This article is a transcript of “‘Aborting healthy babies does not happen‘” courtesy of volunteer Ben Tomlin. If you’re interested in volunteering to transcribe more of our content, please complete our volunteer survey.

(Video also available on Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram.)

I believe she is defining late term abortion as the killing of healthy third-trimester babies. Aborting an otherwise healthy baby does not happen.

Dr. Vicki Chan (@‪vickichanmd‬ on TikTok), “Unfortunately, many have been confused and misled with this.”

Hi, Dr. Chan, I’m glad to hear that you are against killing healthy third-trimester babies. I am too. I think almost everybody is. I am frustrated though that you are using your platform and your credentials as a doctor—not an OB-GYN, but still a doctor—to suggest that that is not a reality. It’s legal in multiple places in the United States to kill healthy third-trimester babies, and it is something that people do. Is it common compared to first-trimester abortion? No, it’s not common. It is legal, and it does happen.

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

How do I know this? Well, I know because abortion providers have talked about it, which I will reference in a second, and I know because I made an appointment for an abortion when I was 28-weeks pregnant at a clinic in Washington DC. Washington DC has no gestational limits on abortion, and at zero points did anybody pretend that I needed to have some kind of medical reason to do that. I was not going to get an abortion. I was filming undercover for work that I’m doing, and I wrote all about it here, it’s in The Washington Times as a piece detailing what exactly happened.

But for the purposes of talking to you now, the central point is that when I called them and I was 27-weeks pregnant and I told them the first day of my last menstrual period and they knew I’d be 28-weeks pregnant in the following week, they had no problem with that. They made the appointment. They told me it would cost $11,400. I went to the clinic in person with cash—$11,400—and they did my ultrasound, they pulled my blood work, we talked about the procedure, and at no point did they pretend (1) that there needed to be any medical reason to do this, or (2) that abortion this late—28-weeks on a healthy baby—would just be induction of live birth.

At an abortion clinic that performs these procedures, nobody is pretending, as moderate pro-choice people like to believe, that this is just early induction of labor because abortion is just termination of a pregnancy. Abortion is termination of a pregnancy with the intent and result of not a live child.

The reality is that when people seek abortions of viable, healthy fetuses, the providers make sure that those fetuses are not born alive because they induce demise first. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can hear it from the providers themselves. This is an article that was published quite recently actually in The New Yorker, talking about a clinic in Maryland that performs abortions up until 34-weeks. They profiled a woman, pseudonym Amanda, that came in to get an abortion at 32-weeks because she didn’t realize she was pregnant until 30-weeks. Zero mentions or hints of any health problems with her 32-week baby. And as if just to address the misconception that moderate pro-choice people have about what this means, they explicitly talk about how they induce demise. The idea that people are delivering live fetuses, that does not happen.

They have the same practice in the UK, although they’re a little bit more blunt about it. This research article came out not long ago talking about feticide before termination of pregnancy, and they explicitly talk about how sometimes even after 22-weeks, people are seeking abortion when there’s no fetal abnormality, so feticide may be essential to prevent a live birth and the potential survival of an extremely premature baby, which would defeat the purpose of the termination, because in real life, the purpose of termination of pregnancy, aka abortion, is not just to end the pregnancy, it’s to end the pregnancy in such a way that the child does not survive.

Here’s an interview out of the Boston Review of another abortion provider, and she is also very blunt about this. She talks about women seeking later abortion—30-weeks, she even mentions 40-weeks—and she talks about how sometimes they’re doing this even for reasons apart from health, and she says, “If a woman decides to proceed with an abortion after twenty-four weeks, she must accept the terms that she will deliver a baby and that baby will be dead.”

[Read more – Abortion isn’t just about ending a pregnancy; it’s about killing a fetus.]

So again, ma’am, I appreciate that you are against the killing of healthy third-trimester babies, and I appreciate that you want people to have an accurate understanding of what’s going on. I also want people to have an accurate understanding of what’s going on, and what’s actually going on is that, though it is rare compared to first-trimester abortion, compared to other circumstances, killing of healthy third-trimester babies in abortion does happen, and it is legal, and if you find that appalling, thank you, me too. Please stop telling people it’s not real. It is.

[Read more – “TikTok docs” don’t know what they’re talking about]

LifeNews.com Note:  Monica Snyder is the executive director of Secular Pro-Life, an organization that uses non-religious arguments to promote the pro-life perspective. This is where the article previously published.

The post Abortion Clinic Agreed to Kill 28-Week-Old Unborn Baby for $11,400 appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Iran’s uranium enrichment activities are entirely peaceful, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has insisted

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said Iran will give assurances regarding the peaceful nature its nuclear program, as US President Donald Trump pushes for the country to entirely dismantle its enrichment capability.

In March, Trump reportedly gave Iran a two-month deadline to make a nuclear deal with the US, threatening “bombing” if it does not accept. Washington recently set out its terms in a letter, following five rounds of Oman-brokered negotiations between the two nations.

“We are ready to give assurances to all sides about peaceful nature of our nuclear program,” Araghchi, Tehran’s top negotiator in the nuclear talks with the US, said at a press conference in Egypt on Monday.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Sunday that US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff “has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal” to Iran, adding that “it’s in their best interest to accept.” She reiterated Trump’s position that “Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb.”

READ MORE: US reiterates ‘red line’ in Iran nuclear talks

Tehran views the US proposal as both unfair and unlikely to reach a compromise, an Iranian source familiar with the proceedings has told RT.

“Iranians were dismayed to see such a fanciful, one-sided text that is so out of touch with reality,” the source said.

Iran is poised to reject the US proposition as a “non-starter,” Reuters wrote on Monday, citing a senior Iranian diplomat.

Last month, Trump said the only outcome he would accept is the “total dismantlement” of the Iranian nuclear program. Washington has insisted that Tehran should not be able to enrich its own uranium, even for civilian use, a clause Araghchi has dismissed as a violation of Iran’s sovereign rights.

During his first presidential term, Trump accused Tehran of secretly violating the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), under which Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief, and unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal. Tehran has dismissed the accusations, and has since gradually ramped up its domestic uranium enrichment.

It does not make sense for New York to consider legalizing assisted suicide while it simultaneously works to prevent suicides in its communities, Cardinal Timothy Dolan wrote in a May 29 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.

He detailed how he was once driving on the George Washington Bridge when the traffic came to a sudden halt; drivers at first were angry at the disruption, until they realized that a man was considering jumping off the bridge.

“Everyone’s mood changed in an instant,” Cardinal Dolan wrote. “Instead of being impatient, angry, in a rush, we prayed for that man and the rescue workers trying to coax him back to safety. We all rallied on behalf of a troubled man intent on suicide.”

This is the normal response to when someone is considering suicide, the archbishop of New York explained, adding that there are many local public resources to help prevent suicides, such as school-age prevention programs with the Archdiocese of New York, and collaboration between NYC Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch and religious leaders to address the suicide epidemic of officers.

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

“Our state spends millions on anti-suicide efforts,” Cardinal Dolan continued, noting that Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul has spearheaded unprecedented investment in mental health resources.

“Which is why I am more than puzzled, I am stunned, when I read that New York lawmakers are on the verge of legalizing suicide — not by leaping from a bridge but via a poison cocktail easily provided by physicians and pharmacists,” he wrote.

In April, New York’s State Assembly voted 81-67 in favor of legalizing assisted suicide, advancing the bill to the state Senate.

Cardinal Dolan decried the state’s disparity in responses, noting that on one hand it “will marshal all its resources to save the life of one hopeless and despondent man” — and on the other, “it may conclude that some lives aren’t worth living — perhaps due to a serious illness or disability — and we will hand those despondent women and men a proverbial loaded gun and tell them to have at it.”

Noting particularly weak spots in the legislation, Cardinal Dolan wrote that the bill does not require a psychological exam before the lethal drugs are offered. Further, supporters have argued that assisted suicide is only for those who are diagnosed with six months or less to live, but the cardinal also pointed out that “many controllable illnesses can become terminal if untreated.” He added that other places that have legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide, such as Canada, have since stripped away initial safeguards and widened the scope of the deadly practice.

Cardinal Dolan said he is praying that New York’s political leaders will ultimately reject the bill.

“The prospects of defeating the bill look bleak, and it’s tempting to give into hopelessness. But those brave first responders on the bridge didn’t give in; they worked together to stop a tragedy,” he concluded. “Will state senators or Ms. Hochul step up to protect precious human life? That is my prayer.”

LifeNews Note: McKenna Snow writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Cardinal Timothy Dolan Slams New York Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Kentucky’s abortion ban remains intact to protect babies from abortions after the ACLU of Kentucky withdrew its lawsuit challenging the pro-life law.

The dismissal ensures that abortions will continue to be banned in nearly all cases, except to save the mother’s life or prevent severe injury.

The lawsuit, Poe v. Coleman, filed in November 2024 in Jefferson County Circuit Court, targeted Kentucky’s trigger law and six-week abortion ban, enacted after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. The trigger law bans abortions except in life-threatening situations or to prevent permanent injury, offering no exceptions for rape, incest, or fatal fetal anomalies.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

The plaintiff, a Louisville woman using the pseudonym Mary Poe, argued the bans violated her constitutional rights, even though there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. The ACLU of Kentucky, representing her, sought class-action status to include all pregnant Kentuckians unable to have abortions.

On May 30, 2025, the ACLU voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without specifying a reason, though executive director Amber Duke reaffirmed the organization’s commitment to abortions.

Pro-life leaders hailed the outcome as a triumph for Kentucky’s commitment to life.

Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, a defendant in the case, vigorously defended the bans, arguing they reflect the state’s values. In a November 2024 statement reported by LifeNews.com, Coleman’s office called the ACLU’s lawsuit “baseless” and a “desperate attempt to impose a radical abortion agenda.” On X, Coleman celebrated the dismissal, stating, “Kentucky’s pro-life laws stand strong, protecting innocent lives and reflecting the will of our people.”

In 2023, the state Supreme Court ruled that abortion businesses lacked standing to sue on behalf of potential customers, prompting the ACLU and Planned Parenthood to file Poe v. Coleman with a pregnant plaintiff. A prior suit by a woman identified as Jane Doe was dropped in December 2023 after her embryo was deemed nonviable, highlighting the legal challenges of challenging the bans.

Kentucky’s laws have slashed abortions. The Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services reported just 23 abortions in 2023, all deemed medically necessary, compared to 4,441 in 2021 when abortion was fully legal. Pro-life advocates view this as evidence of the bans’ success in protecting unborn lives.

The post Kentucky Abortion Ban Will Keep Saving Babies After ACLU Drops Lawsuit appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Macron speaks, Merz contradicts, and the EU drifts into irrelevance

Modern Western Europe is quickly becoming a real-world demonstration of Hegel’s famous dictum – that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. In the past, the missteps of its leaders could be seen as awkward but forgivable moments against the backdrop of a still-coherent West. Today, farce is becoming the default operating mode for the region’s political elite.

Whether the antics come from small states like Estonia or from former heavyweights like Germany, France, and Britain, the effect is the same: Europe, or more precisely the European Union and its close NATO-aligned partners in the West, is no longer behaving like a serious geopolitical actor. What was once merely weakness has become a lifestyle – a self-parodying style of politics defined by empty declarations, theatrical gestures, and media spectacle.

The reasons are not difficult to identify. Western Europe has lost its strategic compass. What we’re witnessing now, unfolding near Russia’s borders, is a crisis of direction with no clear destination. Recent developments, in fact, would have seemed unimaginable even a few years ago.

In the space of just a few weeks, the leaders of the EU’s most prominent countries issued ultimatums to Russia – with no thought as to what they might do if Moscow ignored them. Unsurprisingly, the efforts of the four most vocal backers of Ukraine – Britain, Germany, France, and Poland – collapsed into rhetorical theater with no follow-through.

Estonia, never one to miss a moment for posturing, saw a group of its sailors attempt to seize a foreign ship en route to St. Petersburg. The move, swiftly rebuffed by the Russian military, triggered a political scandal back in Tallinn – though perhaps not the kind they’d hoped for.

In Paris, President Emmanuel Macron continues to rely on dramatic pronouncements to remain in the spotlight. In Berlin, newly appointed Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that Ukrainian forces were permitted to strike Russian cities with Western missiles – only to be contradicted hours later by his own finance minister. As for the long-touted “peacekeeper deployment plan” pushed by Paris and London, European media finally admitted what had been obvious for months: the plan is dead, lacking support from Washington.

Some of this, admittedly, stems from a media environment that has grown dangerously overheated. Western news outlets now thrive on alarmism, churning out a steady stream of war talk and pushing politicians to match the rhetoric. Since the launch of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, media across the Atlantic and in Brussels have played the role of propagandist, not watchdog.

But the problem runs deeper than headlines. Europe’s political class has drifted into a world of abstraction, where politics has become an intellectual game – untethered from real capabilities or consequences. In some cases, the farce is provincial, as with Estonia’s attempted maritime stunt. In others, it is cloaked in academic posturing, such as the wordy performances Macron delivers with the help of philosophically literate aides.

In all cases, one truth emerges: the European Union and its near partners are no longer serious actors in world affairs. They are still loud, still self-important, but no longer decisive. Their actions do not shift the global balance. The only real questions now are how long this detachment from reality can persist, and what the next stage of decline will look like. 

This is not a matter of personalities or party lines. Whether globalist liberals or national conservatives take charge in Europe, the result is increasingly similar. Right-wing governments that replace the establishment often prove just as erratic and symbolic in their behavior.

What makes this transformation even more surreal is that Europe still has the ability to turn its politics into a spectacle. Many of its politicians – or at least their speechwriters – are highly educated. Macron’s speeches, rich in historical and philosophical references, are products of minds trained at the best institutions. Once, such intelligence was used to shape policy and outplay rivals like Russia. Now, it produces only clever phrasing for empty statements.

Macron, of course, helped set the tone when he declared NATO “brain dead” back in 2019 – a remark that was amusing at the time. But after the laughter faded, Western Europe began churning out similarly dramatic slogans, each more detached than the last. The British followed suit. Now the Germans are joining the script. 

More troubling than the words, though, is the lack of accountability for them. European leaders say much and do little – and when they do act, it is often misguided. Worse, they seem genuinely unaware of how their provocations are perceived outside their own echo chamber. What looks absurd in Moscow, Beijing, or even some quarters of Washington, is seen in Brussels or Berlin as noble posturing. These leaders are living in a different dimension, but the rest of us still have to engage with their declarations, however disconnected from reality. 

And while it is tempting to dismiss this as just another European drama, the risks are real. Britain and France still possess nuclear capabilities. The EU’s economy, while faltering, retains global influence. Even the smallest states – like Estonia – can trigger crises that draw in larger powers. The Baltic naval stunt may have been primitive theater, but under the wrong conditions, even small acts of political play-acting can spiral into genuine danger.

No one seriously believes the United States is prepared to defend its European satellites at the cost of war with Russia. But given the destructive power of both Russian and American arsenals, even the faintest chance of escalation must be treated seriously – even if Western Europe itself has lost the ability to understand the consequences of its actions.

Ironically, Poland – once one of the most loudly anti-Russian voices in Europe – now appears almost restrained compared to the behavior of France, Germany, or Britain. In recent years, Warsaw has moved toward a more conservative, if still adversarial, stance – offering a rare glimpse of something resembling balance.

In the last century, Western Europe unleashed two of the most devastating wars in human history. Today, it plays at war once again – but with less awareness, less responsibility, and far less capacity. The danger lies not in its strength, but in its delusions. This is not Liechtenstein brandishing a sabre. These are nations with real armies, real missiles, and an increasingly fragile grasp on reality. 

If there is to be stability in Europe’s future, it must start with accepting the truth of the present. The continent is no longer the center of world politics. The logical next step is to strip Western Europe of the destructive capabilities it no longer knows how to wield. Demilitarization is not humiliation. It is realism – and the only way to bring Europe’s role back in line with its actual relevance.

This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.

Lindsey Graham has said he hopes the activist, who is sailing to Gaza to protest the Israeli naval blockade, can swim

Joining the flotilla that aims to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip may end badly for Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, US Senator Lindsey Graham has warned in a post on X.

On Sunday, the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FCC) announced that one of its yachts, crewed by 12 people, including Thunberg, had left Sicily for Gaza with a “symbolic” cargo of humanitarian aid.

"Hope Greta and her friends can swim!” wrote Graham, a staunch supporter of Israel and an ally of US President Donald Trump, apparently implying that Thunberg’s boat, the Madleen, could be sunk.

The previous Freedom Flotilla mission was aborted in early May after one of the boats, named Conscience, was hit by two drones in international waters near Malta. The FCC blamed Israel for the attack. Israel did not comment.

Thunberg said before her departure that “no matter how dangerous this mission is, it is nowhere near as dangerous as the silence of the entire world in the face of the lives being genocized [sic],” in the Gaza Strip.

Hope Greta and her friends can swim!https://t.co/Noab4QyJtV

Israel has denied accusations of perpetrating genocide, and has blamed the brutal suffering of the Palestinian population on the unwillingness of Hamas to lay down arms. West Jerusalem has justified the naval blockade of Gaza, in place since 2007, by the need to prevent arms deliveries to the Palestinian fighters.

According to the UN, one in five people in the Gaza Strip is now facing starvation, following a renewed Israeli offensive that began in March.

READ MORE: Man throws Molotov cocktails at pro-Israel activists in Colorado (VIDEOS)

Israel began its military operation in the enclave in response to a cross-border raid by Hamas on October 7, 2023, in which around 1,200 people died and 250 others were taken prisoner. Israel’s 18-month military response has killed more than 54,400 Palestinians, almost half of whom are women and children, and wounded over 124,000, according to the latest data from the enclave’s Health Ministry.

Dear OnePeterFive donors, supporters, and readers, Christ is risen! Happy Sacred Heart month everybody. This is a glorious month filled with the glory of Christ in His Church. Turns out if you Google “Restore June to the Sacred Heart” you get our articles on this subject: Thank you, Artificial Intelligence! This is the month where Catholics can show forth their love for…

Source

Latvia has reportedly cited national security concerns over some real estate holdings close to critical infrastructure

Latvia has prohibited entry for Russian citizens who own real estate near strategically important sites in the country, citing national security concerns, local broadcaster TV3 reported on Monday.

According to a statement from the Latvian State Security Service (VDD) cited in the report, a series of agency probes has identified risks emanating from Russian-owned properties near critical infrastructure.

As a result, “in several cases,” Russian property owners have been blacklisted and prohibited from entering Latvia.

Latvian authorities are trying to limit purported Russian influence within its borders. A former Soviet republic, like Baltic neighbors Estonia and Lithuania, it has adopted an increasingly hardline stance against Moscow since the Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022.

Riga announced sweeping travel restrictions for Russian nationals, barred Russian-registered vehicles from entering the country, and introduced a mandatory Latvian language test for Russians, deporting thousands of those who refused to take it or failed.

Riga has also moved to ban Russians from owning property. A bill presently before parliament aims to prohibit citizens of Russia and Belarus, as well as companies linked to them, from acquiring real estate in Latvia, citing potential threats to national security and circumvention of Western sanctions.

Latvian Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis has cited “a hybrid war” with Russia, and urged EU members prohibit the issuance of Schengen tourist visas to Russian nationals, alleging risks of sabotage.

The three Baltic states, all NATO members bordering Russia, have also warned of potential invasion once the Ukraine conflict ends. Russia has repeatedly dismissed the warnings as “nonsense” meant to scare the European population and justify increases in military spending.

READ MORE: EU country reveals how to spot ‘Russian spies’

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova recently accused the Latvian authorities of “blatant discrimination against Russians,” saying many of their policies were openly Russophobic. She said Russophobia had “reached a new high” in the Baltics in recent years and warned that Latvia, in particular, would have to answer to the International Court of Justice if it continued with its discriminatory practices.

Portuguese political activist Afonso Goncalves has said a local bank closed his personal account without warning or explanation.  

Goncalves, 24, is the founder of Reconquista, a right-wing nationalist movement established in 2023, who describes his association as a “metapolitical” initiative aimed at reshaping Portugal’s cultural and political landscape.  

The activist said Novobanco, a major Portuguese bank, closed his account without explanation and did not respond to requests for answers.  

“I asked them to send me a reason in writing. They simply said ‘no’,” Goncalves said a video posted to YouTube on Friday.   

The activist is known for his vocal support of financial transparency and freedom of speech. In his video, he appeared to link the closure to his political views, though he did not provide evidence for this claim. He stated, “This is what happens when you speak the truth. You get shut down.”  

Account closures by banks in Portugal are legally allowed under certain conditions, such as suspected fraud or compliance with anti-money laundering laws. However, financial institutions are typically required to provide a reason upon request. Goncalves did not say whether he intends to file a formal complaint.  

No court proceedings or legal actions related to the closure have been reported so far. Goncalves concluded his video by saying he would continue to “fight for financial freedom” and encouraged others to be aware of what he described as “systemic censorship.”  

Bank account closures have become increasingly common in the West. In Britain, right-wing Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage said in June 2023 that private bank Coutts closed his account. Parent company NatWest first cited financial grounds, but internal documents later reportedly showed his political views influenced the decision.   

In Canada, authorities froze the bank accounts of Freedom Convoy protesters in 2022 under emergency powers. Then-Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said the measure targeted those funding the anti-government protests.   

The most recent case took place in Germany last month when former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder faced payment blocks from Sparkasse Hannover over concerns about Russian ties. The bank reportedly blocked nearly €500,000 in annual transfers linked to Schroeder’s role on the board of Nord Stream 2, a pipeline project owned by Russian energy giant Gazprom, despite him not being under sanctions.

Étienne-Émile Baulieu, the French scientist who developed the abortion pill RU-486, also known as mifepristone, died Friday at his home in Paris at the age of 98. Pro-life advocates worldwide mourned the millions and millions of babies the abortion drug has killed.

Baulieu, born Étienne Blum on Dec. 12, 1926, in Strasbourg, developed RU-486 in 1982, a dangerous drug that blocks progesterone, a hormone essential for pregnancy, leading to the starvation of an unborn baby and his or her eventual death. The drug, which pro-life groups note has facilitated the loss of countless unborn children, not accounts for approximately 63% of abortions in the United States in 2023, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Baulieu’s invention has been a tragedy for the unborn. Millions of babies have been denied life because of this pill, and its widespread use has desensitized society to the sanctity of human life from conception.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Baulieu, an endocrinologist who earned doctorates in medicine in 1955 and science in 1963, founded a pioneering hormone research unit at INSERM, France’s health and medical research institute. His work on RU-486, which he described as a “non-invasive” alternative to surgical abortion, faced fierce opposition from pro-life groups, including threats and criticism labeling him a facilitator of mass killing. Despite this, Baulieu spent decades advocating for the drug’s global approval, arguing it somehow helped women despite killing millions of girl babies and killing and injuring many women who took the pill.

In 2023, when Wyoming became the first U.S. state to ban the abortion pill, Baulieu, then 96, called the decision “scandalous,” insisting he had dedicated his life to “increasing the freedom of women.” Pro-life advocates countered that such bans protect both unborn children and women from what they claim are significant health risks, citing a study reporting that 1 in 10 women experienced serious complications from mifepristone.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who awarded Baulieu the Grand Cross of the Legion d’Honneur in 2023, called him “a beacon of courage.”

Pro-life voices, however, see his death as an opportunity to reflect on the ethical questions surrounding his creation.

The post Man Who Created Abortion Pill That Has Killed Millions of Babies Dies at 98 appeared first on LifeNews.com.

With great pleasure I can inform you that the Illinois Legislature has adjourned early Sunday morning with no further action on SB 1950, a dangerous bill that would have legalized assisted suicide.

Over the last few days, I have kept you updated on the progress of SB 1950 and urged you to reach out to Illinois Senators. When assisted suicide legislation stalled in the Senate, proponents attached it instead as an amendment to an unrelated food safety bill. This procedural trick succeeded in the Illinois House as representatives narrowly voted to approve the bill as amended.

All eyes went to the Senate as advocates in Illinois and around the country called, emailed, and brought to action their friends and neighbors. This was the time to be counted and you made your voices heard!

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

However, while SB 1950 was not called for a vote in the Senate, it has the possibility to return in a future session, so our work continues.

The tremendous work done by our Ilinois coalition prevented a vote from occurring to legalize assisted suicide. I am so impressed with their tireless efforts and am so grateful to all of you who answer the call to speak up and speak out.

Proponents will be heartened by the slim House passage and we know they will come back. So will we.

LifeNews Note: Barbara Lyons is the Special Projects Coordinator for the Patients’ Rights Action Fund.

The post Illinois Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide Fails in State Legislature appeared first on LifeNews.com.

 God bless the pastor of St. Anne Church in Charlotte for his excellent homily under duress and his advice on how to deal with the arrogance of the spirit of Vatican II shoved down the throats of so many in the most pre-Vatican II ways. A great, pastoral homily. Read The Pillar’s article by pressing the title below.

London says its militarization plan is a “message” to Moscow

Britain is moving towards a war footing with the launch of a major rearmament campaign, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a keynote address on Monday.

Starmer unveiled his cabinet’s Strategic Defense Review, which includes an expansive armaments program mirroring similar efforts across NATO. Last week, UK Defense Secretary John Healey said London was sending “a message to Moscow” by allocating billions of pounds for new munitions plants, long-range missile systems, and other capabilities. Russia has accused Western nations of using alarmist rhetoric to justify shifting public funds toward military spending.

”We are moving to war-fighting readiness,” Starmer said at a shipyard in Govan, Glasgow, adding that “our defense policy will always be NATO first.” He vowed to transform the UK into “a battle-ready, armor-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities equipped for the decades to come.”

According to Starmer, the overhaul will enable Britain to make its “biggest contribution to NATO since its creation.” He also pledged that the country would become “the fastest innovator in NATO,” with defense research operating at a “wartime pace.” The reforms are expected to make the British military “ten times more lethal by 2035,” he claimed.

The prime minister reaffirmed his government’s goal to increase defense spending to 3% of GDP. He framed the effort as replacing the post-Cold War “peace dividend” with a “defense dividend” through the creation of thousands of new jobs in weapons manufacturing, including production of nuclear arms.

Starmer blamed Moscow for what he called a series of provocations, accusing Russia of “menacing” the UK, demonstrating “aggression” in British waters, and “driving up the cost of living here at home,” harming British workers.

Russian lawmaker Aleksey Pushkov has accused the UK of planning an “ice war” with Russia, noting that “there is no difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party” in their attitude.

READ MORE: Russia has ‘fair concern’ about NATO expansion – Trump envoy

Commenting on Starmer’s pledge to build additional nuclear submarines, Pushkov asserted that no British investments could bring the country to an equal footing with Russia, the US, and China. However, “Starmer needs them [those boats] to report his achievements” to domestic and international players who stand to benefit financially from the project, Pushkov claimed.

Given Marco Rubio’s long history of subservience to the State of Israel — which has earned him a mountain of campaign cash from the country’s US-based collaborators — many Americans were understandably wary that his ascension from senator to secretary of State portended disturbing moves to advance Israel’s interests. However, few foresaw Rubio orchestrating the abduction, imprisonment and deportation of foreign students for using their universal human right of free speech to criticize the Israeli government and advocate for Palestinians.

With President Trump’s blessing, Rubio has targeted many foreign students in this fashion — students who’ve been charged with no crimes. However, no case better illustrates the campaign’s casual cruelty than that of 30-year-old Tufts University PhD candidate Rumeysa Ozturk. Ozturk, who’s been studying child development, was arrested in March and whisked away to a far-off prison merely because — an entire year earlier — she co-authored a Tufts Daily op-ed urging the university to formally characterize Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide, and to sell the school’s Israel-associated investments.

Rubio would like you to assume her essay must have been an unhinged, antisemitic, violence-inciting screed. To the contrary, harkening back to Tufts’ 1989 decision to divest from apartheid South Africa, its tone is decidedly calm and measured. Read this excerpt of the essay’s most pointed language about Israel and judge for yourself:

These [student senate] resolutions were the product of meaningful debate…and represent a sincere effort to hold Israel accountable for clear violations of international law. Credible accusations against Israel include accounts of deliberate starvation and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide.

…the student body is calling for … the University to end its complicity with Israel insofar as it is oppressing the Palestinian people and denying their right to self-determination — a right that is guaranteed by international law. These strong lobbying tools are all the more urgent now given the order by the International Court of Justice confirming that the Palestinian people of Gaza’s rights under the Genocide Convention are under a “plausible” risk of being breached.

Ozturk’s persecution represents a major escalation of an aggravating dynamic in which people in the United States are vilified as dangerous, volatile antisemites for saying things about Israel that are frequently said by respected people and institutions in Israel. For example, in an op-ed of his own, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week wrote, “What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians … Yes, Israel is committing war crimes.”

In March of this year, the State Department revoked Ozturk’s student visa without notifying her — she had no idea that her presence in the country was now illegal. Four days later, in an incident captured on video, she was grabbed off a Somerville, Massachusetts street by masked, plain-clothed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, taken to New Hampshire and then Vermont, before being shackled in chains and airlifted 1,400 miles to a federal detention center in Louisiana.

For the next month and a half, she was stuffed with 23 others in a cell meant for 14. Ozturk says constant exposure to dust and inadequate ventilation sparked more than a dozen asthma attacks — after having previously had only about 13 in her entire life. Sleep was hard to come by, as motion-detecting fluorescent lights repeatedly triggered throughout the night.

Trying to justify the unjustifiable, the Trump administration has gone to slanderous extremes to vilify Ozturk. In a since-deleted social media post following her arrest, Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said “DHS + ICE investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans.” (As an aside, note that, while some 43 Americans — including dual nationals — died in the Oct 7 attacks, there’s no history of Hamas ever setting out to target Americans.)

When protests of Israel’s tactics in Gaza erupted in 2022, Israel supporters across government, major media and social media branded all pro-Palestine protesters as Hamas supporters and antisemites. With the ascendency of the second Trump administration, that tactic has evolved from a malicious PR smear to a government-weaponized allegation that’s putting nonviolent foreign students in prisons and derailing their lives — all in service to a foreign country.

In a partial reversal of her appalling treatment, Ozturk was released from confinement on May 9 on the orders of a federal judge, who also denied the government’s wish to make her wear an ankle monitor. However, her troubles are far from over: In addition to the enduring harm of a six-week interruption of her academic pursuits, she is still targeted for deportation.

When DHS initially leveled the “activities in support of Hamas” accusation against Ozturk, many people assumed the government must have something on her other than an essay in a student newspaper. However, as the weeks ground on, the government never pointed to anything else, something US District Judge William Sessions noted when he ordered her to be released from her cage in Louisiana :

I suggested to the government that they produce any additional information which would suggest that she posed a substantial risk. And that was three weeks ago, and there has been no evidence introduced by the government other than the op-ed. That literally is the case. There is no evidence here...The court finds that Ms. Öztürk has raised a substantial claim of a constitutional violation.

Judge Sessions called Ozturk’s seizure “a traumatic incident” and said “her continued detention potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens.” That is most certainly the Trump administration’s goal.

Falling for Rubio’s dishonest portrayal of his prey and failing to scrutinize the facts, many so-called “conservatives” have enthused over his drive to deport anti-Israel activists and rushed to defend it. In their flimsiest argument, you’ll find them claiming Ozturk and others have no right of free speech because they’re not US citizens. That hollow attack rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of rights — one that wrongly views rights as government-granted privileges, rather than something that springs from one’s humanity. As I’ve explained elsewhere at Stark Realities, the Constitution’s Bill of Rights isn’t a granting of rights, it’s a prohibition against government interference with pre-existing rights shared by everyone on Earth.

Employing a quintessential straw man argument, Rubio and others also say “nobody has a right to a visa.” The controversy has never been about any mythical entitlement to visas — it’s about the morality and constitutionality of using visa revocations as a means of punishing and suppressing expression of certain political beliefs.

To mete out that punishment, Rubio and the Trump administration are exploiting the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which recklessly empowers the secretary of State — a single individual — to deport foreigners the secretary deems “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” of the United States. The law provides no elaboration on that standard, much less any provision for its application with any semblance of due process for the affected individual.

Invoking that provision, the administration told a court that DHS and ICE determined Ozturk “had been involved in associations that ‘may undermine U.S foreign policy by creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and indicating support for a designated terrorist organization’ including co-authoring an op-ed that found common cause with an organization that was later temporarily banned from campus.”

First, note how tangential and tenuous the opening and concluding allegations are. The government says Ozturk is being targeted for unspecified “associations,” and because her stance on Israel merely overlaps with the stance of a campus group that was only temporarily banned.

Next, we see the Trump administration dishonestly saying Ozturk “indicat[ed] support for Hamas” by writing an op-ed calling for Tufts to say Israel is committing war crimes, and to divest from the country. The op-ed never mentions Hamas or Oct. 7 or even implicitly endorses the group or its tactics, and there’s been no allegation of any other form of her supposed “support for Hamas.”

The administration also employs the Israeli-propagandist idea that criticism of the State of Israel — a political entity — creates a “hostile environment” for Jewish students. That notion is itself a form of bigotry — as it presumes all Jews endorse Israel’s actions. Of course, that presumption is belied by the significant presence of Jewish students in many protests of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Meanwhile, the notion that pro-Israel Jews should be protected from hearing contrary views is wildly hypocritical from an administration that — in regard to other topics — has rightly targeted censorship meant to prevent so-called “snowflakes” from having their feelings hurt.

Defenders of the administration’s conduct are compelled to do more than point to its supposed legality under a 1952 law. From FDR putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps to Woodrow Wilson jailing opponents of the draft, there’s a difference between legality and morality and bona fide constitutionality. Meanwhile, Ozturk’s ongoing challenge of her arrest and pending deportation may well reset the bounds of what’s legal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, with the courts potentially ruling it’s unconstitutional to revoke a visa over the expression of an opinion.

Finally, even the most ardent backers of the Israeli government should recognize that the use of the Immigration Act to round up and deport people whose views are inconsistent with the current administration’s foreign policy threatens to set a dangerous precedent — one that could see a future, Israel-hostile White House seizing, jailing and deporting foreign students who advocate US aid to Israel.

Over his political career, Rubio’s unwavering dedication to the agenda of the State of Israel has earned him a wealth of campaign contributions: Between 2019 and 2024, his largest and third-largest donors were the Pro-Israel PAC and the Republican Jewish Coalition. Those donors are again cashing in as their mercenary carries out a ruthless and deceitful drive to suppress anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian speech.

Consistent with the broader campaign of mass character-assassination that Israel’s advocates have long directed against critics of Israel, Rubio has repeatedly smeared Ozturk by insinuating that she is guilty of behavior that neither the federal government nor anyone else has accused her of, and even implying she is insane. For example, here’s what Rubio said at a March press conference:

We revoked her visa…and here’s why…If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student and you tell us that the reason why you’re coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we’re not going to give you a visa….Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa. We’re looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.

Challenged last week in a House Foreign Affairs hearing, Rubio said he “proudly” revoked Ozturk’s visa, defiantly adding “we’re going to do more of them.” Refusing to answer pointed questions about the constitutionality of deporting Ozturk for writing an op-ed, Rubio again reflexively resorted to maliciously dishonest hyperbole, saying “We’re revoking the visas of any lunatics we can identify.”

Ozturk is one of an unknown number of foreign, Palestinian-sympathizing students targeted for deportation by the Trump administration, which is providing very little transparency about the individuals concerned or specific rationales for the revocation of their visas.

The censorship blitz is disturbing enough on its face, but there’s another dimension that makes it even more sinister: In selecting Ozturk and other foreign students for persecution, the Trump administration is apparently heeding the suggestions of two shadowy and menacing pro-Israel organizations that use intimidation tactics on Israel’s behalf: Canary Mission and Betar.

According to its website, Canary Mission “documents individuals and organizations that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.” (Including “the USA” in its mission statement is dishonest pandering; listing it first is a joke.) In practice, Canary Mission works to silence Israel’s critics by using false allegations of antisemitism, doxxing, and the threat of career and reputational harm that could come from landing on its internet blacklist.

In one of the most unsettling incidents attributed to the group, two men in canary costumes stood silently in a George Washington University lobby in 2018 as the student government was set to vote on an Israel divestment resolution. In the days before the vote, Canary Mission flyers posted on campus warned “THERE ARE NO SECRETS. WE WILL KNOW YOUR VOTE AND WILL ACT ACCORDINGLY.”

Shortly after Ozturk’s arrest, Canary Mission posted a triumphant social media thread, saying “sources point to her Canary Mission profile as the primary cause.” That profile is thin. Linking to her Tufts op-ed, Canary Mission only claims she “engaged in anti-Israel activism in March 2024” (the month the op-ed was published) and is “a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.”

Betar brags that it is directly providing a list of targets to the administration. Maliciously referring to Ozturk and other peaceful activists as “jihadis,” the group took credit for her arrest: “She was on our list. Many more jihadis are. We will be making a new submission Monday with approximately 1800 more jihadis.”

Betar is a Zionist youth group founded in 1923 by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who promoted an expansive vision of Israel that would see it take over not only the West Bank and Gaza, but part of Jordan too. The group’s ideology, rhetoric and embrace of vandalism, theft and vigilantism prompted even the staunchly Zionist Anti-Defamation League to list it among extremist and hateful groups.

An appalling incident in February illuminates the enormity of Betar’s Jewish-supremacist fanaticism. When a journalist posted a long list of names of Palestinian infants killed in Israel’s war on Gaza, Betar’s official account replied, “Not enough. We demand blood in Gaza!”

The group has also endorsed the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza. The irony is sickening: The Trump administration arrested Ozturk for saying Israel is committing genocide in Gaza — and the recommendation to revoke her visa came from a group that calls for genocide in Gaza.

While Betar and Canary Mission seem to be playing a key role in identifying targets, the broader scheme of weaponizing the Immigration and Nationality Act by smearing Israel’s critics as pro-Hamas antisemites who undermine US foreign policy was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation. According to New York Times, the group in 2023 launched Project Esther, “an ambitious plan to fight antisemitism by branding a broad range of critics of Israel as ‘effectively a terrorist support network,’ so that they could be deported, defunded, sued, fired, expelled, ostracized and otherwise excluded from what it considered ‘open society’.”

Achieving new heights of hypocrisy, Rubio this week declared that “free speech…legally enshrined in our constitution, has set us apart as a beacon of freedom around the world.” His soaring rhetoric came as he announced a new policy that will deny visas to “foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans.”

While Ozturk’s story has received significant media attention, the same mainstream media that relentlessly promoted the 2020 Russia-collusion hoax is now failing to cast the Trump administration’s campaign against pro-Palestinian campus activism for what it is: The unconstitutional suppression of the human right of free expression in appalling subservience to a foreign government and its domestic, America-Second accomplices.

In case you’re inclined to shrug off Rubio’s campaign because its victims are foreigners, make no mistake — there are people inside and outside the US government who would love to see American citizens similarly seized and shackled for criticizing the State of Israel. Over the past several years, those forces have been aggressively pushing various means of using government power to suppress Israel’s critics:

• The proposed Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would use an expansive definition of antisemitism to inflict penalties on schools that allow various forms of criticism of Israel to be expressed on their campuses — even by American citizens
• The successful enactment of state laws requiring contractors to certify that they will not participate in boycotts of Israel — alongside repeated attempts to pass a similar federal law
• Lawfare in the form of bogus lawsuits filed against universities, accusing them of failing to prevent “antisemitic incidents” that are simply expressions of opinions about Israel that Zionists revile
• The Trump administration’s withdrawal of federal education funding from schools that tolerate “antisemitism” — with that term purposefully misdefined to encompass criticism of the Israeli government

Amid Americans’ steadily-shrinking support for Israel — even 50% of Republicans under 50 years old now view the country unfavorably — those forces are only going to grow more desperate and brazen in their assault on free expression in the United States. It’s the patriotic duty of every American — including Israel’s backers and critics alike — to resist them every step of the way.

Reprinted with permission from Stark Realities with Brian McGlinchey.
Subscribe and support here.