Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

The US president said he “didn’t like” Kiev’s escalatory attacks on Russia’s nuclear triad

The recent Ukrainian drone attacks on long-range nuclear-capable Russian bombers have sharply increased the risk of escalation and given Moscow a valid reason to retaliate with force, US President Donald Trump told reporters on Friday.

In addition to launching a coordinated drone strike on multiple airbases, Ukraine also blew up railway bridges in Russia last week, derailing both civilian and freight trains, killing at least seven people, and injuring over 120 others, including children. President Vladimir Putin discussed the attacks in a phone call with his US counterpart on Wednesday, warning that Moscow’s inevitable response is justified.

Trump told journalists on Friday that he “didn’t like” the escalation when asked whether Kiev’s attack on a key component of Russia’s nuclear triad changed his view of “what’s at stake” and what “cards” Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky holds.

“Well, they gave Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night,” Trump stated. “That’s something I didn’t like about it. When I saw it, I said: ‘Here we go… now it’s going to be a strike.’”

In response to the recent “terrorist acts” by Kiev, the Russian military carried out large-scale strikes against Ukrainian defense industry sites early Friday morning, using air-, sea-, and land-based missiles as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), according to the Defense Ministry.

The targets of the overnight strikes included “design bureaus, enterprises involved in the production and repair of Ukraine’s weapons and military equipment, workshops for the assembly of attack drones, flight training centers, as well as warehouses of weapons and military equipment,” the statement said.

Putin described the deadly railway sabotage incidents as “undoubtedly a terrorist act” committed by the “illegitimate regime in Kiev,” which, he said, is “gradually turning into a terrorist organization.”

Moscow has accused Kiev of escalating its attacks in an effort to undermine US-backed peace talks. Russia has also claimed that Trump is receiving “filtered” information about the conflict from individuals pushing Washington to support Ukraine.

Tech forum delegates have discussed joint efforts on trade, AI, cybersecurity, and innovation with RT

Russia and the Global South have been strengthening ties and expanding digital cooperation in light of new opportunities opened by Western sanctions, according to delegates attending the country’s first Global Digital Forum this week.

The two-day event, which kicked off on Thursday in Nizhny Novgorod, brought together government officials, business leaders, and experts from more than 100 countries, including China, India, and some African nations. Some of them shared their views with RT on the sidelines of the forum, highlighting prospects for collaboration in areas such as trade, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and technology transfer.

“China and Russia are strategic partners and good neighbors,” said Zhou Liqun, chairman of the Chinese Entrepreneurs’ Union in Russia.

He noted that bilateral trade reached $240 billion last year, with China remaining Russia’s top food product partner for 15 consecutive years. “Even under sanctions, the number of Chinese companies in Russia is growing,” Zhou said, adding “We see the trend of promising cooperation.”

Sun Tianshu, founder of the China-Russian Platform, pointed out that “many opportunities in the (Russian) market [were] freed up” following the introduction of Western restrictions, allowing Chinese firms to step in.

“Trade between our countries has one tendency – growth,” he said, stressing that past challenges, including payment issues, had been resolved. “Even if new problems appear, we will be able to solve them,” he argued.

Indian cybersecurity expert Sunny Vaghela called for closer cooperation in the AI and cyber fields. “Russia is technologically advanced, and India is a hub of tech talent. Why not join hands to make AI and cyber a boom for both countries?” asked the CEO of Techdefence Labs. He added that some Russian companies were ready to come to India to collaborate.

African delegates voiced similar interest in digital partnerships, especially in sectors like agriculture, education, and information management.

“We came to learn how to bring AI and robotics home to help our people,” said Tanzanian expert Henry Nkya. “Russia is using AI to boost productivity – we want to do the same.”

His colleague Mawazo Mataje emphasized the importance of knowledge exchange. “We’re looking at sharing skills, experiences, and cultural understanding between Russia and the Global South,” he said.

Bangladeshi entrepreneur Mohammad Saber Shah described the event as “a truly encouraging experience,” saying he had the chance to meet IT professionals “from around the globe.” 

“This forum acts as a bridge between us,” helping identify gaps that can be filled through partnerships.

“Russia has long been a friend to Bangladesh – there’s now real opportunity for digital collaboration,” he said.

The inventor of the Sarco gas chamber assisted suicide pod, Dr Philip Nitschke, has announced the creation of a ‘kill switch’ implant for people with dementia that would automatically release a lethal substance into the user’s body once they stop responding to daily prompts.

Nitschke, who is nicknamed “Dr Death” and “the Elon Musk of assisted suicide”, has told the MailOnline that his ‘kill switch’ implant is nearing the test phase.. The device would be sewn into a patient’s body – most likely in their leg – and set to beep and vibrate daily to warn the patient to turn it off.

If a patient’s dementia becomes so advanced that they ignore the beeping and vibrations, the mechanism would then release a currently unknown lethal substance into their body.

Please follow LifeNews on Rumble for the latest pro-life videos.

Nitschke said “You won’t forget to press it otherwise, because after the time comes it’ll start beeping and buzzing. If you really don’t know what this thing is doing, beeping and buzzing for a week I think you’ve lost a lot of capacity”.

“If you don’t know the risks that are involved by not acting, that is, that you will die, then you’re getting your wish from when you had it implanted”.

The pro-suicide campaigner believes his ‘kill switch’ could solve the so-called “dementia dilemma” – “the situation whereby someone suffering from the disease is seen as lacking the mental capacity to consent to their death”.

Nitschke’s proposals already raising serious issues 

Plans for the implant are already mired in uncertainty, with Nitschke saying there are “very real problems”. He admitted that he is unsure which deadly substance would be used, adding that there are “a series of legal problems” with the ‘kill switch’.

However, he also said the device would “work well enough and be reliable enough for people to see it as the answer to a very, very difficult problem”.

Nitschke has also accepted that removing the implant could be difficult for a person experiencing cognitive decline, as such patients “are not in a position to negotiate the removal of this device”.

Critics blast “macabre” plans

Considering the proposals, Emily Lawford from Prospect magazine underlined the dangers of the mechanism, saying “It’s macabre – and would be impossible to regulate and safeguard against abuse or pressure, let alone to find doctors willing to insert the implant”.

Alistair Thompson from campaign group Care Not Killing blasted the “chilling” plans, saying “This is yet another chilling development from Dr Death who brought us the personalised gas chamber”.

Thompson added “Not content with advocating for killing vulnerable terminally ill adults, he has turned his attention to those with neurodegenerative conditions”.

“But we should not be surprised, because when a society decides that some lives are worthless and should be ended, this is the slippery slope you quickly go down”.

The warnings came after Nitschke said people from the UK have already shown significant interest in his new device. Last year, ahead of Second Reading of the assisted suicide Bill, Nitschke announced he is “absolutely” keen on bringing his Sarco suicide machine to the UK if the assisted suicide Bill passes, and described his machine as a “stylish” and “elegant” option for assisted suicide.

A person ends their own life inside the 3D-printed Sarco pod by pushing a button that injects nitrogen gas into the sealed gas chamber. The nitrogen causes them to suffocate to death.

However, the use of the ‘Sarco machine’ has been dogged by controversy. Last year, prosecutors in Switzerland banned its use because they were concerned not only about the legality of its use in the country but also about potential ethical issues surrounding its implementation.

Leading legal academics have confirmed with The Telegraph that the assisted suicide pods will be legal under the proposed legislation.

Professor of law and constitutional government at St John’s College, Oxford, Richard Ekins KC said, “If Kim Leadbeater’s Bill passes, and if the Secretary of State approves liquid nitrogen as an approved substance, then the Sarco death pod would be a lawful means to assist suicide in Britain”.

Nitschke has also been in contact with Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, encouraging him to make use of his ‘Sarco’ suicide machine, should McArthur’s assisted suicide bill pass.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “Nitschke’s ‘kill switch’ for dementia patients is a deeply perverse concept that we should all hope never comes to fruition. This bizarre dystopian device is a total distortion of healthcare”.

“Nitschke’s dangerous inventions should serve as a wake-up call to politicians considering the reckless assisted suicide Bills in Westminster and Holyrood. Rather than promoting assisted suicide, the UK must reject these extreme proposals and instead prioritise properly funded, high-quality palliative care for those at the end of their life”.

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

The post Philip Nitschke Wants to Euthanize Dementia Patients appeared first on LifeNews.com.

In a further sign that the tide is turning against Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill, reports are emerging that opposition to the Bill among MPs is growing, as two more MPs have changed their minds and indicated they will vote against the Bill at Third Reading later this month.

Last November, the Bill passed its Second Reading by 55 votes. If 28 MPs switch their stance, it will be defeated at Third Reading.

Labour MP Markus Campbell-Savours, who voted for the Bill at Second Reading, is now likely to vote against the Bill due to concerns about terminally ill people feeling pressured to end their lives to avoid being a burden.

LifeNews is on TruthSocial. Please follow us here.

Campbell-Savours said “I want to see safeguards that will ensure that assisted dying is not overextended to include those in situations where there are alternative ways to improve the quality of their lives”.

“I would also be very concerned if legislation produced a situation where people who considered themselves a burden on their families and friends felt pressured to end their life”.

Frustrations over amendments being opposed 

Labour MP Josh Fenton-Glynn also announced his plans to vote against, having abstained at Second Reading because he “was not convinced the safeguards were strong enough”. Despite being “in favour” of assisted suicide, Fenton-Glynn shared his frustrations about amendments on coercion being blocked, saying “We see quite a few of the amendments which are specifically aimed at stopping coercion being opposed by the supporters of the bill […] I don’t think chances to make the bill safer have been taken”.

Fenton-Glynn also expressed his frustrations about the debate at Report Stage, which 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. Fenton-Glynn said “Frustratingly it was a day that felt like Parliament’s rules and procedures got in the way of debate and better legislation rather than facilitating it”.

Tide is turning against Leadbeater Bill as concerns deepen

There is now a growing sense that the tide is turning against the Leadbeater Bill, with Campbell-Savours and Fenton-Glynn being the latest MPs to announce a switch of stance, in addition to a significant number who have already declared their switch to opposing the Bill prior to this month’s Third Reading vote.

Joining Reform’s Lee Anderson and his former colleague Rupert Lowe who publicly declared in February that they would be changing their vote, Liberal Democrat MP Brian Mathew, who initially backed the Bill at Second Reading, has indicated he has changed his mind and will vote against it at Third Reading.

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 Committee 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.

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”.

Explaining his reasons for changing his mind, Conservative MP Andrew Snowden complained that the Bill had “already been watered down from its original safeguards”, whilst Liberal Democrat MP Steve Darling is now “marginally against” the assisted suicide Bill. Labour MP Karl Turner has also changed his position from voting for the Bill to abstaining.

Some MPs who abstained from voting at Second Reading have now moved to opposing the Bill, including Labour MP for Crawley, Peter Lamb, and Emma Hardy MP. 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.

“Even the BBC is noticing. More switchers going public”

It is also being seen as significant that it was the BBC who reported on Campbell-Savours and Fenton-Glynn’s decisions to switch sides, and that opposition to the Bill is “growing”. Journalist Dan Hitchens previously argued the BBC was showing a bias towards promoting assisted suicide, complaining to the BBC for “publishing twice as many pro [assisted suicide] articles as anti (36 to 17)”, between 1 October and 15 December 2024. This was a key period in the assisted suicide debate, with Second Reading taking place on 29 November 2024.

Responding to the BBC report, Nikki da Costa, former Director of Legislative Affairs at 10 Downing Street, said “Even the BBC is noticing. More switchers going public”.

The numbers switching sides have not gone unnoticed, with former Conservative MP Lord Jackson saying “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”.

Strong criticism of “revolting” Bill from assisted suicide supporters

A further sign of the balance tipping against the Bill is that some assisted suicide supporters are speaking out against the Bill. Labour Councillor Jack Deakin, who said he supports assisted suicide “in principle”, gave a scathing assessment of the Bill, saying “The bill is scarier and more revolting by the day as the truth unravels further. Assisted suicide has gone awfully wrong for other countries – I worry we will be the worst”.

Jamilla Hussain, who describes herself as “one of the few palliative care consultants who leans pro [assisted suicide]”, warned of potentially “devastating outcomes for families” under the Bill, saying “I am deeply concerned about the provision that there is no requirement to inform family or next of kin until after the assisted death has occurred”.

“This could result in devastating outcomes for families who are excluded from a process that their loved one may not have fully understood or been able to navigate independently”.

Professor Katherine Sleeman, a specialist in palliative care who supports assisted suicide in principle, warned of the dangers of legalising assisted suicide under the Leadbeater Bill, saying “Introducing assisted dying into an already fragile system will erode trust. Some groups may withdraw further from healthcare, fearing we’re there to kill them”.

“This law won’t just affect people who want assisted dying. It’ll affect everyone approaching the end of life. The ordinary people who never wanted this—they’re the ones who may suffer most”.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “Campbell-Savours and Fenton-Glynn are the latest in a growing list of MPs and organisations to change their stance and vote against, confirming The Guardian’s assessment that support for the Bill is ‘ebbing away’”.

“With the BBC commenting on the growing numbers opposing the extreme Leadbeater Bill, and even those who are sympathetic to assisted suicide sharing deep concerns about this disastrous legislation, it is clear that the tide is turning against the Bill”.

“It is becoming clear that this dangerous Bill can be defeated. MPs must listen to these concerns and vote against the Bill at Third Reading”.

The post More MPs Will Vote Against British Measure to Legalize Assisted Suicide appeared first on LifeNews.com.

A 23-year-old pregnant woman died in Telangana, India, after her husband forced her to take abortion pills, driven by superstitious beliefs about pregnancy and housewarming rituals.

The tragic incident has sparked outrage among pro-life advocates, who argue it highlights the dangers of coerced abortions and the need to protect both women and their unborn children.

Pravallika, a tribal woman from Adilabad, was six months pregnant with her second child when her husband, S. Prashanth, reportedly administered the pills without her consent, according to a police complaint filed by her brother, V. Rajesh. The couple, married for three years and parents to a two-year-old son, were constructing a new home in Maharashtra. Rajesh alleged that Prashanth and his family believed it was inauspicious for a pregnant woman to participate in housewarming rituals, prompting the act.

On May 30, Pravallika unknowingly ingested the pills, leading to severe bleeding, police said. She was rushed to the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences in Adilabad, where doctors confirmed the baby was killed. Her condition worsened, and she was transferred to Gandhi Hospital in Secunderabad, where she died Saturday evening.

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

This is a heartbreaking example of how cultural pressures and misinformation can lead to the loss of both a mother and her unborn child. Every life is sacred, and this tragedy underscores the need for education and legal protections to prevent such coercion.

Adilabad rural police have registered a case against Prashanth under Section 90 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which addresses causing the death of a woman with intent to induce a miscarriage. Authorities are awaiting a postmortem report to confirm the cause of death and are investigating the nature of the pills used. Prashanth allegedly fled after the incident and remains at large.

The incident has also drawn attention to broader issues of gender-based violence and superstition in rural India. Activists are calling for increased awareness to combat harmful cultural beliefs and protect vulnerable women.

Pravallika’s family, devastated by her loss, has accused Prashanth of murder.

Police continue to investigate, with Circle Inspector Phanidhar stating that they are working to verify the allegations of coercion.

LifeNews Note: File photo.

The post Woman Died After Husband Forced Her to Take Abortion Pill appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The legal status of abortion across the states is shaped not only by the Dobbs decision but also by a range of additional factors. These include recent state constitutional rulings interpreting abortion as a protected right; the passage of laws aimed at safeguarding unborn life; ongoing litigation challenging or defending those laws; and the implementation of so-called “shield laws.” These are laws designed to protect abortion providers who reside in abortion-friendly states who prescribe abortions pills in states where abortion is almost entirely proscribed.

In the three years since Dobbs, these developments have significantly sculpted the abortion landscape. As a result, the 2025 state legislative sessions have seen a significant amount of activity on both sides of the issue. States either reinforced life-saving protections for unborn life or expanded lethal access to abortion on demand through new statutes and constitutional amendments.

Constitutional Amendments

The Missouri legislature is placing a pro-life amendment on the 2026 ballot which would repeal Amendment 3 that narrowly passed last year. Additionally, the amendment includes various pro-life protections but also exceptions for medical emergency, sexual assault, and a fatal fetal condition.

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

In 2026, Nevada is facing a second vote on the pro-abortion ballot measure Question 6, the “Right to Abortion Initiative” which was previously approved by voters in 2024.  Nevada requires the amendment to pass in two consecutive general elections.

In great news, Arkansas, Florida and Oklahoma have passed new laws amending their existing ballot measure procedures to strengthen the integrity of the constitutional amendment process. These reforms aim to prevent bad actors from using deceptive or fraudulent tactics to place measures on the ballot.

We’ll first look at 2025 pro-abortion trends and activities before finishing with pro-life trends and initiatives.

Six states introduced bills that amended their abortionist-evasion laws (shield laws) to assure that the name of the abortionist not be on the label. The label would instead list the name of the facility that employs them. The law was introduced in six states and enacted in Colorado, Maine, and New York.  In Nevada, the proposal was sent to the Governor at the end of May for his signature. The pro-abortion lobby is pushing these measures claiming to enhance privacy protections for abortionists and shield them from litigation in states that protect the unborn.

Pro-abortionists naturally proposed direct taxpayer funding of abortion services and attempted to codify abortion on demand through statutory changes or constitutional amendments.

Colorado enacted a law implementing the abortion Amendment 79, the “Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative” that passed last year. It requires taxpayer funding of abortion coverage in insurance policies for state employees and people on Medicaid. In January, Massachusetts awarded $1.8 million for financial assistance to women seeking abortion. Instead of investing in life-affirming programs so that families can choose life, the state is forcing taxpayers to pay for the willful destruction of human lives. Connecticut also passed legislation that allocated $800,000 taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood.

In Vermont, the governor recently signed a sweeping law that greatly expands legal protections for abortion providers of online abortions drugs whether they live in the state or anywhere in the U.S.

The newly-enacted law permits healthcare providers to prescribe abortion-inducing drugs through an online questionnaire without any contact, or even an online “chat,” with a health care provider.

Leaders of Vermont Right to Life, as well as the Vermont Medical Practice board, objected to the provision and noted that the language significantly lowers the standard of medical oversight. All objections were dismissed, ridiculed and ignored. The bill was passed, despite testimony pointing out that anyone could be filling out the questionnaire, including abusive partners, men, minors, and those much further along in pregnancy or not pregnant at all.

During legislative testimony, a New York abortionist, Dr. Linda Prine, made a startling—though not surprising—admission: she prescribes abortion pills via tele-health 50 to 60 times a day. She also admitted that while she prescribes up to 13 weeks, there are “semi underground” providers who will prescribe the abortion drugs later in pregnancy.

The law also weaponizes consumer protection laws to target pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), individuals and others. It empowers the pro-abortion attorney general to determine what speech is “misleading” or even has the “tendency to mislead.” This is an alarming overreach.

Ironically, just mere days after the Governor signed the bill into law, a study was released indicating that the abortion pills were 22 times more dangerous than originally believed. The new Secretary of Health and Human Services called for an investigation into the serious side-effects of the drugs.

It will come as no surprise that Planned Parenthood of Vermont testified in favor of passage. In Vermont, anything the abortion giant requests is immediately acted upon by the pro-abortion super-majority in the House and Senate. Protecting the health and safety of the girls and women who use the abortion drug cocktail believing it is just like swallowing a Tylenol? That isn’t even on the table.

In Maryland, our affiliate was successful in defeating “The Emergency Pregnancy-Related Medical Conditions Act,” a bill that sought to impose the Biden Administration’s gross misinterpretation of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. EMTALA was a Reagan-era law that requires emergency rooms to provide or help facilitate life-saving care to those unable to pay, including pregnant women and their unborn children. Biden-Harris turned that law on its head by requiring hospital emergency rooms to become abortion facilities.

A similar bill codifying the Biden Administration’s interpretation of EMTALA is currently moving in Connecticut. It includes even more protections for abortion providers and a “safe harbor fund” which will fund travel and lodging expenses for nonresidents seeking abortions in Connecticut.

Unfortunately, the Maryland legislature established “The Public Health Abortion Grant Program.” This publicly-funded abortion grant program takes $25 million in insurance premiums, mandated by the Affordable Care Act and intended to cover the cost of abortions for enrolled individuals, to create a new state abortion grant program.  The program will subsidize the abortion industry in the form of grants that target low income mothers who are not enrolled or insured. This increases the risk of interstate abortion traffic.

Assisted Suicide:

Legislation either authorizing doctor-prescribed death or expanding on an already existing law was introduced in about 23 states. The great news is that in Maryland, doctor-prescribed suicide was defeated for the 8th year in a row. Unfortunately, in Delaware, their Governor recently signed a law legalizing doctor-prescribed death—becoming the 11th state to do so. Now doctor-prescribed death is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia.

In Illinois, the Senate was dangerously close to advancing a bill legalizing assisted suicide. In a last-ditch effort, proponents of legalization attached this deadly amendment to a food safety bill. Luckily, the legislature adjourned before this bill could pass. In Oregon, there is a dangerous expansion of doctor-prescribed death. The new bill had a second hearing June 2. This is a death-on-demand approach which cuts the waiting period in half, requires hospitals and hospices to disclose if their facility participates in this deadly practice, and expands provisions to allow non-physicians to prescribe death.

2025 Pro-life trends and activity:

Pro-lifers were active. They passed life-affirming laws to help pregnant women in need with assistance, provided protection for Pregnancy Resource Centers or tax credits for Pregnancy Resource Centers. They passed legislation to teach prenatal/human development in schools.

Our opponents falsely asserted that pregnant women were not able to receive emergency care due to state laws protecting unborn children. In response, many states have amended their current laws protecting unborn children to clarify what a medical emergency entails. These provide clearer guidelines for medical professionals and reinforce the state’s existing abortion laws

This session, six states filed such clarification bills.  It’s been enacted in Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In Kentucky, the law explicitly protected medical treatments for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy care, mandated the expansion of perinatal palliative care services, and established freestanding birthing centers in the state. Texas’s SB 31 reaffirms that doctors are allowed to intervene if a pregnant woman faces a life-threatening physical condition under Texas’ Pro-Life laws. The bill has been sent to the Texas Governor awaiting his signature.

The Texas Governor also has another bill recently sent to him which would include perinatal palliative care when families are given a life-threatening or life-limiting diagnosis of their unborn child. This law would provide resources for families in this challenging situation.

The Tennessee law provides a clear definition of a medical emergency and explicitly excludes mental health conditions as a valid justification for an abortion. The Medical Education Act, recently enacted in North Dakota, requires abortion providers to review state-approved materials clarifying the legal definition of a medical emergency.

Bills to teach about the baby’s development in schools were introduced in thirteen states.  It was enacted in Arkansas, Florida, Idaho & Kansas. In the latter case, the legislature overrode their pro-abortion governor’s veto. While it passed both houses of the legislature in Arizona, unfortunately it was vetoed.  In Iowa, it has passed both houses and is on its way to the Governor. These laws are instrumental in building a future generation of prolife advocates because it teaches them the truth about the unborn child’s humanity.

The Kansas Legislature also overrode the governor’s veto on a law that would direct courts to consider child support payments to women from the moment of conception and extend tax exemptions to parents of preborn children. The law includes a line item in the state budget that includes $3 million in funding for pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes across Kansas, a $1 million increase from previous years.

Surprisingly, their Governor signed a law that had wide bipartisan support that ensures women and families facing a prenatal or postnatal diagnosis of a chromosomal condition (such as Down syndrome) will receive accurate, up-to-date, and supportive information and resources. She also signed a law which strengthens protections for individuals with disabilities by ensuring they are not denied life-sustaining care, including food, water, and medical treatment.

This year ten states introduced bills that would provide a positive impact so mothers may choose life when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Some of these bills also provide tax credits to organizations that offer prenatal care and support to families in need or protect pregnancy care centers (PRCs).

In Montana, a groundbreaking step was taken to safeguard the vital work of pregnancy resource centers with the enactment of the Pregnancy Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act. This first-of-its-kind law ensures that pregnancy centers are not compelled to provide or refer for abortions. Governor Gianforte signed the landmark legislation into law on May 1st, marking a powerful stand for the rights and integrity of life-affirming organizations.

In Oregon, the House and Senate both unanimously approved a bill to establish August 25 as “Oregon Adoption Day.”  For Rep. Lucetta Elmer, the carrier and presenting sponsor of the bipartisan bill, the establishment of “Oregon Adoption Day” shines “a light on the beauty of adoption” and sends “a message to every adopted child in Oregon: You are seen. You are loved. And you matter.”

The Texas Legislature passed two bills that are currently on the Governor’s desk. One bill protects the funding that pregnancy centers receive and the other establishes educational materials about adoption for students so they’re aware of the life-affirming alternative to abortion.  The Arizona legislature passed a law that would promote alternatives to abortion on a state-run website but unfortunately their Governor vetoed the measure.

Other prolife laws that have been enacted this session include conscience protection laws enacted in Idaho and Tennessee. In South Dakota, a law providing for the installation of newborn safety baby boxes was approved by their Governor.

As you can see there is no silver bullet bill that is the answer to building a pro-life America. Many pro-life laws can be used as vehicles to educate on the humanity of the unborn child. National Right to Life continues to promote effective protection of the unborn and supports laws that promote unborn life.

While there are a lot of moving parts, we will continue to play the long game so that in the end we can support mothers and their babies – loving them both.

LifeNews Note: Ingrid Duran is the state legislative director for National Right to Life.

The post Three Years After Dobbs, Some States are Fighting to Protect Babies From Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The last 10 years or so have witnessed numerous momentous changes in American culture. One of the biggest was this: the normalization and celebration of “Pride Month.”

After years of feeling like strangers in our own land, things have shifted. Numerous corporations and organizations that used to shout their praise of Pride Month to the skies have gone quiet regarding it. They are not using a Pride logo online. They are not bankrolling Pride events. Instead of promoting radical gender ideology and pagan sexuality, they seem to have returned to what they are ostensibly in business to do: selling computers, hairdryers, and lawnmowers. What a wild idea for a company!

We believers can give thanks to God for this cultural shift. Yet we need not stop there. In June, instead of recognizing Pride Month, we can celebrate “Family Month.” Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) has indeed introduced a resolution to declare the month of June as Family Month. We can do so because God loves the family. God made the family the foundational building block of society, forming it before any other institution (Genesis 2). It is not the government that gives stability to a nation; it is the family that forms the social concrete of a thriving country.

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

Despite many attacks, the family is alive. God’s design is not defeated. For the reasons sketched here, it makes sense to celebrate June as Family Month.

Honoring God in the Simple Things

We need not do so in an obnoxious way. We can do so in a deeply grateful way. The little things matter in this regard: playing catch. Going on walks. Putting away phones for extended dinner conversation. Reading “The Chronicles of Narnia” together at night. Serving the church together. Going on a fun family trip and eating ice cream. Most of life’s greatest joys, we recall, are found in life’s quietest moments.

Of course, Family Month ought not to create barriers between married Christians and single Christians. The church is, in ultimate terms, the true family of God. We are one “household” in Christ (Ephesians 2:11-22). The natural family points us to the greater family, the family of God from every tribe, tongue, nation, and people group.

Family Month can be a great time to pray over how to strengthen families in America. One of every three children in America is born out of wedlock. Broken families have proliferated. Fathers are struggling. Even Christians who honor God’s design of the family may have experienced not abiding joy in their home environment, but chaos and pain. Much as we thank God for his gifts, we also soberly recognize that not every home was or is a happy one.

Because of this, we need to do all we can to rebuild and strengthen the natural family. There are no easy fixes here, but Christians ought to be a bold and loving voice in this country for the reviving of the American home. So many of the battles we fight in the public square are won or lost in the life of the family, after all.

Pride Will Not Last (but Thankfulness Will)

Whatever comes of our efforts, we can continue to champion a better way than the way of Pride. In the end, this is the choice before us: either pride (in ourselves) or thankfulness (to God). We must choose well here, for pride has a shelf life. It is very powerful for a time, but it will not last. It will be wiped from the face of the earth when the Son of God puts the world to rights (Revelation 20).

Gratitude — for all of God’s wonderful gifts, including the family — will last forever, however. For all eternity to come, we will praise God for his kindness to sinners like us. We will do so, many of us, with members of our own family, for the family has proven so influential for many of us in Christian discipleship. But even more than our natural ties, we will praise the slain Lamb with our broader family, the people of God, in the new heavens and new earth.

These truths are worth defending and proclaiming even if they are unpopular with some. Yet we do not stop there. We celebrate the family. No matter what our society chooses to label June, now or in the coming days, we can say to one another, a grateful smile on our face:

Happy Family Month.

LifeNews Note: Owen Strachan is Senior Fellow for FRC’s Center for Biblical Worldview.

The post Family Month is Beginning to Replace Pride Month appeared first on LifeNews.com.

When the most powerful and the most wealthy man on Earth fight, what does it say about their country?

Two very rich and very powerful and very big American egos have had a very public and very loud cat fight.

US President Donald Trump, arguably the single most powerful politician in the world, and his now former “buddy-in-chief” Elon Musk, certifiably the single richest oligarch on (for now) this planet, have “torched” (Wall Street Journal) their occasionally exuberant bromance of almost a year in a “stunning” (Bloomberg) and  “spectacular” (New York Times) finale of fiery mutual recrimination. Say what you will about oligarchic techno-capitalism, but it can be entertaining.

Using their own social media platforms, Musk and Trump have gone after each other with brutal reputational attacks, griping of the “You owe me!” – “No, you me!” variant, and high-value threats to do each other economic and political damage.

The key trigger for the blow-up was what Trump calls his “Big Beautiful Bill,” which is currently making its way through Congress. For, Musk – despite his lucrative government contracts a deficit hawk, whose own DOGE cost-cutting effort has just frustratingly failed – the same tax bill is a “disgusting abomination.” Musk claims that he is greatly concerned over America’s exploding and unsustainable national debt. Since Trump’s Republican majority in the Senate is small, Musk’s open support for the bill’s vocal opponents there is a real political embarrassment for the White House at least, if not even a serious threat.

US sovereign debt, moreover, is a real and very serious problem with dire economic and geopolitical implications; and estimates put the costs of Trump’s bill at 3.3 trillion additional debt over the next ten years: Musk has a factual point.

Yet there also is the fact that Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill foresees cutting subsidies for buying Musk’s Tesla cars (among other EVs), amounting to an estimated loss of $1.2 billion for Tesla. It can be complicated in that place between conservative ideology, pure and simple, and the unrelenting will to milk the public for yourself and your shareholders.

Musk also “revealed” – if that is the word – that Donald Trump features on the client list of the sinister financier, pedophile, mass sex criminal, and most likely intelligence-connected elite blackmailer Jeffrey Epstein, who conveniently committed suicide in a Manhattan jail in 2019. To make it count, Musk, as if returning to his former Centrist political self, suggested impeaching Trump and founding a new party to contest the great blusterer’s grip on “the 80% in the middle.” Liberal Tesla drivers: Maybe you can love your car again. Even if the share prices of its manufacturer are tanking.

Trump shot back by warning Musk that his “billions” in government contracts could melt away like the snows of yesteryear, which made Musk threaten to stop carrying US astronauts into orbit, that is, in effect – since the volatile oligarch is America’s de facto monopolist – shut down space for the US. That, according to the Washington Post, constituted a “serious threat to NASA and Pentagon programs.” Slow claps, Washington, for letting “the Market” handle national security.

All in all, quite a reality show: noisy, no holds barred, and pretty indecorous. A dignified display of manly self-control and mature gravity at the empire’s top this was not. But, then again, it’s the US late-imperial “elite,” so the bar of the truly sensational is really high – or low, depending on how you look at it.

The whole battle-not-so-royal may or may not blow over. Both Trump and Musk clearly have much to lose from a prolonged war against each other, financially and politically, and both are not only card-carrying egomaniacs but also ruthless, selfish pragmatists. There are already signals that Musk, for one, may want to wind down the confrontation again: he has relented regarding the astronauts and made some semi-conciliatory noises.

Between the president’s growing reputation for “TACO” (Trump always chickens out) and Musk’s proven ability to knuckle under when the price is right (in Brazil and toward Israel-while-committing-genocide, for instance), the two would-be alpha males might still find a way to share.

Yet things will never be as before. For one thing, by losing their cool, Musk and Trump have ended up showing each other three things that neither of them will forget: Just how volatile they both are (I know: surprise, surprise…); that Elon is no sacrosanct exception for Donald and Donald isn’t one for Elon either: everyone can always end up on the menu; and, finally, that both can think quickly – really as if they had been doing so for quite a while already – of the nastiest way to hurt the other.

If Musk and Trump do make up, think of it as a movie star marriage sticking together after both spouses have badly, publicly cheated and also tried to ruin each other, financially, career-wise, and reputationally.

And now let’s take a step back. For, ultimately, the Big Bro Bust-Up is most interesting if we look at it as if we were historians a few hundred years from now in the future: What does this quarrel tell us more generally about America at this stage?

First of all, it simply confirms what we all know already: The US is not a democracy by any stretch of the (reasonable) imagination but an oligarchy and plutocracy. Votes count much less than money because money produces the votes. Musk has been commendably explicit about his belief that it was his massive financial support that made Trump win; and one of Trump’s worries in the whole rumble is that Musk might not only withdraw future funds from his camp – already promised but not yet paid out – but also invest them elsewhere.

Second, as of now at least, the American oligarchy/plutocracy is not under pressure “from below.” Objectively – to use a term long beloved by Marxists – Americans have every reason to rebel and shake off both Trump and Musk and then some. But, sadly, tension and conflict are generated inside the elite, not by “the masses.”

And third, the US elite is and remains absolutely, ruthlessly amoral and immoral, indeed quite evil: Here is a major falling out between the biggest oligarch and the president, and it’s about taxes, the deficit, profits, ego, and personal advantages. Not about, for instance, the fact that the US has, according to Israel, by now delivered 90,000 tons of arms and ammunitions to the Israeli apartheid state while the latter has been committing the Gaza genocide. Indeed, Musk has never withdrawn his support for Israel, while Trump has reached the same level of complicit depravity as his predecessor Joe Biden.

America: The world sees your priorities. And it won’t forget.