The past six weeks have been filled with news in both the United States and the world at large. April 19 was the 250th anniversary of the battles of Lexington, Concord, and Menotomy, which opened the American Revolution, resulting in our independence in 1783. This semiquincentennial has received much less attention—outside the particular localities directly involved—than the bicentennial did 50…

Source

‘Archbishop’ sits in front row and watches calmly…

Madness in Paderborn Cathedral: Absurd Performance with Diaper-Wearing Chickens, Scythes, and Half-Naked Dancers

What just took place at the ‘Roman Catholic’ cathedral of Paderborn, Germany, is so absurd and deranged that it is difficult to believe it took place even after seeing it with one’s own eyes.

For a cultural exhibit associated with the anniversary celebrations for 1250 years of Westphalia, an inaugural ceremony was held on May 15, 2025, in what once was (and ‘officially’ still is) the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Paderborn. The sacred edifice is a historic church building whose origins reach back to at least the 13th century; it is dedicated to Saints Mary, Kilian, and Liborius.… READ MORE

Elon Musk’s family life and views on procreation are making the news, including in a recent exposé in the Wall Street Journal interviewing several women who have borne his children. The picture that has emerged is ugly, messy, and weird. This is not just a story about a talented but morally flawed Silicon Valley visionary. Musk’s is an attitude of detached posthuman nihilism that enables him to evade the norms of familial relationships in the pursuit of creating more and better babies. This vision strips procreation and family of their intrinsic meaning and goodness and ignores the earnestness and intimacy of family life that are hallmarks of authentic natalism.   

Musk’s Family Life 

Elon Musk is the CEO of three massive companies, owns several others, and has been a right–hand man to President Trump for the first months of his presidency as de facto head of the (nongovernmental) Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk also has a large family and is an outspoken proponent of having more children to reverse the fertility crisis. He has become something of a standard-bearer for this cause. The trouble is that his own family life and natalist philosophy reflect a distorted understanding of children, the family, the human person, and the common good.  

We do not know exactly how many children Elon Musk has fathered, but there are at least fourteen. Those close to Musk say the number is much higher than what is publicly known. Musk has been seen at several public events recently with his four-year-old son “X,” including an extended news conference in the Oval Office with President Trump and a political rally for the president.  

According to a Wall Street Journal exposé, however, Musk has an appointed consigliere who manages his family affairs. He deals with the various mothers of his children (there are at least four such women) often through this intermediary. Ashley St. Clair, one of Musk’s partners, has alleged that he uses nondisclosure agreements and financial incentives to discourage the mothers of his children from talking about him or criticizing him publicly. He is also alleged to have approached women on his social media platform, X, and asked them via direct message whether they would be willing to bear his children.  

Musk, in short, projects an image of fatherhood in which children are an accessory to a desired lifestyle and an ancillary feature or secondary concern to his professional and political pursuits. This is more than a moral blind spot. In one sense Musk is very serious about having kids, but he also has a very distorted view of conventional ways of conceiving and raising them.  

Musk’s Anti-human Pronatalism 

Musk has stated that he sees fertility decline as a grave existential risk to humanity. In 2023, he tweeted that “[p]opulation collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming.” At a conference in Saudi Arabia last year, he said that “[i]f you don’t make new humans, there’s no humanity, and all the policies in the world don’t matter.” This may sound like a message society needs to hear: some commentators have a single-minded focus on impeding climate catastrophe to the extent that they come to see having kids as an evil because of their impact on the environment, and Musk balks at this view. Indeed, concerns about declining fertility are real and, to his credit, Musk has been bold in calling this out when many others are in denial or not brave enough to speak out on this matter. Nonetheless, Musk’s approach is unconventional at best and damaging at worst, ultimately viewing children as a product rather than a gift to be received. 

The technocratic means that Musk and his Silicon Valley confreres propose for addressing fertility decline reflect a distorted and utilitarian view of human natality. Silicon Valley is home to extensive research into “ectogenesis,” the conception and gestation of babies in petri dishes and artificial wombs, as well as polygenic screening of IVF embryos to create children with desirable traits. Musk himself has had several of his own children via IVF and surrogacy and has said, in texts seen by the WSJ, that he may need to use more surrogates to achieve his procreative goals. “To reach legion-level before the apocalypse . . . we will need to use surrogates,” one text read. 

Musk also appears to be focused on producing intelligent kids. He encouraged Shivon Zilis, a top official at Neuralink, to have children because she is “smart,” Zilis recounts in Walter Isaacson’s biography of Musk. Musk has had four children with her. Musk straddles the line between father and mere sperm donor, emotionally bonding with the children at times but also being largely absent day to day, according to the biography. Rather than being a romantic relationship, his relationship with Zilis sounds more like a friendship of utility for the purpose of procreation. 

One could be forgiven for thinking that there is some sort of grand vision behind Musk’s rhetoric and procreative largesse. Many tech gurus in Silicon Valley are obsessed with immortality and life extension, a preoccupation that appears to have its genesis in a transhumanist philosophy similar to that championed by philosophers like Ray Kurtzweil and Nick Bostrom. The difference with Musk, we might say, is that, instead of trying to extend his own life, he wants to live forever through his progeny, and having as many as possible seems like the best way to ensure this. He would appear to see himself as a founding figure in an imperial dynasty. He named one of his children “Romulus,” a reference to the legendary founder of the ancient city of Rome. He has described his children as “legion,” a reference to the imperial units that would facilitate the expansion of the Roman empire. Musk also reportedly offered his own sperm to colonize Mars, a lifelong goal of his and an apparent motivation for many of his business ventures.  

But it is perhaps more accurate to say that based on his decisions and the limited statements he’s made regarding his family, Musk is a kind of post-human nihilist indulging in a grand act of techno-fantasy with his own family. That is to say, Musk fundamentally doubts the value and wisdom of the sorts of norms that typically govern how human beings form caring and nurturing families, such as stable spousal love, or the norm of procreating through sex, or even just giving a conventional name to one’s child (Musk named one of his children “X Æ A-12″). Instead, he has used assisted reproduction and loose relationships with his female partners to personally help secure humanity’s future.  

Philosophical Problems with Musk’s Pronatalism 

Musk’s techno-utilitarian approach to natality runs afoul of a fundamental tenet of an authentic natalism, namely, a firm commitment to the intrinsic value of all human beings, and especially of children. Children are not objects to be produced like electric vehicles that will address climate change or spaceships that will allow us to fly to Mars. Natality is good not just because it positively contributes to the future of humanity or because it has an economic benefit. Rather, children are human beings with intrinsic value, a value that transcends their significance in our own personal story and life plans.  

Much of the anti-natalist literature is driven by concerns about the pain that children bring into the world or economic and environmental costs of having children. One recent article in a prestigious bioethics journal went as far as identifying normative and pragmatic reasons for labelling pregnancy as a “disease.” But children are more than a source of pleasure and pain. Neither are they units for decline or growth of capital or causes of environmental degradation. They are the bearers of the same transcendent value that all human beings have and are worthy recipients of our unconditional love.  

Musk’s approach to childbearing and parenting in different ways commodifies children, and one might go as far as to say that it is an outgrowth of the “culture of death” that John Paul II warned of in Evangelium Vitae. John Paul wrote that the “various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life.” Human life, then, is cheapened when children are instrumentalized to achieve personal or policy goals, even if they’re morally good (or neutral). 

The value one places on children and family is reflected in how we choose to conceive. Creating children through IVF and surrogacy, or through relationships initiated by online connections and then formalized by legal contracts, instrumentalizes women and children and will only reinforce the negative attitudes that members of the public have toward the idea of bringing new life into the world. What we need are positive stories that witness to the value of having a family rather than stories about people who have been hurt and burned in family life. Or, more to the point, we don’t want to deny that family life has challenges, but we want to give witness to the idea that you can make things work if you have the right view of your kids and the unsurpassable importance of family. Fundamentally, children are a gift to receive, not a part of a life plan, not a scheme to perpetuate our “good genes,” not a lifestyle choice, and certainly not something we can manipulate to fit our own selfish ends. 

To be clear, Musk is discrediting natalism as such. He is currently one of the most prominent standard-bearers for the idea that people should have more children, and he is doing, quite frankly, a terrible job of promoting the cause. Natalism in its various forms is being written off as a right-wing, even nationalistic concern. But there is nothing inherently political about the idea that forming families is vital to a flourishing society.  

The family as an institution has its own inner logic, wisdom, and social purpose. The families in which we grow up, after all, help us to appreciate each other as we are and to have the hopeful confidence to take the risk of starting a family ourselves. Saint Pope John Paul II made this point in Centesimus Annus:  

The first and fundamental structure for “human ecology” is the family, in which man receives his first formative ideas about truth and goodness, and learns what it means to love and to be loved, and thus what it actually means to be a person.  

The family helps us to appreciate the value that human beings have as givers and receivers of love. Pope John Paul II goes on to warn of the risk that people may instead see themselves and their lives in terms of “a series of sensations to be experienced rather than as a work to be accomplished.” This disordered self-understanding diminishes people’s freedom, renders them incapable of sustaining stable relationships, and leads them to think of children as “things” to be acquired rather than creatures with dignity and value.  

Committing to conventional family life and creating a nurturing environment for one’s children, then, is a meaningful and worthwhile endeavor that can give life purpose, even if it also entails difficulties, risks, and disruptions to other life plans. This is not a message that comes through in Musk’s life and philosophy, but it is eloquently captured in recent literature on the value of having kids, two notable examples of which are Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman’s What Are Children For: On Ambivalence and Choice, and Catherine Pakaluk’s Hannah’s Children: The Women Quietly Defining the Birth Dearth. These authors, from different sides of the political spectrum, converge on the view that having children can indeed be a meaningful, life-affirming, and even liberating act, and that our society’s great sickness is that we have become paralyzed by choice or rigid life plans to the extent of indefinitely delaying family formation.   

The Existential Value of the Family 

At some point we have to be honest about what makes life truly good. Landing on Mars may be an incredible feat, but it is only love and the pursuit of meaningful communion with others that makes such an endeavor worthwhile in the first place. The intimacy of familial love, in particular, is one of the greatest gifts and imbues life with meaning. Recapturing a sense of earnestness about family life is especially important to the pronatalist cause: it’s not just having children that matters. Raising them, nurturing them, and forming them to be whole, flourishing persons is a legacy worth pursuing.  

Image by JD Lasica and licensed via Wikimedia Commons.

The weapons manufacturers are undermining Belgrade’s neutrality stance, the SVR said

The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has accused Serbian defense companies of using false documentation and third parties to covertly ship artillery shells, rockets, and small arms ammunition to Ukraine.

The agency made the allegation in a statement published on its website on Wednesday, titled “The Serbian Defense Industry Is Trying to Shoot Russia in the Back.”

“According to information received by the SVR, Serbian defense firms continue to supply ammunition to Kiev, in violation of the ‘neutrality’ declared by Belgrade,” the statement read.

The SVR claimed that Serbian companies have used “fake end-user certificates” to route weapons through Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and other NATO countries, as well as unspecified African states. These arms, the agency said, later surfaced in Ukraine. According to the SVR, 100,000 rockets and howitzer shells, along with one million small arms rounds, have been transferred in this manner. Major Serbian weapons manufacturers, including the state-owned Yugoimport-SDPR, were allegedly complicit in the scheme.

“It seems that the desire of Serbian defense firms and their backers to profit from the bloodshed between brotherly Slavic nations has made them forget who their true friends are – and who their enemies are,” the SVR stated.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said on Thursday that he had discussed ammunition exports during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow in May. “We have formed a working group with our Russian partners to establish the facts,” he told the broadcaster RTS.

Commenting on the SVR’s claims, Vucic maintained that “some of the statements that have been made are not true.”

“For example, they claim there is a contract with the Czech Republic. However, no permit has been issued, and no missiles have been delivered,” he said. “I will certainly issue an order and a warning that if there is any suspicion of abuse of the so-called end-user policies – namely, the sending of ammunition to warzones – we should be informed immediately.” Vucic emphasized that Serbia maintains “good relations” with both Russia and Ukraine.

Russia and Serbia have enjoyed close historical and cultural ties since the 19th century.  Vucic has said he has resisted Western efforts to compel Belgrade to impose sanctions on Moscow and draw his country into the confrontation.

On August 26, 1843, Jesus appeared to French Carmelite nun Sister Mary of Saint Peter for the first time and presented the Devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus. 

He presented this devotion to her for three primary purposes: to make reparation for blasphemy against God, profanation of Sundays and Holy Days, and atheism. The devotion is a powerful weapon against evil, particularly communism and the enemies of God.

In one of many promises attached to the Holy Face, Jesus told Sister Mary of Saint Peter,

In an exclusive interview, producer Oscar Delgado (Jesus Thirsts: The Miracle of the Eucharist) speaks with ChurchPOP editor Jacqueline Burkepile about his upcoming film, “The Face of Jesus.” 

The film explores the various images of Jesus that have surfaced over the years, including the Shroud of Turin, the Veil of Manoppello, and the first Divine Mercy painting by artist Eugene Kazimirowski. It also tells the story of Sister Mary of Saint Peter, her visions of Jesus, and the power of this devotion.

Here is the interview with producer Oscar Delgado about ‘The Face of Jesus’ below:

Click here if you cannot see the video above.

Delgado discusses the importance of this forgotten devotion to Jesus’ Holy Face in battling the evils of today’s culture.

"The Holy Face devotion is one of the things that the Lord gave to combat against communism, and against masonry and everything else,” Delgado says.

Delgado also mentions the providential connection between the release of this film and Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate. 

"The timing is really providential because Leo XIII and now Leo XIV, and all of this is interconnecting,” Delgado explains.

Pope Leo XIII officially approved the Holy Face Devotion during his pontificate in 1885. He then established the Archconfraternity of the Holy Face, to which Saint Therese of Lisieux’s (or Saint Therese of the Holy Face of Jesus') family belonged, and were some of its first members. 

This renewed interest in the Holy Face devotion also links to a possible revival in Leonine spirituality.

“Leo XIII, which, as you know, was instrumental in not only promoting social justice, but the rosary and archconfraternities; the devotion of the Holy Face,” Delgado says. “It's kind of amazing that now lifting that up, and now we have Leo XIV, that we will continue with that type of spirituality, the devotion, and everything else.”

"The important thing about this film,” Delgado continues, “is to see the connection that all these images have—the face and everything else—and how important it is, the face of Jesus.”

“The Face of Jesus” hits theaters on June 3 for one day only. Click here to purchase tickets through Fathom Events.

As a result of a lawsuit brought by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys on behalf of Vermont pregnancy centers, the state of Vermont has amended a law to no longer openly discriminate against the centers over their life-affirming service to their communities.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Aspire Now, and Branches Pregnancy Resource Center sued state officials in July 2023 for unconstitutionally restricting the centers’ speech and provision of services.

“Women who become unexpectedly pregnant should know they have life-affirming options available to them, from emotional support to practical resources, which is exactly what our clients offer,” said ADF Legal Counsel Julia Payne Koon. “We’re pleased that Vermont recognized it needed to amend its discriminatory law that unlawfully targeted faith-based pregnancy centers and restricted their ability to speak and act according to their conscience. Pregnancy centers must be free to serve and empower women and their families by offering the support they need without fear of unjust government punishment.”

LifeNews is on TruthSocial. Please follow us here.

“The state of Vermont has backed away from attacking the work of pro-life pregnancy centers,” said NIFLA Vice President of Legal Affairs Anne O’Connor. “Pregnancy centers are no longer under direct threat from the law and pro-abortion lobby in Vermont. For this, NIFLA celebrates; however, if in the future the state again decides to unconstitutionally pursue the work of pro-life pregnancy centers, NIFLA stands ready to take Vermont back to court and seek appropriate relief.”

Two years ago, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed SB 37 into law, impeding the ability of pro-life pregnancy centers to continue providing help and support to the state’s women and families. The law censored the centers’ ability to advertise their services and to counsel women against abortion.

The law specifically targeted pro-life pregnancy centers as “limited services” providers because they do not refer for or perform abortions. Under the law, pregnancy centers could be fined up to $10,000 for advertising their services in a way that Vermont’s pro-abortion attorney general believes is misleading. The law applied only to pro-life pregnancy centers; an abortion facility that provides identical information would not be subject to the law. Now, the state has amended the language of the law to eliminate its targeting of pregnancy centers and restriction of their provision of medical services.

In light of the changed law, ADF attorneys filed a stipulated dismissal of the case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark, Thursday.

The post Vermont Stops Discriminating Against Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers After Lawsuit appeared first on LifeNews.com.

In a further blow to Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill, another MP who initially backed the Bill at Second Reading has indicated he has changed his mind, and will vote against it at next month’s Third Reading vote.

Explaining his reasoning, Liberal Democrat MP Brian Mathew expressed his concerns about terminally ill people feeling they “have become a burden upon their family”, saying “I share the concerns of many constituents that individuals facing terminal illness will take the decision based on concerns that they have become a burden upon their family”.

“This is a serious concern for me; I worry that in someone’s final days, this question will loom heavy when it does not need to”.

Mathew was critical of the Bill for “inviting interference of the judicial process into the delicate and pressing needs of the end of life where many, who will be unlikely to have considered assisted dying, may now face worries from it”. Stating that “the current state of end-of-life care cannot be described as optimal”, Mathew warned that, due to the “patchy” provision of hospices, “an assisted death might be seen as the preferred option”.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

Mathew, who voted for the Bill at Second Reading last November to allow “time and opportunity to scrutinise and improve the Bill”, blasted the Report Stage debate for “inadequately” answering his concerns, saying “Coming to the third reading, I am minded to vote against the Bill, as I have several concerns I feel have been inadequately answered by the report stage”. The Report Stage debate was branded by critics as “chaotic” and “a disaster” after MPs debated only two of over 100 amendments put forward before running out of time.

MPs “now having doubts” about assisted suicide Bill

The Guardian described Mathew’s apparent change of mind as a “sign” that support for the Bill is “ebbing away”. Critics now believe there is a good chance of the Bill failing during the “knife-edge” Third Reading vote in June, with Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell citing “many colleagues who voted for the Bill at second reading but are now having doubts”.

Rosindell added “Momentum is against Leadbeater’s Bill and there is every reason to believe we can defeat it at third reading”.

Former Conservative MP Lord Jackson said “It does feel like things have changed in regards to the Leadbeater Bill”.

“There is now a steady stream of MPs flipping against the Bill and, if this continues, it looks like it will be a knife-edge vote next month”.

Risk of “suicide culture” if Leadbeater Bill becomes law

The Bill passed its Second Reading by 55 votes. If 28 MPs switch their stance, it will be defeated at Third Reading. Mathew’s announcement comes as an increasing number of MPs are changing their minds about the legislation, joining Reform’s Lee Anderson and his former colleague Rupert Lowe who publicly declared in February that they would be changing their vote.

During Report Stage, Jonathan Hinder MP announced that, while he had voted in favour of the assisted suicide Bill at Second Reading, his “concerns have only deepened” over the course of Commitee Stage and that he would now be voting against the Bill. Hinder is joined by former Conservative Minister George Freeman, who explained his change of stance, telling Times Radio that there is a risk of a “suicide culture” and a “Dignitas industry” being created if the Leadbeater Bill becomes law.

Explaining his reasons for changing his mind, Conservative MP Andrew Snowden complained that the Bill had “already been watered down from its original safeguards” and expressed concerns about the “process” of a Private Members’ Bill for the legislation. Snowden said “[H]ow can I vote to allow the state to sanction, determine and administrate assisted suicide, if I have this much doubt in my mind about the parliamentary process and as such the robustness and workability of the subsequent legislation?”

The New Statesman also reported that Naz Shah MP has had conversations with “quite a few” fellow Labour MPs who “have changed their minds from being in favour to against” the Bill. Shah explained “Somebody very bluntly said, ‘Oh no, I’m definitely not voting for this. I ain’t having my old man being coerced and feeling that he’s a burden and he has to go. I ain’t having that’”.

Concerns about a lack of safeguards and palliative care

Liberal Democrat MP Steve Darling is now “marginally against” the assisted suicide Billl, due to concerns about a lack of safeguards and the broken health and care system. While still undecided about how he will vote, Darling said he now had “more concerns than I did then” (in November at the Second Reading vote).

Some MPs who abstained from voting at Second Reading have now moved to opposing the Bill, including Labour MP for Crawley, Peter Lamb, who said “I do not believe that the case has been made for a change in the law, and I therefore believe I am obligated to oppose the passage of the Bill through the remaining stages of the process”. Lamb also cited the need to invest in palliative care as his most significant concern as well as the lack of parliamentary time available for consideration of the Bill.

Concerns about palliative care were also shared by Emma Hardy MP who has moved from abstaining to intending to vote against. Hardy expressed her fears that, because “palliative care access is worse in deprived areas, I fear that without concrete measures assisted dying could become [the] de facto option for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients who cannot afford the high quality palliative care we all deserve”.

Momentum shifting against assisted suicide Bill

Labour MP Debbie Abrahams and Conservative MP Charlie Dewhirst, who did not vote at Second Reading, both told The Telegraph they now intended to vote against. Dewhirst said he “can’t support it in all good conscience” because “[t]here seems to be a lack of protections, for example, for people with autism. And it really feels to me that it’s far wider than we were assured it was going to be to start with”.

Labour MP Karl Turner has also changed his position from voting for the Bill to abstaining. Turner said he would now vote against if he were “forced” to vote and if abstaining were not an option, also explaining that he was “worried” about “the safeguards in terms of judicial scrutiny”. Liberal Democrat MP Bobby Dean and former minister, Sir David Davis MP, who both previously voted for the Bill, are now reported to be undecided.

Momentum appears to be shifting against the Bill, with key figures and organisations speaking out strongly against supporting the legislation. In a move described by journalist Dan Hitchens as “an absolute bombshell statement”, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) announced it “cannot support” the Bill, citing “many, many factors” that need addressing. The RCPsych said “With too many unanswered questions about the safeguarding of people with mental illness, the College has concluded that it cannot support the Bill in its current form”.

Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has expressed her concerns about the “inadequacies” of a Private Members’ Bill as a suitable “vehicle for such wide societal change” and was critical of the “curtailed” and “short” nature of the Report Stage debate earlier this month. She said “There are huge implications here and the debate that we’re having is curtailed, it is short. We saw that last Friday. I don’t think it’s the right thing to do”.

The Justice Secretary’s comments are another setback for Leadbeater because the Ministry of Justice would be partly responsible for the implementation of the assisted suicide Bill if it were to become law.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “There is now no doubt the tide has turned on this dangerous Bill as many MPs who voted for the Bill at Second Reading change their minds”.

“There is still a lot of work to do between now and Third Reading. It is vital to keep contacting MPs to highlight the flaws and unworkability of the assisted suicide Bill. However, we are now firmly on track and we can win this”.

LifeNews Note: Republished with permission from Right to Life UK.

The post Another British MP Will Vote Against the Dangerous Assisted Suicide Bill appeared first on LifeNews.com.

A new peer-reviewed study by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) found no evidence to substantiate the popular claim that abortion medications are safer than Tylenol.

Abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood have long claimed that mifepristone, a pill used for medical abortions, is as safe as commonly-used medicines like Tylenol. The CLI study, published in the journal BioTech on Tuesday, found that no scientifically valid comparison between mifepristone and Tylenol exists.

“For years now, the abortion lobby’s claim that abortion drugs are ‘safer than Tylenol’ has dominated public discussion, propelled by the illusion of scientific consensus. However, no such support exists,” said Cameron Louttit, director of life sciences at CLI and author of the study. “This baseless claim, repeated by medical societies, politicians, media pundits and researchers, has profoundly influenced public opinion and policy. But as this paper details, those spreading it lack the evidence they routinely claim.”

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

Titled “The Origins and Proliferation of Unfounded Comparisons Regarding the Safety of Mifepristone,” the study emphasizes that evaluating drug safety solely based on death rates is misleading, as it overlooks serious adverse events such as heavy bleeding and severe abdominal pain, which are critical to a holistic safety assessment.

“In collapsing complex safety considerations into simplistic comparisons that leverage wholly incomparable metrics, these assertions systematically violate the norms and regulations that inform evidence-based biomedical communication,” the study states. “Not only have the comparisons between mifepristone and other drugs failed in their duty to adequately assess this impossibility, but they have also demonstrated a complete disregard for the need to communicate comprehensive and truthful safety information to patients, policymakers, jurists, and the public.”

The CLI study also found that the claim that mifepristone is as safe as common drugs like Tylenol originated in a 2003 Chicago Tribune article in which a doctor compared mifepristone’s death rate to an uncited penicillin death rate.

Planned Parenthood, one of the top abortion providers in the U.S., maintains that the abortion pill is “safer than many other medicines like penicillin, Tylenol, and Viagra,” according to its website.

“The claim that abortion drugs are safer than Tylenol is a reckless slogan that is not backed by science. Yet the claim is aggressively pushed by the legacy media and politicians focused on advancing a pro-abortion agenda and stripping away safeguards on drugs responsible for the majority of abortions in the United States,” Katie Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Not to mention, the Biden Administration’s decision to strip away in-person dispensing requirements fueled an unregulated online drug market, all in the name of ideological convenience. Americans deserve evidence-based policy, not political slogans that put women’s lives at risk.”

The CLI’s findings follow the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s (EPPC) recent study finding that nearly 11% of patients experience a “serious adverse event” after taking the abortion pill — including hemorrhaging, sepsis, fallopian tube rupture or infection — compared to the 0.5% rate presented on the drug label. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently described the EPPC’s data as “alarming,” and directed the Food and Drug Administration to review the safety of the abortion pill and update its labeling if necessary.

Medication abortions currently account for two-thirds of abortions performed each year.

Danco Laboratories, LLC, which manufactures mifepristone, and Planned Parenthood did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

LifeNews Note: Melissa O’Rourke writes for Daily Caller. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.

The post New Study Completely Destroys the Lie That Abortion Pills are Safe for Women appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Oregon is once again at the forefront of expanding assisted suicide—and this time, the consequences won’t stop at its borders.

SB 1003—is moving through the Oregon legislature that would dangerously expand the state’s so-called Death with Dignity Act. If passed, because of Oregon’s removal of its residency requirement in 2022, this law would affect vulnerable patients nationwide and further normalize suicide as a “solution” to potential suffering.

What’s in the Bill:

SB 1003 expands assisted suicide in three alarming ways:

Broadens the Definition of Who Can Prescribe Lethal Drugs
○ Replaces “attending physician” and “consulting physician” with “prescribing provider” and “consulting provider.”
○ While recent amendments attempt to make the terms nearly interchangeable, it opens the door to loosen safeguards undetected down the road.

Mandates Promotion of Assisted Suicide by Healthcare Facilities
○ Hospices, hospitals, and other facilities would be required to disclose in writing the availability of assisted suicide before a patient is admitted.
○ Facilities must also post these policies publicly — in their offices and online.
○ This will make it far easier for patients — especially those who are vulnerable — to be steered toward death, rather than care.

Shortens the Existing 15-Day Waiting Period
○ Reduces the waiting period to just 7 days — and in cases of “imminent death,” allows lethal drugs to be administered within 48 hours.
○ This undermines critical time for evaluation and discernment, especially for patients facing mental health challenges, grief, or treatable conditions.

ACTION ALERT: Contact the Oregon legislature to urge opposition to this bill.

Why It Matters to You:

In 2022, Oregon dropped its residency requirement for assisted suicide. That means anyone in the U.S. can travel to Oregon to die by suicide. SB 1003 makes that process faster, easier, and less regulated.

That’s why we’re asking for your help right now.

What You Can Do:
Submit written testimony opposing SB 1003 to Oregon lawmakers. Share this email with your network—especially any healthcare professionals. To submit written testimony, click here.

Written Testimony Deadline: 1:00 PM, Wednesday, June 4, 2025

Together, we must push back against a culture that treats death as a solution and stand up for policies that protect life at the most vulnerable stages.

LifeNews Note: Carol Tobias is the president of the National Right to Life Committee.

The post Oregon Suicide Tourism Bill Would Allow Americans From Any State to Kill Themselves There appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Defense Secretary John Healey has said London will increase hacking operations as part of a new military command

London will significantly step up offensive cyber operations against Russia and China, UK Defense Secretary John Healey announced on Thursday following the inauguration of the country’s new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command.

In a statement quoted by The Times, Healey claimed that “the keyboard is now a weapon of war” and said the UK’s new cyber command would coordinate both defensive and offensive operations, including hacking into enemy systems to disrupt attacks and spread of propaganda.

Asked whether this would include Russia and China, Healey responded: “Yes.”

Healey’s statement marks the first time a British minister has explicitly confirmed cyberattacks on other states. While UK ministers had previously confirmed cyber operations against non-state actors like Islamic State, they have not until now acknowledged attacks against other countries.

The defense secretary added that more than £1 billion ($1.35 billion) has been allocated by the UK government for a “digital targeting web” to enable real-time battlefield intelligence-sharing between troops, spy planes and satellites.

Healey’s comments come ahead of the publication of a strategic defense review on Monday. According to The Times, the review will stress that cyberattacks on Britain, allegedly being carried out by Russia and China, are “threatening the foundations of the economy and daily life.”

Both Moscow and Beijing have consistently denied accusations of carrying out cyberattacks against Western nations, characterizing the claims as baseless and politically motivated.

Additionally, Russian officials have in recent months repeatedly raised concerns over what they describe as Western Europe’s continued militarization and aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric, said to be in response to the alleged threat posed by Moscow.

The Kremlin has vehemently denied having any hostile intent towards any western country, and has accused European politicians of “irresponsibly stoking fears” to justify increased military expenditures, which Moscow had labeled an “incitement of war on the European continent.”