in November 2025 while visiting the Muleshoe Livestock Auction. Councilman Myers expressed support for the effort, but recommended reaching out to Mayor Colt Ellis. At the time, Mayor Ellis was out of town, and Snow attempted to connect with the mayor about the initiative after Thanksgiving 2025, but was unsuccessful. Weekly, Snow and her husband Jim traveled to Muleshoe for church services and other errands. On their trips, the problem of abortion trafficking through the city became an ongoing discussion with many throughout the community.

In December 2025 alone, five cities in West Texas unanimously passed SCFTU Ordinances: Roaring Springs (pop. 219), Olton (pop. 2,288), Sudan (pop. 958), Amherst (pop. 671), and Springlake (pop. 145). While more cities followed in the new year, the effort in Muleshoe had fallen by the wayside amid the busy holiday season.

After Brownfield citizens saw their city council vote 5-3 against the SCFTU Ordinance in April, a citizen initiative petition process began in the City of Brownfield. Weighing the possibility that Brownfield could be on the November ballot, discussions began in other cities near the Texas-New Mexico border where SCFTU ordinances had been discussed but never passed.

Several residents in Muleshoe were confident that, if enough signatures were collected, their council would recognize the citizenry’s support and adopt the measure. If the ordinance were not to pass by a majority vote of their city council, then surely the ordinance would be adopted by Muleshoe’s electorate at the November election.

A citizen initiative petition was soon begun, and signatures began to be collected across Muleshoe: door-to-door, at the Senior Center and at churches and businesses. 

Seeing Brownfield citizens' success in collecting enough signatures for their citizen initiative only helped further encourage Muleshoe citizens to complete their initiative. The Muleshoe SCFTU Citizen Initiative Petition was turned in to City Secretary Tamara Cain on Monday, April 27, and the initiative was deemed successful on Friday, May 1.

Of the 238 signatures collected, 164 were qualified, surpassing the required number for a successful citizen initiative petition. When Muleshoe residents heard the Brownfield City Council adopted the SCFTU Ordinance on May 7, many were optimistic their council would feel empowered to adopt the measure as well – especially with over 150 citizens of Muleshoe supporting them.

At the Muleshoe City Council meeting on May 11, several in attendance spoke to the proposed ordinance. Among those was longtime Muleshoe resident Heather Garcia, who shared:

I stand before you, not just as a former citizen of Muleshoe, but as a mother with a story that could have ended very differently. When I was 20 years old, I was a college cheerleader with big dreams and my whole future planned out—or so I thought. Then I found out I was pregnant, unmarried, scared, and completely overwhelmed. I felt shame, fear, and uncertainty. I didn’t know what to do.

I remember my cheerleading coach pulling me aside and offering to take me somewhere to “take care of it.” At that moment, abortion was presented to me as the easy solution—the way to erase the problem and move on with my life. But deep down, I knew this wasn’t just a problem. This was a child. My child. I chose life.

And that baby—who some thought should never have had a chance—grew up to become the 2015 valedictorian of Muleshoe High School. He served on the Youth Advisory Council for this very City Council. He went to school with some of you, and with some of your children. He is living proof that an unplanned life is not an unwanted life, and that every child has purpose. 

In 2020, after having a hysterectomy, my doctor told me something I will never forget—medically, I should have never been able to have children at all. He said my son was an absolute miracle from God. At 20 years old, scared and uncertain, I could not have known that this was my fate—that this child would be my only chance to experience the joy of motherhood.

Had I made a different choice, I would have been robbed of ever knowing the greatest blessing of my life. I often think about how close I came to missing that miracle. That is why I am asking you tonight to make Muleshoe a sanctuary city for the unborn…

Muleshoe should not become a pathway for the trafficking of women and children across state lines into New Mexico for abortions. We should be making it harder, not easier, for lives to be discarded and for women in crisis to be told the only answer is to end the life within them…

New Mexico resident Tara Shaver, with Abortion Free New Mexico, also spoke before the Muleshoe City Council. Shaver shared:

Over the last several years, New Mexico has become one of the most extreme abortion destinations in America. Since Roe was overturned, our state has seen a massive influx of women traveling from Texas for abortions — particularly late-term abortions. In Albuquerque alone, abortion facilities themselves have reported that 85%, 90%, and even 95% of their abortion clients are Texas residents…

That reality is exactly why we put up the pro-life billboard here in Muleshoe on Hwy 84, a route that many Texas women travel to obtain abortions in New Mexico. The billboard is not about attacking women. It is about reminding Texans that their laws exist for a reason — to protect both women and their unborn children… The billboard is meant to encourage moms not to leave those protections behind by crossing into New Mexico, where abortion  businesses are aggressively marketing themselves as an easy answer…

That is why the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn ordinances matter. These ordinances send a message that communities do not have to surrender to the abortion industry. 

Of the six individuals who spoke before the Muleshoe City Council, all spoke in favor of passing the ordinance. 

To the surprise of some, Mayor Ellis appeared frustrated that the ordinance came before them via a citizen initiative petition rather than being placed on the city council agenda. Mayor Ellis affirmed that he was pro-life and in favor of the ordinance, but did not like the manner in which it was brought before them. Mayor Pro-Tem Gary Parker and Councilman Myers agreed. Councilwoman Crystal Alarcon shared that she was pro-life, but was not sure where she stood on the ordinance.

After discussion, Mayor Ellis made a motion to adopt the SCFTU Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Parker. Upon a vote of the full council, Mayor Ellis and Mayor Pro-Tem Parker were joined by Councilman Myers and newly elected Councilwoman Zanea Carpenter in voting in favor of the ordinance, while Councilwoman Alarcon voted against the ordinance.

After the measure was adopted, 4-1, applause erupted in the council chambers. Muleshoe was now a Sanctuary City for the Unborn.

The Muleshoe Ordinance

The Muleshoe SCFTU Ordinance prohibits:

(1) performing an elective abortion and aiding or abetting elective abortions within the city limits,

(2) elective abortions on residents – regardless of where the abortion takes place,

(3) abortion trafficking through the city,

(4) the mailing of abortion-inducing drugs into the city,

(5) criminal organizations from doing business inside the city limits, and

(6) the transportation or disposal of the remains of unborn children who have been killed by an elective abortion across state lines and carried by waste management companies into Texas in and through the city.

The ordinance is not enforced by the City of Muleshoe, their elected officials, or by any of their employees. Instead of being enforced criminally, the law is enforced civilly by private citizens. This is the same way the Texas Heartbeat Act is enforced, through a private enforcement mechanism allowing private citizens to file a lawsuit against anyone in violation of the law. 

The Muleshoe SCFTU Ordinance is the 13th ordinance to pass in 2026 and is identical in substance to all 12 of the other ordinances passed by Texas cities and counties in 2026 and all 29 of the ordinances passed by Texas cities and counties in 2025. 

Those interested in seeing their city or county join the initiative are encouraged to sign the online petition on the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn website.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2023, Law was arrested for selling over 1,200 suicide kits to individuals in 40 countries.

• He is estimated to have caused 130 deaths around the world, and was facing 14 murder charges in Ontario.

• Law's attorneys argued that assisted suicide is not murder, and therefore, he should not face murder charges.

• He has agreed to plead guilty to counseling or aiding suicide in exchange for prosecutors dropping the murder charges.

The Details:

Nearly two years after Law's attorneys argued that he should not be charged with murder, a plea deal has been reached. Law has agreed to plead guilty to counseling or aiding suicide; in exchange, prosecutors will drop all 14 murder charges against him.

Under the Canadian Criminal Code, abetting suicide carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. A murder conviction carries an automatic sentence of life in prison, with no chance of parole before 25 years.

“The plea will be to the charges of aiding suicide,” lawyer Matthew Gourley confirmed in an e-mail to the Associated Press.

The Backstory:

In 2023, Law was arrested for selling over 1,200 suicide kits online to people around the world. His kits consisted of sodium nitrate, flow regulators, and gas masks. He also provided instructions to the buyer on how best to use them in order to ensure death. It is believed that he is responsible for at least 130 deaths, with his victims ranging in age from 16 to 36.

In conversations with an undercover investigator, he boasted, “It will be literally in the hundreds. And they’ve all received it. We have had many, many customers in the UK who have purchased it.”

He also bragged that “many, many, many, many” people had died from his suicide kits, and that he was doing "God's work" by mailing the kits out.

In previous interviews, two mothers of his victims strongly disagreed that Law was doing good work.

“This trial is monumental in so many ways,” Kelli Wilson said. “These sites sell to vulnerable people. It’s aiding and abetting suicide, which is akin to murder. Law weaponized mentally ill people against themselves, and that can’t be allowed to continue. It’s a no-brainer. He needs to be held accountable for what he’s (allegedly) done. And the lawmakers, as well – they’ve facilitated these havens for crime.”

Catherine Adenekan added, “What he’s (allegedly) done is one of the worst things you could possibly do.”

Philip Nitschke, the notorious assisted suicide activist, praised Law's actions, however. “It’s a fundamental human right,” Nitschke said. “Kenneth was being a little unrestrictive. Elderly people have this idea that they should have a right to access the substances, but they’re not terribly sympathetic to the idea of teenagers going out there and buying a substance ... He’s helped them achieve their goals. We’re watching this trial with great interest.”

The Bottom Line:

Suicide is not something to be celebrated or aided, regardless of the status of the person. And helping someone to die and calling it assisted suicide rather than murder doesn't change the reality of what was done: a life was taken, no matter what authorities decide to call it.

Key Takeaways:

• The abortion pill is a drug that carries the intent to kill.

• Women are told that their babies are mere tissue at these first stages of life, but this is a marketing tactic to sell the abortion pill to vulnerable women and teens.

• Children develop rapidly in the womb. Just two weeks post-fertilization, their brains are beginning to form, and by 21 days, their hearts are already beating.

• Though marketed and dispensed even later in pregnancy, the abortion pill is currently only FDA-approved for use up to 10 weeks or pregnancy.

The Details:

The abortion pill is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use through 70 days (10 weeks) of pregnancy, however, abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood market it for use up to 84 days (12 weeks) of pregnancy. It's 'effectiveness' — marked by the success of both killing the baby and expelling the baby from the mother's uterus — decreases with each week.

Hence the 'hurry up and take the abortion pill' mentality of the abortion industry that wants to get women in and out and collect their money before they have a chance to choose life amid their fears and pressures to abort. Their major marketing strategy is convincing women that their babies are not yet babies, just mere "pregnancy tissue." <a href="/news/media-fire-photos-pregnancy-tissue-embryos">False images</a> of babies at these early stages of development abound. But here's the truth. The abortion pill is the leading abortion procedure in the nation, and is primarily used in the first three months of pregnancy to kill new human beings.

The abortion pill includes two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone is taken first, and it counteracts the natural pregnancy hormone progesterone, essentially depriving the child of the nutritional support and oxygen needed to survive. Misoprostol causes contractions that then expel the baby.

This is who the abortion pill kills.

Human being at six weeks gestation

By six weeks gestation (which is four weeks after fertilization; "gestational" age or LMP adds two weeks for the estimated time between a woman's menstruation and ovulation though the embryo does not come into being until after ovulation and fertilization), the brain has already developed into three identifiable primary sections — the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain. The heart forms between 18 and 22 days after fertilization (though it does not yet have four chambers) and is already beating, and the circulatory system is functioning.

"By [6 1/2 weeks gestation] portions of the brain forming the right and left cerebral hemispheres appear. The cerebral hemispheres will soon become the largest parts of the brain, eventually controlling everything from thought, speech, hearing, vision, voluntary movement, memory, and many other functions," notes the Endowment for Human Development.

Early eyes can be seen as well (at six weeks, three days), and limb buds have formed at six weeks. At six weeks, the baby's heart is functioning as two parallel pumps, and the small and large intestines have formed.

Human being at eight weeks gestation

"The permanent kidneys appear by 5 weeks [7 weeks gestation]," and by eight weeks, two days gestation (just six weeks, two days after fertilization), according to the Endowment for Human Development (EHD), "the embryo has brainwaves." 

Human being at nine weeks gestation

By nine weeks gestation (seven weeks after fertilization), the preborn baby's heart has four chambers and is beating at 165 to 170 beats per minute.

According to EHD, "Also by [9 weeks gestation], cell groupings resembling taste buds appear on the tongue and hiccups begin. Nasal plugs are prominent at this time and will persist for another 6 weeks or so."

Human being at 10 weeks gestation

By 10 weeks gestation, the baby can reach to touch her hands to her face. Her mouth opens and closes, and she can roll over.

Eyebrows begin to form and male babies are producing testosterone. In addition, the blood supply to the brain "closely resembles adult pattern," according to EHD, and the "cranial nerve distribution mimics adult pattern."

Human being at 12 weeks gestation

By 12 weeks gestation (10 weeks after fertilization), the baby's hands, face, and feet are sensitive to light touch and she can sigh, stretch, open her mouth, and move her tongue. Her fingernails and toenails have begun to form, and, according to EHD, "Drinking fluid is becoming routine."

View more details and images of life inside the womb at EHD's website.

Why It Matters:

These are the preborn babies routinely targeted by abortion pill manufacturers and prescribers and consistently dehumanized as simple "tissue." Abortion supporters will argue that these children are not "fully developed" and therefore, are not yet human beings. But just because they have not reached the stage of existence at which they can survive outside the womb does not mean they are not human.

Is a newborn less human because she cannot feed herself or walk? Is a toddler less human because he cannot read? Is a person with diabetes less human because his pancreas is not fully functioning? None of our abilities or inabilities, temporary or permanent, dictate our humanity. Every human being is a human person at all times and all stages of life.

Zoom Out:

Although the abortion pill is only FDA-approved through 10 weeks, women are able to access it and take it at any point in pregnancy because of a failure by the manufacturers to police prescribers and because of eroded safety protocols surrounding the drugs.

In 2024, during a traffic stop, police discovered the body of a baby boy inside the car. The woman, Mikayla Rose Sando, had learned she was pregnant at 16 weeks, and took "a pill" to abort the baby at about 21 to 22 weeks. His body was too big to flush down the toilet so she put him in a plastic bag in the car, where she kept him for days.

In 2020, a woman in the UK obtained the abortion pill by mail to have an abortion at seven months. Over 90% of babies born at this age survive.

A lawsuit filed against Planned Parenthood in 2022, alleged that the abortion giant gave the abortion pill to a woman who was 33-36 weeks pregnant following a 15 minute, two second telehealth conference. The woman went into "full labor," "experienced... a vaginal laceration or tear," and gave birth at three in the morning while sitting on the toilet to a "fully formed, stillborn baby boy named J.T."

Planned Parenthood also gave the abortion pill to Christin Lafo, who gave birth to a 22-week-stillborn baby into a toilet.

The Bottom Line:

The abortion pill is not medicine. Its intent is to kill, and safety rules surrounding mifepristone that were weakened under the Biden administration have made it easier than ever to kill babies.

5/12/26: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner Marty Makary resigned on Tuesday, 13 months after he took the position in the Trump administration. Stepping in as acting commissioner is Kyle Diamantas, according to reports.

Key Takeaways:

• Marty Makary has resigned from his post as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.

• During his time, he received criticism, especially from pro-life politicians and advocacy groups over his failure to produce a promised review of the abortion drug mifepristone.

• Kyle Diamantas, Deputy Commissioner for Food, will take over as acting commissioner until a permanent replacement is appointed.

• Diamantas worked for Baker Donelson and served as outside counsel for Planned Parenthood in Florida litigation involving whether it must stop committing abortions based on property regulations. Planned Parenthood won the case and was allowed to commit abortions.

The Details:

According to Politico, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Kr, was the one to make the call to push for Makary's resignation, which comes just days after President Trump said his administration was considering firing Makary following months of issues.

Issues leading to Makary's resignation

One major issue with Makary's work was that he had promised during his confirmation process to carry out a review on the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone. That review has yet to come to fruition; in the meantime, the FDA approved a generic version of the controversial, life-ending drug. In addition, Makary asked officials to delay the release of the mifepristone review until after midterm elections.

Following a Bloomberg Law report on the postponement of the review results, SBA Pro-Life America called for Makary to be fired.

Others joined the call. “Dr. Makary has failed to safeguard public health and safety. He has time to sign off on things like vaping and no awareness of chemical abortion pills that kill preborn babies in the hundreds and thousands,” Kristi Hamrick, the head of policy for the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, wrote in a text message to The 19th.

Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins noted, "One sacrificial firing at the FDA does not mean victory for the pro-life movement. A win is the enforcement of the federal Comstock Act, which would end the shipping of abortion pills, and the banning of these pills from the marketplace.”

New acting commissioner

As a permanent replacement for Makary is sought, Kyle Diamantas, the Deputy Commissioner for Food, will be the acting FDA commissioner. Diamantas was appointed as a Senior Counselor and Acting Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods at the FDA by Kennedy in February 2026.

A 2025 Vanity Fair piece states:

Diamantas’s LinkedIn profile is a study in brevity. He received a law degree from the University of Florida in 2013. He started his next-listed job, as an attorney at the law firm Jones Day in Miami, in 2021, ascending to partner last year.

His now archived Jones Day bio described him as having “more than 10 years of experience advising food, cosmetic, dietary supplement, drug, and other life sciences and consumer goods clients on a wide range of regulatory, compliance, and enforcement matters.” Prior to that job, he worked as a senior associate at the Orlando office of the law firm Baker Donelson.

Concerningly, it appears that while Diamantas worked for Baker Donelson, he served as outside counsel for abortion corporation Planned Parenthood in Florida litigation regarding a property use dispute over a medical complex in Kissimmee, Florida. MMB Properties, a cardiology practice in the same complex, sought to prevent Planned Parenthood of Orlando from committing abortions based on property use restrictions that said "outpatient surgical centers" were not allowed. The restriction did include an exception for any activities if they were “ancillary and incidental to a physician's practice of medicine.” The court found in favor of Planned Parenthood, ruling that it was not in violation of the rule because abortion was not the primary 'service' provided. Planned Parenthood was allowed to resume abortions after a temporary injunction was lifted. According to Life Legal, in 2019, a settlement was reached in a related legal action that prohibited Planned Parenthood of Orlando from committing surgical abortions.

Abortion pill safety review

Makary's promised abortion pill safety review is highly anticipated. It's been a year since an analysis by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) found that nearly 11% of women (10.93%) experience life-threatening adverse events including sepsis, infection, and hemorrhaging following a mifepristone abortion. That means one in ten women experience at least one serious complication from mifepristone within 45 days — a rate 22 times higher than the "less than 0.5 percent" serious adverse events rate report by the FDA on the mifepristone label.

In addition, on May 4, the Supreme Court temporarily restored mail-order abortion pill dispensing after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals paused the dispensing of the abortion pill by mail-order while a Louisiana lawsuit regarding safety protocols on the abortion pill continues. According to the Fifth Circuit, the current rules are "based on flawed or nonexistent data." The Supreme Court's stay on the Fifth Circuit's decision expires on Thursday, May 14.

The Bottom Line:

Recently, Diamantas spoke in an interview about the results of the largest ever safety test carried out on infant formula, saying, "[Formula] is safe."

"When we're thinking of policies, we're not thinking about Democrat kids and Republican kids. We're thinking about what's best for all kids," he said.

Surely, then, removing approval for a drug that intentionally kills children in the womb should be top priority.

Key Takeaways:

• The White House has launched Moms.gov, a resource designed to offer help and information to new and expecting mothers, parents, and families.

• Information available on the website includes listings for pregnancy resource centers and federally qualified health centers, along with information about nutrition, breastfeeding, health/wellness, and more.

• The website is nearly the opposite of one launched by the Biden administration in 2022, which appeared to offer pregnant women only abortion-related resources.

The Details:

Moms.gov, powered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), purports to offer "Resources, Information, and Help for New and Expecting Mothers" with the tagline, "Addressing the needs of mothers and fathers who face difficult or unexpected pregnancies and ensuring the wellbeing of mothers and the health of American families."

The site has a host of information designed to help new parents, with topics including:

• Accessing pregnancy resource centers and federally qualified health centers

• Nutrition information

• Breastfeeding

• Mental health

• Adoption

• Early Head Start

• Trump accounts

• Pregnancy-related health and wellness

The website also links to Option Line, a  pregnancy help contact center run by Heartbeat International. This hotline helps connect women with pregnancy resource centers in their local area, and offers a variety of life-affirming support designed to help parents who choose life for their preborn babies.

Additionally, Moms.gov provides links to adoption information and resources from groups like Focus on the Family, Lifeline Pregnancy Counseling, and Brave Love.

"This Mother's Day, the Trump Administration is strengthening its commitment to America's families by equipping mothers and fathers with the resources and information they need to build healthy, prosperous lives," said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. "Moms.gov delivers critical tools and support to help parents foster healthy pregnancies, strengthen young families, and create brighter futures for their children. This is how you Make America Healthy Again."

Zoom Out:

As noted by Daily Wire's Mary Margaret Olohan, the website appears to be in response to the Biden administration's 2022 launch of ReproductiveRights.org, which offered women no pregnancy resources or help, instead directing them to a host of abortion-related resources — including links informing minors about how to circumvent their parents to obtain abortions regardless of state law.

Notably, Moms.gov does not appear to have abortion-related information or resources listed on the site.

The Bottom Line:

Alabama Senator Katie Britt stated that the website's goal is to provide one location where pregnant women can find all the resources they need.

"One thing we're trying to do is to make sure we're pushing people to all these resources," she explained after President Trump announced the website's launch.

"When you either want to have a child or you find out you have a child, sometimes that's an exciting thing, and sometimes you're a little overwhelmed. We want all of those resources to be in one spot so that we can help these women in their journey to motherhood."

Instead, she says, the man everyone's actually looking for is the one no one online is talking about.

Key Takeaways:

• In this episode of Human Matters, host Sami Parker discusses two types of men prevalent online: the manosphere man and the progressive man.

• She says the manosphere man is reclaiming the male dominance lost to feminism, but doing so in a distorted way.

• Alternatively, the progressive man refuses to lead and avoids responsibility.

• In the middle is the good man, who becomes both a servant and a leader. This man models his life after Christ.

The Details:

Parker starts the episode juxtaposing two different kinds of men: the "manosphere" man and the "progressive" man. The manosphere man wants to “take the power and indulge in it,” while the progressive man "denounces power and responsibility entirely."

"These two visions of manhood look completely opposite," she explains, "but are both trying to answer the same question: What do I get out of being a man?"

These two differing ideals also result in the same thing: a man centered around himself.

The 'Manosphere' Man

Parker dives deeper into the problem of the manosphere man, describing him as someone who is reclaiming the male dominance lost to feminism, but doing so in a distorted way.

"In the manosphere, to be seen as 'high-value' you should seek wealth and status above pretty much anything else, but it's not directed towards the good of anything," Parker explains.

"You should work hard, you should work out and be strong, but not to protect your wife and kids. Not to protect those who are vulnerable around you. You should be strong so people around you perceive you as dominant."

This movement, she says, directs the male desires to lead and protect wrongly, putting the focus on the man himself instead of how he can serve and protect those around him.

The 'Progressive' Man

Alternatively, the progressive man is one who has taken a step back from leading. Instead, he avoids responsibility altogether.

"Progressivism convinces men to step back, sit down, and let the women and marginalized stand and do what men have been doing for centuries — providing, leading, and protecting," she says.

She later elaborates:

"This movement is appealing to men because it offers a relief for men to remove responsibility from their shoulders in the name of helping others. But it falls short because this 'goodness' just becomes passivity. It enables evil."

The Good Man

Thankfully, these two extremes are not the only options. In the middle of the two is the 'good' man, whom Parker says "is not one who rejects strength or indulges it, but one who orders his strength toward the good of others."

"He doesn’t choose between being a leader or a servant," she says. "He becomes both."

Notably, she says, many of these men aren't online — they are quietly living their lives, leading fearlessly and serving selflessly.

The Bottom Line:

Parker emphasized that the answer to the most important question — what is man for? — is found in Christ.

"A good man leads like Him, serves like Him, sacrifices like Him," she says. "When men live like that, women are safer, children are protected, and the world is a better place. That's the man no one's talking about, but he's the one we need."

Planned Parenthood deserves to be permanently defunded — and Live Action News' series, 'DEFUND 250,' plans to remind the public of many reasons why.

Planned Parenthood claims to "care, no matter what" for its patients, and consistently advocates for legalized abortion throughout all 40 weeks of pregnancy. But countless clients have dispelled this myth by sharing how horrifically they were treated by Planned Parenthood, including these 10. They prove that Planned Parenthood does not deserve the millions of dollars it receives in taxpayer funding.

Key Takeaways:

• Planned Parenthood has a closely guarded secret: it has a history of harming women, ignoring their cries, and coercing them to undergo abortions.

• For decades, women with abortion trauma stories have largely been silenced. Major media outlets ignore their stories, and so does Planned Parenthood.

• It's time to defund Planned Parenthood once and for all.

The Details:

For decades, women with abortion trauma stories have largely been silenced. Major media outlets ignore their stories, and Planned Parenthood pretends these women don't exist. Their stories deserve to be heard.

#1: Planned Parenthood aborted Dana's triplets despite her cries

In 2006, Dana walked into a Planned Parenthood facility, shaking and in tears, at 18 weeks pregnant. She didn't truly want an abortion, but she felt she had no choice.

She was pregnant with triplets, and though the babies' father was in jail, Dana and her mother began preparing for the babies. Then Dana got a call from someone telling her that her babies' father was using IV drugs.

"The fear started to set in," said Dana. "I began having horrible dreams of bad things happening, of my babies being sick, of something being wrong with them." She began to wonder if she should have an abortion.

Her fear had become irrational and overwhelming, and she decided to abort the babies.

Dana walked into Planned Parenthood, under obvious emotional strain, yet she received no counseling, no information on the abortion process, and was given a drink to calm her down and stop her from shaking. The next thing she knew, she was sitting in a white chair, and her heartbreak was immediate. But the abortion wasn't complete — Planned Parenthood had left some of her triplets' body parts inside her.

“I survived what a lot of women don’t survive,” she said. “I still had baby parts in my body. So I had two abortions. I didn’t have one. Because their little baby parts were still left inside me. And that makes you feel like that last piece of them is trying to hold on to you.”

The memory of her abortion still haunts her, and her grief is immeasurable.

#2: Christina's painful, traumatic abortion

Like many women who walk through the doors of Planned Parenthood, Christina felt she had no choice but abortion when facing an unplanned pregnancy. She was the last in line when every woman there was given Valium, and by the time it was her turn to abort, she felt it was no longer working.

She asked to see the ultrasound, and the doctor told her no because she might change her mind. Christina felt uncomfortable with that response, but with family pressuring her to abort, she didn't get up and leave. Then fear kicked in. A doctor she had never met came in the room, and she told him that the Valium and numbing shot were not working, but he didn't even respond.

"There was no HIPAA stuff, there was no verifying my name or DOB, nothing like that. Next thing I know I felt the worst pain I’ve ever felt in my life. I heard the sounds of a vacuum, it seemed. Honestly I thought we were doing the D&C, so when I hear suctioning, I was a bit surprised. The doctor smiled at me in the creepiest of ways as I (literally) screamed in pain as he sucked the life, literally, out of my body," she said.

The "nurses" held her down as she writhed in pain, and they covered her mouth to silence her screams. They told her to shut up, and when it was over, they told her to hurry up and get dressed.

She later learned that her boyfriend had tried to come in and stop the abortion, but they wouldn't let him.

She lived for years with shame, guilt, and horror.

#3: May was coerced by Planned Parenthood staff

May Banks went to Planned Parenthood after learning she was pregnant, but as an immigrant who spoke little English, she was unaware that Planned Parenthood was an abortion business. Staff allegedly took advantage of this.

As reported by SBA Pro-Life, Planned Parenthood told May she was pregnant, "but you don't have to be." She didn't understand what they meant, but they told her she had "no support... no money" and should schedule an appointment at another facility. She scheduled the appointment, thinking she would see a doctor who would answer her questions. Instead, she was booked for an abortion.

She didn't go to the appointment, but Planned Parenthood called to schedule another. When she arrived for the appointment, she was told to pay $200 and sign paperwork without a translator present. Then she was taken to a room, told to lie down, and given an IV. She started to "drift off."

As reported by SBA:

Then the horror began.

“I could hear what sounded like a vacuum machine,” Mayela testified. “I couldn’t move and felt like I was in a dark room. I thought I heard my baby screaming in pain. This is when my maternal instincts awakened. To my horror, I could do nothing to help my baby. This is how I finally learned what an abortion is.”

It turned out that she was further along than Planned Parenthood had said, and underwent a late-term abortion without her full consent. She now realizes Planned Parenthood ignored her rights, aborting her baby without consent, without consultation with a doctor, without explanation of the procedure, and without a translator.

She always wanted to be a mother, but after the abortion, she was never able to become pregnant again.

“When I look back, I see how young and vulnerable I was.” May said, “I was an easy target for the abortion industry.”

#4: Robin experienced pressure to abort from "calloused" staff

Robin Buckner shared that she was pressured into an abortion by her boyfriend and the staff at Planned Parenthood, whom she called "calloused" and who used "high-pressure tactics."

Before even getting information from the staff, they took her money and then showed her a short video on abortion that did not prepare her for what was to come. She explained:

I was treated like a lab rat. When the doctor (I assumed it was a doctor) and whoever was assisting him came into the room, neither of them acknowledged me, asked me any questions, introduced themselves or even checked to see who I was. They turned on a loud machine, I began to cry, they placed a mask on my mouth and nose and, before I knew it, the abortion was underway.

She tried to stop them, but she was ignored. Tears streamed down her face, she heard a thud in a metal container, and she felt sick.

She was sent home, where she spent the night with "cramps, chills, and heartache," and ultimately, she suffered complications, including an infection. But Planned Parenthood refused to help her. She had "no follow-up appointment, no check-up, no counseling."

Her grief caused her to lash out against those she loved as she pushed them away, too ashamed to tell them about the abortion.

#5: Alyona died from an abortion at Planned Parenthood

Alyona Dixon was a 24-year-old mother when she went to Planned Parenthood for an abortion in 2022. Planned Parenthood gave her the abortion pill mifepristone with instructions to take the second drug, misoprostol, 24-48 hours later intravaginally. The FDA protocols at the time stated that misoprostol should not be administered vaginally because of an increased risk of death.

As previously reported, cases of vaginal insertion of misoprostol are speculated to have led to the deaths of other women, although later evaluations determined this to be inconclusive.

A black box warning on the mifepristone label warns consumers that “[s]erious and sometimes fatal infections and bleeding occur very rarely following spontaneous, surgical, and medical abortions, including following MIFEPREX use. No causal relationship between the use of MIFEPREX and misoprostol and these events has been established.”

Alyona presented at Dignity Health four days later with "sharp lower abdominal pain." An ultrasound showed she could be retaining fetal body parts, a known complication of the abortion pill. She was sent home and told to follow up with her gynecologist. The next day, Alyona went to Desert View Hospital complaining of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, vaginal bleeding, and diarrhea.

The doctor noted that she could be septic, but after she improved a bit, it was suggested that she was dehydrated. She then worsened, and was transferred to Summerlin Hospital. She continued to deteriorate, and died at the hospital.

The Clark County Coroner’s Office said her cause of death was “complications from septic abortion" — an abortion carried out by Planned Parenthood.

#6: 'There was blood everywhere'

Kay shared her nightmare Planned Parenthood story at AbortionPIllRisks.org. In 2013, Kay faced an unplanned pregnancy, and called Planned Parenthood.

When she arrived for the abortion appointment, she had a short 10-minute consultation with the abortionist, who didn't want to answer any of her questions and called her "anal." She took the first drug of the abortion pill regimen (mifepristone) and later took two hydrocodone pills and misoprostol. Planned Parenthood told her to expect a heavy period, but that's not what happened.

"Within 15 minutes of the capsules dissolving, I felt heavy pressure in my lower abdomen and uncontrollable cramping. I was in so much pain I nearly fainted," she said. "Tears streaming down my face I called my husband back and told him I was dying. I told him to come home as fast as possible and I hung up… This pain was unimaginable. Indescribable. It was the worst pain I have ever felt. With every cramp, I felt my heart race and my blood pressure plummet. I felt nauseated, dizzy, and light-headed. By the time my husband arrived home a few minutes later, the water in the tub was colored red by blood and our dog was barking like mad in-between my screams."

Her husband called Planned Parenthood and was told her experience was "normal."

She passed a lemon-sized blood clot that she later determined could have been her baby's body in the amniotic sac. She bled for five weeks, and then one day, the bleeding became unmanageable.

"There was blood everywhere - on the seat, on the floor of the car, on the back of my skirt, down my legs (and completely soaked through the mega-pad Planned Parenthood had recommended). It all had happened in just a few seconds. He told me to go inside and to lie down. He called the number again, was told that this was “normal” and that I didn’t need to go to the hospital unless it happened continuously (i.e. unless I was hemorrhaging)," she said.

The experience was "awful," and "traumatic," and "the worst experience of my life." She blames Planned Parenthood for failing to warn her of the true effects of the abortion pill.

#7: Nona's abortion led to infertility

Nona was date raped at the age of 15 and, after realizing she was pregnant, was pressured by her sister and her mother to have an abortion. She was taken to the Planned Parenthood counseling room alone, where she was told that the abortion may leave her infertile. At 15, she didn't think much of it, but she knew that if her sister and mother had been in the room, they would have stopped the abortion.

A doctor she had never met came to do the abortion, which was extremely painful. In the recovery room, girls were screaming and crying.

"I felt relief afterwards but I was also emotionally numb. I turned away from my Christian upbringing. I started being more sexually promiscuous and doing a lot of drugs and doing a lot of drinking and skipping school. Things emotionally got worse for me. I ended up marrying a man that was very verbally and physically abusive," she said.

Through 18 years of marriage, Nona suffered five miscarriages and never welcomed a baby.

“It has been very traumatizing for me to go through life not being able to have children. And going to baby showers is very difficult and seeing all my friends and relatives raise their kids and it’s been really hard,” she said. “The counselor did not ask me if I agreed, or if we wanted any other information regarding what kind of support would be available to us if we decided to move forward with the pregnancy, nor did she mention the option of adoption.”

#8: Katie's forced 'soul-crushing' abortion

Katie shared that she went to Planned Parenthood with her boyfriend for a pregnancy test, which was positive. While there, the staff asked what they wanted to do about the baby. "My boyfriend spoke up, quickly and firmly, with one word, 'ABORTION.' It was the first time that word had been spoken between us," said Katie.

In fact, the staffer encouraged abortion as "the responsible choice" and lied about the baby's development.

A few days later, her boyfriend called to schedule the abortion, and Katie called to cancel it. She didn't want an abortion, but her boyfriend became "threatening." He ultimately threatened to kill himself if she didn't have an abortion.

With friends also telling her to abort, she went through with the abortion. Despite her hesitance and the tears streaming down her face, Planned Parenthood committed the abortion, and Katie heard the nurse say, "You got it. I just saw it come through the tube." These "words were an absolute soul-crushing reality," said Katie. "They could see the baby. The baby was big enough to SEE."

The coerced abortion led to a "toxic" relationship and intense regret.

#9: Nelle said Planned Parenthood lied to her

Nelle shared that at age 21, she found herself pregnant and went to Planned Parenthood, where she was advised to take the abortion pill. She was given a packet of information, but only the first page was reviewed with her.

“The ENTIRE time I was there I was told LIES!  They said, ‘There are no real risks, this is like a period, light cramping, it’ll all be over within 2 days,'” she explained.

After taking the mifepristone and being sent home, she was finally able to read the rest of the information. There was information no one told her, including that she would bleed for as long as three weeks.

"That would have been great to know beforehand. I would have NEVER opted for this method if I knew that vital piece of information," she said. "I had asked multiple nurses and they assured me it would all be clear within a few days!"

She took the misoprostol and became a "sweaty, bloody, crying mess." Having previously undergone a surgical abortion, she said the abortion pill was much more "painful" and "terrifying" than an in-clinic surgical abortion. After a few hours, she gave birth to her dead baby in the amniotic sac.

#10: Tonya died at the hands of Planned Parenthood

Tonya Reaves was a mother who became pregnant and decided to undergo an abortion in the second trimester at a Planned Parenthood facility. After the D&E dismemberment abortion, she began to bleed heavily, and she was left to bleed for over five hours before Planned Parenthood called an ambulance.

Doctors at the hospital found that the abortion had been incomplete and there were fetal body parts still inside her. They carried out a second abortion, but the bleeding and pain didn't stop. A second ultrasound revealed that Tonya had suffered a perforated uterus, a known complication of abortion. She was taken into surgery, but doctors were unable to save her life.

An autopsy report later solidified Planned Parenthood's negligence, detailing that if Reaves had received appropriate care in a timely manner, she likely would have survived.

She is not the first or last woman to die at the hands of Planned Parenthood.

The Bottom Line:

Planned Parenthood cares about its bottom line, but American taxpayers are funding the paychecks of the abortion corporation's CEOs. Meanwhile, women and children are suffering and dying.

It's time to defund Planned Parenthood for good.

Key Takeaways:

• Daniel Hernandez is in a relationship with Aliday Alter, who is currently pregnant.

• At a gender reveal party, Hernandez said he would make Alter have an abortion if she was carrying a girl; at the party, it was revealed she is having a boy.

• Gendercide is a global problem, including in the United States, and bias against baby girls has been a problem throughout history and across cultures.

The Details:

Aliday Alter recently announced her pregnancy on social media, writing that her "world is about to change." She and rapper Daniel Hernandez couple planned a gender reveal party, and video first shared by TMZ has created some controversy.

In a livestream from the party, Hernandez was asked by friends what he thought the baby would be. "If it's not a boy, then it's abortion," he said, as his friends all reacted with shock.

The group then went to talk to Alter and ask what she thought the baby would be; after she said it was a girl, Hernandez doubled down.

"I said, if it's not a boy, it's abortion," he reiterated, as Alter appeared to laugh nervously next to him. "She's down! She's open-minded."

Video posted by the couple on social media revealed that their baby is a boy.

Hernandez is already the father to two girls with two different mothers.

According to Page Six, he also has a long criminal history, including one incredibly disturbing felony charge of "use of a [13-year-old] child in a sexual performance" which involved pornographic video. The complaint is graphic (CONTENT WARNING).

He has also been involved in numerous shooting incidents, has alleged ties to gang activity, and has been accused several times of domestic violence and domestic assault.

Why It Matters:

Gendercide, which is what Hernandez was demanding of his girlfriend, is sadly not new. Fatal discrimination against girls, simply for being girls, has occurred throughout history; it continues to take place today across the globe.

Consider, for example, a disturbing quote from a Roman soldier, Hilarion, from a letter written in 1 BC to his wife, Alis, in which he instructs her to murder their child if it was a baby girl (emphasis added):

Know that we are still even now in Alexandria. Do not worry if when they all return I remain in Alexandria. I beg and beseech you to take care of the little child, and as soon as we receive wages I will send them to you.

If - good luck to you! - you give birth, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is a girl, throw it out.

You told Aphrodisias, ‘Do not forget me.’ How can I forget you? I beg you therefore not to worry.

The evil of his instruction to murder his own female child was not atypical of that period. And yet, some societies have yet to move past gendercide; it persists even today, both casually — as shown by Hernandez — and systemically.

In recent years, gendercide against girls is most notably seen in Asian countries and cultures, with particularly dire consequences in countries which also had strict population control policies in place.

In countries like Nepal, India, and China, where there are cultural preferences for sons, the sex ratios have become seriously skewed. The practice continued in western countries as well, largely due to immigrants, and persists today, according to recent reports from the United Nations; a Live Action investigation found that gendercide is accepted by the abortion industry in the United States as well.

The Bottom Line:

Gendercide is a despicable practice, of taking someone's life purely because of their sex; doing so with a preborn child, a human being at his or her most vulnerable, is even more evil. It is unsurprising that men and cultures that treat women as mere sexual objects might also treat baby girls as objects that they fail to value otherwise.

Key Takeaways:

• Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone announced she is pregnant with her first child.

• She is scaling back her training regimen to ensure her baby's safety and health, though she does intend to return to elite competition in the future.

• McLaughlin-Levrone hopes to compete in the 2028 Olympics, and serve as an inspiration to her child.

The Details:

The gold medalist and world champion, who is pregnant with her first child with husband Andre Levrone Jr., has said she has toned down on her training intensity so that her baby takes priority, even as she is preparing for a potential return to elite competition down the line.

Announcing her pregnancy in January in an Instagram post, McLaughlin-Levrone revealed that she has “made a human with my favorite human." Since then, McLaughlin-Levrone has openly talked about tweaking her training routine, declaring that her baby’s well-being now influences every decision she makes. 

“Training definitely looks different these days, not as rigorous, but still trying to maintain some sense of normalcy on the track,” McLaughlin-Levrone said.

In the early months of her pregnancy, McLaughlin-Levrone had to combat morning sickness throughout the day. While she has overcome that stage, McLaughlin-Levrone is proceeding with her sports career more slowly than she normally would due to her baby’s health. 

“My number one goal right now is to deliver my daughter healthy, have a healthy baby in July, and then we’ll start working our way back for the Olympics,” McLaughlin-Levrone added. “But yeah, I think that’s the goal. That’s where my mind is focused, and it’s going to be a journey to get there, but I’m excited to take it one step at a time and see what we can do.” 

“Whether it’s the running, the lifting, all the different things, my body is changing in good ways. The number one most important thing is, you know, taking care of the baby’s health,” she added.

Zoom In:

Previously, McLaughlin-Levrone explained how she and her husband adopted a “calculated approach to parenthood” to juggle her desire for motherhood and her ambition to compete in the 2028 Olympics:

"We definitely had it on our radar that you only get so many considered 'off years' in track and field when there are no global championships. So that was our prayer and our hope, and... we’re grateful that, you know, we were blessed to be able to do it at... the right time and... hopefully have time to come back for... the Olympics.

I definitely have heard of what they call, you know, mom strength when you come back to the track or the field or whatever it is, and... just a different kind of... resilience. It’s gonna be a journey to get back there one step at a time."

Although McLaughlin-Levron disclosed that she initially had concerns about  whether she would come back as the same athlete or lose a step in speed after giving birth, she ultimately acknowledged, “But... I’ve also known my whole life that I wanted to be a mom, you know, and so that’s like a beautiful opportunity and journey that we’re on. And I’m going to cherish that for what it is. And it’ll bring a different type of motivation coming back to the track once we make it through this.” 

The Big Picture:

McLaughlin-Levrone can look to a strong line of mothers in track and field for inspiration, including Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce and Allyson Felix.

Fraser-Pryce, in particular, faced a difficult pregnancy in 2017 and needed longer than expected to recover from a cesarean delivery, yet she still made her way back to the sport and won gold at the 2019 world championships. 

Oftentimes, pregnancy is framed by pro-abortion advocates as a threat to a woman’s freedom, career, or identity. Yet McLaughlin-Levrone’s story contests that narrative by showing that a woman can be both a mother and an elite athlete, and that her child’s presence can deepen her purpose rather than diminish it. The sports champion’s journey of motherhood reflects how she treats her preborn child as a member of the family, deserving care, attention, and love.

McLaughlin-Levrone’s language depicting her pregnancy journey exudes gratitude, responsibility, and joy at being a mother. Her realistic attitudes towards pregnancy, such as admitting the challenges associated with child-bearing, can also be considered in light of how she still does not treat her unborn child as an inconvenience or liability to her career. 

As a publicly professed Christian, McLaughlin-Levrone’s faith-centered attitude helps make sense of why she embraces her pregnancy as a gift to be welcomed, and how children are not hindrances to personal fulfillment in her view, but part of God’s plan for a rewarding life. 

The Bottom Line:

It is noteworthy that McLaughlin-Levrone is not abandoning her sports career for motherhood, but ordering it appropriately around her preborn child.

Pro-life advocates do not require that women sacrifice their careers or suppress their talents for motherhood, but instead, view welcoming new lives into the world as a noble and rewarding vocation worthy of sacrifice. 

Key Takeaways:

• Two people, a 17 year old and 20 year old, have been charged with capital murder after shooting a pregnant woman, resulting in the death of the woman's child.

• It is unclear from news reports if the baby died in utero, or if the infant died following an emergency C-section.

• Texas has fetal homicide laws recognizing preborn children as murder victims, but this is not true for every state.

The Details:

According to Fox 4 News, 17-year-old Yeremy Zapata Aleman and 20-year-old Keyner Calero Jiron are accused of getting into an altercation with a man at a local business; the man then got into a vehicle and drove away.

Aleman and Jiron then allegedly fired at the vehicle, striking a pregnant woman who was sitting inside. The woman was transported to a local hospital, where her baby died as a result of the injuries. It is unclear from news reports if the baby died in utero, or if the woman underwent an emergency C-section and the infant then died.

Both suspects have been charged with capital murder, due to the death of the baby.

Zoom In:

A capital murder charge in Texas is brought when a person murders an individual under 10 years of age.

Though sources are not clear whether or not the baby died inside or outside his or her mother's womb, the cause of death remains the same — homicide.

Texas has fetal homicide laws recognizing that preborn children can be murder victims, but this wouldn't be the case in every state. According to National Right to Life, as of January 2024, 39 states have enacted laws that recognize fetal victims of homicide in at least some cases. However, some states have no recognition. Had this incident occurred elsewhere in the country and the baby died in his mother's womb, there may have been no murder charges.

The Bottom Line:

The humanity of the preborn child does not depend on where the child's mother resides; all preborn children are humans deserving of full protection, regardless of their location (including in or out of the womb).

Key Takeaways:

• British rapper Aitch recently raised £26,315 for the Down's Syndrome Association in the UK.

• Aitch has been vocal about his love and support for his sister Gracie, who has Down syndrome.

• Influencers like Aitch who use their platforms to spread awareness and advocate for change play a big role in swaying how society perceives a Down syndrome diagnosis.

The Details:

Aitch (whose real name is Harrison Armstrong), is a BRIT award-winning rapper, who has been vocal about his support and love for his sister, Gracie, who has Down syndrome. Now, he is making headlines once again with news that he donated more than £26,000 to the Down’s Syndrome Association (DSA) 

Aitch raised the £26,315 for the DSA at a Padel Party he organized in his hometown of Manchester. The event, which took place on World Down Syndrome Day on March 21, was put on especially in honor of Gracie.

"As a family, we experience both the joys and the challenges of raising a child with Down's syndrome. Alongside the challenges comes an incredible amount of love, perspective and moments of pure joy that shape our lives every day," the Armstrong family said in a statement following the event.

"Events like this are so important in helping raise awareness, build understanding and create a more inclusive world where difference is accepted and celebrated. They also play a vital role in supporting organisations like the Down's Syndrome Association, whose work makes a real difference to families like ours."

Why it Matters:

In many places throughout the world, most preborn babies who receive a Down syndrome diagnosis in the womb are aborted. This eugenic practice is true in the UK, where preborn babies can be legally aborted up to birth if they are given a Down syndrome diagnosis. Recent efforts to amend this discriminatory law have failed.

Influencers like Aitch who use their platforms to spread awareness and advocate for change play a big role in swaying how society perceives a Down syndrome diagnosis.

The rapper previously expressed why he advocates for those with Down syndrome:

"My main thing, really and truly, is because I don't want Down Syndrome to be seen as a negative thing. I don't want anyone to go like, oh yeah, my kid's got Down Syndrome, or my sister's got Down Syndrome. And anyone to have the reply of, 'Oh, I'm sorry to hear that' because it's just definitely not the case. They're the best people in the world."

The Bottom Line:

Carol Boys, Chief Executive of the Down's Syndrome Association, thanked Aitch for using his voice to honor those with Down syndrome.

"Through his art, and his work as a patron for the DSA, Aitch is harnessing his fame and his talent to honour Gracie's determination and spirit, but also to send a powerful message that inclusion and opportunity for people who have Down's syndrome should know no limits," Boys said.

"We are immensely grateful for everything Aitch, alongside all his family, do for us, and for people who have Down's syndrome."

Key Takeaways:

• Several thousand pro-life marchers reportedly met in Dublin and pushed for lawmakers to keep the country's three-day waiting period between a doctor's consultation and a woman's abortion.

• Speakers at the March urged more tangible support for women experiencing unplanned pregnancies.

• Though pro-lifers have been told that the debate about abortion in Ireland is over, it is clear from the country's strong pro-life participation in the march that this is not true.

The Details:

Organizers said this year’s event was primarily focused on the number of abortions in Ireland. The march commenced at Stephen’s Green before the attendees proceeded to Molesworth Street.

As they marched, participants held signs which read, “pro-woman, pro-baby, pro-life,” as well as other signs reading, “abortion betrays women” and “real debate not groupthink.” 

The march took place in light of Irish Social Democrats leader Holly Cairns’ introduction of new legislation attempting to roll back various protections such as a "three-day mandatory waiting period" before an abortion, which Cairns called "paternalistic," and more.

Cairns said the bill would outline the rules around abortions for medical reasons, including cases of fatal fetal abnormality, do away with the present three-day waiting period between GP consultations before an abortion, and remove what she termed as the “criminalization of doctors.” 

In turn, march attendees called on the Irish government to retain the three-day waiting period between a doctor’s consultation and the procedure. 

Additionally, representatives of the Catholic Church in Ireland denounced Cairns’ proposal, with Bishop Kevin Doran, chair of the Council for Life of the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference, proclaiming: 

''This week saw the introduction of yet another bill in the Oireachtas, to further extend the availability of abortion. This raises the question as to why a small number of public representatives are so determined to ignore the truth, or to deny it entirely.”

During the march, participants heard speeches from a number of speakers, among them Independent Ireland TD Ken O’Flynn, Aontú councillor Ellen Troy, and Pro Life Campaign (PLC) spokeswoman Caroline Simons, RTE reported. 

A prominent speaker at the event was Independent TD Ken O’Flynn, who pointed out that the abortion debate is still very much underway. 

O’Flynn declared:

“We are being told that this debate is over, we are told that there is nothing left for us to discuss, and yet we see efforts from the left to remove the safeguards, to expand access, to go further and further.” 

“We need to change the course that we’re on, because if we’re serious about being pro-life, then we must be serious about being pro-woman," O’Flynn elaborated. "That means support, real support, because it is not enough just to say ‘I choose life’ if life does not feel like an option." 

Likewise, in remarks cited by RTE, Eilís Mulroy of the Pro Life Campaign, which organized the march, indicated: 

''Not every woman who rings a State-level hotline is looking for an abortion. You don't have to be somebody who voted 'no' to repeal the Eighth Amendment back in 2018 to agree that women should be given all of the information they deserve when they are looking for help.” 

Similarly, PLC spokesperson Caroline Simons said that women should receive stronger support, particularly when procuring advice or assistance. 

''Most women have abortions because they don't have the facilities to look after babies. They need financial support, they need emotional support, they need to be able to continue their education and perhaps their employment," Simons acknowledged. "That's where we should be giving the help.''

One participant in the march, Cathal Hendron, explained to Live Action News his motives for traveling hours from Northern Ireland to Dublin to attend the event, saying, “I decided to travel from County Tyrone to Dublin to march in memory of all unborn children, especially the tens of thousands that have been killed across this island in just a few years.” 

The Bottom Line:

For pro-life advocates, the recent Dublin march showcased how the abortion debate in Ireland is far from over. The pro-life movement in Ireland has not faded into oblivion after Ireland’s 2018 referendum that liberalized abortion around the country.

Key Takeaways:

• Hassan-James Abbas was originally indicted on six felonies after he ordered abortion drugs and forced the pills into his girlfriend's mouth.

• Abbas had previously treated the woman with anti-nausea medication before beginning their romantic relationship, therefore establishing a doctor-patient relationship, and the Ohio Medical Board suspended Abbas's medical license.

• After Abbas administered the abortion drugs by force, the woman lost her preborn baby.

• Abbas pled no contest to four of the six felony charges against him.

The Backstory:

As previously reported, Ohio doctor Hassan-James Abbas established a doctor-patient relationship with the victim when he prescribed anti-nausea medication to her. Abbas, despite being married to someone else, began a romantic relationship with the patient in October of 2024, claiming that he and his wife were separated at the time. He was then a surgical resident at the University of Toledo Medical Center.

In December, the woman found out she was pregnant. "I just told him that I took a test. I sent him a picture of it, you know, I was happy to talk to him about it and have a conversation. He called me on the phone and was screaming at me, just erratic behavior that I have never seen before," she said.

She visited him at his home, and he repeatedly offered her drinks, which she said was unusual behavior. She eventually fell asleep, but woke up to find Abbas on top of her with his fingers in her mouth, and she said she felt a powder in her mouth. When she tried to call 911, Abbas took the phone from her and hung up.

"I lay there and I went back and forth on if he was gonna kill me, you know. That was my biggest thought was that he was going to kill me," she said. Once she escaped, she was able to drive herself to the hospital, but it was too late; her preborn baby did not survive.

Abbas was indicted on six felony charges, including abduction, unlawful distribution of an abortion-inducing drug, disrupting public services, deception to obtain a dangerous drug, identity fraud, and tampering with evidence.

WTOL reported:

Board documents allege Abbas ordered mifepristone and misoprostol on Dec. 8 using his estranged wife’s identity, administered the crushed pills on Dec. 18, interrupted the woman’s attempt to call 911, and disposed of the remaining medication by throwing it out of his car window on his way to work.

The victim also filed a civil lawsuit, but a judge denied her request for anonymity and said the lawsuit could only be filed if she used her real name.

The Details:

Abbas has now pleaded no contest to four of the felony charges against him and has been convicted on charges of disrupting public services, unlawful distribution of an abortion pill, identity fraud, and deception to obtain dangerous drugs. He faces up to five years in prison, and a $15,000 fine.

Under the plea deal, the third-degree felony charges of abduction and tampering with evidence were both dropped.

According to prosecutor Jessica Worley, Abbas used his estranged wife’s name to order abortion drugs online. Once they were delivered to him, he crushed them and mixed them into hot chocolate and tea, but when the victim refused to drink them, he resorted to physically forcing them into her mouth.

The victim has now been identified as Jona Affholder, who said she was angry about the plea deal Abbas was able to take. “It is important that he be held accountable for what he did,” she said. Affholder also pointed out that he pleaded no contest rather than guilty, insinuating that he still is not fully taking responsibility for what he did.

The Bottom Line:

Abbas' crimes were able to be committed so easily because of the ease at which abortion drugs can be ordered and purchased online and through the mail, in part thanks to lifted safety restrictions on mifepristone by the Obama and Biden administrations.

No verification is necessary regarding who is ordering the abortion pills or why, which has led to <a href="/news/greater-access-abortion-pill-hand-forced-abortions">numerous cases</a> of forced and coerced abortion.

The counselor suggested that the family take a spring break vacation together, but on the day that they returned, Catherine's husband began poisoning her with abortion drugs.

Key Takeaways:

• Catherine Herring learned she was pregnant with her third child one week after her husband asked for a separation.

• He began poisoning her with abortion drugs. Thankfully, her daughter survived.

• Easy access to the abortion pill through the internet and mail order has led to an increase in forced/coerced abortion.

• The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently paused mail-order abortions as a Louisiana lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proceeds. The Supreme Court quickly issued a temporary stay, blocking that decision. That stay expires on May 11 at 5 p.m. (EDT), pending further action from the Supreme Court.

The Details:

According to Alliance Defending Freedom, it was March 2022 when Catherine's husband brought her breakfast in bed and a drink of water. He pushed for her to drink the water quickly, telling her she hadn't been drinking enough, and that's when she noticed that the water she had been drinking was not just water. It was "milky."

Catherine began violently cramping and experienced severe bleeding. She called a pregnancy hotline, telling them that she didn't know what she had ingested but described how sick she was feeling and said that she had heard about 'abortion pill reversal.' They told her she should take progesterone (to counteract the effects of mifepristone). Catherine happened to have a progesterone prescription on hand from her previous pregnancy. She then went to the emergency room for eight hours.

"Sadly, the poisoning attempts were just beginning," she said. "So over the next 39 days, he attempted six more times in various drinks. He did it in front of two eye witnesses on drink number five and on drink number seven, a private investigator and I had cameras installed in my kitchen. We caught him making the seventh drink."

Her baby, Josephine, survived. Catherine credits the progesterone with saving her daughter's life. She has noted, however, that Josephine — who was born premature — has special needs.

Mason Herring accepted a plea deal in 2024, in which he admitted to spiking his wife's drink with an abortion drug (misoprostol). He was sentenced to just six months in prison with 10 years probation on charges of injury to a chid under 15, bodily injury, and assault of a pregnant person. But after violating his probation, he was sentenced to eight years in prison in October.

Why It Matters:

Catherine and little Josephine are not alone.

Many women have been unknowingly dosed with abortion drugs as well as with the abortion pill (mifepristone) thanks to changes made to the abortion pill's REMS guidelines under the Obama administration in 2016 and the Biden administration in 2023. Online and mail-order access to the abortion pill allows abusive men to obtain the drugs and give them to women without their knowledge or consent.

The lack of regulations has allowed people with evil intentions to access the drugs and kill preborn children in forced abortions.

Recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals paused mail order abortions as a Louisiana lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proceeds. The Supreme Court quickly issued a temporary stay, blocking that decision at the request of abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories. That stay expires on May 11 at 5 p.m. (EDT), pending further action from the Supreme Court.

Key Takeaways:

• Canada is on track to allow euthanasia for mental illness.

• At a recent government hearing, experts argued that people should be able to undergo euthanasia for eating disorders.

• People in Canada have been approved for euthanasia for poverty, disability, and other reasons that do not involve terminal illness.

The Details:

Canada is set to legalize MAID for mental illness next year, though there continues to be pushback against the expansion. During a hearing for the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee on Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD), Conservative MP Andrew Lawton questioned Dr. Mona Gupta, a psychiatrist, about the potential for euthanasia being allowing for eating disorders. During the exchange, Gupta was vague about what would and wouldn't qualify someone for euthanasia.

"The legislation is clear that it's trying to capture people in certain kinds of clinical circumstances, rather than point to specific diagnoses," she said. "So I would say that what's important is the circumstances of the person, not the medical category we classify them with."

Lawton then pushed back, asking if any conditions could be ruled out as never qualifying for MAID, but Gupta continued to be vague in her answers.

"There are certainly diagnoses that, by definition, are intended to be time-limited or reactive to certain kinds of circumstances, and I think we can safely assume that those would not meet the legislated criteria as they are currently," Gupta said, to which Lawton asked, "Do you believe an eating disorder could qualify someone for MAID?"

Still, Gupta remained vague. "Again, I think the legislation is clear that it really depends on the circumstances of the person," she said.

"So it could?" Lawton pressed, to which Gupta finally admitted, "Potentially."

She then admitted that people diagnosed with depression could likewise be eligible for euthanasia, if they are deemed to be "treatment resistant," though she still remained vague about the details of what that would entail.

Zoom Out:

The Eat Breathe Thrive Foundation for Eating Disorders issued a statement opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide for eating disorders, with "Game of Thrones" and "X-Men" actress Sophie Turner — herself a survivor of an eating disorder — signing on to the letter. The statement highlighted the disturbing trend of euthanasia for eating disorders.

A recent study revealing at least sixty published cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia among patients with eating disorders in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United States, raises significant public safety concerns. A third of the cases involved young people in their teens and twenties, some of whom had never received comprehensive treatment before they were assisted in suicide. This highlights a tragic failure of healthcare systems, legal safeguards, and a grave violation of physicians’ ethical duty to do no harm.

Eating disorders are treatable conditions that require timely and comprehensive treatment. Yet many cannot access care due to cost, inadequate insurance coverage, extensive wait times, and a shortage of specialist services. The notion that they are incurable or terminal is scientifically unsupported and dangerously misleading. The term “terminal anorexia” is not recognized by any formal medical body, has been widely rejected by researchers and clinicians, and represents a profound misunderstanding of these conditions.

While assisted suicide advocates have tried to portray eating disorders as terminal conditions, eating disorder advocacy groups have strongly disagreed. The National Association of Anorexia Nervosa & Associated Disorders (ANAD) likewise published a statement arguing that "terminal anorexia" is not a real diagnosis, and that assisted suicide is not a valid response to eating disorders.

"ANAD fears that this label could be used as a justification for providers to offer medical aid in dying and overlook the fact recovery remains possible even after decades of chronic illness," the letter said, adding, "We must not confuse ‘chronic’ with ‘terminal.’ Being labeled with a terminal illness has the potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Regardless of the duration or severity of the illness, everyone deserves access to quality care."

The Bottom Line:

Euthanasia is not an answer to any and all potential suffering one may experience, yet that is what advocates seem to want. Rather than offering people the hope of legitimate health care and healing, they are told that their only option is death.

While Brownfield, Texas (pop. 9,976), is the latest city in Texas to outlaw abortion trafficking, it may not be the latest for long.

Residents in two other cities have successfully completed citizen-initiative petition processes, as outlined in their Home Rule city charters. Both cities are located on major roads used for abortion trafficking outside the State of Texas.

Muleshoe, Texas

On Monday, April 27, a Citizen Initiative Petition proposing an Ordinance Outlawing Abortion, Declaring Muleshoe a Sanctuary City for the Unborn was filed with Muleshoe City Secretary Tamara Cain.

On Friday, May 1, Secretary Cain shared, “Out of 238 signatures collected on this petition, 164 were qualified.” The Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance will be considered at Muleshoe’s next city council meeting on Monday, May 11, 2026.

J.C. Carpenter, an ambassador with the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn Initiative, is one of many pro-life advocates who helped the citizens of Muleshoe reach their goal. Carpenter shared:

"I wish abortion had been illegal when I ended the life of my first child when I was 18. Had abortion been illegal then, I would not have done it. I do not believe the family member I trusted would have suggested it either, had it been illegal.”

While abortion is outlawed in the State of Texas, there are no gestational limits on abortion in the State of New Mexico, which is less than 25 miles from the City of Muleshoe.

Carpenter continued:

“I have prayed at abortion businesses in New Mexico and seen the Texas license plates for myself. I believe Texas cities and counties should do everything possible to protect residents and those who are traveling through their communities from the horror and atrocity of abortion.”

On U.S. Hwy 84, a major road running through Muleshoe, a billboard facing Texas residents driving towards New Mexico reads, “Turn around. Texas laws protect you and your baby. Abortion kills.”

In a June 23, 2023, story from KUT News, abortion provider Amy Hagstrom Miller shared, “Nearly all of the appointments made at Whole Woman’s Health in Albuquerque have been made by Texans.”

The passage of Sanctuary for the Unborn ordinances outlawing abortion trafficking, like the one Muleshoe is considering on Monday, does appear to be making a difference.

In an interview with National Public Radio published January 23, 2024, it was reported that 85% of abortion provider Alan Braid’s business at Alamo Women's in Albuquerque, New Mexico, comes from the State of Texas. Braid told the news outlet that abortion travel bans like the one passed in Lubbock County were having an impact on clinics throughout New Mexico.

According to Braid, “They’re having higher no-show rates because people are afraid to drive through Lubbock..." as a result of such measures.

On September 10, 2024, The Texas Observer reported:

The chilling effect has already deterred patients. Amy Hagstrom Miller, who ran a network of abortion clinics in Texas before relocating her Whole Woman’s Health centers to New Mexico and other states after Roe was overturned, said she has already seen the impact on her patients. When news broke that Lubbock County would be considering an abortion travel ban, every patient from Dallas canceled their appointments at the Albuquerque clinic.

The story goes on to report:

Andrea Gallegos—who helps manage two clinics in New Mexico after she relocated from Texas last year with her father, longtime abortion provider Dr. Alan Braid—echoed the observation. The clinics, whose Texas-based patients make up 85 percent of their clientele, have experienced higher than average no-show rates because people are afraid to drive through Lubbock...

On Tuesday, March 12, 2026, the NM Sentinel released an undercover video from November 26, 2025. The video was filmed inside Valley Abortion Group -- a late-term abortion facility in Albuquerque that provides abortions up to 34 weeks.

In the video, the abortion facility employee states, “90% of our patients are from Texas. It’s like, rare to see even New Mexicans here... So it’s a majority, because it’s like a whole country over there."

Carpenter shared:

“I know firsthand women trafficked into New Mexico for abortions who were returned to Texas traumatized, wounded, and negatively impacted. I pray that Muleshoe and every other Texas city and county would love Texas mothers and their unborn children enough to make the right decision and protect them with these lifesaving measures.”

In August 2023, twenty 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.​

Ranger, Texas

On Monday, May 1, a Citizen Initiative Petition proposing an Ordinance Outlawing Abortion, Declaring Ranger a Sanctuary City for the Unborn was filed with Ranger City Manager Charlie Archer. The Petitioner’s Committee initiating the ordinance included: Gary Wayne McDaniel, Sylvanus G Underwood, Ruby Page Underwood, Blanca Estela Vasquez, and Jack Steven Jackson, Sr.

On the same day the petition was filed, Archer notified the petitioners that they had reached the required number of qualified signatures, as determined by the Ranger City Charter. Ranger’s ordinance will be considered at their next city council meeting on May 11, 2026, at the same time as the City of Muleshoe will be considering its ordinance.

While U.S. Hwy 84 is the major route used for abortion trafficking going through Muleshoe, Interstate-20 is the major route used for abortion trafficking going through the City of Ranger.

The Ordinances

The proposed ordinances prohibit:

(1) performing an elective abortion and aiding or abetting elective abortions within the city limits of Muleshoe / Ranger,

(2) elective abortions on residents of each Muleshoe / Ranger – regardless of where the abortion takes place,

(3) abortion trafficking through each city,

(4) the mailing of abortion-inducing drugs into Muleshoe / Ranger,

(5) criminal organizations from doing business inside the city limits of Muleshoe / Ranger, and

(6) the transportation or disposal of the remains of unborn children who have been killed by an elective abortion across state lines and carried by waste management companies into Texas in and through the City of Muleshoe / Ranger.

Since August 2023, 46 political subdivisions have passed ordinances identical in substance to the proposed Muleshoe and Ranger Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinances. The proposed ordinances are identical in substance to all 11 ordinances passed by Texas cities and counties in 2026 and all 29 ordinances passed by Texas cities and counties in 2025.

Citizens wishing to see their city or county pass an ordinance outlawing abortion and declaring their city or county a Sanctuary for the Unborn are encouraged to sign the online petition on the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn website.

Key Takeaways:

• Cassian Joubert was diagnosed with a life-threatening condition, but doctors saved his life with a risky procedure.

• Joubert was first partially born via c-section, where doctors performed a tracheostomy, and then was delivered safely and completely several weeks later.

• The family now celebrates two 'birthdays' for Cassian.

The Details:

Baby Cassian Joubert, who was diagnosed in the womb with Congenital High Airway Obstruction Syndrome (CHAOS), survived thanks to doctors’ lifesaving prenatal surgery that involved partial birth via c-section first, and his safe and complete delivery a few weeks later, thus giving him two birthdays.  

“He felt the air of the world on his face” said his mother with joy. “Cassian was born twice! Cassian is our twice-born miracle!”

CHAOS, an extremely rare condition affecting 1 in every 50,000 babies, is a condition in which a baby’s respiratory tract is blocked with a membrane that “obstruct[s] the flow of fetal lung fluid, which results in an expansion of the airways and lungs.” 

In Cassian’s case, he was diagnosed at 19 weeks in his mother’s womb, and quickly underwent laparoscopic surgery three weeks later, where doctors attempted to cut through the tissue covering his trachea. Unfortunately, the membrane was too thick. 

“His lungs would end up crushing his heart if we waited too long” his father, Greg, recalled.

So, in week 25, Dr. Emanuel Vlastos at Winnie Palmer Hospital in Orlando, Florida undertook Cassian’s surgery. With only Cassian’s head and neck exposed, Dr. Vlastos performed a tracheostomy. Cassian was then safely returned to his mother’s uterus, where he remained until his mother’s water broke, and he was born a second time on August 5. 

“That was probably the riskiest thing because I couldn’t tell the parents what to expect,” noted Dr. Vlastos. But both parents were willing to fight for their baby’s life. 

Zoom Out:

Procedures like Cassian’s have been performed successfully only three times before. But this surgery was unique because Cassian was safely placed back in his mother’s womb to continue his prenatal growth, instead of being fully born.

A report from the National Institute of Health shows that parents are often advised to terminate the baby’s life, rather than fight to save it:

Prenatal early diagnosis of patients with CHAOS is necessary so that perinatal management can be undertaken successfully or elective termination of pregnancy can be undertaken.

Surgery and abortion are presented as seemingly equal options, even though one is potentially lifesaving, and the other is definitively deadly.

Although doctors often advise parents facing such lethal conditions to abort their babies (and many do), Cassian is proof that fighting for life can beat a dire prognosis.

The Bottom Line:

Cassian now has a ventilator and feeding tube, and still needs three more surgeries to continue to remove the obstruction in his airway before he turns two. But the family exudes resilient hope and profound gratitude for their baby’s unique human life. 

“We’re not through it yet, but aren’t we all in need of a good story?” Greg said.

Key Takeaways:

• Mia Pruzin was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma while she was pregnant.

• A team of specialists worked together to treat Pruzin while also keeping her preborn baby safe.

• She has since safely delivered her daughter, Vivienne, and the cancer is in remission.

The Details:

In the 20th week of Mia Pruzin's pregnancy, a golf ball-sized lump surfaced on the side of her neck just above her collarbone, sparking instant attention from her medical team at University Hospitals. Doctors eventually determined that Mia had contracted Stage 3 Hodgkin's lymphoma, an aggressive form of cancer that required a prompt response to safeguard the lives of both Pruzin and her preborn baby. 

“I found out that I had Stage 3 Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. So I had cancer in both sides of my neck, I had a 5-inch mass in my mediastinum. I had some activity in my abdomen too,” Pruzin said. 

Her husband, Scott, added, “Two people that I care deeply about and they’re gonna go through this very hard thing. The uncertainty was very tough.”

A coordinated team of specialists — including oncologists, maternal-fetal medicine experts, and cardio-oncologists — united to safeguard both Pruzin and her preborn child throughout the ordeal.

One month after her diagnosis, Pruzin started chemotherapy while continuing her pregnancy.

Associate Chief of Cardiology Dr. Michael Zacharias said, “She didn’t have the luxury of waiting for treatment. During this time, we closely watched her heart. Thankfully, she was able to remain on treatment without requiring an intervention or even, for example, holding her medications.” 

He also pointed out that the life-saving therapy came with considerable potential dangers. “Cancer doesn’t forgive and so it can pop up at any point," he explained. "However, the technology in both medical and device therapies have obviously surpassed anyone’s expectations at this point, allowing things like Mia’s story to happen." 

At 36 weeks, Vivienne entered the world, yet Pruzin's battle was far from finished. At three weeks postpartum, she restarted chemotherapy, though she reached a noteworthy milestone in January.

Cradling her daughter, Mia sounded the victory bell, now totally in remission.

This Mother's Day, Pruzin's first, honors her unflinching persistence in battling cancer, as well as her treasured baby girl. 

The Big Picture:

The confidence, courage, and cooperation of Pruzin’s doctors showcase the reality that safeguarding the lives of both mother and preborn baby is possible in the field of medical science, contesting pro-abortion narratives that pit maternal health against preborn lives.

Stories like Pruzin’s undermine the pressure to opt for abortion in cancer diagnoses, but instead, prove that life-affirming alternatives that honor both patients are possible. 

For instance, medical research reinforces that systemic therapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma after the first trimester gives rise to promising maternal and fetal results, with no major malformations and 5-year overall survival rates of 82.4%. Additionally, chemotherapy in the second and third trimesters enhances maternal progression-free survival near 75%, with mothers still able to deliver healthy babies in most cases. ABVD regimens, standard for early-stage disease, also display favorable outcomes.

“Systemic therapy given for lymphoma after the first trimester of pregnancy is likely safe and results in acceptable maternal and fetal outcomes," a 2020 study from PubMed revealed. "Diagnoses of cancer occur in roughly 1 of 1000 pregnancies. Emerging reports suggest that standard chemotherapy administered during the second and third trimesters results in acceptable maternal and fetal outcomes.” 

The Bottom Line:

In an era where many pro-abortion advocates are attempting to impose anti-life ideologies on medical science and vulnerable pregnant mothers, the story of Mia Pruzin and her baby epitomizes the beauty of undying hope in face of discouragement and adversity.

This case reminds us that every child is a precious gift worth fighting for, and every mother deserves quality care that honors the dignity of every life. As Pruzin celebrates her inaugural Mother's Day, her encounter will hopefully encourage families to champion pro-life protocols in medicine both nationwide and around the world.

After all, true medicine is completely pro-life, honoring the lives of mothers and their children.

On Thursday, May 7, the City Council of Brownfield, Texas (pop. 9,976), passed an ordinance outlawing abortion and abortion trafficking, declaring the City of Brownfield a Sanctuary City for the Unborn. The 5-3 vote in favor of the measure made Brownfield the 96th city in the nation and the 79th city in Texas to pass an ordinance outlawing abortion. Brownfield is the second city in Terry County to pass the measure, following the City of Wellman (pop. 205).

Revisiting the Ordinance

While the Brownfield City Council originally rejected the measure in a 5-3 vote at a council meeting on April 2, the citizens of Brownfield did not let that vote be the end of the story.

Brownfield resident Natalie Chandler formed an initiating committee of Brownfield residents and began the citizen initiative petition process, collecting signatures in accordance with the Brownfield City Charter. While doorknocking, Chandler and her allies educated the public about the need for the ordinance and who on the council had voted for and against the lifesaving measure. The petition was turned in, the citizen initiative petition process was deemed successful, and the Brownfield City Council was obligated by the Brownfield City Charter to reconsider the ordinance.

While the Brownfield City Council had only rejected the measure a little over a month ago, on April 2, Brownfield’s municipal election on May 2 brought changes to the Brownfield City Council. While Mayor Eric Horton – who was one of the three who voted in favor of the ordinance – was re-elected, District 2 Councilwoman Vanessa Valdonado – who was one of the five who voted against the ordinance – was voted out of office and replaced with Elvis Rodriguez.

At the public hearing concerning the measure, citizens of Brownfield and other interested parties had the opportunity to speak for or against the Brownfield Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance, which had been brought forth through the citizen initiative petition process. Of the four individuals who spoke before the Brownfield City Council, all spoke in favor of passing the ordinance. Not a single person who spoke before the Brownfield City Council spoke against the passage of the ordinance.

The most hostile voice in the room against the ordinance was District 4 Councilman Marshall Martell, who pushed back against all four speakers.

The Vote

After much discussion and debate, the Brownfield City Council was ready to make a decision.

While At Large Councilman Tom Hesse tried to make a motion to send the ordinance to the ballot for voters to decide, the motion was determined to be inconsistent with the Brownfield City Charter.

District 5 Councilman Ray McFarland then made a motion to adopt the Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance. The motion was seconded by District 3 Councilman Lee Gamez. Upon a vote of the full council, Councilmembers McFarland and Gamez were joined by Mayor Eric Horton, District 1 Councilman Paul Vasquez, Jr., and newly elected District 2 Councilman Elvis Rodriguez in voting in favor of the pro-life measure, while At Large Councilman and Mayor Pro-Tem J.C. Tijerina, District 4 Councilman Marshall Martell, and At Large Councilman Tom Hesse voted against the pro-life measure. Due to the votes of newly elected Councilman Elvis Rodriguez and Councilman Paul Vazquez, Jr. (whose mind was changed during the meeting), April 2nd’s 5-3 vote against the ordinance was now a 5-3 vote in favor of the ordinance. Upon the announcement of the vote, applause echoed throughout the council chambers.

After much work, Brownfield was now a Sanctuary City for the Unborn. 

The Ordinance

The Brownfield Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance prohibits: (1) performing an elective abortion and aiding or abetting elective abortions within the city limits of Brownfield, (2) elective abortions on residents of Brownfield – regardless of where the abortion takes place, (3) abortion trafficking through the City of Brownfield, (4) the mailing of abortion-inducing drugs into Brownfield, (5) criminal organizations from doing business inside the city limits of Brownfield, and (6) the transportation or disposal of the remains of unborn children who have been killed by an elective abortion across state lines and carried by waste management companies into Texas in and through the City of Brownfield.

Upon hearing of the victory, Shannon Thomason – who helped lead the charge in passing a similar measure in the City of Big Spring during his term as mayor - shared:

“As someone who grew up in Terry County, this one is personal for me. Brownfield has always been a community with strong convictions, deep faith, and people willing to stand up for what they believe is right. Today’s vote reflects that spirit... History is written one community at a time. Today, Brownfield added its name to that history.”

Becoming a Sanctuary City for the Unborn

Since August 2023, 46 political subdivisions have passed ordinances identical in substance to the proposed Brownfield Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance. The Brownfield Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance is the eleventh ordinance to pass in 2026 and is identical in substance to all 10 of the other ordinances passed by Texas cities and counties in 2026 and all 29 of the ordinances passed by Texas cities and counties in 2025.

Citizens wishing to see their city or county pass an ordinance outlawing abortion and declaring their city or county a Sanctuary for the Unborn are encouraged to sign the online petition on the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn website.

Key Takeaways:

• Judge Brian Edwards ruled that the definition of "human being" within Kentucky's pro-life law is "vague and unintelligible."

• He ruled against a complaint that the law violates religious freedom.

• The decision will likely protect IVF in the state.

• The ruling did not place an injunction on any portion of the law, which continues to protect most preborn children from abortion.

The Background:

Four years ago, three women sued the state of Kentucky over its abortion ban, arguing that the ban violated their religious freedom, as they claim their Jewish beliefs do not hold that life begins at conception (fertilization).

Jessica Kalb is now the sole remaining plaintiff in that lawsuit. She alleges that the state's law prohibits her from expanding her family through IVF, as under the definition of the law, embryos created through the IVF procedure are classified as human beings (Spoiler alert: they are human beings).

The case has gone back and forth within the courts for years. Last July, an appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that had told Kalb she could not proceed with the lawsuit. A hearing for the case was then heard in December.

The Details:

In the ruling, Jefferson County Circuit Court Brian Edwards decided that a portion of the state's law protecting nearly all preborn children from abortion is "unconstitutionally void for vagueness," because the definition of "human being" within the law is "vague and unintelligible."

As Kentucky Today reports:

"According to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 311.720, the commonwealth’s abortion ban defines the terms as follows:

• "Unborn child" has the same meaning as “unborn human being” in 311.7KRS 72, meaning “an individual living member of the species homo sapiens throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth.”

• “Fetus” means “a human being from fertilization until birth.”

• “Human being” means “any member of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until death.”

Edwards has ruled that these definitions are "conflicting and intertwined" and therefore the statutes "must be deemed void for vagueness and unintelligibility as to their scope."

However, he did not agree with Kalb that the law violates her religious freedom, as he said the law is  “religiously neutral” and doesn't burden the Jewish community  “any more than it burdens followers of Christianity, Islam or Hindu from exercising their religious beliefs.” 

Edwards' ruling did not place an injunction on any portion of the law, which continues to protect most preborn children from abortion.

What We're Hearing:

Lisa Sobel, one of the original three plaintiffs in the case, expressed disappointment that Kalb was not granted a full victory.

“The Court did not rule in our favor on our religious freedom claims, and that matters to me,” she said. “Jewish law has a clear, millennia-old answer to the question of fetal personhood — and it is not the answer Kentucky wrote into its statutes. I wanted the Court to see through the neutral-sounding language to the sectarian belief embedded within it.” 

Aaron Kemper, one of Kalb's attorneys, said the ruling should protect IVF in the state.

“I think this clears up all issues of IVF and reproductive access. I don’t think there could be any prosecution of IVF under this decision,” Kemper said. “Because if you strike down the definition that a human being is a fetus, then IVF should be completely clear.” 

Addia Wuchner, Registered Nurse, bioethicist, and executive director of Kentucky Right to Life, emphasized that there is no doubt to when life beings.

“As a Registered Nurse and bioethicist, I state with scientific clarity that human life begins at fertilization. At that moment, a new, distinct human organism is formed—possessing its own unique DNA and the inherent capacity to grow and develop through every stage of life," she said. "This is not a matter of opinion, but of established biological fact.”

The Bottom Line:

Science consistently says that a new human being is created at the moment of fertilization. It's for this reason that those who are truly pro-life cannot support IVF, as it leads to the widescale destruction of embryonic humans. Pro-life laws need to be consistent in protecting all preborn humans, regardless of the method through which they were created.

Key Takeaways:

• The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Louisiana and paused the FDA's 2023 REMS that allowed mail-order abortions.

• The Supreme Court issued a temporary stay blocking that decision.

• A group of over 100 Republican lawmakers have signed onto an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to reinstate safeguards for mifepristone, also known as the abortion pill.

The Backstory:

The state of Louisiana filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking for a "stay" on the FDA's 2023 Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), which allowed abortion pills to be sent through the mail.

Since being approved in 2000, the REMS safety protocol for mifepristone has been gradually weakened. Originally, mifepristone was limited to just seven weeks and required an in-person doctor's visit to obtain; in addition, all adverse events had to be reported. Over time, mifepristone was approved through 10 weeks, non-fatal adverse events were no longer required to be reported, and women no longer needed to see a doctor in-person.

By 2023, under the Biden administration, abortion pills were allowed to be sent through the mail and dispensed in retail pharmacies.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) represented the State of Louisiana and Rosalie Markezich (a woman coerced to abort) as co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which sought to undo the FDA's allowance of mail-order abortions. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Louisiana's favor, finding:

• "FDA’s justifications for remotely dispensing mifepristone were based on flawed or nonexistent data." 

• "The new regulation had resulted in numerous illegal abortions in Louisiana and in Louisiana paying thousands in Medicaid bills for women harmed by mifepristone."

The Supreme Court almost immediately issued a temporary stay; however, at the request of abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories (on behalf of additional defendants, including the FDA and the generic pill maker GenBioPro). The stay will expire on May 11, pending any further action from the Supreme Court.

The Details:

Over 100 Republican lawmakers filed an amicus brief in support for Louisiana's lawsuit to the Supreme Court. The brief urged the Supreme Court to reinstate previous REMS for mifepristone, eliminating the ability to order abortion pills through the mail.

“I am grateful to my home state of Louisiana for leading the effort to defend women and babies in our state and across the country. Chemical abortion drugs kill innocent children and put mothers’ lives at risk," Senator Bill Cassidy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said in a press release. “Safeguards protecting against coercion, such as the in-person dispensing requirement, must be reinstated immediately. The Fifth Circuit got this right, and I urge the Supreme Court to affirm that decision.”

Representative Chris Smith, co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, said the safeguards are needed to protect the lives of both women and their preborn children.

In an effort to subvert the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—which empowered pro-life lawmakers, both federal and state, to create legislation that protects both unborn babies and their mothers—Biden’s radical, pro-abortion FDA completely overstepped its authority and removed mifepristone’s in-person dispensing requirement.

The Biden FDA’s reckless decision, which has led to the mass proliferation of this baby poison pill, placed extremist pro-abortion ideology above medical due diligence. Mifepristone is extremely dangerous to women—in fact, more than one in ten women who take the chemical abortion drug experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event within 45 days.

Without the in-person dispensing requirement, women are being mailed this dangerous drug, absent any real interaction with a medical professional and without proper screening for contraindications, coercion, or other serious health concerns. The Fifth Circuit Court recognized and affirmed these glaring concerns, and I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold the lower court’s decision and protect mothers and their babies.

The brief points to several cases of women forced to take abortion pills without their knowledge or consent, including that of Markezich, and argues that if women were required to get abortion pills from a doctor in person, these cases would be near-impossible.

“There are legitimate concerns about these drugs putting women and girls at significant risk,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said. “I urge the Supreme Court to reinstate the safety guardrails that were in place before the Biden administration while the Department of Health and Human Services reviews these drugs.”

Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action, applauded the brief and called for the Supreme Court to take action quickly:

The abortion pill has killed over seven million preborn American children since it was approved by the FDA. Mifepristone is designed to end the life of a living child in the womb, and the consequences have been devastating for women as well. There are horrifying cases of women being deceived, coerced, and drugged with abortion pills against their will.

Catherine Pressly Herring’s husband secretly put abortion drugs into her drink in an attempt to kill their preborn baby and was sentenced to prison. America should never allow dangerous abortion drugs to be mailed into homes and abusive relationships. The Supreme Court must act quickly to affirm the Fifth Circuit ruling and end mail-order abortions.

The Bottom Line:

Even if the Supreme Court does ban mail-order abortions, it is only a first step. Ultimately, women and preborn children deserve better than being subjected to the dangers of the abortion pill, which should be taken off the market for good.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2025, Judge Marion Weiss approved early parental rights to two men who had commissioned a baby being carried by a surrogate mother in Florida.

• While the judge ruled in the men's favor, he also wrote in his opinion that surrogacy could be likened to slavery.

• Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier decided to intervene in the case, saying that surrogacy companies make money of the sales of children.

The Details:

In December 2024, two men in France signed a surrogacy contract with a woman in Florida. By August 2025, as her due date approached, they were petitioning a court to access early parental rights — while the baby was still in the womb, rather than at birth.

That request was granted; however, in his opinion, Judge Marlon Weiss signaled that he believed surrogacy could be unconstitutional. As the Tampa Bay Times reported, "His ruling holds that if unborn children are entitled to personhood — which he implies is correct, citing legal articles in favor of that view — those children cannot be subject to an ownership contract."

Weiss wrote that "if a preborn living human being is entitled to legal personhood, it goes without saying that such persons cannot be subject to a contractual bartering or ownership."

In November the court was informed of the baby's birth, and, according to the Tampa Bay Times, despite the case being uncontested, that's when Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier stepped in to intervene.

His office is allegedly arguing that surrogacy is a form of slavery and that it violates the 13th Amendment because it treats children as property.

In a statement, Isabel Kilman, the deputy press secretary for the attorney general's office, said,

"The Attorney General is concerned about any case where a surrogacy company profits off the sale of children; it constitutes modern-day slavery, interferes with a mom's parental rights, and the rights of the child. We also have major security and sovereignty concerns where foreign citizens — including Chinese nationals — come to purchase American children.

Furthermore, there are cases of registered sex offenders purchasing children through these alternative means. We've seen examples of serious child sexual abuse in other states, which is not a risk we should be willing to take in Florida."

The case is ongoing and, therefore, details are unavailable. However, Katie Jay, an appellate and adoption attorney, is privy to the state's arguments, and told the Tampa Bay Times that Uthmeier has not raised concerns about the men's ability to parent.

The Bottom Line:

If personhood were to be established for preborn babies in Florida, reports say it could lead to legal changes including further restrictions on abortion and surrogacy.

SB 999 would require that babies born alive during an abortion receive the same rights and medical care as any baby born in the state.

The bill passed the committee in a 12 to four vote and now moves to the House floor for a vote.

5/08/2026: After inking a late-night agreement with Missouri Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans removed provisions from the state’s “born-alive” protections bill that would have allowed chemical abortion-related civil lawsuits.

Key Takeaways:  

• Senate Bill 999 would ensure that abortion survivors are legally entitled to life-saving treatment, instead of just being left to die.

• Republicans made an agreement with Democrats to remove a provision from the bill that would have allowed civil lawsuits related to chemical abortion.

• The bill also expands the Missouri maternal mortality review board.

The Details:

For pro-life advocates, the bill, also known as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” or Senate Bill 999, is part of a larger attempt to ensure that a child who survives an abortion attempt is treated as a human being.

Supporters state that Missouri has a duty to ensure that an abortion survivor obtains ordinary lifesaving care just like any other newborn of the same gestational age.

Although the new agreement preserved the bill’s core mandate to provide medical care for infants born alive after botched abortions, it eradicated other clauses that exposed abortionists to civil liability.

The Missouri Independent reported:

The measure was given first-round approval in the Senate following more than six hours of debate. Democrats persuaded the sponsor, state Sen. Brad Hudson of Cape Fair, to remove the liability provisions and to add others they supported, including an expansion of the state’s maternal mortality review board...

Hudson’s original bill would have allowed civil lawsuits against anyone involved in an unlawful abortion, including self-induced abortions. Opponents said it would impact medication abortions if Missourians vote to reinstate an abortion ban at the ballot box later this year.

A February article from the Independent noted that prior to the removal of the liability provisions, the bill "could also open the door to litigation against anyone who assists another person in obtaining a 'self-managed' abortion — no matter how early in the pregnancy."

Now, the bill could advance to a House vote. The legislation delineates the criminal and civil responsibilities of those involved in facilitating abortion procedures.

Zoom In:

Previous versions of the bill would have categorized healthcare providers involved in abortions as mandatory reporters, making them liable to criminal penalties if they did not declare a live birth. However, Hudson took away that requirement in a revised version of the legislation.

“That child would be given the same care, the same treatment, of any other child of the same gestational age,” Hudson said. “That child is under the law to be treated like the human being that he or she is.” 

“Even after doing this, we have still been able to maintain the integrity and the purpose of the underlying bill,” Hudson added. “To protect those children who survive an abortive attempt and make sure they’re given the same care as any other child born at the same gestational age.” 

Hoodline added:

As reported by the St. Louis Business Journal, the Senate action could send the trimmed bill to the House as soon as this week, setting up another round of partisan fights over how to preserve born-alive protections without expanding civil liability.

For now, the compromise removes an immediate avenue for lawsuits tied to medication abortion while leaving broader legal and political battles over the pill and telehealth access unresolved.

This bill matters in a state like Missouri, where abortion policy has remained in flux since voters approved Amendment 3 in 2024, enshrining abortion as a “right” into the state Constitution.

The Bottom Line:

While Senate Republicans’ decision to drop the lawsuit provisions made the “born-alive” bill more limited, it may have also made passage more possible. Looking forward, the issue is whether a watered-down rendition of the bill can overcome the remaining legislative hurdles without further political compromises, and emerge as a final law. 

Key Takeaways:

• Father Larry Holland, a Catholic priest in Vancouver, British Columbia, was hospitalized with a broken hip after suffering a fall on Christmas Day in 2025.

• While in the hospital for a broken hip, he said health care staff offered him euthanasia twice, despite knowing that he is a priest and opposed to euthanasia.

• Holland is recovering from the hip fracture, and is not terminally ill.

The Details:

In an interview with the B.C. Catholic, the official media outlet for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, Holland said he had been admitted to Vancouver General Hospital (VGH) for a hip fracture after a fall on Christmas Day in 2025.

Yet on two separate occasions, he was offered death instead of health care.

“There are some things you just don’t talk about to some people,” he said, adding that he was shocked when MAiD was suggested to him.

Holland said a doctor first mentioned it, and said he was initially quiet as the doctor told him that MAiD is “something they have to discuss with someone who’s been given a terminal diagnosis.”

Despite saying he was a priest and morally opposed to euthanasia, the doctor persisted, saying  “he just wanted to make sure that, if a [terminal] diagnosis came up or not ... I knew of the different services I had access to.”

Holland was not, and is not, terminally ill.

Soon, he was urged to consider MAiD again, this time by a nurse. “It’s a false compassion, really,” Holland said.

In a statement to the B.C. Catholic, a Vancouver Coastal Health spokesperson said “staff may consider bringing up MAiD based on their clinical judgment, provided they possess the necessary knowledge and skills to do so.”

The Big Picture:

Canada is in the process of legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia to individuals whose only health issue is a mental health condition.

The country is already one of the world's leaders in euthanasia deaths, and has steadily been eroding the original safeguards that were placed upon MAiD. A 2024 survey found that less than half of respondents support allowing assisted death solely for mental illness.

Currently, Canada is on track to reach 100,000 deaths from euthanasia and assisted suicide; it is already a leading cause of death in the country.

Though often presented as a compassionate solution for individuals who are suffering, reports have found that people have been offered MAiD for reasons including poverty, homelessness, or even an inability to access disability or mental health services.

The Bottom Line:

Father Holland's story further illustrates how dire and predatory the situation has become in Canada regarding MAiD.

Following the Fifth Circuit's ruling, which stated that Louisiana is "likely to succeed on the merits," abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories filed an emergency application before the Supreme Court and that application to pause the Fifth Circuit's ruling was granted. On May 11, 2026, the Supreme Court is expected to further review the request.

Key Takeaways:

• Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho filed a joint lawsuit with Kansas and Idaho against the FDA's 2023 REMS for the abortion pill mifepristone, claiming that they have suffered financial injury as a result of the changes to the protocols.

• The FDA has promised a safety review. Some courts have halted state lawsuits while the review proceeds; others, like the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, have granted the Plaintiffs' requests — like Louisiana — yet action by the U.S. Supreme Court is awaited.

• The Supreme Court is expected to issue some sort of a ruling on the Fifth Circuit's 'pause' of the 2023 REMS next week, which is relevant to Missouri's joint lawsuit.

The Details:

Joint lawsuit

In their lawsuit, Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho allege:

• "[T]he FDA cut corners when it removed safeguards from this dangerous drug [mifepristone]."

• "Sticking its head in the sand, the FDA eliminated non-fatal reporting requirements for abortion providers based on data collected under the originally approved safety standards, leaving no way to fully evaluate the effects of the newly deregulated regime."

• "The FDA’s actions attempt to create a 50-state mail-order abortion drug economy, undermining state abortion laws in Plaintiff states. It also enabled providers to dispense abortion drugs to residents of Plaintiff States later in pregnancy without follow-up care—causing women to seek emergency services in Plaintiff States for treatment of resulting complications."

States argue they have 'suffered financial injury'

The States' legal notice claimed that "the 2023 REMS" caused “federal interference with the enforcement of” state law: “By ending the in-person dispensing requirement, FDA opened the door for mifepristone to be remotely prescribed” and “facilitate[d] nearly 1,000 illegal abortions in Louisiana per month.”

In reference to Louisiana, the States wrote:

• Under Louisiana, States have standing to challenge the mifepristone actions based on sovereign harm and financial injury.

• Louisiana’s, like Missouri’s, sovereign harm stemmed from the “avowed purpose of the 2023 REMS . . . to expand access to medication abortion.”

• Causation and redressability, therefore, were easily shown.

• Further, Louisiana suffered a financial injury—Medicaid costs linked to out-of-state mifepristone.

Missouri et. al. notes that the State's argument is similar to that of Louisiana: "This injury is neither too speculative nor too attenuated; thus, it establishes both Louisiana’s and Missouri’s standing."

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Louisiana suffered financial harms due to the 2023 REMS by "undermining" Louisiana's pro-life law, and "by causing it to spend Medicaid funds on emergency care for women harmed by mifepristone. Both injuries are irreparable." The Fifth Circuit also noted that state Medicaid costs to pay for women's "complications caused by out-of-state mifepristone... will almost certainly continue" if the FDA continues to allow mail-order abortion.

Missouri et. al.: 'Court should deny FDA’s request to stay indefinitely this case'

Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho repeated points made in other briefs:

• “The public’s interest is not served by perpetuating a medical practice whose safety the agency admits was inadequately studied.”

• "Moreover, staying the REMS 'would do nothing to prevent FDA from completing its review of mifepristone’s safety protocols.'”

The States concluded that since the Fifth Circuit concluded that "the balance of equities and public interest weighed in Louisiana’s favor," that the "FDA’s request for an indefinite stay of this case is inappropriate" and should be denied, and the courts should "conclude that the States have standing" to sue.

FDA promised safety review

In May of 2025, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) published an analysis, “The Abortion Pill Harms Women,” which examined insurance data. EPPC says the records reveal serious adverse events from mifepristone are happening about 22 times more often than the FDA reports. That same month, the FDA Secretary asked the FDA for a complete review of the drug.

Additional analysis by the EPPC suggested that the rate of serious adverse events following the use of the abortion pill (mifepristone) significantly increases when the in-person dispensing requirement is removed.

• In September 2025, the FDA Secretary told Republican states that the FDA will conduct a new review of abortion pills.

• By February 2026, FDA's website claimed it is "conducting a safety study of mifepristone" and it would be "done sooner than" the typical year-or-more timeframe.

• In April 2026, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon told Bloomberg Law that the FDA plans "to have this study done sooner than that timeframe.”

• The Appeals Court in Louisiana noted that the FDA "conceded it had failed to adequately study whether remotely prescribing mifepristone is safe" but "resisted staying the regulation, arguing it was in the midst of a comprehensive review of mifepristone protocols."

Yet the FDA couldn't offer a date for the review's completion, and "admitted it was still collecting data."

Mailing abortion drugs is already federally illegal

The Comstock Act is a federal law that prohibits the mailing of “any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing [that] may, or can be used or applied for producing abortion” through the mail.

Yet, when the FDA allowed the mailing of the abortion pill during the COVID-19 pandemic, this law was violated and continues to be ignored.

Pro-life leaders have repeatedly requested that the Department of Justice enforce Comstock. Recently Students for Life (SFLA) president Kristan Hawkins claimed her team spoke to "high ranking officials at the DOJ" about Comstock.

In an X video post, Hawkins claimed the DOJ "assured" her that that they were "aware" and were "looking into it" and that "multiple conversations" have taken place.

Timelines:

The abortion pill

2000: FDA approved mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex.

2011: FDA placed the drug under a safety system known as REMS due to significant adverse events and deaths.

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

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

Missouri lawsuit

• January 2024: State of Missouri v. FDA (which included the states of Idaho and Kansas) were granted permission to intervene in an older lawsuit filed by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), after the Supreme Court ruled that the Plaintiff doctors in the case at that time did not have standing to sue.

• May 2025: Trump's FDA moved to dismiss based on improper venue, lack of standing, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and because some of their claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

• August 2025: The venue was moved from Texas (under AHM v FDA) to Missouri.

• March 6, 2026: Danco moved to dismiss. The FDA also filed a motion to stay or dismiss the Missouri lawsuit.

• April 8, 2026: Louisiana appealed the 'stay' ruling (LAN).

• April 17, 2026: Louisiana filed their appeal 

• May 1, 2026: US Court of Appeals ruling favors Louisiana and pauses abortion pill dispensing by mail.

• May 2, 2026: Danco on behalf of all defendants filed an emergency application before the Supreme Court.

• May 4, 2026: The Supreme Court granted a temporary administrative stay on the Fifth Circuit's decision, allowing mail-order abortion pill dispensing to be restored. The stay will end on May 11, 2026.

The Bottom Line:

The Supreme Court is expected to issue some sort of a ruling on the 'pause' of the 2023 REMS allowing mail-order abortion pill dispensing, at issue in the Louisiana case next week, which is relevant to Missouri's joint lawsuit.

Despite having not even been open one full year, the facility has already had at least two known emergencies, which highlight some disturbing realities about late-term abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• On December 10, one of the Chicago facility's abortionists called 911, reporting a woman was experiencing high blood pressure and needed oxygen after an "uneventful procedure" at least a day prior. The doctor then claimed the woman "gave birth" at 30 weeks gestation, when in actuality, the child was intentionally stillborn as the result of a late-term abortion.

• Less than three months later, on February 19, the facility sent another woman to the emergency room after a "delivery," this time due to heavy vaginal bleeding.

• Third-trimester abortion procedures involve injecting the preborn baby with a feticide to cause cardiac arrest, followed by a stillbirth more than a day later.

• Abortion in Illinois is legal through 'viability,' and therefore, these abortions might have been illegal, or they might have been committed legally due to a large loophole in the state law.

• The emergencies shine a light on the fact that abortion facilities killing preborn children late in pregnancy are not following the medical standard of care.

The Details:

Operation Rescue (OR) obtained two 911 calls from Hope Clinic's Chicago facility, which bills itself as an "all-trimester" abortion business. There were two separate emergencies within just months of each other, both involving what appear to have been third-trimester abortions.

Operation Rescue reported that both emergencies were rated “Priority 1A,” indicating life-threatening emergencies.

Call #1: 30-week abortion, possible preeclampsia after

The first took place on December 10, when an abortionist named Dr. Hinz (OR speculates that this is abortionist Dr. Erica Hinz) called 911, reporting that a 35-year-old patient was experiencing high blood pressure and needed oxygen.

Hinz said the patient had undergone an "uncomplicated procedure," and said there was concern for preeclampsia. The dispatcher asked how far along the patient was, and Hinz answering haltingly, "She was 30 weeks. She is no longer pregnant."

The dispatcher also seemed confused, asking, "Did… she have a miscarriage, or did she give birth?”

Hinz responded that the woman gave birth.

Call #2: Heavy post-abortion bleeding

On February 19, 911 was called for a 36-year-old woman who was experiencing heavy vaginal bleeding. The staffer told the dispatcher the woman had "delivered" three hours prior to the call.

Zoom In:

While specific details are not known for certain, the terminology used seems to indicate that both women experienced third-trimester induction abortions. These are typically multi-day procedures.

During an induction abortion, the abortionist injects the preborn baby with a feticide like potassium chloride or digoxin in an attempt to cause cardiac arrest and death. At the same visit, the abortionist may insert laminaria (seaweed sticks) into the woman's cervix to begin the process of dilation. The woman returns, often a day later, to have the laminaria removed and replaced. An ultrasound may be performed to ensure the baby has died; if not, another injection may be delivered. The abortionist may choose to give the woman drugs to induce labor as well.

After another day or two, the woman returns to the abortion facility to deliver the body of her dead baby, though she may go into labor on her own. In those circumstances, she is often advised to sit on the toilet and deliver the baby, and remain there until abortion clinic staff arrives.

Regardless, both 911 calls were technically correct: these women did give birth — they just gave birth to dead babies (who were intentionally killed) rather than living ones.

It is possible that the child may not be delivered in one piece, in which case the abortionist will commit a dilation and evacuation (D&E) to remove whatever body parts remain in the uterus. There are known risks of induction abortions, including hemorrhage, lacerations, and uterine perforation, and death.

Interestingly, the Hope Clinic website does acknowledge the risk of perforation and laceration. However, the facility appears to blame those risks on the woman:

Perforation/laceration, a tear or puncture in the uterus or cervix, occurs most frequently with sudden movement during the procedure. It is crucial you remain still during the procedure for this reason. Moderate sedation works to keep you as comfortable and safe as possible.

Abortion activists frequently claim late-term abortions are rare, and only occur due to fetal abnormalities or risks to the mother's health. Yet, in truth, thousands of late-term abortions are committed each year, and the reasons for them are typically the same as earlier abortions.

The Big Picture:

Technically speaking, the abortions committed at Hope Clinic's Chicago facility may be illegal. The 2019 Illinois Reproductive Health Act purports to restrict abortion after (highly subjective) fetal viability, which is often still considered to be 24 weeks, though babies born as young as 21 weeks have survived. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute also claims that, in Illinois, “Abortion is banned at fetal viability, generally 24–26 weeks of pregnancy.”

The Hope Clinic website, however, advertises abortions through 34 weeks, which is nearly full-term. And as these 911 calls prove, these third-trimester abortions are being committed. But if abortion isn't permitted past 26 weeks, how is this possible?

It's because, as with many restrictions on abortion, there are loopholes in place that are intentionally broad.

As the Reproductive Health Act states, “every individual has a fundamental right to make autonomous decisions about one’s own reproductive health;" additionally, “a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent rights under the law, of this State.”

The law further defines “fetal viability” to be determined by “the professional judgment of the attending health care professional, based on the particular facts of the case, [that] there is a significant likelihood of a fetus’ sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.”

This means that the abortionist, who is being paid to kill the preborn child, is the one to determine whether or not a baby would need “extraordinary medical measures” to survive. The law also fails to define “extraordinary medical measures,” leaving the abortionist to make that decision.

Finally, the law allows abortion up through birth for any reason related to the "health of the mother," which is classified as “all factors that are relevant to the patient’s health and well-being, including, but not limited to, physical, emotional, psychological, and familial health and age.” (emphases added).

This is identical to the wording of Roe v. Wade‘s partner decision, Doe v. Bolton, which also created an “abortion to birth” loophole with this language.

The language essentially allows abortion for any reason, with the abortionist needing only to say it is "necessary," for something like a woman's "psychological" or "emotional" health, even if there are no physical ailments whatsoever.

While on paper abortion is not permitted in Illinois past viability, it is essentially legal through all nine months if abortionists make the right excuses.

Why It Matters:

These are all examples of the abortion industry's failure to follow the standard of care in the medical industry.

“I’ve got hours of testimony” from abortionists all over the country “saying [hospitals for late-term induction abortions are] the proper ‘standard of care,'” malpractice attorney Mike Seibel previously told Live Action News, explaining that abortion facilities offering induction abortions outside of hospitals or hospital-like settings are “violating the ‘standard of care’ so much so that the insurance companies should not be paying for those procedures. Otherwise the insurance companies are an accessory to this case.”

While there are few abortionists willing to commit abortions past 24 weeks, they do exist. And as Seibel explained, the risks for women increase as the baby's gestation increases.

“The problem is, above 25 weeks, even Curtis Boyd, the worst abortionist in the entire world, the biggest killer, will tell you each week you go up, you go past 18 weeks, is more risky than going through a [live birth] delivery. He puts that in his consent forms,” Seibel said. “And each week you go, the higher the risk of death, the higher the risk of problems. They still do it anyway, just in these outpatient clinics.”

For these dangerous late-term abortions to meet the standard of care, they not only need to be committed in a hospital (or hospital-like setting), but abortionists also need to be giving their patients 24-hour monitoring, for exactly the kind of complications the two women at Hope Clinic experienced. Otherwise, it can be considered malpractice.

“Because they created unreasonably dangerous conditions for women,” Seibel told Live Action News.

Yet abortion facilities are not willing to operate under the standard of care, because it would drastically limit the number of abortions able to be committed, thereby eliminating a huge revenue stream.

“Once you put it into hospitals, you have the Joint Commission Standards which are very tough on abortionists. Because they require testing for pulmonary embolism and a variety of other things, and they also have to go through the sepsis protocols,” Seibel said. “So, you’re going to save more women, number one, but it’s going to become so much more expensive… and they are going to do fewer. [In addition], they are not going to do an elective abortion in a hospital because it poses too much risk to the patient.”

The Bottom Line:

Late-term abortions are dangerous, and facilities like the Hope Clinic are putting women's lives at risk every time one is committed.

This is not freedom. It has serious consequences: lives of babies lost, lives of some mothers lost, and many women that survive are left to suffer lifelong consequences and regret.

Sometimes, they even suffer lasting physical consequences; based on the drug’s medication guide, it is estimated that in 2025, between 15,000 and 51,200 women who took the abortion pill had follow-up surgical procedures due to dangerous incomplete abortions.

Key Takeaways:

• At least 732,000 abortions by pill took place in 2025, which equates to approximately 60,992 per month; 2,005 per day; 84 per hour; and one every 44 seconds.

• Total abortions in the U.S. are estimated at 1,126,000 abortions, or 3,085 per day; 21,654 per week; and nearly 94,000 per month.

• The abortion pill is estimated by the Guttmacher Institute to comprise 65% of all abortions.

• In 2016, the FDA removed requirements for abortion pill manufacturers to report all adverse events; instead, they only had to report deaths (if they were made aware of them).

• For decades, the abortion industry has participated in a scheme to hide abortion pill complications by instructing women to present to the ER and lie, claiming a natural miscarriage instead.

• The federal Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Justice (DOJ), and the United States Postal Service (USPS) turn a blind eye to lawbreakers.

• The FDA's 2023 changes to abortion pill safety protocols (REMS) are likely the main culprit behind national abortion increases and the flood of pills entering even pro-life states.

• Adding to the influx are "shield laws" passed by pro-abortion states to prevent abortionists in those states from being prosecuted for sending abortion drugs into states where it is illegal. These laws do not protect women.

The Details:

Abortion pill data

In 2025, approximately 732,000+ reported abortions by pill took place, and an estimated 65,000 took place in January 2026 alone. Abortion data reported by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute is likely an underestimation of what is actually taking place.

But overall, estimates from various sources show...

• 7.5 million women used the abortion pill between 2000 and 2024.

• Abortion pills make up at least 65% of national abortions, with an estimated 732K in 2025.

• Planned Parenthood commits 42% of abortions by pill — an estimated 304K in 2024-25.

Estimated impact on women:

• 21.2K to 44K likely present to ERs annually after taking abortion pills.

• 15K to 51.2K abortions by pill likely fail each year, resulting in follow-up surgical procedures or additional drugs to complete the abortions.

Key dates

• 2000: The abortion pill (Mifeprex or mifepristone 200 mg) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a regimen with a second drug called misoprostol.

• 2011: Concern about the drug's safety placed mifepristone/Mifeprex under the REMS.

• 2016: The FDA eroded the drug's REMS (safety protocols), enabling it to be prescribed through 10 weeks of pregnancy instead of seven, and removed requirements for manufacturers to report any adverse events other than deaths.

• 2023: The FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement, allowing the drug to be dispensed by mail or pharmacy.

These changes were made despite the fact that the federal Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs.

Statistics and estimates

1. Total U.S. abortions

In March of 2026, Guttmacher updated its abortion estimates for 2025 to 1,126,000 abortions, but the former "special affiliate" of Planned Parenthood specified that this was an underestimation.

The totals reflect nearly...

• 3,085 preborn babies aborted per day

• 21,654 per week

• Nearly 94,000 per month

2. Abortion pill estimates for 2025

Guttmacher also updated its previous 63% figure for abortion pills and is now suggesting the abortion pill makes up 65% of all abortions.

"For the first time, these include estimates of telehealth provision to residents of states with total bans; the report also updates prior year estimates to include these states," Guttmacher wrote in March 2026.

Guttmacher added separately:

In 2023, medication abortion accounted for 65% of all clinician-provided abortions in the United States; by contrast, this method accounted for 53% of abortions in 2020.

At the state level, medication abortion accounted for the majority of abortions in nearly all US states without a total ban, ranging from 44% in Washington, DC and 46% in Ohio to 84% in Montana and 95% in Wyoming. These estimates do not include self-managed abortions.

In 2025, there were an estimated 731,900 or more abortions by pill, which translates to...

• 60,992 per month

• 2,005 per day

• 84 per hour

• one every 44 seconds

Separately, Guttmacher wrote that "medication abortion accounted for the majority of abortions provided in most US states without total abortion bans in 2023."

By January of 2026, nearly 65K of the estimated 99,470 total abortions were likely committed by the abortion pill.

3. Abortion pill use since approval

"The estimated number of women who have used mifepristone in the U.S. for medical termination of pregnancy through the end of December 2024 is approximately 7.5 million women," reported the FDA.

Abortion pill adverse events

"As of December 31, 2024, there were 36 reports of deaths in patients associated with mifepristone since the product was approved in September 2000," the FDA's website states, adding:

The adverse events cannot with certainty be causally attributed to mifepristone because of concurrent use of other drugs, other medical or surgical treatments, co-existing medical conditions, and information gaps about patient health status and clinical management of the patient

1. Emergency Rooms

The 2023 mifepristone label for mifepristone includes a black box warning of serious bleeding, infection, and possible sepsis.

Table 2 (Serious Adverse Reactions Reported in Women Following Administration of Mifepristone [oral] and Misoprostol [buccal] in U.S. and Non-U.S. Clinical Studies) acknowledges that “2.9 to 4.6 percent of women who take abortion drugs end up in the emergency room.”

The data is similar to findings from a previously documented Gynuity Health Projects (GHP) telabortion study which found that six percent (6%) of participants... faced complications... which resulted in ER visits or urgent care visits. Gynuity is a pro-abortion group, conducting clinical trials on the abortion pill and funded by organizations with deep historic ties to the American eugenics movement.

2. Abortion pill failures

The FDA’s medication guide acknowledges as many as 7% of women will require surgical intervention after taking mifepristone ‘to stop bleeding’ or to complete the abortion.

Manufacturers of the drug agree, writing online:

• GenBioPro (GBP): Average of a 93-98% range in success rate.

• Danco: About 2 to 7 out of 100 women taking Mifeprex will need a surgical procedure because the pregnancy did not completely pass from the uterus or to stop bleeding.

• Evita Solutions: 93-98% effective for safely ending early pregnancy. 2-7% of patients will need a follow-up surgical procedure to terminate the pregnancy or to stop heavy bleeding.

3. Estimated ER and failure data

Using the estimated 732K abortion pill totals for 2025:

• Women presenting to emergency departments: 21.2K to 34K, or as high as 44K

• Abortion pill failures: Nearly 15K to 51.2K abortion pill abortions likely fail.

While abortion providers like Planned Parenthood agree the drug has the potential for failures, especially as gestation increases, many abortion pill prescribers fail to abide by the FDA's REMS, often prescribing the drug past the FDA's approved limits — which has not been studied thoroughly.

4. Scheme to hide complications

In 2016, the FDA removed requirements for abortion pill manufacturers to report all adverse events; instead, they only had to report deaths (if they were made aware of them).

• Live Action News has documented that for decades, the abortion industry has participated in a scheme to hide abortion pill complications by instructing women to present to the ER and lie, claiming a natural miscarriage instead.

• Some who oversee abortion pill safety studies have urged ER staff to falsify medical documents to cover up abortion pill complications.

• Bad actors in the industry not only fail to confirm gestation but also fail to rule out dangerous ectopic pregnancies, promote using the drug in advance of a confirmed pregnancy, and promote an unapproved one-drug regimen of misoprostol only.

Despite these deliberate actions, the drug's makers, who are tasked with policing and decertifying prescribers who fail to follow requirements, have failed to do either. This is a coordinated attempt to bury the truth.

Planned Parenthood and Independent Abortion Facilities

Planned Parenthood’s 2024-25 annual report recorded 434,450 total abortions, and its president previously claimed that 70% of its abortion business is the abortion pill.

• Using the 70% figure, we estimate the abortion corporation committed over 304,000 chemical abortions that same year.

• Based on national Guttmacher abortion pill estimates (732,000) for 2025, it is reasonable to estimate that Planned Parenthood now commits 42% of all chemical (abortion pill) abortions.

Planned Parenthood has adjusted its business model, shuttered brick-and-mortar facilities, and increasingly relies on telehealth — including the mailing of abortion pills. Its “Virtual Health Centers (VHCs)” across the country are part of a larger restructuring plan put in place years ago for increased profits.

Abortion Care Network (ACN), reports that in 2025:

• 72% of Independent Abortion Facilities provided both surgical and chemical abortion, while 27% provided chemical only.

• 43% of Planned Parenthood brick and mortar facilities provided both surgical and chemical abortion, while 56% provided chemical only.

Federal law prohibits mailing of abortion drugs

The Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. § 1461) prohibits the mailing of “any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing [that] may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion[.]” Yet, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Justice (DOJ), and the United States Postal Service (USPS) turn a blind eye to lawbreakers.

The Comstock Act does not prohibit the mailing of drugs which are to be used...

• in cases of miscarriage.

• to save the life of a mother.

• for other medical purposes.

As such, six states are challenging the FDA's 2023 erosions to REMS safety requirements for the drug mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex, including the State of Louisiana.

The goal of Big Abortion is to distribute the deadly abortion drug over-the-counter.

'Telehealth' abortions and 'shield laws'

The Guttmacher Institute recently noted that telehealth abortion with the ability to mail abortion pills to abortion seekers across the U.S., even into pro-life states, has contributed to the increased abortion numbers since the end of Roe v. Wade.

Separately, Guttmacher wrote:

• As of April 23, 2026, 13 states are enforcing total bans on abortion care. 

•  91,000 abortions were provided via telehealth to states with total bans in 2025—this includes 9,350 abortions provided via telehealth to Louisiana. 

Adding to the influx are "shield laws" passed by pro-abortion states to prevent abortionists in those states from being prosecuted for sending abortion drugs into states where it is illegal. These laws do not protect women.

Some states, including Texas, Florida, and Arkansas, have sent cease-and-desist letters and/or added their voices to lawsuits in an attempt to halt this activity, making it known that federal Comstock laws already cite it as illegal.

There were 40,000 abortion pill shipments to women in the last half of 2023, #WeCount reported in May 2024.

By June 2025, #WeCount reported:

• "[N]early 15,000 abortions per month [were] provided under shield laws by June 2025."

• "In the first six months of 2025, 27% of abortions were provided via telehealth."

• "Counts are likely an underrepresentation of all abortions in the US... These counts also do not include abortions that take place in the US outside of the formal healthcare system."

#WeCount is sponsored by the pro-abortion Society of Family Planning, which was founded in 2005 with contributions from the Packard Foundation, and is heavily funded by both the Packard and Susan Thompson Buffett Foundations (Warren Buffett). These foundations financed abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories in its early days.

Abortion pills are flooding pro-life states

#WeCount's state data indicates that while the number of abortions in pro-life states dropped, abortion pills shipped into states where abortion was illegal under "shield laws" skyrocketed.

#WeCount wrote:

Where telehealth abortion is restricted, the share of abortions provided via telehealth under shield laws varied widely.

#WeCount also claimed:

Where abortion is banned, nearly all abortions were provided via telehealth under shield laws.

In states with total abortion bans, telehealth abortions provided under shield laws make up nearly all abortions occurring within those states.

#WeCount wrote:

"The number and proportion of telehealth abortions provided under shield laws has increased over time. As of June 2025, more than half (55%) of telehealth abortions are provided under shield laws... [and] totaled 14,770 per month.

The Bottom Line:

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

For additional information, read Live Action's "State of Chemical Abortion" report.

Key Takeaways:

• Safe Haven Baby Boxes were recently dedicated in Lovington, New Mexico; Lawton, Oklahoma; and Tyler, Texas, bringing the national total to approximately 430 installations across 24 states.

• The boxes allow parents to anonymously surrender newborns without prosecution. When an infant is placed inside a Safe Haven Baby Box, a silent alarm is triggered, alerting nearby firefighters, who are able to almost immediately tend to the infant.

• Lawmakers and religious leaders at each ceremony pointed to recent tragedies, including infants abandoned in dumpsters and porta-potties, as urgent reminders of why the Safe Haven Baby Boxes matter.

The Details:

Since the Safe Haven Baby Boxes organization launched in 2015, 77 babies have reportedly been safely surrendered through the boxes installed with the help of the organization. These boxes — temperature-controlled, anonymously accessible units that allow mothers in crisis to legally and safely surrender newborns — are expanding their footprint, with new installations and dedication ceremonies held recently in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Monica Kelsey started the Safe Haven Baby Boxes organization after learning, well into adulthood, that her own life had begun with abandonment. The inspiration for the boxes came after Kelsey visited a church in Cape Town, South Africa, where a pastor had constructed a baby box after finding infants repeatedly left on his church steps.

The process of Kelsey's version of the box is simple: A parent opens the exterior door, places the baby inside, and steps away. Then, the door locks automatically, setting off a silent notification to the firehouse. From there, first responders take the child to receive medical attention before any other authorities step in to help.

Lovington, New Mexico

Lovington became New Mexico’s 16th Safe Haven Baby Box site on April 20, with a ceremony at Lovington Fire Station 2 that drew officials and religious leaders from across the region.

Sen. David Gallegos (R-Eunice), who has fought for years to protect babies as a legislator in New Mexico, pointed to two recent tragedies: an infant abandoned in a dumpster in Hobbs and a newborn left in a porta-potty outside Las Cruces, just 28 miles from the nearest box. That child did not survive.

“That could have been resolved with one of these boxes that was 28 miles away,” Gallegos said.

Bishop Peter Baldacchino of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Cruces blessed the installation alongside First Methodist Pastor Robert Gasman.

“Today, our community is choosing compassion and protection for the most vulnerable,” Baldacchino said, “so that the child’s first moments of life are met not with indifference but with care and welcome.”

New Mexico allows for Safe Haven surrenders up to 90 days after birth.

Lawton, Oklahoma

Lawton, Oklahoma, held a ribbon-cutting on May 2 for its second Safe Haven Baby Box at Fire Station No. 5, through a partnership between the Comanche County Memorial Hospital Foundation and the Lawton Fire Department.

Oklahoma law permits infants up to 30 days old to be surrendered without legal consequence. A box had previously been placed at the Duncan Fire Department in 2024.

Tyler, Texas

In Tyler, Gov. Greg Abbott joined Sen. Bryan Hughes at Christus Mother Francis Hospital for the blessing and dedication of a new box on April 24, one of a growing number housed at hospitals rather than fire stations.

The governor's attendance reflected the broadening political support the Safe Haven movement has earned at the state level.

Texas allows for surrenders up to 60 days after birth.

The Bottom Line:

As the tragedies cited in Lovington made plain, the distance between a desperate decision and a safe one is sometimes a matter of miles.

Jessi Getrost, executive assistant to founder Monica Kelsey, put the logic plainly: “It’s a great way for parents to have that anonymous option, should they choose it. We like to say it’s better to bless a box in the side of a wall than to have to bless a box going into the ground.”

Key Takeaways:

• The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Louisiana, banning mail-order abortions; but that decision was temporarily blocked by the Supreme Court.

• Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses have said they will commit misoprostol-only abortions if mifepristone is not available.

• Misoprostol has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use alone in abortions, and has a higher failure rate than the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol (the abortion pill regimen).

The Details:

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on a ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that sided with the State of Louisiana in its lawsuit against the FDA's 2023 changes to the abortion pill safety protocol (known as REMS). The FDA's decision allowed mifepristone to be sent through the mail and dispensed in retail pharmacies. The Fifth Circuit, in its ruling, found that:

• "FDA’s justifications for remotely dispensing mifepristone were based on flawed or nonexistent data." 

• "The new regulation had resulted in numerous illegal abortions in Louisiana and in Louisiana paying thousands in Medicaid bills for women harmed by mifepristone."

Briefly, the abortion pill was halted from being sent through the mail, until the Supreme Court issued the stay at the request of abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories (on behalf of additional defendants, including the FDA and the generic pill maker GenBioPro).

Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the State of Louisiana and co-Plaintiff Rosalie Markezich (a victim of coerced abortion), explained, "This is NOT a reversal of Friday's decision. Rather, it's the run-of-the-mill pause that the Justices typically use to consider the issues raised in an emergency application."

The stay will expire on May 11. In the meantime, the abortion industry and its proponents have already begun to prepare in the event that mifepristone returns to an in-person dispensing protocol. One of those options is to swerve toward misoprostol-only abortions instead, as that drug is not under a REMS safety protocol of its own.

Commentary:

“We closely monitored this court case, and we identified a way to keep telehealth medication abortion access intact for our patients,” Planned Parenthood of Northern New England President and CEO Nicole Clegg said in a statement.

Jacquelyn Marrero, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, likewise told the New York Times, “In the wake of yesterday’s harmful decision by the Fifth Circuit, Planned Parenthood Direct is mailing misoprostol-only prescription kits."

The Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project likewise told the New York Times its plan is to dispense misoprostol-only abortions.

Dr. Kristyn Brandi, an OB/GYN, abortionist, spokesperson for the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and member of Physicians for Reproductive Health, promoted the misoprostol-only regimen in an interview with NPR this week, claiming it is "incredibly safe and effective."

In the same article, Dr. Jamie Phifer, the medical director of Abortion on Demand, an online abortion business, said, "[W]e're ready. We can make the switch [to misoprostol-only protocols] within hours."

Why It Matters:

Abortion businesses around the world already commit misoprostol-only abortions, with advocates frequently pointing to this regimen as safe and effective. This has also long been the abortion industry's back-up plan, even though it is known to have higher failure rates. Misoprostol is attractive to abortionists because it has fewer safety protocols surrounding its usage.

As Live Action researcher Carole Novielli previously explained:

Misoprostol (Cytotec) was FDA-approved to lower the risk of stomach ulcers caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin) in certain people, according to GoodRx.

Misoprostol is not subject to the REMS safety system, which is why bad actors in the abortion industry could be pivoting toward the unapproved one-drug versus the approved two-drug regimen. Technically, using misoprostol in the abortion pill regimen is considered off-label use.

Misoprostol-only abortions, according to the pro-abortion MYA Network, fail "about 10-15%" of the time. Potential complications of a failed chemical abortion include infection, hemorrhage, and sepsis, which can be fatal. According to OB/GYN Ingrid Skop, there is the possibility of a born-alive infant, as well as birth defects in abortion survivors. Skop said that a 2010 study revealed that when misoprostol was used alone...

• There was a 23.8% failure rate, requiring surgery

• "The fetus continued to survive in 16.6% of the pregnancies."

• There was a risk of "birth defects such as Moebius Syndrome, associated with craniofacial and limb abnormalities."

She added:

In contrast, there were 3.5% failures and 1.5% continuing pregnancies in the mifepristone and misoprostol group. Likewise, a 2013 study demonstrated 38.8% failures when misoprostol was used vaginally and 29.9% when used sublingually (under the tongue). Similarly, a randomized trial in 2000 documented that 35% of women using unmoistened vaginal misoprostol had failures requiring surgery.  

In addition, "a worldwide systematic review of more than 12,000 misoprostol abortions found that 22% (nearly one in four) required surgical completion because misoprostol failed to completely empty the uterus of the remains of the child."

The Bottom Line:

The abortion industry is choosing to put women at risk by pivoting to misoprostol-only abortions, putting the deaths of children — and possibly even a risk that they are born alive and premature.

While the pro-life movement is being blamed for these actions, it is abortionists that are promising to break laws and encouraging women to take drugs off-label, even if it could potentially harm them.

Key Takeaways:

• House File 2788 passed both the Iowa House and the Senate. The bill next heads to Governor Kim Reynolds for her signature.

• The bill will outlaw telehealth and mail-order distribution of abortion-inducing drugs in the state.

• Supporters say the bill will help protect women from coercion and abuse.

• Iowa also has a law protecting preborn children from abortion after about six weeks.

The Details:

House File 2788 cleared the House on a 57-29 vote on May 1, and the Senate on May 3 with a 30-11 vote. The legislation requires that abortion drugs be dispensed in-person, by a medical provider, thereby outlawing any mail-order or telehealth distribution.

Though earlier iterations of the bill had also required doctors to inform women about the possibility of "abortion pill reversal," that language was struck from the final copy.

Republicans who championed the bill emphasized that its intention is to keep women safe. Rep. Devon Wood explained that it will help doctors to have more assurance that a woman is seeking the pills of her own accord (as opposed to an abuser's coercion).

"By requiring in person screenings we are giving these women a lifeline," she said. "We are providing a private, clinical sanctuary where an expert can look them in the eye and ask, 'Are you safe?' That opportunity for intervention is lost the moment that we remove this process to a computer screen, a phone or a mailbox."

During a House committee meeting regarding the legislation, Ryan Benn of The Family Leader also noted the lack of oversight occurring with mail-order abortion pills:

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

Iowa has a "heartbeat law," which protects preborn children from abortion after about six weeks. This legislation also attempts to ensure that the law is being followed, as abortion pills won't be administered past that timeline.

Zoom In:

Though it may be true that the abortion pill may be safer when it is distributed directly by a doctor, it isn't safe to begin with.

The abortion pill has a black box warning from the FDA, which means it "can cause severe harm, hospitalization, or death."

Complications associated with the pill include hemorrhaging, infection, sepsis, transfusions, hospitalization, and more. One analysis found that serious adverse events from mifepristone occur at a rate approximately 22 times higher than the rate reported on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) label for the drug. According to the study, one in ten women experience at least one serious complication from taking mifepristone within 45 days.

The Bottom Line:

Iowa's attempt to ban the mail-order distribution of abortion pills is a step in the right direction. However, the only way to fully protect preborn children and their mothers is too outlaw abortion altogether.

Key Takeaways:

• Mary Studebaker and Shane Perkins were surprised when they became pregnant naturally, with identical triplets — all boys.

• The couple already had a 10-year-old daughter at home, who is now anxiously awaiting her brothers' release from the hospital NICU. She has made them color-coded bracelets to tell them apart.

• The triplets were born at 31 weeks gestation and weigh between two and three pounds.

The Details:

“Let’s just try for one more,” Mary Studebaker of Texarkana recalled to KTEN. “And then all of a sudden, triplets.” The baby boys were conceived naturally, making the situation even more uncommon.

“This is a rare occurrence,” Dr. Christian Briery, maternal fetal medicine specialist with Willis Knighton Health, said. “It happens in around one in 8,000 to 10,000 pregnancies spontaneously.”  

He added, “Any time this happens, we should celebrate. It’s just a really neat phenomenon.” 

By the night of April 22, the neonatal intensive care team at Willis Knighton Health System was anticipating the babies’ arrival. “Everyone’s been talking about these babies since they were admitted,” Dr. Amanda Bunton of Willis Knighton South, said.

On Thursday, April 23, the Identical triplet boys were born at Willis Knighton in Shreveport, Louisiana, when Studebaker was 31 weeks pregnant. The boys were delivered within a minute of one another.

The births were emotional and memorable for dad Shane Perkins. “I was scared to death,” he said. “I was just holding her hand. Especially when you see, well, one baby comes out, and then another, and then another.”

Currently, each baby weighs about 2 to 3 pounds. All are likely to stay in the NICU for a while longer as they continue gaining strength. 

Meanwhile, the couple’s older child is also excited about the arrival of her three brothers, and has already started helping to keep everything in order to welcome them back home. "My 10-year-old actually made bracelets," Studebaker said. "She has them color-coded — one's green, one's blue and one's orange" to tell the identical triplets apart. 

Zoom Out:

According to Cleveland Clinic, triplets are usually conceived when three eggs are released during ovulation and all are fertilized, or when one fertilized egg divides in a way that gives rise to three embryos. Identical triplets, on the contrary, hail from a single egg that splits, resulting in three genetically matching embryos. As Cleveland Clinic explained, “Babies weighing less than 5 pounds, 8 ounces at birth (2.5 kg) have low birth weight. This raises the risk of health issues, including difficulty breathing.” 

This is because, as Cleveland Clinic noted, "multiple pregnancies typically don’t last as long as singleton pregnancies (one fetus). The average pregnancy lasts 37 to 40 weeks when there’s one fetus. As the number of fetuses increases, the duration of the pregnancy decreases. The average duration for triplets is 32 weeks to 35 weeks.” 

While contemporary culture typically deems unexpected pregnancies or multiple births as burdens to be dealt with, the positive attitudes of Mary Studebaker and Shane Perkins are a potent witness to the value of welcoming children as they come.

The Bottom Line:

Children are not problems to solve, but people to love.

Though the coming weeks will likely be filled with visits from nurses, careful monitoring, long waits, and small milestones in the NICU, this family's story shows that pregnancy is not valuable only when it is predictable or uncomplicated.

Rather, every pregnancy is precious because new life begins from the very moment of conception. Rare pregnancies, like in the case of triplets, magnify the joy of childbirth even more.

Key Takeaways:

• Pastor Clive Johnston, 78, was convicted and fined for preaching the gospel within an abortion clinic buffer zone in Northern Ireland in 2024.

• The judge convicted Johnston because, though Johnston wasn't addressing abortion, "He was within any safe access so he was doing an act, in this case preaching the gospel, intending that any person hearing it would be influenced whether directly or indirectly.”

• Johnston is seeking to learn if he has options for appealing the decision.

• Critics note that this convictionraises further concerns about freedom of speech throughout the UK.

The Details:

On July 7, 2024, Johnston, who lives in Sion Mills, County Tyrone, conducted an outdoor service within a designated safe access zone near Causeway Hospital.

Johnston, 78, is the former president of the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland and is legally represented by the Christian Institute. On May 7, he was found guilty and sentenced on two counts under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act.

Consequently, the grandfather of seven, with no prior history of run-ins with the police, faces a criminal record along with fines totalling £450. An appeal is anticipated, according to the Christian Institute.

The BBC claimed:

Johnston was convicted [by Coleraine Magistrates’ Court] of doing an act in a safe access zone with the intent of or being reckless as to whether it had the effect of influencing a protected person attending the premises. He has been fined £450.He was also found guilty of failing to comply with a direction to leave a safe access zone.

The court was told that at least one protected person was attending the hospital on the day.Judge Peter King said Johnston had "tested the law to the point where he broke the law."

During his 45-minute judgement, King claimed in statements to Coleraine Magistrates Court: 

“He was within any safe access so he was doing an act, in this case preaching the gospel, intending that any person hearing it would be influenced whether directly or indirectly.”

Besides, King elaborated that he was satisfied that Johnston  had acted recklessly “as to whether a protected person” heading to the clinic could be influenced, whether directly or indirectly. The judge declined to refer Johnston’s case to the Court of Appeal.

Johnston denounced the judge's ruling as a “dark day for Christian freedom.” 

Commentary:

The Christian Institute quoted Johnson as saying:

“We held a small, open air Sunday service near a hospital. We made no reference whatsoever to the issue of abortion. And yet the buffer zones law is so broad that holding a Sunday service has been found to be a criminal offence. And at 78 years of age I find myself, for the first time, convicted of a crime.

If someone is out there causing trouble, stirring up violence, harassing or verbally attacking people, then, absolutely, go ahead and prosecute them. But I wasn’t doing any of those things as the police video shows and as everyone involved in this case accepts.

So we are going to go away now and discuss what to do next with our legal team. I am obviously keen to find out what options there might be for me to appeal."

Director Ciarán Kelly of the Christian Institute remarked:  

“Despite assurances to the contrary when this legislation was being considered, we now see that an already controversial and deeply unjust law has now been selectively applied to criminalise gospel preaching.

This is creeping censorship. If the ruling stands it will represent a shocking new restriction on freedom of religion and freedom of speech so we will be helping Clive to consider the options for appeal.”

Similarly, Democratic Unionist Party  (DUP) MP Gregory Campbell lamented that the outcome of Johnston’s case “raises serious questions about freedom of speech and freedom of religion across the United Kingdom”.

Campbell continued:

“The decision to convict and fine a retired pastor for peacefully preaching a Christian message will concern many people right across the United Kingdom. Pastor Clive Johnston was not inciting violence or hatred. He was publicly expressing his Christian faith and speaking about the love of God, yet he has now been criminalised for doing so."

Campbell added that stifling free speech "should trouble everyone" as "the law must be applied with common sense, balance and proportionality." He went on to say that "My colleagues and I warned what would happen if this legislation passed. A person who now speaks publicly within a zone such as this one even when not touching on abortion, as was the case here, is now subject to potential prosecution. We stand firmly with Pastor Clive Johnston and with all those who believe these liberties are worth protecting.”

Key Takeaways:

• Singapore's fertility rate has dropped to a record low of 0.87.

• The government has launched an interdisciplinary workgroup to boost marriage and births in the country.

• It is believed that issues like finances, work-life balance, housing, education, and more are preventing young adults from pursuing parenthood.

The Details:

The country's new initiative is meant to support Singaporeans and encourage them toward marriage and parenthood, concentrating on major challenges such as financial pressures, work-life balance, housing, health care, and access to preschool and education.

The Marriage and Parenthood Reset Workgroup, led by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Indranee Rajah, includes eight additional political office holders from the ministries of Health, Education, Manpower, and other appropriate sectors.

The group plans to publish a comprehensive report detailing its findings in early 2027, although preliminary recommendations may be introduced sooner.

Addressing reporters on April 29 at the Prime Minister’s Office in The Treasury, Indranee explained that the workgroup represents a departure from previous strategies, which primarily depended on policy tools like enhanced subsidies, Baby Bonus schemes, and Child Development Account support.

Indranee pointed out that the novel approach hopes to engage a wider network of stakeholders — including employers, religious bodies, and the broader community — portraying the initiative as a shared national responsibility, instead of being solely a government-powered project. After all, the matter is deeply personal, shaped by individuals’ mindsets, attitudes, values, and life aspirations—areas where government involvement must remain limited, Indranee said. 

“There is a tendency to generally ask: ‘So what's the government going to do?’ And the expectation is that that will just result in a policy change. You can do that for some things, but not when it involves intangibles like this,” Indranee said. “We have identified a mindset shift as a big part of the work... and (this) has to be done in collaboration with society. So although we are a work group... my entire committee is the whole of Singapore, because we need the whole of Singapore."

Zoom In:

Singapore’s total fertility rate (TFR) decreased to a historic low of 0.87 last year, down from 0.97 the previous year, a trend Indranee cautioned would have far-reaching consequences if not tackled. 

Regarding the country’s abysmal birth rates, Indranee said, “This is an existential issue for us, and we must address it before it becomes irreversible. Given the importance of this issue, it cannot be business as usual. We need a marriage and parenthood reset.” 

The lawmaker highlighted housing, caregiving, and preschool education as major domains where earlier interventions could be introduced.

When questioned about timelines and assessable results, Indranee responded that while no particular targets have been determined at that point, she expressed hope that more signs of progress would surface as time went on. 

“What would really, really be good is if we have more babies than we had last year, and if our TFR (or total fertility rate) figure is better than it was last year,” Indranee said. 

The lawmaker elaborated that progress would also be seen in more chances for young people to connect and establish relationships, as well as in giving those contemplating parenthood greater confidence that support is available, and that family life can be rewarding. 

Other barometers of success, Indranee said, would include a decline in stigma surrounding fertility treatments and the implementation of more supportive workplace practices that encourage better work-life balance.

One priority of the workgroup would be to examine the career disadvantages often encountered by mothers. Indranee suggested reframing the period of motherhood as a temporary “pause,” where women can step away from their careers for a few years to have and raise children, with confidence that their employers will support their return.

“Right now, it seems the conversation is always binary. When you talk to employers and employees, it's almost as though if I have family time, somehow work has to be sacrificed, or if I'm doing work, family has to be sacrificed. And honestly speaking, that shouldn't be the case,” Indranee said.

The Bottom Line:

Singapore’s new workgroup raises key questions about how societies understand and support the family as the fundamental unit of social life. While efforts to make workplaces more family-friendly are welcome, deeper renewal is needed — one that affirms the dignity of both motherhood and fatherhood, and recognizes children not as burdens, but as blessings.

Singapore should also take steps to repeal its decades-long permissive abortion policies, as its loose abortion laws are a major contributor to the country’s low birth rates.

As the world watches Singapore’s efforts unfold, one thing remains clear: reversing declining birth rates necessitates a complete recalibration of cultural priorities, and a realization of the unchangeable truth that robust families form the basis of a flourishing society.

However, sharing the news was harder than finding out herself.

“I’ve got to not screw this up”

“I waited several days to tell my mom because I was really nervous about how she would react and I didn’t know how to tell her," Amber recalled. "I ended up just writing it down and gave her a letter because words couldn’t come out of my mouth about this.” 

Understandably, “She freaked out and was really upset... My mom got married when she was 16 and had me at 18 and I think a lot of it was grieving something for herself.” 

Then, too, Amber’s mom had worked hard to move her family out of a trailer park and into a nicer part of town with an academically rigorous high school. She didn’t want her daughter to lose out on the better life she’d sacrificed to make possible. 

On the other hand, when Amber told her baby’s father, he was open to supporting her in whatever she chose. A friend of his suggested “terminating the pregnancy,” but from the beginning both abortion and adoption were off the table for Amber.

She was unwavering in her desire to parent her baby. She told Live Action News that her thought was, "I’ve got to not screw this up, I’ve got to stay focused."

Living and learning

What did that look like for her?

“I tried to read everything I could, take all the classes I could," Amber said. "Because I was a teen mom, I had Medicaid and WIC and I had access to many classes [on pregnancy, parenting, and baby care]. I prepared myself as much as I could, and said, ‘I’m going to make the best of this situation.’” 

Unfortunately, many people she encountered along the way didn’t offer the support she and her baby needed and deserved, starting with the receptionist at her OB/GYN’s office.

“She would make me wait a long time every time I had an appointment, so if there were two or three people in line ahead of me, she’d check them in, and then when it was my turn she’d say, ‘Oh, hang on,’ and get up and walk away for a while. She just made things hard for me each time.” 

Amber had another discouraging experience when she went to the emergency room at her local hospital because of vaginal spotting early in pregnancy. She overheard a nurse speaking loudly outside her room, telling another staff member, “If there was a God, he wouldn’t allow teenagers to get pregnant.” 

Thankfully, Amber’s actual OB/GYN was much more encouraging despite the fact that she was a teen mom. “... My son was probably one of the last babies he delivered, but he was really cool," she said, adding that he encouraged her not to "worry about anything."

Staying in school

At school, Amber was something of an anomaly, not because she was pregnant but because she was pregnant and stayed in school until she graduated.

Her school had opened only a few years prior to her freshman year, but while “there were many other pregnant students, they just didn’t stay in school after they got pregnant.” 

Because of this experience, Amber necessarily developed tenacity and perseverance earlier than most of her peers.

A public health nurse who worked exclusively with teen moms throughout the county came periodically to check on her at school, pulling her out of class to give her pamphlets and flyers.

“We got to talk and I loved reading all that stuff. She was a really good resource,” Amber said.

That nurse advocated for Amber to leave high school and enter an accelerated program to get her Associate’s Degree — but Amber’s mother, who had dropped out of school in ninth grade, was set on Amber staying in school to have a more typical high school experience. 

Health scares and challenges

While Amber's pregnancy passed relatively smoothly, genetic testing results suggested a possibility of her son having Down syndrome.

She had an amniocentesis to check for the condition — an experience she described as frightening because “the needle is so long and it has to go through all the layers [of the belly and through the uterus].” The amnio results revealed that her son did not have Down syndrome.

Then, as her due date approached, Amber began having concerning symptoms, including frequent headaches and puffiness in her hands and feet. Despite repeatedly advocating for herself at her prenatal appointments, she was brushed aside by practitioners covering for her main OB/GYN, and her symptoms worsened until finally she ended up in the ER again.

This time, she was diagnosed with preeclampsia, and labor was induced. Her cervix barely dilated in over 24 hours, and her son ultimately entered the world via Cesarean section.  

Finding the right support

Amber gave birth in late July while on summer break from school, and she asked her nurses in the hospital to get her a pump so she could begin pumping breastmilk, with a plan to continue when the school year began.

She met with resistance because of her age and because she was still a student, with one nurse telling her, “Why do you want to do that? You’re so young, it’s going to be such a hassle. Just use formula, it’s great.” 

While she eventually received a pump to use in the hospital, Amber was sent home without a pump and without education on how to properly latch her baby at the breast. This led to painful engorgement and trouble breastfeeding.

One day, she was in so much pain when visiting a local drugstore that she couldn't even bend over to pick up an item she dropped due to the engorgement and pain from her C-section scar.

All of this contributed to Amber's postpartum anxiety and depression.

Around 10 days postpartum, Amber’s mom recognized that “this is not great,” and drove her to the local WIC office. That’s when things started to turn around. 

Amber met a peer counselor who “wasn’t even a lactation consultant, but she was an older lady and you could tell she was really passionate and she totally knew what she was doing." The counselor showed Amber how to get her son to properly latch at the breast.

Amber said she was surprised, telling the counselor, "‘Wow, this is so easy,’ and [the counselor] said, ‘Yeah, has no one shown you how to do this?’ and I said, ‘no,’ and she said, ‘well, that’s why it’s been so hard. No one has helped you.’” 

The peer counselor also got Amber set up with a pump loan program that she utilized until her son was about 10 months old, and she stopped breastfeeding him.

A mixed bag

Going back to school for her junior year was difficult in other ways, too.

“It was really hard to leave my son when he was so young," Amber said. "He was so little that he had to stay with my aunt for a week or two until he was old enough for daycare.” 

In addition, while her peers were more or less respectful, the drama teacher who kept the key for the room where Amber went to pump her baby's milk each day repeatedly asked loud, inappropriate questions in front of her fellow students, like “Why do you need this key again? What do you need to do?” 

Yet, caring for her young son kept Amber out of trouble that can come with a ‘typical high school experience.’ She acknowledged, “With some of the stuff that was going on, honestly, I was glad I was home with the baby.” 

When the past shapes the present

Several years passed, and Amber and her son’s father eventually parted ways. But her experiences as a teen mother ultimately led to the work she does today. 

While Amber's first attempt at college didn’t work out due to ongoing postpartum depression and anxiety, she didn’t give up. Later on, she returned and earned a Bachelor’s degree in biology before focusing on caring for pregnant and postpartum mothers.

This is the work she has done for the last decade, first as a doula and then as childbirth educator, board-certified lactation consultant, and business owner of The Latch Link.

Today, she employs 15 other women who are equally dedicated to “women supporting women,” whether their clients end up breastfeeding, bottle-feeding, or a combination of both. 

Amber believes that her challenges as a teen mother actually contributed to her current success.

“I’m more successful than I would have been if I hadn’t been a teen mom because I had to do so many hard things," she told Live Action News. "Like not being willing to give up when things get hard. Going to high school every day as a teen mom was hard. Showing up every day was really hard… The baby was great, but the showing up and going to school sucked."

She added, "Being able to develop the self-discipline of putting myself through something that was really uncomfortable for a greater outcome — that was the best skill to have gotten.” 

Key Takeaways:

• H.R. 8119 would require insurers to include coverage for IVF, with civil fines of $100 daily if they do not comply.

• The USCCB has called on Congress to oppose the bill, noting conscience objections and the loss of unborn human beings.

• While the USCCB expressed sympathy for those experiencing infertility, the group pointed to restorative reproductive medicine as an option, rather than promoting IVF.

The Details:

In a recent missive released April 29, the bishops declared that lawmakers should not encourage or facilitate in vitro fertilization (IVF) through insurance coverage mandates, pointing to the Helping to Optimize Patients’ Experience (HOPE) with Fertility Services Act. 

According to the bill, insurers could face civil fines of $100 daily if they sell plans that do not include IVF coverage. The language does not seem to take into account the conscience objections of religious employers, even though the USCCB and the Southern Baptist Convention both reject IVF. 

The bill was introduced by Rep. Zachary Nunn (R-Iowa), and is co-sponsored by 18 members of Congress, including nine Democrats, eight Republicans, and one Independent. So far, the bill has been introduced and referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce, with no other action taken.

“Infertility impacts millions of families and it doesn’t discriminate. It can affect anyone who wants to start or grow a family,” bill cosponsor Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), said in a statement. “I know firsthand. Thanks to IVF, my husband and I conceived our twins, now both healthy young adults. But after enduring that struggle, I’ve fought to expand insurance coverage for the prohibitively costly fertility treatments that can make this only accessible to the very few who can afford it.” 

In response to the bill, the USCCB reinforced its “grief for the growing number of families suffering infertility” and “corresponding support for life-affirming, but often overlooked, restorative reproductive medicine,” but denounced H.R. 8119, pointing out the differences between restorative reproductive medicine and IVF:

Restorative reproductive medicine involves deeper and more comprehensive diagnostic studies, and more detailed cycle monitoring than a typical workup, to inform surgical, hormonal, and/or even lifestyle treatments that frequently work to truly heal patients.

These practices, and additional research to strengthen them, warrant support and awareness. Patients and hopeful parents deserve no less.

IVF in contrast, especially as practiced in the United States, represents a relatively unregulated industry that creates hundreds of thousands or even millions of preborn children who will be interminably frozen, expended in attempts to place them within a mother, or discarded and killed (often in a selective, eugenic manner).

Furthermore, alluding to how H.R. 8119 poses threats to religious freedom, the bishops continued:

Many religious employers that are otherwise exempt from ERISA, however, choose to provide their employees’ health insurance under ERISA anyway precisely because ERISA’s preemption of state law allows them to avoid having their consciences violated by state-level insurance requirements (including for IVF).

A mandate within ERISA would therefore place these employers in a new bind between its requirements and those of problematic state laws. At the same time, certain other religious employers’ plans, such as those of independent religious schools, may not qualify as “church plans” exempt from ERISA in the first place.

As pastors, we see the suffering that infertility can cause and the deep desire of couples to grow their family. We strongly encourage licit means of easing this suffering, both medically and emotionally. For all of the above reasons, we implore you to consider that life-ending assisted reproductive technologies (ART) cannot be the solution.

The Big Picture:

The April 29 letter was signed by Archbishop Alexander K. Sample, who chairs the USCCB's Committee on Religious Liberty; Bishop Daniel E. Thomas, head of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities; and Bishop Edward J. Burns, leader of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth. 

In 2025, the bishops emphasized that IVF infringes on the dignity of children by manufacturing children in a laboratory environment.

“Every human life, born and preborn, is sacred and loved by God. Without diminishing the dignity of people born through IVF, we must recognize that children have a right to be born of a natural and exclusive act of married love, rather than a business’s technological intervention. And harmful government action to expand access to IVF must not also push people of faith to be complicit in its evils,” the bishops said. 

As Live Action News has previously reported, IVF can never truly be pro-life:

[T]he majority of human embryos created through IVF do not survive to birth. It is now known that more human beings die annually during the IVF process in the U.S. than from abortion. It is unknown exactly how many are destroyed for failing to meet the standards set by fertility doctors, but estimates paint a grim picture.

In 2023, there were 432,641 IVF cycles at 371 reporting clinics in the U.S., but only 95,860 babies were born. Based on a conservative average of nine embryos created per cycle (a study found nine to be the number needed to optimize live birth rates), an estimated 3,893,769 embryos were created in 2023 alone. About half of those are estimated to have not survived beyond the next two stages: the blastocyst stage and the genetic testing stage.

Of the remaining estimate of 1,946,884 embryos, 91,360 were automatically "banked" for "future use." Of the remainder, only 95,860 survived to birth after being graded, labeled, selected, and transferred. This leaves 1,759,664 human embryos unaccounted for, who were either frozen, miscarried, donated to research, or released for embryo adoption (with the adoption rate at just 1-6%). In comparison, there were an estimated 1,037,880 abortions in 2024 in the U.S. (and 1,053,430 abortions in 2024).

The Bottom Line:

The bishops’ statement underscores the friction that has become more acute in recent years: between “family-building” government measures and the destruction of embryonic human lives through IVF. Traditional Catholic teaching states that addressing infertility should not imply endorsing treatments that hinge on choosing, storing, and discarding children at the earliest stage of life.

 As IVF becomes more prominent politically, pro-lifers have to clearly maintain their stance that compassion for infertile couples and the protection of embryonic life are not mutually exclusive values in face of life-affirming alternatives such as ethical fertility research, restorative approaches, and adoption. 

Key Takeaways:

• HB 26-1024 raises the maximum age of a child who may be surrendered under the safe haven law from 72 hours old to 30 days old.

• The bill recognizes that parents need more time to consider whether or not to surrender their child.

• Safe surrenders may be made at a hospital, fire station, or emergency clinic.

• The new law goes into effect on August 12.

The Details:

HB 26-1024 raises the maximum age of a child who may be surrendered under the safe haven law from 72 hours old to 30 days old. The legislation passed unanimously with bipartisan support, as lawmakers recognized the need for a parent to have more time in making the weighty decision of whether or not to surrender their newborn.

“The first few days after childbirth are not calm or clear,” the bill's sponsor, Rep. Rebecca Keltie, explained. “They are intense. A mother’s body is flooded with hormones and often distressed.” 

Keltie said the new law will give parents “the space to choose what is truly best for themselves and their baby.”

Zoom In:

The legislation was championed by the organization Colorado Safe Haven for Newborns.

"What I'm hoping to see is just giving those families more time to explore those different resources, explore the avenues, find out if they have a support system in place and see if this is the right decision for them," said Sara Wagner, the group's executive director.

The new law will take effect August 12.

The Bottom Line:

Each state has a safe haven surrender law, originally crafted to curtail infant abandonments.

Colorado's law was originally enacted in 2000, and it allows infant surrenders at fire stations, hospitals, and emergency clinics. Since 2000, 96 infants have been surrendered; according to Denver 7, eight babies were surrendered in the state last year.

According to Colorado Safe Haven for Newborns, babies who are surrendered are placed with pre-adoptive foster families, with the goal of finding them permanent adoptive homes.

In this series, Live Action News will dive deeper into NAF, its policies, connections, and guidelines.

Key Takeaways:

• The National Abortion Federation is a sought-after resource for the media regarding abortion.

• NAF took the lead in introducing mifepristone in the U.S., and early donors to NAF included the abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories, LLC.

• NAF operates the largest national, toll-free, multi-lingual hotline for abortion information and abortion financial assistance in the U.S. and Canada.

• In 2021, NAF sought to hire an “Intelligence Analyst” to create “dossiers” to track pro-life activities, individuals, and groups.

• In violation of pro-lifers' First Amendment rights, these dossiers contained personally identifying information, such as addresses, photographs (including spouses and minor children), names of associates, travel plans, and even driver's license numbers.

Why It Matters:

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is a go-to resource for the media, which often paints abortion as a safe procedure while dismissing pro-life arguments as unscientific.

NAF oversees "more than 450 facility members" that "include private and non-profit clinics, Planned Parenthood affiliates, women’s health centers, physicians’ offices, hospitals, and virtual providers in the U.S. and Canada, and public hospitals and both public and private clinics in Mexico City and private clinics in Colombia."

The organization claims to provide "accurate information" on abortion, yet simultaneously refers to abortion as fundamental, and says abortion is necessary for "a just society" in which abortion "is a basic part of health care."

The Details:

The History of NAF

NAF's longer version of its history has been removed from its website; however, an archived history at prochoice.org claims:

NAF was established when an abortion provider service organization, the National Association of Abortion Facilities (NAAF), and a professional association dedicated to standards of care and access for women, the National Abortion Council (NAC), merged in 1977.

The two independent groups were formed to serve the needs of abortion providers and women seeking abortion care following the first national symposium on abortion after Roe v. Wade, held in March 1975 in Knoxville, TN.

NAF's 30th year annual report added:

A committee was formed to plan the creation of the National Association of Abortion Facilities (NAAF)...the impetus for founding NAAF came from independent, free standing clinics who felt excluded from various national configurations of providers, notably the Pre-term and PPFA clinics.

Original members of NAC and its board were drawn from that sector and from the abortion rights organizations. National leaders urged both organizations to work toward a merger and a merger committee comprised of the leaders of both groups as well as independent voices in the field developed a merger plan whose key provision was a complex and weighted system of board membership from the various provider groups (profit, non-profit, doctor’s offices, feminist clinics, Planned Parenthood clinics).

Among the members of the merger committee were Christopher Tietze, MD, of the Population Council, Jeannie Rosoff of the Guttmacher Institute, Judy Widdicombe of Reproductive Services in Missouri (NAC), Merle Hoffman of Choices in New York (NAAF), Frances Kissling, and Joan Crowley.

Agreement was reached to call the new organization the National Abortion Federation (thus almost preserving the NAAF initials) and to adopt the NAC model of equal representation for all types of providers. The two boards voted on January 29 in Washington DC to merge and become the National Abortion Federation (NAF) and the memberships approved by mail vote.

In 2018, former and current staffers accused the organization of failing to protect employees against alleged sexual harassment. 

NAF Funding and Abortion Pill Connections

"NAF took the lead in introducing mifepristone (RU-486) in the U.S., and educating providers in its use for early abortions," the archived history at prochoice.org claimed.

Early donors to NAF included the abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories, LLC, as well as The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (1998/1999, 2001), which invested heavily in Danco early on and continues to fund abortion pill studies.

Early donors also included:

• The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (2001)

• Open Society Institute

• The Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation

• Zuckerman Family Fund of The Tides Foundation

Today, NAF receives millions from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which also granted hundreds of millions to the NAF Hotline Fund.

Buffett is a known abortion pill investor, granting additional millions in abortion training programs through the University of California.

NAF Operations

1) National Abortion Hotline

NAF operates the "largest national, toll-free, multi-lingual Hotline for abortion provider information and financial assistance in the U.S. and Canada," it writes online.

2) Clinicians in Abortion Care (CIAC)

This is described by NAF as:

[A] membership group sponsored by NAF representing certified midwives (CM), certified nurse-midwives (CNMs), nurse practitioners (NPs), physician associates (PAs), nurses, and students of those professions, working to increase access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and abortion care.

3) Clinical Policy Guidelines for Abortion Care (CPGs)

NAF states online that the organization "believes in setting the highest standards of quality abortion care," and NAF’s Clinical Policy Guidelines for Abortion Care (CPGs) are "intended to provide parameters to ensure access to the highest quality abortion care."

Tracking Pro-lifers

In 2021, Live Action News documented how NAF was seeking to hire an “Intelligence Analyst” to create “dossiers” that track pro-life activities, individuals and groups, and so-called acts of violence by “anti-choice extremists.”

According to the job posting placed on Indeed.com, NAF’s Intelligence Analyst was to “conduct research and gather intelligence on anti-abortion individuals and activities” and “work with clinic staff and local, state, and federal law enforcement officials to prevent and respond to incidents of violence and disruption at abortion clinics throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico, and South America.”

More recently, a Department of Justice (DOJ) report documented NAF's collaboration with the Biden administration to weaponize the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act against pro-life Americans, writing:

The Task Force Director was on texting terms with the National Abortion Federation’s (NAF) Security Team and regularly communicated with Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF)

The DOJ claimed that because NAF members "are NGOs, they can poke around on the internet in ways we can’t."

The report noted how NAF "monitored the activities and locations of pro-life activists and shared updates about their First Amendment activities with the Biden DOJ..." including:

• “Anti-choice social media posts."

• "Audio recordings."

• Dates of birth.

• Home addresses and additional personal information.

According to the Thomas More Society (TMS) analysis of the report:

Before an annual conference held by a pro-life group, NAF sent the DOJ's Task Force Director "a 137-page memorandum on the conference schedule, lodging, and multi-page dossiers on numerous 'anti-choice individuals,' including many of the pardoned defendants.

These dossiers contained personally identifying information, such as addresses, photographs (including spouses and minor children), names of associates, travel plans, and even drivers' license numbers. The FBI itself flagged this as tracking "1st Amendment protected activity, but the investigations moved forward anyway. Many of the individuals in those dossiers became Thomas More Society clients.

Live Action News previously documented:

While NAF is fixated on the conduct of “anti-choice extremists,” internally it has its own organizational sins. In 2018, NAF staffers publicly accused the abortion umbrella group of failing to address sexual harassment claims by the organization’s then security head, Mark Mellor. According to reports published by the pro-abortion RewireNewsGroup, staffers described Mellor’s behavior as “somewhat creepy,” “extremely inappropriate,” “extremely unprofessional,” and “deeply inappropriate.”

NAF members have also had their share of scandals and pro-lifers have repeatedly documented the careless way some NAF members treated abortion patients, including sexual abuse. NAF’s lax standards were also on display in the case of notorious House of Horrors abortionist Kermit Gosnell. According to the Grand Jury Report, Gosnell was allowed to work at a NAF clinic in Delaware.

And while NAF denied Gosnell’s Philadelphia abortion facility membership after it was observed that “no one was monitoring or taking vital signs of patients who were sedated during procedures,” among other serious violations, prosecutors noted that NAF failed to report the violations to authorities.

Recently, the group ReproJobs called NAF out on Twitter for a number of internal issues, including allegations of racism. 

In part two of this series, Live Action News will explore NAF's involvement in the expansion of abortion providers.

People often ask whether a class-action lawsuit against the manufacturers of mifepristone (Danco Laboratories’ Mifeprex and GenBioPro’s generic) is feasible under traditional product-liability theories. I explain that those claims face steep hurdles: the drug carries FDA-approved labeling with prominent warnings, courts generally defer to the agency’s safety determinations, and proving specific causation for rare adverse events in individual patients is expensive and difficult. 

There is, however, a potentially more straightforward avenue: suing the manufacturers for failing to enforce the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program — a safety protocol — they are legally required to maintain.

Key Takeaways:

• Prescribers of the abortion pill, mifepristone/Mifeprex, are required to hold to certain standards.

• The manufacturers are responsible for certifying these prescribers, monitoring compliance, and de-certifying those who are non-compliant. Evidence suggests this is widely left unenforced.

• REMS enforcement records, distribution data, and adverse-event reports should be examined to find out whether the manufacturers are properly policing prescribers.

The Details:

The FDA-mandated mifepristone REMS exists precisely to mitigate serious risks—sepsis, excessive bleeding, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy—by restricting distribution to certified prescribers and pharmacies who agree to specific safeguards. 

Under the REMS, prescribers must certify that they can:

•  Accurately assess gestational age (the drug is approved only through 70 days).

•  Diagnose ectopic pregnancies.

•  Provide or arrange surgical intervention for incomplete abortion or severe bleeding and assure access to facilities equipped for blood transfusions and resuscitation.

They must also review the FDA-approved Patient Agreement Form with each patient, fully explain the risks (including serious infection and heavy bleeding), obtain the patient’s signature, provide her a copy along with the Medication Guide, and keep the signed form in the medical record. Pharmacies that dispense the drug must similarly certify.

Accountability issues

The manufacturers (sponsors) are responsible for certifying these providers and pharmacies, monitoring compliance, and de-certifying those who fail to maintain it. They control distribution and are supposed to ensure the drug reaches only compliant parties. 

The drug label has a black box warning, which states: “Serious and sometimes fatal infections and bleeding occur very rarely following … medical abortions, including following MIFEPREX use.”

It highlights atypical presentations of sepsis (sometimes without fever) and warns that prolonged heavy bleeding may signal incomplete abortion or other complications requiring immediate intervention.

Ectopic pregnancy is a contraindication because mifepristone does not terminate it.

The labeling also requires the same Rh-isoimmunization prevention measures used in surgical abortion. 

Yet evidence suggests widespread non-enforcement.

Online and telehealth providers often rely on patient self-reporting of last menstrual period (LMP) for gestational dating. ACOG notes that roughly half of women do not accurately recall their LMP date. 

Studies of abortion-seeking patients show that while many can self-assess early gestation reasonably well, the error rate is non-trivial, and the REMS places the accuracy obligation on the certified prescriber.

Duties and obligations

Some clinics and telehealth services advertise the abortion pill as “safer than Tylenol,” a claim that directly contradicts the black-box warnings and has drawn state attorney-general scrutiny (e.g., Florida’s recent action against Planned Parenthood). 

If manufacturers are certifying (or continuing to supply) providers and pharmacies that ignore these obligations—failing to verify gestational age properly, allowing misleading safety claims, or skipping required counseling and documentation—then they are not fulfilling their REMS duties. The sponsors’ own agreements state they will de-certify non-compliant parties and stop distribution to them.

What good is a REMS if the companies charged with enforcing it treat certification as a mere formality?

The FDA is the primary regulator, but private plaintiffs harmed by alleged violations have standing to seek remedies when manufacturers breach duties that directly protect patients. A class action focused on systemic failure to enforce the prescriber and pharmacy agreements could be far more targeted than diffuse product-liability suits.

It would force the companies to either police their network rigorously or face financial consequences for the gaps that leave women exposed to the very risks the REMS was designed to prevent.

The Bottom Line:

Plaintiffs’ attorneys who care about patient safety—regardless of their views on abortion—should examine the REMS enforcement records, distribution data, and adverse-event reports. The manufacturers have the contractual and regulatory tools; the question is whether they are using them. If not, the courts are an appropriate venue to hold them accountable.

Michael Seibel is a pro-life abortion malpractice attorney based in Albuquerque. Mr. Seibel has prosecuted abortion malpractice cases on behalf of women injured by the abortion industry. He may be contacted at (505) 275-1700 or mikeseibel@qwestoffice.net. His website is: https://abortioninjury.com/

The suit also seeks a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the amendment if it is approved.

Key Takeaways:

• The Founding Freedoms Law Center has filed a lawsuit, saying the upcoming referendum that would enshrine abortion as a constitutional 'right' in Virginia is unconstitutional, because the ballot measure's language is misleading.

• Plaintiffs say the constitutional amendment would strip many protections currently in place, including parental consent laws and abortion facility safety standards.

• This is the second lawsuit filed against the upcoming ballot measure.

The Details:

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed April 30, include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Virginia Medical Freedom Alliance, and Bluefield Town Council member Meagan Kade.

At issue is the language of the proposed constitutional amendment, which will go before voters for approval this November. If the amendment passes, it would enshrine the "right" to abortion in the state's constitution.

The ballot question states:

“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; (ii) protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and (iii) allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient’s health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive?”

It's this language that the Founding Freedoms Law Center and Family Foundation says is misleading, as it fails to inform voters that if the measure passes, it would likely eradicate a number of commonsense safeguards and restrictions.

Courthouse News Service reports:

The plaintiffs claim the question fails to inform voters that the amendment would, in their words, eliminate parental notifications and consent before a minor obtains an abortion or gender-affirming surgery; strip Virginia of its ability to enforce statutory rape laws, by enshrining a right to consensual sexual activity without age limits; allow those without licensees to perform abortions with full immunity from state penalties; end Virginia's ability to set health standards for abortion facilities; and block the state regulating commercial surrogacy.

“No matter where one stands on the issue of abortion, they should know what the amendment will do to abortion law in Virginia,” said Victoria Cobb, Family Foundation president. “And what it’s going to do it’s going to overturn our parental consent for abortion, which is actually majority supported in Virginia.”

“The law is clear, proposed constitutional amendments placed on the ballot must be explained in a neutral manner,” explained Founding Freedom Law Center attorney Josh Hetzler. “The question posed to the voters cannot be deceptive or fraudulent, but this abortion amendment ballot language deceives voters on issues of major importance.”

Zoom Out:

This isn't the first lawsuit against the ballot measure. In March, Liberty Council also filed a suit, alleging that state election officials failed to follow proper protocol when advancing the referendum, thereby making its approval "void."

Interestingly enough, though not specifically mentioned in the lawsuit, use of the term "pregnancy" to refer to a preborn child in the phrase, "... except when the patient’s health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive" (emphasis added) is vague and medically inaccurate.

The Bottom Line:

As Hetzler explained, this latest lawsuit seeks to clarify the language — not remove the ballot question altogether.

“We are not asking a court to take this question off the ballot," he said. "We are asking the court to do what only a court can do, declare that the ballot language as written is unconstitutional, and to permanently enjoin enforcement of the amendment if it passes. Proposed constitutional amendments must be explained to voters neutrally and accurately. The question Virginians will be handed in November fails that test.”

Key Takeaways:

• Martina Tierney was experiencing severe abdominal pain when she went to Craigavon Area Hospital in Northern Ireland in October 2021, at 34 weeks pregnant.

• Two days after she was admitted, her baby, Mallaidh, died.

• Despite Tierney's requests for scans and a C-section, her extreme pain, and her previous C-section scar rupture, an inquest has found that hospital staff "ignored" her pleas for help.

The Backstory:

Martina Tierney went to the hospital in October 2021 with severe pain at 34 weeks pregnant. Her pregnancy had been considered high risk, and she was admitted to the Maternity Unit in Craigavon Area Hospital on October 8.

However, she did not see a consultant despite her pain becoming "progressively worse" between then and October 10, when her baby was found to no longer have a heartbeat.

According to the BBC, during a previous pregnancy, Tierney had suffered an internal rupture of a C-section scar, and she believed that it was happening again. She had unexplained pain with fetal movements that she classified as an eight to nine out of 10.

On the evening of October 9, one day into her hospital admission, she requested a C-section but was told it would be better to wait until the morning.

"I physically couldn't get up out of bed and the pain was just through the roof," she explained.

That night, she "couldn't feel the baby move," and asked doctors to check on her.

But the next morning, when they checked on baby Mallaidh, she no longer had a heartbeat. "Our beautiful baby had passed away," said Tierney.

The Details:

Tierney testified that she requested scans and a C-section while at the hospital, but said her requests were "ignored, not listened to and not acted upon."

There were other issues during her hospitalizations, including that staff allegedly recorded her pain levels inaccurately and a midwife was recorded "being in two places at once."

Tierney said she was treated as though she were a "hindrance" to the staff and that the staff acted "accusatory" of her and her husband. She also said they are now being accused of "looking [for] compensation" when in reality, they want to prevent this same situation from happening to someone else.

Her husband, Ryan, said he and Tierney are "overcome with grief" as there will "always be an empty seat at our dinner table."

During the inquest, an attorney said the doctor who was attending claimed Tierney did not mention a previous C-section scar rupture, but Tierney maintained that she did.

"Given I was a high risk pregnancy," said Tierney, "my pain increased; I think it was overlooked."

She added, "I have so much guilt and I feel I should have done more and I should have shouted more."

Dr. Gillian McKeown testified that she saw Tierney on October 6 and found that she been in "pain for a number of weeks which we couldn't explain." McKeown confirmed that there was a risk of uterine rupture with any previous C-section.

Tierney had a C-section scheduled for October 12, but McKeown was never informed of Tierney's hospitalization, saying it was not standard practice to notify the doctor "unless there's a clinical concern." She said she did not think that she needed to be called.

The inquest into the death of baby Mallaidh is ongoing.

Zoom Out:

A recent report on NHS maternity units found a poor level of care and little effort to improve the quality of care despite repeated maternity scandals.

“We have seen maternity and neonatal services trying to respond in difficult circumstances and dealing with competing pressures but too often failing to deliver the safe care that women, families and babies expect and deserve, at times with devastating consequences," said Lady Amos, who conducted the review.

Craigavon Area Hospital, where Tierney was seen, is part of the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, one of the main providers of health care in Northern Ireland. It operates under the NHS; however, it is not included in Amos' review, which is focused on NHS trusts in England.

Key Takeaways:

• ReThink Pregnancy, a campaign born of a collaboration between EveryLife and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, challenges the negative cultural messages surrounding pregnancy.

• EveryLife founder and CEO Sarah Gabel Seifert says the campaign "tells the full story, one rooted in truth, in science, in real experiences, and in the extraordinary things a woman’s body was made to do."

• The campaign seeks to show that pregnancy is an incredible experience, as is motherhood, and is not to be feared but celebrated.

The Details:

“ReThink Pregnancy,” a campaign which includes a video series, introduced by EveryLife in collaboration with the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), seeks to reframe how pregnancy is discussed in modern culture.

By identifying the physical and emotional benefits, the campaign highlights perspectives that emphasize purpose, design, and the lived experiences of women.

ReThink Pregnancy challenges the current narrative with a more complete and truthful image: what if pregnancy isn’t simply something that happens to women, but something happening with purpose, by design?

According to EveryLife, the campaign is intended as a “cultural reset” — an effort to broaden the conversation and bring forward the voices of OBGYNs and mothers. Central to the initiative is the idea that pregnancy is not merely something that happens to women, but something that is meaningful and intentional. 

Founder and CEO of EveryLife, Sarah Gabel Seifert, says it best:

​​“Young women today are often told that pregnancy is something to fear or even avoid, and rarely something to marvel at. I’ve seen that narrative shape some of the most important decisions in women’s lives, first as a pregnancy resource center director, and now as a mom and founder of a baby brand.

ReThink Pregnancy tells the full story, one rooted in truth, in science, in real experiences, and in the extraordinary things a woman’s body was made to do. It’s the conversation women deserve.”

The OBGYNs featured in the video series discuss numerous ways that pregnancy is actually beneficial for women, including:

• Women who have been pregnant have a significantly lower risk for breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers.

• Two or more pregnancies reduces a woman's chances of developing multiple sclerosis by 50%.

• The maternal brain physically rewires during pregnancy in ways that may protect cognitive health for life. (The “pregnancy brain” women apologize for is an upgrade, not a deficit.)

• Remarkably, cells from a baby live in the mother’s body for decades, with research indicating the cells travel to wounds, aiding in healing. (Even in circumstances of pregnancy loss, this is the case.)

As AAPLOG CEO Dr. Christina Francis notes, “I don’t know how anybody could look at that [evidence] and deny the existence of a Creator who has a hand in all of that.” 

The Bottom Line:

In a culture that finds every reason to discourage women from getting pregnant and warns against having children, a resource like this is needed now more than ever. This is vital for this generation and the ones to come, to educate on the benefits of pregnancy and enlighten young people on the beauty and meaning of every new life.

Learn more by exploring ReThink Pregnancy. 

Key Takeaways:

• Ghanaian mother Afua traveled to the United States for a wedding, but went into premature labor. Her husband and three-year-old child remained in Ghana.

• Her baby girl, Akosua, was delivered at 23 weeks, and stayed in the NICU for 172 days.

• The baby was discharged after a G-tube was inserted to temporarily help with nutrition. Mother and baby remain in the U.S. for the time being, while baby Akosua receives specialized care for the G-tube.

The Details:

Ghanaian mother-of-two Afua, who was 23 weeks pregnant in October 2025, had traveled from Ghana to the United States to attend her cousin’s wedding. Initially, Afua intended to spend several days in Northern Virginia reconnecting with family and friends before heading to Houston for the rest of her trip. On the third day of her visit, Afua started to feel ill and sought care at the emergency department of StoneSprings Hospital Center. 

Doctors realized that Afua was already six centimeters dilated, prompting them to transfer her to Reston Hospital, a facility equipped to handle extremely premature births. On October 26, 2025, Afua’s daughter, Akosua, was delivered.

Akosua remained in the neonatal intensive care unit for 172 days, encountering various complications connected to her premature birth. She battled pneumonia and needed multiple reintubations, rendering her early months particularly challenging. 

Separated by thousands of miles from her husband and their three-year-old child, Afua said the care she received from medical staff helped her get through the difficult time.

“Most of the time, you might have a partner to share this with, but my husband wasn’t around. To have the nurses and the doctors just hug and say, ‘It will be okay,’ offered so much comfort,” Afua said. She continued:

“As much as I have fantastic doctors back home in Ghana, I think the majority of them told me that assuming it had happened back home, the outcome would possibly have been different.

For a 23-weeker, chances of survival back home would probably have been close to none. The infrastructure to support a baby [born that early] is close to nonexistent. The assurance I was getting back home was to be thankful it’s happened where it has."

In time, after Akosua’s birth, Afua’s husband traveled with their young child to see the newest member of the family, but because Akosua was in isolation, the siblings could not meet face to face.

Later on, Dr. Mariam Said, the NICU medical director at Reston Hospital Center who oversaw Akosua’s care, portrayed Afua’s family as “a joy” during their visit.

"[Afua’s] whole family was just a joy, And one thing I will say about this unit in particular: This becomes a family. Even if you’re not here for 100 days, it really does become a family,” Dr. Said stated.

Regarding Akosua’s birth and survival, Dr. Said continued:

"I do have to tell you, in the big picture, we see lots of 23-week babies and they don’t all have good outcomes. I mean, she’s a real miracle.

I think that the partnership between Children’s National and HCA [Healthcare] allows us to care for babies like this If this was prior to our partnership, she would have been transferred to another facility, which likely puts her at much higher risk for intraventricular hemorrhage and other adverse outcomes just from the transport alone. … [This partnership] allows us to care for the sickest of the sick jointly and serve the community in a really meaningful way."

Zoom In:

Eventually, Afua was discharged with Akosua after a G-tube was placed, supporting the baby's feeding until she can eat independently.

“The G tube’s not forever. It’s a bridge to get her home," Dr. Said explained. "It’s a big decision to make. But at the same time, we know developmentally, being home with [her mom] 24/7 is the most beneficial thing.”  

For the time being, Afua and Akosua will remain in the United States so the baby can continue receiving specialized care for her G-tube. Afua disclosed that she intends to return frequently to visit the hospital team who supported them, including during a planned trip this summer with her husband and older daughter.

“God sent amazing angels when we had no idea it was her time to be on Earth … and they held her until she was ready to go home,” Afua said.

The Bottom Line:

Akosua’s story is a poignant reminder that every child, however small or premature, is a unique human being deserving of protection, not elimination. Even at 23 weeks, human babies are able to survive with appropriate and meticulous medical care. The very existence of thriving micro-preemies like Akosua boosts the pro-life case for defending the lives of  all preborn children, regardless of gestational age. They are not potential humans, but humans with potential. 

Key Takeaways:

• A blog post from Planned Parenthood tells women that they can tell their chemical abortion is complete when they see "pregnancy tissue" that "looks similar to dryer lint."

• This lie puts women's health and lives at risk.

• Women have shared how Planned Parenthood lied to them about the abortion pill experience and the development of their preborn children, leaving them traumatized when they see the truth.

The Details:

For the Planned Parenthood blog, Attia answered the question: "How can I tell if my abortion worked?"

Attia claimed that abortion pills are "very effective at ending early pregnancies" and that they "work 87-99 out of 100 times, depending on how far along your pregnancy is and how much medicine you take." (Essentially, this hints that the abortion pill shows a possible failure rate of up to 13%, even in early pregnancy.)

She admitted that women will sometimes need to have a second abortion surgically, which she downplays. In addition, a recent report found that nearly 11% of women who take the abortion pill will suffer severe adverse events.

If a woman "is worried their medication abortion didn't work because they're expecting to see more blood, tissue, or large clumps to come out," no need to worry, said Attia, because "it's very likely that all you'll see is what looks like a period." She added:

This is because in pregnancy, the pregnancy tissue looks similar to dryer lint, which, mixed in with blood, is often not very noticeable.

This is a blatant lie that could cause women to wrongly believe their abortion has been completed when it hasn't, leaving them at serious risk of a deadly infection.

In addition, likening human beings to "dryer lint" is dehumanizing, insulting, and discriminatory. Millions of women who have suffered the grief of miscarriage and abortion and witnessed the humanity of their children are being gaslit by Planned Parenthood with this statement. And it's reducing children to what most of us consider to be garbage.

Below is an embryoscopy image from the Endowment for Human Development of the face and hands of a baby at seven weeks and four days post fertilization (nine weeks and four days LMP):

But Planned Parenthood takes the deception a step further. A link in the blog sends readers to a 2022 heavily debunked (by even pro-abortion individuals) article in The Guardian, which showed altered images of aborted children supplied by the MYA Network. It claimed the images were of "pregnancy tissue" or a "gestational sac" with "no visible embryo." In reality, the human embryos had been removed before the photographs were taken.

The images even contradict the real images of an embryo that The Guardian shared back in 2009:

OB/GYN Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, called the MYA Network images “intentionally misleading,” adding, “They state that they are pictures of gestational sacs, ignoring the inconvenient fact that in pregnancy, the gestational sac surrounds the embryonic or fetal human being — which have clearly been removed before these photos were taken.”

Planned Parenthood's claim isn't a slight error or a simple misunderstanding of the early stages of fetal development. It is a deliberate attempt to trick women. Planned Parenthood has fought against informed consent laws that would require it to accurately inform women about fetal development.

Why It Matters:

With its repeated lies, Planned Parenthood clearly does not care about women, seeks only to make money off of their bodies and the bodies of their children, and sees women as unworthy of the truth. It profits financially from pulling the wool over their eyes.

Countless women have shared the devastating aftermath of Planned Parenthood's lies about the abortion pill experience, including that it would be like a heavy period and that it would be too soon to see a baby. These women then went home to experience serious blood loss, the trauma of seeing and holding the bodies of their children, and the scary complications that are associated with the abortion pill.

One woman, Nelle, explained that she went to Planned Parenthood and was given the abortion pill. She said, "The ENTIRE time I was there I was told LIES!  They said, ‘There are no real risks, this is like a period, light cramping, it’ll all be over within 2 days.'”

When she got home, however, she read the packet given to her that said she could bleed for three weeks. She noted:

...it hurt like crazy and I have never been more nauseated and in pain in my life. I was a sweaty, bloody, crying mess. The cramping was pretty bad for me but it was the fact of feeling the chunks fall out of you. I sat on the toilet and eventually put on a maxi pad and sat on the couch. It was about 3-4 hours of cramping until it came out.

She added:

I truly believe Planned Parenthood tricks young girls into getting these type [sic] of abortions solely to keep them running… They assure you there is literally zero risk and that it is quick, private, and like a period. Which is all a lie!…

Another woman, Christina, shared that she was given the abortion pill at Planned Parenthood and told by staff that she "wouldn't see anything" — meaning her baby’s body — just as it did in the blog post.

“They didn’t ever use the word baby,” she explained. “They always just said ‘it’ or ’tissue’ or ‘the process.’ They never said anything about the level of development. They did tell me it would be too small to see anything.”

It wasn't the "heavy period" she was told it would be. "It felt like hell," she said. She birthed her baby two hours after taking the second drug, misoprostol.

“When I turned around, there it was in the sac and everything.” said Christina. “I broke open the sac and held the helpless little baby in my hand. I cried and felt like I had just murdered someone so innocent. I regretted it 100% after that night.”

The Bottom Line:

Planned Parenthood's willingness to lie knows no bounds. It will continue to sell women abortion like any other shady business with a harmful product to sell.

Key Takeaways:

• Estimates from the Office for National Statistics project there will be more deaths than births in Britain in 2026.

• That trend is expected to continue through the rest of the decade, with Britain going into population decline by the 2050s.

• With migration also slowing, economists are warning that this could have major repercussions.

The Details:

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) is projecting that there will be more deaths than births in Britain for the first time this year, and that this trend is expected to continue through 2034. With net migration also slowing, the overall population is likely to decline.

Between 2026 and 2034, it is projected that there will be 6,396,000 births, compared to 6,846,000 deaths, with 2026 said to be the beginning of the negative trend.

Charlie McCurdy, a senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, called it a “demographic turning point."

Deaths are expected to outnumber births in 2026 and will do so every year for the rest of the decade and beyond. Migration will account for all future population growth in the UK, but migration levels are falling too. This slower population growth will also reduce the size of the workforce and consequently lower tax receipts, adding up to £3 billion a year to borrowing by 2030.

The population is expected to grow to 72.5 million in 2054 before beginning to decline, falling to 72.1 million by 2064 and 71.4 million in 2074.

“Our latest projections indicate slower population growth than previously projected," James Robards, head of household and population projections at ONS, said. “This is mainly due to lower migration assumptions — reflective of the recent steep fall in net migration — and lower fertility assumptions. At the UK level, the population is projected to peak in the 2050s before decreasing.”

The Big Picture:

Falling birth rates are a disturbing trend across the globe. Japan, for example, has reported the lowest birth rate in recorded history, though similar crises are being seen in numerous countries, including Jamaica, Singapore, France, Poland, Taiwan, and the United States.

Low fertility rates are often paired with aging populations, which causes major economic problems. This causes a large number of retirees, yet without workers to pay into the system, therefore creating immense pressure placed on the country's health care, pension, and social services.

Making the issue doubly concerning is the spread of legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia across the globe. It would not be surprising that vulnerable populations, like the elderly, will be pressured into euthanasia to save money, which has already began occurring in Canada.

The Bottom Line:

Decades of anti-child and anti-family propaganda have contributed to falling birth rates, and the repercussions are now being felt.

Key Takeaways:

• Felix announced her return to competition on social media, saying she wanted to see what was possible for women after the age of 40.

• She also wrote about her belief that motherhood "makes you more, not less."

• Felix is the most decorated track-and-field athlete in history, and the mother to two children.

• She has spoken about how Nike tried to force her to take a 70% pay cut when she got pregnant, and has been an advocate for motherhood in sports ever since.

The Details:

Last week on social media, Allyson Felix announced that she will be attempting an Olympic comeback at 40 years old, with the hopes of competing in the 2028 games in Los Angeles, California.

She wrote:

"In a million years, I never thought I'd return. And somehow, here I am — reaching for LA 2028, on my own terms. I'm not here trying to relive who I was. I'm deeply proud of everything I've done. This is something different — a question that keeps pulling me in. What is still humanly possible... at this age?

The world tells women that after 40, we should slow down — be smaller, quieter, satisfied. But this is my love story with LA — the city that raised me... calling me to return to myself in a new way. It's scary. It's exciting. The most vulnerable I've ever been. And I don't know how it ends.

What if success isn't defined by the outcome — but by the courage it takes to try? What if chasing audacious dreams at any age is the bravest thing we do?"

With the post, she linked to a new website, More In Us, where she explained that she wanted to prove mothers can still be competitive. The site reads:

What if this isn't the end of the story? What if motherhood makes you more, not less? What if the best chapters — yours, hers, ours — are still being written? We don't know how this ends. Neither does [Felix]. But she's asking the question out loud. So the rest of us don't have to ask it alone.

The site continued, "The most decorated track and field athlete in American history is returning. Not because she has to. Because her daughter is old enough to watch."

According to an exclusive interview with Felix in Time magazine, no American sprinter has made the Olympic games in their 40s. She is hoping to prove that a mother in their 40s can still be competitive.

Why It Matters:

Felix became an outspoken advocate for motherhood in sports after Nike tried to force her to take a 70% pay cut when she got pregnant. When she also requested that she wouldn't be penalized for performing at a lower level while pregnant and postpartum, that request was also refused.

“I’ve been one of Nike’s most widely marketed athletes,” she wrote in a New York Times op-ed. “If I can’t secure maternity protections, who can?”

She said she had previously only imagined being a mother after she was finished with her track-and-field career — something echoed by other runners. Runner Phoebe Wright, who also had been sponsored by Nike, previously said, “Getting pregnant is the kiss of death for a female athlete. There’s no way I’d tell Nike if I were pregnant.”

Yet Felix continued to dominate after becoming a mother.

“Becoming a mom has been so incredible,” she said in an interview with Good Morning America. “It was a little scary starting out; I gave birth prematurely at 32 weeks, and saw my daughter fight in the NICU. Just… watching her grow has changed my life, it’s changed my motivation.... It’s so much bigger than on the track. It’s me as a mother, and me as an advocate for women, and I’m just really grateful that they are reflecting that.”

Felix is a seven-time Olympic gold medalist, with 11 medals overall. She is also a 10-time United States national champion, and has been a world champion in multiple years as well.

In addition to her athletic career, however, Felix has also become noteworthy for her motherhood advocacy. Though she did not compete in 2024, she teamed up with Pampers to create the first-ever nursery for athlete moms at the Paris Olympics. She said at the time:

“I just knew how difficult it was to compete at the top level after I had my daughter, and some practical things were really hard. And so when I joined the Athletes Commission of the IOC, I really wanted to be that voice for athlete moms, and just take away one less thing for them to worry about in the pressure of competition.

I think it really tells women that you can choose motherhood and also be at the top of your game and not have to miss a beat.”

She also created a child care fund for athlete moms competing in the Tokyo Olympics in 2021, securing $200,000 in grant money to cover child care costs for qualified female athletes, most of whom did not have corporate sponsorship.

After leaving Nike, she launched her own shoe line, Saysh, which includes a maternity-friendly return policy. As women’s feet grow and change during pregnancy, if they need a different shoe size for their Saysh Ones due to pregnancy, they can receive another pair for free. 

“Becoming a mom — it shifted my focus to thinking about this world that my daughter will grow up in,” she previously told Romper. “I don’t want her to have the same battle. [Motherhood] gave me that final bit of push that I needed and helped me find my voice so that I could speak on these very important issues.”

The Bottom Line:

Mothers are increasingly proving that they can still be at their best, not only competing at the highest levels, but winning, too. Motherhood does not hold anyone back from succeeding, and what women need is more support and resources, like what Felix offers, to help them thrive.

Key Takeaways:

• Connecticut officials announced two infants were surrendered under the state's Safe Havens law in April.

• The law allows a parent to surrender an infant they feel unable to care for to a hospital, as long as the child is less than 31 days old.

• Safe haven laws exist to help curtail infant abandonments or deaths, giving parents another option when they feel overwhelmed.

The Details:

The CT Mirror reports that two infants were relinquished in the state in April, according to the Department of Children and Families. One of the newborns was surrendered at Yale New Haven Hospital, while the other was surrendered at Connecticut Children’s at the University of Connecticut Health Center.

Those surrenders were celebrated at a press conference on Thursday, which highlighted that the latest surrender marks the 60th time in 25 years that an infant has been surrendered via the state's Safe Havens law. The law allows a parent to voluntarily give up custody of an infant age 30 days or younger to the nursing staff of an emergency room, without any legal ramifications.

Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz noted the "incredible impact" that the "lifesaving" safe haven law has.

“Those women who find themselves in a situation where they deliver a baby and they cannot or they do not want to raise that baby, they may feel incredibly isolated and challenged and judged, and they may feel they have nowhere to turn,” Bysiewicz said.

State Rep. Trenee McGee lauded the courage of a parent who surrenders her baby.

"When I think of a woman who decides to put her baby in a better situation, the one word that comes to mind is courage," she said. "When I think of someone who says, 'I may not be able to give this baby all that they need, however they deserve that,' I think of the word courage. When I think of a family who adopts a safe haven baby, I think of the word courage."

The Big Picture:

Every state in the nation has a Safe Haven surrender law, with varying parameters under which an infant may be surrendered. The laws exist to help curtail infant abandonments or deaths, which still happen far too frequently. Greater awareness is also necessary to ensure that every pregnant mother knows that a Safe Haven surrender is an option.

According to news reports, Connecticut had just one infant surrender last year, making two in April all the more cause for celebration.

Though the ideal is for a child to remain with his or her birth parents, that isn't always possible — and Safe Haven laws exist to ensure that babies are placed with loving families that can care for them.

Is this just a "trend" amplified by social media, or is it a sign of a bigger shift in society? Watch as she examines these questions.

Key Takeaways:

• In Human Matters with Sami Parker, she discusses the rise of large families, especially as portrayed on the internet.

• She notes that the fact that many of these families are so popular isn't just a social media trend — it is a sign of a greater shift in society at large.

• She continues by pointing out that modern life is lacking, and a family offers belonging, permanence, and identity.

• She debunks claims that parents with large families can't offer their children enough love and attention, and that large families contribute to overpopulation and the destruction of the planet.

The Details:

Parker begins by highlighting some internet-famous families who have gained fame partly due to their many children. She notes that the popularity of these families reveals a greater longing that many people have.

"The fact that millions of people stop scrolling to watch the messy, busy, loud, full of children-life — it says something deeper," she says. "Because trends don’t come from nowhere."

She credits this growing interest in larger families to the fact that modern life is lacking. People are lonelier than ever, and the world feels fragmented. A family, with belonging, permanence, and identity, can help fulfill the emptiness.

She also notes that many people no longer want to live entirely for themselves. A family requires sacrificial love — and raising children in this way is incredibly fulfilling.

Parker says:

We're discovering that online relationships with people feel really shallow and that they at least are just not filling a certain innate need within us. But family is different. Family is built in belonging and permanence and identity.

And in a world that feels increasingly fragmented and individualistic, that kind of connection is incredibly compelling. We don't just want it, we need it.

The second reason we are considering having larger families is that we don't actually want our lives to revolve entirely around ourselves. Modern culture has promised that the pleasure of doing glamorous things would bring us the happiness that we all need. The impressive education, the high-powered career, the freedom to travel, to do whatever you want, whenever you want. Those were supposed to be the keys to a fulfilling life.

But in reality, meaning doesn't come from living for yourself. It comes from giving yourself away. And there are a lot of ways to love sacrificially, but children uniquely demand it. They require your time, your energy, your patience, and your entire life in many ways. And because of that, they create a kind of meaning and purpose that is very hard to replicate anywhere else.

Zoom In:

Still, she says, there are many naysayers to this kind of thinking. Often, people will argue that parents with many children can't give them all enough love or attention. But, she notes, attention is not the same as love. And love doesn't divide with each child — it multiplies.

Importantly, she notes, "children with siblings learn how to care for others and how to exist in a community that doesn't revolve entirely around them."

She also debunks the idea that encouraging bigger families is somehow restrictive for women, as well as the false notion that large families are bad for the planet and will cause overpopulation.

The Bottom Line:

Parker ends with a reminder that in a unique way, family offers something invaluable.

"When you strip everything else away- things like status, income, experiences, achievement, what people are actually longing for is connection, purpose, and a life that means something beyond themselves," she says. "Family offers this in a way almost nothing else does."

Key Takeaways:

• The Malaysian government spoke out against the practice of abandoning newborn infants.

• The babies, particularly if not registered, can end up stateless and deprived of access to legal protection, education, and health care.

The Details:

In a statement quoted by media outlet SAYS, Malaysia’s National Registration Department (JPN) emphasized that many individuals may not fully grasp how one resolution — particularly in difficult moments — can have ramifications for a child’s long-term future, such as leaving them stateless. 

“Every child has the right to live, be protected, and be given a chance to build a future. Don’t let a difficult beginning become the end of their life story,” JPN wrote.

JPN also said infants should never be abandoned, highlighting how essential it is to register a child’s birth with JPN, stating that every child is entitled to legal protection and recognized rights. This is because without the necessary documentation, a child may not be legally acknowledged as a citizen of Malaysia, restricting their access to basic rights, legal protection, education, and health care. 

The comments section of the JPN Threads post revealed the department’s reply to an unmarried, seven-months-pregnant mother who was looking for a safe option for her preborn baby. 

“I am 7 months pregnant, and I was thinking of leaving the baby at a place where it can be safely left after birth. By the way, I am not married yet, and the man does not want to take responsibility,” the mother said.

“Register the child’s birth as a single mother so the child can obtain the rights of a citizen," JPN urged. "Do not abandon the child in public places. If someone wishes to adopt the child, after obtaining the birth certificate, a statutory declaration can be made stating that the child is being handed over to them." 

For parents truly incapable of rearing their child, JPN singled out the existence of lawful pathways to deal with such situations. These options include foster care placement or formal adoption, ensuring the infant is raised in a secure and nurturing environment. 

JPN also added that a sworn declaration permits birth mothers to legally transfer custody to adoptive parents. This paperwork simplifies adoption procedures while defending the child’s best interests.

“Every child born is innocent, regardless of the circumstances. They deserve the right to live, to be protected, and to be given a chance at building a future," JPN said.

Zoom In:

Infant abandonment is not uncommon in Malaysia. A Bernama report in November 2024 indicated that police documented 75 baby abandonment cases from January to September 2024, and 96 in the same period the year prior.

The prevalence of the problem of dumped babies can be seen in other cases as well. In 2026, the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry divulged that 175 babies aged 12 months and below were saved from abandonment and put under the watch of the Social Welfare Department between 2022 and 2025. 

These statistics reveal a societal failure to help vulnerable mothers in distress with life-affirming alternatives to abandoning their babies. 

Recent years have seen Malaysia trying to curtail the disturbing trend of baby dumping via campaigns, education, and safe surrender options. Past government efforts like the “Save A Life” campaign aimed to encourage people in crisis to seek help rather than abandon a baby, while NGOs have promoted baby hatches as a means of saving infants from death or injury.

Notably, Malaysia is one of the countries that has adopted the “baby hatch” concept — designated safe‑surrender centers where mothers can place their infants in a discreet and anonymous manner. These facilities are designed to ensure that every child is taken care of in a protected and supportive setting. 

The Bottom Line:

JPN’s latest message is vital not only because it lambasts baby abandonment, but because it directs the public toward lawful and life-affirming alternatives. A society that truly prizes the dignity of children must make it less challenging for vulnerable mothers to choose life and welcome children into their lives. 

Key Takeaways:

• Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a bill that eliminates the state requirement for abortion facilities to report any data about the abortions they commit.

• New Mexico has 14 abortion facilities, and very few restrictions. Abortion is also not regulated within the state.

• The move further widens the gap between abortion and legitimate health care.

The Details:

Governor Grisham signed the bill during the state’s 2026 legislative session. This move will significantly decrease transparency around abortion practices, eradicating New Mexico’s only legal framework for garnering abortion data.

The former law mandated that abortionists file confidential statistical reports within five days of performing an abortion. While these reports obscured any identifying details about patients, they supplied vital public health information utilized to keep tabs on statewide trends.

Now, with no official reporting system in place, uncertainty is growing over how broader gestational patterns, evolving public health trends, and abortion-related complications/outcomes will be monitored or evaluated.

Governor Grisham’s decision coincides with New Mexico's desire to become an abortion tourism state, alongside an escalating number of facilities bankrolled by public funding.

More than 14,000 women traveled to New Mexico for abortions in 2023, and out-of-state residents accounted for 71% of all abortions that year. New Mexico experienced a 368% increase in abortions between 2019 and 2023, documenting abortion numbers rising from fewer than 5,000 in 2019 to over 20,000 in 2023, as it remained an abortion friendly state amid the passage of pro-life laws in surrounding states like Texas.

The reporting mandate had been one of the few remaining initiatives meant to offer oversight and safeguard women’s welfare. 

Presently, New Mexico’s abortion landscape encompasses 14 facilities operating statewide, with two more taxpayer-funded projects underway in the northern and southern regions of the state. Seven of these facilities are located in Albuquerque. 

Governor Grisham also portrayed New Mexico as a pioneer in expanding abortion access, due to the enactment of various measures in recent years meant to protect abortionists and increase funding for abortions. 

Making the move even more concerning is the fact that abortion facilities in the state are not held to the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers, meaning women are undergoing surgical procedures in settings that may not be safe.

The Context:

According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, New Mexico is "very protective" of the intentional killing of preborn babies by abortion. It notes that in the state:

• Abortion is not restricted based on gestational duration

• State Medicaid funds cover abortion

• Qualified health care professionals, not solely physicians, can provide abortions

• State has a shield law to protect abortion providers from investigations by other states; may cover patients and support organizations

• State law protects data privacy for patients seeking reproductive health care

As of the date of this article's publication, Guttmacher also still lists that in New Mexico, "Abortion reporting [is] required," but the signing of Senate Bill 30 changes that.

Commentary:

In an e-mail from early April, Abortion Free New Mexico spokesperson Tara Shaver noted that "SB 30 does not improve healthcare. It does not protect patients. It does not reform reporting. SB 30 eliminates transparency.”

She continued (emphasis added), “At a time when lawmakers claim they want transparency and malpractice reform, SB 30 moves New Mexico in the opposite direction. By repealing abortion reporting without replacement, this Legislature makes it harder to track how tax dollars are spent and harder to ask informed oversight questions. Authentic healthcare does not operate in secrecy. Authentic healthcare requires standards, inspections, and accountability. And healthcare does not ask lawmakers to look away — especially when taxpayer dollars are involved.”

For example, a current editorial in The Lancet celebrates the editors’ view that more than 800 million women recently gaining better access to abortion, while decrying “barriers” such as waiting periods (and unstated, ultrasound imaging) that data shows, save the lives of unborn babies:

Gains in legal access to abortion are worth celebrating. An analysis between 1994 and 2023 by Katy Mayall and colleagues showed an incredible trend towards the liberalisation of abortion laws across all regions of the world. 825 million women now have access to abortion services who did not before. However, progress has not been uniform. Complete bans on abortion or restrictive laws are concentrated in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, with 97% of unsafe abortions globally concentrated in developing nations. And other barriers exist beyond legality. Mandatory waiting periods and counselling, refusals to provide abortions, harassment and obstruction, and cost can all impede or delay access. Populations marginalised on the basis of race, age, sexuality, and income are typically the most affected and there are strong intersectional and social justice dimensions to abortion access.

Nothing in the editorial is surprising. But I was rather astounded to recently learn that some pro-abortion bioethicists now deploy the obscure philosophical field of “mereology” — which explores the relationship between parts and wholes — to argue unscientifically that the gestating baby is actually merely a “part” of the woman’s body:

Recently, Kingma has argued that, contrary to popular belief, the fetus is not merely contained by the gestator’s body but a part of it. This is a metaphysical claim which is grounded by scientific facts about pregnancy. [Citations omitted.]

The article explores “the metaphysics of pregnancy,” meaning that with this discussion, we have left the scientific realm. Moreover, unlike the metaphysical claim that the unborn child has a soul — which, whether true, does not impact the scientific facts of pregnancy — applying the theory of mereology to the reality of fetal existence has the potential to ignore biological reality:

When thinking about whether the analogy with the bun and the oven is reasonable, Kingma argues that it is actually quite preposterous: ‘We cannot take ‘the bun out of the oven’, check it and stick it back in if it is not fully cooked. (If only!) Birth is irreversible: once a baby is out, it does not go back in — ever’. Given that it fails to satisfy Smith and Brogaard’s criteria for being a separate entity, Kingma concludes that one ought to consider the fetus as a part of the gestator’s body. She calls this the Parthood View of pregnancy.

The article, which is complex and arcane in the extreme, does not reach final moral conclusions about abortion. But it does give away the ultimate pro-abortion game that is afoot in this argumentation:

Donley . . . argues that if we have a property or privacy right in our bodies, and the fetus is a part and product of our bodies, then those property or privacy rights should encompass the fetus. . . .

The parthood of the fetus affects how one employs the concept of bodily integrity (and bodily autonomy), and therefore what norms might follow from it and why. That said, the strength of arguments based on the right to bodily autonomy is that autonomy is generally considered to be an inalienable right which comes simply from being human. . . . Therefore, perhaps Thomson’s argument is safe after all — parts of us do not require our permission to remain parts, but equally we do not require anyone’s permission to remove them.

Please understand that this ongoing debate, which is mostly taking place in ivory tower obscurity, is acutely relevant to future abortion public policy. Indeed, if the medical and bioethics elite ever reach a consensus that a fetus is merely a body part — like, say, an appendix — and not an individual living organism, that view (follow the metaphysics!) will be incorporated into public policy obliterating the regulation of abortion in any regard whatsoever.

On May 11, Justice Samuel Alito issued the extension, which states, "UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant, the response, and the reply filed thereto, IT IS ORDERED that the stay issued on May 4, 2026, is hereby extended until 5:00 p.m. (EDT) on Thursday, May 14, 2026."

5/4/26: The United States Supreme Court has ordered that "the May 1, 2026 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit" is "hereby administratively stayed until 5 p.m. (EDT) on Monday, May 11, 2026." This stay temporarily once again allows dispensing of abortion pills by mail.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the order, added, "It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Thursday, May 7, 2026, by 5 p.m."

Key Takeaways:

• The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary administrative stay (pause) on a ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; this means that mail-order dispensing of the abortion pill has been temporarily restored. The stay will last one week, until May 11.

• The Fifth Circuit ruling was based on a lawsuit brought by the State of Louisiana, seeking to undo the FDA's 2023 changes to the abortion pill safety protocols (REMS), which allowed mail-order and pharmacy dispensing of the abortion pill without any in-person visits.

• Those safety protocol changes, according to the Fifth Circuit, were "based on flawed or nonexistent data" and resulted large Medicaid costs for the state, after women experienced significant adverse events from the drug.

The Background:

In October of last year, the State of Louisiana filed a lawsuit seeking to end the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 2023 decision to alter its safety protocol on the abortion pill (known as REMS), which allowed the abortion drug mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex to be permanently dispensed by mail and in pharmacies.

Prior to the Fifth Circuit's decision, Trump's FDA asked the courts in January to "stay judicial review" until the FDA completed its own review of the drug, which it claimed could be done in less than a year.

A stay in the lawsuit was approved on April 6, pending the completion of the FDA's promised safety review of the drug. It was expected to be completed a year or possibly 'sooner.' However, the State of Louisiana quickly filed an appeal on April 17, 2026.

The Fifth Circuit judges ruled last week in the Louisiana lawsuit that:

• "FDA’s justifications for remotely dispensing mifepristone were based on flawed or nonexistent data." 

• "The new regulation had resulted in numerous illegal abortions in Louisiana and in Louisiana paying thousands in Medicaid bills for women harmed by mifepristone."

This ruling paused abortion pill dispensing by mail.

Immediately, some abortion proponents vowed to continue dispensing the drugs by mail in defiance of the Appeals Court decision.

On May 2, 2026, abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories, on behalf of all defendants in the case (which included the FDA and the generic pill maker GenBioPro), filed an emergency application before the Supreme Court.

Then, on May 4 the Supreme Court responded and temporarily halted the pause on abortion pill dispensing by mail, pending further review.

According to SCOTUS Blog:

In a brief order on Monday morning, Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency requests from the 5th Circuit, issued an administrative stay putting the 5th Circuit’s order on hold and temporarily restoring access to mifepristone by mail while the justices consider the drug companies’ request, and instructed the FDA and Louisiana to respond by 5 p.m. EDT on Thursday, May 7. The administrative stay expires on Monday, May 11, at 5 p.m. EDT.

... Danco argued that the order “injects immediate confusion and upheaval into highly time-sensitive medical decisions,” while GenBioPro said that the order “has unleashed regulatory chaos.”

...The drug companies also ask the court to issue a short-term order, known as an administrative stay, that would put the 5th Circuit’s ruling on hold while the justices consider their request. On Monday, Alito granted that request.

The Clarification:

Following the SCOTUS decision, Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the State of Louisiana and co-Plaintiff Rosalie Markezich (a victim of coerced abortion), wrote on X:

On Friday, the Fifth Circuit GRANTED our request to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion drug mifepristone during our appeal. Praise God, that safeguard was in place all weekend... for the first time since 2021.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-day administrative stay while Danco and GenBioPro appeal that victory. To be clear:

This is NOT a reversal of Friday's decision.

Rather, it's the run-of-the-mill pause that the Justices typically use to consider the issues raised in an emergency application. We- with @AGLizMurrill-will respond by Thursday.

The stay will expire on Monday.

We respect the Court's desire to have time to consider the issues and will continue our fight to uphold this victory that protects women and babies across the country from FDA's unlawful and destructive mail-order abortion-drug scheme.

The Bottom Line:

Attorney Mike Seibel, who frequently handles abortion malpractice cases, told Live Action News this is a "temporary pause until there can be a full briefing on the issue," adding, "All hope is not lost; pro-lifers should pray hard."

Key Takeaways:

• The group Voice for the Voiceless has filed a lawsuit against seven Utah fertility clinics alleging that the clinics violate the constitutional right to life when they destroy embryos created through IVF.

• The lawsuit focuses on the fact that embryos are human beings from the very moment of conception.

• One of the plaintiffs, "Jane Doe 1," suffered emotional distress when her excess embryos were destroyed.

• Among other things, the plaintiffs are asking the courts to prevent the fertility clinics from continuing to operate in a manner that would destroy embryos.

The Details:

Voice for the Voiceless is a pro-life group based in Utah, which, according to its lawsuit, “focuses on helping to preserve the lives of unborn minor children from abortion and from any other act that terminates the life of a minor child.”

The group's lawsuit focuses on the fact that embryos are human beings from the very moment of fertilization. Therefore, when those embryos are destroyed via common IVF practices, their constitutionally-protected right to life is violated.

“The result is that thousands of embryos—live human beings—are killed prior to birth by Defendants and the manner of how they practice IVF,” the lawsuit states. “Defendants could practice IVF in a legal manner that would preserve life and only fertilize eggs that will be implanted into their clients, but they refuse to do so out of convenience and financial gain.”

According to ABC 4, the lawsuit cites several plaintiffs, including Jane Doe 1, who says she suffered emotional distress after her embryos were destroyed at a Utah fertility clinic.

“Ms. Doe 1 believes that human embryos are human life. And it concerns her that she does not have clarity about how the clinic treated her embryos,” the lawsuit says. “Ms. Doe 1 never knew about the opportunity to put her embryos up for adoption, and if this was an option, she would have considered it as an alternative to discarding human embryo.”

“The level of sadness, sense of loss, and anguish is comparable to if she had lost a child after birth,” the lawsuit also states. “Jane Doe 1’s stress was further compounded in that her husband was extremely angry that the clinic would throw away their children, and she needed to comfort and calm him down as well.”

The lawsuit specifically names seven Utah fertility clinics, including:

• Conceptions Fertility Center

• East Bay Fertility Center

• Reproductive Care Center

• Utah Center for Reproductive Medicine

• Utah Fertility Center

• Utah Fertility Specialists

• Wellnest Fertility Clinic

According to ABC 4:

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the defendants failed to fully inform their patients of their practices and that their IVF practices resulted in the wrongful death of the embryos. They are also asking the court to prevent the defendants from practicing IVF in a way that results in the death of embryos, and for financial relief.

Zoom In:

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 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 a future IVF cycle.

Research published in Reproductive Biomedicine Online states that over 2.5 million IVF cycles are performed every year, yet just 500,000 babies are born annually from the process. Along the way, countless embryos are destroyed.

"Human life begins at fertilization, and both the Word of God and the laws of this state recognize that reality," Voice for the Voiceless said in a statement posted on its Facebook page. "This case is not about changing the law, but about requiring its faithful enforcement — so that every human life receives equal protection without partiality."

The Bottom Line:

This Utah lawsuit recognizes that each embryo is a completely unique human being. IVF is inherently wrong because it commodifies the creation of these human beings and results in the widespread destruction of countless innocent lives.

Key Takeaways:

• Following the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that mail order distribution of the abortion pill would be paused,at least temporarily, abortion proponents announced their plans to defy the ruling.

• In addition to potentially defying the ruling, abortion proponents have suggested that abortion businesses will move to dangerous misoprostol-only abortions, which leave women at greater risk of complications from incomplete abortions.

• Despite the FDA deciding to allow mail-order dispensing of the abortion pill (mifepristone) during the COVID-19 pandemic, mailing the abortion pill has long been federally prohibited under the Comstock Act.

The Details:

Friday's decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was clear that "a stay would only pause a method of prescribing mifepristone that began five years ago and was formally approved only three years ago." The decision was quickly kicked up to the US Supreme Court for review by the pill's maker, Danco Laboratories.

While at least one abortion pill website, Abortion on Demand, said "new scheduling is paused" due to the legal developments and listed its next appointments as beginning May 18, other abortion proponents admitted they would defy the ruling.

On her Abortion, Every Day  Substack, abortion activist Jessica Valenti admitted that "some providers" who rely on "shield laws" will defy the Fifth Circuit's decision, while others may switch to a misoprostol-only protocol, writing in part:

The decision is the biggest legal blow to abortion rights since the end of Roe, and conservatives hope it will end the shipping of abortion pills nationwide.

Let me be clear: that is not going to happen. Patients will continue to seek out abortion pills, and providers will continue to ship them. Nothing in this ruling criminalizes patients who use abortion medication, and women can still legally obtain abortion pills by mail—either by using a misoprostol-only regimen or connecting with a provider who will ship both medications.

That’s right: while conservatives want Americans to believe they can no longer get mifepristone by mail, multiple legal experts tell Abortion, Every Day that’s just not the case. Some providers plan to keep shipping mifepristone while the litigation plays out—relying on shield state protections that Democratic governors have put in place...

To put it plainly: We are not going back.

Likewise, Ms. Magazine author Carrie N. Baker listed specific international dealers in abortion drugs for women to contact, and wrote:

Another avenue abortion seekers are using is community networks sharing abortion pills for free in states that ban or restrict access. 

There are now five verified and listed by Plan C and INeedAnA. Four are affiliated with Red State Access: AccessMA, MidWestAccess, IdahoAccess and ARTogether. These four networks now serve approximately 3500 people across 38 states and territories each month. The fifth listed community network is DASH.

... The third way people are obtaining abortion pills is through websites that sell pills without additional support. Plan C conducts research using mystery shoppers to test the reliability of these websites and tests the medications received in a lab to verify the medications.

Baker then wrote a bizarre post on X, alleging that "banning abortion" is equivalent to "banning sex":

"Banning abortion is banning sex. Why are Republicans, evangelicals and Catholics so obsessed with controlling how and when the rest of us have sex? Why can't they just mind their own business?"

Dr. Angel Foster, co-founder of The Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, which operates under that state’s shield law, told The New York Times that her organization is consulting legal experts about the ruling’s implications and said the group would “do everything in our power to continue" sending the abortion pill to "all 50 states.”

In addition, INeedanA.com advised its clients that the drug could be accessed by mail. It wrote:

A ruling has been issued to temporarily block Mifepristone from being prescribed by physicians via telehealth. It is still accessible in-person at clinics and via the mail from community networks and international providers. Abortions with miso only are safe and effective.

We are updating the site as the situation evolves and we learn more, but no matter what, you still have abortion options.

Lizzy Hinkley, legal director for the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine (ACT), told Valenti, “Shield law providers have been preparing for this moment... we are working to ensure there are no gaps in access.”

"Shield laws" are laws passed by certain pro-abortion states which protect abortionists who break the laws of other states by way of mailing illegal abortion pills to women in those states where it is illegal.

Separately, one Bluesky account suggested that state stockpiles of abortion pills could be mailed:

Pivot to Misoprostol Only?

Despite the drug not being approved as a single-use drug for abortion, abortion industry insiders like Valenti and INeedAnA.com threatened a pivot to a one-drug regimen of misoprostol only, to circumvent the FDA's REMS restrictions on mifepristone. This scheme was hatched long before the drug was approved, as Live Action pointed out in its "State of Chemical Abortion" report:

In his book “The Abortion Pill,” French researcher Etienne-Emile Baulieu, who invented the abortion pill, noted misoprostol’s use in countries where abortion was illegal, claiming he had personally “bought misoprostol in pharmacies to experiment with the drug as an abortifacient.” He wrote, “In the future, the availability and convenience of misoprostol may become crucial if RU-486 is offered under more private conditions than in abortion clinics.

While abortion businesses such as Planned Parenthood already promote the unapproved misoprostol-only protocol, others are now threatening to use this method to kill preborn children following the Appeal Court ruling.

Valenti wrote:

Telehealth abortion providers across the country are weighing their next steps right now. Providers aren’t a monolith: some will keep shipping mifepristone, while others switch to miso-only protocols while the case plays out. They’ll be making decisions based on what state they’re in, what their shield law looks like, what kinds of resources they have access to, and what their risk aversion is.

But, Valenti acknowledged that misoprostol-only abortions have problems:

And while it’s important to spread the word that miso-only abortions are available, let’s be real: there’s a reason that the recommended regimen is mifepristone and misoprostol. Miso-only abortions are often longer and less comfortable. A few advocates I spoke to worried that we’d see more ER visits because of miso-only abortions—not because the regimen isn’t safe, but because patients will be in more pain.

It’s added cruelty from the anti-abortion movement.

But... it isn't the "anti-abortion movement" that is vowing to break laws and encourage women to ingest drugs for purposes they were not intended, no matter the cost. And misoprostol is already given as the second drug of the abortion pill regimen; it causes uterine contractions akin to labor, which is what makes it painful.

OB/GYN Dr. Ingrid Skop has explained the dangers of misoprostol-only abortions, including the high rate of incomplete abortion that puts women at risk of life-threatening infections. Still, after the recent ruling, AbortionFinder.org immediately began pushing the unapproved and less effective, one-drug regimen, writing online:

A court decision was just issued that limits the ability to get mifepristone (one of the medications in medication abortion) by mail. It is still available in person. Abortion using only the medication misoprostol is safe, effective, and available by mail.

We will update the site as more info is available.

Mailing abortion drugs is already federally illegal

The Comstock Act is a federal law that prohibits the mailing of “any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing [that] may, or can be used or applied for producing abortion” through the mail. Yet, when the FDA allowed the mailing of the abortion pill during the COVID-19 pandemic, this law was violated and continues to be ignored.

• 2000: Abortion pill (Mifeprex or mifepristone 200 mg) approved by the FDA for the “termination of pregnancy” in a regimen with a second drug called Misoprostol.

• 2011: Concern about the drug's safety placed mifepristone/mifeprex under the REMS.

• 2016: Safety measures eroded when FDA allowed the drug to be prescribed through ten weeks of pregnancy and removed requirements that the manufacturer report all adverse events.

• 2023: FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement, allowing for the drug to be dispensed by mail or pharmacy.

These changes occurred despite the fact that the federal Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of abortion inducing drugs.

Why It Matters

Danco is currently under investigation by Senator Josh Hawley, who referred to the secretive company as 'predatory.' Danco was recently fined by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for violating the False Claims Act.

Bad actors in the abortion industry continue to prescribe the drug mifepristone (200mg)/ Mifeprex outside the approved REMS limits, potentially risking client safety.

Under the nose of the pill's makers, Big Abortion schemed to hide complications by advising women at the point of sale to lie about their complications, should they ever need to visit the emergency room.

As such, Danco and GenBioPro (GBP) are not policing prescribers and are failing to decertify those who flout the FDA's safety requirements for the drug.

There is also evidence that the drug makers are aiding and abetting the unlawful mailing of drugs into pro-life states.

Timeline:

Key moments in the Louisiana lawsuit against the FDA over the abortion pill's safety protocols include:

• October 2025: State of Louisiana v. FDA refiled in Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division

• December of 2025: Louisiana filed for preliminary injunctive relief.

• January 2026: Trump's FDA asked the courts to "stay judicial review" until the FDA completes its own review of the drug, which it claimed could be completed in less than a year.

• February 17, 2026: Louisiana responds, accusing the FDA and the drug manufacturers of "try[ing] to scuttle the case on standing grounds."

• February 24, 2026: The case as heard in federal court before U.S. District Judge David Joseph.

• April 7, 2026: A stay was approved until the FDA safety review is completed.

• April 8, 2026: Louisiana appealed the 'stay' ruling.

• April 17, 2026: Louisiana filed appeal.

• May 1, 2026: US Court of Appeals ruling favors Louisiana, pauses abortion pill dispensing by mail.

• May 2, 2026: Danco filed an emergency application before the Supreme Court.

The Bottom Line:

Despite all the wrangling by Valenti and Big Abortion, Valenti did acknowledge that "if the ruling stands, it will have a massive chilling effect on [abortion]."

Given that Danco and GenBioPro will likely refuse to police and decertify abortion pill prescribers that defy the ruling, perhaps it is time for the DOJ and USPS to fully enforce the federal Comstock Act.

The abortion pill now accounts for 65% or more of all abortions, has already ended the lives of millions of innocent preborn children, harming countless women in the process.

Waters, a senior scholar whose research focuses on “reproductive rights law” and “abortion regulation,” declined each request.

Key Takeaways:

• Rep. Brandon Gill asked pro-abortion researcher Jessica Waters to name her “favorite” abortion method during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, April 28.

• Waters repeatedly refused to answer, citing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act as the reason the committee had convened.

• The subcommittee was examining whether the Biden administration had used the FACE Act to target and prosecute pro-life activists outside abortion facilities.

The Details:

The exchange between Gill and Waters unfolded before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, where Waters appeared as a witness. Gill opened by asking her: “What’s your favorite type of abortion?”

Waters deflected: “I am an advocate for patients having access to the full realm of reproductive healthcare."

Gill did not move on. Instead, he began methodically reading aloud the clinical descriptions of specific abortion procedures — starting with suction abortion, which he described as a process in which the cervix is dilated, and suction “29 times the power of a household vacuum cleaner tears the baby’s body apart.” He asked Waters whether she preferred that method.

“I stand by my former testimony,” Waters said.

Gill moved on to the D&E or dilation and evacuation abortion procedure in which the abortionist uses a Sopher clamp and “the baby’s body is cut into pieces and extracted.” He also described a saline-injection procedure, each time asking Waters if that procedure was her favorite.

Each time, Waters declined to answer, pointing instead to the FACE Act as the legislation nominally at issue in the hearing.

“Is it because it’s uncomfortable to talk about?” Gill asked. “It should be uncomfortable … it is barbaric and evil.”

The Bottom Line:

The strategy behind Gill’s line of questioning is deliberate.

By stripping away the language of “reproductive healthcare” and “patient access” and replacing it with clinical descriptions of what abortion procedures actually involve, Gill forced the question that abortion euphemisms are designed to avoid: if you advocate for abortion, what exactly are you advocating for?

Waters never answered. And in the court of public opinion, that silence may have said more than any answer could have.

Key Takeaways:

• Preliminary figures show 654,300 births in Germany in 2025, a 3.4% decrease from 2024.

• The current birth rate of 1.35 births per woman is a record low.

• The birth deficit also reached a record high, with around 350,000 more deaths than births.

• Germany joins many other countries worldwide facing a demographic crisis.

The Details:

According to the report, preliminary figures show 654,300 births in Germany in 2025. This marks a 3.4% decrease from 2024, when 677,117 births were recorded. The current birth rate stands at 1.35 births per woman — a record low, and far below the replacement rate of 2.1.

Additionally, the birth deficit in 2025 reached a record high, as there were more than one million deaths, resulting in around 350,000 more deaths than births. Modeling shows that by 2035, one in four of the nation's residents will be aged 67 or older.

“The new record low highlights the immense challenges we will face in the coming decades,” Ulrich Kater, chief economist of Germany’s DekaBank, told the Financial Times. “Unlike in the past, we are now beginning to feel the actual effects,” he said, referencing the nation's budget.

The Big Picture:

Germany is not alone in facing a demographic crisis. Live Action News has shared similar stories from around the globe, with reports coming in this year from the United States, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, Jamaica, and France, among others. Though many of these countries are taking steps to reverse this alarming trend, it's often seen as too little too late — especially in nations that also embrace abortion.

The Bottom Line:

When a nation has laws that allow the killing of preborn children in the womb, it stands to reason that this anti-child, anti-life sentiment will spill over into society at large. Decades of anti-child propaganda have taken root, resulting in a society that sees babies as a burden, not a blessing. Until this mindset is changed, it is unlikely that nations will be able to reverse the demographic crises they are facing.

Key Takeaways:

• Rose Docherty was arrested twice in 2025 for silently holding a sign in an abortion facility's buffer zone.

• The charges against her were dropped in both cases, though prosecutors could refile the charges if evidence emerges that she influenced an abortion-minded woman to choose life.

• The development is being applauded as a win for free speech.

The Details:

In an article published on April 28, legal advocacy group ADF International, who coordinated Docherty’s legal defence, indicated that a Glasgow judge has thrown out the charges against pro-life campaigner Rose Docherty. She had been arrested twice in 2025 for silently holding a sign within an abortion facility buffer zone.

At Glasgow Sheriff Court on the morning of April 29, Sheriff Stuart Reid rebuffed two allegations that 75-year-old Christian grandmother had sought to persuade individuals to turn away from abortion within a designated buffer zone. Legal advocate Jamie McGowan, instructed by the law firm Lindsays, represented Docherty, the latter being the first person to face prosecution according to Scotland’s 2024 buffer zone law. 

The court decree came after McGowan contended that the charges breached Docherty’s rights to free expression under Article 10  of Scotland's 2024 Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act. Docherty’s legal team argued that the charge lacked clarity, and did not fulfil the legal standard of being “prescribed by law,” as it did not single out any individual within the buffer zone who was present to access, offer, or facilitate abortion services — a key condition as per the legislation.

At a hearing on April 20, prosecutors conceded that the presence of such an abortion-minded individual was an indispensable element to determine if Docherty did indeed commit an offence under Scottish law. They also admitted that probes were still underway to evaluate if  Docherty’s actions swayed anyone within the buffer zone.

Zoom In:

When Sheriff Reid asked if there was any evidence to back prosecutors’ claims that Docherty had influenced someone within the zone, the Procurator Fiscal answered that there was none at present, though such proof  might surface after more investigations. 

Eventually, Sheriff Reid ruled that the Procurator Fiscal had “failed to disclose an offence known to the law of Scotland,” and categorized Docherty’s case pro loco et tempore, implying that prosecutors could reintroduce the matter should more proofs emerge, and if if authorities determine that continuing the prosecution would benefit the public.  

In response to the decree, Docherty said:

"This verdict is a major victory for free speech in Scotland and the UK. It shows that peacefully offering consensual conversation on a public street, which is all I have ever done, can never be a crime.

Even though the verdict was a victory, the process in this case became a form of punishment for me. I was arrested last September and have faced seven months of criminal proceedings, merely for exercising my free speech rights. This should never happen in a free society.

My case shows how ‘buffer zones’ are used by authorities to impose censorship. ‘Buffer zone’ legislation must be repealed in Scotland and across the UK to ensure it is not misused to target peaceful and lawful expression again in the future, as has now happened to me twice. The resources used by the authorities to target me, a 75-year-old grandmother, for offering to speak with people, have been totally wasted.

Authorities should focus on tackling real crime in Glasgow, not censoring a Catholic grandmother."

The Bottom Line:

Docherty’s case has reinvigorated talk among critics of buffer zones about how ambiguous or excessively wide definitions of banned behavior in those zones could outlaw harmless activities like silent prayer and consensual conversations. 

Furthermore, this decree may have set a precedent regarding how Scotland would implement its buffer zone laws in the future. While the court did rule in Docherty’s favor, the wider debate about the nature of buffer zone laws has yet to reach a conclusion.

The move is a remarkable victory for pro-life advocates in Britain and beyond, contesting censorship in the United Kingdom (UK), where buffer zones and communications laws have sought to encroach upon peaceful expression protesting abortion. 

Key Takeaways:

• David Skinner sent graphic images of abortion victims to Dorset police officers and local councillors, and was found guilty of violating communications legislation.

• The Crown Prosecution Service accused him of distributing "grossly offensive" material with the motivation to cause distress.

• A judge has since repealed the conviction, ruling that it violated his free speech rights.

The Details:

In April 2023, pro-life activist David Skinner, aged 80, was deemed guilty and ordered to pay £3,840 after disseminating graphic images associated with abortion and the Holocaust to Dorset police officers and local councillors, in violation of communications legislation. Skinner’s message included images of abortion victims alongside Holocaust-related visuals, together with forcefully-expressed opposition to the buffer zone proposed in Bournemouth in 2022. 

Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service then accused Skinner of distributing material deemed “grossly offensive” with the motivation to cause distress. 

Mr. Justice Saini, however, has since determined that although Skinner’s alleged offense was technically established under UK law, upholding the conviction would represent an inordinate infringement on Skinner’s rights to freedom of expression and religious freedom, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ruling, a culmination of criminal proceedings that had continued for almost three years, was given in Bournemouth. 

“This is a case about freedom of expression and freedom of religion. We do not take away from the offence that the complainants would have experienced on receiving the letter. Nevertheless, we find that it would not be a proportionate interference to allow the conviction,” Saini said in comments quoted by Christian Today.

In response to the court ruling, Skinner said that he was “deeply grateful” for the decision, stating that his aim had not been to upset others but to bring to attention what he described as issues of considerable moral and public concern. 

“This prosecution should never have been brought. It has taken a heavy toll on me, but I hope this ruling will protect others who wish to speak out peacefully on matters of conscience without fear of being criminalised,” Skinner said.

Zoom In:

The Christian Legal Centre, which supported Skinner in his trial, applauded the court ruling. Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, described the judge’s decision as “vital and principled.”

Williams said:

“The High Court has confirmed that even where speech is confronting or deeply uncomfortable, the criminal law cannot be used as a shortcut to silence lawful expression on matters of public interest.

David Skinner was targeted for expressing sincerely held Christian beliefs to public authorities about abortion and buffer zones. Today’s judgment reasserts that in a free and democratic society, the answer to speech we dislike is more debate, not criminal prosecution. This case should act as a warning to police and prosecutors against misusing communications laws to chill political or religious speech.

David’s ordeal lasted far too long, and we hope this judgment will prevent similar injustices in future."

The court’s decision reinforced that speech which may be challenging or unsettling can still fall within the bounds of the law when it is related to issues of public interest.  It may also set a precedent for how future cases involving sensitive subjects and freedom of conscience are interpreted. This victory contrasts sharply with the UK's restrictive landscape for pro-life expression. 

The Bottom Line:

Since 2022, British Supreme Court rulings have maintained 100-150 meter "censorship zones" around abortion facilities in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, forbidding prayer, vigils, and even silent reflection with punishments of up to two years jail time.

Recent convictions have ignited American criticism, including from pro-life allies showcasing the juxtaposition of buffer zones with freedom of expression laws. 

Key Takeaways:

• Angus and Emily Forrester's two-year-old daughter was diagnosed with Sanfilippo syndrome. Two weeks after the diagnosis, they learned they were expecting their second child.

• Three months into the pregnancy, they were able to test the preborn baby for Sanfilippo syndrome, and the test was positive.

• The couple aborted their baby, saying that "there was no choice."

• There is currently no cure for Sanfilippo syndrome, but a potential treatment is on the horizon, and the Forresters have raised £360,000 to help their born daughter and other children receive the treatment.

The Details:

Emily and Angus Forrester recently told the Daily Mail about their decision to abort their second child, who was diagnosed with the same rare health condition as their two-year-old daughter, Leni.

The couple was enjoying life with Leni when Emily's sister shared that genetic testing had revealed she carried a recessive gene that can cause Sanfilippo syndrome, a rare genetic disorder related to a deficiency of one of four enzymes that break down heparan sulfate. If her sister was a carrier, there was a 50% chance Emily was, too.

There is no cure for Sanfilippo syndrome, and the buildup of heparan sulfate causes a variety of cognitive, behavioral, and physical symptoms that progressively worsen over time and steal their skills from them.

Children with the condition have certain physical traits, including thick eyebrows and coarse hair. Early symptoms of the condition include fast breathing at birth, large head size, excessive body hair, and sleep issues. People with the condition often die in their teenage years.

If just one of them were a carrier, Angus and Emily's children would not have Sanfilippo, but could be carriers. If both parents were carriers, there was a 25% chance that each child they conceived would have Sanfilippo syndrome. If neither were carriers, then their children would not be affected by Sanfilippo in any way.

Although they were told it was unlikely that Leni had Sanfilippo, the couple researched Sanfilippo and felt she had some of the facial features associated with the condition. Yet, that wasn't enough for a diagnosis.

Screenings and a rare mutation

Doctors tested both Angus and Emily for gene mutations, and they had to wait 12 weeks for the results. They stopped trying for another baby and decided to test Angus through a private testing company to get the results faster. That test found that Angus was not a carrier, and therefore, their children could not inherit the condition. But these results were incorrect, and they later learned he is a carrier of the condition.

"He is a carrier, but for what they call a variant of unknown significance which means that never before in the global database has the gene that he carries been known to cause a child affected with Sanfilippo," said Emily. "So he just carries a very, very rare variant. So it wasn't logged, which is why the private test came back as negative."

This is common with genetic conditions caused by mutations on a certain gene. Sanfilippo syndrome can be caused by more than 480 different mutations. Not all screenings are equal. Some only test for the most common mutations. It's unclear if the couple was made aware of this, but ultimately, it was confirmed that both Angus and Emily are carriers of a gene mutation that causes Sanfilippo.

Leni was officially diagnosed with the condition in October 2025, and they were told there was "no treatment, no cure." Untreated, she was expected to lose her ability to walk, talk, laugh, or eat, and die before adulthood.

Experimental treatments lead to hope

Unwilling to do nothing as their daughter's health declined, they did their own research and learned of two potentially life-saving experimental treatments:

• One completely stopped symptoms in children using a weekly enzyme replacement therapy delivered through a port in the brain.

• The other is a gene replacement therapy that has been considered a cure for people with similar conditions.

The first trial ran out of funding, and the children who had access to the treatment have since begun to decline without it. Emily and Angus began to fight and fundraise for access to these therapies for Leni.

However, two weeks after Leni's official diagnosis, the Forresters learned they were pregnant. There was a 25% chance this baby had Sanfilippo syndrome, too.

"We knew this pregnancy would either be the very best or very worst possible news," said Emily. "Navigating the heartbreak of Leni's diagnosis and our new world as parents to a child with very complex medical needs, as well as facing all the challenges any parent faces of having a toddler and trying to give her the best life possible."

At three months of pregnancy, they tested their preborn baby, likely using chorionic villus sampling.

"We tried to detach from the pregnancy and not get our hopes up," she said, "but as there was a 75 percent chance that the baby would be unaffected, we couldn't help but cling on to that hope. We desperately wanted to grow our family and want our future children to know Leni as she is today, and for her to know them."

Testing showed that the preborn baby also had Sanfilippo syndrome — and Emily underwent an abortion that she didn't seem to want. She said:

"With no treatment options, no cure, a catastrophic prognosis and poor quality of life - how could we knowingly bring another child into the world with Sanfilippo syndrome? We made the impossible decision to end the pregnancy, and I had a surgical termination a few days before Christmas.

It was the most heartbreaking and difficult decision we have ever had to make. But we knew deep down there was no choice. Unless you have received a catastrophic diagnosis like this for your child you cannot imagine the heartbreak and the devastation we felt in this moment. I now truly know what it feels like for your heart to be ripped out of your chest."

However, while there is currently no cure, there is hope through the treatments the couple found, and a clinical trial is expected to begin in the United States this year.

The Forresters are urging the United Kingdom (UK) government to help fund a similar trial in the UK. The treatment delivers the missing gene into the bloodstream via stem cells and could potentially cure Leni and others like her.

"The difference between her getting access to this treatment now and in a years time could be the difference between a potentially near-normal life and a significantly shortened life with the most severe mental and physical disabilities you can imagine," said Emily. "I cannot imagine a more cruel, catastrophic condition with a worse impact on the child or the families and friends who love them."

She added, "This is her only hope." It could have been that hope for Leni's younger sibling, too.

Why It Matters:

Leni's parents describe her as "a bundle of energy" and said, "[E]veryone that meets her agrees that she is pure sunshine."

They "make the most" of their time with Leni. They "travel, go on adventures and make memories as a family that we can treasure for life." The devastation they felt at her diagnosis is clear and understandable — and as someone who has received a rare genetic diagnosis for her own child, I understand. It's incredibly painful and gut-wrenching to be told you will watch your child suffer and that you may outlive them.

Emily and Angus felt that pain again when their second child was diagnosed.

Prenatal testing should not be used to target children and their parents for abortion. It should be used to help parents prepare to care for their children. But legalized abortion has made ending the lives of preborn children with health conditions and disabilities not only acceptable but expected.

Parents who learn their baby has a diagnosis like Sanfilippo are told that it would be the compassionate choice to have an abortion. They are told that it would be selfish to have a baby with a health condition. They are told that having a child with health conditions will ruin their finances and marriage and cause emotional harm to their already born children. They are made to feel guilty for wanting their child to live. It's unacceptable.

Because of this discriminatory societal outlook that even plagues so-called pro-life individuals, Emily and Angus' second child was denied the opportunity to "make memories" and "go on adventures," and the chance to live and be loved by his or her family. He or she would also have been a light in their lives like Leni, and deserved to be treated as such.

Abortion is never a valid choice, but when it feels like the "only choice," it's not a choice at all; it's coercion.

And it's unfair. Emily and Angus should never have been put in this position, and their baby shouldn't have been either.

Ending a child's life in the womb because of a prenatal diagnosis, even one as difficult as Sanfilippo syndrome, is morally equivalent to prematurely ending a born child's life because of a diagnosis. The child who died was Leni's sibling — her sister or brother — not a "potential" life.

Leni's parents likely felt that pressure, along with guilt, that they had created children who had a life-limiting and life-threatening health condition.

It's a heavy emotional cross to carry. I've carried it, I've put it down, and some days I pick it back up. I had to consider whether or not to give my child siblings who might have the same diagnosis she did. I had to look at the moral aspects of such a situation from all perspectives, and it was emotionally draining, especially with pressure from outside sources. When I did conceive more children, I was told I was wrong to do so. But ultimately, I don't have the right to determine that someone else's life is not worth living.

No one does.

The Bottom Line:

Regardless of whether the Forresters would have intentionally had more children once they learned of Leni's diagnosis, their second child was already conceived, already alive.

Aborting Leni's sibling deprived Emily, Angus, and Leni of the joy of knowing that child. And ultimately, it deprived their second child of his or her opportunity to experience the love of his or her family.