New National Abortion Federation policy position pushes unrestricted abortion to birth

In their "first policy position since Roe v. Wade was overturned," the National Abortion Federation (NAF), which "represents abortion providers" has officially admitted what pro-lifers have long said about the beliefs of abortion proponents: They don't want abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare." They want the killing of preborn children to be legal up to birth for any reason.

Of course, the language with which NAF stated this fact was much more nuanced, but the intent is the same:

As the leading professional membership body for abortion providers nationwide, NAF supports abortion care and access throughout pregnancy and opposes legislation and policies that interfere with that care, including viability limits and gestation-based bans.

In part one of our series on the National Abortion Federation (NAF), Live Action News documented how NAF sought to hire an “Intelligence Analyst” to create “dossiers” to track pro-life activities. In part two, we documented how NAF worked to get mainstream medicine to 'save' abortion. In part three, we expose that abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy is NAF's goal.

Key Takeaways:

• The National Abortion Federation's newly issued policy position, released on the fourth anniversary of Dobbs, which overturned Roe v. Wade, openly calls for an end to all restrictions on abortion — including those that restrict it for babies who could survive outside the womb.

• NAF is openly admitting what the pro-life movement has long stated, which is that "viability" is a highly subjective term, which can be determined arbitrarily by numerous individuals — and, according to NAF, the mother of a preborn child might even have a say in determining that child's "viability."

• NAF's policy position portrays viability limits and/or restricting abortion based on the gestational age of the preborn child as abortion bans, and says they are not "merely reasonable limits" on abortion.

The Details:

Opposing 'viability' limits to allow abortion 'throughout pregnancy'

The NAF made the policy announcement on the fourth anniversary of the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v. Wade, writing on their Facebook

Since Dobbs, abortion bans and restrictions have forced patients to travel farther, pay more, delay care, and face heightened risks of criminalization, surveillance, and forced pregnancy.

This is why today, NAF is releasing its first policy position since Roe was overturned to affirm abortion access throughout pregnancy and oppose viability limits and arbitrary gestation-based abortion bans.

Viability limits and gestation-based restrictions are not reasonable compromises. They are abortion bans that substitute political judgment for evidence-based care, patient autonomy, and the realities providers see every day.

NAF's policy position

NAF's 2026 "Policy Position on Abortion Access Throughout Pregnancy" states that women should "retain the ability to make decisions free from government interference," which is a ridiculous statement on its face (after all, we have something called laws in every nation of the world), but it goes beyond the ridiculous to the profane when you realize what "decision" they really mean.

Specifically, the NAF policy seeks to end "legal restrictions and bans like viability." In other words, NAF does not care if a baby can survive outside the womb; any "legal restriction" against killing that child at any age must be eliminated, according to NAF.

Later abortions typically involve either the dismemberment of a living preborn child or an induction abortion in which the child is fatally injected in the heart or head with digoxin or potassium chloride prior to induction of labor to deliver a stillborn child. (However, sometimes, if organ harvesting is involved, the child is not injected with feticide, and therefore, may survive the induction.)

2nd Trimester Abortion | Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) | What Is Abortion?

The NAF claimed that "Legal restrictions and bans like viability and gestation-based lines create dangerous environments for clinicians and patients."

Not so.

Even late-term abortionist Curtis Boyd admitted that later abortion procedures are far riskier than childbirth.

In addition, in a case where a medical emergency or health situation does arise, it is then far safer to deliver the child alive early instead of targeting the baby in utero with a risky abortion.

And finally, even the abortion industry, insurers, and others admit that late-term induction abortions are so dangerous to women that they should never be committed in freestanding abortion facilities, when the standard of care is a hospital or hospital-like facility.

NAF's word salad for unrestricted abortion on demand included the term "evidence" multiple times by citing pro-abortion studies and the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Live Action News has repeatedly revealed ACOG's pro-abortion bias. ACOG makes it no secret, yet the public still considers them to be an impartial organization. (Read more here and here.)

NAF suggested that "Rigid legal cutoffs that ban or restrict abortion care at viability or arbitrary gestational lines substitute political considerations for medical and personal decision making." Given the fact that "arbitrary" trimester markers were put in place by Justice Harry Blackmun the in Roe v. Wade decision, this would be laughable if it weren't so deadly.

Lastly, NAF claims that "Good abortion laws support principles of good medicine" — but intentional killing isn't health care, no matter how often someone chants it.

NAF's latest "Policy Position" follows a study published in JAMA Network Open which called for taxpayer-funded abortion up to birth, or in their terms, "expand[ing] the availability of later abortion," especially "in states with Medicaid coverage," because the authors identified "challenges" to abortion if "care is more expensive."

And when tax dollars are on the line... follow the money.

Beyond the gibberish

After decades of propping up the Roe v Wade abortion decision as the "law of the land" by groups like NAF, including the term viability NAF is now openly admitting what few abortion proponents have been willing to state until now. NAF begins by stating:

Viability is not a single, fixed point in pregnancy.

Then it goes on to state what determines so-called "viability" — and it may surprise you:

It depends on clinical circumstances, fetal conditions, available medical resources, and the judgment of the patient and care team...

Wait just a minute... this appears to state that an abortion client gets to play a role in determining her child's ability to survive outside the womb. NAF continues:

While viability and gestational cut-offs are often presented as merely reasonable limits on abortion, they are, in fact, abortion bans.

This statement reveals quite clearly that abortion, for NAF, is not actually about a woman's bodily autonomy. If it were, then delivering the baby at "viability" and helping that child would seem to be the "reasonable" action. But NAF is in the business of ensuring that preborn babies — even those with high chances of survival outside the womb of the woman — die. After all, the woman paid for a dead baby, so it is NAF's job to ensure she gets a dead baby.

The viability-rule enacted in Roe was unsound and “arbitrary” and was never based on science but was instead  a political decision. The Justices deemed viability as the point in pregnancy when the child could survive outside the womb (which, at that time, was approximately 24 weeks; today preborn children can survive when born even earlier).

The overwhelming scientific evidence surrounding the humanity of the developing child in the womb was overlooked and dismissed when Roe v Wade was decided.

Now that Roe has fallen as a result of the Dobbs decision, abortion advocates are changing their definitions. For instance, ACOG writes:

While there is no single formally recognized clinical definition of “viability,” the term is often used in medical practice in two distinct circumstances.

In the first, “viability” addresses whether a pregnancy is expected to continue developing normally. In early pregnancy, a normally developing pregnancy would be deemed viable, whereas early pregnancy loss or miscarriage would not. 

In the second, “viability” addresses whether a fetus might survive outside of the uterus. Later in pregnancy, a clinician may use the term “viable” to indicate the chance for survival that a fetus has if delivered before it can fully develop in the uterus.

Clinicians most commonly focus on the periviable period, which refers to weeks 20 through 25 and 6 days of a pregnancy.

Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), largely comprised of abortionists and cited by NAF, claimed that the term “later” (as in later abortion) is a "relative term," because "for people seeking abortion care, 'it is when the gestation of a pregnancy becomes a factor in whether or how they are able to access abortion care.'"

Pro-life definitions and terms are much more consistent; a human baby is conceived at the moment of fertilization, and this was once common knowledge, even among those who advocated abortion.

Eventually, however, population control enthusiasts associated with ACOG worked to change the definition of the beginning of life from fertilization to implantation (in the uterus). These events are several days apart.

For decades it was universally acknowledged that a baby's heartbeat could be detected just a few weeks post fertilization, until that scientific fact became too inconvenient, and ACOG and abortion enthusiasts at large began to blur the lines again.

They're not only changing their definitions, but making it difficult to track those changes; NAF's website has been changed from "prochoice.org" to "nationalabortionfederation.org" which makes it harder to locate archived statements.

Continual redefinitions and policy changes are not "evidence" of anything except a desperation to escape the truth about the humanity of preborn children and convince society that killing them is "healthcare."

'Forced' pregnancy and 'make-believe' musings

In a press release, Brittany Fonteno, President and CEO of NAF, claimed NAF is vowing to “ensure the laws of our land respect evidence-based care for women and pregnant people” because “[p]eople deserve abortion access throughout pregnancy.”

Fontana refers to pro-life protections as “extreme” policies which “force” women “to stay pregnant.” But pregnancy is a natural reproductive process that continues until culminating in birth, unless it is interrupted accidentally by miscarriage or intentionally by abortion. Therefore, abortion itself is the use of "force" to intentionally end the pregnancy and cause the death of the child.

Fonteno then appears to take a swipe at Live Action’s "Baby Olivia" video, writing that “anti-abortion extremism pushes the boundaries of make-believe in medicine — animating fetuses, embryos, and zygotes.”

But fetuses, embryos, and zygotes are merely stages of human development... it is the same living person from fertilization onward. Using computer animation to show what medical, 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds already show isn't "make-believe."

Nine Weeks Pregnant

It just makes abortion proponents uncomfortable, for obvious reasons.

A Never Before Seen Look At Human Life In The Womb | Baby Olivia

The Bottom Line:

NAF, which describes abortion as a "fundamental human right," and once criticized the ban on gruesome partial-birth (D&X) abortions, is not only motivated by its own pocketbooks, but clearly wants the public to believe that restricting the killing of preborn human beings is unreasonable.

It isn't.